Gnu asks joe a question about adoption

[joebbowers]

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? 

Please let me know.

How about you stop trying to censor opinions you disagree with and let us have a conversation?

[joebbowers]

Clap all you like. Your hypothetical question was a false dichotomy anyway, as it excluded the legalization of CGI as an alternative course of action.

It's not a false dichotomy. I've already said that should be legal, but what if it doesn't have the same effect?

[screwtape]

Has this topic played out yet?  Has everyone had their fill of it?  Can I lock it? 

Please let me know.

How about you stop trying to censor opinions you disagree with and let us have a conversation?

First of all, Joe, I'm not trying to censor anything.  I have no problem with what you or anyone else here had to say about the topic.  It is what you have to say about each other that is the concern.

Secondly, if I wanted to censor you or anyone else in this thread, I would not have asked, it would already be locked.  From my perspective, the conversation has run its course and all that is left is name calling and bad feelings.  So I asked, are you all done yet?

A simple, yes or no would suffice.

[Emily]

Well, in the chance of this thread getting locked I would like to reply to some comments directed towards me regarding something I said. I will admit to misreading the question that Joe asked.

]If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

Can I answer it. No, I wouldn't support it. Because If there is at least one child in a video or picture that is distributed to millions of people that's one child who is being exploited for sexual arousal of someone else. Why would anyone support this?

I was thinking of legalizing the possession of child port with legalizing the production.

However, I have bronchitis and feel like shit so I don't really feel like rethinking my answer right now.

Just dropping by to make a quick comment.

[Gnu Ordure]

Clap all you like. Your hypothetical question was a false dichotomy anyway, as it excluded the legalization of CGI as an alternative course of action.

It's not a false dichotomy. I've already said that should be legal, but what if it doesn't have the same effect?

'What if'...? So it's a double hypothetical now?
 
I don't know what you're trying to prove here. As PianoDwarf said, ethical dilemmas which concern choosing the lesser of two evils are notoriously difficult. But in this case, it seems reasonable to obtain more data on the use of CGI; perhaps it will prove a viable alternative.

So a hypothetical question for you would be: if it were proven that legalizing the possession of CGI child pornography was equally effective in leading to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support the criminalization of possession of actual child pornography?

If not, why not?

[nogodsforme]

If pron goes all CGI and no real people are involved, I don't see any reason to criminalize it. It should be regulated so that kids or adults who don't want to see it can't easily stumble onto it, but nobody should go to jail for having it or producing it. That only goes for the CGI stuff.

As for the real stuff, I am not the most rational person to comment on it. You are basically asking me if I would be willing to submit my child to degrading abuse to save other children from the same. No. I am not that selfless. My atheist golden rule says if I would not want my kid to have to go through it, I can't say that some child in Thailand is worth less and should be sacrificed to save other kids. I cannot make that decision. I hope nobody ever really has to.

If the people who abused me had taken photos or films and I knew they were on the internet somewhere, I don't even have the words to describe what that would be like. And I am rarely at a loss for words. One of the people (and I use the term loosely)  was into a$$es and copro-you get the idea. And he was a stalker with a secret album full of hundreds of photos that he had taken of women's behinds without their knowledge.....I feel extremely lucky that cell phone and digital cameras and the internet had not been invented yet.
 
I once read a mystery story about a man who had been a victim of child abuse with photos, etc. He basically went mad trying to track down and destroy every extant copy of his abuse in print and on the web. That would probably be me. I would be an addict on the streets or in some kind of an institution if I was alive at all. I find it very hard to feel compassion for people who are deprived of their preferred entertainment because it involves a little thing like ruining the lives of children.

[joebbowers]

I've already said that should be legal, but what if it doesn't have the same effect?

'What if'...? So it's a double hypothetical now?

Solid research and real world results demonstrate the positive effect of legalizing child pornography, no such data exists regarding simulated child pornography.

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. As PianoDwarf said, ethical dilemmas which concern choosing the lesser of two evils are notoriously difficult. But in this case, it seems reasonable to obtain more data on the use of CGI; perhaps it will prove a viable alternative.

I absolutely agree, research is necessary, but it's likely that simulated porn does not have the same effect as the real thing. The question would then be if it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape to a significantly greater degree than the legalization of similated child pornography alone, would you support it?

So a hypothetical question for you would be: if it were proven that legalizing the possession of CGI child pornography was equally effective in leading to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support the criminalization of possession of actual child pornography?

If not, why not?

No. It's a thought crime.

[joebbowers]

You are basically asking me if I would be willing to submit my child to degrading abuse to save other children from the same.

False. We have clearly explained (repeatedly) that production will still be outlawed and punished. What is being proposed is to legalize only the possession of child pornography. There is a lot of content already out there. These are children that have already been abused. Nobody is suggesting creating new content for this purpose.

I find it very hard to feel compassion for people who are deprived of their preferred entertainment because it involves a little thing like ruining the lives of children.

You are ignoring the root of the question. Let me rephrase it. If banning child porn means more children get raped, do you support the ban?

[nogodsforme]

As I said before, I am not able to be rational about this. Maybe some places have reduced child abuse that way. But if I found my husband looking at such stuff, I would not be thinking, "Whew, that's a relief! Now he is less likely to attack our daughter." I would be thinking, "Hmmmm. Which divorce lawyer would allow him the least access to our daughter."

It could be that Japan has less violence against children because they have more lenient laws on "dirty" pictures. Or it could be that Japanese men who want to rape children look at the pictures in Japan and then do it in Thailand and leave Japanese kids alone. Hard to say. So much abuse is not reported, even in places like the US.

It is a little like people who supposedly thought that taking a photo stole your soul.  I believe that looking at a child being raped steals that child's soul. Not rational. But there it is.

[Just checking]

There is a lot of content already out there.

No-body will question your authority on this, I'm sure.

You are ignoring the root of the question. Let me rephrase it. If banning child porn means more children get raped, do you support the ban?

The fact that the child porn might be pre-existing in no way lessesns the culpability of those who view it or possess it. The only reason it exists at all is because terrible people have committed disgusting acts upon a helpless child. And they have done so knowing that there are people in the world who are willing to purchase it, knowing full well that a child was irrepairably damaged in the process. It doesn't matter how many internet domains it has passed through before it reached you, it doesn't matter how many drops of semen have spilled onto the face of the 6 or 7 year old girl with scared eyes looking up at you from the magazine which now lies open a few feet in front of your own penis. You are part of a horrible, despicable process.

I have no idea how credible these studies are which suggest that child rape is reduced by possession of child pornography. I strongly suspect that they're scientifically as weak as piss. But I don't think it really matters, because you don't seem to realise that allowing men to indulge their twisted fantasies of sticking their dicks inside babies, toddlers and pre-teens is ultimately going to harm society as a whole in a horrifying way.

You also seem to be forgetting that production of this horrible stuff is illegal, yet as you yourself boast, quite plentiful. How much more when it isn't even illegal to own it.

You're a sad, sad person, quite obviously dis-honest and my only real hope is that you someday, somehow wake up and realise it and get some help.

My language in this post has been disgusting. It will probably disgust many people. I hope it does. It's a disgusting subject, and I wish the moderators would close it down.

MM

[joebbowers]

As I said before, I am not able to be rational about this. Maybe some places have reduced child abuse that way. But if I found my husband looking at such stuff, I would not be thinking, "Whew, that's a relief! Now he is less likely to attack our daughter." I would be thinking, "Hmmmm. Which divorce lawyer would allow him the least access to our daughter."

You're right, that isn't rational. Imagine your daughter were all grown up, and you found your husband looking at porn of adult women. Or imagine you had a son the same age as your daughter, and you found him looking at porn of girls his own age. Would you have the same reaction? Pedophile or not, having a family member that happens to belong to whatever age group you're attracted to doesn't logically follow to abuse.

It could be that Japan has less violence against children because they have more lenient laws on "dirty" pictures. Or it could be that Japanese men who want to rape children look at the pictures in Japan and then do it in Thailand and leave Japanese kids alone. Hard to say. So much abuse is not reported, even in places like the US.

Japan legalized possession of child pornography and sexual abuse cases against children dropped significantly. The same thing happened in Denmark. The same thing happened in the Czech Republic. Three different nations with different cultures, different histories, different political situations, all experienced the same results.

To suggest that men from three different nations would suddenly stop abusing their own children and head to Thailand at exactly the same time their home countries legalized possession of child porn is simply coincidence is pure wild speculation based on absolutely nothing. You are trying to discredit the studies I cited without even reading them. This proves you have an emotional bias and are unwilling to consider data that conflicts with your argument.

It is a little like people who supposedly thought that taking a photo stole your soul.  I believe that looking at a child being raped steals that child's soul. Not rational. But there it is.

People keep throwing the word rape around. Let's be clear that we're talking about statutory rape, which is consensual sex with a minor. We are not talking about a lack of consent. That's rape. We are talking about a lack of informed consent. I think anyone who has been raped can tell you there is a big difference between consensual sex and rape. We are not talking about violent forced penetration, tears streaming down the face, knife to the throat rape. We are talking about a willing sexual act that is not very different from what most people are used to.

[nogodsforme]

I already said I was not rational on this topic.

If you think that rape has to involve a knife to the throat, especially when you are dealing with a child, I think I am done here. Some of the most psychotically awful sexual abuse is when the perpetrator convinces the child that it is "consensual" and that the child actually wanted it. As long as there was no knife to the throat.

I knew a family of kids (three girls, two boys) in the projects who had been abused this way for years. It was creepy because these kids would do anything an adult asked them to do. No matter how strange. If you told them to crawl on the floor and lick your shoe, they would. The will to resist had been taken from them.

The infant in the family had failure to thrive. It was as if he knew what awaited him and he just did not want to live. The older boy was the angriest 4-year old I had ever seen--he could not even be left in a room alone with another child--but was completely submissive to adults. The oldest girl was pregnant by age 14. I'm sure what the mother's string of boyfriends had done to those kids was all very consensual.

It may take weeks or even months of seductive grooming and subtle pressure to wear down the child's will to resist and insinuate himself into their life. Gifts, bribes, threats, lies, tricks, whatever it takes. And the child will take on the blame, the guilt, the disgust, the shame, the self-hatred etc. and carry it for the rest of their life.

Predators are so very good at this. No tears, no violence, no knife to the throat needed. The child finally "consents" because it seems inevitable and the predator makes it seem like it makes perfect sense. The best predators maintain that the child was actually the instigator.  The perp may even let the child choose the activity on a particular occasion.

Like a 10-11-12 year old would think up that on their own and talk the adult into doing it! And yes, by age 16 they will understand all the consequences of being filmed doing stuff like this. 

Dream on.

[joebbowers]

I already said I was not rational on this topic.

If you think that rape has to involve a knife to the throat, especially when you are dealing with a child, I think I am done here. Some of the most psychotically awful sexual abuse is when the perpetrator convinces the child that it is "consensual" and that the child actually wanted it. As long as there was no knife to the throat.

I did not say rape requires a knife to the throat, I am making a distinction between different kinds of rape. What you're describing is one kind.

Minors who understand the consequences and want to engage in sexual activity.
Minors who don't understand the consequences and want to engage in sexual activity.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity but do not resist.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity and resist.

I think it's an abuse of the English language to call the first two rape. Anyone who has been forcibly raped can explain the difference between consensual sex and rape. I think a large portion of the 'damage' that results here is all the people repeatedly telling the child that they are a victim, that they were abused, that they were taken advantage of. You hear that enough times and it becomes the truth, whether it was or not. I would rename them to Second degree consensual sex with a minor and First degree consensual sex with a minor. First degree being the more serious offense in cases where the minor did not understand the consequences of her behavior.

The third is what you're describing. I would call this statutory rape.
The last one is simply rape.

The infant in the family had failure to thrive. It was as if he knew what awaited him and he just did not want to live.

This sure sounds awful, but what qualifies you to make that diagnosis, particularly as to it's cause?

Predators are so very good at this. No tears, no violence, no knife to the throat needed. The child finally "consents" because it seems inevitable and the predator makes it seem like it makes perfect sense.

Do you think all cases of adult-minor sex are as you've described?

And yes, by age 16 they will understand all the consequences of being filmed doing stuff like this. 

Dream on.

Yet again I must remind you that nobody is suggesting that we legalize the production of child porn. You do understand that right? I'm saying that once it's already been made, it could be used to prevent further abuse. This claim is backed up by solid science and real world examples.

[joebbowers]

The fact that the child porn might be pre-existing in no way lessesns the culpability of those who view it or possess it.

That it an opinion, not a fact, but let's read on to see how you support it.

The only reason it exists at all is because terrible people have committed disgusting acts upon a helpless child.

I could argue against your use of the words terrible, disgusting, and helpless in describing the majority of child porn, but for the sake of argument let's assume you are describing the worst kind and that you've used those words appropriately. This is still an argument against production, not possession.

And they have done so knowing that there are people in the world who are willing to purchase it...

This is one of the most common arguments about legalizing child porn and it is a complete falsehood. Most child porn is traded in a gift economy. It is not sold. I've also specifically stated that the purchase of child porn should remain illegal specifically to address this concern.

...knowing full well that a child was irrepairably damaged in the process.

False. Many pedophiles do not believe that the relationship is harmful to the child. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant. Your claim that they know full well is false.

Additionally, you have nothing to support your claim that all children used in child porn are irrepairably damaged in the process, or even a majority. Irrepairably was your word, not mine. Don't let your use of hyperbole paint you into a corner.

It doesn't matter how many internet domains it has passed through before it reached you, it doesn't matter how many drops of semen have spilled onto the face of the 6 or 7 year old girl with scared eyes looking up at you from the magazine which now lies open a few feet in front of your own penis. You are part of a horrible, despicable process.

No, actually, anonymous downloaders are not part of the process. They provide no income, no support, no feedback of any kind. As colorful as that was, you do not present any argument to demonstrate how merely possessing and viewing it can harm the child. By your logic simply watching the videos of the World Trade Center attack makes us terrorists.

I have no idea how credible these studies are which suggest that child rape is reduced by possession of child pornography. I strongly suspect that they're scientifically as weak as piss.

The fact that you refuse to read them tells me you're not actually interested in protecting children, but protecting the idea of protecting children. If more children get raped, so be it, your conscience is clear, right? What academic credentials do you possess that qualify you to declare these studies invalid without even reading them?

But I don't think it really matters, because you don't seem to realise that allowing men to indulge their twisted fantasies of sticking their dicks inside babies, toddlers and pre-teens is ultimately going to harm society as a whole in a horrifying way.

Not only do you provide no explaination or evidence for this claim, you don't even address the fact that in Japan, Denmark, and the Czech Republic,  allowing men to indulge their twisted fantasies of sticking their dicks inside babies, toddlers and pre-teens resulted in a significant drop in child sex abuse cases.

You also seem to be forgetting that production of this horrible stuff is illegal, yet as you yourself boast, quite plentiful. How much more when it isn't even illegal to own it.

Banning it actually leads to more people producing it as they can't get it anywhere else they decide to shoot it themselves. Consider that if it were legal it would be easier to access. That easy access would lead more potential abusers to use it as an outlet for their sexual energy instead of having sex with real children and recording it. After all, the reason they record it is to have it in order to use later, as an outlet for their sexual energy.

You're suggesting that legalization would lead to increased production, but... no source, no evidence or argument? Just your opinion. Whereas I have years of research and real world results to back up my claims. Oh that's right you didn't bother reading any of it.

You're a sad, sad person,

You obviously don't know me at all. I'm an incredibly happy guy.

quite obviously dis-honest

This from the guy who speaks only in opinions, laced with hyperbole, gives no evidence for any of his claims, and refuses to read evidence that disagrees with his opinion.

and my only real hope is that you someday, somehow wake up and realise it and get some help.

My idea would mean a significant reduction in child sex abuse. It's you who should wake up.

My language in this post has been disgusting. It will probably disgust many people. I hope it does. It's a disgusting subject, and I wish the moderators would close it down.

Yes, silence those that disagree with you.

[Quesi]

I find it very hard to feel compassion for people who are deprived of their preferred entertainment because it involves a little thing like ruining the lives of children.

You are ignoring the root of the question. Let me rephrase it. If banning child porn means more children get raped, do you support the ban?

YOU are missing the point Joe.  Nogodsforme described being sexually victimized as a child, by someone who was a successful collector of pornography featuring his particular fetish. 

Your magic bullet did not work for her.

You can keep saying it Joe.  And I know that you think if you keep saying it, it will come true. But the scientists and the medical experts and the psychiatrists and the psychologists and the people who are invested in preventing child sexual abuse do not think that increased access to pornography will reduce or prevent child abuse. 

The Mayo Clinic study looked at a whole bunch of strategies that have attempted to treat pedophilia.  A whole bunch.  Now I know that you think that you know more than all of these professionals who have spent their careers addressing the issue.  But you don't. 


No treatment for pedophilia is effective unless the pedophile is willing to engage in the treatment. Individuals can offend again while in active psychotherapy, while receiving pharmacologic treatment, and even after castration (17). Currently, much of the focus of pedophilic treatment is on stopping further offenses against children rather than altering the pedophile's sexual orientation toward children. Schober et al. (34) found that individuals still showed sexual interest in children, as measured by the AASI, even after a year of combined psychotherapy and pharmacotherapy, whereas the pedophiles' self-reported frequency of urges and masturbation had decreased. These findings indicate that the urges can be managed, but the core attraction does not change (34, 64). Other interventions designed to manage these pedophilic urges include careful forensic and therapeutic monitoring and reporting, use of testosterone-lowering medications, use of SSRIs, and surgical castration (34, 64).

A popular treatment option is testosterone suppression by pharmacologic means (eg, antiandrogenic therapy or chemical castration). We are aware of only one state (Texas) that will pay for physical castration of sexual offenders but not for long-term chemical castration (85). Although physical castration seems definitive in preventing repeated sexual offenses, some physically castrated pedophiles have restored their potency by taking exogenous testosterone and then abused again (17). Chemical castration has many advantages over physical castration. It requires follow-up visits, continuous monitoring, and psychiatric reevaluation to continue the medication and is reversible for health reasons (64). Agents such as medroxyprogesterone acetate, leuprolide acetate, cyproterone acetate, luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists have all been studied as forms of treatment and all work by suppressing testosterone levels (5, 14, 34, 64, 86) (Table 4). Depending on the mechanism of action of the agent used, it can take from 3 to 10 months before one sees a decrease in sexual desire (64). Medroxyprogesterone acetate, leuprolide acetate, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists have been shown to decrease both deviant and nondeviant sexual drives and behaviors in paraphilic individuals (5, 14,34, 64, 86). Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists are becoming the standard of treatment because they have fewer adverse effects and improved efficacy over the older treatments such as medroxyprogesterone acetate (7, 34, 43, 64). Reduced libido also seems to make some offenders more responsive to psychotherapy (5). A drawback to hormone therapy vs castration is its annual cost, which can range from $5000 to $20,000 a year (34, 87).

Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors represent a non-hormonal treatment that has been suggested for paraphilias in general and specifically for pedophilia (7, 17, 22, 34, 64, 76, 86). Currently, no blinded placebo-controlled trials have shown that SSRIs are effective for the treatment of pedophilia; however, open-label trials and case reports suggest that SSRIs may be helpful for treating pedophilia (7, 17, 22, 34). These medications can provide a helpful adjunct to structured regulated surveillance, psychotherapy, and hormonal treatment. Part of the basis for the use of an SSRI is the neuropsychiatric data that show serotonin abnormalities and impulse control problems in some pedophiles. These findings are similar to those found in patients with OCD, who respond to SSRIs (22, 34, 44). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors seem to lessen the sexual ruminations and increased sexual urges that pedophiles report related to situational stress and internal discord (7). The diminished sexual drive produced by SSRIs, which is usually perceived as an adverse effect of the medication, may be beneficial for pedophiles (7).

Medications that may be used in the future to treat pedophiles include topiramate and other medications that modulate the voltage-dependent sodium or calcium channel potentiation of ?-aminobutyric acid neurotransmission and/or block kainite/?-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionate glutamate receptors (88—90). Topiramate has been shown to be useful in treating addictions such as gambling, kleptomania, binge eating, and substance use (88—90). Although no prospective clinical trials have documented its effectiveness in pedophiles, several case reports have recently described topiramate's effectiveness in reducing or stopping unwanted sexual behaviors in paraphilic and nonparaphilic (eg, prostitutes, compulsive viewers of general pornography, patients with compulsive masturbation) patients. Dosing has ranged from 50 to 200 mg. Two to 6 weeks are required before decreases in driven sexual behavior occur (88—90). Although no clear mechanism of action has been identified, theories that have been proposed to explain topiramate's mechanism of action include a decrease of dopamine release in the midbrain and direct effects on the ?-aminobutyric activity in the nucleus accumbens (88).

Psychotherapy is an important aspect of treatment, although debate exists concerning its overall effectiveness for long-term prevention of new offenses (47, 91—93). Psychotherapy can be individual, group based, or, most commonly, a combination of the two. The general strategy toward psychotherapy with pedophiles is a cognitive behavioral approach (addressing their distortions and denial) combined with empathy training, sexual impulse control training, relapse prevention, and biofeedback (7, 17, 53, 94, 95). Several studies have demonstrated that the best outcomes in preventing repeat offenses against children occur when pharmacological agents and psychotherapy are used together (34). A controversial approach is the use of aversion conditioning and masturbatory reconditioning to change the individual's sexual orientation away from children. Similar techniques were used with homosexual adults in the middle to late 20th century. Although some clinicians claimed to be able to reorient homosexual people to heterosexuality and to decrease the pleasure reward cycle of pedophiles with these techniques, such methods are no longer used at reputable treatment centers (7, 43).
 
(snip)

Pedophilia is a complex, often compulsive, psychosexual disorder with profound implications for the abused child, perpetrator, and community. It is important for physicians to understand the various types of pedophiles, the profile of the abused children, and the offenders' responses to treatment and their risk for repeated offense. The combination of pharmacologic and behavioral treatment coupled with close legal supervision appears to help reduce the risk of repeated offense. However, the interventions do not change the pedophile's basic sexual orientation toward children. Further research is needed to better identify clinically significant differences among the different types of pedophiles. Such knowledge, it is hoped, will result in better treatments, improved allocation of medical and legal resources, and a reduction in the number of abused children.

http://focus.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=53036

[joebbowers]

YOU are missing the point Joe.  Nogodsforme described being sexually victimized as a child, by someone who was a successful collector of pornography featuring his particular fetish. 

Your magic bullet did not work for her.

What magic bullet? Did I say eliminate child sex abuse or reduce? I'm pretty sure I said reduce. Just as increased access to pornography reduces incidents of rape, it does not eliminate rape entirely.

The fact that a pedophile who viewed child pornography abused a child is no more significant than saying a man who viewed porn committed rape. You're suggesting a link that is not supported by evidence, and in fact the evidence points the other way.

You can keep saying it Joe.  And I know that you think if you keep saying it, it will come true. But the scientists and the medical experts and the psychiatrists and the psychologists and the people who are invested in preventing child sexual abuse do not think that increased access to pornography will reduce or prevent child abuse.

You're making this claim without any evidence of course, but ignoring that, have you considered that they are either too rooted in their misconceptions to even consider it, or too afraid of losing their jobs to even suggest it? Can you find me an expert who has read the evidence and has a solid argument against it based on research and real-world results? And by the way, the studies I cited were written by scientists and medical experts and psychiatrists and psychologists and people who are invested in preventing child sexual abuse.

That entire wall of text that you copied-and-pasted without a single original thought of your own only mentioned pornography one time, and not in any context that addresses it's effect on sating sexual desire. It was completely irrelevant. What exactly did you think it proved? How did it refute my argument?

Obviously I can't make you read the studies that support my idea, or even make you recognize the flaws in the studies you keep citing, or help you understand how they don't even make the points you think they're making. So let's pretend this is a hypothetical question.

If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

[Quesi]

If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

If it were proven that your castration would lead to less victimization of children, would you support it? 

[Quesi]

When YOUR victimization becomes the theoretical solution to a problem, is that acceptable? 

[Anfauglir]

Joe, I'm curious; when you adopted your daughters, did you tell the adoption authorities that you're a paedophile?

There were no adoption authorities. One is my wife's daughter from a previous relationship, the other was abandoned by her parents. I don't mean put up for adoption I mean dumped on the streets. My wife took her in when she was still a baby.

If we had gone through the proper adoption channels and someone did ask me, I would say no, for two reasons. First, it is a stupid question based on ignorance and prejudice. It would be the same as denying gay men the opportunity to adopt little boys, or denying lesbians the opportunity to adopt little girls. While a think a lot of people think this should be the rule, I think many realize that would be ridiculous.

Just out of curiosity Joe - what are your wife's thoughts about this thread?  Would she be willing to sign up to WWGHA to participate in this conversation?

[Quesi]

Just out of curiosity Joe - what are your wife's thoughts about this thread?  Would she be willing to sign up to WWGHA to participate in this conversation?

Great question.  I'd be very interested in hearing her perspective.

And I would love to hear about how, in the absence of any "adoption authorities," in an exceptionally bureaucratic communist country, this abandoned child managed to get a birth certificate.  Which Joe claims she has. 

There is too much that doesn't make sense. 

[Gnu Ordure]

I don't know what you're trying to prove here. As PianoDwarf said, ethical dilemmas which concern choosing the lesser of two evils are notoriously difficult. But in this case, it seems reasonable to obtain more data on the use of CGI; perhaps it will prove a viable alternative.

I absolutely agree, research is necessary,

And is ongoing; so it would be sensible to wait and see what transpires.

but it's likely that simulated porn does not have the same effect as the real thing.

What do you base that claim on?

The question would then be if it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape to a significantly greater degree than the legalization of similated child pornography alone, would you support it?

I've already given reasons why possession should be criminal. But i think we should do more research into CGI first, and cross that bridge when we come to it.

So a hypothetical question for you would be: if it were proven that legalizing the possession of CGI child pornography was equally effective in leading to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support the criminalization of possession of actual child pornography?

If not, why not?

No. It's a thought crime.

So, even if we were to demonstrate that legalizing possession of real child-porn was unnecessary because of the beneficial effects of CGI child-porn, you wouldn't change your position at all.

So this digression is a complete waste of our time. 


PS Tomorrow I'm going away for a week, so I'm going to have to leave these discussions - unless I can access the web while I'm away, which I won't know until I get there.

[Kimberly]

Minors who understand the consequences and want to engage in sexual activity.
Minors who don't understand the consequences and want to engage in sexual activity.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity but do not resist.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity and resist.

<cut>
The third is what you're describing. I would call this statutory rape.

I know I said I was done with this topic but this is WRONG! I'm sorry but the third is not "statutory" rape.

Webster:

enacted, created, or regulated by statute <a statutory age limit>

"statutory" rape is when a minor CONSENTS to sex with an adult. Simply not resisting doesn't ALWAYS mean consent was given. Fear could easily justify the lack of resistance.

I sincerely hope you are misspeaking here Joe.

[joebbowers]

If it were proven that legalizing the possession of child pornography lead to fewer cases of child abuse and rape, would you support it?

If it were proven that your castration would lead to less victimization of children, would you support it?

Do you have any proof, or indeed any shred of evidence to suggest that I have ever victimized a child? You're just pulling bullshit accusations out of thin air to avoid answering the question. Don't worry, you won't get smited for it. I predict you'll probably get upvoted for one of the most offensive and baseless accusations ever posted on this forum.

When YOUR victimization becomes the theoretical solution to a problem, is that acceptable?

Let's compare apples to apples, shall we? If making it legal to download and view videos of me somehow meant that fewer children would get raped, I would certainly agree, particularly as I wouldn't know who, when, or indeed if anyone was watching them at all. Now, go ahead and move the goalpost.

Oh, and you're dodging again.

[Seppuku]

Question. What would legalising possession do that legalising the production of CGI versions. CGI can be pretty realistic and can fill every niche of pornography out there. Take the demand away from real kiddie porn and put it into CGI. Why does the child have to be real?

Just because the child has already been abused, it doesn't necessarily mean the child (or even when grown up) will like the idea of people staring at them being sexually abused after the events. The person may or may not know, but probably a good chance they do (they'll know they've been filmed or had pictures taken), but basically there'd be a picture of them they do not want distributed around the internet and there's nothing they could do about it. They could sue nobody, they could not call for it to be taken down and it just means more distress. For example, the man nogodsforme mentioned. The suffering doesn't stop at the abuse. Interesting I could ask for my picture to be taken down from anywhere I've not agreed to if I want because of my data protection rights, but legalisation of posession child porn? I couldn't do that if I was a victim of it.


Your answer to the problem would violate data protection laws. CGI Porn, wouldn't.

Do you have any proof, or indeed any shred of evidence to suggest that I have ever victimized a child? You're just pulling bullshit accusations out of thin air to avoid answering the question. Don't worry, you won't get smited for it. I predict you'll probably get upvoted for one of the most offensive and baseless accusations ever posted on this forum.

Actually, from I can tell, what Quesi is trying to do is put turn the question around. What if abuse to you (and I guess, by proxy, other pedophiles) meant we saw less victimisation of children, would you accept it? Basically, would you be happy if your rights were infringed to reduce child abuse? I guess what Quesi is implying is that your solution would have other people's rights infringed to reduce child abuse. I think it's easier to say it's okay when it's somebody else, but harder when it's you. You may never hard a child and it may never apply to you, but then if I was an abused child and my picture was floating around the internet, it could be my picture (or my abuse) has no direct effect on how children are abused, but the pictures as a whole would. (Like as if we castrated pedophiles as a whole).

At least this is how I read it. There's no actual accusations in the question, there is the possibility she was implying something, but I see nothing to suggest that she was, so I think the 'accusation' is something you've inferred.

[joebbowers]

but it's likely that simulated porn does not have the same effect as the real thing.

What do you base that claim on?

1. Market trends. Do just as many people buy animated porn as live action porn? No. Stands to reason that they're not getting the same results from the fake stuff.
2. Personal experience. I am not as satisfied by animated porn as live action porn. Are you? Anyone here feel free to answer that.
3. [urlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley]The uncanny valley[/url]

I've already given reasons why possession should be criminal. But i think we should do more research into CGI first, and cross that bridge when we come to it.

And until then, more kids get abused while a proven solution is already available. Meanwhile in Japan, Denmark, and many other places, children sleep safely.

So, even if we were to demonstrate that legalizing possession of real child-porn was unnecessary because of the beneficial effects of CGI child-porn, you wouldn't change your position at all.

So this digression is a complete waste of our time.

Current research doesn't support that, that is purely hypothetical conjecture on your part. Advances in CGI rendering will need to be achieved in order to overcome the uncanny valley problem. Nevertheless, if somehow it turned out to be true, I'd still be against throwing people in jail who haven't harmed anyone just because they might, based solely on their sexual orientation.

Is this really unreasonable? At one point you yourself agreed with decriminalization, (which is not the same as legalization, but would punish offenders with a fine instead of jail time.)

[One Above All]

I am not as satisfied by animated porn as live action porn. Are you? Anyone here feel free to answer that.

*raises hand*
I'm perfectly satisfied with animated porn. Fact: it makes up the bulk of my porn.

[joebbowers]

Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity but do not resist.
Minors who don't want to engage in sexual activity and resist.
<cut>
The third is what you're describing. I would call this statutory rape.

I know I said I was done with this topic but this is WRONG! I'm sorry but the third is not "statutory" rape.

Webster:

enacted, created, or regulated by statute <a statutory age limit>

"statutory" rape is when a minor CONSENTS to sex with an adult. Simply not resisting doesn't ALWAYS mean consent was given. Fear could easily justify the lack of resistance.

I sincerely hope you are misspeaking here Joe.

You simply looked up the word statutory. Let me help you:

From duhaime.org (legal dictionary)
Statutory Rape - A statutory definition of rape which allows for conviction regardless of the consent, such as with a minor.

From dictionary.com
Statutory rape - sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different states.

From wordiq.com Statury Rape - Definition

Some individuals, such as minors and the incapacitated, are considered unable to give consent, and therefore to have sex with them is always rape. The age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent is the age of consent, set differently by each state but usually between 13 and 18. Rape that violates age-of-consent law but is neither violent nor physically coerced is described as statutory rape, usually a legally-recognized category.

You're mistaken. Statutory rape does not mean it was consensual as you stated. It simply refers to all sex with a minor under the age of consent, short of forcible rape. Therefore, as I said, the first three are all considered statutory rape. The third most closely fits the definition here, while the 4th is just plain rape.

[Seppuku]

1. Market trends. Do just as many people buy animated porn as live action porn? No. Stands to reason that they're not getting the same results from the fake stuff.

Which raises the question, if live action porn were illegal and animated porn legal would this change? I'm sure many who do not wish to end up on a sex offender register would prefer the legal option. There's no risk. Would you not be willing to try animated porn if that were the situation?

Also, as far as CG porn goes, are we talking about realistic looking stuff or cartoon porn (like Hentai)?

I suspect CG porn could potentially be a lot cheaper. It wouldn't be very hard to use software like Daz Studio or Poser, which are 3D animation tools that come with premade, modifiable people models and they had a huge online store containing a lot of 3D content to use in your scenes. It's meant to make CG quick, cheap and easy. Useful for many types of businesses out there. Heck Daz Studio is going for free at the moment, though most of the content isn't. All they'd need to do is develop an 'adult' version of these base meshes to add genitals. It's possible to create photorealistic renders in Daz. They may not 100% real, but would be pretty close.

[Timtheskeptic]

2. Personal experience. I am not as satisfied by animated porn as live action porn. Are you? Anyone here feel free to answer that.

I can get off with animation just fine. Especially with bisexual porn!