CNN overreacting and claiming Manga is child porn

[The Lunatic]

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.

I think it's unfair to compare violence to the rape of anyone, child or otherwise.

Violence can be justified, and often in is video games. Games are rarely violent for the sake of violence. And those that are, tend to be slapstick.

Even then, gratuitous violence tends to irk a lot of people. Manhunt makes a lot of people uncomfortable, GTA does not.

So, to just say "Violence" is a bit vague.

And, you're probably right about Japan. I'm not sure where the idea that the whole of Japan is okay with these kinda depictions came up, but, I doubt it's an acceptable thing.

However, this also applies to violence. A lot of people in western cultures do not completely accept violent video games.

What I will say, is that anime culture is usually quite accepting of loli and shota. And that's where the real clash comes from. "Anime Culture" at the end of the day is a pretty small group in the grand scheme of things, perhaps it's easy for some to lose awareness of such things, but, under-age kids being depicted in sexual scenes is pretty revolting for people with little exposure to that culture.

So, that leads to the question of, why is anime culture so accepting of it in the first place?

 

[Relish in Chaos]

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.

I think it's unfair to compare violence to the rape of anyone, child or otherwise.

Violence can be justified, and often in is video games. Games are rarely violent for the sake of violence. And those that are, tend to be slapstick.

Even then, gratuitous violence tends to irk a lot of people. Manhunt makes a lot of people uncomfortable, GTA does not.

So, to just say "Violence" is a bit vague.

I don't know why not. Just because violence can be justified doesn't mean that's always the case in video games, and a lot of the time they are violent for the sake of violence. It being slapstick doesn't demean from the fact that it's still violence, just like a woman "comically" raping a man she's after in a film like Wedding Crashers doesn't demean from the fact that it's still rape.

Justification is both irrelevant and subjective in a discussion like this.

And, you're probably right about Japan. I'm not sure where the idea that the whole of Japan is okay with these kinda depictions came up, but, I doubt it's an acceptable thing.

However, this also applies to violence. A lot of people in western cultures do not completely accept violent video games.

What I will say, is that anime culture is usually quite accepting of loli and shota. And that's where the real clash comes from. "Anime Culture" at the end of the day is a pretty small group in the grand scheme of things, perhaps it's easy for some to lose awareness of such things, but, under-age kids being depicted in sexual scenes is pretty revolting for people with little exposure to that culture.

So, that leads to the question of, why is anime culture so accepting of it in the first place?

Why is video game culture so accepting of violence in the first place? Why is Hollywood so accepting of torture porn films like Hostel and Saw?

Well, OK, I'll answer your question without trying to make comparisons: because people involved in anime culture (to be more specific, the loli/shota anime subculture, which itself is a niche demographic) are already accustomed to such tropes and appreciate the creativity of said manga/anime (yes, even porn can be creative).

 

[RaikuFA]

This is the same news channel that said that the Stubenville rape victims should've kept their mouth shuts and dealt with what happened to them instead of ruining some athletes lives. BTW a woman said that.

Yeah CNN has gone the way of Fox News.

 

[Auron225]

Wow! Great job CNN. We should lock up those dirty japs and take away their child porn. Thank you for keeping us safe CNN. Now I can sleep at night.[/heavy sarcasm]

I'll happily admit that whatever Doll FALL is, it does look explicit and certainly wouldn't appeal to me but to take that as an example to condemn the entirety of manga is hilarious. Someone could just as easily take "50 Shades of Grey" and use it to try and ban any and all types of written literature. Guess we can't have films anymore either, cause y'know, child pornography videos do exist.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

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.

No, in fact, they look like cartoon characters. Their proportions are not realistic, I'm glad we agree on that point, as does the rest of society when they recognize the fact that they are, in fact, not "real." The hairstyles? One of them doesn't appear to have a hairstyle (the right) while the other has some form of bun/pigtails that would, again, be very difficult for a real person to achieve, regardless of their age, without some heavy duty chemical interference.

The outfits are sailor uniforms with short skirts. Short skirts are indicative of prepubescence now? The club scene is awash in child molesters and their innocent targets!

I don't understand it, but can recognize that you see them as children. I can't, however, understand how you could equate sexualizing non-realistic representations of "women" with sexualization of ten year olds. I just don't see it and neither do quite a damned lot of other people.

Therefore, the insinuation that I'm somehow a misogynist for enjoying a particular art style is ridiculously narrow-minded on your part and the part of others sharing your opinion. I find real women attractive. I also find hentai quite hot. Being of sound mind, I can very easily make the distinction between the two.

That said, it's your opinion. Have at it.

 

[Riot3000]

So for the 13 year olds and up who are having sex with each other because this does exist should be under the subject of law? Of course we can say 13 can't consent sex with a adult no argument there but the 13 year olds with each what to do about that.

I know this isn't too me, so sorry for being rude, but I figured I'd chime in. 13 year olds doing each other strikes me as a bit, well, young, but not illegal or really as disgusting. They're more or less on the same playing field mentally and emotionally (with the occasional outliers). So no, 13 year old on 13 year old ought to be discouraged, because holy fuck is that young, but illegal? Nope. Hell, even the discouragement shouldn't be angry or shaming, just kind of a "are you sure you're old enough to be doing this? It is kind of a big step you know. Some big emotions might come into play" kind of thing. But keep the criminal justice system out of it. Leave it to the relatives and teachers to sort out.

Well I am going by experience I know growing plenty of people lost their virginity and started having sex at 13. I agree it should be discouraged for endless reasons and we are basically on the same page. Just got to be careful that laws don't get to out there and critical thought is applied.

As not rude as all its an open forum for discussion.

 

[Proto Taco]

No, in fact, they look like cartoon characters. Their proportions are not realistic, I'm glad we agree on that point, as does the rest of society when they recognize the fact that they are, in fact, not "real." The hairstyles? One of them doesn't appear to have a hairstyle (the right) while the other has some form of bun/pigtails that would, again, be very difficult for a real person to achieve, regardless of their age, without some heavy duty chemical interference.

The outfits are sailor uniforms with short skirts. Short skirts are indicative of prepubescence now? The club scene is awash in child molesters and their innocent targets!

I don't understand it, but can recognize that you see them as children. I can't, however, understand how you could equate sexualizing non-realistic representations of "women" with sexualization of ten year olds. I just don't see it and neither do quite a damned lot of other people.

Therefore, the insinuation that I'm somehow a misogynist for enjoying a particular art style is ridiculously narrow-minded on your part and the part of others sharing your opinion. I find real women attractive. I also find hentai quite hot. Being of sound mind, I can very easily make the distinction between the two.

That said, it's your opinion. Have at it.

Pigtails are, by society at large, considered sexually infantalizing toward women. The very fact pigtails are present means the designers were striving to make these 'women' look like children. Additionally, you mention short skirts, while deftly avoiding the real issue which is they are short school girl skirts, part of school girl outfits, worn by two 'women' deliberately portrayed to look as much like children as possible, in an obviously suggestive pose together, looking at the camera while their cleavage and panties are on display.

Furthermore, do not equate a niche audience with 'the rest of society'. For the majority of 'the rest of society' that cover looks like child porn, and the fact that you need to look up the content of the book to prove otherwise is the linchpin here. Now if you and a few friends enjoy such artistic styles and think no less of women or girls for it, by all means, have at it. But realize it is entirely normal for 'the rest of society' to see child porn when they look at it, because no amount of proving your point is going to change that.

 

[RaikuFA]

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.

Don't even bother. She's been known in the past to attack anime/manga because her friends talk about it too much around her.

 

[Olas]

I have mixed feelings about this. Obviously cartoon child porn is hugely different than real life child porn in that nobody is being directly harmed in the creation. What bothers me is if the inclusion of sexualized and sexualization of kids in the media makes people more likely to consider it normal and not something revolting and morally reprehensible in real life. Obviously most people won't see something in a cartoon and think that it makes acceptable in real life, but the key word there is "most".

I suppose the real problem then isn't child porn, but suggestive sexualizing of children in more mainstream media. As long as you're forced to crawl to some dark corner of the internet to get your kicks you'll understand how abnormal your sexual desires are and will mentally separate it from your real life. However, once actual TV shows start catering to you it might seem more okay.

 

[SilverUchiha]

In case you didn't hear, someone from CNN did a story worthy of something that might appear in a magazine that tells about appearances of Elvis and aliens. It claims that manga is child porn.. seriously?.. ok they sought out one manga in particular, a series called Doll FAll 2.

i've never heard of it before but I did check out the first chapter of the horror manga series.. and there's virtually no nudity (except one scene that shows a 16 year old girl girl bathing, but you only see her bare back, nothing else),some blood and gore at the end of the chapter and one scene of a girl getting burned by cigarettes in a flash back.. but I didn't see no evidence of any child pornography anywhere..

[snip]

What does everyone think about this?

This is coming from the same news source that, during the Sandy Hook shooting, blamed several non-violent or non-gun-utilizing games as the cause of the shooter's behavior. They also acquired this "he's a gamer" information from the shooter's brother's facebook page... OH, and they originally thought said facebook page was that of the shooter and immediately blamed him at first for the shooting, believing all of the "information" they gathered from that facebook page to be accurate.

Yeah... CNN is as bad or worse than FoxNews at this point. I generally don't watch, believe, or listen to any of their news stories because I don't trust they actually did any real research to present that information. Anymore, it feels like they point a camera at a guy (or girl) and ask them to read something someone scribbled up that vaguely forms an opinion or idea in an effort to call it news. All the while failing to realize just how stupid and ignorant the lot of them have become over the past few years.

 

[gargantual]

Look, if this kind of material makes people want to rape kids, then violent video games will turn people into murderers. sounds pretty logical to me. Fantasy does not equal reality. No matter how tasteless the work may be. Soon we might as well ban ANY kind of fantasy that we deem to be inappropriate. You should be able to watch whatever you want so long as your not breaking the law, or hurting no one. I

yep. The old cartoon wars rule we've heard from South Park. This stuff's been around for years, for better or worse and we know it. Japan may have its issues but at large its society doesn't have the same level of issues with sex and repression that America has, and most citizenry I imagine are too practical to trouble with sex and sex politics to our degrees. So its a different audience climate that doesn't take it as angry as us (I.E. Hilary over Hot Coffee Mod suddenly = national conversation and chastising angry.) Some things are clearly in the red but in cultural context a lot of inoffensive things here can be a huge offense elsewhere.

Either people should be allowed to express anything or we're all not allowed to express anything.

This stuff is really borderline, but I gotta say the precedent still has to be protected. When we as common people give it up, communication authority can look at other things we don't deem as offensive and censor that too based on misunderstanding. When we all start getting an armchair "Nurse Ratchett" opinion about media and how to engineer the mind back into socially acceptable zones of repression, that's ten times more disgusting to me.

Can't build a greater society at large based on distrust, gotta give people the discernment to know how to moderate their own fetish engagement. There will always be outliers in entertainment, but making those outliers the chief ambassadors of a varied medium or genre news doesn't understand, almost always smells of shame-trolling, or taking shots at other media drawing attention that the stubborn, jealous and snooty old guard doesn't like.

 

[Apl_J]

So basically, the prevailing rule is 'if its drawn, it isn't wrong'? Anything up to (or including?) depicting sex with a child is okay? Personally, this feels like very iffy circumstances. While I can't agree that a picture of a child in an overtly sexual position is strictly always pedophilia, but I can't very well say its strictly always unrelated.

Basically, I'm having trouble seeing the line. Where does it become wrong? Depicting actual sexual contact? If that's the case, how is being a step down from that not the same thing?

 

[Deadcyde]

*sigh*

So much line blurring here.. let me set the record straight

Manga = Graphic novel
Hentai = Animated Porn
Loli = underage animated porn

Manga =/= Loli

Stop arguing like it does. Does it contain adult themes? Yes. And sin city has an underage miho rollerblading about with her boobs out and stabbing people. So do we ban all graphic novels? Of course not, it's simply a creative medium.

 

[softclocks]

First things first; Japan only recently outlawed kiddie porn? Holy crap, did not know it was even legal there. I mean, they produce some messed up things, and they really need to stop trying to sex up 14-16 year olds (but then, so does everyone else), but just...wow.

Most 16 year olds are sexed up.

Get with the times America and terrorist-nations.

 

[Phantom Kat]

So basically, the prevailing rule is 'if its drawn, it isn't wrong'? Anything up to (or including?) depicting sex with a child is okay? Personally, this feels like very iffy circumstances. While I can't agree that a picture of a child in an overtly sexual position is strictly always pedophilia, but I can't very well say its strictly always unrelated.

Basically, I'm having trouble seeing the line. Where does it become wrong? Depicting actual sexual contact? If that's the case, how is being a step down from that not the same thing?

I'd say the line is "was a child harmed in the making of this?" As long as it doesn't have a victim then it's not "wrong". That doesn't mean I don't think it's repulsive though, quite the opposite.

 

[Deadcyde]

So basically, the prevailing rule is 'if its drawn, it isn't wrong'? Anything up to (or including?) depicting sex with a child is okay? Personally, this feels like very iffy circumstances. While I can't agree that a picture of a child in an overtly sexual position is strictly always pedophilia, but I can't very well say its strictly always unrelated.

You're still trying to argue that fictional/fantastic/intangible is somehow real. Not only that you're defining a persons reaction to it, which apart from impossible due to everyone being individuals, you're assuming people will react with the most offensive level of thought..

Not only that, people are arguing as if something drawn is tantamount to involving real people like a photo.

Stop it.

(edited)

 

[keniakittykat]

This discussion has been going on for literally centuries.
It's always been a discussion if sexual drawings cause men to flip out.

From Manet's 'picnic in the park' being poked at by angry people holding pointy umbrella's (True story!) to people claiming a paperback graphic novel can cause people to start raping children.

I'm not a fan of lolicon at all, but that doesn't mean I should want to have them banned!

And about the report itself? Just a sensationalized pretend-issue made by unenlightened half-wits. (Seriously, they didn't even know how to pronounce 'anime'?)

 

[Phantom Kat]

So basically, the prevailing rule is 'if its drawn, it isn't wrong'? Anything up to (or including?) depicting sex with a child is okay? Personally, this feels like very iffy circumstances. While I can't agree that a picture of a child in an overtly sexual position is strictly always pedophilia, but I can't very well say its strictly always unrelated.

Basically, I'm having trouble seeing the line. Where does it become wrong? Depicting actual sexual contact? If that's the case, how is being a step down from that not the same thing?

I'd say the line is "was a child harmed in the making of this?" As long as it doesn't have a victim then it's not "wrong". That doesn't mean I don't think it's repulsive though, quite the opposite.

You're still trying to argue that fictional/fantastic/intangible is somehow real. Not only that you're defining a persons reaction to it, which apart from impossible due to everyone being individuals, you're assuming people will react with the most offensive level of thought..

Not only that, people are arguing as if something drawn is tantamount to involving real people like a photo.

Stop it.

Are you sure you're quoting the right person? None of that is applicable to what I said.

 

[Lady Larunai]

Im pretty sure this got more coverage from enraged internet readers than CNN itself given it's current viewership ratings.

 

[trlkly]

I finally found the cover [http://cc.bookwalker.jp/coverImage_819062.jpg]. I can't tell how old they are supposed to be, but they don't look like children to me, and they appear to be fully clothed and just holding each other. Even if you think they are children, I don't see why you would object. I mean, if I squint, I can see some sexual overtones with the where one girl's hand is on the other girl, and, yes, the skirts are bit short*, but I can't see how that is remotely supposed to be child pornography. It wouldn't be child porn if they were actual 10 year old girls.

But I have no reason to think that they are even supposed to be 10-year-olds. The body of a ten year old would be shorter and much less developed. I get why an American, unused to the Japan's obsession with "cute-ification," might think they are kids, but this is a Japanese comic sold in Japan.

*Yes, short skirts can be seen as sexualization, but that's not the same thing as porn. If so, pictures of cheerleaders or women in bathing suits would be porn. You need an actual sexual situation or implication. I've seen real life children in more revealing clothing in magazines like JCPenney.