Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Polaris]

I assume by "a fella" you mean in the loosest possible sense, i.e. "a guy or a gal"?!

So, you're not into oral or fellatio then - a "cut to the chase" kinda fellaguy. Most of the stuff I've seen, unfortunately for script writers, has absolutely no oral at all!

That's exactly how I meant it.

Why would I (a man) want to see another guy get off? I can't do that thing that I assume most men do and pretend that penis is mine. I tune into porn to watch a woman (at least pretend to) get off.

Not sure what the average porn script looks like, but whether it includes a lot of oral (meaning BJs) or not, that certainly ends up in the finished product regardless.

As far as the 'lingus goes, yeah that could stand to be thrown in a little more.

 

[Lithrael]

deleted post

 

[JFrankA]

Well in that case I suggest you need to be appropriately cautious, by which I mean more than the average person would. This might seem a little tenuous, but I'll try it anyhow: You might well know this, but anybody holding themselves out as a professional, such as a doctor, or an architect, or an engineer, for example, owes a legal duty of care to anybody to whom they provide advice or services, even if they're not really qualified to provide such advice or services (notwithstanding that many professionals need to be licensed to practice). Typically, for professional services contractually procured the Professional's duty would be:

to provide the Services with the degree of professional skill, care and diligence expected of a consultant experienced in providing the same or similar services, acknowledging that the Client has entered into this Agreement in reliance upon the Consultant’s representation that it has such professional skill and will apply such care and diligence in providing the services

What's my point? If you're operating in the "adult industry", particularly if you're producing porn, then it is reasonable to expect that you will be familiar with, understand, appreciate and observe all related laws and regulations. Accordingly, you should be better placed than most people to determine where to draw the line, and you should be expected to seek legal advice if faced with the risk of crossing it. If you heed this then you should have little if any real concern. If you heed this and you still cross the line (other than contrary to what you should either reasonably be expected to know or have been legally advised) then you will probably have very good defensive grounds. If you don't heed this, for whatever reason, and you cross the line, then you should not be surprised to be looked upon with suspicion, to say the least, and deservedly so.

I have done that. I follow the letter of the law. I've even posted how I remain more than professional.

...but that's NOT what I'm talking about. You keep clearly missing my point.

What I am talking about is people who go beyond the law. People who feel it "doesn't do enough and should punish the possibility of someone being affected by the product."

I am not being paranoid in the way you think. I know how a lot of people think, and, unfortunately, they think like you.

So I am on my guard even though I am very well within the law. It doesn't take much for some self-rightous, morally correct person to whip up another way of making something legal into something very illegal armed with fear, prejudiced, self-moral and misinformation.

Hang on. We're talking about punishment for thinking something, aren't we (that's what you wrote!)? So where do these examples fit into that?

Yes. That's EXACTLY what I wrote:

a) two people involved in a fantasy.

b) two people who are above the age of consent

c) two people who in an environment in which they are allowed to explore their fantasies freely.

d) two people who in an environment in which there are no under aged children allowed and who knew that the other is over the age of consent

e) two people who not even in physical contact with each other

f) two people who are typing on a computer in a fantasy setting

g) two people who are willing to play out this fantasy.

Where the hell does "not thought" enter into it? Hell, if this was a couple together in a bedroom doing the same thing, no one would say "boo" about it and even that would be more "real" than what happened in Second Life. Do you honestly think that if someone listened in on an adult couple in their own house age playing with each other willingly, that the person listening in should have those two people arrested for child porn? It's almost exactly the same thing except that there were no real physical things happening. Tell me the difference.

It was more than verbose JFrankA; it essentially proves my point (which is not that you think with your genitals, but that some of what you write is just plain wrong in the extreme, for which I elected to euphemise in a slightly more polite way than the so-called proverbial) so thanks for that!

And you've proven my point that you don't understand the subtleties that are involved. This isn't as black and white as you choose to see it. There are many shades of gray. There is a line, yes. but when you see only black and white, you can't really see the line clearly.

You've lost the plot JFrankA. Since when did freedom of thought enter into the debate? There are no laws or regulations governing what people may or may not think, by definition!

Enjoy what porn you like, so long as other people's rights and safety is not compromised is exactly what this is about. Perhaps there isn't a law speficially telling people what they may or may not think, but they are sure as hell could be used that way. Ask the person who was arrested for having Manga. He was certainly arrested for what people thought he thought about child porn, without really having any real-life, real child child porn.

If by "fetish" you're including child porn (I think you are, by your reference to "virtual portrayal"), then you need to start thinking a little outside the box (and I think this comes right back to my claim earlier that a fantasy, especially an enacted fantasy, is a manifestation of a real underlying desire). If not, then I'm not sure what's prompted you to make this statement.

See? There's the word in the context where it causes the trouble, and therefore causes why I am what you call paranoid. I've bolded it for you. Because you THINK I do, you've come to your incorrect conclusion. No, I am NOT talking about child porn fetish. I mean another fetish, the correct term I've been using the term along with the whole "child porn" discussion.

Well then, at best, the producers are on dodgy ground and deserve to be challenged, at least.

Oh really? Why is that? Because an adult is playing a girl? An adult, mind you, not a real under aged girl. It's a fantasy.

And, no offense, but who made you the guy who decides that the producers "deserve to be challenged, at least"? Why is it alright for you to enjoy the fetish you have but not someone who is enjoying a fetish you do not approve of?

...see where my "paranoid" state comes from?

Sure, but you're not saying it in a very compelling way JFrankA, because:

1. you don't seem to appreciate what the law requires and doesn't require, even at the fairly basic level

1. 
   
   I do. But I also know how people can pervert the letter of the law.
   
   

   [*]you keep muddying the waters by introducing and referring to irrelevant scenarios and examples

   
   No, I keep taking your extreme black and white examples and gray them for you using real life situations. Sorry. Not everything is an extreme.
   
2. you seem to not want to open your mind to why the law is worded the way it is, preferring to dogmatically default to "the law's an ass - if I'm not directly harming anybody I'll do what I damn well want to"!

[/quote]

Well, the law is an ass a lot of the times because people don't think them through or abuse it. I have a right to criticize it if I think they're wrong, don't I? Sheesh!

Your argument seems to be "the law is. Don't argue with it".

But it's also porn (by definition), where we "come from". Get it? If witch-hunting and burning somebody in Kenya is legal and called "fair play" but it's illegal and called murder in the States you can't hide behind the "fair play" argument when you're in the States! Go live in Kenya if witch-hunting is what floats your boat, or Japan if "Japanese Art" means so much to you. Get it?

That's your answer? "You don't like it, get out!"? Wow. So it's a good thing that homosexuals don't marry here? It's the law, so if homosexuals want to get married, "then if means so much to somebody that they feel rightly deprived if the law doesn't allow it, then I would suggest that they go and live their depraved lives in those countries where it is still legal."

Is that your answer? Really? Do you truly believe that the law is right period, and I have no rights to disagree with it?

...talk about dogma....

Oh come on JFrankA - get real. How on earth can an "incidental sex scene involving school girls" not be reasonably interpreted to be intended to arouse? What other possible purpose would such a sex scene serve. Seriously JFrankA, your credibility and sincerity are both wearing desperately thin, at least with me.

That's how YOU interpret it. In some stories, it's there to evoke an emotion of anger so that when the hero saves the girl from the scene, it's a feeling of justice.

....didn't think of that didja? What does it say about you, I wonder?

At least you admit it, but I can assure you it's only validated if you are, indeed, one such depraved person.

And so are you. We all are to a point. At least I am man enough to admit it.

I didn't "equate" them. I used the elephants' tusks example as an analogy to try to get you to see a point. I'm sorry it failed (that's not an apology, BTW!).

You did equate them BECAUSE you used it as an analogy otherwise it wouldn't be used as such. Come on, SW. You've used the murder vs porn analogy a lot in your statements. They just don't jive.

That's the point, JFrankA, and where you're going woefully wrong here. A drawing is not just a thought - it's a drawing, potentially available for viewing by more than just the artist! See the fundamental difference?

OOoooooh. So I see. "If someone draws and views it, they MUST want to do it in real life". That's the law's attitude. Is it yours? Do you agree with it? If you do then maybe we are back to "if you fantasize about it, you want to do it in real life". Again, it's not true. For most people, seeing the porn is enough for someone. Play acting with someone is enough. Both are thoughts, not deeds. Neither one does anything to any other individual. That's the difference between thought and action.

Let's use an analogy you like to use: If you wrote a story about robbing a bank and murdering all the people in it, created scenes of virtual people killing other innocent virtual people, then the robbers get away with the whole thing, then distribute the whole thing to everyone to see, with the intent to get everyone to think that bank robbing and killing is cool, should you be arrested?

The law says no in this case. Yes in the case of sex.

Why? And what do you think?

 

[sugarb]

JFrankA? Are you talking about so-called "age play"? The "daddy/babygirl" fetish? I think I've misunderstood the discussion about child porn, if so.

 

[MontagK505]

Exactly what I feel.

In regards to virtual child porn, personally, I don't like it either. Not something I would do, quite honestly. However, I don't think it should be treated with the same severity as real child porn is. Further, I think having a naked virtual model of a child is nothing to call "child porn" on. Especially since the way Poser works, you have to start with the virtual model naked.

I don't think you are precisely correct. I've never purchased any after market child figures. But, there are fantasy elves and faerie figures that can morphed to look more child like.

However, Poser 6 & 7 included starter packs come with adult and child, male and female figures in both clothed and unclothed versions. So you don't necessarily have to start with a nude figure. Of course, if you don't like the basic clothing style then you have to install the clothing as a separate prop/figure.

Most of the suppliers of after market props and figures seem to avoid creating small children. Perhaps because there isn't much of a market. I wouldn't know how to morph the Victoria 4 default adult woman into a child figure. You can run the facial morphs through a wide range of racial / age combinations. If you start to crank too heavy on the standard body morphs you can end-up with something that looks like a concentration camp victim or a fashion model.

 

[kuroyume0161]

Yes, Poser has come with a set of stock figures (man, woman, girl, boy) both nude and clothed versions for some versions - at least back to version 3. Of course, they're a bit bland for more than pedestrian work (say, general people in arch-viz work). The best figures are Daz3D's where you must purchase clothes separately - like virtual dolls. There are children figures (Luke, Laura, Millenium Baby, Matt, Maddie, Sadie, etc.) none of which have genitalia options at all. Doesn't bother me but it would make for an interesting discussion on human anatomy using them.

 

[MontagK505]

Yes, Poser has come with a set of stock figures (man, woman, girl, boy) both nude and clothed versions for some versions - at least back to version 3. Of course, they're a bit bland for more than pedestrian work (say, general people in arch-viz work). The best figures are Daz3D's where you must purchase clothes separately - like virtual dolls. There are children figures (Luke, Laura, Millenium Baby, Matt, Maddie, Sadie, etc.) none of which have genitalia options at all. Doesn't bother me but it would make for an interesting discussion on human anatomy using them.

I assume you could use Z-Brush or 3DSMax if you just had to put genitila on a child.

I used the Jessie clothed figure to create a woman photographer figure for a vitural photo studio set.

 

[Southwind17]

What I am talking about is people who go beyond the law. People who feel it "doesn't do enough and should punish the possibility of someone being affected by the product."
So I am on my guard even though I am very well within the law. It doesn't take much for some self-rightous, morally correct person to whip up another way of making something legal into something very illegal armed with fear, prejudiced, self-moral and misinformation.

Are you serious? Some "self-righteous, morally correct people" can just go making and enacting laws at will after the fact?! Who are these people, exactly, JFrankA?

Yes. That's EXACTLY what I wrote:

a) two people involved in a fantasy.
b) two people who are above the age of consent
c) two people who in an environment in which they are allowed to explore their fantasies freely.
d) two people who in an environment in which there are no under aged children allowed and who knew that the other is over the age of consent
e) two people who not even in physical contact with each other
f) two people who are typing on a computer in a fantasy setting
g) two people who are willing to play out this fantasy.

Where the hell does "not thought" enter into it?

They've acted upon their thoughts to a tangible degree, as I pointed out above with the painting, and as acknowledged and supported by sugarb afterwards. But you've made some pretty fundamental assumptions here (highlighted) for what's essentially a public forum. I'm a member of SL (not been on it for some time as, quite frankly, I came across some seriously unsavoury people (real people, of course, portrayed by CGI characters - just haven't got around to cancelling my membership.). How much do the SL administrators actually know about me, do you think? Do you think they even know my age?!

Hell, if this was a couple together in a bedroom doing the same thing, no one would say "boo" about it and even that would be more "real" than what happened in Second Life. Do you honestly think that if someone listened in on an adult couple in their own house age playing with each other willingly, that the person listening in should have those two people arrested for child porn? It's almost exactly the same thing except that there were no real physical things happening. Tell me the difference.

Er ... it's a public forum with no real control over the age of the membership, for starters?!

And you've proven my point that you don't understand the subtleties that are involved.

Ahem ...!

Enjoy what porn you like, so long as other people's rights and safety is not compromised is exactly what this is about.

That's some objective JFrankA. Do you see any shades of grey there, by any chance?!

Perhaps there isn't a law speficially telling people what they may or may not think ...

I can assure you, there isn't (and certainly not an enforceable one!).

... but they are sure as hell could be used that way.

On what evidence?

Ask the person who was arrested for having Manga.

Ah ... "for having Manga". So we're already way beyond mere thoughts, right!

He was certainly arrested for what people thought he thought about child porn, without really having any real-life, real child child porn.

Plainly wrong. He was certainly arrested on suspicion of or for actually possessing "real" child porn by the legal definition. How on earth could anybody possibly claim to profess to know what he was thinking (and I'm sure nobody actually did).

See? There's the word in the context where it causes the trouble, and therefore causes why I am what you call paranoid. I've bolded it for you.

See? There isn't. You're plainly wrong. And your paranoia (which you admit above) is, therefore, unfounded (assuming "paranoia", by definition, isn't necessarily unfounded!).

Because you THINK I do, you've come to your incorrect conclusion. No, I am NOT talking about child porn fetish. I mean another fetish, the correct term I've been using the term along with the whole "child porn" discussion.

If you're not alluding to child porn then that's clearly different, as different laws apply.

Oh really? Why is that? Because an adult is playing a girl? An adult, mind you, not a real under aged girl. It's a fantasy.

JFrankA, for the last time, it's not a fantasy, it's a production (of a fantasy, maybe). See the difference? One cannot validly seek to protect oneself from a child porn offence simply by asserting "It doesn't involve real children." Can't you see why the mere acceptance by society of the portrayal of children in a sexual context has the potential to prove harmful under countless scenarios?!

And, no offense, but who made you the guy who decides that the producers "deserve to be challenged, at least"? Why is it alright for you to enjoy the fetish you have but not someone who is enjoying a fetish you do not approve of?

I'm not the guy, it's just my view (I thought it was a given that I'm entitled to express my view here without presaging it with IMHO and such like!), but I strongly suspect it correlates generally with the legal position. The production that you allude to is not a fetish, JFrankA - it's child porn (by the sound of it). See the difference?

...see where my "paranoid" state comes from?

You can ask that again!

Well, the law is an ass a lot of the times because people don't think them through or abuse it. I have a right to criticize it if I think they're wrong, don't I? Sheesh!

Of course you do, I didn't suggest that you don't. But you most certainly don't have the right to adopt the attitude "I disagree with the law, so I'll do what I damn well want to", and then act upon that thought, which is what I was arguing.

Your argument seems to be "the law is. Don't argue with it".

No - my argument is: "The law is, so don't break it." You're as free and welcome as anybody should be to seek to have the law changed by whatever means are at your disposal, and I actually welcome that right and process. It's why many laws have developed the way they have over time to suit constantly changing societal needs and circumstances.

That's your answer? "You don't like it, get out!"? Is that your answer? Really? Do you truly believe that the law is right period, and I have no rights to disagree with it?

See above. But unless and until a law is changed if somebody is not prepared to comply, then yes, my view is that they're not welcome by me to live in the society whose laws I abide by. Of course, it depends on the nature of the law and extent of dissatisfaction as to whether I would adopt this view as radically as I've expressed it.

That's how YOU interpret it. In some stories, it's there to evoke an emotion of anger so that when the hero saves the girl from the scene, it's a feeling of justice.

....didn't think of that didja? What does it say about you, I wonder?

Actually, I did consider the possible justifications for including child sex into such a story, and felt that, yes, if incidental, it could have some validity, exactly in the way that you describe it here. But then, I thought that that was totally unnecessary, and that exactly the same plot, story line and message could be conveyed perfectly adequately, if not better, other than resorting to the super-hero rescuing a sexually abused child. Didn't think of that, didja? What does that say about you (I don't wonder!)?!

You did equate them BECAUSE you used it as an analogy otherwise it wouldn't be used as such. Come on, SW. You've used the murder vs porn analogy a lot in your statements. They just don't jive.

Maybe not with you, but to anybody who is objective enough to appreciate where I'm coming from here, I have no doubts.

OOoooooh. So I see. "If someone draws and views it, they MUST want to do it in real life". That's the law's attitude.

As I pointed out in my last post (which you've clearly ignored, overlooked, or fail to understand and/or accept) and have amply reiterated and demonstrated here, you clearly don't understand the legal position, which is somewhat concerning given that you claim to produce porn and claim to have satisfied yourself as to the legal position. Honestly JFrankA, what you post here shows very strong signs of self-attributing bias to me, which, in the context of what we're debating here, is highly dangerous.

For most people, seeing the porn is enough for someone. Play acting with someone is enough. Both are thoughts, not deeds. Neither one does anything to any other individual. That's the difference between thought and action.

Again, are you serious? Viewing porn and play acting are only thoughts, not deeds?! Which planet are you on today JFrankA?!

Let's use an analogy you like to use: If you wrote a story about robbing a bank and murdering all the people in it, created scenes of virtual people killing other innocent virtual people, then the robbers get away with the whole thing, then distribute the whole thing to everyone to see, with the intent to get everyone to think that bank robbing and killing is cool, should you be arrested?
The law says no in this case. Yes in the case of sex.
Why? And what do you think?

Clearly, both have the potential to inspire and encourage. You clearly don't see the relative risks, though, do you? What would you guess would be the incidence of child abuse precipitated by a general acceptance by society of virtual child porn (which, by definition, depicts child abuse) compared to the incidence of blood-bath bank robberies precipitated by blood-bath bank robbery story books, which every person who reads (just about) knows is both wrong and illegal? Please feel free to research this if you're reluctant to guess.

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA? Are you talking about so-called "age play"? The "daddy/babygirl" fetish? I think I've misunderstood the discussion about child porn, if so.

I am talking about age play, but from what I understand the "daddy/baby girl" fetish is only part of that catagory. Age play would include infantilism, "teen age - teen age" play, young student (either sex), older teacher (either sex) play, etc. It covers any fantasy that includes someone portraying someone under age.

 

[Belz...]

JFrankA, for the last time, it's not a fantasy, it's a production (of a fantasy, maybe). See the difference? One cannot validly seek to protect oneself from a child porn offence simply by asserting "It doesn't involve real children."

Well this is what I was talking about earlier on. I don't think laws against child porn should cover things that don't involve children. Especially when they don't actually involve real people, like doodles.

Laws are meant to protect people against other people's actions, not people against their own prejudices.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Well this is what I was talking about earlier on. I don't think laws against child porn should cover things that don't involve children. Especially when they don't actually involve real people, like doodles.

Laws are meant to protect people against other people's actions, not people against their own prejudices.

Shocking thought that. I can almost hear the moral outrage meter reaching the breaking point.

 

[Belz...]

Meaning ?

 

[Southwind17]

I am talking about age play, but from what I understand the "daddy/baby girl" fetish is only part of that catagory. Age play would include infantilism, "teen age - teen age" play, young student (either sex), older teacher (either sex) play, etc. It covers any fantasy that includes someone portraying someone under age.

What would you say drives this type of fantasy JFrankA - the idea of the child being under-age, i.e. fantasising about committing a particularly taboo illegal act, or simply the idea of a sexual encounter with a young person? I have to say, not being a beholder of such fantasies, my gut feeling is that there must be a large component of the former for the "buzz" to be sufficiently strong to motivate acting out such fantasies.

You see, when I expounded on fantasising about a heist earlier, I don't believe the driver is the idea of breaking the law per se, but more the excitement of the tangible physical risk and "thrill of the fight". The idea of pulling it off and escaping with the loot seems far stronger than the idea of simply committing a crime and getting away with it, if you can see that distinction.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't think laws against child porn should cover things that don't involve children

The stench of parodox is overwhelming!

 

[JFrankA]

Are you serious? Some "self-righteous, morally correct people" can just go making and enacting laws at will after the fact?! Who are these people, exactly, JFrankA?

It happens a lot. There's a lot of times where laws were made by "self-righteous, morally correct" people who think that what they are doing is protecting people, when what they are really doing is exchanging individual freedoms for individual safety. And quite a few times, the trade off is unnecessary. It's done in the name of "think of the children". For example, there's a law that's in consideration in Connecticut to make it illegal to smoke in a car if there is a child in the car under the age of ten.

Clearly this probable law is "to protect the children" but I see it as another example of an unnecessary taking away a freedom for a safety.

And I'm sorry, I see the law of virtual child porn the same thing. The original intent of stopping child porn was to prevent children from getting molested and hurt. I agree with that. I back it up and to me, real life child porn crosses the line. I agree that there has to be a line. Real life children shouldn't be in porn. And there are laws in place that I feel do a very good job trying to stop, catch and punish these people.

....Insert a smart remark from you, here......

But there are times when the law is used so that people can take it further. The idea to stop virtual child porn (i.e. no real life humans at all involved) was not to protect anyone. It was enacted on the belief that if someone watches that porn, they would want to commit the crime.

I'm sorry, that doesn't fly with me. I don't agree with that logic. It is my belief that if someone wants to commit such a crime then no matter if they watch child porn or not they will commit the crime, in fact, according to some studies, it's been shown that where there's porn the cases of rape go down.

One of the big beliefs of the anti-porn crowd is that idea that porn will make a person want the sex more, and make it more "real", eventually wanting the real life thing. I think that's a whole load of bullhockey.

This is what the law of "no virtual child porn" is about. I disagree with it. I obey it, but I disagree with it.

I know you are arguing the law, that's fine. But it seems to me you see me as someone who is out-and-out disobeying the law because I don't agree with it. I'm not. I'm someone who doesn't agree with some laws based on the fact that it takes away our freedoms.

People in this country (the US) are driven by fears way too easily. There are a lot of people here that would feel it is child pornography to have naked pictures of your own children in a completely non-sexual setting. People here (in the US) are quick to judge. Maybe I've been feeding too much into the paranoia word, but it's more of being overly cautious because people in the US love to jump to conclusions and judge.

They've acted upon their thoughts to a tangible degree, as I pointed out above with the painting, and as acknowledged and supported by sugarb afterwards. But you've made some pretty fundamental assumptions here (highlighted) for what's essentially a public forum. I'm a member of SL (not been on it for some time as, quite frankly, I came across some seriously unsavoury people (real people, of course, portrayed by CGI characters - just haven't got around to cancelling my membership.). How much do the SL administrators actually know about me, do you think? Do you think they even know my age?!

They are supposed to know your age. If they don't then it's SL's fault for not verifying age. That has been a contention for a long time. Regardless, they did know that the participants were of age, because they registered.

So age verification isn't the people's fault. At the time, SL is advertised as adults only. At the time SL had a separate server for anyone under 18. No adults, other than the moderators were allowed there. That was done to stop child abuse.

Also, you're wrong. It's not a public forum. It's an adults only public forum and they didn't broadcast it to the entire server. These people were in their own virtual house and someone else listened in on their conversation. If I remember the report correctly, they were whispering. You have to get within 10 virtual feet to hear them. That's not that far away in SL.

If they were smarter and did the age play in private chat, this would have never had happened. Again, to me, this is the equivalent of two adults doing age play in their own bedroom and have gotten arrested for child porn.

Er ... it's a public forum with no real control over the age of the membership, for starters?!

As I said. Wrong. And not their fault.

Ahem ...!

...something in your throat?

That's some objective JFrankA. Do you see any shades of grey there, by any chance?!

Yes I do, of course I do. I see a lot of gray. You challenge yourself with extremes but I feel that that is very limited. The subtle things are the gray and I do challenge myself with them. But no matter how gray I see I do have that line. I've said it before but I believe it bares repeating because you seem to miss it or ignore it:

When someone wants to do a real life act, such as rape of anyone of any age, molest or hurt a child, on a real life, living human, who is unwilling and/or under age, and that person who wants to the act desires the consequences, doesn't think of the consequences, or doesn't care about the consequences, or a mixture of those three.

It's alright to enjoy the fantasy. That's not real. It's alright to act out the fantasy in a controlled setting with a real life willing, of age partner(s). It's alright to enjoy the fantasy as long as the consequences are in control, not harmful to others, physically and mentally and with others rights intact. The fantasy is controlled to just that: a fantasy.

Can you see the difference?

I can assure you, there isn't (and certainly not an enforceable one!).

Again, the virtual child porn laws are a "victimless" crime. That is, no one is getting hurt, no one Else's rights are taken away, and the crime affects no one. It's a crime because it's believed that if you possess virtual child porn, then you are very possibly a child molester.

....how is that NOT a think crime?

On what evidence?


Ah ... "for having Manga". So we're already way beyond mere thoughts, right!

Nope. You're twisting what I am saying. Again, the law is based upon what I just wrote above.

Let me ask you this: what is the reason virtual child porn is illegal?

Plainly wrong. He was certainly arrested on suspicion of or for actually possessing "real" child porn by the legal definition. How on earth could anybody possibly claim to profess to know what he was thinking (and I'm sure nobody actually did).

Again, what is the reason for the law of not having child porn that does not involve any real life, living human beings?

See? There isn't. You're plainly wrong. And your paranoia (which you admit above) is, therefore, unfounded (assuming "paranoia", by definition, isn't necessarily unfounded!).

*sigh* No. It's not unfounded. I've explained why many times. Please stop trying to discredit who I am.

It's funny. First you accuse me of only knowing "marshmallow" porn and don't really understand the "heavy stuff". Now that I'm explaining why I don't agree with the virtual child porn law, you are now accusing me of being a paranoid, law rebelling person with having deviant fetishes....

You do deal with only extremes, fortunately, I'm somewhere in the gray.

If you're not alluding to child porn then that's clearly different, as different laws apply.

I notice you didn't mention the fetish I am referring to....

JFrankA, for the last time, it's not a fantasy, it's a production (of a fantasy, maybe). See the difference? One cannot validly seek to protect oneself from a child porn offence simply by asserting "It doesn't involve real children." Can't you see why the mere acceptance by society of the portrayal of children in a sexual context has the potential to prove harmful under countless scenarios?!

Can't you see why the mere acceptance by society of the protrayal of murder has the potential to prove harmful under countless scenarios?

Can't you see why the mere acceptance by society of the protrayal of a homosexual act has the potential to prove harmful under countless scenarios?

Can't you see why the mere acceptance by society of the protrayal of bank robbery has the potential to prove harmful under countless scenarios?

Can't you see why the mere acceptance by society of the protrayal of scat play has the potential to prove harmful under countless scenarios?

Can't you see why the mere acceptance by society of the protrayal of prejudice against a race of people has the potential to prove harmful under countless scenarios?

Please, SW, we've been down that road. Just because the production of the portrayal of something sexual doesn't make a person want to do it for real.

Is that really your argument?

I'm not the guy, it's just my view (I thought it was a given that I'm entitled to express my view here without presaging it with IMHO and such like!), but I strongly suspect it correlates generally with the legal position. The production that you allude to is not a fetish, JFrankA - it's child porn (by the sound of it). See the difference?

You also have judged me, completely incorrectly, based upon your thoughts and the way you interpret the law.

See the point of my disagreement?

You can ask that again!

No, I'm not going to. You can't answer the question. You are too close to the source.

Of course you do, I didn't suggest that you don't. But you most certainly don't have the right to adopt the attitude "I disagree with the law, so I'll do what I damn well want to", and then act upon that thought, which is what I was arguing.

Where have I said "I'll do what I damn well want to"? Please, go back and find the point where I have even implied that, and post it.

No - my argument is: "The law is, so don't break it." You're as free and welcome as anybody should be to seek to have the law changed by whatever means are at your disposal, and I actually welcome that right and process. It's why many laws have developed the way they have over time to suit constantly changing societal needs and circumstances.

And I am exercising that right here.

But where have you gotten the impression that I'm telling people to disobey the law? Where is your paranoia coming from?

See above. But unless and until a law is changed if somebody is not prepared to comply, then yes, my view is that they're not welcome by me to live in the society whose laws I abide by. Of course, it depends on the nature of the law and extent of dissatisfaction as to whether I would adopt this view as radically as I've expressed it.

So what if there is a law that comes in your country that states you can't watch porn at all? Even "marshmallow" porn is outlawed. Would you stop watching? Would you disagree with it? Would you state your dissatisfaction somewhere? Would you fight to change it? Or would you move to another country that allows such degenerative movies?

...Hey, it's an extreme, but as you said, you deal with extremes....

Actually, I did consider the possible justifications for including child sex into such a story, and felt that, yes, if incidental, it could have some validity, exactly in the way that you describe it here. But then, I thought that that was totally unnecessary, and that exactly the same plot, story line and message could be conveyed perfectly adequately, if not better, other than resorting to the super-hero rescuing a sexually abused child. Didn't think of that, didja? What does that say about you (I don't wonder!)?!

So you decided that it shouldn't be in there. Your decision is correct and whatever the artists thought was wrong, and you know better. Even though no real life person was part of the production of the scenes. No real life children were used. Your beliefs in how the art should be done is more righteous and even produces a better product than the person who is actually creating the art.

I see...

Maybe not with you, but to anybody who is objective enough to appreciate where I'm coming from here, I have no doubts.

I've tried to show how your analogy doesn't work. You are comparing apples and oranges. The only common thing is that it's the law. If your argument is "follow the law because it is", then I agree. I just don't agree with the law, and I'm giving my reasons why. Sorry.

And so far, you haven't argued why you agree with the law. All you've been doing, I'm sorry to say, is self-righteous judging while hiding behind the statement "It's the law!!!!".

As I pointed out in my last post (which you've clearly ignored, overlooked, or fail to understand and/or accept) and have amply reiterated and demonstrated here, you clearly don't understand the legal position, which is somewhat concerning given that you claim to produce porn and claim to have satisfied yourself as to the legal position. Honestly JFrankA, what you post here shows very strong signs of self-attributing bias to me, which, in the context of what we're debating here, is highly dangerous.

More pontification and ignoring what I am saying.

Yes, yes, it's the law. Yes, I follow it. Yes, I disagree with it. I've given my reasons why.

Now, with all due respect, can you show some balls and tell us why you agree with the law instead of hiding behind it and quick judging me so we can have a discussion?


Again, are you serious? Viewing porn and play acting are only thoughts, not deeds?! Which planet are you on today JFrankA?!


Clearly, both have the potential to inspire and encourage. You clearly don't see the relative risks, though, do you? What would you guess would be the incidence of child abuse precipitated by a general acceptance by society of virtual child porn (which, by definition, depicts child abuse) compared to the incidence of blood-bath bank robberies precipitated by blood-bath bank robbery story books, which every person who reads (just about) knows is both wrong and illegal? Please feel free to research this if you're reluctant to guess.[/QUOTE]

 

[JFrankA]

What would you say drives this type of fantasy JFrankA - the idea of the child being under-age, i.e. fantasising about committing a particularly taboo illegal act, or simply the idea of a sexual encounter with a young person?

There are many things that can drive that fantasy. Even with women who love to relive their first sexual encounter, often to make it better than what really happened. There's tons of reasons I'm sure you haven't thought of.

I have to say, not being a beholder of such fantasies, my gut feeling is that there must be a large component of the former for the "buzz" to be sufficiently strong to motivate acting out such fantasies.

Ah. So you have no facts. You are basing that on your prejudices without really trying to understand. You've decided. You're right. I get it.

You see, when I expounded on fantasising about a heist earlier, I don't believe the driver is the idea of breaking the law per se, but more the excitement of the tangible physical risk and "thrill of the fight". The idea of pulling it off and escaping with the loot seems far stronger than the idea of simply committing a crime and getting away with it, if you can see that distinction.

I can. Good to see that you can make a distinction as to why some people have a fantasy. Now if you can carry that to porn and sex, you may begin to see my point.

 

[JFrankA]

The stench of parodox is overwhelming!

Welcome to the human race. We are very good with having paradoxes.

 

[Southwind17]

It happens a lot. There's a lot of times where laws were made by "self-righteous, morally correct" people who think that what they are doing is protecting people, when what they are really doing is exchanging individual freedoms for individual safety. And quite a few times, the trade off is unnecessary. It's done in the name of "think of the children". For example, there's a law that's in consideration in Connecticut to make it illegal to smoke in a car if there is a child in the car under the age of ten.

Clearly this probable law is "to protect the children" but I see it as another example of an unnecessary taking away a freedom for a safety.

You mean like the compulsory wearing of seatbelts? I agree entirely with, for example:

1. the compulsory wearing of seatbelts for all occupant on a motor vehicle
2. the compulsory wearing of crash helmets on motorcycles
3. the prohibition of smoking in public places (excluding open spaces, generally)
4. the prohibition of smoking in a motor vehicle with a child present

Hell, it probably wouldn't take much to convince me to agree entirely with the the prohibition of smoking in any confined space in which a child is present (incuding the same room in a private dwelling), but I'm a non-smoker, and I despise smoking, so I might be being a little biased on this one.

So, it seems that we'll just have to agree to disagree on what's necessary to legally enforce against adults in order to protect children.

And I'm sorry, I see the law of virtual child porn the same thing. The original intent of stopping child porn was to prevent children from getting molested and hurt. I agree with that. I back it up and to me, real life child porn crosses the line. I agree that there has to be a line. Real life children shouldn't be in porn. And there are laws in place that I feel do a very good job trying to stop, catch and punish these people.

So you don't see any real risk emanating from the message that this would send out into society generally, that it's perfectly acceptable to imagine, produce, distribute or view sexually explicit images of children, including child molestation, with the intent to arouse(!), provided real children are not involved? You don't see how that message will inevitably be interpreted by many people, and what harm to real children will inevitably result? You really don't see that?!

End of chat buddy. Ciao

 

[JFrankA]

You mean like the compulsory wearing of seatbelts? I agree entirely with, for example:

1. the compulsory wearing of seatbelts for all occupant on a motor vehicle
2. the compulsory wearing of crash helmets on motorcycles
3. the prohibition of smoking in public places (excluding open spaces, generally)
4. the prohibition of smoking in a motor vehicle with a child present

Hell, it probably wouldn't take much to convince me to agree entirely with the the prohibition of smoking in any confined space in which a child is present (incuding the same room in a private dwelling), but I'm a non-smoker, and I despise smoking, so I might be being a little biased on this one.

So, it seems that we'll just have to agree to disagree on what's necessary to legally enforce against adults in order to protect children.

You've taken the point I was making and used a completely different example. You've changed it from the law I was talking about that's being proposed, to a law that doesn't exchange individual freedom for safety.

If you are going to debate, please stick to the topic we are talking about instead of misdirecting my examples.

I am a non-smoker too, but to stop a person from smoking in a car with someone under the age of ten is just plain stupid, IMHO. Why ten? And it's the smoker's car, why interfere with her/his rights in their own car when it doesn't really harm anyone?

So you don't see any real risk emanating from the message that this would send out into society generally, that it's perfectly acceptable to imagine, produce, distribute or view sexually explicit images of children, including child molestation, with the intent to arouse(!), provided real children are not involved? You don't see how that message will inevitably be interpreted by many people, and what harm to real children will inevitably result? You really don't see that?!

End of chat buddy. Ciao

Wow. Is that righteous indignation I see rearing it's head?

Yes, I do see the potential, but I don't believe it's really all that much more dangerous than seeing a glorified murder movie, or a glorified war movie, or a glorified bank robbery movie, etc, etc. (When there are no real life children involved). Again, if someone really wants to do something like that, they will no matter what they view. I do not believe an image on a screen can actually translate into something someone will eventually want to do in real life with the real life consequences that come with it.

Now, I can point to studies that show that rape has gone down when there is porn available and gone up when it's restricted. Can you show me that child rape and molestation has gone up when there is virtual child porn allowed or is it just your "feeling based on your extreme views".

In any case, you are giving up.

You said you wanted to be challenged. I am challenging you. Now you are running away simply because your feelings don't agree with mine. You're the one who threw judgments on me and when I confront you with questions, you are taking your ball and running home without answering my counter questions?

I'm sorry, doesn't seem you wanted to be challenged....

Anyway, if you wish to further discuss this with me, (or anyone else would like to), I'll be happy to, even if you feel I am wrong.

I'm not afraid of a challenge nor am I afraid to admit I'm wrong. Sorry, SW, with all respect, you've haven't presented a challenge, you haven't proven me wrong, and you refused to face a challenge fairly without resorting to insult, innuendo and judgment.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I am a non-smoker too, but to stop a person from smoking in a car with someone under the age of ten is just plain stupid, IMHO. Why ten? And it's the smoker's car, why interfere with her/his rights in their own car when it doesn't really harm anyone?

Well it is a question of how much harm it does to the child for one. Or how much right parents get to harm their kids.