Lord Gay said:I'm with Amadeus on this Foxy. I don't support victimless crimes.
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.
Sexual manner + pre-18 years old = some form of child pornography in my book. (USA #1 #1!!!)
I'm pretty sure Japan has the US beat in that department.
A seventeen year old is a "child"?Sexual manner + pre-18 years old = some form of child pornography in my book. (USA #1 #1!!!)
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.
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.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).
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.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.
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".
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.
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.
I completely disagree with your logic here.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?
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.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 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 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.
Yup. It's fiction. It's only when incitement to such actions emerges that it becomes morally questionable.I mean, if some racist made a drawing of a black being murdered, would that be OK?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
Agreed. Petty moralising and self-righteous indignation must always take a back seat to lessening the amount of harm which is actually done.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.
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.