[I]The following is a transcript of various conversations that took place on another user's journal (now deleted)on the website FurAffinity. Out of fairness and respect for privacy, I will not use the participants' real usernames here. All names besides mine will be aliases. However, since the conversations themselves were posted where anyone could read them, there should be no problem with me reprinting them. I have not edited other's posts in any way. I have edited only three words of my own posts, purely to make my meaning clearer. Spelling and grammar errors are as they originally appeared. I will attempt to arrange conversations chronologically, but I will make allowances for clarity. Also, even there were many, many interesting discussions going on in this journal, I will only reprint those that I actually participated in.

Conversations will be divided by '~~~~~~~~~~' and posts divided by '***'.[/i]




~~~~~~~~~~

[b]BLUE[/b]
 Dear FA admins.
Why is cub porn still allowed to be posted on FA?

Some might say "FREEDUMB OF EXPURRSHIN"...really though.. what are you expressing?
What is this "freedom of expression" when applied to cub porn?
There is an obvious attraction to youth, sexual and non-sexual or such an image would not be drawn. You don't draw something casually unless you have an interest in it. Either big or small.
I think scat porn is disgusting, therefore I would never draw it.

There are laws now, banning art depicting children in sexual situations.
Why is it a double standard for cub porn?
Would it be different if the child had cat ears and a cat tail?
Does it really matter when the base of it all is... a child depicted in sexual situations?

I've personally seen people on this site that draw/like cub porn, talk about real life child porn in very, very questionable ways. It's disgusting, it's filthy. Yet they're somehow allowed to stay on the site because it's DRAWN and "make believe hurrr"

People that enjoy cub porn don't like it because oh hey look it's a kitten. Awww cute. Oh look that's a cute puppy.
They like it because of the age of the characters involved. They're sexually attracted to young characters. Is that not questionable to anybody else on this site?
Really?

Is it really "Freedom of Expression" when we're allowing those who are sexually attracted to young characters to have free roam of the site? Or is it just the furry fandom opening it's doors to anybody that doesn't feel safe letting their fetishes into the public.

I'm rambling.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
First off, let me get this off my chest: You have photos of actual dead, skinned animals on this website ...and you're complaining about [i]CARTOONS!?[/i]

I'm sorry, but practically everything you have said here is wrong. Let's examine it point by point, shall we? I'll try my best to be civil, but I'll let you know right now I'm seeing red over this.

>Why is cub porn still allowed to be posted on FA?

Because there's absolutely nothing morally wrong with it.
Because the majority of people think a ban would be wrong.
Because this country, unlike some others, actually understands that valuing the idea of free speech means you must protect speech [i]which you most disagree with.[/i]

>What is this "freedom of expression" when applied to cub porn?

You're assuming that cub porn can only express bad things. This is because you don't personally like it. But what gives you the right to declare that your opinions deserve to be treated as fact? MOST cub porn I've seen evokes feelings of happiness, playfulness, closeness, warm feelings, etc.. In almost all cub porn, the artist/writer is identifying with the CUB, not the adult. It's a desire to recapture the happy feelings of youth, and also apply them to one's sexuality. It's no different than fetishizing any other object or emotion.

You're also assuming that people have a choice to have a cub fetish. If something is evil, then it must be a choice. It can't be evil if you have no control over it. Also, did you choose to be a furry? Did you choose to be gay? Then why would you assume people who draw cub art choose their sexuality either?

>There is an obvious attraction to youth, sexual and non-sexual or such an image would not be drawn. You don't draw something casually unless you have an interest in it. Either big or small.

Let's apply this logic to YOU then. Because after all, you should never make a judgment against anyone else unless you believe it would also be fair if applied to yourself in the same situation. (For example, that drug abuser Rush Limbaugh saying all drug abusers should get hard prison terms, except him.)

You said [i]"People that enjoy cub porn don't like it because oh hey look it's a kitten. Awww cute. Oh look that's a cute puppy. They like it because of the age of the characters involved."[/i]

[b][Sarcasm mode on][/b]
Now, obviously you have an unhealthy obsession with injured/bleeding animals, since you have favorited such images multiple times [examples given in original post], and have drawn such images several times yourself [examples given].
This can only mean that you have an animal cruelty fetish; that seeing animals in pain sexually excites you. This must be true, because like cub porn, there is no possible reason you would have drawn/favorited these images unless you wanted to repeat this behavior in real life.

Also, you want to be involved in a car accident and then skinned, and you also want to do this to other people, as proven by the many, many times you have drawn this [examples given], and by the uncountable photographs of dead animals you have in your gallery.
This can only mean that you have an animal necrophilia fetish; that seeing dead animals sexually excites you. And since you have drawn others dead, that proves you are a potential murderer. This must be true, because like cub porn, there is no possible reason you would have drawn/favorited these images unless you wanted to repeat this behavior in real life.

And lastly, you are obviously into bestiality, since you have favorited it so many times [examples given] and drawn it so many times [examples given]. Now there's no use claiming otherwise, since all those images depict animals in sexual situations. And even if they are anthropomorphic, it's obvious that you're not looking at these images because you're gay, but because you want to have gay sex with animals. This must be true, because like cub porn, there is no possible reason you would have drawn/favorited these images unless you wanted to repeat this behavior in real life.
[b][Sarcasm mode off][/b]

It's suddenly different when it's YOU who are the subject of horrible, untrue, offensive accusations, isn't it? Is ANY of what I just said fair to you? Of course not. So can you begin to understand why maybe I don't like being accused of wanting to rape children? Can you begin to understand why maybe I don't like being accused of wanting to look at real child porn? Can you begin to understand that there are many other reasons for drawing or looking at an image besides wanting to go out and do it for real? It's as idiotic as claiming that the only reason anyone would ever play a violent video game is that they want to murder people for real.

Personally, taxidermy makes me nauseous and many of your photos make me feel like I need to vomit. I literally cannot understand why anyone would want this as a hobby. But unless I found evidence that you were actually killing animals for skins, I would [b]NEVER[/b] advocate this site removing your photos. I understand that my own personal disgust is not sufficient reason to deny someone else their freedom of speech.

Plus, you'd think by now that people on FA would realize that if you kinkbash, anyone can look through your gallery and favorites to see if you've been hypocritical. I was frankly surprised to see nothing which I could twist into cub porn in your gallery (although I'll bet a prosecutor raiding your computer could find *something* to falsely label underage porn). I actually debated another FAer who was shouting about the need to ban cub porn. Looked in her favorites and what did I see? You guessed it! She said she'd only favorited those for the quality of the art. I told her that if she were on trial, she'd never be allowed to use that as a defense.

>There are laws now, banning art depicting children in sexual situations.
Why is it a double standard for cub porn?

Those laws are based purely on church morality and not on rationality.

Before you argue with that idea, answer these questions:

1: If it is acceptable to ban [u]drawn[/u] images of child pornography, then why should we not ban all fictional portrayals of criminal acts? For instance, banning action movies and Steven King novels because they depict murder?

2: Why is it legal to own photographic evidence of any other crime except child sexual abuse? If you own crime scene photos of murder victims, that's legal. I believe it's even legal to own photos/video of a rape being committed. (The only exception I can think of is snuff films. Which means that it's okay to own footage of a murder so long as the murder was not motivated by sex.)

>Would it be different if the child had cat ears and a cat tail?
Does it really matter when the base of it all is... a child depicted in sexual situations?

Why do you believe that children are 'sexually innocent'?

I'll tell you why; because you've been TOLD to believe it. Whereas in reality, there is no objective evidence that proves this. In fact, any child psychologist will know that the *opposite* is true. A child's genitals will register touch the exact same way an adult's will. If you keep all sexual imagery away from a child, they will still figure out masturbation on their own. Children in nudist colonies grow up completely normal and in fact usually have *healthier* self-images than the rest of us. And even if you did keep all images of genitals away from children, they can still look down at any time and see THEIR OWN. In fact, if you talk to someone who counsels children who've been raped, they'll tell you that children often have to be reassured that, if they felt something enjoyable during the experience, it doesn't mean it was their fault. Adult rape victims are told this too. There is no difference: anyone's genitals, regardless of age, are wired to register touch as pleasure. Sexual innocence is a complete myth and always has been.

I'll prove it even further: Do [u]you[/u] remember any time in your childhood when you touched your own genitals and it caused pain and feelings of shame? I mean, without anyone first telling you that you OUGHT to feel that way? I certainly never did. And aside from a friend I know who had a foreskin deformity, no one I've asked ever did either.

A study published by the American Psychological Association found that "[i]...child sexual abuse does not necessarily cause intense, pervasive harm to the child; that the reason the current view of child sexual abuse was not substantiated by empirical scrutiny was because the construct of CSA was questionably valid; and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on whether the encounter was consensual or not.[/i]" In other words, the common perception of child sexual abuse is wrong in many ways.

Now I have to point this out (sad as it is that I need to), but raping a child is wrong. Yet is all sex rape? If two gay men have sex, is that automatically rape? Well, according to many clergymen and psychologists decades ago, yes it was. It was common knowledge that homosexuality was a sickness and that it was impossible for homosexuals to feel real love. People KNEW this, with ABSOLUTE moral certainty. And centuries before that, it was common knowledge that women had no sexuality at all. There are still people today who think the female orgasm is a myth. So why do we think our current ideas on child sexuality are perfect and will never change?

After all, if age of consent laws were perfectly moral, then they would all be the same. Instead, they range from anywhere between 12 and 18. If memory serves, under certain circumstances you can get legally married in New York at 13. I assume that also means [i]consummating[/i] the marriage. So, under extremely narrow circumstances, [u]it is legal in the united states to fuck a thirteen year old.[/u] (I know for sure my own state allows fourteen year olds to marry.) And before the 1900s, the age of consent in both the UK and America was TEN. Oh, and explain the logic of how, in some areas of the United states, you are considered mature enough to drive a car, join the military and [i]fly a goddamn plane[/i], yet at the same time, cannot legally consent to sex.

I'm not saying this to argue that having sex with children isn't morally wrong. ([i]Even if there may not be physical harm, there still would be psychological, since children have grown up *believing* in things like 'bad touches'. It's similar to how, if you fed a Muslim some pork, it would not cause them any physical harm, since the danger is all in their mind, but the *belief* is so strong it could cause great psychological trauma.[/i]) I just want to show that our morality on this issue is nowhere near as set in stone as you might think. It could change completely in a decade.

Keep in mind that a century ago, YOU, as a gay man, would be arrested for the crime of being yourself. You might be dragged from your house and lynched and no one would care. And why? Because the church teaches that homosexuality is evil. Which is why you can't get married today. Because the [u]church[/u] arbitrarily decided that all sex is bad, and gay sex is worse. [u]And the church is the source of our belief that child sexuality is evil too.[/u] (...unless you're raping a child while wearing a cross, that is.)

You think it's moral to ban cub art. Would you also agree it was moral if this site decided to ban all gay art and all gay artists because being gay is sinful? Would you agree it was moral if Congress passed a law making it illegal to create or possess sexual images depicting anthropomorphic animals? And don't you dare blow those questions off. I was on a furry forum that all of a sudden banned all mention of homosexuality because the webmaster believed it was an 'evil lifestyle' and that discussing it would be 'harmful to children'. And keep in mind that there were still sodomy laws in America [u]up until 2003!!![/u] If the circumstances were just a little bit different, YOU could EASILY face jail time or forced psychological confinement for being gay or a furry. So maybe you should THINK a little bit before you make the claim that anyone who looks at cub porn is evil. TO [u]PLENTY[/u] OF OTHER PEOPLE, YOU ARE JUST AS MUCH A SICK FUCK AS ANY PEDOPHILE.

>Is it really "Freedom of Expression" when we're allowing those who are sexually attracted to young characters to have free roam of the site?

Yes, it is. It absolutely is. And freedom of expression is [u]far[/u] more important to me than what someone else jerks off to.



[i]BTW, just in case you were about to accuse me of being a child-molester or anything like that, you could do it all day long and it still wouldn't invalidate a single one of my arguments.[/i]


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]GREEN[/b]
^^^^^^ does this guy know what morals are

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Do you?

***

[b]GREEN[/b]
Hello no I fuck dogs and children and even my sister and i even snuck into the white house once and peed on Obamas pillow.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
<blinks, speechless>

...okay, that comment was completely unexpected. You win this round, se¤or.

***

[b]GREEN[/b]
penis x3


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]SKYBLUE[/b]
I was waiting or you. I was staying up JUST so you could reply to this. Thank you Alex!

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Hey hey! I didn't even know you were here! Glad I didn't disappoint. <takes a small bow>

***

[b]SKYBLUE[/b]
You never seem to. Hehe, I even invited CRIMSON over here to join the argument. I love seeing what you guys have to say. Only reason I haven't posed a credible argument of my own is because I'm tired ind irritable. Not in an augmentative state at the moment.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
It helps that I've already exhaustively researched this subject. It's AMAZING how people always think society's current morals are eternal. Yet the reality is they shift more than hourglass sand.

For instance, throughout [i]most[/i] of human history, polygamy was the norm. And now we call monogamous marriages 'traditional'. It's hilarious!

***

[b]SKYBLUE[/b]
I know. But nobody goes out to seek the actual truth these days. Only traditions, hearsay, and 'the norm' which is never actually normal because it's always shifting. Facts are so rarely sought out thru logic and only really supported by personal biaas or opinion, which...in itself, no longer makes it fact. That's what's basically been in this whole journal. It's about "I feel" and not about "What is" which is, for some reason, quite often confused.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
WOW. I'm awed, dude. You've managed in a single paragraph to be twenty times more eloquent than my entire monster post. <lots and lots of applause>

***

[b]SKYBLUE[/b]
Taking a Critical Thinking Course in my one semester in Devry really did help me out a LOT in life. x3

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Why such a subject is not mandatory for grade-schoolers, I do not know.

***

[b]SKYBLUE[/b]
I asked the same question to myself ALL the time.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]RED[/b]
there are still sodomy laws, one is in michigan at the moment.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Really? <googles dat shit> Sweet fuck! I thought the supreme court declared them all unconstitutional. Well, considering Ferndale, it's obviously not enforced. I used to bike to school through there and play 'count the rainbow flags'.

***

[b]ORANGE[/b]
"Declared unconstitutional and thus no longer enforced" does not imply "erased off the books." It is harder to repeal a law than it is to simply agree never to enforce it, which is why we have unconscionably absurd laws still on the books in just about every part of the world that uses a similar legal system.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
True dat. If I were emperor, I would SO get rid of enough laws to fill a schoolbus.

***

[b]ORANGE[/b]
I would make it a core part of the legal system that every law, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, must be re-ratified every 20 years or it is repealed by default. Lawmakers can instead ratify an amended version of the law if they decide it needs to change to keep up with changing values. Segments of the Constitution of whatever nation I become emperor of would have the ratification deadline extended to 50 years, since it's assumed they're meant to be longer-lasting core concepts of legality.

This way, legislators would have something to do each year besides make up new useless laws and pet projects. They'd be forced to do their job: actually evaluating and improving the system of laws, rather than piling more complexities on top of it.

I'd also probably add some provision for a maximum word count on a law, along with other provisions designed to make it so the average citizen can, with a bit of study, understand all the laws that might apply to them.

Knowledge of the law should not be the exclusive domain of people whose sole profession is to know the law. Every citizen should have opportunity to know all laws that potentially apply to them.

And if I were remaking the legal system from scratch like this, I would set the laws' creation dates back, spreading them out over the past 20 years, so lawmakers wouldn't have 19 years of little work and then 1 year of frenetic re-ratification.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]GREY[/b]
[i]>Why is cub porn still allowed to be posted on FA?

Because there's absolutely nothing morally wrong with it.
Because the majority of people think a ban would be wrong.
Because this country, unlike some others, actually understands that valuing the idea of free speech means you must protect speech which you most disagree with.[/i]

1. How is child pornography not morally wrong? I'm curious.
2. Can you back up the fact that a majority would believe that? I doubt it.
3. You're free to say whatever you like about it, but you are not free to own child pornography or produce it "irl". Why should it be any less illegal if you cover the children with fur?

***
[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>How is child pornography not morally wrong? I'm curious.

Because it is not morally wrong to draw a cartoon character being killed, so therefore it cannot be morally wrong to draw a cartoon character being fucked.

>Can you back up the fact that a majority would believe that? I doubt it.

Actually, I can do it easily. FA tried to ban cub art before; a majority of users said 'no'.

>Why should it be any less illegal if you cover the children with fur?

Because children with fur DON'T EXIST. Therefore it's impossible to abuse them.

Also, since when does something being illegal make it immoral? Marijuana is provably less harmful than alcohol or tobacco, but it is legal. Using a cell phone while driving is provably dangerous, yet isn't illegal (yet).

***
[b]GREY[/b]
[i]Actually, I can do it easily. FA tried to ban cub art before; a majority of users said 'no'.[/i]

I was hoping for some actual evidence for that, but okay.

Our morals obviously differ greatly. I won't get into a big argument over it. Rather pointless, since I don't see either of us budging.

***
[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>I was hoping for some actual evidence for that, but okay.

Fair enough. Actually, I just looked and I'm not seeing anything more than a lot of journals describing it. I suppose you could ask ADMIN1 or ADMIN2 about it.

>Our morals obviously differ greatly. I won't get into a big argument over it. Rather pointless, since I don't see either of us budging.

If you could prove me wrong with evidence, I would. I only believe as strongly as I do because of the research I've done.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]YELLOW[/b]
[i]This can only mean that you have an animal cruelty fetish; that seeing animals in pain sexually excites you. This must be true, because like cub porn, there is no possible reason you would have drawn/favorited these images unless you wanted to repeat this behavior in real life.[/i]

Cub porn drawn depicting minors having sex for the purpose of providing masturbatory aid compared to images involving absolutely no sexual content, I'm sorry but shouldn't have to explain the flaw in your argument here.

[i]1: If it is acceptable to ban drawn images of child pornography, then why should we not ban all fictional portrayals of criminal acts? For instance, banning action movies and Steven King novels because they depict murder?[/i]

Those examples of portrayals of criminal acts are made for the purpose of storytelling.
Cub porn is made so that you can whack off to it.

The rest of your post wasn't really posing any new counterpoints aside from some really stretched out and blatant shit-slinging, along with what I believe may have been a bit of psychobabble.

***

[b]YELLOW[/b]
And god damn, reading over it now the entire second part of that post seems to be saying something along the lines of "BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT THOUGHT BEING GAY WAS WRONG ONCE UPON A TIME IT MEANS THE GOVERNMENT IS STUPID AND THE CHURCH AND STUFF AND I SHOULD BE ABLE TO PUT MY DICK IN A MINOR."

I'm sorry, but I think there is something very wrong with you.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>Cub porn drawn depicting minors having sex for the purpose of providing masturbatory aid compared to images involving absolutely no sexual content, I'm sorry but shouldn't have to explain the flaw in your argument here.

If you don't understand that I was making that argument out of sarcasm, then you really shouldn't say I'm flawed.

Also, how many images on this very site contain no genitals or sex but are still considered porn? Inflation, transformation, mind control, etc. And how do YOU know BLUE doesn't consider it porn? If you found out he did, would you still defend it?

>Those examples of portrayals of criminal acts are made for the purpose of storytelling.
Cub porn is made so that you can whack off to it.

And what if you're wrong? In Steven King's "It", there's a long scene where a bunch of kids all fuck each other in the sewer. Is this morally acceptable, because it is important to the story? Or immoral, because someone could whack off to it?

>The rest of your post wasn't really posing any new counterpoints aside from some really stretched out and blatant shit-slinging, along with what I believe may have been a bit of psychobabble.

I'm not surprised at all that you didn't understand it. <large, patronizing smile>

***

[b]YELLOW[/b]
[i]If you don't understand that I was making that argument out of sarcasm, then you really shouldn't say I'm flawed.[/i]

Attempting sarcasm on the internet is a great way to make yourself look like an idiot.

[i]Also, how many images on this very site contain no genitals or sex but are still considered porn? Inflation, transformation, mind control, etc.[/i]

Those are fetishes.
They're in the porn category.
So yes, people jack off to them. They're not immoral, so it isn't wrong.

[i]And how do YOU know BLUE doesn't consider it porn? If you found out he did, would you still defend it?[/i]

No, I wouldn't. I don't support getting off over cruelty to animals.
Regardless of whether someone somewhere may be jacking off to clean art with gore in it, it's still not made with the intention of being pornographic like cub porn is.

[i]And what if you're wrong? In Steven King's "It", there's a long scene where a bunch of kids all fuck each other in the sewer. Is this morally acceptable, because it is important to the story? Or immoral, because someone could whack off to it?[/i]

I'm at the point here where I just want to say "Fuck you" and be done with it.
Cub porn is pornographic content, made with the purpose of giving someone a stiffy, and [i]NOTHING[/i] else.
Steven King's "It" is a horror novel? (I'm guessing, haven't read it) The scene is most likely crafted to horrify or otherwise gross out the reader, not give them a stiffy or glorify child orgies in any way.

[i]I'm not surprised at all that you didn't understand it. <large, patronizing smile>[/i]

I understood it perfectly. You slung shit and then suggested that the illegal status of adult->child sexual relations was stupid because blah blah blah the church and gays, because it's something you obviously care a lot about.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>Attempting sarcasm on the internet is a great way to make yourself look like an idiot.

...which is why I pointed out exactly where I was being sarcastic and even [b]put it in bold.[/b] And yet you STILL didn't realize it, apparently. Who, exactly, looks like a jackass?

>Those are fetishes.
>So yes, people jack off to them. They're not immoral, so it isn't wrong.

Right. And those fetishes are moral, yet cub porn is immoral... why? Oh, because you say so. Right, right.

>No, I wouldn't. I don't support getting off over cruelty to animals.

But if he [i]draws[/i] it, and [i]doesn't[/i] get off to it, then it's okay?

>it's still not made with the intention of being pornographic like cub porn is.

So you are perfectly okay with artists who draw cubs, so long as they do not intend those images to be pornographic?

What if the cubs are artistically nude?

>I'm at the point here where I just want to say "Fuck you" and be done with it.

It's probably because I'm poking holes in your logic more mercilessly than nayone else you've ever talked to, isn't it? Sorry, amigo, but if you're going to talk morals with me than I expect CONSISTENCY.

>The scene is most likely crafted to horrify or otherwise gross out the reader, not give them a stiffy or glorify child orgies in any way.

MOST LIKELY, you say! But what if it isn't? What if King put that in because he secretly LOVES the idea of little kids fucking in a sewer? Should every copy of this book be pulled off the shelves? Should his work be banned? Should he be jailed?

>I understood it perfectly. You slung shit and then suggested that the illegal status of adult->child sexual relations was stupid because blah blah blah the church and gays,

If I 'slung shit' the intent was not to insult, but to try to make BLUE empathize. I subjected him to exactly what he subjected me, as a cub artist, to with his journal. I believe that's fair.

And I didn't say it was [u]stupid[/u]. I said it was so inconsistent as to be morally useless.

>because it's something you obviously care a lot about.

Why yes, I do care a lot about the evilness of making laws based on religious morality instead of reason. Thank you for noticing.

***

[b]YELLOW[/b]
[i]Right. And those fetishes are moral, yet cub porn is immoral... why? Oh, because you say so. Right, right.[/i]

Because when you get rid of the fur, it's a depiction of sexual abuse towards a child, pure and simple.
Exactly how dumb do you have to be not to see that?

[i]So you are perfectly okay with artists who draw cubs, so long as they do not intend those images to be pornographic?[/i]

If the images aren't pornographic then sure, I really couldn' are less.

[i]What if the cubs are artistically nude?[/i]

If it's *really* artistic nude, not just labeled that for the sake of sneaking pornograpic pinups under the radar.

[i]It's probably because I'm poking holes in your logic more mercilessly than nayone else you've ever talked to, isn't it? Sorry, amigo, but if you're going to talk morals with me than I expect CONSISTENCY.[/i]

It's because the idea that someone like you exists makes me want to vomit my guts up, your arguments are idiotic, and I really hate the fact that you can constantly spew out idiotic counterpoints with such smugness. All you have achieved in the several walls of text you have posted is making me consider you to be a rather dull witted, disgusting pervert.

[i]MOST LIKELY, you say! But what if it isn't? What if King put that in because he secretly LOVES the idea of little kids fucking in a sewer? Should every copy of this book be pulled off the shelves? Should his work be banned? Should he be jailed?[/i]

MASSIVE Strawman fallacy alert here.

[i]If I 'slung shit' the intent was not to insult, but to try to make BLUE empathize. I subjected him to exactly what he subjected me, as a cub artist, to with his journal. I believe that's fair.

And I didn't say it was stupid. I said it was so inconsistent as to be morally useless.[/i]

You tried to use as many sources as you could as a scapegoat to try and say the law against pedophilia is wrong. You didn't provide anything enlightening or useful with those comments, other than the fact that you have a rather broken opinion of morality should never be trusted for anything.

[i]Why yes, I do care a lot about the evilness of making laws based on religious morality instead of reason. Thank you for noticing.[/i]

But the law IS based on reason. You're just using ancient laws as a scapegoat to try and trick people into thinking you're proving a point.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>It's because the idea that someone like you exists makes me want to vomit my guts up, your arguments are idiotic, and I really hate the fact that you can constantly spew out idiotic counterpoints with such smugness. All you have achieved in the several walls of text you have posted is making me consider you to be a rather dull witted, disgusting pervert.

And thus, the cycle is complete.

Whenever I debate folks like you, you always seem to go only three or four replies before degenerating into insult. Because it's all you can do anymore. You're no longer adding anything to this discussion; you're just attacking my replies or repeating your same points from before.

The simple fact is, your morality is extremely situational. You'll believe one set of circumstances is moral, and another with no measurable difference is immoral. Why? Because you WANT to. That's your only justification. Anyone can see it now, and that's all I wanted to do: give you a shovel and let you dig your own grave in front of everyone else.

Unless you suddenly become more interesting, I'm probably not going to reply to you anymore. Please don't mistake my exit for cowardice or tiredness; there's just nothing more I can do to you at this point. I'm perfectly happy to let your words speak for myself.

Have a nice day.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]YELLOW (to RED)[/b]
That's a wonderful anecdote, but you're not proving anything.
If there's a solution to pedophilia, it's definitely not providing them with material to fantasize over.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Sorry to eavesdrop, but...

"If there's a solution to pedophilia, it's definitely not providing them with material to fantasize over."

The irony of that statement is just staggering. Having something to fantasize over is what keeps *most* pedophiles in their homes and not fucking around with children. REPRESSION is what often makes people snap. Seriously; just ask a chastity fetishist if their devices make them more horny or less.

***

[b]YELLOW[/b]
And of course, the rather flawed idea that "If they fap, they don't pork children" is the only solution. Ever. Clearly.

OH GOD I'M SEEING YOUR BRILLIANT LOGIC NOW.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>the rather flawed idea that "If they fap, they don't pork children" is the only solution. Ever. Clearly.

And you accuse ME of strawmanning? <giggle>


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]JET[/b]
well written :)

Unfortunately BLUE is a troll

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Oh, I know. I just really needed to get something like this out of my system tonight. I almost have to thank him. ;)


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]CHARTREUSE[/b]
oh gotta go fave some of those gallery entries.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Ain't controversy fun? I've gained three watchers from a single post!

***

[b]GREEN[/b]
make that four.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Actually, it's up to eleven by now.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]GOLD (to SKYBLUE)[/b]
Banning art that purposely depicts child sex (even if it's in cartoony form) for the purpose of arousing the viewer (really..what other reason is there?) is a bad thing? o.O;

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Sorry to intrude, but I just thought I'd offer something to think about:

Why is it that most of the images/words/ideas we consider acceptable to ban have to do with sex and not violence? (I'm not talking about action, just thoughts.) Have you ever heard of a movement to ban furry guro art? And why is it okay to show children a violent movie but not a pornographic one? Do we regard violence as more *normal* than sex?

***

[b]GOLD[/b]
Well as with explicit sexual content, I can't say I'd be real open to seeing a kid character being brutalized either :c and in regards to media in general I personally wouldn't subject a young person to a particularly violent film or videogame. But that's just me. At any rate, we're not initially discussing whether or not it's a good idea to show this material to children.

On another note, I'm ALMOST curious enough to inquire further as to what "guro" art is.. but something tells me I may regret the response XP

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>But that's just me.

A very sensible approach.

>At any rate, we're not initially discussing whether or not it's a good idea to show this material to children.

I know, it was just an interesting thought.

>I'm ALMOST curious enough to inquire further as to what "guro" art is

Violent, bloody stuff. sometimes considered porn, sometimes not.

***

[b]GOLD[/b]
Ah. Okay thankyou :3


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]CORAL[/b]
Talk about double standards, BLUE.

You were even [b]banned for having sex with a minor and publicly announcing it.[/b]
You have DRAWN cub porn, and conveniently, it looks as if you have deleted it all from your gallery. I bet anyone with common sense can browse through your favorites and find it there, instead.
You defended cub porn (not to mention beastiality among other things), saying it was a-ok as long as it WAS NOT REAL and just artwork of said topic.

Am I the only one who remembers this shit?

Rape and murder is against the law too. Shouldn't THAT be banned? Its a fetish, yeah, but it is still against the law.
Not to mention you have pictures of dead and skinned animals all over your page. Like THAT couldn't offend someone. Especially that oh-soooo-sexy dog with no skin on his face icon of yours.

I'm starting to think you're causing drama just for the sake of pageviews. God damn, you're a whore.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
My smile cannot contain the insane amounts of joy I feel at reading this. I wanna hug you, man.

If I had a hypocrisy fetish, my boner would be a danger to airplanes right now. :D


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]PINK (to SKYBLUE)[/b]
there is no argument. it's porn. it's not "freedom" of any sort. it's PORNOGRAPHY.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
You know who else believes pornography isn't a valid form of human expression?

Old, fat, horrible Republican senators.

:3

***

[b]PINK[/b]
i don't believe we should rely on pornography to "express" anything. that shows a definite problem.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>i don't believe we should rely on pornography to "express" anything. that shows a definite problem.

Why do you believe this? I've seen pornographic stories that had wonderful plots and characterization, and others that were as goofy and unrealistic as any action movie. To me, it's no different than any other genre of art, literature or music.

And yes, I'll agree there's not too much art involved in a video of people just fucking for two hours. Yes, it exists solely to arouse. But frankly, I'm WAY more offended by some stupid Hollywood studio movie whose only purpose is to make money. I can't see how they're any different.

***

[b]PINK[/b]
i think that just gives a bad stigma. as it says on my page, no fetish bothers me at all. and i don't even care if someone likes cub art, but it bothers me how strongly people defend pornography. it's disturbing.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>but it bothers me how strongly people defend pornography. it's disturbing.

I can understand that. But look at tit his way: do other forms of expression which are widely accepted *need* defending?

***

[b]PINK[/b]
i suppose not, but i dunno, i just don't think this is something that should be used as a form of expression...i mean, there are other sites you can find it on without furaffinity...

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
I just looked at my last post, and I accidentally wrote 'tit'. What a magnificent Freudian slip.

***

[b]PINK[/b]
i didn't even see... :v until now


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]PINK[/b]
alex, i have nothing against you, but you are so WORDSWORDSWORDS that i don't think many people read :U

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
O RLY? I'm sure that's why, when I did a weekly journal rant about various issues for the past half a year or so, they attracted more comments and watchers than I can count. I write novels too. So somebody's reading my shit. ;)

***

[b]PINK[/b]
well, then you have dumb people like me who are overwhelmed by that many words. dumb it down for some of us! :P

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
LOL! Okay then:

CUB PORN AIN'T WRONG 'CUZ IT'S A GODDAM CARTOON, EVERYPEOPLES!

;)

***

[b]PINK[/b]
see i can get that :3


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]FUSCHIA[/b]
you win +9001 internets

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Oh Christ! Where will I keep them!?

***

[b]FUSCHIA[/b]
....
on a computer, duh :U


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]MAROON[/b]
[i]Yes, it is. It absolutely is. And freedom of expression is far more important to me than what someone else jerks off to.[/i]

I'm sorry, but when people freely expresses (artwork, writing fiction or whatever) they love it when others fuck/have sex/abuse children and the society openly accepts it, I hope hell freezes on earth and 2012 happens for what fucked up we have become.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Okay; you can have the end of the world. I'll be over here masturbating all over my freedom.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]BROWN[/b]
Okay, so basically you're a butthurt pedophile that's run out of fodder to defend himself with.
Thanks for clearing that up.

***

[b]BROWN[/b]
[i]Why do you believe that children are 'sexually innocent'?[/i]
p.s. You cannot even begin to understand how disgusting and criminally wrong that question is.
You need to be arrested.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>Okay, so basically you're a butthurt pedophile that's run out of fodder to defend himself with.

<smiles wistfully> What robust arguments you've mustered to refute my points. I am overwhelmed by your unassailable logic.

>You cannot even begin to understand how disgusting and criminally wrong that question is.

Science proves otherwise, sorry. I really couldn't care less how disgusted you are; your disgust cannot change reality.

>You need to be arrested.

You believe I need to be arrested for having a different opinion than you? My, my. I think that says a lot more about you than it does me.

The only way to make my ideas go away is by disproving them. I'm sorry, but your outrage is not a substitute for evidence.

***

[b]BROWN[/b]
LMAO OH
Actually, there's this little thing called [b]ALL ANIMALS WAIT FOR SEXUAL MATURAITY BEFORE MATING.[/b]
Getting hot and bothered over children is [i][b]not[/b][/i] natural. Just because [i]you[/i] feel it, and [i]you[/i] can't control it, does not mean that it is a normal human function.
People hate you. [b]Get over it.[/b]

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Actually, people don't hate me. The MAJORITY of comments I have received have been positive. I have gained eleven watchers because of my comments here.

And besides, YOU DRAW SHOTACON, SO WHERE THE FUCK DO YOU GET OFF? AT LEAST I DON'T DRAW MYSELF FUCKING HUMAN CHILDREN, YOU DISGUSTING SICKO!

***

[b]BROWN[/b]
I know it's wrong, and I [i]don't like it because they're children.[/i] At least I can admit to that.
p.s. YOUR OWN PEOPLE LIKE YOU, obviously. Brilliant deduction.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
My own people? You mean people who I'd never met before until this very discussion?

And EXCUSE me!? You know it's wrong, but you draw it anyway? And you think I oughhta be arrested? I'm sorry, but I'm not gonna be a party to your self-hating mind games. People who draw themselves stuffing their dick in a child's eye socket shouldn't throw stones, allright? You are not worth any more of my time.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]SEAGREEN[/b]
could you do me a favor and please stop conflating pedophilia and homosexuality in any context whatsoever. thanks. peace.

***

[b]SEAGREEN[/b]
P.S. it's illegal to own images of child rape because the dissemination of the images contributes to the abuse of the child it's really not a difficult concept to grasp (if you're not fucking dumb [you're fucking dumb])

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>could you do me a favor and please stop conflating pedophilia and homosexuality in any context whatsoever. thanks. peace.

Sorry, but no one's offense is ever going to make me stop telling the truth.

There is not a single thing that we 'know' about pedophilia today that our society didn't believe just as completely about homosexuals fifty years ago. People believed that all fags were mentally ill rapists who seduced little boys. Does this fact prove we'll one day accept pedophiles with open arms? Of course not. It only heavily implies that we shouldn't be so quick to assume our current morality will last forever.

Tell me: do you think pedophilia is wrong because you've thoroughly researched the issue yourself? Or because everyone else thinks that it's wrong? Where does your belief that pedophilia is wrong [i]come from[/i]? It's worthwhile to examine the origin of our beliefs.

>because the dissemination of the images contributes to the abuse of the child

Allright, that is true. However, I still think it's unfair for someone who merely possesses these images, and did not participate in the crime at all, to be put in jail. A fine, maybe. But not having to register as a damn sex offender. Arrest the people profiting from it, though. absolutely. No one should make money off suffering.

Let's imagine a scenario: Someone downloads a bunch of porn off an imageboard. A few of the people in the pictures happen to be underage. Now, legally, this person is in possession of child pornography and could be jailed. But should he? Especially if there was no intent?

(And before you say, 'He should be able to tell the difference', I fucking DARE you to check out [url=http://www.zipperfish.com/free/quiz/likejailbait.php]this flash[/url].)

***

[b]SEAGREEN[/b]
+1 to the people who think you're a disgusting sociopath (it's me [i think you're a disgusting sociopath])

***
[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
That's nice. I think green peppers are disgusting on pizza, but I'm sure you don't care about that either.

***

[b]SEAGREEN[/b]
no matter how much you wrap your affliction in a narrative of persecution the fact of the matter is you're advocating for child abuse and the majority of people, deriving their personal views from a variety of sources, find that repugnant and for good reason. don't be so vain so as to pretend it's something personal. people don't dislike you, they don't even dislike the fact that [i]you're a pedophile[/i], they dislike the fact that your existence contributes to a bad thing that happens to real people.

***
[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>they dislike the fact that your existence contributes to a bad thing that happens to real people.

I would love watching you prove that statement using non-circular logic, backed up by evidence.

***

[b]SEAGREEN[/b]
keep dreaming.

***

[b]SEAGREEN[/b]
hey i'm not going to be quizzed on where my aversion to pedophilia originates from. sorry for not indulging you but it's pretty self-evident to any non-pedophile why everything you're saying is nothing more than apologizing for child abuse. it's pathetic. you're a living, breathing, logical fallacy. these things should be self-evident to you, or would be if not for the fact that this is all just an elaborate facade that exists for no reason other than to rationalize your predilection for child porn. that's why i'm not going to indulge you in it, because any critical engagement with it will only reinforce it. you're not a guy born with advanced sensibilities out of place in our time. you're not the vanguard of a movement to liberate our sexually repressed children. you're a pedophile. deal with it. get help.

***
[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>hey i'm not going to be quizzed on where my aversion to pedophilia originates from.

Why? Afraid of what you might realize?

>that's why i'm not going to indulge you in it, because any critical engagement with it will only reinforce it.

LOL! You fucking wimp! What an utter crybaby you are. "I'll toss out four troll posts, but when my target replies back, I won't indulge in any real conversation!" You'll hurl insult after insult at me like I'm not even a real person, but you won't allow me to challenge your assumptions. What a wuss. If you truly are in the right, then you have nothing to fear from indulging me. If not, then maybe you're just a coward.

I ask you again: tell me why you hate pedophiles. Not child abusers; that's perfectly understandable. I hate people who hurt children too. I'm asking specifically why you would hate someone who has a sexual desire they do not, and would never, act upon.

I've got a feeling that, if you're honest with yourself, you'll find that it's because you believe your personal disgust gives you the right to condemn what you don't like.

Also, use capital letters for crying out loud. You're not in grade school.

***

[b]SEAGREEN[/b]
first off i'm smarter than you and shirking capitalization and punctuation is a luxury i indulge in. sorry if you're not smart enough to parse it.

secondly i'm still not going to critically engage your carefully constructed web of delusions because, like i said, allowing you to indulge in this construct where your pedophilia is something up for debate will only reinforce said construct. all of it being rooted in the presumption that my actions are rooted in a personal a.k.a. unscientific disgust for you. i'm not going to indulge you in your persecution complex.

don't bother asking me questions. i'm not here to answer things. i didn't come here to engage in debate. i'm only here to tell you things. what i'm telling you is:

you're a pedophile
get help

***
[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Yeah, well you're gay.

I'M SMARTER THAN YOU AND I WIN BECAUSE I CALLED YOU GAY.

***

[b]SEAGREEN[/b]
you seem pretty frustrated

do you want to talk about that?

(i'm going to act as your therapist until you agree to visit a real one)

***

[b]YELLOW[/b]
Denial.
Isn't this a stage in something?

***

[b]MAROON[/b]
Rofl. Please, go and get help.

It is not to late, you know?

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Yeah, AlexReynard, you sick fuck! Go back where ya came fr-

Whoops! Sorry, fellas. I got caught up in all the excitement.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]BLACK[/b]
Just because children aren't "sexually innocent" doesn't mean that it's okay to fuck them.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
I never claimed it was.

For one thing, the hole's too small.

<Rimshot>

***

[b]BLACK[/b]
Then why go on in such great length and detail about how society has brainwashed us into thinking children are "sexually innocent"? That fact is completely and totally irrelevant; there are plenty of reasons to find pedophilia abhorrent that have nothing to do with the purported "innocence" of children.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Who said I find pedophilia abhorrent? I don't. All pedophilia is is *desire*. and so long as it's not acted upon, I can't consider that wrong. I could look at cup porn all day; the *worst*, most evil cub porn on FA, and still have the morality to not want to go cramming it up a preschooler.

The reason why it's important we get rid of this 'children are innocent' bullshit is because we are overprotecting them like crazy, and it's destroying both them and us. Who does it benefit when a 15y.o. girl goes off on a date with her 17y.o. boyfriend, and her tyrannical mother calls an amber alert and the boy's arrested for kidnapping and his life is ruined? I hear about shit like that happening all the time! People on the internet make dates with teenagers (not children; TEENS!) and when they show up they find out it was some fuckin' cop pretending the whole time. Does this make society better? Or how the FBI's statistics prove that sex criminals have a LOWER recidivism rate than violent criminals, yet they're the only ones we hound mercilessly after they get out of jail and make them humiliate themselves announcing they're a sex offender and we tell them where they can and can't live and... <takes a deep breath> We have a sex offender registry but not a murderer registry. That says it all.

We are so over-paranoid about pedophilia that we are acting like assholes. We are overreacting as bad as we did during the McCarthy communism years. Statistics prove children are SAFER from sexual abuse now than twenty years ago! Yes; since the internet grew in popularity, numbers of child rape went down! It was in USA Today, dammit! Yet the local news won't fucking shut up about there being a kid-fucker in every school, van or shrubbery! Child abuse is awful, yes, but so is rampant paranoia.

And what's worst of all, I think? People are afraid to give kids hugs nowadays. We're mammals; our young literally *need* human contact or they grow up with mental problems. How unspeakably evil is it for our society to deprive children of physical affection out of fear? The more we worry about child abuse, the more we begin to actually commit it.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Sorry to go on even more, but I just thought of this:

Remember the 'Summer Of The Shark'? That one year where, out of nowhere, news networks started reporting on shark attacks like crazy? And then later on, statistics actually showed there was a LOWER rate of shark attacks that year compared to previous ones? That is EXACTLY what's going on with child sexual abuse in the USA. The numbers are getting better, but the news makes you believe they're getting worse. All for ratings. Money. GREED.

***

[b]BLACK[/b]
Well, yes, that's true with any crazy phenomenon. I'm not worried that child abuse is becoming this horrible, rampant phenomenon that is sweeping the nation. It clearly isn't.

***

[b]BLACK[/b]
Oh, no, I wasn't saying [i]you[/i] find pedophilia abhorrent. I was saying that [i]I[/i] do, and it has nothing to do with this mythical notion of "childhood innocence". And just for the record, I don't consider pedophilia a consequential label unless the person in question has plans to act/has acted upon those desires. Not to split hairs, but I really think most people, when they say "pedophile", mean "child abuser/molester". I know it's not entirely accurate terminology, but it's what we're working with.

Are kids being overprotected by their parents? Sure, I'd say so. But I don't see what this has to do with pedophilia and cub porn. Like, so a lot of people think children are "innocent" and must be protected from knowledge of the horrors of the world. And? We're talking cub porn and pedophilia here, not children being babied and sheltered until they are 18.

The idea that children are somehow innocent is socially constructed nonsense to give people an easy, uncomplicated way of deciding what is and isn't "appropriate" around children. That being said, it has no bearing on whether or not cub porn is okay, and, ultimately, whether or not actually sexually molesting a real child is okay (which, I hope we'll all agree, it not okay).

That's why I was wondering why you brought it up; it's not really relevant to a discussion on cub porn or to a discussion on whether or not sex with children is appropriate.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>And just for the record, I don't consider pedophilia a consequential label unless the person in question has plans to act/has acted upon those desires. Not to split hairs, but I really think most people, when they say "pedophile", mean "child abuser/molester". I know it's not entirely accurate terminology, but it's what we're working with.

Still, it's not right, and the author in me can't stand it. I'm going to continue to use the correct meanings for 'explicit', 'graphic' and 'ironic' no matter how many times newscasters mangle them. In this case, pedophilia [i]literally[/i] means love of children. It's gotten a horrible stigma, but that's all the word means; it implies no action.

And I know it's kind of nitpicky, but I think it's worthwhile to point out that someone who loves children would be *least* likely to rape them. Seriously; I write cub porn novels and you are not likely to find another person who hates child abusers more than I do.

>But I don't see what this has to do with pedophilia and cub porn.

Because I think that the myth of 'children are sexually innocent' is precicely the reason why people are so grotesquely intolerant of any kind of child-related pornography. Since it's all just drawings, I can't understand why anyone would think a drawing of someone fucking a cub would be any more immoral than a drawing of two furries raping another furry, or a furry getting murdered, or a furry smearing shit all over themselves. Draw that stuff and people might complain, sure. But draw cub porn, and all of a sudden people think it's okay to accuse you of wanting to molest real children. Excuse me!? Why is this the only fetish where that's considered okay?

>We're talking cub porn and pedophilia here, not children being babied and sheltered until they are 18.

I think it's all connected. It's all about people being horrified of children and sex ever coming in contact with each other, whether it's real children or imaginary ones. I think it's all parts of a single whole: America's overwhelming, Puritanical fear of sex. I would dearly love to see some hard data on sexual attitudes towards children in all the countries of the world. Look at which countries are most restrictive and which ones just don't care much. Then look at how mentally healthy the children from those countries are, and how many rapes they grow up to commit.

I did learn a really nice statistic from the FBI's crime website, though: White people in America are 10% more likely to sexually abuse their own children than other races.

***

[b]BLACK[/b]
Well, okay, if you want to get technical, the literal meaning of pedophilia (pedo = child, phil = love) has [i]never[/i] been the definition of the word. It doesn't imply [i]action,[/i] but it most [i]definitely[/i] implies sexual attraction. Actually, it's not an implication; it's the [i]explicit definition[/i]. Not simply "love of children". If that were the case, all good parents would be considered pedophiles, because don't they love their kids? If you want to argue the "correct" usage of the term, the literal meaning is not it. "Pedophile" does not equal "child abuser", but acting on pedophilia, i.e. sexual attraction to children, would necessarily be child abuse.

I still don't see where you're going with this. Like I said, there are plenty of other legitimate reasons to be upset by pedophilia that have nothing to do with a child's purported "innocence". There are notions of agency, unfair power dynamics, boundaries of communication, limits of comprehension or maturity . . . none of these things suggest that children are completely asexual. But the sexuality of children is entirely beside the point. The issue is not that people are upset by children being sexual in any way whatsoever; it is that they are upset by the idea that adults find it sexually appealing to see children being sexual. It is that much of cub porn is involves sexual activity between adults and children, particularly in positions where the adult has very clear, nigh-unquestionable authority (e.g. a parent, a teacher, a coach, a babysitter).

Clearly they're just drawings; cubs aren't real people, nor are the adult anthros who get drawn doing all sorts of stuff. I wouldn't say it's fair to state that no one is offended or disturbed by other fetish stuff on this site and accuses those who draw it of being fucked in the head. Plenty of that happens. The reason cub gets a disproportionate amount of it, [i]in my opinion[/i], is because cub porn is a fictionalized representation of something that most people consider to essentially the utmost horrible thing you could do to a person, even comparable to killing someone. It's fair to argue that dying is worse than being sexually abused (I mean, after all, you're still alive), but sexualized abuse is pretty much the ultimate degradation of a person. I would venture that the difference between cub porn and rape porn is that people conceive of cubs as being powerless or otherwise unable to fight back, whereas an adult who is raped has a much better conception of what it is that has happened to them and how to hit back, so to speak. It's still awful, but it doesn't register as low as cub porn generally does. In the case of consensual stuff like scat, etc., I mean, it grosses the fuck out of me too, but if it's consenting adults, they can go off and do that.

But yeah, ultimately, I think the reason people are particularly put off by cub porn is because they see it as adults being sexually aroused, engaged, satisfied, whatever, with depictions of children (however imaginary they may be) in highly sexual situations. Even more so when the children depicted display almost [i]hypersexualized[/i] attitudes, desires, and characteristics. The reason people make the direct connection to actual child abuse and pedophilia is because the idea that the kids "want it" and "asked for it" that is often portrayed in cub porn is precisely the reasoning that so many child sexual abusers use to justify their behavior. It doesn't make people go, "Oh, well, these kids are unrealistic because [i]real[/i] kids can't/don't do that," it makes them think, "This is what the artist thinks kids are like/wants kids to be like." Whether that's an unfair judgment to make, well, that's a whole different matter entirely. People know it's fiction and that no one is being hurt, but what disturbs them is the idea of a whole subculture-within-a-subculture that revolves around pictures of children engaged in sexual activities and being sexually aroused by said pictures.

And in terms of the sexual attitudes of other countries, I'm not sure what you mean by "hard data on sexual attitudes towards children". As in, how scared people are of letting kids see R-rated movies? If the USA does in fact have a "puritanical fear of sex", I really don't think that this is manifested in the desire of your average American not to tolerate child sexual abuse. It's one thing to have kids have to take a sex ed/health class in 5th grade, 7th grade, and 9th grade (which I did, at an American school no less!); it's another thing [i]entirely[/i] to lower the age of consent to 12. I'm all for teaching kids responsibility and maturity by treating them like they're not incapable, non-comprehending automatons until they hit age 18; hell, I got "the talk" in no euphemistic terms from my mom, a nurse, at age 6. I knew what penises, vaginas, condoms, birth control, breats, homosexuality, heterosexuality, and all of that stuff was well before I hit puberty in middle school. I'd like to think I've had a very healthy approach to sex and sexuality for my whole life, and I think a lot of people would benefit from that sort of honesty and straightforwardness growing up. But I think that's about as far as I'm willing to in terms of changing our "sexual attitudes towards children". Even if you were to look at sexual attitudes towards children vs. rape rates in various countries, there's nothing to say they are correlated whatsoever; how do you know rape rates in countries X, Y, and Z aren't low because of any number of other factors like anti-rape campaigning, laws, rehabilitation programs, police treating rape cases with utmost seriousness instead of dismissing them, etc.?


~[I](Alex here. I was way too tired at this point to give this post the type of reply it deserved, so I went to bed. My dialogue with BLACK did pick up in another conversation though.)[/i]~


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]SILVER[/b]
You know, this is quite possibly some of the best articulation on this topic I've read. Although the following 'counterpoints' remind me all too much of trying to talk about Gay Rights to a 'Christian' Lobbyist at the state legislature.

Thank you very much for writing this!

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
You're very welcome! I've done a lot of research on this topic and already written a few essays.

>Although the following 'counterpoints' remind me all too much of trying to talk about Gay Rights to a 'Christian' Lobbyist

I know the feeling. Some people are just dead set on insisting 'personal dislike' = 'immoral', no matter what evidence you show them to the contrary.

***

[b]BLACK[/b]
And some people have legitimate reasons. Just like cub porn artists and people who like the art dislike being called pedophiles, so too do people who are not too fond of cub art dislike being called hypocritical, close-minded, conservative religious nuts. Especially, you know, when I'm a pretty left-of-center gay atheist who has an account on a furry pornography website (i.e. not a conservative christian with a penchant for moral crusading).

And also, gay rights =/= cub porn, much the same way that comparing things to the Holocaust and Nazis is a bad analogy and from there we get Godwin's Law. I think it's a bit more than a ridiculous comparison, particularly as someone who spent much of the past 4 years studied United States queer political history and theory.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>Just like cub porn artists and people who like the art dislike being called pedophiles, so too do people who are not too fond of cub art dislike being called hypocritical, close-minded, conservative religious nuts.

It's always okay to dislike something. But when someone claims that their personal dislike is reason enough to call something immoral, then that's wrong. In other words, if someone happens to feel all icky when they see a mixed-race couple, that doesn't make them a bad person. Our emotional reactions often ignore what we know rationally. But if that person takes it to the next step and says mixed-race marriages are wrong *because* they disgust him, then they're being bigoted.

I hear plenty of people say they dislike all kinds of fetish art, and that's fine. But with cub art (and babyfurs too), there seems to be an agreement that it's okay to go beyond disliking these fetishes to outright hating the people who draw them. I call bullshit. You could draw the cruelest child rape picture on the planet, [i]and that action by itself could not possibly harm a real child[/i]. That's a fact. The people who hurt children are responsible for their own actions; no pornography 'made' them do it. Just like no art in the history of the world has ever [u]caused[/u] someone to act. Inspired, yes. But WE are responsible for our actions; not the media. The art may be genuinely disgusting, but since it cannot cause harm, it should never be called immoral.

>Especially, you know, when I'm a pretty left-of-center gay atheist who has an account on a furry pornography website (i.e. not a conservative christian with a penchant for moral crusading).

...and yet you agree with society's views on pedophilia, which are rooted in exactly the same place homophobia grows from: the church. I have researched sex and religion thoroughly. I have not seen any hard, scientific PROOF of most of the things society 'knows' about pedophilia. And as I tried to point out to BLUE, things we know with absolute certainty about sexual morality have a habit of changing like crazy. Right now, scientists are too afraid to do much real research into the subject of child sexuality, since it might upset our ingrained notions and get them attacked by politicians and the media. (And no, that's not an exaggeration. One important study on child sexual abuse came to the 'wrong' conclusions, so that state's government [i]condemned the research[/i], solely because the politicians 'knew better'.)

The best conclusion I can draw from all the evidence I have seen, is that our hatred of pedophilia comes directly from he church's dangerous, destructive belief that 'sex is evil'. No other species feels this way about sex. We're the only one. And what has this belief given us? Gender inequality, homophobia, male and female circumcision, priests raping children, destruction of art, police raids, adultery, prostitution, divorce, etc. And now people are being prosecuted for their entire lives for having photographs on their computer. Even my 70+ year old grandfather thinks that's wrong! And if it wasn't for our constitution, we would have people going to jail for their entire lives because of something they drew or wrote. That's already happening in other countries Right Now.

I'm just going to come out and say it: there is no evidence that exposure to sexual images, ideas or touches are innately harmful to children. Everything points to the contrary; that sex is a perfectly normal, necessary biological function, no different from eating, sleeping or shitting, and that it's [u]insane[/u] to think that children could be harmed by knowledge of something that life on earth would not be possible without. And no, I am not saying that people should rape children. I'm saying that sex is not rape. I'm saying that there's no evidence whatsoever that children are incapable of consenting to sex. (They may not be ready for it, true. But they're not ready to drive a car either, and yet we don't shield them from ever seeing one.) A pat on the butt will NEVER hurt a child. Not unless the one who did it forces the child to keep it a secret. The secrecy and the force and the lies is where the harm comes from; NOT the touch.

I am NOT arguing that all humans should run around naked fucking everything that moves: I am arguing that we have demonized something harmless and natural, that if an action causes no harm it cannot be called wrong, and that it is ABUSE and not SEX that is harmful to children.

>And also, gay rights =/= cub porn, much the same way that comparing things to the Holocaust and Nazis is a bad analogy and from there we get Godwin's Law. I think it's a bit more than a ridiculous comparison, particularly as someone who spent much of the past 4 years studied United States queer political history and theory.

If you can't see the parallel, then you [u]wasted[/u] those four years. [u]Shame[/u] on you. It doesn't matter WHY someone who has done no harm is locked up; [i]what matters is that someone who has done no wrong has been locked up[/i]. Whenever that happens, and we allow it, it dirties us all.

Our society treats accused pedophiles as subhuman. We have collectively agreed that they deserve no human rights. When they are raped or killed in prison, we say "Good!" There is no punishment so brutal that we wouldn't say they deserved it. And not just actual child abusers; anyone who happens to have a sexual attraction to children is subject to this treatment. An attraction which is as [i]unchosen[/i] as your sexuality or your skin color. Whenever you think, "Well, pedophiles are bad people because pedophilia is obviously wrong!", someone in the past thought the [i]exact same thing[/i] about you for being gay, with exactly as much justification. Read through history and you'll find societies that could never imagine a world where gays are allowed to be open, or where blacks are allowed to marry whites, or where women are allowed to vote. Their horror at imagining those ideas is the [i]same[/i] as the horror we feel today at the mere mention that maybe the police are wrong to prosecute pedophiles alongside [i]actual[/i] child abusers.

So long as there is state-sponsored barbarism against ANY group, not for their actions but because of their THOUGHTS, then we should all be ashamed of ourselves. On this very journal, I saw someone write, "I can't believe how these baby furs think they can get away with whatever they wish." Just substitute 'fags' for 'babyfurs' in that sentence and it means the same. Or 'women', 'niggers', 'kikes' or 'furries'. It means the same, no matter who says it about whom or where: "THOSE people are different, which means I don't have to treat them like people."

But no. Every group wants to claim their oppression was TOTALLY DIFFERENT from everyone else's. As soon as they gain a little mainstream acceptance, they don't wanna lend a hand to any group besides their own. Everyone whines that their own pain could never be understood by anyone else. The gays say that 'fursecution' is [i]nothing[/i] like the gay rights movement. The blacks say that the gay rights movement is [i]nothing[/i] like the civil rights movement. The Jews say that [i]nothing[/i] could ever compare to the Holocaust. Feminists say [i]nothing[/i] is worse than rape. Americans say [i]nothing[/i] can compare to 9/11. And everyone fucking ignores the enormity of human suffering throughout history, and the inescapable conclusion that PAIN IS THE SAME NO MATTER WHO FEELS IT.



You really did make some excellent points in the other post, but I don't have the energy to devote to two of them. I'm sorry. I did however want to add this:

"hell, I got "the talk" in no euphemistic terms from my mom, a nurse, at age 6."

I know it's a stretch, but if that same event had taken place today, and someone suitably hysterical had told the police they'd overheard a woman talking about inappropriate sexual filth with a minor, your mother could have been arrested. Maybe jailed. I can think of two examples in my own childhood where, if someone had happened to see that moment without context, my mother or stepfather could have gone to prison. That's our society now. That's what I see on the news. You don't think a mere accusation would be enough to destroy someone's life? I dare you to read this and not cry: [url]http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080316/COL04/803160557/0/COL04[/url]
The police officer who abused that poor boy probably thought he'd done nothing wrong, that he was helping the boy. Just like the prosecutor thought he was saving the family by destroying it. Just like we think our society protects children now.

That's been my point all along. In our overzealous rush to protect children, we choose the wrong targets. We attack art and fiction, which means we ignore real abuse and the real causes of it. The reason I defend pedophilia is because our society is more horrified by a father who takes naked photos of his child, than with a father who [u]beats[/u] his child. And that is such utter insanity, I can't stand it.

***

[b]BLACK[/b]
I'd rather not continue this argument, but let me at least make my points of contention clear:

1) I think your assertion that opposition to pedophilia (including sexual conduct with a child by an adult) is based entirely or almost entirely in irrational religious bigotry is simplistic, misguided, and insulting. Just like how not everything I don't like is "wrong", deep-seated religious bigotry is not an effective or convincing scapegoat for what you see as problems with the world.

2) Consent is not simply defined as the ability to say yes to a situation. Insurmountable, undeniable power dynamics and disparities in authority and perspective . . . if you cannot understand why a parent interacting with their child in a physically sexual manner is hugely problematic in any number of ways, then I honestly think you are deluding yourself. You're so focused on the idea that "children are not asexual, and therefore being sexual with children is good and natural," but you haven't been listening.

3) You keep suggesting that pedophiles are not the same as "actual" child abusers. In relation to point #2, an adult having sex with a child is, by its nature, abusive. I never said we should prosecute people for thought-crimes; if you're a pedophile and never once interact with a child sexually, then there really is no problem. It's like someone who has thoughts about robbing a bank or killing their neighbor or raping that lady at the bar, but never acts on it; there is no crime. But if you have sex with or molest a child, you are being sexually abusive. I'm against the idea of thought-crimes; I am absolutely in support of prosecuting people who engage in a physical, sexual manner with children.

4) The Harm Principle is incredibly limited, outdated (since the 1800s, no less, when J.S. Mill proposed it, and I'm a big fan of Mill), and not a good, singular basis for any of our judgments on ethics or morality because of its limited, inaccurate, and overwhelmingly subjective nature (don't even think about responding with "everything is subjective"). Additionally, though it's not really relevant, the Harm Principle is not the current basis for much of U.S. law either.

5) They're not analogous struggles. Simply because two groups have been historically oppressed, marginalized, or thought of as wrong does not make them brothers-in-arms, particularly when the natures of their struggles are so different. You can argue all you want that pedophilia is a "natural" sexual attraction, but that's not relevant whatsoever. The reason homosexuality is okay has nothing to do with how "natural" it is. How "natural" something may or may not be has nothing to do with whether or not it's a good thing. It is [i]baffling and disturbing[/i] to me that you cannot see the enormous difference between a movement dedicated to allowing adults to be romantic and sexual with those of the same sex and a "movement" (I guess if you count NAMBLA?) dedicated to promoting sexual relations between adults and children.

6) The idea that my mom could be charged with child abuse for explaining where babies come from is ludicrous and a complete load of bullshit and you know it. Don't you fucking [i]dare[/i] compare my mother to people who actually sexually abuse children.

I'm out. This is ridiculous.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
And you were doing so well...

>I think your assertion that opposition to pedophilia (including sexual conduct with a child by an adult) is based entirely or almost entirely in irrational religious bigotry is simplistic, misguided, and insulting.

That doesn't make it untrue though. You can insult my position all you want, but that's not providing evidence against it.

Also, I never said opposition to adult/child sexual relations was irrational. I said that shielding children from all sexual images or ideas is irrational, and that touch (not penetration; a touch like a hug or a kiss) is not harmful.

>if you cannot understand why a parent interacting with their child in a physically sexual manner is hugely problematic in any number of ways, then I honestly think you are deluding yourself.

I can, and do, understand that. I'd already made that part clear elsewhere, and just beceause I didn't repeat it in my last reply is no justification for you accusing me otherwise.

>You're so focused on the idea that "children are not asexual, and therefore being sexual with children is good and natural,"

That's a complete distortion of my position. You should know better.

>You keep suggesting that pedophiles are not the same as "actual" child abusers.

Because they AREN'T. It's simple fact: 'pedophile' does not imply action, only desire. 'Child abuser' means that they have commited an act of abuse. A person can be a pedophile their entire life without ever becming a child abuser. A huge part of this problem is that all the language regarding pedophilia is so emotionally-charged, people can't talk about it rationally. Unless we can agree on definitons, discussion is useless.

>In relation to point #2, an adult having sex with a child is, by its nature, abusive.

I agree, for reasons I've said elsewhere.

>I'm against the idea of thought-crimes; I am absolutely in support of prosecuting people who engage in a physical, sexual manner with children.

So if we're in complete agreement on this point, why are you acting as if we aren't?

>The Harm Principle is incredibly limited, outdated (since the 1800s, no less, when J.S. Mill proposed it, and I'm a big fan of Mill), and not a good, singular basis for any of our judgments on ethics or morality because of its limited, inaccurate, and overwhelmingly subjective nature

You're saying that it's outdated and innacurate to say that the government should not prosecute victimless crimes? News to me. What's the alternative then? Seriously. It's okay to prosecute crimes that cause no harm: WHY?

>Additionally, though it's not really relevant, the Harm Principle is not the current basis for much of U.S. law either.

Well, duh.

>particularly when the natures of their struggles are so different.

You're so sadly predictable. I make my best effort to counter this very idea, and your response is to simply restate it.

>You can argue all you want that pedophilia is a "natural" sexual attraction, but that's not relevant whatsoever. The reason homosexuality is okay has nothing to do with how "natural" it is.

Then why is homosexuality okay? Because it's not harmful? Oh, but that's outdated thinking!

By the logic you are using against pedophilia, homosexuality should still be illegal. I'f I'm wrong about that, show me.

>It is baffling and disturbing to me that you cannot see the enormous difference between a movement dedicated to allowing adults to be romantic and sexual with those of the same sex and a "movement"... dedicated to promoting sexual relations between adults and children.

Of course it's baffling and disturbing to you; you've strawmanned the fuck out of my position. I'm not on NAMBLA's side. [u]I am not advocating child-fucking. Get that through your head.[/u] I am advocating that pedophiles who have never harmed a child should not be put in jail because of what happens to be on their computer. I am advocating that art is not abuse. I am advocating that if someone sets up an online date with a teenager, that does not make them a sexual predator. I am advocating we not LIE to children about sex. I am advocating parents being able to show their children normal, loving physical affection without having to worry that someone will report them to the police for it.

>Don't you fucking [i]dare[/i] compare my mother to people who actually sexually abuse children.

I never compared your mother to a child abuser, and I never would. In fact, I'm [u]offended [/u] you'd think I'd stoop that low. Stop and think for a second: Is there any reason why I would make that claim? Is it instead possible that you reacted emotionally and misunderstood what I meant?

I was in fact pointing out the utter insanity of how, in this age of paranoia, an innocent conversation could be considered child abuse. Make no mistake: crazier things have happened in the real world. You probably didn't read that article I linked to. It was about a father who spent EIGHTY DAYS in jail because someon baselessly accused him of raping his daughter. And despite the fact that the girl's hymen was intact (so the accusations were [i]literally impossible[/i]), the prosecutor refused to drop the case for months afterward. Plus a policeman verbally and mentally abused his son for hours, and felt he was justified in doing so. The system commited unspeakable child abuse against this family, and they got away with it.

The point I was making is that the system is BROKEN. All it takes is one little accusation. Then suddenly, your life is over. It doesn't matter if the accusation is completely baseless, you will still be treated like a child-rapist for the rest of your life. It could happen to ANYONE. LITERALLY ANYONE. Because the very definition of a 'witch-hunt mentality' is that accusation becomes proof of guilt. THAT is what I am against. I am against irrationality, paranoia, overprotection, and people letting their emotions blind them so thoroughly that they're willing to dismiss any evidence to keep from admitting they may be wrong.

***

[b]BLACK[/b]
You're deliberately misreading my point. I made explicitly clear that I don't think there's anything wrong with thought (i.e. lack of action). A pedophile who acts on his/her sexual thoughts about children is a child abuser. That was my point, that has always been my point, and that will continue to be my point.

Your previous post never distinguished between "pedophiles who happen to have child porn on their computers" and "pedophiles who have sex with children". You made the point of distinguishing between pedophiles and child abusers as if they were mutually exclusive, and went on to talk about how our sexual attitudes towards children need to be broadened because, and I quote, "And no, I am not saying that people should rape children. I'm saying that sex is not rape. I'm saying that there's no evidence whatsoever that children are incapable of consenting to sex." And then further, "that if an action causes no harm it cannot be called wrong, and that it is ABUSE and not SEX that is harmful to children."

Now please, tell me that any reasonable person would not read that and think that you are saying that:

1) children can consent to sex, therefore
2) sex with children is not necessarily rape/abusive, and
3) if it's not rape/abusive, then it's not harmful, and
4) if it's not harmful, then it's okay

Because that's exactly what you said. Forgive me for thinking you were advocating that sex with children is a-okay when you were in fact . . . if that's not what you were saying, then I really don't know what is. I don't think that that was a misreading of your post, but if it was, I apologize.

>>"I am advocating that art is not abuse. I am advocating that if someone sets up an online date with a teenager, that does not make them a sexual predator. I am advocating we not LIE to children about sex. I am advocating parents being able to show their children normal, loving physical affection without having to worry that someone will report them to the police for it."

I'm in complete agreement with this and have been from the start. My issue with your position is that you have repeatedly insinuated what I went through above. Art is not abuse. If someone sets up an online date with a teenager, well, that depends on their age and the teenager's age (13-year-olds, for example, shouldn't be on internet dating sites in the first place, let alone going out with someone in their 20s or 30s). I said above that I think openness and honesty to children about sex is healthy and good; this is why I think we should have mandatory health/sex ed classes, and that parents should be encouraged to tell their kills where babies come from well before their kids are hitting puberty. As far as I know, there's no law against that anyway; telling your son or daughter that penises ejaculate sperm into vaginas where they travel up into the uterus and fertilize an egg to make a baby, and that people often have sex to show their love for one another as well is not child abuse and I'm not sure any place in the US seriously considers it to be unless you wanna start pointing out backwater towns in Alabama with populations under 500.

As for parents showing their children "normal, loving physical affection", yeah, sure, depending on what you define that as. If you mean kissing them, hugging them, holding their hand, carrying them around, tickling them, wrestling with them, playing games in the yard, letting them sleep in your bed at night because they're scared . . . yeah, absolutely, that's all wonderful and great and part of being a good parent. I don't know anywhere in the US where any of this is illegal, nor have I heard of any cases where someone reported a parent as a child abuser for showing normal physical affection to their kids.

You also deliberately misinterpreted my comment about the Harm Principle. It is not the same thing as saying "victimless crimes are a-okay." Read J.S. Mill's work from the mid-1800s for an explanation of the Harm Principle. My point was that adults engaging children in a physically sexual manner is always sexual abuse and thus never a victimless crime. If you are not advocating sex with children, as you said in the above post, then I assume you agree that adults having sex with children is wrong and should remain illegal.

I read the article you linked to, but I didn't comment on it because it doesn't seem relevant. One messed up teacher's aide coerced an autistic girl into claiming that her father had repeatedly raped her, and then a police detective ruthlessly questioned her 13-year-old brother with Asperger's Syndrome, but charges were dropped because none of the evidence held up and was most likely fabricated as a result of pressure and coercion. Okay? Sometimes there are crazy people out there who think that doing things like this is funny or worthwhile, or they get a mistaken impression and think they are "doing the right thing" when in reality they're just being manipulative. I still don't see what that has to do with anything. The system fucked up in that case, but at least the case was ultimately dropped. You can't repair that damage, but they stopped it before they sent someone to jail wrongly. I hope they would have fired that police detective and the teacher's aide for being verbally abusive and fabricating evidence.

Sure "an innocent conversation" could be considered child abuse, but the chances of that happening are ridiculously small. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find ANY case EVER where a mom telling her kids where babies come from was considered child abuse; if you tried to bring that to court, it'd be thrown out faster than you can blink an eye. I don't think anyone I've ever met or even heard of considers "having the talk" to be child abuse. The mere fact that you were suggesting the possibility of that incident and comparing it with other child abuse cases is what was ridiculous and offensive; it is the suggestion that most accused or alleged child abusers are simply victims of mass hysteria and that my mother, or anyone's mother for that matter, would be included among them simply for explaining sex, that boggles my mind and prompted that statement, particularly because you seem intent on defending the possessors of child pornography as just as innocent as my mother who explained sex and childbirth to me when I was 6.

I agree, the system is messed up. It needs fixing, fine-tuning, a battery of accuracy tests.

My points are simply this: an adult having sex with a child is inherently sexually abusive for reasons I have repeatedly stated. Adults who have sex with children should be punished for sexual abuse to the full extent of the law. People who are sexually attracted to children (pedophiles) must do their absolute best to resist acting out their feelings and desires, and should seek psychiatric help if needed (and yes, you can seek psychiatric help for it). Cub porn is not the same thing as pedophilia, though reading through many of the responses in this thread, I came across several statements from several posters of the "benign" and/or "beneficial" nature of sex with children, which leads me to the conclusion that there are certainly, at the very least, people here (who are cub porn fans) who think that acting on pedophilic desires is completely justified and acceptable and even beneficial to children and society. I do not think people should be charged with child abuse for having cub porn on their computers.

I do think that having actual child pornography is unacceptable because it perpetuates a cycle of abuse; in simple economic terms, if there is a demand for something, people will create a supply. The person looking at child pornography is not directly committing abuse, but they are relishing in that instance(s) of direct abuse and, by consuming the material, encouraging the abuse to continue. Clearly, preventing people from looking at actual child pornography is not going to stop child abuse, but it puts a wrench in a cycle of abuse and hopefully encourages pedophiles or people with pedophilic desires to seek psychiatric help instead of encouraging the continuation of abuse. Is having child porn as bad as actually abusing a child? No. Is it still bad? Yes.

I still disagree with your equating homosexuality and its struggle for acceptance with pedophilia. You oversimplified the point I was making about it, but I really, really don't want to get into queer political theory right now, because, as I said, I think it's wildly off-topic.

I have been nothing but rational with you. I would appreciate that you stop insinuating that I've been overly emotional and irrational; you have just as much stake in this subject as I do (I assume), and I could just as easily make the (groundless?) claim that you have been reacting emotionally to me. If you don't respect those with whom you debate, then debate cannot take place.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
>You're deliberately misreading my point.

If I have, promise it was unintentional. I think deliberate misinterpretation is cowardly.

>You made the point of distinguishing between pedophiles and child abusers as if they were mutually exclusive, 

If I did, it's only because I thought it was obvious that, yes, plenty of child abusers are pedophiles. I thought I didn't have to explicitly say that.

Semi-related point: People have said rape is about power, not sex. I think that's very likely. So perhaps [u]some[/u] child-raping priests are not actually pedophiles, but are just fucking children because they can get away with it. Or like a parent turning their sexual desires on their child because their spouse won't sleep with them anymore. I think it's entirely possible that in that scenario, the parent may never have thought of other children being sexually attractive before. Just an idea; I could be talking out my ass here.

>Because that's exactly what you said. Forgive me for thinking you were advocating that sex with children is a-okay when you were in fact . . . if that's not what you were saying, then I really don't know what is. I don't think that that was a misreading of your post, but if it was, I apologize.

It's allright. Actually, you've given me a very good opportunity to clarify this.

When I said children are able to consent, that's not saying they SHOULD. I read a story about a nine-year-old boy who piloted a small plane coast-to-coast. Does this mean all children his age are capable of flying planes? Of course not. But it does mean that [u]age alone does not define competence.[/u] I fully agree that kids still in single-digits shouldn't be fucking. But if a 15y.o. has read up on sex and STDs, and is genuinely in love with an 18y.o., then I think it's wrong that the 18y.o. can be charged with statutory rape no matter how much the 15y.o. protests. (I actually know two people who were involved with this exact situation. It was devastating to both of them.) I think instead of rigid consent laws, there should be general guidelines instead, and the decision to have sex should be up to the participants involved and their parents.

Also, there is the idea that sex = penetration. I'm perfectly aware that an adult penis would destroy a child's vagina or anus. I'm not advocating that. But I [u]do[/u] believe that human interaction and physical affection are necessary to our sanity. I remember at the movies, seeing a mother with her hand up her son's shirt giving him a backrub. I remember when my own mother would do that for me. It felt wonderful. And it disgusted me to think that some sicko could look at that and call it 'inappropriate sexual behavior'. In Japan, parents bathe with their children and think nothing of it. Here, that would get you a jail term. And think of all the times parents put things up their kids' asses! Suppositories, enemas, rectal thermometers. But those are okay because they're non-sexual. It's okay to have your kid sit on a stranger's lap so long as that stranger is Santa Claus. And it's also okay for a parent to have their child go into a room with a stranger and take all their clothes off, just so long as that stranger is a doctor.

This sounds like rambling, I know. My point is that there are plenty of acts which the law would call 'inappropriate sexual contact' which are so vague that we'll excuse those exact same behaviors in other circumstances. There are kids who live in nudist colonies, and it doesn't traumatize them for life. In fact, they tend to have healthier self-images than the rest of us. If a parent in a nudist colony photographed their kids playing, they could well be arrested for making child pornography. And I know of cases where things like this have really happened. Our society viciously hates pedophiles. But we allow fashion dolls that teach girls to look like whores. We allow advertizing flyers with kids posed in pajamas and underwear. We allow Hollywood and the Disney channel to turn child actors into sex symbols. We allow parents to turn their young, young girls into creepy caricatures of grown women in beauty pageants. This is a completely fucking schozophrenic society. We shove the message 'YOUTH IS SEXY' down people's throats, then call them demons if they act on it.

Instead of saying, "anything even vaguely related to sex will scar children for life!", we ought to do extensive research to find out once and for all what is truly harmful and what is not. So far, one thing I know for sure is that just about anything can be traumatic when it is forced. A kid who gets his ass patted by drunk uncle Ernie at the family reunion will probably forget about it after a while. A kid who gets his ass patted by drunk uncle Ernie, and then drunk uncle Ernie says, "YOU BETTER NOT TELL ANYONE OR I'LL KILL YOUR MOMMY AND DADDY" is probably going to be traumatized. That's what I mean by [i]abuse, not sex, is the problem[/i].

>If someone sets up an online date with a teenager, well, that depends on their age and the teenager's age (13-year-olds, for example, shouldn't be on internet dating sites in the first place, let alone going out with someone in their 20s or 30s).

Still, I think it's a matter for the kid and the parents to decide, not the police. Teenagers can have really bad judgement about love, but in plenty of situations, they'll never learn unless they're allowed to get their heart broken a few times. (I speak from personal experience.)

>I don't know anywhere in the US where any of this is illegal, nor have I heard of any cases where someone reported a parent as a child abuser for showing normal physical affection to their kids.

Admittedly, you ahve a point there. I haven't heard of any cases like that *specifically*. However, I have heard news reports that parents are showing their children less affection now because of this fear. And it's not really the parents I'm worried for; It's everyone else that's around children. I have heard news stories of teachers losing their jobs to untrue or extremely flimsy accusations. Hell, I'm [u]afraid[/u] to be anywhere near a kid in public! I get incredibly tense, worrying I might brush up against one by accident and the next thing I know the mom's on her cell phone calling the cops. (It'd be honestly accurate to say I'm a pedo[u]phobe[/u].)

>My point was that adults engaging children in a physically sexual manner is always sexual abuse and thus never a victimless crime.

My problem here is purely with the vague and inconsistent definitions we have for what IS 'engaging children in a physically sexual manner'. If something IS causing harm to the child, then it's wrong. Total agreement there. And I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your point about the Harm Principle. I'd never heard of it before today so all I had to go on was skimming the Wikipedia article.

>I read the article you linked to, but I didn't comment on it because it doesn't seem relevant.
>You can't repair that damage, but they stopped it before they sent someone to jail wrongly.

Except they DID. That innocent father spent EIGHTY DAYS behind bars awaiting trial. Imagine having to spend almost three months separated from your family, locked in a place where everyone thinks you raped your autistic daughter. And I've heard a [u]lot[/u] about the prosecutor in this case. He is a very evil man. He absolutely would have had this man convicted for life if no one had stopped him. And I know if there's one of him in my home state, there are men like him in other states; people who only have to hear an accusation, and that's good enough for them.

>Sure "an innocent conversation" could be considered child abuse, but the chances of that happening are ridiculously small.

At a baseball game last year, a father gave his son a Mike's Hard Lemonade, because he'd never heard of it before and had no idea it was alcoholic. Someone else in the stands called the cops on him and child protective services took his kid away. It took them three days to sort this incident out and reunite the kid and his dad. I [i]know[/i] this isn't the same thing, but I think it illustrates the point that, yes, it's entirely possible for an honest mistake to be turned into a nightmare.

(There's also the case of a man who happened to be naked in his own home, when a woman and her 6y.o. [i]cut across his property[/i], saw him, and had him arrested for indecent exposure. I have no idea if the charges were dropped or if he will actually go to trial.)

>I think you'd be hard-pressed to find ANY case EVER where a mom telling her kids where babies come from was considered child abuse;
>particularly because you seem intent on defending the possessors of child pornography as just as innocent as my mother who explained sex and childbirth to me when I was 6.

You have a valid point. And I assure you, I wasn't implying any equality between your mother and a pedophile, nor was I implying that MOST prosecutions occur because of a mistake. Only that they DO sometimes happen as a result of our taking a genuine problem and turning it into a panic. It was an exaggeration, yes, but I still think something similar could happen. What if a father was explaining sex to his kid using nude photos (medical or artistic) as examples? How easy is it to imagine that he could wind up in handcuffs because of that?

Linking back to child pornography; it's scary to think that if practically anyone on FA was accused of any crime which gave the police reason to search their computer, I'm sure the police would find *something* to charge them as a sex criminal over, whether the charges stuck or not. I'll bet money that something on EVERYONE'S computer is technically illegal somewhere. I am not making this up: there was a kindergarten teacher who was accused of molesting two boys. The allegations were ABSOLUTELY false beyond any doubt. However, among the 'evidence' the prosecutor presented against him was a few Disney-type movies they found at his house. The prosecutor actually called it "non-erotic pornography"!! 

>People who are sexually attracted to children (pedophiles) must do their absolute best to resist acting out their feelings and desires, and should seek psychiatric help if needed (and yes, you can seek psychiatric help for it).

I know for sure I don't have any problem resisting it, since I don't fuckin' feel it. A lot of people have predictably called me a pedophile here and it's just tiring, really. I look at human children the same way I look at any kind of cute baby animal: "Awwww, that's adorable." But I can feel that about a kitten and not think for a second about wanting to shove my dick in a kitten, get me? In fact, the reason I like cub porn is [i]because[/i] anthro cubs don't exist and can't possibly be harmed.

>which leads me to the conclusion that there are certainly, at the very least, people here (who are cub porn fans) who think that acting on pedophilic desires is completely justified and acceptable and even beneficial to children and society.

I'm sure there's plenty of non-cub-porn-people who think that too. And it's just another case of people believing something's true because they WANT it to be true, which is never an acceptable reason.

Myself, I think it would be nice if we lived in a world with no stigma on sex. I wish we'd teach kids 'this is something you'll be ready for later' instead of 'this is evil and will send you to Hell'. I think it wouldn't hurt anything if nudity were considered no big deal. And I definitely think masturbation is emotionally and medically beneficial.

>I do think that having actual child pornography is unacceptable because it perpetuates a cycle of abuse; in simple economic terms, if there is a demand for something, people will create a supply. The person looking at child pornography is not directly committing abuse, but they are relishing in that instance(s) of direct abuse and, by consuming the material, encouraging the abuse to continue.

This is a completely valid argument. Yet reality is a bit more complicated. I have read that the worst, most cruellest child porn does not come from people making child porn as a business, but from parents who share photos and compete with each other to see who can do the most extreme things to their children. This fits with all the statistics I've read about how 90-95% of child sexual abuse is committed by family members and close family friends.

And this fact seems too good to be true, but I also read that the number one distributor of online child porn is... drumroll please... the police. According to the article, there's more child pornography used as bait in police pedo-traps than there is being actually sold between pedos. Part of me thinks that can't be true and part of me isn't surprised one bit. After all, the news reports seemingly every night about the cops arresting some guy in one of their online pretend-to-be-a-young-girl stings.

>I still disagree with your equating homosexuality and its struggle for acceptance with pedophilia.

I will agree there are signifigant differences; mostly in the area of consent. I will agree this argument was presented very aggressively. But my real intent was to say that, at any given time in our society, there has ALWAYS been a group of people who we have agreed it is okay to hate. We treat them as subhuman and undeserving of human rights. We've done it to women, indians, immigrants, blacks, japanese, communists, gays and now pedophiles. Maybe the polygamists or the zoophiles will be next. All I know is that it seems clear that we feel like we need a designated villain. There always has to be a witch-hunt. I wish we'd fucking grow up already. Human rights ought to apply to everyone. And even if he [i]is[/i] guilty, a child abuser still deserves a fair trial instead of a lynching. 

>I have been nothing but rational with you. I would appreciate that you stop insinuating that I've been overly emotional and irrational; you have just as much stake in this subject as I do (I assume), and I could just as easily make the (groundless?) claim that you have been reacting emotionally to me. If you don't respect those with whom you debate, then debate cannot take place.

I apologize for that insinuation. In my weak defense, I'm used to people going three or four responses with me and then leaving in a hissy fit. I was disappointed that you were apparently giving up, but I'm glad you didn't. I have to say, I respect you more than anyone else I've debated with on this journal so far. I'm impressed by how civil you've been even when we've disagreed completely. And in fact, I'm honestly grateful to you for being such a good opponent. A boxer can't get better without a sparring partner. And I can't find the weak spots in my arguments unless someone attacks them.


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]TEAL[/b]
Your delusions of argumentative prowess are very droll.

Your long meandering posts go unrefuted simply because they're packed so full to bursting with bullshit no one wants to bother.

You really need to learn the art of brevity, manchild.

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
Your hatred warms me, you know. If I was constantly being vigorously debated against by people with sound logic and a passion for truth, I would start to fear that I was on the wrong side. But I need only look at what dishonest, cowardly, lazy, proudly ignorant people my enemies are, and I feel reassured. Thank you for showing your true selves and making me feel wonderful in comparison. ^__^


~~~~~~~~~~


[b]BLUE (author of the original journal)[/b]
Way too long for my tiny brain to handle.
Please shorten

***

[b]ALEXREYNARD[/b]
"Way too long for my tiny brain to handle."

I agree.


~~~~~~~~~~


