Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[quadraginta]

I am afraid you are not exaggerating, the Taliban is one loud example, there are others.

Anyone who thinks that our own homegrown Xian fundies wouldn't be as quick as the Taliban ever was to shove their own extremes of religious morality down everybody else's throats if they had the opportunity is kidding themselves.

They prove that every chance they get, and glory in their successes.

This is exactly why incremental gains, and incremental losses are so important.

 

[Toke]

Anyone who thinks that our own homegrown Xian fundies wouldn't be as quick as the Taliban ever was to shove their own extremes of religious morality down everybody else's throats if they had the opportunity is kidding themselves.

They prove that every chance they get, and glory in their successes.

This is exactly why incremental gains, and incremental losses are so important.

Yes.

 

[sugarb]

JFrankA, no apology necessary, I appreciate that you took the time to answer.

You know...there *is* the possibility that I am unable to keep my own memories and feelings from tainting my opinion on this. I certainly accept that possibility, and at times I would actually say it is a probability (though not with every question or position).

You are right for the most part, though, about there being a choice before achieving any deep mental state. (Barring a psychiatric illness or certain injuries). I would never suggest that we have a duty to protect everyone from themselves. The catch here, for me though, is that we're talking about children. When I refer to child pornography, I don't refer to age play or the school girl scenarios. What I mean is anything depicting children engaged in sexual acts with adults or under the instruction/direction of adults. Frankly, I can't even consider it child pornography if for some reason two teenagers decide, given the ease of accessing the technology to do so now, to film themselves having sex. I cannot see that as exploitation.

Perhaps an important thing to consider here is that children have an amazing capacity to survive. Many issues that some of us deal with today are the result of those survival tactics in our youth. Our minds, as children, will find ways to protect us...and there is no "choice" involved in that, it just happens.

But when that happens, it can become, like anything else, a skill. A crutch. Like alcoholics and manipulation.

Pedophiles are, more than likely, aware of this to some degree, or they would never feel safe having an actual child victim. And I am really not sure what I am trying to say here other than, I feel (and I know you understand and respect this, so I am not attacking in any way) that there is not really a significant difference between a pedophile utilizing virtual or "real" child pornography. That is where my heart lies on this one. It is difficult because, no, I don't want to restrict people's rights to prevent a few (and pedophiles I assume would be a itsy bitsy minority of people as a whole) from doing heinous things, but...as adults, I honestly cannot see why we feel that portrayals of children engaging in sexual acts is something we should not have to live without. (I am sorry, I don't know how to "politely" word that).

Thank you for your response. Ya know? I *knew* better than to have expected you to have actually allowed yourself to "dissociate"...I don't know what I was thinking, other than you would understand what I meant better than others might.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
In the same fashion, people do not develop non-previously-existing sexual orientations just by seeing images. It doesn't work that way.

But some might be motivated to act on them.

Yes. Exactly. Some might be.

Which means, some might not.

Can you guess why?. Why do some people become motivated to do certain things and others, while watching the same exact material, don't.
Can you answer that? Because therein lies my point.

 

[Whiplash]

Anyone who thinks that our own homegrown Xian fundies wouldn't be as quick as the Taliban ever was to shove their own extremes of religious morality down everybody else's throats if they had the opportunity is kidding themselves.

I disagree, and I'm not kidding myself.

In this country, with the freedoms we have, they could easily be doing a hell of alot more than has ever been done. They have access to weapons, explosives, or the means to make them. We have an open and free society where people could be attacked easily, and often.

If it were true, there would be a heck of alot more bad things happening right here in our own country, alot more often. We'd have an epidemic of violence going on regarding religious beliefs. We don't. We have the occasional abortion clinic bombing. We have the occasional nut like Koresh, or McVeigh. But it's hardly epidemic.

Don't move the goalposts now. You clearly were implying that the majority of Christian fundamentalists would gladly do the same thing. If that were true, it'd be an epidemic of violence. Not just the occasional nut.

I'm not even sure if those nuts outnumber other forms of nuts, in terms of percentages of the population and so forth. When you consider other nasty behavior by nuts who were not Christian fundies. Like the Unabomber, the Weather Underground and the Earth Liberation Front.

I'm not suggesting equivocation. I'm not suggesting it's ok for someone on the right to act reprhensibly because someone on the left has. I'm trying to demonstrate that there are nuts all over the political and religious spectrum. And some of them do very bad things. And that I don't think it's fair to brush the entirety of Christian fundamentalists based on the actions of those few nuts, any more than it's fair to suggest that every left winger is in line with the Unabomber's manifesto.

I continue to believe that some people have a very unhealthy hatred for religion and religious people. I think they're nuts too. But I don't have a huge axe to grind on the issue either. Clearly some do. I mean, you are one of those who can't even type out the word Christ.

 

[Toke]

Easy Whiplash,
I know it is perfectly possible to be both a Christian and a nice person, my godmother is an example of that.

And yes, almost all fundies limit themselfes to legals ways to crack down on "obscenity and perversion". The problem is, as I pointed out above, that they are unlikely to stop at something as distasteful as drawings of child porn.
That the methods are legal does not mean that the goal have to be much different from e.g. Taliban views on naked bodies.

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA, no apology necessary, I appreciate that you took the time to answer.

You know...there *is* the possibility that I am unable to keep my own memories and feelings from tainting my opinion on this. I certainly accept that possibility, and at times I would actually say it is a probability (though not with every question or position).

As do all of us, SugarB. It's what makes us human. The thing is, we all respect and listen to each other, something, I'm sad to say, SW isn't able to do.

You are right for the most part, though, about there being a choice before achieving any deep mental state. (Barring a psychiatric illness or certain injuries). I would never suggest that we have a duty to protect everyone from themselves. The catch here, for me though, is that we're talking about children.

Of course children are a different ballpark. They may choose to feel that dissociation, but for most of them, they don't have the experience, the knowledge or the maturity to make that decision clearly. (I hope I just made sense).

When I refer to child pornography, I don't refer to age play or the school girl scenarios. What I mean is anything depicting children engaged in sexual acts with adults or under the instruction/direction of adults. Frankly, I can't even consider it child pornography if for some reason two teenagers decide, given the ease of accessing the technology to do so now, to film themselves having sex. I cannot see that as exploitation.

I would agree with you on that point. I see that as one of those decisions without having any experience, knowledge, maturity or fore thought.

Perhaps an important thing to consider here is that children have an amazing capacity to survive. Many issues that some of us deal with today are the result of those survival tactics in our youth. Our minds, as children, will find ways to protect us...and there is no "choice" involved in that, it just happens.

But when that happens, it can become, like anything else, a skill. A crutch. Like alcoholics and manipulation.

Pedophiles are, more than likely, aware of this to some degree, or they would never feel safe having an actual child victim. And I am really not sure what I am trying to say here other than, I feel (and I know you understand and respect this, so I am not attacking in any way) that there is not really a significant difference between a pedophile utilizing virtual or "real" child pornography. That is where my heart lies on this one. It is difficult because, no, I don't want to restrict people's rights to prevent a few (and pedophiles I assume would be a itsy bitsy minority of people as a whole) from doing heinous things, but...as adults, I honestly cannot see why we feel that portrayals of children engaging in sexual acts is something we should not have to live without. (I am sorry, I don't know how to "politely" word that).

I understand where you are coming from. In fact, in a perfect world for me, I would like to live in a world where there isn't the Klu Klux Klan. However, if they choose to peacefully march down my street, I would not, in any way, impede them. They have every right to say what they want to say. Just as I have every right to have a Clown march.

http://digg.com/odd_stuff/KKK_rally_pwned_by_clowns



(Sorry, this is the best example of how you can allow free speech to anyone, and still be able to use your own to disagree. This story always brings tears to my eyes.)

But the point is, free speech should never be stopped, even if it's something that's as vile as VCP or racism.

Thank you for your response. Ya know? I *knew* better than to have expected you to have actually allowed yourself to "dissociate"...I don't know what I was thinking, other than you would understand what I meant better than others might.

It's alright. I do understand. Being someone who enjoys seeing women in that state of dissociate, I try hard to make sure she stays that way pleasurably.

 

[sugarb]

As do all of us, SugarB. It's what makes us human. The thing is, we all respect and listen to each other, something, I'm sad to say, SW isn't able to do.



Of course children are a different ballpark. They may choose to feel that dissociation, but for most of them, they don't have the experience, the knowledge or the maturity to make that decision clearly. (I hope I just made sense).



I would agree with you on that point. I see that as one of those decisions without having any experience, knowledge, maturity or fore thought.



I understand where you are coming from. In fact, in a perfect world for me, I would like to live in a world where there isn't the Klu Klux Klan. However, if they choose to peacefully march down my street, I would not, in any way, impede them. They have every right to say what they want to say. Just as I have every right to have a Clown march.

http://digg.com/odd_stuff/KKK_rally_pwned_by_clowns



(Sorry, this is the best example of how you can allow free speech to anyone, and still be able to use your own to disagree. This story always brings tears to my eyes.)

But the point is, free speech should never be stopped, even if it's something that's as vile as VCP or racism.



It's alright. I do understand. Being someone who enjoys seeing women in that state of dissociate, I try hard to make sure she stays that way pleasurably.

Thank you for including a link to the discussion (videos won't work for me). Quite a heartwarming story, actually.

And it brings up yet another point of view with regards to protecting children...and generally we say we do that because children are impressionable and, again, make the perfect victims.

Do we have laws that forbid parents and other adults from using their children/underage relatives or friends in these hate rallies? Another perspective that hadn't entered my mind. Interesting. Does anyone know? I don't think such laws exist.

 

[JFrankA]

Thank you for including a link to the discussion (videos won't work for me). Quite a heartwarming story, actually.

And it brings up yet another point of view with regards to protecting children...and generally we say we do that because children are impressionable and, again, make the perfect victims.

Do we have laws that forbid parents and other adults from using their children/underage relatives or friends in these hate rallies? Another perspective that hadn't entered my mind. Interesting. Does anyone know? I don't think such laws exist.

Good point, but I imagine not. My humble opinion, that would be clearly be against free speech.

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

If it were true, there would be a heck of alot more bad things happening right here in our own country, alot more often. We'd have an epidemic of violence going on regarding religious beliefs. We don't. We have the occasional abortion clinic bombing. We have the occasional nut like Koresh, or McVeigh. But it's hardly epidemic.

How epidemic do you need it to be? Cherrypicking won't gloss over the other less sensational events. I didn't specify violence in the first place. It was in fact the furthest thing from my mind. But since you bring it up I suspect that the record bears less scrutiny than you would feel comfortable with.

Don't move the goalposts now. You clearly were implying that the majority of Christian fundamentalists would gladly do the same thing. If that were true, it'd be an epidemic of violence. Not just the occasional nut.

Dude, I didn't even put a goalpost up.

Don't tell me what I was implying. Don't put your words in my mouth. I don't share your tastes.

You seem to have spent a lot of thought on this. Rather quick off the line. One might think there is a certain preoccupation with the subject.

I'm not even sure if those nuts outnumber other forms of nuts, in terms of percentages of the population and so forth. When you consider other nasty behavior by nuts who were not Christian fundies. Like the Unabomber, the Weather Underground and the Earth Liberation Front.

Have you spent a great deal of your time keeping score? I'll be interested to learn your conclusions.

I'm not suggesting equivocation. I'm not suggesting it's ok for someone on the right to act reprhensibly because someone on the left has. I'm trying to demonstrate that there are nuts all over the political and religious spectrum. And some of them do very bad things. And that I don't think it's fair to brush the entirety of Christian fundamentalists based on the actions of those few nuts, any more than it's fair to suggest that every left winger is in line with the Unabomber's manifesto.

This part is especially useful. I may share it in other venues, although the particular faith in question might be modified for appropriate context. In general it is a very good sentiment.

I continue to believe that some people have a very unhealthy hatred for religion and religious people. I think they're nuts too. But I don't have a huge axe to grind on the issue either. Clearly some do. I mean, you are one of those who can't even type out the word Christ.

I'd venture a guess as to who "some" are, but I don't want to put words in your mouth.

You are apparently unaware that the abbreviation "Xian" has classical roots that go back centuries and was originally employed by scholars and theologians, many of whom were officers of the church. The Greek letter "X" is the letter "chi", the initial letter of the word "Christ" in Greek, and of course many of the early documents relating to the New Testament were written in Greek. Use of that abbreviation has long been common, is extensively documented, and has only recently acquired a patina of disfavor among certain elements whose continual search for things to be offended by is a source of both amusement and pity, as well as some cause for concern. That brings us back around to where we started.

I'm afraid that I cannot take you at your word about not having an axe to grind. The evidence suggests otherwise.

 

[sugarb]

Good point, but I imagine not. My humble opinion, that would be clearly be against free speech.

LOL!

Do children have free speech?

(set myself up for that one, eh?)

 

[JFrankA]

LOL!

Do children have free speech

Children - up to a point to where their parents say they do.

Parents - yes.

(set myself up for that one, eh?)

You - yes.

 

[MontagK505]

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand RandFan going on SW's ignore list in

5....

4....

3....

2....


(Welcome to the club, btw, we're happy you are joining us!!!!!)

1.................

Is this something like being welcomed to the Legion of Honor only much more more common?

 

[Drudgewire]

I just learned Penny Flame is on the new Dr. Drew show about sex addiction. Considering how much space she takes up on my hard drive, that's sort of a downer.

 

[fuelair]

I just learned Penny Flame is on the new Dr. Drew show about sex addiction. Considering how much space she takes up on my hard drive, that's sort of a downer.

I assume that is ultimately a recommendation, though!!

 

[Drudgewire]

I assume that is ultimately a recommendation, though!!

It's pretty funny, she's got a blog where she treats her porn past almost as a traumatic thing, yet at the same time owns her website which is like "hey you might have seen me on Dr. Drew, come check out my movies" and today's spotlight is "Penny Flame's Guide to Rough Sex."

 

[sugarb]

Okay.

I am ready, until further studies or evidence is published, to accept that there is no proof...or even much indication...that virtual child pornography causes harm. I have looked and looked, searched and searched for days, and I just come up empty. I've found links between pedophilia and child pornography (real children), but I can find nothing that specifies virtual child pornography as even a blip on the radar really.

I still feel that it is wrong, I still feel the ways I feel...except...I'm unable to find anything of substance that would support the banning of said pornography. If it is out there, I simply can't find it. And I have made a sincere effort to do so. (and probably still will from time to time. I'm stubborn that way.)

It occurs to me, though, that there is a lot of truth in what others are saying, particularly Toke, about the wedge issue, and JFrankA regarding paranoia. Even some things that we've discussed here could lead someone to accuse a few of us of trying to "normalize depravity", with it having nothing to do with children. And that is worrisome. Gut feeling is that someday, it will be proven that there are links...but gut feeling is also that the numbers will be fairly insignificant and we'll find that a lot of this hysteria about child protection was based on next to nothing. Other than fear.

Thanks, everyone, for your input and patience. If we head into a more general direction again, I may jump back in...but for now? Regarding virtual child pornography? I got nothin'. I figure it's better to admit that. If I keep arguing this, it isn't going to be anything but raw emotion...and that certainly ain't very helpful

 

[MontagK505]

True. So then it comes down to the phrase "appears to be". And there is the problem. Using your example of the school girl outfit, we could have two responses: she's dressed like a child but obviously isn't one, or...she's portraying a child. Subjective, depends on who is anwering 'Does she appear to be a child?'

However, I really do think that, given the how would most people view it test, most people would fully acknowledge that was not child pornography. (I think I'm entering the realm of obscentity laws here...) If we gave that test to, as an example, one of the images described as being in the possession of the manga collector, a cartoon of a girl engaging in acts with a dog, would it pass that test?

Again let me state that I personally see nothing wrong with nudity, or depicting people as God made them (yes, I still carry some of my beliefs). I think that the human body is beautifully constructed and worthy of art. But...I don't see any artistic value in creating even cartoon portrayals of children engaging in sexual acts, and then distributing those. I'm simply not able to conceive of any valid reason to do so, other than to satisfy a specific fetish for certain consumers.

We do know that pedophiles have existed long before the possibility of virtual child porn or widespread porn of any kind.

When most people think of child pornography, they usually think of pre-adolescents. But most laws aren't written that way. Explicit sexual imagery of anyone that is perceived as a minor is “kiddie porn”.

When you extend this to art or virtual imagery that doesn't involve a actual person the entire issue becomes a matter of esthetics. And, I don't like someone being sent to prison over an issue of esthetics.

When I was in a therapy group, I heard childhood experiences from some of the female members of the group that definitely made me treat the issue of child abuse very seriously.

This is not an abstract issue with me. I simply don't think laws of this nature help and they can do a lot of harm by sending to prison people who haven't harmed anyone.

 

[sugarb]

We do know that pedophiles have existed long before the possibility of virtual child porn or widespread porn of any kind.

When most people think of child pornography, they usually think of pre-adolescents. But most laws aren't written that way. Explicit sexual imagery of anyone that is perceived as a minor is “kiddie porn”.

When you extend this to art or virtual imagery that doesn't involve a actual person the entire issue becomes a matter of esthetics. And, I don't like someone being sent to prison over an issue of esthetics.

When I was in a therapy group, I heard childhood experiences from some of the female members of the group that definitely made me treat the issue of child abuse very seriously.

This is not an abstract issue with me. I simply don't think laws of this nature help and they can do a lot of harm by sending to prison people who haven't harmed anyone.

MontagK505, that I do agree with. In all of this thinking and trying to support my own ideas, I have started to realize that...well, I'm not saying I agree entirely, but...when there are no actual children harmed, then yes, I see how criminalizing drawings or virtual creations would be policing thought.

 

[JFrankA]

MontagK505, that I do agree with. In all of this thinking and trying to support my own ideas, I have started to realize that...well, I'm not saying I agree entirely, but...when there are no actual children harmed, then yes, I see how criminalizing drawings or virtual creations would be policing thought.

You do realize the consequences of posting this.

Yup. You know it.

You're gonna be ignored by SW.

Welcome to the club!!!!