Virtual Pornography

[Lunaris Adamantine]

To be honest, I think the current laws regarding sex and consent are pretty ridiculous. If a young teenager wants to have sex, what is so bad if they do? if they want to have sex with an older guy, why should we stop them from doing it? As long as the consent is mutual, and bother parties understand the risks and consequences, then it really shouldn't matter what age either person is. Just let them do what they want to do. No one really gets hurt.

As for rape? That's where I have a problem. No one should be forced to have sex if they don't want to. It's just not cool.

I'm sure you can probably guess at this point, but with porn I say anything goes. That's part of what porn is for, to get you off for your fantasies that are impossible, or even illegal, if you desire. I'm pretty confident rape porn is already a thing anyways, but it's just for show. No actual rape is happening. I'm sure there is stuff where it's actual rape, but whoever is involved in that should certainly be arrested.

Just let people get off to what they get off to. It's not like they have control over what sexually arouses them. I mean, just ask yourself. Why do you have particular fetishes? The only answer is because that's what your brain tells you to be aroused by. And it doesn't mean you have brain problems, either.

 

[Jauntier]

Because both the U.S. government and U.S. citizens don't understand the difference between fantasy and reality. If you guys try to oppose censorship on fictional minors in the U.S., those citizens will accuse you as pedophiles who want to date underage girls in our games, even though most of you aren't pedophiles yourselves. Things would get more complicated if you guys try to oppose government law, which would require a lot more fire power to have its rules changed.

Fair answer, fair, fair.

I personally do not sympathize with people who enjoy material with sexually subjected children in them, real or fake. In fact, I honestly, deeply find it, the act, and anyone deriving sexual pleasure from it repulsive. That said, if the material is fake, no one is being victimized. Someone can accuse me of being whatever all they want, but it is just that: an accusation, yet to be founded. I cannot deny the stigma won't stick to me in the presence of others, but I will have my counter-rhetoric.

In truth, I would say that the government isn't so much ignorant as it is trying to err on the side of caution in lumping them altogether, hinging on the criteria of obscenity, as the non-required element that persons depicted be real would require, somehow, proving they are real. Defense would therefore turn it into proving that the drawing cannot be of a real person, but in the case of the drawing attempting realism, hairs would be split over identifiable features versus art style and other designs of an absent victim. But that is an issue I feel unique to certain visual mediums. Other criteria of the paraphernalia, guilt, and criminal intention must be met as it stands, and it's all circumstantial by case.

If anything, the plausible argument to sustain laws would be because "one can never be too sure". I just rebut myself.

I'm curious to hear what you have to say about the other original questions in your personal opinion.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

I'm curious to hear what you have to say about the other original questions in your personal opinion.

To answer to other questions from OP, I don't see virtual rape as real rape, as it's just a computer-generated image, so no rape is actually involved. As for the possibility of people committing crimes if they're legalized, this would only affect people who won't use virtual porn as an alternative and would rather commit formerly illegal sexual acts for real. That's the nature of legalizing anything that's considered taboo from society (e.g. gay marriages). This would've been less complicated if real rape and child pornography were only illegal, whereas fictional depictions of it aren't, since as everyone else has said, no one is actually getting hurt.

 

[gimmepie]

Why are some people talking like I said molestation and rape themselves should be legal? I'm talking only about animated images. Did I miss something here or was I just really unclear?

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Why are some people talking like I said molestation and rape themselves should be legal? I'm talking only about animated images. Did I miss something here or was I just really unclear?

My first reply was in response to animated images, but Jauntier told me that you were actually talking about whether actual molestation and rape should stay illegal despite the existence of virtual porn. So yeah, I think your OP may have been unclear for some of these users.

 

[Esper]

I'd be hesitant to outlaw or ban something when the potential harm it can do to people isn't well understood. I know that there are people who say that porn (of any kind, I think) is addictive and potentially desensitizing, but I haven't read anything other than headlines so I don't know how much credit to give these ideas. But if there is some truth to it I would think of this argument more like the one around drugs. War on drugs doesn't work, but getting people who are on drugs help to get off does seem like it's a good approach. I would assume that something similar would be useful here. So, like, maybe treat this kind of stuff as a warning sign that someone might need help. Whether it's natural or whatever for someone to find this stuff attractive is really secondary to making sure that it doesn't become something more.

I don't know exactly how you'd find these people and get them help though. I don't even know what proper help would be.

 

[Maruno]

I think it is important to realise that there's a distinction between pedophiles and child molesters. Being attracted to children might not be the healthiest of things, but that doesn't mean you're actually going to go out and harm a child.

I'd like to reiterate this point. Paedophilia is not illegal. Child molestation is. Paedophilia is the attraction (either sexual or romantic or otherwise affectionate) to something, and making that illegal is tantamount to thought police. Well, maybe some people want that. I don't.

Child molestation is illegal, and I don't think anyone can disagree with why. It's interesting that this definition makes the distinction of "molestation" that it's ANY sexual contact with minors but only UNWANTED sexual contact with adults. But that's another topic.

There is certainly a correlation between a person being attracted to minors (one or more subsets thereof) and that person making sexual contact with minors. This is only a correlation, though; it is far from exclusive or accusatory. Many people have attraction to minors yet will never act on those feelings (for whatever reason, e.g. strong moral compass, fear of retribution), and many instances of child molestation have nothing to do with attraction but is instead a result of the desire for power and control, perhaps even punishment and mental instability/inability.

So yeah. I'd quite like the two terms "paedophile" and "child molester" to not be conflated. It makes you look ignorant if you say one when you mean the other (or worse, if you assume or assert that both are the same).

should illegal things like rape or pedophilia still be illegal in virtual pornography

So yeah, poor choice of wording.

I do also think that it could potentially lesson a person's desire to go out and do something bad, but I don't think I possess enough knowledge on the subject to say anything for certain.

I can't be any more definite than you on this matter. More informed people than I can speculate on what might happen if "virtual" child pornography became acceptable. The best I can do is look at other scenarios (e.g. drug abusers) and see whether acceptance or shunning is the better option there. I think it's acceptance, actually; I will readily admit that this opinion is based on half-remembered anecdotes, and I don't feel like doing the research. It seems reasonable to me that this would be the case, though. However, despite that, I certainly couldn't say whether this has any relation to paedophilia and child molestation.

I would be afraid that giving these people a virtual outlet will only make them lust more for the "real thing." It's a nice thought, to treat these people and their desires as human, by giving them an outlet where nobody gets hurt.

My own opinion is that it wouldn't really make a difference. Maybe some would see an easier access to "virtual" child pornography as a gateway, while others may be sated by it and not resort to actions (including funding thereof) that would affect real people. Overall, I would guess that these differences balance each other out, and would be minor statistics anyway - I suspect that most people who would be inclined to harm real people would do so regardless of the availability of "virtual" child pornography.

Rather than give these people an outlet, I would rather put effort towards treating these people as mental patients and help them forget their urges.

That's what society used to say about homosexuals. Just sayin'.

If watching something like that would "encourage" someone to that kind of behavior is like saying that murder in movies should be illegal because they encourage murder and there is no clear evidence that anyone was drived to insanity by a movie and decided to go on a killing spree; as I said, those people are pretty ****ed up and it's fault of what they consume, they're just like that.

Exactly. Society/the media have a long history of calling the new thing "evil" and demonising it until either people get tired of being prats or a new thing comes along. Remember when rock 'n' roll was destroying the youth? Video killed the radio star, and video tapes destroyed the film industry. The Internet was evil until everyone realised just how brilliant and useful it is (although it still gets abuse hurled at certain corners of it). And as you said, video games are murder simulators... except they're demonstrably not. Any links between the latest high school shooting and a video game is tenuous at best, and scrounged up (or even invented from nothing) by the media to make a story.

This is why I suggested above that nothing would really change, not significantly. People inclined to harm real people will do so anyway, and those who aren't won't.

My question to you is this, should illegal things like rape or pedophilia still be illegal in virtual pornography where nobody is actually being harmed? Would legalising this encourage people to commit crimes? Or would it provide people a legal outlet for their desires and reduce the number of crimes being committed?

Now, to the questions posed in this thread. I shall assume here that you meant "child molestation" instead of "paedophilia".

Given that no real people are being harmed or in any way negatively affected by this "virtual" pornography, I would say that it's fine. It's no different to simulated rape scenes in real life porn; we all know it isn't real, but the people who like it will like it anyway. Certainly there are particular categories I find distasteful or even repulsive, but I find that avoiding/ignoring them works wonders. I certainly wouldn't try to censor them just because I didn't like them, because I wouldn't like it if people tried to censor the things I liked just because they didn't share my enthusiasm for them.

I don't think it'd make any difference. The number of people who would be notably affected by the legal status of "virtual" porn depicting rape and molestation of anyone is very small.

I'd like to see it be legal because it's nice to be tolerant, and to be knowledgeable about matters and be able to recognise and respect the differences between real and virtual depictions of something. Certainly child sexual abuse has been the subject of a major witch hunt recently, and it's all really hateful and ignorant (see the top of this post) and I'd like for everyone to knock it off and be enlightened instead. They're only drawings, no one was hurt by them, leave it alone!

Questions I will not answer, due to them being outside the scope of this topic:

• Should real-life rape and/or child molestation be made legal?
• Should rapists and/or child molesters be subject to therapy? How about corrective behavioural procedures? Can/should they be "cured"?
• Should all forms of sexual contact with minors (of any category) be illegal as a blanket law (i.e. no matter the circumstances), or could there be exceptions?
• Why do I keep typing moestation?

 

[Klippy]

Some of the comments I'm seeing in here are really disturbing and concerning to me. I'm seeing implications that society will accept pedophilia like it has accepted a genre of music and homosexuality and none of those correlate to the others because one concerns the well-being of children and the exploitation of them.

There are few case-study-based reports of the role of pornography in the lives of sex offenders in contrast with numerous studies of a survey and statistical nature. Very little is known about the ways in which offenders process pornographic and other erotic materials as part of their offending patterns. The research reported in this study was based on case studies of fixated paedophiles in a private clinic for sex offenders. The men were interviewed about a range of matters including their offending, their psychosexual histories, pornography, fantasy, and sexual abuse in childhood. Commercial pornography was rarely a significant aspect of their use of erotica although some experience of such materials was typical of the men. Most common was 'soft-core' heterosexually oriented pornography. Explicit child pornography was uncommon. However, offenders also generated their own 'erotic' materials from relatively innocuous sources such as television advertisements, clothing catalogues featuring children modelling underwear, and similar sources. In no case did exposure to pornography precede offending-related behaviour in childhood. All of the offenders had experienced childhood sexual abuse by adults or older peers. The relationship of these findings to previous research and implications for legislation are noted. Source

So I'd argue that mental disorders as a result of childhood sexual abuse WOULD be entirely different than rock n roll or homosexuality. One is the direct result of trauma, the others are...just not, meaning therapy or treatment for pedophilia could be a solution - unlike homosexuality, which is not the result of childhood abuse, thus making therapy for it irrelevant.

The development of the Internet and computer-mediated communications has fostered the growth of a wide range of deviant sexual behaviors along with deviant subcultures that support and approve of these behaviors. Some of these practices pose little risk to public safety, though acts such as pedophilia and the creation and distribution of child pornography have significant negative ramifications for victims. A growing literature has examined the function of the Internet for child pornography distribution, social networks of pedophiles, and tactics of child solicitation. Few, however, have explored the utility of the Internet to develop a subculture of pedophiles and its role in fostering attitudes and justifications for relationships with children. This study will explore the subcultural norms and enculturation of the pedophile community using a qualitative analysis of five Web forums run by and for pedophiles. The findings suggest that the values of the pedophile culture support and encourage emotional and, in some cases, sexual relationships with boys and girls in virtual and real settings. Implications for the study of pedophiles and the role of the Internet are explored. Source

I'd argue that virtual porn of this nature exacerbates the subculture and, by result, the justifications of the behavior. Fostering the community by legalizing or actively encouraging virtual porn of the same nature seems totally wrong and encouraging for deviants to act out on their unhealthy sexual interests - especially if they're receiving additional approval from others who either justify or act on their desires in such a subculture.

 

[Kanzler]

Wait, it seems that regular pornography is not protected First Amendment speech since it satisfies the Miller test.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Wait, it seems that regular pornography is not protected First Amendment speech since it satisfies the Miller test.

Does this mean that the U.S. government can freely arrest people who have their hands on pornography, both physical and digital, regardless if the people being depicted in them are full-grown adults? I assume this isn't also good for virtual porn either. And what exactly is the Miller test? This is new to me.

 

[Kanzler]

Does this mean that the U.S. government can freely arrest people who have their hands on pornography, both physical and digital, regardless if the people being depicted in them are full-grown adults? And what exactly is the Miller test? This is new to me.

No.

Jauntier mentioned it earlier on in the thread. The Miller test is as follows (taken from Wikipedia):

Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient (sexual) interest

Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law

Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

If those three conditions are met (yes to each), then the speech in question can be labelled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment and can thus be prohibited. Doesn't mean it must be prohibited. I'm sure Jauntier knows more about this than I do.

 

[Jauntier]

No.

Jauntier mentioned it earlier on in the thread. The Miller test is as follows (taken from Wikipedia):

If those three conditions are met (yes to each), then the speech in question can be labelled obscene, in which case it is not protected by the First Amendment and can thus be prohibited. Doesn't mean it must be prohibited. I'm sure Jauntier knows more about this than I do.

Oh, I'm certainly not an aficionado on the subject, but I'm flattered by the referral, regardless. I am no law student, but this is my opinion:

Pornography in itself is not unlawful at the federal level. It is "protected", or more accurately, it is a natural right that is not to be infringed upon by the feds through the First Amendment. While some people say it is as freedom of "speech", I say pornography is as freedom of the press, in the way that porn studios are not paying actors to have sex on film like prostitution, but rather, that adults have consented to having sex or performing sexual activities, allowed themselves to be filmed, and have been paid for the right to released the film.

Yes, freedom of the press. Pornography is protected speech in much the same way that flag burning is protected speech, and the feds have been bending their backs for some reason to expand upon what is considered free speech, but that's a personal gripe of mine. It's all expression, anyway.

But just because the federal government can "protect" what are considered these natural rights doesn't mean they have any power to censor it. In the Constitution, they have actually not been given any ability to regulate, monitor, or censor freedom of expression, they just can't infringe upon it, and so they reinforce the idea that they themselves can do nothing of the sort.

From there I would conclude that it is up to the state to regulate, monitor, and censor, but they are not to seek a total and outright ban on production, sale, and distribution of pornography. See, viewing pornography is only for adults, as is the moral issue turned statute. It would be illegal by state statutes to have its more patently offensive contents clearly visible to minors. You know, the old public indecency thing.

There you have it. That's my thought process on the whole thing. I may be completely and utterly wrong, but that's what I would like to think.

 

[Sun]

There's nothing wrong with legalizing pornography. Let's take a look at a similar topic: Netherland's prostitution, the country has legalized the red light district. Is there any significant increase in the crime rate? Nope.

Getting back on the main topic. Now we have to specify which kinda pornography, they have different categories. For example, you wouldn't want to legalize the pedophilia ones, Beastiality and so on. In other words, there should be a strict line in between.

 

[gimmepie]

There's nothing wrong with legalizing pornography. Let's take a look at a similar topic: Netherland's prostitution, the country has legalized the red light district. Is there any significant increase in the crime rate? Nope.

Getting back on the main topic. Now we have to specify which kinda pornography, they have different categories. For example, you wouldn't want to legalize the pedophilia ones, Beastiality and so on. In other words, there should be a strict line in between.

But we're specifically talking about animated porn where no real people can possibly be harmed even if the content caters to pedophiles or people with an interest in bestiality. Should that still be illegal and if yes, do you have a reason other than "ew"?

 

[Sir Codin]

It's more or less a question of morality vs legality.

As it stands, loli-crap and shota-schite are "legal" in the United States (can't really speak for any other country) in the sense that hardly anyone is prosecuted for it and those who are are prosecuted mainly on an obscenity charge than a CP charge (hence the Miller test). This was due to the fact that drawn pornography of that nature was part of the PROTECT Act of 2003, but that specific part was struck down as unconstitutional. Despite the legal gray area, the content itself is hardly going to win you any friends unless they are extremely well versed in how kooky the anime/manga community can be. Even in the anime community, people are split on the morality of such material.

 

[TheBadPixels]

Whoa! yeah, should be illegal. I'm surprised that it isn't!

 

[Midnight shadow]

As a practitioner of BDSM I quite often come across roleplay scenes of rape, of both genders. It doesn't bother me because I know that all participents are consenting adults, with plenty of measures in place to make sure things don't get out of hand. I consider virtual porn depicting rape to be no different.

Similarly, while I consider child virtual porn very distasteful I believe it should be legal, for artistic freedom. Will I watch it? No, but just because I don't like it doesn't mean it should be banned.

Now, on a side note, to the person who quoted US law on the first page, I have a question for you. If you have an adult woman dressing up in a schoolgirl outfit, is that illegal by US law?

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Now, on a side note, to the person who quoted US law on the first page, I have a question for you. If you have an adult woman dressing up in a schoolgirl outfit, is that illegal by US law?

No, because she's an adult woman, so it's legal. If she was under 18, then according to U.S. law, we have a problem.

 

[Orx of Twinleaf]

As far as the sexualization of virtual children/rape/all that other stuff goes, it in no way should be illegalized. As has been stated repeatedly on this thread, the fact of the matter is that the persons harmed by the activity are not real within the context of our existence, so there is no moral obligation to them in any way.

Moreover, it is only a matter of time until perversion turns some people to seeking pornography of a certain thing, and that is, after all, why we have rule 34 at all. It comes from seeing familiar characters in taboo scenarios, and that in no way discerns between children and adults or even humans and non. It is largely that sense of forbidden action that leads to porn of a situation coming to be, and we get so hot for intercourse at all at an (relatively) early age because of the taboo light in which we treat genitalia in our society. It becomes an intimate act in which one participates in all the naughtiest things.

I bring that up because it ties closely to how many other things approach pornographic levels. I'll give a little bit of context on myself here: because I cannot fully hope to understand how other people think, I have to operate as if anyone may be right about anything. As such, I can see both sides to many arguments, but it also means I have to be able to understand both a 'yes' and a 'no' that comes in response to the question 'Is [x] sexually arousing?'

To this shameful end I have trudged into the deepest cesspools of such extreme depravity as guro erotica, sexual decapitation, vore, coprophilia, and all that good stuff that's blazoned into my brain forever. Rape and pedophilia are just scratching the surface, and if you don't want to take my word for it, Google can back me up on those things I've listed off.

The point is that pornography is viewed in place of actually performing the action. People what get off to this stuff, they can function perfectly fine in society. You'd be surprised how many perverts you may pass by every day, and it's not like they're beating down the preschool doors. Correlations between viewing this porn and doing bad things can be interpreted not as a-caused-b but as b-caused-a. Child molesters are obviously into pedophilic pornography, so it stands to reason they'd have some of it somewhere. As it has been said before on this thread: a pedophile is not automatically a child molester, but a child molester is quite often a pedophile.

To outright ban this pornography will cut off the point of release fetishists have and ultimately lead to them building up large amounts of stress, though they probably won't actually cross the line it can make them aggravated (you can always tell which one of the office workers didn't get any sexual release that week). More importantly, putting a ban on it highlights the taboo aspect of it further and attracts even more potential fetishists than it would have otherwise.

 

[Midnight shadow]

No, because she's an adult woman, so it's legal. If she was under 18, then according to U.S. law, we have a problem.

BUT she's depicting herself as a schoolgirl, i.e. below the legal age, which according to the law you quoted is illegal. Then of course you do get adult women who have bodies that look underaged, but they are over 18. According to the law they aren't allowed to work in the porn industry. That is how I'm interpretting that, and it's kinda silly.