LOTS of manga/anime now illegal in Sweden; soon to be in EU

Post Reply New Topic

by the way, your statistic about the decline of rape does not cover children. the rise in kiddie porn has NOT led to a reduction in sexual abuse of minors.

and just because we don't have a cure yet doesn't mean we won't find one. i'll be frank with you as to something i believe may be a likely problem - people tend to consciously hold onto their desires and attractions like they are precious faberge eggs in a glass case. i have been formulating some thoughts on that based on discussions elsewhere on the forum. attraction is often flexible and it changes over time and with different circumstances, yet for some reason people believe their objects/subjects of attraction are fixed and unchanging. and when given the idea that they could change their desires should they want to, people react with horror as though their desires are inseparable from the rest of their self. it isn't really the case - desires are organic and will change willy-nilly, so it is illogical to cling to them like they are so precious and static.

i find it interesting that you don't seem to think pedos should be cured, yet you believe autism needs a cure.... and i think the reverse.

sure why not destroy them? we can't miss what we don't know ever existed. you can keep coming up with more and more extreme examples to the point of ridiculousness, but i don't reify cultural objects like they hold some kind of special status above anything else. is an ancient Greek vase any more important than Woman's Weekly magazine? i don't personally think so.

First of all, the law is an ass; seldom has that been more true.

Second, let's take another look at this:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 111326.htm

Bold is mine.

I vaguely recall you posting that while you're opposed to porn, you aren't in favor of censorship. It seems you have changed your mind since then, to the point where you approve the censorship of historical art and literature. I've always suspected as much from anti-porn activists. There goes Thomas Mann’s Death in Venice, as well as several movie adaptations of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.

And how old were Lot's daughters again in the Bible tale? Two of them weren't married when they had sex with him, only betrothed. Seeing that girls were usually married at age 12-14 in those times (think of how young Mary must have been when Yahweh or his angel impregnated her), the story of Lot is not just an incest story, but a child abuse story to boot. And then there is that unpleasant business with the virgin Midianite girls. So the Bible will probably have to go too.



I think when it comes to legal age, the deciding factor should be age, as the term already suggests. The appearance or outfit of a person shouldn't factor into it. Since you seem to think otherwise, do you also think that men should be prosecuted for statutory rape if they have sex with an adult woman who wears a school uniform?



I think the legal term is minor, not child. The law can decide that people under 20 are minors, but the transition from child to adolescent is determined by mother nature.



I'm not sure that this is what legislators had in mind when they outlawed child porn. If a mother walks in on her teenage son having sex with another teenager, or on her prepubescent children playing doctor, does that make her a criminal? I don't think so. Seeing minors naked in a sexual context is not a crime. The original aim of anti-child porn laws is to prevent the sexual abuse of children and teenagers, as well as their commercial exploitation. Not to eradicate every literary or artistic reminder of the fact that teenagers have sex, and have been doing so since the dawn of times.

I also disagree that fictional stories and artwork give the impression that their content would be ok to reenact in real life. Horror movies and video game violence didn't cause an increase of violent crime, it has actually decreased in recent decades. People, at least adult people, are very good at distinguishing between fiction and reality.



The only reliable way to prevent people from acting on their sexual urges, especially male people, is to remove their libido. You can't remove sexual urges by outlawing porn. Pedophiles would only be more inclined to satisfy their urge by preying on actual children. I guess we would have to find all pedophiles, round them up, hospitalize them and chemically or surgically castrate them, against their will if necessary.

And then we'd have to do something about the pesky human rights activists who would undoubtedly compare this to the chemical castration of Alan Turing and other gay people, the forced sterilization of minority women, or the forced medical experiments on other groups of sexual deviants in the past. They would even have a point if they dropped words like "eugenics", seeing that there are many non-exclusive pedophiles who have children with adult partners.

Hebephiles, which have strongly been selected for in historic times and might constitute a considerable portion of the adult male population, would have to undergo the same forced treatment. Including non-exclusive hebephiles who are attracted to sexually mature women of all ages. After all, there is no telling if or when they might act on inappropriate urges that were perfectly appropriate and natural for the first 200,000 years of Homo sapiens evolution. Nowadays, people who feel attracted to 13- or 14-year-olds are just as dangerous as pedophiles.

In countries where the age of consent is 18, one would also have to kill the libido of ephebophiles. I suppose the governments in those countries would end up chemically neutering the vast majority of males. Probably all males except for a handful of guys who are very good at pretending And finally, if we must assume that all pedophiles and hebephiles are rapists waiting to happen, must we not assume the same of heterosexual men? In a South African survey, one in four men admitted to being a rapist (source). I don't think that the percentage of child abusers among pedophiles is much higher than that, although I don't have any statistics to support this hunch.

It might make more sense to try and screen out all men, regardless of sexual orientation, who are most likely to become sexually violent or abusive. Such as sadists and other sexual deviants of the BDSM variety. We could call the resulting list of names a minority report. Sorry for being a bit sarcastic, I just think that attempts to punish crime before it actually happens, or to preemptively "treat" potential criminals, is a really huge and ugly can of worms in terms of human rights.

While I can't speak with extensive knowledge for Germany, in the US cultural norms have driven the development and execution of laws from the beginning. While there is an attempt to keep church and state separate, the moral majority has still had a huge influence during the history of the US. Those results have not always been kind to all of the citizens, but that is the way it worked for the majority of US history, in part because of the beliefs of the individuals that were voting, and whom was allowed to vote.

Cultural norms continually change, and the laws continually reflect those cultural changes, regardless if they are influenced by religion or not.

Cultural norms predate the legal system. Legal systems were originally developed to enforce cultural norms. Criminal law has no inherent rationality, purpose or morals, nor do cultural norms.

They are human constructs that vary greatly per country and locality. Certainly not restricted from resulting in actions that harm others, infringe upon rights, or seem like rational constructs depending on point of reference and circumstance.

As an individual I can only study the cultural constructs, reflect on them, and comment on them. Cultural norms and the legal system could care less what my determinations as an individual are in regard to what I personally find as rational or moral in life, however I as everyone in every different locality and country am affected by the cultural constructs that I have been exposed to.

US laws have determined that minors depicted engaged in sex in Manga Comic books fall within the legal definition of child pornography. It doesn't matter if I as an individual agree with it or not, that doesn't change the law or the consequences of those that break it.

I'm not personally offering an opinion that 18 year old women that look younger shouldn't have a legal right to participate in pornography, if protected by the law; however if the US, as Germany has determined that it is not going to be legal in the future, to ensure that child pornography laws are enforced, there is going to be no other choice than to comply with the law or face the penalities of breaking the law. That's just a statement of reality, not a personal endorsement of the legal system or the cultural norms that apply.

It is the internet pornographers that are pushing the limits to what they portray as adults; the sources of magazines with real life individuals are much easier to trace to determine offenses.

Looking at pictures, reading text, or fantasizing about a particular thing does not always mean you want to do that in real life.

Thinking about things is not wrong.

That is not very surprising considering that child porn is illegal, including virtual / fictional "child porn" that doesn't depict or affect real children.

That's exactly what I was trying to say in an earlier post. We have created a legal situation where child rape and the possession of fictional underage erotica is equally illegal. Both leads to sex offender registration. Both equals social suidice when caught. This means for a pedophile that he might as well go and rape a real child instead of reading an adult comic book. Same risk, greater reward, to put it shockingly. This is how the censorship of fictional porn puts real children at risk.



You must have misunderstood me there. I never said that pedophiles shouldn't be cured, only that people shouldn't be chemically castrated against their will. Chemical castration is not a cure, just like electroshock therapy or lobotomy can't cure schizophrenia. An actual cure would be great. I bet most pedophiles would volunteer to take it.

So by all means, let's research the neurology of sexual orientation and find ways to change it. Let's find a cure for pedophilia, a cure for homosexuality (for those who want to switch for religious reasons, for example), and of course a cure for heterosexuality. I'm not being sarcastic here; I've often said that I'd love to be 100% gay instead of a 1-2 on the Kinsey scale, because it would make things so much easier for me. I'd like to live in a world where people can freely choose their sexual orientation, their biological sex and gender identity, and of course their appearance.

When I hear the word "pedophilia" I think of someone that actually molests kids or badly wants to. Not someone that owns an adult manga that is set in a high school and has some teenagers having sex in it. Looking at fictional teenagers having sex does not make you a pedophile. It does not have to mean that you want to go out and have sex with teenagers or even have sex at all.

There are still loads of places online selling adult manga and doujinshi with teenage characters and I don't see them all getting shut down and their customers getting tracked down.

Even mainstream manga like Inuyasha show underage nudity. They show Kagome naked and she is 15. To some people then reading Inuyasha makes you a pedophile.

I've known someone online that loves the Inuyasha/Kagome pairing and owns a bunch of adult Inuyasha/Kagome doujinshi. Kagome is 15. Apparently because of that some would say she is a horrible pedophile and should be taken away from her husband and children and imprisoned all because she owned some comic books.

While we are at it lets get thought police to read everyone's minds and if they ever have a fantasy about anyone under 18 or anything else that is deemed "forbidden" we can round them all up and jail them for their thoughts.

I was commenting on the laws as they exist, not making personal judgements. It doesn't matter what I think, those that have the authority in the US to develop and enforce laws have the influence as to whether one goes to prison or not. The legal system in the US has defined depictions of minors engaged in sex in managa comic books as "child porn". Those that are found guilty of receiving or transmitting the illegal content by mail, across state borders, or through the internet, are subject to the law and penalties as they exist.

I don't make my discussions on controversial topics personal. I've never suggested or implied that anyone on this internet site was a pedophile; quote it if you can find it, otherwise I politely ask you not to suggest that I do by stating I am smearing discussion opponents with a pedophile brush. I'm not discussing people's personal lives in the discussion here, I'm discussing the topic. When I state if one is so inclined, that is not in reference to any particular individual, it is an impersonal comment not a personal one.

The reality is there are people that do travel to other countries where laws do not exist or are not enforced as strictly, to suit personal inclinations for young girls and boys and there are countries were child pornography laws are not strict like they are in the US, that provide a benefit for those that are so inclined.

One whom is so inclined can stay where the laws exist and are enforced, if one wants to risk a good portion of their life in prison. Cultural norms and laws make a difference in human behavior. The US legal system labels child pornography inclusive of individuals under the age of 18 engaged in sexual activity determined legally obscene. That not my judgement that is the legal system's judgement in the US.

I have yet to refer to magazines that depict actual teen or what is also referred to as child pornography per the legal system in the US, I have made that reference to the internet. Nor have I suggested that males that are attracted to younger mature females are inherent pedophiles. I have stated several times that is part of normal human nature.

It is an issue that is impacted by different cultural norms and laws dependent on country and culture. Just because an Internet pornography site says the girls are barely 18 doesn't necessarily mean they are 18, nor is this legal issue controlled nearly as well as it was in the past with the modern potential of most anyone with a computer, a digital camera, and broadband access the potential to become an internet porn sensation.

The laws as they exist are becoming harder to enforce, and adaptations will be made as seen fit by the courts and the legal system to better enforce the laws as required. That's not a personal opinion, it is how the legal and court system work in the US.

I agree with this, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't protest additional censorship and unnecessarily oppressive laws. When it comes to criminal law, I find that the existing laws are usually more than sufficient, if they were only properly enforced.

But censorship aside, my main problem is simply that this law has been snuck in without informing the public. I didn't know about it until a few days ago. I have all kinds of porn on my PC, all perfectly legal until 2008. Barely 18, Japanese porn with adult actresses who probably wouldn't pass for 18 by Western standards, BDSM porn with a stern headmistress / submissive student theme, and so on. (There is also plenty of "MILF" porn for that matter. I think that I'm a pretty ordinary single male when it comes to porn). This means that I could be prosecuted as a criminal sex offender if some conservative elderly judge thinks that a 20 year old Jenna Haze could easily pass for 17.

It also means that I have to go through my entire collection, which I paid a fair amount of money for back when I could easily afford it, and delete all videos with actresses that a judge might consider to be a "minor in appearance". I mean, how would I possibly know that? There needs to be a clear, unambiguous guideline. Legal age is such a guideline, but appearance is a very subjective thing. To be on the safe side, I'd have to delete everything except for movies with unambiguously mature (i.e., wrinkly and saggy) performers.

This puts both porn consumers and the adult entertainment industry in an impossible position. As an adult content seller in Second Life, I have been in this position after the child porn scandal in SL and the subsequent paranoia. Not that I sell anything illegal, but I still had to redesign countless product displays to make sure that no virtual model could be mistaken for 17, just in case that a competitor might report me in an attempt to put me out of business. That's what got me into researching the legal situation in the first place. Anyway, I don't find it acceptable that nearly everything can now be considered child porn by an ill-humored judge who ran out of antacid pills or suffers from worse hemorrhoid itching than usual. Laws should be unambiguous and leave little room for interpretation, imho.

In the US if someone represents pornography as "Barely 18" pornography, as is often represented as such, and uses individuals under the age of 18, which does often happen in real life, they can be convicted of child pornography.

There is no way one can tell for sure if the many advertisements marketed on the internet for "Barely 18" are actually 18, because the medium is not well regulated, per the type of regulation that can be enforced at a strip club, with ID checks.

Even those that are under the age of 18 and transmit pornographic images of themselves on the internet can be convicted of transmitting child pornography in the US. Whether one agrees with the law or not, or personally defines the images as child pornography, the laws in the US define the images as such, and if one is convicted of the crime they face the penalties as applicable.

One of the biggest issues per the laws as they exist in the US and the pornography industry is the usage of underage individuals in the production of pornography and marketing of that material as legal to the overall target audience of males, whom are naturally attracted to young sexually mature looking females. The US law defines it as child pornography, and if one is convicted of breaking the applicable laws they face the penalties as they currently exist.

My reference to the "Barely 18", motto is in regard to the actual illegal aspects, per this marketing technique, not the legal aspects of it.

US law defines Child Pornography at the age of 17 years old, and per simulations of such as determined by referenced law earlier in the thread; that is not my personal determination, it is the determination of US Law. If you don't agree with these definitions of child pornography per US law, your disagreement is not with me, it is with legal system in the US.

I've attempted to make the point more than once that the victims of the porn industry, are not just those depicted in the porn. You are by far not the only one in this situation, and only one of the few that understand the position you are in or that would likely admit it in a public forum, which I think is good because it brings awareness to a serious problem for many in the general population, who may neither be concerned or aware of it.

I don't want to make any judgements on anyone's personal porn preferences, however I have similar concerns about what you are concerned about in that individuals not intending to break the law, are going to get a 6 month sentence in prison, and have their entire life ruined as a sexl offender, because those in the porn industry or amateur porn enthuisiasts misrepresented the age of their porn stars.

These laws are being generated because in real life the porn industry and the amateur participation has been using minors in depictions of porn and have been getting away with it, because in effect it is almost impossible to control.

I'm not suggesting that one shouldn't protest against what they don't believe are fair legal rulings, but the reality at this point is that it is better to understand the laws and not risk having one's life ruined, because one did not understand the potential legal ramifications of their activity in internet pornography.

If it keeps one person out of trouble, it's worth the effort in my opinion, to attempt to offer objective information on the issue, in a public forum.

I support the ban. Whether or not the person depicted is actually 18 or "portrayed" as being less than 18 is superfluous. I could not EVER entertain the notion of a pedophile trying to circumvent the law by attempting to twist its legislation or wording to gain support from those who would othewise frown on its presence.

If it was banned, there might be a hike in up coming artists.

Maybe I should consider opening an art supply store?

I seriously want to know what people who have bought these things online or even legally in American bookstores are supposed to do now with their suddenly illegal manga/doujinshi.

I don't support a ban. This is thought police and drawings are not people that need to be protected.

interesting point

Last edited by Delphiki on 21 May 2012, 10:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.