Pornography and Cartoons

http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=716162

I think it's retarded that people can be punished for looking at CP cartoons. I also think that it's counter productive as you can't 'cure' someone of having a particular sexual fetish, so CP cartoons are the only harmless outlet that paedophiles have.

Discuss.

I agree.
He may not even be a pedophile but instead just liked the incest comic and saved it.

And frankly, I'd rather have pedophiles jack off to cartoon porn than real children.

The bullshit charge of "obscenity" rears its head again.

I don't know how I feel. On the one hand, they're just cartoons and on the other it's still feeding an unfortunate fetish. I know it's not illegal to depict CP in drawings in Japan. What if they encourage someone to act on their feelings? Pedophilia is a tricky fetish. It's not uncommon yet very criminal. I don't know how I feel about this... Of course imprisonment won't help the fetish though.

This is a bit like arresting someone for beastiality pron, for owning Urotsukidoji. However no monsters were hurt in the making of Urotsukidoji, just as no children suffered in the making of child pron cartoons. That's the reason child pron is banned right? Exploitation and sexual abuse of children? Not because it looks horrible.

I think the guy should probably have been added to a register as he clearly is interested in child sex, but he hasn't committed a crime and so a sentence seems wrong, as would a fine or anything else.

Ban him from working with kids and all the other things that go with being on the register, but that's all that is necessary.

* 'child sex' is also a banned term on this forum. However beastiality is not

Presumably because the word is 'bestiality'

And yeah being punished for cartoon pr0n makes no sense as the characters are fictional and no actual harm is done. To get around this, surely any loli publisher would simply add a disclaimer saying the characters portrayed within are all 18+? Otherwise surely the same logic would lead to the arrest of every one who has played out or watched a 'naughty schoolgirl/ teacher' fantasy? (between consenting adults.)

Presumably because the word is 'bestiality'

Presumably you can use either.

http://www.definition-of.com/beastiality
http://sex-dictionary.biz/words/beastiality.php

Otherwise surely the same logic would lead to the arrest of every one who has played out or watched a 'naughty schoolgirl/ teacher' fantasy? (between consenting adults.)

Presumably that's 'naughty schoolboy fantasy' to you?

Thork's position on this surprises me.

Thork's position on this surprises me.

I am in agreement with you that cartoon kiddie pron is a 'healthy' outlet for someone harbouring those desires. If you arrested everyone who thought about killing someone else, there would be few of us left on the outside. Its very different to acting out your fantasies. This man knows the difference and is showing he has his desires under control and can reason fantasy from reality.

Spanner in the works though. I don't see how liking children is any different to being gay. If this man can be asked to 'not be himself' and repress his desires, I don't see why homosexuals can't do the same?

Quote from: Vindictus on October 19, 2012, 02:44:13 PM

Thork's position on this surprises me.

I am in agreement with you that cartoon kiddie pron is a 'healthy' outlet for someone harbouring those desires. If you arrested everyone who thought about killing someone else, there would be few of us left on the outside. Its very different to acting out your fantasies. This man knows the difference and is showing he has his desires under control and can reason fantasy from reality.

Spanner in the works though. I don't see how liking children is any different to being gay. If this man can be asked to 'not be himself' and repress his desires, I don't see why homosexuals can't do the same?

I agree, they're two sexual preferences. However, two grown men consenting to having bum secks is not the same as a grown man persuading a child to sex. There's going to be children that are capable of making such a decision, but the vast majority aren't and so it's illegal.

To get around this, surely any loli publisher would simply add a disclaimer saying the characters portrayed within are all 18+? Otherwise surely the same logic would lead to the arrest of every one who has played out or watched a 'naughty schoolgirl/ teacher' fantasy? (between consenting adults.)

The charge is obscenity, not child pornography.  Legally, it is irrelevant whether or not the acts depicted involve children, only that they pass the Miller test.  Almost all pornography is technically obscenity, and therefore illegal.