Then I think we're looking at this from different perspectives insofar as "child porn" is concerned. When I think of kiddie porn, I think, basically, children aged 12 and under. Children.
Also, pornography doesn't have a damn bit of anything to do with sex from a strictly biological standpoint -- it's a fantasy, and in the case of kiddie-porn, fuels a philia. Pornography essentially fetishizes the object (women, men, children, sheep, whatev), emphasizing the thing that makes them what they are (women, for example, are trussed up in corsets and heels, emphasizing bust and hips and legs, creating a fantasy). Biologically, sure, younger women and teens are more fertile, but I don't agree that you can use biology to validate (not the best word choice, but it's all I can think of) pornography.
Now, there's plenty of porn out there that uses actual human models -- and those models are of legal age, but LOOK young, and they're the ones typically used in the "OMG HOT TEEN" kind of porn you get. They're creating a fantasy, but using young LOOKING women to do it, rather than minors.
The reason child porn is illegal is morals.
Mmmm, I disagree. Now, it may be because I'm close with people who were sexually abused as children, and that may play a big part in why I've got such a knee-jerk reaction to this. I think of child porn, and I relate it instantly to the kind of sick scumbags who would sexually abuse a child.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-04-25 12:13 am (UTC)Also, pornography doesn't have a damn bit of anything to do with sex from a strictly biological standpoint -- it's a fantasy, and in the case of kiddie-porn, fuels a philia. Pornography essentially fetishizes the object (women, men, children, sheep, whatev), emphasizing the thing that makes them what they are (women, for example, are trussed up in corsets and heels, emphasizing bust and hips and legs, creating a fantasy). Biologically, sure, younger women and teens are more fertile, but I don't agree that you can use biology to validate (not the best word choice, but it's all I can think of) pornography.
Now, there's plenty of porn out there that uses actual human models -- and those models are of legal age, but LOOK young, and they're the ones typically used in the "OMG HOT TEEN" kind of porn you get. They're creating a fantasy, but using young LOOKING women to do it, rather than minors.
The reason child porn is illegal is morals.
Mmmm, I disagree. Now, it may be because I'm close with people who were sexually abused as children, and that may play a big part in why I've got such a knee-jerk reaction to this. I think of child porn, and I relate it instantly to the kind of sick scumbags who would sexually abuse a child.