Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[sugarb]

No need to re-read sugarb - I'll clarify. Yes - I strongly believe that all child pornography should be banned, but ONLY in the context of a clear definition or test of what "child pornography" comprises. Whether that makes it prior restraint, the realm of obscenity laws or whatever, frankly, I couldn't give a flying proverbial. Anybody who supports child pornography per se, and who isn't prepared to support a legitimate, workable and fair way to ban it is tantamount to endorsing it so far as I'm concerned, and hence almost as despicable as those who actually produce it - real or virtual.

Southwind, what JFrankA was saying is that you have stated that you find rape depictions as bad as child pornography and would want those banned as well. I recall you finding rape portrayals despicable, but do you think they are deserving of banning like child pornography?

In other words, even though child pornography is already banned here in the US (you aren't in the US, right?), if you could have it banned everywhere in the world, would you then follow that up by systematically banning other things you find distasteful?

 

[quadraginta]

<snip>

I'll ask Southwind about rape fantasies, though. Because you're right, it is a valid concern that what starts with children snowballs into some kind of...fundamentalist society of some kind.

[offtopic]

You just did. Even if SW has JFA on 'Ignore', anything you quote will still be perfectly visible to him unless he also has you on 'Ignore'. This is why the 'Ignore' feature is of only marginal use.

His only real recourse would be to unsubscribe to the thread and put the whole thread itself on 'Ignore'.

I do not anticipate such good fortune.

[/offtopic]

 

[sugarb]

Sorry, SugarB, that's kind of unfair because even a naked woman doing nothing sexual on a billboard would cause an uproar. Hell, even a scantily clad woman on billboards has caused uproars. Some people have called the billboards that say "Don't believe in god? You are not alone" as obscene.

But if someone requests the picture, that requestor has a right to ask for it and the creator has the right to send it, (err, barring copying right laws, of course )

It is fair though, JFrankA, because those billboards with nude women doing nothing sexual, scantily clad women, and "Don't you believe in god? You are not alone" are still standing. In other words, they aren't, legally, obscenity. So it is completely fair.

What kind of picture is being requested? The drawing of a child having sex with a dog? You have a right to ask for it. The creator, according to our laws, doesn't have a right to send it, and if he or she does and it is detected by government agencies (even postal workers), then it is a crime. UNLESS you can prove that it isn't obscene (which would be very hard to do with child pornography).

Not my opinion, no emotion, that's simply the law.

Back to the billboard of the child cartoon porn. Is it obscene or not? In your opinion, would that be an acceptable billboard worthy of first amendment protections?

 

[JFrankA]

JFrankA, I will ask him about rape fantasies (are you on ignore?), but first...I'm not siding with him. For some reason no one is recognizing that I've been working my way through this issue from different perspectives to come to my conclusion. Talking about pedophiles was considered emotional. Talking about children was considered emotional. Talking about law is considered emotional. No one has to tell me how to feel! For goodness sakes, JFrankA, if I was going to be influenced that easily by ANYONE, don't you think it would probably be you? Or RandFan? Or ponderingturtle? I'm not "siding".

Let me first apologize. I was wrong to say your siding. I think that was emotional on my part. So please forgive me for that. Yes, he did put me on ignore because, I think, he wasn't that clear to me, because I think VCP should be legal, he thinks that I am a pedophile. (Again, this is my understanding, he wasn't clear to me).

Yes, that gets me. I'll admit it. I've been fair and polite to him, and he cuts my voice. You can do a lot to me, and I'll let it side, but I do not like having my voice cut. I do not cut others voices, I expect the same courtesy, but I have no right to force him to unignore me.

So yes, it may be emotional. My apologies to you, everyone and even SW.

Everything I bring up is dismissed as emotional, no matter how many times I say it is not. I've been accused of policing thought...but look, I've never said to any of you that your arguments are ridiculous. I have made a point to understand what each of you have been saying. I didn't know that we were required to "choose sides". I thought...this was just a discussion. I'm not a child. Yes, in *some* areas I am easily influenced, but as I already said once to Southwind17, not with this one.

I never said your augments were ridiculous. I have said I don't follow your logic, and yes, I've said that it's emotionally based. But again, I've said that the emotion is completely understandable. However, I can't follow the logic that molesting a child is worse than molesting an adult because a child can't fight back.

I also do understand the logic behind all pedophiles will molest children. (Now I think that's what you think, if I'm wrong, then I completely misunderstood and it's my fault). But if I hit it right, then it seems to me that the only difference is that one molestation brings out more emotion than another. Hence the appeal to emotion.

I don't mean to hurt or insult or upset you, please. I am trying to understand.

Look, I know I'm pliable. I do. I really do, which is why I try to not engage in quarrelling and bickering and upsetting things. It isn't good for me and I cannot think clearly when I allow myself to get emotional. But honestly, I'm not stupid. I know why I think what I think, I respect and understand differing opinions, and really most of the emotion seems to come from talking about comic books.

Never said you pliable. As I stated, my emotional mistake for saying you sided with SW. And I've never said, never even thought for a minute you were stupid. I never thought that of anyone here, including SW.

But it's more than comic books. We are talking about art in general that does not include real people.

The basic question is this: if someone draws a picture of an eight year old not real child getting molested, that harming someone or has the potential to make someone harm someone else and is illegal. But if someone draws a picture of an 18 year old non-real child getting molested it doesn't harm anyone or has the potential to make someone harm someone else and is legal.

Why? And if they should both be illegal, where does the line get drawn?

I'll ask Southwind about rape fantasies, though. Because you're right, it is a valid concern that what starts with children snowballs into some kind of...fundamentalist society of some kind.

Thank you, but I fear he will just ignore it because it comes from me. He has ignored me and deemed my opinion and arguments invalid and not worth even reading.

 

[sugarb]

[offtopic]

You just did. Even if SW has JFA on 'Ignore', anything you quote will still be perfectly visible to him unless he also has you on 'Ignore'. This is why the 'Ignore' feature is of only marginal use.

His only real recourse would be to unsubscribe to the thread and put the whole thread itself on 'Ignore'.

I do not anticipate such good fortune.

[/offtopic]

*forehead smack* LOL, I hadn't thought of that.

 

[JFrankA]

It is fair though, JFrankA, because those billboards with nude women doing nothing sexual, scantily clad women, and "Don't you believe in god? You are not alone" are still standing. In other words, they aren't, legally, obscenity. So it is completely fair.

What kind of picture is being requested? The drawing of a child having sex with a dog? You have a right to ask for it. The creator, according to our laws, doesn't have a right to send it, and if he or she does and it is detected by government agencies (even postal workers), then it is a crime. UNLESS you can prove that it isn't obscene (which would be very hard to do with child pornography).

Not my opinion, no emotion, that's simply the law.

The law is not in question here. The reason the law exists is.

Back to the billboard of the child cartoon porn. Is it obscene or not? In your opinion, would that be an acceptable billboard worthy of first amendment protections?

Obscene? In the eyes of the beholder. Worthy of first amendment protections? Yes.

You have to understand, I would protect the rights for the KKK to march down the street proclaiming all people except themselves should be tortured and killed.

I will fight for their rights to talk. I will never, ever interfere with any kind of speech. However, it doesn't mean I agree with what is up there. I may not like it, I may even protest about what they think, but I refuse to stop them or anyone else from expressing themselves without physically harming others.

In this case, the people paid for it to be up, and assuming that the billboard company has the right to have it up, it should stay up.

...And I have a choice to not look at it.

 

[sugarb]

Let me first apologize. I was wrong to say your siding. I think that was emotional on my part. So please forgive me for that. Yes, he did put me on ignore because, I think, he wasn't that clear to me, because I think VCP should be legal, he thinks that I am a pedophile. (Again, this is my understanding, he wasn't clear to me).

Yes, that gets me. I'll admit it. I've been fair and polite to him, and he cuts my voice. You can do a lot to me, and I'll let it side, but I do not like having my voice cut. I do not cut others voices, I expect the same courtesy, but I have no right to force him to unignore me.

So yes, it may be emotional. My apologies to you, everyone and even SW.



I never said your augments were ridiculous. I have said I don't follow your logic, and yes, I've said that it's emotionally based. But again, I've said that the emotion is completely understandable. However, I can't follow the logic that molesting a child is worse than molesting an adult because a child can't fight back.

I also do understand the logic behind all pedophiles will molest children. (Now I think that's what you think, if I'm wrong, then I completely misunderstood and it's my fault). But if I hit it right, then it seems to me that the only difference is that one molestation brings out more emotion than another. Hence the appeal to emotion.

I don't mean to hurt or insult or upset you, please. I am trying to understand.



Never said you pliable. As I stated, my emotional mistake for saying you sided with SW. And I've never said, never even thought for a minute you were stupid. I never thought that of anyone here, including SW.

But it's more than comic books. We are talking about art in general that does not include real people.

The basic question is this: if someone draws a picture of an eight year old not real child getting molested, that harming someone or has the potential to make someone harm someone else and is illegal. But if someone draws a picture of an 18 year old non-real child getting molested it doesn't harm anyone or has the potential to make someone harm someone else and is legal.

Why? And if they should both be illegal, where does the line get drawn?



Thank you, but I fear he will just ignore it because it comes from me. He has ignored me and deemed my opinion and arguments invalid and not worth even reading.

I understand why you were upset about that. There is no need to explain, and it was a justifiable reason to get upset. And no, you didn't say I'm pliable...but it was said before that I am easily influenced, and I'm simply acknowledging the truth in that. I mean, come on...who would I be kidding to deny it?

Thank you for trying to understand. I don't think I can explain it any better though, which is my shortcoming and noone else's.

As for Southwind answering that question, it is a valid part of the discussion and he seems reasonable enough to understand that. As I understood his last post clarifying his position to me, he is only talking about child pornography...we've talked before though about the snowball effect, so more than likely, he'll see the relevance of that. I may be wrong, I won't speak for him.

Thanks, JFrankA, for being as patient as you've been. I didn't mean to say that you had called me anything. I was simply saying that is a problem for me sometimes.

 

[sugarb]

The law is not in question here. The reason the law exists is.



Obscene? In the eyes of the beholder. Worthy of first amendment protections? Yes.

You have to understand, I would protect the rights for the KKK to march down the street proclaiming all people except themselves should be tortured and killed.

I will fight for their rights to talk. I will never, ever interfere with any kind of speech. However, it doesn't mean I agree with what is up there. I may not like it, I may even protest about what they think, but I refuse to stop them or anyone else from expressing themselves without physically harming others.

In this case, the people paid for it to be up, and assuming that the billboard company has the right to have it up, it should stay up.

...And I have a choice to not look at it.

I support the right of the KKK to demonstrate too. It's foolish not to know what problems exist, and what potential violence exists, in one's community.

I figured that's what you would say about the billboard So...you have no problem if people have to put blindfolds on their kids in order to get out of town to shop or whatever. You have no problem with PETA blocking the highway to protest the humanization of the dog. You have no problem that, in the interest of the free thought...this one depicted thought...of one person, many people will be affected. See? That's why we have obscenity laws. That is ALSO why, on the other end of the spectrum, people are pushing to have religious displays removed from public places. Strangely, I support that, too.

 

[Southwind17]

I think this is the crux of what I and many others have an issue with. The producer of a work should not be under any obligation whatsoever to demonstrate that their work has particular value. That goes against the entire principle of free speech and free society.

Agreed.

Rather, the burden should be on the government to prove that the work inflicts harm on others.

No. A burden of proof should be on the Government to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that it falls within the definition of child pornography, whatever that may be.

Basically laws banning obscene works just ditch the burden of proof by making a blanket argument that all such works inflict harm on others, without actually providing any evidence that this is true. That's a totally unjustified position. [emphasis added]

What constitutes "all such works" (genuine question - I'm not sure how obscenity laws define "obscene")? Also, is the term "inflicts harm on others" correct? I doubt it.

Let's say I want to grow tomatoes in my garden. I should not be required to provide any evidence that doing so is beneficial to society. Rather, if anyone wants to prevent me growing tomatoes, they should be required to provide evidence that me doing so would be harmful to society.

In principle, yes. And this is certainly my position on VCP, except I would replace "provide evidence ... would be harmful to" with "reasonably demonstrate ... could have a significant net detrimental effect on".

 

[JFrankA]

I support the right of the KKK to demonstrate too. It's foolish not to know what problems exist, and what potential violence exists, in one's community.

I figured that's what you would say about the billboard So...you have no problem if people have to put blindfolds on their kids in order to get out of town to shop or whatever.

Wouldn't like it, wouldn't agree with it, but not my children, the parents have a right to do it, it's not abuse, but it's their choice.

You have no problem with PETA blocking the highway to protest the humanization of the dog.

Now we are getting into a protest interfering with the rights of others. As much as I disagree with PETA, it's okay for them to protest as much as they want, but they can't block other people's choices.

You have no problem that, in the interest of the free thought...this one depicted thought...of one person, many people will be affected. See? That's why we have obscenity laws.

But it's not the same example. One form of speech gives the viewer the choice to ignore it or not. The other didn't. That has nothing to with obscenity.

That is ALSO why, on the other end of the spectrum, people are pushing to have religious displays removed from public places. Strangely, I support that, too.

I don't. It's okay to me. I support religious displays removed off of government property because government should be neutral to all religions, but in a public place, who cares?

 

[Southwind17]

But it should be, which is our point.

But it shouldn't be, which is our point. What gives you the right in a civilised society to demand unfettered free speech? You'd might just as well demand that you can shoot your neighbour if he borrows a spanner from you and fails to return it. Do you see where absolutist logic leads?

The entire point of the First Amendment is that all speech is protected speech.

Assuming that's true it doesn't make it right.

The issue is whether it should be protected, not whether it is.

Agreed.

There does? Why, exactly?

For the same reason that lines are drawn all over the place in civilised society. It's a necessary constraint we subscribe to in return for human welfare. If you're not prepared to pay the subscription fee you can't expect to receive the benefits of membership.

We should though, shouldn't we? I mean, isn't that what the Founding Fathers explicitly established?

Pursuit of ideology is admirable, but untenable, and times change.

They didn't say Congress shall only make a few laws abridging the freedom of speech. They said "no law". None. Nada. Zip.

Such is life. Get over it.

I personally find it phenomenal that the US Judiciary can so consistently interpret a law as vague as the Second Amendment with rigid adherence ... [emphasis added]

Rigid adherence to what?

... yet can so utterly fail to accurately interpret a law as explicit and clear as the First Amendment.

Interpretation, by definition, does not lend itself to "accuracy".

But we're not talking about children. We're talking about a picture of a fictional child. You understand that an actual individual child and a picture of a fictional child are not the same thing, yes? [emboldening added]

See emboldening. Spot your error?

Well if it makes you feel any better I hate "hate speech" laws.

But you're happy to reap the safety and protection rewards that they afford you?!

If I draw a picture of Lisa Simpson having sex with a cucumber, what minors, precisely, are involved?

Define "involved".

I don't understand why some adults feel they should be able to dictate to other adults what is and isn't appropriate.

Your membership fees are due sir. Will you be renewing or returning to Anarchy Island? The slave ship leaves in 30 minutes - there are limited seats and oars available.

 

[JFrankA]

But it shouldn't be, which is our point. What gives you the right in a civilised society to demand unfettered free speech? You'd might just as well demand that you can shoot your neighbour if he borrows a spanner from you and fails to return it. Do you see where absolutist logic leads?

Because we are talking about OUR country. If your country judges on what comes out of your mouth or hand, by all means, stay there. That's what you advocate. Don't try to push your absolutist logic on our country.

Assuming that's true it doesn't make it right.

Isn't that your strategy in your arguments?

For the same reason that lines are drawn all over the place in civilised society. It's a necessary constraint we subscribe to in return for human welfare. If you're not prepared to pay the subscription fee you can't expect to receive the benefits of membership.

Yes, and here in the US part of the "subscription fee" is to accept other people's rights to speak out and express themselves.

Pursuit of ideology is admirable, but untenable, and times change.

So are the ides that we base our laws on eventually going to fail? What exactly are you arguing?

Such is life. Get over it.

I'm sorry, this response doesn't make sense to me.

Rigid adherence to what?

He's talking about the American Constitution here. I'm not sure you understand. (No insult intended, I just know you don't live in the US).

Interpretation, by definition, does not lend itself to "accuracy".

Once again, isn't interpretation of what you think is what YOUR argument is based upon?

See emboldening. Spot your error?

I don't. You only embolded the word child twice. Are you saying that a child that is real is exactly the same thing as a child who is not real?

But you're happy to reap the safety and protection rewards that they afford you?!

Once again, you completely miss his point and what he is saying. But in response to your response I say, yes. I enjoy the protection rewards I get with the freedom of speech.

Define "involved".

You are avoiding the question. You sound like Bill Clinton "Define 'is'".

Your membership fees are due sir. Will you be renewing or returning to Anarchy Island? The slave ship leaves in 30 minutes - there are limited seats and oars available.

*facepalm* Really? You don't understand what he's talking about so you resort to mockery and insult?

 

[MontagK505]

Workable parameters can be defined.

Such parameters somehow never seem to get incorporated do they? (Hint: with esthetics perhaps it's not possible to create such paramaters)

Example:
If an artist has a faerie giving a demon a BJ what parameters do you use to define the age of the faerie and should this really be matter for a court of law?
Do you really think a artist should face a possible prison sentence based on the judgment of the age of a faerie?
If the faerie's wings are removed what actually changed and what parameters should now get applied?

The US law doesn't have these "parameters" and doesn't exclude "faeries or demons". Its a crappy law!

 

[NewtonTrino]

I agree with what Gumboot was saying above. Obscene stuff should be protected speech. Next.

 

[Belz...]

Okay, gumboot...draw the picture of a child cartoon character having sex with a cucumber...throw it up on a billboard, make it art on a mass mailing, use it as advertising in newspapers across the country. Now...should obscenity laws apply? Or, what you are arguing is that should be fine. Do you understand that? Yes, I do understand what you all are saying. But I don't think my position is being given the same effort.

Sugarb, you're moving from one goalpost to the next. I don't think anyone is claiming that obsenity laws don't EXIST, and I don't think this was Gumboot's point.

 

[Belz...]

I support the right of the KKK to demonstrate too. It's foolish not to know what problems exist, and what potential violence exists, in one's community.

And the KKK can do much more "harm" than a virtual picture.

 

[Belz...]

But it shouldn't be, which is our point. What gives you the right in a civilised society to demand unfettered free speech?

The fact that we want to remain in a civilised society.

 

[Southwind17]

I'll ask you the same question.

If I draw Lisa Simpson having sex with a cucumber, where exactly is the "mentally immature, naive, vulnerable child" in this equation?

I'm not talking about a child at all. I am talking about an adult who has consciously decided to draw a sexual picture, in light of the measured risks and possible consequences.

You were talking about this:

The only vaguely solid argument against it is that allowing it somehow encourages or enables sexualising of children and pedophilia.

By "sexualising of children and pedophilia" I thought you were alluding to the possibility of actual child abuse. If you weren't, then you should be.

Same logic, see?

Not same logic, see?

 

[Southwind17]

Southwind, what JFrankA was saying is that you have stated that you find rape depictions as bad as child pornography and would want those banned as well. I recall you finding rape portrayals despicable, but do you think they are deserving of banning like child pornography?

In other words, even though child pornography is already banned here in the US (you aren't in the US, right?), if you could have it banned everywhere in the world, would you then follow that up by systematically banning other things you find distasteful?

OK - there seems to be a slight misunderstanding here that needs clarifying, but I'll answer the questions directly then provide the clarification to contextualize my answers.

Yes - pornographic rape portrayal should be banned, provided that it's clear that it is, in fact, rape portrayal. Realistically, that would probably, generally, limit it to video, I suppose (for what that observation's worth). Why? Because, like child porn, it portrays and serves to legitimize a most heinous of crimes. Why is it any different from watching movies generally portraying crimes, even heinous crimes? Well, the answer brings us to the necessary clarification. Simple - sexual arousal. And that leads us to reconsider the definition of porn per se. I wouldn't seek to make claim to a fool-proof definition, but for the time being, and the purposes of this debate, I believe part of one that I've previously used in the context of VCP takes us far enough:

Pornography: More or less sexual images intended to sexually arouse.

Put that in the context of rape portrayal and children and I see a reasonably clear line in the sand that puts the vast majority, if not all, of the innocuous material referred to in this thread clearly on the side of acceptability.

So you see, my criterion for wanting something like child porn and rape porn banned has absolutely nothing to do with my personal distaste, but everything to do with it linking illegal acts to sexual arousal, and not only linking, but, more importantly, serving as a catalyst for sexual arousal.

I'm sure most of us here are familiar with the concept of associative behaviour. If not, take a trip down to your local dog training school. Humans are no different. If we associate "Thing-A" with a pleasant experience we subconsciouly look favourably on Thing-A. If we associate Thing-B with an orgasmic (literally) experience we thrive on Thing-B. The very existence and procreation of mankind hinges on sexual arousal. That's why sexual arousal tends to transpose one into a noticeably different mindset - allowing us to think and do things that, in the cold light of day, and on reflection, can not only surprise and shock us, but ruin us, in just about every way possible.

What do you think is the main cause of infidelity, for example, if not the inability to control one's behaviour under the influence of sexual stimulation? Why do we sometimes critically accuse promiscuous men of "thinking with their penises", or even the otherwise model monogamous, fine upstanding family man after a one-off, unexplainable night of infidelity? There's more than a hint of truth in that cliched accusation, I believe. Moreover, what's the most common excuse for infidelity? "I don't know what I was thinking - it meant nothing - I love you, darling". Exactly - it meant nothing - because it had no meaning. It was purely impulsive and couldn't be checked. It causes great harm, certainly emotional and often physical, to otherwise loving ones - wives, husbands, partners, children, parents - but that's not considered at the time is it - in the heat of the moment. Out of sight out of mind.

I believe that our very human existence reflects an evolutionary trait for wanton procreation, no different from any other animal, and whilst humans might have evolved conscience and cognitive abilities, they somehow have a tendency to "disengage" when it comes to sexuality, to varying degrees.

Given the power of raw sexuality I see it as unmitigatingly improbable that associative behaviour linked to pornographic rape portrayal and child pornography (real or virtual) does not, and will continue to not, directly lead to rape and child abuse. Now, if it were to be conclusively shown that pornographic rape portrayal and/or child pornography leads to a net reduction in rape and child abuse respectively I would unflinchingly do a U-turn overnight. Being a firm believer that viewing violent and abusive genres of porn tends towards an insatiable hunger for an increasingly violent sexual "hit", however, I have no doubts that such behaviour will, in many, many cases, eventually spill over from masturbation to actual rape and abuse, and in many of those cases I have no doubt that the threshold is shockingly low.

BTW - I'm not in the US - never even been to the US(!) - but been just about everywhere else. Please don't take that as a snub all you yanks - I'd like little more than to check you guys out for "real"!

 

[Southwind17]

Such parameters somehow never seem to get incorporated do they? (Hint: with esthetics perhaps it's not possible to create such paramaters)

Separate discussion.

Example:
If an artist has a faerie giving a demon a BJ what parameters do you use to define the age of the faerie and should this really be matter for a court of law?
Do you really think a artist should face a possible prison sentence based on the judgment of the age of a faerie?
If the faerie's wings are removed what actually changed and what parameters should now get applied?

Faerie (wingless or otherwise) giving a demon head = child (human) porn? A simple, sensible example would actually make your point much better. Exaggeration or extremes aren't always appropriate or necessary.

The US law doesn't have these "parameters" and doesn't exclude "faeries or demons". Its a crappy law!

If that's correct then I agree - crappy law indeed.