Gamer Girl selling her bathwater?????
- Thread starter dowie
- Start date
Can you even define what a "drawn child" is... if it is not a drawing of a real child?
Some artists use a style of drawing that features adults with childish traits. The fictional characters are described/implied to be adults but are drawn with childish features.
A jury when deciding what is "child porn" would just be shown the images and not any description/backstory of these fictional characters.
Again tho, you find it distasteful, and I can understand that. But where is the harm being caused? Who is being abused here?
Ah I see you're here to be dismissive of valid arguments and appeal to emotion.
sounds like a challenge! thread to compare, and inbuilt poll required I think.
Looks like you do?
. Who the F is she never heard of her and i game.Guess another Air head like that tribe Khar(big)aresien and Kayne west which i always thought was a shopping mall?
ok, I blame the ** please fully star out swearing, thanks ** heat then! or maybe just stand by what i wrote, so take your pick
.Note: Understood.. I'll go sit in the corner now
Last edited:
Depictions of children sexually contribute to normalising the sexualisation of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material. As cartoon children are masterbated to so does that fuel the notion that it's ok to masterbate to children, it also then runs the risk of escalating that behaviour.
Yes there's no immediate victim, but if your into looking at kids sexually, even if it is just cartoons, you need to start having a look at yourself and possibly get into therapy.
Whilst I'm all a out fantasies and kinks, the weirder the better, having them involve kids is not ok.
That's a very precognitive claim. With quite unique beliefs in the mechanics of controlling behaviour.
Centuries of punishments of death, castration and imprisonment, on top of social stigma, doesn't seem to have ever prevented the until recently, and in many places, still, criminally deviant homosexuality. Simply overwhelmingly punished it when exposed as a statement that the gay doesn't happen here or else.
Then there's the myriad of violent crimes against other people. These being enacted in games and in text and in moving or still media don't seem to transform enthusiasts into violent criminals. Despite constant claims.
It's as if being a damaged individual is necessary to bridge the gap between the land of private thoughts and physical enactment of acts against an unwilling party and the act of being illegal controls neither private thoughts or damaged persons.
So criminalising thoughts on the grounds of predictions that it translates into physical crime I find completely backwards and not proven to work.
Images harm no one, even real images harm no one. The harm is that obtaining real images requires real people. Which provides a basis for real pornography of children being forbidden along with support for real images as it requires manipulation of a person, globally considered to be too young and mentally underdeveloped to give informed consent.
If you skip an important step and go from that to, artificial images are forbidden, you've left the logic of the law being about guarding the vulnerable by removing actual abusers from society and proceeded to prosecuting undesirable thoughts, something proven through millennia to not work.
To make it quite clear, even if the guy in question, and it was never said he was, was a paedophile (someone who is sexually attracted to children), that itself is not a crime. It never has been, it's a state of thinking. It is regularly confused with sexual offences against children which quite importantly, require a child to be involved.
The situation is that a guy was given a 9 month jail sentence and a public label of sex offender which cripples their life permanently because of a law which creates a crime out of artificial images of children.
The second time the same guy is prosecuted, the law was extended to artificial images which do not even attempt to reflect reality. You can now be criminalised for an "underage" stick drawing.
The level of backwards is extremely high and I can only attribute it to moral outrage causing law makers to reach into attempts to criminalise thoughts rather than actions.
Centuries of punishments of death, castration and imprisonment, on top of social stigma, doesn't seem to have ever prevented the until recently, and in many places, still, criminally deviant homosexuality. Simply overwhelmingly punished it when exposed as a statement that the gay doesn't happen here or else.
Then there's the myriad of violent crimes against other people. These being enacted in games and in text and in moving or still media don't seem to transform enthusiasts into violent criminals. Despite constant claims.
It's as if being a damaged individual is necessary to bridge the gap between the land of private thoughts and physical enactment of acts against an unwilling party and the act of being illegal controls neither private thoughts or damaged persons.
So criminalising thoughts on the grounds of predictions that it translates into physical crime I find completely backwards and not proven to work.
Images harm no one, even real images harm no one. The harm is that obtaining real images requires real people. Which provides a basis for real pornography of children being forbidden along with support for real images as it requires manipulation of a person, globally considered to be too young and mentally underdeveloped to give informed consent.
If you skip an important step and go from that to, artificial images are forbidden, you've left the logic of the law being about guarding the vulnerable by removing actual abusers from society and proceeded to prosecuting undesirable thoughts, something proven through millennia to not work.
To make it quite clear, even if the guy in question, and it was never said he was, was a paedophile (someone who is sexually attracted to children), that itself is not a crime. It never has been, it's a state of thinking. It is regularly confused with sexual offences against children which quite importantly, require a child to be involved.
The situation is that a guy was given a 9 month jail sentence and a public label of sex offender which cripples their life permanently because of a law which creates a crime out of artificial images of children.
The second time the same guy is prosecuted, the law was extended to artificial images which do not even attempt to reflect reality. You can now be criminalised for an "underage" stick drawing.
The level of backwards is extremely high and I can only attribute it to moral outrage causing law makers to reach into attempts to criminalise thoughts rather than actions.
That's the whole correlation/causation argument again.
But ultimately you're saying something should be illegal because it might lead to doing something else that's illegal. The key word being "might".
Again, you're talking about criminalising people for potential future crimes they might commit.
But since you can't prove causation vs correlation, you are just criminalising people for a "crime" with no actual harm to any real person.
The whole "think of the children" mindset implies that everything is a slippery slope and "The kind of person who does x will definitely do y."
Is it really any different from some people getting off on violent films or games, but never actually being violent in the real world? Some people might, so should all violence in media be banned just in case?
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Sep 2017
- Posts
- 6,206
- Location
- In the Masonic Temple
This has become the most difficult discussion I've seen in a long while.
Well handled gents
Well handled gents
Is there evidence for that?
I mean if that were the case then does sexually provocative imagery of men turn straight men gay?
A few decades ago we used to criminalise homosexual behaviour, back when people were more religious it was seen as harmful behaviour, a sin, something that will cause harm. Obviously that form of "deviant" behaviour is now largely tolerated and legal.
Likewise the idea of a trans person/"man" using a female bathroom is controversial though generally becoming tolerated/legal - the vast majority of them are not predators.
Obviously nonces can't be allowed to engage in the sort of sexual activity they'd find appealing as there are clear consent issues and it would be harmful. I do wonder though whether we should allow them access to cartoons - that seems to be the one way of perhaps providing them with a release that doesn't require any victims. If anything it could perhaps be used to kerb potential predatory behaviour. Much better that they are allowed some approved stuff than creating an underground market for stuff that goes beyond cartoons and has real victims.
There is also the various potential ambiguities/double standards - like if it is "art" does it get around the restrictions? Some adult women doing regular porn dress as say schoolgirls, this is big in Japan apparently... some porn stars have small breasts etc.. how do you age a cartoon? Is the cartoon a cartoon of say a 16 yr old schoolgirl or of a 19 yr old porn star dressed as one? Does the artist just put a disclaimer that he/she has depicted a 19yr old dressed in uniform?
It seems like nonces could get similar content from 18+ adult performers perfectly legally so it is a bit odd that a cartoon of the same would be illegal.
@hurfdurf I just want to bring you back to the first part of my post that you quoted.
What constitutes a drawing of a child - if the drawing is not based on a real child?
It sounds like a daft question, but scratch the surface and it becomes complicated.
A drawing of a (human) child is an easy place to start. But the law does not just cover human children - and this has been established by lawmakers, judges and the police already. It's actually "by design" that the law covers non-human children.
So "a child" can refer to a non-human child. A child of a species that is not known to exist anywhere in the real universe. A concept straight from someone's imagination. Who may age and develop mentally and physically entirely differently to humans. Who may have a completely different life and reproductive cycle to humans (according to their creator's lore). The lawmakers and police regard this as this as a "loophole" that artists use purely to circumvent the law, and hence they and the jury must disregard such information about the (fictional) characters on display. A child is a child, human or not, if it looks similar to a human child.
Also, as I previously said, some artists have drawing styles where they give their adult characters child-like traits and appearances, but said characters are known to be adults. They are drawn in adult situations - not just including sex but, for example, flying an aeroplane. This often involves non-human species.
Take as an example anthropomorphised animals. The "furry" genre. Or we can go with vampires if you like. A drawing of a "vampire child" could actually depict a being that in canon was 500 years old.
Or a drawing of an anthro animal - which could be any age, because they literally have different aging and development to humans.
Now this also brings in something tangentally related. Is a drawing of a human having sex with an animal (not taken from a real act but from imagination) - is this *actual* bestiality? Is a drawing of a man having sex with a vampire *actual* necrophilia? Should people viewing such images be sex offenders? And if so, shouldn't the "Twilight" films be banned?
So where do you stop? I suppose you stop with children because it's much harder to get upset about (depicted, imaginary) cadavers or animals in sexual situations. But that doesn't mean it isn't completely inconsistent that you can watch Die Hard or Twilight, but (imaginary, drawn) images of "children" are now given human rights as if they were real. Even if they aren't human.
What constitutes a drawing of a child - if the drawing is not based on a real child?
It sounds like a daft question, but scratch the surface and it becomes complicated.
A drawing of a (human) child is an easy place to start. But the law does not just cover human children - and this has been established by lawmakers, judges and the police already. It's actually "by design" that the law covers non-human children.
So "a child" can refer to a non-human child. A child of a species that is not known to exist anywhere in the real universe. A concept straight from someone's imagination. Who may age and develop mentally and physically entirely differently to humans. Who may have a completely different life and reproductive cycle to humans (according to their creator's lore). The lawmakers and police regard this as this as a "loophole" that artists use purely to circumvent the law, and hence they and the jury must disregard such information about the (fictional) characters on display. A child is a child, human or not, if it looks similar to a human child.
Also, as I previously said, some artists have drawing styles where they give their adult characters child-like traits and appearances, but said characters are known to be adults. They are drawn in adult situations - not just including sex but, for example, flying an aeroplane. This often involves non-human species.
Take as an example anthropomorphised animals. The "furry" genre. Or we can go with vampires if you like. A drawing of a "vampire child" could actually depict a being that in canon was 500 years old.
Or a drawing of an anthro animal - which could be any age, because they literally have different aging and development to humans.
Now this also brings in something tangentally related. Is a drawing of a human having sex with an animal (not taken from a real act but from imagination) - is this *actual* bestiality? Is a drawing of a man having sex with a vampire *actual* necrophilia? Should people viewing such images be sex offenders? And if so, shouldn't the "Twilight" films be banned?
So where do you stop? I suppose you stop with children because it's much harder to get upset about (depicted, imaginary) cadavers or animals in sexual situations. But that doesn't mean it isn't completely inconsistent that you can watch Die Hard or Twilight, but (imaginary, drawn) images of "children" are now given human rights as if they were real. Even if they aren't human.
Is that valid a defence? That also though the fictional cartoon character looks young it actually has some context in the cartoon series/movie whereby the character is doing an adult job and therefore is an adult... but without that context the exact same picture or video could be criminal.
I wonder if some cartoonist wanting to actively skirt a bit close to this law could secure permission/releases from various young looking adult performers to use their likeness in cartoons... if they've depicted a real person then that would presumably be a solid defence against any accusation they they've created indecent cartoon images of children.
I wonder if LGBT campaigners will go back to supporting nonces over something like this - if it can be used to actually kerb predatory behaviour then it perhaps isn't a bad thing - maybe needs some research... albeit that is slightly difficult given the law.
We also need to be very, very careful about assuming that all paedophiles will attempt to abuse children. Or that viewing such cartoons could have *any* effect on rates of actual abuse - either for good or for bad. My argument is actually that many people can and do differentiate reality from fantasy, and that they are utterly different, and that one is not necessarily a substitute for the other.
Some people may watch gay porn but have absolutely no intention of performing a gay sex act. Fantasy vs reality.
Some people may have suicidal thoughts but have absolutely no intention of committing suicide. Fantasy vs reality.
The attempt to link fantasy (thoughts) with reality (deed) is the problem. Whether you're arguing it's for good or for bad.
I've not assumed that
I've not assumed that either, I wouldn't be surprised though that if there is an effect there that it could be a positive one.
I should also add that you shouldn't assume theres no effect!
The UK law is basically tantamount to thought crime and only serves to increase the risk of sexual offences against children as those who might otherwise have merely gone on to view fantasy drawings are driven more underground into a world where real images are encountered.
I would not be surprised for the effect to the exact opposite, in the absence of credible evidence it is purely speculation either way.
Meanwhile, in China...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-49151042
Real one on the left, filtered on the right. She's lost some followers now
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-trending-49151042
Real one on the left, filtered on the right. She's lost some followers now
Mega lols, giving money quite literally to someone because of their attractiveness shown to be a complete fraud, so they've disappeared, bunch of incels, what are trying to do by giving money to her? Are they expecting a reward? Keeping her active?
Though this also proves that deepfakes work splendidly, can't wait for the first election where the candidates don't actually exist.
Though this also proves that deepfakes work splendidly, can't wait for the first election where the candidates don't actually exist.