“However, what he didn’t turn his mind to at the time is that merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image. He appreciates that now.” Senior gets jail time, probation for having single image of child pornography
We at Human-Stupidity.com fail to appreciate that. Maybe we are too humanly-stupid to understand. Or maybe we do not fall prey to mystical superstitious thinking that is the driving force of the child porn witch hunt.
“merely having possession and viewing images such as this does victimize and hurt the individual portrayed in the image.” This is some mystical religious thinking. Like in Voodoo. And note, this was said by a respectable lawyer to appease a judge. And this logic is used over and over, for example by Australian Government web sites.
Vodoo logic |
Child porn Voodoo logic |
 You stick a needle into a Vodoo doll’s arm. The person you curse will be hurt on the arm.The vodoo doll symbolizes a person, and that person’s will get injured in the same place where you stuck the needle. |
Someone possesses a photo of a child, in the form of 0′s and 1′s in a computer file. When s/he looks at the photo, the individual depicted in the photo gets victimized and hurt. |
Voodoo logic applied to murder and terrorism |
|
 |
While I can appreciate that creating or distributing child porn victimizes children, I cannot agree that looking for, viewing, or collecting child porn actually victimizes anyone. If you were to apply the same reasoning to any other crime, then looking at a photo of any crime would be re-victimizing someone. Using the same reasoning, anyone who looks for, views images or video footage of 9/11 or nazi war crimes, or autopsy photos, etc, would be guilty of having re-victimized people. If the simple act of viewing an image of someone is harmful, then perhaps an approprate punishment would be to simply take a photo of the perpetrator in jail, then set them free, but have some look at the photo that was taken while they were in jail. ” Dude” commenting at Examining the Effects of Child Pornography |
Dude, you are hilarious. Having people look at photos of themselves in jail to re-victimize them with their jail term. Priceless!
Studying child sex offenders isn’t easy. [...] It’s hard because sexual offenses against children are without a doubt the most culturally, emotionally, and politically charged of all offenses, particularly in North America, and researchers (and journalists) who are willing to take a more objective, critical, and/or scientific view of these offenses and offenders, are often attacked for their trouble. Take one of the questions the Swiss study considered:
Are people who consume child pornography different from those who sexually offend against a child?
So far so good. Open minded article, wants to seriously analyze child porn issues. But wait: now he falls under the voodo spell, too:
Many may feel like this distinction isn’t worth making. Watching child pornography is, in several ways, offending against a child even if the viewer never comes in physical contact with a child. Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film. Examining the Effects of Child Pornography
We were seriously doubting our sanity. Maybe we at Human-Stupidity, like Mr Smith who had one single CP photo, really need our misguided brain repaired. Even if we don’t consume child porn, maybe for purely educational purposes, to remedy our human-stupitiy, we should join Smith’s “probationary term that will require Smith to take part in the province’s sexual offender assessment and treatment program” (Senior gets jail time for single image of CP)
Maybe we, at Human-Stupidity.com are the only dumb insane people in this world who don’t understand this infallible logic: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.
But the spell was broken, and our trust into our sanity was re-instated, when we ran across this irreverant and refreshing comment
“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film.”
Are you mad?
Looking at ‘indecent’ images of children is no more a ‘Sex Crime’ than looking at an image of a dead person is ‘Homicide’. (“Dr Nigel Leigh Oldfield “commenting on Examining the Effects of Child Pornography)
Hence
one could just legalise ownership [of child porn] and solve the problem in one fell swoop
Certainly our mind gets victimized by repeated exposure to insane voodo logic
“Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.
This repeated exposure almost destroyed our trust into our own intelligence. Somehow constant repetition of voodoo logic brainwashes the average person into believing such NONSENSE: “Certainly watching child porn is a re-victimization of the child in the film”.
Unfortunately, the belief in this nonesense guides entire nations’ and the United Nation’s policy towards the world wide child porn witch hunt.
Australian Law Makers’ logic |
Analogy #1 |
Analogy #2 |
| Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child pornography or child abuse images on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child pornography makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child pornography is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5] Child Pornography Law (New South Wales, Australia) | Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of child abuse images on the internet
raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual child abuse off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing child abuse videos above makes the offender a party to child sexual abuse. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of child abuse videos as above is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. |
Not a victimless crime: The accessibility of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder on the Internet raises the question of the relationship between the viewing of such images and actual terrorism, mayhem and murder off-line by the offender concerned. It is agreed that the very act of accessing depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder makes the offender a party to terrorism, mayhem and murder. As the UK Sentencing Panel observed: ‘Possession of depictions of terrorism, mayhem and murder is not (as some have argued) a victimless offence’. [2.5] |
Human-Stupidity.com Analysis
We understand your rage
We understand that some readers will be fuming with anger, reading our “defense of pedophiles, child abuse, and child abusers”. We almost fell prey to the world wide child porn hysteria voodoo logic brainwashing. It is based on 2 fallacies
- confusing the crime with depiction of a crime:
You watch a movie of a plane flying into the World Trade Center. Therefore you are a terrrorist and revictimizing 3000 people who died - Confusing child pornography and “child pornography”. Confusing “child porn” as defined in the old days (involving a “real child under 12″ and “real porn with real penetrative sex” and “modern child porn” which might be as harmless as a 22 year old (that looks “apparently underage” like she might be only 17 years old) non-nude in leotards dancing while gyrating her hips provocatively). Can you understand now we insist that lots of modern so called “child porn” has no victim at all and is not offensive to sex positive people.
Can watching a photo or video cause harm to a far away “victim” that is unaware of the watcher?
Examples:
- Someone downloads and watches child porn, with 16 year olds, produced legally in Holland 30 years ago. The act of watching a movie in the USA somehow causes a jolt in the now 46 year old person in Holland and victimizes her!? Human-Stupidity.com verdict: Scientifically impossible.
- Someone downloads and watches a child porn photo from the 1950íes. The persons depicted already died 20 years ago. Would their mortal soul be victimized, be it in heaven, hell, or purgatory? Maybe their soul keeps constant watch about all copies of their photos? Human-Stupidity.com is too ignorant about religious claims of life after death. Verdict: Scientifically it is impossible for a dead person to get harmed by someone’s copying of a computer file
- Someone downloads and watches a copy of a legal American porn movie with Little Lupe who was 19 years old but looked under 18. This is child porn by European and Australian laws. Little Lupe will happily earn a commission from the person’s subscription fee. We fail to understand how Little Lupe would be a victim! She is a consenting adult and made a conscious carreer choice and is profiting from people downloading her films.”Apparently underage” laws were struck down by US courts for violating the civil rights of young looking adults by preventing them from participation in legal porn movies (for “apparently looking underage” though over 18. Verdict: the adult “victim” benefits and profits from downloading. No victimization
Definitional issues: Definitions of child pornography can vary considerably, both in a legal context from one jurisdiction to another, and between legal and non-legal approaches to the subject. One source of ambiguity is that the legal definition of a ‘child’ varies between and within jurisdictions for various purposes. In Australia, child pornography legislation in some jurisdictions defines ‘child’ as a person under, or who appears to be under 16 (NSW, Queensland, South Australia, and Western Australia), in others as a person under, or who appears to be under 18 years of age (Commonwealth, Tasmania, Victoria, the ACT and the Northern Territory). [3.1.2] Child Pornography Law (Australia)
- The cover of “Der Spiegel” the most prestigious news magazine of Germany. May 1977. A young adolescent girl nude. Millions of adults, adolescents, children have seen the photo at news stands in Germany. Today this constitutes child porn. Human-Stupidity added the black bars, hiding breast and genital areas, so the poor girl would not be victimized while we look at the photos. If there were no bars, the now over 50 year old, 5000 miles away, would suddenly feel victimized? Verdict: no scientifically explainable, 5000 miles away, she would even notice we are looking at her photo.
The hypothesis is actually scientifically testable. Just have people, in the US, look at her photo at random intervals, and have an observer at the girl “victim’s”verify if she feels victimized at exactly the right time when someone watches the photo. James Randi has a US$ 1.000.000 bounty offer to anyone that can prove such paranormal phenomena.
Pictures of grave violence against children are perfectly legal
There are no claims that watching TV surveillance camera videos victimizes babies. Videos of nannies mistreating babies, shaking toddlers in a way they can suffer permanent spinal cord damage can be seen on youtube.
Watching depictions of child baseball victimizes children
Baseball and softball – Nearly 117,000 children and adolescents ages five to 14 were treated in hospital emergency rooms for baseball-related injuries, and nearly 26,000 children and adolescents ages five to 14 were treated for softball-related injuries. Baseball also has the highest fatality rate among sports for children and adolescents ages five to 14, with three to four persons dying from baseball injuries each year. Sports Injury Statistics (Children’s Hospital Boston)
Most other sports are pretty dangerous too. See the Sports Injury Statistics
If you watch this video, an innocent little child gets re-victimized
Warning:
- don’t watch if you don’t want to see a child hurt
- don’t watch if you think the child will be vicitmized again by your mere act of watching the mishap
. An innocent child gets hurt. Like in an extreme child porn movie. So by watching this again, the child will be victimized again. Correct?
Oh, the child got hurt by accident, not on purpose? ok. So check purposeful child injury:
(warning: graphic footage of child abuse)
Warning: very graphic, child clubbed to death by gang.If you watch this the dead child will be victimized again. This is not from a pervert site, but nainstream Fox TV USA. |
Minor getting whipped by the Taliban.If you watch this, you will become a Taliban child beater: “the very act of accessing child [..] abuse videos makes [you] the offender a party to child [..] abuse. ” |
The act of watching beating, lynching, and Jihad decapitation movies does not victimize?
Human-Stupidity.com fails to understand, why possession of child beating and child lynching photos is a victimless crime and not punished in any way.
Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.
Everyone probably has seen a muslim kidnapping victim beheading movie. Each time we see such movies, the beheaded gets victimized again. Is that not the same logic?
Thai Boxing 15y/o vs. 16 y/o
Thai boxing is cruel. No matter how much you train, if you block a roundhouse kick with your shin, both fighters’ shins will get bruised. Knocking out a 15 y/o or 16 y/o is child abuse. Watching this again, you will victimize the kids again.
Similar articles about wymyn’s studies, about femimist faulty thinking and logic
- When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language
- Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked
- Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)
- Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.
- Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.
- Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.
#1 by AB on December 26, 2010 - 5:53 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Excellent article.Very good points.Another thing is that teenagers/adolescents are not children.Studies such as those by Robert Epstein show that the so called “adults” vastly under-estimate the abilities of teenagers.In reality they are quite mature.Also,throughout history teenage sexuality has been accepted.For example Romeo was 14 and Juliet 13.It’s only in the modern times that people suddenly lost their minds.
Also this so called “trauma” is a myth created due to False Memories(youtube it),negative programming about human sexuality and evil politics .http://criminaljustice.change.org/blog/view/tonight_on_msnbc_witch_hunt
#2 by rhayat1 on December 27, 2010 - 4:08 am
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Very well said! Unfortunately, logic is not among the reasons some people feel they must punish other people for the images they look at, or possess. Instead, their motives are based on hatred.
#3 by Matt on January 16, 2011 - 10:10 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
An interesting article, with some very good points. I do think your ultimate analysis is flawed, however. You seem to be restricting your interpretation of ‘victimizing’ to a conveniently literal one, and you can correctly infer by doing this that there is no logical way that a child in the photo can become a victim again because somebody somewhere is looking at it. However, I think your argument is blinkered.
Child porn is just that; material made for the distribution and enjoyment of others. The correlation to that and ‘watching the 9/11 attacks’ is hopelessly absurd. Every person who accesses and views child porn (by which I mean grown adults engaging sexually with a child), creates the market in which this stuff is made and distributed. It’s simple supply and demand stuff, really. Not hard to understand. So by proxy, the viewer is complicit in the creation of the image and consequently the abuse that image contains, because they are part of the reason that image was created.
#4 by admin on January 20, 2011 - 10:21 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Actually, most terrorism is perpetrated explicity for the purpose of calling attention of the world press.
Most terrorism would not happen if there was a total ban on news reporting.
#5 by Jesse on February 4, 2011 - 1:22 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your reply belies why terrorism videos are legal and kiddie porn vids aren’t: to stop the damage caused by consuming/demanding videos of terrorism we would have to make people not watch them. since terrorism is such a “holy shit I need to watch that because it is history/an indication of the state of our global civilization” video, the only way to stop consumption of it would be to stop supplying it (ban on news reporting, which is entirely unacceptable)
To stop damage caused by consuming/demanding kiddie porn vids we would need to stop the consumption and demand for it. since it is a “I want to see this cause Im horny” video, de-incentivizing (word? lol) its consumption is REASONABLY possible and causes far less damage than a total media blackout that would be required to de-incentivize terrorism.
TL; DR: Videos of terrorism are integral to understanding our culture and, someday, our history. kiddie porn is videos of children being raped. de-incentivizing terrorism videos would have much more colateral damage than the same for kiddie porn.
#6 by admin on February 11, 2011 - 5:22 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Many logical fallacies in your argument:
thanks to language distortion, kiddie porn can be 17 year old nudes.
or 15 year olds who willingly take their own photos. And you think you protect them by putting the 15 year old to jail for photos of herself
all kiddie porn taken more then 10 years ago could be grandfathered. Nobody will be abused because of it. All has happened long ago
what about the guy that filmed himself masturbating at age 12 and no is facing a minimum 2 year jail sentence for possession of video of himself
what about the porn that was legal in the 70′s, like 15 or 16 y hardcore porn from Holland, or nude page 3 girls from Britain. And now they raid video stores in Germany for movies that were legal 20 years ago. Who is getting abused here?
terrorism is rare in the US, but check Iraq or Afghanistan.
I quoted a University professor who had to watch child porn because he wanted to write scientific research about it. He is in jail now. I consider this entirely unacceptable.
Read more about the warped feminist logic on my blog
http://human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/prostitution/feminist-arguments-against-prostitution-dismantled
#7 by admin on January 21, 2011 - 3:52 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Well, people who download free photos do not create a market. So free downloads should go unpunished.
Most “child porn” is simple adolescent posing, sexually active adolescents having sex, etc. No abuse.
Which leaves the really gross child porn for which someone forks over money.
Still, in every single other wake of life, possession of pictures does not get punished, but rather the perpetrator.
And there are so many other ways how children get seriously damaged for life, and nobody cares:
*pregnant women who drink alcohol
* women who overfeed their kids to be obese and diabetic for life (see my articles on ‘child food porn’)
* dangerous sports like football, downhill skying that leave many children maimed for life
#8 by Matt on January 25, 2011 - 6:03 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
So by that logic, Colin Blanchard, the man who owned the “free photos” sent to him by Vanessa George, who abused children in the nursery she worked at, should “go unpunished”, despite the fact they were being made for her?
Again, you are using extremely selective logic here to substantiate your argument. “Free” doesn’t equate to “on Limewire”. Pictures can be created for ‘free distribution’ but the marketplace may still create the demand that causes the supply.
Do you have any facts to substantiate your comments about “most child porn” or is that – again – just convenient speculation?
#9 by passing by on September 26, 2011 - 8:32 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If pictures are created “on purpose”, this happens because it is impossible to find old pictures “on the marketplace” because all the existing pictures (even those that were legal 35 years ago) have been forbidden and are constantly removed from “the market”.
Every time the police seize existing pictures (that could be duplicated and traded for free), they thus create a markedplace for new pictures, which in turn means that the demand, if any, can only be satisfied by using new children as pornographic actors. This would not happen if private possession and non commercial trading were legal.
If it is true that the music industry has been severely damaged by private file sharing, this must of course also be true for the so-called “child porn industry”.
#10 by admin on September 27, 2011 - 1:50 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thank you for the interesting comment. One more way how child porn laws contribute to child abuse.
#11 by alyssa on June 18, 2012 - 6:51 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
That is untrue. People are creating child porn for money, not all of these people are even interested in the children. And there is a flaw in your argument. there is plenty of adult porn from 30 years ago, but don’t they still make porn today? It isn’t because it was taken off the web, it’s still there. People will always create it when there is a demand for it.
#12 by nobody on April 14, 2013 - 4:30 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is almost nobody who “consumes” (an inappropriate term in the digital age, where this material is not consumed, but replicated endlessly) child pornography who pays for it. Images and videos that are created by adults are almost exclusively created by adults who were already engaged in active sexual relationships with children. They may try to sell the photos and videos they create, and MAY even find a buyer. But the buyer will either sit on the material forever or release it for free where it will be freely duplicated forever. Very few people would be stupid enough to buy child pornography, as it would easily be(and almost always will be) nothing more than a sting operation.
The vast majority of child pornography that is created today is in the form of recorded webcams and does not feature adults and children but single children or multiple children. Obviously people looking for this material are not interested in adults. There are adults who record themselves having sex with children but these types of videos are few and far between in comparison to the deluge of videos of horny teenagers on webcams.
In short there is almost NO financial market for child pornography and certainly no “industry”. The “child abuse industry” likely takes the form of human trafficking but I have no information on the prevalence of that geographically. I can, however, say that there is very little child pornography created from trafficked children these days.
To refute the previous poster’s assertion, people do NOT create child porn for money. they create it because they know it will make others jealous which inflates their own egos or to give back to an anonymous community that provided them with porn over the years. It is ridiculous to say that these people would not have sex with children if they weren’t making pornography, and therefore ridiculous to accuse the person who views that pornography of being involved in sexual activity with a child. I purposely choose not to use the word abuse because human sexuality is a complicated and diverse matter. It is not inherently harmful for someone under the age of 18 to be engaged in sexual activity.
#13 by admin on April 15, 2013 - 3:19 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
True. See the
rind study
There are more nanny cam child abuse videos, jackass child endangerment videos, child shooting and stoning videos for profit on the web then child porn for profit. (I did not check personally, but it makes sense).
#14 by Anonymous on January 27, 2011 - 2:18 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Matt,what you are saying makes no sense.How can free photos create a market ?Who gains if there is no money to be made.And besides that,is there no free will?And if it the photos are made for private enjoyment,then they can be made privately and secretly,no need to distribute.In fact,if enjoyment is the reason then people should be encouraged to distribute artificial child porn so that there is a substitute for real children so real children can be prevented from abuse.
And adolescent posing should not be considered child porn at all.Adolescents are not children.It is undeniable that many are punished for possessing such pictures.Even cartoon porn of “seemingly” minor gets punished.Why so keen to punish?
In short, go punish those who actually abuse children ,rather than punishing anyone who you can catch and is remotely related.
#15 by admin on January 28, 2011 - 4:58 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Amen!
#16 by theantifeminist on January 30, 2011 - 1:05 pm
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Matt
None of what you say makes sense. In fact, all you are doing is spamming Human-Stupidity’s blog by leaving a mindless copy and paste argument.
The example of vanessa george is actualy a COUNTER ARGUMENT against your position. The supply and demand is clear and direct in that case. It’s entirely speculative in most other cases.
Why should a man go to jail for looking at pictures that a 15 year old girl herself has taken and uploaded. Maybe she hates ‘pedos’ as much as most brainwashed girls her age and she uploaded them for the benefit of 15 year old boys.
Why should a man go to jail for looking at pictures or movies taken years or decades ago (often when such ‘child porn’ was entirely legal – for example the ‘Channel Seventeen’ teen porn franchise? What ‘supply and demand’ is there here? Surely such archive material should be encouraged if the aim is to restrict current supply?
HumanStupidity’s examples of gore in news reports are valid, but not the best examples. Take a look at the following video. It shows what appears to be a 14 year old girl having her face stomped on by another girl. At one point she makes a rude gesture at the person filming it on their mobile phone.
http://www.mentalzero.com/Beastly-Girl-Repeatedly-Stomps-On-Helpless-Chick-s-Face-2850.html
Clearly, this child does not want a video of her face being caved in circulated and watched by millions as entertainment on the internet. Yet it is not only perfectly legal for me to view it, the website itself is legal and the webmaster makes money from publishing such videos. There are lots of other similar ‘bitch fight’ videos featuring young girls being bullied. In most of these videos it is clear that the presence of other children filming the bullying actually encourages it. Therefore there is a direct and irrefutable causal link between my watching these videos and the abuse and bullying taking place now and in the future. Why do I face being raped in jail if I watch a 17 year old girl screaming in orgasmac delight in a 1980′s porn movie, but I am free to watch a video of a 14 year old girl having her face stomped into the ground, while she clearly objects to the realisation that her humiliation and misery is going to be replayed millions of times on the internet, and her bully stomps on her face even harder knowing that she is being filmed and is a ‘star’? Oh, I remember. Because your supply and demand argument is bullshit, and middle-aged feminists don’t give a fuck about real child abuse, because they are not sexually threatened by it.
#17 by Jesse on February 4, 2011 - 1:09 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sorry for possible repost, I didn’t have time to read all of the comments here. I think your argument is weak for two main reasons.
If someone is found possessing child porn (hereafter CP), they came by it one of two ways. 1 they took the shot; 2 they got it from someone who took the shot (or some other form of distribution). If you took the photo, you DID victimize a child. If you accept the photo, you are creating demand and incentivizing the product of a victim-crime. Now, while the act of possessing/viewing is “victimless,” in order to possess/view at one point you had to receive it. It is similar to accepting stolen goods, you didnt steal yourself but you created a motivation for a thief to steal, ultimately (ie not directly, consciously or at the time.) the thief stole for you. Even if you dont pay for CP with money, the distributer is in some way pandering to a popular market. If you aid in sustaining that market, you aid in sustaining demand (of some kind. often abstract/non-monetary). Now this can be applied to other things as a substitution type counter argument (as used in this article), but to use 9/11 (and many of the other counterpoints) is kind of misleading. CP is considered to be obscene, ie it serves no purposeful expression or benefit AND is generally offensive in nature AND criminal in result (“incites” criminal action of sex with, caused by lust for, a child) and in creation (involves a victim, unlike other “adult” porn). This is not so in many of your counterpoints. 9/11 video=history; kid gets injured by accident=not generally offensive. nanny-cam abuse=warning to other parents. These examples are not obscene. IF the child abuse were done with the primary purpose of videoing it and putting it on youtube to get view counts, then the people watching it WOULD be complicit in the abuse. CP itself is (nearly)universally offensive and holds no other value to society AND by its nature requires a victim to be created.
Viewing=victimization? as said above, in order to view, you must receive; in effect, by willingly receiving, you incentivize. But I think the victimization by viewing goes like this:
Children can’t consent.
All sex acts with them are rape.
CP vids/pics are just vids/pics of traumatic childhood Rape
Many [actual] rape victims are ashamed of having been raped
Therefore it is humiliating for the victim to have their rape be seen by strangers world-wide; It is traumatizing that people get sexual pleasure from an incident whose weight the victim will feel for the rest of their life. Its not that they will know that John Smith of 1234 Urmomsahore Street, LA, California is watching their rape; its that SOMEONE is watching their rape.
PS great site you have here. Agree with almost everything on here and what I disagree with only makes me think very deeply about WHY I hold a differing opinion even after evidence against it has been presented.
#18 by admin on February 18, 2011 - 8:41 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jesse, watching child porn seems to reduce child abuse crimes (see my post on Dr. Diamond’s research). It seems that people who are curious and horny often manage to masturbate with child porn and thus lose the pressing horniness and desire to look at real children.
So all your statements are based on unproven assumptions.
You also fail to explain how a girl that photographs herself nude, or an adult guy who filmed himself masturbating when he was 12, are heinous criminals victimizing whom? themselves? And now the need to go to jail to punish them for victimizing themselves?
Furthermore I have the example of a serious college professor, in jail because he downloaded child porn for research and a book on child porn.
#19 by admin on February 18, 2011 - 9:27 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There is so much humiliating stuff out on the internet. But nobody goes to jail for watching a blooper, a serious accident, a court case, even a nanny cam. I would not love to have itune videos of myself being abused by a nanny. So what?
About your second question, get the book by Rob Kurzban.
http://human-stupidity.com/science/evolution-darwinism/why-everyone-else-is-a-hypocrite-robert-kurzban
It shows how we have sets of totally different modules in our heads. Each of them works independently. So your logic can agree with me, but your knee jerk reaction can continue to have the opposite opinion.
I read half of the book already. Very interesting.
#20 by carol on September 29, 2011 - 5:47 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No one is denying that there are a lot of gruesome videos online, but that does not mean people who seek out images of the abuse of children are not gruesome too. It does not matter if a person likes seeing children be raped, which they call sex. What matters is the person in the video and the images is being abused. If you actually talk to victims of the abuse in the child rape videos;they feel violated just knowing people are watching it. If viewing child porn keeps perverts from abusing children fine, there should be virtual porn for that, but not use of real children. This is not about teenagers this is about CHILDREN as young as two months being brutalized and exploited. I’m not denying that SOME of the laws are too much, but some of them are not. Taking photos of one’s own child in the bathtub, and topless on the beach, and teens taking photos of themselves should not be considered a crime. I know there are teens being prosecuted for willingly taking pictures of themselves; I do not support that it’s just stupid. But the photos most viewers of child porn are going to jail for are none of the above. Just try and put yourself in the shoes of the children in the videos. Imagine being forced to do unthinkable acts on a daily basis and those images being traded for the world to see and people enjoying it. How would you personally feel? Or think of your most humiliating moments that and having people be able to see that…EVERYONE being able to see it.
I know you are going to bring up people begin beaten and killed on camera and I do not support that either, I said the law is not perfect. It needs to be revised not completely taken away.
#21 by Larner on March 6, 2013 - 1:35 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
If I’m a registered Klu Klux Klan member and I’m watching the Rodney King beating video while burning a cross in my backyard… Would I go to prison for hate crime and beating up Rodney King with a nightstick?
I mean, the mentality is correct, I enjoyed watching those cops whack him in the face with batons, I love it. I cheered for the cops and replayed it over and over again.
In your logic, if I decided to claim that I’m being victimized and extremely embarrassed by a jackass stunt video I made when I was 10 that ended up on the internet… Would I be able to throw people in jail for watching that trading the video? I mean I’m a child, and I felt like I’m being abused because these guys are entertained by me causing pain on myself… Are they going to go to prison for decades?
#22 by Alan Vaughn on February 25, 2011 - 10:49 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jesse you said:
“Children can’t consent.
All sex acts with them are rape.
CP vids/pics are just vids/pics of traumatic childhood Rape”
Well when I was about 15 yrs old I had CONSENTING sex with a 13 yr old girl, who by the way: INSTIGATED the encounter and the relationship I had with her that lasted for a few weeks.
According to you this was rape!! ???
Initially it was ME that didn’t want to do what we did, but she soon tried various means (from her basic female intuition, as neither of us had even heard of porn, let alone ‘cp’ back in the early 1970′s), that finally ‘aroused’ my interest among other things. She wasn’t an overly attractive girl, but she certainly knew some things about the ancient and instinctive art of ‘flirting’…
You said: “Children can’t consent.
All sex acts with them are rape.”…
So according to your logic: who raped who here?
I can assure you that after this little liaison, I did NOT feel that I had been raped or in any way VIOLATED or exploited!! It was one of the more pleasant moments I can still recall over my entire 52 yrs of all moments locked away somewhere in the deepest archives of my mind actually!
As for my little friend, I know that she did not regret it and kept chasing me for more of the same, for many months afterwards. I only broke our friendship, on the grounds of the teasing and snide comments made by a few of my buddies in the school yard, who eventually found out that I was ‘going steady’ with her. Of course as I grew older, I realized that they were merely jealous of us.
Thank God no photos were ever taken of us, because I would probably be looking at prison now and ‘rightly so’: according to your DUMB, feminazi logic!
Get a LIFE Jesse.
Sex is just a normal, natural human function, which most people get to do at various stages of their lives.
Yes even children love sex Jesse!
Their bodies, instincts and natural feelings don’t know anything about the law, nor do their thoughts of all things pleasant, beautiful and loving…
#23 by carol on September 29, 2011 - 5:33 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Jesse is not talking about teenagers. Teenagers are not children. You are just taking his/her words and twisting them. She is talking children under the age of around 12 who are being brutally violated and even if it is not brutal is still a violation. Not pictures of babies in bathtubs and on the beach. WE mean people purposely taking erotic pictures of children and uploading them to the internet without permission. Teenagers have lots of hormones raging and the law of course is not recognizing that.I think the governments are off about that. And no one has said our laws are perfect. But children under the age of twelve are being victimized. they don’t know what is going on, let alone that pictures are being taken of them and put up for the world to see. That is pure exploitation of the young child and should be punished. There are also cases where child porn is viewed accidentally but that is really rare.I am cognizant that people have been prosecuted fro accidentally viewing it and that is unfortunate, but how can you distinguish between the people telling the truth and the liars. There are plenty of people who are caught and tell lies like “it was an accident” and “someone hacked my computer and put it on there.” People who view child porn usually seek it. Most of those videos and images are brutal and a child can be seen and or heard screaming and crying. Are you trying to deny that that is not out there? Should people be allowed to view it just because they are horny? Think about how that child feels. Read about the Russian girl Masha who was sexually abused for five years and want those images of her gone.
#24 by admin on October 6, 2011 - 11:24 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Our legal system confuses harmless bath tub pictures with porn, 17 year old children with 1 year old children. That purposeful confusion gets many innocent people jailed. And it prevents us from having a meaningful discussion, because the terminology is totally confusing. Complain to the people who are causing this language confusion. Feminists for example.
#25 by Larner on March 6, 2013 - 1:39 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
What about the execution videos? The girl being stoned to death, the two guys in Mexico having their heads cut off. Would anyone get arrested for seeking these videos?
Or are you saying that these people in these videos are not being abused? And their murder is being put online so people can search for “worst ways to die”
(People do seek out gore videos intentionally)
So these victims are not being victimized?
Or are you telling me that since they’re not on this planet no more so you can’t really victimize him even more, so… abuse away
#26 by raton on February 18, 2011 - 6:13 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I plead guilty to a possession charge (downloaded 3 illegal images) almost a decade ago. I never abused anyone, but I now have to register for life and endure living under a stigma which defines how others treat me. Thank you for having a lack of stupidity.
#27 by admin on February 18, 2011 - 8:43 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Raton, victims of persecution for mere possession of pictures should come out of the closet. I hope more victims of the child porn witch hunt come forward and discuss their fate here. Or would that be in violation of of probation?
Bullies that beat up dozens of children, cause permanent injuries and life long trauma get shorter prison terms and no registration. Neither do arsonists. Even abusers of infants often get shorter jail sentences then those who possess a few photos. And photos don’t need to be of real abuse of real children, sensual photos of adolescents are enough to get long jail sentences.
#28 by theantifeminist on February 20, 2011 - 11:41 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@jessie I’m trying to get to grips with your first argument but there’s not much logic for me to get my teeth into.
You seem to be saying that it would be impossible to prevent the consumption of terrorist videos because people have an insatiable need to watch men having their heads sawn off in order to understand the human condition. Apparently, you think, on the other hand, that the vast majority of men can easily decide not to click on the thumbnail of the hot nubile 17? year old amateur while browsing a porn tube site.
Bizzarre.
No it’s quite simple. The reason we allow half the population of america to watch Nick Berg getting his head cut off, a video which was explicitly shot by the terrorists in order to damage western morale and support for the iraq war, is because such videos do not sexually threaten feminists, and women like yourself. A video of a 17 year old ‘child’ happily fucking, on the other hand, DOES threaten you, because lots of men would prefer to watch beautiful teens in porn than have actual sexual relationships with women like you.
I agree, Human-Stupidities examples of 9/11 are pretty poor, and leave himself open to arguments about such images being ‘historical’ or ‘newsworthy’, especially when there are hundreds of websites that legally show children being physically abused and bullied for no other reason but entertainment.
Please explain to me why it is legal for me to watch a child having her head stomped on by a bully, so long as she keeps her clothes on? :
http://www.mentalzero.com/Beastly-Girl-Repeatedly-Stomps-On-Helpless-Chick-s-Face-2850.html
As far as what you appear to be saying regarding child porn laws not causing any great inconvenience in society – well you would say that – you’re a woman. You don’t surf for porn. Are you aware that in most of the world now you can go to jail for clicking on a single picture of a 30 year old woman dressed in school uniform or even a fictional anime cartoon girl in a sexy bikini? These laws criminilize 90% of the male population, I would say that is a utter crime against humanity, not just a slight inconvienience.
#29 by theantifeminist on February 20, 2011 - 12:00 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Jessie There’s at least five other massive mistakes in your argument.
Firstly, the nature of the internet, and browsing the web, is that it is almost an extension of thought. In this sense, cp laws really are criminilizing thought, and spurious supply and demand arguments should not apply to thought – the ‘recieving stolen goods argument’ is not comparable as no real physical goods are handled. You could use the supply and demand argument to justify hidieous and draconian punishments against men if you go down this path – for example, ‘if men didn’t have dicks (demand) there would be no raped women or children (supply)’, therefore all men should have their penises removed.
Secondly, what constitutes child exploitation and sexual abuse is being defined by women, and the resulting laws are applying to men. Teenagers are regularly exploited and emotionally abused on reality shows and daytime chat shows such as Oprah Winfrey (watched mainly by women). Their wrecked emotional lives are laid bare as thinly disguised ‘edutainment’. What gives you the right to say that a 17 year old girl posing in a bikini is child exploitation, but a 14 year old girl being exhibited on Oprah as a freak, because she’s a drug addict or a ‘slut’ or whatever, is not exploitative?
Thirdly, the average age of consent around the world is 14 or 15. Yet I can go to jail for looking at a picture of a 17 year old posing sexily, let alone fucking. I can legally fuck a 16 year old in the UK (as in most of the world), yet if I take a photo of her aftwards I deserve to go to jail on the basis of your stupid supply and demand argument’??? WTF??
Even if the supply and demand had some force, it should only apply to videos or images that show a crime – ie a child below the age of consent engaging in a sexual act with an adult.
Fourthly, as Human-Stupidity pointed out, the evidence suggests that child porn REDUCES real child sexual abuse. In that case women like you, who argue for draconian child porn laws, should be prosecuted for aiding and abetting child abuse.
Fifthly, what you said about child porn not having any artistic merit. If present child porn laws in Europe were applied exhuastively, some of the greatest works of art ever made would be deemed child porn, and the mere viewing of them enough to send a person to jail. For example, reading romeo and juliet, or any looking at any number of masterpieces by the Rennaisance painters and sculpters (for example, Botticelli’s ‘David’.
#30 by carol on September 29, 2011 - 6:12 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This image on that magazine is from years ago when almost anything could go.An the child is set up in an erotic pose. If she is a child why is she being made a sexual object? If this is just about art why is she not just standing there in the nude NOT posing in a sexual way. Of course you are going to say it is not sexual but it is. Look at how her body is positioned, that is a pose used for seduction.
“Verdict: no scientifically explainable, 5000 miles away, she would even notice we are looking at her photo.”
Why does it matter if the girl knows who is individually viewing her photo? The fact is they are doing it and it is degrading. This particular photo was perfectly legal then, and the child is not being harmed. This particular child who is now a woman might not mind, but there are plenty who do. I have commented before on your articles and you should really hear the victims in child porn videos speak about how the viewing of the images and videos of their abuse hurts them just as much. IT does not matter if they can see the individual faces of people doing it. They know it is out there. Please read about the Russian girl Masha who was abused by her father. I’m sure there are other stories of child porn are similar to it.
No people should not be able to view child beatings, fights, and other brutal things for their own pleasure. If it is used as evidence to prosecute them and research fine and the same goes for child porn. Police and other tasks forces have to view it to find out who the victims are and also the abusers. This is not about teenagers willingly posing in pics and vids this is about children being brutalized.
Also you talked about people being biased when your entire website is biased. You only talk about the rights of men to harass women and view abuse of children. Nowhere on your website does it talk about children being actual victims, men who have ACTUALLY committed crimes and how women and men are not punished equally. You even put victims and rape in quotations as if it does not exist. It does happen to men,women, and children. Anyone can be victims and it truly offensive to suggest that it is not true. Also that rape was made up by feminists and sexual harassment is ignorant, before any of that was put in place the claims were not even taken seriously;REAL rape accusations. If I were to kidnap you and force a cucumber up your ass and friends of mine forced you to have anal and oral sex. Are you not a victim of rape? yes. so how can you say that others who face the same things and worse are not? How can you say it is made up?
#31 by admin on October 1, 2011 - 4:34 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I speak to help the victims of false accusations, of persecutions and prison for victimless crimes. And yes, I fight the advocates who overstep the limits and harm innocent bystanders, innocent sexting children, people who inadvertently posses photos etc.
There are plenty of advocates for victims of real forcible rape-rape, of real violent involuntary abuse. I wish them luck and success in their endeavor. I am all in favor of reducing, preventing, fighting, punishing REAL crime. But many of these advocates go past boundaries, abolish due legal process, fight computer files instead of child abuse, etc.
#32 by Marsue on December 5, 2011 - 2:00 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is that really all there is to it because that’d be flabebrsgaitng.
#33 by Kevin on November 12, 2012 - 8:39 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Rea this headline ” Man sentenced to 20 years in prison for possessing gruesome video.” Then the article would read something like this; Authorities have arrested a man for downloading a video called Three Guys One Hammer.” The video shows a real life killing of a man with a screwdriver. The comments usually jump on the bandwagon. For example:
User 335: This guy is sick, Lock em up in case he wants to screwdrive someone in the future.
Petedouchebiker455: Get the rope and hang this creep.
Reason441: It’s just a video
Petedouchebiker455: Wow look at this piece of shit defending murder.
Marieoblivio: He looks like a murderer. eww, Have fun in prison murderer.
#34 by Larner on March 28, 2013 - 10:30 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can even see the prosecutor saying.
“This is not a victimless crime as people view it, as these pictures are viewed, the victim is victimized all over again and this cycle needs to be stopped!”
Other news, two high school kids were arrested for having a murder simulator program known as Grand Theft Auto on their computers…
#35 by george on December 14, 2012 - 12:01 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
also there are plenty of the nn sites that young girls can pose and get paid for no one is getting fucked.there is an interesting article in wiki leaks on the subject of cp by mr x revealing how exaggerated the cp industry is.
#36 by dukeSkyWalk3r on March 22, 2013 - 6:30 pm
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I have a few questions relating to child pornography.
1. Did the US government start the “war” on eradicating child pornography?
2. Was child pornography prevalent before the “war” was waged by the US government?
3. Why does the US government believe that prosecuting those who merely view or possess such images/videos is a criminal? The video/image is a record of something that has ALREADY happened.
4. Does anyone think this whole cat and mouse game will end?
5. Does anyone think the quantity of child pornography has increased BECAUSE of the fight against it? Direct relationship?
No one knows if the federal agents assigned to this task are perverts or not. The FBI I hear has the largest collection of child pornography.
#37 by admin on March 23, 2013 - 5:47 am
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The US government believes in the voodoo theory of Child Pornography.
If someone watches so called child porn, the depicted “victim” gets remotely re-victimized. This is true even if the act happened 50 years ago and the depicted victim died of old age.
Victimizing child porn might be the nude photo of a 17 year old posing provocatively at a nude beach, or the movie of a 15 year old in leotards gyrating her hips.
Real commercial child porn production is probably pretty low, due to draconian punishments. But there is lots of child porn, because the nude cell phone self picture of any minor nowadays constitutes child porn. Photographing oneself engaging in legally allowed sex or masturbation also produces child porn.
Minors looking into the bathroom mirrors see live child porn all the time, if they photograph themselves then they victimize themselves.
The war on child porn is done by feminists (who want to eradicate all porn), religious zealots, and normal people who were taken in by the falsified scientific research about dangerousness of teenage sexuality