27 replies to this topic

[Sweeney]

What do you think of it?

I'm not interested in what you think on a personal level, I'll probably ignore or lash back at anyone posting ignorant comments about paedophilia.

Apparently, in the UK, the Government published a consultation on 1 April this year, announcing plans to create a new offence of possessing a computer generated picture, cartoon or drawing with a penalty of three years in prison and an unlimited fine.

It is my personal belief that doing so would be foolish.
Look at it this way; Take a standard, run of the mill, paedophile. He leads a normal life, getting his jollies in the evenings by reading the, currently-legal, lolicon manga he downloads from Japan. Suddenly, he is no longer able to obtain or posess this outlet for his "subversive" desires.
Doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me... Ok, so he stops for a while... but then, his desires are going to get the better of him, and he'll start downloading again. And hell, he's already breaking the law with his mangas, why not grab some photos and video too? Or even worse, perhaps he'll pop out into the next county and grab himself a real little lolita.

Diamond and Uchiyama suggest that there is a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and also the number of assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany, and conclude that the widespread availability of sexually explicit material can in fact reduce the rate of sexual crimes. Diamond and Uchiyama also state, however, that it is probable that the reduction of sex crimes by and upon juveniles in Japan is due to other factors as well: the demands of the increasingly competitive educational system on children's time, an increase in consensual sexual outlets such as prostitution and pre-marital sex, and "socially positive proactive forces" such as sex education in schools and stronger family supervision at home.

So, Codex, what is your rational and objective opinion, if you can muster such a thing?

[Frizzle]

Joe, I do seriously worry about you sometimes. Peadophillia is wrong in any sense. And to make matters worse, when you do eventually go to prison, life will be hard. Very hard.

[Sweeney]

Joe, I do seriously worry about you sometimes. Peadophillia is wrong in any sense. And to make matters worse, when you do eventually go to prison, life will be hard. Very hard.

*shrug*
I was looking at proposed legislation, thought it was interesting that the goverment is concerned over cartoon pornography.

[pyke]

Pedophilia isn't good in any sense, though if some cartoons are going to stop people from attacking children, it's the much lesser of two evils.

[Sweeney]

Pedophilia isn't good in any sense, though if some cartoons are going to stop people from attacking children, it's the much lesser of two evils.

There's an a in it. Pedophilia means, etymologically, attracted to the ground

But, that's my point. How can outlawing a harmless outlet for a potentially dangerous "deviance" be beneficial?

[Chew]

You can't just let look at their kiddy porn comics and whatever and think they is just going to be enough for them. After a certain amount of time it will not be enough to keep them from seeking out more then that. A law for this type of material should be on the books. Not to mention the spark it might create in someone who happens to come across it and then boost their interest even further leading to attacks on children when they too are not just satisfied by the cartoon porn.

I would relate it to a heroin addict. Ok so you do not want him going out and scoring more heroin, so you just make some pot available to him. Yes it may keep him contained for a little while but then it just will not satisfy him in the long run and eventually he will go back to trying to score heroin.

See your argument for it can work both ways and I rather have a safer feeling knowing that it is not out there to fuel their cravings only to lead to expanded outlets for their deviant behavior.

Edited by mastachew, 01 September 2007 - 02:04 PM.

[Waser Lave]

Diamond and Uchiyama suggest that there is a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and also the number of assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany, and conclude that the widespread availability of sexually explicit material can in fact reduce the rate of sexual crimes. Diamond and Uchiyama also state, however, that it is probable that the reduction of sex crimes by and upon juveniles in Japan is due to other factors as well: the demands of the increasingly competitive educational system on children's time, an increase in consensual sexual outlets such as prostitution and pre-marital sex, and "socially positive proactive forces" such as sex education in schools and stronger family supervision at home.

You just took that from wikipedia.

Anyway, I think if it satisfies their sexual needs then it can only be a good thing compared with the possible alternatives. The images are of fictional people at the end of the day, so if it can reduce the amount of real child porn and sexual abuse then it has to be beneficial. Of course there would probably be different scales of 'lolicon', if they're relatively non-sexual then there shouldn't be a problem, but images "that [are], or appear to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" shouldn't be tolerated in any circumstances in my opinion.

Despite this there's also another side that 'lolicon' could encourage a paedophile to act on their desires, like the theory that cannabis is the starter to 'hard drugs'...

[Sweeney]

You can't just let look at their kiddy porn comics and whatever and think they is just going to be enough for them. After a certain amount of time it will not be enough to keep them from seeking out more then that. A law for this type of material should be on the books. Not to mention the spark it might create in someone who happens to come across it and then boost their interest even further leading to attacks on children when they too are not just satisfied by the cartoon porn.

I would relate it to a heroin addict. Ok so you do not want him going out and scoring more heroin, so you just make some pot available to him. Yes it may keep him contained for a little while but then it just will not satisfy him in the long run and eventually he will go back to trying to score heroin.

See your argument for it can work both ways and I rather have a safer feeling knowing that it is not out there to fuel their cravings only to lead to expanded outlets for their deviant behavior.

Your argument is redundant, as people only become heroin addicts by taking heroin.
I would say that it is extremely unlikely that, upon showing a "normal" person lolicon manga, they would turn into paedophiles.
I further put it to you that a paedophile whose sexual urges cannot be satisfied by fiction would eventually turn to other sources of gratification regardless of the legality of lolicon.

You just took that from wikipedia.

Anyway, I think if it satisfies their sexual needs then it can only be a good thing compared with the possible alternatives. The images are of fictional people at the end of the day, so if it can reduce the amount of real child porn and sexual abuse then it has to be beneficial. Of course there would probably be different scales of 'lolicon', if they're relatively non-sexual then there shouldn't be a problem, but images "that [are], or appear to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" shouldn't be tolerated in any circumstances in my opinion.

Despite this there's also another side that 'lolicon' could encourage a paedophile to act on their desires, like the theory that cannabis is the starter to 'hard drugs'...

Indeed I did

Also, I agree with the distinction between different levels of lolicon.
The law is designed to stop people degrading into physically manifesting child abuse. So why is there a blanket ban on lolicon proposed, when a good portion of it is non-abuse-based.

Edited by Sunscorch, 01 September 2007 - 02:20 PM.

[Tetiel]

Well there's loli and then there's big time loli. Things like what Teruchan from deviantart may be considered loli by some but isn't sexually explicit much but if it goes to the point of sexual intercourse it is well... wrong. The problem is computer generated images also includes things which are called "Morphing" which is why people take a pornography image of a small-chested boyish figured girl and puts a child's face on the image. Is the child victimized? Not really but the very fact that it is there is still wrong. Now if anyone says that people may start raping children because of loli or pornography it's really not a good thing. It's like saying someone who's into guro will go and torture to death someone. However if anyone is depicting a child or the image of a child it should be illegal. It's representing a child after all so anything that goes as far as intercourse there should be banned. Anything provocative or mild loli however should be left alone. *rambles*

[Chew]

Your argument is redundant, as people only become heroin addicts by taking heroin.

Yes that is true but the point i was trying to make here was if you have a pedophile and u allow him to to quench his urges on cartoon porn eventually he will need more to satisfy these urges. Just like a heroin addict would need to when a lesser evil given to him doesn't satisfy his urges anymore.

I would say that it is extremely unlikely that, upon showing a "normal" person lolicon manga, they would turn into paedophiles.

No not the normal person but there are abnormal people out there who just need a small spark to ignite the flame inside them. Why have this out there for that spark to ignite. A zero tolerance on the issue would be far more beneficial in the long run.

[Sweeney]

Well there's loli and then there's big time loli. Things like what Teruchan from deviantart may be considered loli by some but isn't sexually explicit much but if it goes to the point of sexual intercourse it is well... wrong. The problem is computer generated images also includes things which are called "Morphing" which is why people take a pornography image of a small-chested boyish figured girl and puts a child's face on the image. Is the child victimized? Not really but the very fact that it is there is still wrong. Now if anyone says that people may start raping children because of loli or pornography it's really not a good thing. It's like saying someone who's into guro will go and torture to death someone. However if anyone is depicting a child or the image of a child it should be illegal. It's representing a child after all so anything that goes as far as intercourse there should be banned. Anything provocative or mild loli however should be left alone. *rambles*

I would say that computer manipulated images of real people should be disallowed, as it is potentially harmful should the child, for whatever reason, come across it. It's exploitation, although unknowing.
I don't see why and loli should be banned regardless of the depictions within, because it is purely fictional. I understand some, indeed most, including myself, will find it offensive, but as far as I can tell, noone is being forced to look at it.
I, for example, find S/M disgusting, but I don't call for it banned. I simply avoid it.

Yes that is true but the point i was trying to make here was if you have a pedophile and u allow him to to quench his urges on cartoon porn eventually he will need more to satisfy these urges. Just like a heroin addict would need to when a lesser evil given to him doesn't satisfy his urges anymore.
No not the normal person but there are abnormal people out there who just need a small spark to ignite the flame inside them. Why have this out there for that spark to ignite. A zero tolerance on the issue would be far more beneficial in the long run.

I don't think you can compare a chemically addictive and iterative substance to pornography, no matter how morally sickening you may find the latter.
Also, I find it doubtful that anyone could come across explicit loli unintentionally.

[Tetiel]

I don't think you can compare a chemically addictive and iterative substance to pornography, no matter how morally sickening you may find the latter.
Also, I find it doubtful that anyone could come across explicit loli unintentionally.

I once came upon CP unintentionally before...

...on /b/... and explicit loli on ED...

[Sweeney]

I once came upon CP unintentionally before...

...on /b/... and explicit loli on ED...

Psh, you lurk /b/, CP is an occupational hazard

[Brad]

ILLEGAL IN CANADA

[Tetiel]

Psh, you lurk /b/, CP is an occupational hazard

Sadly xD It's really disturbing though. Like REALLY disturbing. When I was taking my Deviant Behavior class they had a huge bust on child pornographers and there was a team of about 100 people gathering all the evidence and every single one of the officers were ordered into therapy because of the psychological damage that occurs. I mean in some ways it's I suppose good I know what I might be dealing with in the future :\ I mean for sure loli is never ever as bad as real things but I somewhat think that the fact that it's representing a child doing these things.. it's just so wrong, so very wrong. :\ If there is a law that is made though loli should never have the same offense as the real thing. In fact if anything it should be a minor charge and hardly ever enforced except when dealing with people who have real CP as well so they can nail those sons of bitches with whatever they can.

[Sweeney]

ILLEGAL IN CANADA

Indeed, but untested in court, I believe.

[dolphinbomb]

Psh, you lurk /b/, CP is an occupational hazard

Tell me about it.
I was a mod on 7chan for awhile, and was recruited for the sole purpose of cleaning up CP floods.
Never again.

[pyke]

There's an a in it. Pedophilia means, etymologically, attracted to the ground

But, that's my point. How can outlawing a harmless outlet for a potentially dangerous "deviance" be beneficial?

Well, somethings got to be done to stop those damned dirt humpers as well

Maybe they're hoping that if they ban it, they can pretend people aren't into the kiddies out there?

[Sweeney]

Well, somethings got to be done to stop those damned dirt humpers as well

Maybe they're hoping that if they ban it, they can pretend people aren't into the kiddies out there?

*nod*
I hadn't thought of it like that...
But still, then, why not ban rape pornography as well, since the depictions within that are illegal too? Or bestiality?

[Frizzle]

They are illegal Joe. If you had any knowledge of politics in the country you'd know this wouldn't even get through to the white paper in Parliment. Too many conservatives inside.

[Sweeney]

They are illegal Joe. If you had any knowledge of politics in the country you'd know this wouldn't even get through to the white paper in Parliment. Too many conservatives inside.

As far as I know, cartoon bestiality is not illegal, and only actual nonconsensual pornography. Fake rape isn't illegal to my knowledge.

[Frizzle]

Well actually it comes under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, Section 69. It covers all areas of the aspect of zoosexuality but doesn't directly mention cartoon pornography.

Also

Legal status in the United Kingdom

Non-photographic images of children have never been illegal in the United Kingdom, and on 23 November 2006, Vernon Coaker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, stated that "Although cartoons depicting child abuse are deeply offensive, they do not in themselves constitute abuse of a child. The 1978 Act is well understood by those who work with it and enforce it and there are substantial arguments against extending its scope to cover cartoons of child pornography."[29]

However, on 13 December 2006, UK Home Secretary John Reid, announced that the Cabinet was discussing how to ban computer-generated images of child abuse — including cartoons and graphic illustrations of abuse — after pressure from children's charities.[30] The Government published a consultation on 1 April 2007, announcing plans to create a new offence of possessing a computer generated picture, cartoon or drawing with a penalty of three years in prison and an unlimited fine.[31]

It is illegal in the United Kingdom, so if I was you Joe, I'd delete them naughty pictures of your hard drive. And as for fake rape, it's just that. Fake, both participants know what they're doing, so it isn't deemed offensive to someone who wishes to watch/read it or whatever. Guess you could say the same for lolicon, which by wikistandards isn't child porn, but suggestive drawings, but lolicon is bound to offend more then fake rape.

[Sweeney]

Well actually it comes under the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, Section 69. It covers all areas of the aspect of zoosexuality but doesn't directly mention cartoon pornography.

Also

It is illegal in the United Kingdom, so if I was you Joe, I'd delete them naughty pictures of your hard drive. And as for fake rape, it's just that. Fake, both participants know what they're doing, so it isn't deemed offensive to someone who wishes to watch/read it or whatever. Guess you could say the same for lolicon, which by wikistandards isn't child porn, but suggestive drawings, but lolicon is bound to offend more then fake rape.

I don't know if you actually read what you quoted, Lee... but it explicitly says that lolicon isn't illegal (yet).
And I agree that it's offensive, perhaps moreso than fake rape, but why should that make it illegal?

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

No drawn or computer generated image of a fictional nature should ever be illegal, period.

By fictional nature, I mean things that apply only to fiction. For example, a schematic of a nuclear device could still be illegal to have as it's purpose is to instruct someone how to create a nuclear device in reality.

The definition of fiction is not real, and it's wrong to imprison or fine someone for possessing material that isn't even depicting something real. It doesn't matter what it is.

[Ives]

I disagree simply based on the merits that if it isn't actual children, it's fine. Yes, some studies have shown pornography can be "dangerous", but such does not justify legislation.