Debate and Discussion

Uncle Sam is at it again, "protecting" the morals, and bodies of innocent animated and manga children
houseofmuses at 4:59AM, Oct. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 156
joined: 4-4-2008
Orin J Master
considering the suspect nature of how they aquired the information of obscene material, i'd assume someone is trying a new way of prosicuting something their backers find objectionable so that it can be made illegal.

that they based this entire matter on a shaky obscenity charge and seem to be looking for a way to turn it into a child pornagraphy case shows they don't really have a good footing for it, but i am interested on how this is shaping up. anybody have a link on the current state of the matter?

I Googled the topic and was going to post one link here, but there was quite a bit. So check out this link, go inform yourselves, and come back here to weigh in.

LINK
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:50PM
Aurora Moon at 2:06PM, Oct. 27, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
radarig
Aurora
In this same sense, you cannot automically label anybody who likes dirty cartoons to be a pedophile/pervert/dangerous offender. as has been pointed out in the thread, there's even been straight girls who liked lolicon for some bizarre reason and led perfectly normal lives without sexually molesting anybody, much less children. Why? oh yes, because those aren't real children, and they're not even REALISTIC depictions of children at that. Goddess knows that anybody who were interested in dirty American cartoons depicting 13-year-old boys with Godzilla-sized dicks should know well enough that no 13-year-old boy are like that in real life at all. And if they don't… well, they're going to be sorely shocked when they find out that most teenager boys are still developing in *that area* and is usually very small at that age.
Would it be reasonable of me to infer from your posts that you believe there is a certain “boundary” of distortion, beyond which these kinds of comics are okay to have?

If so, isn't that boundary morally relative?

It's not only me who believes in it. in fact in a lot of the states they actually have the same law which clearly outlines whenever drawings of underaged teenagers and or younger in such situations is okay or not. And they clearly state that the images of the teenagers and children cannot be too realstic when in certain situations in those pictures. At the point where they look too much like real children, then it becomes illegal porn.

So there's apparently a lot of people in law who regonizes that as long as the drawn depctions of children doesn't look like real children, it's very easy to divcorce the ‘fantasy’ from the real thing leaving people who look at such images unable to become aroused when it comes to the “real thing” because it's nothing like the ‘fantasy’.

Yeah, it can be morally relative… and I always say each to thier own, provided that they don't harm others, etc. isn't that the best policy? to only arrest others if some actual harm has been done? We arrest people who makes actual child porn…. because it HARMS the children in the fact that it's mentally scarring, it wasn't consental, etc. When it comes to lolicon, Shota, dirty “western” cartoons depecting fictional characters… who are we hurting?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
radarig at 2:33PM, Oct. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 73
joined: 1-12-2006
Aurora
And they clearly state that the images of the teenagers and children cannot be too realstic when in certain situations in those pictures. At the point where they look too much like real children, then it becomes illegal porn.
I'd like to review those state laws before commenting on them, but I can't come up with anything on the google; comic obscenity searches generally link back to the PROTECT Act and such. Do you have links for those?
Aurora
When it comes to lolicon, Shota, dirty “western” cartoons depecting fictional characters… who are we hurting?
You agreed that you think there's a boundary at which this becomes acceptable (more abstract, more acceptable), correct? So by that standard, something ultra-realistic is obscene, while something abstracted to the point of lolicon or the like is okay.

Look, isn't the intention the same in both cases? Aren't both attempting to create a sexual fantasy involving children?

I can accept that there are some readers of these kinds of comics that would never act on the fantasies these comics reinforce. Would you accept that there are some readers who will?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:58PM
Aurora Moon at 3:25PM, Oct. 27, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
there's been countless people who created fantasies about doing it with teenagers, and vice versa.

There's been teenagers who fantasied doing it with a older person. and there's been older people who occasionally fantasized about doing it with an attractive teenager who was more on the mature end but still not legal.

That's an fantasy that's basically older than time, just like that taboo yet ‘exciting’ fantasy of student and teacher. Yet, with those fantasies being SO popular and reoccurring in today's society, you would think that this would cause people to want to go out there and do it more often, and maybe even get it legalized for teenagers to have sex with older people and vice versa?
Yet, that doesn't happen that often at all in reality despite all those fantasies floating about out there… and the actual practice is frowned upon because reality is so much different than fantasy.

Those who are more inclined to do it will do it anyway, whenever it's legal or not legal. We call them sexual predators.

There's been studies which proved that porn especially the drawn kind, no matter what the gerene was, no matter how horrific it would seem to some people did NOT cause people to go out there and psychically abuse anybody.

you're trying to say that lolicon might make some people go out there and rape actual children. I think that those who are inclined to become pedophiles will do it anyway, regardless of whenever they had lolicon or not. and again, there's been studies which proved that porn (especially the hand-drawn kind),don't cause people to have that tendency to harm others. in fact it ACTUALLY HAS THE OPPOSITE EFFECT!!

http://www.efc.ca/pages/media/ottawa.citizen.21sep96.html
http://blogs.webmd.com/sexual-health-sex-matters/2006/10/correlation-between-sexual-images.html
http://monkeymucker.blogspot.com/2007/10/sound-repbulican-science.html?showComment=1191871140000

and you want links to those laws? fine. here they are:
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=16075
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13051
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?id=808
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
ozoneocean at 2:02AM, Oct. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,005
joined: 1-2-2004
It took me a long time to figure it out, but I finally did and feel quite dim for how long it took me:

The thing about the school student fantasy isn't normally that someone fantasises about having sex with a teen. Rather the idea of the “fantasy” is someone fantasising about themself as a teen having sex with another fantasy teen. And a lot f people act out this fantasy with other adults.

The idea is that rather than being specifically about the “schoolgirl” or whatever, it's about themselves being that age and sexually naive and adventurous, with a partner who has similar attributes.

When you think about it that way, it makes more sense.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
KingRidley at 6:18AM, Oct. 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 151
joined: 9-28-2008
Aurora Moon
When it comes to lolicon, Shota, dirty “western” cartoons depecting fictional characters… who are we hurting?
I have never thought that made a difference, because the perversion is still there. Even if they never will act out their desires in real life, those desires still exist. And wanting to have sex with kids, or watch kids have sex, real or imaginary is messed up. There are social taboos, biological taboos, mental taboos, all sorts of things put in place to stop us from trying or even wanting that.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
lothar at 6:35AM, Oct. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
i wonder why can you have a movie or comic depict violent acts of murder or stealing or whatever other illegal acts and that is ok , as long as it's nothing to do with sex

yes , wanting to watch fictional kids have sex is messed up .
but
so is wanting to watch fictional characters be killed .

who decides which is more messed up ?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Aurora Moon at 12:45AM, Oct. 29, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
KingRidley
Aurora Moon
When it comes to lolicon, Shota, dirty “western” cartoons depecting fictional characters… who are we hurting?
I have never thought that made a difference, because the perversion is still there. Even if they never will act out their desires in real life, those desires still exist. And wanting to have sex with kids, or watch kids have sex, real or imaginary is messed up. There are social taboos, biological taboos, mental taboos, all sorts of things put in place to stop us from trying or even wanting that.

I would have to go with Lothar here:
Lothar
i wonder why can you have a movie or comic depict violent acts of murder or stealing or whatever other illegal acts and that is ok , as long as it's nothing to do with sex

yes , wanting to watch fictional kids have sex is messed up .
but
so is wanting to watch fictional characters be killed .

who decides which is more messed up ?

fiction is still fiction. And there's still people who knows the difference between fiction and reality.

I know a lot of people who takes a lot of pleasure in seeing fictional characters get chopped up to bits in horror movies, etc. Does that mean that they would also take pleasure in seeing a REAL person get chopped up to bits?

and you're missing the point that there's like a dozen lolicon, shota, etc which has plenty of storylines, etc which a person can enjoy without actually ENJOYING the idea of underaged sex.

I'm actually one of those people out there who reads Shota (underaged boy sex), mainly because there's this manga series right now which I'm reading. It has the following:
Fantasy, magic, a very long plot, etc. oh, and underaged boy sex. Why am I reading it? let's see… because it has a very compelling storyline about this youth who's on an quest to save a kindgom because the king is holding his family as hostage for some reasons yet to be revealed. And alongside the way he's struggling with the fact that he's gay, which is frowned in the order of knights (of which he's a part of, as thier squire).
it's like 90% plot, and the rest of the 10% are sex (the boy exploring his opitions, if you will).

So snice I have been reading an manga that has been classifed as shota/hentai because of the pornogic nature of those sex scenes and the age of the male character (who's 15 in medival times), despite the artstic merit and the compelling plot… I guess that makes me one of those dirty pervs who furiously masturbates at the mere thought of little kids having sex, despite the fact that in reality I haven't been doing anything of the sort. I actually just read it for the story.

Yes, I love Yaoi (male-on-male sex) as many of my friends here know. as long as the two are full grown men, Yaoi rocks my socks. but Shota does nothing for me.. unless it's some fluffy love story of two young boys in love, or an angsty self-exploration of the gay pysche which ties in with the storyline like in the metioned manga that I'm reading right now.

And I'm pretty sure that there's dozens of mangas which were put under the “lolicon” and “shota” gerne because it explored those rather touchy subjects of underaged people exploring such things, and because some scenes were rather mature… instead of the “fact” of being full-on hentai. in fact I've seen some lolicon/shota-like mangas that didn't… have sex in it at all…*gasp* they're just simply labelled that way sometimes because:

1)tons of underaged girls/boys who are exploring topics that are unsually mature for thier age.
2) may have scenes that disturbs people who wasn't expecting to see such young fictional characters in such situations, so they label that way to warn people. Japan does have thier own way of rating things like in America. only instead of “Teen +16 and up” they give certain things names and throw mangas into those groups.

examples of mangas that has been labelled as lolicon before by the japanese companies yet didn't have sex in it:

http://www.mangafox.com/page/manga/series/1008/welcome_to_the_n_h_k/
Satou has some problems, some serious problems. For one he's a “Hikikomori” or shut-in. This of course means he has plenty of other problems, including but not limited to: Delusions, the inability to socialize with outer people, and a strong dislike of reality. That is until one day, while under the influence of legal(?) drugs bought online, the TV revealed to Satou the existence of NHK, the secret evil organization. Now Satou is out to get the evil organization, or get sucked into NHK?s master plan whichever comes first.
was labelled as lolicon because there's a lot of young girls in it which are put into those mature situations which tests the frality of thier minds, thanks to this evil organization. yet, no sex.

http://www.mangafox.com/page/manga/series/424/tokyo_akazukin/
In the urban city of Tokyo, there exists a defiled world full of lecherous fiends. Living amongst them is Akazukin (Red Riding Hood), a little girl with a strange persona and an even stranger desire: to be eaten by Mr. Wolf.

WARNING: For an adult audience.
Yeah, it says there's smut in it. but the young girl isn't in any of the sex scenes, only the adults are. the young girl is however, a murdering, supernatural pyscho and there's A LOT OF GORE. And her desire to be “eaten” is actually LITERAL, and not meant to be read in that sexual context. a very disturbing manga which features an underage girl. so it's labelled lolicon, even though she isnt put in any sexual situation.

http://www.mangafox.com/page/manga/series/996/ichinensei_ni_nacchattara/
Takatou Iori, a high school ninensei, while on his way to school to confess his love to classmate Kusanagi Mikuru by means of a love letter, gets ran over by a truck to save a cute elementary schoolgirl.
to exapand this. This highschool boy then somehow mysteriously gets transformed into a young elemary schoolgirl. So there's a lot of hijinks where he learns what it's like to be a girl, etc… and slightly perverted situations such as trying not to look at himself when he's changing clothes (what with him being a girl now).
No sex at all.


So you see…. Lolicon, Shota, etc does not nessicarly mean full-on hentai featuring underaged girls,boys etc. It just simply means that they will be put into situations that are mature at times, and may be uncomfortable for the reader to view unless they know what to expect.

The cheerleader uniform anglogy from earlier is actually vaild in comparing to this. You could always assume that all adults who want to buy high school clothes from an cumstume shop are just perverts who fantasize about having sex with underaged people, and then unfairly label them all as such. Even well though you're very aware that not all people are like that. and in fact the majority are just using them for parties, halloween, and other equally innocous reasons.

In this same sense… not all lolicon is hentai, and so it also stands to reason that some of those people who read lolicon is simply reading it for the story, and because they're a fan of those “growing up” stories where young characters learn what it's like to be an adult. They could even be a fan of the gore, and simply read “tokyo akazukin” because of excessive gore. they don't have to be wanking off to enjoy a good story, after all.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 10:25AM, Oct. 29, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
You might be deviating a bit from the topic. Really, the definition of the classification doesn't really mean a whole lot. While there are some lolicon and shotacon manga out there that aren't specifically pornographic, there are also a lot out there that are. I doubt Handley got picked up for ordering the latest tankoban of Welcome to the NHK, though.

Even if they never will act out their desires in real life, those desires still exist.

Having desires is not a crime. Removing all outlets for people who have such desires does not make them go away. Most people at one point in their lives have the desire to see someone else die, more than likely by their own hand. Does this mean we should also be outlawing all violent film? Murder, by social standards, is the taboo of taboo. You can't do anything worse than take another person's life. Yet, we have media which justifies it and often glorifies it. Should we be outlawing that as well?

There are social taboos, biological taboos, mental taboos, all sorts of things put in place to stop us from trying or even wanting that.

Social and mental taboos are the same thing. We believe what we believe because of our views of society. Lolicon and shotacon tend to focus on kids in or around the puberty phase, though. Biologically, that would actually make more sense since that is around the time people start developing sexually. In the past, it wasn't uncommon for marriage to occur at a much earlier age than it does today.

The difference today is that we perceive maturity differently now than we did back then. Now, maturity is more about how much you have learned and not the physical development of the body. You are only mature when you have the knowledge to support yourself, something that came much easier in the past when people didn't have school and college to worry about. We associate this level of maturity with a particular age (usually 18) because of our social customs.

There is no biological taboo since from a purely biological standpoint, it is to a species' advantage to begin the reproductive process at the first possible opportunity. One of the more unique traits of humans, however, is our insistence on suppressing or denying our biological urges and desires due to our established social standards. It is one of the reasons I find the Christian stance on homosexuality being an abomination of nature to be purely hypocritical (every rule in the Christian faith is about suppressing nature).

Now, I don't think this means people should be going out and having sex with kids. The social standards are there for a reason. Our modern society is structured differently from nature and it makes sense that we have social norms that support that structure. However, I don't see these types of urges as being inherently unnatural or abnormal. After all, physical attraction tends to favor the younger partners. Why do you think so much porn focuses on “barely legal” teens?

There is nothing wrong with having a thought and I don't see any problems with offering people outlets for their desires that don't involve raping a real child. Everybody fights off their natural, biological desires every day in the interest of forming a better society. Every now and then, we do like to escape into a fantasy where people, or even we ourselves, can defy those social standards.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Aurora Moon at 11:29AM, Nov. 5, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
You might be deviating a bit from the topic. Really, the definition of the classification doesn't really mean a whole lot. While there are some lolicon and shotacon manga out there that aren't specifically pornographic, there are also a lot out there that are. I doubt Handley got picked up for ordering the latest tankoban of Welcome to the NHK, though.

Yeah, you're right. but I was simply making a point that not everyone who reads lolicon/shota was/is an actual pervert who gets off on the idea of having sex with somebody underage. by emphasizing the fact that not all of the manga under such genres are actually hentai. To point the finger at every person who's ever read shota/lolicon and scream: “pedophile!!” is just plain ridiculous IMO.

To me it all depends on the context of such material. I personally get very resplused by anything that would actually glorify sexual violence, rape of any kinds, etc… you get the idea. mainly because I'm actually against those things in real life. So I don't personally support molesting/raping or even sexualizing real children.

However, I'm basically fine with such “risky and taboo” topics provided that they have some sort of serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value. So if people read such material purely only for such purposes and not for jacking themselves off, can they honestly be called pedophiles/sexual deviants?
I think not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test some added reading for anybody who's interested. a very excellent article which outlines my moral views in a sense, even if it's on wiki.

For the rest of your post, I pretty much agree. nothing to add there.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Faliat at 5:51AM, Nov. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
How to define my opinion on this subject?

Well, having known people who like that kinda stuff, I've never known any of them to be actively seeking it out of some perverted desire to go for real children. However, most of the stuff I was shown I found repulsive enough to almost make me puke. Some were so bad they've been permanently burned into my brain.

However, a lot more disgusting stuff goes on in real life between consenting adults. And even though I don't want to know about it, it's not really hurting anyone who doesn't want to be involved.

And in nations where prisons are overflowing, the last thing needed is to make laws that make crimes where nobody gets hurt either emotionally or physically punishable by law.

Prison isn't always the answer. Sometimes actually hanging around with those that have commited serious crimes makes you more involved in what they're doing. In the end, a lot of people sent to prison for minor offences end up coming back after worse offences.


Regarding about what defines a child, I'll be 20 in April, and I still have problems buying 18 rated games from some stores because I look under 18. This week, when a guy was coming to fix the boiler, he wouldn't see it because he thought I was too young to discuss it with him.
When I was 18, people were shocked at the fact I was that age, and when I was 16, people told me that I looked like I was 12. Yet when I was 12 people sometimes mistook me for much older.

These days with younger and younger kids being forced by peer pressure and society to behave more like adults, it's becoming more and more difficult to tell their ages. I was horrified by some of the clothes little girls wear these days. They're just shrunken versions of women's party clothes. Bras are being made for girls that haven't even started puberty yet, and high heels are being made for girls that haven't even started school! Hell, there's even a new craze emerging where there's foam high heels made for babies!

The reality is much more sick than drawings.
I bet there's gonna be a few style of CLEAR HEELS on sale for the under fives in the next few years at this rate.

Another thing I'd like to note is that some of my comics will have depictions of kids in adult situations, but the intent is completely different from porn. It's part of a storyline that explains the emotional torment of the main characters and the twisted breakdown of common sense and morality in their society. As well as reflecting reality in part.

edit: I've recently spotted comics that describe themselves as shota and have shota in them and have dodged the net. Pretty damn annoying not having any powers to report them… But I guess with a little bit of searching the mods will see what I mean.

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
KingRidley at 6:45PM, Nov. 10, 2008
(offline)
posts: 151
joined: 9-28-2008
lothar
i wonder why can you have a movie or comic depict violent acts of murder or stealing or whatever other illegal acts and that is ok , as long as it's nothing to do with sex

yes , wanting to watch fictional kids have sex is messed up .
but
so is wanting to watch fictional characters be killed .

who decides which is more messed up ?
Here's how I look at this.

Murder/theft/etc in movies or whatever is usually justified. If it isn't, then it's because it's a ‘bad guy’ doing it. If it's not the bad guy, then chances are I'm not watching that movie.

The protagonist may be a small time thief. Later on, his thieving skills help him do something good. That's almost always how it ends, the ‘bad’ done by the ‘good guys’ is usually not enough to overshadow the ultimate good they eventually accomplish. And even when they kill, it's usually not mindless. There is some reason where the audience can look at it and say “Well I guess that's not so bad.”

Another thing is that murder is mentally hard. We don't enjoy killing other humans on any level, and those that do are usually short a few screws anyways. But in times of stress, we can do it. We're not programmed to never kill, just to avoid it as long as possible.


But having sex with a child is different. Not exclusively for the adult. It causes severe mental damage to the kids involved. Knowing this, for me, prevents me from looking past fantasy in cases like that. I can't just say “Well this is a book, that doesn't have to happen.” Instead, I say “They can't just leave that out, that's what would happen and it would fuck them up pretty badly.” I know the whole point of these fantasies is to ignore certain aspects of reality, but that's one thing I can't ignore. Especially when they're just leaving it out for the sake of getting off. I know there are tons of stories that feature child on child sex as part of the story, and not as an erotic aspect, but even still I can't just look past that. Kids aren't physically or mentally equipped for sex. Fantasy or otherwise.


That's how I see it anyways.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
isukun at 7:46AM, Nov. 11, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Kids aren't physically or mentally equipped for sex.

Humanity didn't used to think that way, yet we still survived to this point. In fact, history has quite a few accounts of adolescents having sex and growing up to be fairly well adjusted adults. Believe it or not, kids DO frequently have sexual experiences among themselves and most have few if any ill effects. It's become pretty well accepted in modern society as part of growing up. We don't consider them responsible enough if things go wrong, but otherwise, it isn't all that surprising. Kids aren't as fragile as you make them out to be.

On the flip side of the coin, what about the severe mental trauma most people suffer after killing another human being? Most of your action films pretty much write that out. Sure, the other person may be a jerk or even outright evil, but people still tend to feel SOME remorse after killing, often enough to make them physically ill, especially when they are supposed to be good people. Adding that level of weakness makes a character less “cool” however, so the reality is often not represented. Take Die Hard for example. Characters like John McClain are practically psychopaths in the way they enjoy killing other people. He's still the hero, though, supposedly fighting for the greater good, but that only reinforces the “might makes right” mentality. It glorifies violence as the answer to your problems because there are no repercussions for his actions. That's pretty much the typical action hero, though. They kill a bunch of people, enjoy doing it, and get away with it simply because they are on the “right side”.

It's also incredibly common to see movies which reinforce ideals our society generally frown upon. Vengeance is a big one. Vigilantism is another. We often see characters associated with organized crime who aren't villains nor do they clean up their act by the end.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Faliat at 5:56PM, Nov. 11, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
isukun
Kids aren't physically or mentally equipped for sex.

Humanity didn't used to think that way, yet we still survived to this point. In fact, history has quite a few accounts of adolescents having sex and growing up to be fairly well adjusted adults. Believe it or not, kids DO frequently have sexual experiences among themselves and most have few if any ill effects. It's become pretty well accepted in modern society as part of growing up. We don't consider them responsible enough if things go wrong, but otherwise, it isn't all that surprising. Kids aren't as fragile as you make them out to be.

The reasons why humanity didn't used to think that way was because they didn't have as great an understanding of mental illness like today.

And yeah, kids do have these experiences among themselves, but that's mainly out of curiosity and not out of a desire to do the deed. They don't understand it completely.
My parents also got me a book called “Mummy laid an egg” that had scribbly cartoon people doing it on space hoppers. And because they were illustrations I thought that it was a fiction book. And even looking back at it now it's a terrible introduction for kids on sex. Hell, they filled it full of people suspended from balloons and on ferris wheels and all that crap, but the men parts were squiggles and the women's parts was just a hole and there was a dotted line connecting the two… And I thought those were the talking sperm that had a race to get to the egg.
Maybe the reality was just too daunting for me that it couldn't be comprehended?

The whole thing I'm trying to say is (Maybe I'm conveying the wrong message with the above story? I dunno…):
Just because kids have these experiences doesn't mean they're any more ready for the real deal. It's gaining knowledge of your own body. Like understanding that your hands are there so you can hold and touch things, that your eyes were formed for seeing, that you have legs for walking, that your mouth is for eating and speaking, your ears for hearing, etc. Simply because it involves sexual organs doesn't make it sexual.

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 6:55AM, Nov. 12, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
Maybe I just give kids more credit than you do, then. At least when I was growing up, if you wanted to learn about your body, you didn't need a partner. Around fifth and sixth grade, kids started getting more interested in sex, not out of any need to learn, but because they wanted to be more adult. Kids pretty much knew everything they needed to know about sex by the third grade. They're smarter than people give them credit for and they do pick up on things, if not through the media and the internet, then through their friends.

Adolescence is typically the time when animals start to get sexually active and humans aren't any different. Generally it isn't so much the sexual act that traumatizes kids, but the fact that someone is taking advantage of them in an abusive way. As I said before, kids have sex all the time and end up growing up to be perfectly well adjusted adults. When an adult takes advantage of them or rapes them then it's a totally different situation and you get the same sort of trauma in adult rape victims. It has nothing to do with having sex as a kid, even adults are not mentally prepared for that situation.

This is getting a bit off topic, though.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Faliat at 7:48AM, Nov. 12, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
That's when you know you've cut the wrong thing out of your 500 page long post, when people start telling you what you've typed before but got rid of because youd idn't know you were saying it right.

I do give kids a lot of credit. Hell, here kids start thinking about sex a lot younger but it's mainly the word they understand to be grown up, not what it actually IS.

It's like learning a swear and not knowing what it means but knowing that it has a certain reaction in those that hear it and that it's a rude word to say. But adults say them a lot so if you say them sometimes you'll be more grown up.

I don't think anybody will ever let me forget my pet crab called “Wank”. I just thought it was cool name to call it, but I was wrong.


Anyway, sometimes kids say that they want to have sex with things or they ask if someone has had sex with someone else. But a lot are just talking big. I remember these things happening around me and I didn't know at the time, but I also remember catching other children out by asking them what it was and them not being able to tell me.

In this town kids are already clocking on these days at age five that it's a bad thing to be a virgin. They don't know what it means, but they know it's not cool to say you are one.

And I know about it being forced on them being different. But this is more about kids being WILLING to have sex and having the knowledge and bodies to act it out amongst themselves and with adults.

And I get the feeling that other people talking about shota and loli here actually meaning those under 18 and not those under 13 like I mean. Am I right?

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
KingRidley at 8:34AM, Nov. 12, 2008
(offline)
posts: 151
joined: 9-28-2008
Yeah ages 1-13 is fucked up, 14-15 they should not be having sex, 16-17 they technically can but still shouldn't (on account of them being naturally idiots), 18-etc do whatever you want, it's your responsibility now. That's how I look at it anyways.


isukun
Take Die Hard for example.
Man I don't watch those movies. Mindless killing and violence is stupid.

Although I do love zombie movies pretty much because of that same mental trauma. Huh.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
isukun at 3:30PM, Nov. 12, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
And I get the feeling that other people talking about shota and loli here actually meaning those under 18 and not those under 13 like I mean. Am I right?

From my impression of it, the genre usually centers on characters between the ages of 10 and 14, but may rarely go below that with one fairly unpopular genre actually focusing on kids in the kindergarten or lower age range.

It's like learning a swear and not knowing what it means but knowing that it has a certain reaction in those that hear it and that it's a rude word to say.

Not really. It's more like knowing the word, knowing what it means, and knowing that it gets a certain reaction, but not knowing why. Kids tend to have a fairly good understanding of sex and its function. What they lack is an understanding of the significance society puts on sex. It's actually because of that lack of understanding that consensual sexual activity in kids really isn't all that devastating.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Aurora Moon at 10:52PM, Nov. 12, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
When I was like five years, I became very curious about the human body and the purpose of genitals. I wanted to know why girls had vagina and why boys had penises. it got to the point where I actually explored my own body to the point of unintentionally masturbating myself. TMI, I know. But apparently it seems that a lot of children seem to go though simlar experiences without becoming royally fucked up. I grew up to to be a relatively normal adult, etc.

So in my experience Children CAN have sexual experiences, however innocent it be.

Does that mean that I think pedophiles are then justified in having sex with children? No! The fact that Children are SEXUALLY CURIOUS at certain ages makes it all the more reason to protect them from adults who would want to exploit that kind of curiosity in reality. It's one thing for children to experiment on themselves like that in order to learn about themselves, but it's another thing completely for adults to physically do that to children.

and, for this reason I think it's pretty realistic if some stories depict young children exploring such a topic out of curiosity without scarring results.
It's also realistic if it's a tough topic such as a young child realizing that he/she had been taken advantage of by an perverted adult. such as in the manga called “Bitter virgin”, where an young girl developed an fear of men and had a difficult relationship with her mother because her mother had refused to believe that her stepfather had done such a thing to her at first.
in fact, I happen to think such stories can really educate people about how truly evil the act of taking advantage of a child's innocence is.

If you ban such things, then how can you expect some people to understand such things if they've never gone though it? sometimes just reading studies about how it affects children doesn't really reach some people out there.
They could read “50% of children who are sexually molested grow up to be rapists, etc” but it wouldn't make them be TRULY AWARE of how evil it is.

So it would take some heart-breaking story of a young character who they had grown to identify with, to mentally experience the evils of such an act alongside this fictional character, for them to really understand it.

It used to be that domestic abuse in homes wasn't to be spoken about… it was completely a taboo subject. As an result, there wasn't much support or help for abused women and young victims of domestic abuse. But over time stories about it came out… and with that, more awareness about it increased. And as Awareness about what it's like increased, so did the support and help groups for those victims.

Sometimes THAT's the point of such stories.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
DAJB at 6:43AM, Nov. 26, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
Nice to see a big name stepping into the debate:
Neil Gaiman
They found his manga, and found some objectionable panels. He’s been arrested for having some drawings of rude things in manga. I’m sorry, but if you went through my comic collection, you could arrest me if you’re going to start doing that. It’s just wrong.
More of Neil Gaiman's take on this particular farce here.


last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
Aurora Moon at 11:07AM, Nov. 26, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
I espeically loved this part:
From the article
“There is explicit sex in yaoi comics,” Handley’s lawyer Eric Chase told MTV. “And the men are drawn in a very androgynous style, which has the effect of making them look really young. There’s a real taboo in Japan about showing pubic hair, so they’re all drawn without it, which also makes them look young. So what concerned the authorities were the depictions of children in explicit sexual situations that they believed to be obscene. But there are no actual children. It was all very crude images from a comic book.”

So because the Japanese refuse to draw public hair and other parts of the body that they might see as too offensive, their characters then happen to look young. And because their characters look young, some Americans who don't understand the complex workings of Japanese Culture, sees that and takes it to be child porn.

and this is yaoi, about two-fully grown men who happen to like making love to each other. and even without hairy chests or public hair, they can look pretty mature… but I guess maybe the authorities who grabbed his collection (which also contained yaoi alongside the normal comics and lolicon), thought that those grown men were teenagers because of the lack of public hair? lol.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
isukun at 6:51AM, Nov. 27, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I have a feeling that quote is taken out of context, especially since they also mention that he DID have lolicon in his collection. I don't think he is trying to say that Handley got brought in for owning legitimate yaoi featuring consenting adults, but that he is being charged as if he had child porn despite the fact that by the legal definition he did not. The first statement is more an example of the kind of work that can get scrutinized if Handley loses in court. I also wouldn't be surprised if the yaoi they mention wasn't actually shotacon. A lot of people who like loli also go for shota since the characters look so similar.

I also find it to be kind of weak to use the pubic hair argument. That hasn't been taboo in years and a lot of pornographic manga does feature it these days. I really hope they don't use that argument in court.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
ozoneocean at 7:27PM, Dec. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 25,005
joined: 1-2-2004
This is worse:
http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5198031/simpsons-sex-toon-child-porn-judge/

Some idiot was looking pictures of the characters from the Simpsons drawn in sexual situations… The kid characters from the Simpsons. You know the sort of crap you find on the net? And they charged him with a child porn offence. lol!

Now, that sort of thing is pretty gross, but a child porn offence? I think paedophiles have well and truly become the new Reds under the bed, the new witches etc.

We all know paedophilia is bad and child porn is evil, but you can't go around arresting the entire world because you thing it might be thinking about something rude.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Faliat at 5:12PM, Dec. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
ozoneocean
I think paedophiles have well and truly become the new Reds under the bed, the new witches etc.
Monkeydust got to that comparison first. Lol.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=J7bcGyCA-5k

I saw those kinds of images by accident about five years ago when I was at a social group with computers. Somebody had set the desktops for all of them with those pictures.

Mind warping as they were, they were tame in comparison to most other things people get jailed 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

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved