LOL, Case closed, vanilla. 
From your own link above:
When evaluating who may have pedophilia, psychiatrists apply three criteria spelled out in DSM-IV. All three must be present for the diagnosis to be made. It is true that the three combined criteria do not specifically demand that actual contact be made, though it is the first of the three that would almost demand behavior, or at least intense and recurrent sexually arousing fantasies. What is important (if we neglect the behavior aspect as you desire) is that criteria two be met; to wit, that these fantasies impair social behavior. Watching CG kiddie porn does not automatically qualify here while having sex with children in fact would. The final criterion noted is this: “The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A. Note: Do not include an individual in late adolescence involved in an ongoing sexual relationship with a 12- or 13-year-old.”
Computer-generated images have nothing to do with the third criteria at all, really, since there is no child. A representation of a child is not a child, though in some ways they may be used similarly.
An inactive pedophile does not exist as their pedophilia would thus not impair social functioning and they wouldn’t be acting out on specific children. Your inactive pedophile would only fall under the first quality maybe if they had intense fantasies.
As far as I can tell, there is no such beast as an inactive pedophile. The diagnosis of pedophilia involves activity. You see my point here?
With respect to your OP, the context involves imaginary characters. It would be as if I could be considered an inactive stalker if I watched Meg Ryan movies all the time and obsessed over them. The qualities necessary for stalking demand activity, and there is none to be found.
I say: have all the CG kiddie porn you want.
To further the absurdities…should someone caught jerking off to a picture of Lassie be arrested for bestiality? Or to further the CG concept, a picture of Mickey Mouse?
About the definition of the word: I always thought that when a word ends in “phile,” it just means that you really like the subject at hand, not necessarily that you engage in it.
Here are some definitions given at dictionary.com:
Pedophile : : An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.
Audiophile : A person having an ardent interest in stereo or high-fidelity sound reproduction.
Suppose a guy simply loses interest in his stereo equipment and moves on to another hobby. He’s an ex-audiophile, right? On the other hand, suppose he goes deaf and is physically unable to hear his stereo anymore, but he misses it badly and thinks about it all the time…he’s not engaging in the act, but he’s still an audiophile.
Anyone who is sexually attracted to children is a pedophile, whether he acts on it or not. There’s already a word for adults who have sex with children: molester.
O.K., I’m going to grant this for the purpose of my next question. If a person is sexually atracted to children ( granting that he’s a pedophile for the purpose of this question ) but never acts on it or views materials featuring real live children, ( but may view CG child porn )should this person be deemd guilty of a crime? Should he be punished? If yes, why?
Personally, I am not sure I want to live where the answer is yes.
no it isn’t immoral. In fact, if someone has pedophilic urges he can’t control and can release them in the privacy of his own home with computer generated images instead of taking them out on live people then his acts are admirable (considering the circumstances). I’d rather someone masturbate to a computer generated image than actually rape someone.
The Calculus of Logic, I think you say it best.
Besides, people have all sorts of other fantasies that probably should never be carried out. When we read stories about Dillinger, don’t we all think about what a rush it would be to go and rob a bank? That doesn’t mean we go out and do it. I’m pretty sure that actually planning a bank robbery would get you into some trouble, but just sitting home thinking about it isn’t illegal, as far as I know.
So we could be talking about any subject at all here— if a person has strong fantasies about some act that’s illegal or inappropriate, and he/she manages to release his/her tension without hurting anyone, that’s fine by me.
Also, I can’t see much difference between computer-generated child pornography, a painting, or a written story about sex with children. Each of those serve basically the same purpose. If one is made illegal, the others will have to be too.
They aren’t already? SO what is ilegal? I thought it all was.
From a biological veiw, the whole idea that having sex with “kids” is perfectly natural, since teens are more fertile. Therefore, it makes sense for a natural impulse to go in that direction. However, obviously, legally speaking, it’s not acceptable.
What the heck are you talking about? The issue at hand is sex with prepubescent children, not teenagers, and teenagers are not “more fertile” than adults ~20-30 years of age anyway. Teenaged girls do not conceive any more easily than women a few years older. They are also much more likely to give birth to underweight or otherwise unhealthy infants than mature women are, although this may have more to do with socioeconomic factors and poor prenatal care than the mother’s age per se.
I’m thinking pure in thought and word and deed and thinking yeah, from a Christian perspective, it is immoral. But there’s a difference between having paedophilic urges and being a paedophile.
I might enjoy a fantasy about killing my boss, but it doesn’t make me a murderer. But the fact that it’s a fantasy doesn’t stop it being a negative, nasty, frankly “immoral” thought.
Computer-generated images of kiddie porn - not that I’ve ever had the misfortune to see any thank god - are IMO sick and vile. But I don’t know if my personal moral repugnance alone justifies banning them on moral grounds. Otherwise an amusingly photoshopped picture of my boss with a dagger in him might be construed as murderous.
On the other hand - for practical reasons - if such images are being found to incite violence and paedophilia, then maybe they should be outlawed.
What we normally undersand to be pornographic films, videos and photos, where the models/players are under age 18. Materials that portray minors in a prurient manner, whether engaging or not in actual or simulated sexual activity. Those are illegal.
As of the latest court cases, a simulation created out of pure imagination – computer graphic, pencil drawing, oil painting – does not fall within the prohibition. Neither does written text. (*)
You CAN however be banned from possessing these otherwise legal things (or a computer, or an internet account) as part of the loss-of-freedom that is involved in a sentence for a criminal conviction.
BTW I am not convinced of the “practical justification” that banning imaginary CP images “facilitates” fighting the real thing by “removing a loophole”, making it unnecessary to prove what really happened. Simplifying things so that the government can just convict people on the basis of what the image “looks like” could have the paradoxical result of human and financial resources being taken away from finding the real CP producers – because what need would there be to further investigate?
(*)HOWEVER depending on the facts of the case, you may fall afoul of obscenity laws, and obscene speech is not protected.
I believe that in no case can a fantasy or thought be illegal or immoral. Laws relating to sexual crimes exist for one reason and one reason only: Protecting the victim. Computer generated or otherwise non-real images depicting children cannot be illegal, because no one was harmed in their creation. Therefore, there is no victim, and no crime has been comitted. No causal links have ever been found between pornography of any type and violence or sexual crimes of any type. Obviously genuine child pornography must be illegal, as a child is necessarily harmed in the act of creation. However, the banning of pornography or any works that no one is harmed during production of must not be made illegal.
…but not this one.
In a previous thread (loooong ago and my search dont work), most people were arguing that prison inmates who force sex on others of the same gender were not gay. I argued that they might not self-identify as such, but they had to have at least some homosexual portion to them, or they just would not force sex on other inmates.
Now, after reading said DSM-IV link, I have come full circle on THAT issue. Not equating pedophilia with homosexuality, but it appears that, in the prison inmate situation, criteria “#2” of the DSM is fulfilled, i.e. causes social problems. However, criteria #1 is not satisfied, i.e. intense fantasies. I retract my previous characterization of the prison population.
However, I believe, from my reading the link, that the same thing can be true for “pedophiles”.
Granted, anyone who habitually has sex with a prepubescent is probably a pedophile, as it states in the DSM. However, Criteria #1 and #2 must be fulfilled.
It’s conceivable, again, that people who find no other outlet for their urges will turn to children, either due to a lack of self-confidence or an actual lack of available outlets. This is not to condone this, indeed, if anything it is even more evil than satisfying one’s unnatural fantasy, however, I would argue that in this case it would not fall under criteria #1, intense fantasy.
Similarly, if one were to have intense fantasies without it causing social disruption, then one would not be a pedophile as it would not satisfy criteria #2. However, as the DSM alludes to tangentially, it would be difficult for this to happen in our society, since our society frowns upon sex with children and “guilt” and “depression” WILL satisfy criteria #2 if they are related to the fantasies.
(and , of course, according to the DSM actual contact automatically satisfies criteria #2, so any one with intense fantasies that engages in such behavior is a pedophile)