Can drawings be considered child pornography?

[DoomMunky]

There's a great story on this issue in last weeks On The Media (http://onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/12/26/02), where they discuss whether a Manga comic depicting underage sex should be considered child pornography or not. What do YOU think?

BROOKE GLADSTONE: No one defends child pornography. You have a legal case to make here, but is there any part of the slippery slope argument that the courts will often make that you buy when it comes to child pornography and illustration?

CHARLES BROWNSTEIN: Nobody, including the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund or Mr. Handley’s counsel are defending child pornography. Child pornography is photographic evidence of a crime, and the people that participate in that crime through the possession of images, the manufacture or distribution of images depicting real people getting hurt are what the PROTECT Act was created to prosecute. That is a crime that is unspeakable and that nobody should defend.

When you get into the realm of art and you get into the realm of prosecuting people for ideas and for images that are rendered as lines on paper, then you’re creating a category of thought crime, and that’s not what our free society is about.

Another good part:
BROOKE GLADSTONE: Why does this provision in the law exist? I mean, who is harmed by Mr. Handley’s possession of this material?

MARY LEARY: It’s been accepted in some instances by the court, certainly by the United States Congress, that children outside the images are harmed by these pictures. And by that, I mean children who are exposed to these images, children who are sexually assaulted, because the research does support a correlation amongst hands-on sexual offenders and possessors of images of child sexual abuse.

BROOKE GLADSTONE: The research there isn't conclusive, and obviously children will be hurt by pornographic images of any sort that fall into their hands, and also violent images, I would venture to say.

So why these imaginative depictions when it poses such a challenge to artistic expression?

MARY LEARY: I would agree with you that there has not been the published study regarding a causal connection between the possession of child pornography or images of child sexual abuse and hands-on offending.

However, let's be realistic here. We will never be able to get the social science study that says, hey, looking at images of children being victimized in sexual abuse causes you to abuse children, because ethically we can never perform it. The demand that we have that study in order to conclude what most of the social science points to, I think, is an unrealistic one.

[Kalle]

Seems pretty clear to me, for what it's worth. They might as well put the publishers of "Lolita" on trial. Child pornography laws exist to protect actual children from being traumatised, not to punish people for having twisted imaginations.

[Mordrak]

I agree Kalle. There's a lot that would fall under child pornography if the definition was expanded like that and not just stuff that old perverts use to get it up.

[Coca Cola Zero]

I'm not a big fan of drawn child porn, whether you're talking about hentai manga or whatever else, but making it illegal is too much of a dance at the top of a slippery slope, and treating it like it is the same thing as real child porn is completely absurd.

[Flowers]

If fictional depictions of child sex are going to be illegal, then appearing in them should also be illegal. In which case, I need to get cracking on my newest work entitled, "George Bush, Dick Cheney, Ten Boys, Two Cases of Wine Coolers, and No Survivors."

[DoomMunky]

The second interviewee says an interesting thing at the end. She says there's a "social harm" to this kind of material. But as someone who likes to defend artists, too, I can't see how any social harm could EVER be demonstrated.

Unless of course they're talking about polluting the mental environment of the world and damaging the psyches of our adults, and then there's a hundred more dangerous culprits I could think of.

[Jon Rowe]

I hate how people like this can get media attention.

[Damien Neil]

I'm don't like the idea that someone can sit down with pen and paper and commit a felony that will get them permanently labeled as a sex criminal. I don't see this as the tip of a slippery slope--it's halfway down and tobogganing madly towards the bottom.

[BlueJackalope]

I'm not a big fan of drawn child porn

Thanks for clearing that up! First thing I thought when I saw the thread title is "Cheerist I hope Coca Cola Zero isn't a fan of drawn child porn!"

To the point, I would like the authorities to prosecute actual child pornographers.

[Andrew Mayer]

Once the law was on the books it would never be abused.

Perhaps we can install cameras in all writing implements in order to enforce its perfection.

[TomChick]

I'm not a big fan of drawn child porn.

But where do you stand on genocide fanfic?

-Tom

[BlueJackalope]

More to the point - Neil Gaiman (linked from the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund (http://www.cbldf.org/))

Why defend Icky speech? (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html)

If you accept -- and I do -- that freedom of speech is important, then you are going to have to defend the indefensible. That means you are going to be defending the right of people to read, or to write, or to say, what you don't say or like or want said.

The Law is a huge blunt weapon that does not and will not make distinctions between what you find acceptable and what you don't. This is how the Law is made.

People making art find out where the limits of free expression are by going beyond them and getting into trouble.

The CBLDF will defend your First Amendment right as an adult to make lines on paper, to draw, to write, to sell, to publish, and now, to own comics. And that's what makes the kind of work you don't like, or don't read, or work that you do not feel has artistic worth or redeeming features worth defending. It's because the same laws cover the stuff you like and the stuff you find icky, wherever your icky line happens to be: the law is a big blunt instrument that makes no fine distinctions, and because you only realise how wonderful absolute freedom of speech is the day you lose it.

[BlueJackalope]

I'm not a big fan of drawn child porn,

Can we mark you down as a moderate fan of drawn child porn then?




(appy polly loggys)

[Skipper]

There was a thread a while back about someone here who felt that as a single male, they can't be around children at all without thinking someone else might get the wrong impression. Child pornography is a crime and so is the abuse of said children, but this society has become a bit too obsessed with it. Is it just me who feels this way? Seriously, drawing icky comic books needs to be a crime?

*checks the flag to make sure it's not red with yellow stars*

[Desslock]

Written descriptions, or drawn art, of underage children having sex is definitely illegal in some jurisdictions, including Canada -- it's been the subject of controversial prosecutions in Canada (there is a defense if the creation has sufficient "artistic merit", a standard that's as ambiguous as it gets).

I hate those laws - nothing that comes out of someone's mind (only) should be illegal, ever. Prime example of expression I couldn't find more abhorrent but which I'd strongly defend someone's right to make.

[Pogo]

Drawing shitty manga fanart should be a crime.

[Dave47]

I think the rules against child pornography go beyond the simple rationale that "It's evidence of a crime." After all, it's illegal to possess child pornography that was produced in a country where such actions are legal.

I don't think the ban on child pornography (as it currently exists) raises serious First Amendment concerns, and I think some expansions of the ban are justafiable. I'm uncomfortable with a law that bans Lolita or legitimate works of art (even "questionably legitimate" ones), but I think you need some sort of response to the possibility that "real" and "CGI" images may soon become indistinguishable.

I find the situation somewhat analogous to laws banning hate speech, in that you don't necessarily need to find a specific child who was harmed to justify the ban, as the "speech" causes harm to a whole class of (in this case) particularly vulnerable individuals.

[Pogo]

... I think you need some sort of response to the possibility that "real" and "CGI" images may soon become indistinguishable.

That's what I was thinking of. Someone will (if they haven't already) make extremely realistic depictions of child pornography, and the courts are going to have to decide where to draw the intangible moral line.

[Drastic]

But where do you stand on genocide fanfic?

-Tom
"But your mass graves...they're beautiful!"

[Not One Of Us]

That's what I was thinking of. Someone will (if they haven't already) make extremely realistic depictions of child pornography, and the courts are going to have to decide where to draw the intangible moral line.

Here's the line: is there a victim? In the case of a real photo or video of child pornography, yes: the child. In the case of an extremely realistic drawing or CGI or what-have-you, then no: there is no victim.

[Anti-Bunny]

The Supreme Court has said that Child Porn has to actually involve children to be considered illegal, so this debate is essentially over. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition

Otherwise here'd be cause to round up the hollywood people responsible for American Beauty, Romeo and Juliet, Fast Times at Ridgemont High and Almost Famous to name a few.

[Hanacker]

But officer, I swear the girl I drew was 18!

[Scrax]

That's why all the good Harry Potter fanfics start with "On the eve of their 18th birthday...."

Or so I've heard.

[Rasputin]

This would make Steven King a pornographer for IT, which I seem to recall lots of folks reading with no big outcry. Maybe it's because this is from (or in the style of) those pervy Japanese?

[Bill Dungsroman]

http://i40.tinypic.com/20z5pu1.jpg





This would make Steven King a pornographer for IT, which I seem to recall lots of folks reading with no big outcry.

Oh man. What a shameless Mary Sue King is. It's not enough to describe the child gangbang, no, be sure to pointlessly mention how the chubby writer kid had the biggest dick.

[wildpokerman]

We should lock up all the perverts who read Anime. It's because they want underage sex.

They should also lock up all the players of video games that would lead to furry sex.

Perverts: Gotta catch 'em all

[Anti-Bunny]

Perverts: Gotta catch 'em all
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uyNHmskN-vo

[extarbags]

That Mary Leary is a piece of work.

"There's research that says such and such!"

"Actually, that research isn't conclusive at all."

"Well yeah, but let's be realistic: we're never going to have solid research, so we should just go with our guts!"

but I think you need some sort of response to the possibility that "real" and "CGI" images may soon become indistinguishable.

Why? Child pornography isn't illegal because it's gross, it's illegal because children are necessarily harmed during its production. Drawing a picture of yourself murdering your boss isn't illegal because you aren't actually doing the deed; it's the same with this.

[Coca Cola Zero]

But where do you stand on genocide fanfic?

-Tom


Well, I have to admit I still find a lot of those Downfall/Der Untergang parodies (arguably video fanfic) hilarous.

[Jazar]

This would make Steven King a pornographer for IT, which I seem to recall lots of folks reading with no big outcry. Maybe it's because this is from (or in the style of) those pervy Japanese?

That part really pissed me off. Long ass book and the end has a damn kiddy gang bang scene wtf. I remember throwing the book across the room in disgust.

[Jason Lutes]

Ah, takes me back to the days of Mike Diana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_diana).

[wildpokerman]

Why? Child pornography isn't illegal because it's gross, it's illegal because children are necessarily harmed during its production. Drawing a picture of yourself murdering your boss isn't illegal because you aren't actually doing the deed; it's the same with this.

If you draw pictures of your boss getting killed and leave them around his desk I'm sure you'll find yourself prosecuted.

[Lizard_King]

If you draw pictures of your boss getting killed and leave them around his desk I'm sure you'll find yourself prosecuted.

You don't understand the first thing about freedom of speech, at least as it is defined in the US (which is ok, I guess, since I don't know much about Canadian speech law). There are specific restrictions for things like threats or criminal communications, and precedents for not regarding them as protected speech. Drawn pornography for display to consenting adults in a private setting is not remotely in the same category. It would be an altogether new twist on obscenity, which is typically constrained by the usual time, manner, place + extreme content rather than just the last category. Like I can make vats of urine and dip crucifixes in them for my own entertainment, I just run into problems when I try to display them to the public (and even that can be a controversial ruling depending on what is meant by public).

[Anti-Bunny]

If you draw pictures of your boss getting killed and leave them around his desk I'm sure you'll find yourself prosecuted.

Depends on the state, but yes, this. Some states have some fucked up definitions of 'Assault'.

By the way, if you can't be prosecuted for pornography as long as there are no children in it, then you should probably tell that to John Stagliano (http://reason.tv/video/show/517.html) and others that have been targeted (and in some cases found guilty and sentenced to federal prison) for obscenity charges for selling porn over the internet.

[Scrax]

Depends on the state, but yes, this. Some states have some fucked up definitions of 'Assault'.


The issue might come down to defining the actual person in the art/writing/whatever.

I remember a kid from my highschool getting expelled for having a "Death List". Pretty much a list of all the people he hated. They considered him a threat, so they expelled him.

[MyNameIsWill]

It should be banned. I don't see the slippery slope there.

[Cubit]

It should be banned. I don't see the slippery slope there.

drawn child porn, drawn threats against bosses, or hate lists?

[wildpokerman]

Depends on the state, but yes, this. Some states have some fucked up definitions of 'Assault'.

By the way, if you can't be prosecuted for pornography as long as there are no children in it, then you should probably tell that to John Stagliano (http://reason.tv/video/show/517.html) and others that have been targeted (and in some cases found guilty and sentenced to federal prison) for obscenity charges for selling porn over the internet.

Wow that's a good interview and a good site for libertarian info, thanks for the link!

[Kalle]

It should be banned. I don't see the slippery slope there.

That says more about you than it does about the slope.

[Reldan]

The issue might come down to defining the actual person in the art/writing/whatever.

I remember a kid from my highschool getting expelled for having a "Death List". Pretty much a list of all the people he hated. They considered him a threat, so they expelled him.

You know, there's a bit of difference between getting expelled from high school and being charged with crimes that can land you in prison.

[Bill Dungsroman]

I remember a kid from my highschool getting expelled for having a "Death List". Pretty much a list of all the people he hated. They considered him a threat, so they expelled him.

Yeah, but what is done in schools isn't really the best metric of what should be done in the rest of society.

[Mordrak]

T
I remember a kid from my highschool getting expelled for having a "Death List". Pretty much a list of all the people he hated. They considered him a threat, so they expelled him.

What state was this?

[Abilio Carvalho]

if I understand it correctly, isn't this basically a debate about nature vs. nurture? The main (valid) objection to drawn images of child pornography seems to be that by looking at them, someone could develop the kind of urges that lead to real crimes.

If that's the case, I'm not that sure I'd agree, as I think that the kind of person that doesn't get his rocks off from that kind of stuff isn't going to go "ooo, but THAT one is kinda interesting... hmmm... RAWR COME TO ME THE LITTLE CHILDREN!"

I'm guessing that all of the people defending the free speech rights in these cases are also pretty much opposed to that view, that pedophiles are created not born. What about the opponents? Any of you oppose it for any other reason than this? why do you think this is the case?

[Anders Hallin]

if I understand it correctly, isn't this basically a debate about nature vs. nurture? The main (valid) objection to drawn images of child pornography seems to be that by looking at them, someone could develop the kind of urges that lead to real crimes.
I don't think it's quite so simple as developing those urges, it's more that someone having those urges will, through the use of such images, normalise it to the degree that they might start doing it in real life. I don't think such an escalation has been proven, though.

[Anti-Bunny]

I'm guessing that all of the people defending the free speech rights in these cases are also pretty much opposed to that view, that pedophiles are created not born. What about the opponents? Any of you oppose it for any other reason than this? why do you think this is the case?

I opposite it because it's every bit as stupid as saying Max Payne makes you more likely to kill hobos.

Also, because you can't draw the line between Japanese Anime Tentacle Rape and the underage sex in Traffic or Romeo + Juliet. You could definitely say the former isn't art or literature and has no cultural value, but the government has no right to decide that for us (and shouldn't).

[Brendan]

Should the Satyricon be illegal to own?

[Scrax]

What state was this?

VA

345

[extarbags]

The issue might come down to defining the actual person in the art/writing/whatever.

I remember a kid from my highschool getting expelled for having a "Death List". Pretty much a list of all the people he hated. They considered him a threat, so they expelled him.

I bet he wasn't criminally prosecuted, though.

[Marged]

I bet he wasn't criminally prosecuted, though.

You can be criminally prosecuted for making specific threats of imminent danger.

[extarbags]

You can be criminally prosecuted for making specific threats of imminent danger.

Yes, but it doesn't sound like that was those.

[Anti-Bunny]

Should the Satyricon be illegal to own?
Yes. I would never admit to owning that album (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQt58w0pqE0). Never!

[Scrax]

I think I was misunderstanding Anti-Bunny's post, and then quoted the wrong section, which further fucked up my anecdote. But yea, I was agreeing that free speech only gets you so far. If you make threats towards someone whether it's in writing or art form, action can be taken.

The other point I was trying to make was that the severity of any sort of punishment might be dependent on whether an actual living person was depicted in the art/writing. The highschool student was expelled, because he listed names of teachers and students he hated (which they considered a threat). If someone was drawing pedo-art of the neighbors kid, or someone drew themselves killing their boss, it will likely be considered as a threat and treated more severely. But really, how far are people going to split hairs.

[Lizard_King]

i
I'm guessing that all of the people defending the free speech rights in these cases are also pretty much opposed to that view, that pedophiles are created not born. What about the opponents? Any of you oppose it for any other reason than this? why do you think this is the case?

I don't know about drawing a line between created and born, the truth is somewhere between the two for almost every significant personality characteristic. The distinction that has been drawn by free speech advocates in the States and other places (including myself) is that there is no such thing as a pure crime of conscience: you can imagine, write about, or draw whatever you want within an appropriate setting, but barring certain limitations directly connected to criminal acts and the like, there is no such thing as an idea so bad the government should be the arbiter of whether it's allowed to exist. Obscenity as defined by community standards is the significant exception, and it is there as a compromise between the two extremes in the debate. But that is not the rationale being used for kiddy porn drawings: the argument there is that something can be so wrong that it should not be allowed to even be imagined in private. That's just stupid.

While this does protect pedophiles who choose to indulge their proclivities without harming actual children, the reason they are protected is for the sake of the general welfare. The price of liberty is frequently putting up with things you find objectionable, regardless of where the "nature vs nurture" argument is at the moment (not that any of the anti free speech people who are actually in a position to do something more than argue on an internet forum give a damn about those things).

[Cubit]

‘Obscene’ U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/)

Such a dumb law...

[Euri]

‘Obscene’ U.S. Manga Collector Jailed 6 Months (http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/)

Such a dumb law...

So ridiculous.

How many people have shelves full of movies depicting GRAPHIC horrible violence.

[gurugeorge]

I think the rules against child pornography go beyond the simple rationale that "It's evidence of a crime." After all, it's illegal to possess child pornography that was produced in a country where such actions are legal.

I don't think the ban on child pornography (as it currently exists) raises serious First Amendment concerns, and I think some expansions of the ban are justafiable. I'm uncomfortable with a law that bans Lolita or legitimate works of art (even "questionably legitimate" ones), but I think you need some sort of response to the possibility that "real" and "CGI" images may soon become indistinguishable.

I find the situation somewhat analogous to laws banning hate speech, in that you don't necessarily need to find a specific child who was harmed to justify the ban, as the "speech" causes harm to a whole class of (in this case) particularly vulnerable individuals.

If I may say so, I think this is a bit confused. We don't (or at least IMHO shouldn't) ban child pornography only in cases where it can be shown a specific child has been harmed, we ban child pornography because if it exists at all, it means some children HAVE been harmed, and any MARKET in child pornography means children ARE being harmed.

This is totally different to written or graphic portrayals of children and sexuality. It's also different to hate speech, which is another beast again (INCITEMENT to harm).

The only argument that has a faint hope in those circumstances is that people who are habituated to, say, manga child porn (which harms no-one, save perhaps the user, psychologically), MAY gravitate to real child porn (which harms real children). But I think that's still a rather weak argument, especially when balanced against the freedom of speech issue. It seems to me highly likely that anyone who already has that proclivity and doesn't have the moral decency to refrain from feeding the market for real child porn will be into manga or real indiscriminately, and those who have that proclivity yet have moral decency to refrain from feeding the market, will refrain under all circumstances, and stick to graphic or literary portrayals.

[Kurdel]

So ridiculous.

How many people have shelves full of movies depicting GRAPHIC horrible violence.

“obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.”


Really? Some of you people defend this? This isn't simply content in a movie, it's content that is made made for sexual purposes. This shit is really messed up, can't believe people can actually defend child rape anime porn.

[Cubit]

“obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children.”


Really? Some of you people defend this? This isn't simply content in a movie, it's content that is made made for sexual purposes. This shit is really messed up, can't believe people can actually defend child rape anime porn.

Here is why I defend it:

Child porn isn't illegal because it is "gross" or "icky". Child porn is illegal because it harms children. There is a victim.

With drawn/animated porn of any kind, there is no victim. Porn doesn't somehow corrupt the mind into doing the actions that are depicted in it. If it does then show me some scientific causation.

As someone else upthread said, I don't believe that anything that comes out of the mind of a person should be illegal. Obscenity laws are incredibly subjective, and I wish the guy in the wired article didn't have to spend 6 months in jail for it.

But officer, I swear the girl I drew was 18!

[Kurdel]

Here is why I defend it:

Child porn isn't illegal because it is "gross" or "icky". Child porn is illegal because it harms children. There is a victim.

With drawn porn of any kind, there is no victim. Porn doesn't somehow corrupt the mind into doing the actions that are depicted in the drawing.

As someone else upthread said, I don't believe that anything that comes out of the mind of a person should be illegal. Obscenity laws are incredibly subjective, and I wish the guy in the wired article didn't have to spend 6 months in jail for it.

So you believe that content that depicts drawn children getting raped should be readily available in all porno stores? The problem with this isn't the content, it's the person consuming the content who is psychologically unbalanced. Pedophiles struggle with their urges and lots can get through it with therapy. Letting them get such content easily (and legally) would be a slap in the face to thousands of psychologists trying to wane them off such pornography.

[John Many Jars]

None of this is the issue. The issue is: manga sucks and we kicked Japan's ass in WWII. Also, people on message boards need to stop saying "Really?"

[Kalle]

So how do all these psychologists feel about murderers struggling with their urges in the face of easily available hollywood blockbusters?

[Kraaze]

So you believe that content that depicts drawn children getting raped should be readily available in all porno stores?


I think those inclined to such things such be free to produce/consume them, despite how personally distasteful I find them. Restrictions on free speech are not to be undertaken lightly and not just because most people find something a little unsettling.


The problem with this isn't the content, it's the person consuming the content who is psychologically unbalanced. Pedophiles struggle with their urges and lots can get through it with therapy. Letting them get such content easily (and legally) would be a slap in the face to thousands of psychologists trying to wane them off such pornography.

Tough nuts. I'm sure there are people who would be better off if this stuff wasn't available, but there are people who would be better off if guns and big macs and cigarrettes weren't available too. Freedom comes with a price tag, but it's still worth it.

[MattKeil]

So you believe that content that depicts drawn children getting raped should be readily available in all porno stores? The problem with this isn't the content, it's the person consuming the content who is psychologically unbalanced. Pedophiles struggle with their urges and lots can get through it with therapy. Letting them get such content easily (and legally) would be a slap in the face to thousands of psychologists trying to wane them off such pornography.

We don't do thought crime in a free society. You do not live in Minority Report. You cannot jail someone because the way they think is disgusting. An act must be performed, a victim must be victimized. It's that simple.

[Jon Rowe]

Yeah, this is b.s. completely. The law exists to protect children, not punish harmless manga lovers.

[Kurdel]

So how do all these psychologists feel about murderers struggling with their urges in the face of easily available hollywood blockbusters?

If someone masturbates or lives their violent fantasies by watching the same movies over and over again, then there is a problem. Movies with violence can be consumed peacefully by 99.999% of the people watching them, can we say the same about child pornography? What percentage of people who consume child pornography actually go on to abuse a child?

And to justify rape porn by free speech is so much bull shit. People who fantasize and sexually please themselves watching a violent and degrading act should not be tolerated in our society, even if it is drawn or fiction. Can there be a rape scene in a movie? Why not? Can there be free sale of a movie whose sole purpose is to show rape in a sexually attractive light for people to consume it and sexually please themselves? Fuck no! What kind of sick, perverse society would allow such a thing? Why not legalize animated snuff films? What's wrong with that?

Claiming this is against free speech is an offence to all the people who don't have free speech. You can join NAMBLA, or any other deviant association if you want to... But to ask for such material to be on free sale is madness. MADNESS I SAY!

Also, I can't say if judging a person for owning animated rape porn should be the same as a person who owns real child rape porn, since we don't know the chance of a person who does to go actually do the act.

One thing that is sure, is that they are pedophiles. And they should be treated, not imprisoned.

Neither the ICD nor the DSM diagnostic criteria require actual sexual activity with a prepubescent youth. The diagnosis can therefore be made based on the presence of fantasies or sexual urges even if they have never been acted upon. On the other hand, a person who acts upon these urges yet experiences no distress about their fantasies or urges can also qualify for the diagnosis. Acting on sexual urges is not limited to overt sex acts for purposes of this diagnosis, and can sometimes include indecent exposure, voyeuristic or frotteuristic behaviors,[5] or masturbating to child pornography.

[Kalle]

If someone masturbates or lives their violent fantasies by watching the same movies over and over again, then there is a problem. Movies with violence can be consumed peacefully by 99.999% of the people watching them, can we say the same about child pornography? What percentage of people who consume child pornography actually go on to abuse a child?

Can we? I'm pretty sure the burden of proof here is on you, since you are the one making grandiose claims. And more to the point, animations and drawings are FICTION. Child pornography are depictions of actual children in sexual situations. I know you want to think that they are the same but as far as I'm concerned you are trivialising the very real crime of child molestation when you put it in the same league as making a fucking cartoon.


And to justify rape porn by free speech is so much bull shit. People who fantasize and sexually please themselves watching a violent and degrading act should not be tolerated in our society, even if it is drawn or fiction. Can there be a rape scene in a movie? Why not? Can there be free sale of a movie whose sole purpose is to show rape in a sexually attractive light for people to consume it and sexually please themselves? Fuck no! What kind of sick, perverse society would allow such a thing? Why not legalize animated snuff films? What's wrong with that?

What, are you suggesting that we should make it illegal to masturbate if you happen to think perverse thoughts? We better put up cameras in every home to make sure that people keep their hands above the covers!

And as for movies, I can point you to a metric ton of movies who portray murder in an attractive light and glorify violence, possibly inciting people to commit violent crimes and kill people. By your logic we'd have to ban pretty much every R-rated movie in existance.



Also, I can't say if judging a person for owning animated rape porn should be the same as a person who owns real child rape porn, since we don't know the chance of a person who does to go actually do the act.

One thing that is sure, is that they are pedophiles. And they should be treated, not imprisoned.

You are a fucking loon. "We don't know..." You're damn right we don't know, but instead of taking that as some kind of indication that you don't have the faintest support for your argument you use it to justify your worst-case hypothetical scenario where you want to criminalise people on the mere suspicion that they might some day turn into rapists.

[Kurdel]

So you think that the only reason why child pornography is illegal is because it shows actual children in these situations? Yes, it is a major reason, but another is the normalization of sexual relations with children. In 50 years, when sexbots will be common (in my future they will be), you think it will be cool to make children sexbots? Or make pornos with children sexbots? Fiction or not, depiction of sexual abuse (or even consensual sex) on children for sexual consumption is horrible.


What, are you suggesting that we should make it illegal to masturbate if you happen to think perverse thoughts? We better put up cameras in every home to make sure that people keep their hands above the covers!

I hate it when people go bat-shit insane about free speech. Of course the only alternative to letting people freely buy child pornography is installing a thought police and cameras everywhere and making masturbation illegal.



And as for movies, I can point you to a metric ton of movies who portray murder in an attractive light and glorify violence, possibly inciting people to commit violent crimes and kill people. By your logic we'd have to ban pretty much every R-rated movie in existance.

There have been studies that point to a link between what a person sees n movies and what they do in real life. Luckily, in the case of violence, people don't act out on them, or else there would be much more killing in our society don't you think? On the other hand, people who consume child pornography are attracted to children and having sec with them. Watching such porn normalizes the act and shows that rape is a viable solution to calm your sexual urges.

I found this, very interesting considering what we are discussing:

According to the Mayo Clinic of the U.S.A., studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had molested a child, however they note that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved.[8]

But that is only one study, and there are other that contradict that one. Instead of calling people loons, please look things up.

EDIT: here is the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_s exual_abuse

[Anti-Bunny]

The question isn't what percentage of child molesters look at fictional/simulated child porn. It's what percentage of the latter become the former. It's not a direct equivalency, and it's intellectually dishonest to argue that it is.

Additionally, the Swiss study in your wiki article seems to say it's a VERY small portion (1%) when measured properly, instead of backwards.

[MattKeil]

So you think that the only reason why child pornography is illegal is because it shows actual children in these situations?

Uh...yes. There is a victim, thus there is a crime. Consuming the material is contributing to the infrastructure and black market that perpetuates these crimes upon children. Hence, it is illegal. Until somebody pops up with Agatha and the twins, thinking about it is not illegal, however distasteful it may be.

I hate it when people go bat-shit insane about free speech.

Stupid people with their freedoms and rights! If they'd all just conform to my opinion of what's acceptable we wouldn't have these problems!

There have been studies that point to a link between what a person sees n movies and what they do in real life.

That explains my awesome martial arts prowess and space fighter piloting skills!

But that is only one study, and there are other that contradict that one. Instead of calling people loons, please look things up.

If such a large percentage of people with child porn have committed actual molestation crimes, why not prosecute them for that instead of for possessing gross and disturbing comic books? If there are contradictory studies, we're right back to your original "I don't know" position, and prosecuting people for thought crimes.

You should really think a bit harder about what you're saying.

[Kurdel]

The question isn't what percentage of child molesters look at fictional/simulated child porn. It's what percentage of the latter become the former. It's not a direct equivalency, and it's intellectually dishonest to argue that it is.

Additionally, the Swiss study in your wiki article seems to say it's a VERY small portion (1%) when measured properly, instead of backwards.

I see, I must have misread, thank you for pointing this out.


Uh...yes. There is a victim, thus there is a crime. Consuming the material is contributing to the infrastructure and black market that perpetuates these crimes upon children. Hence, it is illegal. Until somebody pops up with Agatha and the twins, thinking about it is not illegal, however distasteful it may be.

I never said it was a victimless crime. I also like how you ignore my sexbot argument, which I think is worth a thought. You seem to have not read everything I wrote, or just cherry picked what you wanted to address ignoring the rest...



Stupid people with their freedoms and rights! If they'd all just conform to my opinion of what's acceptable we wouldn't have these problems!

What do you even mean by that? Their freedom to own rape porn? Their right to masturbate to animated child rape? How is my view that animated rape pornography shouldn't be legally distributed and owned infringe on people's freedoms and rights? I would love to se your libertarian world where you can buy rape porn, bestiality porn and child porn all in one shop!



That explains my awesome martial arts prowess and space fighter piloting skills!

You are just being facetious... There is lots of research on the influence of the media on people. To claim that media just glosses over a person without affecting them is foolish. Here is a link to an article that relates three studies about such a thing :http://journals.lww.com/ajnonline/Fulltext/2009/02000/Sex_and_Violence_in_the_Media_Influence_Teen.13.as px

But it is a hard thing to quantify, and I would agree that more research on this very subject would be welcome.



If such a large percentage of people with child porn have committed actual molestation crimes, why not prosecute them for that instead of for possessing gross and disturbing comic books? If there are contradictory studies, we're right back to your original "I don't know" position, and prosecuting people for thought crimes.

Possession is not a "thought crime" as you would call it. Possession of child pornography is a crime too might I remind you. Also, none of us are experts in this field, admitting "I don't know" is a much sensible position than the one you are taking...

You should really think a bit harder about what you're saying.

You really seem invested in this exchange. Might I ask why?

Just to clarify, I think defending the possession of animated child pornography depicting rape in the intent of masturbating to it is fucking disgusting.

[MattKeil]

So you're trolling, then.

[Kurdel]

So you're trolling, then.

Wow. Ok. Of course I am. That is why I am going through all of this.

You were really not worth my time if you aren't even reading what I post. Why even post on a message board then? What is your point?

EDIT: I am sorry, how the fuck am I trolling here? Do you people even know what it means?

[Staff Sergeant]

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/6/6b/Oprahtroll%27d.jpg

[MattKeil]

Wow. Ok. Of course I am. That is why I am going through all of this.

You were really not worth my time if you aren't even reading what I post. Why even post on a message board then? What is your point?

I did read what you wrote. I particularly enjoyed the part where you implied I was a child molester, which is of course the keystone of rational discourse. What you wrote is nonsense as a response to what I wrote. You're setting up strawmen like it's the Scarecrow Olympics. You're not having the same conversation the rest of the thread is.

Look, if it were possible without violating the laws of the universe to set up some system that caused pedophiles to spontaneously combust the instant they considered sexually abusing another human being, I'd be all for it. These people are absolutely some of the biggest wastes of oxygen imaginable, and the world would be infinitely better off without them. But that's not how reality works. If you really don't grasp why it's a bad idea to set a legal precedent for arresting people based on what they think and read rather than what they do, you're the one not worth discussing the issue with, particularly since you are clearly not interested in hearing what anyone other than you has to say.

I find it difficult to believe someone able to type coherent sentences wouldn't be able to grasp that, hence I think you're probably just trolling people in a thread about a sensitive subject.

[Brettmcd]

Wow. Ok. Of course I am. That is why I am going through all of this.

You were really not worth my time if you aren't even reading what I post. Why even post on a message board then? What is your point?

EDIT: I am sorry, how the fuck am I trolling here? Do you people even know what it means?


No they dont, trolling to people here equals disagreement.

[Kurdel]

I did read what you wrote. I particularly enjoyed the part where you implied I was a child molester, which is of course the keystone of rational discourse.

Maybe you are a big anime fan who sees this an offence to your favourite pastime, I don't know.

I never even talked about thought policing or arresting people for what they read. I was arguing for legal action against people who amass child pornography and animated child pornography with the intent to please themselves sexually and fantasize about it. How could we know if a person is doing so? Well, if a person has a collection of such things, isn't that an indication that he has a problem?

I also called for therapy, not instant magical vaporization.

I find it difficult to believe someone able to type coherent sentences wouldn't be able to grasp that, hence I think you're probably just trolling people in a thread about a sensitive subject.

And I find it amazing how when someone has a different opinion than you, you claim they are trolling.

[MattKeil]

Maybe you are a big anime fan who sees this an offence to your favourite pastime, I don't know.

Hah, no, although I can see how an anime fan could take a "stop ruining it for the rest of us" angle on it.

I never even talked about thought policing or arresting people for what they read. I was arguing for legal action against people who amass child pornography and animated child pornography with the intent to please themselves sexually and fantasize about it. How could we know if a person is doing so? Well, if a person has a collection of such things, isn't that an indication that he has a problem?

Again, what crime has been committed there? You're prosecuting someone for what they think, not what they do. Who is the victim in the crime you propose to prosecute?

I don't think anyone is going to disagree that someone with a collection of drawn child porn doesn't have a problem or doesn't potentially pose a threat to society, but the issue here is that going down this road for this special case then opens up a whole can of worms regarding freedom of speech and thought. Once you have this precedent on the books, what's to stop prosecution of a horror fan from watching slasher movies on the grounds that he might like it too much and kill someone for real? Muslims have been known to commit terrorist acts, so why not police anyone who owns the Koran?

Yes, I understand that you're arguing that this should only apply to pedophiles, and the law will be wise and prudent enough not to let it go any further than that. And yet, not to go all McCullough, but do you really trust the legal system to be that restrained? In a country where a burglar can sue a homeowner for damages because he slipped on the steps trying to break into said homeowner's home, I can't say I'm so sure I do.

And I find it amazing how when someone has a different opinion than you, you claim they are trolling.

Once again, reading comprehension is not your strong suit, I guess. It's not that your opinion is different, it's that you are presenting such an absurdly overbearing case for it. If you would like clarification on this, re-read your first post in the thread and try to imagine why someone might think you're more interested in getting a rise out of people than actually discussing anything.

[Kurdel]

The label of "crime" and the accompanying social stigma normally confine their scope to those activities seen as injurious to the general population or to the State, including some that cause serious loss or damage to individuals. Those who apply the labels of "crime" or "criminal" intend to assert the hegemony of a dominant population, or to reflect a consensus of condemnation for the identified behavior and to justify any punishments prescribed by the State (in the event that standard processing tries and convicts an accused person of a crime).

A crime doesn't necessarily have a victim. This is what I meant by the sexbot example. In a situation where there is no victim, is the act morally acceptable by society? Seeing how it depicts human children (well, to be fair anime people do not look like humans, but are portrayed as being human) victims to heinous sex crimes, I think it goes against social norms and values.

I understand your argument about free speech slippery slopes, but in the face of changing media we cannot simply dismiss the enforcement of new laws fearing opening cans of worms. Is drawn pornography bad? Thinking so is a value judgement. Should animated pornography be exempt of laws regulating real pornography? I don't think so.

I somehow don't see people coming out of the woodwork to ban horror movies after banning animated child pornography, but I see your point. People don't consume violent movies, or books, or video games the same way as pornography. Some people might sit down, put on a sweet sweet prono and drink a beer, but most people jerk off. There are far more chemical reactions in the brain during sexual activity then during a regular movie. It is a totally different interaction, and it deserves to be separated from other media.

Also, for someone accusing me of participating in the scarecrow olympics, you seem keen on non sequiturs yourself! (Now that was facetious, even if it is true.)

[Thoro]

Also, for someone accusing me of participating in the scarecrow olympics, you seem keen on non sequiturs yourself! (Now that was facetious, even if it is true.)

I don't think that means what you think it means.

A non sequitur is an interjection of something completely unrelated, like this:

Bob: "Sure is rainy today, huh, Ted?"
Ted: "We'll never know if there is intelligent life in the universe, Bob."

Did you mean an ad hominem?

[HRose]

So you believe that content that depicts drawn children getting raped should be readily available in all porno stores? The problem with this isn't the content, it's the person consuming the content who is psychologically unbalanced.
Is this the exact situation with violent games?

You'll never know to what a psychologically unbalanced individual is susceptible to. It may be everything. Some idiot could be susceptible by a game and go out and shooting people. So we ban violent games altogether?

This is a case of confusing the consequence of a problem with its cause. It's not a game or a picture to cause a foolish act, nor the mention itself of a possible act can be prosecuted. If your brain can't put a line between fiction and reality then you're already completely fucked and need help. And you need help even if games and everything else become illegal. You need help thoroughly and regardless. Not playing games will solve nothing. Banning games (or everything else) is delusional.

At the end of the day you'd put in jail a whole lot of people who are completely innocent and solve absolutely nothing. Because all the peoples out there who are insane and unbalanced will continue to explode through slightly different means. Or is out there someone truly convinced that banning games will lead to less crimes?

So the point is this: let's ban all these things that may trigger indirectly harm. What you think this kind of law will concretely achieve? Less pedophiles? You really think you can simplify that much and it's all fine and dandy and absolutely solved?

My point of view is completely different. It's through culture that you can save men. Culture you approve and culture you don't. It's instead hiding the dirt under the carpet that achieves nothing and actually worsen the situation. It's the taboos the societies have that make problems surge everywhere because we are completely unable to deal with problems.

P.S.
Unrelated: I'm starting to believe that a reason why our society is so screwed with deviant sexuality of every form or perversion may actually be BECAUSE, as kids, we weren't taught to deal with nudity and sexuality as something normal. What appears to backfire, much later with the years, is all the accumulated guilt that the society has buried deep into you.

[HRose]

How could we know if a person is doing so? Well, if a person has a collection of such things, isn't that an indication that he has a problem?
Everyone has his own idiosyncrasies. Me, you everyone.

What you imply here is that someone with a collection of anime child pornography (instead of, say, real firearms or knives) may at some point of his life explode and become dangerous. In your opinion such case would have a high probability of happening (so that forbidding this through law is justified), I assume.

Well, it would be interesting how you judge a "collection" being of proper quantity to start being considered sickening and illegal :)

But the point here is that you are really simplifying a lot and psychology is never that one directional (and so also the assumption that someone wired to like those things will also start doing those things in reality. Like, I have a collection of comics, so it's a fact that someday I'll launch myself from a skyscraper while trying to fly. It's automatic and inevitable. Or I read obsessively thrillers, so one day I'll organize the perfect crime). In fact one may as well have a morbid interest in child pornography for the sole reason that it is made attractive by being totally illegal and taboo. So sexual and attractive and exciting because of those traits.

The problem, at the root, is the same: blurring fiction with reality.

Either you ban fiction entirely, or you start considering thinking of dealing with the real problem.

[gurugeorge]

A crime doesn't necessarily have a victim. This is what I meant by the sexbot example. In a situation where there is no victim, is the act morally acceptable by society?

Morality and law are not the same thing. It is a misconception of the law to imagine that its purpose is to "uphold morality".

[Unicorn McGriddle]

Despite law-enforcement efforts around the world, it's still shockingly easy to find child pornography. Look what I found with just a quick Google Image Search that even a minor, such as your own son or daughter, could perform:

http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/7051/gifkeer6basis704998.gif

What makes this image so disturbing is its blatant appeal to the obscene sensibilities of the pedophile. Although aspiring molesters who are cultivating their own massive collections of deranged kiddy smut will spout the manufactured, bogus fig leaf arguments of NAMBLA and its ilk -- that these depictions are not images of real people and have no birth dates by which status as a minor can be determined -- everyone else will see the clear truth: that this is a disgusting breach of every legal and moral system ever devised throughout the history of civilization.

"How," these child predators will ask in their weaseling way, "can you tell the difference between a legitimate drawing and an illegitimate one?" The answer to this question could not be simpler: what breaks the law is the creation of media intended to represent children in a sexualized way. To name but the most obvious example, the disreputable filth merchants of such shady enterprises as J. C. Penney maintain elaborate production and distribution networks, financed by the furtive pedophile underworld, which conduct -- through photography of real child victims -- sexually subversive operations to bring sickening pictures of innocence debased to every mailbox in America. That the children are clothed is beside the point. Of course J. C. Penney, with its wildly successful pedophile-associated clothing brands, incorporates the clothes into the pornography. The images remain suggestive and wholly unacceptable.

Here we see a rawer, less polished side of the pedophile juggernaut. The image above is tuned less to the sensibilities of perverts just discovering the joys of underaged lust, or of stealth-sickos posing as normal next door, and more to the bestial needs of the most extreme deviants. The pedophile who views this image is invariably already plotting an abduction; he will execute his plan in a matter of days, using the dark power of sex to destroy a precious young life and undermine the fabric of society on which our civilization depends.

This picture is one that sensible pedophiles -- for although not sane, the pedophile is wily with an animal cunning that drives him to ever-cleverer strategems in pursuit of his warped goal -- will stop at nothing to keep hidden from decent people and the eyes of the law. The nature of the picture is such that its juvenile-salacious intent could not possibly be more obvious. Note the absence of clothing on every figure, as well as the absence of secondary sexual characteristics. None of the victims have body hair, beards, or breasts. Furthermore, the presence of six children in a single scene, each making age-inappropriate body gestures, is a sure sign to the audience that a pedo-orgy is about to commence in the world of the drawing. The overwhelming certainty is that your children, having seen this depravity on the internet, will invite their own kidnapping, torture, rape, and murder by copying the pedophile-attracting sex dances depicted therein.

Unfortunately, by viewing this image in your web browser, you have saved it to your local cache, meaning that you are now in possession of child pornography. Please do not use 911 to inform the police of your crime*, but instead call the local number for the nearest station, calmly and fully explain your breaches of the law, and wait patiently in your home for the arresting officers to arrive.

*Unless you are about to commit a crime of a pedophiliac nature, in which case 911 is the correct venue.

[McGraw McGraw]

I also like how you ignore my sexbot argument, which I think is worth a thought.

Your... sexbot... argument? I'm loathe to join a pile-on, but... seriously? Look at that, you made me abuse ellipses.

Overlooking the fact that boning a sex bot is essentially rape (he said nerdingly), your argument seems to boil down to the idea that facsimiles of child porn are as toxic as actual child porn. If I'm not wholly mistaken, the treatment for pedophiles, which you bandy about like a particularly lubricated club, is to find the elements that they are attracted to in children in their partners.

No they dont, trolling to people here equals disagreement.

I think insinuating that someone is a rape-hungry manga-lover might qualify as a troll-like action. Besides, Mr. McD, shouldn't persecuting for thought crimes go against your small government leanings?

[Brettmcd]

Your... sexbot... argument? I'm loathe to join a pile-on, but... seriously? Look at that, you made me abuse ellipses.

Overlooking the fact that boning a sex bot is essentially rape (he said nerdingly), your argument seems to boil down to the idea that facsimiles of child porn are as toxic as actual child porn. If I'm not wholly mistaken, the treatment for pedophiles, which you bandy about like a particularly lubricated club, is to find the elements that they are attracted to in children in their partners.



I think insinuating that someone is a rape-hungry manga-lover might qualify as a troll-like action. Besides, Mr. McD, shouldn't persecuting for thought crimes go against your small government leanings?

Never once said I agreed or disagreed with anything the poster said, you should learn how to read what is actually said, I was only commenting on how people respond to anyone who dares to have a differing opinion here, thats all.

[McGraw McGraw]

Never once said I agreed or disagreed with anything the poster said, you should learn how to read what is actually said, I was only commenting on how people respond to anyone who dares to have a differing opinion here, thats all.

Ahh, you are right. My apologies. I tend to look for meaning in subtext when it comes to those defending points of view that I find intolerable (or those defending the defense of views I find intolerable). It is a personal failing, I guess.

Regardless, insinuating that a poster has a vested interest in graphic representations of child pornography is as under-the-bridge as a troll gets.

[WarrenM]

To the point, I would like the authorities to prosecute actual child pornographers.
And to clarify, we're not talking about Grandma getting pictures developed at Walmart that happen to contain a shot of little Billy at bath time.

Never once said I agreed or disagreed with anything the poster said, you should learn how to read what is actually said, I was only commenting on how people respond to anyone who dares to have a differing opinion here, thats all.
Meaning that you saw people were arguing with someone and you weren't involved. Hurry up and erect your cross. After you're properly mounted, we can begin the flogging.

[extarbags]

Fiction or not, depiction of sexual abuse (or even consensual sex) on children for sexual consumption is horrible.

Yes, it is. But scat porn is horrible too. Testicular torture porn is horrible. M. Night Shyamalan movies are horrible. But they're all legal, because we don't outlaw things in this country just because they run counter to most of our tastes. Usually.

[Anti-Bunny]

Overlooking the fact that boning a sex bot is essentially rape (he said nerdingly)

Wait.. what? Is this a reference I am not getting?

[shift6]

Wait.. what? Is this a reference I am not getting?
The sexbot either does or does not want to be injected with semen.

[sinfony]

A crime doesn't necessarily have a victim. This is what I meant by the sexbot example. In a situation where there is no victim, is the act morally acceptable by society? Seeing how it depicts human children (well, to be fair anime people do not look like humans, but are portrayed as being human) victims to heinous sex crimes, I think it goes against social norms and values.
Social norms and values are self-enforcing. I would like to know your theoretical justification for punishing a "crime" that has no victim.

[McGraw McGraw]

Wait.. what? Is this a reference I am not getting?

Nah, you're in the clear. I was trying to avoid having to type out the possible moral problems with robot sex, and "nerdingly" seemed like an appropriate made-up word. I blame being flabbergasted by the very idea of a sexbot example.

[ReptileHouse]

Kurdel, please go back to earlier in the thread and read the linked Neil Gaiman article. It's superb and summarizes very well why we should, as a society, defend speech which is grossly distasteful.

Actually, tell ya what. I'll save you the trouble of going back to find it. Here it is (http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-icky-speech.html).

[Anti-Bunny]

Nah, you're in the clear. I was trying to avoid having to type out the possible moral problems with robot sex, and "nerdingly" seemed like an appropriate made-up word.

That's what puzzled me.. I'm pretty sure there would be no moral problems with using a sexbot for it's intended purpose.. How on earth is that rape?

[BobJustBob]

That's what puzzled me.. I'm pretty sure there would be no moral problems with using a sexbot for it's intended purpose.. How on earth is that rape?

A non-sentient robot cannot consent.

[Kraaze]

That's what puzzled me.. I'm pretty sure there would be no moral problems with using a sexbot for it's intended purpose.. How on earth is that rape?

I'm guessing the sexbot objections stem from those who believe masturbation is wrong and sinful.

My objections to sexbots are far more pragmatic. I remember how hard it was as a young man to convince young ladies that a bit of trysting was a good way to pass an afternoon. If young men had to compete with sexbots . . . well . . . humanity may be doomed.

[BobJustBob]

My objections to sexbots are far more pragmatic. I remember how hard it was as a young man to convince young ladies that a bit of trysting was a good way to pass an afternoon. If young men had to compete with sexbots . . . well . . . humanity may be doomed.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4510/futurama-anti-robot-propaganda

[McGraw McGraw]

That's what puzzled me.. I'm pretty sure there would be no moral problems with using a sexbot for it's intended purpose.. How on earth is that rape?

I guess sexbot implies a degree of sentience to me. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of having unconsenting sex with a semi-intelligent thing. If the sexbot said yes, however...

I'm guessing the sexbot objections stem from those who believe masturbation is wrong and sinful.

Now that you mention it, I do like to beat myself with a belt buckle afterward.

As an aside, I'm weirded out by cartoon porn because I subscribed to Previews, the comic book trade magazine thingie, when I was much younger. I'm still haunted by the image of a cartoon-sexy woman washing an anthropomorphic dog's crotch.

[Anti-Bunny]

A non-sentient robot cannot consent.

But a non-sentient robot is not a person and has no rights, in the same sense of using a vibrator is not rape.

[salwon]

You should write a book, Fry! People need to know about the CAN EAT MORE.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_LP_YP0I7zZY/SdNjkXus2nI/AAAAAAAAB1c/uh6eSuNGhu4/s400/LucyLiu_8.png

[BobJustBob]

But a non-sentient robot is not a person and has no rights, in the same sense of using a vibrator is not rape.

Okay how about a sentient robot with the intelligence of a child?

[RepoMan]

How about a drawing of a possibly-sentient robot with the intelligence of a child, but the looks of a French poodle?

OMG HAWT

[DoomMunky]

This thread is now child pornography.

Sit quietly and await the authorities.