# Is child pornography really bad? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2002, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224 "2002-08-30T03:09:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/21 "2002-08-31T02:18:57Z")
The present court interpretation of child porn laws goes farther than you might think. In a recent court case, it was decided that a virtual, computer representation of humans _who might look like children_ is illegal. Note that no real person was involved in any of the images: [http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/4th/case/994813P&exact=1](http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/getcase/4th/case/994813P&exact=1) From this case (U.S. v. MENTO, 2000), > [@](#): > > The term “child pornography” now includes “any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture” where: > > … > > (B) such visual depiction is, _or appears to be,_ of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct… (italics mine) So if you draw your fantasy image, you may be arrested. Moral: keep your thoughts to yourself. It’s illegal to illustrate them. The usually stated intent of child porn laws to prevent harm to children by taking their pictures. Never mind that such harm has never been shown to be the inevitable outcome of a photo session, but here it is hard to explain how a _drawing_ of a juvenile _who never existed_ results in harm to _a real person._ ---
**Author:** ![ArlanzaCharles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/cc9497/32.png) [@ArlanzaCharles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ArlanzaCharles)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/22 "2002-08-31T03:23:02Z")
Actually the Supreme Court overturned the virtual child porn ban. [http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/index.html](http://www.cnn.com/2002/LAW/04/16/scotus.virtual.child.porn/index.html) ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/23 "2002-08-31T10:29:47Z")
Yep, so if you want to _draw a picture_ of what appears to someone under 18 posing nude in a lascivious manner or engaging in sex acts, more power to you, according to the Supreme Court. But if you actually photograph such a thing, you’ll be hauled off to prison. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/24 "2002-08-31T13:24:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by ArlanzaCharles \* > Actually the Supreme Court overturned the virtual child porn ban. Thanks, **ArlanzaCharles.** I was not aware of that decision – I must be living 4 months behind the world! The full case text is here: > **[Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw](https://caselaw.findlaw.com)** > > Findlaw provides Caselaw: Cases and Codes - FindLaw Caselaw It’s heartening to see that 2/3 of the Supremes have some sense on this issue. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/25 "2002-08-31T13:58:57Z")
I think I may have posted the wrong link to the _Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition_ full text. This should be the right one, in PDF form: [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-795.pdf](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-795.pdf) I have been unable to find the same case as HTML. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/26 "2002-08-31T14:10:00Z")
I think I may have posted the wrong link to the _Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition_ full text. This should be the right one, in PDF form: [http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-795.pdf](http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-795.pdf) I have been unable to find the same case as HTML. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/27 "2002-08-31T14:53:19Z")
\<\< 80% of the subscribers would be 55-year old men in their bathrobes. And maybe that’s not SO bad if it prevents them from molesting their teen neices, but can you guarantee that it will? \>\> The risk of 55-year old men molesting girls is very real. If society permitted it, I suspect it would be common. So, there are strong taboos against it. Child pornography eats away at these taboos, and therefore makes child molestation that much more acceptible. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/28 "2002-08-31T20:38:41Z")
Cite, december? ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 8:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/29 "2002-08-31T20:44:19Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by robertliguori \* > \*\*Cite, december? \*\* Just my opinion, based in part on having been 55. ---
**Author:** ![Scott\_Dickerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f04885/32.png) [@Scott\_Dickerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scott_Dickerson)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2002, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/30 "2002-08-31T22:33:30Z")
Karellen–way back there–a masterful job, which I wish had not been generally ignored. To semi-agree with the Jolene Four: No indeed, we can’t make the law in shades of gray. However: (1) Though the words of the law may seem definite enough to win the proposing legislator re-election, laws are filtered through various levels of interpretation by the courts, forming interpretational precedents; (2) Someone somewhere has to decide how much time and money to invest in seeking out a possible perpetrator and bringing charges–often leaving the “grayer” cases off the hook; (3) In various “child sex” and “kiddie porn” laws one finds, perhaps not shades of gray, but significant hedging about precisely what is being proscribed. For example, our friend from Paris may be surprised to learn that “interfering with a youth” is a crime here and there: the phrase has (like “abominable crime against nature”) no obvious meaning, but is used as a catchall against creepy adults who hang around minors but do not go all the way to rape. (By the way, SURELY you are not under the impression that Americans permit nudity on our public beaches!) IMHO, the porn industry and its products should not be taken as lightly as we do–“kiddie” or otherwise. We can’t be too vigorous in banning it, lest we police ourselves into some sort of fascism; but making it rather more difficult to get than a few button-clicks, and rather more expensive than, well, ZERO, might not be a bad goal. And–whether an image is (likely to be) arousing or not–I recommend that we not call it “porn” when it is strictly self-made. (Not when it CLAIMS to have been self-made–when it really IS.) Call me whatcha wanna, but I think people have the right to do photo essays with themselves as the subject, even as minors, even in bad taste. …not that I would feel that way if I were the parent of such a creative kid… ---
**Author:** ![Squish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Squish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squish)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/31 "2002-09-01T08:17:41Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by clairobscur \* > \*\*Actually, I understand that believing people married in their teens some centuries ago is a misconception. That was true for people of the upper classes, but not for most of the population. There have been studies made about the age of marriage, based on church registers, and I remember for instance having read one of them stating that the average age of marriage for men was _25_. I can’t remember to which century it refered. The late middle-ages or renaissance, I believe. The women were younger, but more like 20, not teens. \*\* Don’t know about the studies, but my grandmother was married at 16 to my grandfather who was in his late 30s. I don’t know what age her sister was, but she told my mother, “I didn’t even have hair down there yet.” ---
**Author:** ![istara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e79b87/32.png) [@istara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/istara)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/32 "2002-09-01T12:14:26Z")
I just think it would be infinitely traumatic to have an unwanted or not-really-wanted/verging-on-unpleasant early sexual experience with a much older person, rather than someone your own age. It’s one thing to have a nasty slimy kiss and grope with the boy-next-door when you’re both 13/14. You’re both young, inexperienced, and as you grow up you starting dating older, “adult” people like yourself. It’s another thing for that slimy kiss to have been with someone old enough to have been your father or grandfather. It affects your perspective on all adults. The 14-year-old boy isn’t going for you because you’re young, underdeveloped, pubescent. He’s going for you because you’re the same age, same class at school, available, next door etc. The 40-year-old is going for you because for some reason he finds your not-quite-adult body (or even childish body) more sexually attractive than that of a mature woman nearer his own age. Frankly I find that deviant, and quite evil. ---
**Author:** ![robertliguori](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/46a35a/32.png) [@robertliguori](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/robertliguori)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/33 "2002-09-01T14:24:09Z")
Hmm. A friend of mine (16, I think) has sex with a variety of adults, and still manages to make her way through school. In her case, the attraction to older men is based on the fact that they know what they are doing. Is she ususal? Dunno, doubt it. But still, her many and varied relationships are not rape or molestation by any meaningful definition of the word. And what’s this ‘children can’t say no’ schtick? If someone is forced to have sex, it’s rape, regardless of the ages of the participants. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/34 "2002-09-01T14:29:47Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Scott Dickerson \* > \*\*Someone somewhere has to decide how much time and money to invest in seeking out a possible perpetrator and bringing charges–often leaving the “grayer” cases off the hook; IMO, the “grayer” cases shouldn’t be left off the hook because it would be too costly, but because there’s no reason to assume that a crime is commited as long as there’s no evidence it indeed was. Some people would obviously (i.e. : nude child =child porn) assume that the mere fact something could be constructed in some way as possibly being a hint that someone, somewhere has bad thoughts is enough to ban or prosecute said thing. It appears as mass paranoïa to me. We’re coming to such an extreme that some people (see leenmi post above) think there’s something creepy when a teen-ager is attracted to other teenagers (apparently thinking that if a 13 y.o. is attracted to a 13 y.o. he’s a potential future pedophile). By the way, refering to the original post, people should logically think that a teen being aroused by pictures of adults is _more_, not less creepy than the same kid being aroused by pictures of other teens. I personnally think that none is creepy. > [@](#): > > For example, our friend from Paris may be surprised to learn that “interfering with a youth” is a crime here and there: the phrase has (like “abominable crime against nature”) no obvious meaning, but is used as a catchall against creepy adults who hang around minors but do not go all the way to rape. If indeed such a vague thing is considered a crime, I’m not only surprised by I find it very creepy. Sure, the legislator and his electors are probably thinking about an adult spending half of his day trying to interact with stranger kids, roaming around shools or children’s playground, but with such a formulation, just talking to your neighbor’s kid would be enough to be prosecuted. That’s definitely unnacceptable in my book. For a prosecution to be possible, an actual harm should have been done, or at the very least strong evidences that an actual crime was intended. Such a law would be similar to a law considering “roaming around a bank” as a crime. I’m wondering when “looking at a children” will be considered a crime. Finally I would add that in some instances, an adult has a _duty_ to interfere with a youth, for instance when he’s endangering himself. And IMO, such instances are far more common than adults trying to prey on children. During my life, only once I was confronted with a situation where an adult intended to prey on a child, but I witnessed tons of instances when a kid was doing stupid things I would expect any reasonnable adult to interfere with. There has been on this board plenty of threads about “how to warn my child about strangers”, and much less about way more common dangers like “how to warn my child about not crossing roads” or “not climbing on anything they can think of”. And I still didn’t notice any thread about “how to warn my child about my husband/ brother”. People seem to be mostly affraid that their child could be abducted, though it’s an incredibly unlikely possibility, as opposed to plenty of other much more common dangers. And even when you’re worried about the risk that a child could be abused, it’s statistically obvious that the danger is mainly their father, their uncle or this charming and so polite neighbor. Not a random stranger, even a weird-looking one. Children should be warned about the _behavior_ of adults, whoever these adults might be, not being conditionned to be affraid of each and every adult they don’t know well. I think this conditionning is at the same time unhealthy (children should consider adult as primarily supportive, not likely abusers one has to be affraid of) and counter-productive (because refering to an adult, even a stranger, could be the best thing to do in many cases…plus there’s zero reason to assume that a random adult the children refers to would be an abuser, as opposed to an adult who would adress the kid without being asked for). An anecdotal example of a counter productive warnings I heard of : The child had been biten by a snake. Cautiously warned against strangers, she walked two kilometers rather than asking for help to the people she saw or knocking at a door in the villages she passed by. The child was eventually safe, but nevertheless, IMO, her parents should have been better inspired to warn her about snakes than about strangers and to teach her to ask any adult for help if she was in danger. Possibly (I don’t know) they told her to refer to a police officer or such authority if need be, like a lot of people seem to do, but these figures are rather uncommon when you’re in the countryside. Other random thoughts : a friend of mine who’s a _female_ teacher, doesn’t dare anymore to stay alone with one of her students. If she has to talk to them privately, she goes to great lenghts to make sure there’s someone else around. Also : if a child is lost in say, a supermarket, the sensible thing to do would be to bring the child to the counters in order that an announcment could be made. But I would be very uneased doing so, since i would be affraid that the parents would suddenly pop up and accuse me of being in the process of abducting their child or somesuch. The whole situation has become extremely unhealthy in my opinion. The “nude child= pornography” thing is only the tip of the iceberg. It seems especially unnatural to me since I’ve been brought up in the countryside, and everybody was _expected_ to look after other people’s children, even strange children, and interfere as much as they see fit, which is in my opinion much safer (even concerning child abuse issues, and actually I’ve an extremely good reason to think so in this case). Children should be taught to be warry about adult’s _behavior_ (like the "teach them to say “no” thing), and from any adult, especially those adults who _aren’t_ strangers, as opposed to be taught to be affraid of all adults, especially those adults who are strangers. > [@](#): > > (By the way, SURELY you are not under the impression that Americans permit nudity on our public beaches!) Nope. But I was refering to nude _children_ on regular beachs, not to beaches where nudity is allowed. I assume nude little children aren’t an issue on american beaches. > [@](#): > > IMHO, the porn industry and its products should not be taken as lightly as we do–“kiddie” or otherwise. We can’t be too vigorous in banning it, lest we police ourselves into some sort of fascism; but making it rather more difficult to get than a few button-clicks, and rather more expensive than, well, ZERO, might not be a bad goal. Well…pornography in general is another issue entirely, and I believe we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. Though if you don’t think pornography should be banned, I don’t understand why you think it should have a _cost_. If pornography is acceptable, why should people necessarily have to pay for it, exactly? It doesn’t seem consistent to me. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/35 "2002-09-01T14:45:10Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by istara \* > \*\*The 40-year-old is going for you because for some reason he finds your not-quite-adult body (or even childish body) more sexually attractive than that of a mature woman nearer his own age. > > Frankly I find that deviant, and quite evil. \*\* That’s certainly deviant (though actually, I’m not even convinced it is if we’re talking about teens as opposed to pre-pubescent children…probably more a deviation from the socially-accepted norm rather that a deviation from some “natural” norm), and possibly evil, but not necessarily so, since it could certainly be genuine. I would tend to assume that it’s more likely manipulative than “evil”. Anyway, I don’t think there are many 14 y.o. around who would be even remotely attracted to 40 y.o. (and if teens were actually commonly attracted to 40 y.o., it wouldn’t be deviant anymore, by definition). The age of consent here is 15, and it’s not like you’re going to see 15 y.o. actually hanging out with 55 y.o. people. ---
**Author:** ![doreen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/858c86/32.png) [@doreen](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doreen)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2002, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/36 "2002-09-01T15:32:23Z")
> [@](#): > > Say a 12 or 13 YO boy is just delving into his sexuality. Pornography, masturbation, etc. But he just doesn’t seem to be attracted to the youngest legal allowed (18 here). And so, he goes on the search for people his age, and stumbles across some sites offering images to his liking. Would this be morally wrong for him to pleasure himself to these images? I think two different questions are getting mixed up here. And the answers don’t have to be the same. One - does the 12 year old boy do anything morally wrong by seeking out these pictures and putting them to use?My answer is no. He is not doing the exploiting, nor is he really contributing to the demand that causes such exploitation ( for the most part, porn is a business and the number of 12 year old boys who are interested enough in sex to spend their limited money on porn depicting 12 year old girls is miniscule) If he were to actually have sex with a 12 year old girl, it is extremely unlikely that he would be prosecuted, and it would be a case of “mutual exploration” ,as someone else said. Two- Is the person taking or publishing or allowing these pictures to be published morally wrong? Yes. I suppose I might make an exception should there somewhere be a porn site entirely run by 12 year olds with no adult involvement in which the subjects freely posed and were aware of what would happen with the pictures.I don’t think there are any though. > [@](#): > > ## originally posted by **clairobscur** > > Originally posted by istara > The 40-year-old is going for you because for some reason he finds your not-quite-adult body (or even childish body) more sexually attractive than that of a mature woman nearer his own age. > > ## Frankly I find that deviant, and quite evil. > > That’s certainly deviant (though actually, I’m not even convinced it is if we’re talking about teens as opposed to pre-pubescent children…probably more a deviation from the socially-accepted norm rather that a deviation from some “natural” norm), and possibly evil, but not necessarily so, since it could certainly be genuine. I would tend to assume that it’s more likely manipulative than “evil”. I don’t think that it’s so much that the 40 year old finds the adolescent body more attractive than the adult body. After all, it can be quite difficult to tell a 15 year-old from a 21 year old from behind. I think the 40 year old finds the adolescent _mind_ more attractive, which would certainly be manipulative.But in my view, manipulative and evil are not mutually exclusive. ---
**Author:** ![Jolene\_Jolene\_Jolene\_Jolene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c77e96/32.png) [@Jolene\_Jolene\_Jolene\_Jolene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jolene_Jolene_Jolene_Jolene)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/37 "2002-09-03T18:29:42Z")
What with buying my first banjo and having a long weekend, I didn’t get a chance to respond to the final bit of snarkiness from my new best friend, **clairobscur**. My argument has been, all along, from an American point of view. I’ve only been to France once, and frankly the train station smelled like urine. But that could be the nature of all train stations. I know Grand Central Station in New York doesn’t smell any better. **clairobscur** feels its okay to put naked pictures of kids not doing anything sexual on the internet. I’ll even quote **clairobscur** so that I don’t get things wrong: > [@](#): > > I can post the naked pictures of all my family’s children if I want to, and it won’t be “child pornography”, nor here, nor in the US. Which is fine for **clairobscur** , but then again, **clairobscur** is French. They do things different there. And they have about 253 different kinds of cheese. You do the math. The thing is, naked kids in America pretty much _are_ sexual. Sure, I wouldn’t be surprised that there are medical sites with naked pictures of minors that would be used to describe medical conditions. And I’m sure the occasional naked baby schmeckie makes it into a photo on someone’s personal website. But we’re not talking about those. Websites with naked pictures of kids – **in America** – are often suspect. And websites with naked pictures of kids – **in America** – will more than likely be classified as child porn _unless_ the nudity is with a medical purpose or used in child development. Sick f\*cks abound, not only in America but everywhere. And most of our American laws are designed for the lowest common denominator. That’s why we have lawsuits about coffee being hot and warnings on electric hair dryers that say not to use in the shower or bathtub. As Americans, we’re very dumb. So I stand by my statements. And I don’t think I need to meditate on the law or my statements about the law, though I do appreciate your attention to my spiritual growth. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/38 "2002-09-03T19:08:04Z")
> [@](#): > > My argument has been, all along, from an American point of view. I’ve only been to France once, and frankly the train station smelled like urine. But that could be the nature of all train stations. And your point is? [quote] Websites with naked pictures of kids – in America – are often suspect. And websites with naked pictures of kids – in America – will more than likely be classified as child porn unless the nudity is with a medical purpose or used in child development. (/quote] Nope. I gave a link and quoted a cite which refers to _american_ law and _american_ jurisprudence. You might want that american law says what you just wrote, but it doesn’t. Once again, as you wrote yourself : \*laws are not up to our own individual interpretation \* . That would include _your_ personnal interpretation. > [@](#): > > So I stand by my statements. And I don’t think I need to meditate on the law or my statements about the law| You should certainly meditate about your statements, but concerning the law, you don’t have to meditate about it. You just need to read it. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/39 "2002-09-03T19:11:54Z")
> [@](#): > > My argument has been, all along, from an American point of view. I’ve only been to France once, and frankly the train station smelled like urine. But that could be the nature of all train stations. And your point is? > [@](#): > > Websites with naked pictures of kids – in America – are often suspect. And websites with naked pictures of kids – in America – will more than likely be classified as child porn unless the nudity is with a medical purpose or used in child development. Nope. I gave a link and quoted a cite which refers to _american_ law and _american_ jurisprudence. You might want that american law says what you just wrote, but it doesn’t. Once again, as you wrote yourself : \*laws are not up to our own individual interpretation \* . That would include _your_ personnal interpretation. Sorry, I messed up the previous post. If a moderator wants to cancel it… > [@](#): > > So I stand by my statements. And I don’t think I need to meditate on the law or my statements about the law You should certainly meditate about your statements, but concerning the law, you don’t have to meditate about it. You just need to read it. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2002, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224/40 "2002-09-03T23:37:33Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Karellen \* > \*\*It’s a tricky issue. > . > > Incidentally, psychologists and other professionals make a very clear distinction between a pedophile–someone who lusts after pre-pubescent kids–and someone who simply lusts after post-pubescent teenagers under 18. The former is an abnormality, the latter is not (medically speaking), because secondary sexual characteristics are SUPPOSED to turn us on. The law, culture, and society of course group anyone leering at under-18s in the same category of “pedophile”, “child molester”, or “sexual predator.” It’s an understandable instinct, but it’s not accurate. A teacher who has sex with her 16-year old jockish math student is not a child molester. She’s just a really really unprofessional teacher with no impulse control. > \*\* Which brings up the rather artificial cut-off of 18- under 18 is “child porn”, and over 18 is OK. This made the films of Traci Lords “child porn”, when in fact, they were anything but. (She was clearly a sexually physically mature adult- and also was said to be mentally mature, also- even at 16). Pedophiles do not want Traci- they want pre-pubescent kids. Having been around in the “old days” when such was legal- there was no “real” child porn around that I could see- the closest was magazines full of young children at Nudist camps. (Of course, now there is indeed, much “real” child porn, depicting pre-pubescent kids “forced” into sex acts- this is completeley & totally wrong). So- let’s look at what some dudes have been arrested for- in general- no cites- altho you can find plenty of them. Films & such portraying 16+ yo physically mature “children” in sex acts. My verdict- depends on the kid- often not harmful to the “child” any more than being married at 14 would be- which is legal in many States. These do not appeal to true pedophiles- who indeed can be very dangerous to children. They DO appeal to “dirty old men”. So what? Last word- not “child” porn. Should not be illegal to possess. Should be illegal to make- as they can’t give “informed consent”. “Art” fotos & such portraying very young children “au natural”. Hmm, altho these do appeal to pedophiles, just being nude is natural, and not harmful or degrading- especially for a child raised as a nudist. Some have legit art value. My verdict- not porn. Should not be illegal at all. Hard core sex acts with pre-pubescent children. Whoever makes this vile stuff shoot be shot- or worse. Owning it creates a market for sickos to make it- needs to be illegal to own, sell, make or possess. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-child-pornography-really-bad/126224.md?page=3)