Poll: underage animated female characters...

[Treblaine]

*Epic snip*

You laid out the situation quite accurately, it's the sad reality of human nature and politics. It's the same with American politics, the corporate and special interests influence on our government is fucking absurd.

I think I've lost faith in politics and the government to get things done and improve our situation, which is why my viewpoints have become less politically involved over the last year or so. I used to have more concrete views on what exactly should be done in a political context, what kind of law should be made, how it should be made, who should be elected so it would be made, how to deal with the inevitable crap that comes with it, all of that kind of stuff. But I don't feel like playing that game anymore. I feel that playing the game only contributes to the mess.

The problem with using bullshit to destroy bullshit, is after everything is said and done, look at what's left: Bullshit. The progress made from such tactics would be temporary and would create more problems down the line. Change and progress shouldn't come out of political games, lying and deceit. It needs to come out of honesty. Such an approach wouldn't work in politics, but that's why I have lost faith in them.

That documentary looks very interesting too, I'll have to add it to the 'the list' =D.

I really suggest you watch it. It paints a grim picture and poses more questions than answers but you know what... it makes sense of the world.

I know fighting bullshit with bullshit isn't ideal. It isn't idea that wars have to be fought by killing people, but there isn't much alternative.

Don't give up on politics. It's the power people

I've started a Poll thread on this, as a central issue of Century of Self is the rationality of humanity. I think understanding the limits of that is important to understanding politics:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.291180-Poll-Are-we-rational-beings-The-Century-of-The-Self

 

[Xan Krieger]

Honestly I don't think it matters because it's too hard to tell anyway. A 14 year old anime girl often looks exactly like a 21 year old anime girl, especially if there's nothing in the background to compare their height to (naturally a 14 year old being a good deal shorter then a 21 year old).

 

[ckam]

Do we really need to talk about this? I mean no one here complains about Lolita, but once an game/anime/cartoon about sexualizing underage girls gets made, people go insane over that shit. C'mon guys, have some standards.

 

[Nurb]

15 years ago people would have laughed at you if you said people would be trying to apply real world laws to fictional characters and that weird fantasy makes people go nuts and commit a crime in reality.

But thanks to the dateline-fueled pedo-paranoia and general "dumbening" of kids today, they're growing up thinking cartoon characters need to be protected and that artists are the same as molestors.

In the 90's parents were screaming "IT'S GOING TO MAKE PEOPLE INTO MONSTERS!" over video games like Doom, now it's the kids saying that sort of thing about videos game mods like the columbine shooting. So it would make sense that kids today will also think cartoons and fictional creations are as equally as dangerous as reality.

Sad really, but then the same young gamers also defend game companies that claim ownership to people's photos taken with their device and what they can and can't do with their own property, so it's to be expected.

We're willingly letting the west snowball down the hill of the nanny state.

Eh, it doesn't exploit anyone per say, but it encourages pedophile behavior.

Pedophiles need psychological help, not outlets for their desires.

In the same way Doom encouraged the kids at Columbine to shoot up their school or how GTA encourages kids to become criminals. Fox News said Bulletstorm was going to make kids rapists.

You can't apply rules to fiction; if you say fiction encourages sexual urges, then you have to say fiction encourages criminal urges..

You could try to use the excuse that sexual fantasy is different than violent fantasy of running over old ladies with a bus, but then both acts depected in fiction are illegal and immoral in reality so if an artist can be arrested for CP over a drawing, then artists that create scenarios that allow people to kill cops have to be arrested for murder and encouraging others to murder.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

I believe Loli is illegal in the UK. If it's a matter of discerning if a drawing of a girl depicts her as 16 or 18, it's really up to the artist and the observer. More so the observer, unless the artist puts the animated girl in a scenario that specifies she is 16.

Should it matter? By which I think you mean, should it be illegal? Depends on whom you consider too young to be portrayed in a sexually provocative manner, and if you're okay with letting an industry operate the produces the material, which sends out the message for the society, "We support this".

EDIT: I should note, whether this is a logical message is debatable (which is what this thread is about!), as you can extrapolate from the same mentality any society that lets GTA be sold supports murder, drug trafficking etc... I guess it tells you how afraid people are of paedophilia. It defies rationality.

It's definitely tricky. No one is hurt directly, but it certainly does promote harmful acts and material.

However if it meant I couldn't have the likes of NGE, because the female pilots are 14, I'd be displeased.

Edit: I see this developed into a discussion on paedophilia. I hope these don't become prolific again. See my previous comments from a couple of months ago, I'm not writing it all out again.

 

[NezumiiroKitsune]

Felt this needed it's own post to clear up current statuses.

UK Law: The Coroners and Justice Bill (which came into force on 6 April 2010) criminalises all sexual images of under 18s (including non-realistic depictions), as well as images of adults where the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is under 18 despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a person under 18.

US Law: As of the PROTECT Act of 2003, the legal status of cartoon pornography with minors has been more thoroughly addressed and refined than it was before under the previous law of the United States. The new act made any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of minors in sexual situations that do not pass the Miller test were made illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A thus creating a loop hole around the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition decision.

 

[Shock and Awe]

Logically no, it shouldn't. That being said, I still find it messed up as hell.

 

[Loop Stricken]

They're not real, it doesn't matter.
Because they're not real.

Have I mentioned they're not real yet? because they're not, you know. Not real.

 

[Loop Stricken]

If there's grass on the field, play ball.

There's these things in the shops called razors? A somewhat recent invention, but it seems they don't just make keyboards and mice!

 

[Katana314]

For arguments like these I think of the "most extreme example" to decide if the point is valid. If I were to think of an Ivy (soul calibur) style of character for someone 12 or under, I think they have a valid point. I don't think it's as much whether there's a victim involved (possibly, if it's motion-captured?) but that it might fuel someone's desires, possibly even for other formats of child pornography; the kind with live actors.

Be honest; for anyone here who watches porn, do you watch it and then think "Gee, I don't feel like watching any porn for a long time."

Makes me wonder if they could fix the rating by just saying in the AU version, those characters are 21 and just look young.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Be honest; for anyone here who watches porn, do you watch it and then think "Gee, I don't feel like watching any porn for a long time."

Well I do tend to reach a certain point where it becomes a repulsive thing and I feel intense self-loathing...

... probably not what you're asking.

 

[Katana314]

Be honest; for anyone here who watches porn, do you watch it and then think "Gee, I don't feel like watching any porn for a long time."

Well I do tend to reach a certain point where it becomes a repulsive thing and I feel intense self-loathing...

... probably not what you're asking.

Well, by a long time I'm thinking of a matter of weeks. Such that you're not in any way inclined to buy more for so long.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Be honest; for anyone here who watches porn, do you watch it and then think "Gee, I don't feel like watching any porn for a long time."

Well I do tend to reach a certain point where it becomes a repulsive thing and I feel intense self-loathing...

... probably not what you're asking.

Well, by a long time I'm thinking of a matter of weeks. Such that you're not in any way inclined to buy more for so long.

If I binge on ponies I'm generally feeling good enough not to need those short bursts of self-gratification.
Not sure how this relates to delicious loli though.

[Edit: Also... buy porn? What? Lawl.]

 

[Grabbin Keelz]

underage girls shouldn't be displayed as a sexual enjoyment, but should still be characters in animes and stuff. Having an underage girl as a character would be an advantage because then they can't label them as sex figures and people would see them as...well character.
That's the idea, though I don't think it plays out how it should -_-

 

[mcnally86]

This kind of thing is actually Illegal in the UK, but I think its a stupid law.

Fictional animated characters are much better than the alternive *Shudders*

The theory is pedophiles need to go it cold turkey. If they start collecting a little "art" and "games" and end up with more and more. They create a demand and someone will step up to supply. Victimless some think. But what if the creators used source material (it happens). Also what if forums then spring up? Suddenly this sicko is part of a community. Well then he feels less bad about being a pedophile. This topic is gross, this internet is gross.

 

[Booze Zombie]

I don't think it should...I don't really care about straight up pornographic material featuring drawn or animated minors either.

Getting rid of the fake kiddy porn doesn't mean that pedophiles go away. It just means that they're forced to move on to real children to satisfy their desires.

I'd rather them be wanking to anime girls than my daughter, bro. >:x

Goddamn, it's like I posted in the past and had an awesome avatar. I'm keeping an eye on you, Awesome Me.

 

[Comrade_Beric]

...we're talking about regulating the age of consent of non-existent people. Really? We have to regulate whether fake people can have sex or whether it should be illegal to see fake people have sex? What are we supposed to do? Card them? If someone draws a pair of stick figures and labels them as underage, should this be illegal?

Anyone who checked "Yes" to this poll either misread the question or needs to get the logic section of their brain checked.

 

[GuiltyDark]

So I was just reading this thread

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.290715-Australia-Bans-Dead-or-Alive-Dimensions-After-All?page=2#11549609

and it occurred to me that, whether or not the girls are of age or not, does it matter if they're animated? I mean, if they're fictional no one is being exploited, so what's the problem, so long as they don't look TOO young? With animated characters, the only thing you have to go on is the character's description, and an animated 17 year old could just as easily be changed to an animated 18 year old with just a quick edit of the character's background page.

This isn't a bash on Australia's decision to ban the game (sure there are already plenty of those) I was just wondering what others thought of this.

So my question is this-should it matter in the case of an animated underage character being portrayed sexually, given that there is no exploitation?

EDIT: I didn't mean in the case of little kids (though I guess you could imply the same concept) I meant in the case of the late teens age range where it can be really hard to tell the difference between of age and underage.

I personally think it's a moral and ethical issue. People might take issue, even if in reality nobody is being exploited. I don't have an issue, but with people you never know what might offend. Still, in my own opinion, there's nothing wrong with it. It shouldn't matter, unless they're like.... 9 or something. And it's REALLY explicitly sexual.

 

[mcnally86]

I mean, if they're fictional no one is being exploited, so what's the problem, so long as they don't look TOO young?

And what exactly is your problem if they are "too young"?
No cowardly fence sitting. No "so long as".
If you think age limits for fictional characters shouldn't matter, you include 17 year olds and 11 year olds and 1 year olds, period.
If you don't wanna include those, age limits do matter, period.

If you let someone with anger management issues lose control constantly in harmless ways (punching inanimate objects), it doesn't curb their desire, it just gets them in the habit of giving into it. Eventually, these habits could manifest less harmlessly.

Got anything to back that up too or are those just more assumptions that "seem logical"?
You know what else "seems logical" to people? That gayness is a contagious disease.

Really did you just call him a contagions gay? That wasn't part of this topic. You talk about logic and you are tossing in other controversial topics to support your arguments. Yes, behaviors left unchecked tend to escalate. That is fact.

 

[4RM3D]

Where did you learn about this?
Not that I don't believe you, I just find this stuff interesting.

Also I'm not going to start searching for articles about child porn less I be mistaken for a pedo.

When I was studying IT law a topic came up: child porn on the internet. Then one of the professors starting talking about the law in the US and the law here (the Netherlands) and some of the weird stuff that was going on.

I am not sure if you read the whole read, but I'll post my initial post here.

I have actually studied IT law (as a minor) during college. And child porn also came up, a lot. Real child porn is illegal (duh). If you own it you and the cops find it, your screwed (among other things). But if you watch a streaming video of child porn, its not illegal and thus the cops can't touch you. Because a streaming video you don't own; it's not stored on your computer, although you can argue it's cached somewhere locally. However if you paid to get access to streaming video, you can be arrested if the payment can be traced to the source.

So cartoon porn (simple put) is not illegal where I live. But if the porn is too realistically animated, it is illegal. (Where do you draw the line, I wonder). But if you can prove that you animated the porn yourself, its not illegal.

Oh the 'joys' of law...