>>21131
>One perspective is that exposure to child pornography promotes criminal sexual intent that otherwise would not exist.
Agreed, this is also the reason why they also fight lolicon and child dolls so hard as well.
It's obvious why they'd think this too. They begin to get slightly aroused at the sight of it too. Cognitive dissonance makes them feel uncomfortable about that. So as a way of self-censorship as well as to protect society from giving in to it. They make it illegal to reduce the visibility of it.
>The promotion may take place via material that legitimizes sexual interest in minors.
Not only is there the belief that it legitimises it, but that it paints it in a positive light. Since it's not all hurtcore crying child obviously hated every second of it. And a laughing child sends the wrong message.
Even more true for lolicon where the fiction nature of it allows for overexaggeration of the positive depiction. Going so far as to depict a child-like character enjoying things that would be reprehensible or impossible in real life.
>Anonymity (or belief that anonymity exists) may further loosen the internal restraints, facilitated by still or moving images, which makes actual criminal sexual behaviour with children more probable
My issue with this is that it's not so far off from the same argument against violence in video games/movies.
On one side they say that violent video games/movies don't lead to increased violent tendencies in real life, but at the same time say it's the opposite for child pornography. I actually agree that they have it right for child pornography and the defense of violent video games is an example of vested interest winning out. The issue is the two extremes. Violent games don't make people violent just reduces the restraint to turn to violence slightly. Just as child pornography reduces the restraint of having sex with a child slightly. But just because that restraint is slightly reduced it doesn't mean you're going to just walk in to your neighbourhood ammunation purchase two sawn off shotguns and go shoot up schoolkids who refuse to have sex with you.
>if the person was already sexually motivated toward children,
Again, the same argument used against violent video games, they were already going to do it, so blaming and banning video games for the action of the few is bad.
>or, by creating new sexual interests in children.
This is the real reason coming back again. They ban it because they realise it's accurate portrayal might cause people to think it's not so bad. and thus have others become curious about their interest in children.
>"among some groups of predisposed individuals, easy access to a wide variety of engrossing and high-quality child pornography could serve as a substitute for involvement with actual victims"
One of the long standing defenses for lolicon shows itself here as well. And it's true for the short-term, keep them busy enough and they won't have time to go after kids in real life, but I doubt it has any long term worth as the novelty wears off.