No, you completely misunderstand where I'm coming from. I neither claimed nor believe that real abuse doesn't take place and that children cannot be harmed by it. What I am suggesting, however, is that a) the common belief that all children dislike sexual contact and/or are harmed is a huge myth, and b) even in cases where they may not have enjoyed it, unless it was severely painful and unpleasant, the likelihood of them growing up to be traumatized by that experience would be almost nil in a society where it was accepted. Children are made to do a lot of things they dislike throughout their lives. I hated going to school, and many times I faked being sick to get out of it. But I wasn't traumatized by being made to go. Why is sex inherently different from any other unpleasant experience? The whole concept is counter-intuitive, and it is quite obvious to anyone who understands how the mind works that the reason traumatic memories form in these cases is because the child grows to understand how terribly taboo it is, and they reshape their brains reshape memories to conform with societal expectations so that they do not experience cognitive dissonance. That's position in a nutshell.

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.

I am not being condescending towards them. I fully acknowledge that in their minds they have been severely harmed, and maybe in some cases they have. But I am saying that we are doing them a huge disservice by continuing to maintain the powerful taboos. In societies where this stuff has been accepted (mainly tribal cultures) it has been well-documented ⚠️ ↗ that kids openly engage in and enjoy sexual contact of all sorts, and that they are not generally traumatized by their experiences.

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.

But my point is that the more available it is, the more accepted it is (clearly) and thus the harm which arises from that will likely be minimized or nonexistent. I don't think the Abuse Industry is universal yet, but it's getting there, largely due to Western interference and imposition of its values in other cultures.

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.

There are several good (and a few great) reasons to make it available:

a) Evidence suggests that the availability of porn decreases hands-on sex crimes, which is particularly relevant to pedophiles since they cannot legally act on their sexual desires with real children.

b) The availability of child porn will obliterate the ability of the government to convict people on secret evidence--given that we cannot know what it really is these people are being convicted for, we must take the government at its word and they can, and do, abuse this privilege.

c) The church and state use sexual abuse as its trump card to curtail and/or control a good deal of behavior it wants stamped out--making child porn available will eliminate at least one avenue with which they accomplish this, and it will show society a much more realistic picture of what is happening, which will change their views of pedophiles.

d) It will allow the kids to capitalize on the porn in which they participated.

e) Most importantly, the wide availability and cultural acceptance of child porn will minimize or overturn the sociogenic and iatrogenic effects, which is clearly where much of the harm originates.

I could go on, but those reasons alone are more than sufficient.

You seem to be lacking in imagination.

Which is why I'm an artist and writer I guess. :-S

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.

So naturally the best solution is to continue to sexually disempower them so they know they have no control over their own bodies and minds, right? To continue to feed them the line that they were a victim and always will be once they've had a sexual encounter? Makes perfect sense to me.

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?

Well, I've read a lot of stuff but have never heard of such cases. Maybe they were "easy" because they liked sex, and they just feel guilty about it later on because society told them they should.

Asexual or not it still happens and unfortunately a) and b) are fantasy.

No, their not. Well, that was productive. Telling me something is fantasy doesn't make it so. You're going to have prove it. The problem is that the status quo supports your contention, but the big picture supports mine. If we could create a culture that was isolated from the rest of the world and do an ongoing experiment where sex was open and not a shameful thing, and where children were allowed to participate in it free of coercion and pain, I am absolutely certain my position would bear out. It is completely counter-intuitive to everything I know about evolution, morality, biology and psychology that sex is inherently harmful and traumatic to kids. Lucky for you, such an experiment will never be approved and the inevitable relaxation of these cultural mores will likely never occur in either of our lifetimes. So the self-fulfilling prophecy of harm will continue until society wakes the fuck up and realizes the harm it is doing to children.

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.

But most kids have played doctor or something like it. Besides, from a child's p.o.v. an adult's body is far more interesting, isn't it?

So abuse is suddenly 'more honest'?

You missed the point (or else you are being willfully ignorant, which is the more likely thing). Surely you know that it is difficult for a young child to hide the fact that they are in pain or extremely uncomfortable. So if the child in the porn is crying and expressing displeasure, that will discourage other kids from wanting to participate. However, if the child is clearly enjoying it, then where's the problem? Oh yeah, it comes from society. So a child who sees another child having fun will likely have fun as well, providing of course they aren't hurt.

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

No, it's not. It's things like this that make me realize how completely detached from reality many antis are. Have you ever been around children who are being made to do things they don't want to do? More often than not they raise holy hell. I've babysat enough kids and observed enough kids to know that is so. And a child who was being hurt? Fugeddaboutit. There would almost certainly be visible signs of their distress, and no doubt in some cases there are. A real abuser who doesn't care whether they hurt the child or not isn't likely to care if the child is smiling or not in the pics they take either. Occam's Razor plus the nature of children suggests that in cases where the child appears to be enjoying themselves, they probably are. But none of that matters to antis, does it? No matter what happens, they have a way of twisting it around to fit their picture of the world. Thus, no child really enjoys sex--it's all fake.

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 ...

Yes, I understand that many victims feel extremely guilty, like their bodies betrayed them. But this very well could--and probably does--arise after the fact in many of these cases, once society has convinced them that all sex is harmful and unpleasant to kids. Once they've bought that lie (and most of them will to avoid the cognitive dissonance) then they will misremember seeking out sex because it was pleasurable and remember seeking it out for some other reason which doesn't quite make any sense, because, you know, kids are always deliberately going out of their way to do things they don't like to do. Or something. :-S

The saddest part of all is that society doesn't even realize the part it plays in generating the harm. As long as it has its scapegoats . . .

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.

For someone so apparently well-researched, I find it hard to believe you've never heard of the Meese Commission. It was pretty much the biggest government-sponsored anti-porn movement in U.S. history, and its one major accomplishment was the tightening of child porn legislation. What are these effects on society that so disturbs you about porn, praytell?

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.

Well, that goes without saying, but that was not what you meant by it originally, so nice equivocation there. Makes it a lot easier to move the goalposts, doesn't it? You were actually arguing your point from the position that popularity equals correctness, not merely making an observation about the state of acceptance of pedophilia.

Nope, it just adds more complexity to the issue.

Complexity or not, the point remains: you are basing your argument on a series of logical fallacies--poisoning the well, bandwagon fallacy, circular logic and especially begging the question (for starters).

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

Maybe not, but you're pretty damn close.

Weak for paedophiles perhaps but not for others.

And that's because everyone but MAPs want to believe it is all horrorshow, and you very well know that.

Since a vast majority of nations have banned the possession of CP then it might be difficult to carry out such studies now.

No kidding.

They seem to be convinced enough as to the harms rather than any benefits.

Or maybe they just bent to the will of the UN, which is mostly controlled by the Anglophone countries, especially the US. And again, there are far more reasons that church and state might have an investment in making this the ultimate horrorshow than because it really causes severe harm; reasons which you continually ignore. Why is it that the US Congress censured the Rind Report, the only time in history that legit science was censured by the American government? Does that not make you just a tad suspicious? Far worse studies have been published, even many that undermined state policy, but they were never censured. That says a lot about the emotions involved with this issue and little about the actual facts. And that, in a nutshell, is the problem. We are in the midst of a bona fide moral panic; thus, the studies done which result from and reinforce the panic (most extant studies) have to be interpreted with that in mind.

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.

Yeah, my logic is fallacious, even though you've not identified how except in vague insinuations. And here I have shown precisely how your logic is faulty time and time again. In the immortal words of Sylvester Cat, it is to laugh.

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.

No, the things I'm pointing out have rarely if ever been considered. Show me a study (especially the iatrogenic/sociogenic harm theory) where they were considered but rejected. Just one. The fact is, this is very much an issue worth looking at, but it hasn't happened and it likely won't for the foreseeable future, because society is not going to condemn itself on the harm. And as with the drug issue, the government (and many others involved in the Abuse Industry) have a vested interest in making sure the de facto harm position is maintained. I have put these issues before many who are far more logical than you are (mostly atheists and agnostics) at the other forum I post at, and most of them have been convinced of my positions at least in part. You are welcome to join me there and you will see that it isn't just MAPs who see the huge flaws in the extant cultural paradigm. I'll give you the url if you are willing. But I warn you: these people will tear your faulty logic apart, so you had better come prepared.

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.

Oh yeah, there has been sooooo much child porn posted on mainstream sites. LOL!

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.

Yes.

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.

That's true, but when it comes to something as universal and integral to the human experience as sex, we can understand certain things which should be transferable . . . like whether the harm originates primarily from the act itself or from society. That same principle is applicable to other things too, but especially to things which are universal to all cultures. Yes, it is conjecture, but it is rooted solidly in psychology. Read, for example, Jeremy Campbell's book The Improbable Machine--which is rooted in current psychology and science--for a solid explanation of how schemas work.

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.

I'm not asking you to tell me how culture treats children. That tells me nothing about their nature, any more than the fact of slavery tells me anything about the nature of the people who are slaves. I am asking you to explain how children are so fundamentally different from adults that virtually nothing else (other than violence) that we subject them to is so inherently traumatic and harmful as sexual contact, despite the power imbalance being universally present and a good deal many other things being unpleasant to children. Why do you hold this position? Explain to me what it is about sex, even consensual and pleasurable sex, that is so bad for kids. That most of society holds the position that children should be protected from sex and believes it is inherently harmful is no more indicative of its correctness (morally or factually) than the fact that the majority of people at certain times in certain cultures believed some people should be slaves is indicative of slavery's correctness. Do you not understand the bandwagon fallacy? It is really quite simple.

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.

Okay.

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

When all the evidence is considered, especially from a cross-discipline perspective, I don't see how anyone can really doubt it. It is pretty much a 'duh' as far as I can see, but it's certainly a valid enough theory to be worth studying.

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

[...]

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

That's such a cop-out. And there you go being a condescending prick again.

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?

It isn't about my persuasive skills. These people over at DU (now ID@DU) are not won over by pretty words, and neither am I. My particular debate with the poster I am referring to, Vernon, was long and hard-fought, and not without its tensions, but in the long run he wound up supporting my position for the most part. Of course, that debate was done in the midst of when I was still fully anti-contact, but my argument about the sociogenic harm was the main thrust of the debate and it is that on which I won him over. He actually looked at the real science and arrived at much the same conclusion I did. We are now friends. I've even seen pictures of his baby.

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.

Sigh. You missed the point. Yes, in the vast majority of cases adults do have power over children in all areas, physically, mentally and legally, which precisely why it is special pleading. And in many cases adults even manipulate or force children to do things that the child doesn't like or finds extremely distasteful. And yet we don't consider those things inherently harmful, even though the conditions can be identical. Why? Why is sex different from all those other things if the power dynamic is so relevant to the issue? If power mattered--or mattered a lot--then the effects of its use or abuse in situations which are conditionally similar (the child finds the experience disgusting or unpleasant) should be largely the same as with sex. And yet they are not. But not only does the harm show up in cases where the sex was coerced and/or unpleasant, it also shows up (according to studies and case studies) in cases where the sex was consensual and pleasant.

That indicates to me (and should indicate to everyone) that the real issue here is not the power imbalance, or the child's lack of mental development, or any other argument leveled for why sex causes harm; the real issue here is the taboo, secretive and shameful nature of sex, and especially "deviant" sex, as defined by a culture. When you eliminate everything else (through comparison), the obvious culprit stands out: it is society which causes the majority of the harm, in both consensual/pleasant and nonconsensual/unpleasant cases, but especially in the former.

You can throw all the cases at me you want where trauma is shown to occur, but none of those answer why it occurs, and in light of all the evidence that arises in comparative cases, none of the reasons given by psychologists or others is satisfactory. Ir only really makes since when you look at the big picture, how society impacts our memories and the way we process events. Claiming that sex is inherently different from any other experience because . . . well, just because it is . . . that is special pleading. Get it?

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.

Right, which is exactly why I am arguing for society to change, and making the porn accessible is part of that process. You are arguing that the child porn is illegal because it is harmful, and I am arguing that it is harmful (in part) because it is illegal. We are going around in circles and will continue to, until you stop regurgitating the talking points and cop out arguments like 'We don't live in such a society' (Ya think?) and address the point I am making. Why is sex inherently harmful to kids?

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.

Of course you don't see it as relevant because you're not looking at the big picture like I am. You are failing to see how society contributed to all of that happening.