“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

voodoo-doll-pinYou 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

exhusband-vodoo-doll 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

VoodooDoll 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 
 

  • infant shaking, infant beating, infant throwing caught on nanny-cams
  • children suffering serious injuries in accidents
  • children being knocked out in fighting sports like boxing and Thai boxing

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 

  1. 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
  2. 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: 

  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.

Story link: MyFoxCHICAGO.com 

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. 

  • 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. 

    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

    1. When a “Rape” is not a Rape! The Abuse of the word “Rape”. & the Perversion of Language
    2. Feminist arguments against prostitution debunked
    3. Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)
    4. Supreme Court oks indefinite detention for possession of photos. But violent robbers get freed.
    5. Nude adolescent photos: a Crime. Videos of lynching, killing, beating adolescents are legal Prime Time TV.
    6. Years of Jail for “clicking on child porn link”. But lynching videos are legal.
    Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog

    Receive an email notification whenever Human-Stupidity.com has a new post.

    54 Comments

    1. AB says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      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. rhayat1 says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

      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. Matt says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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

      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.

    6. Matt says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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?

    7. Anonymous says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 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.

    8. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Amen!

    9. theantifeminist says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 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.

    10. Jesse says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      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.

    11. Jesse says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

      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.

    12. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 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 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)

      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

    13. raton says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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.

    14. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 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.

      Jesse :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.

    15. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 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.

    16. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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?

      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.

      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.

      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.

    17. theantifeminist says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 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.

    18. theantifeminist says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 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’.

    19. Alan Vaughn says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 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…

    20. Unborn Child Porn is Unborn Child Abuse. Outlaw fetal abuse! | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] think that most literature and legislation child porn sound like bad jokes ( Voodoo science of child pornography laws). Most of the texts from this article were directly adapted from real texts for child pornography [...]

    21. Mandatory 15 years jail for photos of legal girl friend: You Can Have Sex With Them; Just Don’t Photograph Them | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] to be protected, by putting her husband in jail for a decade or two.  Remember, each time someone looks at child pornography, the child is victimized.  Even if the adolescent can be fully clothed in a movie, it still can be child pornography [...]

    22. One out of 3 college students in Berlin would consider doing prostitution, stripping, sex work (Brandenburg Academy of Science) | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] hamper such studies) It also does not seem that these students are "trafficked" "victims" that need to be saved from their own action by feminists, justice system or political [...]

    23. To justify our moral judgments, we invent victims even if there are none | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] child porn, irrational drug prohibition witch hunts are based on victimization theories. These victimization theories are so outlandish, they make the medieval "theory that witches cause hail storm" look [...]

    24. Men ruined & destroyed by feminist legal system driven to self immolation & murder | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] feminist medieval voodoo* logic mere copying, possessing or looking at adolescent nudity victimizes children, even if the [...]

    25. To Justify Our Moral Judgments, We Invent Victims Even if There Are None says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] is the explanation for the amazing theories of victimization with child porn, about consensual sex with adolescents being exactly the same as violently raping [...]

    26. Why the Moral Outrage Over Doug Hutchison’s Marriage to Courtney Stodden? says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] everyone gains reproductive advantage by restricting other people’s sexual liberty.Finding Victims Where There Are NoneIn the above YouTube video, we see a happy couple with conservative attitudes [...]

    27. passing by says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 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”.

    28. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0


      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.

      Thank you for the interesting comment. One more way how child porn laws contribute to child abuse.

    29. carol says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      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.

    30. carol says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      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.

    31. carol says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2

      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?

    32. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 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.

    33. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 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.

    34. "Tanning bed pervert" nailed for kiddie porn production. Decades in prison for secretly watching and filming? | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] victims did not even notice they were filmed. So they did not suffer great harm (except for the Voodoo theory of child porn victimization).  No, I am not saying that there should be no [...]

    35. Marsue says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Is that really all there is to it because that’d be flabebrsgaitng.

    36. Child porn hysteria news | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] need protection from sexual abuse, Australia’s supreme court recognized. According to the voodoo theory of child porn, each time someone looks at the cartoon, the cartoon figure will be victimized again. [...]

    37. Child Porn entrapment of webmasters, blog authors, email recipients and any web-browsing citizens | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] It does not matter that you are religious, never ever intended to see any porn.According to the voodoo theory of child pornography, the act of downloading and unintentional viewing by the religious Bible [...]

    38. Children loved "child porn" modeling: "Photo sessions were the highlight of my life"! Children traumatized by federal government prosecution. | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] porn "victims" decided to speak up: ."I loved modeling.  It was the highlight of my life" [...]

    39. 18 USC § 1384 prohibits US military to solicit legalized prostitutes abroad (1 year imprisonment) | Human Stupidity: Irrationality, Self Deception says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      [...] backed by exaggerated and falsified data. Remember Robert Kurzban about finding non-existent victims to justify our pre-conceived [...]

    40. alyssa says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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.

    41. Kevin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 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.

    42. george says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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.

    43. Larner says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 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?

    44. Larner says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 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

    45. dukeSkyWalk3r says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 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.

    46. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 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

    47. Larner says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 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…

    48. nobody says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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.

    49. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 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).

    50. Thomas says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      I agree precisely with what Matt says (third comment from the top):

      “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.”

      However, I think Matt’s ultimate conclusion is also flawed, or rather, does not elucidate the subject properly, on the basis that we’re failing to analyze the root of the problem: is *consensual* “underage” (term is relative in different regions) pornography, where the subject is precocious and well-aware of the implications of they are doing, really abuse at all?? Or are these people force-fed by society that they are “victims” until they themselves believe it? This is not a clear subject, very grey, but I believe there ARE plenty of cases that I can imagine (risking thoughtcrime here) where a juvenile consents and even desires to be, without coercion of any sort, being photographed in a sexual manner, and even desires these photographs to be seen indiscriminately by anyone, and/or initiates blatant, willing sexual advances on an adult. If anything, the adult is being abused, in my opinion, in this case.

      Then, there are cases where children are *actually* abused, forced or reluctantly talked into doing something they believe is shameful, or do not properly understand. The law, in reality, operates on the presumption that children, or even anyone under 18 (I refuse to refer to a 17 year old as a “child”), cannot possibly properly understand the implications of what they’re doing. And that, of course, is where the law becomes arbitrary and blind. The ONLY thing wrong with child pornography, if we’re really talking about abuse here, is if it is a photograph of or a drawing depicting the exact instance or actual events leading up to a REAL person, being abused, taken advantage of, coerced, or otherwise unaware of what they’re doing. Since it is impossible to tell without contacting that individual, the law refuses to be anything other than arbitrary in this, because, realistically, there’s virtually no way to ensure the rightful distinction of actual cases of abuse via simple images or even a video, I’d imagine.

      Still, this leads to unacceptable hysteria, where even Japanese anime porn (a culture where chronophilia is much more open and accepted, and such drawings depicting fictitious underage characters, even interacting with fictitious adults, are not illegal and distributed widely, even sold to youth), Western drawings doing the same, and anything else you can imagine where a real person is not involved, is considered child pornography and will land you on a sex offender list for life for possessing, in America anyway. This of course is a perversion of justice, where the “Voodoo science” paradigm wouldn’t even apply. Most countries aren’t as retarded as America in this sense, and are willing to reason with defendants when brought to trial over such things, like in the case of Sweden and some Japanese manga artist, I believe. But in cases here in America, and in Australia that I’ve read, people have actually been convicted for cartoon child pornography. That’s insane, I’m sorry. If you look at drawings of what is considered, say, lolicon in Japan, you MAY, arguably, have vague or distinct feelings of pedophilia (as I believe all humans do, especially men–where sexual attraction and beauty fetishizes youth), which may only apply to drawings, or may present themselves to you on very rare occasions in real depictions or encounters in life or say dreams… and yet, this same person, imagining it’s you, you may very well not have any preference for real children whatsoEVER, where the thought of any sort of relationship with one seems absurd and undesirable to you, yet still be able to possibly find a child attractive. To deny that such is possible, when it’s true, is ridiculous. To ostracize natural human psychology, is absurd. To imply that pedophilia has any bearing on who you are or your character whatsoever, i.e., a prediction that you are likely to take advantage of a child when opportunity arises, is like suggesting all men are (potential) rapists. So, you may even avoid children, be somewhat afraid of them and avoid showing affection to your own or your youngest family members, out of the stigma that you’d might be perceived as a pedophile (code word for child molester or abuser, in our society, which is not at ALL accurate). You may avoid even having children, out of respect of that fact that you have the ability to find a child attractive, and don’t want that kind of complication in your life, being self-conscious around your daughter because she might become attractive–though this probably happens to most fathers with beautiful daughters, who most often become protective of them, not abuse them. It’s all in who you are, if you’re a loving person, a morally good person, an unselfish one. Not whether or not you find can find children attractive. That is not the issue, and to suggest otherwise is rubbish. I’d say if anything, someone who can find a child attractive has a heightened, wider sense of beauty, and so may be more intellectually evolved in such perception.

      The other honest issue, once we put all that aside and admit its validity, is the concern that acceptance of child pornography would lead to–and people don’t want to admit this, because doing so would be admitting that it’s natural–a tremendous rise in ephebophilia (already the norm as is evident in the most desirable age in legal porn being as close to 17 as possible–more than natural, and incredibly barbaric to prosecute on the basis of “she’s 17″), hebephilia (which is definitely natural, because this is when so-called “children” become sexually active, and actually initiate transcendence into what I’d call “juveniles”, a less loaded term than “children” which implies innocence and naivety, but rather a legal one that is the flip-side of the arbitrary line that separates it and what is legally and subjectively an “adult”), and pedophilia (which somehow covers, in the professional use of the word, the ENTIRE range of children including infants, to toddlers, to preteens, yet is a term applied incorrectly, politically and by the public, to mean right up to the subjective and geographically relative Age of Consent to invoke emotions of disgust and subvert rationality and reasonable discourse–definitely a product of witch hunt mode thinking). I personally believe the far latter is the only one that anyone should really give a total black and white perspective to, if we’re going to give such designation to things, because the other chronophilias are current grey areas that are treated as black and most definitely not black. I would say hebephilia is a truly grey area, though personally am open to considering that even in ages preceding, it can be grey. But in ephebophilia, it is most definitely, white. That doesn’t mean “abuse” can’t apply in said grey areas, that is why they’re grey. Maturity is relative. I refuse to believe that juveniles (a geographically relative distinction) in the ephebophilia range are not mature enough to make their own sexual decisions, and I do support adult-juvenile relationships in this regard. For example, when I was 17, I met my 15 year old high school sweetheart. When I turned 18, she was only 16. So essentially, I had started dating her legally, where I could have potentially engaged in intercourse with her, and then had to STOP as soon as a year had passed, to wait two years for her to catch up to barrier that divided us. Essentially, we dated for three years, broke up because I was deployed to Iraq, and THEN had sex when I was on leave, because she was now an adult. I mean, how absurd is that?

      Anyway, if anyone, i.e. lawmakers, are at all concerned with *reality*, and what legalizing or allowing non-abuse “child pornography”, especially if not only fictitious representations (I refuse to consider such immoral in any way beyond being ‘thoughtcrime’ as any other form of art would be), correlates with, all they would have to do is look to, and study other countries that support it in its various real and fictitious forms. Sadly, any objective or scientific approach on this subject here in the United States is absolutely stigmatized and largely ignored.

      Ultimately, I support the legalization and acceptance of mere possession of pornography of and adult sex with, and even marriage with (though, we have to fix our society which is brooding a divorce rate of something near 50% before that’s even sane, to be honest) *consensual*, uncoerced adolescents, regardless of geographical location. I may even support the legalization of pornography (defining pornography here as anything potentially lewd, regardless of whether or not it is meant to be) of even younger subjects. I’m undecided, in terms of real subjects, but in terms of fictitious ones, I *ABSOLUTELY* do not believe this is illegal or should be illegal, for such a declaration would violate basic rights. In the realm of adolescents, and the progression into adulthood, if society was REALLY serious about this grey area, they’d define rules of courtship, but that gets into all sorts of controversy with sexist agendas, so, really, the solution is far from perfect. I’m just suggesting, urging, that laws concerning “child pornography” could be and NEED to be, far, far more sane, rational, and less blind. Blindness, crusading blindness, especially in terms of sexuality–which flows from the very core of the self and psyche, the only real truth worth heeding wisdom to there may even be–never got anyone anywhere very far without some sort of unhealthy sublimation of those repressed, natural desires–or, as quite often happens, wrongful prosecution of individuals seen not as individuals, but persecuted as a group of perpetrators. Indeed, a witch hunt.

      Also, this shouldn’t need to be stated, but, fictitious representations of ANYTHING, drawn, painted, CGI, virtual reality, games, etc., that in no way involve real people, pornography or otherwise, should *never* be illegal, whether or not they “imply” (another word that could be and IS, totally stretched) a child being involved. No one should be able to be put in jail because of a drawing, regardless of what it is or pertains to, unless that drawing was literally you or someone sitting there, with a canvas, watching an act of ABUSE, real abuse, as in unconsensual, drawing it. Which probably has never happened, ever. Yet I think to convict someone on the basis that a drawing “could” be just this, would be absurd, and would require reasonable evidence, not just “it looks realistic”. Art, in the form of images outside of photography that presents real and somehow violated people, in any case, is freedom of expression essentially equivalent to freedom of speech, or press. Period. I’m not saying they have to be allowed in the public, but privately? Such is equivalent to freedom of belief, to me, fundamentally. ESPECIALLY when it comes to nonphotographic images. I don’t think this is up for debate, unless we interested in enabling an Orwellian dystopia. Someone losing their career, or children if they have any, over an obviously fictitious drawing that is interpreted by a judge and/or jury behind closed doors as “child pornography”, whether the subject at hand in the artwork be considered “small breasted” but otherwise proportionate to an adult yet still “implying intent” of something below the age of consent (yes, this happens), or that subject in the artwork being similar to a child, or even obviously meant to be a child, entailing that it is somehow related in any way to actual abuse or victimization of anyone, I would think would be outrageous to the general, thinking public and hopefully illuminating of the reality of things as they stand right now with views about the persecution of so-called pedophilia, and chronophiles in general. Also, remember, these are loaded definitions. Chronophilia implies *preference*. I.e., you can find a single child attractive, and otherwise not find children attractive, and not be a pedophile… You can find drawings of somewhat unrealistic children arousing, like in the case of anime, and not real children whatsoever, and not be a pedophile. Things are not as black and white as people make things out to be, always remember that when someone says there are only two sides to something, for or against, or, you’re this, or you’re that.

      Pedophilia: “(in psychiatry) a psychosexual disorder in which the fantasy or act of engaging in sexual activity with prepubertal children is the PREFERRED OR EXCLUSIVE [my emphasis] means of achieving sexual excitement and gratification. It may be heterosexual or homosexual.”

      So, a question is, does a fictitious drawing of an “underage” character, that has no age or sentience or what have you, outside of the mere idea and representation of their imaginary age, that exists in an imaginary world such as anime, a “person”, and thus even possibly, or most definitely, a victim? And thus a “child”? And thus as good as real? Does it matter if they were abused? Does it matter this isn’t real child pornography, but insinuates even the thought of “it”? Even if, to you, it doesn’t insinuate or incite an idea in you of something that resembles or concerns the real world at all?

      A judge in Australia literally believes so. He’s operating off the principle, of course, that the idea of “child” or “underage” is at play, and thus the real world be injected into the imaginary world. Thus, the imaginary world is under siege, and threatens to retaliate and take the real world under siege in return. That is this judge’s reasoning. Whether it’s a reasonable justification to imprison someone and place them on a sex offenders list for the rest of their life, is up to you. Well, not really. It’s up to whoever wants to prosecute you. It’s up to how that judge “feels” about you, or a stigma, and some more than likely “obvious” belief to them that doesn’t require further examination in their opinion, that previous generations or influences have instilled in him or her, which more than likely orbits around or shares some kind of influence from cultural taboo, and on this topic particularly: hysteria, and a refusal to consider any data or reality which would even consider a second-guessing of their judgement.

      In fifty years, we likely will, according to people who are developing such technology, have the ability to record and view high definition imaging (videos) of our own dreams. This coupled with government’s obvious obsession for spying on its own citizens, invasion of privacy… coupled with banning depictions/viewing of fictional sexual displays of hysteria or whatever some agenda may in the future make illegal… coupled with the promise of advancement in neurological nanotechnology and already existing wireless transmission capabilities, enabling the ability to share dreams with each other, and the realization that all of this might not be an “option” but that it’s actually believable and likely that we’ll all be forced into some kind of mind network for the convenience of government agenda sold to or mandated for the public as “cool, exciting technology!” like android phones that are used to track our every move… Seriously just imagine when your dreams are being monitored, and you actually subconsciously “commit” (it being subconscious or conscious being totally at the discretion of whoever is behind the surveillance) viewing through your own eyes, possible interpretations of enactments of these so-called crimes.

      Now couple that with the reasoning that dreams can be lucid and controlled, or can be construed to be “to some degree conscious”, and willful.

      http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-figure-out-what-you-see-while-youre-dreaming-15553304/

      It’s already pretty much happening. When your dreams aren’t private, can be recorded, stored, distributed, shared, when they’re not private, what is? When they have the capability to monitor your dreams, what’s to stop them from monitoring your thoughts?

      That has much wider implications than the concern it should cause someone who could in any way have elements of pedophilia in their consciousness or subconscious, i.e., illegal thoughts to in any way have representational manifestation viewable by others in reality, according to the judge above. It’s scary on all accounts, because what the judge is ultimately in his stringent effort to not allow the “gateway” to *actual* child pornography, or child abuse in any way (understandable), or the support of having an idea of the idea of child abuse, or in this case, simply child porn that is in no way abusive, but can have imaginary lines drawn from it through imaginary and subjective interpretations of various definitions back to this judge’s fear of any shred of possibility of an adult fantasizing about sexuality in children being in way permissible, stemming from their own fear of the innate possibility within himself that he or she (most likely he) refuses to acknowledge or even look at it, in fear that it, an understanding, might be there–in effort to not allow this perceived “gateway” to this realization within himself, he actually opens the door and gateway for anyone or any government to take his judgement and contort it to apply to our dreams, freedom of expression, and ultimately, our thought, through this conduit and powerful tool of making-you-look-the-other-way.

      I think this is essential to the discussion of child pornography, and that the discussion of the legality of child pornography, in both the distinctions of real or fictitious/imaginary, is both vital and dangerous to the state of our very fundamental rights as human beings.

    51. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Thanks for the long comment.

      Your link to the mind reading dream analyzer is enlightening. Imagine you dream about underage sex, and thus engage in child porn production and victimize a child (that has no clue s/he is being victimized). Off to prison, to be really raped in the true awake world.

      By the “guilty for creating a cp marketplace” theory, all those who download CP for free will not promote the market. That of course could be a solution (if anyone wanted to solve it) to the CP problem: Just allow all old grandfathered CP. So no new market gets created. And less children get victimized: as Professor Milton Diamond has clearly demonstrated, freely available CP reduces child abuse rates.

      I did write on the absurdity of your sweetheart issue. Of sex being legal, and on the elder’s birthday becoming illegal. What a cruelty, what an absurdity.

      I suggest you read more articles, by looking for the child porn and teenage sex sections in the site map: http://human-stupidity.com/site-map-3

    52. Thomas says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Hey, admin? Part of my email is visible to the public (and I’d rather not state how, out of concern for keeping it confidential). Website stated it would not be published. Can I have my comment, and this one, removed? Thanks. If you can somehow solve the issue by changing my email address in the comment field to some random jibberish, and it updates where it is displayed, I’d be okay with it, and encouraged to reply to your response.

    53. John Smith says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      It is such a tricky issue even for those of us who are minor attracted. From my perspective, I can understand the arguments about victimisation, but I am not sure it is quite as they claim. I would not be quite so horrified if pics of my naked, childish self were freely available. If I were being sexually assaulted in the pic, that is a different matter, but consensual sex (trying to ignore the laws on AoC)? Not sure if I’d be really that bothered, especially in this world of vanishing privacy. Young people these days are getting well used to creating sexually explicit pics and videos themselves.

      It may be that those who detest minor attracted people inflate the trauma. Where are the multiple studies showing the level of harm done in later years to people whose pics were taken when they were children? If they exist, we need to see them.

      And, of course, there is the ongoing problem that only perps and law enforcement have seen CP, so how can anyone else evaluate it? Most people think CP consists of pics of children being raped, with the attacker laughingly relishing the child’s distress and pain. Does it really? I’m pretty sure it doesn’t.

      Ultimately, I see the furore over child porn as somewhat hypocritical, in a society like the USA or UK in whcih people pay to watch young people or adults beat each other to a pulp in the boxing ring. Yes, consensual, but so what? It is still utterly bizarre and sick, given a few minutes’ thought. And of course, the USA and UK are first and fourth in the weapons exporting business. Those weapons are all naturally child friendly in places like Bahrain and Kazakhstan.

    54. admin says:

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      Good points. None of us can watch CP without risking 20 years in prison. If you read my posts in the ChildPorn category, you can, though, get a good idea what child porn is. Read about the copine scale, for example.

      If someone is minor attracted and collects child swimsuit clippings from Newspapers, and department store child lingerie catalog excerpts, these become CP. 17 year olds fully dressed in leotards, gyrating sensuously were declared CP in Knox vs. USA.

    Leave a Reply

     Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog (no spam, unsubscribe at any time) 

    Subscribe to Human-Stupidity Blog
    Receive an email notification whenever Human-Stupidity.com has a new post.
    Email: 
     
    Mailing list powered by Google Feedburner. Every email contains an unsubscribe link. You can unsubscribe at any time. Human-Stupidity hates spam as much as you do.

     Subscribe in a reader      Follow us on twitter