Quote:
|
Also, what about this: there's obviously not a lot of research done one what makes there be less pedophilic activity. But we know that there certainly are pedophiles who behave themselves, who keep their unfortunate genetic makeup to themselves, and live out their fantasies in fantasy only (Dan Savage calls them "gold star pedophiles"), and it sucks to be them, but it's great that they do what they do, and don't do what they don't. So my question here is, would having access to CGI child porn make there be more satisfiable gold-star pedos? Or would having that exist make them be more likely to go out looking for the real thing, gateway style? Again, I don't know if this is answerable with no real research able to be conducted ethically, but it seems to me that pedophiles are fantasizing anyway, having no porn available might make them go crazier and seek whatever they can, including real children, as opposed to having the potential outlet of animated fake stuff available.
|
This is the problem for me too. I can never work out if the cruelty free child porn should be allowed because it gives the gold star folk a victimless outlet or if it is a bad idea because it will promote their desires.
At the very least if the cruelty free porn can really take off it would mean that a whole bunch of kids would avoid a great deal unpleasantness in the making of kiddie porn.