Some thoughts on Pornography and Paedophilia

[HyugaHinata]

I was having a discussion with some people a few weeks ago, and the subject of violent pornography (which is banned in Australia) came up. They said that it was illegal because most of society thought that it was bad for society (without any real proof, IMO), so I thought that it was an example of tyranny by majority. They were indignant and said that there was no comparison between banning violent porn and slavery. They also said that most people now know that laws against sex in anything but missionary-style are victimless crimes that no one follows any more.

So I asked where the victim was when consensual violent porn was made. She said that it could create a black market for real violence (which would be cheaper) and endanger people in 3rd world countries. The other guy then also linked it to snuff films (with real death and murder). If that's the case, then wouldn't violent movies encourage the same thing for them? Not to mention the shocked and desensitized censors in Australia who review all films and ban a few - should they be shuffled around every few years? Regardless, banning something harmless because of a potential 'niche' black market is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, IMO.

Now, onto paedophilia. I agree that molesting and sexually abusing children is wrong, and those who do it should be punished. That said, such a goal is not achieved by targeting irrelevant issues, such as cartoon paedophilia (if anything, letting pedos look at this reduces real child rape by letting them get their jollies of something fake with no victims. Some people look at it because they wanted to have sex while they were younger teenagers).

Also, the film Ken Park was banned in Australia because it had over-18s pretending to be under 16 and having sex. I didn't see a problem with this because they were over 18, and thus legally allowed to be in pornography. My cousin got angry and said "But they're pretending to be under 16, right? That's just wrong!"

So, being 18 isn't enough to be in porn, you have to look over 18 as well? I thought these laws were based on mental maturity, not how old someone looks. Once again we have a law that protects no one and reduces civil rights.

[seebs]

FWIW, there's no evidence that there's ever been so much as a single ACTUAL snuff film.

The US had a law, very briefly, banning anything that would create the impression of underage people having sex, even if it was fake or fictitious. This was done to target the market for CGI child porn, which is apparently a problem because it allows pedophiles to not look at real children, or something.

The law went away on the basis of not even being within light-years of being constitutional. I thought it was funny, though, to have a law which banned the Bible as child pornography.

[Petra]

So I asked where the victim was when consensual violent porn was made. She said that it could create a black market for real violence (which would be cheaper) and endanger people in 3rd world countries.

I think she might be right. I'm also not sure about the people who make up the market for this kind of stuff.

As for the recipient of the violence in making the films, maybe they did consent - but how did they consent? Are they likely to be women who suffer from battered spouse syndrome, or whatever it's called. Are they desperate junkies? Or are they just fucked up from fucked up violent homes since childhood? etc

But, hey! Who cares. At least they will have entertained us.


...cartoon paedophilia (if anything, letting pedos look at this reduces real child rape by letting them get their jollies of something fake with no victims....

Debatable.

There are studies that show that these kinds of films can and are used for 'grooming' a child for ...ahh... future manufactured consent.

I'd like to see information that supports your "if anything..." statement. I think it's a very dubious claim.


And anyway, why must we defend absolutely everything, just because some sicko makes it and some sicko wants it? I just think it's a very ugly part of conscienceless consumerism run amok.

I'm no prude (I don't think), but I do think that some of the justifications for those that manufacture, market or consume this shit is naive. Must every fucking market in every-fucking-thing be catered to? I don't think so. Personally I think this shit is toxic.

/end mini rant

[HyugaHinata]

I think she might be right. I'm also not sure about the people who make up the market for this kind of stuff.

I'm not sure either, but if they're interested in it, and it can be made without hurting anyone, it should be allowed.

As for the recipient of the violence in making the films, maybe they did consent - but how did they consent? Are they likely to be women who suffer from battered spouse syndrome, or whatever it's called. Are they desperate junkies? Or are they just fucked up from fucked up violent homes since childhood? etc

But, hey! Who cares. At least they will have entertained us.


[QUOTE=lunachick]Debatable.

There are studies that show that these kinds of films can and are used for 'grooming' a child for ...ahh... future manufactured consent.

I'd like to see information that supports your "if anything..." statement. I think it's dubious.

Very well - http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

Specifically:

Most significantly, despite the wide increase in availability of pornography to children, not only was there a decrease in sex crimes with juveniles as victims but the number of juvenile offenders also decreased significantly.

Other researchers have found similarly. In Denmark homosexual child molestation decreased more than 50 percent from 74 cases in 1966 to 20 cases in 1969 (Ben-Veniste, 1971; pp. 254). These decreases in sex crimes involving children are particularly noteworthy since in Japan, as in Denmark, for the time under review, there were no laws against the personal non-commercial possession or use of depictions of children involved in sexual activities; so-called "childporn" (Kutchinsky, 1985a; pp. 5). Considering the seriousness in how sex crimes against children are viewed in both cultures, this drop in cases reported represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed rather than a reduced readiness to report such offenses.

And anyway, why must be we defend absolutely everything, just because some sicko makes it and some sicko wants it? I just think it's a part of ugly consumerism and laissez faire capitalism run amok. I'm no prude (I don't think), but I do think that some of the justifications for manufacturing, marketing or consuming this shit is naive. Must every fucking market in every fucking thing be catered to? I don't think so. Personally I think this shit is toxic.
/end mini rant

Because the true test is in defending civil rights that you won't personally benefit from.

There is no victim when the material is totally drawn or made on a computer (exempting, of course, 'quasi' child porn that involves photo-manipulations).

[Petra]

Very well - http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

Specifically:

Most significantly, despite the wide increase in availability of pornography to children, not only was there a decrease in sex crimes with juveniles as victims but the number of juvenile offenders also decreased significantly.

Other researchers have found similarly. In Denmark homosexual child molestation decreased more than 50 percent from 74 cases in 1966 to 20 cases in 1969 (Ben-Veniste, 1971; pp. 254). These decreases in sex crimes involving children are particularly noteworthy since in Japan, as in Denmark, for the time under review, there were no laws against the personal non-commercial possession or use of depictions of children involved in sexual activities; so-called "childporn" (Kutchinsky, 1985a; pp. 5). Considering the seriousness in how sex crimes against children are viewed in both cultures, this drop in cases reported represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed rather than a reduced readiness to report such offenses.

And here is one that says something else:

http://www.fbi.gov/congress/congress02/heimbach050102.htm

The Subcommittee has asked whether there is any connection between those who trade or possess child pornography and those who molest children. Based on my experience and based on my consultation with experts who have made it their business to study that connection, my answer is a resounding and alarming - - yes.

The Internet has caused explosive growth in the market for child pornography. The volume of child pornography circulated on the Internet is staggering and the number of persons obtaining, trading and distributing these images is downright appalling. Recently, Operation Candyman uncovered more than 7,200 such traffickers worldwide in a single e-group. The number of e-groups, newsgroups, bulletin boards, and the like that cater to child pornography is enormous. Yet, these facts, and this trend, do not sufficiently capture the gravity of the situation.

Our experience in the investigation of these crimes also signals a strong correlation between child pornography offenders and molesters of children. In Operation Candyman, for example, of the 90 people arrested thus far for their participation in the child pornography e-group, 13 of them who chose to make inculpatory statements admitted to molesting a combined total of 48 children. These offenders included a school bus driver, a foster parent, a mentor for underprivileged children, a member of the armed forces, a delivery person, a landscaper, a prison case worker, a janitor, an office manager, a security guard and his wife. This number, though alarming, probably represents only a small fraction of child molestations committed by the more than 7,200 Candyman members - - the vast majority of whom did not make admissions.

My colleagues at the U.S. Postal Inspection Service tell me that, according to statistics compiled from their investigations, a frighteningly high percentage of the child pornography offenders investigated were also involved in the sexual molestation of children. Their studies indicate consistently that, of the total number of child pornographers investigated over the past several years, nearly 40 percent have been determined to be child molesters.

In addition, in November 2000, Dr. Andres E. Hernandez, PsyD., Director of the Sex Offender Treatment Program, Federal Bureau of Prisons, FCI Butner, presented the results of his study of child pornography offenders entitled, Self-Reported Contact Sexual Offenses by Participants in the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Sex Offender Treatment Program: Implications for Internet Sex Offenders. This study, among other things, explored the correlation between child pornography offenses and actual child molestation. Dr. Hernandez' data indicates that the majority of the persons in his study convicted of child pornography offenses actually molested significant numbers of children without detection by the criminal justice system. The study also indicated that "these offenders target children in Cyberspace in a similar manner as offenders who prey on children in their neighborhood or nearby park. They seek vulnerable children, gradually groom them, and eventually contact them to perpetrate sexual abuse."

I have attached to my written testimony a summary of the report prepared by Dr. Hernandez. Dr. Hernandez concluded that 76 percent of the child pornographers or travelers (those who travel or intend to travel interstate for the purpose of having sex with a minor) who participated in his study admitted to having committed contact sex crimes which went undetected by the criminal justice system. These offenders had an average of 30.5 child sex victims each. In fact, this group of offenders admitted to having molested a combined total of 1,433 victims without ever having been detected. That is not 1,433 more offenses - - it is 1,433 more victims. If you factor in the number of times they offended against each individual victim, the number would be significantly higher. In addition, while Dr. Hernandez' study lumped child pornographers and travelers in the same category, his data shows that the number of undetected sex crimes was significantly higher for child pornographers than it was for travelers. In short, child pornographers, who consisted of 49 of the 62 subjects, were responsible for the vast majority of the 1,433 victims reported for that group. [The group consisted of 49 Child Pornography Offenders and 13 "Travelers."]

The Subcommittee has asked whether child molesters use child pornography to seduce children. Our experience has shown that the answer to that question is undeniably - - yes. The FBI's Innocent Images Task Force has conducted several hundred online investigations where the agents pose as children. The agents report that sexual predators routinely send images of child pornography to them as part of the grooming process to increase the likelihood of a sexual encounter. The child pornography typically depicts a child of the same age as the Agent's cover having sexual acts with an older man. The purpose behind this is clearly to lower the inhibitions of the person the offender believes is a child and to convince the child that the activity is fun and acceptable.

Specifically, we have found that child pornography is used by child molesters to:


Lower the sexual inhibitions of children. Some children naturally fear sexual activities. Some offenders show pictures of other children engaging in sexual activities to overcome these fears, indicating to their intended victims that it is all right to have sex with an adult because lots of other boys and girls do the same thing.
Desensitize children to sex. Offenders commonly show child pornography to their intended victims to expose them to sexual acts before they are naturally curious about such activities.
Sexually arouse children. Offenders commonly use pornographic images of other children to arouse victims, particularly those in adolescence.
Groom them into a sexual relationship.


Some offenders take advantage of the fact that some children are curious about sex. They show them images which appear to depict other children enjoying sexual activities with adults to encourage their victims to engage in sex. Others take advantage of the guilt and shame commonly experienced by their victims by taking pictures or videos of the sexual activities with their child victims to use as an insurance policy against disclosure by them.

The Subcommittee has asked whether child pornography seduces child pornographers to molest children. It definitely has that effect on some of the collectors. Those who trade in child pornography participate in organized (like "Candyman") or informal (chat rooms, F-serves, news groups, bulletin boards, Web sites, etc.) networks of like-minded individuals, which serve as support groups. That these individuals can easily find, identify with, correspond with, and trade child pornography with each other, gives them comfort in the fact that they are not alone and tends to validate their offending behavior. They feel they are part of a vast network of like-minded people who believe it is acceptable to engage in sexual fantasies about children, thus lowering their inhibitions about acting on their fantasies and increasing the likelihood that they will actually molest children.

The best indicator of future behavior is a pattern of past behavior. The next best indicator of future behavior is what an individual wants to do. Some individuals may be sexually aroused by viewing images depicting nude children but are repulsed by seeing images depicting an adult interacting with a child sexually. Others might enjoy viewing images depicting nude children but are more excited by viewing depictions of children "playing" sexually with other children. Others still are aroused by viewing any image depicting children engaged in sexually explicit conduct, but are most aroused when viewing images depicting children engaged in sexual acts with adults.

An individual's child pornography collection is the best indicator of what he is fantasizing about. In turn, an individual's fantasies are the best indicators of what he wishes to do. Therefore, those who collect images depicting adults engaging in sexually explicit conduct with children are the most likely to molest children.

I am aware of no real evidence that child pornography alone induces a sexual attraction to children where the offender lacks a sexual predisposition for children. However, when used by individuals who have a predisposed sexual interest in children, child pornography can sexually arouse them, fuel their sexual fantasies about children, validate their sexual attraction to children, and help them rationalize this behavior. All of these behaviors increase the risk that these individuals will act out their fantasies by sexually molesting children.

Our practical experience confirms these findings. The FBI's Behavioral Analysis Unit has conducted interview upon interview of child sex offenders. The information obtained from the offenders themselves leaves no doubt that child pornography fuels some child pornographers to live out their fantasies on real children.

The Subcommittee has asked about the technology for creating computer-images of "virtual" children and the effect of the technology on our ability to prosecute child pornographers. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the significant impediments that exist to the successful prosecution of child pornography cases and will explain why the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Free Speech Coalition further hinders our ability to bring these dangerous predators to justice. Before I begin this discussion, let me make two points very clear: (1) there is no evidence to suggest that the child pornography circulating on the Internet today depicts anything but real children; and (2) law enforcement agents have only been able to successfully identify a minute fraction of those child victims.

Technological advances in the area of computer imaging have sparked a debate about the possibility of creating images of child pornography without the use of real children - - which I will refer to as completely computer-generated images. The question is whether such images can be created that are indistinguishable to a jury, and even to an expert, from the images of real children.

This technological debate has led the defense bar to challenge the reality of the images of child pornography, insisting that the government disprove that the images are completely computer-generated to gain a conviction. Despite the fact that there is no evidence to suggest that these images on the Internet do not involve actual child victims, this ready-made defense has had a dramatic impact on the government's ability to prosecute child pornography offenders.

We have already had a glimpse of the practical effect of the Court's decision. Since 1999, when the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Free Speech Coalition, there has been a significant adverse effect on prosecutions in that circuit. Since that decision, no prosecution has been brought in the Ninth Circuit, with few exceptions, except in the most clear-cut cases in which the government can specifically identify the child in the image. As I noted earlier, such cases are relatively infrequent. Of course, the Court's decision does not require us to identify the child depicted, and we are committed to pursuing viable child pornography cases even when the actual victim is unknown. But the understandable reaction of front-line prosecutors in the Ninth Circuit vividly underscores that the practical problems with proving particular cases will be significant.

This result has not been limited to the Ninth Circuit. Other districts have also proceeded cautiously in light of the Ninth Circuit's decision. Although I have no figures for you today, from my discussions with prosecutors and fellow agents, I can say that the number of prosecutions never brought is significant. That number is going to increase exponentially in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's decision in Free Speech Coalition. While the FBI and the Department of Justice are committed to pursuing these cases - - even where the children are not identified - - I fear that in many cases, this speculative technological debate will indeed result in a bitter end.

There are strong reasons to believe that the images of child pornography circulating on the Internet today almost universally involve actual child victims. Leading experts in the field have told us that it would take an investment of millions, if not hundreds of millions, of dollars in research and equipment, not to mention somebody with the type of talent that would guarantee a lucrative career in Hollywood, to produce an indistinguishable, completely computer-generated image of a child engaging in explicit sexual conduct. While consultations with leading experts in the area indicate that the technology exists that might theoretically allow for the creation of such images, it is highly improbable that the producers of child pornography currently possess such resources. Sadly, it is still far cheaper, less time consuming, and easier for child pornographers to use real children to create a high-quality product for distribution.

Moreover, just because it is highly unlikely that the producers of pornography possess the resources or the technology to create a new, completely computer-generated image that would fool a competent expert into believing that it is an image that depicts a real child, that does not mean that the Free Speech Coalition case, if unredressed, will not pose a substantial impediment to child pornography prosecutions now and in the future. Ironically, while it may be difficult to fool an expert with a new image, the same cannot always be said for an old image. Child pornography circulating on the Internet has, by definition, been digitally uploaded or scanned into computers and has been transferred over the Internet, usually in different file formats, from trafficker to trafficker. An image seized from a collector of child pornography is rarely a first-generation product; it may be the 1,000th generation. It is often difficult, if not impossible, for experts to discern which generation of a particular image is on an individual's computer. With each transmission, the "DNA" of the image undergoes a subtle alteration, which can make it impossible for an expert to conclusively opine that a particular image depicts a real child. If the original image has been scanned from a paper version into a digital format, this task can be even harder since proper forensic delineation may depend on the quality of the image scanned and the tools used to scan it. Therefore, despite the overwhelming probability that images of child pornography do come from real children, the inability of an expert to state as a matter of scientific certainty that a given image seized from a defendant's computer is a picture of an identifiable child, will severely undermine our ability to bring these perpetrators to justice.

Because of the ready-made nature of the "virtual image" defense to child pornography charges, I am reasonably certain that, in the future, in cases in which the child victim remains unidentified, child pornography prosecutions will devolve into a "battle of the experts" that will sufficiently confuse jurors and place our prosecutions at risk. The number of competent experts in the field is few. Because of the limited number of experts involved and the considerable costs entailed in retaining such experts, assuming their availability, and because of the difficulties that face such experts in reaching definitive conclusions when confronted with images that have been propagated through multiple generations over the Web, the foreseeable and tragic result will be that offenders who possess images of real, but unidentified, children will escape prosecution and will continue to use such material to harm still more innocent children. Indeed, in a motion to dismiss filed the day after the Supreme Court's decision, one alleged offender has even insisted on the return of his cherished collection of child pornography, in addition to dismissal of the charges pending against him.

Let me add that, while there is no evidence to suggest that completely computer-generated images of child pornography actually exist on the Internet, this does not mean that a well-done completely computer-generated image would not be harmful to real children. To the lay person, including the vast majority of child predators and vulnerable children, such images may more than suffice for the pernicious task at hand. There is every reason to believe that offenders who obtain and distribute such images on the Internet can and will use them in much the same manner that they currently use images with real child victims, that is, to fuel their fantasies, to whet their appetites for real children, and to groom real and vulnerable children for sexual encounters by lowering their inhibitions, desensitizing them to the sexual acts, and convincing them that the behavior is acceptable and fun. In short, there is no legitimate place in our society for lifelike, photo-quality images of children engaging in explicit sexual conduct, whether that image involves a real child who has already been victimized or is a seemingly-indistinguishable image that is used to entice innocent and vulnerable children into becoming real victims themselves.

The Subcommittee has also asked me to explain two concepts: morphed imagery and composited imagery. "Morphing" refers to a software process in which one image is transformed into another over a period of time. This term of art is commonly, and erroneously, used to refer to generic digital image manipulations, but it actually refers to a fairly simple process. The software works simply by moving pixels, or individual picture elements, while changing their color. Take the example of two pictures, one of a man frowning, and one of a man smiling. The computer operator wishes to animate the transition between these two facial expressions. First, the operator would define shapes on the start and end images, to tell the software that the mouth is the primary changing feature between the faces. The software then calculates the in-between mouth positions, and generates the frames to show the transition. While the end result might be interesting, it does not capture the minute but detectable nuances of human expression. While it would be possible to morph two entirely unlike images, such as a child and an adult, the end result would not be a believable hybrid of the two. Morphing only works well if the source images are extremely similar.

"Compositing" refers to the digital combination of multiple photographic images into a single image, in effect cutting up different photographic prints and then gluing the pieces together to create a new collage image. The process is simple, and the software to do it is readily available. However, just as cutting a picture from a magazine and gluing it over a family snapshot will not create a believable end product, neither is digital compositing the magic solution to artificially creating images. Retouching is a subset of compositing, in which one uses digital paint tools to modify a digital photograph. Magazines "clean up" photographs of models by air brushing out blemishes, for instance. While an expert can certainly alter a photograph in this way with results that may fool a lay person, a competent expert can discern the difference between the two. Extensive retouching leads to an airbrushed, overly smooth look to the picture, as all the natural detail becomes obscured. Nevertheless, determining whether an actual minor was used in an image where compositing is alleged or uncovered may be difficult, because forensic investigators have only a portion of the child victim's anatomy to inspect and, thus, fewer investigative clues are available.

The Subcommittee has asked that I comment on the threat to children posed by the sex tourism industry. Sex tourism appears to be a growing problem in countries where large segments of the population live in poverty. During the last few years the Justice Department and the Federal Bureau of Investigation have received increasing requests for training and advice on combatting this problem. Of course, children are severely threatened by sex tourism. Sex tourists are often under the impression that it is "safer" to have sex with a child than an adult prostitute, and some adult men do actively seek out young female or male sex partners.

etc, etc...


Because the true test is in defending civil rights that you won't personally benefit from.

I'm going to head to bed, but I'll chew on that statement a bit. I both agree with it and disagree with it. It's a not nuanced enough for me.

There is no victim when the material is totally drawn or made on a computer (exempting, of course, 'quasi' child porn that involves photo-manipulations).

Again, not nuanced enough. This statement is too absolute for my comfort.

I'm too tired to go into it - I'm heading to bed in a sec - but I'm reminded of an Oscar Wilde quote: A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing - and I wonder about what the hidden cost is; that which is not on the price tag. Sorry if I'm being cryptic. 'Tis the best my tired ass can muster right now.

G'night. :wave:

[Legs]

I was just reading about an arrest for 'cartoon porn' this morning

In what is believed to be a first in Canadian courts, an Edmonton man has been convicted (http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Edmonton/2005/10/20/1270701-sun.html) of importing Japanese magazines containing cartoon child pornography. Gordon Tshun Chin, 26, pleaded guilty yesterday in provincial court to importing child porn and was given a one-year conditional sentence to be served in the community.

Judge David Tilley told the slight, bespectacled young man he would have put him behind bars, but for the fact the images were drawn and therefore did not involve the actual exploitation of real children.

Tilley was shown an exhibit containing some of the disturbing images and he ordered it forfeited to the Crown.

"Certainly this is the kind of filth which should not be available to the public," said Tilley.
Bilodeau said the animated child porn images seized from Chin were very disturbing.

"These images are very disgusting and very violent. There are pictures of babies in diapers being raped," he said.

Court heard city police were alerted after customs agents discovered a mail package addressed to Chin consisting of 15 anime magazines containing child porn on Jan. 31.

On Feb. 10, cops arranged a "controlled delivery" of the package to Chin's south-side home and arrested him.

[Adora]

They said that it was illegal because most of society thought that it was bad for society (without any real proof, IMO),
First of all: actual evidence suggests that either there is no connection between violent pornography and crimes OR that there is a negative correlation. Either way, they're wrong.

Also, it should be noted, that the Australia laws regarding violence in pornographic material are draconian. We're talking about films being banned because, in the actual plot of certain films, they have a scene where feisty heroine X knocks out dumb cell guard Y over the heard and rescues her lover Z, and then in several scenes after this one, they have hot sex. Apparently, you can't even pretend to hit someone over the head in said films and then, a few minutes down the track, have a sex scene, because that's considered "violent pornography" by the OFLC. I'm not making this shit up.

The other guy then also linked it to snuff films (with real death and murder).
Snuff films don't exist, never have existed, and, considering the consequences of such a real film being made, the infamy it would gain and following hunt by police for the killers, will in all likelyhood never exist.

So, being 18 isn't enough to be in porn, you have to look over 18 as well?
In Australia, yeah. Technically, the person can be playing a character over 18, show evidence of such in the film, actually be a person over 18, but if they still "look like a child" the material can be banned.

Yep. We have some fucked-up censorship laws.

And anyway, why must we defend absolutely everything, just because some sicko makes it and some sicko wants it?
Gee, why should we defend foot fetish films/S&M materials/Homosexuals/written erotica about TV series characters/people who get turned on by latex/insert other consensual adult practice hear labelled as "sick" or "perverted" by general population. Damn straight. Only vanilla heterosexuals should be privileged in such a society. Damn, boring, fucking, vanilla, toxic, heterosexual, shit.

Gimme a break. How about you try and construct a rational objection that doesn't rely on "argument from ick".

Edit: And teach yourself the difference between actual child pornography and virtual fantasies.

Edit again, because I can't believe you used this...
but I'm reminded of an Oscar Wilde quote
You do realise that Oscar Wilde was persecuted by society for indulging in practices at the time believed to be "sick" and "perverted"? Yes darling, ask yourself what the hidden cost is everytime anyone with a virtual sexual fantasy different to yours is persecuted by the authorities, and then you might not be the ignorant and arrogant fuck hypocritically quoting Wilde.

[Dragar]

Gosh, what a mess. With such an emotionally charged debate and contradictory statements from various officials and experts, I wouldn't have a clue as to whether cartoons of (child) pornography increases real life paedophilia or decreases it.

I don't like it, but that's certainly no basis for me to want a law to stop it happening.

[Petra]

You're making quantams leaps about where I'm coming from, Adora. All assumptions and kewl Millie Tant hot air.


But, not today...I'm off to bed. Too tired.

[Legs]

There is so many aspects to this subject of real porn vs art porn. You all know how easy it is to photoshop pics. A innocent photo of any child can be altered to appear pornographic in nature.

That child is not really being raped/abused but the image is realistic enough and anyone viewing it would think it was genuine.

Personally, I don't think there is any need in society for images of babies and children being raped. :fuming:

[Petra]

Actually, I will say one thing before I go to bed:


Gee, why should we defend foot fetish films/S&M materials/Homosexuals/written erotica about TV series characters/people who get turned on by latex/insert other consensual adult practice hear labelled as "sick" or "perverted" by general population. Damn straight. Only vanilla heterosexuals should be privileged in such a society. Damn, boring, fucking, vanilla, toxic, heterosexual, shit.

Gimme a break. How about you try and construct a rational objection that doesn't rely on "argument from ick".

Edit: And teach yourself the difference between actual child pornography and virtual fantasies.

Edit again, because I can't believe you used this...
but I'm reminded of an Oscar Wilde quote
You do realise that Oscar Wilde was persecuted by society for indulging in practices at the time believed to be "sick" and "perverted"? Yes darling, ask yourself what the hidden cost is everytime anyone with a virtual sexual fantasy different to yours is persecuted by the authorities, and then you might not be the ignorant and arrogant fuck hypocritically quoting Wilde.

You have no fucking idea where I'm coming from at all, based on your post. You probably saw a few lines of what I said, painted with with the same brush as some puritanical bint afraid of anything other than vanilla hetero sex, and you couldn't be more wrong.


There are HUGE differences in your above examples and in child and baby raping pornography. There are HUGE differences in the psyches of those who get into your examples above and those who get into child and baby raping porn, don'cha think? Or is everything just so black and white to you?

Consenting adults can fuck which ever way they like as far as I am concerned. Can you spot the operative words in that sentence, Adora?


There aren't enough solid studies to show one way or another at this stage - but certain human realities, outside of the protection of your activist student feminazi crowd, exist. It's not just in the movies. :wink:


It's a big leap from the sexual variations you've referenced, which I think are pretty harmless and have no victims, to western businessman diggin' on a little child rape tourism.


And there are whole grey areas that exist between the 'you're either with us or you're against us' way of thinking you have, Adora. Nuance. I'd like to know much more before I automatically leap to the defence of the manufacture of baby raping porn and it's totally psychologically healthy market.


Or, like snuff movies, are child rapists and child sex abuse victims all just urban legend?


And now I gotta crash fo'real.

[Ensign Steve]

And anyway, why must we defend absolutely everything, just because some sicko makes it and some sicko wants it? I just think it's a very ugly part of conscienceless consumerism run amok.
Why defend it? If some person makes it, and some person wants it, that is reason enough to give it a fair shake. If it can be argued or proven that it is harmful, then yes, go ahead and ban it. But don't just ban things out of hand because they are "sick." Similar to what Adora said, many find homosexuality, S&M, hentai, furries, latex, scat, etc, to be "sick." To each his own until you can show where the actual harm is.

I'm no prude (I don't think), but I do think that some of the justifications for those that manufacture, market or consume this shit is naive. Must every fucking market in every-fucking-thing be catered to? I don't think so. Personally I think this shit is toxic.


"Not-banning" is not synonymous with "catering to". Nobody's asking for an endowment, here. Just the right to continue making and watching what they enjoy.

[Adora]

You have no fucking idea where I'm coming from at all, based on your post.
No, actually, I have every idea. You could have made your post intelligent and well-thought-out. Tiredness is no excuse. Instead you were either a) too ignorant to do so or b) too lazy, and instead took it back to Argument from Ick.

You probably saw a few lines of what I said, painted with with the same brush as some puritanical bint afraid of anything other than vanilla hetero sex, and you couldn't be more wrong.
Oh for fucks sake. Next time I'm gonna insert massive [sarcasm] tags everytime I use it. Or, perhaps, you could grow a brain and realise how pathetically useless and unstable Argument from Ick is.

There are HUGE differences in your above examples and in child and baby raping pornography.
And there are MASSIVE differences in real, child-abuse images used by paedophiles as porn, and totally created, virtual pornography featuring characters that may or may not be under the age of 18. It's called the difference between fantasy and reality. Maybe you should acquaint yourself with it sometime.

Or is everything just so black and white to you?
No, it isn't, but apparently it is with you, happy to paint everybody with the same brush.

There aren't enough solid studies to show one way or another at this stage
No, but you have to wonder why all those women who read chanslash and shouta aren't going out and raping small boys en masse, if your argument somehow holds any credit whatsoever. Give me a fucking break. Who the fuck are you and when did you become the thought police?

outside of the protection of your activist student feminazi crowd,
Wow, you're a dumbass whore. Congratulations, fuckwit, for just taking my opinion of you down to the level of Sweetie. You ignorant fucking bitch.

It's a big leap from the sexual variations you've referenced, which I think are pretty harmless and have no victims
Ahh, no, actually, it's not. How about you go back, open your eyes and read my post. Explain to me who, exactly, is harmed with your average lolicon hentai film? No really. Who is "the victim" here. And I mean real victim, darling, not a hypothetical "it could encourage the watcher to go out and abuse children", which is a whole laod of shit, when you weigh up the actual studies on such totally virtual material.

Once again, please learn the difference between fantasy and reality.

And there are whole grey areas that exist between the 'you're either with us or you're against us' way of thinking you have, Adora. Nuance.
Would you like a nice slice of your own advice shoved up your tightly squeezed rectum, darling?

[Petra]

Oh, wow, Adora. You're making my toes curl. Cock of the walk, baby, cock of the walk.


My argument is not from Ick.


In this article (http://www.crimelibrary.com/criminal_mind/psychology/pedophiles/3.html) it certainly does state that there is a group of child porn viewers (and I'm not talking about under 18's, Adora, and you know it - I'm talking about pre-pubescents; you know, "children"), who do not molest. It also states that those who do tend to molest, will see a great many 'innocent' images of children as fuel to their predatory sexual urges. So, there is much more to consider regarding the nature of child sex abuse that has nothing to do with porn; but what appears to be true is that child porn is an important tool for paedophiles, and the people who create, manufacture and distribute it are usually active paedophiles. Paedophile porn crosses the line into an area where actual and serious harm can and does occur as a result of it. That is enough reason for me to take a stance that is separate from all those other adult sexual fantasies and realities, Adora.

By the way, fantasy and reality aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, Adora. You do know that quite a large number of people will actively seek the fulfilment of many of their fantasies, sexual or otherwise.


Now, c'mon, baby. Bitch slap my tight ass. You know how hot it makes you. :wink:

[Adora]

So, there is much more to consider regarding the nature of child sex abuse that has nothing to do with porn
Indeed there is, since if these people see innocent images of children as "fuel" (or, satiation) for their urges, then normal judgements by individuals such as yourself on what is virtual "ick" and what isn't Do Not Apply.

but what appears to be true is that child porn is an important tool for paedophiles, and the people who create, manufacture and distribute it are usually active paedophiles.
Yes, you're right. That's why all those female chanlash readers are rapin' babies all the time. Sure. Of course.

By the way, fantasy and reality aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, Adora. You do know that quite a large number of people will actively seek the fulfilment of many of their fantasies, sexual or otherwise.
Yeah, right, and women who have rape fantasies actually seek out rapists. And those with mutilation fantasies seek to have their bodies mutilated. Furries actually want to have sex with animals. And all those yaoi fangirls actually want to be pretty androgynous boys fucking each other silly. Surreee. I see Earth Logic is absent from your line of thinking. For one who wanks on about grey areas, you're really not very good at complexly analysing your bullshit generalisations, are you?

[HyugaHinata]

Lunachick, if paedophiles are sexually attracted to children (which is the definition - many merely want power over children and sexual gratification), how is repressing them going to help solve the problem? Giving them some sexual release via drawings and dolls is much better than giving them no release, which contributes to them abusing real children.

I detest the real thing as much as any sane person, and so I think that with the legalization of virtual child porn, there should come increased penalties for the real thing, such as castration and stiffer prison sentences.

As it is now, people will find ways to get around the law, such as drawing pictures of a 60-year-old's head on an 8-year-old's body, or vice versa.

As to the law's further hypocrisy, there are advertisements on TV and on billboards everywhere with a back view of naked babies promoting diapers. Where is the outrage from the moral 'guardians' on this?

Not to mention that sex-ed books with drawings of naked children are legally available and unrestricted, so why are paedophiles allowed to masturbate to this and not to other types of virtual child porn?

[Joshua Adams]

As to the law's further hypocrisy, there are advertisements on TV and on billboards everywhere with a back view of naked babies promoting diapers. Where is the outrage from the moral 'guardians' on this?

Not to mention that sex-ed books with drawings of naked children are legally available and unrestricted, so why are paedophiles allowed to masturbate to this and not to other types of virtual child porn?The definition of child porn is that it involves children in sexually explicit situations. Mere nudity doesn't qualify, last time I checked it's perfectly legal to possess and take photos of nude children.

[HyugaHinata]

The definition of child porn is that it involves children in sexually explicit situations. Mere nudity doesn't qualify, last time I checked it's perfectly legal to possess and take photos of nude children.

Really? There was an article a few years ago about a mother who was arrested for taking pictures of her daughter in the bath.

[JoeP]

Now, c'mon, baby. Bitch slap my tight ass. You know how hot it makes you.:jerry:

Adora, did you just go lose it there and go overboard? or have I been giving you too much credit in the past?

[Adora]

Considering Lunachick is displaying all the ignorant hysteria-mummy stupidity that Sweetie does on a regular basis, I have no idea what you're talking about, JoeP.

[OMG SARCASM FOR THE DUMB BITCHES WHO CAN'T TELL]Scuse me, I just read a FujiRyouma doujinshi where they had hot sex in a car. I have to go out and rape a baby now. [/OMG SARCASM FOR THE DUMB BITCHES WHO CAN'T TELL]

[Dragar]

Yeah, right, and women who have rape fantasies actually seek out rapists. And those with mutilation fantasies seek to have their bodies mutilated. Furries actually want to have sex with animals. And all those yaoi fangirls actually want to be pretty androgynous boys fucking each other silly. Surreee. I see Earth Logic is absent from your line of thinking. For one who wanks on about grey areas, you're really not very good at complexly analysing your bullshit generalisations, are you?

Nobody with a fantasy seeks to make that fantasy reality?

[Petra]

Considering Lunachick is displaying all the ignorant hysteria-mummy stupidity that Sweetie does on a regular basis, I have no idea what you're talking about, JoeP.

Hysteria-mummy stupidity? I've just spent most of the afternoon reading various legal aspects wrt the First Amendment, paedophile profiles, and everything else I can find that addresses as many sides as I can find in order to better understand the impact of child porn, virtual or otherwise, on society. You seem to think that I'm some kind of Tipper Gore puritanical extremist that sees everything as dangerous and needs to put a parental warning sticker on even films like American Beauty or something. I'm not.


And it's interesting that you can say this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2820475&postcount=27[/url) when it comes to the harm caused to children by McDonald's, but the sexualising of children that appears to be in part to blame for the increased level of child sex tourism, etc, can be swept under the carpet as hysterical mummying because you happen to be into juvenile sex cartoons?

Even here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2529271&postcount=128), You say that McDonald's exploits a "social sickness"...and "do nothing but compound that sickness".

You even admit that the assorted media that represents McDonald's food as harmless and healthy is not quite so harmless and healthy and should have much attention paid to it: "mislead advertising means some people think that a new item (such as a deli wrap, salad or new oil in chip frying) may be promoted as healthy and therefore not warranted of attention when in fact it is not healthy and should have much attention paid to it".

But I guess you have a little cognitive dissonance when it comes to explicitly sexual images of children being exploited for a little naughty sex jollies and the impact of such images on paedophiles and their potential victims.

Oh, and I'm not one of those people who screeches "ban it" at everything that has so much as a hint of underage sexuality, I'm just saying that there needs to be more study, that declarations about giving paedophiliacs virtual child porn reduces child sex abuse are dubious, and that there is an area where even the virtual is dangerous, with risks to the most vulnerable in society far outweighing any redeeming social benefit.



/me sits back and waits for the ROFLCOPTERS and LOLLERSKATES that usually accompany Adora's argumentum ad hominem a la junior high.

[HyugaHinata]

Lunachick, it is illegal to 'groom' children for sex using any methods, as far as I know, so I don't see how legalizing it would increase grooming, especially if penalties for the real thing are increased.

Laws like this only encourage people to get around them, in ways that I mentioned before.

In any case, arresting people for possessing 'virtual' child porn makes as much sense as arresting an action movie star for pretending to be a murderer.

I read and look at cartoon kiddy porn because I wish I had sex with other children when I was younger, not because I have any desire to do so now.

[Petra]

Lunachick, it is illegal to 'groom' children for sex using any methods, as far as I know, so I don't see how legalizing it would increase grooming, especially if penalties for the real thing are increased.

Laws like this only encourage people to get around them, in ways that I mentioned before.

In any case, arresting people for possessing 'virtual' child porn makes as much sense as arresting an action movie star for pretending to be a murderer.

I read and look at cartoon kiddy porn because I wish I had sex with other children when I was younger, not because I have any desire to do so now.

And these are some of the arguments I am reading - and I'm doing so with my mind as open as I can.

Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be enough study (especially long term study) on the impact of virtual child porn in child abuse, as it's still a relatively new phenomenon.

The gaps in the studies available are enough for me to exercise caution and take a stance opposite to those who simply say "Yay! It's virtual! No harm, no foul!" when we don't know enough yet.

[erimir]

And it's interesting that you can say this (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2820475&postcount=27[/url) when it comes to the harm caused to children by McDonald's, but the sexualising of children that appears to be in part to blame for the increased level of child sex tourism, etc, can be swept under the carpet as hysterical mummying because you happen to be into juvenile sex cartoons?

Even here (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=2529271&postcount=128), You say that McDonald's exploits a "social sickness"...and "do nothing but compound that sickness".
Well obviously Adora wouldn't want to see all those sexy children get fat and unappealing, would she?

OMG I'm just kidding Adora, please don't hit me...

I personally don't think such things are necessarily harmful. And the censorship Adora mentioned is clearly excessive. By that standard, I won't be able to make any money in porn cuz I look under 18 :(

[Petra]

And the censorship Adora mentioned is clearly excessive.

I can definitely agree with that.

[HyugaHinata]

I personally don't think such things are necessarily harmful. And the censorship Adora mentioned is clearly excessive. By that standard, I won't be able to make any money in porn cuz I look under 18 :(

Yeah. That law also implies that anyone who looks like a teenager can sleep with teenagers (which would be horrible - paedophiles would shave their pubic and body hair and undergo surgery to look 12, even though they may actually be 30.

The laws against violent porn and fetish porn probably aren't enforced in Australia, the police probably don't want to know, nor do they care. They should just abolish those laws.

[Adora]

Nobody with a fantasy seeks to make that fantasy reality?
1) I never said that.
2) A lot of the time? I'd say no. A fantasy is a safe space where one can explore issues and things one specifically can't do in real life, because of social stigma, physical realities or the general fact that reality != fantasy.

but the sexualising of children that appears to be in part to blame for the increased level of child sex tourism
I disagree with thise statement, by your own comments. You stated in this thread someone who is one of your so-called "sickos" is going to see something that the rest of us sees as "innocent" as sexual anyway. You're contrdicting yourself.

But I guess you have a little cognitive dissonance when it comes to explicitly sexual images of children being exploited for a little naughty sex jollies and the impact of such images on paedophiles and their potential victims.
No, bitch, I just understand sexual psychology better than you do. Yes, when actual, real-life children are being abused in child porn it is wrong and illegal and morally reprehensible. What causes people to act like this? Well, sorry, diddums, but all signs point to it having less to do with advertising and everything to do with excessively imbalanced power structures that create violent and repressive environments. Look around the world: the most militarised and patriachal societies are always the worst ones for sex crimes and especially paedophillia, whether we're talking Sudan, children being forcibly recruited as soldiers, countries with high levels of domestic violence (one of the key factors ion the background of most paedophiles) whatever. Funnily enough, one of the other great repressive actions of such regimes is depriving people of their freedom of expression. Go figure.

But I guess you have cognitive dissonance and prefer to look for easy scapegoats that your sluggish brain can handle so you don't have to hurt yourself trying to comprehend something complex and real. You do realise that in Australian laws that persecute non-harmful virtual pornography, teenagers talking about their sex lives to each other in MSN or Livejournal can be prosecuted for diseminating "child pornography"? This is what happens when you're so stupid (like my government, and yourself) that you can't differentiate between fantasy and reality. Are you going to go around persecuting people who have incest or beastiality fantasies as well? At the most basic level, it's a ridiculous and laughable repression of freedom of expression. At the most extreme, it's a scary form of thought-policing that will not prevent child abuse at all.

The laws against violent porn and fetish porn probably aren't enforced in Australia, the police probably don't want to know, nor do they care. They should just abolish those laws.
Sadly, they are. All films, books and magazines looking for release in Australia have to, by law, submit themselves for ratings by the OFLC. The OFLC consequently knocks back a massive amount of material each year that is deemed "innappropriate". See thread on labias. Most of the laws are sexist, including the ones on "virtual" child porn, and utterly illogical. There are special anti child-porn police taskforces in each state whose job it is to work on the internet to stop actual child porn and hunt down the paedophiles who make and consume it. Honestly, if you put the average FMA doujinshi in their hands, they'd probably say they were sorry, but they had to go and do their real job looking for actual criminals now.

[xyza]

I find cartoon sex comics containing children really offensive, having said that it is because the ones that have come to my attention tend to be incest based, and that just turns my stomach.

Violent sex films I have no problem with, I don't personally watch them and I'm sure if I was to put more thought into the fact that I am sure that in a few black market films the sub (I won't use gender as both sexes can be subs) hasn't given consent, I would have a problem with it.
I only tend to think about mainstream products though, and they are all a little sad seeing as many porn stars would really never make it as actors.

As for getting into the argument as to whether this stuff is a cause of behaviour or not I'll leave it up to you guys to fight out. It's not the cause of my diverse sexual preferences though.

Edit: Just to say, my diverse sexual preferences in no way involve children.

[beyelzu]

* lunachick sits back and waits for the ROFLCOPTERS and LOLLERSKATES that usually accompany Adora's argumentum ad hominem a la junior high.
as i read this thread, i was going to come charging in and let adora have it with both barrels all don quixote style,

but of course you can take care of yourself.

:tmgrin:

[Adora]

Don Quioxte? But wasn't he a total... loser?

[HyugaHinata]

Sadly, they are. All films, books and magazines looking for release in Australia have to, by law, submit themselves for ratings by the OFLC. The OFLC consequently knocks back a massive amount of material each year that is deemed "innappropriate". See thread on labias. Most of the laws are sexist, including the ones on "virtual" child porn, and utterly illogical. There are special anti child-porn police taskforces in each state whose job it is to work on the internet to stop actual child porn and hunt down the paedophiles who make and consume it. Honestly, if you put the average FMA doujinshi in their hands, they'd probably say they were sorry, but they had to go and do their real job looking for actual criminals now.

Yeah, I know that they formally block anything they deem appropriate (which is insulting to adults - they should be free to watch whatever they like so long as no one was harmed in the making of it), but what do the law enforcement personell do with all the black market material that makes it into adult shops and so forth?

[beyelzu]

Don Quioxte? But wasn't he a total... loser?
the problem with allusions..

but i was going for adora is just a windmill not a dragon type of reading :tmtongue:

[Adora]

but i was going for adora is just a windmill not a dragon type of reading
True, but the funny part is when hysterical crazies mistake the windmill for something else... like an omg baby raper.

[beyelzu]

well we certainly see a good bit of that shit in the usa.

[HyugaHinata]

well we certainly see a good bit of that shit in the usa.

We should have more of that here. I'd take cosplay over dull, vanilla sex any day.

[Ensign Steve]

Okay, I'll bite. What's cosplay?

[Carnivale Ed]

Isn't it costume play? People make costumes inspired by manga/anime/video games and then dress up in them?

[Adora]

Manga/anime/comics/videogames/movies/books/whatever.

[Ensign Steve]

Is it different from furries?

[Carnivale Ed]

Yes. Think of it as role-playing. Me Captain Kirk, you Veela the Orion slave girl.

[Ensign Steve]

:blush:

[HyugaHinata]

Back on topic, would this picture be approved by the Australian censors because it depicts 'giving birth' instead of 'gruesome porn'?

http://img.renchan.org/imgboard/Guro/src/1128055444533.jpg

[alphamale]

Considering Lunachick is displaying all the ignorant hysteria-mummy stupidity that Sweetie does on a regular basis, I have no idea what you're talking about, JoeP.

[OMG SARCASM FOR THE DUMB BITCHES WHO CAN'T TELL]Scuse me, I just read a FujiRyouma doujinshi where they had hot sex in a car. I have to go out and rape a baby now. [/OMG SARCASM FOR THE DUMB BITCHES WHO CAN'T TELL]

Go to afghanistan, ya slu! :D

[Ensign Steve]

Back on topic, would this picture be approved by the Australian censors because it depicts 'giving birth' instead of 'gruesome porn'?

http://img.renchan.org/imgboard/Guro/src/1128055444533.jpg

I don't know. The labia don't really look like real labia, so it's probably okay.

[Adora]

Back on topic, would this picture be approved by the Australian censors because it depicts 'giving birth' instead of 'gruesome porn'?
No, for several reasons under their guidelines:
1) Underaged characters.
2) They'd probably call it "tasteless" and "without artistic merit".
3) They're nekkid, and it's inflation/pregnancy porn or whatever you want to call it, so no, they wouldn't pass it.

[HyugaHinata]

Back on topic, would this picture be approved by the Australian censors because it depicts 'giving birth' instead of 'gruesome porn'?
No, for several reasons under their guidelines:
1) Underaged characters.

Understandable, but is it illegal for doctors to help underage girls who are pregnant give birth?

2) They'd probably call it "tasteless" and "without artistic merit".

That's just ridiculous. Legal documents and accounting statements could be argued to be 'without artistic merit'. And besides, if you ban everything with 'bad taste', soon there will be nothing left that's legal.

3) They're nekkid, and it's inflation/pregnancy porn or whatever you want to call it, so no, they wouldn't pass it.

It would really suck to be them, I suppose. Do they plan to adopt draconian methods like China did with respect to censoring the Internet?

[Adora]

Understandable, but is it illegal for doctors to help underage girls who are pregnant give birth?
No, because it's not porn.

That's just ridiculous. Legal documents and accounting statements could be argued to be 'without artistic merit'. And besides, if you ban everything with 'bad taste', soon there will be nothing left that's legal.
And I agree, but I'm just telling your how it works.

It would really suck to be them, I suppose. Do they plan to adopt draconian methods like China did with respect to censoring the Internet?
They passed the new "Anti-Terrorism" laws, didn't they?

[HyugaHinata]

Understandable, but is it illegal for doctors to help underage girls who are pregnant give birth?
No, because it's not porn.

You could argue this, but to me it's just semantics (and the effects that outlawing helping teenagers and pre-teens give birth would have on them). The content is the same, isn't it? I don't think the 'context' argument is valid all the time.

Also, maybe I could bypass the law by stamping a 'these characters are over 18' label on it, or by blurring/putting white-out on their heads so they cannot be identified as 'underage characters'.

They passed the new "Anti-Terrorism" laws, didn't they?

Yeah, and they are trying to stop Phillip Nitschke and others from spreading information about how to commit suicide via the Internet. :fuming:

Still, as a vast, VAST majority of Australians support euthanasia, it could be assumed that many police officers won't enforce the law. Similar things could occur with the cartoon porn laws. I don't think any sane jury would convict.

[Adora]

You could argue this, but to me it's just semantics (and the effects that outlawing helping teenagers and pre-teens give birth would have on them). The content is the same, isn't it? I don't think the 'context' argument is valid all the time.
It is when it's drawings completely constructed just about fromt scratch. If we're talking photos of already existing things, that's another matter. But with drawings, intent, purpose and context is even more important and, in most cases, obvious.

Also, maybe I could bypass the law by stamping a 'these characters are over 18' label on it, or by blurring/putting white-out on their heads so they cannot be identified as 'underage characters'.
No, you couldn't, because their bodies would still look under 18.

I don't think any sane jury would convict.
We're not talking about the right to die here, we're talking about pornography featuring characters under 18 in a society in a pathetic and illogical panic about paedophillia. Yes, they would convict, and have in Victoria.

[HyugaHinata]

It is when it's drawings completely constructed just about fromt scratch. If we're talking photos of already existing things, that's another matter. But with drawings, intent, purpose and context is even more important and, in most cases, obvious.

That makes no sense to me, and it seems completely hypocritical to allow pedos to masturbate to cartoon child porn in a sex education book, but not other forms of the fake stuff.

No, you couldn't, because their bodies would still look under 18.

Then I guess all real-life 18-year-olds should be barred from acting in porn because their bodies look much the same as someone who is 17 years and 364 days old.

Not to mention that many Asian women look 12 but can actually be over 20. Is anyone who marries them a paedophile?

We're not talking about the right to die here, we're talking about pornography featuring characters under 18 in a society in a pathetic and illogical panic about paedophillia. Yes, they would convict, and have in Victoria.

That's insane. People should not be put on the sex offenders list if they haven't hurt or tried to hurt anyone.

[Adora]

And I agree with everything you say, but those are the laws. Don't like it, write to your local member (no, the other one). But hey, if you don't mind, I'd rather keep my mouth shut so the cops won't come and raid my compy, thanks. When there's a stupid mass-hysteria over something designed to dilute the obvious cause of such a thing, you're better waiting for shit to calm down before you confront things associated with it.

[HyugaHinata]

And I agree with everything you say, but those are the laws. Don't like it, write to your local member (no, the other one).

Heh, yeah, but they probably won't listen to me unless I can get a large number of supporters. Still, if they do charge me for my lolicon and shotacon collection, which I have ONLY ever used for personal use, then they'll have to fight me all the way. :fuming:

But hey, if you don't mind, I'd rather keep my mouth shut so the cops won't come and raid my compy, thanks. When there's a stupid mass-hysteria over something designed to dilute the obvious cause of such a thing, you're better waiting for shit to calm down before you confront things associated with it.

Yeah. I guess we could point them to the actual cases of child molestation that are made possible because of all the time wasted on prosecuting the fake stuff.

Also, lunachick, you mentioned how it would be 'easier' for predators to molest and photograph real children than create virtual images themselves using a computer. I would disagree. It shouldn't be too hard (SETTLE DOWN, GIRL! ;)) to get an artist to draw pictures by hand, as they do in Japan.

Edit: Also, where is the outrage, public or otherwise, about the baby underwear and other ads showing the butts of naked babies? It looks like we have a very blatant double standard here.

[justaman]

In Australia, yeah. Technically, the person can be playing a character over 18, show evidence of such in the film, actually be a person over 18, but if they still "look like a child" the material can be banned.
Do you have any idea how “Walkabout” seems to have gotten around the sub-18 dilemma? I still don’t get how they managed to get it approved by the censors, especially back in those days.

Yeah, right, and women who have rape fantasies actually seek out rapists. And those with mutilation fantasies seek to have their bodies mutilated. Furries actually want to have sex with animals. And all those yaoi fangirls actually want to be pretty androgynous boys fucking each other silly. Surreee.
As Dragar was alluding to, the fact that not everyone seeks to live out their fantasies doesn’t mean that there won’t be a minority (of whatever percentage) that will. Do you not agree that the majority of paedophiles must surely be as they are because of circumstance, hence why the surprising number of offences by the clergy? Given this, isn’t it a really fuckn bad idea to allow a particular subculture where child-attraction is deemed in some way ‘acceptable’?

[Carnivale Ed]

As Dragar was alluding to, the fact that not everyone seeks to live out their fantasies doesn’t mean that there won’t be a minority (of whatever percentage) that will. Do you not agree that the majority of paedophiles must surely be as they are because of circumstance, hence why the surprising number of offences by the clergy? Given this, isn’t it a really fuckn bad idea to allow a particular subculture where child-attraction is deemed in some way ‘acceptable’?
Do you really think banning works of fiction will, in any way, impact on the incidents of paedophilia? Seems to me that if someone truly desired to have sex with kiddies, the lack of pornographic material dealing with the subject is not going to be a huge obstacle for them. Ban all the pornography in the world, I'm still gonna fantasise about shagging women.

[Adora]

Do you have any idea how “Walkabout” seems to have gotten around the sub-18 dilemma? I still don’t get how they managed to get it approved by the censors, especially back in those days.
I don't think the standards were in the same state then as they are now.

As Dragar was alluding to, the fact that not everyone seeks to live out their fantasies doesn’t mean that there won’t be a minority (of whatever percentage) that will.
Yes, and therefore those that seek out to fufil their fantasies do it for other reasons than the created media they consume, otherwise, if it was the media's fault, everyone who read a shouta manga or a rape fantasy fic would be doing it (which is a lot of people, both women and men). Simply put, all studies and the most basic anecdotal evidence points to the fact that people commit crimes of the sexual kind for reasons other than the pornography they consume unless they are creating pornography that is itself a criminal act- eg child abuse images, filming a rape, etc. Banning hentai tentacle films, yaoi doujinshis etc is not going to effect the rate of sexual crimes in Australia, since it has practically no bearing on the circumstances of abusers. It's just being used as a scapegoat by hysteria mummies and conservatives who are too dumb to understand the complexity of sexual desire and fantasies (a cock is not always a cock and a boob is not always a boob in the subconscious, afterall).

As for clergy abuse, any fuckwit with an ounce of understanding of sex crimes will tell you the position of power someone in the clergy is put in is the perfect position for a paedophiles desire and desire for an environment that provides a good environment for them to abuse in and satisfies their basic desire for power (which all sex crimes are based on, but especially sex crimes against childre). What on earth does this have to do with a TezuFuji doujinshi, consumed by mostly straight, decidedly un-sex-criminal women?

[justaman]

Do you really think banning works of fiction will, in any way, impact on the incidents of paedophilia? Seems to me that if someone truly desired to have sex with kiddies, the lack of pornographic material dealing with the subject is not going to be a huge obstacle for them. Ban all the pornography in the world, I'm still gonna fantasise about shagging women.
What type of fiction are you talking about specifically? If you mean some ‘erotic’ story posted on an internet website then I think there is a case for treating it as pornography, but that certainly isn’t suggesting that the mere mention of child-attraction in art need be avoided. The acid test – I think - is whether the subject matter is designed to encourage the audience to find children attractive.

I don't think the standards were in the same state then as they are now.
Mayhap, but the dvd is still available at video ezy today. Not that this is particularly important or anything, but it seems a strange exception to the rule.

Yes, and therefore those that seek out to fufil their fantasies do it for other reasons than the created media they consume, otherwise, if it was the media's fault, everyone who read a shouta manga or a rape fantasy fic would be doing it (which is a lot of people, both women and men). Simply put, all studies and the most basic anecdotal evidence points to the fact that people commit crimes of the sexual kind for reasons other than the pornography they consume unless they are creating pornography that is itself a criminal act- eg child abuse images, filming a rape, etc. Banning hentai tentacle films, yaoi doujinshis etc is not going to effect the rate of sexual crimes in Australia, since it has practically no bearing on the circumstances of abusers. It's just being used as a scapegoat by hysteria mummies and conservatives who are too dumb to understand the complexity of sexual desire and fantasies (a cock is not always a cock and a boob is not always a boob in the subconscious, afterall).
I certainly agree with your point about hentai and I don’t think terribly much of Australia’s censorship laws either, but this isn’t really comparable to child abuse where there is a direct comparison between the subject of the pornography and the subject of the desire.

We have decided as a society that child abuse is one of the worst crimes one can commit. As the leaders of that society, the government surely has a responsibility to ensure an environment where the probability of a paedophile being produced is at the absolute minimum. I just think allowing any brand of imagery or art which is designed to attract its audience to children is raising the probability of this occurring, and any rise – no matter how small - must be considered unacceptable.

As for clergy abuse, any fuckwit with an ounce of understanding of sex crimes will tell you the position of power someone in the clergy is put in is the perfect position for a paedophiles desire and desire for an environment that provides a good environment for them to abuse in and satisfies their basic desire for power (which all sex crimes are based on, but especially sex crimes against childre). What on earth does this have to do with a TezuFuji doujinshi, consumed by mostly straight, decidedly un-sex-criminal women?
Nothing, from what I can gather.

But I’m not sure I agree with your explanation of clergy abuse. You seem to think that their position allows a latent desire to flourish, where as I’m more of the opinion that their position (and lifestyle) generate the desire.

[Adora]

Mayhap, but the dvd is still available at video ezy today. Not that this is particularly important or anything, but it seems a strange exception to the rule.
Not really. As usual hypocrites, they make exceptions for "establish valued artistic texts", meaning Romeo & Juliet and Lolita are also okay.

We have decided as a society that child abuse is one of the worst crimes one can commit. As the leaders of that society, the government surely has a responsibility to ensure an environment where the probability of a paedophile being produced is at the absolute minimum. I just think allowing any brand of imagery or art which is designed to attract its audience to children is raising the probability of this occurring, and any rise – no matter how small - must be considered unacceptable.
So the kind of art that is designed to attract an audience to children in an acknowledgement of the beauty or sensuality of a child, the desire to protect or nurture, or show off the "cuteness" of children isn't acceptable? What about those that try to invoke a sense of what the adults viewing it might have felt as a child, throught the most basic attraction of depicted shared experiences? Not to mention the complete lack of understanding this shows for various forms of pornography where (in the form of shouta or chanslash) a large percentage of the attraction is to the "submissive" in the act (ie- the underaged-character) rather than the dominant adult, and the fantasy being acted out is not that of hurting a child but what's known as a "discovery narrative".

Imposing the extreme and simplistic values of the forms of sexuality that are basically responsible for the environment which paedophillia flourishes on all society is what's going to cause you more problems, not solve them.

But I’m not sure I agree with your explanation of clergy abuse. You seem to think that their position allows a latent desire to flourish
No, I don't, at all. *facepalm* I mean someone who is attracted to the position of clergy is going to be into power in the first place, and from that pool you're going to have a higher probability of a sex criminal than you are if you were not offering a position of power. Just as you often get the same with male (and occasionally, female) teachers, who are placed in positions of power over children.

[justaman]

Not really. As usual hypocrites, they make exceptions for "establish valued artistic texts", meaning Romeo & Juliet and Lolita are also okay.
Oooh. That would explain a lot, actually, given how sickeningly Australian ‘Walkabout’ it was. The establishment would love it.

So the kind of art that is designed to attract an audience to children in an acknowledgement of the beauty or sensuality of a child, the desire to protect or nurture, or show off the "cuteness" of children isn't acceptable?
Of course it's acceptable. There's two distinct kinds of reaction we're talking about here, nevermind that the word 'beauty' can be loosely applied to both.

What about those that try to invoke a sense of what the adults viewing it might have felt as a child, throught the most basic attraction of depicted shared experiences?
I wouldn't have a problem with this at all, but it must surely be a little difficult to achieve a "This-is-what-you-would-hypthetically-find-attractive-as-a-13-year-old" and "This-is-what-you-find-attractive-right-now." But if the artwork does achieve this, then fantastic. I just don’t think that child cartoon porn quite hits this category.

Imposing the extreme and simplistic values of the forms of sexuality that are basically responsible for the environment which paedophillia flourishes on all society is what's going to cause you more problems, not solve them.
Is this why you think paedophilia flourishes? A lack of sexual diversity? I had always thought it was much more common in those incapable (for whatever reason) of having relationships with adults. Children – with their innocence and diminished ability to think for themselves – must seem an attractive outlet for such an individual to focus their sexual attention.

No, I don't, at all. *facepalm* I mean someone who is attracted to the position of clergy is going to be into power in the first place, and from that pool you're going to have a higher probability of a sex criminal than you are if you were not offering a position of power. Just as you often get the same with male (and occasionally, female) teachers, who are placed in positions of power over children.
Well that makes sense, but what about the specific desire? I mean we’re talking about factors that breed the desire and I’m fairly convinced that a subculture of ‘finding children attractive is acceptable’ in child cartoon porn would be such a factor. I don’t think power positions could be called such a factor , though that’s not to say that I disagree with your above rationale. It would just kinda be difficult to abolish all teachers, I think.

[HyugaHinata]

Is this why you think paedophilia flourishes? A lack of sexual diversity? I had always thought it was much more common in those incapable (for whatever reason) of having relationships with adults. Children – with their innocence and diminished ability to think for themselves – must seem an attractive outlet for such an individual to focus their sexual attention.

I'd say that trying to repress them is only going to increase the incidence of real child abuse. Give them dolls and fake drawings, and they'll have another outlet for their sexual desire that doesn't hurt anyone.

You'd also be able to inflict higher sentences as they won't have as much of an excuse (not that they did in the first place, but they can't say 'but I didn't have any way to relieve my tension).

[Adora]

I wouldn't have a problem with this at all, but it must surely be a little difficult to achieve a "This-is-what-you-would-hypthetically-find-attractive-as-a-13-year-old" and "This-is-what-you-find-attractive-right-now."
I don't mean like that. I mean the general kind of attraction you have to people who have shared the same kind of experiences you have. Not sexual desire.

Is this why you think paedophilia flourishes? A lack of sexual diversity?
Fuck yeah. It's one of the reasons. Look at the most abusive environments around the world with high levels of paedophillia: restrictive discourses on sexuality that repress actual discussion, a distinct lack of the acceptance of sexual diversity, usually a religiously imposed model of sexist heterosexuality, etc etc.

I had always thought it was much more common in those incapable (for whatever reason) of having relationships with adults.
And yet the fact that most paedophiles are married men suggests otherwise.

Well that makes sense, but what about the specific desire? I mean we’re talking about factors that breed the desire and I’m fairly convinced that a subculture of ‘finding children attractive is acceptable’ in child cartoon porn would be such a factor.
Not really. Like all pornography, you're trying to pin down a very muted and sometimes ambiguous reflection as a cause. Actual reasons for paedophillia tend to involve domestic violence and abuse (non-sexual as well as sexual) of the perpetrator in the past leading to psychological models that mean as an adult they are unable to get over said disruptive childhoods and thus act out behaviours that make them feel more powerful (ie- sexual abuse) on children. If you want to screen the clergy for paedophiles, screen for those who were victims of domestic violence as children and haven't been properly psychologically evaluated to see if they've properly dealt with it or not. I'm not saying this will screen all paedophiles, but it goes a long way to getting rid of the majority of them.

I don’t think power positions could be called such a factor
It depends. Some positions of power do, because they continue the abusive culture that is complicitly responsible for a paedophillic environment (eg- patriachal religious institutions, abusive bastardised military units etc etc). A responsible position of power (is there such a thing? oh, that's another bloody debate) isn't so, but some that aren't responsible are.

[HyugaHinata]

Not really. As usual hypocrites, they make exceptions for "establish valued artistic texts", meaning Romeo & Juliet and Lolita are also okay.

Exactly. This is one of the many things that I detest about the OFLC. They'll hide behind the twin shields of 'artistic value' and 'context', while ignoring the fact that the average paedophile does not care about those things. Give Lolita to a paedophile, and he probably won't care about the deep meaning and the harm that comes to innocent children. He'll read it to get off.

So, why does the OFLC essentially say that it is legal for paedophiles to masturbate to sex education books and 'works of art', but not shotacon and lolicon? And is there any real difference? Not that I can see. The context may be very different, but the content is not. Dragonball Z has many scenes of child nudity and urination, but those scenes alone don't make a show any worse than 'M', as far as I know.

[justaman]

I'd say that trying to repress them is only going to increase the incidence of real child abuse. Give them dolls and fake drawings, and they'll have another outlet for their sexual desire that doesn't hurt anyone.
To argue this is to assume that all paedophiles are paedophiles from birth which is quite an assumption. If paedophilia is something learned through experience, then repression is exactly what is needed.

You'd also be able to inflict higher sentences as they won't have as much of an excuse (not that they did in the first place, but they can't say 'but I didn't have any way to relieve my tension).
This is just silly.

[justaman]

I don't mean like that. I mean the general kind of attraction you have to people who have shared the same kind of experiences you have. Not sexual desire.
Fair enough. But does child cartoon porn qualify? Or erotic stories? Is there anything constructive to be gained from material that is designed to invite sexual desire? If not, there's reason to ban it, I think.

And yet the fact that most paedophiles are married men suggests otherwise.
Alright you've convinced me of this point, but I think it's subordinate to the issue below.

Not really. Like all pornography, you're trying to pin down a very muted and sometimes ambiguous reflection as a cause. Actual reasons for paedophillia tend to involve domestic violence and abuse (non-sexual as well as sexual) of the perpetrator in the past leading to psychological models that mean as an adult they are unable to get over said disruptive childhoods and thus act out behaviours that make them feel more powerful (ie- sexual abuse) on children. If you want to screen the clergy for paedophiles, screen for those who were victims of domestic violence as children and haven't been properly psychologically evaluated to see if they've properly dealt with it or not. I'm not saying this will screen all paedophiles, but it goes a long way to getting rid of the majority of them.
What is important is that this is the case now with the extant laws. This doesn't mean that this would still be the case if a subculture of child-porn in the form of cartoons or whatever were to become legal. As I said to HH, it is precisely the repression he's railing against that is preventing whatever interest might be present in people who aren't - as it were - deterministically destined to become attracted to children. I'd say that allowing such a subculture must surely be inviting more opportunity for someone to acquire an attraction to children, which otherwise would never have developed.

And most tellingly, I don't think that introducing 'safe' brands of child-porn would prevent the occurance of the types of paedophiles you mention in the above paragraph, precisely for the reasons you articulated there. Describing it as an 'outlet' is assuming that such material would be sufficient to satiate the desires of those individuals, which will surely not always be the case.

Succinctly, it is dangerous, because it could potentially breed paedophilia in individuals who may otherwise never have become interested in children and there is nothing to say that introducing it would lessen abuse incidents by individuals who would be paedophilic anyway. It's a strong argument against it. Are there actually any strong arguments for it? They appear to amount to "it might not do that stuff", which seems kinda passive and inconsequential.

[Adora]

Fair enough. But does child cartoon porn qualify?
Course it does. It may not be conscious, but there may be subconscious relation there.

Or erotic stories? Is there anything constructive to be gained from material that is designed to invite sexual desire?
Of course. There are some women I personally know who suffered sexual abuse as a child yet find the stories very empowering, not because they relive the experiences but because they find something in them they missed as a child or are lacking currently in their life. With female produced or mostly consumed texts the emotional side of it is especially important, and may be more important to the audience than the pornographic aspect. Tarring all sexual desire with simplistic, decidedly masculine modes of understanding is faulty and, as mentioned, taking you down the track to an environment where paedophillia flourishes.

As I said to HH, it is precisely the repression he's railing against that is preventing whatever interest might be present in people who aren't - as it were - deterministically destined to become attracted to children.
I don't think so. At all. As mentioned, you're working with complex sexual fantasies that are entirely constructed. Take, for example, the common dickgirl hentai. Usually features a young-looking or under 18 female cartoon character with a vagina and a penis. 99% of the time contains sexual activity limited to masturbation. The simplistic and faulty reading of this in the modes you're suggesting would be that the usually male voyeur of such porn wants to watch real transsexuals masturbate and/or participate in sex with said transsexuals, but a lot of the time, this isn't the case at all. The actual research shows that consumers of such porn want to "get in touch with their feminine side", to use a rather clunky phrase. The consumer, like the female consumer of yaoi, wants to become the desired character (which, notably, is what's often called a "feminine" mode of desire), rather than posess it (the "masculine" mode of desire) and thus, like yaoi, the fantasy is a discovery narrative focusing on modes of gender rather than age.

People who are attracted to children in a way that will lead to abuse will do it, pornography or no, because far more powerful influences in their lives beyond whatever media you care to name have meant their choices to go a certain way. They still make the choices to abuse children, no doubt, and they are never excused of those choices, but once again, scapegoating it on imbecillic and erroneous readings of virtual pornography is only going to compound the problem.

I'd say that allowing such a subculture must surely be inviting more opportunity for someone to acquire an attraction to children, which otherwise would never have developed.
And I say there wouldn't, otherwise, as mentioned, what are all those straight heterosexual mothers who consume chanslash and yaoi doing? Placing a stupidly simplistic reading of sexuality on an incredibly complex and diverse set of fantasy expression is just idiotic and not helping the issue at all. It's like saying that because violent ax murderers have big collections of violent movies, everybody should be banned from watching violent movies. It's pathetic.

I don't think that introducing 'safe' brands of child-porn would prevent the occurance of the types of paedophiles you mention in the above paragraph, precisely for the reasons you articulated there.
And I agree with you, and I've never argued as such. I don't buy a lot of the "cartharsis" arguments, for a number of reasons, but from personal experience and from what the research tells us, "virtual" forms of pornography featuring underaged characters have little positive or virtually no influence on actual child sex abuse by paedophiles.

It's a strong argument against it.
No, it's not, because the actual research suggests otherwise.

Are there actually any strong arguments for it?
Freedom of expression. Wonderful little thing there you may not have heard of.

They appear to amount to "it might not do that stuff", which seems kinda passive and inconsequential.
And yours are "it might do that stuff" as well, so you're hardly any less passive or inconsequential here.

[justaman]

Of course. There are some women I personally know who suffered sexual abuse as a child yet find the stories very empowering, not because they relive the experiences but because they find something in them they missed as a child or are lacking currently in their life.
Surely there are much better ways of doing this than reading child porn? It sounds like these women have some issues which need sorting out and I'm not really sure b-grade fiction is necessarily the answer...

I don't think so. At all. As mentioned, you're working with complex sexual fantasies that are entirely constructed. Take, for example, the common dickgirl hentai. Usually features a young-looking or under 18 female cartoon character with a vagina and a penis. 99% of the time contains sexual activity limited to masturbation. The simplistic and faulty reading of this in the modes you're suggesting would be that the usually male voyeur of such porn wants to watch real transsexuals masturbate and/or participate in sex with said transsexuals, but a lot of the time, this isn't the case at all. The actual research shows that consumers of such porn want to "get in touch with their feminine side", to use a rather clunky phrase. The consumer, like the female consumer of yaoi, wants to become the desired character (which, notably, is what's often called a "feminine" mode of desire), rather than posess it (the "masculine" mode of desire) and thus, like yaoi, the fantasy is a discovery narrative focusing on modes of gender rather than age.
I think the examples you are using aren't quite comparable, simply because they are so obviously fantasy. As I've already said, virtual depictions of children have a much more tangible connection with reality and I'm having a hard time believing that any consumer of such material would be entertaining any concept in their mind other than a sexual encounter with a child.

People who are attracted to children in a way that will lead to abuse will do it, pornography or no, because far more powerful influences in their lives beyond whatever media you care to name have meant their choices to go a certain way. They still make the choices to abuse children, no doubt, and they are never excused of those choices, but once again, scapegoating it on imbecillic and erroneous readings of virtual pornography is only going to compound the problem.
Which brings us back to the fundamental problem. The people who are attracted to children now may abuse regardless, but this is ignoring the potential for more people becoming attracted to children as a result of introducing this subculture. And it assumes that banning this type of pornography specifically is going to compound the problem. Both of these points we may have to simply disagree upon.

And I say there wouldn't, otherwise, as mentioned, what are all those straight heterosexual mothers who consume chanslash and yaoi doing?
Honestly, how many Australian women fall into this category? I can't think very many. And I don't think they'd be terribly inconvenienced by not reading it.

No, it's not, because the actual research suggests otherwise.
It's not a strong argument for its empirical foundation, it's a strong argument because of the mere potential it has on one of the most powerful taboos in our culture.

Freedom of expression doesn't possess nearly the same degree of power.

Freedom of expression. Wonderful little thing there you may not have heard of.
An important thing. But not when it is absolute. Sometimes people need to shut the fuck up and sometimes someone needs to enforce that.

[Adora]

Surely there are much better ways of doing this than reading child porn? It sounds like these women have some issues which need sorting out and I'm not really sure b-grade fiction is necessarily the answer...
Wow, way to be a condescending ignorant prick. These women have been through counselling. They've come to terms with their experiences. That doesn't mean they should deny what ever happened or how it has effected them. As for what's B-grade and what isn't, a lot of it might be bad, but a lot of it is better, to the people who consume it, than the average piece of pulp erotica or Mills & Boon on the Borders shelves. Once again, you're imposing false value judgements and interpretations on a phenomenon you obviously know squat about, and have absolutely no understanding or experience of.

I think the examples you are using aren't quite comparable, simply because they are so obviously fantasy.
And how is the average shouta or yaoi manga or piece of Harry Potter slash "obviously not fantasy"? Could you be any more patronising to these people, acting like they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality? How can you ever be able to understand anything when you take such a bastard attitude?

As I've already said, virtual depictions of children have a much more tangible connection with reality and I'm having a hard time believing that any consumer of such material would be entertaining any concept in their mind other than a sexual encounter with a child.
I really hope you never come across a chanslash writer, because I hope she rips you a new one for your bigotry.

but this is ignoring the potential for more people becoming attracted to children as a result of introducing this subculture.
And until you prove that this opinion of yours has any basis in reality, I'm still calling it bullshit.

Honestly, how many Australian women fall into this category?
Statistically if we're talking from the numbers of regional downloads from IRC, torrent and scanlation sites, somewhere in the thousands or so depending (some sites do it by region so it gets mixed in with NZ). From the yaoi sales of manga on Amazon.com, I can't say, you'd have to ask them. Then there's the thousands of fangirls who write slash about various texts and sometimes underaged characters that you couldn't realistically tally because it's so dispersed across the web. In that case, I'd say in Australia, probably around the same number of females writing stories and drawing art and not hurting anyone, not abusing children, and fuck, happily raising children of their own in a lot of cases.

Come on, justa, this is about as bad as the "that married couple with children like to role-play and pretend the wife is a naughty schoolgirl and the husband spanks her therefore they're paedophiles" bullshit.

I can't think very many. And I don't think they'd be terribly inconvenienced by not reading it.
... Right. Of course. How about we just remove all possible access to your favourite type of porn and see how "terribly inconvenienced" you are, kay?

It's not a strong argument for its empirical foundation, it's a strong argument because of the mere potential it has on one of the most powerful taboos in our culture.
Ahhhh, no, it doesn't quite work like that. Powerful taboos are often just bullshit hysteria that complicates the matter of actually working out the problems themselves, as this is the perfect example. It's a piss-poor argument because it ignores the real causes of paedophillia, provides no evidence that banning it would somehow lower the incidence of paedophillic crimes, and you're just spouting rhetoric that doesn't even make sense. Once again, are you going to go around banning all violent movies because of the "mere potential it has on one of the most powerful taboos in our culture", ie murder? Give it a rest.

Sometimes people need to shut the fuck up and sometimes someone needs to enforce that.
And so who gets to decide that? The bigots who complicitly compound the problem of paedophillia by creating a disgusting imbalanced and abusive society? Who couldn't even begin to grasp the concept of the complexity sexual diversity if it bent them over an desk and rimmed them into delirium? Who are so panic-stricken about what the actual existence of paedophillia reveals about their own fucked-up sexualities that they kick up a social hysteria over it? I don't think so. If anybody needs to shut the fuck up, it's those ignorant bastards trying to impose their narrowminded, patriachal and neanderthal modes of sexuality on everyone else.

[justaman]

Wow, way to be a condescending ignorant prick. These women have been through counselling. They've come to terms with their experiences. That doesn't mean they should deny what ever happened or how it has effected them.
Oh honestly, Adora, what a bunch of crap. How can you possibly infer that I think 'they should deny whatever happened' by wanting to prevent a particular catalyst for incidents of abuse ever happening in the first place?! You stated as a reason in support of certain varieties of child porn that it was beneficial to women who had been through it. I stated that there are obviously more effective ways of doing this, so your reason isn’t much of an argument. What more there was to read into my comments is beyond me. (And having read a number of erotic stories myself, I am quite happy that my ‘B-grade’ description is entirely justified).

And how is the average shouta or yaoi manga or piece of Harry Potter slash "obviously not fantasy"? Could you be any more patronising to these people, acting like they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality? How can you ever be able to understand anything when you take such a bastard attitude?
It’s got precisely nothing to do with understanding the difference between fantasy and reality and everything to do with breeding specific types of desire. If there is a piece of fantasy which encourages a particular desire, it is more likely that desire is going to impact upon reality. There’s really no getting around this fact.

I really hope you never come across a chanslash writer, because I hope she rips you a new one for your bigotry.
Those hopes are contradictory. But really, why do you still appear to think that I am in the slightest bit impressed by your ability to write in the vein of a sulky adolescent? I find your arguments much more impressive, just quietly.

And until you prove that this opinion of yours has any basis in reality, I'm still calling it bullshit.
Well let’s approach this with a modicum of pragmatism, hm? Let’s say we enter Adoritopia and cartoon porn depicting children is officially permitted and indeed encouraged. Do you really think that it will end with the types of porn you have identified, these ones with apparently constructive qualities to them and are obviously fantasy? You don’t think that an entire market would crop up with digital drawings of lifelike children being abused by images of lifelike men? You don’t think that such a market would appeal to the lowest common denominator, with no thought whatsoever to any constructive end, but purely to make money of people who want to look at images of children naked? Even better, perhaps real pictures will become pixilated and re-drawn to technically be deemed legal, so that everyone will know they are watching a real child getting fucked, and that there is nothing whatever that the government can do to stop it?

In short, you have identified some very, very tenuous reasons for why cartoon child porn may be considered helpful to a very, very small percentage of the population, but you don’t appear to have given one iota of thought to the possibility of your prediction failing and an entire wave of paedophilic desire erupting around this newly accepted subculture.

It is a probability gamble for which there is much to lose and bugger all to gain, making it quite a no-brainer. I really don’t understand why you are defending it so vehemently, especially given the nature of the last discussion you and I had. Do you happen to like it personally or what?

Come on, justa, this is about as bad as the "that married couple with children like to role-play and pretend the wife is a naughty schoolgirl and the husband spanks her therefore they're paedophiles" bullshit.
If you were that wife and your husband started asking you to play that game continually, you wouldn’t find that in the least bit weird, hm?

... Right. Of course. How about we just remove all possible access to your favourite type of porn and see how "terribly inconvenienced" you are, kay?
I can honestly say I wouldn’t be bothered in the slightest. It’s porn, not my life.

It's a piss-poor argument because it ignores the real causes of paedophillia
No. It just doesn’t deal with certain causes.

Adora. Are you personally willing to gamble a child on whether a guy with access to lots of cartoon child porn may or may not potentially be prompted to abuse a child as a direct result of access to that material? I’d really hope not. There is certainly a chance that you are right and incidents of abuse would not increase, but do you understand that the gamble simply isn’t worth taking?

[Adora]

Oh honestly, Adora, what a bunch of crap. How can you possibly infer that I think 'they should deny whatever happened' by wanting to prevent a particular catalyst for incidents of abuse ever happening in the first place?!
1) You still haven't proved it's a catalyst.
2) You're denying these women the acknowledgement and empowerment that they use to "deal with it", in total ignorance obviously of anything to do with sex crimes and the pornography they like.

I stated that there are obviously more effective ways of doing this, so your reason isn’t much of an argument.
And I stated that obviously, there isn't, for these women, which was why I used them as an example in the first place.

And having read a number of erotic stories myself, I am quite happy that my ‘B-grade’ description is entirely justified.
And I'm not meant to think you a patronising wanker when you still spew stuff like this? Bitch, please.

It’s got precisely nothing to do with understanding the difference between fantasy and reality and everything to do with breeding specific types of desire.
...
"Breeding specific types of desire"? Are you on crack? Do you have any facts whatsoever to back this up, or are you just pulling this shit from your arse like always?

If there is a piece of fantasy which encourages a particular desire, it is more likely that desire is going to impact upon reality.
Whoa, talk about not knowing jack. Okay, let's back the fuck up here a minute, because you're obviously too stupid to work out the difference between fantasy and reality yourself.

1) Fantasy is fantasy. 99% of the time, to fufil the desires of the fantasy holder, the fantasy must remain a fantasy. It must not come into contact with reality where it will break down because it can only satisfy in the fantasy realms. This covers everything from fantasies of killing to fantasies of rape many people have.

2) I have pointed out that what some people view as "encouraging a particular desire" is not actually doing that, when you actually analyse the phenomenon through research instead of making baseless assumptions informed by nothing more than stupid social prejudice and neanderthal sexualities that pretend they're the norm.

3) Unless you prove to me that Australian females consuming shouta manga or slash fanfiction is somehow "encouraging a particular desire" that is actually paedophillic in that it makes these thousands of females want to go out and fuck underaged boys, you're still talking shit.

There’s really no getting around this fact.
Yes, there is. If you're too blinded by your own ignorance to see the obvious or at least attempt to educate yourself on matters of sexuality, then there's no point in you hitting the reply button, bub.

I find your arguments much more impressive, just quietly.
Aaaaaand I'm meant to care about "impressing" an ignorant fuck like yourself why, exactly?

Well let’s approach this with a modicum of pragmatism, hm?
Honey, you have yet to do this yourself, so no, I don't think we shall.

Let’s say we enter Adoritopia and cartoon porn depicting children is officially permitted and indeed encouraged. Do you really think that it will end with the types of porn you have identified, these ones with apparently constructive qualities to them and are obviously fantasy?
Yes, because you're making faulty assumptions of why I am defending this. I brought up the issues of it being beneficial to some women just as an example of your faulty logic that all depictions of virtual child porn = bad. I'm defending this for the basic right of freedom of expression, whoever the person may be whyever they consume it. Nobody is being harmed in the direct production and consumption of it, therefore it should be allowed.

You don’t think that an entire market would crop up with digital drawings of lifelike children being abused by images of lifelike men?
Honey, there already is. :pat: I mean, really, open your eyes and do a little research sometime.

You don’t think that such a market would appeal to the lowest common denominator, with no thought whatsoever to any constructive end, but purely to make money of people who want to look at images of children naked?
And your point is...?

Even better, perhaps real pictures will become pixilated and re-drawn to technically be deemed legal, so that everyone will know they are watching a real child getting fucked, and that there is nothing whatever that the government can do to stop it?
No, actually. Your sliding scale stops here. This is what we call "invasion of the privacy of a child" which is a human rights abuse, even when applied to adults. Even in the varied and largely deregulated world of adult consentual legal internet pornography, any authority in the Western world can demand of a supplier or producer of such product to provide the authority with signed documents for all the actors and models on their sights in which said individuals give their express permission to have the material displayed. When applied to child porn, this is what's called the "second level". The first level is direct child pornography depicting abuses of the child by criminals. The third is the "virtual" stuff we are discussing here. Understand?

In short, you have identified some very, very tenuous reasons for why cartoon child porn may be considered helpful to a very, very small percentage of the population, but you don’t appear to have given one iota of thought to the possibility of your prediction failing and an entire wave of paedophilic desire erupting around this newly accepted subculture.
Honey, I have given it thought, and because I am obviously more rational than you, I've come to a certain conclusion. Just because you don't agree with that conclusion in your blatant ignorance, doesn't mean I haven't thought about it.

It is a probability gamble for which there is much to lose and bugger all to gain
Okay, let's once again take a step back from the bullshit emotive crap you're bandying around here like it's going out of fashion, and think for a minute. In all the evidence we have, on hand, now, actual research, it tells us that the diversification and proliferation of virtual pornography in a culture generally occurs in a culture with lower rates of sexual crimes against adults and children. We have absolutely no evidence to back up your own claims of it somehow opening a "gateway" to some sort of paedophillic dystopia through your bullshit sliding scales. So actually, in the probability of things, you're talking crap, again.

especially given the nature of the last discussion you and I had. Do you happen to like it personally or what?
Actually, if you knew jack about what you we were discussing, you'd know why I was defending it. How about you do a little research on slash and yaoi, and then, if you can come back and tell me why I am defending it, I might not think you're the bigot you appear to be and give you a cookie.

If you were that wife and your husband started asking you to play that game continually, you wouldn’t find that in the least bit weird, hm?
Um, no, not at all, if that's what I also liked. What's your point? All I can see you arguing is some improbable sliding scale, no facts, no research, no knowledge on the topic whatsoever, and the occasional argument from ick.

I can honestly say I wouldn’t be bothered in the slightest. It’s porn, not my life.
Rrrrright. So just because you're happy to have your freedom of expression taken away, everybody else should be as well?

Adora. Are you personally willing to gamble a child on whether a guy with access to lots of cartoon child porn may or may not potentially be prompted to abuse a child as a direct result of access to that material?
Yes, because all evidence (I know that word may be a foreign concept to you, but do try to keep up) we have right now says the probability is low enough to "gamble" it. Just as the hysteria surrounding videogames and juvenille violence is crap, and the gamble in fact is the opposite to what the hysteria mummies like yourself are screaming the whole time, if you analyse the evidence.

but do you understand that the gamble simply isn’t worth taking?
No, I don't. I could argue the same way, sweetums, with your happy desires to deny people basic human rights of expression. If we're going to use your pathetic argument of sliding scales, ever heard of this one (http://www.israelblog.org/1039319541/)? No honey, I'm not comparing government censorship to the Holocaust, but since you're going to use sliding scales, I could quite happily point out that if you're going to allow one violation of someone's freedom of expression, you have no standard to prevent others. Justaman, I've known people, people who are not criminals, are married, who have kids, who have a healthy sex life with their husbands, who would never abuse children ever, who have been forced to burn books under these laws. Just because you think the material I am defending is "B-grade", or ick, doesn't make that fact any less fucked up. Australian censorship laws to the extent we are discussing here are illogical, irrational, and totally non-helping in the actual prevention and punishment of child sex abuse.

[justaman]

1) You still haven't proved it's a catalyst.
Irrelevant. That I clearly think it is a catalyst is what highlights the idiocy in your 'condescension' accusation.

2) You're denying these women the acknowledgement and empowerment that they use to "deal with it", in total ignorance obviously of anything to do with sex crimes and the pornography they like.
This happened to a friend of yours, I take it? I notice you taking any perceived rebuke against the individuals rather personally. And you’re also remaining carefully vague about the specifics of how it helps them. Do they draw the images themselves? I can see how that would be therapeutic, but if that’s the case, the only way anyone could find out about it to stop them was if they were trying to publish the images. How is publishing the images therapeutic? Or else they gain whatever it is you think they gain by reading it. Can you please provide me one shred of documented evidence that reading child-porn is more beneficial than therapy. Ta.

If not, your rabid vigilante act of defending their right to freedom of expression is just so much fluff.

And I'm not meant to think you a patronising wanker when you still spew stuff like this? Bitch, please.
Give me a link to a story that you wouldn’t consider b-grade. Let’s see an example of this literary genius. :P

"Breeding specific types of desire"? Are you on crack? Do you have any facts whatsoever to back this up, or are you just pulling this shit from your arse
like always?
A guy sees a link to a particular subculture. He follows out of curiosity. He begins to enjoy what he sees. He goes back for more. And keeps doing it. He now has a desire he would never have had, had that link not been there.

It’s kinda simple, Adora.

1) Fantasy is fantasy. 99% of the time, to fufil the desires of the fantasy holder, the fantasy must remain a fantasy. It must not come into contact with reality where it will break down because it can only satisfy in the fantasy realms. This covers everything from fantasies of killing to fantasies of rape many people have.
99% of the time? Do you enjoy being so obtuse? For someone throwing tantys about me not using enough facts, this is a bit rich.

2) I have pointed out that what some people view as "encouraging a particular desire" is not actually doing that, when you actually analyse the phenomenon through research instead of making baseless assumptions informed by nothing more than stupid social prejudice and neanderthal sexualities that pretend they're the norm.
Can you link me to the research? Does it say 99% as well?

3) Unless you prove to me that Australian females consuming shouta manga or slash fanfiction is somehow "encouraging a particular desire" that is actually paedophillic in that it makes these thousands of females want to go out and fuck underaged boys, you're still talking shit.
This is why you’re argument is stupid. It could not matter less about the female consumption of shouta manga or whatever little esoteric brand of cartoon porn you care to name. It is the male population having equal access to such material which is the danger.

You’re playing a game of misdirection which wouldn’t really concern me except for the fact that you continue to ignore that children are the price you pay for being incorrect. For someone who enjoys soapbox time, this seems very out of character. But then again, you seem to enjoy defending whatever the majority doesn’t like on general principle so perhaps it isn’t.


Yes, because you're making faulty assumptions of why I am defending this. I brought up the issues of it being beneficial to some women just as an example of your faulty logic that all depictions of virtual child porn = bad. I'm defending this for the basic right of freedom of expression, whoever the person may be whyever they consume it. Nobody is being harmed in the direct production and consumption of it, therefore it should be allowed.
Blakc and white worlds are lovely, aren’t they? So simple and neat. AND realistic.

I have never stated that virtual child porn is inherently ‘bad’. I haven’t actually said there are no positive outcomes for it (though I have no doubt in my mind whatsoever that they are infinitely smaller than the grand picture you’re trying to paint).What I said it is that it is dangerous because it allows for the production of material that is designed to appeal directly to an individual’s attraction of children. Which is kinda the polar opposite of the stuff you appear to be defending, if you hadn’t noticed. You’re black and white little world doesn’t take into account this subculture, nor does it take into account the very real possibility that this subculture would inspire a higher rate of paedophilia, a desire for more.

You’ve stated repeatedly that research indicates this wouldn’t happen. Give me a skerrick of evidence about child-porn specifically. If you can, I’ll post a picture of my boobs.

Honey, there already is. :pat: I mean, really, open your eyes and do a little research sometime.
And this is completely legal, I take it, and you won’t get arrested if they find it in your possession like happened to a colleague of mine who downloaded a hentai child game on his computer, yes? Playing obtuse might make you think you’re winning the argument, but it’s a little…shallow. ;)

No, actually. Your sliding scale stops here. This is what we call "invasion of the privacy of a child" which is a human rights abuse, even when applied to adults. Even in the varied and largely deregulated world of adult consentual legal internet pornography, any authority in the Western world can demand of a supplier or producer of such product to provide the authority with signed documents for all the actors and models on their sights in which said individuals give their express permission to have the material displayed. When applied to child porn, this is what's called the "second level". The first level is direct child pornography depicting abuses of the child by criminals. The third is the "virtual" stuff we are discussing here. Understand?
I understand that you are spectacularly naïve in the way business tends to dive through loopholes to pander to the wants of the consumer. If virtual child porn became officially legalised and a site was offering realistic virtual images of children and were investigated they merely say ‘no’ when asked if the virtual images were based upon real images. No need to provide ID of models. They’d simply deny they used any.

It’s simply an example of what may happen if you got your way and people won their ‘freedom of expression’. You appear determined to remain ignorant of the possibilities, which is horrifically irresponsible, I think.

Okay, let's once again take a step back from the bullshit emotive crap you're bandying around here like it's going out of fashion, and think for a minute. In all the evidence we have, on hand, now, actual research, it tells us that the diversification and proliferation of virtual pornography in a culture generally occurs in a culture with lower rates of sexual crimes against adults and children.
Let’s see this research.

We have absolutely no evidence to back up your own claims of it somehow opening a "gateway" to some sort of paedophillic dystopia through your bullshit sliding scales. So actually, in the probability of things, you're talking crap, again.

Of course there’s no evidence, you walking genius, it would be illegal to even conduct a study on the subject!

Actually, if you knew jack about what you we were discussing, you'd know why I was defending it. How about you do a little research on slash and yaoi, and then, if you can come back and tell me why I am defending it, I might not think you're the bigot you appear to be and give you a cookie.
Do you like it personally?

Um, no, not at all, if that's what I also liked. What's your point? All I can see you arguing is some improbable sliding scale, no facts, no research, no knowledge on the topic whatsoever, and the occasional argument from ick.
What if you didn’t like doing it but he did? Wouldn’t find that weird?

Rrrrright. So just because you're happy to have your freedom of expression taken away, everybody else should be as well?
Fuckn jesus, how is looking at porn freedom of expression?!. Creating, perhaps. But then there’s no real problem so long as your buddies aren’t trying to publish it.

Yes, because all evidence (I know that word may be a foreign concept to you, but do try to keep up) we have right now says the probability is low enough to "gamble" it. Just as the hysteria surrounding videogames and juvenille violence is crap, and the gamble in fact is the opposite to what the hysteria mummies like yourself are screaming the whole time, if you analyse the evidence.
Given how scarce evidence is about virtual child porn, you’re not making a particularly informed gamble. You’re splitting your tens, frankly.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that violent video-games and juvenille violence are directly linked (you don’t see many tibetan monks bluing each other, for instance, the incidence of violence is a direct result of its acceptance within a given culture, a long accepted fact), but the taboo simply isn’t there to mobilise society’s opinion against them.

Justaman, I've known people, people who are not criminals, are married, who have kids, who have a healthy sex life with their husbands, who would never abuse children ever, who have been forced to burn books under these laws.
Just as I thought. Why were these women (woman?) trying to publish their books? Why didn’t they keep them secret for their eyes only?

Arguing against society on account of feeling sorry for one of your pals isn’t rational, Adora. Admirable, but not rational.

[Adora]

Irrelevant.
Not at all. What you think and what is the truth are oh-so-often mutually exclusive.

This happened to a friend of yours, I take it?
No, actually, I wouldn't call them a friend. Acquaintance, perhaps. But my relation to the person is irrelevant anyway.

I notice you taking any perceived rebuke against the individuals rather personally.
Oh c'mon Justaman. Usually it takes you at least 3 pages to start with the Strawmans.

And you’re also remaining carefully vague about the specifics of how it helps them.
You mean I'm not in total knowledge of the details myself? Wow, who would have guessed. These women simply say, "I helps me deal with who I am now" or "Because of what happened to me I find this is a form of fiction/porn/whatever that I enjoy". When I sit down and have one of them talk in-depth with me about why, I'll pass it on to you, kay, hun?

Do they draw the images themselves?
Sometimes. Sometimes they just read the stories, or look at others comics/art/whatever.

I can see how that would be therapeutic, but if that’s the case, the only way anyone could find out about it to stop them was if they were trying to publish the images.
Wrong again, my ignorant friend. The Australian laws dictate the banning of digital media as well as hardcopy published material. Obviously, digital laws are harder to policy, but it's there in the ABA, ACMA and various state legislations.

How is publishing the images therapeutic?
How is putting anything you draw/write out into the world therapeutic? It's an expression of creativity and voice. It's an excercising of a basic freedom or opinion on a subject. Honey, you've got every right to express your blatantly ignorant views all over this forum. Why do you do it?

Can you please provide me one shred of documented evidence that reading child-porn is more beneficial than therapy.
Can you please point out to me where I said it was more beneficial, and stop with the pathetic strawman crap again? Honestly, I have it in mind to just put you on ignore.

If not, your rabid vigilante act of defending their right to freedom of expression is just so much fluff.
So, defending people's right to freedom of expression is just "fluff"? Can I call Godwin's on your arse, please?

Give me a link to a story that you wouldn’t consider b-grade. Let’s see an example of this literary genius. :P
Oh bitch please. I know that it doesn't matter an ounce how good whatever I post here is, you're going to be irrationally biased against it because of the content, and you're pathetic "ew ick" reactions. Wouldn't matter whether it was images, words or comics.

A guy sees a link to a particular subculture. He follows out of curiosity. He begins to enjoy what he sees. He goes back for more. And keeps doing it. He now has a desire he would never have had, had that link not been there.
"Simple" is right, but sadly, "simpleton" would me more correct. If the man had no desire whatsoever, then he wouldn't have followed the link in the first place, or enjoyed what he saw on that first visit. Logic. Ever heard of it? And none of this means the individual is going to go out and abuse children, which is the deeply flawed crux of your supposed argument.

It's kind of simple, darling.

99% of the time? Do you enjoy being so obtuse? For someone throwing tantys about me not using enough facts, this is a bit rich.
Aaaaand do you have an actual refutation of my pointing out the basic premise of fantasy or are you just going to posture?

Can you link me to the research? Does it say 99% as well?
Yes, actually, it does. For example, the research by Jennifer Robertson on consumers of certain gender-bending entertainment (pornographic and otherwise) in Japan and around the world in her work on the Takarazuka performance troupe. Mark McLelland's excellent work into slash, yaoi and queer fan culture. Henry Jenkin's basic observations on fanfiction and fandom in general. Ohmui Takao's work into the dickgirl hentai phenomenon. Will Brooker's research into sexual texts and the Star Wars fandom. No, I don't have links, because most of it is in book form. Y'know, a book? Something you read to gain knowledge?

This is why you’re argument is stupid. It could not matter less about the female consumption of shouta manga or whatever little esoteric brand of cartoon porn you care to name.
Which is a load of crap. You asked me, specifically, how many females there were in Australia who consumed this kinds of media. If you supposedly "could not care less" you would not have asked such a thing.

It is the male population having equal access to such material which is the danger.
Which just goes to show how way off the mark you are with this one. Justa, honey, the fact is, males don't read this stuff, don't look at this stuff, even though it's out there. Okay, scratch that, male paedophiles don't, because, to use a common phrase in said subcultures, "It's not for them". It doesn't satisfy their desires, so they make their own subcultures. Why? Because it works in a female mode of desire, not a male one. Because a lot of it works with very abstract and complicated modes of sexuality & desire, that don't fit with the pathetic male modes of desire these paedophiles possess. Even most gay men, who, for all intents and purposes by your argument should for some reason be into the non-underaged stuff, don't like that form of the material and in a lot of cases get angry at the women who produce it because they think it should be for them just because it contains male homosexual stories.

So, if we're still playing your "probability game", it's still worth the gamble.

children are the price you pay for being incorrect.
No, see, that's what happens when you're incorrect in thinking if he pulls out you won't get pregnant. ;)

For someone who enjoys soapbox time, this seems very out of character. But then again, you seem to enjoy defending whatever the majority doesn’t like on general principle so perhaps it isn’t.
Blah blah blah Strawman blah blah blah. Oh c'mon. You're better than this. At least try to make up an argument.

Blakc and white worlds are lovely, aren’t they? So simple and neat. AND realistic.
I have a call for you on line 1 from a black pot. He says he wants a word.

I have never stated that virtual child porn is inherently ‘bad’.
Yes you have, with your insinuations that it's so horrible that it automatically gives people subversive desires they otherwise wouldn't have had. Stop lying.

What I said it is that it is dangerous because it allows for the production of material that is designed to appeal directly to an individual’s attraction of children.
And I'm still waiting for the point where, if the material created does not directly harm a child in its production and consumption, this is supposedly some great horrendous thing that should be banned.

Which is kinda the polar opposite of the stuff you appear to be defending, if you hadn’t noticed.
If you hadn't noticed, no, it isn't. See justa, you may have missed the entire point of this thread, but if you'll kindly go back and open your eyes for a little while, you'll see that because of the pathetic knuckledraggers like yourself who make these laws, said laws are unable to tell the difference between a teenager sharing his/her sexual experiences with another teenager, harmless female sexual material created by and for female consumption, and that oh-so-deviant material you're claiming should be banned. So before you start jumping up and down about black-and-white, try learning to read.

You’re black and white little world doesn’t take into account this subculture
Honey, your argument dismissed and condescended to an entire harmless subculture of females from the get-go, and has continued up to this point. When you get down off your rickety high-horse, your bullshit might actually have a point.

nor does it take into account the very real possibility that this subculture would inspire a higher rate of paedophilia, a desire for more.
Once again, prove to me that this is a "very real possibility" with facts and you might not be talking shit. Unfortunately, I know you're not going to, because you haven't yet, even though I have asked time and time again. You're getting as good as Sweetie at avoiding the issue at hand, justa. That would be impressive if it weren't so fucked-up.

You’ve stated repeatedly that research indicates this wouldn’t happen. Give me a skerrick of evidence about child-porn specifically.
Oh come on. Do I really need to pull out all the research on Japan, with its easy availability of shouta and loli hentai, and continuously decreasing sexual crime rate? Give it a fucking rest, you ignorant hick.

Playing obtuse might make you think you’re winning the argument, but it’s a little…shallow. ;)
Not as shallow as not providing any real argument at all.

I understand that you are spectacularly naïve in the way business tends to dive through loopholes to pander to the wants of the consumer. If virtual child porn became officially legalised and a site was offering realistic virtual images of children and were investigated they merely say ‘no’ when asked if the virtual images were based upon real images. No need to provide ID of models. They’d simply deny they used any.
And I see you are spectacularly naive in regards to Australian laws. And Photoshop, for that matter. Oi, why am I even bothering...

It’s simply an example of what may happen if you got your way and people won their ‘freedom of expression’. You appear determined to remain ignorant of the possibilities, which is horrifically irresponsible, I think.
And honey, until you stop being a bigot as to the actual possibilities of the repurcussions of these laws, you should really stop being such a hypocritical asswipe.

Let’s see this research.
*rolls eyes* One on Japan, which says exactly what I'm saying, if you read it all. (http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html) "If we consider societies where there is little or no censorship of pornography we find that, far from an increase in sex crime after the abolition of censorship, there is in fact a decrease." (http://www.cultsock.ndirect.co.uk/MUHome/cshtml/media/porno4.html)

Of course there’s no evidence, you walking genius, it would be illegal to even conduct a study on the subject!
Not in other countries. So where's your research on them?

Do you like it personally?
Yes, but I don't like lolicon hentai and I'm still defending it as well, so enough with the Strawman.

What if you didn’t like doing it but he did? Wouldn’t find that weird?
No. I don't like leather S&M but I don't find it weird. I don't like dressing up in diapers and pretending I'm a baby, but I don't find it weird. The only real kind of sexual activity that I find "weird" are the guys who like to get kicked in the nuts by women in stilettos for sexual excitement.

Fuckn jesus, how is looking at porn freedom of expression?!. Creating, perhaps. But then there’s no real problem so long as your buddies aren’t trying to publish it.
As mentioned, it is a problem, if you're one of the females who both create and consume it, even online, where the Australian anti-pornography laws of all kinds extend to.

Given how scarce evidence is about virtual child porn, you’re not making a particularly informed gamble.
Actually, I am. I can't say the same for you, unfortunately.

And I have no doubt whatsoever that violent video-games and juvenille violence are directly linked
...
Justaman, you can reply to this post if you like, but thanks to your little line here I've just been informed as to the sheer depth of your ignorance and realise that because of your bigotry, anymore involvement on my part in this discussion is a waste of energy. So long and thanks for all the fish.

[seebs]

On the one hand, there does seem to be good evidence that porn reduces sex crimes. On the other hand, I think it's silly to deny that porn about underage kids is porn about underage kids.

[HyugaHinata]

To argue this is to assume that all paedophiles are paedophiles from birth which is quite an assumption. If paedophilia is something learned through experience, then repression is exactly what is needed.

Repression of people who are naturally attracted to children will lead to them exploding, children being abused, and the perpetrator going to jail (in the best-case scenario). Repression works just as well as abstinence-only education; i.e. not at all.

This is just silly.

You obviously haven't heard of the jury who sentenced a man who murdered his daughter for having extra-marital sex because he was brought up in a Muslim culture that condemned such things. You'd be surprised.

[Crumb]

On the other hand, I think it's silly to deny that porn about underage kids is porn about underage kids.
Was someone denying this? :scratch:

[HyugaHinata]

I don't think so. At all. As mentioned, you're working with complex sexual fantasies that are entirely constructed. Take, for example, the common dickgirl hentai. Usually features a young-looking or under 18 female cartoon character with a vagina and a penis. 99% of the time contains sexual activity limited to masturbation. The simplistic and faulty reading of this in the modes you're suggesting would be that the usually male voyeur of such porn wants to watch real transsexuals masturbate and/or participate in sex with said transsexuals, but a lot of the time, this isn't the case at all. The actual research shows that consumers of such porn want to "get in touch with their feminine side", to use a rather clunky phrase.

Exactly. I love dickgirl hentai myself, and I like to pretend that one of them, Sakaki from Azumanga Daioh, is my girlfriend and got me pregnant. Naturally, this fantasy can only work in the realm of fantasy.

And justaman, if you truly care about reducing rates of child crime, then you cannot afford not to legalize the fake stuff. After all, the rates went down in Denmark and Japan.

[erimir]

But obviously now you're going to try go live out your fantasy by having trannies fuck you in the ass until you're pregnant.

And masturbating to the Arnold Schwarzenegger classic Junior over and over.

[Adora]

Nothing like canon mpreg!

[HyugaHinata]

Your wish is my command!!!!!!

http://img.renchan.org/imgboard/Shota/src/30331131338758570.jpg/m.JPG?use_path_for_filename

If only JK Rowling would do this.

Harry Potter and the War on Puberty!

[Adora]

I know the girl who drew that. ;)

[HyugaHinata]

I know the girl who drew that. ;)

Awesome! Is she a pregnant dickgirl? :D

[Adora]

Keep dreaming, Hyuga. Her official art site is here (http://www.doyourthing.org/glock/), and she also has some adult material up on Twinners (http://www.twinners.org/). And when LJ starts working again, this (http://www.livejournal.com/community/glockart/) is her art account. What you posted looks like an art meme that was going around a while ago where a lot of artists would make a post in their LJ that said, "Comment here and I will draw you something that has two of your LJ interests in it" and people would leave comments and get pictures. Whoever the image was for would have had "mpreg" and "Remus/Snape/Harry" listed in their interests. I can't remember what she drew for me... I'm sure it was good, though. She's a wonderful artist.

[justaman]

Which just goes to show how way off the mark you are with this one. Justa, honey, the fact is, males don't read this stuff, don't look at this stuff, even though it's out there. Okay, scratch that, male paedophiles don't, because, to use a common phrase in said subcultures, "It's not for them". It doesn't satisfy their desires, so they make their own subcultures. Why? Because it works in a female mode of desire, not a male one.
Because a lot of it works with very abstract and complicated modes of sexuality & desire, that don't fit with the pathetic male modes of desire these paedophiles possess.
I won’t reply to everything since you’ve been clear you aren’t interested in further discussion, but I’d like to at least set the record straight about what you’re saying here. We are really not talking about the same thing.

Presently the laws prohibit the type of material you have been defending, which is why you don’t like the laws. It seems that you think I like the laws because it prohibits material such as the examples that you’re defending. I’m not and never have been. I like the laws because they prohibit material different from your examples which male paedophiles are interested in. I am not talking about the type of ‘porn’ (and I’m not sure whether to even call it that based upon your description) that you are advocating, I am talking about the laws which would prevent varieties of virtual images that do appeal to a ‘child-attraction’ subculture.

It would appear that your examples are incidental victims of the law’s broad-brush. But as I said way back in my earlier posts, if it was possible for the law to distinguish between what you’re talking about, and brands of porn that are not constructive then fine. It would seem difficult, however.

The only reason you should be disagreeing with me is if you think that pornography specifically designed to pander to a male paedophiles interest should be allowed. It had appeared as if that was exactly what you thought, but I’m not sure after reading the above paragraph. Anyway just wanted to clear that one up.