should peadohpiles be allowed to live ?

[HAL]

What if the child porn was pure animation?

[Traveler]

What if the child porn was pure animation?

I'd want more information on whether porn causes or prevents future harm to children. If Joe is right, and it lessens the chance for child rape and other abuse, then its worth considering. If others are right and it encourages child rape and other abuse, then its another story altogether.

I've only done a few searches and I've found conflicting data.

[jaimehlers]

Including animation, unless and until someone can show that it does not increase the overall possibility of children being sexually abused.  Until then, I don't think it's worth the risk.

[One Above All]

Including animation, unless and until someone can show that it does not increase the overall possibility of children being sexually abused.  Until then, I don't think it's worth the risk.

What if its absence causes more sexual abuse than its presence? In other words, both cause an increase of sexual abuse, but one causes less than the other. What then?

[Timtheskeptic]

What if the child porn was pure animation?

I think that if it is purely animation, then fine. We have video games of violence and such and it doesn't make anyone go out and do violence. Child porn disgusts me and i would rather die a horrible, excruciating, agonizing death than to watch it, but i don't think it would make people rape children. Also, i've watched Penn and Teller talked about war on porn , porn doesn't make people do anything like rape. I've watched porn before and never felt an urge to do anyone any harm. I don't watch porn because i don't want to hurt my laptop. my last laptop had viruses and malware so i want to avoid that.

[albeto]

But I would like to take a moment to address the op and subsequent posts on the topic of pedophilia. 

Pedophilia is about a power imbalance.  It is about a sexuality that resides in the realm of the adult/child relationship, in which the child has no option but to submit to the authority of the adult.  It is about an adult wanting a level of sexual control that he (and sometimes she) cannot obtain with an adult peer.  Pedophiles often exploit their real or perceived authority as respected uncles, priests, teachers, coaches, casting agents, or just simply as adults, who children who have been taught to trust and obey.

Pedophilia is a recognized psychiatric disorder....

Homosexuality was a recognized psychiatric disorder as well.  Mothers of autistic children were blamed for being "refrigerator mothers" incapable of loving their child, thus imprisoning him in a mental hell for life.  The point being, the more familiar we are with something, the more valuable our analysis and response (I mean this generally, speaking as a society, the "royal we"). 

Your comments about what pedophilia is seems to me to be no different than the arguments made against homosexuality - a position of power, an abuse of authority, compelling another to behave in a certain way for the gratification of the abuser.  We no longer think this as a society (well, we're getting there anyway) because we're gaining familiarity with homosexuality in terms of social, biological, neurophysiological, and other variables.  My question would be, what makes one think pedophilia is about control and exploitation and not a matter of simply a physiological response to specific stimuli?  If we put sexuality on a bell curve, where does pedophilia go?  I think Joe has been clear in explaining a physiological attraction does not equal a physical behavior, and a physiological attraction is one that can't be helped any more than any other physiological condition with which one is born (like left handedness or autism).  One can learn to behave in socially appropriate ways, but to suggest it is bad (as you do with equating it to control and exploitation) is to place a value statement on a relatively little known physiological condition.  In other words, I think it's an immature, knee-jerk reaction that is based more on tradition than knowledge. 

In any case, this has been a most fascinating conversation to me because as I mother with teenagers, I do cringe at the idea of them being taken advantage of in any way, certainly sexual.  That empathy translates rather easily to any tween/teen.  Perhaps my experiences have skewed my opinion in that I don't know people who were exploited sexually against their will (which to me isn't about sex but about power), whereas my best friend throughout middle school had a boyfriend 20 years her senior.  They met in the hospital where she was a candy-striper, he was a doctor.  She left him flirtatious notes on his car.  A year later he was spending the nights at her house.  She was 13, he 35 when this started.  This continued for a couple years.  This wasn't about exploitation at all, but a mutual attraction between two people with a socially inappropriate age difference.  This is one of the reasons I'm finding this conversation so interesting - I'm reading this against the backdrop of positive memories. 

Another reason I find it so fascinating is it forces me to face the moral code I had imposed on me, I had imposed on my children, and generally supported in society.  Instead of accepting it just because (appeal to tradition, appeal to popularity), I'm forced to analyze it detail by detail and find where it fits in my moral code.  Today my moral code is no longer based on an outsider's opinion (biblegod), but based on the well-being of another person (as a reference, Sam Harris' "the moral landscape" works well for me).  Based on my friend's experience, I would say her relationship was not bad for her well-being and I doubt it was bad for his.  Being 13 myself, I didn't think to ask these things and I never did meet him.  I don't think of this as domestic help that is considered toys for the father/oldest son of the family because that's not a mutually respectful relationship any more than a date-rape is a mutually respectful relationship.  For the same reason date-rape doesn't negate the value of casual sex-on-the-first-date, exploiting young women ought not be the reference for pedophilic relationships, and certainly not as a sexual identity.

Okay, I'm sorry if I rambled on and on and I meant for Quesi's comment to be a jumping off point for me, not a response to her specifically.  Quesi, I find your insight into society in the lesser known corners of the world invaluable.  Between you and nogodsforme's posts, I feel like I've gained more knowledge about the world I'm not familiar with than I ever got in any class or from any book.  I hope you don't interpret my post as anything other than a springboard for my thoughts that I tried to wrap up in one post after a long, complex and fascinating thread. 

[albeto]

Facts and logic, when it comes to something like child pornography, can bite me.

Why?  How would you know something without facts and the skills to logically analyze those facts?  How can you be familiar with a concept if you don't explore the facts and critique the logic being used? 

If you don't simply fucking know it's wrong then you are a tragedy, and need help, and will certainly never have a meaningful relationship with any woman. Discussion over.

Can you share why this is?  It is still rather common to think homosexual identity is caused by a lack of a meaningful relationship with a father figure (mother figure for lesbians).  The more we understand sexual identity, the more we can dismiss this as a theory.  I imagine the more we learn about pedophilia as a sexual identity the more we will be able to dismiss your idea that a pedophilic man will never have a meaningful relationship with any woman as well.  And are we assuming pedophilia is unique to men? 

[jaimehlers]

What if its absence causes more sexual abuse than its presence? In other words, both cause an increase of sexual abuse, but one causes less than the other. What then?

Then you would be showing that it increases the overall possibility of children being sexually abused.

[One Above All]

Then you would be showing that it increases the overall possibility of children being sexually abused.

Yes, but so does its absence. That's my question: What do we do then?

[jaimehlers]

Yes, but so does its absence. That's my question: What do we do then?

Already answered it, in the post you quoted about two and a half hours ago.  I didn't say "increase the possibility" (an absolute increase), I said "increase the overall possibility" (a relative one).

[Gnu Ordure]

A five-year-old child cannot consent to photos of its abuse being published. So publication of such photos should be prohibited, on grounds of invasion of privacy, at the very least.

And as I said, it is highly unlikely that an adult survivor of sexual abuse would consent to such photos being released into the public domain.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that all publications of images of child sexual abuse are non-consensual, and therefore they should be confiscated and removed from the public domain.

As I've already said, the production and distribution of child pornography should be illegal. You aren't making a compelling case against possession unless you can apply the same logic to all cases non-consensual publication.

Would you say that any non-consensual images of anyone should be removed from the public domain?

It depends to what extent a person's privacy is being invaded and to what extent a person might reasonably expect privacy in a particular situation.

Paparazzi photos,

That's a difficult one, because celebrities sometimes appear in public expecting to be photographed (at a film premiere, say), other times they don't expect it. 

hidden-camera and ex-girlfriend sex tapes

A person has a reasonable expectation of privacy when having sex in their homes. Covertly recording private sexual activity and publishing it would be wrong.

people photographed in public places?.

It would depend on what they were doing. If you saw an attractive young girl on the beach with her parents, would you approach her and start taking photos of her from 10 feet away? Wouldn't that be somewhat impolite, to say the least? And don't you think her father would have cause to be irate?

But, none of these situations are comparable with child pornography. Those children have already been abused once; allowing possession by others of the evidence of their abuse can only hurt them further.

As Traveler said, showing the empathy of which you appear incapable:

And saying something is anonymous in this day and age? Please. Be serious. Nothing is beyond reach. A child in a porno image can be identified now, tomorrow, or next year or decades later. It will always hang over them as a possibility. I would feel humiliated if I knew there were such out there of me.

Quite.

[rickymooston]

What if the child porn was pure animation?

Somebody asked this question already. It is a fair question.

Another scenario that comes up, is artistic child pornography that is aimed at educating people about the problem or helping people deal with their own experience in the form of art theraphy.

One may also ask, what about people over 18, who pretend for erotic purposes, to act out pedophilic fantasies. 

One may be very close to entering the realm of thought crime.

On a logical plane, one would think it should be allowed

On the other hand, if you knew X was into thast, would you want5 him near your kids.

[Van Persie]

What if the child porn was pure animation?

Nothing 'pure' about it.

100% no. All that is doing is finding an alternate method to sate the same evil desire.

But, as atheists, you are all forced to look at such desires within the context of evolutionary usefullness. And within that context, people like Joe can justify things which we know, if we are prepared to be honest, are just plain wrong.

It's a problem for the many atheists on this forum who have read this thread without commenting. Silently disgusted, they have failed to give voice to that disgust partly because it raises the question of good and evil outside the evolutionary context. They can see the evil with absolute clarity, but how to explain it in the face of 'logic' and 'reason' which might tell us that such things are not harmful at all? 

I stand by my previous comment that logic and reason comes a distant second to the conviction many of you must have that what Joe supports is wrong. The source of that conviction may trouble you, but I am interested now to hear from those yet to weigh in on this matter as to whether I am off base.

[Azdgari]

Actually, VP, "we atheists" can denounce it on the basis of our anti-harm ethic.  As in, objecting to the harm to children, or even to observing harm to children.

Quite irrelevant to (a)theism, that.

[albeto]

100% no. All that is doing is finding an alternate method to sate the same evil desire.

Can you explain this?  What makes a desire evil?  Does a desire count as evil or the acting out of it count as evil?  I wonder because this is a deliciously theistic point of view, but now I'm quite convinced it has no meaning outside one's own amorphous beliefs. 

[Van Persie]

Actually, VP, "we atheists" can denounce it on the basis of our anti-harm ethic.  As in, objecting to the harm to children, or even to observing harm to children.

Quite irrelevant to (a)theism, that.

I get that, but what if Joe convinces you that such activity as possessing child pornography is not harmful?

Does it not 'feel' wrong to you outside that?

[Timo]

Nothing 'pure' about it.

100% no. All that is doing is finding an alternate method to sate the same evil desire.

Why should the state be in the business of curbing people from expressing "evil desires" in an entirely fictional format?  And it is the state's business, why should it stop with child pornography?  Why not do away with movies that depict murder, rape, torture, etc?

Basically, I think that there are very good reasons for making child pornography illegal when it involves actual children who are harmed in the production and disemination.  I fail to see how any of those reasons could apply to completely fictional characters that are animated rather than portrayed by actual children.

But, as atheists, you are all forced to look at such desires within the context of evolutionary usefullness. And within that context, people like Joe can justify things which we know, if we are prepared to be honest, are just plain wrong.

I think that everyone needs to look at our desires and behaviors with evolution in mind, regardless of where they stand on the god question.  I just don't think it makes sense to pretend that our values, however deeply and sincerely we hold them, are the only thing worth considering in a discussion of morality or any subject for that matter.  And I wouldn't think that this would be all that difficult for a Christian to really work with.  Most Christians I know believe that we are born with a sin nature and that this is something that we, as humans, should do our best to overcome.  Christians also believe that we are born with God's law written on our hearts.  I think it works more or less the same way with what we might call our basic, primal nature.  There are what we would mostly consider good things that are instilled in us through evolution and there are things that are a bit more base.  If we're talking about morality and moral questions we ought to keep that in mind, but that doesn't mean that we have to hold up the findings of evolutionary biologists as sign posts that will guide us towards absolute moral truth.

It's a problem for the many atheists on this forum who have read this thread without commenting. Silently disgusted, they have failed to give voice to that disgust partly because it raises the question of good and evil outside the evolutionary context. They can see the evil with absolute clarity, but how to explain it in the face of 'logic' and 'reason' which might tell us that such things are not harmful at all?

Not really.  I find pedophilia to be disgusting.  I have no problem saying that.  But with that said, I think that I can also recognize that a sub-set of the adult population is going to be sexually attracted to children and that this is not something that is their fault.  It's therefore not something that I would condemn.  At this point, we're only talking about sexual orientation.  What I would condemn, however, is an adult actually engaging in a sexual act with a child.  And I don't need to appeal to a god to do this.  I condemn it because it does tangible damage to the children that fall victim to it.  I condemn it because it is essentially rape, even if ostensibly consensual (working from the premise that children are not capable of giving informed consent).

What's more, I would say that your view is actually worse for the world.  If we're going to condemn people as being evil for their innate desires, those people are probably not going to seek out the sorts of therapies that would work towards preventing them from harming children.

I stand by my previous comment that logic and reason comes a distant second to the conviction many of you must have that what Joe supports is wrong. The source of that conviction may trouble you, but I am interested now to hear from those yet to weigh in on this matter as to whether I am off base.

I think you're off base.

I think that one of the biggest knocks against the notion that modern Christian ideas about morality are really innate is that there have been so many cultures over the course of human history, many of them Christian cultures that would not share our disgust.

That photo that joe put up, for example, was off-putting to me.  I have a problem with what appears to be a young girl being sexualized in that way.  (And I think Quesi was completely on point about the pose.)  I think you would too.

But here's the thing.  The notion that I should not look at a 14 or 15 year old as a potential sexual partner is not something that we humans have always believed.  In fact, it's very recent.  And this is where I think that the whole evolutionary thing is important to take into consideration.  For most of our history, it was considered normal for girls of child-bearing age to be....bearing children.  In other words, for most of our history a 14 or so year old girl wasn't a "girl," she was a woman.  A shift in our thinking has taken place.  It's a shift that I think is a good thing.  However, it's not a shift that I would expect to necessarily inform anyone's involuntary reaction to a photograph.

So yeah...nah

[Van Persie]

100% no. All that is doing is finding an alternate method to sate the same evil desire.

Can you explain this?  What makes a desire evil?  Does a desire count as evil or the acting out of it count as evil?  I wonder because this is a deliciously theistic point of view, but now I'm quite convinced it has no meaning outside one's own amorphous beliefs.

Sort of hard to, really. Sort of like trying to explain to a blind person how you can see the ocean. It's obvious to you, but...

I don't mean to be flippant. I genuinely don't know how to explain myself better. You know I'm a Christian....but I can't help thinking even non-Christians can see evil for waht it is, just because of what it is.

[Van Persie]

In fact, I would say that your view is actually worse for the world.  If we're going to condemn people as being evil for their innate desires, those people are probably not going to seek out the sorts of therapies that would work towards preventing them from harming children.

I didn't mean to suggest that. I recognise that we are born with many desires, and we aren't evil just for wanting something.

I think you're off base.
 

Fair enough. I respect your opinion.

That photo that joe put up, for example, was off-putting to me.  I have a problem with what appears to be a young girl being sexualized in that way.  (And I think Quesi was completely on point about the pose.)  I think you would too.

I have to be honest here. The photo, at first glance and probably even second, was very appealing to me. She is physically desirable. But....I try not to run with that, and rationalise why it would be OK for me to be OK with it. I end up coming to the conclusion Quesi and you did, but I have to make an effort to do so.

[Timo]

Yeah, and actually I should say here that where joe really flew off the rails for me was when he was starting to get into why it might be better for a thirty year old to be on some sexual mentor shit with a 15 year old or how it would have been awesome if he would have been able to sleep with his babysitter at age 10.

[Samothec]

I grew up seeing movies like Porkies, American Virgin and others where it was not only okay but celebrated for teen guys to make it with teen girls or adult women. Then there's the fact of the bar/bat mitzvah where the 13-year-old is declared a man/woman.

American culture has shifted to claim sex between teens and adults is wrong and is now enforcing laws that have been on the books but rarely enforced before.

Instead of presenting teens as teens and children (pre-teens) as children (pre-teens), we are presented with adult actors as teens and teen actors as children (pre-teens).

We call teens children even though they aren't but prosecute them as adults even though they aren't.

Of course things are messed up.

Teens are sexual beings. We need to accept that fact. We also need to accept that there is no single right choice. For most teens, fumbling around with other teens will be the best thing. For some, an adult would be a better partner.


Proposed modifications to the law:

If the character in a movie/TV show is underage the actor should be within 2 years of age of the character's age.

No adult should be allowed to make underage porn. Teens should be allowed to make porn only if there is no adult involved in its conception. (Currently it is usually just suggestive/nude photos sent to a bf/gf known as sexting.) No porn involving children (pre-teens) should be allowed to be made by anybody. Existing teen/child porn should be permissible to own only if it can be reliably confirmed that it prevents sexual relations with teens/children. Animation, whether hand-drawn or CGI, should be a legal substitute.

Sexual contact between teens and adults would be legal only if the teen initiated contact with the adult (getting to know each other) and subsequently initiated the sexual contact. No sexual contact with a child (pre-teen) would be permitted at all.

No child (pre-teen) can be tried as an adult under any circumstances. Teens must undergo a psychiatric evaluation to determine if they are capable of making adult decisions before being tried as an adult and are then legally declared an adult to stand trial. Even if acquited, the teen retains their adult status with all rights and responsibilities unless they are currently underage and choose to relinquish that adult status.


But these or similar changes to the law require rational people and rational decisions. Instead we get irrational laws that are based on emotion and religion.

[joebbowers]

Oh come on Timo, you never had a crush on some older guy/girl when you were 'too' young? Never fantasized? What would have been so bad about those fantasies coming true?

[joebbowers]

What if the child porn was pure animation?

<snip>
One may be very close to entering the realm of thought crime.

It is pre-emptive punishment, and it is thought crime. There is no victim, and no evidence to suggest a crime would occur at any future point. It is simply putting people in prison because they make you uncomfortable. Note that the punishment for virtual child porn is identical to the punishment for real child porn, and even more disturbing, possession of child porn considered the same class of crime (and therefore deserving of the same punishment) as actually raping a child.

On a logical plane, one would think it should be allowed

On the other hand, if you knew X was into thast, would you want5 him near your kids.

One of my best friends that I've known for half of my life got a 6 year sentence for possession of child porn. He had no record, it was his first offense. They destroyed his life for nothing. He never touched a child inappropriately and he never would have. He was a very kind and responsible citizen. He lost everything, his family won't speak to him anymore and won't let him near his nieces and nephews.

I understand this knee-jerk response, but let me explain to you how ridiculously stupid that is.

Consider these two questions:

Do you think someone who is sexually attracted to children is likely to rape a child?
Do you think someone who is sexually attracted to women is likely to rape a woman?

Now do you see the flaw in assuming that sexual attraction leads to rape? It leaves no room for self-control and common decency. You are punishing someone for a crime that you are assuming they will commit based on flawed logic. Obviously if sexual attraction were enough to lead to rape a women like Megan Fox would have to lock herself away in a fortress. And yet she goes out in public, knowing full well that almost every man she meets is intensely sexually attracted to her, but trusting them to control themselves.

Why can't we extend that trust to pedophiles? Unless they've actually harmed a child, we have no right to put them in prison.

It would be like pre-emptively convicting someone for rape for watching (adult) pornography, or pre-emptively convicting someone for murder because they bought a gun. If we did either of those things, it would be ridiculous, but when pedophiles are the targets of pre-emptive punishment, nobody speaks against it.

[Timo]

Oh come on Timo, you never had a crush on some older guy/girl when you were 'too' young? Never fantasized? What would have been so bad about those fantasies coming true?

Nah, I didn't say all that.  I don't think you quite get me.  What I'm saying is that, whatever scenarios we might have fantasized about at that age, 10 or 11, we probably weren't ready to act on that. 

I don't want to get too bogged down in my own case but I know that I was what they call "sexually active" by the time I was in my early teens and with girls that were my own age.  I don't think that I was ready then.  And I'm pretty damn sure that I wouldn't have been able to handle that a few years prior, and especially not with a babysitter[1] or other woman in a position of authority over me.....back when, looking back, I was just talking a big game about how I'd do this, that and the third to whoever I thought was fine.  When I read you talking about how you would have been a legend or whatever, that's how I read it.

But look, this is all speculation on both of our parts.  I didn't have much of any sexual contact with anyone that was more than a few years older than me until I was in my late teens and so I really don't have much to personally add on the possible effects of the sort of encounter we're talking about.  Maybe it would have been awesome.  I've had experiences that kind of got close to that line and I'm glad they ended there.  But maybe I'm putting too much stock in my own experiences.  Only Zeus knows.

Really, going back a ways, that's why I asked:

what do the studies say about young boys who had some sort of sexual contact with older women?

1.	But maybe it would have been awesome.  I don't think I ever had a proper babysitter growing up.  Just older cousins and aunts and uncles and shit.

[Timtheskeptic]

Actually, VP, "we atheists" can denounce it on the basis of our anti-harm ethic.  As in, objecting to the harm to children, or even to observing harm to children.

Quite irrelevant to (a)theism, that.

I get that, but what if Joe convinces you that such activity as possessing child pornography is not harmful?

Does it not 'feel' wrong to you outside that?

VP, joe cannot convince me to ever want such a thing, but this wasn't about that, it's about discussing what is right or wrong on the subject, it's a complicated matter. None of us here thinks child porn is alright, we're trying to be reasonable.

[rickymooston]

Now do you see the flaw in assuming that sexual attraction leads to rape? It leaves no room for self-control and common decency.

You didn't really read what i wrote very carefully. Thought crimes are unfairt because of this, yes.

Child porn involves a crime. The crime is in its production. Now as I said, the CGI thing is different.

People are protective of theior children. Its human nature.

I'm sorry about your friend but on the othehand those pics probably were not CGI.

[joebbowers]

No, Ricky, they were not CGI. But don't you understand how it's illogical to assume a pedophile is a danger to your child any more than any straight man is a danger to your wife, or you yourself are a danger to any woman you are attracted to? Sexual attraction does not equal intent to rape.

[Zankuu]

VP, since you ask for input from those that have been lurking...

I think you're off base. There is nothing inherently wrong with or evil about pedophiles, just as there is nothing inherently wrong with or evil about graeophiles. Would you call a person that admits they are attracted to the elderly evil? Probably not. Which means the main issue you take with it, like myself and most in this thread, is that children don't fully understand the ramifications of their sexual choices at such an early age. So it's the idea of taking advantage of someone that you have a problem with. But now we're talking about child molestation, not pedophilia. I hope you aren't subconsciously equating the two since action is not dogmatically tied to desire.

It's a problem for the many atheists on this forum who have read this thread without commenting. Silently disgusted, they have failed to give voice to that disgust partly because it raises the question of good and evil outside the evolutionary context. They can see the evil with absolute clarity, but how to explain it in the face of 'logic' and 'reason' which might tell us that such things are not harmful at all?

And this is why I said you were off base since this isn't how I feel at all. I don't need a god (especially the Christian god: the trademarked supporter of child rape and murder) to tell me that taking advantage of a child could have potentially irreversible harm on the child's psyche. Psychology does a commendable job explaining how and why such things can be damaging.

I stand by my previous comment that logic and reason comes a distant second to the conviction many of you must have that what Joe supports is wrong.

Then you stand by your irrationality. Your argument that "Pedophiles are evil" is no different than an argument used against homosexuality or pro school segregation. "Gays are an abomination" and "It's just wrong to put blacks and whites together" are also arguments from conviction that people firmly stood by.

[screwtape]

Discussion over.

Or not.