View Single Post
Old 06-11-2010, 02:56 AM   #46
Samuel Dravis
@Samuel Dravis
Samuel Dravis's Avatar
Status: Moderator
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 4,980
Fine, Lynk, I am sure you are correct, nothing will change for Australia. I have mainly just been talking about the principle of the matter. That and I spent so long on this post I'll get irritated if I can't submit it.

Originally Posted by Kurgan View Post
Wouldn't it be sufficient to show that this type of porn appeals to those with pedophilic attractions?

Nobody is saying "small breast porn causes pedophilia" (as if non-pedophiles will watch it and then turn into pedophiles) they're assuming that it appeals and is marketed to attract with such attractions. In much the same way with people who are attracted to rape porn are turned on by rape. Doesn't mean that every person will act out those fantasies, but again, we're dealing with people who are psychologically disturbed, mentally ill.

On the other hand, officially tolerating such material sends the message that such actions (underage sexual exploitation) are tolerated by society. That's why when we talk about keeping stuff that some find offensive legal, we're saying that its only a few bad apples that spoil it for everyone else... the crazies who can't tell that what they see on screen is unacceptable behavior (and it's not like video game violence, because video game characters aren't real people being acted upon, while we're talking about real people engaged in sexual situations marketed for purposes of lust/gratification).

The point isn't that makers of "small breast porn" are having their free speech censored if this stuff is banned in Australia (never mind the slippery slope fallacy that this a conspiracy to ban all porn and censor all free speech). It's the question of whether the purpose of this material is to market to those with pedophilic tendencies, since, logically speaking, they would be those primarily interested in the stuff.

The "increases pedophilia" thing would really only apply to the fact that if there was a demand for it and it was permitted, that might increase the number of persons applying for the job of "acting" in flat chested porn, increasing the likelihood that minors would be exploited (whether they lie about their age or the producers look the other way), making it harder to prosecute crimes.
I don't think it would be enough to show that it attracts the pedophile segment to consume it, since that (most importantly) would not be trading in anyone or anything nonconsensual. It should be factually established that it does affect rates of actual pedophilia or underage exploitation. Laws, especially ones restricting free adults, shouldn't be made on a whim or to garner votes from parents scared into submission by politicians saying frightening things about how the pedophiles will destroy their country. Especially if they don't bother to find out if it's true or not.

Being a pedophile means you are attracted to the underage population, not that you are necessarily willing to act out your attractions on someone, willing or unwilling. I'm attracted to the female segment, but I'm not going to rape them anytime soon. Hell, at this point in my life I wouldn't even enter a sexual relationship with someone who was willing. I don't think it would be justifiable to assert that all pedophiles are willing to act out their urges any more than it would to make blanket generalizations about men or women with more traditional attractions. So yes, this type of porn would market to the pedophile segment, but the criminal element is only a subset of that segment. I'm really only concerned about the criminal element.

Tying into that, whether this sort of porn sends a message that underage exploitation is acceptable is arguable, since presumably everyone in the media and the consumer of the media are in fact of age (I assume the current laws are enough to ensure that to a reasonable degree). More than that, both parties know that this is true. I understand there are fetishists who enjoy wearing diapers and pretending to be babies, but I doubt they think exploiting babies is a desirable thing. So I think it would boil down to the same as I pointed out above-- unless there was an established connection between this type of porn and crimes committed, then it would be hard to justify discriminating against it in particular save as a visceral reaction or political favor-currying.

Now, supposing we eliminated all "normal" people and the non-predatory pedophile segment, we should be only concerned about the genuine, mentally disturbed, I'm-going-to-steal-me-a-school-bus-full-of-helpless-children type of person, then we should just go after them. We don't restrict the ownership of particularly sharp-looking pens because a small minority of clinically crazy people commit murder with them because it was shown on TV (even if they happen to be prop pens from the show). I don't know why this should be any different. And honestly it would be a hard sell to say that being abused by a pedophile is worse than being murdered.
Samuel Dravis is offline   you may: