Thought-Crime in America

[aquatus1]

There are a lot of comments concerning how thought may eventually lead to action. It behooves us, then, to note that not all thought is the same.

Fantasy is a peculiar form of thought. By definition, it is unrestricted by reality. An effect of this is that reality doesn't always reflect the fantasy. In other words, a person may fantasize about BDSM, and read the appropriate literature, and maybe even order comics books about it, however, should they ever actually venture into a BDSM club, the reality of BDSM is that it is indeed not something for everyone. The reality of it, while perfectly acceptable and desirable to those into it, is a little too stark for those who viewed it through the rose-colored glasses of fantasy.

Similarly, it is not an uncommon fantasy to imagine relations with members of the same gender. But merely fantasizing is not the same as being homosexual, bi-sexual, heck, not even bi-curious. Again, the fantasy tends to be more palatable than the reality. Another popular one is the fantasy rape. I hope that I don't have to detail the differences between a fantasy rape, and the actual crime.

Along this vein, Lolicon is simply a fantasy. The characters are no more realistic than any other pornographic character (at least, I've never had a nurse in a skimpy outfit throw herself wantonly at me in the hospital). A person may be titillated by the fantasy child sex, just as they are entertained by fantasy domination, fantasy rape, and fantasy beastiality, but that does not mean that they will not be equally disturbed by the same subject in real life. of This is why there is a differentiation in the laws regarding drawings and 3DCG of children. The first is mere fantasy, but the second is verging on reality.

The opposite of the lolicon genre is shotacon, which is little boys with adult women. While not as popular, it is interesting that it is almost impossible to find people protesting against it. Morally, it is pretty much the same situation, but I'm interested if the shotacon fantasy offends as much, or in the same way, as Lolicon does.

[Leonardo]

This is quite a fascinating thread. You have on the one hand, those who elect to show some social responsibility as adults and argue in defence of those who are unable to defend themselves; then you have those who don't seem to care if any children get abused because someone has fed their fetish/fantasy on these lolicons, but then grows accustomed to the images in these and requires something more to satisfy their paedophilic desires.

You think I'm exaggerating? Sensationalising?

I would like to ask those who are defending 'freedom of expression' how many children it takes to be abused because someone has access to these comics and it triggers their lust? One? Ten? A hundred? Are you smug 'Chomskyites' going to volunteer to try to repair those little broken lives through counselling the victims (assuming they are still alive?) Are you going to volunteer to go to parents and tell them their child was abducted, raped and murdered by a paedophile?

I can guess what your answer will be. Mostly, it will be along the lines of what aquatus has told cadetak - calm down. One question - why?

Aren't children more important than comics? Do any of you really think freedoms are so important we have to throw away our humanity to keep them?

All of you who are defending comics over children have my undiluted disgust.

[Karlis]

There are a lot of comments concerning how thought may eventually lead to action. It behooves us, then, to note that not all thought is the same.

Fantasy is a peculiar form of thought. By definition, it is unrestricted by reality. An effect of this is that reality doesn't always reflect the fantasy. In other words, a person may fantasize about BDSM, and read the appropriate literature, and maybe even order comics books about it, however, should they ever actually venture into a BDSM club, the reality of BDSM is that it is indeed not something for everyone. The reality of it, while perfectly acceptable and desirable to those into it, is a little too stark for those who viewed it through the rose-colored glasses of fantasy.

Similarly, it is not an uncommon fantasy to imagine relations with members of the same gender. But merely fantasizing is not the same as being homosexual, bi-sexual, heck, not even bi-curious. Again, the fantasy tends to be more palatable than the reality. Another popular one is the fantasy rape. I hope that I don't have to detail the differences between a fantasy rape, and the actual crime.

Along this vein, Lolicon is simply a fantasy. The characters are no more realistic than any other pornographic character (at least, I've never had a nurse in a skimpy outfit throw herself wantonly at me in the hospital). A person may be titillated by the fantasy child sex, just as they are entertained by fantasy domination, fantasy rape, and fantasy beastiality, but that does not mean that they will not be equally disturbed by the same subject in real life. of This is why there is a differentiation in the laws regarding drawings and 3DCG of children. The first is mere fantasy, but the second is verging on reality.

The opposite of the lolicon genre is shotacon, which is little boys with adult women. While not as popular, it is interesting that it is almost impossible to find people protesting against it. Morally, it is pretty much the same situation, but I'm interested if the shotacon fantasy offends as much, or in the same way, as Lolicon does.

Hi Aquatus -- 'shotacon' -- as projected in the following websites -- imo would be criminal offenses in many Western countries.

Shota-con (ショタコン,ショタ) is a sexual complex where an adult, usually male, is attracted to an underage boy. It has also been applied to graphic art depicting underage boys in sexual situations and even to adult women with this fetish, mostly for ease of explanation. The term is most often used in anime and manga fandoms. For arguably sexist reasons, the term is used with relatively less baggage than lolicon. Shota-con characters are invariably bishonen or depicted as such after the fact.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Shota:con.htm

**EDIT**

**I think we can do without examples.**

My opinion is that moral decay sets in slowly; as for instance, rust slowly eats into the body of a motor vehicle, and eventually destroys it.

Just my musings,

Karlis

PS: Please feel free to delete the URLs from this post (or this post itself) ASAP,

K

Edited May 26, 2009 by aquatus1

[aquatus1]

This is quite a fascinating thread. You have on the one hand, those who elect to show some social responsibility as adults and argue in defence of those who are unable to defend themselves; then you have those who don't seem to care if any children get abused because someone has fed their fetish/fantasy on these lolicons, but then grows accustomed to the images in these and requires something more to satisfy their paedophilic desires.

And then you have those who, instead of supporting their opinion with fact and logic, choose simply to assume their opinions are the equivalent of fact, and imply that anyone who disagrees with them (the social, responsible, adults) must not care that children get abused by pedophiles.

You think I'm exaggerating? Sensationalising?

No. I know you are.

You have been asked to show a correlation between fantasy and reality in this context and have failed to do so. Conversely, you have been shown numbers indicating the radical imbalance between the popularity of these genre and both reported and assumed cases of child abuse, which have supported the exact opposite of what you suggest.

Instead of acknowledging that, you choose to assume that you are correct, that your actions are those a responsible adult, and that anyone who does not believe as you do don't care about children getting abused.

Yes, you are sensationalizing.

I would like to ask those who are defending 'freedom of expression' how many children it takes to be abused because someone has access to these comics and it triggers their lust? One? Ten? A hundred?

Depends on how strong a correlation you can prove. If you have such a strong correlation that you can prove inevitability, then we don't even need one victim. As it is, you can't even show a correlation, let alone inevitability.

Are you smug 'Chomskyites' going to volunteer to try to repair those little broken lives through counselling the victims (assuming they are still alive?) Are you going to volunteer to go to parents and tell them their child was abducted, raped and murdered by a paedophile?

What little broken lives? What victim?

What child has been abducted, raped, and murdered?

But you obviously don't need one. You seem to be quite willing to convict others based on what you think, rather than what you can prove.

Thank goodness our legal system is made of a more rational basis than that.

I can guess what your answer will be. Mostly, it will be along the lines of what aquatus has told cadetak - calm down. One question - why?

Because when people get heated up, they start reacting emotionally, and start accusing people of supporting pedophiles and child abuse, and demanding protection for non-existent victims.

Aren't children more important than comics?

Of course they are. But I will not call for a condemnation based on nothing more than a "maybe."

Do any of you really think freedoms are so important we have to throw away our humanity to keep them?

I think that freedom is part of our humanity. When we choose to strip away the freedoms from someone based on nothing more than suspicion, we lose some of our humanity.

All of you who are defending comics over children have my undiluted disgust.

And you, who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, have my pity.

Hi Aquatus -- 'shotacon' -- as projected in the following websites -- imo would be criminal offenses in many Western countries.

Shota-con (ショタコン,ショタ) is a sexual complex where an adult, usually male, is attracted to an underage boy. It has also been applied to graphic art depicting underage boys in sexual situations and even to adult women with this fetish, mostly for ease of explanation. The term is most often used in anime and manga fandoms. For arguably sexist reasons, the term is used with relatively less baggage than lolicon. Shota-con characters are invariably bishonen or depicted as such after the fact.

http://www.economicexpert.com/a/Shota:con.htm

It has been my experience that man on boy shotacon is usually included within the "yaoi" (male on male) genre, whereas shotacon by itself is usually woman on boy. Although, if one see's a heading for shotacon and another for "straight" shotacon, the latter is usually the woman on boy.

Ironically, although perhaps not unexpectedly, the majority of writers of boy yaoi and male shotacon are women.

My opinion is that moral decay sets in slowly; as for instance, rust slowly eats into the body of a motor vehicle, and eventually destroys it.

That's quite the condemnation of Japan you got there.

Would you agree that what is moral decay to one culture is a matter of indifference to another?

Edited May 26, 2009 by aquatus1

[Karlis]

~~~ ... (snip) ...

...

Would you agree that what is moral decay to one culture is a matter of indifference to another?

**EDIT**

**I think we can do without examples.**

Aquatus, would you not agree that your deleting the URL is your own answer to your question?

Keep in mind that I expected and wanted that to be deleted ASAP; if that had not been deleted, I would have resigned membership from UM.

That I guess sums up my answer to your earlier post:

The opposite of the lolicon genre is shotacon, which is little boys with adult women. While not as popular, it is interesting that it is almost impossible to find people protesting against it. Morally, it is pretty much the same situation, but I'm interested if the shotacon fantasy offends as much, or in the same way, as Lolicon does.

By the way Aquatus -- it may be a good idea at this stage if you could once again explain where you are going with this thread:

As I see it, freedom of thought -- sexual or otherwise -- should not be a criminal offense. That said, producing images of children in sexual relations with older people should be a crime.

Going on from my above paragraph, downloading child-adult photos, videos, etc. is a crime punishable by prison.

Why would it not be a crime to produce and distribute identical material in the form of hand-drawn 'cartoons'? Yes, there are no real-life-child victims, true enough, but the effect of the presentation is the same as if the subjects portrayed were real children.

Question is -- do we accept child pornography if it's presented as 'art', or do we reject it as art, and class it as criminal?

Or -- am I biased here?

Karlis

[aquatus1]

**EDIT**

**I think we can do without examples.**

Aquatus, would you not agree that your deleting the URL is your own answer to your question?

But I was asking for your answer to my question.

Keep in mind that I expected and wanted that to be deleted ASAP; if that had not been deleted, I would have resigned membership from UM.

I'll take your word on that. I've seen more foolish things done.

That I guess sums up my answer to your earlier post:

The opposite of the lolicon genre is shotacon, which is little boys with adult women. While not as popular, it is interesting that it is almost impossible to find people protesting against it. Morally, it is pretty much the same situation, but I'm interested if the shotacon fantasy offends as much, or in the same way, as Lolicon does.

:

I'm not sure if it worked. After all, the reason that the URL was removed was because it violated several forum rules, only one of which refers to offensive content.

So, to clarify, do you agree that what is moral decay to one culture is a matter of indifference to another? I truly do not know where you stand on this.

By the way Aquatus -- it may be a good idea at this stage if you could once again explain where you are going with this thread

Fair enough.

In George Orwell's 1984, we learn about a dystopian society that punishes not only crimes, but thoughts as well. Anyone questioning the ideology of the government is arrested and sent to re-education, a process so traumatic it essentially erased the previous personality.

In contrast, our legal system, as well as those in pretty much all modern countries, is based on the concept of "Innocent till proven guilty". The implication of this is that unless a person is shown to have committed a crime, they must be considered to not have committed that crime.

This has been the classic line. On one side, we have criminal intent. On the other side, we have criminal thought. On can be arguably considered a crime. The other...well, that is where the discussion comes in.

How many points of separation must there be between a thought and a victim before the thought becomes a crime? At what point does prevention of a crime justify punishment for a crime not yet committed?

As I see it, freedom of thought -- sexual or otherwise -- should not be a criminal offense. That said, producing images of children in sexual relations with older people should be a crime.

Going on from my above paragraph, downloading child-adult photos, videos, etc. is a crime punishable by prison.

Why would it not be a crime to produce and distribute identical material in the form of hand-drawn 'cartoons'? Yes, there are no real-life-child victims, true enough, but the effect of the presentation is the same as if the subjects portrayed were real children.

It is a crime to produce and distribute identical material. Almost universally, 3DCG depictions of child pornography are considered the equivalent of real child pornorgraphy (unless they are really badly made). As previously mentioned, the proximity to reality makes such things unacceptable, it takes it from the realm of fantasy to the realm of reality.

However, we are not talking about reality, nor even about close to reality. We are talking about stylized drawings. They are not realistic in any sense.

So the question again becomes, "How many degrees of seperation?"

Question is -- do we accept child pornography if it's presented as 'art', or do we reject it as art, and class it as criminal?

Or -- am I biased here?

Karlis

Neither, actually. No one is pretending that this is art. This is pornography, plain and simple. Nor have such drawings been able to successfully claim Freedom of Speech exception because they are art.

They are what they are. They are comic books. They are stylized drawings. No one is going to confuse an anime girl for a real girl, no more than anyone is going to confuse Lisa Simpson for a real girl. They are not realistic representations of real girls.

The question is not whether they are art or not. Really, the question isn't even whether they are legal or not, as their status varies depending on the country that you are in.

The question is: Are we going to consider it criminal if it reminds us of a crime, rather than if there is actually any victim involved?

[2nd Reign]

This is quite a fascinating thread. You have on the one hand, those who elect to show some social responsibility as adults and argue in defence of those who are unable to defend themselves; then you have those who don't seem to care if any children get abused because someone has fed their fetish/fantasy on these lolicons, but then grows accustomed to the images in these and requires something more to satisfy their paedophilic desires.

You think I'm exaggerating? Sensationalising?

I would like to ask those who are defending 'freedom of expression' how many children it takes to be abused because someone has access to these comics and it triggers their lust? One? Ten? A hundred? Are you smug 'Chomskyites' going to volunteer to try to repair those little broken lives through counselling the victims (assuming they are still alive?) Are you going to volunteer to go to parents and tell them their child was abducted, raped and murdered by a paedophile?

I can guess what your answer will be. Mostly, it will be along the lines of what aquatus has told cadetak - calm down. One question - why?

Aren't children more important than comics? Do any of you really think freedoms are so important we have to throw away our humanity to keep them?

All of you who are defending comics over children have my undiluted disgust.

I'm trying to hold my tongue because I have zero tolerance for anybody that harms a child. I love the movie "Citizen X", that is how I think all who sexually abuse kids should be dealt with. I also think it is sick to have these kinds of thoughts; with that being said I think it is a freedom we must grant him or anybody else because of the nature (thought) of the crime. Makes you think If Minority Report was a movie or a preview of things to come.

Edited May 26, 2009 by 2nd Reign

[Beckys_Mom]

With your repeated and constant urges to electrocute, burn, hurt and torture in ways far beyond any law would ever allow; do you consider yourself any better than the criminals whose thoughts you wish to torture away? Really?

It is ironic that in a thread about a thought crime, you have enthusiastically jumped out with the one of the most disturbed offerings yet. If thought crimes were punished, I fear for your safety.

Wow.

Gotta hand it to ya Fluffy..that was an excellent point LOL

[Leonardo]

And then you have those who, instead of supporting their opinion with fact and logic, choose simply to assume their opinions are the equivalent of fact, and imply that anyone who disagrees with them (the social, responsible, adults) must not care that children get abused by pedophiles.

No. I know you are.

You have been asked to show a correlation between fantasy and reality in this context and have failed to do so. Conversely, you have been shown numbers indicating the radical imbalance between the popularity of these genre and both reported and assumed cases of child abuse, which have supported the exact opposite of what you suggest.

Instead of acknowledging that, you choose to assume that you are correct, that your actions are those a responsible adult, and that anyone who does not believe as you do don't care about children getting abused.

Yes, you are sensationalizing.

Depends on how strong a correlation you can prove. If you have such a strong correlation that you can prove inevitability, then we don't even need one victim. As it is, you can't even show a correlation, let alone inevitability.

What little broken lives? What victim?

What child has been abducted, raped, and murdered?

But you obviously don't need one. You seem to be quite willing to convict others based on what you think, rather than what you can prove.

Thank goodness our legal system is made of a more rational basis than that.

Because when people get heated up, they start reacting emotionally, and start accusing people of supporting pedophiles and child abuse, and demanding protection for non-existent victims.

Of course they are. But I will not call for a condemnation based on nothing more than a "maybe."

I think that freedom is part of our humanity. When we choose to strip away the freedoms from someone based on nothing more than suspicion, we lose some of our humanity.

And you, who cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality, have my pity.

Thank you for your pity, aquatus, but I truly doubt I have it. Pity requires empathy, and you display none in any of your arguments.

Is your argument amorally correct? Yes, it is.

Is it socially and morally wrong? Yes, it is.

Sometimes, aquatus, freedom comes at too high a price. Oh, I know the US has this quaint notion of a 'free society', but please ask yourself - what is the 'society' in that context? Is your society one where you only react once harm is done? There is no attempt to prevent harm in the first place? Because that is where you argument leads, aquatus - to the abrogation of any social responsibility.

[Beckys_Mom]

And then you have those who, instead of supporting their opinion with fact and logic, choose simply to assume their opinions are the equivalent of fact, and imply that anyone who disagrees with them (the social, responsible, adults) must not care that children get abused by pedophiles.

I layed out a number of my own opinions and some hypothetical facts...........but I also know that this thread is not about children being sexually abused, I know that the man in the article was not arrested for harming a child. I admit that with the nature of this thread, it can stir up a lot of anger towards pedophiles, as we all know it is one of those subjects that is seen as twisted (speaking more on the subject of just pedophiles not this OP)..........

Do I feel that anyone that claims that there is nothing wrong with drawings (as in comics)...of minors being sexually abused, do not care in reality if children do get hurt and sexually abused by real pedophiles?

In answer to that........I feel you can do both.....see nothing wrong with such comics and at the same time hate the ideas of children being abused

My opinions of such comics with minors being sexually abused....as o such fantasy mags ...like porn mags (well males buy them for their own fantasy and pleasure).....

What's the difference?........One is not illegal to have possession of, its adult fantasy porn and not illegal to have........the other according to the law is...as the contents in reality is illegal

Not getting at you or anyone aquatus1...no way I am not getting at you....I am just stating what we all know...............I agree with you that it is a fantasy....of course I agree.....but I feel, that due to the nature of this fantasy, it has unfortunately reached to more than the comics....

I respect your view aquatus...and once again, just because you see nothing wrong with having those comic, does NOT mean you do not care about children being sexually abused in reality

Cadet, Light, tone it down. This is a sensitive enough topic as it is.

Yeaa it is sensitive.....a good thread all the same, but can get too sensitive

If I have taken a wrong turn on this topic I apologize

[Paranormalcy]

Let me digress a moment, to our recent past, the 1980's, let's say.

One woman's rabid paranoia and ignorance and fear of people and things who thought different caused her to blame everyone for the "death" of her son (or vice versa, both probably), and the roleplaying game Dungeons and Dragons was suddenly everything but an Idiot's Guide to Satan Worship, according to her and her group of deluded, like minded Puritanical zealots. It is 2009 and such an entertainment, simply some dice and game instructions, an act of free expression which exists only in the minds of the participants, continues to still be subjected to large pockets of condemnation, even though there remains absolutely no foundation for it. The "Crusaders" against someone's right to privacy within his own head are either unable or unwilling to simply admit some people are born "off" and whatever crime or horrendous action they commit was something that was already in their nature, not something that some game one step removed from Monopoly drove them to.

Sometime your precious Little Timmy is just sick in the head, and this can be correlated to any number of other crimes attributes to religion, video games, politics, money, etc. This doesn't mean that other people who also share the same imaginative interests are also going to snap and go batshit, though I know the critics oh so wish it were able to be proven true. All you have to have are enough people who think "their way" is the best and maybe the only way to THINK, and anyone's else's is wrong and potentially a "threat", so must be eliminated.

As taken from another earlier post, the poster condemned people not for their thoughts or liking these drawings in particular, but their ENJOYMENT of it. So the perverts could look at such things and not enjoy them and it would be ok, apparently. So all they have to do is have a stack of these and if asked, can pick them up and say "Oh god that's disgusting!" and you know they're A-OK since they're not enjoying them, and you witness them not enjoying them and they said they're not enjoying them. If you were to still think they enjoyed them, contrary to their protests, well of course you'd ALSO be right then too, since you have the right and ability to judge and decide what someone else is thinking, if they're enjoying it, why they're enjoying it, what thoughts it causes in their heads and how they intend to act on those thoughts. So ESP apparently does exist and our legal legislation should be based on it.

Even if something you're against or think is condemned by more people than the opposite, you should note it doesn't make you objectively right, just in a majority. There but for the grace of God go your own interests and free expressions, but for another group to point their fingers at you.

As a non-published writer, artist and programmer (who KNOWS what my debased personal hobbies are!) and free-thinker, who has read and seen all kind of things in the world and on the internet, I take exception to others climbing inside my skull and not only passing judgment on (I don't care what you THINK, which is the difference between us) what personal imaginative hobbies I have, but pompously deciding that this judgment needs to be legislated to make sure I can't think or spend time on things you don't like.

[Leonardo]

In my honest opinion, Paranormalcy, that is every bit the "I don't care if a few people (children) might get hurt, so long as I and others can do what we want to do" argument that all the other 'defenders of freedom' have been using.

Very socially responsible, don't you think?

[Cadetak]

Cadet, Light, tone it down. This is a sensitive enough topic as it is.

Understood, my apologies.

There are a lot of comments concerning how thought may eventually lead to action. It behooves us, then, to note that not all thought is the same.

Fantasy is a peculiar form of thought. By definition, it is unrestricted by reality. An effect of this is that reality doesn't always reflect the fantasy. In other words, a person may fantasize about BDSM, and read the appropriate literature, and maybe even order comics books about it, however, should they ever actually venture into a BDSM club, the reality of BDSM is that it is indeed not something for everyone. The reality of it, while perfectly acceptable and desirable to those into it, is a little too stark for those who viewed it through the rose-colored glasses of fantasy.

Similarly, it is not an uncommon fantasy to imagine relations with members of the same gender. But merely fantasizing is not the same as being homosexual, bi-sexual, heck, not even bi-curious. Again, the fantasy tends to be more palatable than the reality. Another popular one is the fantasy rape. I hope that I don't have to detail the differences between a fantasy rape, and the actual crime.

Along this vein, Lolicon is simply a fantasy. The characters are no more realistic than any other pornographic character (at least, I've never had a nurse in a skimpy outfit throw herself wantonly at me in the hospital). A person may be titillated by the fantasy child sex, just as they are entertained by fantasy domination, fantasy rape, and fantasy beastiality, but that does not mean that they will not be equally disturbed by the same subject in real life. of This is why there is a differentiation in the laws regarding drawings and 3DCG of children. The first is mere fantasy, but the second is verging on reality.

The opposite of the lolicon genre is shotacon, which is little boys with adult women. While not as popular, it is interesting that it is almost impossible to find people protesting against it. Morally, it is pretty much the same situation, but I'm interested if the shotacon fantasy offends as much, or in the same way, as Lolicon does.

Somebody always puts my points across better then I can...I should have took more writing classes lol.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Cadetak

[The Silver Thong]

WOW after all this the freedom of thought is still an issue LOL what a joke. It's plain and simple, the guy who drew the pic's expressed his freedom of thought no matter how sick I find it. Than we have people defending his freedom of thought buy allowing it to be published and purchased by people of a same mind set. Who the hell draws this and who the hell buys it? The people who buy this crap are not into it for it's artistic value but for there own perversions. Hence the market for kiddy porn. Cut the pie into as many slices as you want but for this to be marketed as art is a cheat against the laws that prevent kiddy porn plain and simple.

If a sicko gets caught down loading kiddy porn it's bad if a guy buys a magazine with kiddy porn bad, so once those avenues are taken and cartoon porn is the next closest thing to the real thing and it's ok well thats *** sic and a cop out to look at naked kids in sexual acts. Who the hell defends kiddy porn and then promotes it to be an artistic take because it's a cartoon. WTF is wrong with some people ?????? People who buy or draw kiddy porn are sick sob's and those that deffend cartoon child rap are just as sick as those that do it as they promote it, hence making cartoon kiddy porn more and more acceptable.

[Cadetak]

This is quite a fascinating thread. You have on the one hand, those who elect to show some social responsibility as adults and argue in defence of those who are unable to defend themselves; then you have those who don't seem to care if any children get abused because someone has fed their fetish/fantasy on these lolicons, but then grows accustomed to the images in these and requires something more to satisfy their paedophilic desires.

You think I'm exaggerating? Sensationalising?

I would like to ask those who are defending 'freedom of expression' how many children it takes to be abused because someone has access to these comics and it triggers their lust? One? Ten? A hundred? Are you smug 'Chomskyites' going to volunteer to try to repair those little broken lives through counselling the victims (assuming they are still alive?) Are you going to volunteer to go to parents and tell them their child was abducted, raped and murdered by a paedophile?

You are still under the assumption that if somebody views such material they are or will be child abusers. You are also under the assumption that all of those who are attracted to children are without ethics and regard for the law(they can be attracted to a children but still see the wrongs in rape).

Think about it logically. One company sold 3 million Lolicon pictures books in 2005 and that doesn't account for the numerous websites and other materials(and things other then Lolicon). With such a big market and a large number of consumers you would think there would be an equal number of child abuse cases...but there isn't, not even close, you can double and triple the number of abuse convictions per year and it wouldn't match up. Go to a mall or any place were teenagers hang out and see how many older men you can catch eyeing a minor. I managed a movie theater that staffed highschool girls, few years back I was seeing a 16 year old and you don't know how many times I've had to say "You know she's 16 right?".

No offense Leonardo but how do you account for the numbers not matching up? If those who have things like Lolicon are child abusers then why doesn't the number of Lolicon purchasers come close to matching the number of child abusers? I can understand numbers only support reported crimes...but you can even double the number and it still wouldn't match up.

You or anybody also hasn't given reasoning behind the assumption that ALL those attracted to children will abandon basic ethics and regard to the law. I am a regular old heterosexual but I would never rape or take advantage of women, nor would you.

Just because I may disagree with something does not mean I will incriminate it without proper logic and evidence.

I can guess what your answer will be. Mostly, it will be along the lines of what aquatus has told cadetak - calm down. One question - why?

Because we wouldn't want to start a flame war now would we?

For the record, I do find the idea of being attracted to a child most distasteful however the attraction and fantasy doesn't instantly equate to action.

The trouble with this discussion is it is taboo and seemingly a touchy one. If you just change the words around in everybody's post from child sexual abuse to child murder and change Lolicon to Dragon Ball Z(or any media that promotes fighting and killing) and this discussion would instantly flip. I know if I made a direct correlation between those who own guns and those who commit armed crimes...our resident righties would have a field day. If I said all Athiests are immoral...I'd be ripped apart in Spirituality v.s. Skepticism.

[Cadetak]

In my honest opinion, Paranormalcy, that is every bit the "I don't care if a few people (children) might get hurt, so long as I and others can do what we want to do" argument that all the other 'defenders of freedom' have been using.

Very socially responsible, don't you think?

You know what's interesting...you selected the username Leonardo and have Leonardo Da Vinci's portrait as your avatar.

Leonardo was of course commonly believed to be a homosexual even went on trial for the act of Sodomy and had two long lasting relationships with young men, the most note able was Salai who was 10 years old when he became Leonardo's pupil and moved in with him.

Of course naturally and logically I will not make false assumptions about your character or intents.

[sam12six]

In my honest opinion, Paranormalcy, that is every bit the "I don't care if a few people (children) might get hurt, so long as I and others can do what we want to do" argument that all the other 'defenders of freedom' have been using.

Very socially responsible, don't you think?

As others have attempted to point out, those of you who are socially responsible have yet to prove ONE, SINGLE CHILD has been hurt by these comic books. Sure, in a purely intuitive way, someone who found such comic books sexually stimulating might be more likely to commit a crime, but there has been not a single link that proves this correlation. Therefore, in reality, the correlation does not exist. It's an assumption.

As Paranormalcy was pointing out, there are people with something wrong mentally who will watch Rambo and decide to lay siege to a small town. This doesn't make Rambo the problem and doesn't make those who produced the film criminals.

Our law system is based on evidence (proof).

In the case of the comic books we're discussing, prove that the imaginary children are actually minors then you have every reason to prosecute the imaginary adults having sex with them.

I've played Dungeons and Dragons. It didn't make me take a sword and break into people's basements looking for treasure.

I've seen movies about Hitler. They never inspired me to start a war.

I've read books about vampires. They never caused me to bite someone and drink their blood.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that looking at these comic books wouldn't make me molest a child, either.

See, this is where a lot of people are getting off-target with their outrage. Molesting a child is damaging to them and illegal. As Becky's Mom pointed out, some people will still do it. In other words some people are sick (or rather will act out their sick thoughts). Anything that encourages a person to commit these crimes should be illegal.

That said, I don't see any proof that these comic books are responsible for an increase of child abuse and therefore the argument that banning them is protecting children makes no sense at all.

[The Silver Thong]

As others have attempted to point out, those of you who are socially responsible have yet to prove ONE, SINGLE CHILD has been hurt by these comic books. Sure, in a purely intuitive way, someone who found such comic books sexually stimulating might be more likely to commit a crime, but there has been not a single link that proves this correlation. Therefore, in reality, the correlation does not exist. It's an assumption.

As Paranormalcy was pointing out, there are people with something wrong mentally who will watch Rambo and decide to lay siege to a small town. This doesn't make Rambo the problem and doesn't make those who produced the film criminals.

Our law system is based on evidence (proof).

In the case of the comic books we're discussing, prove that the imaginary children are actually minors then you have every reason to prosecute the imaginary adults having sex with them.

I've played Dungeons and Dragons. It didn't make me take a sword and break into people's basements looking for treasure.

I've seen movies about Hitler. They never inspired me to start a war.

I've read books about vampires. They never caused me to bite someone and drink their blood.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that looking at these comic books wouldn't make me molest a child, either.

See, this is where a lot of people are getting off-target with their outrage. Molesting a child is damaging to them and illegal. As Becky's Mom pointed out, some people will still do it. In other words some people are sick (or rather will act out their sick thoughts). Anything that encourages a person to commit these crimes should be illegal.

That said, I don't see any proof that these comic books are responsible for an increase of child abuse and therefore the argument that banning them is protecting children makes no sense at all.

Ok you say this

"As others have attempted to point out, those of you who are socially responsible have yet to prove ONE, SINGLE CHILD has been hurt by these comic books"

How about the church and there comic book and yes this will be directed at Catholics/Christians and Muslims and any other you so choose to believe in such nonsense.

How many people hide behind the church because there comic book says it's bad but in reality lets it slide? Your righteousness is a sin as you ignore what you protect and thats a child's exploitation, how dare you.

The RCC has hidden and defended child rape, child porn, child molestation as lies and yet has been called out hundreds of times of such allegations and persecutions to only admit to such atrocities and think a sorry makes up for it.

ALL BASED ON A COMIC BOOK with a couple of pictures called the bible. There is proof that a comic book can cause great harm and not only to children.

[Karlis]

But I was asking for your answer to my question.

***>>> Aquatus, the question you asked was:

Would you agree that

what is moral decay to one culture is a matter of indifference to another?

My reply to that was:

"My opinion is that moral decay sets in slowly; as for instance, rust slowly eats into the body of a motor vehicle, and eventually destroys it."

Aquatus, I would like to expand my answer a little further. If we are talking about a specific culture/society, then my answer would be that there will inevitably be sub-groups within any culture/society.

Sub-groupings within a culture/society will not have clear-cut, black-and-white differences; values will blend from one extreme to another within such groupings.

To give a stark example: some Australian Aboriginal societies/cultures in outback Australia are isolated from the general Australian ways. They are in effect a law unto themselves, unless law enforcement agencies actively enter their community, and enforce the laws of the land.

Let's take a quick overview regarding pedophilia in some of these communities.

For years, in these communities, it had become common practice for men to have intercourse with young girls of their choice, *especially* when they were under the influence of alcohol. Some time ago, a Government mandate project sent police and welfare workers into some of these communities to change this. TV and other News media also went in to report on the events.

Aboriginal elders were interviewed, and on TV were 'outraged' at suggestions that they raped young girls in their community. Mothers of young girls on the other hand confirmed that this did indeed happen on a regular basis. Medical exams showed that most young girls had STD. Steps were taken to make some of these communities alcohol free, but as of now ... there still is no clear knowledge (in the Australian Press) outside these communities, if these rape practices have stopped or not. You see, white people have to obtain special permission to enter these communities; it's not as if one could just drive through there and talk to the locals.

So, in a roundabout way to answer your question, "what is moral decay to one culture is a matter of indifference to another?"

It would seem to me that part of a community can become morally decayed.

* Example of moral decay amongst older men gradually, over time, accepting that it's normal to have sex with children in their society.

* Example of moral decay amongst mothers of girls, who gradually, over decades could see no way out of that situation, and having no choice but to make the best of that situation. ~~~ Of course, readers who have no concept of these communities would say that these women should have taken their children, and left that community. Unfortunately, in real life things are not quite as simple as that within these isolated communities.

Example of indifference.

Welfare workers had been making reports of these events to their various departments for decades. The local Police were also well aware of this situation for decades. Everyone who was in the higher hierarchy with authority to act, ignored what was going on. The matters were shelved into the "too hard to solve basket", and since none of this was published in the Mainstream Media, matters continued like that for decades.

That is an example of an answer to the second part of your question: "what is moral decay to one culture is a matter of indifference to another (society)?"

I'll take your word on that. I've seen more foolish things done.

Would it be foolish for me to remain on UM if UM policy allowed such material? On the contrary, Aquatus; imo it would be foolish of me to stay.

I'm not sure if it worked. After all, the reason that the URL was removed was because it violated several forum rules, only one of which refers to offensive content.

I hope you do not mean that if UM forum rules did permit such material, you would have no problems with that?

So, to clarify, do you agree that what is moral decay to one culture is a matter of indifference to another? I truly do not know where you stand on this.

Since I was answering this post point by point, I left this part intact, but I answered it above.

Fair enough.

In George Orwell's 1984, we learn about a dystopian society that punishes not only crimes, but thoughts as well. Anyone questioning the ideology of the government is arrested and sent to re-education, a process so traumatic it essentially erased the previous personality.

In contrast, our legal system, as well as those in pretty much all modern countries, is based on the concept of "Innocent till proven guilty". The implication of this is that unless a person is shown to have committed a crime, they must be considered to not have committed that crime.

This has been the classic line. On one side, we have criminal intent. On the other side, we have criminal thought. On can be arguably considered a crime. The other...well, that is where the discussion comes in.

How many points of separation must there be between a thought and a victim before the thought becomes a crime? At what point does prevention of a crime justify punishment for a crime not yet committed?

Permitting and accepting victim-less publications such as the material you deleted is a crime, in my personal opinion. Child pornography is a crime, whether it is portrayed through actual children, or whether it is portrayed in hand-drawn comic-book style material which you deleted from my previous post. ~~~ Your opinion may be different from mine, and in a free country we are able to hold different points of view, which makes our society different from that portrayed in "1984".

It is a crime to produce and distribute identical material. Almost universally, 3DCG depictions of child pornography are considered the equivalent of real child pornorgraphy (unless they are really badly made). As previously mentioned, the proximity to reality makes such things unacceptable, it takes it from the realm of fantasy to the realm of reality.

However, we are not talking about reality, nor even about close to reality. We are talking about stylized drawings. They are not realistic in any sense.

So the question again becomes, "How many degrees of seperation?"

I would make the distinction very simple, Aquatus: child pornography should be a crime, whether it is depicted through live media or through realistic cartoon drawings.

Neither, actually. No one is pretending that this is art. This is pornography, plain and simple. Nor have such drawings been able to successfully claim Freedom of Speech exception because they are art.

They are what they are. They are comic books. They are stylized drawings. No one is going to confuse an anime girl for a real girl, ...

In my opinion, child pornography is child pornography, no matter how one presents child pornography. But again, that is how I view this; others have the right to view this differently, of course.

... no more than anyone is going to confuse Lisa Simpson for a real girl. They are not realistic representations of real girls.

True enough, but if Lisa Simpson was portrayed on TV as having graphic sex, that would be child pornography, and should be treated as a crime -- again others may not agree with me.

The question is not whether they are art or not. Really, the question isn't even whether they are legal or not, as their status varies depending on the country that you are in.

The question is: Are we going to consider it criminal if it reminds us of a crime, rather than if there is actually any victim involved?

Aquatus, why not simplify matters? Portraying child pornography in any format should be a crime. One does not need a child-victim to portray child pornography.

A draconian suggestion? Perhaps.

Karlis

[momentarylapseofreason]

I am going to paraphrase MomentaryLapseofReason's excellently worded assertion, mad-libs style, and see how many people agree.

I totally agree. I hate action and horror movies. I think we'd better require therapy for people that enjoy them - you know they're just going to kill someone or influence kids, why not nip this thing in the bud before it starts? That's the only reasonable solution.

So what about computer animated sexual abuse of children? Sorry, but the safety of children has priority over self-expression in this case.

Children first !!

I can't believe that people's freedom of expression has priority over the respect of children. Disgusting.

You can't compare it to horror movies, because to me there is no worse crime than perverting all that is innocent.

Do I believe in freedom of thought? Of course and that is where they should remain, in the mind. In this case please don't share these thoughts.I don't approve of flies openly sharing their this crap with other flies. And thats what they are, greedy, selfish little flies.

I guess children get no respect here. They come second place. Nice. I'd like to see a parent explain these comics he owns to his children, if they were to be discovered.

Is nothing sacred?

Why should this filth have priority?

Many people are highly susceptible to suggestion. Especially younger people.

Edited May 27, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[momentarylapseofreason]

Do these comics distort attitudes towards girls and children? In the mind of some, I'm sure they do.

I know there in no proven link to these and child abuse. Not yet anyways.

What sense does it make to respect people, beliefs etc. if we can't even respect children enough to simply say "no this is not ok?" Why is this one thing so important to people? And oddly enough this is so important to males I see, by reading this post. Interesting! Why are mostly men defending it here so fiercely? Are they defending a personal interest?

Why not leave it in the mind? Why the need to share this?

Big money and pleasure being obtained by depicting drawings of little girls being sexually abused & humiliated is a form of disrespect.

I could imagine how I would view my father with different eyes and completely new and ugly feelings towards him, were I to discover that he enjoyed such a form of entertainment.

Edited May 27, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[Paranormalcy]

As long as people are able to pick and choose which "crimes" are prosecuted under the law and how severely, and which forms of entertainment or art or other activity is "morally acceptable" to them, and which are proscribed, those people will be happy as clams.

When using the same legal system and equitable framework to prosecute and punish "crimes" these happy-clam people are a party to, then they'll protest and wonder where their civil liberties and rights are. How could such a precedent have been set, to allow others to invade our lives and restrict and punish us for things we haven't done, merely thought or looked at?

This imaginative personal hobby you're doing is evil and wrong and illegal, because I say so. My hobbies and activities are moral and good and just and legal - because I say so. It's fair - just ask me, I'll tell you.

[momentarylapseofreason]

As long as people are able to pick and choose which "crimes" are prosecuted under the law and how severely, and which forms of entertainment or art or other activity is "morally acceptable" to them, and which are proscribed, those people will be happy as clams.

When using the same legal system and equitable framework to prosecute and punish "crimes" these happy-clam people are a party to, then they'll protest and wonder where their civil liberties and rights are. How could such a precedent have been set, to allow others to invade our lives and restrict and punish us for things we haven't done, merely thought or looked at?

This imaginative personal hobby you're doing is evil and wrong and illegal, because I say so. My hobbies and activities are moral and good and just and legal - because I say so. It's fair - just ask me, I'll tell you.

So if you had these comics would you leave them laying around for your kids to see? If not why not? How about at work? You can't convince me that these are not immoral. This is common sense. It's not a crime though-just immoral to disrespect children as they are being depicted as sex objects for your enjoyment. Sick!

It's just plain disrespectful and a psychological handicap. Disrespect is not a crime and neither are thoughts.

Some of us just don't like it. It brings nothing of worth to society as a whole.

I'm very liberal but here I draw the line.

I may not criminalize but I will ostracize people who disrespect children.

Why should children be depicted as sexual objects? Why oh why? Come on................. someone defend it with logic. What will happen to society if we can't depict children as sexual objects anymore? Will it end the world?

Actions are much worse though, to me that's clear

Edited May 27, 2009 by momentarylapseofreason

[sam12six]

Ok you say this

"As others have attempted to point out, those of you who are socially responsible have yet to prove ONE, SINGLE CHILD has been hurt by these comic books"

How about the church and there comic book and yes this will be directed at Catholics/Christians and Muslims and any other you so choose to believe in such nonsense.

How many people hide behind the church because there comic book says it's bad but in reality lets it slide? Your righteousness is a sin as you ignore what you protect and thats a child's exploitation, how dare you.

The RCC has hidden and defended child rape, child porn, child molestation as lies and yet has been called out hundreds of times of such allegations and persecutions to only admit to such atrocities and think a sorry makes up for it.

ALL BASED ON A COMIC BOOK with a couple of pictures called the bible. There is proof that a comic book can cause great harm and not only to children.

OK, you're saying that religions having committed and covered up crimes is proof that a comic book can hurt people? You're saying that you believe that Manga fans see these comic books as a roadmap by which to live their lives the way that Christians claim to see the bible? Um, that's just ridiculous.

The child molestation situation the RCC has fostered has nothing to do with the Bible. OK, let me try to make this simple: There were these criminals (child molesters). Their bosses covered up their crimes, thus committing another crime. I can't recall anyone pointing to the verse that says, "Thou shalt molesteth the scions of thine flock" as a justification for these crimes. See? They're criminals and sickos. Doesn't matter what they read.

So if you had these comics would you leave them laying around for your kids to see? If not why not? How about at work? You can't convince me that these are not immoral. This is common sense. It's not a crime though-just immoral to disrespect children as they are being depicted as sex objects for your enjoyment. Sick!

It's just plain disrespectful and a psychological handicap. Disrespect is not a crime and neither are thoughts.

Some of us just don't like it. It brings nothing of worth to society as a whole.

I'm very liberal but here I draw the line.

I may not criminalize but I will ostracize people who disrespect children.

Why should children be depicted as sexual objects? Why oh why? Come on................. someone defend it with logic. What will happen to society if we can't depict children as sexual objects anymore? Will it end the world?

Actions are much worse though, to me that's clear

No one in this thread is saying children SHOULD be depicted as sexual objects. What some of us are saying is that it is fantasy, i.e. fiction.

I totally agree that it's disrespectful and a mental disorder. I would also ostracize anyone who gets off on this stuff. That's a far cry from passing laws that make something illegal because we think it is distasteful.

Again, sick as the concept is, we're talking about fictional characters. The whole "no children were harmed in the making of this comic book" disclaimer applies. Unless someone can prove that seeing one of these comic books causes people to go out and molest children, making them illegal is not protecting children, it's just censoring something people find distasteful.

It's like making Superman comic books illegal because he used his super vision to peek into the girls' locker room to protect high school girls from voyeurs. It just makes no sense.

[Paranormalcy]

You seem to have drawn a number of conclusions that are not present in the issue.

Neither I, nor I believe any of the "free speech" posters, have encouraged or in any other way endorsed or applauded abuse of any kind, child or not, sexual or not.

So if you had these comics would you leave them laying around for your kids to see? If not why not? How about at work?

No I would not leave them lying around because it is my right and responsibility as a parent to decide what is suitable for my child at different ages, and what values I want to instill in them. At work, or the public in general, again, I can make the distinction between personal and public, between my own sphere of influence and privacy, and forcing what I can certainly recognize as objectionable material, onto others - this is why we have judgment. I also would not put up posters of the KKK or Nazis or the Prophet Muhammed. But that is me; I don't have any desire for confrontation or offending anyone by forcing my views or interests on people who may not be like-minded.

You can't convince me that these are not immoral. This is common sense. It's not a crime though-just immoral to disrespect children as they are being depicted as sex objects for your enjoyment. Sick!

Again, people seem to be confusing the debate - whether or not these images are immoral is not the issue. Morality and immorality are abstract and subjective concepts, and when applied to a person's private life, are no one else's business, and are irrelevant to this issue - it is the concept of making immorality (as interpreted by...?) a crime. In a great many US states, sodomy is also a crime, as is oral sex and usury (Jesus was mighty down on it) - these are all also moral legal judgments, but I don't see many prosecutions on these. These are all thoughtcrimes with equal validity to the main concern of this thread. Respect and disrespect are also equally subjective - how much is "enough" or "not enough" - or "too much"?

For the most part we can all more or less agree on a minimal baseline of what is and is not appropriate for public displays and behavior, so the issue is not even concerned with the aspect of public indecency - this is something that is entirely under the umbrella of one man ordering and receiving comic books (or insert any other generic item of your choice) and having his life forever ruined and denied not only the ability to have whatever thoughts he has, without fear of reprisal from The Government, but also actual physical freedom - all because "it's icky and depicts things I don't like or do and I think are wrong, and his possession of such media shows clear and concrete intent to carry out the actions depicted - he should be pre-emptively punished because he might do something. So let's convict him just to be safe." Now, as much as you naysayers protest at the use of something so broad as violence, the fact remains it is an entirely identical situation, and our society has plenty of depictions, cartoon, lifelike, actual.

And for the matter of "respect of children" and the idea that "If even one child is prevented from actually being abused by denying freedom to a hundred people on the grounds that they might hypothetically do something to them, it's worth it", I wonder how "worth it" it you would find it when someone sees you looking at them the wrong way, in an obvious sexual or violent and threatening harassing manner, according to them, and get fired, convicted of a crime and forced to register as a sex offender because you might have had a bad thought, regardless of what the reality was. The sacrificing of liberty for safety seems to be a popular themes this last decade.

It's just plain disrespectful and a psychological handicap. Disrespect is not a crime and neither are thoughts.

The first is debatable and again, subjective, the second: correct. So why did someone go to jail?

Some of us just don't like it. It brings nothing of worth to society as a whole.

I don't like a lot of things but I don't expect "morning people" to be thrown in the slammer or boy bands made illegal.

I may not criminalize but I will ostracize people who disrespect children.

Depending on how extreme you take this, this is within your rights. If you're actively causing injury or denying someone else the same freedoms you enjoy just because you don't like them or some aspect of them, then welcome to the wonderful world of discrimination.

Why should children be depicted as sexual objects? Why oh why? Come on................. someone defend it with logic.

Again, no one is saying they "should" - this is merely hyperbole. But the logic of why it should not be a crime is because no act has been committed and there is no evidence it will be. Correlation (if any exists at all) is not causation.

What will happen to society if we can't depict children as sexual objects anymore? Will it end the world?

What will happen if we can't depict another football team as losers, or terrorists as bad, or the president as a giant douche? Whether you like it or not, the same law governs all of these. Either you and "Scott the Perv" can both open up, look at and enjoy a book in the privacy of your own home, or you can't. Either you can both play a video game, or you can't. You shouldn't expect to be able to check on and approve of what another adult does in private unless you expect the same for yourself.

Actions are much worse though, to me that's clear

Actions are the sole issue relevant to this specific topic.

Yet another awful aspect to this issue is that this package was randomly opened by a postal inspector, which they have been given the authority to do. Leaving that for an entirely different topic, if these comics had instead been a novel with an "acceptable" cover, or DVD or video game in a nondescript case, but still depicting equally vile acts, there is almost no chance this would have even occurred. Is the post inspector going to fire up the old Post Office DVD player or Xbox360 and check it out, maybe play a level or two? Are they going to read a couple of chapters? No, they would shrug and wrap it back up and send it on - this "trash" would still be circulating and arrive at its destination with none the wiser. This pretty solidly demonstrates while obscenity laws can get a "hit" now and then, it is by pure chance and convenience in this case, so the law is failing with every other single "obscene" package and item that goes through to someone - the only way to enforce it is to make sure to open all of everyone's mail. That seems reasonable doesn't it? Because if just one VHS tape gets stopped, it is worth invading the privacy of every single citizen in the country.

Lastly, why is my country doing business with countries who peddle in this kind of filth? I demand embargoes and a UN Council Meeting against Japan until they agree to Resolution 57614033. Because if the government and the people feel that strongly about the issue, it is obvious we need to nip this whole thing in the bud and that is done by stopping obscenity where it starts. If just one vile comic book is rejected by customs, then the loss of all trade and political ties are worth it.

Just to be sure.

And having said basically all I really have to say on the subject, I'll cease posting here.

Edited May 27, 2009 by Paranormalcy