Illegal Drawn Pornography

Discussion in 'Opinions, Beliefs, & Points of View' started by Krem, Oct 24, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Krem

    Krem Well-Known Member

    Most of us are aware that there are some.. less-rational laws out there. Assisted suicides being illegal, for an example. But, this has to be one of the worst offender.

    There are multiple places where drawn-- Repeating, DRAWN, as in, it's made of ink, and nobody is actually involved other than the watcher and drawer-- images of various sexual acts are illegal. This is mostly regarding reprensentations of child pornography (Even if the images are of small-breasted women and less-endowed men, in some cases, regardless of their age or maturity) and bestiality.

    Now, we all can agree on that mating with children isn't good for anyone, and is rightfully illegal, and thus we have laws protecting them. But here, there is no child to protect. People can be sentanced for years because they have urges, and decided to release over.. fiction? What the hell.

    Ok, your point is maybe that this represents the acts, and we don't want to be reminded that these things happen. Then.. why not ban ~95% of all media, since most fiction contains illegal things, such as assault, drug-use, rape, torture, and (and this is, I dare say, worse than child molestation) murder.

    Or, maybe, you think that people will, after seeing a drawn image of a nude child, go on a raping spree. If so, how come there isn't WAY more violence? The amount of people who use violent media is far greater than those who view drawn child pornography. Maybe it's because the abusers would've abused even if they had not the pictures? Could that be? And could it also be that some would-be molesters get their bestial releases from this pornography so they don't harm REAL children?

    Oh, wait, yes. It's disgusting. And we punish people for being disgusted, perverse, and vile. Or, wait, we stopped doing that. In the 1800s. Remember the Buggery Act? Pretty much all of us had a version of it, don't be ashamed, we're all guilty. Anyway, point is, we grew up, and realised that, just because we, as individuals, find the acts disturbing on many levels, if there is nobody being harmed by the act, then we should not stop it. What we do in private is, we've been led to believe, our own damn business.

    Except when it's masturbating to fictional children without clothes, or if said children are sexually active, consentual or not. Then you're a monster and should go to jail with murderers, thiefs, rapists and homosexuals.

    Wait, no, homosexuals are alright, nevermind. We stopped jailing them almost 200 years ago.

    But we'll be damned before we consider them human beings with the right to marry.

  2. Tobes

    Tobes Well-Known Member

    I'm actually all for the law, despite being against a few of the follow-up aspects (if that makes sense). Any law that limits fodder for those sick f*cks is fine by me.

    I get why it doesn't really make sense when there is no law against depicting murder and violence and all sorts of illegal activity, but I think that because a) it's of an illegal sexual nature b) it has the capacity to increase illegal sexual desire c) it's 100% morally wrong and d) it's sickening, that Governments/Societies have a duty to ban it. I still wonder why depicting rape is legal, but I have heard the excuse that rape is about control not sexual desire, so it's a different ballpark, and that a normal person won't become a rapist after watching it on screen.

    There is a counter argument though. Japan, for example, has a much lower amount of sexual assaults per capita than most other developed countries, yet a lot of their adult-oriented entertainment has it as part of the storyline (individual movies/animes obviously). So, you could say that having the material availale would lower the real life crimes.

    I don't see any major nation legalizing illegal cartoon porn any time soon though, I think the risk is worse than the potential benefit.

    It definitely sounds ridiculous at face value, but I still think it is a good thing if only by a moral viewpoint. For example:


    Europe - Cartoon/written child porn legal, freely available
    America - Cartoon/written child porn illegal, heavily restricted

    Which of those two looks better to you?

    Not when it's against the law it isn't. I'm stating the obvious here, but Government hold domain over all parts of their nation, in legal terms. Whether the activity is inside your own home, or on the street. It has to be that way.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2010
  3. Confusticated

    Confusticated Well-Known Member

    I really think child CARTOON and WRITTEN porn should be legal. Pedophilia (spelling =/) is not a fault of someone, it's proven that you're born with it. So.. fancying children, is not their fault. Now I'm with everyone who says that anyone who touches or does anything with children is sick.. but it's hard. If someone is trying so fucking hard to control their illness, and they watch cartoon child porn, isn't this better than them watching actual child porn or touching a child? It's an outlet for them that they need, and by doing so, they're stopping themselves from taking it out on actual people. Reading child porn or watching cartoon child porn is harmless to people, so why should it be banned when it's stopping them going around and controlling their urges in other ways?

    I feel so bad for those people who have this illness and do everything they can to control it and don't actually harm children, but still get thrown in with all the sex offenders.
  4. nagisa

    nagisa Staff Alumni


    Agree, agree, agree.
  5. Issaccs

    Issaccs Well-Known Member

    I believe their are a few studies linking porn access to a reduction in rape and sexual assault.
    Infact this was a pretty easy one too find on google.

    I have to say that the choice between Japanese artists producing this stuff and Westerners filming the raping of children should seem obvious as to which is preferable and the first option should also give a few clues as to who to keep an eye on.
  6. Tobes

    Tobes Well-Known Member

    I hear what you're saying, and I do sympathize with the ones that have the attraction and don't commit the abuse, but I don't see how giving them any access to indulge can help them.

    Porn is like drug use, some people can stick to one type or at one level and be content, and others need more heavy stuff to keep the thrill going. Just think how elaborate the porn industry has gotten in the last 20 years alone, thanks to the internet and one-click access.

    I obviously don't know what goes on in the head of one those people attracted to children or animals or whatever, but I can easily imagine some of them getting bored with drawn porn and needing to see the real thing (or god forbid, a real person). I'm guessing they can't change how they are (with the exception of chemical castration), but removing the material to indulge or strengthen their desire does seem like the way to go. Plus, if only one aspect of illegal abuse/porn is legal, it sends them the direct message that it isn't 100 percent wrong.

    I know that not all of them offend, but it's not just about them and their desires. It's a safety net, similar to the law that a sex offender cannot live near a school, and has to be regularly monitored. Or, and this may seem out of place, why a reformed alcoholic cannot touch alcohol after he gets sober.

    Many, many pedophiles/sex offenders have admitted that they can't control themselves or their desires.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2010
  7. Confusticated

    Confusticated Well-Known Member

    I hear what you're saying, too, sir. However if they have nothing to indulge on, they're just going to go straight to what IS avaliable (most of the time), and some people can survive with jsut the cartoon porn and the stories. In fact some people can't stand watching porn, they have to read it for it to do anything for them, so that'd be a good way for them to find an outlet. I think at the end of the day this is something we will agree to disagree on, but I do hear your valid points. I guess it just comes down to how far you think they'll go. I personally think it's a good idea to give them cartoons and stories, so they at least have something to use as a deterent, rather than nothing at all.
  8. Krem

    Krem Well-Known Member

    Except that there's no evidence for the 'slippery slope' argument. If anything, the opposite has been found.

    A) And? We allow pretty much everything else that's illegal to be shown in our fiction.
    B) Citation needed, although rational. Common sense is often wrong, y'know. I mean, look at the sky. It's perfectly rational to assume that the sky, and all that we see in it, is a fixed, rotating sphere around us. But once we started to really observe it, we found it to be false, even though, logically, that's how it is.
    C&D) Subjective, and thus should not be a law. Homosexuality was seen by many to be that, and yet we eventually allowed it. There's nobody being harmed here, so people's tastes are irrelevant to the legality of it. I mean, there's nobody forcing anyone to watch it, so other's usage of it won't harm others.

    Why does the government have a duty to stop things that some find disgusting? That is the way of book-burning extremists, my friend. Not to mention that it isolates those who need help further than they are, which really doesn't help them. And, hey, if drawn porn is just as illegal as "real" porn, why not go for the real thing? But if the drawn porn is NOT illegal, those who don't wanna go to jail would use that instead, and demand for the real stuff would go down. And thus, hopefully, supply as well.

  9. Tobes

    Tobes Well-Known Member

    Confusticated, Krem, you both make some excellent points. Sure it can be better than worse, and like you said Krem at least that could stop them going for the real stuff. I'm just skeptical, as well as concerned about the idea of having any form of it available and most things to do with illegal abuse. I'm sure you understand.

    But hey, I could definitely be wrong. Using drugs as an example again, Tobacco and Alcohol are legal, and I'm sure that stops many people from doing harder drugs. I know that's a different ballpark entirely, but I'm a fan of analogies. Even weak ones.

    I'm still with my original opinion, but I have taken in what's been said so far.

    To keep the peace and keep order. And it's not things that some find disgusting, it's things that the vast majority find disgusting, and something they have the ability to control or at least prevent. Child Abuse would be a big one, since that has been considered wrong in practically every way, in every developed country, for a long time. It's always happening of course, but now it's shameful instead of normal, unwelcome instead of accepted. I'm all for the ability for those with the illness to get help btw. They shouldn't be treated like lepers.

    EDIT: If anything I have said so far seems patronizing or arrogant, I apologize. I'm never sure whether what I write does.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 25, 2010
  10. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    Pornography should be banned. Full stop. Just the same as we fill our bodies with junk food, we also fill our minds with junk. If a ban includes 95% of media then why not?! Then, we shouldn't have allowed it to get to that stage, so yes the odd 5% are normal. What about my human rights for example, not to watch the rubbish in the media, or pornification on buses / billboards etc, why should I need to go around wearing blinkers? A majority vote doesn't make it right or moral.
  11. Krem

    Krem Well-Known Member

    Human rights, you say? What about MY human right of pornography? Banning pornography because the media realises that people buy softcore crap is, although a nice thought, a silly thing to do. I mean, yes, I would enjoy that sexual imagery and such to be reduced- if not removed- from movies, shows, and books, but there are people out there who actually want that softcore crap, be it relevant to the story or just fanservice. I'd point you out to an article, where it was presented that a majority of brits wanted more sex in the then-latest James Bond movie, but I don't have the link.

    Also, right to not watch rubbish? You have it. It's called turning the TV off. What counts as rubbish is subjective, unfortunately, and so classifying a show as rubbish can only be opinion, not fact, and thus banning it is itself immoral, since the banner would be forcing his own opinion over others', regardless of the actual harm done, or if some actually find the show(s) to not be rubbish.

    But, that's offtopic, to say the least.
  12. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    This statement is actually quite sick. Baby's are born INNOCENT human beings are are not born pedophiles. It certainlyIS the fault of the person who commits such a heinous crime. OF COURSE ITS THEIR FAULT stop trying to absolve them from responsibility of their behaviour. There are probably people on this forum who have suffered at the hands of a pedophile, what do you say to them, IT WASN'T YOUR PERPETRATORS FAULT!? Get REAL, they are far from blameless.

    If homosexuals are born homosexuals, are pedophiles born pedophiles?

    You are confusing ORIENTATION and SEX.
    Orientation is inborn, according to the AMA and APA. This is not a "choice," and it does not change.
    According to these scientists, this is very different from the CRIME of pedophilia.

    We always make choices about whom we have sex with. Sex isn't always about orientation - as with rape, many people posit that pedophilia is more about power and control than attraction. As such, it is a CHOICE of BEHAVIOR and not an orientation.

    Please do not confuse the two.
  13. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    You don't have a human right to pornography. If you want to choose it then thats down to you, but why should everyone else live in a pornification culture? For example, anyone seen those horrid little dolls aimed at young children, they are called Bratz, which is exactly what they are indeed, little wh**es, dressed as tarts.
    Its not even safe for parents to have the music channels on these days.

    There are also a lot of critics for the Bond movie:
  14. Krem

    Krem Well-Known Member do realise that there's a difference with porn being legal, and having it shoved in everyone's face, don't you?

    Although I find myself agreeing on the doll part. There's hardly any decency left in the western world. <_<
  15. Lovecraft

    Lovecraft Well-Known Member

    Baby's are born with a clean slate, sure, but they aren't born without genetic predispositions.


    Is being sexually attracted to children the heinous crime, or is it having sex with them? I agree with the latter, not the former.

    A behaviour is a physical manifestation, not a thought process. You are assuming all people with the unfortunate condition of pedophilia go rape children. I agree if they do rape children they should be held accountable, but sexual preference is determined mostly by genes, so says science.

    If they go rape kids? Sure. If they repress it? No.


    An orientation is where your mind finds sexual attraction. Whether the sexy compass points to the other sex, same sex, older, younger, really young or really old (all these things are known to occur of course.) it's not really a choice. I only think pedophiles have it hard because there's no way for them to get their fix in a moral way - at least if you're gay/straight/gerontophile or whatever you have a chance to get consensual sex.


    Sort of. Admittedly I checked my APA DSM-IV and found out that a diagnosis of pedophilia can only be made if the person has, in face, molested children so I have to agree with you retroactively that one person that could be diagnosed is guilty of their actions. I also will state I still think one that is sexually attracted to children but does not act on it is really unlucky and blameless there.

    Mostly it is though.

    Many people claim that we didn't land on the moon, that doesn't mean you can base your points off of people's claims.

    One chooses to molest children, one gets stuck into the orientation of attraction to children. Maybe for some of the rapists it is a power/control/rape scenario but why would that be the only reason to target children? It wouldn't. How often does a straight man rape another man? Sexual attraction does determine targets for rape.

    Please don't confuse weasel words and unsourced claims with a cogent argument.

    Ah, once again you copy/paste an argument and pretend you've made a point. The ramblings of people with no or unconfirmed levels of study on the subject that can't even bother citing people that have don't interest me.

    Look up paraphilia and in particular chronophilia.

    Fair enough, it's true.

    Because the majority of people do choose porn and, whether they admit it or not, everyone with negligible exceptions are aroused in some fashion by sex. Back in the day when everyone was so ridiculous they all suppressed their basic instincts to sexual urge there wasn't a 'porn' culture'.

    I sort of agree, I think that Bratz and similar things are outright poor choices for children toys and promote stupidity. I don't really think there's anything sexual to it - it's that little girls want to be big girls and big girls have sexual urges, so you get sex related paraphernalia on little girls.

    I'd much rather kids play with astroglobes.

    The world is not made for children nor should it be.
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 29, 2010
  16. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    I've noticed you tend to pick people's posts apart in a critical fashion. I just wondered if an influential person did that to you in the past?!

    That's a weird statement; the world is not made for children? What do you mean by that?

    Re source, I dont need a source I KNOW that pedophiles are not born pedophiles, simples.

    I could fancy short hairy guys with beards, doesn't mean I was born with a genetic predispositon towards short, hairy guys with beards lol.
  17. aoeu

    aoeu Well-Known Member

    Probably not in the case of short men; however, you likely do carry a genetic predisposition towards beards. As to prepubescents, there are some traits that are inherently attractive and some that are not. As to adolescents, all traits are inherently attractive, and the arbitrary ages where sex is okay are purely societal constructs.
  18. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    Yeah, but porn has spread like the plaque, which is why innocent children and adults are targeted online and by various other means by the porn industry's 'in your face' advertising campaigns. The industry have now targeted the NHS and tax payers money now goes on porn! The multi-billion £ industry (for our own gratification and selfish needs) when there are people dying of hunger in this world.

    It should be illegal for thousands of reasons...
  19. titanic

    titanic Well-Known Member

    I agree with you re age and societal constructs. :wink:

    But what about a 50 year old man who fancies a 5 year old child and says, oh don't worry dear its in my genes - I'll go get a prescription to stop me molesting the child.

    Maybe the medical model will now create an 'anti-pedophilia' pill?! :lol!:
  20. Confusticated

    Confusticated Well-Known Member

    Titanic, forgive me for not reading all the posts after your critic on my own, I'm too tired. It's been proven that this is something you are born with, something that cannot be helped. And you got me wrong, I am in no way protecting those that do go out and molester children at all! I am only saying that these things such as cartoon and written child porn should be kept for those who are trying to control their urges. I feel so fucking sorry for the people that have these urges but do everything they can not to act on them, simply because people like you judge them in a second. These people have done nothing wrong at all, they can't help their faults because it's not something they can choose, it's just the way they are born.

    I did not confuse shit all, so please don't try and make me sound stupid. I know what I am saying, and if you do try and make me sound stupid again, I will just return the favour.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.