Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

[Nancy_Winks]

Photos are actual child pornography and absolutely correctly criminalised. Drawings (unless clearly copied from actual photos) are in the realms of fantasty, and I don't think sexual fantasies should be criminalised.

I think I agree with you. In principle. But then I get the horrors about some man wanking to Japanese anime cartoons of little girls being raped, or having a collection of little lads undercrackers, the night before teaching my sons. And I feel a bit stabby.

 

[Spymaster]

Photos are actual child pornography and absolutely correctly criminalised. Drawings (unless clearly copied from actual photos) are in the realms of fantasty, and I don't think sexual fantasies should be criminalised.

It stops being a fantasy when it goes out of the head and onto the paper. You have then produced an illegal (in the UK) image of child rape and it ceases to be a "thought crime".

 

[goldenecitrone]

It stops being a fantasy when it goes out of the head and onto the paper. You have then produced an illegal (in the UK) image of child rape and it ceases to be a "thought crime".

How clear does the image have to be to warrant prosecution? What about a big stick figure shagging a little stick figure?

 

[Nancy_Winks]

It stops being a fantasy when it goes out of the head and onto the paper. You have then produced an illegal (in the UK) image of child rape and it ceases to be a "thought crime".

Is that actually true spy? I've no idea tbf

 

[xenon]

Photos are actual child pornography and absolutely correctly criminal. Drawings (unless clearly copied from actual photos) are in the realms of fantasty, and I don't think sexual fantasies should be criminalised.

I'm fine with preventing peple who get sexual gratification from drawings of child abuce, working with children or having unrestricted access to children in their lives. This doesn't equal making fantacies illegal, thought crimes or any other such twaddle. It doesn't even stop them drawing does it. It would in the way I invisage it, make them seaking to gain for example, a job at a school, after having been found in possession of these images and placed on a list, punishable by law.

 

[sleaterkinney]

How clear does the image have to be to warrant prosecution? What about a big stick figure shagging a little stick figure?

Can you really not figure that out?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Can you really not figure that out?

What are the legal guidelines on this then?

 

[SaskiaJayne]

It's funny how you keep referring to Muslim countries. Did you read that post about the ages of consent in Europe by the way? Or do you consider Spain to be deeply uncivilised as well?

I genuinely thought your first post was clumsy rather than wrong but it's increasingly clear you have some very fucking daft ideas rattling around in that head.

Oh I see now I'm anti Muslim am I? So because tradition in some Muslim countries still condones 'child marriage' thats ok then, yes? Tell me about these 'daft ideas'.

Go back to the op subject. If a country condones any form of what might be considered child sexual abuse then that abuse is more likely to happen because if paedos can get away with abusing then they will. Don't start bleating about race & religion, the thread subject is sexual abuse of children. That can & does happen in any country in the world, the only difference is that some countries have greater deterrents against offenders than others. Paedos from western countries travel to specific third world countries to abuse children. Usually against the law in these countries but there is so much corruption that western paedos can use their money to pay to abuse kids & get away with it because they can. To their credit, UK & other countries now have laws in place to prosecute their citizens who abuse kids in third world countries. A UK citizen was recently convicted in the UK of sexually abusing kids in an African country, so a deterrent to UK paedos who travel to abuse in countries with more lax regimes.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I think I agree with you. In principle. But then I get the horrors about some man wanking to Japanese anime cartoons of little girls being raped, or having a collection of little lads undercrackers, the night before teaching my sons. And I feel a bit stabby.

And rightly so. But how would you ever know if somebody was doing that? The collection of undercrackers takes it to another level and is clearly criminal. I'd be more worried about my kids getting run over. Far more likely cause of harm to kids.

 

[Spymaster]

Is that actually true spy? I've no idea tbf

If it's produced for sexual arousal, yes. Since 2009.

The offence is targeted at non-photographic images (this includes computer generated images (CGI's), cartoons, manga images and drawings) and therefore specifically excludes indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs of children, as well as tracings or derivatives of photographs and pseudo-photographs.

Elements of the Offence
Section 62(1) makes it an offence to possess a prohibited image of a child. Section 62 (2) to (8) sets out the definition of possession of a prohibited image of a child.

In order for an image to be a "prohibited image", there are 3 elements that must be satisfied. An image must meet all 3 of the elements which are:

1. That the image is pornographic;
2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and
3. That the image focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or portrays any of the following acts:

• the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child
• an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child
• an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
• an act of penetration , in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
• the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
• the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

A good bit of law, imo.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Yeah because everything's the same. Age restrictions never apply to anything, context never varies.

You're the one seeing things in B&W, not me; I'm just playing Devil's advocate. Just reading about 'Blue is The Warmest Colour' (not seen it yet) - contains graphic sex scenes, yet one of the characters is supposedly 15 according to Wikipedia. Perfectly legal (15 cert) film in this country.

 

[Kesher]

Why can't you just answer that "no"?

Would you knowingly leave a kid alone with someone who collects child rape images?

Because whether someone who wanks to child porn should be allowed to work with children is not what I posted about. Even if I agree that people who wank to child sex cartoons should not be allowed to work with children I would not be able to back it up with any evidence so it would just be supposition.


You could also argue that people who watch the cartoons should be able to, but not be allowed to work with children because the cartoon watchers do something which is immoral however they do not pose a risk to children; or you could say the cartoon watchers can watch and are a greater risk to children, but they can still work with children.


You could also accept that there is insufficient evidence that the cartoon watchers who do not want want to work with children pose a real risk to children so they can watch cartoons; however those that watch the cartoons and seek to work with children, whilst again lacking evidence of risk, have seriously raised concerns enough to warrant not allowing them to.


It could also be like allowing only teetotal drivers to drive because there is virtually no chance that they will drink and drive and so kill or maim innocent children; unlike people who drink alcohol even though the people who drink say they would not drink and drive. At least here the evidence is indisputable: people who are teetotal are hugely less likely to drink and drive than those who drink alcohol. Where do we draw the line (no pun intended)?




Again my point is that it's not about working with children. It's a loaded question.

 

[Spymaster]

Again my point is that it's not about working with children. It's a loaded question.

What is your point about?

"Child rape images should be legal to make and possess because ......"

???

 

[goldenecitrone]

If it's produced for sexual arousal, yes. Since 2009.

A good bit of law, imo.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/prohibited_images_of_children/

So is this picture illegal then?

 

[Spymaster]

So is this picture illegal then?

1. That the image is pornographic;
2. That the image is grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character; and
3. That the image focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or portrays any of the following acts:

• the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child
• an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child
• an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
• an act of penetration , in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
• the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
• the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

It's not obviously a child and I don't think it satisfies 2 or 3 above.

So no.

 

[goldenecitrone]

It's not obviously a child and I don't think it satisfies 2 or 3 above.

So no.

Maybe not grossly offensive to you, but it could be to somebody. And you have no idea how old the model was.

 

[Spymaster]

Maybe not grossly offensive to you, but it could be to somebody. And you have no idea how old the model was.

Much law, to some extent, is open to a degree of interpretation so the CPS decides if there's a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution. That's then tested in court and decided by magistrates, juries or judges.

But isn't an image of a kid being raped, grossly offensive to all right thinking people?

 

[goldenecitrone]

Much law, to some extent, is open to a degree of interpretation so the CPS decides if there's a reasonable prospect of a successful prosecution. That's then tested in court and decided by magistrates, juries or judges.

But isn't an image of a kid being raped, grossly offensive to all right thinking people?

No. What about an image of a Greek man buggering a young boy in Athens 2,500 years ago. Is that grossly offensive or a portrayal of history?

 

[Spymaster]

No. What about an image of a Greek man buggering a young boy in Athens 2,500 years ago. Is that grossly offensive or a portrayal of history?

To some I'm sure it would be considered grossly offensive and if it were produced now may well drop the artist in the shit.

Owning it now would unlikely be primarily for sexual arousal and the "legitimate reason" would be owning a recognised piece of art or relic I suppose.

But it's a far cry from producing child rape cartoons, now, for folk to fap to.

 

[goldenecitrone]

To some I'm sure it would be considered grossly offensive and if it were produced now may well drop the artist in the shit.

If that's the case then on those grounds alone, it's a far too ambivalent law. Illustrators of books on ancient Greece to be criminalised.

 

[Spymaster]

Illustrators of books on ancient Greece to be criminalised.

Nonsense.

Legitimate reason:

Section 160 CJA did not define what a 'legitimate reason' was and it has not been defined in section 64 of the Act. The defences cover those who have a legitimate work reason for being in possession of the image. The burden of proof is on the defendant and it will be for the jury to decide whether the reason for the possession of these images is legitimate. For example police and prosecuting authorities properly handing such images in the course of their employment would ordinarily come within this defence.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Nonsense.

Legitimate reason:

Pete Townsend defence.

 

[Spymaster]

Pete Townsend defence.

I don't recall all the details but if he convinced a jury that his usage was legitimate, fair enough.

You and Kesher are arguing that he shouldn't have been investigated at all.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I don't recall all the details but if he convinced a jury that his usage was legitimate, fair enough.

You and Kesher are arguing that he shouldn't have been investigated at all.

No, I'm saying that with enough money, and good enough lawyers, you can easily claim legitimate reasons for anything. And he was looking at real pictures of porn, not drawings.

 

[Spymaster]

No, I'm saying that with enough money, and good enough lawyers, you can easily claim legitimate reasons for anything. And he was looking at real pictures of porn, not drawings.

So child porn shouldn't be illegal because rich people are more likely to be acquitted?

Seriously?

 

[goldenecitrone]

So child porn shouldn't be illegal because rich people are more likely to be acquitted?

Seriously?

Now you are just being stupid. I'll leave you to make up your own arguments. Twat.

 

[Spymaster]

Then what's your point?

I'll leave you to make up your own arguments.

Well it would have been more interesting if you'd managed to put together a coherant one of your own.

But hey ho.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

but asking your wife or girlfriend to dress up as a schoolgirl or shave her pubes is not.

Everything in your post is as wrong as can possibly be. Others are dealing with that.

But mr men's rights advocate - this sums up your entire attitude to women right here.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Oh I see now I'm anti Muslim am I? So because tradition in some Muslim countries still condones 'child marriage' thats ok then, yes? Tell me about these 'daft ideas'.

Go back to the op subject. If a country condones any form of what might be considered child sexual abuse then that abuse is more likely to happen because if paedos can get away with abusing then they will. Don't start bleating about race & religion, the thread subject is sexual abuse of children. That can & does happen in any country in the world, the only difference is that some countries have greater deterrents against offenders than others. Paedos from western countries travel to specific third world countries to abuse children. Usually against the law in these countries but there is so much corruption that western paedos can use their money to pay to abuse kids & get away with it because they can. To their credit, UK & other countries now have laws in place to prosecute their citizens who abuse kids in third world countries. A UK citizen was recently convicted in the UK of sexually abusing kids in an African country, so a deterrent to UK paedos who travel to abuse in countries with more lax regimes.

See, that's a bit better. You can do it if you try, can't you?

Doesn't change the fact that your view of the 'medieval' 1970's and the 'civilised' present day don't make any sense like. But now you're making an effort.

 

[Spymaster]

- but what do we ban exactly?

I think the UK law is good as it is.

Nobody is looking to police thoughts here. However I don't think that it's particularly controversial to acknowledge that people can have unhealthy thoughts and that those thoughts can lead to dubious practices.

Would we all agree that masturbating to images of children being raped is NOT GOOD and that anyone who does so should probably get some professional help?

If you agree with the above then I fail to see how you can support the production and possession of material designed solely to facilitate it.

The only reason that I can see for not banning it is the old "government interference" thing and quite frankly, of all the things that the government seek to proscribe, this is one of the most eminently sensible, imo.