its really simple.....
If the subject matter offends you, then don't click on the link, nobody is forcing you to read the specific stories. I have been reading the stories on Nifty for secveral years now, never had a problem with it, even though those links have always been there.
That is really simple--so long as the only thing we're concerned about is our own sensibilities. All of us on this forum are, by rule, over age 18, and so there's no danger of any of us being subject to pedophilia.
However, the question dealt with the larger problem of how these sites interact with or even encourage pedophilia. In order to combat pedophilia, we need to understand its roots, causes, and mindset to determine the best ways of curbing it and protecting children. If such threads do indeed contribute to pedophilia--and that issue is a big part of this thread--simply ignoring those sites or the offensive threads within them does little to solve the problem.
I'm all for live-and-let-live but only when the person we're talking about is mature enough to make decisions about things that can potentially cause them great harm.
The question goes beyond the realm of INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY. Individuals are responsible for accessing information and their actions but individual responsibility is just one part of the equation. SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY is another component that we might consider. As pjlikesporn said, ignoring offensive threads or links does little to solve the problem.
At the same time it´s tempting to start a witch hunt against porn or the Internet based on stories like this. One thing is to be socially responsible and another is to limit personal freedom with no justification.
xsuperboy made some interesting points (Welcome to JUB btw) and I´m trying no to get on a moral high horse here:
...The stories on the Nifty Archive are made up. Not real. At all. People have a wide range of sexual fantasies, ranging from the common to the unbelievably deviant.
I just find it sort of ridiculous when people get on a moral high horse. Sex with kids is illegal, plain and simple, because they are not sexually mature and cannot give consent. We all agree on that.
Given the statistics of actual pedophilia diagnosed in the States right now ... I find it hard to believe that only the pedophiles are getting off to these stories. Meaning that it could be your best friend. Or that creepy guy in the corner cubicle. Or you. Fact is, you probably wouldn't admit it if you did get off to them if you did.
This is a key fact. Some of us or close relatives or co-workers or friends are in this situation. The data is limited but according to some estimates
20-25% of all adult men may have
some feelings of sexual arousal in connection with children. These men are
not pedophiles unless they fulfill the current diagnostic criteria (APA):
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR) criteria for Pedophilia (302.2) are:
A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally age 13 years or younger);
B. The person has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty;
C. The person is at least age 16 years and at least 5 years older than the child or children in Criterion A.
The diagnostic criteria do not require actual sexual activity with a child.
The discussion changes once we acknowledge the existence of a relatively significant percentage of men who experience feelings of sexual arousal with children (a taboo topic in itself in many cultures). As a result, an hypothethical website that includes underage sex stories will have a wide range of readers:
- some that have no interest and/or are disgusted by the idea
- some that have fantasies with minors
- some that have fantasies with minors
and fulfill the diagnostic criteria (pedophilia) i.e. pedophiles
Those with no interest or occasional fantasies are in a different scenario. My concern is with the last group in particular, those that are diagnosed pedophiles. Kulindhar made a interesting observation regarding the last group (pedophiles):
Ask sex therapists, and get a load of different answers on this.
Some will tell you that there are pedophiles who are satisfied with stories and fantasies, so a site providing those is actually helping keep children safe... from those few, anyway. But ask others, and they will tell you that fantasizing about something inherently lowers the barriers to actually performing the act(s), that in essence (ask a sports coach!) imagining doing something, being excited about it, is actually practicing that action, preparing for it, becoming primed to do it.
Is it free speech? Of course!
Is it responsible speech? Uh... that comes down to each individual case. If indeed for some people getting off to the fantasy relieves the urge for some people and thus they never engage in the actual behavior, then Nifty is providing a public service (however distasteful to some). If indeed for many or most the fantasy only reinforces the tendency or desire to abuse children, then Nifty is causing a public nuisance, or something like that.
Fantasies are just one element here. A pedophile has the right to fantasize but a supervised clinical setting seems to be a better venue to fantasize and deal with unhealthy desires. A commercial website does not include mental health support or supervision for pedophiles. A website adds some additional risks:
- Development of social networks among pedophiles
- Exchange of material via Internet
- Reinforcement of behaviors
- Reinforcement of tactics and developement of new strategies (from tips on how to use Internet to sex tourism in areas of the world with no effective protections in place)
Should we ban all porn as a result of this discussion? No.
Should we ban all erotic stories in the Internet? No
Should be left this to individuals alone to decide? I don´t think so. Some protections must be in place. Written child pornography is a reality and there is a market for it. What we need to think about is what the consequences of this market are. Internet added a whole new dimension. The recent case of minor actively involved in child pornography called the attention of authorities. The case was originally reported in the NYTimes last December. One of the main aspects of the case was how pedophiles created a sophisticated Internet network to support this kid with no physical interaction (a kid that was an active provider of child porn).
Ignoring sites is not enough if we are dealing with pedophilia. At the same time better solutions are far from simple. Pedophiles think about reality and children in a different way. Pedophilia is a mental disease and we need to ask ourselves about better ways to prevent and treat those affected. A police state is not the solution but individual responsibility with no protective framework it´s not enough. Pedophilia is a mental disease with long-term effects that is extremely resistant to treatment. What solutions do we have in terms of written child pornography at this stage:
- Leave it as it is? Individuals are responsible for accessing material.
- Regulate access in some degree? Discussion of potential Internet restrictions in the case of (officially) diagnosed pedophiles (case by case basis).
- Regulate content? Discussion of potential content regulations: from self-regulation to external guidelines or even a total ban on under-age material.
- Apply free speech to under-age sex written accounts but criminalize Internet networking and electronic exchange of visual material?
- Clarify the definition of pornography in the US and reach agreement on the consequences of written child pornography?
- Others?
P.S.: The NY Times article ("Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World") is no longer available for free at the NYTimes wesbite. I found a copy here just in case:
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051219/ZNYT02/512190712
