----- Original Message ----- From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 7:44 AM Subject: Re: 'Virtual' Child Porn Act Ruled Unconstitutional
> << I think the difference is that while there _is_ a proper way for an adult > > male to act on sexual urges toward pretty girls (viz., find one who > > consents), there is _no_ proper way for an adult to act on sexual urges > > toward children except to refuse to entertain them in any fashion. >> > > You're talking about actual children here, in which case I agree with you. > I'm talking about fictional children who do not exist in reality. The > anti-pornography crowd insists that seeing porn makes you hunger for the real > thing, but there is no evidence that this is true. Well, that's not really a true statement. I talked to my wife, who use to specialize in abuse and incest survivors, and what is known is a bit more complicated than that. To start with, let me address something from an earlier post of yours: >One could also argue that porn is a safe way for people to deal with their urges. This understanding is 180 degrees from the understanding that underlies the treatment of sexual abusers such as pedophiles. Most treatment of sex offenders require that the offender refrain from obtaining child pornography and work hard to break fantasies of sex with children off as quickly as they recognize they are having such a fantasy. One of the reasons for this is the fact that the addiction model fits pedophiles and hard core pornography users fairly well. Most men's eye would be caught by, say, the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue. They would very likely be interested in looking through it. After a while, virtually every guy would find their interest lagging. Here's where the difference between a sexual addict and a non-addict comes in. Someone who is not an addict would find no real reason to go buy another magazine when that magazine got boring. Someone with a tendency towards addiction would then buy another magazine and look at it. Since the swimsuit edition isn't _very_ soft core, it would probably be something a bit stronger...like Playboy. Then, after a bit, the porn sites on the internet would be viewed. Actually, people would be likely to go directly to the porn sites now, but in older days, someone with a tendency towards addiction would just buy the next magazine up the chain. Also, seeing an internet porn site out of curiosity is certainly not a sign of addiction. Many/most people have some curiosity about internet porn sites, so they have looked. However, its not something they need to see on a regular basis. But, those with a tendency towards sexual addition find their need interferes with their daily life. (Actually, this is one of the most important tests for an addiction, does it interfere with daily life. People can become addicted to all sorts of things, even things that are basically worthwhile. If one cannot seem to stop doing it, even when it interferes with one's normal daily life, the chances are its a form of addiction. Another tendency of addiction is the desire for a stronger fix when the original fix loses interest. We see this in the increase in the size of the fix that drug addicts need with time. We also see it with addiction to porn. While someone with a tendency towards may start simply looking at pictures of naked women, that looses its ability to satisfy after a while. Pictures of actual sex may come next, followed by the need for additional "spice." This may be S&M, kiddy porn, bestiality, etc. We know, from studies of pedophiles in therapy, that they first fantasize about sex with kids, most then move on to child pornography, and then move on to doing it themselves when the "fix" from simply watching it is not enough to fuel their fantasies. We know, at first, one act can fuel months of fantasies, but as the memory fades over time, there is a strong urge to reinforce the excitement. Usually, this requires more frequent abuse of kids...following the general pattern of addiction. As a result of this pattern, as mentioned before, pedophiles in treatment are strongly urged/required to abstain from viewing child pornography. Those that have refrained from viewing child pornography are more likely to also refrain from being arrested again for abusing children. This is considered evidence of the link between child pornography and child abuse. But, it is not causal proof. Casual proof is devilishly hard to obtain in the social sciences (which is why they are not really science, but that's another thread). So, I will agree that we don't have proof of the link, there is evidence. We also don't really know the fraction of folks that view child pornography that actually "graduate" to child abuse. We do know that the vast majority of pedophiles that have abused children had viewed child pornography first. We also have evidence of such pornography desensitizing the viewer. Having said all that, I still think that Ashcroft's position was wrong, and the Supreme Court rightfully struck down the law. While the elimination of child pornography would benefit to society, such a sweeping law clearly violates free speech and sets up prosecutors to selectively enforce the law against people who clearly are not producing child pornography. Further, there is no direct harm of children in simulated child pornography; while real child pornography has to involve the direct harming of children. Prohibiting something that is associated with further problems down the road is not a clear and easy thing to do. It is not clear where the line should be drawn; while it is quite easy to see why real child pornography should be illegal. So, given the importance of free speech, it doesn't seem to me that we can easily regulate simulated child pornography. The real point of this post is that this decision is not an easy one. It is probably a decision that we need to refine and review in the future. Dan M.
