The CP debate Thread

[mrlolicon93]

So this is the CP debate thread.

What are your thoughts on CP?

Do you think it could help maps not offend or will it just make them want to offend?

Also, what should be done about CP addiction and people who are addicted to CP/CSAM?

Thoughts?

[Fragment]

I don't believe in a slippery slope. But I'm not sure I believe it's "preventative", either. I think CP is neutral, it won't increase or decrease the desire for real life sexual contact.

Morally, I think that a lot of CP is actually less consensual than AMSC. From what I know a lot of CP online is the result of webcams being screengrabbed so the minor thinks they're only performing for one person, but instead have their image shared with thousands. That's not something I like.

I don't think that "every time a CP video is viewed an angel loses their wings"

However, the penalties? Possession should be decriminalized. Criminalizing it doesn't help anyone, victims of exploitation included.

Especially considering, as you say, addiction is a problem. Criminalization wasn't the answer for drugs. It's not the answer for any kind of porn, including CP.

[WavesInEternity]

One of the best articles on this topic I've ever read is from original Pirate Party founder and leader Rick Falkvinge: "Three Reasons Possession Of Child Porn Must Be Re-Legalized In The Coming Decade"

I don't believe in a slippery slope. But I'm not sure I believe it's "preventative", either. I think CP is neutral, it won't increase or decrease the desire for real life sexual contact.

The evidence in that respect is surprising. Pornography in general does seem to decrease the prevalence of contact sex crimes.

One can look at the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Japan, three countries where CP was actually legal during a certain period, and where it's possible to compare the "before" and "during" statistics: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 111326.htm

In Denmark, where between 1969 and 1980, the Color Climax Corporation produced professional for-profit CP involving girls aged 7-11, Berl Kutchinsky actually found that the rates of most contact sex crimes had fallen, including that of child sexual abuse. (Paradoxically, he went on to contribute to the implementation of prohibitionist laws.)

Czech Republic study by Diamond et al.: https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y

Diamond & Uchiyama's detailed study of Japan's case: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/s0160-2527(98)00035-1

And here's Milton Diamond's general review of the topic: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.06.004

Morally, I think that a lot of CP is actually less consensual than AMSC. From what I know a lot of CP online is the result of webcams being screengrabbed so the minor thinks they're only performing for one person, but instead have their image shared with thousands. That's not something I like.

Agreed. More generally, the current social and legal context makes it considerably more likely that sexual interactions between adults and minors, of all types, will be non-consensual and unhealthy. It's really a vicious circle in so many ways...

I do also think that, in an ideal world, we shouldn't be freaking out about children's nudity, and the world should view the sexuality of children (and adults, for that matter!) as something beautiful and wonderful rather than disgusting and pathological. Someone else being turned on by pictures or videos of you, at any age, should be taken as a compliment and celebrated, not considered creepy and off-putting (yes, even nepios looking at little babies, why not?). Erotic appreciation is an inherent and important part of aesthetic appreciation. Talk about an unpopular opinion!

However, the penalties? Possession should be decriminalized. Criminalizing it doesn't help anyone, victims of exploitation included.

Especially considering, as you say, addiction is a problem. Criminalization wasn't the answer for drugs. It's not the answer for any kind of porn, including CP.

I certainly think that possession should be fully legal, for all the reasons mentioned by Rick Falkvinge and more.

And yes, drug prohibition doesn't work either; current drug laws are insane and completely detached from scientific evidence of harm/risk. (I was a polydrug addict for over a decade of my life.)

[Aspire6]

One of the best articles on this topic I've ever read is from original Pirate Party founder and leader Rick Falkvinge: "Three Reasons Possession Of Child Porn Must Be Re-Legalized In The Coming Decade"

I certainly think that possession should be fully legal, for all the reasons mentioned by Rick Falkvinge and more.

The crime and hysteria around child pornography is insane and exaggerated. I believe that any kind of actual rape/abuse pornography should stay illegal, adult or child.

There is a part of me that believes the interest some have in it is partly because it's considered so taboo.

The sometimes outrageous sentences people get for mere possession boggles me, it's the hysteria of "pedophilia" and the absolute denial that any change would reduce the possibility of actual abuse. This of course comes where new legislation is pushing to ban entirely fictional forms, that depict fictional minors, all because they fear it's a "step towards actual harm". It's all thought-crimes from here on out.

You ban that, will we see DDLG/LB banned next as that's just the next "pipeline" they'll claim? When will it end?

[WavesInEternity]

You ban that, will we see DDLG/LB banned next as that's just the next "pipeline" they'll claim? When will it end?

As I mentioned elsewhere on this forum, I was once banned from an online BDSM community and "reported to authorities" for consensual age play with adults, without any reference to actual little girls at any point. That was over five years ago... things have gotten worse since, I'd say.

[Fragment]

The sometimes outrageous sentences people get for mere possession boggles me

There's a small part of me that wants to push back on this framing. "Mere" possession makes it sound like things other than possession are "actually much worse".

But is someone that downloaded and watches Daisy's Destruction guilty of "mere possession" compared to someone that records a video of their YF masturbating?

[WavesInEternity]

There's a small part of me that wants to push back on this framing. "Mere" possession makes it sound like things other than possession are "actually much worse".

But is someone that downloaded and watches Daisy's Destruction guilty of "mere possession" compared to someone that records a video of their YF masturbating?

I very much agree in principle. I do believe that ideally, production and distribution of softcore—and even mild hardcore, depending on age (or, even more ideally, maturity level: we could envision a voluntarist system for this as well)—erotic material involving young people should be legal, with safeguards to prevent exploitation.

However, not only is that an incredibly unpopular view, it would also require radical social change to work in practice: as things stand, even adult erotica is viewed with disgust and apprehension by a large part of society.

In the current context, it is only realistic to expect possession to be legalized, largely on pragmatic grounds (see Falkvinge's arguments) rather than a utopian call for a radical rethinking of our society's relationship to sexuality and erotica.

[Aqeuous_Firmlength]

I strongly condemn production, though also think that any and all media is to be owned, viewed, reproduced, and shared without penalty. Anyway, I would like to hear your opinions! Please do not spare me your reasoning!

[BLueRibbon]

Pro-Reform's position:

Most PIM-related offenses are not deserving of imprisonment

Decriminalization of possession of all PIM

As there is no logical mechanism by which the simple possession of PIM leads to harm to children, the action of possessing (or downloading) PIM should not be a criminal offense. Paying for PIM could be subject to proportionate penalties, which would in our opinion mean fines rather than long prison sentences in most cases.

Lesser penalties for distribution of old PIM

Redistributing old PIM, while potentially distressing if the person depicted is aware of the redistribution, ought not to constitute a serious criminal offense, but should still be subject to minor punishment and compensation that is proportionate to harm done. However, a scheme by which people sign up to be informed of redistribution of their images constitutes a financial racket rather than harm reduction. If harm reduction is the true purpose, and people are harmed each time by knowing their images were redistributed, authorities should not inform.

Distributing images or videos of young people who are tricked into performing on camera, typically by a man posing as a young girl, should be treated harshly if the young person becomes aware of what happened and experiences distress as a result.

Decriminalization of AI PIM; proportionate penalties for distributing deepfakes

The production of AI PIM does not cause harm to anyone. If a real person's likeness is used, the distribution is harmful if the person resembled becomes aware of the distribution. In these cases, the distributor ought to be liable to proportionate criminal or civil penalties.

No criminalization of AI model-making. No extreme sentences for LORA-making

Making AI models, which do not intentionally output images in the likeness of a particular person, should not be criminalized. Penalties for making LORAs that intentionally output pornographic images of real people should be subject to proportionate penalties.

What does proportionate mean?

Proportionate means that the penalty is commensurate with the actual harm caused, and not based on the stigma surrounding MAPs. Unless there is evidence of significant harm, the penalty should not lead to significant prison sentences, sex offender registration, or other lifelong consequences.

https://www.map-union.org/perspectives/ ... ach-to-pim

[Outis]

Prohibition is ineffective imo, it only drives something underground.

Posession shouldn't be illegal because there is no new victim. The argument holds no water, if it did then we'd be locking up people who look at holocaust material in documentaries or watching the news containing war and natural disaster footage. It's such a flawed argument but it has been repeated so often now that people just accept it without thinking.

Another problem is the definition of cp is so broad. You could argue that classic Christian art of naked cherubs and the baby Jesus is porn, I expect if some of these images were presented out of context then some people would argue that it was cp. I might try to set up an experiment of this type, take classic Christian pictures and presented them as intercepted cp and measure viewer responses, whether they respond that it's cp and should be banned and the creators and owners prosecuted.