Moderated What's wrong with porn?

[AWPrime]

What part of freedom do you consider is only relevant to mindless things? At the risk of a philosophical derail what does the "mind" have to do with the concept of freedom?

The concept of absolute freedom only applies to things/creatures that don't spend any neurons on social interaction, and thus from our pov they are mindless.

You and I seem to have different views as to what "rights" are. You seem to believe that they come necessarily free of cost. I could probably list on the back of my hand every single western societal right that, if invoked, does not incur some degree of financial outlay. Take into account other "costs" and the list diminishes.
[snip]
Go ahead - start a semantic debate, if that's what you want.
[snip]
There you go, see. You mistakenly think that rights necessarily incur no cost. Wrong.

Rights are an inherent, irrevocable entitlement held by all citizens/humans from birth. Rights in general don't incur costs, only in the rare cased that the right must be enforced and even then society will try and compensate the individual.

A privilege is a special entitlement or immunity granted by an authority to a restricted group, either by birth or on a conditional basis. If something must be earned before its used then its a privilege.

I'm not sure whether by "reality" you're extending your thought process beyond the concept of "freedom", which is what we're discussing here. For any entity any "natural" aspect of existence "X" can either be freely engaged in or not (if you're now thinking of some "grey" areas simply proceed to break X down into subsets until X/y becomes part of a subset of binary absolutes). If X can be freely (not necessarily at no "cost" - everything has an "opportunity cost") engaged in it is a right; if it cannot it is a constraint, or a prohibition, if you will. There is no middle ground. Remember that just because there is a cost associated with doing something (financial or otherwise) that does not render that something not free in the "freedom" sense. I think that might be where you're going wrong.

Actually such a vision of reality doesn't work, if it did the laws would only need to list the prohibitions. Its my opinion that you try to over-simplify reality so that your concepts can work. Shades of grey are the normal state of reality.

Wrong. Both the predator and prey are completely free to do whatever their physiological existence will allow in order to obtain a meal and not become a meal respectively. They have the benefit of absolute freedom in the context of the hunt, i.e. they have absolutely unconstrained "rights" at their disposal - anything goes, literally.

The predator has no right to a meal, he has to earn it by outlasting or outsmarting the prey. Nor has the prey in this case have a right to live. See its neutral.

I never wrote "... without any fear of retribution." Here's what I wrote:
So, in that context try here, for starters:

​

I'm sure there are many more examples, particularly across Africa, for example.

Ever wonder why such places are hellholes? And even in your example something must have proceeded the killing to justify it. A true right to murder wouldn't require that.

This seems somewhat of an odd request, given that this is the very question we're discussing here! You seem to have forgotten this:

I haven't forgotten it, that is a repeat of your opinion.

 

[JFrankA]

Whatever.

Again, no dispute, just a dismissal. I guess he can't dispute your argument, can he?

You're American, aren't you? Would that happen to be this bridge?

From the Lancashire Evening Telegraph, first published Wednesday 1st Jul 1998.

Holy cow, SW. This is another example of thinking you're right because you made an assumption, didn't do any research, but believed your assumptions to be right, when in reality have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

 

[JFrankA]

As I wrote, she provided an example of something she claimed (to demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). It wasn't accepted as valid (on the basis that it allegedly doesn't demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). I provided a different, convincing example (to demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). Ergo the claim was validated.

As I wrote, she provided an example of something she claimed (to demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour) that I disputed. It wasn't accepted as valid (on the basis that it allegedly doesn't demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour). I provided a different, convincing example (to demonstrate legitimization of anti-social behaviour) in which I completely shown how that validation can be wrong, and the reasons why. Ergo the claim was invalidated.

 

[Southwind17]

Nothing in your "refutation" included demonstrating fault with the conclusions they drew from the sample they had.

You know what? If I were to design a study, the aim of which is essentially to identify whether there is a correlation between child pornography and child abuse, I would at least:

1. Select some study subjects who I know are consuming child porn, and
2. Select some study subjects who have committed child abuse.

Comically, JFrankA's beautifully artisitic cited study essentially involved neither! I take it you'd spotted that yourself when you asked me to post my findings, yes?
Top tip: Never ask a leading question that you don't already know the answer to!

 

[JFrankA]

I want to go back to this argument SW has and comment on how wrong this one single simple concept is:

He stated:

To my mind, if a man fantasises about raping a woman, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to rape, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous.

When talking about fantasy rape porn. He has the same idea about VCP. But why stop there? Let's go onto BDSM:

"To my mind, if a man fantasises about tieing up and spanking a helpless woman, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to hurt a helpless woman, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous."

Now we can conclude that BDSM porn should be banned. But let's continue with fantasy infantile porn (porn in which a fully grown man fantasizes that he is a baby and a full grown Domme takes care of him)

"To my mind, if a man fantasises about being a beaten baby, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to do that to his own children, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous."

Wait. I'm not done. Let's go to voyerism:

"To my mind, if a man fantasises about peeking into a house to watch a woman, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to stalk, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous."

I haven't even started yet. I've heard this one by a lot of homophobes:

"To my mind, if a man fantasises about having sex with another male, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to rape little boys, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous."

What more? I got 'em:

"To my mind, if a man fantasises while talking on the phone, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to make unwanted obscene phone calls, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous."

In fact, let's just go to this list and plug them all in:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paraphilias

Eventually the only porn left would be the porn that Southwind, himself, disdained at the very beginning of this thread, namely "marshmallow porn".

Huh? What? Ohhhh...Wait. This works as well.

"To my mind, if a man watches porn, for example, that shows some deep-routed desire to rape, regardless of how faint, and passing it off as fantasising is somewhat of a cop out. Fortunately, most men are capable of resisting any physical urge that such fantasy might conjure. Unfortunately, however, a few men cannot, and anything that serves to feed and legitimize such behaviour, even if only in the eye of the beholder (to use your term) could be dangerous."

This last one I have heard before by many, many anti-porn people.

 

[JFrankA]

You know what? If I were to design a study, the aim of which is essentially to identify whether there is a correlation between child pornography and child abuse, I would at least:

1. Select some study subjects who I know are consuming child porn, and
2. Select some study subjects who have committed child abuse.

Comically, JFrankA's beautifully artisitic cited study essentially involved neither! I take it you'd spotted that yourself when you asked me to post my findings, yes?
Top tip: Never ask a leading question that you don't already know the answer to!

You're a brave man insulting someone who you can't see.

At any rate, did you even read the study?

Methods

The current study population consisted of 231 men, who were subsequently charged with consumption of illegal pornographic material after being detected by a special operation against Internet child pornography, conducted by the Swiss police in 2002. Criminal history, as well as recidivism, was assessed using the criminal records from 2008.

Here's the study http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-244X/9/43 Please read it with your eyes open this time.

Now the study was to see if consumption resulted in child molestation. That means they took anyone who has consumed child porn and not just child molesters

What your study is trying to do is confirmation bias.

 

[ZirconBlue]

Fear, from whichever side, of what might...MIGHT...someday be attempted against us is not a valid reason to defend something.

First, I want to say that I disagree with this sentiment, entirely. When it comes to defending liberty

A) It is much easier to retain a right or freedom, than to get one restored after it has been taken away. So, one should be ever-vigilent in fighting for your freedoms; once lost, they are difficult to regain.
2) Freedoms are not generally lost in one fell swoop, but are slowly chipped away. If you wait until the "really important" part is threatened, it is likely to be much too late. The precedents will have all been set at that point.

Also, I'm going to guess that you didn't read the Neil Gaiman essay linked to earlier in this thread. He made some pretty good arguments for why we fight for even speech we personally find repugnant. Especially for speech we find repugnant.

Defending something out of fear of what might happen to us is rarely a good idea. Look at what messes doing just that has caused politically/economically/socially. We have pot smokers in prison because...??? We "fear". People oppose gay marriage because...they fear. So many things we do, or fail to do, out of fear of something completely unrelated to what we are focusing at that moment on.

But don't you see that you're on exactly the opposite side of the argument with VCP than the side you seem to be on on these other issues? On these other issues, you're on the pro-liberty side of the debate. Why do you flip-flop on this one issue?


Pot smoking hasn't been shown to harm anyone else, so it should be legal.
Gay marriage hasn't been shown to harm anyone else, so it should be legal.
VCP hasn't been shown to harm anyone else, so it should be legal.

Actual child pornography does demonstrobaly harm someone else, so it should not be legal.


"That government is best which governs least."

"An ye harm none, do what ye will."

Now, you could assume that my own stance on this is out of "fear", but to be honest with you JFrankA, it is not truly inspired by fear at all. Instead, I simply recognize that, particularly now that men and women are, under the law, equal, that leaves two segments of citizens that need AS much protection, or more, than even we women have demanded for decades now, and those two segments are children and the elderly.

Protection from what? Not only has it not been demonstrated that VCP actually causes any harm to children, but there is also a not-insiginificant possibility that the production/use of VCP may actually reduce harm to children, by

A) Acting as a substitute for actual child pornography, and
2) Offering an outlet for desires that cannot otherwise be acted upon without harming children.

You're saying VCP should be banned, "just to be on the safe side". But without compelling evidence either way, we don't know which side is the safe one! Absent compelling evidence, we should always err on the side of more liberty, rather than less.

 

[Southwind17]

Not only has it not been demonstrated that VCP actually causes any harm to children ...

... because it hasn't been tested ...

... but there is also a not-insiginificant possibility that ...

Do you know how long a list of "not-insignificant possibilities" within this world would be?!

You're saying VCP should be banned, "just to be on the safe side". But without compelling evidence either way, we don't know which side is the safe one!

That depends on whether you're defining "safe" in this context as "precluding the reasonable supposition that VCP can lead to child abuse" or "allowing a tiny minority of the population to read manga". Well, the third possibility, of course, is that you're looking over a camel's nose!

Absent compelling evidence, we should always err on the side of more liberty, rather than less.

Unless you found yourself innocently on trial with only circumstantial evidence for your defence, then you'd dilute that maxim to "reasonable supposition", I have absolutely no doubt!

 

[JFrankA]

... because it hasn't been tested ...

So where do you base your "evidence" on?

Do you know how long a list of "not-insignificant possibilities" within this world would be?!

How could you know? You said it yourself "....because it hasn't been tested...." Do YOU know how long a list of "not-insignificant possibilities" within this world would be?!

You are screaming "think of the children" and appealing to emotion. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html and fear. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-fear.html

That depends on whether you're defining "safe" in this context as "precluding the reasonable supposition that VCP can lead to child abuse" or "allowing a tiny minority of the population to read manga". Well, the third possibility, of course, is that you're looking over a camel's nose!

Ah. SW is using some strange usage of the word "safe" that I wasn't previously aware of.

(I love that line... )

Unless you found yourself innocently on trial with only circumstantial evidence for your defence, then you'd dilute that maxim to "reasonable supposition", I have absolutely no doubt!

Again with the cry of "it's illegal so I'm right"? Again, the debate is about whether the law is right or not, not that it's illegal. Stop appealing to authority. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

[quadraginta]

Not only has it not been demonstrated that VCP actually causes any harm to children ...

... because it hasn't been tested ...

... but there is also a not-insiginificant possibility that ...

Do you know how long a list of "not-insignificant possibilities" within this world would be?!

You're saying VCP should be banned, "just to be on the safe side". But without compelling evidence either way, we don't know which side is the safe one!

That depends on whether you're defining "safe" in this context as "precluding the reasonable supposition that VCP can lead to child abuse" or "allowing a tiny minority of the population to read manga". Well, the third possibility, of course, is that you're looking over a camel's nose!

Why are you misrepresenting what ZirconBlue said? (Never mind. I know the answer to that question.)

If you were sincere in your disagreement you would be comparing

it not been demonstrated that VCP actually causes any harm to children

to

VCP may actually reduce harm to children

Why are you afraid to address what ZirconBlue actually said?

Is it because you have no cogent response and are compelled to hypothesize bogus "quotes" instead?

Absent compelling evidence, we should always err on the side of more liberty, rather than less.

Unless you found yourself innocently on trial with only circumstantial evidence for your defence, then you'd dilute that maxim to "reasonable supposition", I have absolutely no doubt!

If you are under the misapprehension that "circumstantial evidence" cannot be compelling then you haven't been spending enough time with your law dictionaries.

 

[ZirconBlue]

... because it hasn't been tested ...

Exactly.

Do you know how long a list of "not-insignificant possibilities" within this world would be?!

Not long:

1. VCP use leads to an increase in child abuse.
2. VCP use leads to a decrease in child abuse.
3. VCP use has no net effect on the incidence of child abuse.

That depends on whether you're defining "safe" in this context as "precluding the reasonable supposition that VCP can lead to child abuse" or "allowing a tiny minority of the population to read manga". Well, the third possibility, of course, is that you're looking over a camel's nose!

I don't see how the "supposition that VCP can lead to child abuse" is any more "reasonable" than the supposition that it can reduce child abuse. Or that it will have no appreciable effect either way.

Regardless, "reasonable suppositions" without supporting evidence should not be a basis for law, particularly when it comes to freedom of speech.

I don't know why you're bringing manga into the discussion.

Unless you found yourself innocently on trial with only circumstantial evidence for your defence, then you'd dilute that maxim to "reasonable supposition", I have absolutely no doubt!

Um, what? Of all the myriad stupid things you've said in this thread, that's certainly one of them.

 

[sugarb]

You are the only person in this discussion who refuses to differentiate between VCP at least in terms of terminology. You are the only person in this conversation that insists on only using the term "child pornography" no matter which subset of it you are referring to, despite acknowledging that there IS a subset involved. You KNOW this causes confusion. Purposefully causing confusion when you could easily avoid it is a rather dishonest tactic.

You could sit there and write about me being disingenuous, but you'd have a hard time proving it, since I'm not the one insisting on changing the terms and moving the goalposts constantly.

I'm not demanding anything. I am pointing out that your arguments have a certain quality. If you don't like it, you're perfectly capable of changing the characteristics of those arguments so that they don't have that quality anymore.

So... You've learned to completely misrepresent anything that's been said to you? You've learned to conflate attacking arguments with attacking a person? Okay.

Look, you seem to want to turn this into something personal, and I'm getting really freaking sick and tired of it. I am not making personal attacks. I am attacking ARGUMENTS. Your ARGUMENTS give the appearance of a lack of understanding. This is not an attempt to make you look stupid, or ignorant, for any reason. It is an attempt to discredit the ARGUMENT.

If I were making personal attacks, I would expect you to report my posts so that it could be handled by the moderators, since making personal attacks is against the rules here.

I have not said that it should be restricted, but I have not said that it should NOT be restricted. I have not addressed the subject of restriction at all, whatsoever. I have only commented on the BANNING of VCP. Trying to say that I've said anything about whether or not VCP should be restricted if it were to become legal is entirely a strawman. It is not disingenuous of me to point out a blatantly obvious logical fallacy, especially when that logical fallacy is completely misrepresenting my position.

See, this is why I say the things I do about your posts. Where on earth do you get "VCP shouldn't be regulated at all" from saying that "VCP does not harm real children"? One sentence has nothing to do with the other. You're obviously reading in based upon your own personal biases on the matter -- there's simply no other explanation for how you could make such a huge and unwarranted jump between two completely unrelated statements.

No. I didn't ask any questions about another poster. I asked why YOU would come to a certain conclusion. This makes the question about you, and not another poster. You still have not explained how you reached that conclusion, other than to imply that it's because "you think"... Which isn't really an explanation at all.

I also asked you a lot of questions about your analogy to cell phone calls in restaurants. Would you care to answer those? Or are you ignoring them because you know that you can't answer them in any way that would support your assumptions?

Actually, Skeptichick, I *don't* know that it should cause confusion since apparently even you are aware of what I am referring to when I say child pornography. And if anyone isn't aware of it, one would think they should be, since there is no debate about if what you prefer to call "real" child pornography should be banned or not. It is.

I am not the one that seems to want to make this personal.

I do not report anyone except myself (which I have done), because I am an adult, and don't feel a need to run to the teacher if someone isn't "playing nice". I simply walk away. I can do that.

In order to explain why I take something from Southwind's posts that you do not would require quote mining the entirety of his contributions to this thread. If you are that interested and even consider the possibility that you have failed to understand his point, then you could simply re-read. Are you that interested? Or is this something personal?

 

[not daSkeptic]

I am not the one that seems to want to make this personal.

I do not report anyone except myself (which I have done), because I am an adult, and don't feel a need to run to the teacher if someone isn't "playing nice". I simply walk away. I can do that.

Um ...

 

[sugarb]

First, I want to say that I disagree with this sentiment, entirely. When it comes to defending liberty

A) It is much easier to retain a right or freedom, than to get one restored after it has been taken away. So, one should be ever-vigilent in fighting for your freedoms; once lost, they are difficult to regain.
2) Freedoms are not generally lost in one fell swoop, but are slowly chipped away. If you wait until the "really important" part is threatened, it is likely to be much too late. The precedents will have all been set at that point.

Also, I'm going to guess that you didn't read the Neil Gaiman essay linked to earlier in this thread. He made some pretty good arguments for why we fight for even speech we personally find repugnant. Especially for speech we find repugnant.





But don't you see that you're on exactly the opposite side of the argument with VCP than the side you seem to be on on these other issues? On these other issues, you're on the pro-liberty side of the debate. Why do you flip-flop on this one issue?


Pot smoking hasn't been shown to harm anyone else, so it should be legal.
Gay marriage hasn't been shown to harm anyone else, so it should be legal.
VCP hasn't been shown to harm anyone else, so it should be legal.

Actual child pornography does demonstrobaly harm someone else, so it should not be legal.


"That government is best which governs least."

"An ye harm none, do what ye will."




Protection from what? Not only has it not been demonstrated that VCP actually causes any harm to children, but there is also a not-insiginificant possibility that the production/use of VCP may actually reduce harm to children, by

A) Acting as a substitute for actual child pornography, and
2) Offering an outlet for desires that cannot otherwise be acted upon without harming children.

You're saying VCP should be banned, "just to be on the safe side". But without compelling evidence either way, we don't know which side is the safe one! Absent compelling evidence, we should always err on the side of more liberty, rather than less.

ZirconBlue, hello. Regardless of what anyone thinks, I *am* standing on the side of liberty. You will not see me calling for bans on any pornography involving consenting adults. I have made that clear, and wish to reiterate it.

Though some have a problem with this, I do not differentiate between the "types" of child pornography. And since you asked, I will explain yet another aspect of my reasoning for that.

When it comes to pornography, generally, as we've talked about over and over again, it has one main intent, as a genre. We can tiptoe around it or deny it or whatever, but that intent is sexual in nature. So, with regards to children, even children of the legal age of consent in some states (well under 18), we have determined that they should be off limits in pornography. Why? I posted a link much earlier regarding those convicted of sex crimes against children and the percentage which admitted to using child pornography--and by the way, the study, and no study I have seen yet with sex offenders, differentiates between VCP and "real" child porn, so people are jumping to conclusions when assuming what studies have been done only refer to "real" child pornography--a point that seems to be lost somewhere. The majority admitted to doing so. They admitted it when they could have easily denied it. They weren't convicted for possessing child pornography. I think it would be a safe assumption that not all freely admitted what would be yet another crime...

ETA: Earlier I also stated that I question the validity of the "over 18" laws anyway, due to the inconsistency with ages of consent.

A pornographic creation depicting children, real or otherwise, can have different intents, but if the work as a whole is no different than what would be found in a "real" child pornographic film, I see no valid reason for it to be considered somehow "special", when the intent is obviously the same. And because those studies have not been done, and cannot ethically be done, and when they HAVE been done they haven't thus far differentiated as people here seem to insist on doing, then it seems to me that the law *does* have the burden to err on the side of caution, rather than liberty for adults. Remember, children aren't granted "liberty" as we are, as adults.

JFrankA brings up a few times the suggestion of a small scene in which the rape or exploitation of a child by a "villain" is utilized to create anger in the audience. I do not know why that is considered to be the type of thing I am referring to, because such a scene doesn't make a film/book/cartoon/whatever automatically pornographic...or Hollywood and Lifetime Movies should be in big time trouble.

I suppose that I simply do not see why anyone would equate a particular thing involving children (depicted or otherwise) in "adult" situations, being used by adults essentially, as something akin to "liberty". In my opinion, which I am sure will be disagreed with vehemently but that is fine, people differ, that cheapens the concept of and intent of liberty. There is no question that children cannot willingly, and should not at any time, be used to sexually gratify adults. There is *no* issue of liberty in that debate. When it comes to other things, gay marriage (which I support), legalizing certain narcotics (which I support), and even shockingly enough multiple partner marriages (which I support), those things do involve adults, who are supposed to have liberty. I'm not playing morality cop, here, or thought cop as I have been accused of several times. I simply do not see how being able to use children (or depictions of them...and by that I don't mean women dressed in school girl uniforms or "age play" amongst adults; I mean depictions of minor human beings as well as animals, by the way, both of which cannot legally consent but people for some reason get turned on by) in sexual positions to gratify adults is at all an issue of liberty. I like to think we are a smarter and more advanced society than that.

 

[sugarb]

Um ...

Um...? Translation could be that I'm not being confrontational and if it got to that point with me, I would have removed myself? Or...um??? When I err, I'm a big enough girl to admit I've done it because I have standards for myself?

 

[tesscaline]

Actually, Skeptichick, I *don't* know that it should cause confusion since apparently even you are aware of what I am referring to when I say child pornography. And if anyone isn't aware of it, one would think they should be, since there is no debate about if what you prefer to call "real" child pornography should be banned or not. It is.

Using one term, instead of the other, confounds the issue. I see it as dishonest, and it smacks of trickery, when someone purposefully confounds an issue when they could otherwise easily avoid it.

Both VCP and child pornography are currently banned. But for different reasons, and under different laws. Even the law differentiates between the two things. And yet, you continue to refuse to do so, even for the simple reason of making discourse easier? Fine.

...<snip>...

In order to explain why I take something from Southwind's posts that you do not would require quote mining the entirety of his contributions to this thread. If you are that interested and even consider the possibility that you have failed to understand his point, then you could simply re-read. Are you that interested? Or is this something personal?

Me re-reading would not tell me anything about why YOU came to a conclusion, as I am not YOU, and cannot read YOUR mind to find out what YOU think a certain passage means. If I could, I'd be at least a million dollars richer right now.

 

[not daSkeptic]

Um...? Translation could be that I'm not being confrontational and if it got to that point with me, I would have removed myself? Or...um??? When I err, I'm a big enough girl to admit I've done it because I have standards for myself?

Or it could be the seeming hypocrisy in the quoted statements.

 

[sugarb]

Or it could be the seeming hypocrisy in the quoted statements.

Hypocritical to what? Report one's self for a deserved infraction? Seems to me it would be more hypocritical to report others. I broke a rule. I realized it. I deserved what I got. Hypocrisy would be complaining about what 'everyone else' does and pretend to be an innocent angel. Sorry, I don't see myself as above anyone, and when others were suspended for what I knew I had done, too...well, call it hypocrisy. Seems more consistency to me.

 

[ZirconBlue]

When it comes to pornography, generally, as we've talked about over and over again, it has one main intent, as a genre. We can tiptoe around it or deny it or whatever, but that intent is sexual in nature. So, with regards to children, even children of the legal age of consent in some states (well under 18), we have determined that they should be off limits in pornography. Why?

Well, historically, it's been because the production of child pornography involves children -- who are unable to give consent -- engaging in sex acts. Which obviously is harmful to those children.

Extending that prohibition to VCP doesn't make sense.

I posted a link much earlier regarding those convicted of sex crimes against children and the percentage which admitted to using child pornography--and by the way, the study, and no study I have seen yet with sex offenders, differentiates between VCP and "real" child porn, so people are jumping to conclusions when assuming what studies have been done only refer to "real" child pornography--a point that seems to be lost somewhere. The majority admitted to doing so. They admitted it when they could have easily denied it. They weren't convicted for possessing child pornography. I think it would be a safe assumption that not all freely admitted what would be yet another crime...

I know that it has already been pointed out that this is a correlation/causation fallacy. Did you forget?

A pornographic creation depicting children, real or otherwise, can have different intents, but if the work as a whole is no different than what would be found in a "real" child pornographic film, I see no valid reason for it to be considered somehow "special", when the intent is obviously the same.

Why does it matter what the intent is? What matters are the results. Real child pornography demonstrably harms children. VCP does not. Therefore there are compelling (and, frankly, obvious) reasons for not treating them the same way.

And because those studies have not been done, and cannot ethically be done, and when they HAVE been done they haven't thus far differentiated as people here seem to insist on doing, then it seems to me that the law *does* have the burden to err on the side of caution, rather than liberty for adults.

Except you're assuming with no evidence that the VCP is harmful. If it were discovered tomorrow that the existance of VCP actually reduces child abuse, would you reverse your opinion? It's not "caution" to presume one outcome is correct and back that side. "Caution" is acting when you have evidence. Not leaping to conclusions.

I suppose that I simply do not see why anyone would equate a particular thing involving children (depicted or otherwise) in "adult" situations, being used by adults essentially, as something akin to "liberty". In my opinion, which I am sure will be disagreed with vehemently but that is fine, people differ, that cheapens the concept of and intent of liberty. There is no question that children cannot willingly, and should not at any time, be used to sexually gratify adults.

Agreed. But we're not talking about children. We're talking about drawings.

There is *no* issue of liberty in that debate. When it comes to other things, gay marriage (which I support), legalizing certain narcotics (which I support), and even shockingly enough multiple partner marriages (which I support), those things do involve adults, who are supposed to have liberty. I'm not playing morality cop, here, or thought cop as I have been accused of several times. I simply do not see how being able to use children (or depictions of them...and by that I don't mean women dressed in school girl uniforms or "age play" amongst adults; I mean depictions of minor human beings as well as animals, by the way, both of which cannot legally consent but people for some reason get turned on by) in sexual positions to gratify adults is at all an issue of liberty. I like to think we are a smarter and more advanced society than that.

Yet, even though VCP involves only adults, you've decided it's off-limits.
There are no actual children (or animals!) involved. Do you object that the paper and pencil cannot consent? The pixels?

 

[JFrankA]

A pornographic creation depicting children, real or otherwise, can have different intents, but if the work as a whole is no different than what would be found in a "real" child pornographic film,

I want to focus on this part because this seems to be the focus of your point.

There IS a difference. Major one. Let me explain why.

Someone who might enjoy virtual child porn may not enjoy real child porn. I know a lot of people who enjoy slasher films but would not enjoy seeing a real person getting killed.

I see no valid reason for it to be considered somehow "special", when the intent is obviously the same. And because those studies have not been done, and cannot ethically be done, and when they HAVE been done they haven't thus far differentiated as people here seem to insist on doing, then it seems to me that the law *does* have the burden to err on the side of caution, rather than liberty for adults. Remember, children aren't granted "liberty" as we are, as adults. [/quote]

I'm sorry, SugarB, with your logic, then you also have condemned a couple who age plays as carrying out child molestation. If virtual child porn is off limits because the fantasy involves children, then age-play should be off limits too for exactly the same reason.

JFrankA brings up a few times the suggestion of a small scene in which the rape or exploitation of a child by a "villain" is utilized to create anger in the audience. I do not know why that is considered to be the type of thing I am referring to, because such a scene doesn't make a film/book/cartoon/whatever automatically pornographic...or Hollywood and Lifetime Movies should be in big time trouble.

This was to an example to SW of how a graphic VCP can NOT have an "intent to arouse", but still could be interpreted to be that way.

What about the joke I listed before? That is VCP.

I suppose that I simply do not see why anyone would equate a particular thing involving children (depicted or otherwise) in "adult" situations, being used by adults essentially, as something akin to "liberty".

Because VCP is NOT the same as real child porn. Not at all. And too many other freedoms are taken away by banning VCP. I've listed them in my statement to SW above.

Further, when does it end? You think it might end with children, but SW wants to have it keep going with rape.

I'm sorry, SugarB, I don't mean to sound rude or mean, but because you find the fantasy disgusting doesn't mean that others do and if it stays in fantasy, why should you poke your nose into other person's fantasy?

In my opinion, which I am sure will be disagreed with vehemently but that is fine, people differ, that cheapens the concept of and intent of liberty. There is no question that children cannot willingly, and should not at any time, be used to sexually gratify adults.

Real child, yes. A made up child? How can you protect the rights of someone who doesn't exist?

There is *no* issue of liberty in that debate.

Yes there is. A big one. You are mixing reality with fantasy. Do you see that?

When it comes to other things, gay marriage (which I support), legalizing certain narcotics (which I support), and even shockingly enough multiple partner marriages (which I support), those things do involve adults, who are supposed to have liberty. I'm not playing morality cop, here, or thought cop as I have been accused of several times. I simply do not see how being able to use children (or depictions of them...and by that I don't mean women dressed in school girl uniforms or "age play" amongst adults; I mean depictions of minor human beings as well as animals, by the way, both of which cannot legally consent but people for some reason get turned on by) in sexual positions to gratify adults is at all an issue of liberty. I like to think we are a smarter and more advanced society than that.

But don't you see? If a husband and wife age play all the time, and the husband writes a story or draws a picture or whatever of a fantasy that he wants to do with his wife, you have condemned both of them.

An adult dressing up like a child to age play is virtual child sex. It's exactly the same thing. Why? Because it's fantasy, plain and simple. If an adult is age playing a child molestation scene with another adult, what's the difference between that and an adult writing about it? Or making a cartoon?

I'm sorry, SugarB, you are mixing reality with fantasy.