It came from a lolicon manga featuring the little girl in the picture, in which her three teenage brothers lure her into an orgy. 'Pomf' is the sound effect of her being tossed onto the bed, which has since become an euphemistic verb for 'bonking an underaged girl'.

Yeah, you heard me right.

 

Why must one of my favourite mediums be so stupid.............

 

I think I agree mostly with JazzHunter83...that girl is OBVIOUSLY a child, where others can be difficult to tell. If the pictures look like that, I have no problem with him being punished...not strung up and hanged or whatever, but punished. It also leads me to two questions
1) I wonder what percentage of people who like this kind of manga actually molest/harm children?
2) How many guys here have spanked it to a woman dressed as a school girl?

 

Are you serious? For the love of god.......

I had no idea when I first commented in this thread that the issue was about images like that.

I am disgusted, and I feel sick with your description.

Yeah, that is bullshit and anyone who would read that needs to go and get help.....before they hurt an actual child.

 

Unfortunately, I am dead serious.

What I'm more interested in knowing is:

1. How many people here have actually seen the stuff being debated in this thread?

2. Would those who haven't seen it be so quick to dismiss it as a victimless/harmless medium if they were given the opportunity to take a gander?

3. How many of the people here who are dismissing it as harmless have children of their own, or close relatives who are children?

 

1. I haven't seen the stuff, I have had brief glimpses of some manga, but NOTHING like what you describe or using the image of a girl as young as the pic posted above.

2. I never considered it harmless, but at first I did think we were discussing different images (more like the one a previous poster posted with the 3 girls in bikinis on the beach - where they had breasts and curves but big eyes and young faces/hairstyles). I did think that it was a bit over the top of Sweden and did think that people were getting overly upset - until I realise just exactly what this particular manga actually contained  

3. I absolutely don't dismiss it as harmless - especially not now I know what it involves. Yes, I have kids and I am terrified for them.

Seriously, I actually feel sick to my stomach now, after seeing that little girl's image and then Nacht's description. I mean, how can other people - knowing now what that shit is about - claim that it's not a big deal? It's a book that contains illustrations depicting the rape/molestation of a very young girl (who can't be older than 8 or 9). It's sick!!!

P.S if anyone wants to post any more descriptions of what happens in the manga, can you black it out please? I don't want to read any more   Thank you xxxx

 

Before this escalated into 'what's adult manga/when it's considered pedophilia' and whatnot, need I remind people that the person in question is a translator of such comics? What exactly was the basis of seizing his house in the first place?

I find it hilarious that during the so called big article of child pedophile being arrested and charged, the "see more" section that pops in the middle writes of two much, much more heinous crimes\actions.

 

Giving that age to the character just sounds like an excuse to make what's visually illegal legal.

"I swear to God that baby is turning 48 next month!"

 

I didn't know the specifics of the work, so after you posted the specifics, I became more digusted by it. But I have a problem with charging people for something you think they might do. That's too much of a slippery slope for me.

That said, I'm done with this thread.

 

I think any attempt to legislate art, as questionable as it may be, begins to encroach on freedom of expression and ultimately introduces the concept of thought crime. The last thing we need are morality police.

The biggest separator in this situation, for me, is that this is a victimless "crime". As far as I know, no one was exploited to produce the images in question.

 

If my memory serves right, his spouse falsely (as in, she wasn't aware of the illustrations or that they could be classified as child porn) accused him of possession as a way to get back at him after a fight they had.

EDIT: Found the original article in Swedish. The false accusation was that he had molested their daughter in order to get the court to rule in her favour in a custody case.

 

Personally, I find this trend disturbing. (And I am not talking about the manga in question.)

Centuries ago humanity didn't live as long as it did today. Men of twenty-five + would wed teenagers as young as fifteen to bear young and continue the family blood line.

As time progressed we became a society that could better defend ourselves against simpler diseases. We began to live longer, we no longer required the men of a certain age wedding younger women to continue the family blood line. We began to abolish such notions from our society, to the point where it is now considered utterly reprehensive if a younger man or woman so much as looks at an older man/woman, whatever the age difference be.

What does all of this have to do with Manga and whether or not a man should be prosocuted for owning images of a 'questionable' nature? Quite simple really, male (and female) fantasies did not become abolished from our basic genetic structure.

As a species we were once genetically (I'd wager) built a certain way. The more we attempt to civilize ourselves and distance ourselves from our baser animal level genetics, the more things like this crop up in society as the basic attractors built into us continue to function.

You can not prosecute a man who is attracted to younger looking woman and who has done nothing illegal in regards to this attractive force or harm him physically simply because his genetics have developed to a point where he finds himself in the darker areas of human attractiveness. If you start going after everyone on the planet who has different hot buttons, where does it end?

IF however they have done something illegal, they have acted upon their predispositions, than by all rights he should be punished. To the harshest point of the law that can be leveld upon him.

However, simply owning fantasy based images of beings that do not exist does not mean that the person is going to one day wake up just say 'F$&* this, I don't care if it is illegal, I don't give a damn if I get put away for this, I'm going out there and I'm engaging in sexual intercourse with that hot little bitch down the street, or that hot young prebubescent boytoy I've been eyeing for some time.' That isn't how these sorts of things develop. (At least I'm fairly certain that it isn't how it works, not in any sane or logical sense of the word.)

Men and Women who are attracted to certain things would more than likely be terrified of discovering this abnormal defect in their genetic interest. But what is real and what is merely the desire to experiment? Learn?

I'm kind of going all over the place here, forgive me, however I still refuse to believe that we as human beings have the right to prosecute anyone, be they man, woman or confused teenager drawn to the oddities of Rule 34 for simply owning pornographic images of fictional non-existant characters, be they of age, same species, or not, simply because he or she might develop into a deranged degenerate.

Posession does not immediatley = paedophile/or-in-danger-of-becoming-paedophile.

If you'll recall, before it became a popular sub-culture, collecting toys in grown men/women was considered grounds enough to label them as Paedophiles, simply because they were buying up children's playthings and perhaps interacting/conversing with children about these favorite collectibles while in the toy aisles.

I'm not about to say that the types of people who enjoy this sort of Manga should become accepted in main-stream society to the same level where toy collectors are no longer labeled as such, however, if they remain in their own little worlds of harmless fantasy, perhaps enacting same with consensual adults willing to experiment with certain fetishes, then they are not a danger to society. And policing Might-Be-Danger-In-Future people of this type is a complete waste of time, money and effort on the tax payers dimes.

What we should be doing is putting an end to child pornography and the sex slave trades. Not going after some grown man who has a thing for Tinkerbell (Or Wendy) just because he bought some dirty pictures of her.
There are a hell of a lot more vile things that the law should be putting the kaibosh on than wasting time with a person who collects drawings of fictional Anime/Manga characters or Western Animated Characters.

 

Folks:

I think we need to go and read the US Supreme Court's opinion from Ashcroft vs Free Speech Coalition. The prosecution's arguments seem to echo the arguments made by the US government in that case, which is rather interesting.

Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this case, the US Supreme Court denied the government's arguments, saying they were misapplied and dangerous to free speech, and the act was struck down. The Court's opinion included several statements echoed in this thread, including what Process just posted.

We may well see this case go further.

It's also interesting that the prosecution doesn't seem to be focusing on the possible application of obscenity law to this artwork. This involves three tests:

-would the average person consider the work, as a whole, to apply primarily to the 'prurient interest'?
-does the work depict or describe unlawful acts in an offensive way?
-does the work have no other literary or artistic merit?

N:

Yes, this aberration exists, and this is clearly deviant. But in all this discussion, we are forgetting the distinction between actual and potential crimes. The legal authority does NOT exist to punish potential criminals, it exists to punish criminal acts.

Sociopathy, for instance, is not rare. Up to four percent of the population, right? However, most sociopaths don't become criminals. If a sociopath lives all his or her life and commits not a single crime, the law has no authority to punish that person, regardless of tendencies.

Pedophilia and sociopathy are dangerous tendencies. However, the legal authority is also inherently dangerous, and it is backed with government power. It can easily become oppressive, if we let it. I want to protect my children from danger...but I don't want the legal authority to become one of those dangers.

I don't like that this stuff exists. Abuse of even fictional characters affects me pretty strongly. I write stuff, after all. Characters are almost like real people to me. Looking at the drawing Dk posted, and hearing the manga described, makes me feel sick. But I feel that the citizens of a free society can not let their emotions cloud their judgment, when issues of civil liberty may be involved.

 

I am so happy that intelectualism is still thriving in our society.

 

Bearing a child before age 18 carries many risks, including increased risk of fistula, fractured/split pelvis, maternal and foetal death. A child aged 15 does not bear children with ease. Women/girls reach reproductive maturation at approx age 17 years - maturation also involves the widening of the hips and pelvis in readiness for the bearing of children. Given that some women develop more slowly than others, I think it's wise to set the age of consent at a min of 18 years.

(I'm not trying to attack your comment, but so many people buy into the whole historical custom of child marriage and use it as a justification for desiring young girls. I am pointing out that it's actually not something nature originally intended to occur. Back in the dark ages 1 in 4 women died in childbirth. The first person to suggest that these deaths could be reduced by the practitioners and midwives washing their hands before tending to the labouring woman, and during the labour was laughed at. We now know that dirty hands, contaminated with germs, contributed enormously to 'birth bed fever'. We should learn from the mistakes our ancestors made).

I partially agree with some of the rest of your comment - the part about policing it being a waste of time and money that we could use to hunt down more damaging predators. I do speak emotively on this topic, because I have young children - a boy and a girl - and to me it's not ok to pretend that people looking at that sort of stuff is not someone with an unhealthy perversion. Yes, I agree that we can't prosecute someone based on what they MIGHT do, but that doesn't mean that this sort of art/fiction shouldn't be made illegal and have possession punished with jail time. If people are aware of the laws surrounding having this flavour of manga in their possession, then they can make the choice to risk it or not. At the very least we can send the message that it's not ok to create, own or promote that kind of garbage.

 

I find that to be dangerous though, at what point do we say enough is enough when it comes to making things of this nature illegal? And what happens to people who use it as a harmless escape to avoid darker paths when they are punished for owning a piece of fiction depicting something that is now considered to be illegal even though these anime characters do not exist and can not be harmed/or were not harmed from the creation of these images?

If you make something illegal, more and more people want to go after it. Mariwuana (SP?) is considered to be illegal, does that stop kids from wanting it and finding it?

Proper relegation should be considered before we make something illegal. Even if the source material is reprehensible, how on Earth does making it illegal differ from the people who outlawed certain books of a more tamer nature. (For example, look at the book Lolita.)

We should be allowed to create anything we want when it comes to 'fiction' and 'fantasy' if we create it and it then becomes something degenerate or something, even if it is a harmless story about how we ourselves may have discovered our own sexuality, but in a fictional setting, does that mean we should be punished for sharing our life's expeirences?

Humanity wastes so much time trying to get rid of every base instinct and desire in everyone on the planet, that we lose sight of the more harmful stuff that exists.

There are worse crimes than merely possessing smut of a certain nature, I mean, did the police go around in the 40's and 50's arresting people who owned those old girly magazines? They were tame compared to the stuff you see in the porn industry these days. And even if it is smut, it isn't real smut it is art. And art does not necessarily reflect life, it is considered to be an expression of oneself. Drawing things of this nature isn't illegal, if it were it wouldn't exist, owning it should also not be made illegal because it would mean that everyone who has ever had or has this material is now considered a common criminal.

What if they decided to make it illegal for owning material of this nature even when the characters are 'of age'? It is just wrong.

I can understand how discovering this might make you upset, or afraid, however someone who owns a manga of this nature does not automatically make them a Paedophile. If anything Paedophiles are more likely to go for the real thing than artistic interpreations of same.

 

JH83:

But what sort, is this sort?

Obscenity laws do exist; the Court's issue with the CPPA, which this Swedish case seems to be emulating, was that the Act unjustly extended beyond obscenity laws and swept up works not provably obscene.

It's a little hard to see how this could be, but suppose a story was written about a child who was abused and grew up to take some horrifying sort of vengeance...something horrible enough to destroy sympathy for the character, unless the reader was shown exactly what happened to provoke such a level of hatred.

This would certainly be a very dark story; I couldn't write it, nor would I read it...but it would not necessarily be an obscene one. It is a kind of story that does happen, unfortunately. Some sicko might be titillated by it...but is that a reason to ban something?

"Come on, Bus," you might now say, "you know this isn't about that kind of stuff", and it probably wasn't. Probably just filth with no redeeming value. But a problem is, it takes human judgment to make that qualitative distinction....and if we remove human judgment from the equation, by going beyond obscenity laws, we may sweep up an awful lot that isn't filth.

 

Again, let me ask you: does spanking your monkey to gay manga porn make you any less gay than someone spanking his monkey to actual gay porn?

I can somewhat see where you're coming with the 'not prosecuting people for things they haven't done yet' thing, but to state that someone who owns lolicon manga isn't a paedophile is just ridiculous.

 

That's a false equivalence. It's not about what your predilections reveal about you, it's whether thinking about the act makes you guilty of it.

 

So you're totally for pedophilia as long as it doesn't involve real victims? Nice.