Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Kesher

이달의 소녀
Banned
Inappropriate Content
Very interesting documentary here on Japanese Manga/Anime (Comic) Child Porn. Legal in Japan; but banned in Europe and the US. Child porn involving real children was only banned last year in Japan. They considered banning drawings of child porn; but decided against it.
It seems Japan got the balance right.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04wwkhl
 
I heard that, was interested in the issues. I am uncomfortable with the sexualisation of children which was one. I am not sure they got the balance right.
 
Last edited:
Among the manga shops of Akihabara, child protection campaigner Kazuna Kanajiri takes me to see something she thinks is a much bigger problem than cartoons and comics. We climb a flight of stairs off the main street and emerge into a room packed full of DVDs.

Kazuna picks one off the shelf - it features real images of a girl she says is five years old, wearing a skimpy swimsuit and posing in sexually suggestive positions that mimic adult pornography. All the other DVDs in the shop also feature real children.

"I feel sorry for the children," Kanajiri tells me.

These so-called "Junior Idol" DVDs became popular after the production of child pornography was outlawed in 1999. They dodged the law as long as the children's genitals were covered, but Kanajiri argues they're now illegal after the law was strengthened last June.

"People who exploit should be punished properly," she says. "It's completely illegal under the law, but the police haven't cracked down."

While some of the content in manga and anime featuring minors in sexual situations might be shocking and attention-grabbing, Kanajiri and other campaigners I spoke to told me that for now, they are focused on more

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30698640


Yeah, what a great balance :hmm:
 
The thing about freedom of expression is, that it doesn't exist in a vacuum, there's other important freedoms that it can come into conflict with.

The most important freedom it comes up against here is the freedom of children not to get nonced. The simple fact is, that if someone likes wanking over pictures of children being raped (even simulated pictures of children being raped) then they need to be on the register, because they're significantly more likely to actually rape children than someone who doesn't like wanking over pictures of children being raped.

It's a no-brainer. Or it should be anyway.
 
There are ways to make real images look like they were animated anyway, you can do it on a smartphone ffs.
 
One argument against banning this material is that if they are wanking over an image their frustration will be relieved and they are less likely to hurt an actual child. I'm pretty sure this is bollocks but how do you argue against this point?
 
Imagine a Venn diagram with 'people who wank over children being raped' 'people who rape children' and 'people who dont wank over children being raped' - I suspect the crossover would be much more pronounced between the first two than the last two...

I suspect so too though I imagine it's probably a bit more complex. We have a poster on these boards who's quite open about sleeping with imagery of what appears to most to be children, and I think has admitted to being sexually aroused by some of it (NOT child rape stuff, I'll add). I'm not aware of him ever being accused of having nonce potential.
 
One argument against banning this material is that if they are wanking over an image their frustration will be relieved and they are less likely to hurt an actual child. I'm pretty sure this is bollocks but how do you argue against this point?
if that was true then no women would ever get raped because there's porn. Pretty sure that's not how it works.
 
If a drawing shows the torture and lynching of a black man in a way that celebrates that torture and death, then it could be said to incite racial hatred.

If a drawing similarly shows the rape of a child, couldn't it (and more importantly the producers and consumers) be said to incite child hatred or child harm?

The idea that producing and distributing images of primary school kids being raped does not involve 'harming real children' is monstrously dangerous complacency. It doesn't necessarily cause harm but it certainly has the potential to help construct children as legitimate subjects of violent adult desires and normalise such desires in the minds of some adults.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice
 
Last edited:
The idea that producing and distributing images of primary school kids being raped does not involve harming real children is monstrously dangerous complacency. It doesn't necessarily cause harm but it certainly has the potential to help construct children as legitimate subjects of violent adult desires and normalise such desires in the minds of some adults.

Spot on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom