fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #4349 ]

[ SECRET POST #4349 ]

⌈ Secret Post #4349 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

__________________________________________________

03. https://i.imgur.com/W9x9FD0.png
[Tenchi Forever! The Movie, OP warned for NSFW]

04. [SPOILERS for Doctor S11E04 "Arachnids in the UK"]

__________________________________________________

05. [SPOILERS for Daredevil season 3]

__________________________________________________

06. [SPOILERS for Daredevil season 3]

__________________________________________________

07. [WARNING for incest]

[Gravity Falls]

__________________________________________________

08. [WARNING for discussion of loli/shota and child porn]

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #622.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's porn depicting children

If you can't see the difference between art/writing that in no way involves real people and stuff that does, I think you might be the one with the problem.

I can see an ethical distinction between those things, but I think that "child porn" is still an accurate term to use for either

And I think using that term for portrayals of fictional characters ruins the severity and evil of the term when used in its appropriate place to refer to sexual depictions of actual children.

But it is literally porn depicting children

No it's not, because those aren't real children. Those are just fictional characters.

They are not real children but they are depictions of children

Yes, they are. And shota and loli are perfectly fine terms to describe them. Calling them child porn has connotations, and it is silly to pretend otherwise. Child porn has a specific meaning that goes beyond the two separate meanings of the words.

Different anon

What in your mind is loli/shota? In Japan lolicon and shotacon are just terms for cp, drawn or not. Is only real life porn involving real kids the only form of cp to you? Would you look at a manga depicting an five year old being penetrated, and say "my oh my, this certainly doesn't look like anything that could be called cp, and I'm going to refuse anybody who would understandably call this porn involving a child 'cp'"?

I'd find it distasteful. But I really think the term CP is for real life people only. If we use it for other things, it kind of dumbs down its meaning. And while I'd personally find that manga distasteful, I'd say it isn't as bad as real life. I do think there is a level of fiction is fiction to it. I think that kink is icky (though I can see a survivor using it to cope). But it isn't real people. And honestly, I actually think that if people keep it as fiction and don't use real people, that's so much better. It might actually save some lives.

You are completely, absolutely correct in this thread. CP is not a term that should extend to fictional characters; when words and terms start to become flexible like that, they risk -in this case- the severity of the original word/term.

Shota/loli is repulsive, but it is not harming children. This is the way I see it: pedophilia can't be stopped, and so many people don't understand that pedophiles aren't child molesters until they become child molesters. And if drawn characters of children stops them from indulging in actual CP or harming children in person (and it can), then, honestly, that needs to be viewed as a separate thing.

Okay, since you seem pretty informed and advocating this issue:

What about fictional characters that are not animated. Like for example, how do you distinguish loli of the character of Eleven from Stranger Things from cp of the actual actress? Is it that one is drawn and the other would be photomanips? Do you really think it's a different experience? If someone writes shota fic of Gotham's Bruce Wayne, is that cool? Is it a visual image vs words?

What do you think pornographic content is FOR, by the way?

Different anon:

The difference is, could I look at that picture and think that it really portrays that actress really getting abused in reality? A drawing or painting of her that is obviously a drawing or painting, no. A very well-done photomanip, maybe.

I mean, loli is obviously cartoons. No one would mistake it for photodocumentation of an actual illegal act.

Whether someone gets off to it or not isn't the point. People get off to all sorts of things. There are certainly murder fetishists who get off to Hannibal - that doesn't make Hannibal real snuff porn. Is loli obviously aimed at people who get off to fantasies about children? Definitely, and it's gross. That doesn't make it the same thing as child porn, which requires a real child to be harmed to create.

I don't think it helps anyone to blur that distinction. I think that distinction is extremely important when it comes to matters of law enforcement and victim support. If people start calling the FBI over loli cartoons on Tumblr, that takes resources away from investigating real crimes.

I've been around the block one too many times on this discussion to have anything to add, but yeah, MTE.

Okay, I see your point. But if someone drew a picture of a person being ripped in half, would that be the same as a photo of a person in the process of being ripped in half? I'm honestly just wondering.

If otakus advocated people-getting-ripped-in-half porn, and a good chunk of anime culture involves dealing with the people constantly defending the sexualization of people getting ripped in half, and having the whole anime industry bend towards shoving people getting ripped in half for the fucking nerds who refuse to consume media that doesn't hint at people getting ripped in half at least every twenty seconds, maybe I'll treat this argument well.

My point is that lolicon and shotacon does involve sexualization of kids by a lot of people who are motivated by reasons not involving coping for past trauma, and instead for other reasons (hint: it's the peepee), which I think does put it in the same vein as CP. In kink places, there's always the separation of fantasy from reality and a great understanding of mutual consent, but doesn't apply when the fantasy at hand is diddling kids.

So I'll say that shota/loli and cp are two leaves on the same branch, but shota/loli is highly insidious in how culturally accepted it is, and how much it is catered to.

n kink places, there's always the separation of fantasy from reality and a great understanding of mutual consent, but doesn't apply when the fantasy at hand is diddling kids.

Why not? What is it about kids specifically that is somehow the one fantasy that can't be indulged in a strict-separation-of-fantasy-from-reality context? There are lots of highly taboo, dangerous, and illegal things that people roleplay in kink scenes and depict in art up to and including torture and murder, and the practitioners understand full well that it's only okay because it isn't real. What is unique about fantasies involving kids in this respect?

shut the fuck up pedo

(no subject)

(Anonymous) - 2018-12-01 20:05 (UTC) - Expand

Shota, loli, and CP are all accurate terms to use

Okay, then. Agree to disagree. I personally think CP should be reserved for things involving real people.

No, philstar is right. It's like the difference between a real snuff video and a death scene in a movie. You wouldn't call a fake death scene a snuff film no matter how gory it is, because the actor was not really killed onscreen. Child porn is when a real child is sexually abused onscreen. It is ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE worse than anything made without abusing a real child. There is NO COMPARISON in the level of harm done, and it's so disturbing to me that so many people seem not to get that.

And we need a specific term that means this one specific thing ONLY, i.e., photos and videos that show real children really being raped for real. It needs to not be watered-down by conflating it with other still-icky but much much less evil things. That term is "child pornography."

That term is "child pornography."

Using that term exclusively for that purpose doesn't really make sense on the face of it, and I don't think that's how people use it. Again, I respect the conceptual distinction here, porn involving real-life children is orders of magnitude more harmful than shota or loli, and I understand why you would want a term to specifically denote that. But "child porn" does not do that job effectively.

That's the term that law enforcement uses, at least in the US. They have a vested interest in keeping that definition clear and not-blurry, because they're dedicated to hunting down people who make explicit photos and videos of real minors.

Cartoon drawings, nah, they don't give a shit about that. Because no crime is being committed there, and there is no victim.

The distinction is a lot more than just "conceptual."

It's the exact same difference as that between really killing people and filming it, vs. drawing pictures of murders. It's not just semantic at all.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only