Extreme porn, laws & stuff

[smnb]

Laws aim to both punish and, more importantly, prevent unwanted behaviors, in a practical, enforceable manner. Insofar as no one can read minds or see the future, preventing crimes require using (most likely imperfectly) correlated behaviors as predictors. Are there people who possess real or fictional child pornography without the intent or ability to ever have sex with a child? Of course. But a pedophile is far more likely to possess these materials than a random person drawn from the general population; therefore, it can serve as a predictor for potential pedophiles.

There's huge difference between real and fictional.

Someone with their harddisk stuffed with real ********** can hardly argue about not being interested in children at all. Even if there could be some other explaination why to have such stuff, it's less likely to be true (except maybe when you're a police agent currently running the world's largest pedo forum, that actually seems very likely; I don't remember exact details, but the info about that surfaced not long ago, and it wasn't for the first time). Whatever should be done about it, i.e. if or how to punish people who could potentially do something but didn't do it yet, that's quite difficult and up to discussion.

But with the fictional stuff, it's just nonsense. It's not only because there are no actual children involved, but because it "doesn't even represent children well enough" (sorry, my language skills fail me here). What I mean is that with real **********, you see a child, simple as that. With fictional **********, and I would object to even calling it like that, you have some characters and it's clearly not exact representation of humans, so it's up to you, what you want to see in it. Some photorealistic 3D renders could be the only exception. That's also how some more sensible laws see it, they include realistic stuff and don't care about the rest. It's still problematic, because it's not 100% clear what's realistic and what isn't, but better than to include every drawing and such. There are many different reasons why to have and/or like those, i.e. going by that would give you too much false positives. If you'd use standards like this for all matters, you'd have to preemtively wipe out half of world's population.

As for people who come upon these materials "second hand", they're as guilty as people who keep goods they recognize as being stolen.

But guilty of what? I can understand the moral approach, i.e. if the material depicts something bad that ideally shouldn't exist, it could be seen as bad to possess it. But technically the possession of such materials doesn't have much to do with the original bad stuff anymore. Yes, if it didn't happen at all, the materials couldn't exist. But this is only one-way relation.

Stolen goods are different. If I have it and I know that it's stolen, then it's likely that I somehow supported the stealing. It would have to be something like finding a TV stashed behind my fence and nobody coming to claim it. Then a thief leaving it there while being on the run could be the explanation how it got there. But I don't think it happens very often, people buy stolen stuff knowingly and by doing so, they support thiefs. That's not the case for a lot of **********, where the not-for-profit stuff is made because producers like it (be it someone commiting a real abuse or child masturbating in front of webcam).

 

[215303j]

But technically the possession of such materials doesn't have much to do with the original bad stuff anymore. Yes, if it didn't happen at all, the materials couldn't exist. But this is only one-way relation.

You can argue that you are violating the integrity of the person depicted only by looking at it.

Think about it: you visit a naturist beach with your young daughter. Somebody takes photo's without anyone noticing. Later the pics show up on a pedo site. How would that make you and your daughter feel?

 

[smnb]

You can argue that you are violating the integrity of the person depicted only by looking at it.

I'm affraid that sounds like a little too abstract concept to me. How is that supposed to work?

Beach example doesn't work for me. That's being nude on naturist beach, nothing to be embarassed about. Sure, becoming star of pedo site is whole different level, but given the nature of the photo, it's still nothing to destroy anyone's life, not even remotely. So lets push it, daughter could e.g. send explicit masturbation video of her to her boyfriend, and that leaks to pedo site. She could be doing something "special" that would make her terribly embarassed if everyone around her saw it.

Then it works, daughter is embarassed and feels bad, I want to at least kick ass of that stupid boyfriend who was first to share it with other people, whole family and friends wish it never happened, etc. I can also be mad at everyone who keeps sharing the video, keeps voting it "pick of the week", etc. But some lonely pedo, who keeps it for himself and jerks to it at night, even though it's not pleasant thing to imagine, is the least or my worries. And realistically, after the idiot boyfriend, it's all pointless, because once something leaks on internet, it's never going away. Never, even if there was death penalty for possession.

So in the end, the best course of action is to assure daughter that "shit happens" and that she shouldn't think much about it. Easier said than done, of course. But it's not like she would be woken from her sleep anytime some perv jerks to her video, or anything. So that definitely helps. And that's what I don't get about this "violating the integrity" concept. Again, the thought of what someone could be doing with the video is bad, but it has no direct effect, no matter if there's one pervert or million of them using it.

 

[DarthSeduction]

I'm affraid that sounds like a little too abstract concept to me. How is that supposed to work?

Beach example doesn't work for me. That's being nude on naturist beach, nothing to be embarassed about. Sure, becoming star of pedo site is whole different level, but given the nature of the photo, it's still nothing to destroy anyone's life, not even remotely. So lets push it, daughter could e.g. send explicit masturbation video of her to her boyfriend, and that leaks to pedo site. She could be doing something "special" that would make her terribly embarassed if everyone around her saw it.

Then it works, daughter is embarassed and feels bad, I want to at least kick ass of that stupid boyfriend who was first to share it with other people, whole family and friends wish it never happened, etc. I can also be mad at everyone who keeps sharing the video, keeps voting it "pick of the week", etc. But some lonely pedo, who keeps it for himself and jerks to it at night, even though it's not pleasant thing to imagine, is the least or my worries. And realistically, after the idiot boyfriend, it's all pointless, because once something leaks on internet, it's never going away. Never, even if there was death penalty for possession.

So in the end, the best course of action is to assure daughter that "shit happens" and that she shouldn't think much about it. Easier said than done, of course. But it's not like she would be woken from her sleep anytime some perv jerks to her video, or anything. So that definitely helps. And that's what I don't get about this "violating the integrity" concept. Again, the thought of what someone could be doing with the video is bad, but it has no direct effect, no matter if there's one pervert or million of them using it.

That last paragraph is the healthiest reaction. Getting all up in arms and trying to protect her dignity by after the men who are marinating to her will only serve to reinforce that this is a something that should devalue her self worth. Assuming you're a good enough parent that you've discussed this, said, "hey, honey, I know you're starting to get curious sexually, and we need to talk about sexting. Any time you send a picture to someone, it's possible that picture will end up on the internet. Once it's there it'll never come down. So before you ever send it, you have to confront that reality."

If you've done that and then you don't scold her, or make her feel like something of lesser value for her actions, then she'll be much better off than if you try to be all protective of her virtue.

 

[215303j]

I'm affraid that sounds like a little too abstract concept to me. How is that supposed to work?

It means that you have a right to photographs that are made of you. This is also in the law in several countries, although it's difficult to enforce.

In many cases, there is also not a big point to enforce it. I mean, if you happen to walk in front of some landmark building and some tourist takes a picture, it's not a big deal.

Nudist photo's of your underage daughter on a pedo site on the other hand, is a big deal.

If you post photo's of a child on a pedo site, you are violating her (or her legal guardian's) rights to object to such use of her images.

 

[smnb]

I understand when it does something, has some effect on the person. If someone takes a photo of me and uses it for commercial, then it's clear. Even if I'm just an unimportant part of the photo, I can feel affected by it, if I see it somewhere. Or if a tourist takes that picture and happens to catch me in it, I can still understand that at that moment, I might not like it, so it has some effect on me.

But I'm getting lost at:

You can argue that you are violating the integrity of the person depicted only by looking at it.

Because if I'm looking at the picture, nobody sees me doing it, I don't tell anybody about it, etc., then nobody except me knows. The person in the picture doesn't know. Ok, "doesn't know" by itself is bad explanation. If one person pisses in the pool, nobody else knows either. But if enough people piss in the pool, you will notice. So it's clear that pissing in the pool has some effect. But it doesn't happen with looking. Whether I'm looking alone, or any number of people look too, it doesn't change anything, still nothing happens. I get the message, it's that I shouldn't look. Not looking is the right thing to do. But when someone does, the only thing it can possibly affect is their conscience. So when I hear argument like "when you're watching materials picturing <something bad>, it's like you're doing <something bad> yourself", then the answer is "no", because that's simply not true.

 

[GODZILLA2000]

There's huge difference between real and fictional.

Someone with their harddisk stuffed with real ********** can hardly argue about not being interested in children at all. Even if there could be some other explaination why to have such stuff, it's less likely to be true (except maybe when you're a police agent currently running the world's largest pedo forum, that actually seems very likely; I don't remember exact details, but the info about that surfaced not long ago, and it wasn't for the first time). Whatever should be done about it, i.e. if or how to punish people who could potentially do something but didn't do it yet, that's quite difficult and up to discussion.

But with the fictional stuff, it's just nonsense. It's not only because there are no actual children involved, but because it "doesn't even represent children well enough" (sorry, my language skills fail me here). What I mean is that with real **********, you see a child, simple as that. With fictional **********, and I would object to even calling it like that, you have some characters and it's clearly not exact representation of humans, so it's up to you, what you want to see in it. Some photorealistic 3D renders could be the only exception. That's also how some more sensible laws see it, they include realistic stuff and don't care about the rest. It's still problematic, because it's not 100% clear what's realistic and what isn't, but better than to include every drawing and such. There are many different reasons why to have and/or like those, i.e. going by that would give you too much false positives. If you'd use standards like this for all matters, you'd have to preemtively wipe out half of world's population.


But guilty of what? I can understand the moral approach, i.e. if the material depicts something bad that ideally shouldn't exist, it could be seen as bad to possess it. But technically the possession of such materials doesn't have much to do with the original bad stuff anymore. Yes, if it didn't happen at all, the materials couldn't exist. But this is only one-way relation.

Stolen goods are different. If I have it and I know that it's stolen, then it's likely that I somehow supported the stealing. It would have to be something like finding a TV stashed behind my fence and nobody coming to claim it. Then a thief leaving it there while being on the run could be the explanation how it got there. But I don't think it happens very often, people buy stolen stuff knowingly and by doing so, they support thiefs. That's not the case for a lot of **********, where the not-for-profit stuff is made because producers like it (be it someone commiting a real abuse or child masturbating in front of webcam).

Exactly this. I remember when I was 15 or so and I was playing GTA3. I was in the middle of a level where I was killing police. For whatever reason also, there was a cop in my house. I wasn't put under suspicion of wanting to kill police. He just knew I was playing a video game and that was good enough. I don't have a murderous bone in my body. So this whole thing with fictitious porn is just really absurd.

 

[215303j]

Because if I'm looking at the picture, nobody sees me doing it, I don't tell anybody about it, etc., then nobody except me knows.

Of course, that what makes such a law hard to enforce.

I think the concept of a person having a right to his/her picture, is more on the level of human rights in general and doesn't necessarily have to do with porn, let alone CP. As you say, it can also be that you dislike being in the vacation photo album of some stranger.

Completely off-topic, the same can be said about many other human rights. In some times and places, slaves had a better / easier life than free peasants. Still "we" (modern European / Western society) believe slavery is wrong IN PRINCIPLE, rather than looking at specific cases where slaves may have been ill treated or actually very well treated.

Or in the case of privacy, some people argue that "they have nothing to hide", which may in fact be true, but it would still be uncomfortable and "wrong" for another person / government / company tracking everything you do. And eventually everybody has something to hide.

 

[megaplayboy10k]

Generally, most countries have tightened their laws to include simulated CP among prohibited materials. The US and Japan do still have some wriggle room, but there have been people prosecuted and convicted in the US for possession of CP/Loli/Shota manga/anime/hentai. Generally depictions of prepubescents are a huge red flag, legally speaking.

 

[smnb]

But isn't that crazy? I do understand the basic argument that, simply put, fucking children would be extremely bad thing, and even fantasizing about that is somehow wrong. But you can't control someone's fantasies, and more importantly, this is just a minor point. Real ********** (i.e. photos and movies featuring real children) and anything else featuring fictional underage characters are two completely different worlds. At most, they might be loosely related, with varying degree.

E.g. if someone would create photorealistic virtual reality "Child Fucking Simulator 3000" where you play as 40yo guy and do what the title suggests, then yeah, it's likely that it could be appealing to people who might want to try the same with real children, and I'd understand the outrage, because that would seem wrong to most regular people. But still, "might" is not "will".

But when you take the rest, e.g. some cute hentai drawings, then relation between liking those and sexual attraction to children is none, zero, nothing. And the fact that one can end up in prison for possessing those, that's what I call disturbing. And I'm really affraid of people who can't see the difference, because who knows what other obvious things they can't see.

 

[kimoo]

i don't have time to read all of the replays
but in my opinion not because i am watching something that mean i will do it
i already watch rape porn (its not actual rape there is different ) that don't mean i will rape people of course
because if i found real rape video i fell disgusting
the same about incest games not because i play incest i will fuck my family

(iam not into child abuse but i think if they just watching there is nothing with reality )
not because i play hitman (i am a serial killer)
not because i play GTA V i am a thief
this world has to grow in mind