You be the judge - sexual assault?

Yes, it can, by encouraging a small subset of the population to engage in pedophilia.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And I haven't gotten an answer to my question yet: Does a drawing harm children?

People used to think that homosexual was harmful until some other people questioned it.

Why is a question so frightening?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No doubt. Should we ban all words and images?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

[/QUOTE]
And I wish America would not nominate to the supreme court.

But you like?

 

You're equivocating. I asked if drawings and stories harm children.

And fictional violence normalizes violence.

You keep equivocating. I questioned whether drawings or stories should be illegal.

I asked if they should be illegal, just like people asked if homosexuality should be illegal.

And more equivocating.

 

And a drawing of violence can encourage a small subset of the population to engage in violence. Is that a justification for banning drawings?

 

I am only discussing a limited context. You keep trying to extrapolate everything I say to a broader context.

I am comparing people's attitudes. Your argument against drawings and stories is the same argument used against homosexuality. You claim that it's absolutely harmful and that your opinion should never be questioned in any way.

There you go, equivocating again. I am not going to bat for anything. I'm asking if and/or why drawings and stories should be illegal.

 

Sometimes yes, sometimes no. As I mentioned before we place a higher value on protecting children than we do on protecting adults. Thus the prohibition on kiddie porn, but not regular pornography.

 

Yes, I understand the rationale. I'm just wondering why some people consider it Verboten! to question the rationale.

 

The supreme court nominee du jour, I emphatically do not - make that more emphatic DO NOT like.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Here is your answer: Do you propose that we eliminate all laws against child endangerment? Or is your focus on harm issue-specific according to your needs?

A point I raised a few days ago↑ is to consider that by the time we identify this or that person or circumstance as the perfect test case, just how much effort will we have put into finding the perfect test case to justify what everyone else, including the predators who want it, would acknowledge is child pornography.

This is hardly a Supreme Court of anything, but, still, political word games about a subject like this raise questions of priority. And that's the thing about the idea of the test case; as ill-conceived chatter the line of inquiry you pursue requires any number of unwise presuppositions about the behavior of the associated subsets.

Is it The Song Remains the Same that includes a scene with naked English children running around near a stream? What about those old National Geographic photos? How many horror writers of the 1980s pushed what boundaries? Even still, just how perverse do we want to get? Young people's literature: Judy Blume, and no, not for what you think. Robert Newton Peck. Madeleine L'Engle.

What makes society really skittish is not simply the fact of people who can get off little bits and pieces that would otherwise seem innocuous if the question arose, but in their abstract potential are supposed to be somewhat vérité; there is also a question of proximity that arises when people are expected to entertain that those who cannot tell the difference between certain this, that, and the other are somehow expected to be received as if rational.

I remember, back in the Eighties, learning the obsolete Roth standard that in 1957 finally superseded English Common Law, and the Miller test that superseded Roth, along the way in the music censorship disputes. The Dost test, focusing on the prurience prong of Miller in a pornography question gives, in light of known pathology, such extraordinary benefit of doubt that it has been criticized as making children themselves pornographic.

And the idea that we need to pick such nits in the first place is itself controversial. The answer, of course, is that we do because we must because we are asked to by people who think they need us to. And people perceive a dangerous question of proximity when they are expected to entertain such vagary so near to sensibility. And while I can remember an unsettled feeling in the time of Miller and Dost, what has become that much more evident in the time since is the consuming and escalating pathology of sex predators.

There has also been this weird apparent backlash in American society by which some moralistic attitudes seem to have given over to their own straw men; like after Obergefell, of course someone was going to write that one article, and what stood out was that HuffPo published it. That is, the question is whether HuffPo is the outlet for that discussion. That someone went and wrote it? Nobody should have been shocked and amazed at the advocacy for pedophiles; given the preceding decades in which determined supremacists labored to manufacture an overlap, of course someone seeking justification in the world would try.

And, of course, there is irony in Miller and Dost that we only needed to parse in the first place because of moralists incompetent to observe and comprehend basic functional differences. Eventually, what stands out is that virtually any approach vector for this range of issues is problematic; I say virtually because there might be in this Universe a logical argument that appears to work and defies by sheer scale efforts to look beyond it, but at that point, someone has thrown down a hell of an effort, and everyone else is unsettled by the proximity of such priorities, that this really is so important.

 

That's not an answer.

But of course not. I have proposed nothing. I have asked a question.

 

Are the drawings and stories for strictly personal use or are they to be shared with others?
It is worth noting that laws regarding drawings and stories for personal use can not be enforced so no, they can not be made illegal. However once they become shared with others ( other wise published) then the law can enforce laws preventing such.

As to whether they (created for strictly personal use) SHOULD be illegal, IMO this is more a self hygiene issue, a mental health issue, a moral issue.
In some ways it is like asking if Hoodoo or Voodoo should be illegal. To make it illegal is to legitimize the witch craft as being "real" and scientifically grounded. In most cases the drawing of imagery etc is done because the creator of such believes secretly that he / she is psychically priming or grooming someone. Not unlike those cliche depictions of a psychopath keeping hundreds of images pinned to his bedroom walls. An extreme example of severe obsession due to "addiction" to "special powers arousal" ( perhaps?)

 

And the answer has been: when they endanger children, threaten children with harm.
Compare storing dynamite in one's city garage.

 

because you sound like you dont think fucking a child is a big a deal

 

You are disgusting.

 

Actually, PJ has a point.

We're how many years into the Gay Fray, and we still hear these child-abuse comparisons by which the moralists would seem to not recognize consent.

Bob's comparison↑ achieves the same thing.

The whole point is just to piss people off. Like I said, whether one just lands there, or deliberately calculates their ingress, the fact of the territory is significant. And his lazy advocacy of child pornography is pretty much indicative; there are plenty of ways to go out of one's way to piss people off, and child pornography is what our neighbor Sideshowbob finds important.

And he wants to compare that to adults having consensual sex.

Yeah, PJ's got a point.

 

Why because i have a problem with sexual abuse? just how the fuck am i disgusting here? seriously your attacking the guy who has a problem with child diddling? serious i need an explanation here because you saying this makes zero sense.