Forum - View topicA crisis of conscience?
|
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4 Next |
| Author | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
jmfsilenthill
 Posts: 1863 Location: Chinese cartoons are srs biz |
|
||
|
With all the talk of the bill in Japan, as well as the implications in other countries (for example Canada), I've been thinking lately about my own opinions regarding the issue of "child porn" and artistic expression. I've come to the conclusion that I really don't know what to think, and that I am perhaps having a "crisis of conscience." I'd also like to add that I'm quite aware of the material in question, as shota and lolicon doujin are not hard to find.
In the past, I thought myself rather open-minded and vehemently against any form of censorship. Hell, I read Mpd-Psycho and Gantz, and I'd be PISSED if they censored that stuff. But now I'm not so sure. I have very strong feelings with regards to the depiction of minors in sexual acts. For the life of me, I cannot fathom how someone could derive pleasure from viewing children in sexually explicit situations. But at the same time, I question why some people are so offended by questionable materials, when they could just avoid them? Perhaps therein lies the problem. I just can't avoid the existince of this material. Even if it makes me hypocritical, I can't pretend it isn't there. I'm not saying that all forms of underage children portrayed in sex acts should be banned in manga. If it is beneficial to the narrative, or is used to establish conflict or plot, then I would not dare try and censor the artist. If, however, it's existence is solely for the purpose of sexual gratification of others, I simply cannot support it. What do you think? Am I mental? Or am I just confused? |
|||
|
|||
Kruszer
 Posts: 7994 Location: Minnesota, USA |
|
||
|
Virtual child porn is just as repulsive to me as the regular variety of the stuff, so I'm personally really apathetic towards the issue. It can disappear, it could stay, I wouldn't look at it in either case anyway so the outcome would be the same.
|
|||
|
|||
LordRedhand
 Posts: 1472 Location: Middle of Nowhere, Indiana |
|
||
|
Your having a conflict because of the contradiction you have set yourself in. It's between art and well not art. Think of the typical loli/shota series with these in mind.
Poison Was The Cure by Megadeath (in this case it's not a good thing for those who like this to be addicted to this, as being addicted to anything is bad for you.) "Art for art's sake is an empty phrase. Art for the sake of truth, art for the sake of the good and the beautiful, that is the faith I am searching for." - George Sand And Keeping The Tree equal without cutting them down, as that is what is happening with the arts they are being cast down instead of growing up. You should meditate on this, so center yourself and remember to keep breathing. |
|||
|
|||
P€|\||§_|\/|ast@
 Posts: 3498 Location: IN your nightmares |
|
||
|
I see it in terms of motives of people who truly do not appreciate nor understand the implications of dictating what illustrative expression is acceptable for the public. This is a form of cultural bias that threatens forcing the importance of values of one culture over the values of another culture. Some of them simply do not care and indiscriminately label works of art as harmful just because of the content. When I say art, I'm referring to any series of drawings that tells a story and has a style that is worthy of being published (or in the case of video, likewise). The term "artistic merit" which might describe something that is obscene but determined to possess historic, cultural, scientific or educational recognition I feel supports a notion that anything lacking "merit" = ok to censor. So I say scrap this artisitc merit based criteria, art is art.
|
|||
|
|||
zgripţuroicǎ
 Posts: 140 Location: Newburgh, NY |
|
||
|
I don't like them, but until I see some evidence presented that people who view shota or loli manga are more likely to commit sex crimes against children in real life, I see no reason to ban them. The ban was mostly proposed as a response to a vocal minority outside of Japan who felt it was poisoning the world, as far as I understand the matter. The Japanese government has been too timid to tell them where they can shove their complaints, as per usual. The way some people have carried on about it, you would think Japan would be nothing but a seething mass of paedophiles and rape.
|
|||
|
|||
|
abunai
Old Regular
 Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
||
|
Revolting or not, art (or media, if you want a more inclusive term) ought not to be censored, because once you start doing that, it always leads to the same result: someone imposing their prejudices on someone else. Whether it's people in an uproar over "obscene" art, or in an uproar over "blasphemous" art, or in some other kind of tizzy, censorship always lacks common sense.
You have freedom of speech and thought -- feel free to consider lolicon revolting and disgusting (certainly, I feel that way myself). Feel free to speak at length about your revulsion (but bear in mind the old phrase about "protesting too much"... I sometimes get the sense that some of the most heartily offended people are covering a nasty secret). But don't suggest legislating morality in art. It's just plain stupid. - abunai |
|||
|
|||
Bento-Box
 Posts: 1049 Location: Florida |
|
||
|
While I definitely think that child porn is disgusting, the whole "virtual" thing has me conflicted also. I'm a person who believes in an extremely limited government (I'm a Classical Liberal) and I generally do no like government meddling in the private sector at all.
Like many of you, I think there are times when certain things are appropriate to the plot. But, I also believe there is a tasteful way to illustrate (or even describe if we're talking about written novels) such scenes. Explicit content (showing immense detail that could be taken as provocative) isn't something that is "required" in order to progress a story. A lot can be said about leaving certain details to the viewer's imagination. For example - a young girl gets raped and is scarred for life emotionally. The author may choose to show her getting attacked but fall short of showing the actual act of the rape. The reader/viewer would know what happened, but they don't have to "see" everything. The whole idea that it's limiting artists' creative facet is correct and true, but there really are other ways to tell a story. I'm not saying that government should come in with its big stick and regulate the heck out of the industry. I'm saying that artists should take a good look at the images they're creating and ask themselves if they could be sending a wrong message with some of the pictures they create and then explore if there are any other ways to get their point across. It's also up to the distribution companies and conventions to keep a check on the content sold at their stores and events. If they personally feel that some things are inappropriate, they should address these issues to the artists directly. Perhaps that would be one way to keep the government out of the industry. I don't believe the "federal government" should have anything to do with this. In the United States, this kind of legislation (if it got to that point) is supposed to be left for the states and local governments to decide. One reason you can't regulate it is because you cannot define what would constitute provocative content on such a grand scale. It is something that must be decided at the local level of government if it's going to be regulated at all. What one group of people finds acceptable is completely different depending on who they are, who raised them, where they live, who their friends are, and their interests among millions of other factors. Views and opinions differ from state to state, town to town, and even house to house. Sure, it's disgusting that some people get off to child porn of all mediums but there's really nothing you can do about it. Even if it got regulated, that wouldn't stop it from being produced, viewed, and distributed. Sure, it would make it riskier to get it, but if someone wanted it bad enough, they would find a way. Just like with prohibition. It spawned more crime because people were going to drink anyways - regardless of what the government said. Also - for the people who do have this "problem" of finding children attractive and wanting to have sex with them, manga may be their outlet for these emotions. Think about what happens when you take away someone's outlet - they start looking for other ways to satisfy their needs. You can't change how these people feel and they may not be able to change their feelings either. Banning virtual depictions that some person in a government building on the other side of the country decides are "inappropriate" won't keep pedophiles from hurting children, rather it could drive them to committing the acts themselves since their outlet has been destroyed. I would rather let these people have their dirty magazines and images if it helps keep them away from children. Besides, the virtual images aren't really hurting any children in the first place. Real child porn is a substantially larger problem because real people are getting hurt. As an artist, the idea of the ban does enrage me quite a bit. I don't think government should decide what art is at all. They should stay out of my personal business. And, if they want to try and take away my rights - good luck. |
|||
|
|||
DuskyPredator
 Posts: 15573 Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
||
|
I understand that kids should be protected, so it is of course it is important to be sure to criminalise matierial with actual children in a sexualised matter (wasn't there something in the USA recently). I am not quite sure that the same rules should be applied to drawn children, I can see that perhaps people belive that it will turn people into pedophiles, in fact that was a belife I had on the matter a couple years back. But I don't think that is right, in fact from what I hear some of them get their "fix" or what ever it is called from it so they are not tempted to get it other ways. I would hate to say that I would like to see proof that is dangerous, as I belive kids should be protected, but it practicly like saying everyone who watches a gore flick will be a psychopath.
Actually for the record I heard recently that here in Australia pornography where the subject is fairly flat chested, is classed as "child pornography", thus people who look up flat chested pornography seem to be classed as pedophiles. So seems I could be told that I am some sick bastered, be baned from being a scout leader which I have been trying to do and be shuned by my own family just because of a prefrence that was not in my control and has no basis that I would hurt a child. |
|||
|
|||
|
jmfsilenthill
Posts: 1863 Location: Chinese cartoons are srs biz |
|
||
I didn't want to come off as sounding that way. I realize that if this kind of material was banned or censored then it is a limitation of freedom of expression. That's why I have this conflicting opinion. I have a ethical problem with this material, but I would also have an ethical problem if it was censored or banned. |
|||
|
|||
|
LordRedhand
Posts: 1472 Location: Middle of Nowhere, Indiana |
|
||
That kind of thinking is the problem I have. It's like going to a smoker and telling them to beat their addiction they should take up drinking alcohol. They need help more than anything, not another addiction. Law without morals though don't mean much as while there are a few that do not have a basis in morality (or moral theory) the relationship between laws and morality is very "tight" As to explain why certain actions are right are wrong and to effectively argue why certain actions/laws should be changed. So as I said, "tight". As to art for art it's got problems with me, if you want to use The Trees analogy there is not a lot of equality in say a Redwood and a Mulberry. Most arts you could say are Maples and Oaks, again with not a lot of equality between them. So if you want equality I'd prefer one that rises up, instead of one that casts down, i.e. endeavor to rise to the height of the Redwood instead of down to stumps. |
|||
|
|||
|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
||
|
Then you have no ethical problem.
Let me explain. Let us assume that you find a certain religion ridiculous and believe that it teaches objectively bad things to its followers as accepted doctrine. Never mind what the religion is, let's just for the sake of argument say that you believe this. Do you feel that laws should be introduced to ban this religion? I'm guessing no. Do you approve of this religion? I'm guessing no. Do you feel that it is your business to tell people to stop believing it? I'm guessing no. Do you feel that you have a right to publicly disagree with the doctrines of this religion? I'm guessing yes. See? No ethical conflict. You don't have to ban something in order to act against it -- it's usually the right action to simply speak out against it. You may not be able to have your cake and eat it too, but you can have your freedom of speech and tell others they're wrong, too, without fear of reprisal. In fact, that's exactly what freedom of speech is all about. - abunai |
|||
|
|||
|
Bento-Box
Posts: 1049 Location: Florida |
|
||
Nicely said. |
|||
|
|||
Mushi-Man
 Posts: 1537 Location: KCMO |
|
||
|
I don't personally like loli or anything like that. But that doesn't mean I support the banning of it. My philosophy is that a person should be able to do and enjoy whatever they want, as long as this doesn't harm any real people. The truth is loli isn't hurting anyone, it may offend some people or make them uncomfortable, but it wont infringe on their basic human rights. Ones we start censoring, what is arguably, art then there's no going back. Fahrenheit 451 may have been a dooms day scenario of the censorship issue but it still paints the dark end point that this practice bring us to. Every inch we give up to the regulation of expression is an inch of freedom we lose as an individual. The lesson that we must learn from this: "just because you don't like something, doesn't mean you should destroy it."
Also as Past has already stated this censorship would simply be the culture of the majority forcing it's opinions on others. And when it comes to an issue like freedom of speech you can't do that, no matter what the situation. And as zgripţuroicǎ has said, there is nothing to show that loli has actually caused any real harm. |
|||
|
|||
|
zgripţuroicǎ
Posts: 140 Location: Newburgh, NY |
|
||
|
Not to confuse cause and effect, as far as I'm aware, Japan has lower rates of sex crimes against children than most other industrialized nations. This could be due to any number of reasons (including the infamous refusal to prosecute any case that isn't almost a sure conviction), but it makes me think that instead of criticizing Japan as a morally bankrupt nation lush with the most vile sorts of pornography imaginable, we ought to be trying to figure out what they're doing right.
To try and put this in perspective, if instead of banning shota and loli work, they were trying to ban mecha shows in order to protect kids from all the violence and frequent subversive ideas, you'd all be up in arms about how unfair it is. After all, nobody is actually hurt in a Gundam show, and no governments are actually overthrown. But since loli/shota is something many people find morally repugnant, nobody really cares that much seeing it banned. "But think of the children!" has become the one phrase you need use to get total approval of whatever it is you wish to do. Sure, think of the children, but also think of the adults who aren't harming real children, but who happen to like this material. |
|||
|
|||
egoist
 Posts: 7762 |
|
||
|
Besides the concepts already mentioned, there's also the possibility of this being only the tip of the iceberg. What guarantee is there that those prosecuting lolicon won't try and prosecute something else once lolicon is banned and illegal? Easier to prevent a breach in the dike instead of fixing it once the damage is done, correct?
Like abunai said, "protest too much and..." For me there's definitely many reasons; those being shows like NGE, and even some hentai(fortunately the latter is easily disposable), going down to fanservice shows like Qwaser and even Omamori Himari. Which, at this point, have been illegal for a while since that bill was introduced, probably(let's face it, there's no way to create a stable law when it comes to fiction). |
|||
|
|||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group