100% true. Long before I ever had sex for the first time, I knew exactly what my fetish was and had masturbated to it for years.TakerFoxx said:
captcha: respect me
Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
captcha: respect me
You are right. A lot of people are deviant for a lot of reasons, and I merely listed the most common one for taboo fetishes. However, it's important to remember that not all fetishes are deviant, and homosexuality certainly isn't deviant to anyone with half a brain.TakerFoxx said:
Deviance is environmental, really. But there's a reason things become deviant. In the early 1800's, incest with your teenage cousin was kind of not really frowned upon. There wasn't a huge selection of girls in your town, and you probably saw each other a lot anyway. Also, she was probably already out of school and working on the family farm or something by that point, and she really didn't have much growing up left to do.
Today, however, the average suburban teenager is so sheltered but so goddamn booksmart at they same time, and it makes them completely incapable of really making good decisions. This guy is freaking fantasizing about girls who AREN'T EVEN TEENAGERS yet. There's a problem there.
The modern world is an easy place to live in, and we've become so advanced that we ALL have time to just sit back and let our minds go nuts. This is a blessing IF you control it. I hate to use this phrase, but your mind is a great power and it you aren't responsible with it, you have to really fight to keep it from being ruined.
Look... if you are a grown man in a civilized society and you are so obsessed with the thought of fucking a young relative that you can no longer rely on your own brain for fantasies so you sit at home downloading comics about that shit, you're not really in the best place. You can feign ignorance and come up with excuses. Hell, you can be as in denial about it as you want, but it's a problem.
I'm not specifically talking about you; I don't know how intense your vore fetish is... but if you no longer have interest in real human relationships, and just fap to that porn to get off every time/ ONLY think about that when you're with someone, you should really consider sexual therapy. It's really easy to let yourself go with this stuff, and overindulgence is NEVER HEALTHY. It can lead to addiction and can really skew your priorities.
I'm not saying deviants need to be "fixed" or anything. Some of the greatest minds in the world have been deviant, and the others at least acknowledge that breaking social norms is downright necessary sometimes. However, the further you stray towards deviance, the more likely it is that you will end up detached and unable to relate to others... and life can suck when you live like that.
I guess the question is, who granted you (or anyone else) the authority to decide which fetishes are deviant and which ones are not?TomLikesGuitar said:
Compare this:
.. to
... and I conclude that you believe the fetish about women being eaten whole becomes a problem only if it interferes with his interest in real human relationships, yet the fetish about sex with pre-pubescent children is a problem in and of itself, irrespective of whether it affects his interest in human relationships.
And I guess I gotta ask.. why? On what grounds? Both are horrific if enacted in real life. Both are harmless if no one is ever harmed by the person with that fetish. I mean, I know we can't ever compare apples to apples when it comes to fetishes, but this is about as close as it gets.
Consider the "Fetish Map":
http://alfredo.octavio.net/files/aoctavio_fetishmapbig.gif (NSFW, adult content, obviously)
Are you really saying you feel justified in going over the whole thing, circling some in red ink and labelling them "deviant" in and of themselves, irrespective of whether or not those who have them have harmed anyone?
No, you said that the only reason for sexual deviance is because someone has become desensitized to normal porn and thus requires the most taboo kind in order to get off. And it wasn't too long that homosexuality was widely considered to be the result of sexual deviation and requiring psychological help. You know, like pedophilia is treated today.TomLikesGuitar said:
That's operating under the assumption that this man was fapping to this stuff because he was obsessed with actually fucking a younger relative. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, but it's a pretty broad assumption to make simply based upon the content of his porn collection. I have absolutely no desire to eat anyone/be eaten/watch anyone be eaten. In fact, the thought of it is pretty nauseating. That doesn't change the fact that fictional depictions turn me on. And no, I have no fucking idea why. There was no trigger, no environmental reinforcement. I was wondering why I was this way too, and realized that I had vore fantasies as far back as elementary. And my childhood wasn't exactly Leave it to Beaver, but it was more-or-less normal. Some people are just turned on by something because that's the way they are.TomLikesGuitar said:
Overindulgence in ANYTHING is unhealthy. And the full extent of my "deviance" is as follows.TomLikesGuitar said:
1. Kind of horny right now.
2. Looks up some stuff I like. Fap.
2. Finish up. Go about my day without thinking on it further.
And it's true, I am fairly anti-social. Not because I'm obsessed with with a fetish or hate people, it's just I prefer to do things on my own. I've always been that way. I have friends I enjoy hanging out with and can more than hold my own in a social situation, but I simply prefer spending my evenings at home with my X-Box or a good book than going to parties. End of.
And it's also true, I am not interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with anyone. And again, it has NOTHING to do with my admittedly creepy fetishes, as they have no say in how I behave outside of fap time. I simply grew up watching 90% of the relationships around me collapse and end in misery and long decided that I wanted nothing to do with it. I enjoy being single, and have a wide variety of interests that I use my free time to explore, interests that have absolutely nothing to do with my creepy fetishes.
Agreed. However, to assume that just because someone is a "deviant" because of an overindulgence is just silly. Again, some people are just born that way, or become that way due to something that they no longer remember. And it's true people have no self-control, while others do, just as some people become hard alcoholics while others have drank their whole life without problems.TomLikesGuitar said:
No, they separate them because serial killers are a huge danger to the general population, especially if they're exceptionally psychopathic. If they are killed, it's probably for any number of factors beyond just "they killed a bunch of people." General population for prisons these days is essentially one massive gang war, with new, unaffiliated inmates being recruited into gangs or killed to prevent other gangs from gaining more troops. In a competition for the best soldiers, it'd make no sense to kill someone who's proven themselves as being exceptionally good at it. The more people you've killed or reputed to have killed, the more highly sought after you'll be, as you'll have more value.LackofCertainty said:
Depends on your presentation of the killer. Lots of movies and TV depict serial killers, some even use them as a good guy (Dexter's kind of popular). But the presentation is almost never a glorification of serial killers who don't practice the type of killing our society considers justifiable, even Dexter wrestles with his occupation for the majority of the show (at least as far as I watched it). It's a tool to express character archetypes usually, or as a means of motivation. But it's almost never glorified as the sole object of the story.
I understand that censorship is a limitation of freedom, and people fear what the end result will be. But I see no reason we can't draw the line at sexual depictions of children solely for the purpose of arousal. Even though there's things that toe the line, whose merits would certainly be debated, I don't find it unreasonable for society to hold gratuitous depictions of child pornography as something the law should be concerned with. There's not a whole lot of positives to having them really.
Drawing the line there means you can start drawing it elsewhere.irishda said:
Sexual depictions of children aren't ok? Are depictions of rape ok? Are depictions of homosexual sex ok? Are depictions of BSDM ok? Are depictions of sodomy ok? Are depictions of cunnilingus ok?
We can all agree that ACTUAL child pornography is bad right? It says pedophilia is allowable. The production of it exploits and harms children who do not know any better and thus spreading of an industry like that hurts children.
Drawings aren't people, characters aren't people.
Not only is the difficulty in where you draw the line, it's in HOW you draw the line. Depictions are okay if and only if a council of xenophobic elders deems it okay, not by how the person views the work. So masturbate to Lolita all you want, just not Harry X Hermione fanfic.Lovely Mixture said:
As detailed above, the logical conclusion of "artistic merit" laws has the UK making it illegal to own a copy of the strangling scene from Frenzy, but legal to own the whole movie. This is the logical conclusion that comes from drawing lines. And this is the madness you want to use to decide someone's freedom or punishment on?
It cannot be said enough. Man, even debating in this thread for a few days has been wearing on me. I don't understand how lawyers go through their daily routines debating debasement night and day, and still maintain their humanity. If they do at all, I suppose.
There are obviously deviant fetishes, and obviously normal fetishes, and then there are some that fall somewhere in between. I don't claim to be an authority, but deviance is both environmental and decided by the masses, and the majority of people on this planet consider pedophilia to be deviance.AlphaLackey said:
I see where you got that from, but that's not what I intended to portray. It's a problem EITHER WAY if you are addicted to it, but if it's just a little fetish then it's not a problem. On one hand, there's people who will fap to someone who is a little young looking once in a while and then feel like shit afterwards, and then there's the people who ONLY masturbate to children and then defend it like it's a staple of their lives.
Those people should be psychologically evaluated to make sure they would never try to solicit sex from a minor. I think most people won't really make the argument that it is alright to have sex with a child, however, I have met people like that, and those people shouldn't be allowed near children, case closed.
I just believe that sometimes we should take a little precaution with these situations.
That last statement is an opinion. Psychology has NO definitive evidence that any sexual preference is ENTIRELY genetic or ENTIRELY environmental. I think it is best to assume it is possibly either or both.TakerFoxx said:
Now, you use yourself as an example, and I would consider you unlikely to eat someone.
Does that mean that no one who has a vore fetish would try to eat someone? Absolutely not.
I'd go so far as to say that the MAJORITY of sexual assaults with inflicted carnivorous harm have been done by people with vore fetishes.
This is a rare occurrence, however. Child molestation happens EVERY SINGLE DAY. If someone is found to have child porn, or anything like that, they should be evaluated to see if they are at risk of actually molesting a child. If not, they should be allowed to live their lives, but if so... they should be kept away from children at all costs.
Are you sexually attracted to women outside of porn? If so, then you're perfectly healthy. If not, it is very likely that you have desensitized yourself to normal sexual situations and the way you deal with other people will suffer for it.
I know a person who has lost interest in real humans due to an obsession with cartoon pornography, and it's NOT a phase of childhood or something. This person is 40+ years old and is so deep in his hole of irrational exuberance that his manic fits make him seem like the happiest person in the world. I, however, see this guy when he is depressed, and it is REALLY bad. He wants VERY badly to be accepted, but feels like he is incapable of even speaking to another person. He HATES himself.
It's a slippery slope sometimes, and these feelings of INTENSE alienation almost always start with deviant behaviors.
That all sounds perfectly healthy, and again, you are not the type of person who I'm talking about. You sound a lot like me when I was a little younger (not trying to sound like a wise old man, I'm just a little bit older than the average Escapist user), and eventually the world today forces you into social conformity, but I don't see any problems with you.
A deviant is someone who engages is deviant behavior. Deviant behavior is behavior that is generally considered taboo by the society the potential deviant lives in. So, someone who masturbates to children is a deviant. So was Galileo. So was Hitler. So was Einstien (married his cousin). So was Charles Manson. You just have to be responsible with the way your mind rationalizes things, and realize that your own mind will lie to you to rationalize disregarding a social norm if it wants to badly enough. Those of us with shitty discretion can end up ruining our lives from inside our own minds. Being a human is fucking hard sometimes.
And I don't have anything against alcoholics. But I do think we should try to help them before they hurt someone or themselves.
With all due respect, we are talking about laws (and relevant morals) that will ultimately decide over people's entire LIVES. Their freedom, their livelihood, their right to exist in society. All for "which of those spots on the map are acceptable for me to masturbate to, and which ones are not." They deserve BETTER than "I'll know it when I see it" as decided by the majority. At one time, the majority "decided" that homosexuality was deviant.TomLikesGuitar said:
If you are incapable of coming up with rules that enumerate all cases in advance, then it is certain at some point, you will find two close cases, one of which you deem deviant and one which you do not, and you will have to come up with justification as to why one person goes to jail for having a cartoon and why one does not.
Are you prepared to make that decision? If so, then why can't you make such decisions over all cases with codified rules? If not, then how can you claim that your decision is based on anything but YOUR morality or the majority's morality?
So just to clarify (based on what others have said), it doesn't matter what the fetish is: if you indulge in a fetish to the point where you cannot have normal relationships with your preferred sex(es), then your fetish has become deviant behavior; if not, then it has not?
If so, then I think that's a useful guideline on a personal level, but doesn't help us try and figure out whether or not cartoon images of a certain fetish should or should not be legal.
Oh God, yes, 100% correct. Anyone who believes that actual sexual acts with someone that is not sexually mature, now we are talking about someone that clearly does not know right from wrong. As you said, they should be kept away from children at all times, and from society until they can (if possible) get help they need.
Well, first off, deviance does not necessarily entail illegality. BDSM is sexual deviance and it is 100% legal.AlphaLackey said:
Secondly, I'm just saying it like it is. I never said I thought it was right that people are being banned from masturbating to anime children. You have to see where they are coming from though... Unlike vore, child molestation happens every day.
All I was saying is that people who have a fetish about children should be forced into evaluation to make sure they won't harm a child.
No... Again, deviance has nothing to do with legality.
Deviance is not even really a matter of opinion. It is an intrinsically gray area-ed way of defining whether or not something breaks social norms...
Straight from the wiki: "Deviance, in a sociological context, describes actions or behaviors that violate social norms, including formally-enacted rules (e.g., crime), as well as informal violations of social norms (e.g., rejecting folkways and mores)."
Some things are somewhat deviant (anal sex), others extremely deviant (grand theft), and some not deviant at all (drinking milk).
There is a correlation between deviance and legality, but it is just that... a correlation. You can tattoo your entire body, cut your tongue in half, shave your head, and sew your back up in piercings to look like a corset, and you will be the epitome of aesthetic deviance... without breaking a single law.
Exactly... That's why it's illegal though. It becomes a way to force these people into treatment. Unfortunately, the system is flawed as is, in that it ruins the lives of the people who are unlucky enough to get caught... and even if it stops potential child molesters, ruining the life of just one innocent, curious man whose only crime is being a little "fetishy" makes it flawed. It's almost the exact same problem with the war on drugs.
System of a Down said it best... "Treatment should be increased and law enforcement decreased while abolishing mandatory minimum sentences."
Yep, just another day in the land of hypocrites. Politicians get to swan about having affairs with men and women with little to no consequence, while this dude can't wank in peace. And people wonder why I'm so sarcastic over the government.
I wouldn't call it child pornography, but anyone who gets off to cartoons obviously has something wrong with him
for funsies, I'm gonna argue the contrary. Pornography comes from the ancient greek words "pornea", "prostitution", and "graphein", "to write about, record and/or illustrate". Now, I'm a bit fuzzy on chapter and verse, but I'm quite certain the bible would easily fall under "writing about prostitution" with very few leaps of logic.6th And Silver said:
