platypus said:
However, surely if people with paedophillic urges get their buzz from made up images, isn't that better then them getting their kicks from real images?
I agree completely, my knowledge of paedophilia isn’t extensive but it’s very clear that it’s a real compulsion for some people, not so much a choice, but a drive.
Unfortunately a large percentage act on the urges in some way shape or form. It’s definitely and completely unarguable that it’s better for them to get their buzz and kick fulfilled by virtual representation rather than abuse a real child.
My personal view is that making something completely taboo isn’t effective, so the complete banning of even virtual images and pixelated representation of children, in my view, is a mistake. Arguably it harbours and increases the chance for actual abuse of a child as it may be their only access and if any form of it is illegal, why not go all the way? But the same argument can be applied against my opinion. If it’s there, they can see it; they may become desensitised to it and decide to act on their urges for real.
There is a massive Japanese culture for anime pictures depicting children in adult situations, in Japan their stance is that it helps feed the urges and stops actual abuse, in America however, possession of these anime images is as illegal as possession of actual child pornography.
In the reported case by the beeb, real images were in circulation and being offered. This is obviously illegal and nobody can argue that it isn’t harmful, that is what I was referring to. There’s a mention of virtual representation being illegal, there’s not really a gray line there either, any representation of a child in an adult situation in the country in question is illegal.
As many people have said in this thread however, virtual representation may be an outlet for their urges and the legality of such is brought into question. You can virtually murder, this isn’t taboo, you can virtually steal, it isn’t a taboo, there are many things that bring into question the fairness of the law with regard to paedophiles fulfilling their urges virtually.
I still think there is a very clear line, obviously anything involving real children, in images or video, or even as the person behind a pixelated character, should definitely be illegal. It is some countries stance that even virtual representation is illegal, there’s no gray line there.
The only thing to be questioned is –why- it is illegal when so many other heinous acts in a virtual word aren’t even considered. It’s clearly the general consensus that it contributes to the likelihood of a paedophile acting out on a real child, but is this opinion founded on evidence? I don’t know of any clinical/psychological trial that has approached this, perhaps it should and perhaps it may be helpful to let them have access to such a thing in a virtual arena as in the long term, this may even reduce the number of real children suffering.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}