As much as I hate pedofiles...

[rvg]

There are punitive legal measures and preventative legal measures. It's not actually wrong to swear on tv for example, we've just decided that our standards are higher than that and so we have to fine people to keep them that way.

Yeah, but swearing on TV is not criminal behavior. If you swear on TV, FCC might fine the network, but you personally won't be liable for anything.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nah, our government isn't insidious. Corruption is usually clumsy and amateurish. The media has an obsession with showing the government as insidious because of their watergate-mythology and the fact that their business model generally precludes just saying that the government is being honest and that in this case you could have ignored the media and just listened to the government. I agree with people taking things on a case by case basis but then they can't invoke a broad principle and leave it at that.

It's not so much that government as a whole is insideous. It's that agents within it are, and they abuse the system to achieve insideous goals. To be fair to the media, while it does a terrible job, we still find ourselves invading a country under what turned out to be false pretenses some 30+ years after the Gulf of Tonkin.I see nothing wrong with invoking a principle if the underlying argument is that for this specific case, there is no circumstance that calls for overriding said principle.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eh, I agree we should make them fear having it but I disagree with making them fear arrest just for having the stuff, like I said, stick em on a list of first contacts for the police to only open and use in molestation cases and be done with it.

See my belief for what makes child porn so heinous is that it is prolificating a horrendous act, the demand for child porn creates production and production is basically taking images of molesting children, by posessing CP you are creating demand so you might as well be saying "I want children to be molested". As for drawn stuff, well, to make it you dont need kids, it's imagination made by a pen or a piece of software, as distasteful as that production is it doesnt directly hurt someone. Also the idea that a piece of fiction can make someone do something heinous kinda doesnt hold up to me as people have made the same trash argument for video games making people killers.

Drawn CP is distasteful but it shouldnt be illegal because it doesn't hurt anyone.

Before or after I killed myself?

I think you hit the nail on the head - production involves abuse.

Having said that, the issue of attraction and why it is wrong is a lot more complex.

Asthetically - what we are talking about is an attraction to someone who exhibits child-like traits, small size, fine hair and soft skin, for a woman underdeveloped breasts and narrow hips, for a man a small penis and little muscle development.

Well, hang on a sec - lots of young women can appear child like, I've known women who are small breasted and one who despite being very physically developed had the face of a 12 year old at 21 and was lucky enough to have the the skin of a newborn.

As to men - seen an Eastern RPG recently? The boys in that look like 12 year olds with (nominally) adult bodies.

So this can't really be about asthetics, and building on what Hax said - I believe there was a case of a guy entering Canada who had pictures of his 20-year old girlfried on his laptop. She was deemed to look no older than 16, he was arrested.

On the other hand - the emotional/mental side of paedophilia is about a profoundly asymetrical relationship where the adult derives sexual satisfaction a child, usually one they are loco in parentis.

So I suppose with these cartoons the question is what they are presenting - a fantasy of sexually abusing children, or sexually aware women who happen to have teenage bodies and claim to be 13.

For anyone who thinks the latter should be illegal - you would have to arrest every girl who has ever worn a Catholic School Girl outfit to a party, or for her boyfriend.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yeah, but swearing on TV is not criminal behavior. If you swear on TV, FCC might fine the network, but you personally won't be liable for anything.

What difference does that make? We are still using legal punishments to enforce decency, without these arguments about harm and such.

It's not so much that government as a whole is insideous. It's that agents within it are, and they abuse the system to achieve insideous goals. To be fair to the media, while it does a terrible job, we still find ourselves invading a country under what turned out to be false pretenses some 30+ years after the Gulf of Tonkin.I see nothing wrong with invoking a principle if the underlying argument is that for this specific case, there is no circumstance that calls for overriding said principle.

The principle should be underlying and the argument that there is no overriding circumstance should be overlying.

But I think it's a mistake to look at it in terms of overriding circumstances in the first place. We are balancing two very important things, not finding miscellaneous exceptions to one important thing.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I think you hit the nail on the head - production involves abuse.

Having said that, the issue of attraction and why it is wrong is a lot more complex.

Asthetically - what we are talking about is an attraction to someone who exhibits child-like traits, small size, fine hair and soft skin, for a woman underdeveloped breasts and narrow hips, for a man a small penis and little muscle development.

Well, hang on a sec - lots of young women can appear child like, I've known women who are small breasted and one who despite being very physically developed had the face of a 12 year old at 21 and was lucky enough to have the the skin of a newborn.

As to men - seen an Eastern RPG recently? The boys in that look like 12 year olds with (nominally) adult bodies.

So this can't really be about asthetics, and building on what Hax said - I believe there was a case of a guy entering Canada who had pictures of his 20-year old girlfried on his laptop. She was deemed to look no older than 16, he was arrested.

On the other hand - the emotional/mental side of paedophilia is about a profoundly asymetrical relationship where the adult derives sexual satisfaction a child, usually one they are loco in parentis.

So I suppose with these cartoons the question is what they are presenting - a fantasy of sexually abusing children, or sexually aware women who happen to have teenage bodies and claim to be 13.

For anyone who thinks the latter should be illegal - you would have to arrest every girl who has ever worn a Catholic School Girl outfit to a party, or for her boyfriend.

Girls who dress up in school girl outfits don't act 13 anymore than girls who dress up like angels act like angels.

I'm skeptical of the idea that there are regular people who like a truly childish look, and not just youthful which we are overly obsessed with. Small breasted doesn't make a woman look childish.

[rvg]

What difference does that make? We are still using legal punishments to enforce decency, without these arguments about harm and such.

There's a huge difference between administrative and criminal punishments. Besides, the FCC rules do not extend to premium networks like HBO and such. People on those networks can and do swear like sailors.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There's a huge difference between administrative and criminal punishments. Besides, the FCC rules do not extend to premium networks like HBO and such. People on those networks can and do swear like sailors.

I don't see any difference for our purposes, what is it?

[rvg]

I don't see any difference for our purposes, what is it?

The difference is that non-criminal expression does not get banned. It can be restricted, but not eliminated.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Girls who dress up in school girl outfits don't act 13 anymore than girls who dress up like angels act like angels.

I'm skeptical of the idea that there are regular people who like a truly childish look, and not just youthful which we are overly obsessed with. Small breasted doesn't make a woman look childish.

The point is, how they act defines whether or not they are legitimate objects of desire - not how they look.

This is why cartoons like this can be a grey area.

There's also a difference between statutory rape and child molestation/paedophilia.

I'm 25 - let's assume I'm not me, that I go to clubs and sleep with girls on a regular basis. If one morning I wake up to discover the girl in question was not 18, as I thought through the drunken haze, but actually 14, does that make me a paedophile?

If I still find her sexually attractive the next morning - am I a paedo then?

Let's say she did some awsome things last night and I'm considering sleeping with her again?

Does it become paedophilia simply because I can't have an adult relationship with her?

Who actually took advantage of who here?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The difference is that non-criminal expression does not get banned. It can be restricted, but not eliminated.

eugh, if it was banned then it would be criminal expression by definition wouldn't it? This talk doesn't make any sense to me. If we make it illegal then it's criminal. The question is whether we should make it illegal or not. It can be criminal even if children aren't harmed in the making of it because it can be illegal even if children aren't harmed in the making of it.

It's better to work against child porn even in drawings, and we can make that argument only relying on the fact that it's wrong for pedophiles to look at child porn even in drawing form. We're enforcing morality by law, nothing extraordinary about it even though we often choose not to do so. There are many kinds of porn that are banned.

And why we are assuming that pornography consumption doesn't affect behavior is beyond me. I think people are confused be the name "social science" and have weird ideas about whether clear cut observational evidence should be easily available.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The point is, how they act defines whether or not they are legitimate objects of desire - not how they look.

This is why cartoons like this can be a grey area.

But it's the other way around. People are legitimate objects of desire based on how they act despite how they look (although again I don't think there are any non-genetic freak adults who really look childish). So the cartoons aren't a grey area because, in fantasy world where people are looking for their ideal, it will naturally be adult for regular people. Besides there's no reason to dancing around grey areas when it comes to banning porn unless your legal penalties are too harsh.

There's also a difference between statutory rape and child molestation/paedophilia.

I'm 25 - let's assume I'm not me, that I go to clubs and sleep with girls on a regular basis. If one morning I wake up to discover the girl in question was not 18, as I thought through the drunken haze, but actually 14, does that make me a paedophile?

It makes you durnk

If I still find her sexually attractive the next morning - am I a paedo then?

Yes?????

[a completely inoffensive name]

The principle should be underlying and the argument that there is no overriding circumstance should be overlying.

What difference does it make which order we place them?

But I think it's a mistake to look at it in terms of overriding circumstances in the first place. We are balancing two very important things, not finding miscellaneous exceptions to one important thing.

But it comes down to circumstances no matter which path you take. If you decide on a case by case basis you either begin with the facts of the situation and you work from those to reach some sort of "big statement" that essentially is your justification for how these facts should play out. Or you do it the other way around an you start with the big statement and then dictate how these facts fit into it.

When you frame it as a balancing act, you are implying that the two things which need balancing are:

A. Able to be quantified and given an exchange ratio. How many security points is this in exchange for a few less freedom points due to restricting such drawings?
B. That the two things that are being balanced are inherently opposed in each other. Namely freedom vs security. When it is not always so.

To me it seems as if your view is the more black and white one, and thus is less suitable to adequately make judgments of reality off of.

[rvg]

It's better to work against child porn even in drawings, and we can make that argument only relying on the fact that it's wrong for pedophiles to look at child porn even in drawing form. We're enforcing morality by law, nothing extraordinary about it even though we often choose not to do so. There are many kinds of porn that are banned.

Logical, but very dangerous. This is a very-very slippery slope.

And why we are assuming that pornography consumption doesn't affect behavior is beyond me. I think people are confused be the name "social science" and have weird ideas about whether clear cut observational evidence should be easily available.

Whether or not porn can affect behavior shouldn't matter. Alcohol consumption affects behavior, that doesn't mean that booze should be banned.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What difference does it make which order we place them?


But it comes down to circumstances no matter which path you take. If you decide on a case by case basis you either begin with the facts of the situation and you work from those to reach some sort of "big statement" that essentially is your justification for how these facts should play out. Or you do it the other way around an you start with the big statement and then dictate how these facts fit into it.

When you frame it as a balancing act, you are implying that the two things which need balancing are:

A. Able to be quantified and given an exchange ratio. How many security points is this in exchange for a few less freedom points due to restricting such drawings?
B. That the two things that are being balanced are inherently opposed in each other. Namely freedom vs security. When it is not always so.

To me it seems as if your view is the more black and white one, and thus is less suitable to adequately make judgments of reality off of.

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore...

If you are making an argument based on the circumstances then using a broad principle is just contradicting yourself. Like: "In this case the increased ability to catch criminals is not worth the privacy risks. In conclusion: it's always wrong for the government to impinge on our privacy". In my aside in that original post I was objecting to people saying the second part when they believe the first part. That aside has little to do with this thread though...

Logical, but very dangerous. This is a very-very slippery slope.

Restrictions on porn are not remotely dangerous. You guys must have a different conception of dangerous than I do...

I don't see any slippery slope either, unless you mean we are starting at the bottom and trying to go up.

Whether or not porn can affect behavior shouldn't matter. Alcohol consumption affects behavior, that doesn't mean that booze should be banned.

Alcohol affects behavior by making you drunk, which is often ok. How do child porn drawings affect behavior? Do they increase the rate at which pedophiles fantasize? Can they have specific fantasies which someone might obsess over?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

But it's the other way around. People are legitimate objects of desire based on how they act despite how they look (although again I don't think there are any non-genetic freak adults who really look childish). So the cartoons aren't a grey area because, in fantasy world where people are looking for their ideal, it will naturally be adult for regular people. Besides there's no reason to dancing around grey areas when it comes to banning porn unless your legal penalties are too harsh.

I already told you, I know a girl who could easily pass for 14, not younger than that because she's quite well developed, but certainly 14.

The point is that people have different asthetic preferences, some inate some cutlural, there's difference to liking an elfin women and wanting to have sex with a child. Unless, of course, all those Gay designers who like women who look like young boys are really child molesters. How you act indicates how sexually mature you are.

It makes you durnk

+1 internets for "durnk".

Yes?????

Why? Physically she is not only mature, she is very attractive - in fact she is so well developed looking at her she could be anywhere from 16 to 20, but you wouldn't buy she was 14. This girl rocked my world, she did this thing with her teeth...

The point is, I knew girls like this in school - they knew what sex was, they used protection, they understood how to handle men and they were capable of having healthy relationships with their boyfriends, including dumping them when they became tiresome or made the mistake of acting their age.

I can't think of any of these girls who subsequently had any kind of breakdown - one recently got married and is disgustingly happy, after getting her nursing degree and spending some time helping famine victims in Africa. She is very well adjusted, and to be honest she was more sexually mature at 14 than maybe I am today.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I already told you, I know a girl who could easily pass for 14, not younger than that because she's quite well developed, but certainly 14.

The point is that people have different asthetic preferences, some inate some cutlural, there's difference to liking an elfin women and wanting to have sex with a child. Unless, of course, all those Gay designers who like women who look like young boys are really child molesters. How you act indicates how sexually mature you are.

I don't think an aesthetic preference for elfin women is much like an aesthetic preference for children.

Why? Physically she is not only mature, she is very attractive - in fact she is so well developed looking at her she could be anywhere from 16 to 20, but you wouldn't buy she was 14. This girl rocked my world, she did this thing with her teeth...

The point is, I knew girls like this in school - they knew what sex was, they used protection, they understood how to handle men and they were capable of having healthy relationships with their boyfriends, including dumping them when they became tiresome or made the mistake of acting their age.

I can't think of any of these girls who subsequently had any kind of breakdown - one recently got married and is disgustingly happy, after getting her nursing degree and spending some time helping famine victims in Africa. She is very well adjusted, and to be honest she was more sexually mature at 14 than maybe I am today.

This is probably that distinction between pedophile and ephbophile that someone was making in the other thread. No doubt at 14 you'd be attracted to her. I don't think you would at 25 though.

[a completely inoffensive name]

If you are making an argument based on the circumstances then using a broad principle is just contradicting yourself. Like: "In this case the increased ability to catch criminals is not worth the privacy risks. In conclusion: it's always wrong for the government to impinge on our privacy". In my aside in that original post I was objecting to people saying the second part when they believe the first part. That aside has little to do with this thread though...

But I would say that you are interpreting the two as formal pieces of logic that conflict, when in reality they are fine within the context of informal speech.
It is perfectly fine to say it is always wrong for government to impinge on privacy and then advocate for it in certain cases because there is a another level that people consider beyond right/wrong which is necessary/not necessary. Do you have a problem with people saying that legalized abortion is morally wrong but necessary since I don't want the inevitable abortions to be done on women in backalleys?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think an aesthetic preference for elfin women is much like an aesthetic preference for children.

No, but it's quite like a preference for teenage girls in terms of how they look. Kiera Knightly basically looks the same now as she did 10-15 years ago.

This is probably that distinction between pedophile and ephbophile that someone was making in the other thread. No doubt at 14 you'd be attracted to her. I don't think you would at 25 though.

All that's changed is that I know she's 14, she's the same as she was last night. This situation was actually dramatised in Trainspotting, where Ewan Mcgregor's character goes to a club and has sex with a 15 year old, who then blackmails him into staying with her and sends him to London to get a proper job.

The point is, she's still the same girl I had awsome, gymnastic sex with the night before - what you are saying is that her chronological age makes me a paedophile, as though that piece of information should automatically turn off the attraction.

Personally, I think that would be wierder than still ebing attracted to her.

Now, on topic (more):

How culpable this guy is depends on what his fantasy is.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

But I would say that you are interpreting the two as formal pieces of logic that conflict, when in reality they are fine within the context of informal speech.
It is perfectly fine to say it is always wrong for government to impinge on privacy and then advocate for it in certain cases because there is a another level that people consider beyond right/wrong which is necessary/not necessary. Do you have a problem with people saying that legalized abortion is morally wrong but necessary since I don't want the inevitable abortions to be done on women in backalleys?

It would only make sense to say that abortion is morally wrong but it should be legal because of the backalley stuff.

Anyway I was just expressing ongoing discontent with the state of libertarianism in our culture...I think most of the problem is that it's extremely easy to make a libertarian statement. But unless you are going to go full libertarian you can't just do that.

No, but it's quite like a preference for teenage girls in terms of how they look. Kiera Knightly basically looks the same now as she did 10-15 years ago.

We worship youth too much.

All that's changed is that I know she's 14, she's the same as she was last night. This situation was actually dramatised in Trainspotting, where Ewan Mcgregor's character goes to a club and has sex with a 15 year old, who then blackmails him into staying with her and sends him to London to get a proper job.

The point is, she's still the same girl I had awsome, gymnastic sex with the night before - what you are saying is that her chronological age makes me a paedophile, as though that piece of information should automatically turn off the attraction.

Personally, I think that would be wierder than still ebing attracted to her.

Now, on topic (more):

How culpable this guy is depends on what his fantasy is.

It doesn't seem plausible to me. She's still the same but you aren't wasted. Totally different. You should be put off even if you don't find out her chronological age.

[Montmorency]

It might behoove certain authoritarians to ask themselves: Will this legislation improve national cohesion or the efficiency of the state? If not, it's probably a waste of time.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It would only make sense to say that abortion is morally wrong but it should be legal because of the backalley stuff.

Anyway I was just expressing ongoing discontent with the state of libertarianism in our culture...I think most of the problem is that it's extremely easy to make a libertarian statement. But unless you are going to go full libertarian you can't just do that.

Well I would generally agree with you on that. I will not be voting libertarian anytime soon.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

We worship youth too much.

I'm not inclined to dissagree - but I'm not sure that speaks to the issue at hand.

It doesn't seem plausible to me. She's still the same but you aren't wasted. Totally different. You should be put off even if you don't find out her chronological age.

OK, so I don't intend to marry her - but that alone shouldn't stop her being an object of sexual desire. I'm not suggesting starting a relationship with her, I'm suggesting that just finding out her age shouldn't suddenly make a very pleasurabley experience stomach turning.

I specified "awsome gymnastic sex" for a reason - we aren't talking about your average 14 year old, we're talking about someone who is both physically and sexually mature enough to go out and pick up guys.

I'm not advocating sex with 14 year old women, part of the reason I'm not a fan of casual sex is that this sort of thing does happen now and again. The point is that if I don't find out her age I spend the whole day whistling, go for a run, do a song and dance number in the street - but if I do I spend the whole day feeling like a paedophile?

No - that doesn't sound sane.

[Kadagar_AV]

The point is, how they act defines whether or not they are legitimate objects of desire - not how they look.

This is why cartoons like this can be a grey area.

There's also a difference between statutory rape and child molestation/paedophilia.

I'm 25 - let's assume I'm not me, that I go to clubs and sleep with girls on a regular basis. If one morning I wake up to discover the girl in question was not 18, as I thought through the drunken haze, but actually 14, does that make me a paedophile?

If I still find her sexually attractive the next morning - am I a paedo then?

Let's say she did some awsome things last night and I'm considering sleeping with her again?

Does it become paedophilia simply because I can't have an adult relationship with her?

Who actually took advantage of who here?

Learn well you do, young Padawan.

I couldn't have made the point better.

Now, do you want to high five or do twenty "Ave Maria"?

[HoreTore]

Child Abuse Photos, or what is mistakenly called "child porn", is illegal because it is made by an illegal act, the abuse of children. Among the reasons for it is that spreading it adds insult to the victim and the demand for it creates more abuse.

If no abuse of children has taken place, there is nothing illegal going on. We do not legislate "immorality".

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Learn well you do, young Padawan.

I couldn't have made the point better.

Now, do you want to high five or do twenty "Ave Maria"?

phew.

OK, finally stopped laughing.

Sadly this has not actually happened (the awsome gymnastic sex part, not actually keen to live through the underage part).

If it had....

High five, each time, then if I do it 10 times I'll go to Anglican confession and spend a week on the high moors under canvas to cleanse my soul.

Sadly though I currently live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere, have no job and no money.

Yay PhD.

[Kadagar_AV]

phew.

OK, finally stopped laughing.

Sadly this has not actually happened (the awsome gymnastic sex part, not actually keen to live through the underage part).

If it had....

High five, each time, then if I do it 10 times I'll go to Anglican confession and spend a week on the high moors under canvas to cleanse my soul.

Sadly though I currently live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere, have no job and no money.

Yay PhD.

I'm so glad you took my comment that way!

[rvg]

Restrictions on porn are not remotely dangerous. You guys must have a different conception of dangerous than I do...

Porn is already controlled. There's no reason to criminalize it, even its most depraved versions (provided there's no real harm done).

I don't see any slippery slope either, unless you mean we are starting at the bottom and trying to go up.

Legislating what people can draw based on their imagination == thought police.

Alcohol affects behavior by making you drunk, which is often ok. How do child porn drawings affect behavior? Do they increase the rate at which pedophiles fantasize? Can they have specific fantasies which someone might obsess over?

We do not know and it shouldn't matter. It's like banning violent videogames -- not a good idea.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm so glad you took my comment that way!

You were expecting a Christian without a sense of humour?

I have been criticised for not taking my religion seriously enough, and also too seriously.

I try to keep an even keel these days.

Also, if you refer to me in future edits I demand the title "the mad Christian academic" - I'm not actually in Church that often

[ICantSpellDawg]

Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.

I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.

So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.

I agree, it is creepy but there is no crime in wanking it to cartoons. Horrific images of children come from someone else forcing children to do horrific things and this is why it is illegal. This case sounds stupid. They could make the case that the girls in the photos just look really young but are, in fact, adults with growth problems. It's fantasy so I challenge the court to prove otherwise.

EDIT - my opinions expressed are not evidence that I am interested in manga sex. I find it weird and pointless.

[spankythehippo]

This case happened in Australia a couple of years ago. But it wasn't drawings. It was actual photographs.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opin...803-115dg.html

http://www.smh.com.au/national/artis...0111-m2s5.html


By the literal definition of porn, it is any text (be it pictures, videos, novels, whatever) that arouses sexual excitement. So, by that logic, a person might be sexually aroused by Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Is that considered porn?