Does Shota/Cub Art qualify as child pornography?

Do they qualify as child pornography?

  • Total voters
    41
I would like to point people towards this video, which was on TV last year here in Australia. It is about treating paedophiles before they offend, and includes an interview with a self confessed yet anonymous paedophile looking for treatment before any crime has occurred.
 
I'm not going to look at something from a country that considers the Simpsons people.
 
Just because you would have been arrested Bill3000 if you showed your dirty mug in the Commonwealth of Australia.
 
Bill3000 said:
I'm not going to look at something from a country that considers the Simpsons people.
Click to expand...

Because everyone always agrees with what their government says, right? Not to mention that cartoon stuff like the Simpons doesn't really feature in the video, if it is mentioned at all.
 
Lord Gay said:
Why do you feel that it would increase offenses? If it could be shown that such things actually reduced offenses, would you support promoting it?
Click to expand...

That reminded me of an article I read a while back, which I found again surprisingly quickly:

How the Web Prevents Rape
All that Internet porn reduces sex crimes. Really.

Does pornography breed rape? Do violent movies breed violent crime? Quite the opposite, it seems.

First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.

The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

OK, so we can at least tentatively conclude that Net access reduces rape. But that's a far cry from proving that porn access reduces rape. Maybe rape is down because the rapists are all indoors reading Slate or vandalizing Wikipedia. But professor Kendall points out that there is no similar effect of Internet access on homicide. It's hard to see how Wikipedia can deter rape without deterring other violent crimes at the same time. On the other hand, it's easy to imagine how porn might serve as a substitute for rape.

If not Wikipedia, then what? Maybe rape is down because former rapists have found their true loves on Match.com. But professor Kendall points out that the effects are strongest among 15-year-old to 19-year-old perpetrators—the group least likely to use such dating services.

Moreover, professor Kendall argues that those teenagers are precisely the group that (presumably) relies most heavily on the Internet for access to porn. When you're living with your parents, it's a lot easier to close your browser in a hurry than to hide a stash of magazines. So, the auxiliary evidence is all consistent with the hypothesis that Net access reduces rape because Net access makes it easy to find porn.

Next, violence. What happens when a particularly violent movie is released? Answer: Violent crime rates fall. Instantly. Here again, we have a lot of natural experiments: The number of violent movie releases changes a lot from week to week. One weekend, 12 million people watch Hannibal, and another weekend, 12 million watch Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit.

University of California professors Gordon Dahl and Stefano DellaVigna compared what happens on those weekends. The bottom line: More violence on the screen means less violence in the streets. Probably that's because violent criminals prefer violent movies, and as long as they're at the movies, they're not out causing mischief. They'd rather see Hannibal than rob you, but they'd rather rob you than sit through Wallace & Gromit.

I say that's the most probable explanation, because the biggest drop in crime (about a 2 percent drop for every million people watching violent movies) occurs between 6 p.m. and midnight—the prime moviegoing hours. And what happens when the theaters close? Answer: Crime stays down, though not by quite as much. Dahl and DellaVigna speculate that this is because two hours at the movies means two hours of drinking Coke instead of beer, with sobering effects that persist right on through till morning. Speaking of morning, after 6 a.m., crime returns to its original level.

What about those experiments you learned about in freshman psych, where subjects exposed to violent images were more willing to turn up the voltage on actors who they believed were receiving painful electric shocks? Those experiments demonstrate, perhaps, that most people become more violent after viewing violent images. But that's the wrong question here. The right question is: Do the sort of people who commit violent crimes commit more crimes when they watch violence? And the answer appears to be no, for the simple reason that they can't commit crimes and watch movies simultaneously.

Similarly, psychologists have found that male subjects, immediately after watching pornography, are more likely to express misogynistic attitudes. But as professor Kendall points out, we need to be clear on what those experiments are testing: They are testing the effects of watching pornography in a controlled laboratory setting under the eyes of a researcher. The experience of viewing porn on the Internet, in the privacy of one's own room, typically culminates in a slightly messier but far more satisfying experience—an experience that could plausibly tamp down some of the same aggressions that the pornus interruptus of the laboratory tends to stir up.
In other words, if you want to understand the effects of on-screen sex and violence outside the laboratory, psych experiments don't tell you very much. Sooner or later, you've got to look at the data.
Click to expand...
 
Indeed. I believe, as I've stated repeatedly, that exposure to these things reduces incidents, rather than inflames them. I've also held to the principle of not opposing things based on knee-jerk, personal disgust but only upon sound data and evidence.

Bill3000 said:
I'm not going to look at something from a country that considers the Simpsons people.
Click to expand...
I had to look that up. Shameful.
 
Those feel morally repugnant, but technically legal
 
since drawn art != children therefore I don't think it counts.

Birdjaguar said:
If the purpose of the art is arousal, then it is probably porn.
Click to expand...

On the flip side no matter how seemingly benign something is, someone somewhere is going to get a boner to it. I imagine for 99% of humanity a picture of a kid playing in a bathtub is cute, but then you got the other 1%....
 
Shadylookin said:
since drawn art != children therefore I don't think it counts.



On the flip side no matter how seemingly benign something is, someone somewhere is going to get a boner to it. I imagine for 99% of humanity a picture of a kid playing in a bathtub is cute, but then you got the other 1%....
Click to expand...

Rule 36; if it exists, someone has a fetish for it.

But that wasn't quite the point. A loving parent might take a happy snap of their kid in the bath, but it wouldn't be classified as porn by Birdjaguar because that wasn't the purpose of the image. It was the intent of the artist that mattered, not the intent of the one viewing the art.
 
useless said:
It's disgusting and in my view does qualify as child pornography.
Click to expand...
So... because you don't like it, it should be a felony? Huh. I mean, I don't really like it either, but I don't think it should count as child pornography. I mean, if we apply that train of thought, then being annoying should be a felony too, because I don't like annoying people, right? And in that case, there is actually a victim(the person being annoyed) so it should have steeper penalties.
 
Hmm yes this unrealistic drawing of a fictional kid sure is the same thing as real life child sexual abuse
 
Snorrius said:
Well, after homosexuality was legalized in most of countries and some of them even adopted gay marriages, then no wonder people want to legalize other forms of non-standard self-expression.
Click to expand...
The difference, of course, is that paedophilia is a serious mental illness. Homosexuality is not; it was only ever considered wrong because social prejudice weighed against it.
 
Traitorfish said:
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.

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?

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.
Click to expand...

Child sexual molestation is the sexualized use of children. And sexualized illustrations of children is the depiction of such. Maybe, viewing sex. illus. of children isn't the approval of child molestation, but it's still indulging their pedophilia. And by letting themselves indulge in it, they're accepting it.
And to get back to my racist picture example... actions aren't enough. It's wrong to be racist because racism is wrong (and this is not the place to discuss racism! Unless you want to...). To me, it's not the actions, or lack of them, which matter, it's the intent or the underlying beliefs.
No you shouldn't have said that :)

Traitorfish said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
Please. I do not think that all pedophiles are child molesters. To be honest I feel uncomfortable whenever the media confuses the two terms. I do not think that pedophiles should be subjected to hate, or ignorance. Why do you think I want to oppress them? I said they should be helped, not lynched.
The atmosphere of paranoia and hate that you describe should be changed. If people were educated about pedophiles, and became more supportive of their struggles, I think we would be in a better situation. But the sexual use of children cannot be tolerated in any way.
Lord Gay said:
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?
Click to expand...
Either you misunderstood me or I didn't explain myself properly. I'm leaning towards the second. It's not what these people are doing that matters; it's why. If your gun-owner and exerciser is some rage filled psychopath who flips out at the lightest offence, then he should not be going to ranges or, er, exercising. Video games really aren't that bad, because their context makes the violence tolerable. Usually, the player is in a warzone or surrounded by enemies; it's very rare that the character is actually killing to have fun. And for your men, they should only be be castrated if they want, or wish, to hurt others with their, er, dicks (not that I'm really proposing castration, I'm just accepting the terms as they're put to me).
mangxema said:
That reminded me of an article I read a while back, which I found again surprisingly quickly:
Click to expand...

That's very interesting. Are there links between porn and (actual) sexual activity as well?
 
bob bobato said:
Child sexual molestation is the sexualized use of children. And sexualized illustrations of children is the depiction of such. Maybe, viewing sex. illus. of children isn't the approval of child molestation, but it's still indulging their pedophilia. And by letting themselves indulge in it, they're accepting it.
Click to expand...
And why is that to be condemned? Is acceptance not the first step to recovery? After all, these people still have imaginations. If you plan to stop them from ever entertaining the the notion of sexualised pre-pubescent individuals, then you're left with little choice but to wade in with a scalpel and perform a serious lobotomy.
Whether or not they "accept" their condition- even if we accept the highly debatable assertion that this is a bad thing- has nothing at all to do with whether or not they consume shota, thus rendering this argument of questionable relevance.

And to get back to my racist picture example... actions aren't enough. It's wrong to be racist because racism is wrong (and this is not the place to discuss racism! Unless you want to...). To me, it's not the actions, or lack of them, which matter, it's the intent or the underlying beliefs.
Click to expand...
Well, your implicit support for state-mandate ideological correctness aside, I think that you've rather demolished your own analogy there. Paedophilia is not, in itself, immoral, it is a mental condition. Child molestation is wrong, which, as he have established, is distinct. Paedophilia does not imply any intent to molest children, or even a belief that this is acceptable. It is merely sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Comparing it to racism, which is not a mental condition and carries inherent intent of action, is simply dishonest.

No you shouldn't have said that :)
Click to expand...
Whoops? :crazyeye:

Please. I do not think that all pedophiles are child molesters. To be honest I feel uncomfortable whenever the media confuses the two terms. I do not think that pedophiles should be subjected to hate, or ignorance. Why do you think I want to oppress them? I said they should be helped, not lynched.
The atmosphere of paranoia and hate that you describe should be changed. If people were educated about pedophiles, and became more supportive of their struggles, I think we would be in a better situation. But the sexual use of children cannot be tolerated in any way.
Click to expand...
All very true. However, and this is the crux of the thing, shota does not actually constitute the sexual use of children. It is artificial sexual depictions of fictional children. That is, I think, distinct.
 
Traitorfish said:
And why is that to be condemned? Is acceptance not the first step to recovery? After all, these people still have imaginations. If you plan to stop them from ever entertaining the the notion of sexualised pre-pubescent individuals, then you're left with little choice but to wade in with a scalpel and perform a serious lobotomy.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't mean acceptance that they have a problem, I mean acceptance of their condition.


Traitorfish said:
Well, your implicit support for state-mandate ideological correctness aside, I think that you've rather demolished your own analogy there. Paedophilia is not, in itself, immoral, it is a mental condition. Child molestation is wrong, which, as he have established, is distinct. Paedophilia does not imply any intent to molest children, or even a belief that this is acceptable. It is merely sexual attraction to pre-pubescent individuals. Comparing it to racism, which is not a mental condition and carries inherent intent of action, is simply dishonest.
All very true. However, and this is the crux of the thing, shota does not actually constitute the sexual use of children. It is artificial sexual depictions of fictional children. That is, I think, distinct.
Click to expand...
The sexual use of children is wrong, and shota is the sexual use of children. Not the use of actual, living, children, but the use of children as a concept. In the same way that, for example, sexual attraction is not involved with actual people on the basic level. People are attracted to idealized types of men or women, not specific individuals (well, they are, but that's just the manifestation of their basic attraction). Pedophilia cannot be compared to racism, but sexualized children can.
The State as far as I'm concerned is irrelevant to this discussion. I don't think I've ever meant to say that governments should enforce their own morality even if no crimes are being committed. When I say shota is wrong, I mean on a personal level, because the sexualized use of children is wrong. Same for our beaten-down racism analogy. People should have some internal responsibility for themselves, some soul searching, some questioning, some feeling that, "this is wrong".
 
Traitorfish said:
The difference, of course, is that paedophilia is a serious mental illness. Homosexuality is not; it was only ever considered wrong because social prejudice weighed against it.
Click to expand...
You are not quite right: homosexuality was once considered as an illness and still as such or as another but abnormal condition by many (f.e. - most of world religions). A striking example is history of Alan Turing who had to undergo through hormone treatment.

The question of pedophilia may also depend on community and time: for example Muhammad (famous Islamic prophet ;) ) married Aisha when she were nine and he was about fifty. By modern standards he was outrageous pedophile but by standards of his community and time it was acceptable.

Well, actually I am not protecting pedophilia or bashing homosexuality here, I just like to shatter others' mind templates :D.
 
bob bobato said:
Child sexual molestation is the sexualized use of children. And sexualized illustrations of children is the depiction of such. Maybe, viewing sex. illus. of children isn't the approval of child molestation, but it's still indulging their pedophilia. And by letting themselves indulge in it, they're accepting it.
And to get back to my racist picture example... actions aren't enough. It's wrong to be racist because racism is wrong (and this is not the place to discuss racism! Unless you want to...). To me, it's not the actions, or lack of them, which matter, it's the intent or the underlying beliefs.
Click to expand...

The distribution and possession of child pornography is banned because it is a record of the actual crime of child molestation, and it is in the interest of the state to prohibit the distribution of these records in order to reduce the crime of child molestation, not simply because it's obscene. Speech shouldn't be banned merely because it is immoral - it is necessary in order to push arguments to their logical limits, rather than the limits of social embarrassment.

You will never be able to prove holocaust denial to be wrong if you simply prohibit the discussion of the topic - showing immoral speech to be incorrect and wrong, and socially ostracizing disgusting ideas though the free market of ideas is infinitely superior to banning them. The offense principle is incoherent, as it does nothing to prevent the reverse situation, in which a majority of people who find your ideas to be disgusting bans them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Birdjaguar
  • Poll
AI and Art
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Hygro
Hygro
Samson
  • Poll
Is ‘speciesism’ as bad as racism or sexism?
5 6 7
Replies
128
Views
5K
schlaufuchs
schlaufuchs
Samson
  • Poll
How should we allocate the cost and benefit of medical technology?
Replies
2
Views
415
amadeus
amadeus
Samson
  • Poll
What aspects of computing tech should we further criminalise?
3 4 5
Replies
96
Views
4K
Arwon
Arwon
NovaKart
Another Canada controversy
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
AmazonQueen
AmazonQueen
Top Bottom