I think I can see your point now. If the intent of the law (both molestation and pornography) is truly only to protect the individual victim, then I agree that without a victim there's nothing wrong with looking at what you want.
Why then are there 2 seperate crimes though? Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act? Wouldn't the first law cover punishment for the actual act in the later. My question is why is it illegal to watch or record it? It's not to protect the individual from being molested, that's covered by the actual laws against the physical crime. Your example about animation is irrelevant because we're talking about pornography intended to be realistic, animation doesn't come close. The two types are not equatable. I already discussed why they're not persued legally.
There was a social uproar when dakota fanning played the part of a rape victim, and the movie lolita, but they weren't made illegal. Those are the best options for your case. Both are movies and the purpose is to tell a story. Porn's purpose is to create a fantasy you can feel a part of. If it were just for watching and appreciating the beauty or telling someone's story, it would be art and you wouldn't masterbate to it/ fantasize about it.
What's the process of making something illegal? First it has to be introduced to society publicly, then condemned by a sizable portion of society, then it's social impact is measured and found legal or illegal. The same process was with slavery, and drugs, right of women to vote, etc. I suppose that porn is such a private thing in america it's having an issue coming out publicly. I guarentee you though if Wicked Video were to find an 18 year old that looked 12 and made her into a pornstar, put her on every shelf and poster her up everywhere and said "hey come watch this get banged", people would have issue with it. And honestly most people would probably drop it after her age was verified, or it would be eclipsed by the next social injustice, and it would go back to being porn. But to deny that it was catering to child porn viewers was something they couldn't hide from at that point, and some group somewhere would call them on it. As of right now, they're 18 yr olds dressed like 16-17 year olds, which is still legal age of consent in some countries, which is why for most it's not a big deal. But my point was how far it could go if you don't realize that some laws are to meant to protect individuals and some laws are meant to protect society.
Why then are there 2 seperate crimes though? Why is it illegal to both actually commit pedophilia and watch or film the act of someone else's pedophilia act? Wouldn't the first law cover punishment for the actual act in the later. My question is why is it illegal to watch or record it? It's not to protect the individual from being molested, that's covered by the actual laws against the physical crime. Your example about animation is irrelevant because we're talking about pornography intended to be realistic, animation doesn't come close. The two types are not equatable. I already discussed why they're not persued legally.
There was a social uproar when dakota fanning played the part of a rape victim, and the movie lolita, but they weren't made illegal. Those are the best options for your case. Both are movies and the purpose is to tell a story. Porn's purpose is to create a fantasy you can feel a part of. If it were just for watching and appreciating the beauty or telling someone's story, it would be art and you wouldn't masterbate to it/ fantasize about it.
What's the process of making something illegal? First it has to be introduced to society publicly, then condemned by a sizable portion of society, then it's social impact is measured and found legal or illegal. The same process was with slavery, and drugs, right of women to vote, etc. I suppose that porn is such a private thing in america it's having an issue coming out publicly. I guarentee you though if Wicked Video were to find an 18 year old that looked 12 and made her into a pornstar, put her on every shelf and poster her up everywhere and said "hey come watch this get banged", people would have issue with it. And honestly most people would probably drop it after her age was verified, or it would be eclipsed by the next social injustice, and it would go back to being porn. But to deny that it was catering to child porn viewers was something they couldn't hide from at that point, and some group somewhere would call them on it. As of right now, they're 18 yr olds dressed like 16-17 year olds, which is still legal age of consent in some countries, which is why for most it's not a big deal. But my point was how far it could go if you don't realize that some laws are to meant to protect individuals and some laws are meant to protect society.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
