Turn on thread page Beta

Why is watching child porn illegal? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Marco1)
    Because it's the most despicable crime to take advantage of someone young and vulnerable and abuse them. I'm surprised you come up with such a provocative question really. If you were seriously into discussing the topic like you suggest you are, then I think you would have posed a more intelligent question. You say its perfectly legal to watch murder and torture - really? Are you talking real or as part of some television drama? You are vague about what you mean to say.

    Firstly, if its actual murder and torture you mean, then I am not sure it's legal. Secondly if it is, do two wrongs make a right? Of course not. The world is full of the evil that humans do so why argue for child porn to be legal just because you think other evil acts are legal? What you say makes little sense at all to me.
    http://www.popcenter.org/problems/child_pornography/2
    Also if it were legal it would only serve to increase the related abhorrent problems of human trafficking and child sex slaves/ prostitution.
    http://www.marieclaire.com/world-rep...aped-sex-slave
    http://www.love146.org/europe
    Other than the bold bit, I agree with you.

    Websites like BestGore are perfectly legal, and there are hundreds of reaction videos of "3 guys 1 hammer" on YouTube, and none of the people who watch such videos are ever prosecuted.
    Offline

    16
    (Original post by Conciousness)
    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.



    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?
    Part 1

    Since most people seem to agree on the whole child porn is wrong because they're children and can't consent I didn't really feel the need to spend time on such a thing.

    Well that depends on your definition of right and wrong, which is highly subjective. Many people simply use the law as a definition of right and wrong. And there are different types of wrongs. On a legal level it doesn't really matter what we think because it's illegal. On a moral level I simply don't agree with it because children can't consent. But, as I said, the definition of right and wrong is highly subjective and the so-called 'measuring stick' is different for every individual.

    Part 2

    Taking aside the communities of people who are into child porn, those who watch in secret still promote it. The people who make it are aware when people watch it. I agree many of the videos are made for the maker's own sexual gain, but they also look to make money from it. If you watch these videos you could easily be indirectly funding them through web traffic and ads. Of course, there are also the paid porn options.

    From a legal standpoint, I would assume much of their thinking comes from a sort of 'infection' point of view. If someone enjoys watching child porn alone it might one day develop and boil over. They could participate themselves (although unlikely), speak to their friends about it, and get involved with the marketing. I don't necessarily agree with this threat as particularly pressing, but it does exist.

    Well the supply and demand thing is when you start getting into the sordid underbelly of government and national structures. Like you said in your example, it's all about money.

    To link that with my next point, though. I agree there needs to be some emphasis on treatment rather than just hitting people with the law. In my view, there needs to be a healthy dose of each because otherwise you segregate people and essentially exile them from society. But sadly there's very little political or public will to do such things so we are stuck with what we have today.

    I think that child porn should remain illegal because viewers need to know what they're doing is wrong, but at the same time we shouldn't just lock them up and place a black stamp next to their names for life like we do now.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    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.
    But you will be able to have a sexual relationship with a woman in general. You will be able to experience the sexual practices that you find appealing with another person and have an emotional relationship with this person. To somebody who is sexually attracted to women, pornstars are a subset of the set of women; to somebody who is sexually attracted to children, children are a set in themselves.

    Despite having a preference for the subset, you are still attracted to the set of women and can form a sexual and emotional relationship with a member of this set. Paedophiles cannot have access to any member of the children set, so it is not the same. They may have a preference for babies like you have a preference for female pornstars; they cannot say "oh well, I'll just settle for an 8 year old instead" like you can say "oh well, I'll just settle for a non-pornstar female instead".

    Unless you have enough emotional strength to override your natural sexual urges, there will be a point where those urges are no longer satiated by images and animations alone. You will seek a real person at this point, especially if you are constantly told that your sexual urges are normal and acceptable. You may even seek a pornstar to try your luck. If a peadophile asked, "If I'm so normal, why should I have to stick with pictures and videos whilst everyone else gets to enjoy the real thing?" how would you answer? How effective is a separate but equal policy? Is there some fundamental biological difference that means they are more capable of overriding their sexual urges than you are? Will they not seek a child like you seek a woman/pornstar?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    whyumadtho:

    I was anticipating that response, and it's a very fair objection. However, while you are perfectly correct, what I said there was more of a sidenote than anything else. You should be allowed to express your sexual urges to yourself. You should be allowed to fantasise over whomever you wish, whether it's your geography teacher, your best friend or a child.

    A very firm line over which no one can cross is drawn - quite rightly - next to minor-major relationships, but you should be allowed to do things that don't cross that line. Fantasising is one of these. As I said before, you do not have the right to have a relationship with anyone, and all children go under the category of "cannot have a relationship".

    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    If a peadophile asked, "If I'm so normal, why should I have to stick with pictures and videos whilst everyone else gets to enjoy the real thing?" how would you answer?
    I would tell them that they can think what they like (and what they don't like/can't choose), but that doesn't mean they have the right to have a relationship with a child.

    In other words, you can think quite natural things but that doesn't mean you can act upon them.

    I hope that makes sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yasminxx)
    Clearly the person that started this thread is a pedo.
    I am a paedophile to the same extent to that which you are using your brain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    Thank you for following up the expectations that I laid out in my original post, as many others did.
    But why would you feel the need to watch children have sex when you can do it yourself with older people or watch adult pornography? What is it about a child that appeals to you? When you are talking about a 'child' what age are you referring to ? I think it's so socially unacceptable because many children are still in the process of development (haven't been through puberty etc), their bodies aren't ready for sex yet. Many forms of child pornography are rape as well, it still sickens me that you think it should be legal to watch this stuff
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaron9890)
    But why would you feel the need to watch children have sex when you can do it yourself with older people or watch adult pornography? What is it about a child that appeals to you? When you are talking about a 'child' what age are you referring to ? I think it's so socially unacceptable because many children are still in the process of development (haven't been through puberty etc), their bodies aren't ready for sex yet. Many forms of child pornography are rape as well, it still sickens me that you think it should be legal to watch this stuff
    The reason some people watch it is because some people are naturally attracted to children rather than adults. That's fairly self-explanatory.
    The age to which I am referring is, strictly speaking, under 18. Although I do not consider porn of people between the age of 16 and 18 to be child porn, it technically is. My original questions were: A) Why is the law like this? (The law considers child porn to be <18); and B) What is your opinion? (You can decide what you think about 16-17 and <16 yourself.)

    You also seem to be confusing watching child abuse with child abuse itself. I am asking why watching it is illegal, which - if you read the question - you would see. I'm perfectly aware that it is undoubtedly wrong to have sex with a child, because they cannot consent.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    whyumadtho:

    I was anticipating that response, and it's a very fair objection. However, while you are perfectly correct, what I said there was more of a sidenote than anything else. You should be allowed to express your sexual urges to yourself. You should be allowed to fantasise over whomever you wish, whether it's your geography teacher, your best friend or a child.

    A very firm line over which no one can cross is drawn - quite rightly - next to minor-major relationships, but you should be allowed to do things that don't cross that line. Fantasising is one of these. As I said before, you do not have the right to have a relationship with anyone, and all children go under the category of "cannot have a relationship".

    I would tell them that they can think what they like (and what they don't like/can't choose), but that doesn't mean they have the right to have a relationship with a child.

    In other words, you can think quite natural things but that doesn't mean you can act upon them.

    I hope that makes sense.
    The fantasy will never be socially acceptable as long as there are legal—and more significantly—moral objections to the act. By and large, it is acceptable to say, "I want to have a sexual relationship with this pornstar and have fantasies over this notion" because the actual act is legally and morally acceptable. The same cannot be said about the actual act of paedophilia (at least, not under the current moral climate) or the act of raping the pornstar, so the corresponding fantasy and the holder of this fantasy will never be treated as equal. Regardless of whether the paedophile wants to violently sexually assault the child or form what they consider to be a loving and caring relationship (like you could reasonably do with a pornstar), it is still considered rape and all the legal, moral and emotional objections to it manifest themselves. Suggesting they are equal but still upholding this absolute legal and moral distinction in their liberties cannot work. Legitimising the thought invariably helps to legitimise the act, which is what Itzin (2002) meant when he said child pornography is "instrumentally causal [though not solely causal] in the etiology of sex offending." If you're constantly told you and your thoughts are acceptable, there is a greater chance that you will convince yourself that the act is also acceptable, especially when you see the rest of your apparently equal citizens with such liberties.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    The reason some people watch it is because some people are naturally attracted to children rather than adults. That's fairly self-explanatory.
    The age to which I am referring is, strictly speaking, under 18. Although I do not consider porn of people between the age of 16 and 18 to be child porn, it technically is. My original questions were: A) Why is the law like this? (The law considers child porn to be <18); and B) What is your opinion? (You can decide what you think about 16-17 and <16 yourself.)

    You also seem to be confusing watching child abuse with child abuse itself. I am asking why watching it is illegal, which - if you read the question - you would see. I'm perfectly aware that it is undoubtedly wrong to have sex with a child, because they cannot consent.
    But if an adult is attracted more to children than adults then surely there is something psychologically wrong with them. We are born to develop into adults and then conceive to continue the human race. I can understand what you are saying about people aged 16 - 18 as they are not seen as children in my eyes either but what I can't understand is that you can see having sex with a child (child abuse in many cases) is wrong but yet you feel is is ok to watch that?? If it was someone aged 16 - 18 having sex I think that's ok as someone of 16 can legally consent to sex but yet for some reason they can't record it and distribute it, however when you talk about children in the early and middle teens and below it seems so wrong to me. As I said they are still developing...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    The fantasy will never be socially acceptable as long as there are legal—and more significantly—moral objections to the act. By and large, it is acceptable to say, "I want to have a sexual relationship with this pornstar and have fantasies over this notion" because the actual act is legally and morally acceptable. The same cannot be said about the actual act of paedophilia (at least, not under the current moral climate) or the act of raping the pornstar, so the corresponding fantasy and the holder of this fantasy will never be treated as equal. Regardless of whether the paedophile wants to violently sexually assault the child or form what they consider to be a loving and caring relationship (like you could reasonably do with a pornstar), it is still considered rape and all the legal, moral and emotional objections to it manifest themselves. Suggesting they are equal but still upholding this absolute legal and moral distinction in their liberties cannot work. Legitimising the thought invariably helps to legitimise the act, which is what Itzin (2002) meant when he said child pornography is "instrumentally causal [though not solely causal] in the etiology of sex offending." If you're constantly told you and your thoughts are acceptable, there is a greater chance that you will convince yourself that the act is also acceptable, especially when you see the rest of your apparently equal citizens with such liberties.
    Well, I guess we have reached the understanding that we will fundamentally disagree with each other now. I very much insist that not one person should ever be convicted with thought crime, either in a legal context or a social one, no matter what the hypothetical outcome might be; you see it differently, and I respect your right to do so.
    I freely admit to having had extremely violent fantasies of women, but that's all they are - fantasies. Thoughts. I believe everyone has the right to think freely (and speak freely, but that's a different matter altogether). This is not the same as acting freely.

    (Original post by Aaron9890)
    But if an adult is attracted more to children than adults then surely there is something psychologically wrong with them. We are born to develop into adults and then conceive to continue the human race. I can understand what you are saying about people aged 16 - 18 as they are not seen as children in my eyes either but what I can't understand is that you can see having sex with a child (child abuse in many cases) is wrong but yet you feel is is ok to watch that?? If it was someone aged 16 - 18 having sex I think that's ok as someone of 16 can legally consent to sex but yet for some reason they can't record it and distribute it, however when you talk about children in the early and middle teens and below it seems so wrong to me. As I said they are still developing...
    Sure, there might be something psychologically wrong with them. I'm not a psychologist so I don't know. But if it is, then that is still natural for them. At least on a conscious level, you can't help who you are attracted to.

    With regard to the rest of your post, see my earlier posts, they should explain it. You also mention "child abuse in many cases". No. Sexual interaction between an adult and a child is always child abuse, by definition.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    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.
    Technically watching sex in real life is pornography as it is thought some Greek societies used to watch people/ prostitutes have sex before art and literature were created. But even in the Greek society it wasn't legal to watch or buy these items until the legal age so it's been part of various societies for a while.

    I personally don't see the appeal in visual pornography but its male market and as such fully grown and mature women over the age of 18 are usually the attraction for males.

    If you apply this to child pornography for starters there's not a target market due to the lack of physical maturity as well as the fact that some the male/ female audience may be parents themselves and therefore would find it disturbing to see a form of child pornography.

    (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.
    In the Christian faith there is a taboo of fantasising about a woman outside of marriage but you could once married (only if you're male according to the bible) as when you're married you're apparently supposed to stay faithful.

    To be honest the idea of a fully grown person fantasising about a child makes me feel a bit weird as I personally see a child as an innocent who shouldn't be placed in those sort of situations but then if a person fantasies without taking any action to actually do it physically to a child then I guess you can allow them to think in their own way. Sort of similar to bestiality where it's not condoned to practice it under animal protection laws but people still think of animals in that way.




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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    because watching it shows demand for it and demand for it encourages the supply of it
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CarryOn123)
    In the Christian faith there is a taboo of fantasising about a woman outside of marriage but you could once married (only if you're male according to the bible) as when you're married you're apparently supposed to stay faithful.
    Yes, but Christianity revels in abhorring the vagina (hence you are not allowed to think about it when you aren't inside it, why you can't have sex with a woman on her period, why Jesus's mother didn't have sex), and it cares deeply for what you do with yourself and with other adults in the bedroom. This is a part of Christianity that today's society can and should happily ignore.

    To be honest the idea of a fully grown person fantasising about a child makes me feel a bit weird as I personally see a child as an innocent who shouldn't be placed in those sort of situations but then if a person fantasies without taking any action to actually do it physically to a child then I guess you can allow them to think in their own way. Sort of similar to bestiality where it's not condoned to practice it under animal protection laws but people still think of animals in that way.
    I'm glad to hear that you agree. :-)[/QUOTE]
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    1) It is illegal because that is the law.

    2) Hypothetically speaking, would you like to see your 10 year old sister to be part of a porn set?

    It is morally wrong and if it were legal, it would be subject to widespread abuse from certain members of society.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    Yes, but Christianity revels in abhorring the vagina (hence you are not allowed to think about it when you aren't inside it, why you can't have sex with a woman on her period, why Jesus's mother didn't have sex), and it cares deeply for what you do with yourself and with other adults in the bedroom. This is a part of Christianity that today's society can and should happily ignore.
    It's like the part in the bible which says a woman cannot sleep in her bed or in the same bed as her partner whilst on her period due to blood getting on the covers, I say bs to that I'm not sleeping in a different bed to my boyfriend when I'm on my period we have tampons and sanitary towels for a reason! :P

    (Original post by k_bourne)
    I'm glad to hear that you agree. :-)
    I don't agree with the child pornography but I'm happy for another person to think what they like as long as they don't act on it


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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    Well, I guess we have reached the understanding that we will fundamentally disagree with each other now. I very much insist that not one person should ever be convicted with thought crime, either in a legal context or a social one, no matter what the hypothetical outcome might be; you see it differently, and I respect your right to do so.
    I freely admit to having had extremely violent fantasies of women, but that's all they are - fantasies. Thoughts. I believe everyone has the right to think freely (and speak freely, but that's a different matter altogether). This is not the same as acting freely.


    Sure, there might be something psychologically wrong with them. I'm not a psychologist so I don't know. But if it is, then that is still natural for them. At least on a conscious level, you can't help who you are attracted to.

    With regard to the rest of your post, see my earlier posts, they should explain it. You also mention "child abuse in many cases". No. Sexual interaction between an adult and a child is always child abuse, by definition.
    As it should be ,However, you still didn't answer my question about how you know it's wrong to have sex with a child, yet you feel it's ok to watch it?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Because, child pornography is watched and performed by pedophiles. So that means you have to be a pedophile to want to watch it, and as its a child who haven't fully physically developed yet so sex is usually painful for them.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It's not just painful but psychologically damaging and scarring for them.
    Offline

    3
    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.
    You have got some serious mental issues if you think that child pornography, murder and torture are perfectly legal to watch. And no I don't think murder and rape and rape of children etc is quite on the same level as robbery or common assault.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aaron9890)
    As it should be ,However, you still didn't answer my question about how you know it's wrong to have sex with a child, yet you feel it's ok to watch it?
    Very simple:
    Having sex with a child is wrong because the child cannot consent. Non-consensual sex is wrong. It's rape.
    Watching it abuses no children and does not inflict any real damage, hence I support it.
    (As my other posts explain, I would only support the viewing of child pornography if it does no harm)

    (Original post by Curious_Lawyer)
    1) It is illegal because that is the law.
    I really hope that was just a bad joke.

    2) Hypothetically speaking, would you like to see your 10 year old sister to be part of a porn set?
    I don't have a 10 year old sister. Moot point.
    All bad jokes now aside, you are entirely missing the point. If you read the original post (or even just the thread title) you would see that I am not supporting child abuse, but the viewing of it.

    (Original post by Gridiron-Gangster)
    You have got some serious mental issues if you think that child pornography, murder and torture are perfectly legal to watch. And no I don't think murder and rape and rape of children etc is quite on the same level as robbery or common assault.
    'You have a different opinion to me, therefore you are mentally ill'
    Um, no.

    I agree that murder does more damage than assault, but they are "equally bad" in the sense that they are bad full stop. I cannot justify robbery. I cannot justify rape.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_bourne)
    Well, I guess we have reached the understanding that we will fundamentally disagree with each other now. I very much insist that not one person should ever be convicted with thought crime, either in a legal context or a social one, no matter what the hypothetical outcome might be; you see it differently, and I respect your right to do so.

    I freely admit to having had extremely violent fantasies of women, but that's all they are - fantasies. Thoughts. I believe everyone has the right to think freely (and speak freely, but that's a different matter altogether). This is not the same as acting freely.
    The thoughts of the present may adumbrate the acts of the future. If for example, somebody drew up comprehensive plans on how to blow up 10 Downing Street, it would be unreasonable and frankly dangerous to suggest that he should still be treated as a completely normal and acceptable member of society, despite having these potentially dangerous thoughts and currently harmless expressions. I could not force myself to believe this person's fantasies, writings, drawings, etc. are not at all indicative of his propensity to act them out, and will not treat him equally for this reason. It is insensate to treat everyone as equal only until they have actually done the specific act—prevention is better than cure.

    All things being equal, an aircraft company would rather hire somebody who does not write, draw and fantasise about blowing up a plane than somebody who does. People would rather board a plane knowing that the pilot does not have these fantasies, regardless of how much the pilot says they are strictly fantastical (anyone can say they are fantasies, but unconditional trust is reckless). The same applies to paedophiles: the person's thoughts may translate into the act, especially if those thoughts are treated as completely legitimate but this person is still forced to live in a sexually repressed state. I cannot trust this person to uphold their social contract over their emotional and biological urges and the cognitive dissonance that arises from these conflicting positions makes the person unpredictable.

    I don't think they should necessarily be imprisoned for a thought that is believed to adumbrate an act, but that it is irresponsible and unreasonable to expect they are treated equally and without suspicion. I certainly feel it is necessary that they are closely monitored to ensure their thoughts do not come into fruition and imprisoned if the enactment of these fantasies cannot be prevented by monitoring alone.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
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.