Source.

"Thomas C. Foster has been credited with saying, "the sex that occurs is invariably tied up with something else," and uses variations of this rule to describe many coveted novels from the past few centuries [Source here.]. What this means is that sex is more of a life-establishing phenomenon than it is a mere act. Sex can be about asserting dominance, extending trust, learning about oneself, becoming a great teacher (albeit a head-tiltingly kinky one), coping with loss, or all sorts of of other interpretations that could fill up a book (particularly one about sex). This leads to a multitude of complications.

Consider the "learning" and "teaching" aspects of sex. The sexual encounter of a virgin and a non-virgin is wholly different than the encounter of a virgin and a virgin. The non-virgin has more experience, a greater understanding of her body, its needs, and the needs of a potential lover. In a way, she coaches her lover through the steps so that he or she too can embrace those feelings and find value in them. In one aspect, sex is definitely a rite of passage. And that's the problem..."

This is an article that I wrote. It talks about the case of anime and manga as child pornography, something which has been addressed in other threads but not in as much detail as I tried to include here. I ask that you guys read and respond to it.

This actually changed my point of view. I like how it points out that the anime had to be given the green light by the American government in order to be distributed in the first place. That's just being a huge hypocrite. If they were going to "vilify the audience" for watching it, why distribute it at all? And...ohhh..that's what the M in Mkoller means..Cool name.

This is extremely important, and I thank you for writing it. People need to hurry up and understand that sex, sexual themes, and the implication of sexual attraction to or between those who are both unusually young or old, or the same gender should not be a taboo thing anymore. More and more we need to realize that such things are natural and inevitable. We need to adapt to them and accept them for what they are, but not promote it either. It needs to become not something shunned or desired, but merely a casual aspect of our society and only a single part of our physical and emotional interactions with others, which may or may not be long term, and may not even involve 'love'.
Unless this happens there will forever be a controversy over where the 'modesty boundary' should be, as well as what constitutes fictional works being deliberate pedophilia, or having been written in a way that addresses important intimate and sexual concerns in a metaphorical way. People need to realize that such fiction is not intended to be a reflection of real life events or the perverted imaginings of a pedophile writer, but is instead an important and deep social (and sometimes even political) statement about some of societies biggest problems. Those who criticize are those who do not fully understand.

Honestly, I still dont agree that it should exist at all. I dont think its natural to have sexual attractions/thoughts about children. But obviously if its being made in the first place there has to be people watching it. Physically touching a child in a sexual way is beyond wrong. Theyre small children that dont know anything about sex at all. Now watching it is different, (im not defending it in any way) No physical contact is being made so the viewers shouldn't be punished for something the government allowed in the first place.

>>4 That last point of yours is key, there is a very important distinction between those that have sexual attractions to children (But don't engage in a pedophilic behavior), and those that act on that attraction.
I personally feel that people should be allowed to feel attraction to anyone whatever the reason for that attraction (even if/supposing its the result of psychological issues), but that effort should be made to remind people that actually acting on those attractions is unacceptable.
Who are we to judge what people think, for only how they act can we justify punishment.

>>5
Well I guess I see it as a personal thing. I have a 2 year old niece and I think "what if my neighbor watches things like this? can I trust him/her?". Im sure many of our members have young niece/nephews, Brothers/sisters, Son/daughters to think about. The viewers shouldn't be punished, but that doesnt make it right. To me its different when comparing homosexual people to people who watch things like this. Being gay/lesbian means you have a sexual attraction to the same sex not a young child. Both of the people involved know whats going on and have full comprehension of what is being done.

I felt the need to bring up that previous argument because someone from the other thread stated that "its unnatural as being a F*****".. .

>>7 yeah fair enough. I guess the important point here is that we shouldnt be throwing everyone into the same group of 'bad undesirables'. Specificity and justification is needed when it comes to calling things 'unnatuaral'. Its a very controversial subject.

>>8
true. The subject is always going to be up for debate. The important thing is that these people dont act upon their desires/attraction.

>>7 His point was not about acting on the attraction, it was about the orientation itself. He's right, it is just as 'natural' or 'unnatural' as being gay. Whether it's right or wrong, that's up to you. But, it's not any less natural to have an attraction to children than it is to have an attraction to the same sex. The comparison of attractions is completely valid, but not the comparison of acting on them.

As for the trust issue, I'm not totally sure that's reasonable. Why should I not distrust anyone that has a sexual attraction towards my gender for the same reason, as they may not be able to control themselves and may attempt to force themselves onto me? I believe pedophiles are stereotyped as people who cannot control their sexual desires, when in reality there are many, many people who are gay, straight, etc, who cannot control their sexual desires, and act forcibly on them.

Let me be clear, I completely agree that pedophiles shouldn't have sex with children. It's not reasonable and they should never expect it to happen. I just think people are a little too judgmental of pedophiles, even ones that have never acted on their feelings. I think if we can't even trust them near our children, how are we supposed to treat them like human beings?

I pretty much would say word for word everything SkaffenAmtiskaw has said during this whole discussion.

The article is top tier, of course, no surprise there. I like that it is detailed, unlike most of the 'official' discussion I've seen about this topic.

>>6 It's worth reiterating here that pedophilia and ephebophilia are different target attractions. If someone is getting off to a fourteen year old, it means they still won't have attractions to someone younger than twelve, so the time to worry wouldn't be until your niece turned twelve. Then again, that person's sexual interest might change during that ten year span. It might inevitably become a non-issue.

>>10 That's actually an interesting point, and I don't think any studies have been done between hypersexuality and pedophilia/ephebophilia.

>>10
Homosexuality and pedophilia/ephebophilia are two completely different things. Im referring to the attraction between two people of the same sex that know what theyre doing. A person and a child dont have that same equality. A child is not mentally aware of whats going on. As for the trust, tell me, would you let your neighbor who watches Child pornography water his lawn a few feet from your possibly related (son daughter cousin, etc) child?

My point in all of this is, no the viewer shouldn't be punished for something that the government allowed in the first place. Should it exist at all? no. But its obvious it has many viewers, otherwise it wouldn't exist
I dont agree with it at all, but hey what can I do?

I also want your opinion on this.
http://www.businessinsider.com/this-24-year-old-chinese-popstar-is-dating-a-12-year-old-model-2012-9

>>12 A child is not mentally aware of whats going on.

That's another major point of contention here. The implications of sex are pregnancy, STDs and emotional dissatisfaction/hurt. You take a gamble on all three whenever you engage in sexual relations with someone else, and this is far from age-dependent.

The reason there is an age of consent is because it's the age that a person is old enough to take responsibility for their sexual actions. Regardless of age, rape would still be rape, and consensual sex would still be consensual sex, by means of this understanding.

A similar issue would occur if an individual had sex with an adult who was in someone's guardianship for mental deficiency. Should that individual not be allowed to have sex? Most courts would say no, even though he would meet the criteria you set out in your post.

would you let your neighbor who watches Child pornography water his lawn a few feet from your possibly related (son daughter cousin, etc) child?

You're invoking a major emotional fallacy here. If the child in question has to be significant to the person you're arguing against for your point to be valid, then your point is not valid. Furthermore, this is the implication that someone with a sexual fetish would be unable to handle themselves in polite society.

I personally have a variety of fetishes, the most present one being a foot fetish. Are you implying that if I see someone with beautiful feet while out in public I will immediately be inclined to approach that person regardless of their comfort level?

>>15
I previously stated that my emotions play a major part because I take care of my niece so obviously my emotions dictate what I feel right now.
And how can you compare a foot to a child? its still a child

>>14 To answer that, I have to loop back into my own article where I discussed whether a relationship like this is really ephebophilia or not. The two have known each other four years, and have similar personality traits which explain the relationship. They plan to marry when she's over the age of consent, which strongly implies that physical traits are not a focal point here.

Now, if the guy tosses her and goes to date another prepubescent girl, then yeah, he's an ephebophile taking advantage of preteen girls. And then everything in >>15 applies.

>>15
Wait, did I understand that right?
So by your means of understanding, if a child said yes to sex then its okay? A child's body has not yet fully developed. When you go through puberty, thats when your body begins to be ready for sex. Both mentally and physically. A child's body is MUCH more delicate than ours. Its not suited for sex. Please tell me I understand that wrong.

>>17
I see. Thats what I thought as well. As long as theyre not engaging in sexual activity and hes not just dumping her for another little girl..

>>16 Two things:

1) The idea that anyone with the capacity to harm others is going to do so is a delusion. The act of harming others will always be premeditated in some manner. If someone truly lacks the self control to abstain from harming others, then that person is sick. They are not a criminal, they are sick. Acting on pedophilia is a premeditated action, and most people with pedophilia are not "sick" enough to lack self-control. Meaning they will normally not act on it, and your belief that they will is lack of judgement on your part.

2) I'm not comparing feet to children. I'm comparing fetishism to itself. The origin of that attraction is irrelevant. Individuals who aren't sick (see above) have self-control, no matter what their attraction is to.

>>18 Where in my post did I give an age for a child to be mentally established enough for the consequences that come with sex? I didn't. In none of my posts have I given my stance on what the age of consent should be.

By the words in your post, there is an understanding that there is a minimum age where sex won't cause harm to the body. Therefore, a child below that age who is aware of this understanding would abstain from sex, plain and simple. Any attempts to coerce that child into sex would be rape. Any attempts for that child to have sex would be seen as self-harm. Self-harm invalidates that mental readiness requirement. Plain and simple.

>>20
That part about my niece was my personal view, no amount of debating will ever change that.
My main point was that the viewers shouldn't be punished for what the government allowed.
In any case, the child pornography itself shouldn't have existed im the first place. Anyone can have different fetishes but when it involves a child or a depiction of a child, its on another level. We, as humans, are naturally programmed to look after and nurture a child's well being.

>>22 Then you cannot be objective and you have no right to be arguing this topic.

>>22
My personal stance on the subject is my personal stance.
The topic I was initially arguing would be who should be punished for it., whats the difference between homosexuality. Whether or not I would trust someone who watches child pornography is my opinion.

I love this thread. Its interesting, mostly because of MKOLLER. X)

>>24 Fair enough, I will grant you that. You did make some good points, particularly concerning the physical age minimum, so bravo.

However, I did have to point out (as others have) that you were purporting that fetish = nonconsent, which simply isn't true. The difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is blatantly obvious: one is a sexuality, one is a fetish. But using the argument that homosexuality is consensual does not work.

>>26
Thank you, I like the point you made in >>20. 1)
Okay. Seeing the article that I posted, I can see SOME similarities between the two. If you love and care for the person, gender shouldnt matter. I guess an age difference shouldnt matter either, but im not surprised if people. have a hard time accepting a couple when one is under age.

>>10 I think they do have a stronger sexual drive, because they aren't allowed to satisfy their urges on a regular basis like most other people are, for this very fucking reason: manga being banned as child porn. Ironically, banning this porn will cause more harm to the children they are trying to protect. Whether it's natural or not is irrelevant, it happens, and people are attracted to children. We can debate the morals, but it won't help the problem.

We should let pedophiles have access to drawn child porn so that they can get off on something, rather than having it be pent up over a period of dozens of years. I think that is the real issue here. Not that they have a stronger sex drive per sea, but that they aren't allowed to satisfy it for years on end.

And, also, >>12 yes I would. I would treat him like a human being, I would distrust him as equally as I do all people who are near my young relatives. I understand why you wouldn't, because it's a scary thing to imagine your niece being attacked, but I think that's far less likely to happen than you think.

>>28
Ive actually grown tired of this thread. Ive already debated with MKOLLER. Sorry. just an ending statement: The fact that theres even a chance that it would happen (no matter how small) is still enough for me.

>>29 Very fair point. I think we can agree it's important to protect children. I just fear that this protection of children from pedophiles will causes us to treat them differently in other, unrelated ways.

But, I completely understand where you are coming from. I have young relatives like you that I don't want to see hurt under any circumstance.

Better to end an argument on a collaborative note than waste time and frustration figuring out the often irrelevant details. :)

Also going back to the original point of this thread (Reference >>1 >>3) I'd like to point out that whatever the stances of pedophilia are, most fiction depicting it, implying it, etc. are not intended to be 'porn' but are instead intended to be important insights into the issue of pedophilia and sexual orientation itself. Manga/Anime as a form of fiction (especially being Japanese fiction (Considering Japanese culture compared to 'western' culture)) allows writers to show people potential instances of pedophilia in society in a way that would be less controversial that a live action performance would be, allowing the address of the issues surrounding such things in a metaphorical and symbolic way. I do not think you will find many Manga's/Anime's that promote pedophilia, but instead try to explain why it happens, the difficulties that everyone faces around it, and the solutions to the problem.

This, in my opinion, is one of the major advantages of Anime over live action films, It allows writers to address much more controversial issues in a way that is independent of, for example, actors.

>>31 While that's true of some, I'm not sure it's true of most. I don't mean I think it's rare, I truly don't know if that's true of most of these works. From the stuff I've seen, it falls more within the simple porn area than education/insight, but I wasn't sure if that's common or not.

However, to me it seems like if it wasn't supposed to be porn, it wouldn't be porn. Basically, there's no need to include any sexual content to get the point/idea across, is there? Or, is that entirely needed and I'm totally missing the point?

>>33 Hmmm, it depends, I think, on what the specific issue its addressing. If your making an anime and you want to make a point of how bad rape it then can you do that without at least implying rape within a scene somewhere? No you don't need graphic porn to show that, but you do need something close enough so as to shock the audience. It has to create an impact or it wont convey the message. Its certainly a thin line, but the problem there is that western media forgets that throughout Japanese cultural history there has never really been a boundary between porn and casual fiction. They have always been so layed back about it, so accepting of its natural place in society, that they don't realize the impact it has on other cultures when it ventures beyond just consensual homosexual themes into the more controversial (for western media)areas.
Its a mixture of western culture labeling everything sexual as porn and demanding that it be segregated from other fiction, and Japanese culture not considering the western audience and just integrating sexual themes into the rest of their fiction as they have done for years past.

>>34 That makes sense. You would need it for more impact, and I do agree that we are too stuffy about sexual content in media over here.

Now, for the reverse: is most of the audience interpreting it this way (even in Japan), or are they simply using it as a source of sexual excitement?

>>35 I think that depends on who is watching it and where they are finding it. I suppose its impossible to tell for sure, who can say why anyone does anything?
The most obvious indicator is probably where you can actually find the anime. If people a looking for porn then they'll probably be watching anime's they find on a hentai website. If they want to watch a more serious anime then they'll find it an an official anime website, or it will be shown on tv. If the creator of an anime doesn't want it to be used as pornography then they will probably make an effort to avoid having it too graphic or over dramatized, and make an effort to advertise it as being mature entertainment (not porn). Anime's like that will also be more heavily copyright protected. How many producers are going to take you to court for illegally hosting their pornographic anime? None right, but producers of anime's that or shown on TV will.
That's the best distinction I can come up with.

>>28 You're making pedophilia a "single-target sexuality." Surely someone who has a fetish for children also has other fetishes and thus can "get off" to other things. That reason can't really be used as a justification for or against.

>>31 Remember: the rule of thumb is to consider any scenario which plays about in fiction as being real. Teenagers are being construed as sexual because in real life, teenagers are indeed sexual. There's a bit of a circular cause-and-effect here as a result. The media is encouraging the audience to be open with sexuality, and the audience is encouraging the media to be open in portraying it. Therefore, the portrayal of arousal is meant to incite arousal for the audience, whoever that audience may be. We've seen similar movements in literature, for example.

>>34 Kill La Kill plays the "implied rape" card a lot. Ragyo Kiryuin never actually comes close to molesting her daughters, but pulling Ryuuko's heart out of her chest, and stripping Satsuki Kiryuin of her blade, are both acts that have the same impact as a rape scene would. Remember, a lot of symbolic actions can stand in for sex, even rape.

Uhmmm... This is just an opinion... but it actually depends on who watches them and on what the author wants us to feel about them.

>>37 >Ragyo Kiryuin never actually comes close to molesting her daughters

Well, except for that one part where she did. But, I think that was just a cheap grab at fanservice.

>>39 If was similar in form to what the producers did with that whole "Shinji masturbates on Asuka" shot in EOE. It's basically a 20-year callback.

>>20>>15>>10>>5>>3 I agree with these posts.

>>38 And also you.

Personally, I feel as though most anime about teenagers with the more "sexualized" themes are more for the entertainment value and not to be taken seriously, or sexually. After all, sex is something that's fun to joke about and, like it does with everything else, anime over exaggerates how prevalent sexual activity actually is in our society. Or maybe I don't get out enough.

>>41 No your totally right, there is an exaggeration of the level of sexual activity that teenagers get involved in. Its become a stereotype that some teens try to follow, and only end up being disappointed, or breaking the law (through drugs, rape and alcohol related charges) because they think that sort of stuff is cool, when really they don't understand anything about that sort of lifestyle.
And again with pedophilia, I don't feel that its as common as people make it out to be. Sure its a problem when it does happen, but the media makes such a huge deal over it that it stays in the news for months when really this sort of thing only happens a couple of times a year (though I guess it varies by country). That's because the majority of people aren't stupid and know that the police don't piss around when it comes to this sort of stuff, and they know that their life will be completely ruined if they are discovered and it goes public.

^