Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

On the free speech issue, hasn't it already been established that child pornography is *not* protected speech? By the courts, I mean...not just in our opinions.

So isn't the actual issue we're discussing, rather than the first amendment, how "child pornography" is defined? It seems as though the basic idea is that some people don't believe that "virtual" child pornography qualifies as "actual" child pornography and should therefore be protected by the first amendment.

 

[RandFan]

ETA: I messed up the quotes again. I'm sorry. I stink at the quotes

Don't worry about it. FWIW: Your last tag is not closed. You need to insert a "/" between the "[" and "quote]"

[/quote]

 

[sugarb]

Don't worry about it. FWIW: Your last tag is not closed. You need to insert a "/" between the "[" and "quote]"

[/QUOTE]

Thank you, RandFan. I'll get it, I promise.

 

[RandFan]

On the free speech issue, hasn't it already been established that child pornography is *not* protected speech? By the courts, I mean...not just in our opinions.

So isn't the actual issue we're discussing, rather than the first amendment, how "child pornography" is defined? It seems as though the basic idea is that some people don't believe that "virtual" child pornography qualifies as "actual" child pornography and should therefore be protected by the first amendment.

Child pornograpy isn't protected because to make it a child must engage in illegal activity.

What is interesting is that the ACLU sought to make possesion legal acknowledging that the production (and, I think, distribution) should be illegal. I fought this in California by joining a group aligned against the ACLU. I passed out flyers and worked a telephone bank to inform people. We won.

 

[Toke]

"First they came for the comic collectors"

My issue here is is not so much the principle of free speech, but rather the problem of giving a bunch of prudes* a free pass to jail anybody whose taste in porn they disagree with.
The virtual child porn issue have become a wedge for the idea of porn as obscene and something to be banned.

What about porn that could be construed as endorsing infidelity, or premarital sex?

*What % of US da's are pentagonals, or some other sect?

 

[RandFan]

BTW: I fought against the ACLU because without the consumption of child porn there would be no production or distribution. A person who buys child pornography does so knowing that the production is illegal. A silent conspiracy. The producer engages in illegal activity on behalf of the consumer.

 

[sugarb]

Child pornograpy isn't protected because to make it a child must engage in illegal activity.

What is interesting is that the ACLU sought to make possesion legal acknowledging that the production (and, I think, distribution) should be illegal. I fought this in California by joining a group aligned against the ACLU. I passed out flyers and worked a telephone bank to inform people. We won.

You mean the ACLU fought to make possession of pornographic pictures of actual children legal? Even though, obviously, those pictures record a crime? I did not know that. Good job on you and the group that defeated them.

On another note, since your group *did* win, then would that mean that there is a precedent already against my argument regarding "virtual" child pornography? Meaning...if we classify it all as child pornography and equally wrong, then would that precedent exclude creation and private possession of?

I was thinking, a bit further back in our conversation, about the time it takes to create even semi-realistic virtual photos, and given the huge amount of time, I was wondering if just doing that, for a pedophile, could be therapeutic. Kind of like other forms of therapy, where we can choose to paint or draw pictures of or write about the images that haunt our minds. We can't "make" them go away, but we find ways to cope with them, other outlets for them that don't harm ourselves or others, in other words.

 

[RandFan]

On another note, since your group *did* win, then would that mean that there is a precedent already against my argument regarding "virtual" child pornography? Meaning...if we classify it all as child pornography and equally wrong, then would that precedent exclude creation and private possession of?

By "win" I mean we defeated a bill introduced to make possesion legal.

Given that virtual child porn doesn't requre a child to perform an illegal act then the argument wouldn't hold. Heck, by that logic we could classify any porn where an acress wears a school girl outfit and puts her hair in pig tails as child porn.

 

[sugarb]

By "win" I mean we defeated a bill introduced to make possesion legal.

Given that virtual child porn doesn't requre a child to perform an illegal act then the argument wouldn't hold. Heck, by that logic we could classify any porn where an acress wears a school girl outfit and puts her hair in pig tails as child porn.

True. So then it comes down to the phrase "appears to be". And there is the problem. Using your example of the school girl outfit, we could have two responses: she's dressed like a child but obviously isn't one, or...she's portraying a child. Subjective, depends on who is anwering 'Does she appear to be a child?'

However, I really do think that, given the how would most people view it test, most people would fully acknowledge that was not child pornography. (I think I'm entering the realm of obscentity laws here...) If we gave that test to, as an example, one of the images described as being in the possession of the manga collector, a cartoon of a girl engaging in acts with a dog, would it pass that test?

Again let me state that I personally see nothing wrong with nudity, or depicting people as God made them (yes, I still carry some of my beliefs). I think that the human body is beautifully constructed and worthy of art. But...I don't see any artistic value in creating even cartoon portrayals of children engaging in sexual acts, and then distributing those. I'm simply not able to conceive of any valid reason to do so, other than to satisfy a specific fetish for certain consumers.

 

[sugarb]

I'm repeating myself, and I apologize for that.

I've been searching for studies about virtual child pornography and links to child abuse, and in the interest of full disclosure, I haven't come across anything yet that would demonstrate that virtual child porn carries the same weight as child abuse. But I'm going to continue looking, although I am beginning to doubt it exists.

I do not know how it could ethically be done, but I am a bit surprised that studies haven't been done on this already. Perhaps that is why I cannot find any, though. Would it even be ethical?

 

[JFrankA]

"First they came for the comic collectors"

My issue here is is not so much the principle of free speech, but rather the problem of giving a bunch of prudes* a free pass to jail anybody whose taste in porn they disagree with.
The virtual child porn issue have become a wedge for the idea of porn as obscene and something to be banned.

What about porn that could be construed as endorsing infidelity, or premarital sex?

Given that virtual child porn doesn't requre a child to perform an illegal act then the argument wouldn't hold. Heck, by that logic we could classify any porn where an acress wears a school girl outfit and puts her hair in pig tails as child porn.

Bingo.

That's one reason I believe virtual child porn should be legal. If one can say that in a comic book, a line drawing, of a child having sex, even if the intent is to anger the reader and hope for the child to be rescued as a crime, and two consenting adults who are age playing in an adults-only environment in their own virtual house can be arrested can also be a crime, the next step is what RandFan just said.

After that, what's next?

Could an adult man and woman be arrested for age playing in their own house if some passerby saw it happening from the outside? I believe we are heading that way because a man was arrested for being naked in his own home, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157192 and two adults have been banned from SL for what I just mentioned above. The next step is a possibility.

For example, I know that there is a sheriff, (I believe he's in Florida), who says that acting in a porno movie is prostitution and he will personally arrest anyone who comes into his county who is known to be in a porno movie for prostitution.

SW calls me paranoid. I still say it is valid to be aware of what people might do in order to pave that road to hell with good intentions.

That's why, though I real child porn disgusts me, and age play is something I do not do (and believe me, I'm pretty freaky, ), I will fight for the right to have this kind of media legal, as long as no real children (or innocent adults, for that matter) are hurt, molested and/or abused.

And I am sorry if I sound abrasive, SugarB, I don't mean to. I completely understand and respect your opinion and view. I just felt the need to...soapbox.

 

[RandFan]

True. So then it comes down to the phrase "appears to be". And there is the problem. Using your example of the school girl outfit, we could have two responses: she's dressed like a child but obviously isn't one, or...she's portraying a child. Subjective, depends on who is anwering 'Does she appear to be a child?'

However, I really do think that, given the how would most people view it test, most people would fully acknowledge that was not child pornography. (I think I'm entering the realm of obscentity laws here...) If we gave that test to, as an example, one of the images described as being in the possession of the manga collector, a cartoon of a girl engaging in acts with a dog, would it pass that test?

Again let me state that I personally see nothing wrong with nudity, or depicting people as God made them (yes, I still carry some of my beliefs). I think that the human body is beautifully constructed and worthy of art. But...I don't see any artistic value in creating even cartoon portrayals of children engaging in sexual acts, and then distributing those. I'm simply not able to conceive of any valid reason to do so, other than to satisfy a specific fetish for certain consumers.

I understand. I really do. I've said over and over that I don't find anything redeeming in the material (VCP) but I'm skeptical of my intuition and I'm none too keen to trust anyone else's censorial instinct. Like the video example I gave I'd rather not start carving out exceptions. Pornography that features real children is illegal because it requires the participation of individuals that can't give legal consent.

BTW: I find the idea of pornography with rape themes particularly abhorrent. I place at bottom of the list of what I think of as "evil", harming children and rape along with murder. I should add that I've never seen Natural Born Killers and I never intend to see it. What I do know about it disturbs me. On the other hand I liked Pulp Fiction. I have the CD. I think I have reason to be skeptical of my intuition as to taste and what I find socially or artistically redeeming.

 

[JFrankA]

True. So then it comes down to the phrase "appears to be". And there is the problem. Using your example of the school girl outfit, we could have two responses: she's dressed like a child but obviously isn't one, or...she's portraying a child. Subjective, depends on who is anwering 'Does she appear to be a child?'

However, I really do think that, given the how would most people view it test, most people would fully acknowledge that was not child pornography. (I think I'm entering the realm of obscentity laws here...) If we gave that test to, as an example, one of the images described as being in the possession of the manga collector, a cartoon of a girl engaging in acts with a dog, would it pass that test?

Again let me state that I personally see nothing wrong with nudity, or depicting people as God made them (yes, I still carry some of my beliefs). I think that the human body is beautifully constructed and worthy of art. But...I don't see any artistic value in creating even cartoon portrayals of children engaging in sexual acts, and then distributing those. I'm simply not able to conceive of any valid reason to do so, other than to satisfy a specific fetish for certain consumers.

If I may, let me propose this hypothetical to you:

Let's say that there is a man who is attracted to children. He knows what he desires is bad and very dangerous to children, and he has no adult partner to age play with.

So he buys Manga with children being raped (to emphasize, he buys virtual child porn only), to release himself alone safely. Manga is his only outlet for his desires. Whenever he has the urge, he goes to his collection and uses that for his outlet. He never ever molests a child because he consciously decides that the Manga is enough for him until he finds a willing adult partner to indulge his fantasy with.

.....now is the virtual child porn doing a bad thing here?

 

[sugarb]

If I may, let me propose this hypothetical to you:

Let's say that there is a man who is attracted to children. He knows what he desires is bad and very dangerous to children, and he has no adult partner to age play with.

So he buys Manga with children being raped (to emphasize, he buys virtual child porn only), to release himself alone safely. Manga is his only outlet for his desires. Whenever he has the urge, he goes to his collection and uses that for his outlet. He never ever molests a child because he consciously decides that the Manga is enough for him until he finds a willing adult partner to indulge his fantasy with.

.....now is the virtual child porn doing a bad thing here?

I need to respond to the previous posts, but let me get the hypothetical in first.

JFrankA, the truth is that I don't think I could answer that question honestly. It would depend on the individual. Perhaps it isn't doing a bad thing...if he never moves beyond his collection of images. I don't think that pornography itself can "do" anything other than sit there and be viewed, much like I don't think guns can suddenly come to life and start killing people all on their own. But what they both *can* encourage is, for people lacking self control or for people with certain pathologies (is pedophila a pathological problem?) sort of encourage a person to think themselves more powerful, invincible, kind of...what's the word?...solidify certain irrational ideas. 'I can use this gun to control anyone' without actually even considering the gun will kill. 'I can exert power over any child' without realizing the difference between the collection and a "real" child.

Sexual things seem to work mainly on our minds and, in fact, sexual reactions create certain chemical processes that make us feel "good". Your comparison earlier to drugs is probably a better one than a comparison to guns. So let me ask you a few questions. (Tell me if I'm getting out of line on this)

First of all, speaking of sex, have you experienced the feeling of almost complete dissociation with your "self"? In other words, how would most people word this?...has it ever propelled you into a state in which, to your opinion, no drug could ever compare?

Secondly, then, if it has (and if it has not, then no need to go further), can you see how, with both drugs and sexual materials, anything that is temporarily mind altering, it is impossible to assess the risks that certain individuals might pose?

I am sure we are both aware, for example, of instances in which "play" has turned deadly. Bad decisions, ignorance, over-stimulation, whatever the reason, for some people...and I stress *some*...it can cause real harm or even death. Do we agree there? And yet, in "play" we are talking about two adults. Right?

How would you react if an adult wanted to "play" with a sixteen year old "slave"? Would you view that as equal to two adults? Do you think that a sixteen year old girl could adequately determine her own safety, or defend herself in any useful way against the onslaught of the other adult? And remember, all adults don't "play" responsibly.

In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, although maybe some here can relate to what I am saying, sex in and of itself is harmless. BUT...for *some* of us, what it does to our *minds*, even if temporary, can truly be "not good". And I think realizing that (because I freely admit to, even as an adult, going so deep into my own mind that some minor harm came to me), as grown ups, means that we need to very, very seriously consider at least the possibility of how *some* people can be led to harm children by having their fantasies perpetuated through distributed materials.

Now...I do not know about most people in terms of how sex affects their minds. For all I know, most people just go through the motions with little mental involvement and that's all well and good to them. But on a personal level I am keenly aware of the possibilities that exist for our sexual leanings to cause harm to ourselves or others. As such, I simply believe with all my heart that we should never in any way encourage, or make "normal and acceptable" the distribution or sale of anything that points to children as sexual objects.

That's the only way I know to answer your question. Maybe I'm simply overthinking the topic. I do that sometimes, and if so, I don't mean to.

 

[sugarb]

Bingo.

That's one reason I believe virtual child porn should be legal. If one can say that in a comic book, a line drawing, of a child having sex, even if the intent is to anger the reader and hope for the child to be rescued as a crime, and two consenting adults who are age playing in an adults-only environment in their own virtual house can be arrested can also be a crime, the next step is what RandFan just said.

After that, what's next?

Could an adult man and woman be arrested for age playing in their own house if some passerby saw it happening from the outside? I believe we are heading that way because a man was arrested for being naked in his own home, http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=157192 and two adults have been banned from SL for what I just mentioned above. The next step is a possibility.

For example, I know that there is a sheriff, (I believe he's in Florida), who says that acting in a porno movie is prostitution and he will personally arrest anyone who comes into his county who is known to be in a porno movie for prostitution.

SW calls me paranoid. I still say it is valid to be aware of what people might do in order to pave that road to hell with good intentions.

That's why, though I real child porn disgusts me, and age play is something I do not do (and believe me, I'm pretty freaky, ), I will fight for the right to have this kind of media legal, as long as no real children (or innocent adults, for that matter) are hurt, molested and/or abused.

And I am sorry if I sound abrasive, SugarB, I don't mean to. I completely understand and respect your opinion and view. I just felt the need to...soapbox.

That didn't come across as abrasive, or soapboxing. As a smoker, since it is a comparison also made earlier, I am very aware of how easily hysteria can be used to violate rights. And how far some people will propose injecting government into our private lives. And I understand even the paranoia...I am a bit paranoid about certain things, too. And with good reason, I think.

'Just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you...' Nevermind

 

[sugarb]

I understand. I really do. I've said over and over that I don't find anything redeeming in the material (VCP) but I'm skeptical of my intuition and I'm none too keen to trust anyone else's censorial instinct. Like the video example I gave I'd rather not start carving out exceptions. Pornography that features real children is illegal because it requires the participation of individuals that can't give legal consent.

BTW: I find the idea of pornography with rape themes particularly abhorrent. I place at bottom of the list of what I think of as "evil", harming children and rape along with murder. I should add that I've never seen Natural Born Killers and I never intend to see it. What I do know about it disturbs me. On the other hand I liked Pulp Fiction. I have the CD. I think I have reason to be skeptical of my intuition as to taste and what I find socially or artistically redeeming.

Yes, I understand that. There are some things I also find abhorrent...but...I wouldn't call for a ban on them because I do realize that my own life and experiences has shaped my beliefs and reactions to certain things. Not everyone will feel the same or be affected in the same ways or what have you. I can't say I totally trust myself when it comes to censorship, either.

Another pretty good point I've been reading in my searches is that, by attempting to force prosecution of virtual child pornography, we are simply removing and lessening the resources to find, stop, and prosecute abusers of very real, living breathing and feeling children. That point itself hits a major nerve for me.

 

[Toke]

Another pretty good point I've been reading in my searches is that, by attempting to force prosecution of virtual child pornography, we are simply removing and lessening the resources to find, stop, and prosecute abusers of very real, living breathing and feeling children. That point itself hits a major nerve for me.

That is a practical problem in enforcement, I am more concerned about the wedge angle.
We have to stand up for even the most outrageous non-harming porn to avoid being next.

It is not that long ago porn was decriminalized, and I am sure there are people wanting to turn that back.


(I also wonder if the expansion of the child porn definition will make it meaningless and unenforceable)

 

[sugarb]

That is a practical problem in enforcement, I am more concerned about the wedge angle.
We have to stand up for even the most outrageous non-harming porn to avoid being next.

It is not that long ago porn was decriminalized, and I am sure there are people wanting to turn that back.


(I also wonder if the expansion of the child porn definition will make it meaningless and unenforceable)

Oh I am positive there are people who would make it all illegal. Few of my friends feel that way...but...that's the point, isn't it? A few *do* feel that way.

Sadly, the ones feeling that way are generally unwilling to differentiate between adults and children. To them, all pornography is evil. All nude art is evil. Nakedness is unholy, or whatever. (Maybe I'm exaggerating there, lol)

 

[Toke]

All nude art is evil. Nakedness is unholy, or whatever. (Maybe I'm exaggerating there, lol)

I am afraid you are not exaggerating, the Taliban is one loud example, there are others.

 

[JFrankA]

I need to respond to the previous posts, but let me get the hypothetical in first.

JFrankA, the truth is that I don't think I could answer that question honestly. It would depend on the individual. Perhaps it isn't doing a bad thing...if he never moves beyond his collection of images. I don't think that pornography itself can "do" anything other than sit there and be viewed, much like I don't think guns can suddenly come to life and start killing people all on their own. But what they both *can* encourage is, for people lacking self control or for people with certain pathologies (is pedophila a pathological problem?) sort of encourage a person to think themselves more powerful, invincible, kind of...what's the word?...solidify certain irrational ideas. 'I can use this gun to control anyone' without actually even considering the gun will kill. 'I can exert power over any child' without realizing the difference between the collection and a "real" child.

Sexual things seem to work mainly on our minds and, in fact, sexual reactions create certain chemical processes that make us feel "good". Your comparison earlier to drugs is probably a better one than a comparison to guns. So let me ask you a few questions. (Tell me if I'm getting out of line on this)

First of all, speaking of sex, have you experienced the feeling of almost complete dissociation with your "self"? In other words, how would most people word this?...has it ever propelled you into a state in which, to your opinion, no drug could ever compare?

Secondly, then, if it has (and if it has not, then no need to go further), can you see how, with both drugs and sexual materials, anything that is temporarily mind altering, it is impossible to assess the risks that certain individuals might pose?

I am sure we are both aware, for example, of instances in which "play" has turned deadly. Bad decisions, ignorance, over-stimulation, whatever the reason, for some people...and I stress *some*...it can cause real harm or even death. Do we agree there? And yet, in "play" we are talking about two adults. Right?

How would you react if an adult wanted to "play" with a sixteen year old "slave"? Would you view that as equal to two adults? Do you think that a sixteen year old girl could adequately determine her own safety, or defend herself in any useful way against the onslaught of the other adult? And remember, all adults don't "play" responsibly.

In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, although maybe some here can relate to what I am saying, sex in and of itself is harmless. BUT...for *some* of us, what it does to our *minds*, even if temporary, can truly be "not good". And I think realizing that (because I freely admit to, even as an adult, going so deep into my own mind that some minor harm came to me), as grown ups, means that we need to very, very seriously consider at least the possibility of how *some* people can be led to harm children by having their fantasies perpetuated through distributed materials.

Now...I do not know about most people in terms of how sex affects their minds. For all I know, most people just go through the motions with little mental involvement and that's all well and good to them. But on a personal level I am keenly aware of the possibilities that exist for our sexual leanings to cause harm to ourselves or others. As such, I simply believe with all my heart that we should never in any way encourage, or make "normal and acceptable" the distribution or sale of anything that points to children as sexual objects.

That's the only way I know to answer your question. Maybe I'm simply overthinking the topic. I do that sometimes, and if so, I don't mean to.

I assure you, in my opinion, you are not overthinking. But you know, you are talking to a chronic overthinker, so, it's fine. And your questions are more than fair.

First of all, speaking of sex, have you experienced the feeling of almost complete dissociation with your "self"? In other words, how would most people word this?...has it ever propelled you into a state in which, to your opinion, no drug could ever compare?

I know exactly what you are talking about. I often perform adult stage hypnosis/magic shows, and this dissociation is part of what people experience with that. So personally, no. I am someone who is always thinking. I don't do drugs because I really don't like feeling high. I enjoy watching others experience the sensation far more than experiencing it myself. Even when I am being Dominating in a sexual situation, I enjoy being the one the submissive depends on. So I will never feel that feeling dissociation, this is by choice.

If I may be personal, as a Dom, I do not like being called "Master". In fact, my girlfriend calls me "Owner" when we play. To me, an "Owner" is someone who treasures and takes care of what they own. Being called "Master" makes me feel like I'm disconnected from my submissive. You can say it makes me feel less dissociated by her calling me "Owner".

Secondly, then, if it has (and if it has not, then no need to go further), can you see how, with both drugs and sexual materials, anything that is temporarily mind altering, it is impossible to assess the risks that certain individuals might pose?

I will answer this as best I can because I know that submissives (and the participants to my show) can feel that way. However, there's a big difference between drugs and sex. With drugs, there is no control. There is no choice. Once one is under the influence of a drug, the chemical is causing misfiring within the brain: misfirings that no biological process can do (unless one is brain damaged or psychopathic).

Sex (and I'm going to speak of it without drugs involved in sex) is always biological. As a hypnotist and a Dom, I know for a fact no submissive would allow herself/himself to get to that dissociative state without trust or desire. As a hypnotist, I can tell you with certainty that no person can be hypnotized unless they want to be.

In short, in all cases (that do not include drugs being involved) the choice to be dissociative is just that: The person's choice. The only exception to that rule is someone being brainwashed or tortured.

So if someone gets "wrapped up" in the moment be it sex, or hypnosis, or watching a movie, or a book, or a sporting event, etc, etc, if there is no drugs involved, I feel that that dissociative feeling is because the person has decided that they want to feel that way.

Even your own statement shows that:

I am sure we are both aware, for example, of instances in which "play" has turned deadly. Bad decisions, ignorance, over-stimulation, whatever the reason, for some people...and I stress *some*...it can cause real harm or even death. Do we agree there? And yet, in "play" we are talking about two adults. Right?

The factors I bolded are all choices: Bad decisions are a choice to do one thing or another, ignorance is a choice to learn or not, over-stimulation can chosen to be stopped. In the end, the play doesn't have to go into a bad situation if the participants don't want it to.

How would you react if an adult wanted to "play" with a sixteen year old "slave"? Would you view that as equal to two adults?

If that person wants to for real, but has decided and chosen to just keep it to age-play, then it wouldn't phase me. But if that person(s) actually want to have sex with a sixteen year old, without regard of the circumstance, not caring about the circumstance, or even desiring the circumstances, then that is a completely different story for me. And as a side note, to be honest, I know far more females who love to age play (on both sides of the age) than males.

Do you think that a sixteen year old girl could adequately determine her own safety, or defend herself in any useful way against the onslaught of the other adult? And remember, all adults don't "play" responsibly.

For most of them, no I do not. In fact, I know a lot of adults my age who can't either. It also depends on the circumstances, but generally, no.

In my opinion, and it is just my opinion, although maybe some here can relate to what I am saying, sex in and of itself is harmless. BUT...for *some* of us, what it does to our *minds*, even if temporary, can truly be "not good". And I think realizing that (because I freely admit to, even as an adult, going so deep into my own mind that some minor harm came to me), as grown ups, means that we need to very, very seriously consider at least the possibility of how *some* people can be led to harm children by having their fantasies perpetuated through distributed materials.

As you can see, it's my opinion that sex does something "bad to our minds" then that person has already made those choices to begin with. It's not the sex that does it, it's that person decision to go there.

Now...I do not know about most people in terms of how sex affects their minds. For all I know, most people just go through the motions with little mental involvement and that's all well and good to them. But on a personal level I am keenly aware of the possibilities that exist for our sexual leanings to cause harm to ourselves or others.

You know, you could say the same about food. See, I was 320 pounds in 2003, by 2005, I dropped to 185. It's because I chose to not allow myself to let myself be dangerous to myself with food.

It's a matter of choice. Allow me to illustrate: Let me add to the last sentence for you, if I may, and apply it to myself and my opinion:

On a personal level I am keenly aware of the possibilities that exist for my sexual leanings to cause harm to ourselves or others but I choose to not allow it to get that way because I am also keenly aware of how that real harm will take away the sexual pleasure from me and my partner.

This is why I think SW is wrong when he says one resists the real thing. It's not resisting it. It's simply not desire it.

As such, I simply believe with all my heart that we should never in any way encourage, or make "normal and acceptable" the distribution or sale of anything that points to children as sexual objects.

Just because it's distributed doesn't mean it's "normal and acceptable". The Saw movies are distributed and most people would not consider the kind of behavior shown in the main character as "normal and acceptable", yet he seems to win in every movie. (I haven't seen 5 and 6 yet, please don't give it away if I'm wrong about those ).

I'm sorry, SugarB, I still don't see why one can say "VCP is saying that child abuse and molestation is 'normal and acceptable' but movies like Saw or violent video games are not saying that killing and torture is 'normal and acceptable'".

If it's true for porn, it must be true for all media. And it isn't.

ETA: sorry for the long post, I wanted to answer your questions a fully and a honestly as I could.