Benk: I don't quite grasp the terms of your deal. Can you restate what you mean.

Thanks,
pynch

pynchme, yet again you spend two posts doing your best to minimise both the effects and the rates of child physical and emotional abuse and neglect, claiming that reported rates are overreports because reporting of incidents is mandatory, while trying to pretend that the massively overhyped problem of CSA is somehow "underreported", despite similar mandatory reporting requirements.

As I said, you're just not very good at either analysis or critical thinking, at least on subjects related to sex, whether CSA or between consenting adults. I suspect that you have a personal agenda based on a real and intense dislike of sex, which shows itself in your rather lurid fantasies to do with male pain and humiliation in a sexual context.

benk:"It isn't possible to conclude that one led to the other."

No, as rstuart says, correlation does not imply causation, but correlation also does not imply no causation. If one notices correlation, it is often useful to hypothesize causation and then reason and test to arrive at a strong conclusion one way ot the other. That's the way research works - it requires hypothesising and testing rather than a reliance on received wisdom based on conjecture or an appeal to popularity, such as is the case with religion and politics.

Far too much social "research" is of the form "I'd like a result like this, what do I need to do to achieve it". People like Flood and pynchme and CJMorgan then collect that self-serving dross as though it were finest research steel and try to fashion arguments from it, wondering why they keep falling apart. If there is no critical analysis of the raw data, then there can be no sensible conclusion reached, regardless of the chaib of reasoning that follows. As well, if there is no logical consistency in the reasoning, then the quality of the data is irrelevant. Unfirtunately, most of those who go into social studies seem to come from the cohort who find maths and science a bit hard, so they simply don't apply it to their work.

Pynchme

Your exact words were
"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."

You then discussed an especially violent subset of all porn. I believe that most men would refuse to watch this type of porn. Therefore, consumers of this type of porn are atypical and it would be unfair to generalise about men from this example.

Similarly, Dworkin has a track record of making outlandish, tosserish statements. The claim that all sex is rape is often attributed to her, although she denies saying this. She is regularly quoted by people seeking to discredit feminism. I believe that her views are extreme and therefore, using her views to generalise about other feminists is unfair.

Anti

The Japanese research did provide some evidence that porn does-not lead to more sexual assault and suggested, but did-not prove that it might actually lead to less sexual assault. I thought RStuart was trying to argue that child porn might meet a need in paedophiles, meaning that they don't need to abuse real children. This is possible, but this study does little to prove (or disprove) this assertion.

In any case, most porn shows consentual sex and not rape. Therefore, anyone copying what they saw in the porn would be having consentual sex and not raping women. So rates of rape would be irrelevant. It makes sense that some people who see child porn would copy what they saw, so anyone wanting a dramatic liberalisation of laws will need strong evidence proving otherwise.

Nothing has changed, Rstuart and Antiseptic continue to argue the following:

1. Their 'right' to view any type of pornography.

2. Sidetracking the topic from one where a father who was charged with viewing child pornography to yet again blaming single mothers, in complete oblivion to the fact this same was father was accused by his own children of inappropriate behaviour.

All the while avoiding the fact that to be able to watch child pornography such films have to be made. This requires the exploitation and coercion of children.

From UNICEF: http://www.unicef.org/media/media_46524.html

“Sexual exploitation leaves children with psychological and at times physical scars, and diminishes their hopes of leading a life of dignity,” said UNICEF Executive Director Ann M. Veneman. “No country or region is immune, and there are no innocent bystanders.”

Sexual exploitation is a violation of a child’s right to care and protection. The Congress will look at various types of sexual exploitation of children, including sexual exploitation in the family, child marriage, sexual exploitation of child domestic laborers, the commercial sex industry, as well as child pornography and sexual exploitation of children in cyber space.

Predators continue to use new tools to target children, including cyber space and new generation mobile phone technologies, and adults can prey on children in chat rooms and use the internet to post or download pornography."

Cont'd

Cont'd

http://www.preventionweb.net/english/professional/publications/v.php?id=2709

"Commercial sexual exploitation refers to the sexual abuse of children in exchange for a payment of some kind. This can be money, but can also be for favours or other benefits such as food, protection or shelter. There are three primary and interrelated forms of commercial sexual exploitation of children: prostitution, pornography, and trafficking for sexual purposes. .....

....Child pornography refers to any representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in real or simulated sexual activities or the representation of the sexual parts of a child. The main characteristic of child pornography is that it is produced for sexual gratification. Child pornography includes photographs, negatives, slides, magazines, books, drawings, recordings, movies, videotapes,
computer disks or files and images stored on mobile phones. .....

.....There are considerable difficulties in disentangling the different forms of sexual violence and abuse, principally because typically they do not occur in isolation, and there are many links between them. Not all children who are trafficked are sexually exploited (though it is a common feature) and similarly not all children who experience sexual violence (such as rape) are commercially sexually exploited. However, any child who has experienced any form of abuse is more vulnerable to subsequent abuse of both the same and different natures."

There is no excuse for the production of child porn. Viewing such exploitative media is not an innocent past-time, such behaviour supports an industry that preys on children.

Along with CJ Morgan I have argued for the freedom for artists like Bill Henson also I do not see cartoons like the Simpsons as pornography. Yes there are those who do wax hysterical over anything.

However, consider the technology we now have to create virtual scenarios where it is not necessary to use children, is the production of virtual child porn acceptable? No children are harmed in its production. Whether this would mean an adult viewing such media is less likely to enact these 'fantasies' is open to debate.

And finally, would anyone want their children viewing of any type: real or virtual? No matter what protections we as parents take, we cannot monitor our children's lives 24/7, for example whose homes they visit.

_____________________________________________
PS
Pynchme and CJ Morgan thank you for your kind words - very much appreciated.