Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. I'm out.

*edit* Actually, I'm not out yet. My wife is trained and certified in Criminal Profiling, Geographic Profiling, and trained in both threat assessment and behavioural analysis. She works with and consults with psychologists as a regular part of her job. She specializes in child sexual abuse and sexual homicide. She's gone thorugh training with agencies in Canada, the US, the UK, and other countries. So I think I'll take her assessment of the statistics over your assumptions on this one.

Now I'm out.

You'll have to cite some actual studies on this. The only ones I've ever found are dripping with "bad science". I suspect you're repeating stuff that you've heard and it seemed correct to you, but you never checked into it. I get why this happens, I've done it myself, but I do find it interesting to disabuse people of their cultural taboos. So if you have actual studies to back that up?

For example, did you know that pre the 70s most US porn stores had an area for this porn? Yes, even back then people considered it gross (frankly I consider a lot of fringe porn gross), but it was only illegal to produce it, not own it, so it was sold. The original laws in the US were written specifically to deny producers money in the hopes of killing it off (ironically the internet did more to that end than the laws did). Ask any older guy that lived in the US pre 70s, they'll be able to confirm this for you (no, I'm not that old).

I cannot say much about the Reddit situation, it's not a site I frequent. I do know that the hysteria around this stuff in the US is epically stupid and overblown, yes overblown. There's people in prison right now for owning cartoons and another for accidentally downloading mislabeled items, immediately deleting them, and subsequently cooperating 100% with the FBI. Yep, they put that guy in prison. I'm never in favor of vengeance for punishment and I prefer only removing people from society that actually have harmed someone and will harm again without intervention.

I'm going to step in and defend Stuff here, as it seems to me that he's being misunderstood quite a lot in this discussion.

You seem to focus mostly on the word "obscene", but as I understand what Stuff is saying, he does not personally have a problem with most of the things that are posted here. What he does have a problem with, is that many of the things posted here are in direct violation of the Code of Conduct, and he would like some clarification as to why you would step in in this particular case, but not in many others involving direct violations.

And when I say "direct violations", I do not refer to the word "obscene" in the Code of Conduct. As you say, what one person will find obscene will likely differ a great deal from what another person might. Let's look instead at the term I highlighted in the text, "sexually explicit". The example Stuff has mentioned a few times, is a current thread about people's favourite sex positions. Now, I think we can agree that the room for interpretation of "sexually explicit" is somewhat smaller than for "obscene". I think we can also agree that a discussion about favourite sex positions can hardly be anything but sexually explicit. As such, that thread is in obvious direct violation of the Code of Conduct, and yet you have not stepped in and done something about it.

I'd like to make it clear at this juncture that I personally do not think you should do anything about it, and in fact I don't think Stuff wants you to either. What he wants is an explanation of why some violations of the Code are okay, while others are not. No action taken, just an explanation, that's all.

Personally, I wouldn't want to have to first write and then enforce a list like that. It's almost impossible to define why something is okay while something else is not, without writing a veritable wall of text, with examples. I dislike the "sexually explicit" clause, but I understand why it's there. The thing is, that it's possible to use sexually explicit language to have a mature discussion about sex (it's hardly possible otherwise), but it's equally possible to misuse sexually explicit language to discuss something else entirely.

I would like for this forum to be a place where I could have a mature discussion about sex with other adults. So far it seems that I can, but that it is in fact officially against the rules.

Fine, that's great, so are you willing to produce the sources she uses for her work? It must be based on something beyond hearsay (though frankly I can think of some shit that's persisted at the FBI that amounts to voodoo *cough* bullet lead analysis *cough*).

Isn't everything? Lol:)

Actually, I was very cautious about NOT making the topic explicit. It is sexual, sure, but it seemed pretty tame to me. And I sure as hell never intended to make such a commotion with it.

I wouldn't have bothered you with this (so just feel free to ignore me,) but the topic somehow managed to find its way into community stickies compendium and I suppose that is something you might care about. While I really don't think it's a discussion GoG should be ashamed about, quite the contrary provided how most members approached it, I pm'd you the link to not provide yet ANOTHER way to get there in case you decide to lock it and generally erase it out of existence (it got buried after about 2 days or so)

Mustrum Ridcully quote? If so +1 interwebs

So basically like the Pirate's code from Pirates of the Caribbean right?

To the person who compared homosexuality in culture today to the future of pedophilia in regards to culture and our acceptance of certain "unnatural" (I'm using that word very broadly and I can't be bothered to go through the posts) acts of sexual deviance, you're a fucking idiot. I understand the Internet revels in taking contrarian positions, but there is absolutely a distinction between letting grown men fuck each other in the ass and people filming and enjoying children having sex, or fetishising children in such a way.

There is also a distinction between the perceived fear and panic surrounding child porn and predators (HOLY FUCK EVERY MAN AROUND YOU IS A SICK PERVERT) and the very, very real threat of child predators in society. To say, "oh, well I guess in the future being attracted to 12 year old girls wearing nothing is going like gay 30 year olds with ball gags and anal beads today" is insane.

Our jerkface asshole of a cabinet minister, Vic Toews (the Canadians know what I'm talking about) said that if you didn't support warrantless online surveillance laws, you were basically supporting child pornographers. That is the kind of fear and false dichotomy that has no place in civil discourse, and I would dare to lump in a moronic statement that whichever GOG poster made on the extreme other end of the argument. It's just as bad.

I think that covers it nicely :-)
And as I said, both here and in that other thread, I have no problem whatsoever with that thread. If not here, then where can I have a discussion like that?