Do you think people should be arrested for having child porn...but wait...

Poll: Should they be imprisoned
Poll Options
View poll results: Should they be imprisoned
Yes
68 24%
No
218 76%
Voters: 286.
Page 1 of 6
#1
If someone doesn't have media of actual children, rather than drawings, paintings, etc. which depict child pornography or child abuse, do you think they should be imprisoned?

Also, no, I don't have any anime child hentai porn or anything. I just think it's an interesting argument. And this article is what brought up the subject to me:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/05/manga-porn/

Anyways, I gotta vote no on this one.
#2
I'm not really sure. It's only drawings, but at the same time I'm strongly against CP.
I can honestly say I have really been far even as decided to use even go want to do look more like.


I don't always post on UG, but when I do, I post in the Pit. Stay thirsty my friends.
#3
I've been to art galleries where this one photoshoot had two girls obviously under 9 naked and committing sexual acts.
Nothing happened.
So how is that allowed and personal possession of child porn is?
Meh I have no idea.

If it's drawings, I don't see the problem. I mean, I don't agree with it, but it's like drawing someone f*cking a dog. Wrong to do but it's not illegal to draw right?
#6
Quote by Pagan_Poetry
I've been to art galleries where this one photoshoot had two girls obviously under 9 naked and committing sexual acts.
Nothing happened.
So how is that allowed and personal possession of child porn is?

Because Pornography is defined as images designed to cause arousal, I assume that the art was not intended to do that and therefore not porn.


On topic, I am reluctant to criminalise activities that don't have victims, so I'd have to vote no in this case.
"Why should we subsidise intellectual curiosity?"
-Ronald Reagan

"Knowledge is in every country the surest basis of public happiness."
-George Washington
#7
it doesnt really make sense to me because i have fantasys about girls my age which would be under 18. Does that make me a petefile if i masturbate to a 16 year old when im 15. No.
Peace my brothers!!!!
#9
This is sort of a morally grey area for me. I am against child porn in all it's forms, but this is just a depiction of it.

For example, murder is illegal. But in movies we see people murdered all the time. It's not real. But there are people who argue that violent films cause violent behaviour.

I see the whole hentai thing in a similar light. It's illegal, but this is just a drawn depiction of it.

Let's face it, there are people who are aroused by children *shudder*. I'd rather they got off with fake depictions than with real life stuff though.

Quote by pilgrimevan

This is a serious discussion man.
🙈 🙉 🙊
Last edited by entity0009 at Dec 2, 2009,
#10
No. Imagination is not a crime.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#12
Who's it harming? I find it just as offensive as furry porn, to be honest.

Actually, more than furry porn. I don't lol at loli
#13
Quote by Dirge Humani
Petefile? Really?

Kitty porn
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#14
Quote by Ur all $h1t
Because Pornography is defined as images designed to cause arousal, I assume that the art was not intended to do that and therefore not porn.


On topic, I am reluctant to criminalise activities that don't have victims, so I'd have to vote no in this case.


... The girls were naked and kissing and shit.
In partial costumes, like a bridal gown and a groom top hat, as well as others.
I dunno man...
#15
Quote by entity0009
This is a serious discussion man.


Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood

I'll go kill myself now.
No means maybe
#16
It's not illegal because of the content ... it's illegal because of the sort of person than might own it. The theory is that it's an artistic depiction of an illegal act, which might encourage someone to seek out a real-life depiction of that act, or even nail the kid themselves. It's like they're prosecuting the person, and not the deed.

I'm not going to make a morla statement on this ... I'll just ask a question. Violent, bloody animated and CGI movies are rated R. This is because it is generally believed that young kids lack the ability to understand the difference between "cartoon fake" and "hollywood fake." Do you think young children are mature enough to watch people get killed? Most child molesters and rapists are men of lower IQ, and often of lower than average mental age. Are you prepared to draw a line between one type of immaturity and low intelligence and another?

Normally, I think laws that are passed not because they are right, but because they are 'necessary', are wholly immoral. In this case though, I agree that the end justifies the means.
#17
Quote by pilgrimevan
Sorry, just trying to lighten the mood

I'll go kill myself now.

The mood's in the Pit's about as light as a lead balloon at the moment, we don't need UG'ers killing themselves to make it worse
🙈 🙉 🙊
#19
Quote by Pagan_Poetry
... The girls were naked and kissing and shit.
In partial costumes, like a bridal gown and a groom top hat, as well as others.
I dunno man...

And that was in a public gallery?
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#20
Quote by Jackal58
And that was in a public gallery?

they be all sorts of naked shit at galleries
#21
Quote by The Kreator
I am definitely against child porno, but it should be legal.

Child porno or artistic rendering of?
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#22
It's just a drawing. That's like arresting someone for killing a person in a video game.
Quote by ChemicalFire
He was too stunned by my fresh truths.

Quote by GodofCheesecake
"And I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you darn kids and your meddling and your breakadowns!"

Quote by Nakedbythecomp
Metal is a sub-genre of metalcore since metalcore is more popular therefore better.
#23
Quote by Bowkore
Its just drawings it doesnt hurt anyone, theres a thread in the pit right now about being caught with drawings.

I agree CP is horrible but this is drawings and doesnt hurt anyone and can give some pedophiles an outlet i guess... if I drew a picture of my teacher giving some other teacher a blowjob would I get in trouble for having pornography of that person?

No, because (A) Your teacher isn't a minor, and (B) it's assumed that you'd be drawing your teacher with a dick in her (or his) mouth as a form of slander (since the viewers would presumably know the teacher), and not for arousal. Now if it were passed around to people OTHER than your schoolmates, then it would could as porn, yes.

Quote by Dark Foxle
it doesnt really make sense to me because i have fantasys about girls my age which would be under 18. Does that make me a petefile if i masturbate to a 16 year old when im 15. No.

No, because you're a minor. You're literally incapable of being a pedophile, even if you rape a baby. You can still be a piece of human garbage, and I hope you get life in prison with a cellmate that's hung like a horse, but by definition you can't be a pedophile. Understand the meaning of the word before you ask. A pedophile is an ADULT that engages in, or desires to engage in, sexual relationships with children.

You also can't have jungle fever if you're black, or have a grandma fetish if you're 60.

I know no one asked, but I thought I'd answer those stupid questions before they got asked too.
#24
Quote by Jackal58
And that was in a public gallery?


Pretty much.
I've seen naked children photographs in art galleries before, as well as photographs of dead people and all sorts of shit, but that was the first time I questioned if something was right to be displayed.
#28
Quote by DualReaver
they be all sorts of naked shit at galleries

No shit Sherlock.
Quote by Pagan_Poetry
Pretty much.
I've seen naked children photographs in art galleries before, as well as photographs of dead people and all sorts of shit, but that was the first time I questioned if something was right to be displayed.

Dunno the context they were in. But it sounds borderline pedophilia.

Quote by jean_genie
No, because (A) Your teacher isn't a minor, and (B) it's assumed that you'd be drawing your teacher with a dick in her (or his) mouth as a form of slander (since the viewers would presumably know the teacher), and not for arousal. Now if it were passed around to people OTHER than your schoolmates, then it would could as porn, yes.


No, because you're a minor. You're literally incapable of being a pedophile, even if you rape a baby. You can still be a piece of human garbage, and I hope you get life in prison with a cellmate that's hung like a horse, but by definition you can't be a pedophile. Understand the meaning of the word before you ask. A pedophile is an ADULT that engages in, or desires to engage in, sexual relationships with children.

You also can't have jungle fever if you're black, or have a grandma fetish if you're 60.

I know no one asked, but I thought I'd answer those stupid questions before they got asked too.

You're an idiot.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#30
Quote by Pagan_Poetry
Pretty much.
I've seen naked children photographs in art galleries before, as well as photographs of dead people and all sorts of shit, but that was the first time I questioned if something was right to be displayed.

Being an art teacher, I'm very liberal on what I think is acceptable, artisically. I'm totally comfortable with my older kids doing nudes, provided they're mature enough to handle it. I won't display them publicly, but it's find if they want to put them up on the wall for critique. But because I'm a teacher, I'm very concerned about my kids, and I try to make sure they're safe. I'm not a legal expert or a sociologist, but I have done my reading. I invite anyone that knows better to correct me.

As far as I can tell, there are two types of pedophile. There is the type that is (usually) rejected by women left and right, and molests or has sex with children because they won't put up a fight, and often are too afraid to tell. Maybe he gets off on kids, maybe he just singles them out as easy targets. Either way, he understands the law, and makes a decision to break it.

The other type of pedophile is the reason we have these discussions though. The other type is mentally or emotionally handicapped. Maybe they're of extremely low intelligence, or lived through a lot of abuse as a child themselves, of maybe they're actually retarded. These people are more likely to engage in sexual activity with a child because they see the child as a peer, and don't understand the difference. They're not worried so much about getting caught by the police (sometimes they don't even understand it's illegal), but about being told on.

The second group, even though it's much smaller, is the reason child pornography and animated child pornography is illegal. Because some people lack the ability to discern fantasy from reality, and being able to rent "Akira Bangs a Third-Grader" makes it seem, to them at least, that it's okay to have sex with children. The people that have sex with kids because it's easy? They've already made up their minds. They're going to have sex with kids or not, regardless of what they watch.

Possible pornographic materials are allowed in galleries for a similar reason. The type of person going to a gallery or museum is pretty much guaranteed to be of sufficient maturity to understand the difference between fantasy and reality, even if they do make boob jokes about all the Titian paintings. You're unlikely to see a nude exibit at your local library, as the type of people there are not the same.
#31
I accidentally voted yes. I mean to vote no.

I feel like CP Hentai is victimless, so I don't have any legal qualms about it. Whatever gets people off is their own business, and if it's just drawings of CP then whatever, do what you have to do.
#33
Quote by Jackal58
You're an idiot.

Why's that? Because I said that someone suggesting that every horny teenager with a crush is a pedophile is as dumb as suggesting that everyone in Africa has jungle fever?

I'll admit that I'm not always right, and that I (like everyone else in the world, I don't care who you are) do sometimes say dumb things. But you do realize that the kid's argument was, "Hentai child porn is okay because 99.9999% of the population was a pedophile when they were younger," right?

And yes, I understand that the term 'jungle fever' is racist and insensitive. That's why I used it. I didn't want anyone to think I was being serious when I said it.
#35
Quote by jean_genie
No, because you're a minor. You're literally incapable of being a pedophile, even if you rape a baby. You can still be a piece of human garbage, and I hope you get life in prison with a cellmate that's hung like a horse, but by definition you can't be a pedophile. Understand the meaning of the word before you ask. A pedophile is an ADULT that engages in, or desires to engage in, sexual relationships with children.

You also can't have jungle fever if you're black, or have a grandma fetish if you're 60.

I know no one asked, but I thought I'd answer those stupid questions before they got asked too.
Try getting the answers right, when you do that, k?

As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. According to the World Health Organization, 16 and 17-year-old adolescents qualify if they have a persistent or predominant sexual preference for prepubescent children at least five years younger than them.



Quote by Jackal58
You're an idiot.
This ^
Meadows
Quote by Jackal58
I release my inner liberal every morning when I take a shit.
Quote by SK8RDUDE411
I wont be like those jerks who dedicate their beliefs to logic and reaosn.
#36
No because the issue with child porn and the consequent arrests of its possessors is not based upon the type of porn itself but rather the effect it probably had on the children. The law is in place not to limit the fetish category( sick bastards :P) but to protect children from psychological damage.

So I vote no jail for cartoon style
#38
Quote by jean_genie
Being an art teacher, I'm very liberal on what I think is acceptable, artisically. I'm totally comfortable with my older kids doing nudes, provided they're mature enough to handle it. I won't display them publicly, but it's find if they want to put them up on the wall for critique. But because I'm a teacher, I'm very concerned about my kids, and I try to make sure they're safe. I'm not a legal expert or a sociologist, but I have done my reading. I invite anyone that knows better to correct me.

As far as I can tell, there are two types of pedophile. There is the type that is (usually) rejected by women left and right, and molests or has sex with children because they won't put up a fight, and often are too afraid to tell. Maybe he gets off on kids, maybe he just singles them out as easy targets. Either way, he understands the law, and makes a decision to break it.

The other type of pedophile is the reason we have these discussions though. The other type is mentally or emotionally handicapped. Maybe they're of extremely low intelligence, or lived through a lot of abuse as a child themselves, of maybe they're actually retarded. These people are more likely to engage in sexual activity with a child because they see the child as a peer, and don't understand the difference. They're not worried so much about getting caught by the police (sometimes they don't even understand it's illegal), but about being told on.

The second group, even though it's much smaller, is the reason child pornography and animated child pornography is illegal. Because some people lack the ability to discern fantasy from reality, and being able to rent "Akira Bangs a Third-Grader" makes it seem, to them at least, that it's okay to have sex with children. The people that have sex with kids because it's easy? They've already made up their minds. They're going to have sex with kids or not, regardless of what they watch.

Possible pornographic materials are allowed in galleries for a similar reason. The type of person going to a gallery or museum is pretty much guaranteed to be of sufficient maturity to understand the difference between fantasy and reality, even if they do make boob jokes about all the Titian paintings. You're unlikely to see a nude exibit at your local library, as the type of people there are not the same.

Ok you're not an idiot but I still disagree with you. You're identifying your position with a juvenile audience. Not what The Madcap was referring to. If my kids were drawing picture depicting sexual activity with children I'd have a discussion with them. ( Read that as a painful diatribe) If they were drawing pictures of sexual activity with their peers I would probably question their motives. If they were drawing pictures parodying their teachers I would probably publish them.
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
You should be careful what you say. Some asshole will probably sig it.

Quote by Axelfox
Yup, a girl went up to me in my fursuit one time.

Quote by Xiaoxi
I can fap to this. Keep going.
#40
Quote by SomeoneYouKnew
Try getting the answers right, when you do that, k?

As a medical diagnosis, it is defined as a psychological disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a sexual preference for prepubescent children. According to the World Health Organization, 16 and 17-year-old adolescents qualify if they have a persistent or predominant sexual preference for prepubescent children at least five years younger than them.



This ^

I'll admit to being wrong, sure. I'll also point out though that the WHO is dictated by industrialized Western countries - the age of consent in which is usually late teens. There are many countries in which a female childe of 16 or 17 (the WHOs minimum age for pedophilia) is considered an old hag if she's still a virgin. In many non-Western cultures, it is still common for girls as young as 12 to be arranged, marry, and have sex with, men five to ten years older than them. In other societies, children are encouraged to start experimenting sexually as soon as their parts work. This is rarely considered pedophilia, as the older children are not usually considered 'adults' yet.

I point this out not to defend myself, but to show that just because someone claims to be able to create an "ethical standard" for the entire world, that doesn't actually mean that the entire world agrees. The WHO standard has no way to account for differing societal norms, or the handicapped.

So yes, I will admit that I am wrong according to the word of the law. I still say I'm correct based on the spirit of the law though, and obviously very guilty of hyperbole due to not spending enough time typing an intellegent reply.