You can veil it with what ever term you like - but it still won't change the fact - if it involves kids (innocents) in any kind of sexual act for the enjoyment of adults (readers or viewers), then it's kiddy porn. Whether, or not, you're a paedophile because you enjoy reading about it, or viewing images of it, is debateable.Originally Posted by MasterRJ
I read about the downfall of internet porn king, Tom Reedy. His defence was – the photographs posted, which shocked and distressed hardened Dallas police - were computer generated, no children were physically involved or harmed. Is a picture more offensive than a story? Stories and computer-generated pics are both creations of someone's imagination.
I know, some people will argue - "What's difference between kiddy porn and watching, or reading, about fictional violence and murder?” Well, there are differences. When we read, or view, something sexual it stimulates one of our most primal urges - to have sexual intercourse. The 'excitement' we derive from watching fictional violence is totally different. The vast majority of us, thankfully, will simple get a morbid thrill of schadenfreude from the victim, but we certainly won't fully relate, or associate, with the perpetrator.
Absolutely, yes. Death is very broad. Murder is the taking of a life. And, snuff is even more specific, again. It’s killing for the purpose of titillation. And so, and that’s what makes it such a controversial genre. It's because it's a mixing of a purely natural instinct with one that is not. The real and the unreal if you like.Originally Posted by Winnie
Personally, I don't like snuff or kiddy porn; so, the solution I find is to not read it.