Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[not daSkeptic]

I disagree that virtual child pornography is not pornography. Somebody may want to look up the definition of pornography, since I am not allowed to say a spoon and a fork are both silverware.

Who said this? Please quote it.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

It comes down to societal cost/benefit of the aggregation of the positive and negative effects respectively, and with regard to VCP in particular (because we're in danger of inadvertently broadening the debate to cover porn per se and losing the plot) nobody in this thread has sought to address that yet, defaulting or prefering to hide behind the "there's no demonstrable causation so we can ignore it" argument. Perhaps you'd like to be the first to have a go (provided you're prepared to stick your head over the "reasonably conceivable" parapet instead of waiting for science to deliver up the answer!). Why not start with the arguably(!) easier part first. What do you see as the benefits to society of allowing VCP?

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Workable parameters can be defined.

 

[TokenMac]

What do you see as the benefits to society of allowing VCP?

Manga collecters will no longer have to worry that the next issue of Bleach will be about Ichigo(15) and Rukia(100+ but said to look 15) having sex. Other than that not much, but laws aren't made based on what will benefit. Laws are should be made to prevent harm to others.

What do you see as the negative effects to society of allowing VCP?

 

[gumboot]

I think part of the issue with the whole "real/virtual pornography" aspect is that there are two distinct issues with regard to the legality of pornography. There's the act, and then there's the product of the act.

The act itself is the making of the pornography. In photographic pornography, this constitutes sexual actions involving at least one individual, and a method of photographically recording these actions. In the case of virtual pornography, the act itself is the process of generating the artificial imagery - be that animation, a drawing, or whatever.

The product, then, is the "thing" that you are left with at the end of it. In live pornography this would be photographs or video. With virtual pornography this would be a drawing or an animation or similar.

The issue with the act in regards to children is pretty clear cut. A child cannot legally consent to sexual activity, and therefore any adult that is involved in sexual activity with a child is breaking the law. The purpose of this is pretty straight forward - to protect innocent children from exploitation. Laws regarding the product flow on naturally from the illegality of the act - if it's illegal to partake in sexual activity with a child, and recording sexual activity with a child constitutes partaking in said activity, it stands to reason that the recording itself is also illegal.

Things get more murky when it comes to virtual pornography for one simple reason. In virtual pornography no children are involved whatsoever (unless of course it happened to be drawn by children!). No sexual activity is actually happening at all, rather visual 2D or 3D representations are produced which resemble sexual activity.

There's therefore no clear logical procession from the act to the product. There's a long history of attempts to argue "public decency" on such issues, but there's just as long a history of such arguments being knocked down by the First Amendment.

I have a big problem with simulated child pornography. I think it's disgusting and unnatural. But I cannot accept any argument for banning it. There is no victim, because no illegal or victimising act has been committed. The only vaguely solid argument against it is that allowing it somehow encourages or enables sexualising of children and pedophilia.

However to that I would simply point out that, by the same logic, miniskirts and low necklines should be made illegal because they encourage rape. Such an argument is obviously ridiculous, and so is the argument that making virtual child porn legal will cause molesters to attack children.

 

[sugarb]

Don't care, as in are not factoring the existence or non-existence of that harm into the equation, even when confronted directly with that existence or non-existence. Refusing to address it makes it seem as if it does not matter.

No one has been advocating child pornography.

No one said that virtual child pornography was not pornography. You're making strawmen here...

Rudeness?? It is rude to point out the logical fallacies in someone's arguments? Since when?

There's nothing wrong with you personally objecting to children being depicted in child pornography. But the logic you have been applying to justify the law, and are STILL applying, that the difference between real child pornography and virtual DOESN'T matter, at all, period is flawed. You may not like that it's flawed, but it is flawed. I've cited the fallacies for you so that you can look them up.

Calling an argument ridiculous is not rudeness, at least as far as "rudeness" is defined by the MA of this forum. I have been quite measured in my responses to you, actually, and made sure only to attack the arguments you have made, and not make any direct aspersions about your person.

I'm sorry if you don't like what's been said to you, but you need to understand that your statements have come across as fairly offensive to some people as well, just for different reasons.

Your arguments have made it appear as if you do not care about harm, in so far as you do not care to differentiate between something that does actually cause harm and something that does not. Your arguments also have made it appear as if you do not care about the harm that banning an otherwise harmless material causes.

Personally, I do not appreciate the suggestion that someone is criminal for their thoughts alone. I find that disgusting.

Dear God, I have never said that someone is a criminal for what they *think*. Never even suggested that. We are talking about materials. Materials. If child pornography, virtual or otherwise, was not a material, then there wouldn't be a problem importing it, there wouldn't be a problem ordering it through the mail, there wouldn't be anything to possess, for goodness sakes. Materials. There is nothing illogical about this. Trying to say that materials, things, aren't materials or things is what is illogical.

Again, *I* didn't make the ban. I'm sorry you find it offensive that I support it...but I also find it interesting that you're completely ignoring the obscenity aspect when it comes to virtual child porn that isn't real child porn (a distinction that apparently means something).

 

[Southwind17]

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'd like to bet on your not feeling this way when it comes to the First Amendment!

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.

That's aparent, given your flawed analogy. How can VCP to a pedophile meaningfully be compared to non-alcoholic beer to an alcoholic? VCP has an obvious relevance to pedophilia; non-alcoholic beer has no more relevance to alcoholism than does mashed potato!

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.

Fire arms are generally banned in the UK. Why? Because they MIGHT contribute to someone MAYBE doing something in real life. Is banning fire arms "completely and utterly inappropriate" and falls into the category of policing thought?

 

[sugarb]

Who said this? Please quote it.

Excuse me, I made an error. Virtual child pornography is not CHILD pornography because it isn't real. They aren't the same thing. They're both pornography, both child pornography, which is illegal, but it doesn't matter because they aren't the same thing. I give up. Okay, I'm an idiot with no ability to reason. I just give. Perhaps I should say "uncle"...but no one would get the joke.

 

[TokenMac]

Dear God, I have never said that someone is a criminal for what they *think*. Never even suggested that. We are talking about materials. Materials. If child pornography, virtual or otherwise, was not a material, then there wouldn't be a problem importing it, there wouldn't be a problem ordering it through the mail, there wouldn't be anything to possess, for goodness sakes. Materials. There is nothing illogical about this. Trying to say that materials, things, aren't materials or things is what is illogical.

As material as any video game, does that mean I should go to jail for playing the "No Russian" Level of MW2.

Again, *I* didn't make the ban. I'm sorry you find it offensive that I support it...but I also find it interesting that you're completely ignoring the obscenity aspect when it comes to virtual child porn that isn't real child porn (a distinction that apparently means something).

Anyone should be free to be as obscene as they want to be with what ever consenting adult they can find that is willing, in private.

So long as they aren't hurting anyone they should be free to do what ever they want.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't see why we should ban any material whose production hasn't harmed anyone. And I don't think that anyone should be locked up until they have actually harmed other people.

Attempted rape? Conspiricy to commit murder? Inciting violence? The beat goes on ... the beat goes on ...

... but even if we knew for sure it increased rape, it would be a red herring in matters of free speech.

In as much as it would fall outside freedom of speech rights, yes?

 

[Southwind17]

VCP may be disturbing to look at, but I don't think my feelings of disgust should be enough to ban anything.

That's exactly has obscenity laws work!

 

[Southwind17]

I'm going to skip down to the one part of all this that I feel is the crux of the matter: See, you're conflating two things again.
I'll apply the logic you're using to some other things:
Virtual murder is the same as murder -- this means that every actor who has ever played a murderer in a movie is now guilty of murder and deserves to go to jail. Every cartoonist who has portrayed someone being murdered in a comic book is now guilty of murder and deserves to go to jail. Every person who owns a copy of a movie or a comic book that depicts a murder is now an accessory after the fact to murder, and deserves to go to jail.
Virtual rape is the same as rape -- every actor who has portrayed a rapist in a movie or a tv show is now guilty of rape. Every cartoonist who has portrayed rape in a comic book is now guilty of rape. Every person who owns a copy of a movie or comic book that depicts a rape is now an accessory after the fact to rape, and deserves to go to jail.
Virtual guns are the same as guns -- every actor who has ever used a prop weapon during the course of making a film is guilty of brandishing a weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, or even murder. Every cartoonist who has portrayed one of their comic book characters using a gun is guilty of brandishing a weapon, assault with a deadly weapon, or even murder. And anyone who owns a comic book with a depiction of a weapon in it is now guilty of owning an unregistered firearm, and guilty of accessory after the fact to a variety of the crimes listed above, and deserves to go to jail.

Do you not see the problem yet? You're not differentiating between a real thing, and a virtual thing. The whole point of a virtual thing is that it is not a real thing. And yet, you insist on treating the virtual thing as if it is that real thing.
There IS a difference between actual child porn and virtual child porn. One uses actual children, victimizes them, abuses them, and harms them. The other does not. Do you see the difference yet?

I don't think that that's the logic that sugarb is applying (correct me if I'm wrong, sugar). What I believe she's saying is: forget about differentiating between "real" child porn and VCP - just ban it all, because it has no absolute benefit to society and could actually have a net social and humanitarian cost. Subject to understanding better the possibility that it might actually reduce child abuse and determining a workable and sufficiently protective definition of VCP I'm with her on this.

 

[sugarb]

I don't think that that's the logic that sugarb is applying (correct me if I'm wrong, sugar). What I believe she's saying is: forget about differentiating between "real" child porn and VCP - just ban it all, because it has no absolute benefit to society and could actually have a net social and humanitarian cost. Subject to understanding better the possibility that it might actually reduce child abuse and determining a workable and sufficiently protective definition of VCP I'm with her on this.

And that is what the courts have done. Now, if someone feels that their particular virtual child pornography/artwork/comicbook/drawing or whatever has had the ban inappropriately applied to it, they are free to go to court and the burden of proof is on them to show artistic or societal value. It works the same with nude photographs of children. Even if someone is offended by a particular piece of work (such as artistic photographs, or even bathtub pictures), it is simply a matter of proving that particular item does not meet the criteria of obscenity.

If we are seeing an increase in child abuse now, that would indicate that perhaps this ban is a bad thing. Are we?

And yes, Southwind17, I think the law needs to be better written. It is too broad. I've said that before though. Several times.

 

[JFrankA]

Excuse me, I made an error. Virtual child pornography is not CHILD pornography because it isn't real. They aren't the same thing. They're both pornography, both child pornography, which is illegal, but it doesn't matter because they aren't the same thing. I give up. Okay, I'm an idiot with no ability to reason. I just give. Perhaps I should say "uncle"...but no one would get the joke.

SugarB, you're not an idiot. I do believe that you are letting your emotional feelings cloud your logical thoughts, but that's quite understandable.

Set aside the issue that VCP and real child porn are illegal, because that's clearly true, I think your argument is, and correct me if I'm wrong, that anyone who is aroused by young children, whether they act on it or not, is well, "wrong" to begin with and the same goes for any kind of porn (real or not) that perpetuates a person's fantasy.

Now, we are in agreement that sex with children is bad, and porn that has real children in it is harmful to the child.

But if I may, let me ask this again, slightly reworded. If there is a pedophile who uses VCP only to satisfy her/his sexual desires for children, should that person be arrested? Is that person causing harm to children?

I think you believe that pedophiles will eventually harm a child in the long run, but, forgive me for being harsh, isn't that condemning someone just because of the way that person thinks?

 

[JFrankA]

Attempted rape? Conspiricy to commit murder? Inciting violence? The beat goes on ... the beat goes on ...

...bank robbery... :

In as much as it would fall outside freedom of speech rights, yes?

When it comes to free speech, gotta take the bad with the good.

 

[JFrankA]

That's exactly has obscenity laws work!

So...who's feelings do we follow? Yours? Should we ban BDSM porn? You've already stated that fantasy rape porn is next on the list. How far does the rabbit hole go?

It's deep enough to find that your dreaded "marshmallow" porn would be banned as well. YOU may think it's too tame, but I guarantee you will find thousands of people who find that disgusting.

 

[JFrankA]

And that is what the courts have done. Now, if someone feels that their particular virtual child pornography/artwork/comicbook/drawing or whatever has had the ban inappropriately applied to it, they are free to go to court and the burden of proof is on them to show artistic or societal value. It works the same with nude photographs of children. Even if someone is offended by a particular piece of work (such as artistic photographs, or even bathtub pictures), it is simply a matter of proving that particular item does not meet the criteria of obscenity.

The guy who collected comic books tried and failed. Maybe he had horrible lawyers but maybe he couldn't afford better, or other lawyers didn't want to touch this case.

The law isn't always logical.

If we are seeing an increase in child abuse now, that would indicate that perhaps this ban is a bad thing. Are we?

More over, does VCP and child porn really correlate? It has been stated, even by SW, and shown that porn doesn't correlate to the frequency of rape. So if no correlation between porn and rape, logically there is no correlation between VCP and child rape, is there really a purpose to ban VCP since no one is really harmed?

And yes, Southwind17, I think the law needs to be better written. It is too broad. I've said that before though. Several times.

That is not what SW is advocating. He advocates banning. Period. He did ban me on a misjudged belief. His next target is porn that has fantasy rape in it. He said so some posts back.

...do you really agree with him?

 

[Southwind17]

Does this mean you see the actual harm to children is being irrelevant?

Does this mean that you see the current actual harm to children as being the be all and end all?

 

[Southwind17]

Nobody is arguing that A and B are not subsets of C. What is being argued is that just because A is bad does not mean C is also bad.

I think you meant "B" in that last sentence and not "C", in which case, sure, but sugarb has explained why she feels that A and B are equally bad. At least I can see and appreciate the explanation to the extent that, in principle, I agree with her.

 

[sugarb]

The guy who collected comic books tried and failed. Maybe he had horrible lawyers but maybe he couldn't afford better, or other lawyers didn't want to touch this case.

The law isn't always logical.



More over, does VCP and child porn really correlate? It has been stated, even by SW, and shown that porn doesn't correlate to the frequency of rape. So if no correlation between porn and rape, logically there is no correlation between VCP and child rape, is there really a purpose to ban VCP since no one is really harmed?



That is not what SW is advocating. He advocates banning. Period. He did ban me on a misjudged belief. His next target is porn that has fantasy rape in it. He said so some posts back.

...do you really agree with him?

I agree with regards to child pornography (real or virtual). I would agree with beastiality. No, you know that I do not agree otherwise. Those things are already banned, though, JFrankA. I don't understand what the problem is here? I know we keep talking about the comic book guy...but what about other artists whose work has risen to the challenge of the law? Why are we acting as if society as a whole wants to ban nudity or sex? That isn't at all the case. Plenty of controversial artwork, even involving real people, has won against the law...if it isn't just obscenity. Contrary to popular belief, everyone who agrees with banning all child pornography isn't a prude.

Maybe that's what Southwind17 wants (I don't recall him saying so, I'll go back and re-read), but surely you know that isn't what I've said.