Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[MontagK505]

Another anecdote:

A co-worker of mine, female, has a Tinkerbell (Disney's version) calendar. The month of July caught my eye. I had to really look at it several times before I realized what was bothering me.

I finally realized that the position the artist put Tinkerbell in was exactly the same position that Marilyn Monroe was in when she posed for her Playboy centerfold!

And I'm sorry, it was fweakin' sexy!

Did the pixie look over 18?

Added:
I remember a poster from the early 70's shows Tinkerbell doing a strip tease in the middle of a table while M. Mouse, D. Duck, and other D. characters watch.

 

[JFrankA]

Did the pixie look over 18?

Added:
I remember a poster from the early 70's shows Tinkerbell doing a strip tease in the middle of a table while M. Mouse, D. Duck, and other D. characters watch.

It's Tink. She'd always looked 15 or 16 to me, to be honest. I really don't know.....

ETA: Oh, I remember that cartoon as well!

 

[MontagK505]

It's Tink. She'd always looked 15 or 16 to me, to be honest. I really don't know.....

ETA: Oh, I remember that cartoon as well!

This may sound a little perverted but to me Tink always seemed like a little tart.

 

[MontagK505]

Another anecdote:

A co-worker of mine, female, has a Tinkerbell (Disney's version) calendar. The month of July caught my eye. I had to really look at it several times before I realized what was bothering me.

I finally realized that the position the artist put Tinkerbell in was exactly the same position that Marilyn Monroe was in when she posed for her Playboy centerfold!

And I'm sorry, it was fweakin' sexy!

Is that child porn? Was it "intended to arouse"?

That must have been an un-official calendar I don't think Disney Corp would have liked that.

 

[sugarb]

Enjoy the anecdotes. I love to just hear/read people telling stories. Seems to be an art that is being lost. We have story telling competitions in the local area several times throughout the summer, and they're very fun events.

Okay. MontagK505, no, we should not accept those laws. That is why I feel it should have been challenged, but we do not know the reason it was not beyond speculation. Eventually perhaps someone will finance that challenge and we can have better laws that better worded. I think, though, that we can understand the "spirit" of the laws, though.

Or can we?

I am beginning to wonder something. How many of you play(ed) RPGs in your early adulthood (or even still)? Now, pixies never interested me much, but elves? Yeah...I really enjoyed the LTR movies. I had two characters I preferred to use. One was an elf, male, and one was a human, female. As young adults, we really developed our characters, and in fact, the other night when I found the bath photographs, I found in another box of my little sisters things our dungeon modules and the notebooks in which we developed our characters for our little group. I had no idea she'd saved them. Was a good find, nice walk down memory lane.

Anyway...I think that people who play RPGs have a different view of "fantasy" and "imagination" than people who are never really exposed to or get to develop that amazing aspect of our human minds. For instance, elves can "appear to be" very young, but anyone who knows anything about elves knows when they are seeing a "child" elf as opposed to an "adult" elf. (I sometimes think in our quest for youth, we are desperately wanting to imitate the elven folk, lol).

So, to *me*, depicting elves or pixies will probably not be offensive. My mind separates the fantasy from reality. But guys? I think it is important to remember that the majority of our lawmakers, and the majority of people in general have no idea about those things. There have been times that I have wondered if parents screaming the loudest about pornography have ever taken a really close look at the video games they buy for thier children. Trust me, a lot of naked women with perfect bodies wouldn't look as...mmm...enticing, shall we say, as the women on video games. I swear my first husband was in love with some of them! Poked fun at him all the time over that.

Now, I've never viewed...manga? is it called?. But I can fully relate to other fantasy scenarios, like the pixies. And...I can even understand, when immersed in the fantasy, how it is possible to assign some very human feelings to our characters.

Still, though, I think that the intent and distribution of certain kinds of images truly are only to arouse, and we've said that child porn is harmful, so as I see it, something indistinguishable from it should be considered so, too. I'm not condemning the comic book guy for what he chose to collect. But...he *did* break the law. It is a law that is lacking severely, but it is still the law. It concerns me that someone would take such risks for such a trivial thing. Apparently, there are enough people willing to take those risks for child pornography and virtual child pornography that there is some sort of problem. And one should probably question, if it is that insignificant, why people take such risks to acquire it. Maybe?

 

[JFrankA]

Enjoy the anecdotes. I love to just hear/read people telling stories. Seems to be an art that is being lost. We have story telling competitions in the local area several times throughout the summer, and they're very fun events.

Okay. MontagK505, no, we should not accept those laws. That is why I feel it should have been challenged, but we do not know the reason it was not beyond speculation. Eventually perhaps someone will finance that challenge and we can have better laws that better worded. I think, though, that we can understand the "spirit" of the laws, though.

Or can we?

I am beginning to wonder something. How many of you play(ed) RPGs in your early adulthood (or even still)? Now, pixies never interested me much, but elves? Yeah...I really enjoyed the LTR movies. I had two characters I preferred to use. One was an elf, male, and one was a human, female. As young adults, we really developed our characters, and in fact, the other night when I found the bath photographs, I found in another box of my little sisters things our dungeon modules and the notebooks in which we developed our characters for our little group. I had no idea she'd saved them. Was a good find, nice walk down memory lane.

Anyway...I think that people who play RPGs have a different view of "fantasy" and "imagination" than people who are never really exposed to or get to develop that amazing aspect of our human minds. For instance, elves can "appear to be" very young, but anyone who knows anything about elves knows when they are seeing a "child" elf as opposed to an "adult" elf. (I sometimes think in our quest for youth, we are desperately wanting to imitate the elven folk, lol).

So, to *me*, depicting elves or pixies will probably not be offensive. My mind separates the fantasy from reality. But guys? I think it is important to remember that the majority of our lawmakers, and the majority of people in general have no idea about those things. There have been times that I have wondered if parents screaming the loudest about pornography have ever taken a really close look at the video games they buy for thier children. Trust me, a lot of naked women with perfect bodies wouldn't look as...mmm...enticing, shall we say, as the women on video games. I swear my first husband was in love with some of them! Poked fun at him all the time over that.

Now, I've never viewed...manga? is it called?. But I can fully relate to other fantasy scenarios, like the pixies. And...I can even understand, when immersed in the fantasy, how it is possible to assign some very human feelings to our characters.

Still, though, I think that the intent and distribution of certain kinds of images truly are only to arouse, and we've said that child porn is harmful, so as I see it, something indistinguishable from it should be considered so, too. I'm not condemning the comic book guy for what he chose to collect. But...he *did* break the law. It is a law that is lacking severely, but it is still the law. It concerns me that someone would take such risks for such a trivial thing. Apparently, there are enough people willing to take those risks for child pornography and virtual child pornography that there is some sort of problem. And one should probably question, if it is that insignificant, why people take such risks to acquire it. Maybe?

Quick answer before I go to sleep.

...the guy who collect Manga did just that: collect Manga. He didn't see anything arousing in what he bought, it was just what he collected.

Not all Manga has sexual content, indeed, most isn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga

Manga (kanji: 漫画; hiragana: まんが; katakana: マンガ; Manga.ogg listen (help·info)) (English: /ˈmɑːŋɡə/) consist of comics and print cartoons (sometimes also called komikku コミック), in the Japanese language and conforming to the style developed in Japan in the late 20th century.[1] In their modern form, manga date from shortly after World War II,[2] but they have a long, complex pre-history in earlier Japanese art.[3]

In Japan, people of all ages read manga. The genre includes a broad range of subjects: action-adventure, romance, sports and games, historical drama, comedy, science fiction and fantasy, mystery, horror, sexuality, and business and commerce, among others.[4] Since the 1950s, manga have steadily become a major part of the Japanese publishing industry,[5] representing a 406 billion yen market in Japan in 2007 (approximately $3.6 billion). Manga have also become increasingly[vague] popular worldwide.[6] In 2008, the U.S. and Canadian manga market was $175 million. Manga are typically printed in black-and-white,[7] although some full-color manga exist (e.g. Colorful). In Japan, manga are usually serialized in telephone book-size manga magazines, often containing many stories, each presented in a single episode to be continued in the next issue. If the series is successful, collected chapters may be republished in paperback books called tankōbon.[8] A manga artist (mangaka in Japanese) typically works with a few assistants in a small studio and is associated with a creative editor from a commercial publishing company.[2] If a manga series is popular enough, it may be animated after or even during its run,[9] although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films[10] (e.g. Star Wars).

"Manga" as a term used outside Japan refers specifically to comics originally published in Japan.[11] However, manga-influenced comics, among original works, exist in other parts of the world, particularly in Taiwan ("manhua"), South Korea ("manhwa"),[12] and the People's Republic of China, notably Hong Kong ("manhua").[13] In France, "la nouvelle manga" has developed as a form of bande dessinée (literally drawn strip) drawn in styles influenced by Japanese manga. In the United States, people refer to manga-like comics as Amerimanga, world manga, or original English-language manga (OEL manga).

That's it. Just a collection of comics. He probably had no idea that what he was buying could even be considered illegal.

So part of my answer is that: he didn't see it as porn! It was a comic book. One of many that he collects. Just a few of them had sexual situations, they're legal in Japan, they are just drawings, and they are one of many many different kinds of comics he collected.

Simply, he didn't see, or know or even dream of them being illegal!

More to the point of your question, why do people smoke pot? It's illegal, clearly, but quite a few people do, including the people who send the pot smokers to jail.

 

[MontagK505]

It's Tink. She'd always looked 15 or 16 to me, to be honest. I really don't know.....

ETA: Oh, I remember that cartoon as well!

Sounds like pedophile tendency's to me!

 

[MontagK505]

Quick answer before I go to sleep.

...the guy who collect Manga did just that: collect Manga. He didn't see anything arousing in what he bought, it was just what he collected.

Not all Manga has sexual content, indeed, most isn't:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manga



That's it. Just a collection of comics. He probably had no idea that what he was buying could even be considered illegal.

So part of my answer is that: he didn't see it as porn! It was a comic book. One of many that he collects. Just a few of them had sexual situations, they're legal in Japan, they are just drawings, and they are one of many many different kinds of comics he collected.

Simply, he didn't see, or know or even dream of them being illegal!

More to the point of your question, why do people smoke pot? It's illegal, clearly, but quite a few people do, including the people who send the pot smokers to jail.

You might think that and I agree. But some jurors won't.

As a mater of fact I have created the pixie with the SMG.

She's cute.
She's green.
She's nude.
She could be 14
(It's hard to tell with with a pixie don't ya know?)

Sounds like lyrics to a song.

FYI
I post some of my 3D renderings to a website that displays the work of people who have “artistic” pretensions (like myself)

The gallery can be viewed by the internet public but you need to be a member to post artwork. Most of the subjects are Sci-Fi, Fantasy, Pin-Up, Landscapes, Horror etc. The curators(?) have well defined rules for what a member can put up.
Example:

1 No nude CHILDREN period!!! (by this, it is assumed no pre-adolescents)
2 Adult nudity is OK, but you can't morph the genitalia to suggest sexual arousal.
3 No posing the figures that suggest sexual contact or explicit sexual displays.
(You can't do implied sex)

If you break the rules the worst that can happen is you get your membership canceled. (you don't however get put on a sex-offenders list.)

BTW the pixie with the SMG is not posted yet.

 

[Southwind17]

Randfan - within minutes of logging off last night I had a kind of "Eureka" moment. It suddenly occured to me why you (in particular) and I don't seem to see eye to eye on this, and it's because of something you wrote earlier:

I've never seen child porn but ... [emphasis added]

And there was I occasionally accusing you of allowing emotion to get in the way of objectivity, when, in fact, it's completely the opposite! And before you go accusing me of claiming that we should allow emotion to write our laws, I'm alluding to both the emotive nature and the long-term emotional effects that child abuse has on its victims, and that virtual child porn laws should pay due cognisance to (amongst other aspects) - nature and effects that must be taken into account when making any protective laws of this type.

Now, having written that I had another thought last night:

Imagine that a household pharmaceutical company developed a non-addictive drug similar to Viagra (let's name it "VCP", for argument's sake), but the key difference compared to Viagra is that instead of VCP targeting men with erectile dysfunction it targets active child molesters (quote: "The frightening reality is that at least 80% of those who purchase [VCP] are active child molesters." (Posey, 2005)). What effect is VCP designed and intended to have? Simple - to cause sexual arousal prompting and encouraging child molesters to seek sexual relief. An arguably positive side effect of VCP, however, is that in a very small minority of non-child molesters it induces a sense of enjoyment at a level comparable with that of reading a comic. Preliminary trials have yet to be undertaken to seek to identify any adverse side effects, such as whether it directly leads to child molestation as opposed to simply sexually arousing child molesters and prompting them to seek sexual relief.

Now, given the foregoing, which of the following would you advocate?:

1. Licensing VCP for general production and distribution
2. Not licensing VCP for general production and distribution
3. Requiring the highly regulated and extremely lucrative pharmaceutical industry to conduct trials aimed it identifying adverse side effects

Notwithstanding the foregoing, something else occurred to me this morning. I don't think freedom or rights concerning virtual child porn per se actually has anything to do with your concern at all. I think your concern pertains simply to the problem of some laws, many laws, being capable of application or interpretation contrary to the actual or desired intent by corruptible zealots with hidden agendas. The problem is, you seem to be a "baby" and "bathwater" advocator, like MontagK505, although, to be fair, I'm not sure that either of you realize you are:

There is a collector of Japanese comic-books who will likely receive a harsher prison sentence than if he had actually molested a child. There hasn't been shown any evidence by investigators that he possesses any real child porn or has actually harmed anyone in any way whatsoever.
It's highly unlikely that sending this man up the river would effect the behavior of actual pedophiles. And it won't do a DAMM thing to help actual children who are or have been abused.
But it does create a lot of free press for ambitious DA's, anti-porn crusaders, etc. Of course we should never question people who are acting out of purely selfless motives. And, of course anyone who does question the effectiveness of Virtual Child Porn laws is obviously a selfish SOB.
The abuse of children turns my stomach as it does the stomach of most people. But, the stomach shouldn't be used as an organ of cognition.

Notwithstanding your committing the "No True Scotsman" fallacy here (not to mention others), and that the words "baby" and "bath water" come to mind, I understand and appreciate your argument. However, isolated instances of prejudicial loopholes in laws that are capable of exploitation by power-crazed zealots are not a good reason to rescind laws that serve to achieve their intended purpose. Either such people should be removed from post, or better still precluded in the first place, and/or such laws should be amended to close such loopholes. The answer to your obvious concern, I'm afraid, lies elsewhere.

 

[Southwind17]

No I didn't and you can't read my mind or know my intentions.

It has nothing to do with what you thought but everything to do with what you wrote:

Child pornography requires that real children engage in sexual acts.

Contrast that with this:

And it should go without saying by now, but I'll reiterate it anyhow, we are, of course, when we talk about virtual child porn, talking about "more or less sexually explicit fabricated images virtually indistinguishable from minors intended to sexually arouse."

Spot the difference? ("virtual child porn" is, of course, a subset of "child porn")

Please to show that the intent was to advocate a bheavior?

The intent of virtual child porn, "real" child porn, in fact any porn, by definition is to sexually arouse. Sexual arousal naturally tends to lead to a certain behaviour, depending on what the options are at the time! Can the same be said of movies like "Natural Born Killers"? Are such movies produced with the explicit intention of invoking a physiological effect that is naturally expected to be acted upon? Or are you suggesting that it's reasonable to suppose that people should watch porn, become sexually aroused and then simply forget about it and go mow the lawn for gratification? See the difference now?

I'm not talking about this thread. So you are going to ad hominem poison the well?

Neither am I, which is why I italicised the word "this" (you obviously missed that). Your well water, therefore, remains cleared for drinking!

Not in any intelectualy honest fashion.

Here we go again - changing the definition to suit. You seem to have replaced the straw man with the Scotsman (the "No True Scotsman", that is)!

See what? What is the devious purpose you are accusing me of?

Not devious purposefulness - just not quite showing the conviction that you seem to otherwise seek to portray:

I've spent many pages on this forum arguing in defense of children.

I'm here in defense of principle and freedom [which I acknowledge arguably compromises defense of children].

 

[quixotecoyote]

Not devious purposefulness - just not quite showing the conviction that you seem to otherwise seek to portray:

I have a mental image of Southwind going into a mine shaft and coming out pushing a cart full of cherries.

 

[RandFan]

It has nothing to do with what you thought but everything to do with what you wrote:

Contrast that with this:

Spot the difference? ("virtual child porn" is, of course, a subset of "child porn")

Yeah, you are playing a game of gotcha. We get that. It's not what I meant.

Sexual arousal naturally tends to lead to a certain behaviour, depending on what the options are at the time!

Please to show a link between porn and crime? We've asked you and you've failed.

Not devious purposefulness - just not quite showing the conviction that you seem to otherwise seek to portray:

I've lost any and all respect for you.

which I acknowledge arguably compromises defense of children.

This is a lie. I acknowledge no such thing. I've told you that if you could demonstrate a causal link I would reconsider.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited for civility.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan - within minutes of logging off last night I had a kind of "Eureka" moment.

I'm not interested in your bowl movements.

If you have evidence that demonstrates a link between virtual child porn and harm to children then present it. If you can show a causal link I will listen to it. Though I've zero respect for you I will keep an open mind and will consider any and all reasonable evidence or argument. Until then it's all a lot of nonsense and fallacy. I've zero respect for you sir. You've maligned me without warrant.

If and when you have some evidence I'll address it. Until then I shall only respond as I see fit. You don't deserve any consideration. I appealed to your sense of decency and you continued to cast aspersions.

 

[Southwind17]

I with I could remember a movie title from a few years ago...someone here may...where a fourteen year old girl participated in a rape scene. Had that been in a pornographic film instead of a film made for the big screen, it would have been completely illegal. That is an inconsistency.

Wrong - check the definition of "porn" ("... intended to sexually arouse ...")

If I walked up to a police officer and said "I would like to kill myself", he is by law going to have to take me to the hospital. But if I were to tell that same police officer "I would like to view child porn", it is protected speech, and he can do nothing unless I act on it. That seems inconsistent.

It's not inconsistent. I suggest that you try it, in the very simple (arguably naively) context in which you've described it. In fact, I'd be inclined to expect reactions like "Please don't go wasting police time madam - move along now." and "I beg your pardon madam! Would you care to expand on that?!" respectively.

These things seem very inconsistent, to me. And perhaps that is why these discussions are nearly impossible. But what is the test now, for obscenity? Isn't it something about what the average person in a community finds objectionable, and community standards or some such thing? Even *that* is inconsistent, because that means that each and every area of the country could have differing laws, based on the prevailing ideaology in that area. Is that how laws are supposed to be applied?

Believe it or not, I believe it is, although possibly not on the micro-scale of adjacent states or counties.

 

[Southwind17]

It's not what I meant.

Then I suggest you start writing clearly what you do mean. That might be a whole lot more helpful!

Please to show a link between porn and crime? We've asked you and you've failed.

If you're going to resort to this position why didn't you come into this thread with the honest statement "Unless you can show a link between porn and crime I'm not interested in a debate here, and BTW, just like there are no definitive studies showing a link between violent console games and violent crime I doubt you'll find any studies relating to porn and crime. Ergo, I win. QED!"

I'm not interested in your bowl movements.

Seems you're not "interested" in answering the questions relating to the VCP drug analogy, either. How convenient for you!

If and when you have some evidence I'll address it. Until then I shall only respond as I see fit.

I guess I'll just have to go buy my own ball then eh!

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Now, having written that I had another thought last night:

Another? There was a first?

I hope it's not lonely.

Imagine that a household pharmaceutical company developed a non-addictive drug similar to Viagra (let's name it "VCP", for argument's sake), but the key difference compared to Viagra is that instead of VCP targeting men with erectile dysfunction it targets active child molesters

<snip excess drivel>

So. Having failed utterly and abysmally at providing any evidence whatsoever of any causal link of any sort between virtual porn, or for that matter any kind of porn at all that doesn't actually exploit real children, and any kind of abuse your new "thought" is to construct a hypothetical which posits such a link as its premise, and then offer that as evidence?

If it wasn't so pitiful it might even be amusing.

 

[RandFan]

If you're going to resort to this position why didn't you come into this thread with the honest statement...

This is only my position since you decided to ignore my request to not cast aspersion.

I guess I'll just have to go buy my own ball then eh!

Oh, you've got balls. I'll grant you that. The problem is that you've no sense of decency. Your ego is simply too great to behave in an appropriate manner.

 

[RandFan]

If it wasn't so pitiful it might even be amusing.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Believe it or not, I believe it is, although possibly not on the micro-scale of adjacent states or counties.

Your possibilities are less limited than you suspect.

As an example the laws on alcohol sales, a subject remarkably similar to pornography legislation both in treatment and execution, can and do vary widely by state and county, and even township.

"Dry" states adjacent to "wet" states. "Dry" counties next to "wet" counties. Even "dry" towns side by side with "wet" ones. Why? Part of it is based on a constitutional system which stresses local government. Any further explanation must come from the bastions of religion and family values. It has no relationship with reality.

Not unlike the topic under discussion.

 

[Southwind17]

This is only my position since you decided to ignore my request to not cast aspersion.

You've been using this position as a safety net from the start every time you've been on the ropes!