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

[The Atheist]

1 to 7 should obviously be legal. 8 and 9 should be legal if the participants were all sexually mature.

All the situations (1 to 9) will in any case become entirely possible using computer graphics alone in the near future.

Now I understand...

 

[Darth Rotor]

And you and roadtoad have shown me the face behind many forms of honor killing.

No, I haven't, but you have constructed one in your pointed little head, bless it. (obscure Grace Slick reference)

The funny thing is, if you and I ever met at random, in either New Yawk, or in Texas, at a bar, the 95% chance is that we'd share a beer, get along for an hour or two, laugh about the idiots in politics, the latest silly news story of the day, and perhaps share a joke or two about the Jets, Yankees, or Mets.

Or, I have missed my guess, and you really are a menopausal drama queen, and a hand wringing ninny.

I'll bet against that last.

The number of things that will, or would, move me to violence, is incredibly small given the immense variety of interactions human beings have.

Given that mundane things rarely get discussed here, you choose to sieze upon the unusual, like some piece of crap molesting my flesh and blood, and choose to extrapolate that into "you are a violent person."

Mister, you have issues I can't solve if that is how you react to everyone you actually meet . . . but maybe a beer or two can mitigate them for a short time.

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

As what?

Sling, we may or many not agree on a lot, but bless you, sister, for your patience with this assault upon your honor and integrity.

I'd not have handled it as well. You are one classy lady.

DR

 

[Roadtoad]

And you describe your self commiting behavior that would fit into the catagory of honor killing as well.

You lump people like me, like Atheist, like Darth, in with the clowns who murder their daughters because they date someone of a different religion. Classy.

Are you saying that because my family took no action, it didn't happen? I suppose in a legal sense, given the statute of limitations, assuming you're viewing this in a very technical sense, it didn't happen to me. The problem with that is that most sexual predators don't stop with one victim. They go on, and on, and on. Somewhere, there's another kid this f***er raped.

This was an individual that did HARM. What he did to me, and what he undoubtedly did to other kids was HARMFUL. That people survived it does not mean it did not hurt, and it does not mean it did not happen. It was not acceptable what he did. It was cruel, it was sadistic, it was selfish. IT WAS WRONG. If you cannot figure that out, please, by all means, see a good urologist and make sure you never breed.

 

[slingblade]

Sling, we may or many not agree on a lot, but bless you, sister, for your patience with this assault upon your honor and integrity.

I'd not have handled it as well. You are one classy lady.

DR

Aw, shucks.

I dunno what he expects. My memory is a lot more reliable than most, I assure you. I've said all along my stories are anecdotes.

 

[Piscivore]

So Slingblade anecdotes and memories are perfectly reliable now? Who else falls into this catagory?

Now you are setting up a false dichotomy; between "...there is no way for anyone to tell the difference between [confabulation] and a true memory" and "Slingblade anecdotes and memories are perfectly reliable now" (bolding mine).

There is a whole range of degrees of reliability between the "perfectly" reliable and completely unreliable. From what Sling is saying here, there are probably corroborating witnesses, and possibly physical evidence, and other ways besides just memory to verify the story.

 

[Dave1001]

Although I appreciate contrarianism as is often expressed by ponderingturtle, I agree with some others that it's not in the best taste to challenge the personal abuse narratives of other members on the public forum. I think these points (such as about confabulation) are better made in an impersonal way.

 

[dann]

Now I understand...

Well, Atheist, the drinking water, no, but we have other things that might account for this effect:
other substances
other attitudes
other philosophies
and
another history.

 

[Earthborn]

Adults didn't touch my kids. Period.

Previously you made no distinction between adults and peers, and your statement only made sense if I assume you were talking about consensual sex. Personally I trust that you will be a lot milder when your 17 year old daughter decides to sleep with her 18 year old boyfriend, no matter what you say now.

 

[Earthborn]

So Slingblade anecdotes and memories are perfectly reliable now?

Nobody has claimed her anecdotes are perfectly reliable. There is no reason to suspect that they are entirely incorrect.

 

[Skeptic]

I think there are two issues here:

1). Whether sexual abuse of children is wrong even if there isn't a law against it, and

2). Whether slingblade's specific memories are accurate.

It sees to me amazing that some people here think (1) might not be true, but I can see why some people might be skeptical of (2).

All the ponderingturtle is suggesting is that IN GENERAL there had been a lot of false memories of abuse reported, due to various reasons, so that now people are careful before they accept that memories of abuse are accurate. This is not at all the same as saying "those who report abuse are probably lying or wrong", much less "Slingblade is lying or wrong".

I mean, if I say that, in general, eyewitness testimony is less reliable that most people tend to believe--is this an attack on your honor and integrity if you happen to be scheduled to appear in court as a witness tomorrow?

 

[Gurdur]

.....All the ponderingturtle is suggesting is that IN GENERAL there had been a lot of false memories of abuse reported, due to various reasons, so that now people are careful before they accept that memories of abuse are accurate. This is not at all the same as saying "those who report abuse are probably lying or wrong", much less "Slingblade is lying or wrong".

Total rubbish.
Ponderingturtle very clearly and transparently set out to denigrate Slingblade and to imply as best he could that her memories were false. Very obviously he has some sort of agenda to deny any such testimony.

I mean, if I say that, in general, eyewitness testimony is less reliable that most people tend to believe--is this an attack on your honor and integrity if you happen to be scheduled to appear in court as a witness tomorrow?

Oh wow, whooopidoo. Owing to the unfortunate but unsurprising fact that most child abusers do not take videotape evidence of their acts and present it to the court, then testimony from the victim is vital.

Which is BTW where you get the second thing wrong too -- it ain't just "eyewitness" testimony, it's a victim's testimony.

 

[Gurdur]

Although I appreciate contrarianism as is often expressed by ponderingturtle, I agree with some others that it's not in the best taste to challenge the personal abuse narratives of other members on the public forum. I think these points (such as about confabulation) are better made in an impersonal way.

Yeah, because attacking a person directly by implying right up front that such testified memories are false without having any reason or evidence to do so, as ponderingturtle did, might well be a dead giveaway as to an agenda to deny such testimony. Just why is ponderingturtle so anxious to deny a specific person's specific report of harm from a child abuser here?

So yeah, better to do it in a subtle "impersonal" way albeit still without any evidence.

There aren't enough rolleyes-emoticons to express this properly.

 

[Dave1001]

Just why is ponderingturtle so anxious to deny a specific person's specific report of harm from a child abuser here?

This approach "what is the contrarian's secret agenda" is also poor message board form, particularly for a skeptic's message board, in my opinion. It seems to me to be within the realm of reasonable hypotheses to posit confabulation mechanisms as part of why certain forms of adult-child sexual contact may later perceived by children of some cultures as much more traumatizing than children of other cultures (here it would be the traumatic elements, rather than the contact itself that might be confabulated). I understand that wasn't exactly ponderingturtle's point, but it was within the range of his point. Because somebody posits this type hypothesis, even if they do so inelegently and in the process doubt a specific person's specific report of harm from a child abuser doesn't mean that they have some sort of secret agenda besides enlightenment. And I think it's bad for for us to imply that they do, given zero evidence except their contrarianism on this topic.

 

[Dave1001]

I think there are two issues here:

1). Whether sexual abuse of children is wrong even if there isn't a law against it, and

2). Whether slingblade's specific memories are accurate.

It sees to me amazing that some people here think (1) might not be true, but I can see why some people might be skeptical of (2).

All the ponderingturtle is suggesting is that IN GENERAL there had been a lot of false memories of abuse reported, due to various reasons, so that now people are careful before they accept that memories of abuse are accurate. This is not at all the same as saying "those who report abuse are probably lying or wrong", much less "Slingblade is lying or wrong".

I mean, if I say that, in general, eyewitness testimony is less reliable that most people tend to believe--is this an attack on your honor and integrity if you happen to be scheduled to appear in court as a witness tomorrow?

Great point regarding #2, Skeptic. Regarding #1, I think it's a bit loaded to frame it ipso facto as "sexual abuse of children" as being wrong. A diminishingly few amount of people would argue that any type of "abuse" of innocent people isn't wrong. Adult-child sexual contact (not ipso facto framed as "abuse") is a trickier issue given differing opinions on it in non-Western cultures, and apparenty given some evidence by scientific research that it's not intrinsically harmful to children.

 

[Dave1001]

Which is BTW where you get the second thing wrong too -- it ain't just "eyewitness" testimony, it's a victim's testimony.

Skeptic mentioned "eyewitness testimony by way of analogy.

But this is an interesting derail. How do you think someone accused of child sexual abuse, can adequately rebut the accusation? What weight should eyewitness testimony have vs. defendant's testimony? To boil it down to its essence, how about if neither party has a criminal record and there is no 3rd party testimony or evidence. What exactly should be the weight of the victim's testimony?

 

[dann]

I mean, if I say that, in general, eyewitness testimony is less reliable that most people tend to believe--is this an attack on your honor and integrity if you happen to be scheduled to appear in court as a witness tomorrow?

In general, yes, you are right. I studied psychology a couple of years ago, and a fellow student, a policeman, told me about an incident when he could have sworn (and actually did) that he had seen a suspect at a specific time in a specific place only to find out later that at that very moment one of his colleagues was arresting the guy somewhere else.
In Slingblade's case, however, we are not talking about something happening very fast in a situation where too many things are happening simultaneously and you might therefore get confused. She also doesn't mention satanic ritual abuse or aliens, so .... is there any reason to doubt her other than the principle that, yes, sometimes people may be wrong?

 

[SirPhilip]

Subconsciously? You mean she didn't even know that she wasn't wearing panties?

Given that half her popularity was as a female role model, and the other, a modern vindication of Sade, she couldn't have picked a worse time to flash the public.

 

[slingblade]

Great point regarding #2, Skeptic. Regarding #1, I think it's a bit loaded to frame it ipso facto as "sexual abuse of children" as being wrong. A diminishingly few amount of people would argue that any type of "abuse" of innocent people isn't wrong. Adult-child sexual contact (not ipso facto framed as "abuse") is a trickier issue given differing opinions on it in non-Western cultures, and apparenty given some evidence by scientific research that it's not intrinsically harmful to children.

Here's a thought: Why don't humans have a sex drive until puberty?
Why isn't your average five-year-old horny? I can't remember the last time I heard an 8-y-o say "Gee whiz, I sure need to get laid!"

 

[Dave1001]

Great point regarding #2, Skeptic. Regarding #1, I think it's a bit loaded to frame it ipso facto as "sexual abuse of children" as being wrong. A diminishingly few amount of people would argue that any type of "abuse" of innocent people isn't wrong. Adult-child sexual contact (not ipso facto framed as "abuse") is a trickier issue given differing opinions on it in non-Western cultures, and apparenty given some evidence by scientific research that it's not intrinsically harmful to children.

Here's a thought: Why don't humans have a sex drive until puberty?
Why isn't your average five-year-old horny? I can't remember the last time I heard an 8-y-o say "Gee whiz, I sure need to get laid!"

I'm not sure it's true that humans don't have a sex drive (or salient elements of a sex drive) until puberty. I think 8 year olds likely play doctor, have sham weddings involving kissing and fulling around under the covers, etc. although they haven't hit puberty yet. I think it's complex topic separable from whether there should be a worldwide ban on adult/pre-pubescent child sexual contact.