Replying to Ruggy:

I agree that, ideally, we would have 100% of pedophiles attending these programs that would, ideally, have a 100% success rate in transforming their patients pedophile tendencies into something much more healthy. But that's in a perfect world, and in a perfect world Pedophilia wouldn't exist in the first place.

The fact of the matter is that we can't institutionalize people (and neither should we) so instead we have to make due with the best tools we have, and I feel allowing people to access cub porn is at least minimizing the damage that could be done by pedophilia.

Phrasing! "The same goes for non-consensual art, of which CP is a subset because children cannot consent (which, as a victim of sexual assault personally disgusts me)" should read as non-con art in general disgusts me and actually sometimes makes me want to puke.

I'm going to make the same argument that I did on Twitter, only better developed. Let's ignore the whole "but you're censoring art" argument, because there are a ton of very good reasons we censor art on a regular basis. You can look towards the widespread banning of "A Serbian Film" or the fact that a lot of neo-Nazi propaganda and other media (which one could classify as 'art') is largely censored by Germany as examples.

In the case of cub art I think very few people actually realize the benefits to allowing it to be created. Outlandish, I know, but it's an interested argument I've heard a few times now. First we have to acknowledge that Pedophilia exists and that we cannot eradicate it. That doesn't make it less morally reprehensible, nor does that diminish the extraordinary harm that it inflicts upon people. But, allowing it's artistic expression actually serves as an outlet that generates a lot less harm. The same goes for non-consensual art, of which CP is a subset because children cannot consent (which, as a victim of sexual assault personally disgusts me). I lack the specific vocabulary to identify what goes on, but it's essentially a cathartic release of otherwise disgusting or socially unacceptable feelings and desires. In effect it allows pedophiles to express their attractions without having to inflict harm upon a child in real life.

You can find this same theory all over in clinical psychology, whereby distressed, deviant, or violent individuals are encouraged to produce art as a means to release their emotions (desire included) in a way that is much more healthy and much less damaging. In doing so, they are drastically less likely to act upon these urges in real life, where there are real victims and real lives at stake. The Economist (I think) actually ran an article back in September that talks about how therapists and psychologists in the United Kingdom have been setting up anonymous clinics inviting pedophiles to receive free treatment regarding their unacceptable desires.

Before anyone says it, this argument only extends to the production of art where no children are physically involved. This means that photography, video, or anything that is a 'replica' or 'memorial' of an event that happened in real life should be promptly reported to the police, removed from FN, and is otherwise wholly unacceptable.