Viewing Child Porn – Mental Illness or Criminal Evil?

[jacee]

I realize that's the party line, but I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate any truth in that. All child porn I'm aware of, having looked into this matter and read quite a few studies, is made up of the 'souvenirs' taken of their victims by child molesters, or of teen pictures taken willingly by themselves and their friends, or of old pictures from the seventies or earlier.

There is no "industry". And reduce demand for what? For kiddy porn? Well, I suppose you can reduce demand for anything by making it criminal. But what's it all in aid of? It's not going to reduce the interest of pedophiles in children. We're talking about a mental illness here, right? A mental illness which causes certain people to have their sexual wires crossed so that they lust after per-pubesent children. I mean, if we have no gay porn, does that mean it will reduce the number of gay people?

The idea is to reduce harm to children.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

How about homosexuality? After all, evolutionarily, it's a dead end, since partners of the same gender cannot have offspring with one another.

Well, something to think about: Fertile mothers are linked to a higher chance of bearing homosexual children. (read: natural population control)

[jbg]

I think I agree with jbg here that there can be treatment. While you can't treat someone to change their sexuality, you could treat them to control their urges and not act on them. In other words, you can help someone remain celibate. You're not going to change their sexualit; you just want them not acting on it.

And I want people to understand what I'm getting at.

It is very hard for someone in need of help to seek it before they intersect with the penal system. This is what needs to change. By the time the law is involved, these people would have difficulties in, among other areas, maintaining marriages or employment. People need to be able to get help and go on with their lives before,not after, a catastrophe.

[guyser]

And sixteen is the age of consent, so it's entirely legal for adults to have sex with them.

Not entirely. It depends on the nature and circumstances of the relationship.

[jacee]

I realize that's the party line, but I've seen nothing whatsoever to indicate any truth in that. All child porn I'm aware of, having looked into this matter and read quite a few studies, is made up of the 'souvenirs' taken of their victims by child molesters, or of teen pictures taken willingly by themselves and their friends, or of old pictures from the seventies or earlier.

There is no "industry". And reduce demand for what? For kiddy porn? Well, I suppose you can reduce demand for anything by making it criminal. But what's it all in aid of? It's not going to reduce the interest of pedophiles in children. We're talking about a mental illness here, right? A mental illness which causes certain people to have their sexual wires crossed so that they lust after per-pubesent children. I mean, if we have no gay porn, does that mean it will reduce the number of gay people?

But what is the purpose? Are we trying to reduce the interest in adult men of lusting after sixteen year old girls? If so, why is it legal to sleep with them? And besides, you can't eliminate a normal human sexual response, which is what an attractive sixteen year old girl produces in adult men.

"Adult men" who lust after young teenagers are not the norm. Most are disgusted by men who do.

Of course there is a child porn "industry".

"Child sex rings spike during Super Bowl week"

An adult viewing child porn in his basement IS LOOKING AT A CRIME!

If pedophiles can sell the video of them abusing a child, it increases their motivation to molest children for profit.

Possessing or viewing child porn is a crime, is not a victimless crime and should be aggressively investigated and punished , in my opinion. It is part of the customer base of the lucrative industry that includes child sex trafficking and sex crimes from which children may never recover, and may become damaged and dysfunctional adults themselves.

[Scotty]

Thread Q Part 2:

Viewing Adult Porn - For Lonely Losers or Completely Awesome?

Well, given virtually every young man and teenage male views porn - and quite a number of the women too, I'd discount the first. And having seen some - I'd discount the second.

Video porn? Picture porn? Written porn?

[Scotty]

The idea is to reduce harm to children.

I realize that's the idea. I just don't see the result, or, logically, how it could have that result.

Whomping child molesters hard, putting them away in some sort of prison town for life would produce a better result.

[Scotty]

And I want people to understand what I'm getting at.

It is very hard for someone in need of help to seek it before they intersect with the penal system. This is what needs to change. By the time the law is involved, these people would have difficulties in, among other areas, maintaining marriages or employment. People need to be able to get help and go on with their lives before,not after, a catastrophe.

If by 'catastrophe' you mean before they molest a child I'd agree.

I don't think looking at a picture in your basement is a catastrophe. I just don't see the damage to society - with the caveat that if there actually were people molesting children to satisfy a porn audience that would change my opinion.

[cybercoma]

I realize that's the idea. I just don't see the result, or, logically, how it could have that result.

Whomping child molesters hard, putting them away in some sort of prison town for life would produce a better result.

They do that too? Why do you think it has to be one or the other?

[Scotty]

"Adult men" who lust after young teenagers are not the norm. Most are disgusted by men who do.

You are making a moral judgement. I'm speaking of instinct. Men are hard wired to be attracted to healthy, breeding age females.

Unlike females, who are generally keyed to find a man to protect and provide for them, men are keyed to finding a mate to produce children. And there are an awful lot of sixteen year old girls who can easily pass for years older. Do you suppose your body knows the difference, or cares?

Of course there is a child porn "industry".

"Child sex rings spike during Super Bowl week"

No, there isn't. Your link was about prostitution during super bowl weekend. And yes, some prostitutes are young.

An adult viewing child porn in his basement IS LOOKING AT A CRIME!

I look at crimes every day when I watch the news, and those video shows of closed circuit and police dashboard cameras. So?

If pedophiles can sell the video of them abusing a child, it increases their motivation to molest children for profit.

I don't think anyone has ever demonstrated that profit has any real influence in child molesting. And I'm not suggesting it be legal to sell this stuff. It never has been. It's always been illegal under the obscenity provisions of the criminal code.

Possessing or viewing child porn is a crime, is not a victimless crime and should be aggressively investigated and punished , in my opinion.

You're welcome to your opinion. Mine is that, barring any case where someone is paying someone to provide this material, it should not be a crime to view or possess it (although I'd be in favour of confiscating any such material found). As I said in an earlier post, my understanding is that almost all child porn consists of teenagers making it themselves, old stuff from the seventies, and the byproduct, the souvenirs, if you will, of child molesters whose primary motivation was the molestation. Ie, they would have molested the child regardless of whether a camera was available.

I do think any trade in that material should be actively discouraged, although even there I'm less adamant when it comes to 'youths' if you will, as opposed to children.

It is part of the customer base of the lucrative industry that includes child sex trafficking and sex crimes from which children may never recover, and may become damaged and dysfunctional adults themselves.

Well, God knows we have enough of them around (dysfunctional adults). However, I do not see any evidence there is any sort of 'child porn' industry. Underage teenagers involved in prostitution is, for me, a different kettle of fish. I am, as with child molesters, more than favorable to heavy sentencing for primps and the like, or to anyone who knowingly has sex with someone underage.

I just don't like the idea of putting people in prison because their fantasies are perverse. Or even because they look at a picture on the internet.

[Scotty]

They do that too? Why do you think it has to be one or the other?

I differentiate between pedophiles who molest children, and those who restrain themselves. I try not to judge with contempt and rage someone whose sexual fantasies/wishes/wants/needs are beyond their control and foisted upon them by whatever circumstances led to their disorder.

[guyser]

As I said in an earlier post, my understanding is that almost all child porn consists of teenagers making it themselves, old stuff from the seventies, and the byproduct, the souvenirs, if you will, of child molesters whose primary motivation was the molestation. Ie, they would have molested the child regardless of whether a camera was available.

You have a gross lack of knowledge, or understanding of this issue.

Child porn is not teenagers.

Child molestation and the trade of pics from said encounters goes on all day every day. I guess if no camera was around it would be cool huh?

Google this guy, or call him up, Detective Constable Paul Krawczyk,TPS.

[dre]

How about homosexuality? After all, evolutionarily, it's a dead end, since partners of the same gender cannot have offspring with one another.

As to desiring someone of a younger age, it actually makes a lot of evolutionary sense for a male to want a younger female. With the lack of any medical knowledge and technology, human birth is very traumatic on the mother. A woman in ancient times would lose the capability to successfully bear a child long before the age where a male would no longer be able to sire one. Even today, pregnancy in one's 50s or 60s would be quite dangerous and most physicians would recommend against it, and not naturally possible at all much later than that. The oldest known woman to succesfully give birth was 70 years old and died shortly thereafter. Meanwhile a man can still be physically capable of impregnating a woman well into his 80s or even 90s, with several examples of fathers in their 90s.

This bears out throughout historical times in a majority of human civilizations, too. Specifically,

wealthy and powerful males would most often find female partners that were significantly younger than themselves. Again, this remains true to some extent even today.

Anyway, this is all a bit beside the point. I'm just disputing the notion that modern day morality is rooted in evolutionary necessity or efficiency. Common notions of morality are cultural in nature, having only weak roots in biology if any at all. Pedophilia is considered revolting and criminal in modern Western culture, while marrying off girls of 12 or 11 years, or even younger, was a common practice worldwide until recently and still is in some places. Homosexuality is considered acceptable in most Western countries today and discrimination against homosexuals is considered wrong, and yet most other cultures find it abhorrent, as did Western nations until recently.

How about homosexuality? After all, evolutionarily, it's a dead end, since partners of the same gender cannot have offspring with one another.

Its not an evolutionary dead end or there wouldnt be any homosexuals. The reality is that genes cannot compell human behavior... they can only give you a predisposition towards it. Lots of gay men marry women and raise normal families and grow up straight.

[cybercoma]

I differentiate between pedophiles who molest children, and those who restrain themselves. I try not to judge with contempt and rage someone whose sexual fantasies/wishes/wants/needs are beyond their control and foisted upon them by whatever circumstances led to their disorder.

Who's doing that? jacee and I have already told you that the idea is that child pornography creates victims. Those who buy child pornography are creating a market for those who exploit these children. They're complicit in the crime. There's nothing else to it.

[Scotty]

You have a gross lack of knowledge, or understanding of this issue.

I think it's you who has no understanding of the issue.

Child porn is not teenagers.

And no understanding of the law either.

Child molestation and the trade of pics from said encounters goes on all day every day. I guess if no camera was around it would be cool huh?

What I said was that child molesting would happen whether cameras were present or not. Do you have a problem with basic English?

[Scotty]

Who's doing that? jacee and I have already told you that the idea is that child pornography creates victims. Those who buy child pornography are creating a market for those who exploit these children. They're complicit in the crime. There's nothing else to it.

I don't believe that child porn creates victims. I believe that child molesters would molest children even if the camera had never been invented. They don't do it so they can take pictures.

Men don't have sex with women so they can take pictures either, but that doesn't mean they're not interested in taking pictures. Do you think if that were banned men would no longer want to have sex with women?

I'm using logic here not emotion. Because laws should be based on logic.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Scotty

[Guest Peeves]

You don't think that constitutes a mental illness? If you had a desperate urge to have sex with toads wouldn't you call that a mental illness of some sort? I mean, c'mon! These people are incapable of normal relationships with adults. Clearly that's a mental disease and is described so by psychiatrists.

Brings new meaning to leap frog.

If indeed it is a mental disorder, (which I doubt), then any compulsion or addiction is as well.

That said, if one knows they have an affliction that contravenes societal mores and/or is illegal, it behooves them to confront it, not exploit it to another's harm.

'They' cannot expect to conduct themselves in an immoral manner without consequences, nor should the law treat them as less than criminals.

[Guest Peeves]

I don't believe that child porn creates victims. I believe that child molesters would molest children even if the camera had never been invented. They don't do it so they can take pictures.

Men don't have sex with women so they can take pictures either, but that doesn't mean they're not interested in taking pictures. Do you think if that were banned men would no longer want to have sex with women?

I'm using logic here not emotion. Because laws should be based on logic.

Child porn absolutely creates victims. Those that are forced into provocative or sexual poses and deviations for pictures are indeed victims.

[Scotty]

Child porn absolutely creates victims. Those that are forced into provocative or sexual poses and deviations for pictures are indeed victims.

Yes, but that was done to satisfy the sexual desires of the molester, not so he could put them on the internet.

Again, if the internet did not exist and such pictures could not be shared or sold, do you honestly believe they would not be taken?

And, to point out, many of the pictures involved were willingly taken by teenagers of themselves. The term 'child porn' applies to any sexual pictures of anyone up to the age of 18 minus 1 day.

It also applies to pictures drawn from the imagination, including cartoons and computer art, and to written works of fiction.

[jbg]

If by 'catastrophe' you mean before they molest a child I'd agree.

That is what I mean by a catastrophe.

I don't think looking at a picture in your basement is a catastrophe. I just don't see the damage to society - with the caveat that if there actually were people molesting children to satisfy a porn audience that would change my opinion.

That may be a sign that the person needs help though.

[cybercoma]

I don't believe that child porn creates victims.

I believe that child molesters would molest children even if the camera had never been invented. They don't do it so they can take pictures.

Nobody said it would eliminate all child molestation. So I don't see how this is relevant.

Men don't have sex with women so they can take pictures either, but that doesn't mean they're not interested in taking pictures. Do you think if that were banned men would no longer want to have sex with women?

No, but I think it would do damage to the multi-billion dollar pornography industry. Such that there would be a hell of a lot less porn stars.

I'm using logic here not emotion. Because laws should be based on logic.

In what world is it logical to come to the conclusion that there are no victims in child pornography? Edited January 7, 2012 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

if the internet did not exist and such pictures could not be shared or sold

Seriously... how do you come up with this stuff? Not to be condescending, but this is even dumber than the last comment that I gave a to.

And, to point out, many of the pictures involved were willingly taken by teenagers of themselves. The term 'child porn' applies to any sexual pictures of anyone up to the age of 18 minus 1 day.

There is an area of the law that makes things extremely difficult and that's this one. Someone between the ages of 16-18, who is of the age of sexual consent, sending nude pictures to a lover would be breaking the law by producing and distributing what would be considered child pornography. This is why there so desperately needs to be judicial discretion with laws, so that judges can hear the facts of a case and determine what the best decision and/or sentencing would be for the circumstances.

It also applies to pictures drawn from the imagination, including cartoons and computer art, and to written works of fiction.

That's right. However, I take issue with the hand-drawn cartoons, computer art, and written works of fiction. Those I don't believe should be illegal. However, the reasoning is probably along the lines of hate-speech laws, which is that those aforementioned forms of child-porn media could be construed as inciting violence and exploitation against children.

Of course, if you don't think child pornography has anything to do with the exploitation of children, I'm sure none of that makes any sense to you.

[Scotty]

Seriously... how do you come up with this stuff? Not to be condescending, but this is even dumber than the last comment that I gave a to.

It's pretty easy to say something is dumb. It takes actual effort to try and demonstrate how it's dumb.

There is an area of the law that makes things extremely difficult and that's this one. Someone between the ages of 16-18, who is of the age of sexual consent, sending nude pictures to a lover would be breaking the law by producing and distributing what would be considered child pornography.

Yes, and more to the point, a man who downloads those pictures is considered to be guilty of accessing and posessing child porn, can be put in prison, and can be labelled a sex offender for life EVEN if he thought the girl in the picture was actually 18 or more. It's not always very easy to tell in that age range and the law does not allow for him not knowing the age.

This is why there so desperately needs to be judicial discretion with laws, so that judges can hear the facts of a case and determine what the best decision and/or sentencing would be for the circumstances.

Or how about we re-write the laws so that while it's against obscenity provisions to post such pictures when you know the age, it's not illegal to possess or download them? I really dislike laws which can actually make criminals of people who have no criminal intent and have caused no harm to anyone.

That's right. However, I take issue with the hand-drawn cartoons, computer art, and written works of fiction. Those I don't believe should be illegal. However, the reasoning is probably along the lines of hate-speech laws, which is that those aforementioned forms of child-porn media could be construed as inciting violence and exploitation against children

.

That's another argument I've seen a lot. Unfortunately for those who make it, every credible, scientific study undertaken to determine a causal relationship between pornography and violence against women/children has failed to show any such link.

Of course, if you don't think child pornography has anything to do with the exploitation of children, I'm sure none of that makes any sense to you.

All pornography is, by nature, exploitative. That is not what I said. I said that the porn does not cause molestation, that the molesting would happen with or without the presence of cameras or the existence of the internet. Didn't Muhammed take a 9 year old girl as one of his "wives' centuries ago? Didn't the Greeks molest young boys (by our standards)? The sexual targeting of young people is nothing new.

Edited January 7, 2012 by Scotty

[cybercoma]

Ontario Police arrest over 60 more people, laying some 213 charges. Scotty will be here to defend them shortly.

Members of the provincial strategy to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation on the internet have laid more than 200 charges while the investigation continues.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2012/02/02/toronto-internet-pornography.html?cmp=rss

Our criminal justice system sees possession of child pornography as contributing to the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, since children are, of course, abused and exploited in the making of child pornography.

[cybercoma]

The CTV article is actually more detailed: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20120202/child-porn-charges-opp120202/20120202/?hub=TorontoNewHome&cid=top

They indicate that there have been 22 victims that have come forward, but they expect more.