Does Shota/Cub Art qualify as child pornography?

Do they qualify as child pornography?


  • Total voters
    41

Tani Coyote

Son of Huehuecoyotl
Joined
May 28, 2007
Messages
15,191
Before we begin, remember the forum rules. This must be a professional discussion: please no sexual humor, explicit content, etc. Act as if we were all lawmakers debating this issue.

The discussion - albeit a silly one, since the other person's hostile and can't seem to understand my angle - in the Ask a Furry thread has spawned this thread.

The question is simple:

Does cub art/shotacon count as child pornography?

In a nutshell, cub art is furry art that depicts young/pre-pubescent furs in a sexual manner, and shotacon is an anime/manga genre that does the same, but with humans instead of furs. Do these fall under child pornography, and if so, should they be treated as such?

I say no.

My reasoning is simple:

Child pornography is illegal because children have rights, and are not capable of consent and therefore cannot forfeit those rights(at least that's my understanding). As a result, a person sexually photographing them and such violates their rights and is treated accordingly.

A cub or shotacon character is not REAL. They are like any other fictional character. They have no rights. You cannot honestly compare pornographic imagery of fictional characters to the same imagery of ACTUAL people. It's like those nutjobs who compare legalised gay marriage to legalised beastiality(my father is sadly one of these): they cannot be compared, as the former has consent and the latter does not!

While both a fictional character and an underage person cannot consent, the former is a living, breathing being with rights, while the latter is not and therefore does not have any rights. The only rights involved in the latter are copyrights and trademarks!

The government has already ruled on the distinction between real children in sexual situations and fictional children; I have not heard of any shota or cub artists being arrested. I HAVE heard of numerous child pornographers being arrested, however.

Shota and cub art aren't my cup of tea. But if put on the lawbooks, they are victimless "crimes." Accordingly, there shouldn't be any punishment for them. Furthermore, who am I to say what people can and can't enjoy? We should all be able to do whatever we wish, provided it does not infringe on the rights of others. And fictional characters do not have rights.

So, I ask again. Do these genres count as child pornography, or not? Should they be treated as child pornography?
 
Well, it's unsavoury. I don't want to bumrape furry animals or children.
 
Are children being exploited in the production? Then no.

I figured my fellow libertarians would have the proper course of logic on this. :goodjob:

Well, it's unsavoury. I don't want to bumrape furry animals or children.

Well that's fine. All a matter of preference, since neither would I. Nobody's forcing us to look at the material, nor are there any victims in the scenario, so... why should it be filed as child pornography?

What people do with their time is none of my business, nor the government's, especially when there's no violation of rights involved.
 
What is cub art? Sexually suggestive teddy bears??

I think it should be considered child porn. Someone who enjoys drawings like this would probably be disturbed and potentially dangerous. Not because they're attracted to children- I don't think that's their choice. But, because they're accepting their orientation, they're indulging their taste for young children, they cannot be 'morally' sound. If they were, they would probably do as much as they could to repress their feelings and at least feel guilty.
 
Are children being exploited in the production? Then no.

I think it's a fair assumption that we'll eventually have the capability to make computer generated people that are indistinguishable from live-action people.

How do you police between child porn involving real children, and that involving computer-generated children, at that point?
 
I don't think it qualifies as child pornography, however I'm not completely convinced that it should remain legal.

A couple things to think about:

1. These still sexualize children, there may be societal repercussions of this that are sufficiently negative to justify illegalization.

2. Art may be used to circumvent child pornography laws. One could "artistically" represent a real child in sexual situations. It would be difficult to tell whether one is depicting a neighbor's kid or a kid on the internet versus some imagined kid.
 
Child pornography is by definition the records of the sexual abuse of children, and is unprotected speech precisely because of this. It is unprotected as the images serve as a permanent reminder of the abuse, and the state has a compelling interest to regulate the channels of distributing such images if it is to be able to eliminate the production of child pornography.

As there are no sexual abuse of children involved, it is therefore not child pornography.

This doesn't change the fact that people who look at them are completely sick, of course.

Perfection said:
1. These still sexualize children, there may be societal repercussions of this that are sufficiently negative to justify illegalization.

Well, the sexualization of children itself isn't sufficiently negative enough. The sexualization of teenagers, for example, is fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages.

Perfection said:
2. Art may be used to circumvent child pornography laws. One could "artistically" represent a real child in sexual situations. It would be difficult to tell whether one is depicting a neighbor's kid or a kid on the internet versus some imagined kid.

Well, laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. Prohibiting speech in such a matter records no crime and creates no victims by its production; so you would be banning things which have legitimate merit despite the fact that there are no victims to be harmed.
 
Child pornography is any pornographic material in which the primary object used to incite sexual arousal/excitement is someone under the age of consent/majority. Therefore, the only sensible answer is yes.
 
I'd have to see it and I have no intention of doing an image search for something that 'may' be child porn.
 
What is a fur/furry art? Sexually suggestive teddy bears??

I don't know if this is a troll post, but I'll assume it's a genuine question. To find out more about furries/what furry art is, it's better to visit this thread. :) This is about whether shota and cub art constitute child pornography, not what furry art is.

I think it's a fair assumption that we'll eventually have the capability to make computer generated people that are indistinguishable from live-action people.

This is true.

How do you police between child porn involving real children, and that involving computer-generated children, at that point?

Never mind privacy laws, but there's also the idea that it's better they prey upon fictional children than real children. Chances are a person can't just get rid of the attraction... so find a way that it can get expressed without hurting anybody else.

I don't think it qualifies as child pornography, however I'm not completely convinced that it should remain legal.

A couple things to think about:

1. These still sexualize children, there may be societal repercussions of this that are sufficiently negative for illegalization.

I think basic privacy laws and self-responsibility can cover this. Ideally, we'd all be tolerant, but you are responsible for the consequences of what you say or do. If I was to say, come out in public about my homosexuality, I shouldn't be surprised when I get my face smashed in by some intolerant ass. They will of course be held responsible for their actions - assault - but I will be held liable for mine - being assaulted. Think of it as a "Don't Tell" policy.

2. Art may be used to circumvent child pornography laws. One could "artistically" represent a real child in sexual situations. It would be difficult to tell whether one is depicting a neighbor's kid or a kid on the internet versus some imagined kid.

This is correct.

And of course, if one is found to have used actual children for their art - portraits are the most obvious giveaway - than they must be held criminally accountable. You are correct in it being a gray area however.
 
I think it's a fair assumption that we'll eventually have the capability to make computer generated people that are indistinguishable from live-action people.

How do you police between child porn involving real children, and that involving computer-generated children, at that point?
If we reach that point, what incentive would anyone have to use actual children?
 
Shota does yes, because it's for those with a filthy mind. Loli does not count and should be encouraged.

edit: obligatory this thread is useless without pics comment
 
It's disgusting and in my view does qualify as child pornography.
 
If the purpose of the art is arousal, then it is probably porn.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotacon

The wiki description is ambiguous and allows for both erotic and non erotic art. This thread almost seems like an attempt to promote an obscure sexual fetish.
 
If the purpose of the art is arousal, then it is probably porn.

That is not what child pornography is, legally speaking. Perhaps "child abuse images" would be a more accurate term.
 
As there are no sexual abuse of children involved, it is therefore not child pornography.

This doesn't change the fact that people who look at them are completely sick, of course.

Excellent post Da- ..ah ha. A leftover from April 1st I see.

Well of course. I consider a lot of things sick; I don't think that merits banning them, however.

Well, the sexualization of children itself isn't sufficiently negative enough. The sexualization of teenagers, for example, is fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages.

Ouch. Burn on all the critics.

Well, laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. Prohibiting speech in such a matter records no crime and creates no victims by its production; so you would be banning things which have legitimate merit despite the fact that there are no victims to be harmed.

People see the word "underage" and automatically assume "OMFG! EVIL! BAN IT!" is the issue, I feel. Hot button issues and such.

People act more on emotions than logic, sadly.

Child pornography is any pornographic material in which the primary object used to incite sexual arousal/excitement is someone under the age of consent/majority. Therefore, the only sensible answer is yes.

But should it be legally treated as child pornography? That is the real question.

I'd have to see it and I have no intention of doing an image search for something that 'may' be child porn.

And unfortunately, the forum rules prevent me from posting any actual shota... or at least the sexual variety. For an idea of what shotacon/cub art would be like(or at least cub art), imagine a more sexual version of this:

Spoiler :
 
Well, the sexualization of children itself isn't sufficiently negative enough. The sexualization of teenagers, for example, is fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages.
I should note (and I'm pretty sure you get this, but this comment is for everyone) that when I speak of "child" I am talking about prepubescent children.

Now, I agree, that just because something sexualizes children doesn't mean it's wrong. I have the additional task of demonstrating that that sexualization does in fact cause harm. I'm going to mostly shirk on that task (which is why I won't advocate criminalization of it), however I will note that I find it plausible.

Well, laws prohibiting the distribution and possession of child pornography ban speech because of the manner in which it is produced, regardless of its serious literary or artistic value. Prohibiting speech in such a matter records no crime and creates no victims by its production; so you would be banning things which have legitimate merit despite the fact that there are no victims to be harmed.
Well there's two possible things that should be noted here:
1. The additional catching of people who are harming others, may be worth it.
2. We still have to contend with the possibility of harm in addressed above.
 
Top Bottom