RE: Pornography - are you for or against it and why?
April 9, 2011 at 11:19 am
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2011 at 12:06 pm by Skipper.)
Surely the laws against making (and viewing (as without the demand there would be none created)) child ponography are primarily there as the only way to make child ponography is to abuse a child. That's why the medium is illegal. It's not the actual images, or anything resembling the images, the law is trying to stop , it's the abuse of the child to make the images. In most countries, animated child porn (and the type of faked child porn we are discussing) is legal. So to say it's the images themselves that the law is trying to stop, I feel is wrong. If that were the case, then the type of pon you are suggesting to be banned, would already be.
Well, the images you want to ban are already "condoned" in the sense they are not illegal, yet we don't seem to have a paedophile pandemic. People who are paedophiles would be, and are, regardless and have been historically waaaaay before said images could be distributed via the internet or photographs. Even if real child pornography became available legally I doubt very much people who otherwise were never attracted to children before would start watching child porn. In the same sense that most people wouldn't go out and start smoking crack if that suddenly became legal. People don't watch child porn, or smoke crack because they don't want to...not because it's illegal.
People wouldn't and couldn't be able to force themselves to find children sexually attractive, in the same sense I can't force myself to find men sexually attractive and a gay man can't force himself to find women sexualy attractive. Those who already do find children sexual Know they do and don't need faked or real child porn images to tell them that, they already know and that's why they are looking at the images. So to suggest it could increase demand is wrong.
(April 9, 2011 at 11:10 am)tackattack Wrote: I already showed you that I don't believe ceasing to produce the porn will decrease the demand. The question is, is condoning and allowing the images to roam free in society increasing demand?
Well, the images you want to ban are already "condoned" in the sense they are not illegal, yet we don't seem to have a paedophile pandemic. People who are paedophiles would be, and are, regardless and have been historically waaaaay before said images could be distributed via the internet or photographs. Even if real child pornography became available legally I doubt very much people who otherwise were never attracted to children before would start watching child porn. In the same sense that most people wouldn't go out and start smoking crack if that suddenly became legal. People don't watch child porn, or smoke crack because they don't want to...not because it's illegal.
People wouldn't and couldn't be able to force themselves to find children sexually attractive, in the same sense I can't force myself to find men sexually attractive and a gay man can't force himself to find women sexualy attractive. Those who already do find children sexual Know they do and don't need faked or real child porn images to tell them that, they already know and that's why they are looking at the images. So to suggest it could increase demand is wrong.