Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[Southwind17]

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.

Unless it amounts to inciteful behaviour, then it's uncivilised and has no place in a civilised society, by definition.

 

[JFrankA]

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).

And there we go. The snowball just got bigger...and it can keep rolling.

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.

In other words, once one is sexually aroused, they cannot control oneself. So seeing legal porn will cause someone to lose control and have legal sex, whereas seeing illegal porn will cause someone to lose control and have illegal sex.

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.

Proof? Where is the proof that someone who sees child porn or VCP or rape fantasy porn will commit the crime it's portrayed. Just because one is sexually aroused doesn't mean that one loses one's sense of right and wrong.

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.

Loads of horse pucky. Where is science that backs this?

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?

Sometimes it's because the "other person" is giving something emotional that may be missing in the marriage. I can come up with a bunch of reasons and not one of them has to do with sexual arousal.

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?

Power? Jealousy? Revenge? Money?

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.

Well, it may be YOUR excuse.....

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.

And there you have it: The reason why I fight for things like VCP. SW thinks he has the answer. Everyone is driven by sex. Period. No one can ever resist the power of the almighty porn. Sexual arousal rules us all. -.-

Let's ask him about BDSM porn now. Rough, tied up, spanking, BDSM porn. I bet that gets banned too.

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"!

That is why he doesn't understand the US philosphy. I'm going to take a guess that if he did come here, he'd hate it.

 

[Toke]

Infidelity is illegal too, right? (it must be somewhere)

So by SW's logic any porn that depicts anyone other than ones spouse should be banned, right?

 

[Southwind17]

Of course, anybody involved in the production of rape portrayal porn will tend to defend any suggestion that they are anything other than a fine upstanding citizen with a worthy and respectful vocation. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. As I wrote earlier, there's every type of person imaginable on the planet, whether it be those who dig, those with guns, worthless scum or otherwise.

 

[gumboot]

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.

You didn't answer my question. I'll try again:

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

Well? Do you actually have an answer?

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.

No you don't understand what I am saying, because if you did you wouldn't ask "should obscenity laws apply?"

Here's the crux of my position in black and white for you:

Obscenity laws are unconstitutional and should not exist.

Got it?

Nothing wrong with comic book guys picture depicting a young girl having anal and oral sex with a dog (as described in the plea bargain)? Great. Again, make some advertising out of it. How about a billboard beside the local elementary school? Nothing wrong with it, after all. Do you really believe that?

No I didn't say there was nothing "wrong" with it. I said earlier that I find any sort of pornographic images involving children (even virtual) to be disgusting. I have a big problem with it. But I also have a big problem with religion. But I have a bigger problem with laws that run counter to free and open society. I don't have the right to prevent other people doing things simply because I don't like it. That's not how free society works.

More importantly, do you think the majority of people would stand for that? That is why we have obscenity laws. Personally?

A democratic society has a fundamental obligation to protect the rights and interests of the minority, otherwise it's nothing more than mob rule. Just because the majority of people don't like something doesn't justify banning it.

 

[Southwind17]

I don't have the right to prevent other people doing things simply because I don't like it. That's not how free society works.

Where should one go looking to find "free society"? Do tell. Is it hovering somewhere just below "high society", by any chance?!

A democratic society has a fundamental obligation to protect the rights and interests of the minority, otherwise it's nothing more than mob rule. Just because the majority of people don't like something doesn't justify banning it.

Maybe so, but it does if there's a net benefit to society as a whole.

 

[gumboot]

But it shouldn't be, which is our point.

Obviously.

What gives you the right in a civilised society to demand unfettered free speech?

Because it's a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution?

(For the record this entire debate is academic for me, as I'm not an American)

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?

Do you understand the difference between free speech and free action? Shooting someone isn't an act of "free speech".

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

True, but the Constitution is a paramount founding document that cannot be ignored on a whim.

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.

That's not an answer. Why does there need to be a limit with regards to obscene materials? Just because there are limits in some aspects of society doesn't mean one should just start throwing about limits willy nilly. Again, that goes against the principles of free society. Limits should only exist where their existence can be demonstratively shown to be necessary. Can you do this for obscenity limits, or not?

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

It's not about pursuit of ideology, it's about adherence to the law. The US Government has no legal authority to violate the US Constitution.

Such is life. Get over it.

I think that's what they told the "uppity slaves" who used to complain about not being free...

Rigid adherence to what?

A single interpretation of the Second Amendment.

See emboldening. Spot your error?

No, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced you really don't get what I'm saying at all. Do you honestly think a child and a 2D icon depicting a human being of youthful appearance are the same thing?

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

No. Hate laws do not afford me any safety or protection. That do much greater harm to society than good. Hate speech laws absolutely should not exist. Period.

Define "involved".

Use a dictionary. Seriously? www.dictionary.com. I'm not your wet nurse.

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.

 

[gumboot]

Of course, anybody involved in the production of rape portrayal porn will tend to defend any suggestion that they are anything other than a fine upstanding citizen with a worthy and respectful vocation. The truth, of course, is the exact opposite. As I wrote earlier, there's every type of person imaginable on the planet, whether it be those who dig, those with guns, worthless scum or otherwise.

In the paraphrased words of Larry Flynt, scumbags have exactly the same rights and protections as everyone else. It's not only fine upstanding citizens worthy of respect that deserve their First Amendment rights. Everyone does.

From church priests who poison the minds of the young with their lies, to pornographers who peddle smut, to rappers and their obscene lyrics. They're all equally protected.

 

[Southwind17]

Because it's a right guaranteed by the First Amendment of the US Constitution?

And who, exactly, is the unenviable custodian of this etched stone?

Do you understand the difference between free speech and free action? Shooting someone isn't an act of "free speech".

I understand how untenable absolutist free speech is in a societal context.

True, but the Constitution is a paramount founding document that cannot be ignored on a whim.

"On a whim"! I'll have to agree with you here!

That's not an answer.

Enlighten me - what, exactly, is it, then?

Why does there need to be a limit with regards to obscene materials? Just because there are limits in some aspects of society doesn't mean one should just start throwing about limits willy nilly.

"Throwing about limits willy nilly"! You've really thought about this, haven't you!

Again, that goes against the principles of free society.

I've checked my geopolitical World atlas. No entries.

Limits should only exist where their existence can be demonstratively shown to be necessary. Can you do this for obscenity limits, or not?

Possibly, but I disagree with your criterion anyhow.

It's not about pursuit of ideology, it's about adherence to the law. The US Government has no legal authority to violate the US Constitution.

I see. You can't, so you shan't, and they all lived happily ever after.

I think that's what they told the "uppity slaves" who used to complain about not being free...

You wouldn't be advocating change where necessary now, would you?!

No, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced you really don't get what I'm saying at all. Do you honestly think a child and a 2D icon depicting a human being of youthful appearance are the same thing?

I know exactly what you're saying. The problem is ...

Hate laws do not afford me any safety or protection.

Is that because you don't envisage finding yourself on the receiving end?

Use a dictionary. Seriously?

Think about it. Seriously. Why did I really ask for a definition. I'll spell it out for you, if you're really struggling. Just ask.

 

[Southwind17]

In the paraphrased words of Larry Flynt, scumbags have exactly the same rights and protections as everyone else. It's not only fine upstanding citizens worthy of respect that deserve their First Amendment rights. Everyone does.
From church priests who poison the minds of the young with their lies, to pornographers who peddle smut, to rappers and their obscene lyrics. They're all equally protected.

This "First Amendment" thing seems to be an obsession of yours! I like the "smut" comment, though!

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

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 do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm if there is no demonstrable causation between "viewing porn" and "harm"?. If indeed there is no demonstrable causation, then the most reasonable thing to assume is that there is no reason to believe there is any harm. Until compelling evidence shows up suggesting that there may be a demonstrable causation, there's no reason to assume such harm exists.

Why not start with the arguably(!) easier part first. What do you see as the benefits to society of allowing VCP?

That's not necessarily the "part that comes first". Just because you haven't found harmful consequences on something, doesn't mean that you should find beneficial consequences. A thing can also be neutral.

However, if you really must insist on beneficial consequences, they have already been pointed in this thread: Cases of people who are sexually attracted to children, who do not want to actually molest them, who need an outlet, and who recur to virtual child porn to vent out their inner urges.

In a more general lines, I see nothing but good things on a society that not only allows virtual child porn, but which allows any form of individual self expression, as long as it doesn't hurt others. And since we've already seen that there is no demonstrable causation between viewing images and harm, then there is no reason to exclude things such as virtual child porn. So it's actually the other way around: First determine that there is no demonstrable harm in virtual child porn, then include it in the lists of things that belong to individual self expression.

 

[gumboot]

And who, exactly, is the unenviable custodian of this etched stone?

It's written on paper and it's the property of the US Government. It's held on display at the National Archives and Records Administration.

I understand how untenable absolutist free speech is in a societal context.

Evidences?

Enlighten me - what, exactly, is it, then?

It's a statement, made by you, that doesn't answer my question. Do you have an answer, or not?

"Throwing about limits willy nilly"! You've really thought about this, haven't you!

Do you have a justification for an obscenity limit or not? It should be a simple answer, shouldn't it?

Possibly, but I disagree with your criterion anyhow.

So what reasons do you think justify limits in a free society?

I see. You can't, so you shan't, and they all lived happily ever after.

You appear to have lost the plot...

You wouldn't be advocating change where necessary now, would you?!

I'm pointing out that "That's life, deal with it" is a ridiculously retarded response to criticisms of unjust government suppression.

I know exactly what you're saying. The problem is ...

You don't though. You quite obviously think you do, but your responses make it pretty clear that you don't. The fact that you've resorted to meaningless one line banter instead of actually addressing any points just proves this further.

Is that because you don't envisage finding yourself on the receiving end?

Of what? Words? Yawn. Oh noes, the man said mean things about me. What ever shall I do?

Think about it. Seriously. Why did I really ask for a definition. I'll spell it out for you, if you're really struggling. Just ask.

I can only assume you don't know what "involve" actually means. Which is pretty sad.

in⋅volve
/ɪnˈvɒlv/
–verb (used with object), -volved, -volv⋅ing.
1. to include as a necessary circumstance, condition, or consequence; imply; entail: This job involves long hours and hard work.
2. to engage or employ.
3. to affect, as something within the scope of operation.
4. to include, contain, or comprehend within itself or its scope.
5. to bring into an intricate or complicated form or condition.
6. to bring into difficulties (usually fol. by with): a plot to involve one nation in a war with another.
7. to cause to be troublesomely associated or concerned, as in something embarrassing or unfavorable: Don't involve me in your quarrel!
8. to combine inextricably (usually fol. by with).
9. to implicate, as in guilt or crime, or in any matter or affair.
10. to engage the interests or emotions or commitment of: to become involved in the disarmament movement; to become involved with another woman.
11. to preoccupy or absorb fully (usually used passively or reflexively): You are much too involved with the problem to see it clearly.
12. to envelop or enfold, as if with a wrapping.
13. to swallow up, engulf, or overwhelm.
14.
a. Archaic. to roll, surround, or shroud, as in a wrapping.
b. to roll up on itself; wind spirally; coil; wreathe.

Origin:
1350–1400; ME involven <L involvere to roll in or up, equiv. to in- + volvere to roll

Related forms:
in⋅volve⋅ment, noun
in⋅volv⋅er, noun

Now will you stop avoiding, and actually answer my question? If I draw a picture of Lisa Simpson having sex with a cucumber, how does this involve a child?

 

[JFrankA]

In the paraphrased words of Larry Flynt, scumbags have exactly the same rights and protections as everyone else. It's not only fine upstanding citizens worthy of respect that deserve their First Amendment rights. Everyone does.

From church priests who poison the minds of the young with their lies, to pornographers who peddle smut, to rappers and their obscene lyrics. They're all equally protected.

Gumboot, I'd like to offer some kodus to you for understanding what the First Admendment is about.

 

[gumboot]

Gumboot, I'd like to offer some kodus to you for understanding what the First Admendment is about.

It's because I am "obsessed" with it apparently.

 

[tesscaline]

Dear God, I have never said that someone is a criminal for what they *think*. Never even suggested that.

Didn't you though?

Do you think, though, that being sexually excited by children isn't some sort of criminal pathology?

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.

I'm not entirely sure what something being a material has to do with it... Especially since we've already established that in a lot of cases the "material" isn't actually a tangible thing. We're not talking about just materials either, we're talking about the content of the materials. The expression and dissemination of thoughts and ideas here. Speech.

Again, *I* didn't make the ban.

Whether or not you made it is irrelevant, both to the subject at hand, and to my arguments.

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).

No, I'm not ignoring the obscenity aspect. In fact, I addressed it in a previous post. I'll even quote it for you:

You find the topic of children involved in sexual scenes offensive and obscene. Great. I certainly respect that. You find the topic so offensive that you're intolerant of fake depictions of such material -- i.e. cartoons, computer renderings, etc.. Fine. I respect that as well. I'm not a fan of the subject matter either.

...

Personally, I have a huge problem with obscenity laws in general. I feel that it is completely and utterly ridiculous for the government to dictate what is "decent" and what is "obscene". These are subjective and personal moral judgements made largely about subjects that are incapable of causing harm in and of themselves. I feel that the law should only step in when harm is demonstrable. When it comes to virtual child porn... Yes, I find the stuff disgusting, and horrific, and nauseating, and distasteful, and offensive, and obscene. But it harms no one. So I will defend the right to create it, to distribute it, and to own it.

 

[JFrankA]

Personally, I have a huge problem with obscenity laws in general. I feel that it is completely and utterly ridiculous for the government to dictate what is "decent" and what is "obscene". These are subjective and personal moral judgements made largely about subjects that are incapable of causing harm in and of themselves. I feel that the law should only step in when harm is demonstrable. When it comes to virtual child porn... Yes, I find the stuff disgusting, and horrific, and nauseating, and distasteful, and offensive, and obscene. But it harms no one. So I will defend the right to create it, to distribute it, and to own it.

Hear, hear.

 

[tesscaline]

And if this isn't a logical fallacy I don't know what is! By what possible logic or reasoning can "child" pornography be successfully argued to necessarily mean "all" pornography. "Argument by Generalization"! Nice try, but no.

Exactly my point. It's the same argument that sugarb is making. Thank you for pointing it out again, and supporting my position.

Begging the question.

No, it's not.

She's not ignoring it. She's passing it off because it's irrelevant to her argument. You persist to claim that she's ignoring it because you fail to understand and appreciate her argument.

Except that it's relevant to the arguments of the people she's arguing against, and she's failing to address it. So yeah, she's ignoring it.

Hang on a minute here. This might be a good time to clarify whether your, and most other pro-VCP supporters here, primary if not only objection to VCP derives from "comic book collectors being thrown in jail and marked as pedophiles for life when they've never even touched a child, let alone abused one" (regardless of that being a gross exaggeration, in the main). Is that your primary if not only objection?

I am not pro-VCP. I am pro free speech, and anti obscenity laws. If you had bothered to actually read my posts, you'd know that...

Ahem ...

Do you have something stuck in your throat or something? Ahem what?

Straw man.

Asserting so does not make it true.

Ahem ...


Ahem ...

Do you have something to say? Or are you engaging in some sort of personal attack instead of actually addressing the argument?

Straw man.

Nope.

Allegedly.

You seem to be forgetting something SkeptiChick - the overriding right to live in a civilised society actually requires the foregoing of certain "rights", like the right to kill somebody, the right to drive at 200kph on the "wrong" side of the road, the right to rape children, for example. Civilised societies elect bodies to determine the rights of citizens that shall remain - they're called laws. Now, I'm not saying that all enacted laws are correct, they're clearly not, but you seem to want to have your cake and eat it too. You seem to want to reap the benefits that a civilised society affords but at the same time still play by all of your own rules.

Nope. Now you're making an argument from generalization. Just because I disagree with one law does not mean I disagree with them all.

 

[not daSkeptic]

I think you meant "B" in that last sentence and not "C" ...

No, I meant it exactly as I wrote it. Sugarb's argument seemed to be the following:

1. Real child porn (A) and virtual child porn (B) are both subsets of all child porn (C).
2. Real child porn (A) is bad, therefore all child porn (C) is also bad.

This is fallacious. Just because some members of a set have a certain characteristic does not necessarily mean all members of the set also have that characteristic.

However, having had a chance to see further arguments, I think Sugarb's position is more like the following:

1. Real child porn and virtual child porn are both subsets of all child porn.
2. All child porn is bad, therefore virtual child porn is also bad.

This is logically sound, however, the truth of the premise in clause 2 is being assumed. That is what I see people here arguing against.

 

[JFrankA]

You know, I just realized this. According to SW's beliefs, the porn I produce should be banned as well!

The type of porn I produce is about something that could be considered illegal!

 

[fuelair]

You didn't answer my question. I'll try again:

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

.

People have drawn LS having relations with the Simpson's doggie- I have seen them on the net so I know they sre. As to Lisa foully destroying the innocence of poor little pre-pickles, I can only say "Vegetable dildos is rape!!"

or rape seed, I forget.

Hi, again!!