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

[Rasmus]

It IS harmful. A child, regardless of how well "informed" they are, is not capable of understanding what he/she is getting into.

That is a perfectly valid reason to keep this kind of encounter illegal. However I am not sure if it automatically follows that harm has been done.

If someone gains access to by bank account and invests what little money I have and I walk away a millionaire no harm has been done; still it would still be illegal to seize control of my account.

 

[Gurdur]

....I am rather amused how people insist that harm must be caused.

I'm even more amused when pedophiles end up in prison, at the bottom of the food chain there,

Wouldn't it be a good thing if children weren't harmed? If children weren't harmed, does it follow that it should be legal that adults can have sex with them? (And, if so, what would be your problem?)

You're obviously failing to address the unequal_relations/exploitation issue, plus the fact that many children have been harmed, and you've seen firsthand testimony from one person already. But hey, it's clear.

 

[AWPrime]

Having an adult approach a child (of age where basic understanding and communications is possible...like above 6 or 7) and initiate sexual contact in a non-forceful manner, for example "Do you know what the difference between boys and girls is? wana see?" or "lets pretend we're doctors" or some other means by which the child is given the option to consent or not to consent.

That is not a way to initiate sexual contact..... that is more a way of hiding what you are really after.

It really creeps me out.

 

[Rasmus]

You're obviously failing to address the unequal_relations/exploitation issue, plus the fact that many children have been harmed, and you've seen firsthand testimony from one person already. But hey, it's clear.

It is clear that an anecdote, no matter how tragic it may be, or how little reason there could be to doubt it, cannot be a substitute for evidence.

I am not denying that children have been harmed, or that they cannot give consent. But all that doesn't mean that harm will always be caused no matter what the circumstances. And if there are circumstances under which no harm is being caused we shouldn't deny that they exist.

And if we should find that there are something that aren't as bad as we thought, then personally I think that is a good thing, because it means there is less harm done in the world than we previously thought.

 

[dann]

Having an adult approach a child (of age where basic understanding and communications is possible...like above 6 or 7) and initiate sexual contact in a non-forceful manner, for example "Do you know what the difference between boys and girls is? wana see?" or "lets pretend we're doctors" or some other means by which the child is given the option to consent or not to consent. And continuing with the sexual contact, if the child is willing to do so IS/IS NOT harmful, unethical and worthy of being prohibited by law.

A very good illustration of the absurdity of the concept of 'consensual sex' with children. There is a huge difference between children playing doctor and an adult using the line "let's pretend we're doctors" to get his way with a child that does not really understand what is going on or what it will lead to when it consents to what it thinks is just some kind of fantasy play.
If adults feel like playing doctor, they should ask their wives to put on a nurse uniform.
I guess it would be too dangerous on this board to tell the paedophiles to grow up ...

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

My comments were directed at Dave. I gave up trying to talk to Kevin in the last "sex with kids" thread. He and DD simply could not understand my argument that some things in life are meant for adults or near-adults. Period.

I really don't like arguing with you, but I will repeat something I said in the last thread where we talked about this kind of thing.

You shared some of the details of your experiences then, and while I will not go over them again they were exactly the kind of experiences in terms of the age at which they started and in terms of what took place that the evidence indicates are likely to lead to long-term psychological harm and long-term damage to a person's life.

I don't think you can legitimately generalise from your own experiences to those of others in different circumstances however, because the numbers show different effects for those other people to the ones we should expect in your case.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

That is not a way to initiate sexual contact..... that is more a way of hiding what you are really after.

It really creeps me out.

Ok... So then you're saying that there is a "proper" way of initiating sexual contact with a child? What? "Sometimes people, when they like eachother, they think it feels good if they touch eachother in different ways..."
I suppose that's honest, right?



(NOTE: I know this is creepy. It is an attempt to illustrate how bizzare and whacked out an idea this is...that one could have 'consensual' sex with a child. But if anyone cares to disagree with this, then go ahead and state your case)

 

[dann]

It is clear that an anecdote, no matter how tragic it may be, or how little reason there could be to doubt it, cannot be a substitute for evidence.

Please, don't call it an "anecdote" again, Rasmus. In a court of law it would be called testimony!

I am not denying that children have been harmed, or that they cannot give consent. But all that doesn't mean that harm will always be caused no matter what the circumstances. And if there are circumstances under which no harm is being caused we shouldn't deny that they exist.

No, and if there actually are goblins, we shouldn't deny that they exist either.

And if we should find that there are something that aren't as bad as we thought, then personally I think that is a good thing, because it means there is less harm done in the world than we previously thought.

You are the one who just dismissed Slingblade's story as an anecdote, aren't you? What if we should find that something is even worse than we thought, should we then try to put a stop to it or dismiss it because we want to believe in a splendid world of harmony where children should not be deprived of the right to have alleged consensual sex with adults?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

In addition to which: (1) A young child is unable to provide informed consent, (2) STDs and pregnancy can result, seeing as adult+child sex does not occur in a lab, and (3) societal context is part of the equation, like it or not.

I miss the old Varwoche. What happened to that Varwoche? The new Varwoche just makes rare sniping posts that recycle arguments long ago demolished.

The idea that children "cannot consent" is a misunderstanding of a legal rule, which people somehow construe to be a psychologically demonstrated truth.

Even in law the consent of an underage person to sex commonly has legal weight. In some jurisdictions it is the difference between a charge of raping a child and a charge of statutory rape, and in others depending on the circumstances it makes sex with them legal. In Tasmania, for example, if a twelve year old consents to sex with someone between the ages of twelve and fifteen that consent makes the sex legal where it would otherwise be illegal.

So it's not even true to say "children cannot legally consent". Let alone to jump from a legal rule that does not exist to "it is psychologically demonstrated that underage people don't have the brains to give informed consent".

The STD issue is a non-trivial issue with a trivial answer. If you think it is a serious problem, and I think all sane people agree it is, then criminalise adult/underage unprotected sex.

The "societal context" throwaway line barely merits a response. If "societal context" in some other culture said that sex with prepubescents was okay would that be an argument for tolerating it, even though we know it to be harmful? Of course not, so running the same cultural relativist argument the other way is equally daft. It's not the place of the law to criminalise unpopular behaviour we know to be harmless.

 

[Roadtoad]

A very good illustration of the absurdity of the concept of 'consensual sex' with children. There is a huge difference between children playing doctor and an adult using the line "let's pretend we're doctors" to get his way with a child that does not really understand what is going on or what it will lead to when it consents to what it thinks is just some kind of fantasy play.
If adults feel like playing doctor, they should ask their wives to put on a nurse uniform.
I guess it would be too dangerous on this board to tell the paedophiles to grow up ...

I'd pass on the nurse uniform.

Some of us prefer Bunnygirls...

 

[DRBUZZ0]

It is clear that an anecdote, no matter how tragic it may be, or how little reason there could be to doubt it, cannot be a substitute for evidence.

I'm sorry sir, but I think you have things backward. There is no need to provide evidence that children are being harmed by sexual contact with adults.

Common wisdom indicates that to be the case. It is logical to think that is the case. It has long been held that that is the case.

That does not mean it cannot be refuted, however what it means is that the burden of proof is TO PROVE IT IS NOT HARMFUL. This being especially true given the potential consequences.

Thus: There is no reason why those who hold it is damaging need to provide 'proof'

Rather those who think otherwise need to provide proof. Very very compelling proof. Extremely compelling and redundant cross-checked reviewed and irrefutable proof. Not one study. Not two studies. LOTS AND LOTS OF PROOF. Only then should the possibility of maybe perhaps entertaining the thought of considering the possibility of reexamining things...

Do you realize that we're talking about sex with kids here? Jesus people, it's not an accidemic thing.

 

[Rasmus]

You are the one who just dismissed Slingblade's story as an anecdote, aren't you?

I have no doubt that it's an honest and true account. But it has no value as far as the question is concerned if all sexual contact between adults and children will harm the child.

What if we should find that something is even worse than we thought, should we then try to put a stop to it or dismiss it because we want to believe in a splendid world of harmony where children should not be deprived of the right to have alleged consensual sex with adults?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2216271&postcount=221

 

[Rasmus]

I'm sorry sir, but I think you have things backward. There is no need to provide evidence that children are being harmed by sexual contact with adults.

I am of the opinion that as long as you want to forbid people to do X, it is upon you to show that X is a bad thing.

Common wisdom indicates that to be the case. It is logical to think that is the case. It has long been held that that is the case.

And earth flat. Same story, really.

That does not mean it cannot be refuted, however what it means is that the burden of proof is TO PROVE IT IS NOT HARMFUL. This being especially true given the potential consequences.

I think it is unjustified to call them "potential consequences" as long as we are arguing about what the consequences are.

Thus: There is no reason why those who hold it is damaging need to provide 'proof'

Oh, so all you have to do is make up a claim that X might be harmful, and then that's that?

Rather those who think otherwise need to provide proof. Very very compelling proof. Extremely compelling and redundant cross-checked reviewed and irrefutable proof. Not one study. Not two studies. LOTS AND LOTS OF PROOF. Only then should the possibility of maybe perhaps entertaining the thought of considering the possibility of reexamining things...

I see. You are right because you say so ...

Do you realize that we're talking about sex with kids here? Jesus people, it's not an accidemic thing.

Apparently, it's more the kind of thing to be all hysterical about. At least it is for some. That would explain claims that no evidence is needed, or that no evidence would make a difference whatsoever. It might also explain that as soon as anyone dares to question the view that earth is flat all sex will always be harming the child people stop to listen. Had you been listening you would have seen that I will hold the view that it should be illegal regardless of how harmful it may or may not be.

 

[DRBUZZ0]

And earth flat. Same story, really.

Um...not exactly. Conventional wisdom is usually right, and this tends to become moreso over time. You hear a lot about those who challenge conventional wisdom and win, but those who lose are never heard about.


In the case of the earth being round vrs flat: Conventional wisdom, at one time said that the earth was flat. This seemed to be the logical thing to think since the ground seemed to be flat and the idea of a round earth begged the question of what was holding you to it (gravity not being understood).

Those who claimed the world to be round had to provide compelling evidence of this, based on observations, logic and demonstration. They did, and conventional wisdom changed.


So, you are not being invited to provide compelling evidence that conventional wisdom is wrong: Please go ahead and do so.


Or, as from what you seem to say, since this is a two-sided argument, sex between children and adults ought to be legal until such time as the argument is settled and proof can be given that it is harmful?

There are many things that are not legal until they can be proven non-harmful. For example: Generally new perscription drugs cannot be sold until they are proven, within some degree of confidence as safe (or at least that's how it is in theory...)

I don't think it's general practice to put them on the market without any good testing of the safety and then take them off if people start dropping dead.




Alright...Given...I'm a little non-objective and favor the idea of NOT having sex with children. And yes I realize that I generally am of the opinion that one ought to be objective and non-biased in viewing scientific data.

However...If I'm going to be a bit subjective and prejudice about a given subject, I think having a prejudice against sex with children is one of the better ones to have.

 

[dann]

If someone gains access to by bank account and invests what little money I have and I walk away a millionaire no harm has been done; still it would still be illegal to seize control of my account.

If some adult gains access to your 11-year-old daughter's vagina, gives her so many orgasms that she isn't even able to count them at her age, i.e. gives her the experience of a lifetime and thus ensures that she will grow up to be a wonderful, mature woman, full of self-confidence, a mother of happy grateful children and a sexually liberated and knowledgeable wife of a grateful husband, in short: makes her the happiest girl in the world, yes, then it would still be illegal to seize control of her vagina.
Or if somebody killed somebody else in anger only to discover later that his victim was fatally ill, depressed and actually wanted to end his own life, but just didn't have the guts to do so, it would still be illegal to kill him.
You are writing fairytales, Rasmus, but still it is a very useful example of the way that paedophiles think. In real life nobody gains access to somebody else's money to invest it in order to make that somebody a millionaire (well, maybe if the somebody was a billionaire). And in real life paedophiles don't dream of having sex with children because they are absolutely sure that this is best thing they can do for them. We are not talking about adult men who have formed a club based on the unselfish willingness to sacrifice having sex with sexually mature women in order to be able to spend all their time helping 'consenting' children.
Get it, Rasmus? Paedophiles desire sex with children (the only interesting question is why!) and in order to justify this desire to themselves and others, they become hypocrites. The stories they make up are so weird that it really isn't necessary to take their ideas seriously. They are lies. If they happen to believe in their own lies, we should help them by pointing out to them that they are being delusional. And so are you if you can actually persuade yourself that the story about your bank account has anything to do with the real world!

 

[Darth Rotor]

Do you have an opinion on what you think the law should be?

What I think the law should be?

Hmm. *ponders*

If you have sex with my under 16 year old child, and you are an adult, I get to have you to myself in a room, for 5 minutes with no interference -- oh, the me includes my favorite baseball bat.

You get to live if your body can withstand that counselling session.

That isn't what the law is, but what I think it should be.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

My example above is about standing in the driveway hopping on one foot. It serves no purpose, and I do it for no reason other than I want to. Moroever, I am pretty much alone among the adults in my neighborhood in wanting to do it. Yet, it is perfectly legal. Why? Because there is no reason to make it illegal.

That is the only standard that makes sense in a free society

Are you trying to make the point that the laws against child pornography are not based in protecting one person against another? Are you trying to make a point related to the OP at all? I am unsure, which is why I am asking.

There is typicaly a good reason to make something illegal when it is a matter of protecting one citizen from another. The precise age of what constitutes child has fluctuated somewhat since the founding days, and still varies (in the US) from state to state. I find it difficult to accept Lowe's position that there is no harm in kiddie porn, and in minor-adult sexual liaisons, but I have no desire to go down his Utopian rathole of harmless child sex. I accept that there is a possibility of such a blissful condition in some cases. Regardless of the rate of this success in innocence, such behavior has been decreed in the US by behavioral psychologists as being harmful enough to induce the citizenry and legislative bodies to cause laws to be written against it.

The other problem of this entire discussion of "kiddie" porn is what constitutes kiddie in it (pre pubescent is, as I see it, a different case from post pubescent.)

The laws have been drawn up on a consensus of the people they influence -- people with children -- under the premise that children, minors, are a protected class who at the same time are less than whole citizens (can't vote, etc) until a consensually agreed upon age of majority, or consent, pick the topic.

That is, I will repeat for emphasis, a consensus not a unanimity, and not derived from unassailable bodies of data. What informs the creation of such laws are a myriad of influences.

When the law, or "society" is asked to stand up a perfect, absolutist condition to justify a law, I tend to find myself in agreement with Gurdur, as "perfect" isn't happening any time soon.

If the "age of consent" should vary up or down, let it do so, and with it the related laws agreed by consensus. Let's not fool ourselves that we can assume away all harm in the sexual liaisons between adults and minors, unless the last 75 years output of the social sciences and behavioural psychology are all nonsense.

Which might be the case, but I'll not bet the over on it.

DR

 

[slingblade]

I don't think you can legitimately generalise from your own experiences to those of others in different circumstances however, because the numbers show different effects for those other people to the ones we should expect in your case.

It's a large, smelly, mangy dog chasing its own filth-encrusted tail.

"Children. Sex. Harm?"

"What do you mean? Children having sex with each other? Or with adults?"

"Either, really. If they want to, I mean. Consensual, of course."

"Excuse me? But why?"

"Sex feels good. And lots of people of various ages are attracted to children and teenagers. So why not? Have we ever proven it will hurt anyone?"

"It certainly hurt me."

"Oh, posh. You're just one person. You're no proof."

"The studies done on it prove sexual abuse causes psychological harm, and often physical harm as well."

"Yes, but that was abuse. What if it's only abuse because society declares it is, and what if kids only feel bad about it because society tells them they did something wrong?"

"I'm sorry. What was that again?"

"Well, if we lived in a sexually open society where any kind of sexual activity was permitted and even sanctioned, and kids grew up that way, who knows? They might really enjoy sex!"

"Again, to what purpose?"

"It feels good!"

"But if you open children up to adults soliciting them for sex, you're going to have a lot of raped children. Children can't consent to sex."

"Of course they can. They know when they want a cookie; they would know if they wanted sex."

"I think there's just a bit of difference between eating a cookie and having sex."

"Not at all. They both feel good. Why shouldn't kids have sex if they want it?"

"Again, kids don't always know what they want. They lack the cognitive ability to reason complex decisions like engaging in sex."

"What's complex about it? You want it, you do it, everyone's happy."

"Do kids know about STDs? Because some adults don't know about them. 1 in 4 who have HIV don't know it. What about pregnancy? Did you know a girl can become fertile before menarche?"

"Condoms!"

"I see. So what's the drawback? Why aren't you scouting out nubile young third-graders right now?"

"Well, because it's illegal."

"And why would that be?"

"Social taboos! Artificial social taboos!"

"So you are under the impression that the only reason we don't have sex with children is just because we find it squicky? You don't think maybe it's because we've figured out over the centuries that children and sex don't really belong together? That maybe it's because we know it can hurt them?"

"But how do we know it hurts them?"





And on and on we go. Isn't this fun?

 

[The Atheist]

Paedophiles desire sex with children (the only interesting question is why!)

That's a bloody interesting question.

I found this, via Wiki:

Insecurity, Hord agrees, is at the heart of pedophilia. Typically, pedophiles have trouble relating to people their own age. They need to feel they have power and control in a relationship, which is easy with children. One pedophile, "PwC," attests to this, writing on a pedophilia Web site:

"I'm 21 years old, and a virgin, I've never even kissed a girl. I have no job, and can't keep one. I'm frustrated that I'm a virgin, and it seems very unlikely that I'll ever get the kind of woman I want, and I'm desperate, because I need love. I never have molested a little girl, never! I want to though, I'm truly desperate. I want to hold a little girl in my arms, and tell her I love her, and that I'll keep her safe, and protect her, that appeals to me greatly."

This man is remorseful, but there are plenty of pedophiles who are not. Men and women who molest kids "for sport," as Hord puts it, are the most dangerous. They are also the ones who try to justify their sexual preference, arguing that pedophilia should be "normalized," just like homosexuality has been.

(Bolding mine.)

 

[The Atheist]

If you have sex with my under 16 year old child, and you are an adult, I get to have you to myself in a room, for 5 minutes with no interference -- oh, the me includes my favorite baseball bat.

You get to live if your body can withstand that counselling session.

That isn't what the law is, but what I think it should be.

DR

Can I take $50 on the unders on 5 minutes?

Cheers.