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

[dann]

You have to try to find evidence that consensual sex is more psychologically harmful than sexual abuse.

No, he doesn't. Adults having "consensual sex" with children is sexual abuse. That some of the children suffer more long-term harm than others does not justify the distinction. Some rape victims suffer long-term effects, some don't. It's still rape and by no means consensual. An adult persuading a child to have 'consensual sex' is a contradiction in terms. Children can't estimate the meaning of this concept, which, by the way, is why they have to be protected from people who want to take advantage of them in other areas too.

 

[dann]

I could think of worse things that could have been done to me as a kid than being given oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation --I've found that sort of offer (oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation) doesn't come around too often in the adult dating world.

It isn't even funny, Dave.

 

[Dave1001]

I could think of worse things that could have been done to me as a kid than being given oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation --I've found that sort of offer (oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation) doesn't come around too often in the adult dating world.

It isn't even funny, Dave.

I think it's an objective point -I doubt parents and extended families in some non-Western cultures are damaging their kids by giving them pleasurable sexual contact, particularly given the lack of solicitation of reciprocation that seems to go with it, at least in the examples I linked to. It supports the idea that Kevin_Lowe raised that sexual contact between adults and children might not be inherently harmful to children, although I think that may be outside the scope of the thread.

I don't have a problem banning actual adult-child sexual contact, (although I'd support carving out an exception for people who are from living cultures that traditionally engage in adult-child sexual contact that hasn't been shown scientifically to harm children) and I don't have a problem banning videotapes, photographs, or non-anonynimized written accounts of actual adult-child sexual contact, except perhaps for strictly academic or journalistic purposes.

 

[slingblade]

I could think of worse things that could have been done to me as a kid than being given oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation ...

Oh, I can think of worse things, too.

But when they did it to me, I didn't think about how it could have been worse.
It seemed bad enough, thanks.

Guess you had to be there.





Oh, and I've about had enough of this bull that the only reason it hurts kids is because of a societal effect or however that crap goes. You don't know what you're talking about. You honest to god don't have a freaking clue.

 

[Dave1001]

Oh, I can think of worse things, too.

But when they did it to me, I didn't think about how it could have been worse.
It seemed bad enough, thanks.

Guess you had to be there.

Oh, and I've about had enough of this bull that the only reason it hurts kids is because of a societal effect or however that crap goes. You don't know what you're talking about. You honest to god don't have a freaking clue.

You're right, I don't have a clue. If you suffered sexual abuse (and it sounds like you did) then I'm sorry to hear that, and I had no intention to make light of your personal experience.

I was specifically describing the activity that is considered culturally normal in some non-Western cultures. Do you think that cultural activity is ipso facto harmful to the kids? I don't think so (but I can be persuaded otherwise by experts who derive their position through empiricism). That's why I think that particular type activity isn't harmful to kids in and of itself, but rather it's likely harmful to kids that grow up in Western environments because it probably creates socialization problems.

Having said that, I'm no expert. But I don't think that someone who has personally experienced traumatic abuse automatically get a veto or the final word on this topic, because your experience may not be the universal one, and may not be comparable to adult-child sexual contact grounded in non-Western cultures.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, he doesn't. Adults having "consensual sex" with children is sexual abuse.

In the study I referred to of Australian women, "child sexual abuse" was defined as (if I recall correctly) any sexual contact with an under-12, and any sexual contact that was unwanted and/or distressing with a 13-15 year old.

Other people define any sexual contact between an adult and an under-X, where X is somewhere between 12 and 20 and is determined by local law, to be sexual abuse. So definitions do vary.

Of course whether or not you stick the label "sexual abuse" on a given behaviour makes no difference to its effects in and of itself. If a given category of underage sexual activity is harmful then it's harmful, and if it's not it's not. What you call it is neither here nor there.

So there you go.

 

[dann]

Other people define any sexual contact between an adult and an under-X, where X is somewhere between 12 and 20 and is determined by local law, to be sexual abuse. So definitions do vary.

In Denmark children are considered as minors until they are 15 or 16, I don't remember. However, another age restriction (18) applies to people in authority: teachers, camp guards, leaders of community homes etc.
Why? Because people can be pressured into complying (consenting) with the wishes of an adult, in particular - the lawmakers seem to think - when they are very young.
Why do we so rarely hear people on the news saying things like: 'My nanny used to give me a blowjob every morning from I was six till I was 14, and I totally enjoyed it. Just thought you should know, now that she is dead and it cannot hurt her anymore that I go public with the information.'?
Why are stories like Slingblade's much more common?

 

[Dave1001]

Why do we so rarely hear people on the news saying things like: 'My nanny used to give me a blowjob every morning from I was six till I was 14, and I totally enjoyed it. Just thought you should know, now that she is dead and it cannot hurt her anymore that I go public with the information.'?
Why are stories like Slingblade's much more common?

So are you going to ignore non-western cultures where variations of that are considered normal, non-harmful behavior?

 

[Gurdur]

So are you going to ignore non-western cultures where variations of that are considered normal, non-harmful behavior?

Ha. Unlike almost all on this board, I actually spent my entire childhood in a non-western culture, and in an extremely poor, tribal one.

And I have seen at first-hand the effects of such "variations"; a lot of damage done indeed.

Personal anecdotes aside, there is a great deal of material on child abuse and child prostitution in non-western societies; and since the other points are that:

• children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
• we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
• there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
• so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.

so the bloody point, yet again, is that there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

And I find it extremely good that various countries have now made it illegal for their citizens to indulge in pedophiliac acts in other countries -- to ban the kiddie sex tourism.

 

[Gurdur]

....There is no evidence that sexually mature minors are in any way harmed if they have safe sex, with partners of any age.

You really are a piece of work, aren't you? I suppose you have some magical reinvention of the meaning of "safe sex" to justify your position; yet the points are:

• children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
• we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
• there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
• so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.
• so there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

Suck it up.

 

[Gurdur]

If some aspects of current attitudes to underage sex and child pornography are, to put it bluntly, stupid, that gives groups like NAMBLA ammunition. They can quite correctly say that their opponents espouse positions which are irrational and stupid. I don't want them to be able to say that, do you?

Much better to get our own attitudes in line with the available evidence, and deny groups like NAMBLA any good arguments.

Quite frankly, I dont give a rat's arse for whether you think current attitudes are "stupid"; you've ignored many points made in this thread to push your position, and the fact remains, there is neither any need nor any ethical reason to tolerate pedophilia. Thankfully, no matter how much you or NAMBLA think current attitudes are "stupid", pedophilia remains illegal. Thankfully.

You have been given the reasons to criminalize it, and why it is in fact criminalized; you have been informed there is no need to tolerate pedophilia; and yet you have ignored so many of these points, and yu have instead concentrated mainly on rhetorical and erroneous appeals, and on personal denigration of those disagreeing with you. So maybe you better lay off the "stupid" charges.

Or use a mirror.

 

[Gurdur]

Bollocks again. Merely because someone wants it is not a "valid" reason for it to exist. You're taking your own personal opinion as a natural law.

Well, that's not how the "founding fathers" of the US saw it.

Amusing.
Why should we give a tinker's toss about whatever you think the "founding fathers of the US" saw or didn't see? It is completely and utterly irrelevant; we are talking ethics and law as it applies everywhere, and not some sole small society in North America 200 years ago.
Plus, mind you, your reply makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you claiming the "founding fathers of the US" elevated personal wants to the status of natural law?

See my post above. This is ABSOLUTELY correct. Merely because someone wants it is more than sufficient for it to exist, and that is the way it must be.

*snicker*
Wrong again. It's not that way in real life. Live with it.

Now I look forward in boundless optimism to you actually dealing with all the points that have been made previously.

 

[Dave1001]

So are you going to ignore non-western cultures where variations of that are considered normal, non-harmful behavior?

Ha. Unlike almost all on this board, I actually spent my entire childhood in a non-western culture, and in an extremely poor, tribal one.

And I have seen at first-hand the effects of such "variations"; a lot of damage done indeed.

Personal anecdotes aside, there is a great deal of material on child abuse and child prostitution in non-western societies; and since the other points are that:

• children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
• we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
• there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
• so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.

so the bloody point, yet again, is that there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

And I find it extremely good that various countries have now made it illegal for their citizens to indulge in pedophiliac acts in other countries -- to ban the kiddie sex tourism.

I think this is a scope shift from what I posted about in post #179, which wasn't about child prostitution or kiddie sex tourism. In the cases I posted references to, the non-western folks making sexual contact with the kids were all part of their family and care network, and were adhering to long time cultural norms of their communities. You would have these practices banned in non-western cultures without evidence of harm to the kids? That seems like cultural chauvenism to me, particularly if you're advocating a global ban, as opposed to a ban within US territories, for example.

 

[Gurdur]

I think this is a scope shift

Hey, don't blame me for the scope shift.
Even I am surprised about just how quickly some moved from defending wanting to have kiddie porn legalized to actually wanting to have pedophilia itself legalized.
Kind of ....... amazing, huh?

were adhering to long time cultural norms of their communities.

Ha.
I'm aware of societies where murder was the cultural norm.
I'm aware of even more societies where witchcraft was the cultural norm. Or burning witches.

Do you have any better argument than that?

You would have these practices banned in non-western cultures without evidence of harm to the kids?

Oh puh-leeze. You summarily dismissed the point that pone person has already spoken up on this thread about damage done to herself; and you have summarily ignored the point I made that there is no need to indulge pedophilia, in view of the fact that it does in many cases cause great harm, and is always an issue of unequal power, thus constituting exploitation.

That seems like cultural chauvenism to me

Suuuuuure. I look forward then to you being consistant and:
defending the legalization of female genital mutilation
defending the legalization of the Spanish Inquistion
defending the right of societies to burn witches
defending the legalization of murder
etc. etc. etc.

All in the name of non-chauvenism, dontcha know?

 

[Dave1001]

Oh puh-leeze. You summarily dismissed the point that pone person has already spoken up on this thread about damage done to herself; and you have summarily ignored the point I made that there is no need to indulge pedophilia, in view of the fact that it does in many cases cause great harm, and is always an issue of unequal power, thus constituting exploitation.

Suuuuuure. I look forward then to you being consistant and:
defending the legalization of female genital mutilation
defending the legalization of the Spanish Inquistion
defending the right of societies to burn witches
defending the legalization of murder
etc. etc. etc.

All in the name of non-chauvenism, dontcha know?

I don't think clitorectomies, torturing to force conversions, burning people alive, and killing people (state-sponsored murder is of course legal in the West not just in non-Western societies) occupy the same sphere as caregiver adult-child sexual contact in some non-Western societies of the type described in post # 179. If we don't based our policy of what to restrict in non-Western societies on ispo facto harm -like can be demonstrated with burning people alive- then I think we tread into the waters of cultural chauvenism. And I don't think you've made a case that culturally normal adult family member -child sexual contact in non-Western societies is ipso facto harmful, nor have I seen that case yet made scientifically anywhere.

As for the individual who alluded to a an abusive personal experience in a non-Western society, I have no way to gauge the universality of her experience, but I am curious about what the best science tells us on that topic.

 

[Gurdur]

I don't think clitorectomies, torturing to force conversions, burning people alive, and killing people (state-sponsored murder is of course legal in the West not just in non-Western societies) occupy the same sphere as caregiver adult-child sexual contact in some non-Western societies of the type described in post # 179.

"caregiver" is it now? What a strange way to describe adult sexual exploitation of children.

But never mind the bollocks, how about answering my point re your argument on chauvenism?

If we don't based our policy of what to restrict in non-Western societies on ispo facto harm -like can be demonstrated with burning people alive- then I think we tread into the waters of cultural chauvenism.

Now that's simply wrong.

What you are saying is "if we don't adopt subjective cultural standard X to judge subjective cultural standard Y we are treading into the waters of cultural chauvenism".

Naaaaaaw.

And it most certainly does not answer my response to you on your argument about cultural chauvenism.

And I don't think you've made a case that culturally normal adult family member -child sexual contact in non-Western societies is ipso facto harmful, nor have I seen that case yet made scientifically anywhere.

And now you are playing at strawmen; either respond to the points as they were made, or I will raise the issue of honesty.

Here are the points I made which you have not answered; note that "ipso facto" was not among them.

• children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
• we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
• there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
• so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.
• so the bloody point, yet again, is that there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

As for the individual who alluded to a an abusive personal experience in a non-Western society, I have no way to gauge the universality of her experience, but I am curious about what the best science tells us on that topic.

How terribly empathetic of you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Nope, you can take that kind of ridiculous reasoning elsewhere. That's nowhere near my reasoning. You're welcome to continue to mis=represent my thoughts in your own mind, though.

If nudists go around asking for relaxation of child-porn rules and insist that sex with underage kids is fine, I might think differently, but nudists are just nudists, in general.

BUt you would concider them criminals if they took pictures at a nudist get together.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks for letting me know before I clicked. I'll pass, thanks.

You just keep doing your "research". Just beware that you don't fall into the trap Pete Townsend (The Who) did.

He was "doing research" on child pornography as well.

Kids having a bath are suitable for family members, grandparents, etc, but I don't like the idea of them being posted on the internet. Each to their own, but my kids won't be featured there.

Now you are mixing things up again. Should pictures of people below the age of 18 and below a certian stage of dress be illegal? You clearly think that all the naked infant in bath pictures are porn, and then clearly americas funniest home videos should be arrested as they have shown such videos on broadcast media.

YOu are taking nude pictures in an absense of sexual content to be sexual. THat is showing very much your own thoughts on the subject.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I looked at the article and I'm not sure how relevant it is. It discusses the now-debunked RMS, which I'm well aware of after a very high-profile case here with remarkably similar "evidence".

It also discusses sex between 14/15 year olds and older people. I would class that as an adolescent rather than a child, so it isn't quite the same thing. I thnk Holland has laws which specify different laws for children under 13, between 13 and 16 and then 16 and over (free for all). That's possibly right - there's a world of difference between 9/10/11 and 14/15.

Yea, because 15 year olds should know better than to have sex with 15 year olds, that deservedly earns them the mark of sex offender.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, I'm sick of this. Firstly I'm reporting that post, secondly I demand an apology, and thirdly I demand you cease the accusations that I am a paedophile, have a "paedophilic-grooming agenda", support NAMBLA and so on and so forth. I don't know what makes you think you have the right to throw such baseless accusations around but it's stopping right now.

That OK I find it highly likely that he fits his own defintion of pedophile. As I find it highly likely that he engaged with what he conciders pornographic acts with his children. Namely bathing them when they where young.