Lu’s post yesterday about a Czech study, which suggests that child pornography be legalized to prevent actual child molestation, was controversial. Some people accused us of spreading misinformation and endangering the lives of children. That wasn’t our intention, of course. Lu was simply reporting on an interesting and somewhat mind-boggling study.

But it should come as no surprise that the story drew today’s Good Comment(s) of the Day.

S. didn’t like the study.

The most dangerous and most erroneous assumption is that somehow the use of child pornography acts as some kind of surrogate for actual abuse of a child. Most emerging literature and research on this subject points to a different reality: the use of child pornography doesn’t diminish the erotic connection between the sexual coercion of a child and sexual gratification—it enhances it. This makes sense. The more one solidifies the connection (through masturbation and fantasy, for example) between sexual gratification, the more it becomes an entrenched part of someone’s sexual identity.

Once there was a notion that individuals who used child pornography did only that—passively viewed it. Their crimes were characterized as “hands-off” (meaning they never actually touched children). There are more than a few recent studies that have found many consumers of this kind of pornography are actually “hands-on” offenders with actual, in-person victims for whom their lives are irrevocably changed.

Scootah took to the piece in a different way, trying to determine what actually constitutes child pornography. He mentioned the issue of CDs filled with stock photos of children coming through customs. Sure, they were regular advertising-type photos that parents signed their children up for, but should they be confiscated because of the (supposedly devious) intentions behind them? He wrote:

But creepy as it is, the kids involved are just child models. The investigation shows no indication that they were involved in anything other than modeling clothes for K-mart catalogs—their parents were present for the photography, the photographers are reputable and not involved in anything dodgy apart from supplying stock photos to retailers, and the kids show no signs of abuse. The pictures aren’t illegal—and it’s only their implied usage that’s creepy. Should customs be blocking the imports? Should the distributors be arrested? Should the purchasers be investigated?

If I believed that the pictures would genuinely work to reduce harm to even a single child—I’d say whatever. But I know that watching porn certainly doesn’t reduce my inclination to be intimate with my (consenting, adult) partners.

Thanks to S. and Scootah for taking part in the discussion. We’ll be handing out a Good Comment of the Day award at the end of every weekday, and you—yes, you—could be next!

[MORE STORIES FROM OUR BLOG]