Ok, I got off on a tangent in another thread, so here is to keep you up to date....It has to do with is there an example where the government should regulate behavior behind closed doors.
Alexa
quote: I can think of one...and I see legal debates on the horizon. The implications of this ever being legal is truly frightening.
What about child pornography where the pornography is computer generated? As CGI gets more advanced, what is the legal code of conduct in your opinion Storm?
Is it freedom of expression or is it a truly sick act that should be illegal?
Storm Saxon
quote: no harm, no foul, in my opinion. It's like taking a picture of someone with a knife sticking out of their chest versus drawing someone with a knife sticking out of their chest. No different.
in any case, it's already been deemed illegal.
KarlEd
quote: That's a pretty interesting question in and of itself. You should post that in a thread of its own. (Not that I'm worried about derailing this thread, but you'd probably get interesting opinions from people who aren't reading this thread.)
Alexa
quote: I know it is illegal, but what I am trying to determine if it is justified to be illegal. If it is justified, then there is precedent for the government to regulated private behavior.
I do find the precedent does exist because the damage spamming that type of porn would be on the public good is overwhelming in my mind.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
From the other thread:
quote: I do find the precendent does exist because the damage spamming that type of porn would be on the public good is overwhelming in my mind.
In all seriousness, I find the damage of the ordinary type of porn to be overwhelming.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
From the other thread:
Can someone provide a link to where this was made illegal? I definitely remember reading that it was declared legally protected speech. Was this overturned?
[edit: I'd look myself, but I'm not doing searches on "virtual child pornography" from work. Sorry.]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
From other thread:
Have you seen the stuff coming out of Japan right now?
None of those girls look a day older than 10 years old.
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is there anything you can think of that the government has the right to outlaw that is done in the privacy of your own home and does not affect others? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Smoking marijuana fits nicely here. Yet the government makes it illegal.
Of course I am of the opinion that they have no right to do so.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And of course others feel that you cannot do *anything* that does not affect others.
[ April 06, 2004, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
How does someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own homes affect others?
(and PLEASE don't accuse me of just wanting to do it myself. I get accused of that EVERY TIME. If I did I would admit it, but I don't)
I would like to know how pornography is greatly harmful btw. I am not arguing here, just want reasons.
(Though I reserve the right to argue after that )
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Xavier, I got your back. It's okay if you wanna get high. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
mph, I find that belief very frightening, since it justifies pretty much any use of the power of state.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I know -- I feel that too.
So I feel two contradictory things. I guess I'm human. So I believe there should be a balance. Where that balance should be, feel free to disagree.
[ April 06, 2004, 11:57 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote:How does someone smoking pot in the privacy of their own homes affect others?
The arguement is IF there are things going on in your home that don't harm others (IE take away the consent--since the law has held that children can't give consent to sex or pornography, child porn is illegal), does the government have a right to outlaw it?
By your own standard (and mine btw) pot should not be regulated. What about computer generated child porn? No one didn't give consent (or had consent taken from them due to age), so should government still outlaw it?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*nod*
I am very much against the use of torture. But you get people like Saddam in power and.... It definitely makes you think.
(was responding to mph)
[ April 06, 2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Storm Saxon ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
so mph
Do you think regular porn should be illegal?
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 4552) on :
KarlEd, I can't find a link, partially for the same reason as you. (Especially considering I'm a teacher!) But I'm certain it is.
(And, interestingly enough, that stuff coming from Japan has key details airbrushed out of existence, which websites in the US draw back into existence!)
(Not sure why I know these things . . . )
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
It is a tough question...
If you say virtual child porn is illegal, you are giving the state precedent to enforce public morality not based on behavior that affects others. If you argue for legalizing virtual child porn...well...duh (imo)! That can't be right.
I am reminded of the Southpark episode where Cartmen joins Mambla (forgot acronym).
You could stick to outlawing virtual child porn to advertise for child trafficking or party trips to Asian Countries where child sex laws aren't enforced. But if the police raid someone’s computer who met an underage girl online and finds virtual and real child porn, should the virtual be counted in the offenses?
What about if the law seizes a computer, for a different reason, and finds VCP on it, should it be prosecuted?
I don't know what the law says, but I want to know if you think the government should have that precedent. I do.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Starbuck... it is what? protected free speech or overturned and illegal?
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 4552) on :
::smacks head::
sorry . . . illegal
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Alexa -- I don't know. Just because something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean it should be illegal.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Also, consider, Alexa (let's not get into psych studies. I'd just as soon not get into dueling links. just consider what if), what if the virtual child porn keeps the person happy so they don't go out and do the real thing?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It seems to me that fantisizing about things doesn't placate, it encourages it. Virtual child porn would make people more, not less likely to exploit children (real child porn being one of the ways to do that).
Posted by Starbuck (Member # 4552) on :
I'd love to be able to think of a good reason why it should be illegal, but I can't think of one. Is it illegal for a pedophile to fantasize (i.e., without the use of technology or drawings or anything like that)? In other words, is there anything concrete beyond our distaste for the drive behind illegalizing this?
One might say that this leads to pedophiles raping children, as the fantasy ceases to satisfy them, or as they are emboldened. But this would then be a pretty good precedent for outlawing hard core pornography that does not involve children, and videogames and music that glorify violence.
Is it possible that by giving pedophiles access to a legal way to fantasize, we would reduce the demand for child pornography which real children are harmed in the making of?
[ April 06, 2004, 12:26 PM: Message edited by: Starbuck ]
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
Mmmmmmm... porn... Porn is just fine and dandy. I don't know about anyone else, but it's kept me sane during those long years of being single. Child porn is NOT, of course, because it means a child was used in it's production. But, while I find it repulsive, don't see why cgi or drawn porn is wrong. As long as no child was hurt there is no problem. And as long as you keep it to yourself, as they say, no harm no foul.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
StormSaxon
That is an interesting argument. There certainly is an ongoing debate about whether violent video games provide an outlet or a reinforcement for violent behavior.
I don't know. I do know we could never test to find out, as I can't see finding a review board for an experiment on VCP giving permission to study a variety of illegal activities without turning in the perpetrator.
My personal experience with sex is that you can learn to like anything. Also, since sex is stimulating the pleasure area of your brain but tends to have a tolerance level before it becomes dull, you need to keep pushing the line to find the same pleasure.
Of course I am talking about self pleasure material. Love and commitment adds a different degree to the equation that I doubt VCP offers.
**but you are right, if it reduces abuse, of course it would be a good thing...in the "what if" catagory.
[ April 06, 2004, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I agree. It seems that all of the objections to virtual child porn are equally valid against normal porn.
But no, I don't believe that virtual child porn will releive the damand for real child porn. It will increase the demand for it.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I couldn't help noticing your thread and I wanted to join in.
Pedophilia, in my opinion, is not illegal on it's own as there can be no process which could ever moniter one's thoughts and desires. But at what point does one's actions on those desires constitute a danger to others? Does simply looking at such material constitute a danger to others or must one be actively producing the material to call it illegal?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
The big fear I see is there are plenty of countries where the age of consent is lower, non existent, or not enforced. We are seeing in the news more reports where business men are traveling to these countries to satisfy cravings.
If VCP is made legal, I could see it being used to advertise such trips in a round a bout way. I could also see it being posted and sent on multiple web sites were pedophiles will congregate and unify.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:what if the virtual child porn keeps the person happy so they don't go out and do the real thing?
This would only be a valid "what if" scenario if it had some basis in reality. Would you say that regular pornography is satisfying enough to never want a real woman? In some cases, (and I know they exist), the answer is yes. But those are cases where the draw is the pornography itself and the physical act (since it involves another person) is too threatening, too scary, or too intimate. Those are cases, however, where the physical act isn't truly tempting anyway. Wouldn't you say that in most cases, viewers of pornography are not satisfied to just stay with the porn and would prefer to go for real sex with a real woman?
(edited to rephrase a question that made no sense whatsoever)
[ April 06, 2004, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Epictetus,
Welcome, you name looks new. Are you truly new to Hatrack or are deciding to keep your identity obscure?
Anyway,
quote:Does simply looking at such material constitute a danger to others
I think the production of VCP will be used for much more then simply looking at such material. It is a medium of communication. Now, is that communication damaging?
**note, I just noticed this post sounded accusitory as to you being a new memmber...THAT WAS NOT my intention. I was mildly curious. But now I see the creation date of your name, so question answered.
[ April 06, 2004, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Alexa ]
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I am not really that new, I just never really had the time to post anything before.
Anyway, my statement was based on a basic philosophy spelled out by John Stuart Mill, which says that government is only justified in interfering with people's freedom of conscience to protect other individuals from harm. My own personal feeling is that VCP doesn't constitute much of a threat on it's own. The only thing government can really protect against is peoples actions concerning it, e.g. someone looking at porn then deciding to rape someone. Producing child porn definately produces a threat to others (children) virtual porn I see as a manifestation of some person's, no matter how sick, desires. Unless they act upon those desires in a way that threats another person, government really can't do much to restrict it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I cannot see anything wrong with that logic, but I still don't like it.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
Neither do I. Neither do most people for that matter.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm pretty sure that "virtual child pornography" is NOT illegal. So far the closest I've found to proof is this article which describes the great length prosecutors must go to in order to prove that child pornography found on a suspect's computer involved an actual child.
quote: For now, the TBI is providing much of the forensic analysis once a computer is seized. These investigators can sift through a hard drive searching for illegal images and incriminating communications.
These images are often crucial in a case, but their use has been challenged in the federal courts. Perhaps the most significant case has been Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition, in which the U.S. Supreme Court determined in 2002 that certain provisions within the Child Pornography Protection Act of 1996 were unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.
The court focused on ''virtual child pornography'' and the section in the act that banned images that ''appeared to be'' children or ''conveyed the impression'' of child sexual activity. The court ruled that parts of the law were overly broad.
Adult actors play children in sexually explicit situations in films such as Traffic and American Beauty, the Supreme Court noted, and under the language of the act, even films with legitimate themes such as these could be singled out for prosecution.
So, too, could adaptations of Romeo and Juliet, where there are hints that young lovers consummated their relationship, the court noted.
As part of the government's ongoing effort to prove that child-porn images are depictions of real children — and to help find some of these real-life victims — agencies are building giant databases of child-exploitation images, Daughtrey said
NOTE: this article was from this month, so it's unlikely the ruling has been overturned. So this isn't just an academic debate. It seems to me that the court has indeed ruled that "virtual child pornography" is not illegal. (Again, unless someone can prove otherwise.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not only don't I like it, but I'm not convinced that it's right.
I don't believe that just because something makes senes or is logical that it is correct.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Epictetus is right on. When property rights are infringed, then government intervention is moral.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
I'm one of those against virtual child pornography. These are real people who could either have children themselves or have a girlfriend with children. They get turned on by the kids. Do you really want someone who looks at your eight year old with lust? The child porn enhances and reinforces those desires. Those desires are harmful because they could be acted upon.
I know that simply thinking something shouldn't be illegal. People fight temptation of different things all the time, and remain good and upstanding citizens because their desire to do the right thing is greater than the evil thoughts that occasionally cross their minds. But child porn of any kind crosses the line from thought into doing something about it. Trying to fulfill those desires vicariously ultimately becomes unsatisfying. There should be no action, private or not, that encourages the sexual attraction of adults to children.
I do not think we should treat violence on the screen the same way we treat porn. We react to them very differently.
Sex gives you a definate physical pleasurable reward. Violence does not. Healthy sex gives the other person pleasure. I would say that many, perhaps even the majority of adults, have watched a movie with sex in it (even if it isn't porn, even if it isn't actually sex but just romantic kissing), and then had sex that night with their partner because the movie stirred some desires.
Violence does not give you that jolt to the pleasure center, unless you are already very sick. Very few people ever watch a violent movie and then get up and kill a few people that night.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: Sex gives you a definate physical pleasurable reward. Violence does not.
This is not true for all. Some, perhaps mentally ill perhaps not, gain pleasure from seeing violence. I would guess that the % of the populations is probably similarly small to that % that enjoys child porn. Should we ban all depictions of violence to protect ourselves?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Practically *every* person who views porn does so to stimulate pleasure. Likewise, most of the people who seek out child porn do it for the same reason.
But most people who view violence (virtual or otherwise) are not stimulated by it.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
There is another difference between violence and porn, and child porn in particular.
Is the guy screwing the kid noble and heroic?
Is the guy getting shot at to go in and rescue his comrade, a woman, a child, whatever, noble and heroic? Is it less heroic if he shoots a few rounds in the general direct he is being shot at from?
What about the 'most violent movie', The Passion? Do we envy or think fondly of those doing the whipping? No. Do we honor and respect the man recieving the torture? Yes.
The depiction of noble and heroic actions almost always includes violence, but can sometimes inspire us to be heroic in our own, small way.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
quote: The depiction of noble and heroic actions almost always includes violence, but can sometimes inspire us to be heroic in our own, small way.
So even though some small % of the population may gain pleasure from watching the passion, and be convinced of capturing someone and flogging him/her to death, thats okay because some people see Jesus as heroic? I must say, your standard seems a bit flimsy. How can such a concept be applied to laws (which is what we are talking about)?
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Personally, I find anything sexual involving children to be deeply repugnant. I can agree with Amka that even virtual child porn is probably not healthy outlet for someone with pedophilic tendencies. However, I find it difficult to argue for making VCP illegal. Where do you draw the line? What about pornography involving only certified 18-21 year old males who look 15-16? Can you ban that without banning all porn outright? What about novels that involve pedophiles and/or their victims as characters?
quote: . There should be no action, private or not, that encourages the sexual attraction of adults to children.
This is a two-edged sword. A 40 year old man hanging around a high-school watching the cheerleaders practice might be pretty creepy, but are you arguing that the cheerleaders should wear jogging suits instead of short skirts and tight sweaters? Is it wrong for a straight male adult to be turned on by a sexy Brittney Spears video? (Cause only the most naive will deny that sex appeal is a major point of her persona, even before she was legal) Does that make him sick? Should Brittney be censored? (Personal tastes aside, please )
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
So where do we draw the line?
Say a man, lets call him "Jim" is fantasizing about a little girl naked.
And being a pretty good artist he draws a picture of this girl.
He then proceeds to masterbate while looking at this picture.
Being quite proud of himself he shows this picture to a friend Lenny.
That friend asks for a copy, Jim gives him one.
Lenny makes copies and distributes them to people he knows would want one.
One of these guys decides its pretty great and puts it on the internet (for free).
Someone else takes that image and asks if they can put it on their pay website, the friend agrees (I am tired of coming up with new names ).
Then someone else downloads this image and masterbates to it.
My question is, at what point does this process become illegal?
Those who think we should legislate against it, give me details please. At what point does free speech and expression break down?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
KarlEd -- you ask if these things should be censored. I say yes. But should they be censored because of governmental fiat? I say no.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Well said, Mr p-h. If things like this get censored because society refuses to support it and lend it respectability, that's fine with me, too. But I agree that the government shouldn't be the enforcer.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Perhaps this is a dumb observation, but I'm getting the impression from this thread that the general belief is that sexual desire for children is about sex. That it is just someone who has an orientation toward children rather than fellow adults. It is not. It's a medical disorder treatable with psychiatric assistance. It's an illness. Further, acting upon the desires born of that illness is still not about sex -- it is about power, which is part of the illness.
I do not see how it can possibly be right that the materials that would further the progression of that illness become more easily available simply because the production of it didn't exploit any real children.
Posted by Robespierre (Member # 5779) on :
Thar be libertarians in these waters. Aye like it.
Posted by JohnKeats (Member # 1261) on :
Pictures of nude children will always exist because they are everywhere in humanity regardless of what intentions were present at their inception.
I can see illegalizing images of children doing things that are illegal to be done with children.
I do not think it is necessary or enforceable to apply that to manufactured images, except in such cases where the material has been displayed in public.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
How are you going to censor things without the help of the government? They already fail, but I doubt any other entity would do any better.
As for VCP, no one was harmed in the making of it, so it should be legal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I have heard the same thing said about rape -- that it's about power, not about sex. People repeat it over and over.
But I have trouble believing that. So far, nobody has been able to show me anything that supports that claim beyond the fact that many people believe it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I wasn't saying that VCP shouldn't be censored by the government -- I was talking about things like sexy brittney spears videos, sexy cheerleader outfits, etc..
[ April 06, 2004, 02:17 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
Where do we draw the line there then?
Any system will inherently be arbitrary. The only solution then will be garments where the ankles can't be uncovered.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Arbitrary is not the worst thing out there. We talked about this a lot with the idea of the voting age.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
But admitting its abitrary, where do you draw the line? And who gets to make the determination at what crosses it?
(I suppose right now thats the FCC, and its just that their line is in a different place than yours is)
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
mph, how much research and/or time have you spent on sexual disorders? I don't mean the inability to get it up. I mean sexual addictions, rape and incest recovery, etc?
I suspect your answer would have to be "very little".
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
We all know there is a difference in rating of pornography from late night osft porn to hardcore XXX.
Lets say someone makes a hardcoreXXX VCP movie or pic and posts it for consenting adults to view it. Should that be legal:?
I think not--for many reasons already mentioned. Of course if we have laws against VCP , there are arbitrary boundires. But lets start off with the extreme.
Should XXX VCP be legal to make? distribute? own? rent out?
Obviously works of art like American Beauty do not fit here. One: They usually involves a teenager not a 6 year old. And two: They are not XXX hardcore.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I have to second jeniwren's question to mph.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
jeniwren -- if I say something incorrect or something you disagree with, by all means address the ideas. There's no need to make this personal.
Posted by captainmoriar (Member # 6416) on :
I can find no technically/logically sound reason to give the government the right to make VCP illegal. On the same note I can find absolutley nothing morally right about VCP. As at least one other has said (or something similar to this): The government can't justify regulating this, it is up to people's morals to regulate this activity.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
mph, I'm not making a personal statement about you, except that you are clearly ignorant about sexual disorders.
It's nice to think that you can just explain something as complex as the motivations and purposes behind rape and pedophilia in just a few sentences, but if it's possible, I'm clearly not the person to do it. After you've spent some time learning about them, and still have doubts about whether it's about power and not sex, I'll be happy to debate it with you.
(None of which is to say that *I'm* an expert -- however, I have enough experience both directly and indirectly, and have done enough reading to recognise someone who doesn't have the first clue what he's talking about.)
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
quote: The government can't justify regulating this, it is up to people's morals to regulate this activity.
In a democaratic society the people are in charge of government. So we should be able to use the people to make VCP illegal.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Maybe I am being too defensive -- I felt like I was being set up.
But I'll turn it around -- what are *your* qualifications?
Of course you are right that I haven't studied it that much. If I had, I wouldn't have to ask the question to y'all.
I'm not saying that it isn't about power *sometimes*, but your earlier statment was pretty blanket.
Now, I know you were talking about CP. But let's talk about date rape.
Tell me if this is a situation that could ever happen: A guy and a girl are getting hot and heavy, and the girl says stop. The guy doesn't really care that she said stop, and he rapes her. He doesn't do it because he wants to have power over her, he does it because he wants sex, and obviously doesn't respect her too much.
Yeah, I've never been raped, nor raped anybody else. but it's a legitimate question. How true is it that rape is always about power? How much is this idea perpetrated because that idea makes things easier for the victims?
Do such questions mark me as hopelessly ignorant of such things? I guess I've been fortunate up until now to be able to be ignorant.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Alexa -- I am not quite sure where I stand on the VCP issue (although I would probably end up siding with you), but the governement doesn't have a right to just do anything that the majority decides.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
mph
your question does not make you ignorant, it does show the extent of your involvement in sex crimes.
Yes it can happen...but we are talking in the single digit percent range. In short, yeah it happens, but VERY VERY VERY seldom. A more accurate description of date rape would be of the girl who says "no" and the guy who will not take "no" for an answer.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Isn't that what I described?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
And Alexa, from what you say, my questions *do* mark me as ignorant. But that's OK -- I am ignorant about a great many things, and I am not ashamed of the fact. Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge. If you don't know something, you are ignorant of it.
[ April 06, 2004, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I know the government shouldn’t be able to do what the majority decides (hence the bill of rights), that is why this debate is so interesting for me. I think the public has a vested interest in making it illegal, but that does set a precedent for the government to legislate morality beyond protecting human rights.
I guess I want to find the argument that says VCP is violating rights. The closest I can think of is by it's nature it is aiding and abetting pedophiles who are actively seeking to take away the rights of children. It gives them a forum to legitimize their behavior. I still feel I am missing something tho that will nail this in my head.
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Alexa, what are your qualifications?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
mph, I was a 15 year old victim of a 29 year old sex addict. Those experiences started me on a road of sexual addiction as well, which is part of why I know anything at all about where some of those feelings come from. My husband and I spend a lot of our free time working with people struggling with problems. He spends most of his time with alcoholic/addicts. I spend most of mine with relational issues, like parenting, stepfamilies, and divorce. I don't have any certification, but I help because I was helped. I've studied to help myself and become a better lay counsellor. Our group is headed up by a psychologist and licensed family counsellor.
When one person is in complete control of a situation and the other person has NO control in what happens, the situation is about the dominator's exercise of power, not about relationship (which is what healthy sex is all about).
Posted by Han (Member # 2685) on :
Well, you certainly know more than I do. I hope that my questions came across as intended -- an ignorant person honestly trying to understand a difficult subject.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
My qualifications on the motives behind rape is formal education and training at the University that I attended and working at a youth home, spending additional time and training working with the sex offenders.
Incidentally, the sex offenders at that facility have been transferred (I heard and hope) because the youth home did not specialize in sex offense. By the nature of the crime and predatory behavioral patterns, sex offenders really do need specific treatment and should not be mixed with other criminal offenders or people who suffer with other mental illness.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
quote: I do know we could never test to find out, as I can't see finding a review board for an experiment on VCP giving permission to study a variety of illegal activities without turning in the perpetrator.
Actually, stuff like this is routinely tested using siezed images.
-o-
KarlEd, your link seems to make the opposite point. The issue here is as to whether or not pornography made with real humans who happen not to be children counts as virtual child pornography.
-o-
quote:I have heard the same thing said about rape -- that it's about power, not about sex. People repeat it over and over.
But I have trouble believing that. So far, nobody has been able to show me anything that supports that claim beyond the fact that many people believe it.
I provided a good dozen links on this point in a thread begun by Storm Saxon months ago . . . but Lord, I don't feel like doing the research again. Have you ever looked into any research on why people rape? Psychologists and psychiatrists certainly have studied it. If "nobody has shown you anything" convincing, is it because you haven't been looking?
And yet . . .
quote:Perhaps this is a dumb observation, but I'm getting the impression from this thread that the general belief is that sexual desire for children is about sex. That it is just someone who has an orientation toward children rather than fellow adults. It is not. It's a medical disorder treatable with psychiatric assistance. It's an illness.
Have you looked into the success rate of such treatment? Last I heard, it was virtually nil.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
I don't mean to be redundant, mph. I typed my post before anything on the second page was posted. But every once in a while we have the "Rape is about sex" discussion, and the claim that it is not is usually dismissed rather casually, and it usually turns out to be because of the idea of date rape.
Sadly, I do consider myself to be somewhat of an expert on the topic of rape, and I have read a lot of the research out there.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
The statement that simply because 'everyone says' doesn't make it true was a bit offensive. It's not that what you said didn't have an element of truth; just because everyone says something is true, really doesn't make it true. But just because everyone says something is true, doesn't mean it's NOT true either.
Perhaps I should define what I mean by power. A parent who compels a child to obey is doing so out of power...the power of greater experience, the power of greater size, the power of exercised authority. With very young children, an adult may exercise their power over that child very frequently, and often out of a motivation of love. Daddy physically stops his 2 year old from running out into the busy street. He's exercising his power, but it probably isn't out of selfish motivations.
I view healthy sex as being between adults in search of relationship. Maybe it's a deep relationship, maybe they just met 15 minutes ago and want to know each other better, but in my view, healthy sex is about relationship.
Date rape is still about power. It started off as about relationship, but ultimately, he had no one but his own interests at heart and took what was not willingly given. That is not about relationship...it's about power. He might feel guilty about it later -- no doubt many pedophiles feel wretched after raping a child. But he still acted out of power.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Ic, yeah, I know (about the effectiveness of treatment). It sucks. Personally, I like to think that treatment can be effective with someone very highly motivated to change. I can't imagine any form of treatment working on someone who didn't have any interest in changing and didn't even see that they had a problem.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: If "nobody has shown you anything" convincing, is it because you haven't been looking?
No, I cannot say that I have spent a lot of time learning about rape. But, I did the same question a couple of weeks ago, and nobody bothered to answer it. You say that you posted a lot of stuff a couple of months ago. No wonder I missed it. I wasn't here' a couple of months ago. Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Icarus,
I was referring to a double blind study.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
If child porn is illegal, all porn should be illegal. If all porn is not illegal, child porn should not be illegal. Here's why:
The justification for illegalizing child porn is (unless you believe we can just make anything we consider disgusting illegal - in which case we can probably outlaw gay porn too) that it promotes the raping of children. The problem with this argument is, 'regular' porn would promote 'regular' rape in exactly the same way as child porn promotes child rape. Child porn encourages child sex addicts no more and no less than regular porn encourages adult sex addicts.
I suspect the real reason child porn is illegal and regular porn is not is because many many people like regular porn, whereas almost everyone finds child porn disgusting. The majority won't allow the banning of something it enjoys, but is fine with banning something a minority enjoys.
I'm always an advocate of consistency in laws, and an opponent of arbitrary lines. I'm not sure which is best, but we should either ban all porn altogether, or be consistent and allow it all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The justification for illegalizing child porn is (unless you believe we can just make anything we consider disgusting illegal - in which case we can probably outlaw gay porn too) that it promotes the raping of children.
No, the justification for making child porn illegal is that it is the fruit of a crime, since it can't be made without violating children.
If we look to a "promotion" argument, child porn could conceivably promote sex with children - which is illegal - while adult porn just promotes sex between adults - which is not illegal.
Frankly, your post relies on a lot of unfounded assumptions.
Dagonee
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
10 doobie points to Caleb for finding a use for that damnable smilie.
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
jeniwren,
Pedophilia cannot be easily cured. In fact, I would dare to say that it can't be cured at all, but only repressed by behavioral modification. And that is almost impossible for adults and only nominally successful for young teenagers. The older they get, the less possibility there is for a 'cure'.
I would agree that pedophilia is about power as well as sex, but it is not that way in the same way rape is about power. Pedophiliacs are typically not violent and are law abiding citizens. They rationalize it all to themself. They 'fall' in love with children. They convince themselves that if they can only get the child to like them, then they will be able to show that child the true love they have for him or her. They are the mentor to the child's sexuality. They tell themselves all sorts of things to make it okay in their mind. They 'court' the child by giving them toys and siding with the child against the child's parents.
The teenager who is leaning towards pedophilia is often very maladjusted and feels threatened by same age peers. By simple virtue of their age, they can feel cool among children younger than them. Usually, the sexual 'switch' needs to be turned on at a relatively young age for this neediness and going to children for acceptance to actually become pedophilia. This can happen coincidentally, or their very maladjustment could be the result of molestation which would also turn their sexuality on in a dominant/submissive relationship that they will later perpetrate on someone else.
[ April 06, 2004, 06:10 PM: Message edited by: Amka ]
Posted by Amka (Member # 690) on :
jeniwren -
Sorry, I just saw your post where you agreed with Ic that the cure rate was practically nil. So I'm not just jumping down on you.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Dagonee
quote:
No, the justification for making child porn illegal is that it is the fruit of a crime, since it can't be made without violating children.
remember, we are talking about Virtual child porn, which is made without violating children...well, that is the debate.
Xaposert,
I have a problem with
quote:The problem with this argument is, 'regular' porn would promote 'regular' rape in exactly the same way as child porn promotes child rape. Child porn encourages child sex addicts no more and no less than regular porn encourages adult sex addicts.
My problem is that fantasies involving adult porn can be role-played between two consenting adults, whereas child porn can at best be role played if you have a partner who looks maybe 12+ years old. I don't think you could find a role-play adult who looks infant-6 years old.
Also, I think there is a valid argument that those addicted to CP or VCP are also suffering from a mental illness, and the nature of the mental illness involves an addiction to (and seeking out of) behavior that corresponds to cp/vcp fantasies not found in regular porn.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Well then, the second half of my post still applies.
Thanks for pointing that out. I wasn't clear on that from Xap's post that he was only talking about virtual porn.
Dagonee
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Just to make it clear, do those opposing the legality of manufactured images do so on grounds of potential influence over the observer? That is, if an adult enjoys watching a child have sex (for whatever motivation), the adult is likely to repeat what he/she sees?
By which case, we should ban all images that "promote" illegal acts? We have a lot of movies and songs to ban, insofar as drug use is concerned...
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
School girl outfits sell at sex shops. That's an example of how someone could play out a fantasy in a legal setting, and not an uncommon one.
Rape fantasy porn is relatively common. Why isn't this illegal? It could easily be promoting an illegal act.
Since there hasn't been much ground given in either direction, I'll just pipe in that I believe VCP shouldn't be illegal for the reasons so far given.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
VCP is currently illegal because it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between it and the real porn.
Also, there is a morality clause in the Constitution. Congress has the authority to pass a law solely to define morality in this country. Should they? Well, that's another can of worms.
Since VCP has the potential to be used to disguise real child porn, I would argue the government is merely being responsible by making it illegal.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Well if we want to reduce confusion between masking real child pornography, then lets gear the discussion to animated cartoons. There's definitely a market, though probably smaller.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
BTW, there are several porn distributors who seek to make it look like their porn is "illegal" like tricking a girl into it, or raping someone, or kidnapping someone to videotape. But with regulation, all these get checked up on. Wouldn't the same apply for the VPC?
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Can't we think of better things for the cops to have to investigate than fake porn? Now you're talking about my tax dollars at work. I say no. Catch some rapists or something.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:VCP is currently illegal because it is increasingly difficult to differentiate between it and the real porn.
Also, there is a morality clause in the Constitution. Congress has the authority to pass a law solely to define morality in this country. Should they? Well, that's another can of worms.
Since VCP has the potential to be used to disguise real child porn, I would argue the government is merely being responsible by making it illegal.
I'll use Suneun's rape example. Forced-sex porn is fairly common -- should we ban all rape pornos that appear realistic?
Out of interest, could you cite the entirety of that "morality clause" so we can see how it applies to this case in particular?
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
You know what really bugs me about these arguments? The extremism. "If we make virtual child porn illegal on the grounds of what people might do with it, then we'll have to legislate against everything else that influences people to do bad things."
Geez louise. You can take anything to ridiculous extremes. Only a weirdo nutcase (that's the technical term ) would be influenced to the sexual molestation of a child after watching Shirley Temple's Heidi. Whereas the vast majority of people who watch it are not influenced to change their behavior in any way. This makes it significantly different from the intended audience of virtual child pornography -- a group of people who by the very fact they're interested in viewing it indicates they have unhealthy, dangerous sexual issues.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Sorry, Daed, as many times as I've looked at this thing, I can't figure out which bit it is.
I know there is a bit generally referred to as the morality clause. I have no idea which bit it is. Sorry.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:You know what really bugs me about these arguments? The extremism. "If we make virtual child porn illegal on the grounds of what people might do with it, then we'll have to legislate against everything else that influences people to do bad things."
Geez louise. You can take anything to ridiculous extremes. Only a weirdo nutcase (that's the technical term ) would be influenced to the sexual molestation of a child after watching Shirley Temple's Heidi. Whereas the vast majority of people who watch it are not influenced to change their behavior in any way. This makes it significantly different from the intended audience of virtual child pornography -- a group of people who by the very fact they're interested in viewing it indicates they have unhealthy, dangerous sexual issues.
Then, again, Jeni, I ask you -- what about men who watch forced-sex pornography? They're obviously watching it in order to get off on the concept of forcing a woman to give them pleasure against her will -- they're obviously "a group of people who by the very fact they're interested in viewing it indicates they have unhealthy, dangerous sexual issues."
So. You claim we should ban pornography that feeds unhealthy images into people's minds? Let's make a start with rape pornography.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Try Googling it, AR.
quote:Protecting Morality .--Unless effecting a clear, unmistakable infringement of rights secured by fundamental law, legislation suppressing prostitution 161 or gambling will be upheld by the Court as concededly within the police power of a State. 162 Accordingly, a state statute may provide that, in the event a judgment is obtained against a party winning money, a lien may be had on the property of the owner of the building where the gambling transaction was conducted when the owner knowingly consented to the gambling. 163 Similarly, a court may order a car used in an act of prostitution forfeited as a public nuisance, even if this works a deprivation on an innocent joint owner of the car. Supp.1 For the same reason, lotteries, including those operated under a legislative grant, may be forbidden, irrespective of any particular equities. 164
This is a far cry from your claim that "Congress has the authority to pass a law solely to define morality in this country."
Especially given that suppressing manufactured pornography is, by its very nature, censorship of the rights to freedom of speech and press.
As a tangent, I find it ridiculous that either prostitution or gambling is illegal, though I doubt either will remain illegal for much longer. Within the century, I'd imagine, both laws will be gone or at least greatly relaxed.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I find it ironic that you can not pay someone for sex, but you can pay someone for sex as long as someone is filming it.
Posted by AvidReader (Member # 6007) on :
Daed, I'm inclined to agree with you on the clause. I guess I didn't pay enough attention in my government class back in high school. It's funny, though, I'd still swear I remember reading a bit specifically about morality. I think I'm getting old.
The VCP still seems to be covered under the definition of obscenity, which is not covered under free speach laws.
As for the legal gambling and hookers, I'm hoping I'll be raptured out before then.
(edited for spelling)
[ April 06, 2004, 09:13 PM: Message edited by: AvidReader ]
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Lalo, are you saying that rape pornography is legal right now? I find that shocking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The right of states to use the police power to affect public morals has been confirmed in numerous Supreme Court Cases. It is only regulated when it touches a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Lawrence was decided on both these grounds.
In the case of pornography, the law touches on free speech, so it will receive review to make sure prohibitions are narrowly drawn.
Given that substantive due process in the economic sphere was rejected during the depression, I doubt gambling will ever be protected by a Supreme Court decision.
Dagonee
Posted by Zamphyr (Member # 6213) on :
I'm questioning that too, Jon Boy. Despite assertions here that
quote:Rape fantasy porn is relatively common. Why isn't this illegal?
and
quote: I'll use Suneun's rape example. Forced-sex porn is fairly common -- should we ban all rape pornos that appear realistic?
I was under the impression that forced sex porn is illegal in the US, making it fairly uncommon. The biggest markets for rape porn seem (to me) to be the Asian markets. If I am in the wrong, please correct me. I think you'd be hard pressed to find American rape flicks, and as we're discussing legality/legislation, we should make these distinctions of illicit origin.
edited for clarity
[ April 06, 2004, 09:38 PM: Message edited by: Zamphyr ]
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:Lalo, are you saying that rape pornography is legal right now? I find that shocking.
Of course it is, provided it's role-played. Manufactured rape. If that's legal, I see no reason why artificial child pornography, as disgusting as it is, can be prohibited by law. Nobody's hurt by the creation of it, the same way nobody's hurt by the creation of "unconsensual" pornography. Whether people are inspired to do illegal acts by the viewing of pornography is a different matter, but if you're going to pursue that tact, why limit yourself to pornography? Grand Theft Auto encourages carjacking and the murder of policemen and pedestrians. Reading Marx may spark a desire in you to overthrow the United States government. Playing thought police isn't a role I'm comfortable with any government, least of all my own, assuming.
quote:The right of states to use the police power to affect public morals has been confirmed in numerous Supreme Court Cases. It is only regulated when it touches a fundamental right or involves a suspect classification. Lawrence was decided on both these grounds.
In the case of pornography, the law touches on free speech, so it will receive review to make sure prohibitions are narrowly drawn.
Given that substantive due process in the economic sphere was rejected during the depression, I doubt gambling will ever be protected by a Supreme Court decision.
The Depression was a good amount of time ago. I don't see how the state can determine the spending habits of its citizenry if it's truly dedicated to freedom for all -- in time, I suspect that particular statue will be relaxed considerably, given the inconsistency of its existence with the rest of the Constitution.
Which morality systems has Congress used its police powers to enforce that haven't touched on the rights of the citizenry or infringed on the articles on the Constitution?
Also, out of interest, what's your opinion on the legal status of prostitution?
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Hmm. It's possible I'm wrong about the legal status of forced-sex pornography in the US. If it is illegal, which I doubt, I have some friends -- and some stores -- to turn over to TIPS.
However, as I've seen official DVD versions of "unwilling" nurses who sleep with their patients and the like exhibited by friends at open parties, I seriously doubt its illegality. Or is that French movie, the one that stirred up so much controversy with its rape scene last year, illegal to view in the United States?
That's a rather disturbing infringement of my right to free speech, if true...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Every minimum wage statute represents a restriction on the spending habits of its citizens - these laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as protecting freedom of contract for over 30 years. The depression marked the turning point to where government regulation of property and contract rights became the norm rather than the exception.
Gambling has been regulated by Congress for a long time.
Just out of curiosity, what part of the Constitution is inconsistent with regulating gambling?
I don't think people realize what they're asking when they want to expand constitutionally protected rights. They're asking for very important decisions about how this country will be governed to be made by unelected officials, appointed for life, with little ability to change them.
I'm not against judicial review - it's a very important protection of rights. I just think people should appreciate what it is they're asking for, and why it should only be used in extreme situations.
Dagonee Edit: to respond to "Also, out of interest, what's your opinion on the legal status of prostitution?" It's definitely within the police power to regulate, from a health, moral, and safety perspective. I might be amenable to a highly regulated form of it in lieu of total illegalization, but it's definitely something for state legislatures to decide, not courts.
[ April 06, 2004, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Daed, let's not talk about rape pornography. I'm concerned about children. Children are the most likely victims of crimes that stem from watching virtual child porn.
See, this is like the partial birth abortion issue. The hew and cry about banning what practically everyone agrees is a totally barbaric practice is that it will mean that the door is opened to ban all other abortions. So we put up with something stupid to avoid being challenged on something that might be less obviously stupid
Even I can see that there is a difference between virtual child porn and rape porn. If we ban one, we can discuss banning the other as an entirely different topic. I do not understand what is so difficult about that.
edited to complete an argument
[ April 06, 2004, 09:51 PM: Message edited by: jeniwren ]
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:In the case American Booksellers v. Hudnut, the Supreme Court recognized harms caused to women by pornography, but concluded that the harms were outweighed by the need for free speech (Easton 1998, 607). The Court argued that defining an approved view of women was like thought control, and that a feminist view of pornography was only of many (Easton 1998, 607). A law based on only this one view could not be justified (Easton 1998, 607).
This is a fairly good article, if anyone's interested in reading it. I'm assuming this quoted paragraph applies to the legality of "non-consensual" pornography as well, given that it's not within the federal government's power to limit pornography to any "approved" view of women.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I don't think your quote applies to non-consensual pornography, because the rights to liberty are violated by making someone do something they don't consent to (or are even legal to do.) This is why I argued earlier on in this thread that government should intervene in the case of child pornography when it violates the rights of another.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
Epictetus, you may want to read what I've written more carefully.
Posted by lcarus (Member # 4395) on :
Frankly, I think the parallel to pretend-rape porn involving adults is a valid one. And I've always heard that this is legal.
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
whoops, my bad Allow me to bang my head against the keyboard.
Posted by Daedalus (Member # 1698) on :
quote:Every minimum wage statute represents a restriction on the spending habits of its citizens - these laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as protecting freedom of contract for over 30 years. The depression marked the turning point to where government regulation of property and contract rights became the norm rather than the exception.
Gambling has been regulated by Congress for a long time.
Just out of curiosity, what part of the Constitution is inconsistent with regulating gambling?
There are two places in the Constitution that specifically regulate commerce by the federal government, by my quick search:
quote:
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; [. . .] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
Interpreting the ban on gambling as providing for the general welfare of the country is one hell of a stretch, and I tend to believe the Constitution enumerates the powers of Congress, not enumerates the few restrictions placed on its otherwise omnipotent power. Hence, it's unConstitutional for Congress to ban gambling (or would be, if not for that contrary amendment which runs in defiance of the spirit of the rest of the Constitution), though I can see an argument built for the right of states to regulate their own gambling. I'd still disagree, but I'd have far more trouble building a case against such an act.
quote:Daed, let's not talk about rape pornography. I'm concerned about children. Children are the most likely victims of crimes that stem from watching virtual child porn.
See, this is like the partial birth abortion issue. The hew and cry about banning what practically everyone agrees is a totally barbaric practice is that it will mean that the door is opened to ban all other abortions. So we put up with something stupid to avoid being challenged on something that might be less obviously stupid
Even I can see that there is a difference between virtual child porn and rape porn. If we ban one, we can discuss banning the other as an entirely different topic. I do not understand what is so difficult about that.
What is difficult about arbitrary illegalization is that if speech is to remain free, it must have consistent or absent regulations placed on it. I'm sure you're more concerned with the effects of artificial child pornography than you are with the effects of artificial rape pornography -- however, if you're worried that the general public will rape children on account of viewing artificial examples of it, shouldn't the same hold true for the rape of women? If you worry that the public will imitate what it sees, why not also regulate, as I pointed out, Grand Theft Auto and Sublime music videos?
There are remarkably few merits to child pornography, artificial or not, in my view. However, it is free speech, as much as I dislike the expression of it. I have no more right to limit pseudo-pornography than I do to limit other vile forms of expression, be they "non-consensual" pornography or Rush Limbaugh.
This is a matter of free speech, which is exactly why you must prove that the public must be protected from its own thoughts in reaction to what it sees or hears or reads.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
My question was aimed at both Congress and the States, not just Congress. I'll deal with each separately.
I wasn't interpreting the "General Welfare" clause to allow the ban on gambling. The Interstate Commerce clause has been specifically interpreted to allow Congress to ban the transporting of lottery tickets in interstate commerce. You don't oppose Congress having the power to enact civil rights laws that restrict employers' rights to hire who they wish - this is justified under the commerce clause as well, even for employers that are truly local in nature.
Dagonee
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:The extremism. "If we make virtual child porn illegal on the grounds of what people might do with it, then we'll have to legislate against everything else that influences people to do bad things."
This is not a matter of extremism, or slippery slopes, though. This is a matter of consistency and fairness. If you ban child pornography for reason X, and then don't ban a whole bunch of other things that X applies to just the same, you are discriminating unfairly against those who like child pornography. That's just the majority limiting the rights of the minority, and not doing the same to itself when the same reasoning would apply to things the majority likes.
If all the reasoning used to justify the ban on child pornography also justifies banning other things (like rape pornography), then we must either ban those other things too or call the justification flawed. Claiming we should not compare one issue to another is an excuse for hypocracy - the same excuse ALWAYS used to get away with hypocracy. "It's wrong for them, but for us, well, that's a whole other issue. They can't be compared!"
Reasoning must be applied evenly to all laws and issues, or else we simply aren't being just (which is a big part of "justice"). The U.S. has a problem with this (as does most nations I think.)
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Has anyone found out for sure that pretend rape is legal or illegal? I think it has been shown that VCP is noprosicutable. (is that a word?)
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
The only way I know offhand how to prove it, Alexa, is to find fantasy rape porn in the US. But I don't think that kind of link would do well here.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Xaposert,
I disagree with
quote:you are discriminating unfairly against those who like child pornography.
because I stand by what I said...
quote: Also, I think there is a valid argument that those addicted to CP or VCP are also suffering from a mental illness, and the nature of the mental illness involves an addiction to (and seeking out of) behavior that corresponds to cp/vcp fantasies not found in regular porn.
Fantasy and role-play of rape can be done with a consensual adult, and may not have the metal illness that child porn has associated with it.
Child porn (and I mean VCP--as I think any argument in favor of real CP is grossly perverse) is based on an addiction to children which can not be role played. Sure, you can pretend to an extent to statutory child porn, but you can't have an adult consent to role play like a 4 year old in any manner.
Pedophilia is a predatory disease that compels you to stalk children and use them for your sexual gratification. Rape-porn is based on subjugating someone under you, but you can role-play it with an adult. I do not think the role-pay of rape porn would lead to behavior in the same was as child porn would, because the thinking patterns of pedophilias are different then other sex crimes. I also think it is fair to grant children more protection then adults. I do not think it is a symptom of a much larger psychological problem like CP.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
For all the discussion on VCP, I would like to see a study that compares gender and sexual preference with who thinks it should be legal/illegal. I wonder if there would be a correlation. Any thoughts? It would also be interesting to look at religioius involvement, education level, income level, and anything else you can think of.
thoughts?
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
Alexa,
Are you suggesting that the difference between a dangerous disease and a healthy fantasy is the ability to role play that fantasy in a legal fashion? I don't believe that is the right line to draw, for one thing because I don't believe role-playing satisfies fantasies any more than pornography does. I suspect those who get pleasure from role-playing rape scenes are being encouraged to ACTUALLY rape someone, in the same way that someone watching child porn is encouraged to rape. Role-playing is something in the same category as porn.
Besides, it's only a matter of time before modern technology will allow pedophiles to virtually role-play their fantasies. When such technology exists, will child porn suddenly be okay?
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Actually the meat of my argument keeps coming back to
quote: I think there is a valid argument that those addicted to CP or VCP are also suffering from a mental illness, and the nature of the mental illness involves an addiction to (and seeking out of) behavior that corresponds to cp/vcp fantasies not found in regular porn.
and
quote: I also think it is fair to grant children more protection then adults.
Starting when children are born they are granted more protection then adults are.
I can't see making rape-porn illegal, and so I place it in a different sphere then VCP. Being able to "role-play" was a weak attempt at justification. So I guess...hmmm...I don't know. I am thinking that the nature of a pedophile is more insidious and more prone to be acted out then other types of porn. I can't defend that position against rape-porn, other then to say in my experience there is a difference in behavior and communication between those two types of porn that may warrant the censorship of one and not the other.
In child care, the ratio of care-giver:infant is different then care-giver:child. Those ratios are different then care-giver:adult in institutional settings. I would say it is because we see a need to protect infants from their environment more then we need to protect children from their environments more then we need to protect adults from their environment. Whew...what a run-on sentence.!
Here is my next justification attempt....since adult females know how to safeguard themselves against predators more then children, we should pay particular attention to the type of porn that legitimizes the victimization of children.
You don't see hear about the types of communities (of P2P file sharers or business trips to other countries for pedophilia parties) involved in rape-porn as you do about pedophilia. There is a difference.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Monkeys]](graemlins/monkeys.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
).![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)