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

[Darth Rotor]

. . . complex topic separable from whether there should be a worldwide ban on adult/pre-pubescent child sexual contact.

Why the extreme case, Dave? Why "worldwide?"

Local bans and laws are sufficient.

DR

 

[dann]

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.

You are right. Children do feel attracted to the opposite sex (and some of them probably to their own, too), and it is not uncommon to see this reflected in the kind of games they play: the games are not all 'innocent'. On the other hand, Slingblade is right when she says that you don't hear 8-year-olds saying, "Gee whiz, I sure need to get laid!" (unless they have overheard older siblings and now try to emulate them).
And you are right that this is a different topic: That children play doctor does not mean that adults are entitled to use this as a pretext to participate.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You are right. Children do feel attracted to the opposite sex (and some of them probably to their own, too), and it is not uncommon to see this reflected in the kind of games they play: the games are not all 'innocent'. On the other hand, Slingblade is right when she says that you don't hear 8-year-olds saying, "Gee whiz, I sure need to get laid!" (unless they have overheard older siblings and now try to emulate them).
And you are right that this is a different topic: That children play doctor does not mean that adults are entitled to use this as a pretext to participate.

I would really like to see some evidence that sexually immature humans are attracted to others in any way remotely sexual. There is no doubt that they at some point become curious about what makes a girl different from a boy, heck, so was I at age 9-10. I remember a story my Dad once told of how he and a few of his friends at about age 10 once paid a female schoolmate of theirs some money to see her pee. They were aware that girls couldn't stand up and pee and were curious about why exactly that was.

But that is all it was. Curiosity about the difference.

I have certainly never felt sexually attracted to anyone before I reached puberty.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, Atheist, the drinking water, no, but we have other things that might account for this effect:

LOL! That wasn't aimed at you, by the way.

 

[slingblade]

No, sexual curiosity is not the same as a sexual drive or urge. At least, not what I'm trying to distinguish. I know what I mean, I just can't say it so I convey what I mean. Damned language.

Come on. We can split these semantic hairs all we like, but I maintain there is a reason we find teenagers both amusing and irritating, and make jokes about their "raging hormones."

At any rate, it really doesn't matter. Evidently, some people think it could potentially be perfectly healthy for children to have sex with their peers or their elders, and that it would be perfectly healthy to have child actors depict sexual activity in voice or image or both.

And some people think that would be quite unhealthy for everyone, and will fight to ensure it's never allowed, and rarely practiced. If at all possible.

I said what I had to say about the fictional depiction of fictional children. While I may not like what you write or draw in this regard (and I don't), no one is actually being harmed in your writing or drawing. That it may arouse others, while a legitimate question, can easily lead to a slippery slope.

Am I to hold not only myself, but all of you, responsible for each pedophile's choices? I may choose not to write such prurient fiction, but do I have the right to silence you because of what an unknown third party might do? Do I spend my energy personally protecting my child, and the children of others, or do I babysit the psyche of the molester, arranging the world so that he is harmless in it?

Do I hold him responsible for choosing to hurt a child, or do I hold the literature he may or may not have read, and the author of the literature, responsible for that choice? Or is it both? Or neither?

What I am certain of is that it behooves all of humanity to be careful when censoring others. To be very careful. If it is wrong for a person to write a fictional account of child abuse, why would it then be right for a person to write a non-fictional account of the same thing? Wouldn't both be equally likely to arouse a deviant? But if you tell one person that because they made it up, it's more unhealthy, more enticing, more harmful than describing the real thing, don't you have to say the same thing to the person telling actual events?

If we stop talking about child sexual abuse, it will go away......

No. That can't be right.

I don't see it.

 

[Dave1001]

Why the extreme case, Dave? Why "worldwide?"

Local bans and laws are sufficient.

DR

Because it seemed to me to post I was responding to posited that adult-child sexual contact was universally and without exception harmful to children (slingblade seems to confirm that that's what she/he's positing in his/her latest post). If that's true (and I doubt it is) then I myself would support a worldwide ban on adult-child sexual contact. Which of course would have to be implement with local bans and laws, since the world is divided into a couple hundred sovereign entitities.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Because it seemed to me to post I was responding to posited that adult-child sexual contact was universally and without exception harmful to children (slingblade seems to confirm that that's what she/he's positing in his/her latest post). If that's true (and I doubt it is) then I myself would support a worldwide ban on adult-child sexual contact. Which of course would have to be implement with local bans and laws, since the world is divided into a couple hundred sovereign entitities.

And if it was only harmful in 95% of all instances? You would then not be opposed?

I wonder if it can be shown that rape is harmful in more than 95% of all instances. Suppose this was the case. Would you then not oppose rape?

The basic rule is very simple, Dave1001: As long as the playing field isn't covered by grass, there shall be no playing.

 

[pgwenthold]

And if it was only harmful in 95% of all instances? You would then not be opposed?

I wonder if it can be shown that rape is harmful in more than 95% of all instances. Suppose this was the case. Would you then not oppose rape?

The basic rule is very simple, Dave1001: As long as the playing field isn't covered by grass, there shall be no playing.

What?

If this is the rule, why do we allow alcoholic beverages to be sold? Shoot, why do we allow people to drive cars or bathe in their bathtub?

 

[Dave1001]

And if it was only harmful in 95% of all instances? You would then not be opposed?

Not necessarily. If (1) harmful vs. non-harmful adult-child sexual contact can be differentiated, and (2) the non-harmful adult-child sexual contact occurs in sovereign nations and cultures that have long-standing traditions of adult-child sexual contact like the examples I discussed in post#178 then I'd be open for that type of non-harmful adult-child sexual contact being and/or remaining legal in those countries.

 

[DanishDynamite]

What?

If this is the rule, why do we allow alcoholic beverages to be sold? Shoot, why do we allow people to drive cars or bathe in their bathtub?

Not sure I follow. Could you elaborate?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Not necessarily. If (1) harmful vs. non-harmful adult-child sexual contact can be differentiated, and (2) the non-harmful adult-child sexual contact occurs in sovereign nations and cultures that have long-standing traditions of adult-child sexual contact like the examples I discussed in post#178 then I'd be open for that type of non-harmful adult-child sexual contact being and/or remaining legal in those countries.

I was talking about 95% of all instances in any society. If you can show that some societies exist where this is not the case, by all means present them.

That being said, what's your stance in your own society and in which society do you reside?

 

[Dave1001]

I was talking about 95% of all instances in any society. If you can show that some societies exist where this is not the case, by all means present them.

That being said, what's your stance in your own society and in which society do you reside?

I live in America. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other on the legalization of child-adult sexual contact that the best science shows is non-harmful. Meaning that even if it's non-harmful, it seems unecessary for pursuit of happiness (certainly for children) and so I don't see a pressing need to legalize it. It's not some infringement on a non-western culture to push for it being illegal here in America.

To say something is harmful 95% of the time isn't that determinative in my opinion, if one can find the distinction between the 5% non-harmful and the 95% harmful, and then legalize only the differentiating type of activity of the non-harmful 5%.

 

[dann]

What I am certain of is that it behooves all of humanity to be careful when censoring others. To be very careful. If it is wrong for a person to write a fictional account of child abuse, why would it then be right for a person to write a non-fictional account of the same thing? Wouldn't both be equally likely to arouse a deviant? But if you tell one person that because they made it up, it's more unhealthy, more enticing, more harmful than describing the real thing, don't you have to say the same thing to the person telling actual events?

I don't think there is anything wrong with writing either a fictional or a non-fictional account of child abuse, as long as this account is not child pornography. There usually is a big difference between ordinary fiction and masturbation fantasies/pornography. You are thinking of pornographic accounts of child abuse in the quotation above, aren't you, Slingblade?
My guess is that your experiences could easily be turned into a fictional account that would discourage most people from fantasizing about having sex with children and would not send the message to anybody that it is somehow alright.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I live in America. I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other on the legalization of child-adult sexual contact that the best science shows is non-harmful.

What science might this be?

Meaning that even if it's non-harmful, it seems unecessary for pursuit of happiness (certainly for children) and so I don't see a pressing need to legalize it. It's not some infringement on a non-western culture to push for it being illegal here in America.

If what is non-harmful? Adults having sex with the sexually immature? When might this not be harmful?

To say something is harmful 95% of the time isn't that determinative in my opinion, if one can find the distinction between the 5% non-harmful and the 95% harmful, and then legalize only the differentiating type of activity of the non-harmful 5%.

Agreed. What, pray tell, might that distinction be?

 

[dann]

To say something is harmful 95% of the time isn't that determinative in my opinion, if one can find the distinction between the 5% non-harmful and the 95% harmful, and then legalize only the differentiating type of activity of the non-harmful 5%.

The distinction has already been made: Sex is allowed, intercouse is not considered to be harmful. However, rape or statutory rape is. You don't see anybody trying to make a subtle distinction between the cases of rape where the victims suffer traumatic emotional damage for the rest of their lives and the few cases where a woman for some reason is suddenly turned on by being raped and starts enjoying it - mainly because the latter are the imaginary, fictitious accounts of pornography, not of real life.

 

[Piscivore]

I said what I had to say about the fictional depiction of fictional children. While I may not like what you write or draw in this regard (and I don't), no one is actually being harmed in your writing or drawing. That it may arouse others, while a legitimate question, can easily lead to a slippery slope.

Am I to hold not only myself, but all of you, responsible for each pedophile's choices? I may choose not to write such prurient fiction, but do I have the right to silence you because of what an unknown third party might do? Do I spend my energy personally protecting my child, and the children of others, or do I babysit the psyche of the molester, arranging the world so that he is harmless in it?

Do I hold him responsible for choosing to hurt a child, or do I hold the literature he may or may not have read, and the author of the literature, responsible for that choice? Or is it both? Or neither?

What I am certain of is that it behooves all of humanity to be careful when censoring others. To be very careful. If it is wrong for a person to write a fictional account of child abuse, why would it then be right for a person to write a non-fictional account of the same thing? Wouldn't both be equally likely to arouse a deviant? But if you tell one person that because they made it up, it's more unhealthy, more enticing, more harmful than describing the real thing, don't you have to say the same thing to the person telling actual events?

If we stop talking about child sexual abuse, it will go away......

No. That can't be right.

Well said.

 

[Piscivore]

I don't think there is anything wrong with writing either a fictional or a non-fictional account of child abuse, as long as this account is not child pornography. There usually is a big difference between ordinary fiction and masturbation fantasies/pornography. You are thinking of pornographic accounts of child abuse in the quotation above, aren't you, Slingblade?

What makes it pornography, dann? What is this "big difference" between "Justine", "Lolita", "A Clockwork Orange" and whatever it is you are calling "pornography"?

 

[Darth Rotor]

What makes it pornography, dann? What is this "big difference" between "Justine", "Lolita", "A Clockwork Orange" and whatever it is you are calling "pornography"?

You knew this was coming, but . . .

"I'll know it when I see it."

(Infamous comment by a US judge in a porno case, 1960's.)

DR

 

[DanishDynamite]

What makes it pornography, dann? What is this "big difference" between "Justine", "Lolita", "A Clockwork Orange" and whatever it is you are calling "pornography"?

I agree.

"I'm Danish and I'm pro free speech".

(This message sponsored by the Committee for the Election of....)

 

[luchog]

I have certainly never felt sexually attracted to anyone before I reached puberty.

Well, if we're dredging out anecdotes, I certainly was. I'm not claiming that that's normal, chances are good that that's yet another thing I was highly abnormal in; but the fact is that I was somewhat precocious, sexually.

However, as Dave1001 said, that's an entirely different issue from adult/pre-pubescent sexual relations. Regardless of whether a child is capable of behaving in a sexual manner normally, they're not nearly developed enough, physically or emotionally, for any kind of sexual activity, and any adult sexual contact can only be harmful to their development.