On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 01:59:27 -0800, Ronin wrote
(in article <496f031c.155843666@127.0.0.1>):
> X-No-Archive: yes
>
> The only real objection I see Grownups having to "child pornography"
> is that it gives *them* funnytummyfeelings: they carry on about the
> "damage it causes to children" only because stating this truth would
> amount to admitting to being "paedophiles" themselves.
>
> This being the case, Grownups of course find *all* forms of "child
> pornography" -- description no less than depiction, computer graphic
> no less than photograph from live action -- objectionable; and the
> ongoing debate in this Forum in regards to "damage to children" is
> utterly pointless, as it has nothing whatsoever to do with the real
> issue.
>
>
> Ronin
I certainly agree that this discussion has nothing to do with 'damage to
children'...I have repeatedly challenged the "righteous" to provide even a
trace of evidence, that has scientific merit, that there is a connection
between the viewing of child pornography (whatever that is) and perpetrating
sex crimes against children.
BTW the 'backward argument' that 'perpetrators of sex crimes often viewed
child pornography, therefore...', is not valid and is logically equivalent
to the more commonly known so-called "mother's milk" argument that '90% of
all murderers drank mothers milk, therefore.....' The exact fallacy is
typically called Post Hoc fallacy - after this, therefore because of this.
The studies cited have all been done using the stories of men already
convicted of sex crimes against children (mother's milk problem) and the
incarcerated person's interest is certainly to a) point the blame elsewhere,
and b) please the researcher/authorities because it may lead to an
amelioration of their conditions and c) to lie.......a lot.
No one has posted such studies - at least in these groups - that I am aware
of. I'm happy to be educated. But most of the moralists here are too busy
either kissing their own asses with self-congratulations, or wiping the
flecks of saliva off of their chins.
Moreover I have challenged the self-appointed moralists to provide any
scientific evidence that sexual contact between children and adults produces
harm in children absent force (which is rape), coercion (which is rape) or
violence (such as assault or kidnapping).
Those studies that have been done generally don't find these relationships to
be especially harmful or even all that noteworthy. Of course there are
exceptions, but those exceptions cut both ways (children who have not had
good reactions and children who have had very positive reactions).
Empirically it would seem we know this to be so. There is a lot of
inter-generational sex going on, but not a plethora of "victims". But the
research, in the main, hasn't been done.
So, you're right Mr. Ronin. This has nothing to do with seeking knowledge
and everything to do with seeking power.
The whole business has, in fact, very little to do with child welfare at all.
The very same rabid porn hunters we all hear so stridently here and in
society, turn a blind eye to the daily deluge of physical abuse to children
by their own parents. Individuals who deliberately murder children receive,
when they are captured and charged at all, lighter sentences than those
caught with 'feelthy pictures'.
|
|