Man convicted over "illegal" cartoons

True, but I don’t think it’s much of a stretch that my point of view is closer to that of society-at-large. Perhaps that’s inconsequential to the debate at hand, though.

For me it’s not about policing people’s thoughts and punishing them for it, it’s about idenitifying people in need of help and getting them that help. I guess I can understand skepticism about therapy, especially if it’s compuslory. I’ve personally had a good experience with psychotherapy, so that biases me for sure. I’m sorry if you’ve had a negative experience or know of people that have.

Treating political dissent and homosexuality as mental illness are things that were shameful and we know that are wrong now. Pedophilia is worlds away from political dissent and homosexuality.

I find that to be rather discompassionate. Sick people should be helped. Also, I make my home in Japan and hope they take action against virtual child porn here too. This is unlikely, however, since they only criminalized possession of actual child pornography this year. Also, they censor “normal” porn here, so I don’t think you should be holding Japan up as some bastion of free expression. The only reason it took so long to ban images and video of actual children engaging in actual sexual acts and that virtual depictions remain legal is that there’s a long, deep, and disturbing tradition of sexualizing children in Japan.

I’m pretty sure the accepted theory is that pedophiles are a risk for the comission of sexual abuse, so the onus is on you to disprove that.

Fireworks are banned in lots of places in the United States as they pose a fire hazard. There are electrical codes in place and there is certainly electrical work that should be left to professionals. Prohibition of certain kinds of drugs is indeed a fruitless venture as is treating addicts as criminals, but discouraging the use of harder drugs and ensuring that addicts go into treatment is reasonable.

1 Like

First of all, I did watch the video, twice, with full attention. I want to thank you for sharing an excellent link. It’s a TED Talk, so almost by definition it will be a powerful topic, passionately and eloquently delivered.

You quoted one of the very first things he says

Some others have asserted that he was watching the wrong kind of porn. I disagree. I submit that if he was aroused by the kind of porn he was watching, that the “anger and violence” were already within him.

He makes a LOT of really excellent points that involve well researched facts about women in the sex film industry, the victimization of women and children in human trafficking operations, the horrendous percolation of impossible standards for body image, and etc. etc.

But he also mixes in a LOT of his personal experience with porn and presents it as representative of fact. Anecdote does not equal research.

My main problem with the inclusion of this video in this particular thread, is that it only tangentially addresses the topic.
#Man convicted over “illegal” cartoons.
Yes, the cartoons in question may have been horrible, squicky, toddler rape porn, but it was an imaginary rape with an imaginary victim.

What Mr. Gavrieli is talking about is actual sex, between actual people, recorded at the highest fidelity available to the “producers.”

One of those is fantasy, the other is reality. One is thought, the other is deed. One is imagined, the other is actualized

Here is a quote I love by Greg Stafford

I don’t want the government telling me what I can imagine, therefore I need to object every time they try to do that to someone else; even (perhaps especially) when what that someone else is imagining is repugnant to nearly everyone.


Uh, no, it is a TEDx talk - lesser, franchise talks who’s speakers are not vetted by TED.

I stand corrected!

Good catch :thumbsup:

I do still stand by the implication that Mr. Gavrieli’s spoke on a powerful topic, and did so passionately and eloquently.

None of which entails him being accurate in his broad assertions. Sound data trumps personal anecdotes.

You’ve basically established that I shouldn’t reply on that video’s topic, so I won’t, except to say “You’re welcome.”

Good points like “Porn is all about male domination of women”? Like that porn made by women for women?

Those kinds of blanket statements don’t keep me interested in a fifteen minute talk.

Fair enough, but it will have to wait until tomorrow, as I need to get to bed to get up super early.

I was going off of the quote “porn brought so much anger and violence into my private fantasies.” I don’t know what he is watching to bring that about. I know there is stuff out there that caters to that, but it’s nothing I am into. If porn made me angry and violent I’d stop using it as well. So I guess, as you suggested, I’ll need to watch the video, as I am curious as to is it the content he’s consuming, or perhaps if it’s some underlying issue with him that makes him that way.

At the risk of continuing to comment on something I haven’t seen, as well as perhaps give TMI, one genre that generally doesn’t fit the above statement is “home made” or “amateur” porn. Personally I like stuff where the people are clearly into one another and their responses and reactions are “real”. In general I wouldn’t \ characterize it as “male domination of women”. I can’t stand the produced fake tan crap. YMMV. Void where prohibited by law.

1 Like

I wonder just how much something like this could have screwed up the life of one Charles Lutwidge Dodgson.


I’m not comfortable drawing the line of what is acceptable or not acceptable If nobody is harmed/exploited. Especially since once you draw that line, you open up a whole can of worms of what is acceptable or not.


He makes good points about the degrading and stigmatizing nature of the sex industry, but that seems to be a point in favor of artificial pornography (written, drawn & CG) as it is as victimless as it can get. I don’t think people find his point about violent fantasies particularly convincing, as almost everybody can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. Porn per se don’t cause more crimes, otherwise we would be suffering a terrible crime wave due to being flooded by internet porn. What actually matters is impulse control, the ability to restrain twisted desires and fantasies. Things that affect the threshold for acting on impulse would be stuff like alcohol, certain types of pollution, the cost of transgressing commonly held values and of course the perceived risk of getting caught.


If that’s true, then a large portion of the population of Japan is mentally ill, by your measure. I’m not exaggerating; this is a country with entire stores devoted to selling graphic novels centered on underage porn, and they also conveniently sell book covers that say “Moby Dick” or “The Hunger Games” so that you can read your porn on the subway.

What I’m getting at is: no. Looking at drawings isn’t a sign of mental illness, any more so than watching actual, real people do violent acts and getting off on it. And it doesn’t need society’s intervention.

Let’s say I’m not imagining this person, and you’re speaking out of ignorance. Would that change anything?

And really, you’re going to argue that a “professional” knows more about a person than that person themselves? That’s a terrifying, terrible thought.


Quoting myself:

Japan is not something you want on your side in this. In addition to semi-accepting “lolicon”, they have one of the highest suicide rates in the developed world and a generally terrible record on mental health.

I respectfully disagree.

I’d say leaving a mentally ill person to self-treat themselves is wreckless.

You said:

I would say that a trained psychiatrist know a lot more about the inner workings of a brain than a layman. Psychiatrists and psychotherapists can, by working with a person, deepen that person’s understanding of themselves. Maybe there are a handful of pedophiles that can bear the double burden of controlling their urges and living in a society that fears and loathes them, but I’m certain that most could benefit from therapy.

Judge Smails: I’ve sentenced boys younger than you to the gas chamber. Didn’t want to do it. I felt I owed it to them.


If someone were to form a mental image of an imaginary child in a sexual situation could that be a crime? That would be just one step removed from recording such an image on paper or in a digital file.

I’m pretty uncomfortable with imagery that could encourage someone to think about children in a sexual way but I’m not sure if can be properly regarded as a crime. Are pedophiles really interested in this stuff or do they pass by it in favor of images of actual children?

I definitely think people on sex offender probation should not be allowed to view or possess this kind of material and it is well within a probation agent’s authority to prohibit any legal activity which could increase the risk of a person re-offending.

My personal experiences with psychotherapy have been damaging and an utter sham.

I personally feel that empathy is underrated.

Good day.

Or the good 'ole US of A in the 60s…


Hadn’t heard of this before, but am not at all surprised.

At first glance, that seems reasonable, but it’s far too easy to get labeled a sex offender. In 13 U.S. states, one can be put on the register for public urination. I guess it’s fortunate I don’t live in one of those states.


Excellent link and very topical for this thread. Thank you for sharing it!