Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Thunder]

Pornography is bad because the human body is disgusting and evil and must be covered up at all times.

Agghh!!!! a nipple!! ewww gross take it away!!!

 

[RandFan]

And still, you show no vital signs of grasping the concept of "reasonably perceived risk".

You've given no basis to grasp on to.

I don't like virtual child porn. I find it abhorent and nauseatingly disgusting. I would be very happy if no one ever looked at it.

I'm here dude. I'm open minded as can be. I'll be your biggest supporter if you can give me reason to believe that there is a link between virtual porn and possible harm.

Let me have it. What is your evidence?

So, you see, it is a straw man, because the example you cite is not a reasonably perceived risk. Do you see good reason in such Islamic practice? If not, why did you choose that particular example?

I think an argument can be made that there is a risk. I don't think the loss of freedom justifies the risk even if I accepted the argument.

That said, THERE IS STILL NO basis to believe that virtual porn is a risk. What evidence do you have?

Please show me where I have indicated my personal abhorrence of something as my justification for claiming it's wrong. While you're wasting your time doing that would you like me to remind you of those posts that set out my reasoned justification?

What other reason is there to justify your claim that virtual porn is wrong". What "reasoned" justification? You just repeat ad nauseam that there is reason. Asserting that there is reason doesn't make it so. We have evidence that links harm to dark alleys. We know that there is a statistical probability of harm. What evidence do you have that virtual porn is potentialy harmful.

What evidence do you have?

You wouldn't be prepared to seek to support these assertions(!) with some objective evidence, would you, just in case there's the possibility of a prospect that you're remotely interested in reverting to a meaningful debate.

What objective evidence do YOU have?

Notwithstanding the vagueness of the causal link to which you allude, please do let us in on your reasoning (I can't wait to hear this, although I do have a sneaky suspicion I'm going to feel short changed afterwards).

Odd because I've been waiting and waiting to hear your justification for the vauge causal link between virtual porn and harm.

What evidence do you have? What objective reason do you have?

I agree, and for the last time: "reasonable to suppose" is very, very different from "could be".

Not if "reasonable" is simply thrown in. Reasonable requires a basis. Words and assertion are not enough.

What basis do you have? What evidence do you have? What reason do you have?

I can assert that it's reasonable to suppose that there could be a causal link between Sylvia Browne and dead people but my assertion alone isn't a basis. I would need some evidence. I don't have any. Do you have any evidence?

 

[Toke]

RandFan,

I really don't think you will get a clear answer this side of x-mas.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan,

I really don't think you will get a clear answer this side of x-mas.

I don't either. Thing is I sympathize with the guy. I've been in his shoes arguing that I'm concerned that nude photography of children (see Mapplethorpe) is a potential for harm. But I could not establish to what extent there was a potential for harm and I never called for any laws against it.

In short I was honest enough to admit that my personal distaste for the art was not sufficient to restrict the freedom of others.

 

[Toke]

I don't either. Thing is I sympathize with the guy. I've been in his shoes arguing that I'm concerned that nude photography of children (see Mapplethorpe) is a potential for harm. But I could not establish to what extent there was a potential for harm and I never called for any laws against it.

Nude children can be art, a vacation picture from the beach, or comic porn.
I do not like the later, but see no advantage in banning it.

In short I was honest enough to admit that my personal distaste for the art was not sufficient to restrict the freedom of others.

That is the kind of attitude that makes for interesting and educational debate.

 

[RandFan]

Nude children can be art, a vacation picture from the beach, or comic porn.

No question about it. I have great photos of my kids playing in the tub. I've no qualms about that at all.

I do not like the later, but see no advantage in banning it.

That is the kind of attitude that makes for interesting and educational debate.

Agreed. We ought to be able to discuss the issues. And I've nothing against exploring the notion that there is potential for harm. But asserting reason where there is none isn't the basis for banning anything.

 

[fuelair]

You know, I'm actually glad to hear this. It does raise my opinion of humanity a few nano-meters.

Uh, while this might be correct - and I am not that concerned either way- it could not be done with regular enema equipment - too easily blocked going in (except for a fluid that would mimic almost completely water diarhea).

 

[JFrankA]

No question about it. I have great photos of my kids playing in the tub. I've no qualms about that at all.

Agreed. We ought to be able to discuss the issues. And I've nothing against exploring the notion that there is potential for harm. But asserting reason where there is none isn't the basis for banning anything.

I have to agree. I don't like child porn either, virtual or real, but for artists like Maplethorpe, I don't see why it should be banned. (Actually, when they had the Maplethorpe exhibt in Boston, years and years ago so this is going by faulty memory, the big bru-ha-ha wasn't about the nude children, but about the homosexual erotica that he presented. Go figure). I thought the pictures of the children were beautiful in a completely non-sexual way.

Anyways, the point being is that how do we know, like in the case of an artistic picture of a nude child (virtual or not) , that the intent of the creator of the picture was to arouse? In quite a few circumstances it is clear, but in some others, like Maplethorpe, maybe it was to disgust, maybe it was to show the beauty (without intent to arouse), or maybe it was to challenge the viewer to make their own choices as to whether it's arousing or not. Isn't that what art is supposed to do?

 

[RandFan]

I have to agree. I don't like child porn either, virtual or real, but for artists like Maplethorpe, I don't see why it should be banned. (Actually, when they had the Maplethorpe exhibt in Boston, years and years ago so this is going by faulty memory, the big bru-ha-ha wasn't about the nude children, but about the homosexual erotica that he presented. Go figure). I thought the pictures of the children were beautiful in a completely non-sexual way.

Anyways, the point being is that how do we know, like in the case of an artistic picture of a nude child (virtual or not) , that the intent of the creator of the picture was to arouse? In quite a few circumstances it is clear, but in some others, like Maplethorpe, maybe it was to disgust, maybe it was to show the beauty (without intent to arouse), or maybe it was to challenge the viewer to make their own choices as to whether it's arousing or not. Isn't that what art is supposed to do?

Great post. I too went to the Mapplethorpe exhibit. I found the the pictures of children disturbing. That said I would be hard pressed to say categorically that there was no artistic purpose or any redeeming social value.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Great post. I too went to the Mapplethorpe exhibit and found the pictures of children disturbing. That said I would be hard pressed to say categorically that there was no artistic purpose or any redeeming social value.

Heck, forget art and social value. Some people are just adherents of rule 35. It's porn for the sake of completeness.

 

[RandFan]

Heck, forget art and social value. Some people are just adherents of rule 35. It's porn for the sake of completeness.

Cool.

Please note that I edited my original post so as to not attribute an incorrect view to JFrankA. Namely that Mapplethorpe's pictures of nude children is disturbing.

BTW: I had never heard of rule 35. Thanks.

 

[sugarb]

No. I don't need to be rude but the "why" isn't important. It's a self defeating proposition. I can argue why it is reasonable that I "percieve" that I'm Napolean Bonaparte but it's a non starter. I'm still not going to get to rule France.

Hello, RandFan. Okay, I see what you mean, because the "whys" couldn't be definite anyway with something that is perceived? Am I following that correctly? In other words, would we just stop at it being a reasonable risk? So then would the next question be, while it may be a reasonble risk, to what degree? In other words, would it be more beneficial to do nothing? Or to do something? (I don't think you're being rude, btw. "No" is a good response in my book. Much better than "Oh you idiot!"

 

[sugarb]

Except for what I wrote earlier, maybe?:

Especially if we happen to be talking about somebody who already has a pre-disposition towards child molestation. Don't you think the need for sexual relief preciptated by viewing child porn could reasonably cause such a person to act without complete objectivity and moral judgement? Don't you think it's reasonable to suppose that I person who happens to be pre-disposed to child molestation could easily be pushed "over the edge" from viewing legitimately produced, distributed and possessed child porn?

Hello, Southwind17. I would answer those questions with 'yes'. I would answer that way because just by viewing child pornography, they have already crossed a line that our society has drawn regarding children. But...that doesn't mean that I would be right in answering yes. Although I'm going to confess right now that I don't think it would be possible for anyone to convince me, regarding children and child pornography, that the answer should, in fact, be no. I'm struggling with even that possibility, but I'm admitting that. What I'm looking for, probably, is someone to show me HOW that answer could possibly be "no" before my mind will let me even consider it.

 

[sugarb]

sugarb,

Consider this:

Pedophiles as a psychiatric class are defined as people (almost always men) who are sexually obsessed with children. Because of this obsession, they inevitably get caught. Avoiding children seems to be the only known reliable way to prevent this.

There is no reason to believe the existence of virtual kiddie porn would be likely to change the behavior of this class of person.

In the majority of child molestation cases the attacker is not a classic pedophile but a person known to the child either as family member or friend of the family. In this case the victim is usually the specific target of a specific individual.

It's not reasonable to assume a man who has a sexual fixation on his little niece is likely have his behavior altered by the availability of virtual child porn.

The idea of treating virtual child porn the same as actual child porn results in court decisions that could allow someone possessing a comic book to receive a worse prison sentence than if an actual child had been molested.

Most people find drawings of children in explicit sexual situations distasteful (I certainly do) Some people find the mere nude of a adolesent or pre-adolescent distasteful (I don't) That doesn't mean the esthetic views of such materials should be made a matter of law.

Hello, MontagK505. Good post, thank you. I wish I could be so concise.

Can I ask a question, though? This is important to me, I'm not trying to be argumentative. Is there really a difference between the classic pedophile and a person who only has one specific target?

(I don't find nudes distasteful, either, for the record)

 

[sugarb]

I'm fairly certain there are quite a few of them.

At least a few hundred. I know this one dead guy...

 

[tesscaline]

Hello, MontagK505. Good post, thank you. I wish I could be so concise.

Can I ask a question, though? This is important to me, I'm not trying to be argumentative. Is there really a difference between the classic pedophile and a person who only has one specific target?

(I don't find nudes distasteful, either, for the record)

The stereotypical description of a pedophile (as in, the stranger who abuses a random child they've plucked off a playground or street corner) is quite rare. In fact, the younger the child is, the less likely a stranger will be the perpetrator. Most molestation of children is done by family, friends, or other people with which they have regular normal contact with (teachers, coaches, religious leaders, etc.).

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

 

[sugarb]

The stereotypical description of a pedophile (as in, the stranger who abuses a random child they've plucked off a playground or street corner) is quite rare. In fact, the younger the child is, the less likely a stranger will be the perpetrator. Most molestation of children is done by family, friends, or other people with which they have regular normal contact with (teachers, coaches, religious leaders, etc.).

Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/saycrle.pdf

SkeptiChick, thank you. I thought that actual pedophiles (stereotypical) were rare. Perpetrators are usually friends or friends of the family, regular contact, as you said. Again, that is why, in my mind, children make perfect (or I should say almost perfect) victims. Victimizations that happen probably (admittedly I do not know, this is a guess) more often without child pornography as any factor, than those that happen and child pornography is a factor. I guess that is why we've moved the discussion to "virtual" child pornography.

(It is a bit disconcerting, though, to accept that when things were done to one as a child, the person doing so wasn't considered a pedophile. It would be easier, for me, to know that it wasn't personalized, if that makes any sense at all)

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by RandFan
There could be dead people.

I'm fairly certain there are quite a few of them.

Only a few??

Someone hasn't been doing their job.

 

[RandFan]

There could be dead people.

I'm fairly certain there are quite a few of them.

Thanks to sugarb and Ron, I missed this gem.

There could be.

 

[JFrankA]

Thanks to sugarb and Ron, I missed this gem.

[qimg]http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/37/deadpeople.jpg[/qimg]

There could be.

Oh wow. I just saw people who sees dead people.....