The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?

[Dave1001]

What should be legal to own, what shouldn't, and why?
By child I mean someone under the age of 18. Feel free to make a separate distinction for someone under the age of 16, and under the age of 14.

1. erotic stories depicting child sex, with no illustrations or voices.
2. audio erotic stories depicting child sex, with an adult actor portraying a child's voice.
3. audio erotic stories depicting child sex, with a child actor's voice portraying a child.
4. Cartoons depicting child sex with no voices.
5. Cartoons depicting child sex, voiced by adult actors pretending to be children.
6. Cartoons depicting child sex, voiced by child actors.
7. live action pornography, with adults pretending to be children.
8. live action pornography, with children engaging only in simulated sex.
9. live action pornography, with children actuall having sex.

My own take: everything should be legal except #'s 3, 6, 8, & 9.

I'm also open to rasing the age at which anyone can consent to any of the things in #'s 3, 6, 8, &9 to 30 (and considering that the "adult" age for this purpose), because I think older people have a strong exploitation motivation to use less wise, younger people for sexual gratification. However, I would also envision an exception for someone that got two independent psychiatrists to produce an opinion that they are making mature, informed decision for their voice or image to be used for sexual media. That would hold for people as young as 18.

[hammegk]

Are you related to Genghis Pwn?

[Pyrrho]

If there weren't so many pervs running around, it wouldn't be a problem, but there are, so it is.

[Zygar]

I'm worried about you Dave. I really hope you don't live within 100 miles of me.

[Mycroft]

My own take: everything should be legal except #'s 3, 6, 8, & 9.

I tend to agree with you. So long as no children are actually involved in the production, it should be a freedom of speech issue.

At the same time, I think there will always be grey areas. What about a production of Romeo & Juliet where the main characters were 14 and 13 respectively, and played by actors of that age? I can see that making some people feel uncomfortable, and others being okay with it.

[geni]

At the same time, I think there will always be grey areas. What about a production of Romeo & Juliet where the main characters were 14 and 13 respectively, and played by actors of that age? I can see that making some people feel uncomfortable, and others being okay with it.

No actual sex though.

[brodski]

What about a production of Romeo & Juliet where the main characters were 14 and 13 respectively, and played by actors of that age? I can see that making some people feel uncomfortable, and others being okay with it.

It wouldn't be much worse than what you see on some soap operas and kids TV.

[clarsct]

What should be legal to own, what shouldn't, and why?
By child I mean someone under the age of 18. Feel free to make a separate distinction for someone under the age of 16, and under the age of 14.

1. erotic stories depicting child sex, with no illustrations or voices.
2. audio erotic stories depicting child sex, with an adult actor portraying a child's voice.
3. audio erotic stories depicting child sex, with a child actor's voice portraying a child.
4. Cartoons depicting child sex with no voices.
5. Cartoons depicting child sex, voiced by adult actors pretending to be children.
6. Cartoons depicting child sex, voiced by child actors.
7. live action pornography, with adults pretending to be children.
8. live action pornography, with children engaging only in simulated sex.
9. live action pornography, with children actuall having sex.

My own take: everything should be legal except #'s 3, 6, 8, & 9.

I'm also open to rasing the age at which anyone can consent to any of the things in #'s 3, 6, 8, &9 to 30 (and considering that the "adult" age for this purpose), because I think older people have a strong exploitation motivation to use less wise, younger people for sexual gratification. However, I would also envision an exception for someone that got two independent psychiatrists to produce an opinion that they are making mature, informed decision for their voice or image to be used for sexual media. That would hold for people as young as 18.

All of those thing would be considered pornographic, actually.

3,6,8, and 9 are obviously the worst of the bunch.
1,2,4,5 are things I would find questionable, borderline, if you will. It really depends on what you consider child sex. Child on child, child on adult, 6 mo old, 6 years, 16 years? Animals, BDSM...there are infinite variations that may dismay and shock some Americans.
I would think it would be a matter of degree.

7 is probably the most interesting one, as the 'Catholic Schoolgirl' fantasy has been a part of mainstream media for quite some time, now, as has the 'Cheerleader' fantasy. Hustler makes quite a bit of money with their 'Barely Legal' magazine. While this is pornographic, I doubt even the wiliest prosecutor could make a child porn charge stick.

This is really about what society considers normal. In ancient Greece, it was normal for a man to have sex with a young boy. Then again, a lot of what those Greeks called 'normal' would be considered vicious and barbaric by our own standards.

In short, all are pornographic. Even skirting the edges of Child Porn is considered unacceptable behavior. On any but 7, you could, conceivably, face charges for it. You also have to account for numbers. How many of these are owned? Do you have a questionable file, or 3,000 of them? A pattern of behavior is taken into account.

[Kiwiwriter]

I agree with that Supreme Court Justice who said, "I can't define it in words, but I know it when I see it."

And as the father of a nine-year-old girl, I am infuriated by its mere existence.

My old high school, Stuyvesant HS in New York, had an assistant principal recently named Richard Plass. He ran the Biology Department, and drew rave reviews for his ability to win the school a lot of Westinghouse/Intel scholarships. He also drew a lot of red flags for allegedly harassing kids sexually.

The fertilizer hit the air conditioner when it was discovered that he had forced girls to watch dirty videos and would masturbate while in the presence of both. He got fired, fined, and lost his teaching license. He didn't lost his pension or his liberty, so he can go on the web all day long at the public's expense and trawl for playmates.

The other punch line: even though he had a lot of red flags, he was at the top of the list to become school principal when the incumbent retired.

When I heard about this, I was enraged. The school tolerated this pervert and was going to promote him, because he brought in the scholarship money.

I told my fellow alumni in that discussion group (how I learned of this) that if Mr. Plass did anything to my little daughter, the lawsuit would be the least of his concerns. Eating solid food would be the biggest.

I have no tolerance for child pornography or pornographers.

And that's all I have to say about that.

[Roadtoad]

Sorry, with so many freaks and pervs running around, I would have to go with banning all of the above. It's not worth the risk of even suggesting to them that child/adult sex is acceptable.

[geni]

All of those are potentialy illegal in the UK.

1 is availible on the net and appears to be accepted as legal under US law. 7 is legal under US law.

4 is going to be the one that the next fight is likely to arise over since the level of CG availible to the home user is increaseing fast.

[Merko]

I think there are legitimate reasons for writing fiction involving sex with minors. Incest victims may want to do it to get it down on paper. Probably wouldn't be that 'erotic' but I'm sure some people would turn on a lot reading such stories.

Anyway, I'm no expert on pedophilia. I don't know if reading child porn is likely to make people commit actual crimes. Obviously there is a correlation, but it might just be that some people will realise that there's something wrong if they keep reading such stories, and seek help. Well, I don't know. But I do know that some people do seek help. And that should definitely be encouraged.

[steverino]

This is really about what society considers normal. In ancient Greece, it was normal for a man to have sex with a young boy. Then again, a lot of what those Greeks called 'normal' would be considered vicious and barbaric by our own standards.

Not just in ancient Greece. When we were married, my exwife worked for the Catholic Archiocese of Chicago and we were well aware of certain priests that Cardinal Bernardin, and his crew, shifted from one city or suburban parish to another. Father Robert Mayer was a well-known sex-abuser, and we knew about it years before he was jailed. I would say there was a tacit acceptability of his behavior. In other words, it was "normal." This is however no longer the case in Chicago. And yes, there were/are such rabbi's and ministers, too. Merry Christmas.

[afinemadness]

It is actually very simple. If the word child is involved it is wrong. If an adult has any sexual contact with a child he or she should suffer the consequences. Let's face fact 16 years olds will match up themselves and there in not much we can do but in no way should an adult have contact with a child.

[The Atheist]

I'm worried about you Dave. I really hope you don't live within 100 miles of me.Phew. Well I know he doesn't live within five THOUSAND miles of me, and I could not be happier about that. There are plenty of sickos live here anyway, our quota's full.

I'm gonna keep this short and sweet.

Child pornography: ZERO tolerance. The end.

[pipelineaudio]

number 7 is every horror flick ever made

[steverino]

number 7 is every horror flick ever made

:D Wish I'd have thought of that! Merry Christmas Pipeline.

[Merko]

Child pornography: ZERO tolerance. The end.

I don't think this kind of thinking is very helpful. I've read a few child porn stories to try and understand the mentality of these people. There basically seems to be two kinds of stories doing the rounds. The first one claims to be about children, but the "children" really behave like adults. The second, even more sickening form, is where the children behave like you'd expect raped children to behave. Eg, they don't exhibit any sex drive in the stories. I'd figure those who like the second kind of stories must be far more dangerous, while the first ones would probably just be likely to perform some role-play with their (adult) partners. After all, if you expect a sexual response from your partner, you're just not going to get it from a child. Of course, if they are really confused as well, they might still try it.

Anyway, I'm not saying that this kind of really obvious child porn stories are being of any great service to humanity. Not sure if I think the mere possession of one should be enough to put someone in jail or attach the stigma of pedophilia to them.

The problem comes with borderline cases. Henri Charriere's Papillon contains some fairly graphic scene where he has intercourse with a young girl (who becomes pregnant, don't remember her age, but definitely far below what would be considered acceptable). Yet the idea of banning this book seems very wrong to me. I think there's something in Casanova's memoirs that would also definitely classify as child porn. Stuffed in between all the stories where he rapes grown up women or pays prostitutes for sex.. it's really hard to imagine how he could go down in history as a great seducer if you see how he really describes himself. But banning it? Nah.

[The Atheist]

I don't think this kind of thinking is very helpful. I've read a few child porn stories to try and understand the mentality of these people
.... snip...
Stuffed in between all the stories where he rapes grown up women or pays prostitutes for sex.. it's really hard to imagine how he could go down in history as a great seducer if you see how he really describes himself. But banning it? Nah.
I think we actually agree entirely.

I wouldn't advocate banning Papillon either - context is important. Like a film censor, sex and violence have their place - in context. In some fiction, all sorts of perversion are quite acceptable. Stephen King's a very popular bloke and he has used child-porn-like scenes in several of his books. I wouldn't ban them either.

When the child sex acts are the story, it's a problem.

[Dave1001]

I think we actually agree entirely.

I wouldn't advocate banning Papillon either - context is important. Like a film censor, sex and violence have their place - in context. In some fiction, all sorts of perversion are quite acceptable. Stephen King's a very popular bloke and he has used child-porn-like scenes in several of his books. I wouldn't ban them either.

When the child sex acts are the story, it's a problem.

Well, I'm sure there's plenty of people in the world who'd call you a sicko just as you've called me in this thread based on this post of yours, given that you support keeping "perverted" child sex scenes that happen to be in fiction legal (so would I).

How about fiction written by an adult for an audience of other adults, that solely consists child sex erotic stories, without any expressed purpose of education, rape prevention, therapy, or art -the sole purpose is for erotic stimulation of the author and adult audience. That's what I meant in #1. Do you think such stories should be illegal? Or do they need to pass a threshold test of only being a certain percentage of a larger story or of plausibly being for some non-erotic purpose such as rape prevention education? I'll open up this question to the rest of the thread participants too.

Personally, I support such stories being 100% legal. I think it's our actions that harm or intrude on the privacy or liberties of others that the state should regulate, not the thoughts we think, or the thoughts adults share with other consenting adults -and erotic stories are nothing more than collections of thoughts.

[This is, however, of course different than adults communicating with each other as part of a conspiracy to engage in sex acts with actual children. I do support the state making certain types of conspiracies illegal, even if no one has yet been harmed, and I do support the state using communications (reflecting thoughts) as evidence to prove such conspiracies.]

[EGarrett]

Okay:

A story that's meant to entertain, inform, or enlighten that has children involved in sexual/romantic relationships with other children, or even adults in a pure storytelling/enlightening sense.

Not okay:

A story that's meant to sexually stimulate the viewer. I.E. pornography.

The story showing a child having sex with an adult is fine until they have a "steamy sex scene" in it...the moment it crosses over into something that's meant to sexually stimulate...it becomes Not Okay in my book.

[Merko]

Do you think such stories should be illegal?

I don't think it would help to make them illegal. But that doesn't really mean I have to like them. Like I said, I don't know if reading such stories makes a person more or less likely to commit crimes. Maybe it depends on the stories.

I have a feeling that the best way may be to allow these stories, but to try and ensure that they are offered along with helpful information for where people can turn in case they feel that they are getting obsessed with this kind of stories. And of course, to always make it very clear that these accounts are fictional, and that the actions depicted are not acceptable.

[pipelineaudio]

You guys have just condemned friday the 13th and nightmare on elm street for sure

[steverino]

... try and ensure that they are offered along with helpful information for where people can turn in case they feel that they are getting obsessed with this kind of stories. And of course, to always make it very clear that these accounts are fictional, and that the actions depicted are not acceptable.

My first job was moving furniture for ten bucks cash an hour. The moving van had two bucket seats, but I was new, and had to sit in the folding chair wedged between them. As soon as we got on the road, before 8am, the young driver cracked open his first in a series of beers. He and his pal on my right spit chewing tobacco God-knows-where while cussing out people of color. I was wedged between two “good ol’ boys” with no seat belt or airbag to save my life. Those large screen TV’s are really heavy, besides. That job lasted a week.


WARNING LABELS...YES![SIZE="6"] Like cigarettes have. Merko. I think you've got it!

Written on the pink g-string panties the 7 year-old girl is wearing it should say, "WARNING": "This article of clothing is in no way meant to sexually arouse the adult male. Nor is it to sexualize the wearer in any way that will burden her with issues when she matures."

[Dave1001]

Okay:

A story that's meant to entertain, inform, or enlighten that has children involved in sexual/romantic relationships with other children, or even adults in a pure storytelling/enlightening sense.

Not okay:

A story that's meant to sexually stimulate the viewer. I.E. pornography.

The story showing a child having sex with an adult is fine until they have a "steamy sex scene" in it...the moment it crosses over into something that's meant to sexually stimulate...it becomes Not Okay in my book.

The easy question is okay vs. not okay. The harder question for most is should be legal vs. shouldn't be legal.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

What should be legal to own, what shouldn't, and why?
By child I mean someone under the age of 18. Feel free to make a separate distinction for someone under the age of 16, and under the age of 14.

1. erotic stories depicting child sex, with no illustrations or voices.
2. audio erotic stories depicting child sex, with an adult actor portraying a child's voice.
3. audio erotic stories depicting child sex, with a child actor's voice portraying a child.
4. Cartoons depicting child sex with no voices.
5. Cartoons depicting child sex, voiced by adult actors pretending to be children.
6. Cartoons depicting child sex, voiced by child actors.
7. live action pornography, with adults pretending to be children.
8. live action pornography, with children engaging only in simulated sex.
9. live action pornography, with children actuall having sex.

My own take: everything should be legal except #'s 3, 6, 8, & 9.

I'm also open to rasing the age at which anyone can consent to any of the things in #'s 3, 6, 8, &9 to 30 (and considering that the "adult" age for this purpose), because I think older people have a strong exploitation motivation to use less wise, younger people for sexual gratification. However, I would also envision an exception for someone that got two independent psychiatrists to produce an opinion that they are making mature, informed decision for their voice or image to be used for sexual media. That would hold for people as young as 18.

That erotica involving children is reprehensible is obvious.

SCOTUS* decided that child pornography laws can have penalties harsher than "mere" obscenity laws, and that the first and ninth amendment rights to free speech/freedom of the press and privacy are not as protected. They did this on the basis that obscenity is consensual, but in child pornography there are minors who are victims. Thus, they distinguished between "normal" pornography and child pornography on the basis of underage participants.

So 3, 6, 8 and nine are child pornography and carry the higher penalties and abridged rights. The rest, if they are illegal at all, fall under the obscenity laws. Whether they are illegal depends on local laws. Whether they can be prosecuted depends on privacy and free speech/freedom of the press rights.

*SCOTUS = the Supreme Court Of The United States

[Piscivore]

Your categories are insufficient.

1. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1b. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1c. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1d. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1e. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1f. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1g. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1h. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.

1i. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1j. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1k. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1l. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1m. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1n. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1o. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1p. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.

1q. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1r. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1s. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1t. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1u. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1v. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1w. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1x. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.

1y. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1z. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1aa. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1bb. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1cc. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1dd. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1ee. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1ff. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.

2. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2b. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2c. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2d. Audio only readings or performances of not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2e. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2f. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2g. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2h. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.

3. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3b. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3c. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3d. Audio only readings or performances of not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3e. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3f. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3g. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3h. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.

4. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.
4c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.
4e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly child-child sex, without sound.
4g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.

5. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.

6. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.

7. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7b. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7c. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7d. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7e. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7f. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7g. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7h. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.

8. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minor actors en scene.
8b. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minor actors en scene.
8c. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8d. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8e. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene.
8f. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly child-child sex, using minors en scene.
8g. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8h. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.


9. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9b. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9c. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9d. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.

10. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex.
10b. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex.
10c. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex.
10d. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex.

10e. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex using adult actors.
10f. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex using adult actors.
10g. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex using adult actors.
10h. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex using adult actors.

10i. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors.
10j. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors.
10k. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors engaging only in simulated sex.
10l. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors engaging only in simulated sex.
10m. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors performing real sex acts.
10n. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors performing real sex acts.

I did not feel that there is any useful reason to distinguish between real or simulated sex acts in situations where only adults were involved, so those were omitted.

[The Atheist]

Holy crap!

How long did it take to come up with that?

[jimtron]

Sorry, with so many freaks and pervs running around, I would have to go with banning all of the above. It's not worth the risk of even suggesting to them that child/adult sex is acceptable.

Even Nabokov's "Lolita"?

eta: I believe that would fall under:

1. erotic stories depicting child sex, with no illustrations or voices.

[Marquis de Carabas]

It all boils down to one simple question: was a child harmed during the creation of the material? If yes, then it should be illegal. If no, then it should be legal, however repulsive it may be.

My work here is done. You lot have a lovely time defining harm now.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It all boils down to one simple question: was a child harmed during the creation of the material? If yes, then it should be illegal. If no, then it should be legal, however repulsive it may be.

My work here is done. You lot have a lovely time defining harm now.

What he said.

Except that in addition, harm must be demonstrated with actual evidence. No copouts like "but I just know that voice acting a sex scene will be harmful!", or "We could never gather such evidence because to do so we would have to allow children to voice act sex scenes, and we just know that will be harmful!".

We had a long and acrimonious thread about age of consent laws not too long ago, and the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

(Just to head off one inevitable response, underage pregnancy and STDs cause harm. Feel free to criminalise impregnating or infecting underage people. Sex does not, so criminalising it cannot be justified).

As long as no actual children are coerced or forced into unwanted sexual activities, there is no basis in the available evidence to criminalise the production or possession of erotica involving underage characters.

As I think I have remarked before, laws criminalising the creation or possession of such material are in reality an excuse to lock up people who want to have sex with children. Society as an aggregate wants to lock such people up or kill them, but is constrained by the need to work within a rule of law, so we criminalise any thing we can think of that marks a person as a paedophile even if in and of itself that thing is harmless. These are thought crimes, not crimes of harm to another person.

Does this mean I want sexual predators running around loose? Of course not. I can't support dumb laws that make harmless non-predators into criminals though, even if those laws might sometimes have the happy effect of locking up someone who might actually coerce or force a real person into unwanted sexual acts.

[The Atheist]

It all boils down to one simple question: was a child harmed during the creation of the material? If yes, then it should be illegal. If no, then it should be legal, however repulsive it may be.

My work here is done. You lot have a lovely time defining harm now.On that basis, written stories featuring any kind of child sex is ok, along with pictures of naked children? After all, no children are harmed by having their photo taken, are they?

Animated cartoons of child rape are fine, no kids are harmed during that, either.

Are you serious?

[Marquis de Carabas]

On that basis, written stories featuring any kind of child sex is ok, along with pictures of naked children? After all, no children are harmed by having their photo taken, are they?
That depends upon whether your definition of harm includes exploitation.

The written material itself, I have no (legal) quarrel against.

Animated cartoons of child rape are fine, no kids are harmed during that, either.
Animated cartoons of child rape should be legal. Whether children should be used to voice said films gets back to exploitation and the definition of harm.

Are you serious?
Yes.

[The Atheist]

What he said.Oh boy, where do I begin to answer such a delightfully put defence of paedophile grooming?

You would have gone down well at Centrepoint commune (http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=1844).

Hell, eight year olds girls can probably say yes to sex if they're properly groomed first - so they say yes when asked if they'd like to have sex. After all, they're not going to be harmed are they?

It's a good christian defence (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10335923) in child-rape cases, too - say that it was consensual. "Hey, she said yes! So she's only 9 or 10, but yes means yes, right?"

Wrong.

I hope you're not a parent, because I'd like to think that you may change your mind if you had kids and I'd really like you to change the way you think.

Regardless of what you see as a good or bad thing, regardless of whether it's biblical claptrap to have these laws, regardless of whether you think it's outrageous mores of the few being foisted onto all, you are wrong.

I've been heartened by the positive response to this and the sexualisation of kids threads and support I'm getting from groups around me that the vast majority of parents feel the same way I do. If you don't like that, or feel it's somehow unfair, unjust or illogical, I can tell you that we, as parents, don't give a flying Tasmanian Devil for your desire to allow child porn. Fortunately, from a legal standpoint - and one which isn't going to be relaxed anytime soon - you are in the minority and the laws of your country and mine both have extremely harsh penalties for breaking those laws. The fact that someone with such a stupidly liberal attitude disagrees with the introduction and enforcement of those laws is music to my ears.

Two types of people could speak against those laws - child molesters and think, childless liberals.

Which one are you?

[The Atheist]

That depends upon whether your definition of harm includes exploitation.

The written material itself, I have no (legal) quarrel against.


Animated cartoons of child rape should be legal. Whether children should be used to voice said films gets back to exploitation and the definition of harm.


Yes.I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed.

I have two questions:

Are you a parent?

Do you think acceptance of your level of child-porn would increase, decrease, or leave unchanged, sexual assaults on children. And why?

So make it three questions. Or answer any two...

[Dave1001]

That erotica involving children is reprehensible is obvious.

SCOTUS* decided that child pornography laws can have penalties harsher than "mere" obscenity laws, and that the first and ninth amendment rights to free speech/freedom of the press and privacy are not as protected. They did this on the basis that obscenity is consensual, but in child pornography there are minors who are victims. Thus, they distinguished between "normal" pornography and child pornography on the basis of underage participants.

So 3, 6, 8 and nine are child pornography and carry the higher penalties and abridged rights. The rest, if they are illegal at all, fall under the obscenity laws. Whether they are illegal depends on local laws. Whether they can be prosecuted depends on privacy and free speech/freedom of the press rights.

*SCOTUS = the Supreme Court Of The United States

That's a helpful summary of what the current state of the law is, but I'm interested in discussing what people think the law should be. Do you have an opinion on what you think the law should be?

[Dave1001]

Your categories are insufficient.

<googol-snip>



You're right. To make the thread easier, I was assuming everything listed in my OP was 100% erotic material, not part of some larger art-piece.

[Dave1001]

What he said.

Except that in addition, harm must be demonstrated with actual evidence. No copouts like "but I just know that voice acting a sex scene will be harmful!", or "We could never gather such evidence because to do so we would have to allow children to voice act sex scenes, and we just know that will be harmful!".

We had a long and acrimonious thread about age of consent laws not too long ago, and the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

(Just to head off one inevitable response, underage pregnancy and STDs cause harm. Feel free to criminalise impregnating or infecting underage people. Sex does not, so criminalising it cannot be justified).

As long as no actual children are coerced or forced into unwanted sexual activities, there is no basis in the available evidence to criminalise the production or possession of erotica involving underage characters.

As I think I have remarked before, laws criminalising the creation or possession of such material are in reality an excuse to lock up people who want to have sex with children. Society as an aggregate wants to lock such people up or kill them, but is constrained by the need to work within a rule of law, so we criminalise any thing we can think of that marks a person as a paedophile even if in and of itself that thing is harmless. These are thought crimes, not crimes of harm to another person.

Does this mean I want sexual predators running around loose? Of course not. I can't support dumb laws that make harmless non-predators into criminals though, even if those laws might sometimes have the happy effect of locking up someone who might actually coerce or force a real person into unwanted sexual acts.

Wow, you're staking out a much more socially difficult position than I have thus far. I remember reading about Bill Maher positively discussing a study that consensual sex between children and adults doesn't harm children. If empiricism does indeed rigorously show that such sex doesn't harm children, then it will be a far edge example of the difficulty in giving empiricism primacy over prejudice in policy-making. I admit I find it hard to believe myself that sexual contact between adults and children isn't harmful-- for normal socialization into American society as much as anything else. But, I do think there's value in listening to and being open to influence from the best of what science can tell us.

[Marquis de Carabas]

I have to say that I'm extremely disappointed.

I have two questions:

Are you a parent?
I had nearly answered this one preemptively, as I figured it would come. I am not a parent.

Do you think acceptance of your level of child-porn would increase, decrease, or leave unchanged, sexual assaults on children. And why?
Honestly, I have no idea. I can imagine arguments for any of the three, but have evidence for none. However, I am not comfortable with the idea that x should be a crime solely because it raises incidence rates of y, which is a crime.

[Dave1001]

However, I am not comfortable with the idea that x should be a crime solely because it raises incidence rates of y, which is a crime.

I'm not either, but I do think there has to be some sort of civil liberties slack, attached to the degree to which X, by raising incidence rates of Y, undermines the rule of law and the ability for society to maintain our civil liberties generally. Example: a "kill the federal judges" song so propagandistically effective that it will incite members of the general population to kill federal judges in numbers that makes it impossible for rule of law to be maintained. I'd be open to such a song (that was or had the potential to truly be that effective) being banned.

So far though any example like that I can think of appears to be theoretical, with the possible exceptions of consolidated ownership of media and certain types of industries, and private ownership of weapons of a certain threshhold power (biological, nuclear).

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

That's a helpful summary of what the current state of the law is, but I'm interested in discussing what people think the law should be. Do you have an opinion on what you think the law should be?


I have a problem with a question such as that. It is easy to speak of what society's ideals should be, but laws are another matter. Laws have to be clear and objective, with fine but bright-line distinctions.

For example, saying that a person must be mature enough to consent, and that there must not be undue influence is an example of society's ideal. Declaring that under the law those conditions do not occur if the one person is less than a certain age and if the other person is in one or more of several authoritative relationships over her, or if the one person is under a certain younger age regardless of her relationship with the other person, is the way to turn that ideal into a law. But then, the law declares that any situation on the other side of the law's arbitrary bright-line distinctions is legal.

Having said that, however, I believe that SCOTUS has struck the proper balance. In situations with an actual minor victim, it is appropriate to have an additional law with harsher penalties and "reduced" rights. In situations without such victims, a different set of rules should apply.

In practice, the justice behind society's ideal shines behind the arbitrary but precise nature of the law in several human ways. Police are likely to investigate obscenity cases which meet the "society's ideal's" definition of child pornography, but not the law's, more vigorously than other obscenity, district attorneys prosecute them more vigorously, juries are more likely to convict, and judges to hand down harsher sentences.

Should all of your examples that don't meet the law's bright-line definition of child pornography be declared illegal obscenity? I don't know, but I'm inclined to say that if there are any obscenity laws in the jurisdiction, then yes. Should they all be lumped into the same category as examples of the worst kind of obscenity, and all be subject to the heightened consequences mentioned in the last paragraph? Probably not, mainly because examples 1 and 2 are only words, and we have a tradition of protecting words, even dangerous words.

[EGarrett]

The easy question is okay vs. not okay. The harder question for most is should be legal vs. shouldn't be legal.Okay = Legal.
Not Okay = Illegal.

I had to study obscenity law in college and I also do some work in the movie business...so the question isn't difficult at all, actually.

[Piscivore]

Holy crap!

How long did it take to come up with that?

About 10 minutes. Cut and paste is your friend.

[Piscivore]

I'm not either, but I do think there has to be some sort of civil liberties slack,

You still haven't answered me in the other thread about civl liberties, you know.

All civil liberties will have limits. They must, as they approach the liberties of others. It is up to society to draw that line, which is why it is useless to ask about "shoulds" in these cases- each "should" represents a single person's opinion, and enacting laws based only on a single person's opinion- especially where that opinion does not jibe with the rest of society- usually tends towards tyranny.

[Dave1001]

You still haven't answered me in the other thread about civl liberties, you know.

All civil liberties will have limits. They must, as they approach the liberties of others. It is up to society to draw that line, which is why it is useless to ask about "shoulds" in these cases- each "should" represents a single person's opinion, and enacting laws based only on a single person's opinion- especially where that opinion does not jibe with the rest of society- usually tends towards tyranny.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the law should be enacted based on only a single person's opinion. That doesn't preclude us from sharing our opinions on what the law should be with each other.

[Piscivore]

You're right. To make the thread easier, I was assuming everything listed in my OP was 100% erotic material, not part of some larger art-piece.

That's a dangerous assumption to make, because you're getting into subjective territory there. "Justine" contains a very high percentage of explicit material, including graphically described rape, torture and murder of females as young as ten. The protagonist suffers most of the humiliations and degredations to be found on the internet today.

However, it was not written as "erotic"- although some people will undoubtably find it so- but as a scathing criticism of some of the prevailing philosophies of the age.

If you fail to keep these myriad of distinctions in mind always, you leave yourself open to errors of generalisation.

[Piscivore]

I don't think anyone here is arguing that the law should be enacted based on only a single person's opinion. That doesn't preclude us from sharing our opinions on what the law should be with each other.

That you thought so was not clear on the other thread. Thanks.

I really hope you will answer my central question over there, because I'd really like to know.

[Dave1001]

Should all of your examples that don't meet the law's bright-line definition of child pornography be declared illegal obscenity? I don't know, but I'm inclined to say that if there are any obscenity laws in the jurisdiction, then yes. Should they all be lumped into the same category as examples of the worst kind of obscenity, and all be subject to the heightened consequences mentioned in the last paragraph? Probably not, mainly because examples 1 and 2 are only words, and we have a tradition of protecting words, even dangerous words.

It's a different question of whether private ownership of obscenity, or distribution of obscenity between consenting adults should even be illegal. I don't think it shoud be illegal. I think that those thread participants like me that think 1, 2, 4, 5, & 7 should be legal probably feel the same way as me about private ownership of obscenity (and distribution of it between consenting adults). With exceptions carved out for media that arguably records the actual exploitation of people, their estates and belongings, or other sentient beings (child sex, beastiality, secret video recordings of nonconsenting people, actual rape, etc.)

[Dave1001]

Okay = Legal.
Not Okay = Illegal.

I had to study obscenity law in college and I also do some work in the movie business...so the question isn't difficult at all, actually.

Got it. So you think that possession of a written fictional story where a child has sex, written purely for erotic stimuation of the reader, shoud be illegal?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Oh boy, where do I begin to answer such a delightfully put defence of paedophile grooming?

You would have gone down well at Centrepoint commune (http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=1844).

Hell, eight year olds girls can probably say yes to sex if they're properly groomed first - so they say yes when asked if they'd like to have sex. After all, they're not going to be harmed are they?

The usual thing in scientific studies is to use some formulation like "consensual and not causing distress". So assuming you can find instances of eight year olds involved in consensual (in the English and not the legal sense) sexual relationships which do not cause them distress, and frankly I think the idea is far-fetched, then point to the evidence that such relationships are harmful.

After all, you're not going to assume what you need to prove are you?


It's a good christian defence (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10335923) in child-rape cases, too - say that it was consensual. "Hey, she said yes! So she's only 9 or 10, but yes means yes, right?"

Wrong.


In such cases I would treat the claim that consent was freely given and that no distress was caused with great skepticism. However, if you insist that such consensual relationships actually exist and are not merely a fantasy of yours, then just present evidence they are harmful and I will happily agree that they should be criminal.


I hope you're not a parent, because I'd like to think that you may change your mind if you had kids and I'd really like you to change the way you think.

Regardless of what you see as a good or bad thing, regardless of whether it's biblical claptrap to have these laws, regardless of whether you think it's outrageous mores of the few being foisted onto all, you are wrong.

Then you should have no problem finding the evidence to support your claim.

Around here just chanting "You're wrong! It's wrong!" is not considered a valid argument in and of itself.


I've been heartened by the positive response to this and the sexualisation of kids threads and support I'm getting from groups around me that the vast majority of parents feel the same way I do. If you don't like that, or feel it's somehow unfair, unjust or illogical, I can tell you that we, as parents, don't give a flying Tasmanian Devil for your desire to allow child porn. Fortunately, from a legal standpoint - and one which isn't going to be relaxed anytime soon - you are in the minority and the laws of your country and mine both have extremely harsh penalties for breaking those laws. The fact that someone with such a stupidly liberal attitude disagrees with the introduction and enforcement of those laws is music to my ears.


Here you've gotten completely off the point. We get that you feel strongly about the issue, but that is not evidence. The fact that by an amazing coincidence you are parroting current cultural norms and I am not is not evidence either. The fact that you get a visceral kick out of parroting them is also not evidence.


Two types of people could speak against those laws - child molesters and think, childless liberals.

Which one are you?

Obviously logic is not your strong suit. Why can't I be both?

Let's get back to the point however. If the things you want to criminalise actually cause harm it should be easy enough to show. Underage sex, child molestation and child pornography all exist and their effects or lack thereof can be studied objectively. In fact they have been.

I realise this is one of the few topics you are socially licensed to get dogmatic and vicious about, and that getting dogmatic and vicious is fun once in a while. It's no substitute for evidence though. So just hop off that high horse, do a bit of research for a change, and come back when you have actual evidence that (fill in the blank) causes actual harm to actual people.

Find that evidence and I will be happy to criminalise whatever.

(I'm getting one of my psychic premonitions... I get the feeling someone is about to fail to present any evidence, because they have no evidence, and is going to attempt to shift the burden of proof instead. I get the feeling they are going to run the argument that because they are parroting social norms they are right by default and that therefore everyone but them is obliged to present evidence for their claims).

[Dave1001]

The usual thing in scientific studies ...

<snip>



great post! I'm only quoting the first few words so as not to spam the board with a long verbatim repeat.

[Piscivore]

I think that those thread participants like me... probably feel the same way as me about private ownership of obscenity. With exceptions carved out for media that arguably records the actual exploitation of people, their estates and belongings, or other sentient beings (secret video recordings of nonconsenting people)

This is actually a separate issue to child pornography and/or "obscenity". Are you lumping it in deliberately, or are you just doing so in error? Or have you just not expressed yourself well?

[Kevin_Lowe]

Wow, you're staking out a much more socially difficult position than I have thus far. I remember reading about Bill Maher positively discussing a study that consensual sex between children and adults doesn't harm children.


As I understand it, it would be more accurate to say that the evidence that consensual and non-distressing underage/overage sex causes harm does not rise to the level of statistical significance once you control for everything else.


If empiricism does indeed rigorously show that such sex doesn't harm children, then it will be a far edge example of the difficulty in giving empiricism primacy over prejudice in policy-making. I admit I find it hard to believe myself that sexual contact between adults and children isn't harmful-- for normal socialization into American society as much as anything else. But, I do think there's value in listening to and being open to influence from the best of what science can tell us.

I wouldn't say it has been rigorously shown to not harm children. I'd say that it has so far failed to be shown to be harmful once you control for correlated factors like broken homes, alcoholic parents and so forth.

Even so, I tend to think that we should spend public money writing and enforcing laws that have been shown to prevent actual harm, and not on writing and enforcing ones that based on the available evidence do no such thing. Criminalising fictional depictions of acts which have not been shown to cause harm is a double helping of foolishness.

[Piscivore]

As I understand it, it would be more accurate to say that the evidence that consensual and non-distressing underage/overage sex causes harm does not rise to the level of statistical significance once you control for everything else.

What are you considering as "harm" in this case?

I wouldn't say it has been rigorously shown to not harm children. I'd say that it has so far failed to be shown to be harmful once you control for correlated factors like broken homes, alcoholic parents and so forth.

How would one do that, exactly?

Even so, I tend to think that we should spend public money writing and enforcing laws that have been shown to prevent actual harm, and not on writing and enforcing ones that based on the available evidence do no such thing.
How many children need to be harmed to make it cost effective to outlaw it? Who gets to decide what constitutes harm? How much public money do we spend on working these things out?

[The Atheist]

I had nearly answered this one preemptively, as I figured it would come. I am not a parent.


Honestly, I have no idea. I can imagine arguments for any of the three, but have evidence for none. However, I am not comfortable with the idea that x should be a crime solely because it raises incidence rates of y, which is a crime.Thanks.

Look, I hope this doesn't sound like a trite comeback - even though I'm sure it will - but I really think your views might change if you were a father.

I feel that your views are too liberal, but you're certainly entitled to them

I wonder whether there's a little juxtaposition between your view that exploitation of an image might constitute "harm" and that if an increase in child-molestation resulted from legal kiddie-porn, the harm that the assaults unquestionably cause can be ignored.

[The Atheist]

(I'm getting one of my psychic premonitions... I get the feeling someone is about to fail to present any evidence, because they have no evidence, and is going to attempt to shift the burden of proof instead. I get the feeling they are going to run the argument that because they are parroting social norms they are right by default and that therefore everyone but them is obliged to present evidence for their claims).Sorry, but you miss the million bucks.

Are you friends with my buddy, unter?

What an idiot. Of course you'll get no evidence. THERE ISN'T ANY! And you damn well know it, hence your unassailable position from the rock of reason you're standing upojn. Speaking of parrots, before you start parroting the "evidence?" cry, open your eyes and realise that there not only is not any evidence, there can't be any. Unless you'd like to propose a study and volunteer? That's why I gave you the link to Bert Potter - he had exactly the same thoughts as you, groomed his prospects over many years then had completely consensual sex with them whem they were aged about 11 or 12. His evidence was unshakeable. He still went to jail. Strangely, while he was in there, he was caught distributing child-porn to other inmates. Harmless fun, eh?

None of those he had sex with felt they had had any harm done to them. They had grown up on a commune where it was socially acceptable behaviour and were not physically damaged. Once they entered society and saw society's attitudes to child sex, they became victims. I know one and my wife knows another of the victims of Bert Potter's lifelong grooming. Where is the crime? In the sex? Or society's attitudes? Those women will tell you that the crime is with Potter. But that, of course, isn't evidence, just an anecdote about a couple of women, now both well in their 30s who are still coming to grips with their pubescent years having been robbed from them by a cynical rapist.

Yeah, societal norms, what a load of crap.

You completely miss the point that children believe what they are taught to believe and just don't have the maturity to recognise harm as you so sweetly define it. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and those pesky old societal norms say that I'm right and you're wrong.

Hard luck.

[steverino]

Your categories are insufficient.

1. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1b. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1c. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1d. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1e. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1f. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.
1g. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with no illustrations.
1h. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with no illustrations.

1i. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1j. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1k. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1l. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1m. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1n. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1o. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.
1p. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with drawn or CG illustrations.

1q. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1r. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1s. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1t. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1u. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1v. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1w. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.
1x. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using only adult actors.

1y. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1z. Written stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1aa. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1bb. Written stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1cc. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1dd. Written stories centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1ee. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.
1ff. Written stories centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, with photo illustrations using minor actors.

2. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2b. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2c. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2d. Audio only readings or performances of not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2e. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2f. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2g. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving only adult actors.
2h. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving only adult actors.

3. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3b. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3c. Audio only readings or performances of stories not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3d. Audio only readings or performances of not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3e. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3f. Audio only readings or performances of centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3g. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
3h. Audio only readings or performances of centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, involving minor actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.

4. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.
4c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.
4e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly child-child sex, without sound.
4g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, without sound.
4h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, without sound.

5. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.
5h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, voiced only by adult actors.

6. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6b. Animated video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6c. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6d. Animated video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6e. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6f. Animated video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6g. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.
6h. Animated video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, including minor voice actors participating in scenes with sexual dialogue.

7. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7b. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7c. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7d. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7e. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7f. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7g. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.
7h. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using only adult actors or special effects.

8. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minor actors en scene.
8b. Live-action video not centered on, alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minor actors en scene.
8c. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8d. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8e. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene.
8f. Live-action video centered on, but not explicitly child-child sex, using minors en scene.
8g. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.
8h. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors en scene, engaging only in simulated sex.


9. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9b. Live-action video not centered on, but explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9c. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting adult-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.
9d. Live-action video centered on and explicitly depicting child-child sex, using minors performing real sex acts.

10. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex.
10b. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex.
10c. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex.
10d. Non-narrative or non-contextual drawn or CG illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex.

10e. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex using adult actors.
10f. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex using adult actors.
10g. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex using adult actors.
10h. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex using adult actors.

10i. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors.
10j. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations alluding to but not explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors.
10k. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors engaging only in simulated sex.
10l. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors engaging only in simulated sex.
10m. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting adult-child sex including minor actors performing real sex acts.
10n. Non-narrative or non-contextual photographic illustrations explicitly depicting child-child sex including minor actors performing real sex acts.

I did not feel that there is any useful reason to distinguish between real or simulated sex acts in situations where only adults were involved, so those were omitted.

I just wanted to test my computer to see if this would fit on it! DUDE!

[Dave1001]

This is actually a separate issue to child pornography and/or "obscenity". Are you lumping it in deliberately, or are you just doing so in error? Or have you just not expressed yourself well?

You brought in obscenity in discussing how the current law would impact what was discussed in the OP, and it called to mind these side issues which do conflate in some areas with obscenity and the law. I agree with the supreme court that one should be able to privately own and use obscene materials. I disagree with the supreme court that the government should be able to prohibit the sale and distribution of obscene materials between consenting adults.

[Piscivore]

Thanks.

Look, I hope this doesn't sound like a trite comeback - even though I'm sure it will - but I really think your views might change if you were a father.

Well, let me say that I am a father, and my eldest daughter is smack dab in the middle of the demographic under consideration. Not only that, if I may be forgiven a father's pride, she's shaping up to be a smoking hottie, George Hrab style (brains body both). Given all that, I agree wholeheartedly with everything our good Marquis has stated on this thread so far.

I feel that your views are too liberal, but you're certainly entitled to them
As are you entitled to be wrong. I love America! :p

I wonder whether there's a little juxtaposition between your view that exploitation of an image might constitute "harm"
You misread. He said exploitation in the creation of an image might constitute harm.

and that if an increase in child-molestation resulted from legal kiddie-porn, the harm that the assaults unquestionably cause can be ignored.
No, the harm could not be ignored. But you'd have to prove the causal link first, though. How do you propose to do that?

You brought in obscenity in discussing how the current law would impact what was discussed in the OP,
I don't recall mentioning obscenity.

and it called to mind these side issues which do conflate in some areas with obscenity and the law.
How, do you think, "record[ing] the actual exploitation of people, their estates and belongings, or other sentient beings" - specifically "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" equates with obscenity? People are exploited all the time, as is their property. You are also being filmed all the time, and while you might not like it, I fail to see how it is "obscene" except perhaps colloquially.

I'm really curious to which "other sentient beings" you refer. You got a talking frog in your pocket?

I agree with the supreme court that one should be able to privately own and use obscene materials.
You do not have the right to use privacy laws to conceal criminal activity, nor should you be able to.

I disagree with the supreme court that the government should be able to prohibit the sale and distribution of obscene materials between consenting adults.
Speaking about strictly and solely "obscene" materials, I tend to agree in principal. I would draw the line at materials that have as part of their creation process deliberate and egregious harm to others, especially children.

[The Atheist]

No, the harm could not be ignored. But you'd have to prove the causal link first, though. How do you propose to do that?
Well, it's clearly impossible, which is why it's one area we rely on societal values rather than empirical evidence.

[Piscivore]

Well, it's clearly impossible, which is why it's one area we rely on societal values rather than empirical evidence.

Societal values are always in flux though, and vary tremedously between members even in the same community. Given that, isn't a standard based on actual harm caused in creation versus perceived secondary harm potentially caused a better yardstick, especially in a society that supposedly holds individual liberty as its highest value?

I thought Prohibition and the War on Drugs would have shown that there isn't a causative link between crime and supposed "vices".

[CFLarsen]

Well, it's clearly impossible

Why?

[Dave1001]

Speaking about strictly and solely "obscene" materials, I tend to agree in principal. I would draw the line at materials that have as part of their creation process deliberate and egregious harm to others, especially children.

Then it sounds like we agree. That's my position too.

[Piscivore]

Then it sounds like we agree. That's my position too.

Except that I suspect that your definition of "harm" is quite a bit broader than mine. For instance, I do not consider "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" automatically as "harmful".

[dann]

I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged.
Pornography of any kind is fiction with the function of making people get off sexually.
Kiddie porn of any kind caters to paedophiles, i.e. people attracted to this particular kind of fantasy or practice.
Sometimes the process of producing kiddie porn may not actually harm any children: no children involved, merely the imagination of a writer of fiction.
But it still serves the same purpose as the kind of kiddie porn that does involve children in the production stage: It encourages the attitude to children that characterizes paedophiles – be it in the form of imaginary settings where the child takes the initiative to have sex with an adult or in the form of imaginary settings of adults raping children.
Paedophiles should not be encouraged to associate children with sex.
If possible they should be encouraged to stop thinking of having sex with children.
Any group of paedophiles are able to quote studies that say that some victims of paedophilia may not have suffered as a result and thus were not, strictly speaking, victims. It may even be true, I don’t know.
The purpose of the references to these particular studies, however, is not to ensure that children are not hurt.
The references serve the purpose of persuading the paedophiles that it is OK to continue to have sex with children.
That the children are not hurt is part of the fiction of paedophilia, how the paedophiles persuade themselves that their inclinations are alright.
(The majority of them probably couldn’t care less if the children are hurt or not.)
Kiddie porn about consenting children is a simple case of hypocrisy as pornography.
Kiddie porn, also the completely fictitious kind, does not put a stop to paedophiles. It encourages the attitude and thus the practice.
Therefore paedophiles should not possess other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling.
I have not seen it myself, but judging from the reviews this is probably a piece of fiction suitable as a Christmas present for paedophiles: The Woodsman ( http://www.amazon.com/Woodsman-Kevin-Bacon/dp/B0007PID84/sr=1-3/qid=1167261019/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-9360498-6692929?ie=UTF8&s=dvd).

[The Atheist]

Societal values are always in flux though, and vary tremedously between members even in the same community. Given that, isn't a standard based on actual harm caused in creation versus perceived secondary harm potentially caused a better yardstick, especially in a society that supposedly holds individual liberty as its highest value?

I thought Prohibition and the War on Drugs would have shown that there isn't a causative link between crime and supposed "vices".You're quite right, in all respects bar one - even if I think your analogy is seriously flawed (drug and alcohol offenders generall don't rape kids as part of their MO).

The subject matter is children, and normal rules don't apply. Maybe it's the last bastion of generic patriarchs to over-protect our families, but I don't actually care - it's one area where I will allow will to overcome reason. I could use a nice biblical turn to answer your quite legitimate position by stating that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. If we get it wrong, do you want the rape of a child to be on your conscience? If relaxation in the rules of pornography spawned child molesters, would you change your opinion? Are you prepared to pay the price if you get it wrong? What point is liberty if we don't protect our weakest and most vulnerable members?

If people want the laws to be softened, then they can come up with some analysis for scrutiny. In the meantime, the laws as they stand, regarding children and pornography are fine with most.

Look, we had a classic argument along these lines in NZ a few months back. The Minister of Justice proposed an amendment to our laws (current sexual consent 16) to allow for non-prosecution for underage offences, provided that both parties were underage and the sex was consensual. That seemed like a fairly sensible option. Kids will have sex regardless of the laws of the land and to make criminals out of them because of their hormones seemed deeply unfair, to the government. (and me)

The cries of encouraging paedophilia - a ridiculous cry, in the situation in hand - ensured that the law never even saw the reading stages, with the government forced to drop it amid a storm of protest.

The line won't be changed, because people who desire change are automatically seen as pushing a paedophile agenda. In almost all cases, they aren't - as yours and MdC's aren't. I think you go too far one way, while I think the loudest voices go too far the other.

Fortunately, the status quo, legally is not too far from where I'd have the line drawn.

[The Atheist]

The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged.
Pornography of any kind is fiction with the function of making people get off sexually.
Kiddie porn of any kind caters to paedophiles, i.e. people attracted to this particular kind of fantasy or practice.

That really sums the whole debate up.

Instead of asking why we don't allow those types of porn as discussed, why don't those proposing their availability produce a single reason for having that kind of porn.

Well put.

[brodski]

That really sums the whole debate up.

Instead of asking why we don't allow those types of porn as discussed, why don't those proposing their availability produce a single reason for having that kind of porn.

Well put.

There is the idea, which I'm not sure I buy myself, that porn catering to pedophiles, but not actually using children, provides an outlet for those sexual urges and reduces the likelihood of children being actually abused.

If it could be demonstrated that this is the case, and that in a strange way pseudo-child porn actually protects children, then obviously I think that pseudo-child porn should be legal. I don't know how you would go about gathering good evidence, and until that evidence is in I think the presumption should be that pseudo-child porn is dangerous.

[The Atheist]

There is the idea, which I'm not sure I buy myself, that porn catering to pedophiles, but not actually using children, provides an outlet for those sexual urges and reduces the likelihood of children being actually abused.

If it could be demonstrated that this is the case, and that in a strange way pseudo-child porn actually protects children, then obviously I think that pseudo-child porn should be legal. I don't know how you would go about gathering good evidence, and until that evidence is in I think the presumption should be that pseudo-child porn is dangerous.

Therein lies the problem.

What researcher is going to want to touch this with a barge-pole? It would be like ringing Fatty Arbuckle and asking if you could be his agent.

[Dave1001]

Except that I suspect that your definition of "harm" is quite a bit broader than mine. For instance, I do not consider "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" automatically as "harmful".

By harm I'm not limiting it to physical/emotional harm. I'm including harm to civil liberty and privacy interests, which I think are also germane. I consider "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" to likely be an infringement of their privacy interests.

[Piscivore]

I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
No, not in itself it doesn't. Someone hurting children hurts children, whatever the motivation. We can say someone with pedophilia is a lot more likely to do so, but it is not guaranteed.

Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged.
Unless I'm wrong, we do not even know what causes pedophilia, so talking about "encouraging" it may be specious.

Pornography of any kind is fiction with the function of making people get off sexually.
No. Not all porno is fiction, and not all that people get off on is porno. People get off on what they get off on. Sometimes it is the little girls in their underpants in the Sunday circular. Sometimes, as I've already mentions, shockingly explicit material is used for an effect other than arousal or titillation.

Kiddie porn of any kind caters to paedophiles, i.e. people attracted to this particular kind of fantasy or practice.
"caters to" != "causes" or "incites to action".

Sometimes the process of producing kiddie porn may not actually harm any children: no children involved, merely the imagination of a writer of fiction.
Right. No harm, no foul. Better to err on the side of freedom.

But it still serves the same purpose as the kind of kiddie porn that does involve children in the production stage:
Not always. I'd venture to say not often.

It encourages the attitude to children that characterizes paedophiles – be it in the form of imaginary settings where the child takes the initiative to have sex with an adult or in the form of imaginary settings of adults raping children.
Are you saying that a fictional account of someone raping a child is going to do anything but disgust someone who is not already a pedo?
Paedophiles should not be encouraged to associate children with sex.
Agreed. But I don't think it would matter.
If possible they should be encouraged to stop thinking of having sex with children.
Agreed. I don't think eliminating their exposure to explicit material would do so, however.
Any group of paedophiles are able to quote studies that say that some victims of paedophilia may not have suffered as a result and thus were not, strictly speaking, victims.
I'd like to see them. I'm skeptical they exist.
It may even be true, I don’t know.
The purpose of the references to these particular studies, however, is not to ensure that children are not hurt.
The references serve the purpose of persuading the paedophiles that it is OK to continue to have sex with children.
If you do not even know that the studies exist, you cannot know what they say, let alone what their "purpose" may have been.
I will grant you that people that are drawn to unacceptable behaviours do often try to justify themselves. That has no bearing on the issue at hand, though.
That the children are not hurt is part of the fiction of paedophilia, how the paedophiles persuade themselves that their inclinations are alright.
That's a very wide genralisation. Are you sure there aren't pedos that don't care that they hurt children, or are upset that they hurt children but feel powerless to stop? If you had said how "some" pedos persuade themselves, I'd grant you that. As it stands you are just pulling assumptions out of your ass.

(The majority of them probably couldn’t care less if the children are hurt or not.)
See, you just contradicted yourself. You don't know that any of this is correct, you are just making emotional assuptions.
Kiddie porn about consenting children is a simple case of hypocrisy as pornography.
You are doing exactly the same thing here.
Kiddie porn, also the completely fictitious kind, does not put a stop to paedophiles.
Nope. Neither can you prove it creates them.
It encourages the attitude and thus the practice.
Prove it.
Therefore paedophiles should not possess other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling.
I see. And how do you propose we identify these men that we may rob them of their civil rights?
What about the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program?

I have not seen it myself, but judging from the reviews this is probably a piece of fiction suitable as a Christmas present for paedophiles: The Woodsman ( http://www.amazon.com/Woodsman-Kevin-Bacon/dp/B0007PID84/sr=1-3/qid=1167261019/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/102-9360498-6692929?ie=UTF8&s=dvd).
I'd suggest "Hard Candy" myself.

[brodski]

Therein lies the problem.

What researcher is going to want to touch this with a barge-pole? It would be like ringing Fatty Arbuckle and asking if you could be his agent.

True, although on a side note, Fatty Arbuckle didn't actually do a tenth of the things attributed to him.

[Dave1001]

Instead of asking why we don't allow those types of porn as discussed, why don't those proposing their availability produce a single reason for having that kind of porn.


Pursuit of happiness. I think an adult can privately get sexual gratification from fictional erotic stories of child sex (even fictional stories of transparent rape of a protesting child) and yet still not break any laws, not have any sexual contact (or any contact at all) with children, and be a functioning, contributing member of society.

I think this applies to a zillion things besides private enjoyment of fictional erotic child sex stories (private enjoyment of home-grown pot, home-made meth, private enjoyment of adult rape fantasies, etc.)

Who knows the various sick, twisted fantasies that make the many oddballs of the world happy. If no one is actually harmed by it, if it takes place only in the theatre of the mind and the private written word, then I lean strongly towards it being a legal private activity.

[Piscivore]

By harm I'm not limiting it to physical/emotional harm.
Yeah, I suspected as much.

I'm including harm to civil liberty and privacy interests, which I think are also germane.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, which civil liberty?

How does privacy enter into the creation of explicit materials?

I consider "secret video recordings of nonconsenting people" to likely be an infringement of their privacy interests.
That's possible, but that has f[rule 8] all to do with "obscenity". Why do you bring it up?

[Dave1001]

That's possible, but that has f[rule 8] all to do with "obscenity". Why do you bring it up?

general articulation of things which might fall within the category of "obscenity" by some arbiters, but which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of in terms of distribution or private ownership. I'd also put beastiality, necrophilia, snuff, actual rape, and child pornography using actual children into that category of things which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of. But other things that can fall into the "obscenity" category? No.

[dann]

Are you sure there aren't pedos that don't care that they hurt children, or are upset that they hurt children but feel powerless to stop? I am sure that some paedophiles actually enjoy knowing that they are hurting children and that some are upset that they do and therefore come up with excuses, some of them references to history or studies, to try to persuade themselves that they don't! They may also feel "powerless" to stop, but I don't think that anybody is!
There are a lot of stupid excuses for doing the wrong thing in this context - and in so many others.

[Piscivore]

You're quite right, in all respects bar one - even if I think your analogy is seriously flawed (drug and alcohol offenders generall don't rape kids as part of their MO).
No, it is your understanding of the concept of an "analogy" that is flawed. Drug and alcohol offenders break drug and alcohol laws or find substitutes for the outlawed substances.
Pedophiles will break anti-porn laws (which they do) or find substitutes- children's underpants ads, clothing catalogues, etc. "Sitting on a park bench- eyeing little girls with bad intent" and so forth.

The subject matter is children, and normal rules don't apply.
Why not?

Maybe it's the last bastion of generic patriarchs to over-protect our families, but I don't actually care - it's one area where I will allow will to overcome reason.
So you raised your children in a bubble? I hope that works out for you. I chose the opposite tack, and I couln't be more pleased with my kids.

I could use a nice biblical turn to answer your quite legitimate position by stating that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Indeed. Would that include your intention to "protect" kids?

If we get it wrong, do you want the rape of a child to be on your conscience?
Nope. that's why my daughter is fully versed in the concepts of this topic.

If relaxation in the rules of pornography spawned child molesters, would you change your opinion?
If proven, yes. As I just said to that other guy, I do not think that is the case. Someone who sexually desires children is not going to be put off by the unavalability of explicit materials. Someone who does not sexually desire children is not going to be "turned" by exposure to explicit materials. I've read "Justine". It did not make me rape my daughter.

Are you prepared to pay the price if you get it wrong?
Yes. Are you?

What point is liberty if we don't protect our weakest and most vulnerable members?
Um.. the "liberty" part. What point security if we have to live in a totalitarian nanny state to get it?

If people want the laws to be softened, then they can come up with some analysis for scrutiny.
Contrariwise. If someone wants the laws toughened, they damn well better come up with the research first.

In the meantime, the laws as they stand, regarding children and pornography are fine with most.
If that were true, would there be a debate?

Look, we had a classic argument along these lines in NZ a few months back. The Minister of Justice proposed an amendment to our laws (current sexual consent 16) to allow for non-prosecution for underage offences, provided that both parties were underage and the sex was consensual. That seemed like a fairly sensible option. Kids will have sex regardless of the laws of the land and to make criminals out of them because of their hormones seemed deeply unfair, to the government. (and me)
No argument. We have similar laws gaining ground up here.

The cries of encouraging paedophilia - a ridiculous cry, in the situation in hand - ensured that the law never even saw the reading stages, with the government forced to drop it amid a storm of protest.
But the fact there was debate at all, that it was proposed at all, is a signal that "the times, they are a' changin'"

The line won't be changed, because people who desire change are automatically seen as pushing a paedophile agenda.
Yesterday, maybe. Try again later.

In almost all cases, they aren't - as yours and MdC's aren't. I think you go too far one way, while I think the loudest voices go too far the other.
You don't expand a horizon by pushing on the middle.

Fortunately, the status quo, legally is not too far from where I'd have the line drawn.
It isn't bad, no. But if you stop "pushing" the people pushing the other way- away from liberty and the attendant personal responsibility- move the line their way.

[dann]

I see. And how do you propose we identify these men that we may rob them of their civil rights?I don't!
What about the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program? You are being very silly now. What I said was that:
... paedophiles should not possess other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling. Do you actually think that "the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program" place children in a sexual context?

[Piscivore]

general articulation of things which might fall within the category of "obscenity" by some arbiters, but which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of in terms of distribution or private ownership. I'd also put beastiality, necrophilia, snuff, actual rape, and child pornography using actual children into that category of things which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of. But other things that can fall into the "obscenity" category? No.

Wow, that is almost Orwellian. What exactly falls into the "obscene" category that you would like to see "decriminalised"?

[Dave1001]

Wow, that is almost Orwellian. What exactly falls into the "obscene" category that you would like to see "decriminalised"?

All that other stuff described here. So what if something is all that stuff if no one was actually harmed by its making or usage, and it's being used by consenting adults in private?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment#Obscenity

"Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if it would be found appealing to the prurient interest by an average person applying contemporary community standards, depicts sexual conduct in a patently offensive way and has no serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. Note that "community" standards—not national standards—are applied whether the material appeals to the prurient interest; thus, material may be deemed obscene in one locality but not in another. National standards, however, are applied whether the material is of value."

[Piscivore]

I am sure that some paedophiles actually enjoy knowing that they are hurting children and that some are upset that they do and therefore come up with excuses, some of them references to history or studies, to try to persuade themselves that they don't! They may also feel "powerless" to stop, but I don't think that anybody is!
There are a lot of stupid excuses for doing the wrong thing in this context - and in so many others.

So you are retracting your statement "That the children are not hurt is part of the fiction of paedophilia, how the paedophiles persuade themselves that their inclinations are alright"?
I don't!
You want to prevent them from "possess other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling."

Do you actually think that [i]"the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program" place children in a sexual context?
I think that men who want to f[rule 8] children will place children in a sexual context regardless of the intent of the creator of the material in question.

[The Atheist]

So you raised your children in a bubble? I hope that works out for you. I chose the opposite tack, and I couln't be more pleased with my kids.Not at all. I've raised my kids very liberally and truthfully and with the oldest now 16, I'm very happy with where they are, emotionally and physically.

Indeed. Would that include your intention to "protect" kids?Of course it could, but I see this as a situation of possible harm. Of course, it may turn out that Brodski's reported hypothesis as above might be right and having material available could reduce child molestation. That is drawing a very long bow, but not outside the bounds of possibility. That being the case, I would obviously be guilty of exactly that mistake.

It's just that I'd rather make a mistake being less rather than more liberal, when kids are the subject.

Nope. that's why my daughter is fully versed in the concepts of this topic.Ditto.

If proven, yes. As I just said to that other guy, I do not think that is the case. Someone who sexually desires children is not going to be put off by the unavalability of explicit materials. Someone who does not sexually desire children is not going to be "turned" by exposure to explicit materials. I've read "Justine". It did not make me rape my daughter.
Again, that brings us back to how will we ever know? There isn;t liekly to be serious research conducted, so I guess we are always going to over-compensate.
Yes. Are you?see above.
Um.. the "liberty" part. What point security if we have to live in a totalitarian nanny state to get it?What totalitarian nanny state? Do you live in one? That's pure strawman.
Contrariwise. If someone wants the laws toughened, they damn well better come up with the research first.Yep, I'm perfectly happy with that approach, as I said, I'm reasonably happy with where the line has been drawn on child pornography, as it stands.

You're the one who's position is outside of the status quo, accordingly, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to back your claims.
If that were true, would there be a debate?You're a Canadian, eh? You must live close enough to the border to have heard of an outfit called NAMBLA? They would be highly encouraged by your arguments. Why shouldn't they have very young-looking men playing at being schoolboys being raped by their elders?

Of course there are people to debate. Mark Twain once pointed out that no matter how indefensible something is, there'll always be someone to stand up for it.
No argument. We have similar laws gaining ground up here.The sad news about that is that I'd be amazed if it works. Hope so, I thought our government may have had the balls to pull through, but they tossed it in immediately.

But the fact there was debate at all, that it was proposed at all, is a signal that "the times, they are a' changin'"Maybe. I certainly thought that when the policy was released. I didn't expect any protest, let alone the storm of absolute bull put about by opponents. To be honest, given the hue and cry, you would have thought they were going to make it compulsory for 10 year olds to work as part-time hookers! It wasn't just the usual culprits, either, I thought a lot of people who should have known better were on the wrong side of the argument. So, I'm not so sure times have changed all that much.
Yesterday, maybe. Try again later.

You don't expand a horizon by pushing on the middle.

It isn't bad, no. But if you stop "pushing" the people pushing the other way- away from liberty and the attendant personal responsibility- move the line their way.Yeah, I'll give you all that, with one rider - I'll be happy for 100% personal responsibility to reign as far as kids are concrened when I have any kind of faith that their parents are capable of using the responsibility wisely. I see precious little evidence of that.

I can't influence grown-ups behaviour, and I have no desire to - apart from giving up their pathetic bloody god/s - but I just have this strange trait that if I can do anything to help kids, anywhere, I will do so and do it on my terms. In this case, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but until such time as I am, I cannot back off, and absolutely will not do so, either. I feel that the downside is just too great to mess around with fine tuning.

[Kevin_Lowe]

What an idiot. Of course you'll get no evidence. THERE ISN'T ANY! And you damn well know it, hence your unassailable position from the rock of reason you're standing upojn. Speaking of parrots, before you start parroting the "evidence?" cry, open your eyes and realise that there not only is not any evidence, there can't be any. Unless you'd like to propose a study and volunteer?


This is the problem with getting terribly exited from a position of total ignorance.

What studies do is check to see if people who were once the underage partner in underage/X sex have been diagnosed with depression, have become alcoholics, have inferior socioeconomic prospects compared to their peer group, report as being less happy than their peer group and so on.

Victims of sexual abuse show statistically significant levels of harm based on such measurements. People who were once the underage partner in consensual and non-distressing underage/X sex do not.


That's why I gave you the link to Bert Potter - he had exactly the same thoughts as you, groomed his prospects over many years then had completely consensual sex with them whem they were aged about 11 or 12. His evidence was unshakeable. He still went to jail. Strangely, while he was in there, he was caught distributing child-porn to other inmates. Harmless fun, eh?

The question of whether Bert Potter is a paedophile and the question of whether the children suffered short term or long term harm are two different questions.


None of those he had sex with felt they had had any harm done to them. They had grown up on a commune where it was socially acceptable behaviour and were not physically damaged. Once they entered society and saw society's attitudes to child sex, they became victims. I know one and my wife knows another of the victims of Bert Potter's lifelong grooming. Where is the crime? In the sex? Or society's attitudes? Those women will tell you that the crime is with Potter. But that, of course, isn't evidence, just an anecdote about a couple of women, now both well in their 30s who are still coming to grips with their pubescent years having been robbed from them by a cynical rapist.

There is reason to say it might be in society. If those women are thirty and still allegedly suffering psychological harm from consensual sex that occurred when they were twelve I think it's likely that it's not the sex itself that caused their problems. It's more likely any harm was caused by non-sexual problems in their early family life, the breakup of their family, the ongoing courtroom dramas, and more than likely a good dose of people assuming that they must be shattered human beings because (gasp!) they had sex.

If you want evidence that this is perfectly possible, just look at any of the satanic child-care center abuse witch hunts of the eighties. There are people running around now with profound psychological damage due to sexual abuse which we can prove never happened.


Yeah, societal norms, what a load of crap.

You completely miss the point that children believe what they are taught to believe and just don't have the maturity to recognise harm as you so sweetly define it. Unfortunately, we live in the real world and those pesky old societal norms say that I'm right and you're wrong.

Hard luck.

I hope you're having fun going on like this, because you certainly aren't contributing anything new or constructive. We all know what the existing social norms are.

As I was saying earlier, there is reason to believe that a significant amount of the harm laid at the door of underage sex should in fact be laid at the door of overexited, self-righteous people who honestly believe that underage sex is the end of the world and fulfill their own unpleasant prophecies. Sex in and of itself is not harmful to a statistically significant degree to underage people.

[dann]

So you are retracting your statement "That the children are not hurt is part of the fiction of paedophilia, how the paedophiles persuade themselves that their inclinations are alright"? No, why should I retract anything? There are different kinds of paedophiles, and different kinds of kiddie porn to cater to their specific needs.
You want to prevent them from "possess[ing] other reading material about children in connection with sex other than pamphlets telling them where people with these fantasies can get counselling."Do I? I think I said that they shouldn't be in possession of kiddie porn, not that I would prevent them from having it.
I think that men who want to f[rule 8] children will place children in a sexual context regardless of the intent of the creator of the material in question. Kiddie porn encourages their fantasies, "the children's television program" probably doesn't present them with imaginary tales of children who seduce adults.
Somehow I think that you are not unaware of this.

[Kevin_Lowe]

What are you considering as "harm" in this case?


Sorry for not responding earlier. As I said to The Atheist, harm is usually measured by a variety of survey questions dealing with how well the subject's life has been going.


How would one do that, exactly?


It's statistics. You see if people who were having sex at age 13 are worse off than people from similar families, similar socioeconomic levels and so on who were not having sex. What falls out of the well designed studies is that poor people from broken homes make up a disproportionate number of the thirteen year olds who are having sex, but that the ones who are having sex do not turn out worse (to a statistically significant degree) than the ones who are not.


How many children need to be harmed to make it cost effective to outlaw it? Who gets to decide what constitutes harm? How much public money do we spend on working these things out?

First prove any are harmed at all. Pick any definition of harm you like and try to prove that it is actually happening. I think it's an important issue so I don't object to significant amounts of money being spent on studies, especially given the relative costs of research on one hand and enforcing criminal laws on the other.

[Merko]

Animated cartoons of child rape are fine, no kids are harmed during that, either.


I don't think it should be illegal. If it's 'fine' or not, well, it depends I think. The animated cartoon child rape in Kill Bill is fine with me. Haven't seen any others as far as I can recall, but I haven't exactly been looking for it, either.

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

I don't!
You are being very silly now. What I said was that:
Do you actually think that "the Sunday circulars, the Sears Catalogue, the children's television program" place children in a sexual context?

I think that men who want to f[rule 8] children will place children in a sexual context regardless of the intent of the creator of the material in question.

And if you wish to dispute that guys looking for "stroke material" can find it in relatively innocent* pages, think of the generations of adolescent boys who have hidden under their matresses "non-pornographic" materials such as National Geographic, Victoria's Secret, and the Swimsuit issue of Sports Illustrated.

*It's only relatively innocent because, regardless of their stated intentions, there is often an undercurrent of the "sex sells" in the design and layout of the material.

[Piscivore]

Not at all. I've raised my kids very liberally and truthfully and with the oldest now 16, I'm very happy with where they are, emotionally and physically.
Then I don't get why you are now advocating over-protection.

It's just that I'd rather make a mistake being less rather than more liberal, when kids are the subject.
I'd rather err the other way, personally.

Again, that brings us back to how will we ever know? There isn't likely to be serious research conducted, so I guess we are always going to over-compensate.
We don't have to. Can't we just compensate, without going overboard?

What totalitarian nanny state?
The one that Dave wants, the one where the government "protects" us from objectionable materials just in case someone will get inappropriate ideas- that they would never, ever have by their little innocent selves- from it.

I mistakenly thought you were advocating something similar. Although I do see "over-compensating" as a step down that path.

Do you live in one?
Nope. And I don't really want to either.

That's pure strawman.
There are people who want it, so I don't think so.

You're the one who's position is outside of the status quo, accordingly, the onus is on you to provide the evidence to back your claims.
Um, everyone has an onus to back up their claims.

You're a Canadian, eh?
Only in my heart. I was born and bred 'Murcan.

You must live close enough to the border to have heard of an outfit called NAMBLA?
Indeed. I assume though that the group to which you refer is not the National Association of Marlon Brando Look-Alikes, but that other one.

They would be highly encouraged by your arguments.
Freedom is for everybody, until they break the law.

Why shouldn't they have very young-looking men playing at being schoolboys being raped by their elders?
As long as everyone involved are consenting legal adults I don't have a problem with it. I don't particularly want to watch, mind, but to each their own.

I would say there is some concern any time there is a large age disparity between partners, but I'm not going to play at being their shrink, and neither should the government.

Now if the young men are not of legal age, they have a problem.

Of course there are people to debate. Mark Twain once pointed out that no matter how indefensible something is, there'll always be someone to stand up for it.
Good point. I don't find this position all that hard to support, let alone "indefensible".

The sad news about that is that I'd be amazed if it works. Hope so, I thought our government may have had the balls to pull through, but they tossed it in immediately.
A number of US States have what are known as "close in age exceptions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Colorado)".

Maybe. I certainly thought that when the policy was released. I didn't expect any protest, let alone the storm of absolute bull put about by opponents. To be honest, given the hue and cry, you would have thought they were going to make it compulsory for 10 year olds to work as part-time hookers! It wasn't just the usual culprits, either, I thought a lot of people who should have known better were on the wrong side of the argument. So, I'm not so sure times have changed all that much.
Hey, look at how different it is today than it was fifty years ago. Things will change.

Yeah, I'll give you all that, with one rider - I'll be happy for 100% personal responsibility to reign as far as kids are concrened when I have any kind of faith that their parents are capable of using the responsibility wisely. I see precious little evidence of that.
Granted, but it isn't up to us to force them to do so. Freedom has to be for everyone.

I can't influence grown-ups behaviour, and I have no desire to
Yes you do. You want to censor what you've decided is "porn".

- apart from giving up their pathetic bloody god/s -
Also outside your sphere of rights.

but I just have this strange trait that if I can do anything to help kids, anywhere, I will do so and do it on my terms.
You are bordering on vigilantism here. How about helping kids on your country's terms- the laws of the land?

In this case, I'm happy to be proven wrong, but until such time as I am, I cannot back off, and absolutely will not do so, either. I feel that the downside is just too great to mess around with fine tuning.
What if your agressiveness represents and aids "the down side"?

[Piscivore]

Sorry for not responding earlier. As I said to The Atheist, harm is usually measured by a variety of survey questions dealing with how well the subject's life has been going.
So only long-term damage is a consideration?

It's statistics. You see if people who were having sex at age 13 are worse off than people from similar families, similar socioeconomic levels and so on who were not having sex. What falls out of the well designed studies is that poor people from broken homes make up a disproportionate number of the thirteen year olds who are having sex, but that the ones who are having sex do not turn out worse (to a statistically significant degree) than the ones who are not.
Links?

[Piscivore]

No, why should I retract anything? There are different kinds of paedophiles, and different kinds of kiddie porn to cater to their specific needs.
That's not how I read it. Sorry.

Do I? I think I said that they shouldn't be in possession of kiddie porn, not that I would prevent them from having it.
If you aren't going to do anything about what you think "should be", you're just pissing in the wind.

Kiddie porn encourages their fantasies,
No, their desires encourage their fantasies. "Kiddie porn" may facilitate the fantasy, but does not generate the desire.

"the children's television program" probably doesn't present them with imaginary tales of children who seduce adults.
Their own imaginations provide them with imaginary tales of children who seduce adults. And imaginary tales of children who can be seduced by adults.

Tell me you haven't once dreamed up a fantasy number about some girl in your class, the newscaster on TV, the shop girl at the mall, an actress in a movie- some poor Sheila who was just going about her day and totally unaware of your interest in her.

Somehow I think that you are not unaware of this.
Likewise.

[The Atheist]

This is the problem with getting terribly exited from a position of total ignorance.Now I see the problem. As I suspected when you started, it's just that you're talking out of a convenient hole, rather than making a relevant comment.

This post you made is all about whether underage sex is harmful in the long term and my previous post was very much along the lines that I don't see underage, consensual sex as a problem at all - provided both parties are undeage.

This isn't about John and Sarah having it off when they're 13, it's about child pornography, or would you just rather now defend your completely shifted goalposts?

[The Atheist]

Then I don't get why you are now advocating over-protection.Good question, I probably don't even know. Maybe I was a nanny in a previous life.
You are bordering on vigilantism here. How about helping kids on your country's terms- the laws of the land?Trust me, I do.
What if your agressiveness represents and aids "the down side"?As I keep saying to my four year old when he asks me a "what if.." question, "what if the sky falls down?"

Seriously, I'd be pissed off that I somehow made the wrong choice about which position is right, but given the lack of evidence, I prefer to rest on the side of what I see as caution. I could be wrong, sure. I could be wrong about god, too. These are chances I'm prepared to take.

[Piscivore]

I prefer to rest on the side of what I see as caution.

Funny, my version of "caution" is watching out for those people that think they know what's "best for us". :)

[The Atheist]

Funny, my version of "caution" is watching out for those people that think they know what's "best for us". :)Fair comment - I did raise the road to hell myself.

We could both be on the wrong side of it!

[dann]

If you aren't going to do anything about what you think "should be", you're just pissing in the wind.Then I'm pissing in the wind. What is your point? My point was what I wrote in post 65 in this thread.
No, their desires encourage their fantasies. "Kiddie porn" may facilitate the fantasy, but does not generate the desire. I never claimed that it did! But your argument is becoming clearer.
Their own imaginations provide them with imaginary tales of children who seduce adults. And imaginary tales of children who can be seduced by adults.
(...)
Tell me you haven't once dreamed up a fantasy number about some girl in your class, the newscaster on TV, the shop girl at the mall, an actress in a movie- some poor Sheila who was just going about her day and totally unaware of your interest in her. Now at least it has become rather clear what your implied idea is. Let me use an analogy: The scent of freshly baked bread may not exactly generate hunger, but it certainly stimulates it. Your body may crave food, you might be hungry even without the scent, but the scent is what makes you act on it - which is why you wouldn’t expose somebody who’s trying to lose weight to the scent of donuts fresh from the oven.

In the case of paedophilia the sexual urge as such is physical, that children are the object of your desire, however, isn’t, it’s a perversion of the sexual instincts. (Some socio-biologists might claim that it is genetic, I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Nor do I think that the gene for girdle fetishism or sniffing bicycle seats will ever be discovered! But unlike paedophilia those perversions are fairly victimless and thus uninteresting in th context of this discussion.)

Your argument seems to be that since the desire of paedophiles does not depend on kiddie porn as a stimulant, the stimulant does not matter: sexual desire as such does not depend on porn. We (normal, heterosexual men) may desire the women we meet in our everyday lives, and if we are excluded from or cannot think of a way of approaching them, we may dream up fantasies about them instead. We may also use porn to release the sexual tension. Porn stimulates the imagination, ‘facilitates the fantasy’ needed to get off, to release sexual tension without a partner, without having real sex.
If you look at ordinary pornography, its purpose is clear: Heterosexual men (if they are not rapists) desire to have sex with a consenting woman, and pornography presents them with women posing as if they want to have sex, naked and available … and imaginary: photos of a woman pretending, simulating that she wants to have sex (or actually having it … with somebody else). For the same reason I do not think that mothers need to worry if they find this kind of porn under their sons’ beds. Like all fiction it is a lie. (The woman in the photo does not desire to have sex with you.) But it stimulates a very realistic fantasy (probably): that there are women out there who are not only willing to consent to having sex with you, they will probably even enjoy having it too! This makes it fairly harmless to encourage this particular fantasy.
Unlike kiddie porn: Children not only don’t generally want to have sex with adults, if they do, it is probably because their behaviour has become sexualised by previous abuse. Therefore the fantasy of having sex with children should be discouraged. It may not only ”facilitate the fantasy” and help the unfortunate paedophile get off, it may also persuade him that this is the way children are and should be treated. And paedophiles not only want to, they actually need to believe this! (to paraphrase what James Randi says about woowoos.)
And apparently people who crave sex with children are often people with a history of abuse. They themselves may have been victimized by paedophiles when they were children. And this is why counselling should be encouraged instead of (very wrong) fantasies.

[Dave1001]

There are at least some indications that child pornography makes a pedophile less likely to have actual child sex.

For example, take your average heterosexual male. Now provide him with 100 DVDs of pornography covering his various fetishes, and provide him with 5 new DVDs per day covering his various fetishes. Would such a supply make him more or less likely to pursue sex with actual women? I suspect most of us think the answer to that question is "less" -that's certainly my impression of the effect that would have on the average heterosexual male.

Similarly, I suspect a large amount of child pornography makes a given pedophile less likey to pursue actual child sex than they would otherwise. Like heterosexual men, I suspect they only want sex when they become horny, and the best way to discourage them from making actual sexual contact with children is a combination of heightened barriers to actual contact with children and making it easier for them to achieve sexual release without actual contact with children.

On a similar topic, here's a slate article claiming that studies show access to violent movies make violent people less likely to commit actual violence, and access to internet porn reduces rape:

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

[Gwyn ap Nudd]

Your argument seems to be that since the desire of paedophiles does not depend on kiddie porn as a stimulant, the stimulant does not matter: sexual desire as such does not depend on porn.

No, his statements were in response to your desire to remove all stimulating material from the pedophiles. His argument is that it is impossible to acheive such an end, because almost anything can become stimulating material. The only way to remove all stimulating material is to lock them in an isolation chamber.

For the same reason I do not think that mothers need to worry if they find this kind of porn under their sons’ beds.

But even when the mothers do worry and forbid the material, the sons find other more innocent material to serve the same purpose. (See my previous comment about National Geographic, etc.) Likewise, the Sears catalogs, etc. will stimulate the pedophiles, and if forbidden those, then Saturday morning childrens programs will serve, etc.

Edited to add:

Note: I'm not saying that Piscivore does not champion certain rights that you (and I'm certain he himself) find distasteful. What I am saying is that regardless of whether or not it would be a good thing if the worst of the material were not available, there will always be some material available.

Unless it is that you want to make material that would be perfectly legal, and even normal for you to own illegal if it is in the hands of pedophiles.

Back when both pornography and sodomy were illegal, SCOTUS ruled on a case where a "muscle magazine" was seized as pornography because most of its subscribers were gay. The pictures were no more explicit than in legal magazines intended for body builders. SCOTUS ruled that the pictures had to be pornography in themselves; that there could not be one standard for straights and another for gays. The same principle applies here.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Now I see the problem. As I suspected when you started, it's just that you're talking out of a convenient hole, rather than making a relevant comment.

This post you made is all about whether underage sex is harmful in the long term and my previous post was very much along the lines that I don't see underage, consensual sex as a problem at all - provided both parties are undeage.

I think you are confused. The evidence is that as long as the sex is consensual and non-distressing there is no long-term harm regardless of the age of the other person involved.


This isn't about John and Sarah having it off when they're 13, it's about child pornography, or would you just rather now defend your completely shifted goalposts?

Let me retrace our steps for you, since you have gotten lost.

Based on the avilable evidence, consensual and non-distressing sex does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself. Rape, pregnancy disease and so on all do, but sex does not.

So child pornography depicting such sex acts is depicting something which causes no harm.

So it's not immediately obvious how one could justify criminalising the creation or possession of child pornography that depicts such acts but does not involve actual underage people having actual sex in its creation, unless one had evidence that legal access to such material in fact increased the rate of sexual predation upon children in society.

Is that clear so far?

[dann]

I think you are confused. The evidence is that as long as the sex is consensual and non-distressing there is no long-term harm regardless of the age of the other person involved.You are the one who's confused. What you are describing is probably the ideal of most paedophiles! Reality is very different from this ideal.
Let me retrace our steps for you, since you have gotten lost.My ......!
Based on the avilable evidence, consensual and non-distressing sex does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself. This is the excuse that almost every single one of them comes up with in court: 'I was only trying to have consensual and non-distressing sex which does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself.'
So child pornography depicting such sex acts is depicting something which causes no harm. It causes harm in as far as it persuades the paedophiles that their desires agree with those of children, i.e. it persuades them that this is the reality of adult-child sexual relations, which it isn't. Ask the people who have been damaged for life by people who managed to persuade themselves that it was alright.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are the one who's confused. What you are describing is probably the ideal of most paedophiles! Reality is very different from this ideal.

Sorry, but facts and reality are not on your side Dann. Well designed and controlled studies show no statistically significant harm coming to people who had consensual, non-distressing sex while underage regardless of the age of their partner.


My ......!
This is the excuse that almost every single one of them comes up with in court: 'I was only trying to have consensual and non-distressing sex which does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself.'


What do you conclude from this?


And, as we all know, children are old enough to decide that having 'consensual and non-distressing sex' WHILE BEING FILMED, thus giving the rest of the world the opportunity to watch it for all eternity, is a lot of fun and something they'll never regret, right? Man, you're losing it!

Look, I'll highlight the relevant bit in the post you are replying to. "...Child pornography that depicts such acts but does not involve actual underage people having actual sex in its creation".

[pgwenthold]

That really sums the whole debate up.

Instead of asking why we don't allow those types of porn as discussed, why don't those proposing their availability produce a single reason for having that kind of porn.

Well put.

Not in the US, it isn't. I have been waiting for this argument to come up.

In a free society, you do not have to provide a reason why something should be legal. The burden is the other direction.

There are an infinite number of things that I cannot provide a single reason for doing, yet are still legal. For example, there is no reason for me to go out to stand in my driveway and hop up and down on one leg, other than I want to do it. Moreover, this is not something that everyone wants to do, and I would venture that I am the only adult in my neighborhood that wants to do this. Yet, it is perfectly legal, despite being unpopular and not serving any purpose but to satisfy my desire.

Thus, the argument that child pornography should be legal because someone wants to view it is more than a sufficient justification. Consequently, if it is to be illegal, there has to be a more compelling argument that it should not be allowed. Generally society looks to the question of harm, and does the harm it causes outweigh the benefits it provides and the concept of liberty that needs to be protected. For something like child pornography, there is a pretty low threshold for how much harm is allowed, such that the demonstration that a single child is even involved in any way (for example, underage participants in its creation) is considered to be too far. Now, as far where the line is drawn above that, I will allow the thread to continue on its own.

[dann]

Sorry, but facts and reality are not on your side Dann. Well designed and controlled studies show no statistically significant harm coming to people who had consensual, non-distressing sex while underage regardless of the age of their partner.An awful lot of harm comes from people who claim that they had consensual, non-distressing sex with underage children.
What do you conclude from this?That paedophiles either don't care or can't tell the difference - if your claim is true!
Look, I'll highlight the relevant bit in the post you are replying to. "...Child pornography that depicts such acts but does not involve actual underage people having actual sex in its creation". My mistake. I corrected myself before you posted this. See edit line!

[AWPrime]

Couldn't images of sexualized preteens, help people to develop into paedophiles ?

[Gurdur]

An awful lot of harm comes from people who claim that they had consensual, non-distressing sex with underage children.
Bingo.
Because this is one of the clichéd stock claims of pedos running around everywhere --- that it's all nonharmful or could be. IOW, they willfully evade the point for the sake of their agitprop.

Just to get a few points here over:

The age of consent was originally designed to stop the prostitution of children. That was the reason the age of consent was raised from 12 in the late 19th century UK, after a series of scandals revealing children being used as prostitutes. The age of consent is a damned good idea. Naturally exceptions are made for roughly same-age consensual partners, but the fact that some form of age of consent is there on the books in a meaningful way is a damned good idea.

There is no valid reason at all for child porno displaying in any way children under the age of 13. Prohibition of that is a damned good idea. If anyone wants to try chanting that really tired old cliché of "nanny state" in relation to the criminalization of kiddie porn, bite me. Blow me. Kiss my arse. Put away the dumb strawmen and the self-congratulatory garbage about watching the watchers, and deal with the point.

And lastly; children are children. They need to be protected against adult exploitation. And if anyone doesn't like that and wants to whine how brave they personally are by demanding children be treated like adults, kiss my arse again.

[Dave1001]

Bingo.
Because this is one of the clichéd stock claims of pedos running around everywhere --- that it's all nonharmful or could be. IOW, they willfully evade the point for the sake of their agitprop.

Just to get a few points here over:

The age of consent was originally designed to stop the prostitution of children. That was the reason the age of consent was raised from 12 in the late 19th century UK, after a series of scandals revealing children being used as prostitutes. The age of consent is a damned good idea. Naturally exceptions are made for roughly same-age consensual partners, but the fact that some form of age of consent is there on the books in a meaningful way is a damned good idea.

There is no valid reason at all for child porno displaying in any way children under the age of 13. Prohibition of that is a damned good idea. If anyone wants to try chanting that really tired old cliché of "nanny state" in relation to the criminalization of kiddie porn, bite me. Blow me. Kiss my arse. Put away the dumb strawmen and the self-congratulatory garbage about watching the watchers, and deal with the point.

And lastly; children are children. They need to be protected against adult exploitation. And if anyone doesn't like that and wants to whine how brave they personally are by demanding children be treated like adults, kiss my arse again.

What's you're opinion on pseudo-child porn. Fictional stories, cartoons, adult actors portraying children under 13 having sex with adults?

[Gurdur]

What's you're opinion on pseudo-child porn. Fictional stories, cartoons, adult actors portraying children under 13 having sex with adults?
First off. let's make a distinction between porn and ordinary fiction or nonfictional description. It's necessary and valid. Might be too complex a matter for some to ever want to try thinking about, but it's necessary and valid.

Genuine ordinary fiction or nonfictional description = OK.
Kiddie porn = NOT OK.

Or to put it IOW, "Lolita" or a "Death In Venice" is OK, real kiddie porn (designed to titillate etc.) is not --- in any form whatsoever.

There are BTW practical reasons for say "in any form whatsoever"; in an age where technology can make an extremely good visual simulcrum, then a very obvious attempted legal defence is to try claiming the porn was simulated in some way and not real, or IOW to try making law enforcement impossible by whatever tricks. Thus "in any form whatsoever". There are also other reasons for that; the usual pedo claim is that such porn can act as a substitute, more likely it acts like an amplificational encouragement.

The message is that pedo is not OK; if anyone is plagued by pedo feelings, they need therapy, not porn.

[EGarrett]

Got it. So you think that possession of a written fictional story where a child has sex, written purely for erotic stimuation of the reader, shoud be illegal?Yes. It actively appeals to those who would participate in the criminal activity, and glorifies and actively encourages that activity. Like a children's book describing how great it would be to take your first hit of cocaine.

[Piscivore]

Then I'm pissing in the wind. What is your point? My point was what I wrote in post 65 in this thread.
My point is that your post 65 is a poorly thought out, emotionally generated rant.

I never claimed that it did!
Upon careful re-reading, you did not. You got close, but you stopped short. My apologies.

But your argument is becoming clearer.
Now at least it has become rather clear what your implied idea is.
If my ideas are not clear, I'm sorry. I'm not implying anything, I'm intending to be forthright. If there is something you are not clear on, please ask, I will be more than happy to explicate.

Let me use an analogy: The scent of freshly baked bread may not exactly generate hunger, but it certainly stimulates it. Your body may crave food, you might be hungry even without the scent, but the scent is what makes you act on it
Wrong. It is the HUNGER which makes you act on it. Plenty of people can smell fresh bread and not go into a feeding frenzy. People can even smell fresh bread and not eat it even if they are "hungry"- maybe the bread doesn't belong to them.

- which is why you wouldn’t expose somebody who’s trying to lose weight to the scent of donuts fresh from the oven.
Wrong. The onus is on the dieter to control his own behavior. We don't outlaw donuts because some people have a problem controlling themselves.

In the case of paedophilia the sexual urge as such is physical, that children are the object of your desire, however, isn’t,
It isn't? please explain in what dimension or ether it resides, then.

it’s a perversion of the sexual instincts.
Prove it. In any case, I'm not championing pedophilia. I'm arguing for freedom of expression.

(Some socio-biologists might claim that it is genetic, I don’t know, but I don’t think so. Nor do I think that the gene for girdle fetishism or sniffing bicycle seats will ever be discovered! But unlike paedophilia those perversions are fairly victimless and thus uninteresting in th context of this discussion.)
Ask a girdle salesperson sometime about fetishism being "victimless". But that aside, this whole discussion of the "roots of pedophilia" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Your argument seems to be that since the desire of paedophiles does not depend on kiddie porn as a stimulant, the stimulant does not matter: sexual desire as such does not depend on porn.
That's part of it, yes.

We (normal, heterosexual men)
I'm going to mention in passing that I don't agree with your equating "heterosexual" with "normal".

may desire the women we meet in our everyday lives, and if we are excluded from or cannot think of a way of approaching them, we may dream up fantasies about them instead. We may also use porn to release the sexual tension. Porn stimulates the imagination, ‘facilitates the fantasy’ needed to get off, to release sexual tension without a partner, without having real sex.
That's what I said. Do you think that people only use "porn" in their sexual fantasies? Do you think that material that is not intended in anyway to stimulate sexual desire cannot nevertheless do so?

If you look at ordinary pornography,
Why don't you explain what you consider "ordinary pornography".

its purpose is clear: Heterosexual men (if they are not rapists) desire to have sex with a consenting woman, and pornography presents them with women posing as if they want to have sex, naked and available … and imaginary:
The only "purpose" of pornography is to make money. That is why it is produced and made available. What the end user does with it is completely inconsequential to the creator.

photos of a woman pretending, simulating that she wants to have sex (or actually having it … with somebody else).
It sounds like your exposure to porn has been pretty limited and your ideas about it are frankly quaint.

For the same reason I do not think that mothers need to worry if they find this kind of porn under their sons’ beds.
It depends on what they are doing with it.

Like all fiction it is a lie. (The woman in the photo does not desire to have sex with you.)
You don't know that- she's not met me yet.

But it stimulates a very realistic fantasy (probably): that there are women out there who are not only willing to consent to having sex with you, they will probably even enjoy having it too! This makes it fairly harmless to encourage this particular fantasy.
Thanks for the trip to the "Leave it to Beaver" set. You've failed to make any sort of point with it.

Who, in your estimation, gets to decide what sort of fantasies an adult may be "encouraged" to have"? Who is the arbiter of which fantasies are "fairly harmless"?

Unlike kiddie porn: Children not only don’t generally want to have sex with adults, if they do, it is probably because their behaviour has become sexualised by previous abuse.
Prove it.

Therefore the fantasy of having sex with children should be discouraged.
That's as may be, but you CAN'T! Even if all forms of explicit material involving sex with children were to vanish overnight, people who want to f[rule 8] children will still fantasize about it. The only think you will accomplish is that a whole bunch of civil rights will be trodden on.

It may not only ”facilitate the fantasy” and help the unfortunate paedophile get off, it may also persuade him that this is the way children are and should be treated.
You see that word "may"? That's not enough to trade a basic civil right for. Like our donut-crazed dieter, it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptaion.

Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City"?

And paedophiles not only want to, they actually need to believe this! (to paraphrase what James Randi says about woowoos.)
So? Do you think if we outlawed Sylvia's books people would stop beliving in psychics?

And apparently people who crave sex with children are often people with a history of abuse. They themselves may have been victimized by paedophiles when they were children.
Not really relevant to the issue at hand, as I said above.

And this is why counselling should be encouraged instead of (very wrong) fantasies.
If someone feels they are at the point of crossing a line from fantasy into action, yes, they should.

Up to and until the point where he stops fantasising and acts, though, no one on this planet should have the right to control how he thinks.

[Piscivore]

First off. let's make a distinction between porn and ordinary fiction or nonfictional description. It's necessary and valid. Might be too complex a matter for some to ever want to try thinking about, but it's necessary and valid.

Genuine ordinary fiction or nonfictional description = OK.
Kiddie porn = NOT OK.

Or to put it IOW, "Lolita" or a "Death In Venice" is OK, real kiddie porn (designed to titillate etc.) is not --- in any form whatsoever.

Who gets to decide which is which?

[Gurdur]

My point is that your post 65 is a poorly thought out, emotionally generated rant.
You know, in your posts here you consistantly confuse your own values with rational logic, so mebbe it would be a wise idea for you not to be denigratory about others. You're pushing your own values, and as we all know, values cannot be truth statements.
Wrong. The onus is on the dieter to control his own behavior. We don't outlaw donuts because some people have a problem controlling themselves.
Bollocks. The point you are evading here is that many laws in society are in fact there to protect people (seatbelt laws, laws against suicide, laws on hard drugs etc.), and the next point you evade is that children need more protection than adults, against adult exploitation.
Prove it. In any case, I'm not championing pedophilia. I'm arguing for freedom of expression.
Uh huh. How about dealing with the point? We are just so not going to live in an anarchy, so how about dealing with the actual topic, rather than hiding behind "freedom of expression"?

Or are you saying that nothing is more sacred to you than your overstretched idea of freedom of expression, so that you are completely willing to sacrifice anything to it, including the protection of children? Do be clear.

[Gurdur]

Who gets to decide which is which?
The usual way; the informed electorate vote in a government, which itself forms statutory regulatory bodies, who together with the law courts decide what the law is and how it is applied.

You know, the usual realworld way.

[Gurdur]

I'll do this as well.
....Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City"?
Ah, the good ol' slippery slope fallacy in full cry. :)

As you well know, real life is complex. That's why we make complex decisions. Since real life is complex, then it does not allow itself to be reduced to a set of simplistic formalisms.

[Dave1001]

First off. let's make a distinction between porn and ordinary fiction or nonfictional description. It's necessary and valid. Might be too complex a matter for some to ever want to try thinking about, but it's necessary and valid.

Genuine ordinary fiction or nonfictional description = OK.
Kiddie porn = NOT OK.

Or to put it IOW, "Lolita" or a "Death In Venice" is OK, real kiddie porn (designed to titillate etc.) is not --- in any form whatsoever.

There are BTW practical reasons for say "in any form whatsoever"; in an age where technology can make an extremely good visual simulcrum, then a very obvious attempted legal defence is to try claiming the porn was simulated in some way and not real, or IOW to try making law enforcement impossible by whatever tricks. Thus "in any form whatsoever". There are also other reasons for that; the usual pedo claim is that such porn can act as a substitute, more likely it acts like an amplificational encouragement.

The message is that pedo is not OK; if anyone is plagued by pedo feelings, they need therapy, not porn.

Well, that's clear. I think there's a perhaps unresolvable chasm between our two views on this topic, which probably is not dissimilar from pro-choice/pro-life or whether or not the right to bear arms is an individual right chasms.

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with someone who is sexually attracted to kids, but doesn't act on the impulses with real kids. They could read fictional pornographic stories about sex with kids, watch pornographic cartoons about sex with kids, and have a kid blow up doll and hire prostitutes to pretend to be kids. It's all fine with with me as long as no real kids are involved in their physical gratification (Although it's also fine with me if they get off on pictures of kids in Sears catalogs or children's television shows, to mention examples people brought up earlier). I don't think what goes on in the theatre of the mind harms anyone else, if it makes them happy and doesn't in itself harm others, that's all the justification it needs in my opinion.

But I recognize that (inexplicably to me) many people feel differently. Even if an individual is not and will not harm actual kids, even if the media they used didn't involve actual kids in any stage of its production, many people still oppose allowing such people to legal, private usage of pseudo child porn (pseudo meaning no actual children were involved in its production). I don't pretend to understand why there's such a divide in opinions, but I recognize its existence.

[Piscivore]

You know, in your posts here you consistantly confuse your own values with rational logic,
Show me where. I don't belive I've even used the word "logic" in this discussion. In case it was not clear, I'll say so; yes of course, I am arguing my values.

so mebbe it would be a wise idea for you not to be denigratory about others.
I have not been. The quality of a particular post does not imply anything about the poster. If it appears I have made such an implication I apologise to dann.

You're pushing your own values, and as we all know, values cannot be truth statements.
Yes, I am, and did not claim otherwise.

I do argue that values based on facts are better than values based upon raw emotion, though.

Bollocks. The point you are evading here is that many laws in society are in fact there to protect people (seatbelt laws, laws against suicide, laws on hard drugs etc.),
Where and how am I evading that?
I did mention that laws designed to "protect" people- in the case of "hard drugs"- quite often fail to do so. In point of fact each of the laws you mention are flauted by many people on a daily basis. Isn't there an argument to be made that the laws aren't working as well as they should? Or at all?

Also, isn't it the right of a citizen to complain when a law is unjust? Or when a law trades too much freedom for too little security?

and the next point you evade is that children need more protection than adults, against adult exploitation.
Quite the opposite. I just have a different opinion that you on what will "protect" them. I favour identifying and isolating- either in prison or in treatment- those men who take action to harm children rather than trying to control thier minds.

Uh huh. How about dealing with the point?Which point?

We are just so not going to live in an anarchy,
Of course not. I did not so advocate.

so how about dealing with the actual topic,
You mean, " The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?"

Isn't that what I've been discussing?

rather than hiding behind "freedom of expression"?
"Hiding behind"? That is the basis of my decision making process in this matter.

Or are you saying that nothing is more sacred to you than your overstretched idea of freedom of expression,
How is it "overstretched"?

so that you are completely willing to sacrifice anything to it, including the protection of children?
No. But I don't see how sacrificing freedom of expression is going to protect children. People harm children in the abscence of explicit materials. People harm children when explicit materials are banned. People harm children despite laws against harming children. How is giving up freedom of expression supposed to protect children?

Do be clear.
I always try to.

[Piscivore]

The usual way; the informed electorate vote in a government, which itself forms statutory regulatory bodies, who together with the law courts decide what the law is and how it is applied.

You know, the usual realworld way.

Well, that's encouraging, to say the least. What do you do when the "informed electorate" disagrees with you, on some fairly fundamental points?

I'll do this as well.

Ah, the good ol' slippery slope fallacy in full cry. :)
That's actually not a slippery slope fallacy, but another analogy. It would have been slippery slope if I had said that outlawing child porn would lead to the outlawing of mainstream porn, and the next thing you know all the women are wearing burkhas.

But I didn't say that.

As you well know, real life is complex. That's why we make complex decisions. Since real life is complex, then it does not allow itself to be reduced to a set of simplistic formalisms.
Indeed. Please illustrate a "simplistic formalism" i've used.

[Gurdur]

...yes of course, I am arguing my values.
...
I do argue that values based on facts are better than values based upon raw emotion, though.
Again, this is where you commit the same error. Just what is supposed to differentiate "values based on facts" from "values based upon raw emotion"?
Only your opinon?

I'm stressing here that values are only that, they are not truth statements. Appeals to rhetoric like "facts" versus "raw emotion" are a muddling of the actual fact ;) that values cannot be derived from facts.
Cheers.
In point of fact each of the laws you mention are flauted by many people on a daily basis. Isn't there an argument to be made that the laws aren't working as well as they should?
Pardon me? We should abolish laws against murder simply because lots of murders happen?

Can you tell I get impatient with that line of attempted reasoning? ;)
Also, isn't it the right of a citizen to complain when a law is unjust?
Who said it wasn't? Can you tell I get very impatient with red herrings and strawmen?
Quite the opposite. I just have a different opinion that you on what will "protect" them. I favour identifying and isolating- either in prison or in treatment- those men who take action to harm children rather than trying to control thier minds.
Point is here we're discussing preventitive action through the banning of kiddie porno, plus see my point about the coming inability to distinguish between virtual (simulated) kiddie porn and kiddie porn using real children.

Since it can be viably mooted that allowing unrestricted kiddie porno creates an atmosphere of acceptance of kiddie sexual exploitation, as well as amplifying desires to exploit chikldren sexually, then a ban seems damned well in order. Also a point I raised already, which seems to have been ignored; in present-day technology, given the ofttimes problems of distinguishing between virtual (simulated) and reallife kiddie porn, then only a ban on both is practicable.

Since there are no good reasons to be made for allowing kiddie porno, apart from appeals to absolutist totally-unlimited freedom of expression, then IMHO there's not much reason not to ban the garbage.

I do believe that covers everything worth covering.

Various others:
What do you do when the "informed electorate" disagrees with you, on some fairly fundamental points? [etc.]
I dunno, give me a bloody example. Crissakes. I would have thought I was very clear about tackling real-life problems in a real way; if you think I am going to go haring after really wildly vague red herrings, think again.

IOW, use commonsense, and stay concrete.

To repeat the point; the real world cannot be reduced to a small set of simplistic formulations as absolutist principles.

Cheers.

[Gurdur]

..That's actually not a slippery slope fallacy, but another analogy.
Wrong, it's both. It's an analogy whose appeal bases itself on the slippery slope fallacy.

[dann]

Wrong. It is the HUNGER which makes you act on it. Plenty of people can smell fresh bread and not go into a feeding frenzy. People can even smell fresh bread and not eat it even if they are "hungry"- maybe the bread doesn't belong to them.That is a law that you seem to respect: If you are hungry, you are not allowed to eat bread that doesn't belong to you!
Well, that's one point where I wouldn't be adamant about obeying the law.
Wrong. The onus is on the dieter to control his own behavior. We don't outlaw donuts because some people have a problem controlling themselves.Of course it is, but I would still not expose a friend on a diet to the scent of donuts fresh from the oven if I could prevent it. I also would not tempt a recovering alcoholic with a bottle of booze. That still doesn't mean that I don't think that the onus is on the alcoholic.
It isn't? please explain in what dimension or ether it resides, then.
(...)
Prove it. In any case, I'm not championing pedophilia. I'm arguing for freedom of expression.
What I said was: "In the case of paedophilia the sexual urge as such is physical, that children are the object of your desire, however, isn’t, it’s a perversion of the sexual instincts."
It, i.e. paedophilia, resides between the ears, not between the legs. The sexual urges are usually aimed at a sexually mature member of the opposite other sex, and of course there's an evolutionary advantage in this: You don't procreate by having sex with bicycle seats or children.
But the sexual urges are very flexible in the sense that they can be directed at objects not 'intended' by nature. A very common variation is homosexuality where you desire members of your own sex, apparently connected to variations in the hormone levels of the amniotic fluid during pregnancy. I don't really know. (And I don't really care.)
Other variations, perversions, appear to be the result of deficient self-confidence, probably due to nurture rather than nature.
Ask a girdle salesperson sometime about fetishism being "victimless". But that aside, this whole discussion of the "roots of pedophilia" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Then don't ask. I'll get back to your "freedom of expression" and other freedoms.
I'm going to mention in passing that I don't agree with your equating "heterosexual" with "normal".And where exactly do I "equate" them? Would "usual" have been a better word? Or "most frequent"?
That's what I said. Do you think that people only use "porn" in their sexual fantasies? Do you think that material that is not intended in anyway to stimulate sexual desire cannot nevertheless do so?Bicycle seats, for instance? Yes, I do. And sometimes a shoe may come in handy when you need a hammer, but haven't got one. What is your point?
Why don't you explain what you consider "ordinary pornography". I think I do ...
The only "purpose" of pornography is to make money. That is why it is produced and made available. What the end user does with it is completely inconsequential to the creator.As long as the end user actually buys whatever the 'creator' wants to sell. That is the reason why the 'creator' is very interested in meeting the demand of the buyer, i.e. his or her (solvent!) needs. This is where you find the purpose of pornography. You seem to confuse the issue with what characterizes any kind of commodity. Utility value as opposed to what you get when you exchange it for other commodities or money. (As if you were not aware of the difference!)
It sounds like your exposure to porn has been pretty limited and your ideas about it are frankly quaint.Probably. Does it not sound like a fair description of mainstream porn?
Who, in your estimation, gets to decide what sort of fantasies an adult may be "encouraged" to have"? I don't know. The decider, maybe?
Who is the arbiter of which fantasies are "fairly harmless"? There actually is one, an arbiter? I didn't even know that.
Prove it.I'll see if I can come up with a link or two.
That's as may be, but you CAN'T! Even if all forms of explicit material involving sex with children were to vanish overnight, people who want to f[rule 8] children will still fantasize about it. The only think you will accomplish is that a whole bunch of civil rights will be trodden on. How the hell do you reason when you claim that I'm treading on civil rights, freedom of expression etc.? And where do I claim that anything would "vanish overnight"
You see that word "may"? That's not enough to trade a basic civil right for. Like our donut-crazed dieter, it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptaion.More of my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights ... Where do you find them?
Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City"?Gurdur already dealt with this one?
So? Do you think if we outlawed Sylvia's books people would stop beliving in psychics?No. Do you think that her books encourage people to believe in psychics? I wouldn't encourage 'superstitiously challenged' friends of mine to read the crap.
If someone feels they are at the point of crossing a line from fantasy into action, yes, they should.
Up to and until the point where he stops fantasising and acts, though, no one on this planet should have the right to control how he thinks. And who is trying to control how he thinks? I know that the title of this thread was "The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?" However, my very first words in it were:
I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged. I.e. if paedophilia was legal, I would still be against it! OK?! I might even try to prevent a paedophile from having sex with children, thus infringing on his inalienable rights. Right!?

[Piscivore]

Again, this is where you commit the same error. Just what is supposed to differentiate "values based on facts" from "values based upon raw emotion"?
Only your opinon?
No.
A value based on fact would be something like "Airbags can be statistically shown to save more lives more often than they hurt people, therefore they are a positive addition to a vehicle"
A value based on emotion would be somethink like "Airbags are EXPLOSIVES planted in your car, and that is SCARY, so airbags are bad."

I'm stressing here that values are only that, they are not truth statements.
I'm not disagreeing.

Appeals to rhetoric like "facts" versus "raw emotion" are a muddling of the actual fact ;) that values cannot be derived from facts.
You are wrong.
People value "psychics" because the notion makes them feel good. Skeptics do not because the facts say they are not legitimate.

Cheers.
Sliante.

Pardon me? We should abolish laws against murder simply because lots of murders happen?
No. I'm just pointing out that laws created to "protect" are not the complete answer to any social problem. Obviously we need to have laws against murder, if for no other reason than to have a legal, just avenue to sanction those that act in violation of accepted social standards. But that shouldn't mean we criminalise artistic or commercial works, regardless of their perceived quality or intent, that depict murder as long as no actual murder is commited to produce them.

Can you tell I get impatient with that line of attempted reasoning? ;)
What line?

[quote]Who said it wasn't? Can you tell I get very impatient with red herrings and strawmen?
It isn't a red herring or a straw man. I wanted to know what your feelings were on this matter. Some people see morality and/or legality as an absolute. I can not know if you are one of them unless I ask, can I?

You get impatient a lot. Calm down, it's just a discussion.

Point is here we're discussing preventitive action through the banning of kiddie porno,
Can you prove that banning "kiddie porno" prevents pedophilia?
You have stated you feel there is a difference between "kiddie porno" and "legitimate" artistic works that include explicit depictions of sex with children. Do you think a pedophile is going to be affected by the distinction?

plus see my point about the coming inability to distinguish between virtual (simulated) kiddie porn and kiddie porn using real children.
Why should that matter? If our concern is protecting children, isn't the only consideration whether a child was harmed?

Since it can be viably mooted that allowing unrestricted kiddie porno creates an atmosphere of acceptance of kiddie sexual exploitation,
Almost anything can be "viably mooted". Prove it.

as well as amplifying desires to exploit children sexually,
Prove it. It seems to me the desire exists independantly and regardless of the availability of explicit material.

then a ban seems damned well in order.
If your premises are correct. I do not think they are. Prove them.

Also a point I raised already, which seems to have been ignored; in present-day technology, given the ofttimes problems of distinguishing between virtual (simulated) and reallife kiddie porn, then only a ban on both is practicable.
I would say that as the virtual porn gets better, the relative cost to use real children would go up, and therefore the impetus to use real children would decline. That seems like a good thing to me.

Since there are no good reasons to be made for allowing kiddie porno,[quote]
There have been several in this thread, and not just made by me. Did you miss them?

[quote]apart from appeals to absolutist totally-unlimited freedom of expression,
I've never so advocated. I think you've misread my position.

then IMHO there's not much reason not to ban the garbage.

I do believe that covers everything worth covering.
If you say so.

I dunno, give me a bloody example. Crissakes. I would have thought I was very clear about tackling real-life problems in a real way; if you think I am going to go haring after really wildly vague red herrings, think again.
Okay. Let's take the recent Michael Richards incident. Al Sharpton said on a cable talk show recently (I apologise, I did not catch the name, I was surfing) that in his opinion the "N" word should be outlawed. So far, no electorates have endorsed this view. What is his recourse?

IOW, use commonsense,
What would that be, exactly? Your point of view?

and stay concrete.
I'm not arguing freedom of expression in the abstract.

To repeat the point; the real world cannot be reduced to a small set of simplistic formulations as absolutist principles.
Like "ban the garbage"? :)

Please identify where I have reduced anything to a simplistic formulation or espoused an absolutist principle.

[quote]Cheers.
Lechaim.

[Piscivore]

Wrong, it's both. It's an analogy whose appeal bases itself on the slippery slope fallacy.

No. An analogy is a comparison in kind inteded to illustrate or clarify a point. A "slippery-slope" argument is an assertion that a particular situation will lead to a new, less desirable situation. I did not do this.

If I had said that outlawing "kiddy porn" would lead to those other situations, that might be a slippery slope. But I didn't.

[daenku32]

So.. Since we can ban pornography that is directly abusing underaged kids, how about placing a 'sin tax' on the rest of them. Since much of cigarette taxes can be justified by spending them on treating people who got cancer without smoking themselves (probably because parent's smoked at home), could we at least tax the 'borderline' cases, to treat people who are victimized by sexual crimes? The "we cannot Constitutionally ban it" clause does prohibit many bans but it doesn't inhibit taxation.

[Dave1001]

So.. Since we can ban pornography that is directly abusing underaged kids, how about placing a 'sin tax' on the rest of them. Since much of cigarette taxes can be justified by spending them on treating people who got cancer without smoking themselves (probably because parent's smoked at home), could we at least tax the 'borderline' cases, to treat people who are victimized by sexual crimes? The "we cannot Constitutionally ban it" clause does prohibit many bans but it doesn't inhibit taxation.

It sounds like a great idea in principle, but that could be its own dangerous slippery slope ("sin" taxes on some forms of speech). Are there any forms of speech that currently are arguably sin-taxed*?

*I'm aware of the sin-tax/syntax pun potentials.

[Gurdur]

.... how about placing a 'sin tax' on the rest of them. ....
Just wondering who you mean by "them". Clarify?

[Gurdur]

No. An analogy is a comparison in kind inteded to illustrate or clarify a point. A "slippery-slope" argument is an assertion that a particular situation will lead to a new, less desirable situation. I did not do this.
Wrong again, on no less than three different counts, indeedy. :rolleyes:

First off, an analogy is a comparison; however it need not be in kind. Which is why "apples and oranges" fallacies can exist.

Next off you claim you did not commit it; you're very wrong, and *yawn* we will examine exactly what you said, exactly how you committed it, and oh BTW, we'll also examine the other errors you made in exactly the same bit as well. Last time I bother with such a time-consuming crappy derail.
Dann wrote:
It may not only ”facilitate the fantasy” and help the unfortunate paedophile get off, it may also persuade him that this is the way children are and should be treated.
You replied:
You see that word "may"? That's not enough to trade a basic civil right for. Like our donut-crazed dieter, it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptaion.
Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City"?
First off, you tried making a value assertion as if it was a fact.
When you said, "it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptation", just who sez so? You? Not good enough. That was only your own personal opinion, nothing more.

Next off, you tried claiming it was a basic civil right, something which is nonsense (since when is publishing kiddie porn a basic civil right?). Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and above all other rights, which is the only tenable position from which you could logically make such an assertion; since the laws of libel, slander, obtaining money under false pretences and numerous other laws all quite affect and limit freedom of speech, it is not an absolute right, but a conditional one. Live with it, suck it up, it is not the absolute right you pretend it is in fact, and ethically it does not necessarily trump all other rights.

Since you have specifically replied you are not advocating unlimited free speech in another post, then you are either being illogical and badly confused, or you are being dishonest.

Now we get onto the two fallacies you committed, an "apples and oranges" false comparison and a slippery-slope fallacy.

The apples and oranges:
"Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City""

You are claiming these are logically and situationally equivalent to banning kiddie porn so it does not amplify pedophilia. That is completely false.

Porn is very directly about the fulfillment of a desire. Porn is sold on that basis.
Murder mysteries are not. Murder mysteries are not sold because people want to vicariously murder.
Babe, Pig In The City does not have one single bit about humans having sex with animals, and does not advocate it in the slightest.

So it was a bloody stupid analogy of yours, wasn't it? Illogical, non-matching and a mere rhetorical trick.

And at long last we come to the slippery slope. Contrary to what you claim, a slippery slope fallacy starts off with the fallacious claim that various premises are linked by logic and type on a continuum, and one must lead to the next:
IOW, of the logic type: if X, then Y, W, and Z.

You claimed that murder mysteries, kiddie porn, films about robbing casinos and films about ape-challenged pigs in urbania are all linked on the same continuum, and therefore banning kiddie porn because it may amplify pedophilia was therefore logically equivalent to banning murder mysteries on the false premise that they amplify desires to murder.

Thereby the whole slippery-slope fallacy: you were claiming a direct equivalence on a logical continuum between those various statements, an equivalence which simply does not exist. In fact you went further; you directly implied that because kiddie porn is in fact banned (for amplifying pedoism, among other things), we should then ban murder mysteries for causing murder, etc.

There we go:
1) the nature of an analogy
2) your apples and oranges error
3) your slippery slope

Cheers, etc. Last time I bother with such a waste of time.

[daenku32]

Just wondering who you mean by "them". Clarify?
With "Them" I mean things like novels that contain written pornography. Constitutional grounds can be use to keep many written novels or even graphics legal. I think some of the recent court cases established that. Since the topic contains arousement of illegal sexual activity, it could get a tax. As I don't think cigarette tax really stops people from smoking, I don't think this would really limit the usage of said material. But it might gain resources to deal with the resulting problems.

It's a topic that probably would require a wider consideration for other things, but it could still be a focus point.

[Piscivore]

That is a law that you seem to respect: If you are hungry, you are not allowed to eat bread that doesn't belong to you!
Well, that's one point where I wouldn't be adamant about obeying the law.
I'm sure the bakers in your community will be happy to know this. :)

I've not argued civil disobediance yet.

Of course it is, but I would still not expose a friend on a diet to the scent of donuts fresh from the oven if I could prevent it. I also would not tempt a recovering alcoholic with a bottle of booze. That still doesn't mean that I don't think that the onus is on the alcoholic.
Such is your right, and you sound like a pretty good friend. But do you think it is just to force all your neighbors to eschew donuts in your friend's presence, despite their wishes? Or to deny alcohol to everyone because some people have a problem with it?

What I said was: "In the case of paedophilia the sexual urge as such is physical, that children are the object of your desire, however, isn’t, it’s a perversion of the sexual instincts."
It, i.e. paedophilia, resides between the ears, not between the legs. The sexual urges are usually aimed at a sexually mature member of the opposite other sex, and of course there's an evolutionary advantage in this: You don't procreate by having sex with bicycle seats or children.
But the sexual urges are very flexible in the sense that they can be directed at objects not 'intended' by nature. A very common variation is homosexuality where you desire members of your own sex, apparently connected to variations in the hormone levels of the amniotic fluid during pregnancy. I don't really know. (And I don't really care.)
Other variations, perversions, appear to be the result of deficient self-confidence, probably due to nurture rather than nature.
"Perversions" reside between the ears as well. Including the judgement that they are "perverse", but that usually happens between a different set of ears.

And "nature" intends nothing.
Then don't ask. I'll get back to your "freedom of expression" and other freedoms.
Thanks. Let's do.

And where exactly do I "equate" them? Would "usual" have been a better word? Or "most frequent"?
Those are better words, yes.

Bicycle seats, for instance?
As an extreme example, yes. I was thinking more prosaically, like the aforementioned shopgirl, et al.
Yes, I do. And sometimes a shoe may come in handy when you need a hammer, but haven't got one. What is your point?
That in the absence of explicit material substitutions can and will be made with unexplicit and sexually neutral material. This seems to show that fantasy does not need or depend on "encouragement", and it raises doubts it even exacerbates them.

I think I do ...
I was hoping you would be a little more detailed.

As long as the end user actually buys whatever the 'creator' wants to sell. That is the reason why the 'creator' is very interested in meeting the demand of the buyer, i.e. his or her (solvent!) needs.
I'm not really sure what you mean by "solvent" needs. The creator is only concerned with the purchaser's needs as far as is required to sell the most product. There is no benefit to the creator to specifically cater to a specific, individualised demand, unless he is doing custom work. in fact, excessively catering to individualised desires can actually be counterproductive as far as sales are concerned.
For example, a creator of pornography is going to create content featuring young-looking girls, or girls wearing a plaid skirt, or girls in stockings and high heels. They are not going to worry much about the pattern of the tartan, or the colour of the heels, or the hair colour of the girl, even though this may be of concern to the end user. There may be buyers that only want to see girls dressed in the uniform of St. Discordia's Home for Wayward Girls, but catering to this market alone might hinder sales to those buyers that don't find them as desirable, for whatever reason.

This is where you find the purpose of pornography.
No, you are wrong. Find me one pornographer that is more interested in making sure guys get off than he is in the bottom line.

Dude, a pimp isn't interested in whether you went away happy, just that you paid and went away.

You seem to confuse the issue with what characterizes any kind of commodity. Utility value as opposed to what you get when you exchange it for other commodities or money. (As if you were not aware of the difference!)
I'm not. Please explain.

Probably. Does it not sound like a fair description of mainstream porn?
One girl, one guy? No.

I don't know. The decider, maybe?
But in outlawing certain types of pornography, aren't you attempting to remove that right from the decider and putting it in the hands of a governmental authority?

There actually is one, an arbiter? I didn't even know that.
Well, you are acting as one, when you declare that monogamus hetero is "fairly harmless". There are people who disagree, and would consider this attitude dangerous to the health and welfare of society at large.

I'll see if I can come up with a link or two.
Please do.

How the hell do you reason when you claim that I'm treading on civil rights, freedom of expression etc.?
How else are you going to accomplish the goal inherent in "the fantasy of having sex with children should be discouraged" without getting into legislating people's thoughts?

And where do I claim that anything would "vanish overnight"
You didn't. I was making a point.

More of my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights ... Where do you find them?
The one in question is pretty well summed up in Article 19 (http://www.ohchr.org/english/law/ccpr.htm) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Gurdur already dealt with this one?
Badly. Ignorantly. I'd be interested in your take.

No. Do you think that her books encourage people to believe in psychics?
Probably. Does she not have that right?
I wouldn't encourage 'superstitiously challenged' friends of mine to read the crap.
Would you criminalise it?

And who is trying to control how he thinks?
People whio want to use the law to "discourage" his fantasies.

I know that the title of this thread was "The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?" However, my very first words in it were:
I.e. if paedophilia was legal, I would still be against it!
So would I. But "exposure to child pornography" != "pedophilic action", and "explicit depictions of sex with children != pornography".

We can punish people for performing the actions of a pedophile (whether he is or not) but we shouldn't for just being a pedophile.

OK?! I might even try to prevent a paedophile from having sex with children, thus infringing on his inalienable rights. Right!?
No one has a right to break the law. If you disagree with a law, you may certainly violate it to make a statement- it is called "civil disobediance"- but you must be prepared to accept the consequences.

And in any case, I am not arguing in favour of f[rule 8]g children. Thinking it, talking about it, lobbying for the right to do it, writing a story about it, drawing a picture of it, creating a 3d computer model of it, describing it in great detail at the neighborhood pub or the internet- yes. Anyone should be free to do any of those things. But not actually doing it.

[Gurdur]

Gurdur already dealt with this one....Badly. Ignorantly..
I'm amused. ;) Can you actually do any real and rational answer, or are you now limited to employing empty abuse instead?

Edited to add: go back and actually read, and rationally reply (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2211847&postcount=124), instead of trying the empty abuse.
:D

[dann]

You quote me as saying:
I know that the title of this thread was "The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?" However, my very first words in it were:
I.e. if paedophilia was legal, I would still be against it!
Not exactly my very first words on this thread! They were:
I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged.

You seem to be so preoccupied with the question of legality/illegality that you see it everywhere, even when it isn't present. I asked you:
More of my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights ... Where do you find them?And you answer:
The one in question is pretty well summed up in Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.But that still doesn't answer my question: Where do you find my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights? I didn't ask you where you find the human rights catalogue!
And why ask me:
Would you criminalise it?I'm not a politician. I'm not a lawmaker. To quote myself again, and maybe this time you'll notice:
I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. And your preoccupation with punishment annoys me for the same reason.

[Kevin_Lowe]

An awful lot of harm comes from people who claim that they had consensual, non-distressing sex with underage children.


You will have to join the dots a little more for me, I am afraid. A lot of harm comes from people who claim a woman wanted to be raped and/or enjoyed it too. It does not follow from that that women never want to have sex, never enjoy sex, or are inevitably harmed by sex.

So what follows from the fact that sexual predators inevitably lie in their own defence, exactly?


That paedophiles either don't care or can't tell the difference - if your claim is true!

What do you conclude from this, that speaks to the question of whether child pornography (in whatever form) should be legal?

Couldn't images of sexualized preteens, help people to develop into paedophiles ?

It seems to be theoretically possible. Is there any evidence it is actually the case?

Yes. It actively appeals to those who would participate in the criminal activity, and glorifies and actively encourages that activity. Like a children's book describing how great it would be to take your first hit of cocaine.

Yes, but it is perfectly legal to make fiction that appeals to people who would participate in all sorts of illegal activities, that glorify and actively encourage that activity. Unless you cross the border into actually committing crimes, however, it remains protected speech. There needs to be evidence that glorifying/encouraging this particular illegal activity actually leads to harm to real people in the real world.

Bingo.
Because this is one of the clichéd stock claims of pedos running around everywhere --- that it's all nonharmful or could be. IOW, they willfully evade the point for the sake of their agitprop.


It is not a meaningful answer to just say "that evades the point". Where is your evidence that non-distressing, consensual sex is bad for underage people once you control for the other relevant factors? The mere fact that paedophiles make a particular claim is not evidence that particular claim is false.


There is no valid reason at all for child porno displaying in any way children under the age of 13. Prohibition of that is a damned good idea. If anyone wants to try chanting that really tired old cliché of "nanny state" in relation to the criminalization of kiddie porn, bite me. Blow me. Kiss my arse. Put away the dumb strawmen and the self-congratulatory garbage about watching the watchers, and deal with the point.

On the contrary, people want such pornography and enjoy it. Absent evidence that such material leads to real harm to real people, that alone is a valid reason for such material to exist. As others have said I might not like such material, or the people who consume it, but I need more than my dislike to justify criminalisation.


And lastly; children are children. They need to be protected against adult exploitation. And if anyone doesn't like that and wants to whine how brave they personally are by demanding children be treated like adults, kiss my arse again.

It's easy and fun to make bold stand on the internet against "evil". However I am going to ask you to do something much harder and less fun. Find some evidence to back up your implied claim that banning pornographic depictions of underage sexuality actually protects children from adult exploitation.

[Piscivore]

Wrong again, on no less than three different counts, indeedy. :rolleyes:
Yes, you are. :)

First off, an analogy is a comparison; however it need not be in kind. Which is why "apples and oranges" fallacies can exist.
An analogy that is not in kind is not an analogy. As you say, it is a fallacy. So, yes, analogies must "need be in kind".

Next off you claim you did not commit it; you're very wrong, and *yawn* we will examine exactly what you said, exactly how you committed it, and oh BTW, we'll also examine the other errors you made in exactly the same bit as well. Last time I bother with such a time-consuming crappy derail.
Dann wrote:
"It may not only ”facilitate the fantasy” and help the unfortunate paedophile get off, it may also persuade him that this is the way children are and should be treated."

You replied:
"You see that word "may"? That's not enough to trade a basic civil right for. Like our donut-crazed dieter, it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptaion.
Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City"?"

First off, you tried making a value assertion as if it was a fact.
No, I didn't. In fact, at your urging, I stated specifically I was arguing my values.

When you said, "it is incumbent on the person to rein in that desire, not on society to remove all temptation", just who sez so? You? Not good enough. That was only your own personal opinion, nothing more.
I didn't claim otherwise.

Next off, you tried claiming it was a basic civil right, something which is nonsense
In your opinion.

(since when is publishing kiddie porn a basic civil right?).
When it falls under freedom of expression.

Freedom of speech is not an absolute right and above all other rights,
I didn't make that claim, that is your error, which I've already once corrected for you.

which is the only tenable position from which you could logically make such an assertion;
No, you are mistaken. Since you do not understand the most basic element of my position I'm not surprised.

since the laws of libel, slander, obtaining money under false pretences and numerous other laws all quite affect and limit freedom of speech, it is not an absolute right,
Quite so.

but a conditional one.
Wrong. Conditional rights are created by statute. Even limited as they must be civil rights trump statutory rights.

Sorry, "In my opinion and as I understand it".

Live with it, suck it up, it is not the absolute right you pretend it is in fact, and ethically it does not necessarily trump all other rights.
I do not so pretend.

Since you have specifically replied you are not advocating unlimited free speech in another post,
And in this one.

then you are either being illogical and badly confused, or you are being dishonest.
No, you just don't understand.

Now we get onto the two fallacies you committed, an "apples and oranges" false comparison and a slippery-slope fallacy.

The apples and oranges:
"Some people want to commit murder, do we outlaw murder mysteries?
Some people want to rob a casino, do we ban "Ocean's 11"?
Some people want to f[rule 8] animals, do we burn all our copies of "Babe, Pig in the City""

You are claiming these are logically and situationally equivalent to banning kiddie porn so it does not amplify pedophilia. That is completely false.
No, it isn't. You are classifying pornography based upon the effect the material has on a certain small group of people, yet you do not do so for other genres.

Porn is very directly about the fulfillment of a desire. Porn is sold on that basis.
It may be for the consumer, not for the provider. The providers could care less if their customers get their rocks off or not, as long as they get paid.
And as I've said about a dozen times now, this desire will be "fulfilled" one way or another regardles of the availability of "porn"

Murder mysteries are not. Murder mysteries are not sold because people want to vicariously murder.
You know the motives of every single person who buys murder mysteries? that's f[rule 8]g impressive. Why do people buy them then?

Babe, Pig In The City does not have one single bit about humans having sex with animals, and does not advocate it in the slightest.
That's the point. A guy that wants to f[rule 8] pigs will still be stimulated by it. Why isn't it considered "porn" on the basis that it excites deviants?

So it was a bloody stupid analogy of yours, wasn't it? Illogical, non-matching and a mere rhetorical trick.
Nope, you just didn't get it.

And at long last we come to the slippery slope. Contrary to what you claim, a slippery slope fallacy starts off with the fallacious claim that various premises are linked by logic and type on a continuum, and one must lead to the next:
IOW, of the logic type: if X, then Y, W, and Z.
But I did not use that structure. There is no "If" or "Then", explicit or implied, linking those terms. They are completely independant, related at all by only a single point of similarity.

I hope that clears up your confusion.

You claimed that murder mysteries, kiddie porn, films about robbing casinos and films about ape-challenged pigs in urbania are all linked on the same continuum,
Nope. this "continuum" idea is your invention.

and therefore banning kiddie porn because it may amplify pedophilia was therefore logically equivalent to banning murder mysteries on the false premise that they amplify desires to murder.
Quite so. The source of your confusion is your dogmatic adherence to the unfouded assertion that "kiddie porn" does in fact amplify pedophilic behaviour. If you have evidence that this is the case I'd love to see it.

Thereby the whole slippery-slope fallacy: you were claiming a direct equivalence on a logical continuum between those various statements, an equivalence which simply does not exist.
The equivalence does. This "continuum" is your addition, and a mistaken one.

In fact you went further; you directly implied that because kiddie porn is in fact banned (for amplifying pedoism, among other things), we should then ban murder mysteries for causing murder, etc.
I did not such thing. That you think so is beyond understanding, as I am arguing the opposite.

I'm sorry this is so hard for you.

There we go:
1) the nature of an analogy
2) your apples and oranges error
3) your slippery slope
All of which you were mistaken about.

Cheers, etc. Last time I bother with such a waste of time.
Sorry it was too much for you.

[Piscivore]

You quote me as saying:
"I know that the title of this thread was "The Edges Of Child Pornography: What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?" However, my very first words in it were:
I.e. if paedophilia was legal, I would still be against it! "
Not exactly my very first words on this thread! They were:
"I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality. The point is:
Paedophilia hurts children.
Thus it shouldn’t be encouraged."

My mistake, I missed a quote box.

You seem to be so preoccupied with the question of legality/illegality that you see it everywhere, even when it isn't present.
We are discussing "what should be legal, What shouldn't". I'm sorry if the ability to stick to the point comes off as "preoccupation".

But that still doesn't answer my question: Where do you find my alleged infringements of the catalogue of human rights? I didn't ask you where you find the human rights catalogue!
I misunderstood your question. As far as "You see that word "may"? That's not enough to trade a basic civil right for," that does not say that you personally have infringed any rights. That means that prospect that it possibly, maybe, could, might be the case that X media influences Y undesirable behaviour is not enough to trade a basic civil right for.

And why ask me: "Would you criminalise it? "
I'm not a politician. I'm not a lawmaker.
Does that mean, as a citizen, you have no opinion on how you are governed?
To quote myself again, and maybe this time you'll notice:
"I’m not really interested in the question of legality versus illegality."
Well, you picked a funny thread to throw your two cents into, then.

And your preoccupation with punishment annoys me for the same reason.
I like to be spanked. Sorry. :p

[Piscivore]

I'm amused. ;)
Finally. You've been so testy up to now.

Can you actually do any real and rational answer, or are you now limited to employing empty abuse instead?
I'm sorry you take criticism as abuse. It was not meant as such.

Edited to add: go back and actually read, and rationally reply (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2211847&postcount=124), instead of trying the empty abuse.
:D
I was getting to you, geez. Impaitent much?

[Gurdur]

....An analogy that is not in kind is not an analogy. As you say, it is a fallacy. So, yes, analogies must "need be in kind".
Funny. :D You're really doing terribly with the logic today, aren't you?
I described for you how analogies are used in real life, and pointed out to you that they need not be in kind in real life, just like yours where not in kind.
Now you come up with some twaddle in return.
....No, you are mistaken. Since you do not understand the most basic element of my position I'm not surprised.
*snicker*
Apart from the numerous strawmen and empty rhetoric in your "position", you're bloody confused and illogical about what your position actually is. I like how you blame your own incoherence on everyone else, though. ;)
Wrong. Conditional rights are created by statute. Even limited as they must be civil rights trump statutory rights.
*snicker again*
Let me try making this really clear in ultra-short words for you, so you can understand it.

The right to freedom of expression is conditional to it not transgressing the limits upon that right, limits such as laws on libel, slander etc.
This means that it does not trump those limits, limits predicated on other rights (the right not to be libelled, for example).

OK, I know I used some long words there, but which part of that do you refuse to understand?
....No, you just don't understand.
Sure, sure. There, there. :D

Translated, that only means I do not agree with you and you have no good return argument.
....You know the motives of every single person who buys murder mysteries? that's f[rule 8]g impressive. Why do people buy them then?
You're being dishonest now; as said, your claim could only logically work if you pretend people buy murder mysteries in order to enjoy murder vicariously --- meaning you lay claim to knowing their motives. I'ld love to see your evidence. :D

And BTW you could also try backing up your utterly ridiculous claim about Babe In The City.
:D
Quite so. The source of your confusion is your dogmatic adherence to the unfouded assertion that "kiddie porn" does in fact amplify pedophilic behaviour. If you have evidence that this is the case I'd love to see it.
No, now you're really not being honest. Let's see, you totally failed to deal with this post:
.....Point is here we're discussing preventitive action through the banning of kiddie porno, plus see my point about the coming inability to distinguish between virtual (simulated) kiddie porn and kiddie porn using real children.

Since it can be viably mooted that allowing unrestricted kiddie porno creates an atmosphere of acceptance of kiddie sexual exploitation, as well as amplifying desires to exploit chikldren sexually, then a ban seems damned well in order. Also a point I raised already, which seems to have been ignored; in present-day technology, given the ofttimes problems of distinguishing between virtual (simulated) and reallife kiddie porn, then only a ban on both is practicable.

Since there are no good reasons to be made for allowing kiddie porno, apart from appeals to absolutist totally-unlimited freedom of expression, then IMHO there's not much reason not to ban the garbage.

I do believe that covers everything worth covering......
....I'm sorry this is so hard for you. ....Sorry it was too much for you.
Naw, I found your incoherent arguments and strawmen very easy to deal with indeed. Sorry if that upsets you.
:p

[Gurdur]

.... Where is your evidence that non-distressing, consensual sex is bad for underage people once you control for the other relevant factors?
You seem not to have read many of the posts in this thread. I'm going to refer you back to some in a minute.
On the contrary, people want such pornography and enjoy it. Absent evidence that such material leads to real harm to real people, that alone is a valid reason for such material to exist.
Bollocks again. Merely because someone wants it is not a "valid" reason for it to exist. You're taking your own personal opinion as a natural law.
It's easy and fun to make bold stand on the internet against "evil".
Meh, it's easier and so much more fun to take a stand on the net in favour of absolute individual freedom regardless of what it costs. Too bad others object.
However I am going to ask you to do something much harder and less fun. Find some evidence to back up your implied claim that banning pornographic depictions of underage sexuality actually protects children from adult exploitation.
I'm going to give you a challenge instead:
Read what I posted before (which I will quote below), and also read my other post on the nature of kiddie porn and just what it is for.
.....Point is here we're discussing preventitive action through the banning of kiddie porno, plus see my point about the coming inability to distinguish between virtual (simulated) kiddie porn and kiddie porn using real children.

Since it can be viably mooted that allowing unrestricted kiddie porno creates an atmosphere of acceptance of kiddie sexual exploitation, as well as amplifying desires to exploit chikldren sexually, then a ban seems damned well in order. Also a point I raised already, which seems to have been ignored; in present-day technology, given the ofttimes problems of distinguishing between virtual (simulated) and reallife kiddie porn, then only a ban on both is practicable.

Since there are no good reasons to be made for allowing kiddie porno, apart from appeals to absolutist totally-unlimited freedom of expression, then IMHO there's not much reason not to ban the garbage.

I do believe that covers everything worth covering......

Since, BTW, kiddie porn is in fact banned in many countries, I'm happy. :p

[Gurdur]

Just to expand on my last point: since kiddie porno is in fact banned in pretty well all civilized places, I feel no great need to waste my time producing the evidence for it to be so on a bulletin board. Go argue with the law courts and governments instead for that one.
:D

[Rasmus]

As long as the arguments against such material are more or less the same as the ones used against gay marriage, adoption or homosexuality per se, I will keep supporting the right to produce or use it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You seem not to have read many of the posts in this thread. I'm going to refer you back to some in a minute.

I have, and they contain no evidence at all. Your argument is that since your opinions can be "viably mooted" they should be treated as if they were true, which is just plain silly, and that we must ban simulated child pornography now because in a decade or three we might not be able to tell the simulated porn made then from the real thing, which is just plain silly as well.


Bollocks again. Merely because someone wants it is not a "valid" reason for it to exist. You're taking your own personal opinion as a natural law.

I don't believe there is any such thing as "natural law". What I do believe is that if you want to restrict the freedom of a fellow citizen to do, read or possess something then you need to show cause. Which means presenting evidence of harm to someone, not just "mooting" your opinions.

That's not lunatic absolutist libertarianism. I'm not arguing you should be free to do whatever you want even if it hurts other people. I'm arguing you should be free to do what you want if it doesn't hurt other people, and you have yet to show any evidence that child pornography in general hurts people.


I'm going to give you a challenge instead:
Read what I posted before (which I will quote below), and also read my other post on the nature of kiddie porn and just what it is for.


It was indeed a challenge to get through all that, but I didn't see any facts or any evidence in there.

You do understand the difference between facts and evidence on one hand, and opinion and assertion on the other hand?


Since, BTW, kiddie porn is in fact banned in many countries, I'm happy. :p

Throughout history all sorts of evil things have been legal and harmless things been illegal. The current state of the law is not a reliable guide to whether something actually causes harm or not.

[Rasmus]

Regarding the possibility that one might be able to produce computer generated child porn that is indistinguishable from regular film:

1) We're far from having that possibility.

2) A producer of a child porn film is taken to court over the issue and claims that he rendered the entire flick on his PC - but it just so happens that he lost every last shred of data, every single bit of uncountable gigabytes of mesh-data, skins, etc. that was allegedly used in the production. No pre-renderings are available as evidence to the jury; the technical equipment has somehow disappeared. And it's just a total coincidence that the characters in the movie are the 100% look-alikes of the kids of the producer's neighbours...

3) If it was possible to produce material in that kind of quality the incentive to commit a crime by using real children would likely drop. (After all, they do use computers these days to show us things that would have been simply impossible not too long ago or would have cost the live of many a stuntman.)

[Skeptic]

The "borderline" of child porn--e.g., things that are very close to it but do not cross the road into actual illegality--reminds me of the old joke about the Rabbi who was asked if a piece of meat that fell into a dung heap is kosher: "It might be kosher, but it sure stinks."

[The Atheist]

Now I have it!

You ARE related to unter, aren't you?

All these cries of "evidence?" for positions which are against your pro-child pornography and pro-paedophile grooming, yet so far you haven't produced any evidence yourself!

You've talked about it plenty, though:

I have, and they contain no evidence at all...

... and you have yet to show any evidence that child pornography in general hurts people.

...but I didn't see any facts or any evidence in there.

You do understand the difference between facts and evidence on one hand, and opinion and assertion on the other hand?


There needs to be evidence that glorifying/encouraging this particular illegal activity ...

Where is your evidence that non-distressing, consensual sex is bad for underage people once you control for the other relevant factors?

Find some evidence to back up your implied claim that banning pornographic depictions of underage sexuality actually protects children from adult exploitation.

Yet, on the other hand, your preoccupation with sex with children is also a prevailing thread in your posts.

Are you trying to tell us something?

....and the available evidence based on studies of people involved in underage sex showed that consensual sex could not be scientifically linked to any harm even if one or both participants were underage.

As long as no actual children are coerced or forced into unwanted sexual activities, there is no basis in the available evidence to criminalise the production or possession of erotica involving underage characters.

As I understand it, it would be more accurate to say that the evidence that consensual and non-distressing underage/overage sex causes harm does not rise to the level of statistical significance once you control for everything else.

I wouldn't say it has been rigorously shown to not harm children. I'd say that it has so far failed to be shown to be harmful once you control for correlated factors like broken homes, alcoholic parents and so forth.

Victims of sexual abuse show statistically significant levels of harm based on such measurements. People who were once the underage partner in consensual and non-distressing underage/X sex do not.

Sex in and of itself is not harmful to a statistically significant degree to underage people.

The evidence is that as long as the sex is consensual and non-distressing there is no long-term harm regardless of the age of the other person involved.

Based on the avilable evidence, consensual and non-distressing sex does no harm at all to underage people in and of itself. Rape, pregnancy disease and so on all do, but sex does not.

So child pornography depicting such sex acts is depicting something which causes no harm.

Sorry, but facts and reality are not on your side Dann. Well designed and controlled studies show no statistically significant harm coming to people who had consensual, non-distressing sex while underage regardless of the age of their partner.

Lovely. Enjoy!

[Dave1001]

Now I have it!

You ARE related to unter, aren't you?

All these cries of "evidence?" for positions which are against your pro-child pornography and pro-paedophile grooming, yet so far you haven't produced any evidence yourself!

You've talked about it plenty, though:

Yet, on the other hand, your preoccupation with sex with children is also a prevailing thread in your posts.

Are you trying to tell us something?

Lovely. Enjoy!

The Atheist, that's a really disappointing argumentative tactic. Kevin_Lowe made clear in this thread that he's not sexually attracted to children -which by the way, is none of our business about any thread participant, in my opinion.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Now I have it!

You ARE related to unter, aren't you?

All these cries of "evidence?" for positions which are against your pro-child pornography and pro-paedophile grooming, yet so far you haven't produced any evidence yourself!

Well, you do seem awfully committed to the idea that child pornography is harmful. So is it totally unreasonable to expect you to have some evidence you can present to back up your idea?


Yet, on the other hand, your preoccupation with sex with children is also a prevailing thread in your posts.

Are you trying to tell us something?


Developmental sexuality and morality is an interesting topic because normally rational people are often incapable of even approaching the matter from an evidence-based perspective. Even on these forums, where skeptics are the majority of the population, it's still nigh impossible to move a discussion past people yelling "Anything involving underage sex is icky and bad, we know it! Anyone who asks for evidence is a child molester!".

If that doesn't make a topic interesting to a skeptic, I don't know what does.

[dann]

We are discussing "what should be legal, What shouldn't". I'm sorry if the ability to stick to the point comes off as "preoccupation".There's a big difference between sticking to the point and insinuating that this is what I'm talking about.
Does that mean, as a citizen, you have no opinion on how you are governed?No, I do have an "opinion". I don't like to be governed.
Well, you picked a funny thread to throw your two cents into, then. I have argued against some of the people advocating the legality of (certain kinds of) kiddie porn. I have argued against kiddie porn. I haven't attempted to answer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2209287#post2209287) the question "What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?"- mainly because the illegality of kiddie porn does not seem to prevent it from being produced and distributed.

[Gurdur]

I have, and they contain no evidence at all. Your argument is that since your opinions can be "viably mooted" they should be treated as if they were true, which is just plain silly,
tsk tsk tsk.
No rational argument from you, merely an unsubstantiated assertion. :) How ironical in view of ...... You do understand the difference between facts and evidence on one hand, and opinion and assertion on the other hand?
Apparently I understand it far better than you do. :D
I'm arguing you should be free to do what you want if it doesn't hurt other people, and you have yet to show any evidence that child pornography in general hurts people.
Since I have no respect for your little games, I will point out what you have missed and that is that is that I am putting the burden of proof back on you; prove to me that kiddie porno doesn't cause harm.
:D
Throughout history all sorts of evil things have been legal and harmless things been illegal. The current state of the law is not a reliable guide to whether something actually causes harm or not.
Aaaaaawwwww. Now give me one good argument why kidde porno should be legalised. Come on, I want to hear from you exactly why porno depicting the adult sexual exploitation of children should be legalised. Tell me.

[Dave1001]

tsk tsk tsk.
No rational argument from you, merely an unsubstantiated assertion. :) How ironical in view of ......
Apparently I understand it far better than you do. :D

Since I have no respect for your little games, I will point out what you have missed and that is that is that I am putting the burden of proof back on you; prove to me that kiddie porno doesn't cause harm.
:D

Aaaaaawwwww. Now give me one good argument why kidde porno should be legalised. Come on, I want to hear from you exactly why porno depicting the adult sexual exploitation of children should be legalised. Tell me.

Given that civil liberties protections are designed to protect power minorities, it does seem unfair to shift the burden arbitrarily for child porn fiction, but not for murder fiction. A lot more people, forming a much more powerful cultural block, enjoy fiction that centers around murder and mayhem, even if it has arguably no other redeeming values. I doubt they can come up with a better reason their fiction should be legalized than can users of child porn fiction. It seems to me the only distinction is that fans of child porn fiction are a smaller percentage of the population -just the sort of power minority that civil liberties notions are designed to protect.

[Gurdur]

Given that civil liberties protections are designed to protect power minorities, it does seem unfair to shift the burden arbitrarily for child porn fiction, but not for murder fiction.
Really? Since I've already asked Piscivore to back up his claims on murder fiction, let alone his utterly ridiculous claim about Babe In The City, I'ld say I am treating both the same.
A lot more people, forming a much more powerful cultural block, enjoy fiction that centers around murder and mayhem, even if it has arguably no other redeeming values.
The point was made before, but I will make it again.

Porno is deliberately designed to be an inducement and encouragement to a sexual act (often masturbation but also other sexual acts).

That, BTW, is exactly why kiddie porno is not worthy of legalization in any form; since it is specifically designed to induce and encourage the thought of sex with children, it has no redeeming value whatsoever.

Murder mysteries are not designed to be an inducement to murder, or even to beat someone up.

Therefore trying to equate murder mysteries and kiddie porn does not work; an apples and oranges false comparion.

I doubt they can come up with a better reason their fiction should be legalized than can users of child porn fiction. It seems to me the only distinction is that fans of child porn fiction are a smaller percentage of the population -just the sort of power minority that civil liberties notions are designed to protect.
Really? No. Civil liberty notions are not designed to protect those that would inflict willful harm on others. Civil liberty notions are not designed to protect pedophiles wanting to commit pedophilia. Civil liberty notions are not designed to protect pedophiles wanting to celebrate pedophilia publically. Civil liberty notions are not designed to protect Ku Klux Klan liking of lynch porno.

[Kevin_Lowe]

tsk tsk tsk.
No rational argument from you, merely an unsubstantiated assertion. :) How ironical in view of ......
Apparently I understand it far better than you do. :D

All I can conclude is that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between fact and opinion.


Since I have no respect for your little games, I will point out what you have missed and that is that is that I am putting the burden of proof back on you; prove to me that kiddie porno doesn't cause harm.
:D

The "little game" of asking people who express opinions to justify them might be one you have no respect for, but it's becoming clear you don't have any respect for rational argument or fact. By extension it seems to me you do not have any respect for the other people posting here either.

If you have no evidence be and adult and admit it.


Aaaaaawwwww. Now give me one good argument why kidde porno should be legalised. Come on, I want to hear from you exactly why porno depicting the adult sexual exploitation of children should be legalised. Tell me.

You have heard several already, but you prefer to make childish noises rather than engage with the cogent arguments that have already made.

Such pornography might well make people happy.

Such pornography might well reduce the rate of sexual predation upon children.

Such pornography might not harm, directly or indirectly, any being.

[Gurdur]

All I can conclude is that you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between fact and opinion.
Tsk, you're projecting.
The "little game" of asking people who express opinions to justify them might be one you have no respect for, but it's becoming clear you don't have any respect for rational argument or fact. By extension it seems to me you do not have any respect for the other people posting here either.
Tsk, what a weak response of yours. Apart from one very dumb illogicality of yours there above, I am asking you to back up your position with actual evidence, :D, not just your opinions.

The fact you are unable to do so was exactly my point. :D
If you have no evidence be and adult and admit it.
*snicker*
Take your own advice.
.... but you prefer to make childish noises
Tsk, you're projecting again.
Such pornography might well make people happy.
So what? What a silly little stance of yours. It might make some happy to lynch others as well, and to have little lynch porn gatherings, still doesn't constitute any valid argument for its legalization.
Such pornography might well reduce the rate of sexual predation upon children.
Ha ha ha ha ha HA! Do you have one tiny iota of evidence for that self-serving statement?
:p

[pgwenthold]

Bollocks again. Merely because someone wants it is not a "valid" reason for it to exist. You're taking your own personal opinion as a natural law.

Well, that's not how the "founding fathers" of the US saw it.

See my post above. This is ABSOLUTELY correct. Merely because someone wants it is more than sufficient for it to exist, and that is the way it must be.

My example above is about standing in the driveway hopping on one foot. It serves no purpose, and I do it for no reason other than I want to. Moroever, I am pretty much alone among the adults in my neighborhood in wanting to do it. Yet, it is perfectly legal. Why? Because there is no reason to make it illegal.

That is the only standard that makes sense in a free society

[Dave1001]

Porno is deliberately designed to be an inducement and encouragement to a sexual act (often masturbation but also other sexual acts).


Masturbation is legal, just like eating a large popcorn and drinking a large soda is legal. That doesn't seem to me like an argument to burden-shift for advocates of simulated child pornography in an exceptionalist way. Fans of simulated child pornography just seem to be less powerful than advocates of violent movies.

[Dave1001]

Such pornography might well reduce the rate of sexual predation upon children.


Ha ha ha ha ha HA! Do you have one tiny iota of evidence for that self-serving statement?
:p

There is some evidence which I posted earlier in this thread.

A slate article claiming that studies are showing that internet porn reduces rape and violent movies reduce real world violence (with links to the actual studies):

http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

[Piscivore]

There's a big difference between sticking to the point and insinuating that this is what I'm talking about.
That was the topic at hand. I'm sorry I didn't realise you wanted to discuss something else.

No, I do have an "opinion". I don't like to be governed.
Okay.
I have argued against some of the people advocating the legality of (certain kinds of) kiddie porn.
That's why I thought you were discussing the topic. Sorry.

I have argued against kiddie porn.
Okay.

I haven't attempted to answer (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2209287#post2209287) the question "What Should Be Legal, What Shouldn't?"- mainly because the illegality of kiddie porn does not seem to prevent it from being produced and distributed.
I thought that was part of the topic. Again, my apologies.

[dann]

... claiming that studies are showing that internet porn reduces rape ...This may be true. At least this is what happened when Denmark abolished the ban on porn back in the mid 1960s, but a lot of things concerning sexuality changed back then, so it is hard to claim a cause-and-effect relationship between the two things.
As far as I know no studies have been made of the effect of child porn on the rate of sexual abuse of children, long-term or short-term. But I still don't think that it would be a good idea to make kiddie porn available to either paedophiles or others. Anything that sexualises the way people (= adults) look at children should be avoided, in my opinion, but ... no studies.

[dann]

A slate article claiming that studies are showing that internet porn reduces rape and violent movies reduce real world violence (with links to the actual studies):
http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/

The same relationship between porn and rape is claimed here: ... the plummeting rape statistics nationwide, (...) to question whether that drop could be attributable to more people watching more porn, ... (http://www.avn.com/articles/271719.html)

[Dave1001]

The same relationship between porn and rape is claimed here: ... the plummeting rape statistics nationwide, (...) to question whether that drop could be attributable to more people watching more porn, ... (http://www.avn.com/articles/271719.html)

There's some indication that watching a lot of porn or becoming addicted to porn makes a person less interested in seeking actual sexual contact with other people, including consensual sex.

I haven't found any studies or summaries of them, but I've found indirect indications that such research has been done.

For example this porn addiction site:

http://www.no-porn.com/test.html

lists "Would you rather masturbate than be sexual with a partner?" as an indication that someone's addicted to porn. Open question to the thread: Isn't that the sort of problem we want pedophiles to have?

[Piscivore]

Funny. :D You're really doing terribly with the logic today, aren't you?
I thought I was using my opinion, not logic. Isn't that what you said?

I described for you how analogies are used in real life, and pointed out to you that they need not be in kind in real life, just like yours where not in kind.
Then what was the problem?

Apart from the numerous strawmen
Which strawmen? Point them out please.

and empty rhetoric in your "position", you're bloody confused and illogical about what your position actually is.
Okay, that may be. Please explain my position to me.

I like how you blame your own incoherence on everyone else, though. ;)
"Everyone"? Who did I blame? Show me.

*snicker again*
Let me try making this really clear in ultra-short words for you, so you can understand it.
Please do.

The right to freedom of expression is conditional to it not transgressing the limits upon that right, limits such as laws on libel, slander etc.
This means that it does not trump those limits, limits predicated on other rights (the right not to be libelled, for example).
OK, I know I used some long words there, but which part of that do you refuse to understand?
I agreed with that. Continue.

You're being dishonest now; as said, your claim could only logically work if you pretend people buy murder mysteries in order to enjoy murder vicariously --- meaning you lay claim to knowing their motives. I'ld love to see your evidence. :D
Actually, what I said was that some people want to murder people- that people are murdered would seem to back up that part. That some of those people enjoy the fantasy of vicarious murder doesn't seem to be a stretch. That some of the people that do not particularly want to murder anybody might enjoy the fantasy (http://www.ereader.com/product/book/excerpt/12799?book=Witness_in_Death) as well isn't even a stretch.

And BTW you could also try backing up your utterly ridiculous claim about Babe In The City.
What, that there are people that want to have or watch sex with animals? Google "farm sex"- to post any links would violate my membership agreement. That people who want to have sex with animals will be aroused by a movie heavily featuring animals seems to be, as you would say, as "common sense" as the assertion that heterosexual men are turned on by Baywatch.

No, now you're really not being honest. Let's see, you totally failed to deal with this post:.....Point is here we're discussing preventitive action through the banning of kiddie porno, plus see my point about the coming inability to distinguish between virtual (simulated) kiddie porn and kiddie porn using real children.
"Why should that matter? If our concern is protecting children, isn't the only consideration whether a child was harmed?"

Since it can be viably mooted that allowing unrestricted kiddie porno creates an atmosphere of acceptance of kiddie sexual exploitation,
"Almost anything can be "viably mooted". Prove it. "

as well as amplifying desires to exploit children sexually,
"Prove it. It seems to me the desire exists independantly and regardless of the availability of explicit material."

then a ban seems damned well in order.
"If your premises are correct. I do not think they are. Prove them."

Also a point I raised already, which seems to have been ignored; in present-day technology, given the ofttimes problems of distinguishing between virtual (simulated) and reallife kiddie porn, then only a ban on both is practicable.
"I would say that as the virtual porn gets better, the relative cost to use real children would go up, and therefore the impetus to use real children would decline. That seems like a good thing to me."

Since there are no good reasons to be made for allowing kiddie porno,
"There have been several in this thread, and not just made by me. Did you miss them?"


apart from appeals to absolutist totally-unlimited freedom of expression,
"I've never so advocated. I think you've misread my position."

Naw, I found your incoherent arguments and strawmen very easy to deal with indeed. Sorry if that upsets you.
:p
I'm not upset. Please do show me the strawmen, though.

[dann]

For example this porn addiction site:
http://www.no-porn.com/test.html
lists "Would you rather masturbate than be sexual with a partner?" as an indication that someone's addicted to porn. Open question to the thread: Isn't that the sort of problem we want pedophiles to have?
I see your point, but I think it's fairly hypothetical. Your idea seems to be: The paedophiles have this sexual orientation so in order to prevent their hurting children, they should be supplied with reading (= masturbation) material as an outlet. However, since you cannot exclude that this (imaginary, but still) sexualization of children may also reinforce their sexual orientation towards children, it probably wouldn't be a very good idea.
I think that paedophiles probably do both: abuse children and collect kiddie porn. Ask a policeman ...

I think that in order to get on with this discussion, we would have to try to find out how and why people become paedophiles - and how to cure them since they harm a lot of children.

[ponderingturtle]

That erotica involving children is reprehensible is obvious.


Define child, is say erotic fiction about high school kids with other high school kids wrong or not?

[ponderingturtle]

On that basis, written stories featuring any kind of child sex is ok, along with pictures of naked children? After all, no children are harmed by having their photo taken, are they?

So who's standards do you use to determine what is enough clothes? Shorts will get you charged with indecent exposure in some areas. What about pictures of your kids in the bath? IF you take them you should go to prison?


Animated cartoons of child rape are fine, no kids are harmed during that, either.

Are you serious?

Yes.

[ponderingturtle]

Oh boy, where do I begin to answer such a delightfully put defence of paedophile grooming?

Lets not forget that all nudists must go to jail in your reasoning, they must be child molesters after all.

[ponderingturtle]

The subject matter is children, and normal rules don't apply. Maybe it's the last bastion of generic patriarchs to over-protect our families, but I don't actually care - it's one area where I will allow will to overcome reason.

Should this be Illegal (http://images.google.com/images?q=baby+bath+pictures&hl=en&lr=&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title)

Note it is a link you google pictures of small children being bathed.

[ponderingturtle]

general articulation of things which might fall within the category of "obscenity" by some arbiters, but which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of in terms of distribution or private ownership. I'd also put beastiality, necrophilia, snuff, actual rape, and child pornography using actual children into that category of things which I would be okay with govt. regulation/prohibition of. But other things that can fall into the "obscenity" category? No.

So are those plastinated bodies in the body worlds exhibits obsenity? Are animal breeding practices obsenity?

[Dave1001]

So are those plastinated bodies in the body worlds exhibits obsenity? Are animal breeding practices obsenity?

If we looked at both objectively rather than through the lense of popular opinion, it might be hard to separate them from other things that have been called obscenity. Such as nonfictionalized, videotaped bestiality and necrophilia.

I do think there are good reasons to consider regulating both of the things mentioned in your post.

[The Atheist]

Lets not forget that all nudists must go to jail in your reasoning, they must be child molesters after all.
Nope, you can take that kind of ridiculous reasoning elsewhere. That's nowhere near my reasoning. You're welcome to continue to mis=represent my thoughts in your own mind, though.

If nudists go around asking for relaxation of child-porn rules and insist that sex with underage kids is fine, I might think differently, but nudists are just nudists, in general.

[The Atheist]

Should this be Illegal (http://images.google.com/images?q=baby+bath+pictures&hl=en&lr=&sa=X&oi=images&ct=title)

Note it is a link you google pictures of small children being bathed.Thanks for letting me know before I clicked. I'll pass, thanks.

You just keep doing your "research". Just beware that you don't fall into the trap Pete Townsend (The Who) did.

He was "doing research" on child pornography as well.

Kids having a bath are suitable for family members, grandparents, etc, but I don't like the idea of them being posted on the internet. Each to their own, but my kids won't be featured there.

[The Atheist]

Even on these forums, where skeptics are the majority of the population, it's still nigh impossible to move a discussion past people yelling "Anything involving underage sex is icky and bad, we know it! Anyone who asks for evidence is a child molester!".

If that doesn't make a topic interesting to a skeptic, I don't know what does.

That might even make sense if it related to your own posts.

On its own, what you say above is correct. What you didn't cover is the 8-10 (or more, I haven't read all of your posts) times you have specifically mentioned the supposed "lack of harm" in childeren having "consensual" sex.

Funny how that part never got a mention in your response. Even funnier that you seem to be the only one pushing that barrow.

As I said, enjoy...

[Kevin_Lowe]

That might even make sense if it related to your own posts.

On its own, what you say above is correct. What you didn't cover is the 8-10 (or more, I haven't read all of your posts) times you have specifically mentioned the supposed "lack of harm" in childeren having "consensual" sex.

Funny how that part never got a mention in your response. Even funnier that you seem to be the only one pushing that barrow.

As I said, enjoy...

I see the problem now. Despite being repeatedly told, you still don't understand that it is, to the best of our collective knowledge, just a fact that underage sex in and of itself is generally harmless for sexually mature people.

Not my opinion. Epidemiological fact.

Pregnancy causes harm, STDs cause harm, unwanted and distressing sexual abuse causes harm, sex does not. Or at least, nobody here has ever been able to find evidence that it does, and believe me a lot of loudly opinionated people like yourself and Gurdur have looked in vain for facts to support their beliefs.

This shouldn't really be surprising though. In different legal jurisdictions people can legally have sex as young as twelve (or for that matter be barred from having sex until as old as twenty) and again there is no evidence that bad consequences follow from this.

Why do I keep repeating this point? Because a lot of loudly opinionated people like yourself and Gurdur have not yet absorbed the fact that certain things that fall under the heading of child pornography depict acts that are harmless to the best of our knowledge.

If we restrict the topic still further, just to child pornography which does not involve real children in its production, and which depicts actions which we have no rational reason to believe would be harmful, what exactly is the moral, legal or practical reason for criminalising such material? I don't currently see any evidence for criminalisation, but since you are such a diligent and rational person I am sure you will dedicate some time to searching for such evidence before you come back here and air unsupported opinions again.

[dann]

Despite being repeatedly told, you still don't understand that it is, to the best of our collective knowledge, just a fact that underage sex in and of itself is generally harmless for sexually mature people. Yes, it probably does not harm the sexually mature people who are having underage sex. The children are the ones being harmed!

[The Atheist]

Why do I keep repeating this point? Good question. Why do you keep labouring the point, all the while crying for evidence and presenting NONE to back up your paedophilic-grooming agenda?

You keep telling us about this "evidence". Where is it?

If we restrict the topic still further, just to child pornography which does not involve real children in its production, and which depicts actions which we have no rational reason to believe would be harmful, what exactly is the moral, legal or practical reason for criminalising such material? I don't currently see any evidence for criminalisation, but since you are such a diligent and rational person I am sure you will dedicate some time to searching for such evidence before you come back here and air unsupported opinions again.No, completely wrong. I have said that I'm quite happy with the law as it stands.

YOU are the one promoting a change to allow child-free kiddie-porn. Again, YOU provide some evidence to back your position which is contrary to the laws of both your country and mine.

Just have a look at this sentence while you're at it. I've changed your post by adding two letters to let you ponder your own position.

"If we restrict the topic still further, just to child pornography which does not involve real children in its production, and which depicts actions which we have no rational reason to believe would be harmful, what exactly is the moral, legal or practical reason for de-criminalising such material?"

Other than giving paedophiles free jollies to console themselves while they groom their next victim under your proposed "no harm" remedies.

Go ahead. What good will come of it?

Edit: Are you a member of NAMBLA or similar group? If not, why are you pushing their agenda for them?

There is no reason to make vile accusations about other Members - address the arguments and/or claims or do not post.

[The Atheist]

Yes, it probably does not harm the sexually mature people who are having underage sex. The children are the ones being harmed!It's ok, mate, Kevin's off to collate his evidence to show that no harm is done when a 60 year old man has sex with an early-maturing 10 year old.

[Rasmus]

Edit: Are you a member of NAMBLA or similar group? If not, why are you pushing their agenda for them?

What if they just happened to be right on some of the points they are allegedly pushing in their agenda?

Have a look at this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182

I can't find anything better at the moment.

Of course, it is still not necessary to prove that something is harmless; it takes proof that something is harmful if it should be forbidden. I agree that it should be relatively simple to come up with evidence for this if it is as clear and obvious as you assert.

I am rather amused how people insist that harm must be caused. Wouldn't it be a good thing if children weren't harmed? If children weren't harmed, does it follow that it should be legal that adults can have sex with them? (And, if so, what would be your problem?)

[DRBUZZ0]

One of the things which (to me) never made a whole lot of sense in the area of child pornography, at least in the United States. It's illegal to possess or to produce sexual photos of those under the age of 18, so if you run a website with pictures of 16 year olds having sex, you're in trouble.

However, it is not illegal to have sex with an individual under the age of 18, if they are above the age of consent in the state. Generally, the age of consent is 16, 17 or 18, I believe it's 16 in most states. I know it was 17 in the state of New York, where I used to live, because I had heard so on news stories.

I believe there are one or two states where the age of consent is 15, but I'd have to double check. There are also laws which make it less serious in certain situations and ages. For example: having sex with someone under the age of 18 but over 14 might be considered statutory rape, but it would not be considered child abuse and would not be a felony, or there are exemptions if both parties are under 21. Also, I don't believe that sex between a 17 year old and a 19 year old would be prosecuted that aggressively anyway.


So in other words: You and a 16 year old can have all kinds of sex, you can look at her (or his) naughty bits, and do all other kinds of things that I don't care to go into. But if you dare take out a polaroid camera...well then you're in trouble, because apparently "consent" applies to everything but photos/videos

[The Atheist]

What if they just happened to be right on some of the points they are allegedly pushing in their agenda?

Have a look at this: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_25/ai_76881182

I can't find anything better at the moment.

Of course, it is still not necessary to prove that something is harmless; it takes proof that something is harmful if it should be forbidden. I agree that it should be relatively simple to come up with evidence for this if it is as clear and obvious as you assert.

I am rather amused how people insist that harm must be caused. Wouldn't it be a good thing if children weren't harmed? If children weren't harmed, does it follow that it should be legal that adults can have sex with them? (And, if so, what would be your problem?)I looked at the article and I'm not sure how relevant it is. It discusses the now-debunked RMS, which I'm well aware of after a very high-profile case here with remarkably similar "evidence".

It also discusses sex between 14/15 year olds and older people. I would class that as an adolescent rather than a child, so it isn't quite the same thing. I thnk Holland has laws which specify different laws for children under 13, between 13 and 16 and then 16 and over (free for all). That's possibly right - there's a world of difference between 9/10/11 and 14/15.

[The Atheist]

So in other words: You and a 16 year old can have all kinds of sex, you can look at her (or his) naughty bits, and do all other kinds of things that I don't care to go into. But if you dare take out a polaroid camera...well then you're in trouble, because apparently "consent" applies to everything but photos/videos

Good point, the same rules apply here.

We recently had an absurd case of a 17 year old (consent age in NZ = 16) who was working as a prostitute, for which she needed to be 18 to work legally. When she was busted for hooking, the cops tried - but failed - to prosecute several men for having sex with her! If they'd not paid, it was quite legal, but illegal because they gave her cash. Fortunately for them, the evidence had, shall we say, been "washed away".

[DRBUZZ0]

Good point, the same rules apply here.

We recently had an absurd case of a 17 year old (consent age in NZ = 16) who was working as a prostitute, for which she needed to be 18 to work legally. When she was busted for hooking, the cops tried - but failed - to prosecute several men for having sex with her! If they'd not paid, it was quite legal, but illegal because they gave her cash. Fortunately for them, the evidence had, shall we say, been "washed away".

I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere, but there's also the issue of judgment (which is why they call the people in charge of the judicial system a judge). If the age of consent is 17 and a 16 year old fools around with her boyfriend who is 18, common sense says that's much different than a 38 year old having sex with a bunch of 12 year olds and probably isn't worth prosecuting.

but I still see major inconsistency in the idea that it's illegal to tape or photograph yourself having sex with someone, even if it's legal for them to do anything sexually that does not involve being taped. So that means, I guess that people could watch, but not via camera? Or they could watch via camera, but not if there's a tape delay?

I personally would say it ought to be more about the act than the image. It's illegal to have sex with a child, so if you make an image of a child having sex with you that's illegal. It's illegal to make a child take off their clothes and pose for your perverted enjoyment, hence images taken of such would be illegal.

[Kevin_Lowe]

Yes, it probably does not harm the sexually mature people who are having underage sex. The children are the ones being harmed!

Whoops! Obviously that sentence was meant to be the other way around.

Good question. Why do you keep labouring the point, all the while crying for evidence and presenting NONE to back up your paedophilic-grooming agenda?

Okay, I'm sick of this. Firstly I'm reporting that post, secondly I demand an apology, and thirdly I demand you cease the accusations that I am a paedophile, have a "paedophilic-grooming agenda", support NAMBLA and so on and so forth. I don't know what makes you think you have the right to throw such baseless accusations around but it's stopping right now.

Since it's clear you simply will not do any research of your own, I direct you to:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html and
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan20/fleming/fleming.html#refbody12

These will refer you to studies done of actual victims of sexual abuse. What you will discover is that even in cases of non-penetrative sexual abuse, properly controlled studies show no long-term harm once confounding factors are controlled for. If distressing and unwanted sexual contact does no long-term harm, but only short-term harm, then is there any sane possibility that consensual contact which does no short-term harm will do long-term harm? You would have to have some pretty damn strong evidence to show that it did, and we all know you have no evidence at all.

If you don't like those facts, don't blame me. Blame the actual victims of sexual abuse who filled out the surveys.


You keep telling us about this "evidence". Where is it?


There's mine. Now where's yours?


No, completely wrong. I have said that I'm quite happy with the law as it stands.

YOU are the one promoting a change to allow child-free kiddie-porn. Again, YOU provide some evidence to back your position which is contrary to the laws of both your country and mine.

Just have a look at this sentence while you're at it. I've changed your post by adding two letters to let you ponder your own position.

I dislike repeating myself, but I will do so. You have a very strong and manifest belief that child pornography is rightfully illegal. I ask you again what the evidence is for your belief.

Disregard for the moment the political issue of changing laws. Just show us the evidence that led you to form this strong belief you are displaying. Surely there must be a reason you hold this belief? Share it with us.

At this stage I am convinced you have no evidence and you are deliberately avoiding the question.


Other than giving paedophiles free jollies to console themselves while they groom their next victim under your proposed "no harm" remedies.

Go ahead. What good will come of it?

A few different potential benefits have already been raised in this thread. Please refer to them and reply to them directly, rather than asking me to repeat what myself and others have already posted.


Edit: Are you a member of NAMBLA or similar group? If not, why are you pushing their agenda for them?

This is classic team jersey thinking. "If you agree with anything NAMBLA says, you agree with everything they say!".

If some aspects of current attitudes to underage sex and child pornography are, to put it bluntly, stupid, that gives groups like NAMBLA ammunition. They can quite correctly say that their opponents espouse positions which are irrational and stupid. I don't want them to be able to say that, do you?

Much better to get our own attitudes in line with the available evidence, and deny groups like NAMBLA any good arguments.

[The Atheist]

Okay, I'm sick of this. Firstly I'm reporting that post,That is no surprise at all having read both your posts and your sig line. I find it more than slightly ironic that sex with children does no harm - according to you - yet you obviously feel harmed by my mere words.

Nothing like living down to stereotype, is there?
secondly I demand an apology,YOU demand an apology? I quoted at least half a dozen posts where you wrote eloquently on the lack of harm in adult/child sex. Please do feel free to hold your breath waiting for the apology.
and thirdly I demand you cease the accusations that I am a paedophile,As yet, I haven't accused you of being one, so you can stop making stuff up, thanks. I have asked the question as to why you keep insisting that sex with children is a good thing but have not yet had an answer.
have a "paedophilic-grooming agenda", That one, you do. The agenda you're promoting could easily have come from a pro-paedophile group. Remember, this isn't something you've suggested once or even twice, you have repeatedly denied that harm comes to children from having sex with adults. That is precisely what a paedophile agenda is. Do you understand the term?
support NAMBLA and so on and so forth. Again, I asked if you were a member, I didn't say that you were. Wrong country for starters.
I don't know what makes you think you have the right to throw such baseless accusations around but it's stopping right now.Well, if you stop trying to promote it, I would certainly stop pulling you up on it. I will note that "baseless" accusations are those without basis. On the strength of your repeated posts stating that sex with children does no harm, I am compelled to think there's more to it than you are stating here. I asked what good could possibly come from relaxation of current laws, but haven't received an answer to that, either.
Since it's clear you simply will not do any research of your own, I direct you to:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html and
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/jan20/fleming/fleming.html#refbody12
Thanks, I'll get to that shortly.
These will refer you to studies done of actual victims of sexual abuse. What you will discover is that even in cases of non-penetrative sexual abuse, properly controlled studies show no long-term harm once confounding factors are controlled for. If distressing and unwanted sexual contact does no long-term harm, but only short-term harm, then is there any sane possibility that consensual contact which does no short-term harm will do long-term harm? You would have to have some pretty damn strong evidence to show that it did, and we all know you have no evidence at all.

If you don't like those facts, don't blame me. Blame the actual victims of sexual abuse who filled out the surveys.

There's mine. Now where's yours?Here you go:

I submit these statements:

There is now an established body of knowledge clearly linking a history of child sexual abuse with higher rates in adult life of depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, substance abuse disorders, eating disorders and post-traumatic stress disorders (Briere and Runtz 1988; Winfield et al. 1990; Bushnell et al. 1992; Mullen et al. 1993; Romans et al. 1995 and 1997; Fergusson et al. 1996; Silverman et al. 1996; Fleming et al. in press)

A review of 12 studies conducted prior to 1995 indicated that the rates of child sexual abuse among those in treatment for alcohol abuse varied from as high as 84 per cent to as low as 20 per cent (Fleming et al. in press (b)).

There is a wide range of potential adverse adult outcomes associated with child sexual abuse.

This suggests that child sexual abuse is best viewed as a risk factor for a wide range of subsequent problems.

Those with histories of child sexual abuse, particularly of the more physically intrusive types, have an increased risk of social, interpersonal and sexual problems in adult life.

A plausible hypothesis can be advanced that the developmental disruption engendered by child sexual abuse in the victims' sense of self-esteem, sense of agency, sense of the world as a safe enough environment, in their capacity for entering trusting intimate relationships and, finally, in their developing sexuality, leads in adult life to an increased risk of low self-esteem, social and economic failure, social insecurity and isolation, difficulties with intimacy and sexual problems.

Now, where did I find all that so promptly?

Here! (http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html)

Crikey! That link looks familiar! Guess what, Kevvy? It's the ONE YOU GAVE ME ABOVE!
:dl:

Next time, buddy, read the stuff first to make sure it doesn't actually support the other guy, as it clearly does here! Read those quotes carefully - and thanks for the link to that site, saved me heaps of time and trouble. Bloody nice of you, cheers!
I dislike repeating myself, but I will do so. You have a very strong and manifest belief that child pornography is rightfully illegal. I ask you again what the evidence is for your belief.I dislike repeating myself every bit as much as you do, but I'm going to have to right here. As noted above, go check your own links!
Disregard for the moment the political issue of changing laws. Just show us the evidence that led you to form this strong belief you are displaying. Surely there must be a reason you hold this belief? Share it with us.As noted above, go check your own links!
At this stage I am convinced you have no evidence and you are deliberately avoiding the question.As noted above, go check your own links!
A few different potential benefits have already been raised in this thread. Please refer to them and reply to them directly, rather than asking me to repeat what myself and others have already posted.
Sure, I've seen them. I was wondering what makes you, personally, so very interested in promoting the FALSE opinion (thanks to your own evidence) that sex with children does no harm.
This is classic team jersey thinking. "If you agree with anything NAMBLA says, you agree with everything they say!".Sorry, Kevin, they're not on my team, so I have no idea whether or not you agree with everything they say. I merely noted that your stance that "having sex with children does no harm", would be something they'd be very much in agreement with.
If some aspects of current attitudes to underage sex and child pornography are, to put it bluntly, stupid, that gives groups like NAMBLA ammunition. They can quite correctly say that their opponents espouse positions which are irrational and stupid. I don't want them to be able to say that, do you?Do you think anyone but you is going to give a flying fig what NAMBLA says? Do you think that if they made a press release, anyone would report it? Do you think people who stand up and promote sex with children are going to be listened to by Mr and Mrs Public? NAMBLA could be legally and morally correct in every statement they make, but nobody would notice, or care.

I do note that you've gone from saying that sex with children is harmless to "Current attitudes to underage sex is stupid". You just keep 'em coming!
Much better to get our own attitudes in line with the available evidence, and deny groups like NAMBLA any good arguments.As noted above, whatever arguments NAMBLA make are water off a duck's back as far as the enormous majority of people are concerned.

I submit that thanks to the links you so generously provided, the current laws and attitudes are pretty much bang-on.

[Dave1001]

Yes, it probably does not harm the sexually mature people who are having underage sex. The children are the ones being harmed!

Come on, Dann, can't we separate our own puritan cultural bias from this? In many non-Western cultures even non-sexually mature children have regular sexual contact with adults, and Kevin_Lowe was only referring to post-pubescent children.

I don't think sexual contact with adults is intrinsically harmful for even pre-pubescent children (although I haven't yet seen the studies Kevin_Lowe mentions and that I've heard about) I think the psychological harm to them comes from the post-sexual contact socialization they'll have into American (and probably other Western) society --I imagine it's a hard stigma to shake.

Apparently in some asian cultures it's considered normal for parents to give their kids oral pleasure for the first few years of life. Although I'm well-socialized against giving that to a kid (mine or anyone else's), I could think of worse things that could have been done to me as a kid than being given oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation --I've found that sort of offer (oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation) doesn't come around too often in the adult dating world.

[Dave1001]

Examples of normal sexual contact with children in non-Western societies. I'm posting these not to advocate legalization of it, or of pornography using real children in the West, but rather to point out that it's reasonable to doubt that sexual contact between children and adults is ipso facto harmful to children, including pre-pubescent children --it seems to me to be more of a current Western social norm:

http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume3/j3_4_4.htm


ABSTRACT: Child rearing practices in the the Telugu-speaking people of India include behaviors of touching and kissing the penis. The meaning of these customs is not erotic or sexual, but if engaged in in America would most likely be misconstrued and the parents suspected of child sexual abuse. This example illustrates the importance of transcultural issues in assessing the meaning of genital gestures and practices.


http://www.lectlaw.com/tsex.htm


PORTLAND, Me. (AP) - Maine's highest court reversed a previous conviction of a man accused of sexual abuse. Mohammad Kargar, an Afghan immigrant, claimed he kissed his 18-month-old son's penis as part of a cultural tradition. Kissing a son's penis is a very common tradition in Afghanistan, associated with showing love for the child. I feel much better now. I'm happy. My family is happy, said Kargar.


http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/GUS/GUSVOLIICH9.HTM


Thus, a detailed cultural analysis of the practice is rare. Among the exceptions exists a recent article by Rydstrøm (<2002: p4-5>)<17> noting for local Vietnamese:

"The fact that a son is bound up with significant symbolic meaning, is inseparable from a local recognition of a boy's body in biological terms, that is to say, his genitals (i.e. the Phallus). In Thinh Tri, the body of a little boy is generally a matter of common interest and concern. For example, a little boy is usually fondly called a thang cu, which means 'penis boy' (lit. male penis). The genitals of small Thinh Tri boys receive a great deal of attention by being commented on, joked about, or even grasped. The local ways in which boys' genitals are paid attention to are in sharp contrast to the fact that girls' genitals do not receive any special attention<18>. The widespread concern in Thinh Tri with respect to boys' genitals is related to the symbolism of blood, which does not mean the same with regard to females and males. Despite blood being acknowledged as a 'vital life force' (khi huyet) of both the female and male body, it is basically perceived of as a female energy. Its complementary male vital life force is 'semen' (khi), which is said to be the substance of male energy. This energy is thought to guarantee the continuation of the blood of a male's patrilineage. <…> Due to such assumptions about blood, a boy's genitals—and by extension, his body—are always already inscribed with the collected morality (dao duc), honor (danh du), and 'obligations' (nghia) of his past generations. Boys' bodies have accumulated body capital while girls' bodies have not <…>. Because a Thinh Tri boy's body holds inborn morality, honor, and reputation due to his relation to his patrilineage, his body i.e. the Phallus) condenses the preconditions for practicing good male morality. His body symbolizes the future good morality, honor, and reputation of his patrilineage and the performance of certain patrilineal rituals".

Hence,

"<…> a child's body is construed as a powerful socio-symbolic and material sign that reflects local life in terms of hierarchies, positions, and power. Local understandings of female and male bodies crystallize the fact that a child's body simultaneously is wrought socially (i.e. in terms of 'gender') and biologically (i.e. in terms of 'sex'). In this way, both the notions of sex and gender have a history, which is constructed discursively. In other words, both notions address the same question, which is namely, how female and male bodies are rendered meaningful in time and space".

9.2.1 Verbal Indices

Matters become more directly apparent in accompanying verbal reinforcements, directed to the baby/toddler or to audience. Only a selection of descriptions provide such accompanying commentaries:

The Vietnamese case being mentioned; Ordos Mongols: "<…> commonly touch the child's genitals and caress them, saying at the same time: "Give me this" <…>"; Okinawans: "Old women like to tweak a little boy's penis and jokingly say. "What is that, what is that?"; Balinese: "With the slight titillation go the repeated words: "Handsome, handsome, handsome", an adjective applied only to males. The little girl's vulva is patted gently, with the accompanying feminine adjective "Pretty, pretty, pretty" "; Borneo: "Mothers often hold infant boys aloft in the course of singing magical growth songs, blowing softly on the penis, while noting aloud sexual powers to come at maturity"; Sarawak: "Not infrequently, when brother's or sister's young child visits Ego, the latter will "make glad over him" (begaga ka ia) with the words, Jaum aku, ulun aku ("My captive, my slave")" ; Aritama: "Adults make joking remarks about the future virility of the baby, about the size of his penis, and about his reactions to such caresses"; Martinique: "Men fondle the penises of little boys, remarking publicly on their size and potential, impressing on the children expectations of their masculinity"; Puerto Rico: "<…> adults and older brothers and sisters are likely to tease and play with his genitals, kissing them and remarking on their size, commenting that he is a machito (real little male) or a machote (real he-man)"; "<…> parents and friends may play with the boy's genitals until he is around seven years old"; "parents would pull a two-year-old's penis, and inquire for its function. The answer would be, "For the women!"; "A two-year-old boy will be asked, "What is it for?" while an adult pulls at his penis; and sometimes the child will answer, "For women". Such a child is called malo (bad) or even malcria'o (badly brought up), but actually the terms are used with some measure of approval"; "As soon as they started talking, they asked them questions about their penis, for whom it was and for what it was needed. They answered it was for the chacha or the girl friend, or to playa trick on the girl friend. <…> If they had an erection, they were praised and the parents would celebrate it by telling them they had joined the masculine race". Morocco: "<…> affectionate genital contact some women extend when they greet or communicate with an infant"; "Little sisters, aunts, maids, and mothers often attract the little boy's attention to his htewta and try to teach him to pronounce the word, which is quite a task given the gutteral initial letter h. One of the common games played by adult females with a male child is to get him to understand the connection between sidi (master) and the htwta. Hada sidhum ("This is their master"), say the women, pointing to the child's penis. The kissing of the child's penis is a normal gesture for a female relative who has not seen him since his birth. Tbarkallah 'ala-r-Rajal ("God protect the man"), she may whisper"; Turkey: "<…> grandparents and parents fondled their genitals and repeated: "You are male, you are male" ". Olson-Prather noted that a teenage neighbour girl of the elite class expressed verbal but not physical admiration; "In Egypt the mother may attempt to prepare her son gradually for the circumcision operation by "caressing his organ and playfully endeavoring to separate the foreskin from the glans. While doing this she would hum words to the effect that what she is doing will help to make him become a man amongst men"; Eskimo children would copy the practice "to caricature the physical raptures of their parents with cries of "It's wonderful!" ".

[Kevin_Lowe]

I snipped some writing that deserves no response.

Now, where did I find all that so promptly?

Here! (http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/issues9.html)

Crikey! That link looks familiar! Guess what, Kevvy? It's the ONE YOU GAVE ME ABOVE!

This seems to me to be a giveaway that you had no evidence at all, since you have not referred to anything but the links I gave you. Thank you for supporting that hypothesis.

Now you should read those links more thoroughly and take the time to understand them.

What you will discover with a little work is that if you fold all underage sexual contact into the heading "child sexual abuse" then the research shows that it does indeed have serious negative effects. No surprises for anyone there. However if researchers separate out the most serious cases, involving penetrative abuse, into their own category, then not only is the evidence of long-term harm more clear cut but the "everything else" category shows no statistically significant long-term harm once you control for obvious confounding factors.

The conclusion is fairly obvious. There is no magic button on our genitals that screws us up, even when we are kids, even if our early sexual experiences are horrible.

What we have here is evidence speaking to a scenario which is much worse than underage people having non-distressing, consensual sex. If you are going to make any argument at all that underage sex in and of itself is bad for children, then you are forced to argue the case that it is actually worse for an underage person to have non-distressing, consensual sex than it is for them to be abused by a sexual predator. That is the case you have to make if you want to argue that non-distressing, consensual sex causes minors harm.

Do you see now how stupid your position is? Especially given the humiliating lack of evidence you have on your side?

Face reality. There is no evidence that sexually mature minors are in any way harmed if they have safe sex, with partners of any age. There is strong evidence that there is neither short-term nor long-term psychological harm. Add to that the fact that some nations allow people as young as twelve or thirteen to have sex under some circumstances and there is no evidence that does any harm either.

So you have a couple of jobs to do now. You have to try to find evidence that consensual sex is more psychologically harmful than sexual abuse. Then you have to find evidence that fictional depictions of such actions are somehow harmful in and of themselves. Good luck with that. Post links to such evidence in your next post please. Personally I think you'd have more luck trying to find evidence that up is down, and that the paper in cookbooks is nutritious, but that's your cross to bear.

[dann]

You have to try to find evidence that consensual sex is more psychologically harmful than sexual abuse. No, he doesn't. Adults having "consensual sex" with children is sexual abuse. That some of the children suffer more long-term harm than others does not justify the distinction. Some rape victims suffer long-term effects, some don't. It's still rape and by no means consensual. An adult persuading a child to have 'consensual sex' is a contradiction in terms. Children can't estimate the meaning of this concept, which, by the way, is why they have to be protected from people who want to take advantage of them in other areas too.

[dann]

I could think of worse things that could have been done to me as a kid than being given oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation --I've found that sort of offer (oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation) doesn't come around too often in the adult dating world.It isn't even funny, Dave.

[Dave1001]

I could think of worse things that could have been done to me as a kid than being given oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation --I've found that sort of offer (oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation) doesn't come around too often in the adult dating world.
It isn't even funny, Dave.

I think it's an objective point -I doubt parents and extended families in some non-Western cultures are damaging their kids by giving them pleasurable sexual contact, particularly given the lack of solicitation of reciprocation that seems to go with it, at least in the examples I linked to. It supports the idea that Kevin_Lowe raised that sexual contact between adults and children might not be inherently harmful to children, although I think that may be outside the scope of the thread.

I don't have a problem banning actual adult-child sexual contact, (although I'd support carving out an exception for people who are from living cultures that traditionally engage in adult-child sexual contact that hasn't been shown scientifically to harm children) and I don't have a problem banning videotapes, photographs, or non-anonynimized written accounts of actual adult-child sexual contact, except perhaps for strictly academic or journalistic purposes.

[slingblade]

I could think of worse things that could have been done to me as a kid than being given oral pleasure without the expectation of reciprocation ...

Oh, I can think of worse things, too.

But when they did it to me, I didn't think about how it could have been worse.
It seemed bad enough, thanks.

Guess you had to be there.





Oh, and I've about had enough of this bull that the only reason it hurts kids is because of a societal effect or however that crap goes. You don't know what you're talking about. You honest to god don't have a freaking clue.

[Dave1001]

Oh, I can think of worse things, too.

But when they did it to me, I didn't think about how it could have been worse.
It seemed bad enough, thanks.

Guess you had to be there.

Oh, and I've about had enough of this bull that the only reason it hurts kids is because of a societal effect or however that crap goes. You don't know what you're talking about. You honest to god don't have a freaking clue.

You're right, I don't have a clue. If you suffered sexual abuse (and it sounds like you did) then I'm sorry to hear that, and I had no intention to make light of your personal experience.

I was specifically describing the activity that is considered culturally normal in some non-Western cultures. Do you think that cultural activity is ipso facto harmful to the kids? I don't think so (but I can be persuaded otherwise by experts who derive their position through empiricism). That's why I think that particular type activity isn't harmful to kids in and of itself, but rather it's likely harmful to kids that grow up in Western environments because it probably creates socialization problems.

Having said that, I'm no expert. But I don't think that someone who has personally experienced traumatic abuse automatically get a veto or the final word on this topic, because your experience may not be the universal one, and may not be comparable to adult-child sexual contact grounded in non-Western cultures.

[Kevin_Lowe]

No, he doesn't. Adults having "consensual sex" with children is sexual abuse.

In the study I referred to of Australian women, "child sexual abuse" was defined as (if I recall correctly) any sexual contact with an under-12, and any sexual contact that was unwanted and/or distressing with a 13-15 year old.

Other people define any sexual contact between an adult and an under-X, where X is somewhere between 12 and 20 and is determined by local law, to be sexual abuse. So definitions do vary.

Of course whether or not you stick the label "sexual abuse" on a given behaviour makes no difference to its effects in and of itself. If a given category of underage sexual activity is harmful then it's harmful, and if it's not it's not. What you call it is neither here nor there.

So there you go.

[dann]

Other people define any sexual contact between an adult and an under-X, where X is somewhere between 12 and 20 and is determined by local law, to be sexual abuse. So definitions do vary. In Denmark children are considered as minors until they are 15 or 16, I don't remember. However, another age restriction (18) applies to people in authority: teachers, camp guards, leaders of community homes etc.
Why? Because people can be pressured into complying (consenting) with the wishes of an adult, in particular - the lawmakers seem to think - when they are very young.
Why do we so rarely hear people on the news saying things like: 'My nanny used to give me a blowjob every morning from I was six till I was 14, and I totally enjoyed it. Just thought you should know, now that she is dead and it cannot hurt her anymore that I go public with the information.'?
Why are stories like Slingblade's much more common?

[Dave1001]

Why do we so rarely hear people on the news saying things like: 'My nanny used to give me a blowjob every morning from I was six till I was 14, and I totally enjoyed it. Just thought you should know, now that she is dead and it cannot hurt her anymore that I go public with the information.'?
Why are stories like Slingblade's much more common?

So are you going to ignore non-western cultures where variations of that are considered normal, non-harmful behavior?

[Gurdur]

So are you going to ignore non-western cultures where variations of that are considered normal, non-harmful behavior?
Ha. Unlike almost all on this board, I actually spent my entire childhood in a non-western culture, and in an extremely poor, tribal one.

And I have seen at first-hand the effects of such "variations"; a lot of damage done indeed.

Personal anecdotes aside, there is a great deal of material on child abuse and child prostitution in non-western societies; and since the other points are that:

children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.

so the bloody point, yet again, is that there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

And I find it extremely good that various countries have now made it illegal for their citizens to indulge in pedophiliac acts in other countries -- to ban the kiddie sex tourism.

[Gurdur]

....There is no evidence that sexually mature minors are in any way harmed if they have safe sex, with partners of any age.
You really are a piece of work, aren't you? I suppose you have some magical reinvention of the meaning of "safe sex" to justify your position; yet the points are:

children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.
so there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

Suck it up.

[Gurdur]

If some aspects of current attitudes to underage sex and child pornography are, to put it bluntly, stupid, that gives groups like NAMBLA ammunition. They can quite correctly say that their opponents espouse positions which are irrational and stupid. I don't want them to be able to say that, do you?

Much better to get our own attitudes in line with the available evidence, and deny groups like NAMBLA any good arguments.
Quite frankly, I dont give a rat's arse for whether you think current attitudes are "stupid"; you've ignored many points made in this thread to push your position, and the fact remains, there is neither any need nor any ethical reason to tolerate pedophilia. Thankfully, no matter how much you or NAMBLA think current attitudes are "stupid", pedophilia remains illegal. Thankfully. :D

You have been given the reasons to criminalize it, and why it is in fact criminalized; you have been informed there is no need to tolerate pedophilia; and yet you have ignored so many of these points, and yu have instead concentrated mainly on rhetorical and erroneous appeals, and on personal denigration of those disagreeing with you. So maybe you better lay off the "stupid" charges.

Or use a mirror. :D

[Gurdur]

Bollocks again. Merely because someone wants it is not a "valid" reason for it to exist. You're taking your own personal opinion as a natural law. Well, that's not how the "founding fathers" of the US saw it.
Amusing. :D
Why should we give a tinker's toss about whatever you think the "founding fathers of the US" saw or didn't see? It is completely and utterly irrelevant; we are talking ethics and law as it applies everywhere, and not some sole small society in North America 200 years ago.
Plus, mind you, your reply makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you claiming the "founding fathers of the US" elevated personal wants to the status of natural law?
See my post above. This is ABSOLUTELY correct. Merely because someone wants it is more than sufficient for it to exist, and that is the way it must be.
*snicker*
Wrong again. It's not that way in real life. Live with it.

Now I look forward in boundless optimism to you actually dealing with all the points that have been made previously.

[Dave1001]

So are you going to ignore non-western cultures where variations of that are considered normal, non-harmful behavior?

Ha. Unlike almost all on this board, I actually spent my entire childhood in a non-western culture, and in an extremely poor, tribal one.

And I have seen at first-hand the effects of such "variations"; a lot of damage done indeed.

Personal anecdotes aside, there is a great deal of material on child abuse and child prostitution in non-western societies; and since the other points are that:

children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.

so the bloody point, yet again, is that there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

And I find it extremely good that various countries have now made it illegal for their citizens to indulge in pedophiliac acts in other countries -- to ban the kiddie sex tourism.

I think this is a scope shift from what I posted about in post #179, which wasn't about child prostitution or kiddie sex tourism. In the cases I posted references to, the non-western folks making sexual contact with the kids were all part of their family and care network, and were adhering to long time cultural norms of their communities. You would have these practices banned in non-western cultures without evidence of harm to the kids? That seems like cultural chauvenism to me, particularly if you're advocating a global ban, as opposed to a ban within US territories, for example.

[Gurdur]

I think this is a scope shift
Hey, don't blame me for the scope shift. :D
Even I am surprised about just how quickly some moved from defending wanting to have kiddie porn legalized to actually wanting to have pedophilia itself legalized.
Kind of ....... amazing, huh?
were adhering to long time cultural norms of their communities.
Ha. :D
I'm aware of societies where murder was the cultural norm.
I'm aware of even more societies where witchcraft was the cultural norm. Or burning witches.

Do you have any better argument than that? :)
You would have these practices banned in non-western cultures without evidence of harm to the kids?
Oh puh-leeze. You summarily dismissed the point that pone person has already spoken up on this thread about damage done to herself; and you have summarily ignored the point I made that there is no need to indulge pedophilia, in view of the fact that it does in many cases cause great harm, and is always an issue of unequal power, thus constituting exploitation.
That seems like cultural chauvenism to me
Suuuuuure. I look forward then to you being consistant and:
defending the legalization of female genital mutilation
defending the legalization of the Spanish Inquistion
defending the right of societies to burn witches
defending the legalization of murder
etc. etc. etc.

All in the name of non-chauvenism, dontcha know? :)

[Dave1001]

Oh puh-leeze. You summarily dismissed the point that pone person has already spoken up on this thread about damage done to herself; and you have summarily ignored the point I made that there is no need to indulge pedophilia, in view of the fact that it does in many cases cause great harm, and is always an issue of unequal power, thus constituting exploitation.

Suuuuuure. I look forward then to you being consistant and:
defending the legalization of female genital mutilation
defending the legalization of the Spanish Inquistion
defending the right of societies to burn witches
defending the legalization of murder
etc. etc. etc.

All in the name of non-chauvenism, dontcha know? :)

I don't think clitorectomies, torturing to force conversions, burning people alive, and killing people (state-sponsored murder is of course legal in the West not just in non-Western societies) occupy the same sphere as caregiver adult-child sexual contact in some non-Western societies of the type described in post # 179. If we don't based our policy of what to restrict in non-Western societies on ispo facto harm -like can be demonstrated with burning people alive- then I think we tread into the waters of cultural chauvenism. And I don't think you've made a case that culturally normal adult family member -child sexual contact in non-Western societies is ipso facto harmful, nor have I seen that case yet made scientifically anywhere.

As for the individual who alluded to a an abusive personal experience in a non-Western society, I have no way to gauge the universality of her experience, but I am curious about what the best science tells us on that topic.

[Gurdur]

I don't think clitorectomies, torturing to force conversions, burning people alive, and killing people (state-sponsored murder is of course legal in the West not just in non-Western societies) occupy the same sphere as caregiver adult-child sexual contact in some non-Western societies of the type described in post # 179.
"caregiver" is it now? What a strange way to describe adult sexual exploitation of children.
:boggled:
But never mind the bollocks, how about answering my point re your argument on chauvenism?
If we don't based our policy of what to restrict in non-Western societies on ispo facto harm -like can be demonstrated with burning people alive- then I think we tread into the waters of cultural chauvenism.
Now that's simply wrong.

What you are saying is "if we don't adopt subjective cultural standard X to judge subjective cultural standard Y we are treading into the waters of cultural chauvenism".

Naaaaaaw.

And it most certainly does not answer my response to you on your argument about cultural chauvenism.
And I don't think you've made a case that culturally normal adult family member -child sexual contact in non-Western societies is ipso facto harmful, nor have I seen that case yet made scientifically anywhere.
And now you are playing at strawmen; either respond to the points as they were made, or I will raise the issue of honesty.

Here are the points I made which you have not answered; note that "ipso facto" was not among them.

children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.
so the bloody point, yet again, is that there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

As for the individual who alluded to a an abusive personal experience in a non-Western society, I have no way to gauge the universality of her experience, but I am curious about what the best science tells us on that topic.
How terribly empathetic of you.

[ponderingturtle]

Nope, you can take that kind of ridiculous reasoning elsewhere. That's nowhere near my reasoning. You're welcome to continue to mis=represent my thoughts in your own mind, though.

If nudists go around asking for relaxation of child-porn rules and insist that sex with underage kids is fine, I might think differently, but nudists are just nudists, in general.

BUt you would concider them criminals if they took pictures at a nudist get together.

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks for letting me know before I clicked. I'll pass, thanks.

You just keep doing your "research". Just beware that you don't fall into the trap Pete Townsend (The Who) did.

He was "doing research" on child pornography as well.

Kids having a bath are suitable for family members, grandparents, etc, but I don't like the idea of them being posted on the internet. Each to their own, but my kids won't be featured there.

Now you are mixing things up again. Should pictures of people below the age of 18 and below a certian stage of dress be illegal? You clearly think that all the naked infant in bath pictures are porn, and then clearly americas funniest home videos should be arrested as they have shown such videos on broadcast media.

YOu are taking nude pictures in an absense of sexual content to be sexual. THat is showing very much your own thoughts on the subject.

[ponderingturtle]

I looked at the article and I'm not sure how relevant it is. It discusses the now-debunked RMS, which I'm well aware of after a very high-profile case here with remarkably similar "evidence".

It also discusses sex between 14/15 year olds and older people. I would class that as an adolescent rather than a child, so it isn't quite the same thing. I thnk Holland has laws which specify different laws for children under 13, between 13 and 16 and then 16 and over (free for all). That's possibly right - there's a world of difference between 9/10/11 and 14/15.

Yea, because 15 year olds should know better than to have sex with 15 year olds, that deservedly earns them the mark of sex offender.

[ponderingturtle]

Okay, I'm sick of this. Firstly I'm reporting that post, secondly I demand an apology, and thirdly I demand you cease the accusations that I am a paedophile, have a "paedophilic-grooming agenda", support NAMBLA and so on and so forth. I don't know what makes you think you have the right to throw such baseless accusations around but it's stopping right now.


That OK I find it highly likely that he fits his own defintion of pedophile. As I find it highly likely that he engaged with what he conciders pornographic acts with his children. Namely bathing them when they where young.

[slingblade]

Having said that, I'm no expert. But I don't think that someone who has personally experienced traumatic abuse automatically get a veto or the final word on this topic, because your experience may not be the universal one, and may not be comparable to adult-child sexual contact grounded in non-Western cultures.

Oh, blah, blah, frikkin armchair moralizer blah.

You don't get to tell me crap like this, Dave. I never asked for the final word, and I have no idea what the fark I'd want "veto" power for. Do you think I'm telling you to quit talking about the topic? Well, I'm certainly not.

If I had been raised in a culture which allows old men to bang little girls, would what happened to me have seemed more natural, and therefore less frightening, less painful, and less traumatizing? How on earth am I to know? How would most of us know? Have there been studies? Comparative studies?

It just really honks me off to hear people talk about how pleasurable sex is to them, and gee, why wouldn't kids enjoy the same pleasure, if only their society didn't forbid such activities?

I know why. I know none of you want to hear why, so I'll keep it to myself.

Just be glad you don't know. And please try to keep your own kids from discovering what you don't know in the same way I did. Okay?

Veto power. The very idea.

[The Atheist]

This seems to me to be a giveaway that you had no evidence at all, since you have not referred to anything but the links I gave you. Thank you for supporting that hypothesis.Kevin, my little Tasmanian pal, let me just put you straight on something, because there are several points you keep missing. (Hardly surprising given the amount of time you're spending pushing your little hobby horse)

First off, I never claimed to have evidence, the evidence which exists is flawed (see below), and I don't need any. I am not arguing for sex with kids to be legalised - YOU are. My position is that current laws are close enough to the desired mark to leave alone. If I'm not arguing for change, I hardly need evidence to support my position.

Secondly, even in this very thread, there is anecdotal evidence that child molestation leaves its mark. Or are you avoiding posts from people who have actually experienced the other side of child abuse - the victims?

Now, I realise that you're sitting there in Tazzy, in your own, strange little world, trying desperately to shift the emphasis of our conversation from me asking why you're promoting sex with children onto why I have no evidence, but, unfortunately, as you suggested right at the start of your odd little treatises, sex and children is a subject where mob rule, well, rules!

The bad news for you is that the mob which makes and enforces the rules on this one is the parents. Not NAMBLA, not you, but the PARENTS. (you do realise that under Oz and NZ law, NAMBLA would be an illegal organisation, don't you?)

The problems with your "evidence", which you've never even given a thought to, is that it's completely flawed. How many women didn't volunteer for the study? You clearly don't even realise that there are people out there who would rather die than admit that they were sexually abused as children. Just because a study of those who are able to talk about it suggests something, it doesn't make it right. The ones who were happy to particpate in those studies had not been harmed by the abuse - maybe that's why they were happy to complete the survey.

Comments like this are just you talking through a hole in your rear end:

The conclusion is fairly obvious.

From that, I would say that you have no idea what "obvious" means as the data is clearly flawed.

What a sad and restrictive little world you would have us live in - where everything is black and white and based on incomplete evidence. In child abuse, there can never be accurate statistics unless every single instance of child abuse is reported and investigated, and the victims re-assessed at adulthood.

Another comment you make actually applies far better to you than me:

Do you see now how stupid your position is? Especially given the humiliating lack of evidence you have on your side?

The humiliation here is all one way - the way of he who would rely on flimsy, flawed "evidence" to back a claim that sex with children is a good thing. Your post's feeble attempt to claim a moral high ground has failed miserably. Partly because your "evidence" is meaningless, but mostly because the moral high ground belongs to the parents. If you don't like that, then that makes me very happy.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

You have been beaten black and blue here. You continue to spew forth crap in the face of real-life victims and yet you'll still come back and make an even bigger fool of yourself by trying to discredit my position again. [and fail again]

Tell you what, my little "pseudo-intellectual, 110 pounder" (gosh, I'd like to know whether that's right; I strongly suspect so!). You're SO determined to promote your lowering of the age of consent; instead of bleating at us and getting metaphorically beaten, go and start a one-man [?] protest outside the Launceston Workingmen's Club or maybe the Hobart RSL. They're good, honest people, see how they feel about it. Start a petition at your local shopping centre. I do recommend that if you approach people in real life to discuss your plan that you will either need to be Ato Boldon or Steven Segal to get away alive. Lots of people in that big, real world aren't quite as refined as we forumites are.

You're living in gaga land, Kevin. I suggest you just quiety steal away during the night and leave this thread alone before you drop yourself even further in it.

Bye now!

[Roadtoad]

Oh, blah, blah, frikkin armchair moralizer blah.

You don't get to tell me crap like this, Dave. I never asked for the final word, and I have no idea what the fark I'd want "veto" power for. Do you think I'm telling you to quit talking about the topic? Well, I'm certainly not.

If I had been raised in a culture which allows old men to bang little girls, would what happened to me have seemed more natural, and therefore less frightening, less painful, and less traumatizing? How on earth am I to know? How would most of us know? Have there been studies? Comparative studies?

It just really honks me off to hear people talk about how pleasurable sex is to them, and gee, why wouldn't kids enjoy the same pleasure, if only their society didn't forbid such activities?

I know why. I know none of you want to hear why, so I'll keep it to myself.

Just be glad you don't know. And please try to keep your own kids from discovering what you don't know in the same way I did. Okay?

Veto power. The very idea.

I'm there myself, Sling.

First, I want to see a copy of the study that Kevin Lowe cited, regarding the victims of child molestation. That might help me to understand a lot of what's happened to me in the past decades.

Second, I'm pretty pissed off that Kevin's been accused falsely as he has. I don't seem him as being "pro-porn," or being a front man for NAMBLA. It's slanderous and false. He is far more liberal than I am on this issue, but I've yet to see him supporting the abuse of children.

That there are cultural norms that are at variance with what we do here in the U.S. is to be expected. When my sons were small, there was no way in Hell I'd be kissing their penises. You simply didn't do that to your children. Then again, I'm a California native.

There is room for debate within this topic, but the critical thing to remember is "Is there harm?" If the answer, in any way, shape, or form is "yes," you have an obligation to stop.

Sure, sex is pleasurable. I enjoy sex. It sometimes drives my wife a little crazy with how much I enjoy sex. She doesn't understand why I think she's absolutely gorgeous. (Sorry, girls. Some of us like a more Rubenesque lady.)

There's no way in Hell I'd touch a child. I know why you don't do that. I don't ever want my grandson to know why you shouldn't do that. Unfortunately, like me, my eldest son knows why you don't do that.

Oh, and just so you know: They let the pr*** who did my son off with probation.

[Dave1001]

Oh, blah, blah, frikkin armchair moralizer blah.

You don't get to tell me crap like this, Dave. I never asked for the final word, and I have no idea what the fark I'd want "veto" power for. Do you think I'm telling you to quit talking about the topic? Well, I'm certainly not.

If I had been raised in a culture which allows old men to bang little girls, would what happened to me have seemed more natural, and therefore less frightening, less painful, and less traumatizing? How on earth am I to know? How would most of us know? Have there been studies? Comparative studies?

It just really honks me off to hear people talk about how pleasurable sex is to them, and gee, why wouldn't kids enjoy the same pleasure, if only their society didn't forbid such activities?

I know why. I know none of you want to hear why, so I'll keep it to myself.

Just be glad you don't know. And please try to keep your own kids from discovering what you don't know in the same way I did. Okay?

Veto power. The very idea.

That wasn't directed at you, that was directed at Gurdur who implied that I ignored your personal experience as related in this thread. I didn't ignore your experience, I just don't see how we can generalize from your personal experience to all the various non-western cultures that have sexual contact between members of the family network and children as part of normal socialization. Policy should be based on what the best science tells us, particularly when it comes to actively trying to change cultures that are not our own, outside of the sovereign territory of our nation.

[Dave1001]

I'm there myself, Sling.

First, I want to see a copy of the study that Kevin Lowe cited, regarding the victims of child molestation.

I'd like to see that study too. I first heard it referenced by Bill Maher, and now by Kevin_Lowe in this thread. I think it would be illuminating to the discussion.

[The Atheist]

It just really honks me off to hear people talk about how pleasurable sex is to them, and gee, why wouldn't kids enjoy the same pleasure, if only their society didn't forbid such activities?Sling.

That's a horrible post. Horrible because you've managed to convey the disgust you quite rightly feel at a horrible crime perpetrated on you.

And it's a magnificent post, because you've managed to encapsulate all that's wrong with Dave and Kevin's position without losing your cool. I'm sure that, in your position, I'd be after them with a 12-gauge!

I salute your bravery, your honesty and your obvious compassion.

[Dave1001]

I'm sure that, in your position, I'd be after them with a 12-gauge!


When you snap, please go through your list of people in reverse alphabetical order.:)

[The Atheist]

Now you are mixing things up again. Should pictures of people below the age of 18 and below a certian stage of dress be illegal? You clearly think that all the naked infant in bath pictures are porn, and then clearly americas funniest home videos should be arrested as they have shown such videos on broadcast media.

YOu are taking nude pictures in an absense of sexual content to be sexual. THat is showing very much your own thoughts on the subject.

That OK I find it highly likely that he fits his own defintion of pedophile. As I find it highly likely that he engaged with what he conciders pornographic acts with his children. Namely bathing them when they where young.

Actually, if you're going to make a strawman, you can take my name off it.

I did NOT say it was pornography, I said I didn't want to look at the pictures. I did NOT make any claim that they were in any way sexual, either, mostly because pics of kids being bathed aren't.

Try reading next time.

[The Atheist]

When you snap, please go through your list of people in reverse alphabetical order.:)

I always start at "D". ;)

[Dave1001]

I always start at "D". ;)

Well, some people* say these guys are pedophiles and members of NAMBLA

http://k-1.azplayers.com/fighter/D


*Note: I am not one of those people though!

[Darat]

There is no reason to make vile accusations about other Members - address the arguments and/or claims or do not post.

[slingblade]

I'm there myself, Sling.

First, I want to see a copy of the study that Kevin Lowe cited, regarding the victims of child molestation. That might help me to understand a lot of what's happened to me in the past decades.

I might like to see it too, but not just now. I'm working on that book, you see, and it's dredged up a whole lot of garbage I'd forgotten, or had refused to look at.

I used to tell people (mostly therapists) that the funny thing about my multiple molestations was that I never felt guilty about it. After all, they didn't hurt me, so why should I feel guilty? Once I started writing, however, I suddenly started remembering just how much it did hurt. A lot of it was painful. And yes, parts of it were pleasurable. Absolutely. Some of them knew what they were doing, and they did it well.

I still didn't want them to do it, and I still couldn't make them stop.


Second, I'm pretty pissed off that Kevin's been accused falsely as he has. I don't seem him as being "pro-porn," or being a front man for NAMBLA. It's slanderous and false. He is far more liberal than I am on this issue, but I've yet to see him supporting the abuse of children.

My comments were directed at Dave. I gave up trying to talk to Kevin in the last "sex with kids" thread. He and DD simply could not understand my argument that some things in life are meant for adults or near-adults. Period.

You know, a decent doctor will tell you, usually in reference to medication doses, that children are not just small adults. I sometimes wonder how many people who discuss this topic on the pro-kid-pleasure side ever realize that? We are not talking about midgets. Children are not small adults.

This whole discussion may one day soon be moot, though. I hear that for girls, 12 is the new 15. Puberty in some populations in the US is being pushed back to 8 years old.

That there are cultural norms that are at variance with what we do here in the U.S. is to be expected. When my sons were small, there was no way in Hell I'd be kissing their penises. You simply didn't do that to your children. Then again, I'm a California native.

There is room for debate within this topic, but the critical thing to remember is "Is there harm?" If the answer, in any way, shape, or form is "yes," you have an obligation to stop.

I had to force myself to change my own sons' diapers, at first. I was very uncomfortable about touching them "down there." My elder son suffered from blistering diaper rash a lot, because I changed him too fast, and didn't clean him up well.

Furthermore, it was only just now, this very second, that I've realized that's what I'd done, and why his little butt was always raw and weeping. Oh, goodie. Something else to feel guilty about that I can't change now, but can only "get over."

How's that for harm?

Sure, sex is pleasurable. I enjoy sex. It sometimes drives my wife a little crazy with how much I enjoy sex. She doesn't understand why I think she's absolutely gorgeous. (Sorry, girls. Some of us like a more Rubenesque lady.)

We Rubenesque ladies thank you for it, too. ;)

There's no way in Hell I'd touch a child. I know why you don't do that. I don't ever want my grandson to know why you shouldn't do that. Unfortunately, like me, my eldest son knows why you don't do that.

Oh, and just so you know: They let the pr*** who did my son off with probation.

I'm really sorry about that, RT. I'm really sorry about all of it; what happened to you, and to him. And to my stepson, with his own cousins. And to other kids I know.

Look, I'm not stupid. I know there is something to this, some kind of biological impetus or imperative. A lot more people, male and female, are sexually attracted to kids than maybe we would like to think. Anecdotally, I know from talking to lots of guys that often when they see a newly-pubescent girl, wearing tight shorts and a tighter blouse, they do feel just a moment's curiosity, a moment's attraction. She's fresh, she's nubile, she's firm and pretty and full of energy. This attraction is not uncommon, and so it can't really be perverted.

It's the ones who feel the same attraction when they look at a 4-year-old that disturb me.

[The Atheist]

Second, I'm pretty pissed off that Kevin's been accused falsely as he has. I don't seem him as being "pro-porn," or being a front man for NAMBLA. It's slanderous and false. He is far more liberal than I am on this issue, but I've yet to see him supporting the abuse of children.

There is room for debate within this topic, but the critical thing to remember is "Is there harm?" If the answer, in any way, shape, or form is "yes," you have an obligation to stop.

Oh, and just so you know: They let the pr*** who did my son off with probation.

Road, I'd like to respond to this. You may have gathered that I have a lot of respect for you, so I want to clarify my stance.

At no stage have I accused Kevin of being a paedophile, or front-man for NAMBLA. I have asked consistently why he is promoting a change to our laws which would suit a paedophile agenda. I copied 11 of his comments to the effect that consensual sex with sexually mature children is ok, here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2212848#post2212848)

Children can be sexually mature at age 10, or even under. Now, I don't believe that while a 10 year old might be able to say "yes" to sex with a grown man, that she has any idea what's happening and accordingly, I'd like to keep that kind of activity illegal. Would you consider an adult male having sex with a 10 year old to be abuse? I certainly do, and Kevin is suggesting that it's ok.

If Kevin had suggested an age limit of 14 or 15, I probably would have had no beef with his position. He hasn't done that. He has consistently argued that "no harm is done". That is impossible to show. As I suggested, the evidence can only ever be flawed, unless every instance of "consensual sex" is counted, and they never will be.

Kevin has apparently reported my posts, so if I have actually transgressed into accusation, then no doubt I will be told officially about it.

I don't think Kevin's a paedophile, either, as it happens. I just wonder why a sane person would want to pursue such a strange agenda, and one which goes against the grain of how most people think.

If anything, the story of your son's abuser being let off with probation shows that we possibly aren't quite tough enough on the filth which perptrates these crimes.

[varwoche]

I am not arguing for sex with kids to be legalised - YOU [Kevin_Lowe] are. My position is that current laws are close enough to the desired mark to leave alone. If I'm not arguing for change, I hardly need evidence to support my position. In addition to which: (1) A young child is unable to provide informed consent, (2) STDs and pregnancy can result, seeing as adult+child sex does not occur in a lab, and (3) societal context is part of the equation, like it or not.

[The Atheist]

Well, there you go, Darat's posted while I was typing.

I note that I have NOT received a warning. Given that I have about 30 since I've been a member, I think I would have had another if I had actually crossed the line.

[slingblade]

In addition to which: (1) A young child is unable to provide informed consent, (2) STDs and pregnancy can result, seeing as adult+child sex does not occur in a lab, and (3) societal context is part of the equation, like it or not.

Those arguments were presented in the last kid-sex thread. They made no appreciable difference. Good on ya for trying, though.

[DRBUZZ0]

Um...okay (without making comment on this pro or con and possibly retreating even getting in on this thread).

Are we to say that the discussion is now focusing on the following contention:

Having an adult approach a child (of age where basic understanding and communications is possible...like above 6 or 7) and initiate sexual contact in a non-forceful manner, for example "Do you know what the difference between boys and girls is? wana see?" or "lets pretend we're doctors" or some other means by which the child is given the option to consent or not to consent. And continuing with the sexual contact, if the child is willing to do so IS/IS NOT harmful, unethical and worthy of being prohibited by law.

That's pretty much what we're dealing with here? And would anyone care to say what side of the issue they fall on.

[DRBUZZ0]

oh damn...I really wish I had used my 1000th post in some other thread. I shoulda paid attention to my post count

[Roadtoad]

It IS harmful. A child, regardless of how well "informed" they are, is not capable of understanding what he/she is getting into.

[Gurdur]

That wasn't directed at you, that was directed at Gurdur who implied that I ignored your personal experience as related in this thread.
You mean being dismissive about someone else's experience is somehow not as bad if you're being dismissive about it to someone else again?
Policy should be based on what the best science tells us, particularly when it comes to actively trying to change cultures that are not our own, outside of the sovereign territory of our nation.
Error.
We are talking value judgments here all the way in. Science has zero to say about value judgments.

[Rasmus]

It IS harmful. A child, regardless of how well "informed" they are, is not capable of understanding what he/she is getting into.

That is a perfectly valid reason to keep this kind of encounter illegal. However I am not sure if it automatically follows that harm has been done.

If someone gains access to by bank account and invests what little money I have and I walk away a millionaire no harm has been done; still it would still be illegal to seize control of my account.

[Gurdur]

....I am rather amused how people insist that harm must be caused.
I'm even more amused when pedophiles end up in prison, at the bottom of the food chain there, :p
Wouldn't it be a good thing if children weren't harmed? If children weren't harmed, does it follow that it should be legal that adults can have sex with them? (And, if so, what would be your problem?)
You're obviously failing to address the unequal_relations/exploitation issue, plus the fact that many children have been harmed, and you've seen firsthand testimony from one person already. But hey, it's clear.

[AWPrime]

Having an adult approach a child (of age where basic understanding and communications is possible...like above 6 or 7) and initiate sexual contact in a non-forceful manner, for example "Do you know what the difference between boys and girls is? wana see?" or "lets pretend we're doctors" or some other means by which the child is given the option to consent or not to consent.

That is not a way to initiate sexual contact..... that is more a way of hiding what you are really after.

It really creeps me out.

[Rasmus]

You're obviously failing to address the unequal_relations/exploitation issue, plus the fact that many children have been harmed, and you've seen firsthand testimony from one person already. But hey, it's clear.

It is clear that an anecdote, no matter how tragic it may be, or how little reason there could be to doubt it, cannot be a substitute for evidence.

I am not denying that children have been harmed, or that they cannot give consent. But all that doesn't mean that harm will always be caused no matter what the circumstances. And if there are circumstances under which no harm is being caused we shouldn't deny that they exist.

And if we should find that there are something that aren't as bad as we thought, then personally I think that is a good thing, because it means there is less harm done in the world than we previously thought.

[dann]

Having an adult approach a child (of age where basic understanding and communications is possible...like above 6 or 7) and initiate sexual contact in a non-forceful manner, for example "Do you know what the difference between boys and girls is? wana see?" or "lets pretend we're doctors" or some other means by which the child is given the option to consent or not to consent. And continuing with the sexual contact, if the child is willing to do so IS/IS NOT harmful, unethical and worthy of being prohibited by law.
A very good illustration of the absurdity of the concept of 'consensual sex' with children. There is a huge difference between children playing doctor and an adult using the line "let's pretend we're doctors" to get his way with a child that does not really understand what is going on or what it will lead to when it consents to what it thinks is just some kind of fantasy play.
If adults feel like playing doctor, they should ask their wives to put on a nurse uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_uniform).
I guess it would be too dangerous on this board to tell the paedophiles to grow up ...

[Kevin_Lowe]

My comments were directed at Dave. I gave up trying to talk to Kevin in the last "sex with kids" thread. He and DD simply could not understand my argument that some things in life are meant for adults or near-adults. Period.

I really don't like arguing with you, but I will repeat something I said in the last thread where we talked about this kind of thing.

You shared some of the details of your experiences then, and while I will not go over them again they were exactly the kind of experiences in terms of the age at which they started and in terms of what took place that the evidence indicates are likely to lead to long-term psychological harm and long-term damage to a person's life.

I don't think you can legitimately generalise from your own experiences to those of others in different circumstances however, because the numbers show different effects for those other people to the ones we should expect in your case.

[DRBUZZ0]

That is not a way to initiate sexual contact..... that is more a way of hiding what you are really after.

It really creeps me out.


Ok... So then you're saying that there is a "proper" way of initiating sexual contact with a child? What? "Sometimes people, when they like eachother, they think it feels good if they touch eachother in different ways..."
I suppose that's honest, right?



(NOTE: I know this is creepy. It is an attempt to illustrate how bizzare and whacked out an idea this is...that one could have 'consensual' sex with a child. But if anyone cares to disagree with this, then go ahead and state your case)

[dann]

It is clear that an anecdote, no matter how tragic it may be, or how little reason there could be to doubt it, cannot be a substitute for evidence.Please, don't call it an "anecdote" again, Rasmus. In a court of law it would be called testimony!
I am not denying that children have been harmed, or that they cannot give consent. But all that doesn't mean that harm will always be caused no matter what the circumstances. And if there are circumstances under which no harm is being caused we shouldn't deny that they exist.No, and if there actually are goblins, we shouldn't deny that they exist either.
And if we should find that there are something that aren't as bad as we thought, then personally I think that is a good thing, because it means there is less harm done in the world than we previously thought. You are the one who just dismissed Slingblade's story as an anecdote, aren't you? What if we should find that something is even worse than we thought, should we then try to put a stop to it or dismiss it because we want to believe in a splendid world of harmony where children should not be deprived of the right to have alleged consensual sex with adults?

[Kevin_Lowe]

In addition to which: (1) A young child is unable to provide informed consent, (2) STDs and pregnancy can result, seeing as adult+child sex does not occur in a lab, and (3) societal context is part of the equation, like it or not.

I miss the old Varwoche. What happened to that Varwoche? The new Varwoche just makes rare sniping posts that recycle arguments long ago demolished.

The idea that children "cannot consent" is a misunderstanding of a legal rule, which people somehow construe to be a psychologically demonstrated truth.

Even in law the consent of an underage person to sex commonly has legal weight. In some jurisdictions it is the difference between a charge of raping a child and a charge of statutory rape, and in others depending on the circumstances it makes sex with them legal. In Tasmania, for example, if a twelve year old consents to sex with someone between the ages of twelve and fifteen that consent makes the sex legal where it would otherwise be illegal.

So it's not even true to say "children cannot legally consent". Let alone to jump from a legal rule that does not exist to "it is psychologically demonstrated that underage people don't have the brains to give informed consent".

The STD issue is a non-trivial issue with a trivial answer. If you think it is a serious problem, and I think all sane people agree it is, then criminalise adult/underage unprotected sex.

The "societal context" throwaway line barely merits a response. If "societal context" in some other culture said that sex with prepubescents was okay would that be an argument for tolerating it, even though we know it to be harmful? Of course not, so running the same cultural relativist argument the other way is equally daft. It's not the place of the law to criminalise unpopular behaviour we know to be harmless.

[Roadtoad]

A very good illustration of the absurdity of the concept of 'consensual sex' with children. There is a huge difference between children playing doctor and an adult using the line "let's pretend we're doctors" to get his way with a child that does not really understand what is going on or what it will lead to when it consents to what it thinks is just some kind of fantasy play.
If adults feel like playing doctor, they should ask their wives to put on a nurse uniform (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurse_uniform).
I guess it would be too dangerous on this board to tell the paedophiles to grow up ...

I'd pass on the nurse uniform.

Some of us prefer Bunnygirls...

http://yukatakeuchifan.bakunyuu.com/elena/Elena09.jpg

[DRBUZZ0]

It is clear that an anecdote, no matter how tragic it may be, or how little reason there could be to doubt it, cannot be a substitute for evidence.




I'm sorry sir, but I think you have things backward. There is no need to provide evidence that children are being harmed by sexual contact with adults.

Common wisdom indicates that to be the case. It is logical to think that is the case. It has long been held that that is the case.

That does not mean it cannot be refuted, however what it means is that the burden of proof is TO PROVE IT IS NOT HARMFUL. This being especially true given the potential consequences.

Thus: There is no reason why those who hold it is damaging need to provide 'proof'

Rather those who think otherwise need to provide proof. Very very compelling proof. Extremely compelling and redundant cross-checked reviewed and irrefutable proof. Not one study. Not two studies. LOTS AND LOTS OF PROOF. Only then should the possibility of maybe perhaps entertaining the thought of considering the possibility of reexamining things...

Do you realize that we're talking about sex with kids here? Jesus people, it's not an accidemic thing.

[Rasmus]

You are the one who just dismissed Slingblade's story as an anecdote, aren't you?

I have no doubt that it's an honest and true account. But it has no value as far as the question is concerned if all sexual contact between adults and children will harm the child.

What if we should find that something is even worse than we thought, should we then try to put a stop to it or dismiss it because we want to believe in a splendid world of harmony where children should not be deprived of the right to have alleged consensual sex with adults?

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2216271&postcount=221

[Rasmus]

I'm sorry sir, but I think you have things backward. There is no need to provide evidence that children are being harmed by sexual contact with adults.

I am of the opinion that as long as you want to forbid people to do X, it is upon you to show that X is a bad thing.

Common wisdom indicates that to be the case. It is logical to think that is the case. It has long been held that that is the case.And earth flat. Same story, really.

That does not mean it cannot be refuted, however what it means is that the burden of proof is TO PROVE IT IS NOT HARMFUL. This being especially true given the potential consequences.I think it is unjustified to call them "potential consequences" as long as we are arguing about what the consequences are.

Thus: There is no reason why those who hold it is damaging need to provide 'proof' Oh, so all you have to do is make up a claim that X might be harmful, and then that's that?

Rather those who think otherwise need to provide proof. Very very compelling proof. Extremely compelling and redundant cross-checked reviewed and irrefutable proof. Not one study. Not two studies. LOTS AND LOTS OF PROOF. Only then should the possibility of maybe perhaps entertaining the thought of considering the possibility of reexamining things...I see. You are right because you say so ...

Do you realize that we're talking about sex with kids here? Jesus people, it's not an accidemic thing.Apparently, it's more the kind of thing to be all hysterical about. At least it is for some. That would explain claims that no evidence is needed, or that no evidence would make a difference whatsoever. It might also explain that as soon as anyone dares to question the view that earth is flat all sex will always be harming the child people stop to listen. Had you been listening you would have seen that I will hold the view that it should be illegal regardless of how harmful it may or may not be.

[DRBUZZ0]

And earth flat. Same story, really.


Um...not exactly. Conventional wisdom is usually right, and this tends to become moreso over time. You hear a lot about those who challenge conventional wisdom and win, but those who lose are never heard about.


In the case of the earth being round vrs flat: Conventional wisdom, at one time said that the earth was flat. This seemed to be the logical thing to think since the ground seemed to be flat and the idea of a round earth begged the question of what was holding you to it (gravity not being understood).

Those who claimed the world to be round had to provide compelling evidence of this, based on observations, logic and demonstration. They did, and conventional wisdom changed.


So, you are not being invited to provide compelling evidence that conventional wisdom is wrong: Please go ahead and do so.


Or, as from what you seem to say, since this is a two-sided argument, sex between children and adults ought to be legal until such time as the argument is settled and proof can be given that it is harmful?

There are many things that are not legal until they can be proven non-harmful. For example: Generally new perscription drugs cannot be sold until they are proven, within some degree of confidence as safe (or at least that's how it is in theory...)

I don't think it's general practice to put them on the market without any good testing of the safety and then take them off if people start dropping dead.




Alright...Given...I'm a little non-objective and favor the idea of NOT having sex with children. And yes I realize that I generally am of the opinion that one ought to be objective and non-biased in viewing scientific data.

However...If I'm going to be a bit subjective and prejudice about a given subject, I think having a prejudice against sex with children is one of the better ones to have.

[dann]

If someone gains access to by bank account and invests what little money I have and I walk away a millionaire no harm has been done; still it would still be illegal to seize control of my account. If some adult gains access to your 11-year-old daughter's vagina, gives her so many orgasms that she isn't even able to count them at her age, i.e. gives her the experience of a lifetime and thus ensures that she will grow up to be a wonderful, mature woman, full of self-confidence, a mother of happy grateful children and a sexually liberated and knowledgeable wife of a grateful husband, in short: makes her the happiest girl in the world, yes, then it would still be illegal to seize control of her vagina.
Or if somebody killed somebody else in anger only to discover later that his victim was fatally ill, depressed and actually wanted to end his own life, but just didn't have the guts to do so, it would still be illegal to kill him.
You are writing fairytales, Rasmus, but still it is a very useful example of the way that paedophiles think. In real life nobody gains access to somebody else's money to invest it in order to make that somebody a millionaire (well, maybe if the somebody was a billionaire). And in real life paedophiles don't dream of having sex with children because they are absolutely sure that this is best thing they can do for them. We are not talking about adult men who have formed a club based on the unselfish willingness to sacrifice having sex with sexually mature women in order to be able to spend all their time helping 'consenting' children.
Get it, Rasmus? Paedophiles desire sex with children (the only interesting question is why!) and in order to justify this desire to themselves and others, they become hypocrites. The stories they make up are so weird that it really isn't necessary to take their ideas seriously. They are lies. If they happen to believe in their own lies, we should help them by pointing out to them that they are being delusional. And so are you if you can actually persuade yourself that the story about your bank account has anything to do with the real world!

[Darth Rotor]

Do you have an opinion on what you think the law should be?
What I think the law should be?

Hmm. *ponders*

If you have sex with my under 16 year old child, and you are an adult, I get to have you to myself in a room, for 5 minutes with no interference -- oh, the me includes my favorite baseball bat.

You get to live if your body can withstand that counselling session.

That isn't what the law is, but what I think it should be.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

My example above is about standing in the driveway hopping on one foot. It serves no purpose, and I do it for no reason other than I want to. Moroever, I am pretty much alone among the adults in my neighborhood in wanting to do it. Yet, it is perfectly legal. Why? Because there is no reason to make it illegal.

That is the only standard that makes sense in a free society
Are you trying to make the point that the laws against child pornography are not based in protecting one person against another? Are you trying to make a point related to the OP at all? I am unsure, which is why I am asking.

There is typicaly a good reason to make something illegal when it is a matter of protecting one citizen from another. The precise age of what constitutes child has fluctuated somewhat since the founding days, and still varies (in the US) from state to state. I find it difficult to accept Lowe's position that there is no harm in kiddie porn, and in minor-adult sexual liaisons, but I have no desire to go down his Utopian rathole of harmless child sex. I accept that there is a possibility of such a blissful condition in some cases. Regardless of the rate of this success in innocence, such behavior has been decreed in the US by behavioral psychologists as being harmful enough to induce the citizenry and legislative bodies to cause laws to be written against it.

The other problem of this entire discussion of "kiddie" porn is what constitutes kiddie in it (pre pubescent is, as I see it, a different case from post pubescent.)

The laws have been drawn up on a consensus of the people they influence -- people with children -- under the premise that children, minors, are a protected class who at the same time are less than whole citizens (can't vote, etc) until a consensually agreed upon age of majority, or consent, pick the topic.

That is, I will repeat for emphasis, a consensus not a unanimity, and not derived from unassailable bodies of data. What informs the creation of such laws are a myriad of influences.

When the law, or "society" is asked to stand up a perfect, absolutist condition to justify a law, I tend to find myself in agreement with Gurdur, as "perfect" isn't happening any time soon.

If the "age of consent" should vary up or down, let it do so, and with it the related laws agreed by consensus. Let's not fool ourselves that we can assume away all harm in the sexual liaisons between adults and minors, unless the last 75 years output of the social sciences and behavioural psychology are all nonsense.

Which might be the case, but I'll not bet the over on it.

DR

[slingblade]

I don't think you can legitimately generalise from your own experiences to those of others in different circumstances however, because the numbers show different effects for those other people to the ones we should expect in your case.

It's a large, smelly, mangy dog chasing its own filth-encrusted tail.

"Children. Sex. Harm?"

"What do you mean? Children having sex with each other? Or with adults?"

"Either, really. If they want to, I mean. Consensual, of course."

"Excuse me? But why?"

"Sex feels good. And lots of people of various ages are attracted to children and teenagers. So why not? Have we ever proven it will hurt anyone?"

"It certainly hurt me."

"Oh, posh. You're just one person. You're no proof."

"The studies done on it prove sexual abuse causes psychological harm, and often physical harm as well."

"Yes, but that was abuse. What if it's only abuse because society declares it is, and what if kids only feel bad about it because society tells them they did something wrong?"

"I'm sorry. What was that again?"

"Well, if we lived in a sexually open society where any kind of sexual activity was permitted and even sanctioned, and kids grew up that way, who knows? They might really enjoy sex!"

"Again, to what purpose?"

"It feels good!"

"But if you open children up to adults soliciting them for sex, you're going to have a lot of raped children. Children can't consent to sex."

"Of course they can. They know when they want a cookie; they would know if they wanted sex."

"I think there's just a bit of difference between eating a cookie and having sex."

"Not at all. They both feel good. Why shouldn't kids have sex if they want it?"

"Again, kids don't always know what they want. They lack the cognitive ability to reason complex decisions like engaging in sex."

"What's complex about it? You want it, you do it, everyone's happy."

"Do kids know about STDs? Because some adults don't know about them. 1 in 4 who have HIV don't know it. What about pregnancy? Did you know a girl can become fertile before menarche?"

"Condoms!"

"I see. So what's the drawback? Why aren't you scouting out nubile young third-graders right now?"

"Well, because it's illegal."

"And why would that be?"

"Social taboos! Artificial social taboos!"

"So you are under the impression that the only reason we don't have sex with children is just because we find it squicky? You don't think maybe it's because we've figured out over the centuries that children and sex don't really belong together? That maybe it's because we know it can hurt them?"

"But how do we know it hurts them?"





And on and on we go. Isn't this fun?

[The Atheist]

Paedophiles desire sex with children (the only interesting question is why!) That's a bloody interesting question.

I found this (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/14/1687_51642.htm), via Wiki:

Insecurity, Hord agrees, is at the heart of pedophilia. Typically, pedophiles have trouble relating to people their own age. They need to feel they have power and control in a relationship, which is easy with children. One pedophile, "PwC," attests to this, writing on a pedophilia Web site:

"I'm 21 years old, and a virgin, I've never even kissed a girl. I have no job, and can't keep one. I'm frustrated that I'm a virgin, and it seems very unlikely that I'll ever get the kind of woman I want, and I'm desperate, because I need love. I never have molested a little girl, never! I want to though, I'm truly desperate. I want to hold a little girl in my arms, and tell her I love her, and that I'll keep her safe, and protect her, that appeals to me greatly."

This man is remorseful, but there are plenty of pedophiles who are not. Men and women who molest kids "for sport," as Hord puts it, are the most dangerous. They are also the ones who try to justify their sexual preference, arguing that pedophilia should be "normalized," just like homosexuality has been. (Bolding mine.)

[The Atheist]

If you have sex with my under 16 year old child, and you are an adult, I get to have you to myself in a room, for 5 minutes with no interference -- oh, the me includes my favorite baseball bat.

You get to live if your body can withstand that counselling session.

That isn't what the law is, but what I think it should be.

DR

Can I take $50 on the unders on 5 minutes?

Cheers.

[The Atheist]

And on and on we go. Isn't this fun?

Sling, I know this is a horrible subject for you. Just let it go. While the Darth Rotors, The Atheists, the Gurdurs, the Varwoches and the DrBuzzos (and all the others on this side of the fence) are still drawing breath, the chances of a law, or attitudinal change, playing into the hands of paedophiles is just NOT going to happen.

In fact, I fancy that between Darth and myself and his baseball bat, we could take care of half a dozen with consumate ease.

As I said to Kevin earlier, if he's serious about changing the law, he can go start up a petition. Same goes for anyone else who wants those laws changed - go tell people face to face and see what kind of reception you get. It's easy to put these brave statements about lack of harm on a discussion forum. Betcha none of them ever try it out in the real world.

As Gurdur pointed out earlier, even the worst crims still hate paedophiles and they are marked men in prisons in every country. They have nowhere to run, nowhere to hide and no friends.

[Gurdur]

It is clear that an anecdote, no matter how tragic it may be, or how little reason there could be to doubt it, cannot be a substitute for evidence.
You are talking absolute dishonest garbage here. The point made was we know many children have been harmed. You were given firsthand testimony as to that, and that is evidence, whether you like it or not. Suck it up.
I am not denying that children have been harmed,
You just did above. Get honest.
And if we should find that there are something that aren't as bad as we thought, then personally I think that is a good thing, because it means there is less harm done in the world than we previously thought.
Once again, you are willfully evading the point of the actual harm done. Since we have much testimony from firsthand accounts, tested in lawcourts too, we know many children have been harmed.

I refer you back to the points you so willfully evaded before. Do let me know what you cannot understand. And I'll add again just how amused I am when pedos go to prison.

children are automatically by virtue of relative power at risk of exploitation by adults
we know for very certain that pedophiliac acts have harmed many
there is no need to tolerate pedophiliac acts
so whether some acts are non-harmful is irrelevant; the fact that enough acts are harmful and that it is automatically from very different positions of relative power -- i.e., exploitation -- is enough to ban the entire area.
so the bloody point, yet again, is that there is no need whatsoever to indulge pedophiliacs, nor is there any need to tolerate pedophilia -- anywhere.

[Gurdur]

It's a large, smelly, mangy dog chasing its own filth-encrusted tail.
.....And on and on we go. Isn't this fun?
Slingblade,
On the board I run myself (for nontheists), I simply made it a cast-iron rule that advocation of pedophilia or kiddie porn is an instant banning offence, and I apply that rule very damn hard. I see no reason why we should tolerate the pedos trying to parasitically ride piggyback on the skeptic or atheist movements.

On a personal note, all respect to your courage, and I wish you all the very best.

[dann]

Ifound this (http://www.webmd.com/content/article/14/1687_51642.htm), via Wiki:" (...) I want to hold a little girl in my arms, and tell her I love her, and that I'll keep her safe, and protect her, that appeals to me greatly."Wow! Is anybody else reminded of J.D. Salinger's (http://www.roughdraft.org/JDS/JDS.ocon.mar99/0460.html) Holden Caulfield (http://www.seattleweekly.com/arts/9840/books-kincaid.php) in The Catcher in the Rye (http://www.megaessays.com/viewpaper/95767.html)?

I would advise you to go easy on the baseball bat, however:
In fact, I fancy that between Darth and myself and his baseball bat, we could take care of half a dozen with consumate ease.
In Denmark a man was recently killed because two psychopaths persuaded themselves that he was probably a paedophile. If I recall correctly, the motive of protecting the daughter of one of the men was part of it. In reality he was guilty of nothing more than being a bit of a loner.

[Kevin_Lowe]

It's a large, smelly, mangy dog chasing its own filth-encrusted tail.

I see the argument you described as more of a large straw man you would like to burn at the stake.

May I put some words into your mouth? You put an awful lot in to mine so I feel free to return the favour.

A: "What's the evidence child pornography causes harm?".

B: "It must cause harm! Underage sex is bad!".

A: "Actual evidence indicates that sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't, depending on the cirumstances. But let's get back to the original issue, fictional depictions of underage sex".

B: (fingers in ears) "Underage sex is badbadbad always! This one person had underage sex and it was terrible for them!".

A: "These eight hundred people filled out surveys and they had underage sex and sometimes it was bad and sometimes it was not, depending on the cirumstances. But let's get back to the original issue, fictional depictions of underage sex".

B: (fingers in ears) "We know underage sex is bad because we have all sorts of purely theoretical arguments! People under X, where X is the local age of consent, cannot consent, and are at risk of exploitation, and they don't need to have sex, and they're emotionally unready for it, and they might catch STDs!"

A: "If that were actually the case surely it would be terribly easy to find evidence of this harm in epidemiological studies? Although we're still a long way off the point, which was regulating fictional depictions of underage sex".

B: "Evidence? How dare you ask us for evidence? Firstly our position is self-evidently true as demonstrated by our purely theoretical arguments. Secondly we have anecdotes, which are better than large surveys. Thirdly we are parroting current cultural values, which exempts us from ever needing evidence. We have the right to clog the thread with vile accusations and fantasies of extreme violence as much as we like, and we need never even look for actual evidence".

A: "So you're never going to discuss the actual evidence you have been presented with?".

B: (fingers in ears again) "You're a bad person!"

A: "Are you going to address the awkward issue that the definition of underage varies from eleven to nineteen depending on location and situation, and that you have no evidence any one age is better than any other? Thus activities you violently condemn in some jurisdictions are held harmless in other jurisdictions?"

B: (fingers in ears) "You never post any rational arguments and you ignore all of my rational arguments. That's why this thread is not going anywhere."

A: "So you're going to ignore the original issue, fictional depictions of underage sex?".

B: "Of course we are. How are we supposed to work ourselves into fits of self-righteous rage about that stuff?".

[Gurdur]

"Of course we are. How are we supposed to work ourselves into fits of self-righteous rage about that stuff?".
You seem to be quite expert at generating self-righteous rage yourself.

Too bloody bad the pedos won't get indulged. Too bloody bad pedophilia or kiddie porn won't be legalized. Too bloody bad so many realise you don't need to advocate legalizing either to be a true skeptic. Suck it up, live with it.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You seem to be quite expert at generating self-righteous rage yourself.

Too bloody bad the pedos won't get indulged. Too bloody bad pedophilia or kiddie porn won't be legalized. Too bloody bad so many realise you don't need to advocate legalizing either to be a true skeptic. Suck it up, live with it.

Some posts make it all worthwhile. I couldn't have supported my own point better if Gurdur was my sock puppet.

[Skeptic]

So in other words: You and a 16 year old can have all kinds of sex, you can look at her (or his) naughty bits, and do all other kinds of things that I don't care to go into. But if you dare take out a polaroid camera...well then you're in trouble, because apparently "consent" applies to everything but photos/videos

I don't see why that's a problem. Take consensual sex between two 30-year-olds: it's perfectly legal, of course, and there is nothing wrong about it. But it might well not be legal to post photographs of the act in public places. It's the publicity of the act, not the act itself, act itself, which is the crime.

[Dave1001]

Do you have an opinion on what you think the law should be?
What I think the law should be?

Hmm. *ponders*

If you have sex with my under 16 year old child, and you are an adult, I get to have you to myself in a room, for 5 minutes with no interference -- oh, the me includes my favorite baseball bat.

You get to live if your body can withstand that counselling session.

That isn't what the law is, but what I think it should be.

DR

okay, how about the law regarding pseudo child pornography that depicts adult-child sex but doesn't involve any actual children in its production? Should it be legal to own? To distribute?

[Dave1001]

"I see. So what's the drawback? Why aren't you scouting out nubile young third-graders right now?"

"Well, because it's illegal."

"And why would that be?"

"Social taboos! Artificial social taboos!"


I don't think anyone in this thread claimed the reason they don't have sex with 3rd graders is because it's illegal.