7 ms·
People who consume child pornography have severe mental health issues. They need counseling and treatment. This idea is not what they need and is repugnant. Al
by ozten 6y ago
People who consume child pornography have severe mental health issues. They need counseling and treatment. This idea is not what they need and is repugnant.
Also, who in their right mind would build, QA, or market such a soul crushing product.
Some Taboos will remain Taboos despite “hurting no one”.
- hnaccy 6y agoWhat if it reduced the rates of actual sex crimes against children? https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h...
- ozten 6y agoThanks for sharing this research! My hunch is that it is a local optimization. Perhaps if we focused on de-stigmatizing mental health issues and making access to mental health care easier, that could also reduce rates. It is a universal and much less problematic strategy.
- Retric 6y agoThat reads like you are simply ignoring any information you disagree with. For the sake of argument let’s assume it’s the best possible option on any scale you choose, now what do you feel should be done?
- claudiawerner 6y agoIt's worth noting that the authors here do not claim that it reduced rates, only that it coincided with such a reduction, i.e that the material did not cause an increase in child sex crimes. The catharsis effect has very little empirical support. As such, this paper does dispute the argument that porn leads to higher rates of sexual assault. It does not provide evidence for porn being an outlet that prevents crimes. The distinction is important.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- rootsudo 6y agoYou can replace "child pornography" with anything pornography or extreme niches.
- tea_lover 6y agoPlease don't conflate repellent behaviour with mental illness.
- throwaway1777 6y agoMental illness is a broad category of people. Some types are more serious than others. Some exhibit repulsive behaviors, some don't.
- happytoexplain 6y agoIt sounds like you're restating the parent's point.
- tea_lover 6y agoViewing child pornography is not a symptom of mental illness
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- antonvs 6y agoThe people who view it would like to think that. But one can certainly make the case that it's not mentally healthy, and as such is indeed symptomatic of mental illness.
- tea_lover 6y agoWhich mental illness or illnesses are you claiming that it is symptomatic of?
- dependenttypes 6y agoPedophilia is considered a mental illness under DSM-5 and ICD-11. Although admittedly someone can view child pornography without being a pedophile.
- happytoexplain 6y agoIf it materially reduced harm to human beings, that's a theoretical benefit. Regardless, by insulting the parent's idea ("this idea ... is repugnant"), you've presented yourself as unreceptive to good faith discussion.
- throwaw4y-plate 6y agoManufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial?
- rudolph9 6y agoThere is enough demand that people not only pay lots of money but risk jail time to view these images. Repugnant or not, it’s a lot less repugnant than the underground crime circles that exploit and traffic real live human children. The demand is there regardless of how they get it, so it’s worth at least discussing if synthetic images would result in a reduction of real live children being involved in pornography and/or being trafficked.
- nordsieck 6y ago> Manufacturing child porn IS repugnant, even if it is a deep whatever. Is that so controversial? I think your parent is asking the question: why is it repugnant? Is it repugnant because children were harmed in the manufacture of the images, or is it repugnant ipso facto? And if it is repugnant ipso facto, is that worth having a strict liability crime on the books, when no people are actually being harmed (in the case of fake child porn)? In other words, why should it be illegal to have fake porn of children, but not illegal to keep spiders as pets?
- rbecker 6y agoIs manufacturing such material more repugnant than allowing more children to get raped, because you find faking such images too repugnant? Lets try to put a number on it. How many children would you allow to be raped, to prevent someone from making or viewing fake child porn? Ten? A hundred? More? A commenter linked https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.h..., in case you think this scenario is unlikely.
- lilboiluvr69 6y agoI don't know...if everyone who's sexually aroused by children is mentally ill that basically includes the entire population of Inkbunny. I wouldn't be surprised if you knew a lot of pedophiles personally, you just don't know they are pedophiles because they never told you, don't engage in illegal activity, and are otherwise indistinguishable from the rest of society.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jhanschoo 6y agoAre you speaking from professional psychiatric authority that generated CP cannot be useful at all? For example, that it cannot be useful as part of a plan in helping a pedophile (in state of mind, not in action toward others) cope and adjust to become a useful, integrated, and satisfied member of society?
- cortic 6y ago>Some taboos will remain taboos despite 'actually decreasing abuse' Most every study we have shows a decrease in real sexual activity linked to an increase in available pornography. We have no reason to believe child pornography would be any different. This was of course irrelevant as we had a duty to protect real people. Now we are in a strange situation where effectively; 'virtue signaling' maybe causing child abuse.