wow, that story's been getting around. At first I thought you meant you were going to start drawing cub porn I was like 'Oh no" =(

Oh fck no, never!

XD

That guy's comment was the reason I didn't post an answer to your last one.


*crosses fingers and hopes with you*

Haha, I guess you were just waiting for someone to spam me before you spoke up so you wouldn't get deleted in the process as well, LOL

something along those lines :P

Rule of the Internet 101:

The internet is an open source for creativity and ideas. Whether you agree or like the idea is totally subjective.

My Thoughts:

Personally, I don't agree with it, unless it's something in historical context (Greco-Roman, Pre-Islam Arabian, and Navite African and American cultures). You can't erase history because it's not comfortable, but it's also not right to blow it out of proportion, which in this case, some of those that enjoy this kind of sexual game do. The one problem is that those that like that kind of pornography are still living in the sexual eras of the 1800's and earlier, in which men lived longer than women, so they had to marry them younger, or in the times of Ancient Greece in which sexuality was free and open. The problem is that they have not moved on mentally from that point, and try to explain that it's natural and right, even though it causes severe psychological and possibly physical damage to their "lover".

Historical note: In most ancient cultures, male children that had had sexual relationships with other males were expected to grow out of that relationship by the time they were men and were able to get married.

Me too.

There is absolutely no logical reason or even try to rationalize child porn.

It;s about time.

Agreed, but you have to remember that someone will always fight it, like NAMBLA (not the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes).

They stole their URL, you know ;D

Yeah. they've been fighting for domain rights for years.

But whoever fights it will be a total minority. Surely only paedofiles would object to this.

Pedophiles would, but the question now becomes how far this bill would reach and whether or not it would try to change or destroy unfavorable history.

I don't think history is really an issue here. It's about protecting the present and the future in this, a totally different society. Discussing the history of paedophilia is not productive to this issue.

What I'm saying is how far does this bill go. Will it try to erase pieces of history that is viewed as unpleasant? And what else will it do? Does it ban all pictures of children or cubs, even those that are totally plutonic? And what else is on this bill? They usually get pork barrelled so what else is on the bill?

I too hope it does. It won't fully end it, but some regulation will be a damn good step forward.

It's a very good thing. A lot of people have been desensitized to the internet, and they think that the things they do online don't matter and have no weight in the real world. Letting people know that their actions online have real life consequences will be a huge wake-up call for society in general.

too little too late..... but its a start!!!!!

did I actually spam? o_ô

if I did, I apologies. the wifi connection is shaky over here and it often cuts while I reply so it loops something when I connect again and it ends up putting 10 comments with the same text in the same journal entry.

Nah it wasn't you, but thanks for the just in case apology, lol

oh n.n

Wow ... who the hell does that kind of crap? Anyway, i'm a shotacon but i'd never resort to stuff like actual CP. That's just ew. i'd prefer children to be my KIDS, not my objects of desire. If i knew Juan Gotoh used actual children/teenagers as models, i'd say "fudge that" and return to pirating regular hentai on 4chan.

i'll concede that i have downloaded Pico to Chico and Boku no Pico, but the first time i downloaded them from Aarin-Fantasy (or whatever that translation group was called) they stressed REPEATEDLY that while they translated it, they do not condone the act of having sex with minors. i agree with them, and i'm glad that there is a law trying to be made to prevent further abuse of children like this.

In light of the raid on the FLDS campus in Texas and the guess that one of the elders was the father of at least 50 children (and HUSBAND to quite a few of the girls), i can only stress this enough - i beat off to the art and to my own fetish (orgasmic expressions), not to the "children" in these doujin.

However, for the fur world, there is a blurred "line." What defines cub? What defines adult? It's sadly all about perception, and for the real perverts out there, i'm afraid they will give this line - "they'll like it, no matter what the age." Bullshart. Even i (again, a shotacon) would agree that you don't treat ANYONE like a sex object or someone of "love," let alone children.

i just hope that this law will make a more strict definition on CP.

One of our other news companies over here also did a report on how people are creating child avatars in Second Life for the perposes of sex. They also showed an online interview with someone over it. The avatar interviewed was a tiger furry...
Just a thought.
At least if it doesn't deal with 'cub art' and animal depictions, it might atleast deal with anime, where the subject is obviously more humanoid.

look man, I jack off at this kind of stuff. does this automatically make me a pedophile?

I despise real child molesters as much as everyone else. I have no problem with something made using pencils though.

sorry.

Neither do i, but i'd rather the artists use anatomy books instead of kids.

Gives to his adored mommy a Dominatrix's cat-o'-nine-tails:D

I dunno. I'd much rather a pedo get off to a bunch of CG and whatever, then go out and find actual children to get his rocks off with. If they make computer generated and pencil art of kiddie porn illegal to have, then these people will have no safe outlet and will then have to resort to going after real children. Getting rid of the porn won't make pedophiles go away, I'm afraid, and I'd rather they get their rocks off to stuff something fake then to have to involve real lie children.

If it's found people are involving actual children, toss them in jail for the rest of their lives and let them be Bubba's new butt buddy, but if it's all purely CG then it isn't hurting anyone and it's better than if they DO hurt someone.

Or if they have nothing to get their rocks off to online, they could learn to have normal sexual outlets that don't involve pedophile rape, because they realize if the law cracks down that hard on online porn, that it would crack down even harder on someone if they tried something IRL

The sad truth is, though, that it won't end up like that. Pedos can't help being how they are, no matter how sick and twisted everyone else sees them to be. If you take away a harmless outlet for their desires, they'll have to go to the real thing instead. The numbers of children being abused will likely go up as a result of any laws passed that make computer generated images against the law.

In a perfect world they would just start having "normal sexual outlets" but then again, in a perfect world we wouldn't have this problem to begin with. If people who actually abuse children and get caught, then go on to do it again once they're out of jail, people who get off to porn aren't going to be scared off by police. If the cops and jail were enough of a deterent, we wouldn't have so much crime in general in the world. There wouldn't be so much rape, murder, theft, and abuse, because everyone would be afraid of what would happen if/when they got caught. There wouldn't be the problem of overcrowded prisons because there are just SO MANY people who are being sent to jail for commiting crime.

You and I are making the same points. :P

WRONG

It's not a choice, it's not something you can unlearn. Being attracted to something is natural, and cannot be changed, it's the choices you make with it.

The artwork can have a similar effect to them as gum would to a smoker.

Hmm...

Not sure I can agree with this. There is nothing harmful about artwork, no matter how life like. And for artwork to be "outlawed" for content is complete nonsense.

I understand where you are coming from, but frankly, the way you have written your journal just showcases how much thinking you don't do.

There is nothing wrong with cub art, or child porny art, as long as a child was NEVER involved. Honest to god, there are people out there who cannot help finding a young child arousing. But many of them would never actually act on this urge. They vent through artwork, harmless artwork.

Without a way to release through harmless means, they will only be more inclined to act upon it with a real child. I have to be gross here, but it's better to have a pedophile whack off to a picture rather than molest a kid.

I think this is a bad idea, I hope it fails.

Child pornography, artwork or otherwise, is not only a stepping stone, it sends a message that them finding children arousing, as you said, is somehow okay, which it is not, on screen or IRL. It's sick, disgusting, and wrong.

I agree that active pedophilia is sick, disgusting and wrong. I don't agree that artwork of any content is wrong.

Contrary to popular belief, artwork is not a "stepping stone" in many cases, it's a release, a preventative. Yes some have taken it to far, but they are greatly in the minority.

I'm certain that you would argue it if anyone should say you suck dogs off because you have an FA account right? Well, remember that the worst case scenario is "media friendly" and will be pushed and hyped all it can. Just because one person takes something to far, is no reason to make life harder for everybody else.

Similar to (But not exactly the same as) homosexuality, pedophilia and zoophilia are not choices, they are natural attractions people cannot help but to have. HOWEVER, it is a choice whether or not to molest a child or animal. This is why "pedo art" and the like should not be illegal, they provide a need for these poor souls that can be fulfilled without any harm befalling a real life being.

You're right, it's not a stepping stone, or a gateway drug, or anything else like that some people might call it. In fact, it's actually a side effect/symptom of an already existing condition. Illegalizing the only safe outlet for people isn't going to protect anyone, it's only going to make things worse.

By the way, I find it scary that I can download and possess a video of a terrorist gruesomely sawing off a real person's head very slowly and no one bats an eyelash, but if I have a drawn image of a 16 year old humanoid fox showing a bit too much I'm a monster that should be put in prison for life.

I share those sentiments.

Thank you. The first sentence of your last paragraph is something I wanted to say, but I didn't want to risk people getting the wrong idea. You did a better job than I likely would have of saying that. ^_^

Thanks :3

I agree that child pornography is never, ever okay, but I think it's really hard to make clear guidelines as to what qualifies, do we consider photos of naked children pornography? Well, even that's a hard line to draw. What if someone wants to do a painting that explores their own childhood abuse? Does making the adult figure frightening and terrible make the piece legal for it's creator to posess? I'm not saying that it's alright, and people should be okay with drawings of children being abused, but I think the level of discretion required of judges in cases that would come up as a result of this, in order to be fair to the artists as well as to the children of the world, is not something that can be easily found. But I suppose it's probably better to ban it outright, people who want to contest certain pieces can, and will I suppose, we'll just have to watch it develop from here on out.

Im always worried when I see bills like this; and without being able to read the exact wording it does make it hard to be objective. However anything that restricts artistic freedom always concerns me.

If it is designed to stop people from turning real images into computer generated ones as described in the article then of course it should be supported since it is fixing a loophole in existing legislation. However it if at the same time also stops original works (no matter how disgusting the subject may be) then it is going to limit artistic freedom. And once a bill like this passes; well then it is easier to keep reducing such freedom further.

All too much in recent years we have been restricting all for the sake of the minority cases and whittling away what little freedom we have. I really do not want laws in place that can dictate what I can and cannot create out of my own imagination; and that is what this could lead to.

Got a '404' on the link, but, you know my opinions, lol.

Mmm. Dunno how that would stand up to First Amendment defence.

'Course, this IS the UK, which is headed straight for a dictatorship...

Keep us posted on this, at any rate. :)

This was attempted once before in the states, but it will fail again simply due to one fact. The US's freedom of expression as protected by the US constitution. Bush already tried to ban cub,loli,shota, and all those other art forms and congress undid his ban in 2004 for that exact reason, freedom of expression via art.

The day governments tell people what they can and cannot draw is a very sad day. It is a road you do not want to head down. That road leads to telling you want you can think, what you can say. How much further down that road is it to say drawing adult images is banned because its offensive, or anti patriotic images, or images that make fun a political leader. No what you guys there in the UK are looking at is a very scary thing. Don't ever willing hand over a freedom to a government, EVER. That is a freedom of expression, its art it harms no one. Don't give up your ability to draw what you want. Its a scary thought. You know how long it took to get the freedom to express what you want in England? Look at your own history when people were imprisoned for drawing art that mocked the nobility. You fought a long legal battle to attain freedom of expression and you are now so quick to throw it away. I don't honestly understand it.

They tried the same thing here in the USA, and thankfully the Supreme Court ruled that it was constitutional here to ban what people can draw.
http://www.freedomforum.org/templat.....cumentID=16082