Support NeoGAF

[Supaidaman]

I'm all for the banning of junior idols and shit like this that sit on a gray area but manga are just drawings, there's no point in banning that kind of stuff.

Now, if they want to ban manga, they should start with guro, that is the true sick stuff.

 

[Chariot]

The answer to "are we banning torture too" is a resounding "yes". It's an utterly stupid comparison. Would you show torture to make something think it's ok? THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. It's not even comparable. It's an idiotic comparison through and through.

I think you still misunderstand me. I was making the point that fictional torture isn't banned and that it shouldn't be. Like murder, paedophilia and the likes. Just because it's illegal in real life doesn't mean it should be in fiction.

 

[BocoDragon]

Do none of you fucking know what "grooming" is? It's not media influences. It's a pedophile sitting down with your child and showing them the book and using it to enable child sexual assault. It's literally "hey kid look this kid's getting fucked let's fuck like them other kids do it".

This is enraging. Leaving the thread.

If you're enraged at this early point in what has been a very honest debate from my side, I hope you're drunk (in which case I can maybe forgive you), because this got wierd fast.

 

[Cizeta-Moroder]

This would have no legal basis whatsoever. First, thought crime isn't something envisioned in modern legal systems. Pedophilia isn't accepted because childs can't consent and consequentially they can't have sex or anything (with exceptions of both minors and whatever). There is no consent dilemma in cartoons. Banning it would be more alike at banning omosexuality, where adults do things in full consent and it's still banned because it goes against "morality". The gateway argument make no sense either; it made no sense for drugs, it made no sense for games that promote killings, and it make no sense here.

Second, you have no ways to define a child in stylized drawings. What define a child? Being short? I just give it long ears and call it an halfling. Pubes? Plenty of adults shave. Small tits? Plenty of women have no tits. Even if such a ban went in effect, the only thing that would change is that everything would be considered done by adults cosplaying. Sorta like "this work is fiction" and whatever.

There's way more ground to ban actual children models. That has proven disastrously effects on a lot of children's psiche, and i don't think a parent giving consent is a strong enough rebuttal, since we ban most dangerous things from childrens no matter the opinion of the parent. There's a reason that kind of thing is not done anywhere else in the world but japan afaik.

Good post.
As much as I'd like to see this debunked, this thread has mostly delivered emotional responses.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Don't put words in my argument.

And I was not discussing the banning of child pornography.

I was discussing the ban of drawings on paper.

No-one is proposing to ban drawings on paper, the proposition is to ban "extreme child manga porn". Are you suggesting that "extreme child manga porn" is not child pornography?

If you're giving up a personal freedom (free artistic thought), to obey the law, which in turn means obey the governing majority.

And you're enforcing this strict obedience with law, which means you're dictating from a position of power what is a good thought.

How does that not satisfy the acceptance of an authoritarian rule.

And according to the logic of the rest of your argument, basically any country with a law is authoritarian.

 

[Messofanego]

To children that not exists. Quite preferable to children that do exist.

It's still child porn, drawn or not. It's still a criminal offense. Pedophiles in rehab are trained to refrain from any kind of child porn and employ healthier therapies. In some countries (especially Germany), there are support networks that are not judgmental. Child porn is not an effective strategy for pedophiles to keep away from committing the actual offense.

 

[freenudemacusers]

As part of the grooming process, pedophiles have been known to start children on child pornography, to show them that other children do this and attempt to convince them it's okay. It's not an issue of winging a book at a kid from your pedo van, since that's not usually how child molestation occurs, instead think of your creepy uncle, showing you cartoons of kids having sex, and then suggesting you do likewise.

Like how MJ kept erotica and nude boy art in his bedroom.

 

[BocoDragon]

Grooming is a different argument than the passive influence of media on audiences, boco.

If lolicon was material designed to groom children, I'd be right with you.

Because it's fictional material that has been repurposed for something other than what it was created, banning that creates an precedent where all fiction repurposed for nefarious purposes should be banned.

 

[dity]

Fine, one more post to clear things up. Then I'm unsubbing.

I think you still misunderstand me. I was making the point that fictional torture isn't banned and that it shouldn't be. Like murder, paedophilia and the likes. Just because it's illegal in real life doesn't mean it should be in fiction.

The difference is that violence in media isn't being used to excuse any one action. Sure some guy might whine that they saw it in a film and then did something, but this is an entirely different situation.

If you're enraged at this early point in what has been a very honest debate from my side, I hope you're drunk (in which case I can maybe forgive you), because this got wierd fast.

I'm enraged because I was groomed by my step-father and another babysitter. It's very unpleasant to think about and for someone to sit there and say it's basically the same as passive media influence and isn't an adult literally sitting down with you and intentionally calming you down in a scary situation or intentionally making a child curious with porn, explicit materials, and other methods. It's a method of persuasion to con a kid into doing something sexual with them.

 

[jabuseika]

-

 

[BocoDragon]

I'm enraged because I was groomed by my step-father and another babysitter. It's very unpleasant to think about and for someone to sit there and say it's basically the same as passive media influence and isn't an adult literally sitting down with you and intentionally calming you down in a scary situation or intentionally making a child curious with porn, explicit materials, and other methods. It's a method of persuasion to con a kid into doing something sexual with them.

I appreciate that you clarified that. That's more than enough for me to understand why you feel so passionately.

 

[Messofanego]

In your example, if all drawings were banned, completely all.
What is stopping the individuals in your argument from making their own?

If all child porn drawings are banned, there isn't anything stopping the pedophile from drawing their own art but distributing it would mean lots of stops. Even raiding on and closing down places on the internet that display it. Or knowing that they've viewed such illegal images.

 

[jabuseika]

-

 

[BocoDragon]

If all child porn drawings are banned, there isn't anything stopping the pedophile from drawing their own art but distributing it would mean lots of stops. Even raiding on and closing down places on the internet that display it. Or knowing that they've viewed such illegal images.

It is powerfully odd that I could take a pencil to paper and make something illegal.

 

[GeordieMark]

It is powerfully odd that I could take a pencil to paper and make something illegal.

There are quite a few illegal things you can do with a pencil and paper

 

[BocoDragon]

There are quite a few illegal things you can do with a pencil and paper

Yeah fair enough. Just write "hand over all your money and you won't get hurt" and give it to the bank.

 

[Deleted member 125677]

Wow, that is a loaded question.

I don't agree with drawings/art being criminal.

It may be a loaded question, but it is after all the question being discussed in this thread, cf. thread title and all.

We are not, however, discussing whether drawings and art in general are or should be criminal.

 

[Sölf]

No-one is proposing to ban drawings on paper, the proposition is to ban "extreme child manga porn". Are you suggesting that "extreme child manga porn" is not child pornography?

The question would be, what exactly qualifies as such?

 

[Kangi]

It is powerfully odd that I could take a pencil to paper and make something illegal.

"Is that stick figure with an oversized penis attached to it over 18? No? Stop right there, criminal scum."

There are quite a few illegal things you can do with a pencil and paper

Stabbed with a pencil. Death by spitwad. Truly the most grievous of crimes.

 

[Messofanego]

Besada's post at the top of this page is a good read. It's still damaging, even if no actual children are harmed. Can still be used to "seduce or coerce children into sexual activity" (page 18).

“t makes no difference to the children coerced by such materials, or to the adult who employs them to lure children into sexual activity, whether the subjects depicted are actual children or computer simulations of children.”

Virtual child porn is not a deterrant to actual child porn, because a child molester would still want to abuse another person because they like it. Sexual gratification is derived from the pain inflicted on real children, and the recording of it, as the report says. The power relationship can't be replaced by virtual. Page 25:

“[M]any experts on child molesters explain that these individuals derive sexual gratification from the pain inflicted on actual children, and the recording of it.
These producers of child pornography would not be interested in virtual pornography.”
Child pornographers do not abuse children for the primary goal of making child pornography. Instead, abusing children is an activity that child molesters like to take part in. Recording that abuse is something else that they like to do. Being given an alternative means of creating child pornography would not make a child molester stop abusing children."

 

[Firemind]

Ban South Park yaoi.

 

[daniels]

Besada's post at the top of this page is a good read. It's still damaging, even if no actual children are harmed. Can still be used to "seduce or coerce children into sexual activity" (page 18).

You can teach/seduce children to do pretty much everything from "stealing is good" up to "killing people is good" simply with media/music/games/films/books/religion/ and a older person telling its the correct/fun/right/just thing to do... soo yeah better start banning everything because this is not some kind of unique feature of creepy drawings.. not even close..

 

[dan2026]

One of the early volumes of Berserk shows a young Guts being raped by a man.

Should this be banned too?

 

[stump sock]

You can teach/seduce children to do pretty much everything from "stealing is good" up to "killing people is good" simply with media/music/games/films/books/religion/ and a older person telling its the correct/fun/right/just thing to do... soo yeah better start banning everything because this is not some kind of unique feature of creepy drawings.. not even close..

So because you can't stop all of these things, you'd rather stop none of them.

 

[Cizeta-Moroder]

So because you can't stop all of these things, you'd rather stop none of them.

I'd try to stop them all, but I'd start from violent video games.

 

[Jimrpg]

Just cartoons? What about the real life stuff like underage guavre models that stuff is just wrong.

 

[daniels]

So because you can't stop all of these things, you'd rather stop none of them.

This was a example to show why its a stupid idea in the first place...

 

[Messofanego]

You can teach/seduce children to do pretty much everything from "stealing is good" up to "killing people is good" simply with media/music/games/films/books/religion/ and a older person telling its the correct/fun/right/just thing to do... soo yeah better start banning everything because this is not some kind of unique feature of creepy drawings.. not even close..

Except the child porn has no purpose than to be pornography. We're talking about material that has no literary, political, artistic merit. It's literally just porn. We're not talking American Beauty, Lolita, etc. Context matters, obviously.

 

[Zaptruder]

Besada's post at the top of this page is a good read. It's still damaging, even if no actual children are harmed. Can still be used to "seduce or coerce children into sexual activity" (page 18).

“t makes no difference to the children coerced by such materials, or to the adult who employs them to lure children into sexual activity, whether the subjects depicted are actual children or computer simulations of children.”

Virtual child porn is not a deterrant to actual child porn, because a child molester would still want to abuse another person because they like it. Sexual gratification is derived from the pain inflicted on real children, and the recording of it, as the report says. The power relationship can't be replaced by virtual. Page 25:

“[M]any experts on child molesters explain that these individuals derive sexual gratification from the pain inflicted on actual children, and the recording of it.
These producers of child pornography would not be interested in virtual pornography.”
Child pornographers do not abuse children for the primary goal of making child pornography. Instead, abusing children is an activity that child molesters like to take part in. Recording that abuse is something else that they like to do. Being given an alternative means of creating child pornography would not make a child molester stop abusing children."

They put poison into halloween candies to kill children.

Spoiler

No they don't.

Reading through that paper... very similar arguments thrown up here, and similarly, doesn't care too much about what consequences are provable from the creation and dissemination of virtual pornography (to use their term), only that some potential plausibly (plausible in the context that we lack concrete knowledge) exists to cause harm.

It's very problematic because once you start subbing virtual child pornography for some other issue that is also unpopular in the broader cultural zeitgeist, we have the mechanism by which rights are eroded, free speech defeated, and thoughts made into crime.

It's no easy task to defend the unnecessary and undesirable slip of freedoms. But these areas of moral discomfort are naturally where those battles will occur. Let's not reduce the requirements for hate speech from something that causes direct harm to something that plausibly (in a state of ignorance) and indirectly causes some harm - because that second condition is far too broad and far too nebulous, and would allow for an unchecked expansion of powers.

 

[Chariot]

Do we have comparable numbers of paedophilia in Japan and other countries? That could maybe shed a bit more light.

It's still child porn, drawn or not. It's still a criminal offense. Pedophiles in rehab are trained to refrain from any kind of child porn and employ healthier therapies. In some countries (especially Germany), there are support networks that are not judgmental. Child porn is not an effective strategy for pedophiles to keep away from committing the actual offense.

Fair point, really fair point.

So because you can't stop all of these things, you'd rather stop none of them.

Lolicon material isn't inherently dangerous. I see that it gets misapropriated which is very bad, but would a ban really change the grooming situation?

Except the child porn has no purpose than to be pornography. We're talking about material that has no literary, political, artistic merit. It's literally just porn. We're not talking American Beauty, Lolita, etc. Context matters, obviously.

Porn in general can be artistic or for entertainment more than pleasuring one self. Lottsa funny hentai doujinshis around, some even with serious and engaging plots. It's mainly western porn that is lifeless and with barely more than a setting, so I see where you personally are coming from.

 

[Seductivpancakes]

One of the early volumes of Berserk shows a young Guts being raped by a man.

Should this be banned too?

Good question. I'd argue that it was part of the story to build him as a character. It wasn't graphic or anything.

At the same time, this material that is called to be banned, any artist can just shift the story around to be "legit" story telling to avoid the ban.

Really the UN being the UN hasn't clarified what "extreme" means, making this discussion a bit more difficult.

Except the child porn has no purpose than to be pornography. We're talking about material that has no literary, political, artistic merit. It's literally just porn. We're not talking American Beauty, Lolita, etc. Context matters, obviously.

I agree but the problem with that is any artist can make alterations in the story and claim its more than just pornography. It isn't that hard really since we're talking about a material that is produced with a pencil, paper and the human mind.

 

[mrklaw]

clothed, "suggestive" images. stuff like swimsuit books and whatnot weren't included in the recent legislation as they're not explicitly nude or engaging in sexual activity.

things like "this is creepy" and "the only people buying this are pedos" aren't enough for them to take action. letter of the law, not the spirit.

Putting Japan to one side for a moment, this whole area is tricky to enforce. In the uk we had the obscene publications act for adult porn which didn't define exactly what was acceptable or not - it just said something like 'obscene images are not allowed'. So it would be up to some old judge in a wig to decide if image A was obscene or not. Which is a bit crazy.

Moving onto this specifically area. You could have an innocent photo of your kids in the bath when they're toddlers. Technically nude but not sexually explicit or titillating. Likewise you can have an image of a child not nude (eg bikini/swimsuit) which technically would be nothing different from what you'd see at the beach - except they'd likely be in suggestive poses which could be considered sexual depending on your perspective.

Basically I don't see any way you can specifically legislate against it without leaving too much up to the subjective view of a judge which is open to abuse in both directions (innocent being found guilty as well as the guilty getting off)




As for generated images - I.e. Created from nothing rather than photos of real people - where do you draw the line? Stick figure with a penis? Neatly drawn line art? Watercolour painting? Photorealistic 3D render?

 

[encephalon]

"Why drawn porn? It doesn't include real children?"

My current worry with Japan is that certain circles of nerd culture are likely inundated with the stuff. It's ubiquitous to that point that pedophiles in Japan are probably likely to feel their desires are legitimate. If the content isn't treated as if it's in any way taboo, then it's just porn. It's "normal."

You would probably have more positive reaction to admitting to being a "lolicon" than being gay. Or at least that's the general impression I get.

If you don't want to ban it, then fine. But severely restrict it. Banning monetization is a good idea.

 

[Sölf]

Except the child porn has no purpose than to be pornography. We're talking about material that has no literary, political, artistic merit. It's literally just porn. We're not talking American Beauty, Lolita, etc. Context matters, obviously.

So if all hentai that would fall into this category suddenly gets a "good" story and sells this those sexscenes as character development, would it suddenly be okay? Because if not, even normal work could get banned.

 

[dan2026]

Good question. I'd argue that it was part of the story to build him as a character. It wasn't graphic or anything.

At the same time, this material that is called to be banned, any artist can just shift the story around to be "legit" story telling to avoid the ban.

Really the UN being the UN hasn't clarified what "extreme" means, making this discussion a bit more difficult.

This whole discussion is silly because as always it will fall down to 'keep the stuff I like, ban the stuff I don't'

 

[daniels]

Except the child porn has no purpose than to be pornography. We're talking about material that has no literary, political, artistic merit. It's literally just porn. We're not talking American Beauty, Lolita, etc. Context matters, obviously.

First of all media doesnt need to have any merit whatsoever many movies and shows prove that everyday... but even if i go along with this idea ... which i don't..
What happens if someone now creates a Lolita manga?
What happens with animes like now and then here and ther, berserk and many others?

Spoiler

I tell you what should happen .. nothing because these are just creepy drawings the definition of vicimless crimes no one got hurt just like shooting up people in a game or puke inducing torture porn movies. Its a thought "crime"

 

[mrklaw]

I thought we were against child porn because children were actually harmed.

If no one is harmed, then you're just against the depiction of an illegal act?

But what about all the murder in fiction? Seems like we should ban slasher flicks in the same breath.

I do find it odd that this particular depiction of an illegal act is singled out, when other depictions of illegal acts are entirely fine - part of your daily entertainment on TV to see people murdered or raped.

 

[bishopcruz]

It should be banned IMO. There really is no good reason for it to exist other than "freedom of expression" which is a poor excuse. That said, it shouldn't be punishable in the same way that actual child porn is. It should be more like a fine or maybe a mandatory class of some sort for first offense.

I'm still amazed that anyone can consider freedom of expression a poor excuse. It's not like it isn't a fundamental right or anything.

It is bizarre in a world with so many real issues of free speech being forced out, pretty much the only time Free Spechers are willing to dedicate time to a thread is when it involves child porn or bigots being paid money to insult minorities.

Probably because those are the times that free speech is most under attack. No one cares elsewise. It becomes an actual matter of debate though when the speech itself is horrible, which extreme loli is, but that's kinda the point. Speech shouldn't stop being protected because it makes people uncomfortable.

I don't know if you mean lolicon or gravure idols, but for the latter it's probably that Japan has weirdly specific laws that make it far too easy to get around them. This is where the weird parts of hentai spawned from in the first place by the way. Japan made a law against pornography and for some reason specifically banned genitals, pubic hair and adults. Thus crafty people started to draw tentacles, robots, aliens, monsters, children and leaving the pubic areas white. It's a quite fascinating backfire.

That is the ironic part of this whole affair, due to draconian censorship of obscenity, a whole lot of the weird fetish anime and manga became a thing. Then again, some of it is just cultural, the recent changes in the law have made things weirder, but loli has been around since at least the 1980s.

So because you can't stop all of these things, you'd rather stop none of them.

No, that's not the point. The point is that depictions in and of themselves harm no one. It is at most, what is done with them in rare (but not rare enough) instances, that causes the harm. Showing pornography to a child is illegal, and it should be. Child abusers have also often used regular porn to groom victims as well, should THAT be banned?

 

[dan2026]

This whole argument is absurd to me.
If we are talking about banning lolicon just because it is illegal in real life, then what about are the other illegal acts shown in manga?

Murder, torture, kidnapping, theft, etc, etc.

Murder is considered the ultimate crime and yet we aren't calling for banning its depictions?
Its a case of either everything is ok, or nothing is.

 

[dimb]

Here's an interesting paper, that has links to a fair amount of the research, concerning the same issue when it was dealt with in the U.S., while Ashcroft was running Justice:
http://scholarship.shu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=student_scholarship

I realize that this is just a paper for an undergraduate program but the logic here is actually remarkably flimsy even at a basic level. Correlation does not imply causation, though the numbers and studies pulled are not particularly valuable either way when they're mixed with those possessing or producing illicit material with real children. More than that, the idea of "indirect harm" that the paper bases itself upon entirely is not particularly indirect in any way. Materials being abused for illegal purposes is the problem here. There is a clear perpetrator actively creating a situation of abuse by showing pornography to children, but this doesn't condemn or hold responsible the material itself. Does banning types of drawn pornography really create significant roadblocks in stopping child molestation and abuse? It seems like a pretty ridiculous thought.

We're talking about material that has no literary, political, artistic merit. It's literally just porn. We're not talking American Beauty, Lolita, etc. Context matters, obviously.

Pornography is shown at major film festivals, and is in fact a creative work.

 

[Always-honest]

finally. shit is weird.

Indeed.

 

[Alex_Mexico]

I'm okay with this.

Now how about the UN suggesting Japan to uncensor their porn already? For fuck's sake we're in 2015! They already suggested one thing, they should suggest a second one!

 

[freenudemacusers]

Has anyone asked the lolis how they feel about it? Maybe they enjoy the work.

 

[Busty]

I'm okay with this.

Now how about the UN suggesting Japan to uncensor their porn already? For fuck's sake we're in 2015! They already suggested one thing, they should suggest a second one!

I thought people watched Japanese porn for the weird, reluctant, hamster like squeals the girls make, not the penetration?

Spoiler

..., and Hitomi Tanaka's massive bewbs, obviously.

 

[Aaronology]

This whole argument is absurd to me.
If we are talking about banning lolicon just because it is illegal in real life, then what about are the other illegal acts shown in manga?

Murder, torture, kidnapping, theft, etc, etc.

Murder is considered the ultimate crime and yet we aren't calling for banning its depictions?
Its a case of either everything is ok, or nothing is.

Same. It's particularly baffling that this discussion is happening on a forum dedicated to a hobby where extreme graphic depictions of murder (and worse) are common, a hobby that is still being demonized and used as a scapegoat in the media as a cause of violence among young adults. If the topic was whether violent video games should be banned because murder is a criminal act and research has shown they encourage aggression in those who play them, the responses would be completely different.

I'm not ruling out that manga porn is different, but I don't personally understand how. "That's creepy!~ Ban it!" aren't arguments that appeal to me.

 

[radios shipping overview]

I'm okay with this.

Now how about the UN suggesting Japan to uncensor their porn already? For fuck's sake we're in 2015! They already suggested one thing, they should suggest a second one!

So you're not okay with awful, creepy shit done to illustrations in manga, but you're okay with the awful, creepy shit done all the time to grown women in Japanese porn?

 

[Arkeband]

So you're not okay with awful, creepy shit done to illustrations in manga, but you're okay with the awful, creepy shit done all the time to grown women in Japanese porn?

I wouldn't just limit it to Japan, straight up brutality in porn seems to be on the rise in western markets.

 

[EvilKatarn]

Anime/Manga GAF incoming?

You people ever stop and think it's maybe not okay to call out two big communities as being pedophiles? It's not okay and it's incredibly offensive.

 

[mrklaw]

I thought people watched Japanese porn for the weird, reluctant, hamster like squeals the girls make, not the penetration?

Spoiler

..., and Hitomi Tanaka's massive bewbs, obviously.

Who has the sound on anyway? The squealing is annoying but the rest more than makes up for it. A bit less jackhammer than US porn.

 

[Blastoise]

"How many times do I need to tell you.... They are demons OK! They are actually 12,000 years old!"