Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Philosophy


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-13-2007, 10:52 PM   #1 (permalink)
part of the problem
 
squeeeb's Avatar
 
Location: hic et ubique
is child pornography wrong?

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!
squeeeb is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 11:00 PM   #2 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-13-2007, 11:28 PM   #3 (permalink)
part of the problem
 
squeeeb's Avatar
 
Location: hic et ubique
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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!
squeeeb is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 12:50 AM   #4 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
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
Charlatan is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 01:01 AM   #5 (permalink)
Confused Adult
 
Shauk's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA
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.

Last edited by Shauk; 07-14-2007 at 01:09 AM..
Shauk is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 02:29 AM   #6 (permalink)
Tilted
 
katyg's Avatar
 
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.
katyg is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 02:32 AM   #7 (permalink)
Confused Adult
 
Shauk's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.

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.
Shauk is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 02:59 AM   #8 (permalink)
Insane
 
cybersharp's Avatar
 
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
cybersharp is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 03:40 AM   #9 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 04:35 AM   #10 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
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.
tecoyah is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 07:05 AM   #11 (permalink)
I'll ask when I'm ready....
 
Push-Pull's Avatar
 
Location: Firmly in the middle....
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-
Push-Pull is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 08:50 AM   #12 (permalink)
part of the problem
 
squeeeb's Avatar
 
Location: hic et ubique
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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".
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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!

Last edited by squeeeb; 07-14-2007 at 08:56 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
squeeeb is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 09:06 AM   #13 (permalink)
... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.
 
Willravel's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeeb
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.
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.
Willravel is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 01:07 PM   #14 (permalink)
I'll ask when I'm ready....
 
Push-Pull's Avatar
 
Location: Firmly in the middle....
Quote:
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?
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-
Push-Pull is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 02:25 PM   #15 (permalink)
Tilted
 
katyg's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
Iam confused, are you sayin my belief set is typically american in it's outlook?
katyg is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 03:47 PM   #16 (permalink)
 
MexicanOnABike's Avatar
 
Location: up north
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?
__________________
MexicanOnABike is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 05:54 PM   #17 (permalink)
part of the problem
 
squeeeb's Avatar
 
Location: hic et ubique
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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!
squeeeb is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 06:10 PM   #18 (permalink)
Mulletproof
 
Psycho Dad's Avatar
 
Location: Some nucking fut house.
Quote:
Originally Posted by willravel
Having the actual feelings... suggests possible mental illness.
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.
Psycho Dad is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 09:00 PM   #19 (permalink)
part of the problem
 
squeeeb's Avatar
 
Location: hic et ubique
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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!
squeeeb is offline  
Old 07-14-2007, 09:01 PM   #20 (permalink)
Misanthropic
 
Crack's Avatar
 
Location: Ohio! yay!
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
Crack is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 12:41 AM   #21 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Location: Melbourne, Australia
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.

Last edited by Nimetic; 07-15-2007 at 12:46 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Nimetic is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 03:45 AM   #22 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Dad

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.
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nimetic

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.
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.

Last edited by tecoyah; 07-15-2007 at 03:49 AM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
tecoyah is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 11:35 AM   #23 (permalink)
Tilted
 
katyg's Avatar
 
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.
katyg is offline  
Old 07-15-2007, 08:36 PM   #24 (permalink)
immoral minority
 
ASU2003's Avatar
 
Location: Back in Ohio
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.
ASU2003 is offline  
Old 07-16-2007, 04:21 AM   #25 (permalink)
Addict
 
Deltona Couple's Avatar
 
Location: Spring, Texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
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.
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
Deltona Couple is offline  
Old 07-16-2007, 04:56 AM   #26 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
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.
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
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 07-16-2007, 05:40 AM   #27 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
Quote:
Originally Posted by ASU2003
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)
Did you open the newspaper today?
Quote:
http://cbs3.com/topstories/local_story_197084103.html

'Sex Tourism' Trial To Begin In Philadelphia

(AP) PHILADELPHIA Seven years ago, Russian courts convicted a wealthy American motel owner of molesting children and sent him to prison, but later decided to just expel him.

The experience did little to keep Anthony "Mark" Bianchi stateside. Over the next few years, he traveled to Moldova, Romania, Cambodia and Cuba -- trips all designed, U.S. officials say, to recruit destitute boys for sexual trysts.

Bianchi, 44, of North Wildwood, N.J., was scheduled to go on trial Monday on charges he assaulted nearly a dozen minors on foreign soil. And this time -- under a largely untested 2003 law designed to thwart "sex tourism" -- he will be tried in federal court in Philadelphia.

...(story continues)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 07-17-2007, 10:26 AM   #28 (permalink)
Insane
 
pornclerk's Avatar
 
Location: Ontario, Canada
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?
pornclerk is offline  
Old 07-19-2007, 12:58 PM   #29 (permalink)
Devoted
 
Redlemon's Avatar
 
Donor
Location: New England
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...
Quote:
By JULIAN SHER and BENEDICT CAREY
Published: July 19, 2007

Experts have often wondered what proportion of men who download explicit sexual images of children also molest them. A new government study of convicted Internet offenders suggests that the number may be startlingly high: 85 percent of the offenders said they had committed acts of sexual abuse against minors, from inappropriate touching to rape.

A study of child pornographers was conducted at the Federal Correctional Complex in Butner, N.C.

The study, which has not yet been published, is stirring a vehement debate among psychologists, law enforcement officers and prison officials, who cannot agree on how the findings should be presented or interpreted.

The research, carried out by psychologists at the Federal Bureau of Prisons, is the first in-depth survey of such online offenders’ sexual behavior done by prison therapists who were actively performing treatment. Its findings have circulated privately among experts, who say they could have enormous implications for public safety and law enforcement.

Traffic in online child pornography has exploded in recent years, and the new study, some experts say, should be made public as soon as possible, to identify men who claim to be “just looking at pictures” but could, in fact, be predators.

Yet others say that the results, while significant, risk tarring some men unfairly. The findings, based on offenders serving prison time who volunteered for the study, do not necessarily apply to the large and diverse group of adults who have at some point downloaded child pornography, and whose behavior is far too variable to be captured by a single survey.

Adding to the controversy, the prison bureau in April ordered the paper withdrawn from a peer-reviewed academic journal where it had been accepted for publication, apparently concerned that the results might be misinterpreted. A spokeswoman for the bureau said the agency was reviewing a study of child pornography offenders but declined to comment further.

Ernie Allen, who leads the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which is mandated to coordinate the nation’s efforts to combat child pornography, said he was surprised that the full study had not been released. “This is the kind of research the public needs to know about,” Mr. Allen said. Others agreed that the report should be published but were more cautious about the findings. “The results could have tremendous implications for community safety and for individual liberties,” said Dr. Fred Berlin, founder of the Johns Hopkins Sexual Disorders Clinic. “If people we thought were not dangerous are more so, then we need to know that and we should treat them that way. But if we’re wrong, then their liberties aren’t going to be fairly addressed.”

Everyone agrees that researchers need to learn more about online consumers of illegal child images. The volume of material seized from computers appears to be doubling each year — the National Center collected more than eight million images of explicit child pornography in the last five years — and Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales made child protection a national priority in 2006.

Those who are arrested on charges of possession or distribution of child pornography generally receive lighter sentences and shorter parole periods than sexual abusers. They do not fit any criminal stereotype; recent arrests have included politicians, police officers, teachers and businessmen.

“It’s crucial to understand the sexual history of all these offenders, because sometimes the crime they were arrested for is the tip of the iceberg, and does not reflect their real patterns and interests,” said Jill S. Levenson, an assistant professor of human services at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Fla., and head of the ethics committee of the Association for the Treatment of Sexual Abusers.

Previous studies, based on surveys of criminal records, estimated that 30 percent to 40 percent of those arrested for possessing child pornography also had molested children.

The psychologists who conducted the new study, Andres E. Hernandez and Michael L. Bourke, focused on 155 male inmates who had volunteered to be treated at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, N.C., according to a draft of the paper obtained by The New York Times from outside experts who want the study published.

The Butner clinic is the only residential program devoted to the treatment of sexual offenders in the federal prison system. The inmates in the study were all serving sentences for possession or distribution of child pornography.

About every six months as part of an 18-month treatment program, they filled out a record of their sexual history, including a “victims list” tallying their previous victims of abuse. Therapists encouraged the men to be honest as part of their treatment, and the sexual histories were anonymous, according to the paper.

The psychologists compared these confessions with the men’s criminal sexual histories at the time of sentencing. More than 85 percent admitted to abusing at least one child, they found, compared with 26 percent who were known to have committed any “hands on” offenses at sentencing. The researchers also counted many more total victims: 1,777, a more than 20-fold increase from the 75 identified when the men were sentenced.

Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Bourke concluded in the paper that “many Internet child pornography offenders may be undetected child molesters.” But they also cautioned that offenders who volunteer for treatment may differ in their behavior from those who do not seek treatment.

They submitted the paper to The Journal of Family Violence, a widely read peer-reviewed publication in the field, and it was accepted.

But in a letter obtained by The Times, dated April 3, Judi Garrett, an official of the Bureau of Prisons, requested that the editors of the journal withdraw the study, because it did not meet “agency approval.”

Editors at The Journal of Family Violence did not respond to phone or e-mail messages asking about the withdrawal.

Dr. Hernandez mentioned the research briefly during testimony before a Senate committee last year. But the bureau blocked Dr. Hernandez and Dr. Bourke from attending some law enforcement conferences to speak about the findings, said two prosecutors who did not want to be identified because they have a continuing work relationship with the bureau.

“We believe it unwise to generalize from limited observations gained in treatment or in records review to the broader population of persons who engage in such behavior,” a bureau official wrote to the organizers of a recent law enforcement conference, in a letter dated May 2 and given to The Times by an expert who is hoping the study will be published.

Some prosecutors say they could use the study to argue for stiffer sentences. While some outside researchers agreed that the risk of over-generalizing the study’s results was real, almost all the experts interviewed also said that the study should still be made public.

Dr. Peter Collins, who leads the Forensic Psychiatry Unit of the Ontario Provincial Police, called the findings “cutting-edge stuff.”

“We’re really on the cusp of learning more about these individuals and studies should be encouraged, not quashed,” Dr. Collins said.

Understanding the relationship between looking at child pornography and sexually assaulting children is central to developing effective treatment, psychologists say.

It is not at all clear when, or in whom, the viewing spurs action or activates a latent, unconscious desire; or whether such images have little or no effect on the offender’s subsequent behavior. But the relationship probably varies widely.

“My concern is about sensationalism, about the way something like this is handled in the media,” said Michael Miner, an associate professor in the department of family medicine at the University of Minnesota who treats sex offenders. “The public perception is that all of these guys will re-offend, and we know that just isn’t true.”

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.”

How many offenders does he speak for? The study may help answer that question, some say.

“The penalties we seek, the vigor with which we prosecute — the very importance we give to child pornography cases — all of these things are affected by what we know about the offenders,” said Leura G. Canary, the United States attorney for Middle Alabama who also leads the Attorney General’s Working Group on Child Exploitation and Obscenity. “And right now we know very little.”
__________________
I can't read your signature. Sorry.
Redlemon is offline  
Old 07-20-2007, 03:54 AM   #30 (permalink)
Addict
 
Deltona Couple's Avatar
 
Location: Spring, Texas
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
Deltona Couple is offline  
Old 07-24-2007, 07:11 PM   #31 (permalink)
part of the problem
 
squeeeb's Avatar
 
Location: hic et ubique
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!
squeeeb is offline  
Old 07-25-2007, 02:24 AM   #32 (permalink)
has all her shots.
 
mixedmedia's Avatar
 
Location: Florida
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
mixedmedia is offline  
Old 08-11-2007, 01:51 AM   #33 (permalink)
Upright
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeeeb
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?
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.
newtonX is offline  
Old 09-04-2007, 11:20 AM   #34 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Washington State
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?
Racnad is offline  
Old 09-04-2007, 11:45 AM   #35 (permalink)
Asshole
 
The_Jazz's Avatar
 
Administrator
Location: Chicago
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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.
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.

Quote:
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?
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

Last edited by The_Jazz; 09-04-2007 at 12:07 PM..
The_Jazz is offline  
Old 09-06-2007, 04:39 PM   #36 (permalink)
still, wondering.
 
Ourcrazymodern?'s Avatar
 
Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge
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
Ourcrazymodern? is offline  
Old 09-13-2007, 01:19 AM   #37 (permalink)
Banned
 
Fast Forward's Avatar
 
Location: Tramtária
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
Good question.
Fast Forward is offline  
Old 09-13-2007, 01:38 AM   #38 (permalink)
Confused Adult
 
Shauk's Avatar
 
Location: Spokane, WA
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.

Last edited by Shauk; 09-13-2007 at 01:41 AM..
Shauk is offline  
Old 09-13-2007, 05:47 AM   #39 (permalink)
still, wondering.
 
Ourcrazymodern?'s Avatar
 
Location: South Minneapolis, somewhere near the gorgeous gorge
"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
Ourcrazymodern? is offline  
Old 09-13-2007, 06:09 AM   #40 (permalink)
Illusionary
 
tecoyah's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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
tecoyah is offline  
 

Tags
child, pornography, wrong

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:15 AM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360