CNN overreacting and claiming Manga is child porn

[Micalas]

People who fap to images of children, real or not, would more likely ACTUALLY want to fuck the little kiddies. If the person were to become sexually aroused by the killing, your comparison might actually work. As it stands, however, these are two totally different trains of thought.

Except that's not necessarily true. Escpecially with drawn images. It's all fantasy. I don't see why it's so hard to not understand that there are probably a ton of people that enjoy loli porn BECAUSE it doesn't harm anyone. They probably think about how awful it would have been to get molested as a child, so they don't do it either. The fact of the matter is, that it's fake and no one is hurt by this. No child anywhere has ever been exploited by underage anime girls.

 

[DefunctTheory]

I find Bronies very disturbing.

Unless they arouse you then no, but I feel the material should not be banned, but used to place anyone buying it on a watch list of potential sexual offenders.

I'm so very glad that you've learned from CNN how to sensationalize an issue, then suggest an insane, Orwellian method of dealing with it, and then subtly try to link something benign you find disturbing to the issue everyone's panicking about, in an attempt to get people to panic about your weird preference of 'disturbing' material.

People who fap to images of children, real or not, would more likely ACTUALLY want to fuck the little kiddies. If the person were to become sexually aroused by the killing, your comparison might actually work. As it stands, however, these are two totally different trains of thought.

Are you saying that pedophiles are simply more likely to masturbate to drawn children, or that masturbating to drawn pictures will make you a pedophile?

Because being a pedophile is not illegal in any 1st world country I can think of, nor are their masturbating habits subject to law as far as I am aware.

 

[Flutterguy]

Oh look a blatant fan service-y almost porn is being vilified as something consciously unhealthy. It is unhealthy. To say its child porn may be going over the top, yes. To say it's one shouldn't feel any shame in reading it? That is extreme too. Just because many people accept perversion as normal doesn't mean it should be.

 

[Something Amyss]

See the big difference is that most people who play GTA do not actually want to kill people. It's venting of other frustrations in a consequence-free environment.

People who fap to images of children, real or not, would more likely ACTUALLY want to fuck the little kiddies. If the person were to become sexually aroused by the killing, your comparison might actually work. As it stands, however, these are two totally different trains of thought.

Why is it safe to say that GTA fans are just venting their frustrations rather than have a desire to kill but not safe to say that manga fans are similarly venting, rather than a desire to actually have sex with children?

Hell, your claims that there's no correlation with games are false, anyway. Violent games stimulate the brain. Now, that's not to say they make you violent or make you want to kill, but this is a fair parallel.

 

[DefunctTheory]

To say it's one shouldn't feel any shame in reading it? That is extreme too. Just because many people accept perversion as normal doesn't mean it should be.

Except that what's one person's healthy entertainment is another's perversion.

There's millions of people who think today's violent media, be it video games, movies, or music, are perverse. There's millions who think any pornography at all is an insult to the very notion of decency. And their are millions upon millions upon millions who think anything even remotely sexual in nature, expressed or shown outside the confines of a marriage bed, earns you a spot in hell.

Generally speaking, the idea of perversion being bad is almost hilarious. Penn and Teller got it right - perversion is the expression of freedom.

 

[Something Amyss]

Just because many people accept perversion as normal doesn't mean it should be.

Isn't that literally the argument used to demonise homosexuals?

 

[ckam]

You know the drill. Free speech, comparison to other mediums ability to discuss topics, and all that.

 

[tilmoph]

Do you play videogames in which you shoot and kill people?

Yup. I also play games where I command squadrons of others to kill people, and games where I've ordered millions or more soldiers to fight kill and die to bring a bit of territory under my nation's control. Just to give a sense of scope.

Well, that's definitely a bit creepy, no lie.

I could see where you get that idea. Definitely does seem pretty weird when you get look at it a bit. Especially some of the things I've pulled in CKII to preserve my Britannian Imperial dynasty. That one got really dark really damn fast once the crowns of the isles were united under the empire.

As to are you a murderer; are you amused by the death of people, or by something else? Or do you feel no fun at all? If the former, yes, yes you are a potential murderer. And that is wrong. Stop indulging that urge. It's not healthy or right, at all. *snipped an honestly well done rephrasing of my post for brevity*

*claps* well played. Brilliant. Umm, minor problems, if I might raise them.

First and foremost, you are comparing an active medium to a passive one; one where one is expected to perform a task or objective to one where the entire point is to just stare and absorb. That creates a complicating factor, since a portion of the appeal would be in the challenge of accomplishing all the (yes, a more than a bit weird) murder of humans, animals, aliens, robots, whatever. A better comparison would have been "do you like reading really gorey comics, which illustrate horrible mutilations and murders and have graphic depictions of violent rapes and murders" and continued from there, since it would be a more equal comparison.

Secondly, unlike with literature and comics, the format video games simply doesn't have a whole ton of games that don't involve killing on either a personal (BioShock, Fallout, Elder Scrolls etc.) or impersonal (Europa Universalis and it's various offspirng, Command and Conquer, Total War, XCom series) level. Are there some? Sure! Adventure games like the Testament of Sherlock Holmes are great fun and don't actually involve you killing anyone. So I can honestly answer that a. It's not the killing per se that draws me, and b. No, there aren't a lot of options for me that wouldn't involve killing that maintain the same level of story depth, challenge, and sense of accomplishment. They exist, but they are far too few in number to represent a realistic alternative.

Thirdly, yeah, the phrase "potential murderer" isn't too far off. I'm a human. Every human, everywhere, ever is a potential murderer. One of the main challenges humanity (and all other animals) is not getting killed, for which humanity's answer was to develop a highly sophisticated mind which excels at developing ways to kill things that want to kill them, amongst other talents. Unlike with pedophilia and sexuality, the ability to come up with ways to kill, to overcome a potential threat is part and parcel of human intelligence. It's something even a hard bound, disgusted at the though of killing pacifist still retains some ability at, by way of there species. Whereas, human sexuality does not require exploiting those substantially less developed than they are for sexual gratification.

Fourth and last, unlike with sexual desire for children, murder (or just killing, to be proper about it) is not always wrong. Self defense is the most morally clear option. Murkier but more understandable is killing to survive, killing a rival over some food or water during a drought for example. Not good, but if there isn't enough available for cooperation not be viable, then yes, the human that succeeds will be the one that can kill, and rally other to aid them in killing or repelling attacks on what they have. In vast majority of games, the enemies attack you, and give you no choice but to kill them. GTA is an obvious exception, and the Fallout and Elder Scrolls series both allow you to play in a pure homicidal maniac mode, if you want, but again, we're back to the first point about the difference between and interactive, challenge-providing medium and a passive, observation only medium.

....See? Do you now understand why it's wrong to compare "loli" comics to pedophilia? Assuming that, of course, you aren't the kind of person who thinks that anyone who played GTA5 or Mortal Kombat is a homicidal maniac in disguise.

No, I don't. I understand what point you were trying to make, just as I understood why people were making the homosexual comparison. I reject your assertion for the same reason as I reject that argument; it misses the critical point of what pedophilia and pedophilic urges are; a desire to rape a child. That is all it is. It can't be justified in and of itself, since there are no circumstances (unlike with killing) in which raping a child, or compelling children to have sex with each other for the viewers sexual gratification is justifiable or even understandable, in the sympathetic sense of the term.

But you know what, I'll be fair. Since I tried to address my own rephrased questions as you applied them video games, particularly the violent ones, I would like to hear like arguments from you as to why sexualized child comics are not innately pedophilic, if you feel so inclined.

 

[maninahat]

I've got a degree in Japanese Language and Culture. I suppose I'm the proper person to give my two cents on this discussion, since on one hand I actually know all about Japanese culture and history and way of thinking, but on the other hand I was born and rised with Western culture. Which means I know Japan but I can see it from an external point of view.

My opinion? I really wish we would stop dictating what Japan must and mustn't do. Japan has a very rich culture, and more importantly, a very independent culture, born out of centuries of not dealing with Christian values and Western way of thinking.
It was us who made Japan stop wearing their traditional clothes (they used to wear kimono and such until less than 60 years ago). It was us who taught Japan that showing genitals is forbidden. And the reason they've officially made child porn illegal is because, you got it, of our influence.

Does this mean Japan is perverted, with their lack of ban for child porn and with their fascination with apparently underage characters?
No, they aren't. They just have a different culture. The fact they had and partially still have different laws about age of consent and sexual depictions of children is does not mean there's any more pedophiliacs there than what we have here.

It's a very complicated concept, and there's no way I could explain with one single post why we should respect Japan if they want to depict lolicon and such.
Suffice to say, their culture hasn't been influenced by Christianity, and this brought an entirely different view of sexuality.
We may call them odd, but who is to say WE aren't the odd ones, after centuries of sex-shaming?

I'm interested in the extent of this argument. It's the old question of interventionism vs cultural relativism. On one hand, who are we to step in when we find some other culture doing something reprehensible? On the other hand, who are we not to step in? It feels like if a country can't pressure the Japanese to change their attitudes on child pornography, they also shouldn't pressure Saudi Arabia into changing its sexist laws. Obviously they aren't quite equivalent; one is more harmful than the other and I was just using an extreme as an example.

I would argue that a society whose media is more casual about sexualising children in entertainment could also potentially be more casual about sexualising children in real life. I don't think an individual manga about preteen girls is going to turn a person into a paedophile, but I think there is a definite possibility that a ton of the stuff ingrained into the rest of society will have an ultimate influence on individual's attitudes. Working on the same wavelength of propaganda, attitudes can by gradually shaped with prolonged exposure to certain images.

 

[TakerFoxx]

No, I don't. I understand what point you were trying to make, just as I understood why people were making the homosexual comparison. I reject your assertion for the same reason as I reject that argument; it misses the critical point of what pedophilia and pedophilic urges are; a desire to rape a child. That is all it is.

Bit of a point of contention here: pedophilia isn't exclusively the urge to rape children, it's the sexual attraction to children. I'm straight. I'm sexually attracted to women. That doesn't mean I have the urge to rape women. But there are straight men that do, just like there are straight women that have the urge to rape men. And there are gay men who have the urge to rape men, and those who are repulsed by the thought, and the same applies to gay women. Likewise, there pedophiles who do have the urge to rape children, but many are disgusted by the thought despite how their attractions are hardwired.

 

[D3L3T3 ACCOUNT PLZ]

I wrote a long paragraph but left the page so it disappeared but basically I have read hentai since I was 13 and I was actually more mature than my friends in terms of not making sexual jokes and actually having less of an interest in sexual activities since from the manga which is an idealized version of whatever it is about these hentais make it look a lot nicer than I ever believe it will actually be so I would rather not try and experience these activities for now and be disappointed also is it really that bad if for the most part just like porn in the west if it is mostly high school males reading the hentai involving girls their age.

 

[tilmoph]

Bit of a point of contention here: pedophilia isn't exclusively the urge to rape children, it's the sexual attraction to children. I'm straight. I'm sexually attracted to women. That doesn't mean I have the urge to rape women. But there are straight men that do, just like there are straight women that have the urge to rape men. And there are gay men who have the urge to rape men, and those who are repulsed by the thought, and the same applies to gay women. Likewise, there pedophiles who do have the urge to rape children, but many are disgusted by the thought despite how their attractions are hardwired.

Counter point; Children cannot consent to sex with an adult. The gulf between the child's and the adult's emotional and metal development, coupled with the difference in social position, renders it impossible for any sex between a child and an adult to not be rape. There just isn't a way for any consent the child could give to be in good faith.

I know some pedophiles wouldn't want to just kidnapped and physically force a child into sex with them. They truly believe they love these children, and that they are doing good and the child wants to have sex with them, of their own free will. But these are just rationalizations that ignore the development levels of children and adults. At the end, it's still rape. Thus, a pedophile can only want to rape a child.

 

[Gorrath]

I'm interested in the extent of this argument. It's the old question of interventionism vs cultural relativism. On one hand, who are we to step in when we find some other culture doing something reprehensible? On the other hand, who are we not to step in? It feels like if a country can't pressure the Japanese to change their attitudes on child pornography, they also shouldn't pressure Saudi Arabia into changing its sexist laws. Obviously they aren't quite equivalent; one is more harmful than the other and I was just using an extreme as an example.

I would argue that a society whose media is more casual about sexualising children in entertainment could also potentially be more casual about sexualising children in real life. I don't think an individual manga about preteen girls is going to turn a person into a paedophile, but I think there is a definite possibility that a ton of the stuff ingrained into the rest of society will have an ultimate influence on individual's attitudes. Working on the same wavelength of propaganda, attitudes can by gradually shaped with prolonged exposure to certain images.

As you mention, there is a difference between Japan allowing sexualized drawings and Saudi Arabia having sexist laws. One of these things hurts no real people, the other does, and so I think comparing the two falls flat. Additionally, you seem to be suggesting a cause and effect that would need to be proven. I think you are right in asserting that cultures become more accepting of things the more they are exposed to them, but then you seem to want to swap out a culture being okay with a fantasy for it being okay with a reality.

For instance, a culture which does not allow games like GTA to be produced/sold might be effected by a long term campaign/exposure to get them used to seeing games like GTA. However, getting a culture to accept a game like GTA does not mean said culture will start accepting people running over cops with cars. Japan accepting fictional depictions of under aged characters in sexual situations in media might make their culture more accepting of said fictional depictions, but this does not equate to them then accepting actual depictions/instances of real children being abused. It would be like suggesting that a culture which is a-okay with fantasy BDSM will eventually be more likely to be cool with actual rape. You would need to demonstrate this, since as far as I know, this does not happen.

 

[Gorrath]

Bit of a point of contention here: pedophilia isn't exclusively the urge to rape children, it's the sexual attraction to children. I'm straight. I'm sexually attracted to women. That doesn't mean I have the urge to rape women. But there are straight men that do, just like there are straight women that have the urge to rape men. And there are gay men who have the urge to rape men, and those who are repulsed by the thought, and the same applies to gay women. Likewise, there pedophiles who do have the urge to rape children, but many are disgusted by the thought despite how their attractions are hardwired.

Counter point; Children cannot consent to sex with an adult. The gulf between the child's and the adult's emotional and metal development, coupled with the difference in social position, renders it impossible for any sex between a child and an adult to not be rape. There just isn't a way for any consent the child could give to be in good faith.

I know some pedophiles wouldn't want to just kidnapped and physically force a child into sex with them. They truly believe they love these children, and that they are doing good and the child wants to have sex with them, of their own free will. But these are just rationalizations that ignore the development levels of children and adults. At the end, it's still rape. Thus, a pedophile can only want to rape a child.

Counter-counter point? The fantasy of wanting to do something is not the same as actually wanting to do something. While a pedophile may have sexual fantasies about children, it does not indicate that they actually want to rape children. It seems like splitting hairs here but engaging in fantasy and actually desiring that fantasy to be reality are two different things. Thus, a pedophile can engage in pure fantasy and can claim they have no interest in raping children. They may be hardwired to like the idea of sex with children, but this does not indicate they wouldn't find actually doing it disgusting.

 

[tilmoph]

Counter-counter point? The fantasy of wanting to do something is not the same as actually wanting to do something. While a pedophile may have sexual fantasies about children, it does not indicate that they actually want to rape children. It seems like splitting hairs here but engaging in fantasy and actually desiring that fantasy to be reality are two different things. Thus, a pedophile can engage in pure fantasy and can claim they have no interest in raping children. They may be hardwired to like the idea of sex with children, but this does not indicate they wouldn't find actually doing it disgusting.

Counter-counter-counter point/observation; what you're noting here is the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. Obviously, there is an enormous difference between the two, and I've noted earlier in this thread (buried in my giant TL;DR rants) that a pedophile that doesn't want to act on his urges does get some sympathy from me. I don't think that they are evil; hell, they're resisting a desire to do something awful, a horrible thing that must be fairly strong in them. That's a sign of a good person who got kind of screwed in the brain lottery. I still don't think giving them even illustrated kiddie porn is a good way to help contain that impulse, though.

More to the point, you're applying the pedophile's entire mind to the subject; I'm focusing on what a pedophile's desire is. A pedophile that never, ever wants to give in to their urges has used their intellect and empathy to understand that what they want is wrong. They are rejecting it. But the desire is there. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be pedophiles. So yes, they do want to rape children. In the case of none molester pedophiles, they also want to not be pedophiles. They won't act because they know it's wrong, and are disgusting by the damage they would do, the exploitation (if not outright violence) they would have to employ to satisfy their illness. But the sickness is there, the desire is there, the urge is there. They don't want to be bad people, but at their core, their sexual desire is to rape a child. Everything else they are may be able to resist that nature, whether from a sincere desire not to cause harm or a fear of punishment, but none of that changes the fact that their sexuality is wired in such a way as to desire child rape.

 

[DefunctTheory]

Counter-counter-counter point/observation; what you're noting here is the difference between a pedophile and a child molester. Obviously, there is an enormous difference between the two, and I've noted earlier in this thread (buried in my giant TL;DR rants) that a pedophile that doesn't want to act on his urges does get some sympathy from me. I don't think that they are evil; hell, they're resisting a desire to do something awful, a horrible thing that must be fairly strong in them. That's a sign of a good person who got kind of screwed in the brain lottery. I still don't think giving them even illustrated kiddie porn is a good way to help contain that impulse, though.

More to the point, you're applying the pedophile's entire mind to the subject; I'm focusing on what a pedophile's desire is. A pedophile that never, ever wants to give in to their urges has used their intellect and empathy to understand that what they want is wrong. They are rejecting it. But the desire is there. If it wasn't, they wouldn't be pedophiles. So yes, they do want to rape children. In the case of none molester pedophiles, they also want to not be pedophiles. They won't act because they know it's wrong, and are disgusting by the damage they would do, the exploitation (if not outright violence) they would have to employ to satisfy their illness. But the sickness is there, the desire is there, the urge is there. They don't want to be bad people, but at their core, their sexual desire is to rape a child. Everything else they are may be able to resist that nature, whether from a sincere desire not to cause harm or a fear of punishment, but none of that changes the fact that their sexuality is wired in such a way as to desire child rape.

Here's a question for you.

Does the desire to want to have sex with a consenting age adult who does not consent to having sex with you mean you want/desire to rape her?

 

[TakerFoxx]

Counter point;

Children cannot consent to sex with an adult. The gulf between the child's and the adult's emotional and metal development, coupled with the difference in social position, renders it impossible for any sex between a child and an adult to not be rape. There just isn't a way for any consent the child could give to be in good faith.

I know some pedophiles wouldn't want to just kidnapped and physically force a child into sex with them. They truly believe they love these children, and that they are doing good and the child wants to have sex with them, of their own free will. But these are just rationalizations that ignore the development levels of children and adults. At the end, it's still rape. Thus, a pedophile can only want to rape a child.

You misunderstand me. I know children cannot give consent, and nor would I ever argue that pedophiles should be allowed to have relationships with children. Simply having an attraction to someone does not mean you're going to automatically seek out a physical relationship with them. Sure, there are a lot of pedophiles that have deluded themselves in that way, but there are also many that know and agree that touching children is wrong despite how their attractions have been hardwired. And those are the ones I am standing up for.

And if I may quote a big scaly dragon on top of a mountain: What is better, to be born good, or to overcome your evil nature through effort?

Honestly, pedophiles really got the short end of the stick when it comes to sexuality. Like homosexuals, they're hardwired with an attraction that many people call them sick freaks just for having and call for them to be fixed/cured, despite no cure actually existing. But unlike homosexuals, they can never pursue a healthy, loving relationship with the object of their attraction and get demonized by everyone the moment they're revealed. No matter what, they're screwed.

 

[Nowhere Man]

CNN has devolved to such a level of trash over the past years that I wonder why ANYONE still takes ANY article they put out seriously. I put them in the same category as Daily Mail now and when I go to their site it's normally for a few good laughs and to read the divided masses eat each other alive in the comments sections then I head over to other sources elsewhere to get the real news that they don't cover free from as much bias and sensationalism as possible.