Missouri Man Pleads Guilty To Possession of "Cartoon" Child Porn

[asinann]

My guess is that they would have charged him with possession of child porn if he hadn't accepted the obscenity plea. The child porn makes him a sex offender and ruins his life and career, obscenity could be as simple as performing a song that the local sheriff doesn't like.

 

[Entitled]

I'm wondering what percentage of people in the world are closet pedophiles.

I mean, it's really telling how almost no one speaks up against laws like this IRL, yet here, anonymously, so many people are protecting free speech and art from the thought police. There is some insanely strong cultural taboo against supporting pedophiles even indirectly, and even here, many fel that it's necessary to add "for the record" notes that they are otherwise disgusted by pedohilia.

Just think about how many would deny being attracted to teenagers, even though biologically it's not even a paraphilia, but a natural part of ordinary sexuality, even if we arbitarily categorized them as "underage".

Maybe something similar is going on with pedophilia. Even if it *is* a fetish and a paraphilia, maybe the number of people who share it is larger than we would think.

 

[Nazulu]

I will never find a right answer to this. I just don't know at all if it's right or wrong.

Is there any evidence that shows people who have fetishes for children hentai will become worse the more they see? Or is this the righteous opiniated going on a witch hunt?

It's the latter.

In fact, people who look at these kinds of things are generally about as dangerous as a toothless bunny rabbit, for several reasons. For one, a lot of bizarre sexual fantasies look a lot better in manga form than when performed on video or in real life. For example, the idea of having a sexual relationship with an attractive sister is a bit of a turn on for me, when I imagine having an anime babe for a sister. But I'm sure if I had a real sister, even if she was a perfect 10, it's highly unlikely I'd be into her like that.

For another, people who find cartoon minors attractive almost never also find real ones attractive. (Although sometimes people who find real ones attractive also find the cartoons attractive. But it's not a two-way street.) You'll generally find if you ask people who are into this stuff, that they usually have no sexual interests towards real-life minors. In other words, people who look at this stuff are absolutely no threat to children.

Also, this "obscenity" law is based on the objectively unconstitutional Miller Test [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_Test]. The First Amendment does not say that something has to be "art" to be considered Free Speech, nor does it grant the government any authority to decide what speech should or shouldn't be "protected". It simply says that the government cannot make any laws prohibiting free speech or abridging it. Which means that the only kinds of speech the government can justify outlawing are the kinds of speech that directly violate the rights of others. (Such as death threats, or slander.)

But then, lawmakers never really cared about the constitution. They just interpret it however they want to suit their own purposes. Hell, I'm more qualified to interpret the constitution than many supreme court justices are. Yeah, I just said that. Sometimes age does mean a person has more experience, but often all it amounts to is that the person has had lots of time to become increasingly ingrained in his or her outdated traditionalist values that have no place in a changing, modern, and tolerant society. Which is why it's a terrible idea to only appoint older people to the supreme court, and why it's an even worse idea to have them serve life terms.

Also, the idea of determining what speech is and isn't "art" is flawed because everything is art, and nothing is art. Art is in the eye of the beholder. A pile of feces may be a pile of feces to you, but to me it's a depiction of death and rebirth. Food that took a long time to grow and assemble is reduced to a smelly ejection, only to rejoin the earth and contribute to the growth of more food. It's a testament to the circle of life. See how I just made a dump sound like art? I can do that with literally anything, and MEAN it.

Wow! Just Wow. I really appreciate the detail, thanks for all of that, I'm going to keep it. [small]I wish I could write like that.[/small]

So what would you recommend to those who are into both cartoon and real minors, as well as being straight and possibly other things like I think this guy is in the article?

 

[sinterklaas]

I find it highly unlikely that someone sexually attracted to hentai involving minors would be at risk of committing the act with real children. It's more likely that this person gruels at the thought of real world porn with children.

Even calling him a pedophile is a stretch, because he isn't actually attracted to real children. He's attracted to fantasy hentai depictings of what seem to be minors.

Furthermore, when we trial people we always have to take the basic underlying principle that guides laws into account: did anyone get harmed? Clearly, the answer is no. Therefore this man should not be convicted. A victimless crime is not a crime. That which does no harm cannot be wrong.

While it certainly is a weird fetish, I lean towards "not guilty" because there are no victims.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

Slapping, hair-pulling and full-force pounding is essentially violence.

Mutually agreed upon, in this case by actors.

This has probably already been replied too but why does it matter if they agreed? The cartoons are not even real, I am sure they didn't disagree.

 

[vun]

AMA?

American Medical Association?

AMA as in Ask Me Anything.

 

[Belated]

*snip*

Wow! Just Wow. I really appreciate the detail, thanks for all of that, I'm going to keep it. [small]I wish I could write like that.[/small]

So what would you recommend to those who are into both cartoon and real minors, as well as being straight and possibly other things like I think this guy is in the article?

This is a subject I'm really passionate about, because I truly believe that the worst thing you can possibly do is convict an innocent person. Not only that, but as a fetishist, I love and care about all my fetishist comrades. I often advocate for our rights, and hope to improve the perception society has of us in the future. I believe that once homophobia is defeated, fetishists will be the next big group of people who will be popular to hate on. I aim to stop that before it happens.

In response to your question (if I'm understanding it correctly), people who are into both are probably not a real threat to children. Years ago there was an episode of Dr. Phil that featured a representative from a known online group of people who were attracted to children, and within that community they had rules, the most important of which: Look but don't touch.

The truth is, pedophilia is in a way also a fetish. Fetishes come to people in varying degrees. You can go your whole life never knowing you have a certain fetish, so a lot of people on this very forum may have a hint of pedophilia in them without even realizing it. But most self-aware fetishists are still moral people who put right and wrong before personal gratification. So in truth, someone who has those kinds of attractions can easily learn to "look, never touch" and be harmless their entire lives.

However, I would not recommend that such people tell anybody else about this. The truth is, it's wrong to hate anybody for something they cannot help themselves. It's why racism is wrong, and why homophobia and sexism are also wrong. Why should a fetish be treated any differently? It's an attraction you cannot help having. And yet, we still think it's okay to judge people as freaks for it. Just look at the appalling response to Dead or Alive 5. There's nothing wrong with having a fetish for bouncy, unrealistic breasts. And yet, for wanting a video game that features such breasts? People like me are regarded as "freaks" for that. Even Jim Sterling, a man I usually respect, seems to think it's okay to spread intolerance towards people like myself, all because we like unrealistic computer-generated breasts. All because we simply want to have our bouncy, unrealistic fantasy and be left alone. But no, what we find sexy is apparently enough of a reason to hate us and to try to take away our games. But even though it's wrong, this is still how society is for now.

Thus, what you should do about your fetish depends on how taboo it is. People you mentioned in your example would be better off seeking a like-minded online community where they can talk about their attractions in a safe environment, and learn to control them, and never, ever share their attractions with anybody they know personally. But people such as myself find a calling in advocating for fetishist rights and our eventual acceptance.

 

[sinterklaas]

Just look at the appalling response to Dead or Alive 5. There's nothing wrong with having a fetish for bouncy, unrealistic breasts. And yet, for wanting a video game that features such breasts? People like me are regarded as "freaks" for that. Even Jim Sterling, a man I usually respect, seems to think it's okay to spread intolerance towards people like myself, all because we like unrealistic computer-generated breasts. All because we simply want to have our bouncy, unrealistic fantasy and be left alone. But no, what we find sexy is apparently enough of a reason to hate us and to try to take away our games. But even though it's wrong, this is still how society is for now.

Nicely said. I felt like Jim was having a fit just because bouncy breasts did not conform with his own tastes.

And he usually has such reasonable stances on subjects! Well, I guess no one is perfect.

 

[kasperbbs]

His wife clearly doesn't like him very much, well at least these poor drawn children are safe from this mans fapping.

 

[Entitled]

I'm of the opinion that victimless crimes shouldn't even be considered crimes. So he owns pornographic drawings - what's it matter? No actual child is getting hurt, and that's what should be important.

Let's say that a decade ago, some child was raped during the making of a CP video, then later she was killed.

If I would watch that video now, would that be a victimless crime? After all, my act wouldn't change anything...

No, that would not be victimless - a girl was hurt and killed to create this hypothetical porn in the first place. What we're talking about is drawings, where presumably, no one was hurt while making it, and no one is hurt by its being viewed.

Yeah, but no one is hurt by a live action CP being [/i]viewed[/i] either. It's already recorded, it can't be helped. Especially if the video is pirated, not bought from the "manufacturer", so it doesn't even fund the creation of more. Someone watching it alone on a computer has no effect on any other child or adult any more.

I'm just playing the devil's advocate here: it's strange that so many people here are claiming that pedos "channeling their urges" into lolicon is a good thing because it stops them from raping actual children.

But what if by giving them access to real CP, (that some of them are exclusively attracted to), we could both channel their urges, AND stop the creation of more child porn in the future. (if the existing ones would already be accessible, then the russian maffia couldn't make money from raping more children in front of cameras.)

 

[Odbarc]

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene."

Can someone describe what a minor engaging in sexual explicit conduct that is NOT obscene???

 

[Epona]

(1)(A) depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; and (B) is obscene."

Can someone describe what a minor engaging in sexual explicit conduct that is NOT obscene???

When it's not a real minor?

 

[Entitled]

Your logic is so very wrong.

The child was hurt in the MAKING of the first video, thus the crime had a victim, a drawing had no one hurt in any part of it at all, thus victimless.

The crime of MAKING the video, and the crime of watching it, are not the same. Not even the current law treats them equally.

It's possible for one to create a victim, while the other not.

For example, genocide is a no-go, yet we have all seen photos and videos taken in nazi death camps. Is it immoral to watch them, just because their production depended on a victimful crime being committed?

And your "there would be no more CP if CP was allowed!" is...special... If you followed THAT logic we would only have 1 or 2 porno vids that got recycled over and over instead of millions of them.

More than "1 or 2" because a lot was produced before easy distribution, but thanks to the Internet, the porn creation industry *is* in a sharp decline, the sites like YouPorn and PornTube are mostly just collecting the old videos, plus adding some very cheaply made amateurs who are still willing to sell themselves for the few dollars that it pays nowadays.

 

[sinterklaas]

For example, genocide is a no-go, yet we have all seen photos and videos taken in nazi death camps. Is it immoral to watch them, just because their production depended on a victimful crime being committed?

Photos and videos of genocides aren't made because there are perverts wanting to jerk off to it.

Photos and videos of child porn are made because there are perverts wanting to jerk off to it.

Big difference.

 

[Entitled]

For example, genocide is a no-go, yet we have all seen photos and videos taken in nazi death camps. Is it immoral to watch them, just because their production depended on a victimful crime being committed?

Photos and videos of genocides aren't made because there are perverts wanting to jerk off to it.

Photos and videos of child porn are made because there are perverts wanting to jerk off to it.

Big difference.

All right, then there *is* a moral difference. Maybe I worded it badly. Actively enjoying the suffering of others *does* make you an immoral person.

But why does it translate to a legal difference? Prgmatically, there is no difference between the two, watching a CP video doesn't harm any more peple than watching a holocaust video.

So should there still be an emotionally moralizing element of our laws, outlawing one and not the other, based on whether "perverts wanting to jerk off to it"?

Isn't that just the same thought policing, banning a thing because it has disgusting implications, and not because it harms others?

 

[sinterklaas]

Watching real CP is bad because you create the demand for it and therefore more CP is made. Thus you are indirectly harming the childs. CP is solely made for the fantasies of pedophiles.

You can't reasonably say that you watching a video of the holocaust creates a demand for more holocausts to take place so more footage can be taken.

 

[Psycomantis777]

Hmm... not so sure about this one. On the one hand, "obscenity" laws are a little... personal, what some deem obscene others may call art, or crude humor, or just plains stupid, it's a tricky thing to put a law on, but on the other hand, if the **** likes little kids, I couldn't care less if they gutted him in the street...