Lord Gay
Emperor
Gateway Computers say they're the best!
Oh, wait... you said true. nvm
Oh, wait... you said true. nvm
I'm not going to look at something from a country that considers the Simpsons people.
Why do you feel that it would increase offenses? If it could be shown that such things actually reduced offenses, would you support promoting it?
How the Web Prevents Rape
All that Internet porn reduces sex crimes. Really.
Does pornography breed rape? Do violent movies breed violent crime? Quite the opposite, it seems.
First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.
The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.
OK, so we can at least tentatively conclude that Net access reduces rape. But that's a far cry from proving that porn access reduces rape. Maybe rape is down because the rapists are all indoors reading Slate or vandalizing Wikipedia. But professor Kendall points out that there is no similar effect of Internet access on homicide. It's hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time. On the other hand, it's easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape.
If not Wikipedia, then what? Maybe rape is down because former rapists have found their true loves on Match.com. But professor Kendall points out that the effects are strongest among 15-year-old to 19-year-old perpetratorsthe group least likely to use such dating services.
Moreover, professor Kendall argues that those teenagers are precisely the group that (presumably) relies most heavily on the Internet for access to porn. When you're living with your parents, it's a lot easier to close your browser in a hurry than to hide a stash of magazines. So, the auxiliary evidence is all consistent with the hypothesis that Net access reduces rape because Net access makes it easy to find porn.
Next, violence. What happens when a particularly violent movie is released? Answer: Violent crime rates fall. Instantly. Here again, we have a lot of natural experiments: The number of violent movie releases changes a lot from week to week. One weekend, 12 million people watch Hannibal, and another weekend, 12 million watch Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.
University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna compared what happens on those weekends. The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that's because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit.
I say that's the most probable explanation, because the biggest drop in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people watching violent movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnightthe prime moviegoing hours. And what happens when the theaters close? Answer: Crime stays down, though not by quite as much. Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two hours at the movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer, with sobering effects that persist right on through till morning. Speaking of morning, after 6 a.m., crime returns to its original level.
What about those experiments you learned about in freshman psych, where subjects exposed to violent images were more willing to turn up the voltage on actors who they believed were receiving painful electric shocks? Those experiments demonstrate, perhaps, that most people become more violent after viewing violent images. But that's the wrong question here. The right question is: Do the sort of people who commit violent crimes commit more crimes when they watch violence? And the answer appears to be no, for the simple reason that they can't commit crimes and watch movies simultaneously.
Similarly, psychologists have found that male subjects, immediately after watching pornography, are more likely to express misogynistic attitudes. But as professor Kendall points out, we need to be clear on what those experiments are testing: They are testing the effects of watching pornography in a controlled laboratory setting under the eyes of a researcher. The experience of viewing porn on the Internet, in the privacy of one's own room, typically culminates in a slightly messier but far more satisfying experiencean experience that could plausibly tamp down some of the same aggressions that the pornus interruptus of the laboratory tends to stir up.
In other words, if you want to understand the effects of on-screen sex and violence outside the laboratory, psych experiments don't tell you very much. Sooner or later, you've got to look at the data.
I had to look that up. Shameful.I'm not going to look at something from a country that considers the Simpsons people.
If the purpose of the art is arousal, then it is probably porn.
since drawn art != children therefore I don't think it counts.
On the flip side no matter how seemingly benign something is, someone somewhere is going to get a boner to it. I imagine for 99% of humanity a picture of a kid playing in a bathtub is cute, but then you got the other 1%....
Well, after homosexuality was legalized in most of countries and some of them even adopted gay marriages, then no wonder people want to legalize other forms of non-standard self-expression.Seems to be getting more frequent...
So... because you don't like it, it should be a felony? Huh. I mean, I don't really like it either, but I don't think it should count as child pornography. I mean, if we apply that train of thought, then being annoying should be a felony too, because I don't like annoying people, right? And in that case, there is actually a victim(the person being annoyed) so it should have steeper penalties.It's disgusting and in my view does qualify as child pornography.
Hmm yes this unrealistic drawing of a fictional kid sure is the same thing as real life child sexual abuse
The difference, of course, is that paedophilia is a serious mental illness. Homosexuality is not; it was only ever considered wrong because social prejudice weighed against it.Well, after homosexuality was legalized in most of countries and some of them even adopted gay marriages, then no wonder people want to legalize other forms of non-standard self-expression.
I question the assumption that enjoying a fictional depiction of something necessarily implies approval of the act. I have yet to see any logical connection drawn between the two.
Yup. It's fiction. It's only when incitement to such actions emerges that it becomes morally questionable.
...Was I not meant to say that?
True. But your assumption- that sexualised illustrations of minors implies an approval of child molestation- is groundless, thereby rendering this point rather irrelevant to the core issue.
Please. I do not think that all pedophiles are child molesters. To be honest I feel uncomfortable whenever the media confuses the two terms. I do not think that pedophiles should be subjected to hate, or ignorance. Why do you think I want to oppress them? I said they should be helped, not lynched.Firstly, you assume that such a thing is easy, or even possible. I think that many paedophiles feel that it is not, so oppressed are they by the atmosphere of paranoia and groundless hate which those such as yourself so enthusiastically cultivate.
And you have implied it, time and time again. That's not unusual, sure, but it reflects the incredible ignorance towards the illness which does naught but exacerbate the problems it causes.
Either you misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself properly. I'm leaning towards the second. It's not what these people are doing that matters; it's why. If your gun-owner and exerciser is some rage filled psychopath who flips out at the lightest offence, then he should not be going to ranges or, er, exercising. Video games really aren't that bad, because their context makes the violence tolerable. Usually, the player is in a warzone or surrounded by enemies; it's very rare that the character is actually killing to have fun. And for your men, they should only be be castrated if they want, or wish, to hurt others with their, er, dicks (not that I'm really proposing castration, I'm just accepting the terms as they're put to me).Lord Gay said:I completely disagree with your logic here.
You're suggesting gun owners shouldn't go to shooting ranges, because they could also shoot people. People should never exercise, because they could also direct their aggression against people. 90% of video games should probably be banned, because they let people have fun with horrible things (boom headshot!!!). Owning or having something is NOT the same as causing harm to others. I mean, perhaps all men should be castrated, because they might use their dicks to hurt others?
That reminded me of an article I read a while back, which I found again surprisingly quickly:
And why is that to be condemned? Is acceptance not the first step to recovery? After all, these people still have imaginations. If you plan to stop them from ever entertaining the the notion of sexualised pre-pubescent individuals, then you're left with little choice but to wade in with a scalpel and perform a serious lobotomy.Child sexual molestation is the sexualized use of children. And sexualized illustrations of children is the depiction of such. Maybe, viewing sex. illus. of children isn't the approval of child molestation, but it's still indulging their pedophilia. And by letting themselves indulge in it, they're accepting it.
Well, your implicit support for state-mandate ideological correctness aside, I think that you've rather demolished your own analogy there. Paedophilia is not, in itself, immoral, it is a mental condition. Child molestation is wrong, which, as he have established, is distinct. Paedophilia does not imply any intent to molest children, or even a belief that this is acceptable. It is merely sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Comparing it to racism, which is not a mental condition and carries inherent intent of action, is simply dishonest.And to get back to my racist picture example... actions aren't enough. It's wrong to be racist because racism is wrong (and this is not the place to discuss racism! Unless you want to...). To me, it's not the actions, or lack of them, which matter, it's the intent or the underlying beliefs.
Whoops?No you shouldn't have said that
All very true. However, and this is the crux of the thing, shota does not actually constitute the sexual use of children. It is artificial sexual depictions of fictional children. That is, I think, distinct.Please. I do not think that all pedophiles are child molesters. To be honest I feel uncomfortable whenever the media confuses the two terms. I do not think that pedophiles should be subjected to hate, or ignorance. Why do you think I want to oppress them? I said they should be helped, not lynched.
The atmosphere of paranoia and hate that you describe should be changed. If people were educated about pedophiles, and became more supportive of their struggles, I think we would be in a better situation. But the sexual use of children cannot be tolerated in any way.
Well, I don't mean acceptance that they have a problem, I mean acceptance of their condition.And why is that to be condemned? Is acceptance not the first step to recovery? After all, these people still have imaginations. If you plan to stop them from ever entertaining the the notion of sexualised pre-pubescent individuals, then you're left with little choice but to wade in with a scalpel and perform a serious lobotomy.
The sexual use of children is wrong, and shota is the sexual use of children. Not the use of actual, living, children, but the use of children as a concept. In the same way that, for example, sexual attraction is not involved with actual people on the basic level. People are attracted to idealized types of men or women, not specific individuals (well, they are, but that's just the manifestation of their basic attraction). Pedophilia cannot be compared to racism, but sexualized children can.Well, your implicit support for state-mandate ideological correctness aside, I think that you've rather demolished your own analogy there. Paedophilia is not, in itself, immoral, it is a mental condition. Child molestation is wrong, which, as he have established, is distinct. Paedophilia does not imply any intent to molest children, or even a belief that this is acceptable. It is merely sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Comparing it to racism, which is not a mental condition and carries inherent intent of action, is simply dishonest.
All very true. However, and this is the crux of the thing, shota does not actually constitute the sexual use of children. It is artificial sexual depictions of fictional children. That is, I think, distinct.
You are not quite right: homosexuality was once considered as an illness and still as such or as another but abnormal condition by many (f.e. - most of world religions). A striking example is history of Alan Turing who had to undergo through hormone treatment.The difference, of course, is that paedophilia is a serious mental illness. Homosexuality is not; it was only ever considered wrong because social prejudice weighed against it.
Child sexual molestation is the sexualized use of children. And sexualized illustrations of children is the depiction of such. Maybe, viewing sex. illus. of children isn't the approval of child molestation, but it's still indulging their pedophilia. And by letting themselves indulge in it, they're accepting it.
And to get back to my racist picture example... actions aren't enough. It's wrong to be racist because racism is wrong (and this is not the place to discuss racism! Unless you want to...). To me, it's not the actions, or lack of them, which matter, it's the intent or the underlying beliefs.