Okay, I'll bite...

[wordinista]

Yoinked from patchcat :

Everyone has things they blog about. Everyone has things they don't blog about. Challenge me out of my comfort zone by telling me something I don't blog about, but you'd like to hear about, and I'll write a post about it. Ask for anything: latest movie watched, last book read, political leanings, thoughts on lima beans, favorite type of underwear, graphic techniques, etc.

In other, more annoying news, the uni is telling me I have an unpaid balance on my account. I'd... really like to know how that's possible, since I couldn't have gotten my fin aid refund until the bill was paid.  WTF?

Oh, and I think the neighborhood stray cat peed on our front patio.  Charming.

Comments

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

Hrm. Honestly, the article didn't give me nearly as much information as I'd like, but I'll go with what you gave me. :)

That's a tough one, because I know I've seen some mind-bogglingly sexually graphic manga that wasn't even appropriate for MY eyes, never mind a kid's: ("OH MY GOD WHY WOULD YOU PUT THAT THERE? OH MY G-- WHAT ARE YOU-- AAAH.") So my gut instinct is that restricting the sale of that kind of manga wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. However, I do realize that I'm trying to ascribe my Western sensibilities to the situation (and I really can't do otherwise, when you get right down to it).

On the other hand, to oppose these restrictions seems... disingenuous, somehow. By opposing the restrictions, is that somehow giving extra leeway to manga as a... as a genre? Is it somehow okay for what basically boils down to "child rape" as long as it's in a medium so far removed from our own? It seems almost as if there's a degree of the old Orientalism in that line of thinking, by labeling it as "exotic" simply because it comes from an entirely different set of sensibilities.

Without knowing more one from one side OR the other, I'd have to say that I can't see any reason why a twelve year old kid of any persuasion would absolutely, positively need to possess a visual medium that depicts objectification/sexual brutalization/humiliation/aliententaclerape.

[emrlddragon.livejournal.com]

I'm torn on this one myself.

On the one hand I agree that there is no reason a minor should have access to material of this type. Though it would probably be like trying to restrict alcohol sales in this country, they'd just get someone older to do the buying. *shrugs*

On the other, I have a knee jerk reflex when it comes to censorship. It is such a slippery slope. Yes, banning virtual child porn seems reasonable enough, but once that is gone, other bans start to seem more reasonable as well. What's next, Yoai?

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

Well, child porn vs. yaoi seems to me to be comparing apples and oranges. The problem with the former, as I see it, has as much to do with brutality as anything else. Yaoi is... well, consensual (except for when it's not -- now if certain yaoi manga fall under the rubric of "child porn" with rape and brutality, etc., etc., then there'll be bleedover).

[emrlddragon.livejournal.com]

My point wasn't really to compare child porn to Yoai, but to point out that both offend people. Child porn does offend a lot more people, naturally, but by banning one you open the door to banning others. It is actually one to the arguments against Gay marriage, since both are considered, by some, abnormal. Just about everything is going to offend someone, somewhere, somehow. So once you start banning things, where do you stop?

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

Well, the main difference is that child porn is illegal, but I'd argue you actually can compare the two, since yaoi can potentially involve underage characters, at which point is becomes both yaoi and child porn.

For all that people find homosexuality offensive, it's not illegal, unlike child pornography -- and that's illegal not because people find it offensive, but issues of child endangerment. (Now, you can argue that it's not REALLY "child endangerment" because the "children" are drawn and thus not actually real, but I kind of feel that's an even slipperier slope.)

[emrlddragon.livejournal.com]

I guess I'm not really making myself clear.

Okay, try this. From a strictly biological stand point, there is nothing wrong with a young teen engaging in intercourse and conceiving a child. In fact as women age they have fewer eggs and a higher likely-hood of birth defects like Downs. But when you throw in morals, we get all squeamish because young teens are still considered children themselves.

The reason child porn is illegal is morals. The vast majority find it objectionable, so laws were passed to make it unacceptable by social standards. Basically, child porn is illegal because enough people find it offensive. So why can't the same thing happen to Yoai? There are certainly plenty of people who find it offensive.

My point being, one form of censorship inevitably opens the way to other forms. It sets a president.

My point

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

Then I think we're looking at this from different perspectives insofar as "child porn" is concerned. When I think of kiddie porn, I think, basically, children aged 12 and under. Children.

Also, pornography doesn't have a damn bit of anything to do with sex from a strictly biological standpoint -- it's a fantasy, and in the case of kiddie-porn, fuels a philia. Pornography essentially fetishizes the object (women, men, children, sheep, whatev), emphasizing the thing that makes them what they are (women, for example, are trussed up in corsets and heels, emphasizing bust and hips and legs, creating a fantasy). Biologically, sure, younger women and teens are more fertile, but I don't agree that you can use biology to validate (not the best word choice, but it's all I can think of) pornography.

Now, there's plenty of porn out there that uses actual human models -- and those models are of legal age, but LOOK young, and they're the ones typically used in the "OMG HOT TEEN" kind of porn you get. They're creating a fantasy, but using young LOOKING women to do it, rather than minors.

The reason child porn is illegal is morals.

Mmmm, I disagree. Now, it may be because I'm close with people who were sexually abused as children, and that may play a big part in why I've got such a knee-jerk reaction to this. I think of child porn, and I relate it instantly to the kind of sick scumbags who would sexually abuse a child.

[emrlddragon.livejournal.com]

Ok, let's forget the child porn and Yoai. I think they are confusing the issue here.

My only point is that censorship in and of itself does nothing but lead to more censorship.

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

Yknow, there was a time I would have agreed with you, but now I'm not sure I do.

Example: back in the early 90's, there was a huge brouhaha about 2 Live Crew's song "Me So Horny." Censorship in music has been present since Elvis was on Ed Sullivan, but the uproar over 2 Live Crew was particularly rabid, and I recall clearly Tipper Gore and her "Parents Music Resource Center," which wanted to put warning labels on CDs with "offensive" lyrics.

Since then, I can't say I've seen that attempt at censorship lead to more censorship. On the contrary, popular music has continued to push the envelope, to the point where "Me So Horny" sounds tame compared to what I've heard on the radio.

Of course, I may just be old. ;)