thing i do not care about by technicolorpie

I do not care about the rights of imaginary drawn children.

In fact, I don't think it should be illegal to draw any sensitive subject matter and cannot fathom people who want there to be laws against it but don't care about drawn murder or murder novels. It's the same concept. Why do so many people not understand that others have a separation of reality and fiction. It's not real. Nobody is a victim. I feel this way even if I don't wanna look at the subject matter I'm defending.

Also do not care what two consenting adults want to roleplay I saw someone give someone shit for PRETENDING to be a feral wolf or some shit with their partner who cares no real animals are being harmed just why.

Just a little rant.

ETA: And if you make a slippery slope argument you're pretty much getting into thought crime territory which is so ridiculous I don't even know what words to use.

thing i do not care about

technicolorpie

4 November 2014 at 15:17:15 MST

Journal Information

Views:
795
Comments:
58
Favorites:
12
Rating:
General

Tags Modify

There are no tags associated with this journal

Edit Tags


Comments

  • Link

    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.

  • Link

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

    • Link

      This isn't even about politicians, though!

      • Link

        Yeah that comment had nothing to do with the content of this journal XD

      • Link

        It sort of is and sort of isn't. Politicians are the ones who make laws, but it's usually (sometimes, rarely?) a reflection of what the general population wants. I can't imagine the career of a politician that passes a law allowing fictional depictions of child abuse to be legal would end very well.

        • Link

          "I can't imagine the career of a politician that passes a law allowing fictional depictions of child abuse to be legal would end very well." You have a point. It's one of those things people have a gut reaction to without thinking more deeply on what it entails.

          • Link

            Ah yes, yes, sorry I wasn't clear. I am glad Pyro explained it better. I saw your journal, you said something about laws and legality of drawings.
            Politicians are who make laws. x:

  • Link

    Hear hear.

  • Link

    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.

    • Link

      God. Some people.

    • Link

      I know someone with Asperger's syndrome who can not tell allegory from reality because his parents were incredibly insistent on proselytizing him and he became obsessed with the Bible.

  • Link

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

  • Link

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

  • Link

    Word.

  • Link

    Agreed

  • Link

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

  • Link

    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.

    • Link

      So very true.

    • Link

      I just wanna grope his perfectly cylindrical head

  • Link

    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.

    • Link

      That's kind of another thing. The way it works for a lot of people that I've talked to is they have zero interest in real kids as it is - the fact it is drawn is part of the appeal. It's not so much that it satisfies something they can't do irl . I have perfectly legal fetishes where I love to read fiction/see art about it but have no interest in pursuing it for real. Hell, look at all the Animal Crossing porn I did last month - do you think I'd wanna see that stuff in real life? It'd be TERRIFYING.

      The fact that there are furries, who draw and consume furry porn, who then turn around as assume everyone or even the majority of people who indulge in the underage stuff boggles me on a special level because I'm sure many of them wouldn't take kindly to being called zoophiles for what THEY enjoy.

      • Link

        *are a danger to real life kids should be slipped in after 'the underage stuff'

  • Link

    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.

    • Link

      I can't even really get on shota/loli art because I kind of like porn of cute chibi things myself (see the Animal Crossing phase), but I have no beef with anyone who is simply uncomfortable with it. I can understand why. That's me and gore art. I can't stomach it but I'm not about to try and campaign against people who draw it as an actual danger to anyone.

      • Link

        Yeah, the discomfort is completely understandable. It irks me that it's acceptable to call for a ban of somebody who draws things that makes people uncomfortable, though.

  • Link

    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?

    • Link

      And now I think again about it - it's not as if I'd demand that anyone Stop Doing Art because of my collywobbles, so in practice they're irrelevant.

      • Link

        It kind of falls close to the 'Violent video games may inspire violent people' thing to me. Those people are out there, and chances are they'll find inspiration one way or another, and we have no proof not allowing non-violent video games will help stop crimes.

        • Link

          Yes, I see that.

          I suppose it's tempting, when faced with evils like that, to reach for any and every cause you can find, however unproven, and 'do something about it'; especially if you're a policy-maker who wants popular support. Good intentions! but not terribly sound.

  • Link

    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'.

    • Link

      Oh, a quick follow up - if anything, the current evidence (violent crime) is correlated negatively with the introduction of violent media. That is, pretty much put a pin on the date Doom was released and violent games and movies began flooding the market, violent crime dipped and dipped. Now, sexual crimes and violent crimes do not cross over the same and have different mechanisms, so this isn't a direct correlation, but it supports the 'it is an outlet for urges' argument to support all kinds of pornography better than there is currently evidence of the opposite; that of pornography creating extreme behaviours.

      • Link

        You have a much more mature and logical argument than I do.

  • Link

    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.

  • Link

    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.

  • Link

    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

    • Link

      That's always a great shutdown to the 'It's illegal, end of story' talking point. Laws are elevated to gospel; it's routinely forgotten that many laws are illogical, flawed and ultimately written by humans. Another great case of obscenity, although less in-your-face, is the Dead Kennedy's Frankenchrist case, where an album insert of one of H.R. Giger's most explicit pieces of art was the subject of the obscenity case. It's especially interesting to hear Jello Biafra's spoken account of the case, which (from the defense's side) hinged on the jury selection of open-minded people, and the defense consisting of what amounted to a desensitization for the jury as well as comparisons to other media. 'Obscenity' is so open to interpretation that it is useless, in my opinion.

      Now, hard data that proved the correlation of pornography and sexual crime... that would be the gold standard and would supersede any flimsy moral outrage cases. But there is no data to hand for a suitable study, and especially for the child cases, no way to construct an ethical study.

      • Link

        A case study might work, but yeah it would be hard to find a hard correlation. Right now we don't have any scientific evidence to prove a correlation between cartoon child pornography and sex crimes.

        Slightly off topic: I do think we need to focus more on pedophiles and get an understanding of how they behave. After reading this article: https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-youre-a-pedophile-you-dont-want-to-hurt-anyone-what-do-you-do-now-e11ce4b88bdb , it was kind of pointed out that we don't have any way to respond to pedophiles who have not commit any crimes that's really effective. We don't deal with pedophiles until they actually hurt someone and it seems like a poor system. It's so controversial to study this topic though, off the top of my head Kinsey studied pedophiles and it caused a lot of controversy.

        • Link

          Mostly, the way we deal with pedophiles is to make sure they keep it super secret from everybody and never ever mention it to anybody who might help them manage a potentially dangerous attraction in a healthy way. If we do happen to find out that Steve is attracted to a girl three minutes before her 18th birthday, we make sure to help him by loudly denouncing him to his friends, family, employer, and law enforcement, explaining that he is quite obviously a rapist. :P

  • Link

    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.

  • Link

    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.

  • Link

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

  • Link

    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.

    • Link

      Of course there are people who dabble in both. I'm not denying they exist. But taking away the right to draw/write it from people who have no interest in real kids isn't the answer to the issue. Being wary is fine, of course, as long as you say you don't condemn people for it.

      • Link

        Of course, I have no problem with fantasy

  • Link

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

    • Link

      I'm not saying people shouldn't feel grossed out by it. You can't help what you feel grossed out by. Just don't turn that into trying to campaign to have people stop doing it because it's pointless.

      • Link

        I was just saying it was gross is all. Drawn media is such a grey area when it comes to morality. I have no clue on where I actually stand on the issue.

        What caused this journal, anyhow?

        • Link

          Certain parties are trying to start a campaign to get a friend to lose her moderator position because of material she drew elsewhere on the internet where said material is allowed.

          • Link

            If it was allowed in that part of the net, then there's no rule broken. They have no real case. What people do off Weasyl is their own business.

            Maaan, sorry for your pal, that sucks, and I say that as someone who vehemently doesn't like loli/shota/so on.

  • Link

    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.

  • Link

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

  • Link

    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.

  • Link

    favng this for truth

  • Link

    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.