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

OutlawPete

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Simply solution. Our entire society should become 100% nudists. All the paedophiles will be, eh, noticable when they are around children, and the children won't grow up so self-concious and ashamed of their bodies.

Oh, and we all get to see hot naked women.

It's a win win situation.

Perfect. Also solves the global warming issue as what we will want IS the planet to heat up so we can get back to doing what the f**k we want.

orourkeda

How can it be classed as paedophilia? If he didn't make any physical contact then he can't possibly be classed as a paedophile. The work may not necessarily be appropriate but jumping to conclusions on the basis of his work alone isnt enough to make these kinds of judgements

Ziggurat

To sum up: the individual's sexual proclivities should only be dictated insofar as they have a demonstrable capability to harm others.

I wonder what the law has to say about ero guro, rape fetishists or any of the other odd but nonetheless harmless fetishes.

Lone Stone

I know about a gazzilion people who draw that manga type stuff and make a living doing it lol get over it jesus it's just a style/asian culture kinda thing.

Unless he is like drawing picture's of REAL kids in the nip get over it (i think its called hentai/manga or something like that)

RMD

Reminds me of the case in Britain where as man was charged with possesion of child pornography, the pornography being anime comics showing children having sex so it's not really pornography, it's just comics right?

Personally I think either ways it's disgusting, but if it stopped peado's going after real child pornography I'd support it.

Piste

Won't somebody please of the lines on paper???

Kold

RMD wrote: »

Reminds me of the case in Britain where as man was charged with possesion of child pornography, the pornography being anime comics showing children having sex so it's not really pornography, it's just comics right?

Personally I think either ways it's disgusting, but if it stopped peado's going after real child pornography I'd support it.

Do you reckon it does in any way at all? Paedophilia of course, pre-dating weeabooism by some millenia.

pistonsvox

Kold wrote: »

0_0 I go on 4chan... 2 secs while I go destroy my hard drive.

amount of times pornsites sudddenly link you onto some mingin possibly illegal sites is unreal :mad:

Dub13

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

Oh, and we all get to see hot naked women.

There are also a lot of non hot woman out there that I would not like to see in the nip.

Think about it,next election you are on O'Connell street and Mary Harney rolls up to you looking for your vote.No thanks,keep the clothes on girls.

brummytom

OutlawPete wrote: »

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.

Fair enough - all depends on your interpretation, I suppose.

We come from different generations aswell. My generation has "BE AFRAID OF THE PAEDOS! THAT MAN! HE'S A PAEDO, HE'S GOT A MOUSTACHE" drummed into them constantly, evidently, it's working...
A lot of the posters here come from generations with less bubble-wrapped children, and are less likely to see something innocent as 'wrong'

Overheal

From deviantart's etiquette policy:

Mature Content

When we discuss mature content we are specifically referring to deviations which contain images, subject matter, or other themes which some viewers may find offensive, distasteful, or otherwise undesirable to view or to read. The most common ‘undesired’ viewing material may include, but is not limited to, images containing artistic nudity (see details below), large amounts of simulated blood and gore, or generally violent themes.
DeviantART strictly prohibits the submission of materials classified as pornographic or obscene. There is no exception to this prohibition.
Certain content may be deemed obscene by the administration and as such the staff reserves the right to remove such content immediately upon discovery. The administration reserves the sole right to review and classify questionable material as obscene or not obscene.
Model release forms

The deviantART administrative staff reserves the right to demand a Model Release form be provided for any photography (nude or otherwise) located within either your Gallery or Scrapbook areas. In the event that you receive such a request an appropriate link will be included in the notification you received. Failure to properly respond to a Model Release form demand within seven (7) days will result in the automatic removal of the associated photograph.
For your own protection it is highly recommended that you have any model who poses for you sign a release form giving you the explicit permission to publish, share, distribute, and otherwise display the associated images. It is highly recommended that you provide this form immediately after submitting your photograph, especially if your subject is depicted nude. Details of this process may be found in the official deviantART FAQ.
Underage models

We cannot allow any nude works featuring individuals under the age of 18, nor may the works depict these individuals in a ‘sexually driven’ manner such as posing in lingerie or displaying a sexually suggestive or provocative pose.
This prohibition is for legal reasons; the laws in the United States are the governing laws in regards to all submissions regardless of the deviant’s country of origin. Photographs which are suspected of depicting a minor in this manner will be temporarily suspended from public view and proper legal documentation (as outlined above) will be demanded while photographs which clearly depict a minor (including toddlers, preteens, and teenagers) in this manner will be removed without notice.
Submissions of a non- photographic nature which clearly depict a minor, fictional character or otherwise, either nude or in a sexually driven manner will be removed and deleted without notice as they come to the attention of the staff.

The artist the OP is referring to:

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.

By the OP's own language, these are semi-nude. Are they Pornographic? Are they obscene? There are a lot (a lot a lot) of nude art pieces on deviantart (several of them featured regularly) which would not be considered pornographic and I would not consider pornographic - these are full nude shots, bits and all.

Also take into account 6 million views? You think nobody has reported the guy yet?

I doubt whatever the Artist has displayed in his gallery is breaching the site's guidelines which are frameworked around United States law. Thats not to say he has never uploaded art which crossed the line and had it removed. But you as the viewer have no way of seeing with the naked eye which pieces of art have been removed by site administrators, if any.

You may as well attempt to report the art - reports are anonymous. If you feel the artist has breached the rules, in particular perhaps to

nude works featuring individuals under the age of 18, nor may the works depict these individuals in a ‘sexually driven’ manner such as posing in lingerie or displaying a sexually suggestive or provocative pose.

mahamageehad

It's cartoons not real people!!! This world is gone completely PC crazy

griffdaddy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA07Tw4iEFw

OutlawPete

griffdaddy wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fA07Tw4iEFw

I posted all three parts on some thread here before. Classics.

They were very relevant ten years ago but now they are even more so.

brendansmith

Anyone who looks at that art is a pedophile. Even if they accidently see it for a second. They should be eaten alive!

CrazyRabbit

brendansmith wrote: »

Anyone who looks at that art is a pedophile. Even if they accidently see it for a second. They should be eaten alive!

I'll PM some to you....

Do you have any fava beans?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

brendansmith wrote: »

Anyone who looks at art is a pedophile. They should be eaten alive!

FYP

/thread.

OutlawPete

brendansmith wrote: »

Anyone who looks at that art is a pedophile. Even if they accidently see it for a second. They should be eaten alive!

You've watched the Brass Eye spoof docu, haven't you

OK-Cancel-Apply

Didn't they show Bart Simpon's peen in the Simpons movie?

JTER

Just another law student here

The act does indeed prohibit all representations be they cartoon or computer generated. Section 2 defines child pornography as

1) any representation of a child or a depiction of a child exgaged in explicit sexual activity - this would cover that japanese one, it does not matter if she is actually 103 in real life. If she looks under 17 she is classed as child pornography

2)" relates to person who is or is depicted as being a child" who witnesses or is depicted as witnessing such above acitivity by other persons.

3)whose dominant characteristic is the depiction , for a sexual purpose, of the genital or anal region of the child.

So for instance if you were to create art of a stone age family around a camp fire naked , as long as the explicit regions are merely ancillary it would likely fall outside the act

As to those fuzzy liberals saying the world has gone mad,, i agree with you, but may i point to you the act of grooming. this is were pedophiles show this material to children in the effort to desensitize or impose the impression that this activity is normal. The gravity of the offence and the horrendous abuse involved i believe calls for such a broad offence.

jaykhunter

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.

I completely agree. I don't know where pseudo-intellectuals can get off calling pornographic/pedophilic imagery "art" just because it took talent to draw/take a picture. However you want to qualify it, it's still (eg) a picture of a naked underage girl.

I'd be more lenient towards an anime drawing than a true-to-life portait of a naked girl though, because a drawing isn't 'realistic'.

I think it's somewhat apropriate here :

Peter Griffin : What's the difference between pornography and art?
Quagmire : Here is comes...
Peter Griffin : A government grant!

OutlawPete

JTER wrote: »

If she looks under 17 she is classed as child pornography.

Same in the UK.

That's why all those 'Barely legal' clips on the YouTube sites are so dangerous. The stuff with Kitty when she looked 12 and other girls like her a very dangerous .. the law, most certainly is an ass.