NationStates Jolt Archive

Sorry if this has been done before. I'm also not trying to stir up anything: just interested in the responses. For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming people are against actual child pornography.

Do you think CGI child porn should be legal? Or other artificial impressions, such as cartoons, adult actors playing child roles, etc.?

what kind of sick fuck are you?
:mad: :upyours: :mad:

what kind of sick fuck are you?
I'm asking whether it should be legal, not whether you would want to watch it. Which I wouldn't.

Creepy, but if we made everything I found creepy illegal, Christians would never be allowed to have their hole-in-the-sheet sex.

So, umm, I see no reason to make it illegal, unless it leads to more abuse of children. Good luck proving that it does, though.

what kind of sick fuck are you?
:mad: :upyours: :mad:
Oh, do go away.

Don't see anything wrong with it really, as long as its computer generated or involves only consenting adults...no children are being harmed.

Seems fair enough.

I think any kind of child porn should be totally illegalized... we shouldn't encourage anything of this sort

My biggest concen is that( as I understand it) CGI child porn typically uses the faces of real children in these faked scenes. Seems like some sort of privacy violation. If Oprah can sue TV guide for putting her head on Ann Margaret's body without asking her, then there ought to be some personal rights over the use of your own face.

Beyond that, of course, is my usual contempt for pedophiles. But at least the things you describe have no victims(except for the above mentioned privacy invasion).

I'm asking whether it should be legal, not whether you would want to watch it. Which I wouldn't.
well...no!
but then what kind of sick fuck would say yes?

Sorry if this has been done before. I'm also not trying to stir up anything: just interested in the responses. For the purposes of this thread, I'm assuming people are against actual child pornography.

Do you think CGI child porn should be legal? Or other artificial impressions, such as cartoons, adult actors playing child roles, etc.?
This is going to stir up a lot of controversy, which you probably already knew, but I felt I needed to warn you anyway.

Before one can really answer this, one must ask another question: does art--be it CGI, drawn like Japanese lolicon and shotacon--or artificial impressions lead to acts of paedophilia, or do they simply give the paedophile an outlet to masturbate or whatever so s/he doesn't go after actual kids?

Personally, I'm only against real child porn. Anything faked doesn't bother me, because it's not actual kids. But that's just my opinion. I think that, so long as it does not cause more child sex abuse and/or actually lowers child sex abuse rates, then it should be legalized. In all technicality, I don't think any artificial stuff is illegal anyway. Only the actual child porn. =/

People, I think it would be wise if we refrained from insulting this person. S/he has asked an interesting question, and rather than let a liberal knee-jerk response force you to insult him/her, you consider what s/he asked in an academic manner and answer as such. If only to avoid flame wars.

Provided that no children are harmed in it's production and that it doesn't cause people to go out and molest kids it's a free speech issue and it should be legal.

This entire post was pointless and you should really be careful what you post because the admins will delete your nation.

I think any kind of child porn should be totally illegalized... we shouldn't encourage anything of this sort
But how is it child porn if no actual children are involved?

Creepy, but if we made everything I found creepy illegal, Christians would never be allowed to have their hole-in-the-sheet sex.

So, umm, I see no reason to make it illegal, unless it leads to more abuse of children. Good luck proving that it does, though.
seems a bit odd to me....something about people being turned on by cgi but who knows.....

i think that hole in the sheet sex was a middevil thing.....i think we have moved past that, at lest i hope we have...

This entire post was pointless and you should really be careful what you post because the admins will delete your nation.

No rules have been broken so far. It is an interesting question.

But how is it child porn if no actual children are involved?
A good question. Dictionary.com states:

child pornography

n : the illegal use of children in pornographic pictures or films

It would appear that if no actual children are involved, then it is in fact not actually child pornography. I think it would be best if we gave it a new term instead. Lolicon works, so let us go with that.

But how is it child porn if no actual children are involved?
That's the point. With regard to Lunatic Goofballs's concern, I should perhaps emphasise I'm talking about wholly generated images; for the moment, let's put aside the question of using real faces, and assume they can make a completely animated child.

To put this in a different context: do you think this would be protected under the First Amendment in the USA?

The CG Child Porn wouldn't be the problem. The existence of a target audience would be.

Creepy, but if we made everything I found creepy illegal, Christians would never be allowed to have their hole-in-the-sheet sex.
What on earth is 'hole-in-the-sheet' sex?

Sorry if that's a stupid question, I just can't work it out.

Most definitely it should be legal. If no one is harmed, there is no reason to ban it. Should we ban written sex scenes between underage characters, too? What about adult pornography that simulates (but is not really) rape?

the thought of what might be depicted in animated child porn makes my skin crawl but as long as no child is involved in any way in making it, it should be legal.

*shudder*

What on earth is 'hole-in-the-sheet' sex?

Sorry if that's a stupid question, I just can't work it out.
Finally, there's the lazy Jewish guy who thinks that God told him he can do anything through a hole in a sheet, including smoking, eating pork, celebrating Christmas, eating bread during Passover, and committing murder.
http://www.thehurricaneonline.com/media/paper479/news/2003/12/05/LifeArt/Upright.Citizens.Brigade.The.Complete.First.Season-572887.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thehurricaneonline.com

http://www.thehurricaneonline.com/media/paper479/news/2003/12/05/LifeArt/Upright.Citizens.Brigade.The.Complete.First.Season-572887.shtml?norewrite&sourcedomain=www.thehurricaneonline.com
lol, ok... :p

Essentially, the real question is whether a sexual preference towards children is socially tolerable. If it is, there's no problem with CGI kiddie porn any more than there is for any other kind of sexually explicit artwork. However, if it is understood that people do not want others over a certain age to be emotionally inclined towards their children, then it can never be legalised.

What on earth is 'hole-in-the-sheet' sex?

Sorry if that's a stupid question, I just can't work it out.
i thought it was the hassidic jews who had "hole in the sheet sex"

its being so utterly modest that even with sex you only touch each other with the minimum of actual contact possible so you seperate yourself from each other with a sheet between you with a hole just big enough for genital contact only.

Essentially, the real question is whether a sexual preference towards children is socially tolerable. If it is, there's no problem with CGI kiddie porn any more than there is for any other kind of sexually explicit artwork. However, if it is understood that people do not want others over a certain age to be emotionally inclined towards their children, then it can never be legalised.
Would you hold the same for all 'socially intolerable' sexual orientations? There should not be CGI rape or snuff depictions, for example?

Most definitely it should be legal. If no one is harmed, there is no reason to ban it. Should we ban written sex scenes between underage characters, too? What about adult pornography that simulates (but is not really) rape?
Exactly. It becomes a slippery slope. So long as no ACTUAL children are involved, it's legal.

What I find mildly amusing is that most people picture 5-8 year olds when they think of child porn, but in my experience with looking up lolicon and the like for research purposes, most of it actually involves 10-15 year olds.

What I find mildly amusing is that most people picture 5-8 year olds when they think of child porn, but in my experience with looking up lolicon and the like for research purposes, most of it actually involves 10-15 year olds.

...Pete Townshend?

Exactly. It becomes a slippery slope. So long as no ACTUAL children are involved, it's legal.

What I find mildly amusing is that most people picture 5-8 year olds when they think of child porn, but in my experience with looking up lolicon and the like for research purposes, most of it actually involves 10-15 year olds.
I suppose I should have mentioned an age. I would, informally, think of 0-12 as 'child porn' and 12-18 as 'underage' - I'm not sure a distinction is necessary for the purposes of this thread.

And I don't think the 'slippery slope' is necessarily true: I don't believe some European nations' (France, Germany, Italy) laws make a distinction between artificial and real images of child porn - but they do allow some of the other things 'lower down the slope'.

...Pete Townshend?
And other paedophiles. It was for an essay I did for extra credit in my English class last year.

Golgoth: You do have a point there. Still...it just seems like it makes sense to make the distinction. Artificial and real are two different things, and we've made the distinction in many other places. Why not here as well?

And other paedophiles. It was an essay I did for extra credit in my English class last year.

Golgoth: You do have a point there. Still...it just seems like it makes sense to make the distinction. Artificial and real are two different things, and we've made the distinction in many other places. Why not here as well?
Well, I personally agree: I was just trying to say that it would seem some people don't make the distinction, but are otherwise fairly liberal with regards to pornography.

I am also not saying it necessarily could be legalised, simply because I've already been voted a sick fuck 6 times for mentioning it. The same would be true for any politician, and as there's not an especially vocal paedophile voter group, there's no real incentive for anyone in politics to argue for legalisation.

i thought it was the hassidic jews who had "hole in the sheet sex"

Not really, that's a myth. The Jewish attitude towards sex is actually relatively liberal among the monotheistic religions.

And other paedophiles. It was for an essay I did for extra credit in my English class last year.
Well, it was a joke in reference to the "looking up for research purposes" :)

Exactly. It becomes a slippery slope. So long as no ACTUAL children are involved, it's legal.

What I find mildly amusing is that most people picture 5-8 year olds when they think of child porn, but in my experience with looking up lolicon and the like for research purposes, most of it actually involves 10-15 year olds.
thats because the stuff that really turns the true pedophile on is extremely illegal.

as i understand it there are pictures and video out there that are so depraved that seeing it will make you vomit or give you nightmares for a good long time.

so for this demographic animated child porn would be things like the violent rape of toddlers.

Well, I personally agree: I was just trying to say that it would seem some people don't make the distinction, but are otherwise fairly liberal with regards to pornography.

I am also not saying it necessarily could be legalised, simply because I've already been voted a sick fuck 6 times for mentioning it. The same would be true for any politician, and as there's not an especially vocal paedophile voter group, there's no real incentive for anyone in politics to argue for legalisation.
There's always NAMbLA. Or NAMgLA. But those are both too freaky for words.

And I think the child stigma is just too much for people to stand for the most part. Long after gays and lesbains get the rights they deserve, we'll still not see child-adult relationships legalized. Or probably ever. And I hope never too. Nary a one should ever be condoned.

Nadkor: Well...yeah. I knew that. >_>

Not really, that's a myth. The Jewish attitude towards sex is actually relatively liberal among the monotheistic religions.
well then i guess no one has hole-in-the-sheet sex. i always figured it would be a pretense anyway. it would be too easy to fake compliance.