It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Animated Child Pornography - Allow It Or Ban It?

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:19 AM

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
The issue you all forget about is that one little word.


The images are made up fakes so there is no one to consent. I wish i could find that damn news report with the paedophile who said he'd abandoned his collection of real porn in favour of this stuff. That to me speaks volumes, if only a handful of them stop it maybe we can help a handful of abuse victims. The ones who like the real thing will get it anyway, the ones who want this stuff instead may find it harder to get if illegal and will turn to the real thing instead.

Originally posted by Dan Tanna

You say it will stop at comics. Interpol and other research says it doesn't in many cases.

Many cases yes, but not all and if we can stop the small minority from viewing the real thing i would hail it as a success.

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
An adult who dreams and drools over having sex with a child has a power issue / control issue in their lives.

Yes and no, whlst some seem to have the same mentality as a rapist, others come more under the heading of necrophiles, wanting an unresisting partner. Others fall under the heading of retarded sexual development, there are many boxes for these individuals, none of them good but don't lump them all together as one as it does an injustice to the research adn won't help solve the issue.

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
Add to this that groups of paedophiles are highly cunning, dangerous manipulative people who seek each other out, and you really see them for what they are.

The predatory kind yes, are horrific people, highly cunning. Just look at the recent case in england with what the police called the worst porn they had ever seen. Some of it included babies for gods sake. That man had a secret compartment in his jacket for a USB stick so if he was frisked in a cyber cafe he'd be clean. The fact he was using cyber cafes also shows a carefully planned and motivated individual, highly devious, like your advanced serial killer. Not much difference in my eyes.

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
A danger to all and every child, no matter where they started out on the slope from, be it your 'comic' porn or other downloaded materials.

Well that's where we disagree, there are paedophiles who control their urges according ot studies, they have the porn to help that. Whist this is absolutely disgusting and abhorrent to all on this thread (i hope) it does show some are capable of controlling it. As long as they never touch a child or view the real porn then we can't lock them up for thought crime. If that were the case you could lock up most of the population as all of us will have violent thoughts for example sometimes.

That's why we have a filter in our brains that controls actions against thoughts.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:27 AM

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
Imagine all those wannabe thugs who watched too much porn - the rapists and the molesters - they have only become who they are because of the simple fact that they watched too much porn.

If you wish to contradict me in some way, which i'm sure you can, then would it not be better to simply try out my method first and see whether or not it would accomplish anything within a few decades?

This i find slightly annoying but mostly just humerous! You make what most would consider to be a bold and completely rediculous theory (which I will try to explain why it's simply wrong) and then tell others to prove you wrong! That would kinda be like me stating that if you punch yourself in the throat in the right spot and enough times you can adapt your vocals to speak lower or higher.... Well if that doesn't sound medically sound or even remotely like an intelligent thing to do, why don't you just try it and prove me wrong!

Now here is why I disagree with your "theory"...

Porn although it can be addicting has many many different flavors... By your theory you are stating that if somebody were to watch porn long enough they would eventually start ot like gay porn, or midget porn... Maybe sado or animal... However not only does your theory not have any evidence or backing, it lacks any structure! People have different fetishes, some like feet while others like pulling hair... Some like feathers and whipped cream while others like scratching and hot candle wax...

I assure you right now that I could be forced to watch porn 5 hours a day 5 days a week for 2 years and never would I enjoy seeing a man or woman take a crap on the other and then continue to have sex, I would never enjoy seeing a dog penitrate a girl, and I would never even come close to enjoy seeing a young child be taken advantage of!

Your theory is both ill manored and slightly offensive!

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Alien_Question
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


I think the military should put their brainwashing equipment to good use and re-program these pedo's to think and act normal.

Then again who is to say they weren't already brainwashed to think and act that way in the first place.

Either way all kiddie porn should be


[edit on 29-6-2008 by Alien_Question]

Well although I agree with the basis of your opinion in the fact that anybody harming small children in anyway should be stopped this whole think like everybody else issue you have going on kinda annoys me... Who is to say what is normal and what is not... To start with and don't take this the wrong way but ALL of us were attracted to 10 year olds, 12 year olds, 14 year olds, etc... Now as we get older our tastes begin to change and we become attracted to those who are closer to our age! Now a 40 year old man can be attracted to a 18 year old girl and nobody bats an eyelash because it has been deamed legal! I am willing to place a bet that if you put a hundred girls in a room between the age of 14 and 18 and you were told to put all the legal girls on one side of the room and underage girls on the other 10 out of 10 people would fail! You are all brainwashed by society and social standards! If 16 were classified as the legal age your opinions would about looking at those girls would quickly change!!!

Now back to my point we were all attracted to kids because we all were once kids... What if because as a child you were picked on and teased and never had a boyfriend or girlfriend you sense of fulfillment in that area was never accomplished so your brain never allowed that desire to go away... That doesn't mean you should be allowed to rape a small child but I think this whole theory of automatically being deamed worthless because of your thoughts is a little too far! The funny part is, if they have this lust they cannot control their thoughts, only their actions... maybe being able to legally take care of the issue with animated porn where no harm was done will be enough to keep them from taking any further actions toward fulfilling their desire!

You all automatically assume that anybody with this internal lust acts it out, while I think the part of your brain that tells you who and what is considered attractive and the part of your brain that reasons with you telling you that acting upon that is either right or wrong can and do function independentally from eachother!

Let me make this clear... I have three kids, and would kill and I do mean kill anybody that harmed them in anyway! If somebody were to even undress one of them with their eyes I would slit their throat in a heartbeat! I am against any form of child abuse or pornography but this whole ignorance that society holds that everybody else should think and act the same way they do makes me sick!!!

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:49 AM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

all it would do is fuel a pedo's fantasy. absolutly not. it should not be allowed.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 09:51 AM

Originally posted by Anti-Tyrant
... there is one thing we can all agree on;

Pornography causes some people to have extremily twisted ideals, and it does this in a way that the usual media, such as television and videogames, cannot compare.

Whatever gave you that idea? Sources please. And we all agree on it!!!

I think twisted people watch twisted porn.

Originally posted by Dan Tanna
Add to this that groups of paedophiles are highly cunning, dangerous manipulative people who seek each other out, and you really see them for what they are.

The Inter-pool research you quote in your post states they are more likely below average IQ, unemployed living with their mom. Read your own posts. your judgment is clearly clouded by your emotions.

Originally posted by bloodcircle
Cartoon child porn will satisfy the perverts who enjoy the cartoon child porn. The rest will still be going about their sick business as usual.

Death to them all, I say, no freedom for their perverted crap.

If cartoon child porn only satisfies those who enjoy the cartoon child porn, real children should be in no danger from those who likes cartoons. Your own logic kicks you in your face.

And again, wishing death on someone for looking at a drawing? You need help!

reply to post by sparda4355

Thank you for bringing sanity and simple logic back in to it.

[edit on 29/6/08 by gekko]

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:11 AM
I think it animated childporn should be banned. I think alot of what is on plain old tv is garbage and should be censored, but I guess that's another thread. But I say let's ban animated child porn. Also, to the person who said tentacle sex not possible with real child. Go to and read the article Beyond the Dutroix Affair and you will see a picture of a little kid with a snake in her vagina, among other deeply disturbing facts. This article is about the worst of the worst pedos and their international crime rings. Ban animated child porn!!!! No good can come of that!!! Although I worry that these isssues will be used to take away our internet. But still, we cannot do enough to protect our children. Animated child porn is just part of the bigger picture.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:25 AM

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:40 AM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Consider that ones conception is that "the image encurrages the crime".
Should we also ban horror movies? Should someone not be allowed to draw a picture, depicting another crime?

Then: Should we have like a special unit within the police, a board that decides "the person in THIS picture, is a child - the one in this OTHER picture, is not".

I mean, what if the drawn figure looks young, but not obviously childish?

I hear you when it comes to the hatred towards sexual predators, but you're out on deep waters if you start thinking in the areas of banning drawn material - where there is no victim.

And as I said, even if you believe there is a possible victim to come - out of the "need" it "creates" , triggering the pedophile - then, as I mentioned, that assumes that the pedohpile wouldn't go on to harm a child if he didn't have his kiddieporn cartoons - which I think is way over-assumptious.

Neither Ed Gein or Jack the Ripper lived in the days of commonly avaiable commerical pornography (neiter legal, or illegal - depicting children). Point being: sickos exist, have always existed and will continue to do so - the oppurtunity to crime or merely fantazising of it doesn't create the crime itself.

I think we are so caught up in the hatred of pedophilia, that we forget to think realisticly. Soon we won't be allowed to draw whatever we want and share it? Even if the "art" we draw is bizarre. What will be the next thing to be prohibited? Books by Stephen King? (encurrages murder)
Films by Jerry Bruckheimer? (encurrages reckless driving)

The list can go on...

By all means, work against preventing sexual predators, but don't get caught up in the mob-mentality.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:48 AM
reply to post by hellspawn1

Have you actually read my posts? Because i never said iw as against the animated images, i said i was unsure, it's why i started the thread in the first place, to get a debate going and try to settle it in my own head. It's without a doubt one of the most morally complex things i've found out there.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 10:55 AM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

Guess I should'nt have used the replybutton, I didn't meen it strictly to you as if you had said you were pro-ban on this thing. I just contemplated on/over a few things and attitudes from earlier posters here on this thread.

Peace be with you, man.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:05 AM
I think it should absolutely be allowed. Maybe not freely available on the Internet, but it certainly shouldn't be against the law to draw or own drawings of ANIMATED pornography.

There is no victim. What's the crime? It's not against the law to BE a pedophile. It's against the law to act on it. There's a clear line between thought and action that must be maintained. Looking at cartoons is in the realm of thought.

IF a person goes out and ACTS, then they should pay the price.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:27 AM
Being attracted to young women is a thought crime. the government with all of its God given wisdom has decided that the male libido in itself is a threat to the power that be. Up until the last 100 years older men have been marrying much younger women. It was not uncommon for a 40 year old man to wed a 15 year old female. It was the introduction of feminism that made the natural desires of a man to be dirty and wrong. You only think that being attracted to a 15 year old female is dirty and wrong only becuase you have been programmed to think that through media and feminist women. It is a time tested fact that as soon as a girls body begins to develop all men start to want to have sex with her.

If society collapsed and we had ww3 fathers would offer thier daughters for marriage. The truth is that no man actually wants to wed a whore. american women above the age of 13 are not virgins. The less experience a woman has the better.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:34 AM
reply to post by heliumboy

Yes in the past we married younger women, i have argued that before, however we are in an age where we believe we are more enlightened. I'm obviously biased because i have been raised in this age, however i think it's a great idae that girls and boys have a childhood, just going out and having fun instead of loking after a husband at 14 years of age. Or the other way around of course.

You also have to see in this conversation we're not just talking abt 12 year old girls, paedophiles are often attracted to pre-pubescent girls and boys. That to be is utterly wrong and shows their minds aren't working correctly. However if they never act upon their desires then i have no quarrel with them. I wouldn't let any children near them of course, temptation and all that, and i wouldn't want to associate with them, simply because i just find it so wrong.

However we couldn't arrest then for such things, as to thee pictures there is a very good arguement to be made abot censorship, originally bought up by jedimiller. Credit where credits due, i hadn't thought of it in that manner and it opens up a whole new side to the debate.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 11:48 AM
Here's my 2 cents.

Nobody is harmed in the making of such material and to suggest that it will lead to something worse is conjecture at best. By similar logic one should not be allowed to simulate murder on film, let alone the actual depiction of death we see on the news with increasing frequency.

Putting personal taste and aesthetics aside, it's art. Its creating something that diddn't previously exist and it shouldn't be censored regardless of oppinion.

Finally I'd like to address the intollerent behavior toward Paedophilia from some posters, it is considered a psychological disorder for good reason! I fully agree that those who commit despicable acts with full understanding of their actions should be punished (note that castration and execution are human right violations and 'an eye for an eye will make the whole world blind') but at the same time we ignore the treatment aspect.

Almost every other psychological disorder is treated, why not this one?

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:29 PM
Personally if the images depicts an image. and the image looks like a child. a physically immature child. then yeah that needs to be illegal.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:30 PM
i say hunt ALL pedophiles down & castrate them....and any sick person willing to make pedophile cartoon's..if they make cartoons of little kid's having sex...they are pretty much just as sick as the pedophile.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:53 PM
Here is the deal: Art is done with a theme or some sort of vision. Porn is just a sexally explicit scene meant to tittilate the more immature viewers and give them fantacy to recall later.

ART is plainy NOT just another beaver shot in a cheap mag....I saw an artist showing his work and it included nudes of all ages, many older, but a really neat display that showed hoe our bodies change thru life. Taken as a whole, it flowed and the viewer did not linger on the parts that showed nudity because that was not the issue and the issue was more entrancing then what sopmeone else's booty looked like. Serious art should NOT be taken away because some cop has personal issues that make him think nthat all human beings are evil and bad and ugly....thats why wear clothes!! Right? To hide our shame at being human?

The police that work these details get a fervor and almost a religious dedication to making sure that no girl....or to a lesser degree a guy,is able to show anything naked under any circumstances just in case .We had a case locally where a psychiatrist testified that a young victim of some abuse was UNABLE to get the kid to take the stand and testify with any verifiable other words, the case was closed because the girl could not adequately keep it together on the stand....4 years old.

So what does the lady detective that worked the case do? She ignores the Dr. and bullies and badgers and insists on making sure that the girl got on the stand and told a tale, rehearsed by the cop and the kid over and over with the kidending up just reading a script that the lady cop made up...who knows how far from the truth thatn was? Experts say the kiod cannot testify, yet a COP decides all on her own to refuse that advice and bully the kid into the system and onto the stand on a video link so the defendant did not even get to confront his accuser directly...this is always done so that the kids don't feel ' afraid ' even though they are in a regular courtroom most the time with no is a way of isolating the defendant and making sure he is not able to put on an effective trial.

There should be NO restrictions of photography as long as the images are not obvioulsy catering to the porn market, with the sexual organs emphasized or otherwise plainly appealing to lesser and more depraved conduct. If the real images can be done away with forever, many kids will be saved a bad scene....if ALL porn and such nastiness was computer generated and fake then no problem...let the freaks look at it all they wantg. BUT, if they cross the line and do anything at all with a real human being then they should fry,and for a long time.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:57 PM
I would ban it.



It had "Child and Pornography " in the same sentence

Best Regards,


posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 01:58 PM
Im with the op on this one....some dirty f***er told me one of the sickest jokes ive ever heard, he said what do pedo's use as lube? tears!....while he was breaking his stones laughing i nearly lost the plot! I think everything is open to a few jokes but that is just sick.

posted on Jun, 29 2008 @ 02:00 PM
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984

No i don't think any form of pornography involving children should be allowed. If it is allowed in any form, it will be sending a message to pedophiles that it is acceptable with certain conditions, when the message that should be being sent is that it not acceptable in any form what so ever.

I believe that in a certain way animated child pornography may actually do more damage than real child pornography. Some pedophiles know that they are sick, and what they feel for children is not normal or healthy, but most don't. Pedophiles actually believe that they are not harming children, but rather showing them love or affection. They believe that the children actually enjoy these sexual acts. My poblem with the animated child porn is that it will further these beliefs as the animated child porn can go further (IMO) than the real stuff.

Wouldn't it be easier, through animation, to make it seem as though children really enjoy sex with adults, and actually look for and welcome it?I believe that that would just further the pedophile's belief that there is nothing wrong with having sex with children. There's also the aspect that the more we are exposed to something, the more we accept it as being ok, we become desensitized to it. In allowing animated child porn, wouldn't we just be giving them more exposure to these horrible acts, desensitizing them to it even more, and furthering their beliefs that there is nothing wrong in their thought patterns ?

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in