My point was only that a false parallel was being drawn. I can get someone to agree to pretend I’m raping her. There is no legal way for me to have sex with a kid.
I agree with you on what the legal status of pornography that doesn’t involve actual children should be.
I didn’t say anything about it reducing or increasing the crime of pedophilia. What I did way was it fosters the idea (I left out the part, among pedophiles) that it’s an okay sexual outlet. And where do you think they GET the child porn to view? At some point children were forced into that situation by someone. As to the faked kiddie porn, again, the idea that is being okayed here, is that it’s acceptable to view children as sexual objects AT ALL.
Looking at child porn is anything but an okay sexual outlet. Have you ever heard these guys talk? To them, normal people are the ones who are sick and don’t understand their “natural” desires and so on. Their viewing child porn is just part and parcel of the whole pedophile package. There’s a whole industry out there where they train young up and comers how to “groom” victims, how to beat the system and so on.
At any rate, it shouldn’t be an “either/or” situation. I don’t believe for a second that pedophiles stop themselves from offending if they’ve got enough kiddie porn. And I also don’t believe that the punishment should consist of “some abstract symbolic point” it should consist of prison time, and a good long bit of it at that.
If they’re in prison, they’re absolUTELY not offending or being part of the supply and demand for kiddie porn. That’s a decrease in pedophilia that’s real and effective. This is a crime that needs a ZERO tolerance, one strike you’re OUT (life sentence). period.
"Embattled former Mankato football coach Todd Hoffner and his wife are talking publicly about how the child pornography charges that were later dropped disrupted their family and careers.
Although cleared of the felony charges when a judge ruled the videos found on his cellphone showed only innocent play by his children, Hoffner was reassigned to a job as assistant athletic director at Minnesota State University, Mankato, and later fired, a dismissal he is challenging."
Seems excessive to me. I see no problem with confiscating it of course. And maybe they could use potential jail time as leverage for revealing the source. But possession alone should be at most a minor offense.
And it greatly concerns me that finding one or two images on a computer is prosecuted. Who knows why something might end up in the web cache, or what could be on there from a virus? And of course, it’s one thing if its obvious its a little kid, but quite another if it’s a teen whose age can’t really be determined.
And simple nudity of children is not pornography. Theres plenty of harmless pictures of many of us as kids naked in the family photo album. It’s even a well worn trope to trot these out to embarrass your dating age teens.
Then there’s the issue of, I’d rather they be getting their jollies from pictures than real kids. There’s some potential prevention possibilities there.
Anime does not mean “animated”.
I believe it is now a crime to even make or own drawn pictures of child porn.
When it is possible to own a sex android will it be a crime to have one that is childlike?
Just curious, but how do you feel about girls as young as 8 being “married” in countries such as Saudi, where it is legal?
Also, Jerry Lee Lewis married a girl at 13 which was legal in his state.
Given that the age of consent in some US states is 18 and 16 in the UK, how young is it to qualify as paedophilia?
Pedophilia has a strict clinical definition that means EXCLUSIVELY pre-pubescent. So the age is a little fuzzy, but if the kid hasn’t hit puberty or isn’t going through puberty at the time, and that’s what you find attractive, you’re a pedophile. Someone who enjoys looking at images of 13-15 year old girls or boys may be pervert, but he/she’s not a pedophile by definition.
The other age ranges (tweens and teens) would fall under other categories, hebephilia (going through puberty) and ephebophilia (post puberty but still young).
Presumably you meant to say “… should be dimly viewed …”.
It’s not a significant difference. The vast majority of women are unavailable to the vast majority of men. Let me rephrase what I said earlier.
We have no reason to think a paedophile who likes child porn is any more likely to molest a child than a straight man who likes straight porn and can’t find a willing woman is likely to molest an unwilling woman.
Having said that, most straight porn does not depict actual rape, unlike some (I haven’t checked how much) child porn. I wonder how many that like child porn draw a line at, essentially, anything depicting what would be illegal even without a camera involved.
Perhaps then we need to compare straight men who like straight porn with paedophiles who like this “milder” child porn, and straight men who like pictures or videos of real adult rape with paedophiles who like pictures or videos of real child rape. At the same time, a straight man who seeks out real rape porn is presumably actively seeking out rape porn, whereas a paedophile who seeks out child rape porn might see the rape element as incidental to what they’re actually interested in. Maybe the first comparison is the only useful one.
That was kind of a ramble, I know.
9 years for pictures seems excessive. I wouldn’t sentence anyone 9 years for any kind of pictures, be they child porn or murder victims. Unless there was reason to believe that they helped produce the pictures, then its too much for just pictures. We differentiate between people who possess stolen property vs. the actual burglars and robbers who stole the items don’t we?
Also, no drawing should be criminalized, no matter the content
I have to ask, where in the world are you getting this info? It sounds very conspiracy theory-ish. Pedophile industries training up future pedophiles? :dubious: Where are you hearing “these guys talk”?
I’ve actually read a bit about pedophilia (because I am interested in marginalized sexual attractions) and this is pretty far off from what mainstream research says. As a matter of fact, most child molesters are NOT pedophiles.
There is a strong desire by society to simply erase pedophilic urges. But research suggests that pedophiles are in fact born that way. Many of them struggle all their lives to contain feelings they know they can never morally indulge in. And many succeed, which should be lauded, but instead they are vilified for having feelings they cannot control. I fail to understand how this is the best approach.
I absolutely do not want to sexualize children, and I do not support the sexualization of children to the degree to which it occurs. But I don’t see the recognition of pedophilic attractions as the same thing. We need to deal with society as it actually is, not how we wish it were. I wish no one had these feelings, but they do, and we need to deal with that in a way that minimizes harm to actual kids. And if CGI/animated/cartoon porn can do that? Bring it on.
Do you have any evidence that exposure to a fetish in any way diminishes the desire to act on that fetish? I’ve heard from three foot fetishists that enjoying bare or sandled feet at an early age cemented a lust for female feet. Several male friends claim that R-rated movies gave them their first peek at exposed breasts and they blame topless scenes for inciting a breast fixation. Do you have cites that indulding in written, animated, or simulated child porn satiates pedophiles and somehow innoculates them against regarding live children as sexual objects?
Maybe I’m misunderstand the point you’re trying to make, but yes…all anime is animated. Sure, maybe the stills the person had themselves weren’t animated but they came from an animated show. Drawn and not real.
And as far as I understand, it’s a very fuzzy area if drawn child porn is legal. I’m a member of an art website that caters to people who enjoy drawing/looking at drawings of homosexual relationships. It sounds kinda skeevy when I write it out like that but it’s actually a very popular site among women. But one of the subsets of that genre (as has already been mentioned here) is called shota and focuses on relationships between men and prepubescent boys. Oddly enough, many of the fans of it are straight females. There was a huge debate a while back as to whether or not the website could legally host these images since they were based in the US. If I recall correctly, it was finally settled on that drawn images were fine, but 3D images were not allowed and any picture depicting a child under the age of 6 wasn’t allowed.
Honestly, I think it’s disgusting that anyone, let alone a grown woman, would find any pleasure or interest in drawing or viewing art of that sort of thing. But, I also feel it’s not hurting any real children and there’s tons of other fetishes out there that I find disgusting but if it’s not hurting another person, there’s really no reason to tell them to stop.
No.
In other studies it’s been shown that access to pornography in a society lessens sexual assault, but (to the best of my knowledge; it’s been awhile since I read up on it) that may in fact be a correlative effect, not causative. I think MUCH more research needs to be done, with a particular focus on damaging sexual urges (pedophilia, rape, cannibalism, necrophilia, whatever). But as long as we are demonizing urges, and the people who have them, that research is not getting done.
Which is why I said “if”. IF CGI/animated/cartoon porn can help pedophiles find peace without harming actual children, I am in favor of it, no matter how much it grosses me out (and it does). I want to see our society take a fact-based stance on this, that results in a reduction of harm, as opposed to the “it grosses me out make it illegal and lock up anyone who admits they have these feelings” approach we are taking now, which I believe would not be as effective. Simply having these urges is not and should not be a crime, and people who are attracted to children should have some way of seeking help. Maybe it will involve support groups and therapy and medication, in addition to access to drawn pictures. I don’t know. I am not saying we should just give people tons of porn and say, “have fun! Don’t touch any kids!”; I am saying we need a comprehensive way to help people who are born with criminal sexualities.
I also think there’s a first amendment issues with criminalizing pictures*, but that’s a whole other thing.
*drawn pictures that do not depict the actual molestation of real children. Those are wrong wrong wrong, and anyone who posses them should go to jail, and I do not think this sentence was unfair.
I guess the whole idea of catering to the urges which are illegal and grossly unethical is what I find distasteful. If a pedophile projects his sexual urges onto a child and is reinforced by pornography which depicts children enjoying the sexual attention of an adult, it seems he or she would be encouraged to act on those urges. Similar to the complaint we have about Toddlers and Tiaras: sexualizing children sends a dangerous message. I don’t assume that a pedophile who relishes episodes of TLC’s reality show will actually track down and attempt to offend on one of the actors on the show, but I do wonder if a fan of the show might assume that other children are equally seductive and attention-seeking. So if Toddlers and Tiaras is at best: distasteful and at worst: a slippery slope, then what of simulated child porn?
I also find “catering to the urges which are illegal and grossly unethical” distateful.
But, here’s my question. If research could conclusively show that providing providing pedophiles with (animated) child porn reduced their desire to molest actual children, and created a higher standard of living for said pedophiles (and, remember, these are non-offenders seeking help, NOT child molesters who got caught), would you support their access to this material?
Because I would. And that’s what I’m saying. let’s do the research, let’s follow where it goes, even if it’s squicky and gross and distasteful, and let’s try to use evidence to reduce the number of offenders and victims. I feel like in our society right now, the hatred of people with pedophilic urges is so great, that we have completely abandoned any sense of reasoning. And I can’t think of any time when a public policy based on hatred and fear turned out to be the best way of doing things.
I’ve always assumed my interest in seeing breasts as a child and my interest in seeing breasts as an adult are both effects of my interest in breasts. Do you have any reason to think one is a cause rather than effect?
The urges are not illegal, and nor should they be. I also don’t think they’re unethical, but that’s debatable. Acting on the impulse in any way that involves harming a child would absolutely be wrong, of course. Assuming we’re sure it won’t cause any extra harm, I see nothing wrong with the good old compassion argument. If someone cannot help an urge they have, but they’re a good enough person to not allow that urge to cause any harm, why not do what we can to make their lives a little better instead of letting emotions decide policy?
ETA: I always took the “sexualization of children” problem as being about not teaching children to try to be sexy, rather than out of a need to keep them unsexy so we don’t awaken a desire for 8 years olds inside ourselves.
I’d never be in a position to determine the application of such treatment. But I don’t know if I would support it, as I wouldn’t expect all offenders to respond the same way to this treatment. People have such varying IQ’s, varying ethical systems, and varying dependency issues. I can’t see applying exposure simulated child porn as a cure-all, or even a band-aid fix to the problem of pedophilia.
I don’t, other than personal experience, that is. Our first sexual experiences often influence our interests for the rest of our lives. I wouldn’t know how to go about performing a search for stats to support my guess, but my guess is that the type of pornography/nudity we have access to influences our tastes and tendencies. My first boyfriends were tall and athletic, and since then I tend to gravitate towards a certain physical type in real life. I have no reason to believe that persons who enjoy simulated child porn wouldn’t also prefer a child as a partner in real life. I just don’t know.
I was wrong to say that the urges are illegal, poor wording on my part. Sympathy for non-offenders I have, just as I have sympathy for members of hate groups which have been indoctrinated to espouse certain hateful or harmful beliefs. I don’t hate pedophiles any more than I hate survivors of Warren Jeffs’ or Fred Phelps’ camps.
But I have no problem with limiting literature which teaches citizens how to build bombs from ordinary materials. Or cook meth. And no problem with applying non-violent social pressure to discourage white supremacists. No problem with publishing the name and address of registered sex offenders (outside of statutory cases, that is). I think my concern lies more with potential victims (of bombs, meth addictions, discrimination, and child abuse) than with the hapless pedophile. The potential kid has far more to lose.
Just to clarify, how would offering simulated child porn to non-offending pedophiles as a means of pacifying their urges be any different from handing Phelps and Jeffs camps literature espousing polygamy with pubscent wives, offering white supremicists studies which support inferiority of some races/cultures, or recovering meth addicts Breaking Bad episodes? Some habits and inclinations are just bad on the whole, and I don’t get why we would cater to the whims of people who hold potentially harmful ideals.
Child sex crime Andrew Vachss’s thoughts on child pornography
NO child can consent to being in pornography. It is not a victimless crime. Children are exploited and suffer the consequences of it.