When Is It Child Pornography?

[the reverend silver]

My Dog Mr. Kitty

the reverend silver

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Chahklet

My Dog Mr. Kitty

Chahklet

I do think it's wrong. I am not sure if imprisonment is the best response. It depends on if it's a mental illness or a choice. I can't even conceive how ***** works.

*****, like many other mental issues, nearly always comes from some sort of abuse or trauma, normally from early childhood. So something like being raped or molested. That sort of thing can have a number of effects on people their whole lives, including seeking out unstable and violent relationships, having bad relationships with people of a certain gender, or relatively rarely, becoming a sexually deviant person such as a rapist or *****. There are things that can be done to fix these issues in adulthood, like therapy or even medications sometimes, but the person has to want to, and even then it's a very long and tough process

So, basically, it's both. People become attracted to children almost exclusively because of something they had no control over, but they also have to allow themselves to give in to the urges and not seek out treatment

Source:
I've listened to a lot of loveline over my lifetime. I'm getting all Dr. Drew up in here

I've heard of rationalizations for *****, claiming its completely natural. I've also heard the opposite saying there is no cure.

Keep in mind I'm talking about people attracted to toddlers and really young people. It is completely natural for a man to be sexually attracted to women once they develop physically, even if that occurs at 14 or 15

. . . So that's not *****]
Legally it is. That doesn't mean the normal heterosexual man isn't sexually attracted to it

That said, it's still very wrong to do anything sexual with anyone under the age of 16. 16 is generally the age where people on average are old enough to understand and not get negatively affected by sexual situations and acts. Obviously everyone is different, but the vast majority

"it's all a blur/
it's all, a blur"
- whassername, that song from the game with the rabbit, alice is dead

[King Shining Heaven]

While I generally find Rule 34 involving kids to be gross and weird, it's not technically illegal since there were no actual kids involved; same goes for any drawing or graphics that depict children graphically

[Letter-W]

I think it might actually be illegal in my country (Canada) but I do have to wonder about the state of mind of the person to compel them to draw that in the first place.

[Ame Yuki Kaze]

It's considered pr0n when the government decides it is.

[Arcoon Effox]

fun giraffe

My Dog Mr. Kitty

So should fake rape porn be illegal?

lol it's not.

Christopher Handley would say otherwise.

[Arcoon Effox]

fun giraffe

Arcoon Effox

fun giraffe

My Dog Mr. Kitty

So should fake rape porn be illegal?

lol it's not.

Christopher Handley would say otherwise.

why did you edit that post to make it look like i was replying to one thing instead of the other thing?

why did you even quote me at all here?

Were you not? My bad, I must have read it wrong...

[French Pizza]

if no actual children are involved, then no.

[Lokun]

Firstly, I must admit that this is a very interesting topic. Both in the aspects of child pornography in art, and what should be considered freedom of speech.

But personally I have to say that as long as no real children are involved or hurt, it should be allowed. It has to be allowed. If you can sentence someone to jail or convict someone for child pornography because of what someone has drawn, it's a slippery slope from there...

There was an interesting case in Sweden where a man was convicted for child pornography, only for having drawings of naked children in his home. But here's the thing; this guy was a manga-translator. He was studying Japanese culture, and hence he was keeping a lot of hentai-themed comics and drawings around for research purposes. Some of the drawings weren't even children, but the prosecutor deemed them to be enough "child-like" to be considered child pornography. He wasn't sentenced to jail, but he was fined and he lost all of his jobs as a translator.
He hadn't hurt anyone, but in the eyes of the law, he might just as well have. And it ruined his reputation, because no one wants to hire or even work with a "*****"...

Luckily, after 2 years of legal crap and a lot of pressure from the media, the whole case was dismissed. But I think it's a good example of when the means to protect the children goes to such extreme that we're not actually protecting anyone, just hurting innocent people.

[AliKat1988]

Senator Armstrong

Chahklet

Senator Armstrong

Chahklet

the reverend silver

Chahklet

Correct countries?

He's indicating his approval of legislated morality

Oh well. When it comes to that...

What, do you think these human slugs shouldn't be prosecuted?

I think they are disgusting, but I don't want to make the mistake of wrongful imprisonment over something like that. It could make matters worse. I do believe the people making the s**t should have to get registered.

The sex offender registry is an objectively moral wrong.

What if it fell on the level of being like gun license registration (private, but traceable usage) instead of sex offender registry and it was more like users and producers of animated child porn have to report owning it.

The sex offender registry is a little too broad in its scope and needs to be made narrower-only sex traffickers (not prostitutes themselves), rapists and child molesters should be on it. voyeurism and public indecency of Tier 1 on this list should only show up if they are multiple offenses. I feel conflicted about an item in Tier 3-nonparental kidnapping of a minor; that should be available for public info though I am not sure it should be labelled a sex crime.