Anime Artists Fight Tokyo Virtual Child Porn Bill

A piece of Tokyo legislation that would forbid visual depictions of sexually stimulating characters—who appear to be under 18 years of age—has been put on hold.

Anime News Network reports that the legislation was first proposed on February 24. In a later post on the subject, the site stated that the Democratic Party of Japan indicated that it would postpone a vote on the measure until at least June.

Kotaku reported that several well-known Japanese manga creators appeared at the Tokyo Government Office to voice their displeasure with the proposed legislation. Kotaku interpreted the legislation as blanketing all virtual characters, including those in videogames.

Manga and anime artist Yoshitoshi ABe expressed his opposition to the legislation in a blog entry that was translated by Welcome Datacomp. A sampling of ABe’s rebuttal follows:

… war is obviously a bad thing, but even so, what do you think would happen if we had a complete ban on depictions of war? Children would wonder if war was good or bad, and what would happen if our society had something called war, and despite this foolishness would unfortunately grow into adults.

Humankind has been entrusted with much power, but if we abuse that power to do away with things that we do not like, then thinking in that way, we will give birth to this sterilized room kind of society. The purpose of freedom of speech, in my opinion, is to defend against precisely that sort of thing.

Another aspect of the proposed legislation proposed using filtering technology in Internet cafes and on mobile phones in order to limit what Japanese minors might be able to see online.

Thanks Andrew!

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

66 comments

  1. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    "And do you know the amount of mounting evidence there is for child pornography leading to actual child abuse?"

    Reality check. This bill is not about child porn. It’s about depictions of clothed children. How you can get from there to child porn mystifies me.

  2. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    I’ve not read the bill but I’ve also read nothing in the reportage of the bill that supports your interpretation of it.  Do you have anything to backup your post?

     

    Andrew Eisen

  3. 0
    Gamen says:

    Frankly, calling this a virtual child porn bill is a misnomer, since it’s a ban on all sexualized depictions of minors that only applies to the sale/distribution/showing/etc of such to minors. So the infamous lolicon still gets produced and sold to adults, but the mainstream manga aimed at teenagers have their audience gutted.

    Let me say it again. Virtual child porn is not banned by this bill, you just wouldn’t be able to sell it to minors.

  4. 0
    Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    In Japan, there is not too much difference with the voice of a woman with the voice of a child. So basically, they could ban every single female character ever created by mankind.

    I already want to watch this bill in action…

    ———————————————————— My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

  5. 0
    Monte says:

     "And do you know the amount of mounting evidence there is for child pornography leading to actual child abuse? "

    That kinda sounds like the lines about the mounting evidence for violent video games leading to violence. One big thing i often bring up with the violence thing is asking, when you have a violent person playing a violent video game, did the game make them violent or do they enjoy the violent games BECAUSE they are violent. I might have to ask the same with sexual child abuse, did the people who engaged in child abuse get that way because of the porn, or did they watch child porn because they already had the willingness to cause harm to a child… That is something that’s easy to believe when it comes to real child porn as you pretty much have to be ok with the fact that children were abused in the making of it to get pleasure from it… Illustrated child porn however does not have child abuse in it’s creation process; whether or not the person would be fine with real child abuse comes into question.

    i’m kinda of reminded of a lot of other fetishes out there; in particular the stuff that only exist in fictional form because of how weird, dangerous and/or unrealistic it is… it’s freaky what some people can jerk off to, and i really have to question if these people would really engage in these sexual acts if they were offered the chance. Frankly i think it’s plenty possible for people to jerk off to something but never want to engage in it themselves… no clue why they jerk off if they don’t want to really take part in it; but that’s how it seems. 

     

    I think i do recall a case where someone was arrested for Anime child porn. Aside from the porn there was nothing about his character, behavior, or history that made him seem like he was a threat. And i think it was mentioned that there was no way to test if someone is a potential threat… I may not approve of the porn, but i find it hard to believe the guy deserved time in jail; i mean he was effectively arrested for what some people thought he might do some day in the future. And that’s essentially the backbone of anti-videogame laws, "we don’t know for sure, so let’s just play it safe and ban it"

  6. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    "And do you know the amount of mounting evidence there is for child pornography leading to actual child abuse?"

    Far as I’ve seen, zero.  I’ve seen studies that pedophiles and people who actively molest children collect and view child porn (seems rather obvious, no?) but I haven’t seen anything even remotely conclusive that would suggest that viewing child porn makes people more inclined to molest children.  If you have links to studies or evidence that suggests otherwise, please feel free to share it.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  7. 0
    State says:

    And do you know the amount of mounting evidence there is for child pornography leading to actual child abuse? One of the main reasons for it being illegal is that it does lead onto actual criminal behaviour. As I said before sexual imagery is different to violent imagery and whereas people always say violent imagery leads to violent behaviour (which isn’t the case), there is a much stronger link between sexual imagery and behaviour.

    It’s nice to know that perhaps you think it’s fine for people to have these thoughts, would you like these people to be around children? I know I definitely wouldn’t. You do know that you are basically defending child pornography (as long as nothing illegal happened) and you believe that it is fine for people to have thoughts and enjoy the imagery of sexualised children. People like you scare me.

  8. 0
    Dejiko says:

    You messed up the wording, GP. It’s actually "sexually provocative, "visual depictions" of characters who sound or appear to be younger than 18 years old." basically, not only can they be banned based on how they look, but also how they SOUND.

  9. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    So? People are easily lead by the TV and radio and anythign famous…. the law that keeps religion out of politics was brought about int he 50s when one side cried and complained over what the other side was saying. Get over it thats free speech, let the churches do as they see fit but if they discriminate against the poor before them tax them, if they offer no services for the poor tax them more.

     

    To argue charities influencing the public is silly……

    what about people on the public roles or get government help? Good god think it through………. its no diffrent than any other form of advertisement….

     


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  10. 0
    Neeneko says:

    *nods* yeah, that does happen. 

    Though on a larger scale, transgendered people are routinly barred from shelters under the idea that they will make the ‘real women’ uncomfortable.  I actually got invovled in a rather nasty argument with a woman involved with victim abuse shelters a while back about this.

    Control the charity, and you control which groups pull themselves out of poverty and which ones slide further.  Which means a generation later you have grateful and powerful (realtivly) people, while the ones you did not help remain weak and harmless.

    Kinda like the old ‘water monopolies’.. if you control the water, you can decide which towns get it and which do not.. someone pisses you off, give their water to someone else.. your enemys get weaker and your friends get stronger.

  11. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Especially since I have heard of cases of people who aren’t of that religion, or of a different religion at times get thrown out of such shelters. A wiccan woman was thrown out of a shelter for abuse victims simply because she refused to convert.


  12. 0
    Neeneko says:

    I just needed to comment.. ..threads like this are a good example of why I love this site.  Considering the topic, people here have stayed polite and mature.

    Most sites, you start a topic like ‘flowers are pretty’ and it will quickly devolve into ‘liberals are trying to turn our little boys into pansys!’ and ‘concervatives are trying to hypermasculate the youth and destroy all beuty with thier guns!’

    Gratz peeps, you actually behave your ages.

  13. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Actually it is those services that concern me more then any political donation will. 

    ‘Charity’ is a time honored way to build a power base, and it is VERY effective.

  14. 0
    Wormdundee says:

    You are so full of shit. READ WHAT YOU WROTE. You actually said the phrase ‘dangerous thoughts’. You are advocating that stuff should be censored to prevent thought crime. People like you scare me. Maybe I’m a free speech extremist, but I don’t believe in censoring any sort of speech unless it infringes upon other peoples rights. And there is no right to not be offended by other peoples speech. The only reason for anything to be censored if it has been proven scientifically and gone through a court process to say that it can cause actual harm if it is ‘consumed’.

    That’s it.

  15. 0
    State says:

    You’ve got to ask yourself "What sort of people are they who enjoy masturbating to images of fictional sexualised children?" Surely the people who enjoy this stuff have these dangerous thoughts.

    Sexual images and violent images are two different matters. Sexual images obviously engages with people on a more primal level, the pleasure is more obvious (that of ejaculation) and so are more addictive. Violent images are different I don’t really hear about addiction to violent (non-sexual) imagery, and because there is no sexual benefit from such imagery it is not as powerful as that of porn.

  16. 0
    SeanB says:

     It’s probably a little too late to ask this question and get an answer, but i will anyway.

    Videos depicting mock public rape are completely legal in Japan. Porn of women being gang raped on buses, subways, elevators, that’s all EXTREMELY commonplace in Japan.

    But drawings of fictional children is bad?

  17. 0
    dan888 says:

    That exact same line of thinking could be used for many other subjects. 

     

    Rape

    "I think it’s a travesty for people to act like it’s not encouraging the rape of women just because they’re fictional.  The reason people get off on looking at repersentations of women being rape is because that’s exactly what it’s doing, repersenting women being raped."

    Murder

    "I think it’s a travesty for people to act like it’s not encouraging murder or other violent behavior just because they’re fictional.  The reason people play games which simulate virtual murder is because that’s exactly what it’s doing, simulating murder".

     

    Be it violent games, virtual porn, or anything else, unless there is either actual harm to real people with it’s creation or there is scientific proof that there are reasons for it to be restricted, then there is no reason for somebody’s opinion of what is "acceptable" to overthrow free speech.  Moral outrage should NEVER be a valid reason to limit one of the most important freedoms we can have.

  18. 0
    Arell says:

    Honestly, I’d be fine with at least some measures against lolicon.  Maybe not this bill, since it sounds a little too broad, but I personally prefer restrictions similar to what you see in Canada and many other Western and Middle Eastern nations (even the US has largely untested bills on the books about virtual child porn).  I think it’s a travesty for people to act like it’s not encouraging the sexualization of children, just because they’re fictional.  The reason people get off on looking at drawn representations of children, is because that’s exactly what it’s doing, representing children.  The only reason the art works as porn is because it represents something real.  Otherwise you wouldn’t reach for your dick when looking at it.

  19. 0
    TK n Happy Ness says:

    1. They’re not real.

    2. It’s not exactly porn if it’s "censored", like a lot of images from Japan, even porn videos are censored.

  20. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    "A piece of Tokyo legislation that would forbid visual depictions of sexually stimulating characters—who appear to be under 18 years of age"

    Notice the wording there: "sexually stimulating characters who appear to be under 18". In other words, because certain people get a boner from looking at underage girls and feel threatened by that fact, the rest of us – artists and anime/manga fans – have to suffer.

    What’s being legislated against here is not even depictions of underage sex. The legislation seems to target any image that sexually excites. But that’s subjective – heck, I’m sure some sick people get sexually excited over images of babies or animals, but that doesn’t mean we should stop people drawing them. The problem here is not with the image, but with the viewer.

    Hell, the only way to stop any people getting sexually excited by drawings is to either ban ALL drawings or ban all people. Neither is a good or workable idea.

    The answer in this case is not to censor. The answer is for those who get sexually excited by images of young children to seek therapy.

  21. 0
    Neeneko says:

    One of the elements discussed over at sankaucomplex regarding this bill is apparently it is being bankrolled by american christian groups, specificly by funneling money into the tiny christian community in japan who are in turn using that money to change politics.

  22. 0
    Neeneko says:

    One of the elements discussed over at sankaucomplex regarding this bill is apparently it is being bankrolled by american christian groups, specificly by funneling money into the tiny christian community in japan who are in turn using that money to change politics.

  23. 0
    FlakAttack says:

    A well written and logical response Longjocks. Though it can be hard for some people to look at pedophilia and say "I guess that’s ok", I think that, like other fetishes and sexual orientations, no harm = no foul. I’m not going to check out child porn, drawn or real, anytime soon, but if that’s what someone needs to get through the day and nobody is being hurt, I’m not going to say anything.

    Hey, every day, I blow away hundreds of virtual zombies, aliens, mutants, and even people. Helps me get through the day. No harm = no foul.

  24. 0
    Longjocks says:

    Yet again, like with our usual game problems, do studies, gather evidence. If a link can be made between drawn underage material and a significantly harmful real-world effect, then look at tighter control or bans. In the meantime make sure this stuff is not displayed or sold to minors. The end.

    I really don’t care about people’s sexual preferences. It doesn’t matter how bizarre. The only thing that matters is if they perform an act that could harm others. In the case of actual child pornography, anyone who makes it is obviously harming someone. Those that buy or trade it create a market for those who make it and they are still responsible. People who merely view it passively through other means… well, I think it’s a grey area. But just being offended at the topic matter of drawn/animated [or written] porn is not harmful. You need to create a tangible link to justify making these things illegal.

  25. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Agreed, a gut and overhaul is what is needed, but it will not happen till the panic is over or we get some really high profile gluge cases.  Right now though, even ruined lives and grusome murders are not enough so I am not sure what would be needed.

     

    Unfortuantly right now, there is more political capital to be made by extending the lists to include more people rather then widdling them down to the ones that really need to be watched.   Look at any prosecuter or AG and one of the stats they will point to is how many more ‘sex offenders’ they prosecuted and listed.  And as long as voters see this as a selling point, they will keep finding ways to put more people on the lists regardless of if they really need to be monitored.

    And of course the side effect is, as the lists get larger, it increases strain on police to actually track people, which means more slip through and commit high profile crimes, with brings enforcement back into the public view, at which time people want stricter lists with more people on them and fewer rights for the people on the lists.. without additional police funding.. rinse lather repeat.

  26. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    NeeNeko

     

    This is why I said after 5-10 years IE a full investigation of the crime. We are far to lenient on really bad criminals. Habitual killers,rapists and child abusers their worth is zero to society and thus should be put under the jail. Now the age of child sex abusers should be under 10, 10 and over you can treat them as "minor" sex abusers which are treated the same as adult abusers/predators.

     

    The sex offender registry system and the label sex offender needs to be gutted and overhauled its ruled to much by moral panics than facts and reason.

     

    First off the offender needs to have at least 3 incidents(violent rape not "statutory rape",bad public behavior of flashing,groping,kidnapping,ect basically make it so most inane incidents can not be "labeled" while most anything else can be).

     

    Then you are own the "list" if you can get 3 shrinks to agree that this person can not control themselves. Statutory rape is a misnomer and should not be used to judge a persons "sex offender" worth, if the teen is beaten up or says they were raped thats a different story.

     

    Also for the sake of possession child porn pictures of teens IE 10(I really think these days 10 is the new 13)-13-17 is considered not to be child porn but minor porn and treated on a fully investigated case by case basis..


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  27. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Careful about calling for death too quickly.

    Keep in mind in the US, a teenager sending cell phone photos of them-self to another teenager is consider a producer (and consumer) of child pornography, and yes, teens have been arrested for this.

    This is one of the big problems with moral panics,… the imagry that is out there is the absolute worse cases, but people extend that to all cases in the class.  Look at how insane we have gotten about ‘sex offenders’.  The media talks about them (and people think about them) as ‘child rapists one and all’, but there are so many lesser crimes in the same catagory (like public urination, sex between underage people, possession of obscene material) that many get over-branded.  It has actually gotten bad enough that vigilantes have started using the list to harass, attack, and even kill ‘sex offenders’ they find in their neighborhood, independent of what crime they actually committed.

    There have been at leset 2 very sad cases of someone who had the label for having underage sex who was later murdered by a local parent who ‘feared for the children’.  And then these parents get praises in the media because they ‘killed one of those horrible sex offenders’ even though the offense was rather pathedic (and common)

  28. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Ya when I muse on it ll I can come up with is sexual abuser and child porn makers get death after 5-10 years of processing the evidence unless there are multiple instances of it then they are a loss to society and need to be put down.

    Distributing it is sad but really no worse than common IP theft, makeing money off it should be an instant felony tho.

    But the trouble is the moral panic makes doing anything rational with it impossible…..


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy!
    CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people!
    http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  29. 0
    Neeneko says:

    That tends to be the standard argument, but I am buying it less and less lately, esp since it is being extended to virtual cp too, i.e. drawings increase demand for real cp.

    The argument I can buy for the real cp is that it continues to victimize the child, knowing that thier image is out there well into adulthood (there is actually a woman who has been filing civil suits against anyone caught with pictures of her as a kid).  Though even that I am not sure I always see as ‘good enough’ since in general other types of humiliation/abuse are not covered and thus once out there are perfectly legal to spread around such as accident photos.

    *shrug* I chalk it up to a moral panic that has been going on since the 80s combined with baby boomer’s desperation to see thier long lost childhood as pure and innocent.

  30. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Minors having sex is a grey area.  Depending on the state, they can have sex with eachother for instance, or across certian age boundries.

    Even within CP there are huge grey areas of ‘how erotic does it have to be?’  Penetration, pretty clear cut.  Beutey pagents?  People are debating those.   Nudity, very grey.  Underwear or bathing suits, also grey.  Naughty dancing, also grey.

    Any time something seems clear cut, it usually is not.

  31. 0
    Father Time says:

    Murder is a legal term so a solider killing an enemy soldier, self-defense and an execution are not murder. Neither are accidents which have their own term called manslaughter. Also if you’re legally insane you cannot be held responsible for your actions no matter what they be.

    Now making virtual images of a crime are usually not illegal because nobody gets hurt in the making of them (except for fictional characters). The same can not be said for child porn involving actual children. This is the same reason why say the Saw series is legal but snuff films are not. One involves the fictional killing of people, whilest the other involves the actual killing of people.

    I see nothing messed up about defending the right to produce that stuff when no one’s proved that they do any harm. What I think is really messed up is comparing the molestation of children for profit to A DRAWING.

    —————————————————-

    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  32. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    Depends on the time line for thousands of years 12-16 was the age a woman to start trying to have children.

    Only in the past 200 years has modern society prolonged life and health options to where an adult is 16-19 in most places of the world.

    I think one of the problems with child porn is they focus to much on owning is to be worse a crime than making it…


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy!
    CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people!
    http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

  33. 0
    Doctor Fatty says:

    The thing is that all of those other examples have shades of grey.

    Murder is illegal. Except if you’re a soldier. Or when it’s in self defense. Or when you’re crazy. Or when it’s an accident. Or when you’re executing someone. Or when etc.

    Drugs are bad. Except when they’re treating a disease. Or when they’re grandfathered into our culture. Or when etc.

    Having sex with a kid is illegal. Always. There’s no "grey area". It is not an act of cultural significance in modern society.

     

    I agree that the wording needs to be specific, and guidelines need to be set so that censors don’t have carte blanche to arrest you for whatever they don’t like, but kneejerk reaction responses like "NO WAY MAN THIS IS CENSORSHIP! FREEEEE SPEEEEEECH" are scary. You’re defending child porn. That’s messed up, no matter how you slice it.

  34. 0
    deuxhero says:

    It’s illegal in Canada because of hack chief justices that ignore the rule of law.

     

    She openly said that the Canadian criminal code has a definition of "person", but that she thinks that in this one instance, "person" meant something else….

  35. 0
    Bennett Beeny says:

    "I’m of the mind that all depictions of child pornography should be illegal. Having sex with a kid? Illegal. Having pictures of sex with a kid? Illegal. Having hand drawn pictures of sex with a kid? See where this is going? This isn’t a slippery slope, this is logical progression."

    And if the legislation was targeted at images of child porn you would have a fair point. But it isn’t. It’s targeted at any images of under-18s that are deemed to be sexually stimulating. That is by any definition NOT child porn. This bill has more to do with nudity than sex. Heck, it’s not even about nudity. It’s about making sure that little Hitomi is dressed ‘appropriately’ in the manga that features her as a character so that depraved old Mr. Kagemura doesn’t get a boner when he sees her.

  36. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    If it’s real life photographs, sure. Hell, a CG picture that a little too convincing is pushing it as well, but how is it logical that you ban what is obviously fake.

    by that logic horror movies, action movies, video games, hell, movies where someone trips need to be banend then. hell, by that logic, ALL porn should be banned.


  37. 0
    Father Time says:

    "This isn’t a slippery slope, this is logical progression."

    I love this line of bullshit. We’re just slowly building on the list of things you aren’t allowed to do by making laws that are kind of similar to what we all ready have.

    That IS the slippery slope.

    —————————————————-

    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  38. 0
    Daelda says:

    Murdering someone? Illegal. Watching someone murder someone and not doing anything about it? Illegal. Watching a horror movie where a character is murdered? Ille….wait a minute….

    How far are we willing to take this? Just what exactly constitutes a "sexually stimulating character"? A girl with large breasts in a two-piece swim suit? What about a one-piece? What if she only has moderate sized breasts? What if she’s just drawn attractively? People can be ‘sexually stimulated’ by all sorts of things. What is the criteria? Do all young anime characters now have to be in burqas?

    And while we are on the subject of age…who decides if a character "looks" under 18? Are there specific criteria to meet? The girl must have an adult breast-waist-hip ratio and wrinkles? It isn’t like you can "Card" them. Do the guys have to have facial hair and a large ‘package’? After all, pedophilia has much more to do with the age of the victim, than their gender.

    Drugs are bad too. Shall we outlaw any visual depictions of drug use next? Oh, don;t forget that even granny can abuse prescription medications, so we can’t show anyone going to the pharmacy either. Wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea that just because it is prescribed, it isn’t a drug.

    Child molestation is wrong. But the way to fight it is not through a poorly worded, ill conceived effort at thought control. A drawing is a drawing. Words on a page are words on a page. Millions of people read Stephen King or go to see Friday the 13th movies. Are they each a budding Ted Bundy? If so, how are any of us still alive?

  39. 0
    Father Time says:

    No the reason why child porn is illegal is because it involves molesting actual kids. Buying or selling photos of such a thing increases the demand for it as someone needs to supply it.

    Drawings harm absolutely no one so there’s no logic to it at all.

    This rule would be like saying ‘you can’t have cartoons/video games where a fictional someone is murdererd because murder is wrong’.

    —————————————————-

    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  40. 0
    Doctor Fatty says:

    Possession of depictions of child pornography is already illegal in Canada, if I’m not mistaken. The country hasn’t exploded, nor are it’s people wracked with the oppression of thought crushing censorship.

     

    I’m of the mind that all depictions of child pornography should be illegal. Having sex with a kid? Illegal. Having pictures of sex with a kid? Illegal. Having hand drawn pictures of sex with a kid? See where this is going? This isn’t a slippery slope, this is logical progression.

  41. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    "Another aspect of the proposed legislation proposed using filtering technology in Internet cafes and on mobile phones in order to limit what Japanese minors might be able to see online."

     

    Just gonna say, this bit I have no issue with. Hell, internet cafes are publicly used spaces, so this filtering should be happening already. As for mobile phones, well, I don’t take issue with parental controls on those either.


  42. 0
    Rodrigo Ybáñez García says:

    If they manage to pass that waste of paper, maybe we can argue that the Joker also has constitutional rights and don´t deserve to be beaten by Batman in an interrogation room.

    (yes, I know it´s Japan, but there is people in USA that would love that kind of stuff happening…)

    ———————————————————— My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

  43. 0
    mdo7 says:

    Cue Darksaber and anime haters saying they’ll support this bill even if a video game hating politics is involved with this bill in 3…2…1 

     

  44. 0
    Father Time says:

    Oh goody so they want to ban fictional child porn. Yayy, why do I have a feeling the proof that the drawings do any sort of harm is also fictional.

    —————————————————-

    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  45. 0
    chadachada321 says:

    What the first two people said, lol. Drawings = no harm, no foul.

    -Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

  46. 0
    hellfire7885 says:

    Agreed, besides, it’s, well, a shit ton better than looking at anything real. So long as it’s not hurting anyone it should be left alone.


  47. 0
    deuxhero says:

    The sexualizing of "fictional youths" doesn’t do anything to anyones health property or liberity via force or fraud. It should never be banned.

Leave a Reply