Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

fake child porn


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#1 tiki_god7

tiki_god7

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 657 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 11:38 AM

a friend of mine had a class in which they debated an issue about child porn...wanted to hear some of your thoughts on it:

with all the advancements in computer generated images and what not some have developed child porn thats all computer generated; the generator said he did it because no pedo's can watch their child porn without the children...do you think people should be able to watch child porn if there are no real children in it? or is it just as bad?

#2 Nickmast

Nickmast

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 321 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 11:46 AM

Just as bad because it is feeding their bad habit.

#3 nesta

nesta

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 20,590 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 11:51 AM

pedophilia is a mental sickness, and the prognosis is almost always terrible. VERY VERY low success rates or advancements in treating it. do i think "artificial" child porn is inherently morally wrong? no, not moreso than any other porn. but what types of acts are we discussing, how young are we discussing, and what is the real issue here? is the issue that we dont want pedophiles looking at porn, or that we don't want pedophiles raping children?

on the one hand, artificial kiddy porn would allow them something to fantasize over, something to watch/look at, something to tantalize them without actually hurting any children. on the other hand, it could be viewed as fueling the lust for children, and could in fact lead to increased rates of assault on children. people who watch gay porn are usually people who enjoy homosexual sex. people who watch domination/bondage porn are people who usually enjoy rough sex. people who watch straight porn like hetero sex. and people who like kiddy porn like sex with children. i dont personally think the pornography is the issue, i think the mindset of wanting to sleep with children is the issue. pornography is a side issue of that, and once the children are taken out of child pornography, i'd say that the issue of pornography should take a back burner to the issue of learning how to treat pedophilia.

remember that none of this conversation relates simply to having sex with legal children, this is all relative to prepubescant kids. people are built to be attracted to each other once they're sexually maturing, and while sleeping with/creating porn with postpubescant but underage teens offers up it's own new host of moral and legal issues, it is not from a psychological standpoint "sick" or "abnormal." this issue is completely seperate from, say, having 18-20 year olds dress or make themselves up in a way that would suggest they're more along the lines of being 15-17 year olds.

however, fake CHILD pornography is nothing new. sure the computer graphics may make it easier to make it look realistic, but do some searches on the word "hentai" and you'll find a LOT of anime porn. much of this "cartoon porn" is based around things people can't really depict legally or realistically with photographs or movies, such as children performing sex acts, rape, bestiality with monsters, incest, absolutely brutal bondage/torture situations all sorts of rather twisted stuff that is every bit as "wrong" as this computer generated version of it could be. it's relatively widespread, and yet as far as i know the advent of animated pornography has not seemed to link to a rise in violent sex crimes.
Cate8 You know, currently, your profile says you are viewing the Psychedelics forum at promptly 4:20 PM. I appreciate that.

#4 daisymae

daisymae

    I'm a Rhinestone Cowboy

  • Members
  • 17,010 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 11:59 AM

If it looks real it would interfere with finding the real exploited children...too many wild goose chases. Real child porn would start getting mixed up in it, and the makers of it would strart claiming it was fake...
I think it is just as sick.

If it like that ridiculous japanimation cartoon child porn....the pedos probably wouldn't be interested in it.

Posted Image


#5 Beyond-the-Clouds

Beyond-the-Clouds

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • 1,374 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:09 PM

Yes, it should be allowed. I don't want no more laws around here. And I h8 how there's people these days that call everything different a mental illness.
Posted Image
If you wanna be cool, you gotta have a moose on your shirt.

#6 IronGoth

IronGoth

    Zyklon B Zombie

  • Members
  • 5,708 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:15 PM

Child porn, aside from being evidence of a crime and fodder for the brains of these sickos, is OFTEN used by pedos to diddle other kids.

"See Jimmy? That boy in the magazine is doing it.... see? it's OK."

Computer generated or no..... it shouldn't exist.

#7 Alternative_Thinker

Alternative_Thinker

    Darth Mysterious

  • Senior Member
  • 4,463 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:37 PM

((thought crime alert))

Pretty soon, our mere THOUGHTS will potentially put us behind bars. Nobody is being hurt, nobody is doing the hurting, and yet people are trying to find a reason to punish. I'm sorry, but I find THAT to be more disgusting than the so-called "fake child porn".

If you ask me, them "barely-legal schoolgirl" porn materials are just as guilty in the area of simulated child porn. And many guys dig that stuff. Why? Because they LOVE it. They love it because they DO have the SO-CALLED "pedophilic" tendencies, and the material is at least LEGAL. Trust me, if the legal age for those models were 12, people would still be buying that stuff. Why? Because it's LEGAL, and they can get away with it.

I'm sorry, but I'm just sick of this "child porn this", "pedophile that", sort of attitude in the world today. What is important is that children are not harmed. If someone wants to create a so-called "fake child porn", I seriously don't see any harm in it. If they are denied of even SIMULATED stimulants, they really WILL go insane.
There's Peter Pan in each of us.

#8 Beyond-the-Clouds

Beyond-the-Clouds

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • 1,374 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:39 PM

Yea, what that last guy said.
Posted Image
If you wanna be cool, you gotta have a moose on your shirt.

#9 Jorma's Branches

Jorma's Branches

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:44 PM

I would tend to think that paedofilia is a cultural offshoot of sexual freedom developing in our culture. I'm not blaming the free-lovers, I believe that repressed sexuality for so long finally produced more perverted views of sex. I also tend to believe that humanity is entering a new stage in evolution which could support theories of various forms of predation being earth's back-up for a population dramatically too large.
I have no evidence to support my claims, it's just the general pond area I think in.

#10 Beyond-the-Clouds

Beyond-the-Clouds

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • 1,374 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:47 PM

Or maby it's cause young chicks look good.
Posted Image
If you wanna be cool, you gotta have a moose on your shirt.

#11 nesta

nesta

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 20,590 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:50 PM

If you ask me, them "barely-legal schoolgirl" porn materials are just as guilty in the area of simulated child porn. And many guys dig that stuff. Why? Because they LOVE it. They love it because they DO have the SO-CALLED "pedophilic" tendencies, and the material is at least LEGAL. Trust me, if the legal age for those models were 12, people would still be buying that stuff. Why? Because it's LEGAL, and they can get away with it.

no, like i pointed out, that is NOT pedophilia. even when an 18+ year old girl is posed in such a manner as to make her appear younger (say in the ballpark of 15-17)...even if it was deliberately and intentionally done to create the appearance of a younger girl, it is NOT fake CHILD porn. CHILDREN are prepubescant, CHILDREN are not objects of sexual desire in almost any healthy and mentally sound people. once a girl or boy has reached puberty and begins to show signs of sexual maturity, it is natural and normal to be sexually attracted to them on some kind of level. when we're discussing CHILDREN (infants to very young teenage years) it's a different story entirely, whether its real children or images made to depict children that young.

personally, no, i dont think it should be criminal to make or sell this stuff. its wrong, in my opinion, but i'm not in a place to say it should be banned outright when nobody is deliberately getting hurt. besides, computer graphics have gotten better in the past few years, but they still dont generally look real. i dont think anyones really getting off on pics of a titless lara croft getting tied up and fucked.

at the same time, i think that while it may not be a "disease" or "sickness" in the pathological sense, pedophilia (again, targeting CHILDREN and not teens) is an untreatable mental state with no evidence of being changable. it seems to be as ingrained in a person's mind as sexual orientation or fetishes, and no amount of "treating" is likely to produce consistantly positive changes. this untreatable state of mind leads so often to such heinous and destructive actions that it MUST be treated as wrong. there's no such thing as a harmless baby raper. that said, i think that pornography does absolutely nothing to persuade or dissuade people from preying on children. there were pedophiles LONG before there was ANY pornography, let alone child porn. there always WILL be pedophiles, too. but child porn isn't the cause of pedophilia any more than gay porn is the cause of homosexuality. as long as no children are getting hurt or even TOUCHED OR SEEN in this material, i dont think there should be much the government can do to control it. i think that freedom of speech should cover it.

what we need to combat is people hurting children, ignorance about the issue, and we need to struggle to find some adequate form of treatment which is as fair to everyone involved as possible AND which protects society at large from sex crimes, especially those committed against kids.
Cate8 You know, currently, your profile says you are viewing the Psychedelics forum at promptly 4:20 PM. I appreciate that.

#12 wiggy

wiggy

    Bitch

  • Members
  • 3,467 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:55 PM

tikit_god are you being serious?


Do you think its ok to watch child porn of any sort or something
Posted Image

#13 Alternative_Thinker

Alternative_Thinker

    Darth Mysterious

  • Senior Member
  • 4,463 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:57 PM

Or maby it's cause young chicks look good.


See, I, as an anti-ageist, am proud to find young girls to be beautiful. I have many friends who are still in their teens, and I always tell them that they are beautiful and that they should be proud of themselves for being such wonderful people they are inside and out.

However, even gestures like THAT, to some people, are signs of pedophilia. What is sickening is not what people refer to as "pedophilia" which I don't even believe exist at this point anyway, but the attitude that no "adult" can appreciate the youthful beauty without risking being branded a "child molester".

I shudder to think just how many people have been wrongly accused of being child molesters and put into jail.
There's Peter Pan in each of us.

#14 wiggy

wiggy

    Bitch

  • Members
  • 3,467 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 01:59 PM

Damn i have read the whole thread now and there are some pretty sick people in this world and on this site
Posted Image

#15 nesta

nesta

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 20,590 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 02:01 PM

i think you're missing the point. as i've pointed out SEVERAL times, we're NOT discussing people who "appreciate" the beauty of a teenage girl. we're talking about the sick fucks who get off on watching bound eight year olds getting violated, or who get off on VIOLATING such young people.

the porn follows the preference. nobody here, afaik, is talking about webcam shots some 16 year old girl took nude for her boyfriend, we're talking about the trash that pedophiles get caught with. sexually explicit rape and torture and so on. this stuff DOES happen, and to claim that it doesnt exist is just plain ignorant.

a friend of mine went to a juvenile corrections center once. the first person he met was in there for raping a 1 year old. he was NOT arrested for "appreciating the beauty of a young girl."

my uncle just got out of jail for underage porn he claims to have not known was on his computer. there was a program (based in a part of europe with notoriously lax laws regarding child porn) on his computer that automatically dumped large amounts of pornography of all different sorts onto his computer from the internet. what he "didn't know" (i'm unsure what i think) was that there was such things as pics of elementary aged girls in S&M scenes. you still think child porn doesnt exist? you still think theres no such thing as a pedophile?

this stuff is sick and it is real. i'm not saying anyone who is attracted to "younger" girls or who appreciates nude photos of teenagers is sick and demented, i'm saying that there ARE perverts out there, there IS child porn which is entirely different from the "barely legal" type stuff, and this stuff IS a major issue. i'm all for freedom of speech unless it ends in people getting hurt. until a pedophile hurts a child directly or indirectly (such as by supporting real life child porn) he should not be incarcerated simply for being sick, but he IS still fucking sick.
Cate8 You know, currently, your profile says you are viewing the Psychedelics forum at promptly 4:20 PM. I appreciate that.

#16 Jorma's Branches

Jorma's Branches

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 398 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 02:04 PM

Before this thread continues:
As Nesta has said like ten times:
pedophilia involves the sexual predation of children, not teenage girls (that would be statutory rape most likely).

#17 Alternative_Thinker

Alternative_Thinker

    Darth Mysterious

  • Senior Member
  • 4,463 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 02:26 PM

This is to nesta...

Yes, I do see what you're saying, and I DO agree that we need to combat people who hurt children. We have that in common at least.

The thing that we need to look into is HOW we came into categorizing the attraction to children as "pedophilia", and what it is exactly.... Or, what it ISN'T. Like I said in the earlier post, I don't even believe this thing called "pedophilia" even exist any more. The reason is because we were all once attracted to children(remember your primary school crushes?) anyway, and that even when we "grow out of" such a phase, we essentially should never forget how beautiful that "Christine", or "Melissa", or whatever her name was when you were little. Just because we've become "adults" doesn't mean children are all of the sudden some disgusting creatures.

What I think IS a mental illness is "child molestation". I believe that stems from sadism, and sadism is basically when one is attracted to causing another suffer. See, there are a number of aspects that you can recognize here. One is, of course, the sadistic tendency. Another one is AGEISM. These individuals think that children are "weaker" being that can be manipulated and taken advantage of. So many children have been killed because of these sick individuals. They have no apreciation for young people, and they have no respect for them. That, to me, is muh more serious than merely finding children to be sexually attractive.

As for the topic of porn, I still believe many men will get their hands on child porn if it was legal. As it is, it isn't legal, and many guys are afraid to even talk to young girls(even when they are in their teens) for the fear of being branded "pedophiles". Being an anti-ageist and having teen friends, I have experienced such accusations myself. But what is more dangerous is them ageist adults forcing kids to think they are less of people than "adults" are, completely disregard their wishes, and still have the guts to say they "protect" children.
There's Peter Pan in each of us.

#18 tigerlily

tigerlily

    proud mama

  • Members
  • 6,835 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 02:38 PM

((thought crime alert))

Pretty soon, our mere THOUGHTS will potentially put us behind bars. Nobody is being hurt, nobody is doing the hurting, and yet people are trying to find a reason to punish. I'm sorry, but I find THAT to be more disgusting than the so-called "fake child porn".


i agree with this, and i've never thought hentai's crazy images should be made illegal, even if the actions depicted are.

nesta, you made a few points about ppl watching certain porn because that's what they like to do?... but i know straight women who like to watch women fuck each other, and like to watch men fuck each other... it doesn't mean they're going to get a sex change or that they are actually going to go out and molest a grown woman. i know ppl who get a thrill out of watching scary murder movies but aren't going to go on a murder spree themselves, or would honestly want to be chased by a serial killer. how many women do you know have rape fantasies but would probably be severely traumatized if they actually were raped? anyway, i think your logic is a little skewed.

just because somebody wants to SEE or fantasizes about something, doesn't mean they are actually going to PARTICIPATE. and i'm refering to pretend images, or those of consenting adults, here, so that any actors/cartoons/animals aren't being harmed in the process.

there are a lot of issues with real live porn between adults (children aren't the only ones who can be taken advantage of), so honestly i think taking a more imaginative, animated look at it could be a good thing, because the chances of somebody being harmed are down to.. well, about zero. and more fantasies can be "lived out" through animation. there is so much more freedom for one's imagination through this medium.

i'm not arguing with your stance on finding treatment for those with mental problems... i wish we could find cures for it, i'm sure it would make pedophiles' lives much easier if they could take a pill and be cured of their sexual attraction towards children. but don't mistake pedophilia with child molestation. people who rape others (children or not) don't do it because they want to have intimacy, they do it because they want control and power and choose not to (or can't) control those urges.

blah, so to answer the first question, no i don't think it's wrong to create pretend images depicting child porn. my only beef would be if they were actually very real looking, and so would cause problems like those that daisymae was talking about.
You grabbed my hand and we fell into it, like a daydream... or a fever.

#19 rmorgan

rmorgan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 724 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 02:48 PM

What do you guys think about fictional novels in which underage people have sex? Should those books be banned?

#20 Alternative_Thinker

Alternative_Thinker

    Darth Mysterious

  • Senior Member
  • 4,463 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 03:16 PM

Cheers, tigerlily! *wipes tears*

And rmorgan... You raise a great point. There are book by an auther, Nancy Friday, which talk about women's masturbatory fantasies, and these include childhood sexuality/fantasies. While some of them are fictional, some are also based on true accounts. I believe these book are banned in some places, but I have a couple of them, since I bought them in a country that didn't ban these enlightening books. And these THOUSANDS of women are saying they are turned on by these books and masturbate to them, so you gotta wonder if THEY are branded "pedophiles" too now.
There's Peter Pan in each of us.

#21 nesta

nesta

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 20,590 posts

Posted December 15 2005 - 08:23 PM

i'm aware that people do occasionally enjoy watching porn depicting acts they wouldnt normally engage in (hell, i'm not going to lie, i have a dvd or two with some anal on it...but the idea of really doing it doesnt honestly ever get too seriously thought of) but i think there is a big difference in straight people enjoying watching homosexual porn and people who like sex with adults watching eight year olds have sex with old men. the reason that this is wrong is because most children simply haven't the maturity (physically or emotionally) to safely engage in sex acts, they haven't the mental or emotional stability to engage in sex acts, and they lack the maturity to offer them the capacity to genuinely consent to what they're doing. whether the child in the photo is being raped, being coerced ("seduced") into sex, or simply being made to dress in skimpy lingerie and spread their legs without ever having a hand laid on them, they are in a position they SHOULD NOT be in. i agree we can't simply make it illegal to have DESIRES such as this, but when it comes to actually performing such activities with such young people we have to draw a line, because i bet you at LEAST 90% if not more of the "models" featured in kiddy porn are being severely abused and are not generally happy with their situation. if they ARE willing, its something that they will carry with them for the rest of their lives and almost certainly will be ashamed of or emotionally damaged by.

once you cross the barrier into the post-pubescant section of minors, i by no means find such pornography distasteful or immoral, so long as the models are genuinely consenting. however, we are STILL talking about young people who have a LOT of growing up to do and should not have to worry about such matters until they're older. while i dont think this type of stuff is particularly sick or twisted, i do agree that underage pornography of any type should be banned simply to protect the boys and girls that would end up in it. if they are genuinely consenting and all for it, they've got plenty of time to still look young once they're 18. i do think that laws regarding such matters should take into account the model's age as well as the acts depicted. i dont think an 18-20 year old guy should be put in jail because his 17 year old girlfriend sent him an explicit nude picture on the computer.

like i said, i dont think it would be right to make it illegal simply to have desires, but that you need to draw the line when someone is getting hurt or put in a severely compromising situation, so all kiddy porn (and even porn depicting minors who are sexually mature) should be banned. however, "artificial" kiddy porn is not directly or indirectly hurting anybody. it does nothing to fuel a desire for children, and does nothing to directly hurt children. we have no evidence to support the idea that increased amounts of child porn lead to increased instances of child abuse, so i dont think there's any way to look at it that should make it illegal. gross, yes, immoral, perhaps....illegal, no.

just my thoughts. i probably won't change anyone's mind and its not like we're the congress anyway, so i guess my opinion doesnt matter much...thought i'd share it though.
Cate8 You know, currently, your profile says you are viewing the Psychedelics forum at promptly 4:20 PM. I appreciate that.

#22 dangermoose

dangermoose

    Is a daddy

  • Members
  • 6,138 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 12:54 AM

i agree with a lot of what nesta and A_T said. Tigerlily aswell of course ;)
Rmorgan, i do NOT think those books should be banned, i don't think anybooks should be banned except 'how to make a nuclear bomb' kind of books...and even then, in the name of free speech, i shouldn't want them banned, but i do...
at anyrate, here is a a part of a post i made on another forum, and have brought up here on these forums a couple times in other posts:
---
i can't support any law like that...
ACTUALLY...canada has its own troubles in the law department in regards to child pornography. Now don't get me wrong, I, in no way support the use, production or sharing of child pornography and support the laws that govern it. But what i object to is its deffinition...anything that depicts a minor in a sexual situation is deemed to be child porn...which is fine except that fact that the wording of the law allows it so that hand drawn pictures can be considered child porn. if i draw a picture of ther Simpsons where lisa (who's character is set to be in the 4th) is sucking off bart (who's in the third) then it can be considered child porn. Toon porn is all over the net and anyone who has seen it with any cartoon characters that appear to be under the age of 18 (anime anyone? all those girls look 14) is subject to being registered as a sex offender. Write a dirty story about you and your 16 year old gf, even though your only 15? yep, thats child porn too. Have a diary of your first sexual experience? better hope you were over the age of 18...
It all stems from a case in B.C. where a male (i think who was a teacher at one point) had hsi comp seized and a bunch of erotic stories and some child porn was found on it...there weren't many pics but there were lots of stories, however the prosocuter could only charge him minimally since at the time the stories weren't admissable as child porn. of course there was a knee jerk uproar from our conservative minded dignified sensibilities Rolling Eyes and so a law was promptly put in place to ensure that no such travesty happened again...imagine, writting a story that people are uncomfortable with and NOT getting arrested for it, how absurd! (note the sarcasm)
at anyrate, my point is, that was a law that was 'intended' to make child porn laws stiffer but has brought the general populace at large into its all too expansive folds of power.
in an age of secret incarcerations, secret detention camps, unfounded terrorism allegation and the like it shouldbt be too far fetched to assume that this power and these laws coudl be used agiaasnt people the curent goverment would prefer to defame or silence...who's gonna accept critisim of a government from a 'registered sex offender' or a 'suspected terrorist'

okay...um...yes...im done my rant now

---

#23 Crimson

Crimson

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 326 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 08:22 AM

I would tend to think that paedofilia is a cultural offshoot of sexual freedom developing in our culture. I'm not blaming the free-lovers, I believe that repressed sexuality for so long finally produced more perverted views of sex. I also tend to believe that humanity is entering a new stage in evolution which could support theories of various forms of predation being earth's back-up for a population dramatically too large.
I have no evidence to support my claims, it's just the general pond area I think in.


Im sorry but that is complete and utter bullshit!!... my sister was rapped at the age of 5 by my father.. and you clam thats sexual evolution.. fuck you!.. how is a kid 5 yrs old gonna even know what sex it.. they are not mentally or phyicaly mature for that kind of activity.. so to even suggest that is sexual evolution is complete and utter bullshit and is a poor and wrong deffense for a sick obsession

#24 ShuggaMagnolia

ShuggaMagnolia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 09:00 AM

Anything that depicts a minor in a sexual act is illegal, regardless of media, that means drawings,computer generated images, anything, and those of you on here who have said its not as bad or "Pretty soon, our mere THOUGHTS will potentially put us behind bars. Nobody is being hurt, nobody is doing the hurting, and yet people are trying to find a reason to punish. I'm sorry, but I find THAT to be more disgusting than the so-called "fake child porn"." are disgusting. People who look at the fake child porn or any child porn are perpetuating this problem and anyone who even comes close to justifying these disturbing behaviors is not someone who should be on these forums.
These people who look at children are the same people who rape. I know adult victims of this sort of abuse and their lives are permenently tarnished by their incident, all for some sub-human's sick pleasure. ANYONE who can look at ANY depiction of a child and get off does not deserve their life any longer. I am an extremely peaceful person, but some things even a hippie would kill another man over... my fiance feels the same way...

#25 rmorgan

rmorgan

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 724 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 11:02 AM

Anything that depicts a minor in a sexual act is illegal, regardless of media, that means drawings,computer generated images, anything

How 'bout informing yourself before you start running your mouth.

#26 tiki_god7

tiki_god7

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 657 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 11:25 AM

I think a lot of people misunderstood my motives for this thread....I was asking if you think its right that a group of people (congress) can tell us not to watch something that is animated or computer generated..until these animations grow a mind of their own and are able to tell us they are being victimized then there is no victim....now I'm not saying that I advocate or am into any(as some have presumed) I'm merely asking if you think that somebody or somebodies should be able to tell you that you can't do it....

#27 paintitblack

paintitblack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 11:41 AM

in fake child porn there are no real children so No Real children are harmed. can't see anything wrong with that.

does action movies make you want to kill? does marilyn manson's so called poetry make you want to commit a suicide? does fake child porn make you want to go and fuck some children?

#28 ShuggaMagnolia

ShuggaMagnolia

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 68 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 01:16 PM

For some people it does, and obviously it does if you want to look at children in that way,also your analogies are very poor, how about this one, If you look at porn with black women in it, does it make you want to go and have sex with them? yes, because that is what you happen to be into, if you are a man and like looking at guys masturbate, does that mean you want to have relations with men, most probable, as that is one's sexual appetite, if you like looking at children, you are into children, and want to have sex with children, read a pyschology book before you respond to this thread again, thank you.<<<to paintitblack.
To rmoron, generally sex crimes are taken care of at a state level, cases only go to the federal level, (duh duh duh, supreme court), in cases of international law, high profile cases,and appealed cases, which first must be taken through,*drum roll*,state circuit court.....all the states that I know of considers,"Anything that depicts a minor in a sexual act"or in any sexual manner,(ie. nude) illegal. I am informed, maybe you are the one who should stop running her mouth, eh?

#29 paintitblack

paintitblack

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 352 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 06:32 PM

you have to be really fucked up to go and have sex with children, and no fake child porn video will mess up your brain so bad or inspire you so deeply.

i'm sure you want to say that maybe some guy who Is very fucked up and obsessed already sees fake child porn and get's inspired - but you understand in this case ( we are talking about mentally ill and extreemly unstabile person who can't see the difference between right and wrong, cos he is so obsessed) ) anything can be the last drop, inspiration, A N Y T H I N G that has even the smallest lead to his kink.



(actually i've read plenty of psychology books, when i took psychology courses. i'm sry i haven't taken enough english courses to make myself more clear)

#30 Alternative_Thinker

Alternative_Thinker

    Darth Mysterious

  • Senior Member
  • 4,463 posts

Posted December 16 2005 - 06:44 PM

I'm sorry, Shugga... But your opinion is excessively biased, and also contradicting. You say, "for SOME people", action movies induce killing urges. You say, "for SOME people", Marilyn Manson's poetry is a reason to commit suicide. But you make it sound as though "ALL" people who are attracted to children are automatically some kind of predetors who go on a child raping spree. VERY poor analogy, if I may. Have you thought about people with NON-"pedophilic" tendencies mercilessly raping and killing children? Trust me, THESE are more often what kind of criminals we are up against... Yet, just look how you and your trusty legal systems categorize ALL child molesters/rapists as one thing. How many more innocent people are you planning to send to jail just because they "THOUGHT" of so-called "minors" in a sexual way?

Also, you say ANYTHING that depicts a minor in a sexual situation is illegal. Well, have you seen films like American Pie, Kids, Fast Times At Ridgemont High, and anything else that depicts "minors" in such situations? The aforementioned are ALL LEGAL. How about parents who take photographs of their children in the bath tub? You say "in any SEXUAL manner(ie. NUDE)", correct?. Are the ancient paintings that DEPICT "NUDE" children such as naked angels also illegal in your mind? Are you even aware that there IS at least one ancient painting of the newborn(quite possibly Jesus) with an erection, AND STILL considered as a magnificent work by many critics? Or, are those nudist children all of the sudden "abused" and "molested" just because they are comfortable with their bodies and happy to pose for the camera?

By the way, I appreciate your quoting me in your earlier post. Apparently I'm disgusting according to your severely lacking analysis. You make it sound as though I somehow harm children when it's the very thing that I'm strongly against. You make a great example of a person who jump to conclusions without carefully considering a situation. I would strongly suggest looking into this matter DEEPLY and tackling it FROM AS MANY DIFFERENT ANGLES as you can, before coming to a conclusion. If you were anything like me, you would be disturbed to find some critical flaws in today's legal systems regarding the issues of the so-called "pedophilia", so-called "child porn", and so-called "child molestation". You would then be able to see that a large portion of what we have been told by society regarding these issues have been based on INCONCLUSIVE data, and there is NO WAY to go back and research such critical matters now with the current laws(which are flawed). But then, you probably wouldn't.
There's Peter Pan in each of us.