I doubt the traffic is the motivating factor per se.
I expect it's users who directly interact with the material or the supplier of the files. Having a website with images means people can link to that website and download what's there.
There will always be a demand for child porn, as long as pedophilia exists. Paedophiles seeking to expand their collection of pornography are typically both the suppliers and the users. There's a culture of exchange with these kind of things.
Passive voyeurs are, in my opinion, the lesser of the evils - I don't think they make a difference to the supply:demand ratio. It's the equivalent of sneaking into a cinema to watch a movie.
You're probably right but even so I still can't say I feel it's OK to look.
Now I'm more curious about how the child porn community operates but I don't think I will try to look into it any further. I have a feeling it would upset me too much.
Oh I'm not saying it's OK. Only that I don't believe passive voyeurs have an impact upon supply:demand.
The fact remains that it's indulging a paraphilia that is taboo in modern society by using illegal imagery, the production of which usually involves the abuse of a child. That is morally questionable to the majority.
However, the most important thing is to go after those creating the imagery (abusing the children). Then those circulating and/or collecting the imagery. A passive voyeur falls into neither category, and sits at the bottom of the pack in terms of priority. You take the first two categories away, the third no longer exists anyway!
Is it normal that my boyfriend was looking at pictures of child porn?
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
I doubt the traffic is the motivating factor per se.
I expect it's users who directly interact with the material or the supplier of the files. Having a website with images means people can link to that website and download what's there.
There will always be a demand for child porn, as long as pedophilia exists. Paedophiles seeking to expand their collection of pornography are typically both the suppliers and the users. There's a culture of exchange with these kind of things.
Passive voyeurs are, in my opinion, the lesser of the evils - I don't think they make a difference to the supply:demand ratio. It's the equivalent of sneaking into a cinema to watch a movie.
--
IntergalacticMarketAnalyst
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
You're probably right but even so I still can't say I feel it's OK to look.
Now I'm more curious about how the child porn community operates but I don't think I will try to look into it any further. I have a feeling it would upset me too much.
--
disthing
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Oh I'm not saying it's OK. Only that I don't believe passive voyeurs have an impact upon supply:demand.
The fact remains that it's indulging a paraphilia that is taboo in modern society by using illegal imagery, the production of which usually involves the abuse of a child. That is morally questionable to the majority.
However, the most important thing is to go after those creating the imagery (abusing the children). Then those circulating and/or collecting the imagery. A passive voyeur falls into neither category, and sits at the bottom of the pack in terms of priority. You take the first two categories away, the third no longer exists anyway!