Hello, RandFan. Is it not true, though, that laws regarding child protection are less broad, in terms of first amendment rights, than laws regarding what adults might do? There seem to be some major inconsistencies in these laws.
I with I could remember a movie title from a few years ago...someone here may...where a fourteen year old girl participated in a rape scene. Had that been in a pornographic film instead of a film made for the big screen, it would have been completely illegal. That is an inconsistency.
If I walked up to a police officer and said "I would like to kill myself", he is by law going to have to take me to the hospital. But if I were to tell that same police officer "I would like to view child porn", it is protected speech, and he can do nothing unless I act on it. That seems inconsistent.
Another thing I wonder about...this may be too edgy to bring up, but nonetheless, it strikes me as an inconsistency: if a sixteen year old girl in my county has sex, it is perfectly legal with a 24 year old man. She can even marry him. But if that 24 year old man *films* her having sex with him, then the law considers her "harmed", and that man a criminal.
Yes, I know I'm wildly speculating, but so many things come to mind that are completely inconsistent regarding child protection. And technology has made it an even more difficult situation. Teenagers can make and distribute child porn...willingly...and even if they admit it and profit from it and don't harm one another, they are, by law, harming THEMSELVES *and* each other. Children exploiting children, by law. Do we, as a knee jerk reaction, object to three or four fifteen year olds producing their own pornography *as quickly* as we object to an adult and two teens?
These things seem very inconsistent, to me. And perhaps that is why these discussions are nearly impossible. But what is the test now, for obscenity? Isn't it something about what the average person in a community finds objectionable, and community standards or some such thing? Even *that* is inconsistent, because that means that each and every area of the country could have differing laws, based on the prevailing ideaology in that area. Is that how laws are supposed to be applied? And this is what makes this discussion so interesting, to me. How did we even reach the point of our laws becoming so...inconsistent?
When you get a bunch of people you will get inconsistency. It's just the way we are built as humans. There's duality even in each one of us.
The problem is that a government, especially one like the US tries to be, has to come to a compromise between "Protecting the public" and "allowing freedoms". Sometimes these things contradict each other. That's where the inconsistency comes in.
Here's a bit of inconsistency for you. If two consenting adult people in an adults only environment can get banned from the SL because they role play a child-adult sex scene, why can a porno company can make a porno of an adult woman playing a character of "not Cindy Brady" having sex with an older man?
Let me go a little further. Why is the idea of an adult male role playing a child molester with an adult female role playing a twelve year old would most likely bring out a disturbing picture in one's mind, yet the idea of an adult female Dominatrix role playing a mother with an adult male role playing a baby most likely would bring out an amusing image in most people's minds. Both are age play.
Part of it is culture. Clearly, the Japanese have a lot of age play in their culture and cartoons, but do you think every Japanese person is a pedophile? Of course not.
Part of it is our reactions. For example, teenagers may be sending naked pictures of themselves to other people over cell phones, but really, how many of us played doctor, or flashed someone else, when we were young? And, it wasn't always for the sexual thrill, sometimes it was just to get a reaction. To be sure, I'm not advocating that teenagers should do that, because it's stupid and could be embarrassing, but you know, the real damage isn't the exposure of skin, the real damage is
how people react to it. If no big deal is made of the picture or the flash or the game of doctor, usually, nothing happens. But once people make it a big deal, it snowballs.
Part of it is our own thoughts. If someone gets aroused by a picture, whatever it may be, if that person feels badly about getting aroused or is scared of their own reaction, there's another inconsistency.
Part of it circumstances. For example, if a husband and wife often age play with each other, and as a turn on for his wife, he writes a story about him raping her at age sixteen, with the intent of turning her on, is that romantic and loving or sick and depraved or even a mix or all of the above? Well, the answer is "it depends on X and Y and/or Z".
I think sex is the hardest thing to compromise on legally. There are so many different circumstances, thoughts, culture and reactions. The only real consistency, in my humble opinion, is when someone's sexual fantasies aren't enough to remain so. And choose the real thing without care to the harm of others, or even really desiring the real harm of others.
For example, as a Dom, myself, I love to blindfold, tie, spank my girl. But there are limits to it. I don't want her permanently damaged, I don't want her bruised, crying, distrustful, or worried about if I'm going to beat her so badly she'd have to go to the hospital. I love her beyond measure. That's why when I tie her up, I have scissors close by to cut her loose if there is an emergency, that's why she has a safe word and a safe move when it gets too much for her, that's why I only spank her ass, not her face, not her stomach, not her kidneys, and never ever with a closed fist.
There's the line. It's a duality, but it's a safe one. It's easier with one or two people. It gets much much harder with a nation of people.
...sorry for being verbose, but I hope I answered your question.
