Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

reply to post by jmdewey60

Anyway, legal animation is not a hypothetical. If it is causing harm, we should be able to find evidence of it. Japan, where this stuff comes from, will probably see a population decline because they loose interest in real sex. Why go to all that trouble when you can fantasize for a low amount of money? If anything, porn leads to less sex.

I’m against child porn. Period. I don't approve of grown men interacting with little girls or little boys. I’m surprised several studies have not already been done. We surely have populations of adequate size to support meaningful research.

But suppose it was found to be harmless. I still don’t like it. To me it is no better an activity that necrophilia. Or if you don’t like cadavers, then bestiality. I cannot call up a descriptive word other than SICK and maybe just DISGUSTING.

I think it - child porn - is an anti-social behavior that practitioners of should try to avoid. Take the cure! I don’t see prison as the cure for disagreeable social habits. Nor do I support lengthy prison terms. All too often we tend to make anything we don’t like against the law, and if that does not stop it, we double the penalty. For us, that is about as educated as we want to be on crime.

Originally posted by donwhite
But suppose it was found to be harmless. I still don’t like it. To me it is no better an activity that necrophilia. Or if you don’t like cadavers, then bestiality. I cannot call up a descriptive word other than SICK and maybe just DISGUSTING.

Emphasis mine.

So if it stopped a real child being abused you would disallow it just because you didn't like it? Wouldn't that make you partly responsible for that childs abuse? Just like supporters of the death penatly are partly responsible for each death.

Originally posted by donwhite
I think it - child porn - is an anti-social behavior that practitioners of should try to avoid. Take the cure! I don’t see prison as the cure for disagreeable social habits. Nor do I support lengthy prison terms. All too often we tend to make anything we don’t like against the law, and if that does not stop it, we double the penalty. For us, that is about as educated as we want to be on crime.

Emphasis mine.

There is no cure, no study has yet shown a cure of a person who likes children ina sexual manner. It's like saying you can cure a gay person. If someone acts upon their impulse to abuse children yes i think they should go to prison for life until someone finds a cure that works 100% of the time.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


OK, OK. If you believe it should be ban why don't we try to come up with how the legislation should read. What exactly should be illegal? How would a cartoon be deemed as underage? We have seen the problems when laws are written ambiguously. I don't expect a reply to this post as I think when one tries to determine how to regulate such a policy one would realize that it is impossible.

Originally posted by harvib
reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

 

OK, OK. If you believe it should be ban why don't we try to come up with how the legislation should read. What exactly should be illegal? How would a cartoon be deemed as underage? We have seen the problems when laws are written ambiguously.

Why do i suspect some sort of collaborative effort here?



How about;

Stop trying to make things illegal.

Like i said before, no one wants to put anyone in prison.

I do recall a certain instance, of ol' victorian times, whereby women were not allowed out of the house without a male escort to accompany her, and this social norm was obviously in place in order to protect women (originally), until later when people started to wonder why it was so nessecary to protect themselves in our western, democratic, civilised society.

Perhaps this same mentality could be applied to children - already people drive their kids to and from school, and during school hours they are generally under the supervision of the school faculty, but in the afternoons the world is their oyster, so to speak.

You have to ask yourself;

How far is a pedophile willing to go to slake his obssession?

Far enough to enter someone's home when they're still in it?

This is the first part of a two-step plan, and obviously, this problem requires a crude methodology of dealing with it - you can ask why if you like.

The second part is removing the elements of society which are putting these ideas in the heads of these people, and yes - it's all well and good saying that animated child-pornography can be a good thing for some recovering pedophiles, but it does little to actually deal with the pedophiles whom are already "At-large" as it were.

As such, it is nessecary to take drastic action.

Imagine, if you will, two people;

One person is your average joe, and the other is a pedophile.

Both watch pornography (probably), but in the case of the pedophile pornography isn't good enough for him.

He has to take things one step further.

The words "Ruin things for the rest of us" springs to mind.

Of course, no one wants to ruin/do away with a good thing/something they like, so people are being ignorant of the fact that pornography does lead on to more and more debased acts of self-gratification with certain people.

I could hit them, i really could.

You could say the second part is about nothing more than informing people, really.


[edit on 30-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

[edit on 30-6-2008 by Anti-Tyrant]

Oh, i'm sorry, did i say something that contradicts the way you look at the issue?

I assure you, it was going to happen sooner or later, and if not from me, then someone else.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant

Why do i suspect some sort of collaborative effort here?

Why do you?

The second part is removing the elements of society which are putting these ideas in the heads of these people, and yes

So back to my original question. How would you write that peice of legislation. What exactly are you making illegal? And how do you define it?

reply to post by harvib


I asked you first, but i suppose it's only fair for me to answer you question out of the goodness of my heart, or something like that.

Even if you are not asking someone else whether they would like you to make some input, you are still collaborating with me over this issue.

So, paranoia or no, you're still acting as part of a collaborative effort.

In response to your question;

You're still looking at it from a very narrow-minded perspective.

You don't need legislation, the only thing that serves to do is to heighten the anticipation of the occurance of crime.

What you need is for people to agree, and to move forward.

Relying on legislation is a sure-fire way to digging this society's grave.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

There is no cure, no study has yet shown a cure of a person who likes children in a sexual manner. It's like saying you can cure a gay person. If someone acts upon their impulse to abuse children yes I think they should go to prison for life until someone finds a cure that works 100% of the time.

I am not well read on this topic. I have to rely on anecdotal evidence and unsupported generalized conclusions. I am curious why I have not read or heard of this before, “ . . no study has yet shown a cure . . “ for pedophiles. I can neither admit nor deny the accuracy of that statement. It’s just that I’m curious why I had to wait until 2008 to hear it.

For me, I would put no one in prison there to die. Every one deserves an exit date. For years I have advocated for shorter sentences. My home state, KY, had a rule that all sentences over 40 years including a life sentence, would be treated as a 40 year sentence for parole purposes. In those good old days, everyone was ELIGIBLE for parole after serving 20% of his sentence. Punishment was civilized. An aurora of mutual respect can be fostered when people are treated fairly and humanely. And it costs the good guys nothing.

We do not ask anything human to work 100% of the time. If that is the rule, then we ought to save our money looking for answers when there is nothing that works 100% of the time. But that is really not the issue. That is an expression of frustration. I feel frustrated too. But I don't put impossible requirement on finding solutions.

I hate the current parole process. I hate the word REMORSE. It should neither add to nor take away from crime or punishment. On what grounds do we insist on a parolee showing “REMORSE” whatever that is. Rather, parole should be an incentive for correct conduct during incarceration. It’s purely an economic consideration. Good prisoners require fewer guards which equals less tax money spent on prisons. other words I hate are victim and closure.

The president just signed his LAST supplemental request for WAR money, $162 b. It is frequently said we have spent over a half trillion dollars on Iraq and Afghan and we may well spend another half trillion dollars trying to get out of those 2 places. A half t. divided equally in Iraq is $20,000 per person, man, woman and child. Would not the 4,113 KIA think it would have been better to have paid the Iraqi that much to change their government, to hold an election every year, to convert to Christianity and to become devotees to the Free Market theory? But alas, we cannot ask them.

So if it stopped a real child being abused you would disallow it just because you didn't like it? Wouldn't that make you partly responsible for that child’s abuse? Just like supporters of the death penally are partly responsible for each death.

Yes, I’d still stop it. OTOH it is TOO much of a leap to connect my prohibiting “child pron” to contributing to the abuse of a child by a pedophile. Correlation is not causation.

It is true that our actions have consequences and we must be aware of that and willing to accept blame. Been in the Army National Guard and the Air Force. Finished college. So yes, I feel like a normal person.

My intuition tells me there is something NOT RIGHT with those who practice pedophilia or get sexually excited around children. But as long as we have a Constitution I will not consent to locking up a person for what he IS and not for what he has DONE. Yes, I oppose registering sexual predators. If the public wants to do that, then they should amend the Constitution to make it legal. It cannot be legal today.

[edit on 6/30/2008 by donwhite]

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Why do i suspect some sort of collaborative effort here?

With whom is this person collaborating? Throwing such alligations around is quite wrong, if you do so i could randomly accuse you of collaborating with any number of people. Keep it civil.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Like i said before, no one wants to put anyone in prison.

Really? I want to put murderers, predatory paedophiles and rapists in prison.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
You have to ask yourself;

How far is a pedophile willing to go to slake his obssession?

Far enough to enter someone's home when they're still in it?

Some paedophiles have, paedophiles who are that predatory will always find a way.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

The second part is removing the elements of society which are putting these ideas in the heads of these people, and yes - it's all well and good saying that animated child-pornography can be a good thing for some recovering pedophiles, but it does little to actually deal with the pedophiles whom are already "At-large" as it were.

As such, it is nessecary to take drastic action.

Which elements are these? You don't get it do you, this is a sexuality just like being straight or gay, not something you can stop happening. That's what the studies suggest, the few i've ever been able to find.

The drastic action to take against those "at large" as you put it would be to lick them up. At large paedophiles are i assume the ones you mean who actually carry out their abuse, sorry but these people should be removed from society, by the careful investigation of the online groups and infiltration of them by law enforcment officials.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Of course, no one wants to ruin/do away with a good thing/something they like, so people are being ignorant of the fact that pornography does lead on to more and more debased acts of self-gratification with certain people.

I could hit them, i really could.

You could say the second part is about nothing more than informing people, really.

So you're saying a paedophile develops by watching normal porn and going onto the sickest child porn? Are you joking? Paedophiles were always paedophiles, every one of them will tell you that and someone i know, a prison guard, has talked with them over such things. They always had an attraction to children, it's like their sexual development got retarded somehow.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

With whom is this person collaborating? Throwing such alligations around is quite wrong, if you do so i could randomly accuse you of collaborating with any number of people. Keep it civil.

I did, and i'll ask the same of you.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Really? I want to put murderers, predatory paedophiles and rapists in prison.

That's nice.

What're you going to do when there's no more murderers, predatory paedophiles and rapists to put in prison?

Your mentality is self-defeating.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Some paedophiles have, paedophiles who are that predatory will always find a way.

Correct, which is why vigilance is essential.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Which elements are these? You don't get it do you, this is a sexuality just like being straight or gay, not something you can stop happening. That's what the studies suggest, the few i've ever been able to find.

The drastic action to take against those "at large" as you put it would be to lick them up. At large paedophiles are i assume the ones you mean who actually carry out their abuse, sorry but these people should be removed from society, by the careful investigation of the online groups and infiltration of them by law enforcment officials.

Ah, some meat!

You say it's not something i can stop from happening, and that is also self-defeating.

You have to be prepared to finish the job you started.

Which is why i don't intend to do anything until i'm certain i have people willing to help.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

So you're saying a paedophile develops by watching normal porn and going onto the sickest child porn? Are you joking? Paedophiles were always paedophiles, every one of them will tell you that and someone i know, a prison guard, has talked with them over such things. They always had an attraction to children, it's like their sexual development got retarded somehow.

Congrats, you've managed to ignore the part where i said "With certain people".

Perhaps they merely watched one too many films with explicit nudity in them when they were kids or something, and translated what they saw on film to people their own age.

There are reasons for the legislations we have in society, but those legislations are pointless if people aren't going to adhere to them.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

I did, and i'll ask the same of you.

I have been perfectly civil, i was asking you dn't make baseless accusations, that's as civil as it gets.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
That's nice.

What're you going to do when there's no more murderers, predatory paedophiles and rapists to put in prison?

Your mentality is self-defeating.

Self defeating how? When there are no more i would stop, i wish for such a world i truly do.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Ah, some meat!

You say it's not something i can stop from happening, and that is also self-defeating.

You have to be prepared to finish the job you started.

Which is why i don't intend to do anything until i'm certain i have people willing to help.

I'm confused, please tell me what you intend to do, you could at least give me a heads up, maybe i'd agree. Do it by PM if you're nervous.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant

Congrats, you've managed to ignore the part where i said "With certain people".

I didn't miss that bit, i assumed you'd take what i said afterwards to be in regards to your comment. Forgive me for not using the word some, i honestly thought you'd realise i meant it in that vain.

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Perhaps they merely watched one too many films with explicit nudity in them when they were kids or something, and translated what they saw on film to people their own age.

There are reasons for the legislations we have in society, but those legislations are pointless if people aren't going to adhere to them.

There are many more reasons than that theorised for paedophiles. You are being far to simplistic, your idea of banning porn wouldn't stop these people i promise you that and the few studies i've ever found tend to agree.

[edit on 30-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I see.

I take it then, you would not be willing to try and stop child pornography no matter the cost?

Obviously, i would like it if we could find a way to reverse the process these people put themselves under, and perhaps there are ways it can be done - simply showing a pedophile how the society we live in has effected him in a negative way may be enough for some.

It is important to always be looking for new alternatives.

I am under no illusions, however, that there are those who cannot be saved from their own foul desires, no matter what i do.

It is these people which cause me to contemplate the worst.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Self defeating how? When there are no more i would stop, i wish for such a world i truly do.
[edit on 30-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Indeed, then i ask one question;

There are people out there who get away with murder, with rape, with child abuse, and they are never put in prison despite their crimes.

Does this anger you?

You defenders of this garbage are still definding on the basis of "art" or that it is no different from games/movies doing drugs or commiting murder.

There is a big difference that you have been over looking. Sex is a powerful basic instinct in all of us, doing drugs & commiting murder is not!

Therefore we do not get the urge to go out an commit murder by watching it in movies.
Whereas watching porn does stimulate the sex urge.
No one plays at pretend murder while watching a bloody violent movie.
Can any of you porn watchers say that you do not play at sex while watching porn????

Andrew Wiggin says: "....yeah. And we could also club our women with the T-rex bone and drag her by her hair back to the cave. "

****That is precisely the attitude that gave rise to all manner of trading in female flesh. This is the same attitude that has kep women in servitude as sex toys and incubators. There is no defence for this. All you are doing is defending your own sexual fetishes at the expense of women in general. It is men who have degraded women. They didn't do it themselves; you pushed them.

Ah yes, the Law. Written by whom? MEN!! They twist it and rationalize it, but at all costs defend their own interests. Never have they considered the cost to women in general. Never do they see how demeaning this is. Never do they see the cost to human society and its development.

There is no redeeming social value to any of it regardless of the age of the participants;. women who consented because they have learned to think of themselves as sex toys after many generations of subjugation.
Porn flourishes because men think of them as sex toys and do not respect them. And you extend your protection to pedo/molesters so they can have the same pleasures.

jadette, just exactly what is socially redeeming about erotic art? It is just something else to feed the male fetish. Socially redeeming - yeah right.

And really, can you or can you not depict & distinguish between a female child and a female adult? Lets not get into the 16 YO vs the 18 YO; that is just another diversion from the point of the argument. If the 16 YO looks 18 or older do any of you think the pedo/molester would be as interested?

I can't wait to hear all the self-righteous indignation from all you emotional retards who think with your wee wee.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


I am confused. I think I may have misunderstood your position. Weren't you calling to ban it? I think we may be on the same side of the issue?

reply to post by OhZone



I hope I am not being classified as defending this type of material. I don't. I think it is an indication of a very sick individual indeed. My only question is this: What exactly are people calling to be made illegal. Animate child porn is too ambigous of a term for reasons previously sited by myself and others. It has to be defined. It is determining a definition that is going to be the problem. IMHO

reply to post by harvib


A ban is a means to an end, but alone the ban means little.

Can society operate in a peaceful manner without the ever-watchful gaze of the law?

I want to believe it can.

I can force myself to, if i want.

All too often in modern society we fall back on the law as our saviour.

It isn't working.

And why?

Because people have little regard for the law.

reply to post by Anti-Tyrant


What exactly is your position then? What do you believe the solution is? I am very confused by you.

reply to post by harvib

OK, OK. If you believe it should be ban why don't we try to come up with how the legislation should read. What exactly should be illegal? How would a cartoon be deemed as underage? We have seen the problems when laws are written ambiguously. I don't expect a reply to this post as I think when one tries to determine how to regulate such a policy one would realize that it is impossible.

A statute to regulate the manufacture, ownership, use and possession of certain human-like pictorial representations in real or virtual reality.

Title 1. Definitions

Subsection 1A. Manufacture means to create or assemble an original drawing whether or not computer assisted, which depicts a human being in whole or in part and at any stages of life until said original depiction is of a human being apparently more than 18 years of age.

Subsection 1B. In any case where the age is not immediately apparent, it is to be assumed the depiction is under the age of 18 years until proof shows otherwise.

Subsection 2. Ownership means any person, firm, or other legal entity that possess all the rights, title, interests and privileges associated with an inanimate or virtual object belonging to that person.

Subsection 3. Use means employed for any purpose of for no purpose, when the pictorial representations can be viewed, copied, stored or otherwise transferred or are visible to a natural person or could be visible to a natural person if present and viewing the pictorial representations.

Subsection 4A. Possession means actual care, custody and control. Where a covered object exists in the virtual world, then whatever devices contain all or part of said depictions or are capable of acquiring same by the completion of one additional step, are considered to have care, custody and control over the whole of the depiction(s).

Subsection 4B. A person shall not be deemed to be in possession on showing that another person without his knowledge, encouragement or consent has loaded or transferred all of part ot the subject objects to device(s) otherwise normally in his possession.

Title 2. Prohibited Actions

Subsection 1. It shall be unlawful for any person to create, alter, modify, or otherwise bring into existence A) a representation in the real of virtual world, of a person under the age of 18 years or apparently under the age of 18 years, which person shall not be fully clothed and engaged in ordinary activities normally done in public.

Subsection 2. Violations of Title 2 shall be punished as follows:

A) First offense shall be treated as a misdemeanor, and carries a sentence of incarceration for not more than 12 months in a jail; a fine of not more than $5,000.00 or both.

B) Second offenses shall be treated as a felony and carry a sentence of up to 5 years in prison’ a fine of not more than $50,000.00 or both.

C) Aiding or abetting or conspiring to aid and abet shall be punished as a misdemeanor and a sentence of inceration for not more than 180 days in a jail; a fine of not more than $2,500.00 or both.

Originally posted by OhZone
jadette, just exactly what is socially redeeming about erotic art? It is just something else to feed the male fetish. Socially redeeming - yeah right.

I think your statement reflects an attitude that tells you think you sex is 'naughty', and that sex is 'wrong. I'd argue that sex is natural, good for you, and healthy.

As you said, Sex has a very strong impact on people, and that's because it's a very intregal, primal and NATURAL part of being a human being.

There's nothing wrong with enjoying sex. There's nothing wrong with acknowledging that; as with all such things, like wonder, love, intellect, beauty, it also has an impact on art. Art is a statement about life. Sex is just as valid a part of life experience as any other.

Originally posted by OhZone
And really, can you or can you not depict & distinguish between a female child and a female adult? Lets not get into the 16 YO vs the 18 YO; that is just another diversion from the point of the argument. If the 16 YO looks 18 or older do any of you think the pedo/molester would be as interested?

And yet, the crux of the issue IS the very thing you wish to simply dismiss as a 'diversion'. Because no, I cannot tell the difference between a female 'child' and a female 'adult'. Not when the law defines that AS the value between 16 and 18. Did you look at any of the drawings I posted? Could you in good faith tell me which were 'of age' and which were not? Could you define a list to guide an artist? Or would it in the end be this ridiculous yardstick of "Well they're underage because I think they are" value?

Originally posted by OhZoneI can't wait to hear all the self-righteous indignation from all you emotional retards who think with your wee wee.

And yet, I assure you that in no way do my feelings about this issue have anything to do with any 'thinking with my weewee'.

Can we have a mature discussion here? Because I think insulting posters, implying that if we don't think like you do, we're 'retarded', isn't conducive to good debate, and even against the rules.

I think what I, and some others are trying to say, is beyond the issue of 'child porn is bad, m'kay"(because I don't think ANYONE here is arguing that child porn is okay), that there are other issues that are important, such as thought policing.

I am /very/ uncomfortable with the idea of convicting someone when no crime has been committed.

If we remove art that might have the possiblity of making someone think about having sex with children, then, shouldn't we ban all naked drawings? After all, the person could take a pencil and draw a child's face on it. Heck, ban pencils, because you know, a pedo might just sit around and draw naked cherubs and masterbate! There are so many things that border on the absurd about this, that I cannot believe that people want to consider legistation over this.

Sure, there's arguments to be made about public obscenity, and we have rules (often debated, yes) about that, and violence too, but that's not the topic of this discussion.