And your predictably disproportionate hostility to anyone who disagrees with you is equally tiresome. But yes, I am entirely opposed to the idea of encouraging anyone who engages in antisocial behavior, as the goal of treatment ought to include improving the life of the pedophile rather than merely placating him for the safety of the general public. A pedophile deserves the tools and motivation to seek age appropriate relationships. How do you expect him to gain that from indulging in simulated child porn?
We aren’t concerned with deprogramming gays because there isn’t anything potentially illegal or immoral about being homosexual. Also gays can expect a typical, fulfilling existence with a consenting partner. If you ignore counseling and offer simulated child porn instead of encouraging age appropriate, healthy and legal alternatives, you effectively doom them to a life of solitude and masturbation. So maybe you’ve given the pedophile an outlet and protected the public, but you’ve done nothing to improve his mental health or quality of life.
Nice straw man argument there. Care to respond to what I actually said, instead of a distortion of it? Thanks.
There was a series on the learning channel where they followed under cover guys around while they tried to nab pedophiles. They had undercover cameras and recordings and the things these guys said, it was incredibly sick. And when these guys were sitting in a restaurant booth, talking to the undercover cops (whom they thought were fellow pedophiles trying to find and groom victims) that is EXACTLY the sort of thing they’d say. That is, that “normal” people were the sick ones, and that child/adult sexual relationships were perfectly natural etc. Then they’d go on to tutor the “fellow pervo” in the ways to find and groom the kids.
The websites these guys frequent are full of tips to younger pedophiles on how to groom their victims, how to guilt them into “relationships” and so on. “Perverted Justice” is just one (the biggest) such website that specializes in scamming pedophiles with decoy victims and decoy wanna be pedophiles.
They turn it around on their young victims, “you know, this would kill your mother if she knew, you wouldn’t want to make her sad right”? They make it sound as if the CHILD is the one doing wrong, when they’re pushed into acts they neither understand, nor want. The kid would rather die than disappoint their own parents, so they keep the creep’s secret and believe that THEY’RE the ones who are shameful and are doing this willingly.
Please explain? (that’s not a sarcastic question).
I don’t believe that for one minute, that is, that “many succeed”. Based on the number of victims, it’s more likely to be the opposite, that the majority do NOT succeed. I’m sorry, but I’m not impressed by the tiny percentage who might possibly be successful in not indulging their fantasies.
Well, I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. First, I don’t believe that it (fake kiddie porn) has the capacity to actually minimize harm to kids.
How is this compulsion any different than any other evil? Like serial killers who start by tearing the wings off of flies, graduation to torturing cats, and eventually end up whacking 52 prostitutes or coeds. I do not believe that most of the pedophiles are able to contain their compulsion to actually victimize a child, because porn takes care of their urges, anymore than I believe that serial killers are satisfied with watching Texas Chainsaw Murders. And I’m not at ALL impressed that there’s a tiny percentage who supposedly can.
The rights of children to not be objectified in ANY way to potentially titillate some sicko MORE than trumps some perv’s rights to fake kiddie porn in my book.
Troppus, you actually made the point I made earlier but drew a distinction where there is none.
A person who enjoys a rape fantasy tape, as you said, knows and accepts that they are consenting adults, that no one is actually being raped. And that fact alone is what makes it sexy and erotic. I think the vast majority of people would be horrified if shown actual rape video, even people who might enjoy a rape fantasy.
This is exactly analogous to people who enjoy cartoon porn that depict children. Some of them may actually want to go out and molest children, just as some people may want to go out and rape an unconsenting adult. The vast majority, however, enjoy that style of porn specifically because they know that no children were being hurt, molested, exploited, etc in production of it and that it’s just a fantasy. These people would be similarly horrified if shown actual, real child pornography.
It’s the same reason I can enjoy a gory slasher flick, but be absolutely horrified and refuse to watch video of someone actually killing another human being. The simulation, the fantasy, the disconnect from reality makes it enjoyable on some level.
I simply meant that there is, unfortunately, plenty of legislation based on “might”, rather than good evidence.
Besides, it wouldn’t have been a straw man argument however you look at it.
But you’re not a rapist or a serial killer, right? The question isn’t “Would simulated kiddie porn prevent a typically developing, well-adjusted adult in consensual relationships with other adults from molesting children?” The question is “Would simulated kiddie porn prevent a mentally ill person with no healthy sexual relationships with adults and antisocial tendencies from molesting children?”.
Pedophiles aren’t programmable automatons. We can’t just plug them into simulated kiddie porn and expect them to live a life of complacent solitude and isolation from others. If we actually take pity and want to help them achieve a fulfilling existence, do you think a few magazines and cartoons will provide an adequate substitute for live human company and companionship?
Honestly, Troppus, I have tried to always be polite to you, because you’ve always been polite in your writing. But your reading of what others write is not polite. I don’t know if you’re just skimming and making a guess at what you think someone is saying, or what.
Also, the question you imagine we’re addressing has a lot of qualifiers in it that I’m not aware of.
I don’t know you as a poster and have no idea what you’re talking about or why you are assuming that because I disagree with the premise of the OP and the idea of offering simulated kiddie porn as a placebo that I’m being anything but polite. If you can’t handle dissent, either stop posting or don’t respond. If you’ll notice, I’m not the poster who is hurling insults and banging out replies in all caps, I merely disagree that pedophiles deserve a more permissive environment to operate in. I’ve never been victimized, I’ve no emotional attachment to the topic at all. My experience is limited to helping victims as a social worker many years ago. I’ve observed offenders in court, and denial that they have caused the victim pain is typical. If we want pedophiles to avoid offending, impact statements and counseling would go a lot further than offering them tailor made wank material. They need to understand why pedophilia is bad, not enjoy reinforcement that kids desire sex with adults.
Troppus, just to be clear, I’m not making the argument that cartoon child porn should be allowed to exist because it might help pedophiles not be criminals. I don’t care one way or the other whether or not animated/drawn/rendered underage depictions of porn help pedophiles. You seem to be convinced that they wouldn’t though, and that’s fine. Maybe they wouldn’t. But that’s not an argument for why an artist shouldn’t be allowed to depict any imaginary thing that he or she wants to depict, and for others to enjoy that art.
My post was responding to the argument that “real kiddie porn is bad and hurts kids and fake kiddie porn simulates that and increases demand or might cause people to seek out the real thing and hurt kids.” Which, as I and many others have pointed out, is a stupid argument because if we were going to take that kind of logic as good, we’d have to outlaw any sort of art that depicted illegal activity, including drugs, violence, sex, etc. And I really hope you aren’t arguing for that. If you are, however, arguing that any and all art that could possibly inspire someone to commit a crime by simulating an example, then at least you are consistent, but you are wrong.
But if you are arguing that fake kiddie porn is just ESPECIALLY bad, and we can allow fake rape, fake murder, fake drug use, violent video games, violent music, etc, etc, but we can’t allow fake kiddie porn, then that’s morally and logically inconsistent.
I specifically stated that the average consumer is in no danger of acting out fantasies enjoyed on television or porn. But at least two posters here are arguing to allow simulated kiddie porn to exist not for art’s sake, but because pedophiles have suffered enough and deserve a break and maybe it will help them avoid actually offending against kids. I’m arguing that the idea that allowing simulated kiddie porn to exist for the sake of pedophile’s mental health is naive, and not an appropriate treatment approach for helping a troubled person live a fulfilling life. It might make them feel validated; less ashamed, but that in no way accomplishes the goal of overcoming the urge to molest kids. It will only serve to reinforce their hope that kids exist who welcome sexual contact from adults, and only serve to isolate them further.
As far as the OP goes, possession is not as bad as creating child porn, but it does perpetuate the victimization of children and our court system doesn’t punish possession as harshly as it does the manufacture. We don’t punish or even discover one-clickers. We don’t discover child porn unless someone reports it or hoards large numbers of files. The average consumer of porn, or even “teen” porn, is breaking no laws, and neither are the actors who sport school uniforms and pigtails. So the average consumer has nothing to fear from harsh penalties for possession.
Ok, so you don’t agree to allow animated/drawn/cartoon underage porn for mental health reasons, in fact you feel it could possibly be harmful for pedophiles’ mental health. Fine. That’s your opinion, and nobody has any studies to show support for or against it, and that’s fine.
Do you believe it should be outlawed though, the manufacture of artwork that depicts children in a sexual way? Why or why not? Assume that no child models are actually used. The products are from pure imagination.
[QUOTE=AngelSoft;16392515Without the demand, and the money that comes from it, the people who make these things would have no incentive to do so.[/QUOTE]
My understanding is that a lot of that stuff is made by people who like doing it, and only secondarily traded off. i.e. It’s not primarily done as a business. Even the 3rd World stuff is made by child sex tourists for themselves foremost. But I doubt there are hard-and-fast numbers on it.
As I said, what you say is polite. But every time you post it’s not based on what anyone else said, but what you think they have said. That suggests to me that you’re quickly making assumptions instead of taking the time to fully understand what people are advocating and what they’re not advocating. It’s a form of impoliteness, just a less obvious one.
The reason I say this is that I’ve repeated the same thing several times here, and every time you’ve responded as if I haven’t said it all. If I have to, as you suggest, stop posting in order to remain civil, I will. But I’d rather just have a good discussion you’ll attempt to refute my actual argument, instead of an imaginary version.
I don’t think any art should be outlawed. But I don’t have any problem with say…revoking the probation of a convicted pedophile for possession of simulated if the terms of probation include seeking mental health treatment and avoiding such material. I also would have no problem if a well regulated watchdog group patrolled databases/chatrooms of the stuff to ensure no actual child porn was being created or shared. I also have no problem with understanding why some people would call for a ban or regulation of simulated child porn, for the same reason I understand why some people are made very nervous by Toddlers and Tiaras and ilk. The sexualization of kids too young and naive to give consent is a murky area to explore and slapping the “art” label on it doesn’t mean it will only be consumed by well-adjusted, ethical, law-abiding citizens.
is this the argument you expect a response to? Because our legal system can’t spare the time and the expense to determine which possessor of child porn (real or simulated) is a dangerous potential offender and which is just a nice fellow in need of some compassion. I don’t want to pay for or gamble on that kind of analysis. Your argument for compassion is nice but impractical.
Ok, I agree that anywhere drawn pornography depicting minors is displayed, shared, stored, etc, should be at the same level of scrutiny as any pornography place.
Now can you also see my argument that some people may enjoy this type of artwork without necessarily being pedophiles, in the same way some people may enjoy a rape fantasy and not actually enjoy rape? Or a gory horror movie and not actually enjoy real murder? I’m not even talking about people going out and actually raping and murdering. I mean, even just viewing a video tape or images of someone actually being raped or murdered. Does it make sense why simulated depictions are interesting to some people, while real instances of those very things would be abhorrent?
I doubt we could find anyone who disagrees with your argument outside of the strictest homeschooler who forbids television and the popular media. miss elizabeth and **Bozuit **were speaking of allowing/prescribing simulated child porn to pedophiles as a treatment or act of sympathy or some sort of placebo. Arguing for freedom of art is an entirely separate discussion. Most typically developing people can enjoy a broad spectrum of entertainment and pornography without creating any harm whatsoever. I don’t think we can make the same statement with regards to persons suffering from a mental illness which causes feelings of isolation, confusion, and misdirected projecting on persons (kids) who cannot legally or ethically consent to sexual attention.
I remembered one example from my years as a social worker. While an intern I was stuck at a group home for homeless teens, most of whom had some sort of charges pending, all had dismal backgrounds. The lead counselor popped in a copy of The Accused for viewing during the group counseling/discussion session. My coworker and I were dismayed when four of the 8 teenage boys ran for the bathroom to masturbate after the rape scene. Joe was 12, David, Jason, and Justin were fifteen. We watched nearly all the boys squrming on the couch, apparently aroused, while the girls were sobbing and protesting the movie. When the coworker and I related the response to the lead counselor (A PhD of psychology) and explained we would rather not show the film in the future, she was furious with the implication that she somehow incited sexual excitement by showing a film she intended to serve as a cautionary tale. It was an ugly disagreement, on par with the reaction by miss elizabeth and Bozuit to my contention that offering simulated porn to pedophiles is a bad idea. The lasting effects? I don’t know. Joe and David had both been victims of molestation, and Joe moved nearby as an adult and is constantly in the paper for various violent offenses, including rape when he was 20.
No, I can’t blame that movie for inspiring any sort of affinity for rape. But I can state with full confidence that showing rape scenes with an smallish, easily overpowered and attractive woman to a group of troubled kids, at least two of whom had been victims of sexual abuse themselves, was NOT helpful to their recovery and/or treatment.
I don’t expect you to respond to anything in particular, I just expect you to understand that I have not said we should allow anything. I have said that it’s worth looking into whether or not it will reduce harm for everyone, with the requirement that it in no way increases the harm done to children, if possession of drawn child porn is decriminalized. We should investigate approaches that might work. I have never said “we should do it because it might work”, but that’s the position you always argue against, not the position of “we should do research”.
Troppus, thank you for sharing that personal anecdote that helps back up why you have the opinions that you do. This has been a great discussion and I honestly can’t think of anything else I have left to ask you! I also don’t think you were in any way being rude. Others were making the claim that maybe allowing pedophiles to have access to cartoons of kids being sexualized would help them, but I wasn’t and just wanted to get your opinions overall on the legality of it for other reasons.