Poll: underage animated female characters...

[Katana314]

For arguments like these I think of the "most extreme example" to decide if the point is valid. If I were to think of an Ivy (soul calibur) style of character for someone 12 or under, I think they have a valid point. I don't think it's as much whether there's a victim involved (possibly, if it's motion-captured?) but that it might fuel someone's desires, possibly even for other formats of child pornography; the kind with live actors.

Be honest; for anyone here who watches porn, do you watch it and then think "Gee, I don't feel like watching any porn for a long time."

Makes me wonder if they could fix the rating by just saying in the AU version, those characters are 21 and just look young.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Be honest; for anyone here who watches porn, do you watch it and then think "Gee, I don't feel like watching any porn for a long time."

Well I do tend to reach a certain point where it becomes a repulsive thing and I feel intense self-loathing...

... probably not what you're asking.

 

[Katana314]

Be honest; for anyone here who watches porn, do you watch it and then think "Gee, I don't feel like watching any porn for a long time."

Well I do tend to reach a certain point where it becomes a repulsive thing and I feel intense self-loathing...

... probably not what you're asking.

Well, by a long time I'm thinking of a matter of weeks. Such that you're not in any way inclined to buy more for so long.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Be honest; for anyone here who watches porn, do you watch it and then think "Gee, I don't feel like watching any porn for a long time."

Well I do tend to reach a certain point where it becomes a repulsive thing and I feel intense self-loathing...

... probably not what you're asking.

Well, by a long time I'm thinking of a matter of weeks. Such that you're not in any way inclined to buy more for so long.

If I binge on ponies I'm generally feeling good enough not to need those short bursts of self-gratification.
Not sure how this relates to delicious loli though.

[Edit: Also... buy porn? What? Lawl.]

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

underage girls shouldn't be displayed as a sexual enjoyment, but should still be characters in animes and stuff. Having an underage girl as a character would be an advantage because then they can't label them as sex figures and people would see them as...well character.
That's the idea, though I don't think it plays out how it should -_-

 

[mcnally86]

This kind of thing is actually Illegal in the UK, but I think its a stupid law.

Fictional animated characters are much better than the alternive *Shudders*

The theory is pedophiles need to go it cold turkey. If they start collecting a little "art" and "games" and end up with more and more. They create a demand and someone will step up to supply. Victimless some think. But what if the creators used source material (it happens). Also what if forums then spring up? Suddenly this sicko is part of a community. Well then he feels less bad about being a pedophile. This topic is gross, this internet is gross.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't think it should...I don't really care about straight up pornographic material featuring drawn or animated minors either.

Getting rid of the fake kiddy porn doesn't mean that pedophiles go away. It just means that they're forced to move on to real children to satisfy their desires.

I'd rather them be wanking to anime girls than my daughter, bro. >:x

Goddamn, it's like I posted in the past and had an awesome avatar. I'm keeping an eye on you, Awesome Me.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

...we're talking about regulating the age of consent of non-existent people. Really? We have to regulate whether fake people can have sex or whether it should be illegal to see fake people have sex? What are we supposed to do? Card them? If someone draws a pair of stick figures and labels them as underage, should this be illegal?

Anyone who checked "Yes" to this poll either misread the question or needs to get the logic section of their brain checked.

 

[GuiltyDark]

So I was just reading this thread

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.290715-Australia-Bans-Dead-or-Alive-Dimensions-After-All?page=2#11549609

and it occurred to me that, whether or not the girls are of age or not, does it matter if they're animated? I mean, if they're fictional no one is being exploited, so what's the problem, so long as they don't look TOO young? With animated characters, the only thing you have to go on is the character's description, and an animated 17 year old could just as easily be changed to an animated 18 year old with just a quick edit of the character's background page.

This isn't a bash on Australia's decision to ban the game (sure there are already plenty of those) I was just wondering what others thought of this.

So my question is this-should it matter in the case of an animated underage character being portrayed sexually, given that there is no exploitation?

EDIT: I didn't mean in the case of little kids (though I guess you could imply the same concept) I meant in the case of the late teens age range where it can be really hard to tell the difference between of age and underage.

I personally think it's a moral and ethical issue. People might take issue, even if in reality nobody is being exploited. I don't have an issue, but with people you never know what might offend. Still, in my own opinion, there's nothing wrong with it. It shouldn't matter, unless they're like.... 9 or something. And it's REALLY explicitly sexual.

 

[mcnally86]

I mean, if they're fictional no one is being exploited, so what's the problem, so long as they don't look TOO young?

And what exactly is your problem if they are "too young"?
No cowardly fence sitting. No "so long as".
If you think age limits for fictional characters shouldn't matter, you include 17 year olds and 11 year olds and 1 year olds, period.
If you don't wanna include those, age limits do matter, period.

If you let someone with anger management issues lose control constantly in harmless ways (punching inanimate objects), it doesn't curb their desire, it just gets them in the habit of giving into it. Eventually, these habits could manifest less harmlessly.

Got anything to back that up too or are those just more assumptions that "seem logical"?
You know what else "seems logical" to people? That gayness is a contagious disease.

Really did you just call him a contagions gay? That wasn't part of this topic. You talk about logic and you are tossing in other controversial topics to support your arguments. Yes, behaviors left unchecked tend to escalate. That is fact.