Drawing nude/semi-nude underage girls - is that also pedophilia?

[TheAnarchist]

[QUOTE=lmaoboat;18646771]What the best direction for society is is also subjective.[/QUOTE]

Not really, you're forgetting that there's a real world that opinions are weighed against. If you for example think life is without value and want to kill yourself, go ahead, just don't drag me into it. That way I live and you don't, call that the 'best way' all you want. I know it's a dramatic example, but what you seem to be suggesting is that society has more progress if we got rid of animated child-porn, and I disagree.

[Doug52392]

[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]Uh, pedophilia is the sexual interest in prepubescent kids. If you draw naked kids, your expressing an unnatural interest in the sexualization of children, which is pedophilia.

It's like furries. Why do furries always draw sexualized animals? Because they express their own (sick and disturbing) sexual fantasies through their "artwork."

Psychologists have said that drawings provide gateways into one's own mind, and can show the hidden desires of a person.

[TH89]

[QUOTE=dgg;18646960]No, because it's the only thing you can go by, really. As far as I know at least there has been no tests on this matter. But maybe it has.
But it's the same as discussing time traveling, there are only theories, assumptions and opinions, no actual facts.[/QUOTE]

That's why it's stupid to "believe in" one thing or the other. Why not just admit you don't know instead of arbitrarily selecting whichever sounds better?

[Smashmaster]

[QUOTE=Doug52392;18647010]Uh, pedophilia is the sexual interest in prepubescent kids. If you draw naked kids, your expressing an unnatural interest in the sexualization of children, which is pedophilia.

It's like furries. Why do furries always draw sexualized animals? Because they express their own (sick and disturbing) sexual fantasies through their "artwork."

Psychologists have said that drawings provide gateways into one's own mind, and can show the hidden desires of a person.[/QUOTE]

This is why I wrote this other post:

[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]

I disagree completely, Doug.

Pedophilia is the ACT of molesting a little kid-- There's a distinction between the act and the thought, and we can't police thoughts or else life starts sucking.

[Dronaroid]

[QUOTE=Doug52392;18647010][b]Uh, pedophilia is the sexual interest in prepubescent kids. If you draw naked kids, your expressing an unnatural interest in the sexualization of children, which is pedophilia.[/b]

It's like furries. Why do furries always draw sexualized animals? Because they express their own (sick and disturbing) sexual fantasies through their "artwork."

Psychologists have said that drawings provide gateways into one's own mind, and can show the hidden desires of a person.[/QUOTE]

It isn't the kind of pedophilia where you want to have sex with ACTUAL children, most of the time, you want to have sex with the individual you drew, so you probably don't show any sexual interest in the real underage individuals.

Why? Because drawings are the concept of one's perfect world, so he draws perfect individuals, and is likely to prefer sexual relatioships only with them.

[dgg]

[QUOTE=TH89;18646959]I know it's your opinion. It's still irrational and meaningless in a discussion of actual real-life policymaking.[/QUOTE]

Found an article (just the first result I could find)
[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais]How the Web Prevents Rape[/url]
No clear evidence either, but a more possible answer to it.

[QUOTE=TH89;18647005]The post I was replying to included both:

When I use the term "child porn" I mean "porn of children," whether it's drawn or not. Obviously there is a different set of ethical implications for each of those, but that's not what's at issue here.[/QUOTE]

Well I see that the post you're reffering to actually notes both drawn and not drawn. So yeah, you win there. I'm only talking about drawn children in sexually (or not) suggesting poses, or fully blatantly sexual actions.

I believe that as long as it is only fantasy/drawings and not pictures/video/reality then there really is no problem with it at all.

[TH89]

[QUOTE=Doug52392;18647010]Uh, pedophilia is the sexual interest in prepubescent kids. If you draw naked kids, your expressing an unnatural interest in the sexualization of children, which is pedophilia.[/QUOTE]
Not universally true.

That ad with the dog pulling down the girl's swimsuit or w/e springs to mind, because the artist probably wasn't a pedophile.

But if he had a deviantArt account where he posted tens of drawings of little girls having their swimsuits pulled off, like the guy in the OP, it would be pretty fair to assume he has a thing

[Denicide]

[QUOTE=Doug52392;18647010]Uh, pedophilia is the sexual interest in prepubescent kids. If you draw naked kids, your expressing an unnatural interest in the sexualization of children, which is pedophilia.

It's like furries. Why do furries always draw sexualized animals? Because they express their own (sick and disturbing) sexual fantasies through their "artwork."

Psychologists have said that drawings provide gateways into one's own mind, and can show the hidden desires of a person.[/QUOTE]

There is a clear distinction between drawing a chained up fox woman being raped and a naked child in a presumably innocent pose. I hope it's more an interest in anatomy that drives people to draw naked children as opposed to pedophilia.

[dgg]

[QUOTE=TH89;18647027]That's why it's stupid to "believe in" one thing or the other. Why not just admit you don't know instead of arbitrarily selecting whichever sounds better?[/QUOTE]

I don't know if God exists, but I still [I]believe[/I] in him. (Not the Christian one by the way)

Stating that you [U]believe[/U] actually means "I don't know, but I hope".

"I believe in global warming". Doesn't mean that the person says it is true, but does think it is.

"Global warming is true". Means that the person thinks it is a fact and that is how it is.

[Dronaroid]

[QUOTE=Denicide;18647135]There is a clear distinction between drawing a chained up fox woman being raped and a naked child in a presumably innocent pose. I hope it's more an interest in anatomy that drives people to draw naked children as opposed to pedophilia.[/QUOTE]

The human being is attracted to innocence.

[TheAnarchist]

[QUOTE=TH89;18646924]You are proposing that CP is a "positive asset" in that it reduces the number of pedos who molest kids.[/QUOTE]

And you said that it could easily be the opposite, but I think what we're coming to is that when we don't know who's right, we don't assume that animated child porn is a bad thing. That is why I'm not 'proposing' anything.

[ImCrimson]

Hay guys, some drawings are giving some people boners. You better throw those people in jail at once before they start brutally raping some little girls :downs:. Or let's install some thought-detectors on these guys so we can arrest them as soon as they start thinking about "unethical" stuff.

Pedophilia is not illegal because it's disgusting.

[HookJ]

Pedophilia is a mental issue, having sex with a prepubescent child is sex with a minor/rape of an underage child. Everyone is mixing the two up.

[Smashmaster]

This thread is basically repeating the same argument now.

I think we can boil it down to people who think thoughts and expression shouldn't be policed and the side who thinks that any expression of thought geared towards immoral activity should be policed.

EDIT: I don't think anybody's in disagreement that sex with little kids is immoral though.

[swebonny]

While I don't think a picture such as garry did makes one a pedophile. I must say repeatedly drawing pictures of such nature and sharing them with others is pretty suspicious.

[rosar098]

I have the belief that if a person looks at child porn, they have an interest in children in a sexual way. Now, the drawn stuff gives them a good release, so that they won't go out and harm an actual child. People shouldn't be punished for drawing that stuff cause they are stopping pedophiles. Now, they should be watched because it COULD indicate that they have these same fantasies, but let's not go overkill on this. No, I don't think this stuff is pedophilia, but others might. If it wasn't a drawing of a real child, then it should be fine. I think that God has smiled upon the people who make porn cause they are stopping crimes by creating the perfect models for rapists and pedophiles to look at.

[TH89]

[QUOTE=dgg;18647123]Found an article (just the first result I could find)
[url=http://www.slate.com/id/2152487/?nav=ais]How the Web Prevents Rape[/url]
No clear evidence either, but a more possible answer to it.[/QUOTE]
It's confusing correlation with causation. There's a huge number of sociopolitically inclined people who believe that pornography ENCOURAGES rape.

[QUOTE=dgg;18647123]Well I see that the post you're reffering to actually notes both drawn and not drawn. So yeah, you win there. I'm only talking about drawn children in sexually (or not) suggesting poses, or fully blatantly sexual actions.

I believe that as long as it is only fantasy/drawings and not pictures/video/reality then there really is no problem with it at all.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=TheAnarchist;18647208]And you said that it could easily be the opposite, but I think what we're coming to is that when we don't know who's right, we don't assume that animated child porn is a bad thing. That is why I'm not 'proposing' anything.[/QUOTE]
I'm withholding judgement on drawn CP because the production of it obviously doesn't hurt anyone and I've seen no evidence that the consumption of it increases OR decreases the number of real-life incidents.

I do think it's foolish to say that people who draw/look at this kind of stuff are not pedophiles. I understand the desire to distinguish one's self from an actual child rapist, but that's not what "pedophile" [i]means[/i].

[Dronaroid]

[QUOTE=Swebonny;18647241]While I don't think a picture such as garry did makes one a pedophile. I must say repeatedly drawing pictures of such nature and sharing them with others is pretty suspicious.[/QUOTE]

Only if one does draw pictures of such nature [i]really[/i] frequently.

[Smashmaster]

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;18647227]Hay guys, some drawings are giving some people boners. You better throw those people in jail at once before they start brutally raping some little girls :downs:. Or let's install some thought-detectors on these guys so we can arrest them as soon as they start thinking about "unethical" stuff.

Pedophilia is not illegal because it's disgusting.[/QUOTE]

Yes it is.

Realisticly, they'd like you to think it's illegal because it's violating someones rights, but nobody in charge cares about rights more than staying in charge and lining their pockets. A good way to stay in charge is to agree with the majority: Pedophilia is disgusting. Outlaw pedophilia; stay in charge.

EDIT: Well, 'outlaw' is the wrong way to say that. The correct usage would be "Keep pedophilia outlawed;"

The point is that, if I were in charge, I wouldn't legalize raping kids. I wouldn't do that, because I feel raping kids is immoral and disgusting.

Turns out, the definition of pedophilia is the disorder of being attracted to little kids. I wouldn't outlaw the thought or disorder, but I would outlaw the act.

[Jimmymi]

/a/'s only type of food is dem lolis

[HookJ]

[QUOTE=TH89;18647290]It's confusing correlation with causation. There's a huge number of sociopolitically inclined people who believe that pornography ENCOURAGES rape.

I'm withholding judgement on drawn CP because the production of it obviously doesn't hurt anyone and I've seen no evidence that the consumption of it increases OR decreases the number of real-life incidents.

I do think it's foolish to say that people who draw/look at this kind of stuff are not pedophiles. I understand the desire to distinguish one's self from an actual child rapist, but that's not what "pedophile" [i]means[/i].[/QUOTE]

Exactly, a pedophile/paedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to pre-pubescent children, there's a huge difference between actually raping a child and drawing some gay anime-styled pictures of them.

[TH89]

[QUOTE=Smashmaster;18647311]Yes it is.

Realisticly, they'd like you to think it's illegal because it's violating someones rights, but nobody in charge cares about rights more than staying in charge and lining their pockets. A good way to stay in charge is to agree with the majority: Pedophilia is disgusting. Outlaw pedophilia; stay in charge.[/QUOTE]

Now you're being silly.

[dgg]

[QUOTE=TH89;18647290]It's confusing correlation with causation. There's a huge number of sociopolitically inclined people who believe that pornography ENCOURAGES rape.

I'm withholding judgement on drawn CP because the production of it obviously doesn't hurt anyone and I've seen no evidence that the consumption of it increases OR decreases the number of real-life incidents.

I do think it's foolish to say that people who draw/look at this kind of stuff are not pedophiles. I understand the desire to distinguish one's self from an actual child rapist, but that's not what "pedophile" [i]means[/i].[/QUOTE]

Yes. Just like many people think violent video games increases violence, and many thinks it reduces it.

Oh yes, I agree with you there, as stated very early I do believe the person in OP has a high change of being one, but I do not see a problem in drawing what he does.

[Tea]

Did [B]not[/B] expect garry in this thread.

[dgg]

[QUOTE=Smashmaster;18647311]Yes it is.

Realisticly, they'd like you to think it's illegal because it's violating someones rights, but nobody in charge cares about rights more than staying in charge and lining their pockets. A good way to stay in charge is to agree with the majority: Pedophilia is disgusting. Outlaw pedophilia; stay in charge.[/QUOTE]

What?

Paedophilia is illegal when it is acted upon, as in having sexual intercourse with children. It scars them for life and causes harm in every way possible.

It is not illegal because people find it disgusting. But it is disgusting because it harms children and they get off to it.

[Smashmaster]

[QUOTE=TH89;18647405]Now you're being silly.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I know.

[editline]01:26PM[/editline]

[QUOTE=dgg;18647474]What?

Paedophilia is illegal when it is acted upon, as in having sexual intercourse with children. It scars them for life and causes harm in every way possible.

It is not illegal because people find it disgusting. But it is disgusting because it harms children and they get off to it.[/QUOTE]

I was having a little confusion with the definition of pedophilia, sorry-- as in, if it's the act or the attraction.

[rosar098]

I just thought of something. Wouldn't it be good for a pedophile to draw that stuff cause they can make their perfect model and then tack it up. Posting it on the internet is just spreading it to other peds to print it off. I think it is a good thing cause it stops pedophiles.

[Smashmaster]

I certainly think drawn CP would decrease real CP as well as molestation.

I don't think it increases it, because whether or not something is right or normal doesn't stop anybody from doing anything, in the end. It's their desire to do it, which pushes them to. If drawn CP negates that desire, then it decreases incidents of molestation.

[dgg]

[QUOTE=Smashmaster;18647624]I certainly think drawn CP would decrease real CP as well as molestation.

I don't think it increases it, because whether or not something is right or normal doesn't stop anybody from doing anything, in the end. It's their desire to do it, which pushes them to. If drawn CP negates that desire, then it decreases incidents of molestation.[/QUOTE]

But what if it is one of the reasons they actually notice that they are attracted to it and starts doing it earlier than they would if they did not see it? Thus increasing the amounts of rape they would do in their lifetime?

;)

It can go both ways after all. But of course, I mostly agree with you anyways. Just don't block out the other side completely.

[TH89]

[QUOTE=dgg;18647437]Oh yes, I agree with you there, as stated very early I do believe the person in OP has a high change of being one, but I do not see a problem in drawing what he does.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he should be banned from doing it, but I wouldn't hang out with him.

[QUOTE=Tea;18647457]Did [B]not[/B] expect garry in this thread.[/QUOTE]
Garry usually posts in lolicon debate threads.