Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

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.

No, I do agree with that.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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?

What is the artistic or societal value of drawings of women being roasted alive? Or of BDSM porn?

They hold an attraction to some people, they harm no one. That is enough for me.

 

[sugarb]

thanks!! I try!!:d

lol!

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

So then you accept that the arguement is a valid arguement when used against adult porn?

The thing is you seem reject an argument in one case and seem to accept it in another. The logic of the argument is the same, so I wonder why you don't find it equally compelling in both. This seems like an emotional distinction.

 

[ponderingturtle]

No, I do agree with that.

Then why are you arguing using the argument you don't agree with? What makes drawings of children in sexual situations so much more corrupting that movies of people being explicitly tortured like say SAW or The Passion?

 

[sugarb]

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

Oh, whoa. Yeah...that is a whole other topic (would be interesting, though, no?)

But...if pedophilia *is* an organic disease or condition, I think that would be an exciting find, and it would/could take this debate in a whole new direction, or make it simply moot.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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)?

Well, but that's exactly what we've been talking about: What effects will porn have? We have seen what effects it has, and to quote you "The effect is everything". From arousal to giggles to indifference to shock. If the effect is pretty much anything, then how can we objectively say that "there's something wrong with porn" in the first place?. And yes, you do need to determine wether something is inherently harmful to make such case. If something is proven to 1) not be inherently harmful, and 2)to cause as many different types of effects as types of human beings there are, then there really is no case against the thing itself. It's about the people and their individual way of reacting.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Oh, whoa. Yeah...that is a whole other topic (would be interesting, though, no?)

But...if pedophilia *is* an organic disease or condition, I think that would be an exciting find, and it would/could take this debate in a whole new direction, or make it simply moot.

Maybe. I think it would be very interesting to learn where people get their turn ons. I think it is likely from multiple sources and ways people end up being attracted to what they are attracted to.

But is it more interesting than where rape fetishes come from or where homosexuality comes from?

On the whole I don't think it matters where a sexual desire comes from, it is what the person does with it. If you could reprogram someones sexuality would it be ethical to do so? There are those who would argue that it would remove the need for protections of homosexuals as it could be cured.

So I don't find it compelling to base arguments strongly on where desires come from.

 

[sugarb]

Then why are you arguing using the argument you don't agree with? What makes drawings of children in sexual situations so much more corrupting that movies of people being explicitly tortured like say SAW or The Passion?

Okay, that's the thing, though, ponderingturtle. I'm *not* using an argument that I don't agree with. There are, to my mind, two distinct issues the law addresses: child pornography, and other pornography. In my mind, there is a very clear differentiation, so therefore I don't see the argument applying in one case, while I see very easily how it can apply in another.

To the movies you mention, the film industry makes a distinct difference between movies appropriate for children, and movies NOT appropriate for children. A parent makes the choice. Right? Those ratings are there because we as a society acknowledge that children cannot even responsibly view movies that may have a negative affect on them (such as causing nightmares). Adults? Can go see anything they want!

Adults and children are two different issues entirely. You are a grown up, I am a grown up. It is appropriate for us to be attracted to grown ups. Even in rape scenes involving grown ups, even in age play scenes involving grown ups, because grown ups can take measures to protect themselves and be aware of nuances and such that children simply are not aware of. Children simply cannot defend themselves as adults. A child simply cannot agree to things that adults can agree to. That is why child pornography is illegal in the first place, no?

Now, I think the age at which we determine a person's ability to make responsible choices can be up for debate. Especially since there are so many different laws regarding age of consent. But those are there for a reason, too. The law even takes into account age differences when it comes to minors and sex. I would assume there is a reason for that, too. And to me, all of this ties in together. It isn't me applying different standards when it comes to children and adults. I *don't* agree, for example, with there being any age factor that is relevant once a person reaches what has legally been determined the age of consent. I don't agree with that. They're either old enough, or they aren't. I don't agree with having laws based on conditions dependent on the age of this person or that person. That makes no sense to me.

And perhaps that is why I stand where I stand here. If child pornography is wrong, in any instance, then it is wrong. If it can be justified by some to, in certain situations, not be wrong, then we shouldn't ever say, broadly, child pornography is wrong. It either is or it isn't.

I know it seems like it, and I understand why most of you think I'm not making any sense, but I'm actually being more consistent than I'm given credit for. Children do not belong in pornographic material. Or they do. I say they don't. Period.

Let me use your own example of burning someone. If you enjoy photos of people being burned, fine. You are an adult. But if you are a reasonable adult, you aren't going to go out and burn somebody based on how that picture made you feel. If you *did* attempt it, another adult would have a reasonable opportunity to stop you. But let's assume your victim was a child. A child who couldn't know that you were a weirdo wanting to hurt them. A child to which you could make anything seem like a game. A child that is smaller and weaker than you. Do you not see a difference?

Why, to go a bit further, are men more often arrested for domestic violence than women? Men are, usually, bigger, stronger, can inflict more damage...so the laws were originally constructed to protect women and children. Now, me personally? I think that children should be equally protected from men AND women, with no bias against men, or that leans heavily toward men being the abusers. I do *not*, however, agree with laws designed to immediately assume a male adult is guiltier/more responsible for the crime than an adult female. And that is not inconsistent with my position here.

I am open to the idea that I am wrong, that there is no difference between content involving adults and content involving children. I am open to it only because there *is* so much inconsistency regarding the law and protection of children, in many areas, not simply pornography. It is just that, in my mind, it should be a whole lot simpler than it is. I see a line. Children in pornographic materials? Not good. Adults? ...are adults. Whatever.

 

[sugarb]

Maybe. I think it would be very interesting to learn where people get their turn ons. I think it is likely from multiple sources and ways people end up being attracted to what they are attracted to.

But is it more interesting than where rape fetishes come from or where homosexuality comes from?

On the whole I don't think it matters where a sexual desire comes from, it is what the person does with it. If you could reprogram someones sexuality would it be ethical to do so? There are those who would argue that it would remove the need for protections of homosexuals as it could be cured.

So I don't find it compelling to base arguments strongly on where desires come from.

Mmm...I'm not sure I can agree with you there, ponderingturtle. Not given what I've learned over the past few years. It may not seem like it, but sometimes...it *does* matter where someone's desires come from. In the case of my mother-in-law, her sexual acting out (which for a long time angered us because we thought it was just "bad behavior") was a symptom of a disease. Yesterday? My arguments were shorter and pathetic (I owe SkeptiChick an apology for my short response, in fact) because of a phone call I recieved. Sexual acting out is apparently a problem in dementia wards.

Well, what if some of those people weren't diagnosed and weren't in locked wards? They might act out sexually in public and be labelled a criminal...rather than a person with a disease. In other words, they can't HELP it. They don't MEAN to do it, or to hurt anyone or threaten anyone, but they still DO.

So there is something in our minds that can go wrong, and cause sexual acting out...just as much as we can have psychological reasons for acting out. The difference is, if the problem is psychological, we can be aware of it and take steps to control it. But if it is organic, that may not be the case.

So I think it does matter, at least when it comes to criminal sexual behavior.

 

[JFrankA]

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.

Nothing to apologize for.

I believe, and yes it's an opinion, with the exception of illness (including conditions such as epilepsy, etc) and under the influence of drugs, one is always in control of their own minds & bodies. To say that pedophilia or even any kind of sexual arousal can take over a person's mind so much that they can't control their own bodies or actions is removing responsiblity from themselves. I know people say that there are "crimes of passion", but I believe that a person who has committed that still made a choice to commit such a crime.

 

[sugarb]

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.

I haven't found the original link I'm referring to yet, but this was cited in that study, and halfway down or so briefly discusses the brain issues I mentioned:
http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/82/4/457.full

 

[sugarb]

Nothing to apologize for.

I believe, and yes it's an opinion, with the exception of illness (including conditions such as epilepsy, etc) and under the influence of drugs, one is always in control of their own minds & bodies. To say that pedophilia or even any kind of sexual arousal can take over a person's mind so much that they can't control their own bodies or actions is removing responsiblity from themselves. I know people say that there are "crimes of passion", but I believe that a person who has committed that still made a choice to commit such a crime.

Good afternoon! I see what you're saying and at one time would have agreed completely, but as I explained to Ponderingturtle, I've learned recently that isn't always the case. There are quite a few diseases/illnesses of while inappropriate sexual behavior is a symptom/effect. And cannot be controlled, until the disease is managed properly. Even then, as with dementia, at some point the only way to control the sexual acting out is with restraints or ...blah, lost the word...drugs that basically knock people out. SEDATIVES! That's the word

 

[MontagK505]

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....

One thing to keep in mind, with real porn you have to idenify the age of the persons involved. With VP (adult or otherwise) you can't.

 

[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.

SkeptiChick, I do owe you an apology for my brief non-answer yesterday. I'm sorry.

I know that I seem to be contradicting myself. With regards to child pornography, as I've tried to explain, children as a subject of pornographic material is either wrong or it isn't wrong. Take the pedophilia out of the equation, I guess, to understand where I'm coming from there.

With regards to pedophilia...I do feel that child pornography encourages more than satiates their illness. No, you are right. I admit that I cannot prove that. I do believe people are more than likely sexually attracted to children before they see child pornography, and that attraction is what causes them to seek the pornography to begin with. I do agree with everyone saying that.

My analogy did suck. You're right But what I was trying to get at was, if pedophilia is an illness, then it would seem like that would at least be an argument in favor of banning child pornography...because...I would think that only a pedophile would have an interest in child pornography (other than those who profit from it's creation and distribution, that is).

Again, I'm sorry to have been so short. I really do apologize for that.

ETA: Very quickly, I realized after I posted that another issue would be brought up. Really, no, I don't think bans are effective in that they more often than not just create a black market for material and lead to it being even more difficult to fight a problem or at the very least keep it under control. Which is where we seem to be with child pornography now. I do see that.

 

[JFrankA]

Good afternoon! I see what you're saying and at one time would have agreed completely, but as I explained to Ponderingturtle, I've learned recently that isn't always the case. There are quite a few diseases/illnesses of while inappropriate sexual behavior is a symptom/effect. And cannot be controlled, until the disease is managed properly. Even then, as with dementia, at some point the only way to control the sexual acting out is with restraints or ...blah, lost the word...drugs that basically knock people out. SEDATIVES! That's the word

SugarB, I did say "with the exception of illness (including conditions such as epilepsy, etc) and under the influence of drugs". So yes, I do agree and understand that some mental illness does result is unusal sexual appetites.

However, my opinion is that just having the desire is not a mental illness nor is it a sign of being metally ill. The real mental illness comes when someone has a fetish such as children or rape or any "destructive" fetish and actually will do the real thing, because they don't care, or ignore, or desires the consequeses of their actions.

As I've said before, I know a woman who had a death fetish (her own death). Would I consider that she is mentally ill? I would ONLY if she really wanted to die and didn't care or wanted the consequeses.

I consider it the same as someone who wants to, for example kill their boss. A lot of people fantasize about it, even plan it. The people who have mental problem(s) are the ones who actaully go through with their fantasies for real.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[sugarb]

SugarB, I did say "with the exception of illness (including conditions such as epilepsy, etc) and under the influence of drugs". So yes, I do agree and understand that some mental illness does result is unusal sexual appetites.

However, my opinion is that just having the desire is not a mental illness nor is it a sign of being metally ill. The real mental illness comes when someone has a fetish such as children or rape or any "destructive" fetish and actually will do the real thing, because they don't care, or ignore, or desires the consequeses of their actions.

As I've said before, I know a woman who had a death fetish (her own death). Would I consider that she is mentally ill? I would ONLY if she really wanted to die and didn't care or wanted the consequeses.

I consider it the same as someone who wants to, for example kill their boss. A lot of people fantasize about it, even plan it. The people who have mental problem(s) are the ones who actaully go through with their fantasies for real.

I hope that makes sense.

It makes sense, JFrankA, but it seems to me then that if possessing photographs depicting illegal acts (due to having a fantasy involving acts that would be illegal) is considered okay, I see no reason at all, then to make it illegal to possess child pornography PERIOD.

You see? It's a little bit different if you look at it that way. Why do we ban it? Because it involves children.

In the killing your boss scenario? Again, your boss is an adult. As such, if you wanted to, like with your friend with the death fetish, you could involve your boss in your "fantasy" without making it a reality. You could, with your friend, act a scenario in which you "kill" your boss. How can one do that when a child is the focus of the fantasy?

 

[sugarb]

JFrankA, just to add...yes I know that you included illnesses. But...even if someone assaults someone sexually and they have one of those illnesses, that illness does not excuse them (even if they couldn't help it) from their assault being a crime.

I seem to recall several years back that pedophiles were assumed to have been sexually abused as children. When those theories started floating around, some that were captured or incarcerated made those very claims, in fact. When studies were done, it was found that in reality, most pedophiles had actually never been sexually abused as children. Perhaps physically, perhaps emotionally...but once the "excuse" arose of having been abused themselves, we were supposed to start looking at them in a more sympathetic light.

And that is okay. We should be able to drag out some sort of sympathy for people afflicted with things we are fortunate enough to not have to deal with, even if their actions are atrocious. But my point is, even realizing the connections to types of abuse, and attempting to "cure" pedophiles with psychotherapy (which interestingly enough can also involve therapeutic creation of pictures), no "cure" has been found. Which is what makes the idea of an organic issue so interesting to me.

Now, let me ask you, if you'll just consider that possibility, a question. (and this isn't loaded...or if it seems like it, I don't mean for it to). Okay? How would you feel if an actual "cure" were found, and by some miracle there was suddenly no market for child pornography period? Would we revisit this argument with some regret that we weren't realizing we were defending something that only existed because of an illness? Would that not "prove" anything to you?

I said earlier I think that I tend to be a long term thinker. I know that my words seem laced with emotion, but in reality my own true emotions have never been expressed in this thread other than the sincere belief that children need protection. On an emotional level, were I to just start spewing that, believe me, it would be a whole other ballgame and we'd fly around to areas probably nobody wants to go. But my own perceptions and emotions come from my own experiences, so seriously, I'm not applying them to my argument.

 

[JFrankA]

It makes sense, JFrankA, but it seems to me then that if possessing photographs depicting illegal acts (due to having a fantasy involving acts that would be illegal) is considered okay, I see no reason at all, then to make it illegal to possess child pornography PERIOD.

You see? It's a little bit different if you look at it that way. Why do we ban it? Because it involves children.

I'm sorry, SugarB, I don't see. I don't care who it's done to. I feel badly for any human equally who is mistreated. I'm sorry, I don't mean to sound mean, but I don't think that "they can't fight back, even with the case of very young children doesn't mean a thing. One can surprise a full grown man and he wouldn't be able to fight back either.

Cruelity is cruelity.

In the killing your boss scenario? Again, your boss is an adult. As such, if you wanted to, like with your friend with the death fetish, you could involve your boss in your "fantasy" without making it a reality. You could, with your friend, act a scenario in which you "kill" your boss. How can one do that when a child is the focus of the fantasy?

I'm sorry, SugarB, I can't see the difference between killing a child and killing a helpless adult.

If the difference for you is the fact that children are helpless, or don't know any better, or something to that effect, I can assure you that there's a lot of adults the same way. What about killing a mentally impared adult? Is that the same as killing a non-mentally impaired adult or a child? What about killing an adult who has been surprised and drugged? Is that the same as killing an adult or a child?

I'm sorry, SugarB, I really don't see the difference.

 

[tesscaline]

SkeptiChick, I do owe you an apology for my brief non-answer yesterday. I'm sorry.

Not a problem.

I know that I seem to be contradicting myself. With regards to child pornography, as I've tried to explain, children as a subject of pornographic material is either wrong or it isn't wrong. Take the pedophilia out of the equation, I guess, to understand where I'm coming from there.

No, I'm sorry, I can't agree with a false dichotomy like that. The real world has many shades of grey. Ignoring them, and leaving only black and white serves no one, and punishes many.

I do not understand why you refuse to recognize a difference between an actual living breathing feeling thinking child, and some ink on paper or some pixels on a computer screen. Refusing to recognize that difference is putting you in a rather awkward place in this discussion, as you wind up conflating issues, and contradicting yourself.

With regards to pedophilia...I do feel that child pornography encourages more than satiates their illness. No, you are right. I admit that I cannot prove that. I do believe people are more than likely sexually attracted to children before they see child pornography, and that attraction is what causes them to seek the pornography to begin with. I do agree with everyone saying that.

Right. Not only can you not prove that, but no one has been able to prove it. Appealing to emotion (your emotions or anyone else's) simply isn't constructive though. I understand you feel a certain way. But feeling a certain way does not make your position correct.

My analogy did suck. You're right But what I was trying to get at was, if pedophilia is an illness, then it would seem like that would at least be an argument in favor of banning child pornography...because...I would think that only a pedophile would have an interest in child pornography (other than those who profit from it's creation and distribution, that is).

I understood entirely what your analogy was intended to demonstrate. However, the assumptions you're making are inherently flawed, and contradict the evidence available. You're also still conflating pornography that involves real children (which causes real and demonstrable harm), and pornography that involves no living creatures at all (which does not cause any harm at all).

Using your own alcohol example: Alcoholism is an illness. How exactly would banning non-alcoholic beer treat or otherwise limit alcoholism?

I ask because that's exactly what you're implying. Pedophiles are sick, so ban fake child porn. I simply cannot see the logic here at all whatsoever.

Again, I'm sorry to have been so short. I really do apologize for that.

ETA: Very quickly, I realized after I posted that another issue would be brought up. Really, no, I don't think bans are effective in that they more often than not just create a black market for material and lead to it being even more difficult to fight a problem or at the very least keep it under control. Which is where we seem to be with child pornography now. I do see that.

I want to point out, again, the conflation between real child pornography and virtual child pornography. Banning things that actually cause demonstrable harm is not a problem. But virtual child porn does not actually involve children, and has zero demonstrable harm involved. Saying that virtual child porn should be banned because it MIGHT contribute to someone MAYBE doing something in real life is, in my opinion, completely and utterly inappropriate and falls into the category of policing thought.