Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

My apologies SugarB, I answered that question a little quickly and I was tired.

What I was trying to say was that there are some things that are illegal that many people try to acquire and use. Pot being one of them, mainly, I'd imagine, because I don't use it either, because it's relaxing, it makes them feel good, and it's an escape for a short while.

It's the reason why I play World of Warcraft a lot, (though that isn't illegal), because it's harmless, it relaxes me, it's fun and an escape, and it doesn't hurt anyone.

In the case of legal porn, I would go to say it's the same reasons, only with an emphasis on relief. But porn is as diverse. What would, err, relieve one person might not work for another.

A person pursues illegal porn for the exact same reason another person would pursue legal porn.

Hi, JFrankA. No apology necessary. Once you stated you were going to go to sleep, it might be wrong of me, but I figured it was a hasty reply

To the topic. Okay, I'm not so sure that a person pursues illegal porn for the exact same reasons. I would think that...a person pursuing illegal porn perhaps is someone who is drawn to whatever society deems unacceptable, and being such, I am just asking that we seriously consider the implications of...erm...encouraging that behavior regarding virtual child pornography. This isn't a cultural standard, this protecting of children. Not anymore. It is, as I understand it now, a worldwide standard set forth by the UN, regarding the rights and protection of children. Maybe it would help if we broadened the topic to exclude only our own constitutional issues, because as I understand it, even our European counterparts are stricter about child pornography (and don't differentiate between "real" and "virtual") than we are.

(Someone please correct me if I am wrong there.)

I'm not asking anyone to throw away their first amendment rights, or their nationally granted rights. I'm simply asking that we consider it as a universal problem...which it is now, especially given the introduction of the www.

*IF* you were to seriously consider it from that standpoint, removing our own first amendment guarantees (which we are so lucky to have, but as with anything, there are some serious abuses of it), and considering the international problem of child pornography, would that in any way alter your views?

 

[sugarb]

Allow me to clarify that, if I may. In many areas, we (in the US) recognize that we lag behind our counterparts in some crucial areas, one of those being healthcare, which might be a good analogy. If we look at some European nations that perform better than we do in terms of health care and education, one of the things I think we will notice is that these are societies that take very seriously the responsibility to children. To the point of ensuring normal every day people can spend as much leisure time with their families as possible...more than most of us could begin to imagine.

I know that in one thread recently, there was a discussion about protected play areas, and some people objected to parents not being "allowed" to be there once they enrolled their children there...but another way to look at it is that their society *does* provide considerably more protection for children, at governments expense (provided of course by taxpayers) than our own. I find that shameful.

I also find it a little bit odd that on the one hand we say these governments that don't grant as much freedom of speech as we are granted have it right when it comes to health care, we at the same time pretty much say they have it wrong when it comes to protecting children and child pornography laws. Not that I am saying to agree with part means to agree with all...I don't mean that at all. But what I mean is, on the whole, it seems to me that those countries that, with real teeth, provide for and protect children, seem to perform better for children in other areas, such as education.

In essence, really (and I may word this all wrong, you know how I do sometimes...), the laws we enact to protect children are, in a way, grooming our future leaders (those same children) to appreciate and uphold those same values. It is part of society building, not tearing down. And I think that is in part why we almost automatically view the protecting of children as more imperative/more important, than we do the protection of adults.

That is why this is an important issue and merits serious discussion. I realize it is a very broad issue. We have to think not only of personal freedoms, but about protecting children...and not only children, but we are in a way also protecting future adults by trying to prevent exposure to things that will harm them (psychologically, physically, emotionally) for the rest. of. their. lives. You know? Much in the same way a pedophile grooms a victim, society depends on our younger generations being groomed to uphold the values and rights of others for the sake of the future.

Granted, I am a long term thinker more than short term, but in the short term approaches we have taken, we have seen the harm that child abuse causes. We have seen how it affects society in the future as victims try to deal with the results of that abuse. We have seen some victims become so desensitized that they continue the cycle of abuse. It just seems to me...and JFrankA believe me, I know that sometimes I do have a pollyanna-ish attitude...but it just seems to me that something isn't working when we have to have serious arguments as to the differences between "real" and "virtual" child abuse. And that is not said to slight anyone, it is just for lack of better phrasing.

 

[RandFan]

To the topic. Okay, I'm not so sure that a person pursues illegal porn for the exact same reasons. I would think that...a person pursuing illegal porn perhaps is someone who is drawn to whatever society deems unacceptable, and being such, I am just asking that we seriously consider the implications of...erm...encouraging that behavior regarding virtual child pornography. This isn't a cultural standard, this protecting of children. Not anymore. It is, as I understand it now, a worldwide standard set forth by the UN, regarding the rights and protection of children. Maybe it would help if we broadened the topic to exclude only our own constitutional issues, because as I understand it, even our European counterparts are stricter about child pornography (and don't differenticate between "real" and "virtual") than we are.

(Someone please correct me if I am wrong there.)

I'm not asking anyone to throw away their first amendment rights, or their nationally granted rights. I'm simply asking that we consider it as a universal problem...which it is now, especially given the introduction of the www.

*IF* you were to seriously consider it from that standpoint, removing our own first amendment guarantees (which we are so lucky to have, but as with anything, there are some serious abuses of it), and considering the international problem of child pornography, would that in any way alter your views?

Fair question. And I don't mean to be to push the point too far but I do very much appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue in this fashion.

I truly do find the material upsetting and disturbing. Before I address the hypothetical let me just say something. I suspect that such a prohibition would not lead to a slippery slope and the loss of freedoms. Then again I don't think that had Larry Flynt lost his case it would have lead to any such landslide. In fact, I think most such cases, in and of them-self wouldn't lead to serious deleterious effect. However, the best way to ensure that we don't lose our freedoms is to avoid death by a thousand cuts. Each loss weakens the security we enjoy. It's inconsistent to say, "well, just this once"?

On to your hypothetical. Intuitively I'm tempted to say yes. I find nothing redeeming about virtual child porn. But then I find nothing redeeming about daytime soap operas either. I don't mean to be glib. Yes, I do see a difference between the two. It's just that I'm not sure that I trust my instincts as to what is redeeming.

That said, we still have our first Amendment rights and I would speak out against any nation that didn't value free speech rights above speculative harm.

Let me give you a hypothetical. A police officer illegally breaks into a suspects home and seizes a stash of child pornography (real not virtual). There's no question the sleazeball has harmed children and it is likely that he will do it again. Should we honor the law and throw out the evidence or should we allow the evidence into trial?

 

[RandFan]

sugarb,

Have you seen Hitchen's talk on free speech?

I recomend it.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[sugarb]

Fair question. And I don't mean to be to push the point too far but I do very much appreciate your willingness to discuss the issue in this fashion.

I truly do find the material upsetting and disturbing. Before I address the hypothetical let me just say something. I suspect that such a prohibition would not lead to a slippery slope and the loss of freedoms. Then again I don't think that had Larry Flynt lost his case it would have lead to any such landslide. In fact, I think most such cases, in and of them-self wouldn't lead to serious deleterious effect. However, the best way to ensure that we don't lose our freedoms is to avoid death by a thousand cuts. Each loss weakens the security we enjoy. It's inconsistent to say, "well, just this once"?

On to your hypothetical. Intuitively I'm tempted to say yes. I find nothing redeeming about virtual child porn. But then I find nothing redeeming about daytime soap operas either. I don't mean to be glib. Yes, I do see a difference between the two. It's just that I'm not sure that I trust my instincts as to what is redeeming.

That said, we still have our first Amendment rights and I would speak out against any nation that didn't value free speech rights above speculative harm.

Let me give you a hypothetical. A police officer illegally breaks into a suspects home and seizes a stash of child pornography (real not virtual). There's no question the sleazeball has harmed children and it is likely that he will do it again. Should we honor the law and throw out the evidence or should we allow the evidence into trial?

In that hypothetical? Throw it out. Illegal search and seizure.

That's a big part of my consideration in banning the distribution but not the possession. We should not *know* what our neighbors have in their homes, kept away for personal use. Very much I support privacy rights. Actually, I'm more concerned about losing those than having my speech curtailed. Privacy rights seem to be more and more threatened.

 

[sugarb]

sugarb,

Have you seen Hitchen's talk on free speech?

I recomend it.

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Hello, RandFan. I still have dialup (yeah, told ya I was technologically challenged) and my connection doesn't do well with videos. I'm looking for a transcript though, and finding lot from Hitchens. Is the one you're referring to the one mentioning Judge OW Holmes?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

To restate: The claim that pornography can influence an individual into changing his/her behavior has many faults. The first and most essential is that, unless you can find a compelling evidence that the change is inherent to the porn and not the individual's personal psychology, you're not getting too far. This is why I always use the Poison example. Poison is proven to be inherently harmful to anyone who consumes it, regarding of their age, sex or cultural background. Porn, and any other type of visual product, has proven nothing but to affect people in completely different ways. In fact, that is the reason there are so many different types of pornography, because not everyone is turned on by the same things. And yes, that does include pedophiles. But certainly, they did not become pedophiles through watching the porn. They already were. Operating via "eliminating the porn" is putting the cart in front of the horse. Pedophile Porn exists because Pedophiles exist. They are the ones who create such porn. Pedophile porn is, in other words, created by pedophiles for pedophiles.

So this brings us to the "virtual child porn" issue. We know that some of it must have definitely been created with pedophile purposes, and some of it probably not (and then again some of it is kind of blurry in terms of what the intentionality must have been). Again, if we're to avoid putting the cart in front of the horse, we must look for the intent, and we must also look at what are the consequences when/if viewing such pornography. And to this day, there is no evidence that a kid watching child pornography, or adult pornography, becomes deviant in some way, exclusively because of the pornography. I think a serious study to proof such thing would be one that includes children of different ages, ethniticities and genders, and show them the same pornographic material, and see if it causes the same exact reaction. Sounds like a kind of cruel experiment but it's probably not necessary because over the course of life, we have seen that every human being reacts differently to things. And in fact, children tend to giggle when they watch pornographic material. To them, the "titties", and the "penis" and the "buttock" are usually comedic (I sure remember it used to be for me and my friends when I was a kid). I also remember my little brother seeing this computer game that had pictures of nude women and he just burst out laughing in the classical "Bahahahaha!" fashion. He had found the nudity comedic, in the very ridicule sense.

When it's not the comedic reaction, children usually just tend to find the material odd. And no one is denying that, in some cases, a kid might find the material disturbing in some way. But if so, this is clearly an individual reaction and depends on the child's individuality.

I once again bring back the example of me and the video from "Thriller" which shocked me and traumatized me from childhood. So there you have an example of a child viewing an image that caused a real psychological effect. Would you consider it reason sufficient to ban "Thriller"? No, because not every child who saw that video reacted in the same way. Some probably laughed at it (I have a friend who finds all horror movies comedic, and laughs at them). Some, like me, developed a shock which influenced us for life time.

The effect of audiovisual work is, by far, proved to rely on the individual's inner world. Any claim that a fictional work is inherently harmful (in the same way that poison is inherently harmful) has a lot of work ahead of himself to prove such extraordinary claim.

 

[RandFan]

In that hypothetical? Throw it out. Illegal search and seizure.

That's a big part of my consideration in banning the distribution but not the possession. We should not *know* what our neighbors have in their homes, kept away for personal use. Very much I support privacy rights. Actually, I'm more concerned about losing those than having my speech curtailed. Privacy rights seem to be more and more threatened.

Thank you. I don't know that I could prioritize. For me it's like asking what I would rather do without, my heart or my lungs. Freedom of speech is at the very heart of Democracy (see Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy). If you haven't read it I strongly recomend it. Free speech is perhaps the single most powerful tool to effect change. But I respect your opinion.

 

[RandFan]

Hello, RandFan. I still have dialup (yeah, told ya I was technologically challenged) and my connection doesn't do well with videos. I'm looking for a transcript though, and finding lot from Hitchens. Is the one you're referring to the one mentioning Judge OW Holmes?

Yes. It's not directly applicable in a number of ways but it's good nonetheless.

 

[fuelair]

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.

Supposedly done by Wally Wood - and may well have been. Have it somewhere in my storehouse - a few boxes away from the Grail IIRC and under one of the official copies of the True Cross (the ones they cut up for Pilgrims and others yearning to be seperated from hard coin)

 

[sugarb]

Yes. It's not directly applicable in a number of ways but it's good nonetheless.

Yes, it is. I am unfamiliar with Hitchens, but I will try to familiarize myself moreso, if for no other reason than he appears (though I admit to only transcripts) to be a very good speaker.

 

[sugarb]

Thank you. I don't know that I could prioritize. For me it's like asking what I would rather do without, my heart or my lungs. Freedom of speech is at the very heart of Democracy (see Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy). If you haven't read it I strongly recomend it. Free speech is perhaps the single most powerful tool to effect change. But I respect your opinion.

Hello, RandFan. My reasoning is kind of strange (but that's how my mind works, lol). The way I see it, as long as I have my right to privacy, then I could utilize my freedom of speech to effect change in many ways. Recall throughout our history the anonymous pamphlets and editorials/opinions that were able to be published during times of revolution and unrest and in those ways affected political change and public interest by virtue of the WORDS, rather than the PERSON. To me...the written word, the ability to put thoughts into words...well, it is just a beautiful thing, and really? I prefer in many ways to read items with which I have absolutely no familiarity with the author, because the author could taint my response to the written words.

So that is my reasoning, and I realize that probably doesn't make much sense to anyone else. Privacy, to me, is essential...and to my way of thinking, in a genderless, nameless world, the guarantee of privacy, to each and every citizen, is a guarantee of umimpeded free speech...assuming that it is the speech rather than the speaker we are considering.

I know, I know. That sounds nuts. And I also just realized something, perhaps a flaw in my thinking. For that speech, though anonymous, to remain unimpeded, there has to be free distribution...and again, with regards to the topic at hand, it is the distribution my mind is for some reason focusing on. Gotta think about that some.

 

[fuelair]

My comic collection have suffered some losses in my recent move, but there is still one Japanese one with some few inch tall winged fairies. They are described as quite old and are very woman shaped, but I wonder if they would be illegal in the US?


BTW: On my recent vacation I went through Holland and stopped at a coffee shop to smoke some weed. It is around 10 years since i tried last, it is fun, if you like that type of buzz, and non addictive.

10 years, well not go out of your way to get fun.

That wouldn't be the classic Bondage Fairies would it?? Sold a bundle of those - one of my best sellers ever!!

 

[sugarb]

To restate: The claim that pornography can influence an individual into changing his/her behavior has many faults. The first and most essential is that, unless you can find a compelling evidence that the change is inherent to the porn and not the individual's personal psychology, you're not getting too far. This is why I always use the Poison example. Poison is proven to be inherently harmful to anyone who consumes it, regarding of their age, sex or cultural background. Porn, and any other type of visual product, has proven nothing but to affect people in completely different ways. In fact, that is the reason there are so many different types of pornography, because not everyone is turned on by the same things. And yes, that does include pedophiles. But certainly, they did not become pedophiles through watching the porn. They already were. Operating via "eliminating the porn" is putting the cart in front of the horse. Pedophile Porn exists because Pedophiles exist. They are the ones who create such porn. Pedophile porn is, in other words, created by pedophiles for pedophiles.

So this brings us to the "virtual child porn" issue. We know that some of it must have definitely been created with pedophile purposes, and some of it probably not (and then again some of it is kind of blurry in terms of what the intentionality must have been). Again, if we're to avoid putting the cart in front of the horse, we must look for the intent, and we must also look at what are the consequences when/if viewing such pornography. And to this day, there is no evidence that a kid watching child pornography, or adult pornography, becomes deviant in some way, exclusively because of the pornography. I think a serious study to proof such thing would be one that includes children of different ages, ethniticities and genders, and show them the same pornographic material, and see if it causes the same exact reaction. Sounds like a kind of cruel experiment but it's probably not necessary because over the course of life, we have seen that every human being reacts differently to things. And in fact, children tend to giggle when they watch pornographic material. To them, the "titties", and the "penis" and the "buttock" are usually comedic (I sure remember it used to be for me and my friends when I was a kid). I also remember my little brother seeing this computer game that had pictures of nude women and he just burst out laughing in the classical "Bahahahaha!" fashion. He had found the nudity comedic, in the very ridicule sense.

When it's not the comedic reaction, children usually just tend to find the material odd. And no one is denying that, in some cases, a kid might find the material disturbing in some way. But if so, this is clearly an individual reaction and depends on the child's individuality.

I once again bring back the example of me and the video from "Thriller" which shocked me and traumatized me from childhood. So there you have an example of a child viewing an image that caused a real psychological effect. Would you consider it reason sufficient to ban "Thriller"? No, because not every child who saw that video reacted in the same way. Some probably laughed at it (I have a friend who finds all horror movies comedic, and laughs at them). Some, like me, developed a shock which influenced us for life time.

The effect of audiovisual work is, by far, proved to rely on the individual's inner world. Any claim that a fictional work is inherently harmful (in the same way that poison is inherently harmful) has a lot of work ahead of himself to prove such extraordinary claim.

Ron_Tompkins, good evening. I like how you presented this. My initial reaction is to agree with you, and for the most part, I already know that I do. However, there are two things I'd like to ask about. One is...how do we *know* they were pedophiles before viewing child pornography? Are there studies to indicate that? It seems to be a possibility, at least to me, that a person could have no idea they were attracted to children until after viewing something to "put the idea in their mind".

Secondly, you mentioned intent, and again, that is where I am stuck. What other intent could there be with regards to child pornography (of any kind) once a person takes the step of selling and distributing it?

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Ron_Tompkins, good evening. I like how you presented this. My initial reaction is to agree with you, and for the most part, I already know that I do. However, there are two things I'd like to ask about. One is...how do we *know* they were pedophiles before viewing child pornography? Are there studies to indicate that? It seems to be a possibility, at least to me, that a person could have no idea they were attracted to children until after viewing something to "put the idea in their mind".

What you just said is precisely a good proof of what I said: Pedophile porn doesn't make someone a pedophile. It may just "remind" him that he's one. In other words, make him aware that he was into that. The feelings and tendencies were already inside him, and they flourished when he saw the porn.

We have, however, no evidence that a type of pornography can turn someone into a pedophile. What we have evidence of is people's experiences letting them know themselves more. A "closet homosexual" may not realize he had been in denial until he starts experiencing sincere arousal from gay pornography. A person who represses sexual arousal towards infants will not realize it until he stumbles upon the first child porn material. Likewise, a person who's not homosexual, will not suddenly become gay by watching gay porn. And a person who finds child porn disgusting, will not find him/herself aroused if they accidentally stumble upon it. They will react in disgust, as it is to be expected by their inner feelings toward that material.

That's how we draw the conclussion that pedophiles were pedophiles before they hunted down for the porn. As far as evidence has shown, it doesn't work the other way around.

Secondly, you mentioned intent, and again, that is where I am stuck. What other intent could there be with regards to child pornography (of any kind) once a person takes the step of selling and distributing it?

First of all, I didn't say "intent regarding child pornography" but "intent regarding visual material that could be interpreted as child pornography". It has been mentioned here that sometimes what seems pornographic, turns out to have been created with artistic purposes. Some people pointed here some good examples of classic art that depicts young girls, but clearly done in a non-pornographic context. There's also the joke about the family dad who goes to jail because he took a picture and his child was running naked and "bumped" into the picture at the last second. Then the photo developer sees it, assumes it's child pornography, and has the man sent to prison. So, sometimes the line between what's considered child pornography and what isn't, can become blurry.

But the intent is irrelevant as I have mentioned before, because as far as the evidence shows, there is no correlation between viewing images and adopting those acts, regardless of the intent behind the creation of the material. There is no such thing as an image that "teaches an act in itself", without the person actually being the one who provides the psychological justification. In other words, the person is the one who was prone to adopting that behavior beforehand (Which is why you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Education books depict images which are supposed to enhance education, but it is still up to the child to actually do the learning). So as I mentioned in the other post, the creator of Natural Born Killers could have had completely evil and perverse intentions when creating that movie. He could have perfectly well have the intentions of turning people into murderers. Fortunately, despite his evil intentions, it doesn't work that way. People don't become killers by watching movies about killers (We would have an overwhelming amout of killers already, judging by how many violent movies are seen worldwide). In the same fashion, people do not develop non-previously-existing sexual orientations just by seeing images. It doesn't work that way.

 

[MontagK505]

This may be a little off topic (though I'm not sure), and I haven't finished reading it yet, but I ran across this, and it mentioned Poser and is discussing computer generated images (and from what I'm getting, establishing proof that images are real children or based on real children), and there is a set of four boxes with an age progression example. I thought some of you might find it interesting, or maybe it could aid in our discussion in some way.

It is on page 26 of this pdf. (I think Poser is mentioned on page 25)

http://192.138.214.75/highlights/stuorgs/jhtl/publications/V4N1/JHTL_Kreston_Article2.pdf

Hi SugarB,

I skimmed through the document. Some of the material I'm already familiar with.

One could almost start a new thread on the subject of virtual vs real. When you create virtual reality the minds perceptual “rules of evidence” change between looking at landscapes, machines, and people. The movie “I Robot” is a good example. Sonny looked very real.... for a robot. Virtual people are much harder to do.

Search the term “Uncanny Valley” for a theory behind why this happens..
http://www.arclight.net/~pdb/nonfiction/uncanny-valley.html

In theory one could make virtual child porn by inducing children or midgets to wear mo cap suits and act out scenes with sex props disguised as benign objects. The kids would likely think this was some kind of weird game. If the fetish is 12-17yr olds one could hire adult dancers to be the actors. They might think this was kinky but for the right monetary inducement it souldn't be a problem.

Money is what makes this all theoretical. Even with a thousandfold reduction in cost this would be far too expensive for any style of stand alone porn.

The DVD version of Roger Zimmerics 2007 film “Beowulf” has a lot of extras that show how this is done. It also shows why this is extremely expensive.

NOTE:
I wouldn't let any small children watch the movie. The scenes with Grendel are graphically bloody and violent.

 

[sugarb]

I have a question about this study:
http://skyhigh44ca.tripod.com/child-porn-pedophilia.pdf

While there are some shortcomings to this study self-admitted by the authors, and as I am not familiar with how such studies are conducted, wouldn't this study seem to indicate that there *is* (or at least potentially very well could be) a link between pornography and pedophilia?

I agree Ron that that tendency must exist before the pornography, or one would think it would be immediately repulsive. Hadn't looked at it that way, so thank you for explaining further.

 

[sugarb]

Hi SugarB,

I skimmed through the document. Some of the material I'm already familiar with.

One could almost start a new thread on the subject of virtual vs real. When you create virtual reality the minds perceptual “rules of evidence” change between looking at landscapes, machines, and people. The movie “I Robot” is a good example. Sonny looked very real.... for a robot. Virtual people are much harder to do.

Search the term “Uncanny Valley” for a theory behind why this happens..
http://www.arclight.net/~pdb/nonfiction/uncanny-valley.html

In theory one could make virtual child porn by inducing children or midgets to wear mo cap suits and act out scenes with sex props disguised as benign objects. The kids would likely think this was some kind of weird game. If the fetish is 12-17yr olds one could hire adult dancers to be the actors. They might think this was kinky but for the right monetary inducement it souldn't be a problem.

Money is what makes this all theoretical. Even with a thousandfold reduction in cost this would be far too expensive for any style of stand alone porn.

The DVD version of Roger Zimmerics 2007 film “Beowulf” has a lot of extras that show how this is done. It also shows why this is extremely expensive.

NOTE:
I wouldn't let any small children watch the movie. The scenes with Grendel are graphically bloody and violent.

Hey! I'm pretty sure I have that DVD. We're about to have dinner, but I'll remember to check tomorrow and if so watch the special features. Thanks.

 

[JFrankA]

To restate: The claim that pornography can influence an individual into changing his/her behavior has many faults. The first and most essential is that, unless you can find a compelling evidence that the change is inherent to the porn and not the individual's personal psychology, you're not getting too far. This is why I always use the Poison example. Poison is proven to be inherently harmful to anyone who consumes it, regarding of their age, sex or cultural background. Porn, and any other type of visual product, has proven nothing but to affect people in completely different ways. In fact, that is the reason there are so many different types of pornography, because not everyone is turned on by the same things. And yes, that does include pedophiles. But certainly, they did not become pedophiles through watching the porn. They already were. Operating via "eliminating the porn" is putting the cart in front of the horse. Pedophile Porn exists because Pedophiles exist. They are the ones who create such porn. Pedophile porn is, in other words, created by pedophiles for pedophiles.

So this brings us to the "virtual child porn" issue. We know that some of it must have definitely been created with pedophile purposes, and some of it probably not (and then again some of it is kind of blurry in terms of what the intentionality must have been). Again, if we're to avoid putting the cart in front of the horse, we must look for the intent, and we must also look at what are the consequences when/if viewing such pornography. And to this day, there is no evidence that a kid watching child pornography, or adult pornography, becomes deviant in some way, exclusively because of the pornography. I think a serious study to proof such thing would be one that includes children of different ages, ethniticities and genders, and show them the same pornographic material, and see if it causes the same exact reaction. Sounds like a kind of cruel experiment but it's probably not necessary because over the course of life, we have seen that every human being reacts differently to things. And in fact, children tend to giggle when they watch pornographic material. To them, the "titties", and the "penis" and the "buttock" are usually comedic (I sure remember it used to be for me and my friends when I was a kid). I also remember my little brother seeing this computer game that had pictures of nude women and he just burst out laughing in the classical "Bahahahaha!" fashion. He had found the nudity comedic, in the very ridicule sense.

When it's not the comedic reaction, children usually just tend to find the material odd. And no one is denying that, in some cases, a kid might find the material disturbing in some way. But if so, this is clearly an individual reaction and depends on the child's individuality.

I once again bring back the example of me and the video from "Thriller" which shocked me and traumatized me from childhood. So there you have an example of a child viewing an image that caused a real psychological effect. Would you consider it reason sufficient to ban "Thriller"? No, because not every child who saw that video reacted in the same way. Some probably laughed at it (I have a friend who finds all horror movies comedic, and laughs at them). Some, like me, developed a shock which influenced us for life time.

The effect of audiovisual work is, by far, proved to rely on the individual's inner world. Any claim that a fictional work is inherently harmful (in the same way that poison is inherently harmful) has a lot of work ahead of himself to prove such extraordinary claim.

Ron, you always seem to know exactly what I try to say but with much better eloquence and clarity.

*Tips hat to you, sir*

 

[JFrankA]

Thank you. I don't know that I could prioritize. For me it's like asking what I would rather do without, my heart or my lungs. Freedom of speech is at the very heart of Democracy (see Natan Sharansky's The Case For Democracy). If you haven't read it I strongly recomend it. Free speech is perhaps the single most powerful tool to effect change. But I respect your opinion.

RandFan, if I may, I'd like to tip my hat to you, too.