For realz. The machine knows how to play people -- they know exactly what subjects people buzz about. The more publicity, the more money to be made in tv marketing and indirect merchandise sales. If only more people were more emotional about important things...

/rant /derail

I'll take miniature vampire hillbillies for 500, Alex.

I don't think this is a good representation of zoophilles in general lol.

I was at a poker game 2 or 3 years ago, and a bunch of old guys (65+) are playing, who evidently all grew up on or near farms. One of them mentions ****ing a goat when he was growing up. I look at him like wtf, and he's like yeah, we all ****ed the goats. The other guys, none of whom grew up together, all said that they too ****ed goats growing up and bunches of people they knew ****ed goats growing up. It was evidently just one of those things. Goat****ers in 2010 are probably strongly weirdo through selection bias. 1950 on a farm, nothing out of the ordinary. Evidently nothing out of the ordinary in historical times either. Another one of those things where today we go "ewww that's just wrong", and assume that anybody who does it must be demented, but history shows it to be basically unimportant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-g...al_intercourse

I think it is interesting to consider that laws relating the sexual abuse of children probably have very little deterrent value. Simply because the attraction is based on severe psychological abnormalities. In the same way that someone who wants to dig up a grave and have his way with a cadaver probably is not dissuaded by its being illegal. The situation is different in the case of sex with teenagers. We accept that it would be wrong and do not do it. And it might indicate some emotional immaturity. But it is largely a socially defined wrong. Since I think if we were still cave people it might be socially acceptable. And they do have secondary sexual characteristics that one could conceivably be attracted to. But if you want to have sex with a two year old, or a dead person, you are just a nut. And I think that would have always been so.

Just so I am not misunderstood. I am against sex with children, sex with teenagers, and sex with the dead. I just think the teenage issue is a different psychological issue.

Now as far a the kiddie porn discussion, it is probably a mistake to compare the relationship between adult porn and rape with an affect that kiddie porn might have. It is entirely possible that because their abnormality that persons who would engage in sex with a child could be more affected by porn of that sort than a normal person is average pornography.

It is also true that normal people have curiosity. I am not big porn freak. In fact I rarely seek it out. But I have certainly seen somethings that are shall say outlandish. It would be quite unfair if I was branded as something simply because for example I was curious if some woman really could do that with an elephant.

However the child thing is a little different. This risk to them is to great. So even if some curiosity about anything can be normal, we should curb any that might come to us for the sake of protecting those that can not protect themselves

I just wanted to clarify something in case it was not clear. The teenage issue is different because it was perfectly normal at some point our lives. I can't speak for everyone but I spent all my teenage years thinking about nothing but banging teenage girls. So I could hardly consider the thought abnormal. It is something that we have decided is inappropriate and wrong for adults to do.

There probably are some people who have trouble controlling urges in that area. The threat of punishment can be a deterrent in that case because those people are not insane. At least not to the degree a person attracted to children is. That deterence is probably not there in the case of the truly mentally ill.

IIRC, this was specifically dealt with in a link I provided many many posts ago. Basic conclusion was that child molestation rates dropped (or at least didn't rise as much as other violent crime rates over the same time period) with the increase in porn, which included kiddie porn.

What I find most interesting is that unless I'm misremembering, no one has posted a study to show the opposite of what I claim. Therefore, no one disagrees that kiddie porn will reduce child molestation unless they are being persuaded by their icky feelings which should carry 0 weight for this specific issue.

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08138/882650-85.stm

This one is even better.

There are those who believe, judges and prosecutors, that there is no significant distinction between image of an act and the act.

Fair enough.

Here there appears to be little distinction between prose describing an act and the act.

By the way, in case it isn't clear. I oppose child, adult, sexual, physical and emotional abuse. I am in favor of laws that protect the vulnerable and punish the abusive.

But right now I feel like Rodin's The Thinker staring at the gates of hell. Which he was staring at.

http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/2...rder-to-save/1\

Forgive me for linking all these articles, but I think that they provide interesting facts that illuminate the issue in a way than an argument based on assumptions that are not held by prosecutors and judges does not.

The burglary analogy is fine, but lets flesh it out. In this example, someone would say "burglary isnt about getting cool stuff, its about elevating social status!" And everyone would ooooh and aaaaah, at this deep psychological insight, that finally released us from this prison of misconception that held that burglars really just wanted things that they didnt have.

And then someone would point out that "hey, thats the reason I want stuff, too!"

Seems to me like its a (oversimplified) tree. At the top we got "desire to dominate others or to have power/control." Branching down from that, we've got many avenues of satisfying that need, and many ways in which that need is exemplified. Sex is one of them. Wealth might be another. And then from each of these proximate goals, we have means of achieving the ultimate goal. So, sure, rape isnt ULTIMATELY about sex, I suppose, but then, neither is sex.

Rape is an enormously inconvenient way of satisfying any physical aspect of sex. It's much harder to have sex with someone who doesn't want to have sex with you and (more importantly) it's illegal so you risk going to jail for a long time. If someone's sole concern is getting off there are numerous ways of going about it that sacrifice way less. There are exceptions to this, generally those mentally impaired to the extent they can't properly evaluate the consequences of raping someone - for those individuals rape me be just physical, but they are exceptions.

This point is well taken, and if I understand correctly mad was making a similar argument. All I'd say is that the position I was taking is more nuanced than that analysis allows. If consensual sex has an element of power/ownership to it then it is is an element, there are other elements too, like the physical aspect of it, and presumably stuff like bond forming also. In the case of the rapist I'd argue that the power/ownership element comprises a much bigger portion of motive, if not all of it.

Sex tends to be pretty "hard," unless you restrict yourself to woman-on-top.

It seems to me that rape often has very high utility if you disregard the welfare of others. I find the idea that "you could go to jail for x, therefore no rational person can do x" to be silly. I download enough software to get me life in prison, and I maintain that doing so has a positive utility for me. We can't just call prison time "negative infinity" utility.

And I think I'm way above average at evaluating consequences. People have a sickening level of time preference, too. I think smoking a pack a day has obvious negative utility (rationally speaking) but plenty of people still smoke 6 packs a day. This whole "I don't think it's rational to rape for sex and therefore there must be more to rape than sex" thing doesn't hold water for me.

Just saw this. Obviously I'm not saying it's impossible to have rape without those things - and I was agreeing there are cases where the violence is so horrific that rape is the lesser crime.

But what I was also saying is that, while violence in rape can be an aggravating factor, the violence typically has to be very severe before it'll outrank the rape itself in terms of victim impact. You seemed to be suggesting that any kind of physical assault is more serious than rape, but typically rape victims who have been physically assaulted will view the violence as almost trival next to the significance of the rape itself. Short version is rape is a serious crime, with or without violence.

Point taken that people are not great at evaluating consequences, but most everyone with a functional IQ has some aptitude in this regard. You download a lot of illegal software because you think the chances of going to jail for it are miniscule, if the chances of being caught were more significant I assume there's a point at which your risk analysis would tell you to stop.

If you rape someone there's a very significant chance that you're going to get arrested for it (convicted is another matter), and if you keep doing it for a prolonged period of time it's a near certainty. Not to mention the social significance - nobody cares that you download warez but you might lose a few friends if you were known as a rapist.

I just think the amount of deterrence we have in place as it relates to rape is very significant, so excepting those rare individuals who have hardly any capacity to evaluate risk you're mostly looking at those who are drawn particularly to the act of rape rather than the act of sex generally, which is widely available elsewhere at far smaller cost.

What gives?

It's not a lot more severely psychologically abnormal than homosexuality for an example IMO. Or whatever random (innocent) fetish, which there are a ton.

What makes it so "abnormal" is the fact that the society is extremely rejectful of it. I guess you could say that the person has to be abnormal if he can't supress his urges given such enormous pressure. But then we immediately accept that social persecution has deterrent effect. So why not ramp up the persecution so that indeed only true nuts allow their paedophile urges to surface.

I think you should reread your to see if you really meant what you have written. You seem to saying a number of odd things.
1. No distinction can be made among things considered wrong, or among things considered psychlogicaly abberent.
2. The defining of something as wrong, or as disturbed is entirely a proccess of social construction.
3. Homosexuals are mentally ill.

All of these positions are incorrect. But before reply more, especially as I am on a train, I want to be sure that this is what you really mean

With absolutely no evidence, I'd bet that most rapists (most criminals or any sort, in fact) assume that they'll get away with it. They greatly minimize the risk of getting caught, which basically allows the crime to be economically justifiable.

For accomplishing those goals, would you fine them a minimum fine of 5 thousand dollars for the first time an image was found in their computers?How about a year of probation where they have to allow all the computers in their homes to have a dongle attached that records their internet activity?

We're horrible at evaluating in general, and even worse in some specific circumstances. And since our irrational urges are those that made our ancestors the most successful at reproducing, sex-related impulses seem likely to be some of the least rational.

Also, yes there's a line, but what makes you think that line is so far out that nobody is likely to actually fall on the other side? I'm a delayed gratification junkie and I insist on coming up with "rational" explanations for all of my actions, and I knew that there were no negative consequences for the victims (and others such as their families) I would start raping right away. Well, at any rate, I think I would - maybe if I sat down and really thought about it I'd realize that I've overestimated the ease of getting away with it. But considering how well most people think, and considering how "easy" it feels to me to get away with rape, I'm sure plenty of people delude themselves.

I've heard that many rapists are never convicted. I don't know about arrest rates, but I've also heard that most rape victims don't even report the crime. If most victims don't report the crime, then how can arrest rates be high? But okay, I'm not exactly well-studied on this subject.

Still, even in situations where sexual deviance has nasty consequences, people often go right ahead. Why did Elliot Spitzer build a career on fighting prostitution and similar "corruption" and then risk it all by regularly courting prostitutes himself? Shouldn't he have known that if he kept doing it for a prolonged period of time he was nearly certain to be caught? Why did Tiger Woods, who spent years of constant effort creating a squeaky-clean image, go around ****ing random chicks?

People who rely on their public image have almost as much incentive to avoid sex scandals as ordinary folks have to avoid rape. And yet, a staggering proportion of these people end up in scandals at some point during their career. Often these are what end the careers of these celebrities (or come close to it, like with Clinton), and yet they do it anyway. They go out and have affairs, they see whores, they seek out sex even when they know it could cost them everything.

If we know that people risk their careers regularly to get sex, then why is it so hard to believe they'd risk jail time to get it?

I don't think capacity to evaluate risk is an across-the-board type of trait. We evaluate risk better under some circumstances than others, and people simply lose their heads when it comes to sex. I see people sacrifice so much for pussy, in life and in the media, often kidding themselves with their rationalizations. And these are often people who are otherwise very conservative. Sex makes men crazy.

(Also, why would someone with two "strikes" on his record risk everything just to steal a tv from his neighbor's apartment? People do that all the time, does this imply that they have some special motivation for their burglary? I'll grant that many are seeking drug money, but not all by any means.)

This thread might be winding to a close…but anyway.

Following it I found Vantek’s position strange. On the one hand he is hard line against child porn because its existence creates a demand for it which increases the recruitment and/or rape of children in its production. So he is also hard line against paedophilia. On the other hand the harm caused by paedophilia in all its forms is completely due to the social stigma/horror/rejection that the victim is subject to (during (due to previous psychological internalisation) and after the act I presume). So all the harm done is completely a social construct. Twist the dials on the social construction and all the harm disappears (as the examples of history and other cultures seem to attest).

But then he regards paedophiles and even non-predatory passive consumers of child porn as sick. His attitude is to keep the pressure on paedophilia in all its manifestations, but for what purpose? If the harm and horror is all social construction, well, why not attempt to change the social construction and everyone, children and adults, will be better off (in terms of some - to us hermetically sealed in our present social construction as we are - unknown more “healthier” state).

His premises (everything is social construct, the social construct is the source of the suffering attendant to paedophilia) do not lead to his conclusion (keep demonising and eliminating paedophilia because it is “bad”). If one wants to eliminate the evils caused by the practice then surely it is not the bearers and carriers of paedophilia (its “substance” the paedophiles) that should be targetted but the structure that maintains and perpetuates it and the all the pain that it causes, the mores, attitudes, laws, judgements, prejudices and institutions of society towards it?

His position could be characterised as a sort of radical passiveness to current society, even though entirely conscious that everything in and of society, including his passiveness, is all a contingent unnecessary illusion.

I guess my point is that we've kinda burned the bridges and now we're stuck.

Well, first of all because it is just flat out impossible. I like to remain realistic when discussing actual laws or attempts to change attitude in the society.

Secondly, because I really can't see how adults not being able to have sex with children is such a tragedy that something needs to done about it. Even if this enormous social construct is completely unfounded... Who cares? What's bad about having a completely unfounded social rule? Where's the harm? I don't see anyone crying about how he or she couldn't have sex with adults during childhood. The paedophiles who have so strong urges that they are willing to completely ruin their social image for it should probably be kept away from children even if there was no social rule, as they'd be prone to disregarding the well-being of the kid to cater their monstrous urges.

This actually isn't just an isolated issue of children having sex with adults. It connects with how sex is regarded in general. Even sex between adults has truckloads of double, triple and quadruple standards and pointless embarrasment. Kids can't even properly deal with that ****, but sex among children has it multiplied and sex between adult and child multiplied even futher. Before we can start to talk about adults having sex with kids being OK, we need to start actually cultivating a healthy straightforward attitude to even sex between adults, and then sex between children. It's a long road.

I'm all for trying to get the society to relax about sex between adults and even to an extent about sex between children. Sex between adult and child though? That will have to wait a few generations at least. You need to finish the foundation and walls before you can start building the roof.

BTW where did suzzer go? Did he really have some sort of an unpleasant epiphany about how arbitrary the social rule is lol?

I am against pedophilia and do not want laws against pedophilia repealed or slackened.

Setting aside definitions. I thought that the thread was about images vs. acts. Specifically, how our recent laws against child porn made perpetrators and those who witness the evidence of the crime as equivalent.

Our current laws say image of a crime equals the commission of the crime.
Given how the internet works, if someone clicks on a site and sees images of this particular type of crime then they have committed a crime equivalent to rape of children.

Maybe I am too stupid to wrap my mind around the concept of seeing an image as being the same as committing an act. [Having said that, I am smart enough to understand that once a law is enacted it is best to understand EXACTLY what it says and comply with it.]

The first time I read about this was in a wired magazine article and was surprised about the wording of the law. To me it sounded like a brilliant Christian Theocrat move to poison the porn supply.

Whether that is true or not. These laws concern me because I do not want to accidentally, and without my knowledge to have that crap in my computer and then have what would have been an unpleasant experience anyway, then become a living nightmare.

My argument is the standard WIRED argument: photons are not atoms.

Having said all that, I am now surprised at how vigorously people here argued for pedophilia and rape. LOL not Lolita.

So you actually think you can realistically change social attitudes?

Vantek wrote:
Ahh, you adopt a balanced, stress free, relaxed attitude towards examples of the arbritrary in the social construct. All vale you for health.

.
Of course. No tragedy or even inconvenience. But the OP and the examples in this thread outline just how the justice system is expanding their net and definitions as to what constitutes adult/child sex, even so far as to define child/child curiousity and exploration of sex as criminal and considered in some sense as “unnatural”. I would find this a chilling example of a particular slippery slide into a minor tyranny on the back of conformity, hysteria and moral cowardice, if I wasn’t also cynically shrugging at the ridiculousness of it all. I mean, where will it end? Because it of itself it won’t end, the justice apparatus is in the business of producing criminals, and the more it produces the more successful it is judged by its “shareholders” (the majority) to be. So it won’t (of itself) stop.

As someone who lives (a citizen of?) in Estonia, the inverted irony and blindness of this statement is…do a google for things like communism, Stalinism, gulags etc