Recently the Japanese government outlawed owning child
pornography. It was already illegal to
produce child porn. There was a foot
note in this ruling that did not include manga, anime or computer games, due to
a lot of push back from the manga/anime/gaming lobby.
The reason for the
outcry from these industries was due to; censoring creative freedom and that a
drawing does not harm anyone, like the act of filming a sexual assault
does. These are both valid and
understandable arguments and should not be taken lightly. There are always implications when it comes
to creating censorship laws and how those laws would infringe on freedoms of
expression and press that should be universal rights. The
second idea that no one was harmed with a drawing is correct as well. No child was exploited for the creation of
the drawings. Not in the way a child is
exploited during the filming of a live action child porno. Yet, and you knew it was coming, these are
hollow and flawed arguments that speaks of a larger problem in the psyche in
Japan. Let’s unpack this a piece at a
time.
Censorship
argument: yes, it is a slippery slope and can be viewed as a dangerous thing to
censor drawings and text. Yes, everyone
should be able to express their own viewpoints freely and openly without fear
of legal repercussions. At the same time
that right of expression comes with social responsibility and
accountability. You can not publish a
tract on racial segregation and eugenics and not be at least morally
responsible for someone’s adverse actions directly relating to that piece of
material. Legal accountability, perhaps
not, that’s a very gray area, that in many cases, could lead to witch hunts and
wide speculation. Marilyn Manson didn’t
make the guys in Columbine murder classmates and how much did Mein Kampf play a
role in the holocaust? But, because you
have the legal ability to do something doesn’t mean you should do it. We will circle back to this one in a bit.
Exploitation
argument: Yes, at the very basic idea, no one is harmed from a drawing. You would assume that no one was exploited in
the creation of a drawing, series of drawing, etc. Not in the way of the actual filming of the
actual process. Yet there are two
aspects where this is wrong. A
hypothetical situation says that the artist is basing the drawings on a live
model, which, if it is a child, definitely still exploits and harms that
child. The other aspect, which is the
real meat of my argument, is the post-exploitation factor. This will take a bit to get into so I want to
start it off with addressing the ideas of the sexualization of minors.
If memory serves
correct age of consent in Japan is 14 or 16.
As we all were, at one point, raging hormonal teenagers all we cared
about for the most part was fucking. So
hey, teenagers fuck, sometimes like bunnies, no big deal. I don’t have a problem with it and no one
else really should as long as they are being safe and smart and everyone is
consenting. So I’m not talking teenagers
here, high school students. I’m talking
barely teenager and younger. Now, in
Japan one is not considered an adult until 20 years old. I am not sure of the exact language of the
law and what they are determining to be considered child porn, what age the
victims are. So let’s just work with the
idea that it’s anything under the age of consent in Japan and take the argument
from that standpoint. If it is for
people under 20 then there are some societal differences that make this
argument a little wonky, but the general population in America doesn’t have any
issue with people under 18 being banned from porno.
One thing to get
out of the way is the idea of innocuous nudity.
Again, I do not know the exact verbiage of the law, so I don’t know how
this is covered. So we will just go with
the idea of the material depicting sexual acts and to provide for simulated
sexual gratification. I highly doubt My
Neighbor Totoro would be edited to remove the scene of the two girls taking a
bath. Much like how in America there are
nekkid baby butts on diaper commercials.
These things are not intended to be there for sexual gratification but
to show life as it is. (Yes I can see an
entire argument with that statement to derail this discussion but don’t be an
idiot) Now, that is not to say that a few
people out there don’t masturbate to naked baby butt diaper commercials, nor
can we imply that naked baby butt diaper commercials lead to this type of
dangerous behavior that may lead to victimizations and assaults. This discussion should be solely focused on
the sexualization of minors as represented in video and drawings.
You can call me
moralistic and a prude and you can fuck yourself for thinking that. But it is in no way shape or form OK to
sexualize a 12 year old. In any form of
media, regardless if the creation of that media exploited/harmed a living
person. Yes, you have the right to
create a drawing or a story dealing with the sexual exploitation of a 12 year
old. But you have to take into
consideration the dangerous environment you are creating by generating
something like that. Yes, with or
without a drawing or a story of a minor being sexually assaulted it does happen. Let’s not fuck around…having sex with a 12
year old should be flat out considered assault, even if the child is ‘consenting’. Where the problem lies is the danger of
perpetuating and encouraging the sexualization of minors through graphical
media. This can foster an idea that it
is OK to behave in this fashion, emboldening people with morally questionable
fetishes to endanger the lives of minors.
If a culture is created where it is represented as being OK to sexual
assault a minor then the line between fiction and reality can blur with very disastrous
effects. Yes, in a way, this is thought
policing. Yes in a way this is
restricting freedom of expression. You
can say this is over reacting, like blaming video games and Catcher in the Rye
for creating hardened mass shooters. The
idea that you have to argue with someone that sexualizing and promoting sexual
assault on minors is OK because, if you don’t allow it you’re repressing
freedoms is ludicrous.
Societies have
taken it upon themselves to determine what types of content should be accessed
at what age levels. I don’t have a
problem with that when done properly. At
the same time, those who are restricted also have the benefit of their
guardians ultimately determining what content they can access and when. This has nothing to do with that. This has everything to do with stopping the
fostering and legitimizing of child sexualization by adults. You can say that violence, strong language,
alternate life styles and all types of various elements of the adult world can
be damaging and inappropriate for children.
To some extent those fears are correct and it’s up to the parents
guardians to help determine the maturity and understanding of their child when
accessing and dealing with those things.
What is wrong though, is allowing a group of potentially dangerous
individuals to have any sort of acceptability when it comes to their dangerous
behaviors. I don’t give a shit where you
are from, but it is not OK and it is not healthy for a 30 year old to have sex
with a 12 year old, ever. Having material
that is designed to simulate that experience is dangerous as well, there are
just some things that need to be repressed and outlawed, things that wholly and
truly are dangerous and offer no positive outcome. What positive outcome does graphically
depicting sex with a minor provide? Yes,
we can cite many cases of it in literature, but I wonder how much of that
literature is designed specifically for the purpose of simulated erotic
pleasure? You can in no way shape or
form argue that hentai about sex with minors is for nothing more than erotic
pleasure.
It’s not just hentai
though. There has been a growing public
acceptance in the anime and manga community regarding sexualizing minors. The industry says this is a market thing,
sales go up with panties and more are shown in series that are not erotic in
nature. Fine and all, but there comes a
point where enough is enough and the industry isn’t doing a good enough job of
self policing its self. I stopped
watching the anime No Life, No Game when there was a pretty explicit scene of
the 11 year old main characters panties.
What is the artistic purpose in a detailed vaginal lump of an 11 year
old character? Good for you, you can
draw a really realistic camel toe. Why
an 11 year old? What are you trying to
represent?
The psychological
aspect needs to be examined, not just for the dangerous pedophiles who consume
explicit child sexualization material, but the creators. The person, who sits, visualizes (hopefully
not coping from real life) and painstakingly reproduces the image of an 11 year
old vagina. Why are they representing
the sexualization of a minor? Can’t they
sell just as well, maybe even better, by doing the same exact representation of
a 23 year old character? I don’t think
anyone has any problem with a 23 year old fucking. One could say the character is an adult but
only looks like a child.
Really…why? Is there a specific
purpose for having a character that is 20 years old, but has the body of a
prepubescent child? Then is there a
purpose for taking said character and involving them in a variety of sexual
situations? Is the only reason the
character is 20 yet looks 10 to bypass any sort of moralistic issues yet still
allow for underage fetishism? I call
bullshit. Own up to the intent and
purpose and let’s have a discussion for said intent and purpose, don’t try to
worm around it and create a quagmire.
Sexualization of
underage children in Japan needs to be addressed and allowing anime and manga,
which is more prolific and influential than the AV industry, I would imagine,
needs to be addressed. I am far from
being a member of the Christian Coalition and even the Church of Satan agrees
with the idea of not harming children.
Producing content that represents the sexual assault of children is
dangerous and is a mentality that should not be supported or promoted. Japan needs to check its self with some of
its fetish representations before something horrible happens.
With that I am
deeply upset that the industry pushed so hard to limit the new laws from
affecting them, crying wolf and protecting their pocket books, the pedophiles
in their ranks and above all doing it at the potential expense of
children. Look, kids already face enough
danger from sexual assault without fostering a culture that appears to approve
of it, at least in a simulated form.
No comments:
Post a Comment