It's not an "Anime" ban.

[Unknown Entity]

I'm sure a few of the members here, anime fanatics, and recent anime news dwellers would have found reports about a ban on anime in the UK. As a matter of fact, there're many rumours going around which is making people lock up and hide the anime, deleting it from computers and whatnot.

Well. There isn't an anime ban.

It seems like not many people have read the actual bill (like me, when I first heard about it), which is as follows:

(1) It is an offence for a person to be in possession of a prohibited image of a child.

(2) A prohibited image is an image which—

(a) is pornographic,

(b) falls within subsection (6), and

(c) is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

(3) An image is “pornographic” if it is of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal.

(4) Where (as found in the person’s possession) an image forms part of a series of images, the question whether the image is of such a nature as is mentioned in subsection (3) is to be determined by reference to—

(a) the image itself, and

(b) (if the series of images is such as to be capable of providing a context for the image) the context in which it occurs in the series of images.

(5) So, for example, where—

(a) an image forms an integral part of a narrative constituted by a series of images, and

(b) having regard to those images as a whole, they are not of such a nature that they must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal,

the image may, by virtue of being part of that narrative, be found not to be pornographic, even though it might have been found to be pornographic if taken by itself.

(6) An image falls within this subsection if it—

(a) is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region, or

(b) portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).

(7) Those acts are—

(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f) 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.

What it's pretty much saying is that anime, which displays under-age sex, pictures/scenes of children's genitalia/anus region, sexual arousal in the presence of a child, rape, beastiality, or necrophilia, will be made illegal.

It brings many questions and debates to mind, like for example, how do you prove the age of a cartoon character? A lot of anime characters look like chidren, but could very well be of age. How much of the anime sold in the UK contains such elements? I've never watched Bleach, but I've heard about the sexual tensions in it... would that warrant a ban too?

Personally, hentai is unnecessary and in the majority of cases downright sick, so it doesn't effect me at all. I'd like to hope that many of you guys feel the same, but I know that this ban could possibly mean a lot more of what is suggested in the bill above could also be banned. I agree with "child porn" in anime being banned, but it could also be suggested that adults having sex in anime being banned also (whether it not be now, is it possible for that to be included in the bill a few weeks/months/or even years down the line?).

Once again, anime is not being banned. The majority of hentai is.

I thought I'd post this here for anyone who's like "OMGOSH, THEY R BANNING ANIME IN TEH UK!!!" after looking at other forums, and wanted something a bit more reliable.

Anyone want to add anything? A serious discussion and debate could be made of this.

[Rhaps]

I saw a thing on teh CNN on hentai, it was interesting. Personally, it sickens me to what extensions it reaches and the fact people are aroused by rape. The CNN thing was doing a focus on a game for hentai which involved many of the illegal actions aforementioned, and how concerned parents can search for signs and stop it yadda yadda

[Victoria]

I'm going to be playing Devil's Advocate and say that obviously, not all hentai involves rape or animals and such gross things like that. Even I don't go that far. I mean heck, regular porn is the same way when you think about it.

But yeah. This makes a lot more sense when it's just hentai/ecchi anime being banned and not all of it. Although one of my favorite hentai anime is probably being banned. I can understand why and agree to it being banned. >_<

*Doesn't like one of the girl characters in there. Isn't into lolis and things of that nature.*

[Furore]

Does that mean bitches gonna take yo' Elfen Lied?
Poor UK peoples...

[Secret Weapon]

I agree with Mistress, hentai and actual porn are pretty much the same but the way UK is approaching is this is awk in my view.

I can understand subjecting this away from children's or even for the nations' eyes but if they go into forwarding with this, how far or what other regions will they reach to?

[Unknown Entity]

Does that mean bitches gonna take yo' Elfen Lied?
Poor UK peoples...

Most likely, unfortunately. I have a lot of friends who like Elfen Lied, and even though I couldn't get into it, it's a pretty big shame I might not be able to watch it legally... until I move or whatever.

Really, I think the government needs to bring out a list of the anime with the rotten types of hentai in it, so we know exactly what's still acceptable to watch. Sure, no anime with children and sex in the same sentence, but I think there are quite a few problems with the bill in regards to age of the characters - they might be of age, but they still look pre-puberty - I wonder if that'll effect whether it's legal or not going by looks instead of age?

Cheers Japanimation people for making everyone look like children.

[Andromeda]

Japan is currently trying to do something similar with a law that covers all "virtual" or fictional characters that are under the age of 18. And more or less as the law reads from my understanding is that it is more encompassing and vague than just saying no to child porn. It seems to cover vaguely enough anything that is deemed inappropriate. So it would have the potential to hit far more than just child porn. And as anyone that has seen manga and anime there is often completely non-sexual scenes with underaged characters. As I understand it, the naked body is a sign of purity in Japan.

However, the law, which is supposed to be only for Tokyo, but Tokyo law tends to become national law, is being fought against by quite a few very highly respected and well known manga authors. Enough of an uproar from the artist community got upset over this that the law makers have delayed the law from going to voting.

And apparently recently Osaka is trying to do something about Boy's Love stories. It was vague what sort of actions that they trying to make on it, but they are trying out the same thing Tokyo is with the law that got delayed there, but adding in Boy's Love stories as well. *shrugs* I'm not even sure why, it feels a little random to only go back Boy's Love.

As for the UK law, if it is only is against child porn then that is fine. Anything evolving children like that is just really unsettling. However, it does raise the question on what age is considered a child? At least Japan was specific enough to say an age, even though with anime and manga it is very difficult to determine age of anyone without being specifically told. Which sounds like they'll make it really easy for them to just ban a ton of stuff because you can't easily tell age. Is a high school student a child?

And Shadow is correct that Hentai is as vast and ranged as any other anime. So it is certainly not going to hit the majority of it. It will certainly be a sizable percentage though. But I guess if high school students are included that will end up hit a larger percentage since the primary age tends to be high school to college students.

But Elfen Lied isn't hentai, it is just Seinen. Meaning it is meant for adult males because it has mature (not sexual) themes and content. I think the closest it gets is the child abuse which is brief and not done explicitly. So I would think Elfen Lied should be safe. As the law said if it is in the context of a story as animation it is fine. All of the nudity in the show is completely non-sexual. But I can see this law making it very easy for touchy lawmakers to just hit anything that is remotely dangerous.

I'm not for child porn in anyway, but it isn't real. It is a drawn with made up characters that never existed. Fictional characters don't have any rights or protections. I think they show to be cracking down on the real people that are abusing children and putting them in jail. Because the law just sounds like it will be very easy to just do wide sweeping motions with it if they so wish.

As for the CNN thing. CNN is blowing up a year old story that did not need to be giving any publicity. The game had already long been taken down after last year's Western media got all upset over a 4, now 5, year old game that was legal in Japan and I think only released in Japan, but was available on Amazon so I think you could import it. But the game was already taken down and the only way to find it is illegally through torrent sites. It is not like you're going to accidentally run across something like that and if any parent did their job in raising their children properly. Their children would in a second see "rape" and turn away. Because CNN doing a story on this it is only giving more people the knowledge that the game exists and more people playing. It was already in a niche market to start with that the vast majority of the average American family wouldn't even be aware of it or even give it a second thought if they accidentally saw it. They are playing it off like they are trying to help parents doing something about it, what are they going to do that they aren't already? It actually runs a greater risk of the children learning about it and becoming curious because they see it on CNN, without CNN talking about it 99.9% won't even be finding it. Parents should be watching and know what their children are doing on the internet anyway, so I think it is a completely unnecessary story from CNN which only hurt things more than helped.

[Jonathanx221]

That is the weirdest thing I've ever heard of. They're not real..... And the voice actors are probably over the age of 18. Maybe I'm an idiot. I just don't get it. Ahaha.

[Furore]

I used Elfen Lied as an example because I get the feeling it might be the type of thing retarded censorship bullshit will target.

Though I'm all for the canning of anime that might portray children as sexual objects and the like, some anime does feature nudity/adult themes concerning younger people but it's used not for any form of sexual gratification but to explore complex ideas, philosophies or whatever else. Granted it's only a smaller number of anime (that I know of), but Elfen Lied in particular is a classic and the themes it explores really makes a guy think.

Why does political correctness have to spoil good things?

[Jin]

This kind of crap is ridiculous. This isn't an attempt to combat child pornography or child molestation, it's an attempt to combat pedophilia. Pedophilia has never been accepted the way homosexuality has begun to be and as a result, no one has a problem with persecuting pedophiles.

And just to clear things up before people grab their pitch forks, pedophilia does not mean having sex with children. It does not mean molesting children, it does not mean raping children, it does not mean touching children in any way. It simply refers to someone being sexually attracted to children. Attacking the desire instead of the action is a means of controlling marginals, not of protecting children. It labels pedophiles as being mentally sick.

That concept won't make most people bat an eyelash, but let's really think about it for a moment. How is this any different than doing the same to homosexuals or people that like bondage or people that commit sodomy or even people that masturbate? These kinds of laws are not just saying that one cannot commit act X because it is somehow damaging to group of people Y, but that one cannot even want to do act X. One cannot think about it, one cannot talk about it, one cannot engage with it in any way.

That's what these kinds of laws are saying. A drawing is nothing but an expression of a thought - it's not real, it isn't reality. By suppressing the drawing, one is suppressing one's ability to express his or her desires. Let's take the example of fighting. Fighting has real problematic implications when carried out. But now there's a law that forbids the depiction of fighting in any form. No one would accept that. It would be called censorship and would never pass. To not be able to draw or write about or depict in any way two people fighting is ridiculous.

Then there's the practical implications of such a law. Is it really intelligent to remove a pedophile's only means by which to satisfy his or her desire in a way that doesn't involve real children? What kind of strategy is that? Their desires aren't going to go away because society tells them to. Removing fictitious outlets will only increase the use of real children.

Foucault, Foucault, why does no one listen to Foucault?

[Alpha]

Jin, you raise a number of good points, but I don't think this 'banning a fictious outlet will cause more to look for real children' persepective is accurate. Granted, I'm no expert, but it's reasonable. See, pornography involving real children is assumably illegal in the UK. For good reason too, I might add. We don't think children should be abused and manipulated in such ways, and seek to protect them physically, sexually, and emotionally.

Now one could then argue in support of cartoon pornography as a means to outlet pedophile's innate desires that you claim to be as natural as homosexuality and heterosexuality (which is a different kettle of fish, as they relate to gender, not age or physical maturity). This is apparently a 'safe' outlet that does no one harm. But is that really the case? Could it not be a 'taster'? I'm a heterosexual, so is cartoon, adult, heterosexual pornography enough for me? Of course not. I don't use it, and I need real sex.

My other issue us that you seem to think that by making animated child pornography illegal will cause more to look for 'real' representations, or even to go the full shebang and view it in person, or even carry it out in person. This is to ignore the fact that such practces are already illegal. That's like saying by making beer illegal, more people will smoke meth.

[SOLDIER #819]

Alpha: While Jin's points that you singled out may not carry weight due to a lack of evidence, I am not sure that your rebuttal really strikes at the heart of the issue. The last paragraph, anyway. What is your stance exactly? I had a rant typed up but I don't really want to start preaching to someone who shares a similar opinion.

I more or less agree with Jin. Particularly about this being more of a censure of thought/free speech/etc. rather than serving to deter any sort of crime. I don't think it's necessary to prove that doing x will cause y, which I doubt they have either. Given that, I'd rather they didn't simply default on banning something "just to be safe."

[Alpha]

Then there's the practical implications of such a law. Is it really intelligent to remove a pedophile's only means by which to satisfy his or her desire in a way that doesn't involve real children? What kind of strategy is that? Their desires aren't going to go away because society tells them to. Removing fictitious outlets will only increase the use of real children.

This was my main point of consternation.

How is making pornography illegal going to make something else (worse) more common? In particular a something else which is already illegal and less socially acceptable.

In other respects, I think Jin made good points.

To be honest, I'm not clear on my stance. But at this stage I do have a great sense of trepidation in supporting any pornographic images of children. I don't see how the fact that they are cartoon images makes much difference. If one is truly sexually inclined in such a manner, is pornography enough?

Is a skin magazine enough for you, assumably an adult heterosexual?

[Jin]

This is apparently a 'safe' outlet that does no one harm. But is that really the case? Could it not be a 'taster'? I'm a heterosexual, so is cartoon, adult, heterosexual pornography enough for me? Of course not. I don't use it, and I need real sex.

You're putting a lot of emphasis on the power of pornography. I think you may be overestimating its importance. Does a man need pornography to realize he is attracted to women? Does a homosexual need pornography to realize he or she is attracted to the same sex? No. I may be wrong in this, but I sincerely doubt that a pedophile needs pornography to realize that he or she is attracted to children. Porn may be a catalyst in which someone realizes his or her desire, but it's never the only factor. Life reveals our sexual desires. Whether it's porn that makes us realize them or something else, we'll eventually figure it out. You can't blame porn for that. It's an insignificant and replaceable part of a larger system.

My other issue us that you seem to think that by making animated child pornography illegal will cause more to look for 'real' representations, or even to go the full shebang and view it in person, or even carry it out in person. This is to ignore the fact that such practces are already illegal. That's like saying by making beer illegal, more people will smoke meth.

Perhaps that was a bit of a stretch, and I was making that argument based on the faulty assumption that animated porn simply disappeared rather than just being outlawed, but I envision an "If I'm already breaking the law..." mentality taking place. I'm no psychologist, so maybe I'm completely wrong, but either way, I don't see how banning fake child porn helps the cause either.

[Alpha]

I don't know about that mentality. Regardless of whether both pornographic and real expressions of such desire are illegal, there is a clear demarcation between sitting at one's computer and actually having sex with a child. I mean, that's a big leap.

I think there's an element of truth in that one is proabably 'safer'. If it was one or the other, cartoon pornography would win out over actual child sexual abuse. I think a pertinent question is whether we want this situation - one you beleive is safer - or neither. I'm not thoroughly convinced that being attrated to children is natural. If this sounds backward in 30 years time, I might retract my statement. But as it stands... no.

[Jin]

My Kingdom (so about $5.96 US in value) to anyone that can give me a definitive definition of what "natural" means, including a list of what is natural, what isn't and why.

I just don't get how someone's feeling can be unnatural. Harmful to others, I get, but unnatural? I don't understand the word.

[Alpha]

Natural; innate. Not created.

Sexual attractions, generally, are natural. I'm sure that's widely accepted.

Heterosexual attractions are undeniably natural. That's why the human species has proliferated for thousands of years. You could say this is social. To an extent, yes. But it's a biological neccessity and thus natural.

Homosexual attractions are debated as to whether they are natural. I think they are.

Now attractions to children? As I said, this is a different issue. It's no longer gender; it's age and physical maturity. I honestly see it as perverse, as liberal as I see myself. It's unequal. Children cannot possibly choose to be part of such an arrangement. It's an enforced relationship between an adult who may or may not have chosen or been conditioned to operate as such, and an innocent child who is not physically or emotionally mature enough to even comprehend the situation. It may be natural to the adult. It is not innate to a child.

There's my attempt at a definiton that is also contextualised.

The relevance of this ban on cartoon child pornography? I don't find sexual images of children to be acceptable; whether cartoon or photographical.

[Jin]

I don't mean to be insulting by shooting down your definition, but I'm not really convinced by your listed categorization criteria. How do the consequences or the resulting power relations of pursuing a sexual desire render that desire innate or otherwise? Are you implying the pedophile fakes a sexual desire in order to hold power over a child? That's the only way your definition makes sense. A sexual desire is just a feeling, is it not? How can there exist a feeling that is not innate? I can't imagine that there exists a human being powerful enough to decide what to be sexually attracted to, so how are these feelings not naturally occurring? Everything is natural for everything came to be.

The only usable part of your definition I found was "I honestly see it as perverse". If that were expanded, it would probably be the best definition of the word I'd ever heard. In this context, it's a marker of hegemony; of marginalization; of control.

The relevance of this ban on cartoon child pornography?

Haha, semi-relevant, but a more interesting topic I think.

[Alpha]

I don't mean to be insulting by shooting down your definition...

Not at all. It's not like I put a great deal of thought into it, and it is terribly hard to define.

...but I'm not really convinced by your listed categorization criteria. How do the consequences or the resulting power relations of pursuing a sexual desire render that desire innate or otherwise? Are you implying the pedophile fakes a sexual desire in order to hold power over a child? That's the only way your definition makes sense. A sexual desire is just a feeling, is it not? How can there exist a feeling that is not innate? I can't imagine that there exists a human being powerful enough to decide what to be sexually attracted to, so how are these feelings not naturally occurring?

I'm not sure if 'fake' is what it is, but I don't accept it as something that should, in an ideal world, exist. I suppose that sounds horrible, but, as I said, the child does not choose to be part of this relationship (for what else is it?). What if an adult was sexually attracted to your own (future) children? Would you be so accepting of such a person's sexual 'nature'?

Everything is natural for everything came to be.

I think that's a bit of a cop-out. That's the same as saying that a laptop is a natural object. I suppose that it is logical, for humans are natural (self-occurring), and they developed laptops. However, without the input of humans (or something else equally sentient) a laptop would not exist. Without some type of conditioning, do you really think adults can be sexually attracted to children?

****. Now I just used an argument usd by those who say homosexuals are unnatural. I feel dirty. And I don't really know where I'm going anymore... heh. I just see the inherent inequality in child-adult relationships as wrong, whether pursued through images (created or photographic) or in reality.

The only usable part of your definition I found was "I honestly see it as perverse". If that were expanded, it would probably be the best definition of the word I'd ever heard. In this context, it's a marker of hegemony; of marginalization; of control.

Control. Control by those who know better, over children. I'm happy with controlling such behavior to protect children. Afterall, pedophilia is illegal. Why shouldn't graphic outcomes of it not also be illegal? I honestly can't see how you, in a sense, defend child pornography.

Haha, semi-relevant, but a more interesting topic I think.

Meh. It borders on relevance more than these discussions do ordinarily.

[SOLDIER #819]

Afterall, pedophilia is illegal. Why shouldn't graphic outcomes of it not also be illegal?

This must hit a sore spot if you're speaking like this, Alpha. You probably already know everything I'm about to say, so just humor me.

There are reasons why it is illegal. Those reasons, rather than the fact it is illegal, are what should be cited. I think we can all agree that this act is terrible enough to where we don't need to go into the whys and that it stands that it should be illegal, but... I think it's really important to say something should be using an explanation that more or less amounts to "just because."

More relevant to the ban, I think it's necessary to examine the disconnect between reality and the materials that are being put to question. The place where this stuff comes from has a huge following relative to any one western country, yet the crimes for child molestation (as well as anything similar) remain relatively low. On the other hand, there is a high chance that a person living more westward has never even heard of the stuff up until now... if they've even concerned themselves with the legislation, yet the crime rates in some of these countries (including our respective ones, no doubt) are many times higher.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure that people who look at this stuff could be considered pedophiles. They may be sick by our standards... but perhaps in a different way. The rift between fantasy and reality for the many who view or pen this stuff and the consequences it generates are just surreal. We have people proclaiming that all they need is 2-D (an important distinction, I suppose) and marrying their pillows for ****'s sake. If we can justify violence in a video game by saying that it isn't real, despite the grotesque excesses to which people take it and how we would quickly and angrily condemn it if it were to take place in reality, it's hardly a stretch to say the same about this. Honestly, if you ever looked at the culture that this material stems from (which isn't pornographic... by their standards, anyway), I think you'd find that things aren't quite so clear cut. Also, I am not referring to Japan itself when I say "culture"... which is another bridge you'd have to cross, as matters of attraction and sex vary across the globe, obviously.

I have no idea where I'm going this, so I'll try to wrap this up. What I'm trying to get across is that things aren't as straightforward as you make them out to be. In your posts, anyway. I would say that the majority of what is being targeted in the bill is not made by pedophiles for pedophiles, or anything remotely like the "graphic outcome" you asserted it to be. Even if you say the effect is the same, I'm not sure the stuff has rooted itself deeply enough within our cultures to where you can draw a correlation from it to child molestation.

It goes without saying, but unconditional condemnation, especially when based upon suspicion alone, is scary and dangerous shit.

[Alpha]

Soldier, I like how you're bringing this back to context.

This must hit a sore spot if you're speaking like this, Alpha.

Speaking like what exactly? I am not in support of real or created images of children which I would consider inappropriate. Beyond that, as I think you've gathered, I'm not entirely sure what I think.

There are reasons why it is illegal. Those reasons, rather than the fact it is illegal, are what should be cited. I think we can all agree that this act is terrible enough to where we don't need to go into the whys and that it stands that it should be illegal, but... I think it's really important to say something should be using an explanation that more or less amounts to "just because."

I didn't think I needed to go into those reasons. I don't explain why murder is criminal when I say it is wrong to kill people. It is illegal; it's wrong, 'just becuase'. I do think that is adequate, not in all cases, but here at any rate.

More relevant to the ban, I think it's necessary to examine the disconnect between reality and the materials that are being put to question. The place where this stuff comes from has a huge following relative to any one western country, yet the crimes for child molestation (as well as anything similar) remain relatively low. On the other hand, there is a high chance that a person living more westward has never even heard of the stuff up until now... if they've even concerned themselves with the legislation, yet the crime rates in some of these countries (including our respective ones, no doubt) are many times higher.

So you're using a cultural argument to say that it appears worse from a Western audience? Call me a cultural imperialist, but I didn't know that trying to prevent sexual images of children was solely a Western concern.

While I can't verify your relative punishment details, may I ask the revlevance? It stands that, generally, this is a practice which is frowned upon. This is why prohihibitve legislation exists at all, in any context.

Furthermore, I'm not even sure that people who look at this stuff could be considered pedophiles. They may be sick by our standards... but perhaps in a different way. The rift between fantasy and reality for the many who view or pen this stuff and the consequences it generates are just surreal. We have people proclaiming that all they need is 2-D (an important distinction, I suppose) and marrying their pillows for ****'s sake.

I don't believe that there is an 'our standards' issue. Children cannot understand such a form of relationship.

I suppose that your main point here is that this is 'simply a cartoon'. I am not sure if I share that view. If it is wrong in reality (who would permit some of these images to actually be replicated?), then it seems to be as though it is wrong when it is imagined. This brings Jin's point about the representation of fights. Fights have negative consequences realisitically, but no one would ban them in fiction. I am willing to agree conceptually, but I don't think it is a fair comparison. Children being sexually abused by adults (for this is what this legislation ostensibly prohibits), whether in ficton or in reality, is not the same as a fight. You also brought this up:

If we can justify violence in a video game by saying that it isn't real, despite the grotesque excesses to which people take it and how we would quickly and angrily condemn it if it were to take place in reality, it's hardly a stretch to say the same about this.

So do we permit the representation of anything within the realms of fiction to uphold the sanctity of freedom of expression - even if it involves the humilating, abusive, sexually explicit images that are proposed for censorship? There's a reason there has never been a child in Grand Theft Auto.

Honestly, if you ever looked at the culture that this material stems from (which isn't pornographic... by their standards, anyway), I think you'd find that things aren't quite so clear cut. Also, I am not referring to Japan itself when I say "culture"... which is another bridge you'd have to cross, as matters of attraction and sex vary across the globe, obviously.

No, I suppose I have been making things too simple to facilitate a simple discussion on my behalf. However, I uphold the belief that children should be protected from exposure to anything that implicates them as sexual objects. And in this context they are objects. Children could not - ever - hold an interactive part in the relationships proposed by Jin to be natural expressions of sexual desire by select adults.

I have no idea where I'm going this, so I'll try to wrap this up. What I'm trying to get across is that things aren't as straightforward as you make them out to be. In your posts, anyway. I would say that the majority of what is being targeted in the bill is not made by pedophiles for pedophiles, or anything remotely like the "graphic outcome" you asserted it to be. Even if you say the effect is the same, I'm not sure the stuff has rooted itself deeply enough within our cultures to where you can draw a correlation from it to child molestation.

The representation of child molestation is exactly what is being banned:

(7) Those acts are—

(a) the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;

(b) an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;

(c) 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;

(d) 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;

(e) the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);

(f) 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.

If you're asking whether there is a correlation between viewing such images and actually carrying them out, then you're asking the wrong person. Ask Jin: earlier, he claimed that banning it could potentially lead to more carrying it out. As I stated, I found this ridiculous. Without claiming to be knowledgeable, I would suggest a tentaive link between looking at images of something, and actually doing something. I look up information about bands that I like, as well as listening to them. If I found this material enjoyable, would looking at it 'be enough' (I beleive this is an echo of my first post)?

It goes without saying, but unconditional condemnation, especially when based upon suspicion alone, is scary and dangerous shit.

I don't think it is unconditional, although I agree with you, but such issues must be considered on a case-by-case basis.

[Andromeda]

I think more of the concern here is the power that it can grant the government or law enforcement in determining what is and is not acceptable to own. The debate aside about natural or not, I think the general public accepts child abuse in any form to be bad and porn to be especially bad. And I don't think many would end up disagreeing about keeping real children safe from abuse and what not.

However, when it comes down to executing the law and up holding it. I think there could be understandable fear or concern that it goes overboard on what should be safe, but the government does not see it that way. The government ends up trying to cast a very wide net to grab everything remotely threatening and ends up getting innocent ones in the mix. I think that is a very real concern since there are certainly going to be depictions of children naked in anime that are completely rational and safe. Looks a magical girl shows. Wasn't Sailor Moon originally naked in her transformation sequences in the Japan versions? Depending on laws she could be seen as a child, but a rational mind would hardly call it dangerous material. But how would the government view it, which tends to be not always exercise the best judgment?

In an ideal world the government does everything right and thoroughly researches before deciding something is violating the law. Unfortunately, I think it is an honest concern that the government would not do it's proper investigation. Sure it is the media, but look at what happened with Mass Effect when they blow something completely minor up into something far worse than is actually happened in the game.

As I've been saying, I think the concern should be on how this is going to be interpreted during the upholding of it.

[Alpha]

I think it's a little misleading to suggest that 'big bad Government' is to blame. I think that it is reasonable to say, as a matter of principle, that pornographic representations of children are wrong. Now of course there is debate around what that actually refers to. Gemma alluded to this in the OP; I think this is what she wanted the debate centered around.

Your example is a good one. But there must be acknowledgement that for every example where there is a clear grey area, there are numerous cases where it is clear-cut. To solve a problem, there will inevitably be issues of definiton and so forth, but this does not mean that we should abandon a solution.

[Furore]

The big bad government is always to blame! (Mostly)
See the leaked blacklisted sites the Aussie government was planning to filter?
Some of them had no illicit content whatsoever just because of that 'very wide net' Andro mentioned. Censorship by a government body is very dangerous because of it especially if there's no third party keeping their BS in check.

[Jin]

Edit: I apologize for this post in advance. If you want to focus more directly on the topic at hand, I suggest completely ignoring the following post (seriously). Though it isn't irrelevant, it's focused on the undercurrents when the topic at hand is about the surface.

I'm not sure if 'fake' is what it is, but I don't accept it as something that should, in an ideal world, exist. I suppose that sounds horrible, but, as I said, the child does not choose to be part of this relationship (for what else is it?). What if an adult was sexually attracted to your own (future) children? Would you be so accepting of such a person's sexual 'nature'?

Just to be clear, I'm not "accepting" of pedophilia. I think it's pretty, as you said, perverse and I'm certainly not trying to suggest that children are not abused or adversely affected when these desires are acted upon. However, I'm attempting to bypass my own personal and culturally derived morality to look at pedophilia for what it really is. I may be mistaken, and keep in mind I'm talking strictly about the desire, not the action, but what I see is a sexual preference no different from any other. As naturally occurring (by which I mean as innate to a particular person) as any other desire.

I think that's a bit of a cop-out. That's the same as saying that a laptop is a natural object. I suppose that it is logical, for humans are natural (self-occurring), and they developed laptops. However, without the input of humans (or something else equally sentient) a laptop would not exist. Without some type of conditioning, do you really think adults can be sexually attracted to children?

I choose to cop-out then as I do follow the train of thought in your laptop example. But I would argue that with the exception of the standard penis goes in vagina (as it's biologically derived), pedophilia is only based on conditioning as much as any other sexual desire. Again, I'm not a psychologist, so I can't say for sure that sexual desires (by which I don't necessarily mean that person X is attracted to person type Y, but rather that person X finds attribute, idea or action Z sexually enticing) beyond 'penis goes into vagina' are based on conditioning, but I believe they are. I can't see my sexual attraction to stockings to be biologically or genetically derived. I think pedophilia is just another fetish, albeit with more serious consequences than the average.

Control. Control by those who know better, over children. I'm happy with controlling such behavior to protect children.

That's not the kind of control I'm talking about. I'm talking about the control of one's thoughts and desire, not of one's actions. The law itself isn't the means of control - it's just the expression of control. I'm hesitant to use quotes from Foucault as they're probably harder to read than my own structureless blathering, but I think it's pertinent here. From The History of Sexuality:

...the new methods of power whose operation is not ensured by right but by technique, not by law but by normalization, not by punishment but by control, methods that are employed on all levels and in forms that go beyond the state and its apparatus...It is this juridical representation that is still at work in recent analyses concerning the relationships of power to sex. But the problem is not to know whether desire is alien to power, whether it is prior to the law as is often thought to be the case, when it is not rather the law that is perceived as constituting it. This question is beside the point. Whether desire is this or that, in any case one continues to conceive of it in relation to a power that is always juridical and discursive, a power that has its central point in the enunciation of the law. One remains attached to a certain image of power-law, of power-sovereignty, which was traced out by the theoreticians of right and the monarchic institution. It is this image that we must break free of, that is, of the theoretical privilege of law and sovereignty, if we wish to analyze power within the concrete and historical framework of its operation. We must construct an analytics of power that no longer takes law as a model and a code.

The power to marginalize a specific sexual preference as deviancy is carried out prior to law as part of the hegemonic sexual discourse. In a brief, tacked on way to directly connect this with the topic, one can view this ban on animated minor porn as an extension of this discursive power. Whether it's right or wrong is irrelevant. If the hegemonic sexual discourse calls pedophilia a deviancy, pedophilia will be wrong in society's eyes; if it does the opposite, it will be right (or at least acceptable). This is a fatalistic stance, so honestly I don't know where I'm going with this, but I just felt like typing it.

Yeesh, I apologize for this horrendously unstructured (and perhaps somewhat pretentious, haha) post. I'm tired.

[SOLDIER #819]

If anything is out of place or if I misinterpreted something please point it out. I'm in a rush and don't have time to check it over.

Speaking like what exactly? I am not in support of real or created images of children which I would consider inappropriate. Beyond that, as I think you've gathered, I'm not entirely sure what I think.

"****. Now I just used an argument usd by those who say homosexuals are unnatural. I feel dirty."

"Control. Control by those who know better, over children. I'm happy with controlling such behavior to protect children. Afterall, pedophilia is illegal. Why shouldn't graphic outcomes of it not also be illegal?"

I just never expected to hear this sort of stuff from you. But then, everyone has things that they'll fight tooth and nail for. That's normally alright.

I didn't think I needed to go into those reasons. I don't explain why murder is criminal when I say it is wrong to kill people. It is illegal; it's wrong, 'just becuase'. I do think that is adequate, not in all cases, but here at any rate.

Yeah, I understand. I guess it's just something I don't like hearing. Something being "illegal" is never a reason, to me, even if the thing that is illegal is a given in and of itself. Even then, I'd rather just use the given.

So you're using a cultural argument to say that it appears worse from a Western audience? Call me a cultural imperialist, but I didn't know that trying to prevent sexual images of children was solely a Western concern.

Sexual images of REAL children, no question, but not necessarily drawings and various other renderings that may or may not be construed as a child. The whole reason that the legislation in Tokyo was delayed, which apparently is often times used as a method to slowly back away from a failed attempt, was because of the backlash it caused. By who, exactly, I do not know, but it was obviously enough people.

While I can't verify your relative punishment details, may I ask the revlevance? It stands that, generally, this is a practice which is frowned upon. This is why prohihibitve legislation exists at all, in any context.

Regarding acts of child molestation or the drawings, etc.? I am not arguing the former. In fact, my previous post had only to do with the latter. Maybe I wasn't clear enough.

I don't believe that there is an 'our standards' issue. Children cannot understand such a form of relationship.

Okay, I think the subject of my post must have been hazy. Yeah, drawings, not children. No way. Sorry I wasn't clear. I'll take the next part though...

I suppose that your main point here is that this is 'simply a cartoon'. I am not sure if I share that view. If it is wrong in reality (who would permit some of these images to actually be replicated?), then it seems to be as though it is wrong when it is imagined. This brings Jin's point about the representation of fights. Fights have negative consequences realisitically, but no one would ban them in fiction. I am willing to agree conceptually, but I don't think it is a fair comparison. Children being sexually abused by adults (for this is what this legislation ostensibly prohibits), whether in ficton or in reality, is not the same as a fight. You also brought this up:

So would you be willing to admit that a hierarchy of violence exists? That, sometimes, the pain of one person inflicted with the same atrocity is different from the pain of another? I'm not sure I can believe that. Children are prioritized in our society, perhaps out of a sense of wanting to nurture and care for them, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that depictions of one or the other are "more okay." I feel that is the implication of doing so. You'd no doubt agree with me that violence, particularly that which goes beyond a mere "fight", is never a laughing matter.

So do we permit the representation of anything within the realms of fiction to uphold the sanctity of freedom of expression - even if it involves the humilating, abusive, sexually explicit images that are proposed for censorship?.

Rather, if we didn't, would we know where to stop? Lines must be drawn. I think that it must be stopped before it bleeds into artistic expression, even if people believe it to be the most terrible thing on the planet. That is, unless you can find some sort of solid evidence that shows that it is in fact very harmful.

Just for thought: we really do seem to draw a line between sexual violence and other forms and put the former at the top.

No, I suppose I have been making things too simple to facilitate a simple discussion on my behalf. However, I uphold the belief that children should be protected from exposure to anything that implicates them as sexual objects. And in this context they are objects. Children could not - ever - hold an interactive part in the relationships proposed by Jin to be natural expressions of sexual desire by select adults.

What do you define as exposure? Direct exposure to the material itself? People who have viewed the materials?

Which makes me wonder: what else shouldn't they be exposed to? Hmm...

The representation of child molestation is exactly what is being banned...

Those are just words. Given the inherent abstraction of the human form in some art, how can you deem what is a child and what isn't? To get to the point: there exist certain styles of drawing that render people who are at the age of consent appear to some viewers as children. Should they be made to change their style lest they not draw porn at all? What about people drawn in the same style committing or being on the receiving end of violent acts?

Again, I don't think it's all that simple, particularly to the person who makes the material or those who are aware of the culture behind it. However for someone on the "outside", particularly a continent or two apart, it's very easy to condemn it.