Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

page: 1
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Ok i'm sure many people clicking on ths thread will have read my views on real child pornography and paedophiles. I firstly want to header this post with my views quickly.

If a Paedophile acts upon their compulsions they should be imprisoned for the rest of their life, i have an absolute burning hatred of these people. If they download child pornography containing images of real children, then i think the same sentence should apply, life in prison, because by downloading it they have helped it happen in a way.

I was reading another thread on ATS about a recent paedophile who was arrested with what the police describe as the worst collection of child porn they had ever seen, as i was scrolling through the BBC news archives something stuck me, i started to read and found out about something i never even knew existed. Maybe i'm slightly naive, it's animated child pronography.

news.bbc.co.uk...

Basically an artist draws children in sexual poses etc, these aren't child models before anyone asks, please read the article.

The basic arguements against paedophilic abuse are easy to understand and quite logical.

1) It harms the child emotionally and quite often physically. The scars of abuse continue into their adult lives and can haunt them for the rest of their lives. It destroys the sense of trust they have with people and even with counselling can be hard to fix. Suicides happen amongst the abused at a higher rate.

2) It's illegal, this to me is a minor point compared to point one.


Those are the two big points against child pornography and physical abuse of a child, so what about this animated stuff? Well i find the idea of even animated child pornography disgusting and distressing, however as i was reading the article something interesting came up. A paedophile caught using it said he'd abandoned real child pornography after he started using the animated stuff. I've had trouble finding the second article where the paedophile talks about stopping using real child pornography, sorry.

Now whilst im sure everyone here will share my revulsion with this man (at least i hope you all do), this is interesting. A real child might have been abused had this animated stuff not existed and here is where i'm conflicted. Whilst this disgusts me, should it be made illegal in the UK? It counters the first point against child abuse, there is no child involved.

No child is involved at any stage of these images, they are pure fake, created on a computer or drawn by hand. Whilst it's horrible, should it be illegal? Should we allow such pornography so that these people can satiate their lusts? If even one child is saved from abuse, would that make it worth while?

In all truth i'm utterly conflicted on this issue. I rarely have trouble making my mind up about anything, read though my thread history and you'll see that. This however i'm having trouble deciding, if it saves even one child then maybe it's worth leaving it to be legal. If a handful of paedophiles stop using real child pornography, where a child is horribly abused, to use this instead, then maybe we should allow it?

I decided to open this up on ATS as i just cannot decide whether this is ok or not, and i don't mean morally, it's wrong that this even exists, it's wrong they enjoy it. I just mean if it saves a child should we allow it? I'm hoping we'll get good arguments about all this because in all truth i can't make up my mind and a good debate would help me out.




posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Allowed I think.

Pedo's are going to get their rocks off somehow, you can't stop them all. I'd rather have them watching computer generated child porn instead of real child porn, or worse, have them out raping/molesting kids.




[edit on 29-6-2008 by OrangeAlarmClock]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


Yes i keep thinking that and yet my utter horror that this exists keeps overwhleming me with anger. Trying to look at this logically is very difficult.

The main point is that no child is harmed in these images, some paedophiles may switch to these images if they were legal so they could get their fix without risking prison. If these images are banned there will be no incentive to use them, paedophiles might just think that if they're going to go to prisn anyway then get the real thing. As long as there is demand for the real thing it will be published more often.

Whilst i'm not naive enough to believe it will stop all abuse, or stop all real pornography being shared and downloaded, i think it might stop some, and if it stops some then maybe we should allow this stuff?

As i said, i'm deeply conflicted on this issue so thanks for your input.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Hell that's a toughie..

On one side it could be said you're feeding the fantasy..which could lead to a criminal act being performed later.driven by these fantasies..

But it is that.. a fantasy..

Who hasn't played that game where your wife/girlfriend gets dressed up as the catholic schoolgirl?
Isn't that the same..the realm of fantasy?So does that make you a prospective pedo too?

(BTW..I've never played that game.. or the French maid one.. or the Nun/schoolteacher/little Dutch girl/can-can dancer/catwoman/...ahem)


[edit on 29-6-2008 by AGENT_T]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:07 AM
link   
pedophiles are bad. and anything that would fuel or allow their satisfaction should be burned.
i believe all sex offenders or repeat offenders anyway, pedophiles or not, should be chemically castrated or shot like dogs.

animated porn will fuel that need for gratification and therefore fuel the crime it gives birth too.


die you dogs, DIE.


[edit on 29-6-2008 by spearhead]

[edit on 29-6-2008 by spearhead]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I believe it is called (lolicon) short for Lolita complex and it has a whole subculture
wiki describes lolicon as



Lolicon (ロリコン, Lolicon?), also romanized as rorikon, is a slang portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex".[1][2] In Japan, the term describes an attraction to young girls,[3] or an individual with such an attraction.[4][5] Outside Japan, the term is less common and most often refers to a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are depicted in an erotic manner. The phrase is a reference to Vladimir Nabokov's book, Lolita, in which a middle-aged man becomes sexually obsessed with a 12-year-old girl.[6] The equivalent term for the sexualization of or attraction to young boys is shotacon.

here is the legal status


Legal status in the United States
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.[70] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."


Now with that said I think this form of Hentai is wrong and as you delve further in to the page you will find someone was arrested for this however.



On April 6, 2006, the arrest of one Michael Williams for child pornography was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the portion of the arrest which pertained to the PROTECT Act was overturned. Specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) were deemed insufficient to actually fulfill the requirements of the PROTECT Act, as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) of § 2252A(a)(3)(B) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.[75]


And that brings it back to no one knows whether or not it is legal in the us/

Here is the full link so that you can read it in its entirety
en.wikipedia.org...

I all most forgot as I am staunch ageist censorship I am torn on this issue as no one real gets hurt but I must think on the cost to my soul and ultimately say no it should not be legal.


[edit on 29-6-2008 by SPC_D]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead


animated porn will fuel that need for gratification and therefore fuel the crime it gives birth too.





I'll have to respectfully disagree. Pedo's are Pedo's, they are going to get their rocks off somehow. If we take the Animated child porn away form them, they will go to the real child porn. If we take that away from them, then they will go out and molest kids for real.

At least with the animated porn, they are not hurting any one. They are sickos, but no one is getting hurt.

The notion that animated porn could lead to more extreme things is a bit flawed, just like the notion that marijuana is a gateway drug. Sure, some marijuana users go on to use the more hardcore drugs, but most of them don't.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:14 AM
link   
Whether it's currently legal or not isn't my major issue, by the way i'm in the UK not USA, although this is of course a global issue so you're more than welcome to discuss.

My issue is that in the article i read before (which seems to now have a 404 error when i last found it), the arrested paedophile said he'd stopped using the real porn to use this animated stuff, which you found out is called lolicon. Thanks for that, i was to scared to type the key words into a search engine, didn't really know what would pop up.

If it's true that some paedophiles will use this porn to get their fix and avoid the abuse, or viewing of real abuse, then i'm almost inclined to support it's existence. However i just can't draw myself to sit on that point and decide it's right, the crime is just so horrible.

reply to post by AGENT_T
 



Originally posted by AGENT_T
Hell that's a toughie..


Master of understatement.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:17 AM
link   
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


When it comes to pornography influencing offenders i have to agree that it doesn't. Whit some offenders use it and then offend, they were already going to offend they just worked up to it. The type of person who can actually commit the act was always capable of it, they are the type to give in wholly to their impulses and not care about the child.

So i don't think the porn will cause them to offend.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:18 AM
link   


The notion that animated porn could lead to more extreme things is a bit flawed,


what happens when these pedo's, who can keep their animated porn collectively stashed on their computer and hidden from everyone who know's them, have their own children?

would you say those kids aren't at risk cos he can rub one out over the cartoons. it is said that the fantasy of child molestation is created when a pedo is a child and being molested themselves. therefore you could almost say it can be hereditary. it is an act that needs to be completely irradicated along with those who delve into that sick little world.

[edit on 29-6-2008 by spearhead]



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:19 AM
link   
It is legal in the UK as well, now with that said if some one can use this and it curbs them from real children than I can say im 100% for it.
I just worry that it will open a door that might have been closed for someone.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:27 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


The biggest problem I have is that the FBI is now arresting you just for clicking on a link. See this story:
www.windypundit.com...

The FBI guys post a link on a pedophile forum advertising the link to be child porn. When offenders click on the link, it brings them to an FBI website, and it logs their info and IP address. Next morning, FBI raids their home and arrests them.

What the FBI seems to be missing is, anyone can take that link now, and use it as an online prank or use it on their enemy, while claiming the link is something else.

Here, I'll give you an example.


Click here to receive ten dollars for free

Someone could send you that link, but instead the link could take you to the FBI webpage that logs your IP address. The next day, the FBI raids your home and arrests you, thinking you clicked the link to receive child pornography, when instead you only clicked it to receive 10 dollars.

Severly flawed.


This is one reason why you cannot enforce child pornography laws on the internet... especially ones aimed at mere animated stuff. Too many innocent people can go to prison.

Meanwhile, the real pedophiles are probably too smart to click on random links purporting to be child pornography.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:28 AM
link   
in australia they shutting the door on these sickos. they are publicly humiliating them by printing their names and locations in the papers.
to legalise animated porn of children being abused is like saying its ok.
how would you like an animated video of someone rodgering your son or daughter floating around the world. i can't express my anger at those of you who would say its ok to be a pedo, just keep it inside.
everyone is capable of anything and that's why this "some people won't do it and those that do would have done it anyway" krud will not stand in my book.

shoot them dead and string them up by the balls.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:29 AM
link   
IMO if you start to feel you are attracted to children. We as a society should find help and not shun these people we should point them in the direction of a good psychiatrist and get them help. as of right now it is so taboo, that people live with these feelings and feel they cant get help for fear of being shunned and let there feeling fester and than eventually molest a child.

The pedo's that already molest children there is no help for them thoe and they need to be put out of there misery.


my 2 cents



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


There is already a threa don ATS about that, discussed heavily i was part of it


Lets stick witht he topic please, otherwise i'll never get this sorted in my head lol, i've never been so confliced on an issue and i must admit it's bugging me.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by spearhead


The notion that animated porn could lead to more extreme things is a bit flawed,


what happens when these pedo's, who can keep their animated porn collectively stashed on their computer and hidden from everyone who know's them, have their own children?

would you say those kids aren't at risk cos he can rub one out over the cartoons.


That is severely flawed logic.

The animated porn doesn't turn someone into a pedophile, they are a pedophile to begin with if they are looking the stuff up.

If a pedophile has kids, he has kids - which is a travesty. Him suddenly having the urge to look up animated porn is not going to change anything.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
Master of understatement.


I try


Watching 'manga' cartoons are bad enough..They seem to find female voice actors with the harshest squeakiest voices you heard in your life
.. never mind pretending to be engaged in any kind of 'physical activity' let's say.

Like listening to Bonnie Langford on helium..


I knew quite a few Asian women in the M.E and none of them had voices like that.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by spearhead
 


Err i don't think anyone said it's ok to be a paedophile, try and calm down, i also get angry over this issue, read my first post. However i'm trying to see the big picture. Are you saying that if this type of pornography saved a real child you wouldn't support it? Because that's where my major cnflict is, that it might save a real child from abuse.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by SPC_D
IMO if you start to feel you are attracted to children. We as a society should find help and not shun these people we should point them in the direction of a good psychiatrist and get them help. as of right now it is so taboo, that people live with these feelings and feel they cant get help for fear of being shunned and let there feeling fester and than eventually molest a child.

The pedo's that already molest children there is no help for them thoe and they need to be put out of there misery.


my 2 cents

I agree, but

We should help any of them, it's a mental illness and they don't know any better. We treat people with any other mental illness (except homosexuals which puzzles me) so it only makes sense to treat these people to psychiatric help as well.

If they show no signs of getting better, then by all means keep them locked up in a mental ward. But "chopping their balls off" and "killing them" really serves no purpose. We kill one of the, another one will spring up in his place.

We are better off just educating these people and stopping the problem where it starts.



posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
reply to post by OrangeAlarmClock
 


There is already a threa don ATS about that, discussed heavily i was part of it


Lets stick witht he topic please, otherwise i'll never get this sorted in my head lol, i've never been so confliced on an issue and i must admit it's bugging me.


In the military I have found this saying helpful if you have to ask your self should I be doing this or looking at this the answer is no.

so can it save children I believe the answer is yes however can it harm them the answer is most deff yes so once more I got to say it should be banned my 2 cents





new topics

top topics



 
11
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join