Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Many images are constructed to be repellant though. Horror movies are full of them.

 

[Belz...]

We don't simply accept things because they seem to us to be true.

Isn't science grand ?

If only more people applied its methods...

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

It has been proven rapists use porn. We need to outlaw all porn, because of what it might cause. You seem to have changed your stance on all of porn now.

 

[Belz...]

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.

Well, in any case does the porn really cause the problem ? Or is the problem there to start with ?

This is the same debate about violence in movies. Just because some nut, somewhere, is inspired to violence because of it is no reason to deprive the sane people of it.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Allegedly.

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 really mean "a child having say legal sex with another child" [emphasis added]? If so, I think you're deliberately posing your question to suit an incidental purpose. If not, and such sex is legal, as you write, then all's OK, it seems. The appropriateness of 14 being a legal age for sex is debatable, though.

 

[Southwind17]

Many images are constructed to be repellant though. Horror movies are full of them.

So not pointless, then!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Well, in any case does the porn really cause the problem ? Or is the problem there to start with ?

This is the same debate about violence in movies. Just because some nut, somewhere, is inspired to violence because of it is no reason to deprive the sane people of it.

I agree and so does or did Sugarb. It is that she makes the argument seemingly only about children and then only in sexual sitautions.

 

[JFrankA]

So not pointless, then!

No, it's not. And that's the point I brought up long ago.

Sometimes these images are in Manga, not to arouse sexual excitement, but to arouse repulsion, anger, etc. And there are images that are created specifically for the viewer to decide whether it's erotic or not. In the case of that, the image is to provoke thoughts and questions about oneself and the world.

However, no matter how arousing or horrific an image is, no matter the contents, it will NOT make someone do something that the viewer chooses to do. The viewer may use an image as an excuse to do something illegal and/or terrible to another person, but it doesn't not CAUSE it.

By saying an image does cause a person to do something illegal and/or terrible is taking the responsibility away from that person.

 

[Southwind17]

I agree and so does or did Sugarb. It is that she makes the argument seemingly only about children and then only in sexual sitautions.

And quite rightly so, in principle. The cost/benefit analysis, real or perceived, for child porn yields a unique and completely different result than that for violent movies targeted at adults.

 

[JFrankA]

And quite rightly so, in principle. The cost/benefit analysis, real or perceived, for child porn yields a unique and completely different result than that for violent movies targeted at adults.

Evidence? Or is this only a belief?

 

[quadraginta]

And quite rightly so, in principle. The cost/benefit analysis, real or perceived, for child porn yields a unique and completely different result than that for violent movies targeted at adults.

Could you explain the differences between a real cost/benefit analysis and a perceived one? I don't want to make assumptions that might be less than charitable.

Could you explain in more detail how either (or both) result in different results for these two subjects in particular, and what input data is used for such analysis and such results?

 

[MontagK505]

By "win" I mean we defeated a bill introduced to make possesion legal.

Given that virtual child porn doesn't requre a child to perform an illegal act then the argument wouldn't hold. Heck, by that logic we could classify any porn where an acress wears a school girl outfit and puts her hair in pig tails as child porn.

The way the US virtual child porn law is written you could be prosecuted doing virtually what Larry Flint does legally in his "Barely Legal" video series.

 

[JFrankA]

The way the US virtual child porn law is written you could be prosecuted doing virtually what Larry Flint does legally in his "Barely Legal" video series.

Let's go further. If VCP cause someone who has the possibility to make someone feel like it's okay to commit real child abuse and molestation, and do so, why wouldn't a porn of a 25 year old woman playing a child do the same thing?



...that snowball's getting bigger....

 

[fuelair]

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.

Thanks!! I try!!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Let's go further. If VCP cause someone who has the possibility to make someone feel like it's okay to commit real child abuse and molestation, and do so, why wouldn't a porn of a 25 year old woman playing a child do the same thing?



...that snowball's getting bigger....

Come on little snowball you can make it!

 

[sugarb]

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.

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."

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.

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.

You gave me a lot to think about in this. Thank you. Great post.

I think that, with the example of siezures and driving, I was looking at it more like this: the person "could" cause harm "if" a medical emergency occurred, but it "hasn't" happened yet, but there is a reason that we presume that it will. Kind of the same thing with pedophilia...and I'm only making that comparison because of the study I read (which I admit had a lot of things in it difficult for me to understand) about differences in brain area measurements regarding pedophiles. In a sense, I am myself speculating about something. If it is found that pedophilia is a treatable organic medical condition (rather than looking at it strictly as a psychological one), would that change people's opinions about any of this?

No, I don't think bdsm videos turn people into sadists. I don't think portrayals of rape turn people into rapists. I don't think child pornography turns people into pedophiles (I would think having a sexual interest in children, prepubescent children, in the first place would be enough for me to consider that a person is probably a pedophile...and that is what makes this a bit different. I'm not making an emotional pleading, though I realize it appears that way. I very honestly think that there is a difference regarding portrayals of children, because the viewer of such things, virtual or otherwise, is, by virtue of acquiring the material, displaying something that we as a society have deemed inappropriate and illegal. Somewhere in there is where my argument is trying to come out. I simply seem to be failing to do so constructively. I do realize that)

Anyway, I really appreciate the time you took to respond to those things...and I also appreciate (and this will seem stupid) your illustration between correlation and causation as it applies to this topic. Thank you.

 

[sugarb]

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,


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



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.



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.

JFrankA, good afternoon. I shouldn't have used "objectifying", because it is another one of those hot button words, but yes, I mean it just as if we're watching a movie, as you wrote. I wasn't saying it was a "bad" thing. I'm sorry if it came across that way. Objectification isn't a hang up for me, so I'm perhaps too loose with the word.

I wonder, JFrankA, if pedophiles are "in control of their minds and bodies", or if their minds and bodies are being controlled by something else. I am going to have to find that study I was reading. It isn't very helpful to refer to it and not have the link available. Besides, some of you could understand it a lot better than me, and perhaps in simple language lay out the findings in a way anyone could understand (even me, lol).

I'll see if I can find it again as soon as I've caught up with the thread. Kind of foolish on my part, my apologies.

 

[sugarb]

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



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)?



But why are you applying the double standard to drawings?

I'm not applying the double standard to drawings. I'm applying the double standard to the *content* of the drawings...just as the laws already do regarding pornography.

Again let me ask...applying our tests for obscenity, what would the artistic or societal value be to works portraying children in sexual positions with adults or animals? Or even with other children?

 

[sugarb]

It has been proven rapists use porn. We need to outlaw all porn, because of what it might cause. You seem to have changed your stance on all of porn now.

No, I really haven't. Actually, I think I'm maintaining my position even more solidly (in my own mind) by recognizing the distinct difference between portrayals of adults and portrayals of children. That is a position I personally (and I would think anyone, actually) could maintain without posing any threats, or having any negative feelings, about any other kind of pornography.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I wonder, JFrankA, if pedophiles are "in control of their minds and bodies", or if their minds and bodies are being controlled by something else. I am going to have to find that study I was reading. It isn't very helpful to refer to it and not have the link available. Besides, some of you could understand it a lot better than me, and perhaps in simple language lay out the findings in a way anyone could understand (even me, lol).

This is a very broad philosophical question. Is anyone really in control of their minds and bodies?