Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Post # 1093
Post #1231
Post #1311
Post #1450

Yes, that all looks pretty consistent. Your point?

 

[JFrankA]

Yes, that all looks pretty consistent. Your point?

Why does the consistency end on post #2835?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5384925&postcount=2835

 

[quadraginta]

They are if someone "perceives" them to be. At least if we accept the SW definition.

Wrong. There has to be intention to sexually arouse. BTW - my definition concerns only child porn.

Why would it apply only to child porn?

Your definition, in Post #1985 stated

... is clearly intended, or will or is likely to appeal, ...

Are you now going to pretend that "or will or is likely to appeal" requires intent when you specifically raised it as a separate issue (that's what the "or" means), and is unrelated to how someone perceives?

 

[gumboot]

For what it's worth the US Government do not consider VCP to be child pornography. They consider it to potentially be obscene, and thus illegal under those grounds (this is dependent on the assessment of each individual work), but it isn't child pornography.

I don't have an issue with the USA's child pornography laws. I have an issue with the obscenity law.

 

[Southwind17]

Please detail your particular refutations of the study in question. Did you find fault with the methodology? Please provide examples of those "holes" you have discerned, along with the evidence supporting your criticisms.

Your blanket dismissal does not constitute a refutation of any value. It is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!".

OK – here goes. I will aim to use the same terminology as the study where possible to seek to avoid possible misinterpretation. All highlighting is mine, for emphasis, as is square-bracketed wording or comments:

From “Abstract (Background)”:

The aim of this study was to examine the recidivism rates for hands-on and hands-off sex offences in a sample of child pornography users using a 6 year follow-up design.​

​

From “Background”:

The aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of a sample of child pornography users and the proportion of those who subsequently re-offended with hands-on and hands-off sex offences.​

​

Whilst not a flaw per se (one surely cannot argue with the aim of a study!), the authors seem not to be sure what the exact aim of the study is. The more detailed description of the aim qualifies the abstracted aim by limiting the study to pre-offenders (child porn consumers). I will work with the qualified aim, as that is the one that the study clearly follows.

This qualified aim introduces an overriding major problem. The study only includes identified pre-offenders (child porn consumers). Moreover, hands-on child sex offences are measured only by conviction and investigation/charge rates:

According to a strict definition, recidivism was assumed only if new convictions subsequent to the index offence (child pornography consumption) were registered in the criminal records.

A broader definition of recidivism was introduced including convictions, as well as ongoing investigations and charges, as it is a well known fact that the use of criminal records frequently leads to an underestimation of especially sex and violent recidivism. Thus, in Switzerland, convictions of criminally non-responsible offenders, which often involve sex and violent offences, are not registered in the official criminal records. Also, the registration of sex and violent offences in the criminal records often takes several years due to longer investigation and appeal periods.

This raises a fundamental issue which I’ll come onto next, but the most blatant flaw (no, it’s so blatant that it must be called a “failing”), is that consumption of child pornography was only a pre-requisite to selecting the study group. Hands-on child sex offences were only measured by looking at subsequent conviction and investigation/charge rates with complete disregard for whether the offenders subsequently consumed child porn during the 6-year sex offence monitoring period. So, the aim of the study as described in “Abstract (Background)” should be more accurately worded:

“The aim of this study was to examine the recidivism rates for hands-on and hands-off sex offences in a sample of historical child pornography users using a 6 year follow-up design.”​

The fundamental issue referred to above is, by definition the study completely excludes the category of hands-on sex offenders who have not been identified as such. It is widely acknowledged that the majority of hands-on child sex offences occur in the home by a relative of the victim. Given the nature of this crime it is reasonable to conclude that most hands-on child sex offences go unchecked because:

• Nobody other than the perpetrator and the victim know about the crime and the victim is generally not suitably placed to report the crime (assuming the victim even recognizes the wrong being done), and
• Even if the victim reports the wrongdoing (in all likelihood to another family member) it is reasonable to conclude that in most cases it will go no further and not be reported to the Authorities.

Indeed, the study essentially explicitly supports this:

… it is a well known fact that the use of criminal records frequently leads to an underestimation of especially sex and violent recidivism.​

​

In short, when it comes to hands-on child sex offences the study relies on convictions for its offence data but does not investigate the incidence of convictions compared to non-convictions (Of course, it is all but impossible to obtain offence data from non-convictions, which raises the question as to whether a conclusive scientific study is even possible. The possible fact that it might not be is not, however, justification for accepting the findings of a “best attempt” study, which, by definition, if fundamentally flawed.). That in itself invalidates the statistical results (from “Abstract (Background)”):

4.8% (n = 11) of the study sample had a prior conviction for a sexual and/or violent offence, 1% (n = 2) for a hands-on sex offence, involving child sexual abuse, 3.3% (n = 8) for a hands-off sex offence and one for a nonsexual violent offence. When applying a broad definition of recidivism, which included ongoing investigations, charges and convictions, 3% (n = 7) of the study sample recidivated with a violent and/or sex offence, 3.9% (n = 9) with a hands-off sex offence and 0.8% (n = 2) with a hands-on sex offence.​

​

Which can, of course, be re-written thus:

“4.8% (n = 11) of identified child porn offenders had a prior conviction for a sexual and/or violent offence, 1% (n = 2) for a hands-on sex offence, involving child sexual abuse, 3.3% (n = 8) for a hands-off sex offence and one for a nonsexual violent offence. When applying a broad definition of recidivism, which included ongoing investigations, charges and convictions, 3% (n = 7) of identified child porn offenders recidivated with a violent and/or sex offence, 3.9% (n = 9) with a hands-off sex offence and 0.8% (n = 2) with a hands-on sex offence.”​

Of course, it is reasonable to conclude that a child porn offender is likely to alter his behaviour immediately following conviction, even following mere acquittal, arguably:

During the court proceedings, 95% (n = 217) of the sample confessed to having used child pornography, however, the evidence only led to convictions in 55% (n = 127) of the cases. Unlike current legal practice, saving illegal data in the temporary data cache of the computer was not enough for a conviction in 2002 – only if a permanent recording of the illegal material could be proven was it possible to convict the accused. Though only around half of the sample was actually convicted, there were sufficient grounds for assuming that all subjects in the study sample had consumed child pornography, seeing as they had registered with their personal credit cards and confessed to the allegations.​

​

which, in the case of conviction, probably corresponds with a period of suspended sentence or at least probation (the study is silent on the sentencing status of those convicted).

With the objective of discrediting the study in terms of the broader aim of identifying a correlation per se between child porn and hands-on child sex offences I could quite legitimately stop there, but I’ll go on.

The study sample is clearly inappropriate. From “Sample”:

Through a number of house searches in 2002, a Swiss police operation ("Operation Genesis") revealed over 400 persons suspected of having consumed illegal pornographic material via Landslide Productions Inc. Of these 400 people, only those suspected of child pornography consumption, were included in the study sample. This led to a sample size of N = 231.​

​

… but from “Characteristics of the illegal material”:

19% (n = 43) of the sample were in possession of more than 5'000 files of illegal pornography [“illegal pornography” includes all types of illegal porn, not just child porn]. Forty percent (n = 93) of the subjects consumed only child pornography, the rest consumed other types of illegal pornography, such as pornography depicting sexual acts with animals, excrement, or involving brutality. One out of three subjects (33%, n = 77) consumed at least three types of illegal pornography.​

​

Clearly there are too many factors influencing the study. Only those 40% of the sample who consumed only child porn can be considered to be a possible suitable study group. Interestingly and surprisingly, whilst the study included a stratified analysis separating illegal porn consumption between convicted and acquitted consumers, it did not take the opportunity to isolate the 40% of the study sample who consumed only child porn. That seems like a gross oversight to me, and indeed seems suspicious.

... is generally suspect. From “Limitations”:

The investigated population could be severely biased, seeing as the users needed a credit card and sufficient knowledge of a foreign language (English) in order to gain access to the pornographic material. This could explain the rather elevated proportion of well educated subjects in the study sample and indicates that the investigated sample is most probably not representative for consumers of illegal pornography in Switzerland [not to mention other countries].​

​

And from “Statistical Analysis”:

The aim of the stratified analysis was to determine whether a legal sanction led to a behavioral change regarding the consumption of illegal pornography​

​

This seems like rather a misguided aim for a study entitled “The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending”. Consequently, the recidivism rates data presented in Table 1, which only show hands-on sex offences collectively, are meaningless. There is no differentiation between the consumption of child porn specifically and illegal porn generally.

From “Criminal History”:

Before the police operation "Genesis" in 2002, 4.8% (n = 11) of the study sample had prior convictions for a sex and/or violent offence: Two subjects (1.0%) had prior convictions for hands-on sex offences involving child sexual abuse, 3.5% (n = 8) subjects had prior convictions for hands-off sex offences (possession/consumption of illegal pornography) and one subject had a prior conviction for a violent offence.​

​

In other words 229 of the 231 men surveyed (99.1%) could arguably be categorized as “non-child sex offenders” even before the 6-year monitoring period started. In a broader context 21 is a woefully inadequate sample size for identifying recidivism changes generally, especially when subdivided into three separate categories.

In summary:

At the absolute best, all the study does is present a statistical analysis of hands-on child sex offences measured by registered conviction, investigation and charge rates by an unrepresentative sample of men within a specific social, cultural, ethical and legislative environment who, in the past, happen to have consumed child porn to considerably varying degrees.

Indeed from “Background”:

Firstly, there are studies that examine the role of child pornography consumption on offending in samples of hands-on sex offenders. Following such an approach, Kingston, Fedoroff, Firestone, Curry and Bradford examined convicted hands-on sex offenders and found that the consumption of illegal pornography was a relevant risk factor, namely that those offenders who had consumed illegal pornography were more likely to re-offend – irrespective of their risk-level of recidivism.​

​

And from “Discussion”:

The question of whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offences has not yet been answered.​

​

Studies investigating hands-on sex offender populations support the assumption that the consumption of illegal pornography is a relevant risk factor for recidivism.​

​

 

[Southwind17]

Oh. Well then. That means if I animate an animated cartoon of a virtual child in a blatant sexual situation with a virutal fourty year old man, with the intent to have the view feel sorry for the child, and to make people feel anger and disgust for people who would do such a thing, to be careful of those kinds of scumbags. This will be my art.
And to be clear, it wouldn't be VCP (since the "P" in "VCP" stands for porn). It is art.

Whatever. Just watch out for obscenity laws too.

The people need to feel sorry for the children. To know what kind of monsters are out there. I feel that showing it in this way will make people realize how horrible child molestion is. My art will make people see and feel the evil, the vileness of the molester. Just like the driving instruction videos of real accidents, my intent is to make people so sick to their stomachs, so that they would do anything to stop child molestation. Or just like anti-abortionists who show ads of a real aborted fetus' feet to curb abortion. However, since I do not want to hurt real life children, I'll do it all by using virtually made people, such as drawings or computer models.
This will not be porn, though it will show a blatant sexual situation, it is art. Art with the intent of making people feel sorry for the virtual child, and disgust for the virtual molester.
It is important that my art will make people feel the horror of this act.

Again, watch out for obscenity laws.

Interesting that you skipped over the fact that the curator felt that the nude ten year old picture of Brooke Shields was art. You should read it more carefully to see what the curator felt, and how lawyers felt it was okay.

Actions speak louder than words, so they say!

Okay, you asked for it.......
http://www.nailtools.net/USERIMAGES/SCAN0012(1).JPG
Look at the nails, not the picture. See how someone created a way to make them easy to keep these nails together in not only a practicle way, but in an aesthetic way. A simple design that does so much.
http://www.dkimages.com/discover/previews/870/20093129.JPG
Why the "I" shape? I someone had to make the girder and design it and figure out what the best shape it should be to hold tons of weight, yet so easy to use. That kind of design just doesn't happen.
http://image.automotive.com/f/techa...z+blown_alky_ls+ls_series_6l_truck_engine.jpg
The belts, the pistons, along with tiny explosions all moving is a perfect flow of rhythms to propell heavy truck, and more making it able to pull heavier items, makes the engine of a truck the heart of it. This mimics a horse. In fact, that's why they use the term "horsepower". Reminds one of the old frontier.
http://www.roseville.ca.us/images/EU/CIRCLES.JPG
Look how the circles sit next to each other. Each pool a different shade of color while in each step of making water unsafe to drinkable. Cleansing the very nature of life itself - how is that, in itself, not beautiful and artful?
http://files.myopera.com/rfhurley/albums/475833/powerStation.jpg
Now we have the artful steel girders creating something that is also artful. Look how they criss cross with each other, along with wires and other steel forms not only to make a maze of steel, but providing power so that people can live comfortably. Trace a wire in the picture, see where you go, like a spark of electricity, travelling through the metal maze.
http://www.conversionrate.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/staples.jpg
Back to one simple piece of metal. Standing in it's orginal form in a formible pose, like two teeth ready to strike, puncturing the helpless paper below it. Then as it bends, folds, submits to pressure, those teeth that have bitten, eventually hugs the papers, making them come together into a unity.
http://www.gwestern.com/images/superior wood spade.jpg
Metal married to wood. The wood is the sturdy backbone of the spade, while the metal does the actual tasks. One piece ensures that the hand can steady the spade, the other, like the staple, bites into the ground, upsetting the earth under it's one tooth. However, once that tooth has bit the dirt, it then supports and carries that same earth for as long as one can or want to. Kind of like the staple, it strikes, then comforts.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/101285..._Internal_Modem_XP_Vista_32bit_Compatible.jpg
A small, colorful board. Made to take up as little room as possible, yet able to communicate with the outside world. One can place those transistors, chips, resistors, etc anywhere on the green board, as long as the gold racing stripes connects them correctly. This one has a green with a yellow accent. I have seen other colors.
http://simplethinking.com/photo/phone/vintage/images/P6110007.jpg
Have you ever been in a room with a telephone exchange in it? I have. There are thousands of phone calls happening - calls starting and ending, each one with a click. When I used to work for Verizon, I used to love going to the local exchange room where these machines stayed. The clicking sounded like thousands of crickets chirping on a lonely night. It was soothing and beautiful because there were people behind each click, connecting and communicating. Thousands of clicks echoing in a big room.
One more thing I'd like to point out about all these items. For every one, you can see each item in different places, and even though you will see the same basic design and purpose, you will see difference between the two items. For example, there are different sized nails, different kinds of staples, spades with a bigger tooth but smaller handles, etc, etc. Not all truck engines look exactly alike.
Southwind, how can you NOT find art in any of these things? If you see no art in any of these items, then I'm sorry to say that you must be very jaded.

Please tell me what art galleries I can find them in - not artistic photos of them, but them.

 

[Southwind17]

If you go this far beyond the human species it becomes utterly irrelevant to this discussion.

How so?

Based upon what?

I'm sorry?

This is a discussion forum, that makes this thread a debate and not a speech. There is a distinct difference between those two, if you want to make a speech start your own website, but this forum is for debates.

OK - but I think what you wrote here is a speech! Let's debate.

So please be civil and try to prove that your opinion is correct. Others have come with evidence and you didn't, this allows us to dismiss your opinion as it has no weight behind it.

I've seen no "evidence" undermining the notion that rights are not what's simply left over when freedom is restricted.

 

[Southwind17]

Why does the consistency end on post #2835?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5384925&postcount=2835

I'm sorry - end? How so?

 

[Southwind17]

Why would it apply only to child porn?
Your definition, in Post #1985 stated
Are you now going to pretend that "or will or is likely to appeal" requires intent when you specifically raised it as a separate issue (that's what the "or" means), and is unrelated to how someone perceives?

I have used a definition of "pornography" generally towards the start of this thread, taken essentially from my Chambers dictionary, and I have proferred a definition for "child pornography" for the purpose of discussion. I apologize if I might have confused you, JFrankA and possibly others by referring you to the child porn definition when you were alluding to porn generally, but both of the definitions that I posted, so far as I'm concerned, still stand according to application. In respect of child porn I maintain the "... or will or is likely to appeal ..." part, at least for the time being. I hope that clarifies.

 

[Southwind17]

For what it's worth the US Government do not consider VCP to be child pornography. They consider it to potentially be obscene, and thus illegal under those grounds (this is dependent on the assessment of each individual work), but it isn't child pornography.

Thanks for clarifying.

I don't have an issue with the USA's child pornography laws. I have an issue with the obscenity law.

Why?

 

[AWPrime]

How so?

I refuse to give in to the notion that you are incapable of understanding that, if something is irrelevant to humans, then it is irrelevant when humans is at the core of the debate.

Let's debate.

So you want to debate now, you can start by proving your statements.

I'm sorry?

Come on, show us that rights are an acknowledgment of a restriction of freedom. So far we only heard your opinion.

 

[Southwind17]

I refuse to give in to the notion that you are incapable of understanding that, if something is irrelevant to humans, then it is irrelevant when humans is at the core of the debate.

evolution, both literally and metaphorically, is paramount to what I'm claiming. If you can't accept that then just say so and move along.

So you want to debate now, you can start by proving your statements.

That's not debating.

Come on, show us that rights are an acknowledgment of a restriction of freedom. So far we only heard your opinion.

And I yours.

ETA: see also next post.

 

[Southwind17]

Come on, show us that rights are an acknowledgment of a restriction of freedom. So far we only heard your opinion.

Look - this is not a difficult concept to grasp and accept. Imagine listing out all of your rights as an individual wherever you may be living. Clearly, your list will not include everything. Those things not included on your list can be called "prohibitions". Absolute freedom can be defined as an absence of prohibition. Consequently, prohibition is a restriction of freedom, and rights are what is left. Civil laws tend to focus on prohibitions, i.e. they set out the extent to which freedom is restricted. Again, rights are what's left over. Plain and simple.

 

[arthwollipot]

You're claiming pornography is an "art form"?

The idea that porn and art are mutually exclusive is the last straw for me. Southwind17 and I are so diametrically opposed in opinion that there's no way I can even follow his train of thought. As such I'll no longer be following this thread.

 

[Southwind17]

The idea that porn and art are mutually exclusive is the last straw for me. Southwind17 and I are so diametrically opposed in opinion that there's no way I can even follow his train of thought. As such I'll no longer be following this thread.

With respect, are you expecting us to feel deprived, or saddened?! You could have just sneaked out the back door - I don't think anybody would have noticed.

 

[JFrankA]

Whatever. Just watch out for obscenity laws too.

Again, watch out for obscenity laws.

I appreciate that you are looking out for my welfare. However, as I said, I am willing to go to jail for my art. If I am willing to go to jail for art, the product is still art.

And if my art will make some people think about what I am trying to express, which is the intent to make people feel sorry for a victim of child molestation and disgust for a molester, so that there is a chance that someone will take steps to stop a child from being molested, then it's worth it.

After all, isn't that why you think VCP should be banned in the first place?

Actions speak louder than words, so they say!

The act of putting it up or not means nothing. The curator's mind didn't change, he caved into the demands of some of the patrons. The fact remains that even though it isn't up, the curator still wanted to put it up. He obviously considers it art still.

The entire interview stated the reasons why and the procedures they took to put it up, as well as why some of the patron didn't feel it was art and their reasons why.

That's what art does.

Please tell me what art galleries I can find them in - not artistic photos of them, but them.

It's obvious that you didn't read my descriptions. I wasn't commenting on the photos but on the things that the photos were of.

You know, I feel really sorry for you. I really do. Your whole philosophy and ideas are based upon whatever higher authority tells you you should think. It's sad to see that you don't have a true opinion that is uniquely your own.

Art is in everything that we humans create. Just because it isn't in a museum doesn't mean it's not art. It's very sad you can't appreciate the beauty of how something works. The minds of many people coming together to make something as simple as a staple - the exquisite beauty of simplicity and science for something we take for granted - is art itself.

It's very sad to see you can't appreciate that kind of beauty and art without some authority telling you it is.

 

[JFrankA]

That's not debating.

What is debating?

 

[JFrankA]

With respect, are you expecting us to feel deprived, or saddened?! You could have just sneaked out the back door - I don't think anybody would have noticed.

I would have.

 

[JFrankA]

Look - this is not a difficult concept to grasp and accept. Imagine listing out all of your rights as an individual wherever you may be living. Clearly, your list will not include everything. Those things not included on your list can be called "prohibitions". Absolute freedom can be defined as an absence of prohibition. Consequently, prohibition is a restriction of freedom, and rights are what is left. Civil laws tend to focus on prohibitions, i.e. they set out the extent to which freedom is restricted. Again, rights are what's left over. Plain and simple.

You're forgetting something, though. You're forgetting liberty.

 

[JFrankA]

I have used a definition of "pornography" generally towards the start of this thread, taken essentially from my Chambers dictionary, and I have proferred a definition for "child pornography" for the purpose of discussion. I apologize if I might have confused you, JFrankA and possibly others by referring you to the child porn definition when you were alluding to porn generally, but both of the definitions that I posted, so far as I'm concerned, still stand according to application. In respect of child porn I maintain the "... or will or is likely to appeal ..." part, at least for the time being. I hope that clarifies.

Then I was right. This confirms that you stopped being consistent in your definition in post 2835.