Why doesn't the re-victimization argument apply to images and videos of kids beings beaten?

[SavannahApe]

We are told that one of the reasons child pornography is illegal is that viewing or watching child porn re-victimizes/harms the child depicted in the images or videos. Why then does this argument not apply to footage of children being physically beaten or assaulted?

Somehow a child is harmed when someone views/watches CP but not when someone watches a video of child being physically assaulted?

Another question is why the does re-victimization argument not apply when LEAs, Judges, Lawyers,or organizations like NCMEC, IWF etc view child porn images and videos?

Are we to believe that children are only harmed when a regular person views/watches child porn but not when when LEAs, Judges, Lawyers etc watch/view it?

[ReArm!]

because they're all hypocrites, hope this helps

[Bookshelf]

The honest answer is that people who push re-victimization arguments just haven't actually thought about it. It's not likely to be something they genuinely believe in beyond serving as an excuse to criminalize porn they don't like.

[Coyotehh]

Another question is why the does re-victimization argument not apply when LEAs, Judges, Lawyers, or organizations like NCMEC, IWF etc view child porn images and videos?

Before I continue, I'd like to mention that by victim, I don't mean consensual MAP/AAM relationships, I mean non-consensual and unethical production, as I understand that there is a difference between MAPs and people who only care for profit
I agree with everything else, but this is likely because they aren't viewing for pleasure (most of the time), and for the victims own good if it's actual trafficking/abuse, and the victim would like the perpetrator to receive punishment.
For the re-victimization argument, I agree that it's very hypocritical to punish people for consensual pornography but not genuine abuse just because one is sexual and one is "discipline".
Another thing I'd like to add, I wish they'd spend the time they waste on consensual relationships with AAMs on adults who were forced into pornography, they care more about age rather than being ethical.

[Theendoftheline]

Because most people are not getting sexual gratification from it is the honest no bullshit answer. We already know that society considers sex to be the absolute WORST thing a person can do to someone under societies current world view....

GRAPHIC WARNING

Spoiler!

A long while ago I was curious as people get so I somehow ended up at one of those gore sites...well as it so happens I came across a video of a kid around 10 to 11 in a shithole 3rd world country give or take having all his limbs hacked off with a machete then he was beheaded. I will not go into further than detail than that the shit made my stomach churn but even then I had the thought "HOW THE FUCK is THIS okay to post online but oh god if it was a boy jerking off its the worst possible thing he could do and he's victimizing himself!!!!! We live in a truly unhinged demented world.... Even now you can find some just disgusting videos of minors being tortured and gore on certain sites but if in the process of showing the gore if a nipple slips THEN it becomes a bigger problem still simply because then it becomes "sexualized" and we know that anything to do with a minor involving genitals, nipples (if female) is THE WORST THING in the world...not the fucking fact that a poor fucking CHILD GOT GOD DAMN SKINNED....

The above said we just for whatever reason as a society put sex in this weird ass category I cannot quite put my finger on. On one hand sex is good because well, mostly all of us are here because of it. On the other anyone under 18 having sex with someone with too much of an "age gap" is somehow the most traumatic thing a person can go through even without any actual rape involved.

IMO our big ass frontal lobes has made us smart...true, but also made us rather idiotic as well especially with all the moral gaslighting we do in terms of "this is okayish but SEX oh god SEX is the most FUCKED UP THING EVER....BUT ONLY for CERTAIN demographics of people!". I battled with truly understanding how humans reason with things especially like this ever since i was a "MiNoR" myself. Honestly I do think a LOT of it is group think and people just follow whatever is the "correct" way to think but overall people are far FARRR more disgusted over a SA of a minor than a minor literally getting turned to mince meat and tortured.




I swear to god humans are the most retarded creatures on the planet in so many ways and again I must state how I just, do not understand our collective thought process and it physically hurts my brain trying to. Anyway you guys get the gist of what I'm trying to say so I'll stop my rant.

[ReArm!]

The above said we just for whatever reason as a society put sex in this weird ass category I cannot quite put my finger on. On one hand sex is good because well, mostly all of us are here because of it. On the other anyone under 18 having sex with someone with too much of an "age gap" is somehow the most traumatic thing a person can go through even without any actual rape involved.

I love this paragraph, since it's exactly what I think about this topic. Like for some reason it seems sex is some magical thing that can have absurdly AWFUL consequences just because our brain has a stupid ass button that activates when it detects sex. No matter if that has actually had no impact whatsoever in one's physical health or long term effects of any kind or even if one enjoyed it, one will be traumatized by it's own "magical" nature. It's fairly stupid tbh.

(For context, I'm just being critic with this idea, not that I actually believe sex works this way, I think it's pretty obvious by the way I talk but it could be misunderstood, so ig I'll make this disclaimer)

[OnionPetal]

The honest answer is that people who push re-victimization arguments just haven't actually thought about it. It's not likely to be something they genuinely believe in beyond serving as an excuse to criminalize porn they don't like.

^Excellent response.

Before I continue, I'd like to mention that by victim, I don't mean consensual MAP/AAM relationships, I mean non-consensual and unethical production, as I understand that there is a difference between MAPs and people who only care for profit

One of the problems, is that society generally does not distinguish between happy erotic situations and actual violent abuse, when it comes to minors. Because the law says 'minors cannot consent,' then any erotic situation with a minor -- no matter how willing -- is viewed as a violent assault.

We've also had about 50 years of certain activists (aka 'experts') pushing the trauma myth that every single erotic encounter below the 'age of consent,' is guaranteed to result in a severely debilitating psychiatric disorder. And coincidentally, there is a big industry around 'treating' this 'trauma,' even if people don't realise they have any.

I wish they'd spend the time they waste on consensual relationships with AAMs on adults who were forced into pornography, they care more about age rather than being ethical.

Yes, it's interesting to see where their priorities are.

we just for whatever reason as a society put sex in this weird ass category I cannot quite put my finger on.

Sexceptionalism.

And yes, with brutal violent crimes, where society seems to just look the other way... Keep in mind that media coverage prioritises 'sex crimes' involving children, because there is a whole massive industry built around it, worth billions. So most people will never hear about those brutal cases of non-sexual violence. The media is too busy pushing a narrative to bolster the child pleasure-prevention industry.

IMO our big ass frontal lobes has made us smart...true, but also made us rather idiotic as well especially with all the moral gaslighting

This makes me think of how AI can be made very unintelligent with all those 'guardrails' that are put on it, to keep it 'safe,' but which totally impede its reasoning capabilities. With humans, we can also see plenty of 'moralistic guardrails,' which prevent people from even thinking about certain things. Have we been 'programmed'?

[CantChainTheSpirit]

Its a meaningless argument that breaks down under even a little scrutiny.

The news is full of victims of various crimes, as are newspapers and crime shows. Not all women in porn are doing it for fun. But apparently that's fine, they're not being revictimised.

Then there's the argument that they're only a victim again if the person watching gets some enjoyment from it. Well, I assure you, for every news story or newspaper article or documentary about any crime or bad event there will be somebody enjoying it. An Earthquake in the US and someone in the Middle East is celebrating, a person of colour is shot will have someone enjoying the news or pictures, that holocaust documentary will have someone getting excited, that unpopular celebrity had his house burgled and someone enjoyed the news story and pictures so I'm guessing they robbed the house again. This whole argument is built around virtue signalling, it's a crime because a pedophile might like it. Well does that mean CP is fine to share among non maps? A cinema screening of some cp is fine as long as no maps get in to watch? I assure you, everyone has enjoyed someone elses misfortune so everyone has re-victimised someone for something.

[Scorchingwilde]

Well does that mean CP is fine to share among non maps? A cinema screening of some cp is fine as long as no maps get in to watch? I assure you, everyone has enjoyed someone elses misfortune so everyone has re-victimised someone for something.

I'm convinced this is the reason that I've heard about and seen many anti-MAPs (at least the ones who aren't projecting self-hate outwards) and who haven't been educated in law enforcement or psychology end up spreading PIM, breaking the law in an attempt to 'bring harm to light' in the same way they see actual journalists do with non-sexual harm and gore from political violence abroad.