Quote from: John MorrowActually, I've repeatedly said that I'm not a libertarian.  One of my main complaints about libertarianism is the idea that we can put neat lines around what harms others.

Let me put it this way...

Do you support laws against drunk driving that fine, imprison, and/or take driving rights away from a person who has not actually gotten into an accident or hurt anyone else yet (thus putting them behind bars "for something that in and of itself harms no one") or should the law wait until they actually get into an accident and hurt someone before they act?

Drunken driving is something that puts the lives of others into clear and immediate danger. Its not the same.  
To compare that to someone writing about rape, it'd be closer to say something like "should someone who  is drinking at a bar be arrested because he might end up drunk driving?"

QuotePedophiles, sexual predators, and serial killers often don't seem to spring forth into the world as full-blown menaces to others.  And for someone who rants about how the toleration of lawn-crappers can ruin a hobby, what's the benefit of tolerating this sort of material?

I'm not talking about tolerating it. I've often ranted about the fucking furries, the otakus on 4chan, and all the general lawncrapper-esque social maladjusted aspergers fuckup behaviour, quite clearly demonstrating how intolerant I am of this little corner of "geek culture".
But there's a huge and wide berth of space between "not tolerating" and "rounding up and imprisoning". We can socially chastize without criminalizing. Antisocial behaviour can be looked down upon without feeling the need to outlaw private behaviour or even thoughts.

QuoteSure, but seeing that sort of pornography can tip a person who has been an abused into becoming an abuser, just as cruelty toward animals can lead to a person becoming a serial killer.  

Look, I'm not sure whether I buy that argument or not, I'm not an expert and have read no studies; I have no particular reason not to believe it, though.
Even so, if you want to argue that some of these guys might belong in a mental hospital; well, that's fine. Or at the very least going to a therapist or something, sure.
But sending them to prison for this and ONLY this would be exactly the same as sending someone to prison for cruelty to animals for writing an essay about kicking a cat; or sending someone to the electric chair for murder for having written a novel where a murder occurs.
You aren't thinking logically about this; you and those on your side are just Maude Flanders, running around waving your arms screaming "Won't SOMEBODY think of the children?!" as though "the children" justifies imposing thought control on our society.  The "won't somebody think of the children?!" argument has been used to justify some of the worst abuses of government in history.

QuoteAnd let me ask you this.  Do you know of any well-adjusted adults that don't have an unhealthy sexual attraction toward children eager to buy and watch such material beyond, perhaps, a "yeah I saw that once" act of transgression, or is the major market for this material the people with an unhealthy sexual attraction toward children?

Well again, if the various online "Chan" networks (4chan, anonib, etc) are any indication, if everyone who views that stuff there is a pedophile that will abuse a child because they saw it, we're in for an unprecedented wave of sexual abuse like man has never seen before, and God help us all. :rolleyes:

People look at a lot of stupid shit on the internet, because they're idiots.
So to answer your question: yes, I know of plenty of idiots who I don't think are child rapists (or rapists in the making) but who semi-regularly end up seeing this stuff, maybe even posting it, because they think its funny; again, because they're idiots, on the internet.

RPGPundit

edited to add: I mean jesus fuck, look at the whole "Pedobear" phenomenon.. .what the fuck is that shit?!! Is it a kind of sexualization of children, or is it humourous satire?  I certainly don't believe that everyone who's ever designed a Pedobear photoshop is a pedophile, never mind a child rapist who just hasn't gotten around to it yet; but the photoshops of pedobear often involve real photos of underaged girls, albeit without nudity. Still, they clearly imply lewd suggestiveness, and theoretically some random child rapist could use an image with pedobear on it to jerk off.  Would that then make it a criminal act? Should everyone who's ever seen a pedobear image on their computer go to jail (because that would now include me, unfortunately), or only the people who hosted it on networks like 4chan? What if someone posted it without the hosts approval? Or what if he said he didn't approve of that post, and took it down when it was posted, but you strongly suspected that he was actually inciting people to post such images?

I mean if you start down this road of criminalization WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU STOP?

When it comes down to it, fuckers who'll actually rape a child might whack off to anything; I'm sure that they'd only be whacking off to drawings if real child porn was unavailable, and if drawings weren't available I'd bet they'd whack off to disney movies and the kids' section of the sears catalogue.  It doesn't mean that anyone who's ever owned a disney film or a sears catalogue should go to prison.

Are these getting banned too?

Quote from: David RYes and if you bothered reading any of my posts you would realize that I agreed that child pornography should be banned everywhere. (Point in the OP discussed and resolved) As far as the cartoon shit is concerned, I don't think so.

Part of the point of the OP included the cartoons, which I don't think is resolved.  Nor do I think it's resolved that the other issues being raised are all related to the same underlying issues except in the broad sense that people have messed up ideas about children.

Quote from: David RI would say that these little girl beauty pageants are worse than anime porn. In the flesh for all to see. No imagination required. These objects (little girls) seem more accessible to these predators. Who knows, if they can't get these girls, others may suffice.

My understanding of the psychology around them is that its more about parents competing through their children than anything that would attract pedophiles, but I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.  Beyond the creepiness, I think the bigger problem is what the parents put the little girls through to compete.  Similarly, I don't see the psychology behind having little girls wearing the hajib as sexualizing them but as an issue of control but, again, I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.

I've never seen one of those "beauty pageants" but I have run into Japanese animated and manga pornography involving little girls (including really little girls), even without looking for it, both while living in Japan and among anime and manga fans in the United States.  Maybe if I lived in a place where those pageants were big, they would seem like more urgent problems to me.

Quote from: David ROh I don't think pedophilia is the goal maybe just the logical consequence. I'm sure there are tapes of these girls being passed around. From what I've read pedophiles don't consider what they are doing wrong because they believe that children welcome their advances. Sexualizing them further acts as an enticement , don't you think? I mean, I can't think of any reason to sexualize kids.

What I think is missing from that chain of reasoning is consideration of what pedophiles are attracted to.  Those "beauty pageants" do sexualize children in a way by making them look like little adults, which is why they seem creepy to people who aren't pedophiles.  But I would think that pedophiles would want children that look like children, not creepy little adults which is why you also get material that makes adult women look like little girls.  I could certainly be wrong about that, though.

Quote from: JongWKAre these getting banned too?

I think many parents wish they would be.  And, yes, I think that illustrates the American problem pretty well, actually.

Quote from: David JohansenPeople might not be able to chose what they're attracted to but they can focus and direct it.  Pornography is one way of doing it.

Is there evidence that it works rather than making the problem worse?

Quote from: John MorrowIs there evidence that it works rather than making the problem worse?

Hey, I know that if I were to jerk off to some porn it wouldn't make me any more likely to go off and pick up a woman, it might even make me less likely to.

I don't have any reason in particular to believe that it would be any different with pedophiles.
Is there any concrete evidence from a source that isn't already biased against pornography that would suggest that it would make the problem worse?
I don't know if I buy the "it makes things better" argument either, but I think that "it makes things worse" is no argument by which to criminalize images or writings that are entirely the product of imagination and involve no real people.

Note: nor does "it makes things better" in ANY way constitute a good argument for making real child porn legal, of course, because a child has already been harmed in the making of it.  

RPGPundit

Quote from: John MorrowI think many parents wish they would be.  And, yes, I think that illustrates the American problem pretty well, actually.

So what would happen next? Should the government go after Barbie dolls too?

Quote from: John MorrowI think many parents wish they would be.  And, yes, I think that illustrates the American problem pretty well, actually.

Just to clarify, what's the illustration of the American problem here? The prematurely sexualised image of the cunt-faced Bratz doll? Or the desire to ban something that should fall under the aegis of parental authority and general social disapporval?

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditDrunken driving is something that puts the lives of others into clear and immediate danger. Its not the same.  
To compare that to someone writing about rape, it'd be closer to say something like "should someone who  is drinking at a bar be arrested because he might end up drunk driving?"

My point being that the line isn't "something that in and of itself harms no one" but also includes something that may stand a chance of harming someone, so the issue is one of haggling over reasonable odds and needs, not absolutes.

I'm not talking about writing about rape.  I'm talking about things that meet the legal definition of obscenity:

   For something to be "obscene" it must be shown that the average person, applying contemporary community standards and viewing the material as a whole, would find (1) that the work appeals predominantly to "prurient" interest; (2) that it depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and (3) that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

An appeal to "prurient" interest is an appeal to a morbid, degrading and unhealthy interest in sex, as distinguished from a mere candid interest in sex.

Quote from: RPGPunditI'm not talking about tolerating it. I've often ranted about the fucking furries, the otakus on 4chan, and all the general lawncrapper-esque social maladjusted aspergers fuckup behaviour, quite clearly demonstrating how intolerant I am of this little corner of "geek culture".

And how has that been working to change "geek culture"?  Getting better or worse by your assessment?

Quote from: RPGPunditBut there's a huge and wide berth of space between "not tolerating" and "rounding up and imprisoning". We can socially chastize without criminalizing. Antisocial behaviour can be looked down upon without feeling the need to outlaw private behaviour or even thoughts.

If that private behavior translates into or migrates into public behavior, then I think it's an issue.  A great deal here seems to depend on whether the consumption of such material is likely to change a person's ideas and ultimately behavior or not and whether there is any positive purpose for protecting the material.

Quote from: RPGPunditLook, I'm not sure whether I buy that argument or not, I'm not an expert and have read no studies; I have no particular reason not to believe it, though.

And if you did?  Hypothetically, if it could be shown that such material, even in animated form, encouraged people to develop sexual attractions toward children and ultimately molest them, would you think outlawing such material would be warranted?

Quote from: RPGPunditEven so, if you want to argue that some of these guys might belong in a mental hospital; well, that's fine. Or at the very least going to a therapist or something, sure.
But sending them to prison for this and ONLY this would be exactly the same as sending someone to prison for cruelty to animals for writing an essay about kicking a cat; or sending someone to the electric chair for murder for having written a novel where a murder occurs.

If you want to debate the punishment, that's fine, and I might even agree with you.  I also think that there should be more safeguards for people who innocently run afoul of these laws (e.g., the person who downloads pictures of girls who look legal but aren't, accidentally surf to a page full of child pornography so it gets caught in their browser cache, have sex with a girl who claims to be 20 and looks it but is really only 14, etc.).  I'm not claiming that the punishment should be the equivalent of actually molesting a child but I think that punishment is a secondary issue.  

Further, I'm not talking about visual depictions of such acts, sold in the public marketplace, for purposes eluded to by Kyle, not someone writing an essay or any material that doesn't meet the standard of obscenity.

Quote from: RPGPunditYou aren't thinking logically about this; you and those on your side are just Maude Flanders, running around waving your arms screaming "Won't SOMEBODY think of the children?!" as though "the children" justifies imposing thought control on our society.  The "won't somebody think of the children?!" argument has been used to justify some of the worst abuses of government in history.

Nope.  I'm looking at material that is obscene.  It "lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" and I don't feel particularly obliged to protect material that has no imaginable merit.  And before you make a slippery-slope absolutist free speech argument at me, I'm going to point out that all Western nations, to my knowledge, have restricted speech whether it's Japanese laws about showing genitalia, German laws against Nazi symbolism, British laws about libel and blasphemy, American judgments about fighting words and campaign advertising laws, and so on.  The truth is that a lot of speech is restricted in practice around the world without an unstoppable slide down a slippery slope, and I could argue that a lot of the free speech that is restricted has more value to argue that it should be protected than the material in question in this thread.

Quote from: RPGPunditWell again, if the various online "Chan" networks (4chan, anonib, etc) are any indication, if everyone who views that stuff there is a pedophile that will abuse a child because they saw it, we're in for an unprecedented wave of sexual abuse like man has never seen before, and God help us all. :rolleyes:

Not my argument.  But let me put it this way.  What harm would it do to the people in such places who are not pedophiles if they are obliged to avoid such material because it's illegal?  Does it hurt those networks and the people on them that they are prohibited from posting or looking at real child pornography?

Quote from: RPGPunditPeople look at a lot of stupid shit on the internet, because they're idiots.

Sure.  They aren't allowed to look at child pornography without concern about running afoul of the law.  What changes if animated child pornography is added to what's not permitted?  From the perspective of distribution, consumption, and enforcement, what makes the animated stuff different?  

Quote from: RPGPunditSo to answer your question: yes, I know of plenty of idiots who I don't think are child rapists (or rapists in the making) but who semi-regularly end up seeing this stuff, maybe even posting it, because they think its funny; again, because they're idiots, on the internet.

Do those idiots manage to avoid real child pornography?  If they can manage that, then they could manage to avoid the animated stuff, too.

Quote from: RPGPunditedited to add: I mean jesus fuck, look at the whole "Pedobear" phenomenon.. .what the fuck is that shit?!!

I have no idea what this is and I'm not about to Google it to find out.

Quote from: RPGPunditWould that then make it a criminal act? Should everyone who's ever seen a pedobear image on their computer go to jail (because that would now include me, unfortunately), or only the people who hosted it on networks like 4chan? What if someone posted it without the hosts approval? Or what if he said he didn't approve of that post, and took it down when it was posted, but you strongly suspected that he was actually inciting people to post such images?

How do they answer all of these questions for real child pornography?

Quote from: RPGPunditI mean if you start down this road of criminalization WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU STOP?

Where does any other legislation stop?  If you haven't noticed, the slippery slope has been tending toward less restrictions for decades and a reversal of that slide does not inherently lead to a slide toward Big Brother.  That's why a democratic system of government is important.  Yes, the United States banned alcohol by Constitutional amendment and after discovering that they'd gone to far, they overturned that amendment with another one.

Quote from: RPGPunditWhen it comes down to it, fuckers who'll actually rape a child might whack off to anything; I'm sure that they'd only be whacking off to drawings if real child porn was unavailable, and if drawings weren't available I'd bet they'd whack off to disney movies and the kids' section of the sears catalogue.  It doesn't mean that anyone who's ever owned a disney film or a sears catalogue should go to prison.

So, again, you think that people either are or aren't pedophiles, regardless of what sort of culture of visual material they are exposed to?

Quote from: JongWKSo what would happen next? Should the government go after Barbie dolls too?

Are Barbie dolls obscene?  Is their only possible use to shock or encourage pedophilia?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaJust to clarify, what's the illustration of the American problem here? The prematurely sexualised image of the cunt-faced Bratz doll? Or the desire to ban something that should fall under the aegis of parental authority and general social disapporval?

The American problem is treating little girls like adults and sexualizing them accordingly, thus the former.  I suppose you could argue that the latter is an American problem, too, though.

I asked because, up-thread a ways, you were suggesting that child beauty pageants be made illegal. I thought it was a curious position for you to take, given your political inclinations.

!i!

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, I know that if I were to jerk off to some porn it wouldn't make me any more likely to go off and pick up a woman, it might even make me less likely to.

And there are people who can drink and never become alcoholics, people who can use drugs without ever becoming a drug addict, and quit smoking without much effort at all.  That doesn't mean that all people react the same way.

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't have any reason in particular to believe that it would be any different with pedophiles.

I do.

Quote from: RPGPunditIs there any concrete evidence from a source that isn't already biased against pornography that would suggest that it would make the problem worse?

Doing any sort of objective research on pedophiles is difficult for obvious reasons.  But I suggest looking at police profiles of pedophiles and their use of images of children such as this one.

I did find this study that shows "statistically that a predilection for viewing child porn is closely associated with pedophilia" and that "subjects convicted of viewing child porn but not previously convicted of any actual child offenses were almost three times as aroused by child porn photos as actual convicted pedophiles".  I'm not really sure how they could ethically go a step further and show that such images cause pedophilia or make it worse.

While doing some Google searches to see if I could find anything, I found discussions of another angle I hadn't considered that I'd like to point out.  Pedophiles can use pornography as a way to encourage children into sexual acts.  Cartoons of children having sex with adults seems fairly ready-made for that sort of purpose, doesn't it?

Quote from: RPGPunditI don't know if I buy the "it makes things better" argument either, but I think that "it makes things worse" is no argument by which to criminalize images or writings that are entirely the product of imagination and involve no real people.

It's not simply that it makes things worse.  It's that it serves no other useful purpose.  There is no respectable use for the stuff.

Quote from: RPGPunditNote: nor does "it makes things better" in ANY way constitute a good argument for making real child porn legal, of course, because a child has already been harmed in the making of it.

Well, the argument was about using cartoons so I was assuming this was a given.

Quote from: John MorrowPart of the point of the OP included the cartoons, which I don't think is resolved.  Nor do I think it's resolved that the other issues being raised are all related to the same underlying issues except in the broad sense that people have messed up ideas about children.

What exactly are these underlying issues if not people having messed up ideas about children?

QuoteMy understanding of the psychology around them is that its more about parents competing through their children than anything that would attract pedophiles, but I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.  Beyond the creepiness, I think the bigger problem is what the parents put the little girls through to compete.  Similarly, I don't see the psychology behind having little girls wearing the hajib as sexualizing them but as an issue of control but, again, I'm willing to be proved wrong on that.

Like I said, I don't think the goal is pedophilia. I do think from what we do know of pedophiles who function within very normal (mainstream) enviroments - sports activities, religious org etc - it's not illogical to assume that they would find an activity such as this, which does sexualize children, easy to operate in. The socially exceptable passtime of viewing these kids would provide an ideal cover for these predators.

As for the hijab, you're absolutely correct. On the face of it, it's about control. However there are a couple of things one should consider which relates to my point of the hijab sexualizing children. Firstly, these very young girls are taught in religious schools that their bodies attract sexual attention and it is their responsibility to ensure that they do not act as temptation for adults.

Secondly, adults (whatever the race/religion - since I'm taking specifically about Malaysia) equate the hijab with the suppresion of sexuality - which is why many (including many liberal Muslims who have no problems with the hijab in general are appalled, that children - girls - are encouraged to wear it). So, it's language, perception than action - the actual wearing of the hijab.

Just to tie this up with these so called beauty pageants. It's funny, the feelings of "creepiness" that some (most hopefully) view these pageants is exactly the same kind of reaction you get with the majority of people who see kids wearing the hijab. I think this is telling. It's the imagery (and the follwing repulsion) of children as overt sexual objects.

QuoteI've never seen one of those "beauty pageants" but I have run into Japanese animated and manga pornography involving little girls (including really little girls), even without looking for it, both while living in Japan and among anime and manga fans in the United States.  Maybe if I lived in a place where those pageants were big, they would seem like more urgent problems to me.

Honestly, be it kiddie beauty pageants or anime porn, the urgent problem for me is the lax enforcement of child pretection laws in various parts of the world and I'm including sentencing & release of pedophiles, child trafficking, child prostitution.

QuoteWhat I think is missing from that chain of reasoning is consideration of what pedophiles are attracted to.  Those "beauty pageants" do sexualize children in a way by making them look like little adults, which is why they seem creepy to people who aren't pedophiles.  But I would think that pedophiles would want children that look like children, not creepy little adults which is why you also get material that makes adult women look like little girls.  I could certainly be wrong about that, though.

Pedophiles are attracted to children. In the brothels in Bangkok and Russia or wherever children are abused for profit, most times they are made to wear make up. This is certainly true according to news images of abused children from Russia and Thailand. Now of course they want them to look like children, however I don't think these kids being made to look like adults repels them in any way.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaI asked because, up-thread a ways, you were suggesting that child beauty pageants be made illegal. I thought it was a curious position for you to take, given your political inclinations.

I'm not a libertarian.

The short version:

Liberty is both a blessing and a curse.  When people use liberty responsibly, it's a blessing.  When they abuse it, it's a curse.  When liberty seems to be a net liability, people will happily surrender their liberty and the liberty of others to improve their lives.  This is why, despite all the noble talk about not sacrificing liberty for security, people will do just that, again and again.  So the best way to preserve liberty is to make sure it's not abused.

For people who view liberty as an end not a means, they think things like protecting Neo-Nazis marching through a Jewish neighborhood or protecting cartoons depicting the sexual abuse of children is a celebration of liberty and what liberty is all about.  It's not.  Those are exactly the sorts of things that make people view liberty as a liability rather than a blessing.  And when that happens, people will happily give up their liberties.

This, for example, is exactly the sort of thing that gives liberty a bad name.