tyciol

The world is full of disgusting people that disturb us. Rape victims aren't exactly alone in that. If Kylie's more concerned about fappers than Ken raping her again, then I'm kinda confused.

One possibility I'd offer: comics can be used to teach empathy. Erotica can portray things in unrealistic senses, but creative writers can and have constructed elaborate plots that explore these unrealisms and their potential consequences.

Heck, look what School Days did for harem-style anime.

We can compare anything ;)

"giving them the ability to watch detailed scenarios of abuse"

You mean like what the police who investigate real tapes have?

This 'raises the possibility' thing is a bad slippery slope. Let's argue that playing GTA raises the possibility people will steal cars.

This ruins the lives of the car thieves and the people whose cars are stolen! We must avoid that possibility!

I don't agree with the assertion. Looking at something does not automatically determine that the observer holds some kind of specific psychological condition.

Or are you saying that anyone who dares to click the screwdriver link is a sadist who gets off on people being blinded by metal implements?

People can simply look at things out of curiosity, to see what it is, see how they react to it, to fathom why whoever made it made it. Then to wonder how others react to it, and why they might seek it.

Having trounced your latter argument, let's get to the first: the problem with 'omg a real child might've been inspired this!' is that could apply to ANYTHING. As in, I can't read a novel where someone gets murdered, because maybe it's based on a real murder.

People can just as easily chibi-style 2D art of a rape as they can make a 3D simultation of it. I believe there are actually certain doujin manga whose plot revolve around that concept. Heck you could make a lego depiction of rape, better outlaw looking at controversial lego sculptures too.

Why do you try to fill people with a false sense of security Akemi? How do we know obscenity charges are rare? Why should we think it would only apply to 'hardcore' porn?

http://journal.neilgaiman.com/2008/12/why-defend-freedom-of-...

Perhaps you'd have people believe that Christopher Handley's circumstances are rare, but perhaps they're but a minority of what we manage to see publicized for what it is.

Obscenity laws are seriously problem, a cudgel that can be wielded ruthlessly, and people cow in fear to it as Handley did. It must be confronted.

>"having naked sexually posed images of oneself available online is not especially helpful to the individual and may lead to negative attention, bullying, abuse and such. Making such actions illegal is saying that they are outside of the behaviour expected as morally normative."

So, behaving in an abnormal fashion that others label immoral... resulting in people targeting that person with abusive bullying...

Would this also reply to things like coming out of the closet as a homosexual, being a vegetarian, a pacifist, a male cheerleader, etc?

After all, we can't have children being bullied for being different, so we should criminalize it, or barring that, criminalize expressing that difference.

This links into his 'follow the money' theory. If people were doing this, you find out who is earning money from doing the abuse, and you jail them. Same with those who are funding it.

People who download music for free on pirating sites aren't supporting the music industry. So I don't see how people who simply receive the data (or even send it free) are supporting it.

Flooding the 'market' with free information saturates it to the point where people would not want to pay money for it. Or if they did, the amount they'd want to pay would be so low that it would decrease incentive for people to offend for purely monetary reasons.

People who would offend for non-monetary reasons would do so anyway, and legalizing the material would aid in tracking down the distribution network to patient 0.