Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[ponderingturtle]

Okay...I do. Do you think, though, that being sexually excited by children isn't some sort of criminal pathology?

There are annecdotal accounts at least of people who identify as pedophiles and as such refuse to be around children. They are aware enough to know that what they fantasize about and are stimulated by is immoral.

I feel bad for such people. It wouldn't be enough to cut them slack if they hurt a child, but as long as they act ethicaly, I do feel bad for them.

As for are they a risk? Well sure they are more likely than an average person to commit certain kinds of crimes. So what? Lots of people might be more inclided than an average person to commit a particular kind of crime.

Should we consider a bad temper a criminal pathology, if the person is aware of it and tries to limit stimuli that would trigger it?

 

[sugarb]

There are annecdotal accounts at least of people who identify as pedophiles and as such refuse to be around children. They are aware enough to know that what they fantasize about and are stimulated by is immoral.

I feel bad for such people. It wouldn't be enough to cut them slack if they hurt a child, but as long as they act ethicaly, I do feel bad for them.

As for are they a risk? Well sure they are more likely than an average person to commit certain kinds of crimes. So what? Lots of people might be more inclided than an average person to commit a particular kind of crime.

Should we consider a bad temper a criminal pathology, if the person is aware of it and tries to limit stimuli that would trigger it?

No, of course not. But how is acquiring child pornography, real or otherwise, limiting stimuli?

 

[tesscaline]

No, of course not. But how is acquiring child pornography, real or otherwise, limiting stimuli?

I see acquiring virtual child pornography as limiting stimuli to those which are not harming children.

"Limiting" is not the same as "eliminating all together".

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, of course not. But how is acquiring child pornography, real or otherwise, limiting stimuli?

I wasn't refering to any form of pornography in that. I was thinking of people who limit their interactions with children and actively avoid children to avoid the temptation. Rather like an alcoholic avoiding alcohol.

But if they find the porn sexualy gratifying what is wrong with that, provided they are not harming any real children?

 

[sugarb]

I see acquiring virtual child pornography as limiting stimuli to those which are not harming children.

"Limiting" is not the same as "eliminating all together".

I see what you mean, but as I see it, if virtual porn is freely available for distribution (unlike real children), then we get into the realm of encouraging constant collecting and exaccerbating fantasies that, as we've seen from other studies, harm children. What was that percentage of offenders that were in possession of child pornography? 85%? That's no small number...and certainly doesn't indicate that pornography limits stimuli. If anything, it allows, through distribution, an increasing of stimuli. As I see it. That's just my reasoning.

 

[sugarb]

I wasn't refering to any form of pornography in that. I was thinking of people who limit their interactions with children and actively avoid children to avoid the temptation. Rather like an alcoholic avoiding alcohol.

But if they find the porn sexualy gratifying what is wrong with that, provided they are not harming any real children?

I'm sorry, ponderingturtle, I misunderstood.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I see what you mean, but as I see it, if virtual porn is freely available for distribution (unlike real children), then we get into the realm of encouraging constant collecting and exaccerbating fantasies that, as we've seen from other studies, harm children. What was that percentage of offenders that were in possession of child pornography? 85%? That's no small number...and certainly doesn't indicate that pornography limits stimuli. If anything, it allows, through distribution, an increasing of stimuli. As I see it. That's just my reasoning.

Sounds a lot like when they talk about what percentage of rapists had porn. I wouldn't be at all suprised if a high percentage of rapists had porn that involved roleplaying non consentual encounters.

Unless this makes people more likely to act on their drives in an unethical manner, I don't see the problem.

I don't care how or what gets someone off, I care about someone being harmed especialy children.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sorry, ponderingturtle, I misunderstood.

Thats OK, I phrased that poorly. I think it was you I jumped on earlier in this thread for a similar poor phrasing.

 

[tesscaline]

I see what you mean, but as I see it, if virtual porn is freely available for distribution (unlike real children), then we get into the realm of encouraging constant collecting and exaccerbating fantasies that, as we've seen from other studies, harm children. What was that percentage of offenders that were in possession of child pornography? 85%? That's no small number...and certainly doesn't indicate that pornography limits stimuli. If anything, it allows, through distribution, an increasing of stimuli. As I see it. That's just my reasoning.

You're going back into thought police mode... As well as assuming a causal relationship where, by your own admission, none has been established.

 

[sugarb]

Thats OK, I phrased that poorly. I think it was you I jumped on earlier in this thread for a similar poor phrasing.

Yup And again, I do understand the points being made. I'm simply not prepared to agree that sex crimes involving adults are equal to sex crimes involving children...or that pornography involving adults is equal to pornography depicting children. To me there is a distinct difference, and in the latter of each, the potential victims do not have the ability, resources, experience, maturity, or even size, for that matter, to defend themselves.

It's a leap, for me, to compare the two and consider them equal. To use an annoying phrase, I can't wrap my mind around that.

 

[sugarb]

You're going back into thought police mode... As well as assuming a causal relationship where, by your own admission, none has been established.

Hello, again, SkeptiChick. I'm not so sure that is thought police mode so much as what I see as common sense. Let me use alcoholism as an example. Would it be intelligent to tell an alcoholic to surround themselves with full bottles of their drink of choice in order to satiate their unhealthy appetite?

ETA: make that a recovering alcoholic, or an alcoholic trying to resist the pull of alcohol.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yup And again, I do understand the points being made. I'm simply not prepared to agree that sex crimes involving adults are equal to sex crimes involving children...or that pornography involving adults is equal to pornography depicting children. To me there is a distinct difference, and in the latter of each, the potential victims do not have the ability, resources, experience, maturity, or even size, for that matter, to defend themselves.

It's a leap, for me, to compare the two and consider them equal. To use an annoying phrase, I can't wrap my mind around that.

So you agree with those who take issue with porn, that it could well promote unethical acts by its mere existance. But you limit the idea to sexual depictions of children? Why would people arroused by such depictions react so differently compared to say people with a strong rape fatansy with them as the rapist?

Sure the rape fetishist can roleplay their fantasy easier, as their partner can more closely match their fantasy partner in appearance.

But as you admit that you are using a double standard, I am not sure that there is anywhere for the debate to go.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Hello, again, SkeptiChick. I'm not so sure that is thought police mode so much as what I see as common sense. Let me use alcoholism as an example. Would it be intelligent to tell an alcoholic to surround themselves with full bottles of their drink of choice in order to satiate their unhealthy appetite?

ETA: make that a recovering alcoholic, or an alcoholic trying to resist the pull of alcohol.

The thing is that an addiction and sex drive are rather different. Being able to sexualy express ones self in a ethical fashion makes sense that it would help manage desires to express ones self in an unethical fashion. The alcoholic can't stop once they start, while the pedophile would be trying to limit the build up of urges.

Do you think that rape fetishists are more likely to actualy rape people if they roleplay their rape fantasy out? Then shouldn't any porn that shows acts that are presented as non consentual be banned?

The thing is that you reject the same arguments when used against porn involving adults that you are making against porn involving the depiction of children.

 

[tesscaline]

Hello, again, SkeptiChick. I'm not so sure that is thought police mode so much as what I see as common sense. Let me use alcoholism as an example. Would it be intelligent to tell an alcoholic to surround themselves with full bottles of their drink of choice in order to satiate their unhealthy appetite?

ETA: make that a recovering alcoholic, or an alcoholic trying to resist the pull of alcohol.

I don't see your analogy as being the same thing at all. It might even be a bit of a strawman. No one is encouraging anyone to surround themselves with anything.

Look. You, yourself, said in previous posts that you could not find any causal relationship between child porn (real or otherwise) and people molesting children. You, yourself, said in previous posts that in fact, you had discovered studies that said brain abnormalities in pedophiles pre-date their exposure to child porn, and are even sometimes caused by physical injury or congenital defect.

Now, it seems like you're saying that there is indeed a causal relationship between child porn (of any type) and molesting children, and that exposing someone to virtual child porn will encourage them to molest children, because of... Common sense?

I'm not trying to be rude, but either you're contradicting yourself, or there's something I'm missing here.

 

[sugarb]

So you agree with those who take issue with porn, that it could well promote unethical acts by its mere existance. But you limit the idea to sexual depictions of children? Why would people arroused by such depictions react so differently compared to say people with a strong rape fatansy with them as the rapist?

Sure the rape fetishist can roleplay their fantasy easier, as their partner can more closely match their fantasy partner in appearance.

But as you admit that you are using a double standard, I am not sure that there is anywhere for the debate to go.

Let me make sre I understand. You're asking why I apply a different standard to depictions of crimes against children than I do to depictions of crimes against adults, right?

If I have that right, then I'd like to point out that it isn't me that has different standards for adults and children. It is the law. Consider a physical assault. If two minors fight, they are equal under the law. If two adults fight, they are equal under the law. But if an adult attacks a minor? Not equal. It doesn't matter what size the kid is...the kid might outweigh the adult by a hundred pounds. The adult is guilty.

This equating children to adults is what has led to juveniles being imprisoned for life because they are tried as adults. Clearly, we understand that there are major differences between adults and children in terms of development, experience, and ability to reason maturely. Clearly, we understand, based on our discussions involving age of consent, that children deserve to be protected by laws...even if an offense has not occurred. Or even if an offense *has* occurred that the juvenile consented to. It doesn't matter.

Do you see what I am saying here? That double standard already exists, and we have said it is necessary time and time again in our society. It isn't just me talking. It isn't something I created. It already exists.

 

[sugarb]

I don't see your analogy as being the same thing at all. It might even be a bit of a strawman. No one is encouraging anyone to surround themselves with anything.

Look. You, yourself, said in previous posts that you could not find any causal relationship between child porn (real or otherwise) and people molesting children. You, yourself, said in previous posts that in fact, you had discovered studies that said brain abnormalities in pedophiles pre-date their exposure to child porn, and are even sometimes caused by physical injury or congenital defect.

Now, it seems like you're saying that there is indeed a causal relationship between child porn (of any type) and molesting children, and that exposing someone to virtual child porn will encourage them to molest children, because of... Common sense?

I'm not trying to be rude, but either you're contradicting yourself, or there's something I'm missing here.

Oh, I don't know. I probably am contradicting myself, I'm just not seeing it. See? I should have just shut up like I said I was going to, lol.

 

[fuelair]

Oh, what the heck, I'll pop back in. Seems clear to me that all of Southwind's clearly written, impossible to misinterpret because SW writes very carefully and chooses his exact words so there can be no possible misunderstanding material indicates that SW already knows the answers to all questions and is actually simply waiting impatiently for us to acknowledge that.
Won't happen here or anywhere, but.............
(Do I get ignored yet? )

 

[fuelair]

Just checking.
The title is:
"The new Bondage Fairies Book one"
It contains 8 stories, and seems to be number 4 out of 5 books.

I recall a nasty mark up from the US/Canadian price on the back.

Ah! the new Bondage Fairies was the second series and, though still cute, not up to the first series - Books 1-3 collected the first series and I sold those for awhile after I ran outof the individual comics.

 

[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.

Let me expand this a little farther. Sometimes it helps to play the “devils advocate” simply to understand a viewpoint you don't agree with. To understand does not mean to like or to agree with. Admittedly, in some cases the more you understand the more disgust you feel. But, could one make a artistic case for an image of a child having sex with a dog? The image taken alone seems pointless as well as repellent.

Ironically enough, if the image is part of a series, like a comic book, it becomes easier to justify. Imagine being lost in a dark forest. After a series of hair raising adventures the child is made captive by a clan of werewolf like creatures who take her to their Wolf-god. The child is given a choice. Serve the Wolf-god in all respects, or become the clans next meal. The story could continue to show the child overcoming the wolf-god, destroying the clan, etc.

Sound nasty? Keep in mind most of the childrens Fairy-Tales we hear, are derived from stories not meant to entertain children, but to scare the poop out of them and keep them in line.

Just a thought experiment.

BTW there are some posters on this thread who would claim I have mental problems to even momentarily think of something like this.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
Yes. Exactly. Some might be.
Which means, some might not.

You mean like some people are predisposed to murder whilst most are not, so we have laws to address the minority?

YES!
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. Some people are predisposed. Some aren't.
Now we're getting somewhere

Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins
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.

I believe there are a multitude of reasons, none of which I'm qualified to comment on with any degree of authority. So what, exactly, is your point?

My point is that, if millions of different types of reactions can be obtained from different people worldwide, when dealing with one single piece of material (such as a specific porn movie or a specific violent movie), it gives us sufficient reason to believe that an image in itself doesn't hold an inherent harmful quality, or else we should expect to see such negative reaction in every single person who sees the material; but that instead it depends on the internal world of each person. That if a person already predisposed to rape sees rape porn (or not even that, but something that he will unconsciously associate with rape), that such person will feel motivated. But the material didn't cause such desires in him, as much as bring them afloat. But they were already there.