[Previous] Front Page Magazine DOES NOT Censor Comments [Updated] | Home | [Next] Bad Correlation Study

Anime Child Porn

John Grisham questioned the long prison sentences for viewing child porn online, especially when it's just like a 16 year old girl, not a 10 year old boy. People got really mad.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/16/showbiz/celebrity-news-gossip/john-grisham-child-pornography/index.html
After the uproar began, Grisham issued an apology.

"Anyone who harms a child for profit or pleasure, or who in any way participates in child pornography -- online or otherwise -- should be punished to the fullest extent of the law," the author said in a statement. "My comments made two days ago during an interview with the British newspaper The Telegraph were in no way intended to show sympathy for those convicted of sex crimes, especially the sexual molestation of children. I can think of nothing more despicable. I regret having made these comments, and apologize to all."
I am against sexually abusing children.

I've got a question. How do people see anime child porn?

Harming children is really bad. But no children are harmed with anime child porn (or with written stories).

(BTW I don't think you're helping a 17 year old, who has been sexually active for 5 years already, by making him/her wait an extra year before s/he begins his/her porn career. Which, like it or not, is a career some people choose. I don't think someone starting that career a year earlier – voluntarily for pay – would mean little children are being harmed and abused.)

I'm curious how people's views change with anime child porn instead of real child porn. In other words, is the thing they object to really the harm of children? Remove harm to children, and then it'd be OK with them?

Not completely OK. Most people disapprove of anime tentacle monster porn. It's not the standard, socially-legitimized sexual preference. That's fine. They disapprove. So what? It's legal and people don't care all that much about anime tentacle monster porn. It's not that big a deal.

So, is anime child porn disapproved of only like anime tentacle monster porn, or much more? How do most people see it?

My guess is it's much more disapproved of. I suspect a significant part of the objection to child porn is unrelated to harm to children, and is irrational. And then they do things like irrationally get mad at John Grisham (enough to pressure him into telling apologetic lies).

I also suspect people's reactions depend heavily on how you frame the issue. If you use the phrase "anime child porn", people will associate it with child porn and pedophiles. But if you say "animated porn with girls drawn to look 17", maybe they don't get so mad, since everyone knows that 17 year old girls are hot. That isn't considered a pedophile opinion. It's pretty normal to refer to them as "jailbait"! Some even do countdowns to celebrities becoming "fair game" (as a celebrity herself put it).

I think the issue is highly sensitive to wording because people have contradictory ideas about it. They "know" 17 year old girls are hot jailbait and desirable to have sex with, but at the same time they "know" that having sex with minors is an immoral crime. Small wording differences can remind people more about one or the other of these opinions.

What are your opinions of anime child porn and anime tentacle monster porn? And the age of consent being years after puberty? Share your thoughts in the comments below.

Elliot Temple on October 19, 2014

Comments (4)

Anime child porn is illegal (even to possess) in the UK FWIW.

Francis at 11:27 AM on October 25, 2014 | #2406
What is "(anime) child porn" as defined by that law?

You aren't clarifying things like whether an ambiguously aged drawing that might be 17 is clearly illegal in the UK.

And what is possession? E.g. is having it in your browser's cache possession?

Link to law?

Elliot Temple at 11:32 AM on October 25, 2014 | #2407
Yes, on a computer would count as possession.

Here is the law:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2009/25/part/2/chapter/2/crossheading/prohibited-images

You really have to read it somewhat carefully to see what is and isn't illegal. Apparently what's legal as part of a narrative might be illegal if you only have one of the pictures! Here are some excerpts:

A prohibited image is an image which—
(a)is pornographic,
(b)falls within subsection (6), and
(c)is grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character.

[...]

(6)An image falls within this subsection if it—
(a)is an image which focuses solely or principally on a child's genitals or anal region, or
(b)portrays any of the acts mentioned in subsection (7).
(7)Those acts are—
(a)the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child;
(b)an act of masturbation by, of, involving or in the presence of a child;
(c)an act which involves penetration of the vagina or anus of a child with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
(d)an act of penetration, in the presence of a child, of the vagina or anus of a person with a part of a person's body or with anything else;
(e)the performance by a child of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary);
(f)the performance by a person of an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive or imaginary) in the presence of a child.

[...]

(5)“Child”, subject to subsection (6), means a person under the age of 18.
(6)Where an image shows a person the image is to be treated as an image of a child if—
(a)the impression conveyed by the image is that the person shown is a child, or
(b)the predominant impression conveyed is that the person shown is a child despite the fact that some of the physical characteristics shown are not those of a child.

Francis at 10:10 AM on December 2, 2014 | #2410
In my reading, if you have a picture of a naked child, alone, that isn't masturbating, and isn't zoomed in on genitals, it doesn't fit under that law. Right? I would not describe that as saying (all) anime child porn is illegal in the UK. That's actually relatively limited.

Anonymous at 11:49 AM on December 2, 2014 | #2411

What do you think?

(This is a free speech zone!)