You don’t suppose there might end up being a bit of, say, coercion involved? Caused by them being perhaps too young to make up their minds, or even know what they’re doing? Not to mention the perverse fantasies of paedophiles. (And dozens of other issues that I’m sure will appear in the Pit thread I predict.)
Your world and mine don’t even seem to intersect.
Oh, come ON, now. We coerce children into things all the time that they are “too young to make up their minds, or even know what they’re doing”. Don’t even try to pretend that’s an issue here.
So what, then? You count people whose sexual preference that you don’t approve of to be “perverse”? So does Fred Phelps. So does Pat Robertson. Join them if you like, but don’t drag * me* into the stupidfest.
A pit thread over honestly answering a question and telling the truth? Yeah, we really need to pit that, especially on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance.
Our worlds don’t intersect? Perhaps not, but that doesn’t necessarily constitute evidence of invalidation of one over the other.
Before the fire starts, it might do you some good to take a deep breath and ponder on what your and his definition of “child” are, in terms of years. He seemed to say the word “minor” a lot, indicating that a “child” at (for example) 17 years + 200 days is as capable as at 17 years + 400 days of making that decision.
Specifically, he said “nine years old”.
BTW, I know the borders are soft - I had a relationship with a 16-year-old when I was 22. Perfectly legal where I come from, but still enough to weird people out. But as far as I can tell from what he’s posted, he’s saying it isn’t fair that nine-year-olds can’t participate in published pornography. To equate the sexual mores layed down by hyperreligious minority figures with that which the vast majority of society, and the law, deems inappropriate and coercive, seems to me to be a trifle perverse.
I personally find kiddy porn distasteful. But if I’ve misinterpreted what’s been said, I’m happy to be corrected.
I would like to clarify this, if I may. While I don’t think “Coercion=Evil” is necessarily a very good argument (although it merits consideration), I also don’t see any reason why coercion is fundamentally necessary.
CERTAINLY, we should not force children into such things against their will. But with that being said, I think that two principles need to be acknowleged:
It isn’t always necessary to coerce them into things.
We don’t always consider coercion to be wrong.
Thus, (to me, at least) there seems to be some wiggle room where children could be allowed as participants in such stuff without hurting anyone. If that’s the case, then we should acknowlege it and deal with it, rather than let our prejudice against it drive our agenda at the childrens’ expense.
(Upon review):
jjimm: Where did I say “nine years old” in this thread (if you were referring to me, that is)? I’m not saying that I didn’t (I haven’t gone back and searched the thread), but I don’t recall it. A cite would be nice, if you’re accusing me of it.
I’m not trying to start a fire, here, either.
Yes, I am saying that (if you’re referring to me, that is). But to be clear, I’m not saying it’s not fair to me, I’m saying that it’s not fair to them.
Well, of course I will respect your opinion, but I would deem the position a trifle accurate, because the “vast majority of society” is a lot closer to the “hyperreligious minority figures” than they should be, IMO. Argumentum ad populum isn’t a logical fallacy by accident, you know.
Okay, I’ve searched the thread. I said “nine years old” about ME, not the participants in the pornography. That was when I first saw what I would consider to be the closest I’d seen to porn at the time.
And it was just Playboy, not real porn.
I personally have never found kiddy porn at all.
[sub]Hey, you hand me a straight line…[/sub]
Me, too. I’m not trying to pick a fight with you, here (or anywhere).
One more thing:
Again…if you’re referring to me…I was going by the legal definition of a minor (below the legal age of consent in whatever jurisdiction), which encompasses the legal definition of a child (which, to my knowlege, is universally–at least in this country-a person at age of 12 years or below).
You’re on your own from here on out; I was trying to tell jjimm that he ought to think about whether there was a discrepancy between his numbers and yours, as the number I read into your argument was “16” and I grokked that the one he saw in the argument was much lower.
No, I’m not John Walsh. I can’t even begin to approach that mix of disdain and smarm in my voice.
I am trying to see where you are coming from - maybe a “kids are people too” argument?
I can’t mentally divide child porn made for other kids and child porn made for sexual predators; it’s not because I am part of the hyperreligious minority, nor is it because I am wont to scream “somebody think of the children!” Nor do I deny sexuality in children - I do not deny the fact that children, even babies, masturbate and explore their sexuality.
I do not think, though, that the exploration should extend to adult sexual practices (using pornography). I do not believe it is wrong to say that some things are for adult (a term I am using loosely, based on maturity and not necessarily age) enjoyment and not children.
I apologize for the hijack.
That’s cool. No worries here.
Neither can I. (I was kidding, just to be clear. I think AMW is one of the most responsible uses of television in the history of the medium, but Mr. Walsh can be quite the putz.)
Well, yes, they are (at least in my experience). So, yeah, “we’re all human” seems to be a relevant point here.
Neither can I. It seems a false distinction. The purpose of something doesn’t equal its result.
Neither do I, which is why I’m baffled at the hysterical objection that people have at the child/sex association. The desire for pleasurable physical stimulus is a human trait. Not an adult trait, nor a “the local jurisdictional government has given permission” trait, but a human trait. The sooner we all come to grips with that, the better off we’ll be as a species, IMO.
You are (of course) entitled to your opinion, but it seems to me that you are categorizing pornography as a purely adult phenomenon, and thus involving children is somehow wrong. Reality doesn’t seem to abide by this standard, however. Sure, we have laws in place, but I’m not talking about a legal distinction. Kids are fascinated/grossed out/made horny by pornography, if they manage to get their hands on it. The reactions most certainly run the gamut, but to believe that it is nothing they should be exposed to because it isn’t relevant to them is ignoring the truth, I think. It IS relevant to them, we (as adults) may wish it wasn’t, but as human beings, it is. We should grow up and deal with that.
Nor do I, but I don’t think that sex merits such a distinction.
I, too, apologize for the hijack.