The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[Piscivore]

I am sure that some paedophiles actually enjoy knowing that they are hurting children and that some are upset that they do and therefore come up with excuses, some of them references to history or studies, to try to persuade themselves that they don't! They may also feel "powerless" to stop, but I don't think that anybody is!
There are a lot of stupid excuses for doing the wrong thing in this context - and in so many others.

So you are retracting your statement "That the children are not hurt is part of the fiction of paedophilia, how the paedophiles persuade themselves that their inclinations are alright"?

I don't!

You want to prevent them from "possess[ing] other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling."

Do you actually think that "the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program" place children in a sexual context?

I think that men who want to f[rule 8] children will place children in a sexual context regardless of the intent of the creator of the material in question.

 

[The Atheist]

So you raised your children in a bubble? I hope that works out for you. I chose the opposite tack, and I couln't be more pleased with my kids.

Not at all. I've raised my kids very liberally and truthfully and with the oldest now 16, I'm very happy with where they are, emotionally and physically.

Indeed. Would that include your intention to "protect" kids?

Of course it could, but I see this as a situation of possible harm. Of course, it may turn out that Brodski's reported hypothesis as above might be right and having material available could reduce child molestation. That is drawing a very long bow, but not outside the bounds of possibility. That being the case, I would obviously be guilty of exactly that mistake.

It's just that I'd rather make a mistake being less rather than more liberal, when kids are the subject.

Nope. that's why my daughter is fully versed in the concepts of this topic.

Ditto.

If proven, yes. As I just said to that other guy, I do not think that is the case. Someone who sexually desires children is not going to be put off by the unavalability of explicit materials. Someone who does not sexually desire children is not going to be "turned" by exposure to explicit materials. I've read "Justine". It did not make me rape my daughter.

Again, that brings us back to how will we ever know? There isn;t liekly to be serious research conducted, so I guess we are always going to over-compensate.

Yes. Are you?

see above.

Um.. the "liberty" part. What point security if we have to live in a totalitarian nanny state to get it?

What totalitarian nanny state? Do you live in one? That's pure strawman.

Contrariwise. If someone wants the laws toughened, they damn well better come up with the research first.

Yep, I'm perfectly happy with that approach, as I said, I'm reasonably happy with where the line has been drawn on child pornography, as it stands.

You're the one who's position is outside of the status quo, accordingly, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to back your claims.

If that were true, would there be a debate?

You're a Canadian, eh? You must live close enough to the border to have heard of an outfit called NAMBLA? They would be highly encouraged by your arguments. Why shouldn't they have very young-looking men playing at being schoolboys being raped by their elders?

Of course there are people to debate. Mark Twain once pointed out that no matter how indefensible something is, there'll always be someone to stand up for it.

No argument. We have similar laws gaining ground up here.

The sad news about that is that I'd be amazed if it works. Hope so, I thought our government may have had the balls to pull through, but they tossed it in immediately.

But the fact there was debate at all, that it was proposed at all, is a signal that "the times, they are a' changin'"

Maybe. I certainly thought that when the policy was released. I didn't expect any protest, let alone the storm of absolute bull put about by opponents. To be honest, given the hue and cry, you would have thought they were going to make it compulsory for 10 year olds to work as part-time hookers! It wasn't just the usual culprits, either, I thought a lot of people who should have known better were on the wrong side of the argument. So, I'm not so sure times have changed all that much.

Yesterday, maybe. Try again later.

You don't expand a horizon by pushing on the middle.

It isn't bad, no. But if you stop "pushing" the people pushing the other way- away from liberty and the attendant personal responsibility- move the line their way.

Yeah, I'll give you all that, with one rider - I'll be happy for 100% personal responsibility to reign as far as kids are concrened when I have any kind of faith that their parents are capable of using the responsibility wisely. I see precious little evidence of that.

I can't influence grown-ups behaviour, and I have no desire to - apart from giving up their pathetic bloody god/s - but I just have this strange trait that if I can do anything to help kids, anywhere, I will do so and do it on my terms. In this case, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but until such time as I am, I cannot back off, and absolutely will not do so, either. I feel that the downside is just too great to mess around with fine tuning.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What an idiot. Of course you'll get no evidence. THERE ISN'T ANY! And you damn well know it, hence your unassailable position from the rock of reason you're standing upojn. Speaking of parrots, before you start parroting the "evidence?" cry, open your eyes and realise that there not only is not any evidence, there can't be any. Unless you'd like to propose a study and volunteer?

This is the problem with getting terribly exited from a position of total ignorance.

What studies do is check to see if people who were once the underage partner in underage/X sex have been diagnosed with depression, have become alcoholics, have inferior socioeconomic prospects compared to their peer group, report as being less happy than their peer group and so on.

Victims of sexual abuse show statistically significant levels of harm based on such measurements. People who were once the underage partner in consensual and non-distressing underage/X sex do not.

That's why I gave you the link to Bert Potter - he had exactly the same thoughts as you, groomed his prospects over many years then had completely consensual sex with them whem they were aged about 11 or 12. His evidence was unshakeable. He still went to jail. Strangely, while he was in there, he was caught distributing child-porn to other inmates. Harmless fun, eh?

The question of whether Bert Potter is a paedophile and the question of whether the children suffered short term or long term harm are two different questions.

None of those he had sex with felt they had had any harm done to them. They had grown up on a commune where it was socially acceptable behaviour and were not physically damaged. Once they entered society and saw society's attitudes to child sex, they became victims. I know one and my wife knows another of the victims of Bert Potter's lifelong grooming. Where is the crime? In the sex? Or society's attitudes? Those women will tell you that the crime is with Potter. But that, of course, isn't evidence, just an anecdote about a couple of women, now both well in their 30s who are still coming to grips with their pubescent years having been robbed from them by a cynical rapist.

There is reason to say it might be in society. If those women are thirty and still allegedly suffering psychological harm from consensual sex that occurred when they were twelve I think it's likely that it's not the sex itself that caused their problems. It's more likely any harm was caused by non-sexual problems in their early family life, the breakup of their family, the ongoing courtroom dramas, and more than likely a good dose of people assuming that they must be shattered human beings because (gasp!) they had sex.

If you want evidence that this is perfectly possible, just look at any of the satanic child-care center abuse witch hunts of the eighties. There are people running around now with profound psychological damage due to sexual abuse which we can prove never happened.

Yeah, societal norms, what a load of crap.

You completely miss the point that children believe what they are taught to believe and just don't have the maturity to recognise harm as you so sweetly define it. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and those pesky old societal norms say that I'm right and you're wrong.

Hard luck.

I hope you're having fun going on like this, because you certainly aren't contributing anything new or constructive. We all know what the existing social norms are.

As I was saying earlier, there is reason to believe that a significant amount of the harm laid at the door of underage sex should in fact be laid at the door of overexited, self-righteous people who honestly believe that underage sex is the end of the world and fulfill their own unpleasant prophecies. Sex in and of itself is not harmful to a statistically significant degree to underage people.

 

[dann]

So you are retracting your statement "That the children are not hurt is part of the fiction of paedophilia, how the paedophiles persuade themselves that their inclinations are alright"?

No, why should I retract anything? There are different kinds of paedophiles, and different kinds of kiddie porn to cater to their specific needs.

You want to prevent them from "possess[ing] other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling."

Do I? I think I said that they shouldn't be in possession of kiddie porn, not that I would prevent them from having it.

I think that men who want to f[rule 8] children will place children in a sexual context regardless of the intent of the creator of the material in question.

Kiddie porn encourages their fantasies, "the children's television program" probably doesn't present them with imaginary tales of children who seduce adults.
Somehow I think that you are not unaware of this.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

What are you considering as "harm" in this case?

Sorry for not responding earlier. As I said to The Atheist, harm is usually measured by a variety of survey questions dealing with how well the subject's life has been going.

How would one do that, exactly?

It's statistics. You see if people who were having sex at age 13 are worse off than people from similar families, similar socioeconomic levels and so on who were not having sex. What falls out of the well designed studies is that poor people from broken homes make up a disproportionate number of the thirteen year olds who are having sex, but that the ones who are having sex do not turn out worse (to a statistically significant degree) than the ones who are not.

How many children need to be harmed to make it cost effective to outlaw it? Who gets to decide what constitutes harm? How much public money do we spend on working these things out?

First prove any are harmed at all. Pick any definition of harm you like and try to prove that it is actually happening. I think it's an important issue so I don't object to significant amounts of money being spent on studies, especially given the relative costs of research on one hand and enforcing criminal laws on the other.

 

[Merko]

Animated cartoons of child rape are fine, no kids are harmed during that, either.

I don't think it should be illegal. If it's 'fine' or not, well, it depends I think. The animated cartoon child rape in Kill Bill is fine with me. Haven't seen any others as far as I can recall, but I haven't exactly been looking for it, either.

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

I don't!
You are being very silly now. What I said was that:
Do you actually think that "the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program" place children in a sexual context?

I think that men who want to f[rule 8] children will place children in a sexual context regardless of the intent of the creator of the material in question.

And if you wish to dispute that guys looking for "stroke material" can find it in relatively innocent* pages, think of the generations of adolescent boys who have hidden under their matresses "non-pornographic" materials such as National Geographic, Victoria's Secret, and the Swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated.

*It's only relatively innocent because, regardless of their stated intentions, there is often an undercurrent of the "sex sells" in the design and layout of the material.

 

[Piscivore]

Not at all. I've raised my kids very liberally and truthfully and with the oldest now 16, I'm very happy with where they are, emotionally and physically.

Then I don't get why you are now advocating over-protection.

It's just that I'd rather make a mistake being less rather than more liberal, when kids are the subject.

I'd rather err the other way, personally.

Again, that brings us back to how will we ever know? There isn't likely to be serious research conducted, so I guess we are always going to over-compensate.

We don't have to. Can't we just compensate, without going overboard?

What totalitarian nanny state?

The one that Dave wants, the one where the government "protects" us from objectionable materials just in case someone will get inappropriate ideas- that they would never, ever have by their little innocent selves- from it.

I mistakenly thought you were advocating something similar. Although I do see "over-compensating" as a step down that path.

Do you live in one?

Nope. And I don't really want to either.

That's pure strawman.

There are people who want it, so I don't think so.

You're the one who's position is outside of the status quo, accordingly, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to back your claims.

Um, everyone has an onus to back up their claims.

You're a Canadian, eh?

Only in my heart. I was born and bred 'Murcan.

You must live close enough to the border to have heard of an outfit called NAMBLA?

Indeed. I assume though that the group to which you refer is not the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes, but that other one.

They would be highly encouraged by your arguments.

Freedom is for everybody, until they break the law.

Why shouldn't they have very young-looking men playing at being schoolboys being raped by their elders?

As long as everyone involved are consenting legal adults I don't have a problem with it. I don't particularly want to watch, mind, but to each their own.

I would say there is some concern any time there is a large age disparity between partners, but I'm not going to play at being their shrink, and neither should the government.

Now if the young men are not of legal age, they have a problem.

Of course there are people to debate. Mark Twain once pointed out that no matter how indefensible something is, there'll always be someone to stand up for it.

Good point. I don't find this position all that hard to support, let alone "indefensible".

The sad news about that is that I'd be amazed if it works. Hope so, I thought our government may have had the balls to pull through, but they tossed it in immediately.

A number of US States have what are known as "close in age exceptions".

Maybe. I certainly thought that when the policy was released. I didn't expect any protest, let alone the storm of absolute bull put about by opponents. To be honest, given the hue and cry, you would have thought they were going to make it compulsory for 10 year olds to work as part-time hookers! It wasn't just the usual culprits, either, I thought a lot of people who should have known better were on the wrong side of the argument. So, I'm not so sure times have changed all that much.

Hey, look at how different it is today than it was fifty years ago. Things will change.

Yeah, I'll give you all that, with one rider - I'll be happy for 100% personal responsibility to reign as far as kids are concrened when I have any kind of faith that their parents are capable of using the responsibility wisely. I see precious little evidence of that.

Granted, but it isn't up to us to force them to do so. Freedom has to be for everyone.

I can't influence grown-ups behaviour, and I have no desire to

Yes you do. You want to censor what you've decided is "porn".

- apart from giving up their pathetic bloody god/s -

Also outside your sphere of rights.

but I just have this strange trait that if I can do anything to help kids, anywhere, I will do so and do it on my terms.

You are bordering on vigilantism here. How about helping kids on your country's terms- the laws of the land?

In this case, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but until such time as I am, I cannot back off, and absolutely will not do so, either. I feel that the downside is just too great to mess around with fine tuning.

What if your agressiveness represents and aids "the down side"?

 

[Piscivore]

Sorry for not responding earlier. As I said to The Atheist, harm is usually measured by a variety of survey questions dealing with how well the subject's life has been going.

So only long-term damage is a consideration?

It's statistics. You see if people who were having sex at age 13 are worse off than people from similar families, similar socioeconomic levels and so on who were not having sex. What falls out of the well designed studies is that poor people from broken homes make up a disproportionate number of the thirteen year olds who are having sex, but that the ones who are having sex do not turn out worse (to a statistically significant degree) than the ones who are not.

Links?

 

[Piscivore]

No, why should I retract anything? There are different kinds of paedophiles, and different kinds of kiddie porn to cater to their specific needs.

That's not how I read it. Sorry.

Do I? I think I said that they shouldn't be in possession of kiddie porn, not that I would prevent them from having it.

If you aren't going to do anything about what you think "should be", you're just pissing in the wind.

Kiddie porn encourages their fantasies,

No, their desires encourage their fantasies. "Kiddie porn" may facilitate the fantasy, but does not generate the desire.

"the children's television program" probably doesn't present them with imaginary tales of children who seduce adults.

Their own imaginations provide them with imaginary tales of children who seduce adults. And imaginary tales of children who can be seduced by adults.

Tell me you haven't once dreamed up a fantasy number about some girl in your class, the newscaster on TV, the shop girl at the mall, an actress in a movie- some poor Sheila who was just going about her day and totally unaware of your interest in her.

Somehow I think that you are not unaware of this.

Likewise.

 

[The Atheist]

This is the problem with getting terribly exited from a position of total ignorance.

Now I see the problem. As I suspected when you started, it's just that you're talking out of a convenient hole, rather than making a relevant comment.

This post you made is all about whether underage sex is harmful in the long term and my previous post was very much along the lines that I don't see underage, consensual sex as a problem at all - provided both parties are undeage.

This isn't about John and Sarah having it off when they're 13, it's about child pornography, or would you just rather now defend your completely shifted goalposts?

 

[The Atheist]

Then I don't get why you are now advocating over-protection.

Good question, I probably don't even know. Maybe I was a nanny in a previous life.

You are bordering on vigilantism here. How about helping kids on your country's terms- the laws of the land?

Trust me, I do.

What if your agressiveness represents and aids "the down side"?

As I keep saying to my four year old when he asks me a "what if.." question, "what if the sky falls down?"

Seriously, I'd be pissed off that I somehow made the wrong choice about which position is right, but given the lack of evidence, I prefer to rest on the side of what I see as caution. I could be wrong, sure. I could be wrong about god, too. These are chances I'm prepared to take.

 

[Piscivore]

I prefer to rest on the side of what I see as caution.

Funny, my version of "caution" is watching out for those people that think they know what's "best for us".

 

[The Atheist]

Funny, my version of "caution" is watching out for those people that think they know what's "best for us".

Fair comment - I did raise the road to hell myself.

We could both be on the wrong side of it!

 

[dann]

If you aren't going to do anything about what you think "should be", you're just pissing in the wind.

Then I'm pissing in the wind. What is your point? My point was what I wrote in post 65 in this thread.

No, their desires encourage their fantasies. "Kiddie porn" may facilitate the fantasy, but does not generate the desire.

I never claimed that it did! But your argument is becoming clearer.

Their own imaginations provide them with imaginary tales of children who seduce adults. And imaginary tales of children who can be seduced by adults.
(...)
Tell me you haven't once dreamed up a fantasy number about some girl in your class, the newscaster on TV, the shop girl at the mall, an actress in a movie- some poor Sheila who was just going about her day and totally unaware of your interest in her.

Now at least it has become rather clear what your implied idea is. Let me use an analogy: The scent of freshly baked bread may not exactly generate hunger, but it certainly stimulates it. Your body may crave food, you might be hungry even without the scent, but the scent is what makes you act on it - which is why you wouldn’t expose somebody who’s trying to lose weight to the scent of donuts fresh from the oven.

In the case of paedophilia the sexual urge as such is physical, that children are the object of your desire, however, isn’t, it’s a perversion of the sexual instincts. (Some socio-biologists might claim that it is genetic, I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Nor do I think that the gene for girdle fetishism or sniffing bicycle seats will ever be discovered! But unlike paedophilia those perversions are fairly victimless and thus uninteresting in th context of this discussion.)

Your argument seems to be that since the desire of paedophiles does not depend on kiddie porn as a stimulant, the stimulant does not matter: sexual desire as such does not depend on porn. We (normal, heterosexual men) may desire the women we meet in our everyday lives, and if we are excluded from or cannot think of a way of approaching them, we may dream up fantasies about them instead. We may also use porn to release the sexual tension. Porn stimulates the imagination, ‘facilitates the fantasy’ needed to get off, to release sexual tension without a partner, without having real sex.
If you look at ordinary pornography, its purpose is clear: Heterosexual men (if they are not rapists) desire to have sex with a consenting woman, and pornography presents them with women posing as if they want to have sex, naked and available … and imaginary: photos of a woman pretending, simulating that she wants to have sex (or actually having it … with somebody else). For the same reason I do not think that mothers need to worry if they find this kind of porn under their sons’ beds. Like all fiction it is a lie. (The woman in the photo does not desire to have sex with you.) But it stimulates a very realistic fantasy (probably): that there are women out there who are not only willing to consent to having sex with you, they will probably even enjoy having it too! This makes it fairly harmless to encourage this particular fantasy.
Unlike kiddie porn: Children not only don’t generally want to have sex with adults, if they do, it is probably because their behaviour has become sexualised by previous abuse. Therefore the fantasy of having sex with children should be discouraged. It may not only ”facilitate the fantasy” and help the unfortunate paedophile get off, it may also persuade him that this is the way children are and should be treated. And paedophiles not only want to, they actually need to believe this! (to paraphrase what James Randi says about woowoos.)
And apparently people who crave sex with children are often people with a history of abuse. They themselves may have been victimized by paedophiles when they were children. And this is why counselling should be encouraged instead of (very wrong) fantasies.

 

[Dave1001]

There are at least some indications that child pornography makes a pedophile less likely to have actual child sex.

For example, take your average heterosexual male. Now provide him with 100 DVDs of pornography covering his various fetishes, and provide him with 5 new DVDs per day covering his various fetishes. Would such a supply make him more or less likely to pursue sex with actual women? I suspect most of us think the answer to that question is "less" -that's certainly my impression of the effect that would have on the average heterosexual male.

Similarly, I suspect a large amount of child pornography makes a given pedophile less likey to pursue actual child sex than they would otherwise. Like heterosexual men, I suspect they only want sex when they become horny, and the best way to discourage them from making actual sexual contact with children is a combination of heightened barriers to actual contact with children and making it easier for them to achieve sexual release without actual contact with children.

On a similar topic, here's a slate article claiming that studies show access to violent movies make violent people less likely to commit actual violence, and access to internet porn reduces rape:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

 

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Your argument seems to be that since the desire of paedophiles does not depend on kiddie porn as a stimulant, the stimulant does not matter: sexual desire as such does not depend on porn.

No, his statements were in response to your desire to remove all stimulating material from the pedophiles. His argument is that it is impossible to acheive such an end, because almost anything can become stimulating material. The only way to remove all stimulating material is to lock them in an isolation chamber.

For the same reason I do not think that mothers need to worry if they find this kind of porn under their sons’ beds.

But even when the mothers do worry and forbid the material, the sons find other more innocent material to serve the same purpose. (See my previous comment about National Geographic, etc.) Likewise, the Sears catalogs, etc. will stimulate the pedophiles, and if forbidden those, then Saturday morning childrens programs will serve, etc.

Edited to add:

Note: I'm not saying that Piscivore does not champion certain rights that you (and I'm certain he himself) find distasteful. What I am saying is that regardless of whether or not it would be a good thing if the worst of the material were not available, there will always be some material available.

Unless it is that you want to make material that would be perfectly legal, and even normal for you to own illegal if it is in the hands of pedophiles.

Back when both pornography and sodomy were illegal, SCOTUS ruled on a case where a "muscle magazine" was seized as pornography because most of its subscribers were gay. The pictures were no more explicit than in legal magazines intended for body builders. SCOTUS ruled that the pictures had to be pornography in themselves; that there could not be one standard for straights and another for gays. The same principle applies here.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Now I see the problem. As I suspected when you started, it's just that you're talking out of a convenient hole, rather than making a relevant comment.

This post you made is all about whether underage sex is harmful in the long term and my previous post was very much along the lines that I don't see underage, consensual sex as a problem at all - provided both parties are undeage.

I think you are confused. The evidence is that as long as the sex is consensual and non-distressing there is no long-term harm regardless of the age of the other person involved.

This isn't about John and Sarah having it off when they're 13, it's about child pornography, or would you just rather now defend your completely shifted goalposts?

Let me retrace our steps for you, since you have gotten lost.

Based on the avilable evidence, consensual and non-distressing sex does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself. Rape, pregnancy disease and so on all do, but sex does not.

So child pornography depicting such sex acts is depicting something which causes no harm.

So it's not immediately obvious how one could justify criminalising the creation or possession of child pornography that depicts such acts but does not involve actual underage people having actual sex in its creation, unless one had evidence that legal access to such material in fact increased the rate of sexual predation upon children in society.

Is that clear so far?

 

[dann]

I think you are confused. The evidence is that as long as the sex is consensual and non-distressing there is no long-term harm regardless of the age of the other person involved.

You are the one who's confused. What you are describing is probably the ideal of most paedophiles! Reality is very different from this ideal.

Let me retrace our steps for you, since you have gotten lost.

My ......!

Based on the avilable evidence, consensual and non-distressing sex does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself.

This is the excuse that almost every single one of them comes up with in court: 'I was only trying to have consensual and non-distressing sex which does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself.'

So child pornography depicting such sex acts is depicting something which causes no harm.

It causes harm in as far as it persuades the paedophiles that their desires agree with those of children, i.e. it persuades them that this is the reality of adult-child sexual relations, which it isn't. Ask the people who have been damaged for life by people who managed to persuade themselves that it was alright.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are the one who's confused. What you are describing is probably the ideal of most paedophiles! Reality is very different from this ideal.

Sorry, but facts and reality are not on your side Dann. Well designed and controlled studies show no statistically significant harm coming to people who had consensual, non-distressing sex while underage regardless of the age of their partner.

My ......!
This is the excuse that almost every single one of them comes up with in court: 'I was only trying to have consensual and non-distressing sex which does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself.'

What do you conclude from this?

And, as we all know, children are old enough to decide that having 'consensual and non-distressing sex' WHILE BEING FILMED, thus giving the rest of the world the opportunity to watch it for all eternity, is a lot of fun and something they'll never regret, right? Man, you're losing it!

Look, I'll highlight the relevant bit in the post you are replying to. "...Child pornography that depicts such acts but does not involve actual underage people having actual sex in its creation".