"The Science of Sex Abuse"

[shnozzola]

Good article concerning child pornography on the internet.

When U.S. obscenity laws were first relaxed, in the fifties, no special stipulations were made for photographs of minors. “If the First Amendment means anything,” the Supreme Court wrote in 1969, “it means that a State has no business telling a man, sitting alone in his own house, what books he may read or what films he may watch.” But, by 1982, the public seemed to have discovered child sex abuse, both its trauma and its prevalence. The Supreme Court made child pornography an exception to the First Amendment, since “a child has been physically or psychologically harmed in the production of the work.”

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2013/01/14/130114fa_fact_aviv

[Bluecolour]

Very chilling. At many points you feel uncomfortable just reading it.
Some questions:
1>The argument is that a child is harmed in the production of the work. What if that were not the case. In fact, there are minors who willingly tape themselves in sexual acts. What right does the government have to tell people what and what not to look at, especially if its online?
2>Life today is not what it was in 1969.  The internet, personal computers, social networks. With that kind of exposure its safe to say that most children born today will be having sex by the time their 18. Already today many willingly seek relationships with older individuals. Yet the law still makes it illegal for an adult to be romantically involved with a child. Who are they honestly protecting?
3>The word obscenity alone reeks of subjective bias. Our history can tell us that men at least have always been generally attracted to younger girls. Many marriages that were both legitimate and morally acceptable back then would today be condemned as perverse. Should we consider pedophilia a natural part of human nature like polygamy or homosexuality?
The question was can a person be imprisoned for crimes they have not yet committed, but there is another question; are we in fact imprisoning people for the way they were born, something genetic and completely out of their control?

[This topic has no doubt been tackled before, sorry i'm new]

[wheels5894]

Bluecolour,

I think we have to assume that the reason most legal systems even have the legal status of 'minor' is that it is assumed, probably wisely, that minors are not capable of reaching mature decisions on things - anything really - whether financial, legal or indeed sexual. Our legislators have thus settled on protecting minors from these things and it makes sense.

Think about it - a film of a minor doing whatever makes it hard to show if the minor was doing it from free will or if there was a gun out of shot pointing at the minor. If we allow the free sharing of this material then we will be sure to end up with more children forced into 'performance' damaging more children. However I am not sure that there is that much evidence that there is much which is voluntary at the moment though it is hard to find out so this restriction seems to make sense.

[Bluecolour]

I think we have to assume that the reason most legal systems even have the legal status of 'minor' is that it is assumed, probably wisely, that minors are not capable of reaching mature decisions on things - anything really - whether financial, legal or indeed sexual. Our legislators have thus settled on protecting minors from these things and it makes sense.

I honestly don't consider many of the adults i know capable of reaching mature decisions about a lot of things. Wisdom you could say comes out of experience not age. A twenty-six year old virgin could likely be less reliable making decisions about sex than a sixteen year old who's  been involved with several partners.
Also, saying their to young to make decisions about it and then allowing them to do it anyways with their boyfriend/girlfriend because its 'normal' doesn't make any sense to me.

thoughts?

[wheels5894]

Well, I stick with what I said.  The law has, by its nature, to deal with people as a group. It can't manage to deal with people on the basis their experience, wisdom etc. So I think it reasonable that minors should be protected. Sure, some children mature earlier than others but, as I say, the Law has to put in a limit and that's what it has done in defining minors.

As for adults who want to enjoy picture of children forced to do 'things' well, I think they are sick. I have no sympathy for them at all.

[shnozzola]

   IMO, the supreme court hits the problem closest by referring to the psychological damage caused by child pornography.  I believe this is so pervasive in society worldwide that it could be considered  one of the main causes of society's problems.

   As an example, a current article, "Netherland", also in the New Yorker, looks at the LGBT homeless youth in NYC, most of whom arrived in NYC by way of such things as sexual abuse or rejection by family religious intolerance.

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/10/121210fa_fact_aviv

   Having said that, I think that those who say they are not attracted to, say, 16 year olds, are hypocrites.  I also believe that a poll may show probably all of us are introduced to sex at a minor age, usually through  experimentation from someone our age.  I should have set up that poll with this thread.

   As you say above, Bluecolour, this topic has been argued at length in threads here many times.