fake child porn

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.

 

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

---

 

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

 

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...

 

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

 

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....

 

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?

 

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?

 

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)

 

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.

 

I think first we have to define the term "child" as used in this thread.

To some, any depiction of a supposed sexual nature involving persons under the age of 18 is considered child porn.
So 15-year old Brooke Shields could not be filmed swimming naked in Blue Lagoon (of course that's in the U.S., in many counttries it's not illegal to see people under 18 naked).

I saw the European version of Pretty Baby, another Brooke Shields movie in which she appears naked for a few moments when 12 years old.
It didn't cause me, or anyone else sitting around me in the theatre to rush right out and molest a 12-year old girl.

I enjoyed the movie Terminator 3 yet I do not want to be a cyborg.

I feel that drawings of people under 18 should NOT be illegal.

 

i totally agree with last 2 posts ( alternative_thinker, rangerdanger)

 

As evident by the heat of this debate, emotions can get quite fired up on this subject. The problem is, there are two very different matters at hand.

At one end we have child pornography. Child abuse (particularly abuse of a sexual nature) is a horrendous crime, and I can't imagine anyone arguing to the contrary. At the other end is the issue of freedom of speech. Many people--myself included--are horrified by the thought of art being destroyed at the hands of overzealous fanatics, hell-bent on removing anything they don't agree with from the public domain, whether it be Eugenie de Franval, Romeo and Juliet, or the biblical story of Lot being seduced by his teenage daughters after the destruction of Saddam and Gomorrah.

 

i have not seen any of them so i cant judge . theres a difrences between young teens and actually little kids . if they are little kids then its sad . how ever if they are teens of at least 14 or 15 and above i have no problems with it.

 

theres more child abuse by parents than by actually pedos very few pedos are actually brutal with kids in comparison millions of kids get abuse and even kill by there own parents.

 

That's a good point. In two of the three examples I gave (Eugenie de Franval, and Saddam and Gomorrah) the sexual acts were between father and daughter(s).

 

A depiction of an act or person real or imagined should never be forbidden by law. You can never let them burn as much as one book. The slope is far too slippery. I include all books or pictures. Now a picture may be taken of a criminal act. In which case the picture is a clue to use to run down and convict the person who committed a criminal action. However, it is the action is the crime not the picture. If I recall correctly there were less sex crimes in societies that had more access to pornography. I think the study was on rates of adult rape but I would suspect the principal holds. Anyone who forces or courses a prepubescent child into sex should go to prison for life. We cannot cure that type of individual so if you let them out they almost always offend again. However, as distasteful as I find some photographs to be and I have often been offended by both photographs and by depictions. I just turn the page or click the box in the upper right. Nothing should be censored by the state. Nothing!

 

but droping bombs on civilians "regardless of age" is legal.

 

stay on topic.

 

There is a difference between art and porn, there is also a difference between a consenting individual,(in our state that happens to be at age 16) and a sexually exploited child(any human being under the age of consent,being depicted in any manner in any sexual way), a pornographic image depicting an exploited child is always wrong, regardless of whether its drawn, computer generated, or photographic. Anyone arguing this point to the contrary is a deeply disturbed individual.