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

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

  • 29-11-2009 10:36am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,137 ✭✭✭experiMental


    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?


«134

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 35,523 ✭✭✭✭Gordon


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


  • Registered Users 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.


  • Registered Users 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.


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


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


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


    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
  • Registered Users Posts: 19,145 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,584 ✭✭✭PCPhoto


    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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,042 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,875 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • 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
  • Registered Users 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"


  • Registered Users 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.
    "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,


  • Posts: 17,381 Cassidy Moldy Sonar


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


  • 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.


  • Registered Users 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?


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,875 ✭✭✭✭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.



  • Registered Users 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭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
    "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.


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 32,875 ✭✭✭✭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
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,964 ✭✭✭ToniTuddle


    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.


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • 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?


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 78,218 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Registered Users 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


    Paedophilia - The sexual attraction to pre pubescant children.


    So, no, this isn't paedophilia.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,778 ✭✭✭✭Kold


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


  • Advertisement
  • 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.


Advertisement