It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

page: 16
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Some facts on paedophilia

www.registeredoffenderslist.org...

Incest and paedophilia is an assault on a child who cannot say no, in many ways carton pictures of this will only reinforce the idea that it is normal as many who commit these crimes do.
Could it also encourage some who would never have become a paedophile and who perhapes looked in out of curiosity or by mistake.
Maybe the numbers are growing because nowadays here in the UK if a male of 20 has sex with a very mature 14 year old he is classed as a phaedophile.
Whoever makes these films has to be warped.




posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


Wow this really is a tough one.

And I might add a really good question too.

I'm not a psychiatrist and I say this just as a member of the public:

I think that paedophilia is a sick and deprived , mental sickness, and even if there are good reasons for this animated crap to be made legal, I don't care, I just want it banned and made illegal. Even if ONE child goes on to be abused after someone was allowed to view this, that is ONE child too many.

Yes I know conversely it may SAVE children from being abused, but I think the risk of more children being abused are far greater than the chances of children being prevented from being abused to make further images.

I do agree that we have to do more to treat paedophiles before they act on their sick desires, but that's another issue.

Hope this helped, S+F by the way.

Kiwi.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   
reply to post by silo13
 


It really would take a very indepth psychological study to determine the effects (there might already be one, I wouldn't be surprised) of animated pedophilia on a pedophile. It's very hard to determine. Obviously, they couldnt pass out animated kiddy porn and see how many people rape children after seeing it..

Lets say the pedophile tugs the paper boy inside and then commits a crime. Would he have done it anyway? without a physical visual would he have still fantasized?



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Miraj
 


Paedophiles who commit crimes are always going to do so. It's a different mental set, the difference between people who fantasize about robbing a bank but never do. For the ones who never do, the images may be a release which stops them building up tension and commiting abuse or simple violence.



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 04:53 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


I agree.. Its just what they are, no matter how sick and demented. And people might come across animated kiddy porn on the internet (It's all over) and they might just keep flipping through what there is. If they just happened to view it, does it mean they should be arrested and put on a sex offenders list?

Theres so many implications of it. Should they ban porno actors from wearing school girl outfits and having pig tails?
Probably theres a lot of people that get turned on by things like that, but they would never go so far as to rape a child or another person.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Miraj]



posted on May, 25 2009 @ 05:02 PM
link   
They want to ban everything no matter how stupid it is.

would this be Animated Child Pornography. its censored but you get the idea.
farm3.static.flickr.com...




posted on May, 26 2009 @ 10:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANNED
They want to ban everything no matter how stupid it is.

would this be Animated Child Pornography. its censored but you get the idea.
farm3.static.flickr.com...



Forgive me but when it comes to a topic like this i won't be clicking that link. Imbed the image if you can.



posted on May, 26 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
100 % Ban It...for sure there is absolutly no reason and no place
for those garbages to be be expose and available on the net



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by - A 13 -
 


Freedom of speech does not exist for the whims and the pleasure of you and your friends. Freedom of speech is not guaranteed for the "Difference of Opinion" and the matters of Taste.

Freedom of Speech is for the kinds of things you find deplorable, disgusting, perverse, rage-inducing and worthy of murder.

To ban something artificial, wherein no victims reside, is to undermine your rights and freedoms for temporary protections. To create a subsection of criminal whose crimes are only their THOUGHTS is the most shameful and degrading position an American can take.

To think that so many have died just so you and others like you can go and throw all the hard efforts away is the greatest of tragedies.

All for your momentary sense of morality and righteousness, biased and colored by the culture that poisoned your mind and shaped you into a clone of other moralists.

I defend the Pedophiles. I defend those that view "Artificial" child pornography. I defend any, and all, whose persecution is presaged and packaged by the pugilists of pariah pretenders. Those who've done no harm to anyone deserve my life, no matter how you believe that might paint me.

I find men who always keep good company to be men of little ideal and even less principal, for their comforts keep their world view unchallenged.

I exist to step on them.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:02 PM
link   
It's a victimless crime in and of itself, really, to have animated child pornography. The problems arise when there is real child pornography. I don't know if there's a correlation but many some studies can enlighten politicians to whether banning the animated version could reduce the real one.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
It's a victimless crime in and of itself, really, to have animated child pornography. The problems arise when there is real child pornography. I don't know if there's a correlation but many some studies can enlighten politicians to whether banning the animated version could reduce the real one.


Well here is the thing. My original premise is that if this horrible stuff can protect one child, just one we should allow it and according to one paedophile in a BBC article he was using this stuff to stop using the real stuff. The real thing should obviously be banned and anyone caught in the possestion of it should gain a life sentence. Sorry if that seems harsh but that's how i am.

The animated stuff? Well for one there is no victim, secondly it may prevent real children being harmed and thirdly, can we prosecute people for art and thought?



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrangeAlarmClock

Originally posted by SPC_D
IMO if you start to feel you are attracted to children. We as a society should find help and not shun these people we should point them in the direction of a good psychiatrist and get them help. as of right now it is so taboo, that people live with these feelings and feel they cant get help for fear of being shunned and let there feeling fester and than eventually molest a child.

The pedo's that already molest children there is no help for them thoe and they need to be put out of there misery.


my 2 cents

I agree, but

We should help any of them, it's a mental illness and they don't know any better. We treat people with any other mental illness (except homosexuals which puzzles me) so it only makes sense to treat these people to psychiatric help as well.

If they show no signs of getting better, then by all means keep them locked up in a mental ward. But "chopping their balls off" and "killing them" really serves no purpose. We kill one of the, another one will spring up in his place.

We are better off just educating these people and stopping the problem where it starts.


Is it really a mental illness?

I don't believe it is. I believe that men that are pedophiles are insecure, incompetent, weak men that are afraid to engage in a true adult sexual relationship because they fear that it will become known that they are minusculely endowed or incapable of providing sexual pleasure to a mature mate.

So they lie to themselves and to the children in an attempt to be this great, enviably hung, master lover because the child knows no better and not prepared physically for the activities forced upon them.

They are not mentally ill. They are selfish bastards that are concerned only for their own pleasure.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by NightSkyeB4Dawn
Is it really a mental illness?

I don't believe it is. I believe that men that are pedophiles are insecure, incompetent, weak men that are afraid to engage in a true adult sexual relationship because they fear that it will become known that they are minusculely endowed or incapable of providing sexual pleasure to a mature mate.

So they lie to themselves and to the children in an attempt to be this great, enviably hung, master lover because the child knows no better and not prepared physically for the activities forced upon them.

They are not mentally ill. They are selfish bastards that are concerned only for their own pleasure.




Sorry this post is ignorant of the science. fMRI scans have shown they gain attraction when viewing images of children but gain far less attraction when viewing adults. The leading theory is that it is a form of sexual retardation. Whereas you and i matured beyond fancying girls of 14 when we were 14, they got stuck in that groove and earlier and fancy kids.

I know it's easy to demonise them and write them off as nothing more than people who deliberately go for children out of insecurity, but the science goes against this.

That isn't to say i'm defending them, only defending the science. In my personal view, any convicted paedophile who has engaged in sexual activity with a child should be locked up, in a secure institution for the rest of their lives. You cannot cure them, and if they have taken that step to seek out a child for sex then they are obviously dangerous.

However we cannot convict people for viewing these fake images. That is thought crime, there is no victim. Wouldn't you think it's wrong.

If we compare this then we can easily say that people who view videos of murder must be locked up as they are potential murderers. Peopel who view extreme S&M porn are potential rapists, basically you are convicting people of thought crime.

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


It IS a very hard issue to tackle. On one hand, no children are being abused in the creation of the animation, but what about the artists? At some point, someone had to study living nude underaged girls in detail to draw realistic form. Moreover, I would argue that viewing the drawn porn as an alternative won't necessarily stop someone from hurting a real child. If anything, it would serve to initiate a curious mind further into the sick world of pedos, sort of like a gateway drug like marijuana leading to worse addictions like coc aine.

For example, say a teenage boy who likes anime somehow stumbles upon some anime pornography that portrays underage females from his favorite anime in hardcore sexual situations. Now say that boy gets hooked on animated child porn, but exploring that realm eventually leads him to real child porn, realizing that the animated kind just doesnt work for him anymore. Well soon after that, a situation arises where he finds himself in a position to molest a young girl. After watching the anime porn, he might believe she would want him to touch her, that she would enjoy it "just like the little girls in the cartoons" do. She doesn't, but he doesn't stop because he's too sick at this point. Then only the real thing does it for him, and he begins a disgusting and twisted existance molesting little girls, all because he stumbled upon some animated childporn that got him interested. He might not have ever seen or saught out any child porn if not for the animated pedo "gateway." Granted, the guy in my example was obviously already sick, as a normal person would have seen it the first time and be disgusted.

Come to think of it, I don't know who would be worse, the ones drawing it or the people paying to watch it...

[edit on 27-5-2009 by mostlyspoons]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mostlyspoons
 


Your theories are unsound, as most studies demonstrate that this is not the case.

There have been links in this very thread demonstrating that "ESCALATION" Is less likely...

There was a report that existed specifically to make this meme prevalent in society, and was commissioned after Reagan disliked the outcome of an actually unbiased study that showed porn tends to decrease the likelihood of sexual offenses.

There are a lot of studies out there that find the same thing, including a study in Canada. Exposure to pornography is a benefit, not a risk.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mostlyspoons
It IS a very hard issue to tackle. On one hand, no children are being abused in the creation of the animation, but what about the artists? At some point, someone had to study living nude underaged girls in detail to draw realistic form.


What about artists that draw dragons? Did they have to study real dragons to draw them? Sorry this is just a silly argument, have you neverheard of imagination? I'm not a talented artist, but i reckon i could mock up one of these pictures. I woudln't becuase i have no interest in the subject but i could if forced.



Originally posted by mostlyspoons
Moreover, I would argue that viewing the drawn porn as an alternative won't necessarily stop someone from hurting a real child. If anything, it would serve to initiate a curious mind further into the sick world of pedos, sort of like a gateway drug like marijuana leading to worse addictions like coc aine.


Nonsense. Paedophiles who abuse will always abuse. You idea of a gateway drug cannot be applied to sexuality. It's like saying that a heterosexual person can be coaxed into being gay by viewing gay porn.


Originally posted by mostlyspoons
For example, say a teenage boy who likes anime somehow stumbles upon some anime pornography that portrays underage females from his favorite anime in hardcore sexual situations. Now say that boy gets hooked on animated child porn, but exploring that realm eventually leads him to real child porn, realizing that the animated kind just doesnt work for him anymore. Well soon after that, a situation arises where he finds himself in a position to molest a young girl. After watching the anime porn, he might believe she would want him to touch her, that she would enjoy it "just like the little girls in the cartoons" do. She doesn't, but he doesn't stop because he's too sick at this point.


I'll stop you there. It's like saying that an adult, viewing pornography thinks that every woman wants sex even if they reists, as some porn is based around resistance (S&M). So basically you're saying anyone who views this porn will rape because the women in the pron goes for it.


Originally posted by mostlyspoons
Then only the real thing does it for him, and he begins a disgusting and twisted existance molesting little girls, all because he stumbled upon some animated childporn that got him interested. He might not have ever seen or saught out any child porn if not for the animated pedo "gateway." Granted, the guy in my example was obviously already sick, as a normal person would have seen it the first time and be disgusted.


So basically you just betrated your entire point. You admit they are already damaged before they see this stuff because a normal person would see it and think it's horrible. So basically you're saying that paedophiles have something genetically or psychologically wrong with them that makes them fancy young children.

My basic point therefore stands. If they don't hurt anyone and view this fake stuff then how can we arrest them? It is a crime without a victim and therefore it's thought crime.


Originally posted by mostlyspoons
Come to think of it, I don't know who would be worse, the ones drawing it or the people paying to watch it...


Erm have you seen the cistene chapel? There are some pictures of children in that. Should we see that as paedophilia? Should we think the painter was a paedophile by nature and cover up those paintings?

[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Erm have you seen the cistene chapel? There are some pictures of children in that. Should we see that as paedophilia? Should we think the painter was a paedophile by nature and cover up those paintings?
[edit on 27-5-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]


I dunno, IR.... those Renaissance guys really dug the Greeks and they were boy lovers! Besides which, the Sistine Chapel was painted for another set of child lovers, the Catholic Church!


Sorry, I couldn't resist.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
I dunno, IR.... those Renaissance guys really dug the Greeks and they were boy lovers! Besides which, the Sistine Chapel was painted for another set of child lovers, the Catholic Church!


Sorry, I couldn't resist.


Lol down boy, stick to the topic.

Let us be clear, we are prosecuting people over cartoon depictions equally with people who download real images of children.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I haven't heard of this phenomenon, but I'm against it. I think pedophiles -- without a release resource -- will take more and more chances, and hopefully be caught and jailed.

Like the OP, pedophelia is, to me, the bottom, the base, the worst. I can construe a hypothetical circumstance where it might be at least morally justified for nearly everything else that is against the law, but not that. No pedophelia, no rape, no molestation.

I've read all the responses. Good and insightful all. I'm not going to change on this. I recognize that it's somewhat of a cultural thing, it that other cultures put the age of consent much lower that the U.S. does. I'm aware that some older cultures actually approve of such relations.

It's dead dog wrong to me, and I suppose that's one of the convictions that I'm absolutely set it. No wiggle room for me. I hope to not know of such things going on.

When I was a young boy, one day I came home from school and my parents started quizzing me about my gym teacher. "Did he touch you?" "Well....... yah, I suppose"....... "WHERE? HERE?" It scared the crap out of me, their intensity. Come to find out that he'd allegedly molested several of my classmates -- all boys. One of them was.... physically injured, and he came forward first.

I heard nothing more about it. That next Monday, my gym coach wasn't in class. There was a substitute teacher, and she didn't know diddly about sports. She did her best, I'm sure.

Several years later, I asked my parents about it. My Dad wouldn't talk about it. Much later, my Mom said that people went to look in on him and found that he'd left everything in place at his home, but apparently walked out in the middle of the night and possibly fell in the river and drowned. He was never found. My Dad is a Mason, and most of his co-workers and friends were as well. I asked Dad about this a few years ago. He said, "Son, that was a broken man, and he couldn't be fixed. He was taken out of his home and put down, just like when the rabid skunks showed up in town. I wasn't there. that's all I know about it."

I recount this tale, because I don't think, even today, that whatever happened was the wrong thing to do. Certainly frontier justice has made bad calls in the past. Vigilante justice is rarely -- but perhaps sometimes? -- honorable.

I don't think that most pedophiles can be rehabilitated. I think they have a perception that is askew and broken. Life imprisonment? Okay. Maybe give them the choice............ maybe they'd prefer to just....... start over.



posted on May, 27 2009 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by argentus
I don't think that most pedophiles can be rehabilitated. I think they have a perception that is askew and broken. Life imprisonment? Okay. Maybe give them the choice............ maybe they'd prefer to just....... start over.



I can only say as an atheist i don't think there is a starting over, but hey give them the choice. I don't believe in the death penalty but a choice of their own is fine. A choice between life in a horrible prison and a shotgun to the head, up to them, i'd be fien with that. As long as it is a choice.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join