What's wrong with watching child porn?

[Provost Harrison]

If you don't understand the harm in encouraging child pornography, then you deserve to have your skull broken on my fist quite frankly

[Lancer]

Soon it will be the end of this world, how can it not be? All that is good and right is passing away in squabbles and definitions of the meaning of good and evil, and in dark hearts men without love plot the shocking slaughter of untainted life.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

it will be and what sucks most is that even though it's coming, I am still sitting here infront of a PC (work) as if there was a nuclear winter out there... :-( ... but at least it hasn't happened yet on the positive side

[Lancer]

I have had an experience of what is waiting for us, and there's good there that cannot be described. I say, bring it, and wonder what stays God's hand. Not my call though and I'm sure I don't know what's in the balance.

[Provost Harrison]

Hang on, are we expecting a Sith Lord or something?

[Lancer]

Nothing so marketable.

[Provost Harrison]

Hmmm...

[Lancer]

More marketable than that however.

[MJW]

Owning child-porn should be illegal because it makes selling it much easier. It's the same thing with the drug laws. Also some (not a lot) people like making people happy watching child-porn so much that they will do it for free. I have no feelings about child-porn. I just don't care about it.

But the people that say that children are 100%-pure (there is no-one in this thread that has this view) and others that rationalize away the damage that legalizing child-porn would do because that would hurt their view that liberalizing everything makes everything super-special-awesome are trash.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Jon Miller

Additionally, pornography supports and legitamizes what it is showing. Look at how anal sex has went from being rare to being very common.

Not that you're saying that this is a bad thing, right?


But another good point about adult pornography. With pornography that includes domineering exploitation of women as objects or subhumans, it legitimizes sexism, rape, and violence among those who regularly view and take pleasure in such videos.

There's adult pornography that is fine but then there's adult pornography that depicts women in demeaning and dehumanizing ways.

[OzzyKP]

The child pornography issue is made all the more interesting by the Supreme Court decision permitting digital (i.e. fake) child porn. I just saw an article like yesterday about some $1 million dollar government agency whose whole job is just to look through child porn and determine whether there are real children in it or digitally constructed children.

[Deity Dude]

That was one of my points Ozzy:

Now I've never done a study and have never heard of one BUT what if

a) some people who watch child porn do not act upon what otherwise would be an impulse to molest a child

and

b) what if the child porn were computer generated and and not real.

IF a) and b) were true, anyone against possessing that type of "child porn" would actually want MORE children harmed.

Another issue is the definition of "child porn". If you are talking about a 7 year old that is one thing. But what about a 17 year old who lives in a state where she can legally can consent to sex and consent to marriage? If her husband or sex partner films her with her consent has he committed a crime? But if he just has sex with her he hasn't? And if he waits for her 18th birthday he hasn't?

What if a news crew films a 14 year old prostitute? Are they guilty of child porn? What if a non-journalist films a 14 year old prostitute?

Like so many things in life, something that seems extremely obvious has a million shades of grey.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Deity Dude Another issue is the definition of "child porn". If you are talking about a 7 year old that is one thing. But what about a 17 year old who lives in a state where she can legally can consent to sex and consent to marriage? If her husband or sex partner films her with her consent has he committed a crime? But if he just has sex with her he hasn't? And if he waits for her 18th birthday he hasn't?

What if a news crew films a 14 year old prostitute? Are they guilty of child porn? What if a non-journalist films a 14 year old prostitute?

Like so many things in life, something that seems extremely obvious has a million shades of grey.

Let's stick to the porn depicting clearly prepubescent girls/boys, not jailbait, to keep stuff simpler.

[Deity Dude]

Ok - assuming we can define the exact point when someone switches from pre pubescent - what about the
first part of my post.

That was one of my points Ozzy:

Now I've never done a study and have never heard of one BUT what if

a) some people who watch child porn do not act upon what otherwise would be an impulse to molest a child

and

b) what if the child porn were computer generated and and not real.

In that case, anyone against possessing that type of "child porn" would actually want MORE children harmed.

[Deity Dude]

Also, are you saying you would change the current child porn statutes from 18 to pre-pubescent? IF so that would probably let off just about everyone you see on the famous MSNBC show. (which is usually 20-something men trying to pick up post-pubescent teenage girls over the internet)

And just to show you another shade of grey. The age of consent in Michigan is 16 and in some states as low as 14. In some of those states it is legal to go to a high school or middle school, depending on the state, and try to pick up a person who has reached the age of consent. But if you were to try to do the same thing over the internet it is illegal.

I know this is way off topic and I am not commenting on what is "right or wrong." I just brought it up to re-enforce my million shades of grey arguement.