[QUOTE=sami-pso;34667834]Obviously yes.
There's no "right" way to do it. Even if the child is willing, it's because it's parents corrupted it's mind. In short it's fucked up to expect children to pose willingly.[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure whether I want to agree with this or not. On one side, I'm sure that in many cases there would be an at least questionable story behind, like a mother in need of cash or similar. Compare it to the show Toddlers and Tiaras, it just seems... shady.
But on the other hand, I don't think you can just stamp every case with [I]"It's because the parents corrupted the child"[/I], I don't think it sounds totally implausible for a child to want to show off.
Of course, in the world we live in now, that would still be pretty bad because of all the implications of showing off in "that way", but if we stopped looking at it like it's a bad thing, then I don't think there would be any reason to say they wouldn't want to do it willingly.
[QUOTE]But that doesn't mean it's not better for the situation we are in now.
Say they make and regulate soft porn and parents force their children to pose naked, it's hell of a lot better than people raping children for hardcore child porn or even just at random somewhere in a park.
Our western standards don't allow us to find a solution. Our morals prevent it. So instead of not dealing with it, i'd rather have some countries experiment with scenarios that could improve the situation.[/QUOTE]
I think the ultimate solution would be to reach a point where people no longer think of sex as something taboo-ish that everyone wants and simultaneously wants to hide.
I don't think it is true that children cannot consent, that they cannot understand sex, they just cannot understand all the stuff that surrounds the whole issue of sex.
If we didn't view sex as "dirty" and "naughty", and if we didn't feel that children must never see, hear or god forbid encounter sex, then I don't think there would be any problem, and the issue about pornography wouldn't be an issue at all. Maybe nobody would even want pornography, because sex wouldn't be an issue.
But of course, that's just speculation. I speculate that a sober view on sex will cause all these things to stop being harmful, but even if it isn't true, I still think we need to stop treating sex like it is something bad.
But for now I think possession should be legalized, while the production should be illegal, soft core and hard core alike. Would a constant production be needed anyways? I'm pretty sure a lot already exists, a lot of it from back when it was actually legal. [i](For example in Denmark)[/i]
If CP were legalized at least there'd be a silver-lining with 16 and 17 yr olds. I'm a teen though so I don't know how fucked up that sounds to older chaps.
This is [i]almost[/i] like saying that the obesity rate can be lowered by increasing the criteria needed to be obese.
Emphasis on "almost."
I don't see this being legalized anytime soon. Maybe the possession of it is alright, but the production should be illegal.
If parents are able to force their child to pose naked for some pedo to jack off to, that's disgusting and wrong.
They'll be using their child as an object to make money and take away their child's innocence.
Yeah keep lolicon legal, because there's no convincing case for criminalizing the production and ownership of it
Production of real CP should obviously remain illegal though. Not sure on obtaining existing content though.
There's no reason the artificial child porn (aka loli and shota) should be illegal as long as it isn't based on real material.
It's just like violent videogames or movies, people enjoy the excitement but don't actually perform the actions they see depicted.
[I]CP doesn't necessarily have to have a victim, it's just that 99.9% of the time it does. The thing with pedos is that they've been demonized to be horrible no matter what, and I don't think that's the case.[/I]
Child porn definitely shouldn't be legalised since there is suffering and life-ruination involved most of the time. "Artificial" stuff however, like lolicon and drawn stuff, doesn't necessarily involve anything being harmed, and thus isn't as bad as the real thing. It's still morally disagreeable but at least it doesn't involve sick twisted kidnappers.
If stuff like loli actually helps prevent real-life child sexual abuse, then it should be accepted as a beneficial "lesser detriment". (i've decided to stop using the generic "E word", since it's a very generalistic and justificating word that should be stricken from every dictionary known to man)
Sadly I doubt the dusty zombies in government will go for this, and would rather put us all in chains than even consider the benefits of suppressing the greater vileness using lolicon. Thankfully all we need to do is wait; wait for their bodies to fail them and be replaced by fresh young politicians who take modern values to heart.
[QUOTE=Stonecycle;34668122]This is [i]almost[/i] like saying that the obesity rate can be lowered by increasing the criteria needed to be obese.
Emphasis on "almost."[/QUOTE]
But the difference is extremely significant. The thing is here that you can replace a clearly and directly harmful thing with something that merely has roots in something directly harmful.
If your comparison should be plausible, the proposal would have to be to lower the age of consent in order to lower the number of child abuse cases, because that wouldn't make any real difference, where as this study seems to imply that allowing people to have certain digital images would [I]actually[/I] make the number of child abuse cases drop.
But making child porn is child sex abuse itself.
Unless it's artificial like lolicon or something.
It would make it a shit load easier to access for everyone, potentially make those who enjoy it stay home instead of lurking in the playgrounds.
[QUOTE=sami-pso;34667834]Obviously yes.
Say they make and regulate soft porn and parents force their children to pose naked, it's hell of a lot better...[/QUOTE]
What the fuck...? That's abuse in itself.
lolicon should be banned regardless, the sickness levels are off the scales.
[QUOTE=ironman17;34668259]Child porn definitely shouldn't be legalised since there is suffering and life-ruination involved most of the time.[/QUOTE]
I'm frankly not quite sure what my stance on this is, but I think it is worth it to mention that suffering and life-ruination is also involved when you watch videos of people dying, like in 3 guys 1 hammer or in the many accidents caught on camera. But I agree there's a certain factor to it that just doesn't seem right.
I don't think it should be illegal for that reason alone, but if for example the child involved feels harmed later on because the porn exists and wants it to not exist, then there's definitely a problem.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;34668381]lolicon should be banned regardless, the sickness levels are off the scales.[/QUOTE]
Heaven forbid something offends you.
How does one make child pornography without sexually abusing a child?
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;34668390]I'm frankly not quite sure what my stance on this is, but I think it is worth it to mention that suffering and life-ruination is also involved when you watch videos of people dying, like in 3 guys 1 hammer or in the many accidents caught on camera. But I agree there's a certain factor to it that just doesn't seem right.
I don't think it should be illegal for that reason alone, but if for example the child involved feels harmed later on because the porn exists and wants it to not exist, then there's definitely a problem.[/QUOTE]feels harmed later on? as soon as it happens the child has been harmed both mentally & physically whether they understand it or not, that's the point.
videos of people dying are bad but the people in them are usually adults, not children. i'm pretty sure videos of children getting murdered are not legal (i hope).
Artificial stuff, yes. Real stuff on the other hand should be shot down at every turn.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7]feels harmed later on? as soon as it happens the child has been harmed both mentally & physically whether they understand it or not, that's the point.[/QUOTE]
Oh, that's not what I meant. I mean, if we assume that it is allowed to watch videos of people suffering, as is the case with 3 guys 1 hammer and many other videos and pictures, then there's seemingly no difference between child porn and murder videos. The difference would then be that the person murdered is no more, and thus would not object to it, whereas the child involved in the child pornography could feel harmed (even more) by the fact that the porn exists.
[QUOTE=benzi2k7]videos of people dying are bad but the people in them are usually adults, not children. i'm pretty sure videos of children getting murdered are not legal (i hope).[/QUOTE]
So you think the deciding factor is that they are children? Why should there be a difference? Why do you think it should be legal to watch adults being murdered, but not children? Isn't murder harmful the same way to adults as it is to children?
And I'd like to give you an example; remember that 2 year old chinese girl that was run over in the middle of a street and was then completely ignored? Wasn't that clip aired on television? There has also been videos of accidents where children died and you clearly see the bodies of children, like in the video of a russian plane crash (if I remember correctly).
I do not think there's any special rules for children when it comes to footage of them being harmed or being struck by accidents. It only applies when it comes to child pornography, that's why I think it is weird to bring up the fact that suffering is involved.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;34668556]Artificial stuff, yes. Real stuff on the other hand should be shot down at every turn.[/QUOTE]
It depends on what the "real stuff" is. If it's actual sexual intercourse with a child, then it probably shouldn't be allowed, since children don't really have the mental capacity to give informed consent for things like that, and so would probably be rape of sorts.. If though it's a picture of a child with little clothes, then it's a bit more complicated, since the child hasn't really been harmed, but they still can't give informed consent. If though the picture was taken years ago, and the child (now 16) allows for its release, then go ahead.
[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;34668381]lolicon should be banned regardless, the sickness levels are off the scales.[/QUOTE]
Lol lets ban drawings everyone what could possibly go wrong?
While we're at it lets ban those awful murder simulators as well because I find murder offensive.
[QUOTE=Patriarch;34668616]It depends on what the "real stuff" is. If it's actual sexual intercourse with a child, then it probably shouldn't be allowed, since children don't really have the mental capacity to give informed consent for things like that, and so would probably be rape of sorts.. If though it's a picture of a child with little clothes, then it's a bit more complicated, since the child hasn't really been harmed, but they still can't give informed consent. If though the picture was taken years ago, and the child (now 16) allows for its release, then go ahead.[/QUOTE]
Is there a concrete reason why children are incapable of giving their informed consent other than that they are children?
[QUOTE=Cone;34668799]Is there a concrete reason why children are incapable of giving their informed consent other than that they are children?[/QUOTE]
lack of proper sex education, demonization of sexuality, and the idea that innocence is a thing
[QUOTE=benzi2k7;34668053]what the fuck? it's nowhere near better, they're both fucking awful things that should never happen, of course they do happen but making one of these terrible things legal is horrible.
they're not alternative to each other, people who look at child porn can still molest kids, people who molest kids can still look at child pornagraphy. why would anyone want to proliferate the ability to look at that shit?
seriously? i thought all this pedo defending was only on reddit but it's here now too?[/QUOTE]
I am not defending cp. I just want people think about making a rational choice over a moral one so that it might get better in the future.
Plus pedos are prisoners of their own mind and deserve to be treated a little more normal if all they've done is look at it. Again not defending cp, i am defending individuals that have not commited a crime but are treated as criminals.
[editline]12th February 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;34668080]
I think the ultimate solution would be to reach a point where people no longer think of sex as something taboo-ish that everyone wants and simultaneously wants to hide.
[/QUOTE]
I agree. Although this thread makes people think i am pedo, i've advocated early and extended sex ed on facepunch every time a discussion roze about the perception of sex in society.
[QUOTE=Rankxerox;34667747]lolicon is still weird and unpleasent[/QUOTE]
Well you're weird and unpleasant, I mean, you're a talking fucking wardrobe.
And as a Dane, I really support the legality of lolicon, you can't help that you're attracted to whatever, they can't either.
[QUOTE=Cone;34668799]Is there a concrete reason why children are incapable of giving their informed consent other than that they are children?[/QUOTE]
Well, I think it would be fair to say that they have a lesser mental capacity compared to adults or teenagers, and so they would find it hard to process some things, especially things like sex. Then again, that could also be a sexual education problem and our attitude to sex in general.
I might as well just link this blog, it raises some [i](I think)[/i] good points about the whole issue. [I]*shrug*[/I]
[url]http://cpexplosion.wordpress.com/[/url]
[quote][i]"Whenever any government, or any church, or anyone else for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects: “This book you may not read, this film you may not watch, this image you may not see, this knowledge you may not have,” then the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives.
– Robert A. Heinlein, “If This Goes On…”"[/i][/quote]
I think this quote is interesting, because it touches on one of those things that gets thrown around like it's the holy grail all the time: Freedom.
The way I see it, there is indeed a lot of issues with child pornography, but on the other hand, I do appreciate freedom, and I do think it is silly to illegalize data; text, images, videos...
Not to mention the laws against almost all drugs, which I find extremely confusing given that America calls itself the [i]"land of the free"[/i].
So which is it? Censor the harmful things, which takes away freedom? Or freedom, even if it means letting people view recordings of children being harmed?
[quote][i]"I do not think it’s logical or healthy for our culture to promulgate the idea that there is something inherently ugly or “obscene” about the nude youthful form, or even about normal youth sexual activity. Prepubescents have appeared nude and even sometimes engaging in lightly erotic scenes (i.e., those involving kissing and notable sensuality) in many foreign films over the past few decades, and people from those cultures do not have the conception that there is something inherently “wrong” with this–though this positive attitude about youth sexuality has been diminishing in these foreign Western nations due to constant aggressive American and British influence over the past two decades."[/i][/quote]
This touches on my actual opinion on this whole thing. I think what causes almost all of the harm is our attitude towards it. If we'd just stop acting like nudity, sex and sexuality is something shameful, then I don't think there would be any need for some special [i]"mental capacity to give informed consent"[/i]... Because it wouldn't be very hard to understand.
[QUOTE=Cone;34668799]Is there a concrete reason why children are incapable of giving their informed consent other than that they are children?[/QUOTE]
Because they aren't informed. If a child ever agrees to do this it's because an adult takes advantage of how easy children are to deceive and that's not fair to them.
And if you look at sex abuse cases, even children who are never taught about anything sexual are often scarred by this stuff. This feeling that something done to them is "wrong" somehow comes naturally to young children.
[QUOTE=Meller Yeller;34668918]Because they aren't informed. If a child ever agrees to do this it's because an adult takes advantage of how easy children are to deceive and that's not fair to them.
And if you look at sex abuse cases, even children who are never taught about anything sexual are often scarred by this stuff. This feeling that something done to them is "wrong" somehow comes naturally to young children.[/QUOTE]
I would say that in general children are not informed, but not that it is definitively impossible for a child to be informed.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34668952]I would say that in general children are not informed, but not that it is definitively impossible for a child to be informed.[/QUOTE]
It's not impossible but age becomes a factor and again, even if they are informed, it's not difficult for an adult to take advantage of them through deception. A lot easier than an adult.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.