Poll: underage animated female characters...
- Thread starter renegade7
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Some people are gonna perve on underage girls, no matter what you do to try and stop it. I'd sooner they do it to animated ones then have real people exploited.
Man, I resent that. I like women with A-C cup breasts...cursedseishi said:
In fact, a women with American DD cups is actually a turn off for me. Simple reasoning behind that: they're fat, were fat (And could become so again.), or the breasts are fake. And yes, you just heard an American male admit to not liking fake titties.
You mean like 15-17?Jack Ebersole said:
Well getting beyond gender prejudices, the all time greatest Anime films - Akira - the two protagonists were both only 15 years old boys. And that was an essential plot element, they were teenage delinquents still in school. Not just young adult criminals.
Although the movie was not "sexualised" it still had sexual elements that were key to progressing the story and developing the characters. It was not titillating, it was dramatic.
And America does THE SAME THING! The number of slasher films set in high school, or even Buffy the Vampire slayer, Heroes, Smallville.
I'd find it utterly hypocritical if Australia (or any country) allows such live action features yet animated and video games versions were persecuted.
Do they not realise how insulting that is to women with naturally small breasts?bahumat42 said:
"Only b-cup, luv? That's like a little girl breasts, you need to get implants unless the only guys you expect to attract are sick paedo scaaaum!"
You really have to hand it to them, this law was clearly signed through by paranoid males who know next to nothing about women and have been watching too many porn movies where all the women have double-D silicone domes for breasts. Or by women who want all porn banned and are happy to ban just a part of it under the "think about the children" fallacy.
Somewhere along the way the seem to have lost sight of what their job actually is:
TO PROTECT CHILDREN
Not enforce a narrow ideal of expectations for adult sexual interaction.
Though my favourite quote on page of comments:
"does this apply to men with small dicks as well??"
The law is sexist. I mean it bans small breasts but not small wangs, this is the kind of law Duke Nukem would write... as a joke.
True but you have to appreciate how powerful the "think about the children" fallacy is. Fallacies may be fundamentally false, but that doesn't mean they aren't powerful logical weapons, they just happen to have a fatal weakness.TheLaofKazi said:
See we can conclude that violent media doesn't contribute to violence because we are able to talk about it AND we feel strongly enough about it to defend it.
But people CANNOT talk about sex, and they especially not when it involves kids. Emotions get too high, people jump to conclusion, people worry even about how every little thing they say and fallacies are far easier to introduce. It's all Freudian, we are not rational beings, the world is too complex to be rational, we are ruled by our emotions. This is how when some Prude says:
"We should ban this because something-something-something pedos win"
You can't really stand up to it, you cannot actually counter it directly. As merely opposing it utterly undermines your own position as you become the "pro-pedo" side even though that is your last intention.
I think the problem is Australia is the government is WEAK. SO weak, it has no fortitude to stand up to any special interests, any loud-mouth troll can get any stupid law passed by campaigning and making enough of a fuss. Australian politics don't seem to have learned how to deal with extremist voices as they see to want to hit them head on which is futile.
The only way to fight such dirty legislation is with a taste of their own medicine.
English politics is VERY good at this, when a bill like this comes along it is strategically bombed with a laser guided tactical nuke of an "under-argument" that blows away not it's point, but it's foundation.
Use another fallacy against it: sexism.
This law is sexist, because it treats young looking women AS IF they were children.
If Australian politicians who don't want to find themselves forced to sign through such laws need to read Sun Tzu's Art of War. It is so relevant, ideas are like armies, they must be fought like a conflict with ideas of your own. You need allies, you need strategy, you need deceptions.
It's a lot like the movie Inception and their "power of Ideas", except without the dream-allegory bullshit, you can do this FOR REAL on people. Why do you think hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars are spent on advertising, Public Relations, lobbying. Lawyers do this, they plant an idea in your head without you even realising it, and best part about this you REALLY can be led to believe that this is your own idea.
Australia seems to think just having an "open" debate is enough. That's like having a forum without moderators, if you allow that the trolls will take over.
Rant: over
For further reference, check out Adam Curtis' documentary The Century of the Self.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcYBSXgtmKQ
PS: for all those wondering about all the crazy things that Palin is saying, stop to consider that she is being directed not to make a rational case, but one based on Freudian principals that we are ultimately ruled by our emotions; our fears; our desires. And that the idea that when the swing voters go to the polls they vote based on their feelings, not their logic.
It worked for Clinton in 1996.
i think it does for the sheer creep factor.
i've seen a lot of lisa simpson porn in my life (i frequent 4chan, yes), but that doesn't make it any less gross.
i've seen a lot of lisa simpson porn in my life (i frequent 4chan, yes), but that doesn't make it any less gross.
Between 7 and 8.
14
15
16
Paedophilia has gone the same way as Drugs and Terrorism. In our "valiant attempts" to wage War on them, they've just scared the public even more.
You laid out the situation quite accurately, it's the sad reality of human nature and politics. It's the same with American politics, the corporate and special interests influence on our government is fucking absurd.Treblaine said:
I think I've lost faith in politics and the government to get things done and improve our situation, which is why my viewpoints have become less politically involved over the last year or so. I used to have more concrete views on what exactly should be done in a political context, what kind of law should be made, how it should be made, who should be elected so it would be made, how to deal with the inevitable crap that comes with it, all of that kind of stuff. But I don't feel like playing that game anymore. I feel that playing the game only contributes to the mess.
The problem with using bullshit to destroy bullshit, is after everything is said and done, look at what's left: Bullshit. The progress made from such tactics would be temporary and would create more problems down the line. Change and progress shouldn't come out of political games, lying and deceit. It needs to come out of honesty. Such an approach wouldn't work in politics, but that's why I have lost faith in them.
That documentary looks very interesting too, I'll have to add it to the 'the list' =D.
I really suggest you watch it. It paints a grim picture and poses more questions than answers but you know what... it makes sense of the world.TheLaofKazi said:
I know fighting bullshit with bullshit isn't ideal. It isn't idea that wars have to be fought by killing people, but there isn't much alternative.
Don't give up on politics. It's the power people
I've started a Poll thread on this, as a central issue of Century of Self is the rationality of humanity. I think understanding the limits of that is important to understanding politics:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.291180-Poll-Are-we-rational-beings-The-Century-of-The-Self
Honestly I don't think it matters because it's too hard to tell anyway. A 14 year old anime girl often looks exactly like a 21 year old anime girl, especially if there's nothing in the background to compare their height to (naturally a 14 year old being a good deal shorter then a 21 year old).
15 years ago people would have laughed at you if you said people would be trying to apply real world laws to fictional characters and that weird fantasy makes people go nuts and commit a crime in reality.
But thanks to the dateline-fueled pedo-paranoia and general "dumbening" of kids today, they're growing up thinking cartoon characters need to be protected and that artists are the same as molestors.
In the 90's parents were screaming "IT'S GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE INTO MONSTERS!" over video games like Doom, now it's the kids saying that sort of thing about videos game mods like the columbine shooting. So it would make sense that kids today will also think cartoons and fictional creations are as equally as dangerous as reality.
Sad really, but then the same young gamers also defend game companies that claim ownership to people's photos taken with their device and what they can and can't do with their own property, so it's to be expected.
We're willingly letting the west snowball down the hill of the nanny state.
You can't apply rules to fiction; if you say fiction encourages sexual urges, then you have to say fiction encourages criminal urges..
You could try to use the excuse that sexual fantasy is different than violent fantasy of running over old ladies with a bus, but then both acts depected in fiction are illegal and immoral in reality so if an artist can be arrested for CP over a drawing, then artists that create scenarios that allow people to kill cops have to be arrested for murder and encouraging others to murder.
But thanks to the dateline-fueled pedo-paranoia and general "dumbening" of kids today, they're growing up thinking cartoon characters need to be protected and that artists are the same as molestors.
In the 90's parents were screaming "IT'S GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE INTO MONSTERS!" over video games like Doom, now it's the kids saying that sort of thing about videos game mods like the columbine shooting. So it would make sense that kids today will also think cartoons and fictional creations are as equally as dangerous as reality.
Sad really, but then the same young gamers also defend game companies that claim ownership to people's photos taken with their device and what they can and can't do with their own property, so it's to be expected.
We're willingly letting the west snowball down the hill of the nanny state.
In the same way Doom encouraged the kids at Columbine to shoot up their school or how GTA encourages kids to become criminals. Fox News said Bulletstorm was going to make kids rapists.Raskolnikov34 said:
You can't apply rules to fiction; if you say fiction encourages sexual urges, then you have to say fiction encourages criminal urges..
You could try to use the excuse that sexual fantasy is different than violent fantasy of running over old ladies with a bus, but then both acts depected in fiction are illegal and immoral in reality so if an artist can be arrested for CP over a drawing, then artists that create scenarios that allow people to kill cops have to be arrested for murder and encouraging others to murder.
I believe Loli is illegal in the UK. If it's a matter of discerning if a drawing of a girl depicts her as 16 or 18, it's really up to the artist and the observer. More so the observer, unless the artist puts the animated girl in a scenario that specifies she is 16.
Should it matter? By which I think you mean, should it be illegal? Depends on whom you consider too young to be portrayed in a sexually provocative manner, and if you're okay with letting an industry operate the produces the material, which sends out the message for the society, "We support this".
EDIT: I should note, whether this is a logical message is debatable (which is what this thread is about!), as you can extrapolate from the same mentality any society that lets GTA be sold supports murder, drug trafficking etc... I guess it tells you how afraid people are of paedophilia. It defies rationality.
It's definitely tricky. No one is hurt directly, but it certainly does promote harmful acts and material.
However if it meant I couldn't have the likes of NGE, because the female pilots are 14, I'd be displeased.
Edit: I see this developed into a discussion on paedophilia. I hope these don't become prolific again. See my previous comments from a couple of months ago, I'm not writing it all out again.
Should it matter? By which I think you mean, should it be illegal? Depends on whom you consider too young to be portrayed in a sexually provocative manner, and if you're okay with letting an industry operate the produces the material, which sends out the message for the society, "We support this".
EDIT: I should note, whether this is a logical message is debatable (which is what this thread is about!), as you can extrapolate from the same mentality any society that lets GTA be sold supports murder, drug trafficking etc... I guess it tells you how afraid people are of paedophilia. It defies rationality.
It's definitely tricky. No one is hurt directly, but it certainly does promote harmful acts and material.
However if it meant I couldn't have the likes of NGE, because the female pilots are 14, I'd be displeased.
Edit: I see this developed into a discussion on paedophilia. I hope these don't become prolific again. See my previous comments from a couple of months ago, I'm not writing it all out again.
Felt this needed it's own post to clear up current statuses.
UK Law: The Coroners and Justice Bill (which came into force on 6 April 2010) criminalises all sexual images of under 18s (including non-realistic depictions), as well as images of adults where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is under 18 despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a person under 18.
US Law: As of the PROTECT Act of 2003, the legal status of cartoon pornography with minors has been more thoroughly addressed and refined than it was before under the previous law of the United States. The new act made any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of minors in sexual situations that do not pass the Miller test were made illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A thus creating a loop hole around the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition decision.
UK Law: The Coroners and Justice Bill (which came into force on 6 April 2010) criminalises all sexual images of under 18s (including non-realistic depictions), as well as images of adults where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is under 18 despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a person under 18.
US Law: As of the PROTECT Act of 2003, the legal status of cartoon pornography with minors has been more thoroughly addressed and refined than it was before under the previous law of the United States. The new act made any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of minors in sexual situations that do not pass the Miller test were made illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A thus creating a loop hole around the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition decision.
They're not real, it doesn't matter.
Because they're not real.
Have I mentioned they're not real yet? because they're not, you know. Not real.
Because they're not real.
Have I mentioned they're not real yet? because they're not, you know. Not real.
There's these things in the shops called razors? A somewhat recent invention, but it seems they don't just make keyboards and mice!Grinderbilly said: