It's not an "Anime" ban.

[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]

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?