should erotic literary depiction of pedophilia be legal?

[© Tweed the Younger]

it appears to be.

[Governor Scott]

Anything in text should be legal as long as it doesn't result in the direct harm of someone, so yes.

[white trash heroes]

yes on utilitarian grounds. that is, its does not directly harm anyone and probably gives pedophiles an outlet that makes them less likely to act on their latent tendencies.

[dialectical fetishist]

Yeah, for the reasons ghost_white pointed out.

[politicus]

Anything in text should be legal as long as it doesn't result in the direct harm of someone, so yes.

This

Fantasies are not harmful by themselves. Pedophilia will always exist to some extent. The important thing is to prevent pedophiles from acting out their fantasies and you don't do that by banning either writing, drawings or cartoons. Masturbating to a fantasy doesn't harm any children and it allows the pedophile to satisfy his or her desire in a unproblematic way. I am not afraid that it will make pedophilia appear more normal. The important thing is to strengthen the cultural norm, that fiction is something entirely different than reality. That line is getting blurred to some degree in the West today, but it is still pretty strong.

The Japanese have a much more sensible approach to this question than Westerners, they allow  explicit cartoons and texts and they don't have bigger problems with pedophilia than we do.

Sorry for straying slighly off topic by including cartoons, but I think its important to see this in a broader picture.

[freefair]

Yes.

[Redalgo]

Yes - I agree with Scott and Politicus.

[Diabolical Minds Think Alike]

Yes, although it really depends on the context.

[Old Europe]

Would this include Nabokov?

[pillage the village, trash the scene]

No.

[homelycooking]

Would this include Nabokov?

Lolita comes to mind, to be sure. But that's sort of a special case: the exceptional artistry and craftsmanship that reveals itself when reading that novel ought to be trumps against its suppression on the basis of the perceived morally prurient content in it. The value of the literature in Lolita is far, far greater than the benefit suppressing it would supposedly have on the moral health of its readers. In fact, the act of censorship - of limiting and encumbering minds with old, backward ideas - serves itself to destroy moral and intellectual "health"!

But in a more utilitarian sense, I don't think it is productive for a society to forbid knowledge of pedophilia. If anything, the most effective tool against sexual abuse of children is an ability to understand the thinking and behavior of the pedophile.

[shua]

But in a more utilitarian sense, I don't think it is productive for a society to forbid knowledge of pedophilia. If anything, the most effective tool against sexual abuse of children is an ability to understand the thinking and behavior of the pedophile.

The first step would be to understand that equating sexual abuse of children with "the pedophile" is a confusion between a term that means something very different in psychological and criminal justice contexts.

[© Tweed the Younger]

yeah the purpose of erotica is primarily (or only) to arouse the reader.  an actual novel is a categorically different case.

[ChairmanSanchez]

No, as Scott pointed out, but it is still weird.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

Yes, due to a freedom of speech thing, although personally I find that disgusting.

Also, literary fiction doesn't harm anyone. Therefore, it's not a pornography, where real children are exploited, and which should remain banned.

[opebo]

You shouldn't talk about this subject:

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

[Gustaf]

I'm pretty sure that artistic depiction of pedophilia is illegal in Sweden. There was a controversial case surrounding some sort of anime porn fairly recently.

I vote yes because I think the lines are too hard to draw and it's victim-less in the direct sense.

[Vasall des Midas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Mutzenbacher would be the classic of erotic pedophilia. (I haven't read it.)
Lolita not being, of course, a child (nor erotic literature, really).

[opebo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Mutzenbacher would be the classic of erotic pedophilia.

Wow, that book is available online, but alas as far as I can tell only in German.  Do you know of any English translations available online?  I'd really like to read it.

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

You shouldn't talk about this subject:

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Then why are you still able to post?

[Vasall des Midas]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephine_Mutzenbacher would be the classic of erotic pedophilia.

Wow, that book is available online, but alas as far as I can tell only in German.  Do you know of any English translations available online?

No. (And "wow!" at the online availability. I was surprised.)

[You kip if you want to...]

Voted yes by mistake. I meant no.

[opebo]

You shouldn't talk about this subject:

This site is not pedophile-friendly.

Then why are you still able to post?

I've no connection to that predeliction, Kalwedge, I just support their fight for freedom.  And anyway I can't really post, I just make suggestions for the puppeteers to post in my name.

[Free Palestine]

Absolutely.

Only stuff that actually causes harm to children should be illegal (to make, buy, or sell -- but simple possession shouldn't be illegal), which literary works do not.

[dead0man]

As long as it's "literature" and not a how-to, yes, of course.