NationStates Jolt Archive

Whenever child pornography is brought up, there are always those in favor of banning it for "Encouraging" Pedophiles to rape children. Is there any reality to this claim, or is it just scaremongering? Have any studies been done linking the viewing of pornography (specifically child pornography) to the likelihood to rape children?

Well, obviously, child pornography involving actual children is rape. But, if you mean child pornography that deals with simultated children, as in animated/computer-generated, then I would say the answer is probably yes. Viewing that kind of material would only feed the sex drive of the child pervert for so long before they wanted to...ahem...participate in such acts. Yes, it may serve in place of them actually acting on their desires for a certain amount of time, but viewing such material would only encourage their deviant thoughts, which would do nothing in trying to help them control and possibly eliminate their desires.

Well, figuring kids aren't entitled to consent to sex in any of the 50 US states, and around the Western world, any sexual activity they are engaged in, especially with an adult, is rape.

So, the only way to make kiddy porn is to rape a kid. Which is horrible on its own. And it shouldn't matter whether there is a linkage, because kids are being raped in order to make it in the first place. Owning child porn is akin to owning evidence of a rape, and such images cannot be distributed consensually since one of the parties cannot agree.

Now, if you're talking about drawings and virtual stuff, the legal grounds are shakier, given that no one is actually hurt in the production. HOWEVER, if you're gettin' your rocks off to that, you need help anyway.

Well, figuring kids aren't entitled to consent to sex in any of the 50 US states, and around the Western world, any sexual activity they are engaged in, especially with an adult, is rape.

If it's with someone their own age or within a reasonable range, then they can have sex under US law.

Well, obviously, child pornography involving actual children is rape. But, if you mean child pornography that deals with simultated children, as in animated/computer-generated, then I would say the answer is probably yes. Viewing that kind of material would only feed the sex drive of the child pervert for so long before they wanted to...ahem...participate in such acts. Yes, it may serve in place of them actually acting on their desires for a certain amount of time, but viewing such material would only encourage their deviant thoughts, which would do nothing in trying to help them control and possibly eliminate their desires.
Actual, yes, but virtual... I dunno about that. I mean, how many pr0ns have you watched and have you raped any women yet?

Actual, yes, but virtual... I dunno about that. I mean, how many pr0ns have you watched and have you raped any women yet?

Well, how many pr0ns are ones in which one of the participants is pretending being raped? That's a sketchy turn-on. But, it's kinda a hard line to draw.

Usually, while off the wall with their premises, "normal" porn consists of at least two people who consent to sex after a few cheesy lines following the successful delivery of a pizza or the cleaning of a pool.

Instead of wild-ass guesses...

Considerable controversy exists within the social and behavioural science community about the negative effects, if any, of child pornography upon the behaviour of potential or actual offenders. The main reason for the debate is that it is virtually impossible to conduct research in the laboratory using standard scientific methods which yield statistically reliable results. The constraints of ethical research, false reporting, interviewer distortion and a whole host of other problems contribute to the difficulty of acquiring scientific results. Many researchers have come to the conclusion that there is no sound scientific basis for concluding that exposure to child pornography increases the likelihood of sexual abuse of children. Others have suggested that there is a consistent correlation between the use of pornography and sexual aggression.

from Child pornography: an international perspective (http://www.crime-research.org/articles/536/4), 2004.

She points out later that studies showing a link between child pornography and molesting run the risk of concluding a false causal relationship. Child molestors are likely to have pornography collections and use them in their molestation activities, but that doesn't mean that pornography will make a molestor out of someone.

Well, how many pr0ns are ones in which one of the participants is pretending being raped? That's a sketchy turn-on. But, it's kinda a hard line to draw.

Usually, while off the wall with their premises, "normal" porn consists of at least two people who consent to sex after a few cheesy lines following the successful delivery of a pizza or the cleaning of a pool.
You seem to be an expert on the story structure of a porno...

Usually, while off the wall with their premises, "normal" porn consists of at least two people who consent to sex after a few cheesy lines following the successful delivery of a pizza or the cleaning of a pool.Meh. That's the plain vanilla stuff in the front of the store. ;)

Instead of wild-ass guesses...



from Child pornography: an international perspective (http://www.crime-research.org/articles/536/4), 2004.

She points out later that studies showing a link between child pornography and molesting run the risk of concluding a false causal relationship. Child molestors are likely to have pornography collections and use them in their molestation activities, but that doesn't mean that pornography will make a molestor out of someone.
That's not the issue. If you watch child pornography, you already have a deviant sex drive towards children, and therefore, the inclination to molest a child. Viewing child pornography would only feed the flames of this desire, which should not be the goal of anyone with sexual feelings for children; they should be focusing on ridding themselves of these feelings, or, if that seems not to be possible, at least keeping them in check and surpressed.

That's exactly the issue. Here, I'll quote the OPthere are always those in favor of banning it for "Encouraging" Pedophiles to rape children. Is there any reality to this claim, or is it just scaremongering?[emphasis added]
If you watch child pornography, you already have a deviant sex drive towards children, and therefore, the inclination to molest a child.Have you got any legitimate support for those assumptions at all? Anything remotely scientific?

It's been covered in triplicate in Kyronea's thread, if you want citations go there (look for Jocabia's input), but in summary, the vast majority of pedophiles have no inclination to molest a child, and the vast majority of child molestors aren't pedophiles.

You also assume that the mere watching of child pornography indicates pedophilia. You would be wrong per the DSMIV, which requires a predominant arousal to pre-pubescents with either an inclination to molest or fantasies that severely affect one's life.

Yes, it may serve in place of them actually acting on their desires for a certain amount of time, but viewing such material would only encourage their deviant thoughts, which would do nothing in trying to help them control and possibly eliminate their desires.
You can just smell the moral superority.:rolleyes:

That's exactly the issue. Here, I'll quote the OP
Have you got any legitimate support for those assumptions at all? Anything remotely scientific?

It's been covered in triplicate in Kyronea's thread, if you want citations go there (look for Jocabia's input), but in summary, the vast majority of pedophiles have no inclination to molest a child, and the vast majority of child molestors aren't pedophiles.

You also assume that the mere watching of child pornography indicates pedophilia. You would be wrong per the DSMIV, which requires a predominant arousal to pre-pubescents with either an inclination to molest or fantasies that severely affect one's life.
So you're trying to tell me that non-pedophiles get off by watching child pornography? And, it seems in the way that you wrote it, that the DSMIV requires a predominant arousal to pre-puescents with an inclination to molest as one qualification for being a pedophile. Doesn't that mean that pedophiles have the inclination to molest...?
You can just smell the moral superority.:rolleyes:
Yeah, you can. Glad you noticed it.

Holy christ I'm sick of these threads. Seriously. I almost prefer the racist 'white is sexier than any other skin colour' threads.

Holy christ I'm sick of these threads. Seriously. I almost prefer the racist 'white is sexier than any other skin colour' threads.


NSG, the fox channel, and much of the US is increasingly fixated on pederasts.

I havent been able to figure out why.

Holy christ I'm sick of these threads. Seriously. I almost prefer the racist 'white is sexier than any other skin colour' threads.
Ah, those are good. How about blonde is sexier than any hair color threads?

NSG, the fox channel, and much of the US is increasingly fixated on pederasts.

I havent been able to figure out why.
They're all repressed homosexuals who need something else to think about. The ones who aren't repressed want a scapegoat. ;)

They're all repressed homosexuals who need something else to think about. The ones who aren't repressed want a scapegoat. ;)


I think its one part defective quasi-puritan sexuality, one part needing something besides the government's failure to talk about, one part scaremongering, one part perversion, and one part america's pathological attitude towards youth, manifested in our outlandish drinking age and other things.

To recap, I dont have a very elegant theory of why ;)

Ah, those are good. How about blonde is sexier than any hair color threads?
I take it back. No need to encourage your white supremist tendencies.

If it's with someone their own age or within a reasonable range, then they can have sex under US law.

Usually only above a certain age. I used to know all the laws, but in many states it's like above 13 and within 5 years or above 17 for anyone.

They're all repressed homosexuals who need something else to think about. The ones who aren't repressed want a scapegoat. ;)
Equating homosexuality with pedophelia, even assuming you are joking, is deeply offensive and wrong.

... I used to know all the laws, but in many states it's like above 13 and within 5 years or above 17 for anyone.

Jocabia used to keep all the state's child sex laws on a card in his wallet. :D

I take it back. No need to encourage your white supremist tendencies.
Oh but I was just about to run off and make the thread. :(

Actual, yes, but virtual... I dunno about that. I mean, how many pr0ns have you watched and have you raped any women yet?

Yes, exactly. However, I do worry about the idea of simulated sex acts that if real would be rape whether with adults in them or children. I do think that it's a bad road, and my default would be to assume it shouldn't be allowed, but I don't have any real evidence to back that up. I wonder what the studies on such things suggest.

I do think that most conventional and supported wisdom on any kind of criminal tendencies is that feeding the monster doesn't sate it.

Generally, when I think of pedophilia, I'm not thinking about someone just over the age of consent having sex with someone just under that age. Sexually mature adults having sex with sexually immature children...not slight dithering over the age of consent.

That's not the issue. If you watch child pornography, you already have a deviant sex drive towards children, and therefore, the inclination to molest a child. .
What? sex drive =/= rape. Just because some one is aroused doesn't mean that they would rape for pleasure. Obviously if a child is raped in the process there is a problem but if they're not...

Viewing child pornography would only feed the flames of this desire, which should not be the goal of anyone with sexual feelings for children; they should be focusing on ridding themselves of these feelings, or, if that seems not to be possible, at least keeping them in check and surpressed.
They can keep they're "inclinations" in check with virtual p0rn. They can't act upon these impulses but it's not a crime to have these impulses (at least not yet)

So you're trying to tell me that non-pedophiles get off by watching child pornography? And, it seems in the way that you wrote it, that the DSMIV requires a predominant arousal to pre-puescents with an inclination to molest as one qualification for being a pedophile. Doesn't that mean that pedophiles have the inclination to molest...?
she didn't say that.

Equating homosexuality with pedophelia, even assuming you are joking, is deeply offensive and wrong.
I wasn't. I was saying they need a new group to focus their hate upon so they don't have to examine themselves.

Oh but I was just about to run off and make the thread. :(
*burns holes into your head with her non-Aryan eyes*

I wasn't. I was saying they need a new group to focus their hate upon so they don't have to examine themselves.
Just clarifying.

So you're trying to tell me that non-pedophiles get off by watching child pornography? And, it seems in the way that you wrote it, that the DSMIV requires a predominant arousal to pre-puescents with an inclination to molest as one qualification for being a pedophile. Doesn't that mean that pedophiles have the inclination to molest...?

Do we then need to come up with another word for those with an arousal to pre-pubescents with no inclination to molest? And should those people's behaivior not be included as a disorder, as it is not maladaptive?

*burns holes into your head with her non-Aryan eyes*

*Gives Sinuhue blue...no wait, I like green better, green contacts and makes her an honorary Aryan.*

Just clarifying.
Perhaps I should clarify that I don't particulaly care if it's offensive. I have a right to freedom of speech, not freedom as long as I don't offend anyone.

Perhaps I should clarify that I don't particulaly care if it's offensive. I have a right to freedom of speech, not freedom as long as I don't offend anyone.
Good luck with that, this is a moderated forum in case you missed it, and trust me...had you intended to equate homosexuality with pedophelia, it would be more than just 'oops, too bad you're offended'.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.

By the way..I dont actually beleive in the superiority of Aryans or anything stupid like that. I'm just kidding.

By the way..I dont actually beleive in the superiority of Aryans or anything stupid like that. I'm just kidding.
Stand up for yourself! You have the right to be unapologetic about any stupid thing you might say! Even if it's offensive, it's everyone else's fault if they find it so!

Good luck with that, this is a moderated forum in case you missed it, and trust me...had you intended to equate homosexuality with pedophelia, it would be more than just 'oops, too bad you're offended'.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.
Spoken like a true Left-winger. Anyway I don't see what's wrong with people looking at drawings. It's not hurting anyone anymore then people looking at paintings of violence.

Good luck with that, this is a moderated forum in case you missed it, and trust me...had you intended to equate homosexuality with pedophelia, it would be more than just 'oops, too bad you're offended'.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequence.
I wouldn't say that, I'd more say it doesn't give you the right to write whatever you want on other people's walls. And being that this forum belongs to Max, it has all the legal protection as the walls of his house.

Perhaps I should clarify that I don't particulaly care if it's offensive. I have a right to freedom of speech, not freedom as long as I don't offend anyone.
Actually, you're wrong. You have it a bit backwards. Try reading the OSRS or even the FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/54667/page=faq#etiquette)sometime.
They're all repressed homosexuals who need something else to think about. The ones who aren't repressed want a scapegoat. ;)
Please refrain from similar comments in the future.

Stand up for yourself! You have the right to be unapologetic about any stupid thing you might say! Even if it's offensive, it's everyone else's fault if they find it so!
I have no idea what you're talking about.:confused:
Why would I stand up for myself about the fact that I was joking about Aryanism....???

Actually, you're wrong. You have it a bit backwards. Try reading the OSRS or even the FAQ (http://www.nationstates.net/54667/page=faq#etiquette)sometime.

Please refrain from similar comments in the future.
That's considered flame baiting? Wow. Fine I'll leave this thread and try to tone down my personality. The mods have spoken.

Yes, exactly. However, I do worry about the idea of simulated sex acts that if real would be rape whether with adults in them or children. I do think that it's a bad road, and my default would be to assume it shouldn't be allowed, but I don't have any real evidence to back that up. I wonder what the studies on such things suggest.

I do think that most conventional and supported wisdom on any kind of criminal tendencies is that feeding the monster doesn't sate it.
I happen to agree because I think it's opening up a pandora's box that leads to a bad place. I just don't see a direct causation link.

Though, yes, I would like to see some studies if not on this particular subject but the effect of media upon the decision to commit actual acts. Personally I've always been of the opinion that they would be set off anyway and the media had nothing or little to do with it, but I would like to see an answer to that.

Jocabia used to keep all the state's child sex laws on a card in his wallet. :D

Actually, that's not that far from the truth. When you travel a lot with a group of young guys in your charge ranging from 17 to 22 who are having girls of legal and non-legal ages throwing themselves at them and who also aren't used to it, you make sure they know what they're looking for on the ID. And, yes, I told my men that if I came to pick them up from jail and they couldn't tell me honestly they'd checked the ID I was going to beat them senseless.

I think this can be answered with another question.

Does the watching of porn containing adults lead to rape of adults?

I think this can be answered with another question.

Does the watching of porn containing adults lead to rape of adults?

The question would be the watching of porn containing scenes where the adults are not consenting. You have to keep the situations similar.

Whenever child pornography is brought up, there are always those in favor of banning it for "Encouraging" Pedophiles to rape children. Is there any reality to this claim, or is it just scaremongering? Have any studies been done linking the viewing of pornography (specifically child pornography) to the likelihood to rape children?

I thought for a little while on this one...

I dont know if the material itself encourages them to go out and rape. A pedophile, by definition, doesn't act out on their desire, it's an attraction to children. A molester or a rapist would conduct the act, but it's a grey area and many opinions I've seen on here dont think the same way.

I think the existence of child porn sends the message that it's acceptable behaviour, but that doesnt mean that it encourages. You could argue that acceptance is by default encouragement, but I wouldn't say so. There a reason this stuff is illegal, and there's a reason why they pay through the nose it, they already know it's wrong, and knowing the right from the wrong should be what discourages them.

It's early, I haven't had coffee, I've said my 2 cents worth :D

I don't think anything's wrong with it. Mindyou I'm not fond of porn, and do think people who make real child porn should be hunted down and killed.

But like there's hentai. Which neither demeens nor costs people much of anything..

Also I do think the child sex laws should be dropped. Bassicaly everyone is physichaly mature at fifteen to sixteen, why is it when someone is seventeen they don't know any better but when they're eighteen they're magickaly self-sufficent?

I can't base the maturity laws based on mentality. Or else it could be illegal to have sex with most everybody..

The question would be the watching of porn containing scenes where the adults are not consenting. You have to keep the situations similar.
So we'll throw it in with the simulated rape porn, which is, btw, legal last I checked.

The question still stands.

So we'll throw it in with the simulated rape porn, which is, btw, legal last I checked.

The question still stands.

No, simulated rape porn unless the sex is also simulated. You can not have a rape in an actually pornographic video nor can you have bondage and actual sex in the same video.

Now can you guess why you can't simulate rape in American pornography? Hmmmm... three guesses.

No, simulated rape porn unless the sex is also simulated. You can not have a rape in an actually pornographic video nor can you have bondage and actual sex in the same video.

Now can you guess why you can't simulate rape in American pornography? Hmmmm... three guesses.
Do I have to spell this out for you letter by letter? If it is legal if the entire thing is simulated, then there are forms of simulated rape porn which are legal.

Now, putting the question of legallity aside, it's still a reasonable question whether such pornography increases the instance of sexual offenses. Do you know if any such studies have been done? You're usually pretty up to date on the research on just about every subject we meet on.

Do I have to spell this out for you letter by letter? If it is legal if the entire thing is simulated, then there are forms of simulated rape porn which are legal.

Now, putting the question of legallity aside, it's still a reasonable question whether such pornography increases the instance of sexual offenses. Do you know if any such studies have been done? You're usually pretty up to date on the research on just about every subject we meet on.

Actually, I just researched it and it appears the court of appeals overturned laws outlawing simulated rape with actual sex.

And if the sex is simulated it's not considered porn. Otherwise a large number of mainstream movies would be pornography. And do I think that porn that simulates rape encourages rape? Yes. I do.

A lot of the evidence that was presented in the threads on pedophilia suggest that entertaining violent fantasies does encourage violence and I've seen little to debunk such information. Those are general studies on crime. As I said, I haven't seen specific information on simulated child pornography. However, I would err on the side of caution particularly in light of other evidence.

And yes, I think the fantasies make the difference. For example, when I play Halo, I 'murder' people, but even in my 'fantasy game' I am not fantasizing about killing people, but rather beating them at a game. Games like GTA are games where we enjoy beating the game not fantasize about raping and murdering people. And I do think this distinction is important.

However, when we fantasize about things we glorify in our own minds. If our fantasies are about rape we are glorifying rape. If our fantasies are about having sex with children we are glorifying sex with children. And, yes, I do believe that convincing ourselves that such activities are a good thing, a thing so good it should be the subject of fantasies, is a dangerous activity.

I think it a complicated issue however. For example:

There is some research that shows a correllation between a decrease in violence and an increase in access to porn in the US. However, it makes a few mistakes like not really isolating the factor as a cause and it also makes assumptions that are unverified. It uses various states and their access to internet porn to set the correllation, but when some states violate the correllation, it just ignores it. I found it less than compelling.

However, it is possible and even understandable how indulging in fantasies that allow us to explore sex might help keep us from acting them out provided we aren't glorifying activities that we could never actually engage in. For example, when it's sex, once sex has happened, we have a reality to compare our fantasies to, thus keeping our feet on the ground so to speak and making our fantasies more satisfying AND more fantasy. I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this and the evidence is not conclusive.

Actually, I just researched it and it appears the court of appeals overturned laws outlawing simulated rape with actual sex.

In that case, I've got to ask what those reasons you were originally citing for it being outlawed, and how the courts responded to them.

And if the sex is simulated it's not considered porn. Otherwise a large number of mainstream movies would be pornography.

This would be a good standard, but, unfortunately, it isn't the one in use, otherwise toon porn wouldn't be considered porn.

And do I think that porn that simulates rape encourages rape? Yes. I do.

A lot of the evidence that was presented in the threads on pedophilia suggest that entertaining violent fantasies does encourage violence and I've seen little to debunk such information. Those are general studies on crime. As I said, I haven't seen specific information on simulated child pornography. However, I would err on the side of caution particularly in light of other evidence.

And yes, I think the fantasies make the difference. For example, when I play Halo, I 'murder' people, but even in my 'fantasy game' I am not fantasizing about killing people, but rather beating them at a game. Games like GTA are games where we enjoy beating the game not fantasize about raping and murdering people. And I do think this distinction is important.

I don't see what you're using to draw your line here. From where I'm sitting, your defense of things like GTA seems (though please correct me if I'm off base here) like nothing more than a result of western culture which says that violence is okay, but anything sexual must be supressed.

However, when we fantasize about things we glorify in our own minds. If our fantasies are about rape we are glorifying rape. If our fantasies are about having sex with children we are glorifying sex with children. And, yes, I do believe that convincing ourselves that such activities are a good thing, a thing so good it should be the subject of fantasies, is a dangerous activity.
How exactly is depriving a person access to pornography going to stop the fantasies? You are, presumably, a heterosexual male? Do your sexual fantasies require pornographic material to initiate them? Mine don't.

You keep editing your posts while I'm replying to them! Grrr! ;)

I think it a complicated issue however. For example:

There is some research that shows a correllation between a decrease in violence and an increase in access to porn in the US. However, it makes a few mistakes like not really isolating the factor as a cause and it also makes assumptions that are unverified. It uses various states and their access to internet porn to set the correllation, but when some states violate the correllation, it just ignores it. I found it less than compelling.

Still, it does rather suggest further research. Were there any studies showing the oposite results that you're aware of?

However, it is possible and even understandable how indulging in fantasies that allow us to explore sex might help keep us from acting them out provided we aren't glorifying activities that we could never actually engage in. For example, when it's sex, once sex has happened, we have a reality to compare our fantasies to, thus keeping our feet on the ground so to speak and making our fantasies more satisfying AND more fantasy. I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this and the evidence is not conclusive.
I guess what we have here, then, is a simple moral question. In the absence of firm evidence one way or another, do you err on the side of free expression, or do you err on the side of moral protectionism?

In that case, I've got to ask what those reasons you were originally citing for it being outlawed, and how the courts responded to them.

I was implying that the reasoning is because there is much evidence that fantasizing about something increases our likelihood to do it. And, yes, I would claim that someone who fantasizes about rape to that degree is more likely to commit it. Again, it is a complicated issue, so it's hard to be very assertive on such a claim.


This would be a good standard, but, unfortunately, it isn't the one in use, otherwise toon porn wouldn't be considered porn.

Yes, but in toon porn the sex is graphically depicted. So while the people are simulated the sex isn't, if that makes sense.


I don't see what you're using to draw your line here. From where I'm sitting, your defense of things like GTA seems (though please correct me if I'm off base here) like nothing more than a result of western culture which says that violence is okay, but anything sexual must be supressed.

No, the difference if the games were encouraging fantasy rather than competition, it would be a different issue. I think our odd position in the US that violence is okay but sex isn't to be backwards and bizarre actually, so your argument rests on a conclusion about me that is counter to reality. I can shoot someone on television but not breastfeed (I'm a man, so I couldn't anyway, but you get the point). It's bizarre. However, the point I not only made but made clearly is that porn is purposefully made to encourage fantasy, glorification, while games are purposefully made for competition and gameplay. Their purposes are where I draw the line, not their content.


How exactly is depriving a person access to pornography going to stop the fantasies? You are, presumably, a heterosexual male? Do your sexual fantasies require pornographic material to initiate them? Mine don't.
In sexual fantasies, I am fantasizing about healthy behavior. If you're going to convince me they are similar, you'll have to convince me they are healthy. Now, do I think it stops you from fantasizing? No. Do I want to encourage you to fantisize or help you do it? No. I would actually encourage you to seek counselling and to change your patterns to avoid such fantasies and to encourage yourself not to engage yourself in such fantasy. And, yes, I can very much stop fantasizing about women if I like.

Want an example? I used to fantasize about violence. I loved it. I also used to engage in violence. As self-defense. More or less. It's complicated, but I promise you that at one time violence was something I worked through in every way and every fashion in my head (limited violence towards other males who had initiated such violence both in fantasy and in life. I used to be like DK except I had no wish to deny people life). And I'm quite certain that such fantasies never cross my mind in any way other than as memories and accompanied with a disdain for the fact that these urges were ever prevelant and encouraged.

What about erotic stories? Teh ZOMG te><1 pr0n?

You keep editing your posts while I'm replying to them! Grrr! ;)

I found more evidence and you hadn't replied yet.

Still, it does rather suggest further research. Were there any studies showing the oposite results that you're aware of?

Not that I've found thus far, but I haven't really been looking. This study is not even remotely compelling, so all that really has to be done to debunk such a study is give more obvious reasons. One we have gone through a sexual revolution that actually likely is part of the reason for our increased access to pornography. Two, there were a plethora of other directly shown reasons for such a decline, like the increase in sexual education particularly in the area of rape and the increase in our view of the role of women as independent. In the last fifty years there has been a steady change in the view that women are property and that rape doesn't exist if the woman is your wife, etc.

I guess what we have here, then, is a simple moral question. In the absence of firm evidence one way or another, do you err on the side of free expression, or do you err on the side of moral protectionism?
Err on the side of protecting those that can't protect themselves, children.

By the way, did you really expect me to be able to refer to specific studies and laws in this area or were you being sardonic?

By the way, did you really expect me to be able to refer to specific studies and laws in this area or were you being sardonic?

I personally would expect it.

I was implying that the reasoning is because there is much evidence that fantasizing about something increases our likelihood to do it. And, yes, I would claim that someone who fantasizes about rape to that degree is more likely to commit it. Again, it is a complicated issue, so it's hard to be very assertive on such a claim.

Wouldn't that mean, if you'll forgive me for taking this side trip, that you believe people who fantasize about sex with children are more likely to molest them than people who don't? I ask because that seems to contradict the studies we both quoted over in the other pedophilia threads which showed pedophiles are less likely to molest children.

Yes, but in toon porn the sex is graphically depicted. So while the people are simulated the sex isn't, if that makes sense.

I'm afraid I don't see it. How can you have nonsimulated sex if the people are simulated in the first place?

No, the difference if the games were encouraging fantasy rather than competition, it would be a different issue. I think our odd position in the US that violence is okay but sex isn't to be backwards and bizarre actually, so your argument rests on a conclusion about me that is counter to reality. I can shoot someone on television but not breastfeed (I'm a man, so I couldn't anyway, but you get the point). It's bizarre.

Actually, my arguement doesn't rest on any conclusion about you that you haven't already proven for yourself. The conclusion was not that you support the violence-good sex-bad idiocy America has been shoving down our throats for God only knows how long. The conclusion was that you're just as succeptable as everyone else to falling back into the old steriotyping and cultural normalism as the rest of us are. After making up a story about a wife pressuring her husband for sex, specifically to buck the steriotypes, you slipped and started talking about a man pressuring a woman. I don't think you believe consiously in the antisexual additudes the US keeps pushing, but I do think you've internalized them unconsiously, and that they're effecting you.

However, the point I not only made but made clearly is that porn is purposefully made to encourage fantasy, glorification, while games are purposefully made for competition and gameplay. Their purposes are where I draw the line, not their content.

So, to continue the GTA example, this wasn't made to encourage fantasy and glorification of "gangsta" culture and whatnot? I suppose you and I just view GTA in a far different light.

In sexual fantasies, I am fantasizing about healthy behavior. If you're going to convince me they are similar, you'll have to convince me they are healthy.

Irrelevant to what we are discussing. Sexual fantasy is sexual fantasy. The relative "health" of that fantasy is not pertenent to the question of pornography's influence on the ability to fantasize.

Now, do I think it stops you from fantasizing? No. Do I want to encourage you to fantisize or help you do it? No. I would actually encourage you to seek counselling and to change your patterns to avoid such fantasies and to encourage yourself not to engage yourself in such fantasy.

I know you would. The trouble is that you haven't offered any evidence that me having such fantasies is dangerous. Indeed, the only evidence that's been presented on the subject indicates that me having these fantasies (thus meeting the clinical definition of a pedophile) makes me statistically less likely to molest children.

And, yes, I can very much stop fantasizing about women if I like.

I believe we've established that extrodinary claims require extrordinary evidence. How long could you hold off those fantasies? Are you going to claim control over your dreams too, or are you not holding yourself responsible? Can you stop every stray fantasy about the random attractive women you meet on the street? Would it be healthy for you to even attempt this?

Want an example? I used to fantasize about violence. I loved it. I also used to engage in violence. As self-defense. More or less. It's complicated, but I promise you that at one time violence was something I worked through in every way and every fashion in my head (limited violence towards other males who had initiated such violence both in fantasy and in life. I used to be like DK except I had no wish to deny people life). And I'm quite certain that such fantasies never cross my mind in any way other than as memories and accompanied with a disdain for the fact that these urges were ever prevelant and encouraged.
Well, I'm glad you've managed to work through your issues, but it seems to me that the violent actions and violent fantasies were both symptoms of the same psychological problem. I see no reason to believe the violent fantasies were feeding, or causing the violent actions.
I found more evidence and you hadn't replied yet.

I know that. I know it wasn't your fault. It's just that's been happening a lot lately, and my poor timing is starting to get on my nerves.

Not that I've found thus far, but I haven't really been looking. This study is not even remotely compelling, so all that really has to be done to debunk such a study is give more obvious reasons. One we have gone through a sexual revolution that actually likely is part of the reason for our increased access to pornography. Two, there were a plethora of other directly shown reasons for such a decline, like the increase in sexual education particularly in the area of rape and the increase in our view of the role of women as independent. In the last fifty years there has been a steady change in the view that women are property and that rape doesn't exist if the woman is your wife, etc.

Simply because a particular study was done poorly doesn't mean that the question it was asking becomes suddenly irrelavent. If a study finds something surprising, and it's methodology is questioned, the next step would be to run another study correcting for the problems of the first study, and seeing if the results are similar. All I'm saying is that the subject merrits further study, so I would think someone would have followed up on it by now.

Err on the side of protecting those that can't protect themselves, children.
Moral protectionism it is. Now, in the absence of conclusive evidence one way or the other for the danger to children, how do you feel about homosexuals being allowed to marry?
By the way, did you really expect me to be able to refer to specific studies and laws in this area or were you being sardonic?
To be honest, I really expected you to be able to reffer to specific studies. I don't know how, but you really seem to have research and studies for just about every topic you post in.

Also could people try and realize the differant wordings of a characteristic?

Not all child sex is rape.
Not all rape is child sex.

The word you're looking for is sexual molestation. Rape is something tottaly differant, rape is an act of violance more then anything. If I got a bat, beat you half to death, then shoved a dildoe up your asshole just to make you feel violated, that's rape.

If I took advantage of your emotions, or drugged you, or did anything else to bend you to my will and took advantage of you and stuck it to you, that's sexual molestation.

Not suprisingly, the liberal left who's entire platform is based around manipulation, drugs, and control scoffs at the idea of rape, it's deplorable, unacceptable! But when faced with charges of molestation (like for example the thirty year old female teacher and fifteen year old male student) suddenly it's just society preassureing a tottaly okay thing based off ass-backward ethics.. (I think the reason the dems were leniant on her was because she was a woman, and the dems are like a bunchof reverse ayrans..)

Frankly I'm more concerned about the latter, the eroding distinction between fantasy and reality in kid's minds is disturbing enough, but combined with sexual predators who feed off this mindset and the politicians who ok it. Well, if children are our future, then we won't have a future..

The thing I have against child pornography is that a child is too young to consent to it (both legally and emotionally), which opens up some serious potential for abuse.

That's not the issue.
Of course that's the issue. The question was "does child pornography lead to child rape?" It's the causation that's in question, not the moral standing of the predeliction.

The question would be the watching of porn containing scenes where the adults are not consenting. You have to keep the situations similar.
An even better comparison would be, does watching of porn lead to sex with consenting adults?

And I don't think you'll be able to demonstrate that. Clearly, I think, people who consume pornography are more likely to be sexually active (puritans, for example, would be less active), but that's not evidence of causation. They more likely have a common cause (the lack of puritanical values).

Whenever child pornography is brought up, there are always those in favor of banning it for "Encouraging" Pedophiles to rape children. Is there any reality to this claim, or is it just scaremongering? Have any studies been done linking the viewing of pornography (specifically child pornography) to the likelihood to rape children?


I don't know. Has it inspired you to rape children? :p

Wouldn't that mean, if you'll forgive me for taking this side trip, that you believe people who fantasize about sex with children are more likely to molest them than people who don't? I ask because that seems to contradict the studies we both quoted over in the other pedophilia threads which showed pedophiles are less likely to molest children.

No, because I suspect that there are people who fantasize about general rape or sexual violence, people who fantasize about children and people who fantasize about neither. If I had to bet the first group is the most dangerous, followed by the second group and then the third. And, I would discourage both of the first two from fantasizing about such things, where possible.


I'm afraid I don't see it. How can you have nonsimulated sex if the people are simulated in the first place?

I worded it badly and I'm certain any laws aren't worded that way, but you could understand from my defense what things are porn and what's not. Pornography according to the US definition is when you can actually see sex. That means simulated sex with real people doesn't count. It means that real sex with real people doesn't count if you cannot actually tell if it's simulated or not. And it means that visible penetration with 'simulated people' counts.

I reworded it that way the second time to make you laugh. It apparently didn't work. My original wording was just and attempt to describe what is considered important in the US and I forgot about cartoon porn. I also tried to oversimplify too complicated a concept.

Actually, my arguement doesn't rest on any conclusion about you that you haven't already proven for yourself. The conclusion was not that you support the violence-good sex-bad idiocy America has been shoving down our throats for God only knows how long. The conclusion was that you're just as succeptable as everyone else to falling back into the old steriotyping and cultural normalism as the rest of us are. After making up a story about a wife pressuring her husband for sex, specifically to buck the steriotypes, you slipped and started talking about a man pressuring a woman. I don't think you believe consiously in the antisexual additudes the US keeps pushing, but I do think you've internalized them unconsiously, and that they're effecting you.

Again, I didn't slip into traditional sex roles. I slipped and went back to using my personal example of such things which happens to mirror traditional sex roles. Stereotypes come from somewhere, generally. The couple that was my role model was fairly stereotypical.

And no, I don't believe in the antisexual attitudes. And no, they are not effecting me. I told you my reasoning. That is my reasoning. You can react to it or make things up. Your choice.


So, to continue the GTA example, this wasn't made to encourage fantasy and glorification of "gangsta" culture and whatnot? I suppose you and I just view GTA in a far different light.

No, I don't think it was. I think it's a farce. And some movies and games do glorify certain illegal activities, however, in the US the issue is whether the illegal activity is the point or some other message is the point and the glorification is incidental.


Irrelevant to what we are discussing. Sexual fantasy is sexual fantasy. The relative "health" of that fantasy is not pertenent to the question of pornography's influence on the ability to fantasize.

No, it isn't. If I would recommend that every person who fantasizes about rape be encouraged by the government and every other organization to seek counselling to discourage those fantasies because I believe that fantasies significantly increase the likelihood of committing an offense wouldn't I be a hypocrite if allowed the production of material specifically encouraging and aiding in such fantasies? They go hand in hand.


I know you would. The trouble is that you haven't offered any evidence that me having such fantasies is dangerous. Indeed, the only evidence that's been presented on the subject indicates that me having these fantasies (thus meeting the clinical definition of a pedophile) makes me statistically less likely to molest children.

No, actually, it makes you statistically less likely than the general population if the general population is not grouped either. However, offenders have very similar thinking and that is the glorification of sex crimes. Being a pedophile doesn't mean that you actually encourage such fantasies in your head. It only means that you have such an attraction.

You are trying to suggest that all pedophiles have a rich fantasy life of pedophilia and that no one else has a fantasy life include sex crimes. These are not only unverified assumptions on your part, we know they aren't true. Many pedophiles would tell you that these acts are wrong and that they do not encourage their attraction in any fashion, and they'd be telling the truth. And we also know that not everyone that is not a pedophile has only healthy sexual fantasies.

You're using the statistics to draw a conclusion that cannot be drawn with the information you're using. And if we use other types of statistics we get a different picture. All sexual offenders have a particular similarity as shown by some of the other statistics offerend the pedophile threads by people trying to equate pedophiles and sex offenders. Namely, the work done by criminal psychologists like Lanning and Samenow. It suggests that all sex offenders have common thinking including the act of convincing themselves that their fantasies and such were acceptable. They shut of acts of conscience and ideas of consequences to their victim through a slow process of training. I don't know, in your fantasies do you train yourself to think about the consequences to the children and do you allow your conscience to make you feel bad about the activity you just simulated in your head?


I believe we've established that extrodinary claims require extrordinary evidence. How long could you hold off those fantasies? Are you going to claim control over your dreams too, or are you not holding yourself responsible? Can you stop every stray fantasy about the random attractive women you meet on the street? Would it be healthy for you to even attempt this?

I don't dream about violence anymore. And when I did, I encourage myself to feel all of the things that prevent such things from becoming acceptable to me. I actually encouraged myself to feel guilty and my first conscience moment. I actually actively explained to myself the consequences of the actions in my dream to both myself and the virtual victim.

Would it be healthy to end all healthy fantasies? Nope. Again, you have to show that healthy and unhealthy fantasies are equal. You haven't. I do not fantasize about committing hurtful acts. It's not a grey issue on that front.


Well, I'm glad you've managed to work through your issues, but it seems to me that the violent actions and violent fantasies were both symptoms of the same psychological problem. I see no reason to believe the violent fantasies were feeding, or causing the violent actions.

Why? Why don't you have reason to believe such a thing? I'm going through in my head a process of teaching myself that there is nothing wrong with such activity. Regularly fantasizing about committing acts of violence while discouraging feelings of guilt or consideration of consequences. These same fantasies are present in nearly every regular offender. I certainly was able to teach myself to consider the consequences of my actions. Why is it hard to believe that I taught myself not too.


I know that. I know it wasn't your fault. It's just that's been happening a lot lately, and my poor timing is starting to get on my nerves.

Yeah, it's bugging me too, but I'm trying not to post a bunch of posts in a row (which is against site rules.)


Simply because a particular study was done poorly doesn't mean that the question it was asking becomes suddenly irrelavent. If a study finds something surprising, and it's methodology is questioned, the next step would be to run another study correcting for the problems of the first study, and seeing if the results are similar. All I'm saying is that the subject merrits further study, so I would think someone would have followed up on it by now.

I don't believe it's irrelevant. I'm saying I don't find the study compelling so I don't find a need to debunk it with opposite studies. Meanwhile, I don't have the funding or expertise to conduct such studies. And I'm not really compelled to look and see if they exist.


Moral protectionism it is. Now, in the absence of conclusive evidence one way or the other for the danger to children, how do you feel about homosexuals being allowed to marry?

There is no reason to even logically suspect a danger in the case of homosexuals. There is obviously a logical reason to suspect danger in the case of pedophiles.


To be honest, I really expected you to be able to reffer to specific studies. I don't know how, but you really seem to have research and studies for just about every topic you post in.
I have a sickness for being right. Not just being seen as right, for which I could care less, but actually being right. Because of this I push people really hard to actually prove things I want to know or I push hard to prove to myself they're wrong. My love for information should qualify as a paraphilia. I'm a pig. And if you muzzle around long enough you'll find lots of truffles. Some people respect my views for that reason. Some people just freaking hate me for the same reason.

The problem with this approach is that you have to be prepared to be wrong. A lot. Like I was about the law that turned out to be overturned by the Court of Appeals.

Sorry I haven't been arround the last couple of days. Technical problems have kept me locked out of the forums. Hopefully, jolt will fix things soon enough, but until then, I don't know if I'll be able to post here.

Since I'm here, I'll post an interesting, sourced compilation of quotes that are directly relavent to this conversation.

http://www.critest.com/cpnonoffend.htm

Here's one sample for those uninterested in pursuing the primary source:

Drawing a Line in the Sand: As we all must feel sometimes, there is legality, and then there is truth. They don't always match. There have been attempts to figure out the truth in this matter, but it has proven to be a slippery fellow to pin down. In 1970 the President's Commission on Pornography issued a voluminous report, labeled pornographic itself for all its lurid detail, urging in conclusion that nearly all obscenity laws be repealed. The Commission had been given $2 million by President Johnson and it took 2 years to study the issue. The group commissioned 30 academic studies of pornography, most of which found no connection between pornography and crime. In other words, people don't look at pornography, then go out and commit child molestation. However, Richard Nixon was in office by the time the report was issued. He and his administration flatly rejected the Commission's findings.

Interestingly, both Canada and Great Britain embarked on similar studies at about the same time, and both of these studies came to the same conclusions.

But this was small stuff compared to Denmark. In the mid-'60s Denmark actually did what all the studies had been suggesting: It eliminated obscenity laws. What happened was interesting. Crimes of child molestation went down by over 60 percent. This seems an incredible figure, one you should not trust on hearing. It's been cited in several sources, but without attribution, so I went after it and found it in a study called 'The Effect of Easy Availability of Pornography on the Incidence of Sex Crimes: The Danish Experience'; (Journal of Social Science, Vol. 29:3 (1973), pp. 163-181).

www.onlineinc.com (http://www.onlineinc.com/cilmag/nov99/schuyler.htm)


I haven't gotten to the end of it yet myself, but since I don't know when I'll be able to log on again, I figured I should post this now.

Sorry I haven't been arround the last couple of days. Technical problems have kept me locked out of the forums. Hopefully, jolt will fix things soon enough, but until then, I don't know if I'll be able to post here.

Since I'm here, I'll post an interesting, sourced compilation of quotes that are directly relavent to this conversation.

http://www.critest.com/cpnonoffend.htm

Here's one sample for those uninterested in pursuing the primary source:


I haven't gotten to the end of it yet myself, but since I don't know when I'll be able to log on again, I figured I should post this now.
Veeeeeery interesting. I must say, it contradicts many of the assumptions that I myself held.

I know I said I'd leave the thread but.... HOLY FRAK-AND-A-HALF!:eek:

Whenever child pornography is brought up, there are always those in favor of banning it for "Encouraging" Pedophiles to rape children. Is there any reality to this claim, or is it just scaremongering? Have any studies been done linking the viewing of pornography (specifically child pornography) to the likelihood to rape children?
Ignoring of course that a child has to be "raped" to make the pornography...

Does watching regular pornography make you want to go out and rape women? Even rape pornography? There has been no conclusive evidence of this. Therefore, it makes NO logical sense that pornography depicting people under an arbitrary age would make people want to go out and rape someone.

To quote my friend (on video games and murder, but make the connection to pornography and rape):

"If you're fucked up enough to want to kill someone, you're going to do it regardless of how many hours of GTA you play."

Basically, the people who rape people are going to do it anyways, with or without pornography. The fantasies are in their head. If anything, masturbation to pornography helps releave those urges. But I digress.