[getoffmyawn]

> I wonder, with the rise of deep fakes and CGI, why a company hasn't come up with a business model offering professional rendered synthetic child pornography. It seems to me that there would be demand for it, and if an ethically un-encumbered product is indistinguishable from the real thing, much of the demand of child sexual abuse imagery would evaporate.

I suppose law enforcement could use it in sting operations. but if it proliferates wouldn't it still be illegal otherwise? seems legally and morally fishy to me.

[briandear]

Even animated child porn is illegal because the theory goes, it drives demand for the real thing. Someone who flies flight simulators eventually would welcome the chance in a real airplane. Besides, getting off on children sexually is beyond reprehensible. If we are to have any laws at all, I vote for the one that doesn’t encourage or support exploiting children, real or otherwise.

[coconut08]

>Even animated child porn is illegal because the theory goes, it drives demand for the real thing. Someone who flies flight simulators eventually would welcome the chance in a real airplane.

And people who play Grand Theft Auto inevitably go out and run over hookers with their car or seek out videos where such things happen in real life. Oh wait...

[gamblor956]

In this case there is a lot of research on this specific point demonstrating that consumption of CP drives and even induces demand in pedophiles.

So it's nothing at all like playing GTA.

[throw149102]

I have no idea how a researcher is supposed to show that CP induces demand in pedophiles without running into some pretty massive fundamental issues. There are already troubles getting people to admit who they're going to vote for anonymously, so getting people to admit that they are using child pornography anonymously seems like an extremely tall task.

I've also seen studies trying to show the opposite, or trying to show that there is no causation either way, so I don't think there is anything resembling a consensus on this issue at all.

[buisi]

What research? The research with correlations that people who look at that are statistically more likely to do things?

Sure. If you take a sample of people with absolutely no interest and a sample with people who do have interest you would find the sample with interest would be more likely to attack someone.

Does the consumption of CP drive the desire or does the desire lead to the consumption and subsequent unwanted behavior in some people? Is punishing people for their desires and driving them underground really helpful? All to sate our sense of disgust? Is this even compatible with due process?

Ideally, you would advance technology such as to make artificial alternatives indistinguishable from reality and produce robots. Or whatever it takes. Disgusting? Sure. But, it is better than the alternative and it preserves the high standards we set for our liberal democracy.

You keep out of other people's business and they keep out of yours. No one tells you how to live your life, so long as you don't bother them.

[claudiawerner]

>So it's nothing at all like playing GTA.

It probably is at least somewhat. Violent video games have also been shown to increase feelings of aggression in lab settings and in some cases even foster sexist attitudes. I mentioned this to you in another comment, but Gary Young's The Gamer's Dilemma book is a very good book-length treatment on the issue of virtual violence vs "virtual pedophilia".

[happytoexplain]

One of the easiest ways to fall into medieval behavior is to convince yourself that the property of being reprehensible, or disgusting, plays any part, even small, in "deserving" to suffer punishment by the state. It's the antithesis of civilization, and a dire evil.

[buisi]

Another theory goes that people who attack children would have done it either way. You punish the innocent for the crimes of someone else.

[claudiawerner]

>I vote for the one that doesn’t encourage or support exploiting children, real or otherwise.

Forgive me if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but are you really saying that you'd vote for a law (which, usually means prison time) for people who 'exploit' non-real children? You need to go into more detail as to your definition of exploitation, or clarify what you mean by 'real or otherwise'.

[manfredo]

> Even animated child porn is illegal because the theory goes, it drives demand for the real thing.

Not in the US it isn't.