Should child porn be legalized?

[The Joker]

If the kid gives full consent, and their parent does at well?

If not, should the age at least be dropped for porn actors? I find it rather confusing that the age of consent here is sixteen, while the age you have to be to participate in porn is eighteen. I also think that some people are mature enough in their teens that they could make an educated decision as to whether or not it would be a good idea.

Come on, VT. I wanna hear a really controversial argument.

[Peace God]

While you do make some good points (like the fact that a lot of age of consent laws are bullshit and hypocrital), I think you do have to consider that the demand will skyrocket and also the conditions that some of these kids are "consenting" under. I think it'll all just lead to the abuse of a lot of teens.

inb4 "It'll never happen so shut up"...that's not the point of this debate

[The Joker]

inb4 "It'll never happen so shut up"...that's not the point of this debate

I'd like to also add: inb4 "IT'S SO IMMORAL :("

[Kiko]

I don't think kids have the capacity to realize what they're consenting to when they're younger. Even a lot of 16 year olds make decisions based on hormones and mood swings. I just don't think it's right. Before 18 too many kids still don't know what's best for them so I don't think they can make the decision.

[The Joker]

I don't think kids have the capacity to realize what they're consenting to when they're younger. Even a lot of 16 year olds make decisions based on hormones and mood swings. I just don't think it's right. Before 18 too many kids still don't know what's best for them so I don't think they can make the decision.

Do you have any sort of source to prove that they "don't know what's best for them"? What is wrong with people being sexual in nature, other than people being prudes and offended by sex? Is there an issue with kids having sex, really? What's wrong with it? Why does it have to be such a sacred act?

[ShaneK]

Half the adults in the porn indusrty didn't realise quite what they were gettin into, how can you expect children to know. Plus with children there is always for some the desire to have them in the flesh. So children doing porn will lead some to prostitution

[Kiko]

Do you have any sort of source to prove that they "don't know what's best for them"? What is wrong with people being sexual in nature, other than people being prudes and offended by sex? Is there an issue with kids having sex, really? What's wrong with it? Why does it have to be such a sacred act?

Sexual nature doesn't mean you have to have sex. Sexuality is deeper than just intercourse. I think sex is a special connection between two people. I have a lot of pride in my body and my sexuality and although I find a lot of people sexy, and I am sexual in nature I'm not going to have sex with everyone I please because I view my sex as something to be earned. I think there's a difference between having pride in your body and being a prude.

I don't think younger people can "consent" to having sex because they haven't fully developed their sexual identity. They don't understand that sex can have consequences like disease and pregnancy. Having sex too early can ruin one's pride in oneself in my opinion.

[Amnesiac]

It really depends on the age of the child. Is the child knowledgeable of their situation? If not, they're not fully able to consent. Full understanding and consent are the two priorities when it comes to sex and the porn industry.

[Sage]

Half the adults in the porn indusrty didn't realise quite what they were gettin into,

Where did you get that from?

[ShaneK]

A few people I know who tried it out for extra cash. For some people yea its a quick way to earn a buck. But for others when they get down to it they can't handle it. I mean its not easy to perform in front of other people.

[rextoystory]

Definitely not, I'm totally against it, when you're a kid you don't know what to do and what decisions to make, how to choose what's best for you. If you're too young, you have the right to be protected, and... if you really want to participate in that stuff well that's your decision and it's a matter of time.

Strongly against it.

[The Joker]

Definitely not, I'm totally against it, when you're a kid you don't know what to do and what decisions to make, how to choose what's best for you.

Source for that?

[Amnesiac]

Definitely not, I'm totally against it, when you're a kid you don't know what to do and what decisions to make, how to choose what's best for you. If you're too young, you have the right to be protected, and... if you really want to participate in that stuff well that's your decision and it's a matter of time.

Strongly against it.

What about teenagers? Technically, "child porn" is anyone under 18. Don't you agree that people like us on VT have a full understanding of what sex is and, due to that, are able to consent fully?

You can't group all children into one broad stereotype.

[ShaneK]

so would you do it then? i think that is a valid question if you were 16

[The Joker]

What about teenagers? Technically, "child porn" is anyone under 18. Don't you agree that people like us on VT have a full understanding of what sex is and, due to that, are able to consent fully?

You can't group all children into one broad stereotype.

This is mainly the point I'm trying to make.

[jockboy14]

I suppose one could do whatever they choose to do. But, are we looking to put the line at 16 years old? Or making it legal to have pics of the internet of little kids too?

I'm pretty against it though. Or there not enough pics/videos of adults whose age you would question to be legal in porn already?

[The Joker]

I suppose one could do whatever they choose to do. But, are we looking to put the line at 16 years old? Or making it legal to have pics of the internet of little kids too?

I'm pretty against it though. Or there not enough pics/videos of adults whose age you would question to be legal in porn already?

I'm asking about people where it is clear that they are fully aware of all consequences and give consent. Which would usually mean someone being at least a teenager.

[jockboy14]

I'm asking about people where it is clear that they are fully aware of all consequences and give consent. Which would usually mean someone being at least a teenager.

If they have consent, of sound body and mind, then I think that thats cool. Though, as you pointed out in your OP, I don't think that many parents would give consent to it, because the person would be a minor.

But, since it is illegal now, and most likely will continue to be illegal because I really can't see congressmen in Washington advocating for a bill such as this to be passed, but I digress. It's not like kids aren't doing it already. Sexting is like a crazy thing going on. I know guys who just have flashdrives full of nude pics from girls. It'll happen, whether legal or not.

[Amnesiac]

But, since it is illegal now, and most likely will continue to be illegal because I really can't see congressmen in Washington advocating for a bill such as this to be passed, but I digress. It's not like kids aren't doing it already. Sexting is like a crazy thing going on. I know guys who just have flashdrives full of nude pics from girls. It'll happen, whether legal or not.

Child porn and teens having sex are two entirely different things. The government cracks down hard on Internet child porn because it's much easier to catch and prosecute than a couple of consenting teens doing it in a locked bedroom. One is a form of media that pedophiles trade secretly, the other is something that happens all the time.

[jockboy14]

Child porn and teens having sex are two entirely different things. The government cracks down hard on Internet child porn because it's much easier to catch and prosecute than a couple of consenting teens doing it in a locked bedroom. One is a form of media that pedophiles trade secretly, the other is something that happens all the time.

Yup, I get that. I'm not talkin about sex though. So, it seems to me that with making child porn legal by consenting parties, would in turn increase media for pedos? I mean, it pretty much seems that way doesn't it? I've made mistakes with this kid of stuff in the past and I've gotta say that it is no joke. Serious anxiety can come from stuff like this, people make mistakes and just because they think it is good now, doesn't mean they will think it was a good thing later on down the road.

[Amnesiac]

Yup, I get that. I'm not talkin about sex though. So, it seems to me that with making child porn legal by consenting parties, would in turn increase media for pedos? I mean, it pretty much seems that way doesn't it? I've made mistakes with this kid of stuff in the past and I've gotta say that it is no joke. Serious anxiety can come from stuff like this, people make mistakes and just because they think it is good now, doesn't mean they will think it was a good thing later on down the road.

Making child porn legal if it displays consenting people under 18 would broaden the mainstream porn industry to include pedophiles as well, yes. The thing is, we're not talking about people making mistakes. There are plenty of 18 and 19-year-olds who probably get into porn and decide they've made the wrong choice. Besides, opening up the porn industry to people under 18 would probably require parental supervision anyway, so one could argue that the chances of mistakes being made are lessened by that.

[ShaneK]

what about pressure from parents, cos their children will be making money from doing porn. What would stop that sort of exploitation?

[jockboy14]

I was thinking about that Shane, that the only reason I could see that a parent would give consent for their kid to do porn at a young age is to make money off of them. I can see kids being pushed into it just because their parents make them for the money.

[Sith Lord 13]

What magical thing happens on your 18th birthday? Speaking as someone who's passed it, I can tell you. Nothing. One day does not magically make you more mature. Why does it magically make you able to be in porn?


Also: You can't source opinions people. I've seen a couple of people here call for sources on personal opinions, and it can't be done.

[Azunite]

Simple answer: no

[Charleigh]

i think child porn should be illegal for the simple reason, invasion of privacy. it also depends how old the child is, is it public, and did the child concent it, but even if the child did concent iit, is the child old enough to realize what they are concenting?

i think older people might fantasiize over child porn, therefore thats putting children at risk because again, people will then look at children as figures of porn.

also, if child porn became legal, wouldnt that mean they would be allowed to watch it o_0

[Amnesiac]

i think older people might fantasiize over child porn, therefore thats putting children at risk because again, people will then look at children as figures of porn.

So? I don't look at women as figures of porn, even though they're in almost every porn film ever made. Besides, many people already fantasize about children (teens specifically), I don't think this would change that.

[Charleigh]

but you dont represent the whole worlds population now ... do you o_O ?

[Amnesiac]

but you dont represent the whole worlds population now ... do you o_O ?

I'm pretty sure I represent most people who watch porn.

[Charleigh]

but different people have different views on porn,
so no... no you not.

[Fact]

No, it should not be legalised under any circumstances.

- encourages paedophilia

- destroys innocence and all teachings surrounding that

- IMO, it's disgusting and sick

No child should be given the choice to consent to that...

It's like saying "hey! If you consent to it and mummy and daddy do too, then you can jump in the water and play with that shark!"

[Charleigh]

yep! ^ rep+!

[Philleeep]

one word - no
teens and children will be abused

[Jamie]

Half the adults in the porn indusrty didn't realise quite what they were gettin into

Where did you get that from?

A few people I know who tried it out for extra cash.
I'm very curious as to how a few people you know, are able to speak for *half* of the performers in adult entertainment.


As for my view... I'd agree with lowering the age to 16. Maybe 15, under special circumstance (such as the performer shows exceptional knowledge on the chances of being infected with STDs, the likelihood of being shunned by their peers, and potentially the feelings that can come with having sex, and knowing that it is solely for performance, and isn't meant to lead into a relationship).

[Fact]

As for my view... I'd agree with lowering the age to 16. Maybe 15, under special circumstance (such as the performer shows exceptional knowledge on the chances of being infected with STDs, the likelihood of being shunned by their peers, and potentially the feelings that can come with having sex, and knowing that it is solely for performance, and isn't meant to lead into a relationship).

First of all, why bend your own rules for specific people? Fluctuating between 15 and 16 would be stupid because who are you to say that someone does or does not understand something? Reading and agreeing on paper does not reflect what's going on in someone's mind.

Also, young people make mistakes, naive mistakes. How are you to know that they aren't going to realise what they've done later in their lives and then regret it? Obviously, it's not your problem, but it opens the flood gates to a generation of sexually disturbed children, who could imprint that on others in later life.

The whole idea of basically legalising sexual activity for children just repulses me. Next there will be calls for child-sized sex toys to be put into production.

[Amnesiac]

No, it should not be legalised under any circumstances.

- encourages paedophilia

Pedophilia is a disorder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

- destroys innocence and all teachings surrounding that

You make it sound like today's teens are already innocent.

- IMO, it's disgusting and sick

Key words: your opinion.[/QUOTE]

[Fact]

Pedophilia is a disorder. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

I wasn't denying that. If you like I'll word it better - it encourages ACTS of paedophilia. Just like people can mix up infatuation with love, I don't see why the same couldn't be done with paedophilia and genuinely being sick out of choice.

You make it sound like today's teens are already innocent.

This clearly outlined children. To me, that's anyone under 18. I'm not implying that all teens are innocent, I'm saying it promotes sexual acts to engulf children's lives. Do you think it'd be right if sex with children was promoted? It just opens the door to controversy and abuse.


Key words: your opinion.

This is Ramblings of the Wise, not Have A Soulless Argument.

[Aves]

No. Parents would easily abuse this. Force their child to consent for the extra money they may or may not need. I think that even though yes, it seems like a good plan out on paper for kids to have freedom of speech and what not, I think it'd be implemented wrong. And on top of that, it could end up being bad for the kid's future.

[Amnesiac]

I wasn't denying that. If you like I'll word it better - it encourages ACTS of paedophilia. Just like people can mix up infatuation with love, I don't see why the same couldn't be done with paedophilia and genuinely being sick out of choice.

I don't think child porn would encourage acts of pedophilia anymore than regular porn encourages people to make sexual advances on other adults. If anything, it'll give the pedophiles an alternative to molesting children.

This clearly outlined children. To me, that's anyone under 18. I'm not implying that all teens are innocent, I'm saying it promotes sexual acts to engulf children's lives. Do you think it'd be right if sex with children was promoted? It just opens the door to controversy and abuse.

Legalizing child porn would hardly promote it, if anything, it would probably stay just as dead as before. No parent would consent to their children getting into the porn industry.

With legalizing child porn would come a lowering of the age of consent, an age we here at VT have not yet agreed on.

This is Ramblings of the Wise, not Have A Soulless Argument.

If you say so.

[Fact]

I don't think child porn would encourage acts of pedophilia anymore than regular porn encourages people to make sexual advances on other adults. If anything, it'll give the pedophiles an alternative to molesting children.

Adults is one thing, children, to me anyway, is another.



Legalizing child porn would hardly promote it, if anything, it would probably stay just as dead as before. No parent would consent to their children getting into the porn industry.

So what's the point in legalising it if it'd make no change? Other than letting a load of creeps who film it and those who participate in it walk free without any questioning if it was made legal.

[Amnesiac]

Adults is one thing, children, to me anyway, is another.

Okay then.

So what's the point in legalising it if it'd make no change? Other than letting a load of creeps who film it and those who participate in it walk free without any questioning if it was made legal.

It would be a regulated industry, first of all, meaning it would be subject to the same strict standards of documentation that the current porn industry in under. Child porn would mainly be an alternative for pedophiles — a "distraction" from going out and molesting. These people need something to fantasize over.

[Fact]

Child porn would mainly be an alternative for pedophiles — a "distraction" from going out and molesting. These people need something to fantasize over.

So people who are necrophiliacs should be given videos of people having sex with the dead because they need to fantasise over something too?

There are better alternatives for people such as paedophiles - like therapy.

[Amnesiac]

So people who are necrophiliacs should be given videos of people having sex with the dead because they need to fantasise over something too?

There are better alternatives for people such as paedophiles - like therapy.

Therapy is also a necessity, but legalizing child porn could act as a "stress ball" for pedophiles, to give them an alternative to going out and molesting children. I'm pretty sure there's already necrophilia porn somewhere on the Internet anyway.

[Fact]

Therapy is also a necessity, but legalizing child porn could act as a "stress ball" for pedophiles, to give them an alternative to going out and molesting children. I'm pretty sure there's already necrophilia porn somewhere on the Internet anyway.

That's not the question I asked. I don't have much doubt that there is, I'm asking you if you'd legalise that as well?
A child can't give all that much more 'consent' than a corpse can - they're both pretty oblivious to the consequences and severity of the situation.

If everyone was granted their stress balls due to their psychological conditions, then kleptomaniacs would be allowed to steal one item a week and pyromaniacs would be allowed to set the occasional house on fire.

It's not justifiable.

[Nihilus]

Two words: Hell no. Lots of bad things would occur. No. No. Even if its consenting parties, I doubt the kid would know what exactly they were doing.

[Amnesiac]

That's not the question I asked. I don't have much doubt that there is, I'm asking you if you'd legalise that as well?
A child can't give all that much more 'consent' than a corpse can - they're both pretty oblivious to the consequences and severity of the situation.

If everyone was granted their stress balls due to their psychological conditions, then kleptomaniacs would be allowed to steal one item a week and pyromaniacs would be allowed to set the occasional house on fire.

It's not justifiable.

Necrophilia porn is not illegal, therefore distinguishing it from child porn. One could download gigabytes of necrophilia porn without the feds even caring, yet when someone even so much as opens a child porn picture they're put in prison for 15 years and have their name carved onto the sex offender list.

I'll admit that we can't give every person a stress ball, but if we can, why not? There are some people in this country (read: social conservatives) who want to make any porn depicting children illegal — like Japanese hentai porn. In some states, it's already a crime. There'll come a time when the only sexual release pedophiles will have is to go and molest a kid down the street.

[Jamie]

First of all, why bend your own rules for specific people?
Because some will undoubtedly comprehend the experience of becoming an adult entertainer far easier, and better, than others.
Fluctuating between 15 and 16 would be stupid
It may cause some confusion sure, but allowing 15 year olds to do it would need-be on a special case basis, where the individual clearly knew the consequences of their actions, and weren't deemed "naive". Despite what you think, not every teenager under 16 is naive.
because who are you to say that someone does or does not understand something?
Likewise to you.
If you like I'll word it better - it encourages ACTS of paedophilia.
The same way GTA games encourage car theft, the murder of civilians, and kidnapping. Yet there's been no substantial evidence that such games, movies, or music, significantly raise the amount of car thefts, homicides, or abductions.[/QUOTE]

Just like people can mix up infatuation with love, I don't see why the same couldn't be done with paedophilia and genuinely being sick out of choice.
Because they're on entirely different levels of feeling, and action?

This clearly outlined children. To me, that's anyone under 18.
That's a pretty ridiculous cut-off age for children to turn into adults. Like I said before, it depends on who you are. Some will mature much quicker than others. Having a single cut-off age is ridiculous for determining who is/isn't a child.

I'm not implying that all teens are innocent
Just not as corrupt as adult entertainers?

I'm saying it promotes sexual acts to engulf children's lives. Do you think it'd be right if sex with children was promoted?
I don't think any sex should be promoted, to anyone. Do you?

It just opens the door to controversy and abuse.
A lot of things do that, should we cower in fear because of the controversy, and *potential* abuse it may bring?

This is Ramblings of the Wise, not Have A Soulless Argument.
Bringing your morals into the argument again? Well.
So people who are necrophiliacs should be given videos of people having sex with the dead because they need to fantasise over something too?
If the person who was alive had consented to it beforehand, why not?
There are better alternatives for people such as paedophiles - like therapy.Not all paedophiles need therapy.
I don't have much doubt that there is, I'm asking you if you'd legalise that as well?
I would. If the person who was to be deceased in a few hours, or days, or months, or however long, had decided to sign a form saying that they permitted sexual acts to be done to their body, after their life had left it, why not?
A child can't give all that much more 'consent' than a corpse can
Now we're comparing the mental capacity of a child's to a corpse's? Wow.
they're both pretty oblivious to the consequences and severity of the situation.
A corpse is oblivious to everything, the same way a tree, a couch, or a shirt is. A child isn't.

If everyone was granted their stress balls due to their psychological conditions, then kleptomaniacs would be allowed to steal one item a week and pyromaniacs would be allowed to set the occasional house on fire.

Well no, there'd obviously be limits.


It's not justifiable.
It is justifiable, who are you to say it isn't?

[The Joker]

No, it should not be legalised under any circumstances.

- encourages paedophilia

- destroys innocence and all teachings surrounding that

- IMO, it's disgusting and sick

No child should be given the choice to consent to that...

It's like saying "hey! If you consent to it and mummy and daddy do too, then you can jump in the water and play with that shark!"

How does it encourage pedophilia? The age of consent is 16. An adult is allowed to have sex with a 16 year old legally, no matter what they're age. (Sorry if it's a different age for where you live, it's 16 here)

-What exactly do you mean by innocence?

No child should be given the choice? What's wrong with the choice? They can say yes or no.

No. Parents would easily abuse this. Force their child to consent for the extra money they may or may not need. I think that even though yes, it seems like a good plan out on paper for kids to have freedom of speech and what not, I think it'd be implemented wrong. And on top of that, it could end up being bad for the kid's future.

What if the parents ARE struggling and the kid is willing to do porn, so he does it as sort of a pat time job? How would it be bad for their future? It's only bad because everyone is such a prude that they'd look at the porn job on their previous jobs list and shun them.

Also, why is it illegal for someone who is a kid to watch porn of other kids, if the porn was done consentingly?

First of all, why bend your own rules for specific people? Fluctuating between 15 and 16 would be stupid because who are you to say that someone does or does not understand something? Reading and agreeing on paper does not reflect what's going on in someone's mind.

Also, young people make mistakes, naive mistakes. How are you to know that they aren't going to realise what they've done later in their lives and then regret it? Obviously, it's not your problem, but it opens the flood gates to a generation of sexually disturbed children, who could imprint that on others in later life.

The whole idea of basically legalising sexual activity for children just repulses me. Next there will be calls for child-sized sex toys to be put into production.

I agree that it should stay at a concrete age.

Why is sex such a bad, taboo thing? It feels great, and when both people are willing, it shouldn't be disturbing.

You realize that there are no age limits for sex toys? The only thing that stops anyone under eighteen from buying sex toys is that most of them are in sex shops that are for people eighteen over. I personally know f a store where younger people can get sex toys, because it has no porn in it.

[CaptainObvious]

- encourages paedophilia

That might be true if "child pornography" were legalized down to the level of prepubscent cihldren. If what is being proposed is somewhat lowering the age of consent to pornographic imaging, then you have to argue this differently, because by definition pedophilia has no bearing on the discussion.

- destroys innocence and all teachings surrounding that

Again, depends on how low an age of consent one draws from this argument. Are 15-16 year olds that innocent? Not in my experience.

- - IMO, it's disgusting and sick

That's fair enough, but not a very good argument.

Also, young people make mistakes, naive mistakes. How are you to know that they aren't going to realise what they've done later in their lives and then regret it? Obviously, it's not your problem, but it opens the flood gates to a generation of sexually disturbed children, who could imprint that on others in later life.

There's a girl in my year (grade) at university. She has been our year's most notorious slut since she turned up 4 weeks before freshman week even started during our freshman year, because (in her words) "I wanted to fuck every guy on the football team." Lo and behold, our junior year, after many hours of searching by many guys, someone finally turned up a porn video starring her (everyone knew there was no chance that kind of girl hadn't done porn). Eventually, it spread around.

Did she regret it? Fuck yeah. But she was 18 when it was filmed. I'm not convinced that the "regret" part of porn is much worse at 16 vs. 18. Porn is a somewhat embarrassing, often difficult issue no matter your age, and I don't necessarily think there's always a marked difference in that sense.

Anyways, as to the argument itself, I'm of two minds (as in many debates):

I think that it is at least some sense contradictory to make illegal depictions of sexual activity that are otherwise legal for the involved parties (16+ in many places). How can someone consent to the act but not to depiction?

That said, the interaction between pornography and society and its attitudes is more complex than sex, and to be frank what porn represents as a medium has implications far beyond a simple visual depiction of otherwise legal sexual acts. In the context of the known, profit-driven, massively globalized structure of the pornography industry, I'm not necessarily sure that kids under the current age of consent are able to properly assess the wider consequences of this kind of action, and I think the confluence of an art form that is considers by much of society to be at least somewhat unfortunate/repugnant and people who can't even consent to the contracts they would sign makes it a bad idea.

I think my bottom line opinion in the end is that child pornography should be illegalbut that anyone with the authority to prosecute such crimes should exercise significant discretion and sensitivity with regards consent and license with older teens (16-17).

[Fact]

Because some will undoubtedly comprehend the experience of becoming an adult entertainer far easier, and better, than others.

Yeah and what happens after they've done it and realise they're made an immature mistake?

I know a lot of people my age who have had sex with other people their age and then regretted it massively afterwards, never mind having sex/committing sexual acts with a stranger, having it filmed/photographed and then being paid for it.

It may cause some confusion sure, but allowing 15 year olds to do it would need-be on a special case basis, where the individual clearly knew the consequences of their actions, and weren't deemed "naive". Despite what you think, not every teenager under 16 is naive.

Yeah, but how are you supposed to measure maturity? You can't. You never know what is going on inside someone's head and IMO teenagers definitely do not have a firm grasp on their lives as it is (similarly to some adults) to be committing to something like starring in pornography.

Likewise to you.

Yeah, once you're finished being cocky, think about it. You can't reverse actions that you do, so why let a child take the chance of making the wrong decision and then be scarred for life? It's asking for a generation of sex offenders, the way I see it.

The same way GTA games encourage car theft, the murder of civilians, and kidnapping. Yet there's been no substantial evidence that such games, movies, or music, significantly raise the amount of car thefts, homicides, or abductions.

That's because car theft, murder and kidnapping are glorified by the news and media - they're not taboo. People LOVE to sink their teeth into more 'daring' and 'sinister' actions if they're that way inclined. Yeah legalising it may take the emphasis of it, but then it's being condoned, which is wrong.

Because they're on entirely different levels of feeling, and action?

I wasn't comparing them directly, I was comparing the situations. It's not difficult for anyone to get things mixed up in their minds, especially not teenagers, the majority of which still don't have a clue about the world in its entirety.

That's a pretty ridiculous cut-off age for children to turn into adults. Like I said before, it depends on who you are. Some will mature much quicker than others. Having a single cut-off age is ridiculous for determining who is/isn't a child.

That's like saying that different people who get put in prison for murder should be let out at different times because some of them are more remorseful or learn more quickly. If you start accommodating every Tom, Dick and Harry's needs then society does not work out.

Just not as corrupt as adult entertainers?

Indeed, because they made a choice as an adult as to what they wanted to do in their lives and many become ridiculously infamous from it for no reason.

I don't think any sex should be promoted, to anyone. Do you?

If you think that, then why the hell are you arguing for child porn to be legalised?

A lot of things do that, should we cower in fear because of the controversy, and *potential* abuse it may bring?

Cower in fear? Please.
This stuff does not scare me, it makes me feel sick.

Bringing your morals into the argument again? Well.

If there were no morals, there wouldn't be an argument in the first place. So why not incorporate them?

If the person who was alive had consented to it beforehand, why not?

Because it's just disrespectful. If not to the person, to the person's family who have to know that the corpse of their loved one is to be used as a source of entertainment.

Not all paedophiles need therapy.

Yes, yes. And I see that you've evidently explored every single paedophiles head in order to determine this.

I would. If the person who was to be deceased in a few hours, or days, or months, or however long, had decided to sign a form saying that they permitted sexual acts to be done to their body, after their life had left it, why not?

Refer yourself to my previous comment on this.

Now we're comparing the mental capacity of a child's to a corpse's? Wow.

Not the mental capacity, the responsibility and awareness of their actions.

A corpse is oblivious to everything, the same way a tree, a couch, or a shirt is. A child isn't.

In which case they're likely to remember someone essentially sexually abusing them with 'consent'.

Well no, there'd obviously be limits.

Yeah, and this is definitely the limit, if not beyond it IMO.


It is justifiable, who are you to say it isn't?

Who are you to say it is, either?


How does it encourage pedophilia? The age of consent is 16. An adult is allowed to have sex with a 16 year old legally, no matter what they're age. (Sorry if it's a different age for where you live, it's 16 here)

Here, as far as I'm aware, you can be 16 and be in a magazine or newspaper (Page 3 model). So if you were to have 15 year old girls slapped on news paper scantily clad, then it'd be encouraging paedophilia because it's saying 'look at all these sexy under-age girls that are up for it'.

What exactly do you mean by innocence?

In this case, not being sexual beings and enjoying their earlier years without responsibility in such things.

No child should be given the choice? What's wrong with the choice? They can say yes or no.


What if the parents ARE struggling and the kid is willing to do porn, so he does it as sort of a pat time job? How would it be bad for their future? It's only bad because everyone is such a prude that they'd look at the porn job on their previous jobs list and shun them.

There are other ways of getting money/work without porn. Yes it would be bad for their future because then it's at their manager's discretion pretty much what would happen to them and I think that a lot of children would get abused if put in this situation.

No, that's not the only reason it's bad. If I was hiring someone within a company and I saw that they'd participated in porn, then it wouldn't be discouraging because that's what they did for a living as an adult.

Also, why is it illegal for someone who is a kid to watch porn of other kids, if the porn was done consentingly?

Because children can't give consent for good reason. That's like saying "why can't rapists watch videos of other rapists if consent is given". It just doesn't work out.


Why is sex such a bad, taboo thing? It feels great, and when both people are willing, it shouldn't be disturbing.

Yeah, I'm sure that's what a child would be thinking. I'm sure it'd feel fantastic for them, being naked in the hands of strangers. Yeah, that's the life, ain't it?

You realize that there are no age limits for sex toys? The only thing that stops anyone under eighteen from buying sex toys is that most of them are in sex shops that are for people eighteen over. I personally know of a store where younger people can get sex toys, because it has no porn in it.

That's for personal use. To be publicly displayed? No.


Necrophilia porn is not illegal, therefore distinguishing it from child porn. One could download gigabytes of necrophilia porn without the feds even caring, yet when someone even so much as opens a child porn picture they're put in prison for 15 years and have their name carved onto the sex offender list.

Necrophilia is illegal. Therefore, porn showing necrophilia is illegal too. At least, it is in the UK.

I'll admit that we can't give every person a stress ball, but if we can, why not? There are some people in this country (read: social conservatives) who want to make any porn depicting children illegal — like Japanese hentai porn. In some states, it's already a crime. There'll come a time when the only sexual release pedophiles will have is to go and molest a kid down the street.

No, it won't come to that, because there will still be people that abduct children and put them into porn. Even if it was legal, there'd still be abductions of children to star in porn. Legalising it just condones it.



There, now I've answered all of that.
Merry Christmas, you sick people that want child porn legalised. :)

[The Joker]

1. Here, as far as I'm aware, you can be 16 and be in a magazine or newspaper (Page 3 model). So if you were to have 15 year old girls slapped on news paper scantily clad, then it'd be encouraging paedophilia because it's saying 'look at all these sexy under-age girls that are up for it'.

2. In this case, not being sexual beings and enjoying their earlier years without responsibility in such things.

3. There are other ways of getting money/work without porn. Yes it would be bad for their future because then it's at their manager's discretion pretty much what would happen to them and I think that a lot of children would get abused if put in this situation.

5. Because children can't give consent for good reason. That's like saying "why can't rapists watch videos of other rapists if consent is given". It just doesn't work out.

6. Yeah, I'm sure that's what a child would be thinking. I'm sure it'd feel fantastic for them, being naked in the hands of strangers. Yeah, that's the life, ain't it?

7. That's for personal use. To be publicly displayed? No.

8. There, now I've answered all of that.
Merry Christmas, you sick people that want child porn legalised. :)

1. Huh? I'm talking about people who are at the age of consent being in porn. Age of consent=not underage. I'm not talking about 15, which is under the age of consent.

2. I'm still confused. You can still be innocent by your standards and have sex.

3. Yes their are, but some ways are easier than others.

5. I'm referring to porn of people aged 16 or above, the consent age.

6. I'm just referring to sex in general. You seem to be quite against it.

7. I'm not sure what you mean.

8. Did I ever say whether or not I wanted it to be legalized? I don't think so. No need to get personal, hun.

[Fact]

1. Huh? I'm talking about people who are at the age of consent being in porn. Age of consent=not underage. I'm not talking about 15, which is under the age of consent.

2. I'm still confused. You can still be innocent by your standards and have sex.

3. Yes their are, but some ways are easier than others.

4. I'm referring to porn of people aged 16 or above, the consent age.

5. I'm just referring to sex in general. You seem to be quite against it.

6. I'm not sure what you mean.

7. Did I ever say whether or not I wanted it to be legalized? I don't think so. No need to get personal, hun.


1. Ohh, I see. Once you're the age of consent then it's your choice what to do with your life, so then it's not an issue.

2. Not really, innocence for me doesn't necessarily mean abstinence, it means keeping away from the whole topic. For example, there's a girl in my class who I consider to be 'innocent'. She has no concept of the world, but not in an annoying way. I envy her for her oblivious nature, she just lives her life happily and without stress because she has virtually NO sexual exposure. She's very much aware of it, but has 0 part in it. That's how children should be IMO.

5. I'm not against sex, I'm against people being forced to do things they don't want to do. I'm all for the 'sex should be between two people because they have a connection with each other' argument.

Children are not going to enjoy sex because they're not going to have a relationship like that with anyone and may not even have knowledge of it. Adults understand more the difference between porn and relationships so they can make a more conscious choice.

6. I mean that okay, people who are under-age can have their sex toys that are acquired illegally, but it shouldn't be advertised in porn or anywhere else, if it is going to happen. Why it would happen, I don't know.

7. Sorry, Christmas makes me grouchy. Didn't mean to get personal there.
But if you're not for it, then why argue for it to be legalised?

[DrkZ90]

There are two contradicting laws:

Age of Consent Law and Porn Law.

As long as those two exist independently, I must say that porn should be legal for everyone above the Age of Consent, period.

The age of consent law says when a kid is old enough to decide if he/she wants to have sex or not. Seeing as porn is essentially having sex in front of a camera, anyone above the age of consent is old enough to decide if he/she wants to get into that or not.

[Grant]

Hell yeah. More income, more jobs, less children harmed (proven fact, look it up).

[The Joker]

Hell yeah. More income, more jobs, less children harmed (proven fact, look it up).

In ROTW, we provide sources, we don't ask others to look it up.

[Jamie]

Yeah and what happens after they've done it and realise they're made an immature mistake?
Then they will have to take responsibility for their actions by realizing that it was indeed by their own accord that they were filmed while having sex, and that it was of no one's fault but their own. We can't play mummy & daddy to teenagers who may eventually feel regret.

I know a lot of people my age who have had sex with other people their age and then regretted it massively afterwards, never mind having sex/committing sexual acts with a stranger, having it filmed/photographed and then being paid for it.

Your friends do not account for the entire persons of 16 years old who have had sex. It would be ridiculous to base restricting their ability to perform in pornography on the testimonies of some people who have had sex. And as well, nearly half of all teens in the United States have admitted to having sex (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/FB-ATSRH.html)(and I'm just doubting that the majority of them had felt regret afterwards).


Yeah, but how are you supposed to measure maturity?

By studies that determine what actions a person of average maturity would take in a situation, and then judging the teenager based off of their answers, and past actions. Rough to do, I know. But eventually, it could be put in place.


You can't.

I'm sure that there is a way. Unless everyone that takes any form of test just picks the best answer, and isn't truthful. But even then, there would be ways to determine those of whom that answered suspiciously.


You never know what is going on inside someone's head

But if they were deemed mature enough, and responsible enough to take on performing adult scenes, any lies they wrote in an exam would rest solely on them.


and IMO teenagers definitely do not have a firm grasp on their lives as it is (similarly to some adults) to be committing to something like starring in pornography.
It's a shame that you're not master-dictator of the world. We'd all be wonderful with you dictating our lives. Also, source that cites what you're saying, please.
Yeah, once you're finished being cocky, think about it.

Once you've stopped spouting your own personal views with little information from studies, examinations, or actual testimonies from a substantial amount of those involved in adult entertainment saying that they've highly regretted it, re-exam your own viewpoints. Thanks.
You can't reverse actions that you do, so why let a child take the chance of making the wrong decision and then be scarred for life?
Why try to dictate the decisions that have only the minimalist of consequences from those of whom are on the verge of being on their own, as an adult member of society? Even then, it isn't your place to decide what someone else does, it is that of the parents to guide them, and ultimately for the individual to decide whether he/she thinks they are capable of performing in their current capacity.

It's asking for a generation of sex offenders, the way I see it.

Where do you base this ridiculous ideas from? How would this promote a generation of sex offenders? Is there any shred of evidence that someone who views pornography is X amount of times as likely to go and sexually abuse someone? Or is an adult entertainer far more likely to become addicted to sex, and thus start going on rape-sprees?
That's because car theft, murder and kidnapping are glorified by the news and media
As are half-nude, attractive, underaged celebrities. See: Taylor Lautner, Miley Cyrus, Zac Efron, etc. (Though they're no longer underaged, they began taking very sexually provocative photos from around 14-16.
they're not taboo
Being popular in mainstream society doesn't make it acceptable, if anyone were to attempt these acts, they'd be arrested and tried just as those of whom were glorified for it.
People LOVE to sink their teeth into more 'daring' and 'sinister' actions if they're that way inclined.Proof?
Yeah legalising it may take the emphasis of it, but then it's being condoned, which is wrong.
So then allowing certain religions like satanism to be practiced freely is the government condoning it? Hmmm. News to me.

I wasn't comparing them directly
See:

A child can't give all that much more 'consent' than a corpse can

That's pretty close to doing so.

It's not difficult for anyone to get things mixed up in their minds, especially not teenagers, the majority of which still don't have a clue about the world in its entirety.

Re-read this statement, see if it makes sense to you.


That's like saying that different people who get put in prison for murder should be let out at different times because some of them are more remorseful or learn more quickly.

Uhh, I guess it is. Also, that's kind of done very often. Many murderers get paroled for good behavior and showing large amounts of remorse for their actions, others don't. Some get lighter sentences for the nature of the murder, others don't. It would be impossible to impose that every murderer get the exact same sentence, regardless of anything else.

If you start accommodating every Tom, Dick and Harry's needs then society does not work out.

It does work, maybe not to perfection, but then again, it never will. But the society we live in currently imposes such accommodations, and it's been working pretty well since we've doneso.

Indeed, because they made a choice as an adult as to what they wanted to do in their lives and many become ridiculously infamous from it for no reason.
Then you're implying we should just ban pornography all together, and some of the actors in it may eventually become notorious for it?

If you think that, then why the hell are you arguing for child porn to be legalised?

Because I don't feel my will should be imposed on everyone else?

If there were no morals, there wouldn't be an argument in the first place. So why not incorporate them?

I suppose there wouldn't be. Carry on then.

Because it's just disrespectful.
To you, maybe. But to the person giving their consent, they may find it pleasuring to know that they'd be sexually played with after death. Just because you don't share such a fetish, doesn't mean others don't.

If not to the person, to the person's family who have to know that the corpse of their loved one is to be used as a source of entertainment.
Again, if the person was competent when they signed away their consent for such, their family has little to no say in this. It should be up to the dying, not the family of the dying.

Yes, yes. And I see that you've evidently explored every single paedophiles head in order to determine this.

And I see that you have never read any study that determines the amount of sexual offenders that are in custody that happen to be paedophiles. Nor have you actually looked up the percentage of potential paedophiles, and looked up the actual amount of which sexual offenders against children showed signs of, or admitted to actually being a paedophile. Sources available, upon request. Also, this debate is far more linked to ephebophilia than to paedophilia, considering we're discussing whether or not mid-older teenagers should be allowed to do porn, not young teenagers (hebophilia), or prepubescents (paedophilia).

Not the mental capacity, the responsibility and awareness of their actions.

They would still, even being potentially naive, and a child, have infinite more awareness, and the likeliehood of understanding the responsibility of such a situation than a corpse.

In which case they're likely to remember someone essentially sexually abusing them with 'consent'.

If they have given sexual consent, while understanding all the details of what will take place, by definition, they are not being sexually abused. Even then, this comes into play with how mature and aware the teenager is of the gravity of the actions of entering adult entertainment.
Yeah, and this is definitely the limit, if not beyond it IMO.

That's right. Inyour opinion.

Who are you to say it is, either?

Well, my stance is to give them rights. It's the duty of the one attempting to abolish those rights that need give stable and just reasoning, as to why it should no longer be permitted. Something you have yet to do.

[Severus Snape]

It shouldn't be illegal.

[Fact]

It shouldn't be illegal.

Why is that?

[OneDeep]

Lemme read Dis title over again... SHOULD CHILD PORN BE LEGALIZED? Did I just fucking read that?

[Cloud]

Lemme read Dis title over again... SHOULD CHILD PORN BE LEGALIZED? Did I just fucking read that?

LOL, this is where we debate things.
If you wish to add to a debate please can you actually read some of it so you know more than just the title, and then contribute your views to it.


Ive been mulling over this thread quite a bit
and i cannot for the life if me decide who ima agree with
while your right in the stupidity behind the 16 for consent 18 to be in (and even view lulwut?) porn, They do have good points that at 18 your more mature to face and understand the consequences of doing that.
meh

[Amnesiac]

Lemme read Dis title over again... SHOULD CHILD PORN BE LEGALIZED? Did I just fucking read that?

I sense you have a problem with this thread. Here in ROTW, we debate the most controversial topics you can think of.

Problem, Robert?

[OneDeep]

Who the hell in their right mind would want to debate if CP should be legalized?

All the pedos for CP say I.

[Cloud]

Who the hell in their right mind would want to debate if CP should be legalized?

All the pedos for CP say I.

Please read over the thread
dont answer a thread by its title
read the posts
youll get the point

[OneDeep]

Oh I've been readin.

[KylieEatWorld]

I'd like to also add: inb4 "IT'S SO IMMORAL :("

A paraphrase then?

I do not understand porn at all. Sure, I'm not a guy so maybe that makes a little difference but in any case someone under 18 should not be allowed to participate in a porno. Especially in an internet age where it could never go away. At age sixteen, a majority of teenagers have no idea what they want out of life. Any career in politics would not be possible with a pornography video floating around the internet that they had been in years prior.

Pornography is basically prostitution except the result is it being videotaped for thousand of others to see. If you legalize child pornography under the pretense of it being consented. You would have to think of everything else a child could do for money including but not limited to, prostitution and drug trafficking. Now excuse me if this is a morality issue but I wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

[deadpie]

A paraphrase then?

Pornography is basically prostitution except the result is it being videotaped for thousand of others to see. If you legalize child pornography under the pretense of it being consented. You would have to think of everything else a child could do for money including but not limited to, prostitution and drug trafficking. Now excuse me if this is a morality issue but I wouldn't want to live in a country like that.


LOL. Porn is definitely not prostitution. I think I would personally know the deference.

Porn stars make money, so don't think women are being 'degraded'. Most female porn stars love their jobs. Well, Prostitutes make money too, but things aren't as 'safe' and 'clean'. Things can be a little more dangerous.

----------------------------------------------


This is when it comes down to, "What's necessary wrong with what?" You can't get in too much trouble for videos and images of dead people on your computer, but if you have one image of child pornography, consider your ass in jail for a long time.

People like different things for different reasons. I'm not going to judge someone that faps to CP when I'm interested in violent images. I have no area to judge them.

No, I don't think someone looking at it is wrong, but actually taking the pictures is quite fucked up. A child doesn't have consent over that. They aren't old enough to say, "Well sure, take naked pictures of me that many people will ejaculate to for the rest of my life."

[KylieEatWorld]

LOL. Porn is definitely not prostitution. I think I would personally know the deference.

Porn stars make money, so don't think women are being 'degraded'. Most female porn stars love their jobs. Well, Prostitutes make money too, but things aren't as 'safe' and 'clean'.

the act or practice of engaging in sexual intercourse for money.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prostitution

Pornography is prostitution with a camera.

[deadpie]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prostitution

Pornography is prostitution with a camera.

You're missing my point. WOW. Way to blindly skim through my post.

Porn = Get paid, usually safer and condoms are used, sexually transmitted diseases are usually checked for, you make a shit load more money, and porn stars aren't treated like shit by the other actors.

Prostitution = Not fucking safe. You don't know if you're going to get killed or just get a regular. Not as much money. You usually don't get to choose if they want to wear a condom or not. You get treated like shit. Your life is at fucking risk the entire time.

There's big differences between them.

[KylieEatWorld]

You're missing my point. WOW. Way to blindly skim through my post.

Porn = Get paid, usually safer and condoms are used, sexually transmitted diseases are usually checked for, you make a shit load more money, and porn stars aren't treated like shit by the other actors.

Prostitution = Not fucking safe. You don't know if you're going to get killed or just get a regular. Not as much money. You usually don't get to choose if they want to wear a condom or not. You get treated like shit. Your life is at fucking risk the entire time.

There's big differences between them.

Conditions vary. But yes you're correct, your average prostitute out on the streets has it rougher than your average porn star. Neither one is right. One is just less right than the other.


Another thing to consider is if the children/teens in the child pornography would be engaged in sexual activities with other children/teens or adults. As having a large age difference not only can be psychologically damaging but can also hurt the child/teen physically depending on the size of the adults genitals and the child's erm.... entry point.

[Magus]

Neither one is right. One is just less right than the other.

What is right? Define 'Right'

[KylieEatWorld]

What is right? Define 'Right'

–adjective
1.
in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
2.
in conformity with fact, reason, truth, or some standard or principle; correct: the right solution; the right answer.
3.
correct in judgment, opinion, or action.
4.
fitting or appropriate; suitable: to say the right thing at the right time.
5.
most convenient, desirable, or favorable: Omaha is the right location for a meatpacking firm.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/right


I think all of the above correspond with my statement that child pornography isn't "right."

[The Joker]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prostitution

Pornography is prostitution with a camera.

Prostitution is not always consenting. A lot of prostitutes are forced into it by a pimp.

[deadpie]

Conditions vary. But yes you're correct, your average prostitute out on the streets has it rougher than your average porn star. Neither one is right. One is just less right than the other.


What's wrong with pornography? What's wrong with being in it with consent?



I hope you all know that "Nature Nudism" exists and is legal in many places. This involves people under the age of twelve, by the way. So, child porn is actually legal in some ways.

Then you have to consider what really is porn in that matter.

[KylieEatWorld]

What's wrong with pornography? What's wrong with being in it with consent?



I hope you all know that "Nature Nudism" exists and is legal in many places. This involves people under the age of twelve, by the way. So, child porn is actually legal in some ways.

Then you have to consider what really is porn in that matter.

Porn is with the intent to sexually excite. If in a nudist camp you want to videotape your son climbing a tree that is not a porno.

In response to your question, it all depends on your moral viewpoints I would assume. As an agnostic, my opinion is that publicly displaying young adults and children engaged in sexual activity is wrong. Other opinions may vary but in this glorious republic of ours we'll just have to wait until the majority of opinions say it is morally right.

[deadpie]

Porn is with the intent to sexually excite. If in a nudist camp you want to videotape your son climbing a tree that is not a porno.

In response to your question, it all depends on your moral viewpoints I would assume. As an agnostic, my opinion is that publicly displaying young adults and children engaged in sexual activity is wrong. Other opinions may vary but in this glorious republic of ours we'll just have to wait until the majority of opinions say it is morally right.

It might be a videotape to one person, but it could be porn to someone else that gets off on it. Also, what does agnosticism have to do with that?

[Death]

Even if we were to legalise child porn, exactly how much younger can one be before we say no again? I mean we can hardly be allowing 4 year-olds to be porn stars, can we? We need a cut off point, and that may as well be what it is now (a.k.a, when one is both sexually and mentally mature).

[KylieEatWorld]

Even if we were to legalise child porn, exactly how much younger can one be before we say no again? I mean we can hardly be allowing 4 year-olds to be porn stars, can we? We need a cut off point, and that may as well be what it is now (a.k.a, when one is both sexually and mentally mature).

This.

[Perseus]

Even if we were to legalise child porn, exactly how much younger can one be before we say no again? I mean we can hardly be allowing 4 year-olds to be porn stars, can we? We need a cut off point, and that may as well be what it is now (a.k.a, when one is both sexually and mentally mature).

Matt(The OP) is talking about sixteen year olds. Since you can legally have sex at that age, I don't see why you can't go into the porn industry, etc. I don't consider myself a child. If a sixteen year old wants to make porn of themselves, then let them do it. If two sixteen year olds and older are sexting, then they shouldn't get in trouble since you can legally have sex and see it in person. The term "Child pornography" is misleading.

[ShaneK]

HELL NO! I say this as someone who has been forced to make child porn and yes it does lead to prostitution all to frequently. Most people at 16 are not capable of making those sort of decision's. People do not have a clue what it actual entails. However legalising it for the over 16's would stop possibly stop some of the exploitation, but may encourage it for those younger than 16.

[Death]

Matt(The OP) is talking about sixteen year olds. Since you can legally have sex at that age, I don't see why you can't go into the porn industry, etc. I don't consider myself a child. If a sixteen year old wants to make porn of themselves, then let them do it. If two sixteen year olds and older are sexting, then they shouldn't get in trouble since you can legally have sex and see it in person. The term "Child pornography" is misleading.

At the age of 16, I could consider it, but I would worry about how their colleagues would perceive them.

[SwimTech]

Child porn=pedophiles. however, if it is just nudity, like nudists, in non-provactive photos, then its fine. I think that if your old enough to go to war, then you should be able to drink, smoke, have sex, etc. It should all be the same age. however, I hate smoking, its horrible for the environment, children, the smoker, and the innocent people that have to breath in the fumes. If the government didnt get so much money from taxes it would be banned in no time. But yea, its stupid if the age of consent and age to be in porn is different, it doesnt make sense. And, too, it should not be tooo young.

[The Joker]

Child porn=pedophiles. however, if it is just nudity, like nudists, in non-provactive photos, then its fine. I think that if your old enough to go to war, then you should be able to drink, smoke, have sex, etc. It should all be the same age. however, I hate smoking, its horrible for the environment, children, the smoker, and the innocent people that have to breath in the fumes. If the government didnt get so much money from taxes it would be banned in no time. But yea, its stupid if the age of consent and age to be in porn is different, it doesnt make sense. And, too, it should not be tooo young.

So, would you consider a thirteen year old who watches porn of say...a 16 year old to be a pedophile?

[ShaneK]

As they are both children natural curiosity more than pedophila

[SwimTech]

So, would you consider a thirteen year old who watches porn of say...a 16 year old to be a pedophile?

No, if they are both under the age, how is it being a pedophile? Pedophile is described as an adult who is sexually attracted to children. If a 16 year old could be in porn, then it wouldnt be pedophilia, because they are considered an adult in those terms....
Sorry if i was unclear.

[The Joker]

No, if they are both under the age, how is it being a pedophile? Pedophile is described as an adult who is sexually attracted to children. If a 16 year old could be in porn, then it wouldnt be pedophilia, because they are considered an adult in those terms....
Sorry if i was unclear.

But, remember, porn of a sixteen year old is considered child porn. You said child porn=pedophilia.

[SwimTech]

But, remember, porn of a sixteen year old is considered child porn. You said child porn=pedophilia.

IF the age to be in porn WAS TO BE lowered to 16, then 16 year olds in porn would NOT be considered child porn

[CaptainObvious]

IF the age to be in porn WAS TO BE lowered to 16, then 16 year olds in porn would NOT be considered child porn

You're missing his point. There's clearly an age where, even if performing in pornography were legal, it would still be pedophilia and inappropriate. Since you don't believe that 16 qualifies by that criterion, it does not follow that pornography of 16 year olds (which is currently illegal child pornography) is pedophilia.

[SwimTech]

You're missing his point. There's clearly an age where, even if performing in pornography were legal, it would still be pedophilia and inappropriate. Since you don't believe that 16 qualifies by that criterion, it does not follow that pornography of 16 year olds (which is currently illegal child pornography) is pedophilia.

Nonono, i completely understand you and agree with you. Like I know if it was ten, that would be pedophilia. Thats still a child. Do you ever really hear about pedophiles attracted to 16 year olds? Typically (and im not saying this is 100% true) pedophiles are attracted to PREpubescent children.

[notsure101]

I would say no, cause what if you wernt thinking staright and you were 16 and made a film. Then try and get a good job and they find that. That wouldnt be good.

[Cryofthewolf]

Don't have time to read everything written, so I will say my piece and go.

...That would be a terrible, terrible idea. Not only am I not crazy about porn (It's a weakness of mine, and makes me think more sexually about people more than I should), I think it zaps the life out of people. I have no proof of this, but my gut feeling seems to say that it makes those involved think of themselves as only sex objects, and they treat themselves as so. =-/

Now, to kids doing porn? Forget about it. No matter what anybody says, we young people are not fully matured (physically and mentally) and able to make a decision to act in pornography. (I use the term 'acting' loosely here). Producers will no doubt take advantage of the children's personal inexperience in the movies and not pay or treat them well.

This would also allow those terrible adults who seduce young children and teens to get away with what they do. Pedophiles would be on the streets, probably more active if child pornography is legal.

I sincerely hope that the original poster isn't involved in child pornography. Sending pictures to adults or looking at it, both of which being illegal, can lead to prison time and the label of 'pedophile' on the child or teen taking part in such practices.

Please, don't any of you get involved in child pornography. It is a disgusting practice and can only lead to harm down the road.

[Sith Lord 13]

Typically (and im not saying this is 100% true) pedophiles are attracted to PREpubescent children.

Actually that's the definition of a pedophile. Pedophilia is attraction to prepubescent children. Otherwise it's hebephilia or ephebophilia.

[ShyGuyInChicago]

Some have expressed the opinion that merely possessing child porn (possessing child porn that has not been paid for) should not be illegal. The rationale is that merely possessing such material is not putting a child into danger. Such people also maintain that they are against the creation and sale of child porn.

To me it does not make sense. I feel that if something is illegal to create, and illegal to sell, it should be illegal to possess as well. Why should people who possess something of such a nature and that is illegal to produce and sell be able to get away with it.

[scuba steve]

If it's between the likes of teen couples (13 -17) and I mean like sexting etc. then it should be fine, rather than having them put on the sex offender register. Otherwise porn on the mainstream should still be illegal.

[deadpie]

Funny how it's not illegal to have pictures of a million dead corpses on your computer, but if you have one kiddy picture you get jailed. But I wouldn't like having my gore folders taken away, so I'm pretty sure the pedophiles don't want there kiddy stuff taken away either.

I remember saying I don't think there's a problem with possessing it, but the act of actually taking pictures and making videos of children naked and/or in sexual intercourse is just fucking wrong. Some forms of cp are actually legal, like how there's children in nature nudist art. Do you think that's wrong and illegal?

[Amnesiac]

Possession is a victimless crime. Therefore, it should not be illegal.

[Sebastian Michaelis]

It should be illegal because a child did that so you could become in possosion of it somehow.

[Amnesiac]

It should be illegal because a child did that so you could become in possosion of it somehow.

Wait, what?

Think of it this way:

At a facility somewhere, cows are being killed in the most brutal possible way to make meat for McDonald's.

You go to McDonald's and buy a Big Mac.

Should you be arrested for animal abuse?

[TopGear]

Wait, what?

Think of it this way:

At a facility somewhere, cows are being killed in the most brutal possible way to make meat for McDonald's.

You go to McDonald's and buy a Big Mac.

Should you be arrested for animal abuse?

Great comparison.

[Jamie]

Great comparison.
I know this may/may not be sarcasm, and that it's a tad rude to reply to something not directly said towards you in some debates, but let's take a go anyway.

(Assuming this is sarcasm)

How isn't it a just comparison? In it's simplest form, you're buying/obtaining/possessing the product that has come from some form of illegal/immoral acts, by some corporation or individual, that didn't at all include you in said production of such, yet in one instance, you can be tried for a lesser crime that can still have roughly the same penalties as the more major crime (child molestation/lewd acts). In the other, you're completely fine.

That is a tad hypocritical, just a bit. But then again, as has been brought up before in this type of debate, the only logical reason to keep possession illegal is to try and prevent more recordings of child molestation from taking place, as if you have an audience, you have a market (so is their logic).

I personally am for the decriminalization of possession of most things, including a large number of narcotics, which in comparison, does make this seem a tad lighter.

[TopGear]

I know this may/may not be sarcasm, and that it's a tad rude to reply to something not directly said towards you in some debates, but let's take a go anyway.

(Assuming this is sarcasm)

How isn't it a just comparison? In it's simplest form, you're buying/obtaining/possessing the product that has come from some form of illegal/immoral acts, by some corporation or individual, that didn't at all include you in said production of such, yet in one instance, you can be tried for a lesser crime that can still have roughly the same penalties as the more major crime (child molestation/lewd acts). In the other, you're completely fine.

That is a tad hypocritical, just a bit. But then again, as has been brought up before in this type of debate, the only logical reason to keep possession illegal is to try and prevent more recordings of child molestation from taking place, as if you have an audience, you have a market (so is their logic).

I personally am for the decriminalization of possession of most things, including a large number of narcotics, which in comparison, does make this seem a tad lighter.

The internet doesn't show sarcasm as well as I want it to sometimes. Sorry that you didn't catch it.

[Amnesiac]

I know that's probably the shittiest comparison I've ever made in all my years on the Internet, but I still stand by decriminalizing possession of child porn. In the eyes of the law, an individual is only responsible for his/her actions and not the actions of others. Possessing child porn is a victimless crime. The individual did not directly breach the rights of another individual in the process of obtaining it, so it shouldn't be illegal. However, producing child porn is a direct violation of the rights of others; that should be illegal.

[deadpie]

I know that's probably the shittiest comparison I've ever made in all my years on the Internet, but I still stand by decriminalizing possession of child porn. In the eyes of the law, an individual is only responsible for his/her actions and not the actions of others. Possessing child porn is a victimless crime. The individual did not directly breach the rights of another individual in the process of obtaining it, so it shouldn't be illegal. However, producing child porn is a direct violation of the rights of others; that should be illegal.

I had no problem with your comparison and I'm spot on with what you're saying. Of course, nobody wants to hear these views and believe or agree with them, whether they are good points or not. Well, I like your points if that counts.

[PJay]

However, producing child porn is a direct violation of the rights of others; that should be illegal.

But as was said above, if its kids photgraphing/filming each other for the fun of it, no one's hurt. Agree with your other points btw.

The thing that really bothers me is the thought of kids forced into sex or posing. Then you have child abuse - the photos are just evidence of that, but the sort of people looking at them are probably going to start thinking 'ooh that looks fun' and try it themselves. So I can see why those are banned.

You also have the question of whether they wanted those pics sent around the net, or if they just thought they were staying in their group. But these days kids are being warned (and already know tbh) thats pretty much going to happen so if you are stupid enough to put yourself in that position you know whats going to happen.

[Donkey]

This is a little like in Spain, where I believe possession of cannabis is illegal however they can still consume it/grow it for personal use as are protected by the Spanish constitution. Irony is fun.

Child porn hurts children, possessing it means supporting those who are hurting children and thus I feel that it is wrong. It's never a victimless crime. If those kids are "taking pictures of each other for fun," 10 or 15 years they're going to look down the line a bit and find their pictures all over the Internet of when they weren't even pubic. Child pornography featuring a child who isn't mature enough to consent to it shouldn't be legal to posses.

[Perseus]

, but the sort of people looking at them are probably going to start thinking 'ooh that looks fun' and try it themselves. So I can see why those are banned.


People who like at porn don't go like, "oh, that looks like fun. I should go rape a woman to find out if it is."

I find that it should be legal. Especially since people get put on sex offenders lists. If the pedophiles at child porn to look at, they're less likely to go out and molest children. There will still be people who molest since they can't control their urges.

[PJay]

People who like at porn don't go like, "oh, that looks like fun. I should go rape a woman to find out if it is."

I find that it should be legal. Especially since people get put on sex offenders lists. If the pedophiles at child porn to look at, they're less likely to go out and molest children. There will still be people who molest since they can't control their urges.

You might have a point there. I suppose I don't go out on shooting sprees after playing computer games, and its a good way of relieving stress for me that might even stop me being violent in real life.

[Amnesiac]

I had no problem with your comparison and I'm spot on with what you're saying. Of course, nobody wants to hear these views and believe or agree with them, whether they are good points or not. Well, I like your points if that counts.

Well I didn't like the comparison myself, but thanks.

But as was said above, if its kids photgraphing/filming each other for the fun of it, no one's hurt. Agree with your other points btw.

True, or if it's consenting teens. However, whether or not they intended for that material to become publicly available on the Internet is a different issue.

Child porn hurts children, possessing it means supporting those who are hurting children and thus I feel that it is wrong. It's never a victimless crime.

Well, as I said, in the eyes of the law you're only responsible for what you've done, not what others have done. If you told someone to go kill another person, and they did it, that other person would get arrested, not yourself.

Besides, possessing child porn doesn't necessarily mean you're supporting them — I highly doubt there are many people who pay for their child porn; they probably download it for free off P2P networks, which means they don't know where it came from and aren't supporting a market for it.

[Donkey]

Well, as I said, in the eyes of the law you're only responsible for what you've done, not what others have done. If you told someone to go kill another person, and they did it, that other person would get arrested, not yourself.

Besides, possessing child porn doesn't necessarily mean you're supporting them — I highly doubt there are many people who pay for their child porn; they probably download it for free off P2P networks, which means they don't know where it came from and aren't supporting a market for it.
Who the fuck gives a shit about the eyes of the law? The question refers to morality more than anything, and that's where I'm coming at here. And actually that example isn't so great because in actual fact it's more than likely you'd be at least questioned as the murderer themselves could be prone to being weak in such a way. Which comes into the whole idea of child pornography more than I think you expected your example to in that if you are a pedophile, you have urges or your consciousness (in the example, represented as another person) tells you to do something and wish to satisfy those urges/demands - while you may not want to harm children, you still go to watching child pornography.

Still supports the market. More demand, more is made. And regardless of that, if people didn't pay for child pornography then it wouldn't exist at all. That argument is useless, you can't get something out of nothing. Next you'll be saying we should spend tax payer money on child pornography as so it can be given to pedophiles for free.

[Amnesiac]

Who the fuck gives a shit about the eyes of the law? The question refers to morality more than anything, and that's where I'm coming at here. And actually that example isn't so great because in actual fact it's more than likely you'd be at least questioned as the murderer themselves could be prone to being weak in such a way.

No, the question asks whether possession should be legal, which is a judicial issue, not a moral one.

And while that may be true, I'm not talking about telling a mentally disabled person to kill someone. We can relate this to cyberbullying, actually: if you tell someone to kill themselves over the Internet, and they do, are you charged with murder? No, because you didn't do anything that would directly kill the person.

Which comes into the whole idea of child pornography more than I think you expected your example to in that if you are a pedophile, you have urges or your consciousness (in the example, represented as another person) tells you to do something and wish to satisfy those urges/demands - while you may not want to harm children, you still go to watching child pornography.

I don't think I said that, wasn't that Jake?

Still supports the market. More demand, more is made. And regardless of that, if people didn't pay for child pornography then it wouldn't exist at all. That argument is useless, you can't get something out of nothing. Next you'll be saying we should spend tax payer money on child pornography as so it can be given to pedophiles for free.

This implies that people will make porn for money. There are plenty of people who make porn without any demand at all — there's an entire category for it; amateur porn. I would say most child porn is produced by crazy people who want to share it with their fellow pedophiles, not make a profit off of it.

I mean, what are the chances most child porn is produced by a company in this legal environment? I'd place a fair bet that an overwhelming majority of child porn is homemade, not-for-profit, amateur stuff.

[sdude]

I just don't think kids are age should be sharing pics of themselves...I mean once they are out there, on the public net, anyone can be looking at them or sharing or selling them...it needs to be against the law, period. If you want to share yourself with someone, do it in person...

[Severus Snape]

Possession is a victimless crime. Therefore, it should not be illegal.

Not if you are producing the demand that fuels the supply. That being said I don't think possessing child porn should be illegal. When it comes to sex the US government is pretty medieval in its attitude.

[Jamie]

If you told someone to go kill another person, and they did it, that other person would get arrested, not yourself.
That must be why Charlie Manson isn't in jail right now, and why this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shabani) must have never taken place. Now I know why. Because you aren't liable for what you tell others who would potentially break the law to actually do something illegal. Most. Logic. Ever. Right here.

[Amnesiac]

That must be why Charlie Manson isn't in jail right now, and why this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Shabani) must have never taken place. Now I know why. Because you aren't liable for what you tell others who would potentially break the law to actually do something illegal. Most. Logic. Ever. Right here.

There's a difference between simply telling someone to kill someone and leading a group of people in a series of murders. Manson planned and assisted the family members in the murders. Simply telling someone to kill someone or kill themselves is different.

[gingeylover14]

i tink it would b ok to dop the age to b in porn down to16 and the age to watch porn down to 12 or 13

[Bluesman]

Well... you do make some good points with age of consent and all, and I could almost see child porn being legal but only if people over the age of 18 couldn't view it. That would be impossible... there's no way that only children could view it so there would always be eager pedophiles waiting. So in the end, no... legalizing child porn would be a terrible thing to do.

[Alaph]

It depends how young, you could drop the age a few years.

[Name]

No <--- Straight to the point enough?

[The Joker]

No <--- Straight to the point enough?

This isn't the straight to the point section. Either make an argument or attack a different one. Get out.

[Deathwingo0o]

Yes if you want your childrens to be fucked and displayed for public view.

[Fourth Dimension]

i personally think it should not be legal it just gives old pedos more of a reason to be a pedo there is a reason why its not legal

[Amnesiac]

i personally think it should not be legal it just gives old pedos more of a reason to be a pedo there is a reason why its not legal

>implying all pedophiles are dangerous
>implying pedophilia isn't a mental disorder
>implying the current social opinion on pedophilia doesn't unfairly discriminate against 'peaceful' pedophiles who don't harm children

inb4 shitstorm

It's damn true there are plenty of pedophilic people who have no intention of doing something illegal. Just like there are racists and Nazis who don't want to kill blacks or Jews, respectively.

[charlotte945]

I don't think so!! I mean i get the whole 16 thing and if it's there choice but i mean come on that stuffs ganna be out there forever and teens chang there mind alot. So they think its fine when there 16 but when there 27 tryin to get a realy good job it could ruin there chances if the boss finds out. Besides what perv wants to look at a 16 year old!!!!!!

[Vonn]

Besides what perv wants to look at a 16 year old!!!!!!

Another sixteen-year-old.

[badderanarchy]

Not from the internet

[CryWolf]

[QUOTE=Volatile;1120788]While you do make some good points (like the fact that a lot of age of consent laws are bullshit and hypocrital), I think you do have to consider that the demand will skyrocket and also the conditions that some of these kids are "consenting" under. I think it'll all just lead to the abuse of a lot of teens.

I gotta agree with this. Circumstances of course vary, but we can see from this site the different levels and stages of growth and preparation. The conditions of consent are worth considering. Having said all that, I'd probably be in one :D

[Haleyzmont]

I think child porn should be legal if its kids with kids and not being forced to have sex by like phsyco paths and it should also be legilized if the kids themselves post it on the internet

[TheMatrix]

Please do not bump threads older than 2 months.
:locked: