Ab_Normal

Here's an omnibus reply to the whole darn thread:

Those little beauties come from the twisted mind of Jack Chick.

Re: banning "virtual KP"
I have discussed this issue with my husband, who is a consumer of pr0n. Somewhat to my surprise, he came down on the "ban anything that even looks like KP" side, and he used the argument that "using KP will eventually lower the user's inhibitions against performing pedophilic acts". I couldn't think of a response at the time.

and
I'd get a lot less sleep. Oh, and my husband wouldn't have his gorilla-like grip strength. (Is that TMI?)

Grad Student Humanist

Is he also in favor of banning the aforementioned child porn stories which are all over the internet? Or does he believe that only visual depictions of child sex should be banned?

I'm really curious. It seems that these stories are freely available on the net and nobody is up in arms about them. They are extremely graphic and involve children of all ages. Some sites also have bestiality stories. And how would one conceivably eliminate these stories since they're on the web which is difficult to regulate?

For the record I'm not for banning either virtual child porn or these child porn stories. It becomes tantamount to prosecuting people for thought crimes. No children are involved in any way. What's next, I wonder? Should stories which feature drug use be banned since they encourage said illegal behavior?

My favorite hypothetical situation: Many years into the future the technology exists to create holodecks, a la Star Trek. Some people use these to live out their fantasies of having sex with children. Is this wrong? Why or why not? How is this different from someone sitting at home and having these thoughts in his head?

Phanes

As I said above, I think that type of reply is little better than a slippery slope argument. Except in this case, it isn't even based on evidence. It seems to me that a pedophile without his (fake) pictures or stories would be more likely to try and get his "fix" somewhere else, i.e. in the real world, with real children.

It's not like prison has an exceptionally high population of gay men, for instance. It just has a lot of men who are desperate for sex. The lack of women (real or in print) doesn't teach them to stop caring about sex; it teaches them to find other outlets, so to speak.


Ask your husband if any of the porn he looks at is lowering his inhibitions. I suspect he'll deny there's any significant negative influence.

christ-on-a-stick

Quick question - have their been any studies done on whether or not the viewing of virtual KP and/or written stories about sexual acts with children DOES indeed lead to "lowered inhibitions" toward actually *doing* anything IRL?

I tried to google on this but am woefully inadequate at complicated searches so far.

Michaelson

avalanche:ix Hey, you're the fatalist. I think your view's bleaker than mine. You seem to argue that child molestorers are born child molestorers and they will remain child molestorer's regardless of outside influences.

I just don't buy that line. I don't think that people pre-disposed to certain immoral acts are destined to act them out them no matter what. I'm not saying that every second man and his dog will go and abuse children after looking at CGI KP. I'm not saying that anyone who did would be justified in their actions. I'm saying that SOME people would, in all likelihood, try to act out what they see on their PC.

Consider this: A ruthless rapist, yet to be convicted, has never really found children arousing at all, and as such has never abused them. Now he sees some CGI KP and decides he actually quite likes what he sees, it gets him incredibly aroused. This is an immoral man who'd merely never contemplated the possibility before. What happens from here?

I'm not trying to get hysterical here, I'm just asking, is it infeasible that this exposure to CGI KP could have a bearing on his future actions? Would it be plausible to suggest if after viewing the KP, he went down to the local school and nabbed a child before raping them, that the CGI KP may have played a part? I'd have thought that the common sense view would accept this as a possibility.

Given that that is the case, why should it be protected? Because of Free Speech, am I right?

And here we go again. It's kind of amusing that a community of people committed to the pursuit of "philosophy and the scientific enterprise" so regularly fall back on the line: "Someone with religious faith once said it, so that opinions already been discredited." The fallacy is so obvious, yet it's so regularly employed.

Why is imagery, which speaks straight to the dick or clit considered speech? Are ideas really expressed in porn, and aren't ideas essential to the notion of speech as we know it? Sure, if you exclude porn from free speech immunity you'll have dreadful troubles when trying to determine what is porn and what isn't. But is porn in it's purest form speech?


As for this from Grad Student Humanist: At first your post worried me a little, but since then I've decided that yeah, I would like to ban that material. I don't know if you could, but there are some materials which I would ban if personally I got to be the consor, for sure. Anything that promotes the idea of peadophillia in order to arouse the reader, I would ban. That is not anything which paints peadophillia in a positive light.

Mind you, I think that erotic fiction can claim status as a legitimate form of speech far more regularly than pictures in a magazine or porno flicks can. Erotic stories usually involve a narrative, and various litterary techniques etc. Whereas porno flicks, on the whole, basically go so far as putting the girl in a cowboy hat and that'll be about it.

So actually, now I'm undecided.

What I would ban is any piece written to help peadophiles lure children to their house, or anything of that variety. Are there laws in the US covering that? I'd hope so, but you guys and your freedom of speech...

Just curious avalanche:ix, does the article written for paedophiles mentioned above have protection in your ideal society?

Loren Pechtel

I seriously doubt such research has been done. Given the illegality of kiddie porn it would be *VERY* hard to do a good job of.

For the mundane stuff, though, low levels of porn availability increases sex crimes. A sex criminal has in general seen less porn than the average person, also.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Michaelson
Consider this: A ruthless rapist, yet to be convicted, has never really found children arousing at all, and as such has never abused them. Now he sees some CGI KP and decides he actually quite likes what he sees, it gets him incredibly aroused. This is an immoral man who'd merely never contemplated the possibility before. What happens from here?

I don't think this would happen unless you set up a situation where that was the only porn available. Give him a choice and he'll go for what interests him. Deny the access to porn and whatever manages to slip through will be interesting even if it's not what he would regard as the best--thus by banning all porn (ie, prison) you could end up creating an interest that didn't exist before.

I'm not trying to get hysterical here, I'm just asking, is it infeasible that this exposure to CGI KP could have a bearing on his future actions? Would it be plausible to suggest if after viewing the KP, he went down to the local school and nabbed a child before raping them, that the CGI KP may have played a part? I'd have thought that the common sense view would accept this as a possibility.

Given that that is the case, why should it be protected? Because of Free Speech, am I right?

You're starting from a what-if and then assuming it to be true.

And here we go again. It's kind of amusing that a community of people committed to the pursuit of "philosophy and the scientific enterprise" so regularly fall back on the line: "Someone with religious faith once said it, so that opinions already been discredited." The fallacy is so obvious, yet it's so regularly employed.

No. What we are saying is that most if not all of the support for the idea is of religious origin and therefore of little value.

Why is imagery, which speaks straight to the dick or clit considered speech?

Speech, in the context of the first amendmant, has routinely been considered to mean the communication of an idea. It is not restricted to words.

Are ideas really expressed in porn, and aren't ideas essential to the notion of speech as we know it?

You seem to be objecting to improper ideas being expressed in porn--therefore imply that ideas are expressed.

Sure, if you exclude porn from free speech immunity you'll have dreadful troubles when trying to determine what is porn and what isn't. But is porn in it's purest form speech?

Simple test: Can you devise an objective test for whether something is porn and therefore unacceptable? The Supreme Court hasn't managed to!

Michaelson

Sorry, my last thread was wishy washy, I know.

Basically what I was trying to say: I am aware that if porn is to be censored, then you have great difficulty determining what constitutes porn and what doesn't. Plus, it is likely when making that distinction that minority groups will find themselves repressed (it's always going to be gay porn that bears the brunt of censorship first, for example). However, if you define porn as materials produced for no other purpose than to arouse the viewer/reader, then I think that there are materials which are undoubtable porn, and there are also materials which are undoubtedly not porn.

For every product which is designed solely to arouse the viewer, it is not something, to my mind, that communicates any ideas. I believe free speech should be protected so that the open communication of ideas can lead to an evolution of those ideas. I can't see how footage which peoiple watch to jack off expresses anything which will lead to ideas evolving. If I'm watching pornography, it's not to consider the sex involved but rather to participate in a sexual act, essentially. Porn doesn't make you think, in the way any other artistic medium can. If you read reviews of porno films, they don't speak of content except to speak of the sex, how arousing it was and how enjoyable it is to get off to the film.

That I can find certain types of porn repulsive, or argue that KP could influence certain people doesn't rest on an assumption that ideas are expressed, does it?

...Maybe it does, actually. I'm not sure, but I'll give it some thought.

Where I'm certainly going to get into trouble is that my arguments imply that porn can plant ideas, and if that's the case then I guess the rest of my argument isn't so much disproven as rendered irrelevant.

hmmm.

Ab_Normal

In our one conversation on the topic, he said that he's fussy about what he consumes, because there's stuff he doesn't want to get into, even in his own head. After that discussion, the topic was placed on the "things we don't talk about because we disagree too much" list.

(I wish I could think of everything before I hit submit)
edited to add: I really think it's part of his fundy upbringing. He's got a strong libido, and I think deep down in his subconscious he's still fighting the "sex is bad" programming.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Michaelson
Basically what I was trying to say: I am aware that if porn is to be censored, then you have great difficulty determining what constitutes porn and what doesn't.

Yes. I have never seen an adequate definition. I don't believe in laws that there is no way to know for sure that something is legal or not. Where's the line?

Plus, it is likely when making that distinction that minority groups will find themselves repressed (it's always going to be gay porn that bears the brunt of censorship first, for example).

Another good reason not to ban it.

However, if you define porn as materials produced for no other purpose than to arouse the viewer/reader, then I think that there are materials which are undoubtable porn, and there are also materials which are undoubtedly not porn.

And there are things that are still a problem. How about an explicit adult sex-ed tape? Not the sort of thing you saw in school, but one teaching technique--stuff like this. Ok? Then add a bit of education to your porno tapes and you have just circumvented the prohibition.

For every product which is designed solely to arouse the viewer, it is not something, to my mind, that communicates any ideas.

Enjoy your body? That's not an idea?

I believe free speech should be protected so that the open communication of ideas can lead to an evolution of those ideas.

In other words, only speech you approve of. Free speech means nothing if unpopular speech is banned.

I can't see how footage which peoiple watch to jack off expresses anything which will lead to ideas evolving.

And much of the mindless entertainment that comes from Hollywood is any better? A sitcom is to make you laugh, not give you ideas.

Porn doesn't make you think, in the way any other artistic medium can.

Oh? I've had the reaction "I'd like to try that position". That's thinking.

If you read reviews of porno films, they don't speak of content except to speak of the sex, how arousing it was and how enjoyable it is to get off to the film.

Oh?

That I can find certain types of porn repulsive, or argue that KP could influence certain people doesn't rest on an assumption that ideas are expressed, does it?

...Maybe it does, actually. I'm not sure, but I'll give it some thought.

Where I'm certainly going to get into trouble is that my arguments imply that porn can plant ideas, and if that's the case then I guess the rest of my argument isn't so much disproven as rendered irrelevant.

Yeah, you've proven part of my position.