As much as I hate pedofiles...

We have an interesting case in Sweden now.

A translator got arrested for having child porn on his computer. This turned out to be manga, and he worked translating it and trying to spread it in Sweden.

Of course, only some 50 of the hundreds and hundreds of cartoons found were seen as child porn, but, enough to have him arrested and sentenced. This case has now gone to the next level in the juridical system.

As an example of pictures used in the trial against him:
http://gfx.aftonbladet-cdn.se/image/.../mangaporr.jpg

I added that picture because that is one that the prosecution now has removed as evidence, but originally used against him.

This all started out with a pissed of ex btw.


Thoughts?

Where do we draw the line?

Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.

I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.

So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.

I thought this case would be BR worthy :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.

I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.

So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.

---

My instinct is that an attraction to a juvanile looking woman cannot be a crime - and that what we are talking about here is appearence rather that child exploitation.

It might be distasteful but it can't be a crime. I mean, I know a guy who prefers his women slim and elfin to the extreme (me, I go for your traditional Celtic beauty) - I found it wierd at 17 and I still find it wierd today but the guy only dates within his age bracket so far as I know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

My instinct is that an attraction to a juvanile looking woman cannot be a crime - and that what we are talking about here is appearence rather that child exploitation.

It might be distasteful but it can't be a crime. I mean, I know a guy who prefers his women slim and elfin to the extreme (me, I go for your traditional Celtic beauty) - I found it wierd at 17 and I still find it wierd today but the guy only dates within his age bracket so far as I know.

---

How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?

---

Okay, but as I said, it is fiction. To me this is an important distinction. In Lord of the Flies we see children go through every horror except rape; should it be illegal to own or read Lord of the Flies?

All I'm saying is that putting people in jail for fictive depictions has a long and ignoble history. I don't believe that we should criminalize made-up stories. Even horrific, loathsome made-up stories.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

How about then, if it is evident in the comic that the girl finding banana eating to be a joint effort is 13 years old?

---

You mean, she is evidenced as having a mental age of 13?

Then I suppose the comic is a gateway drug to actual child porn, but it still isn't really child porn, and it's considerably less twisted than some of the other stuff that comes out of Japan - or anywhere else.

I really dont care, the perversions of the internet as wide and wierd and wonderful and horrible as they are as long as it stays fictional I dont give a damn about drawings and I dont think the courts should.

The article I can find says he was fined. I don't think any of us have gone through and looked at what he was charged for so it's kind of theoretical, but that seems appropriate if the content merits it. The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

Convicting would mean a dangerous precedent: who is to judge when a female is underage or not, even when (and especially when) depicted fictionally or in the form of (pornographic) art. I remember this case in Australia where porn with small-breasted women is banned simply because they'd appear child-like. Which should be laughable, but is actually quite offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

---

Why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The fact that it's drawings doesn't disqualify it.

---

It should. It's *ahem* art. The man should have the freedom to draw an imaginary scene of child rape, same as drawing mohammed cartoons. It's offensive, but it is art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

Convicting would mean a dangerous precedent: who is to judge when a female is underage or not, even when (and especially when) depicted fictionally or in the form of (pornographic) art. I remember this case in Australia where porn with small-breasted women is banned simply because they'd appear child-like. Which should be laughable, but is actually quite offensive.

---

Who is to judge whether something is pornographic or not? Same problem. Who is to judge? Answer: a judge.

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Why?

---

Why not? It's only a peculiarly broad interpretation of the "doesn't harm anyone directly" principle that leads to the other conclusion. What about photo realistic computer drawings? You want those sold by street vendors next to playboy etc? That would be a funny world, minor swear words bleeped on tv and child porn on the street. I don't get people going into contortions to protect pedophiles "right" to pornography.

We constantly use the legal system in an attempt to keep bad things out, and then argue for libertarian ideals with wild inconsistency. It's bizarre.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

It should. It's *ahem* art. The man should have the freedom to draw an imaginary scene of child rape, same as drawing mohammed cartoons. It's offensive, but it is art.

---

No it's not art :dizzy2:

Child porn is child porn. The danger with something like this is that if he spreads it around and gets people interested in it, then we have more budding pedos out there who are eventually going to go after the real thing.
I kind of have two sides of me fighting here (my American freedom side and my Christian morality side), but in the end you have to ask yourself, were laws designed to give people the freedom to fantasize about and depict children being molested? I bet that if law makers had thought about that when writing the laws, they would have made exceptions. I cannot see letting people get away with this as being in the spirit of the law, even if it is technically legal.

...Paedophillia isnt a freaking fad, it's a mental condition, you cant make someone a paedophile from exposure, they're born that way its in thier DNA and those that are born a paedophile will fantasize on thier own with or without easy to reach wanking material. To be quite frank I would rather them be able to jerk off to a drawn image than photographs and videos of real children. Because if you take the drawings away that's what the paedos who were previously able to keep thier urges under control with said drawings will start looking for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...Paedophillia isnt a freaking fad, it's a mental condition, you cant make someone a paedophile from exposure, they're born that way its in thier DNA and those that are born a paedophile will fantasize on thier own with or without easy to reach wanking material, and to be quite frank I would rather them be able to jerk off to a drawn image than photographs and videos of real children.

---

That is absolute BS. If that is true, why then were such a high percentage of child molesters molested as children themselves? It is definitely a mental condition, but it is an acquired one. The last thing you want is for people who may have been abused, or underwent some other kind of trauma who would be more likely to be pedophiles seeing child porn and getting used to the idea of children as sex objects. It is dangerous, seriously dangerous to society.

Note the false equivalence between pedophilia and child molestation.

Is the stereotypical convict homosexual?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

No it's not art :dizzy2:

---

As much as I would want to agree with you, I can't. What he drew was a product of his imagination, a very sick imagination, but nonetheless imaginary. Fictional.
If he used live *ahem* models, then yes, he's guilty. Since it was all in his head, it's art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

...Paedophillia isnt a freaking fad, it's a mental condition, you cant make someone a paedophile from exposure, they're born that way its in thier DNA and those that are born a paedophile will fantasize on thier own with or without easy to reach wanking material. To be quite frank I would rather them be able to jerk off to a drawn image than photographs and videos of real children. Because if you take the drawings away that's what the paedos who were previously able to keep thier urges under control with said drawings will start looking for.

---

hmm what's your basic psychological theory here? Something about repression?

But think about it. Have you ever gambled? Do you have a strong urge to gamble right now? Probably not, that urge is fired up by gambling and winning and playing slots machines and the like. Otherwise it's out of sight out of mind. I think that's a much more likely general model for pornography, despite the obvious differences. Exposure seems more likely to build urges than quiet them. Hence "porn addiction", however questionable the use of the word addiction is.

Plenty of religious groups have worked at techniques for squashing sexual desire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

As much as I would want to agree with you, I can't. What he drew was a product of his imagination, a very sick imagination, but nonetheless imaginary. Fictional.
If he used live *ahem* models, then yes, he's guilty. Since it was all in his head, it's art.

---

I don't understand your definition of art though. Plenty of famous paintings have been based on live models.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

That is absolute BS. If that is true, why then were such a high percentage of child molesters molested as children themselves?

---

Because abusing children becomes accepted as the norm by those who were abused themselves, they dont do it because they prefer kids they do it because they think its what they're supposed to do. The true paedophiles are those who are born mentaly deformed with thier sexual wires crossed.

Quote:

---

It is definitely a mental condition, but it is an acquired one. The last thing you want is for people who may have been abused, or underwent some other kind of trauma who would be more likely to be pedophiles seeing child porn and getting used to the idea of children as sex objects. It is dangerous, seriously dangerous to society.

---

Maybe, but that should mean that they shouldnt be allowed to distribute it publically or for profit, keep it out of the mainstream. Arresting people for making it in the first place, and arresting people for mere posession is just a waste of time as they already affected by it. Stick em on a list of people to investiagte first and that be the end of it.

Quote:

---

But think about it. Have you ever gambled? Do you have a strong urge to gamble right now? Probably not, that urge is fired up by gambling and winning and playing slots machines and the like. Otherwise it's out of sight out of mind. I think that's a much more likely general model for pornography, despite the obvious differences. Exposure seems more likely to build urges than quiet them. Hence "porn addiction", however questionable the use of the word addiction is.

---

Except in this case I think it would make them have more urges for drawings of children, have you looked at the style of art they are using? They look wildly different to real human beings.

Quote:

---

Plenty of religious groups have worked at techniques for squashing sexual desire.

---

Yeah, and they use it against homosexuals, most of the time it results in broken people and/or suicide.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Note the false equivalence between pedophilia and child molestation.

Is the stereotypical convict homosexual?

---

I am sexually attracted to women, and there is an extremely high likelihood that sometime in my life I have/will have sex with one. A straight woman is sexually attracted to men, and there is an extremely high likelihood that sometime in her life she will have sex with one. A gay man is sexually attracted to men, and there is an extremely high likelihood that sometime in his life he will have sex with one. A pedophile is sexually attracted to children, and there is an extremely high likelihood that sometime in her/his life s/he will have sex with one. Make sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Because abusing children becomes accepted as the norm by those who were abused themselves, they dont do it because they prefer kids they do it because they think its what they're supposed to do. The true paedophiles are those who are born mentaly deformed with thier sexual wires crossed.

---

I don't buy that, as many children who were themselves abused, hate those who abused them, and know that it is wrong. They also then live in society long enough to know that it is wrong, but still sometimes become child-molesters themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Maybe, but that should mean that they shouldnt be allowed to distribute it publically or for profit, keep it out of the mainstream. Arresting people for making it in the first place, and arresting people for mere posession is just a waste of time as they already have it.
Except in this case I think it would make them have more urges for drawings of children, have you looked at the style of art they are using? They look nothing like regular human beings.

---

You are right, people shouldn't be allowed to distribute it publicly, and people should be arrested for possessing it. You need to make distributers and potential buyers afraid to deal in it. Also, this guy was planning on translating and distributing it.
Yes, it is very stylized/abstract, but so was a lot of early porn. People associate the drawings with real people, even if they are stylized.

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Except in this case I think it would make them have more urges for drawings of children, have you looked at the style of art they are using? They look nothing like regular human beings.

---

Yes, but that seems pretty dubious to me. I don't see how someone can literally have an urge for a drawing in reality.

Quote:

---

Yeah, and they use it against homosexuals, most of the time it results in broken people and/or suicide.

---

I was thinking of buddhist monks etc not "conversions' of homosexuals. What standard would you hold yourself to if you had pedophilic desires?

Ouch, big dillema, going to watch this. Gut says that there is nothing wrong with this, I really don't know

Quote:

---

You are right, people shouldn't be allowed to distribute it publicly, and people should be arrested for possessing it. You need to make distributers and potential buyers afraid to deal in it. Also, this guy was planning on translating and distributing it.

---

Eh, I agree we should make them fear having it but I disagree with making them fear arrest just for having the stuff, like I said, stick em on a list of first contacts for the police to only open and use in molestation cases and be done with it.

See my belief for what makes child porn so heinous is that it is prolificating a horrendous act, the demand for child porn creates production and production is basically taking images of molesting children, by posessing CP you are creating demand so you might as well be saying "I want children to be molested". As for drawn stuff, well, to make it you dont need kids, it's imagination made by a pen or a piece of software, as distasteful as that production is it doesnt directly hurt someone. Also the idea that a piece of fiction can make someone do something heinous kinda doesnt hold up to me as people have made the same trash argument for video games making people killers.

Drawn CP is distasteful but it shouldnt be illegal because it doesn't hurt anyone.

Quote:

---

I was thinking of buddhist monks etc not "conversions' of homosexuals. What standard would you hold yourself to if you had pedophilic desires?

---

Before or after I killed myself?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't understand your definition of art though. Plenty of famous paintings have been based on live models.

---

The criminal nature of child porn is in the fact that real life children are harmed in the process. Since his products do not involve harming any real children, there is nothing criminal about what he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous". Why not? It's only a peculiarly broad interpretation of the "doesn't harm anyone directly" principle that leads to the other conclusion. What about photo realistic computer drawings? You want those sold by street vendors next to playboy etc? That would be a funny world, minor swear words bleeped on tv and child porn on the street. I don't get people going into contortions to protect pedophiles "right" to pornography. We constantly use the legal system in an attempt to keep bad things out, and then argue for libertarian ideals with wild inconsistency. It's bizarre.

---

I think you underestimate the insidious nature of government Sasaki. It's not hard to create a "for the children" argument in favor of banning anything under the blue sky. What you call inconsistency is really just people taking everything on a case by case basis. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact the more I interact with the world the more I find myself relying less on such absolutes I have created in my head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The criminal nature of child porn is in the fact that real life children are harmed in the process. Since his products do not involve harming any real children, there is nothing criminal about what he does.

---

There are punitive legal measures and preventative legal measures. It's not actually wrong to swear on tv for example, we've just decided that our standards are higher than that and so we have to fine people to keep them that way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I think you underestimate the insidious nature of government Sasaki. It's not hard to create a "for the children" argument in favor of banning anything under the blue sky. What you call inconsistency is really just people taking everything on a case by case basis. I don't see anything wrong with that, in fact the more I interact with the world the more I find myself relying less on such absolutes I have created in my head.

---

Nah, our government isn't insidious. Corruption is usually clumsy and amateurish. The media has an obsession with showing the government as insidious because of their watergate-mythology and the fact that their business model generally precludes just saying that the government is being honest and that in this case you could have ignored the media and just listened to the government.

I agree with people taking things on a case by case basis but then they can't invoke a broad principle and leave it at that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by greyblades

Before or after I killed myself?

---

After.

I'm not sure about standards, but I'd walk up to whichever bastard I find who claims he created all life for his "divine" plan and bitch-slap him for making someone that could want to do something so despicable. To have a soul tainted with an uncontrolable urge to destroy a life and make them think it was what they wanted.
After that it's speculation on the afterlife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

There are punitive legal measures and preventative legal measures. It's not actually wrong to swear on tv for example, we've just decided that our standards are higher than that and so we have to fine people to keep them that way.

---

Yeah, but swearing on TV is not criminal behavior. If you swear on TV, FCC might fine the network, but you personally won't be liable for anything.

Quote:

---

Nah, our government isn't insidious. Corruption is usually clumsy and amateurish. The media has an obsession with showing the government as insidious because of their watergate-mythology and the fact that their business model generally precludes just saying that the government is being honest and that in this case you could have ignored the media and just listened to the government. I agree with people taking things on a case by case basis but then they can't invoke a broad principle and leave it at that.

---

It's not so much that government as a whole is insideous. It's that agents within it are, and they abuse the system to achieve insideous goals. To be fair to the media, while it does a terrible job, we still find ourselves invading a country under what turned out to be false pretenses some 30+ years after the Gulf of Tonkin.I see nothing wrong with invoking a principle if the underlying argument is that for this specific case, there is no circumstance that calls for overriding said principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Eh, I agree we should make them fear having it but I disagree with making them fear arrest just for having the stuff, like I said, stick em on a list of first contacts for the police to only open and use in molestation cases and be done with it.

See my belief for what makes child porn so heinous is that it is prolificating a horrendous act, the demand for child porn creates production and production is basically taking images of molesting children, by posessing CP you are creating demand so you might as well be saying "I want children to be molested". As for drawn stuff, well, to make it you dont need kids, it's imagination made by a pen or a piece of software, as distasteful as that production is it doesnt directly hurt someone. Also the idea that a piece of fiction can make someone do something heinous kinda doesnt hold up to me as people have made the same trash argument for video games making people killers.

Drawn CP is distasteful but it shouldnt be illegal because it doesn't hurt anyone.

Before or after I killed myself?

---

I think you hit the nail on the head - production involves abuse.

Having said that, the issue of attraction and why it is wrong is a lot more complex.

Asthetically - what we are talking about is an attraction to someone who exhibits child-like traits, small size, fine hair and soft skin, for a woman underdeveloped breasts and narrow hips, for a man a small penis and little muscle development.

Well, hang on a sec - lots of young women can appear child like, I've known women who are small breasted and one who despite being very physically developed had the face of a 12 year old at 21 and was lucky enough to have the the skin of a newborn.

As to men - seen an Eastern RPG recently? The boys in that look like 12 year olds with (nominally) adult bodies.

So this can't really be about asthetics, and building on what Hax said - I believe there was a case of a guy entering Canada who had pictures of his 20-year old girlfried on his laptop. She was deemed to look no older than 16, he was arrested.

On the other hand - the emotional/mental side of paedophilia is about a profoundly asymetrical relationship where the adult derives sexual satisfaction a child, usually one they are loco in parentis.

So I suppose with these cartoons the question is what they are presenting - a fantasy of sexually abusing children, or sexually aware women who happen to have teenage bodies and claim to be 13.

For anyone who thinks the latter should be illegal - you would have to arrest every girl who has ever worn a Catholic School Girl outfit to a party, or for her boyfriend.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Yeah, but swearing on TV is not criminal behavior. If you swear on TV, FCC might fine the network, but you personally won't be liable for anything.

---

What difference does that make? We are still using legal punishments to enforce decency, without these arguments about harm and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

It's not so much that government as a whole is insideous. It's that agents within it are, and they abuse the system to achieve insideous goals. To be fair to the media, while it does a terrible job, we still find ourselves invading a country under what turned out to be false pretenses some 30+ years after the Gulf of Tonkin.I see nothing wrong with invoking a principle if the underlying argument is that for this specific case, there is no circumstance that calls for overriding said principle.

---

The principle should be underlying and the argument that there is no overriding circumstance should be overlying.

But I think it's a mistake to look at it in terms of overriding circumstances in the first place. We are balancing two very important things, not finding miscellaneous exceptions to one important thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I think you hit the nail on the head - production involves abuse.

Having said that, the issue of attraction and why it is wrong is a lot more complex.

Asthetically - what we are talking about is an attraction to someone who exhibits child-like traits, small size, fine hair and soft skin, for a woman underdeveloped breasts and narrow hips, for a man a small penis and little muscle development.

Well, hang on a sec - lots of young women can appear child like, I've known women who are small breasted and one who despite being very physically developed had the face of a 12 year old at 21 and was lucky enough to have the the skin of a newborn.

As to men - seen an Eastern RPG recently? The boys in that look like 12 year olds with (nominally) adult bodies.

So this can't really be about asthetics, and building on what Hax said - I believe there was a case of a guy entering Canada who had pictures of his 20-year old girlfried on his laptop. She was deemed to look no older than 16, he was arrested.

On the other hand - the emotional/mental side of paedophilia is about a profoundly asymetrical relationship where the adult derives sexual satisfaction a child, usually one they are loco in parentis.

So I suppose with these cartoons the question is what they are presenting - a fantasy of sexually abusing children, or sexually aware women who happen to have teenage bodies and claim to be 13.

For anyone who thinks the latter should be illegal - you would have to arrest every girl who has ever worn a Catholic School Girl outfit to a party, or for her boyfriend.

---

Girls who dress up in school girl outfits don't act 13 anymore than girls who dress up like angels act like angels.

I'm skeptical of the idea that there are regular people who like a truly childish look, and not just youthful which we are overly obsessed with. Small breasted doesn't make a woman look childish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What difference does that make? We are still using legal punishments to enforce decency, without these arguments about harm and such.

---

There's a huge difference between administrative and criminal punishments. Besides, the FCC rules do not extend to premium networks like HBO and such. People on those networks can and do swear like sailors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

There's a huge difference between administrative and criminal punishments. Besides, the FCC rules do not extend to premium networks like HBO and such. People on those networks can and do swear like sailors.

---

I don't see any difference for our purposes, what is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't see any difference for our purposes, what is it?

---

The difference is that non-criminal expression does not get banned. It can be restricted, but not eliminated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Girls who dress up in school girl outfits don't act 13 anymore than girls who dress up like angels act like angels.

I'm skeptical of the idea that there are regular people who like a truly childish look, and not just youthful which we are overly obsessed with. Small breasted doesn't make a woman look childish.

---

The point is, how they act defines whether or not they are legitimate objects of desire - not how they look.

This is why cartoons like this can be a grey area.

There's also a difference between statutory rape and child molestation/paedophilia.

I'm 25 - let's assume I'm not me, that I go to clubs and sleep with girls on a regular basis. If one morning I wake up to discover the girl in question was not 18, as I thought through the drunken haze, but actually 14, does that make me a paedophile?

If I still find her sexually attractive the next morning - am I a paedo then?

Let's say she did some awsome things last night and I'm considering sleeping with her again?

Does it become paedophilia simply because I can't have an adult relationship with her?

Who actually took advantage of who here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

The difference is that non-criminal expression does not get banned. It can be restricted, but not eliminated.

---

eugh, if it was banned then it would be criminal expression by definition wouldn't it? This talk doesn't make any sense to me. If we make it illegal then it's criminal. The question is whether we should make it illegal or not. It can be criminal even if children aren't harmed in the making of it because it can be illegal even if children aren't harmed in the making of it.

It's better to work against child porn even in drawings, and we can make that argument only relying on the fact that it's wrong for pedophiles to look at child porn even in drawing form. We're enforcing morality by law, nothing extraordinary about it even though we often choose not to do so. There are many kinds of porn that are banned.

And why we are assuming that pornography consumption doesn't affect behavior is beyond me. I think people are confused be the name "social science" and have weird ideas about whether clear cut observational evidence should be easily available.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The point is, how they act defines whether or not they are legitimate objects of desire - not how they look.

This is why cartoons like this can be a grey area.

---

But it's the other way around. People are legitimate objects of desire based on how they act despite how they look (although again I don't think there are any non-genetic freak adults who really look childish). So the cartoons aren't a grey area because, in fantasy world where people are looking for their ideal, it will naturally be adult for regular people. Besides there's no reason to dancing around grey areas when it comes to banning porn unless your legal penalties are too harsh.

Quote:

---

There's also a difference between statutory rape and child molestation/paedophilia.

I'm 25 - let's assume I'm not me, that I go to clubs and sleep with girls on a regular basis. If one morning I wake up to discover the girl in question was not 18, as I thought through the drunken haze, but actually 14, does that make me a paedophile?

---

It makes you durnk

Quote:

---

If I still find her sexually attractive the next morning - am I a paedo then?

---

Yes?????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

The principle should be underlying and the argument that there is no overriding circumstance should be overlying.

---

What difference does it make which order we place them?

Quote:

---

But I think it's a mistake to look at it in terms of overriding circumstances in the first place. We are balancing two very important things, not finding miscellaneous exceptions to one important thing.

---

But it comes down to circumstances no matter which path you take. If you decide on a case by case basis you either begin with the facts of the situation and you work from those to reach some sort of "big statement" that essentially is your justification for how these facts should play out. Or you do it the other way around an you start with the big statement and then dictate how these facts fit into it.

When you frame it as a balancing act, you are implying that the two things which need balancing are:

A. Able to be quantified and given an exchange ratio. How many security points is this in exchange for a few less freedom points due to restricting such drawings?
B. That the two things that are being balanced are inherently opposed in each other. Namely freedom vs security. When it is not always so.

To me it seems as if your view is the more black and white one, and thus is less suitable to adequately make judgments of reality off of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It's better to work against child porn even in drawings, and we can make that argument only relying on the fact that it's wrong for pedophiles to look at child porn even in drawing form. We're enforcing morality by law, nothing extraordinary about it even though we often choose not to do so. There are many kinds of porn that are banned.

---

Logical, but very dangerous. This is a very-very slippery slope.

Quote:

---

And why we are assuming that pornography consumption doesn't affect behavior is beyond me. I think people are confused be the name "social science" and have weird ideas about whether clear cut observational evidence should be easily available.

---

Whether or not porn can affect behavior shouldn't matter. Alcohol consumption affects behavior, that doesn't mean that booze should be banned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

What difference does it make which order we place them?


But it comes down to circumstances no matter which path you take. If you decide on a case by case basis you either begin with the facts of the situation and you work from those to reach some sort of "big statement" that essentially is your justification for how these facts should play out. Or you do it the other way around an you start with the big statement and then dictate how these facts fit into it.

When you frame it as a balancing act, you are implying that the two things which need balancing are:

A. Able to be quantified and given an exchange ratio. How many security points is this in exchange for a few less freedom points due to restricting such drawings?
B. That the two things that are being balanced are inherently opposed in each other. Namely freedom vs security. When it is not always so.

To me it seems as if your view is the more black and white one, and thus is less suitable to adequately make judgments of reality off of.

---

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore...

If you are making an argument based on the circumstances then using a broad principle is just contradicting yourself. Like: "In this case the increased ability to catch criminals is not worth the privacy risks. In conclusion: it's always wrong for the government to impinge on our privacy". In my aside in that original post I was objecting to people saying the second part when they believe the first part. That aside has little to do with this thread though...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Logical, but very dangerous. This is a very-very slippery slope.

---

Restrictions on porn are not remotely dangerous. You guys must have a different conception of dangerous than I do...

I don't see any slippery slope either, unless you mean we are starting at the bottom and trying to go up.

Quote:

---

Whether or not porn can affect behavior shouldn't matter. Alcohol consumption affects behavior, that doesn't mean that booze should be banned.

---

Alcohol affects behavior by making you drunk, which is often ok. How do child porn drawings affect behavior? Do they increase the rate at which pedophiles fantasize? Can they have specific fantasies which someone might obsess over?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

But it's the other way around. People are legitimate objects of desire based on how they act despite how they look (although again I don't think there are any non-genetic freak adults who really look childish). So the cartoons aren't a grey area because, in fantasy world where people are looking for their ideal, it will naturally be adult for regular people. Besides there's no reason to dancing around grey areas when it comes to banning porn unless your legal penalties are too harsh.

---

I already told you, I know a girl who could easily pass for 14, not younger than that because she's quite well developed, but certainly 14.

The point is that people have different asthetic preferences, some inate some cutlural, there's difference to liking an elfin women and wanting to have sex with a child. Unless, of course, all those Gay designers who like women who look like young boys are really child molesters. How you act indicates how sexually mature you are.

Quote:

---

It makes you durnk

---

+1 internets for "durnk".

Quote:

---

Yes?????

---

Why? Physically she is not only mature, she is very attractive - in fact she is so well developed looking at her she could be anywhere from 16 to 20, but you wouldn't buy she was 14. This girl rocked my world, she did this thing with her teeth...

The point is, I knew girls like this in school - they knew what sex was, they used protection, they understood how to handle men and they were capable of having healthy relationships with their boyfriends, including dumping them when they became tiresome or made the mistake of acting their age.

I can't think of any of these girls who subsequently had any kind of breakdown - one recently got married and is disgustingly happy, after getting her nursing degree and spending some time helping famine victims in Africa. She is very well adjusted, and to be honest she was more sexually mature at 14 than maybe I am today.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

I already told you, I know a girl who could easily pass for 14, not younger than that because she's quite well developed, but certainly 14.

The point is that people have different asthetic preferences, some inate some cutlural, there's difference to liking an elfin women and wanting to have sex with a child. Unless, of course, all those Gay designers who like women who look like young boys are really child molesters. How you act indicates how sexually mature you are.

---

I don't think an aesthetic preference for elfin women is much like an aesthetic preference for children.

Quote:

---

Why? Physically she is not only mature, she is very attractive - in fact she is so well developed looking at her she could be anywhere from 16 to 20, but you wouldn't buy she was 14. This girl rocked my world, she did this thing with her teeth...

The point is, I knew girls like this in school - they knew what sex was, they used protection, they understood how to handle men and they were capable of having healthy relationships with their boyfriends, including dumping them when they became tiresome or made the mistake of acting their age.

I can't think of any of these girls who subsequently had any kind of breakdown - one recently got married and is disgustingly happy, after getting her nursing degree and spending some time helping famine victims in Africa. She is very well adjusted, and to be honest she was more sexually mature at 14 than maybe I am today.

---

This is probably that distinction between pedophile and ephbophile that someone was making in the other thread. No doubt at 14 you'd be attracted to her. I don't think you would at 25 though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

If you are making an argument based on the circumstances then using a broad principle is just contradicting yourself. Like: "In this case the increased ability to catch criminals is not worth the privacy risks. In conclusion: it's always wrong for the government to impinge on our privacy". In my aside in that original post I was objecting to people saying the second part when they believe the first part. That aside has little to do with this thread though...

---

But I would say that you are interpreting the two as formal pieces of logic that conflict, when in reality they are fine within the context of informal speech.
It is perfectly fine to say it is always wrong for government to impinge on privacy and then advocate for it in certain cases because there is a another level that people consider beyond right/wrong which is necessary/not necessary. Do you have a problem with people saying that legalized abortion is morally wrong but necessary since I don't want the inevitable abortions to be done on women in backalleys?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't think an aesthetic preference for elfin women is much like an aesthetic preference for children.

---

No, but it's quite like a preference for teenage girls in terms of how they look. Kiera Knightly basically looks the same now as she did 10-15 years ago.

Quote:

---

This is probably that distinction between pedophile and ephbophile that someone was making in the other thread. No doubt at 14 you'd be attracted to her. I don't think you would at 25 though.

---

All that's changed is that I know she's 14, she's the same as she was last night. This situation was actually dramatised in Trainspotting, where Ewan Mcgregor's character goes to a club and has sex with a 15 year old, who then blackmails him into staying with her and sends him to London to get a proper job.

The point is, she's still the same girl I had awsome, gymnastic sex with the night before - what you are saying is that her chronological age makes me a paedophile, as though that piece of information should automatically turn off the attraction.

Personally, I think that would be wierder than still ebing attracted to her.

Now, on topic (more):

How culpable this guy is depends on what his fantasy is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

But I would say that you are interpreting the two as formal pieces of logic that conflict, when in reality they are fine within the context of informal speech.
It is perfectly fine to say it is always wrong for government to impinge on privacy and then advocate for it in certain cases because there is a another level that people consider beyond right/wrong which is necessary/not necessary. Do you have a problem with people saying that legalized abortion is morally wrong but necessary since I don't want the inevitable abortions to be done on women in backalleys?

---

It would only make sense to say that abortion is morally wrong but it should be legal because of the backalley stuff.

Anyway I was just expressing ongoing discontent with the state of libertarianism in our culture...I think most of the problem is that it's extremely easy to make a libertarian statement. But unless you are going to go full libertarian you can't just do that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

No, but it's quite like a preference for teenage girls in terms of how they look. Kiera Knightly basically looks the same now as she did 10-15 years ago.

---

We worship youth too much.

Quote:

---

All that's changed is that I know she's 14, she's the same as she was last night. This situation was actually dramatised in Trainspotting, where Ewan Mcgregor's character goes to a club and has sex with a 15 year old, who then blackmails him into staying with her and sends him to London to get a proper job.

The point is, she's still the same girl I had awsome, gymnastic sex with the night before - what you are saying is that her chronological age makes me a paedophile, as though that piece of information should automatically turn off the attraction.

Personally, I think that would be wierder than still ebing attracted to her.

Now, on topic (more):

How culpable this guy is depends on what his fantasy is.

---

It doesn't seem plausible to me. She's still the same but you aren't wasted. Totally different. You should be put off even if you don't find out her chronological age.

It might behoove certain authoritarians to ask themselves: Will this legislation improve national cohesion or the efficiency of the state? If not, it's probably a waste of time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

It would only make sense to say that abortion is morally wrong but it should be legal because of the backalley stuff.

Anyway I was just expressing ongoing discontent with the state of libertarianism in our culture...I think most of the problem is that it's extremely easy to make a libertarian statement. But unless you are going to go full libertarian you can't just do that.

---

Well I would generally agree with you on that. I will not be voting libertarian anytime soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

We worship youth too much.

---

I'm not inclined to dissagree - but I'm not sure that speaks to the issue at hand.

Quote:

---

It doesn't seem plausible to me. She's still the same but you aren't wasted. Totally different. You should be put off even if you don't find out her chronological age.

---

OK, so I don't intend to marry her - but that alone shouldn't stop her being an object of sexual desire. I'm not suggesting starting a relationship with her, I'm suggesting that just finding out her age shouldn't suddenly make a very pleasurabley experience stomach turning.

I specified "awsome gymnastic sex" for a reason - we aren't talking about your average 14 year old, we're talking about someone who is both physically and sexually mature enough to go out and pick up guys.

I'm not advocating sex with 14 year old women, part of the reason I'm not a fan of casual sex is that this sort of thing does happen now and again. The point is that if I don't find out her age I spend the whole day whistling, go for a run, do a song and dance number in the street - but if I do I spend the whole day feeling like a paedophile?

No - that doesn't sound sane.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The point is, how they act defines whether or not they are legitimate objects of desire - not how they look.

This is why cartoons like this can be a grey area.

There's also a difference between statutory rape and child molestation/paedophilia.

I'm 25 - let's assume I'm not me, that I go to clubs and sleep with girls on a regular basis. If one morning I wake up to discover the girl in question was not 18, as I thought through the drunken haze, but actually 14, does that make me a paedophile?

If I still find her sexually attractive the next morning - am I a paedo then?

Let's say she did some awsome things last night and I'm considering sleeping with her again?

Does it become paedophilia simply because I can't have an adult relationship with her?

Who actually took advantage of who here?

---

Learn well you do, young Padawan.

I couldn't have made the point better.

Now, do you want to high five or do twenty "Ave Maria"?

Child Abuse Photos, or what is mistakenly called "child porn", is illegal because it is made by an illegal act, the abuse of children. Among the reasons for it is that spreading it adds insult to the victim and the demand for it creates more abuse.

If no abuse of children has taken place, there is nothing illegal going on. We do not legislate "immorality".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Learn well you do, young Padawan.

I couldn't have made the point better.

Now, do you want to high five or do twenty "Ave Maria"?

---

phew.

OK, finally stopped laughing.

Sadly this has not actually happened (the awsome gymnastic sex part, not actually keen to live through the underage part).

If it had....

High five, each time, then if I do it 10 times I'll go to Anglican confession and spend a week on the high moors under canvas to cleanse my soul.

Sadly though I currently live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere, have no job and no money.

Yay PhD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

phew.

OK, finally stopped laughing.

Sadly this has not actually happened (the awsome gymnastic sex part, not actually keen to live through the underage part).

If it had....

High five, each time, then if I do it 10 times I'll go to Anglican confession and spend a week on the high moors under canvas to cleanse my soul.

Sadly though I currently live on a small farm in the middle of nowhere, have no job and no money.

Yay PhD.

---

I'm so glad you took my comment that way! :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Restrictions on porn are not remotely dangerous. You guys must have a different conception of dangerous than I do...

---

Porn is already controlled. There's no reason to criminalize it, even its most depraved versions (provided there's no real harm done).

Quote:

---

I don't see any slippery slope either, unless you mean we are starting at the bottom and trying to go up.

---

Legislating what people can draw based on their imagination == thought police.

Quote:

---

Alcohol affects behavior by making you drunk, which is often ok. How do child porn drawings affect behavior? Do they increase the rate at which pedophiles fantasize? Can they have specific fantasies which someone might obsess over?

---

We do not know and it shouldn't matter. It's like banning violent videogames -- not a good idea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

I'm so glad you took my comment that way! :bow:

---

You were expecting a Christian without a sense of humour?

I have been criticised for not taking my religion seriously enough, and also too seriously.

I try to keep an even keel these days.

Also, if you refer to me in future edits I demand the title "the mad Christian academic" - I'm not actually in Church that often :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Gotta admit, this makes me uneasy. I just ... gah. Hard to formulate.

I get really nervous when the fictional depiction of a thing is made illegal. Even something as loathsome as pedophilia.

So the guy is going to translate fictional depictions of pedobear lovetime, and he goes to jail? I dunno. Not good. I'm struggling to form my thoughts, but this does not sound or feel right.

---

I agree, it is creepy but there is no crime in wanking it to cartoons. Horrific images of children come from someone else forcing children to do horrific things and this is why it is illegal. This case sounds stupid. They could make the case that the girls in the photos just look really young but are, in fact, adults with growth problems. It's fantasy so I challenge the court to prove otherwise.

EDIT - my opinions expressed are not evidence that I am interested in manga sex. I find it weird and pointless.

This case happened in Australia a couple of years ago. But it wasn't drawings. It was actual photographs.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opin...803-115dg.html

http://www.smh.com.au/national/artis...0111-m2s5.html


By the literal definition of porn, it is any text (be it pictures, videos, novels, whatever) that arouses sexual excitement. So, by that logic, a person might be sexually aroused by Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Is that considered porn?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

This case happened in Australia a couple of years ago. But it wasn't drawings. It was actual photographs.

http://www.nationaltimes.com.au/opin...803-115dg.html

http://www.smh.com.au/national/artis...0111-m2s5.html


By the literal definition of porn, it is any text (be it pictures, videos, novels, whatever) that arouses sexual excitement. So, by that logic, a person might be sexually aroused by Rime of The Ancient Mariner. Is that considered porn?

---

Ha. I've got a hot site for you. Warning, it may not be appropriate for work, what with cylinders entering into greased plugs and electricity coursing through throbbing transistors. Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

Quote:

---

Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

---

They have a pill for that now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg

Ha. I've got a hot site for you. Warning, it may not be appropriate for work, what with cylinders entering into greased plugs and electricity coursing through throbbing transistors. Hang on... I've gotta spurt.

---

Mini me is throbbing from the PC & Video game section of that site.

Better finish off with this site.

http://www.trollandtoad.com/


UNLEASH THE INNER GEEK!

You people advocating for the banning of cartoons in which there is no real victim are treading on a very slippery slope. Yes, yes, "for the children" got that, blah blah, carry on.

Pretend child porn is oodles and oodles better than real child porn, as there are no victims. What gets me about this thread are several of the people wanting to ban the cartoons are also th same ones who wanted to ban porn in general, where at least you could argue -- indirectly in most cases -- that there was a victim. There is no victim here. If we are saying a pado will use the cartoons to groom a child then that is an entirely different law violation altogether. If we are saying that viewing the cartoon makes them more likley to commit the act (a worn out, disproven argument along the lines of the marijuana-is-a-gateway-drug argument) then now we are dealing with intangibles and what-ifs and, as already stated, a very slippery slope, and it would be pretty hypocritical to levy such an argument but not also weigh the possibility that this product staves people off from becoming predators because they can act on their impulses without involving actual children.

I think the whole issue is pretty disturbing and disgusting... but bannin frikkin cartoons?... just wow. The way I see certain facts, figures and realities brushed under the rug in the USA, where one becomes an "ist" for stating certain opinions, I can totally see something like this breeding over into the political realm with politcal cartoons being banned because they incite hatred, which anymore simply means you offended someone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

It might behoove certain authoritarians to ask themselves: Will this legislation improve national cohesion or the efficiency of the state? If not, it's probably a waste of time.

---

The chief of police for investigating child porn crimes basically said: "can we please free him so we can focus the resources on real child porn crimes?". So I think that counts as a waste of time.

I'm agreeing there, by itself it shouldn't be punishable.

Besides, imagen using the same rule for murder or torture. Man that's a lot of crimes then.

Worth mentioning is how it got started... His ex was angry with him and reported him to the police.

Kind of dangerous... I myself think I still have some kiddie pictures of my sister with a friend naked in the bathtub, and naked with friends on the beach (when we were younger it wasn't uncommon to see children running around naked on the beach, these days people put a bikini on their toddlers!)

So, technically, my ex could report me for having those photos.

I would then never again be able to work as a teacher, would I be found guilty, even if the court deemed the very lowest punishment (like a fine). Ridiculous? I think so...

Edit: Not to mention my grandmothers photo box of all her grandchildren. She must be the Pablo Escobar of kiddie porn by today's standard.

The law has to be better at the "intent" part, and also remember that a victim is needed for things to be a crime (a very basic principle I wish the law followed).

Well if we are going to criminalize hate speech, if we are going to water-down what it means for something to be a hate crime, if we are going to make it illegal for a kid to fantasize about shooting up his school, all the while allowing outright slander and lies in political discourse, then this whole banning cartoons thing fits right into the idiotic mold. Have at it, and enjoy the fallout

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some questionably-underage porn being banned as "dangerous".

---

I don't get how you can describe a precedent that might lead to some terrorist attacks being prevented as dangerous. Could've been used to introduce Patriot Act, TSA, war in Iraq, that one. Or just about any witch hunt.

The more salient point is that "banning" something just because it looks like something else which is already banned is a very bad idea. (Incidentally there's no such thing as questionably-underage porn, no person is "questionably-underage" by definition; and underage porn is better known as child porn which is already banned pretty much everywhere). That way you end up like the British ("extreme porn") or the Australians ("small breasts") or Japanese ("penises"), and none of that works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vuk

I don't buy that, as many children who were themselves abused, hate those who abused them, and know that it is wrong. They also then live in society long enough to know that it is wrong, but still sometimes become child-molesters themselves.

---

Course it depends on the age and so on, but shame and self-blame is often enough a more overwhelming emotion even in adults who are abused. Victims are extremely reluctant to come forth and testify against the perpetrator. To make matters worse abuse can instill the notion that this is in fact "normal" behaviour.

People are quick to "learn". Bullied people are more likely to become bullies, an entire American government talked themselves into "believing" that "enhanced techniques" were not torture.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

Pretend child porn is oodles and oodles better than real child porn, as there are no victims. What gets me about this thread are several of the people wanting to ban the cartoons are also th same ones who wanted to ban porn in general, where at least you could argue -- indirectly in most cases -- that there was a victim. There is no victim here. If we are saying a pado will use the cartoons to groom a child then that is an entirely different law violation altogether. If we are saying that viewing the cartoon makes them more likley to commit the act (a worn out, disproven argument along the lines of the marijuana-is-a-gateway-drug argument) then now we are dealing with intangibles and what-ifs and, as already stated, a very slippery slope, and it would be pretty hypocritical to levy such an argument but not also weigh the possibility that this product staves people off from becoming predators because they can act on their impulses without involving actual children.

---

Oh there is a victim alright. The person what comes across this lolicon (yes there is a enough volume of pedobear approved Hentai it has a name) stuff whilst looking for some other filthy degenerate drawings. People like me.





pomfers gonna pomf

Bah, finding things that offend you is just part and parcel of browsing the internet, if we banned everything that offended people we'd have very little left. Suck it up and press the page back button, ya wuss.
:whip:

And he got aquitted.

Nice dodge by the judges there. Although I'm a bit curious on what a realistic drawing means in this context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

And he got aquitted.

Nice dodge by the judges there. Although I'm a bit curious on what a realistic drawing means in this context.

---

You beat me to it..

And yes, thank the gods he got aquitted. Would have set a really abusable precedent otherwise.

When I have time I will try to read the actual verdict to find out more about what they mean with realism, I wondered about that too.

Since you replied in between, the gray area for a realistic drawing going from despicable to illegal is when it's quite possible for it to have a foto reference. Thousands of child pornographic drawings based on as many actual pictures isn't an improvement really.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

Since you replied in between, the gray area for a realistic drawing going from despicable to illegal is when it's quite possible for it to have a foto reference. Thousands of child pornographic drawings based on as many actual pictures isn't an improvement really.

---

That is the disturbing part. They basically transfer photos into drawings.

I was probably a 3d graphic type photo, those tend to look pretty realistic, but ultimately anyone can tell they are not and ultimately, they are not realistic. Real vs fake should be the only issue imo, not how real or how fake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Major Robert Dump

I was probably a 3d graphic type photo, those tend to look pretty realistic, but ultimately anyone can tell they are not and ultimately, they are not realistic. Real vs fake should be the only issue imo, not how real or how fake

---

Word.