We went through this same process in the War on Drugs and they are using the same template in the War on Child Pornography.

In the War on Drugs, the government kept telling us that marijuana was a gateway to harder drugs such as heroin. The implication was that a marijuana user today would be a heroin addict tomorrow.

In the War on Child Pornography, the government----and pro-victim activists---tell us that viewing CP is the gateway to child molestation.
They want us to believe that somehow CP has this magical force that makes a person sexually assault a child.

Both arguments are flawed, and here is why.

I read medical journals and there is no valid, fact-based studies that the use of marijuana is the reason---the reason--- a person chooses to use heroin or other narcotic like substances. While it is true that many heroin addicts started out with marijuana, the marijuana was not the cause of their heroin addiction.

By the same token, there is no research that proves viewing CP causes a person to automatically progress to sexually assaulting a child. While it is true that many who collect and view CP have assaulted a child, the CP is not necessarily the cause of their propensity to molest a child.

This idea that partaking in one thing automatically progresses to more serious violations---in each "war"---has been jumped on by victim advocates to frighten the public and provide a gateway for harsher laws and penalties.

Heroin addicts and those who habitually view child pornography usually do so because they have a flaw in their personality that causes them to seek out more activities that will fulfill that need.

Many heroin addicts have an addictive personality and they not only used marijuana, but abused alcohol, prescription drugs, along with the weaker substances. By the logic used by the "tough on crime" crowd, we could just as easily say that alcohol used leads to heroin.

Most people who view child pornography have also become addicted to vanilla pornography and progressed to CP. I don't know what makes a person download and view images of underage people, but I imagine it is something within their personality that causes them to do so.

The cause and effect is used as propaganda to continue these "wars."

rewdiazepam

I see your point in the comparison between marijuana and CP. And I agree with it IF it is CP in the age range of 13-17. A large portion of the male population are attracted to girls in this category, 100 years ago and any time before that grown men would be marrying girls of these ages. Again not condoning a sexual relationship, just saying that being attracted to a sexually mature person even if they are not legal is not pedophilla and not outside normal sexual attractions. Where that comparison of marijuana falls apart for me is if it is CP of someone much younger than that and not developed very far on the tanner scale.

The problem with some of this is that the latest white paper by the national Sentencing commission specifically says that there is absolutely no correlation between the CP possessor and child molestation - if I remember correctly (and I am certainly paraphrasing) it said something to the effect that while it is not uncommon for molester to have a collection of CP they are not considered the same as CP possessors. They said they really found no link that CP leads to molestation. You cannot discard all the other statistics we know about molestation in this equation - the majority of molestation occurs within a family or friends circle - the implication that CP leads to molestation does not change that. In other words, IF there were a correlation between Cp and molestation it would not mean those folks would be a stranger to the victim.

Also, missing from this is that child molestation does not in any way translate in to pedophilia - so if someone views or possesses under pre-puberty CP it does not mean they "are attracted" to that age group sexually.

And then of course the obvious outcome is that the post-pubescence CP is treated legally the exact same as the pre-pubscent so at this time it is a moot point. In fact, in many states cartoons of CP are treated just the same a :real" CP - it is ridiculous! Also, the tanner scale is not a good measure of age at all - even Tanner himself has stated this - it is about puberty and not chronological age. Cp is based on age and using the Tanner scale to determine it is just another travesty of justice. There was even one court case where it was charged that a female in a porn movie was underage using the Tanner and she had to produce documents to prove her age and that the porn was legally produced. I also remember reading an article once that said someone took some playboy mags and used the Tanner and so many of the bunnies showed as being young (when they were not) -

I maintain that most people who view the small child CP are pornography addicted not necessarily attracted to these children sexually - there are people that are addicted to watching slasher movies but that does not mean they are going to mimic what is in those films.

The porn star you mentioned, Advocate, was Little Lupe.

They had this guy on trial for CP possession when they found some of her images/videos on his hard drive. He was arrested and they had one of these "hired guns" the prosecution usually uses to testify that her images were that of an underage female.

She sashayed into court with her birth certificate and the state's entire case blew up on them right before their eyes.

Made my day.

rewdiazepam

Independent,

As I said I have not read the paper, but I will today.

I have noticed that many CP arrests in which the accused has hundreds or even thousands of images in a collection, sorted by ages, that there does seem to be a lot of CP consisting of images of toddlers and very, very young children.

So that does bolster your hypothesis.

rewdiazepan

I agree REW that must have been great to have that happen in court! Awesome!

I am not sure what the hypothesis is here - if it is that the more images possessed of kiddie porn somehow translates into molestation or pedophilia I vehemently disagree - in fact I think the outrageous numbers of images only supports the porn addiction part. .

Little Lupe flew in to testify for this guy. I would suggest everyone read the story if you want a good laugh.

http://tinyurl.com/nzahrl2

What is hilarious is that the state used this so-called pediatrician as an "expert" witness to testify that she was underage.

Expert my butt. As in most cases of trials involving an underage victim. the state brings in a expert witness who they use quite often to rubber stamp their story.

These types of "expert" witnesses are like nothing but a character in an old Wild West movie in which the locals bring in a "HIRED GUNSLINGER" to do some dirty work.

Little Lupe is one of my heroes.

rewdiazepam

Oh, how I would have loved to see the prosecutors face when she walked in with proof of her age....priceless!

rew, haven't the laws been changed tho? that it doesn't matter if the person is of legal age that if they look under age or are depicted as under age that it is now considered CP???

the first thing that pops into my head is the law now against Manga.

I still think it is crazy that the 8th circuit court of appeals thinks police have probable cause to search anyone previously convicted of molestation for CP. I have no problem with it being a piece of probable cause, but that on its own is not enough to show probable cause, and the other circuits agree.

"In Dougherty v. City of Covina, decided in 2011, the Ninth Circuit reached a similar conclusion as the Second Circuit, albeit with a slightly different focus because of factual differences in the cases.320 In Dougherty, a police officer applied for a search warrant to search Bruce Dougherty’s computer and electronic media for child pornography.321 The search warrant application was based upon allegations that Dougherty, a sixth grade teacher, had inappropriately touched several of his students.322 In
addition to these allegations, the officer concluded his search warrant affidavit by stating that “based upon my training and experience . . . I know subjects involved in this type of criminal behavior have in their possession child pornography.”323 The district court found the warrant was supported
by probable cause.324"

This is from the 9th circuit, I wanted to post this because it says "In my training and experience" LOL! The 2nd and the 6th as well as the 9th all through this out and said you need this AND something more to have probable cause.

This may be slightly off topic, but we use models as young as 12 in high fashion magazines, we sell clothing to teens that are too small and too revealing...but call it fashionable. We promote waxing regularly to full grown women...and then we are surprised when men are attracted to those features. And let's not forget the schoolgirl fantasy that hits nearly every sitcom. I'm not saying its right....but as a society aren't we promoting it in many subtle ways?

I agree Sam - in a big way it is promoted!

Yeah I agree Sam. My biggest point of contention is calling it child pornography when the "child" is fully developed bad sexually mature. I understand as a society we don't want older folks unduly pressuring younger folks even if they are sexually mature for sex. So I agree with some of the boundaries that are set. But it is not pathological of any human being that is over 18 years of age to be sexually attracted to a fully developed human being under 18 years of age. Or put another way, if we want to make it illegal to actually have sex with someone who is 16 years old I'm okay with that but the desire or being sexually attracted to a fully developed 16 year old does not make you a pedophile. I dare to say if you strapped 99% of males to a penile plesmograph or whatever they are called you would find they are attracted to fully mature females regardless of age.

I have a problem calling that CP and calling looking at an 8 year old also CP. One is natural, the other is not and in most cases is pedophilia.

Actually in most cases of looking at kiddie pron it is not pedophilia but instead an escalated porn addiction