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

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 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.

In fact, women "faking to like rape" doesn't matter. Because that wasn't your point. In fact, virtual kiddie porn would involve fake characters "faking to like molesting," correct?

And you said that that was still wrong because of how it affects the men who watch it, and the characters being used don't matter.

Why do they suddenly matter in the case of rape porn?

Similarities:

Rape porn---Involves people playing characters who get raped. A violent, sexual crime.

Yet, you say it's OK, because it's "not real," these women are "just acting," so it's "not hurting anyone." And of course, they wouldn't like rape in real life.

Virtual Child porn----Involves drawing people to play characters (instead of hiring them) that get molested. A sick, sexual crime.

It's also "not real," these characters are also "just acting" because they don't exist, so it's "not hurting anyone." And of course, real children wouldn't like rape in real life.

Do you see the similarities or not?

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.

Yes.....And there are many that don't. So because some consent. Then that's OK?

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.

OK. Fake child porn is a fantasy. Even though the real thing is very horibble and violent.

Fake rape porn is a fantasy. Even though the real thing is very horibble and violent.

Yup.

Oh, so then raping a girl is "not nearly as bad as molesting a kid?"

Because some girls out there like to pretend to like rape?
What kind of logic is that?

How on earth can you compare either of them? They are BOTH BAD! I think that raping ANYONE is just as bad as molesting a kid. Jeez!

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?

Once again. I'd like you to go up to some woman who's been violently raped, and say that "well, at least you weren't molested as a kid. You're very lucky."

No, they're both horrible. I would never put one above the other.
------------

Also, I'd like to ad that "molesting vs. raping and gays" wasn't the point.

It was how virtual child porn (and all porn) affects people.

Even if molesting was "worse than being raped," the point is if virtual child porn, not molesting, should be legal. The point was also how legalizing virtual child porn would affect the market and our society.

OK. For the sake of the public. I'll shorten much of that up. Although, I suggest you read the other two.
-------------------------------

Can someone please tell me when rape became this:

a taboo fantasy that can be acted out between two consenting adults.

@_o'

I always thought that the definition of rape was sex without consent.

--------------------
The WHOLE purpose wasn't comparing "play rape" porn to real molesting. @_o'

The purpose was to compare rape porn with VIRTUAL child porn.

And mostly how it affects those who view it. Not about those being used in the porn itself, because virtual child porn doesn't have anyone being used to begin with!
----------------
I'm not talking about "play rape." I'm talking about actual factual rape. It's not between to consenting adults. Otherwise, it's not rape. It's just sex.

And, if you're talking about rape porn. That it's OK because it's "between to consenting adults." Then what about drawn kiddie porn.?

......How can a piece of paper "consent" or "not consent?"

Virtual kids don't exist. So, how can you begin comparing how those used in play rape porn feel about it to how......um......how virtual kids feel about it? Virtual kids can't feel at all.

See what I mean?
--------------------
If you're only argument for rape porn being OK, is because it's "fake" and "consentual," then it sort of destroys your theories against VIRTUAL child porn.

Which is also "fake" and "consentual."

See?
---------------
I could understand your arguments if I was talkin about, I don't know, making REAL child porn legal.

Then I could understand how you would argue that fake rape porn is ok, cause no one's getting hurt and it's consentual, and your argument that real child porn is bad, because kids are getting hurt and it's not consentual (in contrast).

Yet this argument is for legalizing FAKE child porn. NOT the real stuff. And once again, "no one's getting hurt" and it's "consentual."

Isn't that your reason that rape porn is OK?
-----------------------
However, your first argument was how it affects the people watching it and not whether or not those used in the porn consent or not.

In this case, you never answered if you think rape porn contributes to many men's desire for rape. Just as you think that virtual child porn contributes to many men's desire to molest.

And if it does. Then shouldn't you think it should be "illegal," too?

I've asked over and over again, and I've been ignored. I'm sorry, but it hasn't been just me that has asked you to trim down your posts.

THREE posts that are that long? In a row?

No, sorry. I'm done here.

Suffice it for me to say that you don't need to 'tell me again' and dumb it up for me. I saw it the first time. I keep offering different ideas, you do nothing but repeat yourself.

I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.

I WILL NEVER AGREE WITH IT.

You contradict yourself, you argue for yourself, then for others, send conflicting arguments about homosexuality, porn, everything else. You allow yourself to pick on MY words, yet you can't take what you dish out.

I suppose I'm the only one with patience enough to actually -try- this debate. But I'm done now.

My last words in this topic: TRIM DOWN YOUR POSTS. They will not be read if you continue to talk down to those reading them, and continue on and on and one, repeating your point over and over.

I'm not sure you realize that it's not a GOOD thing, to be so in love with your own words.

Less is more. Keep that in mind, take it to heart.

And don't try to convince me anymore. It's a lost cause. If you must continue to repeat your points here, do it for someone elses benefit.

Um. Actually, if you didn't read any of that. I basically did the third one as a "shortened version of the first two." Just for those who were too lazy or busy to read them.

Can you even read the third?

Sheesh. Also, the most ironic thing is that the entire point in all those posts was YOU contradicting yourself.

So, let me try to shorten up one of my points.
---------------------
If your reasoning behind "fake rape" porn being legal and "OK" is because "it's consentual," a "fantasy," and "not hurting anyone involved."

Then why are you against fake virtual child porn, sense it's "consentual" (sense it's a piece of paper can't consent or not consent), a "fantasy," and "not hurting anyone involved?"

And if your purpose was how it affects those who view it. Then why does pedophilia porn affect those who have the urge to molest, yet violent rape porn NOT affect those who have the urge to rape?

Is that better?

At 5/28/03 11:23 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
And if your purpose was how it affects those who view it. Then why does pedophilia porn affect those who have the urge to molest, yet violent rape porn NOT affect those who have the urge to rape?

Maybe 'violent rape porn' should be banned as well.

At 5/28/03 11:46 PM, Commander-K25 wrote:

At 5/28/03 11:23 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
And if your purpose was how it affects those who view it. Then why does pedophilia porn affect those who have the urge to molest, yet violent rape porn NOT affect those who have the urge to rape?

Maybe 'violent rape porn' should be banned as well.

I'll respond to that, Commander, because it was so easy to read! lol

I agree that 'violent rape porn' should be banned in an ideal world.

I will concede that 'violent rape porn' might incite people to commit rape acts.

I suppose I was trying to illustrate that when the fantasy of rape (which I don't like to use, because it's really not rape. I use 'ravishment', instead) becomes an issue, many times people can explore those fantasies without hurting anyone. If I wanted to be 'ravished', for example, I certainly wouldn't go walking down a deserted street late at night. I'd find a partner that was willing to ravish me in a safe, sane, consentual way.

My whole point is that there's no 'safe, sane, or consentual' outlet to practice child molestation.

I'm going to be weak and give in to responding to Ninja. Really, this is a conversation with her.

Something you'll likely learn about the way I debate. I keep issues very separate, and I don't like adding new issues to exsisting ones. You started bringing in gay porn, rape, other taboos and 'moral wrongs', and that's one of my biggest pet peeves. You ask me about child porn. I answer about child porn. When that answer isn't what you wanted to hear, you start bringing in other issues. I have a feeling you won't stop bringing in issues until I agree with you.

I won't agree. If you don't understand my simple logic, I'm sorry. In my opinion, and I state publicly that my opinion is NOT fact, virtual child porn is a bad idea. BAD IDEA. That's it.

I swear, I need some freakin will power. *LOL* I'm going to try, again, to not respond any more. It's fruitless anyway.

At 5/29/03 12:54 AM, House_Of_Leaves wrote:

At 5/28/03 11:23 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

Now. This will probably my last long post for a while. However, I do ask you all to at least read this one.

EVERYONE! I basically put the majority of my main points in this. You don't have to read it. But if you are intersted, go ahead.

I tried to seperate the thoughts out as well as possible to explain how this theory works in face of House's "simple logic." Heh heh.

If anyone else reads this. I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. ^_^

I agree that 'violent rape porn' should be banned in an ideal world.

I will concede that 'violent rape porn' might incite people to commit rape acts.

Good. So then do you think it should be illegal?

My whole point is that there's no 'safe, sane, or consentual' outlet to practice child molestation.

Actually, some guys like their girlfriends to dress up as "cheerleaders" or "little girls" and crap all the time. Least, that's what I've heard. Heh heh. Can someone correct me on this? Fortunately, I've never had that experience. @_o'

Anyway, even though there is an existing way to practice "rape" in a safe manner. Does that mean that everyone will nessecarily do it?

No. And that's the point.

So, all I wanted you to say this entire time, is if you think that pretty much any "immoral porn" should also be banned by the government.
----------------------
Now, I think you did say that when you said that "in a perfect world....." However, do you think that should be the case?

That the government should ban porn, books, and even pictures about "rape?" Even when they're fake, right?

How does everyone else feel about that?

Also, considering that ALL porn has been shown to increase violence towards women. Do you think that pretty much all porn should be banned as well. Even the "moral stuff" ("regular" sex)?

Something you'll likely learn about the way I debate. I keep issues very separate, and I don't like adding new issues to exsisting ones. You started bringing in gay porn, rape, other taboos and 'moral wrongs', and that's one of my biggest pet peeves. You ask me about child porn. I answer about child porn. When that answer isn't what you wanted to hear, you start bringing in other issues. I have a feeling you won't stop bringing in issues until I agree with you.

Um....Those issues were relevant to child porn and this issue. @_o' Didn't you catch that?

You're point was that legalizing virtual child porn makes more pedophiles and hence, makes more cases of molestation.

Correct?

So, I used the gay porn example to target your logic that someone can adapt a particular sexuality after seeing a picture of it or after "thinking the government is saying it's OK by making it legal."

You still didn't answer that one, actually. Did you or any gay person you know become gay because you saw some pictures of gay porn? Or would you have to be already interested in members of the same sex in order to be interested in that porn in the first place?

If your answer to the second question is mostly yes. Then that would go against the theory that more people would "become pedophiles" from virtual child porn being legal.
--------------
Also, did you are any gay person you know become gay because by allowing gay porn, you feel that the government is saying "it's OK?" Or did you become gay regardless of what you felt the government's stance on it was?

(Do you think that that's why some people rape also?)

If your answer is mostly no to the first question. Then that would also go against your belief that people will become pedophiles because the government is making it "seem OK" by having virtual child porn legal.

-----------------
Then, I used the rape porn example to target your logic that more cases of those sexual acts will result from the material.

Which, I think you agreed with. So, sense it has been shown that all porn contributes to violence against women. Do you think that all porn, drawn porn, and books about sex alone, should be banned by our government?
-----------------
Now. Here's the important part about that. Which I'm finally able to get to. The differnce between rape and molesting. Rape porn is dangerous because it CAN produce more of it's kind: those who get turned on by "romantic violence."

Why? Because that idea can be seductive to ANYONE in our society, because it bases it's lure on ALL existing forms of sexuality.

Meaning, straight people can be lured by sexual obediance/power, gay people can be lured by sexual obediance/power, pedophiles can can be lured by sexual obediance/power, etc.

Now, why?

The idea is that the this idea of sexual obediance and power is A NATURAL PART OF SEXUALITY. It is found in all of us, just found greater in some than in others.

That's why this type of porn is dangerous and can increase the number of those who like "violent romance." It applies a desire that we CAN learn, because it feeds of of desires we already have, just in smaller quantities.

(Now, it's true that those who are interested in really violent porn probably have issues about women anyway. But unlike in most sexual examples, it can make some cases worse).

HOWEVER. Pedophilia is different.

Not all of us have this desire existing in us from the start, because unlike sexual power and obedience, it is not a natural part of sexuality.

Kiddie porn doesn't feed off of existing natural desires in the majority of our population.

That is why it is more difficult to create pedophiles than those who like to be "ravished." See?