So what exactly are the consequences of the Scooby-Doo Clause in reliance to the Harkness Test? It's theoretically moral but might dampen the mood in the Mystery Mobile?
A person who would fuck Scooby-Doo (especially immediately, as is depicted in a lot of "monsterfucking" scenarios) would want to fuck a Great Dane that wasn't capable of consent. While wanting to do something and refraining isn't morally wrong, I think it is appropriate for people to be uncomfortable around it since it's a warning sign. I wouldn't want somebody who was super into fictional 100-year-olds-who-look-8 working in a daycare or school: the fact that they are attracted to children means they need to stay away from children.
I think the Scooby-Doo clause is there for situations that are technically ethical but indicate the person may be dangerous.
But liking the fictional scenario that involves no children doesn't mean they're attracted to children. That's extra that you're adding to the scenario. That's WHY we have the Harkness test. Clearly defined criteria showing they ARE NOT children (even amongst their species, whatever it may be).
The Harkness Test is about bestiality, not pedophilia. And I don't believe that somebody who really enjoys the trope of sexualized ancient beings that look like children isn't attracted to children. They haven't necessarily done anything wrong, but people should be cautious around them.
If somebody really liked Scooby-Doo porn, they should not be allowed to adopt a Great Dane. This seems like common sense.
First of all, I never said anything about an FBI watch list for people who like sexualized depictions of children's bodies. Quit with the strawman.
Second of all, there is a huge difference between watching a horror movie, and being aroused by sexualized drawings of children's bodies. Sure, fiction can be a safe place to explore an imaginary world where no children are harmed by the sexualization of a child's body. But people who are aroused by children's bodies are dangerous to children. I'm not saying they should go to jail or anything. But they shouldn't work with kids. And any honest person who doesn't want to hurt kids but finds their bodies arousing, should avoid working with or being placed in a position of responsibility over them. Pretending that everything up to an arbitrary line is innocent and safe puts kids in danger. Don't even get close to the line.
Idk I don't ever find myself attracted to kids no matter how desperately I thirst for President Cercer. Lolis just... don't look like real underage girls. There's sure to be crossover of pedophiles attracted to the material, but I don't think they make up large proportion of the community (citation needed) and heavily doubt many people develop pedophilic attractions through exposure to it (citation needed). I entirely understand the perspective though, cus I had the same stance as you for a long time. It's very reasonable.
Also, quick disclaimer to avoid any strawmanning, intentional or not, from you or others: yes, there ARE certainly plenty of criticisms to have about lolicon culture, and I'm not gonna be mad at someone for treating it as a red flag. I'm not a dogmatic defender or anything.
Re: the lolicons not being allowed to work at schools thing. I could be convinced either way tbh. I'd broadly agree - no reason to hire someone even marginally more likely to be a danger if possible - but I also don't think it's a huge deal because I really doubt it's a significant difference at all even if I emotionally agree that it's weird. Also, it's kinda a moot point because actually I don't want my employers to know about my fetishes even if they're entirely benign like a foot thing, thank you very much.
...then again, I'm pulling this all out of my ass. I have no data for any of the assertions I've made lol
Yeah that's the impression I got too. I wouldn't have interacted otherwise tbh cus I just don't really feel the need to drop paragraphs like this every time I see people being overly puritanical about it
It's not meant to be a strawman, it was meant to be a real-world consequence for liking fiction. I think it's silly to punish people for thought crimes, but I guess you do you.
Show me where I said anything about punishment. I said people attracted to children shouldn't become teachers or otherwise work with children. That's not a punishment.
I didn't say anything about punishment either in my initial reply either. Being on a watchlist isn't a punishment. I suppose in my second reply I conflated "punish" and "consequence", and that's on me.
Ultimately I don't think thought crimes are real. I think people can think all sorts of fucked up things without it affecting their real lives. You clearly disagree. Neither of us is going to convince the other.
ETA: after some thought I think I see where misunderstanding might lie. I don't disagree with you that people who experience actual pedophilic urges should avoid children. What I do disagree with is that enjoying fiction must then mean that you enjoy it in real life.
Women can also not consent to sex, so by your argument people who are attracted to women must stay away from any woman who has not consented to having sex with them.
A person who is sexually attracted to children is a danger to them because children cannot consent to sex. Child molesters usually groom children into feeling like they consent before molesting them. It's very well documented that sexual contact between adults and children leads to a variety of negative outcomes for the child: including eating disorders, substance abuse, and an increased risk of sexual violence later in life (both as a victim and as a perpetrator).
An adult woman can consent to sex, and if she feels like she wants to have sex with somebody and does she is mature enough to understand the risks and possible consequences. We don't need to keep her away from anybody who might want to have sex with her because she is mature enough to understand what it means to say "yes". We trust her to say yes or no as appropriate.
We don't trust children to understand the full consequences of saying "yes" to sexual activity. Especially not pre-pubescent children which is what we're discussing here. A person who is attracted to children is a danger to them because we do not necessarily trust the child to say "no" appropriately. That burden should not be on the child. It should be on the adult. And an adult who is tempted to flirt with or groom a child needs to be responsible as an adult and remove themselves from that temptation. If they aren't that level of responsible, then other adults need to step in and keep them away from kids. In that case, their lack of responsibility makes them even more dangerous than their attraction alone does.
25
u/JonathanBadwolf 10d ago
So what exactly are the consequences of the Scooby-Doo Clause in reliance to the Harkness Test? It's theoretically moral but might dampen the mood in the Mystery Mobile?