Thoughtcrime?

[Nex]

In response to the thread Dave started, I have some observations and questions.

Is it wrong to find a small child sexually attractive? Why or why not?

Is it wrong to masturbate to an image of a child in a normal childlike pose (i.e. not child porn)? Why or why not?

Is fake child porn, like 3D rendering, wrong to enjoy or masturbate to? Why or why not?

Is it wrong to talk about it publicly? Why or why not?

-----------------------

I don't think any of these things are wrong. No laws have been broken, no child has been touched or compromised, and no harm has actually been done.
I don't even think I'd worry too much about the person who does these things. It's fantasy. If this hypothetical person were to put themselves in the position of being near children often, or had other warning behaviors, then I would be concerned. But the actions above really aren't warning signs.

As an example, many women have fantasies about being raped. In a fantasy setting, it's commonly a turn-on. But how many women go out purposely looking to get raped? I won't say "none," because in the course of human history there very well may have been some, but very, very, very few have.

To go even further, the BDSM community will act out their humiliating, violent, or frightening fantasies in a safe setting. The key is "safe," as in it's not REALLY happening, it's play-acting. Fantasy.

There are people who enjoy being diapered and treated like infants in a sexual setting, and people who enjoy doing that to others. But again, it's a safe setting where it's fantasy, not reality.

So... how in the hell is it wrong to fantasize about porking a little kid?

-------------------------------
I think our society has become almost hysterical on the concepts of child molestation and pedophilia. We've come to equate the thought with the act itself.

It's a hair away from thoughtcrime, in a way.

[Adora]

Is it wrong to find a small child sexually attractive?
A real in-the-flesh small child standing in front of you? Yes. It's a symptom of some deeper problem that needs to be addressed. Organisations like SAFE in NZ urge you to contact them (or other similar groups) if you are even starting to have thoughts like this, because they can then lead to actions like the consumption of child porn because of the underlying issue that causes such a reaction.

Is it wrong to masturbate to an image of a child in a normal childlike pose (i.e. not child porn)?
Yes, see above.

Is fake child porn, like 3D rendering, wrong to enjoy or masturbate to?
I'm so putting my foot in it here... but oh well...

It depends. As someone who's active in the slash and yaoi communities and understands why women look/read shoutacon yaoi/chanslash* (even though I am not really into the stuff myself), I can't say no. They could be classified as a kind of child porn. I'd say that mindset behind that and a male paedophile masturbating to 3D images is very different, though.

Is it wrong to talk about it publicly?
I don't think so. But you try getting an open forum going about it. You may as well stick your head in a guillotine.

*Shoutacon is the male flipside of Lolicon, ie- porn manga/hentai/yaoi that involves a boy having sex in some way or another. Notably different to simply "They have big eyes therefore they must all be young" (stupid) ideas some people have about manga because in these comics the character is intentionally created to be a child. Chanslash is the slash stories involving child character in sex acts, in some way or another.

[lisarea]

*Notably different to simply "They have big eyes therefore they must all be young" (stupid) ideas some people have about manga ...

Why, how could those stupid, stupid people think that just because they have big eyes (and oversized heads, small noses and mouths, little plaid school uniform skirts, bookbags...) that they're supposed to look like children, when it was obviously an accident?

I'm familiar with some of the history of censorship in Japan and the resulting workarounds, so I'm aware of the excuses for the childlike appearance of so many of the characters, but are you really saying that they're not supposed to look childish?

[Adora]

Why, how could those stupid, stupid people think that just because they have big eyes ... that they're supposed to look like children, when it was obviously an accident?
I'm not saying it was an accident, I'm saying it's a far more complex reason, like, oh I dunno, most things in life.

The major big-eyes influence came from the 1970s when female manga artists started getting jobs in the mainstream and so the art styles changed a lot. These amateurs-turned-pro drew characters with big eyes to portray emotions better, eg "The eyes are the window to the soul" and all that. Before that, the "big eyes" phenomenon had been limited to very young children's works, and young-girls comics/doujinshi drawn by women. It was adapted more into the mainstream then and is now the common was most manga and anime are drawn.

This is what I mean by the difference between a Westerner's perception of something and what something really is, like the difference between something just drawn in a certain art style, and something that actually intends the creation to be a child character.

(and oversized heads, small noses and mouths, little plaid school uniform skirts, bookbags...)
And now you're getting into specific territory. Of course a teenage character who is depicted as going to school, wearing a school uniform, acting like a teenager is supposed to be a teenager, just as a little child character will act like one in the narrative.

I'm basically saying that just because something looks like XYZ to certain people, doesn't mean you can necessarily go and lable it a child, or child-like. Like what was brought up in one of the other threads about the sexual act of putting a finger in the mouth and looking up under lashes. It's not a childish pose, but it is a pose that children also do in totally non-sexual ways. To say it's the same thing is like saying giving the peace sign at a No-War rally is the same as Nixon prancing off planes with four fingers in the air.

[lisarea]

The major big-eyes influence came from the 1970s when female manga artists started getting jobs in the mainstream and so the art styles changed a lot. These amateurs-turned-pro drew characters with big eyes to portray emotions better, eg "The eyes are the window to the soul" and all that. Before that, the "big eyes" phenomenon had been limited to very young children's works, and young-girls comics/doujinshi drawn by women. It was adapted more into the mainstream then and is now the common was most manga and anime are drawn.

That's all very interesting, but it's not just the eyes, and again, this just sounds like more hindsight justification.


This is what I mean by the difference between a Westerner's perception of something and what something really is, like the difference between something just drawn in a certain art style, and something that actually intends the creation to be a child character.

I never said anything about the characters BEING children. They do obviously look like children from the neck up, though.

As far as that being a Westerner's impression, I can't say I'm all that swayed. I just it absurd to imagine that a culture that would sell little girls' used underwear in vending machines just independently and innocently developed some rich cultural art style that just happens to look, to us ignint Westerners, like little children's heads on adult bodies.


(and oversized heads, small noses and mouths, little plaid school uniform skirts, bookbags...)
And now you're getting into specific territory. Of course a teenage character who is depicted as going to school, wearing a school uniform, acting like a teenager is supposed to be a teenager, just as a little child character will act like one in the narrative.

I am not talking about teenaged characters going to school.

Hell, I don't know. Maybe they are going to school, but they're going to school with their hoo-has sticking out.

I understand that you appeciate that style, and I don't intend to try to paint your preferences as pedophilia or anything. But I do take offense at your backhanded reference to stupid people who lack your profound insight and deep commitment to your favored art form.

I fail to see what is so ignorant about thinking that cartoon porn that features giggling cartoon females with pigtails taking off their school uniforms in order to fuck might just might be somewhat informed by pedophilia.

[viscousmemories]

Is it wrong to find a small child sexually attractive? Why or why not?
I wouldn't say it's 'wrong', since that implies a moral judgement and I don't believe people have any control over who/what they are sexually attracted to.

Is it wrong to masturbate to an image of a child in a normal childlike pose (i.e. not child porn)? Why or why not?
In a vacuum, no. But nothing happens in a vacuum, there are always extenuating circumstances. Do I think it's morally wrong for a 20 yr. old single college student to occasionally masturbate to pictures in the youth section of the JC Penney catalog? No. Do I think it's wrong for the father of a five year old girl to habitually masturbate to pictures of his daughter's playmates? Yes.

Is fake child porn, like 3D rendering, wrong to enjoy or masturbate to? Why or why not?
My opinion on this is similar to my opinion above. I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about it but there are plenty of circumstances and conditions in which I would think it's wrong.

Is it wrong to talk about it publicly? Why or why not?
I don't think it's wrong to talk about anything publicly. However I recognize that this is an extremely volatile subject and so moderate my comments accordingly. Many people have a profoundly negative reaction to the subject either because they have young children, they were sexually abused as children themselves, or they just have a strong protective instinct.

Whether I think the response is rational or justified, I can choose to moderate my language to be respectful and compassionate, or I can take the stance that it's their problem and say what I want. I used to opt for the latter, these days I go for the former. But just because I compromise on my language doesn't mean I compromise my values. I still say what I believe, I just exercise more caution in doing so.

I think our society has become almost hysterical on the concepts of child molestation and pedophilia. We've come to equate the thought with the act itself.

It's a hair away from thoughtcrime, in a way.
I agree that some people seem to believe that anyone who fantasizes about a particular act is predisposed to physically act on it, and that this is a particularly strong and common response in online discussions about pedophilia. And as I explained above, I think there are numerous understandable (even if irrational) reasons for this response. However I have seen no indication that there is any immediate danger (in the US, anyway) of leglislation outlawing any particular thoughts.

[Nex]

real in-the-flesh small child standing in front of you? Yes. It's a symptom of some deeper problem that needs to be addressed. Organisations like SAFE in NZ urge you to contact them (or other similar groups) if you are even starting to have thoughts like this, because they can then lead to actions like the consumption of child porn because of the underlying issue that causes such a reaction.
Why? And why is child porn consumption an issue in this society?

It depends. As someone who's active in the slash and yaoi communities and understands why women look/read shoutacon yaoi/chanslash* (even though I am not really into the stuff myself), I can't say no. They could be classified as a kind of child porn. I'd say that mindset behind that and a male paedophile masturbating to 3D images is very different, though.
I have no clue what yoi/shoutcon/chanslash is.

Again, why would fake child porn be wrong? On a moral standpoint, of course.

I don't think so. But you try getting an open forum going about it. You may as well stick your head in a guillotine.
I'm good at social suicide. It's a talent.

[Nex]

I wouldn't say it's 'wrong', since that implies a moral judgement and I don't believe people have any control over who/what they are sexually attracted to.
I agree.

Do I think it's wrong for the father of a five year old girl to habitually masturbate to pictures of his daughter's playmates? Yes.
Why? If he doesn't try anything with them, where is the harm?

My opinion on this is similar to my opinion above. I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about it but there are plenty of circumstances and conditions in which I would think it's wrong.
Again, why?

I don't think it's wrong to talk about anything publicly. However I recognize that this is an extremely volatile subject and so moderate my comments accordingly. Many people have a profoundly negative reaction to the subject either because they have young children, they were sexually abused as children themselves, or they just have a strong protective instinct.
I do understand what you're saying here. I personally choose not to moderate what I say at all. I'm really bad at being overly considerate, and usually just end up with huge misunderstandings, so I don't bother anymore. It's more important to get the point across than to spare feelings, IMO.

Whether I think the response is rational or justified, I can choose to moderate my language to be respectful and compassionate, or I can take the stance that it's their problem and say what I want. I used to opt for the latter, these days I go for the former. But just because I compromise on my language doesn't mean I compromise my values. I still say what I believe, I just exercise more caution in doing so.
Again, I understand.

I agree that some people seem to believe that anyone who fantasizes about a particular act is predisposed to physically act on it, and that this is a particularly strong and common response in online discussions about pedophilia. And as I explained above, I think there are numerous understandable (even if irrational) reasons for this response. However I have seen no indication that there is any immediate danger (in the US, anyway) of leglislation outlawing any particular thoughts.
But there has been in the past. They nearly outlawed 3D renderings of child porn, where no child was involved in any way.
Luckily, it's still legal. To outlaw fantasies would be engaging in a fight against thoughtcrime, don't you think?

[Adora]

That's all very interesting, but it's not just the eyes, and again, this just sounds like more hindsight justification.
Then maybe you should learn a few facts about the manga and anime industry, and then come back and we can continue this conversation.

They do obviously look like children from the neck up, though.
Really? Because to me they obviously look like Betty Boop. But, y'know, I'm sure you'd actually have to know something about the industry and culture to get that reference, wouldn't you?

As far as that being a Westerner's impression, I can't say I'm all that swayed. I just it absurd to imagine that a culture that would sell little girls' used underwear in vending machines just independently and innocently developed some rich cultural art style that just happens to look, to us ignint Westerners, like little children's heads on adult bodies.
I never said it was innocent, I'm simply saying it's complex. Y'know, that facet of human life that requires higher brain functions? I'm not defending it as a wonderful thing. In fact, I have a lot of issues with it. But I take issue with simplistic explanations of any form of media from any country without context or proper knowledge. If you're going to condem it, condem it for the fact that it continues to feed a misogynistic society that does infantise women in a lot of ways, not just some simplistic rendering of "it looks like a child, it must be child porn" which is just shallow and yes, plain old fucking stupid.

But I do take offense at your backhanded reference to stupid people who lack your profound insight and deep commitment to your favored art form.
No, my reference to "stupidity" was people resorting to some bastardised version of Occam's Razor simply because they don't want to try and think outside their little comfort zone of cultural prejudices. I don't give a fuck if they appreciate any form of Asian pop culture or not. I do give a fuck if they act like braindead asshats.

I fail to see what is so ignorant about thinking that cartoon porn that features giggling cartoon females with pigtails taking off their school uniforms in order to fuck might just might be somewhat informed by pedophilia.
So are you now going to make those same assumptions about "Daddy" or "Naughty Schoolkid" roleplaying by grown adults?

Why? And why is child porn consumption an issue in this society?
Well, in answer to your second question, the consumption of (true) child pornography is complicit in the abuse of the children depicted in that porn. Carrying on from that, in regards to the first question, anyone who acts in such a way is commiting a crime.

Again, why would fake child porn be wrong? On a moral standpoint, of course.
Like I said, it depends on the circumstance. Paedophillia is not a sexual thing. Before you jump up and down like monkeys, please, think about this for a minute. Rape is not about sex. Anyone who knows anything about rape can tell you that. It's about power. It's about things associated with the act, rather than a (shallow) external interpretation of the act itself. Most paedophiles come under the same banner, because of basic power relations in most societies. It's not necessarily about the acts they commit, but the feelings they get from them. This is why chemical castration is not always a viable option, because they gain satisfaction from abusing children in other ways.

I honestly can't say then, why fake child porn would be ethically (ie- through my personal ethical framework) wrong. I'd question it's validity in the circumstance of feeding a detremental psychosis though, like a substance feeds an addict. If it was feeding a wider social sickness like this, yes, I would question it's validity.

[Nex]

Well, in answer to your second question, the consumption of (true) child pornography is complicit in the abuse of the children depicted in that porn. Carrying on from that, in regards to the first question, anyone who acts in such a way is commiting a crime.
I see your point, and don't think I disagree, but when does it become "child porn?"
Personally, if the minor in question is obviously underage, such as being prepubescent, I would definetly say it's "child porn." But what if the minor is 17, or 16, or 15? Can you tell age by the masterful cinematography of a low-rent skin flick?

...hmeh... it's purely hypothetical and close to derail to boot. Nevermind.

Like I said, it depends on the circumstance. Paedophillia is not a sexual thing. Before you jump up and down like monkeys, please, think about this for a minute. Rape is not about sex. Anyone who knows anything about rape can tell you that. It's about power. It's about things associated with the act, rather than a (shallow) external interpretation of the act itself. Most paedophiles come under the same banner, because of basic power relations in most societies. It's not necessarily about the acts they commit, but the feelings they get from them. This is why chemical castration is not always a viable option, because they gain satisfaction from abusing children in other ways.
But that doesn't have anything to do with it really. So what if someone gets off on the power idea? It doesn't matter unless they actually do something, like touch a child inappropriately or make sexual suggestions to a child.

One can fantasize about the power exchange (remember women and rape fantasies) without going out and doing it.

I honestly can't say then, why fake child porn would be ethically (ie- through my personal ethical framework) wrong. I'd question it's validity in the circumstance of feeding a detremental psychosis though, like a substance feeds an addict. If it was feeding a wider social sickness like this, yes, I would question it's validity.
I wonder if it is, though. Pornography is about fantasy, that's why it's so ludicrous to begin with. Extra-huge boobs, caked-on makeup, bleach-blonde hair (plus weave), extra-slutty clothing, extra-cheesy lines, extra-young looking actresses... it's all highly exaggerated because it's pretend.

There's no real demand for realistic porn, because porn in and of itself is not meant to be realistic. I think porn consumers really do realize this... how many men actually expect to walk into, say, a girls' dorm at some college and NOT be greeted with "Who the hell are you?" but with gleeful blowjobs and HLA? None.

How much of a stretch is it, honestly, to think that maybe a vast number of the people viewing this 3D rendered kiddie stuff realize that it's just fantasy? As gross as it is, I don't see why that particular segment of the population would somehow see it differently. They know it's not real, and not something to act on.

[dave_a]

Do I think it's wrong for the father of a five year old girl to habitually masturbate to pictures of his daughter's playmates? Yes.
Why? If he doesn't try anything with them, where is the harm?

I don't think I would call this wrong, but I would call it incredibly dangerous. I, personally, would be unwilling to allow my child to play at the home of another child if I knew the guy was masturbating to pics of my kid. The way I see it is that there is an abstract fantasy of using images of non persons or real persons who are anonymous. Then there is making the fanatasy a bit closer to reality using images of someone we know. Still not wrong, but by conditioning oneself to view one's daughter's playmates as sexual objects I think we would be entering a dangerous place where we would be very close to doing something inappropriate if the situation presented itself.

I think any such thoughts would best be resisted and channeled to something more benign.

So, morally wrong? No, just potentially very dangerous.

[viscousmemories]

Do I think it's wrong for the father of a five year old girl to habitually masturbate to pictures of his daughter's playmates? Yes.
Why? If he doesn't try anything with them, where is the harm?
Well my essential point was that I believe morality is largely intersubjective, and not at all objective. So I would never say something is objectively immoral no matter how heinous. So yes, from an intersubjective moral view I believe there's a difference between a young person masturbating once to an anonymous picture of a child, and a father masturbating habitually to a picture of his daughter's playmate.

My rationale in this case is similar to Dave's in that I think habitually fantasizing about a particular individual (and I would go a step further and add 'act') could desensitize a person to the inappropriateness of it and increase the liklihood of acting it out in real life. I'll leave whether this is possible at all and what might indicate it for the mental health professionals, but it seems like an intuitively reasonable consideration to me.

Where Dave and I may depart is that I would call it 'wrong' for a person to persist in a behavior that was determined to be dangerously inappropriate. So again, objectively wrong? No. Wrong for this person in this circumstance? Yes.

My opinion on this is similar to my opinion above. I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about it but there are plenty of circumstances and conditions in which I would think it's wrong.
Again, why?
See above.

I do understand what you're saying here. I personally choose not to moderate what I say at all. I'm really bad at being overly considerate, and usually just end up with huge misunderstandings, so I don't bother anymore. It's more important to get the point across than to spare feelings, IMO.
I understand your frustration. I also prefer reasoned arguments to histrionics, and I've been accused of being callous and cruel when I was being as delicate as I knew how to be. I still don't think getting my point across is more important than sparing others feelings, though. I find I get the most out of discussions when I concentrate on doing both (not that I always succeed, of course).

However I have seen no indication that there is any immediate danger (in the US, anyway) of leglislation outlawing any particular thoughts.
But there has been in the past. They nearly outlawed 3D renderings of child porn, where no child was involved in any way. Luckily, it's still legal. To outlaw fantasies would be engaging in a fight against thoughtcrime, don't you think?
Yes they did try and fail to outlaw virtual child porn. But virtual child porn isn't a thought or fantasy, it's a tangible product. As a free speech junkie I followed those cases fairly closely, and I don't recall any part of that legislation proposing a ban on any thoughts or fantasies. I think it's fallacious to assume that banning the production of a particular thing (which is common) will result in the banning of thoughts (which is, I think, unprecedented).

[dave_a]

I think it's fallacious to assume that banning the production of a particular thing (which is common) will result in the banning of thoughts (which is, I think, unprecedented).

At the risk of derailment I think hate crimes cross a bit over this line. It still requires a concrete action take place, but it is the thought process behind the action that determines severity of punishment.

Given that pretty much everything evolves it doesn't seem as though the banning of certain thoughts, to the extent that they can be determined, is too far away. I think the reason we lack thought laws is due more to the difficulty in proving/prosecuting thoughts than anything else.

In a safety, big government protect us from everything oriented culture I don't think it at all unreasonable to believe if thoughts could be determined we would approve legislation that would lock away, or at least track individuals with the "wrong" thoughts. We already do this with those found guilty of sex crimes. Again, they first had to commit an act, but we consider such persons to be dangerous enough that their wherabouts are tracked for life.

If it were possible to determine that a person found sexual fantasy involving young kids erotic I think we (as a culture) would approve legislation monitoring them.

If not for a favorable court decision we would already have legislation on the books that would enable us to imprison folks who jerk off to pics of fictional kids.

[lisarea]

That's all very interesting, but it's not just the eyes, and again, this just sounds like more hindsight justification.
Then maybe you should learn a few facts about the manga and anime industry, and then come back and we can continue this conversation.

They do obviously look like children from the neck up, though.
Really? Because to me they obviously look like Betty Boop. But, y'know, I'm sure you'd actually have to know something about the industry and culture to get that reference, wouldn't you?

Oops. Guess what? I don't care.

I just don't give a fuck about the culture and industry of Japanese cartoons. It strikes me as a really silly thing to be snobbish about, but you know, have fun with that.

And Betty Boop is another excellent and salient example of the phenomenon, yes. Before you say it, no, I don't give a fuck about the culture and history of Betty Boop, either.

I never said it was innocent, I'm simply saying it's complex. Y'know, that facet of human life that requires higher brain functions? I'm not defending it as a wonderful thing. In fact, I have a lot of issues with it. But I take issue with simplistic explanations of any form of media from any country without context or proper knowledge. If you're going to condem it, condem it for the fact that it continues to feed a misogynistic society that does infantise women in a lot of ways, not just some simplistic rendering of "it looks like a child, it must be child porn" which is just shallow and yes, plain old fucking stupid.

What the fuck are you talking about?

I never said that. In fact, you've now taken pretty much what I said elsewhere and are trying to argue it with me. My objection to that style is precisely that it infanitilizes women. I am saying that, by sexually infantilizing women, you necessarily tend to sexualize infants. Whether the consequence is intended or unintended isn't really all that black and white, but in the long run, it doesn't entirely matter.

You just can't have one without the other, even if it is an unintended consequence. And look at the culture in Japan: Adult women dress and act like children, and little girls are highly sexualized. Neither side of the equation is anything to aspire to, so it's just a chicken and egg question, and the answer is fairly irrelevant.


No, my reference to "stupidity" was people resorting to some bastardised version of Occam's Razor simply because they don't want to try and think outside their little comfort zone of cultural prejudices. I don't give a fuck if they appreciate any form of Asian pop culture or not. I do give a fuck if they act like braindead asshats.

Wait. So your objection is that someone has said that hentai characters, because they have childlike traits, are meant to literally portray children? Is that it?

You're being remarkably inarticulate about precisely what your objection is.


I fail to see what is so ignorant about thinking that cartoon porn that features giggling cartoon females with pigtails taking off their school uniforms in order to fuck might just might be somewhat informed by pedophilia.
So are you now going to make those same assumptions about "Daddy" or "Naughty Schoolkid" roleplaying by grown adults?

Is it that great a leap to assume that, yes, that probably is informed by pedophilia? You know, what with that being a sex game that involves one partner playing an adult and the other playing a child and all? I was trying to think of a way to say "Duh" that's a little less dismissive, but I gave up: Duh.

You're either completely missing the point, or you're just so far gone into denial that you can't recognize the obvious.

I suspect that you're conflating something I've said here with something you've heard elsewhere. However, you will note that nowhere have I claimed that (at least most) hentai is actually pedophiliac. I said it's informed by pedophilia, as is much of the not overtly sexual manga and anime. And yes, daddy and schoolgirl roleplaying is also influenced by pedophilia. Nowhere did I say it should be illegal. Nowhere did I say it actually exploits children or should be categorized as pedophilia in itself. It's informed by pedophilia. It just is. Whether it's childlike characters in sexual situations or adults playing the role of children in sex games, it's informed by pedophilia. Not is pedophilia, mind you. Informed by. Influenced by.

I'm being careful not to say that you're making a strawman because I get the distinct impression you're actually arguing with someone. Only thing is, I don't think that person is here.

And your argument that people who do make that argument are ignorant, intolerant xenophones, or "braindead asshats" or whatever, isn't particularly compelling or insightful.

Your arguments about Westerners' lack of understanding of the culture and history of the art form don't hold a lot of sway if the people you're arguing with are arguing from the context of the west. If the critics are uninformed Westerners taking this stuff out of context, isn't it pretty likely that the fans of the art form in the West are doing the same? Do you consider that relevant or not? Why?

Again, I know you're very upset about something, but it's very difficult to nail down exactly what it is through all the namecalling and histrionics.

[lisarea]

I think it's fallacious to assume that banning the production of a particular thing (which is common) will result in the banning of thoughts (which is, I think, unprecedented).

At the risk of derailment I think hate crimes cross a bit over this line. It still requires a concrete action take place, but it is the thought process behind the action that determines severity of punishment.

I don't think you're derailing at all. Hate crime charges are a sentence enhancement, designed, the way I see it, to target habitual criminals before they make the crime a habit. Personally, it's a subject I waffle on a lot. But it's entirely relevant because it targets the reasoning behind a behavior. So, as long as I don't go out and kill any Hungarians, I can bitch about them all I want. But once I do finally snap and off a filthy bohunk, the prosecutor can take this very post and use it to show the court that my actions were not some kind of one-off deal.

Same thing with virtual kiddie porn. Sex offenders are frequently prohibited from viewing porn as a condition of their parole. Both are restrictions on constitutionally guaranteed freedoms (US here, obviously) imposed as the result of a criminal conviction. As long as there's no actual abuse of children involved anywhere in the process, it's protected. Only once someone has committed a crime is it prohibited.

And as much as people might not like that free non-criminals can engage in fantasy and rhetoric that the majority finds reprehensible, it is absolutely necessary in order to maintain any semblance of personal freedom.


Given that pretty much everything evolves it doesn't seem as though the banning of certain thoughts, to the extent that they can be determined, is too far away. I think the reason we lack thought laws is due more to the difficulty in proving/prosecuting thoughts than anything else.

Yes, outlawing virtual kiddie porn really does tend to blur the lines too far, IMO. Didn't they do it in Canada already? Some poor schmuck had a bunch of pencil drawings confiscated. (IIRC, they actually portrayed himself as a child being molested or something.) But Canada has some pretty feeble bill-of-rights related programs and activities. It's not nearly as robust as the US constitution.

I don't doubt that someone might manage to pass some kind of legislation that could be characterized as establishing thought crimes, but I suspect it would be quite difficult to get it to stick constitutionally.

If it were possible to determine that a person found sexual fantasy involving young kids erotic I think we (as a culture) would approve legislation monitoring them.

I think the slippery slope argument might actually be incredibly effective in turning the tide of public opinion, were that ever to become an issue.

Depending on how broad a definition of 'young kids' and 'erotic' we could apply, there'd be, like, six guys watching everyone else.

[Clutch Munny]

In response to the thread Dave started, I have some observations and questions.

Is it wrong to find a small child sexually attractive? Why or why not?

There is a lot of ground covered by "finding attractive". Instant reactions are one thing, considered judgements -- and the deliberation they require -- are another. VM's well-taken point about the lack of choice of what one finds attractive applies primarily to the former end of the spectrum; I do not think that point legitimately applies to the latter end of the spectrum, though -- to the rationalization, acceptance, and normalization of sexualizing young children.

Is it wrong to masturbate to an image of a child in a normal childlike pose (i.e. not child porn)? Why or why not?

"Wrong" is a blunt instrument. Better, perhaps, to say that there's something wrong with it. Deliberate self-stimulation in response to images and thoughts representing sexual encounters with small children amounts to irresponsible character development, in my view. We have some control over who we become, over whether immediate preferences are consolidated and entrenched or are minimized or even extinguished. If becoming a person who generally or systematically desires sex with small children is wrong, then behaviours apt to bring about such a result are wrong as well.

Is fake child porn, like 3D rendering, wrong to enjoy or masturbate to? Why or why not?

To my mind, the above remarks apply.

Is it wrong to talk about it publicly? Why or why not?

Only if the way one talks about it normalizes or attempts to legimitize the sexualization of children.

As an example, many women have fantasies about being raped. In a fantasy setting, it's commonly a turn-on. But how many women go out purposely looking to get raped? I won't say "none," because in the course of human history there very well may have been some, but very, very, very few have.

And that's a crucial distinction. First, there is no remotely plausible mechanism relating female fantasies about about being raped and the rape of females. Second, the moral properties of the situations are not parallel: it is one thing to fantasize about being a victim, another altogether to fantasize about being a predator. But an adult having sex with a small child is inherently predatory; autonomous consent is simply not possible. To fantasize a child as a properly willing sexual partner is eo ipso to whitewash a predatory scenario.

To go even further, the BDSM community will act out their humiliating, violent, or frightening fantasies in a safe setting. The key is "safe," as in it's not REALLY happening, it's play-acting. Fantasy.

Between consenting adults.

I think our society has become almost hysterical on the concepts of child molestation and pedophilia. We've come to equate the thought with the act itself.

It's a hair away from thoughtcrime, in a way.

These remarks strike me as almost hysterical, for what it's worth.

[dave_a]

[quote]I think our society has become almost hysterical on the concepts of child molestation and pedophilia. We've come to equate the thought with the act itself.

It's a hair away from thoughtcrime, in a way.

These remarks strike me as almost hysterical, for what it's worth.

I disagree. I read the rest of your post and agreed with it, but here I disagree.

I was never so aware of this issue as I was in making the post I did and experiencing the backlash from one person as I did.

Over on IIDB this same person is participating in another thread arguing that those convicted of sex crimes have no rights that trump the right of herself to know who the convicted are and where they live even though she acknowledges some so convicted are guilty of nothing more than statuatory rape with a willing partner one or two years younger than themselves who they latter marry (such as myself, although I only came close to being prosecuted).

When we live in a society that seriously entertains the idea of prosecuting people with cartoon drawings of what might be naked kids or a society that does prosecute teens who are a couple years apart in age with rape charges I don't think it is at all inaccurate or hysterical to suggest we live in a culture that is hysterical on the topics of child molestation and pedophilia.

In most earlier cultures a person was regarded as sexually mature once they went through puberty(10-13). In much of the western world we now regard it a crime to have sex with a person less than 16-18 (depending upon the area). In the western world we also often disregard the issue of consent in favor of saying a person, due to age, is incapable of informed consent even though psychologically they are perfectly capable of informed consent.

[seebs]

I see no difference between "people masturbating to images that are intentionally created to look like children" and "people masturbating to images that are intentionally created to look like children". The fact is, some boy/boy pairings in manga are intentionally created to make the boys look underage. Some people get off on underage boys. I don't see any difference between that and any other kind of getting off on underage bodies.

I'm not talking about things where a given style looks a little underage to eyes trained on Western art; I'm talking about intentional depiction of people to make them look underage, especially when the story makes it clear that they really are underage.

That said, I do think there's a difference between 16-year-old "underage" and 10-year-old "underage".

As to thoughtcrime... One of the problems we have is lack of data. If it turns out that pornographic images of underage kids keep these people away from actual kids, then I'm all for it. If it turns out to make them want actual kids even more, then I'm against it. I don't really care about viewing of fake underage kids in and of itself; I care about damage to actual kids.

[Clutch Munny]

[quote]I think our society has become almost hysterical on the concepts of child molestation and pedophilia. We've come to equate the thought with the act itself.

It's a hair away from thoughtcrime, in a way.

These remarks strike me as almost hysterical, for what it's worth.

I disagree. I read the rest of your post and agreed with it, but here I disagree.

I was never so aware of this issue as I was in making the post I did and experiencing the backlash from one person as I did.

Setting aside that your interpretation of this one person's remarks does not seem to be the majority interpretation... you're citing one person's remarks. The original claim was (i) about society in general and (ii) not that there are strong feelings and overreactions to be found but that society's view of pedophilia is "a hair away from thoughtcrime, in a way".

There is no interesting "way" in which this claim is warranted, however.

Over on IIDB this same person is participating in another thread arguing that those convicted of sex crimes have no rights that trump the right of herself to know who the convicted are and where they live even though she acknowledges some so convicted are guilty of nothing more than statuatory rape with a willing partner one or two years younger than themselves who they latter marry (such as myself, although I only came close to being prosecuted).

Okay. But actually being convicted of actually molesting actual children is not a matter of thought crime. So this is irrelevant both to the original claim and my view of it.

When we live in a society that seriously entertains the idea of prosecuting people with cartoon drawings of what might be naked kids

"Serious entertainment" is unhelpfully vague. Is this happening with any frequency, or across the strata and institutions of society? Does it bear out the conclusion I rejected? Compare: When we live in a society that seriously entertains the idea of not even permitting religious symbols in a courthouse... and now insert a parallel conclusion about religion being outlawed, or about the atheistic anti-religious hysteria that's taken over society. Of course these things are seriously entertained in some respect, but this fact shows nothing much about any hysteria that's gripped society.

It is this sort of panicked conclusion on the basis of such thin evidence that strikes me as, ironically, almost hysterical.

In most earlier cultures a person was regarded as sexually mature once they went through puberty(10-13). In much of the western world we now regard it a crime to have sex with a person less than 16-18 (depending upon the area). In the western world we also often disregard the issue of consent in favor of saying a person, due to age, is incapable of informed consent even though psychologically they are perfectly capable of informed consent.

Do you think that 10-13, or 16-18, is what was meant by "a small child" in the OP?

Suppose, in any case, that at some points in human history even infants were widely and openly sexualized. Could you turn this (false, to my knowledge) premise into an argument for Nex's conclusion were it true? I don't see such an argument in the offing, myself.

[lisarea]

I see no difference between "people masturbating to images that are intentionally created to look like children" and "people masturbating to images that are intentionally created to look like children". The fact is, some boy/boy pairings in manga are intentionally created to make the boys look underage. Some people get off on underage boys. I don't see any difference between that and any other kind of getting off on underage bodies.

I don't see any difference, either, but maybe that's because you missed an un- in there somewhere. (Haw haw! Typo flame!)

I do think there's something of a difference. Hentai that is specifically designed to look like and portray children is pretty overtly pedophiliac. It would be difficult for someone to be aroused by that without acknowledging that they are being aroused by pedophiliac imagery.

The "kid from the neck up-exaggerated adult sexual characteristics from the neck down" type probably works more subtly. Someone could easily be aroused by something like that without acknowledging the pedophiliac overtones. As such, I'd imagine the effects are probably more subtle, in that, rather than making a clear pedophiliac appeal, it conflates sexual maturity with childlike traits.

Whether the origins of that sort of depiction lie in the infantilization of women or in the sexualization of children is almost irrelevant, in that the conflation goes both ways. I'm not saying it does, but I think it's worth entertaining the notion that such depictions might acclimate users to pedophiliac imagery in addition to the likely effect of reinforcing ideas about submissiveness in women.


That said, I do think there's a difference between 16-year-old "underage" and 10-year-old "underage".

Yeah, there is a huge difference between sex with underaged people, and actual pedophilia. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to the sexually immature. Few sixteen year olds are prepubescent.

As to thoughtcrime... One of the problems we have is lack of data. If it turns out that pornographic images of underage kids keep these people away from actual kids, then I'm all for it. If it turns out to make them want actual kids even more, then I'm against it. I don't really care about viewing of fake underage kids in and of itself; I care about damage to actual kids.

Exactly. The problem with that is that, as far as I'm aware, every study of porn that's been undertaken so far has started with a conclusion. If you look at the Meese Commission findings, it's downright comical the lengths they went to to prove their point.

Because of the preexisting bias in those type of studies, there are plenty of reports to show that availability of porn provides an outlet, and plenty that show that availability of porn provides an incentive to action. Both conclusions have their logic, too, and I suspect the answer lies more in statistics than anything else. Some people will likely find that virtual kiddie porn meets their pedophilia needs, and other people might find it validates their urges or something.

[viscousmemories]

There is a lot of ground covered by "finding attractive". Instant reactions are one thing, considered judgements -- and the deliberation they require -- are another. VM's well-taken point about the lack of choice of what one finds attractive applies primarily to the former end of the spectrum; I do not think that point legitimately applies to the latter end of the spectrum, though -- to the rationalization, acceptance, and normalization of sexualizing young children.
This is a really interesting perspective that I've never thought of, but I'm still not sure I fully understand your point. Do you mean that you recognize a spectrum of sexual attraction with physical impulse at one point and deliberate, considered lust on another?

If becoming a person who generally or systematically desires sex with small children is wrong, then behaviours apt to bring about such a result are wrong as well.
How can we determine whether fantasizing about a particular behavior is apt to bring that about? I mean, it seems to me it would be possible to fantasize about a particular behavior but be conscious enough of the impropriety of acting on it that a desire to do so would never materialize.

Second, the moral properties of the situations are not parallel: it is one thing to fantasize about being a victim, another altogether to fantasize about being a predator. But an adult having sex with a small child is inherently predatory; autonomous consent is simply not possible. To fantasize a child as a properly willing sexual partner is eo ipso to whitewash a predatory scenario.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making here. Isn't fantasy all about whitewashing an improbable or even impossible scenario to make it an imaginably pleasurable and positive experience all around? Isn't it possible to recognize, say, that rape is and will always be wrong and completely out of the question yet still fantasize doing it?

Sorry if I'm completely missing your points... I feel like I might be.

[Clutch Munny]

There is a lot of ground covered by "finding attractive". Instant reactions are one thing, considered judgements -- and the deliberation they require -- are another. VM's well-taken point about the lack of choice of what one finds attractive applies primarily to the former end of the spectrum; I do not think that point legitimately applies to the latter end of the spectrum, though -- to the rationalization, acceptance, and normalization of sexualizing young children.
This is a really interesting perspective that I've never thought of, but I'm still not sure I fully understand your point. Do you mean that you recognize a spectrum of sexual attraction with physical impulse at one point and deliberate, considered lust on another?

Yes. Deliberate, considered... also refined, polished, rationalized. To say we have no choice about our sexual desires can be more and less correct, depending on what one means by 'desires'.

If becoming a person who generally or systematically desires sex with small children is wrong, then behaviours apt to bring about such a result are wrong as well.
How can we determine whether fantasizing about a particular behavior is apt to bring that about? I mean, it seems to me it would be possible to fantasize about a particular behavior but be conscious enough of the impropriety of acting on it that a desire to do so would never materialize.

Sure. Apt /= necessarily. For that matter, I don't even mean it as "more likely than not". I just mean "probability raising". And notice that I'm not yet considering the connection between being someone who generally or systematically desires sex with small children, and being someone who actually molests children. That seems to be what you're talking about. I'm saying that, to the extent you think that generally or systematically desiring sex with small children is a character flaw, then indulging in fantasies that entrench or normalize such desires is bad character development.

Second, the moral properties of the situations are not parallel: it is one thing to fantasize about being a victim, another altogether to fantasize about being a predator. But an adult having sex with a small child is inherently predatory; autonomous consent is simply not possible. To fantasize a child as a properly willing sexual partner is eo ipso to whitewash a predatory scenario.
I'm not sure I understand the distinction you're making here. Isn't fantasy all about whitewashing an improbable or even impossible scenario to make it an imaginably pleasurable and positive experience all around?

Much of it, yes. But as with any such case, I think that what you whitewash matters. (In the impersonal sense of 'you'!) It indicates, and by repetition can influence, morally-laden facts about your character. This is clear from the way we think about the depiction of actual situations. A man recounting an actual sexual encounter for his buddies might leave out the fact that her sock had a hole in the heel; he says, Yeah, she was a fabulous lay... and no big deal that he leaves this out. Now, if what he's left out is the fact that she sobbed uncontrollably after the act because he'd been so rough; Yeah, he says, she was a fabulous lay... it's not just another detail that might, like the sock, merely detract from the sexiness of the depiction if included. That underdescribes the comparison between the two kinds of omission. Idealizing away some features of a scenario is fraught -- morally and character-wise -- in ways that idealizing other features is not. If you're idealizing just by factoring out the inherent improbability of the situation's arising -- e.g., Premise One of the fantasy is that Julianne Moore suddenly develops a fascination with non-classical logic -- there's no obvious character concern there. (Though I'm open to the possibility!) But if you're idealizing away something like the idea that other people have moral significance, that looks more like the normalization of bad character.

Now, I don't think there are going to be sharp lines differentiating the innocuous from the grotesque; moral intuitions don't seem to work that way. But each of the following strikes me as importantly different; I don't see the justification for saying of each that it's "just a fantasy":

- sex with an adult who is somewhat unsure at the outset, but gradually becomes willing

- sex with an adult who continues to be terrified and in pain, but likes the act anyhow

- sex with an adult who is terrified and in pain, period

- sex with a child who gives the appearance of consenting

- sex with a child who is terrified and in pain


I would be lying if I said my views (as opposed to my feelings) on these matters are settled and well-ordered. But I'm urging the idea that moral intuitions about relishing the honing and polishing of some such fantasies, about pleasurably dwelling on these scenarios, are worth taking seriously, perhaps even independently of moral intuitions about performing the acts themselves.

[viscousmemories]

Do you mean that you recognize a spectrum of sexual attraction with physical impulse at one point and deliberate, considered lust on another?
Yes. Deliberate, considered... also refined, polished, rationalized. To say we have no choice about our sexual desires can be more and less correct, depending on what one means by 'desires'.
Okay, I think I see what you're saying. But in the comment in question I didn't mean we had no choice about our sexual desires, I hadn't thought that far ahead. I just meant that we have no control over who or what might physically arouse us.

Sure. Apt /= necessarily. For that matter, I don't even mean it as "more likely than not". I just mean "probability raising". And notice that I'm not yet considering the connection between being someone who generally or systematically desires sex with small children, and being someone who actually molests children. That seems to be what you're talking about.
Okay thanks for clarifying that. I did incorrectly assume you were making that connection.

I'm saying that, to the extent you think that generally or systematically desiring sex with small children is a character flaw, then indulging in fantasies that entrench or normalize such desires is bad character development.
Maybe this is just a semantic quibble, but to me there's a difference between saying, "I want to have sex with small children" and "It turns me on to imagine having sex with small children". I would only call the former "desiring sex with small children" - as the idea necessitates the involvement of actual children - and I would agree that it's a character flaw. The latter seems more innocuous to me, in that no real children need ever be involved and hence no harm to another is implied.

Isn't fantasy all about whitewashing an improbable or even impossible scenario to make it an imaginably pleasurable and positive experience all around?
Much of it, yes. But as with any such case, I think that what you whitewash matters. (In the impersonal sense of 'you'!) It indicates, and by repetition can influence, morally-laden facts about your character. <snip> Idealizing away some features of a scenario is fraught -- morally and character-wise -- in ways that idealizing other features is not. If you're idealizing just by factoring out the inherent improbability of the situation's arising -- e.g., Premise One of the fantasy is that Julianne Moore suddenly develops a fascination with non-classical logic -- there's no obvious character concern there. (Though I'm open to the possibility!) But if you're idealizing away something like the idea that other people have moral significance, that looks more like the normalization of bad character.
Okay I think I understand your point here and I agree. But to see if it applies, would you say imagining sex with a legitimately consenting child is idealizing away an improbability of the situation arising (or impossibility, in this case), or idealizing away the idea that children have moral significance? Or both?

Now, I don't think there are going to be sharp lines differentiating the innocuous from the grotesque; moral intuitions don't seem to work that way. But each of the following strikes me as importantly different; I don't see the justification for saying of each that it's "just a fantasy":

- sex with an adult who is somewhat unsure at the outset, but gradually becomes willing

- sex with an adult who continues to be terrified and in pain, but likes the act anyhow

- sex with an adult who is terrified and in pain, period

- sex with a child who gives the appearance of consenting

- sex with a child who is terrified and in pain
I guess I'd have to say each is "just a fantasy" if my argument above (that there's an important difference between desiring something and being turned on by the idea of it) is coherent. Which yeah, does make me suspect that the point isn't coherent.

I would be lying if I said my views (as opposed to my feelings) on these matters are settled and well-ordered. But I'm urging the idea that moral intuitions about relishing the honing and polishing of some such fantasies, about pleasurably dwelling on these scenarios, are worth taking seriously, perhaps even independently of moral intuitions about performing the acts themselves.
Eh, like I'd be capable of noticing that your views aren't settled and well-ordered...

When I was a teenager I saw a psychologist who told me, "There's no such thing as a bad fantasy", which is obviously a prevalent belief. I can't think of a more interesting and important experiment in critical thought than to question such a widely accepted premise.

[Clutch Munny]

Do you mean that you recognize a spectrum of sexual attraction with physical impulse at one point and deliberate, considered lust on another?
Yes. Deliberate, considered... also refined, polished, rationalized. To say we have no choice about our sexual desires can be more and less correct, depending on what one means by 'desires'.
Okay, I think I see what you're saying. But in the comment in question I didn't mean we had no choice about our sexual desires, I hadn't thought that far ahead. I just meant that we have no control over who or what might physically arouse us.

Totally got that. I didn't take myself to be arguing against you -- only to be showing why I thought your remarks were right in the context you intended, but might not generalize beyond that.

I'm saying that, to the extent you think that generally or systematically desiring sex with small children is a character flaw, then indulging in fantasies that entrench or normalize such desires is bad character development.
Maybe this is just a semantic quibble, but to me there's a difference between saying, "I want to have sex with small children" and "It turns me on to imagine having sex with small children". I would only call the former "desiring sex with small children" - as the idea necessitates the involvement of actual children - and I would agree that it's a character flaw. The latter seems more innocuous to me, in that no real children need ever be involved and hence no harm to another is implied.

Well, of course within the fantasy one does not flag one's sexual partners as unreal. That's a lousy fantasy. One fantasizes (not necessarily about real people, but) that one's partners are real.

That said, I largely agree with you. I'd like to make myself clearer here, but can't.

Isn't fantasy all about whitewashing an improbable or even impossible scenario to make it an imaginably pleasurable and positive experience all around?
Much of it, yes. But as with any such case, I think that what you whitewash matters. (In the impersonal sense of 'you'!) It indicates, and by repetition can influence, morally-laden facts about your character. <snip> Idealizing away some features of a scenario is fraught -- morally and character-wise -- in ways that idealizing other features is not. If you're idealizing just by factoring out the inherent improbability of the situation's arising -- e.g., Premise One of the fantasy is that Julianne Moore suddenly develops a fascination with non-classical logic -- there's no obvious character concern there. (Though I'm open to the possibility!) But if you're idealizing away something like the idea that other people have moral significance, that looks more like the normalization of bad character.
Okay I think I understand your point here and I agree. But to see if it applies, would you say imagining sex with a legitimately consenting child is idealizing away an improbability of the situation arising (or impossibility, in this case), or idealizing away the idea that children have moral significance? Or both?

The probability will depend on the details. (Sad to say.) But I'm talking about whitewashing things much less subtle: that small children are not proper objects of sexual adult sexual behaviour; that small children cannot (not "do not" or "rarely do") consent to sexual acts with adults. And the like.

When I was a teenager I saw a psychologist who told me, "There's no such thing as a bad fantasy", which is obviously a prevalent belief. I can't think of a more interesting and important experiment in critical thought than to question such a widely accepted premise.

Wow. That really makes me wonder.

So far as I know, e.g., it's quite common for people to contemplate, ruminate, wonder about... what life would be like if their family were dead. Natural, unavoidable, whatever. But if someone starts fantasizing about the death of their family -- if someone starts adding in details, squaring the details with the real world, fleshing out the scenario and dwelling pleasurably on the act or its consequences... the claim that such fantasies are just A-OK strikes me as (speaking technically now) fucking bonkers.

Thanks, vm, for this very stimulating exchange. You're forcing me to think hard about things I've only mused about in the past. (Damn you!)

[viscousmemories]

Okay, I think I see what you're saying. But in the comment in question I didn't mean we had no choice about our sexual desires, I hadn't thought that far ahead. I just meant that we have no control over who or what might physically arouse us.
Totally got that. I didn't take myself to be arguing against you -- only to be showing why I thought your remarks were right in the context you intended, but might not generalize beyond that.
Oh, okay cool.

Stepping back to something you said earlier...
I'm saying that, to the extent you think that generally or systematically desiring sex with small children is a character flaw, then indulging in fantasies that entrench or normalize such desires is bad character development.
I suppose I don't believe (for the time being) that generally or systematically desiring anything is a character flaw, so long as one respects the certain consequences of acting on the desires and until such a time as the desires become an unhealthy preoccupation. But I also wonder if it's safe to say that fantasizing about something entrenches or normalizes a desire for it.

Maybe the circumstances are too unlike each other to make a valid analogy, but I keep thinking of a bank robbing fantasy. Say you have a job that requires you to deliver cash to the bank every day at lunchtime, and every day you spend the entire hour you're in line planning the most elaborate robbery down to the last detail - including killing all the witnesses, natch - and in the end you escape with millions and live happily ever after.

So long as you aren't tossing and turning at night thinking of improvements to the plan, and or shopping for ski masks and assault rifles, I should think this a perfectly harmless fantasy. In fact even if you had this fantasy every time you went to a bank I don't think it would be fair to call it generally or systematically desiring to do it, as long as you always remain conscious of the fact that the real effects would have a certain terrible impact and it stays a fantasy.

Okay I think I understand your point here and I agree. But to see if it applies, would you say imagining sex with a legitimately consenting child is idealizing away an improbability of the situation arising (or impossibility, in this case), or idealizing away the idea that children have moral significance? Or both?
The probability will depend on the details. (Sad to say.) But I'm talking about whitewashing things much less subtle: that small children are not proper objects of sexual adult sexual behaviour; that small children cannot (not "do not" or "rarely do") consent to sexual acts with adults. And the like.
Right, I agree that small children cannot consent to sex. That's why I added the parenthetical that a legitimately consenting child is an impossibility, not an improbability. And it's because I've come to that conclusion rationally that I don't think any amount of fantasizing otherwise could disabuse me of that belief anymore than it could deter me from my firm conviction that children have moral significance.

So far as I know, e.g., it's quite common for people to contemplate, ruminate, wonder about... what life would be like if their family were dead. Natural, unavoidable, whatever. But if someone starts fantasizing about the death of their family -- if someone starts adding in details, squaring the details with the real world, fleshing out the scenario and dwelling pleasurably on the act or its consequences... the claim that such fantasies are just A-OK strikes me as (speaking technically now) fucking bonkers.
I guess I think it's a matter of degree, as I said above. As long as one remains fully conscious and respectful of the real ramifications of realizing the fantasy, and it doesn't become an obsession, I'm not sure I would call it a character flaw.

Thanks, vm, for this very stimulating exchange. You're forcing me to think hard about things I've only mused about in the past. (Damn you!)
I actually have thought a lot about whether fantasies can be immoral, but I just recently started digging a little deeper into the philosophy of ethics so I'm starting to have a somewhat clearer understanding of my own ideas. So thank you for helping me look at different angles here. Should I be flattered that I've made you think hard, or do you just mean you've had to think hard to make sense of my rambling? :D