Your View on Child Porn

[Govinda]

Sasquatch, an adult who watches porn will not, in most cases, become a rapist. Chances are they can find another adult to have sex with without having to rape them. Hell, most porn sites I've ever been on are plastered all round the edges with women wanting to have sex with me in my area.

It's different with child pornography. Without exceptional circumstances, a paedophile can't just take to the streets and quickly find a willing child. For adults, the outlet for sexual fantasy and desire is other adults, maybe even prostitutes, who usually aren't too hard to find. With paedophiles, their outlet is much harder to come by. The fantasy can't be lived out quickly, and the intensity of the desire may grow to the point where they do end up harming a child. I'm going out on a limb here, more for the sake of argument than my own belief. I'd like to see your argument against it.

I don't think there is any difference between the kinds of sexual preferences you mentioned beyond how society interprets them. Each is a deviation from the norm and from the biological imperative. Homosexuality is between consenting adults who both gain gratification, so that's okay. With beastiality, well, nobody can say for certain whether or not donkeys enjoy being ****ed by humans, but no humans are harmed so we can leave it. Necrophilia is similar, unless you count the defiling of someone's memory.

Paedophilia is different because someone will always be harmed if we stick with the definition that paedophilic acts are carried out upon children of prepubescent age. It is a person's right to be aware of what is going on the first time they engage in sexual acts (unless you're steaming drunk your first time, which is probably your fault). They have the right to be old enough to fully understand, to fully comprehend, the situation. A child cannot do that, and the adult must take advantage.

Another difference is when the desires are acted upon. When it comes to pedophilia, a child is usually assumed to be a victim. With adult homosexuality, an adult can consent.

This has been the one point that's bugged me throughout the thread.

The law, when it comes to children, is not arbitrary. It is designed to protect them, because their brains physically cannot process what is going on. It doesn't matter if you had orgasms when you were 7, for you are not a majority. The law can't be tailored to the preferences of a minority, because that leaves most people stuck with a law that does not fit them. The legal term 'minor' came about because it is clear to most people that children are innocent and thus bereft of sexual impulses, and that it is their right (yes, their RIGHT) to have this innocence maintained until their bodies tell them that it's about time to start kissing other people.

On top of that, their nature makes them infinitely suggestible. Unless someone has corrected him, my 6 year old cousin still believes that the slime on slugs is highly poisinous. I told him this when babysitting to keep him away from the kitchen cupboard where slugs kept getting in (which, of course, was the most interesting place in the world as far as he was concerned) because it was filled with cleaning products I would rather he stayed away from (he was four at the time). When I told him that slug slime melts your fingers he screamed, but believed me completely when I said that he could keep racing snails because snail slime is safe. He didn't need me to say that slugs and snails are different, he didn't ask why. He just took my completely falsified information at face value and proceeded to hate slugs and love snail-racing.

Do you see where I'm coming from here? A friend of mine believed that God literally peeled the night sky away to reveal daytime, only he did it really slowly so we couldn't see, until she was about 9. While we're on this point, Santa Claus. Tell an adult who has never heard of Santa that on the 24th of December each year a guy and 12 reindeer round the entire planet on a magical flying sledge with presents for everyone except the Starving Millions. Unless they're on something, they probably won't believe you, and even then they'd ask questions about it. A child will not. A child is perfectly okay with the fact that Santa does this, and they like it even more because they get presents out of the deal. Same with the tooth fairy, the Easter Bunny, and so on.

This suggestibility means that every adult has a responsibility with children. If you tell a child that railway lines are safe, they'll probably believe you unless they've been told otherwise. As such, adults have the responsibility not to tell kids that railway lines are safe. We also have the responsibility, and this is mainly my point, not to take advantage of their inherent suggestibility and their trust.

Of course, this amazing (and, in my opinion, absolutely wonderful) capacity for suggestibility and imagination is usually gone by the age of 8 or so, as this is when rational thinking and question-asking starts to grow. Before that they have absolutely no clue. And even then, they still have years before they can come close to understanding what sex is and what sex means.

Children who are sexually abused by adults in early life end up needing years of treatment to help them with the memories and the pain. Does that not say something to you? At the time, they did not understand what was going on, but in later years the memories come back to haunt and hurt them, when they are old enough to understand just what was done to them.

The law does not remove children's rights. It protects them. Fundamentally, every child has the right to be a child. That means playing, believing in crazy shit and making even more crazy shit up, having food, water and shelter provided for them as they grow, and being protected from sexual and emotional stress that they should not have to endure. When was the last time a five year old girl, of her own volition, approached a 30 year old man for sex? Or even the last time a ten year old did? I admit, they're wearing more and more makeup, but that's media influence. And parents who put earrings on five year olds. I mean, come on.

Also, I remember that Fluffy wrote that he experience sexual pleasure while he was 7, and that in girls "it is no different than in women". Without getting graphic, as a young girl you do explore a little bit. I thought the bit at the top looked weird and that the bumpy bit in the middle was pointless. From experience, I can tell you that that is not how I view my genitalia as a 19 year old woman. As a child I had no clue about the various uses of it as there were more important things to do like make snakes out of salt-dough with my brother. As a note, we bathed together until we were seven and five. I knew his bits were different, but that was because he was a boy. And that was exactly as far as my line of enquiry went, because I was a child.

And completely off-topic, I noticed that someone, I think it was Silver, kept asking what was normal and putting the word normal in quotation marks. Normal is easy to understand - normal is the majority. It is a word used to denote habits and preferences of society at large. It's not a volatile word, it just describes something. It is a scale of the preferences of the majority, nothing more.

[Furore]

And completely off-topic, I noticed that someone, I think it was Silver, kept asking what was normal and putting the word normal in quotation marks. Normal is easy to understand - normal is the majority. It is a word used to denote habits and preferences of society at large. It's not a volatile word, it just describes something. It is a scale of the preferences of the majority, nothing more.

It was indeed. My argument there was mainly centred on things being considered 'normal'. 'Normal' has very little to do with what can see as right or wrong a good deal of the time. Good manners for example is becoming rarer and rarer with those my own age. It certainly don't make them wrong.

Words cannot express just how amused I am that you decided to address that and nothing else I've used. Especially as it was likely one of the more trivial bits. Notice my real life examples I went by to show how I could come to the conclusion some pictures being legal might benefit children?

In terms of sexual activity I ask you this. If the average guy is pent up not having had sex or masturbating in ages, what will relieve it? Let me now answer with what I believe the answer to be. Either getting laid OR batting off to whatever floats a guy's boat. If a pedophile can relieve himself on a picture of a fictional kid rather than screw some random real one, ain't that at the very least a better thing to have happen?

But that's why I see the issue of drawings of child porn as I do. While I feel it is also a freedom of speech issue, more importantly I feel it could be a more positive outlet for a pedophile. It's like how some losers I know could very easily go their entire lives without sex so long as their pile of pornography is large enough... Saves some poor women from suffering.

Not that it matters all that much anyways Gov.

[Govinda]

Words cannot express just how amused I am that you decided to address that and nothing else I've used. Especially as it was likely one of the more trivial bits. Notice my real life examples I went by to show how I could come to the conclusion some pictures being legal might benefit children?





Not that it matters all that much anyways Gov.

I left those bits alone because I agreed with them.

Words cannot express how amused I am at the idea that you didn't even think of that as being an option.

[Fluffy]

The law, when it comes to children, is not arbitrary. It is designed to protect them, because their brains physically cannot process what is going on. It doesn't matter if you had orgasms when you were 7, for you are not a majority. The law can't be tailored to the preferences of a minority, because that leaves most people stuck with a law that does not fit them.

It is, in fact, arbitrary. It is merely based on age and not an actual capacity of a person.

Take getting your driver's license, for instance. Allowing everyone to drive would undoubtedly put them and others in danger. Although the age at which one is qualified to apply for a license is arbitrary, the law regarding who actually receives one is not. One must show that they are capable of driving before being allowed to. This is not true of sex. In the case of sex, capability is assumed at whatever age it is in your region, and assumed not to be before then.

As I said before, I do not believe the word of all children should be taken as consent, but rather, it should be when it comes to those who can show that they are capable of it. Let's say it was done, instead, by who has a license, and not by age; a child who has no concept, let alone any understanding, of sex, would not even apply to begin with. Those with a concept but no understanding would not pass. Their word should not be not consent.

I do not believe that the "right to not know what the hell is going on", as I would prefer to call your "right to be a child", should be forced upon those who do know what is going on.

Your claim that their brains cannot process what is going on is based on a general assumption. All it requires is one exception and your claim is false. I believe that those exceptions deserve their right to choose, while still protecting those who are not the exception.

You said this yourself (with emphasis from me):

The legal term 'minor' came about because it is clear to most people that children are innocent and thus bereft of sexual impulses, and that it is their right (yes, their RIGHT) to have this innocence maintained until their bodies tell them that it's about time to start kissing other people.

For some, this comes much earlier than others. Yet we still base the law on an arbitrary number. I don't disagree with you. Those who do not know should be protected. Where I do disagree is that I believe that those who do should not be forced into the same position as the rest. We do this with adults as well, but it is the reverse. Those who are the exception are sometimes not allowed things because they are incapable. Is that not tailoring a law based on a minority as well? Should we perhaps start allowing them their freedoms too?

You're absolutely right, most children are suggestible. The moment you can tell me at what age all children stop being so, I'll stop calling age of consent laws arbitrary.

We also have the responsibility, and this is mainly my point, not to take advantage of their inherent suggestibility and their trust.

I don't disagree with you.

Of course, this amazing (and, in my opinion, absolutely wonderful) capacity for suggestibility and imagination is usually gone by the age of 8 or so, as this is when rational thinking and question-asking starts to grow. Before that they have absolutely no clue. And even then, they still have years before they can come close to understanding what sex is and what sex means.

Or some of them might start questioning sex concepts. And if explained, some of them may very well understand it fully.

Children who are sexually abused by adults in early life end up needing years of treatment to help them with the memories and the pain. Does that not say something to you? At the time, they did not understand what was going on, but in later years the memories come back to haunt and hurt them, when they are old enough to understand just what was done to them.

Sexual abuse is a tricky word. Abuse and harm is assumed. Yes, I said it again. Assumed. Even if a child knew fully what was going on, and it was what they wanted, they are considered to be "sexually abused". Ignoring the law, this is an assumption.

While I'm at it, I might as well point out that not all people who were in sexual situations as children, whether with another child or adult, end up needing treatment. Some of them knew what was going on, and it was something they desired. Of course, whether this is true or not, if the "sexual abuse" was known, they are forcefully given treatment. They are told that they were wronged. They are told that they were harmed. Many times over. For years at times. What was it again that you said about children and suggestibility? Actually, forget about children. I think anyone who's constantly told something is at risk of suggestibility. I believe that's sometimes called "brainwashing".

The law does not remove children's rights. It protects them. Fundamentally, every child has the right to be a child.

At the cost of the right to be a person like any other. They are forced to "be children" (mentally assumed, legally forced), regardless of what their capacity as human beings is.

When was the last time a five year old girl, of her own volition, approached a 30 year old man for sex? Or even the last time a ten year old did?

Five years old may not be common. 10 years old is surprisingly moreso. Regardless of how common it may be, I believe that those who do, and understand what it is, should be allowed to.

Also, I remember that Fluffy wrote that he experience sexual pleasure while he was 7, and that in girls "it is no different than in women". Without getting graphic, as a young girl you do explore a little bit. I thought the bit at the top looked weird and that the bumpy bit in the middle was pointless. From experience, I can tell you that that is not how I view my genitalia as a 19 year old woman. As a child I had no clue about the various uses of it as there were more important things to do like make snakes out of salt-dough with my brother.

I was speaking that it is no different than in women strictly in physical terms. That is what Pete was talking about, that's what I was replying to. Had you masturbated as a young girl, you'd have experienced orgasm, given you were doing it right. Just as males will, but without any ejaculation. Though, there may sometimes be a bit, as it is, in fact, there.

And as a child, I actually figured out what they were for. I may have not known the full details, but it's really not as hard as everyone makes it seem to understand. Had they been explained, I'm sure I'd have understood. And at age 10, when it was, I understood it. That's beside the point of what I was saying, though. All children are capable of orgasm, unless if something is medically wrong.

[Furore]

I left those bits alone because I agreed with them.

Words cannot express how amused I am at the idea that you didn't even think of that as being an option.

I think the main point of that post was just I found it amusing you were getting into something as trivial as my mentioning of 'normal' without relating it back to the topic at hand. Or even mentioning it in the context I used it in. I really do find things like that amusing, just as I found this other brief post.

It is, in fact, arbitrary. It is merely based on age and not an actual capacity of a person.

Take getting your driver's license, for instance. Allowing everyone to drive would undoubtedly put them and others in danger. Although the age at which one is qualified to apply for a license is arbitrary, the law regarding who actually receives one is not. One must show that they are capable of driving before being allowed to. This is not true of sex. In the case of sex, capability is assumed at whatever age it is in your region, and assumed not to be before then.

As I said before, I do not believe the word of all children should be taken as consent, but rather, it should be when it comes to those who can show that they are capable of it. Let's say it was done, instead, by who has a license, and not by age; a child who has no concept, let alone any understanding, of sex, would not even apply to begin with. Those with a concept but no understanding would not pass. Their word should not be not consent.

I do not believe that the "right to not know what the hell is going on", as I would prefer to call your "right to be a child", should be forced upon those who do know what is going on.

Your claim that their brains cannot process what is going on is based on a general assumption. All it requires is one exception and your claim is false. I believe that those exceptions deserve their right to choose, while still protecting those who are not the exception.

Looking at the issues in terms of a child's suggestability, I don't think it matters just how well they actually may understand in some cases. You can appeal to the pride of most twelve year olds (they truly are intellectual adults at this age ) just as easily as you can lure a younger child away with candy.

I find this to be fairly universal in most cases, and I have exploited it in the past, usually to get a kid relative to get me a drink at a family party or something if I was feeling lazy. It's just different ages require a different approach. I tend to find most kids start wising up around early to mid teens, but even there some are quite suggestable and you can make them do near anything.

Actually, a handy piece of advice for life, many kid relativess will actually do chores and the like and enjoy them to some extent if you go on about the awesomeness of responsibility. It's likely unethical, possibly 'child exploitation' or something, but if you're lazy, it's handy information.

There are a few exceptions to the rule however, and I've been pleasantly surprised to actually hear one or two tell me to go **** myself or similar if I do try to get them to do something. Kids grow up so fast these days... *sniffle*

[Fluffy]

Yeah, well, it's those exceptions I speak for. I don't pretend that it's even a practical thing to do. I simply believe it's what should be.

We've clearly gotten off topic. I only came into this to speak about fictional child porn. We clearly disagree on a lot of this stuff, and that doesn't seem like it's going to change.

As it seems we're no longer going to discuss child pornography, and I think there probably isn't even much more to discuss beyond going back and forth saying whether we think it's wrong or not, I'm done with this topic.

I only pray that the U.S. Supreme Court has some sense.

[RamesesII]

Just quickly skimming through some of the post it appears that the thread has moved to your views on child porn to pedophilia to child exploitation, this in mind i am not basing my post on the last relevant conversation which happened to end 3 months ago, instead i will write my post according to the original post.

[QUOTE]http://thefinalfantasy.net/forums/im...cons/icon5.gif Your View on Child Porn

Hey all, wanted to do my part to contribute to the reivival of the I.D Board. Well getting on the topic at hand, I don't think anyone attempted to press on this subject, but what are your views on Child Porn? There have been alot of issues, controversy, and debates over this heated topic. I for one think Child Porn is awful. What about the child? This kinda thing I can be sure scars the child for life. This will probarly for some children end up having some serious issues in adolesense and adulthood, literally changing their view on relationships, love, and even life. I've never been a victim but for some of the children or adults that have been in that sitution I think it probarly either ruined them (inside and out), or didn't change them at all (but holding it in won't end the pain.). Here are some cases of Child Porn incidents I've read on the net and the news:[/QUOTE]



I am a father of three so i suppose you can assume that i am deeply against anything to do with child pornography and those people who are connected to it in some form.
To start i noticed what phantom said about the child being scarred for life, if we are talking about pornography it might not scar them for life not if it is family photo taken on the beach with the children in their bathing suits and then posted on the internet for friends etc to see it only takes a right click on the mouse to save the picture and then alter it on a program and display it on a filthy site for mental sickos to float their boat.
But debating against myself i can also say that yes it would or will scar the child if photos are taken in a sexual way usually including pedophile acts which then do scar the child, what i am trying to say is that i suppose most cases of child porn also involve sexual abuse as well which in turn will is affect the child through out his/her life if they are at the age where they comprehend what is going on but what about those children are not of an age and are not being sexually abused and photos etc are being taken the i don't think in these cases the child would be affected.

I am absolutely sickened by these people and despise these acts as are the the members of CPC8, you hear about it almost every day, in the last two weeks there has been two serious cases of child abuse or rape and even murder and several cases of child pornography stored on computers or accessed etc in my area of Australia which just shocks me to think that it is that common.

[Sasquatch]

Sasquatch, an adult who watches porn will not, in most cases, become a rapist. Chances are they can find another adult to have sex with without having to rape them.

Rape isn't about sex so much as it's about power. Still, as Silver pointed out, it's more than possible to go quite a while with no release for sexual pleasure other than onesself.

Hell, most porn sites I've ever been on are plastered all round the edges with women wanting to have sex with me in my area.

I bet they're all sexy, mostly between 19 and 26, with big boobs and skimpy clothes, right? I don't want to surprise you too much here, so you'd better sit down ... Ready? Okay. Not everything you see on the internet is true. Especially when it has to do with ads on porn sites and women available for sex.

It's different with child pornography. Without exceptional circumstances, a paedophile can't just take to the streets and quickly find a willing child.

Who says they need to?

For adults, the outlet for sexual fantasy and desire is other adults, maybe even prostitutes, who usually aren't too hard to find. With paedophiles, their outlet is much harder to come by. The fantasy can't be lived out quickly, and the intensity of the desire may grow to the point where they do end up harming a child. I'm going out on a limb here, more for the sake of argument than my own belief. I'd like to see your argument against it.

There's not much of an argument against it, save the lack of evidence and logic to support it. There's nothing that says that a pedophile will eventually act on their desires, any more than the idea that I will eventually rape a redhead because I have a fetish for them and have never dated one. If that were true, Asian women would have a higher chance of being raped, would they not?

It's not like an addiction to a drug, where one will resort to violence to get it if they don't have it. (Not with most people, at least -- normal, fully-functional people.)

I don't think there is any difference between the kinds of sexual preferences you mentioned beyond how society interprets them. Each is a deviation from the norm and from the biological imperative.

Thank you -- some people don't want to admit that.

Homosexuality is between consenting adults who both gain gratification, so that's okay. With beastiality, well, nobody can say for certain whether or not donkeys enjoy being ****ed by humans, but no humans are harmed so we can leave it. Necrophilia is similar, unless you count the defiling of someone's memory.

Paedophilia is different because someone will always be harmed if we stick with the definition that paedophilic acts are carried out upon children of prepubescent age.

Again, the question was concerning the desires, not the actions. Just because somebody might want to bone a child, corpse, animal, or another guy doesn't mean they'll act on it.

The law can't be tailored to the preferences of a minority, because that leaves most people stuck with a law that does not fit them.

I agree with this, especially in this situation ... but you might want to be careful about how you word your point, here.

To play devil's advocate again, some countries have an age of consent set at thirteen, or even nine. In these areas, sex with a young person is considered consensual (and many are Muslim countries, where even if the sex is not consensual, the female is punished). The law clearly dictates one way, who are we to say it's wrong in these areas?

In fact, what about adults who are clearly not mature or responsible enough to experience sexual relationships? Why not bump the age of consent up to twenty? Or twenty-three, past college age?

EDIT:

Sexual abuse is a tricky word. Abuse and harm is assumed. Yes, I said it again. Assumed. Even if a child knew fully what was going on, and it was what they wanted, they are considered to be "sexually abused". Ignoring the law, this is an assumption.

It's "assumed" with rape, as well. But we all know that if a woman shows off her legs or chest, she really wants it, right?