You be the judge - sexual assault?

[billvon]

Or, you can pick an actual event. Some doctor who grew up in a country where female circumcision is practiced normally, emigrates to a Westernized country. He performs the operation there, gets arrested and doesn't understand why.

I think he should be convicted because, it would be a sign of a regressive state to say the least.

I agree he should be arrested (and convicted if the evidence supports it) - but not because it is "a sign of a regressive state." Because he harmed someone - and violated a law - for profit.

 

[sculptor]

Is male circumcision genital mutilation?

 

[Jeeves]

Is male circumcision genital mutilation?

Yes.
You, as an adult, have a right to whatever kind of mutilation you choose to undergo, of course. Infant circumcision has been outlawed in several countries - not without a huge kerfuffle over "religious freedom" - and discussed in many others. Almost nobody dares to tell their Jewish population how barbaric their customs are (kosher slaughter, too) while calling Africans regressive is common.

 

[iceaura]

You, as an adult, have a right to whatever kind of mutilation you choose to undergo, of course. Infant circumcision has been outlawed in several countries - not without a huge kerfuffle over "religious freedom" - and discussed in many others.

The mutilation of women is often done at a fairly advanced age - just before onset of puberty, say. And it is often voluntary, in a sense. That does not make it less severe.

The mutilation of infant boys is comparatively minor, done for completely different reasons and with much less significant harmful effects - despite being done without consent, etc, the degree of harm does make a difference.

Using the same word - "circumcision" - for such significantly different mutilations, misleads. If the intent is to attach greater significance to male mutilation, note that it traditionally has had the opposite effect.

 

[exchemist]

Is male circumcision genital mutilation?

Yes, if not done for medical reasons, I would say so. Though it generally does not seem to have adverse long terms effects.

 

[sideshowbob]

Do you actually believe our current civilization would benefit from this?

I see it as similar to fictional depictions of murder, torture, etc. If no actors were harmed in the production, we don't consider the producers criminals. So why do we treat people differently if the fictional acts depict children but don't harm children?

 

[sideshowbob]

No. Peeping is always a crime. Looking isn't.

And there's no fine line between looking and peeping.

 

[billvon]

I see it as similar to fictional depictions of murder, torture, etc. If no actors were harmed in the production, we don't consider the producers criminals. So why do we treat people differently if the fictional acts depict children but don't harm children?

Because we have a higher standard when it comes to protection of children vs adults.

 

[sideshowbob]

That would presuppose the assaulter himself doesn't know how much of a threat he is;

It doesn't really matter how much of a threat he thinks he is. As others have pointed out, his thoughts don't constitute a crime; only his actions do.

 

[Bells]

Bells, I find your response immoderate.

I thought I was being kind and polite for the most part...

There is no way that sideshow bob is any kind of troll and I don't find the arguments foetid.

I did not actually accuse him of being a troll. My comment was that it may have been preferable if he was a troll. And his arguments in this thread have been dangerously rank.

There are inherent dangers to the approaches he has taken. To the one, it would make a large portion of rapes no longer crimes. Such as raping a woman who is unconscious, as a prime example. Or even sexually molesting babies and children.. The notion of whether it really is a crime if the victim does not know, or arguing lack of threat or harm.. I guess there is a reason as to why he has avoided the specifics of what he is arguing or questioning.

I think it is quite an interesting question to debate what constitutes a crime. It is only natural that some rather unpleasant examples should be brought forward in order to tease out where the line lies between criminal and merely objectionable.

He was quite clear from the get go.

To me, if somebody "steals" from Bill Gates and he doesn't notice the "loss" then there's no crime. If a woman doesn't notice that she's been "assaulted" is there a crime?

Which is why the line of questioning went towards, as you put it, the rather unpleasant examples.

A lot of victims of sexual assault, rape, sexual violence or even domestic violence, do not realise that they have been assaulted. In the examples I cited above, children who went to see a doctor and were molested, some repeatedly, had no idea they were being molested. Tell me, do you think a doctor fingering the vagina of a 3 month old baby is committing a crime if the baby is not aware of what is happening, if there is no threat or physical harm to the child?

Because if we go to the crux of what sideshowbob is arguing, that is what he is questioning.

There is a reason why sex offenders, particularly child sex offenders demand and push for no threat or harm = no crime. Now, I am not saying that sideshowbob is a sex offender or a paedophile. What I am trying to point out is the inherent dangers of what he is questioning and suggesting.

I was just thinking that crime probably encompasses not just acts that cause harm to the victim , but also loss (as in unnoticed theft) and danger (as in speeding). The case of distribution of innocent photographs to those who, due their sexual perversion, might finding them exciting is a tough one where children are involved, for obvious emotional reasons that we all feel strongly. One feels is ought to be crime but I am not sure what the grounds would be.

It's actually not that tough at all.

Particularly for issues of consent. And particularly intent. Look at what he was responding to:

OK, a person takes photographs of his friends' children in various states of undress--states which normal people would regard as innocent and acceptable, i.e., not perceived in any way as suggestive, pornographic or erotic. He disseminates these photos online (dark web) amongst a network of pedophiles. Neither the children nor the parents have any knowledge of this, and it never gets back to them at any future stage. Still a crime, right?

Do you still think it is a "tough one"?

Now, let's imagine where this would not be a crime for the person who took the photo. They take photos of his friends children in various stages of undress, considered normal for normal people who don't get their jollies looking at children, and he posts them on his facebook or instagram feed and forgets to make them private or for family/friends only. And a paedophile copies the photos and disseminates them on the dark web to a ring of paedophiles.

Do you understand now?

Perhaps we should instead use a similar example we can all agree is absurd enough to find funny rather than sinister: shoe fetishists on the dark web! Suppose someone has a collection of high-heeled shoes to sell and takes photos of them, being worn by a young woman, in order to facilitate sales on Ebay. Someone gets a copy of these and circulates them to shoe-pervs on the dark web. Is that a crime and if so, on what grounds?

Again, consent, privacy, etc. Also factors of breach of copyright can come into play in such instances.

But think of it this way, for the context of this discussion.. Is there a risk to the wearer of the shoe in the photo or others who wear the same shoe?

You know, in the same way that a paedophile sees a photo of a child in stages of undress and tries to seek out that child or another child to rape them, for example?

If we can answer that, perhaps we can then see how the case changes if the photos are of people, not shoes, and why.

Do you want to compare people to shoes?

My suspicion would be that it is something to do with the concept of privacy, by which we mean a particular sort of intangible property that a person is deemed to possess. So infringing privacy causes someone to suffer effectively a form of loss.

Hmm..

 

[sideshowbob]

Generally, assault tends to require that an act makes the victim apprehensive of imminent harm to the person.

That's what I thought. So if the "victim" doesn't know anything happened, he/she can not be apprehensive of imminent harm. Hence, no assault, no crime.

That's all I'm saying.

Crimes are typically defined more specifically than by reference to vague notions of "harm". See the example of theft, above, for example.

Or take the example of homosexuality. It was deemed "wrong" at one time. It was a crime, even though there was no victim and no harm. That's why I'm saying that we should be defining crimes more in reference to harm.

Clearly, a theft of the nickel took place, provided the relevant intent was there on the part of the offender.

No, that is not clear. If I don't miss the nickel, if I don't even notice that it's missing, it is not a real crime, even though the law might technically regard it as such.

 

[sideshowbob]

The children in identifiable photographs may, as they grow older, and especially if they attract attention from the viewers of those photos, regard themselves as having been victimized.

The example to which I was replying, message #107, specified, "Neither the children nor the parents have any knowledge of this, and it never gets back to them at any future stage." That is the situation to which I was replying. In your modified scenario I would say that it was a crime.

And certainly they signed no model release - they could sue anyone except the kiddie porn guys for that.

Unauthorized use of the photographs is a separate issue, just like driving to the photo shoot under the influence of alcohol would be a separate issue.

 

[sideshowbob]

Your 12 year old daughter goes to see a doctor, and the doctor requests a urine sample, then tells your daughter to undress, get on her hands in knees and he then inserts a catheter into her urethra to obtain the urine sample. Your daughter believes this is how it is done, as her doctor has always obtain urine samples this way.

No harm right?

As I have said repeatedly, I am talking about cases where the "victim" doesn't know anything happened. Try a relevant example.

If Dr. Bradley's victims are unaware that anything untoward was happening...

Not "untoward". I'm talking about people who never found out that anything happened.

If we were to take your argument seriously, only Case B has committed a crime, as his victims were aware of what he was doing.. Right? Since the doctors who raped and sexually assaulted numerous women in Case A did so while the women were unconscious..

Again, you're talking about a cases in which the perpetrator's actions were known. Try a relevant example.

In fact, not only is the child unaware of what has happened, but the child has not been harmed at all. So, is it still a crime?

That's what I'm hoping people will think about instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction.

Dr. Bradley really connected with his patients. They adored him. He was fondling them, jamming his fingers into their diapers and vaginas as he cooed at them and they cooed back. Is there really an assault? After all, there is no "perceived threat".

That's what I'm hoping people will think about instead of just having a knee-jerk reaction. Is it really and assault? Or is the real harm caused to them in the future caused by people telling them they were victims?

You know, most people, after digging themselves into this kind of stupid hole, would have given up by now and possibly even outed themselves as a troll...

I'm not particularly happy with the answer but it's the honest answer to that question. So far, your objections have been to a question that I wasn't asked and didn't answer.

 

[sideshowbob]

Because we have a higher standard when it comes to protection of children vs adults.

How does criminalizing a drawing or a story protect anybody?

 

[sideshowbob]

I guess there is a reason as to why he has avoided the specifics of what he is arguing or questioning.

Maybe questioning should be a crime.

 

[exchemist]

How does criminalizing a drawing or a story protect anybody?

Having thought about this some more I think the key issues are loss of privacy, which is a different kind of loss from loss of property or reputation but a loss nonetheless, and in the case of children the further issue of potentially encouraging a market in something that leads to child abuse. This latter principle is less obvious that the privacy aspect, but is recognised in other fields. For example the prohibition on trade in ivory is to stop hunters from seeing a market in illegal elephant poaching.

It seems to me your original idea that a crime has to cause harm is definitely too narrow on its own. The concepts of loss, whether of tangible property, or of intangibles such as intellectual property, reputation or privacy; and of danger, i.e. risk of causing harm, whether to an individual or a class of persons (e.g. children at risk of abuse or elephants), also form part of our conception of criminal acts, I think.

And there is more still, for instance you can get arrested for showing your arse at somebody in public. That's not any of the above but it is regarded as offending public decency, i.e. it is behaviour that is quite likely to annoy or upset people.

The list gets longer, evidently......

 

[sideshowbob]

I think the key issues are loss of privacy, which is a different kind of loss from loss of property or reputation but a loss nonetheless

In the case of fiction or drawings, there is no specific person who has any privacy to lose.

... in the case of children the further issue of potentially encouraging a market in something that leads to child abuse.

In the case of pornography in general, does it promote sexual abuse in general? Or does it provide an outlet for some that might prevent them from acting out against a real person? or both?

It seems to me your original idea that a crime has to cause harm is definitely too narrow on its own. The concepts of loss, whether of tangible property, or of intangibles such as intellectual property, reputation or privacy; and of danger, i.e. risk of causing harm, whether to an individual or a class of persons (e.g. children at risk of abuse or elephants), also form part of our conception of criminal acts, I think.

I noticed that when you mentioned it to Bells. I have been thinking of "harm" in those broader terms.

... offending public decency....

Like two men kissing in public. Crime or no crime? Harm or no harm? You have to check the calendar.

 

[iceaura]

The example to which I was replying, message #107, specified, "Neither the children nor the parents have any knowledge of this, and it never gets back to them at any future stage."

It's a crime as long as the threat exists - at least.
Threatening people with harm is a crime.

Unauthorized use of the photographs is a separate issue,

It was included in your little scene - showing them to others, etc.
Meanwhile, looking at them for arousal is unauthorized use.
And taking them in the first place creates a threat.

 

[sideshowbob]

Threatening people with harm is a crime.

Where is the threat in this example?

And taking them in the first place creates a threat.

They were take with the parents' permission. Have the parents commited crime?

 

[exchemist]

In the case of fiction or drawings, there is no specific person who has any privacy to lose.


In the case of pornography in general, does it promote sexual abuse in general? Or does it provide an outlet for some that might prevent them from acting out against a real person? or both?


I noticed that when you mentioned it to Bells. I have been thinking of "harm" in those broader terms.


Like two men kissing in public. Crime or no crime? Harm or no harm? You have to check the calendar.

There does seem to be some evidence that pornography can encourage some men to objectify women in real life, I think. At least I think I have read as much, but I don't have a reference to hand.

Re public decency yes of course that is a movable feast, in that public attitudes change. A generation ago a dental floss bikini bottom, or bathing topless, would get someone into trouble in a lot of places, but now it seems OK. So much is context: something OK on the beach would cause a stir on the London Underground.