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

[Piscivore]

My answer wasn't.

Right. That's why I got that you didn't understand it was a joke.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, Kevin, I talk about paedophiles, not bad people in general. And I cannot see any conclusion anywhere, but if you conclude that people who state that
are bad, then it's fine by me!

This is precisely the kind of timid weaselling I have been chiding you for. You drop hints, you make insinuations and then you run away from them when challenged.

What point exactly were you attempting to make then, if you did not think that Danish paedophile group was bad?

Let's take a look at your own statement, Kevin:
Is it really necessary to remind you that in your statement about underage people they can be as young as six months old?

Is it really necessary to remind you that if you cherry-pick quotes from an ongoing conversation, you can misrepresent what the author was talking about? I don't think it is. I think you know it very well and you do it deliberately.

I've been crystal clear from the start that I think it's highly likely that sex is bad for prepubescents. So "taking a look" at one chosen statement out of context and pretending it means that sex with a six month old is okay is not only stupid, but vile as well.

So on the one hand you are outraged that I find paedophilia bad,

"Outraged" is a figment of your troubled imagination. I do think it is a fact that your intention was to discredit me by pairing an out-of-context quote from my posts with an opinion from a discredited paedophile group. I also think that move was argumentatively worthless and morally questionable.

This is the problem with witch hunts. Perfectly ordinary people like you get overexited and start to think that they are entitled to engage in any evil that feels good, because they are fighting the good fight.

but on the other hand you criticize me for never stating my actual position.
Another sterling bit of logic, KEVIN.

You still have not done so, I note. You type an awful lot but you never commit yourself to a position or present any facts or arguments.

 

[dann]

Quoting out of context may be bad, Kevin. Maybe you did not notice, but when I quoted you, the quotation contained a link to your post! As does this, slightly longer quotation from the same post:

Except that in addition, harm must be demonstrated with actual evidence. No copouts like "but I just know that voice acting a sex scene will be harmful!", or "We could never gather such evidence because to do so we would have to allow children to voice act sex scenes, and we just know that will be harmful!".

We had a long and acrimonious thread about age of consent laws not too long ago, and the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

(Just to head off one inevitable response, underage pregnancy and STDs cause harm. Feel free to criminalise impregnating or infecting underage people. Sex does not, so criminalising it cannot be justified).

Now compare it with the claim from the Danish paedophiles:

The homepage included a series of articles appearing to sanction sexual relations between children and adults. In a section entitled "Paedophilia, Science, and Self-Deception," the group wrote: "Voluntary sexual relations between children and adults do not cause any psychological harm other than the problems associated with discovery and intervention."

http://denmark.dk/portal/page?_pageid=374,692322&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL

Notice the similarity, Kevin?
By the way, I wouldn't even say that paedophiles, i.e. people who, for some reason or other, are attracted sexually to children, are bad, but I think that paedophiles or others are bad if they advocate having sex with children or deny that it harms them. The paedophile who is not in denial about the damage caused by sex with children and by kiddie porn and who therefore chooses to abstain from it and instead gets counselling or therapy is one of the good guys!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Quoting out of context may be bad, Kevin. Maybe you did not notice, but when I quoted you, the quotation contained a link to your post! As does this, slightly longer quotation from the same post:

Now compare it with the claim from the Danish paedophiles:

Notice the similarity, Kevin?

You don't change your ways even when you have your nose rubbed in it, do you?

If the claim from the Danish paedophiles is using "children" to refer to sexually mature but underage people, then it is similar. However it's not very likely that they were using "children" that way. The remarks about discovery and intervention causing harm very strongly indicate they are using "children" to include prepubescents, based on other things I have read from pro-paedophile groups.

I've been clear from the start that I think it is very unlikely that sex with prepubescents is a good idea. Now of course you might have forgotten that when you posted this tripe the first time. Since I reminded you in my last post however it's hard to see how your behaviour can be anything other than mendacious.

By the way, I wouldn't even say that paedophiles, i.e. people who, for some reason or other, are attracted sexually to children, are bad, but I think that paedophiles or others are bad if they advocate having sex with children or deny that it harms them. The paedophile who is not in denial about the damage caused by sex with children and by kiddie porn and who therefore chooses to abstain from it and instead gets counselling or therapy is one of the good guys!

So we agree that the Danish paedophile group in question was bad then, assuming my reading of their statement is the correct one. Good.

Now please share with us the evidence which caused you to fix the opinion that a person who does not believe that child pornography causes damage is in denial.

 

[Checkmite]

If the claim from the Danish paedophiles is using "children" to refer to sexually mature but underage people, then it is similar. However it's not very likely that they were using "children" that way. The remarks about discovery and intervention causing harm very strongly indicate they are using "children" to include prepubescents, based on other things I have read from pro-paedophile groups.

I've been clear from the start that I think it is very unlikely that sex with prepubescents is a good idea. Now of course you might have forgotten that when you posted this tripe the first time. Since I reminded you in my last post however it's hard to see how your behaviour can be anything other than mendacious.

Kevin, after your allegedly out-of-context quote - to wit:

...the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

...you were then asked to cite this "available evidence". You gave two links to studies (or collations of studies) which do not definitely discriminate with regard to victims' age or state of maturity. However, as with the pedophile group's "study", language within the papers certainly suggests that by and large they're discussing prepubescent children.

To recap: you claim that your position is fundamentally different from that of the pedophiles because you're talking about pubescent children, yet the sources you have given to support yourself deal primarily with prepubescent children. Thus, your "available evidence" would not differ in any significant way from that of the pedophiles you say you disagree with; this assuming, of course, that your sources actually say what you claim they say.

Fortunately, anyone who takes the time and reads them can see that they don't.

 

[Cynric]

We had a long and acrimonious thread about age of consent laws not too long ago, and the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

Having contributed to that last thread, I don't really wish to revive it, but I disagree with your assertion of what the available evidence showed. I believe you were the only participant who held to that interpretation. Many others felt that your tendancy to label the experience of anyone who subsequently regretted their sexual encounters as "abuse" and therefore non-consensual had us going round in circles.

I know it was lost upthread amidst relativitisic derails, but any thoughts on my suggestion that the distribution and storage of photos depicting the victims of crimes (without their consent) should be illegal?

 

[DanishDynamite]

DD, just a common courtesy for someone very common:

You're an ass. And you're on ignore. Have a nice life.

Thanks for the courtesy, slingy.

I have no doubt that someone as strong as you will come to your senses one day.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Kevin, after your allegedly out-of-context quote - to wit:

...you were then asked to cite this "available evidence". You gave two links to studies (or collations of studies) which do not definitely discriminate with regard to victims' age or state of maturity. However, as with the pedophile group's "study", language within the papers certainly suggests that by and large they're discussing prepubescent children.

(Sigh). One last time and I'm done with this. You have to actually read those links with an eye to when they are discussing postpubescents, when they are discussing prepubescents, and when they are making life difficult by rolling the two together.

The case that sex is bad for prepubescents, even if it is consensual in the dictionary sense, is not absolutely ironclad because as the paedophiles like to point out we do know that the reaction to paedophilia being uncovered does damage children in and of itself. However it's a very strong case.

The case that sex is bad for postpubescents who want to have sex is really dodgy. It might turn out that sex is bad for them but the case is very weak and no harm has been shown to come from relatively low ages of consent in the places that have them. To the best of my knowledge anyway.

To recap: you claim that your position is fundamentally different from that of the pedophiles because you're talking about pubescent children, yet the sources you have given to support yourself deal primarily with prepubescent children. Thus, your "available evidence" would not differ in any significant way from that of the pedophiles you say you disagree with; this assuming, of course, that your sources actually say what you claim they say.

Of course my evidence is the same as their evidence, Joshua, that's because it's the evidence.

I and paedophile advocacy groups happen to draw different conclusions from that evidence, and I don't think their conclusions are sufficiently justified to make the case they want to make.

Fortunately, anyone who takes the time and reads them can see that they don't.

How on Earth would you know?

Having contributed to that last thread, I don't really wish to revive it, but I disagree with your assertion of what the available evidence showed. I believe you were the only participant who held to that interpretation.

Nobody showed any evidence that contradicted it though. Other participants absolutely did not like than conclusion, not one bit, but they came up short on evidence to disprove it.

Many others felt that your tendancy to label the experience of anyone who subsequently regretted their sexual encounters as "abuse" and therefore non-consensual had us going round in circles.

I don't recall that at all, and in fact I can't even make sense of the claim you are making. My recollection was that we settled early on with a definition used by the Australian researchers who did the best study, that child sexual abuse was any sexual contact with an under-thirteen or sexual contact which was unwanted or distressing with a thirteen-to-fifteen. I don't recall any substantial discussion of how to file sexual contact with a thirteen to fifteen year old which was not unwanted or distressing but which they subsequently regretted.

I know it was lost upthread amidst relativitisic derails, but any thoughts on my suggestion that the distribution and storage of photos depicting the victims of crimes (without their consent) should be illegal?

Thanks for bringing that back up. It was an intelligent post and it didn't deserve to get neglected the way it did.

Such a law as stated would, as one example, make the people who filmed the Rodney King beating or the 9/11 attacks potential criminals. I think that's a problem. I prefer in such cases that people be free to point their camera at whatever is going on, and distribute, store and even sell the footage, without any risk at all that they could end up in jail for it. If Rodney King could have made the footage of his beating contraband by saying he did not want it distributed, someone might have leaned on Rodney King to make him say that.

It's already a crime to rape a child or to slap someone, and it's already a crime to conspire to arrange such a crime, whether with a view to filming it or not, so it's not as if we do not already have deterrents in place against happy slapping video producers and child pornography video producers. Those people are criminals already, and in fact they are collecting evidence against themselves.

What Dann would probably say is something like "There is a difference between pornographic footage and non-pornographic footage, which I cannot define, but I know the difference when I see it. Not that I ever see such footage, of course, honest! But if I did see it I know I would know. Pornographic footage goes in its own special category".

The problem is we've already been over the arguments showing that the distinction between pornography and non-pornography is to a significant extent in the eye of the beholder.

What people really want to do, I think, is make a special category for "pornographic" footage of underage victims of sexual crimes, because having such images seen by others is seen as being more humiliating or painful than other images of any other crimes. The problems with defining such footage objectively and defining this view of it as objective fact are fairly serious though. I'm certainly not comfortable letting the Danns of this world make up the definitions as they go along and jail people based on their definitions.

So to sum up, I don't think your solution works as it is. Maybe it could be tweaked into something I'm comfortable with, but I'm still not on board with the idea that it should be a criminal offence to distribute footage that makes someone feel bad.

 

[The Atheist]

I'm certainly not comfortable letting the Danns of this world make up the definitions as they go along and jail people based on their definitions.

Ah, but the bad news is, as I've told you ad nauseum is that The Atheist, along with Dann and a huge majority of people do make those laws and send those people to jail.

Hard luck. Ain't it just a BITCH when real people who make real laws just don't approach things the way you'd like, instead claiming an inner morality stronger than yours. It eats you up. We care.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A mildly relevant news story, which I believe is currently getting quite a deal of airplay in the USA:

http://wcbstv.com/watercooler/local_story_017064621.html

Three thirteen year olds videotaped themselves beating a twelve year old and (apparently) posted the video on the internet. That video is now being shown on broadcast TV and is available from mainstream news web sites.

Cynric's suggestion would imply that, morally speaking, the people working for those TV stations and web sites belong in prison, unless they had permission from the victim (or in this case probably her parents) to show the video. Personally I'm not convinced of that, nor am I convinced that there is not social value in such incidents being exposed even if, hypothetically, the parents or children involved prefer the video not be stored or distributed.

I'm also not convinced that it's categorically true that absolutely any kind of sexual contact is more humiliating and/or traumatic than the beating in question, and so sexual contact belongs in one bin and such assaults belong in another.

This is why I don't think Cynric's suggestion is the right way forward.

 

[Checkmite]

How on Earth would you know?

The obvious answer is that I read them. It's not as if either of them takes more than twenty minutes to read. And you can't seriously suggest either of them support your position; in fact, the second of the two links doesn't even touch upon the effects of abuse, but only deals with the incidence of reported abuse (the title of the article, "Prevalence of childhood sexual abuse in a community sample of Australian women", should be a BIG clue, but if not, then reading it will show the way). As pointed out by someone else, your first article contains some type of comment - either generally denigrating sexual abuse or indicating that it clearly causes damage - in almost every single paragraph of its length. The article certainly indicates that the severity of adulthood problems in a child abuse victim are exacerbated by many factors, of which the abuse is only one. However, the article makes it very clear that sexual abuse is always damaging, and it contains not one single word about whether the child's age or maturity at the time of abuse can have an effect on the nature of that damage.

You can say the articles support your conclusion all you want. But anyone who reads them will find that, not only do they not support your conclusion, they don't even address the substance of the question (i.e., post- versus pre-pubescent as a dependent variable of subsequent damage). That's the reason nobody "posted any evidence" arguing with you last time you drove down this fruitless and silly path - you've left nothing to debunk. You're like one of those 9-11 "Truth" folks.

 

[varwoche]

In order for me to chase down your [Kevin_Lowe's] third hyper-vague citation, I would require you to, in order: (1) sufficiently explain or else retract your first hyper-vague (incredibly bogus) citation, (2) sufficiently explain or else retract your second hyper-vague (incredibly bogus) citation, (3) not be so vague about your third hyper-vague citation.

No response as expected. Instead Kevin posts layer upon layer of evasive gibberish and gross misrepresentation.

Note: This doesn't involve child pornography, but rather Kevin's defense of "consensual" (disregarding the notion of informed consent), non-penetrative adult+child sex.

Here again are excerpts from the article that Kevin linked to (link only; no quotes) that not only fails to support his position but is actually in diametric opposition. Pardon the repetition.

child sexual abuse has come to be widely regarded as a cause of mental health problems in adult life
...
symptoms engendered in the process of the abuse and have reverberated down the years to produce a post-abuse syndrome in adult life
...
child sexual abuse produced a range of psychological effects at the time and, secondarily, behavioral changes
...
positive correlations between a history of child sexual abuse and mental health problems in adult life
...
The well documented difficulties that sexually abused children experience in the school situation with academic performance and behaviour
...
those with histories of child sexual abuse tended to have lower status economic roles ... significant decline in socioeconomic status
...
A history of child sexual abuse has been found to be associated with problems with sexual adjustment in adult life
...
association between a history of child sexual abuse and an earlier age of entering the first cohabitation and an earlier age at first pregnancy
...
child sexual abuse are at greater risk during adolescence of sexually transmitted diseases, teenage pregnancy
...
These findings support the hypothesis that the exposure of children to the sexual advances and acts of adults places the victim at risk of later sexual problems
...
a blow to their construction of the world as a safe enough environment and their developing sense of others as trustworthy.
...
Relationship problems were also reflected in the evaluations of the quality of their communication with their partners.
...
more likely to rate their partners as low on care and concern, and high on intrusive control
...
child sexual abuse in lowering self esteem in adults
...
established body of knowledge clearly linking a history of child sexual abuse with higher rates in adult life of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders
article

 

[Earthborn]

Here again are excerpts from the article that Kevin linked to (link only; no quotes) that not only fails to support his position but is actually in diametric opposition.

Before you can argue that the article is in diametric opposition with Kevin's position, you'll first have to show that it has anything to do with his position. And neither you nor Kevin have been able to do that.

The reason Kevin points to the article is because it shows evidence that the amount of damage done to a child depends on the severity of the abuse. The worse the abuse, the greater the damage, with the mildest forms of abuse having little or no longterm effect on the level of psychopathology. Not something particularly surprising. Kevin extrapolates from that -- and this is where he goes beyond the presented evidence -- that in the case of mild consensual sexual acts with a minor who does not later label it as abuse (assuming such a thing exists), the damage done is non-existent.

The articles do not directly support his position, but neither do they contradict him. They only deal with abuse, while Kevin's argumentation revolves around acts that are not abuse.

 

[Piscivore]

Ah, but the bad news is, as I've told you ad nauseum is that The Atheist, along with Dann and a huge majority of people do make those laws and send those people to jail.

A majority in the wrong is still wrong.

Hard luck. Ain't it just a BITCH when real people who make real laws just don't approach things the way you'd like, instead claiming an inner morality stronger than yours.

Usually we call them "Chrisitians" Or "Muslims".

It eats you up. We care.

What exactly, do you care about, though? Keeping children safe from harm, controlling those who differ from you, assuaging your own emotional upset, or something else?

 

[dann]

The articles do not directly support his position, but neither do they contradict him. They only deal with abuse, while Kevin's argumentation revolves around [rather hypothetical] acts [of adults having sex with children] that are not abuse.

Is this what you mean, Earthborn?

 

[dann]

The Atheist, along with Dann and a huge majority of people do make those laws and send those people to jail.

Well, Atheist, we agree about paedophilia and kiddie porn, but ... I've never made a single law nor did I ever send anybody to jail. And I think that goes for the majority of people too!

 

[varwoche]

The reason Kevin points to the article is because it shows evidence that the amount of damage done to a child depends on the severity of the abuse. The worse the abuse, the greater the damage

No surprise whatsoever. It does not indicate, however, that no damage occurs with less severe abuse, as you observed.

with the mildest forms of abuse having little or no longterm effect on the level of psychopathology.

Except: The article is a summary of a handful of studies and it would require extreme cherry-picking to overlook the contrary claims derived from numerous of those studies -- the bulk of the article in fact.

The articles do not directly support his position, but neither do they contradict him. They only deal with abuse, while Kevin's argumentation revolves around acts that are not abuse.

This depends on Kevin's definition of abuse. If you look at the texts I quoted in context, there is no qualification regarding severity of abuse. You could make the point that the article is not very precise and I would agree. However, taken at face value, the bulk of it contradicts Kevin. And it's his citation mind you.

 

[Piscivore]

Well, Atheist, we agree about paedophilia and kiddie porn, but ... I've never made a single law nor did I ever send anybody to jail. And I think that goes for the majority of people too!

Sweet FSM's white hot parmesan on a cracker, you're practically begging someone to invoke Godwin, aren't you?


Never voted, then?

 

[dann]

Why? Aren't you able to distinguish between jailing, law making and voting?

 

[Piscivore]

Why? Aren't you able to distinguish between jailing, law making and voting?

Look up "Godwin's Law" and get back to me with what you think I mean by that.

Do you understand the lawmaking process in a democratic country? Despite your personal political views you live in a representative democracy.