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

[Dave1001]

I think it's a major scope shift to be against pseudo child pornography that doesn't use actual children because one is against real life adult-child sexual contact.

Dude, the thread's scope has shifted. I am addressing recent posts.

okay, because you said you agreed with Gurdur, and that was his point -that he was against pseudo child pornography, not just adult-child sexual contact, as I quoted in post #278.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, if you're going to make a strawman, you can take my name off it.

I did NOT say it was pornography, I said I didn't want to look at the pictures. I did NOT make any claim that they were in any way sexual, either, mostly because pics of kids being bathed aren't.

Try reading next time.

No you said such pictures should be illegal. YOu are not makeing there be any sexual content to qualify as illegal kiddy porn.

 

[steverino]

"those with histories of child sexual abuse tended to have lower status economic roles ... "

I do not agree with the above, that keeps popping up on this and the Athiest's thread on the sexy little-girl clothes.

I grew up in white middle-class-land and you had to dig beneath the surface but incest from a dad, uncle, or brother were not uncommon. Plus, from annecdotal stuff from old girlfriends and their friends, who were middle class, I was told that, with a brother and a bathtub, the chances are about one-in-four he will dittle with you.

Also, clergy were/are not class-system sensitive in their pedaphelia. It was suggested on the forum that sex-abuse in middle and upper class America is/was under reported. This may be valid.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I might like to see it too, but not just now. I'm working on that book, you see, and it's dredged up a whole lot of garbage I'd forgotten, or had refused to look at.

I used to tell people (mostly therapists) that the funny thing about my multiple molestations was that I never felt guilty about it. After all, they didn't hurt me, so why should I feel guilty? Once I started writing, however, I suddenly started remembering just how much it did hurt. A lot of it was painful. And yes, parts of it were pleasurable. Absolutely. Some of them knew what they were doing, and they did it well.

I still didn't want them to do it, and I still couldn't make them stop.

And with how memory can be edited and influenced at later times, why should that it not be concidered to be a modified memory?

Something like all the repressed memory victims who then remember being molested.(not to say I do not believe that you where, but changes like this can be not relizations but modifications)

 

[The Atheist]

No you said such pictures should be illegal. YOu are not makeing there be any sexual content to qualify as illegal kiddy porn.

Wrong.

Go check again.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Define child. Is 14 or 15 a child? When does someone stop being a child at it become the mix of harm to help spectrum that it would be for an adult?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

It is stunningly misleading to cite these articles as supporting your position. In fact, if I didn't know better I'd have thought they were cited in diametric opposition.

Link #1 -- AIFS: First off, this is not an original study. It's an article that cites numerous other studies. But since you cited it... And yes, I did notice the blurbs that could be cherry-picked out of context, if one were inclined to abject sophistry.

Link #2 similarly contradicts your position. (I'll demonstrate later, time allowing.)

To hold up these articles as evidence supporting your position is nothing short of surreal.

I want the old Varwoche back. I'd swear once you were capable of reading comprehension. Either you didn't read my posts or you didn't understand them, and in this case your failure to do so leads you to further pollute the thread with stupid accusations. So I will repeat myself, and expect an apology.

If you fold everything involving unwanted sexual contact with people under sixteen into one heading and study that, yes, it has all sorts of bad long-term effects.

If you differentiate by circumstances you discover that circumstances matter and that some subcategories of sexual abuse have no long-term ill effects.

So if even sexual abuse under some circumstances has no long-term ill effects (which in no way makes such crimes acceptable), is it remotely sane to assume that consensual sex will have long-term ill effects? That's what you seem to be trying to imply with your own cherry-picked list of quotes.

Why are we taking such a convoluted road to approach the issue of consensual (in the English sense) sexual activity involving young people? Because currently I know of no proper studies which focus precisely on that issue, and it's not because I haven't looked. I'd prefer studies which speak directly to the issue at hand, but lacking such things we look to studies which show that sex in and of itself is not a magic button which causes long-term psychological damage to young humans.

So now will you please apologise for and withdraw the comments you made above?

 

[hammegk]

Every time I read the thread title with its' implication that the morality of our behavior is meaningless unless some law has been passed barring that behavior, I can only sit in awe contemplating the upbringing that would result in a person with that viewpoint.

 

[The Atheist]

Every time I read the thread title with its' implication that the morality of our behavior is meaningless unless some law has been passed barring that behavior, I can only sit in awe contemplating the upbringing that would result in a person with that viewpoint.

<<standing ovation>>

 

[quixotecoyote]

Every time I read the thread title with its' implication that the morality of our behavior is meaningless unless some law has been passed barring that behavior, I can only sit in awe contemplating the upbringing that would result in a person with that viewpoint.

Every time I read this post with its' implication that someone claimed the morality of our behavior is meaningless unless some law has been passed barring that behavior, I can only sit in awe contemplating the upbringing that would result in a person with that viewpoint.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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

Once again showing that you are a very violent person. Why 16? That is illegal in some states and legal in others, and in some places 20 isn't legal and in others 14 is.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think it's a major scope shift to be against pseudo child pornography that doesn't use actual children because one is against real life adult-child sexual contact.

What you mean because teen suicide is bad, we shouldn't be banning Romeo and Juliette for romanticizing it? Wouldn't someone think of the children?

 

[The Atheist]

Once again showing that you are a very violent person.

Do you post in the humour section much?

 

[slingblade]

And with how memory can be edited and influenced at later times, why should that it not be concidered to be a modified memory?

Something like all the repressed memory victims who then remember being molested.(not to say I do not believe that you where, but changes like this can be not relizations but modifications)

I guess you have to understand the kind of memory I've always had. It's extremely sensory, and very vivid. When I remember things, I get pictures, sound, smell, tactile sensations, and a thing I call "flavor." Memories of my grandmother's living room have a much different flavor than those of, say, my school. I know there are holes and gaps in everyone's memories, and that editing occurs and we don't realize it.

But really, not many days have ever passed that I didn't think about it all.
Anyway.

 

[hammegk]

Every time I read this post with its' implication that someone claimed the morality of our behavior is meaningless unless some law has been passed barring that behavior, I can only sit in awe contemplating the upbringing that would result in a person with that viewpoint.

Keep trying, and even you may one day be able to understand the difference between an implication and a claim.

 

[Dave1001]

Every time I read the thread title with its' implication that the morality of our behavior is meaningless unless some law has been passed barring that behavior, I can only sit in awe contemplating the upbringing that would result in a person with that viewpoint.

That's not implied by the title of this thread. I can thank my family for an upbringing with sufficient reading comprehension skill-building to understand that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I guess you have to understand the kind of memory I've always had. It's extremely sensory, and very vivid. When I remember things, I get pictures, sound, smell, tactile sensations, and a thing I call "flavor." Memories of my grandmother's living room have a much different flavor than those of, say, my school. I know there are holes and gaps in everyone's memories, and that editing occurs and we don't realize it.

But really, not many days have ever passed that I didn't think about it all.
Anyway.

I certainly believe it happened, but you can modify memory as well, and what is your evidence that senses are resistant to confabulation?

What I was thinking of more specificaly is hearing about criticisms of the mental health as it was practiced after 9/11. They had groups of people telling them what to expect from PTSD, and as they had a horrible situation happen to them they would get PTSD.

This causes them to have those symptoms. So your personal discription fits with the idea that you did not find it especialy truamatic(or at least creating a feeling of guilt) until the thearapists told you you should. Then you realized you always felt that.

That discription fits confabulation of your memories just as accurately as it does your claims.

 

[varwoche]

Either you didn't read my posts or you didn't understand them, and in this case your failure to do so leads you to further pollute the thread with stupid accusations. So I will repeat myself, and expect an apology.

You posted a link but failed to specify which text supports your position. Whereas I have specified copious text (from your link) that contradicts your position. In the (unlikely, I think) event that I misunderstood you, repetition of unsupported opinion does not enhance my understanding.

But before you go to the effort, I suggest you carefully re-read the article. Sure, it makes the point that worse harm results from worse abuse -- no surpise there at all. However it does not state that no harm results from lesser abuse -- to the contrary, as my prior post makes abundantly clear (with the caveat that we're a step removed from the original studies; see below.)

And as a side point, if you think one of the studies referenced in the article supports your position (as opposed to the many studies referenced in the article that diametrically contradict you), then perhaps you should locate (and quote) the original study.

 

[hammegk]

That's not implied by the title of this thread.

Ya think? I disagree, as did at least one other person who can read.

I can thank my family for an upbringing with sufficient reading comprehension skill-building to understand that.

Ask them what they think of your title.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Every time I read the thread title with its' implication that the morality of our behavior is meaningless unless some law has been passed barring that behavior, I can only sit in awe contemplating the upbringing that would result in a person with that viewpoint.

Can you explain to me how that is implied by the thread title?