Most guys look at cp, even cops, let me explain.

I really think that most guys look at cp, if you think about it rationally at all. Not little pre-puberty girls, but under 18 girls, which is technically considered child pornography. And is treated as such by the legal system.

Do you think every user submitted and amatuer porn site carefully checks to make sure each girl is 18? I don't. In fact I would say it's obvious they commonly just let a good looking 14 year old girl just go up there with all the rest of the porn. I'm not talking about the professional Little Lupe or whatever it's called stuff. Where the girl may look a little underage to some.

No, what I am talking about is on amateur porn sites (and these are common porn viewing), I have seen a lot of girls posted that still look well underage to me, a guy who is very familiar with how the very young looking pseudo-underage 18 year old girls look. Some on amateur porn sites look clearly beyond that to me. Like young teens you would see in the mall.

Like they say about eskimos being able to differentiate between many different kinds of snow, whereas to most it may be just snow. To a girl lover like me, I differentiate between young girls in a similar way. I feel I often know pretty well exactly what year a girl is. I know the look of a fine looking 8 year old. Or a pretty 11 year old. Or a sexy 13 year old.

I feel that porn sites outside the official professional ones, and this represents a large part of the porn out there on the internet, are sprinkled with a lot of underage girls, along with the legal ones. Therefore guys who look at porn (most of them), if they venture out of the regular professional content at all (probably most of them), then I feel it is near impossible that they haven't downloaded quite a bit of cp. I don't know how anyone who has seen user-submitted and amateur porn sites could disagree.

So in my opinion. And I think it's a very strongly supported one, as I've just explained, most porn viewers (most guys in general), police, doctors, lawyers, judges, and polititians included, are viewing child porn (under 18 is child porn) on a regular basis. And what a bunch of hypocracy that would be (and almost certainly is).

Young girls have also told me, when I used to talk to them, that this has happened to their friends. This is something that has come up on multiple occasions when I used to talk to teens online, without me even mentioning it. It's something some young girls will warn their friends about. Even if they are 14 sexy pics of them get out and they end up on porn sites, put up along with all the others. They warn other young girls about ending up on a porn site because they've seen it happen.

You can disagree with what I've said here somehow if you want. But you would just be ignoring clear evidence and denying reality. CP is everywhere. Probably even on the computers of half the cops raiding someone for it. It's like the old prohibition situation. Half the cops raiding alcohol probably drank themselves. And I am telling you that is just the situation with cp today. I think this needs to be brought more out into the open and discussed more honesty. I hope you will agree and maybe even help me bring this more into discussion on the wider internet.

What you're saying is: Most guys who look at porn (and it's erroneous to assume that all guys do) inadvertently stumble across child porn.

You're probably right, but not all men want to see young girls, even if they are supposed to be 18+.

I don't look at porn these days, for various reasons, but when I did, I'd look for MILFs and BBWs. It used to really annoy me when a page redirected to what looked like a bunch of kids, not only because they're not my thing, so to speak, but also because I was worried about having those sites on my ISP's logs.

Graveyard76 wrote:What you're saying is: Most guys who look at porn (and it's erroneous to assume that all guys do) inadvertently stumble across child porn.

You're probably right, but not all men want to see young girls, even if they are supposed to be 18+.

I don't look at porn these days, for various reasons, but when I did, I'd look for MILFs and BBWs. It used to really annoy me when a page redirected to what looked like a bunch of kids, not only because they're not my thing, so to speak, but also because I was worried about having those sites on my ISP's logs.

I didn't say all men look at porn, just most. Here is a source:

http://www.internetsafety101.org/Pornog ... istics.htm

"Nearly 9 out of 10 (87 percent) young men and 1 out of 3 (31 percent) young women report using pornography"

And I have no reason to think it would be different for cops.

I would agree that a lot probably aren't specifically looking for young girls, especially you seem not to be. But for every amateur porn site page you load, you download hundreds more thumbnails of (not very well filtered, usually) girls into your computer's hard drive.

And some of these I see are clearly not 18. Technically, that's cp. Tons of guys end up with with this on their hard drives. Cops too, if their like most men. Then they go arrest someone for cp.

It's an everyone does it thing, almost to the degree of speeding. But instead of a ticket, the few, out of many, many millions of regular internet users with with type of cp on their drives, get their lives totally ruined. Even many years in prison, in some countries. For something a huge fraction of the internet is doing every day.

I think we should take a hard look at this situation. Think about how rational it really is. And how rational it is to arrest teen girls for child pornography for taking pictures of themselves.

All porn is child porn.


We're all God's children.


Every time you look at porn, even if it is milf, you're killing children vicariously simultaneously all across the world. And you're rotting your own brain.

It's clearly a huge problem, and there's undoubtedly a lot of people with images in their cache that could conceivably get them into a lot of trouble. Many of them, like I say, will not even have been looking for pictures of younger females, and will have been redirected to these sites. It only has to be on your screen for a second, and the thumbnails are in your history, both on your personal computer and on the ISP's records.

Graveyard76 wrote:It's clearly a huge problem, and there's undoubtedly a lot of people with images in their cache that could conceivably get them into a lot of trouble. Many of them, like I say, will not even have been looking for pictures of younger females, and will have been redirected to these sites. It only has to be on your screen for a second, and the thumbnails are in your history, both on your personal computer and on the ISP's records.

I'm not claiming to be smarter than you or anything. I have just thought about and paid attention to this specific thing more. And it is even worse than you may realize. It not just the crazy actually underage themed sites. That happens a lot, too. And probably just getting redirected to an actual underage site represents millions of people getting cp in their browser cache by itself.

But think of it this way. Like on this site. I just posted this stuff. There was no moderation, except on the first post. In the same way, on user submitted content porn sites (which are extremely popular and common) people can submit anything. And they often put up pictures and videos of people that are all the way down to 12 or so sometimes. But 14 and up are put up on porn sites all the time. No one does anything until perhaps months later when someone finally reports it. Probably after thousands of views. And the process starts over again.

I can not only clearly see it on sites, but I as I said, when I used to talk to underage girls online they on more than one occasion without any prompting from me mentioned pictures or videos of their little friends ending up on porn sites.

If you look at amateur and user submitted (youtube like) porn sites, you are going to end up with what is technically cp, and for which technically you can go to jail, on your hard drive. I'm saying we have a situation where many millions of internet users are doing something that is a felony. I'm not saying it's good. But maybe at least with the older girls we should treat it more as marijuana, as millions of internet users already are.

Just as we don't consider it the same when someone smokes pot as when they smoke meth. We shouldn't consider underage teen content, which is everywhere to be the same as cp which actually depicts little kids getting raped. The world is just not that black and white. There are shades to everything. A teen with her boyfriend. Or a teen showing off her body for others, is just not the same as raping a little kid.

If I search up "amateur porn" and end up finding a video of an underage girl, then I'm not at fault unless it's obvious that there is a minor in the video. Even then, it's a bit tricky. Point is, the police wouldn't do anything about it except remove the video. It falls in line with accidently stumbling on CP. Except if you stumble on real CP and don't leave right away, then you can get in big trouble.

On anither note. The point of this thread is unclear. You pointed out that most people have seen CP at one point or another, but I fail to see a point to it.

ReVamp wrote:If I search up "amateur porn" and end up finding a video of an underage girl, then I'm not at fault unless it's obvious that there is a minor in the video. Even then, it's a bit tricky. Point is, the police wouldn't do anything about it except remove the video. It falls in line with accidently stumbling on CP. Except if you stumble on real CP and don't leave right away, then you can get in big trouble.

On anither note. The point of this thread is unclear. You pointed out that most people have seen CP at one point or another, but I fail to see a point to it.

The point is hypocrisy. It's all laid out. I can't rewrite the whole thing for you. I'm a published in actual (paper) print article writer, so if you don't understand, it's probably you, not me.

Another meta-point it seems you may have missed about articles in general is that you should try to actually read and understand what is said before you attack. I'm noticing a pattern with you. You just come in and tell me things I write don't make any sense. Well, what am I suppose to say to that? How about about stop reading my posts, then?

I'm not normally a flame-war type of poster. I like to have dialogs with people. I wish you were more into that. But it seems like all you do is troll people or attack over some minor point of someones post that you didn't even comprehend in it's totality. Would you like me to go into your threads and just say your post doesn't make any sense? Because we can just do that to each other, if that's what you want.

I'm not attacking you, I'm asking what the point of this thread is. Obviously you misunderstand my intentions. I still fail to see the point. Who's this directed that? What hypocrisy are you referring to?

I see it as one of those things that is pointless to enforce as time goes on. With all the people on the internet now and the various technology you can use to access it, from cell phones, tablets, laptops, you name it, what is law enforcement really gaining but statistics and putting out propaganda that "you shouldn't do it"?

Unless it's a ring in the US that's producing it and harming children for the sake of turning a profit, going after someone who downloads it just becomes a patsy for law enforcement and another statistic. Just a feel good bust for the agencies involved. I'm sure plenty of those hypocrites look at it. Nothing is as cut and dry as it seems, especially in government!