Legal Child Porn Loophole - Disgusting Manipulation of the Law!

Originally posted by AnteBellum
Just to get this out first and foremost, child pornographers, exploiters of children, pedophiles and molesters all should be thrown in a deep dark pit, indefinitely, after being physically castrated!
I quit my last job and reported the owner of the company due to finding child porn on his computer.

Agreed, and well done. (Although I'd prefer to give them a pill that would get them to stop.)

They are taking 18 year old adults and with the magic of hollywood drop the age they appeared to be as low as 14 or use adults that 'really' looked very young, whether by disease or hormones. These films technically are not illegal, it is a grey area of the law that presently is under some degree of debate.
They do not advertise these films as being child porn, but any rational minded individual can see through the smoke.

I don't think the smoke is quite so easy to see through.

A) The fact that they are of age makes me support this practice. Clearly, making child porn illegal doesn't prevent it. There are pedophiles in the world whether we like it or not, and it's very clear that regardless of the laws, they will find a way to satisfy their sexual desires. Given the fact that they want to look at young people involved in sexual acts, and that they are going to find a way to do that whether it's legal or not, I find it infinitely preferable that they use special effects or "young looking" actors instead of real kids. The harm in child porn is not that pedophiles pleasure themselves, it's that kids get abused in the process. If willing adults are used instead, and pedophiles can satisfy their urges without actual children being involved, that seems to me to effectively reduce the primary harm inherent in pedophelic behavior. If the choice is between the lesser of two evils, the practice you describe is far and away the better option considering the alternative. If any fraction at all of real child porn can be replaced by this fake child porn, I'm all for it.

B) Let's consider your objection realistically. How could a policy against this practice possibly be enforced? Who decides how old someone looks? The first time someone would try to enforce the prevention of "underage looking" porn, the producers would just say, "We meant for her to look like she's 18, and that's how old she looks to us." You mention young looking actors/actresses as being complicit in this practice. Does it make sense for the standard to be the entirely object one of, "how old she looks to me(who's me?)?" Or does it make more sense for the standard to be reduciable to something object: DOB/chronological age. Don't 18 year old adults have the right to have sex with any other consenting adult that they choose to, under any circumstances, and for any reason that they want? Can we really tell an adult that they can't have sex on camera because they don't look old enough? (look old enough to whom?)

C) This is a more general issue and probably a bit more contentious, but, what magic happens when someone turns 18? Let alone when they wake up one morning and finally look like they are 18? I think nothing. 18 is reasonable benchmark as far physical and psychological maturity goes, but there are certainly some 17 year old who are ready for sex, and probably some 19 year olds who aren't. I do agree that we should stick to the rule as it is - 18 and over - but anyone who's honest can tell you that they've seen some very attractive 17 year olds, and perhaps had "impure" thoughts about them. If they can satisfy those thoughts by watching porn with young looking actors instead of going out and trying to pick up a high school kid, everyone is probably better off.

I am going to make a leap of faith here and say I am totally against this false portrayal, even though no laws have been broken, technically.

And what about the majority of mainstream American and European women who try their best to look younger than they are? Are they guilty of false representation?

The reason I am even questioning this 'loophole' is if we apply this same type of scenario to something else, such as 'video game violence' (and I will use the term loosely to describe any shooting, killing, driving, etc.), it creates a problem to me. These are simulated acts of violence also and we are not just watching these, we are going through the motions!

We can never minimize the distinction between actually doing something and going through the motions/watching/pretending/doing in virtual reality. In both cases - violence and underage sexual exploitation - the reality has real victims and the alternative does not.

But I defend violent video games and am an advocate for even more realism in the future, does this make me a hypocrite?
With technology changing becoming ever more powerful ever day I wonder if this is a precedent of what is to follow? What do you think?

You're right to advocate the video games.

There will always be bad people doing bad things in the world. Every instance in which we can substitute a real harmful act that has a victim (violence, pedophelia) with a simulated one that does not is a victory. We'd be better off in a world of killers killing in video games and pedophiles watching young looking adults than we are in a world where killers really kill and pedophiles exploit real children. The reality leaves no room for the lofty moral high ground of rejecting victimless simulations of heinous acts while we fail to prevent the real thing.

Interesting topic, S&F.

Its probably so if any of the satanist freemasons get caught they can get away with it legally.

"Thought crime" already excist. You can be sued for cartoons, 3D or writings of children. Especially now that 3D and such comes more easy to learn and use. Perhaps they are trying to force this same issue with actors and actresses who appear too young?

The simulated portrayal of children is illegal in the united states.

People who are sexually mature can make the distinction but pedophiles on the other hand will use this sort of media to get off on.
I think it should be banned but I see the op's moral dilemma also.
Excellent thread

In regard to the OP, who's the victim?

We need to make sure no minors are exploited, but we also need to make sure we don't rely on new laws to futilely attempt to shape society to fit our own petty ideals.

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
If no law has been broken, and no child has been harmed boohoo cry elsewhere the world has real children to protect.

Hahah Thanks for posting that, some people just need to stick their noses elsewhere I suppose!!

second line!

reply to post by AnteBellum

They do not advertise these films as being child porn, but any rational minded individual can see through the smoke.

So dressing up adults to look younger is child porn? I thought adults getting naked was adult porn.

Originally posted by mysticalzoe

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
If no law has been broken, and no child has been harmed boohoo cry elsewhere the world has real children to protect.

Hahah Thanks for posting that, some people just need to stick their noses elsewhere I suppose!!

second line!

A clinical psychologist or cop would say, "What about a rehabilitated pedophile, that accidentally watched the video, which triggered him to attack and rape a child."
I know what this borders on morally and ethically, but what if it happened to your kid and it was found that this is what caused it?
. . . and I like 18 year old girls dressed in catholic schoolgirl outfits, wearing high heels and pigtails!

reply to post by snowen20

I do not agree with such portrayal because I personally believe it will or at least could lead to someone extending their fantasies to the real world. Because after all 18 just isn't real enough right? just like an addict they will develop a tolerance to it and feel they need more. In this case more being a real 6 year old for Pete's sake.

Slippery slope arguments are the best.

Dressing your girlfriend up in a catholic, schoolgirl outfit is probably one of the greatest gifts to man.

reply to post by FortAnthem

Sure, its disgusting and helps to promote pedophelia but, unfortunately, threr doesn't seem to be too much they can do about it as long as the "actors" are above 18 years old.

So adult porn helps promote pedophilia? Because adults are children?

Originally posted by AnteBellum

Originally posted by mysticalzoe

Originally posted by FrancoUn-American
If no law has been broken, and no child has been harmed boohoo cry elsewhere the world has real children to protect.

Hahah Thanks for posting that, some people just need to stick their noses elsewhere I suppose!!

second line!

A clinical psychologist or cop would say, "What about a rehabilitated pedophile, that accidentally watched the video, which triggered him to attack and rape a child."
I know what this borders on morally and ethically, but what if it happened to your kid and it was found that this is what caused it?

This thread reminds me of the guy that was arrested in Puerto Rico for having child porn and the actress came to court and saved the day.

www.youtube.com...

I knew a women once, she was actually a mental health counselor, she looked like she was about twelve when she was actually in her late twenties. Her husband was always being attacked, verbally and a couple times, for being a child molester.

reply to post by Maxmars

I have no disagreement with the general sense of the OP. It is unforgivable to exploit children PERIOD.....

Yes, especially children over the age of eighteen.

reply to post by dalan.


Not grasping at straws, just trying to maneuver my position to one side of the fence or the other.

Still not sure where I stand?!?

Originally posted by AnteBellum
reply to post by dalan.

 

Not grasping at straws, just trying to maneuver my position to one side of the fence or the other.

Still not sure where I stand?!?

Just be careful. Its knee-jerking reactions like these from soccer moms across the US, that have helped make this country so sh***y.

The slippery slope arguments that people use to ban content that they personally find to be "morally reprehensible" to me, is morally reprehensible. So in a clever twist of irony, I very well could act like a soccer mom, and have banning anything on the basis that you find something morally reprehensible banned.

It would be sweet justice.

But most of these people in this thread are assuming that pedophiles watch adult porn. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought pedophiles only want to get off on kids. So why would they waste their time watching adult porn?? It would be like me watching gay porn...ain't gonna happen.

Not to mention the ridiculous assertion that, if this porn is allowed to be made...and if a pedophile sees it...then they will attack a child because of it. Most people seem to fail to realize that human beings do not need something outside of themselves to plant an idea within them.

If a pedophile is indeed a pedophile, whether or not they ever watch porn is a moot issue. They have brains, so they can sit in their homes and secretly fantasize all day without the porn. So, what I am saying, is that the idea is already inside of them, regardless of what they view as far as entertainment.

But knee-jerking soccer moms LOVE slippery slope arguments. And that goes for men too. If you side with soccer moms then you can trade your testicles in for a minivan.

reply to post by AnteBellum


Star and flag by the way, for a good discussion.

reply to post by AnteBellum


There is no such thing a rehabilitated pedophile. Just A. Ones who havent been caught B. ones that are too afraid to be caught again.

It is not a loophole, and it certainly is nothing "new" to the industry. What it is called is role playing, or fantasy porn. Dressing adult porn actresses as school girls, or trying to make them appear as young as possible has been going on since the beginning of porn. I saw my first "school girl" series of videos over 15 years ago.

Is it sick? Well that is for you to decide, not me. If you do a little more research into fantasy porn or role playing, you will find many disturbing things. You have "Mom and son" porn, you have "dad and daughter", there is even porn out there involving a hurt or sick male and a nun. Yes.. a Nun. Of course babysitter fantasy porn has been around for as long as I can remember.

I totally disagree however that someone who watches something like that would be more likely to act it out. I disagree with that completely. I would suggest that viewing such videos gives a person a chance to live their fantasy without actually acting it out. Besides, as disturbing as you may find certain things not everyone else does. These ideas for porn do not come out of thin air, they come from real people, these are real fantasies. There is a huge market for it, has been there for a long time.

reply to post by AnteBellum


just as a disclaimer, pedophilia is a horrid thing.

now where is this supposed loophole?

The law says that no one under the age of 18 can be photographed naked. these models are 18 and older. so...wheres the loophole?

you cant say all pornographic models have to look like X or they cannot be in the porn industry regardless of their age. I can see your side of the arguement but really no laws are being broken and there is a market for this type of pornography.

are you sure the porn you found on your boss' computer was actually child porn and not just young looking models? because that is some serious accusations you just made. and its a good thing you quit cause you probably were gonna get fired. lol.

Originally posted by AnteBellum
But the US law states:

Under federal law (18 U.S.C. §2256), child pornography is defined as any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where:

The production of the visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

The visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or

The visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

So according to this, as someone asked above pictures of real naked children Are 100% Legal as long as they are not depicted in a sexual manner, "sexually explicit conduct". - So naked kids in a nudest colony or as an art form for photography is 100 % legal according to the above it seems to me.