Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

In fact, women "faking to like rape" doesn't matter. Because that wasn't your point. In fact, virtual kiddie porn would involve fake characters "faking to like molesting," correct?

And you said that that was still wrong because of how it affects the men who watch it, and the characters being used don't matter.

Why do they suddenly matter in the case of rape porn?

Similarities:

Rape porn---Involves people playing characters who get raped. A violent, sexual crime.

Yet, you say it's OK, because it's "not real," these women are "just acting," so it's "not hurting anyone." And of course, they wouldn't like rape in real life.

Virtual Child porn----Involves drawing people to play characters (instead of hiring them) that get molested. A sick, sexual crime.

It's also "not real," these characters are also "just acting" because they don't exist, so it's "not hurting anyone." And of course, real children wouldn't like rape in real life.

Do you see the similarities or not?

I appologize for this being so long, but this is solely for you, Ninja. I hope you actually understand this.

Title "Do you really have no choice?" The truth is that you are always making choices, whether you admit it or not. Just as no one can actually magically steal your power, your power is always with you whether you want it or not.

As a bottom, it can be very sexy to believe that you have no choices. "Poor me! Forced to endure all this intense sensation, turned on against my will." To keep this fantasy hot and safe, it is important that we understand that it is a FANTASY, and if it is not hot anymore, or safe, or feeling okay, then we do have a choice. We can stop the scene, we can ask for something different, we can tell our playmate about the problem we are having. In a worst-case scenario, we can choose a different playmate.

Dossie remembers a scene that strongly highlighted the contrast between fantasy and reality: "The fantasy was that I was tied in the tyrant's bed, available to be ****ed at any time against my will. My friend the tyrant indeed did wake me up at 4 am, as per my request, and ****ed me. The problem was, I was exhausted and quite sore from earlier activities, and could not get turned on. I kept turning my mind back to the fantasy of nonconsent, frantically hunting for my turn-on somewhere in there. But this time, in my sleepy state, I convinced myself that I really had no choice, and this was nonconsentual (all this time my poor friend is dudifully plugging away) and I became genuinely scared. My perceptive tyrant figure out that something was wrong and stopped.

So, you see. I'm not expecting you to go out and start practicing the BDSM lifestyle. But you DO have to understand, Ninja, that there are men and women that CONSENTUALLY practice this stuff and there's nothing wrong with it.

Yes.....And there are many that don't. So because some consent. Then that's OK?

You cannot tie in child pornography in with a taboo fantasy that can be acted out between two consenting adults. Do you see that now? Comparing kiddie porn to -anything- is nigh on impossible, because it's in a league of it's own.

OK. Fake child porn is a fantasy. Even though the real thing is very horibble and violent.

Fake rape porn is a fantasy. Even though the real thing is very horibble and violent.

Yup.

Oh, so then raping a girl is "not nearly as bad as molesting a kid?"

Because some girls out there like to pretend to like rape?
What kind of logic is that?

How on earth can you compare either of them? They are BOTH BAD! I think that raping ANYONE is just as bad as molesting a kid. Jeez!

I can almost hear your arguments now...but I'll let you bring them up as you will. I'm about done with this thread. Just stop comaring kiddie porn to things that don't even come close. Please?

Once again. I'd like you to go up to some woman who's been violently raped, and say that "well, at least you weren't molested as a kid. You're very lucky."

No, they're both horrible. I would never put one above the other.
------------

Also, I'd like to ad that "molesting vs. raping and gays" wasn't the point.

It was how virtual child porn (and all porn) affects people.

Even if molesting was "worse than being raped," the point is if virtual child porn, not molesting, should be legal. The point was also how legalizing virtual child porn would affect the market and our society.

---

OK. For the sake of the public. I'll shorten much of that up. Although, I suggest you read the other two.
-------------------------------

Can someone please tell me when rape became this:

a taboo fantasy that can be acted out between two consenting adults.

@_o'

I always thought that the definition of rape was sex without consent.

--------------------
The WHOLE purpose wasn't comparing "play rape" porn to real molesting. @_o'

The purpose was to compare rape porn with VIRTUAL child porn.

And mostly how it affects those who view it. Not about those being used in the porn itself, because virtual child porn doesn't have anyone being used to begin with!
----------------
I'm not talking about "play rape." I'm talking about actual factual rape. It's not between to consenting adults. Otherwise, it's not rape. It's just sex.

And, if you're talking about rape porn. That it's OK because it's "between to consenting adults." Then what about drawn kiddie porn.?

......How can a piece of paper "consent" or "not consent?"

Virtual kids don't exist. So, how can you begin comparing how those used in play rape porn feel about it to how......um......how virtual kids feel about it? Virtual kids can't feel at all.

See what I mean?
--------------------
If you're only argument for rape porn being OK, is because it's "fake" and "consentual," then it sort of destroys your theories against VIRTUAL child porn.

Which is also "fake" and "consentual."

See?
---------------
I could understand your arguments if I was talkin about, I don't know, making REAL child porn legal.

Then I could understand how you would argue that fake rape porn is ok, cause no one's getting hurt and it's consentual, and your argument that real child porn is bad, because kids are getting hurt and it's not consentual (in contrast).

Yet this argument is for legalizing FAKE child porn. NOT the real stuff. And once again, "no one's getting hurt" and it's "consentual."

Isn't that your reason that rape porn is OK?
-----------------------
However, your first argument was how it affects the people watching it and not whether or not those used in the porn consent or not.

In this case, you never answered if you think rape porn contributes to many men's desire for rape. Just as you think that virtual child porn contributes to many men's desire to molest.

And if it does. Then shouldn't you think it should be "illegal," too?

---

I've asked over and over again, and I've been ignored. I'm sorry, but it hasn't been just me that has asked you to trim down your posts.

THREE posts that are that long? In a row?

No, sorry. I'm done here.

Suffice it for me to say that you don't need to 'tell me again' and dumb it up for me. I saw it the first time. I keep offering different ideas, you do nothing but repeat yourself.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

I WILL NEVER AGREE WITH IT.

You contradict yourself, you argue for yourself, then for others, send conflicting arguments about homosexuality, porn, everything else. You allow yourself to pick on MY words, yet you can't take what you dish out.

I suppose I'm the only one with patience enough to actually -try- this debate. But I'm done now.

My last words in this topic: TRIM DOWN YOUR POSTS. They will not be read if you continue to talk down to those reading them, and continue on and on and one, repeating your point over and over.

I'm not sure you realize that it's not a GOOD thing, to be so in love with your own words.

Less is more. Keep that in mind, take it to heart.

And don't try to convince me anymore. It's a lost cause. If you must continue to repeat your points here, do it for someone elses benefit.

---

Um. Actually, if you didn't read any of that. I basically did the third one as a "shortened version of the first two." Just for those who were too lazy or busy to read them.

Can you even read the third?

Sheesh. Also, the most ironic thing is that the entire point in all those posts was YOU contradicting yourself.

So, let me try to shorten up one of my points.
---------------------
If your reasoning behind "fake rape" porn being legal and "OK" is because "it's consentual," a "fantasy," and "not hurting anyone involved."

Then why are you against fake virtual child porn, sense it's "consentual" (sense it's a piece of paper can't consent or not consent), a "fantasy," and "not hurting anyone involved?"

And if your purpose was how it affects those who view it. Then why does pedophilia porn affect those who have the urge to molest, yet violent rape porn NOT affect those who have the urge to rape?

Is that better?

---

At 5/28/03 11:23 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
And if your purpose was how it affects those who view it. Then why does pedophilia porn affect those who have the urge to molest, yet violent rape porn NOT affect those who have the urge to rape?

Maybe 'violent rape porn' should be banned as well.

---

At 5/28/03 11:46 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 5/28/03 11:23 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
And if your purpose was how it affects those who view it. Then why does pedophilia porn affect those who have the urge to molest, yet violent rape porn NOT affect those who have the urge to rape?

Maybe 'violent rape porn' should be banned as well.

I'll respond to that, Commander, because it was so easy to read! lol

I agree that 'violent rape porn' should be banned in an ideal world.

I will concede that 'violent rape porn' might incite people to commit rape acts.

I suppose I was trying to illustrate that when the fantasy of rape (which I don't like to use, because it's really not rape. I use 'ravishment', instead) becomes an issue, many times people can explore those fantasies without hurting anyone. If I wanted to be 'ravished', for example, I certainly wouldn't go walking down a deserted street late at night. I'd find a partner that was willing to ravish me in a safe, sane, consentual way.

My whole point is that there's no 'safe, sane, or consentual' outlet to practice child molestation.

I'm going to be weak and give in to responding to Ninja. Really, this is a conversation with her.

Something you'll likely learn about the way I debate. I keep issues very separate, and I don't like adding new issues to exsisting ones. You started bringing in gay porn, rape, other taboos and 'moral wrongs', and that's one of my biggest pet peeves. You ask me about child porn. I answer about child porn. When that answer isn't what you wanted to hear, you start bringing in other issues. I have a feeling you won't stop bringing in issues until I agree with you.

I won't agree. If you don't understand my simple logic, I'm sorry. In my opinion, and I state publicly that my opinion is NOT fact, virtual child porn is a bad idea. BAD IDEA. That's it.

I swear, I need some freakin will power. *LOL* I'm going to try, again, to not respond any more. It's fruitless anyway.

---

At 5/29/03 12:54 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 5/28/03 11:23 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Now. This will probably my last long post for a while. However, I do ask you all to at least read this one.

EVERYONE! I basically put the majority of my main points in this. You don't have to read it. But if you are intersted, go ahead.

I tried to seperate the thoughts out as well as possible to explain how this theory works in face of House's "simple logic." Heh heh.

If anyone else reads this. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. ^_^

I agree that 'violent rape porn' should be banned in an ideal world.

I will concede that 'violent rape porn' might incite people to commit rape acts.

Good. So then do you think it should be illegal?

My whole point is that there's no 'safe, sane, or consentual' outlet to practice child molestation.

Actually, some guys like their girlfriends to dress up as "cheerleaders" or "little girls" and crap all the time. Least, that's what I've heard. Heh heh. Can someone correct me on this? Fortunately, I've never had that experience. @_o'

Anyway, even though there is an existing way to practice "rape" in a safe manner. Does that mean that everyone will nessecarily do it?

No. And that's the point.

So, all I wanted you to say this entire time, is if you think that pretty much any "immoral porn" should also be banned by the government.
----------------------
Now, I think you did say that when you said that "in a perfect world....." However, do you think that should be the case?

That the government should ban porn, books, and even pictures about "rape?" Even when they're fake, right?

How does everyone else feel about that?

Also, considering that ALL porn has been shown to increase violence towards women. Do you think that pretty much all porn should be banned as well. Even the "moral stuff" ("regular" sex)?

Something you'll likely learn about the way I debate. I keep issues very separate, and I don't like adding new issues to exsisting ones. You started bringing in gay porn, rape, other taboos and 'moral wrongs', and that's one of my biggest pet peeves. You ask me about child porn. I answer about child porn. When that answer isn't what you wanted to hear, you start bringing in other issues. I have a feeling you won't stop bringing in issues until I agree with you.

Um....Those issues were relevant to child porn and this issue. @_o' Didn't you catch that?

You're point was that legalizing virtual child porn makes more pedophiles and hence, makes more cases of molestation.

Correct?

So, I used the gay porn example to target your logic that someone can adapt a particular sexuality after seeing a picture of it or after "thinking the government is saying it's OK by making it legal."

You still didn't answer that one, actually. Did you or any gay person you know become gay because you saw some pictures of gay porn? Or would you have to be already interested in members of the same sex in order to be interested in that porn in the first place?

If your answer to the second question is mostly yes. Then that would go against the theory that more people would "become pedophiles" from virtual child porn being legal.
--------------
Also, did you are any gay person you know become gay because by allowing gay porn, you feel that the government is saying "it's OK?" Or did you become gay regardless of what you felt the government's stance on it was?

(Do you think that that's why some people rape also?)

If your answer is mostly no to the first question. Then that would also go against your belief that people will become pedophiles because the government is making it "seem OK" by having virtual child porn legal.

-----------------
Then, I used the rape porn example to target your logic that more cases of those sexual acts will result from the material.

Which, I think you agreed with. So, sense it has been shown that all porn contributes to violence against women. Do you think that all porn, drawn porn, and books about sex alone, should be banned by our government?
-----------------
Now. Here's the important part about that. Which I'm finally able to get to. The differnce between rape and molesting. Rape porn is dangerous because it CAN produce more of it's kind: those who get turned on by "romantic violence."

Why? Because that idea can be seductive to ANYONE in our society, because it bases it's lure on ALL existing forms of sexuality.

Meaning, straight people can be lured by sexual obediance/power, gay people can be lured by sexual obediance/power, pedophiles can can be lured by sexual obediance/power, etc.

Now, why?

The idea is that the this idea of sexual obediance and power is A NATURAL PART OF SEXUALITY. It is found in all of us, just found greater in some than in others.

That's why this type of porn is dangerous and can increase the number of those who like "violent romance." It applies a desire that we CAN learn, because it feeds of of desires we already have, just in smaller quantities.

(Now, it's true that those who are interested in really violent porn probably have issues about women anyway. But unlike in most sexual examples, it can make some cases worse).

HOWEVER. Pedophilia is different.

Not all of us have this desire existing in us from the start, because unlike sexual power and obedience, it is not a natural part of sexuality.

Kiddie porn doesn't feed off of existing natural desires in the majority of our population.

That is why it is more difficult to create pedophiles than those who like to be "ravished." See?

---

Now. Let's say that having child porn DOES make people pedophiles and makes them molest, for the sake of the debate.

Even if that was the case, one of the most important points behind this theory is that HAVING CHILD PORN ILLEGAL NOW ISN'T DETERING ANYONE FROM SEEING. Now, this is thanks to the internet, of course. *sigh*

People are seeing it anyway. Now, this is important. Because we CAN'T stop these people from viewing child porn by making it illegal. It's not working.

So, the best we can do it to make it so that at least some of the porn they see doesn't support the business that causes even more molesting on top of it: real child porn.
--------------
Like this example: Mr. Soanso sees about 50 pictures of child porn a day during his break, which is about an hour. He also gets a subscription to two child porn sites. He "turns into a pedophile" and then about a year later, he molests a kid.

Now, new senario: Mr. Soanso hears that virtual kiddie porn is legal. This interests him. So, he sees about 40 pictures of child porn a day, and then 20 pictures of virtual child porn during his break, which is about an hour. He also gets a subscription to a child porn site and a virtual child porn site. He "turns into a pedophile" and then about a year later, he molests a kid.

Now, here's the important thing. Did Mr. Soanso molest that kid because virtual child porn alone was legal?

No, HE WOULD HAVE DONE IT ANYWAY FROM SEEING THE REAL CHILD PORN.

It being illegal or not wasn't detering him, nor anyone else now.

And that's important. Basically, there was no way we could have stopped Mr. Soanso from winding up and molesting a kid, because we can't control him watching kiddie porn.

Virtual child porn legal or not. He would have still done it.

HOWEVER. In the first example, Mr. Soanso was devoting his full attention and money to the business that hurts children. In the second one, he supported the virtual business. Not more. In fact, he only saw 20 pictures. Yet, that's 10 less real kiddie pictures.

Now, say that Mr. Soanso makes up the majority of pedophiles in our population. That means that in the second example, 5% less children are being hurt in the business.
-------------
And, you will note that Mr. Soanso's viewing of all child porn went up 10 pictures a day because virtual child porn was legal.

However, these 10 pictures were virtual, so they didn't matter. The result STILL was that he had 5% less interest in the real child porn pictures, and 50% less involvment in the financial support of that business.

So, those 10 pictures count as nothing but surplus, because they didn't "damage him more" (he still would have become a pedophile and molested that kid had he seen them or not. And, they don't support more molesting in that business, etc).

For example, is a pedophile "more of a pedophile" after seeing 9 pictures instead of 8? Is it "more probable to molest" after seeing 60 pictures instead of 50? No.

There is little correlation between number of pictures and "probablility of molesting." You can have 100 pictures and not molest ever, or have 50 pictures and molest at least once. Depends on the person: Catholic priests or business men, etc. You know what I mean if you watch FOX. lol.

Also, like I said. The amount of porn you see is based on your already existing interest, not vise-versa. If you are really perverted, you'd see 100. If you are less perverted than that, you'd see 50. But you would see this amount based on your already existing amount of desire. Understand?
------------------
All in all, and here's the main point, we couldn' t have stopped Mr. Soanso from molesting that kid, but we COULD have at least dropped his involvement is supporting a business that would cause more kids to be molested on the otherside.

So, though Mr. Soanso went on to molest a kid, which we unfortunately couldn't control. He was propelling the molesting of 100% of real children in that business in the first example, while 5% less in the second one.

And that is the main point. By doing this, we can at least cause less children to be harmed overall.
-------------------
So, you see. They were all relevent and to strengthen my points on virtual child porn.

I won't agree. If you don't understand my simple logic, I'm sorry. In my opinion, and I state publicly that my opinion is NOT fact, virtual child porn is a bad idea. BAD IDEA. That's it.

And that's the point again. You don't have "simple logic."

Unless it depends on what your idea of "simple" and "logic" are. lol. It's bad because it is "a bad idea."

.....that's not quite logic.

The reason why it's not simple, is because you keep changing it based on particular circumstances.

That was what I was trying to point out. If your logic really did work, then it would apply to all similar circumstances (in porn). But it doesn't. So, how can that logic be valid then?

That was my point.

---

I guess this whole issue could work either way. It could discourage real pedophilia by providing pedophiles with a source of non-real child porn, thus protecting innocent children, but it could also increase pedophilia because bastards just want to rape children after looking at the pictures.

Human minds all have different psychology and work in a different way, despite what most psychologists say. You cant always tell what will happen when a person starts looking at fake or real child porn.

I dont think virtual child porn will work anyway. This is because it is sooo much easier to just take pictures of naked children than to create 3d images which can take up to months. I doubt that there will be as many of these sites as there are real childporn sites, and the pedophiles wont want to pay high prices anyway.

If virtual child porn is to be used, I still think we should go after the viewers of it. These arent normal people but sick minded individuals who take pleasure in pictures of naked children, real or not. "Fake" pictures are by no means an excuse to not stop these sickos who may one day rape children or try other perverted things. Its a moral issue.

Virtual child porn is no justification of the sickmindedness of these worthless human beings.

---

At 5/29/03 07:21 PM, Uberleader wrote:

I dont think virtual child porn will work anyway. This is because it is sooo much easier to just take pictures of naked children than to create 3d images which can take up to months. I doubt that there will be as many of these sites as there are real childporn sites, and the pedophiles wont want to pay high prices anyway.

Actually, I think it's the opposite. It's much harder to risk getting/kiddnapping a child, molesting them, keeping them silent, and then not getting caught by anyone or risk going to prison.

However, it's much easier to draw a picture in your own home. You just need some pencils and paper. When I said "virtual child porn" it didn't really mean "computer animated." It meant anything fake, like drawn. Like, "hentai" kinda. Um, I'm not sure if you know what the term, "hentai" is, so it's basically japanese cartoon porn. Check out the ads on NG for an example of it. @_o'

In fact, this type of virtual child porn may actually become popular among pedophiles, considering the success of hentai in the porn business (I mean, you can practically go anywhere on the internet and see "hentai" ads in addition to real porn ads.@_o').

Also, since these sites will be legal, their prices will drop lower than that of the real sites (you know how making something illegal, like drugs and such, raises prices and stuff). And you can "make more for your money" if all you do is draw the pictures.

Now, I don't think that it will "get bigger than real child porn," either. But even if we get just 5% of attention from the pedophilia population tuning in and more importantly, financially supporting the business, then that's 5% less attention and finances the pedophiles are giving the business of real child porn.

Even 5% less interest and financial support could put a few sites out of business and even just a 5% drop in business will spare a few children from the real child porn world.

If virtual child porn is to be used, I still think we should go after the viewers of it. These arent normal people but sick minded individuals who take pleasure in pictures of naked children, real or not. "Fake" pictures are by no means an excuse to not stop these sickos who may one day rape children or try other perverted things. Its a moral issue.

I agree. But unfortunately, thanks to the oh-so-wonderful internet, it's no longer that easy. *sigh*

The reason that this idea was proposed in the first place was actually because being able to catch these freaks has become next to impossible.

Right now, you can look up practically anything on Limewire or Kazaa for example, and kiddie porn pops up. Unfortunately, the authorities can't track the people who download much of this stuff.

So, since we can't stop these freaks from downloading the stuff or checking out pictures off the internet, the least we can do is to make sure that they are at least giving some of their support to a business that doesn't hurt more children in addition.

A drop in the real child porn business, no matter how small, will at least wind up sparing some children that world. And if one child is saved, then I think that's worth it. ^_^

So, my moral outrage towards any sort of child porn, must be put on hold in face of the importance of that result.

Thanks for contributing. ^_^