Does Shota/Cub Art qualify as child pornography?

[Tani Coyote]

Shota does yes, because it's for those with a filthy mind. Loli does not count and should be encouraged.

Yes. Popular logic FTW.

edit: obligatory this thread is useless without pics comment

See my reply to RRW for an idea of what cub art would be like; obviously the picture isn't sexual, but it gives a good idea of what cub art would look like with the sexual aspects.

It's disgusting and in my view does qualify as child pornography.

I never denied the first part.

But should it face the same legal status as regular child pornography, as there are no real children involved?

If the purpose of the art is arousal, then it is probably porn.

That's a fairly good rule of thumb.

The wiki description is ambiguous and allows for both erotic and non erotic art.

Well, I was referring primarily to the sexual aspects of cub/shotacon, because of the fact the topic wouldn't be let go on the Furry thread. I was curious what others thought of it... if we were all lawmakers, would we vote to strike it down as child porn with all the legal penalties?

This thread almost seems like an attempt to promote an obscure sexual fetish.

It isn't, I assure you.

I am not a fan of shotacon and cub art. I personally find them sick; I also find kissing women sick, however; I find seafood sick as well. I don't think either should be banned. There are no victims involved... and as a result, I see no purpose in banning them other than being morally righteous. My preferences =/= what should be legal/illegal.

Seems to be getting more frequent...

If that's a hit on the Furry thread, a quick look through that - or just WikiFur for god's sake - would show that being furry is more than just being some overly sexual pervert.

 

[emzie]

As to the question, "does shotacon / lolicon cause harm or encourage harm to come upon a child" the Supreme Court in the US said if that question were answered with a yes, that would be grounds to ban. No study has been able to show that, and thus, I can't support banning it.

 

[Shekwan]

I would consider it child pornography, as it uses children to arouse. The legal definition of child pornography may be different but whatever I think what I want.

Actually there was an interesting article in the Economist not too long ago about this issue in Japan. Its legal to produce images of children of a sexual nature as long as the characters are fictional and animated/illustrated. The local government in Tokyo had a vote on 30th March about whether to add "non existant characters" to the ban.

Heres the full version: http://www.economist.com/world/asia/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15731382

The article was published before vote so I'm not sure how it went, couldn't be bothered looking it up right now.

 

[useless]

It does seem that Tanciusfox is trying to win converts to his perverse cult- i mean fetish- i mean "society",

 

[Perfection]

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.

We should not rely on the social acceptance of other people to determine what is right or wrong. If sexual child art has sufficient negative societal consequences then it should be made illegal.

 

[Tani Coyote]

We should not rely on the social acceptance of other people to determine what is right or wrong.

I never said we should. I just said a child porn person shouldn't really be surprised if he gets shunned/abused for revealing his likes.

If sexual child art has sufficient negative societal consequences then it should be made illegal.

Oh I agree. I believe preservation of individual rights should be the proper course of action everywhere, unless it can be shown that restricting those rights would give some net good that outweighs the benefits of allowing everyone to do whatever they want. Think of the fact we do not have a right to murder because it infringes on a person's right to live.

Similarly, if child pornography - fictional or real - has enough negative consequences, it should be illegal. Like some hard drugs.

 

[Babbler]

We ought to ban this stuff. True, nobody get hurt directly but this stuff, but it is used by pedophiles to get their jollies off, increasing the chance that they would attack children in the real world.

 

[Tani Coyote]

We ought to ban this stuff. True, nobody get hurt directly but this stuff, but it is used by pedophiles to get their jollies off, increasing the chance that they would attack children in the real world.

I think that's backwards. My logic tells me that if you relieve your sexual urges on fictional children, you'll be less likely to want to relieve them on real ones.

Of course, like a drug addiction, perhaps eventually you want... more.

That can usually be sated with new art/content, however. So long as people regularly pump out the cub/shota art, that shouldn't be an issue.

 

[emzie]

The trauma from a sexual assault (that does no physical damage) is from societal conceptions of what happened, not from any touching itself. It's the secrecy, the shame, the degradation that screws with the mind.

Most of the reason molestation is bad is because everyone thinks it's bad.

Please bear in mind that I'm not advocating sexual assault against a child. Anything but. I'm observing that it's possible to imagine an alternate universe that functions just fine where child sexuality isn't some super-taboo topic, and that such relations aren't harmful as they are in our culture. I should probably ask an anthropologist if there's any (were any) societies in the world where this was common. The fact that our culture does consider it taboo and harmful is enough reason to work tirelessly against those who would exploit children, because that exploitation will cause harm here.

Back to the thread at hand, a drawn image has no victim that feels shame, guilt ect ect. I may not like it but until it harms someone...

We ought to ban this stuff. True, nobody get hurt directly but this stuff, but it is used by pedophiles to get their jollies off, increasing the chance that they would attack children in the real world.

... if that is true, then it should be banned. Demonstrate it's true. No one has yet.

 

[useless]

If we're not going to ban pedophilic content in the form of art, why ban snuff films, or anyother media content that contains question and offensive material? See? See?! Furries want us to accept their (offensive) fetish and interests. It's disturbing.

 

[Perfection]

I think that's backwards. My logic tells me that if you relieve your sexual urges on fictional children, you'll be less likely to want to relieve them on real ones.

Of course, like a drug addiction, perhaps eventually you want... more.

That can usually be sated with new art/content, however. So long as people regularly pump out the cub/shota art, that shouldn't be an issue.

wEll this is all pure speculation. we need like actual facts!

 

[Bill3000]

ignore me

 

[emzie]

If we're not going to ban pedophilic content in the form of art, why ban snuff films, or anyother media content that contains question and offensive material? See? See?! Furries want us to accept their (offensive) fetish and interests. It's disturbing.

I'll ask you to define what you mean by a snuff film, cause by my understanding of the term, actual snuff films should be banned for the same reasons actual child porn is banned. Torture porn with consenting adults shouldn't be banned, though I think the UK graciously will send you to jail for it.

 

[amadeus]

We ought to ban this stuff. True, nobody get hurt directly but this stuff, but it is used by pedophiles to get their jollies off, increasing the chance that they would attack children in the real world.

Would you say the same thing of violent video games?

ignore me

Spoiler :

WHAT'D YOU SAY THERE, BILL?

 

[Elrohir]

As long as they can reasonably tell that it isn't portraying real children, then no. If the animated porn gets real enough that a reasonable person cannot tell the difference between it and real child porn, then that should probably be illegal.

 

[Lord Gay]

Are children being exploited in the production? Then no.

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

No victim = no crime.

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

What?! Uh...

"Hello pet store? Yeah, I need to return a birthday present?"

We ought to ban this stuff. True, nobody get hurt directly but this stuff, but it is used by pedophiles to get their jollies off, increasing the chance that they would attack children in the real world.

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?

 

[emzie]

As long as they can reasonably tell that it isn't portraying real children, then no. If the animated porn gets real enough that a reasonable person cannot tell the difference between it and real child porn, then that should probably be illegal.

The only justification for this I can come up with is that such simulated pornography would make real images harder to detect.

 

[Elrohir]

The only justification for this I can come up with is that such simulated pornography would make real images harder to detect.

Which seems like a pretty good justification to me, seeing as how I think society has a legitimate interest in detecting real child porn, and severely punishing the people who make it.

 

[PiMan]

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.

Without reading the article, I would theorise that people with vested interests have steered the article in an attempt to make their perversion seem less perverse to the general public. I know it wouldn't be the only article to receive this treatment.

 

[Traitorfish]

I think this depends on how we understand the term "child pornography". In the sense that it represents sexual depictions of pre-adolescents, then yes, it is. (Sexual depictions of adolescents being a separate thing, of course.) But it is questionable to assume moral equivalence, given that it does not represents the harm of exploitation of any actual, living creatures. It may not be particularly pleasant, and perhaps even morally reprehensible in itself- another argument, and one about which I am hesitant to draw absolute conclusions- but to present it as morally equivalent to the actual abuse of children is simply dishonest.

Indeed, one is forced to wonder whether the world is actually benefit by the existence of such art work, given that it allows those suffering from paedophilia an outlet for their illness that does not necessitate the harming of others. Something worth considering, perhaps.

And, yes, paedophilia is a mental illness. Paedophiles are quite literally "sick", and, while it is entirely true that those acting upon their illness are among the most despicable of criminals, the almost complete lack of understanding of the illness among the general public, and, indeed, an unwillingness to gain such an understanding only serves to exacerbate the problem, and ultimately leads to further abuses. So, perhaps we can keep our commentary at something a little more intelligent and considered than "omg peedo", hm?