Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

[DotCommunist]

There's more of a danger of free speech being curtailed through 'anti terror' and 'anti racism' type laws isn't there?

Where have anti child porn laws been used for political prosecutions? I'm not saying they never have, I'm genuinely interested and can't think of any examples.

last time I recall *any* law surrounding porn being used for a malicious prosecution was when the met tried to have over an annoyingly good defense barrister by prosecuting him for his stash of fisting DVDs, and it got thrown out anyway

 

[DotCommunist]

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.

its interesting to see where you make a stand, on the matters of being allowed to stick powders up your hooter and look at kiddie porn

 

[maomao]

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..

It's not that I trust doctors implicitly but I trust them as much as I trust the police who I would expect to be involved at some level anyway. It would be simple enough to administrate in theory, one fuck up or lose touch with the programme and you go straight on the register. That's not to say I think I have the solution I just think there has to be a better solution than locking them up because at the moment we're locking them up and kids are still getting raped while at the same time there's a lot of evidence that there's a large number of people who are sexually attracted to children who aren't raping them.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Then do we ban violent video games for promoting violence and war or Tom and Jerry for animal cruelty?

How does that support your assertion that drawings of children being raped don't harm any real children?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Nancy_Winks]

its interesting to see where you make a stand, on the matters of being allowed to stick powders up your hooter and look at kiddie porn

Don't close people down in this debate by implying they're paedophiles themselves. That's how this shit works.

Oh your defending the right of X are you, well by association your X, on the register.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I can't really see why the Japanese would be any different to the population of any other country in their sexual desires & orientations. So one can perhaps assume that Japan contains the same percentage of paedophiles as any other country? So the only difference from say, UK is the law of the land. In the UK we take the view that if anybody is sexually attracted to children they should not abuse children & if they do then they will prosecuted. What we do not do in the UK is give paedophiles any sort of legally sanctioned 'safety valve'. We do not allow possession of sexualised images of kids either in the form of real pictures or artifically produced images. In the UK the argument that its ok for paedos to look at pictures of even drawings of kids being abused is a non starter, simply because the thought of anybody wanking over kids is abhorrent to the vast majority of us.

I think this works because if anybody is even caught with pictures on their computer in the UK their life is effectively over. For an otherwise normal married bloke living on a suburban street caught with child abuse images & done for them thats it, nobody will ever look upon him the same again, he will probably lose his family & his job, everything. So a very powerful incentive for a(non offending)paedo trying to live an otherwise normal life to stay on the straight & narrow. One could argue that we should have sympathy & understanding for people who from no fault of their own are sexually orientated towards kids but who do not offend ever. Perhaps we should give them credit for this? No chance in the UK. This is why I think we have no real idea of percentages of paedos in the UK & any other country with similar laws because in reality nobody is going to 'seek help'. What 'help' could be offered? Don't abuse kids? Well they know that already.

Both UK law & UK public opinion allows zero tolerance of paedophiles & any form of paedo porn/erotica/abuse images so we look upon it from a UK pov. Japanese society appears to allow some tolerance towards paedophiles which generally most UK people would not agree with. I don't believe sexual oriention towards children can be treated or cured. It just needs to be absolutely forbidden for those so orientated to act on their desires in any way. In the UK our laws were not always as strong as they are now & this is same with many other countries so I suppose Japan just needs to catch up & probably eventually it will.

Desires are encouraged and created all the time socially, through peer group activity (e.g. smoking), through advertising, through government activity (e.g. home ownership). Why should sexual desire be immune from such social construction?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Don't close people down in this debate by implying they're paedophiles themselves. That's how this shit works.

Oh your defending the right of X are you, well by association your X, on the register.

He is quite clearly not doing that.

He is explicitly pointing out that someone is defending people's right to look at kiddie porn. Now there might be an issue of whether you consider drawings of children engaged in sexual activities as "kiddie porn" (I do by the way) but that is a different debate.

What you could be percieved as doing is pulling that snide liberal trick of trying to shut down debate by accusing those that do believe this is kiddie porn of having a reactionary mob mentality.

 

[maomao]

Desires are encouraged and created all the time socially, through peer group activity (e.g. smoking), through advertising, through government activity (e.g. home ownership). Why should sexual desire be immune from such social construction?

Is homosexuality socially constructed? Because most gay people I've ever met say they were born that way.

 

[likesfish]

More used for general censorship there have been calls to make the internet completely child safe
Which would be insane.
A whole lot of random sex acts got banned from video the other month for no reason at all other than ick.
Sandpapering your bollocks doesn't turn me on but if your into that crack on.


There's sensible stuff like the watershed etc

 

[maomao]

A whole lot of random sex acts got banned from video the other month for no reason at all other than ick.

As was explained on here at the time the rules for paid online content published in this country were brought in line with the rules for DVDs. You can still watch foreigners or British amateurs sandpapering their bollocks to your heart's content.

 

[Fez909]

As was explained on here at the time the rules for paid online content published in this country were brought in line with the rules for DVDs. You can still watch foreigners or British amateurs sandpapering their bollocks to your heart's content.

I think likesfish is talking about the web filtering at the ISP level, not the new streaming regulations which I don't believe are law yet(?)

As well as being pointless for its stated task, the web filter blocked access to legitimate, non-porn websites.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

Desires are encouraged and created all the time socially, through peer group activity (e.g. smoking), through advertising, through government activity (e.g. home ownership). Why should sexual desire be immune from such social construction?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

If you are suggesting Japan might have a higher proportion of paedophiles than UK because Japan's laws are more sympathetic to those who are sexually orientated towards kids than UK then actually all you may get is more child sexual abuse in Japan because Japanese paedos may have more chance of getting away with it & even if caught sentences could be lighter & social stigma less. It does seem logical that sexual orientation towards children is something some people are born with & there is no reason why there should be more of these people in Japan than UK as a proportion of population, I would have thought? The stronger the deterrent, prison sentences, being a social pariah & so on the less likely a paedo is to offend.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

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.

Maybe I was being a bit anecdotal but I have always seen Germans as being more analytical in their approach, so maybe thats why it works in Germany? It would be good if somebody could actually go for help before they abused kids but there would need to be an atmosphere of praise & encouragement that somebody was facing up to their demons & help would need to be non judgemental, otherwise no paedo is going to out themselves. I really cannot see this happening in the UK any time soon.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

Is homosexuality socially constructed? Because most gay people I've ever met say they were born that way.

Turn it around and consider if heterosexuality is socially constructed. There are certainly people out there who believe this to be the case and argue for it cogently and at length; for example in The Sexual Self.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[Louis MacNeice]

If you are suggesting Japan might have a higher proportion of paedophiles than UK because Japan's laws are more sympathetic to those who are sexually orientated towards kids than UK then actually all you may get is more child sexual abuse in Japan because Japanese paedos may have more chance of getting away with it & even if caught sentences could be lighter & social stigma less. It does seem logical that sexual orientation towards children is something some people are born with & there is no reason why there should be more of these people in Japan than UK as a proportion of population, I would have thought? The stronger the deterrent, prison sentences, being a social pariah & so on the less likely a paedo is to offend.

No I was suggesting that it is possible in a culture, through the effects of legislation, commerce, social and cultural practice, historic memory...to construct children as reasonable objects of adult sexual desire and sexual desire in adults as reasonable.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[sim667]

Don't close people down in this debate by implying they're paedophiles themselves. That's how this shit works.

Oh your defending the right of X are you, well by association your X, on the register.

Its not the first time its happened on urban, i very much doubt it will be the last.

 

[phildwyer]

Turn it around and consider if heterosexuality is socially constructed. There are certainly people out there who believe this to be the case and argue for it cogently and at length; for example in The Sexual Self.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

I thought these days it was like all gender (as opposed to sex) is socially constructed, as Butler et al have shown....?

 

[ViolentPanda]

So after you put people on a list for watching manga, do you start on those who are into extreme s&m (whipping, chains, etc), because surely they're deviant too and are too 'risky' to be allowed around kids? What about people who own films like Nekromantik or Cannibal Holocaust? Can you be sure they're not a risk to kids?

Images and depictions rarely create the sort of psychological pathology that causes someone to commit a crime. At best they fuel an existing pathology, so your analogy is worthless.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

I thought these days it was like all gender (as opposed to sex) is socially constructed, as Butler et al have shown....?

Not just these days.

Louis MacNeice

 

[ViolentPanda]

Is homosexuality socially constructed? Because most gay people I've ever met say they were born that way.

Perceptions and attitudes about homosexuality are socially-constructed, as is how homosexuals may view themselves. It's a feedback loop.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Think you've gotta think about a few things:

On the issue of banning 'lolicon' (which I have to admit I'd never heard of but had heard of the thing about getting kids to pose fully clothed in sexual positions as a way of getting round anti child porn laws) what would you ban exactly? You could ban catrtoons of kids involved in sexual acts. That would be uncontroversial. But then what about kids who are just naked? Should probs ban those too. Or what about cartoons of teenagers drawn to look ambiguously somewhere between the ages of 14 and 18? Shall we ban those to, to be consistent? How about cartoons where the kids are fully dressed but overtly sexualized? Again I'd instinctively say yes - but at this point how much stuff have you covered that ostensibly isn't porn of any kind?

My mams got a pic somewhere of me and my little brother as very young kids naked in a paddling pool. Should she be legally allowed to possess it? I actually don't think she should, she showed it to me girlfriend a while back, but I think she reckons she has a right to it.

Last night I went to see Blood Brothers with Maureen Nolan (fucking brilliant by the way, aside from Marty Pello or whatever his name is). Really enjoyed it but there's a scene I've never really thought about before involving the 14 year old Linda being heavily sexualized, and playing up to it. It got a big laugh from the audience. Was that social commentary? I think so. Was it a clever and funny scene? I think so. Was it absolutely and without doubt based on the sexualisation of an underage girl? No doubt about it, it definitely was.

How do you construct a law to ban what is essentially a substitute for child porn in the first place, without either banning legitimate art or failing to ban other potential substitutes?

On the broader issue of paedophiles:

There have ALWAYS been people who fucked kids if given the chance, and quite a lot of them too. You can look at Ancient Greece, you can look at Tudor England, you can look at the BBC in the 1970's. That we are only just beginning to re-accept that says more about our collective powers of denial than anything else.

We don't know why people fuck kids or want to fuck kids, not really, in fact beyond intelligent guesswork we don't really know a lot about why anyone wants to fuck anyone afaik.

Collectively we have no fucking clue about how we stop either creating people who want to fuck kids or just stop people wanting to fuck kids, whichever is applicable. So we tend to have these silly debates over who we should stop from working with children or what we should stop people from viewing/using/experiencing and quite possibly wanking over.

Personally I'm of the opinion we should kill people who rape or seriously sexually abuse children. It's the kindest thing. We have nowhere else to put them and no idea what to do with them. But I think while that would do for existing offenders, we really need to begin to understand how the hell we build a society where we successfully manage not to create people who want to fuck kids. And I don't know how or where that starts. I think there probably are people who find kids attractive on some level and don't act on it, maybe that means there's some hope.

This got a bit rambley. I feel like this is somehow relevant: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ought-that-you-couldnt-let-go-of-9743847.html

 

[Sasaferrato]

It's not that I trust doctors implicitly but I trust them as much as I trust the police who I would expect to be involved at some level anyway. It would be simple enough to administrate in theory, one fuck up or lose touch with the programme and you go straight on the register. That's not to say I think I have the solution I just think there has to be a better solution than locking them up because at the moment we're locking them up and kids are still getting raped while at the same time there's a lot of evidence that there's a large number of people who are sexually attracted to children who aren't raping them.

That is quite the most disturbing comment I've read in a while. If I trusted my doctor as much as I trust the police, he wouldn't be my doctor for long.

 

[maomao]

That is quite the most disturbing comment I've read in a while. If I trusted my doctor as much as I trust the police, he wouldn't be my doctor for long.

I think I'm missing 'at least' from that sentence.

 

[Sasaferrato]

Images and depictions rarely create the sort of psychological pathology that causes someone to commit a crime. At best they fuel an existing pathology, so your analogy is worthless.

I could not disagree more strongly. Not only is your post simplistic, it is wrong.

Since the inception of the internet, there have been a myriad of sexual offences cases where watching extreme porn has been implicated, especially with very young offenders.

Exposure to extreme porn desensitises the person, and reduces their respect for other humans beings. When someone has a steady diet of extreme porn, this becomes the norm, and becomes the 'expectation' in any relationship that the person then goes on to have. As you know doubt know, the majority of criminal acts against the person, are carried out by someone known to that person.

Do you think it is coincidence that the only type of crime showing year on year increase is sexual crime? I am prepared to accept that part of the reason is an increase in people reporting, because they feel that they will now be taken seriously, whereas before this was by no means the case.

I'm not in favour of censorship, mainly because of the 'slippery slope' argument, but I find myself becoming more and more uneasy about the material available on the net, and the age of those viewing it.

 

[Sasaferrato]

I think I'm missing 'at least' from that sentence.

 

[weltweit]

Think you've gotta think about a few things:
...........
... Or what about cartoons of teenagers drawn to look ambiguously somewhere between the ages of 14 and 18? Shall we ban those to, to be consistent?
....

As I mentioned up the thread, the age of consent in Japan is currently 13 .. i.e. you can be 13 and be a consenting adult.

 

[killer b]

As I mentioned up the thread, the age of consent in Japan is currently 13 .. i.e. you can be 13 and be a consenting adult.

It seems to be a lot more complicated than this. So you're probably best stopping repeating it (as if it has any relevance anyway)

 

[Citizen66]

Not trying to be pogo, but wasn't this done really recently? wrt bloke in southbank.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

Think you've gotta think about a few things:

On the issue of banning 'lolicon' (which I have to admit I'd never heard of but had heard of the thing about getting kids to pose fully clothed in sexual positions as a way of getting round anti child porn laws) what would you ban exactly? You could ban catrtoons of kids involved in sexual acts. That would be uncontroversial. But then what about kids who are just naked? Should probs ban those too. Or what about cartoons of teenagers drawn to look ambiguously somewhere between the ages of 14 and 18? Shall we ban those to, to be consistent? How about cartoons where the kids are fully dressed but overtly sexualized? Again I'd instinctively say yes - but at this point how much stuff have you covered that ostensibly isn't porn of any kind?

My mams got a pic somewhere of me and my little brother as very young kids naked in a paddling pool. Should she be legally allowed to possess it? I actually don't think she should, she showed it to me girlfriend a while back, but I think she reckons she has a right to it.

Last night I went to see Blood Brothers with Maureen Nolan (fucking brilliant by the way, aside from Marty Pello or whatever his name is). Really enjoyed it but there's a scene I've never really thought about before involving the 14 year old Linda being heavily sexualized, and playing up to it. It got a big laugh from the audience. Was that social commentary? I think so. Was it a clever and funny scene? I think so. Was it absolutely and without doubt based on the sexualisation of an underage girl? No doubt about it, it definitely was.

How do you construct a law to ban what is essentially a substitute for child porn in the first place, without either banning legitimate art or failing to ban other potential substitutes?

On the broader issue of paedophiles:

There have ALWAYS been people who fucked kids if given the chance, and quite a lot of them too. You can look at Ancient Greece, you can look at Tudor England, you can look at the BBC in the 1970's. That we are only just beginning to re-accept that says more about our collective powers of denial than anything else.

We don't know why people fuck kids or want to fuck kids, not really, in fact beyond intelligent guesswork we don't really know a lot about why anyone wants to fuck anyone afaik.

Collectively we have no fucking clue about how we stop either creating people who want to fuck kids or just stop people wanting to fuck kids, whichever is applicable. So we tend to have these silly debates over who we should stop from working with children or what we should stop people from viewing/using/experiencing and quite possibly wanking over.

Personally I'm of the opinion we should kill people who rape or seriously sexually abuse children. It's the kindest thing. We have nowhere else to put them and no idea what to do with them. But I think while that would do for existing offenders, we really need to begin to understand how the hell we build a society where we successfully manage not to create people who want to fuck kids. And I don't know how or where that starts. I think there probably are people who find kids attractive on some level and don't act on it, maybe that means there's some hope.

This got a bit rambley. I feel like this is somehow relevant: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...ought-that-you-couldnt-let-go-of-9743847.html

You think that parents should be criminalised for having photographs of their children naked?

How frightening.

 

[killer b]

I think that was a joke nance, about his mum embarassing him with baby photos...