Serious question: Why is possessing child porn illegal?

[kingofthejunglists]

Allow me to explain. Child porn is the only thing I know of where it's illegal to merely be in possession of a photo of a crime. I can have photos (or videos) of people being murdered and it's ok presuming I'm not the killer. I can have photos (or videos) of innocent animals (human or nonhuman) being tortured and I don't have to worry about the FBI knocking on my door (again, assuming I wasn't involved in the actual crime). But if you have photos of a couple of 15 year olds fucking ZOMG IT'S A SEX CRIME. It doesn't matter if you took the photos/videos or not. Now don't get me wrong, child pornographers are about the lowest among the low (I mean CHILD pornographers, not adolescent pornographers- apples and oranges) and anyone caught exploiting prepubescent children sexually should be summarily castrated and executed. But why should it be a crime to even have a file of kiddie pr0n on one's computer? I'm aware of the argument: Punishing child porn viewers reduces demand for child porn and subsequently fewer children are exploited, in theory. But what if I get off to films of people being beaten? Or tased? Or murdered? There's plenty of films with those things and they're all legal to possess.

This question has seriously baffled me for a while. Please refrain from making any fallacious assumptions about me for having asked it.

[elian]

For the same reason possessing "illegal" drugs is illegal - the authorities figure that if there is less DEMAND then there will be less of a need for a SUPPLY.

Let me explain this to you - my first sexual experience I was 8, the partner was 11 - he said he wanted to show me what "love" was - well, I knew better logically. The funny thing is, at that age - you can think you know - but up to that point all of the other males I had in my life were abusive drunk assholes. To find one that just held me and pleasured me felt so damn good.

The trouble was even though I knew the difference between sex and love - at that age it doesn't matter - emotions override logic. I never saw him again and grew up heartbroken through my teens because the next experiences I had were few and far between.

This caused lots of problems, for example to this day I still equate sex with love - not the same thing. Thank God I'm not female because I surely would've been pregnant at 13. It took me a long time to realize that experience was a negative one - it did FORCE me to open my mind - it was painful growing up that way...pseudo-gay. I don't really think I'm 100% gay - I think I just had really shitty male role models growing up..and if being drunk and abusive is what it meant to be a "man" then I ran far away from that.

In some ways it was good - because I was given the "gift" of an open mind - I think that if I hadn't had to consider what it meant to be on the other side of "normal" growing up I probably would be a conservative redneck asshole. But to get here - misery, suffering, thoughts of suicide - I'm not Christian but I can tell you that I truly am here by the grace of the divine.

So, my experience was at least 40% consenting - some kids aren't that lucky. The truth is a lot of those kids are abducted, or they do it because they need the money - it's not something I want to promote. At such a young age - the child trusts you to act in their best interest - I may be naive to think that every child deserves to have a right to their own soul, sexuality and body...I don't know.

Sorry, I know you're trying to make an argument based on logic - but the issue for me is a very personal one.

Personally I would find videos of beatings, etc. degrading as well. Anyone can knock someone senseless with physical violence if they choose to do so. Practice of the martial arts is not about able being able to kick the snot out of someone, it's about introspection and feeding the proper discipline and care to the soul. True power comes from having the discipline NOT to react.

There's no point in policing the whole world - at some point people have to take personal responsibility for themselves and their own community.

-E

[darkeyes]

an use ya bloody head ere 2...

[kingofthejunglists]

I never said fucking eight year olds should be legal (although you weren't taken advantage of by an adult but a child not much older than you). I never said filming sex by eight year olds should be legal. I just said that possessing said film shouldn't necessarily put one in jail. A film or photos of a couple (consenting) teenagers definitely shouldn't put you in jail. It's gotten to the point where minors are being convicted as sex offenders for possessing nude photos of themselves or their minor boyfriends/girlfriends.

Besides, as to the supply part, how many child pornographers do you think wouldn't do what they do if it weren't for the money? I bet most of them don't even make money, they just record the acts because they're sick fucks and they get off on it and want to get off on it in the future.

[sexybicplinwv]

WOW!!!!:mad:

[FalconAngel]

Why would anyone, who isn't demented in the first place, WANT to possess those kinds of pictures anyway?

What if it were your child/children in those pictures? How would you feel about someone having them just to get turned on? Doesn't matter who took them.

Here's the simple answer. IT'S ILLEGAL BECAUSE CHILD PORNOGRAPHY IS UNIVERSALLY, MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE.

Does that answer your question?

I don't understand why you would even ASK that question. Maybe I am just being naive about it, but it seems that it is a naturally developed sense of what we, as evolved humans consider right and wrong that we understand that there are things you do with children and things that you DO NOT DO with children.

How can you not know that it is just plain wrong? Explain that one, please.

[izzfan]

Why is it illegal? what kind of a question is that? The answer is pretty self-explanatory? I'm not usually an advocate of censorhip, but in the case of child pornography - the world would be a much better place without it.

The fact is that in any video, photo etc.. [and no, I haven't seen any nor do I ever want to!!] of 'Child Pornography' a child has been abused etc... in its production. That it one reason why it is not covered by freedom of speech/expression laws - it is evidence of a crime rather than any form of art or erotica. I know you've said that people who make it should be, quite rightfully, punished as far as the law allows.

As for the question of posession - I suppose this is probably more to do with supply and demand. Completely outlawing possession of it deters people from seeking it out and thus reduces the demand for those who abuse children in order to produce it. As for whether it 'corrupts' people, chances are that those who actively seek out large quantities of it for their enjoyment - then I'd say that they are a pretty sick/morally corrupt person anyway and are more in need of psychiatric help than anything else. As for it being an 'outlet' for people with those feelings - it is an 'outlet' that has caused lasting damage to millions.


I know this may sound a bit strange coming from someone who criticised Government proposals to outlaw posession of BDSM pornography as a 'thought crime' [ quite a few people view BDSM as 'immoral', 'perverted' etc..] but the difference is that what I was talking about involved CONSENTING ADULTS - eg: there are NO victims. But with the vile filth that is child pornography - there is always a victim, someone who has suffered immense harm in the production of those photos, films etc... The very existence of child pornography is proof of immense cruelty and suffering purely for the purposes of sexual gratification. That is why I think it should be very heavily banned.


As for your question about footage of deaths etc... these are certainly repugnant and repulsive. But the issue is more one of context - a picture of death might be from a news report about the horrors of the war (in this context it shows people just how bad things are during war and is more educational than anything else). However, if an image of death was from the camera of a murderer then I would say it was just as, if not more so, morally abombinable as child pornography and should be treated in a similar way [THAT is why I have been campaigning only against the fact that the proposed 'extreme pornography' laws in their original form criminalise consensual depicitons of staged 'violence'. As for a law outlawing the possession of ACTUAL depictions of violence for sexual purposes, I think its a bloody good idea!].

Also, there are several legitimate reasons to own images of death such as researching a book about war, atrocities, murderers etc... for educational purposes [eg: used as an example in the teaching of medicine / to educating people about the effects of some diseases or the dangers of not driving safely etc...]. There are ABSOLUTELY NO legitimate reasons for an ordinary person to posess child pornography [ the only people I think should be allowed to posess it are the detectives who are investigating it] as for the question of people researching issues of child abuse/pornography for books on the subject (a defence used by people prosecuted for posession of this material in the past) - this can be done by talking to psychologists, policemen etc.. who have dealt with paedophiles and it is not necessary or right to actually look at the vile images themselves.

As for the issue of teenagers filming each other having sex. As long as they are reasonably close in age and they consent then I have no personal problem with them creating such films/videos AS LONG AS IT IS FOR THEIR PERSONAL USE ONLY! By this I mean, if they want to film/photograph each other making love for their own enjoyment then that is their buisness and only their buisness and such images should stay between them in the privacy of their homes. However publishing such images is really immoral [maybe less immoral than images of adults abusing children, but immoral nevertheless] and I agree with it being outlawed.

just my :2cents:

Izzfan :flag3:

[nothingtaboo]

Oh My God!!!!! You actually had to ask that question???? Our belief is, if anyone is caught doing anything to children (Nude pics, touching, abusing Whatever) they should be locked on a remote island and once a year the island should be burned to the ground with every scumbag that was on it.There is NO EXCUSE for involving a child in any conversation or sick twisted fantasy.That is why as parents we cant let our child out of our site without wondering what "Chester the Molestor" is going to crawl out from his/her rock. Shame on you for even asking that question and some day we hope there is a 1st class ticket for you to the Island we had mention!!!!!! Now do all of us parents a favor and just find a nice tall bridge to jump off, So there is one less of you scumbags in the world. We hope we offended everyone that thinks that this was a good Forum Topic.

[csrakate]

Rules for posting in this forum include the following:

3. Sexual freedom is what it's all about, but even it should have limits - discussions of non-consensual sex, violence and sex, or sex involving children are not welcome here, will be promptly deleted, and the poster may be banned.

I think we should all let this thread die until such time that Drew manages to delete it!

[nothingtaboo]

We are all for "Banning" You have our Vote!!!!!!!!!

[izzfan]

Yeah, it's probably a good idea to delete this thread as I can see it leading to flame wars [like the infamous 'fat women' thread all those months ago - although I think this thread, by its subject matter alone, is a lot worse] and also, as it has been said about past threads on similar topics before their deletion - the last thing you want people to see when they type 'bisexual.com' into a search engine is a discussion about paedophilia/child pornography.

Also, it (as kate says) it breaks one of the few (necessary) rules we have here with no real justifiable reason.

Izzfan :flag3:

[tatooedpunk]

Are you having a f*cking laugh,the only reason you can obtain images of serious child abuse is because people want to see it. If people didnt want to see it maybe it would not happen
(wishful thinking on my part) yes it is rightly a crime,as someone who was abused as a child i seriously have to say Fuck You and your incredibly stupid post

[DiamondDog]

Rules for posting in this forum include the following:

3. Sexual freedom is what it's all about, but even it should have limits - discussions of non-consensual sex, violence and sex, or sex involving children are not welcome here, will be promptly deleted, and the poster may be banned.

I think we should all let this thread die until such time that Drew manages to delete it!

good point.

Drew needs to take better care of the fourms.

I've seen users who freely admit in their profiles that they're not 18 or a legal adult. I don't rat them out since it's a dick move and I'm not the person who runs these fourms.

[darkeyes]

Dunno bout the US but its not. Possession of film or photographs of ne crime bein committed can b a crime in itself if ya sit on it an withhold it from the legal authorities... withholdin evidence, suppression woteva y wanna call it.. possession of photographs wich contain official secrets is a crime unless ya hav permission 2 hav em. So it s not the only thing..there r otha examples ifya wanna look for em an think bout it a lil.

Re child pornography wetha simple possession is a crime depends on how ya came inta possession an wetha ya keep em an wotya dus wiv em. There is a demand for it is all 2 true..an so it is produced by mucky sods an the criminal fraterinty 2 eitha satisfy ther own lusts, or 2 make loadsa dosh. Possession of ne photgraphic or film material wich shows the abuse of a child, or indeed the intentional abuse of ne 1 against ther will is and should b a crime. Of a child even if that child was "willing". Age of consent is important here an wot constitutes a child does differ wetha age 15 or 6, an ne legal redress shud b considered according to the facts of each case.

Actually me don mind the question. Summa yas hav gt rite hot unda the colla even tho King has sed he disapproves of child pornography. Me got hot unda the colla cos me jus thot initially it a daft bloody question.. but it aint wenya think bout it... its a bloody important 1 we shud b thinkin bout deeply. Arguably, filmed scenes of abuse of a child in a mainstream commercial film can b claimed 2 b pornography. As can a lotta telly dramas..an me seen sum quite realistically heavy stuff on telly an at the pictures...

Now foreya all get het up an scream me talkin bollox... me knows its simulated... an its not reel... but there gain.. so is summa the stuff wich is claimed 2 b soft porn. Wud the producers of soft porn b allowed 2 use a child as sumtimes children hav been used for mainstream drama? Doubt it very much.

Its a complex issue...sumtimes, dependin on the material its pretty strait forward, an is simply appallin...otha stuff can b a lil more difficult 2 prove the case... so debates like this in sum ways r valuable... an howeva much we hate child pornography, we shud neva b 2 scareda debatin wot it is, an wy its such an evil, an wy it shud neva b legal.

[12voltman59]

By defintion-all adult sexual contact with a child is a crime and the photos are evidence of such a crime--also--law enforcement takes a tough, zero tolerance stand against possesion in such photos since to allow such helps to continue to create and perpetuate a "market" in such photographs--therefore---at least here in the US--our federal and state authorities, rightly so, have determined it is not ok to even have such photos.

Believe me--it is a very serious offense to have such photos in your possession in any manner.

There have been prosecutions and convictions of those who came into posession of such photos innocently as well as deliberately.

Earlier this year, the township administrator for the township I live in and covered for the local daily metro newspaper, was found to have a significant amount of child porn on his personal laptop computer.

About two months ago--his case was resolved when he plead out to a series of federal charges and as part of his plea agreement---received a federal prison sentence of about 20 years with parole eligibilty in about 12 years--had he contested the charges and lost in court--a very strong probability since he could not deny the fact that they were there-and the FBI's forensic computer people clearly showed that over a period of about 18 months prior to his arrest, he continually downloaded the photos from various web sites and from other people, and also passed ones along---he would have faced a prison term of about 50 to 60 years with no possibility of parole.

He had a great job and a great life---he made great money--almost a hundred grand a year and well above that when you figure all of his benefits, a great house, wife and kids, respect in his community-basically he was living the "American Dream."

He lost all of that and more--all because he had an obsession about looking at child porn. There was no indication according to the federal prosecutors that he had ever actually done anything untoward with a child--just simply that he had those photos in his possession.

Not hardly worth it to get a woody-and when he does get out-if he doesn't get shanked one day--he will always be labled a sexual predator--which today, thanks to all of the ever increasingly strict rules about where a labeled sexual offender/predator can live in this state--- he will have to live in a drain pipe under a highway, way out in the countryside.

[kingofthejunglists]

Real intelligent answers you all gave me. It appears very few of you read my post completely, if at all.

I appreciate you all answering my question so thoughtfully. I also appreciate how none of you made "fallacious assumptions" about me regarding my post. Oh, wait...:eek:

If you assholes want to ban me because you're too stupid to respond rationally to an honest question, go ahead. "Oh noez, someone might connect child pr0n with bisexuality because someone dared to ask a question about it! Let's ban him!" Fuck y'all and your fascist, faggot-ass forum.

[Brian]

If you assholes want to ban me because you're too stupid to respond rationally to an honest question, go ahead. Okay, I'll ban ya. Not so much for asking the question, but for being too stupid and ethically-challenged to realize how the victim of child porn is re-victimized over and over every time some asshole views it or distributes it.

You are lucky the good folks here showed you as much patience as they did.

- Drew :paw: