I kid you not, one of my college professors once tried to claim that “maybe child pornography isn’t that bad” with the pseudo-philosophical argument: “what is child pornography but pixels on a screen?”
He then went on to make some arguments along the lines of “if two children are willing and consenting, let them go at it” and “they’ll do it eventually anyway” and “it may help those who are economically disadvantaged in countries like India – just pay them a few rupees and everyone wins. They get money, they get ‘pleasure’ and the porn-enthusiast get what he or she wants.”
What are your thoughts? Does his argument have any merit?
The only way for me to even make this a debate is if the “children” involved were not real, but rather CGI. Indistinguishable from the real thing.
I have mixed emotions about this.
On one hand, no children were actually hurt.
On the other hand, should we be feeding into these peoples sickness?
Is this indeed a sickness? If we accept the axiom that being born gay is a perfectly natural biological process; then why isn’t the same true for people who are born with pedophlilic base desires?
If that is the case, we have every right to protect our children but we have NO right to censure these people’s sexuality. As long as their conquests don’t involve actual children.
You should have reported this man (if it’s not too long ago you still can). There is a reason that children legally cannot consent to (being filmed while having) sex. If 2 children without any encouragement and without any real idea of what they’re doing end up innocently playing doctor (as children do), that is one thing. Involving an adult IN ANY WAY completely changes that. Adults are always in a position of power, no matter how much they claim a child is “consenting”. The sexuality of children should just never have anything to do with adults.
If it’s totally CGI it’s slightly different, but in that case I think we need more research. We need to know if it serves as encouragement or as a form of “relief” for a person with pedophiliac tendencies.
As mentioned, “just pixels on a screen” would apply only to simulations using no actual persons (e.g. CGI).
I can see how in a more nuanced manner someone would say that the sole concept, the mere notion of arousal from a scenario of pedophilia, by itself, is mostly just subject to a visceral “EWW factor”*** absent the actual act being considered or attempted***; the point of the illegality of live-subject Child Pornography, and why it had to explicitly be made illegal is that it is actual documentary evidence not of consenting sexual activity but of an act of child sexual abuse(*), its circulation makes the user a kind of accessory after the fact to that abuse, and creates a demand that perpetuates it.
(*In many places, it was years after regular porn’s acceptance that CP was explicitly banned, as consciousness of child sexual abuse as a real problem became greater)
I myself am on the side that* as long as no real person is harmed*, then people may go ahead and make, share and look at CGI/cartoons/paintings/text stories as bent as they can get. Thoughtcrime that stays nothing but thoughtcrime is irrelevant to anyone except the person and their conscience.
BTW, there are those who would say “well, what about CP that was made 20 years ago? Damage’s done, nothing you can do about it”. The law says that in such a case the distributor is still stretching the elements of the crime into the future plus you have the matter that the parties affected were never able to consent to their image being distributed in this manner. Real child = real crime, wherever and whenever.
HOWEVER…
:rolleyes::eek: OK, now either Professor Creepy’s just falling off the edge, or he’s whooshing you all under Poe’s Law. Starting with how by definition children (under whatever the age is in the jurisdiction) can’t give valid consent; and that it’s one thing if an adult faced with tough choices decides to engage in work that may be seen as exploitative rather than starve, it’s a whole another kettle of fish if it’s impoverished children who may not have a choice.
As to the prof’s first argument… Oh, come on, guys. It’s a college professor’s job to challenge people’s thinking and assumptions. I support the legalization of pot but I don’t smoke it. This is supposed to be a board where we actually explore questions, not shout them down with “he must be a molester! Burn him!”
The guy has a point (no matter what’s on his computer) which nobody here has addressed; possessing child porn is a victimless crime. MAKING child porn obviously is not, though, which is what makes this a tricky legal and moral question, if you’re not busy kicking your knee over your head; if file 12345.jpg is copied from one hard drive to another, seven steps beyind the guy who actually committed the crime of child abuse, are you facilitating the crime, especially when you might not have paid for it? How resposible are you for the original crime?
In Canada a guy actually was convicted of possessing child porn for possessing drawings of children having sex… that he had drawn himself… and had not given to anyone else. I have a six year old and so I have every reason to find child pron horrifying, but that conviction was an outright travesty of justice. If you wanted to expand the argument to “Hey, it’s just a picture and the guy didn’t participate it making it or even pay for it” there is at least a DEBATE to have here, not a witch hunt.
As to the second argument, he’s wrong. Again, I don’t believe this makes the prof a child molester, but here his argument is just not easily supported. There IS something to be said for the argument against child labour in the Third World being kind of stupid - using child labour is a necessity lower down on the economic totem pole - but child sex abuse goes well beyond that. 400 years ago kids in Europe worked, but they weren’t expected to be raped, and so why a kid in India should be raped today escapes me.
Sounds like his argument is based on the premises that if children are willing to have sex with one another, it does no harm for them to do so, or for other people to watch or photograph them doing so. I could see how a naive person might believe, or at least want to believe, these premises; and if they were true, the prof might have a point.
The sickness is already there. Wouldn’t you rather that they had an incentive to contain it in a way that does not cause harm to others?
“It’s natural” is a terrible reason to defend something. I don’t defend homosexuals because it’s natural, I defend them because what two consenting adults do with one another is nobody’s concern but their own.
Well for CGI pornography, yes, but he’s obviously later talking about actual children engaged in actual sexual acts, so yes it is harmful.
Children do not have the capacity to give informed consent, which is essentially what he’s arguing. Even if they will do it “eventually”, probably closer around puberty, that is not sufficient to justify recording them doing it now. And later on he essentially argues for forced child prostitution, which already happens unfortunately commonly in India. My vote: your professor watches child porn and is trying to justify it in a non-admission type of way. Ick.
WHOA there! I disagree with your statement that POSSESSING child porn hurts no one. Indeed, it does. It hurts the children in the pictures. Those children are exploited and no one has any business, under ANY circumstances, to own or use child pornography.
If I knew there was a nude or sexual picture of my child anywhere in the world, I would make it my business to find the possessor, kill their computer, and likely them. Really? Yep.
For someone to be masturbating to a picture of a child, there would have to be the original act of violence against that child. Therefore, it is not harmless to own. It is harmful.
It will be much more harmful if the parent catches you. Guaranteed.
I don’t know. As gracer points out. We would first have to figure out if this would act as a relief valve or compound the pedo’s temptation to act out his desires.
Same here. Some crazy folks out there think they can “cure” people from their gayness. Nearly, everybody agrees these people are idiots.
But talk about trying to rehabilitate a pedo’ the divide becomes much greater.
Is this indeed a sickness? If we accept the axiom that being born gay is a perfectly natural biological process; then why isn’t the same true for people who are born with pedophlilic base desires?
Because being gay and in a homosexual relationship because you are attracted to your own sex, is not a comparable to pedophiles who acts out on vulnerable children in exploitive ways, because they are sexually attracted to them.
Weirdly (and I thought it weird at the time), it was considered ‘cute’ to make a photo of your newborn without clothes on.
This CAN’T be classified child porn can it, because otherwise I need to call my mother and my eldest daughter immediately.