Thought police?

[henryp]

I think it's a little more complicated than someone being hurt by the individual act.  I think the goal is to have the chasm you'd have to cross to go from not having sex with children to having sex with children to be as vast as possible, and for the feedback at every point to be "BAD!"  

I guess what it boils down to, is do you think someone who fucks robots kids, and watches cgi kid porn is going to be more likely to go from that to real kid sex, than someone who's told no all the way.  Or if you think someone who lives in a society that doesn't have as strong a taboo with child sex is going to be more likely to participate in child sex.

Personally, I think it's in our best interest to avoid an environment that says it's okay to go up to the line on that front.  It's definitely thought policing, but sometimes that's just the common sense approach.

I can understand that logic. The problem is that we have no reason, thus far, to think that it would happen that way. That's the slippery slope when it comes to this particular debate. I'm not sure it's common sense, because I'm not sure it's a reasonable outcome. It could happen that having an outlet like that is enough to stop people from hurting children. That said, I would ideally like to see it treated like a mental illness so people can come out and say they have those urges and professionals who are qualified to help people not act on impulses can help them. Whether it's an illness or not is irrelevant to the fact that treatment can be beneficial.

Practically speaking, if those things aren't allowed, the point the person meets resistance will be earlier.  If you can't look at stuff or fuck child replicas, when someone does one of those things, you can nab them and do something about it before they get to a real kid.  If they can legally look at cgi kiddie porn and have kid robot sex, and there's nothing saying "That's wrong", all that's left is trying to catch them just before they molest an actual kid.  

But my original point, I think society can dictate societal norms by how it responds to various acts.  More or less moral advertising.  The same tricks that can get people to think Beyonce is the queen of the world can be used to dissuade people from sexing up kids.  

I think it's understated.  I remember back in the day, the standard of beauty was tall thin women.  And then MtV just said "Here's Jennifer Lopez.  You all like big asses now."  And people did.  It was crazy.  They just flipped a switch on beauty standards.  And they do stuff like that all the time.  I prefer they use those powers as much as possible to be anti-child sex.  Although, I'd say Hollywood/commerce sends some pretty mixed messages.  Which makes it even more important that the stigma remains attached to all of that behavior wherever it can be.

---

This was what I was thinking.

Ready Pervert One?

I got it.