Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[JFrankA]

Well it is a question of how much harm it does to the child for one. Or how much right parents get to harm their kids.

Well, that's the question is it?

Under what circumstances is it okay to smoke with a ten year old in a car but not a nine? Why can a smoker smoke inside her/his own home but in her/his own car it's that much more dangerous that it requires a law?

And, when do we make a jump from not smoking in one's own car with a less than ten year old, to not smoking in one's own car period?

Yes, this last question is, admittingly, a slippery slope. This whole anti-smoking campaign started with separate sections in restaurants to now no smoking at all in any bar or restaurant, even if the owner wants to allow smoking. Now we are offered a chance to give up another freedom for safety.

Is it worth it? That's the challenge.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, that's the question is it?

Under what circumstances is it okay to smoke with a ten year old in a car but not a nine? Why can a smoker smoke inside her/his own home but in her/his own car it's that much more dangerous that it requires a law?

And, when do we make a jump from not smoking in one's own car with a less than ten year old, to not smoking in one's own car period?

Yes, this last question is, admittingly, a slippery slope.

The thing is that we recognize that children need protection, and second hand smoke is a risk. This is really noticeable with things like asthma. So as this law does protect children from a real risk it is entirely different from a law that prevents the abuse of drawn children.

Giving up freedom for real safety is one thing as we do it all the time. I give up the freedom to kill someone when they piss me off for the safety of not being killed. But laws against virtual child porn are not protecting real children. That is the biggest problem with it.

This whole anti-smoking campaign started with separate sections in restaurants to now no smoking at all in any bar or restaurant, even if the owner wants to allow smoking. Now we are offered a chance to give up another freedom for safety.

Is it worth it? That's the challenge.

Yea, keeping people with asthma out of restraunts was a great benefit of the past. Now you never know who has it.

 

[Southwind17]

The thing is that we recognize that children need protection, and second hand smoke is a risk. This is really noticeable with things like asthma. So as this law does protect children from a real risk it is entirely different from a law that prevents the abuse of drawn children.

"A real risk" eh. You only see that as a real risk because, well, you see it. Out of sight out of mind is how ostrichs behave. They have ... well ... bird brains.

Giving up freedom for real safety is one thing as we do it all the time. I give up the freedom to kill someone when they piss me off for the safety of not being killed. But laws against virtual child porn are not protecting real children. That is the biggest problem with it.

I think the biggest problem arises when people presage words like "risk", "safety" and "children" with the word "real", believing that that somehow compartmentalises, thereby allowing them to justify wrongs as rights in their minds. You have heard of the "No Real [True] Scotsman Fallacy", right? If not, read and learn here.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

End of chat buddy. Ciao

 

[Belz...]

What would you say drives this type of fantasy JFrankA - the idea of the child being under-age, i.e. fantasising about committing a particularly taboo illegal act, or simply the idea of a sexual encounter with a young person?

How about neither ? People fantasize about things they'd never do in real life.

 

[JFrankA]

The thing is that we recognize that children need protection, and second hand smoke is a risk. This is really noticeable with things like asthma. So as this law does protect children from a real risk it is entirely different from a law that prevents the abuse of drawn children.

Thank you, Ponderingturtle, you've given me a real challenge. A valid point of view I haven't considered and now should in my opinion of this specific possible law. I can see where you are coming from.

Giving up freedom for real safety is one thing as we do it all the time. I give up the freedom to kill someone when they piss me off for the safety of not being killed. But laws against virtual child porn are not protecting real children. That is the biggest problem with it.

Agreed.

Yea, keeping people with asthma out of restraunts was a great benefit of the past. Now you never know who has it.

Again, I see you viewpoint on this. It was something I hadn't considered. I'm still not sure if I completely agree to make all bars and restaurants prohibit smoking despite what the owner wants to do, but at least you've come up with a valid argument that forces me to re-think my stance.

 

[sugarb]

I am talking about age play, but from what I understand the "daddy/baby girl" fetish is only part of that catagory. Age play would include infantilism, "teen age - teen age" play, young student (either sex), older teacher (either sex) play, etc. It covers any fantasy that includes someone portraying someone under age.

Right, but we're talking two consenting adults. You know, there's an interesting discussion here, although it would veer us away from porn a bit so I won't go there. However, again I'll say that regarding age play and pornography...again it isn't portraying anything that people don't already do. Actually, in particular with the daddy/baby girl fetish, it is quite common. Perhaps I am biased in saying that, but even as a child I can recall several adult relationships where the husband was "daddy" in everyday speak, from some very religious people, might I add, just in case anyone thinks only sickos do those things. Er...wait. Some people here might classify religious people as sickos (lol). Check that.

I think, with certain personalities/backgrounds, sometimes relationships just fall naturally into those kinds of roles (particularly when someone leans very much toward submissiveness). But another thing I sometimes wonder about: I didn't grow up in a two parent home. However, many of my friends did, and when I was there I noticed that moms and dads quite often referred to one another as "Mom" and "Dad". As I've gotten older, I've noticed that many people my own age, once they have kids, start referring to one another that way. I don't think they really realize they do it even when their children aren't around, and it doesn't bother me, but I do find it interesting. I think many times we immerse ourselves in roles without even realizing that's what we are doing...and I wonder which is "crazier", so to speak, being aware of what one is doing, or being almost completely unaware while making judgements about others who really aren't so different.

Aren't people just fascinating?

 

[sugarb]

The thing is that we recognize that children need protection, and second hand smoke is a risk. This is really noticeable with things like asthma. So as this law does protect children from a real risk it is entirely different from a law that prevents the abuse of drawn children.

Giving up freedom for real safety is one thing as we do it all the time. I give up the freedom to kill someone when they piss me off for the safety of not being killed. But laws against virtual child porn are not protecting real children. That is the biggest problem with it.



Yea, keeping people with asthma out of restraunts was a great benefit of the past. Now you never know who has it.

Well, I am still a smoker (though I'm slowly tapering off--couldn't do the cold turkey thing), and I have to say that, without any laws, I never did smoke around children. I never did smoke in public places. Yeah, I smoke in my car...but it's just me in my car, or me and husband. If we're travelling with someone else, I always ask first, and if it will bother someone, I simply don't smoke. I can't even really stand close to someone and smoke...it bothers me. Of course, I'm big on the personal space thing, lol. I wouldn't want someone blowing smoke in my face either.

There wouldn't have to be laws about it if people just used some common sense and respect. Cigarette smoke is bad for kids. I'm a grown up, and even though I don't have any, I love kids. Even when their parents smoke around them, I do not. It just...I just can't do it. It feels wrong.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thank you, Ponderingturtle, you've given me a real challenge. A valid point of view I haven't considered and now should in my opinion of this specific possible law. I can see where you are coming from.

There is also the role that enviromental polution like second hand smoke plays in the development of respetory conditions.

Again, I see you viewpoint on this. It was something I hadn't considered. I'm still not sure if I completely agree to make all bars and restaurants prohibit smoking despite what the owner wants to do, but at least you've come up with a valid argument that forces me to re-think my stance.

We make all businesses hanycapted accessable by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Why is this so different. Much of the focus of the risks of smoking is on cancer and while it is a concern, smoking is also a dirrect accute issue for people with asthma. I know that in a bar or resturant that had lots of smokers I couldn't go there with my girlfriend, she wouldn't tolerate the atmosphere.

 

[JFrankA]

Right, but we're talking two consenting adults. You know, there's an interesting discussion here, although it would veer us away from porn a bit so I won't go there. However, again I'll say that regarding age play and pornography...again it isn't portraying anything that people don't already do. Actually, in particular with the daddy/baby girl fetish, it is quite common. Perhaps I am biased in saying that, but even as a child I can recall several adult relationships where the husband was "daddy" in everyday speak, from some very religious people, might I add, just in case anyone thinks only sickos do those things. Er...wait. Some people here might classify religious people as sickos (lol). Check that.

I think, with certain personalities/backgrounds, sometimes relationships just fall naturally into those kinds of roles (particularly when someone leans very much toward submissiveness). But another thing I sometimes wonder about: I didn't grow up in a two parent home. However, many of my friends did, and when I was there I noticed that moms and dads quite often referred to one another as "Mom" and "Dad". As I've gotten older, I've noticed that many people my own age, once they have kids, start referring to one another that way. I don't think they really realize they do it even when their children aren't around, and it doesn't bother me, but I do find it interesting. I think many times we immerse ourselves in roles without even realizing that's what we are doing...and I wonder which is "crazier", so to speak, being aware of what one is doing, or being almost completely unaware while making judgements about others who really aren't so different.

Aren't people just fascinating?

We are.

Very nice point.

Also, there are many different kinds of age play and reasons why one finds one fantasy arousing and another repulsive.

 

[quadraginta]

The thing is that we recognize that children need protection, and second hand smoke is a risk. This is really noticeable with things like asthma. So as this law does protect children from a real risk it is entirely different from a law that prevents the abuse of drawn children.

I quite agree with a practice of not exposing children to cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces, but this comment, specifically relating to asthma, brings up another consideration I believe relates more generally (if tangentially) to the discussion.

There is a school of thought in the medical community known as the "Hygiene hypothesis^WP" Simply put it suggests that a demonstrable increase in some immune disorders in more developed countries, asthma among them, can be attributed to a lack of exposure to agents which would stimulate the immune system in childhood. Simply put, from being too clean.

I bring this up because I think that in microcosm it reflects what I perceive as a disturbing trend to try and protect our young from too many things. Sometimes we protect from dangers which don't exist. The overreaction doesn't always have innocuous results.

Of course I'm not advocating any mistreatment of children, but I wonder if this has not somehow become a mantra which may conceal the real results of well meant actions, especially when complicated by the biases inherent in a religiously prudish, even puritanical culture.

We have uncovered and discussed instances where innocent families' lives have been disrupted by the unwise or overenthusiastic application of child pornography laws. We have ascertained without doubt that the intent of the creator of an image is not always an overriding concern. Nor, it would seem is the distribution or availability of the image.

It has been asserted, but never substantiated that the potential for an image to prompt unacceptable, antisocial action provides sufficient justification for Draconian laws. I have seen no evidence that such laws ameliorate any such behavior.

Giving up freedom for real safety is one thing as we do it all the time. I give up the freedom to kill someone when they piss me off for the safety of not being killed. But laws against virtual child porn are not protecting real children. That is the biggest problem with it.

We are in full agreement here. The Ben Franklin quote about sacrificing liberty for safety and deserving neither comes to mind.

I grow concerned especially when such sacrifices not only result in no demonstrable benefit, much less in an injudicious exchange, but may actually result in real damage without any concurrent gain.


I think that the trend in child pornography laws is in the direction of exactly this sort of overreaction. I think it is analogous to putting a fig leaf on Michelangelo's David, and trending towards smashing off the offending parts of the sculpture.

There were people in Victorian times who covered the legs of their furniture because of the immodest, suggestive nature of such exposure. As a culture we aren't as far removed from such mindsets as we would like to think. Perhaps it would be more prudent to encourage a mindset where such prurience is not assumed to be the norm. That might help more than the acceptance that it is, with the inevitable "The devil made me do it." rationalizations.

 

[Southwind17]

There wouldn't have to be laws about it if people just used some common sense and respect.

You see, that's just it, sugarb. The problem with "common sense" is that ... well ... it's not very common! That's why where I currently live, in the Middle East, it's extremely rare to see non-westerners wearing seatbelts whilst driving, and indeed westerners who've lived here for many many years. Believe me, it's very common to see kids standing up and playing around in both the back and front of cars being driven at 100kph+, many local women holding their babies on their laps in the front of a car (neither being restrained) and it's not uncommon to see a driver holding a small child on his/her lap, again unrestrained and at relatively high speed. That's how common "common sense" is! Oh, I forgot to add, non-wearing of seatbelts is, I believe, illegal here. The problem is it's hardly enforced. If such "sensible" safety practices weren't legally enforced in the western world, such as the UK, I doubt they would be observed anything like to the same extent as they are, although I do admit there's also a large educational element involved. That extends across the board, BTW, including health & safety at work, etc.

Cigarette smoke is bad for kids. I'm a grown up, and even though I don't have any, I love kids. Even when their parents smoke around them, I do not. It just...I just can't do it. It feels wrong.

"It feels wrong"! You make that sound as though you're not aware of the seriously detrimental effects that secondary smoking has on kids, not to mention the message that it sends out to them.

 

[sugarb]

You see, that's just it, sugarb. The problem with "common sense" is that ... well ... it's not very common! That's why where I currently live, in the Middle East, it's extremely rare to see non-westerners wearing seatbelts whilst driving, and indeed westerners who've lived here for many many years. Believe me, it's very common to see kids standing up and playing around in both the back and front of cars being driven at 100kph+, many local women holding their babies on their laps in the front of a car (neither being restrained) and it's not uncommon to see a driver holding a small child on his/her lap, again unrestrained and at relatively high speed. That's how common "common sense" is! Oh, I forgot to add, non-wearing of seatbelts is, I believe, illegal here. The problem is it's hardly enforced. If such "sensible" safety practices weren't legally enforced in the western world, such as the UK, I doubt they would be observed anything like to the same extent as they are, although I do admit there's also a large educational element involved. That extends across the board, BTW, including health & safety at work, etc.


"It feels wrong"! You make that sound as though you're not aware of the seriously detrimental effects that secondary smoking has on kids, not to mention the message that it sends out to them.

*sigh* Rolling your eyes at me, eh? I'm perfectly aware of what second hand smoke can do to children. Perhaps "feels" is a word I should not have chosen, but when I am with adults who have children, and those adults smoke around those children, and those adults know that I smoke, but not around their children, I suppose I'm more focusing my message at the parents. Can't say anything. Then I'll just hear "well you don't have kids, so what do you know?" And that gets old, and makes me feel stupid for being around stupid people, and I don't like feeling that way about the stupid people to begin with. Make sense of THAT! Besides, until the law says they can't smoke around their kids, then to say anything would be imposing on their rights. I mean that *is* part of what we're talking about isn't it? Rights? The law? So there you go!

How was that for attitude? (weak, I know)

Anyway, don't you think, though...given what we're discussing...that what "feels" right or wrong is really at the heart of the issue? Aren't the people who don't see anything wrong with [deleted] child pornography missing something in their make up? I mean, they for whatever reason, are devoid of that feeling of wrong, aren't they? And really, if a person will abuse a child in that manner, then aren't they most likely to abuse pretty much everyone and every thing? Because there's something missing. And it is something that very much does have to do with feelings. Don't you think so?

Edit to remove the word 'real' from in front of child pornography. Sorry 'bout that

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>
Wow. Is that righteous indignation I see rearing it's head?

Yes, I do see the potential, but I don't believe it's really all that much more dangerous than seeing a glorified murder movie, or a glorified war movie, or a glorified bank robbery movie, etc, etc. (When there are no real life children involved). Again, if someone really wants to do something like that, they will no matter what they view. I do not believe an image on a screen can actually translate into something someone will eventually want to do in real life with the real life consequences that come with it.

Now, I can point to studies that show that rape has gone down when there is porn available and gone up when it's restricted. Can you show me that child rape and molestation has gone up when there is virtual child porn allowed or is it just your "feeling based on your extreme views".

<snip>

How many people are influenced by the existence of images or films devoted to coprophilia? Is there any evidence that people, other than people who already like playing with poop, would be influenced by the existence of poop movies? And would the existence of virtual poop movies make any difference?

Are Pedophiles who are drawn to real child porn (in spite of the fact it's illegal) be significantly influenced by the existence of virtual child porn?

Are people who are disgusted by real child porn be likely to be turned into molesters by the existence of virtual child porn?

 

[Southwind17]

*sigh* Rolling your eyes at me, eh? I'm perfectly aware of what second hand smoke can do to children. Perhaps "feels" is a word I should not have chosen, but when I am with adults who have children, and those adults smoke around those children, and those adults know that I smoke, but not around their children, I suppose I'm more focusing my message at the parents. Can't say anything. Then I'll just hear "well you don't have kids, so what do you know?" And that gets old, and makes me feel stupid for being around stupid people, and I don't like feeling that way about the stupid people to begin with. Make sense of THAT! Besides, until the law says they can't smoke around their kids, then to say anything would be imposing on their rights. I mean that *is* part of what we're talking about isn't it? Rights? The law? So there you go!

How was that for attitude? (weak, I know)

Yes, weak, but it's not always easy to tell or explain to people where they're going wrong, I know. Personally, I just tend to avoid interacting with "stupid people", wherever possible, and that is, actually, easier done than said most of the time. Here, for example, it's simply a case of applying the "ignore" feature!

Anyway, don't you think, though...given what we're discussing...that what "feels" right or wrong is really at the heart of the issue? Aren't the people who don't see anything wrong with [deleted] child pornography missing something in their make up? I mean, they for whatever reason, are devoid of that feeling of wrong, aren't they? And really, if a person will abuse a child in that manner, then aren't they most likely to abuse pretty much everyone and every thing? Because there's something missing. And it is something that very much does have to do with feelings. Don't you think so?
Edit to remove the word 'real' from in front of child pornography. Sorry 'bout that

You might be right to a degree, and I'm pleased to see that you deliberately include people who don't object to virtual porn within your category of people who are "missing something in their make up" and "devoid of that feeling of wrong".

But when we hear stories almost daily about the serial killer, murderer, rapist, kidnapper and the like who "was just a regular guy", or "seemed completely normal", or "worked at the local charity shop", etc., then it seems pretty obvious to me that most people can be extremely selective about how they choose to apply their values concerning right and wrong, and respect and disrespect, etc.

How many people are influenced by the existence of images or films devoted to coprophilia? Is there any evidence that people, other than people who already like playing with poop, would be influenced by the existence of poop movies? And would the existence of virtual poop movies make any difference?

I really hope you're posing these as naive questions you'd really like to know the answers to, rather than rhetorically, otherwise I'd be inclined to write:

"And yet another straw man. Some people never learn. How rare is the incidence of coprophilia compared to the incidence of child porn generally? In other words, how many people might be predisposed to coprophilia compared to molesting a child? To what extent do you think the existence of images or films devoted to coprophilia would compare to child porn if images or films devoted to child porn were legal? You do understand and appreciate the strawman fallacy, don't you?"

But if they happen to be genuine questions I suppose you can research the answers just as easily as the rest of us can!

Are Pedophiles who are drawn to real child porn (in spite of the fact it's illegal) be significantly influenced by the existence of virtual child porn?

You seem to be assuming that they're necessarily "influenced" by the existence of "real" child porn, hence the quest for a comparison. If so, I suggest that you first establish whether pedophiles are "influenced" by "real" child porn. If they are, I suggest you then identify what it is about "real" child porn that "influences" them. When you've done that I suggest you think long and hard about whether the visual differences between "real" child porn and virtual child porn are such that in the case of the former they tend to "influence" pedophiles but in the case of the latter they don't. Then report back with your findings and conclusions.

Are people who are disgusted by real child porn be likely to be turned into molesters by the existence of virtual child porn?

I really don't know how to classify a question as illogical and nonsensical as this!

 

[sugarb]

Yes, weak, but it's not always easy to tell or explain to people where they're going wrong, I know. Personally, I just tend to avoid interacting with "stupid people", wherever possible, and that is, actually, easier done than said most of the time. Here, for example, it's simply a case of applying the "ignore" feature!


You might be right to a degree, and I'm pleased to see that you deliberately include people who don't object to virtual porn within your category of people who are "missing something in their make up" and "devoid of that feeling of wrong".

But when we hear stories almost daily about the serial killer, murderer, rapist, kidnapper and the like who "was just a regular guy", or "seemed completely normal", or "worked at the local charity shop", etc., then it seems pretty obvious to me that most people can be extremely selective about how they choose to apply their values concerning right and wrong, and respect and disrespect, etc.
*snip*

Good point. And reading that helped me recall a local case...local mayor, respected citizen, seemingly great guy, well to do, certainly nothing that would lead one to think he would do something so terrible, but he was arrested for child pornography. I'd forgotten all about that.

Then there was the time, this was maybe seven, eight years ago, that involved a popular local business. As it turned out, in a back room of that business, nude photos were being taken of minors, and distributed locally. I found that one to be more disconcerting than the mayor's case, because what the mayor had done was have it delivered by mail (and I suspect it probably came from a person that afterward was busted in a neighboring state). With the business, though...I don't know. There had to be a market for it around here, obviously, but for whatever reason, only the name of the guy taking and selling the photos was printed, not the names of the buyers. Now, that being the case, nothing happening to whomever was buying those photos, the probability is pretty good that those people simply found another supplier.

I cannot believe I had forgotten about those two things. And actually, now that you mention it, there are quite often, here and in my hometown, the area I grew up in and have always lived, people who do things that I am absolutely shocked by. Not that whatever they did was *done*, but *who* does them.

You know what? I think I try to shelter myself from certain things, put them out of my mind, try to forget. Huh. Didn't see that coming

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>
So you don't see any real risk emanating from the message that this would send out into society generally, that it's perfectly acceptable to imagine, produce, distribute or view sexually explicit images of children, including child molestation, with the intent to arouse(!), provided real children are not involved? You don't see how that message will inevitably be interpreted by many people, and what harm to real children will inevitably result? You really don't see that?!
End of chat buddy. Ciao

My question:
Are Pedophiles who are drawn to real child porn (in spite of the fact it's illegal) be significantly influenced by the existence of virtual child porn?

If you don't know, just say you don't know.


Is your statment a reflection of what you imagine what you would do if you were allowed to view child porn?

Do you have any evidence other than your imagination that that rather sweeping statment is true?

 

[Southwind17]

You know what? I think I try to shelter myself from certain things, put them out of my mind, try to forget. Huh. Didn't see that coming

Don't worry sugarb - you're not the only one. You've only got to look at those posters here who think that virtual child porn is acceptable!

 

[Southwind17]

My question:
Are Pedophiles who are drawn to real child porn (in spite of the fact it's illegal) be significantly influenced by the existence of virtual child porn?
If you don't know, just say you don't know.

I'm not prepared to accede to your demand to answer questions that:

1. Essentially beg the question because they derive from assumed premises
2. Are not posed in a way that demonstrates a genuine desire to learn or verify something
3. Are equally likely of being capable of being answered categorically as easily by you as I through due research
4. are unclear as to whether they're simply rhetorical

Is your statment a reflection of what you imagine what you would do if you were allowed to view child porn?

I don't need to imagine. I know what I would do if I were either allowed to view child porn or did (inadvertently) view child porn (whether allowed or otherwise). What I can imagine is what some child porn looks like. I trust that adequately answers your question.

Do you have any evidence other than your imagination that that rather sweeping statment is true?

In answer to that question please allow me to ask you a few, for starters:

1. What is the incidence of shootings in the US compared to the UK?
2. Assuming you know or discover the answer, do you think the difference has anything to do with different fire arm laws?
3. Do you think it's conceivable that certain situations permitted by law for the perceived benefit of some could have serious undesirable side effects on others?
4. Do you think that children should be entitled to receive the benefit of the doubt when it comes to causes of child abuse and molestation?
5. Do you think that a reasonable perceived risk to the safety and wellbeing of minors should be overlooked simply because the actual risk has not been studied and quantified?

As I say - for starters.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I quite agree with a practice of not exposing children to cigarette smoke in enclosed spaces, but this comment, specifically relating to asthma, brings up another consideration I believe relates more generally (if tangentially) to the discussion.

There is a school of thought in the medical community known as the "Hygiene hypothesis^WP" Simply put it suggests that a demonstrable increase in some immune disorders in more developed countries, asthma among them, can be attributed to a lack of exposure to agents which would stimulate the immune system in childhood. Simply put, from being too clean.

That is an interesting idea, but the problem with it is that it is about parasites and infections, not enviromental polution. So not really applicable here.

We are in full agreement here. The Ben Franklin quote about sacrificing liberty for safety and deserving neither comes to mind.

Yep, go anarchy, the only state of true liberty.