Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

[frogwoman]

No one is asking you to 'care about paedos'.

Are you implying I do? Do you think you have to 'care about paedos' to be worried about this law?

Nancy_Winks
My initial posts were just expressing my own views not telling people what they should and shouldn't do.

I'm not going to give a shit about people who look at this material, I have trouble with the idea that the wide availability of this material is gonna destigmatise people who want to get help, what it could do is to normalise this stuff and mean it's not seen as a bad thing,. after all, it's legal. It's legal so what's the problem?

Recent news stories show we have a long way to go before we take this stuff more seriously, the amount of people crawling out of the woodwork to vilify ched Evans victim, the fact that Jimmy Savile was only investigated after he died, the fact that well known public figures including the relative of the queen are having allegations made against them with the same tropes used to defend them time after time, my feeling is tackling a culture that enables abuse to go on should take priority and then and only then should we start to even think about being more lenient towards it, because most of the time these people are not even punished let alone understand the consequences of what they have done.

I'm aware this isn't the most rational stance to take and I also tend to think that once someone has served the sentence they should be mostly given the benefit of the doubt, because research shows that if they have access to a support structure the less likely they are to do it again, the same with making it easier for people to seek hep before they offend, I'm not convinced that allowing these pictures actually helps that cause though.

 

[bluescreen]

Nancy_Winks
My initial posts were just expressing my own views not telling people what they should and shouldn't do.

I'm not going to give a shit about people who look at this material, I have trouble with the idea that the wide availability of this material is gonna destigmatise people who want to get help, what it could do is to normalise this stuff and mean it's not seen as a bad thing,. after all, it's legal. It's legal so what's the problem?

Recent news stories show we have a long way to go before we take this stuff more seriously, the amount of people crawling out of the woodwork to vilify ched Evans victim, the fact that Jimmy Savile was only investigated after he died, the fact that well known public figures including the relative of the queen are having allegations made against them with the same tropes used to defend them time after time, my feeling is tackling a culture that enables abuse to go on should take priority and then and only then should we start to even think about being more lenient towards it, because most of the time these people are not even punished let alone understand the consequences of what they have done.

I'm aware this isn't the most rational stance to take and I also tend to think that once someone has served the sentence they should be mostly given the benefit of the doubt, because research shows that if they have access to a support structure the less likely they are to do it again, the same with making it easier for people to seek hep before they offend, I'm not convinced that allowing these pictures actually helps that cause though.

Perhaps I'm missing the point but my concern in this comes from the other direction. Like you I don't care about paedo rights of closet paedos and availability of their wank material. I'd rather they didn't, frankly, though if they aren't harming anyone else it's none of my business. (Whether a way can be found to wean them from their obsessions is another topic.) But what does concern me is some state-sanctioned nanny telling the rest of us what we can and can't look at, and using the law to censor and prosecute. We can't know in advance who that nanny would be or what values they will bring to bear.

Political prosecutions are the worst but there are other culturally numbing restrictions that can creep in.
(Can't work out how to embed a picture) http://www.wikiart.org/en/titian/venus-and-cupid#supersized-artistPaintings-225079

E2A: Apologies, Nancy_Winks, this wasn't aimed at you.

 

[elbows]

Returning to the opening post and the opinion that Japan had got the balance right.

For me if a country has only just got round to making possession of photos and videos of child abuse illegal, its more about where they have been in the past and the journey they are on than whether they have yet arrived at a destination that is well balanced.

We might suppose that this encompasses all sorts of issues, some of which may be more specific or pronounced in Japan than many other places, and that many of us may not feel well informed enough to comment on with any depth. Perhaps there is a much broader fetishisation of youth going on, perhaps all sorts of ways of dealing with power, lack of power and change are involved, perhaps some historical norms evolved into the modern day setup via the influences of the aforementioned factors and a bunch of other stuff I probably know nothing about.

As best I can tell, distribution etc of child abuse images was explicitly made illegal in Japan in 1999. Prior to that things would have fallen under much vaguer legislation that bears some similarities and shortcoming as some of our own, e.g. what counts as obscene. And there are plenty of suggestions that a lot of the pressure to bring in these specific laws was external, other countries and global bodies pressing Japan on this stuff. There may well be Japanese opinion polls showing support for banning the cartoon versions of abuse in Japan, I haven't had a proper look yet.

 

[maomao]

I was thinking about Germany and wondering if their approach had helped to drive down recidivism rates. As far as I know they have also banned cartoon nonce porn though, as it is banned in Europe .

I think what I'm trying to say is that 'locking 'em up' won't solve the paedophile problem any more efficiently than it solved the drug problem or any of the other problems that prison has claimed to address. Obviously as soon as anyone's committed any sort of offence against a child then removing them from society and especially from proximity to children becomes a priority but the recent Channel 4 documentary and some articles about the 8chan site that I read during the gamergate nonsense have made it clear there are tons of people out there that are sexually oriented towards children and currently aren't abusing children (looking at child porn contributes to the actual abuse of real children, I'm not arguing against that point). There needs to be a strategy of dealing with those people before they become Sidney Cookes and Jimmy Savilles. Restricting the distribution of cartoon abuse is one thing but I'd be against custodial sentences for possession and prefer medical/psychological intervention. I'd also favour a system where they were kept off the sex offenders register per se in exchange for a monitored agreement not to apply for jobs that involve contact with children.

 

[maomao]

And if anyone thinks there's a worthwhile discussion to be had on this subject I'd suggest flat out ignoring Johnny Vodka on this thread. I certainly won't be responding to any of his posts.

 

[frogwoman]

Perhaps I'm missing the point but my concern in this comes from the other direction. Like you I don't care about paedo rights of closet paedos and availability of their wank material. I'd rather they didn't, frankly, though if they aren't harming anyone else it's none of my business. (Whether a way can be found to wean them from their obsessions is another topic.) But what does concern me is some state-sanctioned nanny telling the rest of us what we can and can't look at, and using the law to censor and prosecute. We can't know in advance who that nanny would be or what values they will bring to bear.

Political prosecutions are the worst but there are other culturally numbing restrictions that can creep in.
(Can't work out how to embed a picture) http://www.wikiart.org/en/titian/venus-and-cupid#supersized-artistPaintings-225079

E2A: Apologies, Nancy_Winks, this wasn't aimed at you.

I agree with you but I just wondered if people could point to any concrete examples of this happening (ie of child pornography laws being used to justify a politically motivated prosecution). So far nobody has (I'm not denying it's happened but would be interested to know how and when).

I can't find anything to disagree with in your post though.

 

[frogwoman]

I think what I'm trying to say is that 'locking 'em up' won't solve the paedophile problem any more efficiently than it solved the drug problem or any of the other problems that prison has claimed to address. Obviously as soon as anyone's committed any sort of offence against a child then removing them from society and especially from proximity to children becomes a priority but the recent Channel 4 documentary and some articles about the 8chan site that I read during the gamergate nonsense have made it clear there are tons of people out there that are sexually oriented towards children and currently aren't abusing children (looking at child porn contributes to the actual abuse of real children, I'm not arguing against that point). There needs to be a strategy of dealing with those people before they become Sidney Cookes and Jimmy Savilles. Restricting the distribution of cartoon abuse is one thing but I'd be against custodial sentences for possession and prefer medical/psychological intervention. I'd also favour a system where they were kept off the sex offenders register per se in exchange for a monitored agreement not to apply for jobs that involve contact with children.

That sounds like a good idea (the last part) but how the hell do you enforce that? And if someone is being subject to a monitored agreement not to apply for jobs with kids but presumably the police aren't involved, but doctors and medical personnel are, that could just as easily lead to serious abuses of power on the part of the state, there's been some interesting stuff produced on the medicalisation of dissent in the last few years..

 

[elbows]

It also seems rather likely that Japan gets a lot of the attention on these matters because of the way some of this stuff crosses over into slightly more mainstream cultural output there, and because certain late-night trashy uk tv programs were informing us several decades ago about worn undergarment vending machines etc.

Without wishing to downplay any bad stuff in Japan, I fear that if I get time to study how many countries have no child abuse image laws at all, the number will be shockingly high.

 

[weltweit]

Not only is there this Lolita Manga / Anime culture in Japan, but their age of consent is 13!

 

[xenon]

Nancy_Winks
My initial posts were just expressing my own views not telling people what they should and shouldn't do.

I'm not going to give a shit about people who look at this material, I have trouble with the idea that the wide availability of this material is gonna destigmatise people who want to get help, what it could do is to normalise this stuff and mean it's not seen as a bad thing,. after all, it's legal. It's legal so what's the problem?

Recent news stories show we have a long way to go before we take this stuff more seriously, the amount of people crawling out of the woodwork to vilify ched Evans victim, the fact that Jimmy Savile was only investigated after he died, the fact that well known public figures including the relative of the queen are having allegations made against them with the same tropes used to defend them time after time, my feeling is tackling a culture that enables abuse to go on should take priority and then and only then should we start to even think about being more lenient towards it, because most of the time these people are not even punished let alone understand the consequences of what they have done.

I'm aware this isn't the most rational stance to take and I also tend to think that once someone has served the sentence they should be mostly given the benefit of the doubt, because research shows that if they have access to a support structure the less likely they are to do it again, the same with making it easier for people to seek hep before they offend, I'm not convinced that allowing these pictures actually helps that cause though.

Well fucking said imo.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

It's all pretty disturbing. Especially the bit about the turtle, watching any living thing suffer is awful.

I totally agree with you on the turtle and can understand your comments on the rest. At the same time your post illustrates how we need to be very careful around the area of thought crime. 'We stop person X working with children because they watched this' can quickly become 'we stop person X holding this position of power because they think this' (can think of a good recent example but don't want this to go too OT ). Censorship, thought crime, once you start just giving into it, is a slippery slope.

 

[frogwoman]

It also seems rather likely that Japan gets a lot of the attention on these matters because of the way some of this stuff crosses over into slightly more mainstream cultural output there, and because certain late-night trashy uk tv programs were informing us several decades ago about worn undergarment vending machines etc.

Without wishing to downplay any bad stuff in Japan, I fear that if I get time to study how many countries have no child abuse image laws at all, the number will be shockingly high.

Not like the UK at all then with top of the pops, Gary glitter, Rolf Harris and countless songs produced over the years glorifying underage sex...

 

[Nancy_Winks]

I don't understand what your opinion actually is frogwoman

You keep liking and agreeing with bluescreen but he's actually making an argument against what I think your saying as far as I can tell?

 

[frogwoman]

I don't understand what your opinion actually is frogwoman

You keep liking and agreeing with bluescreen but he's actually making an argument against what I think your saying as far as I can tell?

Just because I think someone's putting forward a good argument that's worth thinking about doesn't mean that I am agreeing 100% with what they are saying, also I'm not sure what it is you think I am saying...also I think post #121 pretty much sums up where I am at. I am open to having my opinion changed though, not sure that's a bad thing

 

[killer b]

A
Cos frankly people like you with small c reactionary views who don't even think it deserves discussion, it mentions paedos so you KNOW your right, and killer b saying get away from the children, start a register! that worry me.

I don't like manga. I think it's creepy and gross. Spymaster and me have chatted about it before. I don't think I want the state to have powers to 'register' these people.

I don't like registers very much.

hmm. I'm not saying 'start a register'. there's already a register. I'm not sure if I like 'em all that much either, but on the balance I think it's better than the alternative. I think that if it becomes known that someone has a sexual interest in children (for example, if they get caught with a load of pictures of child abuse on their computer - simulated or real), that it's probably for the best that they don't have unsupervised access to children. I'm not sure if that's a small c reactionary view either.

I do think it's worth discussing fwiw. Probably I'm a bit short on detail so far because we did the exact same discussion in October.

 

[xenon]

I totally agree with you on the turtle and can understand your comments on the rest. At the same time your post illustrates how we need to be very careful around the area of thought crime. 'We stop person X working with children because they watched this' can quickly become 'we stop person X holding this position of power because they think this' (can think of a good recent example but don't want this to go too OT ). Censorship, thought crime, once you start just giving into it, is a slippery slope.

This isnt about sensorship in some pristne world. You pedo supporter.

I do't think you are BTW. But tying objections to this specific material to sfavouring state sensorship s just asv dum. Stop it you tool.

 

[elbows]

Not like the UK at all then with top of the pops, Gary glitter, Rolf Harris and countless songs produced over the years glorifying underage sex...

Awareness of the UKs track record on this front comes easy due to living in the country. There are not that many other countries/cultures/whatever that I get to hear about in regards this stuff, without making any special effort to do so. Japan is one of the few.

 

[xenon]

Ffs phone wierdness. Never mind. That was don't JV For clarity. Though you are being a tool.

 

[Fez909]

I think that if it becomes known that someone has a sexual interest in children (for example, if they get caught with a load of pictures of child abuse on their computer - simulated or real), that it's probably for the best that they don't have unsupervised access to children. I'm not sure if that's a small c reactionary view either.

What if they admit it to a doctor/police/whatever...but haven't broken the law. Should they be stopped from having unsupervised access to children then? What about if they are already a parent?

 

[xenon]

What if they admit it to a doctor/police/whatever...but haven't broken the law. Should they be stopped from having unsupervised access to children then? What about if they are already a parent?

Absolutely yes to your first question. In the second case closely monitored. If not removed from the family home.

 

[xenon]

If you have sexual interests in children, you should be prohibited from having contact with children, as far as possible.

Philosophy club on urban 75 again.

 

[Fez909]

Absolutely yes to your first question. In the second case closely monitored. If not removed from the family home.

Even though that's the very definition of a thought crime?

 

[xenon]

Even though that's the very definition of a thought crime?

If you wish to frame it like that. I want and fantasise about doing XYZ. Bad things to XY and Z. Can I still go and work with XY and Z. Ive only thought about it. Thought crime as you put it prevents us doing all sorts of things. Working for GCHQ. Not that anyone here would particularly want to.

 

[Fez909]

If you wish to frame it like that. I want and fantasise about doing XYZ. Bad things to XY and Z. Can I still go and work with XY and Z. Of only thought about it.

I'm not framing it in any twisted way to make a point. It's someone being punished for a thought, or thoughts, that they had. A thought crime.

Thought crime as you put it prevents us doing all sorts of things. Working for GCHQ. Not that anyone here would particularly want to.

I can't really make sense of this bit. Working for GCHQ? What thought crime would stop that being a possibility?

 

[Vintage Paw]

I disagree with Gaiman because it proposes meeting one blunt force object with the use of another. It discourages thinking about nuance, and it asks us to take the easier route of not considering where our responsibilities to work towards a 'better world' - for want of a less trite phrase - lie.

Yes, there are risks attached to deciding as a society that we might want to remove some sorts of material. Does that mean we sit back and say 'have at it' to everyone and everything regardless of harm it may cause? Yes, that harm might be abstract if it isn't directly physically or emotionally hurting an actual individual at the moment that material is consumed. Does that make it any less worthy of highlighting?

Just because there is the very real potential for the state to use laws against certain types of material against their political opponents or anyone else, does not mean we should plant our flag firmly as far to the opposing extreme and defend the right to say and do anything and everything regardless of harm.

There is no clear cut way to tackle this issue. But the fear of actually having to have a really fucking hard and constantly ongoing discussion about what we stand for and where we want to see society go seems to be driving this absolute defence of speech and expression in any and all of its forms.

killer b got it right when he said that 'rights' have to be weighed against other 'rights' - they aren't absolutes that exist in a vacuum free from context.

It's pretty easy to say "everyone should defend the right of everyone else to say anything and produce anything about anything because otherwise where will it end?" It's pretty fucking difficult to have an endless discussion about what causes harm and who should be protected and where power lies and who benefits and to join the dots and keep doing that all the time. But that's what we've got to do.

 

[xenon]

I'm not framing it in any twisted way to make a point. It's someone being punished for a thought, or thoughts, that they had. A thought crime.

I can't really make sense of this bit. Working for GCHQ? What thought crime would stop that being a possibility?

Okay. Bare in mind I am not asking for drawings of child abuse to be made illegal. But that is a simple crude mechanism to make the following more apparent. detecting or establishing someone has an interest in child abuse. if someone has an interest in committing a certain crime would not want them to be in a situation where they could commit that crime. If I expressed an interest in burgling your house and stealing your things. you would be somewhat reluctant to let me in your house. and prevent me doing so if possible. Even though I have only thought about it.

 

[xenon]

It is a bit absurd to think expressed criminal thoughts don't prevent us already doing a great many things. Hence my GCHQ reference. Although that is a daft example admittedly. But try getting a job at GCHQ if you're on record as thinking it would be good to violently overthrow the government

 

[Vintage Paw]

What I find absurd is that it's even something that needs defending so hard.

Person admits to finding kids sexy and looking at pictures depicting them in sexy positions.
We say, well hey, I mean, as long as you're only thinking about it, right? Here, please supervise this class of 30 7 year olds.

Maybe 9 of the 10 people who find kids sexy who are allowed to supervise a class of 30 7 year olds never let their expressions of lust seep past out of their minds and into the real world.

Maybe 1 of the 10 does.

What does the fallout to that look like?

"Well, we thought it was more important to defend that person's right to work with kids than it was to potentially stop a child being raped. Them's the breaks. *shrug*"

--

I reiterate what I said in my first post: just because you can imagine one set of principles being used against people in a way that protects power and disenfranchises the powerless, does not mean that you enforce some blanket ban on anyone being able to come up with a set of principles that can protect the powerless against those with power in a different situation.

You do the difficult thing, and you approach each situation on its own terms, while thinking very long and very hard about the ramifications for those who are most vulnerable, and you continue to work hard against those abuses of power wherever they come from. You don't guard against one abuse of power by ignoring another. You fight against both.

 

[xenon]

Yes. I need to sleep and am a bit pissed to continue, there has been some good posts on this thread.

 

[redsquirrel]

It might work in a more rationally thinking place like Germany but in the UK no chance.

Sorry but this is really crude, you mean the Germany that elected a far right MEP and which has just had series of anti-mulsim protests.

There might be more opposition to having such an approach to pedophiles in the UK than in Germany but that's down to a whole load of historical and political reasons, not that Germans are somehow more rational.