Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Does showing a teenage female character (implied to be significantly underage) naked rear constitute child pornography or this simply a complete lack of good taste on the creator's part?

A definition of pornography is hard to nail down but I would guess the intent of the (in this case) cartoonist is key to answering the question.

Manchu wrote:A definition of pornography is hard to nail down but I would guess the intent of the (in this case) cartoonist is key to answering the question.

Fanservice. It's common in the comic, but had not crossed over into nudity until this point. Typically, things such as shower scenes with well placed steam or water.

If it's tasteful, it's fine.

If I understand the term "fanservice" correctly, the motive is basically to sexually titillate. I would say that counts as simulated child pornography.

Manchu wrote:If I understand the term "fanservice" correctly, the motive is basically to sexually titillate. I would say that counts as simulated child pornography.

That would be the goal.

Yeah, but I guess I am relying on a definition of pornography that includes anything of which the primary intent is sexual titillation. Some would argue (a la South Park) that this includes a lot of the Disney Channel.

What is the webcomic in question?

The title, not the thing that might be simulated child pornography. I don't want my eyes or IP address anywhere near that.

It contains links to NSFW content and possibly NSFW images in those links. I won't be posting the name in this thread.

Attraction to a teenager isn't paedophilia, and showing the ass of a drawn character isn't child porn. It's pederasty at worst, and more likely is just kind of skeevy, and could possibly even be decent art.

Any drawing of such may or may not be in good taste. If it's relevant to the story and not just there to titilate, then it can be okay, and even be very good art. But if the purpose is just to titilate, then it ranges from harmless fun like any other porn (it's drawn so there's no victim) to creepy, depending on how it's done.

I think the real concern here is legal, not moral. I agree that drawings of questionably aged people in titillating fashion is a cloudy area (what if the artist is also questionably aged?), but US law is such that it might be something someone would be concerned about have seen via the internet.

It's drawn so I don't think that's the problem. The issue is whether or not such things appearing in webcomics crosses a line of bad taste, I think, which is still distinct from a moral question.

Manchu wrote:It's drawn so I don't think that's the problem.

Haven't some countries been adding drawings to the list of child porn? A drawing of an underage person in sexual content can be prosecuted. It was either the UK or Australia I thought. There are other countries looking into as well.

Attraction to a teenager isn't paedophilia

I don't know, I still think a 10~11 year old would count as pedophilia, to my mind anyway.

Legal
The UK has a law making it a criminal offence to draw a cartoon person implied to be under age 18 and in a sexual situation.

This has not been tested in court yet, though there are offending comics on the open market, such as Gantz.


Morals
A complex topic. I am not going there.


Taste
Chacun son gout. Almost anything could be considered bad taste by one group of people and good taste by a different group.

The web is essentially a pull medium. You have to look up the site.

People who might be offended by a drawing of a pair of buttocks can legitimately complain if such is put into advertising on the side of a bus, not so much if it exists somewhere out of their view and they deliberately seek it out.

Ahtman wrote:I don't know, I still think a 10~11 year old would count as pedophilia, to my mind anyway.

I wouldn't think of an 11 year old as a teen though. To my mind, teenager starts with the ages with 'teen' in them, so 13.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Legal
The UK has a law making it a criminal offence to draw a cartoon person implied to be under age 18 and in a sexual situation.

This has not been tested in court yet, though there are offending comics on the open market, such as Gantz.

Even if it holds up, would it extend to all nudity? If a comic had a story where the nudity was non-sexual, would it still fall under the law?

I tend to go by the technical usage of teen being anything in the 10's. When I grew up there wasn't different labels for that brief period. That is just a young teen. Now it would be a tween or something like that. I've heard no less than four different terms for that 10 year period.

sebster wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Legal
The UK has a law making it a criminal offence to draw a cartoon person implied to be under age 18 and in a sexual situation.

This has not been tested in court yet, though there are offending comics on the open market, such as Gantz.

Even if it holds up, would it extend to all nudity? If a comic had a story where the nudity was non-sexual, would it still fall under the law?

I don't know. I presume not, since an awful lot of existing images, including some religious ones, would be illegal.

I don't see the police going to raid the National Gallery for stuff like this Madonna and Child.

Ahtman wrote:I tend to go by the technical usage of teen being anything in the 10's. When I grew up there wasn't different labels for that brief period. That is just a young teen. Now it would be a tween or something like that. I've heard no less than four different terms for that 10 year period.

It might be different terms for different places or something, I'm not sure. We weren't thought of as teens until we were 13. Doesn't matter much, while neither are good I agree that sexualisation of a 10 or 11 year old is exploitative in a whole different way to a 13 or 14 year old.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know. I presume not, since an awful lot of existing images, including some religious ones, would be illegal.

I don't see the police going to raid the National Gallery for stuff like this Madonna and Child.

I was thinking along the very same lines.

The character in question is implied to be 13-15 years old.

Amaya wrote:The character in question is implied to be 13-15 years old.

As in many things, context is king. We don't have enough information about the comic to formulate any kind of sound opinion.

The modern taboo against attraction to sexually mature, but legally underage, children is a cultural more, and not a real aspect of traditional morality. There also isn't any real biological basis for it (like there is for incest or attraction to pre-pubescent children).

There are psychological reasons in today's culture for respecting it, and conforming to cultural rules is part of living in any society, so I'm certainly not arguing that sleeping with underage children is a good thing. What I would argue is that there's nothing inherently unhealthy about enjoying the look of an underage, but sexually mature, person.

Ahtman wrote:

Amaya wrote:The character in question is implied to be 13-15 years old.

As in many things, context is king. We don't have enough information about the comic to formulate any kind of sound opinion.

+1

Agreed,

Context is needed.

Polonius wrote:The modern taboo against attraction to sexually mature, but legally underage, children is a cultural more, and not a real aspect of traditional morality. There also isn't any real biological basis for it (like there is for incest or attraction to pre-pubescent children).

While understand what you are saying, if you didn't call them underage children it would sound less creepy. Perhaps legally underage humans would be more appropriate.

That being said there are a lot of things that we don't do (or do) that were a t part of 'traditional morality', so I'm ok with it being considered immoral/unethical/creepy as hell for a 30 year old to sex it up with a 14 year old for several reasons: our average lifespan is noi long 36 years and there are a whole lot more humans. Also, no one really likes Matthew McConaughey's character from Dazed and Confused. Don't be that creepy guy.

Oh, yeah. Modern society treats 17 years olds as children in nearly every way. Psychology is supporting the idea that many men don't reach emotional maturity until their mid-twenties. We have the time and resources to delay adulthood, and we do so. Having sex with a 15 year old is undoubtedly wrong in the modern age.

What isn't wrong is thinking that a 15 year old looks good. That's no more wrong than thinking a juicy steak looks good. The lizard brain knows what it likes.

From a personal point of a view, the very fact that this subject needs to be discussed and discussed at such length is a good indicator to me that one should steer clear.

One thing to keep in mind is that grown men are not always the primary target for this kind of media. Whatever else we can say, there's certainly nothing wrong -- as a matter of taste, culture, etiquette, etc -- with a highschool aged boy being attracted to a high school aged girl (and vice versa). This webcomic could have been produced by a person in that age group, in which case it would be an appropriate expression of their sexuality. And even if the creator is not of the age group represented, expression tantamount to nostalgic exploration of teenage sexuality (I'm thinking of Twilight here but Harry Potter fits the bill, too) doesn't seem to garner much criticism as long as pairings involving a significant age difference don't occur.

In this case, I can only assume that the only inappropriate pairing is between the underage character and an adult reader inserting him- or herself into the story. Quick, call the thought police! What would you Brits call them? Brain bobbies?

How dare they use a underage girls naked butt to sell their product.

That's Marilyn Monroe and they airbrushed her a bit.

Manchu wrote:Quick, call the thought police! What would you Brits call them? Brain bobbies?

It was a Brit who invented the term thought police.

So Americans should call the Cranium Cops, right?

*leaves*

Some 12 year olds I've known were more sexually mature than many 20 year olds I know. I almost think they should toss out the age concept and introduce a sex license system, complete with qualifying tests The "breeder's license" could be a step up. And this should all be free. They can make their money off the offenders. And legalize pot.