The CP debate Thread

[PorcelainLark]

The difficulty is how sexual imagery differs from other forms of imagery. A sexual image is a commodity different from other commodified images; compare a person taking a video in a crowded street where people are fully clothed going about public activities, with an erotic image where people are performing what would otherwise be a private act. Further, there's something participatory about sexual imagery that contrasts with other private acts (e.g. picking your nose); a sexual image can convey the very response it represents (i.e. you might not laugh from seeing someone laugh or cry from seeing a person cry, or get cold from seeing an image of winter, but the portrayal of arousal in an image can provoke arousal in a viewer.

However, this runs into an obvious problem: nudity. Nudity by itself is intended to be pornographic in certain contexts. The question is how do you draw the line between public and private acts, and by extension acceptable and unacceptable nudity. Clearly urinating in public isn't comparable to violent rape, yet both a put into the same category of "sex offender." My instinct is to say, even if another person finds a image to be erotic/arousing, it doesn't mean it should be labelled pornographic. Only imagery intended to be arousing should be considered pornographic.

Finally, there is the other issue of sexual imagery, the effect of humiliation. Like with other private acts made public, pornography can be used to humiliate the person that participates in it. However, given the level of shame surrounding sex, we have to say revenge porn is morally worse than taking a picture of a person while they're picking their nose.

Now, with regards to children I'll say there are two hurdles: 1) privacy and 2) sex negativity. Pornography, shared without consent, is a violation of privacy, and pornography puts the participant at risk stigma or shame. If you can avoid violating privacy and putting the child at risk of stigma or shame, then I think that all that remains is whether the act itself is consensual.

[Outis]

So if I'm understanding this correctly, sexual imagery is different because..

a) it's a private act; and
b) there's a participatory dimension to the image that it can convey the response it represents.

My instict is that there are several issues with this which are mostly covered by your own follow up statements.

Firstly, sex is often but not always private act and nudity certainly doesn't have to be. Many people like to eat in private, sleep is private, watching porn is definitely private, many choose to grieve in private, shave in private, go to the loo in private and countless other acts.

Secondly, different people react to different things in different ways. Watching someone eat can trigger a hunger response, watching someone laugh or cry can trigger a matched response. That's why there's canned laughter on comedy shows and I've experienced becoming upset from seeing someone else upset. The advertising is all about triggering responses in people from what they see or hear.

Thirdly, it feels like there's a selection process to retrospectively try to build a case for something. I mean X is wrong because it's private + triggers a response and if enough cases are found that upend the argument then a C would be added, then a D and so on.

Humiliation is a real effect but nudity and sexual acts don't have to have humiliation as an effect. Many people choose to be nude, kids are less prone to shame for being nude because they haven't been taught to feel shame and humiliation. Shame and humiliation isn't something people are born with, it's something taught. Other species are not taught to feel shame and humiliation for being nude, only humans feel this and only when older after a period of education as to why shame should be a response. Some cultures are less ashamed of sexual acts, there are cultures where families live in single buildings and rooms and have sex without shame with family in the same room. The idea of families living in large buildings with each family member having their own room for privacy is a recent development in the evolution and history of mankind. Through history there are many cultures where public sexual acts were not connected to shame like today. Heck Greek and other civilisation art is full of naked people and people in sexual acts. Are we saying that we should retrospectively apply feelings of shame on ancient cultures and retrospectively consider their normal lives as abusive?

But I agree that whether we like it or not, we live in a framework of culture as it exists today and we can't live like an ancient Greek in todays society and not expect conflict. But I don't think that there's a hard single reality of what is right and wrong, it's cultural. Therefore, cp is immoral today within the moral framework of the current culture but that's not the same as saying that cp is harmful or abusive, only that there's a perceived and taught harm that can feel very real once a person is educated to fit within the current culture. Cultures change though and culture doesn't replace biology. Saying that someone should feel shame if they are naked can trigger those feelings but it doesn't mean that when you do that and see an attractive lady naked across from you that you won't also feel attraction towards her.

Overall it feels to me that this is an effort to construct a cultural argument as to why cp is always and necessarily wrong and anyone who chooses to exist outside of that framework is bad. AI CP is a classic example of this where there's no real person involved but if a person feels a natural response to that image then it should be treated as if the drawing is suffering. I think anyone can consent to anything, but not everything consented to should be allowed. Someone could consent to murdering someone or stealing but that doesn't mean they should. A child can consent to sex but should that be allowed? Well I don't think it should be illegal but anyone who has sex has a duty towards the other person to ensure they are not harmed and really consent voluntarily without feelings of pressure, that's true for adults to. If someone forces someone into sex, pressures them, tricks them, doesn't have true voluntary consent or the other person doesn't understand what sex is then that is wrong and should have some consequences.

[Pegasus]

One of the best articles on this topic I've ever read is from original Pirate Party founder and leader Rick Falkvinge: "Three Reasons Possession Of Child Porn Must Be Re-Legalized In The Coming Decade"

I don't believe in a slippery slope. But I'm not sure I believe it's "preventative", either. I think CP is neutral, it won't increase or decrease the desire for real life sexual contact.

The evidence in that respect is surprising. Pornography in general does seem to decrease the prevalence of contact sex crimes.

One can look at the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Japan, three countries where CP was actually legal during a certain period, and where it's possible to compare the "before" and "during" statistics: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 111326.htm

In Denmark, where between 1969 and 1980, the Color Climax Corporation produced professional for-profit CP involving girls aged 7-11, Berl Kutchinsky actually found that the rates of most contact sex crimes had fallen, including that of child sexual abuse. (Paradoxically, he went on to contribute to the implementation of prohibitionist laws.)

Czech Republic study by Diamond et al.: https://sci-hub.se/10.1007/s10508-010-9696-y

Diamond & Uchiyama's detailed study of Japan's case: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/s0160-2527(98)00035-1

And here's Milton Diamond's general review of the topic: https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.ijlp.2009.06.004

Morally, I think that a lot of CP is actually less consensual than AMSC. From what I know a lot of CP online is the result of webcams being screengrabbed so the minor thinks they're only performing for one person, but instead have their image shared with thousands. That's not something I like.

Agreed. More generally, the current social and legal context makes it considerably more likely that sexual interactions between adults and minors, of all types, will be non-consensual and unhealthy. It's really a vicious circle in so many ways...

I do also think that, in an ideal world, we shouldn't be freaking out about children's nudity, and the world should view the sexuality of children (and adults, for that matter!) as something beautiful and wonderful rather than disgusting and pathological. Someone else being turned on by pictures or videos of you, at any age, should be taken as a compliment and celebrated, not considered creepy and off-putting (yes, even nepios looking at little babies, why not?). Erotic appreciation is an inherent and important part of aesthetic appreciation. Talk about an unpopular opinion!

However, the penalties? Possession should be decriminalized. Criminalizing it doesn't help anyone, victims of exploitation included.

Especially considering, as you say, addiction is a problem. Criminalization wasn't the answer for drugs. It's not the answer for any kind of porn, including CP.

I certainly think that possession should be fully legal, for all the reasons mentioned by Rick Falkvinge and more.

And yes, drug prohibition doesn't work either; current drug laws are insane and completely detached from scientific evidence of harm/risk. (I was a polydrug addict for over a decade of my life.)

With regard to Denmark and Color Climax, which produced films of girls, there was certainly agreement from the parents, I assume they took them through advertisements. There was the question of how these girls behaved in the face of the fact that they were there with their parents...does anyone know what these stories were like?

[PorcelainLark]

I think when I say participatory, I have in mind, sexual relationships are things we feel possessive of. To be sexually revealing, e.g. for a woman to display her breasts to someone who wants to see them, is to give something, in contrast to voyeurism which takes, or exhibitionism where the pleasure comes from being looked at (regardless of whether they want to see or not). I'm trying to figure out people's moral intuitions about these things, not really making a solid argument or comprehensive theory. It's probably better to say sexuality is relational or intersubjective rather than participatory.
The question is, why does it seem important to people? Something to do with self-possession of one's appearance in the case of pornography, maybe?That way it can be culturally relative because self-possession of appearance may be limited to being clothed in some cultures, or not in others. You could easily imagine a culture where everyone was naked, but there was a taboo on touching people's hair; so self-possession is relative.

I do agree that this can go in an indefinite chain of post hoc rationalizations. However, I do feel like there is an emotional reality that the kind of person who would be uncomfortable being naked in public may lack insight into that nonetheless can be analyzed and defined.

I certainly agree, retrospectively saying nudity was abusive is clearly wrong. You can potentially argue that early marriage is wrong on the basis that it puts a mother at risk, but with nudity, if neither person thinks of it as sexual, there's no way to justify calling it exploitative. People who apply those norms in retrospect are being anachronistic because the harm of being seen naked is purely subjective, therefore an era or culture that lacks a subjective sense of harm over being seen naked literally lacks that kind of harm.

Maybe the answer is to differentiate between subjective and objective, and then further divide them into necessary and contingent. For example, subjective and necessary might be self-possession, subjective and contingent might be being seen naked, objective and necessary may be pregnancy and STDs, and then objective and contingent may be laws like not dressing provocatively or kissing in public. That way you can say public nudity isn't objectively wrong, yet at the same time say to respect people's self-possession as fundamental principle. So you then have a criteria by which you can challenge the more contingent elements of sexual norms. Things can then be partially cultural and partially not.

As for AI porn, I honestly can't think of why it's not being permitted, other than a knee jerk reaction without any genuine ethical consideration.

[Walton]

There were these 2 girls who done cp I won't mentioned their names not sure It's allowed but im sure we know who they are.
One said that the act itself didn't cause her any negative effects she got some money and she just done it for cash wasnt a big deal what ruined her is people's reaction how her friends and family treated her after as if she was used property.

The other girl mentioned she an other girls not only had no problem doing it but they had fun and none of them were forced to do anything

I know it's only 2 of a sea of cp that out there and there is a lot of awfull things but I think it's significant they consented and had fun doing it

[Jim Burton]

Topics merged.

[Outis]

There were these 2 girls who done cp I won't mentioned their names not sure It's allowed but im sure we know who they are.
One said that the act itself didn't cause her any negative effects she got some money and she just done it for cash wasnt a big deal what ruined her is people's reaction how her friends and family treated her after as if she was used property.

The other girl mentioned she an other girls not only had no problem doing it but they had fun and none of them were forced to do anything

I know it's only 2 of a sea of cp that out there and there is a lot of awfull things but I think it's significant they consented and had fun doing it

I've read similar things before and I always felt it was a strange action to effectively punish a person for not being a victim which is what happens when someone does have sex underage, doesn't feel like a victim but then gets put through a legal mill that upends their life which leads to actual negative emotional impacts and mental scarring for that person. In my case I feel very fortunate that my experiences as a child never came to light so I could enjoy my childhood and those experiences when I was young without my life being destroyed later.

[Outis]

I think when I say participatory, I have in mind, sexual relationships are things we feel possessive of. To be sexually revealing, e.g. for a woman to display her breasts to someone who wants to see them, is to give something, in contrast to voyeurism which takes, or exhibitionism where the pleasure comes from being looked at (regardless of whether they want to see or not). I'm trying to figure out people's moral intuitions about these things, not really making a solid argument or comprehensive theory. It's probably better to say sexuality is relational or intersubjective rather than participatory.
The question is, why does it seem important to people? Something to do with self-possession of one's appearance in the case of pornography, maybe?That way it can be culturally relative because self-possession of appearance may be limited to being clothed in some cultures, or not in others. You could easily imagine a culture where everyone was naked, but there was a taboo on touching people's hair; so self-possession is relative.

I do agree that this can go in an indefinite chain of post hoc rationalizations. However, I do feel like there is an emotional reality that the kind of person who would be uncomfortable being naked in public may lack insight into that nonetheless can be analyzed and defined.

I certainly agree, retrospectively saying nudity was abusive is clearly wrong. You can potentially argue that early marriage is wrong on the basis that it puts a mother at risk, but with nudity, if neither person thinks of it as sexual, there's no way to justify calling it exploitative. People who apply those norms in retrospect are being anachronistic because the harm of being seen naked is purely subjective, therefore an era or culture that lacks a subjective sense of harm over being seen naked literally lacks that kind of harm.

Maybe the answer is to differentiate between subjective and objective, and then further divide them into necessary and contingent. For example, subjective and necessary might be self-possession, subjective and contingent might be being seen naked, objective and necessary may be pregnancy and STDs, and then objective and contingent may be laws like not dressing provocatively or kissing in public. That way you can say public nudity isn't objectively wrong, yet at the same time say to respect people's self-possession as fundamental principle. So you then have a criteria by which you can challenge the more contingent elements of sexual norms. Things can then be partially cultural and partially not.

As for AI porn, I honestly can't think of why it's not being permitted, other than a knee jerk reaction without any genuine ethical consideration.

You have raised a lot of good points and things to consider. It's an interesting exercise to drill into what underpins peoples views and feelings against maps. It's easy to accept that there are a militant group of people who seem to hate maps even though often they themselves turn out to be maps and why most people are not hardline anti-map but distrust maps. But what are the triggers for that? What are the levers that determine a persons reaction? The more we know about peoples views and drivers then the more we can understand and reason with people.

[Harlan]

Another hypocrisy is that corporations are silent about the fact that social media moderators have to remove erotic videos filmed and uploaded by minors on a daily basis. People cannot watch these videos and still believe in the myth of youth asexuality.

[LittlePrincessLover]

Another hypocrisy is that corporations are silent about the fact that social media moderators have to remove erotic videos filmed and uploaded by minors on a daily basis. People cannot watch these videos and still believe in the myth of youth asexuality.

Hit a nail on the head. Also, there’s the flipside that moderators are not doing so, most of the time. Or will only do so when obviously pushed (personally I think the content should all be left up, but it’s the hypocrisy of it all). Preteen content intended to arouse is hugely popular, so they don’t want to remove it because it benefits the ‘growth’ that social media corporations are always chasing. The traffic on some of these videos is crazy, unless people want to pretend it’s all just chance that thousands and thousands of adult men want their opportunity to perv over their favourite little preteen girls performing for them. It’s intentional on the girls part and it’s intentional on the plethora of older men who follow and message her every day.

Also I’ve seen stuff removed and banned from other video sites just for being called ‘borderline cp’ that isn’t even 10% as revealing or risqué as some of the stuff little girls are uploading to socials right now! You don’t even need to know a lot of what to look for, and you’ll find that many supposed controversial websites can be much, much tamer than social media! The content just gets more and more wild, and the more popular it gets, the more will be made and it will keep getting sexier. As said though, I’m all for it as a thing; if preteen girls want to be sexy on cam and show themselves off for older men in that way, it’s her choice and 99% of the time she knows exactly what she’s doing.