What is the meaningful distinction between these two things?

Xanatos

I have a question for everyone here:

Obviously almost everyone rightfully supports criminalizing actual (real) child porn, but some people also support criminalizing the cartoon/animated kind of child porn even though it doesn't actually involve the harming of any actual children. One rationale that has been used to justify the criminalization of cartoon child porn has been the belief that it could desensitize people who are attracted to minors to the idea of sex acts with minors. However, I've been thinking about this logic and I was wondering: By the very same logic, can't one also argue in favor of criminalizing photos and videos (especially but not only sex tapes) of naked adults who have a very childlike appearance?

One could easily imagine a hypothetical website that decided to offer an ethical alternative to people who are attracted to minors by finding adults who look like minors and then recording photos and videos (including sex tapes) of these adults while they are naked, with these adults' full consent, of course (and while paying them a good amount in exchange for this, with it being essentially a form of porn starring). It's a big world, so some such adults will very likely be found. (And I would presume that the relevant photos and videos would be clearly marked to identify the specific adults who are in them so that everyone can make sure that they are indeed adults as claimed.)

This raises the question: Should such a hypothetical website be made illegal and shut down by the government? Should the owner of this website be legally punished if they will ever attempt to bring this website back online? And what exactly is the meaningful difference between such a hypothetical website and cartoon/animated child porn? Because neither of these things ever actually involves any harm to any actual children. And the desensitivization argument could be made in regards to both of these things.

So, anyway, what do you think?

Xanatos

I know that this is a very morbid question, BTW. But still, I hope that it's OK for a Philosophy forum.

L'éléphant

Obviously almost everyone rightfully supports criminalizing actual (real) [racism], but some people also support criminalizing the cartoon/animated kind of [racism] even though it doesn't actually involve the harming of any actual [black people]. One rationale that has been used to justify the criminalization of cartoon [racism] has been the belief that it could desensitize people who are [racist to blacks] to the idea of [lynching black people]. However, I've been thinking about this logic and I was wondering: By the very same logic, can't one also argue in favor of criminalizing photos and videos (especially but not only lynching tapes) of [white] adults who have a very [blackish] appearance? — Xanatos

javi2541997

And what exactly is the meaningful difference between such a hypothetical website and cartoon/animated child porn? — Xanatos

It depends on each one's pleasures. Belive it or not, there are persons who feel sexually attracted to cartoons. Remember there is a class of porn called "hentai" where it is looks like anime but it shows sexual acts. So, I do not see any difference between a cartoon and real actors. It is just porn.
You are asking if it could be justified a cartoon porn with children involved or something related.
Keep in mind that this issue also depends on each state's legislation. Do you consider a kid when she is already 16 years old? This is an interesting debate indeed.
My opinion: it would depend on maturity not age. We don't have to be blind and accept that there are teenagers with only 15/16 years that already had sex. So, if they understand it, then they are allowed to do porn. I don't see it as lewd because they are young.

BC

So, anyway, what do you think? — Xanatos

The flammability of depicting sex with children (not adolescents) is extremely high. It apparently does not make any difference, legally or philosophically, whether sex between children and not-children is a video, a drawing, a cartoon, an animation, or robotic. It's just plain verboten.

Depending on location, sex between adults and adolescents (and its depiction) may range from intensely inflammable to merely inappropriate. Sex between adolescents (say... older than14 years old) and older adolescents and adults occurs in the world, and has a long history. Many individuals and institutions are adamantly opposed to youth/adult sex, but then many individuals are adamantly opposed to relationships between people who have unequal power, or of different races, religions, and so on.

One problem I have with the severe criminalization of any behavior related to contact between adults and children (say, under 14--pedophilia) is that there is very little chance of changing child-sexual attraction in adults. It seems to be an essential part of those individuals' psyches. The behavior can be punished, but so far as I know, the attraction to young children can not be extinguished. Persons convicted of sex crimes (say, possessing child porn) may end up with amounts to a life sentence, because they can be shown to have been "cured" and safe.

I suppose pedophiles can and do learn to have nothing to do with children, but sexual urges being what they are, failures can occur.

I would think that altogether artificial forms of child porn (cartoons, cgi, etc.) would not amount to crime, but as far as I know it is entirely criminal. Pornography doesn't seem to generate sexual desires that don't already exist (heterosexuals looking at gay porn stay heterosexual).

Sexual activity between adults and children isn't desirable, but the reaction to any aspect of adult/child or adult/youth sexual content is fairly often hysterical.

Xanatos

↪L'éléphant

Perhaps a more apt analogy would be criminalizing photos and videos of white people wearing blackface? There's nothing inherently offensive about white people merely looking black. Blackface, on the other hand, ...

god must be atheist

+?
Obviously pedophiles will phantasize about pedophilia. That can't be made illegal.

Question: what about pedophiles drawing their own art depicting pedophilia? Not sharing it, not distributing it, and destroying it before anyone else can glance at them.

Pinprick

↪Xanatos

I think the concern isn’t desensitization, but normalization, of child sex acts. It’s the idea that watching others (hentai, childish looking adults, etc.) perform these acts makes one feel like these acts are normal, and therefore ok. Really, it’s the same concern people have with violent pornography.

I like sushi

I think this kind of question will become more and more of an issue as technology advances.

I mean this across multiple areas. For instance, if we could create a virtual environment that mimics murder or rape to the point that it continually creeps towards more and more realistic portrayals I think it is fair to say there should be some kind of law that laws a line.

I think any argument stands purely on something being ‘artificial’ as an excuse to do anything is extremely problematic as it effectively dismisses simulations that are potentially indistinguishable from reality … that sounds bad to me as if there is no/little perceivable differentiation between reality and simulation then they must be treated more or less in the same manner.

Note: I don’t think there is any issue with shooting games as such as it isn’t much like the real lived experience. If future gaming technology does make it the same psychological experience as a wartime experience (or close to it) then it should be banned (even for training purposes) because the harm war does is more than mere physical harm. This kind of thing was explored very nicely in Westworld series.

Hello Human

Adults have developed brains, so it wouldn't make them insensitive to actual sex acts to minors. However teens with brains that are still developing in general are more likely to become insensitive to them as a result of watching depictions of them. So maybe the best solution would just be to make it so that people under the age of adulthood cannot access it; maybe through some age verification process.

But then again , such a solution will bring concerns about privacy, so it's complicated.

InvoluntaryDecorum

Porn as a whole should be banned, regardless of the specification

Average

↪InvoluntaryDecorum

I agree

EugeneW

I suppose pedophiles can and do learn to have nothing to do with children, but sexual urges being what they are, failures can occur — Bitter Crank

Or induced... I read about a group "pedophlle hunters" (most of whom probably unable to find a sex partner) luring alleged pedophiles with fake telephone calls of young ones. When they showed up at the "appointment" they got their ass kicked. And not only that. One man died. People in the neighborhood didn't know the reason first and burnt candles for the man, and laid flowers. A gentle man. When they heard about the killing reason the flowers were removed...

Agent Smith

This (Age Matrix) might help clear up matters.

I love Chom-choms

↪InvoluntaryDecorum

I VEHEMENTLY disagree. How else are we supposed to release our pent up sexual tension. You cant pretend that we dont have those.
I would actually give a similar rationale for why child pronography not involving real children might be ok.
Some people do feel an attraction to children maybe because of some disease or maybe they just...
(i dont know what the proper word would be, so i'll just say that the way someone has preferences like sadism or masochism, a person might have preferences). IN a way, this could also help them release these desires in front of a screen instead of going out and actually doing it.

There are people who have had different experiences, what if because of what someone experienced as a child, they grew to in some ways relate to what is shown on some showns that we "the normal people" deem as child pronography.
I would like to say that the above does not apply to all child pornography but that certain types of child pornography might relate to some people.
This learned about the second point from a youtube video which might be helpful in this discussion
Why Problematic Media is Good

PS: I now realize that i dont even know why you think that pron should be banned and have made MANY aassumptions. For that, i'm sorry
Please do share your reasoning for why porn should be banned

InvoluntaryDecorum

Please do share your reasoning for why porn should be banned — I love Chom-choms

Even accepting the premise of sexual tension needing to be "released", masturbating wouldn't need porn with it

Ironically, those masturbating very often with porn report low sexual satisfaction. Dopamine, and here the dopamine intended for sexual pursuits, is supposed to be a well earned reward. Porn can be accessed easily, just a click, and internet use is practically a given, so basically no cost at all. So, instead of earning it, it can be granted immediately. The whole system is skewed, and with more and more desensitization, more stimulus will be required. This is most obvious when the watchers can't stop; they're addicted

For the second half, "normal" is clearly not an objective concept, but you're missing the implication. By "normal" and "not normal" it is meant that which is, and is not acquainted to the ways in which society operates. This should be in its best interests, but this is not always the case. To not be pedantic, child porn produces a negative effect on society, and is also out of line with how society operates, so calling it "not normal" is well justified. The Loli types are rightfully shunned, their behavior produces a bad effect on society, why shouldn't they be?

Porn produces a negative effect on society, why shouldn't it be banned?

Pinprick

Ironically, those masturbating very often with porn report low sexual satisfaction. — InvoluntaryDecorum

Maybe low sexual satisfaction is why they’re masturbating to porn.

So, instead of earning it, it can be granted immediately. The whole system is skewed, and with more and more desensitization, more stimulus will be required. — InvoluntaryDecorum

That’s true of basically everything in today’s world (obtaining food, shelter, companionship, entertainment, etc.) as compared to our nomadic ancestors. Would you agree that these things also should be illegal on similar grounds; fast food, housing/rental assistance, social media, libraries, iTunes, TV, and internet?

Porn produces a negative effect on society, why shouldn't it be banned? — InvoluntaryDecorum

What negative effect exactly? There’s also plenty of other, legal, things that could be viewed as having a negative impact on society like gasoline driven automobiles, foul language, controversial ideas/art, religion, etc. Should these be banned as well? Oftentimes different societies as a whole conflict with the goals of other societies. How do you decide which society should be respected objectively and fairly?

Book273

↪Xanatos

you do not cover the very real aspect of sex robots (yep, they are real) being used as a safe alternative by people who are attracted to children. Or murders, or rapists, etc. As the sex robots are programmed to respond according to the purchasers order requirements, on could, in theory, order a robot to suit what ever one's particular tastes may be. Screaming, begging, etc.

Of course there is (really) a group out there already pushing for the ethical use of sex robots by their owners, so some body is still going to cry Foul!. However, if one were able to focus one's less-than-socially-acceptable appetites within one's home and property, what is the objectionable grounds?

Xanatos

↪Pinprick

By that logic, though, should sex with childlike adults be criminalized? Or at least criminalized specifically for minor-attracted people?

Xanatos

↪Book273

Yes, I know. People can sometimes use safe, harm-free outlets as an alternative to engaging in a harmful real-life activity. For instance, engaging in rape fantasy roleplaying (with a safe word and everything) with oneself as the rapist rather than actually going around raping people. This would allow one to get the thrill of being a rapist (if one actually gets turned on from that) without actually being a rapist in reality and while also allowing one's sexual partner to stop if necessary by saying the safe word. Of course, when you forgot the safe word, you could have tragedies like this occur:

https://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/chd8nw/i_23f_forgot_our_safe_word_so_my_boyfriend_24m/

Xanatos

↪god must be atheist

There would be no grounds to criminalize such artwork. Unless of course one believes that such artwork makes minor-attracted people more likely to harm actual minors, but this hypothesis would need to be proven. I don't think that the state can get away with criminalizing rape fantasy roleplaying simply based on an unproven hypothesis that this increases actual rape, for instance. It would require solid evidence in favor of its case beforehand.

Pinprick

↪Xanatos

In general, I don’t advocate for making act’s illegal unless they cause actual harm, not just because they have the potential to cause harm. Besides, law should also be as scientific as possible, so making the case that someone watching/having sex with childlike adults will cause them to do the same with actual children seems like a very weak argument.

It may play some role in actual pedophilia, but it may not. There would need to be studies done to determine any causal factors between the two, but these studies themselves would very likely be unethical. Therefore, I would err on the side of allowing adults to engage in whatever sexual act they prefer as long as it’s consensual.

Behavioral analysis would consider having sex with childlike adults an acceptable replacement behavior for actual pedophilia. Taking that potential replacement behavior away may actually cause people who are attracted to children to perform more drastic actions in order to satisfy their desires.

Yohan

Is banning harmful things the most effective way to make long term positive changes in society?

I think kids that are persuaded to do good and abstain from bad grow up to have internalized values.

While kids that are just told to do good and abstain from bad "because I said so" and at the threat of violence, often will do bad behind the parents back, and bad behind the police's back when they grow up.

Sometimes prohibition even increases the attraction to "forbidden fruit", creating a sense of scarcity and adventure in its attainment.

And repression leads to all sorts of problems. Eg, sexually repressed priests molesting children. (Probably not proven that repression is the cause, but it's possible it is a factor)

I think the same of adults. The best way to make long term positive changes in society is by being a good example and promoting good values. Then rules and laws are less necessary.
Strong rules and laws usually cover up rather than solve a problem.

I think it's better to work at influencing the social climate rather than trying to police everyone like you are their daddy.

And I think it's best to treat both children and adults as much as possible like adults. For treating people like children is likely to reinforce childishness. (I mean explaining things to children like you would to an adult)

What is the meaningful distinction between these two things?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions