Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Drawing nude/semi-nude underage girls - is that also pedophilia?

  • 29-11-2009 11:36am
    #1
    experiMental
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭


    This is slightly serious, cos me and my mate (who is a moderator of popular art website Deviant Art) had a heated discussion about this.

    So this is basically the story: someone, who says he has a college degree (definitely older than 18), draws semi-naked underage anime/animu girls, and uploads his stuff to Deviant Art. Some of the stuff is really borderline, yet he manages to get 6 million views, and a strong community of followers. My mate was thinking of warning him, but he changed his mind.

    Is that kind of stuff acceptable as art or is he some kind of sick f*ck that's going to be the next Garry Glitter?


«13

Comments

  • #2
    Gordon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,524 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


    Your mate should notify the owners of the website, they should make that judgement call for him if he is unsure.


  • #3
    brummytom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,572 ✭✭✭✭brummytom


    Unfortunately, it's accepted as art.

    But In reality, it's just thinly disguised paedophilic images. Shouldn't be allowed, but for some reason, it is.


  • #4
    Sea Sharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,593 ✭✭✭Sea Sharp


    It seems wrong to me.
    there's definitely a grey area due to the fact that it's cartoon drawings.


  • #5
    SV
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,534 ✭✭✭SV


    It's called lolicon and it's illegal in Ireland.


  • #6
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    experiMental wrote: »
    This is slightly serious, cos me and my mate (who is a moderator of popular art website Deviant Art) had a heated discussion about this.

    So this is basically the story: someone, who says he has a college degree (definitely older than 18), draws semi-naked underage anime/animu girls, and uploads his stuff to Deviant Art. Some of the stuff is really borderline, yet he manages to get 6 million views, and a strong community of followers. My mate was thinking of warning him, but he changed his mind.

    Is that kind of stuff acceptable as art or is he some kind of sick f*ck that's going to be the next Garry Glitter?

    Of course he does. Most of the people on Deviant Art (former bastion of all things awesome in the public art zone ) are now, well, 16 year old kids who use it as a dump for party pictures and horribly sketches.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    MrStuffins
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,256 ✭✭✭✭MrStuffins


    SV wrote: »
    It's called lolicon and it's illegal in Ireland.

    Wait, i'm confused.

    Is he drawing actual girls, like has a real girl in front of him and is sketching them? Or are these images he's invented in his head and putting to paper?


  • #8
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    experiMental wrote: »
    This is slightly serious, cos me and my mate (who is a moderator of popular art website Deviant Art) had a heated discussion about this.

    So this is basically the story: someone, who says he has a college degree (definitely older than 18), draws semi-naked underage anime/animu girls, and uploads his stuff to Deviant Art. Some of the stuff is really borderline, yet he manages to get 6 million views, and a strong community of followers. My mate was thinking of warning him, but he changed his mind.

    Is that kind of stuff acceptable as art or is he some kind of sick f*ck that's going to be the next Garry Glitter?

    without seeing the "art" its difficult to judge but how do you know the anime/animu girls are underage - or is it that the bodies he draws are undeveloped.
    A LOT of Manga/Anime fans enjoy the subservient nature of the characters - ie the young school girl fantasy that is allegedy every mans dream (does nothing for me) ..... anyway - its possible that the followers he has are just admirers of his work.

    I know a woman in her mid/late 30's who draws anime characters similar to what you have described - I dont know if she has a following or not but I dont view the images as porn - some of the drawings are fairly erotic.

    in short I understand your viewpoint - you are concerned about your friend - its possible that there are Paedo's amongst his followers although they usually go for actual images rather than cartoon drawings so highly unlikely. your friend more than likely has a fanbase of kids who identify with the characters and/or hardcore anime fans.

    I believe that if your friend has potential to be successful for his work - look at it this way - if he charged every viewer €1 subscription fee (or even €5-€10 a month/year) for access to his work - he'd be a multi millionaire.


  • #9
    My name is URL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,069 ✭✭✭✭My name is URL


    I heard this story last month - http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/10/29/11570841.html

    makes you wonder where the legal line is tbh


  • #10
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,627 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    I'm assuming there're no live models involved.

    Just to turn this on it's head, there's a nude sculpture of a boy of about 12 by Canova in the National Art Gallery. Paedophilia or Art?

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #11
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    Ikky Poo2 wrote: »
    I'm assuming the later there's no live models involved.

    Just to turn this on it's head, there's a nude sculpture of a boy of about 12 by Canova in the National Art Gallery. Paedophilia or Art?

    Art if you look at it, Paedophilia if you put anything in it's mouth.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    PCPhoto
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    Dragan wrote: »
    Art if you look at it, Paedophilia if you put anything in it's mouth.

    by that definition then people with child/kiddie porn on their computers are viewing "ART"


  • #13
    The_Minister
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    It is illegal in Ireland, Child Trafficking and Pornography Act, 1998.

    Even if they are 18, and you represent them as being underage, it's child porn.
    The Act, section 2 (1) wrote:
    "child pornography" means—

    [GA] (a) any visual representation—

    [GA] (i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

    [GA] (ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or

    [GA] (iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child,

    [GA] (b) any audio representation of a person who is or is represented as being a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,

    [GA] (c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or

    [GA] (d) any visual representation or description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of section 3,


  • #14
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 17,378 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Illegal in Ireland but legal in most of the world so it's grand on Deviantart I guess..


  • #15
    Dragan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,497 ✭✭✭✭Dragan


    PCPhoto wrote: »
    by that definition then people with child/kiddie porn on their computers are viewing "ART"

    It wasn't a definition, it was a joke in AH.

    If you want a serious discussion on something, here is not the place for it mate.


  • #16
    Sofaspud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,625 ✭✭✭Sofaspud


    Wasn't somebody in the UK put on the register a while ago, for having sexual images of The Simpsons on his phone?


  • #17
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,627 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Serious dicsussion has been known to brea out here, in fairness...
    (disusting - I know...)

    Based on the Minister's quote above, it really depends on the images and who's looking at them. I might thin they're innocent, a judge might think otherwise, or vise versa. Some people think a nude image of a child is automatically child porn for some reason, now matter how devoid of sexuality it is (always worry about this people).

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • #18
    The_Minister
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,255 ✭✭✭✭The_Minister


    Sofaspud wrote: »
    Wasn't somebody in the UK put on the register a while ago, for having sexual images of The Simpsons on his phone?

    There was a case in Australia (I'm too scared to Google), where a man who had that picture of Bart and Lisa having sex was convicted of child pornography.


  • #19
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that." — Justice Potter Stewart, concurring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio 378 U.S. 184 (1964), regarding possible obscenity in The Lovers

    In Ireland, the test for illegal child pornography is
    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1998/en/act/pub/0022/sec0002.html#zza22y1998s2 wrote:
    "child pornography" means—
    [GA]

    (a) any visual representation—
    [GA]

    (i) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is engaged in or is depicted as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,
    [GA]

    (ii) that shows or, in the case of a document, relates to a person who is or is depicted as being a child and who is or is depicted as witnessing any such activity by any person or persons, or
    [GA]

    (iii) whose dominant characteristic is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of a child,
    [GA]

    (b) any audio representation of a person who is or is represented as being a child and who is engaged in or is represented as being engaged in explicit sexual activity,
    [GA]

    (c) any visual or audio representation that advocates, encourages or counsels any sexual activity with children which is an offence under any enactment, or
    [GA]

    (d) any visual representation or description of, or information relating to, a child that indicates or implies that the child is available to be used for the purpose of sexual exploitation within the meaning of section 3,
    [GA]

    irrespective of how or through what medium the representation, description or information has been produced, transmitted or conveyed and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, includes any representation, description or information produced by or from computer-graphics or by any other electronic or mechanical means but does not include—
    [GA]

    (I) any book or periodical publication which has been examined by the Censorship of Publications Board and in respect of which a prohibition order under the Censorship of Publications Acts, 1929 to 1967, is not for the time being in force,
    [GA]

    (II) any film in respect of which a general certificate or a limited certificate under the Censorship of Films Acts, 1923 to 1992, is in force, or
    [GA]

    (III) any video work in respect of which a supply certificate under the Video Recordings Acts, 1989 and 1992, is in force;

    Not all nude / semi-nude images of children are child pornography. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any given picture won't be used as pornography.


  • #20
    sron
    Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭sron


    Isn't the point of criminalising paedophilia to protect children? If no children are being harmed, what's the problem? Just because you find what someone **** over disgusting doesn't mean he should face a jail term. Edges on thought-crime in a way.


  • #21
    Princess Consuela Bananahammock
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,627 ✭✭✭✭Princess Consuela Bananahammock


    Victor wrote: »

    Not all nude / semi-nude images of children are child pornography. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that any given picture won't be used as pornography.

    True, but you could say that about a pair of high-heel shoes.

    Everything I don't like is either woke or fascist - possibly both - pick one.



  • Advertisement
  • #22
    ToniTuddle
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭ToniTuddle


    The_Minister wrote: »
    There was a case in Australia (I'm too scared to Google), where a man who had that picture of Bart and Lisa having sex was convicted of child pornography.


    Jaysus :eek:

    Those pictures were sent around like wildfire when they first came out. I'd say they are still on some peoples phones.


  • #23
    WindSock
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,239 ✭✭✭✭WindSock


    Hard to say really. It's not exploiting any child or young teenager in real life, but you do have to wonder about peoples obsession with erotic pictures of under developed school girls. Afterall, isn't it their innocence, youth and vulnerability that makes it appealing?

    If I were a still a young girl of school going age, I'm sure I would have felt slightly uncomfortable if I were shown these pictures by an adult male. However how he could manage to muster up any sort of fantasy with my manky uniform, I don't know.


  • #24
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    sron wrote: »
    Isn't the point of criminalising paedophilia to protect children? If no children are being harmed, what's the problem? Just because you find what someone **** over disgusting doesn't mean he should face a jail term. Edges on thought-crime in a way.
    The line has to be drawn somewhere.

    There is a thin edge of the wedge argument. It is a bit like claiming you should be able to do 100km/h down O'Connell Street, provided you don't actually hurt anybody.


  • #25
    sron
    Registered Users Posts: 264 ✭✭sron


    Victor wrote: »
    The line has to be drawn somewhere.

    There is a thin edge of the wedge argument. It is a bit like claiming you should be able to do 100km/h down O'Connell Street, provided you don't actually hurt anybody.

    **** to this kind of pornography does not have any potential to hurt anyone, unlike the example above. If said wanker commits an offence against a young girl later, well then there's laws to deal with that.

    Also, a common trope of regular pornography is teacher/student sex. It's rarely implied that the character is of legal age (though the actor is), so does this not depict the kind of sex that has been declared illegal by the laws already posted here. It's also worth noting that student/teacher relations are illegal, so does this type of porn not promote an illegal sexual act much in the way some have said this lolicon stuff does?


  • #26
    Ziggurat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 280 ✭✭Ziggurat


    Ah but isn't it reasonable to say that even the most careful cyclist would have the potential to harm someone at that speed?

    This is rather like the argument about violent video games. No reasonable person would say they turn people into raging psychopaths yet it's readily accepted that drawn images of child porn makes one want to sexually abuse children.
    To me, at least, it seems more concerned with protecting the delicate moral sensibilities of people than protecting the...lines on paper.


  • #27
    Victor
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 78,490 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Ziggurat wrote: »
    This is rather like the argument about violent video games. No reasonable person would say they turn people into raging psychopaths
    But what is missed in that discussion is that both video games and violent video games should have reasonable boundaries, e.g. you shouldn't drive immediately after 12 hours of gaming as both visual (depth perception) and mental focus can be off (10 points for hitting that pensioner crossing the road).

    Society is saying the is no tolerable level of child pornography. Now, if only they would extend that to age appropriate clothing and TV watching for their 11 year olds.
    sron wrote: »
    **** to this kind of pornography does not have any potential to hurt anyone, unlike the example above.
    And what of high-end computer generated images that are difficult to distinguish from photography? Where does one draw the line?


  • #28
    Doc
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Doc


    Without having seen any of the images how can any of you judge if it is or not. I personally think it is wrong that an artists work be associated with pedophilia just because it depicts nude or semi nude children. There is nothing wrong with an image of a child naked but there is something wrong with someone seeing it as a sexual image.


  • #29
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    Paedophilia - The sexual attraction to pre pubescant children.


    So, no, this isn't paedophilia.


  • #30
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    Victor wrote: »
    Where does one draw the line?
    Possibly when a child ends up getting molested.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    brummytom wrote: »
    Unfortunately, it's accepted as art.

    But In reality, it's just thinly disguised paedophilic images. Shouldn't be allowed, but for some reason, it is.

    Sorry BB, gonna disagree with a post of yours for the first time. The day had to come in fairness :)

    There is such hoopla about children's naked bodies that, quite frankly, I wish I was an artist so I could spend all day doing it and go to jail for it too.

    It's the human body for crying out loud. I think the human race is mentally ill to censor any artist from painting any naked / nude body from his imagination. The world has gone mad.


  • #32
    chopperbyrne
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,040 ✭✭✭✭chopperbyrne


    Would it be this kind of thing?

    Probably NSFW, but features no nudity.

    http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/6379/000009e4006.jpg


  • #33
    OctavarIan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,736 ✭✭✭OctavarIan


    Doc wrote: »
    Without having seen any of the images how can any of you judge if it is or not. I personally think it is wrong that an artists work be associated with pedophilia just because it depicts nude or semi nude children.

    This.

    I can't understand the mentality of someone who'd say any image of naked/semi-naked children is child pornography. I mean, take obvious examples everyone knows like charity advertisements and wartime photojournalism. Yes there are naked children in them, but there's nothing sexual about them. Like the statute says, it's child porn if the child is depicted in a sexual act or if the focus of the image is solely on the genitals. Without seeing the images the OP was talking about it's impossible to say if they did cross that line, and no-one should attempt to do so.


  • #34
    Notorious
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,167 ✭✭✭Notorious


    33 posts and nobody has asked for pics?

    AH used to be cool.


  • #35
    mike65
    Closed Accounts Posts: 88,972 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    If its the kind of thing Chopperbyrne linked then most of Japan would be in jail (if they were in Ireland) Japan the land of the used undies tray.

    http://www.snopes.com/risque/kinky/panties.asp


  • #36
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    mike65 wrote: »
    If its the kind of thing Chopperbyrne linked then most of Japan would be in jail (if they were in Ireland) Japan the land of the used undies tray.

    http://www.snopes.com/risque/kinky/panties.asp

    There is a japanese pornstar called Kitty. She looks way younger than the girl in the OP. Last year a judge in the UK convicted a guy of having child porn on his PC because he had a ton oh her clips.

    His solicitor protested that the girl was 18-21 years of age on all clips but the judge said the law in the UK is clear. The girl looks like a child and so it's hardcore child pornography.

    He got seven years.

    Realises nobody is reading this as they are all off Google'ing Kitty the Japanese Pornstar :)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    D
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,173 ✭✭✭D


    I thought it was ruled that even images depicting underage people was illegal.


  • #38
    Ziggurat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 280 ✭✭Ziggurat


    I see your point, Victor, but isn't it fair to say that such debilitating effects could be seen in any reasonable person? Whatever about mental focus (heightened levels of adrenaline would not be conducive to a calm driving experience, I admit) a change in depth perception would be more easily observed.

    I don't think you can say that any reasonable person, after viewing drawn images of child porn, will go out and molest children.


  • #39
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    There is a japanese pornstar called Kitty. She looks way younger than the girl in the OP. Last year a judge in the UK convicted a guy of having child porn on his PC because he had a ton oh her clips.

    His solicitor protested that the girl was 18-21 years of age on all clips but the judge said the law in the UK is clear. The girl looks like a child and so it's hardcore child pornography.

    He got seven years.

    Realises nobody is reading this as they are all off Google'ing Kitty the Japanese Pornstar :)
    It's this sort of thing that shows that the laws are too strict rather than lax. The law is clear? I thought, and I'm pretty sure most people think that the law is that if the girl is under 18, it's illegal. If this starts a precedent, who knows what will be deemed as looking under 18? We'll all be forced to appreciate massive breasts and asses and MILF porn will be all that's left on the net.

    As a citizen, I resent that the actions of a few terrorists restrict my freedom and privacy. As an artist, I resent that the actions of several other minority groups restrict what I can draw on a piece of paper.
    Lolicon is pretty pathetic but so is Hentai imo. I don't see how it harms anyone however so making it illegal seems more of a control thing. As a libertarian, all pointless laws irritate me and when no child is being exploited here, this seems like a pointless law to me. Like it or not, some people have unhealthy sexual appetites, it is not for us to flush them out until it becomes clear that the person is a danger to society.


  • #40
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Kold wrote: »
    As a citizen, I resent that the actions of a few terrorists restrict my freedom and privacy. As an artist, I resent that the actions of several other minority groups restrict what I can draw on a piece of paper..

    If you read the court reports you would be shocked to the core (both here and the UK) at what people are jailed for and on what loose evidence.

    For instance.

    Everytime you VIEW a wepage it can have hundreds of little jpegs and gifs. Your browser stores these images in it's cache. The cache uses your PC's hardrive and so now all these images are recoverable using software.

    Now you may have only viewed that webpage once but according to the law. If an image is found on your hard disk you are guilty of 'making' that image.


  • #41
    Bonavox
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,713 ✭✭✭Bonavox


    Well wasn't Barts penis shown in The Simpsons Movie? We don't see Matt Groening getting arrested =/


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Kold
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    OutlawPete wrote: »
    If you read the court reports you would be shocked to the core (both here and the UK) at what people are jailed for and on what loose evidence.

    For instance.

    Everytime you VIEW a wepage it can have hundreds of little jpegs and gifs. Your browser stores these images in it's cache. The cache uses your PC's hardrive and so now all these images are recoverable using software.

    Now you may have only viewed that webpage once but according to the law. If an image is found on your hard disk you are guilty of 'making' that image.
    0_0 I go on 4chan... 2 secs while I go destroy my hard drive.


  • #43
    kowloon
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,507 ✭✭✭✭kowloon


    WindSock wrote: »
    However how he could manage to muster up any sort of fantasy with my manky uniform, I don't know.

    I think the uniforms they go for would be less convent girl with an oversized jumper (you'll grow into it dear) and more Britney in a mini. :eek:


  • #44
    Gummy Panda
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,919 ✭✭✭✭Gummy Panda


    Kold wrote: »
    0_0 I go on 4chan... 2 secs while I go destroy my hard drive.

    Throw it in the microwave man. I seen it in a film once..


  • #45
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    Bono Vox wrote: »
    Well wasn't Barts penis shown in The Simpsons Movie? We don't see Matt Groening getting arrested =/

    I wanna see Marge's lady bits and then see her banged by Mo the Bartender over the kitchen table while Homer sleeps.


  • #46
    RealEstateKing
    Closed Accounts Posts: 432 ✭✭RealEstateKing


    (1) The main reason why pictures of naked children are illegal is because it involves the actual exploitation and brutalisation of a child to make them. If the picture in question is a drawing, then this doesnt apply, assuming it wasn't drawn from life.

    (2) Second issue is how sexualised the picture is. There is nothing wrong with pictures of naked children per se - Western Art is full of Cherubs, Cupids and frolicking nymphs and so on to Nirvanas Nevermind. It is when the image is sexualised that it enters the greay area.

    (3) The most controversial element is the sexualisation of young, but not actually pre-pubescent girls. We, have, for the sake of convenience, set a bar at 16 below which it is illegal to go. But of course this bar has no basis in nature: An individual only has mental problems if he is sexually interested in girls/boys below the age where they become sexually mature (13 or so). It is perfectly natural to have some sexual interest in Girls/boys after that age, though of course not entirely indicative of a healthy adult attitude to matters sexual. (i.e. it's a bit sad, but not actually sick)

    The Japanese anime type stuff seems to be playing into this area of male sexuality. the desire for young, skinny, weak-looking teenage girls. Its not entirely healthy, but as long as the girls in question are sexually mature, and no actual girls are involved in the making of the pictures, I wouldnt worry about it too much.


  • #47
    o1s1n
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 35,248 ✭✭✭✭o1s1n
    Master of the Universe


    This really annoys me. People should be able to draw or create whatever imagery they want. It's just extending your ideas down on to paper. Banning it is verging on thought police.

    In all my years in art college a lot of the imagery I saw created by students was extremely sexual. Some of it did involve what appeared to be children. No children were harmed or used as sources in the process. It was all from their (rather disturbed) minds. Therefore it is not child pornography.

    This is just the usual 'OMFG CHILD PORNZ THINK OF THE CHILDERS BAN CENSOR AH AH AH' over reactionary bull. They need to go after actual child pornographers and leave these easy targets alone.


  • #48
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    o1s1n wrote: »
    This is just the usual 'OMFG CHILD PORNZ THINK OF THE CHILDERS BAN CENSOR AH AH AH' over reactionary bull. They need to go after actual child pornographers and leave these easy targets alone.

    People love to hate pedos almost as much as they love chocolate.


  • #49
    minidazzler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,739 ✭✭✭✭minidazzler


    TBH, this is a humanities debate, it has more to do with morals.

    I have no problem with it TBH, none at all. It's drawings of people who don't exist, noone is being exploited or hurt. I don't view it because TBH, I am not a huge art fan. But if people like it, then more power to him.


  • #50
    bluto63
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,228 ✭✭✭bluto63


    Pornography has no artistic merit and is solely for the purpose of stimulating someone sexually. If that's all this image has done it is pornography. However, if this wasn't the purpose of the image well then it's art


  • #51
    OutlawPete
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,689 ✭✭✭✭OutlawPete


    bluto63 wrote: »
    Pornography has no artistic merit and is solely for the purpose of stimulating someone sexually. If that's all this image has done it is pornography. However, if this wasn't the purpose of the image well then it's art

    Yes, but the point is .. society does not always see it as black and white. Many people have done time over having 'art' on their PC.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement