Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Murder usually requires a corpse or at least evidence a corpse exists.

Can't argue with that. But is that all that's needed?!

Virtual porn only requires you offend somebody.

Plain wrong.

Oh and don't forget intent to arouse thats a big no no. No real objects required!

I agree actual harm to children (sexual or otherwise) should be dealt with harshly. And photos of child porn are evidence of such abuse.
The issue being discussed right now is bath-tub pix and virtual porn that might show the intent to arouse a pedophile [emphasis added].

Plain wrong.

Just for the record everyone! I have no intention using Poser to re-create the nude photos of Brook Shields when she was 10yrs old.

No need to explain yourself to us!

The fact is, some people are a little crazy on the issue of kiddie porn and if you question how the law gets applied to virtual art, it's suggested you are a closet kiddie porn producer.
Classic example. (post #1085)
All I was doing was giving an example of a possible guideline.

That possible guideline being "touching". So, provided you don't touch anything goes, right?! This is my point, anybody who even momentarily thinks that touching could be where the line might be drawn has already crossed the mental margin by a long shot.

 

[JFrankA]

I don't mean to sound like an idiot, but I don't even know what Poser is...so I just skimmed over those posts. I'm not a big technical person?...so...it sounded techie to me. Well, and kind of reminded me of Barbie dolls.

Anyway, I never thought you were actually producing closet kiddie porn, I just thought you guys were giving examples and discussing "virtual" porn (is that what it's called?)

Actually, SugarB, this way the thread is going is my fault. I was making a case about how even "virtual" porn (yes, you got it right), i.e. porn made from animation and computer generated people - where no live, actual, humans are involved, can be taken as something harmful.

The point I'm trying to make is this:
To me, any fantasies that remain just that is fine. One could have a fantasy of anything as long as they want and desire it remain a fantasy.

People fantasize horrible things all the time: Games, books, movies, television are filled with fantasies of being a criminal, being a mass murder, being a rapist, etc, etc. Yet the majority of people in this world are none of these things. Porn is exactly the same thing.

Like a game, like a book, etc, it's a release. There is nothing wrong with having the fantasy. There is nothing wrong with even acting out the fantasy with a willing, legal partner(s). There's nothing wrong with creating the fantasy on film using legal, willing, well-treated and well-paid actors and actresses. There's nothing wrong with creating the fantasy on video using non-real, virtual actors and actresses who are created by a computer.

What's the difference between watching a bank robbery in the movies and say to yourself "that's cool", and fantasize about it. And seeing some taboo sex portrayed in a movie and think "that's hot", and fantasize about it. Nothing.

The difference is that when someone decides to make the fantasy an actual, complete, very real life reality, desiring, not caring about, or even wanting the consequences and all, be it a movie of being a criminal or a sex offender, then that person who decided to make this a reality is the person. Not the media.

 

[JFrankA]

Can't argue with that. But is that all that's needed?!


Plain wrong.





Plain wrong.


No need to explain yourself to us!


That possible guideline being "touching". So, provided you don't touch anything goes, right?! This is my point, anybody who even momentarily thinks that touching could be where the line might be drawn has already crossed the mental margin by a long shot.

SW, it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that we are back to the discussion of "if you watch the fantasy and enjoy the fantasy, you must want to experience the reality. The only thing stopping you is your ability to resist."

....which is just plain untrue.

 

[sugarb]

Actually, SugarB, this way the thread is going is my fault. I was making a case about how even "virtual" porn (yes, you got it right), i.e. porn made from animation and computer generated people - where no live, actual, humans are involved, can be taken as something harmful.

The point I'm trying to make is this:
To me, any fantasies that remain just that is fine. One could have a fantasy of anything as long as they want and desire it remain a fantasy.

People fantasize horrible things all the time: Games, books, movies, television are filled with fantasies of being a criminal, being a mass murder, being a rapist, etc, etc. Yet the majority of people in this world are none of these things. Porn is exactly the same thing.

Like a game, like a book, etc, it's a release. There is nothing wrong with having the fantasy. There is nothing wrong with even acting out the fantasy with a willing, legal partner(s). There's nothing wrong with creating the fantasy on film using legal, willing, well-treated and well-paid actors and actresses. There's nothing wrong with creating the fantasy on video using non-real, virtual actors and actresses who are created by a computer.

What's the difference between watching a bank robbery in the movies and say to yourself "that's cool", and fantasize about it. And seeing some taboo sex portrayed in a movie and think "that's hot", and fantasize about it. Nothing.

The difference is that when someone decides to make the fantasy an actual, complete, very real life reality, desiring, not caring about, or even wanting the consequences and all, be it a movie of being a criminal or a sex offender, then that person who decided to make this a reality is the person. Not the media.

Good morning, JFrankA. I think that's a valid point. To be quite frank, I have some ideas that I know are totally socially unacceptable, as I would suspect most people do at one time or another, through creating fantasy or just accidental thought (lol, but remember! If you can think it, you can do it. I firmly believe that. Doesn't mean you *should* or you *will*, just that it is possible...and really, isn't that what makes fantasies so enjoyable time and time again? I think it must be.)

No fault to worry about, I was just momentarily confused. I think what startled me is the concept of "imaginary child" porn being okay. That just does not register with me as...erm...a good mentality. Not because of pedophiles, and not because I personally just feel it is disgusting...but...well, it concerns me that otherwise reasonable adults don't see the risks they would be taking in our current environment.

However...regarding pornography or just sexual relationships in general, I do think, recently, we have infantalized (probably spelled that one wrong) young adults a bit too much. I'm not saying it is a "good" thing that one of my grandmothers was married at fifteen and having babies...but...it didn't seem to be a "bad" thing either. I think we do get a little unreasonable and try to make ourselves believe that young adults are ignorant of such things...for our own comfort, really. But that's just a personal opinion. As I understand it, young adults these days are texting nude photos of themselves (and in some cases being charged for it, right?). With no being coerced, no being pressured...I guess it is just something young people sometimes do now, I don't know. But look...the way I see it? If the laws in places say that minors can have abortions without parental consent? Well...isn't it kind of stupid for us to restrict them in all the ways that lead up to that abortion they're allowed to obtain? But now I'm drifting Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Southwind17]

SW, it seems to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that we are back to the discussion of "if you watch the fantasy and enjoy the fantasy, you must want to experience the reality. The only thing stopping you is your ability to resist."

....which is just plain untrue.

You are wrong JFrankA, and I really can't see where you're seeing what you're seeing!

 

[ponderingturtle]

This is why the line "I don't know what porn is, but I know it when I see it" bothers me.

It should because the line is total BS. Although technicaly I believe that is used more for obsenity than porn.

The problem with labeling porn in that way is that people have some very very strange kinks as I am sure you know. See the guy who had sex with the bike as an example, or a shoe fetishist for a more common example.

In both cases they likely find things that I would find entirely unerrotic to be very errotic. So if a shoe fetishist was making shoe porn, it would be porn under how I define it as it would have the primary intent to bring about sexual desire and be sexualy stimulating. The problem is that this sucks as a legal definition.

 

[JFrankA]

Good morning, JFrankA. I think that's a valid point. To be quite frank, I have some ideas that I know are totally socially unacceptable, as I would suspect most people do at one time or another, through creating fantasy or just accidental thought (lol, but remember! If you can think it, you can do it. I firmly believe that. Doesn't mean you *should* or you *will*, just that it is possible...and really, isn't that what makes fantasies so enjoyable time and time again? I think it must be.)

No fault to worry about, I was just momentarily confused. I think what startled me is the concept of "imaginary child" porn being okay. That just does not register with me as...erm...a good mentality. Not because of pedophiles, and not because I personally just feel it is disgusting...but...well, it concerns me that otherwise reasonable adults don't see the risks they would be taking in our current environment.

However...regarding pornography or just sexual relationships in general, I do think, recently, we have infantalized (probably spelled that one wrong) young adults a bit too much. I'm not saying it is a "good" thing that one of my grandmothers was married at fifteen and having babies...but...it didn't seem to be a "bad" thing either. I think we do get a little unreasonable and try to make ourselves believe that young adults are ignorant of such things...for our own comfort, really. But that's just a personal opinion. As I understand it, young adults these days are texting nude photos of themselves (and in some cases being charged for it, right?). With no being coerced, no being pressured...I guess it is just something young people sometimes do now, I don't know. But look...the way I see it? If the laws in places say that minors can have abortions without parental consent? Well...isn't it kind of stupid for us to restrict them in all the ways that lead up to that abortion they're allowed to obtain? But now I'm drifting Sorry 'bout that.

Exactly what I feel.

In regards to virtual child porn, personally, I don't like it either. Not something I would do, quite honestly. However, I don't think it should be treated with the same severity as real child porn is. Further, I think having a naked virtual model of a child is nothing to call "child porn" on. Especially since the way Poser works, you have to start with the virtual model naked.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, I had forgotten about the Satanic Panic, RandFan. You might find this funny (or not, I don't know. I kinda did). At my last therapy session, we were talking about childhood, and some of the oddities in it. Without realizing how it would sound, I made a comment about some of the rituals we were exposed to as kids (our parents and some of their friends did these rituals worshipping Nature or something like that)...and the lady I see started to get very upset. As soon as I saw her expression change, I realized what she must be thinking, so I quickly assured her that it wasn't anything Satanic. I had truly not realized how what I was saying must have sounded...but it was heard, for some reason, immediately, as ritual=Satanism.

I was so embarrassed, and when I came home, I decided that it would probably be best to be a LOT more careful about how I talk about things. In many people's minds, those hysterias still exist, I think.

If I had a therapists this poorly informed I would stop seeing them.

 

[JFrankA]

You are wrong JFrankA, and I really can't see where you're seeing what you're seeing!

Oh. Well. My mistake. Sorry.

Basically, I'm saying what I've said two posts (or so) back. I'm not talking the law, I'm just talking my opinion.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm, I do have to wonder, is Debby does Dallas child porn by modern definitions? Isn't it about a bunch of high school girls having sex?

But I also realized that there are some people who can't work in porn, a 20 year old short petite woman can't do porn, especialy if she is the kind of woman mistaken for a girl often enough.

 

[JFrankA]

Hmm, I do have to wonder, is Debby does Dallas child porn by modern definitions? Isn't it about a bunch of high school girls having sex?

Actually, there's a new porno out that's called "Not the Brady's" and yes, it's a porno version of "The Brady Bunch". And yes, there's a porno scene with the actress who plays the "not" Cindy Brady character.

Would that be considered child porn?

But I also realized that there are some people who can't work in porn, a 20 year old short petite woman can't do porn, especialy if she is the kind of woman mistaken for a girl often enough.

I'm not sure that's true. I mean, she could be promoted as a "barely legal" performer. Just as long as the producer and models follows the 2257 laws, anything goes.


ETA: It is clear that the actress who plays the "not" Cindy Brady character is of age. She plays it like a "barely legal" teen.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Actually, there's a new porno out that's called "Not the Brady's" and yes, it's a porno version of "The Brady Bunch". And yes, there's a porno scene with the actress who plays the "not" Cindy Brady.

Would that be considered child porn?

I wouldn't, but then I am not the one writing laws against virtual child porn either. My feelings are that when an taking pictures of legal acts shouldn't be a crime.

I'm not sure that's true. I mean, she could be promoted as a "barely legal" performer. Just as long as the producer and models follows the 2257 laws, anything goes.

I thought there were laws against presenting adults as children in movies as well. Fits into the vitrual child porn examples.

 

[JFrankA]

I wouldn't, but then I am not the one writing laws against virtual child porn either. My feelings are that when an taking pictures of legal acts shouldn't be a crime.

Agreed.

I thought there were laws against presenting adults as children in movies as well. Fits into the vitrual child porn examples.

I don't think there is, but I'm not 100% sure (the porn I produce doesn't deal with age play at all). I do know that there is that porno I mentioned, as well as "Not Bewitched" and "Not the Partridge Family".

ETA: By the way, I have to say this: Nina Hartley played "Endora" perfectly. She was amazing in the role. They say the acting is terrible in porn, but Nina really kicked that idea in the butt.

 

[Belz...]

It's amuzing if at least in part because I had therapy in the early '80s and my therapist was steering me towards repressed memories because I had sex additions.

Maybe someone should report that therapist for making stuff up and potentially harming his patients.

 

[JFrankA]

Maybe someone should report that therapist for making stuff up and potentially harming his patients.

Unfortunately, what happened to Randfan is still being done today.

 

[Southwind17]

Further, I think having a naked virtual model of a child is nothing to call "child porn" on. Especially since the way Poser works, you have to start with the virtual model naked.

So there's no intention to sexually arouse then, is there!

Oh. Well. My mistake. Sorry.
Basically, I'm saying what I've said two posts (or so) back. I'm not talking the law, I'm just talking my opinion.

That's your opinion JFrankA. I think you're talking spherical male genitalia half the time(!), but that's just my opinion.

Actually, there's a new porno out that's called "Not the Brady's" and yes, it's a porno version of "The Brady Bunch". And yes, there's a porno scene with the actress who plays the "not" Cindy Brady character.
Would that be considered child porn?

Is she a minor? There's your answer.

I wouldn't, but then I am not the one writing laws against virtual child porn either. My feelings are that when an taking pictures of legal acts shouldn't be a crime.

What on earth has this got to do with "virtual" child porn?!

I thought there were laws against presenting adults as children in movies as well. Fits into the vitrual child porn examples.

Possibly (I assume you don't mean "vitriol". I could see a tenuous link there!).

 

[Belz...]

So there's no intention to sexually arouse then, is there!

I thought we were talking about actual harm to actual people.

 

[sugarb]

If I had a therapists this poorly informed I would stop seeing them.

Hello ponderingturtle. Not to derail, but I just wanted to address this very briefly. She is actually quite wonderful, and I'm very comfortable with her. It just so happens that this was the first time I felt at ease enough to really begin to delve deeper into childhood, and I think I was so nervous that my choice in wording was poor and...I probably appeared to be ready to spout something terrible out of my mouth. That is why I was so embarrassed.
In fact, she's so wonderful that she is the first person to accept that what helps me most is talking and working things out in my own mind, rather than having someone tell me what my problems are when they have no real idea. She's really wonderful. This was the first little weird blip moment We'll see where it goes next time...if we head in that direction again, you may be absolutely right. The last thing I need is being told I'm simply forgetting something. My PROBLEM is that I can't forget ANY of those bad times. If that makes sense.

 

[MontagK505]

Can't argue with that. But is that all that's needed?!

I didn't suggest that.

<snip>


No need to explain yourself to us!

I'm rapidity coming to the conclusion that explaining anything to you is a waste of time.


That possible guideline being "touching". So, provided you don't touch anything goes, right?! This is my point, anybody who even momentarily thinks that touching could be where the line might be drawn has already crossed the mental margin by a long shot.

Thank you for the moral insight, Inter Party Leader O'Brien!

You really have a wild hair in your bonnet on this subject don't you?

"That possible guideline being "touching". So, provided you don't touch anything goes, right?! " is only your conclusion. I didn't say anything of the sort.

Seriously, you think anyone who has a momentarily stray thought outside of your little mental box is the one with the problem?

Is this what you call “critical thinking”?

 

[Southwind17]

"That possible guideline being "touching". So, provided you don't touch anything goes, right?! " is only your conclusion. I didn't say anything of the sort.
Seriously, you think anyone who has a momentarily stray thought outside of your little mental box is the one with the problem?

If the definition of kiddie porn is graphic genital touching of fingers, sex toys, or other persons genitalia involving a minor, fine. I don't have a problem with that definition. That's a clear guide line I can follow. [emphasis added]

You didn't say anything of the sort? Maybe not, but you sure wrote it.

Is this what you call “critical thinking”?