I don't live in Mexico anymore so I can't speak about the current situation but back in 1997 or so, they didn't censor the nipples on Dragonball and Ranman 1/2.
The two specific scenes that I remember was when that shapeshifting pig changed into Bulma then showed his boobs to Roshi.
In Ranma they showed a bunch of boobs but the one I remember the most was one time when Ranma was on top of a mountain and someone removed his shirt because he didn't believe he was a girl.
THESE BOOBS ARE ENGRAVED IN MY MIND FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE
When I used the site MyAnimeList I encountered a lot of people who refused to acknowledge "lolicon" as a substitute for real child pornography. They were convinced that the depictions do not represent what children look like, thus they didn't share any similarities with pedophiles. If that's the case and lolicon fans and pedophiles share no similarity, they won't reach for real child porn and actual molestation right?
Or are those people just full of shit and lying to themselves? I honestly don't know these days.
Good. It's not that I think it's as bad as something real, obviously... but it's in such poor taste and seems to be so excessive, I would find it hard for the UN to not feel compelled to tell Japan to do something about it, since they previously took an official position with the G7.
When I used the site MyAnimeList I encountered a lot of people who refused to acknowledge "lolicon" as a substitute for real child pornography. They were convinced that the depictions do not represent what children look like, thus they didn't share any similarities with pedophiles. If that's the case and lolicon fans and pedophiles share no similarity, they won't reach for real child porn and actual molestation right?
Or are those people just full of shit and lying to themselves? I honestly don't know these days.
obviously have no evidence, but i would bet with confidence that none of them would actually go out and harm a child because of the drawings they looked at.
theyre not criminals, gad damn. the most criminal thing they did was go on MAL forums heyo.
You can basically do everything EXCEPT this. I know, that's tantalizing, but come now. Use some of those higher brain functions humans are famous for and execute some restraint.
When I used the site MyAnimeList I encountered a lot of people who refused to acknowledge "lolicon" as a substitute for real child pornography. They were convinced that the depictions do not represent what children look like, thus they didn't share any similarities with pedophiles. If that's the case and lolicon fans and pedophiles share no similarity, they won't reach for real child porn and actual molestation right?
Or are those people just full of shit and lying to themselves? I honestly don't know these days.
But they probably believed what they said, it's not exactly an intuitive matter and if you're not keen to think things through you miss a lot of what pornography entails, especially in the idealization of subjects.
Neither of those are meant to be sexually stimulating. A better example would be banning live action pornography where the actresses are deliberately trying to appear like young girls.
good point. I'd imagine it'd be rather difficult to come up with an all-encompassing definition to determinate if a drawing was produced with pornographic intent in mind that isn't highly subjective. The other thing is, I'm not really sure if I agree that someone deserves to be punished for a fantasy no matter how abhorrent it might be to most of us
The attitudes expressed in this thread are ridiculous. If anyone of any sort objects to this banning, they are basically labeled a pedophile or someone obsessed with anime. I figured NeoGAF would be good for these types of conversations but I guess I was wrong.
I don't live in Mexico anymore so I can't speak about the current situation but back in 1997 or so, they didn't censor the nipples on Dragonball and Ranman 1/2.
The two specific scenes that I remember was when that shapeshifting pig changed into Bulma then showed his boobs to Roshi.
In Ranma they showed a bunch of boobs but the one I remember the most was one time when Ranma was on top of a mountain and someone removed his shirt because he didn't believe he was a girl.
THESE BOOBS ARE ENGRAVED IN MY MIND FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE
I rewatched Ranma a few years ago (and in my childhood) and the episodes I had would change to Japanese audio when boobs were on scene and then back to Mexican dub when there was none of that so it definitely was censored and I don't remember that scene you're talking about, maybe you filled in the boobs with you imagination *wink*.
Fake Edit: Did some research. Dude you were lucky to watch it in the 1997 when it was fully uncensored before parents started to riot against Ranma because it "made" kids gay and for the nudity. I envy you.
When I used the site MyAnimeList I encountered a lot of people who refused to acknowledge "lolicon" as a substitute for real child pornography. They were convinced that the depictions do not represent what children look like, thus they didn't share any similarities with pedophiles. If that's the case and lolicon fans and pedophiles share no similarity, they won't reach for real child porn and actual molestation right?
I'm not a fan of this stuff, so I don't think I can intuitively explain it, I have seen posts and met people in real life who like this stuff but I think there is enough to differentiate between a human and a drawing, that it might be part schediaphilia or toonophilia, which is the attraction to animated characters. There's a lot of characteristics anime has taken from the likes of Walt Disney, such as the big eyes, and body proportions of its cute characters that they don't really look human at all. There's also the concept of Moe, which honestly when I first thought that it was just meant to be cute things, I always get corrected by someone that it means more than that. Something about giving a feeling affection or care for a character because of it's design attracts and makes them feel affectionate toward it. I guess someone told me it was something like a big brother wanting to protect a little sister, though I don't have any sisters so I really don't know what that is. But yea, you can probably read articles on this stuff, I'm not a fan so I got no intuitive reason to like it, sort of like how I don't like MLP but there are a bunch of fans for it.
The problem is the real world application of such a ban. Who determines what extreme is extreme and what is not. Everyone is different. It would be a fucking nightmare.
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.
These things confuse me.
Who is being protected by criminalising fictional stuff? The fictional characters themselves?
In the countries where 'child manga porn' has been made illegal, there hasn't been any change as far as I am aware in regards to crimes against kids, so again I'm not sure who these laws are supposed to protect.
I don't think thought crimes should be a thing.
In regards to real children, like junior idols, I can understand the argument.
I agree with this too, because if killing someone is illegal too, then can't art of killing (video games...comics...you name it) be banned under the same rationale?
Banning loli or even the base implication of a loli type character is a pretty huge rabbit hole for Japan. your basically throwing out a huge portion of the market and what people even draw. Never good.
Drawings in general don't hurt people.
It would then be even worse because then you'd want to ban every other type of 'offensive' artistic media that happens to be against some person or the other's tastes.
As long as it doesn't hurt a real person, people should be able to draw what they want.
These things confuse me.
Who is being protected by criminalising fictional stuff? The fictional characters themselves?
In the countries where 'child manga porn' has been made illegal, there hasn't been any change as far as I am aware in regards to crimes against kids, so again I'm not sure who these laws are supposed to protect.
I don't think thought crimes should be a thing.
In regards to real children, like junior idols, I can understand the argument.
I agree with this too, because if killing someone is illegal too, then can't art of killing (video games...comics...you name it) be banned under the same rationale?
obviously have no evidence, but i would bet with confidence that none of them would actually go out and harm a child because of the drawings they looked at.
theyre not criminals, gad damn. the most criminal thing they did was go on MAL forums heyo.
But they probably believed what they said, it's not exactly an intuitive matter and if you're not keen to think things through you miss a lot of what pornography entails, especially in the idealization of subjects.
Then I guess what I miss is why people use it as an excuse that if it's not easy to access, pedophiles will resort to real CP and molestation. But if lolicons aren't pedophiles (as much as I think they're disgusting), it's not really leading to some slippery slope since they wouldn't go for more extremes?
This topic makes me ansy because even though it's not illegal the people I've met who are really gung-ho into it are scumbags for other reasons.
On a side note, I am curious about why this is much more of a thing over there than it is elsewhere. I'm reminded of the last pedophilia thread a month or so ago, and I'm curious as to how a place like Japan could factor in the biological or psychological aspect
I never read the book but isn't it because it had instructions about explosive making and drug creation? I understand you can probably google things like this somehow and probably find it using TOR these days, but since the book was within the 1970s, information of this sort was much easier to control before the creation of the internet. Unless I'm mistaking the 70s for the 60s, wasn't this the era where the anarchy thing got going? I don't really follow it so I don't know the details.
Who is being harmed by drawn child porn? There are no real children involved. There is no victim. Criminalising things for no logical reason other than "I feel it is wrong" doesn't make sense to me.
Many book stores refuse to shelf the book and it's banned in most book shops. That said, I read somewhere that it technically isn't illegal to have in your possession, just like it's not "technically" illegal to look up web pages on how to make bombs and weapons. (NSA is be taking a good look at you though)
Who is being harmed by drawn child porn? There are no real children involved. There is no victim. Criminalising things for no logical reason other than "I feel it is wrong" doesn't make sense to me.
I'd bring up re-victimisation and the trivialisation of the real CSA issue by fans of the content who throw it any which way and are surprised when victims are upset by the content portrayed, but that's likely a discussion for another thread.
Victims of childhood rape tend to see no value in depicting children in sexual acts, no matter the medium, because some idiots want to view us as objective but-my-free-speech "collateral damage" bullet points instead of people with emotions and experiences. There is zero, none, nada, zilch, complete absence of any benefit of depicting someone that is a child in a sexual situation. Ban it and arrest those involved in the production. There is no "idea" to it. Drawn, ASCII art, I don't give a fuck. Burn it all. There is no "other view point". There is no debate to be had. Stop defending child rape in any form and improve the world for everyone and harm nobody in the process.
Who is being harmed by drawn child porn? There are no real children involved. There is no victim. Criminalising things for no logical reason other than "I feel it is wrong" doesn't make sense to me.
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.
When I used the site MyAnimeList I encountered a lot of people who refused to acknowledge "lolicon" as a substitute for real child pornography. They were convinced that the depictions do not represent what children look like, thus they didn't share any similarities with pedophiles. If that's the case and lolicon fans and pedophiles share no similarity, they won't reach for real child porn and actual molestation right?
Or are those people just full of shit and lying to themselves? I honestly don't know these days.
The answer is we don't entirely know and it could very well be a case by case thing. We do know that there ARE pedophiles into this stuff, but what we aren't entirely sure of is ONLY pedophiles are. There's some evidence that it's an extension of pictophilia over pedophilia, and a multitude of other things like people actually projecting themselves onto the younger character (so possibly a domination fetish?)
So yeah, more research is needed again. That being said, I feel like a pedophile in denial that vehemently argues they're only into the drawn stuff is probably far less dangerous to children than the sickos that would use it for grooming.
What if they just ban people from selling child manga porn.
There should not be any law that prohibit people from drawing whatever they want, even if its naked cartoon children. At the same time you shouldn't walk into a shop and you see a stack of Dōjinshi with naked children being the focus of the book.
There is always implied stuff but in general, manga usually has the "edgier" stuff. I remember reading Wolf Guy, and it generally was interesting up until a certain point
Basically the female love interest (well she is a teacher so she might be too old for this discussion, but there are minors depicted in sexual acts in the manga) was taken captive by the bad guy and gang raped for basically 2 dozen chapters or some shit. I dunno it felt like forever but I dropped it around this time because it literally just felt like it was going nowhere just to show her getting gang raped from chapter to chapter. Honestly, if he only used a chapter or 2 of her getting raped, it got the point across and made you feel that the main protagonist had to hurry and get his act together, but it meandered on it too long and felt like the manga writer was going for the shock value way too hard.
Even though such extreme acts in fiction are used to get an emotion out of the reader, I think they should exist and the artist has every right to deploy it's use within fiction. I don't like it and if it disturbs me, but that is the whole point usually. For example that scene in Game of Thrones with Khal Drogo and Daeneryus was very disturbing and basically fits within the scope of this topic, but it carried a tone across and elicited a reaction from me and other watchers/readers of that scene. Berserk also made me feel sorry because
Guts was raped when he was a child, and I remember those manga panels in my head when I think of those scenes. It made me feel sorry for him because you can see that it is something that he carried throughout his life, it especially effected how he interacted with Casca.
Hellsing also basically had panels
which showed Alucard raped as a child. You can connect the dots and see why he really wasn't a fan of God, and it juxtaposed the fact that he is a strong immortal after his death but during life he was just a mortal.
I believe this was also in Hellsing Ultimate but I didn't get a chance to watch all of it.
If you're doing a dark story though, it's rather easy to imply rape, without actually showing it though.
I mention the anime specifically for Berserk, cause it managed to imply all this without actually showing it. I don't need extended scenes of the characters going through that, because I've seen what I needed to see to understand.
Even Game of Thrones, save a half dozen scenes, usually stops short of showing you the actual happenstances.
I mean honestly, I think it's great something like Berserk, which can be so horrifying, yet be really deep and a great piece of art in it's own way can exist... but even so, even if this law actually critically effects things like it, and I don't think it will...
Maybe it's still worth it if we can clean all that other sludge away.
Because Fap porn with kids is a hell of a lot more common in manga than works as good as Berserk, that's for damn sure.
Before this thread, I had no idea this sort of thing was a thing. I'll leave this thread feeling great that nobody is hurt from it and I'll move on. Sick people are going to draw, trade and sell what they want but restricting what can be drawn and how they are distributed is going too far, imo. The idea of something like this angers me and I would pass hard judgement on someone into it, but it's victim-less.
And hey, I love killing in games and movies so am I any better?
The answer is we don't entirely know and it could very well be a case by case thing. We do know that there ARE pedophiles into this stuff, but what we aren't entirely sure of is ONLY pedophiles are. There's some evidence that it's an extension of pictophilia over pedophilia, and a multitude of other things like people actually projecting themselves onto the younger character (so possibly a domination fetish?)
So yeah, more research is needed again. That being said, I feel like a pedophile in denial that vehemently argues they're only into the drawn stuff is probably far less dangerous to children than the sickos that would use it for grooming.
Hm. I'd understand the projection thing, but I guess that would likely only be relevant to men into "straight shotacon" and women into "straight lolicon". Not sure how popular they are, personal experience (since I don't want to link to a bunch of twitter accounts I've blocked and would be way too NSFW for gaf) says not too much.
What if they just ban people from selling child manga porn.
There should not be any law that prohibit people from drawing whatever they want, even if its naked cartoon children. At the same time you shouldn't walk into a shop and you see a stack of Dōjinshi with naked children being the focus of the book.
I'd bring up re-victimisation and the trivialisation of the real CSA issue by fans of the content who throw it any which way and are surprised when victims are upset by the content portrayed, but that's likely a discussion for another thread.
The problem with this is it could be literally applied to anything that could "trigger" people. When I was 14, I was uncomfortable whenever suicide was mentioned in movies/tv/games/whatever because my best friend had killed himself that year. Of course, it would be unreasonable for me to want to ban mentioning suicide, or more relevant here, in a comedic sense.
And I do mean literally anything can be "triggering" if you have a bit of imagination. There are an infinite number of scenarios where noun x can lead to bad event y.
What if they just ban people from selling child manga porn.
There should not be any law that prohibit people from drawing whatever they want, even if its naked cartoon children. At the same time you shouldn't walk into a shop and you see a stack of Dōjinshi with naked children being the focus of the book.
