Flanagan: Watching Child Porn Does 'Not Harm Another Person' (VIDEO)

thebloodfiend said:

But what are the stats on the % of pedophiles that are child molesters?

Click to expand...

I would guess that the true percentage is actually higher than any statistics you would find.

missesdash said:

The thing about CP is that it is made or arousal. If you download a bunch of it and don't get off on it, you're still viewing CP. Like someone upthread said, your reaction obviously determines whether or not you feel you did anything wrong. But I think the intent of the material matters more in the wider scope.

Click to expand...

I think the intent does matter, particularly when the porn is depicting real children. But I also think that, ethically, it's worse for a pedophile to get off on people's innocent family photos posted on Facebook than it is for someone to read fictional or drawn child porn that is intended to arouse but doesn't depict real kids.

I think where intent comes into it is that when a real child is put in porn, they're exploited and continue to be exploited when people look at the images. And like people have pointed out, downloading or accessing it contributes to the demand for it.

Celia Cyanide said:

I would guess that the true percentage is actually higher than any statistics you would find.

Click to expand...

It would almost necessarily be the opposite. Most statistics would overestimate the percentage of pedophiles who are child molesters due to sampling bias. It's much easier to sample pedophiles who are child molesters, than pedophiles who are not child molesters, who would be highly likely to lie about their paraphilia, whether they've committed a crime or not. The true percentage would most likely be lower than the statistics.

kuwisdelu said:

It would almost necessarily be the opposite. Most statistics would overestimate the percentage of pedophiles who are child molesters due to sampling bias. It's much easier to sample pedophiles who are child molesters, than pedophiles who are not child molesters, who would be highly likely to lie about their paraphilia, whether they've committed a crime or not. The true percentage would most likely be lower than the statistics.

Click to expand...

And I don't think it would, because I think it's probably closer to 100%.

Celia Cyanide said:

And I don't think it would, because I think it's probably closer to 100%.

Click to expand...

Based on what?

I'm attracted to women, and sometimes men, but I'm not a rapist. The same is true for thousands of other men and women.

I don't see why it should be any different if you're attracted to children.

kuwisdelu said:

Based on what?

Click to expand...

Based on people I've known who were self proclaimed pedophiles-who-never-molested-children, only they actually had.

Really, I don't know why you would care what I think about pedophiles, or why.

Celia Cyanide said:

Based on people I've known who were self proclaimed pedophiles-who-never-molested-children, only they actually had.

Click to expand...

Okay. Extrapolation to a population based on personal examples is notoriously unreliable, but at least I understand where your point of view comes from.

Really, I don't know why you would care what I think about pedophiles, or why.

Click to expand...

You posted an assertion on a public forum. I replied to it because I found the assertion illogical. I tend to like explanations of assertions I find spurious so, if nothing else, I can understand why they were made. Deal with it?

kuwisdelu said:

You posted an assertion on a public forum. I replied to it because I found the assertion illogical. I tend to like explanations of assertions I find spurious so, if nothing else, I can understand why they were made. Deal with it?

Click to expand...

It's just my opinion. And since you brought it up, no, being a pedophile isn't really anything like being an adult attracted to other adults.

Celia Cyanide said:

It's just my opinion. And since you brought it up, no, being a pedophile isn't really anything like being an adult attracted to other adults.

Click to expand...

IMO, no attraction is inherently better, worse, creepier, or more evil or immoral than any other. It's how you act on them that counts.

kuwisdelu said:

IMO, no attraction is inherently better, worse, creepier, or more evil or immoral than any other. It's how you act on them that counts.

Click to expand...

And in other people's opinion, it IS creepier, but that's not really the point.

The point is, being attracted to women and not raping them is not really comparable being a pedophile and not molesting children. It's more comparable to being attracted to women, and not having any kind of sex, relationship, or flirtation with them at all.

Celia Cyanide said:

It's more comparable to being attracted to women, and not having any kind of sex, relationship, or flirtation with them at all.

Click to expand...

That actually describes an incredibly large subpopulation of people who aren't rapists as well.

You have been on the internet before, right? It's an incredibly popular hangout for such people.

kuwisdelu said:

That actually describes an incredibly large subpopulation of people who aren't rapists as well.

You have been on the internet before, right? It's an incredibly common hangout for such people.

Click to expand...

Such people? People who are attracted to women and pretend not to be? How would I even know if someone were doing that?

I'm sorry, I'm really not understanding your joke.

Celia Cyanide said:

Such people? People who are attracted to women and pretend not to be? How would I even know if someone were doing that?

Click to expand...

Actually, yeah. You might have noticed the acronym "3DPG" I've used in a couple recent threads. It stands for "3D pig disgusting." It's a common acronym on certain imageboards where you'll get ridiculed for even admitting you're attracted to 3D women. Because 2D is obviously better.

I'm sorry, I'm really not understanding your joke.

Click to expand...

You're understanding even less if you think I'm joking. What would I be joking about?

I don't know of any rational argument that any kind of attraction — in and of itself — is any better, worse, or more "moral" or "ethical" than any other.

kuwisdelu said:

Actually, yeah. You might have noticed the acronym "3DPG" I've used in a couple recent threads. It stands for "3D pig disgusting." It's a common acronym on certain imageboards where you'll get ridiculed for even admitting you're attracted to 3D women. Because 2D is obviously better.

Click to expand...

So this is who you are referring to when you were talking about talking about "attracted to women, and not having any kind of sex, relationship, or flirtation with them at all"?

kuwisdelu said:

I don't know of any rational argument that any kind of attraction — in and of itself — is any better, worse, or more "moral" or "ethical" than any other.

Click to expand...

And no one else said it was either. They just said it was creepy.

ETA: When you say things like, "You have been on the internet before, right?" I assume you are joking. At least, I hope you are, because if you're aren't, it sounds pretty condescending.

Celia Cyanide said:

So this is who you are referring to when you were talking about talking about "attracted to women, and not having any kind of sex, relationship, or flirtation with them at all"?

Click to expand...

Well, it's certainly a subset of the subpopulation. Or do you think that everyone attracted to women can have sex, relationships, and easily flirt with them?

Look, I'm not saying it's the same thing. I'm just saying that ultimately, attraction to something, arousal by something, that's all it is. It's what you do because of it that matters.

Celia Cyanide said:

ETA: When you say things like, "You have been on the internet before, right?" I assume you are joking. At least, I hope you are, because if you're aren't, it sounds pretty condescending.

Click to expand...

Ahh, that part. Yeah, I thought it was obvious that there are lots of part of the internet where people hang out who can't function socially any other way. That's one of the great things about it. Where do you think memes like "there are no girls on the internet" and the like came from?

kuwisdelu said:

Well, it's certainly a subset of the subpopulation. Or do you think that everyone attracted to women can have sex, relationships, and easily flirt with them?

Click to expand...

No, of course I don't think that. But I certainly don't think that those people are perfectly content not to, or that they don't try. I could show you messages for days from people who try and clearly have no clue how.

Celia Cyanide said:

And in other people's opinion, it IS creepier, but that's not really the point.

The point is, being attracted to women and not raping them is not really comparable being a pedophile and not molesting children. It's more comparable to being attracted to women, and not having any kind of sex, relationship, or flirtation with them at all.

Click to expand...

Agree with the last bit. Because if a pedophile sexualized a child early on they can generally get the child to "consent."

Child molestation doesn't require force or an objection from the child.

kuwisdelu said:

Well, it's certainly a subset of the subpopulation. Or do you think that everyone attracted to women can have sex, relationships, and easily flirt with them?

Look, I'm not saying it's the same thing. I'm just saying that ultimately, attraction to something, arousal by something, that's all it is. It's what you do because of it that matters.

Click to expand...

certainly.

But watching still makes you part of the process and a driver for the market. The same as the guy poking the ten year-old? No, but still part of the market.

So in the guy in canada's case, he was wrong because "watching" isn't victimless. It may beat molesting kids in your neighborhood but it contributes to the problem, and there is no way around that.

quicklime said:

But watching still makes you part of the process and a driver for the market. The same as the guy poking the ten year-old? No, but still part of the market.

Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about watching. I was talking solely about attraction and arousal.

Plenty of healthy adults get aroused by pubescent minors, but that doesn't make us statutory rapists.

I think the trouble with pedophiles is that they're often only attracted to children, which can make it very difficult to have happy romantic or sexual relationships with adults. I think attraction to pubescent minors can also be an issue if the person is only attracted to people of that age, for the same reason. It's just more common for people to be occasionally attracted to teenagers while also being attracted to adults who are past the age of majority.

DancingMaenid said:

I think the trouble with pedophiles is that they're often only attracted to children, which can make it very difficult to have happy romantic or sexual relationships with adults. I think attraction to pubescent minors can also be an issue if the person is only attracted to people of that age, for the same reason. It's just more common for people to be occasionally attracted to teenagers while also being attracted to adults who are past the age of majority.

Click to expand...

Very true. And there often seems to be some confusion about what hebephilia is for that very reason.

kuwisdelu said:

Well, not necessarily. That's why there's discussion that in the DSM-5 a distinction should made between paraphilia and paraphilic disorder. Attracted and arousal alone do not imply obsession or compulsion.

Zoombie's dragon paraphilia does not necessarily mean it's a disorder or that he has an obsessive compulsion to fuck dragons with no regard to the consequences.

Click to expand...

I don't give two fucks about Zoombie's attraction to dragons (sorry, Zoombie).

I would not equivocate pedophilia with heterosexuality or homosexuality or any kind of sexuality. Pedophilia is an obsessive compulsion. It is not simply an attraction to children.

The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has included pedophilia in its Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders since 1968.

In the DSM, which is updated periodically, pedophilia has been grouped with other paraphilias -- which the APA defines as "recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors that involve children, nonhuman subjects, or other non-consenting adults, or the suffering or humiliation of oneself or one's partner."

But the next edition of the DSM -- the DSM 5 -- may instead refer to "pedophilic disorder."

"[Pedophiles] would be diagnosed with pedophilic disorder either if their attractions toward children are causing them guilt, anxiety, alienation, or difficulty in pursuing other personal goals, or else if their urges cause them to approach children for sexual gratification in real life," Blanchard says.

http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/explaining-pedophilia

Click to expand...

So, yes, an obsessive compulsion, though not in a medical sense. Not simply an attraction. My attractions do not prevent me from functioning in day to day life and do not have the potential to harm others. But that is beyond the point. Do you think it's morally right to contribute to that "attraction" with CG child porn? I would say no, it is not alright in any sense of the word. Treat it, don't pretend it's okay to hide it.

Celia Cyanide said:

I would guess that the true percentage is actually higher than any statistics you would find.

Click to expand...

I don't doubt it. I've been looking for a real, legit statistic for a while. So far, the only one I've been able to find is 88% but I don't really trust the source.

But from a national survey:

90% of men and 86% of women have had sex in the past year

Click to expand...

http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/resources/FAQ.html

Granted this says nothing of orientation, but given the nature of pedophilia, I wouldn't shy away from using 88%.

More than anything else, I don't believe these people are evil or monsters. I pity them. And treating their disorder like it's something to hide or satisfy in private as long as there's no victim helps no-one. But I don't truly believe there's ever no victim, anyway.

thebloodfiend said:

So, yes, an obsessive compulsion, though not in a medical sense. Not simply an attraction. My attractions do not prevent me from functioning in day to day life and do not have the potential to harm others.

Click to expand...

Uhh, I cited this exactly earlier. If you actually parsed what you posted, you'd notice that paraphilia do not necessarily imply obsession. You'd note that the other relevant section you quoted is about revisions to be made in the DSM-5 that would distinguish between pedophilia and pedophilic disorder, as a recognition that pedophilia, as a paraphilia, does not necessarily reflect all of the components of pedophilic disorder, which are described in your quote. This distinction does not currently exist in the DSM-IV.

But that is beyond the point. Do you think it's morally right to contribute to that "attraction" with CG child porn? I would say no, it is not alright in any sense of the word. Treat it, don't pretend it's okay to hide it.I don't doubt it.

Click to expand...

If it's not actually hurting someone or directly contributing to a conspiracy to hurt someone, I don't think it should be illegal. I don't think it's immoral, either, whether you jack off to a CG child or a CG dragon, until you go molesting them. I don't think fantasizing about having sex with children is any worse than fantasizing about eating your wife. Just don't actually do either of them.