Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeltz | Hacker News Reader

Who is harmed by "virtual child porn"?

Not the virtual children, certainly.

Possibly the viewers, IF (research needed) giving them the ability to watch detailed scenarios of abuse -- possibly with willing "children" -- raises the possibility that they'll abuse a real child and ruin both the child's life and their own.

That's an important "if"; I don't know the answer, but I will at least say it's a bit sad we don't have more people calling for research on "what things actually prevent child molestation from happening" -- we just have people calling for harsher sentences, or broader laws, or more sex offender registries.

"giving them the ability to watch detailed scenarios of abuse"

You mean like what the police who investigate real tapes have?

This 'raises the possibility' thing is a bad slippery slope. Let's argue that playing GTA raises the possibility people will steal cars.

This ruins the lives of the car thieves and the people whose cars are stolen! We must avoid that possibility!

If we define harm as being to actual children (not religion/impure-thoughts kind of harm), then the only argument is that future children will be harmed, because the viewer of the porn will have his sexually deviant longings for children reinforced and then, one day, will rape/molest a real child.

Personally, I do not buy this argument at all. I think it is very likely that virtual child porn (comic, animation, CG) prevents molestation overall. Because honestly, what do men do when they watch porn? Mainly, jerk off. And then once that's done, the urge is substantially dissipated... and so the subject would be less likely to put themselves at risk committing a sex crime against an actual child (something I understand a lot of molesters also feel guilty about).

So my hunch is that virtual child porn is probably a net positive. But I doubt we will ever get good data about this, and anyway it is one of those issues where logic isn't so likely to prevail.

Except the concern isn't about satiating the pedophile's need; it's about the pedophile becoming desensitized and eventually normalized to the thought of having sex with a child. They experience "loli" or virtual children, and that would be the gateway to real ones.

If you're talking about a trained psychologist prescribing the material to a pedophile, that would be fine, but the vibe I'm getting from this discussion is a bunch of people think if you just open the loli flood-gates, all the pedophiles will stop raping children, and that just won't happen.

I guess by now we are so desensitised to murder and violence by watching action movies and playing video games that it became normal activity for us?

It has for some... It is pretty easy to find stories and interviews online where this is the case.

Not everyone is affected the same by the same stimuli, but some are affected deeply.

"for some" is a hedge because you know there isn't strong enough science to back up your claim, I think.

People have always hurt each other. Video games do not appear to have changed this.

I'm not sure you can compare a sexual attraction with murder.

We can compare anything ;)

One possibility I'd offer: comics can be used to teach empathy. Erotica can portray things in unrealistic senses, but creative writers can and have constructed elaborate plots that explore these unrealisms and their potential consequences.

Heck, look what School Days did for harem-style anime.

We wouldn't know what "virtual child porn" could/would be based on (real children depicted in virtual fantasies, pictures of real child abuse etc.). I know virtual child porn is often a reference to unrealistically drawn lolicon material. But what causes much more controversy is realistic material (3D, photorealistic).

The realistic, 3D stuff is a problem. A BIG problem. Not only because it could likely mean a real child was used in the creation but also because anybody who looks at THAT kind of shit is without a doubt, a pedophile.

I don't agree with the assertion. Looking at something does not automatically determine that the observer holds some kind of specific psychological condition.

Or are you saying that anyone who dares to click the screwdriver link is a sadist who gets off on people being blinded by metal implements?

People can simply look at things out of curiosity, to see what it is, see how they react to it, to fathom why whoever made it made it. Then to wonder how others react to it, and why they might seek it.

Having trounced your latter argument, let's get to the first: the problem with 'omg a real child might've been inspired this!' is that could apply to ANYTHING. As in, I can't read a novel where someone gets murdered, because maybe it's based on a real murder.

People can just as easily chibi-style 2D art of a rape as they can make a 3D simultation of it. I believe there are actually certain doujin manga whose plot revolve around that concept. Heck you could make a lego depiction of rape, better outlaw looking at controversial lego sculptures too.

I suppose that you don't believe in brainwashing either. You do not believe that something that we watch continually can change our thoughts or habits. The lines between fantasy and reality never blur for some people right? You don't believe that the human mind can be influenced to believe something that it never believed before or to stop believing something. Evil thoughts or ideas cannot be put into our head that were not there before right?

I don't know if you are just playing devil's advocate here or if you are really that ignorant to how what is fed into our minds shape who we are, our convictions, our desires, our conscience. How is shapes our perception of our reality(or lack thereof). How self diluted humans can easily be.

If you really are serious than let me just tell you that I am deeply sickened by you and anyone like you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com