Does Shota/Cub Art qualify as child pornography?

Lolicon>Shotacon

Art in nature is disgusting and perverse so no, not any more then Manneken Pis.

Lord Gay said:

I'm with Amadeus on this Foxy. I don't support victimless crimes.

Click to expand...

Lord Gay and Amadeus both speak sense. I'm with them. I might not like it... but I'm not inclined to believe that my or for that matter anyone's else's personal prejudices should be writ into law.

Never heard of this phenomenon before, but cartoons can't be considered child pornograpy. It may be tasteless, but c'mon they're unrealistic drawings.

Anyway, I want to hijack this thread and go one step further. What do you people think about Jock Sturges(don't google him if you don't want to see naked boys and girls in their early teens and even younger)? Would anyone consider that child pornograpy? We are now talking about nonsexual naked pictures of teenagers, which according to German wikipedia are displayed the Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, the Museum of Modern Art New York, the National library in Paris, the Museum für Moderne Kunst in Frankfurt and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

Mr Struges would have been arrested by the police. And then called names by the Prime Minister on national television in Australia.

Conceptually, yes.
Legally, no.

Lillefix said:

Never heard of this phenomenon before, but cartoons can't be considered child pornograpy. It may be tasteless, but c'mon they're unrealistic drawings.

Anyway, I want to hijack this thread and go one step further. What do you people think about Jock Sturges(don't google him if you don't want to see naked boys and girls in their early teens and even younger)? Would anyone consider that child pornograpy? We are now talking about nonsexual naked pictures of teenagers, which according to German wikipedia are displayed the Metropolitan Museum of Art New York, the Museum of Modern Art New York, the National library in Paris, the Museum für Moderne Kunst in Frankfurt and San Francisco Museum of Modern Art.

Click to expand...

This isn't child pornography. I guess it could used used as porn, but then again nearly everything could.

Sexual manner + pre-18 years old = some form of child pornography in my book. (USA #1 #1!!!)

GoodGame said:

Sexual manner + pre-18 years old = some form of child pornography in my book. (USA #1 #1!!!)

Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure Japan has the US beat in that department.

Aegis said:

I'm pretty sure Japan has the US beat in that department.

Click to expand...

Good!!!!!!!!

USA #1 #1 USA #!

GoodGame said:

Sexual manner + pre-18 years old = some form of child pornography in my book. (USA #1 #1!!!)

Click to expand...

A seventeen year old is a "child"?

That's the problem with that term, I think. It has a very broad definition, but relatively narrow connotations. It fails to make the important distinction between children and adolescents, and merely serves to exacerbate the problem of abuse. It is neither practical nor useful.

Traitorfish said:

A seventeen year old is a "child"?

That's the problem with that term, I think. It has a very broad definition, but relatively narrow connotations. It fails to make the important distinction between children and adolescents, and merely serves to exacerbate the problem of abuse. It is neither practical nor useful.

Click to expand...

It's the issue of legal definitions in varying jurisdictions. Don't like the laws in your jurisdiction? Then vote!



USA #1 #! USA #1 #!

bob bobato said:

The victims could potentially exist. As I said, if pedophiles accept their inclination, then they'll be more likely to act on it (as a group, I mean).

Click to expand...

Or, perhaps, seek help for their serious mental illness, the images providing a harmless release until they are able to properly deal with it? That's an equally reasonable suggestion, I think.

And crimes don't necessarily need victims, advocating a crime is enough. If I made a website that advocated mass-murder, I would be persecuted, even if I had no plans to commit murder. and if I drew sexually suggestive pictures of children, it would be pedophilia- because I would then be viewing these children as an object of sexual desire.

Click to expand...

Yet you have failed to establish how such depictions would constitute the conscious encouragement of child abuse. I could draw a picture of, say, a man punching the Prime Minister in the crotch, but that does not necessarily imply that I openly advocate Prime Ministerial crotch-punching.
Remember, paedophilia is not, in itself, a crime. It is a sexual abnormality and mental illness. Child molestation is a crime, and is neither equivalent to paedophilia or an inevitable result of it. Nor is child molestation n necessarily a result of paedophilia; people come in a lot of varieties of "messed up".

Traitorfish said:

Or, perhaps, seek help for their serious mental illness, the images providing a harmless release until they are able to properly deal with it? That's an equally reasonable suggestion, I think.


Yet you have failed to establish how such depictions would constitute the conscious encouragement of child abuse. I could draw a picture of, say, a man punching the Prime Minister in the crotch, but that does not necessarily imply that I openly advocate Prime Ministerial crotch-punching.
Remember, paedophilia is not, in itself, a crime. It is a sexual abnormality and mental illness. Child molestation is a crime, and is neither equivalent to paedophilia or an inevitable result of it. Nor is child molestation n necessarily a result of paedophilia; people come in a lot of varieties of "messed up".

Click to expand...

If they wanted to seek help, then they wouldn't be looking at sexual drawings of children. If they wanted to seek help, they would seek help.
I don't think it's a 'harmless release'. It itself doesn't harm, but it's a release of feelings that would be harmful if they were acted through. By enjoying pedophilic 'art' they basically saying, "even though I will never molest children, it's OK to pretend to'. Any release of their feelings that does not view sex with children as 100% wrong, that makes even one allowance, cannot be allowed.
I mean, if some racist made a drawing of a black being murdered, would that be OK?
Your Prime Minister drawing would depend on its context. If its a satire, then it doesn't mean anything. But if it is meant to advocate crotch-punching the Prime Minister, or at least doesn't view it negatively, then we have a problem. It's the intent that matters, and what the drawings say about it.
I never said that pedophilia is the same as child molestation. I wouldn't be surprised if most pedophiles aren't child molesters, but instead very depressed and ashamed individuals.

While I don't like the art and think very lowly about it myself, No actual kids are being victimized and I figure it's probably better that there's a safe outlet for people with those feelings instead of letting them build up until they kidnap a kid and do stuff.

leonel said:

While I don't like the art and think very lowly about it myself, No actual kids are being victimized and I figure it's probably better that there's a safe outlet for people with those feelings instead of letting them build up until they kidnap a kid and do stuff.

Click to expand...

Think this through. No paedophile is going to look at this stuff, and think "I better draw the line here, this is legal, but I won't try and get real pics of child abuse because that would be wrong"... not realistic.

RedRalphWiggum said:

Think this through. No paedophile is going to look at this stuff, and think "I better draw the line here, this is legal, but I won't try and get real pics of child abuse because that would be wrong"... not realistic.

Click to expand...

Perhaps so. I was trying to think of it as a comparison with violent individuals and violent video games. But I figure it'd be a good way to separate the pedos with those impulses but won't act on them from the pedos with those impulses and will act on them.

bob bobato said:

It itself doesn't harm, but it's a release of feelings that would be harmful if they were acted through. By enjoying pedophilic 'art' they basically saying, "even though I will never molest children, it's OK to pretend to'. Any release of their feelings that does not view sex with children as 100% wrong, that makes even one allowance, cannot be allowed.
I mean, if some racist made a drawing of a black being murdered, would that be OK?

Click to expand...

I completely disagree with your logic here.

You're suggesting gun owners shouldn't go to shooting ranges, because they could also shoot people. People should never exercise, because they could also direct their aggression against people. 90% of video games should probably be banned, because they let people have fun with horrible things (boom headshot!!!). Owning or having something is NOT the same as causing harm to others. I mean, perhaps all men should be castrated, because they might use their dicks to hurt others?

I'm generally opposed to slippery slope arguments. Where something is actually harmful, we criminalize it. To the extent that certain behaviours contribute to it, we may regulate or criminalize them as well. But we should not be criminalizing something in all contexts, just because it happens to cause harm in one specific context.

Some people struggle with various things in their lives, and people are not always able to overcome something with 100% success, or completely on their own. Sometimes people need help with their problems, and they may find aid in various ways. People quitting heroin may use methadone to help ween them off it. People suffering from cancer may benefit from marijuana. People with child attractions may benefit from animations.

I personally draw a very strong line between what people think and what people do. What people think about, imagine, fantasize over, etc. is nobody's business and should not be subject to punishment, for two very simple reasons. One, fantasy and imagination can serve as a cathartic pressure valve, helping us sate emotions and desires that we really shouldn't act upon (like killing our boss) or that we can't resolve in real life (imagining we're rich and powerful, or having sex with a celebrity). Two, our thoughts don't literally hurt anybody, so there's no reason to stifle them.

If people can use external tools, be they drugs, friends, porn, whatever, to abate or decrease their desires to hurt others or engage in criminal activities, then don't you think they should avail themselves of them? We should not use a wrecking ball to solve a precision problem.

I think that we all agree on the ultimate goal of decreasing child abuse in the world, the only disagreement is in what methods are best to take to achieve that end.

bob bobato said:

If they wanted to seek help, then they wouldn't be looking at sexual drawings of children. If they wanted to seek help, they would seek help.

Click to expand...

Firstly, you assume that such a thing is easy, or even possible. I think that many paedophiles feel that it is not, so oppressed are they by the atmosphere of paranoia and groundless hate which those such as yourself so enthusiastically cultivate.

I don't think it's a 'harmless release'. It itself doesn't harm, but it's a release of feelings that would be harmful if they were acted through. By enjoying pedophilic 'art' they basically saying, "even though I will never molest children, it's OK to pretend to'. Any release of their feelings that does not view sex with children as 100% wrong, that makes even one allowance, cannot be allowed.

Click to expand...

I question the assumption that enjoying a fictional depiction of something necessarily implies approval of the act. I have yet to see any logical connection drawn between the two.

I mean, if some racist made a drawing of a black being murdered, would that be OK?

Click to expand...

Yup. It's fiction. It's only when incitement to such actions emerges that it becomes morally questionable.

...Was I not meant to say that?

Your Prime Minister drawing would depend on its context. If its a satire, then it doesn't mean anything. But if it is meant to advocate crotch-punching the Prime Minister, or at least doesn't view it negatively, then we have a problem. It's the intent that matters, and what the drawings say about it.

Click to expand...

True. But your assumption- that sexualised illustrations of minors implies an approval of child molestation- is groundless, thereby rendering this point rather irrelevant to the core issue.

I never said that pedophilia is the same as child molestation. I wouldn't be surprised if most pedophiles aren't child molesters, but instead very depressed and ashamed individuals.

Click to expand...

And you have implied it, time and time again. That's not unusual, sure, but it reflects the incredible ignorance towards the illness which does naught but exacerbate the problems it causes.

RedRalphWiggum said:

Think this through. No paedophile is going to look at this stuff, and think "I better draw the line here, this is legal, but I won't try and get real pics of child abuse because that would be wrong"... not realistic.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure why not. Paedophiles are not necessarily psychopaths, and most, I think, understand that child molestation is immoral. They are no more likely to approve of it than I am of the rape of an adult woman. After all, we really haven't the vaguest idea of how many paedophiles there really are, given that the social climate is so utterly hostile to any admission of such a condition. It's generally only when people are found having molested children or consuming depictions of such that they are identified as paedophiles. These individuals are either possessive of such a temperament, or driven to it by their illness. They are not a reasonable sample group.

Lord Gay said:

If people can use external tools, be they drugs, friends, porn, whatever, to abate or decrease their desires to hurt others or engage in criminal activities, then don't you think they should avail themselves of them? We should not use a wrecking ball to solve a precision problem.

I think that we all agree on the ultimate goal of decreasing child abuse in the world, the only disagreement is in what methods are best to take to achieve that end.

Click to expand...

Agreed. Petty moralising and self-righteous indignation must always take a back seat to lessening the amount of harm which is actually done.

RedRalphWiggum said:

Think this through. No paedophile is going to look at this stuff, and think "I better draw the line here, this is legal, but I won't try and get real pics of child abuse because that would be wrong"... not realistic.

Click to expand...

A "gateway" argument. I totally agree with you RRW, however.



Now what would be interesting is statistics on the number of gateway arguments that are actually true!