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

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

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.

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.

(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.

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.

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.

This.

Some 30 year old taking time out of playing WoW to **** over some badly drawn 7 year olds is pretty ****ed up, but no-one gets hurt by it and it'd be pretty unfair to treat him the same as a child rapist (obviously he wouldn't get nearly as severe a punishment and may not get jail time even, but once a newspaper picks up on the story everyone will be led to believe he's the evil offspring of Charles Manson and Josef Fritzl)