Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 5/26/03 11:56 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Um, this theory isn't about "accommodation," or "giving up," it's about "competition" and "reduction."

I know the meanings of these words and you don't have to assume everyone is an idiot or that they don't want to read your long-winded ramblings because it's "over their head". Your arguments could be easily condensed. I don't think you're an arrogant person, but you're coming off as one and it annoys me.

You still don't get my drift. These laws are not accommodating porn makers, but pedophiles. Rather than stamp it out, a halfway is reached which involves accommodating the other side.

Take my condom metaphor, for example. By providing them to teens, we are accommodating a practice rather than opposing it. By allowing virtual child porn, we are accommodating pedophiles' needs rather than opposing them. By giving condoms to kids, we are condoning and legitimizing underage sex. By providing legal child porn to pedophiles, we are condoning and legitimizing child abuse. Can you not see the parallels? Do I have to make them clearer? Can we move past discussing a single metaphor? Stay tuned for more tomorrow.

---

At 5/27/03 12:24 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

Okay, now...to Ninja_Scientist. You can word it any way you want, you can make all the arguments you want. I'm generally open minded to new things, progressive things...but this is going one step too far. Child porn, virtual or real, promotes child molestation.

LOL. OK, you want a novel? Here.
----------------------
OK, let's just say that they both promote child molestation, as you say. lol. So, we have say, 10 kids getting molested by 10 freaks who watch real kiddie porn. And, we have about 10 kids being used in the real child porn business that they watch. That's 20 kids being hurt all together, correct?

Now, we have fake kiddie porn "legal" to eat away some of the business of the other. Now, lets say that even just 2 of those freaks decide to tune into the fake child porn. Now, let's even say that they also go on to molest kids.

However, would that have been any different than if they had watched the real stuff? No, we still have 10 kids getting molested, regardless whether or not their molesters watch real child porn or fake child porn. The number of molestation cases has not changed.

However, what has changed is the drop in business of the real child porn market. Instead of the 100%, we have 80% interest in that particular business. So, out of the 20 kids, we now have at least 10% of them not getting injured. You see?

It has little to do with molestation cases than with the kids being used in the porn.

Molestation cases won't really change, since the people who do it generally will do it anyway. Regardless whether or not they see fake kiddie porn, real kiddie porn, or no kiddie porn at all (look at the whole Catholic priests incidents @_o' ).

The important issue is how it affects the kids being used in the porn. See?

Why not put all efforts toward stopping REAL child porn, rather than advocating the fake stuff? It's a waste of time, and if it's legal, it's more accessible. If it's more accessible, then more people will view it. Which will likely lead to more child molestation. It's very simple logic, and a probable progression.

What the heck? This IS about stoppping real child porn? My god, are you nuts? You haven't even read anything I wrote have you? @_o' You think this is about making fake child porn legal "just for fun?" "Just so freaks can see it, because I like them?"

My point is that while both are illegal, NOTHING IS HAPPENING! CHILD PORN IS A VERY SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS NOW AND IT'S EVEN CONTINUING TO GROW, WHICH IS WHY THIS THEORY WAS DEVELOPED IN THE FIRST PLACE. Sheesh.

This theory is about DECREASING CHILD PORN. It's about actually doing something to stiffle the business instead of just sitting on our butts and letting it continue to grow.

It's for decreasing real child porn by providing something fake to compete with it. Not just for proving someing fake for the sake of providing something fake. No wonder you don't get it.

Also, CHILD PORN IS ALREADY EXTREMELY ACCESSABLE. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT'S REAL CHILD PORN THAT'S ACCESSABLE.

We'd only be making the fake stuff more accessable.How much the real stuff is accessable wouldn't change. The only thing that would change would be a lower of interest in the real stuff, regardless of how accessable it is or not.

---

OK, then. How about this. Child porn is very illegal now, and it's business is growing more and more in spite of that.

AND it's being seen by more and more people, not just strict pedophiles, which is what you seem to believe.

What do you suggest we do then? I know you can't be for "letting it grow." So what are you for? Making it "more illegal?"

Um, if they feel they can get away with it now, they aren't going to care how illegal it gets. That's why having it illegal alone isn't working now.

And that's why this proposal was brought forward.
-----------------
Hmmm. Interesting the way you think. @_o'

Now, let's say that there is the case of Mr. Wotsisnam, who's molested 3 kids in his lifetime and also watches kiddie porn.

Let's say he sees 5 pictures of kiddie porn a day.

Now, let's say that fake kiddie porn becomes legal. Now, instead of seeing only 5 real kiddie porn pictures a day, he for some reason decides to take more time and sees 10 a day instead, 5 real and 5 fake (because he likes it so much, or something).

So, now, he's "more of a molester" than he was when he only saw 5 a day?

So if you watch 9 pictures of child porn instead of 8, then you become "more of a molester?" If a guy molests a kid, then you rate how much of a molester he is by how much porn he watches?

A molester is a molester, regardless of how much porn he watches. He's only "more of a molester" if he molests a higher number of kids.

And you don't molest a kid for each porn picture you see. lol. Obviously.

If you are sexually interested in kids and see about 50 kiddie porn pictures, then you are still sexually interested in kids. You feel that he's "less likely to be a molester than a guy who's seen 70 pictures?" Obviously, if you like kids that way, then you'll act on it based more on who you are and not on "how much porn you see." lol.

In fact, how much kiddie porn you see is also based more on who you are. Not vise-versa. You are not who you are based on much kidde porn you see. Chances are, you were either very interested in it or not very interested in it from the start. You don't "become that way."

The same thing applies to regular porn. If a guy watches porn a lot, then he most likely liked it a lot from the start. He didn't "learn to like it more and more." And if a guy doesn't watch porn that much, than he probably just didn't like it that much from the start. He didn't ''become uninterested in it," by not watching it very much.

In fact, the purpose of how much porn you watch is to "feed your hunger." You're ALREADY EXISTING hunger. A guy who is less interested in kids, will see maybe 50 pictures. While a guy who is more interested in kids will see maybe 100 pictures.

The amount of porn these freaks download is based on how much they like kids. How much they already like kids.

The second guy didn't "turn into" more of a pervert than the first guy from seeing each picture, he saw each picture because he's more of a pervert than the first guy.

---

There is little relation to the amount of kiddie porn you see and how much you molest kids.

If you are a molester, then you've probably seen kiddie porn. Obviously!

But one molester may just like to molest kids, and keeps his downloading of material to a minimum. In fact, he may prefer to molest kids himself than to see other people do it. So he goes on to molest 20 kids in the area.

Let's just say he's one of those Catholic priests, and he doesn't risk downloading the stuff at all, but he still is a molester regardless. He didn't "turn that way" from kiddie porn.

While some family guy interested in kids, just downloads the material without molesting anyone. He could download the material constantly, but though he's a sicko, he still wouldn't be a molester yet.

Or lets say that he does go on to molest 10 kids. He still didn't molest as much as the previous guy, regardless of how much porn they both watch.

There is little relation.

-----------------------------
In fact, most people who watch kiddie porn just do that and don't molest themselves. Just look at all the cases the broadcast on TV of old businessmen found with kiddie porn on their computer.

Yet, apparently, none of these guys had actually molested kids themselves (and they had background checks; their faces where broadcasted on TV for people who may recognize them who had kids around him----like in their neighborhood, etc; and some of them even took lie detector tests to prove their innocence, etc).

These guys just liked to watch it a lot. Of course, I believe that there were cases in which a few of them did molest a kid, but no one came foward who knew him or had kids that they knew were around him at one point, or in the neighborhood, etc.

And, even if they didn't molest kids themselves, I of course still agree that what they did is really really weird and wrong. @_o'

Now, however, look at the cases of the Catholic Priests. It seems that few of them were found owning kiddie porn (though maybe some of them had looked up some on the internet now and then). Yet they molested many many kids.
----------------------------
Some molester could molest 2 kids and only have downloaded 50 pictures on his computer, while some other guy could have only molested 1 kid and have downloaded 100 pictures on his computer. There is no correlation between that. Once again it depends on the person.

Now, those who are serious molesters are seriously interested in kids. So, they will probably download a lot of material as well in order to feed their massive hunger. However, they are already serious molesters. They can't get "any worse" by "seeing more pictures," since they are already serious molesters anyway.

They won't become interested in kids any more than they unfortunatly are by seeing more pictures. If you want to have sex with a kid, then you won't want to have sex with him any more if you see 60 instead of 50 pictures. If you're want to do it, then you want to do it already.

And more importantly, if you are going to do it, then you are going to do it already. This, we unfortunately can't change.

They won't become "more of a molester" by seeing more pictures. If they molest kids, then they already molest kids. They don't molest kids based on every picture they see. They are already serious freaks.

In fact, though I'm against real kiddie porn, they might even be molesting less kids themselves while watching it on the internet. Blah!

But I don't think that's a reason to make real kiddie porn legal, because kids are being molested in that business anyway. So, if the business goes up, than more kids will be molested in that business anyway.

In fact, that would be a closer example to your metaphor of "acceptance" vs. "restriction." That "making all kiddie porn legal would make pedophiles watch it instead of molesting real kids." However, I don't believe in that. If you're gonna molest a kid, then you'll do it no matter how much porn you watch first.

Anyway, THAT theory is "acceptance." Not this theory.

The amount of material they see has more to do with how perverted they already are, and not vise-versa. If you're a freak, then you'll download pictures. You most likely won't be normal and then for some reason download pictures, and then become a freak.

The only way there would be a correlation between the amount of pictures you see and how much of a perv you are, is if you said that "a guy who sees kiddie porn will suddenly turn into a molester," which isn't the case. There are kids everywhere in our society. And you either are interested in them, or you aren't. And if you're not, why would you be looking for it in the first place anyway? @_o'

There are kids in Catholic churches. There are kids in malls. There are kids in our families. Pedophilia doesn't start with kiddie porn. Kiddie porn begins after pedophilia occurs.

--------------------------------

Also, you STILL didn't respond to one of my points. MOLESTERS AREN'T THE ONLY ONES WATCHING CHILD PORN NOW! About half of the porn that pops up on the internet is child porn now! Not just strict pedophiles are watching it, practically ALL porn junkies are contributing a little to the kiddie business.

And yet, these overwelming numbers mean nothing to you?

All you can concern yourself is on "molesting?" MORE KIDS WILL BE MOLESTED BY THESE PORN SITES BECAUSE THE SITES TAKE KIDS IN GROUPS. What about them? Do you care about THOSE kids at all? They're being molested, too, but "they don't matter, only kids on the street do?" Well, the kids used on these sites ARE kids "from the street."

---

I refuse to agree with anything that sends "It's okay as long as it's fake" as a message to pedophiles. It's not okay. It never will be okay.

That's funny, because I never said it was "OK." @_o' In fact, I'm against both. However, I would certainly prefer one over the other. And that's the point here.

What bothers me is that you rank both fake and real kiddie porn the same. You feel they're both "equally bad."

Honestly, this truly shows how much you care for the kids being used. I

'm against both, too, but unlike you, I don't put my hatred of all kiddie porn and my own "offended feelings" before the lives of these kids. You're just against this type of porn in general because YOU think it's bad. Well, what about the kids in that business? Do they even rate up there with your own feelings? Of course, you're going to say something like, "I'm for kids not being molested." But if that was the case, then wouldn't you be for something that would decrease that?

If your a pedophile, then you're a pedophile. Making "virtual porn" legal will do nothing to you. You don't become "more of a pedophile" or "more of a molester," like I said.

You either like kids sexually, or you don't. You'd either act on it, or you don't.

And frankly, seeing a real kid get molested is more numbing than seeing a fake kid get molested. So, while those who watch real kiddie porn may feel the need "make some of their own," those who watch fake kiddie porn, may feel the need to make some of their own....fake.
---------------
How about this, then? Let's say you had the choice of either having the world flooded with fake kiddie porn or real kiddie porn. Which would you prefer?

If you said, "I wouldn' t want either," then once again that shows how much you rate your own feelings over the lives of those kids.

I hate both, but I would obviously choose the first one, because then much less kids would be hurt. while the first one involves many kids being hurt.

That rates over how much I hate it.

So, the message isn't saying "It's OK," the message is saying that "it's sure a hell of a lot better than molesting real kids." Which it is.

Which even you, for the sake of those kids, must agree with.
----------------------

And I assure you, hardly anyone on this planet would base their morals off of what our "government says."

If the government dropped the penalties for murder, you really think that people have such a lack of free thought that they would go:

"Oh, then the government must be saying that it's OK to murder. Gosh, then I guess if the government says so, then it must be OK to be a murderer. And here I always thought that it was wrong. Boy, will my church feel stupid when they heard what the government said. I'll go murder someone now. I mean, the only thing stopping me was that the government said it was wrong. And I always listen to the government."

Yeah, um, no. Raise your hand if you know any person on the planet who is like that.

Those who do it are doing it anyway EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW IT'S WRONG.

Let's just say that the government went out and said,

"OK, everyone, we're now declaring that child porn is a good thing."

Then you think that people will go,

"Oh, OK."

Um, no. Probably not. Everyone still knows that it's wrong, just as everyone still knows that murder is wrong. Even those who are the ones murderering and molesting kids know that what they do is wrong.

And if they don't know it's wrong, then it has nothing to do with "what the government said," but more with how they try to reason their actions in their own heads. The government has nothing to do with it.

They don't just feel it's wrong because "the government said so."

And if they do, then they apparently don't care anyway, based on the rise of child porn.

Even if it sounded like the government was saying "It's OK," it wouldn't affect these people since they are doing it already and apparently don't care what the government says in the first place. lol.

All in all, the government wouldn't be saying "It's OK," they'd be saying, "we'd prefer you put your attentions on something less harmful than on something that hurts America's children."

If you'd like to know, I'm sure that they'd be VERY clear about why they're making fake kiddie porn legal before they'd do it. I doubt they'd go, "we're making fake child porn legal.....but aren't telling you why, so that you might think your government thinks it's OK. Hah hah."

I highly doubt it.
----------------

Heh heh. Sorry folks, but someone is getting very confused about the purpose behind this theory.

If you don't want me to "write long," then it would please me if you wouldn't get what I said so confused.

I think it's upsetting when I write a post about decreasing real child porn (being sure to be clear in that I hate all child porn, and am not "for fake child porn.")

.......and then the first thing you start talking about is "why aren't you talking about decreasing real child porn, instead of being for fake child porn?"

My god. @_o'

So, you betcha I feel like I have to try to dumb it down.

Also, might I add that I think it's arrogant of anyone to feel that they have the liberty to call someone else arrogant. lol. ^_^
------------
Also, once again, this isn't about "accomodation."

You only care about people "looking at porn," whether it be fake or real. And not about how it affects the kids at all. @_o'

So, I can see how you would consider it an "accomodation," since viewing porn, any kind, is the only think you care about.

Well, I got news for you. This issue isn't about people "looking at porn, period,"

It's about the actual lives at stake in the process.

Also, in the first example, the number of teen pregnancy drops, yet the number of teens having sex increases. So it's a win-lose situation.

In this issue, the amount of kids used in kiddie porn drops and the amount of molesters roughly stays the same, since you don't "suddenly become a molester" from "seeing more porn." You are already interested in kids before you see the porn or you're not. You have the mentality to act on your sick fantasies or you don't. "Turning into a molester" is definetely not as simple as "deciding to have sex with your boyfriend/girlfriend." Nice try to simplify it like that, though. lol.

But at least it's a win on one side, and NOT a loss on the other.

So, once again. The metaphor fails.

---

I didn't read what you said, it was too long. So ... I'm leaving.

---

No matter what it is, virtual or real, child porn serves no beneficial purpose in our society. Not only because it is searingly immoral, but because it is purely illegal in every form except this 'virtual' trash, Child Pornography should have stricter inforcements and arrests. It is far too easy to access child pornography now, if not through websites through P2P file services. Child pornography has no place in a society that has any pride in its morals. It must stop.

---

At 5/27/03 10:57 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: No matter what it is, virtual or real, child porn serves no beneficial purpose in our society. Not only because it is searingly immoral, but because it is purely illegal in every form except this 'virtual' trash, Child Pornography should have stricter inforcements and arrests. It is far too easy to access child pornography now, if not through websites through P2P file services. Child pornography has no place in a society that has any pride in its morals. It must stop.

Oh, I see. You only care about it being "immoral" and not about the kids involved.

Well, I think it's immoral, too. Even fake child porn. Actually, if it were up to me, I'd want ALL porn illegal (I think it's offensive to women, gays, and pretty much everyone. I mean, prostitition is illegal, and porn---having sex for money---is basically the same thing). However! I have to bite back my feelings on it in face of the results.

The lives of those kids are more important than my moral outrage towards the act of men "viewing child porn."

So, it actually would benefit someone. The kids being used in real child porn.

And that was the issue here.

---

K, Judge and Commander. I have some questions for you two.
-----------------
Firstly, do you think that having books that involve rape (in romance) should be illegal, considering that real rape is immorally wrong and illegal?

Oh, and do you think "hentai" or cartoon porn that involves violent sex or rape should be illegal, for the same reasons?

Do you think that any porn that involves acting out a "rape scene" should be illegal, again for the same reasons?

I read a japanese book that had two gay guys getting married at one point. @_o' However, according to most religous beliefs, this is morally wrong. In fact, being gay itself is considered to be morally wrong. Isn't that correct? Should books or cartoons that have gays marrying or having sex or whatever be illegal as well?

After all, none of these have any "constructive purpose" in our society. And, according to you, some of them may even promote rape and gay weddings. Is that correct? Both actions aren't allowed by our government now, not even gay weddings. And both are considered morally wrong by many/most people. So shouldn't the government make materials that talk about them or have these actions drawn be illegal then?
---------------------
If you found a site that had even one picture of virtual child porn, would you still go there or would you "boycott" it or something?

Or, if you found it, would you report the site, etc?

Or do you really care that much?

---

Okay...let me give you a tip, alright?

This first tip has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's to tell you that if you post that much, consecutively, lots of times it will be skipped over. I, for one, didn't read it. I couldn't. I won't. Because if I wanted to read an entire editorial on child pornography, I'd set out to do so. You're smart, but you also need to sorta...trim down the posts, or else your posts won't be -read- by man, okay? :)

Now, onto my very simple point, and one that JudgeMe actually said rather well.

Any sort of child porn, virtual or not, does NOT serve a beneficial place in our society. You may not have said it's okay, Ninja, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand that that is precicely the message it sends.

Simply put: Just as Commander said, it accomodates something that shouldn't be accomodated, but treated and fixed. If you take the real stuff away, and give them real stuff...what message are you sending?

It sends the message that it's -alright- to entertain thoughts of sex with children.

How exactly is that beneficial?

Sure, sure, I know you've said, 'If it keeps one child from getting hurt, then it's beneficial.' I don't think that it will keep any children getting hurt in the long run. While it cuts down on children being used in child porn, how exactly can you predict how many MORE pedophiles will come out of the woodwork as a result from the easily accessible, legal, virtual kiddie porn? It's not worth it. Not in my eyes.

---

Ninja, I refuse to read or respond to your "novel" because it is pointless to argue with people that love the sight of their own text. You down't even listen to or respond to anyone else, you just go off on tangents for pages and pages and think that it makes you superior.

---

At 5/27/03 07:17 PM, Commander-K25 wrote: Ninja, I refuse to read or respond to your "novel" because it is pointless to argue with people that love the sight of their own text. You down't even listen to or respond to anyone else, you just go off on tangents for pages and pages and think that it makes you superior.

Hm...yes...what he said. Nemesisz did that a lot, and now he's nowhere to be seen. However tempted I am to answer it, the feeling passes when I see a lot of posts in a row that have more text than most of the other posts combined. Don't count. I'm just being an ass.

---

At 5/27/03 05:39 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Okay...let me give you a tip, alright?

This first tip has nothing to do with the issue at hand. It's to tell you that if you post that much, consecutively, lots of times it will be skipped over. I, for one, didn't read it. I couldn't. I won't. Because if I wanted to read an entire editorial on child pornography, I'd set out to do so. You're smart, but you also need to sorta...trim down the posts, or else your posts won't be -read- by man, okay? :)

Now, onto my very simple point, and one that JudgeMe actually said rather well.

Any sort of child porn, virtual or not, does NOT serve a beneficial place in our society. You may not have said it's okay, Ninja, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough to understand that that is precicely the message it sends.

Simply put: Just as Commander said, it accomodates something that shouldn't be accomodated, but treated and fixed. If you take the real stuff away, and give them real stuff...what message are you sending?

It sends the message that it's -alright- to entertain thoughts of sex with children.

How exactly is that beneficial?

Sure, sure, I know you've said, 'If it keeps one child from getting hurt, then it's beneficial.' I don't think that it will keep any children getting hurt in the long run. While it cuts down on children being used in child porn, how exactly can you predict how many MORE pedophiles will come out of the woodwork as a result from the easily accessible, legal, virtual kiddie porn? It's not worth it. Not in my eyes.

Oh, I see. You only care about it being "immoral" and not about the kids being used. Well, that's a different issue. This is about helping those kids, not whether you think its "good" or not.

Frankly, I think it's immoral, too. Actually, like I said, if it were up to me, I'd want all porn to be illegal (I think it's all offensive to women, gays, and pretty much everyone).

However! I feel I must put aside my hatred of porn for the sake of these kids.

The lives of those kids is more than my dislike of men "looking at porn."

I guess that's the difference.
-----------

Anyway, I already answered much of what you said in depth....Oh, yeah, you didn't read it. @_o' Well, if you really did care, then you would. But apparently it doesn't mean that much to you.

Anyway, I'm more interested in you answering the questions in my last post (the shorter one, OK?).

Will you at least do that?

---

In addition to those questions. Could you answer this:

Being gay is an "unatural sexuality" thought to be immoral by many people, similarly to pedophilia.

Yet, you can draw pictures and write stories about gay people in America. It's legal, while writing stories and drawing pictures of pedophilia is not, even though both are fake.

Now, considering the similarities in that both are sexual "disorders" that do not apply to the majority of the population, do you think that one of the reasons people are gay now is because writing stories and drawing pictures of it is legal?

Do you think that some people "turn gay" now-a-days because this material is completely legal?

Do you think that you can "turn gay" from seeing a gay picture? Or do you think that, if you are interested in it, then you were already gay or probably had that "sexual disorder" to begin with?

Do you think that a gay person who doesn't see gay porn is "less gay" than a gay person who does?
------------------
Shouldn't stories about gays and "gay porn" be illegal then? I mean, according to your reasoning, if talking about gays in books, etc. and having gay porn is legal, then don't you think that some people are gay just because they think that "the government is saying it's OK, by having this material legal?"

In fact, maybe that's why people rape. There are stories and porn about rape, correct? And this of course propels violence towards women, correct?

Now, even though rape, like molesting, is still illegal, writing about it and drawing it isn't, while writing about and drawing molesting is.

According to your reasonings, do you think that THAT is why people rape then?

Because by allowing it to be drawn or written about, then the government is sending the message that real rape "is OK?" And that's why people rape?

Whereas many of them wouldn't rape at all if drawn or written gay porn was illegal, correct?
----------------------
Don't you think much less people would be gay or rape if the government made books and virtual gay and rape porn illegal? That goes along the lines of your reasoning, correct?

Don't you think that people rape and "turn gay" because they feel that the government is saying "It's OK" by not banning stories and cartoon porn on it?

Don't you think that gay people wouldn't have had their "sexual disorders" if the government made books and fake/real porn of it illegal? Or at least, a lot less of them would be gay, right?
------------------------
So, once again, don't you think that stories and fake porn/drawn images about rape and gays should be banned then? I mean, they have no "constructive purpose," right? And according to you, they must promote rape and people "turning gay," right?

In fact, according to you, also, if a gay guy saw some gay pictures, then he'd get more gay. Right?

I mean, he was gay before, but now after seeing gay pictures, now he's even "gayer."

And what constructive purpose does that possibly have?
-------------------
Rape and gay weddings aren't allowed by our government, and both are considered morally wrong by the majority of our population.

Yet, the stupid government goes and lets writing and drawing about that stuff legal.

And now look look at the result. People must think that the government is saying that rape and gay weddings are OK.

That's why so many people rape and "turn gay in the first place!"

It has nothing to do with the prison sentences for the real thing, and little do do with their own morals or sexual desires.

It's because they can read about it! (Or look at drawn pictures of it, legally).

No wonder so many people rape or are gay! The government must be making it "appear OK" by allowing them to read and draw it!
------------------
So, all and all then, according to your reasonings: Shouldn't all porn, virtual and fake, and romantic stories that involve gays and rape be illegal?

They serve no "constructive purpose," and they only make people feel that the government is saying that's it's acceptable, right?

Why else would they do what they do? It can't possibly be because all of them would have had their aggressions or disorders beforehand, right? And if so, then that number must be few.

What about regular porn? Prostitution is illegal. And regular porn is giving your body away for money. Same thing. That is legally wrong and morally wrong.

And, we all know that porn spurs violence in women. And that's true.

So, shouldn't ALL porn, real, virtual, or written be banned by the government, then?

---

I'm begging you, Ninja...trim down your posts.

I come here to get ideas, to be involved in stimulating conversations...and honestly? The responses I've read from you have done nothing but assume things about me that aren't true. You're twisting my words to make me sound bad, and I don't appreciate it.

I, unlike a lot of people, mean what I say. Don't read anything else into it, please.

I care about the children. I care about the kids that will be hurt when those that view the virtual kiddie porn, in the long run, decide to do to real kids what they've witnessed.

I'm sorry you don't understand that. It's a very simple concept, really, and something that has to do with human psychology, which I studied a bit in college. Namely...they'll know it's fake, it'll start them on the path, they'll start with the -real- stuff...start molesting...it's a progression that I dont think you've clearly thought through.

You're not going to convince me that it's right. If you believe it is? I respect your opinion. Please, don't try to make me look like a heartless bitch just because I wish to 'help the children' in a way that's more permanent.

---

At 5/28/03 01:16 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:
I come here to get ideas, to be involved in stimulating conversations...and honestly? The responses I've read from you have done nothing but assume things about me that aren't true. You're twisting my words to make me sound bad, and I don't appreciate it.

I'm sorry you don't understand that. It's a very simple concept, really, and something that has to do with human psychology, which I studied a bit in college. Namely...they'll know it's fake, it'll start them on the path, they'll start with the -real- stuff...start molesting...it's a progression that I dont think you've clearly thought through.

You're not going to convince me that it's right. If you believe it is? I respect your opinion. Please, don't try to make me look like a heartless bitch just because I wish to 'help the children' in a way that's more permanent.

*sigh* The most ironic thing about this is that you kept assuming that I think "virtual kiddie porn is right." In fact, you just said it again. You keep putting words in my mouth that are entirely the opposite of what I'm trying to communicate. @_o'

So, I'm continuously having to break down all my thoughts into longer and longer posts, just so you can understand. And you still don't! Aye yi yi!
----------------
*sigh* And you didn't respond to any of my points. I responded to yours and even went into depth on how this theory counteracts them.

Yet, you just flat out deny my theories and don't respond to them at all. Not even to explain how they're supposedly "wrong."

The only thing you said is that "I understand, I just don't agree with it," and "it's just wrong," or "it just makes more perverts."

And then you don't explain how your logic is even supposed to work, you just say, "it's simple logic.......I just don't feel like explaining it." @_o'
-------------
And then I explained in depth how that isn't true, that these people are pedophiles to begin with, and they turn to the porn because they are pedophiles, they don't suddenly get that way "after the fact."

Just like, a gay person doesn't "get gayer" because having virtual gay porn legal "opens him up to that world more."

Or, a normal person doesn't "get gay" from having gay pictures legal, and therefore "being exposed to them." A normal person doesn't "get gay" from seeing a gay picture.

They were already that way from the start. Do you understand?

Being gay is an "unatural sexual disorder" towards particular beings in our society, which applies to a small number of the population.

And pedophelia is a "unatural sexual disorder" towards particular beings in our society, which applies to a small number of the population.

Do you understand the similarities now? They're both "sexual disorders" directed towards particular beings, both "disorders" considered unatural, one towards same-sex individuals, the other towards very young individuals.

And then you didn't respond to ANY of that at all. You just start repeating yourself like a parrot. You just go "it just would be bad, it's simple, that's that." @_o'

How about actually reading even some of my responses to that and THEN explaining to me why you still feel that way in regards to my contradictions?
------------------
Well, that last post had EVERYTHING to do with your reasoning!

I want you, and everyone here, to go back and replace the word "gay porn" or "rape porn" with "kiddie porn" and the word "turn gay" or "rape" with "molest."

It's your exact logic! Just using a similar example.

I even used some of your exact sentences! I just replaced the word "kiddie porn" with "gay/rape porn" and "molest" with "rape" or "turn gay."

Did you even catch that? I did it on purpose. @_o'

I obviously didn't do it "warp your words to make you look bad." I did it to hopefully put your logic in a new light to make you think more about it.

I basically put your logic "to the test" on a very similar issue.

So, then please answer this question. Why is it that these theories of yours only apply to kiddie porn and not to rape porn and gay porn, etc?

You're theory: "Having fake kiddie porn makes people think the government is telling them it's OK, so they go and watch it and turn into pedophiles, and then molest kids. So, it should be illegal, naturally."

Replaced, similar, topic words: "Having fake rape porn makes people think that the government is telling them it's OK, so they go and watch it and turn into rapists, and then rape women. So, it should be illegal, naturally."

It's the same logic, applied to another gruesome sexual disorder. So, why is it different then?

And, you never answered why your logic only applies to one and not the other two.

Nor did you even answer if you in fact think that virtual gay or rape porn should be legal or not, which is what I asked you based on your logic towards virtual kiddie porn.

Do you?

I care about the children. I care about the kids that will be hurt when those that view the virtual kiddie porn, in the long run, decide to do to real kids what they've witnessed.

*sigh* You read nothing about molester rates, have you? It's not that black and white, which is what I tried to explain.

I guess I should say "It's not that simple."

I hope that your "psycology class" taught you that mental disorders aren't as "simple logic" as that, with book case results.

"I'm sorry you can't understand any of that."

---

At 5/28/03 02:02 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: Everything.

Ninja, are you not even reading the first line of my post?

I will not respond to your posts until you can TRIM THEM DOWN to a readable level.

I did not once say that you thought child porn was right. I DID say that you think VIRTUAL child porn is right, and I disagree with that, and that we should agree to disagree. You are not going to sway me on this.

You are talking down to us by making your points longer and longer. We don't need it all spelled out for us. I, for one, understand where you're coming from perfectly. I can -see- your points.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Please. If you expect a response to your points, as you just pointed out, do NOT put them in a post that takes FOREVER TO READ. Because I will not read it.

Sorry if that seems callous. But that's me.

---

At 5/28/03 02:18 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

Ninja, are you not even reading the first line of my post?

I will not respond to your posts until you can TRIM THEM DOWN to a readable level.

You must have a low "readable level" then. That's barely a page. lol.

Actually, you're problem is that you respond to my points.....without reading them at all in the first place. @_o' Which you've admitted. That's why you don't even know what my points are, which is what I complained about in the first place.

It's not about you responding period, it was about you responding blindly. I'd rather you not resond at all than to respond blindly. See? THAT was what I was talking about.

Frankly, I have to read what everyone on this topic writes, and I do.

And all together that makes up probably more than what I wrote alone. And yet I still read all of it.

All you have to read is my posts, which is less than what I have had to read all together in this topic (over 70 posts.....and I've read them all. And you're going to complain because of some that make up about 10 "normal" ones?).

I did not once say that you thought child porn was right. I DID say that you think VIRTUAL child porn is right, and I disagree with that, and that we should agree to disagree. You are not going to sway me on this.

Hmmmm. Too bad I didn't say something like this: At 5/28/03 02:02 AM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

*sigh* The most ironic thing about this is that you kept assuming that I think "virtual kiddie porn is right."

Instead of saying that you think I think child porn is right instead of "virtual kiddie porn"......Oh, wait. I did. Once again, you can't even read past one sentence and get it right. Jeez! Now can you at least understand where I'm coming from in my frustration?

Read woman! I don't think ANY porn is right. I said that 4 TIMES TOTAL! I said that I thought it would be "better" than having them support a business where real kids get hurt. Not that I think it's "good anyway." @_o'

You are talking down to us by making your points longer and longer. We don't need it all spelled out for us. I, for one, understand where you're coming from perfectly. I can -see- your points.

Without reading them? Wait, you said that you didn't even read my posts.....and now, "I can see your points perfectly?" @_o'

"I know where you're coming from perfectly.....you like virtual child porn."......no, then you don't know where I'm coming from.

That doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

Well, if you are going to say "I don't agree with it.".....is it so wrong if I actually ask why? And you know, debate with you on it......since this forum is for debating.

Listen, if you can't take a debate that takes up one internet page, then you don't belong here in the first place.

You agreeing with me isn't the issue. You aren't responding to my points at all. You answered NONE of my questions, nor responded to ANY of my points in counter response to yours.

And you still haven't. @_o'

Please. If you expect a response to your points, as you just pointed out, do NOT put them in a post that takes FOREVER TO READ. Because I will not read it.

Sorry if that seems callous. But that's me.

Yeah, I guessed. lol.

Actually, you told me that you weren't reading the other ones either, and yet you responded to them, too.

Frankly, I don't mind if you don't respond, like I said. Just don't try to "guess my points" and respond that way.

Either read and respond or don't respond at all. Don't "guess." K?

---

I'm not guessing.

Am I right in knowing that you think 'virtual kiddie porn' is okay? You've stated such many times.

I'm not assuming anything.

Do I disagree with you?

Yes.

Agree to disagree.

When it comes to...ah, yes. The gay porn, what have you. You want to know why it's different?

Because every other adult involved in those sorts of things are of the AGE OF CONSENT. It might be twisted, sick, kinky, debased, horrifying to you...but if it follows the creedo "Safe, Sane, Consentual", then it's none of my business.

You also ask about rape fantasies. Or books with rape in them. Or porn that depicts rape. That's a good point, and one I can't answer except to say: the women that participate in those fantasies realize that they are just that...fantasies. If it's a fantasy, if it's consentual, it's not really rape.

You're delving into something that can't be explained in the same way, but I understand why you're bringing it up. Suffice it to say that while rape fantasies are more common than you think, no woman (even those that fantasize about rape or 'ravishment') enjoys -real- rape.

If you're looking for me to agree that all sorts of porn should be outlawed, you're looking in the wrong place, sister.

---

Oh, and. I'd like to point out.

At first, you were arguing that you advocate virtual kiddie porn because it saves children.

Now you're saying you're against ALL porn.

Where exactly do you stand?

Also...please don't tell me to "Read, woman!" I've already told you that if the post is another long, drawn out one that simply repeats over and over what you've said already, I won't read it. There's a bit of art in being able to express yourself in a small amount of words.

Keep in mind that when you get that long-winded, it sounds as if you think we aren't intelligent enough to understand without you picking it apart bit by bit. Please don't confuse my not agreeing about this with not understanding. I understand perfectly.

I still don't agree.

---

At 5/28/03 03:11 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Oh, and. I'd like to point out.

At first, you were arguing that you advocate virtual kiddie porn because it saves children.

Now you're saying you're against ALL porn.

@_o' *sigh* This is yet another reason why I did say "read woman."

Uh, let's see now. I don't like ANY porn. My argument is that having the virtual stuff around would be better than having the real stuff because of that reason (it will eat away some of the business of the real child porn industry).

If I had it my way, however, I would want all porn to be illegal. However, I think that the result is more important. So, while I am not "for it" I think it is the "lesser of two evils."

That is not the same.
-------------------
Now, here I feel I have to break it down again. But if you don't like it, then read what I wrote in the first place before you respond and I wouldn't have to. K?

Being "for" means you feel possitive about something. Or you like it. Feeling that something is at least "better" or "the lesser of two evils" means you are indifferent about it. Or you only favor it in face of a greater dislike.

Like, I don't like or am "for" Gore, I just think he's the "lesser of two evils." Get it?

Lo and behold once again. This is why you should either read or not post at all.

Also...please don't tell me to "Read, woman!" I've already told you that if the post is another long, drawn out one that simply repeats over and over what you've said already, I won't read it. There's a bit of art in being able to express yourself in a small amount of words.

It stops being an art when you condense your entire theories and logic into "it's bad because it makes more perverts. It's that simple."

There comes a point when going into depth is better than winding up with a logic that resorts to "it's good" or "it's bad" without any apparent thought behind it........and without giving any information or true logic on why. @_o'

It become even less of an art when all you do is repeat the same three sentences as your "response" to all other retorts.

Hey, at least I'm being creative and showing that I've actuallly thought about this in depth.

No offense, but sense all you've been doing is repeating basically the same three things with every post, it pretty much sounds like you're just giving a knee-jerk reaction to this. Sorry. @_o'

Honestly, I don't think that a serious, hard-to-predict mental disorder and how particular conditions affect it is something that I can "sum up in two phrases" like you seem to be able to do. @_o'

Keep in mind that when you get that long-winded, it sounds as if you think we aren't intelligent enough to understand without you picking it apart bit by bit. Please don't confuse my not agreeing about this with not understanding. I understand perfectly.

Firstly, how can you understand if you don't even know what I'm for, other than "virtual child porn=less real child porn"?

Um....I assure you it goes WAY behond that. @_o'

And how can you understand if you didn't even read the majority of it?

And how can you understand if you didn't even respond to any of my points or related questions?

And how can you understand if you didn't even read all I wrote about how certain conditions affect these psycological disorders?

And, mostly, how can you understand if you got practically every point I made confused to some extent? @_o'
----------------
I honestly didn't mean to make you sound like an idiot. I wrote a lot about it because I CARE about this topic and have thought about it a lot. @_o' OK?

You kept getting confused with next to everything that I was talking about, so I'm sorry if I felt I had to break it down. But I did. So live with it. And if you don't want to, then you don't have to read it. But once again, if you are going to respond at all, then I do suggest you read it first.

Also, do you think that just maybe this whole thing with you "looking like an idiot" or whater you're upset about might just be because you are responding to most of my posts without reading them in the first place?

Causing me to have to re-explain in more depth once again.

That's not my fault there. It's yours. I

f you don't want me to write more, then stop making me have to repeat myself and my points over again. And stop making me have to re-explain my points in more depth, just because you didn't bother to read about them the first time.

For an example, look at what you just did again. You asked me about how I felt on child pornography AGAIN. So, I felt I had to explain it in even more depth than I did earlier.

See? If you don't want that. Then read first.

I still don't agree.

And you still haven't answered my questions OR read anything I wrote.

So, I'm not surprised.

It must be easy not to agree when you refuse to even try to learn or read about something in the first place. lol.

Hey, I should try that. ^_^

---

At 5/28/03 03:11 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: Keep in mind that when you get that long-winded, it sounds as if you think we aren't intelligent enough to understand without you picking it apart bit by bit. Please don't confuse my not agreeing about this with not understanding. I understand perfectly.

I still don't agree.

Give up, House, this is ninja_scientist were talking about. If you don't agree with her, she justs posts until you ignore her. The word "tact" is completely unknown to her vocabulary.

*realizes this borders on a flame*

*uses small flame to light cigar*

*gets the hell out while he still can*

---

I'm quickly starting to learn that I can't get anywhere here. So I'm going to stop trying soon.

Why on earth did you feel the need to break down the word "for" for me, Ninja? Do you think I'm that much of an ignorant wretch?

I don't appreciate your little jabs.

Also, I'd suggest that you not tell me where or when to post. The way you post, dear...I'm sorry, I'm going to be blunt. It's -boring-. I want as much information as I can in as little time. I did read what I needed to know. And in case you haven't been able to read into what I'm saying, I suppose I overestimated you. Let ME break it down for YOU.

IN MY OPINION (which I have a right to), there is NO MIDDLE GROUND when it comes to child pornography. If you can justify it within yourself, to offer even virtual porn to sex criminals, then...fine. So be it. I will not take the task of changing your mind on my shoulders. But I WILL demand that you stop talking down to me and explaining words like "for" simply because I don't agree with you.

Please start understanding that not everyone has to agree with you.

I'll leave it at that. I think you understand perfectly where I'm coming from. I think your goal now is to change my mind, and I'm telling you, that's not going to work. I think you're smart enough to realize that I've been courteous enough not to talk down to you and explain every little word I use. I just naturally assume that you're smart enough to get it yourself. The next time you talk down to me, I'll talk down to you, and write a novel for YOU. I'll talk down to you in the same way you consistantly do here, and then we'll see if you get why your long-winded posts aren't necessary.

We're not idiots. I know I'm not. You don't need to dumb it up for me, thanks.

I simply do not agree with you. Get over it.

---

I think I should add this.

For the sake of doing so, Ninja, I read what you wrote. I read it, understood it. I don't agree with your logic. I understand it.

I also answered your questions about gay porn, and rape fantasies. Please don't accuse me of 'not answering any of your questions'.

It's now YOUR turn to "Read, woman!"

However, I'd like to point out that I can respond to whatever I feel I need to. Those questions weren't directed at me at first. I didn't answer them.

Now I have. Scroll up.

---

At 5/28/03 03:07 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

When it comes to...ah, yes. The gay porn, what have you. You want to know why it's different?

Because every other adult involved in those sorts of things are of the AGE OF CONSENT. It might be twisted, sick, kinky, debased, horrifying to you...but if it follows the creedo "Safe, Sane, Consentual", then it's none of my business.

AH! There you go! That was my point!

Raped victims may be "the age of consent".....but are they consenting? Are they using that privilage? No, otherwise it wouldn't be rape.

So, you are saying that only types of porn that are consentual between the two parties is OK. Correct?

You call it "safe, sane, consentual" even though it involves "rape."

However, tell me what about virtual child porn? How can something about fake characters not be "consentual?" They're fake characters. They can't consent, because they don't exist. They can't think or feel.

What if the virtual porn has the characters being "consentual?" Then would you consider it being OK? "It might be twisted, sick, kinky, debased, horrifying to you..... but if it follows the creedosafe, sane, and consentual." Right?

That was my point.

I don't get how you call rape "sane."

Nor that if you truly believe that having virtual molesting porn increases molesting, then having virtual rape porn doesn't increase rape.

You never explained that logic to me.

Frankly, in most cases, rape is worse, because in most cases, the victim is killed afterwards.

Naturally, not that I'd put one over the other.

Also, I used the gay porn being legal image, to ask you this question:

Since both pedophilia and homosexuality are unique "sexual disorders," do you believe that both would increase with the legalizing of those types of porn?

Basically, you said that legalizing pedophilia virtual porn would make more people "jump into pedophilia." Correct?

Now, gay porn is legal already. Do you think that some people now these days "jump into being gay" because of that?

If not, why does that apply to one and not the other?

You also ask about rape fantasies. Or books with rape in them. Or porn that depicts rape. That's a good point, and one I can't answer except to say: the women that participate in those fantasies realize that they are just that...fantasies. If it's a fantasy, if it's consentual, it's not really rape.

Firstly, how do the woman participate in those books? They're not real people, just characters. It's obviously not like they have a voice in it.

The problem with rape porn is that the women who participate in it "realize that they are just that.....fantasies." BUT DO THE MEN WHO WATCH IT REALIZE THAT?!!!

Wasn't that one of your points for virtual kiddie porn? That, while the person who draws in may "realize that they are just that.....fanstasies," but that the men who watch it won't realize it.

Once again, why does this apply to your virtual kiddie porn theory and yet not to rape?

Now wait a moment. So, then since virtual kiddie porn is fantasy, then it's not really molesting. Is it?

After all, if rape porn is "just a fantasy," then it's not really rape, right?

You're delving into something that can't be explained in the same way, but I understand why you're bringing it up. Suffice it to say that while rape fantasies are more common than you think, no woman (even those that fantasize about rape or 'ravishment') enjoys -real- rape.

Wait. I don't understand that. No woman enjoys real rape......well, no child enjoys real molesting, either. Right?

If you're looking for me to agree that all sorts of porn should be outlawed, you're looking in the wrong place, sister.

Now, that was my point. You agree that making virtual porn legal increases the type of sexual disorder involved in the porn. In this case, molesting. Correct?

So, why does your logic on that, NOT apply to all violent or strange virtual porn?

You said that molesting porn causes more molester, right? However:

Why doesn't gay porn make more gays?

Why doesn't rape porn cause more rape?

And if they do, then why are you for allowing both of them......just not one?

---

At 5/28/03 04:58 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

And if they do, then why are you for allowing both of them......just not one?

Is it because you consider one worse than the other? Do you consider violent rape of a woman to be "less bad" than molesting a child?

If so, then why?

---

At 5/28/03 04:58 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: about 10 posts that were just long rambling sentences

Honestly, you definately need to trim your messages down to a minimum that will prove your point. It's very difficult to approve on any of your points unless you type them out in smaller posts.

---

At 5/28/03 05:58 PM, alejandro1 wrote:

At 5/28/03 04:58 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: about 10 posts that were just long rambling sentences

Honestly, you definately need to trim your messages down to a minimum that will prove your point. It's very difficult to approve on any of your points unless you type them out in smaller posts.

Eh, sorry. But of course you don't have to read it.

Here's a way to make it easier:

I start with a question brought forward.

Then I make points to either support or go against it, supplied with my reasoning behind each.

Then I make my conclusion for the question.

Then if there is another question supplied, I go on to answer that one with the same process.

There ya go. ^_^

---

I'm going to answer this in as simple a way as I can. In doing so, I'm going to expose things about myself that people can either choose to use against me, or take for what it's worth.

First: Being gay is not wrong. It is a fact of life. Your argument there is lost on me. I, myself, am a bisexual woman.

Second: You've done to me what you said I did to you. You didn't read my post about rape, or at least carefully enough, to see my point. So, here we go. I'm spelling it out for you, because this is not common sense. This is stuff a lot of people don't get.

In the world of BDSM, there is a credo that is just what I told you. "Safe, Sane, Consentual". Let's say that a woman is having an empassioned moment, is a bit of a masochist, likes kink, and says to her lover mid-coitus: 'Rape me!' Do you think she's actually asking to be raped? Or is she using the word because the very taboo of it turns her on?

Come on, Ninja. I think you know perfectly well the difference. That same woman would not enjoy real rape. I read in a book on D/s once, about a woman who wanted to explore rape or "ravishment" fantasies. These are commonly called "Resistance Scenes" and are completely negotiated beforehand. This text I'm going to quote is to show you that there's a world out there of CONSENTUAL adults that practice this and do so without hurting anyone at all.

I appologize for this being so long, but this is solely for you, Ninja. I hope you actually understand this.

Title "Do you really have no choice?" The truth is that you are always making choices, whether you admit it or not. Just as no one can actually magically steal your power, your power is always with you whether you want it or not.

As a bottom, it can be very sexy to believe that you have no choices. "Poor me! Forced to endure all this intense sensation, turned on against my will." To keep this fantasy hot and safe, it is important that we understand that it is a FANTASY, and if it is not hot anymore, or safe, or feeling okay, then we do have a choice. We can stop the scene, we can ask for something different, we can tell our playmate about the problem we are having. In a worst-case scenario, we can choose a different playmate.

Dossie remembers a scene that strongly highlighted the contrast between fantasy and reality: "The fantasy was that I was tied in the tyrant's bed, available to be ****ed at any time against my will. My friend the tyrant indeed did wake me up at 4 am, as per my request, and ****ed me. The problem was, I was exhausted and quite sore from earlier activities, and could not get turned on. I kept turning my mind back to the fantasy of nonconsent, frantically hunting for my turn-on somewhere in there. But this time, in my sleepy state, I convinced myself that I really had no choice, and this was nonconsentual (all this time my poor friend is dudifully plugging away) and I became genuinely scared. My perceptive tyrant figure out that something was wrong and stopped.

So, you see. I'm not expecting you to go out and start practicing the BDSM lifestyle. But you DO have to understand, Ninja, that there are men and women that CONSENTUALLY practice this stuff and there's nothing wrong with it.

You cannot tie in child pornography in with a taboo fantasy that can be acted out between two consenting adults. Do you see that now? Comparing kiddie porn to -anything- is nigh on impossible, because it's in a league of it's own.

I can almost hear your arguments now...but I'll let you bring them up as you will. I'm about done with this thread. Just stop comaring kiddie porn to things that don't even come close. Please?

---

At 5/28/03 07:49 PM, House_Of_Leaves wrote: I'm going to answer this in as simple a way as I can. In doing so, I'm going to expose things about myself that people can either choose to use against me, or take for what it's worth.

First: Being gay is not wrong. It is a fact of life. Your argument there is lost on me. I, myself, am a bisexual woman.

I don't think being gay is wrong. lol. Actually, I think that they can get married and whatever they want. I even wrote a lot of pro stuff on it in another topic.

The point is there are many people who think that it's "against the bible" and even the government doesn't allow them to get married and in some places they aren't allowed to adopt kids.

However, homosexuality being "right or wrong" wasn't the point behind using it as an example. @_o'

I'll show you again:
-------------
Your reason for virtual child porn being wrong was that "having pedophila/molesting material around makes more pedophiliacs/molesting." Correct?

My point against that was that it "wouldn't make more pedophiliacs, because you are a pedophiliac before you see the porn. Not afterwards. In order to be interested in kiddie porn you have to be interested in kids sexually to begin with."

That was my point against yours.

The point is, did you become gay because gay porn is legal? Do you know anyone who became gay because virtual gay porn or written gay porn is legal?

Probably not.

Weren't you attracted to women before you saw gay porn or gay porn ads on the internet? Women are all around you.

Don't you think that a pedophiliac is attracted to children before he sees child porn or the ads for child porn? Children are all around him.

That's the point. So you're argument that "more will turn into pedophiliacs" is lost, because those who watch that porn are interested in kids already. That's why they watch it to begin with.

There isn't much of a threat that more normal people will "turn into pedophiliacs" if it's made legal.
--------------
In fact, having the virtual stuff legal won't really affect much, sense child porn is still everywhere on the internet. That won't change. The least we can do is to make it so that half of the porn these freaks find is fake, so that less will support that business.

You're argument, was that having it legal makes pedophiles think it's "OK" and that's why they become pedophiles and then go on to molest.

My argument, can be summed up like this:

Gay porn is legal. Did you or anyone else you know become gay "because you feel that the government is saying it's OK to be?"

No. At least I hope not. You probably became gay by your own thoughts and feelings. Not because what the government says.

The same goes for pedophiliacs and their feelings.

------------------

Anyway, I think that rape is wrong, not being gay.

I compared one sexual "disorder" to another, for the purpose of asking you if you think that people "get gay" because gay porn is legal or if you feel that they are that way before. And would have to be interested in members of the opposite sex before they become interested in the porn.

Not the other way around.

I guess you could say, I was comparing the "sexualities." For THIS purpose.

Then I compared rape to molesting. I did this to compare results based on your theories.

My point was that if having porn about molesting supposedly creates MORE molesters. Then shouldn't you feel that porn about rape creates MORE rapists?

It's already been proven that porn aids violence towards the female population. So, my question was, why do you feel one should be legal and not the other?

I compared the two "actions" for THIS purpose, and I compared the two "sexuality" for the other purpose.

One: Becoming a sexuality due to porn.

Two: Acting on sexual desires due to porn.

All in all. Your point was that more people who see this porn (if it becomes legal) will turn into pedophiliacs and eventually molest kids.

I used the gay metaphor to respond to the "will turn into this sexuality." And I used the rape metaphor to respond to "acting on a viewed sexuality."

See?

Second: You've done to me what you said I did to you. You didn't read my post about rape, or at least carefully enough, to see my point. So, here we go. I'm spelling it out for you, because this is not common sense. This is stuff a lot of people don't get.

In the world of BDSM, there is a credo that is just what I told you. "Safe, Sane, Consentual". Let's say that a woman is having an empassioned moment, is a bit of a masochist, likes kink, and says to her lover mid-coitus: 'Rape me!' Do you think she's actually asking to be raped? Or is she using the word because the very taboo of it turns her on?

Come on, Ninja. I think you know perfectly well the difference. That same woman would not enjoy real rape. I read in a book on D/s once, about a woman who wanted to explore rape or "ravishment" fantasies. These are commonly called "Resistance Scenes" and are completely negotiated beforehand. This text I'm going to quote is to show you that there's a world out there of CONSENTUAL adults that practice this and do so without hurting anyone at all.

OF COURSE WOMEN DON'T LIKE RAPE! And yes, there are women who fantasize about it and wouldn't like it if it truly happened to them.

Few. You get my points awfully confused. First you say I think fake child porn is "good" and then you say that I think that women like rape or something?

But what's your connection here to rape porn propelling men to rape? @_o'

So, then, I take it that you agree that seeing rape porn can propell men to rape themselves, just like you said child molesting porn can cause men to molest themselves. Correct?

My question is why do you think that fake porn of one is OK, and fake porn of another isn't then?
------------
Here we go. There are women who act in "rape porn." They know that they wouldn't like real rape, of course, but they're just acting. So, it's safe, sane, and consentual?

But how does that affect men who view it and "begin to get their kicks from seeing women 'raped?"

That was the point.