Is it wrong to view child pornography?

Depends how you're defining 'child pornography.'

Content involving actual minor-aged persons (under 18 typically) engaged in sexual behaviours is for all intents and purposes illegal on this planet.

Content using adults made to look like, or attested to be minors is sometimes illegal (location-specific.)

Content using adults who a reasonable person would believe to be a minor may be illegal (again, location-specific.)

Content NOT using actual people as with the latest computer generated images (as distinct from digital modified real people as with age-retarding visual effects) is sometimes illegal. Legal in the US at least federally, illegal if not mistaken in Canada and the UK.

Content involving actual 'drawn' versions as above.

US Federal Law defining illegal pornographic content below,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256

"(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.

(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults."


So where ever it's illegal, it's 'wrong.' At least in that legal sense.

Ethicacy of is another matter. To which I'm of the opinion if it involves actual minors, made by minors, for other minors, whether it gets into the public domain or not it's not unethical as with sexting, or boy/girlfriends making imagery or video for their minor boy/girlfriends.

If it's an adult USING minors for personal or commercial purposes it's unethical.

CGI versions not involving actual human beings are just as ethical as masterwork art or a child's 'doodle' stick figures. Can't draw to save my life, but can draw 2 stick-figures, one half the height of the other and call the shorter one a child, and the other an adult. Is that then 'child pornography?' Of course not. CGI-generated images are the same thing ultimately.

the current definition is any image of youth or any digital created image of youth or any adults acting as youth that the state thinks that a perv would jack off too. No sex, no sexual touching, and in fact no kid are required.

The problem here is when someone used the term child porn the majority of the population think of pictures of young children or even infants being sexual abused not a late teenager for example taking pictures of him or herself and sending it to a lover.

Emotions tend to short out most people brains and even daring to agree with the majority of federal judges that the sentencing guide lines are too harsh under the federal law have gotten me charge with being a pedophile.

When a 16 YO can consent to **** but can not under our laws consent to have a nakid pic of the themselve taken, having sex or not, we should know that we have work to do.

That's one of the trickier aspects of these laws. AoC for actual sex, then another for sex-work as with modelling or doing porn. With the latter, I can see more need for protecting younger minds from exploitation especially today in our 'get on tv/internet video' obsessed culture. I like to think at least that if not getting on tv and youtube, young men wouldn't be making those 'nutshot' videos.

While I see dire need for ammending AoC laws for sex in relationships, I think age for commercial exploitation's fine at 18. I think the lure of making money doing explicit content would be too great for younger teens, "Why study hard in school to go to college to make money when I can make much more right now?" Being the arguement.

Pedophilic sex does not in and of itself harm children. Rape always does regardless of ages involved, but not every illegal sexual encounter is rape except when the law defines it thus. Pleanty of kids' first sexual experiences are with other kids, are they all irrevocably harmed because of it? Of course not. So why would such acts with more knowledgeable sex partners like adults be more harmful if they're not harmful with other kdis who don't know what they're doing?

The claim it's objectively harmful every time is I think society's way of making non-binary things binary of ease of zero tolerance policies. If we accept the truth that sometimes sexual experiences involving children are positive then we'd have to ask whether laws for bidding such things are jsut. So we just say they're always harmful and abusive, end of discussion. But that's not the case as even a casual study of comparative sexuality in other cultures reveal when indoctrination of children into sexual behaviours is either institutionalized or tolerated socially. Some of the most peaceful cultures the world's ever seen had adult-minor sexuality institutionalized. Whereas some of the most violent have infantilized children denying them sexuality until some arbitrarily define age of adulthood far out of whack with biological reality.

"Is it wrong to view child pornography?"

Yes, where ever it's illegal to do so. But beyond the law not necessarily. If you're viewing a rape it's morally wrong, but if you don't know the consensual status of who you're looking at, you could be looking at an eager participant. In societies where sex is villified, that's not likely to be the case, but not every culture regards sex like we do in the US. German government got into hot water a few years ago releasing a pamphlet saying some incestuous pedophilic affection was positive for kids' development. And numerous countries and cultures still give children some amount of what we would term sexual gratification by adults. In our multicultural society, these nationals have gotten into trouble here in the US for doing what back home was considered normal and fine. When you sexualize the human body and thus any physical contact with 'sexual parts' is thus a crime what's actual healthy and affectionate suddenly becomes illegal and socially repugnant. But it's important to ask whether it really is or if it's just a country with a dead bug up it's ass about sex saying it is in between wars murdering children but calling it military glory.

You all must be talking about something that is too taboo to talk about and you are upsetting the masses who have been taught by there culture not to think for themselves.
Then there are the others that are similar to you and the way you think they too are almost capable of thinking for themselves but these are the ones Socrates was talking about in his apology.

These people are teachers, doctors, attorneys, CEOs and so forth and they will vote all of your replies down.

Wrong. So dreadfully wrong. Pre-sexual children, when exposed to adult sexual behaviour, ie sexual abuse, even if it takes place without protest, even when it does not result in physical scars, regularly manifest a self-destructive tendencies. Not to mention that the victims of abuse often replicate the abusive actions they've suffered on even younger victims.



Positive for whom, you piece of ****? Binary judgements are binary, but the age of consent is not. The age of consent exists as a legal boundary on a social gradient. It only appears to be binary to those unable to see the distinctions on the spectrum...

You're expending a lot of effort to make your pov seem rational and normal. It's not either, deal with it.

I think it's necessary to elaborate. Yes it's wrong but I think not for the reasons most people think. First, it's just as wrong to touch an adult as it is to touch a child. What's absurd is when people say it's their duty to protect children when all they're doing is protecting their right to lie. Most babies, children and adults have already decided to not fear death and the world's real problem is if you get 7 billion people who have decided it's alright to kill (and killing happens by simply eating meat or living a lifestyle that isn't completely perfect to 120). So people really should protect themselves because there's no way with 7 billion people doing what they want some children and babies aren't going to be hurt. And they deserve it and more because they're contributing to peoples' games of warring and fighting without knowing who the winner will be or having a purpose other than promoting their beliefs that they can attain salvation.

Nothing good can come of viewing child pornography. Nonetheless, our laws are not well thought out. For somebody to go to prison for simply looking at something or owning something, I want that something to be cannisters of sarin gas, a suitcase nuclear weapon, or a shoulder-fired AA weapon. Pictures of nude children do not rise to that level of wickedness.

How can anyone determine if the material is "child pornography" unless they view it first?

What people are going to jail for is being connected to P2P networks which exist for the purpose of spreading child porn around.

Is this why you went?

Want to see how easy it is to look at pictures of nude teens and preteens?

Just once for a video project involving prehistoric life I thought I needed a couple of pictures of a group of people just innocently splashing around or possibly tossing some sort of a ball around in the water without benefit of clothing like you might find on a beach somewhere and so I got on Google and searched on the simple term "nude beach"......

What actually turned up was that 95% of the images which resulted from that search looks like people auditioning for roles in porno films and at least 25% of the people in those images were under any kind of a legal age which you might care to name.

You really want people going to prison for doing Google searches on "nude beach"?????

WHO RESURRECTED THIS ******* THREAD? LET IT DIE! THERE ARE NO REASONABLE, MORAL ARGUMENTS IN FAVOR OF OR DEFENDING CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, YOU ABSOLUTE SHITS! AND THERE ARE NO REASONABLE EXCUSES FOR IT, EITHER!

If that is what you are looking for then **** off to the dark web and the cops that are documenting you there. jfc, ffs, wth...why does this even need to be said...

My view on 'child pornography' is grammar means a lot.

If nothing else it shines a light on where the sympathies of hard line Trump supporters really lie, with other nonces.

Was this your defense you gave the judge for the 2 terabytes of child pornography found down loaded on your pc?

This thread is a dead end...reply, but don't comment if you agree...

It's wrong ethically to view Child pornography even though is sometimes Surfaces in the search engies - if you got kids, put on the search filter. Almost every search contains pornographic images so if you have a Little tiny kid at home you should turn it off - god i sound so fake?! Some parts of the World it's not illegal to Watch Child pornography but only to produce, distribute and buy Child pornography.

I would also recommend to put an extra lock on your door, and if you're lonesome steel bars over you windows and front/back door.

If you have the opportunity you should proabably try to work in Another country, and actually enjoy Life and not succumb to the low-life of pedophila and other distorted views. Some men are hebephiliacs, especially when there is Money involved, look around in the subway and take a look if you Think it's safe to send your kid to school - a Little tip.