I'm quitting gaia.

[purpleravenhawk]

Dude: There's always a mob trying to do something or hurt somebody. You can't judge everyone based on what some mob did. And the particular game that is the subject of that CNN thing? I think that should be discussed on a public level. But trying to call hentai "art?" For most of it, that's stretching the definition of "art" even by the loosest of psychological implications.

Iakun: It's true that Asian people tend to look very young when compared to caucasians. But in anime of all kinds, age is usually established very clearly by the characters' attendance at a school. If the characters in hentai looked young but were clearly described as adults, I'd have less of an objection to it overall.

Ty: True, we can always make more art and entertainment. 3nodding Dude tends to overreact to things like this. I would certainly be pissed, but if I lost my stuff due to a mistake of my own, I'd be less likely to throw a tantrum over it.  

[xwhateverxdudex]

Why is it that you only considder something art, if you like it?



You told me that you believe something to be art if it's appreciated for it's artistic nature by those that look at it.

However the definition of "art" in itself is VERY vague.

If the only thing that makes something art is how people look at it, then nothing is art, because somewhere there is at least one person that thinks it belongs in the trash.

Take all those "art" books that you have. You have them because you look on them for there artistic nature, yet alot of it depicts nudity. I'd bet that there are people out there that would look at it as porn.

And following your own rule, that makes it, NOT art.

Some of the great "so called" masterpieces in museums these days have nudity as well, yet they are described as "art"
Why must something be old, for it's content not to matter?

People say hentai is not art. Yet the first line at wikipedia says... "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions"
Does the sexual emotion mean nothing?

Why can't something be viewed as art, if there are those that view it for it's sexual content.

And if it's content is what matters, then explain those pieces in the museums.

Take the Shunga Block Paintings from Japan. It was considdered art when it was created, and is still considdered art now, even by those in other countries, including america.
And yes, many of it did depict actions of rape, bestiality, and bondage even then.

If you follow the timeline of "art" you see that what is widely considdered art now, can be split into old and new. For old art, it doesn't matter what the content is, yet new art is ridgedly guarded by a hundred times more restrictions.

Yet if you look at how art is made, the only thing that changes is the media on which it is made. As technology advances so does that media.

If you follow the path that mankind takes regarding technology and entertainment...
(considdering that many think of art AS entertainment)
Then you see that as technology advances, people demand that entertainment become more interactive. Is art not suppose to follow other entertainments into interactivity as well?
And if so, why must sexual entertainment not follow that same path as other entertainments?

Even some movies give the watcher the option of choosing what path the characters take.
Though Granted not many... (I believe you have at least 2, that do that)
(I've even heard you refer to some movies as "works of art" )

So why is hentai not considdered an artform?
Is it media? But then alot of new art would be trashed.
Is it content? But then alot of old art would be trashed.
Or is it how people view art? But then nothing would be art because there is always someone that thinks it should be in the trash.

Or are you simply saying that hentai can't be art because it's hentai.
But what is hentai? Hentai is anime with sexual situations in it.
I've heard you call some old anime "works of art".
Though you persist that new anime isn't true anime because it's the same thing repeatedly copied with just a few changes here and there.
Big deal. It's the same thing with everything. Including alot of the art now.

Hentai is created on many different media, (like alot of other art)
It's created with many different contents, (like alot of other art)
AND It's appreciated by many MANY different people all over the world,
(LIKE ALOT OF OTHER ART)

Just like the rest of the worlds entertainment, art, including ones that have sexual content, have gone from simple pictures to interactive media like video games.
(and yes I'm saying that sexual shunga is the precursor to modern hentai - I'm not saying that all shunga is sexual in content)
All the worlds entertainment can be grouped by content, and all the groups have things that are considdered quite old, including sexual entertainment. That has not changed.
And I hope it never will.

The only final argument you have to this case (that I know of),
is the affect such content has upon those that enjoy it.
But this type of content has been around for just as long as any other form of entertainment there is. It can NOT be blaimed for the crimes of society. For anyone that is THAT easily influenced by it, is already mentaly unstable. The person that commits the crime should take the punishment. It should not be passed to those that also enjoy that entertainment yet have NEVER commited any crime. Banning the entertainment of hentai punishes all it's fans, not just the "small" percentage of those that have commited crimes, that ACTUALLY posses hentai.
That's right, there is no actual connection between sexual media and real world crimes.

And if simply acting like assholes is the result that you think you'd be helping to get rid of, then you need to wake up. People don't need to be influenced by media, to act that way.
If you say "why add fuel to the fire?" because there are those that ARE influenced...
Then you might as well burn every entertainment in the world, because almost everything has something that can add to THAT fire. Something that will piss someone off.
Plus you don't need media to add to that fire either.

Besides, you're forgetting about all the people, whose rights to enjoy what they want in the privacy of there own home, that have never commited any crime, that are getting stepped on and pushed aside because of this argument. And they WAY outnumber those that have actually been influenced by this media into commiting any crime.

It is these fans that are having there rights ripped away from them. Because they are too busy enjoying their fandom (and not bothing anyone) to realize what's going on right underneath them. And trust me, there are ALOT more people like this then you apparently think.

Spending all ones time enjoying this media may not be healthy, but it's a personal choice.
(sence you like to use that line so much)
But it IS THEIR CHOICE, and they have a right to do so...
At least until the government starts telling people what they can and can't do during all off hours at home. (well, more then they do already)
And that is a future that I don't want to see, and I'd HOPE, that no one else would want it either.  

[purpleravenhawk]

That's not true. There are lots of things I dislike but still call art. You just don't know about them because the only subject you ever like to talk about is anime. As for my comment about hentai and art, let me clarify a bit. The wikipedia definition of art is too clinical. If you go by that definition, a McDonald's ad campaign is art.

Art is art if it's meant to be. If the artist intends to create art, then it's art, even if someone finds it un-artistic or offensive. But if something is not intended to be art, then it is only art if the viewer feels that it is. Hentai is a product meant to make money, like McDonald's french fries. Both of them affect a particular sense or emotion, i.e. libido and hunger, but they were not created with any artistic intentions in mind.

Just to preclude your objections here, I will admit that there is probably some creator out there who is really attempting to create art through hentai. To him, I say, bravo. But just like most modern movies, music, tv, etc., most of these people are just trying to make a buck. If they end up accidentally creating something that can be viewed as art, that's fantastic. But that's where the personal tastes of the viewers come in. If I call a movie "art," it's either because it was meant to be and I'm aware of the creator's intentions, or because I see it as such. You may have noticed that when I say stuff like that, I usually preface it with the phrase "I think." I think it's art. If you want to think that all hentai is art, that's up to you, but I'll have to politely disagree.

I did not say that there was some kind of rule about anything not being art if one person dislikes it. Most of the world's art is disliked by someone. I don't know where you got that idea.

You like to use shunga as an example, but we don't know what everyone thought about them when they were created. Just the people who documented their opinions. We don't even know if the creators intended it to be art.

My arguments on the subject have nothing to do with technology or media types or age. Games can be art, just like movies, music, and paintings, new and old. You apparently didn't notice that I did not lump all hentai together. I said "most" of it wasn't art. That's because there are probably a few that were intended to be art, and there are a few that even I consider artistic.

Finally, I was not saying that sexual entertainment should be blamed for crimes. I am well aware of the fact that in order to commit the violent actions portrayed in many hentais, the viewer would have to be disturbed already on his own. But even if there isn't a direct correlation, there is an affect. We don't have any numbers because there's never been a proper, objective study done. But if someone is repeatedly exposed to something, they become apathetic towards it and can even start to think that's it's normal or proper. A rational, mature adult will know the difference, but how many of those do you know?

I'm not advocating the policing of entertainment. I've said that before. I'm just saying that there is a dark side that should be acknowledged so that we can control it. Acting like there is no problem at all is just as bad as blowing the whole situation out of proportion.

Just to be devil's advocate for a moment, if I WERE advocating the policing of entertainment, I would point out that sometimes certain things have to be given up in order to protect someone or something. That's why we have seatbelt and helmet laws. They take away your choice to ride free, but they protect the people who follow them. Strange example, and not meant to be representative of the subject at hand, but it makes the point. There are lots and lots of people who are eager to give up their freedoms for the illusion of safety.

But like I said, that's not what I'm advocating here. I'm advocating intelligent thought and consideration and the truth about the dark side of things.

And you didn't comment on my original comment about anyone who gets a sexual thrill out of any sort of artistic depiction of children needing psychiatric help. Regardless of whether you consider sexual urges to be a valid artistic reaction or not, I'm curious about your thoughts on this particular subject, which is actually the basis of this entire conversation originally.

P.S. Have you considered making a single topic thread in the Extended Discussions subforum for this? You and I always get into a debate about this stuff, and it would fit better in that subforum, leaving the main forum for the usual silliness. Then you could add to your argument anytime you wanted without having to remember what was said in previous threads.  

[Iakun]

Holy s**t, I was thinking of responding to all this but the posts have gotten so long it lost even my attention.

edit: Ok I'm gonna take a stab at this. I think I generally have to side more with purple on this one.

I begrudgingly admit some things are art. I agree with purple on the intent behind the creation. I wouldn't call McDonalds images art, but there are artists that can take those images and make art out of it which is called Pop art. Let's not fool ourselves on the vast majority of hentai though. It's meant to help you get your rocks off. It's art in the sense that it's color and form on some sort of "canvas". But to me it isn't really art in spirit.

People who commit crimes are responsible for their own actions but we can't ignore the influences in society. Everything is influenced by something. Who you are now is largely the creation of all the crap around you molded a little by whatever personality predisposition you have.

You seem predisposed to believe in ultimate freedom. But ultimate freedom is utter chaos. I know life consists of a lot of grey areas but I don't believe in this idea of intangible, ambiguous morals or saying there is no objective truth to anything. I also don't believe in thought policing. It's a very difficult thing to deal with. But as a society we make laws to protect each other and prosper as a race.

Honestly, from the last art class I ever had I learned there IS NO SET DEFINITION of what art really is. So maybe the conversation should just fall on what's s**t and what's awesome. lol  

[purpleravenhawk]

Dude actually topped me on sheer post length, lol.

Ah, yes, pop art. Not my fave. xd And yes, the spirit of art is exactly what I was trying to get at. You put it in a nutshell. whee

As for nature versus nurture, I'm an advocate of the combination theory, but I do think environment has a HUGE affect on who and what we are.  

[Moonracer]

Wow you pass out for a day and forget about a thread or two for a couple of days before that and all heck breaks lose. What's going on here?

Okay, I may not know all of what's going on here but what I've read there seems to be a war on art what?

Good lord seriously, you miss a few days and are totally smoked here. *chuckles* Oh well I guess I'll bow out of this conversation. *fades into the dark shadows and vanishes*  

[Tybarious]

I agree with you moonracer, I lost interest after dude's post. later y'all *walks out*  

[xwhateverxdudex]

Iakun:

ME^.^

Ah yes, that's it right there. "The Spirit of Art"
Even I wouldn't try to say that hentai (with the exception of a very small few) has that.
"you = what's s**t and what's awesome" - unfortunately even this is determined by personal opinion. (even if it is funny)
I don't believe in "Ultimate Freedom" - I believe that if a law is set in place to protect ones physical well-being, then that's good. But as long as people can separate fiction from reality (and most importantly, not try to emulate what they see), then they should be allowed to decide for themselves what to enjoy. (as long as making it didn't physically hurt someone, or force them to do it against their will)

PURPLE:

ME^.^

---Sence you responded to everything so definately, and then asked a question, I shall try to answer instead of droning on about the other topics.

Your right about anyone that gets a sexual thrill out of depictions of children, needing psychiatric help, that I will NOT argue with. The question I would rather argue, is what depicts a child?

If it's real, then there is no argument, the age of the person can be pointed out, and case closed. End of discussion.
But if the person is animated, then it becomes more difficult.

How do we determine the age of a character that doesn't really exist? Is it how tall they're drawn, or is it how physically developed they're drawn? (but considdering the "artistic liberties" that people take with their drawings, trying to use state of physical developement is impossible - especially sence how real people develope is based on each individual person)

Now generally speaking if a characters height gets too short, it can be said with almost complete certainty that that character is still underage. But once it hits that height limit, it's impossible to tell. Mainly because we are going by things in the real world that we're used to. But many people in the real world don't look like their age at all. So the world takes a massive chunk of "indeterminate age" (I shall call the "questionable region" ) off that meter, and labels it as underage. Regardless of all the real "legal" people that still look young.

WHY? To be safe. The expression goes... "better safe then sorry" - But our society has been bread to think that younger people are more attractive. So all this does is cause confusion as to what we should and shouldn't think.

We see a picture of an animated character that's in that "questionable region" and we're told it's wrong. Yet at the same time we might see a picture of a real person that looks just as young, and it's legal. WHY? Because that person just recently turned 18 and so that makes them legal. It only causes more confusion.

I say that rules regarding animation (something that's not even real) should be less strict, not more strict. So unless that character is so short that they're not even in the "questionable region" it should be ok.

The problem, is where exactly does the "questionable region" begin? That however is dependant upon the society that you live. (Unfortunately, all societies seem to take things just WAY to far)

Let's look at the term "Lolicon" - The original definition of this term was simply a young woman with a petit form. (NOT a child, as the current definition seems to have been disturbingly warped into) This could include even an older woman that just happens to have small breasts. Thus I believe that this term is most suitable for use for the "questionable region" of animation, and should NOT be associated with real CP as most seem to do.
(besides, a lot of hentai-fans agree that something that's cute in animation would look disturbing in real life)

To summerise: Real porn is fine as long as the people are 18 or older as stated by law. And Animated porn, including the "questionable region" (or lolicon, IF following the original definition) [but not including anything under it] SHOULD be legal.
Unless you just want to say, anything that's not real should be legal.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as it doesn't involve real people, no one is getting hurt so it really shouldn't really matter.
Even if there is something wrong with there head ^.^
As long as they're not hurting anyone, they should be free to enjoy whatever "fictional" entertainment they want to.

---Sorry about the not putting it in the discussion forrum, things have a tendency of just popping up with me.

 

[purpleravenhawk]

I agree that the choice of 18 as an arbitrary age of adultness is confusing and misleading. Personally, I don't know anyone under 25 who is actually mature. And letting 16-year-olds drive is pretty questionable judgment, IMO.

And while it's true that many people look older or younger than their actual age, most people actually do look their age. You can't go by TV cuz actors are always older or younger than the character they're portraying. Real people are generally pretty easy to guess their ages.

While I recognize the point you're trying to make about animated people not being real and therefore not subject to the age rule, I'd like to ask where you think the artists got their references for these drawings?

But assuming that they made everything up, there's still an intent. Just like with the intention of making something art, there's intention to make a character underage or over.

I understand the gray area of the teenage years from a sociological perspective. But our world has mostly advanced to a point where teenagers are children. Certainly, I think we can all agree that their level of maturity is vastly inferior to what it used to be. And regardless of what society says we should think about youth and attractiveness, that doesn't mean we have to obey to such an extreme. Anyone under 30 is still young, and most people look the same at 20 as they did at 18. Sometimes even 16.

Even height doesn't have anything to do with age. I know a lot of short people, and some really tall kids. But there is still intent, and there is a combination of attributes. Just like in real life, we all use our inner Sherlock Holmes to figure stuff out. If you see someone who seems immature physically, there's a good chance they are, and there's a variety of factors that told you that, including height and overall physical development.

Society does take things to an extreme and miss out on the bigger issues in the process. But not all societies opt to protect children. There are still places where it's routine for an old man to marry or rape a girl as young as 8. And both their people and their culture suffer as a result of it. But they cry freedom of choice and religion and tradition and culture. And it continues. Not saying anime is as bad, just pointing it out to respond to your comment about society.

I don't know about what lolicon was originally supposed to be. I only know what it has become, and I see it as very disturbing.

Just to make a point, and again I'm NOT advocating any sort of thought or entertainment police, I want to ask: If the Ku Klux Klan wanted to air documentaries and infomercials made by them on television at a time when children were usually watching tv unsupervised, under the banner of freedom of speech, would you be okay with that?  

[Iakun]

I don't mean to change the topic a little but after reading both your recent posts I'm reminded of the recent thing that happened to Ann Coulter. (Hope you both know who that is) She was supposed to be speaking at a university in Ontario here but before she even arrived she was sent a letter warning her about what she can and can't say.

There was a big deal made about this because Canada's speech laws are different from the U.S. I think for Americans the constitution pretty much says you guys have freedom of speech to say whatever. Here in Canada though, you have "freedom" to say what you want as long as it's not hate speech. I saw lots of fox news videos that made us Canadians sound like we were some crazy unfree society simply because we wouldn't allow hateful speech. It wasn't so much the country that stopped Coulter though, it was the students of the university themselves that exercised their right in not wanting to hear her usual crap.

Ugh I dunno what my point in mentioning this was. I guess my point is, freedom needs to come with responsibility. Sure, you're free to make loli-shota hentai and put it on the net. But what affect are you having on others by doing so? You're perpetuating the idea that it's ok, you're desensitizing people to ***** etc. Harm doesn't just come in a physical form. It also comes mentally and emotionally.  

[xwhateverxdudex]

Purple

I^.^

The only thing I still disagree with is the concept of "intent of created drawing" - Regardness of how it was created, people are going to view it how they want to. For example if someone drew a picture and "intended" it to be a character that was overage, someone else could still look at it, and imagine an underage character. It's not that hard to imagine with as how young looking most characters are drawn anyway. (heck, reversely I've come across pictures of girls so short that their age is of no question despite having breasts that could be labeled d-cup) Which is why your "combination of attributes" doesn't mean much in an animated picture. Attributes can be mixed until the character is all over the chart.

But animated is still fictional. Nothing in it is real whether based on reality or not.
You were the one who once said... "this looks nothing like a real person"
(with regards to Jessica on DQ8 I believe)
If it doesn't "look" real, then who cares what other people "imagine"
I know people are trying harder and harder to make characters look real, but at the same time, they still hold onto unreal concepts(you complain about them whenever you read about a new video game). It is those unreal concepts that make the character the most attractive. And yes, I'm using standard accepted concepts of beauty.

ALSO (you - "Anyone under 30 is still young")
This is a pretty ironic statement considdering your age, and the fact that you're ALWAYS saying how, SOO old you are.

AND (you - "There are still places where it's routine for an old man to marry or rape a girl as young as 8") This is obviously wrong on many levels. First off: rape is wrong because it brakes both rules that I personally believe should be considdered first. It physically hurts someone, and even if physical harm is avoided (by some miracle) that person is still being forced to do something they don't want too. Second is the girls age: there is no chance in hell, that an 8 year old is physically developed enough for sex, thus making the concept of marrage, ludicrous. And that's only if you throw out the fact that she's not old enough to even have the mental maturity to understand the concept of what marrage involves. (no one could say that it was ok, because she was willing enough to say yes)

As for the "Ku Klux Klan" - I'd be against that for obvious reasons.
It would be a slander campain created specifically to cause hatred and tormoil between people, and it would be targeting children.(children have enough things to become pissed about in school these days, they don't need someone wanting to create more)

You can't say the same thing for hentai, because it's created in japan for adult enjoyment. (as for the "hentai" created in other countries, the same rules should apply) Any underage person that gets possession of such a thing is not the fault of the creator. It's a fault of the parents for not paying attention and keeping it from their kids. As for it getting into the hands of people in other countries, I'd like to quote Nogami Takeshi (see previous letter) "would it be too much to ask that appropriate age restrictions are put in place in stores in your country so that the rational adults can buy legitimate copies" (dispite my belief that the copy protection concept has gotten out of hand, and things should become free if the company stops making and selling copies of their own - I agree with him)

And as for the internet. The giant gaping doorway that lets anyone get almost anything. That's what they invented "parental controls" for. I may dislike the whole concept, but it was created for a reason, so parents should get off their lazy fat butts and use it, instead of whining to the entertainment industry... IN ANY COUNTRY.

Iakun

I^.^

Nope, never heard of her.
Free speach is one thing, but if you don't want to listen then that's your freedom too. If she was going to speak at a school and the students said no, then that's their choice. I'm all for freedom, but you still have to follow the rules set down by the person that owns the house (so to speak). If you don't like the rules, then "speak" somewhere else.

People have the right to like what they like.
(providing what I said before - it can't physically hurt someone, and it can't force someone to do something they don't want to do) If someone doesn't like it, then they have "the right" to not look at it. (turn their head, or browse to a different page)

If someone can't do something just because someone else doesn't like it, then no one would be able to do anything. (just think about all the people in the world that complain about things just to be assholes)

For example: Has anyone here heard about the group of people trying to ban the mcdonalds clown "Ronald Mcdonald" ? They say it promotes child obesity by targeting children for "unhealthy" food. (as if any resturant is healthy - with the exception of 1 or 2) It's rediculous!

And as for emotional harm... That's a questionable point right there.
Hentai is not made to emotionally harm anyone, it's made for enjoyment.
In adults, anyone that gets "emotionaling harmed" by hentai, is way too emotional and also might need their head examined. (and perhaps locked up so they don't see anything emotionally stimulating, the poor little babies - I'm being sarcastic to them, not you)
But in children, let's just say that they shouldn't be looking at it anyway. And wouldn't be if their parents took responsibility AS PARENTS, and did their da** job. They should look after and guide their kids instead of forcing others to. (note: parental controls above)  

[purpleravenhawk]

Iakun: Actually, I think that's still on target in regards to the subject of discussion. You're talking about freedom of speech. On a personal level, I can totally understand why the students wouldn't want to listen to Coulter. Blech. And responsibility in freedom is exactly what I'd like to see everyone practice. Thinking about the affect your product might have on anyone else should be common sense. Ignoring potential mental and emotional harm is careless and callous.

Dude: Intent is still important. The question of art is an excellent example. If an artists intends for a picture to be art, then it is, even if no one else sees it that way. Because it means something to him. And we all know how young anime girls are meant to be. There's not even any confusion there, really.

"Unreal concepts" and attributes actually make things worse. They make real life appear unappealing or unfamiliar, and they create an image of the way things "should be" and make people unhappy with the way things are, and they desensitize people and make things okay because "hey, it's just animated, right?" Unrelated example: Me and the concept of killing animals. I'm a big animal rights activist, for the most part. I don't complain (much) about having to shoot, like, a bird in a video game in order to get a weapon because I know it's not real. I'm mature enough to not get roped into thinking it's cool. But I will still protest those stupid hunting games because they send the message that hunting is cool and fun and victimless and macho. In the first game, it may be a part of the art of the story itself; maybe it takes place in medieval times, and it's trying to be historically accurate. But the hunting games are nothing more than an appeal to redneck teens and young men to BUY A VIDEO GAME CUZ NOT ALL GAMES ARE FOR NERDS! They desensitize players to the concept of hunting and make it seem easy and fun and harmless. I guess that brings us back to the mental and emotional harm thing, which I can see you don't take seriously. I'll touch on that in a minute.

My age? Yes, I complain about feeling old, despite being under 30, but you yourself have pointed out on numerous occasions that I'm an extremely unusual case. >>

Different societies say that lots of things are okay regardless of what we might think is ludicrous. (Kudos on spelling that right, btw.) I just wanted to point out that society is not always the leader we want to follow, so we shouldn't use it as an excuse for something, either.

But the KKK don't see themselves as spreading hate. They actually believe that they're doing the right thing. Most people do. I've actually heard a remarkably well-thought-out argument about why they should be allowed to advertise their beliefs. After all, it's freedom of speech. Like you said, no one's forced to listen. And if parents got off "their lazy fat butts" and checked on what their kids were watching, they could make sure their kids weren't being influenced by anything negative. You're right, kids have enough to be angry about these days; they also have enough things telling them what sexy should look like and when they should start looking for it. I know a mother who started putting mascara on her own daughter at age 3. The smut peddlers have won. And although I protest and think that lolicon needs to stop, and I complain about mental and emotional harm, it still comes down to freedom of speech. And guess what, so does propaganda from the KKK.

Maybe it's not the same as hentai, but you can't guarantee that all hentai is intended only for adult consumption. That's what they say about cigarettes too. But age restrictions and IDing don't work. We've already seen that with movies and games. They help, but I wouldn't depend on them as a cure-all.

Same for parental controls. I agree that parents should play a more active role in policing their kids' environments, especially the ones that complain more. But creators and vendors should consider consequences too. There's got to be some middle ground somewhere.

Now, on the subject of mental and emotional harm, they can't just be dismissed. No matter what a parent does, their child is going to be influenced heavily by the outside world. Unless everyone suddenly started homeschooling. xp And since mental and emotional harm often lead to physical harm, there's a trail of evidence. For the millionth time, I'm not advocating the regulatory control of art, entertainment, thoughts, or personal choices. I just think everyone should put more thought into consequences and consideration for others. It's not that much to ask. I can't connect a direct line between a rape game and a rape victim. But if the rapist played the game, we can't ignore the influence it may have had on him (or her, just to be fair). Games don't make people do stuff, but they can make people think that doing stuff is okay.

An official psychological study proved that people who watch more than an hour of television a day are 70% less happy with their lives than people watching less than an hour or none at all. We can't sue a cable company for making daddy so unhappy with his life that he drinks six beers and hits mommy. There were undoubtedly other factors, not to mention the choice he made to watch tv in the first place instead of helping little Tommy with his homework. But the tv influenced him. Maybe if advertisers didn't make tv seem like it should be a central part of everyone's lives, we would watch less of it. But all they care about is money. If everyone gave more thought to consequences, everyone would be better off. If you want to play a rape game, that is, of course, your choice. But it's still a bad choice; it supports those types of games, and it influences your mind. And even if mental and emotional harm don't eventually lead to physical harm, they still cause problems and pain, so they shouldn't be dismissed. Shall we talk about someone's daddy issues? *wink*

I actually have heard about the Ronald McDonald thing. It's silly; as silly as what they did to Cookie Monster. mad But I don't think that something should be banned because someone doesn't like it. What I'm saying is that everything should undergo careful consideration, and if something is banned, it should be for rational reasons that are a result of thought and logic and concern for others.

Just because you're completely desensitized to something, doesn't mean everyone is, or should be. A little emotional trauma is actually much less important than long-term mental damage done by repeated exposure to things. It's more dangerous, for everyone, and more difficult to fix, just like exposure to something at a very young age. It has a similar effect.  

[Iakun]

The right to not listen isn't completely foolproof. If I walk down the street and some anti-gay protesters walk by in a parade talking about how I should have no right to marry (thank god in my country I can) or should burn in hell, where was my right to not have to listen to it? I didn't know they were coming. Damage done, too late to ignore it.

It's the same for children browsing the net. Parents cannot realistically police their kids 24/7. We were teens at some point. I never really got up to anything bad, but I knew I could easily do something without my parents knowing if I wanted to.

The mental and emotional damage happens to society as a whole when we allow too many questionable things. All this porn and hentai from a young age undoubtedly sets kids up to have unrealistic expectations of real sex and beauty. And let's not kid ourselves into thinking the majority of the planet is full of people who don't let themselves get influenced by these things.

By purple: "Unreal concepts" and attributes actually make things worse. They make real life appear unappealing or unfamiliar, and they create an image of the way things "should be" and make people unhappy with the way things are, and they desensitize people and make things okay because "hey, it's just animated, right?" <<---This. So very much this.  

[xwhateverxdudex]

Purple:

ME

Like you said, everything has an affect on people. Even the smallest of things. And everyone should considder it very carefully.

But whether it affects them for good or bad, it's there and they have a right to choose for themselves.

Now if it's not there, the first choice is made by the company that makes it. And like you said, companies only care about money, so they're going to make things that they know will sell. If they already know that it'll sell, then that's because there are people that like that topic.

And if that's the case, then the "problem" is already there. Stopping the media won't stop the problem. People become restless if they can't find something they like. And because they're already in that mindset, they desire matterial on that topic. They might even get so warped about it as to go out and commit the crime. Now if someone's already in that mindset, but hasn't commited any crime (yet), then I'd rather distract the less violent ones with virtual ways, then to let them stay on their own, and slowly get more restless about it.

Now people don't have "OFF" switches, and release valves.
They have to have some sort of device to channel their frustrations through so it doesn't keep building till they explode. And not everyone can channel it through a completely unrelated though constructive release. (though it is possible, most don't have that determination)

I guess the question I'm thinking of, is...
If you give someone, that's already in that mindset, something that's related to that mindset, is it going to push them over the edge, or distract them from doing it in real life.

I have no doubt that there will be people that would go both ways. But I'd bet that most of them would simply stay in their rooms and let themselves get distracted. WHY? Because of the unrealistic concepts of attraction that they've been shown, that would make them view the real world as less then desirable. That's what virtual worlds are for, to give people an excape when they need it. A place where they can do things that they feel the urge to, where it won't hurt anyone. And most would rather stay there too.

Am I saying that hentai is a distractive cure for the problem? NO! Of course not.
I'm saying that it could be viewed as a "distractive alternative" for the people that are already in that mindset. (not to mention the people that just like it, and can separate fiction from reality) And yes, most hentai fans are "closet-fans" that would rather stay in their fictional worlds. Sure it's not health for them. But sence you can't separate the fans from the extremists, it becomes healthier for every one else.

The people that would actually do these crimes in real life are already on there way to doing them. Taking away their media might(and know one knows for sure, because you can't finger someone out and label them as a criminal before the crime is commited) actually push them to do it sooner. Besides, what about those of them that decide to slip into a safe routine at their computer before they commit any crime.

Hentai is for the casual fan, for the extremist that thinks the world is less then attractive, and for any future criminal that suddenly decides that they'd prefer a safe routine. Sure there will be those that still commit the crime, but compared to them, so many more will opt not to because of the standard views of beauty that has been accepted (I'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it helps to keep the rest of the world safer).

When you think about it, it's easy to blaim media for the problems of the worlds, and yes it does influence others. But that media is created by people that are already in that mindset, and it flourishes because of all the other people in that mindset. If it's a problem, then it's not the source problem. The source should be addressed first. Because until it is, more shall just be made (like you said before). And attacking it will only piss off it's fans.
Heck, there are even feminists among the hentai fans that believe in this.

Iakun:

ME

Sure, I know that. Nothing is foolproof, and nothing ever will be.
I'm sorry if people have to listen to something that insults them, but everyone has to deal with that. Even I've overheard things that I considdered insulting.
But it's not like you can ban people from talking about there beliefs whenever they're outside. It's nothing more then that, their personal belief. Just like you have the right to believe that they are "F'ing Sh*theads" that have brains the size of pees.
Sure having to listen to it is damaging to your emotional state, but these people are most likely influenced just as much by their friends and family then by media. Especially if people get out of the house anywhere near, more then I do.

The whole idea of porn, animated or not, may be damaging to everyones views upon themselves and cause unrealistic stereo-types that cause people to dislike this world... but it's there for a reason. It provides an escape from this world for people that already believe it to be crap(and know it to be, because it is).

Anyone that tells themselves otherwise is living in a fantasy world of there own.
And everyone has a right to that fantasy world of theirs.

On the other hand, this conversion isn't going anywhere.
I'm too bullheaded and will never agree to give up my porn (animated or otherwise) "for the good of society" - Especially when the society is made up of a bunch of people that don't give a crap about me, and only care about what they think. (everyone has to stand alone in the end anyway)
AND I seriously doubt that I could say anything to make anyone else change there ideas either. (especially when Iakun has been forced to deal with anti-gay crap all his life, and purple will be against anything that has to do with any stereo-type, especially ones that define attractiveness)
Translation: I'm finally getting tired of arguing.
[as I'm sure many would be relieved with]  

[purpleravenhawk]

Lol, giving up? K, lemme just respond.

You seem to be assuming that most fans are harmless, but you don't know any better than I do what most of them are really like. You're right that stopping a particular thing won't stop everyone who's into it, but it will have a good affect on the population as a whole in the long run. If someone is so "warped" as to commit a violent crime in the first place, distractions won't stop them. Maybe slow them down, but it won't stop them. Psychologically, criminals accelerate; they don't stop and say, "I think I'll do this for the rest of my life instead." Not unless they make the conscious choice to change themselves and their behavior, which you claim no one will do. And most people wouldn't be "in that mindset," if it didn't exist. Just like nobody would crave McDonald's fries if they were never invented. Okay, people don't have off switches. But emotions don't have to be let off like steam. People make choices about how to conduct themselves, and many people choose to act according to the emotion of the minute, like savages. If people feel the urge to do things that would hurt someone else, they need to think about why they're feeling like that. Escaping from the real world only makes the root of the problem worse. Saying we shouldn't take something away because it might push someone into committing a crime is a bogus excuse. There could be an equal number of people who get pushed into crime by keeping that thing. All things being equal, I'll side with doing whatever will do the least amount of psychological harm to individuals and society as a whole. Hentai is not a safety valve; it's an enabler. Some of it may have started because the creator was "in that mindset". But after all this time, I'll bet it's just like every other industry in the world - it has no meaning at all other than to make money. That could mean that none of the animators are "in that mindset". They're just pandering to a captive audience who've been raised on their product. The source of the problem SHOULD be addressed. But you have to take a step back and address your own source before you can tell the rest of the world to do the same. Once you've done that, you can still enjoy your porn. But once you know why and how, you'll find it takes on a new dimension, one that's easier to control. And in the realm of sex, control of oneself is a good thing. 3nodding The word "feminist" means two different things, depending on who you talk to, and it doesn't make the person who labels themself so an expert on anything. I don't care who supports the "attacking us will only piss us off" party. That's nothing but a scared bully's way of responding to a potential threat: "Leave me alone or I'll bite." And bullies almost always have less bite than bark. Half the time, a bully is not picking on a weakling. The other half of the time, he is. But for that first half, he's picking on another bully, usually one who doesn't recognize that he's being a bully.

I have no problem with porn as a whole. It's pretty healthy in limited amounts. It's the extreme stuff and the people who like it that I object to.

And I have to respond to your little "nobody cares, we're all alone" crap. There are lots of people who care, and there are even people who care about you. You say that stuff as an excuse for your own uncaring behavior. Yes, in the end, we're alone in our minds and our personal beliefs and experiences. But that doesn't mean we can't share and find people who come pretty close to us and will keep us company. You CHOOSE to be an antisocial hermit because you don't want to have to show concern or interest in anyone else. Not the other way around. If you went outside and found out that somebody cared, it would guilt you into acting like you care. And you hate nothing worse than being forced by your own emotions to pretend to care and to do something that would take time away from your "man cave." I've asked the question before, but I'm answering it myself this time cuz I don't think you've ever given me a straight answer. I'm calling your bluff.