"Given that early experiences shape brain development I think it's
entirely appropriate to err on the side of caution. "
Not only is child sexual activity argued to be *not harmful* but two
scientists have argued that it maybe beneficial. Of course their study was
denounced in the United States Senate for trying to even suggest such an
idea, without even reading it of course, but it seems that any harm that exists
with child sexuality occurs in the after math. I give a
brief example of
what I am talking about, although I personally dislike anecdotes since they are
a marginal form of evidence:
"A few years ago (on a talk show) a 16 year old boy said when he was 13
he had an affair with a female school custodian that lasted two years. He
later stated that while it lasted it was great--he loved every
second.... Well--his parents threw a fit. Boy was sent to a shrink and is
told he was abused. A year of conditioning later he sits on this talk show
and says what a horrible thing this woman did to him--and still stated that
he thought it was great while it lasted--he didn't know he was being abused
at the time. Now who the hell I ask you caused the damage
here?"
If any damage or harm is seems to be done in the after math by parents,
preachers, and therapists who abuse the victims a second time by brainwashing
into them that sex and sexuality is evil.
"Please document that Bonobo adults engage in sexual activity with
preadolescents and that this behaviour is culturally sanctioned."
Studies show that the bonobo has erotic contact with babies of its own
species. And that behavior isn't likely harmful to the babies, Green says,
because it's the babies themselves that often initiate the sex play.
"Pedophilia may have no genetic component at all. It could be a learned
behaviour, as child molestation often is."
Sexual attraction is learned? That is far fetched. Either one becomes
aroused or one does not at different people or objects. If it were learned,
people would need to be taught arosal before they could have sex, clearly this is
not the case.
Pedophilia seems even more common then homosexuality in the population
"Sorry, I'm going to call you on that one, because that's a hell of a
claim to make (unless you broaden pedophilia to include attraction to
underage adolescents). "
Yes, pedophilia is being mentioned, it really needed to be defined. In this
case I was referring to anyone under the age of 18, but in other cases I use it
to refer to exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. I think there
is a case to be made to distinguish between those that are exclusively attracted
to prepubescent children, and those that have a continum of attraction that
spans from adults to children.
As for the number of people who are engage in sexual activity with people
under the age of 18, there must millions of them. First because of the
figures, here
and
here, that suggest that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused by
the age of 18. As well
this article indicates, there were 250,000 members on from one country
(Britain) on one child porno website. This problem is quite large judging
by the population of potential pedophiles (<18), but any attempts at looking at
the problem scientifically is met with hostility unless the scientists tow the
line. Progress cannot be made in such an environment.
That is the problem with this discussion, people are flinging around the term
'child pornography' and are not bothering to define what they mean. Is
nudism photos in the pile? Stories about children having sex?
Paintings? Define what you mean, or people will cast such a big net around
the world 'child porn', famous paintings or plays like Romeo and Juliet will be
censored as well.
I am only OT as far as your original post was
here.
My argument is this that you are wrong. Freedom of speech can mean that
not only is there no barriers to free speech (negative freedom), but individuals
can be compelled to assist speech they disagree with (positive freedom), and my
example of the publisher refusing a gay pamphlet is in this thread.
"There's clearly a difference between a picture of a woman casually naked
(e.g., what you might find in National Geographic) and a picture of, for
example, a woman in stockings and heels holding her vagina open and licking her
lips, as one might find in your average softcore magazine (to the extent they
haven't all gone out of business)."
Yes, there is difference, like you said: One she is casually naked and in the
second she is in stockings and heals holding her vagina...etc. The question
becomes, from this difference does any harm emerge because she is engaged in the second pose?
If there is any harm, then I've yet to hear an argument for it as yet.
Outside of other factors I don't see any reason why children in National
Geographic style nudity are harmed in any way. I'm not convinced the same is
true for Penthouse style nudity. I haven't seen solid evidence so I can't claim
statistical support for my concern, but I'll be a lot happier when CGI gets
good/cheap enough to make this whole question moot.
No evidence is no evidence. Agreed, that doesn't mean there isn't any
harm, but it does mean the onus is on people who say there is harm to back up
their claims with evidence or argument.
"One other point. The age of puberty has been steadily declining (as a result
of better nutrition, and yes it happens to people fed hormone-free meat too).
The age at which one is emotionally mature has IMO been increasing as well
(possibly because society has become more complex tho I'm guessing here), but
that's harder to measure. What we're left with are people who become fertile at
a much younger age (and much less mature) than when our behaviour evolved."
Your point about puberty steadily declining seems true, according to a few
articles here,
here, and
here.
However, the age of consent is not decreasing with this current reality.
This only compounds the problem as individuals are being locked away, then
branded as sex offenders for the rest of their life upon release, for having sex
with sexually mature individuals that are below the official age of consent.
"Being attracted to a pubescent, but underage, person isn't technically
pedophilia; there's another term for it (ephebophilia?)...It's not so understandable to be
attracted to a four year old, and be aware that the children in softcore KP are
frequently that young."
I disagree. It is hard to determine the mind of evolution. The
Bonobo Chimps often have
intergenerational sexual activity, so puberty is not always a de facto
requirement, as in this case, for sexual behaviour. Another sexual
behaviour that was until
recently outlawed in
America was that of homosexual anal sex. Homosexuality too does not
seem, on the face of it, to have any evolutionary advantages. However, it
stands to reason if homosexuality evolved with humans, and
so many other animals,
it likely plays, or played, a beneficial function. Pedophilia seems even
more common then homosexuality in the population (statistics if you have them,
they are so hard to find on this issue), and if its with us the question is why?
One answer is that it serves or did serve some purpose. If it did not and
was instead harmful, early human tribes that practiced pedophilia would have
naturally been wiped out. They were not, so that is the conundrum.
"they're finally blocking content that you NEVER had a right to view in the first place"
Just like in the 1950's they were simply blocking Communist content that we never had a right to begin with.
And tommrow it will be blocking anti-DRM articles and instructions that is will be 'illegal' and like communist information and child porno (before 1980's in America) it will too be censored.
It is a slippery slope, and just because you don't have the guts to fight for free speech and cave in to the child porno hysteria, doesn't mean you are right.
"There is no law in any country that I am aware of that forces any company to publish, distribute , or transmit illegal material."
I wasnt speaking of illegal material, I am speaking of censorship. Corporations that stifle speech I refer to it as censorship, for the reasons I already outlined in this thread.
Kiddy porn and libel are still freedom of speech. It just has been determined that these expressions are too harmful to society.
That is the problem with the American system, the system talks in absolutes so the Judges have to hmmm and haw when making exceptions.
In Canada there is section 1 that says these rights are guarenteed only so far as they are compatible with a free and democratic society. So outlawing kiddy porno goes like this: 1) it is a violation of freedom of speech 2) this volation is permissable protecting this speech does more harm then good in a 'free and democratic society'.
"But what happens after real, physical children are no longer needed to produce the material?"
The Surpreme Court of the United States already ruled that virtual child porno is okay. If there is no harm, no matter how 'distasteful', the material is then what is the justification to outlaw it?
The goal is the reduction of harm, not taste, I think people lose focus of this, and this thread is a good reminder against it.
"What you're saying..."...is that outlawing child pornography in the 1980's obviously did not work. I hope this is clearer for you.
"That's just silly."
What is silly is you've yet to define the additional harm that comes when a simple nudist photograph that now has posing, or different parts of the body is in focus.
"Child sexual abuse has always been prevalent. "
Very likely, so what is your point, that it is a worthy goal to fight against evolution? Humans go though puberty at about 11-13, yet we are not suppose to be attracted to people in this age group since 500,000 years of evolution is simply wrong, very wrong, and evil.
"I would rather have not one child be sexually abused for losing one of those "inaliable rights" everyone loves."
I'd rather have a child have sexual relationship with another (adult or child) people lose their freedoms. I'd rather people die then lose their freedoms, indeed many people choose to die and fight rather than lose their freedom during World War 2.
Your position simply sounds like pandering to the already rabbid child pornography hysteria that exists today. You are probably of the same ilk as those that called for the so called 'communists' to be imprisoned then shot in the 50's with Mccarthy.
I agree, people take the power given to them and find a mirad of ways to abuse it.
I liked your example about blocking competitor's webpages, what if a BT employee's relative had a electronics store and had his competition blocked? Hell, what if I just pay that employee to block webpages I dont like.
This censorship is just the beginning, 'illegal' music will be next. Then after F/OSS is outlawed, that will be on the list.
Free speech is exactly that. It allows you to speak or express yourself
freely. But if you want to be heard more widely than you can shout, you have to
find your own medium.
There is positive freedom: as freedom to achieve certain ends (or sometimes:
freedom to participate in the decision making process) (Positive
Liberty)
There is no one stopping black people from entering the NY stock exchange, but
if you were to look inside it is a varitable white wash. They defacto do not
have the freedom to enter since they do not have the opportunity to achieve this
end do to their position in life.
You have no right to enforce others to publish it, distribute it, transmit
it or anything else.
False. It is not enough that there are no barriers to free speech, in
some instances there must be the freedom to achieve the end of free speech and
that may mean enforcing others to publish material. Now, forcing others to
do something must not be done lightly, but in the case of a monopolist
corporation I think that maybe a case in point.
Another case of enforcement was in Canada where a printing press did not want
to issue fliers for a gay rally since it was against the printer's beliefs.
I believe the court ruled against him since equality was deemed more important,
and similar rulings for discrimination against renting out apartments to certain
individuals, and discrimination in employment.
"The first, present in Usenet but not on the web, is scans from magazines
and such that were, at one time, legal to possess, but were criminalized during
the Reagan administration (I think). "
As we can clearly see, the child pornography issue was solved after these
materials were outlawed by Reagan. (Just ignore the explosion in child
abuse since the pedophiles now sought to gratify themselves on real children
instead of mere images of them).
"I'd always assumed this meant casual nudity (like nudist camp photos) but
the guy I spoke with corrected me and said a lot of them are highly sexual poses
and attire, with genital closeups"
If 'casual nudity' / nudist photography is ok, what additional harm is created
when there are different poses or 'genital closeups'. A simple nude
photograph does no harm, apparently, but look out, change the pose around and
suddenly...what? The devil comes out and gets them?
"And exploited is the right word. Regardless of the fact that there's no
penetration involved, these are poor kids making very little money "
I agree, children should make more money when they work the farm, do chores,
do work, or do the other million things their parents command them to do that is
exploitation.
And if BT is the only company that offered internet access, do you feel the same way?
Corporations are so powerful now, perhaps finally more powerful then the government, that censorship, yes censorship, by these institutions is becoming more an issue now then censorship by government.
The corporation sought to become the preeminent institution of our day, and with that power now comes the responsibility.
As well what is the definition of 'kiddy porn'. Is simple naked children,
i.e. nudist web pages, kiddy porn? In many places that *is* becoming the
standard: take a picture of your children bathing and you goto jail.
When it comes out simply do not buy this shit. The only reason why the RIAA is around to do this stuff is because people are buying their stuff, if no one buys their stuff then they go away/bankrupt.
Isn't there open source libraries to Java now? Java seems to already be 'forked', people just haven't shunned Sun's libraries and go with the totally re-engineered and free ones, yet.
If someone's actions do not harm others, then why not let them do it. The only reason why you would want to stop people doing their own thing is if you are a busy body.
Hardware's free, and put GPL software on it and you can get everything for free:P.
J/K I did read the article, sounds like an interesting idea. I already get this done in some way, I get my hardware, cable modem, 'free' with my subscription to the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
"Given that early experiences shape brain development I think it's entirely appropriate to err on the side of caution. "
Not only is child sexual activity argued to be *not harmful* but two scientists have argued that it maybe beneficial. Of course their study was denounced in the United States Senate for trying to even suggest such an idea, without even reading it of course, but it seems that any harm that exists with child sexuality occurs in the after math. I give a brief example of what I am talking about, although I personally dislike anecdotes since they are a marginal form of evidence:
If any damage or harm is seems to be done in the after math by parents, preachers, and therapists who abuse the victims a second time by brainwashing into them that sex and sexuality is evil.
"Please document that Bonobo adults engage in sexual activity with preadolescents and that this behaviour is culturally sanctioned."
"Pedophilia may have no genetic component at all. It could be a learned behaviour, as child molestation often is."
Sexual attraction is learned? That is far fetched. Either one becomes aroused or one does not at different people or objects. If it were learned, people would need to be taught arosal before they could have sex, clearly this is not the case.
Yes, pedophilia is being mentioned, it really needed to be defined. In this case I was referring to anyone under the age of 18, but in other cases I use it to refer to exclusive attraction to prepubescent children. I think there is a case to be made to distinguish between those that are exclusively attracted to prepubescent children, and those that have a continum of attraction that spans from adults to children.
As for the number of people who are engage in sexual activity with people under the age of 18, there must millions of them. First because of the figures, here and here, that suggest that 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 6 boys are sexually abused by the age of 18. As well this article indicates, there were 250,000 members on from one country (Britain) on one child porno website. This problem is quite large judging by the population of potential pedophiles (<18), but any attempts at looking at the problem scientifically is met with hostility unless the scientists tow the line. Progress cannot be made in such an environment.
"Where on earth is child porn legal"
In the United States. You can have pictures of children engaged in sexual activity all you want. The stipulation though is they must be drawn / computer generated.
That is the problem with this discussion, people are flinging around the term 'child pornography' and are not bothering to define what they mean. Is nudism photos in the pile? Stories about children having sex? Paintings? Define what you mean, or people will cast such a big net around the world 'child porn', famous paintings or plays like Romeo and Juliet will be censored as well.
I am only OT as far as your original post was here.
My argument is this that you are wrong. Freedom of speech can mean that not only is there no barriers to free speech (negative freedom), but individuals can be compelled to assist speech they disagree with (positive freedom), and my example of the publisher refusing a gay pamphlet is in this thread.
"There's clearly a difference between a picture of a woman casually naked (e.g., what you might find in National Geographic) and a picture of, for example, a woman in stockings and heels holding her vagina open and licking her lips, as one might find in your average softcore magazine (to the extent they haven't all gone out of business)."
Yes, there is difference, like you said: One she is casually naked and in the second she is in stockings and heals holding her vagina...etc. The question becomes, from this difference does any harm emerge because she is engaged in the second pose? If there is any harm, then I've yet to hear an argument for it as yet.
Outside of other factors I don't see any reason why children in National Geographic style nudity are harmed in any way. I'm not convinced the same is true for Penthouse style nudity. I haven't seen solid evidence so I can't claim statistical support for my concern, but I'll be a lot happier when CGI gets good/cheap enough to make this whole question moot.
No evidence is no evidence. Agreed, that doesn't mean there isn't any harm, but it does mean the onus is on people who say there is harm to back up their claims with evidence or argument.
"One other point. The age of puberty has been steadily declining (as a result of better nutrition, and yes it happens to people fed hormone-free meat too). The age at which one is emotionally mature has IMO been increasing as well (possibly because society has become more complex tho I'm guessing here), but that's harder to measure. What we're left with are people who become fertile at a much younger age (and much less mature) than when our behaviour evolved."
Your point about puberty steadily declining seems true, according to a few articles here, here, and here. However, the age of consent is not decreasing with this current reality. This only compounds the problem as individuals are being locked away, then branded as sex offenders for the rest of their life upon release, for having sex with sexually mature individuals that are below the official age of consent.
"Being attracted to a pubescent, but underage, person isn't technically pedophilia; there's another term for it (ephebophilia?)...It's not so understandable to be attracted to a four year old, and be aware that the children in softcore KP are frequently that young."
I disagree. It is hard to determine the mind of evolution. The Bonobo Chimps often have intergenerational sexual activity, so puberty is not always a de facto requirement, as in this case, for sexual behaviour. Another sexual behaviour that was until recently outlawed in America was that of homosexual anal sex. Homosexuality too does not seem, on the face of it, to have any evolutionary advantages. However, it stands to reason if homosexuality evolved with humans, and so many other animals, it likely plays, or played, a beneficial function. Pedophilia seems even more common then homosexuality in the population (statistics if you have them, they are so hard to find on this issue), and if its with us the question is why? One answer is that it serves or did serve some purpose. If it did not and was instead harmful, early human tribes that practiced pedophilia would have naturally been wiped out. They were not, so that is the conundrum.
"There is no debate."
That is the 'problem', and why the issue of child sexuality and child sexual activity is not being solved.
As well, people that behave with ad hominem attacks makes intelligent debate only that much more difficult.
"they're finally blocking content that you NEVER had a right to view in the first place"
Just like in the 1950's they were simply blocking Communist content that we never had a right to begin with.
And tommrow it will be blocking anti-DRM articles and instructions that is will be 'illegal' and like communist information and child porno (before 1980's in America) it will too be censored.
It is a slippery slope, and just because you don't have the guts to fight for free speech and cave in to the child porno hysteria, doesn't mean you are right.
"There is no law in any country that I am aware of that forces any company to publish, distribute , or transmit illegal material."
I wasnt speaking of illegal material, I am speaking of censorship. Corporations that stifle speech I refer to it as censorship, for the reasons I already outlined in this thread.
Kiddy porn and libel are still freedom of speech. It just has been determined that these expressions are too harmful to society.
That is the problem with the American system, the system talks in absolutes so the Judges have to hmmm and haw when making exceptions.
In Canada there is section 1 that says these rights are guarenteed only so far as they are compatible with a free and democratic society. So outlawing kiddy porno goes like this: 1) it is a violation of freedom of speech 2) this volation is permissable protecting this speech does more harm then good in a 'free and democratic society'.
"But what happens after real, physical children are no longer needed to produce the material?"
The Surpreme Court of the United States already ruled that virtual child porno is okay. If there is no harm, no matter how 'distasteful', the material is then what is the justification to outlaw it?
The goal is the reduction of harm, not taste, I think people lose focus of this, and this thread is a good reminder against it.
"there is a clear division"
There never has been a clear division anywhere for anything, esp. not for instances of something as subjective as pornography.
It is a sliperly slope, what is to be outlawed, child nudity? Drawings, and paintings? Stories?
Is a story about two early teens in love screwing around to be banned? Poof, there went Romeo and Juilet.
"What you're saying..." ...is that outlawing child pornography in the 1980's obviously did not work. I hope this is clearer for you.
"That's just silly."
What is silly is you've yet to define the additional harm that comes when a simple nudist photograph that now has posing, or different parts of the body is in focus.
"Child sexual abuse has always been prevalent. "
Very likely, so what is your point, that it is a worthy goal to fight against evolution? Humans go though puberty at about 11-13, yet we are not suppose to be attracted to people in this age group since 500,000 years of evolution is simply wrong, very wrong, and evil.
"I would rather have not one child be sexually abused for losing one of those "inaliable rights" everyone loves."
I'd rather have a child have sexual relationship with another (adult or child) people lose their freedoms. I'd rather people die then lose their freedoms, indeed many people choose to die and fight rather than lose their freedom during World War 2.
Your position simply sounds like pandering to the already rabbid child pornography hysteria that exists today. You are probably of the same ilk as those that called for the so called 'communists' to be imprisoned then shot in the 50's with Mccarthy.
"Microsoft Revamps Licensing Plans"
Microsoft had no choice really. It was either extend their tech support, or watch many people turn to Linux when they next upgrade.
This just delays that, probably until longhorn where the choice between upgrading or Linux is to be made, in about 2 years.
I agree, people take the power given to them and find a mirad of ways to abuse it.
I liked your example about blocking competitor's webpages, what if a BT employee's relative had a electronics store and had his competition blocked? Hell, what if I just pay that employee to block webpages I dont like.
This censorship is just the beginning, 'illegal' music will be next. Then after F/OSS is outlawed, that will be on the list.
Free speech is exactly that. It allows you to speak or express yourself freely. But if you want to be heard more widely than you can shout, you have to find your own medium.
There is positive freedom: as freedom to achieve certain ends (or sometimes: freedom to participate in the decision making process) (Positive Liberty)
There is no one stopping black people from entering the NY stock exchange, but if you were to look inside it is a varitable white wash. They defacto do not have the freedom to enter since they do not have the opportunity to achieve this end do to their position in life.
You have no right to enforce others to publish it, distribute it, transmit it or anything else.
False. It is not enough that there are no barriers to free speech, in some instances there must be the freedom to achieve the end of free speech and that may mean enforcing others to publish material. Now, forcing others to do something must not be done lightly, but in the case of a monopolist corporation I think that maybe a case in point.
Another case of enforcement was in Canada where a printing press did not want to issue fliers for a gay rally since it was against the printer's beliefs. I believe the court ruled against him since equality was deemed more important, and similar rulings for discrimination against renting out apartments to certain individuals, and discrimination in employment.
"The first, present in Usenet but not on the web, is scans from magazines and such that were, at one time, legal to possess, but were criminalized during the Reagan administration (I think). "
As we can clearly see, the child pornography issue was solved after these materials were outlawed by Reagan. (Just ignore the explosion in child abuse since the pedophiles now sought to gratify themselves on real children instead of mere images of them).
"I'd always assumed this meant casual nudity (like nudist camp photos) but the guy I spoke with corrected me and said a lot of them are highly sexual poses and attire, with genital closeups"
If 'casual nudity' / nudist photography is ok, what additional harm is created when there are different poses or 'genital closeups'. A simple nude photograph does no harm, apparently, but look out, change the pose around and suddenly...what? The devil comes out and gets them?
"And exploited is the right word. Regardless of the fact that there's no penetration involved, these are poor kids making very little money "
I agree, children should make more money when they work the farm, do chores, do work, or do the other million things their parents command them to do that is exploitation.
"you won't be very popular"
Since when was being popular a proxy for being right?
That's right, it never was nor never can be: truth and being right is not subject to popularity or straw poll.
And if BT is the only company that offered internet access, do you feel the same way?
Corporations are so powerful now, perhaps finally more powerful then the government, that censorship, yes censorship, by these institutions is becoming more an issue now then censorship by government.
The corporation sought to become the preeminent institution of our day, and with that power now comes the responsibility.
As well what is the definition of 'kiddy porn'. Is simple naked children, i.e. nudist web pages, kiddy porn? In many places that *is* becoming the standard: take a picture of your children bathing and you goto jail.
Is this painting the next to be blocked? This one or perhaps this?
Perhaps spamming such art around would desensitize people to the hysteria that has developed over the past 20 years surrounding this topic.
When it comes out simply do not buy this shit. The only reason why the RIAA is around to do this stuff is because people are buying their stuff, if no one buys their stuff then they go away/bankrupt.
Isn't there open source libraries to Java now? Java seems to already be 'forked', people just haven't shunned Sun's libraries and go with the totally re-engineered and free ones, yet.
RMS talks all about this in The Java Trap.
I agree.
If someone's actions do not harm others, then why not let them do it. The only reason why you would want to stop people doing their own thing is if you are a busy body.
Hardware's free, and put GPL software on it and you can get everything for free :P.
J/K I did read the article, sounds like an interesting idea. I already get this done in some way, I get my hardware, cable modem, 'free' with my subscription to the internet.
I always watch Good Eats, I think someone has all the episodes on Suprnova.
"New Scientist reports the creation of a 'smart bullet' that can be fired at a target and then transmit back informations via wireless connection. "
;). I am surprised it took until now to get it developed in real life.
Didn't Spider man always use to shoot homing devices on cars etc and track them