Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

I'm sorry, SugarB, I don't see. I don't care who it's done to. I feel badly for any human equally who is mistreated. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound mean, but I don't think that "they can't fight back, even with the case of very young children doesn't mean a thing. One can surprise a full grown man and he wouldn't be able to fight back either.

Cruelity is cruelity.



I'm sorry, SugarB, I can't see the difference between killing a child and killing a helpless adult.

If the difference for you is the fact that children are helpless, or don't know any better, or something to that effect, I can assure you that there's a lot of adults the same way. What about killing a mentally impared adult? Is that the same as killing a non-mentally impaired adult or a child? What about killing an adult who has been surprised and drugged? Is that the same as killing an adult or a child?

I'm sorry, SugarB, I really don't see the difference.

Okay, hang on...the example was fantasizing about killing your boss vs. fantasizing about children in a sexual way. The difference between the two as I see it would be that you can, with an adult, act out that fantasy without harming anyone. But you can't...with a child. Of course killing is killing, LOL Cruelty is cruelty. But is it, JFrankA? I know what you mean, but you really set yourself up there (and me, too, btw), because if cruelty is cruelty, then what *we* do, does it matter if it's fantasy or reality then? If cruelty is cruelty? We simply justify it because we don't "harm" one another, and what harm is done is done with a mutual understanding. Just because we take pleasure (not *you*)...reword, hang on. Just because you take pleasure in marking someone's bottom with stripes, and just because I might take pleasure in that being done, that doesn't mean that the average passerby (as you suggested if someone heard or saw two people in their own home) wouldn't define it as cruelty. And *that* is why I differentiate between adults and children when it comes to fantasy. You can say age play...but age play won't work for a pedophile.

Um...I think I may have to back off a bit. ? I don't seem to be able to make myself clear. My own fault. Sorry.

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA, just to add...yes I know that you included illnesses. But...even if someone assaults someone sexually and they have one of those illnesses, that illness does not excuse them (even if they couldn't help it) from their assault being a crime.

I seem to recall several years back that pedophiles were assumed to have been sexually abused as children. When those theories started floating around, some that were captured or incarcerated made those very claims, in fact. When studies were done, it was found that in reality, most pedophiles had actually never been sexually abused as children. Perhaps physically, perhaps emotionally...but once the "excuse" arose of having been abused themselves, we were supposed to start looking at them in a more sympathetic light.

And that is okay. We should be able to drag out some sort of sympathy for people afflicted with things we are fortunate enough to not have to deal with, even if their actions are atrocious. But my point is, even realizing the connections to types of abuse, and attempting to "cure" pedophiles with psychotherapy (which interestingly enough can also involve therapeutic creation of pictures), no "cure" has been found. Which is what makes the idea of an organic issue so interesting to me.

Now, let me ask you, if you'll just consider that possibility, a question. (and this isn't loaded...or if it seems like it, I don't mean for it to). Okay? How would you feel if an actual "cure" were found, and by some miracle there was suddenly no market for child pornography period? Would we revisit this argument with some regret that we weren't realizing we were defending something that only existed because of an illness? Would that not "prove" anything to you?

If that were to happen, then to be honest, I'd be completely amazed and worried. Because if all fetishes that involve under aged children being wiped out by drugs would say to me that it wasn't a "cure" but mind control. What would be next? Wiping out all people who have rape fetishes?

I would be scared more than anything to be honest. I cannot believe, I cannot even understand the hypothesis that all people with child molestation fantasies are mentally ill, even though personally I might emotionally find those people scary and even repugnant. I can believe that all people who would actually do the molestation as mentally ill, because again, that's disregarding, or ignoring or desiring the consequences.

It's simply this to me: if a person can control, resist, or not desire the real thing in something as horrible as child molestation all their lives, then that person hasn't done anything wrong.

I'm sorry if this sounds horrible to you, but that's the line for me.

I said earlier I think that I tend to be a long term thinker. I know that my words seem laced with emotion, but in reality my own true emotions have never been expressed in this thread other than the sincere belief that children need protection. On an emotional level, were I to just start spewing that, believe me, it would be a whole other ballgame and we'd fly around to areas probably nobody wants to go. But my own perceptions and emotions come from my own experiences, so seriously, I'm not applying them to my argument.

I understand and it's more than understandable. And don't worry, my perceptions and emotions come from my own expreiences as well. Everyone's does. It's human.

 

[Toke]

Sugerb,

You are still stuck in that emotional/illogical position of VCP as something special.
(well ok the real thing is unusually wile)

There is plenty of adult porn both "real" and drawn where doing it for real would be a crime.
As long as it can be produced without harming anyone, I see no reason to ban it.
(the no harm part is quite easy for drawn porn)

The correlation between porn and drop in rapes is the closest we have to to a study of the effects, if any, of VCP.

That means I am stuck in the position of seeing a ban on VCP as a wedge strategy from self proclaimed moral crusaders.

This might sound a bit CT-ist, but then again, there are people around who want to ban porn in general, and they have to start somewhere. So why not pick the easiest target.
There are plenty of people who will support such a ban simply due to our general instinct to protect children.

 

[sugarb]

Sugerb,

You are still stuck in that emotional/illogical position of VCP as something special.
(well ok the real thing is unusually wile)

There is plenty of adult porn both "real" and drawn where doing it for real would be a crime.
As long as it can be produced without harming anyone, I see no reason to ban it.
(the no harm part is quite easy for drawn porn)

The correlation between porn and drop in rapes is the closest we have to to a study of the effects, if any, of VCP.

That means I am stuck in the position of seeing a ban on VCP as a wedge strategy from self proclaimed moral crusaders.

This might sound a bit CT-ist, but then again, there are people around who want to ban porn in general, and they have to start somewhere. So why not pick the easiest target.
There are plenty of people who will support such a ban simply due to our general instinct to protect children.

Hello, Toke. Okay, I think you pegged the problem with your first remark. Let me see if I can word at least this correctly.

*I* don't see VCP as anything special. It is child pornography. I'm not the one trying to say that it is for some reason an exception or different. I don't think it is "special". To *me*, it seems that you all are saying it is in fact special and thus deserves to be exempt from child pornography laws.

See? I'm saying it is illogical to make a distinction, and you all are telling me that I'm the one making vcp something special. Is virtual child pornography a form of child pornography or not? Yes...but it is "virtual", so that makes it different??? That's not *my* argument.

Do you see what I mean? I don't consider it distinct and different and special and more or less worthy of child pornography in general. In my mind, if child pornography is illegal for reasons that adult pornography is not, then child porn is illegal. If we want to say that *some* of it should be legal, and make that a special protected form of speech (which is not what I'm the one claiming), then it's time to revisit the illegality of *any* of it.

(I'm not meaning to sound rude if I do. That seems to me like I have a rude tone.)

 

[sugarb]

And Toke, you don't sound like a CTist. I really do grasp the snowball everyone keeps mentioning. I think, as I said regarding JFrankA, that the paranoia is understandable and legitimate.

 

[Toke]

Hello, Toke. Okay, I think you pegged the problem with your first remark. Let me see if I can word at least this correctly.

*I* don't see VCP as anything special. It is child pornography. I'm not the one trying to say that it is for some reason an exception or different. I don't think it is "special". To *me*, it seems that you all are saying it is in fact special and thus deserves to be exempt from child pornography laws.

We may have the core of the problem here.

To me child porn is something that involves and therefore harm children. That is a nasty crime and both the production and the distribution is rightfully banned.

The virtual version is just a fantasy and does not harm anybody, that makes it no different from any other fantasy that would be harmful if carried out.

Looks like we see the "nothing special" from opposite angles.

 

[JFrankA]

Okay, hang on...the example was fantasizing about killing your boss vs. fantasizing about children in a sexual way. The difference between the two as I see it would be that you can, with an adult, act out that fantasy without harming anyone. But you can't...with a child. Of course killing is killing, LOL Cruelty is cruelty. But is it, JFrankA? I know what you mean, but you really set yourself up there (and me, too, btw), because if cruelty is cruelty, then what *we* do, does it matter if it's fantasy or reality then? If cruelty is cruelty? We simply justify it because we don't "harm" one another, and what harm is done is done with a mutual understanding. Just because we take pleasure (not *you*)...reword, hang on. Just because you take pleasure in marking someone's bottom with stripes, and just because I might take pleasure in that being done, that doesn't mean that the average passerby (as you suggested if someone heard or saw two people in their own home) wouldn't define it as cruelty. And *that* is why I differentiate between adults and children when it comes to fantasy. You can say age play...but age play won't work for a pedophile.

Um...I think I may have to back off a bit. ? I don't seem to be able to make myself clear. My own fault. Sorry.

Errr....I'm sorry, SugarB, but uhm, did you want me to reply to this or not?

 

[sugarb]

Errr....I'm sorry, SugarB, but uhm, did you want me to reply to this or not?

I would never take your freedom of speech away I just didn't think it made sense, which is what I seem to be accomplishing here lately. Fire away.

 

[Rairun]

Sorry if this has already been posted (I've read most of the thread, but not all of it), but I have always thought this was a great post:

Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech? by Neil Gaiman

 

[JFrankA]

I would never take your freedom of speech away I just didn't think it made sense, which is what I seem to be accomplishing here lately. Fire away.

Oh, okay. Sorry, just wasn't sure.

Anyways,

Okay, hang on...the example was fantasizing about killing your boss vs. fantasizing about children in a sexual way. The difference between the two as I see it would be that you can, with an adult, act out that fantasy without harming anyone. But you can't...with a child.

How can you possibly harm someone at all if the fantasy remains a fantasy? If I think about killing my boss, without doing anything at all about it, then there is no harm done at all to the boss.

Of course killing is killing, LOL Cruelty is cruelty. But is it, JFrankA? I know what you mean, but you really set yourself up there (and me, too, btw), because if cruelty is cruelty, then what *we* do, does it matter if it's fantasy or reality then? If cruelty is cruelty? We simply justify it because we don't "harm" one another, and what harm is done is done with a mutual understanding. Just because we take pleasure (not *you*)...reword, hang on. Just because you take pleasure in marking someone's bottom with stripes, and just because I might take pleasure in that being done, that doesn't mean that the average passerby (as you suggested if someone heard or saw two people in their own home) wouldn't define it as cruelty.

Okay, I see, sorry. You are talking about acting out a fantasy in a fantasy setting. Right?

Well, it's still not cruel. I define cruelity as doing something knowingly to physically and/or psychologically harmful to another person against that other's will. One can not be cruel to a person who does not exist.

In the case of a couple acting out a fantasy (and let's assume that in this senario the couple is REALLY just playing), such as spanking, or fantasy rape or fantasy kidnapping, etc, is somehow witnessed by a third party, then it's simply a case of that third party being mistaken.

And *that* is why I differentiate between adults and children when it comes to fantasy. You can say age play...but age play won't work for a pedophile. Um...I think I may have to back off a bit. ? I don't seem to be able to make myself clear. My own fault. Sorry.

But I'm sorry, I don't get the leap here. If the person is looking at an image of a child that does not exist, or is age playing with other consenting, knowing real life adult(s), when there is no harm physically and/or psychologically, then what's the differeniation and where is the cruelity?

 

[sugarb]

Oh, okay. Sorry, just wasn't sure.

Anyways,



How can you possibly harm someone at all if the fantasy remains a fantasy? If I think about killing my boss, without doing anything at all about it, then there is no harm done at all to the boss.



Okay, I see, sorry. You are talking about acting out a fantasy in a fantasy setting. Right?

Well, it's still not cruel. I define cruelity as doing something knowingly to physically and/or psychologically harmful to another person against that other's will. One can not be cruel to a person who does not exist.

In the case of a couple acting out a fantasy (and let's assume that in this senario the couple is REALLY just playing), such as spanking, or fantasy rape or fantasy kidnapping, etc, is somehow witnessed by a third party, then it's simply a case of that third party being mistaken.



But I'm sorry, I don't get the leap here. If the person is looking at an image of a child that does not exist, or is age playing with other consenting, knowing real life adult(s), when there is no harm physically and/or psychologically, then what's the differeniation and where is the cruelity?

No, in the last paragraph of your post, JFrankA, please keep in mind that *I* am not referring to what adults do amongst themselves. What I was illustrating is that, to *some* people, even if it isn't cruelty, it would look like and could be loosely defined as cruelty based on societal standards. Which...is why, aside from here, I tend to keep quiet about our personal lives here at home.

*If* a pedophile has a fantasy about a child, there is no way to satisfactorily act on that fantasy, even in a fantasy setting, with a child. That is the difference. A true pedophile is not going to be content with an adult dressed as a child...that ain't their thing.

Yes, I was talking about acting on wants in an adult environment (I really hate the term fantasy, to be honest with you. I know that's probably annoying, but...it doesn't seem to fit, in context, to me. Just understand that if I have phrased, or do phrase, something that comes across as acting on wants, I mean in a safe, consenting environment. I mean it in the same way I take it that you mean fantasy. That may have caused a lot of confusion and it hadn't occurred to me until just now)

 

[quadraginta]

Sorry if this has already been posted (I've read most of the thread, but not all of it), but I have always thought this was a great post:

Why Defend Freedom of Icky Speech? by Neil Gaiman

Good stuff. Thanks. (I enjoy Gaiman's books. I'm not surprised he writes opinion well.)

I wonder what effect it may have on someone who has already decided to disagree, though.

Perhaps SW might offer a critique. It certainly pertains directly to this discussion.

 

[Rairun]

Sugarb, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

If I had an unattainable fantasy--having sex with a celebrity, for instance--would that mean I would never "be content with another person dressed as the celebrity"? Or if I had a sexual fantasy with a friend who doesn't feel the same way, would I never be content until I had sex with her?

I just don't buy it. There's something that really bothers me about this notion, that our sexual mores are such a central part of our identity. If I admit I'm attracted to a female friend, I don't want to be seen as a dangerous person, as a potential rapist, without having ever made any sort of advance on her. I don't want to be shunned without having ever harmed anyone.

So I think it would be a little bit hypocritical of me if I didn't apply the same standards to pedophiles (ie, people who are attracted to children, not the ones who actually have sex with them). It's easy to cast stones at them. If you don't, people might even start looking at you differently. They might not trust you to babysit their children anymore. But I really do think there is a difference between being attracted to someone and actually having any intentions to harm them.

I suppose you could argue that the difference is that pedophiles would never be able to have sex with children, while I could have sex with other willing adult females and thus satisfy my desires. But I don't think that's a good argument. I was well into my twenties when I first had sex, and never did I feel like raping a woman. I was never a sex-crazed maniac who just had to be ****ing someone. I don't know why that would be different for people with different preferences. For instance, it has always annoyed me how certain men are uncomfortable around gay people because they think they are predators who would have sex with them when they are drunk.

I don't see why we should ban any material whose production hasn't harmed anyone. And I don't think that anyone should be locked up until they have actually harmed other people. The connection between VCP and children rape has not been established, and it's possible that it even prevents it; but even if we knew for sure it increased rape, it would be a red herring in matters of free speech. If you want to stop rape, arrest the rapist. It's really that simple.

 

[sugarb]

Sugarb, I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

If I had an unattainable fantasy--having sex with a celebrity, for instance--would that mean I would never "be content with another person dressed as the celebrity"? Or if I had a sexual fantasy with a friend who doesn't feel the same way, would I never be content until I had sex with her?

I just don't buy it. There's something that really bothers me about this notion, that our sexual mores are such a central part of our identity. If I admit I'm attracted to a female friend, I don't want to be seen as a dangerous person, as a potential rapist, without having ever made any sort of advance on her. I don't want to be shunned without having ever harmed anyone.

So I think it would be a little bit hypocritical of me if I didn't apply the same standards to pedophiles (ie, people who are attracted to children, not the ones who actually have sex with them). It's easy to cast stones at them. If you don't, people might even start looking at you differently. They might not trust you to babysit their children anymore. But I really do think there is a difference between being attracted to someone and actually having any intentions to harm them.

I suppose you could argue that the difference is that pedophiles would never be able to have sex with children, while I could have sex with other willing adult females and thus satisfy my desires. But I don't think that's a good argument. I was well into my twenties when I first had sex, and never did I feel like raping a woman. I was never a sex-crazed maniac who just had to be ****ing someone. I don't know why that would be different for people with different preferences. For instance, it has always annoyed me how certain men are uncomfortable around gay people because they think they are predators who would have sex with them when they are drunk.

I don't see why we should ban any material whose production hasn't harmed anyone. And I don't think that anyone should be locked up until they have actually harmed other people. The connection between VCP and children rape has not been established, and it's possible that it even prevents it; but even if we knew for sure it increased rape, it would be a red herring in matters of free speech. If you want to stop rape, arrest the rapist. It's really that simple.

I am saying that, to a pedophile (which I'm going to loosely define as someone sexually attracted to prepubescent children), there would be minimal difference between types of child pornography. Children are the focus...and I'm sorry, but...while you all don't understand where I'm coming from, I don't understand where you all are coming from on this either. I don't CARE if adults view pornography...of other adults. I don't care if some chick dresses up like a schoolgirl and acts like a spoiled brat if it floats someone's boat. I don't care if adults are heterosexuals, homosexuals, bi sexuals, nuns or bishops...but there is a line to be drawn when it comes to children. Particularly prepubescent children. Again, I have said that it is inconsistent to make pornographic material of everyone under 18 illegal considering that 18 most certainly is not the age of consent in every part of the country. I AGREE with that. And there are other things that I agree with that, you're right, people would think badly of me for agreeing to. So be it.

My basis isn't religious, or even really very moralistic (some would certainly question my morals, and possibly rightfully so). It isn't based on anything other than what I personally see as an inconsistency. And yes, I do see an attempt to make certain kinds of child pornography "okay"...which, to my way of thinking, weakens the laws to the point of it being even ridiculous to have them. Let's stop prosecuting child pornography then and just call it child abuse. To start making exceptions is setting up a really bad situation. Child pornography is not protected speech. But some of it should be?

I'm beginning to think the laws are pointless anyway. They are not well written, they've not yet been tested fully, and there's really nothing I can say to affect it one way or another. Virtual child pornography IS child pornography. That's what I am saying. No matter how poorly, that's what I'm saying.

 

[Rairun]

Okay, so I gather you think child porn should be banned not just because it harms children, but because it's icky?

 

[Rairun]

Because if this is so, we might have to agree to disagree. I think child porn should be banned because producing it harms children. VCP may be disturbing to look at, but I don't think my feelings of disgust should be enough to ban anything.

 

[sugarb]

Okay, so I gather you think child porn should be banned not just because it harms children, but because it's icky?

No. It is banned, and I see no problem with it being banned since adults aren't supposed to be having sex with kids anyway. I didn't say anything about "icky".

So...do you think child pornography should be legal (except to produce, but there's apparently no shortage of people doing that even though it is illegal) because the majority of people who look at it aren't harming children?

 

[tesscaline]

I'm going to skip down to the one part of all this that I feel is the crux of the matter:

Virtual child pornography IS child pornography. That's what I am saying. No matter how poorly, that's what I'm saying.

See, you're conflating two things again.

I'll apply the logic you're using to some other things:

Virtual murder is the same as murder -- this means that every actor who has ever played a murderer in a movie is now guilty of murder and deserves to go to jail. Every cartoonist who has portrayed someone being murdered in a comic book is now guilty of murder and deserves to go to jail. Every person who owns a copy of a movie or a comic book that depicts a murder is now an accessory after the fact to murder, and deserves to go to jail.

Virtual rape is the same as rape -- every actor who has portrayed a rapist in a movie or a tv show is now guilty of rape. Every cartoonist who has portrayed rape in a comic book is now guilty of rape. Every person who owns a copy of a movie or comic book that depicts a rape is now an accessory after the fact to rape, and deserves to go to jail.

Virtual guns are the same as guns -- every actor who has ever used a prop weapon during the course of making a film is guilty of brandishing a weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, or even murder. Every cartoonist who has portrayed one of their comic book characters using a gun is guilty of brandishing a weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, or even murder. And anyone who owns a comic book with a depiction of a weapon in it is now guilty of owning an unregistered firearm, and guilty of accessory after the fact to a variety of the crimes listed above, and deserves to go to jail.

Do you not see the problem yet? You're not differentiating between a real thing, and a virtual thing. The whole point of a virtual thing is that it is not a real thing. And yet, you insist on treating the virtual thing as if it is that real thing.

There IS a difference between actual child porn and virtual child porn. One uses actual children, victimizes them, abuses them, and harms them. The other does not. Do you see the difference yet?

 

[sugarb]

Because if this is so, we might have to agree to disagree. I think child porn should be banned because producing it harms children. VCP may be disturbing to look at, but I don't think my feelings of disgust should be enough to ban anything.

Okay, here is where we differ. In my opinion, VCP is just a type of, subset if you will, of child pornography. I think it weakens laws that already exist to say that we should start calling *some* child porn okay...and I also think that if we do that, we may as well abandon child pornography laws altogether and just prosecute child abusers, because once we start tearing out teeth of laws already low on teeth, what is the point?

I've got no "ick factor" thing going here.

 

[sugarb]

I'm going to skip down to the one part of all this that I feel is the crux of the matter: See, you're conflating two things again.

I'll apply the logic you're using to some other things:

Virtual murder is the same as murder -- this means that every actor who has ever played a murderer in a movie is now guilty of murder and deserves to go to jail. Every cartoonist who has portrayed someone being murdered in a comic book is now guilty of murder and deserves to go to jail. Every person who owns a copy of a movie or a comic book that depicts a murder is now an accessory after the fact to murder, and deserves to go to jail.

Virtual rape is the same as rape -- every actor who has portrayed a rapist in a movie or a tv show is now guilty of rape. Every cartoonist who has portrayed rape in a comic book is now guilty of rape. Every person who owns a copy of a movie or comic book that depicts a rape is now an accessory after the fact to rape, and deserves to go to jail.

Virtual guns are the same as guns -- every actor who has ever used a prop weapon during the course of making a film is guilty of brandishing a weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, or even murder. Every cartoonist who has portrayed one of their comic book characters using a gun is guilty of brandishing a weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, or even murder. And anyone who owns a comic book with a depiction of a weapon in it is now guilty of owning an unregistered firearm, and guilty of accessory after the fact to a variety of the crimes listed above, and deserves to go to jail.

Do you not see the problem yet? You're not differentiating between a real thing, and a virtual thing. The whole point of a virtual thing is that it is not a real thing. And yet, you insist on treating the virtual thing as if it is that real thing.

There IS a difference between actual child porn and virtual child porn. One uses actual children, victimizes them, abuses them, and harms them. The other does not. Do you see the difference yet?

No, I'm *not* differentiating between "real" child pornography and "virtual" child pornography, because the key word there isn't "real" or "virtual", it is pornography. Both are child pornography, or we wouldn't need "real" and "virtual" as qualifiers.