- 1 More research
- 2 Debunking the "tools for further molestation" argument
- 3 Debunking the "banning distribution decreases incentives to produce the pictures" argument
- 4 The first sentence
- 5 "Child pornography" vs. "child abuse imagery"
- 6 Proposed renaming of the article
- 7 Nebulous edit by Wanker on "'kinky' sex by minors"
Tangentially related: http://www.libertarianview.co.uk/current-affairs/in-defence-of-rape-porn Leucosticte (talk) 19:21, 12 May 2014 (CEST)
Debunking the "tools for further molestation" argument
"Second, there is substantial evidence that photographs of children engaged in sexual activity are used as tools for further molestation of other children. Children are shown pictures of other children engaged in sexual activity, with the aim of persuading especially a quite young child that if it is in a picture, and if other children are doing it, then it must be all right for this child to do it."
Debunking the "banning distribution decreases incentives to produce the pictures" argument
"If the sale or distribution of such pictures is stringently sanctioned, and if those sanctions are equally stringently enforced, the market may decrease, and this may in turn decrease the incentive to produce those pictures."
The first sentence
really there is no common denominator for either "child" or "pornography"? They're 100% culturally determined, all we can do is look at what laws say in different countries? Wanker (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
"Child pornography" vs. "child abuse imagery"
I wonder whether the term "child abuse imagery" will gain currency? It seems to me that the government might prefer to continue calling it "child pornography" since "pornography" carries a stigma. It emphasizes the fact that people are using to get off on. "Child abuse imagery" emphasizes that it's just images that can be used for any number of purposes. Lysander (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed renaming of the article
"Child Pornography" has become a loaded term. The term "Child erotica" is not only more neutral, but more accurate. I believe the article should be renamed, and redirects created as necessary. Why should we let THEM define the topic in such a negative way -- and to stigmatize the viewing of often entirely innocent and innocuous images of children (even when done for "sexual gratification") -- as they have? We should avoid "drinking the Kool-Aid" whenever we can! This is our wiki, not theirs! User4 (talk) 00:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- I thought "child erotica" referred to stuff that almost, but didn't quite, cross the line into being illegal. That is, it's lower on the COPINE scale or whatever. Lysander (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
- See, you just don't understand. You don't understand at all. Who created the COPINE scale? Why did they create it? WHY DO I HAVE TO EXPLAIN SUCH SIMPLE THINGS TO YOU? Hello, Lysander, Mr Kool-Aid kid!
Nebulous edit by Wanker on "'kinky' sex by minors"
This most recent edit has added "
The sexual sophistication exhibited by newly-18 porn actors and actresses is documentation of "kinky" sex by minors." as one more reason why parents might endorse their children's participation in child pornography. Even if changed to "newlyborn-18" I still don't understand this argument. Could Wanker please clarify? __meco (talk) 14:00, 12 November 2015 (UTC)