OK - reply to Markaba

You do not appear to see how this sort of material actually affects those depicted.

I'm getting pretty tired of your assumptions that none of us have ever read any accounts of victims and are unable to empathize with real victims. And most important of all, I know real victims, including one of my LGFs who was raped at age 14 by her stepdad (who also murdered her mom . . . in front of her little sister).

And anyone who has been here long enough knows about my high school years, when I repressed my sexuality and styled myself after that douche-bag Andrew Vachss, basically reading anything about sexual abuse I could get my hands on. But guess what? A lot of it turned out to be utter bullshit in the end. I read When Rabbit Howls and came up with a comic book story about an MPD (aka DID) abuse "survivor" who could literally manifest each of her personalities. Low and behold, MPD turned out to be utter wank, and it began to surface that many of these people were being manipulated by psychiatrists and self-styled counselors in order to make a name for themselves. It became a phenomenon, and everyone jumped on the abuse bandwagon.

Moreover, I am an actual abuse victim. I know exactly how it feels, and I know a lot of it is bullshit propped up to justify a money-sucking Abuse Industry. And yes, there are some horrific stories out there, no doubt about it, and I am usually the first one here to chide anyone who acts as though every news story that's posted here is a pure media/government distortion. But having trained in journalism, I know a lot of it is. There are many such issues in the media, but this is the big one. This and terrorism.

I'm glad to see you have read some of this material but it seems you are willing to believe that the 'bullshit' is what it is all about rather than true abuse.

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.

Well, I'm glad you can speak for all of them. What a burden that must be. But maybe, just maybe, if we were to convince them that it's not such a bad thing after all instead of constantly feeding them the de facto it's-worse-than-death scenario, we might actually be helping them. Have you thought of that?

I don't presume to speak for any of them - they have done that quite adequately themselves via forums and books and on-line blogs. For some it will be a problem and not for others just as it is for those who have lost someone in tragic circumstances. It is not up to me or anyone else to persuade them what to think but to enable them to see the true situation - which you seem to want to prove wasn't really abuse just what others are telling them. You are being condescending now, towards them.

It will last the rest of their lives . . .

. . . is an idea that the Abuse Industry thrives on. The same myth (that abuse must always traumatize those who experienced it for life) perpetuates in cases of adult rape, but some victims are beginning to challenge that nonsense. Maybe it can in some cases--certainly in incest cases where the abuse is severe and long-term. But those are rare.

Well you could have put it into context since I said '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.'

Meaning that if they do feel insecure from such experiences and the images will always be available (perhaps to few people but they don't necessarily know this) then even as they age it still remains. I don't know about the USA, you seem to think the 'Abuse Industry' is a universal and applicable to every country.

The damage will be far worse if the material was more easily available.

Prove it. Oh wait, you can't, because it hasn't happened.

Unlike yourself my common sense tells that the more available things are then the more possibilities arise since more people are involved. Making possession legal would make the images much more widely available and for no good reason.

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.

What the fuck are you on about? Do anything? What would they do?

You seem to be lacking in imagination. It is well known that children who do have early sexual experiences - even perhaps simply posing nude as many cases of CP - are often victimised by either other children or by adults. There are numerous cases of kids being sexually assaulted at school because they were seen as 'easy', many instances of abuse within care homes for the same reasons (often they are in these homes because of previous sexual abuse) and other instances where sexual behaviour has been used to target them. What would they do? See above, if it was known er, like seeing their images on the Internet?

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'.

Oh sure, kids (who are supposedly asexual and utterly ignorant about sex) will perhaps accidentally stumble upon child porn and realize that their classmate is 'an easy lay'--and, of course, being completely ignorant and asexual, they will know exactly what that means. It's funny how those in the anti camp can completely flip-flop on their view of children's understanding of sex when it suits their argument. And of course I don't think that a prepubescent child would have no experience at school if they were involved in porn and it was legally accessible, but two things: a) if it was normalized, they will likely not feel it's any bigger deal than anything else that kids are routinely picked on about, and b) they'll have the last laugh when they grow up and get rich from it.

Asexual or not it still happens and unfortunately a) and b) are fantasy. Sex is still a big issue amongst children and probably will be for a considerable time.

Silly. Child porn is much more relevant to a child than adult porn - "see, Amanda, it is quite normal really."

So what? My point is still relevant, especially since kids are often more curious about adult bodies than those of other kids--they've already seen those,

You seem to be speaking for all kids now. I never saw a young girl's body nude as a child and I'm sure that happens to a lot of kids with either no opposite sex siblings or no siblings.

and because, if adult porn is all that's available, then "groomers" will probably use that instead. And, in fact, child porn is more honest from a kid's experience.

So abuse is suddenly 'more honest'?

If an adult showed a child kiddy porn where the child is screaming and in pain, that's not exactly something a child would want to jump right into and try, is it?

No, a lot of it is about false smiles isn't it?

However, if the child in the porn is smiling and happy . . . well, that's a problem for antis who want to maintain the myth that children never enjoy sex, isn't it? Such a thing cannot exist in their universe. Hmmm . . .

You believe all is rosy, I can't prevent that, so carry on believing that the smiles are genuine and even when the enjoyment is there too then no abuse is occurring.

From one victim -

What you believe to be a consensual and acceptable sexual or romantic relationship between a young child and adult is the very part of the abuse that is most likely to make them want to kill themselves later in life.

and

You want to think a 10-year-old can consent to sex? I have been that 10-year-old; one time I even initiated my molestation. Maybe he had convinced himself that my consent made it ok and positive ... and it was the fact that I had been so disgusting as to invite him to use me that caused me so much shame and self-hatred, the fact that I was so untrustworthy to myself, and worst of all the fact that my body betrayed me by feeling involuntary pleasure ...

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.

Of course you would. It must be fun being a throwback to the Meese Commission, huh. To be honest, I don't generally read your comments.

No, it is for the general effects on society that I dislike the current widespread availablity of adult porn and I've not heard about the Meese Commision - I form my own views on the evidence around me and from research findings.

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.

Oh, nice. Sounds familiar: "Yes we know the views of many homosexuals as to what they think of as normality but until you convince the rest of the world then the description stands."

Since you're being a condescending ass to me, I will return the favor. The bandwagon fallacy, aka argumentum ad populum, is essentially an argument that something is right or moral because it is popular. Here you go--the more you know . . .

Yes, it is an absurdist belief that such an attraction is 'abnormal' but until you can convince most of the nations of the world then that is what it is regarded as.

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.

At which point your argument becomes moot anyway. If any child can be switched for another, or faces can be changed, or whatever, then who can know whether any particular child has been abused or not? Classmate to victim: "Oh, that picture looks sorta, kinda, somewhat like you . . . heeeeey, you're a whore!"

Nope, it just adds more complexity to the issue.

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.

I don't 'choose to believe' on a whim. I have looked at the evidence and considered it carefully. If you knew me well, you would know that beyond a doubt. I am not prone to swallowing bullshit. I grew up in a very religious part of the country and yet I am openly agnostic. I was raised in the heart of conservative country, and yet I am a liberal. Why don't you stick to considering my points rather than just poisoning the well against me because I happen to be an MAP? I could easily play the same fucking game with you: oh, typical anti, you believe what you want to believe. I don't. I would appreciate it if you'd extend me the same courtesy. But alas, I know you will not.

Well I am not your typical 'anti' so less of that please. We'll have to differ then on our intepretation of such data.

The 'many other factors' you mention have all been addressed here many times, and most of them are weak evidence for your argument--weak enough, certainly, to justify more (and less biased) studies.

Weak for paedophiles perhaps but not for others.

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

Right, let's stop doing studies--despite the fact that society (and scientists are members of society) are hugely biased about this issue at this time, there's no reason to do any more studies. The issue is decided, yay! Except that no issue is ever completely decided in any of the sciences, but especially the soft sciences.

Since a vast majority of nations have banned the possession of CP then it might be difficult to carry out such studies now. They seem to be convinced enough as to the harms rather than any benefits.

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?

Hmm, and so, because we can never predict whether someone will experience harm or not, we must keep it illegal (despite the fact that, if there is harm, it will likely arise regardless of the porn's legality). I like that philosophy; let's extend it to other harmful things. Let's see, according to all important sources, the number one killer of kids is cars. Ergo, we should stop letting children ride in cars. The risk is just too high. The number two killer of kids is standing water. Well, strictly showers for the kiddies from now on, and no more swimming at all, no sirree. And those are things that just cause death! I mean, there's a whole lot of things that can cause injuries and (gasp!) emotional harm. I mean, really, we should treat kids like babies until they are 18, because you just never know, right?

No, we don't need to extend it anywhere, especially with such fallacious logic. There are reasons enough to ban the images and that is why they are banned.

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.

Um, no. Read my point again. I mentioned comparative photos were of crimes caught on camera, be it murder, theft, or whatever, because either one is legal to own, or jack off to if that's your bag. At any rate, you are really splitting hairs here; whether it is a photo of a murder in progress or a photo of the victim ex post facto, lying dead in a pool of blood, it makes little difference for my point to be relevant. The family of the deceased will likely react the same way because IT'S FUCKING MURDER! As I pointed out in the case I mentioned, one family was horrified at the sight of the bones of their deceased relative on TV. So yeah, there's that.

Sorry, there are other factors thet over-ride such considerations so don't harp on about this. Their illegality comes from the harms that could be and are done to children with their availability.

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.

Um, do you comprehend what special pleading is? It means you are making an exception for something comparable to other things for which no exception is made. Hence, images of any other crime . . . legal to produce, to own, to masturbate to, even if the victim is a child and despite all of the same characteristics and potentialities applying, at least in the cases of crimes where there were real victims. I'm not counting victimless crimes like jaywalking, blasphemy, drug use, etc. I could produce and own a video of a child getting beat up by her parents and do whatever the hell I wanted with it, even put it on the news or post it on youtube. (Warning: this video is violent and will piss you off, and yes, it's a newscast so it meets GC's standards for videos.)

Undoubtedly it happens but these videos are normally taken down fairly quickly because 'anything' isn't allowed, especially if abuse or violence occurs to children.

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.

You cannot judge everyone's case by your own experience and feelings, any more than I can. By the way, it's not an either/or proposition--you can blame both the person who abused you AND blame society for overreacting and creating the horrific stigma that made you feel like shit afterwards. That's exactly what I do. In my case it was real abuse because my consent was neither sought near given, but I was not hurt by having my willy rubbed. It didn't scare me or make me feel disgusted or any of that. I remember feeling it was odd, but it also made me feel closer to him, even though I didn't know him very well. So on some level I enjoyed the sexual contact. Had he raped me my feelings would likely have been very different, but they were what they were and I do not really feel victimized even now. Moreover, I refuse to let others dictate how I should feel about that experience. It was my experience, not theirs, just as your experience belongs to you.

Well I am glad we can agree on this, perhaps we disagree on the numbers seeing it as abuse and those not seeing it as such.

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.

That is an assumption that you simply cannot make about a culture that is more accepting, based on the current culture. In today's environment of course many will tell you otherwise, but in an environment where it was much less of an issue, even the painful stuff likely wouldn't be any more traumatic long-term than when children break a limb: painful and frightening at the time but pretty much just another experience, almost a rite of passage, long-term. Of course, let me make it clear that I will never support any form of sexual contact with kids, and certainly not penetration of prepubescent children, even consensual, unless they have passed the testing system I advocate--which is something along the lines of the Epstein system--and understand what they're getting into.

But I do think that we far overreact in cases of consensual sexual contact. By treating them all the same, we almost certainly assure that the children involved will come to see themselves as having been forced and having a terrible experience, despite whatever really happens. There are far too many examples of anthropological accounts of cultures wherein children are reported to engage in and enjoy sex to some extent without negative consequences, and many of these bear out my point: cultural acceptance of an event, especially at the local level, has a powerful impact on how children react to having experienced that event and, perhaps most importantly for their sake, how they remember having experienced that event.

What occurs in other cultures and countries is not necessarily transferable to our own so it is mostly irrelevant. Unless you have specific details of the numbers in CP who actually are doing so fully consensually then it is just conjecture and since it is almost universally against the law it is irrelevant too.

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.

"Children are still essentially children" is a meaningless statement. What do you mean by 'children'? Clarify why you think a child is distinct from an adult, and why, based on that, that they should be treated differently. I do not necessarily completely disagree with you on this; I just want to make sure we're on the same page.

I hardly need to point out the differences in how we treat children below puberty, the protections we give them, restrictions etc. Why do I need to define them - society does so for their own safety, at least in most Western nations. Their abilities and experiences are different and I'm not getting into a debate about this issue - seen enough of that already.

The grey area above puberty we can change.

Um, you got it backwards.

Try a litle interpretation of my words before jumping in with condemnation. I mean that changes in the law should be made regarding their behaviour since it is too restrictive now and they do get involved with the law for what should not really be offences.

Kids' brains are far more plastic than are adults' brains. All brains are somewhat malleable, but it gets harder and harder to do so with age; children's brains are especially malleable. Hence, with a shift in the cultural view of consensual adult-child sexual contact, we can almost certainly eliminate the negative baggage there in the vast majority of cases, and it would exist in non-consensual cases regardless, but we can perhaps reduce it, allowing those victims to live somewhat happier lives. I am in favor of eliminating the cultural baggage surrounding sex all the way around. Sex is a natural activity that most people engage in, and we're all born with the parts and the drive. They don't kick into high gear until puberty, but they're there, and even children can--and should be entitled to--enjoy some forms of sexual contact before puberty. The more we get sex out into the open, the better off we'll all be.

That's your view but don't expect it to be universal and essentially trouble-free.

Reduce the taboo? This wouldn't lead to more adult-child sexual relationships?

Yes, reduce the taboo. Even if it did increase adult-child sexual relationships, as long as they are positive, so what? In fact, one of the problems with adult-child sexual contact when it occurs is that the child often feels isolated, different, unable to talk about it, precisely because of its rarity and its illicit nature. That will always be an issue if we continue to hold onto the powerful taboo.

Fine, you'll just have to persuade society first so good luck with that.

I think you are doing the advocating that seems endemic here on GC.

Well, I think a lot of things about you which are not particularly flattering, but none of them make you wrong. You are wrong not because of who you are but because the evidence doesn't back you up.

I suggest you send all this 'evidence' to the appropriate authorities since I have no part in anything. I'm just an observer.

I got into a debate with a guy over at the other forum I hang at who is in the medical profession and who, on top of that, was once molested in a marketplace. He saw things much the way you do in the beginning, but he actually did something which you probably will not bother to do: he actually looked at the evidence I presented, and a good deal more, and ultimately came to the conclusion that I was pretty much right one. We still quibble on some things, but the main issues we agree on.

Good for you, it is nice to hear some good old-fashioned anecdotal evidence to persuade me. Your persuasive skills must be better than mine. How relevant is this though?

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.

The problem is that too many in your camp beg the question by suggesting that the power issue is a) inherently problematic and b) that children are incapable of holding power over an adult, and going from there. Both are untrue. Again, this is a case of special pleading. Adults engage in all sorts of activities in which they, by virtue of mind, body and law, have power over children, but that does not mean the adult will inevitably abuse that power, or even that the abuse of power is somehow inherently harmful to children in itself.

It is not a case of special pleading since in the vast majority of cases adults do have much more power then children in most areas and the power in children is only that which is transferred to them by the adult.

I generally use the example of wrestling, something I've engaged in with kids many times. Could I use my size and strength advantage to easily beat them, even if it hurt them? Of course I could, but I don't. I've no interest in hurting the children I care about (or any others for that matter); I want them to have fun, because I have fun when they're having fun. The fact that much of the sexual contact that takes place in today's environment is abusive cannot be used indicatively of all cases, or even most cases which would occur in an environment where it was both legal and culturally accepted. Most people of any cross-section of society are decent people; the same is true of MAPs. Those who break the law in the extant environment already demonstrate that they aren't likely to care about social niceties, the long-term impact on the children, etc., and we know that most criminals do not confine their criminal activities to one kind of crime, meaning they are likely just all-around shitty people.

That would be markedly different in the culture I advocate for, not only because there would be good MAPs involved but because the truly abusive type would find it far more difficult to use the very nature of adult-child sex (as taboo, illegal, isolated) as leverage against the child. Those children could compare and contrast their own situation with the situation of children who have a much happier and healthier sex life. In fact, for a long time here I was on your side, meaning completely anti-sexual contact all around.

Fine but we don't live in such a society and thus this particular issue - possession of CP - has to relate to our society as it exists today not some mythical and unlikely society.

What finally changed my mind was the case I mentioned above, of my LGF who was raped at 14 by her stepdad--you can call her J. Let me lay out the specifics of this case: This girl is a distant relative of mine. Her dad is my cousin and he used to be married to J's mom. When J's mom (we'll identify her as X, even though she is actually a J like her daughter) first met my cousin, M, she had only been out of a very bad relationship for about a year. This guy, P, had beat her so badly he left her in a coma that lasted for days. She came out of the coma and left him, but she was pregnant at the time P had nearly killed her and had a son by him, L, who was only a few months old at the time she and M met.

Now, M and X eventually married and had J. They lived beside me for many years (until J was 7) and I spent a LOT of time with J and fell in love with her. When J was 7, X left M and . . . guess what? That's right, she went back to P, dragging L and J with her! P and X remarried and eventually had another child, a little girl, S. J was the only child in that situation that was not blood-related to P, and she was sandwiched in the middle of his two genetic children. The marriage lasted awhile and all seemed okay for years, but as you probably know, real abusers rarely stop abusing; they just get better at hiding it, manipulating everyone under their thumb. When M and X first split up, I urged M to fight for custody of J. I admit that it was partially motivated by selfishness, but another part was genuinely worried about J being in that household. M, emotionally stunned and thinking he might eventually be able to win X back, conceded to her wishes and got the standard divorced dad custody settlement: he got his daughter every other weekend and sometimes on holidays, and he paid child support on her.

Meanwhile, there was a mess brewing in that house. J, the lively and happy little girl I knew, changed considerably. P had started to get physically abusive with his son. He didn't touch J because he knew M would press charges, but he certainly scared the shit out of her, enough to make her conform. S was born somewhere along the way. It's my belief that P had started messing with J sexually before she hit puberty, but certainly afterward he did, and she was small for age anyway. One day, when J was 14, P got to looking at her phone and found images of her topless or some such (I'm not really sure on the details there) that she'd sent to her boyfriend. And so, he told J she was going to have sex with him and if she didn't he would show the photos to her dad and report her to the authorities. J, frightened of being punished, had no choice but to give in. You see, P had used the very illegality (as well as the guilt and disappointment her real dad was sure to feel) as leverage against her.

The story doesn't end there. J, although urged not to by P (who still had her sexted photos), told her mom. Her mom confronted P, reported him to the police and left him for good. P was arrested, and as it turned out, J had not been the only minor victimized by him. Another teen girl whom I do not know was also raped by P. And P's physical abuse of his wife and son and the verbal abuse of all of them started to surface. The charges against P grew, and he is heard in jail to claim that he will kill his wife for reporting him to authorities. But then his mom steps in and bails P out of jail as he's awaiting trial for these charges. Meanwhile, X, who wants P to sign off on the property since he's going to prison for a long time, and P agrees to do so, on the condition that he gets to see his youngest child, S, who's about 6 or 7 by then. So X and S drive out to the old trailer to hammer out the details, but P gets angry at X and pulls out a .22 rifle he should never have had access to (well, this is the South) and shoots X in the back a few times . . . in front of S. But she's not dead yet. He then throws her, a bloody dying mess, into the back of his pickup, puts S in the cab with him and drives down to another state where his sister lives. Somewhere along the way he stops, pulls out a knife and slits X's throat, then shoots her again. Now she is dead. He drops S off at hi sister's and goes on down the road, but his sister (or someone) calls the police and P is pulled over en route with his wife's corpse in the truck. He confesses to the cops and is arrested. J is sent to live with her real dad, who now lives in another state altogether, and L and S go to their grandparents, X's mom and stepdad.

Now, here's my question to you: had P not been able to use J's sexted pics as leverage to manipulate her into sex, would the rape (and then the murder which proceeded from it) have happened? I don't know, maybe, but I doubt it. And another question: would J have been better off with me, an MAP who loved her and would never have hurt her, even if I had had consenting sex with her (I didn't have any sexual contact with her whatsoever, if you must know) or with P? I did everything in my power to make sure that little girl was safe, but it wasn't nearly enough. By the time J's mom went back to P my sexuality was starting to surface in my family and everyone knew I was an MAP. At first they did not know how to react, but eventually they all realized that I would never hurt a child. They should've known it anyway because they knew me, but they bought into the media's lies. I think that may have been part of the reason M didn't fight for custody of J--he thought maybe I might hurt her, and felt she was safer with a guy whom he knew had nearly beat his ex-wife to death. As it turned out, I was the safe bet and P, who is not an MAP (most incestuous abusers aren't), is the one who hurt her, and who destroyed every single member of that family in one way or another.

If J had been allowed to stay with me some of the time, I might have seen the warning signs, because I was always tuned into her and took up her defense frequently. I once nearly got into a fist fight with J's grandpa because he wanted to spank her for failing to pick up her crayons. I sure as FUCK wouldn't have backed down from that loser if I'd known he had hurt her before it was too late to do anything about it. I'll wager there are hundreds of thousands--maybe even millions--of MAPs just like me, who would be willing to die for the girl or boy they love, and who would never dream of hurting them. But because of the sanctity of parenthood, many children grow up isolated and controlled by jag-offs who don't give a flying shit about them.

A horrible tale and I do have sympathy for what you and your family went through. I have nothing like this in my own experiences so would find it difficult to relate to, however, it is still anecdotal and although it appears to have helped form your views on some matters I don't see it as being relevant to what we are discussing. I could probably find an equally likely situation to use.

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?

The lower depths?

Yes, those areas of the Internet where much of the worst abuse is discussed and traded but remains strictly secret from most normal users. I am not implying that you do either so get this clear.