First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
Post Reply Should people who create sexual fan art of underage anime characters be punished?
25711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Imouto Sanctuary
Online
Posted 11/25/17 , edited 11/25/17

niotabunny wrote:

animated or not, it's still porn and underage animated art is child porn. it's like the adage the pedos use, I can look but not touch. so, in their minds, they can gather at playgrounds and look, admire and sneak pictures if possible but as soon as they touch then it's all out war. this is the same method, there's no difference. these were models at one time, the drawer's daughter or something, with additions to appeal to the others. which concerns me even further that this is how someone sees their underage kid?


You don't necessarily need a model, but to my knowledge, basing such a drawing on an actual child is illegal in some jurisdictions in the United States, as is badly photoshopping a child's head on an nude adult body.

To say that it looks like this specific child or that is a hard one to prove, especially since appearances do tend to overlap. To me, it sounds more akin to Lindsey Lohan's lawsuit against Grand Theft Auto Five's publishers for including her "likeness" in prominent art for the game.

I am not quite sure of the whole playground example. It seems to verge more into a sort of stalking behavior, or perhaps related to to the "Don't take pictures of random beachgoers at the beach" sort of thing.

My fear here is essentially "fetish policing", to put it bluntly.

To reply to others: The definition of "Child Pornography" is seemingly derived from word by word semantics for some users than the whole term, especially with the definition of when it is illegal.
25711 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / M / Imouto Sanctuary
Online
Posted 11/25/17
The irony I love to point out here is that, for the most part, detractors of the pornographic depiction of such are far more likely to establish a link between lolicon and shota artwork to actual children, then people who consume it.

Well, based on personal experience. You may think I am bullshitting here, and my experience could be skewed. Though from experience, lolicon lovers and such just do not see the similarity in appearance between the lolicon artwork and actual children. To be honest, I do not see much similarities either. Heck, this applies to real life persons versus anime depictions in general.


While on the other hand, moral guardians tend to put two and two together. Perhaps out of fear or concern? Not quite sure. I guess you could say it is representative of children. Though of course, the depiction is so idealistic that it is quite removed from reality.

Perhaps I am wrong, not sure.
7933 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / Modesto, CA
Offline
Posted 11/25/17
I do not believe children should be sexualized in any form of media whatsoever.
1581 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / PA, USA
Offline
Posted 11/26/17 , edited 11/26/17
No, I do not advocate the protection of the make believe, much less, support the waste of thousands upon millions worth of money to prosecute people for crimes against "imaginary friends."

Social ostracism? Sure, go ahead. Within reason, of course. No one should have to like loli ecchi/hentai. Bringing this to the court room? Arresting over it? What a joke. Talk about having "first world problems."
2656 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23
Offline
Posted 11/26/17 , edited 11/26/17

PeripheralVisionary wrote:

The irony I love to point out here is that, for the most part, detractors of the pornographic depiction of such are far more likely to establish a link between lolicon and shota artwork to actual children, then people who consume it.

Well, based on personal experience. You may think I am bullshitting here, and my experience could be skewed. Though from experience, lolicon lovers and such just do not see the similarity in appearance between the lolicon artwork and actual children. To be honest, I do not see much similarities either. Heck, this applies to real life persons versus anime depictions in general.


While on the other hand, moral guardians tend to put two and two together. Perhaps out of fear or concern? Not quite sure. I guess you could say it is representative of children. Though of course, the depiction is so idealistic that it is quite removed from reality.

Perhaps I am wrong, not sure.


Have to second this. While I can understand the concerns coming from parents and such, lolicon characters and shotacon characters are really no more realistic than tsundere waifus and matrix boobs. They're a clump of idealized traits put into the package of a cartoon character with a short body and a big head. You get within 10 feet of an actual child, and you realize quickly that there's a world of difference between an actual child, and loli dragon Kanna. Actual children are pretty terrifying.

Lolicon/Shotacon characters don't resemble actual children, and I think it really should be argued that lolicon/shotacons aren't necessarily pedophiles. While there are inevitably some people who are both, they aren't the same, and shouldn't be judged as if it were the same crime.

Owning child pornography featuring actual real life children? Arrest them. There's an actual child involved. Owning some doodles of child pornography? It's a drawing. No actual children are being harmed. Heck even if they are actual pedophiles, if they haven't actually done anything to hurt anyone, you can't punish someone for having thoughts you think are bad. Be more cautious around them, yes, but don't do anything more than judge.

On a similar but different note, don't go accusing furries of being sexually attracted to animals either. Or accuse people who enjoy power fantasies of being rapists. The actual crime shouldn't be confused with someone's personal kinks.
98460 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / F
Offline
Posted 12/1/17
It's creepy but it isn't something to be punished for.
25478 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
38 / M / So. Cal
Offline
Posted 12/1/17
No, the law is pretty clear on this
5526 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
42 / M / California
Offline
Posted 12/2/17
Nope
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 12/14/17 , edited 12/14/17
I'll just leave this here for you paranoid c***s. A bunch of first world execution freaks who fail to acknowledge their own habits and what they support. Anime IS usually pedophilic and WE ALL participate in consuming and supporting it. So shut the f**k up with your white knight fantasies and enjoy!

Or get out of the anime scene. You're in denial, which makes you a fool.

13198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 12/14/17

cruelcore1 wrote:

I'll just leave this here for you paranoid c***s. A bunch of first world execution freaks who fail to acknowledge their own habits and what they support. Anime IS usually pedophilic and WE ALL participate in consuming and supporting it. So shut the f**k up with your white knight fantasies and enjoy!

Or get out of the anime scene. You're in denial, which makes you a fool.



So if we watch some anime, we're not allowed to dislike any aspect of the shows?
658 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Croatia
Offline
Posted 12/14/17 , edited 12/14/17

So if we watch some anime, we're not allowed to dislike any aspect of the shows?


So you/they wanna punish them but they're still ignorable? Doesn't make sense to me. You want to get most of the shows depicting highschoolers removed, even those you like?

If I want someone locked up, I don't have beer with them.

EDIT: One could watch child porn and say they just ignore her age because she's really good at ********************.
13198 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 12/14/17

cruelcore1 wrote:


So if we watch some anime, we're not allowed to dislike any aspect of the shows?


So you/they wanna lock them up but they're still ignorable? Doesn't make sense to me. Analogy: if I want someone locked up, I don't have beer with them.

EDIT: One could watch child porn and say they just ignore her age because she's really good at ********************.


I avoid shows that have pedocrap and sexualize 10 year old and I hate ecchi. Not all anime is full of nudity and sex. This is why I said "*some* anime".
If some deviant decides to make bsdm fanart of underage anime characters, I'll find it disgusting. I won't clamor for his arrest, but that doesn't mean I'll approve of it. Hopefully, I made my position clearer.
3826 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / North America
Offline
Posted 12/14/17
I think that they should only be punished if the character is only like say, prepubescent or 10 years old, but if they are at least 14 or have reached puberty then its ok to sexualise them in my opinion. also the nature of the sexualisation should also be taken into consideration for example if its actual sex and not just the character looking sexy then they should be punished. they should also be punished if the sexualization is violent in nature like if its guro they should be punished. however if its just the character looking sexy without any actual sex or violence then I think its ok for the character to be sexualised.
3517 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M
Offline
Posted 12/14/17 , edited 12/14/17
No.

It seems very odd that we live in a world where anyone thinks that thought crime is an acceptable thing to have, but apparently many disagree. It's acceptable to many to have violent murder, or depictions of rape (such as in Berserk), or many other atrocities shown in fiction without it being punishable.

Yet the moment it boils down to a fictional character being underage, everybody enters a mad rage of moral superiority.

You can't have it both ways. You can't claim that terrible acts such as murder are acceptable to put into fiction, then also try to claim that simply having underage anime characters is a worse crime. Especially if you are using "underage" as your measuring stick for why it is bad, rather than using whether or not the sexual art involves a consensual act. This is a tricky issue after all - some people think that simply depicting 2D pictures of 16 year olds having consensual sex is equivalent to raping a toddler, morally speaking, which is absurd.

---

There's no reason to think that having fictional depictions of underage characters doing sexual acts in any way increases crime or the problem of abuse in the real world, so there's no argument to be had for punishing people for making said art because it actually causes a problem. Given that, the only reason anyone has to punish this thought crime is because they find it "icky" to fantasize about underaged people having sex - given that in the real world these things would be crimes generally.

Yet tons of things in fiction are criminal acts and horrible to do, so that argument doesn't really hold weight. Something being "icky" is not an excuse to ban it, let alone an excuse to punish someone simply for making fictional content.

Those who are attracted to this sort of thing, whether pedophiles or otherwise, are not going to suddenly start assaulting people in the real world because of someone creating art on the internet. If anything, having access to this sort of thing is just giving another outlet for people to legally fulfill their sexual desires, in the same way that rape or incest is depicted in fictional works. There are many things that people can be attracted to that do not lead to them ever causing a problem in the real world, and I see no reason that having underage anime characters depicting sexual acts should be the dividing line at all.

I find a lot of sexual art to be disgusting, and not something I'm at all interested in, but I would never in a million years say that somebody should be punished for simply making art - no matter how "gross" I find it. Doing so accomplishes nothing except to push said content into a sort of black market, and won't stop the underlying desires and feelings from existing. Fetishes and the like are often just as ingrained into a person's psyche as their overall sexuality, and when we live in an era that says (mostly) that homosexuality is not unnatural and that having "odd" desires for sex is not evil, it seems odd to draw the line here. Sure, in real life sexualizing those who are underage is a big no-no, but that's more for practical reasons and to prevent real crimes (such as actual child porn being made) from taking place. In fictional situations however, or with completely fictional characters - this sort of thing is the epitome of a victimless "crime."
23048 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
The White House
Offline
Posted 12/14/17
Does a drawing of something that doesnt exist have rights? No. Was someone's rights violated when someone did the drawing? No. Should we spend limited resources pursuing people who violate no ones rights while making drawings? No.

Focus on real people getting sexually abused not imaginary characters all of whom are an equally inferior waifu to Makise Kurisu.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.