Is it wrong to view child pornography?

It is not for the slight risk of somebody remembering. It is for the very real threat to children being abused to feed the need for more child porn.

Trading the same 1000 or 10,000 pictures over and over is not what anyone interested in porn, child or otherwise, wants to do. They want new stuff they have not seen. There is only one way to produce new child porn. Your desire for more creates that production. Denying that makes you appear to be a sociopath.

parados wrote:

It is not for the slight risk of somebody remembering. It is for the very real threat to children being abused to feed the need for more child porn.

Trading the same 1000 or 10,000 pictures over and over is not what anyone interested in porn, child or otherwise, wants to do. They want new stuff they have not seen. There is only one way to produce new child porn. Your desire for more creates that production. Denying that makes you appear to be a sociopath.

Look, I have dealt with these claims already. You're going to have to backtrack and read what I have already written if you want to have a discussion with me. You're about 20 pages out of date with these claims. I don't want to repeat myself, I'm sorry.

What do you mean "in denial"? Obviously i don't agree with your claims. I deny that they are true. Is that all you mean?

joefromchicago wrote:

Well, why would it matter to you personally? Isn't it because nonconsensual sex is the equivalent of rape?

Possibly, yeah. Rape tends to be a pretty unpleasant experience for the victim. But the issue of sexual consent collapses into the issue of harm. It's okay for parents to bathe children when they haven't consented, because it doesn't harm them. It isn't okay to have sex with someone who hasn't consented, because it does harm them.

As I said, I don't think the burden of proof is on me. You're the one making a positive claim. I'm simply saying that I see no reason to believe your claim. I'm not saying it's definitely false. The existence of unicorns isn't definitely false.

Masturbating to images of child porn is masturbating to your own thoughts.

It can be difficult to imagine things you've never seen, or situations you've never been in, so the porn helps you fantasise.

Look, I have dealt with these claims already. You're going to have to backtrack and read what I have already written if you want to have a discussion with me. You're about 20 pages out of date with these claims. I don't want to repeat myself, I'm sorry.

agrote wrote:

Look, I have dealt with these claims already. You're going to have to backtrack and read what I have already written if you want to have a discussion with me. You're about 20 pages out of date with these claims. I don't want to repeat myself, I'm sorry.

In the cannibalism thread, you demanded that i produce the evidence that your objections had been met in this thread. Here, however, you object that such an exercise be required of you. Have you never heard the dictum of folk wisdom to the effect that sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander?

We have learned that you were unaware of the word turpitude until you read it here. How about hypocrisy, is that a word with which you are also unfamiliar?

agrote wrote:

What do you mean "in denial"? Obviously i don't agree with your claims. I deny that they are true. Is that all you mean?

Playing dumb works so well, doesn't it?

You can just play dumb about whether children are injured in creating child porn. Since your degree is in "psychology", why don't you tell us the diagnosis of someone that has no empathy for anyone else. (Even though they may pretend to have empathy.)

Given that you now concede that consent has ethical implications under a consequentialist system...

...would you also agree that, because the state has an interest in promoting utility (or whatever), it also has an interest in protecting a person's interest in giving consent in those circumstances where consent is more productive of utility than not?

agrote wrote:

As I said, I don't think the burden of proof is on me. You're the one making a positive claim. I'm simply saying that I see no reason to believe your claim. I'm not saying it's definitely false. The existence of unicorns isn't definitely false.

You have to convince people who don't think it's fine that it is fine. Just like homosexuals and their supporters had to convince everyone else that being gay was fine. Saying that you can't see any reason to believe that seeing child pornography will increase a paedophile's chances of trying to have sex with a child just isn't good enough - you have to prove to us that it won't. Whining that people who don't want to make child pornography legal need to prove something will not get you anywhere. You should think pragmatically if you want things to go your way.

Quote:

Masturbating to images of child porn is masturbating to your own thoughts.

Apart from it's actually masturbating to the images of someone's abuse, rather than figments of your imagination.

Quote:

It can be difficult to imagine things you've never seen, or situations you've never been in, so the porn helps you fantasise.

It can be difficult, but it's not impossible. Back when I was a teenager and discovering masturbation, I had no access to pornography - my imagination was good enough.

What do you use when you're in the mood for having sex with a child now? Your imagination or illegal child pornography?

I could be pragmatic. But my tendancy is to be idealistic. Homosexuals shouldn't have had to prove their case. The burden of proof was on those who thought that homosexuality was some sort of illness or corrupting influence.

In fact, I'm not sure they really did have to prove their case. It the UK, at least, it seems that it simply occured to the lawmakers that there was no reason to outlaw consentual acts between adults in private. They didn't need proof that homosexuality is fine; they just needed to realise that there was no evidence that there was anything bad about i

In addition to, not rather than. This is the point I am making.

But you concede that it is difficult.

It wasn't put to me as a question; it was assumed that I look at child porn, which I don't.

agrote wrote:

Perhaps the unavailability of child porn would encourage paedophiles to go out looking for the real thing.

Perhaps it might. But the answer is not to make it all legally available and just hope that everything will be fine. You seem to be arguing that everything will "probably" be fine it's made legal. But what if it's not? How sure are you that it'll be fine? Does the unavailability of it encourage you to go out looking for the real thing?

Do less people have sex in the 00s than they did in the 60s? Adult pornography is far more available now than it was then. Does increasingly accessible pornography correlate with a decrease in the amount of sex people have? I don't think any official figures are available, but I imagine this is not the case.

agrote wrote:

The desire to rape or murder, on the other hand, sounds like something that is learned, not something you are born with. If it is learned, it can be un-learned. If somebody associates sexual arousal with coersion, then that association can be extinguished through therapy. If somebody is inherently sexually oriented towards children, I don't think there are any learned associations to be broken. But I could be wrong.

"Sounds like it is learned"? Why does it? Do you have anything that shows that it is learned

Rape and murder are found in every human culture and in almost every other non-human group of animals, just like homosexuality and heterosexuality. Rape and murder have been an big part of our evolutionary history - I don't think they're something that is learned, like a shoe fetish or a phobia of stamps. How do you know that paedophilia isn't learned?

Because attempts to remove the association between sex and children haven't been successful? The "learned" desire to rape hasn't either - previously convicted rapists often re-offend.

Even if it was legal and acceptable to be in a romantic and sexual relationship with a child, wouldn't you gradually find them less and less attractive as they got older?

Then you'd have to find a new child, and so on and so on, until you're spending all your retirement trying to find a child who is sexually attracted to 70 year olds.

agrote wrote:

Relationships with adults?

Huh? How would being in a romantic relationship with an adult be a substitute for being in one with a child? I'm heterosexual, and I'd rather be single than be in a substitutive romantic relationship with another man.

What adult would have no problems with their partner masturbating to child pornography while in a relationship with them?

agrote wrote:

They change their jobs, start new families and live in new places. They gain as much as they lose.

Giving up a long-term permanent job is losing something - losing job security, a pension, etc. Getting a new job is not gaining what you've lost. "Starting a new family" is not really a replacement for getting disowned by your parents, grandparents, brothers, sisters, etc. I wouldn't say that is gaining as much as you lose.

agrote wrote:

Satisfying your sexual desires isn't the only thing that makes life worth living.

Exactly. Many people put being in a relationship as an important part of life too. You've not tried to tackle that problem in regards to the inability of paedophiles to have relationships.

agrote wrote:

Porn isn't everything!

Then why are you making it sound like it is? You seem to have been arguing that it's extremely important (this whole topic is about it). If it's not everything, just masturbate to images of children in your head. Porn isn't a right. What do you think paedophiles did before the 20th century?

agrote wrote:

If somebody sees an image of child porn and discovers that they are attracted to it (i.e. discovers that they are a paedophile), then better that they know sooner rather than later.

Why is it better to realise that you're a paedophile than not to realise it at all?

What do you think people did for thousands of years before pornography existed? Pornography isn't a right.

Quote:

It wasn't put to me as a question; it was assumed that I look at child porn, which I don't.

I don't assume that you look at child porn. I asked if you either did that or used your imagination.

RHD wrote:

What do you think people did for thousands of years before pornography existed? Pornography isn't a right.

Freedom is a right. People are being put in prison for the crime of enjoying looking at photographs.

Quote:

Quote:

It wasn't put to me as a question; it was assumed that I look at child porn, which I don't.

I don't assume that you look at child porn. I asked if you either did that or used your imagination.

Yes, I realise that. But I'm sick of having to talk about it. I don't break sex laws. Let's leave it at that.

Do you think that victims of sexual abuse should have to consent before the images of their abuse are used by people for sexual stimulation?

As long as we can be sure that it won't increase the incidence of abuse, this isn't a problem.

Good point, but from that sort of evolutionary perspective, it seems that rape and murder are dispositions that we all have.

Do you find 80 year old men/women attractive?

If you are married, or you get married, will you stop loving your partner when he/she turns 80?

Don't ordinary 70 year olds face that dilemma? Do you really think 70 year old men think 70 year old women are hot? Don't they seek companionship more than sexual fulfillment at that stage of their lives? Couldn't a paedophile do the same?

agrote wrote:

As long as we can be sure that it won't increase the incidence of abuse, this isn't a problem.

How can we be sure?

Good point, but from that sort of evolutionary perspective, it seems that rape and murder are dispositions that we all have.

Quote:

Do you find 80 year old men/women attractive?

If you are married, or you get married, will you stop loving your partner when he/she turns 80?

I am attracted to women, and my girlfriend will not gradually turn into a man - she will get older as I get older. Women will always be women (generally speaking). Paedophiles are attracted to an age range - that's the difference. Girls and boys will grow out of that age range. If we lived in a world where women gradually turned into men after a few years then I am sure I would look for a new girlfriend every few years. But they don't, and I usually find women of around a similar age to me more attractive than those further away in age. I currently do not find 40 year old women sexually attractive, but when I am 40 I think I probably will.

Quote:

Don't ordinary 70 year olds face that dilemma? Do you really think 70 year old men think 70 year old women are hot? Don't they seek companionship more than sexual fulfillment at that stage of their lives? Couldn't a paedophile do the same?

Couldn't they look for people of a similar age for companionship, or look for a child for companionship? What child would like to be friends with a 70 year old man who is openly sexually attracted to them? What would the child get out of it?