Talk:Child pornography

Hentai / Yaoi

is a bit on hentai / yaoi / cartoons worth adding ? Hamster (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Go for it. RW's mission deals with authoritarianism, so the free speech issues involved in these depictions are fair game. Landmartian (talk) 18:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You can certainly write about Hentai/Yaoi and any CP issues within said genres. Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 19:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This Article is Bad

Not a law expert, but not everyone is from the United States; laws differ from country to country. Also Lolicon is allowed in Japan and even in the United States federally due to recent laws; it depends on the state. This article desperately needs updating. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 15:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

See the Wikipedia article titled Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors for more info. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh... the legal state of the material isn't really the point of the article. I mean, errors about facts are bad and should be corrected, but honestly... I wouldn't go out of our way to try and make a case for it being legal like you did. The revision before didn't make any false claims. I'm gonna revert for now. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I think saying "this article is bad" is both unhelpful and incorrect. That being said, I re-inserted an altered version of the addition for now. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 17:49, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I apologize for the recent talk edits for my tone, I wasn't in the best of moods. The point I was making still stands; the laws differ between states. I'm glad the involved parties took it rationally and that everything has been worked out. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think this gif particularly helps make a good point positioned with the rebuttals, unless the argument being made is against depictions of children in general as this character has more clothes than most cherubs, as these argument address child pornography not anime that are non pornographic. It's a bit of a misrepresentation to be accusing those making these arguments of all falling down the slippery slope fallacy and equating all anime with child porn. Is there a reason why a more literal image illustrating the caption can't be used instead to actually demonstrate what the arguments against hentai are about, or would that weaken the rebutalas being made and be a violation of rules? Anything mentioned on tentacle erotica would suffice. Sorry, I just thought this gif was making light of rape art as a trigger rather than it was of the slippery slope fallacy. X-Factor (talk) 19:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Lolicon

Lolicon is illegal in the US. The PROTECT act was not ruled unconstitutional, and is still in law. People have been convicted due to this, and Dwight Whorley wasnt even able to get the Supreme Case to hear him. Parts of it were ruled unconstitutional in the Handley case, but which parts is incredibly vague. I recommend someone amending the article in case horny teenagers get falsely reassured that the US's draconian laws on this sort of thing cant bite them in the arse. --Renegade (talk) 10:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Um, its kinda creepy that your only edits are to this talk page. ClickerClock (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

It's simply that I made the account a couple weeks ago after lurking around the wiki seeing a falsehood on this page, and only now got the time to start using it. I fully support the site's mission, and Calling me creepy isn't open discussion.--Renegade (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

If you feel like the article is wrong, then edit it accordingly. You have an account, after all--Spoony (talk) 01:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Why

Alright, so I'm not sure how editing wikis work — this is my first time — but seriously, what is wrong with y'all. Compare this article with your article on Child Labor — the one on CL is full of sass, quick dismissals of numerous if not qualitatively good arguments (your entire counter-arguments page there is only TWO sources long, but with the confidence of a man screaming from an injection of 100mg of JStor), and with a definite conclusion: Child Labor is WRONG! Now look at this article — everything is presented as medically and clinically as possible, you give "both sides" an "equal opportunity" to be heard (giving constant, sourced counter-arguments to arguments against CP, even if those sources have no numbers and no specifics; gotta preach!... for CP?), and of course, nowhere is CP actually pointed out and said, "yeah, dude, that's bad". Seriously!!! Why treat these two things — Child labor and Child porn — so differently? It truly feels as if there is a whisper, a refusal to say out-loud but listen closely and you'll HEAR IT, in this site that says "CP's ok dudes... yah, anti-CP laws come from evil religious people, ooohhh...". If you want to protect children from being worked, why do you not want to prevent them from being sexed, or abused, or handed to the online world for public consumption??? Some of these arguments are straight up moronic, anywho. "Rates of child sexual abuse have declined substantially since the mid-1990s, a time period that corresponds to the spread of CP online." Huh, CP spread quicker online in the mid-1990s? Man, I wonder what other thing spread quickly during the mid-1990s. I think... it starts with an I, and ends with an -nternet? Idk man. Also, the pretty funny line "Professor Ost came to a similar conclusion in a meta-analysis in which she argued that "it is possible that individuals use child pornography for sexual stimulation, yet have no inclination to actually go out and commit child abuse."'. Let me rephrase that argument in a different way — "it is possible that fascists use the Christchurch Shooting video for sexual stimulation (I'd believe it), yet have no inclination to actually go out and commit shootings". I mean, is this something that needs to be argued? Frankly the fact that child porn overwhelmingly begins with a criminal act — statutory rape, child molestation, incest, etc. — should be grounds enough to make it illegal. Or is Rational-Wiki going to tell me that only the original slavehunters on the African continent were the true kidnappers, and the American middlemen just proper businessmen dealing with commodity? God-forbid.

I have no idea why some people here apparently have such... ambivalence towards the legality of child porn. And fun fact, if someone is ambivalent about something way outside the Overton Window, it generally means they secretly wish for the day it arrives. If someone says, in 2020, that "antebellum slavery wasn't do bad, y'all, idk if we should legalize it though" — he wants slaves. Likewise, if someone says, in 1850, that "equal rights with black people ain't too bad, y'all, idk if we should legislate it though" — he's probably harboring a runaway, a good man. So what does someone in 2020 going "child porn is kinda sus, but ya know, legally speaking, i don't know, bro" want in 2040? Eh?

This page gives me the creeps. I'm going to edit it. I think.

P.S, get rid of that Gif. We're all PC people here, and if you want to be sensitive to other people, "oh no only you can save the lolicon being pounded" is a cruel joke to make towards child abuse victims.

P.P.S, just a note. I kept the actual legal arguments in the article, because if we're really just gonna play the "oooh let's try and technically justify something society as a whole finds evil", then at LEAST use actual legal arguments/technicalities and not some dribble from an overpaid professor. The legal arguments are real; the quotes of "meta-analysts Ot?" are as valuable as the quotes of unsigned|ThisSiteRuxExDee. Not very valuable.

What filth.

November 11/2020 — I've been FREED from by bonds, POG. This site is now 25% better!!! ^{— Unsigned, by: ThisSiteRuxExDee / talk / contribs}

Can you please substantiate your assertions? Because from what I saw, the article does not have any of your strawman arguments in it. Simply pointing out that some forms of CP, as much as I find CP in general just as disgusting as the next guy, do not require children to be harmed does not amount to an endorsement of pedophilia and therefore make us RWians bad people. To point that out is not to endorse child molestation itself. 19:28, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

But the arguments aren't just defending child-child sex, eh? There are also several arguments made about how CP producers abuse children with or without CP being produced (implicitly suggesting the "badness" of CP laws in reference to Adult-Child abuse). As for my rant against Ratwiki, sorry. I was having a bad day with this site and I was sleepy.

Now, can ya please remove the houlier-than-thou cussword thing around me? I feel jailed. My autonomy is being repressed. Help, help! I'm being repressed! ^{— Unsigned, by: ThisSiteRuxExDee / talk / contribs}

For fuck's sake, please, this is not difficult! Sign your posts with (~~~~) or (if that's too fucking hard) by clicking on the fucking sign BUTTON: on the toolbar above the edit panel. (You can indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line.) This keeps the place tidy and stops you looking like a complete arsing tool so please, just fucking do it already.

Nope.

PS. RE "Ratwiki": "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! 19:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Pei! I spit on you. Mostly to show I can sign my own stuff.

Great, now can you free me from this jail cell? ThisSiteRuxExDee (talk) 20:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Child Abuse Imagery" section

Recently, @Christopher removed the "Child abuse imagery" section from the article on the grounds that it was written by user:Landmartian, a.k.a. Nathan Larson, and therefore was ostensibly just pedophilia apologist nonsense. I looked over the section in question, and while I did notice a lack of citations for most of the points made in the section, the content sounds just plausibly realistic enough that I can't be sure whether or not it's bullshit (and it's also plausible that it really is "hey pedophilia isn't bad why are you picking on us for fucking kids hey there's no need for handcuffs just let us diddle kids" nonsense, so I'm reserving judgment for the time being). I think we should do some research and search for other documentation of this supposed "child abuse imagery" term replacement proposal before we decide whether or not we should discard the section in question. --Luigifan18 (talk) 01:02, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe scrap the entire section, rewrite it with sourcing and careful language. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 01:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The term I actually see a lot now is child sexual abuse material (CSAM) or child sexual abuse images (CSAI), though "child abuse imagery" pops up too. The anti-trafficking organization Thorn has a glossary.

The paragraph as it reads is IMHO bullshit apologia though. The reason why many organizations tend to push terms like the above is they want to note that "child pornography" is never considered consensual and in no way should be conflated with the legal pornography industry. It is also considered by those pushing it a better term at highlighting the serious nature of the issue. "The term "pornography," however, is commonly understood to be associated with depictions of sexual activity between consenting individuals. Children cannot consent to sexual relations." (Source) See also some other references (eg page 4 of this report from ECPAT-USA, a paywall reference from the UK which seems to highlight other advocates of the term, etc.)

So, contrary to the paragraph: A) the phrase has caught on, by both activists and the law (Canada and the UK, plus I found a US house bill that uses this term; B) the two express similar concepts, the term difference is to avoid implying there is any consent when of course there is not; and C) "there is some child porn that doesn't require child abuse to produce", um, no, that's apologia right there. 72.184.99.135 (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

That last point is really all that matters here. Why does one of our articles have a paragraph, written by a pedophile who was arrested for kidnapping a 12 year old girl, stating that the production of child porn is sometimes not abusive? Where he, for no real reason, decides to talk about a child being “sadistically beaten to death”?

If you found out the author was a pedophile after you read the section, you wouldn’t be very surprised. That’s not acceptable. Christopher (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Ditto. Vee (talk) 18:19, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

To be honest, most of the article has the stink of Nathan Larson's initial work. I have no problem if an article addresses the legitimate moral panic aspect, the fuzzy cases (eg the sort of scenarios "Romeo and Juliet" laws cover, fictional / simulated laws, overlong or too broad sentencing concern, etc.), or other things along the line. However, much of the article still has a bunch of oddball statements (eg who the fuck cares about what a John Grisham thinks?), unsourced statements, and strange framing (what the fuck is that quote mine concerning child abuse and CP online? That's not exactly what the paper says if you read the whole thing.). It's pretty bad when even the second sentence of the article is untrue -- though laws vary considerably, it's pretty clear from the Wiki that most countries forbid child pornography, especially the real kind (though laws vary considerably). 72.184.99.135 (talk) 18:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Alas, that angry single-purpose editor was actually onto something. It may be 2 years later, but now I have guilt. I should've treated them better (though they could've worded it better, especially on such a difficult topic) --Goatspeed. _{Stalk me}CircularRasoning^{Steal my ideas} 04:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Vote

What the heck are we supposed to be voting on? --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:28, 11 April 2023 (UTC)