Men jailed for having drawing of illegal acts.

[Jester]

What makes this all the more egregious is that porn that features legally-aged actresses pretending to be teenagers is perfectly legal. So appearances clearly aren't the problem...

Not exactly true.

While it used to be true, a while back it became illegal (probably under the PROTECT act, though I am not certain) to even portray underaged people having sex. Which is why in most pornos made since that time, anyone who is supposed to be young is either "18, right?" or their age is intentionally ambiguous. In no modern American pornographic film will an actress pretend to be or say she is under the age of 18.

[Nekojin]

I suppose it'd be an egregious breach of forum etiquette to actually link to a video (made within the last few years, even!) that plays up the "teenager" kink, so let's just pretend I have, everyone can make with the "How can you post that, you sicko," responses, and then move on, okay?

[siead_lietrathua]

the OP article isn't talking about teens. it's talking about kids.
one of those wiki articles i linked to (i think... been reading too many wikis) talked about a definition of minors in the context of art to be beneath prepubescent age. so... 12 and under, about.
also pedophile =/= ephebophile. which when you are dealing with 14-17 that's ephebophilia. someone who is into teens would not be into 6-year-olds, and a pedophile isnt interested in fully developed minors.

[Andara Bledin]

I'm still of the opinion that if no real people were involved and harmed at any point, then get the fuck out of peoples' private lives.

Period.

And "gateway" issues mean exactly jack and shit until the individual crosses the line into at least attempting to involve another human being.

I'm really sick to shit of people trying to legislate thought crimes. It's a disgusting trend and it should be recognized and vilified for what it is.

^-.-^

[siead_lietrathua]

see, to me, the gateway issue is viable. when it comes to kids and sex anyway.
think about it. letting people fap to images of kids while raging about them doing it to real ones is basically saying "don't you dare think of my kid, or their kid, sexually. but this cartoon of a kid that looks like them is perfectly fine. you can get off to that all you want."
what if he was collecting children's clothing? (nothing stolen, all purchased properly). would that be considered wrong, or because it's simply the clothing and was never on a real child it's fine.
or fapping to non-sexual images of children? they aren't performing obscene acts. the images are fine and non abusive, so the kids aren't really being harmed... but they are being sexualized.
get why i have a problem with this?

the articles i posted before. other then the OP case, and one other instance of a loli-porn consumer, every other person busted for obscene images of minors ALSO had real kid pron.

[Andara Bledin]

And, as I said earlier, I'm not sure most people are able to maintain complete objectivity when kids are brought into the mix.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it does make judgements a lot more subject to irrationality.

I, personally, find images that involve anything that looks like a kid to be completely uninteresting and in some cases, are actual turn-offs.

However, that said, there are other images that are of activities that would be considered far more deviant and objectionable than two kids playing doctor. But me having pics of one but not the other is fine. There's a massive disconnect in what can and cannot be had that cannot just be hand-waved away.

Also, it's worth noting that I probably have cached images of the sort listed in this thread on my computer right this moment. I'd wager that pretty much everyone whose ever perused 4-chan or Rule 34 has the same. I'd also wager that the overwhelming majority of the same have absolutely zero interest in them. How do we even begin to separate those who have an active interest from those who grabbed a dump of 1000+ images and hasn't bothered to weed out the stuff they don't really care about?

^-.-^

[b2addm]

http://www.keymochi.com/other-stuff/...n-pornography/

It wasn't a drawing according to that article, though I don't know where the information came from. Who/what is Loli?

[siead_lietrathua]

er, because people with a random 4chan folder that might have one or two anime pics of teens in skimpy gear in it would probably just flag the person as a creepo but not be worth persuing as a case. the man in the OP had a folder, titled as incest porn, with a fuckton of images that were solely of children fucking. not teens. kids. under. 12. fucking each other. and adults.

to this part
"However, that said, there are other images that are of activities that would be considered far more deviant and objectionable than two kids playing doctor. But me having pics of one but not the other is fine. There's a massive disconnect in what can and cannot be had that cannot just be hand-waved away."

there is no disconnect. there is a pretty clean cut line. if it has minors, it falls under the protect act. images of adults doing whatever they want to each other would NOT fall under this act unless they are claiming to be minors. you can have twenty people gangbanging to gangam style on a NYC rooftop and it's perfectly fine. so long as they're adults.

[crashhelmet]

http://www.keymochi.com/other-stuff/...n-pornography/

It wasn't a drawing according to that article, though I don't know where the information came from. Who/what is Loli?

IIRC, Loli-porn usually depicts child age subjects. Like 6-10 year olds. I don't remember if it's a play on the word Lolita or Lollipop, or something else.

[Nekojin]

IIRC, Loli-porn usually depicts child age subjects. Like 6-10 year olds. I don't remember if it's a play on the word Lolita or Lollipop, or something else.

It derives from Lolita. Which is ironic, since Lolita was the sexual aggressor in that relationship...

The Japanese culture is fond of portmanteaus, or word mashes. The original term was, "lolicon," which is a mash-up of "Lolita icon." That eventually got shortened down to just "loli." And, like most words, different people mean different things when they use it. Some people mean anyone underage. Some people mean only preteens. And some mean the very young - 6 years and under. None of these are "wrong," per se.

[Eisa]

There's also shota-con, or shota, which is basically the same as loli-con, only with boys instead.

I don't know. There's still a big difference between cartoons and things that depict actual children or were based on actual children.