CNN overreacting and claiming Manga is child porn

[Gorrath]

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.

I do appreciate your sense and understanding of nuance here, I think we might just be arguing semantics. Your last line I think is what is contentious, as it says that what they desire is child rape, which would have to be defined as a real-life culmination of their fantasies. I take umbrage with that because one can have a fantasy and have no desire for said fantasy to become reality.

It's the difference between what you've said, "...but at their core, their sexual desire is to rape a child." vs what I would say, "but at their core, their sexual desire is to engage in a fantasy about raping a child." It is not fair to accuse them of wanting to rape a child if they have no actual desire to do this. Your last line falls into the same contentious territory for me when you say, "but none of that changes the fact that their sexuality is wired in such a way as to desire child rape." If they don't actually want to do this in reality, then it is not proper to say this about them. Desiring a purely fictional and fantasy encounter does not equate to actually wanting said encounter to happen, which is what your statement implies. It is a matter of semantics, but I think it's an important one.

 

[D3L3T3 ACCOUNT PLZ]

It's the difference between what you've said, "...but at their core, their sexual desire is to rape a child." vs what I would say, "but at their core, their sexual desire is to engage in a fantasy about raping a child."

I think both of you put it in a slightly wrong way it would be better to say that their mind finds the ideal sexual partner to be prepubescent similar to homosexuality when you do not count how it is seen in society it is simply a sexual attraction to a being that they can not create more kids effectively with. What they do with those feelings of attraction is what makes them pedophiles sometimes.

 

[tilmoph]

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.

Then we have a mutual misunderstanding, to at least some degree. From the post of yours I responded to, it came across as you using an overly narrow definition of rape. I was responding to that interpretation. Sorry for that.

On you're end, you seem to be assuming that I hold all those with pedophilic urges, regardless of actions, with equal contempt. That's why I said slight, since you would be right to the extent that I do hold pedophilic desires themselves to be sick and wrong regardless of the given pedophiles actions. But, I do accept that a given pedophile that doesn't act on their desires deserves sympathy, even credit for resisting their evil nature. Pedophiles can be good people. But I still hold their pedophilia to be wrong, for the reasons I've given before and for the ones I'll wind up giving in the following responses.

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?

It's a push based on outcomes; someone who is innately good and someone who isn't (or is but has one rather evil aspect) will still act in the same way. We could argue which is more noble, in which case, yes resisting something bad is more noble than to never need to resist. That doesn't make the evil aspect any less evil

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.

I'd say pedophiles, those who never act, did get a really bad deal. Here are these good, or at least not awful people, trapped with a sexual nature that can not be acted upon without causing harm and suffering. For that, the non-acting ones have my sympathy. That's also why (aside from risk reduction and issues of re offense for the active ones) I am strongly pushing for more research, more experiments as outlined in, i think my third post. I would not ever wwant to out them; they are doing good, and should not risk being punished whilst they truly are resisting their evil natures, as the good/evil dragon put it. They deserve to have a chance at fulfillment, and if we can rid them of these desires, they may be able to have it. If nothing else, they won't be forced to struggle against themselves anymore.

I do appreciate your sense and understanding of nuance here, I think we might just be arguing semantics. Your last line I think is what is contentious, as it says that what they desire is child rape, which would have to be defined as a real-life culmination of their fantasies. I take umbrage with that because one can have a fantasy and have no desire for said fantasy to become reality.

It's the difference between what you've said, "...but at their core, their sexual desire is to rape a child." vs what I would say, "but at their core, their sexual desire is to engage in a fantasy about raping a child." It is not fair to accuse them of wanting to rape a child if they have no actual desire to do this. Your last line falls into the same contentious territory for me when you say, "but none of that changes the fact that their sexuality is wired in such a way as to desire child rape." If they don't actually want to do this in reality, then it is not proper to say this about them. Desiring a purely fictional and fantasy encounter does not equate to actually wanting said encounter to happen, which is what your statement implies. It is a matter of semantics, but I think it's an important one.

In a sense, i think we are arguing interpretation; right now, I'm focusing on the pedophiles sexual desire, exclusive of there desire to do good or ill, regardless of their empathy or lack thereof, their upbringing. You beleive these are essential aspects, and while as far as helping the pedophile goes, and not condemning them for the part they can't help goes, I agree, I do not believe these have any bearing on the rightness, acceptability, or interpretation of their desire. Yes, one can have have no desire to act on a fantasy, and that is all well and good. However, one cannot be fantasizing about something unless some part of the fantasy holds appeal. In the case of the Pedophile, the appeal is the sex with children part. The rest of them, every part of their self aside from the pedophile part, may reject that, but the pedophile part, the part that feels aroused by children, does not, and cannot, or else it wouldn't exist in the first place.

I see why you think semantics are important here, and so do I. I'll keep discussing this if you want to, but I do get a suspicion that the differences in the way we see the question itself (you're view incorporating all the aspects of the pedophile in question as intrinsic to the matter of their sexuality vs. my emphasis on the object of the arousal, with other factors being used to judge the morality of the person, but not affecting the core orientation) may render it a bit fruitless. Still, do feel free to continue. I could be wrong, after all.

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?

I'll be honest; I held off your question for last because it gave me the most pause. It is a rather good point, and certainly valid given my language thus far.

To answer, it would depend on if the desired's disinterest is what draws the interest on the pursuer, and in what way. I'll subdivide.

Firstly, to speak broadly, if the desired were to fail to cause arousal if they were willing, but is attractive since they aren't, that would be a red flag. However, at this stage, I wouldn't conclude that they desire to rape just yet. That would require answering the matter of motivation.

If the motivation is to dominate, to control and subdue the desire's will, regardless of their enjoyment or suffering, or worse, entirely due to the suffering, then yes, that would be a desire to rape.

I know that answer's very incomplete, but I'm short on time, so I'll jump to my concluded point, and will provide clarification of the above if you request.

Even if you are attracted to someone that doesn't want you, even if you want to have sex with them, it is possible to feel those things without wanting to rape them. You aren't attracted to the aspect of the rejection, you're drawn to whatever it is you were drawn to. With a pedophile, what attracts them is the child's, well, childishness, which, by definition, is an aspect that cannot be separated from rape.

 

[TakerFoxx]

snip

But here's the problem: they've been trying to find a cure for decades, and have had no shortage of funding, subjects, or research. And just like those who tried to find a cure for homosexuality, all they've come up with are theories and a lot of dead ends. This is probably because the root cause changes frim person to person. In some, it (or rather, lokicon and shotacon) manifests as a fetish, and whether or not it's dangerous or harmless depends on the person. In others, it's a sympton of a mental disorder, and that's a nasty can of worms all in itself. In still others, it's an orientation, and there isn't much that can be done about that. People have tried. And they have failed.

Also, simply having an urge or attraction isn't, in itself, evil. Actions can be evil. Thoughts can be evil. But how your body instinctively reacts to stimuli isn't evil. My father is both paranoid and bipolar. Is that evil? No. It's not his fault that he was programmed that way. The evil comes when he listens to those voices and mood swings and acts on them. Thats' s what causes damage. Evil requires intent, not instinct.

 

[Frostbyte666]

Yes child pornography is rightfully illegal but manga is a drawing of an unrealistic girl/woman/androgynous thing (it can be hard to tell sometimes). Personally I have more issues with child beauty pagents and the over sexualisation of young girls in those 'competitions'. Has that been made illegal since those are real girls; that should be more of a focus than an artists drawings.

 

[Lono Shrugged]

Manga, overall is innocent of the crime, but I still wouldn't leave my kids alone with it...


If you get my meaning.

 

[Paragon Fury]

So I watched what they put up for the article.

The video makes it seem like they are breeding child predators in basements, planning for some kind of apocalyptic uprising.

As far as the idea behind the article is concerned......some people seem to be forgetting some important things.

No Reputable Study Has Ever Found Strong Correlation Nor Causation Between Media and Violence/Crime

At best they've found weak (less than .5%) correlation. Its generally conflation of two issues. And the studies often put the cart before the horse - they rarely check to see if the subjects are predisposed to the thing they're trying to study.

The Law is not Applicable or Related to Content in Any Way

Child molestation, pornography etc. laws refer specifically to ACTUAL CHILDREN BEING ENDANGERED OR HARMED BY THE WORK IN QUESTION. Manga and anime, by their definition, have no actual victims; there were no actual people harmed during/by the making of said material - so by definition they cannot be considered in violation of those laws. They could still be restricted by virtue of being cruel/immoral or in extreme bad taste, but you cannot ban them or charge with violating a law they cannot possibly violate ever.

Saying they should be banned due to the thoughts/actions they encourage/depict is censorship at best; at worst its stepping into the realm of "Thought Crimes"

Relating to the first point; you cannot link actions/media in any considerable way, unless the media is explicitly condoning or telling the viewer to go do said thing. If you're attempting to ban it on the grounds it "inspires or creates immoral/unethical thoughts", you've just stepped straight into the realm of "Thought Crime", and you're going to have to throw every human being ever - including the Pope, the President, the Queen and everyone in jail/rehab because literally every single person has fantasies of rape/violence/torture/weird sexual attractions at some point in their lives; some people all the time. But people can separate reality from fiction and random desires from actual actions or wants - people who can't or who are motivated by a book/entertainment to do otherwise have problems not related to the media in question.

So, as immoral or wrong as it might be.......the "against" side here doesn't have any real grounds for banning. Restricting the sale and display of, yes. Banning? Not in the slightest.

And this isn't even touching on the cultural differences between Japan and the rest of the world.

 

[Weaver]

In my opinion, a drawing of a person is not a person. Much as the writing of a person in a book is not a person.
Game of Thrones (the first book in asoiaf), Daenerys get's pregnant when she's 13 - 14 and is depicted - quite graphically - in numerous sex scenes up until that point. Also one several pages long of how totally turned on Khal Drogo is seeing his pregnant 14 year old wife and how much she's grown to love sex.

This is one of the best selling books in history and is pretty much universally acclaimed.

On the other hand, if some random manga has a character whose face is too child like then we must lambast the entire fandom, medium and the whole of Japanese culture.

In my simple opinion if there is no victim in an act, and you're not supporting something that victimizes others, it should not be a crime.

 

[Deadcyde]

SNIP

Okay, first things first.

Fictional characters.. fictional.. FIIICTTTTIIIOONNAL

Secondly, it was restrictive attitudes that brought about this state of affairs. Pre western Japan was fine, then suddenly westerners introduced restrictive ideals about genitalia, underwear and various other stupid self righteous ideals and as a result, tentacle porn, panty underwear vending machines and uniform and rape fetishization. (granted they still have some strange ideals of their own like ejaculation fetishs but everyone has foibles)

thirdly, step off, you're clearly treating this as if it's a personal attack because you share an arbitrary commonality (woo a vagina)suddenly you're humanizing something that has no business being so. Should we give human rights to drawings now? Or we should punish people for thoughts even? It's not like there is any proof of this causing any harm, but it might so lets punish any creative process at all.

Conservatives acting like they have jurisdiction over the world.

 

[geldonyetich]

I'd say CNN has a grain of truth behind their kneejerking.

Most manga comes from parts of the world where lolicon [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon] is pretty popular, and lolicon is pretty difficult to differentiate from pedophilia.

This is especially for Western eyes who don't necessarily understand the finer details of Eastern culture. The only reason lolicon even works over there because there's a far stronger reinforcement of family values and social mores, which isolates it in a fairly safe bubble of look-but-don't-touch. A lot of manga situations that seem sexual to Westerners are actually being done purely out of shock humor specifically because of how far outside of an Easterner comfort zone it is.

As of late, those values have been slipping a bit, the Japanese have been loosening up a bit to the ideas of individuality and not continually being under the iron grip of family their entire lives, and this has resulted in lolicon taking a turn for the worse. Japan is actually getting progressively closer to banning lolicon entirely, and when they're the ones doing the banning, exactly what culture do you have left that thinks it's okay anymore?

 

[tilmoph]

But here's the problem: they've been trying to find a cure for decades, and have had no shortage of funding, subjects, or research. And just like those who tried to find a cure for homosexuality, all they've come up with are theories and a lot of dead ends. This is probably because the root cause changes frim person to person. In some, it (or rather, lokicon and shotacon) manifests as a fetish, and whether or not it's dangerous or harmless depends on the person. In others, it's a sympton of a mental disorder, and that's a nasty can of worms all in itself. In still others, it's an orientation, and there isn't much that can be done about that. People have tried. And they have failed.

Also, simply having an urge or attraction isn't, in itself, evil. Actions can be evil. Thoughts can be evil. But how your body instinctively reacts to stimuli isn't evil. My father is both paranoid and bipolar. Is that evil? No. It's not his fault that he was programmed that way. The evil comes when he listens to those voices and mood swings and acts on them. Thats' s what causes damage. Evil requires intent, not instinct.

First point; you haven't actually changed my mind on any of the things I've disagreed with you on. I'm not trying to be an ass by the statement, I just wanted to be clear.

With that little disclaimer out of the way, between you, Gorrath, and Accursed Theory have actually given a very nice view at a viewpoint I honestly never gave much consideration to. Honestly, I don't think I've ever had to intellectually argue for my position and views on pedophilia at all. Never had to consider any of the logical extensions of them, or see why I think pedophilia (in the broad sense of attraction to children) was in a league of it's own. The closest I ever came was the "no, being attracted to children, in and of itself, doesn't mean someone should be shot, if they aren't acting on it" point. In this whole exchange I've been having, I've been forced to, more or less on the fly, think in clear terms why I feel and believe as I do. I'm not convinced I'm wrong, but I can actually understand why someone would think I am beyond simple defensiveness. I even understand my own position a little better. So, thanks for that.

To address your point about feelings or instincts nor being evil in and of themselves...I don't want to go too deep or personal here, but my own experience inside my own head won't ever let me see it that way, at all. I could try to argue semantics here, try to play some word game, but in all honesty, I will always be convinced that yes, feelings in your head, even the ones you fight down, the ones you know full goddamn well are terrible, that you reject as hard as you can, are still evil, and will still push you to give in to there evil. Thankfully, it's not pedophilia. while on pretty much any other point, I'm willing to intellectually at least try to defend a point to the best of my limited ability, on this matter of labels on feelings, there is just no point. I can't word a personal experience in an adequate intellectual format, and I can't divorce my thoughts from my biases to a degree worth a debate. The rest, yes, or at least I can try. This, the idea of a feeling being evil in an of itself, is just beyond me. Sorry if that seems like a cop out.

 

[Proto Taco]

Yes, it looks like 2 children

Except they don't.

I've never, ever, seen a child who looked like anything in anime or manga. The design, big eyes, etc. evokes something vaguely childlike, but that base quality defines a lot of the genre and is practically the barometer for what we as a species consider to be "cute." Hell, women in the states using eyeliner that specifically makes their eyes look wider/bigger are hitting on the same thing.

I really do dislike that "they look like kids" argument. I sort of wish I could see through these people's eyes, because the world must be quite weird...live action anime whenever they see a child.

Creepy.

No, in fact they do look like 2 ten year old girls with creepily oversized boobs. The eyes also aren't the only thing; their body mass, muscle development, fat deposits, relative proportion to the size of their heads and even their hairstyles and clothing STRONGLY indicate prepubescence. The only thing on these two girls that doesn't look 10 years old, is their boobs, and I find that both insidiously creepy that people are so willing to discount it, and also incredibly misogynist that the implication is either that women are more attractive when they look 10 years old, or that 10 year old girls should be equated with attractive women.

The whole thing just deeply unsettles me, 'cultural sensitivity' be damned.

 

[The Random Critic]

Just a some random point, the manga industry in Japan are worth millions of dollar. As a result, they have some impact with parts of the Japanese goverment

You know, just like in America [http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/05/01/12591/gun-lobbys-money-and-power-still-holds-sway-over-congress]

 

[kuolonen]

Oh look, a thread full of people being so sure they have the right to say what turns people on. Lovely.

OT: Ah, always when this topic comes up it is the same arguments with little change. Personally I find it very special case of loony to think that drawing can in any way be a crime, no matter what sick twisted fetish it expresses. "But it leads to actually committing crimes!" Yeah, sure. That is why every time I play game of Skyrim all knife-happy, I afterward recreate the things I do in my hometown streets. Oh wait...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.406275-Man-sent-to-jail-for-watching-pixie-sex?page=1

 

[Directionless]

That makes this even worse. If people are actually becoming sexually attracted to cute little animals and kids cartoon or otherwise, they should work even harder to correct the problem and encourage a healthier sexual appetite instead. Reducing exposure to sexualized cuteness would be a start. It is unhealthy and could be damaging to their relationships and actual adult human social interactions. For example, if someone is more sexually attracted to a furby than an adult male/female they should consider seeking a Psychiatrist to assist them with their problem rather than buying more furbys.

How people get their kicks is up to them. As long as they don't hurt or watch others being hurt I really don't see too much of a problem with it.

Fetishes are fetishes because they're weird and controversial. There's people who like to wear diapers, or who are attracted to clowns or balloons, and others who have love dolls. It's freaky, but eh...

This "lolicon" stuff however falls into an odd place, where on the one hand it's just a drawning, but on the other it's sexualizing something that in real life is such a horrid and devastating thing. Though you could also say the same thing about torture porn.

How people get their kicks can be and often is harmless however, it can also be devastating to the person and affect their life in a very negative way. These " kicks" can destroy their relationships, lead to isolation, anxiety, and often leads to depression and suicide if not properly addressed. Often people do not seek help because they are embarrassed or they do not even realize they have a problem until it has effected their life in a negative way.

I think you'll find, that the majority of people who resort to these avenues of sexual satisfaction already suffer from anxiety, isolation and being unable to form relationships. There is no causation here. And governmental regulation on what they view as "protecting people from themselves" is a slippery slope i don't want to go down.

 

[Directionless]

snip

Where are the lines drawn to "children are off limits to sexualize"?

Snip Snip...

If we allow for the frequency of images of children to be used sexually, we make the idea that sexualized children are somehow acceptable.

Can you just read the first line I isolated, and then the last sentence there one after the other. If you do that, you're bound to see what my point is going to be before I make it.

Let me adjust that last sentence.

"If we allow for drawings of what I believe to be representations of children to be used sexually, then I believe we make the idea that sexualized children are somehow acceptable."

If the head fits into the body more than once and if the limbs are long, then: regardless of the size of sexual characteristics I am unlikely to view the character as a representation of a child unless the anime or manga in question makes it explicit by statement.

By no means do I think that everybody who draws their line at some point after mine is wrong or more likely to be a pedophile. And I don't feel the need to criticize those who draw the line before mine either; except when they point to their line and say "EVERYBODY come here now because my judgement of this illustrated character is right and yours is hideous, dangerous and wrong".

Do we need to create a poll? The vast majority of humans on earth would see the images in the OP as sexualized children. When such can be said, it is okay to generalize your statements. We have 5th grade girls that are taller than me, and their teachers, and most adult women. There has to be more to their characters than "limbs". Yes, some young girls tower over me, but their face, voice and manner are what gives them away to be a child. This is how we tell they are kids. By sexualizing characters with child like features, you are sexualizing children.

This is redonk dude. Are you seriously suggesting that because girls are apparently maturing faster, we have to make characters MORE mature somehow? You realize that there are twenty year olds that look 14, and 14 year olds that look 20? Humans are attracted to physical maturity, not age. If girls are maturing at younger ages, people will become attracted to them at younger ages. They aren't going to look at a birth certificate and suddenly lose their boner.

I agree that some anime is really unsettling with some of the character designs, but arguing that because girls are becoming maturer earlier we must make characters look even older is just absurd.

 

[The Lunatic]

I also am a "furry", I like sexualized anthropomorphized animals. Does this mean I want to f**k an animal?

Have you ever really wondered what it is about furries that you find so interesting though?

I mean, it's something I'm into, but, I can't really work out why I like this over anything human.

Which rather makes me wonder why it is adding a pinch of anthropomorphic makes it appeal to me.

That, combined with other elements leads me to think I'm just a little strange in the head when it comes to people and relationships.

But, as far as I can tell, one thing does not lead to the other. Despite being a furry, I really don't like animals beyond cute cat pictures.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Yes child pornography is rightfully illegal but manga is a drawing of an unrealistic girl/woman/androgynous thing (it can be hard to tell sometimes). Personally I have more issues with child beauty pagents and the over sexualisation of young girls in those 'competitions'. Has that been made illegal since those are real girls; that should be more of a focus than an artists drawings.

Oh yeah, why hasn't anyone picked up on that? Child beauty pageants do much more to sexualise real-life children under their parents' permission (arguably child abuse) than a country putting up copies of clearly idealised, illustrated child porn.

I mean, where is this evidence that Japan has a culture, or will have a culture, which "accepts" sexualisation of real-life children just because of its media? They have an obsession with cuteness, sure, but that doesn't necessarily translate to just being fine with raping kids and the people that read this stuff will probably be just as ashamed of telling anyone they like about as are the people who may read similar stuff over here.

It's just a slippery slope fallacy, if you ask me. Just because there's a factor of sexual arousal doesn't make it much different from the "violent video games will foster an acceptance of real-life violence" argument. At least, with video games, you're actually participating in the virtual violence, but you're still equally as absorbed in the event as you are with lolicon/shotacon works.