1349: Six Years Down

[starscream]

Originally Posted by myq

I mean, part of this question adds the element of "if child porn is illegal but child rape depiction for artistic purposes is not, where do you draw the line" (Keith: 'EVERYWHERE!'), and then we're back to the "I know porn when I see it" ambiguity...

I don't want to speak for him, of course, that'd be akin to pedophilia itself, but I think Keith would say why do we need these movies and paintings with child porn in them? Which isn't really a terrible question. What are we (ostensibly non-pedophiles) getting out of that? But alternately, what good is completely ignoring it?

[Shananigans]

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.

[BrianAlt]

Originally Posted by stulagu

hmmm, I'm thinking sarcasm doesn't work for you....

It's the ESL language barrier.

[Blitzgal]

Huh, I thought I posted a correction but I was in a hurry so maybe I didn't save it.

I looked for the original article I *thought* I remembered reading about this book, but I can't find it. Everything I'm reading tonight says there are no photos in this book, which is likely why they depended on the decades-old obscenity laws to charge him with. I still think every private seller such as Amazon should refuse to sell such shit.

Originally Posted by myq

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?

I think historically chemical castration has not been very effective in stopping these people from raping children, so I don't have much faith that providing something to get them aroused and riled up would do any better. And how do we know about these magical pedophiles who never act on their impulses? Again, if they participate in the underground market for kiddie porn, they are still abusing children simply by expanding the market for this product.

[stulagu]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

I think historically chemical castration has not been very effective in stopping these people from raping children, so I don't have much faith that providing something to get them aroused and riled up would do any better. And how do we know about these magical pedophiles who never act on their impulses? Again, if they participate in the underground market for kiddie porn, they are still abusing children simply by expanding the market for this product.

Magical Pedophiles...I smell a movie title!

The scene from Prince of Tides where the boy is raped is still burned into my brain and will never go away. And I saw it about 10 years ago. Children are innocents, which is why this is such a crime. We are absolutely destroying the spirit and soul of a child, and potentially creating a monster. It is why animal abuse is WAY more horrible than spousal abuse in my book, the animal has no control/though process about the situation. The spouse can at least get the hell out of there. And yes I realize this is a blanket statement, please don't pick it apart. In the purist sense it is true.

I think most studies have shown (and by this I mean Criminal Minds and Law and Order SVU) that pedofiles will eventually act on a human. That they may lie dormant for a while, but they will offend someday. And they will repeat. So why make CGI? This might take someone from a gold star offender to a full blown offender because it is easier to access and easier to spiral down into the sickness.

I do understand the fine line of showing a violent rape in a movie to evoke emotion, but porn is SO different from an artistic movie. No matter how much soft focus and storyline is involved, you're watching the movie to get off. That is the purpose.

[dark_lobo]

I believe I found the answer to Keith's airline problem, write a song! ...and have it go viral
It worked for some dude, he had a problem with United Airlines (they mishandled his $3500 guitar, on arrival to his destination he found his guitar broken)

United Breaks Guitars

In the song he tells every detail of the story, including the names of the people he had to deal with.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by dark_lobo

I believe I found the answer to Keith's airline problem, write a song! ...and have it go viral
It worked for some dude, he had a problem with United Airlines (they mishandled his $3500 guitar, on arrival to his destination he found his guitar broken)

United Breaks Guitars

In the song he tells every detail of the story, including the names of the people he had to deal with.

Did this really work? From the song video I saw a while ago, the guy said to that day United hasn't admitted any wrongdoing and hasn't done anything for him.

[alannanana]

Originally Posted by myq

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.

Or we can just hand them a copy of Lolita under the condition that they keep their hands to themselves.

[DWarrior]

Originally Posted by starscream

I don't want to speak for him, of course, that'd be akin to pedophilia itself, but I think Keith would say why do we need these movies and paintings with child porn in them? Which isn't really a terrible question. What are we (ostensibly non-pedophiles) getting out of that? But alternately, what good is completely ignoring it?

Page Jesse Joyce; he's proficient enough in art critique to answer that.

[myq]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

I think historically chemical castration has not been very effective in stopping these people from raping children, so I don't have much faith that providing something to get them aroused and riled up would do any better. And how do we know about these magical pedophiles who never act on their impulses? Again, if they participate in the underground market for kiddie porn, they are still abusing children simply by expanding the market for this product.

Question: do you have stats on chemical castration and recidivism in pedophiles? Or where do you have the impression that it has not been effective.

And I know about the magic pedophiles from Savage Love, where people have written in to discuss it (anonymously because to do so otherwise would certainly lead to problems, and obviously this anecdotal evidence depends on taking people at their word, but as I understand it, for every pedophile who acts, there are likely some number of those who don't).

Also, about the prevalence of kiddie porn, I don't know how familiar people are with Doug Stanhope's bit about it, but (to paraphrase), he talks about how people complain about how prevalent it is, but that he's never actually found it online, and he's looked for lots of shit, and found lots of other crazy shit, so (something like) "if pedophilia is happening as much as people think, then cock-fingering is happening in this room right now."

And that's not to take away from the fact that (of course) the pedo video market is abusive and exploitative and bad. But nowhere did anyone say that gold star magic pedophiles are participating in it. Maybe some are, which makes them like a silver or bronze star, comparatively, but I would say that some probably aren't. Maybe some of them draw their own kiddie porn caricatures, use it to get off, and then burn it so no one can ever find it.


It seems to me that the answer to the real big question here is impossible to do anything but speculate about: will fake kid porn help fewer kids be molested? Either way, it's a risk.

But it does also seem to me that if child porn is being created all the time, it's because the demand for it exists, and if the system could be infiltrated and that demand could be met by CGI child porn, then fewer actual kids would be actually traumatized by their participation. (Not that I know how to do such an infiltration, or if this seems feasible. Just philosophically, it seems possible.)



PS What if we could figure out which kids were sociopaths from a young age? Like Dexter? And just use them, because they're NOT innocent. Eh? Anyone?