Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

No, I don't know that. I've seen all sorts of cockamamie arguments from you throughout this thread, but none that say quite what sugarb said.

... namely:

I think we need to flip that around a bit, and it is that the adult viewing the child pornography is MORE powerful than the object of their "fetish" (I'm using that term loosely here, because I don't think being a pedophile is a fetish, really)...children. And the possibility certainly exists that if there is a type of child pornography that society accepts as "legal" or "okay", then that makes the "fetish" that person has seem more legitimate, and THAT could be what would lead to an actual child being harmed.

I have asserted exactly this, in different words, as an integral part of my reasoning for banning VCP.

Evidence?

I actually agree that this seems plausible. It is my opinion, however, that the potential upside from it will be marginal compared to the potential downside of the inevitable legitimizing message that legalizing VCP would send out.

Let me ask you this: don't you think some men (not all, but some) predisposed to rape (assuming there are such men) might see legally published material portraying rape for arousal purposes as legitimizing rape? I think that's conceivable. If so, don't you think that such men might then be more inclined to rape? I think that's conceivable.

To my mind, if a man fantasises about raping a woman, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to rape, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous.

Yes - pornographic rape portrayal should be banned, provided that it's clear that it is, in fact, rape portrayal. Realistically, that would probably, generally, limit it to video, I suppose (for what that observation's worth). Why? Because, like child porn, it portrays and serves to legitimize a most heinous of crimes.

Very simple, as before, but I'll repeat it for your benefit: VCP is targeted at people with a pathologically morbid sexual interest in children with the purpose of sexual arousal and serves to legitimize sexual abuse of children. Sexual arousal causes many people to seriously lose judgement to the extent that they will completely lose sight of or otherwise disregard the implications and possible consequences of their actions, whether by conscious decision or otherwise. Ergo it is reasonable to suppose, if not conclude, that VCP, in many cases, is the indirect cause of harm to some children.

Now, all that's left to discuss, it seems, is the matter of the extent to which VCP causes or contributes to the sexual arousal of, and the apparent legitimization of child abuse to, child molesters. You would hardly disagree, I take it(!), that it would be advantageous to everybody concerned, including child molesters, to inhibit the legitimization message and sexual arousal of child molesters. I believe many serial rapists, if not child molesters, for example, willingly take medication to inhibit their sexual arousal.

Satisfied?

Is it? You have evidence of this?

I think it's just become blatantly apparent, don't you, that the "evidence?" card, as a means of seeking to strengthen one's argument, is one that should be played with great finesse lest one's "bluff" be called!

Is that because it's being "legitimized" by society?

It's being legitimized by those members of society party to it - the vast majority, in the case of mass looting.

Or is it because they suddenly doubt they're going to get caught due to a chaotic crowd forming?

Legitimization is all part and parcel of the "Am I likely to get caught?" thought process. Any action that anybody willingly partakes in has been duly "legitimized" in that person's mind, regardless of risk.

How does this state of mind translate to VCP, exactly?

If child sexuality/abuse (portrayed by any means) is "legitimized" then it is reasonable to suppose that a good many of those people predisposed to child sexual abuse and then seeing it as legitimate are likely to act on that predisposition. That's how.

And how exactly is "the majority" involved at all in anything regarding VCP? We're not talking about a majority being created. Well, --I'm-- not talking about a majority being created. You might, but that'd be a slippery slope argument... And that would be pointless for me to address, what with it being such a lovely little logical fallacy and all.

Academic, if not completely irrelevant (see last response).

 

[Southwind17]

I also asked you a lot of questions about your analogy to cell phone calls in restaurants. Would you care to answer those? Or are you ignoring them because you know that you can't answer them in any way that would support your assumptions?

I've convincingly addressed this. Please move along now.

 

[Southwind17]

This I do not agree with, and the reason for my disagreement is a core component of my general distaste for such laws.

These kinds of bans are not often the result of any sincere effort to improve general social welfare ... [emphasis added]

Flawed stance. Appeal to common practice.

 

[Southwind17]

I am not aware of anybody suggesting that pornography can be produced without any intent of providing sexual stimulation. As I understand it, the term specifically refers to material made with that in mind. However, just because there is a certain intent does not mean it is the sole intent.

Again, I agree entirely. BTW, though, I believe one poster here, at least, seems to think that because there is a partial "intent" (characteristic), namely art, that that means that it can be successfully argued to be the sole intent.

 

[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!".

BTW, quadraginta, I hope you enjoyed reading my "particular refutations" and examples of "holes" that I "discerned". If nothing more, I'm sure JFrankA, for one, would conclude that it was a "beautifully artistic" study!

 

[JFrankA]

BTW, quadraginta, I hope you enjoyed reading my "particular refutations" and examples of "holes" that I "discerned". If nothing more, I'm sure JFrankA, for one, would conclude that it was a "beautifully artistic" study!

I do find it beautiful. A beautiful piece of flawed thinking.

 

[JFrankA]

"Evidence", huh?

Let's play a game. Let's play evidence vs Southwind's beliefs.

I actually agree that this seems plausible. It is my opinion, however, that the potential upside from it will be marginal compared to the potential downside of the inevitable legitimizing message that legalizing VCP would send out.

Not evidence - opinion. You clearly state that. I remember this. It was your response to me saying that VCP could allow a potential/actual child molester relieve her/him self thus preventing a molestation, without anyone getting hurt, and with consulling, help the molestor cope with her/his urges.

But you feel that would make child molestation "legitimate". But you DON'T KNOW that, you FEEL that. It's too bad that VCP is illegal, otherwise we could test to see if my theory is sound. But we can't can we?

Evidence - 0, Southwind's beliefs - 1

Let me ask you this: don't you think some men (not all, but some) predisposed to rape (assuming there are such men) might see legally published material portraying rape for arousal purposes as legitimizing rape? I think that's conceivable. If so, don't you think that such men might then be more inclined to rape? I think that's conceivable.

Those people who have no regard of empathy are call sociopaths. They will do it whether they were turned on by porn or turned on by a "Old Navy" commercial. Besides, if you ban rape fantasy porn, then the next step is banning rape in non-porn stories.

Again, this isn't evidence, this is opinion.

Evidence - 0, Southwind's beilefs - 2

To my mind, if a man fantasises about raping a woman, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to rape, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous.

Right off the bat. An opinion, with a very dangerously thinking assumptions on what fantasies are. This is where you scare me. Let me admit something right now: part of my fetish includes fantasy rape. I can say, beyond a shadow of doubt, that I NEVER EVER would want to really rape a human being.

It's not a question of "resisting" it a question of real rape versus fantasy rape. The real rape is unappealing, it's horrifying and the consequences to the victim is damaging. I feel that. I empathize with that. And I think a majority of people feel the same way.

It's not "resistance", it's simply "not want". With your belief, you have condemned all people who may have a fantasy to being guilty of possibly raping someone in the future. You are being "thought police".

Besides, you say "could be dangerous". In other words, you don't know. You just think it might.

And this type of thinking is scary.

Evidence - 0, Southwind's beliefs - 3

Yes - pornographic rape portrayal should be banned, provided that it's clear that it is, in fact, rape portrayal. Realistically, that would probably, generally, limit it to video, I suppose (for what that observation's worth). Why? Because, like child porn, it portrays and serves to legitimize a most heinous of crimes.

First: virtual child porn. Now: fantasy rape. What's next? BDSM? All of it? The spiral continues.

You do know, SW, that a lot of fantasy porn is watched by submissive men and women who enjoy the fantasy of being a victim?

Finally, this "legitimizing" thing is crap. Fantasy porn has been around for ages, tell me where rape is legal and everyone accepts it? Certainly not here in the US. So tell me where rape is legal and looked upon as "legitimate"? In your own words, SW, "Put up or shut up."

Another opinion. With another assumption to boot.

Evidence - 0, Southwind's beliefs - 4

Very simple, as before, but I'll repeat it for your benefit: VCP is targeted at people with a pathologically morbid sexual interest in children with the purpose of sexual arousal and serves to legitimize sexual abuse of children. Sexual arousal causes many people to seriously lose judgement to the extent that they will completely lose sight of or otherwise disregard the implications and possible consequences of their actions, whether by conscious decision or otherwise. Ergo it is reasonable to suppose, if not conclude, that VCP, in many cases, is the indirect cause of harm to some children.

It is? ALL VCP ALL THE TIME is? Really. I've mentioned several times when it's not. I've posted a joke. It can be two consenting adult people exploring a fantasy that they enjoy alone together, but never would want to in real life. It could used in art (your definition of art) to challenge a viewer with her/his perceptions. It could be used as a joke, as my post before, a crass joke, yes, but simply a joke none the less.

Further, what magic powers does sexual arousal have that something like, oh anger does not? I can easily say:

"Anger causes many people to seriously lose judgement to the extent that they will completely lose sight of or otherwise disregard the implications and possible consequences of their actions, whether by conscious decision or otherwise."

See? That works just as well. I could also say:

"Depression causes many people to seriously lose judgement to the extent that they will completely lose sight of or otherwise disregard the implications and possible consequences of their actions, whether by conscious decision or otherwise."

Hey you know what else works? This:

"Celebration, in an example where your team wins a Championship causes many people to seriously lose judgement to the extent that they will completely lose sight of or otherwise disregard the implications and possible consequences of their actions, whether by conscious decision or otherwise."

Plug in ANY emotional state and that statement works. ANY EMOTIONAL STATE. The bottom line isn't the arousal, the depression, the anger, etc. The bottom line is what CHOICES a person DECIDES to make while in that state. A depressed or angry person who is not aroused can rape, the arousal would come later.

Again, a very dangerous assumption on your part Southwind.

I have to give the score to opinion.

Evidence - 0, Southwind's beliefs - 5

Now, all that's left to discuss, it seems, is the matter of the extent to which VCP causes or contributes to the sexual arousal of, and the apparent legitimization of child abuse to, child molesters. You would hardly disagree, I take it(!), that it would be advantageous to everybody concerned, including child molesters, to inhibit the legitimization message and sexual arousal of child molesters. I believe many serial rapists, if not child molesters, for example, willingly take medication to inhibit their sexual arousal.

This is evidence of what? That not having VCP around is just like having a drug that would stop someone from molesting? Is he saying that VCP IS A DRUG to these people? Really? I also love the way he speaks for all of us here.

Sorry, the final score:

Evidence - 0, Southwind's beliefs - 6

I think it's just become blatantly apparent, don't you, that the "evidence?" card, as a means of seeking to strengthen one's argument, is one that should be played with great finesse lest one's "bluff" be called!

Wanna see Me dispute your "evidence"? Oh, wait you can't. Well, I've done it anyway. Each and every piece of your "evidence" has wide, gaping holes that one could drive a truck through. (A beautiful truck at that. ) But you don't see that. You do what a lot of theists do: you see it one way a refuse to see on any other.

It's being legitimized by those members of society party to it - the vast majority, in the case of mass looting.

Legitimization is all part and parcel of the "Am I likely to get caught?" thought process. Any action that anybody willingly partakes in has been duly "legitimized" in that person's mind, regardless of risk.

If child sexuality/abuse (portrayed by any means) is "legitimized" then it is reasonable to suppose that a good many of those people predisposed to child sexual abuse and then seeing it as legitimate are likely to act on that predisposition. That's how.

Academic, if not completely irrelevant (see last response).

I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound rude, but isn't this the same kind of argument that says "God decreed it to right - so therefore it is"?

I've told you before, SW. We agree it's the law. Big deal. However, what we are discussing is the law right? You seem to not question the law. Once the law is in place, that's the end of it, case closed.

Some of us do not agree with the law. We may obey it, but we do not agree with it.

 

[Belz...]

Well then there's little point in my responding to this then, isn't there:

No, I don't suppose that would fit in with your MO.

 

[JFrankA]

Again, I agree entirely. BTW, though, I believe one poster here, at least, seems to think that because there is a partial "intent" (characteristic), namely art, that that means that it can be successfully argued to be the sole intent.

Another unsuccessful attempt to insult me?

If you are, it's a very poor insult and an even worse guess. I have never ever said that there is a sole intent. Indeed, I've argued that there are many different intents, that's what one can never really determine it.

That was my argument, please don't try to pervert my argument into something you think it should be.

 

[not daSkeptic]

You do know, SW, that a lot of fantasy porn is watched by submissive men and women who enjoy the fantasy of being a victim?

This is a difficult concept for many people, but it's very true. I've known women for whom being the "victim" of simulated rape was their thing. It's what they enjoyed. But, as you say, they would never in a million years be receptive to the real thing. The distinction is one of control and safety. In the simulated case, they have power over the situation. They can stop it anytime they want. Not so in an actual rape.

 

[tesscaline]

... namely:

​

Evidence?

Satisfied?

Quite. Thank you, finally, for admitting that you have made arguments (baiting people works both ways, ain't it great?). Now, please back those arguments up with some evidence.

I think it's just become blatantly apparent, don't you, that the "evidence?" card, as a means of seeking to strengthen one's argument, is one that should be played with great finesse lest one's "bluff" be called!

Or it can be done in an attempt to gain the information that someone is using to support their argument, in order to better dismantle it... But if you think you have a bluff to call... Go ahead, call it. Prove, definitively, that you are right.

It's being legitimized by those members of society party to it - the vast majority, in the case of mass looting.

Legitimization is all part and parcel of the "Am I likely to get caught?" thought process. Any action that anybody willingly partakes in has been duly "legitimized" in that person's mind, regardless of risk.

It seems to me that you're not actually discussing something becoming legitimate, but are instead discussing logical fallacies used for self justification. Which is a rather different thing than "legitimization".

You'll notice that the vast majority of the definitions of the word legitimate make specific reference to law. In addition to those, there is one that says that it means it could be logically inferred.

So, are you saying that "mass looting" is caused by people inferring from logic that stealing is no longer illegal?

If child sexuality/abuse (portrayed by any means) is "legitimized" then it is reasonable to suppose that a good many of those people predisposed to child sexual abuse and then seeing it as legitimate are likely to act on that predisposition. That's how.

And what meaning of "legitimized" are you using here? And how exactly are you determining what is "reasonable to suppose"? And how exactly are you making the leap from drawings, computer renderings, or other fictional depictions being legal to the non-fictional abuse of a child being "legitimate"? Are people incapable of distinguishing between a drawing and a real child? Are people who are "predisposed to child sexual abuse" actually discouraged by the laws as they currently stand? Or are they instead encouraged to just be more creative and secretive about how they go about breaking those laws to obtain their desires? Do you realize that child abuse is already portrayed in fictional media in such a way that it is not currently illegal? Would you propose banning that as well?

Academic, if not completely irrelevant (see last response).

This entire conversation is "academic". It is taking place for what purpose? To explore and discuss an idea so as to better understand it, yes? And yet you don't want to respond to my questions because they're "academic"? oooooookay.

 

[tesscaline]

I've convincingly addressed this. Please move along now.

How exactly can you address what sugarb's thoughts are on the subject, and what her reasoning is? Are you psychic now? Should you be applying for the MDC?

 

[JFrankA]

This is a difficult concept for many people, but it's very true. I've known women for whom being the "victim" of simulated rape was their thing. It's what they enjoyed. But, as you say, they would never in a million years be receptive to the real thing. The distinction is one of control and safety. In the simulated case, they have power over the situation. They can stop it anytime they want. Not so in an actual rape.

You've hit it on the head. That one little bit of difference is a big major deal maker/breaker.

Being someone who has rape fantasies, it took me quite a bit of soul searching as to exactly why I had them. It was never, ever "oh there's a woman I'm attracted to, to bad rape is illegal so I have to resist raping her", as Southwind thinks it is. It's "why is this scene turning me on?" and actually talking to various people to find out what gets them turned on. Also, watching different kinds of fantasy rape porn help me discern what worked and what didn't and why.

I'm sure, in fact, I'm positive that submissives go through the same kind of soul searching.

 

[Southwind17]

This is a difficult concept for many people, but it's very true. I've known women for whom being the "victim" of simulated rape was their thing. It's what they enjoyed. But, as you say, they would never in a million years be receptive to the real thing. The distinction is one of control and safety. In the simulated case, they have power over the situation. They can stop it anytime they want. Not so in an actual rape.

In other words, as I wrote around 2,000 posts back, or thereabouts, they don't really fantasize about being raped, then, do they?! It's a little like fantasizing about pulling off an armed robbery, but without the guns!

 

[JFrankA]

In other words, as I wrote around 2,000 posts back, or thereabouts, they don't really fantasize about being raped, then, do they?! It's a little like fantasizing about pulling off an armed robbery, but without the guns!

You really just don't get it, do you, SW?

What a sad world you live in.

 

[Southwind17]

Quite. Thank you, finally, for admitting that you have made arguments (baiting people works both ways, ain't it great?).

What on Earth do you mean "admitting that you have made arguments"? My arguments have been there for all to see.

Now, please back those arguments up with some evidence.

Oh, I get it. Having embarrassed yourself you're seeking to deflect attention by resorting to playing the "evidence" card. And then when the evidence card isn't enough for you you'll play the "proof" card, right? At which point we'll be right back to square one, with me positing the "reasonable supposition" argument and you playing the "proof" card. No thank you. If it's really snakes and ladders you're into why not kill two birds with one stone and go make some bored children happy bunnies.

Or it can be done in an attempt to gain the information that someone is using to support their argument, in order to better dismantle it... But if you think you have a bluff to call... Go ahead, call it. Prove, definitively, that you are right.

You just don't appreciate the concept of "reasonable supposition", do you, even though you deploy it countless times in your daily life. But again, that's also old hat here, so if you plan on returning to that particular carousel, again, no thank you.

It seems to me that you're not actually discussing something becoming legitimate, but are instead discussing logical fallacies used for self justification. Which is a rather different thing than "legitimization".
You'll notice that the vast majority of the definitions of the word legitimate make specific reference to law. In addition to those, there is one that says that it means it could be logically inferred.
So, are you saying that "mass looting" is caused by people inferring from logic that stealing is no longer illegal?

Honestly? You're over-analyzing. If you think this particular aspect of the discussion is likely to get resolved by seeking to reconcile the various dictionary definitions of "legitimate" with speculating as to what goes through a looter's mind as he transitions between innocently strolling down the high street to running out of the back of an electronics warehouse with a TV in his arms, seriously, you can dream on.

And what meaning of "legitimized" are you using here? And how exactly are you determining what is "reasonable to suppose"? And how exactly are you making the leap from drawings, computer renderings, or other fictional depictions being legal to the non-fictional abuse of a child being "legitimate"? Are people incapable of distinguishing between a drawing and a real child? Are people who are "predisposed to child sexual abuse" actually discouraged by the laws as they currently stand? Or are they instead encouraged to just be more creative and secretive about how they go about breaking those laws to obtain their desires? Do you realize that child abuse is already portrayed in fictional media in such a way that it is not currently illegal? Would you propose banning that as well?

Old hat and evidently futile questions. We've been there, done that but, unfortunately, not got the T-shirt.

This entire conversation is "academic".

What more can I add?! ...

 

[Southwind17]

How exactly can you address what sugarb's thoughts are on the subject, and what her reasoning is? Are you psychic now? Should you be applying for the MDC?

She provided an example of something she claimed. It wasn't accepted as valid (I actually agree with it). I provided a different, convincing example. Ergo the claim was validated. Now, as I wrote, move along ... please?

 

[not daSkeptic]

You really just don't get it, do you?

Apparently not.

*shrug*

 

[JFrankA]

She provided an example of something she claimed. It wasn't accepted as valid (I actually agree with it). I provided a different, convincing example. Ergo the claim was validated. Now, as I wrote, move along ... please?

Funny, I just did the same for your "evidence". I don't think we need to move along, because you haven't disputed what I said.

Nah. Let's stay on topic. Your "evidence" amounts to nothing.

 

[Southwind17]

Apparently not.
*shrug*

Don't worry daSkeptic - you might one day.