Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why is watching child porn illegal? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If it were legal, more people might be inclined to watch it who wouldn't now because of the law. More people watching would create more demand which would lead to more children being exploited and abused.

    If it were fully animated pornography... And animation can be fairly realistic, I think it could be an acceptable outlet for people with paedophilic tendencies as no one gets hurt.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CJKay)
    Reply to add on: OP is not talking about film violence.
    Hmm, I thought that might be the case. But if he is talking about snuff films, they aren't made to an audience who pay to see the stuff like child porn (unless that is, you're in a cheap horror film or playing Manhunt). This violence would have happened regardless, they just chose to film it in most cases as a weapon of intimidation to make rival gangs fear them, or in rarer cases sadistic pleasure. But yeah perhaps we should try restrict access to these materials, I'm pretty sure they aren't legal to watch though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TimmonaPortella)
    I'm not sure that watching it per se is illegal. I'd like to see it demonstrated. Certainly saving it on your harddrive is illegal, and iirc other forms of possession, but I'd like someone to prove to me that streaming is included.
    A recent court case in New York I think ruled that streaming child porn is legal. I think it might have got overturned by now. Anything that gets saved on your cache will count as saving it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    "Online spaces also allow individuals to find others who share their interests, creating supportive communities where individuals feel “they are part of a group, from which validation can be drawn, and sexual scripts exchanged"
    What you quoted seems to me to be giving sympathy to the paedophiles. Allowing them to have supportive communities where they aren't hated against is a good thing to me, but I realise now that you don't think they should be. In other words, I see it as being a positive thing and you see it as a negative thing, so I see it as sympathy. You don't.
    "O'Connell (2001) suggests that different members of online pedophile networks act out different roles, based on her observations of Usenet newsgroups, which can broadly be categorized as either promoters or detractors. Roles within the promoter category include infrastructure advice/coordinators, who orchestrate the group's activities and provide answers to common questions for ‘newbies’ (new subscribers to the network); literature reviewers, who give detailed information regarding the content of online and offline pedophile related publications; story/fantasy generators, who directly engage in the production of fantasy material, posting accounts of sexual interactions between adults and children; support people, detailing the positive aspects of adult–child sexual interest and espousing the supposed rights of ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ lovers; and posters and traders of images, who engage in posting and requesting images of indicative and abusive images of children. Roles within the detractor category include reactionary individuals who respond aggressively and repugnantly against pedophilic content and register propagators who post personal details about known pedophiles in a bid to eradicate their anonymity. Paradoxically, although detractors oppose pedophile activity, they may actually accentuate cohesiveness and support within a targeted group and consequently may encourage9 and develop pedophile activity rather than prevent it (O'Connell, 2001)" (Beech et al., 2008).

    As with any community, there are people with different roles. In a community that revolves around sex, particularly illegal sex, there is a very large chance of there being somebody with a role that either posts images directly or distributes information about where to find such images.

    It's worth noting that the Holt et al. (2010) study found these "supportive communities" resulted in the following: "The findings suggest that the values of the pedophile culture support and encourage emotional and, in some cases, sexual relationships with boys and girls in virtual and real settings."

    But the people trading these images to each other are not the ones creating them. They didn't create the pornography to make money, they got hold of it because it was leaked somewhere.
    There is a source of these images, and this source acts as a supplier. The middle-men may also gain in the dimensions I have stated.

    Good for them, I say. They're feeling more human than society usually allows them to be. I hardly see that as a bad thing. As I said before, I would like, eventually (though it won't happen), the taboo of paedophilia to disappear.
    Not when they are directly or indirectly contributing to child abuse. "Itzin (2002) suggests research so consistently produces correlations between pornography and harm that pornography should be re-conceptualised as "instrumentally causal [though not solely causal] in the etiology of sex offending". Sullivan and Beech (2004) suggest that not every offender who masturbates to indecent images of children will inevitably progress to contact sexual offences against children. However, they suggest that the subjective risk of them doing so would be increased as their engagement in fantasy and the subsequent conditional pairing of this with masturbation and orgasm would lower their inhibitions for doing so" (Beech et al., 2008). The direct and indirect nature of normalising that which is illegal is intrinsically problematic:

    There is little point in advocating the social normalisation of something that is illegal. Declaring it is acceptable/normal/not a taboo/etc. to be a paedophile but not equally arguing for its legalisation seems very counter-intuitive. "If my sexuality is so normal and acceptable, why can I not do what everyone else is doing?" Jim Crow-era "separate but equal" springs to mind. As long as it is illegal the taboo will never disappear.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    Haven't read the rest of the thread, but my opinions boil down to two crucial points:

    1) Children are children and the creation of porn involving children is wrong and any video of it is considered on the same level as an illegal drug. It's an illegal item and therefore anyone watching it is breaking the law because they're willingly using something which is illegal.
    1. Premise: 1. Children are children. This is just tautology, and meaningless.
    2. Creation of porn involving children is wrong - what is your argument supporting this? I'm assuming your standpoint that it's "wrong" is based on the premise that children cannot consent (another argument for another day)
    3. It's illegal - therefore you are breaking the law and doing something illegal. Another tautology. Just because something is against the law doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, for example cannabis consumption, that's an Appeal to Law and fallacious.

    (Original post by Genocidal)
    2) More importantly, if you watch it you are indirectly promoting it. Even if you got it for free you are giving the makers an audience. If there's an audience they'll continue making it and breaking the law, which means more children will suffer. The only reason the supply of child porn exists is because of demand. Cut off both the source and the audience and you help reduce the amount of abuse.
    I understand your argument, however I disagree. How is watching something for free, in secret, promoting it? You're suggesting the impetus for people videoing themselves raping children and risking years in prison is based on the idea that they think some people on the internet might like a watch, and they are so generous and selfless that they wish to satisfy their needs.

    Supply needs a reason to satisfy demand. There are plenty of starving children in Africa who want food, but since they don't have any money then there is not much impetus to divert military spending budgets to feed them all.

    Your idea seems logical at first, however "cut off the source" is easier said than done. So is "cutting" off the audience. Paedophiles will always exist, the only way to stop them harming children is for us to accept and integrate them and their sexuality in society and help them deal with their sexuality in a safe and healthy way. Otherwise they just go underground.

    A better way of "cutting off the source" would be to divert the source. Encouraging the production of hand drawn, animated or cgi child pornography would reduce the demand for real child pornography, and save real children. Something which everyone can agree, is a good thing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nutella:3)
    Why would you even think of this question? Some people are seriously sick in the head..
    You should question everything.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 9MmBulletz)
    :nah:It's 16 over here buddy
    For pornography it's 18, even though the legal age of sexual consent is 16 you're not fully classed as an adult until you're 18 and pornography is supposed to be under this restriction even though there are ways to access it on the Internet.


    This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad Ap
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Conciousness)
    You should question everything.
    Commandment #10 of the New Ten Commandments: "Question everything."
    I believe this is the most important thing you can learn.

    (Original post by CarryOn123)
    For pornography it's 18, even though the legal age of sexual consent is 16 you're not fully classed as an adult until you're 18 and pornography is supposed to be under this restriction even though there are ways to access it on the Internet.
    Yeah, it's very odd. If we accept that watching real sex is porn just as much as watching it on the internet is porn, then legally you have to close your eyes when having sex at the age of consent.

    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    There is little point in advocating the social normalisation of something that is illegal. Declaring it is acceptable/normal/not a taboo/etc. to be a paedophile but not equally arguing for its legalisation seems very counter-intuitive. "If my sexuality is so normal and acceptable, why can I not do what everyone else is doing?" Jim Crow-era "separate but equal" springs to mind. As long as it is illegal the taboo will never disappear.
    You know, there's no taboo against fantasising about women, but it is illegal to rape women. The same can apply to paedophiles - let them fantasise, don't make that taboo, but they still aren't allowed to rape children.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    You know, there's no taboo against fantasising about women, but it is illegal to rape women. The same can apply to paedophiles - let them fantasise, don't make that taboo, but they still aren't allowed to rape children.
    Yes, but it is not illegal to form a consensual sexual relationship with a woman. The same cannot be said with a paedophile and a child—everything is rape/molestation, regardless of how caring or kind they feel they are being. I question the feasibility of expecting their lifelong satisfaction from nothing more than an imagination, all the while being told that they are normal and acceptable but not allowed the same privileges as everyone else. I suspect a substantial body of people will attempt to apply this apparent equality in the form of sexual relationships with children. Even if we allow paedophilic dolls, animations, etc., there is still the absence of an emotional relationship with a real child.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    It's perfectly legal to watch other horrific crimes like murder, torture, assault, and robbery. So why is it illegal to watch this equally bad crime?

    It's very difficult to find people who will talk seriously about this subject, because people have a bad habit of speaking upon their instant reactions - "How horrific, people who like that stuff are disgusting and should be locked up!" - so I am hoping that at least a few people will be able to make some rational arguments (on either side) here: what are your views?

    I myself am of the opinion that it probably should be legal to watch, but I am curious as to the reasonable rationale behind those who think differently (which is most people, I know!), and I'd also like to know the actual reason for the law being like this.
    It is illegal for minors to have sex, it's illegal for people under 18 to be in porn, it is paedophillia. You watch child porn I assume?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    stuff like snuff films ARE illegal though i think... just like child pornography as they are made with the primary focus of an audience in mind. therefore as child pornography is made to be watched, the more people who watch the more gets made and the more innocent children get harmed. footage of murders, robberies which people can watch, the events haven't taking place with the intent of entertaining an audience, rather the fact that people can watch them is incidental. although saying that im not too sure, what the law says exactly about stuff like snuff films, and what constitutes one...
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maxisussex)
    Because child porn works by supply and demand,the more who watch it the more it's made.

    People are still going to die in Chinese road accidents or bleed from an open neck wound on the streets of Syria,banning it wont achieve anything.

    Interestingly the Canadian vid of the murder,dismemberment,necrophilia and cannibalism was removed from the net quite quickly.
    The video is still on the Internet, a friend of mine sent me the link a week ago. Watched the first few seconds and turned it off..

    Once something is on the Internet it's very difficult to completely remove it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Its not morally acceptable in our society.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Yes, but it is not illegal to form a consensual sexual relationship with a woman. The same cannot be said with a paedophile and a child—everything is rape/molestation, regardless of how caring or kind they feel they are being. I question the feasibility of expecting their lifelong satisfaction from nothing more than an imagination, all the while being told that they are normal and acceptable but not allowed the same privileges as everyone else. I suspect a substantial body of people will attempt to apply this apparent equality in the form of sexual relationships with children. Even if we allow paedophilic dolls, animations, etc., there is still the absence of an emotional relationship with a real child.
    You can "question the feasibility" of their pleasures, but look at it the other way: I get pleasure from watching pornstars, yet I know I will never have a relationship with them. Sure, it's not illegal, but I know there's no chance just as much as a paedophile knows there's no chance with children. Different reasons, but the same outcome. But that doesn't mean I am going to rape a pornstar, if that is what you were implying about children. Anyhow, this paragraph is rather irrelevant.

    The bottom line is that it is a human right to think what you like, and not be discriminated against for who you are.

    (Original post by Bluffroom)
    It is illegal for minors to have sex, it's illegal for people under 18 to be in porn, it is paedophillia. You watch child porn I assume?
    So because I hold a more liberal view than you, I must be a paedophile? That is both an immature and nonsensical response to a serious discussion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alis-volatpropriis)
    The video is still on the Internet, a friend of mine sent me the link a week ago. Watched the first few seconds and turned it off..

    Once something is on the Internet it's very difficult to completely remove it.
    I've hunted high n low but just gave up in the end.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    It's perfectly legal to watch other horrific crimes like murder, torture, assault, and robbery. So why is it illegal to watch this equally bad crime?

    It's very difficult to find people who will talk seriously about this subject, because people have a bad habit of speaking upon their instant reactions - "How horrific, people who like that stuff are disgusting and should be locked up!" - so I am hoping that at least a few people will be able to make some rational arguments (on either side) here: what are your views?

    I myself am of the opinion that it probably should be legal to watch, but I am curious as to the reasonable rationale behind those who think differently (which is most people, I know!), and I'd also like to know the actual reason for the law being like this.
    Because they're children? Why would you even ask that? Paedophile alert!!!!.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaron9890)
    Because they're children? Why would you even ask that? Paedophile alert!!!!.
    Thank you for following up the expectations that I laid out in my original post, as many others did.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by W-Three)
    Is it? Forcing a child to perform in pornography is and should obviously be illegal, as the same applies to the adult. But if we take slightly more hazy areas, such as a 16 year old who willingly takes part?



    If the child is the one initiating it (which they are) how is it taking advantage? It increases the supply, but the act involves no sex, and is with the (underage) consent of the child. Its a very different industry.
    Well they are are still not adults so they can't really make the decision. I know you will bring in the age of consent rule, and I agree. I think the age of consent should be the same as when you turn into a legal adult. I can't understand why there's a difference between the two. Surely if a 30-year-old has sex with a 17-year-old that makes him a paedophile?

    You said it yourself. They are underage and therefore don't have the right mind to make an informed decision. Not all pornography has to involve sex. The definition of pornography is simply to stimulate sexual desire; which I admit is quite ambiguous but my point remains.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Clearly the person that started this thread is a pedo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    and I'd also like to know the actual reason for the law being like this.
    Youu cann onlyy get awayy from watcching kidddy poorrn if you're Ian Watkinnss.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.