Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

This is perhaps borderline, but considering what comes out of Japan, this isn't even sick, just weird. www.demonbaby.com...
Goto: Browse, and click Sex. The guy made a list of messed up things he's found in Japanese porn shops.

Japan is the only country I've seen that has insect and fish pornography, public "rape" (faked of course), and we can't forget bukkake. Truly, Japan is the Mecca of porn, weird porn.

Doesn't really matter if you ban it or not.

Welcome to the reality of hell, where there is no simple solution.

The fact is that the people in charge are fueling all these deranged behaviors with their twisted psychological advertisement and materialistic game. They obviously will create chaos to make alot of money so they can build weapons to eventually force most chaos to stop.

If we spent billions of dollars on how to balance peoples energies with magnetics or whatever, we could go to the root of the problem. Pills dont work. Its all about chakras and subtle energy imbalances that are the problem. But we dont want to try to fix anything do we.

The individual answer is to realize you arent your body and nobody can hurt you. Then we can accept things that happen to us in hell that we cannot prevent. Learning to love our enemies, forgiveness and acceptance will earn you graduation from this place.

Originally posted by gekko

 

Good points and thanks for the link. Do you have something similar on Japan?

It took a little digging, but I found some hard statistics from NationMaster.

The United States ranked first with 95,136 reported rapes this year alone.
The United Kingdom ranked 7nd at 13,395 reported rapes this year.
Japan ranked 20th at 2,357 reported rapes this year.

Now of course, we must take into consideration that these are reported rapes, not just speculation. Therefore, these amounts must be adjusted.

According to the Boston World News, only 10% of rapes are reported. Taking this into account, their have been possibly 23,570 rapes in Japan. Of course this figure is inaccurately, but for the sake of the argument, we will use it as an example.

In the previous link I posted, here, only 18% of rapes are reported in the United States, by this we can assume there have been 528,533 total cases of rape this year (of course this number is inaccurate, and is merely a rough basis using speculation from support groups.

Is there a direct correlation between porn and rape? I believe so, but using two countries as a judge his hardly enough evidence. Considering the massive amount of pornography here in America, that may seem unlikely, but when one considers the type of erotica typically made in America, it becomes more probable.

Source

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


i am opposing the motion : THW ban animated paedophilia and there are 4 big arguments against a ban

1Better than real paedophilia, it is better for them to look at animation than abusing real children

2Regulation, if it is legal, you need a license to post it, and through this we can regulate it and remove the most offensive images

3Policing, the police post links to fake real peadophilia sites and then save the ip addresses of anyone who clicks these links, so far 1000s of paedophiles have been caught

4Society's role, if there is no actual harm done, then what right does society have to say it is wrong to the extent of banning it, we should preach against it, but not ban it eg Smoking and drinking

well if it stops the pedos touching children and no one is harmed whats the problem maybe they should ban it in general and only a doctor can prescribe the pedo a passsword to the "really good amimated stuff" he requires to keep control.
i am sure if these people were treated and there was the help in place such as above more would come forward and ask for help without the mindless people saying shoot them! put them down! cut there ball off! that kind of retarded cowboy attitude will not help anyone and if a man/women has these urges and feels out of control wouldnt you all rather he could go to a specialist and get help without the uproar that will normally occure.

at the moment no one is going to ask 4 help because he is a pedo and where would he go ?

If child porn contributes to molestation and hurts the victim more. Then "Cops" contributes to crime and should be banned. Sure, production should be banned because it is an actual crime taking place, but going after people who have it is a waste of time that could be used to catch child molesters. As for drawn stuff, NOBODY is hurt in the production of that and to prosecute its possession is prosecuting thoughtcrime.

Originally posted by manceyy
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

 

i am opposing the motion : THW ban animated paedophilia and there are 4 big arguments against a ban

1Better than real paedophilia, it is better for them to look at animation than abusing real children

2Regulation, if it is legal, you need a license to post it, and through this we can regulate it and remove the most offensive images

3Policing, the police post links to fake real peadophilia sites and then save the ip addresses of anyone who clicks these links, so far 1000s of paedophiles have been caught

4Society's role, if there is no actual harm done, then what right does society have to say it is wrong to the extent of banning it, we should preach against it, but not ban it eg Smoking and drinking

1. Agree...to a point. Eventually the animated adventures will get boaring and eventually will turn to the real deal. Perhaps some kind of psycological help is needed

2. Regulation wont do a bit of good. Once its thrown out to the net, it is unstoppable. The material can always be re-located again and again.

3. The most effective way to catch and prevent the crime. 100 percent in agreement.

4. No harm is done until it goes byond the person's mind or closed doors. Again, eventually they will tire of the fake and go for the real thing.

Banning it may not prevent, but pouring liquid onto a fire your trying to put out doesnt help when the label on the pail says "GAS".

What disturbs me the most is the number of folks in this discussion, and over in another, seem to believe that if you allow so much room for the offenders to have their little sick playtime, that it wont go byond that at all. Clearly this is a "throw it to the wind" attitude.

It would be interesting to get a kid's prospective on all this..wouldnt it.

I bet they would have something totally different to say. After all, THEY are the ones at risk, not us.




Cheers!!!!

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I agree with you on this i belive that a pedo should be put in prison for life, and i know as messed up as it is if it saves even 1 child from being abused then it should be legal. I also think that if some one sexualy abuses another person that the monster that abuses people sexualy should be put to death as slow and painfuly as posible.

No, this isn't resolving the root core of the problem at hand, and that is these peoples mental states. It's like taking down road-side car accident memorials because it offends people - they're taking away the surface layer of the issue, it's not going to stop drunken teenagers from getting behind the wheel of a car and speeding. . .

I can definitely see the few benefits this option might have and i initially agreed with them. . Although, the question here is, if the switch is made to 'animated' child porn, will this actually stop the pedophile from offending, if they are put in a suss situation??
Somehow, i personally don't think so. It's like it's hardwired into their brains to 'act' this way and they need other medical help or something similar in nature. . .

It's like one other poster said, yer they have to get their rocks off somehow anyway, but it's NOT curbing their sexual desire/ addiction - the heart of the problem.

It sounds good because then the pedophiles would have gotten it all out and then have no need to go out and rape a child.

On the other hand, it could also increase their wants and then end up with them wanting to rape a child.

The only way I could say yes for it to be allowed is if an extensive study would take place showing any type of decrease in the wants of actually raping a child.

My original say would be no unless otherwise is proved to be better.

If this is determined to somehow protect real children, by keeping them out of the picture, then that would be a reason to leave this activity alone.

Because, otherwise, we are basically going after these people for having bad thoughts and desires. And, going down this road opens up too many doors that all lead to larger, more frightening questions of control and punishment for thoughts that are never acted upon.

But, if it is determined that it leads to children being harmed, it must be stopped.

Certain rights need to be protected, but never at the expense of a child's well-being.

Apologies for the late reply i didn't think this thread would get replies anymore and i deleted it from my subscriptions.

Originally posted by pretty_vacant
No, this isn't resolving the root core of the problem at hand, and that is these peoples mental states. It's like taking down road-side car accident memorials because it offends people - they're taking away the surface layer of the issue, it's not going to stop drunken teenagers from getting behind the wheel of a car and speeding. . .

That isn't quite the same. Padophilia seems to be a state of mind like being straight or gay whereas being drunk is a choice.

Originally posted by pretty_vacant
I can definitely see the few benefits this option might have and i initially agreed with them. . Although, the question here is, if the switch is made to 'animated' child porn, will this actually stop the pedophile from offending, if they are put in a suss situation??
Somehow, i personally don't think so. It's like it's hardwired into their brains to 'act' this way and they need other medical help or something similar in nature. . .

Well you are talking real world vs fantasy. The whole point of this thread was to consider whether they should be arrested over fantasy pictures that involve no harm to children.

Originally posted by pretty_vacant
It's like one other poster said, yer they have to get their rocks off somehow anyway, but it's NOT curbing their sexual desire/ addiction - the heart of the problem.

I stated earlier a news article on the bbc qupted a paedophile who had stopped using real images to use the fake ones instead. I cannot find that article now but it's that article which truly inspired my thread.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
It sounds good because then the pedophiles would have gotten it all out and then have no need to go out and rape a child.

Lets be clear. You are talking about predatory paedophiles and they are very different to "passive" paedophiles. The passive kind can control their urges with pornography and not act upon their urges either through shame or fear of reprisal (prison). The predatory kind will act upon their urges no matter what kind of release they have. They will also seek out the real porn regardless or whether it's legal or illegal and so this isn't an argument against the animated kind.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
On the other hand, it could also increase their wants and then end up with them wanting to rape a child.

Read above, a child rapist will always be willing to rape a child, they are predators. This is like comparing a person who has rape fantasies to a rapist.

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
The only way I could say yes for it to be allowed is if an extensive study would take place showing any type of decrease in the wants of actually raping a child.

I think a study should be undertaken, i would be wholeheartedly behind this. Incarceration hasn't proven effective, psychological help hasn't been proven effective and so we're left with this option to see if it's of use.

Originally posted by SumnerKagan
If this is determined to somehow protect real children, by keeping them out of the picture, then that would be a reason to leave this activity alone.

This is why i had trouble with this stuff. If it stops even one child from abuse then maybe it's worth it?

Originally posted by SumnerKagan
Because, otherwise, we are basically going after these people for having bad thoughts and desires. And, going down this road opens up too many doors that all lead to larger, more frightening questions of control and punishment for thoughts that are never acted upon.

Again my point. This animated stuff never involves abuse and so how can we prosecute it? It leads to no direct damage to any other human being, unlike real child pornography which obviously does horrible damage.

Originally posted by SumnerKagan
But, if it is determined that it leads to children being harmed, it must be stopped.

This is difficult as some predators might use both.

Originally posted by SumnerKagan
Certain rights need to be protected, but never at the expense of a child's well-being.

Absolutely. Animated images don't have any real child involved and surely that's the point.

[edit on 12-1-2009 by ImaginaryReality1984]

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
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.

It is absolutely fine to be a pedophile, there is nothing wrong with it, as it is a form of sexual attraction just as Ephebiophilia or what not.

There is NOTHING WRONG with being a Pedophile.

When will all of you learn that you are effectively inventing the Thought Police, and that those in power will use your fear of people being attracted to your children to rape your constitutional rights?

In the Law there is something called "Legal Precidence". You make a Precidence that being attracted to Children is illegal, you allow the door to open to prosecute ANY sort of fetish which society deems harmful/unwanted.

There is nothing wrong with being a Pedophile.

Raping Children is another matter entirely.

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.

If nobody is harmed by the making of, consumption of, and distribution of such... WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT ILLEGAL?

Why is there even any ambiguity as to whether it SHOULD be legal? If no harm occurs anywhere in the process, FOR WHAT REASON WOULD YOU ILLEGALIZE IT?

Are some of you so afraid of other people's sexual proclivities that you cannot let them live their lives? MUST you equate anything they do to an actual action, even if they have DONE NOTHING?

And what about the people who are Pedophiles secondarily? There are more people who have a variety of different fetishes, attractions and turn-on's that don't PRECLUDE Pedophilia as it is not a primary turn on but a secondary one. What about those people who might have SOME fictitious Lolicon pictures on their computer, but also have pictures of girls with big boobs, or black women, or any NUMBER of particular fetishes that may be their mixed bag of interests?

Life isn't black and white, stop pretending that it is.

Imaginary Reality: If you felt this was directed just at you, only some of it was. Most of it is a general anger I have for the way people behave about this subject.... Irrationally and with extreme prejudice demonstrating an incapacity for separating their emotions from reality.

Originally posted by TheColdDragon
If nobody is harmed by the making of, consumption of, and distribution of such... WHY WOULD YOU MAKE IT ILLEGAL?

Why is there even any ambiguity as to whether it SHOULD be legal? If no harm occurs anywhere in the process, FOR WHAT REASON WOULD YOU ILLEGALIZE IT?

I would make it legal if it saved a single child, please tead all of my posts on this issue. If it saves one child i would legalise it and that's my conflict on this issue.

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
Three things are known about paedophiles. 1) They are a danger to children full stop. 2) Exposure to mild forms of pornographic materials leads to the search of 'harder and harder' materials. This is true of all paedophiles. The 'soft' stuff becomes less and less able to arouse. 3) Once a paedophile finds like minded people, the crime and assault rate shoots through the roof.

Cite your sources, your proof, what studies, who conducted the studies. End meaning; Support the crap you're spewing.

A single paedophile on their own is a huge danger. A pack of these animals are a deadly threat to children as they 'egg' each other on.

Proof, or it didn't happen. Is this your view of what Pedophiles do?

Any and all forms of child related pornography should be hunted down and prosecuted in the strongest possible way. All users and abusers should recieve maximum penalties under the law.

Moral Absolutism at it's finest, having no distinguishing characteristics or consideration for situation or the fact that there isn't a hard definition of what Child Pornography is.

Rememebr operation Ore here in the UK ? The amount of police Officers and politicians on that list soon meant it was hushed up in british newspapers. Evil, its pure evil.

Keep it banned, keep paedophiles afraid, and when locked up keep them in general population.

There is nothing wrong with pedophilia or being a Pedophile. Child Rape is not the same as Pedophilia. You should be ashamed for wanting people locked up for only existing as they are.

*Tongue in Cheek* You should be locked up for the blind hatred you have concerning the topic, because hate is bad and detrimental to Society.

reply to post by RFBurns


Cite sources as to this affirmation that more porn = more likely to commit an act.

I'm pretty sure I've never had sex with a Teacher/Cheerleader/etc. before, despite the amount of porn out there that depicts it.

As far as I am aware, this correlation that more porn = more likely to commit an act is demonstrably false.

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984
I would make it legal if it saved a single child, please tead all of my posts on this issue. If it saves one child i would legalise it and that's my conflict on this issue.

I see.

I do note and recognize that you state if it SAVES one Child, it should be Legal.

Allow me to extrapolate the opposite statement; There are many on this thread and others who state "If it harms one child, it SHOULD be Illegal".

This argument has been used against;

Video Games.
Drugs.
Guns.
Religion.
Parents Rights to Discipline.

And many more topics. People cannot live in a Black and White world, because none of us are perfectly good or evil. You cannot have Black and White solutions, unless you don't want any rights to speak of.

Wow, this thread has some serious thought provoking concepts to it.
I would just like to point out an observation that general society might be forgetting.

I grew up in he 60's and 70's. During this time the Catholic Priest was beyond reproach. So was the Doctor, and the school teacher among others. When a child were to say, "it happened to me", that child was immediately ignored, or branded a liar or if believed, blamed for the abuse. This kind of thing really happened. It took years for anyone to actually listen to these kids and only after they became adults with credibility did anyone begin to consider they might be telling the truth.

Now fast forward 30 years, and we know it was the Priest, the Teacher and the Doctor among others. There is no question that these acts are horrible for the child victims and are being carried out by those in a position of trust.

My point here is that when we make something like animated porn against the law, we are attempting to "hide" the real root of the issue from the general public. Pedo's will continue to exist. They will no longer have an avenue in which to "vent" which is essentially victim less, they will find a way to abuse real kids. Hiding the idea that pedo's exist is a very very dangerous path for society to take.

Personally, I don't really care if pedo's get their gratification from animated porn. I do care if they get it from my kids. I'm hoping that they will find a release that stops them from trying it on my kids, sending me to jail for protecting my family.

Thanks for reading.
..Ex

I am not going to read the whole thread to see if someone has brought this up already, so excuse me if it is redundanat.

Speaking as a nerd, not particularly fond of anime porn but having attended enough conventions to know that it exists and what the criticisms are, I want to bring up that just because it is art, the style sometimes brings, and prevents, criticism.

For example, I heard a (rather paranoid) fellow arguing that anime with any type of sex is dangerous because the people, particularly the women, are drawn with big eyes, which resemble young children's eyes, and therefore the genre will inherantly encourage pedophilia.

Thay was an extreme example of course, but one thing that makes this issue more convoluted is whether the person actually is a child, or simply is drawn to look like one.

I'm too innocent to provide any shows or mangas where this might actually be an issue, but here in this case, I think the "child porn" label could be used vindictively, by streching it to "kinda-looks-like-a-child-porn."

I havn't read through any responses... I didn't want influence before I responded.

Although I do see that this one person, who may represent as much as ten percent of the population of pedos, responded "positively"??? that is not he norm...

How many get worked up by it and then go looking for a child to reenact the cartoon.

Think about you as a heterosexual or whatever you are... if you watch some animated sex of whoever you fancy and then have access to them, bar scene, library, shopping.. whatever, then you will go seek the source in an area that you know it is relaxed in attitude towards it.

I hope I'm clear?? Sounded right in my head.

Rgds
Good Debate.. S&F
_javascript:icon('')