Hey, every guy’s been there, amirite?
NO? Just me…
OK, then.
You’re forgetting that some people think that nudity automatically equals porn, regardless of the circumstances.
Another thing that I don’t think anybody has specifically brought up is the age range involved. This is very important. There’s a world of difference between a 6 year old (simulated or not) and a 14 year old.
I maintain that it is perfectly normal and perfectly natural for an adult to be attracted to many, perhaps a majority, of teenagers. Some parts of society already recognize this. Here are some examples.
Here is a picture of Kendall and Kylie Jenner wearing bikinis. Kendall, on the left, was probably 16 at the time. Kylie was 14.
http://photos.imageevent.com/afap/wallpapers/stars/kendalljenner//Kendall%20and%20Kylie%20Jenner%20-%20Bikini.jpg
Here’s another picture of Kylie in that same bikini.
http://hotpicturesof.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Kylie-Jenner-2.jpg
I think Kendall was 15 when this was taken.
http://cdn26.us3.fansshare.com/photo/swimwear/spl-tv-1388372971.jpg
Any man who is NOT attracted to such girls is almost certainly gay or asexual. And this is one area where the simulated porn could come in. Such girls are functionally equivalent, in a physical sense, to adult women.
I agree that age should be a mitigating factor unless the adult is over say 21. Prepubescent children should always be offlimits.
When you say ‘attracted’ I hope you mean that momentary hormonal rush we get when we see something we are attracted to. Our cerebral cortex should shut that down in a hurry. If it doesnt, then, there is a problem.
Right. I am not sure about the OP, but we need to clear out the Offender databases of all but the dangerous ones. This will actually make our kids safer, since the Officers can concentrate on the ones who are a real danger, not spend weeks tracking down some homeless guy busted for public urination 30 years ago.
Sure, write him a big fucking ticket for $1000, great. But keep that asshole off the database.
Thanks, I lost track of this thread and this is exactly the point I wanted to bring up: the exact, state-by-state correlation between improved access to porn via the Internet and the decrease in the number of rapes. The fact that the statistic repeats itself 50 times is to my mind a clencher. It may be a correlation, but it’s such a powerful correlation that you would have to have some very powerful evidence to dispute it, and I see nothing like that in this thread.
The other point I’d like to make is: what’s your real interest here, decreasing the number of children who get molested, or blocking out all of that icky chiid porn stuff that squicks you out so much? (This is not directed at Miller, but at madsircool and others who argue against allowing simulated child porn)
I personally am as disgusted by child molestation and child porn, simulated or otherwise, as most are, and would be perfectly OK if all child porn, simulated or otherwise, was outlawed if it reduced the amount of actual child molestation. But the strongest evidence indicates that access to simulated child porn may reduce the amount of actual child molestation, thus I’m down with simulated child porn, because I recognize that reducing the amount of actual child molestation is a LOT more important than my feelings.
So, what’s more important: your feelings or reducing the amount of actual child molestations?
Evil Captor…there is no evidence. We have no real reliable stats on rape. Only reported rape is counted. We have no way of knowing just who is viewing porn and what their behavior is. ntil there is real evidence (which is unlikely) it is far better to err on the side of protecting children and perhaps funding programs for people who are compelled to view such imagery.
I think it can be “not weird.”
I think that most people seeing such stuff would not be tempted to try the real thing.
There is a sex tourism industry for those who do want access to sex acts that are not available elsewhere. (Illegal in Thailand, too, but available.)
But… So what? Does watching a movie about Big Game Hunting make me want to go and shoot rhinos? Does watching Psycho make me want to strangle strangers in the shower? Is it “weird” to watch movies like Alien where people die in hideous ways?
The stuff we watch for entertainment is, for most of us, held at a remote from our real lives. It’s abstract. Porn may make me want to go into the bathroom and comfort myself of those urges (whack off like a jackhammer.) But it doesn’t make me want to avail myself of the nearest prostitute.
If it’s only a simulated portrayal, and not an actual photo (and no actual models were involved in the creation of the artistic rendition) then…what is the problem?
Exactly.
Crime statistics of all sorts are massaged to make politicians and/or law enforcement agencies look better. (For example: re-define “robbery” to mean only gunpoint robbery, and suddenly you have a lot fewer robberies— a claim any office-holding politician or police chief would be happy to be able to make!)
There is too much evidence (that the statistics aren’t reliable) to ignore…much as we might LIKE to ignore them in the defense of our beloved easy-access-to-porn. Because make no mistake, if there is any hint that such access is endangered, there will be an immediate and passionate response. The cry goes out to all the land: NO NO NO NO NO NO NO PORN-ACCESS MUST NOT BE ENDANGERED!!!
(That will never change. People will walk fifty thousand miles barefoot in defense of their porn; all we can do is try to enforce the “consenting” and “adults” part of the formula.)
I agree.
I do think it’s important to be open to the possibilities that advances in brain science may provide real evidence that some sort of accommodation can be made that will keep the pedophilically-inclined happy, while preserving absolute protections for children. But I can’t see making kiddy-porn legal on unsupported claims that access to such “probably is” beneficial to children. Those claims need to be locked down with solid, irrefutable evidence.
I agree with you partially. Sexuality is one of our primal drives; it resides in part in the deepest reptilian sectors of our brain (apologies to neurologists if that is bad terminology). We dont have an instinct to hunt or kill. My theory is that the amygdala (if this is the right brain sector) overpowers the cerebral cortex in these offenders. Giving them porn stimulates the amygdala. Surely not much good can come from this. Would we want released rapists to watch porn?
Pure bullshit. Some men are attracted to fat women. Some are attracted to elderly women. Some, I’m sure, find white women a complete turnoff. Some, obviously, are only attracted to prepubescent girls. None of those is gay or asexual, but would not be attracted to those girls.
You ignore Miller’s point: the study I cited compared reported rapes with reported rapes, and the rate went down. Now as to the UNREPORTED rapes, that has no bearing on the rate of reported rates going down, unless you would care to advance some alternative explanation that would account for the reported rates going down in 50 different states after the introduction of Internet porn. Or unless you are suggesting that access to Internet porn somehow increased unreported rapes while decreasing reported rapes, in which case you’d need to explain the mechanism.
You assume that adult rape has the same characteristics as pedophilia. Is there any reliable evidence that this is the case?
And why would internet porn drive down rape and not printed or filmed porn? Maybe rapists have gotten more sophisticated in committing their crimes?
And please prove the correlation between internet porn and rape.
re terminology, I learned the “reptilian centers of the brain” from Carl Sagan, and have never heard it seriously rejected. The human brain is definitely layered, and there is a bit of recapitulation going on in the layering.
However… I don’t believe it has fully been established that showing porn to rapists increases their likelihood of committing rape. It may do so, but I don’t believe this is a demonstrated causality.
I may be reading this wrongly, but it seems that you’re both giving and taking away on this point. If there isn’t any correlation, then why would we not want rapists to view porn? It might actually be good for society, if it causes 'em to masturbate instead of acting out of aggression.
(The U.S.'s sexual puritanism is sad and very sick. The idea that we should prevent or discourage masturbation is insane. We should be as permissive as possible toward this entirely natural act; it’s actually good for our physical and mental health!)
(Decent exercise, and good clean fun, so long as you wipe up after.)
[my bold the second]
In other words, it’s better to feel like you’re doing something positive, than to actually accomplish your goal? If you don’t know it actually protects children, you’re fine with something that may have just the opposite effect, as long as it feels like it should work? That’s what you’re advocating, here.
Well, no, that’s still missing the point by a fairly wide margin.
Again, the study EC linked was not looking at absolute numbers, but relative numbers. If 50% of all reported rapes never make it into the system, then the stats on reported rapes don’t tell us anything about the number of sexual assaults that actually occurred. But if California is losing 50% of its reported rapes, and Texas is losing 50% of its reported rates, then we can still derive useful information by looking at the difference in reporting between those two states, even if the data is incomplete.
Considering that nobody in this thread has talked at all about banning adult porn, I’m not sure why you felt it was necessary to poison the well in this way.
According to a different thread, that’s exactly what we see.
I agree in principle but is there a way to exempt a 16-year-old sending n00dz to her 16-year-old boyfriend (in a jurisdiction in which it’s legal for them to have actual sex) that can avoid exempting actual producers of actual (that is, what we would intuitively classify as) CP?
No law against being weird. No law against wanting to do bad things.
As I’ve mentioned: I’d find it perfectly reasonable if animated/illustrated/acted-by-adults sexually explicit material were to be* subject to the regular obscenity laws*. Nail it for obscenity* if it **is *obscene.
But I ask: Is not what makes *real *kiddiepr0n a *major *crime, primarily and above all that its very creation necessitates subjecting an actual living, breathing child to sexual exploitation, and that its propagation sustains a demand for new material that will lead to more children being abused? In that case…
Say a picture is drawn in which Dora the Explorer has got some very unusual toys out of that backpack and is partying muy inapropiadamente with Boots and Diego. This may conform copyright and trademark infringement, and depending on “community standards” it may be obscene. But its creation and download will have abused no child (and no blue monkeys, either). Any punishment above and beyond those for obscenity and intellectual property offenses, would either be for thoughtcrime and “dammit, how can you not just vomit to even put those thoughts together?” , or else be based on speculation that it may whet someone else’s appetite or awaken somebody’s curiosity and IMO that’s like blaming Metal bands for teens hanging themselves. It’s not a crime to be weird, it’s not a crime to think bad thoughts (thanks, Herschele) and describing is not advocating.
Also, re: Actors. I have a hunch that you would not see a massive flood of live-action “simulated kiddiepr0n” as in pretending it to be children. Not that many people WANT to see that. As mentioned earlier, what’s more likely is something like a resurgence of “High School” scenarios in which the players actually look like they were in HS.
Recording artist Sia put out a music video for *Elastic Heart *in which Shia Leboeuf and Maddie Ziegler have a dancefight in tight leotards in a cage, absolutely not porn, and some people freaked out. If someone tried to do an actual porn where somebody simulates being 12 and looks like it, the public opinion heat would be unbearable.
Only if you can assume that rates of reporting (and underreporting) hold steady not only across time (since the argument in question depends on a comparison of ‘pre-Internet’ rates to present-day rates), but across localities.
And I don’t see how you can simply assume all of that.
You’ve misunderstood my point, which was that those who enjoy adult-oriented porn (and we are talking millions if not billions) are unwise to try to make common cause with those who seek to legalize child porn (whether in simulated or ‘real’ form). Supporting the legalization of child porn (in whatever form) is likely to backfire on those who enjoy easy access to legal ‘consenting adults’ porn.
The reason is that any examination of the rationales offered by those who seek to legalize child porn will almost certainly spill over into an examination of ‘consenting adults’ porn. And when anyone calls for child porn (simulated or not) to be legalized, you can be certain that some VERY close examination of those rationales will be initiated and carried out–and that many or most of the rationales might well be exposed as being based on bad data, bad logic, and/or bad psychology.
The “NO NO NO” etc. was a facetious way of highlighting the predictable reaction of any perceived threat to the availability of adult porn; it’s analogous, in some ways, to the reactions always in evidence anytime someone raises questions like ‘do violent video games increase aggression in those who play them?’ The “NO NO NO (YOU CAN’T TAKE MY GAMES)” response is just as sure and certain as is the response to anyone asking ‘is the use of pornography more likely to result in a lessening of the drive to find a real-life object of aggressive sexual impulses, or more likely to result in a heightening of that drive?’
When legal-child-porn advocates claim that use of porn leads to a lessening of such drives, that claim will be examined. If well-respected research studies conclude that the claim turns out to be incorrect, that finding might be generalized. And then we get the NO NO NO. (The very fact that you are pursuing, quite doggedly, what at least appears to be a project of ‘showing that Sherrerd is completely wrong about everything,’ is pretty much NO NO NO in action. You seem to be feeling, consciously or not, that something important is endangered by the line of argument advanced in the posts of people on my side of the issue.)
And just to get a head start on what I suspect is coming: yes, keeping people from posting images of children being used for sex is censorship. In many societies in 2015, a lot of people are willing that this particular type of censorship be part of our laws (and culture.)