You be the judge - sexual assault?

I agree he should be arrested (and convicted if the evidence supports it) - but not because it is "a sign of a regressive state." Because he harmed someone - and violated a law - for profit.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Is male circumcision genital mutilation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes.
You, as an adult, have a right to whatever kind of mutilation you choose to undergo, of course. Infant circumcision has been outlawed in several countries - not without a huge kerfuffle over "religious freedom" - and discussed in many others. Almost nobody dares to tell their Jewish population how barbaric their customs are (kosher slaughter, too) while calling Africans regressive is common.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The mutilation of women is often done at a fairly advanced age - just before onset of puberty, say. And it is often voluntary, in a sense. That does not make it less severe.

The mutilation of infant boys is comparatively minor, done for completely different reasons and with much less significant harmful effects - despite being done without consent, etc, the degree of harm does make a difference.

Using the same word - "circumcision" - for such significantly different mutilations, misleads. If the intent is to attach greater significance to male mutilation, note that it traditionally has had the opposite effect.

 

Yes, if not done for medical reasons, I would say so. Though it generally does not seem to have adverse long terms effects.

 

I see it as similar to fictional depictions of murder, torture, etc. If no actors were harmed in the production, we don't consider the producers criminals. So why do we treat people differently if the fictional acts depict children but don't harm children?

 

And there's no fine line between looking and peeping.

 

Because we have a higher standard when it comes to protection of children vs adults.

 

It doesn't really matter how much of a threat he thinks he is. As others have pointed out, his thoughts don't constitute a crime; only his actions do.

 

That's what I thought. So if the "victim" doesn't know anything happened, he/she can not be apprehensive of imminent harm. Hence, no assault, no crime.

That's all I'm saying.

Or take the example of homosexuality. It was deemed "wrong" at one time. It was a crime, even though there was no victim and no harm. That's why I'm saying that we should be defining crimes more in reference to harm.

No, that is not clear. If I don't miss the nickel, if I don't even notice that it's missing, it is not a real crime, even though the law might technically regard it as such.

 

The example to which I was replying, message #107, specified, "Neither the children nor the parents have any knowledge of this, and it never gets back to them at any future stage." That is the situation to which I was replying. In your modified scenario I would say that it was a crime.

Unauthorized use of the photographs is a separate issue, just like driving to the photo shoot under the influence of alcohol would be a separate issue.

 

As I have said repeatedly, I am talking about cases where the "victim" doesn't know anything happened. Try a relevant example.

Not "untoward". I'm talking about people who never found out that anything happened.

Again, you're talking about a cases in which the perpetrator's actions were known. Try a relevant example.

That's what I'm hoping people will think about instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction.

That's what I'm hoping people will think about instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction. Is it really and assault? Or is the real harm caused to them in the future caused by people telling them they were victims?

I'm not particularly happy with the answer but it's the honest answer to that question. So far, your objections have been to a question that I wasn't asked and didn't answer.

 

How does criminalizing a drawing or a story protect anybody?

 

Maybe questioning should be a crime.

 

Having thought about this some more I think the key issues are loss of privacy, which is a different kind of loss from loss of property or reputation but a loss nonetheless, and in the case of children the further issue of potentially encouraging a market in something that leads to child abuse. This latter principle is less obvious that the privacy aspect, but is recognised in other fields. For example the prohibition on trade in ivory is to stop hunters from seeing a market in illegal elephant poaching.

It seems to me your original idea that a crime has to cause harm is definitely too narrow on its own. The concepts of loss, whether of tangible property, or of intangibles such as intellectual property, reputation or privacy; and of danger, i.e. risk of causing harm, whether to an individual or a class of persons (e.g. children at risk of abuse or elephants), also form part of our conception of criminal acts, I think.

And there is more still, for instance you can get arrested for showing your arse at somebody in public. That's not any of the above but it is regarded as offending public decency, i.e. it is behaviour that is quite likely to annoy or upset people.

The list gets longer, evidently......

 

In the case of fiction or drawings, there is no specific person who has any privacy to lose.

In the case of pornography in general, does it promote sexual abuse in general? Or does it provide an outlet for some that might prevent them from acting out against a real person? or both?

I noticed that when you mentioned it to Bells. I have been thinking of "harm" in those broader terms.

Like two men kissing in public. Crime or no crime? Harm or no harm? You have to check the calendar.

 

It's a crime as long as the threat exists - at least.
Threatening people with harm is a crime.

It was included in your little scene - showing them to others, etc.
Meanwhile, looking at them for arousal is unauthorized use.
And taking them in the first place creates a threat.

 

Where is the threat in this example?

They were take with the parents' permission. Have the parents commited crime?

 

There does seem to be some evidence that pornography can encourage some men to objectify women in real life, I think. At least I think I have read as much, but I don't have a reference to hand.

Re public decency yes of course that is a movable feast, in that public attitudes change. A generation ago a dental floss bikini bottom, or bathing topless, would get someone into trouble in a lot of places, but now it seems OK. So much is context: something OK on the beach would cause a stir on the London Underground.