Virtual Childporn - Art or Jailtime?
 

Discussion time!

The case: Here in the Netherlands we had another 'Worlds 1st'. We are the first country to have convicted a dude for the possession of virtual child pornography. To clarify: this was about a 3D movie which in no single way depicted real persons. So the point of debate here is: should stuff like this be illegal? There's no doubt that I hate child pornography, anyone ever raping a child should be left to rot on a very busy traintrack. However this is an issue of 'what next?'

If child pornography is illegal and it automatically makes virtual child pornography illegal as well, then where do we draw the line? I mean, I have killed a LOT of people people online, we're talking 27,560 persons in Battlefield 2 alone. Does that make me guilty of mass murder in real life? That would be crazy wouldn't it? So what's the verdict on this one? Discuss!

I believe you're walking on a very thin red line with the comparison to games involving death.

I whore-heartedly believe any form of child pornography should be illegal. It's not art.

Alcar...

Yes but the comparison is valid. Doesn't matter how badly child pornography should be illegal. The argument most people would have for virtually killing people is: It's not real. As bad as the content may be, the same goes for a virtual child pornography movie. Fact remains that it's not real and that it does not hurt anyone directly (maybe even indirectly).

I don't think they just have that movie on their pc by accident. I don't see how you can compare it to games.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to take the other side here. I find it detestable, despicable and downright morally corrupt in the extreme.....but you can't build a legal system on ethical niceties.

The reason child pornography is a prosecutable offense is because some extremely sick bastards filmed it, effectively scarring an innocent young life forever. Books, films and animes all exist with scenes including or alluding to child pornography, I don't agree with this but it isn't harming anybody so I don't see how someone could be convicted for it.

You could also (dare I say it) argue via the desensitization theory of antisocial behaviuor that encouraging people (READ: Sick fucks) to do it with virtual stuff is much preferable than leaving them open to do it with real child porn. Similar comparisons can also be drawn to the legalisation of prostitution and cannabis.

I think you have to draw a line somewhere, Havoc.

Alcar...

It raises a good point but I would like to know the details of the movie itself before making a judgement. If it was a case that the movie was about torture, rape, abduction, snuff etc then I kind of agree that someone with these tendancies is probably going to be a risk to society.

Battlefield 2 I don't feel is a good comparision as it's more of a war simulator (albeit a poor one when compared to real life). Imagine a game where you play as a pure serial killer, abducting people, taking them back to your house, torturing them and other such things, I'm sure that would certainly be banned in most countries (Manhunt 2 anyone?). Maybe this will give Jack Thompson fuel for all things virtual and violent.

But who's to say whats a risk and whats not? The line between fantasy and reality is already drawn and only a few people are ill enough to cross it. You cant arrest people for having 'tendencies' because it is extremely hard to prove that someone 'Looks like they were about to do something'.

Bottom line: Law is there to protect, not to control. That is the line as I see it, whatever people get up to in their own homes, without endangering themselves or others, is none of the Government's business.

(NOTE: I object to this on matter of principle, the very mention of child porn makes me want to vomit)

No the comparison is not valid in the slightest. Getting your jollies off a virtual child is nothing like having fun by shooting Peter in the face via CoD4.

I must say though, the laws behind child pornography are there to stop children being exploited, and if people ARE attracted to children I'd much rather they get off to pretend ones than real ones.

I define my opinion on the subject as so:

Studies have shown that people who partake in violent video games, such as ones that require murdering opponents, do not have violent tendancies in the vast majority of people. It is those who have a pre-disposition to violence who will act so independantly of video games.

People watch porn because they are, 'turned on' by it. We watch it because sex is something we enjoy - porn is used as a medium to fulfill fantasies or simulate/imagine sex. Whether or not we carry out the acts we watch is meaningless, as they still remain something we wish we could do. This is the crux of the matter.

It's not artwork. It's filth, and it is only another medium which if it gains any traction will only lead to harming more innocent children.

Alcar...

:fuzblink: You mean Abe's not real?

I'm not disputing the fact it's wrong and in my eyes it certainly isn't art. I'm just concerned about how you could prosecute them, 'Possession of child porn' is a blatant lie and 'Possession of virtual child porn' has the unpleasant ring of 1984 to it.

What do we do? throw them in with the other pedophiles? and when they get out of prison what then? put them on the list with the reason of 'expressing tendencies'?

As much as I hate pedophilia there are worse things out there and that is the beginning of one of them.

I am somewhat in the middle somewhere. I personally feel sorry for pedophiles. Many people with philias don't even find the more 'normal' things interesting in that way, so to those that are discriminated against by the law in this way it would be like condemning the interest in women for a more 'normal' person. Those that go out and rape/molest children, I disagree with, this is comparable to rape for someone else, which isn't a good thing, and deservedly that's jail worthy. Child porn as photos or videos is iffy, that's not fair on the children involved, but to put someone straight into jail off the bat because of that is rather harsh. Something that's not real, such as something someone drew from imagination, or in this case custom 3D models and such, is, dare I say it, fine. This is me putting myself into their position. Do not think I am pro-pedophilia: The individuals involved are misunderstood, and they're not bad people. It's not like they have the choice of being pedophiles or not. You can't call any of this art either, but then, you can't call 'normal' porn or anything art either, so don't be biased from that viewpoint. Like Hobo said, pretend ones, not real ones, seems to be the best thing really remotely viable here.

Many other philias exist which are not unlawful, but the people who feel that way aren't better or worse people than pedophiles. Pedophiles just happen to be an unlucky group from our society's standing.

And before you ask, no, I am not a pedophile myself.

Pedos need to be castrated, but Virtual arn't really as bad although a sicko imagining themselves having sex with under 18s is just horrible on every level

I see pedophilia as a mental illness. It is a reason they commit atrocities, not an excuse, if you start thinking that way then all spontaneous murderers are victims of society...which is a bit unfair on all the people with road rage who don't get out of their cars and beat people to death.

Pedophiles need to be taken out of society for three reasons: To help them, to protect the rest of society and to punish them for contributing to the harm of children, with virtual pedophilia the third point is moot and it could be argued that as many nymphomaniacs (the analogy is appropriate) can get by on virtual porn and anime, most pedophiles should be able to get by on virtual child porn. (The line which divides actual molestation of children and viewment of it is a lot bigger than the line that divides viewment of it and virtual viewment of it)

And with that I think I have no more points to argue on this topic.

Bai.

EDIT:
......WTF?

It's hardly a mental illness. Do you think other philias are mental illnesses too?

In all other respects they're perfectly reasonable, normal human beings. Not all of them commit these atrocities, only some, and that number is likely the minority. As I said, I do still feel that those that go out there and molest or whatever deserve jailing, however, it seems unreasonable to jail them just for being one. Read what I say more carefully.

Maybe they could do with some help, but taking them 'out of society', as you say, sounds a bit drastic, if not insane. This would apply to those violent ones that do go out there and do things, but the others that are sensible shouldn't be condemned away from everyone else.

In a sense, viewing of actual real photos/footage isn't the main problem, though that should still be condemned (though not quite so harshly). The ones doing the filming or photos are going to be the main problem.

Shit i've had sex with under 18s. STONE ME TO DEATH OWF

The term is a lot milder than you'd think :) it just causes intense stigma because of serious mental illness's like schizophrenia. (NOTE: I also class alcoholism and any addiction as a mental illness.....Sorry Alcar :p). Other phillias are mental illnesses if they impinge on a persons ability to perform properly, as are phobias but because of the stigma attached to the term 'mental illness' they are not usually viewed as such.

Taken a bit out of context maybe, but I see a comparison to funding terrorism; if there was no market for these videos then people wouldn't film them, therefore 'passive pedos' are contributing to the main problem.

If a pedophile truly needs some gratification to stop them from turning into a slobbering beast I suggest one of three ways to deal with them. A, Put them out of their misery, it really is the most humane option. B, Remove them from society and try to help them with invasive and possibly harmful psychosurgery or C, Mayhap this virtual pedophilia can help them deal with their problem, thus we are all winners. If the majority are as good as you say then the scheme will work and if the majority are as bad as portrayed by the media (which for the record I don't believe for a second) we can always harvest them for organs afterwards :).

Sorry if i didn't say what i meant clear enough when i mean sicko i mean people over 18 because i thought anyone over 18 looking at etc any porn with under 18s in it was considered phaedophilia

Zerox: There's a difference between pedophiles and porn distributes. I agree with WoF that pedophilia is a mental illness. It's a 'sexual preference' if you will, and as we all know you don't have control over your sexual preference. Those realizing its wrong do their best to deny them selfs the feelings they have and the rest of the assholes go around watching kiddie porn. By watching that shit you get a supply & demand story. The people making child pornography aren't pedophiles most of the time, just 'smart' people who see an open market.

I am inclined to say that as long as something is not real, it should be allowed to be viewed by whoever wants to. In fact, if someone does something that does not hurt another soul on this planet, none of us should be complaining about it.

Also small note on the art part: While it might be a disgusting depiction, someone did put a lot of work into making an animation and stuff like that. In that respect it could be considered as art, doesn't matter what its about or how disgusting it is.

The age of consent in Britain is 16 :) Anything older than that is good ol' fashioned porn.

Nothing wrong whatsoever with looking at 17 yr olds with their knockers out, a significant proportion of men do it legally and often on sites I am sure I wouldn't know anything about ;).

sorry i never knew Wings of Fire ;)

Child porn.. dangerous territory. But, as Wings of Fire said, you can't build a legal system on ethical niceties. As long as nobody is harmed, it isn't prosecutable. You may not agree with it, but as long as nobody is actually being abused, there's shouldn't be anything legally wrong with it.

Drawing the line on a person's personal interests is never a fair thing, because it means legally imposing a person's opinionated point of view on another person, which in my book is persecution.

Also, the idea that it fosters more of the same behavior can be countered by saying that it provides the viewer a form of release. Cancelled out, yes indeed.

From a 'fappists' perspective? Illegal, because, well, there's nothing that I (in good, thieving, lying conscience) can say about it that's actually, well, attractive.
Okay, so yes, it's people having sex, but seriously, the sheer moral outrage of seeing kids who don't actually know what's going on is fucking sickening.

I just want to point out that (consensual) sex with persons under the age of consent isn't necessarily pedophilia, it's statutory rape. And technically, pedophilia wouldn't apply to sex with all children as it actually only refers to children of a certain age, there are several philias for people under the age of consent, though I suppose you could use the whole Actual meaning/Used meaning argument.

If they're kids? No, that's not cool.
If they look like they're kids but are actually 18? That's awesome.

FAPFAPFAP

=P I can smell the -rep already.

But it's (almost) exactly the same...

Ghost the way you wrote that made it look so very wrong. It is very wrong. Yet I know what you mean >_<. Ah what do I care I'm a freak already anyway :tard:.

But it isn't.

Trust me, I'm a Lolicon.

...f*ck. Let's hope not really.

Ah, yes. I was thinking more of things that are free, but if there is anything that you pay for out there, yes, I see what you mean in this respect. And I am aware that people watching it are in the wrong too, but not as much so as the ones distributing it at the very least.

In the UK, it's only paedophilia if it's with kids under 13. I'm not sure what you'd call anything inbetween however. Ghost may have something of a useful(?) point, though I'd say finding over 16/18s that look like that wouldn't be easy.

Don't read to far into it, technically Love is a mental illness caused by a chemical imbalance.

Meh, I still dunno. Love is a mental illness? Riiiiiiiight. Next getting turned on will be a mental illness, since that is also a chemical imbalance.

AND NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT FURRIES.

Make your own topic. This is about kiddieporn.

=P I know.

I misunderstood you. What I thought you meant was people who look exactly like children (height and everything) but are actually 18 (or 16 etc), not possible in real life but this is virtual. I had assumed you had meant that there was some kind of disclaimer saying "Everyone in this video is over 18" when the people involved are actually kids.

The difference is mental, basically.

If they're mentally adults, I'm fine with it.

Believe me, I know ALL about looking like a child.

Wee! THis topic made me log in.

Anyway, I wanted to pop in and say that anyone who thinks that all Philias are mental illnesses is an idiot in that aspect. Paraphilias are mostly normal, and a large part of society has em.

Now.. I don't know if Pedophilia can be counted as a mental illness.. But it is a dreadful act, and I'd say it's even worse than rape.
But the thing is, people can't help their paraphilias. THey either had them all along, or got them through experiences they've had themselves. Like this guy who used to get abused by men... He did the same too. Sick fuck. But a very sad, sick fuck.
It doesn't matter how bad the thought is, if the person knows not to do them, and that they are wrong, who are to judge? Some people try to get rid of these thoughts, or just ignore them and live a normal life without indulging in them.
I know it's a weak comparison, but I'm sure the majority of you people have had bad thoughts yourselves. Like wanting to beat someone up, or even kill them(not saying you do have em, but you might). But we all know it's wrong, and indulging in acts that hurt others is just fucked up.

I wll admit and say that even I have.. thoughts... or fantasies rather, that 'd never want to happen for real, because I know how grave the topic is(this does not include children).

I say that as long as they never hurt anyone, no one should be jailed because of thoughts.

This virtual porn issue is such a grey area though. We wanna remain open to people, and if they can stay awayfrom harming actualchildren by looking at virtual uh... 'porn'.. Then... In a way I think that should be allowed. Virtual porn doesn't actually include any real people, an I can't see why there would be a demand for more 'real' porn if people just started makin virtual instead.

But then again... It's such a dangerous topic... Moralities are decided by society in general. Who knows... maybe in the future underage sex would be allowed.

But as it is now, it's against the norm... My personal belief is that Pedophilia shouldn't even BE in the Paraphilia category, cos in no way can it be comared to te rest. Most paraphilias are innocent and include things such as a theme, or tears and stuff like that. I'd say that paedophilia can't even be compared to zoophilia, although both issues are in the gray zone.

I think that pedophilia is giving al other philias a very bad name.
I do see it as more of a mental sickness, if people do it for real. Because it's not just an innocent fetish. It's hurting the victim. To me, it even seems worse than just raping an adult. Because an adult at least knew what was going on, an knows where to turn if tey need help.
But a child just isn't developed in the same way.

So yea... I'mnot sure where I was actually going with this post, but I just wanted to say that no... Not all paraphilias are mental ilnesses. THey are just fetishes and fantasies for some. If it doesn't hurt anybody, who are we to judge?


And sorry about the writing... This keyboard just plan sucks, and I'm too lazy to correct anything right now.