Jesus H Fucking Christ.

Good thing I googled those links before I clicked the fucking things, you piece of shit.

This board needs more mods.

> I come here to look at furry chicks,not have my psyche assaulted
Here, here.

I and the other mods report it and I give a perma-ban to keep it from happening again, but yeah there has been a decent amount lately. If needed I might get some more mods...or maybe a few janitors.

I'd be willing to be a janitor if you needed it.

I do check this board far too much for it to be healthy.

gay cp on /m/:
"eh whatevs"

str8 cp on /m/:
<-----

>>4759

>Implying cp is any different than cub porn.

>>4813
>implying drawings have the same rights as human beings.

>>4813

>Implying that cub porn has anywhere near the mind-destroying effects of REAL CP.

Not to mention it's about 50x more illegal.

>>4814
In quite a few countries there are laws in place that say that they do.

Funny old world isn’t it.

>>4833
yep.
depiction of child porn is a crime in many if not most countries (and I means western culture. Eastern is even stricter.)
I think in my country some furry art would be considered illegal as well, if sold of given to someone.. Animal porn is banned, so drawing of humans fucking ferral furries is a no-no!

Same goes for "cub" porn - it is ad oculos understandable, what is meant in the drawing. And since you must not keep, sell and distribute CP - you can get a sentence.

>>4925

Underage art is alright in a lot of western countries, like the USA. It's almost unheard of to hear of anyone getting arrested here for cub porn. (though i heard of a case of someone getting caught for loli porn, it depends on the situation and state) I think it's dumb to persecute someone for things like cub porn or drawn underage porn. They're just drawings and not real. I mean, i don't like like those things and find them nasty, but someone shouldn't be punished for looking at it. Real child pron on the other hand, is wrong because actual real life kids are being taken advantaged of. Drawings/cub art on the other hand are just pixels, nobody is getting hurt, and shouldn't be an offense. If you don't like cub porn, then it's not hard to ignore it. If i see something i don't like, i don't look at it. Simple as that.

Yeah. I don't remember the details, but anti-cub porn people often cite a case a year or two ago involving lolicon. What occurred, basically, was that Customs noticed a guy was buying and importing a near-constant stream of loli doujins from Japan, the Feds took notice... and it turned out he had metric fucktons of real CP on his computer.

Technically, the law in the US which extended bans on child porn to drawings came and went - it was thrown out again. Drawn stuff isn't illegal in the US. Many furry sites ban posting of cub smut either because it's illegal where their server is based, or because the admins don't like it-- both reasonable reasons, I think.

Problem is, the links on the art boards, which sometimes sit on there for a day or two, are real CP - and I do not want even those thumbnails in my cache. Yuck.

>>4965

Actually, neither of those are the reason that FA banned cub porn.

Paypal (or the paypal equivalent) cut FA off because it had cub porn on its site. So 'neer ordered it all removed so he could keep his donation system running.

Same thing happened to SF, except Toumal sent them a very nicely worded 'get fucked' letter.

>>4966
That's true, I had forgotten about the pay-service debacle with FA. I do remember that, before that, FA voted to ban cub stuff-- and a bunch of users had a shitfit. Then, soon after, they voted to allow it-- and a bunch of other users had a shitfit.

>>4961
Underage art is not alright in a lot of western countries, including the USA. There are actually laws in place.

>>4965
You are right and wrong, the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) was over turned by the Supreme Court in 2002 which prompted the signing of a new law, the PROTECT Act, which became law in 2003, and was reaffirmed by Congress on Jan 7 2011.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html

Plus I am not sure if you are referring to the case of Dwight Whorley because your description of it is different from what I’ve read about it. However Whorley’s case is a valid argument for the illegality of loli porn, because his cartoon porn collection was used as evidence in his case, and played a part in his 20 year sentence. Furthermore when he appealed just the loli porn in order to lighten his sentence, it was shot down by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

Which means in the U.S. jail time can be issued for possession of loli porn. Whether or not the law extends to cub porn is an argument for lawyers, but there seems to be enough leeway in the law for them to arrest you for it.

To further play devil’s advocate, some of the arguments against simulated child porn are: They condone child abuse, they can be used as a tool to persuade children, and in the cases of well-done art, they can muddle the waters between what is fake and what is real child abuse.

>>4974
The problem with that logic is that one could make the same arguement for other illegal acts.

A comic where a person is murdered could be interpreted with that kind of thinking as condoning murder. Murder is shown with gruesome details in movies and graphic novels. By the exact same logic, these should also be banned.

Why is the line drawn here? Is it because children are involved? That can't be. Kids get killed all the time in fiction. Is it because of rape? No. Not all loli/cub stuff is rape and rape is all over the place in media anyways.

I don't so much mind anti-loli laws in the sense that I will miss out on my DFC, (though that is also upsetting). It sets a legal precedence that leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Today it's lolicon. Tomorrow, no one can have any minors in bad situations. And a significant chunk of culture is neutered.

tl;dr - Shitsux

>>4974

The chances of being persecuted for loli/cub porn in the usa is lower than winning the lottery. It's extremely rare, because they only care about real child pron. The one case where the guy who got caught had a lot more attached to it, including him having possession of real child pron, importing manga books as opposed to downloading it from a site, and various other charges. They most likely didn't reduce the sentence because he was using the "drawn porn" as a cop-out to ignore the real crimes: the fact that he had real child pron.

The arguments against simulated pron hold no water. For example, the condoning child abuse doesn't work because no real children are involved. Also, by this logic, you can say movies with killing condone murder, murder which is illegal, hence all movies with violence would have to be banned and you would be persecuted for it. There's a reason they're not: it's fake. It's not real. You also can't muddle the waters between what is real and fake, because one is precisely real and one is precisely fake. One involves a real child, the other doesn't. There's no middle ground, no matter how well the art is drawn. Again, going back to the movie example, a lot of killings on movie have great special effects to make them look real, but no matter how realistic it looks, it's still just a movie, and still fake, just like drawn loli is just a drawing, and still fake. The tool argument to persuade children can also be shot down using similar arguments. Candy is one of the best tools to persuade any child for any matter, so should we ban candy then?

The main difference is that one is fake, and one involves real children.

Open question (I'm just curious). Why are depictions of children in sexual situations (IE: child porn) illegal yet depections of REAL children (I'm not talking fictional, here!) being brutally murdered or already dead are not?

I just saw it yesterday on the news (they had a warning, but whatever) where a family in Syria — including several children — were tortured and killed. They showed unaltered footage of the mutilated corpses of the children, only censoring once where an adult woman had had her eye gouged out.

I don't understand the distinction. Child porn is illegal primarily because it depicts a child being "harmed". How is being molested less harm than being murdered? It's perfectly legal to have a video of children actually in process of BEING murdered — I've seen it.

So tell me, someone. Why is sex worse than murder?

>>4977

You raise a very good point, and i've had that exact same question on many topics. It comes down to the fact that for some reason, human society puts far more emphasis and stigma on sex than almost anything else. I'll use a few examples to illustrate this.

1) Let's take the child pron example first. It's completely illegal to possess pron of underage people (which i agree with 100%). However, it's not illegal to possess real-life pictures of brutally murdered children. Murder is 100x worse than having underage sex, yet society treats the latter as worse.

2) Let's take an example of homophobia. In the south, i've heard a lot of those people consider homosexuality the worst thing in the world. Something that is natural and harmless is worse than murder, rape, genocide, starvation, beating your wife, etc to a lot of those southern people. Once again, people putting sexuality above anything else.

3) Let's take a more taboo subject hated by many: beastiality. Ok, so a great majority of people are heavily against it, consider it animal abuse, non-consenting, and could easily get you isolated by friends/family and a nice jail sentence. But it's ok to kill them for food, neuter them, perform experiments on them, use them for sport to kill each other, hunt them for fun, kill them for their skins, keep them caged, etc, but it's not ok to have sex with them. Again, it makes no sense, since all the other things are 100x worse than simply having sex with them.

It's just how human society views things today. We put more emphasis, stigma, and make more of an issue on sex above anything else, no matter how hypocritical or absurd it looks. Each of those 3 examples would lead to hours and hours of debate, raging, high-emotions, and name-calling. Not because of things like murder, torture, drugs, or violence, but because of the sexual situations.

>>4977
>Why is sex worse than murder?
Deal with it.

>>4980
Animal rights are... tricky.

I find killing animals for food to be acceptable, (though the meat industry does do some reallt unethical shit). I find medical testing on animals to be acceptable, provided the research isn't been done by unethical stooges, but that's beside the point.

But I find beastiality to be unacceptable. And I don't know why that is.

Perhaps it has something to do with *how* the animal is being used. Use the medical testing to keep my kind healthy, for sure. Eating animals: nothing wrong with this, as far as I'm concerned - animals eat other animals all the time.

But I can't defend sex with animals in the same manner. Using a living being for sexual gratification. I dunno, some people get deeper than that in it. But I still can't accept it.

I still consider killing to be worse than rape/molestation in the case of humans, though. A lovely paradox you've shown in my reasoning, gents. I shall have to think about this in my idle times. Ta~

Maybe pictures of dead children should be illegal. Its certainly horrible. But child pornography isn't illegal because its horrible, its illegal because it is inevitably connected to the act of sex with a child itself. Those pictures of dead children weren't taken by the murderers, and I really, really hope there isn't a market for people to kill children and record the results. But there is an active market to depict children in sexual situations and sell those results. So you make possession of those images illegal, because if someone took a picture or made a video of a child having sex, then the odds are high that the same person was engaged in the act. As well, purchasing or spreading those images and videos is helping to expand that market, indirectly causing the spread of abuse.

So, to my thinking, you can have photos of dead children because its unlikely that you were connected to their death, or supporting those that killed them. The illegality of child pornography serves purposes beyond morals, it also helps to restrict the spread of abuse and punish those involved whether you have proof of them actually hurting a child or not.

Or so I assume.

>>4982

It's how we were raised. I know a lot of older generation people who still hate blacks. While we can look at them and laugh, and say they're wrong for being racists, we have to understand, that's how they grew up, were raised, and most people felt during those days.

On the animals issue, while killing them for food and survival isn't the best example, all the other examples pretty much make a good point. Let's take hunting for instance. People shoot animals just for fun. Not for food, not for power, not for self-defense, merely for fun. And it's legal, and 100% acceptable. Yet having sex with one is the completely opposite. How is killing one for pleasure acceptable, yet having sex with one not acceptable? It makes no sense. Yet that's how human society is and we just gotta deal with it. Sex tends to be more taboo and stigmatized then even things like murder. Murder is far worse than beastiality, yet the former is legal and viewed as ok when it comes to animals.

I think it comes down to those 3 other things!
1) We tend to have views depending on how we are raised and what most other people think, even if said views don't make sense

2) We tend to stigmatize sex and make a huge issue out of anything sexual. If we think about it, we're the only species of animals that wears clothes to cover our sexual parts.

3) Humans tend to rely on feelings more than logic. A perfect example of this are anti-gay people. None of their arguments hold any water, and some will even admit that, but they are still against it because that's how they feel about the issue.

These ideas are fun to think about though. We have to wonder. Why is hunting an animal for sport, or neutering them, or using them for sport to kill each other, acceptable, whereas having sex with them isn't? Why do we have laws against animal cruelty, yet all those things listed are not considered animal cruelty? And what the other guy brought up. Why are possession of pictures of child pron illegal, but pictures of them being murdered, sometimes violently, legal?

>>4983

There actually is a market for that. For people who are into snuff.

That's a good point as well. Most of the pictures or murdered children are not taken by the murderer himself. But the thing is, it's illegal to possess child pronography even if you didn't take the picture and had nothing to do with the act, but legal to possess the murder pictures. Now i'm highly against child pr0n, but i constantly wonder how something sexual could be worse than flat out murder.

>>4986
>I know a lot of older generation people who still hate blacks.
Funny, I know a lot of younger generation people who hate and will continue to hate niggers.

>>4983
>its illegal because it is inevitably connected to the act of sex with a child itself

What about pornography produced by the children, themselves? With the ubiquitous household use of digital cameras, webcams, high-speed internet, and video-editing software, it's a simple thing to film and distribute videos compared to how it was decades ago.

In fact, several minors have already been implicated in production of child porn simply by "sexting" photos of their own junk. These children can end up jailed and probably put on the sex-offender list for life. It's hardly a reasonable punishment considering the "crime" is exploiting technology to express what many scientists consider THE ENTIRE POINT to life: sex.

Now, I'm not suggesting that production of child porn be legal by an adult (and there should be some punishment for children who do so... just not to the same degree). But mere posession cannot legally be considered punishable, because it goes against everything the American legal system stands for. The pictures/videos themselves are harmless, and even if the person had ZERO connection to the producers (did not contact them, and did not buy it directly, etc) he may still go to jail for life. Okay, so you may argue that he "might" have been involved. BULLSHIT! That does not matter. What happened to innocent until proven guilty? What happened to the burden of proof being on the prosecution? What happened to juries must not say guilty unless the case was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt? For all anyone knows, he could have downloaded them for free off limewire or whatever, found physical copies lying on the sidewalk, or had them downloaded to his computer without his knowledge or consent. It's ridiculous; it's nonsense; it's probably in violation of actual, real laws. The fact that several systems in the world have tossed in cartoon porn into the mix and punish on the same scale proves they aren't concerned for the children or anything else; they just want to punish perverted people for being perverted.

>What about pornography produced by the children, themselves? With the ubiquitous household use of digital cameras, webcams, high-speed internet, and video-editing software, it's a simple thing to film and distribute videos compared to how it was decades ago.
>These children can end up jailed and probably put on the sex-offender list for life.
I read in the news in US 9yo boy (or around so) will be put into jail when achieving adulthood for playing with the girl of the same age "anal doctor".

>THE ENTIRE POINT to life: sex.
I read memories of Danish cp star, too bad I was not able to find English version, it would be very interesting to post here.

>>4991
Fair enough, there should be considerations for age and maturity. The things children do of that nature shouldn't be ignored, but we can't hold them by the same standard as we do adults.

That being said, the illegality of possessing child porn, while being rooted in the idea of punishing what the law makers decide to declare deviance, still has merit in the notion of restricting the market. Child pornography is produced for commercial profit, not its sole purpose but certainly a factor, and restricting the legality of its consumption reduces the market and lowers the demand for new material. In this manner we can in fact say that those in possession of child pornography are implicitly encouraging it, because they're letting others know that there is an interest in the material, and therefore there will be interest in future material.

In another manner of speaking, allowing the number of people viewing child porn to increase means there will be more people willing to pay for new material. Supply will increase to meet demand, so we do what we can to stop the market from growing, in addition to punishing the people producing it.

There's certainly moral hypocrisy mired throughout the issue of what is and is not indecent or deviant, but the idea of making possession illegal is solid nonetheless.

>>4992

Well we learned one thing from this thread. Apparently sexual crimes are 100x worse than murder nowadays. But on a good note, we are trending towards stigmatizing sex less and less.

Except for China. Those bastards ban porn.

>>4993

Almost nobody pays for porn of any kind; they can get it for free online. Besides that, there is no evidence that making possession illegal has had any effect on the "industry" of production. All it has done is drive it underground, to the dark depths of the internet and usual black-market channels. These people, like with similar illegal things, tend to trade with each other and other groups exclusively; they form tight networks of loyalty and often commit other offenses commonly associated with "organized crime".

Anyway, my point was to make a distinction between those kinds of people who actually are involved in the CP rings, who abuse the children, and are involved with drug trade and weapons as well; and the average Joe who has a few pics on his computer or (with the way things are going) some shotacon/lolicon porn. The difference is the same as that between a mafia-style drug empire and a harmless teenager who bought some weed from a friend. The cops are hardly going to destroy the industry by targeting the small fry and slapping them with exorberant, ridiculous punishments.

Unlike basically everything else I've heard of, child porn sentences can add up for each "count", where a "count" is a single picture or video. So in theory, a guy who has never touched a child — but has a lot of pictures — can end up with a prison sentence of life, while a guy who ACTUALLY MOLESTED a child might get 10 years. The basic idea is sound (protecting children, blah blah) but the system for enforcing it is terribly broken and keeps getting worse.

(Oh, and how is it that a child cannot consent to sex because he isn't an adult, yet if he commits a serious crime like murder they'll charge him as an adult in trial?)

Someone, somewhere pays for porn, or else there wouldn't be so many porn stores open downtown. I remember where at least five are offhand, most of which also sell cheap, shitty lingerie, sex toys, etc.

Only been into one, (think it's a chain) called Castle. Huge place. Went in with friends who wanted a strap-on, and poked around a bit myself, until a very odd moment when I stopped in an aisle, looked around, and thought incredulously to myself, "There must be three hundred different dildos here!" They SELL porn DVDs, and I saw people buying them. I don't know why if it's so easy to get it free, but they were.

>>5011
>I don't know why if it's so easy to get it free

My dad pays for porn. I really don't want to go through teaching him how to download things or use the internet in general.

My brother used to buy porn up until he got his lap top. I assume he just downloads it now. (Although, he seems like the type that would just use pornhub and call it one.)

Welp. I'm able to get rid of the child porn spam now.

Seeing as I check the boards so much, they've really, really backed off :D Probably jinxing it, but I think we got the spammers beat!