Does porn cause harm?

[juliod]

It's been a long time since I've debated pornography. But it used to be a staple during my early internet days.

Some posters here occasionally refer to porn as it it were understood to be a Bad Thing. So I think we should debate the point.

My claim is that porn has been studied extensively since the 70's, and the harm attributable to porn is still zero.

DanZ

[juliod]

That porn that is harmful, the snuff/mutilation/disgusting stuff is inappropriate to anyone, regardless of age.

It's interesting that no one has ever demonstrated the existance of snuff porn. Back in the 80's, anti-porn crusaders used to claim that snuff was a major type of porn. Yet no one has ever seen one.

We do know that some such videos have been made. Charles Ng and Karla Homolka both videotaped their sexual murders, for example. But these were never distributed, and remarkably, never leaked from the criminal investigations. I suspect this is because a real snuff film would be impossible to watch except by a tiny set of dangerous psychopaths.

One type of porn that is harmful is child porn, and that is because it is inately harmful to the children in it. But of course that sort is already illegal by a different set of laws. And, similar to snuff, it is not available. It is my belief that 100% of child porn cases we hear about are stings by the police.

BTW, sex-murders are a standard part of mainstream movies. And in these it is often intentionally eroticised.

DanZ

[Cephus]

We do know that some such videos have been made. Charles Ng and Karla Homolka both videotaped their sexual murders, for example. But these were never distributed, and remarkably, never leaked from the criminal investigations. I suspect this is because a real snuff film would be impossible to watch except by a tiny set of dangerous psychopaths.

While that might be true, and the point of my statement that it would be inappropriate for anyone regardless of age, there are certainly things that approximate snuff out there. It wasn't so many years ago when there was a big blowup over "crush" videos where female models were shown stepping on small animals. That's certainly a subset of snuff, the erotic appeal of death. That said, certainly there are plenty of sex-related stories that are written about snuff.

One type of porn that is harmful is child porn, and that is because it is inately harmful to the children in it. But of course that sort is already illegal by a different set of laws. And, similar to snuff, it is not available. It is my belief that 100% of child porn cases we hear about are stings by the police.

It isn't legally available, but take a run to any of the Usenet binary groups that are dedicated to that kind of thing and you'll see otherwise. A friend and I did a study a number of years ago for someone who claimed, as you do, that there's no such thing as kiddy porn and produced a few dozen pictures, in a single afternoon, of clearly underage children having sex or in sexual positions. Whether or not it's legal, it is out there and it isn't the police posting it on Usenet.

But I will agree with you that it is the making of these films and pictures, not the viewing, that is harmful to children. That doesn't excuse the viewing though.

[juliod]

It wasn't so many years ago when there was a big blowup over "crush" videos where female models were shown stepping on small animals.

Somehow I missed this particular form of titillation.

But we have to accept that animals are not given the rights we have, and those of us that are not vegitarians have very little grounds to complain. Animal cruelty laws would be present in many places that would stop the production of such movies (but not the distribution).

Also, it's interesting that such movies would fail to violate obscenity laws in the US, since they could not be judged "prurient". No juror is going to sit on a trial and say, "yeah, I find that sexually stimulating".

A friend and I did a study a number of years ago for someone who claimed, as you do, that there's no such thing as kiddy porn and produced a few dozen pictures, in a single afternoon, of clearly underage children having sex or in sexual positions.

I'll accept this. I know that up til about 1996 there was extemely little of this on Usenet. I was very active on Usenet until leaving grad school, and saw only a single example of child porn posted. I immediately reported it to the originating administrators.

Whether or not it's legal, it is out there and it isn't the police posting it on Usenet.

This I wouldn't be too sure about. I think the relevant law enforcement do quite a lot of "fishing" out there. Setting up fake web pages, posting a few pictures, infiltrating organizations (or entrapping individuals, however you want to view it). It seems to me that only the police could do this without extreme danger of arrest and prosecution.

DanZ

[Cephus]

Somehow I missed this particular form of titillation.

I did a quick Google search and here's the first link I could find about it. I'm sure that you could find more if you cared to.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article ... 22,00.html

But we have to accept that animals are not given the rights we have, and those of us that are not vegitarians have very little grounds to complain. Animal cruelty laws would be present in many places that would stop the production of such movies (but not the distribution).

It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of people getting off by death, which is fundamentally what snuff is. The only difference is the species involved.

I'll accept this. I know that up til about 1996 there was extemely little of this on Usenet. I was very active on Usenet until leaving grad school, and saw only a single example of child porn posted. I immediately reported it to the originating administrators.

I don't remember when I first became aware of it, but before the early 90s, most people on the net were academics and it was purely a no-commercial zone, carried primarily on university and business computers so I'm not surprised that a lot of porn, child porn included, wasn't openly available. That's not to say that it wasn't traded around privately though.

This I wouldn't be too sure about. I think the relevant law enforcement do quite a lot of "fishing" out there. Setting up fake web pages, posting a few pictures, infiltrating organizations (or entrapping individuals, however you want to view it). It seems to me that only the police could do this without extreme danger of arrest and prosecution.

Exactly how would they be fishing by posting pictures on a public forum? Fishing requires the "target" to take some action whereby they are caught doing something illegal. Just posting a picture with no contact info, no website attached, etc. doesn't lead the "target" to do anything but download more pictures. You have to remember, we're talking about Usenet here, which is freely disseminated to almost anyone who wants to see it, not a web site that requires you to specifically go there and log on and perhaps use a credit card to identify yourself as an adult. Just having the cops stick unattributed kiddy porn on a newsgroup makes no sense.

[juliod]

Just posting a picture with no contact info, no website attached, etc. doesn't lead the "target" to do anything but download more pictures.

But usenet postings at least have an e-mail address associated with them. They may be fake, but if you are a cop, you would have a dummy account set up. A certain number of people are going to respod to the posting, possibly asking for more. If even a single one does then you have a new investigation to start, and another gold star on your record.

And there are many ways to track a download off usenet. On the old unix systems it would be easy to find out what a person was viewing on usenet. And modern ISPs would be able to divulge this information as well. Security on the internet is not very high.

I personally know of a case where someone was investigated for improper use of a computer. I talked to the computer forensics guy who was doing the investigation. It wasn't much of a case, but he said he had to check the computer for child porn. I asked how he could do this. It seemed very impractical to me since a person who might be downloading porn to a computer might have tens of thousands of files. How could he examine every one? He said there was a program that law enforcement people use that does it automatically. I tried to find out how this works, since it sounded pretty sophisticated, but he didn't seem to know (he was only a tech, and didn't seem interested in how a machine could identify child porn).

The only way I can see this working (and in line with my general conspiratorial view) is if law enforcement is in control of all the child porn on the net, and has it all digitally tagged. A program could then scan for them like a virus scanner, even if names were changed and the files edited, and identify and track the flow of images. It seems to me that this would only be useful in an investigation if they were really quite sure that there is no independant source of such images.

DanZ

[Cephus]

But usenet postings at least have an e-mail address associated with them. They may be fake, but if you are a cop, you would have a dummy account set up. A certain number of people are going to respod to the posting, possibly asking for more. If even a single one does then you have a new investigation to start, and another gold star on your record.

Sure, you could get the poster, but not the downloader and you're claiming that the poster is a police officer, so they don't have to arrest him.

And there are many ways to track a download off usenet. On the old unix systems it would be easy to find out what a person was viewing on usenet. And modern ISPs would be able to divulge this information as well. Security on the internet is not very high.

Most high-profile Usenet servers specifically do not track downloads to protect their users, and just downloading something isn't illegal, no matter what it is since you really don't know what it is until after you've already gotten it. The vast majority of pictures marked as "young" or "lolita" or whatever are actually young-looking adults. I wouldn't think you could get a conviction based on that simple fact, unless you confiscated their computer and found large quantities of kiddy porn stored on it. Someone who downloads, looks and deletes is perfectly safe. All they have to say is "I didn't know and I deleted it when I saw it".

The only way I can see this working (and in line with my general conspiratorial view) is if law enforcement is in control of all the child porn on the net, and has it all digitally tagged. A program could then scan for them like a virus scanner, even if names were changed and the files edited, and identify and track the flow of images. It seems to me that this would only be useful in an investigation if they were really quite sure that there is no independant source of such images.

Anyone worth their salt could strip any tags so it would really be useless unless you were only interested in catching real idiots. In all likelyhood, your friend's "scanner" was just looking for things in filenames and text files that are easily identifiable, there's really no way a computer can look at a picture and identify what it's a picture of, or if the person in the picture is younger than a certain age.

[1John2_26]

The bible calls women vessels. Now that is an object. It seems to treat them as property and sperm depositories. After all it is better to empty your seed in a whore then spill it.

But not a male whore.

Sure would have been better for those religious propagandists to edit out all the embarrassing stuff. What? Were they afraid God would dissaprove?

BTW, science would support the sperm-to-female "connection."

The Bible is such a good science book.

How did these Hebrews know so much before microscopes?

How many modern-day wives (women please) are happy about their husbands porn addcition?

[Cathar1950]

1John2_26:

But not a male whore.

I just don't know what to say. It seems so irrelevant and shallow.

1John2_26:

Sure would have been better for those religious propagandists to edit out all the embarrassing stuff. What? Were they afraid God would dissaprove?

They did enough editing and rewriting to show it wasn't fear that stopped them. I tend to think they didn't spot it. What is it that you find embarrassing?

BTW, science would support the sperm-to-female "connection."

Only if you are a reductionist and sexuality for humans and other animals was only interested in pure reproduction. Science seems to support a wider view or sexuality and reproductive behavior and allows for variation sometime not directly supporting reproduction alone.

1John2_26:

The Bible is such a good science book.

No it isn't. It is not a science book at all.

How did these Hebrews know so much before microscopes?

They didn't know that much. They just followed the rules with out knowing anything about science. That some of the behaviors may have had benefits only shows dumb luck with traditions pass on the successful.
You don't seem to be making a point. You sound like your just preaching to yourself and the choir has fallen asleep.

How many modern-day wives (women please) are happy about their husbands porn addcition?

So might be turned on by it. Who knows? Be sure to ask them all.

[1John2_26]

Cathar,

That was rebuttal?

1John2_26:
Quote:
But not a male whore.

I just don't know what to say. It seems so irrelevant and shallow.

How about "accurate?" We are not just debating in this thread.

1John2_26:

Quote:
Sure would have been better for those religious propagandists to edit out all the embarrassing stuff. What? Were they afraid God would dissaprove?

They did enough editing and rewriting to show it wasn't fear that stopped them. I tend to think they didn't spot it. What is it that you find embarrassing?

Atheists and skeptics and the way they attack the Bible. Actually it is hilarious. I'm embarassed for them and at how I laugh at them. It is not very Christian. I do repent often though.

I laughed at first reaction to your reply about male whores being rejected sexually by the Hebrews. I wish I wouldn't have, but I sort of picture the expression on your face when replying. I see it all the time from people I debate in real life.

Quote:
BTW, science would support the sperm-to-female "connection."

Only if you are a reductionist and sexuality for humans and other animals was only interested in pure reproduction.

Only if pure fact means something. Sexual deviant behavior doesn't get reclassified because your professors are teaching the class. This day and age will pass away too. Nature will still be there when every liberal-progressive is dust.

Science seems to support a wider view or sexuality and reproductive behavior and allows for variation sometime not directly supporting reproduction alone.

I know. They call it the porn industry and liberal politics.

1John2_26:
Quote:
The Bible is such a good science book.

No it isn't. It is not a science book at all.

OOOOhhhh wellllll. Ok then. I'll completely change all of my views on that bit of expert advice. Or then . . . . . . . .

Quote:
How did these Hebrews know so much before microscopes?

They didn't know that much. They just followed the rules with out knowing anything about science.

And there rules align perfectly with science! Imagine that. people that are sick going away from the camp until they are better. What a concept. Cleaning pots and pans. Whooduh thunk it?

That some of the behaviors may have had benefits only shows dumb luck with traditions pass on the successful.

That is your great enlightened treatise on the Israelites "knowing" sanitation and cleanliness "laws?" Understand why tears are rolling down my cheeks. It is not from being refuted I can assure you. It is time for "a Jewish person" to return to his "roots."

You don't seem to be making a point. You sound like your just preaching to yourself and the choir has fallen asleep.

Would that be the immense choirs in the mega-Churches popping up all over the land?

Quote:
How many modern-day wives (women please) are happy about their husbands porn addcition?

So might be turned on by it. Who knows? Be sure to ask them all.

I don't have to huh? Concerned Women For America have their own radio show.

You're a good guy. I think you're starting to get it. It's in your blood.

Have a nice day. Until next time, I'm out.

[Cathar1950]

1John2_26:

It is not very Christian. I do repent often though.

It is good to see you admit it. I guess it would be all right if homosexuals came to church each week and said how sorry they are for acting like you.

1John2_26:

I wish I wouldn't have, but I sort of picture the expression on your face when replying. I see it all the time from people I debate in real life.

I was mostly astonished by your obsessive one-track mind.

Me:

Science seems to support a wider view or sexuality and reproductive behavior and allows for variation sometime not directly supporting reproduction alone.

You:

I know. They call it the porn industry and liberal politics.

I was thinking courtship, romance and affection.

1John2_26:

And there rules align perfectly with science! Imagine that. people that are sick going away from the camp until they are better. What a concept. Cleaning pots and pans. Whooduh thunk it?

I don't think it is limited to the people of the bible.
I guess the Muslims did introduce the Europeans to the concept of soap.

1John2_26:

Understand why tears are rolling down my cheeks. It is not from being refuted I can assure you. It is time for "a Jewish person" to return to his "roots."

I thought it was because you forgot to take your meds.

1John2_26:

Would that be the immense choirs in the mega-Churches popping up all over the land?

The American entrepernual mega churches?