Someone’s Doing My Work for Me

February 4, 2007

Now watch what you say or they’ll be calling you a radical… liberal… fanatical… criminal. – Supertramp, “The Logical Song”

On another forum, I found a person with a like mind! I should bring this guy on as co-author of CP Explosion. I’ve long though that simple thought experiments would easily debunk many of the ridiculous, absolutist assertions made about child porn. A poster by name of Cangee, on a ahhh… very interesting forum, wrote the following as part of a thread about child porn.

I propose that a number of experiments be set up to study the properties of this amazing phenomenon of children being abused merely by the act of someone looking at pornography of them. Some of these experiments aren’t very practical and are more thought experiments than anything, but I’m sure methods can be devised with which to test the effects.

Experiment 1:
Assuming that a photograph of a nude child is not child pornography, but a photograph that is zoomed in on the nude child’s genitals is, what is the effect of taking a nude photo of a child, and cropping it to only show the genitals? Does the child who was in the photograph experience the effects of abuse when the cropping occurs? What if a computer is set up to automatically crop, and then someone *views* the cropped image later. Does the child experience the effects of abuse when the computer crops the file? Or only when the person observes the cropped image? An experiment should be set up with a computer and an observer, and a child in a separate room hooked up to monitors that can measure the amount of abuse that the child has sustained.

Experiment 2:
In order for the information about the abuse to travel from the viewed photograph to the child, there must be some sort of abuse wave or particle that communicates this information. What is the speed that this information propagates? If a child is on earth, and a pornographic photograph of her is on a space station a light year away, and someone on the space station views the photograph, does the child experience the abuse a year or more later due to light travel time? Or is the abuse immediately felt like some sort of “spooky action at a distance”, defying relativity?

Experiment 3:
What happens when a pornographic photograph is viewed that is a century or so old, and the child in the photograph has long since grown old and died. Assuming that the postulate of ‘all viewing of child pornography abuses the child in it’ is correct, how does the deceased child in the photograph become abused? Perhaps the abuse particle is some sort of tachyon and moves backwards in time to when the child was still alive? Viewing the photograph in the present causes the child to be abused in the past.

The ‘viewing → abuse’ postulate certainly generates some fascinating effects which will certainly advance our understanding of the universe.

Eternally searching for the elusive abuse particle,

Thanks, Cangee, for taking a load off my back. I couldn’t have done better myself.

6 Responses to “Someone’s Doing My Work for Me”

  1. Your a pedophile, there-fore you have no morality that child pornography is harmful to the child.
    Not only harmful but you are masturbating to a child getting sexually abused.

    Oh I know that doesn’t bother you, but it should.
    And would if you had any decent morals at all.

  2. cpexplosion Says:

    Ms. Leaves, are you a fool? Whether I’m a pedophile or you’re a pedophile in denial or the people you’re obsessed with at your blog (is there anyone you don’t think is a pedophile?) are pedophiles is irrelevant. This is a blog where I work on “exploding the lies, myths, doublespeak, and shoddy journalism surrounding child pornography.” There’s plenty of work for me to do.

    Did you read anything here, or do you just assume that since I refuse to blindly accept the government’s lies about child porn that I’ve got no “decent morals”? I’ll tell you what, questioning the rhetoric of the government is a noble pursuit… one I intend to pursue diligently.

    P.S. Vampires aren’t real… and pedophile vampires… well, I don’t even know what to say… Oh, how about you go back to your place and believe in everything the government says, and believe in pedophile vampires, and I’ll stay here. Bye!

  3. Matt Says:

    That was a pretty interesting (and albeit humorous) take on the actual “abuse” that takes place simply by viewing a photograph.

    I know that most of the children are abused in such situations where such a photograph would be taken, but not in all cases.

    Certainly I wouldn’t feel any abuse if I had a picture taken of me when I was 15 or so and then had somebody look at the picture. That’s their intention – to look – and when intentions do not breed actions (looking as opposed to touching) then no harm can take place.

    I understand that these are children we are talking about, but we are also talking about the law (which is supposedly blind? Age, race, religion – it doesn’t discriminate).

    If no actions are taken place, both in the creation and the viewing, production or whatever of any material, whether it be cp or anything else, to cause any sort of harm, then there is no abuse. This is just a term applied for the sake of the so-called law.

    I think if we are to truly understand this thing, we are going to have to come to terms with what is reality and what is “best wishes”.

    I would also like to make it clear that I do not support child pornography (although I do support lolicon of the anime variety), but I do support the open discussion of such materials and the rationalization as opposed to the blatant conservatism that is over running our country.

  4. cpexplosion Says:

    Matt, thanks for approaching with an open mind.

    My knowledge of lolicon is very limited, but it’s a really interesting subject… something I’d like to learn more about in the coming years.

    I don’t actually support hard-core child porn in its present form either… but, I don’t want to get ahead of myself. Ideas are already stewing about in my head for posts where I will suggest the establishment of a legal, safe, regulated market for child porn.

  5. Cangee Says:

    Hi cpexplosion,
    I was quite surprized and thrilled to find that someone enjoyed my post enough to quote it in a positive light. Although, had I known that it would be featured on an excellent blog such as this, I would have spent a little more time proofreading and cleaning up my wording.

    Your blog really hits the nail on the head when it comes to the child pornography hysteria and the lies that are spread without shame to maintain it. One thing I’d be very interested in knowing is what the motivation is for promoting this hysteria? The best (and only) theory I’ve heard is that the media uses it to create a market for their sensationalist (though journalistically deplorable) articles and reports.

    Obviously the idea that a child is abused every time that a pornographic image of them is viewed or posessed is rediculous. But even if I were to concede this point, is it any more abusive than images of children being killed? There are many movies which depict the deaths of children and even a series called “faces of death” which, if what I’ve been told is true, shows real children being killed. Why are images of children in pain and death legal, while images of even “indecently posed” smiling children are not? By their “viewing &rarr abuse” reasoning, if seeing a child being sexually abused is the equivalent of sexually abusing that child yourself, wouldn’t it stand to reason that seeing a child being killed is equivalent to killing that child yourself?

    Of course the issue of children being abused by viewing child pornography REALLY enters the twighlight zone when you start talking about drawn and written erotica, both of which are illegal in Canada. When someone draws a picture of a child having sex, what child is abused?

    One excuse that I have heard for the harshness of the child pornography laws is that “viewing child pornography encourages pedophiles to molest” but is there any non-anecdotal evidence to support this? It seems equally plausable that viewing child pornography and masturbating would serve as a harmless outlet for pedophiles’ sexual frustrations. It would be interesting if some psychological experiments were performed to test both hypotheses, but due to the illegality of child pornography, such an experiment would be impossible in any country except Czechoslovakia.

    Something else that makes me suspicious is the common report about how “horrible and sadistic” most child pornography is. In my experience, most pedophiles are not sadistic people who want to hurt children. On the contrary, most seem to be good people who care about chldren. Assuming that the ones I have met are reasonably representative of the pedophile population as a whole, and assuming that pedophiles are mainly making and distributing child pornography, it seems strange that the majority of it would be sadistic. This claim sounds to me like another sensationalist lie, like the “$20 billion a year” claim. The big problem with this possible lie is that it is immune to investigation due to the nature of the laws. Nobody can check to see if this claim of sadism is indeed the case because it would require viewing the child pornography in question, which is illegal. Even if someone did accidently come across some, they would never report it because of its illegality. We’re just supposed to take the word of the police and journalists that it is horrible and abusive stuff. As you pointed out in your blog, much of the child pornography out there is in fact made by the minors themselves. Is pornography that a child made of his/herself likely to be sadistic and abusive?

    Anyways these are just some questions and thoughts that have been on my mind.

    I look forward to reading more of your insights.


  6. cpexplosion Says:

    Cangee: Thanks for being so gracious about my use of your ideas. Nothing bothers me more than the foolish idea that ALL child porn involves the violent “rape” of a child. Most people have no realization of how innocent and mild an image can be categorized as child porn these days.

    It utterly flabbergasts me to hear someone say that ALL child porn represents the rape of a child. These damn fools don’t seem to realize that a 17 year old masturbating for a camera is child porn. In such cases I ask them, “who’s being raped?” and they almost always ignore my question.

    I don’t know how you found me, but I’m glad you did.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: