OK, OK, wait – Maastricht was clarifying the prior statement about “CP that is not child rape”, based on what she has observed as the filing of charges in those circumstances; meanwhile, for others among us, CP by definition is ONLY the material that is documented child molestation, and those cases are just excesses of the Law. Did acknowledge that this was a hijack from the original scenario of seekers of depravity so it’s different issues being discussed.
So we have someone who has observed a trend towards becoming more and more absolutist about “child protection”. Now, least in the USA in spite of common public opinion, courts have ruled that mere nudity of a minor is NOT necessarily ***per se *** legally constitutive of “Child Pornography”, there have to be other contextual/circumstantial elements involved to put it over the line. Similarly, court rulings regarding the laws on fictional representations had the effect that if there’s no real child involved, then it’s NOT the offense legally defined as “Child Pornography”. Congress sought to get around that by creating the different and distinct offense of “obscene representations of minors” which extends to non-real materials and is yet to be subject to a Supreme Court challenge.
BUT: when there’s a case about it, the newspapers call it *all *“CP” in their usual sloppiness about legal terms. And in practice both private individuals and public officials who spot such materials do often panic and intervene first and ask questions later, be it Europe or the USA…
(BTW the pics of kiddies in wading pools ARE allowable as supporting evidence , if the person is being brought up for real molestation or possession of real CP)
What about deterrence? I actually can totally see people with underdeveloped senses of empathy passing around videos of toddlers getting raped along with videos of women blowing horses and goatse and all that type of stuff, if there weren’t a law saying “this is different. This is something that puts your ass in jail”. And that wouldn’t work very well if if were followed with 'well, not really jail".
Since when does something have to work perfectly for it to work? That doesn’t make sense. That would be like saying “If seatbelts worked, there would be no automobile deaths”.
Do you really think that if there were no laws against possessing kiddie porn, there would be exactly the same amount of it out there?
The beliefs of the perpetrators are not really the issue. There are actual rapists and child molesters who will claim they’ve committed a victimless crime because they “know” the victim “wanted it”.
And no, I would not find it a relief to learn that someone with a collection of child pornography wasn’t really attracted to prepubescent bodies but was turned on by “taboo” sexual material. Actually having sex with a child is even more taboo than possessing child pornography, so I see no reason to believe that people who are turned on by child pornography because it’s “deviant” would be any less likely to molest real children than people who are turned on by child pornography because they are aroused by the children themselves. In fact, I’d be concerned that someone who was turned on by sexual deviancy would be far more brutal in their treatment of their victims than someone who thinks children are sexy.
I think a more accurate analogy would be people who collected videos of people being murdered not out of malice, but out of breaking societal boundaries.
This was supposedly the case with Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb. They abducted and killed Robert Franks for no motive except to commit a crime.
Understanding the motives why somebody commits a crime doesn’t excuse the crime. But understanding why people commit crimes does help prevent crimes so it’s a useful field of study.
Not really. The SDMB has an unofficial photo gallery of members because someone thought it would be a good idea and there was enough demand/interest for people to participate in creating it. As far as I know, no money has changed hands in the creation of this gallery, but those photos were made and posted to share. Presumably people made and shared those photos because they knew that others would be looking at them too.
Now imagine what happens on an underground message board dedicated to the common interest of sex-with-kids.
Exactly. If transgression and the feeling that sex in itself is depraved, have led to men downloading CP, that would be useful information in both prevention and treatment. Treatment would focus on more self-acceptance and a more loving view on sex with same age partners. As for prevention, that would be much harder. You don’t change a society’s take on sex overnight.
My assumption is that basically the thinking goes like this:
-I grew up in a culture where sex is, among many other things, something BAD. And DEPRAVED.
-I have sexual feelings and fantasies that aren’t just vanilla.
-Therefore, I AM BAD. Probably DEPRAVED, too. A creep? That too, I guess.
-Then I might as well check out stuff that is for people who are BAD and DEPRAVED.
-So, the most depraved thing I can think of…Nuns fucked on altars? Nah. Bestiality? No that is not DEPRAVED, that is just weird. Wait, I got it! Child Porn ! Am I now bad enough for you, world? A big enough creep? Right, I thought so too.
Therapist: Hate to break it to you, but those fantasies you had before you started downloading CP? Pretty normal. In fact, you’re a normal guy and this need to makr yourself as bad and creepy and inadequate and depraved is our actual problem. Now tell me,how ever did you get that feeling there was something wrong with you?
I agree with Freudian Slit on this one. A lack of self-esteem is not usually the problem with transgressives. Their problem is usually the opposite - too much self-esteem. They feel they’re above the rules that apply to normal people.
I’m just not really seeing that as a realistic thought process, Maastricht. If someone is so turned on by the idea of messing up wit societal norms, in a way that seems worse than just liking child porn because you happen to be attracted to kids. A pedophile may not actually want to physically hurt kids but a transgressive does seem to want to hurt society/people.
Or is really missing the profoundly important part of the brain that says “That’s a real kid someone is doing that to. That kid is going to live with remembering this being done, and knowing people sit around and watch it.” And I don’t believe for a minute that a “transgressive” would want pictures of kids in bathtubs: those pictures aren’t transgressive, they are only erotic (and therefore taboo) if the viewer finds them so. If what you want to see is stuff that is inherently outside acceptable boundaries, you need something explicitly sexual.
It seems very unlikely to me that someone who had non-vanilla fantasies that did not involve children would deliberately seek out child pornography rather than pornography that catered to their existing fantasies. There’s pornographic material available online for almost every imaginable taste (see Rule 34), so I’d expect most people with non-vanilla fantasies would realize pretty quickly that they’re not alone. And if someone is not merely into non-mainstream kinks but is determined to show the world just how depraved they can be then they’re unlikely to stop at just looking at pictures.
If the only “transgressive” porn you can think of is something like child porn, you’re just not looking hard enough. There’s stuff you can find that’s not hurting children.
And if you’re so messed up that you WOULD seek out kiddy porn? You’re still a pretty messed up individual – no matter WHAT your motive is to seek it out. Even if it’s not about being attracted to kids.
It’s basically coming across as being an apologist for someone who is into child pornography - all they need is "more self-acceptance and a more loving view on sex. "
It is the same stance I have taken in other threads. The opposite stance (let the bastards rot in hell) just doesn’t seem very succesfull, as more and more “ordinary” men who have never actually abused a child
Downloading child porn IS abusing a child. I mean, wouldn’t you feel abused if someone collected pictures of you being raped? Would that not be a violation above and beyond the rape? And in any case, as mentioned above, by downloading those pictures they are creating the market for them.
Child pornography is a crime in and of itself, not because it’s a symptom or a precursor.