Forums - Website Topics - Would you censor fictional sexual content that depict minors?

Would you?

Yes, I'd eliminate or bl... 50 28.57%
Yes, I'd edit it to make... 9 5.14%
No, I'd leave it be. 71 40.57%
Depends on the case, depends on the context. 31 17.71%
Show me the answers / I d... 14 8.00%
TheLastStarFighter said:
I am 100% against the sexualization of children, fictuonal or real, in any way whatsoever. If you're not, I question your ethics.

Can you speak the same with your neigborhood or family and friend when there children wearing a swimsuit?

Around the Network
SpokenTruth said:

The sexualization of a 13 year old girl in a video game in the US would lead to lawsuits.

Now if all you people blasting Nintendo for this and thinking about canceling a pre-order (you likely never had to begin with) are willing to pay their lawsuits for them....then fight on. If not, deal with it and enjoy a grand RPG in 6 weeks.

Why everything need to be a consoles wars.

video games aren't real so no, I wouldn't.

On first impression I had no idea how to respond to this thread, or rather I really didn't feel like it. But after reading a bit of the thread that inspired this one I got to thinking.
How is something like age itself depicted?

Because I share the same sentiment as the one I posted there, cultural differences are weird...but they are different for a reason, because people are.

I'm not bragging or anything, but my university is pretty cosmopolitan, its top tier so we get people from around the world. So walking around campus I've often mistaken people ages by how they look. People I swear were children, might be my age are older, and many underage freshman might look like Juniors.

Fundamentally, this is why it is legitimate for authors to say something like "oh, she looks like that but she is 18." because its entirely plausible.

In fact, worse still, even if you could fault someone on looks alone, the very fact that looks don't directly correlate with age, that is perceived age and actual age can be quite different, means that the distinction isn't reliable. Their is no way to argue against the former claim. I mean you could, and I guess its a measure of judgement, but at that point its really just preferential.

Thusly, I wouldn't censor it. It's not my responsibility.

In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

archer9234 said:
rolltide101x said:
pokoko said:
First, these are drawings, not actual people. There is no victim and any "age" is assigned, not inherent.

A drawing of a girl with small breasts and minimal curves can be "12" or she can be "18" depending on a whim. The inverse is also true. What we're talking about is pure fiction.

Now, that being said, there are always people looking to attack over any perceived impropriety. Because of that, I don't blame Nintendo. They have to protect themselves first and foremost.

The best way around this, usually, is to simply change the age. That doesn't always work, of course, and depends on the story itself, which should take priority. If you need the girl to be 13 in the story then she should stay 13. If not, change her age and leave the mature content in. I can't speak for this game, however, as I know nothing about it.

For all you know a pedo could use it as inspiration to act it out. I am willing to bet it has happened. They should not under ANY circumstances be placed in the sexual context

For all as you know Rambo was the reason someone grabbed a gun, and killed people. Let's ban those! It was Silvester Stalone's fault, no wait, the writers. They are the horrible murderers! Next up, you'll be saying GTA V was the reason shootings happen....oh, wait. That already freaking happens in the news. What do all those asses say what should get banned?

Respond to this picture. If you don't know what's going on, in this episode of the simpsons. You'd think this episode is teaching pedophila. It comes down to context. This is all fictional. And aimed at a certain age group. Should this episode of the simpsons be banned. Because a child could accidently see it and think sex with a child?

This is a bad example. A very bad example. 

For starters, that looks either a midget or an doll. As a matter of fact, in this scene, she's a midget pretending to be a doll. No one is is going to be cross-eyed and in such a stiff position under any normal circumstance, and even in bizzare circumstances.

Also Moe Sizlack can be a lot of things. But people know he's not a pedophile.

"It comes down to context"... You're literally taking this picture out of context. 

No because a child is not going to see an episode, where Moe Sizlack is panicking becuase he thinks his date is replaced with a doll, only for a second later the date to say she was pretending to be a doll, startle Moe, and still be panicked, and then pan to commericial. That's due to the fact that, in context, That's whats's going to happen in the span of about 5-15 seconds. The child will not just see one still frame of an animated episode with sound somehow not on and think that, and somehow, just somehow the child magically did, anyone reviewing the episode to verify whether it was the case or not... would not. Mainly due to the fact that in context, which  again, you have taken this out of, no one would see a problem with Moe dating a midget. Except Moe, and that is within the context of her being a midget.

Around the Network
rolltide101x said:
Torillian said:

Wouldn't that apply to any depicted illustration of a crime?  Why are we watching movies like Robocop when for all you know some psycho could use it as inspiration and act it out?  Scary movies would definitely be out, it's like a how-to handbook on how to murder young adults.  

I agree with you on the rest of those. But under aged people just should not be placed in a sexual context. 

Drawings aren't people. I fully support sexualized drawings of minors, especially if it is a release for ephebophiles, hebephiles, pedophiles, etc.

You know what? I find this discussion completely ridiculous - because there are people who have their children change their bodies sexually because it's the "right" thing to do.

Think about it.

Sexualizing a minor? Bad.
Changing a minor's sex, possibly with adverse effects and possibly based on just your whims? Good.

I mean, and this will just result in people finding other ways to get satisfaction. "So what if she looks twelve, it's clearly stated that she's actually ten thousand years old!" "What are you talking about? This middle school girl is clearly 18! (points to character bio)"
And even then, there will be people who judge actions and deeds - yet don't understand them. For instance, chibi (super-deformed) art. I remember that the precedent for this kind of art being banned in Canada is the Kama Sutra but drawn with super-deformed characters. I kid you not.
Then, there is the chance that these people - no longer having an outlet - will turn to real children. I'll let you figure out how they'll get access to real children, but either way, if you sexualize a child - real or otherwise - you're going to jail, anyway, in the eyes of the law.

Oddly enough, the pedophilia acceptance movement is already starting to take off - just look at Salon or Jezebel or some other progressive tabloid website.



Fake people do not need protection or rights, so no censorship in fiction, even if I think some stuff are sick

If you think about sex if you see a 13 year old girl in a bikini, something is wrong with you.

there are no boundaries in fiction, censorship in fiction is a form of fascism. you may regulate the market to make sure underage people don't get access to certain contents without permission of their parents, but among adults there is nothing that should ever be censored in fiction. again,to me, trying to ban any form of fiction is fascism