I heard of an interesting issue recently.

Basically, political administrations were discussing making "virtual child porn" (like drawn or 3d animated) legal. Now everyone must agree that ALL child porn is "just wrong." >_<' Ew.

However, they had some pretty interesting reasons behind this logic. Virtual child porn was not meant to add to regular child porn on the internet, but to compete with it. Here's their reasoning:

Some feel that if they make virtual child porn legal, then it will supply a source of sexual release for those who are interested in kids that won't hurt real children since it's all fake.

Here's the deal. If you are planning on making child pornography, will you

A) Try to bother finding real kids to photograph and risk going to prison for it?

or

B) Will you make fake child porn (drawn or 3d) on your computer, and not be threatened by a prison sentence for it?

Same thing applies to those who simply want to see kiddie porn. Will you

A) Support real child porn and risk going to prison?

or

B) Turn to virtual child porn instead knowing that you won't risk going to prison?

They're hoping that this action will sway those, who would otherwise hurt real children, into a less dangerous "hobby" (for the kids' sake). If more people turn to virtual child porn (thanks to it being made legal), then they're hoping that the support (financially, etc) of real child porn businesses will drop and that these sites will be "put out of business" (or at least begin to "struggle" in the competition) and that less kids will be harmed as a result of this.

Now, some argued that this would make child porn seem "OK" and that this may increase molestation rates in America.

However, those who argued for it responded with examples of other countries where virtual child porn is already legal. Take Japan for instance. Drawn "kiddie porn" comics are made and bought legally (...and a lot @_o') in Japan. Yet the molestation and rape cases in Japan are stupendiously low in comparison to America's rates (although I understand that other issues, such as firearms and weapons being entirely illegal there may have to do with the low rape cases at least-----which while I'm on the subject, hah hah at those who are anti-gun control ^_-).

Anyway, I'm not sure about how I feel on this subject myself. @_o' I was just wondering what other people think on this issue. ^_^

Got a little something for ya Ninja...Oh, and jim...you blow goats...while masterbating to child porn.

Honestly, child porn of any type can only promote sexually deviant attitudes towards children. The whole point of fantasizing about porn is to imagine really having sex with the person in the picture. People then may spend all the time they want imagining/planning sexual acts with minors with no fears of repercussions. I dont see how any of that will reduce pedaphilia. The only other point of view would be cartharsis for pedaphilics, and frankly, that theory is hotly debated already with violent video games.

The video games I don't believe have anything to do with anything. The porn though is nothing but a catalyst.

On a deeply serious note, child porn is really fucked up. I agree with you Funk, when people fantasize about porn, they want that person sexually, and when people fantasize about children, that is just sick. It is actually quite funny and ironic what happens to people sent to prison for child molestation/pornography...if you don't know, you get raped pretty violently, and repeatedly...you reap what you sow...

At 5/15/03 11:10 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: Got a little something for ya Ninja...Oh, and jim...you blow goats...while masterbating to child porn.

Um....OK. Thanks.

?????????

You really do have too much time on your hands. lol. You have never had either my soul or my interest. Heh heh. And I'm sure it shows.
-------

Anyway, I want to know more about how people feel about the reasons behind "legalizing virtual porn." I mean, they argued that perverts are going to be perverts anyway. Supposedly, this at least allows them not to hurt anyone in the process by giving them another, less damaging source of sexual release. How do you feel about that reasoning?

Of course all porn is nasty, especially child porn. It makes me pissed off that people will do this to children. >:( But I believe that the results of this and who it affects is more important right now than the actual gross thing itself. So, I want to know what people feel those results will be.

I want to know what people think the results of drawn child porn will be. Some already said that more people will become molesters from this. So, do you think being interested in children sexually is something that you can learn?

Do some of you think people will become sexually interested in kids suddenly once they find out that fake kiddie porn is legal? Or do some of you think that the only people who are going to find legal fake kiddie porn will be the pervs who are looking for it on the internet anyway?

Would anyone here become suddenly interested in it if they found out that fake kiddie porn was legal? Or not?

Also, what about "virtual porn." Some said that when freaks look at pictures, they want to imagine having sex with the person. But what about "virtual porn?" Would it be better for them to imagine "having sex" with a drawn or 3d animated kid than a real one? You know, like in relation to the Japan reference. Some in the article argued that people wouldn't be interested in "virtual kiddie porn," yet comics like this do more business in Japan than real kiddie porn. Do you think this is just circumstantial or not?

Also, my main question was if you think making "virtual or fake kiddie porn" available to freaks will cause less REAL kids to get caught and hurt in the "kiddie porn world?" And if your answer is yes, then do you think this result is worth having nasty stuff around? Frankly, if it is the case, I wouldn't care if there was "virtual child porn" on the internet (since there's real kiddie porn all over right now, anyway. >:(. ), since I think even just a few kids being rescued from the "kiddie porn world" would be worth it. After all, I think the result and how it affects the lives of these kids is more important than my sense of morality. However, I can't make a strong stance on this right now, since I'm still not sure what the result of putting "virtual kiddie porn" on the internet to compete with real kiddie porn will be.

Basically, I want to know how you all think this will affect the real kiddie porn "business."

At 5/16/03 02:19 AM, jimsween wrote:

At 5/15/03 11:10 PM, cannibal7878 wrote: Got a little something for ya Ninja...Oh, and jim...you blow goats...while masterbating to child porn.

Thats a new low for you, well we can all see that this is the type of quality that the DAG deserves.

Seriously. Did you think that oh-so-imaginative picture up all by yourself, cannibal? Or did your mommy help you? Good job. You spelled things right. *claps* Seriously, though. If you're going to try to insult someone, you think you could get a little more creative than that? Otherwise, it kinda ruins the point if they're just going to wind up laughing at you anyway.

Heh heh.

Back on subject, people...

I believe that Virtual Child Porn is not wrong at all, but it won't stop paedophilia. Existng paedophiles will continue as they are, and the rapists and the scum that make this stuff will not care.

It lies in making people who are new to paedophilia come to the Virtual Sites and signup there. It will then mean the child porn sites cannot finance their bandwidth and costs and will have to close down.

Like every non sexually deviant person, i believe that kiddie porn is just plain wrong and disturbing. But on the other hand, it isnt real so it didnt actually harm anyone, so i guess it would be ok. What am I saying?? Of course this isnt right! This may not be real, but it does encourage pedophilia and thats a big no-no.

You must also think that if this is made legal, people will regard it as ok, encouraging pedophiles. This will also be seen if marijuana would be legalized. In the end, legalizing something pretty much makes it ok.

At 5/16/03 08:38 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote: You must also think that if this is made legal, people will regard it as ok, encouraging pedophiles. This will also be seen if marijuana would be legalized. In the end, legalizing something pretty much makes it ok.

But it would be legalizing FAKE kiddie porn only. Real kiddie porn would still be illegal. See, right now you can go to prison the same amount of time for viewing both fake and real kiddie porn. So, the business for real kiddie porn is still up. They were hoping that by at least making the fake porn legal, that those same people will be encouraged to view that more instead of risking going to prison by viewing the real stuff. Hence (they believe) that this will take away some business from the real kiddie porn world, and as a result, at least maybe even a few kids won't have to suffer. What do you think about that?

Doesn't harm any kids doesn't get me to think such porn is ok to be legal. The thought that legalizing it would send off the idea that there's encouragement for illegal activity. The Japan statistics is misleading. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but the use of that stat is to make believe American and Japanese mindsets are identical. Or so that's how I interpreted it. The Japanese mindset can handle such material and be disiplined enough not to let it distort reality. The American mindset cannot handle it. It's all in the culture, I think.

At 5/17/03 03:00 AM, OSC wrote: Doesn't harm any kids doesn't get me to think such porn is ok to be legal. The thought that legalizing it would send off the idea that there's encouragement for illegal activity. The Japan statistics is misleading. I'm not saying it's inaccurate, but the use of that stat is to make believe American and Japanese mindsets are identical. Or so that's how I interpreted it. The Japanese mindset can handle such material and be disiplined enough not to let it distort reality. The American mindset cannot handle it. It's all in the culture, I think.

OK. I understand that. ^_^ But I was more concerned with how you feel legalizing fake porn will do to the real kiddie porn industry? Do you think it will take away some of their business or not?
----------
I wasn't saying that "fake porn" should be legal because "it doesn't hurt anyone." I was saying that if it's legal, then it might take away from the real porn business and that it will actually cause less kids to be hurt. So it's not a matter of "not hurting someone" it's more a matter of "saving someone." I'm still unsure about how this would affect the businesses myself, so that's why I was asking people what they think.
--------
Also, people just looking at this type of porn and even thinking it's "OK," isn't my concern, since there will always be people like this anyway. I'm more concerned with what it will do to the kiddie porn businesses.

After all, even if "more" people start looking at fake kiddie porn if it becomes legal, if even a few real kids are saved from the real kiddie porn industry because of this then I would think that was worth it. After all, the main results would be that at least some kids won't be harmed in the kiddie porn world (which is the most important result to me).

Even if some more freaks go looking at fake child porn than before, then I wouldn't be too concerned about that. Honestly, even though these people are freaks, few of them actually go out and start molesting kids themselves, which I know is common belief. Usually, the ones that do that are serious pediphiles, who have dangerous issues.

Just because you're "interested in looking at it" doesn't mean that you'd actually go out and do it.

I mean, think about it for a moment. You don't have to be a pedophile to look at young girl porn. Often times, a kid is just "thrown in the mix" in a porn junkies diet.

This is one reason that these illegal businesses do so well.

I mean, go on Limewire or Kazaa or something sometimes. Half the porn that pops up is adult......and half of it is child porn (or "lolitta" porn)!!! That means that the number of children being used in porn could be higher than we think.

And more importantly, for that big a number of people to be uploading and downloading that material, says one thing: strict pedophiles aren't the only ones who are doing it!

Putting fake kiddie porn on the market to compete with real kiddie porn may hopefully sway some of these individuals into that instead of the real stuff (which would cause the real kiddie porn business to drop, and would hopefully result in less kids being harmed).

And if you think that no one would prefer looking at fake porn over real porn, look at how well the hentai business is doing, even in America.
-----------
Now, if we pass laws that say fake or drawn porn is legal, but using real kids is wrong and you can still go to prison for it, do you still think that people will think that even real kiddie porn is OK? I'm not sure.
----------------
What about anime hentai versus real porn? Just look at some NG ads for examples of that. Do you think that anime hentai is just as damaging as real porn?

Basically, I just want to know how you think putting "fake porn" (both child and adult) on the market affects the real porn business. Do you think it takes away from it at all? Do you think some people will start focusing at least half their attention to the fake stuff instead of having 100% on the real stuff if we made it legal?

At 5/17/03 03:00 AM, OSC wrote: The Japanese mindset can handle such material and be disiplined enough not to let it distort reality. The American mindset cannot handle it. It's all in the culture, I think.

nice point.. but isn't that cultural mindset derived from laws?

for example, we can see that marijuana is considered a soft drug in most countries except the USA - this is not so much based on a belief that separating the retail markets for "soft" and "hard" drugs decreases the likelihood that marijuana users experimenting with cocaine, heroin, or crack. But more importantly, it functions to seperate the seriously harmful substances and correspondingly serious prison sentancing (including the harm this causes to families) from the less harmful, less serious weed infringment.

Virtual porn should be viewed in the some category as "soft porn" because no victim is abused. Not to mention the inability to prove age or explicitness of content which isn't necessarily a static JPG, but a coded morphic character based program - Poser5 for example.

btw, i covered some of the broader aspects in a recent Virtual Law thread.

The real issue at stake here is freedom of speach. Freedom to express yourself.

I think anyone who believes children make good sexual material is sick. The guy taking the photo and the guy who gazes upon it are equally sick and deserve to be castrated.

But if we allow the government to outlaw virtual child porn, then where will the control end? Interpretation of the law is a powerful thing. If the law was not written to be exacting and so specific that it could not be used to control anything else, then it woudn't be effective. The porn guys could get through the loopholes. And if the law were made to be more general, more vague, then it could outlaw anime like Sailor Moon.

Afterall, how can you gauge the age of a fictional character?
She looks fifteen, but she's 22. She looks 22, but she's 15.

Censorship is not something to be taken lightly.

My main questions have yet to be answered:

What do people think the results will be to the illegal real child porn industry if we put legal virtual or fake child porn on the market to compete with it.

Does anyone think that this will take away even some business from the real child porn industry, just as "hentai" may take away some business from the real adult porn industry?

And if some business is taken away, does anyone think that even a few kids will be spared the real kiddie porn world (if business goes down a little)?

If so, does anyone think that saving some of these kids is worth making virtual child porn legal?
--------------
For those of you who don't know what "hentai" is, it's fake adult porn. Just look on NG for some examples of it (I took an example, below).

The whole question of where will it end can be worked both ways. If you take one thing away, it could allow for other things to be taken away. However, if one thing is allowed, it can create means for other things to be allowed. If virtual child porn is allowed, how would we know that real child porn wouldn't be allowed based on that? Remember. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.

BTW, I didn't mention the other way because that side was illustrated well. I'd be only repeating. I kinda did the other way.

I don't see virtual child porn taking away from real porn if it ever became legal. However, it is sad that people get off on ink marks or sprites/polygons/whathaveyou. It's even more sad when I catch myself doing that.

Oh, and also, some people were saying that you can't tell the age of characters in "fake porn." But in the case of fake child porn, that' s not true.

Just go on e-bay and look up "doujinshi" (japanese books)........I went and found an example. @_o'

Obviously, she's not 20 years old. Nor could you deny that she's under 18.
------
Now this doesn't really have to do with my point. I'm just saying that fake child porn, is indeed classified as child porn.

OSC:

Well, they're just talking about legalizing the fake stuff only (not the real stuff).

And that is for the purpose of giving something to compete with the real child porn industry.

So, it's unlikely that they're suddenly just going to make the real stuff legal as well. It wouldn't make any sense for them to do that anyway, since the purpose behind legalizing the fake stuff is to hopefully decrease the use of the real stuff anyway.

I don't see why they'd suddenly go legalize real child porn, sense that would go against their entire purpose to begin with.

At 5/15/03 10:33 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Same thing applies to those who simply want to see kiddie porn. Will you
A) Support real child porn and risk going to prison?
or
B) Turn to virtual child porn instead knowing that you won't risk going to prison?

I wouldn't make or view either kind... that's just sick, man!

At 5/19/03 01:00 AM, kittie_cross wrote:

At 5/15/03 10:33 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Same thing applies to those who simply want to see kiddie porn. Will you
A) Support real child porn and risk going to prison?
or
B) Turn to virtual child porn instead knowing that you won't risk going to prison?

I wouldn't make or view either kind... that's just sick, man!

Obviously. It was a hypathetical question. @_o' I was "asking the question" to back the points. I'm saying if you were a perv, which would you rather risk?

Basically, my question is do you think putting fake kiddie porn on the market legally to compete with real kiddi porn (which is illegal), will cause some business to be taken away from the real kiddie porn industry (just as, say, hentai takes away from the real adult porn industry)?

If you think that even some business would be taken away, do you think that the drop in business of real kiddie porn would cause even a few kids to be spared the real kiddie porn world?

If so, do you think having the nasty stuff around would be worth it if a few kids were spared?

Flicking through Teletext today, there was a preview for a documentary about a Kiddie Porn Baron who's currently in prison serving, wait for it...ONE THOUSAND YEARS.

Meanwhile, Dr. Harold Shipman, a serial killer with 166 skeletons in his metaphorical closet, only received something like 380 years.

Just because the current climate says that we should rpotect the children (or die trying, I assume), and that the real threat to national security and our moral barricades is the paedophile, surely there should be some parity between a serial killer's sentence, and that to a man that ran a child porn webring? I mean, a whole millennium in jail is ludicrous to start with, but for an offence that doesn't have a charge that can last anywhere near that long?

Obviously, there were Daily Mail reporters in the Press Gallery that day, since giving him, I don't know, 30 years just doesn't sound to be "justice" enough for some people.

If you're going to stake out "evil", how about starting with some murderers? Oh, wait, since the Good Friday Agreement, many of them have been released from prison within THREE YEARS. How's the stance on Anti-Terrorism working out, Tony?

At 5/20/03 12:22 PM, D2KVirus wrote: Flicking through Teletext today, there was a preview for a documentary about a Kiddie Porn Baron who's currently in prison serving, wait for it...ONE THOUSAND YEARS.

Meanwhile, Dr. Harold Shipman, a serial killer with 166 skeletons in his metaphorical closet, only received something like 380 years.

Just because the current climate says that we should rpotect the children (or die trying, I assume), and that the real threat to national security and our moral barricades is the paedophile, surely there should be some parity between a serial killer's sentence, and that to a man that ran a child porn webring? I mean, a whole millennium in jail is ludicrous to start with, but for an offence that doesn't have a charge that can last anywhere near that long?

Obviously, there were Daily Mail reporters in the Press Gallery that day, since giving him, I don't know, 30 years just doesn't sound to be "justice" enough for some people.

If you're going to stake out "evil", how about starting with some murderers? Oh, wait, since the Good Friday Agreement, many of them have been released from prison within THREE YEARS. How's the stance on Anti-Terrorism working out, Tony?

That's true. When it comes to the justice system, things always seem to be screwed up. They did a study that showed that man who kills his wife usually gets out on "good behavior" in just 4 years, for example, while a woman who kills her husband or hires someone to kill him (even when abuse is involved), usually gets around 40 years.

In fact, those who know Bush, should know this story. While Bush was governor of Texas, there was a big incident reported about what an entire tour group of the governor's office accindentally overheard/saw. While they were passing by Bush's office, his secretary gave him some forms which needed his signature for the death penalty to be imposed on certain individuals in the state. Bush asked, "So, there are no white people or women on these, right?" The secretary replied that there wasn't, and Bush said, "Good. The last time I put a woman to death, I got hell from the public." Then he signed the papers without even reading them, completely unaware of the tour group standing just outside his door. lol. Some justice system! Now this man is our president. @_o'

Crimes never match their punishment in our judicial system. That's why I believe in the "eye for an eye" theory. Heh heh. Although it's considered "cruel and unusual punishment," I think that putting someone away for 1000 years for seeing kiddie porn versus putting someone away for 4 years for killing someone is cruel and unusual more so.

If you kill someone in cold blood, then you should be killed in cold blood and feel that same fear. If you're gonna rape a little girl, then you should get gang raped by a bunch of prison punks. How are people ever going to learn if they don't understand the damage they cause or are inable to put themselves in their victims' shoes?

In fact, though Alcatras is infamous for being so violent to it's criminals, did you know that pretty much no criminal that was released from that environment ever comitted another crime again. Wow. Even serial killers. @_o' In fact, a lot of people who came out went on to live more normal lives than freaks who get out of today's prisons.

I watched an interview with a couple of the inmates of that prison during it's most violent times, and all of them said the same thing, "You learn pretty quickly not to mess up again after that."

I think we are too leniant on criminals these days. >:( And it's a danger to all of our society.

I heard (Ibid. style) about a case in the US recently (sorry, this is secon-hand information, so feel free to pitch in what you know about it) where your typical High School jock ran over and killed a punk kid, DELIBERATLY, yet all he received for a case of, and let's not undersell his offence people, MURDER, was community service, before he went to a good college on a sports scholarship because, as the judge put it, by the kid dressing that way, he was just asking for it.

Surely somebody heard about this case somewhere?

Suffice to say, you cannot shot "WHAT THE FUCK" loudly enough for it to make sense. And to think, the judge, the jock - they sleep at night, probably snug as a bug with no conscience of what they did and what they said. Yet somebody that runs a red light and accidentally kills a mother and child crossing the road gets 25 years. Something is fucked up if a judicial system can dictate that malice of forethought is justified, yet an accident must be punished. Not that the jury was swayed by the recipient of the front bumper or anything...

At 5/21/03 12:52 PM, D2KVirus wrote:

Surely somebody heard about this case somewhere?

Yeah, actually I heard about it. There were two incidents that happened like that (a jock hit a punk deliberately and killed him), ironically. @_o'

Basically, in both cases, the jock was a football player. And guess where both cases happened? Texas.

@_o' No offense to anyone down there, but I think they have one of the most screwed up judicial systems there.

*ponders*

Is kiddy porn illegal if the viewer is underage?

Good question...

On that note, exactly how old are you, metaph0r3??

:-P

Just kiddin'.

I think that if people wanna draw cartoon kids getting reamed, they should be able to. That's less time they're spending kidnapping kids to perform deviant sex acts under the eye of the camera.

I think that if they want to sell these pictures of cartoon kids, they should be abe to. It's just art, and shouldn't bother anybody who isn't looking to be offended.

Damn you, Shrike, for making the "age is relative" point. We always share some view, don't we?

Word.

point-

They won't be cartoonish - they'll be near-realism artworks or video.

They won't be selling to some perv-mates, they'll be "broadbanding" on cable modems.

So how does Preacher feel about it now?

At 5/22/03 03:29 AM, Judge_Dredd wrote: point-

They won't be cartoonish - they'll be near-realism artworks or video.

They won't be selling to some perv-mates, they'll be "broadbanding" on cable modems.

So how does Preacher feel about it now?

By "cartoon" I meant "not real." As for broadbanding on cable modems, you aren't going to find it unless you go looking for it, now will you? Why do YOU know so much about this? Been doing a little "research" of your own? :-P

That's good and all. ^_^

But my main question is this:

Does anyone here think that if we make fake or virtual kiddie porn legal, and then put it on the internet "market" to compete with illegal and real kiddie porn, that this will take at least some business away from the real kiddie porn "market?"

Just as, say, 'hentai' takes away some business from the real adult porn industry.

And if so, does anyone here think that if some business is taken away from the real kiddie porn industry and directed towards the fake kiddie porn industry, then even a few kids will be spared the real kiddie porn world?

Like you said, no matter how real it looks, at least that person is drawing it instead of actually getting a kid to molest for the internet business. So that kid is spared.

And if you do think that a few kids will be spared that sick business, do you think that having fake kiddie porn legal would be worth it (as long as some kids are spared real kiddie porn)?
------------------------------
It's like this, right now, let's say we have 10 perverts looking at real kiddie porn on the internet and 10 perverts making real kiddie porn to put on the internet.

Now, let's say that we make fake kiddie porn legal and put it on the market also to compete with the real kiddie porn industry.

Now, let's say that at least 2 of the pervs who watch kiddie porn don't want to risk the prison sentence for seeing illegal real kiddie porn, so they decide to focus most of their attention on the legal fake or virtual kiddie porn

(A lot of guys I've seen are interested in "hentai" or "toon porn" more than they are interested in real porn, amazingly. @_o' And "hentai" or toon porn, and real porn are both legal to boot. Just look at some ads for toon porn on NG to see the success of it----look up and down. -_-').

And, more importantly, let's say that at least 2 perverts who make kiddie porn, don't want to risk going to prison for it or try to risk getting real kids to molest for it. So, they turn to making fake or virtual porn themselves (which is also much easier to make).

Now, we have only about 80% of perverts making and viewing real kiddie porn as apposed to the earlier 100% on both ends.

Now, though this amount may seem small, this drop in demand for real kiddie porn is at least a drop in demand. And any drop in the demand for real kiddie porn is a good one.

More importantly, a drop in demand for producing real kiddie porn (no matter how small that drop is) will cause less real kids to be harmed and used for kiddie porn.

You see how that works? And I was just guessing at the exact numbers. There may be a much stronger drop in real kiddie porn, while viewers are tuning into the legal fake kiddie porn. I base this theory on the overwelming success of "hentai" or "toon porn" (once again, see some NG ads to see what I mean).

Now, what is everyone's feelings on this?