Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

Lovely post, Southwind17. And I do agree with you.

Thank you sugarb - I appreciate that. I got the impression you were intending on ducking out of this thread a few posts back. I'm glad you've stayed!

 

[Southwind17]

This was while I was in the University so I studies psychology and sociology and read everything I could get my hands on. What I found out leads me to a point where I can't accept your proposition. It's possible that pornography can be causative to something but there just is no incontrovertible evidence that there is. On the contrary there is significant evidence that there is no causal link.

This, of course, has to be caveated with the fact that no conclusive studies have ever been undertaken. The problem is that everybody is different, literally, especially when it comes to predisposition and impulsive behaviour, and no reasonably conceivable study could even hope to account for not only eveybody, but not even every subset of every category, let alone every category, of subject candidate. There are close to 7 billion living people on the planet. Very roughly around 2 billion are men between the age 18-60. Given what we know about the diversity of human education, attitudes, morals, ethics, psyche, disease and behaviour (and just within a single country, if you like), it would be naive to assume that the probability of many of those 2 billion having both a predisposition to molest (we already know this number is high) and unable to restrain such predisposition on pornographic impulse (in the context of the realm of all reasonably conceivable impulsive behaviour based on what we know there is no reason to consider that this particular trait should be particularly rare) is low. 2 billion is an absolutely large number. Any proportion of 2 billion other than an insignificant proportion is also an absolutely large number.

It's easy to find causal links in our brains. It's called confirmation bias. However, science is about controlling for confirmation bias. We don't simply accept things because they seem to us to be true.

I agree, but the combination of knowledge, experience, extrapolation and deduction should not be underestimated, particularly in a notoriously abstruse humanitarian social context, and should certainly not be disregarded simply because, in theory, science, one day, might be capable of providing an answer.

I've encountered people who know without a doubt evolution isn't true, that ghosts exist, that Joseph Smith spoke with god and that the sun danced in the sky at Fatima. All of which is without a shred of evidence.

Very true, but your encounters do serve not only to support my diversification and probabilistic theory above, but actually emphasise it!

IMHO, before we seek solutions we ought to know what the problem is exactly. Child molestation is a very insidious problem. But our fear and abhorrence of this pernicious evil (yes I believe it is evil) should be tempered. We only need look to modern day witch hunts (Day care sex abuse hysteria ) to know that we need more than fear and speculation to act.

With respect, I disagree. To defer seeking to address a known problem of the category of child abuse simply because of lack of understanding of the exact nature of the problem seems unduly conservative. If it was a medical ailment, for example, I agree that it would be foolish, at best, to try unproven remedies and treatments with possible serious side effects (life and death scenarios possibly excepted). Quite often the exact problem becomes apparent from applying a wrong "solution". That's fine, provided that wrong "solution" is reasonably deduced and has no serious, long-lasting side effects. I see no such potential problem when it comes to the banning of, specifically, VCP.

 

[RandFan]

I see no such potential problem when it comes to the banning of, specifically, VCP.

I do. VCP is your cause. There are other causes. People like Meese are always out there with appeals to emotion to protect women from rape or whatever they find objectionable. We know rape happens. Some say pornography causes it. Just prohibit this one they say.

No.

 

[Southwind17]

If someone who is sexually excited by children seeks medical help, and/or manages their condition by finding coping methods that prevent them from harming children (actual children), then no, there's nothing criminal about it.

And if they dont?

 

[Southwind17]

I do. VCP is your cause. There are other causes. People like Meese are always out there with appeals to emotion to protect women from rape or whatever they find objectionable. We know rape happens. Some say pornography causes it. Just prohibit this one they say.
No.

Straw man. You have no comment on the rest of my post?

 

[Southwind17]

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?

There's the rub - that's a huge proviso. Almost begging the question, but maybe not quite.

 

[tesscaline]

And if they dont?

Irrelevant, as that is not what is being discussed.

 

[Southwind17]

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? )

So you became bored with whatever else it was that was keeping your attention and decided to try something meaningfully mature here instead? Admirable - a credit to the Forum.

 

[Southwind17]

Irrelevant, as that is not what is being discussed.

 

[RandFan]

Straw man.

No. Not even close.

You have no comment on the rest of my post?

It's difficult to take seriously. If this where part of something akin to the Meese report and government were considering acting on it then it would cause me some degree of concern. As it is it seems rather benign.

 

[sugarb]

Okay, let me throw a few things out that will most likely be pitched in the garbage, but this is what is on my mind at the moment:

First, harm. Harming a real child. Let me reverse my own argument for a moment and see if this would be agreed with. If the only people who are guilty are people who actually harm a child...then why isn't the ONLY person prosecuted in child pornography rings the person creating the pictures? Why those who buy them? Why those who distribute them? They most certainly didn't harm that child! They didn't take the pictures, they don't know the child's name, they didn't use any force or intimidation in making that photo. All they do is...look at it. They don't harm a child. So why does the law say that each and every time *those* particular photos are distributed or looked at, a crime is being commited against a child. Revictimization. Why is it not revictimization to keep running footage every year of planes smashing into towers? Why is it not revictimization to publish afterward the photo of a murdered child? Why isn't it revictimization...unless it is child pornography? Since the only person physically harming the child is the person taking the photos, or the people in case there is more than one, why punish everyone else? There must be a reason for that.

Another thing swirling through my mind. Why, if I were to start having siezures or diabetic blackouts could I lose my drivers license, even though it had never happened while driving? Isn't that a "because of what could happen" law? I have a brother-in-law with a CDL. He has military clearance and hazmat. If he were to be diagnosed with certain things...depression, for example, anxiety, panic...he would very likely lose his job. Because of what *could* happen. Because of the increased potential in doing something that would or could harm others. And it doesn't *matter* if he were to control it with medication...because most of the medications IMMEDIATELY lead to the loss of his job. It doesn't matter if he "tries" to not be depressed. It doesn't matter if someone "tries" to get their diabetes under control. They have to *prove* it is under control. They have to *prove* they're no longer needing or taking certain medications for certain emotional issues. They have to *prove* they haven't had a siezure in six months. EVEN IF they'd never had a siezure while driving anyway. Simply because of the increased potential and the protection of others.

Precautionary laws/rules/guidelines simply aren't anything new. It *has been* shown that pedophiles use child pornography. And then the argument becomes, well, but not "virtual" child pornography, that's different. Right?

But let me ask a question about that. Does anyone seriously think that pedophiles purchase and distribute child pornography because they want a specific photo of a specific child so they can get to know them better? It seems to me that, aside from the person making the pictures, beyond that point, to pedophiles, a child is nothing more than an object. They have a use for those photos. It has nothing to do with any particular child. I seriously doubt they give a flying fig about the name, or even the age (unless they prefer younger or older and are dissatisfied with their purchase for that reason). Some probably don't even care about the gender. They are objects, at that point. How would that, to a pedophile, be any different, sincerely, I really don't understand this, than a "virtual" child that doesn't really exist? I'm not asking about the crime of child pornography. What I want to know is, to a pedophile who collects child pornography, do you really think it matters if the child is "real" or "virtual"?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

Since the only person physically harming the child is the person taking the photos, or the people in case there is more than one, why punish everyone else? There must be a reason for that.

Well, that's sort of what we're discussing. In the case of porn made with non-consensual subjects the crime is in the production, and I can understand criminalizing anything which makes that production financially rewarding. This seems to be the distinction being made between virtual and real child porn, but it would be equally valid if the subject were a real rape, or a real murder. The supporters of the law assert that there are reasons beyond that. This is where opinions diverge. The assertion that such material inspires inappropriate behavior where none would have occurred otherwise is the reason offered. I think that that reason is flawed, since no data can be provided to support it, data that one would think to be trivial to accumulate if the incidence of such behavior approached a justification for criminalizing large groups of otherwise innocent people.

Another thing swirling through my mind. Why, if I were to start having siezures or diabetic blackouts could I lose my drivers license, even though it had never happened while driving?

<snip>

Yes, you could, if they happened more than a few times without attributable causes, or were of certain diagnoses.

This analogy isn't very appropriate, though. Someone has seizures. Obviously, if the seizures are unpredictable there is no way to assure that one won't occur while driving without extensive medical verification. Driving is not a privilege open to everyone because of the obvious, demonstrable potential for serious injury. That's why we don't want blind people or infants (among others) behind the wheel.

What's important is that this scenario starts with someone having seizures. To pursue it in our frame of reference concerning virtual or consensual porn the comparison would have to begin with, "Somebody abuses a child..."

That's not the initial step we're dealing with in "Somebody watches virtual porn. Your analogy would be more appropriate if it went, "Somebody sees a person have a seizure on video, let's take away his driving privileges."

Precautionary laws/rules/guidelines simply aren't anything new. It *has been* shown that pedophiles use child pornography. And then the argument becomes, well, but not "virtual" child pornography, that's different. Right?

Wrong. "It *has been* shown that pedophiles use child pornography." is a correlation. It has not been shown that porn causes child abuse that would not have otherwise occurred. It has been tried very hard to show that by people whose only agenda is to make that connection. They have failed.

There are people who enjoy BDSM fantasy videos. Some may be abusive sadists who will act out. Most probably aren't and won't. Do you think that those videos cause people to become abusive sadists who were not already or would not have otherwise become so? Do you think that the total absence of such videos would effect a significant change in the number who already are?

If your answer to the second question is yes, for whatever reason, then the follow-up is... do you think that such change is of sufficient significance to criminalize anyone else who is in any way associated with anything that might be construed as a fantasy BDSM image?

In essence this is what is being pursued with the criminalization of virtual child porn.

But let me ask a question about that. Does anyone seriously think that pedophiles purchase and distribute child pornography because they want a specific photo of a specific child so they can get to know them better? It seems to me that, aside from the person making the pictures, beyond that point, to pedophiles, a child is nothing more than an object. They have a use for those photos. It has nothing to do with any particular child. I seriously doubt they give a flying fig about the name, or even the age (unless they prefer younger or older and are dissatisfied with their purchase for that reason). Some probably don't even care about the gender. They are objects, at that point. How would that, to a pedophile, be any different, sincerely, I really don't understand this, than a "virtual" child that doesn't really exist? I'm not asking about the crime of child pornography. What I want to know is, to a pedophile who collects child pornography, do you really think it matters if the child is "real" or "virtual"?

Of course it doesn't.

Much of this discussion is complicated by the emotions implicit in the subject of children. If every instance of "child porn" in our conversation were to be replaced with "non-consensual porn" the assertions being made might be identical, but the tenor and emotive value of the conversation would, I expect, be starkly different. There is a certain "Think of the Children!!!" distortion at work.

Long before there were computers, or videos, or film, and probably even before text there was rape. No one has successfully demonstrated that the introduction of any of these media has increased the incidence of rape.

Rape is not a primarily sexual crime. (That's the mantra, right?) Rape is a crime of violence. It is abuse, usually against women. Abuse against women is not only sexual. Child abuse is not only sexual. By statute any sexual contact between an adult and a child is abuse.

We're not treating these situations as the equivalent concepts that they actually are. The "Think about the Children!" emotive steers us away from rational comparison.

The point has been made many times in this thread that if criminalization by legislative fiat is an appropriate social reaction to any potential for child porn then by extension it is equally appropriate for an astonishing range of other images and representations. This point is consistently either glossed over, ignored, or drowned out in "Think about the Children!" appeals.

The issue with child porn involving real children isn't that it's porn, it's that it is abuse. It is a real documentation of real abuse. It isn't that the topic is criminal, it is that the act of creating it is. We create, disseminate, and view fictional representations of criminal acts so ubiquitously that it is nearly impossible to avoid them. Imagine if all of those were treated with the same Draconian spirit as the families with bathtub pictures, or some guy who collects comics.

The core conflicts in this discussion can be equally well served by asking why they are not, and providing some verifiable intrinsic difference to justify that.

There is an elephant in the room where pornography is concerned. That elephant is the assumption that there is something essentially bad in any pornography, and only the prevalence of demand justifies any tolerance at all. This is specious reasoning based on a moral authority. It says that all porn is bad, and we're going to pick out the stuff that isn't too bad and let that slide, and we're going to punish anyone who crosses whatever line we happen to allow at any given mood we happen to be in.

It is no surprise to me that the result is bad law.

 

[JFrankA]

First of all, it seems to me that we have two different discussions going on about the same point here. The calm debate from SugarB, and the emotional debate from SW. (Not meant as an insult). It seems to me an interesting dynamic.

Anyway,

Okay, let me throw a few things out that will most likely be pitched in the garbage, but this is what is on my mind at the moment:

First, harm. Harming a real child. Let me reverse my own argument for a moment and see if this would be agreed with. If the only people who are guilty are people who actually harm a child...then why isn't the ONLY person prosecuted in child pornography rings the person creating the pictures? Why those who buy them? Why those who distribute them? They most certainly didn't harm that child! They didn't take the pictures, they don't know the child's name, they didn't use any force or intimidation in making that photo. All they do is...look at it. They don't harm a child. So why does the law say that each and every time *those* particular photos are distributed or looked at, a crime is being commited against a child. Revictimization. Why is it not revictimization to keep running footage every year of planes smashing into towers? Why is it not revictimization to publish afterward the photo of a murdered child? Why isn't it revictimization...unless it is child pornography? Since the only person physically harming the child is the person taking the photos, or the people in case there is more than one, why punish everyone else? There must be a reason for that.

Good point. I don't know either. Perhaps it's the same reason why VCP is illegal. Gave me something to think about.

Another thing swirling through my mind. Why, if I were to start having siezures or diabetic blackouts could I lose my drivers license, even though it had never happened while driving? Isn't that a "because of what could happen" law? I have a brother-in-law with a CDL. He has military clearance and hazmat. If he were to be diagnosed with certain things...depression, for example, anxiety, panic...he would very likely lose his job. Because of what *could* happen. Because of the increased potential in doing something that would or could harm others. And it doesn't *matter* if he were to control it with medication...because most of the medications IMMEDIATELY lead to the loss of his job. It doesn't matter if he "tries" to not be depressed. It doesn't matter if someone "tries" to get their diabetes under control. They have to *prove* it is under control. They have to *prove* they're no longer needing or taking certain medications for certain emotional issues. They have to *prove* they haven't had a siezure in six months. EVEN IF they'd never had a siezure while driving anyway. Simply because of the increased potential and the protection of others.

If I sound callous, forgive me, I don't mean to. I'm going to to go on my opinion here, but I may be wrong. In the case of a physical condition in which your body causes you brain to misfire (siezures or diabetic blackout), or your brain is already misfiring on it's own (depression, anxiety, narcolepsy), you don't have a choice when or what is happening and you are not in control.

I don't mean to sound mean, I'm sorry if I do, but I'd imagine that it's the same reason why drunk people shouldn't drive, even though before the drunk driving laws were enacted, plenty of people didn't get into accidents. Something else is now controlling your mind and body.

Precautionary laws/rules/guidelines simply aren't anything new. It *has been* shown that pedophiles use child pornography. And then the argument becomes, well, but not "virtual" child pornography, that's different. Right?

But let me ask a question about that. Does anyone seriously think that pedophiles purchase and distribute child pornography because they want a specific photo of a specific child so they can get to know them better? It seems to me that, aside from the person making the pictures, beyond that point, to pedophiles, a child is nothing more than an object. They have a use for those photos. It has nothing to do with any particular child. I seriously doubt they give a flying fig about the name, or even the age (unless they prefer younger or older and are dissatisfied with their purchase for that reason). Some probably don't even care about the gender. They are objects, at that point. How would that, to a pedophile, be any different, sincerely, I really don't understand this, than a "virtual" child that doesn't really exist? I'm not asking about the crime of child pornography. What I want to know is, to a pedophile who collects child pornography, do you really think it matters if the child is "real" or "virtual"?

I'm a big fan of Tera Patrick. She's intelligent, beautiful, a wonderful person, (met her in person on several occasions), hot and an honest performer. However, I don't watch only her. I watch a bunch of porn with people I don't know or are a particular fan of. Why? Not because I'm objectifying the people involved, but because I am aroused by the situation that's going on. The people involved have to be attractive to me, sure, but, I will not, for instance, get aroused by two men having sex no matter how good looking the guys involved are. It's just not my thing. Even SW was claiming that "marshmallow porn" wasn't his thing. Often it's the situation, not the people.

Actually, the reason I started making porn was because there wasn't enough of my fetish out there. I decided to make the fetish available myself.

It's more than the bodies, it's the fantasy. So though I do not enjoy sex with children, I don't even fantasize about it, but, given my particular fetish, I can understand that it's not the person, but the situation that is arousing.

And if one will call that "objectifying the performers", then one can say that equally about any movie that arouses emotion. When we watched "The Matrix", during the movie, did we really care about how Kenue Reeves felt while filming the scene? No, we cared about Neo. We cheered Neo when he dodged all those bullets and kicked the hell out of Agent Smith.

Porn contains sexually explicit material, but in it's basic purpose, it's still a movie designed to arouse feelings. That's why I feel the "objectifying" part of the argument, even though it includes child porn, is invalid.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

See my Posts #1648 and #1682. We're saying the same thing to a point, but then we diverge, for two reasons:

1. Inherent harm is a red herring. LSD is not inherently harmful. It affects people in many different ways - causing a sense of euphoria in some; suicidal behaviour in others. The effect is everything.
2. Similarly, predisposition is a red herring. If somebody said to me "If only I had a gun I'd commit suicide right now", and I handed them a gun, and they did, should my handing them the gun be deemed irrelevant to their suicide?

In determining whether something should be banned from society the single most important question to be answered is: What effects will it have? We can then go on to ask incidental questions like: BTW, what's it made of (is it inherently harmful)?

 

[JFrankA]

See my Posts #1648 and #1682. We're saying the same thing to a point, but then we diverge, for two reasons:

1. Inherent harm is a red herring. LSD is not inherently harmful. It affects people in many different ways - causing a sense of euphoria in some; suicidal behaviour in others. The effect is everything.
2. Similarly, predisposition is a red herring. If somebody said to me "If only I had a gun I'd commit suicide right now", and I handed them a gun, and they did, should my handing them the gun be deemed irrelevant to their suicide?

In determining whether something should be banned from society the single most important question to be answered is: What effects will it have? We can then go on to ask incidental questions like: BTW, what's it made of (is it inherently harmful)?

You are going on the belief that any child porn could drive people who have the fantasy to have sex with children will go out and molest children. You are plain wrong.

 

[Southwind17]

What I want to know is, to a pedophile who collects child pornography, do you really think it matters if the child is "real" or "virtual"?

I should not be surprised to learn that some, possibly most, possibly all pedophiles take some, possibly most, possibly all satisfaction from what they do in simply knowing that a real child has either been the unwilling subject of their powers and/or indeed suffered as a result. Incidentally, I feel the same way about rapists generally.

 

[JFrankA]

I should not be surprised to learn that some, possibly most, possibly all pedophiles take some, possibly most, possibly all satisfaction from what they do in simply knowing that a real child has either been the unwilling subject of their powers and/or indeed suffered as a result. Incidentally, I feel the same way about rapists generally.

Again, a wrong, presumptuous statement (and an extermely judgmental one):

There are people with child fetishes that do not, under any circumstance want to hurt a child. Again, my question is this, (that no one seemed to answer):
If someone who has never ever molested a child, yet had urges to have sex with a child, used VCP ONLY to satisfy his or her own urges, is the VCP good in this case?

Further, I was right. Now are we going to ban fantasy rape porn because in might make a potential rapist think it's okay to rape someone else?

.....can we see the snowball gaining momentum here?

 

[Southwind17]

It's difficult to take seriously. If this where part of something akin to the Meese report and government were considering acting on it then it would cause me some degree of concern. As it is it seems rather benign.

Neither a criticism nor a dig, RandFan, but I get the distinct impression that you're no longer interested in a meaningful debate here, at least with me. If so, would you be so kind as to say so. That way I can avoid wasting my time and effort expressing my views and making points and arguments that specifically touch upon and relate to those matters that you and I have recently posted on. Thank you in advance.

 

[JFrankA]

Neither a criticism nor a dig, RandFan, but I get the distinct impression that you're no longer interested in a meaningful debate here, at least with me. If so, would you be so kind as to say so. That way I can avoid wasting my time and effort expressing my views and making points and arguments that specifically touch upon and relate to those matters that you and I have recently posted on. Thank you in advance.

Seems to me that you are only interested in people agreeing with you. The moment someone comes out to say something that you do not agree with or has a point against your beliefs, you cry "strawman", or "you don't get it" or "you're not serious" or just out and out ignore them.

Eventually, you realize, you'll only be talking to only yourself.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

Broadly yes. But why are you embracing causal connections with depictions of crimes against children.

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.

Now immagine someone attacking a computer immage of a child, that would be right out was well. In any case were someone is actualy harmed I have no problem with enforcing the law. But no one gets hurt here.

Why is it ok to draw sexual pictures of adults being roasted alive, but right out to draw a picture of a child having say legal sex with another child(say illustrations for a story of sex between 14 year olds)?

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.

But why are you applying the double standard to drawings?