Pornography and Morality

So I was reading about UK law the other day, and I came across an article about our pornography laws. Fair enough, extremely harmful images like child porn are severely illegal, I can understand that. It doesn't need much discussion really, people are obviously harmed a great deal when these images are created. But as I read on, I discovered something else. This country has laws against drawings depicting what appear to be children younger than 18. So if somebody draws a sexually explicit picture involving a child, or even looks at one, they are breaking the law and can be sent to prison. Even if no-one was harmed in the creation of the image.

What is your opinion on this? On the one hand, you have the argument that such images can influence someone to commit a real-life act of abuse, even if the image is not real. This is one of the most commonly used arguments against pornography that involves abuse, but is it necessarily true? Because, on the other side, we have people who claim that those who use these images are actually less likely to commit a real-life crime, as the gratification they get from the images omits the need for real life activity. The example of a man from Virginia springs to mind, who, while arrested after viewing pornographic drawings or "lolicon" at a public library, asserted that he had quit collecting real child pornography and switched to lolicon.

There is also the matter of the "extreme pornography" laws that were recently introduced in the UK. They covers images of various acts, whether they are faked or not. The thing that really worries me is the sentencing you get get for looking at these images. There are sexual acts (e.g. bestiality and necrophilia) that have a maximum sentence of two years when they are performed in real life, and thanks to these new laws, they are also now illegal to look at. And the maximum sentence for looking at these images? Two years. Apparently, looking at a picture of an activity is just as morally wrong as actually doing it in real life! Not only that, but the laws regarding what you're allowed to look at pictures of are actually stricter than laws on sexual offenses. There are acts that are legal to perform (e.g. bestial oral sex), but illegal to take pictures of.

So, WATMM, what is your opinion on these matters?

I love you xxx. The effects of childhood sexual abuse are profound and I get pissed off when I see pedophilia becoming the last frontier of shock humor.

see stu mead for handicapped pedophiliac creepy free speech envelope pushing aclu hemorrhoid inflaming fuckery

http://www.google.com/images?client=safari&rls=en&q=stu+mead&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&source=univ&ei=NQ3qTLDYOMT7lweuxOmeCQ&sa=X&oi=image_result_group&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQsAQwAA&biw=1163&bih=636

then the max hardcore case for modern porn dude going to jail for 4 years over 'obscenity"

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/11/florida_obscenity/

and finally i had this record i was selling on ebay recently pulled because i mentioned the word "nude" in the title description-note

i cropped the image and the young ladie's body was not visable

http://www.angelfire.com/wi/blindfaith/vvcov69.html

that article about max hardcore doesn't say what he did. Having seen a few of his pornos, the guy strikes me as being pretty fucked up, but dressing up of age consenting adults like kids and having them fuck on film should be legal.

To get back to Rhombix' original question, I agree the point is to prevent real child abuse from happening. And I don't think that seeing either real or fake images prevents sex crimes, that's absurd. But as long as they aren't photos of real abuse, I have to concede that paintings, drawings, doodles, sculptures, cartoons, etc of sexualized children or children engaged in acts with adults should fall under freedom of speech.

I remember reading about a teenage guy being accused of collecting child porn for having nude pictures of his teenage girlfriend on his cellphone. I think it was in Vermont or something.

well stu mead moved to germany to avoid persecution in amerikkka

Here's an interesting scenario: If the technology became available to enter a realistic virtual world, a bit like the matrix, where someone could perform simulated sexual acts on a virtual child, would it be outlawed? Or would it be recommended that people use it instead of performing real-life acts of abuse?

Why are you trying so hard to find a way to indirectly rape kids, Rhombix?

  Enter a new display name said:

Why are you trying so hard to find a way to indirectly rape kids, Rhombix?

Do you recognize the subtle differences between discussing morality and raping children?

The issue as I see it Rhombix is you're still trying to claim that viewing images would have some sort of "release" value that would prevent those with such proclivities from offending in real life, when that sort of a connection is absurd. Does pornography make you not want to have sex? Maybe directly after a wank, but the sex drive quickly recovers and desire is a different matter. There can be no positive social value to images of child sex abuse, whether real or simulated; it's a free speech issue.

But yeah, if it's simulated sex with a child in a virtual environment? That really does push the limits of free speech. I was thinking you could ban it on the grounds that it would actually help train sickos to rape kids, but then watching something like CSI can help criminals learn how to evade the law, so that line of reasoning is a bit bunk. I think you just have to let people do it in the name of free speech.

I'm not going to create a thread for the following question, a Dragon thread seems to be the best place to put it...

Assuming there's a heaven, if a person was to be cloned and their clone died... Would it go to heaven?

  lumpenprol said:

The issue as I see it Rhombix is you're still trying to claim that viewing images would have some sort of "release" value that would prevent those with such proclivities from offending in real life, when that sort of a connection is absurd.

I wasn't trying to make any claims regarding CP, I was just giving both sides of the argument and asking which side you agree with. I did, however, provide my own opinions when I started talking about the UK extreme pornography laws.

this thread is going to last an eon, with many insightful points and discussions.

but all I want to say at this time is that Pedobear isn't funny. Its just not.

seriously, is putting Pedobear in a random picture that may or may not feature children that hilarious? its just lazy, more shock than actual humour.

  On 11/22/2010 at 6:15 AM, Rhombix said:

So if somebody draws a sexually explicit picture involving a child, or even looks at one, they are breaking the law and can be sent to prison. Even if no-one was harmed in the creation of the image.

lock up gaarg and throw away the key!

anyone here that has ever lived in japan knows full well what the local 7-11 or other convenience stores have on offer. not quite child porn but junior idols etc... then you can head to the specialist comic shops to get manga drawn with pre-pubescent girls doing all manner of things and you know what. even funnier is that these manga still have mosaics to cover genitalia.

japan.

  On 11/22/2010 at 1:25 PM, keltoi said:

  On 11/22/2010 at 6:15 AM, Rhombix said:

So if somebody draws a sexually explicit picture involving a child, or even looks at one, they are breaking the law and can be sent to prison. Even if no-one was harmed in the creation of the image.

 

lock up gaarg and throw away the key!

lol I wanted to write something funny, but now I don't need to.

  On 11/22/2010 at 2:30 PM, hexson said:

anyone here that has ever lived in japan knows full well what the local 7-11 or other convenience stores have on offer. not quite child porn but junior idols etc... then you can head to the specialist comic shops to get manga drawn with pre-pubescent girls doing all manner of things and you know what. even funnier is that these manga still have mosaics to cover genitalia.

 

 

 

 

japan.

I read that not so long ago pedophilia porn was still legal.

  On 11/22/2010 at 3:48 PM, the anonymous forumite said:

  On 11/22/2010 at 2:30 PM, hexson said:

anyone here that has ever lived in japan knows full well what the local 7-11 or other convenience stores have on offer. not quite child porn but junior idols etc... then you can head to the specialist comic shops to get manga drawn with pre-pubescent girls doing all manner of things and you know what. even funnier is that these manga still have mosaics to cover genitalia.

 

 

 

 

japan.

 

I read that not so long ago pedophilia porn was still legal.

Like a porno that features pedos in lingerie wankin to child porn? Sounds borderline illegal. Kinda like barely 18.

  On 11/22/2010 at 9:21 AM, lumpenprol said:

The issue as I see it Rhombix is you're still trying to claim that viewing images would have some sort of "release" value that would prevent those with such proclivities from offending in real life, when that sort of a connection is absurd. Does pornography make you not want to have sex?

I think when dealing with fetishes it's a tad bit different tho because you're most likely talking about hyper sex drives. Someone's kiddie fetish isn't just gonna up and go away just because they can't look at a picture.. But I admit I don't know enough about the subject to really say whether or not having a release is better or not for them, or even an option.

  On 11/22/2010 at 1:25 PM, keltoi said:

  On 11/22/2010 at 6:15 AM, Rhombix said:

So if somebody draws a sexually explicit picture involving a child, or even looks at one, they are breaking the law and can be sent to prison. Even if no-one was harmed in the creation of the image.

 

lock up gaarg and throw away the key!

i was going to say, we have a fucking mspaint thread full of shit that must be illegal and on top of that i've emailed plenty of those pictures to my friends. Fuck you guys for making hyterically funny, illegal pictures.

also Rhombix, are you sure that it's not 16 rather than 18? Why would it be illegal to have sexually explicit images of a 17 year old when it's perfectly legal to have sex with someone that age?

  Rambo said:

also Rhombix, are you sure that it's not 16 rather than 18? Why would it be illegal to have sexually explicit images of a 17 year old when it's perfectly legal to have sex with someone that age?

That's another crazy thing about UK pornography laws - the age of consent is 16, but it's illegal for someone under 18 to appear in a pornographic image. And even with legal, ordinary pornography, you have to be 18 to view it. Because it takes an extra two years of maturity to look at a picture of something you're old enough to actually do in real life, obviously...

I think the problem here is sexy children. we need to find a way to make children unappealing to pedophiles. maybe we could use some sort of eye or brain implant to make them appear older to the pedos.

Another thing, slightly unrelated, is you are allowed to smoke when 16 but can't buy them until you're 18. And posters in pubs stating that if you don't look over 21 or 25 then you are asked to prove your age. Surely it should be if you don't look 18 then they ID you?

  On 11/22/2010 at 8:00 PM, spratters said:

posters in pubs stating that if you don't look over 21 or 25 then you are asked to prove your age. Surely it should be if you don't look 18 then they ID you?

It's not just pubs, it's anywhere that sells alcohol or cigs. As a 19 year old who currently owns no ID, but is clearly over 18, this annoys me to no end.

the "morality" of committing an act in a virtual world seems to depend upon how realistic the depiction is.

in gta, if you stab someone, it's clearly mechanistic, ie you stab them 5 times and dead, 4 times and they're not. there is the same bleed out animation and they die face down in the street. if when you stabbed them, they screamed in pain, and maybe you hacked off some limbs and they begged you for mercy, the game would surely have had more problems with esrb.

gta is a good example because there are no kids in gta, so you can't go plowing a school bus through a line of children. in fact i can't think of any video games where you can beat the shit our of or kill a kid.

the line is constantly moving though, and peoples morals vary greatly from generation to generation. i'm sure medal of honor has fucked with some soldiers PTS, yet the game is accepted widely.

dragon's idea that watching kiddie porn somehow subdues the drive to commit these acts is the opposite of what really happens. the more exposure you have to an fetish, the more it dominates one's thought process, and that generally culminates to a real-life manifestation of the fetish/fantasy.