I agree with you, and like I tell everyone; it's their own personal opinion what they like. Personally, I refuse to draw anything other than clean art because of ethical reasons and personal values. I don't judge people for what they like.

Politicians have always been power-hungry people, that is why they became politicians.
You cannot expect them to make rational decisions about freedom.

Hear hear.

Why do so many people not understand that others have a separation of reality and fiction.

I actually met someone once who honestly could not understand how the Saw movies were legal, considering that they contain graphic depictions of torture and murder and such things are crimes, so how come depictions of them aren't?

It was fucking terrifying.

"I do not argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience"

If they're that concerned with the imaginary kids' rights, they should really write their imaginary congressman. Maybe get an imaginary bill passed.

Word.

Agreed

I have to agree, even if I do not support drawing of underage. You present far more valid points than most others would.

I guess it's one of those things it's easy to gain support for, but if somebody goes in the opposite direction and tries to have it remain legal, more so on principle that it really doesn't have much business being a law in the first place, you're inevitably just gonna be committing career suicide because suddenly half the Senate thinks you wanna grope Bart Simpson.

Erotica involving under-aged characters makes me uncomfortable, but ultimately I would much rather people be able to at least express it in fantasy if it meant satisfying them enough to not practice it in reality. That's why I just always shrug and look away; besides, I'm sure people probably feel the same way about fatties lol.

It's so weird to see this argument and not see you get dogpiled with people telling you to kill yourself.

I've seen plenty a Tumblr callout post for artists who draw erotica involving chibis. I'm afraid to dissent just due to the backlash I would get.

Drawing porn of underaged characters is plenty gross and creepy but I'd much rather pedos spank it to artwork than porn of actual children.

I mostly agree. My niggling worry is that someone who already does want to abuse children or animals, but is currently inhibited from acting on that desire, can encounter these enclaves where it seems to be regarded as acceptable, and be emboldened by that. That seems like an absurd worry in a lot of ways: the art here is so obviously distant from reality, and I have no evidence of whether these people exist, are prevalent, or are affected by art in that way (rather than, say, finding it an adequate substitute for doing something terrible). And I do hate the scaremongering of our culture and the thought-crime mentality of the law as it stands; I think the artist isn't responsible for who or how their work is taken, and it's abhorrent to tar the ethical perverts of this world with the criminal brush. So I'm inclined to dismiss my fears. But still, dot dot dot. Ugh. Am I being needlessly paranoid?

My favorite part of this whole debate is when the people spouting off in a pedo-panic are then caught saying "Well I like violence and torture and rape etc. but I can control my urges. They're just fantasies. I have restraint!"

Excuse me if I don't trust your assessment of yourself when you default to the 'can't be trusted' side for anyone you don't like. I won't even mention all of the times that violent media has been found with people with sociopathic tendencies and the times when actual killers/torturers have tons of this media. Not in all cases, of course (which, hey, kind of proves my larger point) but do I have to mention the Columbine killers and their Doom mod?

Everyone has to has someone to look down upon, it seems. I choose to look down upon intellectually bankrupt panics and arguments. There are legitimate issues with child imagery but they are mostly around the fact of 'there is precious little scientific data to make a judgement either way whether pornography alone is enough to increase illegal behaviours' not 'I have anecdotal evidence, I totally knew someone that had that stuff en masse and they were touching their little sister' or 'I'm arguing slippery slope because I personally started acting out fantasies after only being introduced to them via pornography, and I assume this also applies for violent and abusive acts'.

And yet, no one bats an eye when a young Bruce Wayne watches his parents get gunned down.

I don't like any of it myself, either, and i used to be one of the folks making that slippery slope argument.
As my takes on art and life have begun to evolve, however, i find myself less willing to shout others down, so long as no one is physically hurt.

Just respect my boundaries, and i'll happily respect yours, is my feeling on it.

It's because people have always used "children" as an excuse to promote their own agendas.

Need to rally support to your cause? Say that your cause "helps children" or what you're against "harms children" and people back it up because they like their own children and can't think rationally so long as the kids are involved.

Comic books were at first banned and then massively regulated (in violation of the 1st amendment) to "protect the children." Movies, TV and videogames are sex-free because "children might see them" (interestingly violence is OK). Socrates was put to death because he was corrupting the "children" of Athens.

It's always going to be like this. Children will always be used as an excuse, or at best a distraction. In an era where we're cutting back on educational opportunities, play and food for kids, we distract from these real concerns by arguing that Crayon Shin Chan and Calvin and Hobbes are child pornography because they depict naked little boys (courts have upheld both comics to be "child pornography" under the law).

Because it's easier to "protect" the children from imagined harms than it is to help them with real ones.

I always love using this as a moment to talk about "Seymore Butts," one of the people prosecuted under obscenity laws in the US. What was he prosecuted for? Lesbian fisting porn. We should worry because the obscenity laws are pretty much prosecuting people based on how offended the jury is.
(Seymore Butts made a plea agreement).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seymore_Butts

I can't stand when some people pick and choose like that. Either fictional art is fictional or it isn't - you can't say fictional murder is a-ok while fictional porn is not. It doesn't make any sense and only leads to confusion :/ I do agree with Spidie on how obscenity laws are more or less based on how offended the jury is. Eh.

It's a good thing that some people have a healthy outlet for their desires. Especially one that's victimless fantasy and causes no real harm.

Except those offended, which nobody gives a shit about anyway.

The real slippery slope here probably lies more with those pushing for censorship. If we were to allow someone else to enforce complete censorship and prohibition of cub/feral artwork, what's really to stop them from also prohibiting our beloved gore/tentacle porn? If all it takes is a few people getting offended and complaining about something someone else likes.

As uncomfortable as cub porn and the like make me (which is pretty uncomfortable...), the idea of thought crimes makes me even more uncomfortable.

While over all I agree I do have a habit of side stepping some of the more vocal sorts I've had a date pull out a massive binder of extreme age play storys (Adult male extremely young (7-12) daughters) and I just..I couldn't, I had to bale on it, unfortunately he proved me right nearly a month later by trying to get nude pictures of his new girlfriends 13 year old daughter changing, luckily shes a brave smart girl and ran for it,her father press charges and they found all sorts of seedy not drawn sites, that whole nightmare put me on edge about anyone who enjoys the fictional side of things cause I've seen it go from fictional to reality far to quickly but I'm certainly not going to condemn everyone for it, I am however going to be wary, because as always the really bad guys ruin it for everyone.

Shit makes me feel really gross. I don't like it. This is the end of my story.

To clarify for everyone: I am not saying YAY EVERYONE DRAW UNDERAGE SMUT IT IS PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL AND FLAWLESS. I am saying don't go super militant and claim it's equally bad as actual children being abused when it's just a drawing. It is like any other drawing of sensitive material.

That is all I am saying. I know when kids are involved it's easy to get extra uncomfortable. Trust me. I modded on Y!Gallery for years and we had a dedicated group of people who liked the realistically drawn stuff and they gave me the heebiest of jeebies.

I am so incredibly happy to see this expressed and see people agreeing/supporting it. So thank you for posting!

I don't like it. But so long as it's legal to draw, it's not modeled after actual children, and it's not actually harming anyone, my preferences don't fucking matter. My personal opinion about such content doesn't deserve to become enshrined as the law.

favng this for truth

Real pornography has been proven to have enough impact on a person mentally (see: Men who regularly watch porn have a harder time determining/respcting consent) that I wouldn't be surprised that drawn pornography would have similar effects.

Idk I'm just really not okay with normalizing the sexualization of children. But I think filmed porn should be made illegal too so. You know.