Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[gumboot]

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!!

I purposefully chose a sexual activiting involving Lisa Simpson because there was a recent case in Australia of someone being prosecuted for child pornography for such images. As you say - we know such images exist.

In place of "Lisa Simpson" it could be any fiction pictorial representation (say a My Little Pony?) and in place of activities with a cucumber any other explicit sexual activity could be used.

I'd still like to hear anyone's argument for how this type of image involves a child.

 

[JFrankA]

I'd still like to hear anyone's argument for how this type of image involves a child.

And you're not going to. Instead, the question is going to be dodged because the word "involves" needs to be defined...

 

[MontagK505]

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.

Meaning anyone who disagrees with you on the “clear definition of child pornography” or is unwilling to support the impossible is a scum-bag. Great argument!

 

[MontagK505]

Separate discussion.


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.


.

Says the man who earlier introduced eating poop into the debate “just to make a point”

What parameters get applied to deterime if the faerie looks too human? Got an example?

 

[MontagK505]

I purposefully chose a sexual activiting involving Lisa Simpson because there was a recent case in Australia of someone being prosecuted for child pornography for such images. As you say - we know such images exist.

In place of "Lisa Simpson" it could be any fiction pictorial representation (say a My Little Pony?) and in place of activities with a cucumber any other explicit sexual activity could be used.

I'd still like to hear anyone's argument for how this type of image involves a child.

Some people have a problem with distinguishing the difference between drawings/virtual and real.

 

[Whiplash]

There is plenty of adult porn both "real" and drawn where doing it for real would be a crime.
As long as it can be produced without harming anyone, I see no reason to ban it.
(the no harm part is quite easy for drawn porn)

I I may jump in and ask a question.

Is there no validity to the mindset that giving people imagery of such things that we would not allow, in real life, is actually helping to stir them up more and more into the idea? Does it not fuel the fire?

Imagine someone who is turned on by kids, and violence. But he's never acted on it. Then he gets to see it enacted, possibly in a gruesomely realistic manner. All the pain, suffering, screaming.

Maybe his own fantasy couldn't even get as far as the realistic portrayal. And it turns him on. And maybe makes him even more desire to do it.

Is this not feasible? Or is the idea that these things end up being outlets for these types of people, so they do NOT act at all?

I just can't help but feel that when people enjoy such depictions, that they are really only one step away from acting on them. It's like someone who loves chocolate, but hasn't had any for years. Then he sees a video of someone eating a chocolate bar, and just loving it. With all the MMMM's and YUMMM's and eyes rolling in delight at the flavor. I don't see how that can act as a release for that person. I think they'd want a chocolate bar even more.

I kind of feel the same way about people who want to roleplay bad people. I've never wanted to roleplay anything bad, ever. I can't help but feel that the desire is based on some real desire to be bad, but not actually follow through for fear of the consequences. But they want to pretend to be bad, and get off on it.

ETA: I'm not suggesting that things like VCP would actually directly cause someone to act, more that it could act as a tipping point. I'm questioning whether it's responsible to fuel unhealthy fantasies at all, of if they should be completely scorned. And if someone acts on them, you punish them. I've always hated the idea that certain things help to "get something out of someones system", because mostly I've personally never felt such desires to begin with. I can't help but feel that having the desire to begin with is a sign of something wrong, and it shouldn't be fullfilled for them in any manner (at least if it's a horrible crime).

 

[JFrankA]

I I may jump in and ask a question.

Is there no validity to the mindset that giving people imagery of such things that we would not allow, in real life, is actually helping to stir them up more and more into the idea? Does it not fuel the fire?

Yes, in some people, in others, it quenches the fire. It depends on the person. I still say that if a person really wants the real life circumstances, or doesn't care about the circumstance, or ignores the circumstances then no matter what that person views, that person will have his fire fueled.

Imagine someone who is turned on by kids, and violence. But he's never acted on it. Then he gets to see it enacted, possibly in a gruesomely realistic manner. All the pain, suffering, screaming.

Maybe his own fantasy couldn't even get as far as the realistic portrayal. And it turns him on. And maybe makes him even more desire to do it.

Is this not feasible? Or is the idea that these things end up being outlets for these types of people, so they do NOT act at all?

And maybe it turns him off. I have a dangerous fetish myself. I know that seeing some things involving the real thing that my fetish is about turns me right off and scares the living stuff outta me.

I will say it again, because it seems it needs to be repeated: the people who would let something like that drive them to do the real life and desires the circumstances, or doesn't care about the circumstance, or ignores the circumstances then no matter what that person views, that person will have his fire fueled.

I just can't help but feel that when people enjoy such depictions, that they are really only one step away from acting on them. It's like someone who loves chocolate, but hasn't had any for years. Then he sees a video of someone eating a chocolate bar, and just loving it. With all the MMMM's and YUMMM's and eyes rolling in delight at the flavor. I don't see how that can act as a release for that person. I think they'd want a chocolate bar even more.

I am someone who lost 130 pounds, I know exactly what you are thinking. Yes, some people will react that way, but some don't. You are generalizing saying that anyone who play acts the bad guy will eventually be a bad guy. Simply not true.

I kind of feel the same way about people who want to roleplay bad people. I've never wanted to roleplay anything bad, ever. I can't help but feel that the desire is based on some real desire to be bad, but not actually follow through for fear of the consequences. But they want to pretend to be bad, and get off on it.

You never ever played cops and robbers as a kid?

There's a thrill to playing bad, yes, but the thing is it's play. The biggest kicks of playing a bad guy are the facts that 1) No one gets harmed. 2) The play can stop at anytime 3) there's no danger.

Again, it's not a case of resisting the real thing, it's a case of just not wanting the real thing, and just playing is enough. And even sometimes the playing can be too much.

We all have a dark side, there's nothing wrong with safely, sanely and with cautious forethought explore it.

ETA:

ETA: I'm not suggesting that things like VCP would actually directly cause someone to act, more that it could act as a tipping point. I'm questioning whether it's responsible to fuel unhealthy fantasies at all, of if they should be completely scorned. And if someone acts on them, you punish them. I've always hated the idea that certain things help to "get something out of someones system", because mostly I've personally never felt such desires to begin with. I can't help but feel that having the desire to begin with is a sign of something wrong, and it shouldn't be fullfilled for them in any manner (at least if it's a horrible crime).

I understand what you are saying. Your view is understandable, no question about that.

Let me explain it this way. People, even children, play video games. A lot of video games include horrible crimes, like murder. Or mass murder (World of Warcraft, anyone? )

And for a lot of people, and I'm going to daresay "normal" people, rational people, that "get it out of your system" in a fantasy setting is enough. More than enough, in fact. It's a temporary escape, it's safe exploration (no harm to anyone, no negative consequences) and it can be stopped at any time. In other words, it's not reality. It's fantasy. It's play. That is all that is needed.

As for a trigger, with my particular fetish I don't need a direct link to trigger an arousal. Indeed I can think of some incidents that are completely innocent and non-sexual that do trigger an arousal in me. It doesn't have to be the fetish itself.

Let me take your chocolate example because I know it well. I was 320 pounds and lost 130 pounds. One of the main triggers I would have that caused me to overeat wasn't seeing food, or seeing people eat, or seeing my favorite food. The main trigger was waiting and driving. Seriously. For example, if I was in a doctor's office, I used to bring a snack. When I had a drive, I used to eat. Both had nothing to do with food, but both triggered the urge to eat.

That is why I say that a person who will commit a horrible crime such as child molestation, and do it because they desire the consequences, ignore the consequences or don't care about them, can have anything as a trigger.

Hope I explained this well. Again, sorry for being wordy.

 

[gumboot]

Is there no validity to the mindset that giving people imagery of such things that we would not allow, in real life, is actually helping to stir them up more and more into the idea? Does it not fuel the fire?

It might. Problem is no one has ever actually established a scientific link between them, and for me personally "maybe" is not strong enough to justify banning something.

I just can't help but feel that when people enjoy such depictions, that they are really only one step away from acting on them. It's like someone who loves chocolate, but hasn't had any for years. Then he sees a video of someone eating a chocolate bar, and just loving it. With all the MMMM's and YUMMM's and eyes rolling in delight at the flavor. I don't see how that can act as a release for that person. I think they'd want a chocolate bar even more.

I'm not sure that's a very good comparison at all. In the chocolate bar case, it is the actual consumption of chocolate that the person loves - not watching others eat it.

In the case of various pornographic materials, I think there's a large group of people who enjoy watching certain things but would never actually want to do certain things. As such while watching said things satisfies their desires, actually doing it would not.

A good parallel can be seen with horror films. A large number of people take a real genuine delight in watching depictions of people being brutally murdered in creative and graphic ways. But they don't have the least desire to ever actually see it done for real. It's the experience of watching a fake depiction that they crave, and watching a horror film satisfies that.

Of course, in any large and varied population as big as a whole country there will always be people who actually want to partake in these things for real - be it having sex with children or ripping someone's arms off. Those people are called mentally ill and those acts are criminal. I feel pretty confident that these people are a tiny minority. It doesn't make sense to ban fake depictions simply because some unwell people might want to do it for real, particularly since those unwell people do it for real anyway, regardless of what's available to watch.

In fact, even if you could scientifically demonstrate very real cause and effect between a particular individual watching child porn and then molesting a child, I'd still be reluctant to ban it for the above explained reason.

It's the same way that the makers of computer games like Need for Speed should not be held responsible for fans of their games that then drive dangerously and try outrun police in real life.

At the end of the day, I'm a very firm believer in personal responsibility.

I kind of feel the same way about people who want to roleplay bad people. I've never wanted to roleplay anything bad, ever. I can't help but feel that the desire is based on some real desire to be bad, but not actually follow through for fear of the consequences. But they want to pretend to be bad, and get off on it.

I'm guessing you've never worked with actors. I'm working on a show at the moment in which Craig Parker (a semi-famous local actor) plays the bad guy - an evil murderous tyrant. In one of his first scenes he slits an innocent's throat to use the blood as ink, and does it with utter mechanical detachment. And he's absolutely one of the kindest, most light-hearted people I know.

 

[Southwind17]

Why do you find it unreasonable to conclude that there is no harm if there is no demonstrable causation between "viewing porn" and "harm"? [emphasis added]

You say "if" ...

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. [emphasis added]

... not once but twice ...

Until compelling evidence shows up suggesting that there may be a demonstrable causation ...

... then further confirm you're not sure.

... there's no reason to assume such harm exists.

There's every reason reason to assume.

Oh, BTW, I'm alluding the child porn, not porn generally. Not entirely sure about you.

That's not necessarily the "part that comes first".

I didn't say or even suggest it was.

Just because you haven't found harmful consequences on [sic] something, doesn't mean that you should find beneficial consequences. A thing can also be neutral.

That's true. Similary, just because you haven't deduced a reasonable prospect of harmful consequences of something doesn't mean that you should deduce a reasonable prospect of beneficial consequences. But if you have ...

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.

Evidence?

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.

Couldn't agree more.

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. [emphasis added]

Sorry, I missed it. Remind me where to look would you?

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.

Is this a maxim that you would apply to everything in life or just speech (by the First Amendment definition)?

 

[Whiplash]

Good points guys, I appreciate your explanations. Made me think. I can see how it could go both ways.

But one thing that stuck out for me and I wanted to comment on, was something that actually does change my opinion a bit.

I'm guessing you've never worked with actors. I'm working on a show at the moment in which Craig Parker (a semi-famous local actor) plays the bad guy - an evil murderous tyrant. In one of his first scenes he slits an innocent's throat to use the blood as ink, and does it with utter mechanical detachment. And he's absolutely one of the kindest, most light-hearted people I know.

I do remember hearing a commentary on some DVD or another, where an actor was describing how people that are not very nice in real life hate playing bad people, and always want to play good people. But that people who are good and friendly in real life really enjoy playing bad guys.

I've thought about it more, and my position on the roleplaying good vs bad was totally archaic and wrong. I will withdraw that.

I would also be interested in studies that have been done on the subject of whether virtual / non real activities either fuel, or quench the fire. I admit I was only going on my gut reaction, colored probably by my upbringing. I genuinely am interested in learning what the reality of the situation is.

 

[Southwind17]

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.

Sorry - I didn't phrase my question very well. I meant to ask who is the custodian of the principles etched in the consitutional epitaph.

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

It's my response to your question. I'm sorry if you don't like or agree with it.

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

Yes and yes. Is that simple enough?

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

How long have you got?

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

I agree. Sorry - I missed the "unjust" bit before.

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

Go ahead - assume.

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?

You mean if a child molester has sought to obtain a copy of such image and whilst pondering it he's babysitting his neighbour's 4-year-old daughter? Or are you asking in a different context?

 

[JFrankA]

Good points guys, I appreciate your explanations. Made me think. I can see how it could go both ways.

But one thing that stuck out for me and I wanted to comment on, was something that actually does change my opinion a bit.




I do remember hearing a commentary on some DVD or another, where an actor was describing how people that are not very nice in real life hate playing bad people, and always want to play good people. But that people who are good and friendly in real life really enjoy playing bad guys.

I've thought about it more, and my position on the roleplaying good vs bad was totally archaic and wrong. I will withdraw that.

I would also be interested in studies that have been done on the subject of whether virtual / non real activities either fuel, or quench the fire. I admit I was only going on my gut reaction, colored probably by my upbringing. I genuinely am interested in learning what the reality of the situation is.

I would too.

By the way, after your posts, I found it ironic that under your name you have the title "acting like a maniac"

 

[Whiplash]

I would too.

By the way, after your posts, I found it ironic that under your name you have the title "acting like a maniac"

It's in tribute to the username itself. I came up with Whiplash as a handle back in the 80's on BBS's and CB radio. I took it from the Metallica song of the same name. It's stuck with me ever since, even though I really don't like Metallica anymore. But it's kind of my name at this point, in the electronic world.

The phrase "acting like a maniac!" is from the song, I thought it fit well there.

Adrenaline starts to flow
You're thrashing all around
Acting like a maniac
Whiplash!

 

[JFrankA]

... there's no reason to assume such harm exists.

There's every reason reason to assume.

Oh, BTW, I'm alluding the child porn, not porn generally. Not entirely sure about you.

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

Go ahead - assume.

He didn't, you asked outright for the definition of "involved".

You are assuming, and, as you put it, have "every reason to".
So it seems that your assumptions are correct, but other people's assumptions are not?

 

[JFrankA]

It's in tribute to the username itself. I came up with Whiplash as a handle back in the 80's on BBS's and CB radio. I took it from the Metallica song of the same name. It's stuck with me ever since, even though I really don't like Metallica anymore. But it's kind of my name at this point, in the electronic world.

The phrase "acting like a maniac!" is from the song, I thought it fit well there.

Adrenaline starts to flow
You're thrashing all around
Acting like a maniac
Whiplash!

Oh. Cool. Sorry I didn't recognize it. (I am so dumb when it comes to music....)

...it's still ironic, though.

 

[Whiplash]

Oh, well.. thanks! That's a good thing, I think?

sorry my mental CPU is already at 94% on other tasks, three of which are "Not Responding".

 

[JFrankA]

You mean if a child molester has sought to obtain a copy of such image and whilst pondering it he's babysitting his neighbour's 4-year-old daughter? Or are you asking in a different context?

If a child molester was pondering to molest a four year old girl, I think Lisa Simpson having sex with a cucumber would be the last thing he'd want to see...

 

[JFrankA]

Oh, well.. thanks! That's a good thing, I think?

sorry my mental CPU is already at 94% on other tasks, three of which are "Not Responding".

Yes it is. Believe me, I meant no insult.

 

[MontagK505]

<snip>
We all have a dark side, there's nothing wrong with safely, sanely and with cautious forethought explore it.

<snip>

One of the things I was taught in psychotherapy, is you can't change without becoming aware. Too many of the moral ideas that are applied to the subject of porn / sex are variations of: “thought-crime is death”. If we were taught instead not to be afraid of our own thoughts most of this porn debate would disappear.

Just a thought.

 

[Whiplash]

Yes it is. Believe me, I meant no insult.

I wasn't thinking insult as much as I was trying to backwards engineer what would be ironic behavior compared to acting like a maniac.

The best I could come up with was being very civilized and calm. But that's not me either.

But I'm also someone who has never had a solid grasp on "irony".

And now I have four non responding services going. I think I need to reboot.

But thanks!