|
|
|
|
|
|
by mulmen
3249 days ago
|
|
|
> There's a big discussion about what's bad about drugs. But I wonder if we can rationally work out what's bad about child porn. You're right that this is a very difficult topic to discuss rationally but I'm going to try anyway. > What if it was published for free? What if children weren't physically abused but were secretly and anonymously photographed? Shouldn't there be exceptions for victimless child porn? 1) Compensation does not have to be financial to be an incentive.
2) Anonymous photography of individuals without their knowledge can absolutely cause harm.
3) Being a victim of a crime does not require knowledge of the crime taking place nor does it require physical contact. > Of course the dominant factor is people are horrified by deviant sexualities. We're barely managing to accept homosexuality which is probably more common than peadophilia. You're equating homosexuality to child abuse which puts you on the wrong side of history. |
|
|
I don't think it is productive to strongly stigmatize all forms of paedophillac tendencies, specifically because it reduces the chance of would-be child abusers getting help controlling and/or channeling their urges.
There is some research that suggests higher availability of child pornography (including the simulated/drawn) reduces occurences of child abuse, and although it is of course highly controversial, to me it indicates that it is worth investigating.
As a specific example of what I consider to be a very harmful way of dealing with the (real or fake) child porn issue, is the UK porn identification requirement. No paedophile is going to enter their details when they want to look at loli hentai, so they'd be forced to find some other outlet, for instance by going on the darkweb. Or they end up not doing anything to pacify their urges, which might well raise the chances of them actually participating in child abuse. Of course this is purely speculative, but I don't think these are outcomes you can reasonably dismiss out of hand.
I'm not saying I condone the use of photographic material of minors, I tend towards "90% bad" but really have to think it through more, but I do believe it to be harmful to make hand-drawn or CG child pornography illegal. The "but you're abusing the children without their knowledge" argument doesn't hold water there, and it'd be great if it usurped large swaths of the market for abusive child pornography.