![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Recently there's been a huge ruckus as livejournal has (inconsistently and hamfistedly) tried to rid itself of pedophiles and visual pornography involving minors. (EDIT: Which I think they're well within their rights to do, I just think they screwed up the execution) One of their more controversial stances has been to lump drawn pictures of fictional characters with actual photographs, calling it all "child porn". (EDIT: they didn't just ban both, they explicitly said they're the same) This attitude is not uncommon in society at large. (I say having read the justifications for Australia's inconsistently strict child porn rules)
This attitude bothers me a lot, and after much thought I've recently realised why. In short: these people have forgoten that child porn isn't wrong because it's gross. It's wrong because making it involves hurting actual children.
The obvious and common reponse to those who object to erotic deptions of fictional minors(*) is to argue that noone is being hurt by the creation of this stuff, and that liking fictional depictions of a given act is not the same as doing the act itself, otherwise everyone who likes horror films is a murderer etc. I think this argument has a certain weight to it in principle, but personally feel a strong intuition that liking fiction with violent or otherwise antisocial themes(**) is not the same as liking porn with those themes, though I'm still trying to think out a reasoned argument to back this up. Anyway, I'm not 100% convinced that violent fiction is harmless, though I like certain violent fiction too much to say it's all bad :)
Also I personally can't stand seeing bad or disturbing things happen to children, real or fictional. It's a thing with me. (I mean I similarly can't stand zombies, so I'm not sure it's a moral thing, but it's certainly a thing)
So I don't object to livejournal's stance out of a strong sense of solidarity with the pornographers. I've realised my problem is people objecting to child porn not out of any concern for the wellbeing of actual physical children but out of moral repugnance for the "unnatural" attraction that creates it. I get the feeling these people would rather an adult beat or otherwise non-sexually abuse a child than think sexual thoughts about them. That they would rather put effort into hounding people who draw erotic depictions of fictional characters than groups who give support to the victims of actual abuse. That they don't want to help the children, they want to punish the perverts, and whether or not those perverts have actually hurt anyone isn't the point.
I'm not saying it's wrong to object to, or even ban, particular types of porn even if the acts it depicts did not actually happen, just that it's wrong to equate "thought crimes" with actual crimes, and that doing so is a disservice to the victims of the latter.
EDIT: See also Polanski, "Hounddog" and 13-year-old voices
NOTE: As always, off topic comments or flames go here. Also PLEASE read all the comments before replying, I've clarified a few things after people made a bunch of different intelligent points. (This paragraph has yet to be neccesary but I like to be prepared :))
(*)Another is that apparently most of these stories involve "children" in their late teens, a group frequently presented as sexual objects in the mainstream media, and who it is often legal to have actual sex with. Which has nothing to do with my point, but I thought I'd bring it up before someone else did :)
(**)There's a huge subgenre of non-erotic fiction about child abuse (Look at Law and Order:SVU), using it as a quick way of creating angst precisely because the audience finds it abhorrent. I still dislike the genre, mind you, but it's not the same as porn on the same subject (admittedly, since I can't bring myself to consume either genre this is all a bit theoretical)
This attitude bothers me a lot, and after much thought I've recently realised why. In short: these people have forgoten that child porn isn't wrong because it's gross. It's wrong because making it involves hurting actual children.
The obvious and common reponse to those who object to erotic deptions of fictional minors(*) is to argue that noone is being hurt by the creation of this stuff, and that liking fictional depictions of a given act is not the same as doing the act itself, otherwise everyone who likes horror films is a murderer etc. I think this argument has a certain weight to it in principle, but personally feel a strong intuition that liking fiction with violent or otherwise antisocial themes(**) is not the same as liking porn with those themes, though I'm still trying to think out a reasoned argument to back this up. Anyway, I'm not 100% convinced that violent fiction is harmless, though I like certain violent fiction too much to say it's all bad :)
Also I personally can't stand seeing bad or disturbing things happen to children, real or fictional. It's a thing with me. (I mean I similarly can't stand zombies, so I'm not sure it's a moral thing, but it's certainly a thing)
So I don't object to livejournal's stance out of a strong sense of solidarity with the pornographers. I've realised my problem is people objecting to child porn not out of any concern for the wellbeing of actual physical children but out of moral repugnance for the "unnatural" attraction that creates it. I get the feeling these people would rather an adult beat or otherwise non-sexually abuse a child than think sexual thoughts about them. That they would rather put effort into hounding people who draw erotic depictions of fictional characters than groups who give support to the victims of actual abuse. That they don't want to help the children, they want to punish the perverts, and whether or not those perverts have actually hurt anyone isn't the point.
I'm not saying it's wrong to object to, or even ban, particular types of porn even if the acts it depicts did not actually happen, just that it's wrong to equate "thought crimes" with actual crimes, and that doing so is a disservice to the victims of the latter.
EDIT: See also Polanski, "Hounddog" and 13-year-old voices
NOTE: As always, off topic comments or flames go here. Also PLEASE read all the comments before replying, I've clarified a few things after people made a bunch of different intelligent points. (This paragraph has yet to be neccesary but I like to be prepared :))
(*)Another is that apparently most of these stories involve "children" in their late teens, a group frequently presented as sexual objects in the mainstream media, and who it is often legal to have actual sex with. Which has nothing to do with my point, but I thought I'd bring it up before someone else did :)
(**)There's a huge subgenre of non-erotic fiction about child abuse (Look at Law and Order:SVU), using it as a quick way of creating angst precisely because the audience finds it abhorrent. I still dislike the genre, mind you, but it's not the same as porn on the same subject (admittedly, since I can't bring myself to consume either genre this is all a bit theoretical)
