[Wargamer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm

So, the UK government has decided images of Child Pornography are wrong, even when the child in question is a make-believe character.

The first thing that struck me about this was how detached from reality lawmakers are. Anyone with the most basic understanding of human psychology knows that when something you crave is taken away, you will obsess over it. It doesn't matter whether it's drugs, alcohol, cigarettes or a TV when your favourite show is on, if you have a compulsion for something, and no means to satisfy your craving, you will be driven to more extreme measures.

This is especially true of sex.

My view on paedophilia has always been that the Japanese have it right; sell hentai depicting children having sex in a top-shelf magazine, and the people buying it won't need to rape a schoolgirl to satisfy themselves.

Whilst I can appreciate the government does want to crack down on "photoshopped" images of real child porn, modified to evade the anti-child porn laws, I don't see what they have to gain by removing the 'child porn' where no child was ever harmed, depicted or even referenced in its creation.

It seems to me to be simple common sense; if there is no "legal" outlet for a paedophile, they will seek illegal ones more actively... and if you're going to jail for paedophilia for just looking at lolicon, you might as well go the whole hog and try the real thing before you get jailed. Alas, our government is too busy encouraging fanatical witch-hunts against Paedophiles to come up with any real or useful ways to stop them harming children, so I guess they wouldn't have thought of all this. The next logical step is no-doubt going to be a device that records our dreams in case we ever fantasise about a girl who is under 18. :

Discuss away.

[Sidstyler]

"It adds to the range of measures to help ensure the safeguarding of children and young people."

Yes, by taking away the one outlet said pedophiles used to cope with their..."condition", whatever you want to call it, and effectively putting the children you're trying to safeguard directly into harm's way. :

Not to say that all pedophiles are gonna go crazy and start assaulting children, but still...sounds like a really stupid move. Comparable to banning pornography in an attempt to protect women against sexually frustrated individuals that might rape them. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if that was next, fetish pornography depicting women bound and "raped" will get the ban because it drives people to go out and kidnap women for their own sick enjoyment, yes? :

Like Wargamer, I'm of a mind that this type of thing (and the fetish porn is usually always consensual, never saw a vid myself of a real sexual assault) does more good than bad, if anything it helps curb child abuse because they have a safe way of carrying out their fantasies on made-up characters, not real children. Lolicon may be disturbing, but it doesn't hurt anyone. A ban, however, could. :-\

[Tau-killer]

Personally, I greatly welcome this Governmental proposal.

Firstly, I would challenge the black and white assumption made so far in this topic that people are either Paedophiles - who therefore need some outlet for their desire (in the same way that you and I need food) - or they're not. Human beings are far more complex creatures than this assumption suggests. In reality, all human beings are susceptable (at varying levels) to finding child pornography sexually arousing. Most people, thankfully, have negligable levels of susceptability. Some people have a mild level of susceptability. A small number of people have high levels of susceptability. But desire and susceptability don't make someone a paedophile. What makes someone a paedophile is what they decide to do - whether they give in to their desire or not.

We human beings are not machines. We always have a choice as to what to do - whether we acknowlege that choice or not. Certain choices can be more difficult for some people than for others - but the assertion that there exists among us a certain group of people that are doomed to satisfy their craving, in some way, for the rest of their lives is incorrect.

Child pornography is an industry - a vile, disgusting industry - but an industry none the less. This industry preys on the susceptability that exists within all of us - it normalises it through pictures and films and photographs and it thus breaks down natural Biological barriers that would otherwise tell us that sex with a young child is wrong. Speaking for myself, I find the idea of sex with a young child revolting and abhorrent. However, what if, somehow, I were to see such a picture or film? Could I say, with absolute certainty and honesty that I would not find such a picture/film arousing in any way? To be honest -I don't think I can. I'm 18, full of hormones and there is the taboo of it being 'forbidden.' Could it sufficiently interest me to such an extent that I would want to see more? Would I be strong enough to resist? Could I end up wanting to see more...and more. Could this lead to further actions later on in life?

Obviously, I am hypothesising - I can't be in any way certain of what the effects would be - and obviously, I have no wish to put them to the test. But it is my argument that, far from people needing to look at such pictures to stop them raping children, many people are drawn, over time, into such a mindset of wanting to rape or otherwise sexually abuse a child through seeing pictures and other such visual pornography of it happening.

Therefore, I entirely approve of clamping down on all child pornography - in all its forms. And I would remind you, Sidstyler, that when you say: Lolicon may be disturbing, but it doesn't hurt anyone, it is however the case that much of it is taken from real events that actually happened in real life - such as photoshopped images for example.

Wargamer, you make a valid point when you talk about people wanting something because it is 'taken away.' However, the existence of such a phenomenon is not, by itself, an effective argument for bringing back the thing that was taken away. Sometimes, it is simply better for the good of society in general, that something is taken away and deemed illegal - and anything glamourising and advertising sex with children comes under this category. And it cannot be so easily compared with substances such as drugs and cigarettes - which are entirely different things. Children are neither mentally nor biologically ready to have sex. Therefore, to have it with them is forbidden both biologically and morally. Therefore, it is quite right that, in all its forms, it is forbidden legally.

[ForbiddenKnowledge]

The problem with claiming they are using computers to manipulate real images to cartoon is that you can just as easily create a cartoon of it from scratch, hell you could sit down for five minutes with a pencil and create it.

I'm not sure where I stand on this - I myself find such things distasteful, but its not the same as tying up and taking a picture of a kid - this is cartoon imagery. Personal feelings aside, as long as no one is being harmed, its probably a useful outlet.

Peado's cannot control their urges, and its wrong to expect them to - they can't help how they are. If this as an outlet saves lives from physical action, surely it is better for it to remain legal.

[Wargamer]

I don't agree with you there. That is, I don't agree with this;

Originally Posted by Tau-killer

Therefore, I entirely approve of clamping down on all child pornography - in all its forms. And I would remind you, Sidstyler, that when you say: Lolicon may be disturbing, but it doesn't hurt anyone, it is however the case that much of it is taken from real events that actually happened in real life - such as photoshopped images for example.

That simply is not true. The overwhelming majority of the so-called 'child porn art' available is going to be pure fantasy. At worst, it depicts a character from a kid's Anime show (be very careful what you type into a Search Engine...). Obviously, it's very hard to determine how much of the 'illegal' art is available, because by its nature it must be hard to find. However, the point still stands. Even if someone had a thousand pictures of someone raping the Powerpuff Girls, no real children are harmed in those pictures.

I am not saying photoshopped child abuse pictures don't exist, but I do not believe them to make up the majority, or even a large minority, of what is out there. After all, why risk prison time when you can draw fantasy and sell it on the streets of Tokyo legally?



As for the idea of images "corrupting" people, I don't believe that myself either. I believe images can desensitise us, but not corrupt. I have had times when I really want to beat the shit out of someone, and I have played videogames that depict violence for as long as I can remember. My father has had times when he really wants to beat the shit out of someone, and he's never played anything but Gran Turismo 3. If anything, these external stimuli (images, games, films, etc) provide a release for our feelings, not create ones that weren't there.

[Hive Lord]

I agreed when I first read the article, but Wargamer does make some good points...

On an aside note - How can they tell how old the girl is from a drawn picture?
Surely it could just be claimed that it's just a young-looking eighteen year old?
OK, sure, some times it would be obvious, but it's not exactly going to be black-and-white all the time.

[Valar]

Originally Posted by Wargamer

My view on paedophilia has always been that the Japanese have it right; sell hentai depicting children having sex in a top-shelf magazine, and the people buying it won't need to rape a schoolgirl to satisfy themselves.

But it could always bring the opposite effect, that is that the paedophile could consider his "perversion" a normal and good thing, since it can be found even in a top-shelf magazine.
I strongly agree with pornography between consentient adults in all its forms (straight, gay, lesbian, fetish, sadomasochism...). But paedophiles should be punished, they should know that what they're doing is extremely wrong (and often they don't understand it).

[Sidstyler]

Originally Posted by Tau-killer

Human beings are far more complex creatures than this assumption suggests. In reality, all human beings are susceptable (at varying levels) to finding child pornography sexually arousing. Most people, thankfully, have negligable levels of susceptability. Some people have a mild level of susceptability. A small number of people have high levels of susceptability. But desire and susceptability doesn't make someone a paedophile. What makes someone a paedophile is what they decide to do - whether they give in to their desire or not.

Well I have to agree with you there. I didn't mean to put it in such a "black and white" way, but I did.

Originally Posted by Rafe

I'm not sure where I stand on this - I myself find such things distasteful, but its not the same as tying up and taking a picture of a kid - this is cartoon imagery. Personal feelings aside, as long as no one is being harmed, its probably a useful outlet.

That's always been my view on life in general...so long as you don't hurt anyone else, knock yourself out.

Originally Posted by Wargamer

That simply is not true. The overwhelming majority of the so-called 'child porn art' available is going to be pure fantasy. At worst, it depicts a character from a kid's Anime show (be very careful what you type into a Search Engine...).

Reminds me of a thread I saw on Newgrounds. Someone posted a link to the emogame, and a screenshot of one of the boss battles...in the search bar at the top of the page he had typed "kim possible hentai". It was hilarious, I don't think he ever posted again...well, one time, trying to make it look like he did it on purpose. :P

Rule 34.

Anyway...

Originally Posted by Wargamer

Obviously, it's very hard to determine how much of the 'illegal' art is available, because by its nature it must be hard to find. However, the point still stands. Even if someone had a thousand pictures of someone raping the Powerpuff Girls, no real children are harmed in those pictures.

Yeah. Although that would be admittedly disturbing...I mean the Powerpuff Girls? They don't even look human!

Originally Posted by Wargamer

I am not saying photoshopped child abuse pictures don't exist, but I do not believe them to make up the majority, or even a large minority, of what is out there. After all, why risk prison time when you can draw fantasy and sell it on the streets of Tokyo legally?

Actually, I had no idea that photoshopped abuse pictures actually existed until this thread. Personally, I never thought anyone could get away with something like that in the first place, but I guess it worked or else they wouldn't be banning it.

Originally Posted by Wargamer

As for the idea of images "corrupting" people, I don't believe that myself either. I believe images can desensitise us, but not corrupt. I have had times when I really want to beat the Shtlk out of someone, and I have played videogames that depict violence for as long as I can remember. My father has had times when he really wants to beat the Shtlk out of someone, and he's never played anything but Gran Turismo 3. If anything, these external stimuli (images, games, films, etc) provide a release for our feelings, not create ones that weren't there.

Couldn't have said it better. Everyone feels like that, it's normal human behavior. Video games don't make you kill people...and I don't think anyone can say what it is exactly that makes someone do that, anyway. Something like that is just there, it's hard to explain...you can't blame the parents, you can't blame society, a person will do what a person does and that's just that. :-\

Originally Posted by Valar

But it could always bring the opposite effect, that is that the paedophile could consider his "perversion" a normal and good thing, since it can be found even in a top-shelf magazine.

Also a good point. In all honesty it should never be seen as "normal" or even acceptable, but in the case of cartoon imagery...it's a little tough to call. :-\

Originally Posted by Hive Lord

On an aside note - How can they tell how old the girl is from a drawn picture?
Surely it could just be claimed that it's just a young-looking eighteen year old?
OK, sure, some times it would be obvious, but it's not exactly going to be black-and-white all the time.

No, it's not. Most of the time it's called based on breast size alone on art sites like Deviant Art (and not all women are that "blessed", obviously...). That kind of thing happens all the time, art depicting nudity gets removed from someone's gallery because the drawn person, even though they are said to be 18+ and sure as hell look it, looks "too young" in their opinion. Sometimes I think it's something as small as being shaved. :

Deviant Art has its own host of problems though. You can take a black and white picture three inches away from a woman's vagina and get featured on the front page, but if you draw a line that looks like one your image gets removed and you get a warning or banned. :huh:

[Tau-killer]

Originally Posted by Wargamer

I don't agree with you there. That is, I don't agree with this;

That simply is not true. The overwhelming majority of the so-called 'child porn art' available is going to be pure fantasy. At worst, it depicts a character from a kid's Anime show (be very careful what you type into a Search Engine...). Obviously, it's very hard to determine how much of the 'illegal' art is available, because by its nature it must be hard to find. However, the point still stands. Even if someone had a thousand pictures of someone raping the Powerpuff Girls, no real children are harmed in those pictures.

On reflection, I'll freely admit that I do not have enough expertise in this area to judge how much stuff out there is pure fantasy and how much is taken from real life. As you said, 'it's very hard to determine...because by its nature it must be hard to find.' But, using the same reasoning, I don't see how you either can be so sure that the 'overwhelming majority' is fantasy.

Originally Posted by Wargamer

As for the idea of images "corrupting" people, I don't believe that myself either. I believe images can desensitise us, but not corrupt. I have had times when I really want to beat the Shtlk out of someone, and I have played videogames that depict violence for as long as I can remember. My father has had times when he really wants to beat the Shtlk out of someone, and he's never played anything but Gran Turismo 3. If anything, these external stimuli (images, games, films, etc) provide a release for our feelings, not create ones that weren't there.

I have no reason to doubt your word regarding you and your father's 'attitude to violence' (for lack of a better term.) However, this simply isn't a valid comparison. Tendency towards violent acts and sexual behaviour are two completely different things, caused by different stimuli. You cannot compare the two in this way and say how one works must be how the other works. People can get addicted to sexual images in such a way that they get emotionally involved in their fantasies. People can get addicted to violent computer games - but certainly nowhere near as easily, and not in the same way and rarely do they get emotionally involved in what they're doing.

[compubrains]

Originally Posted by Hive Lord

I agreed when I first read the article, but Wargamer does make some good points...

On an aside note - How can they tell how old the girl is from a drawn picture?
Surely it could just be claimed that it's just a young-looking eighteen year old?
OK, sure, some times it would be obvious, but it's not exactly going to be black-and-white all the time.

If you said it was a young looking 18 year old, the pedophiles wouldn't want to look at it. They have a kid fetish, not a young looking 18 year old fetish. Besides, you know how porn sometimes has a back story? (ie. Chick orders pizza, has sex with delivery guy) Maybe child porn has back stories too that reveal the kid isn't 18.

Your government is worried about cartoons? That seems silly. I could draw some right now. I'm not a very good artist, so I'd have to explain to you what it was, but the point still stands. It's just a bunch of marks on a sheet of paper. It's not real. Why not ban Furry porn because it encourages bestiality?

Originally Posted by Tau-killer

I have no reason to doubt your word regarding you and your father's 'attitude to violence' (for lack of a better term.) However, this simply isn't a valid comparison. Tendency towards violent acts and sexual behaviour are two completely different things, caused by different stimuli. You cannot compare the two in this way and say how one works must be how the other works. People can get addicted to sexual images in such a way that they get emotionally involved in their fantasies. People can get addicted to violent computer games - but certainly nowhere near as easily, and not in the same way and rarely do they get emotionally involved in what they're doing.

It's not that far off! They're both morally wrong behavior that one can be desensitized to by an outside source and driven to cause by hormones.