Reproduction is wired far, far deeper into our psyche than violence. And pornography is well known to have some hefty effects on people's psyche and sexuality.Vareoth said:
CNN overreacting and claiming Manga is child porn
- Thread starter crazygameguy4ever
- Start date
Recommended Videos
i hope you guys realize that it's not just young girls in anime/manga that are sexualized for men, but young boys in anime/manga for women. Boku no Piku is a well known and oft joked about example of this. when it comes to young looking girls who are actually really old, i have no problems, mostly because we don't know the growth cycle of these species, and some may prefer to use illusions to make themselves appear younger than what they are (in the case of something like a demon), at least that is how i view it. though i do admit, more often than not things get into the realm of just plain creepy than not.
Oh, yes. Pornography has been widely shown to cause rape, perversion, unfaithfulness in marriage, and erectile disorder.Hochmeister said:
Or, you know... not.
Most of the studies linking pornography to the negative side of human nature was performed decades ago by people who had agendas. Most were so separated from real life that their results are practically useless. Most of the studies done on populaces themselves found that an increase in the availability of pornography actually correlated to a decrease in violent sex crimes.
The actual fact is, their really are no conclusive studies for or against porn - any claim that a rape is precipitated and caused by violent pornography access is easily countered by the fact that people who would be interested in violently raping someone would probably be interested is rape pornography in the first place.
Of course, there's always this to consider - as violent video games, pornography, and media become more and more prevalent, violent crime rates decrease. Which isn't to say that they themselves decrease violent acts - only that they are in no way related.
And at the end of the day, when you have no evidence that something is a detriment to society (And usually even when their is proof of something), then the most tired argument in the world today wins - free speech.
Call me nuts (and I'm sure someone mentioned this earlier) but in any medium with not real-life characters having sex (comics, video games, books, etc.) and you aren't explicitly told what their age is, can't you argue that it's child porn, since the reader can simply make up whatever age for the characters they want?
I mean, can't someone just say "well the guy looks 30, but I'm just gonna imagine he's a 16 year old who looks old for his age" and presto! child porn?
I mean, can't someone just say "well the guy looks 30, but I'm just gonna imagine he's a 16 year old who looks old for his age" and presto! child porn?
And that is terrible, and they should absolutely fix that. It's not really a counter to my point that sexualising minors is an extremely not good thing to say that they have legal kiddie fucking. The US, in most states, has set 18 as the legal limit. It is not more or less wrong to depict young teenagers as sexual objects. Not sure if that's what you were trying to do, but I don't really understand why else you would mention that.Samsont said:
On another point that's been brought up; no, correcting pedophilic (or ephebophilic) desires is not the same as fixing gays. At all. The target of gay desire is a full grown, consenting adult (or teen, if they're a teen, or an adult that should turn down the teen). The target of pedophilia (or whatever subtype of sick fuck we're discussing) is a child. If you don't act on your urges to fuck children, good. Really, excellent. Not joking, gold star, you're cookie is in the mail. Now go get that shit fixed! You should feel completely awful about yourself for even having those urges, those desires.
That you don't act on them is great, but you know, deep down, you might. Maybe you'll be drunk and find a child whore, maybe you'll tutor or coach a child, get close, and let things "get out of hand" (i.e. rape a kid, but using a polite, ass-covering phrase). Maybe you'll just snap and go kidnap and rape a kid. Or maybe the kids you know will get lucky and you will keep a lid on your sickness. Who knows. What I know and you know is that you find childish features attractive. Sexually. Not a little outfit that shows off an adult's body, not a school teacher/student fantasy (which is just sub/dom in weirder make-up), actual childishness makes you sexually aroused. And you are seeking out images that play to that child-lusting part of your psyche. And those images are of little people you would mentally and possibly physically damage if you ever acted on your "harmless" urges.
You can do BDSM safely and consensually, you can get the thrill of even torture or rape fantasies with a willing partner, since what's thrilling in those is the sense of control or helplessness, not the innate damage and suffering. But you can not, ever, in any scenario, act or fulfill on what arouses your pedophilic nature. So, why not fix it. What's in your head makes you a risk to innocents. You know it's wrong. If you're decent enough to never, ever act on your impulses, then you're morally sound enough to know how completely asinine a comparison between your desires and a homosexuals is.
Sorry for the rant. Not aimed at anyone specifically, just kept seeing this comparison between gay "rehab" and fixing pedophiles and got a bit annoyed. I don't like it when conservatives trot out the "legalize gay marriage, might as well re legalize child marriage". I don't like it any better when "enlightened" people try to pull the same stunt.
Edit:
The difference is how the character is drawn. Now, we could argue a drawing of a young adult and an elder teen would be hard to tell apart, so in the absence of the creator telling you an age, sure, call em 20.Ihateregistering1 said:
But unless the art is so completely out there that nothing really seems definite, a drawing of a bloody 12 year old is not comparable to that of a 30 year old. Now, can someone with a really deep pedophilia streak just imagine a 30 year old as a 12 year old. Sure, just like they can walk around, see and adult man, and say to herself "damn, bet he was a sexily adorable 10 year old. So sorry I missed that". But that's not really a defense for drawing a blatantly 12 year old child in an obviously sexual situation.
If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks likes a duck...
What people get off to is their own business, but if you're trying to legitimise tossing off to cartoon pictures of young girls with 'Oh, it's okay, she's like, not human and hundreds of years old!'
Yeah, sorry, you're just lying to yourself.
What people get off to is their own business, but if you're trying to legitimise tossing off to cartoon pictures of young girls with 'Oh, it's okay, she's like, not human and hundreds of years old!'
Yeah, sorry, you're just lying to yourself.
Why, pray tell, do you think pedophilia can be 'fixed?' Why do you think it's different from 'fixing' homosexuals?tilmoph said:
If you're curious, there is actually no 'cure' for pedophilia. The closest thing to it is 'chemical castration,' which is less a cure and more of a poison that inhibits sexual desire, and only works so long as the person in question wishes to take them. Which essential means the pedophile that would have sex with children can do so when he wishes, while the ones who wouldn't suffer a multitude of side effects related to major hormone therapy for no reason what so ever.
I'm going to be that guy...Hochmeister said:
I don't agree with this at all. Reproduction is just that, a way to pass on your genes to the next generation, however fight or flight is the premiere human response to each and every stressful situation we encounter. Violence allows you to potentially keep existing, reproduction is just about carrying on that existence through your descendants. They are both no doubt very important to the survival of the human animal, but if we are arguing which one is more prevalent I'd point out that history books say violence. To this day we are at the top of the food chain because we are better at violence then almost any other species on the planet because we certainly aren't out breeding most of them.
Ketchup and mayonnaise can't be compared to one another...but they sure can be mixed.Vareoth said:Forgive me if I misunderstand, but since everyone has violent urges shouldn't the so called negative results of exposure to violent media be much more evident? If anyone can be affected by violent depictions then one can assume that there would be a lot of evidence to a causal link between exposure to violent media and real violent acts. Which there isn't.Thyunda said:
And since there isn't any link, how is sexuality any different from other basic instincts? Why should people who consume this questionable pornographic material be any more prone to subsequent acts than those who are exposed to any other media catering to other baser urges?
Not a BDSM fan I seeThyunda said:
The harder you make it to satisfy 'questionable' sexual urges, the more likely those urges will become more recessive. It's the entire logic behind 'curing' gay people. If you normalise homosexuality, they'll feel bolder about being homosexual. That's all great. The issue with the depictions of children in manga is that if you allow it to become a part of normal culture, people who have those urges and people who develop those urges are more likely to be able to talk about it. If they can talk about it, they can organise. While nobody is saying that this'll turn everyone into raging child molesters, what it does is create a culture in which raging child molesters can survive.
I think you misunderstood what I meant about violence. Everyone has violent urges - they're not caused or propagated by violence in media. Violent videogames can be cathartic and serve as an outlet. The difference between violence and sex is that you can get violence out of your system in one cathartic load. Sex, on the other hand, the more you have, the more you want. If you enjoy the drawn images of child pornography, it's pretty much a given that you must find children sexually attractive. That's the culture we want to avoid propagating, and that's why I don't feel manga should be given a free pass on the depiction of highly illegal sexual acts, because sex leads by example. If it can be depicted, it can be replicated.
And again, that's not necessarily the case with violence because seeing violence doesn't cause a stirring you have to satisfy.
And since I'll likely tie myself up with my attempted explanation, I'll just clarify in a couple of words: Don't encourage a link between children and sex. The two are mutually exclusive, and thinking otherwise can lead down a very, very dangerous path.
I though I covered this. Then again, I did type a rather large rant, so it might have been easy to overlook. I'm kind of terrible at communication. So, to clarify:AccursedTheory said:
Homosexuals do not have an urge that, if acted upon, would cause harm to their desired partner. Also, they do not desire partners who cannot, under any circumstance, give informed consent for the act to take place. That's kind of a huge difference.
That's a start. We really ought to be funding more research and experimentation to find what causes pedophilia in the first place, as well a some means of correcting the error. Now, before you miss read me, I mean actual, ethical experimentation and research; no just grabbing prisoners and forcing them into some kind of horrible camp. I mean brain autopsies, brain scans using the best tech we have at hand, drug trials to see what sticks, for how long, and checking for side effects. Therapies of all types being tested and rated. If we're doing this, do more of it. Pay for more stuff. Promise anonymity and secure that promise to any non-offending pedophiles who understand what they feel is wrong. I'd say provide financial incentive, but that risks non-pedophiles coming in just for the cash, which, while control groups are needed for some experiments, would otherwise just pollute the research pool. Hell, use willing prisoners; offer better accommodations, maybe a PlayStation or something. Nothing too nice, and no reduction of sentence, since we are discussing men and women who have raped children, after all. But not drafting, since that tends to go very wrong very fast.AccursedTheory said:
As to your point regarding non-compliance; the thrust of my rant was to those who think that having a pedophilic nature, indulging it through animated child porn, but never acting on it in the real world or with images of real victims was just fine and dandy. Or that just having those desires was ok, under the same conditions. Of course there will be those pedophiles who act on their horrible urges, in the real world, whether through teachers enticing students, kidnapping, or taking advantage of their own children. Just as there will always be rapists of adults, or murderers. Does that mean we stop our efforts to dissuade rape, to wash away those excuses that men and women use when they indulge in the act? Or that we ought to just accept that some people walk around wanting to literally and actually kill others for little if any reason? Of course not. And just as we seek to treat those who feel unbridled rage, or to drill into the heads of people that yes, rape is more than just some awful man waiting in the bushes to beat you and violate you, so too should we encourage those pedophiles who understand the wrongness of their lusts (as shown by their unwillingness to act upon their urges) to seek help, and seek to ensure that that help is available and effective.
If what we have now is only, say, 2% effective, why would we not seek to bring the pedophiles to take that 2%? And why would we not use their examples, and the data we can acquire from their willing assistance, to try and rid them of their damaging, repugnant urges on a more permanent, reliable basis? To convince them to, at the least, not indulge in any way, shape, or form their perverse aspects? Remember, we are not discussing a mere attraction, as we find amongst a hetero or homosexual (as well as pan, bi, and whatever else I may have forgotten); we are discussing a desire to rape a child.
There is no fix. There is no cure. There is no way to make pedophiles stop being pedophiles. There are rather ineffective ways to help repeat child molesters (who more often than not aren't even pedophiles but do it as a way to establish dominance) but no way to remove those attractions from those that have them.tilmoph said:
The fact of the matter is we don't know causes pedophilia. Is it an orientation? A disorder? A fetish? No one really knows. Maybe it's all three, and the cause changes from person to person. But what we do know is that no one chooses what they're attracted to. It's hardwired without their consent. And that's why people make the gay camp comparison. It's something that they can't help being and can't fix but people still call them freaks for simply being something. But unlike homosexuals, they can never morally act on it. Gay people can at least enter into a loving, healthy relationship with someone they're attracted to. Pedophiles can't. And if anyone found out what they are, their life is over. So they really got the short end of the stick, in that all they can do is hide in the closet. Because otherwise, someone's life will be ruined, either theirs (if they come out) or an innocent child's (if they act on it).
So to answer your question of why not come out and try to get "fixed," it's because they have absolutely nothing to gain and literally everything to lose.
Hmm, yes. The underlining desire to view such material is the problem. I can see that, in this instance, removing free access to it could help in subduing some of the more harmful urges that might perhaps come out of it. But I have also heard the argument that cartoon child pornography could serve as an outlet itself and help people control their desires.Thyunda said:
Ha, perhaps it should be prescribed by psychologists and medical specialists as suppressant! That would be amusing/awful ^^
I had seen the report on Jon Stewart. I'm shaking my head that Japan only now made child porn illegal and I'm shaking my head at the camera running down aisles of manga as if it's an out of control epidemic. All of the spines of the books were blurred out like the average American can read Japanese and would be offended. Obviously CNN can't read Japanese either cause I seriously doubt all of those books blurred out were porn.
It certainly has a lot of racist undertones to boot. Everyone loves a rescue the poor, delicate Japanese women from their terrible, perverse men stories.
And in addition, pedophiles are on the same page as rapists. They desire the sexual power and control over a weaker person. They don't care about the actual person they violate and there is nothing to pity about it.
I find it incredibly disgusting anyone would try to compare them to homosexuals. You might as well attempt to compare pedophiles to straight people.
It certainly has a lot of racist undertones to boot. Everyone loves a rescue the poor, delicate Japanese women from their terrible, perverse men stories.
And in addition, pedophiles are on the same page as rapists. They desire the sexual power and control over a weaker person. They don't care about the actual person they violate and there is nothing to pity about it.
I find it incredibly disgusting anyone would try to compare them to homosexuals. You might as well attempt to compare pedophiles to straight people.
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000Vareoth said:Forgive me if I misunderstand, but since everyone has violent urges shouldn't the so called negative results of exposure to violent media be much more evident? If anyone can be affected by violent depictions then one can assume that there would be a lot of evidence to a causal link between exposure to violent media and real violent acts. Which there isn't.Thyunda said:
And since there isn't any link, how is sexuality any different from other basic instincts? Why should people who consume this questionable pornographic material be any more prone to subsequent acts than those who are exposed to any other media catering to other baser urges?
Not a BDSM fan I seeThyunda said:
It's nice to see that someone else is thinking with some reason around here.