What's so bad about owning child porn anyway?

Originally posted by jmarks
There is no hard scientific data that shows pornography has the capacity of being additive.

Just an awful lot of anecdotal evidence. There seems to be a stage of temporary paedophilia caused by a combination of stress, exposure to child pornography and various kinds of neurosis: the number of times you hear of policemen falling prey to this kind of thing beggars belief, but it does at least provide something of an explanation.

Originally posted by jmarks
Who where and when? What you stated in the first part of your statement is up to a psychologist's decision based on an individual case. Scientific data on the subject of pornography affecting the human mind is certainly sparse.

And are you saying that before there was child pornography there were fewer child molesters than there are today? Maybe you shou ...[text shortened]... h blah". I have to admit Ive seen to many intelligent threads around here littered with them.

So, your entire point is that I am not a psychologist. Thanks for "adding" to the discussion.

"And are you saying that before there was child pornography there were fewer child molesters than there are today?"

I'm saying what I said, nothing more or less.

Originally posted by Coconut
I can have sex with a 16 year old, and the govenment doesn't care. I can invite people over and have sex with a 16 year old, and the government doesn't care.

If I take a picture, I am a producer of child porn.

Yeah, in NZ you allowed to have sex before you're allowed to look at it. Sense make lots of.

Originally posted by jmarks
Who where and when? What you stated in the first part of your statement is up to a psychologist's decision based on an individual case. Scientific data on the subject of pornography affecting the human mind is certainly sparse.

And are you saying that before there was child pornography there were fewer child molesters than there are today? Maybe you shou ...[text shortened]... h blah". I have to admit Ive seen to many intelligent threads around here littered with them.

Typing "addicting effects of pornography" into google was easy. Certainely it was something you could have done.

http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/porn/pornlds/pornldsauthor/links/victorcline/porneffect.htm

Is the first site that looked promising. It is quite lengthy, but it mentions that "acting out sexualy" is a tendency that people who view pornography will eventually have.

I recommend reading the "Sex Offenders' Use of Pornography," as it is citing a specific study which states that pornography in fact leads to a desire to act out what is seen. It was even done by a psychologist too, neat huh?

The next site, in the first two paragraphs, mentions and then links to studies that talk about how pornography use increases the desire to commit deviant sexual acts. http://www.protectkids.com/effects/harms.htm

However, to be fair, Dr. Daniel Linz disagrees with the notion that pornography is a particulary addictive behavior. http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/dan_linz.htm

I am not a psychologist, but they are. With one simple google search I could find some credible research into the matter at hand (along with several non-credible studies and comments as well). Obviously saying that "scientific data on the subject of pornography affecting the human mind is certainly sparse," is not a true statement. Enjoy the links.

Originally posted by DreamlaX
Yeah, in NZ you allowed to [b]have sex before you're allowed to look at it. Sense make lots of.[/b]

Coconut thinks that he should be allowed to have sex with 12 year olds because they are mature enough to understand what they are doing. Don't encourage him.

Originally posted by Brother Edwin
I understand the makers of it might be wrong and cause children to be abused or whatever, fair enough, imprison them.

However as for the people who own download it and own it, why is it considerd wrong or more importantly warrants imprisionment?

1)They are not hurting anyone.

2)Surley its better they exorcise there lust over a computer rath ...[text shortened]... paid money for with money they earnt, why should the FBI have a say in what they can use it for.

After reading most of the posts, you guys are a bunch of sick f***s but that's only my opinion.

Now, I might have missed it but no one defined what you guys were talking about. So looking at adult porn you get the following:

Are they pictures? In the pictures, are they posing, having sex, girl-girl, boy-boy, orgy? Oral, anal sex? What???

The same goes true for movies.

The only reason why I'm posting this is because I don't think any of you actually thought about this sick crap before or you have and that's messed up.

And as for makers, they should be castrated. And this argument here is that it is okay to use it as long as you don't make it. I could make crystal method and never touch the stuff but only make it because of a demand, you know "just tryin' to make a buck". And you might say, "But your not abusing anyone", which is true. I'm only destroying the minds of the people who live with me (toxic fumes) and my clients.

It is unreal that this is even a thread.

Originally posted by stocken
I say, childporn and any other porn should be ok if it's guaranteed that it was recorded using consenting adult actors.

How does childporn ever fit that condition of using consenting adult actors?

Originally posted by Palynka
How does childporn ever fit that condition of using consenting adult actors?

Read my entire post damnit! 😠 There is porn recorded where adult women with pubescent appearance act as teenagers.

I hate it when people try to drag out one sentence and make a whole point of it alone. Keep doing that and I will definitely stop taking you seriously. (Not that you care much I guess, but hopefully others will see through that as well.)

Originally posted by slappy115
After reading most of the posts, you guys are a bunch of sick f***s but that's only my opinion.

Now, I might have missed it but no one defined what you guys were talking about. So looking at adult porn you get the following:

Are they pictures? In the pictures, are they posing, having sex, girl-girl, boy-boy, orgy? Oral, anal sex? What???

The s ...[text shortened]... ive with me (toxic fumes) and my clients.

It is unreal that this is even a thread.

sorry, but your post makes no sense. Iliterally can't figure out what you're trying to say. Do you consider us sick for expressing views on the addictive nature or otherwise of porn (be it adult or child)? Why iit sick to have views on the psychological effects of something taht is in society? Orare you calling us sick for having knowledge of the existance of porn? That'd be a bit extreme!

I admit B. Edwin's opening statement is provocative, but that's his style - he'll open a debate playing devil's advocate, being outragous in orderto provolk debate.

Can you clarify? It honestly seems like you missed off several sentances when you posted, and didn't read most of teh posts in teh thread before hand either.

Originally posted by Draxus
Typing "addicting effects of pornography" into google was easy. Certainely it was something you could have done.

http://mentalhealthlibrary.info/library/porn/pornlds/pornldsauthor/links/victorcline/porneffect.htm

Is the first site that looked promising. It is quite lengthy, but it mentions that "acting out sexualy" is a tendency that people who view p fecting the human mind is certainly sparse," is not a true statement. Enjoy the links.

This is like when hardrock music was blamed for suicides and young adolescent boys peppering innocent people at that school, or when violent movies gets blamed for excessive street violence.

The problem is in every single case (I dare say that) much bigger than from where those kids got their influences.

There is no definite connection between the porn and the acts commited by a sexual offender. Some sexual offenders have porn, yes, and some don't. Some sexual offenders has clearly stated that they didn't even fantasise about sex before committing their crimes. And some does. What does this prove? Nothing.

Absolutely nothing. And it doesn't really matter what you digged up using google. I can dig up psychologists claiming that there are no clear correlation between porn and sex crimes (you even gave one yourself - and I already have in the fantasy thread). This is a debatable issue, and one need only look at oneself to be able to tell if porn is really an addictive form of media any more than horror movies or thrillers.

It's not.

Edit: In other words, the problem is not the porn itself, but the person viewing it. If you want to stop the existence of sexual offenders, speak out about why it's wrong to act out some of the things they fantasise about or see on the screen. Most people can think for themselves and those who can't will be helped by such a debate.

It all easily falls back to whether or not you think it's ok to hurt other humans. If you say no, never, then there's no problem no matter what goes on in that head of yours, or whatever you see on the screen. If you say yes, in some case, then you've crossed into gray zones and there could be a problem. Simple as that. Any sane, civilised person will say that it's never ok to hurt anyone else no matter how much one might want to at times (and live accordingly).

Originally posted by belgianfreak
sorry, but your post makes no sense. Iliterally can't figure out what you're trying to say. Do you consider us sick for expressing views on the addictive nature or otherwise of porn (be it adult or child)? Why iit sick to have views on the psychological effects of something taht is in society? Orare you calling us sick for having knowledge of the exista ...[text shortened]... ces when you posted, and didn't read most of teh posts in teh thread before hand either.

Sorry it's 5 in the morning and I'm tired.

Okay, child porn in any form is sick and if you are advocating it than you are sick. Now, just like adult porn, there are different types of porn for children (I'm assuming and I won't go look it up for you). That is, and this is going to be sick, is a 14 you old girl posing nude different from an infant performing ... (figure it out on your own, I won't post it), or two 7 year old boys "experimenting"? They are all considered children and if one form is okay, then they must all be okay.

Now you can go into the whole, were they forced? Can they make the decision for themselves? Ask the parents.

As for the psychological effects of addiction, you can be addicted to anything. I have a hard time staying away from booze. I stay away from it for a week and start feeling great but once I get the craving, I'll stay drunk for weeks. So to keep myself from drinking booze, I divert the craving to ginger ale. Am I addicted to ginger ale? No since there is nothing in it to cause addiction (sugar and carbonated water with no caffene (sp?)). Will I relapse? Yes. Some of the posts said that there won't be as many child molesters if child porn was legal, if I'm correct. But once you do it and enjoy it, you want to do it again.

You know the Korn song Trash, "I feel the flesh and it smells fresh and it's just there for the taking. These little girls they make me feel so GD exillerated. I want to feel them up, I can't get enough." Photos won't give you the same experience

Really, in my opinion, I think that child porn and molestation stem, more times than not, from a vicious cycle of abusee to abuser. Revenge in a sense.

By the way, my style of my first post is always to be vague and nearly imcomprehensivable (sp? it's late/early). This allows me to hone in on the main point(s). I hope that clear things up some.

Originally posted by stocken
Read my entire post damnit! 😠 There is porn recorded where adult women with pubescent appearance act as teenagers.

I hate it when people try to drag out one sentence and make a whole point of it alone. Keep doing that and I will definitely stop taking you seriously. (Not that you care much I guess, but hopefully others will see through that as well.)

You are free to do what you want, stocken. I honestly don't see, why but it's your choice.

As for your thread, I read what you wrote, but that sentence was a good sum-up of your post and it illustrated well what I wanted to say.

For me, childporn is never about a woman acting as a minor, but about using minors as actors. Isn't that the same view of the law, as well? I was under the impression it was so, if not then it is shocking that legally these things have the same status.

A woman acting as a minor is simply...porn, not child porn. Since I have nothing against porn or even prostitution as concepts, I have no beef there.

But if the law defines child porn as depicting actual minors in sexual activities then I think both watching and making it should be prosecuted regardless of the consent of the child. It's an extension of child labour and much much worsended by the addition of pedophilia.

Originally posted by belgianfreak
Iliterally

Nice typo.

D

Originally posted by Brother Edwin
I understand the makers of it might be wrong and cause children to be abused or whatever, fair enough, imprison them.

However as for the people who own download it and own it, why is it considerd wrong or more importantly warrants imprisionment?

1)They are not hurting anyone.

2)Surley its better they exorcise there lust over a computer rath ...[text shortened]... paid money for with money they earnt, why should the FBI have a say in what they can use it for.

This must be the most illiterate post ever; not a line without glaring mistakes in both grammar and syntax.
This person would be better advised to study correct English usage than to spend his time downloading 'child porn' or defending that pastime.

Originally posted by Palynka
As for your thread, I read what you wrote, but that sentence was a good sum-up of your post and it illustrated well what I wanted to say.

I'm gonna give up trying to get the meaning across. I'm just gonna give up. 😞