If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Cartoon child porn to be outlawed
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Since this is pretty much at the very extreme of media censorship in general, I thought it would be a good starting point to a debate. Is there any justification for a ban on cartoons that appear to depict children engaged in sexual acts?
Article. Sorry, I couldn't find a story from a regular news site, but you can imagine the results you get when you type in "cartoon porn banned" into Google. But I do tend to agree with the sentiments of the article.
Now obviously, we all know that the reason that child porn is illegal is because a child is abused in the making of it. When that reason disappears, is their any justification for a ban?
Incidentally, this ban would include a lot of Japanese adult comic books.
Article. Sorry, I couldn't find a story from a regular news site, but you can imagine the results you get when you type in "cartoon porn banned" into Google. But I do tend to agree with the sentiments of the article.
Now obviously, we all know that the reason that child porn is illegal is because a child is abused in the making of it. When that reason disappears, is their any justification for a ban?
Incidentally, this ban would include a lot of Japanese adult comic books.
0
Comments
In part surely child porn is also banned because it being legally would also seem to legitimise paedophilia - which even cartoon child porn would do.
Some would suggest that it is possible that watching child porn could essentially reinforce abusive thoughts or behaviour on the part of the viewer.
I would imagine you'll find that at the core of any such law. Btw the law isn't necessarily about child porn cartoons - that was banned previously and I'm unsure why they need this law to target it - all representations of children having sex, real or not, are banned anyway.
And, no, this law won't mean the banning of comic books - the police in Kent are arguing for that change in the law, but it isn't included as part fo these legal changes.
I realise from previous debates that you don't believe that something someone watches can have an affect upon the viewer - but that isn't an automatically held view. If people do believe that what is watched can reinforce negative behaviour then banned child porn, cartoon or not, wouldn't seem like a bad idea.
Nah - that would be the 1994 Criminal Justice Act - the changes here are about mainstream, readily available pornongraphy, not about anything that has involved the abuse of an actual child.
From what I have read the evidence isnt clear, but it does seem that in some cases the watching of child porn has normalised the behavior, which is why it seems quite common for images to be swapped - to further normalise their actions.
The big problem is how to word the law, and what classifies as a child and what doesnt. Who decides the girl in the image is 15 or 16?
The trouble with drawn pornography is you can only take the artists word for it, if you start getting outside people to judge... it opens all sorts of chaos. So all the paedophiles have there way.
what about if someone had a condition that meant they may be 18+say but look 10?
hypothetical mind you
Yea I think that's a bit confusing. There was a controversy over one porn company because they pretended (quite badly porn role play..) that the girl was only a teenager. There are probably a lot of porn films shot with girls who are 18 but look younger.
But I think that is the blurry / jailbait line where if they're sexually mature but are 17 say, by law it's wrong but that doesn't stop them being attractive. When you get younger than that it is definitely an issue because you can't say looking at a pre pubescent boy or girl and enjoying it is a normal reaction. Even if it's just a comic.
I didn't read the links though, so that's just my 2p based on the thread title
I'm aware that that's often the argument put forth, but I certainly don't think that that is the motivation for the banning of it. I think that you often see this pseudo-rational argument put forward to support an argument which is essentially about banning something that someone finds morally unacceptable. So you get people coming up with what seems to be a rational argument against gay people being allowed to adopt, when in reality, we all know that the motivation because it's against their religion, for example (not saying that there aren't rational arguments for their position, just that more often than not, that's not the reason for their position, just a way of justifying it to the wider world).
And there's a very easy way to tell. I suspect that the majority of people who hear this news say "good." And I suspect that they'll support all of the arguments about these pictures of videos encouraging paedophilia (as if it's something that can be "encouraged" any more than homosexuality), on absolutely zero evidence. And they'll do this right up until the point that you turn the argument onto something that they don't find morally unacceptable, like simulated murder in films (an act not limited to adult's films). Indeed, I suspect that no-one would admit that their attitudes towards murder have changed as a result of watching a film. Indeed, I suspect many would say that a video representation of a violent murder has actually made them realise how distasteful they find it. But by their own logic, we should even be banning cartoon respresentations of murder, because our own judicial system clearly defines murder as a far worse crime than anything else.
Now there are people who put their money where their mouth is on this issue, and believe that all of these sorts of things should be banned. They still have to come up with the proof, but at least they're consistant. The rest of the people who say "good" are merely people who are happy to see something banned purely because they find it distasteful.
The issue isn't cartoon porn, the issue is what your position is on censorship in general. If that position (as mine does) leads to you being able to come up with no case for banning something like this, then you have to be intellectually honest, and accept that. If you accept that you need proof of harm before you ban things, then that is the only rational conclusion. If you take a "better to be safe than sorry" approach, then you create a whole new set of problems for yourself, not least what objective measure do you use for deciding what should be allowed and what shouldn't? Why is graphic murder allowed, but cartoon child abuse not? And I think there is no reasonable defence of that position, so it comes down to a "things that I don't approve of" list.
Not really, since I doubt the average bloke fantasizes about primary school kids.
There is a blurry line in some senses though. I'm not talking necessarily about porn here though, more about children + sex in general. Kind of touched on it in my above post, it's not uncommon for girls to make themselves look 'sexy' at a young age. I mean you can even buy thongs for 9 year olds I read in a tabloid several years ago (so take that with a pinch of salt).
I don't know exactly where the line should be drawn, I agree with IWS that part of the reason may be people finding it morally wrong. I mean it's weird to think I'm 20 now, an adult proper, but I think I stopped changing my attitudes and feelings at around 15 / 16, with regard to things like sex. Yet now I could happily pose on youtube fully naked without a care in the world (except terms of use violations) but at 15...? There would be a scandal.
So when someone finds someone in a school uniform attractive, maybe it's because they are attracted to the idea of a newly sexually mature 17 or 18 year old still 'innocent' and 'naive'. This again mirrors less sexual attraction for girls who are see as 'damaged goods'.
I think the whole way we perceive sex is back to front and the easy answer seems to be slap some big ban sticker on it, when the issues probably are deeper than that. If someone finds pre-pubescent girls or boys attractive that is probably because they are mentally sick in some way, I'm no psychiatrist. If someone finds a sexually mature 16 year old sexually attractive... it's seen as taboo especially if you're older but it's probably a normal reaction. So where is the line drawn? Personally I am inclined to make it where the 'natural' attraction should be, and then plus some (to protect those who are less mature for their age at say 16). But it needs to be shades of grey, and with the way the tabloids work in this country I'm not sure that's the case.
Of course I agree completely though that any depictions whether artistic or whatever of pre pubescent children being abused should be banned... but then again, what about irony etc.? Has no-one seen Disney porn in all it's forms of weird? I don't think it's tasteful but offensive or encouraging abuse I don't think I'd agree.
I read once that japanese sexual attraction tends to be centred around sexual naivity and western around sexual maturity. I have no idea if thats true and have no source though, god knows where I read it. I think they used the example of vending machines in Japan where you can physically buy used schoolgirls pants. :eek2: I would argue that's much more of an issue than comics (except the kind whowhere is talking about). I mean there really is a lot of weird weird stuff out there that I have no understanding how people enjoy it, mainly in japanese manga style.
I don't think that's a justification for exploiting abuse but it's worth bearing in mind that whilst Japan does probably produce the most cartoons featuring abuse of schoolgirls it also produces the most featuring knitting, chess competitions, etc, so it may look disproportanate compared to western cartoon production but may only be a small part of the japanese market.
I wouldn't say that. I would say that it's natural for any man to find a sexually mature girl attractive. And a good deal of those spend a lot of their time in a school uniform. That's not paedophilia, because paedophilia refers to an attraction to children who aren't sexually mature. I think you're confusing genuine paedophilia with the label that the tabloids give to someone who has sex with a 15 year old girl. As a side note, I think that in the same way that women are frequently attracted to men in uniforms that suggest power and dominance, men are attracted to women in uniforms that suggest innocence and youth (and in the case of other uniforms like nurses, air hostesses or french maids, nurturing and caring). We're naturally attracted to certain attributes in a person of the opposite sex, and so it's not surprising that visual indicator of that like uniforms has a sort of fetish built up around it.
Incidentally, I think that one of the reasons a hell of a lot of men get really angry about this sort of thing is because almost exclusively they have the very feelings that the press and certain members of society claim makes them a paedophile. There's not a straight man in the world that doesn't find some girls attractive before they reach their 16th birthday, and so I think it's kind of a self-hatred thing that you see in some homosexual people in societies where it's not deemed acceptable. They're always the first people to see the sexual side of a competely non-sexual picture of a teenager or child who happens to be naked, for example. They effectively convict themselves of thought crimes.
But this is getting kinda off topic now, because my intent on this thread wasn't to discuss the actual content of the pictures involved, merely ascertain what people think we should use to judge whether or not to censor something. The content of the pictures are inconsequential. And if the rational conclusion of the argument you've made for censorship in general is that these pictures (or any other pictures you might find distasteful) are allowed, then that's just tough. I don't think you can change the goalposts to suit yourself, and I think that's a dangerous precident to set with regard to censorship in general.
I don't think it should be done on taste, but damage to society as Jim kinda said.
Presumably since nobody has demonstrated any evidence of damage to society, at least in comparison to substances that are banned or even completely legal, (alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc), you don't believe their should be any restrictions on it? Except the usual adult certificate, and all of the restrictions that come with that, of course? Incidentally, I think taste and moral objections should be a reason for allowing parents to censor what their children see, which is why I support age limits. I just don't think it's a reason for adults to censor what other adults can see.
I guess there are two major elements to the arguement - would watching pornography involving the abuse of real children encourage or reinforce pedophilia? Then the question would become, is it watching a children in reality being abused that could cause this or could a representation of this abuse, such as in a cartoon, have the same effect?
There would seem to be evidence that the use of child pornography where a child is abused can form part of a ritualised behaviour leading to active abuse. If that is the case then could virtual child porn have the same effect?
The second life issues mentioned here also bring up even more questions - this isn't passive entertainment but active rolepplaying of the abuse of children.
Anyway, a few of the links from google that touch on the issue of child pornography and links to pedophilia
http://www.camh.net/Research/Research_publications/Newsletter/child_pornography_pedophilia.html
http://www.vachss.com/av_dispatches/disp_9404_a.html
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3159871
http://www.123helpme.com/view.asp?id=80976