squeeeb

ok, before you tell me what a sick bastard i am and alert the authorities and all that, let's get some things straight:

1. i DO NOT in any way shape or form condone or encourage any kind of child pornography whatsoever. period.

2. i am using child pornography (CP) as an example because it is the most horrific and disgusting thing i can think of.

3. child porn disgusts me, actually makes my stomach hurt. if you are sexually attracted to children, you need to talk to a professional about that and deal with whatever issues you have. no matter how much you lie to yourself, the kid does NOT want to have sex with you. it's rape.

4. cp is not "art" no matter how hard you try to justify it. nothing artistic about a kid with her legs spread open.

4. in the arguement, i will be asking why *i* can't have pics of naked kids. this is for the arguement ONLY. i do not really want pics of naked kids. i am not saying this with a wink and a nod, like hacking info is for "entertainment purposes only." really, child porn makes me angry and nauseous.

are we clear? if you have any doubts, please re-read above. i want to have an intelligent thougth experiment here, ok?


so...for this arguement, the parameters are:

1. by CP i mean pictures of naked kids (14 years old and under) in sexually suggestive positions. porn positions. also kids engaged in a sex act.

2. the actual making of the porn should be illegal, the adults who are taking the pictures or engaged in the sex act with the child should be arrested. that is not in question.

so the question is: is having cp wrong? lets say some adult likes looking at pics of naked kids. why is it wrong to have the pictures, if he ("he" also means she) did not take the pics? what if the adult surfs around the intenet, finds the pics and downloads them, and looks at them in his house, alone. why is that wrong?

murder is wrong, but i can have all the pics of dead people i want. drugs are illegal, but i can have pics of people taking drugs. why can't i have pics of naked kids? why is having a picture that i did not take and i had nothing to do with illegal and wrong?

one arguement against is "cp won't happen if people wouldn't want it." this is false. you can get cp for free, so it's not like people are making money. even if no one wanted to look at it, there would be some guy who likes it and wants to share his hobby and post it/spread it around.

another arguement is "looking at it leads to doing it." i play violent video games where i kill people. i look at violent movies. i look at pictures of dead people and read books about murders. i have not and will not kill someone. same with theft, and other illegal activities. i can look at pictures of naked kids all day and still not want to have sex with them or take pictures of naked kids. so that arguement does not work.

so...the question....why is it wrong if i have child pornography?

discuss....

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Willravel

Child pornography is wrong based on the understanding that children cannot give reasonable consent because they haven't developed the cognitive ability to comprehend what they're consenting to so far as sexuality. That's the reason behind statutory rape, and the idea behind preventing kiddy porn is the creation of and subsequent purchasing of the child pornography is abuse. From those who are taking the picture to those who look at them, they're all in the business of exploiting the children.

squeeeb

i'll go and assume the kid did NOT consent to the picture, and re-state that the making of the porn is wrong. i don't see how looking at a picture of a crime makes me guilty.

if i look at pictures of murder victims, am i involved in the murder? i don't think so. if i look at a picture of a naked kid, taken 50 years ago, did i exploit that child? i don't see how. it's just a picture. why is having that picture wrong?

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Charlatan

In the photo of a murder, the murder is the crime, not the photo. Therefore, the photo, while possibly tasteless, is not implicated in the crime.

In child photography, the photo itself is the crime. It is in the act of taking a picture of a child that commits the crime (amongst other things). In viewing the photo, your are implicated in sharing in the crime.

It doesn't matter if it was taken yesterday or 50 years ago. It's still participating in a crime.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Shauk

half the 18 year old girls on the internet who spread clams for thier ex boyfriends probably didn't consent to the picture being posted on the internet either. Is it simply "ok" because the viewer doesn't know any better?

I dunno, the lines between ok and not ok are pretty bendable, moral is subjective, people justify downloading music all the time and want the RIAA and MPAA's heads on a stick over them trying to enforce copyright law. The only reason child porn is considered "bad" is because the society we're in tries to protect/preserve innocence for some reason, be it preventing them from being exposed to violence, porn, swear language, or whatever.

fact of the matter is if you left society and civilization out of it and went straight to the biology of the situation, Humans are STILL a race that have sex for pleasure without the intent to reproduce. One of two species if I remember.

I'm not defending child porn though, I certainly don't have any interest in seeing underdeveloped females in whatever act thier photographer convinced them would be a good idea.

now, there were 13/14 y/o's that I mistook for at LEAST 17 when I was an 18 year old. from a biology standpoint, that would indicate they had developed something which appealed to my base instinct to mate, for pleasure or for reproduction, who knows? its subconscious. perhaps some would argue that our standards for beauty are "conditioned" by what we see in our parents, on tv, and other influences, some would just argue that its genetics.


this is a very very complicated subject if you dive beneath the surface.

that being said, again, I don't want to watch child porn, I don't condone it, but i'd be lying if I said there wasn't a point in my life where a 13 year old didn't make me feel funny during my time of puberty. If you get what i'm saying, politely as I can.

anyways, it's also a fairly easy cause to "champion" as raiding some weird dudes house and computer isn't exactly "in the line of fire" unlike violence and drugs. It's easy to look like you have a handle on the situation when most of the people who participate in such acts are really just failing to be fully integrated in to societal norms, not particularly violent or cruel.

I think every culture is different, some countries show nudity on public access television, some dont, some legalize drugs, some dont, some have low age restrictions on sex, some dont.

you could take amsterdam for example as "different" but I dunno if you can say either stance is "right" since right is merely opinion.

if they really wanted to sterilize crime and the psychological influence it has on convincing the kind of people who commit said crimes to do them, they wouldn't have anything beyond PG rated movies in this country, and it would be the equivlant of an R rating now.

personally, I kinda wonder if people who are psychologically fucked in the head from being previously sexually abused are only that way because people treated them like they were a victim, or a freak, that alone has its own psychological implications.

katyg

The media is obsessed with youth, I personally feel that the explosion in child pornography is a natural progression of our perverted society - everything young, pretty is deemed cool, sexy etc and so men search for harder stuff, younger stuff, until they sometimes end up here. It scares me, I feel that society has gone wrong somewhere. It's not right, however we look at it. Children should be innocent as long as possible, people should grow up and be nurtured, not salivated over.

Shauk

not to say you are wrong, but... why?


I wonder why people adopt the beliefs that they do.

I could say this post perfectly outlines my example of the typical american culture belief set.

cybersharp

Not that I am advocating it, but I make the very obvious point that both "right and wrong" are each a matter of perspective. The different perspective of peoples coming from differentiating points of view. The beliefs of people are both inherent and based upon experience through the society in which they where educated.

__________________
0PtIcAl

Willravel

Having/buying/viewing that picture is a part of the process by which the child was exploited. You are exploiting the child by looking at the child being exploited.

tecoyah

If you knowingly buy a stolen television you will be charged with a crime, as you have willingly advanced the trade in stolen goods. Very few in this society consider theft a good thing, therefore we make laws that create an adverse atmosphere in hopes of stopping the action. Similarly, society does not find the exploitation of children acceptable, thus laws were created to quell the practice. The stigma attached to those who trade in this aspect of sexuality is also a direct result of the general disgust most people feel towards such action.
In short, yes it is wrong....our society says so. If you wish to dwell in the society it is highly recommended you pay attention to its taboos.

Push-Pull

Perhaps we could expand this to include those that use "look-alikes". Even though everyone is of age, and the persons obtaining such porn are not techincally breaking the law, is it still "wrong"?

On one hand, it seems that the end user has gone to length to be sure that nothing illegal has transpired.

One the other hand, I could never see myself considering it "acceptable".

__________________
"No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me-

"Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown-

DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer-

squeeeb

excellent point! it brings up the question....*is* the photo the crime or is it only evidence of the crime? if the photo is the crime, why? isn't the act the crime, and the photo proof of the crime? what makes the photo the crime?

i don't see how "look-alikes" would be wrong, or actually relevant to the original question of child porn. if a 25 year old girl looks 12, that's just a fantasy role, like people who dress up as cops or nurses or animals or whatever. i'm not dismissing or shooting you down, i just don't see your point. could you explain further in case i'm missing something?

ok, then that goes along with charlatan's point of the picture as well as the act is the crime. at least i think that is your point? correct me if i misunderstand.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Willravel

Bingo. Having the picture is exploiting the child sexually, which is a crime. Having the actual feelings, which is a more interesting part of this, is not a crime but suggests possible mental illness.

Push-Pull

I supposed I was questioning the morality of it given that people who partake in it skirt around the law while still getting their kicks. Either way, you're right, this is material for a different thread.

__________________
"No laws, no matter how rigidly enforced, can protect a person from their own stupidity." -Me-

"Some people are like Slinkies..... They are not really good for anything, but they still bring a smile to your face when you push them down a flight of stairs." -Unknown-

DAMMIT! -Jack Bauer-

katyg

Iam confused, are you sayin my belief set is typically american in it's outlook?

MexicanOnABike

what's interesting is: are drawings of naked kids wrong? would having a massive collection of cp but in drawing form be illegal? it's the same thing but without harming the kids in any way.

i'm saying this because KILLING someone is illegal right? but wanting to kill someone and doing it in a video game is completely fine. so this is like saying, I love killing people on my computer just like watching cp on my computer should be fine.

i guess i don't know why it's so wrong to watch. i understand acting on it but it shouldn't be that much of a problem the other way.

what do you think?

__________________

- Movie Reviews - Ratings-

squeeeb

drawings are up there with the "look alikes." drawings aren't even real, and they aren't illegal, which is why there is tons of child porn art, computer generated and drawn, all over the intarwebz.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Psycho Dad

I'll see your possible and raise you a probable.

Myself, I see it as a "to each his own" as far as sexual, kinks, fetishes and interests. Except when it comes to anything involuntary. And I'd most certainly doubt anyone, anywhere could ever convince me that any child would wish to or ever has participated in their own exploitation.

And I'd also argue that the SOB who aspires to own child pornography is worse that the asshole that makes it. IMHO, the producer of this shit is driven by greed, not a sickening attraction to an innocent child.

__________________
Don't always trust the opinions of experts.

squeeeb

gotta disagree with you on that one. the dude who makes it is a deluded sick individual who doesn't realize he is fucking that kid up for life and isn't doing it for money or greed, he is driven by an unnatural sexual attraction to children. they don't sell the shit, they trade it. it's not about money.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Crack

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APlx9btTn8

subject of a routine

__________________
Crack, you and I are long overdue for a vicious bout of mansex.

~Halx

Nimetic

It is an interesting point.

However - out of respect, I would suggest that pictures of murder victims should also be restricted. I would like to think that if I was murdered, my picture - potentially naked/muliated and taken without permission, could not be splashed around the place.

This true. But unsatisfying philosophically. Don't you think?

I mean - it's no good arguing that something should not be done, because it breaks a taboo. Exposing an ankle might be against a taboo. Women going out without without a black tent might be against a taboo. See where I'm headed.

Ok though, while the taboo thing falls flat - I agree with you re participation in a crime. But there's perhaps two aspects. The legal aspect and the moral aspect.

tecoyah

Excellent point, and one I did not consider. Regardless though, the production of such material is illegal in this country, and therefore subject to law. The reasoning behind such legislation is akin to anti-slavery laws in a way, as both try to protect individuals unable to protect themselves.

Taboo is relative to the culture you find yourself in, and cannot be disregarded while living within said culture. If someone dislikes the taboo, they must either leave the society that has it, or deal with the results of breaking the taboo if found out. There are no third choices in this I am aware of, as changing taboo is very difficult, and takes huge amounts of time.

katyg

Isn't this really a debate about moral realism? And therefore whether there are some things that are inherently *right* or *wrong*?

Basically some of these posts seem to question whether just because the bulk of a society finds something abhorrent should we all?

I believe that even if the whole world thought kiddie porn was *ok* I would still find something wrong with it - I have mentioned before on here that I find hardcore porn offensive anyway and in the current sexual climate it seems more and more acceptable. Therefore there are people who even when something is found more acceptable by society they still question it's morality.

ASU2003

I think it is a grey area for sure. And there are different severities to the pictures. A picture of an adult having sex with a girl under 16 is wrong and should be illegal. A 14 year old guy having a picture of his 14 year old girl friend should not be illegal. But if an adult forced or paid two kids to have sex, then that is wrong. And it should be ok if I took a picture of myself when I was 12 and kept the picture. Basically, I would think that if the person wasn't forced into it and it is just softcore, nude pictures, it isn't that big of a deal. Hardcore, rape, compensated, or forced pictures involving minors should be illegal and the people that look at them need to get help.

The problem is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. I wouldn't want to look at cp because the jail time/fine plus being branded as a sex offender for a long time. Your whole life gets f’ed up. You might get disowned by your family, your friends, co-workers, spouse,… And you might not have even done anything. I always question when some politician gets caught with this on their computer if it wasn’t just planted. Because they lose all believability once this information gets out there.

But, I could fly to some foreign countries and pay some young girls for sex or just to pose nude for me and the law doesn't have a problem with that. Just so I don’t take pictures or video tape it.* (*I personally wouldn’t do this, but a TV show uncovered this happening)

Here is another situation. I was at a nude beach one time and it was pretty busy. After about 30 minutes or so, a family with two kids under 10 put down their towels about 20 feet away from me. If I had a picture of them, I could go to jail (although it was a public place...). But since I just saw them in person (because you can't look down all the time) it isn't a problem with the law.

And it is a good thing we don't have thought-crimes yet, because I imagined Hilary Duff naked and doing certain things with her well before she turned 18... And that shouldn’t be a crime.

Deltona Couple

Actually, in almost all countries that have a lower than 16 year age of consent, it IS illegal to go there and pay a "child" to have sex and film it. Many contries are working VERY hard on discouraging this type of activity THANK GOD. I abhore those who want to do this, because it does seriously affect that childs future development. However there IS a huge cloud of "gray area" when it comes to child porn. You mentioned being on a nude beach with a family. ACTUALLY if you DID have a photo, then it WOULNDT be considered child porn by federal standards. Child pornography is clasified as EXPLOITIVE photography involving sexually suggestive, or where the photograph is predominantly focused on the genitals of the subject. So if the photo wasn't of the children doing anything sexually suggestive, or you didnt 'zoom in' on their privates, it is NOT child porn; HOWEVER like I had said, it is a gray area that is open to interpretation of the judge and jury in the case, if it were to ever come to light. I mention this because of a case in Florida at Playa Linda Beach. Playa Linda is a nude beach in Florida, near Cape Canaveral. The case involved a man who's family (himself, wife, and 3 children) attended regularly, and the family had pictures of their trips to the beach on their home computer. The computer was sent in for repairs, and the repair facility reported the images as child porn. When the case went to court, it was determined that since the photos were NOT exploitive, nor sexual in nature, the case was dropped. however the family had to move because of the negative publicity involved. It was all over the news at the time, and this thread just reminded me of that situation.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

mixedmedia

A picture of a nude child is not automatically considered child pornography. It is pictures of children involved in sexual activity that is illegal.

oops...I see DC just covered that.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

Redlemon

Did you open the newspaper today?
I believe that this is not entirely true. I seem to recall that there were a bunch of takedown notices for sites that involved written fiction (not even drawings) of child porn, or perhaps it was extreme torture. Something like that. Perhaps someone else recalls enough to track it down.

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

pornclerk

I think you may have already answered your own question (with many good reasons) about why child pornography is wrong.

__________________
Who wants a twig when you can have the whole tree?

Redlemon

How about today's New York Times article, Debate on Child Pornography’s Link to Molesting. (If you can reach that link, but you probably can't, so...

__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.

Deltona Couple

After reading that long article there I have thought about it and I feel that their calculations may be incorrect. There was no mention in ANY of the article that states if the criminals had molested said persons BEFORE or AFTER posessing the child pornography. So I am thinking the stats are skewed possibly. Did they get the pornography, and THEN decide to molest? or did they molest, and then decide that they wanted to porn AFTER the fact? There is not enough information in the study to back EITHER one. So I am not sure what this study actually proves other than the fact that many molesters also have the porn.... I do agree that child porn has become an epidemic of DISTURBING proportions! However I don't see this study having proven much of anything in what they APPEAR to be trying to say. I personally think that the penalties for possession of this should be MUCH more severe than it currently is.

__________________
"It is not that I have failed, but that I have found 10,000 ways that it DOESN'T work!" --Thomas Edison

squeeeb

At least some men convicted of sexual abuse say that child pornography from the Internet fueled their urges. In a recent interview, one convicted pedophile serving a 14-year sentence in a Canadian federal prison said that looking at images online certainly gave him no release from his desires — exactly the opposite.

“Because there is no way I can look at a picture of a child on a video screen and not get turned on by that and want to do something about it,” he said. “I knew that in my mind. I knew that in my heart. I didn’t want it to happen, but it was going to happen.”

to me, this means he was already bent towards that, and is using the porn as an excuse. i can look at child porn every day for a month, and even after vomiting a few times, i still wouldn't want to have sex with a kid. i don't find children attractive, and no amount of looking at them will change that. sure the porn fuels the fire, but the fire has to be there first.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

mixedmedia

Pedophilia is a very compelling and obsessive mental disorder so I don't think it would be any surprise at all that those who view child pornography have also molested children in real life and/or vice versa. It's not a fringe thing that large numbers of people fool around with and look at on the internet for kicks. Just the act of searching for child pornography is a full-on manifestation of the desire to have sex with children.

__________________
Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus
PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce

newtonX

Actually, after thinking about for a little bit, having pictures of murder victims does sort of encourage murder. This is a little farfetched at first glance, but, instead of thinking about the internet, think about television. If a murderer knows that his "work" will be viewed by many, then he may be driven to kill merely for the sake of exposure. The procurement of child pornography is no doubt increasing the demand for such pictures. If the sickos that make this stuff know that their "work" will be viewed, it may very well drive them to make more. This alone is reason enough not to have such pictures. Also, the hedonistic nature of pornography makes having child pornography suspicious. Why would someone not interested in children have such pictures? There are very few believable reasons.

Racnad

Much of what is posted to the Internet is more for ego than financial gain. The big draw of youTube is posting your home video and a week later seeing 20,000 viewings. And who on TFP doesn't love posting a new thread, coming back in 30 minutes and seeing 30 replies? We're not making any money from this. It makes us feel good that other people are interested in what we post.

So even if someone is downloading child porn for free, the person posting it is getting off on the fact that others are downloading it, and that in itself encourages more CP to be produced, and more children to be victimized.

As for look-alikes, I believe that is legal. The draw of "barely legal" and teen magazines & websites is that the models look like they could be 14 or 15. They have to say "All models are 18 or older" because if they don't, the feds WILL be breaking down their doors.

How about drawings and text stories depicting adults having sex with children age 14, 12, 8 or 5? Is there are rational for outlawing this content, even though no actual children are involved in the creation of this material?

The_Jazz

While I think that some of your points are valid for the majority of adults, I am not sure that it is for children. For argument's sake, a 15 year-old girl that takes naked pictures of herself for a boyfriend doesn't necessarily intend for those pictures to be released to the world at large, the same as many adults. There have been members of TFP that have found naked pictures of themselves or people they know that were stolen or posted somewhere else without permission. One of the main reasons that minors are treated differently than adults is that most minors aren't able to foresee the consequenses of their actions.

While this might be the case for some, I don't think that you can claim that it is a universal. It is just like the Request Board in the EZ here. People post to find things that they're looking for, but most never get anything in return. The ones that seem successful, at least from an outsider's view, are the ones that offer something in return.

Just one thing of note, and I say this because you're a newer member and it never hurts for the older ones to hear it: any picture on TFP, porn or otherwise, cannot show anyone under 18. This has nothing to do with the Feds. It is the rule we agreed to when we signed up. If you don't like it, tough.

This is actually where I hoped that this conversation would go.

I have a moral problem with pictures that use of-age models to make what seems to be underage porn. If you look at the Titty Board long enough you'll find it. When I see two naked 18 year old girls that are depicted as still being in middle school, I have a problem. It seems like the even the major porn producers are taking things in this direction these days, and I personally think it's wrong.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Ourcrazymodern?

I seem to recall having been attracted to children when I was a child. My idea of how things might be different:

Kiddie porn for the kiddies
And other things for "adults".
I refuse to draw age lines - that's up to the legislators and the "judges".

Our souls will survive for as long as they can.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Fast Forward

Good question.

Shauk

what defines right and wrong though?

*shrug*

your religion?

your morals?

where do you think that came from? it didn't come from you, it was taught to you.

just like how you might feel a slight twinge of panic when you see someone doing drugs, or underage drinking, or breaking a "norm" or a law that you "believe" in.

I'll tell ya what, Faith is believing, and believing empowers otherwise powerless laws and figureheads into powerful beings, it transitions control and responsibility from yourself to a faceless entity.

its hard to explain my viewpoint, but to me, it's less about being right or wrong, but understanding how it connects to everything.

I'm not so good with metaphors on this particular topic but I would say that if you went back to your infancy, when you were "innocent" and you retained your ignorance of morality and social norms, you'd still probably just shit and piss all over the carpet as much as your typical non domesticated mammal. You'd think nothing of it, if you ever came face to face to your socialized counterpart, you'd both think oddly of eachother. I mean its a weird example but take Japan, Pubic hair is taboo there, I don't know how deep of a taboo it is or if its on par as far as "offensive" nature as the concept of child porn to americans.

If no one ever taught you that child porn was wrong, or if, in some alternate reality, it was acceptable (this is a hard thing to imagine as it is very taboo and illegal in American society) then you'd just have it being a case of "IT IS WHAT IT IS"

not what adjectives you use to describe it, thats all imparted from your perception.

Ourcrazymodern?

"The air is the air, what can be done?"

Of course, someone who was convinced he knew was "prepared" to jump into the conversational gap and offer something called a tri-ox compound. And the fearless leader allowed it.

Talk about liberals!

Child porn IS WRONG, simply because taking sexual advantage of kids is wrong.

I can hardly believe this is number 39.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

tecoyah

While I agree individual perception of a "thing" defines it, I would point out that by and large, it is inherent in most animals (and Humans) to protect the young. Perception certainly comes into play, but instinct does as well. As we humans evolved into a social animal, it followed that this animal instinct to care for our young evolved as well, thus an understanding of perceived exploitation became a part of instinctual preservation of the young. Very few want damaged children, as they do not further the species' health. We, as Humans have come to accept Mental Health as an important criteria for the species due to the increased reliance on our ability to think as humans, and further the evolution through cultural and technological growth.
It is generally understood that exploitation of the young is counter-productive in the context of a well developed society, and can easily create disfunction in later life. In my view this is a primary reason we rightfully consider child pornography as taboo. Kids will have enough sexual issues when they grow up, it makes no sense to make them deal with this before they need to.

__________________
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha