Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[RandFan]

Pretend that I've written what Meese wrote (as I previously posted) instead of Meese writing it, if you like, but in a more general context than he did, if that helps.

Ok, fair enough. What else do you want to ban? Why shouldn't your words apply to other areas? You are in effect special pleading. Here we have arguments for one thing and you are arguing that the arguments are persuasive but not for what the arguments were made for.

Doesn't help me. I was hoping for your view, though, not his.

It's not something I'm particularly interested in commenting on. He is and I couldn't do a better job than he did. It's a decision that you will have to make.

 

[RandFan]

*sigh* If he wants to conduct this debate honestly, he should unignore us and see that most of his questions have already been answered. -.-

I understand your frustration.

 

[MontagK505]

We already do.

http://www.asacp.org/

ETA: Whoops. Forgot the RTA label: http://rtalabel.org/index.php?content=

(might want to pass that site along to our buddy there )

As to the government regulations, here's the 2257 law that all adult businesses must follow.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

That regulation has been changed and fought a lot over the Bush years. At one point it was so confusing even the lawyers of the big adult industries didn't understand it. And they demanded that the keeper of the records of proof of ID has a hard copy list of each and every website that any of the images they owned appeared in.

It's still being tinkered with: they adult industry just wants to make it so they have documented legal proof of age, but opponents of porn want to make it so complicated, that if you miss one thing, you are charged with possible child porn.

A classic example of the wedge strategy.
If you use mo cap to make virtual porn would the same rules apply? If, in the future, virtual porn becomes indistinguishable from real porn, the law would then be in the business of prosecuting esthetics because no real objects exist.

 

[JFrankA]

You know, SW, if you are brave enough to unignore me, I have a question for you:

If VCP is banned on the basis that it there is a possibility of it causing a potential child molester to harm a child, then porn depicting rape fantasies (read: not real rape) should be banned because there is a possibility of it causing a potential rapist to harm a woman.

The same can be said about kidnapping porn and all forms of BDSM porn. All could be banned on the possibility that someone will see it and think that this is okay to do and harm some innocent person.

In fact, the only porn left would be, what you called in distaste, "marshmallow porn".

Do you see, if you are opening your eyes at all, what the problem is with your logic?

 

[sugarb]

With respect sugarb, this is an open forum.


I'm sorry - I didn't mean to (see below)


I can assure you that's not the case sugarb.


As usual, I sought to choose my sentence structuring carefully, but you've clearly misinterpreted it, so maybe not quite carefully enough. Allow me to explain:
First, regarding any suggestion that you, personally, are easily influenced, yes, I admit that's claimed in my post, because I believe I've seen plenty of evidence for it here in this thread. I don't think there's any mileage in identifying it to you, unless you see that as constructive, in which case I'd be happy to.
Second, rather than finding the rest of my post insulting you should, if you read it carefully, actually find it complementary. The fact that I have claimed that Randfan is insulting anybody to whom he directs the tactict demonstrates that I consider that you, personally, should find it insulting. Of course, that depends entirely on whether you see what I see and agree! Regardless, by definition, the fact that I consider that you, personally, should find it insulting puts you fairly and squarely in the category of people "with a modicum of intelligence" (which, of course, means "at least a modicum of intelligence"). That category of person, incidentally, includes most people in this thread (at least), most members of this Forum, James Randi himself, Michelle Obama, Edward Kennedy and Ted Turner, to name but a few. So, you shouldn't feel at all offended.
Third, the words "are prepared to admit seeing it or not" at the end were deliberately inserted because I was pretty sure you would seek to diffuse my allegation by claiming not to agree with me. That's just the non-confrontational person you've showed yourself to be, generally(!)(and please accept that as a complement, too).
I hope that serves to clarify matters.

Southwind17, okay then. You are correct in that I am in some ways easily influenced. Not on this though, I assure you. But you are also as right as right can be about being non-confrontational. (most of the time) I am going to continue to follow this. Perhaps you will find what I could not. And...I do agree with you on the child pornography issue. I'd not back away from that postion. Everyone is in agreement, it seems, until we come to virtual...and I'm simply unable to find "proof" of a link. To *me*, not differentiating between "real" and "virtual" there is an obvious link, and the very subject matter, to my mind, creates a link. But...I'm not finding any studies to suggest that. (I'm wondering if any have even been done)

 

[Southwind17]

Ok, fair enough. What else do you want to ban? Why shouldn't your words apply to other areas? You are in effect special pleading. Here we have arguments for one thing and you are arguing that the arguments are persuasive but not for what the arguments were made for.

I don't particularly want to ban anything, but perhaps the bottom line is the words maybe should apply to other areas. Indeed, I'd be very surprised if the principles that have formed the basis of the latter part of the debate in this thread didn't translate to other aspects of life. Accordingly, I don't see it as special pleading at all. In all likelihood there's probably nothing particularly "special" about VCP when it comes to the principle of whether it should be banned or not.

It's not something I'm particularly interested in commenting on. He is and I couldn't do a better job than he did. It's a decision that you will have to make.

It seems to me more a case of being a decision you've already made, actually, so I'll take JFrankA's said post to be of little-to-no relevance to our discussion.

 

[Southwind17]

I understand your frustration.

Ironically, so do I, but there you go!

 

[Southwind17]

Everyone is in agreement, it seems, until we come to virtual...and I'm simply unable to find "proof" of a link. To *me*, not differentiating between "real" and "virtual" there is an obvious link, and the very subject matter, to my mind, creates a link. But...I'm not finding any studies to suggest that. (I'm wondering if any have even been done)

I was pondering this thread whilst driving home tonight (as I probably have done all week!), trying to reconcile in my mind how and why we've arrived at the point in the thread where we're at, and trying to consolidate my thought process. Now this is more of, if not wholly, a philosophical thought, but I'm a strong believer that, contrary to Blondie's advice to Tuco that there are two types of people in this World - those with guns and those who dig - there is, essentially, every type of person in this World, indeed lots of every type of person. Now, obviously, that's a slight tongue-in-cheek statement, but when you look at the almost unbelievable behaviour of many people (and only those who are brought to our attention!), I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there are many, many people out there who are, on a daily basis, moved to molest children by external stimuli, admittedly probably with a predisposition to molest already, but not necessarily. Those stimuli could comprise one or a number from a multitiude, but that multitude undoubtedly includes child porn, possibly virtual child porn, which can be considered a major subset of all such stimuli.

To my mind, the only sensible question is: does this justify banning virtual child porn given the cost/benefit trade off? Considering the marginal sector of society that arguably benefits from the subset of virtual child porn that could be deemed "incidental", I would say so. The problem, of couse, lies in not having a suitable legislative mechanism that doesn't have unacceptable "side-effects". Is that good reason not to seek to find a solution somewhere within what's currently at our disposal? Yes - probaby. Is it good reason not to seek to change what we have somehow? I don't think so. I don't know the solution, but I think society would be a whole lot better for one.

 

[JFrankA]

I was pondering this thread whilst driving home tonight (as I probably have done all week!), trying to reconcile in my mind how and why we've arrived at the point in the thread where we're at, and trying to consolidate my thought process. Now this is more of, if not wholly, a philosophical thought, but I'm a strong believer that, contrary to Blondie's advice to Tuco that there are two types of people in this World - those with guns and those who dig - there is, essentially, every type of person in this World, indeed lots of every type of person. Now, obviously, that's a slight tongue-in-cheek statement, but when you look at the almost unbelievable behaviour of many people (and only those who are brought to our attention!), I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there are many, many people out there who are, on a daily basis, moved to molest children by external stimuli, admittedly probably with a predisposition to molest already, but not necessarily. Those stimuli could comprise one or a number from a multitiude, but that multitude undoubtedly includes child porn, possibly virtual child porn, which can be considered a major subset of all such stimuli.

To my mind, the only sensible question is: does this justify banning virtual child porn given the cost/benefit trade off? Considering the marginal sector of society that arguably benefits from the subset of virtual child porn that could be deemed "incidental", I would say so. The problem, of couse, lies in not having a suitable legislative mechanism that doesn't have unacceptable "side-effects". Is that good reason not to seek to find a solution somewhere within what's currently at our disposal? Yes - probaby. Is it good reason not to seek to change what we have somehow? I don't think so. I don't know the solution, but I think society would be a whole lot better for one.

And if you were brave enough to stop pontificating and get off your high horse and face the challenge you asked for at the beginning of this thread, you would see how your idea of stopping ideas and speech that you don't like, which you have, in fact, done yourself in the case of a few people here, has not only proven my point, but has ruined this discussion and made yourself look foolish.

Sorry, SW, I call them as I see them. I may not agree with you, but I refuse to quiet your voice or ignore it.

 

[sugarb]

I was pondering this thread whilst driving home tonight (as I probably have done all week!), trying to reconcile in my mind how and why we've arrived at the point in the thread where we're at, and trying to consolidate my thought process. Now this is more of, if not wholly, a philosophical thought, but I'm a strong believer that, contrary to Blondie's advice to Tuco that there are two types of people in this World - those with guns and those who dig - there is, essentially, every type of person in this World, indeed lots of every type of person. Now, obviously, that's a slight tongue-in-cheek statement, but when you look at the almost unbelievable behaviour of many people (and only those who are brought to our attention!), I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there are many, many people out there who are, on a daily basis, moved to molest children by external stimuli, admittedly probably with a predisposition to molest already, but not necessarily. Those stimuli could comprise one or a number from a multitiude, but that multitude undoubtedly includes child porn, possibly virtual child porn, which can be considered a major subset of all such stimuli.

To my mind, the only sensible question is: does this justify banning virtual child porn given the cost/benefit trade off? Considering the marginal sector of society that arguably benefits from the subset of virtual child porn that could be deemed "incidental", I would say so. The problem, of couse, lies in not having a suitable legislative mechanism that doesn't have unacceptable "side-effects". Is that good reason not to seek to find a solution somewhere within what's currently at our disposal? Yes - probaby. Is it good reason not to seek to change what we have somehow? I don't think so. I don't know the solution, but I think society would be a whole lot better for one.

Lovely post, Southwind17. And I do agree with you. In fact, I was preparing to add something to the discussion that I was just reading about, and to retract one of my earlier statements that I suspected the numbers of offenders in this category would be quite low.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/innocent.htm

This is just the US, and of course as more resources were allocated, we would expect to see an increase in cases/prosecutions. But there are some big increases in a relatively short period of time (and according to that page, they only prosecute the worst cases...which leads me to wonder exactly what the number of offenders they track down are).

I was also reading, earlier today, the international laws regarding child pornography, and I think the interpol definition of child pornography is rather interesting. I believe it would, arguably, encompass virtual child pornography as well. It was also a little bit shocking to see how many member states utterly fail at having laws to protect children from pedophiles/pornographers.

The more I look for information on this, the more stunning it becomes, all of the child pornography rings busted, all over the world. I knew that it was a problem. I had no idea how HUGE the problem was...

 

[RandFan]

I don't particularly want to ban anything, but perhaps the bottom line is the words maybe should apply to other areas. Indeed, I'd be very surprised if the principles that have formed the basis of the latter part of the debate in this thread didn't translate to other aspects of life. Accordingly, I don't see it as special pleading at all. In all likelihood there's probably nothing particularly "special" about VCP when it comes to the principle of whether it should be banned or not.

I'll keep an open mind. As it is there is nothing in the Meese report that I've seen so far that would cause me to call for action.

 

[Southwind17]

I'll keep an open mind. As it is there is nothing in the Meese report that I've seen so far that would cause me to call for action.

Just to be clear, by "other areas", I mean areas way outside the scope of pornography.

 

[JFrankA]

Lovely post, Southwind17. And I do agree with you. In fact, I was preparing to add something to the discussion that I was just reading about, and to retract one of my earlier statements that I suspected the numbers of offenders in this category would be quite low.

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/innocent.htm

This is just the US, and of course as more resources were allocated, we would expect to see an increase in cases/prosecutions. But there are some big increases in a relatively short period of time (and according to that page, they only prosecute the worst cases...which leads me to wonder exactly what the number of offenders they track down are).

I was also reading, earlier today, the international laws regarding child pornography, and I think the interpol definition of child pornography is rather interesting. I believe it would, arguably, encompass virtual child pornography as well. It was also a little bit shocking to see how many member states utterly fail at having laws to protect children from pedophiles/pornographers.

The more I look for information on this, the more stunning it becomes, all of the child pornography rings busted, all over the world. I knew that it was a problem. I had no idea how HUGE the problem was...

It is huge and sad, but SugarB, if there is no child involved in the production, is a child harmed? That's the bottom line.

Oh sure, there's a slight chance of a child being harmed of a pedophile watches VCP, however, one could say the same for fantasy rape porn, or BDSM porn.

Where should the line be?

SW is convinced that the little chance that a person who watches VCP and commit the crime is worth the ban (or not ban, or whatever, he's very unclear as to his solution), but if that attitude is taken, then BDSM would certainly follow. And real life consenting adults could be arrested for age play. It's possible. It's happened when they were doing it virtually.

Yes, child porn and child exploration is a problem. But we are wasting time arresting people with comic books. Is it really worth persecuting and punishing 1000 people incorrectly for child porn to catch 10 child molesters? (I know, I'm just grabbing at numbers).

I know it's protecting children, I get that and believe me, I don't want one child harmed or abused. But this easily becomes a witch hunt. Very easily. And if it starts with VCP, don't you think that BDSM would be next? It's the same mentality. Exactly the same.

This is why I fight it. This is why I disagree with SW. People are innocent until proven guilty. Making VCP illegal is making people guilty until proven innocent.

 

[RandFan]

...but when you look at the almost unbelievable behaviour of many people (and only those who are brought to our attention!), I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there are many, many people out there who are, on a daily basis, moved to molest children by external stimuli, admittedly probably with a predisposition to molest already, but not necessarily. Those stimuli could comprise one or a number from a multitiude, but that multitude undoubtedly includes child porn, possibly virtual child porn, which can be considered a major subset of all such stimuli.

I was raised with an unhealthy view of sexuality and sexual images. Like Ted Haggard and the religiously Conservative Idaho senator who prowled public restrooms for sex I took a hard line view of sexual vice all the while I was consuming lots of pornography. I believed porn was evil but I was addicted to it. I believed that it was the porn that caused my problems.

I went to therapy. My therapist assured me that such problems have little to do with porn. Porn is the end result of other problems and not the cause of problems. This was while I was in the University so I studies psychology and sociology and read everything I could get my hands on. What I found out leads me to a point where I can't accept your proposition. It's possible that pornography can be causative to something but there just is no incontrovertible evidence that there is. On the contrary there is significant evidence that there is no causal link.

It's easy to find causal links in our brains. It's called confirmation bias. However, science is about controlling for confirmation bias. We don't simply accept things because they seem to us to be true. I've encountered people who know without a doubt evolution isn't true, that ghosts exist, that Joseph Smith spoke with god and that the sun danced in the sky at Fatima. All of which is without a shred of evidence.

IMHO, before we seek solutions we ought to know what the problem is exactly. Child molestation is a very insidious problem. But our fear and abhorrence of this pernicious evil (yes I believe it is evil) should be tempered. We only need look to modern day witch hunts (Day care sex abuse hysteria ) to know that we need more than fear and speculation to act.

 

[Toke]

IMHO, before we seek solutions we ought to know what the problem is exactly. Child molestation is a very insidious problem. But our fear and abhorrence of this pernicious evil (yes I believe it is evil) should be tempered. We only need look to modern day witch hunts (Day care sex abuse hysteria ) to know that we need more than fear and speculation to act.

Agree.

Actually the original european witch hunts were in many cases* done for the sake of the children. It was firmly believed that the witches brought children to the devil for all-night orgies. Child witnesses were an important part of the process.
*At least a majority of swedish cases.

 

[sugarb]

It is huge and sad, but SugarB, if there is no child involved in the production, is a child harmed? That's the bottom line.

Oh sure, there's a slight chance of a child being harmed of a pedophile watches VCP, however, one could say the same for fantasy rape porn, or BDSM porn.

Where should the line be?

SW is convinced that the little chance that a person who watches VCP and commit the crime is worth the ban (or not ban, or whatever, he's very unclear as to his solution), but if that attitude is taken, then BDSM would certainly follow. And real life consenting adults could be arrested for age play. It's possible. It's happened when they were doing it virtually.

Yes, child porn and child exploration is a problem. But we are wasting time arresting people with comic books. Is it really worth persecuting and punishing 1000 people incorrectly for child porn to catch 10 child molesters? (I know, I'm just grabbing at numbers).

I know it's protecting children, I get that and believe me, I don't want one child harmed or abused. But this easily becomes a witch hunt. Very easily. And if it starts with VCP, don't you think that BDSM would be next? It's the same mentality. Exactly the same.

This is why I fight it. This is why I disagree with SW. People are innocent until proven guilty. Making VCP illegal is making people guilty until proven innocent.

JFrankA, I understand your position. Actually, a few moments ago I read another statistic (didn't save the link I don't think) that says: less the 1% of children identified in child pornography are found and rescued. I'm not sure it gets any sadder than that.

Yes, it could become a witch hunt...actually, with regards to BDSM, in some places it doesn't matter if you consented to what was being done, if you are harmed, your partner will be arrested. We aren't allowed (I guess) to consent to harm. Prosecution would be difficult...depending. Better know your partners well.

I'm just going to repeat myself again if I go further. Basically, I still feel that there is a difference (and I like to think that reasonable adults would agree...although yes, I realize that usually isn't how things work)...that there is a difference regarding children and sex, and adults and sex.

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA, I understand your position. Actually, a few moments ago I read another statistic (didn't save the link I don't think) that says: less the 1% of children identified in child pornography are found and rescued. I'm not sure it gets any sadder than that.

Yes, it could become a witch hunt...actually, with regards to BDSM, in some places it doesn't matter if you consented to what was being done, if you are harmed, your partner will be arrested. We aren't allowed (I guess) to consent to harm. Prosecution would be difficult...depending. Better know your partners well.

I'm just going to repeat myself again if I go further. Basically, I still feel that there is a difference (and I like to think that reasonable adults would agree...although yes, I realize that usually isn't how things work)...that there is a difference regarding children and sex, and adults and sex.

Definitely a difference regarding children and sex and adults and sex. Agreed.

But you should also see the difference regarding wanting something remain a fantasy only and wanting the real thing.

 

[sugarb]

Definitely a difference regarding children and sex and adults and sex. Agreed.

But you should also see the difference regarding wanting something remain a fantasy only and wanting the real thing.

Okay...I do. Do you think, though, that being sexually excited by children isn't some sort of criminal pathology?

 

[tesscaline]

Okay...I do. Do you think, though, that being sexually excited by children isn't some sort of criminal pathology?

Do you think that fantasizing about killing your boss isn't some sort of criminal pathology?

You're getting into "thought police" territory here.

Personally, I have a hard time believing that any thought process can be characterized as "criminal". It isn't what someone thinks that is important. It is what they DO based upon those thoughts that matters.

If someone who is sexually excited by children seeks medical help, and/or manages their condition by finding coping methods that prevent them from harming children (actual children), then no, there's nothing criminal about it.

 

[sugarb]

Do you think that fantasizing about killing your boss isn't some sort of criminal pathology?

You're getting into "thought police" territory here.

Personally, I have a hard time believing that any thought process can be characterized as "criminal". It isn't what someone thinks that is important. It is what they DO based upon those thoughts that matters.

If someone who is sexually excited by children seeks medical help, and/or manages their condition by finding coping methods that prevent them from harming children (actual children), then no, there's nothing criminal about it.

Hello, SkeptiChick. You're probably right. I was reading a study about measurable brain differences in pedophiles, and it struck me as interesting that there were, in those studied, measurable differences in the mass of the right and left brain. The right was...smaller, I guess you'd say. Less gray matter.

It went on to suggest that these differences didn't occur in adulthood, but in childhood...perhaps a head injury in some cases, a developmental abnormality in others.

That is the only study like it I have found so far, but it would seem, based on those results, that the...um...predisposition I guess would be the word, comes into play well before the influence (whatever that might be) of pornography.