Baaaad move. I have it on reliable source that the first thing a (potential) sexual predator in treatment is taught, is to find other outlets that don't harm anyone. And now you arrest him for doing just that?
Tangentially related, is it bad I sometimes feel pretty bad for pedofiles? I mean, imagine if you had a desire as strong as any red-blooded male's desire for regular sex. But acting upon that desire in any way will have you locked up for life in one form or another. And said desire only grows stronger the longer it goes ignored...
That said, there is ofcourse such a thing as personal responsibility. We all have things we'd like to do that are just not ever OK. And considering how harmful pedofilia is to the victim, it definantly belongs on that "never-ever list".
No real people are harmed all characters are completely fictional and have no basis in reality whatsoever, most lolicon depictions are drawn in such a way that an attraction to them is because of their inhuman qualities [large eyes].
Arresting/prosecuting someone over lolicon would be the same as sending someone to jail over watching a movie where a murder occurs [saw] as both show illegal acts happening to fictional characters.
The law is created to prevent harm from coming to society and it's people yet Lolicon harms no one therefore making it Illegal defeats the purpose of the law in the first place. There has been no proven connection between liking lolicon and taking real world illegal action in fact the opposite might be true.
For you see it is possible that Lolicon material Could / can be used to prevent / stop actual harm from occurring to under age children by stopping real life child molestation from being carried out upon them.
Child molestation occurs because people cannot control their urges and desires and if they act on their urges it's NOT because any one thing [lolicon] pushed them over but an accumulative amount of things [the straw that broke the camel's back] that aren't all tangible.
However if they were able to vent their urges in a safe environment and in a way that didn't hurt anyone there is a chance that they would no longer need to take real world action in order to satisfy themselves ,in this way lolicon which doesn't involve real people could do this.
TLDR: This Law is fucking disgusting and this man is completely innocent.
Also because I feel so mad over this here's some gifs to act as a release of my hatred:
Baaaad move. I have it on reliable source that the first thing a (potential) sexual predator in treatment is taught, is to find other outlets that don't harm anyone. And now you arrest him for doing just that?
Tangentially related, is it bad I sometimes feel pretty bad for pedofiles? I mean, imagine if you had a desire as strong as any red-blooded male's desire for regular sex. But acting upon that desire in any way will have you locked up for life in one form or another. And said desire only grows stronger the longer it goes ignored...
That said, there is ofcourse such a thing as personal responsibility. We all have things we'd like to do that are just not ever OK. And considering how harmful pedofilia is to the victim, it definantly belongs on that "never-ever list".
Don't forget the fact you live in constant fear of ever verbally expressing this desire will result in you being shunned worse than a rapist-murderer-baby-thief... because at least the rapist-murderer-baby-thief didn't have sex with the baby.
Do you know what that type of oppression on a person's psyche turns into? Resentment. And resentment has a nasty habit of turning into sociopathy. Make a person believe himself to be a monster and he might just say "Well, if you're going to treat me like one..."
Can you "treat" a sexual preference? That's like trying to smack the gay out of someone. Or terrify their impure thoughts away with promise of eternal damnation in the pits of hell. Have you *ever* seen it work?
Most professionals these days realize that, of course, and most of their work is in attempt to help the pedos control their urges - because trying to make them not be pedos is a complete waste of time and energy. Might as well try to make the sky not be blue.
edit: Also, wasn't this thread like 10 pages long a second ago?
The irony is that New Zealand's apparently one of the the "most free" nations on Earth- I think this ought to take it's ranking down a notch or two.
In the UK we have similar laws sadly- and it's even illegal to possess sado-masochistic pornography, even if it's produced between two rational consenting adults.
Can you "treat" a sexual preference? That's like trying to smack the gay out of someone. Or terrify their impure thoughts away with promise of eternal damnation in the pits of hell. Have you *ever* seen it work?
Well that is one of the mayor problems with this issue. It is possible to "treat" pedophilia by chemicly supressing any sexual urge. This of course needs to people having pedophile tendencies to realise the issue and be willing to take go on that treatment and take the medications. It's a really fucking tough step and needs the absulute will to do this. We have an group here in Germany wich is called "Kein Täter werden" (Don't become a perpetrator) wich focuses on that. But for that you need to create an atmosphere in which folks with this tendency can speak out on their problem and seek help without fearing persicution. Sadly the current social climate is really not in a state that motivates them seeking help, putting them and people surrounding them to the risk of them being overcome by their urges.
It's a tough situation, really. And court rulings like that really don't help to get this issue resolved.
I get that he "indecently assaulted" (...huh?) a kid and he's probably under some kind of monitoring, but seriously - how did they know he had it? Did a probation officer just walk in and find him watching it?
Captcha: "Carry a trowel" - "When you're going to work on your garden or bury a dead body, don't forget to bring a trowel!"
A definition of Pedophilla-A look on the age of consent in order to create discussion.
The technical definition of a pedophile is someone who has a sexual attraction to prepubescent children-basically 12 and under-anyone who has an attraction to someone older-13 to 16-is called a Ephebophilia. The term does not dictate if the attraction has to be to the body or the mind simply that it's sexual in nature and fit's into the age group.So if a lolicon is sexual attracted to the drawing because of their apperance matches that of tomeone below 13 then yes I would say they are pedophiles-however if it is not sexual attraction or they like them forsomething other than their child like look they are not pedophiles.
Important to note however that sexual attraction=/=physical touching-Someone can be a pedophile and never touch a kid in their life,therefore being a pedophile does NOT make you a child molester who is someone who engages in physical touching of a minor's genitals. While being a pedophile does NOT make you a child molester the reverse can also be true with child molester touching children possibly not because of any attraction to that age group but for other reasons such as-dominance-easier target-a sense of punishment-carrying out what was done to them. In short pedophillia in of itself is a sexual orientation that someone is born with if not act upon or acted upon in a safe way [lolicon] a pedeophile is completly harmless and should be helped and not hated only if they act upon their urges becoming child molesters should action be taken.
However society views are different with the general misinformed opinion on the matter held by the public being that Pedophiles are anyone who has an attraction to someone under the age of consent and that all pedophiles are/or eventually will become child molesters and so they are hated/feared/falsely accused when they should not be.Interesting enough they differing age of consent laws combined with the fact that it was come practise in the past to marry and have sex at the age of 12 provides a different and interesting perspective of how young is too young and harmful:
Why to lower the age of consent:
1: It is completely natural-psychologically wise it is fine, Girls have periods in their early teen years, or younger for a reason this is because this is the time the human body as programmed by nature becomes ready for pregnancy. An example of how this was meant to be can be seen in the past where it was normal for a girl to have sex and be married at the time of her period, many important and great people partook in this also the lives of the younger partners were NOT ruined or destroyed but instead they lived out perfectly fine and happy lives. What really causes the harm to occur is not the act of sex itself but the way society acts by constantly reinforcing this as a horrible and life destroying event we create a self fulfilling prophecy as the people act out the way they society has branded them, a young partners who wanted/indicated feels that they must be traumatised as that is what everyone is telling her to feel, an adult who would seek out a mutual relationship is forced to act like a criminal.
Yet we deny this natural occurrence and its purpose because of society?s morals that get in the way. The thing about morality that it varies so widely from person to person and for various reason?s such as religion personal tastes that basing a law only around the current brand morality is misinformed but instead should be based on if the act hurts other/interferes with the running of the state which having young partners who are given the knowledge they need would not.
2: You underestimate the younger generation knowledge and want, with the improved access to knowledge and sex education the younger people are more than ever aware of what sex is, not only that but thanks to this information they understand what it means/the dangers/and what the benefit?s are.
Some say that they are too young to have the maturity to understand this information and use it properly, however this sentiment is wrong and is used as an excuse, people mature at different speeds which can easily be seen by how different people act with 20 year olds at times not understanding the consequences of unprotected sex while other 15 years olds do.
Simply drawing a line in the sand and saying ?every one above this age has absolute maturity and understand the consequences/danger of sex and every one under it can?t possible form any true opinion on the subject and cannot consent? is not only impractical but a false inflexible mindset that prevents justice from being carried out as it actively ignores information and possibilities leading to people being prosecuted over victimless crimes.
This ideology also ignores the fact that some young people actively seek a sexual relationship with a person much older with the full knowledge of what they are doing, yet this is still not seen as consent despite the fact that they are the one initiating the relationship and looking for it, not only is this proof that they have the ability to consent but also how the harsh reactions are unfairly continually placed on the older party.
3:Lack of consent does NOT equal instant harm or damage to the individual/s involved, one can be forced to do something against their will and not only be fine but come out better than how they had originally went in.
The government/society forces people especially the young into doing things against their will [eating vegetables/going to school] claiming that they don?t know better and we must force them, and yet when a person has nonconsensual sex [only because they deem their minds/choices unfit]we freak out.
One would agree that this is different that the former examples are harmless while the latter are bad and thus forcing the latter is wrong [even though the young person agrees-maybe more so than doing the former ?but they still count it as no consent] however this overlooks the fact that sex is not harmful in of itself is not harmful but in fact pleasurable and natural. Therefore forcing sex [the person consent but you don?t believe it] in an of itself upon someone is no different than the previous examples [eating vegetables/going to school] and will cause no more harm than them said harm only occurring because of the way society acts by constantly reinforcing this as a horrible and life destroying event we create a self fulfilling prophecy as the people act out the way they society has branded them, a young partners who wanted/indicated feels that they must be traumatised as that is what everyone is telling her to feel.
Child pornography is one of the few things that I deem actually indisputably evil. Child molestation being also along that line. I would never be in favour of any kind of leniency when it comes to this.
However when it's drawings fucking each other I cannot help but say that is a GOOD THING! If a pedophile can get his fix watching cartoon porn then all the better, it might be a means to ensure that less actual child porn will be produced. When not a single child is harmed and all parties are content should that not be a good thing?
I don't buy that Bell guys excuse of hentai being a gateway drug (these don't exist) for actual child molestation. I'd say he's in the same camp that sees COD as a school shooting training simulator.
The devil needs a better advocate. In order to make actual child porn you actually need to make a child have sex with someone. And you're right: this isn't about whether art might encourage a person to act(because inspiration isn't a crime, only illegally acting on that inspiration). It's about whether owning a pencil sketch is illegal or not.
Its actually not about whether owning a pencil sketch is illegal or not because in most civilized countries child porn drawn or real is illegal. There is no questions here its straight up fact. You can go look it up if you dont believe me.
Well Japan and America seem to be doing OK, and Lolicon is legal in those two countries.
OT: My points have already been said in the last threat we had about this. If it's not real and it's not hurting anyone then I am perfectly fine with it, because let's face it the core reason for this group not liking drawn CP is "Ewww creepy!", and that is not a legitimate reason for arresting someone. If it was everyone with pretty much any fetish would be locked up by now if they downloaded pictures of said fetish. Real child porn is rightfully illegal, because it encourages the abuse of children in real life, drawn child porn only encourages the drawing of images on paper. The only things hurt in this case were the materials used to make the computers.
I get that he "indecently assaulted" (...huh?) a kid and he's probably under some kind of monitoring, but seriously - how did they know he had it? Did a probation officer just walk in and find him watching it?
Captcha: "Carry a trowel" - "When you're going to work on your garden or bury a dead body, don't forget to bring a trowel!"
The devil needs a better advocate. In order to make actual child porn you actually need to make a child have sex with someone. And you're right: this isn't about whether art might encourage a person to act(because inspiration isn't a crime, only illegally acting on that inspiration). It's about whether owning a pencil sketch is illegal or not.
Actually, children are not being harmed by the viewing of child pornography. They were harmed by the making, but once it's done, there is no more harm to be done.
Based on your train of thought about "harm", if I would see a live action file of child pornography on a torrent site, then downloading it would not cause any more direct harm to anyone than not downloading it.
Ad absurdum, allowing easier legal access to live action pornography files while continuing to persecute their further production, would lead to the production of more child porn being less demanded, and less profitable, thus saving children for the future.
It seems to me that we either agree that making a moral/legal stand against the viewing of certain kinds of materials is necessery at least to provide a moral example, or if there is no such limit, then it shouldn't matter at all what is being watched since watching videos doesn't casue harm in itself.
But we aren't talking about real child porn, which requires real people and real abuse. We're talking about drawings, things made with pencils or a computer. There is no-one harmed in the making of these. And how does the production of drawn child porn increase the production of real child porn? Both of these things have been made since one could upload things to the internet (for real CP, further back), and there has been no change except in countries where drawn CP is legal there is more drawn CP because it's legal! Nobody hear is supporting actual child porn in any way, we're supporting the right for people to watch what they want as long as it's not created by harm and abuse. Hell, most of our technology is made with more abuse and suffering than any drawn child porn yet overseas cheap labour isn't banned.
You're always digging up the most controversial stuff - and i like it!
And honestly, i think this one is a really tough nut. I don't know anything about this guy, what he has done and how he behaves, but i've read some books about psychological or neurotic disorders and one with focus on sexual assault in particular (i've searched, but unfortunately i couldn't remember the title and didn't find it anymore).
Excessive sexual predatory and sexual abuse are hard things to "understand" to begin with (i definetly don't and i try hard), it was even stated in the book, from a person who specialized in this, that, the deeper you look into it, every case in this matter is so unique, that it is hard to see any common treats in regard of the origin of sexual predatory and abisuve desires. Some may be "born" with the desire to dominate sexually, exceding the common standarts, some may develop it through their life, some may have the desire comparable to sexual predators, but never live it out, some may be able to live it out their excessive desires in "save circumstances" (consent in partnership, sub-cultural scenes & prostitutes who specialize in this, actually the best method to deal with this, in my opinion), while others (probably the most extreme) don't feel this would be enough and any sort of consent would destroy their satisfaction.
But, one thing many (not all of course) whom actually did sexual abuse have in common, is that they behave like addicts towards their satisfaction. Even when they get treatment, even when they were able to rationalize their behaviour and it's consequences to begin with, they still long for their satisfaction and often "ignore" every possible reason not to behave in one of the most terrible antisocial ways possible.
The most important question is, what to do with people like this? Probably the easiest way to deal with them would be to "kill 'em all", but i don't think this can ever be the right way to deal with any sort of offender. So you try to "reform" and reintegrate them into life, but how exactly can you do this "foolproof", when every case is so unique and for harder cases treatment often fails/ ends in relapse?
And here we come to this particular case:
When someone mistreads transport laws, you take away their drivers license, when someone mistreads gun laws, you take away their guns and gun license and when someone made a severe sexual offense... well, you could cut of the genitals, that would be a rather radical way (which was/is also performed in some cultures), or you try to keep them away from any situation/ material which could reinduce the offending behaviour!
And, as with other "addictions" (if this applies to this case, i don't know), this would include possible pornography in any format which could be able to incite their abusive behaviour. "Real" (while child pornography is very illigel for good reasons anyways) or fictional material can both be very good triggers for addicts or "psychotics" (most addicts get suggestions they should never consume anything close to their addictive object, like alcoholics who won't drink alcohol free beer)... or he is none and is able to utilize it to deal with his desire, but that can only be a thing to decide for specialists (and i'm not talking about Bell, he surely is no psychologist).
So, including the circumstances that Clark already was formerly sentenced for sexual assault/ offense/ child abuse or whatever, then got rehabilitated and then apperently got into focus again because of this, if a specialist has found him to be at relapse, i think re-rehabilitating him might be a good thing to try.
Another thing obviously in focus in this thread is the cultural aspect .
Looking at myself, that i'm single for about a year now and have an active libido, i sometimes look for stimuli in pornography, no shame to say so. But honestly, i think pornography as a whole has lots of issues with it's depiction of sexuality and sexual roles in general, be it real or fictional. It is one thing to show a broad variety, but another to set a huge focus, for example on male (often well aged) domination/ female (often younger) submission in ~80% of pornography (i did not make a full study myself and am to lazy to look one up right now, but i guess it settles around this). This accounts to most "western" pornography, because this is pretty much how our society was build for the last few centuries. Now, looking at Japan they have very different views of this, interestingly enough by itself, but not surprising under the circumstances of their rather different culture, mentality and self-perception. Hentai is often packed with tentacles, furry, incest and often varies or switches in their male/ female dominance (when clichés aren't far from the real thing). The tentacles likely are more lively depictations of their bondage-culture, the furry likely comes from Shintoism and the incest... well, probably from their strong awareness of familiar bonds and responsibilities, which are stronger compared to our individualistic view, but who knows/ i barely know, how much incest is/was actually a concern in their culture, or our culture to compare for that matter (very dark numbers).
However, the eastern/ Japanese mentality does differ from ours, which is easily observable in public, for example: You can buy worn panties from automats and the majority of Japanese "modern" prostitutes are (barely-) legal, who then dress themselves to look like school kids (with uniforms and such), or manga-ish characters (both male and female). Groping in public transportation at least was a big concern in Japan, until it got rather big public awareness, campaignes and stuff (easy to understand, considering the masses using public transport) and while it has very low crime rates, partially because of their mentality (with that high presence of lolicon, most of those who read it would never touch a child), sexual abuse often has much higher dark numbers (most people won't refrain from a charge when they were robbed, on the other hand, many people in most cultures refrain to tell anyone when they were sexually assaulted).
But probably because of these differences, it is hard to transfer the Japanese lolicon consumption to the "avarage European" and even more, to someone who already has an offense in his records.
However, in a way i wish for both cultures, the western and the eastern, to "evolve" a broader, more "intimate" and "equal" awareness and depiction of sexuality...
Another thing is:
knight steel said:
*snip*
Interesting enough the differing age of consent laws combined with the fact that it was come practise in the past to marry and have sex at the age of 12 provides a different and interesting perspective of how young is too young and harmful:
Why to lower the age of consent:
1: It is completely natural - psychologically wise it is fine, Girls have periods in their early teen years, or younger for a reason this is because this is the time the human body as programmed by nature becomes ready for pregnancy. An example of how this was meant to be can be seen in the past where it was normal for a girl to have sex and be married at the time of her period, many important and great people partook in this also the lives of the younger partners were NOT ruined or destroyed but instead they lived out perfectly fine and happy lives. What really causes the harm to occur is not the act of sex itself but the way society acts by constantly reinforcing this as a horrible and life destroying event we create a self fulfilling prophecy as the people act out the way they society has branded them, a young partners who wanted/indicated feels that they must be traumatised as that is what everyone is telling her to feel, an adult who would seek out a mutual relationship is forced to act like a criminal.
Yet we deny this natural occurrence and its purpose because of society's morals that get in the way. The thing about morality that it varies so widely from person to person and for various reason's such as religion personal tastes that basing a law only around the current brand morality is misinformed but instead should be based on if the act hurts other/interferes with the running of the state which having young partners who are given the knowledge they need would not.
2: You underestimate the younger generation knowledge and want, with the improved access to knowledge and sex education the younger people are more than ever aware of what sex is, not only that but thanks to this information they understand what it means/the dangers/and what the benefit's are.
Some say that they are too young to have the maturity to understand this information and use it properly, however this sentiment is wrong and is used as an excuse, people mature at different speeds which can easily be seen by how different people act with 20 year olds at times not understanding the consequences of unprotected sex while other 15 years olds do.
Simply drawing a line in the sand and saying ?every one above this age has absolute maturity and understand the consequences/danger of sex and every one under it can?t possible form any true opinion on the subject and cannot consent? is not only impractical but a false inflexible mindset that prevents justice from being carried out as it actively ignores information and possibilities leading to people being prosecuted over victimless crimes.
This ideology also ignores the fact that some young people actively seek a sexual relationship with a person much older with the full knowledge of what they are doing, yet this is still not seen as consent despite the fact that they are the one initiating the relationship and looking for it, not only is this proof that they have the ability to consent but also how the harsh reactions are unfairly continually placed on the older party.
3:Lack of consent does NOT equal instant harm or damage to the individual/s involved, one can be forced to do something against their will and not only be fine but come out better than how they had originally went in.
The government/society forces people especially the young into doing things against their will [eating vegetables/going to school] claiming that they don't know better and we must force them, and yet when a person has nonconsensual sex [only because they deem their minds/choices unfit]we freak out.
One would agree that this is different that the former examples are harmless while the latter are bad and thus forcing the latter is wrong [even though the young person agrees-maybe more so than doing the former ?but they still count it as no consent] however this overlooks the fact that sex is not harmful in of itself is not harmful but in fact pleasurable and natural. Therefore forcing sex [the person consent but you don't believe it] in an of itself upon someone is no different than the previous examples [eating vegetables/going to school] and will cause no more harm than them said harm only occurring because of the way society acts by constantly reinforcing this as a horrible and life destroying event we create a self fulfilling prophecy as the people act out the way they society has branded them, a young partners who wanted/indicated feels that they must be traumatised as that is what everyone is telling her to feel.
While i respect your view on the matter and get along with some points (others not so well), i still stick to my opinion, that the set age of consent is legitimate, because of reasons i will now just qoute myself for:
Soak said:
*snip*
It's just that, statistically speaking, most victims of child abuse aren't able to properly expres their victimization and/ or aren't heard by their respective legal guardian. That's why many cases of child abuse aren't recognized until the victims grow to their middle age and build the strength to resolve the issue. That's also the case with many victims of "adult" sexual abuse. I know, that for young people most laws appear like major resctriction and discrimination, been there just some years ago, but in fact, young people in their maturing process are vulnurable to being exploited (abused) in many, many ways and should be protected from that. Sure, the first person to protect them are their parrents and other close, familiar guardians, but in reality, unfortunately, that isn't working all the time, up to not very often. That's why there has to be other means, for example laws, to protect the maturing process, until the individual is capable of expressing and defending itself. Sure, some aren't even capable when they are "mature", some never are and sure it could be done in many better ways, some ways are definetly shit, but you have to draw a line at some point and those are the current perimeters. (edit: a legal line that is and it has nothing to do with "just a line in the sand")
*snip*
Another thing is, you are right, one doesn't just like sex on their xy birthday. Some biologosists and sociologists even state, that the disposition is already set in infantility, for example including a "sexual oral phase" before the age of 2, which is then dropped and later reoccurs. Does that mean, you can have oral sex with an infantile? Fuck no (gah, can't resist bad word-play anymore)! The thing is, if you know how, which is rather easy as an "adult", it is just to easy to exploit the occuring sex-drive of an adolescent. In this state, you can hardly say if the adolescent is mature enough or not,or if or when it is actually affection or love and when it is exploitation, that's why you have to draw a hard line, which is definetly set above 12 and in most cases above 15 or even 18, to encourage that first sexual experiences are made within same-age groups.
Slightly OT: Just had a discussion a short while ago about the age of political participation, which is, in the last decades, constantly lowering in europe. I very much support higher political awareness at younger ages, though i am very glad i didn't have to realy bother about this, but could bother about other things when i was 15. And, when i look at adolescents presenting political symbols they don't understand yet, i'm certain it is good they aren't entitled to alrady participate in this matter, but still have time to further learn about it. And again, sure there are many, many adults who have no real idea what they are doing in a political context, too. And again, there has to be a line somewhere and best thing to better the general situation is to first increase political awareness "everywhere".
Plus, i have to point out, that your argument #3 is actually, whichever way i want to put it, false.
If you do something to someone against a "lack of consent", first thing you do is violate their human right of individual freedom. Often, and in particular in the case of sexuality, you can not say if the other partie will "come out better" and therefore this is no argument to legitimize any actions like this beforehand - i already had broad discussions with others about "sexual consent" regarding adluts and while you might be able to do something with a sexual partner, which the partner had no consent beforehand but then found to like it, it might also be not the case and if the other person then would want to take legal charges against you (which most immatures likely won't even think of), it would very likely be legitimate and even get right in court, so best thing to do is talk it out before (there are other cases, for example to hinder someone from suicide, which are legaly "save", because suicide "violates" other rights, but then again, this is a completely different thing i rather don't want to unravel right now).
Secondly, the government doesn't force people, neither old nor young, to "eat their vegetables/ go to school". Pretty much the only thing the government forces anyone to do is adult, working citizens to pay their taxes and to respect the rights of others and common social laws.
If anyone forces young people to eat their vegetables and go to school, it's their parents/ legal guardians. If they would decide to teach them at home and not at school and feed them nothing but meat, the government would have to go along with it. Then again, there are more complex circumstances, when those praents/ legal guardians aren't able to provide their children with the necessary means to "ready them for life", like teaching them nothing and feeding them garbage, they violate other rights/ laws, which would make it possible to put the respective child under another legal guardian. This can even be the case, if the child itself takes charges against their legal guardians, for example if it has no consent (how) their parents force it to eat vegetables and go to school.
When you are mature (by legal means) and don't like the laws enforced by your government, at least in our countries and with a "clean record", you are free to try to change those laws or leave for/ found another society.
As for your last statement - i think i don't really understand it and therefore it might be better not to say anything about it so far.
The devil needs a better advocate. In order to make actual child porn you actually need to make a child have sex with someone. And you're right: this isn't about whether art might encourage a person to act(because inspiration isn't a crime, only illegally acting on that inspiration). It's about whether owning a pencil sketch is illegal or not.
Its actually not about whether owning a pencil sketch is illegal or not because in most civilized countries child porn drawn or real is illegal. There is no questions here its straight up fact. You can go look it up if you dont believe me.
Sorry to burst your bubble but multiple people have been arrested in the US for drawn child porn and in Japan its illegal to show uncensored hardcore porn.
To be fair, most rapes around the world go unreported. This could be particularly more so in a country like Japan where it might be particularly scary. I don't trust the reported rape rates in any country, because there are far, far more rapes than go reported.
Also, Japan doesn't have a violence problem. It also doesn't have a violence culture problem. Violent media isn't all that popular in Japan. It certainly exists, but is far less popular in Japan than the United States. Not only are guns illegal in Japan, but not popular. Most gun fans in Japan are military otaku. And of course they have a lower murder rate than the United States.
It isn't just guns in the United States that cause more violent death, but gun culture in general. I think that how our media is so violent, reflects violent mentalities in this country that don't exist in countries in Japan. Some people made the point in one of my other threads about shooters and their demographic that, "violence is just in human nature". But then why, why for instance, is violence so less beloved overall in some cultures than others? Japan likes cute stuff more than it likes violent stuff.
In Japan, I wouldn't say it is lolicon that is so much the big problem. But issues of misogyny in media and culture in general. Multiple politicians denounced "carnivorous" or basically those who defy a submissive gender role of causing men to become "gay". As in, going against female stereotypes of female "gatekeeping" of messing up the "natural order of gender", being dominating women and chasing men. And the anime industry in which jokes about "being ruined for marriage" are common, and innocence and virginity are fetishized. The fact that the majority of hentai is about men raping women and children is mighty disturbing and I feel like reflects a misogynistic cultural trend.
That is by no means to say that Japan is uniquely backwards and misogynistic. Most countries in the world are patriarchal and have rape culture. But I think this does reflect a larger issue in Japanese society.
Japan has other strengths. For instance, the widespread appreciation for cuteness can be seen as a society learning to become in touch with ideas of femininity and empathy. Much the way I think the arrival of things like grown men becoming comfortable watching My Little Pony is something that is positive for gender in society. The appreciation of femininity by society is an inherently feministic thing. Something that is common in Japan. That being said, Japan is far from perfect. And its pornography industry, both fictional and real, is incredibly misogynistic.
On the other hand, I think that this lolicon witch-hunt is getting out of hand. Animated depictions of youthlike fictional characters engaging in sexuality is not absolutely the same as widespreading of the fetishization of female submissiveness, virginity, or other negative gender ideals. And making this material illegal is never the answer.
Instead of making graphically violent video games or violently sexual pornography outright illegal. I think that we should, as societies, promote a culture in which women are not expected to be submissive and virginal. Or a culture in which men are not expected to adhere to violent ideals of masculinity.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
