FA+
Shop
Fictional Art with Taboo Content (Controversial Subject)
5 years ago
General
This has been jumping around my mind for a while now, and I think it's time I get it out there. Let me make a couple things perfectly clear before you read ahead:
1. This journal covers a controversial topic that may be sensitive or enraging to some people, and is meant to elicit thoughtful debate. If you are not going to partake in thoughtful debate, I advise you turn around and not continue reading. Comments attempting to inflame, demean, or harass people will be removed, and, depending on the severity of the comments, result in being blocked and reported.
2. Just because I am taking middle ground to do a thorough analysis of said subject(s) does not mean that I practice or condone said subject(s); any actions that endanger or threaten the life, livelihood, or well-being of anyone, regardless of gender, age, creed, sexuality, etc. must be held to account to the fullest extent of the law.
With that said, the subject I want to talk about and get off my chest is the issue of depictions of characters that are not over the age of 18. There's been heated debate about art depicting characters who aren't 18+, especially those who are minors. It's been heated so much that there are people out there basically making lists of people that incidentally draw art depicting apparent minors, or characters with pedophile tendencies, in an attempt to out them writ large to the entire community in the hopes of shaming them and making them withdraw from the web and not be seen again. These so-called "social justice warriors" partaking in a huge crusade to pour bleach on the internet so kids (and adults) don't have to see the ugly content some of us may have incidentally come across when we were younger, so that there's more "good" in the world...I really have to ask - is it really worth being a total PC asshole to do it? /=/
Don't get me wrong; I completely understand where these people are coming from when it comes to art depicting characters that aren't 18+ (let alone 13+). It's not the most comfortable (if not ethical) thing to see...but at the same time, the arguments against art depicting characters under the age of 18 seems...pointless. Here are my reasons why:
1. It's a character of pure fiction that's made of paper & pencil/ink or pixels; it does not "feel" or "want" anything, except for what our imagination puts to them (Fair Use/Creative Commons). One person could imagine them being overzealous and extreme against a particular subject; another person could imagine them being utterly joyous and embracing it. Each person finds enjoyment in their own personal twist on a character or a situation; it's the thought put to paper, and they're free to express it, even if we may not agree with the subject matter, the opinions on said matter, or simply have a different preference. Might it make us raise our eyebrows and question the person? Perhaps...but we most certainly shouldn't jump to conclusions about the artist personally or his thoughts on certain subjects. One example of this is the show Family Guy. I've lost count of how many times I've seen Stewie Griffin in sexual situations (mostly by his choice). There was one episode where he's provocatively posing in diapers; another where he's engaged in BDSM with Brian; another where he's naked in the living room hitting on a gay guy from Meg's class. The episode of getting himself pregnant using Brian's DNA is probably one of the more explicit situations Stewie put himself in since later that same episode, he's in multiple pictures by himself or with Brian in nude poses (though obviously no explicit junk showing). Another one I've lost count on is the amount of times Herbert put (mostly) verbal moves on Chris Griffin, and in one episode, imagining himself in a happy relationship with Chris, with the latter being in his mid-teens. Does that make Seth MacFarlane and his team a bunch of pedophiles or endorsers of pedophilia because they drew/wrote it? No; Stewie, Brian, Chris, and Herbert are fictional characters, in a fictional story setting that was made for laughs and gasps, in a fictional world that does not exist. To me, this is trying to conflate a serious, real-life issue to something that doesn't even conform, let alone apply to it; no one is going to take the issue of child pornography or child sexual abuse seriously if your Exhibit A is someone's Rule 34 fanart of Chris Griffin. Plus, the issue of fictional porn has pretty much been settled in court...how so? Look at my next reason.
2. In 2002, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition" that led to striking down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996; one provision covered a broad range of media concerning Child Pornography, including "digital" works, and the other covered advertisement that may imply that minors engaged in sexual activity of the product being promoted. While the Supreme Court agreed that sexual assault/molestation of a Child, having them make pornography, and then distributing it is repugnant and must be punished to the fullest extend of the law due to the harm it brings the child, the Court also ruled that, fictional works that happen to show depictions of minors in traditional and digital art engaged in sexual activity falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech Clause; it also ruled that the provision about advertising "implying" minors involving sex needs to be more precise. As such, the aforementioned provisions of the CPPA were deemed overly broad and unconstitutional, even countering arguments like, "But predators will seduce children with fictional child porn!", with, "How is that any different from using toys, candy, or even money?" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcr.....eech_Coalition for finer details. The case overall reaffirms that fictional works of art, as long as it is not made and distributed while featuring/using a real life minor, are legally protected under the 1st Amendment. If a case involving pedophilia or sexual acts on a fictional minor (i.e. American Dragon Jake Long [14], Gumball [12], Stewie Griffin [>5]) were brought to the Supreme Court, the Court would most likely throw it out in a heartbeat, reaffirming the above case, possibly with a footnote that the art would fall under Creative Commons/Fair Use (or something similar), and thus, would not be illegal in spite of the subject matter. It would also most likely reaffirm that, if the art was made using actual minors that were forced to pose for it, THEN it would be illegal.
3. This one is more of a personal rant...but...to those of you that, despite the above, are foaming at the mouth and ready to go for the throat...Is there really THAT MUCH a lack in children in the real world being sexually taken advantage of that you have to crucify artists that dabble with PURELY FICTIONAL characters!? According to statistics from the National Center for Victims of Crime (members.victimsofcrime.org) concerning Child Sexual Abuse, during a one-year period in the USA, approximately 16% of youth ages 14-17 are sexually victimized, with 28% of that same age group saying they've been sexually victimized at one point or over the course of their life up to that point. If we were to take those percentages and apply it to the 2018 Child Population Numbers for Kids 15-17 (~12.5 Million) from The Annie E. Casey Foundation's Kids Count Data Center (https://datacenter.kidscount.org/ ; their latest count, and also, there was no way for me to include 14-year-olds from the given model in my calculations), that means each year, at least 2 million kids are sexually victimized, and at least 3.5 million have been (or are being (God forbid)) sexually victimized! The sad thing is, not all of those cases are picked up by the cops, or solved. How about you take that energy and help solve REAL LIFE, HARD EVIDENCE CASES of sexual predators of children, instead of going after artists perceived of being sexual predators just because they incidentally have a kid's ass exposed while he's standing on a chair in the doctor's office!? ...wait, did I just describe Norman Rockwell's "Before the Shot"? .___.;;
And those are my takes on the whole debate, and where I stand. Do I condemn real life acts of sexual abuse, molestation, and taking advantage of minors for personal gain? Absolutely. Do I condemn artists and writers that dabble with it in fictitious works that had no involvement of real life minors? No...but then I must ask you, the reader: is there a point I'm missing? Again, I do see why people would be at best, uncomfortable, and at worst, detestable, of works that depict minors. It's not a socially acceptable thing by today's standards, no matter how fictional it is, how historically accurate it may be, how artistic it is, or if its even going for a laugh or serious food-for-thought. We shouldn't take for granted the seriousness of Child Sex Abuse or active acts of Pedophilia...but should we really be treating artworks depicting fictional minors in sexual situations as the worst thing to happen to this planet, when the Courts have essentially ruled "As long as no real minor is forced into that position, all bets are off", and there's millions of minors out there that are sexually victimized each year? I'm going to guess that this will still be a debate long after I write this. People on certain sides of this want a definitive black-and-white solution to this where there's anything but black-and-white to work with. Art, for some, is just a job; for others, it's a form of therapy; and others, a mix of both. For the second group, art allows escape for their feelings, while minimizing the damage or risk they'd might put towards other people. Attacking them for expressing themselves in art (regardless of the subject matter) may in fact have the opposite effect. They might think, "What's the point? I have nothing to lose now...", resulting in their creativity being regressed, and leaving them to act on impulses that will result in lives being hurt and ruined. Again, just because the subject matter is uncomfortable doesn't mean the artist themselves condones or does the behavior in it...that feels like persecuting someone for having a thought at a certain time (but never carried it out) that they themselves might not be proud of having, but can't come to take down something they essentially put their heart and soul into making, because it is a physical manifestation of feelings they wanted to get out. I feel frustrated having to hammer this point out time and time again; probably because I took a Psychology 101 class and learned its Golden Rule of "Correlation is Not Causation", and take that seriously on a broad spectrum so as not to rush to judgment.
If any, the negative fallout over this feels less like doing social justice and more like people wanting to make that "Safe for Kids" place with no regards to how it affects everyone else, while doing nothing to take responsibility for what their kids see and do online. This is one of those cases where it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and it's not that hard to do, nor does it require a lot of effort. And If, despite your best efforts, your kid still stumbles onto an uncomfortable subject or something terrifying, you do your best to comfort your child and teach them about what is right or wrong about something, and address their feelings. That is a key part to parenting - helping your child develop and understand certain issues and feelings...going all out angry on the offending issue for even existing teaches your child nothing except to be hostile to everything that you personally don't agree with, and keeps out key pieces essential for child development, like keeping an open mind, coming to their own conclusions about perceived right and wrong, etc.
When the internet is full of things that you don't know is truth or fiction, is accurate of a person or just the work they do, and even things that are good and bad, not taking time to look before you leap is the worst thing you can do for yourself and others...
Shelve that Anger, take a deep breath...and think...
1. This journal covers a controversial topic that may be sensitive or enraging to some people, and is meant to elicit thoughtful debate. If you are not going to partake in thoughtful debate, I advise you turn around and not continue reading. Comments attempting to inflame, demean, or harass people will be removed, and, depending on the severity of the comments, result in being blocked and reported.
2. Just because I am taking middle ground to do a thorough analysis of said subject(s) does not mean that I practice or condone said subject(s); any actions that endanger or threaten the life, livelihood, or well-being of anyone, regardless of gender, age, creed, sexuality, etc. must be held to account to the fullest extent of the law.
With that said, the subject I want to talk about and get off my chest is the issue of depictions of characters that are not over the age of 18. There's been heated debate about art depicting characters who aren't 18+, especially those who are minors. It's been heated so much that there are people out there basically making lists of people that incidentally draw art depicting apparent minors, or characters with pedophile tendencies, in an attempt to out them writ large to the entire community in the hopes of shaming them and making them withdraw from the web and not be seen again. These so-called "social justice warriors" partaking in a huge crusade to pour bleach on the internet so kids (and adults) don't have to see the ugly content some of us may have incidentally come across when we were younger, so that there's more "good" in the world...I really have to ask - is it really worth being a total PC asshole to do it? /=/
Don't get me wrong; I completely understand where these people are coming from when it comes to art depicting characters that aren't 18+ (let alone 13+). It's not the most comfortable (if not ethical) thing to see...but at the same time, the arguments against art depicting characters under the age of 18 seems...pointless. Here are my reasons why:
1. It's a character of pure fiction that's made of paper & pencil/ink or pixels; it does not "feel" or "want" anything, except for what our imagination puts to them (Fair Use/Creative Commons). One person could imagine them being overzealous and extreme against a particular subject; another person could imagine them being utterly joyous and embracing it. Each person finds enjoyment in their own personal twist on a character or a situation; it's the thought put to paper, and they're free to express it, even if we may not agree with the subject matter, the opinions on said matter, or simply have a different preference. Might it make us raise our eyebrows and question the person? Perhaps...but we most certainly shouldn't jump to conclusions about the artist personally or his thoughts on certain subjects. One example of this is the show Family Guy. I've lost count of how many times I've seen Stewie Griffin in sexual situations (mostly by his choice). There was one episode where he's provocatively posing in diapers; another where he's engaged in BDSM with Brian; another where he's naked in the living room hitting on a gay guy from Meg's class. The episode of getting himself pregnant using Brian's DNA is probably one of the more explicit situations Stewie put himself in since later that same episode, he's in multiple pictures by himself or with Brian in nude poses (though obviously no explicit junk showing). Another one I've lost count on is the amount of times Herbert put (mostly) verbal moves on Chris Griffin, and in one episode, imagining himself in a happy relationship with Chris, with the latter being in his mid-teens. Does that make Seth MacFarlane and his team a bunch of pedophiles or endorsers of pedophilia because they drew/wrote it? No; Stewie, Brian, Chris, and Herbert are fictional characters, in a fictional story setting that was made for laughs and gasps, in a fictional world that does not exist. To me, this is trying to conflate a serious, real-life issue to something that doesn't even conform, let alone apply to it; no one is going to take the issue of child pornography or child sexual abuse seriously if your Exhibit A is someone's Rule 34 fanart of Chris Griffin. Plus, the issue of fictional porn has pretty much been settled in court...how so? Look at my next reason.
2. In 2002, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in "Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition" that led to striking down two provisions of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996; one provision covered a broad range of media concerning Child Pornography, including "digital" works, and the other covered advertisement that may imply that minors engaged in sexual activity of the product being promoted. While the Supreme Court agreed that sexual assault/molestation of a Child, having them make pornography, and then distributing it is repugnant and must be punished to the fullest extend of the law due to the harm it brings the child, the Court also ruled that, fictional works that happen to show depictions of minors in traditional and digital art engaged in sexual activity falls under the protection of the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Speech Clause; it also ruled that the provision about advertising "implying" minors involving sex needs to be more precise. As such, the aforementioned provisions of the CPPA were deemed overly broad and unconstitutional, even countering arguments like, "But predators will seduce children with fictional child porn!", with, "How is that any different from using toys, candy, or even money?" See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcr.....eech_Coalition for finer details. The case overall reaffirms that fictional works of art, as long as it is not made and distributed while featuring/using a real life minor, are legally protected under the 1st Amendment. If a case involving pedophilia or sexual acts on a fictional minor (i.e. American Dragon Jake Long [14], Gumball [12], Stewie Griffin [>5]) were brought to the Supreme Court, the Court would most likely throw it out in a heartbeat, reaffirming the above case, possibly with a footnote that the art would fall under Creative Commons/Fair Use (or something similar), and thus, would not be illegal in spite of the subject matter. It would also most likely reaffirm that, if the art was made using actual minors that were forced to pose for it, THEN it would be illegal.
3. This one is more of a personal rant...but...to those of you that, despite the above, are foaming at the mouth and ready to go for the throat...Is there really THAT MUCH a lack in children in the real world being sexually taken advantage of that you have to crucify artists that dabble with PURELY FICTIONAL characters!? According to statistics from the National Center for Victims of Crime (members.victimsofcrime.org) concerning Child Sexual Abuse, during a one-year period in the USA, approximately 16% of youth ages 14-17 are sexually victimized, with 28% of that same age group saying they've been sexually victimized at one point or over the course of their life up to that point. If we were to take those percentages and apply it to the 2018 Child Population Numbers for Kids 15-17 (~12.5 Million) from The Annie E. Casey Foundation's Kids Count Data Center (https://datacenter.kidscount.org/ ; their latest count, and also, there was no way for me to include 14-year-olds from the given model in my calculations), that means each year, at least 2 million kids are sexually victimized, and at least 3.5 million have been (or are being (God forbid)) sexually victimized! The sad thing is, not all of those cases are picked up by the cops, or solved. How about you take that energy and help solve REAL LIFE, HARD EVIDENCE CASES of sexual predators of children, instead of going after artists perceived of being sexual predators just because they incidentally have a kid's ass exposed while he's standing on a chair in the doctor's office!? ...wait, did I just describe Norman Rockwell's "Before the Shot"? .___.;;
And those are my takes on the whole debate, and where I stand. Do I condemn real life acts of sexual abuse, molestation, and taking advantage of minors for personal gain? Absolutely. Do I condemn artists and writers that dabble with it in fictitious works that had no involvement of real life minors? No...but then I must ask you, the reader: is there a point I'm missing? Again, I do see why people would be at best, uncomfortable, and at worst, detestable, of works that depict minors. It's not a socially acceptable thing by today's standards, no matter how fictional it is, how historically accurate it may be, how artistic it is, or if its even going for a laugh or serious food-for-thought. We shouldn't take for granted the seriousness of Child Sex Abuse or active acts of Pedophilia...but should we really be treating artworks depicting fictional minors in sexual situations as the worst thing to happen to this planet, when the Courts have essentially ruled "As long as no real minor is forced into that position, all bets are off", and there's millions of minors out there that are sexually victimized each year? I'm going to guess that this will still be a debate long after I write this. People on certain sides of this want a definitive black-and-white solution to this where there's anything but black-and-white to work with. Art, for some, is just a job; for others, it's a form of therapy; and others, a mix of both. For the second group, art allows escape for their feelings, while minimizing the damage or risk they'd might put towards other people. Attacking them for expressing themselves in art (regardless of the subject matter) may in fact have the opposite effect. They might think, "What's the point? I have nothing to lose now...", resulting in their creativity being regressed, and leaving them to act on impulses that will result in lives being hurt and ruined. Again, just because the subject matter is uncomfortable doesn't mean the artist themselves condones or does the behavior in it...that feels like persecuting someone for having a thought at a certain time (but never carried it out) that they themselves might not be proud of having, but can't come to take down something they essentially put their heart and soul into making, because it is a physical manifestation of feelings they wanted to get out. I feel frustrated having to hammer this point out time and time again; probably because I took a Psychology 101 class and learned its Golden Rule of "Correlation is Not Causation", and take that seriously on a broad spectrum so as not to rush to judgment.
If any, the negative fallout over this feels less like doing social justice and more like people wanting to make that "Safe for Kids" place with no regards to how it affects everyone else, while doing nothing to take responsibility for what their kids see and do online. This is one of those cases where it's possible to walk and chew gum at the same time, and it's not that hard to do, nor does it require a lot of effort. And If, despite your best efforts, your kid still stumbles onto an uncomfortable subject or something terrifying, you do your best to comfort your child and teach them about what is right or wrong about something, and address their feelings. That is a key part to parenting - helping your child develop and understand certain issues and feelings...going all out angry on the offending issue for even existing teaches your child nothing except to be hostile to everything that you personally don't agree with, and keeps out key pieces essential for child development, like keeping an open mind, coming to their own conclusions about perceived right and wrong, etc.
When the internet is full of things that you don't know is truth or fiction, is accurate of a person or just the work they do, and even things that are good and bad, not taking time to look before you leap is the worst thing you can do for yourself and others...
Shelve that Anger, take a deep breath...and think...
In hindsight, the above can apply to another controversial topic - art depicting zoophilia/bestiality, and accusing the artist of promoting it...
...these people do realize that this is a fantasy furry website, right? The accusations sound not just completely pointless to me, but insanely laughable; that's like promoting bear traps to a stadium full of bears... 9w9; good god.
Does that mean I support bestiality/zoophilia? No...but geez, again, find a better platform for the argument; people will take the conversation more seriously XP
Not only that but many of the people who do dabble in the underage content are using it to work through their own abuse as you said. People who weaponize their abuse as a reason for others to not have an outlet are are themselves abusing others. I wish people could see that.
Although studies have shown that there is a positive correlation between media activites (like games, art, books, etc) and violent actions in real life, there isn't any evidence that those activites actually cause said violent actions. The ultimate factor that makes a distinction between a person who thinks a lot about doing something and actually DOING SOMETHING is Choice. If we were to imprison someone for having bad thoughts (i.e. pedophilia, murder, theft, etc) then EVERYONE would be in prison and the whole world would be in a dark place.
One study from back in 2002 looked at the interests of violent attackers, and about 59% of attackers at the time exhibited some kind of interest in violence in media, but at the same time, could not nail down one specific cause of violence, splitting into smaller groups and percentages. 24% had an interest in violent books; 27% had interest in violent films...
Ironically, the one category that a lot of anti-violent people claim (sometimes to ridiculous levels) contributes to a majority of violence, Video Games, had the smallest amount of interest...with only 8% of violent attackers having any interest in it. If any, it was those who were enthralled by their own violent writings, such as journals, poems, or essays, that made up the largest group - 37%.
Does that mean people who write about a lot of violence turn into violent criminals? No...though you may get concerned if your kid or close friend seems to have an obsession for violence in their writings.
It all comes down to the individual themselves; some could be completely fine in determining what is right and wrong, fantasy and reality; and those that lose themselves beyond that boundary.
While we cannot say for certain how and why people come to the decision to carry out violent actions or perversions (even if the motive seems clear), we cannot place blame squarely on an idea or aspect (like media)...that is the core of the Golden Rule of Psychology - Correlation is Not Causation.