Is Ageplay “Child Porn”?
by Pixeleen Mistral on 22/02/07 at 9:06 am
by Bayesian TextBot
With reports that the Dutch prosecutor’s office is seeking a ban on what it sees as child pornography in Second Life, some may wonder if this is primarily Dutch political grandstanding. With no actual crime or abuse case to cite, legislation may prove difficult. The intention now is to bring some cases to court and establish some precendents.
From The Register:
“Virtual child pornography has been a criminal offence in the Netherlands since 2002. However, there is no litigation related to virtual sex with virtual children. Today, at least four political parties in the Netherlands demanded a ban on virtual child porn roleplay“
Significantly, the term “ageplay” is never used, which may indicate that no actual SL residents are involved in this action.
Unfortunately, while many professional opinions on the likely effects of ageplay have been posited, no formal or empirical study has been made to show its effect either way.
The closest we have come was in 1986 when, over a weekend workshop focus group, the Meese Commission concluded that “exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward women” and that “children and adolescents who participate in the production of pornography experience adverse, enduring effects” [1].
Case studies in Japan [2] do indicate that ease of access to pornography in general reduces the amount of total sex crimes in a society. Europe has historically had a lower per capita crime rate and higher availability of pornography, although one must point out that no formal study of this correlation has been made.
Even these findings do not support or defeat any current opinions with regards to SL ageplay. The issue at hand – whether ageplay would increase or decrease the tendency of a participant to commit sexual assault against a minor – has yet to be statistically examined. For now, we only have punditry.
At the time of this writing, no formal scientific examination of the issue has been planned by the Dutch prosecutor’s office.
*** [1] Koop, C. Everett. “Report of the Surgeon General’s Workshop on Pornography and Public Health.” American Psychologist. 42 (October 1987) : 944-945.
*** [2] Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html
LaBlanc
Feb 22nd, 2007
Is Ageplay Child Porn?
Ageplay that involves sexually explicit images, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal definitely is child porn.
==Placeholder for 40 posts hemming, hawing, defending Child Porn==
Titus
Feb 22nd, 2007
Ive been fighting the urge to shoot my friends in real world, as its so easy to do so in secondlife…
Petey
Feb 22nd, 2007
Going with LeBlanc on this one.
Reality
Feb 22nd, 2007
Hmm, why not simply outlaw all games for the following reasons: Murder, Theft, Drug Use, and Prostitution.
Anon
Feb 22nd, 2007
Child porn is illegal because children get hurt making it, not because it’s gross. Don’t distort the issue.
I personally would be interested in finding out if ageplay with an adult could keep a pedophile indoors and out of contact with minors.
Reality
Feb 22nd, 2007
Hmm, making an observation based on the rampant stupidity of humanity in actually thinking a computer generated image of a being of any age, either gender, any skin color, etc which does not exist and can not exist outside of the medium it was created within is somehow a real, living, breathing being which truly can be killed and which can truly be affected by what we do to it.
If anyone is going to outlaw even one thing – make it so that by law an amalgamation of computer code cannot be used for even one illegal practice – then quite frankly every country needs to make games themselves illegal.
sorry but you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Either you accept that anything that is done to any avatar in any computer program is perfectly legal due simply to the fact that they do not, can nor, and never will exist in the real world or you simply outlaw all games.
I frankly do not give a damn that the topic is on one particular item – for me it is all or nothing when it comes to what should be an open and shut case – assuming of course that the vast majority of people that read this web log are capable of reasonable thought and capable of telling what is real and what is not.
In case those reading this are not capable of such things, allow me to break it down for you:
Going down the street to your neighbor’s house and having sex with their child? Illegal as you are harming a real, live child.
Going down the street to your neighbor’s house and killing them (be it in their sleep or while they can fight you?) Illegal as you are ending the lives of real people.
Going down the street to your neighbor’s house and taking everything they own while they are out of town? Illegal as you are taking a real person’s real belongings.
Going down the street to your neighbor’s house and buying a gram bag of Marijuana, crack, any drug? Illegal as the substance you are buying is real, and can affect real people.
Going down the street to the corner and picking up some woman (or man) you do not know and paying them to have intercourse with you? Illegal in most states in America – and I hope I do not have to explain that one further.
Any of the above done within a computer program with avatars/characters? Perfectly legal as not a single real, live being has been harmed in any way, shape or form.
Now, if the day ever comes where an amalgamation of code which generates a character on your screen can survive in the real world? Then maybe the people with reality perception issues will have a case.
Until then either deal with having these things in games (properly rated) or petition your governments to outlaw games.
ThePointMaker
Feb 22nd, 2007
LeBlanc point fires good.
but think for a sec.
SL. When you sign up for the main gird. you gotta be atleast 18 years of age. ADULT Use. In SL By Terms and agree ment the user is 18 years of age. so if a ageplay inconter takes place. both the partys said there 18 years atleast in Real Life when they signed up for the game. Both adults are playing ageplay. is it any diffrent then real life age play. When you and your lovely wife wanna try fun. She still they same age but make change her look. wearing outfits that look like school girls and removeing of adult hair down below. but when the fact Remaining is she has a ID Saying She is of legal Age. I find that the same case in SL. when you sign up you say your of age and you start off with a adult avatar. you change your apperance. Like In Real Life.
but what about the teen gird? There should more be a debate how to do that there. Setting up sign up of teen gird to ask for parent email to sign up and allow them to be able to do sexual incounters to expolore possiablely.. Would you want your kids woundering about sex and ethier and use SL Avatars with someone then really with someone in Real Life where its possiable for a STD. in SL you cant get one. but way SL is set up you cant stop those unless you remove allot of features. like animations, and outfit removely. things that be use to show sexual abiltys.
same on the adult gird. to stop age play you have to remove the features of animations and outfit removely.
other whys even if outlaw there still gonna happen.
and think about it. yes im sure there are RL Pedos on SL that do ageplay. but in a way to stop his urges without takeing a Real Childs. In all means not just let it be ok in SL but anywhere. Vitural Makes and Drawing. but clear signs of real photos stay ban from the world. Makeing virtual or drawing of child porn dose not show real life children. the drawing and vitural children have no SOUL!
no pain, no fear, no feelings at all.
to be honest if i had children little girl for exp. i want virutal and drawings of child pron to be able to get without laws stoping. i would want that pedo to reless his urges in his own hand looking at a virtual video or photo and not in my real breathing feeling soul child’s pants.
I think i rest my case.
Tad McConachie
Feb 22nd, 2007
Whether or not ageplay is porn or not, it’s still creepy as hell.
In the end though, the map is not the territory.
Is Gorean RP slavery?
Are people who RP furries guilty of beastiality?
As disturbing as I find it, I don’t really care what consenting adults do in their own privacy. As a landowner in SL, I have the right to eject people from my land who do things that I find distasteful, and I also have the right not to visit places where such goes on.
The big problem with ageplay though is the light that it shines on Second Life. To too many, SL is already just a place on-line for fancy cyber sex and gambling. Just as LL cracked down (didn’t they?) on escorts posing as children, they may also need to crack down on the Ageplayers just to show that they don’t tolerate any form of anything resembling child porn.
Are all ageplayers in it for the sex? Is it an integral part of their RP?
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 22nd, 2007
——————————–
>The closest we have come was in 1986 when, over a weekend workshop focus group, the Meese Commission concluded that “exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward women” and that “children and adolescents who participate in the production of pornography experience adverse, enduring effects” [1].
Case studies in Japan [2] do indicate that ease of access to pornography in general reduces the amount of total sex crimes in a society.<
——————————–
This posting is a good example of propaganda and its use in attempting to mold the views of society in general. (I intend no direct assault upon the author of this article, nor accusation of intent). I comment on the tendency of society to accept such statements without question of validity.
Japan is not the best place for such a case study to be done. Their societal moores– as well as effectiveness of their police system– are largely responsible for a low rate of “sex crimes”. Why? Because Japanese society has long placed women in a subjective, sexual role that people in our country might find objectionable. It is clear through anime and manga that the Japanese view of sexuality focuses largely on the young and innocent– blatantly pedophiliac in nature. There are many areas of sexuality that are “acceptable” in the deep society of Japan that would be considered illegal in the US.
Two unique situations exist (or existed for some time) in Japan: while pornography was widespread, it was illegal to show genetalia or graphic sexual acts (unlike this country). Thus, the most blatant aspects of pornography were banned by law. The second situation is that much of what goes on in the “sexual underworld” of Japan is considered by thousands of years of societal concept to be “acceptable” in a society that is definitely male-dominant. Therefore, women are prostituted, raped and otherwise abused every day with no report being made to the authorities. To make such report would be considered “disloyal” and “dishonorable” to whatever corporation, mob or family was in charge of that area and that had authorized such activities for “guests”.
The Japanese police force is far more effective than the American police force. The general attitude in Japan and China both is that if one commits a crime– he will likely be caught. Therefore, crimes are either not committed, not reported, or… they are caught and sentenced. Because of this, potential rapists are restricted by the knowledged that they stand a good chance of being caught should they give in to their base desires.
Studies performed in Japan would naturally be influenced by Japanese culture. They might ignore things or be biased in their examination due to cultural influence– which again is strongly male-dominant and pedopheliac in nature. Their resultant studies would have questionable validity in Japan– much less anywhere else. To put it bluntly: such studies would have questionable validity due to the societal moores in which they were conducted. It would be akin to conducting a study on Slavery in a mideastern country. It’s just going to be questionable from the beginning.
The second point of this reply has to do with the first quote, (which I shall quote again):
“The closest we have come was in 1986 when, over a weekend workshop focus group, the Meese Commission concluded that “exposure to violent pornography increases punitive behavior toward women” and that “children and adolescents who participate in the production of pornography experience adverse, enduring effects” [1].”
The manner in which this is worded gives the impression that such studies are few and are the result of just a “weekend workshop”. This is far from true. There have been many such studies conducted throughout the United States and other 1st-World countries which have resulted in STRONG indication that ready availability of pornography has a direct effect on societal morality as well as sexually-related crime. There is an established 100% correlation betweeen sexual offenders and existing-use of heavily pornographic materials.
But if I may, I have always been a person who appreciates common sense. Whether such studies existed– or whether NO studies existed, common sense can win out in the end. If we feed our bodies junk food all the time– eventually we will suffer because of it. If we eat poison, we will die.
Our minds and thinking process are formed by what we feed our brains. A very well known writer stated, “As a man thinks, so is he.” What we take into our minds literally forms the structure of our minds. The images we perceive stay there, the concepts we learn form who we eventually become. And just like junk food, although we may not notice immediate harm– over time great damage is done. A person who gets used to watching pornographic films eventually gets to the point that “less exciting” material no longer interests him. If it doesn’t have sex and violence, it’s not entertaining enough to suit him. And soon, like a drug addict, he wants more and more.
What we feed our minds is what our minds become. Feed a mind poison– it becomes mentally sick. It’s just that simple.
There are MANY, MANY studies proving a direct correlation between viewing violent content movies and resultant violent tendency among viewers. The same holds true with sexuality. In an issue of the Kanas City Star newspaper just this week, they quoted a study which was focused on “Should Children Be Allowed to View Pornography?” Two case audiences were asked for their reply. The first did not view pornography. The second case were subjected to high levels of pornography. Afterward, they were asked if children should be allowed to view such things. The responses of the two audiences were markedly different. The case that had been subjected to pornographic content were far less resistant to the idea of children accessing such material.
Now whether this was due to the fact that they didn’t find the pornography at all objectionable (thus OK for children) or whether such exposure damaged their conscience and common sense and rendered them less able to make such value judgements was not established. But as a person who believes in common-sense and basic morality (ie, you don’t subject children to sex)… I believe the results are quite clear. Pornography, like any mental poison, dulls the mind and sensibility. I would have to believe that those who would disagree are likely already immersed in such activities– and thus unable to make such value judgements. In other words, their minds are already poisoned.
Society today consists of a generation of children, teenagers and even young adults who have been raised on R and X-rated movies (easily available from video stores), porn on cable TV, and internet porn. Child psychologists are interestingly enough noting a marked trend of increasing violence and antisocial behavior among the young, and a trememdous upsurge in sociopathic behavior. There is a definite, measured, established and dramatic increase in early sexual activity (ie, sexuality in the 8 to 12 year old bracket). It would not be difficult to conclude that there is a correlation between these trends and the ready-availability of pornography.
Because of these things, in my personal opinion, any study conducted which would indicate otherwise would itself be immediately suspect of taint in some aspect or another. Why? If someone hands me a study which “proves” that water is made up of Kool-Aid– common sense tells me that “study” is suspect. Some things are just obvious.
Child pornography, whether “real” or animated or implied in the SL environment is mental poison. It cannot help but have effect on those who are involved in such. I would have to conclude that if they believe otherwise– the only ones they are fooling is themselves.
Tad McConachie
Feb 22nd, 2007
Wayfinder, while I agree with your last paragraph, your arguments could also be generally used to completely outlaw all sex and violence within Second Life. And probably gambling, drinking, smoking, cursing and anything else someone feels to be offensive.
Anon
Feb 22nd, 2007
Wayfinder: opinion opinion punditry punditry and not one reference to a study focused on the results of AGEPLAY between CONSENTING ADULTS on an ADULT PEDOPHILE. You don’t even come CLOSE.
SLanon
Feb 22nd, 2007
Child porn is illegal because children get hurt making it, not because it’s gross. Don’t distort the issue.
I personally would be interested in finding out if ageplay with an adult could keep a pedophile indoors and out of contact with minors.
Posted by: Anon | February 22, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Or excite them enough to want to cross that line? Practice makes the perfect they say. Sick f*cks should all be hung by their balls…
BanSLChildPorn
Feb 22nd, 2007
“… virtual child pornography fuels and validates the sexual fantasies of child molesters and pedophiles, potentially harms nondepicted children, and can be traded for images involving “real” children… Virtual child pornography has no socially redeeming value.”
ME speaking: To have a meaningful discussion, we need definitions of the terms other than vague terms such as “age play”.
“A pedophile… is a significantly older individual who prefers to have sex with individuals legally considered children. Pedophiles are individuals whose erotic imagery and sexual fantasies focus on children.”
“child pornography involves a visual depiction (not the written word) of a child (a minor as defined by statute) that is sexually explicit.”
“child erotica is any material, relating to children, that serves a sexual purpose for a given individual.”
“Child pornography and erotica are used for the sexual arousal and gratification of pedophiles. They use child pornography the same way other people use adult pornography—to feed sexual fantasies. Some pedophiles only collect and fantasize about the material without acting out the fantasies, but for others the arousal and fantasy fueled by the pornography is only a prelude to actual sexual activity with children.”
ME: There are adults in SL who want to role play as children but not engage in sexual activity. Not all age players are pedophiles, just as not all pedophiles are child molesters. However… virtual child pornography and those to participate in and produce it i.e. “age play” that depicts sexually acts with children should be banned from Second Life.
ME: This however might all be a moot discussion and not up to SL residents or the Linden lawyers to decide, but rather for the high courts vis a vis The U.S. “Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996″ that “banned visual depictions that are ‘advertised, promoted, presented, described[,] or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression’ that they contain sexually explicit depictions of minors.”
ME: The constitutionality of this legislation has and is being challenged, and among the arguments, the U.S. government “presented compelling evidence that VIRTUAL CHILD PORNOGRAPHY CAUSES ‘REAL HARM TO REAL CHILDREN’” and argued for the CPPA because the “the State has a compelling interest in ‘safeguarding the physical and psychological well-being of a minor’” and that “the First Amendment does not protect certain categories of speech that are `UTTERLY WITHOUT REDEEMING SOCIAL IMPORTANCE,’ … CHILD PORNOGRAPHY AMONG THEM. [The] only distinction between real and virtual child pornography is whether actual children are used in the production of the visual depictions, the dissent argued that using virtual children in its production `does not somehow transform virtual child pornography into meaningful speech.’
Resources: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children http://www.ncmec.org
Anon
Feb 22nd, 2007
BanSLChildPorn – that’s just stupid. Of course virtual child porn is going to harm a minor… just like REGULAR porn is going to harm a minor. THAT’S NOT THE ISSUE though, is it?
The issue is: we want fewer abused children. Will pedophiles exposing themselves to virtual child porn (involving ONLY ADULTS in RL!!) prevent them from actually hurting kids, or do the opposite?
Screw free speech. I just don’t want my kid abused.
Allana Dion
Feb 22nd, 2007
Ageplay in the real world and ageplay in the second life world are two very different things. Ageplay in the real world involves an adult person dressing and acting in a childlike manner as a means to experience the feelings of reverting back to childhood and be “cared for” by another adult roleplayer. While I myself have not experienced this activity, I do imagine that there are some sexual activities involved as well for some of the people. However all participants are ADULTS.
The goal is to experience that childlike state. Why people do this, I have no idea. But in the real world, adult men who like to dress in diapers and be “mothered” by their girlfriends are not breaking any laws or victimizing anyone, no one is breaking down their doors to arrest them on the suspicion that they might one day decide to try playing with a child.
This is in part because we do not prosecute people for what they may or may not one day do, and in part because there is an awareness that the goal of the activity for the participants is to experience what it is like to BE a child, not what it is like to be WITH a child.
In second life these people have the ability to experience that childlike state to a lesser degree on one hand and a greater degree on the other. On the one hand they are not actually feeling what it’s like to wear a diaper and be “changed”, but on the other hand they have the ability to project a more childlike image to themselves in creating a childlike avatar. But the goal is the same, to experience the feelings of being a child. And again, for some it may be sexual and for others it may not.
It is in my opinion, just as ridiculous to try to prosecute a Second Life ageplayer for what they might possibly be thinking of doing, as it is to prosecute the real life Joe DiaperWearer for the what he might possibly be thinking of doing.
It is attempting to read people’s minds and judge their potential future actions based on our own interpretations of what their reasons MIGHT be for their current LEGAL activities.
King Frederick
Feb 22nd, 2007
“Child porn is illegal because children get hurt making it, not because it’s gross”
That’s retarded. Should pictures of 9/11 be illegal because people got hurt making them? Or pictures of homicide?
“why not simply outlaw all games for the following reasons: Murder, Theft, Drug Use, and Prostitution” / “outlaw all games, etc. etc.
Because (excepting maybe prostitution) it’s not the same thing. And you know it. People who get aroused by child pornography are getting sexually aroused. Their sexual arousal is because of depicted sexual acts on a child.
People who play games with murder, theft, etc. do not typically get aroused or inclined towards murder or theft. If games with violence culminated in something analogous to an orgasm – a realized feeling of having actually murdered someone – then maybe you’d have a point.
But it’s you who is attempting to cloud the point with the shitty analogy. When you have fun playing a violent videogame you are not nescessarily a potential murderer.
When you have fun (get sexually aroused) by images of children getting raped, you ARE a pedophile and you are a potential child rapist by virtue of the fact that you are aroused by such situations.
“interested in finding out if ageplay with an adult could keep a pedophile indoors ”
It doesn’t matter. People shouldn’t be engaging in pedophile fantasies. People shouldn’t be HAPPY with being aroused by child rape. People should be seeking help. Letting people just sit on their asses jacking off to depictions of children being raped or exploited is potentially dangerous.
Why? Because they get off on child rape. They are sexually aroused by child rape.
If someone had an inclination to murder people as strong as the human inclination to have sex is, they’d be justifiably locked up as criminally insane.
Why is it not criminally insane to be sexually aroused by child rape and/or exploitation?
These people should be grabbed, tagged, and watched so they can never let their horrible fantasies come to fruition.
SLanon
Feb 22nd, 2007
to be honest if i had children little girl for exp. i want virutal and drawings of child pron to be able to get without laws stoping. i would want that pedo to reless his urges in his own hand looking at a virtual video or photo and not in my real breathing feeling soul child’s pants.
I think i rest my case.
Posted by: ThePointMaker | February 22, 2007 at 10:49 AM
So he can’t get online and has the urge and the closest thing to it is your daughter next door?? Sick is sick, online or offline…
Artemis Fate
Feb 22nd, 2007
“That’s retarded. Should pictures of 9/11 be illegal because people got hurt making them? Or pictures of homicide?”
Considering that the harming of the child is generally what the person does by taking the pictures and posing them nude, do you think that pictures of 9/11 or homicide would be illegal if the person taking the pictures was crashing the plane into buildings and killing people for the express purpose of taking those pictures? Do you see the difference there of doing something for the sake of pictures and just happening to take a picture of something that already happened by someone else?
That’s pretty much the end all right there, “Child porn is illegal because it hurts kids, not because it’s gross”. I think Child porn and pedophiles are disgusting, but I don’t think fake representations of child porn should be illegal as much as fake representations of violence in media should be. Just don’t go showing virtual child porn to me.
I can see that whole “letting them indulge in their fantasies might increase the risk of them doing it in real life” as a point, but I think you need to have some experimental data to prove that, I mean that’s the whole backbone of what’s been argued for video game violence and such for decades, but they’ve never managed to get any concrete studies one way or another.
I do agree though that people who are arroused by child porn even virtual need help, but I don’t necessarily think they’ll injure anyone.
GodGodsOrNoGodBlessUSA
Feb 22nd, 2007
“Child pornography” is has a very specific definition, defined in United States federal law, 18 U.S.C 2256 (8).
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256—-000-.html#2_B
Where one or more avatars is depicted engaging in sexually explicit conduct (defined at (2), and only pertaining to ‘simulated’ conduct), for each possible definition:
(8)(A): In no case where an actual minor (minor defined at (1) as a person under 13) is not involved is this definition applicable for the Second Life universe, as a minor must actually exist in the real world in order for said minor to be ‘used’ to ‘produce’ such a depiction. This definition is applicable to the depiction of actual children engaging in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct.
(8)(B): In no case is this definition applicable for the Second Life universe, as the technology is not capable of producing a depiction that is virtually indistinguishable from an actual minor (derived from definition of indistinguishable at (11)). This definition is generally applicable to detailed photo-morphing (and similar technology) of images.
(8)(C): In only one case is this definition applicable for the Second Life universe: the case where a depiction is made with an image of an actual minor, uploaded (whether or not modified), and applied to the skin of at least one these avatars, such that said minor is recognizable and made to ‘appear’ to be engaging in sexually explicit conduct. This definition is typically applicable to ‘photoshopping’ of child faces onto adult bodies and adult body parts onto child bodies.
In the above situation, where at least one avatar involved depicts a virtual minor, it is “virtual child pornography – not child pornography – and it enjoys First Amendment protections in the United States. The same is true for the virtual murder, virtual fraud, virtual kidnapping, virtual war, and other forms of virtual violence and virtual crimes that are incorporated in other various video games and virtual worlds.
On the issue of virtual child pornography, this is what the United States Supreme Court wrote in the landmark case ASHCROFT V. FREE SPEECH COALITION, when it delivered its opinion, considering and rejecting the US government’s arguments and evidence, and overwhelmingly affirming free speech freedoms that all United States citizens are extremely lucky to enjoy:
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html
“Virtual child pornography is not ‘intrinsically related’ to the sexual abuse of children. While the Government asserts that the images can lead to actual instances of child abuse, the causal link is contingent and indirect. The harm does not necessarily follow from the speech, but depends upon some unquantified potential for subsequent criminal acts.”
…
“The argument that virtual child pornography whets pedophiles’ appetites and encourages them to engage in illegal conduct is unavailing because the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it [..] absent some showing of a direct connection between the speech and imminent illegal conduct [..]. The argument that eliminating the market for pornography produced using real children necessitates a prohibition on virtual images as well is somewhat implausible because few pornographers would risk prosecution for abusing real children if fictional, computerized images would suffice. Moreover, even if the market deterrence theory were persuasive, the argument cannot justify the CPPA because, here, there is no underlying crime at all. Finally, the First Amendment is turned upside down by the argument that, because it is difficult to distinguish between images made using real children and those produced by computer imaging, both kinds of images must be prohibited. The overbreadth doctrine prohibits the Government from banning unprotected speech if a substantial amount of protected speech is prohibited or chilled in the process.”
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 22nd, 2007
>Wayfinder, while I agree with your last paragraph, your arguments could also be generally used to completely outlaw all sex and violence within Second Life. And probably gambling, drinking, smoking, cursing and anything else someone feels to be offensive.
Posted by: Tad McConachie | February 22, 2007 at 11:18 AM < In an ideal, utopian world where people are perfect, you would be correct. But as the old saying goes... two wrongs don't make a right. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I think most people would agree there is a large difference between someone holding a "glass of whiskey" on SL and having sex with a child avatar. Simple common sense.
>Wayfinder: opinion opinion punditry punditry and not one reference to a study focused on the results of AGEPLAY between CONSENTING ADULTS on an ADULT PEDOPHILE. You don’t even come CLOSE.Posted by: Anon | February 22, 2007 at 11:51 AM < Anon, I might point out that this is a blog... not a doctoral thesis complete with bibliography. I did point to a reference in the Kansas City Star (although I didn't feel like going back through all of last week's newspapers to find it). If you doubt the points made and require specific references, I would suggest you stop wasting your time on blogs and spend it instead in personal research. People really aren't expected to reference their statements in an opinion blog... especially considering the relatively low readership numbers. Sorry you don't accept my statements as more than personal opinion... but it's not going to cause me any loss of sleep.
>Child porn is illegal because children get hurt making it, not because it’s gross. Posted by: SLanon | February 22, 2007 at 12:34 PM< There are those who would debate such statement. I believe both are the case. One has to wonder about the mentality of those whose sexual interests focus on children. No matter how twisted society gets, or how loudly those twisted mentalities shout that there is nothing wrong in what they do-- there are some things that are just inherently wrong. If society "legalized" murder tomorrow or if it became the next "fad"... I still would not accept it as right. If a sane man is considered insane in an insane world... I will yet prefer sanity.
>Child porn is illegal because children get hurt making it, not because it’s gross. Don’t distort the issue. I personally would be interested in finding out if ageplay with an adult could keep a pedophile indoors and out of contact with minors. Posted by: Anon | February 22, 2007 at 10:24 AM< Read further here Anon. There's not much question in that field. Psychological studies have provided strong indication that indulging in fantasy causes one to desire real life fulfillment of those fantasies.
Something to remember is that while people may "ageplay" on SL... they know deep inside they're actually dealing with adults on the other end-- and their desire for true pedophelic contact is not fulfilled. If anything, that will frustrate them and make them wish to seek out real life exploits.
>children. Will pedophiles exposing themselves to virtual child porn (involving ONLY ADULTS in RL!!) prevent them from actually hurting kids, or do the opposite? Screw free speech. I just don’t want my kid abused. Posted by: Anon | February 22, 2007 at 01:25 PM< And that's the point there Anon. Banning any form of child porn on SL is a valid concept. Why? 1) Because SL is a privately-owned board and Linden Lab can pretty much set whatever guidelines they wish 2) Making such a thing "illegal" on the board is taking a stance, making a strong statement that LL will in no manner condone or support such concepts or activities. Failing to do so might indeed lable them as a pro-pedophelia board.
Providing a platform in which potential child-molestors can live out their fantasies just brings them one step closer to carrying out those fantasies in real life. That psychological concept is reasonably well estblished and has been for decades. There were experiments in which people were asked to write down their most private, twisted fantasies, the idea being that they would "get it out of their system". The exact opposite proved true; the more they wrote such fantasies down, the more they indulged themselves in them and eventually moved toward fulfillment of such. One doesn't get clean by wallowing in the mire. I believe that many parents will agree with you: they do not wish their children endangered in any manner-- either directly or indirectly.
>People who play games with murder, theft, etc. do not typically get aroused or inclined towards murder or theft. If games with violence culminated in something analogous to an orgasm – a realized feeling of having actually murdered someone – then maybe you’d have a point. Posted by: King Frederick | February 22, 2007 at 02:13 PM< Actually King, violence does have something analogous to an orgasm. It is called addrenaline. This chemical which is produced by the body as a result of mental stimulation caused by action (of which violence is one form) and fear (which violence triggers) is why some people enjoy going to horror movies, play violent games, etc. Just as there are studies indicating that pornography stimulates sexual deviancy... so there are studies indicating that violent TV programs, movies and computer games stimulate violent tendencies. I think we are all aware that games are rated for violence just as they are rated for sexuality. Still that doesn't negate the point you made that pedophelia is a psychological sickness. But at the same time, many people consider a love of violence as a psychological sickness (remember A Clockwork Orange? Whole point of the movie. Ultraviolent sexuality).
>I can see that whole “letting them indulge in their fantasies might increase the risk of them doing it in real life” as a point, but I think you need to have some experimental data to prove that, I mean that’s the whole backbone of what’s been argued for video game violence and such for decades, but they’ve never managed to get any concrete studies one way or another.
Posted by: Artemis Fate | February 22, 2007 at 02:38 PM <
In truth Artemis, they have. “Lack of evidence” is a recent-wives-tale based on the fact that ultra-violent video games are relatively new to society. So yes, for a few years there were no studies drawing conclusive evidence between violence in video games and violent behavior. But you can bet your boots that since Columbine such studies became of considered interest and in just the last year or two– conclusive evidence has been released. This research has been conducted on adult and adolescent control groups. Again, I don’t have specific references at my fingertips right now… but anyone with internet access can research such studies. There is a substantial and significant (pretty much undeniable) correlation between exposure to violent TV shows, movies and video games and real-life violent tendencies. Since sexuality is one of the strongest biochemical urges on the planet (if not the strongest) logic would dictate similar correlations between violence and sexually-stimulating materials, no matter what their form.
That is one of the primary arguements against virtual / animated / “artistic” child pornography; whether real children were used in the preparation or not– it propagates a concept that is highly offensive and detrimental to society– the abuse of our children.
In general:
One of the errors I see in several posts here is the idea that allowing a pedophile to endulge his fantasies on SL might grant him a “release valve” to keep him from doing so in real life. Psychological studies (and yes, I was a psyche major in college, thankyewverymuch) indicate the exact opposite is true. The more they indulge their fantasies, the more twisted and demanding those fantasies grow… until they explode into a real life episode. Whereas if they didn’t have any ways to explore those base fantasies and if society totally and completely rejected such things– they would not have a ready outlet for indulgence. Eventually may be able, with time, to correct their own mentality and overcome such perversions. Ideally, people become wiser as they become older and tendencies of younger days are often overcome with maturity.
A society that makes antisocial fantasy environments readily and easily available to deviancy actually enables the deviant personality, encouraging that personality to enact fantasies in real life.
The best way to keep from falling off a cliff is to stay as far away from the edge as possible.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 22nd, 2007
GodGodsOrNoGodBlessUSA, while your post is techinically and legally probably very correct… I will point out that the government and legal system makes serious errors in judgement every day. One of the greatest mistakes people can make is to believe something is “right” just because it’s not “illegal”… or that it is right because the government has declared it legal. China has declared it legal to imprision and torture those who cause “societal unrest” (ie, those who speak their minds). Does that make such “legal” decisions right?
In our own country among the legal profession, it is widely recognized that approximately 15% of those currently serving time in prison are likely not guilty of the crime charged. Further, there is no denying that throughout history, laws that once existed in our country have been discarded and replaced by more current laws, which in some cases were then replaced either by yet other laws or even the original law which they unseated. The court system is by no means all-wise, all-knowing or infallible.
One thing not mentioned in your post is that as a private enterprise (ie a club) Linden Lab does have a great deal of authority as to what they allow or don’t allow on their board, regardless of US rulings on free speech (ie, it’s their “home”. Freedom of speech does not mean I have to allow a member of the KKK to spout his dogma in my living room). If they were to decide that promotion of religious concepts and furries and elves are “illegal” on their board… they can do that. Tough beans poeple. So regardless of “freedom of speech”, if they decide to ban child pornography in ALL forms, both real and virtual… they can do so. And if someone wishes to challenge them in court, there is likely sufficient legal precident that a good LL attorney would defeat it before it even got to court.
One of the basic tenets of “free speech” is well known, “Freedom of speech does not give a man the right to yell FIRE in a crowded theatre”. The basic concept there is that the good of society must be considered overall.
Therefore, the question in ALL applications of freedom of speech is this: is the particular instance of such freedom being exercised easily and forseeably harmful to society? This is indeed the foundation concept under which “hate activities” became banned in this country over the last few years.
Mind you, that is dangerous ground to tread. Too lenient, and the deviants rule. Too strictly applied, and we have dictatorship. It’s a tough call to make.
Yet one would think in something such as child pornography (whether actual, virtual or implied), people would gather two brain cells together and figure out that it is as inherently wrong as murder. I mean, how much common sense does that take?
Not to get religious, but I’ve long been mindful of one prophecy: “For they will call what is good bad, and what is bad, good.” The fact that society seems to be unable to any longer come to reasonable conclusions regarding obvious perversion is nothing more than strong indication of just how jaded, unbalanced and twisted society has become.
Nacon
Feb 22nd, 2007
USA is not freedom… duh?
Don’t believe me? Then why do we have law and taxes?
Don’t be a dick, be the brain or have a new roommate in a prison,
waiting to fuck the shit out of you.
(yes… they want to fuck you real hard. You’ll be THAT amazed.)
So… Ageplay or get a life?
LeBlanc
Feb 22nd, 2007
“do you think that pictures of 9/11 or homicide would be illegal if the person taking the pictures was crashing the plane into buildings and killing people for the express purpose of taking those pictures?”
No, the pictures themselve would not be illegal, the actions would be illegal.
It’s not illegal to posess photographs of a crime. I have posessed photographs of murder scenes. Am I guilty of murder? Should I not have those pictures? Should I be put in jail for having pictures of murder? Or violence? Or a bank robbery?
No? Then tell me why someone should go to jail for posessing child pornography, assuming they did not do the things commited in the photographs.
Not buying child pornography, just posessing it.
Tell me why it’s perfectly okay to have “virtual” child pornography but it’s bad, bad, bad to have “real” child pornography. Tell me why it’s worse than having pictures of someone getting murdered, robbing, prostituting, etc. Tell me why it should be a crime.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 22nd, 2007
Nacon, don’t even know or care who you were replying to, but I’ll tell you a fact of life: posting such offensive nonsense on a blog or forum gains you no respect, nor does it support your issue or opinion. Such a post shows no thought, no maturity, no sensibility. The only thing it accomplishes is convincing people such a post is not worthy of their time.
Trolling brings no respect– and surprise– it doesn’t prove a thing except ya know how to troll. Anyone with a computer can troll; nothing impressive there.
That you tell the guy to not be a d*ck and then turn right around and post something like that is almost laughable.
If you want people to respect your beliefs– you have to respect theirs in turn.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 22nd, 2007
>Tell me why it’s perfectly okay to have “virtual” child pornography but it’s bad, bad, bad to have “real” child pornography. Tell me why it’s worse than having pictures of someone getting murdered, robbing, prostituting, etc. Tell me why it should be a crime. — LeBlanc<
Now that is a valid question LeBlanc, and one I haven’t heard before. Really good question. Why is it illegal to have pictures of child porn, but not illegal to have pictures of murders or rape? Very valid question. I’ll have to put that one in the “original, thoughtful questions” bin and give it some thought. Off hand, I can’t see any difference. Maybe all three should be illegal.
Yuka Itamae
Feb 22nd, 2007
The reason for ‘real’ child pornography being illegal is that there is an economic incentive for the wicked to create it and sell it on. By making all such images illegal, the law tries to prevent a market for such materials evolving. If the market existed openly and legally there would be a stimulus to further production (child abuse), especially as pornography in general is big business.
A quick search of the BBC news website should bring up a number of articles about criminal organizations, groups or individuals selling child pornography for economic gain.
As far as murder and robbery go, there appears to be little demand for images of these, (at least, not enough demand for people to actually spend much money on it) and so little economic stimulus to commit such crimes for the sole purpose of recording images of them.
Reality
Feb 22nd, 2007
Yuka, three words for you: Grand Theft Auto.
Artemis Fate
Feb 23rd, 2007
“Tell me why it’s perfectly okay to have “virtual” child pornography but it’s bad, bad, bad to have “real” child pornography. Tell me why it’s worse than having pictures of someone getting murdered, robbing, prostituting, etc. Tell me why it should be a crime.”
Because of supply and demand. Because the act of creating child pornography photos is the crime in itself as opposed to taking picture of a robbery is not the crime in itself, it’s just happening to take a picture of the crime.
So it’s any basic supply and demand principle, if people own it or want it, then people will supply it. And how do you supply it? By harming children to create more of it.
If pictures of robbery or pictures of homicide could only be created by the robber robbing the bank or the murderer killing the person for the purpose of the pictures instead of the money or murder, then I could guarentee you that pictures of homicide and pictures of robbery would be illegal too.
Alex Fitzsimmons
Feb 23rd, 2007
“As far as murder and robbery go, there appears to be little demand for images of these, (at least, not enough demand for people to actually spend much money on it) and so little economic stimulus to commit such crimes for the sole purpose of recording images of them.”
Why would there be? All you need is the TV or movies. America has a love affair, a sick, twisted, obsessed love affair with violence, and we just can’t get enough of it. We’re scared shitless of sex, which we just know is evil and awful and bad bad bad, so we’ll be sure to protect our children from it for as long as possible!
But if little Timmy wants to see a movie where people are shown blowing each other away with guns, why, that’s perfectly alright. It’s just a movie, right?
We are EXACTLY backwards. Sex is a good thing, not a bad thing — not a perversion. VIOLENCE is the perversion, and it’s a perversion we’re so ungodly obsessed with, it’s sickening. Even knowing this, I can’t help being affected by it, having grown up here — I can’t help that I’m much less likely to worry about a child seeing a depiction of violence than a child seeing a depiction of sex, even though I know it should be the other way around.
It’s a societal sickness, and I feel infected by it.
LeBlanc
Feb 23rd, 2007
“All you need is the TV or movies. America has a love affair, a sick, twisted, obsessed love affair with violence, and we just can’t get enough of it. We’re scared shitless of sex–”
We are not ‘scared’ of sex, sex is a completely different thing from violence because its much easier to be influenced by sexual imagery than it is by violent imagery of the sort you find in movies. And no, it’s not a good thing for children to become prematurely interested in sex. But seeing terminator robots blow up a space ship does not impact a child’s emotional development like seeing pornography.
“VIOLENCE is the perversion”
wtf, violence is just as natural as sex, so why isn’t it good? Because you don’t like it?
LeBlanc
Feb 23rd, 2007
” Because the act of creating child pornography photos is the crime in itself as opposed to taking picture of a robbery is not the crime in itself, it’s just happening to take a picture of the crime.So it’s any basic supply and demand principle, if people own it or want it, then people will supply it. And how do you supply it? By harming children to create more of it.”
No there is a demand for pictures of death and crime. There is also a demand for stories of real life murder and violence. First of all, there’s the news. Footage of crime is in hot demand. And Remember when they showed pictures of people jumping from the towers on 9/11? Rotten.com and Ogrish.com are examples of explicit pictures of death in high demand. So that is not a good argument.
You can’t say a phony high-brow position that posessing ‘virtual’ child pornography is okay but for some reason posessing a picture of real child pornography is evil, evil, evil.
Panda
Feb 23rd, 2007
“No there is a demand for pictures of death and crime.”
Death and crime is not created for the purpose of taking pictures. That’s snuff, and it’s not any more legal than child porn.
Reality
Feb 23rd, 2007
LeBlanc, please step into the realm of reality and out of the realm of fantasy for a moment hmm?
Note: The term “Children” in the following areas is used to define persons of about 12 years old and up.
Reality: Children mature faster mentally and in some cases physically these days – and it will get ‘worse’.
Fantasy: Children are just as immature and naive as they were in the ’50s.
Reality: Children can, will, and do manage to gain access to “Adults Only” sites and material (with exception to physical stores) all the time. In many cases they go looking for it.
Fantasy: Children are forced to view Adult material.
Reality: Child Pornography is illegal and damn distasteful as real Children (any age) are involved.
Reality: an amalgamation of zeros and ones (any 3D images from any source within which you control the image) is not a Real Child and never will be.
Fantasy: Age Play, be it in text or not, is not Child Pornography as the ‘child’ does not exist.
Reality: Violence is just as wrong as Child Pornography.
Fantasy: Violence is not on the same level as Child Pornography.
Reality: Outlawing games as a whole – and while we’re at it let us disable the internet – is the only logical step to take if you plan on making anything you can currently find in a game, on an internet site etc illegal.
Fantasy: Thinking you can actually control what people do.
Hmm …. Now that all of that has been said I think I’ll close with this:
If it exists or can exist on its own, where you can physically touch it or it can touch/interact with you or was produced using subjects that are capable of existing in such a real? Chances are it is Real and thus a part of Reality (Kids, your neighbor, your dog …). If it exists only in the ether of a computer (and in rare cases, your mind) or is produced using nothing but an amalgamation of zeros and ones (3D CG images etc) then guess what? It’s Fantasy!
Panda
Feb 23rd, 2007
“Reality: Violence is just as wrong as Child Pornography.”
I think you need a reality-check on that point, Reality.
Reality
Feb 23rd, 2007
No Panda I don’t. “Violence begets Violence”.
Violence may be as natural to humanity is as sex – but it does not make it any more ‘right’ than Child Pornography.
By the by? Murder and Rape fall under violence and guess what? They’re wrong as well.
Try again.
Panda
Feb 23rd, 2007
“Violence may be as natural to humanity is as sex – but it does not make it any more ‘right’ than Child Pornography.”
Violence does not have to be right for child pornography to be wrong. They are both wrong.
“By the by? Murder and Rape fall under violence and guess what? They’re wrong as well.”
Was murder and rape being wrong ever in doubt?
Reality
Feb 23rd, 2007
Panda, please quit while you are ahead hmm? This is your post:
”
“Reality: Violence is just as wrong as Child Pornography.”
I think you need a reality-check on that point, Reality.”
This is my response:
”
No Panda I don’t. “Violence begets Violence”.
Violence may be as natural to humanity is as sex – but it does not make it any more ‘right’ than Child Pornography.
By the by? Murder and Rape fall under violence and guess what? They’re wrong as well.
Try again.”
Your response:
”
“Violence may be as natural to humanity is as sex – but it does not make it any more ‘right’ than Child Pornography.”
Violence does not have to be right for child pornography to be wrong. They are both wrong.
“By the by? Murder and Rape fall under violence and guess what? They’re wrong as well.”
Was murder and rape being wrong ever in doubt?”
The above response has nothing at all to do with the prior two posts which can be boiled down to this:
Panda: Violence is not anywhere near as wrong as Child Pornography.
Me: Violence is as wrong as Child Pornography – rape and Murder are Violence. Murder used to be punishable by the death sentence.
Now that it has been spelled out for you Panda I’ll also state the following, just for your benefit: Violence, especially murder and rape, are just as – if not more – wrong as Child Pornography. If you think otherwise … well then agree to disagree and leave it at that.
Panda
Feb 23rd, 2007
“rape and Murder are Violence. Murder used to be punishable by the death sentence.”
Again, has this ever been put in doubt? You seem to think violence = murder. This just is not so. To put it to the other extreme, would you rather be hit in the face (violence), or abused sexually as a child?
Reality
Feb 23rd, 2007
Panda, again quit while you are ahead and for that matter deliberately being obtuse.
Violence of any sort is wrong – period. It does not matter what sort of violence, nor that it is as natural to humanity as sex. Period.
Incidentally: I’d rather the slime that is humanity leave me alone. if someone hits me, they’ll get it back tenfold. if someone abuses a child, I’ll kill them. If I catch someone raping another person? I’ll kill them. seeing a pattern here Panda?
Here’s your life lesson Panda: do not attempt to argue or debate with someone that sees Humanity as scum worthy of eradication.
Reality
Feb 23rd, 2007
Oh – and if that isn’t extreme enough for you, let me put it into further context hmm?
Reality: Humanity as a whole cannot ever truly get along with any member of its own species.
Reality: Humanity is always embroiled in a conflict – sometimes over the smallest things.
Reality: The examples of Humanity which actually care about the planet, and actually do want peace are too few and far between.
Reality: A world without Humanity is a peaceful world.
Reality: The need which Humanity has for any form of violence is wrong.
Reality: A simple assault can quite rapidly turn to far worse.
Need I go on?
Are you going to attempt to debate these points?
Are you going to continue to be obtuse?
I hope not – I don’t plan on debating this with someone too obtuse to have connected the dots thus far. as a matter of fact Panda, I’ll connect them for you, hmm?
No, Violence such as hitting someone may not be wrong to many – that one is subjective. Violence like rape and murder however are another matter and you should have been able to tell which sort I was referring to right from the beginning instead of having me spell it out for you.
Oh, and yes I am a bit irked at the moment: I really do LOVE having to deal with people that have to have everything spelled out for them ….
Christ almighty …..
Reality
Feb 23rd, 2007
Oh, and on a final note to you Panda:
I have very little tolerance for people that miss the point more than once. I do not like having to spell things out for people like that and can tell you that I hope this is the last time I have to be so blunt with you.
Artemis Fate
Feb 23rd, 2007
“No there is a demand for pictures of death and crime. There is also a demand for stories of real life murder and violence. First of all, there’s the news. Footage of crime is in hot demand. And Remember when they showed pictures of people jumping from the towers on 9/11? Rotten.com and Ogrish.com are examples of explicit pictures of death in high demand. So that is not a good argument.”
I think you’re missing the point. Pictures of 9/11, pictures of murder, etc. are seperate from the crime. The person crashing the plane into the building and the person taking the picture are unconnected. In Child Porn, the crime is the taking pictures. So the person taking pictures and the person doing the crime are the same thing. This works for pretty much anything in that line, as Panda said, replace child porn with sexual violence and it’s snuff, which is also illegal.
It’s not about whether or not people want to see the pictures, there’s always someone who would want to see the pictures no matter what they’re of, the idea is by making Snuff and Child Porn illegal it’s an attempt to cut off demand and thus cut down supply, and therefore have less children harmed. Of course, it’s not a fool proof method as much as beer laws stops kids from underage drinking, but atleast with that in place they can charge them for having it.
Alex Fitzsimmons
Feb 23rd, 2007
“wtf, violence is just as natural as sex, so why isn’t it good? Because you don’t like it?”
Violence against one’s own species is NOT as natural as sex, actually. Yes, there is a measure of it — usually, struggles for Alpha position in packs and such — but generally, animals of the same species don’t go out of the way to relentlessly maim, torture, abuse and kill one another, and they certainly don’t delight in watching depictions of it.
At the same time, generally, animals in general don’t frantically start thinking that sex is an evil, awful, terrible, immoral, dirty thing, and that their bodies are bad bad BAD, all the while eagerly plopping down to watch depictions of their own kind killing one another.
We’re pretty much unique in those departments, I’m afraid.
Alex Fitzsimmons
Feb 23rd, 2007
(As an aside, yes, I’m aware that I’ve strayed very far from the main topic. Right now, I’m focused on our bizarre love of wholesale violence and our bizarre fear of sex, not child pornography specifically.)
Lorelei Patel
Feb 23rd, 2007
“Why is it not criminally insane to be sexually aroused by child rape and/or exploitation?
These people should be grabbed, tagged, and watched so they can never let their horrible fantasies come to fruition. ”
You’re advocating thought police?
How do you know who is “sexually aroused by child rape and/or exploitation”? Do you expect these people to just confess and accept their punishment? Punishment for what? For thinking? What if a person admits to having those thoughts but realizes the terrible harm it would cause a child if he acted it out, and therefor keeps himself away from situations where that might happen?
But hey, why stop there. Why not jail anyone who enjoys paint ball (you know they are fantasizing about the real thing) or violent video games? Aren’t they just ticking time bombs, too?
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 23rd, 2007
OK, having grown tired of the petty bickering and bantering personal opinions back and forth– I’ll throw in MY opinion, just for the fun of it.
Pedophelia is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
Murder is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
Common sense therefore dictates:
PLAYING pedophelia is wrong (ie, fantasy pedophelia and virtual pedophelia).
PLAYING murder is wrong.
I know that people are going to disagree and argue with this. But I usually find by the nature of their posts that these are not necessarily people I would respect in real life.
You see, it has more to do with more than what is “legal” and it has more to do with than law. It has to do with principle.
If pedophelia is wrong in principle (which it certainly is) then playing at it is wrong in principle.
If murder is wrong in principle, then playing at murder is wrong in principle.
Some folks above posted some very valid concepts about violent TV, movies etc being just as objectionable as pornography on TV, movies etc. They are right.
We live in a society today in which people have lost the ability to draw a line between what is acceptable behavior and what is not. It has gotten to the point that NOTHING is wrong so long as one person wants to do it and he personally thinks (in his all-wise and all-knowing opinion) it doesn’t harm anyone. It’s especially peachy-OK if he can get a whole group of equally-perverted people to make the same claim.
But you know what… no matter how many people claim that wrong is right, and no matter how loudly they yell it… wrong remains wrong. People can dwell in their own personal fantasy worlds and delude themselves (and others) all they wish– but reality is not goverened by their personal whims (perhaps their interaction and influence upon reality– but not reality itself). I don’t care if the entire world tomorrow decides that pedophelia is legal– it will still be wrong.
Am I wrong in this viewpoint? Am I guilty of attempting censorhip or imposing my personal views on others? That is the first claim some people will make. But consider:
In historical times past, in some lands, CHILD SACRIFICE was totally legal and practiced on a daily basis. The Mayans used to slaughter young men and women by the hundreds, thousands. This was common practice, approved by their government.
Now… how gung-ho should we be about the moral conscience of government and society?
All throughout history, the conscience of nations have been wielded not by the mentality of the mob, but by the conscience of individuals who– despite what society as a whole was doing– had the courage to stand up and say: THIS IS WRONG.
So I will say this: VIRTUAL PEDOPHELIA ON SECOND LIFE IS WRONG. And I really don’t care how many self-centered, insistant, vocal people claim otherwise. It is a perversion in principle. A very famous man said it very well: “A (married) man who continues to look at a woman with passion has already committed adultery in his heart.”
Another writer also stated, “As a man thinketh, so is he.”
It’s not a matter of law. It’s a matter of principle. Principle is more lasting and more binding than law, regardless of what society says. An evil person may obey the law for fear of punishment– but a man who obeys principle has honor.
Lorelei Patel
Feb 23rd, 2007
“Pedophelia is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.
Murder is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.”
You know, there are those who say that LOTR, D&D and other elven venues are wrong wrong wrong and lead to satanism, too. Just sayin.
Artemis Fate
Feb 23rd, 2007
I think you make some valid points about society and how we treat some things as okay and others as wrong (like a mix up with sex being wrong and violence being okay) but I don’t think that any sense of “this is right and this is wrong” is going to solve the problem, that was really just moral absolutism. After all, to put it into your terms, in the Mayan days, they might have tried to stop child sacrifice, until someone with moral absolutist values stood up and said “THIS IS WRONG” and child sacrifice continued. That’s the problem with moral absolutism is then “who says what’s right and wrong and why is that more right or wrong than anything else?” real life just doesn’t exist in black and white, only shades of grey.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 23rd, 2007
>You know, there are those who say that LOTR, D&D and other elven venues are wrong wrong wrong and lead to satanism, too. Just sayin. — Lorelei<
Yes, that is true. The difference is that those people are commenting on their personal opinions of personal hobbies. Pedophelia and muder are universally-recoognized crimes. BIG difference.
And besides, who knows? Maybe in a utopian society where everyone was balanced mentally, physically, morally and ethically, LOTR, D&D and Elves might indeed be proscribed as unhealthy conduct. After all, I surely won’t defend massive war (LOTR), bloodshed for treasure and demonology (D&D) and won’t even 100% defend Elven (there is a school of thought that those who dwell in fantasy worlds fail to improve their real world. I can personally attest to some truth in that… for since I’ve left the fantasy world of SL, my RL has blossomed beyond expectation).
It’s amazing what we can do in RL when we stop wasting time in virtual ones. And the bonus is that RL is… well… real. Second Life is virtual and only as reliable as the next questionable update, arbitrary company policy change, or massive inventory loss.
But your point is valid, to an extent. Some things are indeed subjective. Other things however, are not. I would believe pedophelia and murder to be in the later category.
Wayfinder Wishbringer
Feb 23rd, 2007
> That’s the problem with moral absolutism is then “who says what’s right and wrong and why is that more right or wrong than anything else?” real life just doesn’t exist in black and white, only shades of grey. <
“Only” shades of grey? Life consists of grey, color, and yes, some areas of black and white.
Just because some areas are considered “gray” areas doesn’t mean all are. Gray areas of ethics do not in their existence remove areas of black and white ethics. One of the major problems with this world is that people are failing to realize there are SOME things that just plain ARE absolute.
Fences aren’t necessarily designed to prohibit freedom. They are often designed to provide safety. While is is conceptually possible to go beyond that barrier… the liklihood of injury or death increases dramatically. When individuals take it upon themselves to decide what is right and wrong, ignoring society in general, ignoring historical evidence, ignoring historical patterns and consequences… well, it has been stated: “Those who refuse to learn from history are destined to repeat it.”
Of course, I could state this simple truth all day long, 24/7/365 and there would still be people who just don’t get it. There would still be people who disagree. Which is why this world is in such a mess: like total fools, people keep tearing down the fences and insisting on their own, almighty personal opinions. Trouble is, mankind is by nature a selfish and self-centered beast. Without morality, without principles, without laws and without areas of “black and white”… humans always find a way to totally mess things up.