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

[Dave1001]

Ask them what they think of your title.

Why? I only discuss this type stuff anonymously.

 

[hammegk]

That doesn't surprise me in the slightest.

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

Yes, I could. It being you, I choose not to, and I have every expectation you can figure it out all by yourself. I suspect you did so long ago.

 

[Kevin Levites]

What should be legal to own, what shouldn't, and why?
By child I mean someone under the age of 18. Feel free to make a separate distinction for someone under the age of 16, and under the age of 14.

1. erotic stories depicting child sex, with no illustrations or voices.
2. audio erotic stories depicting child sex, with an adult actor portraying a child's voice.
3. audio erotic stories depicting child sex, with a child actor's voice portraying a child.
4. Cartoons depicting child sex with no voices.
5. Cartoons depicting child sex, voiced by adult actors pretending to be children.
6. Cartoons depicting child sex, voiced by child actors.
7. live action pornography, with adults pretending to be children.
8. live action pornography, with children engaging only in simulated sex.
9. live action pornography, with children actuall having sex.

My own take: everything should be legal except #'s 3, 6, 8, & 9.

I'm also open to rasing the age at which anyone can consent to any of the things in #'s 3, 6, 8, &9 to 30 (and considering that the "adult" age for this purpose), because I think older people have a strong exploitation motivation to use less wise, younger people for sexual gratification. However, I would also envision an exception for someone that got two independent psychiatrists to produce an opinion that they are making mature, informed decision for their voice or image to be used for sexual media. That would hold for people as young as 18.

I had to think long and hard before replying to this post.

I almost didn't because the issues seemed very sticky--but that would have been cowardly, so here goes my take on how we might resolve Freedom of Speech against Child Pornography.

The problem with obscenity is that everyone recognizes it when they see it, yet we're hard-pressed to come up with a legal definition.

What about an elected politician, who serves a term of only two years who is a kind of guardian of child pornography? This politician would pass down judgement on what is or is not kiddie porn. This politician would have to keep his or her constituency happy, so in order to stay in office he or she would have to find the right balance--probably like a very thin tightrope--between protecting children's interests and Freedom of Speech.

I could see sex with a sixteen year old being statutory rape, but does this apply if a married couple from a foreign country (with a sixteen year old wife)visits the U.S. and they have sex here? For that matter, bigamy is against the law, but does this apply to someone from Saudi Arabia who visits the U.S.? If a Saudi Arabian prince with ten wives ends up in the hospital, who signs the papers as his spouse? Is his fifteen year old spouse allowed to sign papers on his behalf if he's incapacitated? If this married couple--with a teenage wife--decided to do their own home porno movies (yuck!) which is something that many married couples do (evidentally suggested by some sex therapists as a way of working out certain sexual problems), then how can we judge it by the same standards that we use for a mafia organization that kidnaps children and puts them on the Internet?

And so on.

With these points in mind, I can't help but wonder if kiddie porn is a matter of context, and as disgusting and destructive as I think it is, we need to tread very carefully and be rather conservative when we dance around this topic.

I hope that this post contributed something constructive on a distasteful--yet important--contemporary issue.

All the best,

---Kevin

 

[The Atheist]

What about an elected politician, who serves a term of only two years who is a kind of guardian of child pornography? This politician would pass down judgement on what is or is not kiddie porn. This politician would have to keep his or her constituency happy, so in order to stay in office he or she would have to find the right balance--probably like a very thin tightrope--between protecting children's interests and Freedom of Speech.[/QB]

Can you imagine the short-list for that job? I suspect it'd be a very short short-list.

I could see sex with a sixteen year old being statutory rape, but does this apply if a married couple from a foreign country (with a sixteen year old wife)visits the U.S. and they have sex here?

That's a bloody point!

Not just married couples, either. At the last Academy Awards, the Kiwi actress, Keisha Castle-Hughes was aged 15 and pregnant. Her boyfriend and father of the child stayed away from the ceremony under danger of arrest as she was apparently impregnated in Ca.

If this married couple--with a teenage wife--decided to do their own home porno movies (yuck!) which is something that many married couples do (evidentally suggested by some sex therapists as a way of working out certain sexual problems), then how can we judge it by the same standards that we use for a mafia organization that kidnaps children and puts them on the Internet?

Another excellent question, obviously while it would be illegal, it's not immoral, unlike the Mafia example, which is both.

 

[Darth Rotor]

okay, how about the law regarding pseudo child pornography that depicts adult-child sex but doesn't involve any actual children in its production? Should it be legal to own? To distribute?

In what country?

Since I am American, I confine my opinion on that to America, and apply "without redeeming social importance" to that option. No, it should not.

I don't think people who are aroused by kiddie porn (which I'll suggest is pre pubescent in "kiddie" ness) should be tittilated. I think they should be helped to work through the underlying behavioral problem so they interact that way with other adults, or adult porn. I am not a fan of porn, but I've seen my share of choke and poke films.

I think the production and distribution of kiddie porn is a societal evil, even in the simulation you suggest. I don't find it a good idea to encourage the sexualization of kiddies, or the sexual objectifying of kiddies. The sexual objectifying of teens and adults is bad enough as it is. So, as I see it, a ban is in the interest of American society.

DR

 

[Dave1001]

In what country?

Since I am American, I confine my opinion on that to America, and apply "without redeeming social importance" to that option. No, it should not.

I don't think people who are aroused by kiddie porn (which I'll suggest is pre pubescent in "kiddie" ness) should be tittilated. I think they should be helped to work through the underlying behavioral problem so they interact that way with other adults, or adult porn. I am not a fan of porn, but I've seen my share of choke and poke films.

I think the production and distribution of kiddie porn is a societal evil, even in the simulation you suggest. I don't find it a good idea to encourage the sexualization of kiddies, or the sexual objectifying of kiddies. The sexual objectifying of teens and adults is bad enough as it is. So, as I see it, a ban is in the interest of American society.

DR

That's a well-articulated position. What sort of penalties should possessors of pseudo-kiddy porn face in your opinion? Should it be the equivalent of possessing a small amount of marijuana in New York City (just the equivalent of a warning or a ticket)? Or should the penalties be more serious in your opinion?

 

[Darth Rotor]

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.

My kid, pal. That was the stipulation, and because my norm (and the state I currently live in) sets 16 as the age of consent.

Dave asked what I think it should be, I answered. I also noted that the law isn't thuswise, and a few posts later, a good post (69dodge IIRC) pointed out how a vigilante move like that might not put the baseball bat on the correct cranium.

Yes, PT, if you or anyone f***s with my family, I will get violent. If you won't, the problem is yours, not mine, that you hold your kin in so little regard. If you are at peace with that, however, based on your philosophy, then goodonya. As I discussed with either you or Crossbow, I took quite the introspective journey some years ago, trying to decide what I'll kill for. I am at peace with my position.

"Fifteen will get ya twenty."

I think that is a good rule of thumb, given how trying the problem of exceptions/Lolitas is.

If the general move to an age of consent at 15 is made, and if there's a decent rationale behind it, I suppose I could reset my gyro. By then, both my kids will be beyond 16, and it becomes a matter of how well I have taught them sense in those matters.

DR

 

[Kevin Levites]

Can you imagine the short-list for that job? I suspect it'd be a very short short-list.
That's a bloody point!

Not just married couples, either. At the last Academy Awards, the Kiwi actress, Keisha Castle-Hughes was aged 15 and pregnant. Her boyfriend and father of the child stayed away from the ceremony under danger of arrest as she was apparently impregnated in Ca.

Another excellent question, obviously while it would be illegal, it's not immoral, unlike the Mafia example, which is both.

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my post.

All the best,

---Kevin

 

[Darth Rotor]

That's a well-articulated position. What sort of penalties should possessors of pseudo-kiddy porn face in your opinion? Should it be the equivalent of possessing a small amount of marijuana in New York City (just the equivalent of a warning or a ticket)? Or should the penalties be more serious in your opinion?

I'd hope that a first offense would be able to avoid the current hysteria and a mandatory treatment regimen be the first option. This is similar in concept to the "take a driver training course to resolve a traffic ticket" idea.

I may be playing the bleeding heart here, but I don't think an immediate trip to jail is going to stop the underlying issue.

Fines, sure, similar to illegal possession of fire arms of a non-street legal vehicle, though not identical. Possession seems to me a lesser problem than creation and distro, which should be handled a bit more sternly. These are rough ideas.

But for the love of God, get these people help as a first step.

DR

 

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, gang. Age of consent can vary from state to state, but in this house, if she ain't 18, you touch, you die.

And PT, if you think DR is violent, you have yet to meet me. I don't f*** with sexual predators. I f*** 'em up.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, I could. It being you, I choose not to, and I have every expectation you can figure it out all by yourself. I suspect you did so long ago.

Nope, no luck. I can't figure it out.

Any way I look at it, "Should X be legal?" as a question implies the existence of moral ideas which exist separate from legislation and which legislation should conform with, if it implies anything about the matter.

 

[steverino]

Yes, PT, if you or anyone f***s with my family, I will get violent. If you won't, the problem is yours, not mine, that you hold your kin in so little regard. DR

If only Dukakis reacted this same way in the debates he would have had a chamce agains George #1.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.)

Actually you'll find that it is stated in the best-controlled trials no statistically significant long-term harm was associated with non-penetrative sexual abuse, once things like social and family status were controlled for.

I have significant reservations about the universality of that conclusion, but all of that kind of thing was hashed out in detail towards the end of this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=56407&highlight=judge

I think that evidence rules out the idea that sex in and of itself damages young people. It might be bad for them indirectly because it's too much fun, or makes them too attached to their sexual partners or something like that, but there's no evidence of direct damage that I know of.

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.

I am going to ask you to either take my word for it or to actually read the articles yourself, as opposed to skimming and cherry-picking.

 

[The Atheist]

...It might be bad for them indirectly because it's too much fun, or makes them too attached to their sexual partners or something like that, ...

That's easily the most sickening thing I've read on a forum.

 

[ponderingturtle]

My kid, pal. That was the stipulation, and because my norm (and the state I currently live in) sets 16 as the age of consent.

Dave asked what I think it should be, I answered. I also noted that the law isn't thuswise, and a few posts later, a good post (69dodge IIRC) pointed out how a vigilante move like that might not put the baseball bat on the correct cranium.

Yes, PT, if you or anyone f***s with my family, I will get violent. If you won't, the problem is yours, not mine, that you hold your kin in so little regard. If you are at peace with that, however, based on your philosophy, then goodonya. As I discussed with either you or Crossbow, I took quite the introspective journey some years ago, trying to decide what I'll kill for. I am at peace with my position.

I know you are a violent person, by what I have seen you post I would not be suprised if you felt that shooting someone who say rearended your car is an acceptable responce. You said very clearly that you will retailiate with deadly force with respect to personal property(a flag).

So I know all of that, and you are at piece with your violence. But you are still a very violent person.

"Fifteen will get ya twenty."

I think that is a good rule of thumb, given how trying the problem of exceptions/Lolitas is.

If the general move to an age of consent at 15 is made, and if there's a decent rationale behind it, I suppose I could reset my gyro. By then, both my kids will be beyond 16, and it becomes a matter of how well I have taught them sense in those matters.

DR

Why would say 15.8 vs 16.2 lead you from killing someone to what the hell? Why does a few months make all the difference?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, gang. Age of consent can vary from state to state, but in this house, if she ain't 18, you touch, you die.

And PT, if you think DR is violent, you have yet to meet me. I don't f*** with sexual predators. I f*** 'em up.

Good to see violence is the first resort of many people here.

And do you support the death penalty? By that you would be legaly commiting first degree murder after all.

And I would hope that would also be applied to your children, as they both clearly deserve to die if they engage in sex with someone under the age of 18.

 

[slingblade]

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.

That was my fault for trying to be too brief and using "Forgotten," which is the wrong word. It was just the easier word, and that is totally my fault.

This is not at all a difficult subject to write about in that I have to force myself to do it. I frankly have to force myself not to. I want to sit someone down and say, "And then this happened, and then he did this, and this, and it felt like that, and then there was this other guy, and he did this and this and this. And then the first guy did this, and a third guy later did it too, and...."

I want to tell names. I remember full names. I even Googled one of them, once, just curious. I found out that one of the two single fathers who used me actually had taken his ex-wife to court to get custody of their only child, a daughter. My friend. Her father seduced us together, one summer. Then I changed schools that fall and never saw her again. I wonder what ever happened to the pair of them......

When I said I had "remembered" the pain involved in being abused, what I should have said was that I finally admitted to myself that I had been hurt. That a lot of what was done to me hurt. A lot. I knew that, all along. I remember the actual pain of being touched, over and over, in a place that wasn't ready yet to be touched. I just discounted it ritually and minimized it for many years.

It wasn't talking to a therapist that brought this out. I've been slowly working on this book of mine for a couple of years now, but not formally writing. I only just started doing the writing. In this process, there came a time when I had to say, "Look. It hurt. You have to admit that now. It was painful sometimes. They hurt you, Sling. They really did. You have to stop blaming yourself for this and blame them."

I never forgot any of that. I just refused to look at it in the healthiest possible way. But any misunderstanding is my fault, for not using my words properly. I apologize for that, and for being misleading.

I know I'm not asking you to use good skepticism here, and I'm sorry. But just this once, please, trust me on this much:

I remember.

 

[varwoche]

Actually you'll find that it is stated in the best-controlled trials no statistically significant long-term harm was associated with non-penetrative sexual abuse, once things like social and family status were controlled for.

No, I have not found it stated.

I have significant reservations about the universality of that conclusion, but all of that kind of thing was hashed out in detail towards the end of this thread:

I decline to chase down this sort of vague citation, especially since your prior vague citations turned out to be bogus in the extreme.

I am going to ask you to either take my word for it

No sale, to put it mildly.

 

[ponderingturtle]

That was my fault for trying to be too brief and using "Forgotten," which is the wrong word. It was just the easier word, and that is totally my fault.

It wasn't the forgotten that made me wonder it was the use of "Remembered". That sounds like it might well describe what someone who is confabulating their memories to fit their new beliefs might say.

When I said I had "remembered" the pain involved in being abused, what I should have said was that I finally admitted to myself that I had been hurt. That a lot of what was done to me hurt. A lot. I knew that, all along. I remember the actual pain of being touched, over and over, in a place that wasn't ready yet to be touched. I just discounted it ritually and minimized it for many years.

And that is also a possible explanation. You can actively repress memories and things like so this also fits. That is much of the problem with such things it is impossible to know which of the multiple versions that fit what is being described was what happened.

It wasn't talking to a therapist that brought this out. I've been slowly working on this book of mine for a couple of years now, but not formally writing. I only just started doing the writing. In this process, there came a time when I had to say, "Look. It hurt. You have to admit that now. It was painful sometimes. They hurt you, Sling. They really did. You have to stop blaming yourself for this and blame them."

I agree that you where never at fault, it is just that the desciption also fit well into altered memories and the like

I never forgot any of that. I just refused to look at it in the healthiest possible way. But any misunderstanding is my fault, for not using my words properly. I apologize for that, and for being misleading.

I never ment that you didn't remember it, it is that your memory seemed to change and you are asserting that the changed memory is the right one. This is often a bad assertion, as studies of memory show.

I know I'm not asking you to use good skepticism here, and I'm sorry. But just this once, please, trust me on this much:

I remember.

So do people who remember things that are entirely impossible, like meating bugs bunny at disney world. They remember as well, it was just an intentionaly implanted false memory in that case.

 

[Earthborn]

Sorry, gang. Age of consent can vary from state to state, but in this house, if she ain't 18, you touch, you die.

Have you told her that? Because if you haven't, she may not know that she needs to be careful in her sexual choices to prevent her boyfriend to be killed and her father to end up on death row.