Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
- TwoBrains
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: October 16th, 2020, 7:46 am
Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
Until recently, I've been of the firm opinion that the existence of fictional child porn, such as lolicon and shotacon, is inherently harmful because it can be used by child sexual abusers to groom minors by convincing them that child/adult intimate relationships are acceptable and non-harmful. Under this model, creators and consumers of that material would be morally responsible for that grooming by creating the material and motivating the creation of further material, respectively.
However, as I've read discussions about the matter elsewhere, I've encountered the argument that since fictional child porn isn't created for grooming purposes, and groomers use it outside its intended purpose and the creator/audience dynamic, that the only person morally culpable for its grooming use is the groomer themself, not the creator or the portion of the audience that doesn't sexually groom. I'm not sure if this argument is logically sound, but I can't formulate a refutation to it from the other side of the issue.
I detest fictional child pornography, and I'd be happy if it were illegalized everywhere. However, I'm not sure if my visceral disgust is blinding me to a logical point that it won't let me fully consider, and so I'd like some outside perspectives on the matter to help interrogate my beliefs to see which side they really fall on.
- TwoBrains
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: October 16th, 2020, 7:46 am
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
Porn is the depiction, the visualization of an act. The question is: is the depiction of an immoral act and immoral act in itself? Is it only under certain circumstances?TwoBrains wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 9:47 am Until recently, I've been of the firm opinion that the existence of fictional child porn, such as lolicon and shotacon, is inherently harmful because it can be used by child sexual abusers to groom minors by convincing them that child/adult intimate relationships are acceptable and non-harmful. Under this model, creators and consumers of that material would be morally responsible for that grooming by creating the material and motivating the creation of further material, respectively.
However, as I've read discussions about the matter elsewhere, I've encountered the argument that since fictional child porn isn't created for grooming purposes, and groomers use it outside its intended purpose and the creator/audience dynamic, that the only person morally culpable for its grooming use is the groomer themself, not the creator or the portion of the audience that doesn't sexually groom. I'm not sure if this argument is logically sound, but I can't formulate a refutation to it from the other side of the issue.
I detest fictional child pornography, and I'd be happy if it were illegalized everywhere. However, I'm not sure if my visceral disgust is blinding me to a logical point that it won't let me fully consider, and so I'd like some outside perspectives on the matter to help interrogate my beliefs to see which side they really fall on.
Let's tackle first why the act depicted is immoral in the first place. In what is often referred to as modern society, sex with children is a moral taboo, regardless of it being consensual or not. It is understood that any notion of consent from a child in that matter is simply inadmissible. But whether there are real, practical consequences or not, they have little bearing on the act being moral or not. The action by itself, whatever the motives, consequences, etc., is immoral. Of course, that children can actually be harmed, aggravates the immorality of the action, but that's just an additional, accessory condition, which is what is often considered when declaring something illegal.
So when is depicting something immoral, immoral? The standard rule seems to be that if it has the consequence of promoting such immoral act, then it is immoral. Child porn fits into that category: it depicts an immoral act and promotes it. That's the only consequence that is relevant. Again, it can also result in that children be harmed as a consequence of carrying out the immoral act, which aggravates the immorality of the action, but that's just an additional, accessory condition, that may occur or may not. Also, some people might argue that the direct relation between the depiction of something and fostering it is disputable, but if the matter cannot be settled easily, one should take the worst case scenario as a precaution.
So, if child porn is immoral just for promoting an immoral act, fictional child porn too, no matter what are the added consequences.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
Never in my opinion.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
Is the depiction of sex with children not immoral then?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 7:23 pm "The question is: is the depiction of an immoral act and immoral act in itself?"
Never in my opinion.
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
Correct. No expression is immoral in my view. I'm a free speech "absolutist."Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 8:25 pmIs the depiction of sex with children not immoral then?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 7:23 pm "The question is: is the depiction of an immoral act and immoral act in itself?"
Never in my opinion.
- Count Lucanor
- Posts: 2318
- Joined: May 6th, 2017, 5:08 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Umberto Eco
- Location: Panama
- Contact:
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
OK, but I couldn't help it: is the advocacy of canceling free speech not immoral then?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 8:54 pmCorrect. No expression is immoral in my view. I'm a free speech "absolutist."Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 8:25 pm
Is the depiction of sex with children not immoral then?
― Marcus Tullius Cicero
-
- Posts: 624
- Joined: November 28th, 2020, 6:55 am
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
That's a reason, but not the only one. Talking about it openly, one could incriminate oneself or make oneself a target of a prospective abuser. That's why people are hesitant to talk about such things openly.Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 7:04 pm We can't get anywhere with this issue if we can't talk about sex that people are willing to engage in versus sex that's against someone's desires/will. And that's so taboo because this is such an emotional hot-button issue that there's no way anyone is going to rationally talk about that distinction any time soon.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
I presume to a free speech absolutist no advocacy is immoral. Only actions can be immoral, and the moral responsibility is solely with the person actually carrying out the physical act. And speech is only regarded as an action in the sense that it moves some air around in the vicinity of the mouth, which rarely causes direct harm (at least in the pre-Covid era!). So acting to suppress free speech would be immoral but simply saying "I think free speech should be suppressed" is not.Count Lucanor wrote:OK, but I couldn't help it: is the advocacy of canceling free speech not immoral then?
One of the main problems I've always had with this absolutism is that it seems to entail throwing out any notion that speech can to any degree be seen as a cause of human action.
I think it's the fear of self-incrimination that tends to silence most open discussion about acts that are considered extremely taboo or abhorrent, such as child sexual abuse. There's a fear that people will ask suspiciously "why are you so interested in child sexual abuse?" or something similar. I'm sure most of us know from experience and observation that words are rarely taken at face value. The subtext is always sought.baker wrote:That's a reason, but not the only one. Talking about it openly, one could incriminate oneself or make oneself a target of a prospective abuser. That's why people are hesitant to talk about such things openly.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
No, of course not.Count Lucanor wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 9:06 pmOK, but I couldn't help it: is the advocacy of canceling free speech not immoral then?Terrapin Station wrote: ↑December 8th, 2020, 8:54 pm
Correct. No expression is immoral in my view. I'm a free speech "absolutist."
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
There would be no need to advocate for freedom of speech if we're only talking about things that you agree with, things that you're comfortable with, things that you don't find offensive. No one would have the urge to squelch any speech if we were only talking about things people are fine with.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7148
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
What is meant by "fictional" in this context please?TwoBrains wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 9:47 am I detest fictional child pornography, and I'd be happy if it were illegalized everywhere. However, I'm not sure if my visceral disgust is blinding me to a logical point that it won't let me fully consider, and so I'd like some outside perspectives on the matter to help interrogate my beliefs to see which side they really fall on.
- Terrapin Station
- Posts: 6227
- Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
- Location: NYC Man
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
The depiction of child porn, without it actually being pornography involving children. Some ways this can be done:Sculptor1 wrote: ↑December 9th, 2020, 8:43 amWhat is meant by "fictional" in this context please?TwoBrains wrote: ↑December 4th, 2020, 9:47 am I detest fictional child pornography, and I'd be happy if it were illegalized everywhere. However, I'm not sure if my visceral disgust is blinding me to a logical point that it won't let me fully consider, and so I'd like some outside perspectives on the matter to help interrogate my beliefs to see which side they really fall on.
* Literary fiction (in other words, if we're simply talking about writing)
* Illustrations and animation
* Adult actors pretending to be children; often the porn industry will use adult actors who are 18 to their early 20s who look younger than their age, and then they'll make them look younger via clothing, etc.
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7984
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?
Thus restrictions on such broadcasting should not rest on moral grounds but on actual harm issues.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023