Small women and sexuality

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

This *isn't* an issue of consent or even causing harm to minors, the issue is child porn.

But those are by far the two largest issues with child porn. Those two things are the reason it's illegal and drawn images are generally not.

No they aren't the largest issues, and it is entirely irrelevant anyway. You are completely missing the point the law is aimed at. Child abuse is rightly illegal already, there is no question on that. However the law, to put it into simpler terms, is making it illegal to make child porn (even when the actors in the film aren't actually children).

I will challenge your reasoning that harming a minor is the largest issue with such materials. It is entirely conceivable that a minor is more than willing to do what is asked without any harm whatsoever. There are plenty of 14 year olds already having sex, quite willingly, for example. There question of legal age of consent is irrelevant to my point. With the advent of "sexting", 12-15 year olds are willingly & voluntarily sharing lewd pictures and videos of themselves. It's not harm. It's not even abuse. It is however child porn.

I will reiterate one last time and will leave it there. This law is not in any way about harming or abusing a minor, that is not the issue and is already illegal anyway. It is about preventing the creation and distribution of child porn. In the context of the material in question, the age of the actor is entirely irrelevant. Entirely. Doesn't matter at all. If they are 20 in real life but look like/are being passed off as a minor, it is *no different* than if they actually were a minor as far as making, selling, buying, downloading, distributing or sharing such a video goes. It doesn't matter that they legally consented to being in the film, it doesn't matter the slightest. The issue isn't their consent or ability to give it, it's the material being made and sold. The finished product is the problem and Australia, rightly in my personal opinion, don't want that material in their country.

Just because no child is harmed, it isn't any less child porn. And just because a woman consented to and got paid for starring in the film, it is no less derogatory, sexist, demeaning and damaging to women as a whole.

 

[Headsprouter]

Such a small and young looking person would be perfect for a pedophile I think. The pedo is getting what he wants and the general publics opinion shouldn't matter since they aren't actually minors. Ofcourse pedos generally prefer kids because they will do anything a grownup says, not because they are small.

Gee, I dunno. That seems more like speculation as to why pedos prefer kids. Maybe you've done more research than I have, but, I'm still a bit unsure. It really could be anything.

What motivates them is'nt going to be obvious.

^This individual also holds my perspective. But we're not here to discuss why pedos like kids...

Personally, I have quite a young face, and am quite small, which is why I insist on a little facial hair to show my age, otherwise I can look like a fast-blooming 13 year-old. I have been treated differently, but I have not yet even approached relationships, so I can't answer that question in its entirety.

I think people should be able to do whatever they want, provided they are of consenting age, but I'm not going to go running after petite girls, seeing as they aren't really all that attractive to me, at least, not much more than the average lady...however, I may have to because, y'know...being short and stuff. I'm not even that picky, which is good, because beggars can't be choosers.

Finally:

I would rather pedophiles have access to a sort of "release" than be forced to engage in potential statutory rape.

I'm sorry. What? Forced to?

This man makes a good point. I don't believe in determinism, either.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

...
If you don't see how porn is damaging at all then you're eyes are closed. You can google for articles and many reports on the subject. In short, it, particularly now that it's freely available on the Internet for minors to find, creates people with unrealistic expectations of sex, skewed views of the opposite sex and their own, it is the most demeaning and derogatory, most sexist treatment of women who are nothing more than a collection of body parts, objects for men to use and abuse for their sexual gratification.
...

KingsGambit: Google fu aside, could you please point me to some sources to start out with?

This is not an easy one, but I'll try. Before I do though, I will qualify what I've said above, and preface the below. With regard to adults, particularly those who are themselves either married/in a relationship and/or have a healthy sex life, porn (while still derogatory and demeaning to women) isn't so harmful to the viewer. The viewer in this case is a matured, healthy and sexually active adult and to get there they have to be reasonably well-adjusted. The biggest issue is with teens and minors accessing this stuff and maturing into adults with skewed perceptions, unrealistic expectations and inability to deal with the opposite sex (or same sex as the case may be).

A Daily Mail article [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2432591/Porn-pernicious-threat-facing-children-today-By-ex-lads-mag-editor-MARTIN-DAUBNEY.html] - Yes, I cannot believe I am linking to a tabloid and a media outlet I despise for being a rag, but, even taken with a pinch of salt this article is an eye opener, especially considering the point of view from which it is written. I feel dirty even linking to the Mail, but it is an interesting read.

Porn addiction and it's physiological effects [http://www.jumpinglifestyle.com/34-why-porn-addiction-recovery-is-difficult] - This was an interesting, if basic and preachy result when googling for the terms "porn addiction dopamine [https://www.google.com/search?q=porn+addiction+dopamine]". In summary, it describes the effects of porn and addiction to it. Orgasm releases dopamine, the brain's way of rewarding us for "good behaviour". The biochemistry of it all is interesting, quite real and can be damaging.

Guardian Article from Labour MP [http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/jan/22/diane-abbott-hypersexualised-culture-children] - Labour MP talks about sexualisation of children, their access to adult material and touches on poor sex ed from schools and parents.

Article which linked to the above [http://oqonomics.com/easy-access-to-online-pornography-by-our-children-risks-taking-sexual-equality-and-relationships-back-to-the-dark-ages] - Father talks about the effect of easy access to adult material

That's a lot of reading I can't imagine many people being inclined to follow through with. I would add things like declining birthrates in European countries, Japan and the US but there are too many other factors which can contribute to that and no way to prove any effect porn has had. But really, googling terms like "study effects of porn [https://www.google.com/search?q=study+effects+of+porn]" or "effects of porn on teenagers" [https://www.google.com/search?q=effects+of+porn+teenagers] brings up multiple articles on the subject. The biochemistry, the reduction of women to sex objects and the easy access to adult films (which reduces the need to go out and have actual sex with real people) are damaging. I think Oz has the right idea with this law, and agree with PM David Cameron's "opt in" approach to filtering out adult material by default.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

This *isn't* an issue of consent or even causing harm to minors, the issue is child porn.

But those are by far the two largest issues with child porn. Those two things are the reason it's illegal and drawn images are generally not.

No they aren't the largest issues, and it is entirely irrelevant anyway. You are completely missing the point the law is aimed at. Child abuse is rightly illegal already, there is no question on that. However the law, to put it into simpler terms, is making it illegal to make child porn (even when the actors in the film aren't actually children).

I will challenge your reasoning that harming a minor is the largest issue with such materials. It is entirely conceivable that a minor is more than willing to do what is asked without any harm whatsoever. There are plenty of 14 year olds already having sex, quite willingly, for example. There question of legal age of consent is irrelevant to my point. With the advent of "sexting", 12-15 year olds are willingly & voluntarily sharing lewd pictures and videos of themselves. It's not harm. It's not even abuse. It is however child porn.

I will reiterate one last time and will leave it there. This law is not in any way about harming or abusing a minor, that is not the issue and is already illegal anyway. It is about preventing the creation and distribution of child porn. In the context of the material in question, the age of the actor is entirely irrelevant. Entirely. Doesn't matter at all. If they are 20 in real life but look like/are being passed off as a minor, it is *no different* than if they actually were a minor as far as making, selling, buying, downloading, distributing or sharing such a video goes. It doesn't matter that they legally consented to being in the film, it doesn't matter the slightest. The issue isn't their consent or ability to give it, it's the material being made and sold. The finished product is the problem and Australia, rightly in my personal opinion, don't want that material in their country.

Just because no child is harmed, it isn't any less child porn. And just because a woman consented to and got paid for starring in the film, it is no less derogatory, sexist, demeaning and damaging to women as a whole.

Well, it seems we have fundamentally differing views on right and wrong.

I don't believe anything is [i/]inherently[/i] wrong. Things are wrong because of what they cause, what causes them and the other factors that cause them to exist. Child porn isn't wrong because it just is, it's wrong because of what it causes and what materials go into it.
You say "This is an issue of child porn." I could say the same thing about literally anything. This is an issue about clowns! It has nothing to do with the factors. Clowns are wrong. Period.
It's silly and baseless.

Your entire argument seems to be "Porn is bad for all women" without actually backing it up with much of anything. You don't need to reiterate your opinion another 10 times either. I fully understand how you feel. You just haven't offered anything to back it up.

 

[Maze1125]

*snip*

No, you are wrong, completely and utterly. Child pornography isn't illegal just because it's child pornography. It's a matter of supply and demand.

If there is a demand for child pornography then more of it will be created, which means more children will be trafficked abused in its creation. It doesn't matter if the act of creating it is illegal, as there will always be people trying to get away with it for the sake of profit.

So, child pornography is made illegal, in an attempt to curb the demand. Because if watching it is illegal then many of the potential viewers will be scared off resulting in less demand and so less supply. Is it going to be 100% effective, of course not, but it's better than nothing.

On the other hand, laws like this achieve very little. They don't protect children, because the actresses involved are adults. If anything, they're likely to increase the demand for actual child pornography as there is going to be a group of "viewers" that will choose to watch the "real" thing as, given that they'll be committing a crime "either way", they'll have lost their incentive to avoid actual child pornography.

So, in fact, protecting children is the biggest reason behind child pornography laws. Many people may be losing sight of that, but it's still true.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It could equally be argued that your position is sexist and demeaning to women, as you are denying the right of adult women to use their bodies the way they wish.

You must have me confused with "Australia". And yes, it's very sexist telling women they are more than a collection of body parts for men to use for their pleasure and ejaculate semen onto while smiling the whole time. Women in adult movies are also partially responsible for the harm to their own gender as those producing the film and are not "empowered" or "liberated" as you seem to believe [https://www.google.com/search?q=female+porn+actresses+harm+women's+rights].

Also, a small point but 'sexting' is definitely not harmless by any stretch of the imagination, haven't you heard the cases of teens committing suicide after an ex leaked indecent pictures of them online? Self-taken photos can still be used to humiliate, or blackmail, at a later date.

That is very true. It is very harmful. But no harm or abuse came from the making of it which in most cases was the subject voluntarily photographing or videoing themselves.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

Child pornography isn't illegal just because it's child pornography. It's a matter of supply and demand.

If there is a demand for child pornography then more of it will be created, which means more children will be trafficked abused in its creation. It doesn't matter if the act of creating it is illegal, as there will always be people trying to get away with it for the sake of profit.

So, child pornography is made illegal, in an attempt to curb the demand. Because if watching it is illegal then many of the potential viewers will be scared off resulting in less demand and so less supply. Is it going to be 100% effective, of course not, but it's better than nothing.

That is precisely true and is likely the main reasoning for the law in the OP. It is also what I've been saying already, albeit in different words. You say I'm utterly wrong and argue the same point. Australia made it illegal to stop feeding the desires of people who want to see videos of minors engaged in sexual acts.

 

[Maze1125]

Child pornography isn't illegal just because it's child pornography. It's a matter of supply and demand.

If there is a demand for child pornography then more of it will be created, which means more children will be trafficked abused in its creation. It doesn't matter if the act of creating it is illegal, as there will always be people trying to get away with it for the sake of profit.

So, child pornography is made illegal, in an attempt to curb the demand. Because if watching it is illegal then many of the potential viewers will be scared off resulting in less demand and so less supply. Is it going to be 100% effective, of course not, but it's better than nothing.

That is precisely true and is likely the main reasoning for the law in the OP. It is also what I've been saying already, albeit in different words. You say I'm utterly wrong and argue the same point. Australia made it illegal to stop feeding the desires of people who want to see videos of minors engaged in sexual acts.

That's not what I said at all. I would recommend you reread my post.
Child pornography laws are there to reduce the demand for actual child pornography, that is not the same thing as making the law to stop feeding the desires of people who want it. Desire is not the same thing as economical demand.