Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

reply to post by AllTiedTogether


I don't know that this is a good argument. Think how many people, in the geral population, watch some kind of porn, and then *don't* act on it.

I wonder how the research stacks up to that. I am not so sure that having child porn automatically is a precurser to molesting a child. I wonder how many pedophiles actually watch child porn regularly?

I'm thinking, for instance.... if I found that girl-on-girl turned me on, I m ight watch it, but if I am not actually a lesbian, I would not act on it. If I *did* have sex with a girl, then we could still debate, was it because the porn made me curious or because I was a lesbian in the first place?

So, assuming that the person does act out, is it because they saw the porn, or because that's just their inclination? And how do you even prove either?

I do not know much about the psychology in this area but I think the same principal might apply to child porn. I am of the "Let them get off with a fake girl" mindset at the moment.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by asmeone2]

Originally posted by AllTiedTogether

How many get worked up by it and then go looking for a child to reenact the cartoon.

Think about you as a heterosexual or whatever you are... if you watch some animated sex of whoever you fancy and then have access to them, bar scene, library, shopping.. whatever, then you will go seek the source in an area that you know it is relaxed in attitude towards it.

Good Evening,

By the same point of logic, it stands to reason that anyone who is into "Zombie" movies, or other horror flicks would also go running through said mall with a chainsaw looking to gratify their urges. Society has an extremely relaxed attitude toward horror flicks so I'd be thinking that this would be happening almost daily. I'm not condoning child pornography, see my previous post and you'll get where I'm coming from.

Thanks
..Ex

reply to post by v3_exceed


Hi V3.
Although I agree with you that it doesn't affect everyone... but you do see the result of these movies daily.

One example would be the amount of school shootings, the shooters decked themselves out like rambo or matrix characters. they get their ideas for these things from movies and it starts at a young age...

Google disney subliminal messages and you'll see how disney has been getting our kids to want SEX.

Also you have the drug companies pushing ritalin and strattera on or poor kids and they're poisoning them... the side effects of these drugs are suicide and very delusional thoughts and these movies don't help. Our children are being brought up on the movies themes.

We need to collectively stop everything and start from scratch to correct any of this... It's all tied together..

Rgds

[edit on 12-1-2009 by AllTiedTogether]

Alright, so, I haven't read all of the previous comments, but I've read a few, and here are my thoughts, as the OP asked me to drop them in this thread despite its age.


First of all.. I've watched a loooot of anime in my days. I've watched anime chicks who I've thought were in their 20's, and then I find out they're fourteen years old in the anime. This is cartoons, and it's not as easy to tell how old they are as it is in real life. And that can be further complicated in making lolicon illegal, because many Japanese girls are "flat-chested" (according to Western standards... ) which is reflected in the anime.

And so, who is to sit and decide that the chicks in the pictures are really underage and not just underdeveloped? Of course, some are more obvious than others in that aspect; I'm merely pointing out the problem of putting an "underage" stamp on animated characters, because their appearance and their bodies doesn't match real-life equivalents.


Also, I've dropped by a lot of anime forums in my days, and what strikes me is that somebody who's into lolicon isn't NECESSARILY a pedo per se. At least, this is the impression I've had. Many dudes just throw up fully-dressed pictures of anime chicks they think are hot, and once in a while an "underage" character appears - and again, it may then be that it turns out she is indeed 18, because, well, this is anime... Age and the characters' bodies doesn't always match with reality.

So, because these dudes think that anime chick is hot, does that mean they're pedophiles? No, it doesn't. I sincerely doubt they would actually find a real girl as hot as that anime girl, because the difference between anime and reality is so big.


I've decided to take a stance here that is, if it doesn't harm anyone, then it's none of our business. Furthermore, you could be a skilled mangaka yourself and draw kiddie porn at home for your own use and joy - should you be arrested for that? That would mean you can't draw what you want without fear of being arrested, which, in my opinion, is VERY dangerous.


And of course, there is the issue of whether it can protect a real child. Well, I'd say that if there are real-time pedoes out there ready to go out and rape kids, then this is neither enough to keep them from doing that - only their own mental strength can do that - nor is it enough to push them over the edge to do it if they have enough sanity NOT to act on their impulses.

Because, as I see it, lolicon is just too different from real-life kiddie porn to be compared to it (Not that I have ever, nor would ever want to, seen either, mind you.). It is in fact so different - and you can see that in regular anime as well - that there is no way in hell to compare it with reality. It is an entirely own sort of porn, in my opinion.


My opinion in this is that it should not be illegal, because it's just too damn difficult to formulate a law that doesn't trap the innocent. Somebody who is turned on by lolicon and shotacon isn't necessarily turned on by real kiddie porn, nor want to go out and rape real kids, though the other way around is certainly possible. And again, making it illegal can get very dangerous to free speech.


Sorry if it's a bit unstructured. I'm a wee bit tired in the head, but I think I got my points across.

reply to post by David_Reale


You did and whilst i do not agree absolutely here i can fully agree with yoru statement that if it doesn't harm anyone then it is no business of other people. Surely that is one of the key things about free speech? The big thing for me though is the idea that it may stop some real paedophiles from using the real child pornography.

If it's not real children being displayed naked, then there is no crime.

Making animated child porn illegal makes about as much sense as outlawing the movie "rambow" because he kills people in it, and killing people is against the law

We should outlaw hostel, as well, since torturing people is illegal as well, and they torture people in that movie. So they are breaking the law, right?

Yea, this just makes absolutely no sense to me. Nobody is being harmed, so where is the crime? Where is the victim?

Originally posted by Kaytagg
If it's not real children being displayed naked, then there is no crime.

Yea, this just makes absolutely no sense to me. Nobody is being harmed, so where is the crime? Where is the victim?

]

Actaully it is probably going to be made illegal in the UK

www.independent.co.uk...

Scary isn't it? As you said, what is the difference between this and people being killed on films? There is no victim.

I am not sure paedophilia can be 'cured' imo it is a sexual orientation just as being straight or gay. Chemical castration would be one answer.
Would these animated scenes of child sex abuse satisfy them, I doubt it just as scenes of rape will not satisfy a rapists.

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
I am not sure paedophilia can be 'cured' imo it is a sexual orientation just as being straight or gay. Chemical castration would be one answer.

You are correct in saying it is an orientation that cannot be cured. However chemical castration is very dangerous, the reason being that paedophiles who go through this still have their urges and may use inanimate objects to harm children. It can also increase aggression.

Originally posted by dizzylizzy
Would these animated scenes of child sex abuse satisfy them, I doubt it just as scenes of rape will not satisfy a rapists.

Firstly the BBC article i read stated a paedophile claims to have stopped using real images for these cartoon ones. As i stated a while back, the government estimates for downloads of illegal pornography greatly exceed the number of convicted or suspected paedophiles. Therefore it suggests that lots of them can control their urges with pornography alone.

If they can go further and use this fake stuff to control their urges then surely that's a big plus?

reply to post by dizzylizzy


It is NOT the same as being straight or gay by any stretch. Ever.

Originally posted by Aeons
It is NOT the same as being straight or gay by any stretch. Ever.

Why isn't it? We're talking about a sexual attraction, being straight or gay are also sexual attractions. What causes paedophiles to be as they are is under debate. The most popular theory is that it is a retardation of sexual development.

The only difference is that being straight or gay and having a consenting adult partner causes no damage to that partner.

Ok - a question here.

So what happens when the guy who's using CGI cut pastes the head of his neighbors kid - on a drawn onto a sexualy explicit child's body?

The child doesn't know - wasn't hurt.
The parents don't know - they weren't hurt.
Just a picture the pedophile *worked into* his *fantasy pic*...

What would those of you who say there is *no problem* to anime child pron say to that?

*************************

IMO - it's all wrong.
To allow it would create a situation detrimental to the human race.
I haven't figured out how to explain that yet - but I will - I'm putting together a post - just wanted to ask the question above before I finished it.

As for pedophiles using cgi/anime/whatever porn, staying far away from the *real* pics - where *real* kids have been hurt.

Off the cuff I agree - as was stated before *It's a toughie*.
Until I think of it twice.
Then I say burn the pedophile at the stake, *real* kid in the picture or no.

To the OP - thanks for trying to keep this thread on target and tempers cool.

peace

[edit on 25-5-2009 by silo13]

I have a 4 and 2 year old niece and I say whatever keeps the 'real' pedophiles from going out and actually abusing children, then let it be done.

Pedophiles have an urge, sometimes an urge they can't control. I'm not trying to sympathize with these people, because they're disgusting, but just like normal adult males who seek our pornography due to hormones, they seek our child porn due to their urges.

Now, I say whatever keeps them from actually going out and abusing a child in real life is a step in the right direction, keep them in front of their computer instead of in public with their eyes on little children having fun.

Animated child porn is sick, but I guess what you're talking about is animated drawings, which could be declared as lolicon I suppose? Which is already illegal in the USA as it is.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by Aeons
It is NOT the same as being straight or gay by any stretch. Ever.

Why isn't it? We're talking about a sexual attraction, being straight or gay are also sexual attractions. What causes paedophiles to be as they are is under debate. The most popular theory is that it is a retardation of sexual development.

The only difference is that being straight or gay and having a consenting adult partner causes no damage to that partner.

Destroying people for your sexual gratification isn't an "orientation."

Originally posted by silo13
Ok - a question here.

So what happens when the guy who's using CGI cut pastes the head of his neighbors kid - on a drawn onto a sexualy explicit child's body?

The child doesn't know - wasn't hurt.
The parents don't know - they weren't hurt.
Just a picture the pedophile *worked into* his *fantasy pic*...

He is then using the real image of a child in a sexual manner and therefore is commiting a crime. He should be jailed, preferably for life. In a prison or a secure awrd, i don't care which as long as he's gone.

Originally posted by silo13
To the OP - thanks for trying to keep this thread on target and tempers cool.

peace

I am grateful for peoples calm manner in discussing this thread, well mostly calm

Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina 42
I have a 4 and 2 year old niece and I say whatever keeps the 'real' pedophiles from going out and actually abusing children, then let it be done.

Pedophiles have an urge, sometimes an urge they can't control. I'm not trying to sympathize with these people, because they're disgusting, but just like normal adult males who seek our pornography due to hormones, they seek our child porn due to their urges.

Well i'm deeply impressed you can have that view when you have young relatives. I know that has made it harder for others in this thread to remain calm and think clearly.

Originally posted by Deus Ex Machina 42
Now, I say whatever keeps them from actually going out and abusing a child in real life is a step in the right direction, keep them in front of their computer instead of in public with their eyes on little children having fun.

Animated child porn is sick, but I guess what you're talking about is animated drawings, which could be declared as lolicon I suppose? Which is already illegal in the USA as it is.

Yes someone mentioned the name lolicon. I didn't really want to go searching google on this topic as i had no idea what would pop up if i typed the subject in so i'm glad they knew of the term. We are talking about depictions only yes, any kind of real child pornography should obviously remain completely illegal.

Originally posted by Aeons

Destroying people for your sexual gratification isn't an "orientation."

Calm down and think it through. Sexual orientation is about who you are attracted to, men or women. With paedophiles it is children. That is a fact, a horrible fact but one nonetheless.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


So having a picture of an imaginary child is one thing - drawing the face of the paperboy on the same drawing of the same sexually explicit body is where the line is drawn?

I agree - but still - something seems false here.

I'm looking for an answer within the answer on this one...

peace

reply to post by Aeons


It is. It doesn't mean it should be accepted. But obviously they can't control it. They can't control it. Nobody gets up and says "Oh I'll be straight or gay today" and nobody gets up and says "Today I'm going to start admiring those sexy little children because it just seems so fun!"

I would likely shoot someone I knew raped a child, it's unforgivable.. But I also know that they can't control it.

Originally posted by silo13
So having a picture of an imaginary child is one thing - drawing the face of the paperboy on the same drawing of the same sexually explicit body is where the line is drawn?

I agree - but still - something seems false here.

I'm looking for an answer within the answer on this one...

peace

Oh ok didn't quite understand what you were saying. I would still count that as illegal. The kinds of images we are referring to are cartoons. The drawing of the paper boy would look very realistic and be based on a real person. If the animated stuff were to be kept legal there would be tons of websites selling it and so no need for the paedophile to draw the paperboy.

Ick that's just a horrible thought.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Yes it is a disgusting thought.

But if this guy is getting away with having child porn, because he draws it - and no child is hurt...
Then what's to stop him from drawing the face of the paperboy on the pictures - same result.
Paperboy doesn't know.
The parents don't know.
The pedophile gets his/her kicks.
No ones *hurt*.
Everything great.

And what happens the day the paperboy knocks on the door to collect the bill?

No, as much as I'd like to think this would save kids - I dunno - it still smacks of something so utterly base wrong I'm having a tough time with it.

peace