• Drawing nude/semi-nude underage girls - is that also pedophilia?
    339 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Barack Obama;18646050]Nobody has a "purely artistic interest" in drawing naked little girls Fuck outta here[/QUOTE] qft
I don't see the problem with drawings. Child Pornography is outlawed because it can be harmful to the child's mental and physical development. Drawings can't do that so I don't see a problem.
If the drawings are not drawn in a sexual way, then no, not really. That would be the same as calling family photos of your child for CP material. Just because it can be used as it doesn't mean it is or has the intention of being it. This is further proven because the man in question here draws it in anime style, which pretty much in general contains like... 50-65% lolicon material. It can be a link to being a paedophile, yes, but it is no proof as it can just be him drawing some of his animu sharing some potential waifus for the retarded community of DA and internet in general. It's almost like accusing a photographer doing child portraits of being a paedophile. But yeah, most likely he is though, but no harm is done, it's drawings and I do not see the problem with that. It can be a way of restraining them from actually doing anything.
[QUOTE=Death0nWings;18646069]I don't see the problem with drawings. Child Pornography is outlawed because it can be harmful to the child's mental and physical development. Drawings can't do that so I don't see a problem.[/QUOTE] ban a ban aban ab anab ana babn aba naban abab na
[QUOTE=TH89;18646050]Nobody has a "purely artistic interest" in drawing naked little girls Fuck outta here[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Is[/url]... Of course the guy might have just been a pedo.
[QUOTE=dgg;18646087]If the drawings are not drawn in a sexual way, then no, not really. That would be the same as calling family photos of your child for CP material. Just because it can be used as it doesn't mean it is or has the intention of being it. This is further proven because the man in question here draws it in anime style, which pretty much in general contains like... 50-65% lolicon material. It can be a link to being a paedophile, yes, but it is no proof as it can just be him drawing some of his animu sharing some potential waifus for the retarded community of DA and internet in general.[/QUOTE] loli is nearly always sexual and the Artist is most probably a pedo... and whats with the spelling "Paedo"
[QUOTE=Rankzerox;18646131]loli is nearly always sexual and the Artist is most probably a pedo... and whats with the spelling "Paedo"[/QUOTE] thea Britishe lieke extrae vowuels.
[QUOTE=Rankzerox;18646131]loli is nearly always sexual and the Artist is most probably a pedo... and whats with the spelling "Paedo"[/QUOTE] Paedo is the right way to spell paedophile. And yes, it's usually sexual. Just saying it doesn't have to be. And it doesn't really have to have any connection with real children and lust to fuck them. I can enjoy dickgirls on papers but I would throw up if I saw it in real life. [QUOTE=lmaoboat;18646153]thea Britishe lieke extrae vowuels.[/QUOTE] I'm Norwegian.
[QUOTE=dgg;18646156]I can enjoy dickgirls on papers[/QUOTE] I thought that was Akumas job.
[QUOTE=dgg;18646087]If the drawings are not drawn in a sexual way, then no, not really. That would be the same as calling family photos of your child for CP material. Just because it can be used as it doesn't mean it is or has the intention of being it. This is further proven because the man in question here draws it in anime style, which pretty much in general contains like... 50-65% lolicon material. It can be a link to being a paedophile, yes, but it is no proof as it can just be him drawing some of his animu sharing some potential waifus for the retarded community of DA and internet in general. It's almost like accusing a photographer doing child portraits of being a paedophile. But yeah, most likely he is though, but no harm is done, it's drawings and I do not see the problem with that. It can be a way of restraining them from actually doing anything.[/QUOTE] This is truth at its finest form.
I'm not a pedo, I just don't think that drawing naked kids makes you one. In the same way that drawing dead jews doesn't automatically make you a nazi.
[QUOTE=garry;18646363]I'm not a pedo, I just don't think that drawing naked kids makes you one. In the same way that drawing dead jews doesn't automatically make you a nazi.[/QUOTE] Sure as hell gets you reported to the principal's office though. :P
[QUOTE=garry;18646363]I'm not a pedo, I just don't think that drawing naked kids makes you one. In the same way that drawing dead jews doesn't automatically make you a nazi.[/QUOTE] Its 2 diffrent things I mean who cares about the jews. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("gb2oify" - garry))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=dgg;18646087]If the drawings are not drawn in a sexual way, then no, not really. That would be the same as calling family photos of your child for CP material.[/QUOTE] Family photos of your kids generally aren't naked
The fact that it's drawn makes it better than actual child porn, but let's not go get hypocritical when we don't make the same distinction for furries. Let's be fair-- If being a furry artist makes you rape animals (that's the general consensus as far as I've seen) then drawing lolicon makes you a pedophile.
[QUOTE=garry;18646363]I'm not a pedo, I just don't think that drawing naked kids makes you one. In the same way that drawing dead jews doesn't automatically make you a nazi.[/QUOTE] I guess it's in the eye of who ever draws it.
Okay. First of all, garry you are one sick fuck, but you make a great game. Second, give me a link to one, and I think I can tell you if it is or not.
[QUOTE=TH89;18646499]Family photos of your kids generally aren't naked[/QUOTE] Theres been tonnes of cases where parents have taken pictures of their kids in the bath and had the kids put into care.
I agree it doesn't make you a pedophile. But I know society is going to frown upon it. Similar to if you drew someone performing anal sex. The artist may have a vivid backstory/meaning to it; yet you're always going to get the people who find it completely distasteful. I personally don't mind though; if people want to draw children in the nude, so be it. As long as they're not using actual children. That, and art is art; just like the guy who poses corpses.
[QUOTE=garry;18646363]I'm not a pedo, I just don't think that drawing naked kids makes you one. In the same way that drawing dead jews doesn't automatically make you a nazi.[/QUOTE] There's plenty of contexts in which it would be fine as part of a larger work. But it sounds to me more like the guy described in the OP just draws naked little girls over and over and posts them. Under those circumstances I wouldn't think whether he thinks little girls are hott would even be up for debate
[QUOTE=TH89;18646499]Family photos of your kids generally aren't naked[/QUOTE] A lot of them are.
[QUOTE=dgg;18646583]A lot of them are.[/QUOTE] Tell me about your childhood
[QUOTE=garry;18646363]I'm not a pedo, I just don't think that drawing naked kids makes you one. In the same way that drawing dead jews doesn't automatically make you a nazi.[/QUOTE] I'd find it hard to believe someone would have a purely non anti-semitic interest in drawing dead Jews.
[QUOTE=rosar098;18646541]Okay. First of all, garry you are one sick fuck, but you make a great game. Second, give me a link to one, and I think I can tell you if it is or not. Hell, don't even have t post it here. Just send it in a message to me.[/QUOTE] He's a sick fuck for drawing something physically impossible on Paint? I hope you realise babies aren't developed enough to get an erection.
[QUOTE=Rankzerox;18645288]Its child porno whatever you fuck ups say, its painted pictures of underaged children fuck sake have some mental health.[/QUOTE] Doesn't matter what you define it as. Child porn, especially drawn, isn't inherently "bad" (nothing is), and from a utilitarian perspective it is actually quite a positive asset in preventing pedophiles from committing child-rape. You wanna know what [i]is[/i] a problem? Moral objectivists like you, because all you do is run around saying stuff is good and bad based on nothing but your obsolete if not detrimental world-views.
I'm with TH89 on this one, I think these are definitely drawn in a sexual context, in other words, it's only just short of the actual crime of pedophilia.
Why is there still no link.
[QUOTE=TH89;18646607]Tell me about your childhood[/QUOTE] A perfectly normal one. Caring parents. 3 elderly sisters. Lots of fun and playing outside. [QUOTE=Smashmaster;18646531]The fact that it's drawn makes it better than actual child porn, but let's not go get hypocritical when we don't make the same distinction for furries. Let's be fair-- If being a furry artist makes you rape animals (that's the general consensus as far as I've seen) then drawing lolicon makes you a pedophile.[/QUOTE] What are you talking about? Drawing furry drawings makes you a guy that draws furry drawings and might be a furry. That's it. [editline]08:54PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Smashmaster;18646647]I'm with TH89 on this one, I think these are definitely drawn in a sexual context, in other words, it's only just short of the actual crime of pedophilia.[/QUOTE] It's miiiiiles away from any actual crime of paedophilia. It's a big step to take between drawing a child and actually touching one.
[QUOTE=TH89;18646571]There's plenty of contexts in which it would be fine as part of a larger work. But it sounds to me more like the guy described in the OP just draws naked little girls over and over and posts them. Under those circumstances I wouldn't think whether he thinks little girls are hott would even be up for debate[/QUOTE] I think what he was saying that drawing naked kids makes you actually go out and rape kids. I think he defines a pedophile as someone who actually commits rape against children.
[QUOTE=Doug52392;18645508] Drawing naked underage girls = fantasizing.[/QUOTE] Criminalizing thought are we?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.