Political Correctness (PC), Taboos, Dogmas, Religion make even the Intelligent blind, irrational, "stupid".
Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)
Legalizing child pornography
is linked to lower rates of child sex abuse
"Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic" Archives of Sexual Behavior. The official publication of the International Institute of Sex Research
Study carried out in Czech Republic confirms similar results in Japan and Denmark
Results from the Czech Republic showed, as seen everywhere else studied (Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Finland, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Sweden, USA), that rape and other sex crimes have not increased following the legalization and wide availability of pornography. And most significantly, the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen considerably since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible – a phenomenon also seen in Denmark and Japan. Their findings are published online today in Springer’s journal Archives of Sexual Behavior.
The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.
As part of his research Diamond also looked at countries that have recently made child pornography illegal and said the rate of child sex abuse there is rising.
Amazingly a politically incorrect study made it past the radar and actually got published. We are against dogmatic Human-Stupidity. We favor unbiased free research to find the truth. Human-Stupidity.com is in no way devoted to the goal of defending child pornography for its own sake. BUT
We are apalled that our sex-obsessed judicial system destroys the lives of harmless men
depictions of rioting, killing, lynching, beating adolescents or children to death
depictions of sports accident videos of children
All these are perfectly legal, no matter if this might incite people to imitate and do likewise. And no matter if minors got maimed and killed in production of the video.
Of course, only human-stupidity.com would dare to publish such a scientific result without backpedalling. The mainstream press, scared of the child porn witch hunt climate, has the compulsion to add caveats.
The proposal, by Professor Milton Diamond from the University of Hawaii [to legalise child pornography in a bid to cut the number of child sex abuse cases], follows a study which shows that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was legalised in the Czech Republic. […] The research found that child sex crimes fell when child pornography was more easily accessible. The discovery tallies with similar studies in Denmark and Japan, where child pornography is not illegal, that found incidences of child sex abuse were lower in those countries.
The conclusion of the new study is that ‘artificially-produced’ child pornography should be made available to prevent real children being abused.
The normal press has to instantly counter academic research with the emotionally driven, manipulative unscientific drivel by charities and NGO’s.
But child protection charity NSPCC today said the idea was ‘wrong’.
Chris Cloke, the charity’s NSPCC head of child protection awareness, said: ‘This obscene type of material has no part to play in our society.
‘Many children suffer atrocious abuse in the making of indecent images.
Change.org sucks & censors had to instantly campaign emotions against science and actually won censorship (as was to be expected in the actual political child porn witch hunt climate):
Due to loud protest by change.org “human trafficing” campaigns, academic scientific research was censored with no need for scientific rebuttal by academic peer reviewed research.
After receiving 250 letters from Change.org members, the University of Hawaii has denounced the legalization of child pornography. Members began voicing their concerns after a retired University of Hawaii professor released a study that seemed to advocate for legalizing child pornography in order to reduce child abuse. Now, however, university officials have stated they don’t support that policy recommendation.
Dr. Milton Diamond, a University of Hawaii professor who retired in 2009, used his university credentials when he published his recent study Pornography and Sex Crimes in the Czech Republic. In it, he studies the legalization of adult pornography in the Czech Republic and concludes that when adult pornography was legalized, sex crimes against adults did not increase. It also claims that when child pornography was made legal, sex crimes against children decreased.
Of course, science can be countered with science to the contrary. Maybe what Dr Milton Diamond found has scientific flaws. Let academic research prove him wrong. But scientific research should not be invalidated by petition of lay people. Of course, nowadays, only persecution-supporting scientific studies are published, because talking in favor of liberalizing child pornography or teenage sex is academic suicide. Dr. Milton Diamond has tenure, is old and retired, it still is amazing he got his study published.
Human-Stupidity.com suggests to create a anti-change.org site that counters change.org’s repressive petitions with petitions to the contrary, presenting scientific evidence about manipulated data etc (PS: we are referring mainly to the human trafficing and other feminist data falsifying parts of change.org)
Abstract and excerpts of the original Research Paper
Abstract Pornography continues to be a contentious matter
with those on the one side arguing it detrimental to society
while others argue it is pleasurable to many and a feature of
free speech. The advent of the Internet with the ready availability
of sexually explicit materials thereon particularly has
seemed to raise questions of its influence. Following the
effects of a new law in the Czech Republic that allowed
pornographytoasocietypreviouslyhavingforbiddenitallowed
us to monitor the change in sex related crime that followed the
change. As found in all other countries in which the phenomenon
has been studied, rape and other sex crimes did not
increase. Of particular note is that this country, like Denmark
and Japan, had a prolonged interval during which possession
of child pornography was not illegal and, like those other
countries, showed a significant decrease in the incidence of
child sex abuse.
Findings ouside the Czech republic
Kendall (in press) conducted an in-depth analysis of possible
relationships between society, pornography, rape and
the Internet for the state of California. Kendall found that the
arrival of the Internet, while not seeming to have an effect on
other crimes, was associated with a reduction in rape incidence.
After checking the results for the effects of the extent of
porn use, user marital status, size of city in which potential
rapists might live, possible economic status, and other social
and demographic features, Kendall concluded that ‘‘potential
rapists perceive pornography as a substitute for rape…pornography
is a complement formasturbation or consensual sex,
which themselves are substitutes for rape, making pornography
a net substitute for rape.’’This conclusion reflects on the
earlier findings of Goldstein et al. (1971). These investigators,
having extensively interviewed and surveyed rapists, pedophiles,
and others alongwith control groups of personswith no
history of sex offenses about their use of pornography, found
that sex-offender and sex deviate groups not only have had less
experience with pornography but when they do come across it
‘‘…report a higher incidence of masturbation in response to
eroticmaterials than the controls.’’They go on to conclude that
‘‘the erotic materials are much more significant in producing
masturbatory reaction in the users compared with the controls
than in inducing sexual relations.’’
It is also noteworthy that the number of paraphilias (e.g.,
indecent exposure) decreased significantly following the
ready availability of SEM. Usually such activities are considered
relatively refractive to change. Here again, we believe
potential infractions in this regard were prevented by the
simple expedient of masturbation. We believe our findings
support the displacement function of pornography for potential
sex offenders.
Issues surrounding child pornography and child sex abuse
are probably among the most contentious in the area of sex
issues and crime. In this regardwe consider instructive our findings
for the Czech Republic that have echoed those found in
Denmark (Kutchinsky, 1973) and Japan (Diamond&Uchiyama,
1999) that where so-called child-pornography was readily
available without restriction the incidence of child sexual
abusewas lower thanwhenits availabilitywasrestricted.Aswith
adult pornography appearing to substitute for sexual aggression
everywhere it has been investigated, we believe the availability
of child porn does similarly. We believe this particularly
since the findings of Weiss (2002) have shown that a substantial
portion of child sex abuse instances seemed to occur, not because
of pedophilic interest of the abuser, but because the child was
used as a substitute subject.
Summary of feminist utterings about pornography
Among the most prominent expressions against pornography
are in the works of Dworkin (1981) and MacKinnon and
Dworkin (1988). These women are so convinced of the negative
effects of such materials they believe they ought to be
restricted in availability and made illegal. On the other hand,
there are many women in favor of sexually explicit materials
(SEM) or at least against its censorship (McElroy, 1997; Newitz,
2002; Strossen, 1995; Tiefer, 1995). The anti-censorship
and pro pornography side of the argument holds that pornography
is an expression of fantasies that provide pleasure
(Christensen, 1990), are media that can inhibit sexual activity
(Wolf, 2003), and materials that can even act as a positive
displacement activity for sexual aggression (D’Amato, 2006;
Goldstein, Kant, Judd, Rice, & Green, 1971).
Adult Pornography reduces sex crimes
Individuals in real life could use the material alone in private or with partners. In real life, individuals can elect to experience some pornography for minutes or hours, at a single session, or over years. In real life, individuals are free to satisfy different sexual urges in ways unavailable to students in classroom or subjects in laboratory situations.
Kutchinsky (1983, 1987, 1992,1994), has discussed the relative merits of lab studies compared to events outside the laboratory. Basically Kutchinsky believes that pornography, in the real world, offers a substitution for the sexual and nonsexual frustrations that might, in other circumstances, lead to sexual offenses (Kutchinsky, 1973a). He wrote:
If availability of pornography can reduce sex crimes, it is because the use of certain forms of pornography to certain potential offenders is functionally equivalent to the commission of certain types of sex offences: both satisfy the need for psychosexual stimulants leading to sexual enjoyment and orgasm through masturbation. If these potential offenders have the option, they prefer to use pornography because it is more convenient, unharmful and undangerous. (Kutchinsky, 1994, pp. 21).
This too we believe is only a partial answer. There is also the liklihood that repeated exposure to SEM can lead to a response of habituation, boredom or fatigue.
Honest Research, Truth, Sincerity is our maxim. We hate politally correct falsification, falsification, repression of the truth, academic dishonesty and censorship.
View all posts by Human-Stupidy (Admin)
39 thoughts on “Legalizing Child Pornography reduces child sex abuse crimes (Scientific study by Dr. Milton Diamond, U. Hawaii)”
«Pedophiles and rapists do not use fake porn they use real videos and images of children being abused.»
If so then who bothers with fake child porn? People with no sexual interest in children?
«80% of child porn involved penetration and 76% were brutality(gagged, hogged tied etc.) Most of the children are under the age of twelve and can be as young as two months old.»
Where do you get such “statistics” from? Since it is illegal to view child porn, you couldn’t get them from the most accurate source. You must have either made them up or gotten them from someone else who made them up.
«Someone has to make those videos to put them online. Someone has to abuse that child, and that is a violation of human rights.»
Same goes for videos of other crimes, but we show them on TV and there are no laws prohibiting the possession of such media, even if some sick-minded people get off on that.
«The children are often heard crying and screaming; begging for help. They are seen kicking and screaming as well.»
Again, how would you know that? For all we know, the children in child porn videos could be moaning in pleasure and asking for more.
«Those children have already been violated in those videos why should it be legal to do it again, through internet?»
How can viewing a picture or video violate someone?
«Have you heard the story of Masha? Her adopted father sexually abused her for fives years and uploaded the images and videos for the world to see. She has stated that every time someone views the images of her she feels violated.»
Wait a second! How on earth can she know when someone views her pictures, in order to know when to feel violated?
«She says that fact that people can be aroused by the abuse she suffered is hurtful and victimizes her all over again. She wants the sites that supply it taken down.»
Sounds more like anti-pedophile propaganda written in her name than her actual thoughts on the matter. Don’t these people know that you don’t find child porn openly available on websites, because THEY ALL GET TAKEN DOWN AND THEIR OWNERS JAILED?
«Do people like her not matter to you? As long as a pedophile views it and does not commit it is okay? What about how that child feels growing up, all the pain they have suffered countless times, and it is okay for people to view it?»
Did you miss the whole point of this article? Which is worse, to have images of abused children in existence, or to have children being abused? If you could reduce the frequency of one but not both, which would you choose?
«Unless you have actually been the victim of such a gruesome crime you can not know the pain, but I do. […] I am just asking that you show a little empathy for the defenseless and abused.»
You ask for empathy (feeling another’s pain) while simultaneously claiming that nobody who is not themselves a victim can empathize. But I must object: I do empathize, even though I have never been abused myself. I agree that child abuse is terrible and that we need to do whatever we can to reduce its frequency. And if legalizing child porn will help, why not do it?
I have no problem with people viewing virtual child porn because it does not involve the abuse of a child. I even support adults dressing as children in their porn sets. No matter how sick I personally feel it is; a person can not choose what they are attracted to. Pedophiles and rapists do not use fake porn they use real videos and images of children being abused. 80% of child porn involved penetration and 76% were brutality(gagged, hogged tied etc.) Most of the children are under the age of twelve and can be as young as two months old. You said that people should be able to view it to stop crime, but the things being done in the video ARE crimes. Someone has to make those videos to put them online. Someone has to abuse that child, and that is a violation of human rights. The children are often heard crying and screaming; begging for help. They are seen kicking and screaming as well.Those children have already been violated in those videos why should it be legal to do it again, through internet?Have you heard the story of Masha? Her adopted father sexually abused her for fives years and uploaded the images and videos for the world to see. She has stated that every time someone views the images of her she feels violated. She says that fact that people can be aroused by the abuse she suffered is hurtful and victimizes her all over again. She wants the sites that supply it taken down. Do people like her not matter to you? As long as a pedophile views it and does not commit it is okay? What about how that child feels growing up, all the pain they have suffered countless times, and it is okay for people to view it? No. This is very sticky mud you are getting into sir. Unless you have actually been the victim of such a gruesome crime you can not know the pain, but I do. No one took pictures of me but I was violently raped from age 7-15 when I finally stopped going around my cousins. I am just asking that you show a little empathy for the defenseless and abused.
@Carol: It has been proven, scientifically, that availability of child porn reduces child abuse. Against all odds, because it is not politically correct to do such research and to arrive at such results.
Now you must have gotten your data from some propaganda. and not read my other posts. By modern definition, 17 year old tasteful nudes are child porn. 17 year olds who take their own photo in the mirror are producing child pornography.
Google “Knox vs. USA”, he got imprisoned for movies of 15 year olds in Leotards dancing somewhat seductively.
So your number must be off.
So the real gruesome stuff you describe is criminal during filming. Now possession of movies of crimes is normally perfectly legal. The producer needs to be punished.
Now if a sicko watches this instead of doing this to a real child, that also would be preferable.
counter-intuitive only because of our brainwashing. It is quite clear that regular porn reduces sex crimes. And child porn is the same.
People who have any decency and self control act out their phantasies with photos and movies, masturbate, and tire their energies.
If someone never had a chance to see a naked woman (or whatever he fancies), he is much more likely to be overwhelmed and seek to use force, then if he can see it every day in the privacy of his home.
But, what I say is hearsay and speculation. Diamond has the hard data and proof.
carol wrote:
«Pedophiles and rapists do not use fake porn they use real videos and images of children being abused.»
If so then who bothers with fake child porn? People with no sexual interest in children?
«80% of child porn involved penetration and 76% were brutality(gagged, hogged tied etc.) Most of the children are under the age of twelve and can be as young as two months old.»
Where do you get such “statistics” from? Since it is illegal to view child porn, you couldn’t get them from the most accurate source. You must have either made them up or gotten them from someone else who made them up.
«Someone has to make those videos to put them online. Someone has to abuse that child, and that is a violation of human rights.»
Same goes for videos of other crimes, but we show them on TV and there are no laws prohibiting the possession of such media, even if some sick-minded people get off on that.
«The children are often heard crying and screaming; begging for help. They are seen kicking and screaming as well.»
Again, how would you know that? For all we know, the children in child porn videos could be moaning in pleasure and asking for more.
«Those children have already been violated in those videos why should it be legal to do it again, through internet?»
How can viewing a picture or video violate someone?
«Have you heard the story of Masha? Her adopted father sexually abused her for fives years and uploaded the images and videos for the world to see. She has stated that every time someone views the images of her she feels violated.»
Wait a second! How on earth can she know when someone views her pictures, in order to know when to feel violated?
«She says that fact that people can be aroused by the abuse she suffered is hurtful and victimizes her all over again. She wants the sites that supply it taken down.»
Sounds more like anti-pedophile propaganda written in her name than her actual thoughts on the matter. Don’t these people know that you don’t find child porn openly available on websites, because THEY ALL GET TAKEN DOWN AND THEIR OWNERS JAILED?
«Do people like her not matter to you? As long as a pedophile views it and does not commit it is okay? What about how that child feels growing up, all the pain they have suffered countless times, and it is okay for people to view it?»
Did you miss the whole point of this article? Which is worse, to have images of abused children in existence, or to have children being abused? If you could reduce the frequency of one but not both, which would you choose?
«Unless you have actually been the victim of such a gruesome crime you can not know the pain, but I do. […] I am just asking that you show a little empathy for the defenseless and abused.»
You ask for empathy (feeling another’s pain) while simultaneously claiming that nobody who is not themselves a victim can empathize. But I must object: I do empathize, even though I have never been abused myself. I agree that child abuse is terrible and that we need to do whatever we can to reduce its frequency. And if legalizing child porn will help, why not do it?
I have no problem with people viewing virtual child porn because it does not involve the abuse of a child. I even support adults dressing as children in their porn sets. No matter how sick I personally feel it is; a person can not choose what they are attracted to. Pedophiles and rapists do not use fake porn they use real videos and images of children being abused. 80% of child porn involved penetration and 76% were brutality(gagged, hogged tied etc.) Most of the children are under the age of twelve and can be as young as two months old. You said that people should be able to view it to stop crime, but the things being done in the video ARE crimes. Someone has to make those videos to put them online. Someone has to abuse that child, and that is a violation of human rights. The children are often heard crying and screaming; begging for help. They are seen kicking and screaming as well.Those children have already been violated in those videos why should it be legal to do it again, through internet?Have you heard the story of Masha? Her adopted father sexually abused her for fives years and uploaded the images and videos for the world to see. She has stated that every time someone views the images of her she feels violated. She says that fact that people can be aroused by the abuse she suffered is hurtful and victimizes her all over again. She wants the sites that supply it taken down. Do people like her not matter to you? As long as a pedophile views it and does not commit it is okay? What about how that child feels growing up, all the pain they have suffered countless times, and it is okay for people to view it? No. This is very sticky mud you are getting into sir. Unless you have actually been the victim of such a gruesome crime you can not know the pain, but I do. No one took pictures of me but I was violently raped from age 7-15 when I finally stopped going around my cousins. I am just asking that you show a little empathy for the defenseless and abused.
@Carol: It has been proven, scientifically, that availability of child porn reduces child abuse. Against all odds, because it is not politically correct to do such research and to arrive at such results.
Now you must have gotten your data from some propaganda. and not read my other posts. By modern definition, 17 year old tasteful nudes are child porn. 17 year olds who take their own photo in the mirror are producing child pornography.
Google “Knox vs. USA”, he got imprisoned for movies of 15 year olds in Leotards dancing somewhat seductively.
So your number must be off.
So the real gruesome stuff you describe is criminal during filming. Now possession of movies of crimes is normally perfectly legal. The producer needs to be punished.
Now if a sicko watches this instead of doing this to a real child, that also would be preferable.
…and Rodney King gets violated every time the video of him being hit by batons is viewed.
Jeez, no wonder Rodney died last year… took too much of the violation done by his beating played over and over again on the news
wow! this is so counter-intuitive!
counter-intuitive only because of our brainwashing. It is quite clear that regular porn reduces sex crimes. And child porn is the same.
People who have any decency and self control act out their phantasies with photos and movies, masturbate, and tire their energies.
If someone never had a chance to see a naked woman (or whatever he fancies), he is much more likely to be overwhelmed and seek to use force, then if he can see it every day in the privacy of his home.
But, what I say is hearsay and speculation. Diamond has the hard data and proof.
Robert Epstein argues that adolescents should be treated as adults,not as children.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200703/trashing-teens
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_pKVCGJ7E4
Yet ,we are sending these teens to jail in the name of protecting them.
Absoulutely true.The paedophilia hysteria needs to stop.
BTW,I like your website.I found a website with similar views called sexhysteria.com