Re: Wishful thinking

the images continue to victimise those depicted;

Probably the most absurd argument of all. How can the victims know who is getting off to the images and who isn't? Also, if the existence of the images "re-victimizes" the victims, then it makes little difference whether they are legal or illegal, does it? The damage will be done either way.

You do not appear to see how this sort of material actually affects those depicted. Why not read some accounts from victims and try to understand how they feel. Of course they don't know if anyone who they might ever meet has seen such material - that is the problem and why they feel so insecure and that is why they often feel so afraid and vulnerable. It will last the rest of their lives since we can often be recognised from childhood photos. The damage will be far worse if the material was more easily available. At least at the moment one knows that anyone accessing the material has broken a law and therefore is less likely to actually do anything if they came across a victim. You really think that a pre-pubescent child at school will have no different experiences if the images were known to their class-mates? Many children who have early sexual experiences either being what they would see as consensual or otherwise are picked on by others because of this alone - it is in the nature of many children to do this - 'she's an easy lay'.

they can be used to 'groom' children;

As can adult porn. Shall we also make it illegal?

Silly. Child porn is much more relevant to a child than adult porn - "see, Amanda, it is quite normal really." I would restrict adult porn too, particularly when it seems so accessible to children these days, as you might know from some of my comments. It has many negative effects too but I hope we can leave that from the debate.

they encourage others to think of child-sex as normal;

Begging the question. Define 'normal'? Who are you (or anyone else) to dictate what is 'normal' or 'abnormal'? Homosexuality is not 'normal' (in that it is not normative, but few would argue it should be disallowed on those grounds. Moreover, perhaps 'normalizing' child-sex is not an inherently bad idea. I can think of several reasons why the idea itself (as separate from the practice) can be argued positively.

Yes we know the views of many paedophiles as to what they think of as normality but until you convince the rest of the world then the description stands.

it would probably encourage others to produce the stuff;

Maybe, but here the article has a sound point I think: despite the bullshit stats, child porn is rarely produced for profit--the costs tend to vastly outweigh the profits. Most people who produce child porn are likely to abuse children either way, but if they film it, then they have created a record of their crime, making it far more likely they'll be caught.

As I've mentioned elsewhere I believe the profit motive is not a big factor but there are other motives that would induce many to make such material if they could get away with it. With the technology available today and getting ever more powerful it will not be long before a child's face can be swapped for another or morphed to represent any other face. This will probably apply to videos too in the future. Concealment of identity is therefore quite possible in the future so this must be added to the mix. A child is still being abused however.

and it is irrelevant if apparently (not really hard evidence for this) legalising it actually reduces abuse.

Er, yes there is. In fact, there are several studies which support the notion that the availability of all forms of porn reduces sex crimes. It is probably especially true for child porn, given that pedophiles have few other outlets towards which to channel their sexual urges.

I don't believe this evidence is that robust even if you choose to believe it and anyway it is still irrelevant since many other factors override this argument. In the most commonly cited examples the author only advocates computer-generated images as having a benefit and as I've said these, unless of the cartoon-like lolicon, will be indistinguishable from real images soon.

The evidence for this is not that robust and (underlined) you do not know about any future effects any more than anyone else. There have been numerous cases of children viewing porn and then committing assaults on younger children. All the benefits good? I think we need to look at ALL the consequences before deciding to legalise such images.

It is robust enough at least to justify more studies,

I doubt it is that worthwhile since many other factors will tend to become more important as deciding issues.

Where is the punishment in not allowing people to view abusive images, particularly when it affects those depicted in ways far more devastating than any casual viewer.

First, your assumption here that this media affects those involved "in ways far more devastating than any casual viewer" assumes that victims somehow have a magical ability to discern whether other people out there are viewing an image "casually" (by which I assume you mean any reason other than sexual titillation) or viewing an image to get off to. Once an image is released, they can never know who is viewing these images or why. Certainly they can understand that there likely are people out there using the image sexually, but that is true whether the images are legal or illegal. Just knowing they are out there can have the very same effect.

As I said earlier and which you seem to agree with, it is the uncertainty that matters. Some people can simply get on with their lives and ignore what has happened whilst for others it will be a constant reminder of what had happened. The fact of making them legal will undoubtedly make the images available to far more people and hence the risk of it affecting them rises dramatically. Legal or illegal no difference?

Second, there is absolutely no reason why the same point you make about child porn shouldn't also apply to any other crime captured on camera and possessed by third parties. Is murder not abusive behavior? What if it was a child's parents being murdered? Would the child not suffer just as much knowing it's out there? What about physical abuse of a child? Images of that aren't illegal to own, but wouldn't their existence serve as a reminder of the brutality the child suffered?

It is a difficult issue but the CP images are of children involved in a crime whilst the others are after a crime has been committed.

Are you getting the point here? The fact is that the entire premise of child porn's illicitness is based on special pleading. There is no argument applied to it in terms of its emotional effects that cannot be applied to photos or videos of any other crime. And why do you think that is? I'll tell you: it is because sex has long been used by the state and/or church to justify unnecessary controls and invasiveness in the lives of people, and adult-child sexual contact is really the last major sexual taboo still standing and thus the only tool that the state and church have left to manipulate us.

I think we can turn this one about and say the same for those arguing for legality, that anything should be allowed even when there ARE special factors involved such as child protection.

How about empathising with the victims and asking them? I would think, as I've seen in many comments from victims, they would rather the whole lot just vanished overnight and they could live normal lives. The pornstar mind where they apparently couldn't give a fuck about their lives is not universal to victims of child sexual abuse.

Yeah, you can stop being a prick, thanks.

Ha, in my nature matey.

What makes you think I cannot empathize with the victims of child porn? I was a victim of sexual abuse myself (though I did not participate in child porn)--it was not consensual but it hardly traumatized me. I merely found it odd at the time. In fact I bragged about it to a relative immediately after, and it was she who made me feel weird about it by telling me to stay away from my molester (who I liked) and to keep it to myself. It was the culture I grew up in that fucked me up, I know that beyond a shadow of a doubt. Where I grew up (the rural South) sex was never discussed in front of us kids except in terms of its sinfulness and we were instilled with body shame very early in our lives.

We all have some experiences we would like not to have had and I too have been abused but in my case I did see it as abuse so I can't blame society for what happened to me, just some selfish dumb twat.

Moreover, we must separate the sexual contact which was aggressive, nonconsensual, and painful from that which is consensual, done with care and pleasurable. I am certain also that many cases of sexual contact which were the latter were later remembered as the former, for the simple reason that our schemas often skew our memories to fit with cultural assumptions so that we do not experience cognitive dissonance. Beyond that, it is highly likely that those kids who did enjoy their experiences and were not harmed are unlikely to speak up about it due to cultural expectations.

Fine in theory and might happen in many cases. Any kids who make it into CP will most likely have had their lives fucked up by someone willing to expose them to the world. Perhaps a few will not mind in the least but I think the vast majority would tell you otherwise.

The sex-is-inherently-harmful-and-horrible-to-kids belief is a sort of cultural black hole that no one--not even the victims (or "victims")--are allowed to dispute without consequences: being thought weird, making excuses for/defending child abusers (and thus casting suspicion on themselves, etc.) But I know it is the case that millions of years of evolution could not have handicapped children to the point that mere sexual contact in itself would cause irreparable damage to their minds, or that sex--the most important activity we engage in from an evolutionary standpoint--could be so dangerous to kids. It is just completely counter-intuitive to everything I know about evolution, biology, society, etc. History also bears me out on this. Clearly this is a modern convention, forged in the Victorian Cult of the Child and predicated on the notion of the child as spiritual innocent.

Nothing new here. Religion has a lot to answer for but the fact that children are still essentially children below puberty will ensure they are treated differently until they show all the same attributes of maturity that we expect of adults. The grey area above puberty we can change.

This appears to be the old 'most kids in porn enjoy it' fallacy. Yes, the problem is that this stuff simply remains, perhaps forever, so it might be best to include that in one's thinking.

Stop with the straw men. I never claimed most kids enjoy participating in porn, because I do not know. But that's a double-edged sword (as much of this stuff is), and you can no more claim that most kids hate it than I could that all kids love it, because there is simply far too much cultural baggage and too much invested in maintaining the 'inherent harm' conception of these issues. But let me get to the heart of the issue for me: the "neutral" position on this would be that, because we know that harm can occur, we should hold the ban because . . . well, better safe than sorry, right?

The problem with that is, if what I discern is true--that the harm in consensual cases is primarily iatrogenic and sociogenic--this means that there is indeed harm being caused . . . by the police and doctors who investigate these cases planting the notion of harm through their handling of these cases and, more importantly, by society planting the notion of harm by placing such a major taboo on the issue. In other words, society's position is a kind of Pascal's Wager--they see the matter as a simple dualism where sex = direct harm to kids and no sex = no harm to kids, but in reality it is far more complex, and in fact, the very taboo against it creates much of the harm. Given that sex with kids is never going to go away, it serves to reason that we can reduce a good deal of the harm by reducing the taboo itself. This would be exactly one of the positives of 'normalizing' sex with kids.

Reduce the taboo? This wouldn't lead to more adult-child sexual relationships? I think you are doing the advocating that seems endemic here on GC. I doubt we will see such things happening because it is not purely that 'sex is bad for kids' is what defines the issue but 'sex is bad for kids with adults' and that stems from multiple factors but the main ones which have been endlessly debated here is the concept of 'power' and 'consensuality' which many here will adamantly dispute are problems and those non-paedophiles will see them as substantial issues.

Do you really think this is deterring any at the moment? Their desire for sex and stimulation is what tends to drive the production, collecting and sharing of this material.

Um, read my point again. My point wasn't that legalizing it would decrease production de facto; it was that anyone (other than the kids themselves) looking to profit from it by producing it would not be able to, and that in fact, given that it would by far more accessible, making it much more likely that the producers would be identified and caught, it strikes me that the costs would be too high, and that is what would lead to less production of child porn in general. However, there would be a vast increase in self-produced teen porn, since they would be the ones who would profit, and I see few downsides to that.

See my earlier comments about technology.

I doubt those who produce the majority of this stuff - mostly by those close to the child - have any sort of financial motive but there are other motives such as obtaining other material and in sharing children.

Sharing children? I think you've read too much propaganda from those in the Abuse Industry

Perhaps but I also try to read as much material that pertains to this issue and that does appear to happen. True I don't trawl the lower depths for all my information but who does?