rstuart: The basis of your current argument linked http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html is that where pornography increases, sexual crimes go down.

There are a few points to consider:

1. You've argued that the occurrence of sexual crimes can't be 'proven' to be caused by pornography (which I didn't argue - but never mind for now).

If there is no proven link between pornography and sex crimes being committed, then there can be no proven link between the proposed reduction of sex crimes and pornography. That is, the association, whatever the nature, cannot only be held to exist in one direction.

It's somewhat like me arguing that eating jelly beans cause weight gain; and you arguing that's nothing more than an hypothesis and a correlation - then arguing that in any case, eating jelly beans causes weight reduction.

Your cited Sex therapist Petr Weiss has put forward his opinion but I didn't see any evidence for it.

2. It hasn't been shown whether there is a reduction in sex crimes, a change in the definition of sex crime; the reporting rate or capture and conviction rates.

It can be argued that where there is a tolerance of pornography, there is also a greater indifference to sexual abuse - therefore fewer crimes investigated, reported, or gaining convictions.

The proportion of people claiming to have been sexually abused as children remains fairly constant across several countries - currently being about 1 in 4 or 5 female children and approx 1 in 6 (though rising) male children - that is, 2 in 10 children or 20 percent of the population under age of consent.

3. I too disagree with most cartoons being considered pornography though there are definitely some that are sources of pain for many people (Penthouse for example - the Chester the Molester series which were drawn by a fellow who was later convicted of child sexual abuse).
It might be argued that cartoons reflect attitudes that already exist and I believe that's part of the reason that people dismiss them as just a bit of fun.

cont/d:

cont/d:

They aren't a bit of fun to anyone familiar with the experience or after effects of sexual abuse.

Here's a good discussion of declining rates of sexual abuse and ways in which some of that change may be artefactual:

http://www.uq.edu.au/qadrec/Documents/Najman03Is-child-sexual-abuse-declining.pdf

One of the reasons that Simpson cartoons, Manga and the like shouldn't be lumped in with pornography involving actual people is that it tends to trivialize the impact of real pornography.

http://manufacturedcontempt.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/larry-flynt-and-hustler-magazine/

The other point is the normalization of abuse. Research shows that one of the few effective tools against recidivism is social disapproval. Some perpetrator group programs have had to be restructured and many abandoned because perpetrators grouped together became further desensitized to the impact of the abuse on their victims, exchanging 'tips' on how to procure victims etc.

Therefore it's important for even ineffectual opposition and disapproval of sexual abuse to exist. If nothing else it validates the victims' experience and acts to let child abusers know that social approval is not absolute.

It's worth considering some points made years ago by Andrea Dworkin.

One is that many men cannot grasp what it's like for most of one half of the population and basically all of a population under a certain age, to be despised by those who are purport to love and protect them. Pornography is one way in which such attitudes are transmitted.

Scenario: Some women somewhere start a site where they create images of men being beaten and raped (like the Abu Ghraib prison pics); or with a jack hammer being forced into an orifice; of men hung painfully on meat hooks, or bound, gagged and frightened; of boys having to kneel to be spat on or otherwise degraded with bodily fluids and excrement, by a bunch of women. Women encourage each other to masturbate to those images and many/most women find pictures of men and boys in pain and degraded as sexually exciting.

It would be fair enough I think for at least some boys and men to suspect that women really loathed them and cause enough to fight against it.

http://www.harpyness.com/2009/04/08/feminist-food-for-thought-andrea-dworkin/

http://www.safefamilies.org/sfStats.php

@Houellebecq: That civility was maintained by Fractelle's post being deleted

I am curious. What are you talking about? She hasn't posted since 2009.

@CJ Morgan: Anyway, with the recent injection of Antiseptic and his toady into the discussion

Gezz. If that wasn't for abuse, I wonder what the others said that got deleted. I keep missing the fun.

@CJ Morgan: As I said, I'll watch your campaign with interest.

You have been following it for about as far as it will go, unless some new avenue shows itself.

But is it not as radical as it seems. You get all het up about this because its kids. But the difference between kids and say a movie of a woman being violently raped, or a man being bashed is beyond me. All, I am saying is they should be treated equally. No special laws against kidde porn. Treat it exactly the same as the rest, under the existing obscenity laws that apply and I'd be happy.

It is not the radical proposal you suggest it is. It is just a request not to think of the children, to just treat the children like everyone else. And by doing so end this insanity about cartoons, high rise buildings, photographing children in public places and all the other nonsense it seems to engender.

I am now wondering if someone will come along and say "but ... you are a free speech nut, you are against all obscenity laws". That is wrong, but it seems so far from the topic at hand I'll leave it for now.

pynchme:"many men cannot grasp what it's like for most of one half of the population and basically all of a population under a certain age, to be despised by those who are purport to love and protect them."

Oh dear, you really are feeling down, aren't you hon. If it makes you feel better, I don't despise you, I just don't think you make much sense.

Rstuart:"treat the children like everyone else."

You obviously despise women and children, just like all men do, at least according to pynchme. Don't you realise you're attacking the heart of female power in this country?

I agree with you, on the other hand. There is a real dichotomy being established, in which someone below a certain age is deemed worthy of the most stringent and draconian interventions by society and damn the torpedoes or the feelings or the rights of anyboy else, while the next day, after an arbitrary line has been crossed, they're on their own under the sketchy protection of the thin blue line and their own wits, just like all the other adults (the men, anyway, some women seem to be eternally children with their mouths agape for whatever the Mother state regurgitates into them). What changed on that day?

I'd like pynchme or one of the other victim-makers to explain how they reconcile that.

rstuart, Fractelle is now severin, having left the site after a dummy spit over not getting her own way and then returning. There was apparently some password problem or something that resulted in her name change.

@Pynchme: If there is no proven link between pornography and sex crimes being committed

I didn't say there wasn't a link. In fact I explicitly said there is one! Cf: @rstuart: here is no doubt people who consume huge amounts of porn commit more sex crimes.

What I tried to explain is "correlation doesn't imply causation". Assuming it does is an error so common there is an Wikipedia article devoted to the subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

If you don't understand this, given your current vocation I'd strongly suggest you read up on it and attempt to get a firm grasp on the concept.

@Pynchme: It can be argued that where there is a tolerance of pornography, there is also a greater indifference to sexual abuse - therefore fewer crimes investigated, reported, or gaining convictions.

People can and do argue passionately for all sort of things, including the earth is flat and a dark strip in the Milky was the result of a Rainbow Serpent descending from there to live in our water ways. Human nature being way it is, the mere fact that someone argues something doesn't mean it has any basis in reality. Got any evidence to support this claim?

@Pynchme: Here's a good discussion of declining rates of sexual abuse and ways in which some of that change may be artefactual

Eh? I skimmed that paper, and I saw no claim the change may be an artefact of changing attitudes or reporting. Here is its conclusion:

"These population-based findings provide evidence of a decline in the underlying rate of CSA in Australia. Although every measure of CSA inevitably is flawed to some extent, these trends in self-report complement official statistics that show substantial decline in recent years."

The interesting thing for me is the paper says that prior to 2000 (ie prior to widespread internet usage) rates appeared to be stable or increasing. Now, after widespread internet adoption they are dropping.

@Pynchme: It's worth considering some points made years ago by Andrea Dworkin.

Only if you are considering discussing the opinions of a complete twat, someone who attempted smuggler to herion and failed, and blamed that attempt on the man in her failed relationship of a year ago. That woman and her accomplice Catharine Mackinnon managed to inflict more harms on our society than most paedophiles. Reading the works of the likes Betty Friedan gave me a healthy respect feminism, but you girls letting your movement be hijacked and twisted into some perverted misandristic mantra by Dworkin and her ilk had severely eroded most males sympathies for it.

@Pynchme: It would be fair enough I think for at least some boys and men to suspect that women really loathed them and cause enough to fight against it.

You don't get it do you? I am not interested in discussing your theories of how the human mind might work. I frankly don't think you have a clue on the subject. Don't read that too harshly, as I don't think anyone knows how the human mind works - at least not to the extent you are implying in that little piece of deduction. Give me stats that suggest what you are saying is in fact the case and I might give it some credence. In other words, until you can back them up with some supporting figures I place about as much weight on your feminist theories as I do on a 3 year olds rationalisation of why they took the lolly.

@Antiseptic: rstuart, Fractelle is now severin,

Thanks. That is depressing. My ability to divine the personality behind the personality behind the post is apparently at the level of a gnat.