Is it wrong to view child pornography?

You can't go to war against Islamic extremists without the existence of Islamic extremism. The war on terror cannot exist without the existence of terrorism. Nevertheless, one can support the war on terror without supporting terrorism.

Just because you support something, this does not entail that you support everything on which it depends.

Another example I can give is of an artist who collects rubbish that has been left in the streets or in landfills, and uses it to construct sculptures which are displayed in art galleries, and which people enjoy very much. This act of creativity cannot occur without the existence of littering, or huge amounts of waste dumped in landfills. One can support the artist's actions without being in favour of littering or excessive waste, even though the artist's actions depend on these bad things.

A third example, perhaps the best of the three, is of a woman whose father was an organised criminal that built a fortune from smuggling drugs, murdering people, and doing all sorts of other cruel and illegal things. When he dies, his money is passed on to his daughter, who invests it in various charities: for cancer research, child protection, famine relief, you name it. This act of philanthropy could not have occurred were it not for the woman's father being a heinous criminal. Nevertheless, we can support the woman's generous act without supporting the cruel and brutal acts of her father.

I can and do support the use of child pornography, without supporting the creation of child pornography.

But my claim (wrong or not) does not commit me to being in favour of child abuse.

The position I have been defending may be totally ridiculous, but it does not entail that child abuse is acceptable.

”vikorr” wrote:

As for the ridiculous example of child masturbation - Who introduced pre pubescent kids to masturbation? (and agrote is talking pre pubescent). And who introduced them to the idea of getting filmed doing so? Do you really think the manipulating adults didn't take it any further with the kids?

I’m talking about children around 13 or younger. The DSM IV defines paedophilia as sexual attraction to people of that age.

Children of 13 or younger do masturbate, and not because some pervert has taught them to. Children aged 13 or younger are not asexual. They may be too young to have sex, but they are nevertheless capable of sexual desire, interested in exploring their own bodies, and even capable of orgasm or pregnancy. Obviously this is not true of all children aged 13 years or younger. But it is true of children aged 13, perhaps 12, maybe 11, and so on.

I’m sure you’ll ask me to provide evidence for this claim, and when you do I will try to provide it. But I’m quite certain at least that children of 12 or 13 are sexual to some extent; they frequently form crushes and experiment with masturbation. This should be obvious to anyone who didn’t grow up in a convent. The idea that sex is not on the minds of children until they hit 16 or 18, is simply a dogma.

Anyway, to stay on topic, the idea of taking photographs of children masturbating – who would be doing so even if nobody were watching – is not ridiculous. I think you need to re-address hawkeye’s points with that in mind. Your suggestion that children have to be introduced to masturbation is ridiculous, but perhaps understandable if the children you have in mind are female (since female masturbation is much less common).

Informed consent seems to be a stumbling block as a concept to Agrote.

I see it as another attention whore writing a giant "look-at-me". The phrase machiavellian justification springs to mind.

As it is to most child sexual abuse supporters (and defenders of rape like hawkeye.....)

hawkeye10 wrote:

vikorr wrote:

Quote:

but the topic is not abuse it is pornography.

Actually, it's child pornography, which results from abuse and is abuse.

Quote:

When it comes to child porn where no child is hurt

You can't seriously have meant this?

As for the ridiculous example of child masturbation - Who introduced pre pubescent kids to masturbation? (and agrote is talking pre pubescent). And who introduced them to the idea of getting filmed doing so? Do you really think the manipulating adults didn't take it any further with the kids?

I am not in favor of sexual kids pics being legal, but I am pointing out that the allegation that sexual pics of kids must be the result of child abuse can not be supported. The other side has gotten to the point that they must conclude that non consensual use of pics is child abuse, which has us about down to the civilization level of the primitive tribes of a hundred or so years ago who believed that the invading white men had stolen their souls by taking pics of them.

Most kids today are sexual by the time they are twelve, anyone who is not aware that kids develop sexually, both physically and emotionally, earlier than ever before is not paying attention. Our morals and our laws have gone the other direction unfortunately, 18 years old is the new 14 which was the old 12 so far as acceptable norms go. talk about a disconnect.

Christ...how does one even begin to attempt to sort out this appalling irrational rant?

I generally eschew accuations of perversion etc., but you are a truly pathetic example of a tragic perversion of intellect and empathy.

I would ignore you as you deserve, except that others might read your ravings and be affected.


1. Hawk-eye said:

"I am not in favor of sexual kids pics being legal, but I am pointing out that the allegation that sexual pics of kids must be the result of child abuse can not be supported. The other side has gotten to the point that they must conclude that non consensual use of pics is child abuse, which has us about down to the civilization level of the primitive tribes of a hundred or so years ago who believed that the invading white men had stolen their souls by taking pics of them. "


Do you have the faintest idea of what informed consent means?

Seriously.....define it for me. Now.


Say someone takes pics of you **** and spreads them all over the net, what is your reaction?

Say someone rapes you and puts these pix all over the net.....what is your response?

Can you truly see no difference between a consenting adult allowing pix of them masturbating to be promulgated, and a child who has no way of understanding the implications having such pix promulgated?

This has NOTHING to do with how sexual kids are, it has to do with adults abusing kids. A child being sexual is one thing, an adult photographing this is abuse, since the child has a totally unequal understanding of the situation, and different power.

Even to use your dumb analogy of the soul stealing...are you arguing that the people who believed this had no right to refuse to consent to the pictures?

Do YOU have any right to refuse to consent to being photographed shitting, ****, ANYTHING?



Please defend, definitively, and not in relation to adults being able to **** kids at will, your rant re this.

dlowan wrote:

As it is to most child sexual abuse supporters (and defenders of rape like hawkeye.....)

I am an advocate for nullifying recent changes to the definition of rape , and I advocate changing how society responds to and attempts to prevent rape because what we do now is dumb. I can fully support and justify my position, where as so far those at a2k who appose my position seem to be incapable of any response other than mischaracterization of my position and name calling.

The only positive thing about this thread is watching this sick, pathetic piece of sh!t getting thrashed by one of the women he sooooo hates. Very well done, Deb. I'll bet the no-question-answering coward has no clue how many of us are laughing at him (even as we're repulsed), or how unusual it is for you of all people to come heavy on a sicko.

(Psst. Deb, is it okay if I tell him to take one for the team yet?)

hawkeye10 wrote:

dlowan wrote:

As it is to most child sexual abuse supporters (and defenders of rape like hawkeye.....)

I am an advocate for nullifying recent changes to the definition of rape , and I advocate changing how society responds to and attempts to prevent rape because what we do now is dumb. I can fully support and justify my position, where as so far those at a2k who appose my position seem to be incapable of any response other than mischaracterization of my position and name calling.

The only thing you have done is demonstrated thoroughly your demented hatred of women and baseless feelings of superiority. There is no intelligent support let alone justification for that which is unjustifiable and pretty much everyone over 12 (save other demented sickos like yourself) damn well knows it. Keep running your mouth as an anonymous piece of **** on the internet because it's the only venue to spew such twisted nonsense without getting your cowardly ass kicked.

Seeing as how Hawk said, in an early post on the forum, that his wife was a victim of childhood sexual abuse and that she was basically the bread winner for his family....... it seems no surprise that he holds the views he does. Pathetic, true. But we seem to have a bit of insight into this wierdo.

I'm floored that you'd discuss their tragic personal crimes here in such an offhand manner and to do so just to make some debate work for you.

one of the first steps in recovery is to stop keeping what happened a secret. We are fairly open about talking about this in real life as well.