Hacker News Reader

Comment by a_bonobo | Hacker News Reader

There is debate that heightened exposure to pornography correlates with lower incidences of rape: http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-...

>the U.S. states in which rapes rose by 53 percent had the least Internet access between 1980 and 2000—and so the least access to Internet porn. States with the most access saw a 27 percent drop in reported rapes.

But there are so many other factors playing into this (with heightened exposure to Internet due to higher income and more free time also comes a higher level of education, which may deter rape), so the debate is still going on, but a clear "porn -> rape" correlation doesn't seem to exist.

View on HN

> There is debate that heightened exposure to pornography correlates with lower incidences of rape: http://freakonomics.com/2011/08/04/porn-and-rape-the-debate-....

Hello ? I'm not saying porn and rape is linked. I'm saying you can get tons of hardcore material everywhere in Japan, so why go only after the ones selling pictures ? Personally I dont see much difference between a drawing a kid being raped and an actual picture, for the end viewer. In both situations you are allowing that person to feel good about it, which is, in my view, wrong anyway.

To repeat what was said earlier: because it's not about the viewer. It's about the child actually being molested.

Q: Why is child pornography illegal?

A: Because it requires real life children to be abused in real life

Q: Why is CG / drawings of child pornography controversial?

A: Because we don't know if it will lead to real children being abused in real life.

Does this answer your questions?

> Because we don't know if it will lead to real children being abused in real life.

We also don't know whether some arbitrary behavior will result in eternal damnation, so just to be safe let's make everything forbidden in any religious text illegal. This is a very slippery slope, and I don't see any reason why we should FUD our way into banning drawings but reject Sharia law. It's the same logic.

> To repeat what was said earlier: because it's not about the viewer. It's about the child actually being molested.

You would not get (much) child molestation if there was no public for these images in the first place.

So on one side, it's forbidden to share pics of real children (for the reasons you mentioned), but it's fine to check/sell drawings of children being molested. It just seems very counter productive to go both ways at the same time. You can imagine that people who already enjoy drawings would also enjoy pictures and therefore actively look for them.

>>You would not get (much) child molestation if there was no public for these images in the first place.

You don't know that. Also, your argument sounds very similar to those that blame violent video games for actual acts of violence in society; which is also a very dubious position to hold. Afterall, Japan has some very violent Anime and yet I'm pretty sure incidents of actual violence in Japan is lower than most firstworld countries.

> You would not get (much) child molestation if there was no public for these images in the first place.

So what do you want to do with paedophiles (which is, IMO, just as valid sexual orientation as hetero- or homosexuality, and isn't a person't choice)? Kill them all?

I see the solution that allows them a legal fulfillment of their desires (i.e. by jerking off to images) as superior to a solution that only provides illegal sources of pleasure (illegal child porn/child molestation).

> You would not get (much) child molestation if there was no public for these images in the first place.

Citation needed.

Okay, that's a more nuanced and better argument.

We are now entering the "do video games cause violence" discussion hall. We take a number. It's ZY412787A331992. The 90s LED display mounted on the south wall says "unmoderated caucus".

We take a seat, close our eyes, and relax in the echoes of decades of brouhaha.

Do you want a drink?

> We are now entering the "do video games cause violence" discussion hall

Actually we are not. I am merely saying that the market of legal questionable things is likely increasing the market of illegal things, not talking about pictures causing rape directly.

I believe the difference is that in one instance a child was harmed in the creation of the image. Less about morality policing and more about actual victims.

I don't know if it reduces the amount of child pornography created in practice (presumably the type of person that goes as far as creating evidence of such a heinous crime has already leapt off the deep end) but I can certainly see why someone would want to enact those laws. If it reduces the demand in any way and that reduces the possibility of a child being victimized I think it's worth it.

> I dont see much difference between a drawing a kid being raped and an actual picture...

Kenji has explained the difference above:

> literally nobody was harmed in the process [of drawing pictures].

Admittedly, you add at the end:

> I dont see much difference..., for the end viewer.

but this just indicates you're missing the point: It's not at all about enforcing virtue of the end viewer. It's about preventing child abuse.

> but this just indicates you're missing the point: It's not at all about enforcing virtue of the end viewer. It's about preventing child abuse.

Don't you think encouraging the behavior to view drawings of child rape expands the market for actual pictures of child rape? I don't think it's too much of a stretch of imagination.

Does playing video games encourage kids to go shoot people?

You are thinking it from the wrong side as mentioned. If someone has those urges, they will look for real or drawn pictures, but if one doesn't, it won't immediately make you want to look for it because you saw it in a manga.

Read my previous comment again. I'm not saying it leads to actual rape at all.

Does playing video games encourage people to go out and seek snuff films, then?

I have never heard anyone advocate that viewing of such drawings be encouraged. Allowed, yes, encouraged, no.

As someone else mentioned: we really do not know how availability of such cartoons affects demand. It is possible that the opposite happens: that the cartoons take the market share of and thus reduce the demand for the real pictures.

Note for example that if the perversions which fuel demand for this stuff are genetically determined, then the above market dynamic is quite likely.

Have you ever considered that these drawings and CG images might prevent more children being abused? ( I don't think it's too much of a stretch of imagination ;) ) I just want to point out that we don't know ... yet what we know is that harming children should be prosecuted.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com