Would child porn be as bad if it was filmed by other minors, with consent of the minors involved, and if it could only be viewed by minors? I mean really, Adult Porn can only be watched by Adults, so yeah. I don't mean to sound like a pervert or anything, i'm just curious... Would it be as bad? Please leave many replies, as to everybody probably has mixed feelings about this.

Child porn just makes me squirm no matter if the minors weren't forced into it no matter if other minors could watch. The thought of it sickens me.

quote:

And as hoopdawg pointed out, someone would have to show the children how to have sex, play around, use what ever term you would like, and THAT would be what would get people in trouble.

Are you saying people under the age of 18 don't know how to have sex? We're not talking about 5 year olds here, teenagers count as minors. Just like this whole sexting thing. I'm pretty sure it didn't start with adults telling kids to do it.

Well, i think that the exploitation of children is wrong and should not happen, whether it is by children or not. Even if we say minors are the only ones who are allowed to watch this porn, adults will still find a way to do it, just like minors find ways to watch porn now.

And as hoopdawg pointed out, someone would have to show the children how to have sex, play around, use what ever term you would like, and THAT would be what would get people in trouble.

So NOW, i have a comment.

The thought just crossed my mind that, in order for these minors to produce the pornagraphy, someone would have to show/teach them how to do it. That would entail an adult pornagrapher or someone who knows the field touching(I assume) the children in a sexual manner. That would be molestation, and that's a good enough reason for it to be illegal.

Well, yeah. I mean, if a child is forced to do it, only the filmer is doing wrong, but if both the filmer and filmee agree, then everyone's being creepy, you know?

And just because a child is a minor doesn't mean porn won't affect them badly. I know a little boy who pinches (or used to pinch) the breasts of a girl who was like, 9, and of 11-year olds who molested their classmates, so they are definitely fully capable of getting into sexual stuff too early. Also, minors sometimes sexually abuse each other after they're exposed to adult porn, so if they started consenting to star in it themselves, wouldn't it increase date rape? Because guys would be even more convinced that girls want them.

So we can assume from this that gussguss is a player? Is that why he's talking to people he doesn't even know online...

quote:

porn is for pathetic people that can't get any

Nice little generalization you've got there.

lol, porn is sexy when two people are watching it together...

porn is for pathetic people that can't get any. little kids don't even have a sexually developed mind, really. not when they're young enough. girls don't have tits yet, damn. they're not developed mentally or physically.

I see what you;re saying.. At first, I was like, " woah, isn't it always bad?" But I understand your point of view. It's odd that you thought it up, but good question.

Yeah, people do pass laws based upon personal discomfort. But laws are also passed to protect those who wouldn't have adequate protection otherwise. Participating in pornography is a pretty big decision that can have dire ramifications later in life. Young children don't always think far enough into the future to fully understand the consequences of their actions--that's why you get into less trouble with the law if you're underage and commit a crime.

Just because the other kids are doing it doesn't make it okay (ever heard of peer pressure?). There are many scenarios where bullies force their younger sibs or other neighborhood kids into unwanted situations. Porn should not be included in that list. Duh.

lol, if something makes enough ppl uncomfortable generally laws will be passed or examined.

i hate it when ppl take my posts seriously. it's irksome.

but really child porn... when i think of it i don't think of the 15-16 year olds who make the movies of each other i think of the pedophiles who put two 7 year olds together and tell them to do things some 20 year olds have never heard of.

really it is nasty. i say 15 and under is just too much. (or should i say too little?)

maybe they should base these laws on the age of consent in whatever state the person is viewing it.

i'm surprised how large this thread is. child porn is a really debatable topic lol.

The last couple of posts are way to serious! I mean, I understand how Kim would feel protective of her kids, but it's just a question.
MissionHALO never asked to be alone in a room with your kids, never said this was some kind of fetish for them either. MH merely asked an interesting question in the hopes of a spirited discussion.
And yogore, being a member since 2004, you should know that half of what wolfie says is bull and she says it on purpose.
Now that that is out of the way, I don't know about 'toddler only sections' at the local porn shop. I don't think kids that old would even have the sex drive or awareness for this to happen. They are too young to know those kinds of things, hopefully.

quote:

child porn makes me uncomfortable, which is enough reason to make it illegal.

That's actually not enough reason at all. Maybe cigarettes make me uncomfortable, should they be outlawed? No. Personal opinion shouldn't have any bearing in law making. There are way better reasons to denounce child pornography than simply "it makes me uncomfortable."

quote:

Why is child pornography outlawed while videos depicting murder are perfectly legal to view?

I think the intentions matter most. Filmed murders are meant to inflict fear. Terrorists video tape beheading, for example, to show that they are in control. These videos aren't sold for profit or sexual gratification (one would hope). Child pornography is illegal for the same reason children can't consent to sex, they're not mature enough to make informed decisions about their lives. I actually think this comparison is one of the most intriguing I've come across.

Child Pron is bad no matter how you put it.It's wrong and as a single mother of two. I wouldn't even let you never my children for asking such a dumb question. Think before you insert foot in mouth.

child porn makes me uncomfortable, which is enough reason to make it illegal.

Well, it's still child porn isn't it? It doesn't matter who filmed it. duh!

quote:

The first reason is a pathetic excuse to criminalise possesion of an image. If I watch a terrorist beheading video I am not a 'murderer', nor am I supporting terrorism. Considering most child porn is downloaded via peer 2 peer sharing programmes there is no direct victim from downloading CP, no one is being 'paid' to produce more. The damage has already been done, wether 10 or 100 people download the video, the kid has still been abused.

You're not considering intent at all. One does not watch terrorist beheading videos the same way one watches child pornography. Child pornography is intended to be viewed for sexual pleasure.

The reason child pornography is illegal is, as you said, because it depicts a sexual act involving a minor. The idea is that a minor, who is below the age of consent, cannot be expected to fully understand what he or she is consenting to. Thus, it will always be considered rape.

Any depiction of rape is illegal, even if two adults are involved. Of course, there are plenty of pornography videos featuring simulated rape, but if both parties are consenting and over the age of consent, there is no problem.

However, I see your point. Why is child pornography outlawed while videos depicting murder are perfectly legal to view? Both acts depicted are illegal. However, I don't believe this is a suitable argument for making child pornography legal so much as it is an argument for making videos depicting illegal acts illegal.

Have you ever asked the question "why is child porn ilegal"?

The justification for the prohibition of sexual images of chidlren are 1) they involve the rape of a child during production and 2) they encourage pedophiles to rape children.

The first reason is a pathetic excuse to criminalise possesion of an image. If I watch a terrorist beheading video I am not a 'murderer', nor am I supporting terrorism. Considering most child porn is downloaded via peer 2 peer sharing programmes there is no direct victim from downloading CP, no one is being 'paid' to produce more. The damage has already been done, wether 10 or 100 people download the video, the kid has still been abused.

The second reason is equaly pathetic. If there is scientific evidence suggesting that humans are so weak minded that they cannot be shown depictions of illegal activities without emulating them, why do we not censor violence, drug consumption and rape in films? Because there is no evidence suggesting anyone is more likely to rape a child because they posses an image.

I can't justify the rape of a child like I can't justify the murder of a human being, but possesion of an image or video should never be illiagl.