Forum - View topic

UN Demands Hentai Ban

The UN has told Japan it must ban adult games and erotic manga featuring themes of rape, calling Japan’s protection of fictional women from fictional rape “inadequate.”
The demands come by way of the UN’s radical feminist arm, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW. Extreme feminist pressure group Equality Now previously vowed to make them seek such a ban, and it seems CEDAW happily complied.

Calling Japan’s treatment of women “inadequate” and “regrettable,” CEDAW formally demanded Japan end “human rights violations” against women by banning games and manga featuring themes of “rape and sexual violence.” It is not clear whether they extend their demands to anime, AV or literature, though this seems likely.

The suggestion that fictional works such as manga serve to promote sexual violence is entirely unproven; it is notable that Japan has some of the lowest rates of crime and sexual violence in the world, and yet some of the most abundant pornography, much of which deals with such themes.

This is of course undoubtedly tied to the intervention of busybody international feminist groups in Japanese politics after the Rapelay scandal…

[TAKEN FROM SANKAKUCOMPLEX.COM]

Last week, two legal actions broadly redefined the landscape concerning the kind of media Australians are allowed to possess and view. Although both actions were taken in isolation, their combined impact has made a mockery of laws intended to protect us. Beyond ridiculous, our laws are so out of sync with the world at large, they have now become unenforceable.

In the first of these legal actions, Sydney judge Michael Adams ruled that a pornographic cartoon featuring the likenesses of cartoon family The Simpsons constituted child pornography, even though these representations were not in any way resembling of real people. Apparently the pornographic cartoon could "fuel the demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

Which begs the question: has Judge Adams ever watched The Simpsons? The casual, almost reckless child abuse that occurs every time Homer strangles Bart is precisely the sort of "abuse" that judge Adams seeks quash. As near as I can tell, television brodcasters and everyone who watches any episode of The Simpsons where Homer throttles Bart (there are many, many such episodes, plus last year's feature film) have violated Australia's laws concerning the distribution and viewing of materials which depict child abuse.

And let's be blunt: Homer does abuse Bart. There's no other rationale for Homer's behavior. It is child abuse. And any materials which depict child abuse in any way are wholly illegal under Australian law.

So that's it for The Simpsons. They'll be leaving Australian television screens a few minutes after this piece gets published, when everyone realises that we've been broadly complicit in criminal behavior. With luck, the court will let us off with a warning. If not, Australia is going to need a few more prisons.

And don't think that you can get your Simpsons fix off the Internet. The second of last weeks' criminal actions has seen to that. Queenslander Chris Illingworth was arrested by police for simply redistributing a video he saw online.

The video - of a man swinging a baby rather violently (though apparently to the baby's enjoyment) - has been classified as "child abuse" by Queensland authorities, and Illingworth has been charged with using the Internet to access and distribute child-abuse materials. Never mind that this video was freely available online, had been viewed by hundreds of thousands of individuals, or that it had been broadcast by American TV stations. None of that matters. Nor do police seem interested in the context of the video, reported to be a Russian circus family having fun with the baby. It is child abuse, and even watching the video is illegal in Australia.

Now, the notion of "is drawn pedophilia harmful" is a whole other question. One which I don't want to get into. Bottom line is, no one is taking away my healthy hentai where high school girls with ZZ size tits save the universe from tentacle monsters.

Ted Bundy was drawn into his whole rape/murder spree from Victoria's Secret catalogues!

Just hope that whoever you ended up dating isn't someone who's into this type of fetish.

but Japan is more than willing to sacrifice women rights for profits

Quote:

but Japan is more than willing to sacrifice women rights for profits

Animated/Drawn woman have no rights.

keep missing the point.

Quote:

keep missing the point.

So the point is that hentai insults your delicate senses? Hah, now that is the most laughable thing I have ever heard. It's all fantasy and no one is hurt by it... except your sensitivity, which frankly, no one should care about. The personal feelings of people "offended" by hentai do not matter, on any given level, and unless you can show me a direct, proven and tested link between a healthy human who went berserk-perserve due to hentai, I will eat my shorts on tape and upload it to YouTube.

Hentai doesn't harm people. People harm people.

As long as there is a distinction made between Rape/Perverted material as presented specifically in 'hentai'. As Rape and such can have a place in regular fiction as a story element.

I don't see any problem with. Hentai is really out of control sometimes in its subject matter.

Mr Adventure wrote:

As long as there is a distinction made between Rape/Perverted material as presented specifically in 'hentai'. As Rape and such can have a place in regular fiction as a story element. I don't see any problem with. Hentai is really out of control sometimes in its subject matter.

That's the thing, for those rape/perverted scenes in hentai are the main selling point for that type of medium. Because in the end of most hentai stories, those rapists and their rape victims don't get their respective "just deserves": the criminals didn't get a fair trial for their crimes, and their victims didn't get help in the end either. There's no lesson behind those stories; no souls, no spirits, no intellects, no humanity. Nothing that will indicate that's something that a normal human being would do.

And I just about had it with those keep asking for scientific proofs about hentai. For I would rather listen to real women who can get others listen to their opinions, as oppose to those who can't even talk to real women about what they would really like to do to them. If they wanted so bad to prove that the idea of rape won't make people into rapists, then they can do it themselves by allowing other people researching them. But insofar, nobody answered to that challenge.

This is not something like "innocent until proven guilty", when there are hentai anime filled with scenes of women being raped, and nothing else. Therefore unless the act of raping someone isn't a crime, hentai anime are guilty pleasures for those who aren't even decent.

Section 2252A

The PROTECT Act also amended 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, which was part of the original CPPA. The amendment added paragraph (a)(3), which criminalizes knowingly advertising or distributing "an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The law draws a distinction between obscene depiction of any minor, and mere depiction of an actual minor.

The bill addresses various aspects of child abuse, prohibiting some illustrations and computer-generated images depicting children in a pornographic manner.[9][10][11] Provisions against virtual child pornography in the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 were ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2002 on the grounds that the restrictions on speech were not justified by a compelling government interest (such as protecting real children). The provisions of the PROTECT Act instead prohibit such material if it qualifies as obscene as defined by the Miller Test; the Supreme Court has ruled that such material is not protected by the First Amendment.

In May 2008, the Supreme Court upheld the 2003 federal law Section 2252A(a)(3)(B) of Title 18, United States Code that criminalizes the pandering and solicitation of child pornography, in a 7-to-2 ruling penned by Justice Antonin Scalia. The court ruling dismissed the United States Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's finding the law unconstitutionally vague.[12][13] Attorney James R. Marsh, founder of the Children's Law Center in Washington, DC, wrote that although the Supreme Court's decision has been criticized by some, he believes it correctly enables legal personnel to fight crime networks where child pornography is made and sold.[14] Child pornography is illegal and it does not have to be looked at in terms of the typical guidelines of the First Amendment, because it is illegal due to the harm it creates to children when child pornography is made, sold and owned.[14]

A 12-year-old boy who raped a young child will be sentenced after failing to convince a court he was wrongly convicted.

The boy - who cannot be named - was found guilty of rape and attempted rape at the end of a judge-only trial in the Children's Court at Townsville earlier this year.

During the trial, the court was told the boy raped a four-year-old boy in May 2007, and tried to rape his own three-year-old brother a short time later.

The boy told his father he had raped the child because he was "horny'', it was revealed at the trial.

Under Queensland law anyone under 14 years cannot be held criminally responsible for an offence unless it can be shown they had the capacity to know they ought not have done the act.

The trial judge found the boy did have the capacity to know he should not have committed the offences.

The boy's lawyers took the case to the Court of Appeal in Brisbane in May in an attempt to have the conviction quashed.

They argued that the guilty verdict was "unreasonable'' and "against the weight of the evidence''.

They also argued the trial judge gave insufficient weight to the evidence of a psychiatrist called by the defence.

The Court of Appeal in Brisbane on Friday dismissed the application, finding that the trial judge correctly ruled the boy knew that what he was doing was wrong.

The boy will now be sentenced for the two sexual offences.

I'm not a woman or a rape victim, but if I was, I would support anything that would reduce REAL crimes that have REAL victims and cause REAL, tangible harm. Wasting police time and resources (which come from taxes) on victimless crimes helps no one and is far more insulting, in my view.

So I love shotacon. So I'm perverted. So what? Live-action porn has too much pubic hair for my interests. And no, I'm not attracted to real-life boys AT ALL. It's like how watching violent anime and films turns me off doing it in real life. I'd hate to hurt someone without a good reason.

You're not a lawyer, and you're not a criminologist either. So STFU with your excuse and straw man, which will only draw away attention from yourself as someone who likes shotacon hentai; aka sexual scenes with young boys in adult anime and manga.

Second, the polices aren't the ones who'll be upholding such a ban. So there's no point for getting them involved, when it's the industry themselves who should be upholding the ban in order to keep things civil. Unless of course, that people who are indecent can still manage to act civil. Much like you did by yourself claiming to really wanting to hurt nobody(that "nobody" being a fictional character).

You don't need a "good" reason to hurt someone, when a motive is more than enough for anyone to establish the mean to a certain end. So the real question is this: can we trust you with someone's little boy? When in this day and age, you can simply treat anyone as a "nobody" by you dismissing that person's plea. And isn't that what's raping someone all about? Can you actually stop yourself when someone tells you to, yet all you wanted to do is doing something to another person even though that he didn't want you to? After all, that's something that brings you great pleasure, simply by having you fantasize about doing it.

And if you answered yes to all of the above questions that I raised, then you're simply just a coward. Who doesn't even have the guts to do what he wants for himself, when he only pretends to act civil but the fact is, he's just a coward.