FA+
Shop
tfw your opinion is shit
9 years ago
This journal is about the three page long pissing contest about cub porn from earlier that got bawwleeted. If that's not shit that's relevant to your interest there's no need to read this...
I already typed half of it when the journal got deleted and I didn't want to waste the effort, so I'm posting it anyway.
I'm not sure what the prerequisite number of times I have to say 'nigger-faggot' until people stop accusing me of being a 'Social Justice Warrior' (as if the term meant anything) just so they can discard my arguments without actually understanding them. I've not, and never have been, an advocate of censorship especially on the basis of political correctness. I am a massively politically incorrect cunt. I'm also not a glue sniffing retard and know the difference between having my right to free speech suppressed and willfully complying with international law and widely held social mores.
'Crash, you can't ban something because you don't like it, that's facism!'
You're absolutely right Mr. Strawman! The problem with cub porn isn't just 'stop liking what I don't like' though. It's child pornography, and everywhere in the western world it's illegal.
'Crash, cub porn is 2D tho. It's not even real!'
And this is why most people, myself included, generally don't get offended by the existence of cub porn. It's a fantasy. However, the law may or may not agree. Though, to my knowledge, there's never been a case SPECIFICALLY about cub porn, in the US, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand there is a legal precedent for convicting people of possession of child pornography over drawn images of under aged characters. Loli and shota CAN get you V& and put on a sex offender registry. Until a court rules that 2D anthros aren't the same as 2D anime girls, it's the only legal precedent we have for drawn, underage porn.
This isn't a case of saying 'I am personally offended by 2D CP so it should be banned' this is an actual law. It doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else feels like it is or isn't. If you'd like to take a gander at the American law that specifically states that 2D CP is still CP here it is;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
"Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition."
While I'm not sure about the laws in other countries, amateur-tier googling produced 6 cases in 4 countries where loli hentai was ruled as child pornography. There may be more, I didn't dig that deep. There was no examples or titles provided (for obvious reasons) so I can only speculate about how graphic the content was in order to qualify as 'obscene' (or whether or not any of the loli hentai may have been kemono, which would obviously be relevant to the interests of cub fans). The defendants in at least two of the cases confessed, meaning that it's not sure if the court would have found them guilty (though I suspect they would have if a lawyer counciled them to confess).
So the TL;DR it doesn't matter if it's 2D it's still legally classified as child pornography.
'Well, X is also illegal/amoral in Y, why not ban it too?'
This is an extremely childish viewpoint imo. If you don't understand that child pornography is obviously a special case, you're honestly lacking in global awareness (and if you're going to say 'but it's not child porn!' I refer you back to the former argument). While the point is valid that watersports and scat are banned in the UK and bestiality is illegal most places, these do not have as extensive laws defining and regulating them or they don't apply everywhere. Child pornography is thoroughly defined and illegal in every country in the western world. Compare that to the fact bestiality isn't even a felony in every state.
Let's look at a specific example. Porn depicting a huge variety of fetishes, including some many here would probably be considered vanilla, is 'banned' in the UK. This ban has been in place for a while and pertained to videos that were sold in sex shops only. In 2014 it was amended to included streaming and on-demand video. No where in either of these laws is drawn and/or rendered or written pornography brought up (that I can find, being honest I didn't sit here reading UK law all night). 50 Shades of Grey sold pretty damn well in the UK, which has plenty of 'obscene' material in it, so I think my assumption is justified.
You can look at the UK porn 'ban' here if you wanna pick that apart;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio.....gulations_2014
As far as I can surmise, there's nothing in this law that prevents a private citizen from view or owning obscene pornography in the UK. The law bars sites and retailers from distributing it, not private citizens. And once again, from what I can tell this only applies to video pornography with real-life actors. If someone from the UK who's dealt with the law first hand would like to correct me they're welcome to. My understanding is that you can jack off to piss and face sitting all you want, John's Sex Shack just can't sell it to you.
Bestiality in the US is often the same. It is illegal to create or distribute, but not illegal to view or posses in many states. It's even a misdemeanor or completely legal in some states;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooph....._United_States
(yeah, that number of gray states blew my mind too)
Even where both are illegal, the provisions and resources allocated to catch and convict child pornographers (and consumers) vastly outweigh the ones for prosecuting of zoophiles in terms of both legal and social priority. The whole comparison brings to mind a quote from one of my favorite comedians, Dave Attell;
'People always come up to me after a show and ask stuff like, (exasperated) "Hey, bro! You wanna smoke some pot?". I mean, I know it's illegal, but it's not that fucking illegal. If you're gonna say it like that, make it something a little more illegal, like "Hey, bro! You wanna eat a bald eagle? C'mon, there's only like eight of them left! Tastes just like freedom!"'
While fucking your dog is illegal and amoral it's just not as illegal as fucking a kid. That's all there is to it.
'But Crash, murder is illegal EVERYWHERE just like CP, why don't we ban snuff?'
An interesting point, but one I don't think holds water. For one, even when it comes to real-actor video pornography involving snuff it's almost exclusively fake (I've spent too much time on 4chan to feel comfortable saying it's all fake). While video child pornography is almost exclusively real (hard to fake being a fucking child, though it gets more gray if you're including teenagers, for arguments sake I'm not because that's its own tin of worms). It's often stylized, or let's be honest and realize it gets sold to us as blockbuster halloween thriller movies rather than actual pornography.
There's similar arguments to be made about it as CP. You can argue that it normalizes dangerous thoughts for unhealthy individuals who need help/therapy or de-stigmatises something that society abhors with very good reason. But, as a society we're just sorta.... okay with violence. This is especially true of America where blood and gore is seen as less inappropriate than a non-sexualized boob. Can't say fuck on TV or show a nude model in the papers, but you can have a billboard of a skeleton holding someone's intestines hanging over a highway to advertise the shitty haunted house you built over an abandoned trailer park (yes, there is something like this where I live).
From a legal standpoint, it's not illegal to posses or distribute images of a crime. If images of these things were banned it would impact more than just pornography but many types of media from action movies to cop dramas. Law and Order: SVU, for being the shitty rapemongering show it is, relies on being able to show you uncomfortable images to get its views. It's not technically pornography, but they're going to show you close ups of crying women on a mattress and spell it out for you she was not having a good ol' consensual time. A comedy like Friday couldn't be made if images depicting illegal acts couldn't be produced or distributed. Both of these very different media you can at least make the argument have 'artistic merit' and so would generally get a pass on obscenity laws that would otherwise muddle them in legal nonsense. No court anywhere, however, I believe would ever allow anything that could be interpreted as child pornography to claim 'artistic merit'. Being that it is purely pornographic, for one, makes it very different from other illegal acts which are not inherently sexual.
The closest comparison to be made is not murder so much as rape. Rape is illegal everywhere and very sexual, but images depicting it still aren't illegal. As to why that is, I couldn't say. While, like snuff, I think we can assume most rape porn is fake or staged (most, certainly not all). Rape-play between consenting adults is a thing, and dabbling with taboos about control/domination is something many people are into, even otherwise vanilla ones. The prevalence of 'rape-lite' types of fetishes and fantasies would lead me to conclude that most people just aren't as disgusted by it. I can guess the real difference is because while rape is illegal, it's possible to produce rape-like porn with consenting adults, while a child is never fit to consent, period. I don't have a truly concrete answer for that point though, just guesses. I have to fall back on my previous point point about bestiality and reiterate that when it comes to CP 'its just different'.
'But Crash, that's not FAIR!'
It's not about what's 'fair' though. Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it not the law. Frankly I don't think it's fair that, in your selfishness, you would put your community at risk and inconvenience your peers over niche fetish pornography. Because that's what throwing a hissy fit over cub porn is, shitting on the community.
Foregoing all legal grounds and whether you or I personally agree, the vast majority of people are uncomfortable with cub porn for a wide variety of reasons both legitimate and not. Most find it morally objectionable and that's fine for them. Many could not legally access a site that proudly proclaimed 'we host child pornography' in their countries, so demanding that a site does so is denying whole sections of the community a chance to even use the site. And finally CP is an absolute anathema to a healthy business. Whether you or I or anyone else in the community does or does not object to cub porn, anything that can be interpreted as CP will be absolutely toxic to any project that wants mass appeal. Businesses don't want to be known for associating with kiddie diddlers or puppy fuckers. Artists, especially clean ones, won't want the reputation of producing content for a site that also hosts CP. No site that is not specifically catering to that niche audience is going to want to deal with the backlash that supporting it would cost.
Hosting cub will polarize the community every time it's brought up because that's how social mores work. When you divide a community you smother it before it has a chance to grow or develop. The number of people who will opt to NOT be a part of a community for not breaking the social standard is going to be insignificant versus the damage going against the grain would do. You can cry 'conformist sheeple' all you want, but that's how human society works.
FINAL TL;DR stop bitching about websites not hosting your pedo-porn. You are objectively, factually, legally, and socially wrong.
I already typed half of it when the journal got deleted and I didn't want to waste the effort, so I'm posting it anyway.
I'm not sure what the prerequisite number of times I have to say 'nigger-faggot' until people stop accusing me of being a 'Social Justice Warrior' (as if the term meant anything) just so they can discard my arguments without actually understanding them. I've not, and never have been, an advocate of censorship especially on the basis of political correctness. I am a massively politically incorrect cunt. I'm also not a glue sniffing retard and know the difference between having my right to free speech suppressed and willfully complying with international law and widely held social mores.
'Crash, you can't ban something because you don't like it, that's facism!'
You're absolutely right Mr. Strawman! The problem with cub porn isn't just 'stop liking what I don't like' though. It's child pornography, and everywhere in the western world it's illegal.
'Crash, cub porn is 2D tho. It's not even real!'
And this is why most people, myself included, generally don't get offended by the existence of cub porn. It's a fantasy. However, the law may or may not agree. Though, to my knowledge, there's never been a case SPECIFICALLY about cub porn, in the US, Canada, the UK, and New Zealand there is a legal precedent for convicting people of possession of child pornography over drawn images of under aged characters. Loli and shota CAN get you V& and put on a sex offender registry. Until a court rules that 2D anthros aren't the same as 2D anime girls, it's the only legal precedent we have for drawn, underage porn.
This isn't a case of saying 'I am personally offended by 2D CP so it should be banned' this is an actual law. It doesn't matter if you or I or anyone else feels like it is or isn't. If you'd like to take a gander at the American law that specifically states that 2D CP is still CP here it is;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003
"Prohibits drawings, sculptures, and pictures of such drawings and sculptures depicting minors in actions or situations that meet the Miller test of being obscene, OR are engaged in sex acts that are deemed to meet the same obscene condition."
While I'm not sure about the laws in other countries, amateur-tier googling produced 6 cases in 4 countries where loli hentai was ruled as child pornography. There may be more, I didn't dig that deep. There was no examples or titles provided (for obvious reasons) so I can only speculate about how graphic the content was in order to qualify as 'obscene' (or whether or not any of the loli hentai may have been kemono, which would obviously be relevant to the interests of cub fans). The defendants in at least two of the cases confessed, meaning that it's not sure if the court would have found them guilty (though I suspect they would have if a lawyer counciled them to confess).
So the TL;DR it doesn't matter if it's 2D it's still legally classified as child pornography.
'Well, X is also illegal/amoral in Y, why not ban it too?'
This is an extremely childish viewpoint imo. If you don't understand that child pornography is obviously a special case, you're honestly lacking in global awareness (and if you're going to say 'but it's not child porn!' I refer you back to the former argument). While the point is valid that watersports and scat are banned in the UK and bestiality is illegal most places, these do not have as extensive laws defining and regulating them or they don't apply everywhere. Child pornography is thoroughly defined and illegal in every country in the western world. Compare that to the fact bestiality isn't even a felony in every state.
Let's look at a specific example. Porn depicting a huge variety of fetishes, including some many here would probably be considered vanilla, is 'banned' in the UK. This ban has been in place for a while and pertained to videos that were sold in sex shops only. In 2014 it was amended to included streaming and on-demand video. No where in either of these laws is drawn and/or rendered or written pornography brought up (that I can find, being honest I didn't sit here reading UK law all night). 50 Shades of Grey sold pretty damn well in the UK, which has plenty of 'obscene' material in it, so I think my assumption is justified.
You can look at the UK porn 'ban' here if you wanna pick that apart;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audio.....gulations_2014
As far as I can surmise, there's nothing in this law that prevents a private citizen from view or owning obscene pornography in the UK. The law bars sites and retailers from distributing it, not private citizens. And once again, from what I can tell this only applies to video pornography with real-life actors. If someone from the UK who's dealt with the law first hand would like to correct me they're welcome to. My understanding is that you can jack off to piss and face sitting all you want, John's Sex Shack just can't sell it to you.
Bestiality in the US is often the same. It is illegal to create or distribute, but not illegal to view or posses in many states. It's even a misdemeanor or completely legal in some states;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zooph....._United_States
(yeah, that number of gray states blew my mind too)
Even where both are illegal, the provisions and resources allocated to catch and convict child pornographers (and consumers) vastly outweigh the ones for prosecuting of zoophiles in terms of both legal and social priority. The whole comparison brings to mind a quote from one of my favorite comedians, Dave Attell;
'People always come up to me after a show and ask stuff like, (exasperated) "Hey, bro! You wanna smoke some pot?". I mean, I know it's illegal, but it's not that fucking illegal. If you're gonna say it like that, make it something a little more illegal, like "Hey, bro! You wanna eat a bald eagle? C'mon, there's only like eight of them left! Tastes just like freedom!"'
While fucking your dog is illegal and amoral it's just not as illegal as fucking a kid. That's all there is to it.
'But Crash, murder is illegal EVERYWHERE just like CP, why don't we ban snuff?'
An interesting point, but one I don't think holds water. For one, even when it comes to real-actor video pornography involving snuff it's almost exclusively fake (I've spent too much time on 4chan to feel comfortable saying it's all fake). While video child pornography is almost exclusively real (hard to fake being a fucking child, though it gets more gray if you're including teenagers, for arguments sake I'm not because that's its own tin of worms). It's often stylized, or let's be honest and realize it gets sold to us as blockbuster halloween thriller movies rather than actual pornography.
There's similar arguments to be made about it as CP. You can argue that it normalizes dangerous thoughts for unhealthy individuals who need help/therapy or de-stigmatises something that society abhors with very good reason. But, as a society we're just sorta.... okay with violence. This is especially true of America where blood and gore is seen as less inappropriate than a non-sexualized boob. Can't say fuck on TV or show a nude model in the papers, but you can have a billboard of a skeleton holding someone's intestines hanging over a highway to advertise the shitty haunted house you built over an abandoned trailer park (yes, there is something like this where I live).
From a legal standpoint, it's not illegal to posses or distribute images of a crime. If images of these things were banned it would impact more than just pornography but many types of media from action movies to cop dramas. Law and Order: SVU, for being the shitty rapemongering show it is, relies on being able to show you uncomfortable images to get its views. It's not technically pornography, but they're going to show you close ups of crying women on a mattress and spell it out for you she was not having a good ol' consensual time. A comedy like Friday couldn't be made if images depicting illegal acts couldn't be produced or distributed. Both of these very different media you can at least make the argument have 'artistic merit' and so would generally get a pass on obscenity laws that would otherwise muddle them in legal nonsense. No court anywhere, however, I believe would ever allow anything that could be interpreted as child pornography to claim 'artistic merit'. Being that it is purely pornographic, for one, makes it very different from other illegal acts which are not inherently sexual.
The closest comparison to be made is not murder so much as rape. Rape is illegal everywhere and very sexual, but images depicting it still aren't illegal. As to why that is, I couldn't say. While, like snuff, I think we can assume most rape porn is fake or staged (most, certainly not all). Rape-play between consenting adults is a thing, and dabbling with taboos about control/domination is something many people are into, even otherwise vanilla ones. The prevalence of 'rape-lite' types of fetishes and fantasies would lead me to conclude that most people just aren't as disgusted by it. I can guess the real difference is because while rape is illegal, it's possible to produce rape-like porn with consenting adults, while a child is never fit to consent, period. I don't have a truly concrete answer for that point though, just guesses. I have to fall back on my previous point point about bestiality and reiterate that when it comes to CP 'its just different'.
'But Crash, that's not FAIR!'
It's not about what's 'fair' though. Just because you don't like a law doesn't make it not the law. Frankly I don't think it's fair that, in your selfishness, you would put your community at risk and inconvenience your peers over niche fetish pornography. Because that's what throwing a hissy fit over cub porn is, shitting on the community.
Foregoing all legal grounds and whether you or I personally agree, the vast majority of people are uncomfortable with cub porn for a wide variety of reasons both legitimate and not. Most find it morally objectionable and that's fine for them. Many could not legally access a site that proudly proclaimed 'we host child pornography' in their countries, so demanding that a site does so is denying whole sections of the community a chance to even use the site. And finally CP is an absolute anathema to a healthy business. Whether you or I or anyone else in the community does or does not object to cub porn, anything that can be interpreted as CP will be absolutely toxic to any project that wants mass appeal. Businesses don't want to be known for associating with kiddie diddlers or puppy fuckers. Artists, especially clean ones, won't want the reputation of producing content for a site that also hosts CP. No site that is not specifically catering to that niche audience is going to want to deal with the backlash that supporting it would cost.
Hosting cub will polarize the community every time it's brought up because that's how social mores work. When you divide a community you smother it before it has a chance to grow or develop. The number of people who will opt to NOT be a part of a community for not breaking the social standard is going to be insignificant versus the damage going against the grain would do. You can cry 'conformist sheeple' all you want, but that's how human society works.
FINAL TL;DR stop bitching about websites not hosting your pedo-porn. You are objectively, factually, legally, and socially wrong.
