Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What do you think? (Re: animated child pornography)
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 1 of 31 (91422)
03-09-2004 4:35 PM


Hello all,
I sometimes get into some real doozie discussions and thought I'd share a recent one, forgive me if this has been discussed.
With computer animation finally getting closer and closer to realism eventually the laws concerning child pornography are going to have to deal with pediphiles seeking computer animation child pornography. Once the line has been crossed someday as to is it live or is it Memorex how will law enforcement be able to deal with this situation? Is there a crime if there is no victim? Or is there a crime on the basis and nature of the material? What do think? I think it is criminal but I am old fashion that way.
{Edit: Added the "(Re: animated child pornography)" to the topic title - Adminnemooseus}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-09-2004]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 5:04 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 31 (91430)
03-09-2004 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by 1.61803
03-09-2004 4:35 PM


Interesting topic. The first person that is protected by child pornography laws is obviously the child. Secondary to this, the laws also attempt to stem people from committing child molestation after stimulation by child pornography. If you remove one problem, children abused by taking pictures, the second problem still remains. I do not know whether or not viewing child pornography causes someone to become a child molester, but my guess is that it creates a greater propensity to commit sexual crimes. Or, what if viewing child pornography stimulates an already borderline child abuser into crossing a line they wouldn't have crossed to begin with.
These are tough questions. We could also ask if adult pornography causes an inclination towards rape. Or, what if allowing simulated child pornography to do away with real child porn. De allow one as a concession to do away with the other? These are some questions we should answer more deeply than just our gut reactions. And before anyone asks, I think viewing simulated or real child porn is wrong on moral grounds, but I think this may have to go beyond what the moral majority thinks on this issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2004 4:35 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2004 5:14 PM Loudmouth has replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 03-16-2004 11:47 AM Loudmouth has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 3 of 31 (91433)
03-09-2004 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Loudmouth
03-09-2004 5:04 PM


This is a dilemma. I hate to think "kiddie cartoons" would be legal, but as you said would it reduce actual cases of child molestation? Would kiddie cartoons be enough or would the "real thing" still have a following? I think a ban on real and simulated would be the easiest to enforce.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 5:04 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Loudmouth, posted 03-09-2004 5:22 PM 1.61803 has not replied
 Message 5 by nator, posted 03-09-2004 5:58 PM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 03-09-2004 6:47 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 31 (91436)
03-09-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by 1.61803
03-09-2004 5:14 PM


quote:
I think a ban on real and simulated would be the easiest to enforce.
It makes me cringe to say this, but regulation is doable. If you license certain companies to produce sim porn, then anything not produced by a licensed dealer could be seized and the pushers of non-licensed material could be punished. Although it could be like Idaho's dope laws, where you have to get tax stamps to sell marijuana or you could be prosecuted for tax evasion, and even worse, marijuana is still illegal to sell. You end up getting the double whammy if you are caught distributing the green stuff. I can see this type of twisted licensing happening with sim porn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2004 5:14 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 31 (91443)
03-09-2004 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by 1.61803
03-09-2004 5:14 PM


Japanese porn consumers (very nearly all men) love kiddie porn, and it already exists in animated form there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2004 5:14 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2004 6:34 PM nator has not replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 6 of 31 (91448)
03-09-2004 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by nator
03-09-2004 5:58 PM


Oh no, I dont mean that 'cartoon' looking stuff, I mean that photo quality realism computer state of the art stuff. I mean stuff so real you dont know it is animation... which is comming down the pike. Which brings me to another question what are legit actors going to do when computers render theyre expensive butts obsolete. LOL!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by nator, posted 03-09-2004 5:58 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2004 1:41 AM 1.61803 has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 31 (91449)
03-09-2004 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by 1.61803
03-09-2004 5:14 PM


Just to let you know, "realistic" sexual images involving children, even if computer generated, is illegal. Or at least it was, then got shot down by the Supreme Court, but I believe the Congress just put it up again with a few different words.
Heck it used to be so strict that it was illegal to say on a video box cover that the story involves children, even if it was obviously octogenarians playing the parts.
Being one of the resident posters on porn issues, I have tried to stay out of this topic because of the thorniness. But here it goes, my two cents...
(edited in---
Arrrrghhh! I had a big unwieldly post, and I stupidly wrote it through a headache. I will write a better response tomorrow.
But my overall opinion is that childporn of any kind should be legal to POSSESS. It is absolutely pointless to try and regulate human communication, or records of human communication, especially sexual fantasy.
What can be done is use laws to regulate its creation so that exploitation is removed and or punish those that use explitation during its creation (ala the new "john doe" warrants the DOJ is using for child molesters... I can't believe I am liking something the DOJ is doing).
But to punish anyone that expresses or views expressions of something that did not involve real people in its creation (no matter how lifelike) is especially troublesome to me.
I'll detail an argument tomorrow).
[This message has been edited by holmes, 03-09-2004]

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2004 5:14 PM 1.61803 has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 8 of 31 (91502)
03-10-2004 1:41 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by 1.61803
03-09-2004 6:34 PM


This is still long, but better put together...
When people discuss regulating communication (sexual imagery or other), it normally focuses on two issues: the effects of reading/viewing the material, and effects of creating the material.
With respect to pornography, and more so child pornography, many personal feelings are used in place of rational assessment. So let's get some things straight.
READING/VIEWING MATERIAL:
1) There is NO scientific evidence that exposure to pornography results in "negative" changes of behavior, like increased probability of rape. The only effect which studies have found are REDUCTIONS in sexual crimes... believed to be a cathartic effect.
2) Such cathartic effects were seen across cultures including nations where what the US currently considers child porn existed (for example schraf mentioned japan which only recently ceded to US pressure to raise age limits).
3) Convicted child rapists and killers have been shown to enjoy nonsexual depictions of children as much as sexual images. The nonsexual imagery apparently heightens their ability to fantasize.
Given the above, there is no evidence to suggest that laws against reading/viewing child pornography of ANY KIND is necessary or even helpful.
In fact, if the logic currently being used to argue for bans on viewing/possessing childporn is maintained (ie it is important to ban stories/imagery rapists and killers are likely to enjoy), shall we also ban production of nonsexual child images such as children's sections of clothing catalogs? Or shall we pass laws designed to stop adults without children from viewing/possessing ANY imagery of children (real or artificial)?
CREATING MATERIAL:
1) While children have been harmed physically and psychologically due to coercion and violence during forced sexual encounters (not to mention being commercially exploited through sale of pornographic imagery or prostitution), there have been NO studies showing that harm occurs from exposure to sex itself. In fact, sexual repression in children has been linked to increased deviancy, confusion, and hostility.
2) General age of consent laws were originally created to protect children from commercial exploitation (prostitution). It was not due to a common conception (which the US has today) that children are inherently asexual and harmed just by having sex (although moral harm was considered). Anti-child porn laws were extensions of the age of consent laws.
3) Differences in age of consent laws across the nation and the world, as well as for restrictions of child imagery in porn, means there is no consensus as to what actually counts as child porn or illegitimate child sexual activity. In other words one nation's child porn (harmful) IS another nation's regular porn (not harmful). This highlights the fact that arguments children are inherently harmed during creation of such materials, based on AGE CRITERIA ALONE, are arbitrary cultural arguments and not objective.
4) Clearly imagery and stories which do not use actual children in their creation cannot possibly injure anyone during their creation.
Given the above, it can be seen that there are no valid arguments for barring the creation of artificial child porn at all. In addition, there are little to no valid arguments to be made for barring the creation of child porn based solely on age criteria.
The main valid argument is that there is a necessity to regulate production such that exploitation, coercion, or violence against actual children is prevented, or if/when it occurs that the perpetrators can be easily tracked down and punished. This is where the DOJ's new use of "john doe" warrants to ID offenders from their own images is a great idea.
The continuation of legal restrictions preventing their sale might work. That cuts off legitimate economic incentive for creating such imagery, though any amount of illegality keeps a black market open.
Loudmouth's suggestion of licensing of sim porn businesses could be a good idea, and this could be extended to actual childporn as well (where its manufacture is allowed by other nations).
However, continuing the current witchhunt mentality regarding its creation (using arguments that children are automatically harmed by sexual activity or fantasy, victimized if that sexuality is depicted, or exploited by its distribution), have created many odd results.
We now arrest and destroy the lives of adults who may not be violent and not coercive, and in fact may not even engage in sexual activity with children at all... just for admitting and communicating FANTASIES.
We also now label and punish CHILDREN as sexual predators for doing what children have naturally done since the beginning of history, have sexual experiences with others, as well as labeling and punishing them as PORNOGRAPHERS when they visually communicate the encounters they have had or fantasized about.
Is replacing what used to be familial norms and sanctions with LAWS the proper path toward protecting children and human rights? Can this actually result in a healthy sexual environment for kids, when we now have government playing the role of repressive parent?
And what standard shall we use to define legal sex acts with children, as well as depicting such sexual acts? The Supreme Court itself pointed out this unusual dichotomy (between what is legal to do and what is legal to show) when shooting down a portion of child porn laws.
Since the internet is the world and not just the US, must the standards be that of the strictest community in the world? If not, then which one?
Currently it appears that the US will set the standard of sexual activity and communication for the world, bashing down those that are more strict as unreasonably prudish, and bashing those that are less strict as being criminally negligent or backward.
Is this homogenization of world culture with regard to sex a good thing? Given the lack of evidence for the US's legal position on sex and communication I am not sure it is.
I am not trying to argue that sex with children is "good", that everyone should accept it as a lifestyle, or as a subject for fantasy. In fact I believe ALL parents should have tools available to raise their children in their own sexual values, as well as nations being able to protect children from exploitation and harm (especially from child rapists and murderers).
What I question is whether preventing all sexual activity and fantasy involving children is a valuable mechanism for establishing the above goals.
Furthermore, as technology progresses it will only become more common that children themselves, as they experiment and express, will create their own "childporn", both real and artificial. I fear a world where children are increasingly labeled as deviants and predators just for being honest regarding their sexuality.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by 1.61803, posted 03-09-2004 6:34 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by 1.61803, posted 03-10-2004 10:48 AM Silent H has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 9 of 31 (91545)
03-10-2004 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Silent H
03-10-2004 1:41 AM


Mr. Holmes,
I appreciate the points you have made in your well thought out post. However, studies and research as to the effects of regulating pornography of this nature is nearly impossibe since the subject matter is illegal and the unavailability of pediphiles to come forward for interview in enough numbers to make any useful conclusions. I am against censorship to a point. But I remember seeing a documentry on serial murderers who commit sexual crimes that suggested that pornography was a factor in feeding the fantasys of these deviants. The pornography was not the cause of they're psycotic behavior but access to more explicit scenarios of women being violently abused and sexually molested may have induced them to seek more stimulation. I think it has been shown that violent games and viewing material has an impact on violence in America. And I believe the pendelum is going to start swinging the other way in regards to censorship. And although we are not talking about violence it stands to reason that if realistic images of child porn are not banned then society is making a statement that it is acceptable. I do not know what our future holds in regards to this issue but I for one will support a ban on this type of material in any form in this country for the mere fact that it is offensive to me. And although I know it is just my personal opinion and has no bearing on the rest of the world as a whole I draw the line there.
Thanks for your comments Holmes I appreciate you openess and honesty.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2004 1:41 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Asgara, posted 03-10-2004 11:08 AM 1.61803 has replied
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2004 12:35 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 10 of 31 (91551)
03-10-2004 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by 1.61803
03-10-2004 10:48 AM


I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on violent games/viewing material and violence. Why do countries such as Canada and Great Britain, who watch the same movies, listen to the same music and play the same video games have such grossly lower homicide rates per capita then the US?

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by 1.61803, posted 03-10-2004 10:48 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 03-10-2004 11:27 AM Asgara has replied
 Message 12 by Loudmouth, posted 03-10-2004 12:16 PM Asgara has not replied
 Message 18 by 1.61803, posted 03-11-2004 6:49 PM Asgara has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 11 of 31 (91556)
03-10-2004 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Asgara
03-10-2004 11:08 AM


Well, guns might have something to do with it, my Queen.
I can, with reasonably sureness, bet that no one is touting a handgun within a couple or 5 kms of me. I'm not sure you can do that in any US city. I know one person who has one for shooting but it is locked down tight unless they are at the range. I have never known a friend or collegue who owns one. (though someone might without mentioning it)
And in this city (or any Canadian city)I have not (come to think of it only out in the bush with a hunter have I ) ever seen a rifle in a pick up truck.
I don't know if that is enough to account for the fact that we have a fraction of the homocides per capita but something does. It can't be that we are just that much nicer can it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Asgara, posted 03-10-2004 11:08 AM Asgara has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Asgara, posted 03-10-2004 12:20 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 31 (91572)
03-10-2004 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Asgara
03-10-2004 11:08 AM


quote:
I'd be interested in seeing some statistics on violent games/viewing material and violence. Why do countries such as Canada and Great Britain, who watch the same movies, listen to the same music and play the same video games have such grossly lower homicide rates per capita then the US?
I think this has to do more with American culture glorifying violence. I am not saying that the film industry is to blame, but the history of American culture is. During the migration into the Western territories violence was how things were done. Law enforcement was lax or totally absent. This is just one example, but America's love of guns an violence seems to stem from culture, not media. Compare this to more liberal, European countries and we have the opposite. While America is violent but sexually conservative, most European countries (and I will throw in Canada as well) are sexually liberal. Most Americans look past the inherent violence in their culture while pointing fingers at the "perverted" Europeans.
Just as an experiment, ask Americans if they support stringent gun control and a loosening of sexual/moral prohibitions. I think we all know what a majority of Americans will say. There are still some of us who disagree with the majority of our fellow citizens, so not all hope is lost .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Asgara, posted 03-10-2004 11:08 AM Asgara has not replied

  
Asgara
Member (Idle past 2303 days)
Posts: 1783
From: Wisconsin, USA
Joined: 05-10-2003


Message 13 of 31 (91573)
03-10-2004 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by NosyNed
03-10-2004 11:27 AM


But Darlin',
I don't have the statistics handy, but I know I read that Canadian gun ownership per capita was NOT much lower than US. In fact, if I remember correctly, Norway and Canada have the closest percentage of gun ownership per capita to the US and yet the homicide rate is still phenominally lower.

Asgara
"Embrace the pain, spank your inner moppet, whatever....but get over it"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by NosyNed, posted 03-10-2004 11:27 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5820 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 14 of 31 (91578)
03-10-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by 1.61803
03-10-2004 10:48 AM


quote:
However, studies and research as to the effects of regulating pornography of this nature is nearly impossibe since the subject matter is illegal and the unavailability of pediphiles to come forward for interview in enough numbers to make any useful conclusions.
This is incorrect. It is something I mentioned in my original/longer post, and only alluded to in my more recent one.
Due to the differences in age of consent (AOC) laws and regulations of child imagery, studies on the effects of pornography have been done in countries where child porn was available and the results were the same... lower crime rates.
It is also odd to think that "pedophiles" are unlikely to to come forward for studies when across the globe (and even in parts of the US) pedophilia itself is quite legal.
This is part of the bigger picture that "childporn" and "pedophilia" as objectively and inherently harmful entities is simply not real. Again, the Supreme Court itself mentioned this in their majority position when striking down portions of the last child protection act.
Heck in your home state of TX dildos are considered obscene devices that cause harm, but shall we then assume no one will come out to talk about their experiences with them? You must come to recognize that while the monetary exploitation, and physical/psychological harm of children is a real issue, cultural tastes regarding "right and wrong" are NOT adequate to define exploitation and harm.
As schraf has mentioned, even today in Japan, and I can tell you in certain parts of Europe, what the US considers childporn is still quite legal and NOT considered harmful. And the studies show this.
quote:
But I remember seeing a documentry on serial murderers who commit sexual crimes that suggested that pornography was a factor in feeding the fantasys of these deviants. The pornography was not the cause of they're psycotic behavior but access to more explicit scenarios of women being violently abused and sexually molested may have induced them to seek more stimulation.
Rats, I should have just kept my more lengthy post. You are almost correct with this statement. Murderers and rapists are likely to use pornography to stimulate themselves. However, it is inaccurate to say induced them to seek more stimulation. They are already doing that to themselves as they go to read the porn, if they do not have porn then they will seek the heightened stimulation of actual rape or murder anyway.
This is shown pretty conclusively in studies that have determined that sexual content in the pornography they use is not important to their stimulation. What is important is the level of violence depicted. They'd be just as fine watching an R rated murder film as one involving sex.
Without question the ONLY effects ever seen is that GRAPHIC VIOLENCE in stories and imagery produce some negative effects. Sexual content simply has none, no matter how graphic, except possibly to enact catharsis.
quote:
I think it has been shown that violent games and viewing material has an impact on violence in America.
Actually this is not necessarily true. While I said above graphic violence can be shown to have negative effects, cultural controls regarding behavior are usually enough to keep them in check.
The violence we see in the US is the same level of violence in Canada, yet the crime rates are lower. And in Japan the violence and sex is much much much higher, yet the crime rates are lower.
So it is not a simple "negative effects means definite increase in crimes" for violence.
quote:
it stands to reason that if realistic images of child porn are not banned then society is making a statement that it is acceptable.
This logic you use is certainly not consistent with the constitution. The Supreme Court also addressed this attitude when it made its decision. It said the ONLY reason they have allowed child porn laws to exist is that a case has been made that its very existence would aid the commercial exploitation of children.
Once exploitation is out of the picture and issues of "statements of acceptability" are used, constitutionality is lost.
It should be problematic without much introspection. If a majority decides that Judaism is unacceptable it should be banned? How about interracial couples? How about gay sex or gay couples? We cannot allow any communication to exist regarding topics that the majority finds objectionable since it would be tantamount to acceptance? Then where does that leave evolution, should the majority decide that should not be acceptable either?
This is exactly why we have a first amendment. Tolerance is not the same as acceptance, nor do I think it should be. And tolerance prevents us from descent into tyranny or theatres of the absurd.
quote:
I do not know what our future holds in regards to this issue but I for one will support a ban on this type of material in any form in this country for the mere fact that it is offensive to me.
I have no issue with you finding it horrific. I also have no issue with you trying to convince others that it is not proper social conduct or subject for fantasy. I think that debate is healthy. But I want you to reflect on the effect of zero tolerance for this material (besides the dangerous precedent I mentioned above).
This means that law enforcement will be compelled to waste time on those people who are easy to catch, and most likely NOT rapists or murderers, rather than concentrating on those that victimize children (which is the REAL problem).
This means that ALL CHILDREN will by legal definition be sexual predators, waiting only to be caught to be officially labelled, as well as child pornographers (as if they are running a for profit business) just because technology now allows them to easily capture images of their own sexuality, or if they should simply doodle something you find offensive?
I might add that as technology advances, your own scenario of "real" simporn being a case in point, such draconian measures will allow for the easy blackmail, or framing of enemies (including political ones). If you think this is fantasy it is not. It is ALREADY HAPPENING. Blackmailers use viruses to plant childporn onto computers, and then demand money... and in some cases just claim to have done so, because the fear of being caught is just so high that people are willing to pay... it'll be that much easier if simporn and cartoon porn is included.
And your opinion, if it is allowed to shape law, most certainly has a bearing on the rest of the world. Technology is quickly making this world a global community, particularly through the internet. Lets say your version of decency laws are enacted by the US... how is it supposed to be regulated if another country allows it? The internet is a free pipeline in.
That is why the US is currently beating up all other countries. It wants free communication in countries that don't like what we show, and to restrict communications within other countries where we don't like what they show.
Isn't it important that we think about how to deal with this issue/impact as well?
I think on introspection, you will find this is NOT a case where personal feelings of I don't like it, necessarily or safely get translated into laws against something.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by 1.61803, posted 03-10-2004 10:48 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by 1.61803, posted 03-10-2004 4:47 PM Silent H has replied

  
1.61803
Member (Idle past 1504 days)
Posts: 2928
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 15 of 31 (91623)
03-10-2004 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
03-10-2004 12:35 PM


As always Mr. Holmes a well thought out and eloquent post but chalk full of problems..ok not so. Just foolin. You make some excellent points to consider. I do not agree though that the legalization of the content we are discussing would not reflect acceptance of pedophillic behavior of people seeking sexual stimulation by viewing children participate in sexual acts. I was unaware of the studys you have mentioned and will look into it only to satisfiy my own curiousity. This is a very sensitive issue to me because of my Christian background I am not as insusient about pedophillia in any form. You mention that pedophilla is legal in parts of the USA, I guess AOC laws do in fact vary but I am less likely to get alarmed if a 13 year old girl is married with parental consent than I would be for a middle aged man to commit henious acts with a 10 year old or younger victim. I know it is splitting straws as to how old is to young and each state gets it's say. I am also aware that the issue changes with the times. I disagree with you when you say that "cultral taste regarding right and wrong are NOT adequate to define exploitation and harm." I am no lawyer but if cutting the clitoris is legal in Africa and is cultrally acceptable I still feel the woman was exploited and harmed. Protitution is legal in Nevada, but that does not mean that some of those females are not exploited or harmed. But this is getting off topic...Computer generated realistic scenarios of children commiting sexual acts. I applaud your open mind. Live and let live. To each his own. But is it not a citizens responsibility to draw a line somewhere? Your thoughts?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2004 12:35 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Silent H, posted 03-10-2004 6:49 PM 1.61803 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024