Debate and Discussion

Loli and gore
Snevilly at 12:56AM, June 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 66
joined: 5-24-2010
Well, I think you are looking at too small of a picture, El Cid, or you haven't noticed all the terrible non-sense people are trying to market as art. Sure, if its just a picture on a website you can decide not to visit there. Sure, if its a photo in a book you can choose not to buy it and its not hurting anyone. But what about when someone wants to imitate someone like Guillermo Vargas and begins to starve animals in galleries as a piece of performance art? Or the incidents like the Yale abortion art controversy?

I don't want to be censored, but I don't want different interpretations of what “art” is to to allow something morally reprehensible to happen under its title. I'm not saying I know where to draw the line or even that I would trust anyone to do it, but I do feel like there is a line and it needs to go somewhere.

One or two of them might just make you giggle: My Instagram, project Blog, and RPG Blog
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:49PM
Faliat at 5:42AM, June 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
I think people are forgetting here that it's not the loli being banned that is the big deal here. Sure I don't like it either. But that's easy to avoid showing if it does get banned. It's the parameters of what IS child pornography as dictated by this law that bothers me. Especially since people are goign to be thrown in jail for drawing things they can see depicted on mainstream TV and not get in trouble for.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
isukun at 9:41AM, June 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
But what about when someone wants to imitate someone like Guillermo Vargas and begins to starve animals in galleries as a piece of performance art? Or the incidents like the Yale abortion art controversy?

If someone does something illegal or reprehensible in the pursuit of art, they are still subject to the laws which prohibit those activities. “It wasn't rape, it was performance art” won't hold up in court.

That's the difference. When you have a physical victim, there are other laws which apply. Limiting expression based on content is censorship and should be avoided. On top of that, it is hypocritical to claim something like loli is damaging, but not speak out against porn in general. If there is a negative effect, it should ALL present the same negative effect. Most studies seem to suggest that porn actually helps to prevent rape. What magical qualities do loli and shota have which reverse this trend?

I also find it kind of interesting that similar studies are being done with violent media now, as well. People have actually shown evidence which supports the notion that violent films help reduce violent crime. They show correlations between the release of violent movies and the reduction of violent crimes around the release date and even a larger reduction in the 6-12 time slot when more people go to see movies.

From what I've seen, it just seems more practical to offer people SOME outlet than offer none. After all, what's the alterative if such “art” doesn't exist? They'll still be the same messed up people, but with nowhere to turn for an outlet to their perverse nature.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 10:18AM, June 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
isukun
On top of that, it is hypocritical to claim something like loli is damaging, but not speak out against porn in general.
I don't think the legislation or intent is anti-porn or expression in this case. I think the idea was a blanket ban on “child” pornography specifically and that this Lolita hentai is another type of child pornography.

Legally they're probably taking the “better safe than sorry” route, opting to over-ban rather than under-ban and let things get through. Either way there will be court cases on the penumbra.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
isukun at 10:55AM, June 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
The existence of a victim is a pretty clear cut line. Banning materials that have no direct victim is not really a case of “better safe than sorry” and the hypocrisy is definitely evident there.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 11:25AM, June 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
isukun
The existence of a victim is a pretty clear cut line. Banning materials that have no direct victim is not really a case of “better safe than sorry” and the hypocrisy is definitely evident there.
Child porn isn't just about the existence of a victim, rather it's just a visual depiction of children in sexual acts or in an arousing way- or some such thing. I think it's had to broaden to encompass older photographic material as well as mocked up images (digital constructions, edited images in Photoshop, collage), Lolita comics fall under that umbrella. That's what I mean by “better safe than sorry”.
Or else people could argue: "what makes some visual deceptions of “victimless” child porn wrong (edited photos, collage etc), and others safe? (comics and animation featuring child pornography) "

Either way there will be a grey line. They're leaning to having more things covered rather than less.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
isukun at 12:25PM, June 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Child porn isn't just about the existence of a victim, rather it's just a visual depiction of children in sexual acts or in an arousing way- or some such thing.

Which is exactly why it is hypocrisy. Objectification of the child is bad, but objectification of an adult is not? Same result, different target. To claim one is bad and the other isn't is hypocrisy.

Or else people could argue: “what makes some visual deceptions of ”victimless“ child porn wrong (edited photos, collage etc), and others safe? (comics and animation featuring child pornography) ”

I would make the same argument for edited photos and collage as drawn depictions. That line is still pretty clear cut. No victim means just that, no victim. There is no grey area here. It seems like a pretty simple question. Was a child molested in the making of the end product. There really aren't any cases where the answer to that question is not “yes” or “no”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 11:13PM, June 6, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
isukun
Which is exactly why it is hypocrisy. Objectification of the child is bad, but objectification of an adult is not? Same result, different target. To claim one is bad and the other isn't is hypocrisy.
You're interpreting “hypocrisy” because of the way you interpret their reason for the ban- “objectification”. But you are incorrect, objectification of the child is not the reason for the ban.

If objectification was a problem, all advertisements featuring children would also face a ban, among other things.
isukun
I would make the same argument for edited photos and collage as drawn depictions. That line is still pretty clear cut. No victim means just that, no victim. There is no grey area here. It seems like a pretty simple question. Was a child molested in the making of the end product. There really aren't any cases where the answer to that question is not “yes” or “no”.
The grey area exists because it's not about a victim, it IS about visual depiction. Again you are convincing the ban in your own individual way. Yes, things would be black and white or hypocritical etc if the reasons were as you stated them, but they aren't, so things do not make that sort of simple sense.

The grey area concerns weather or not the figures are actually supposed to be children or not or weather the acts are sexual or the figures are appearing in a sexually arousing way etc.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
isukun at 5:50AM, June 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
But you are incorrect, objectification of the child is not the reason for the ban.

Then what is? You still have yet to offer your own theory. Banning something “just because” isn't a reason. That would be like if the watchdog groups in the 90's wanted to ban rap because it was rap and not because of the violent undertones that they feared would influence their children. You don't ban something without some reason.

If objectification was a problem, all advertisements featuring children would also face a ban, among other things.

I can only assume you are being intentionally dense here.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
ozoneocean at 6:09AM, June 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 24,800
joined: 1-2-2006
isukun
Then what is? You still have yet to offer your own theory. Banning something “just because” isn't a reason.
Theory? The ban is about any visual depiction of children in situations that can be construed as sexual. The only reason is that paedophilia is illegal and that imagery is associated with paedophilia. It doesn't really go much deeper.
You have to understand the depth of fear and paranoia of paedophilia, particularly in the UK -which is the subject of this thread.
isukun
I can only assume you are being intentionally dense here.
Assume away. So far you've made quite a lot of assumptions
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:36PM
Snevilly at 6:11AM, June 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 66
joined: 5-24-2010
I agree with what Ozone is saying about the “intent” of the depiction.

But I also wanted to say that I don't think some of the things adults are depicting are anymore healthy…However, they are adults.

I'm still split on this whole censorship issue. I don't personally want anyone over me with that power, you know? But at the same time, I feel like exposure leads to callousness. If you were exposed to violent battle everyday at some point, you're going to become battle hardened, you know? How long before shota becomes mainstream and nobody bats an eye at it?

I also don't like how random the definition of art can be. Do you really think shota is art? Or is it just cartoon porn? Is it not marketed with other porn/hentai? The icon of Coppertone is a little girl whose bathing suit bottom is being tugged down by a dog. Thats artsy enough to me. The dog's owner doesn't wine and dine her afterwards.

One or two of them might just make you giggle: My Instagram, project Blog, and RPG Blog
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:49PM
isukun at 2:58PM, June 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
The only reason is that paedophilia is illegal and that imagery is associated with paedophilia. It doesn't really go much deeper.

So is murder, yet imagery associated with murder isn't banned. You don't ban media unless there is some perceived threat inherent in that media. As I said before, nothing is ever banned “just because”. It is banned due to a perceived effect on society.

Besides, straight from the horse's mouth, Mr. George Howarth:

"The fact that it is not a real child in the image—that it could have been conjured from the person’s imagination—does not make it any less a paedophile activity. How can the hon. and learned Gentleman say, for example, that what the elderly gentleman who seems to have been evoked may do with an image that he has conjured up from his imagination in the privacy of his own home as part of a paedophile activity, will not lead to other things? It seems self-evident that if somebody can get gratification from that sort of activity, it may be but a short step towards involving real images of children and real activities. I honestly think that the hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong in principle as well as in terms of interpreting the Bill."

Seems pretty clear to me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:05PM
El Cid at 5:41PM, June 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 947
joined: 5-4-2009
Snevilly
…I'm still split on this whole censorship issue. I don't personally want anyone over me with that power, you know? But at the same time, I feel like exposure leads to callousness. If you were exposed to violent battle everyday at some point, you're going to become battle hardened, you know?
That’s not a new concern. It probably seemed a lot more pertinent forty years ago, but at this point this whole idea that violent films and cartoons are going to create a generation of dead-eyed killing machines has pretty much been demonstrated to be unfounded. We’ve seen entire generations now grow to maturity in a society awash with violent media at their fingertips and they’ve pretty much done just fine. Breathe easy. You have nothing to worry about.

Snevilly
How long before shota becomes mainstream and nobody bats an eye at it?
My guess would be “never.” The highest estimate I’ve found is that as much as 4 percent of the human population are pedophiles. It’s unlikely that something with such a limited base appeal can ever achieve mainstream status.

But, just assuming that actually did happen, I don’t see that it would be such a big deal. If society accepts it, then what would be the harm? It’s just pictures anyway.

Snevilly
I also don't like how random the definition of art can be. Do you really think shota is art? Or is it just cartoon porn?
Yes, shota is art. You can argue whether or not it is good art but it’s definitely art. Is it porn? Depending on which definition you’re using, it could be. These are just labels, and without any real meaning or consequence. It’s like when two Youtubers get into a shouting match. “This band is so death metal!” “No fuck you man, they’re thrash but they’re not death metal!” It doesn’t matter. Art can be pornographic, pornography can be artistic, and what you choose to call it has no effect on what it actually is.

And I definitely don’t see anything “random” about the definition of art, or even why that’s important to you. Did you mean to say “subjective?” Even that doesn’t really work though because again, it may be bad art but it’s still art, and just because it’s art doesn’t mean it can’t be something else also. Art can be a political statement. Art can be architecture. Art can be food. And yes, art can be porn.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:20PM
Faliat at 7:48PM, June 7, 2010
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
I was 16 when I first saw shota. A friend of mine at the time showed me it when I went to visit her house.
It made me nearly throw up. But it was her choice to view it and at the time it was legal. And I can't judge. I have two main characters with less than legal backstories if they were graphically visually depicted rather than heavily implied and discussed like the angle I've always been going for since I dropped the dead baby comedy elements.

But I dunno. They're male. Britain is sexist that way. They'll slam the gavel down hard for people drawing little girls but when it's little boys they might even get ignored.

Another crazy thing about this legion of countries:

We are against the drawing of kids in these situations and are insanely defensive of them against paedophiles, yet we still let thirteen to fifteen year olds (Boys specifically) serve prison sentences alongside adults and social services abandon those in the same age group to sleep rough on the streets since they're teenagers and “not as important”.

No wonder our youth are out of control. Nobody gives a shit about them. And troubled kids in those three years and beyond have a hard enough time getting emotional support even WITH parents or carers.

Instead of wasting taxpayers money on this bullshit, they should be fixing THOSE problems in the system that are GENUINELY hurting REAL flesh and bone children!

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved