Talk:Cartoon pornography

Site links

I am wondering why this page has links to pornographic sites. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information, not a porn directory. If someone wants to find these kind of sites they can use a search engine. And the last link is a pay site, which means that this page is basically advertising for that site. I'm removing the links to the sites containing pornography but leaving the other link since it is informative in nature. TSchellhous 04:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Concur with your actions. --LeyteWolfer 17:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I resent having my contribution being labelled as "vandalism", according to an edit from February 3. I was simply adding a section of my own knowledge of the Cartoon pornographic sites I have been forced to censor to avoid my children from seeing. I notice a pattern and decide to let people know about it. Sadly, that word "vandalism" proves that Wikipedia is run by people who are inconsiderate bullies. 71.194.44.46, 17:36, 7 February 2006 (GMT)

yeah, um....[Your edit] was no more than removing the entire guts of the article, maybe it was just a mistake, but wholesale removing of sections like that is generaly frowned upon. --CH 18:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Parody/satire

I fail to see how cartoon pornography can be considered parody or satire.--Orthologist 23:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Disneyland_Memorial_Orgy is a pretty good example of how you can combine famous characters with sexual situations.--CH 16:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is true that most parodies usually are humorous works, a parody dos not necessarily need to be comedic and satirical in nature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.210.41.184 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Still I removed the statement regarding parody as not being allowed. There are lots of pornographic parody videos out there (see This Ain't Avatar XXX and Pirates). More generally, parody is seen as a fair use so unless you can point to some case law regarding parody in pornography I am inclined to argue that it is legal.129.7.240.199 (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Picture

Someone has changed the picture... this might be more appropriate.--Orthologist 00:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The original image that was started with the article featured copyrighted characters and was deemed replacable. I worked with the artist of the original image to make the new image wikipedia friendly. --00:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone added a picture below the one already existing. Should we find a replacement? This one uses copyrighted characters and, as far as I know, there are a lot of pictures like this one without copyrighted characters.--Orthologist 13:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The new image attribution states the image may not be reproduced despite being licensed under CCA2.5, im going to remove it and tag it for speedy deletion, because an unknown artist cannot give permission anyways. --72.67.29.95 20:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Hentai

Regarding the "differences between cartoon pornography and hentai" I fail to see the validity of that article and it's claims that those are two different art forms. Especially as the source seems to be a payable hentai service. It seems obvious to me that hentai (actually called Adult animation or erotic animation by Japanese people) is a form of cartoon pornography, not a completely different art form. It's the same as anime can be called a type of cartoon which emerged in Japan. Hentai is just a type of adult cartoon which is also anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.206.233.213 (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, hentai is certainly a subsect of cartoon pornography, unless of course it covers erotica not considered to be pornography. I think in general terms, pornography covers this but certain definitions of it (like not having artistic merit) make people rightfully not want to call it that. Tyciol (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that hentai seems to be a subset of cartoon porn, and it's unclear to me how they are different. Any objections to me removing "It is distinguished from Hentai", or perhaps even replacing with something like "and also includes genres such as Hentai"? Mdwh (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you as I say, but "distinguish" to me could imply that it's distinct, as opposed to a subset. If we agree that it's a subset, does anyone object to saying this more explicitly? E.g., we could include it in the previous sentence: "Cartoon pornography includes but is not limited to parody renditions of famous cartoons, comics and Hentai."? Mdwh (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I've reworded the sentence to remove the claim hentai is different from cartoon pornography so it simply explains what hentai is Nil Einne (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Rule 34

"Rule 34" directs here. Why, exactly? There's a lot more to Rule 34 than Cartoons. It should have it's own article, or at least be mentioned in the text of this one. XKCD 305 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.252.128 (talk) 04:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Regarding Rule 34, I quote from urban dictionary, "[Rule 34 is a] generally accepted internet rule that states that pornography or sexually related material exists for any conceivable subject." A simple Google search should render corroborating evidence. An addendum to the rule is that if such pornography has not yet been found, it must be made. A call for Rule 34 on a given subject is generally a request to present pornography of that subject. Not all instances of Rule 34 are cartoon related, though many calls for Rule 34 are intended as shocking or satirical portrayals of beloved childhood cartoon characters. Many calls for Rule 34 are intended to ridicule political figures, a given class of people, or simply present an absurd situation for humorous effect. Some calls for Rule 34 are also made to satisfy a rare sexual fetish, and seeing unusual sexual situations may be a fetish in and of itself. (69.229.196.13 (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC))

Redirection Rule 34 to Cartoon pornography is simply ridiculous. It's like redirecting anal sex to fellatio.. --Rmdsc (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Barring the existance of an article for that term, or another more appropriate article, it's better than nothing I'd say. Rule34 is fan-created and thus, pretty much always a cartoon in any way imaginable, unless you count photoshop shoops. Tyciol (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we should let Urban Dictionary determine how we craft this encyclopedia... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't at all advocate consulting UD, I'm not sure where you got that. I've researched all major rule 34-oriented things. While 34 can encapsulate real forms of pornography, considering the ease of which it is to draw a picture versus enact something, and how theoretical fictional ideas will always outnumber real possible ones, it's a fair argument to say that 34 is predominantly cartoon. Unless the term has it's own article, where's a better place to redirect it than here? Tyciol (talk) 21:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

discrepancy between US cartoon child porn page and this page

I found that this page says:

"Currently no such laws are in effect in the US, as any laws of this nature have been struck down by the US Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. However this striking down of the law was not retroactive. Anybody who at the time has been sentenced for such a crime, is still serving their sentence."

while the Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#18_USC_1466A implies that the law is still in effect and actively used to prosecute people (the simpsons case).

I'm not really sure which is accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.110.19 (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bizarrely Limited Article

The article is supposed to be about cartoon pornography, but is almost entirely about illicit cartoon kiddie porn. Presumably the whole world of legal erotic comix ought to be in here -- instead, just this illegal crap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandrakos (talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Well cartoon child porn is where there is the most controversy, though you could argue that, that should be dealt with, more in Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors, with this article concentrating more on cartoon porn in general. A worthy topic, on which there should be more written here perhaps, but it would still make for less content, and less notability and importance, than the cartoon child porn topic.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

No, including the whole range of cartoon pornography would obviously make for more content than artificially limiting the article to a narrow subset of the named topic. If an article on Photography were devoted almost entirely to child porn, would you justify it on the grounds that that's where the controversy is, and argue that if you included the other forms of photography, Matthew Brady, Ansel Adams, Man Ray, etc., this would make for less content, "less notability and importance?" Sorry, it just doesn't make sense to hijack a page for a narrow sub-topic. Mandrakos (talk) 15:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree! ...and I don't really understand what the previous person was thinking, which is weird, given that it was me. However, most cartoon pornography falls prey to child porn laws. Even if it's not meant to be child porn, it may contain adolescents. While adolescents regularly have sex, quite legally (in civilized countries, at least), in real life, they are not allowed in pornography (IMO understandable, when real people are involved, but when it's drawings...), and are counted as children, according to child porn laws. Even without any characters that are meant to be adolescents, it may still fall prey to child porn laws, given the criteria that police, prosecutors and courts will use. None of those criteria are reliable or applicable for the purpose of determining, that a person is under age (and certainly not "beyond reasonable doubt", which is what a court should consider), but when it comes to drawings, there is the artists knowledge of anatomy and stylistic ways of drawing and artistic license to consider, making it even more ridiculous. A character may be meant to be 40, but count as a child in court. Indeed, a real person may count as a child in court, despite being 40. Never the less, cartoon pornography in general, is what this article should be about. That would, however, necessitate removing a lot of notable information from this article. I propose renaming this article as Cartoon pornography depicting minors, and making a new Cartoon pornography article, with a section about child porn (and perceived child porn) linking to this as the main article.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

"Most cartoon pornography falls prey to child porn laws." You've got a source for that? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 09:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Did you fail to read what followed that sentence, perhaps? What followed that sentence, explains how it is the case, after all (though I can give a more thorough explanation, if there are any points you do not understand, or think aren't explained clearly enough). ...and when I said "falls prey to", I mean it goes against the law (or can be construed to do so, which is, practically speaking, the same thing). Not that it necessarily gets accused of breaking it.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, read that more thoroughly now. Although cartoon porn with adolescents probably could be quite common for instance in some Crumb comics (Honeybunch Kaminski, Joe Blow), alternative comics and the manga and Franco-Belgian scene, such as depictions of sexual awakening in young teens, I still have to hear about real cases taking age into account. Cf. Lost Girls, Georges Lévis, Tijuana bibles etc. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

"I still have to hear about real cases taking age into account." What do you mean? Cases where they rule it porn, due to the age of the characters, where adult characters are considered under-age, or... I'll gladly answer, as well as I can, if you explain.

As to the comics you mention... I'm not familiar with the works of Georges Lévis, nor with Tijuana bibles, but the latter at least, would no doubt have some characters that would be considered as child porn, if police took a look at them. As to Lost Girls... Well that is explicitly child porn. I have been informed(Warning: The video linked is, technically, illegal to watch, for anyone in Sweden) that they are explicitly said to be under 18 in many of the pornographic scenes. In that case, they don't even need to look at the tanner scale (which is ridiculous to apply to drawings, as drawings aren't precise representations, and also the artist's anatomical ignorance or artistic licence, or the particularly stylistic art-form, would make it impossible to determine the maturity of the character by that scale), which isn't really made for that purpose anyway, and is IMO, not particularly scientific anyway (and there have been cases of real life porn, where actual real adult people have been deemed under-age). They could simply state that the book clearly states them to be under-age, and that, if not the book, then certainly the author/artist has clearly stated it to be pornographic, not that that can really be doubted.

...and Bonnier, the former main employers of the Swedish manga translator and expert, now sentenced (though it's to be taken to the Supreme Court, as you might know) by child pornography laws (for doing his job, essentially), sell said comic in Sweden, despite it, and many other comics they (and indeed many others in Sweden) sell, actually being no more legal, in the eyes of the Swedish judicial system (the police's child porn "experts" mainly), than the few pictures he had on his computer. (I am rather certain that he had many more illegal pictures in his bookshelves, but they weren't looked through, for some reason) The reason they haven't gotten into trouble, is that it hasn't been taken to the police, to look at. The only reason that most manga nerds, or indeed most "cultured" people, in Sweden can feel safe from the Swedish child porn laws, is because it's unlikely that the police will search their homes.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Tijuana Bibles often contain child characters, mostly parodies of popular comics, afaik. And okay, I know about the Swedish case, and I'm skeptical to that case as well, but I cannot say that it's about adolescents without having seen the images. This blog claims that most of them are not: [1] 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well then, those Tijuana Bibles count as cartoon child porn. I wasn't really talking that much about adolescence. I was talking about how even characters that are supposed to be adult, can count as not having completed puberty (in which case they are assumed to be under-age, though in Sweden, their age wouldn't count, even if it's over 18), which is something that almost everyone does, well before the age of 18. Also, if a character is know to be under 18 (e.g. they are said to be so, in the comic and/or character description), adolescent or otherwise, it's illegal.

As to the child pornography case in Sweden, I never claimed that the pictures were of adolescents or adults. Most of the pictures were clearly depictions of children, and most clearly pornographic (though very mildly so, with two or three exceptions), in some cases the age was uncertain, and a few actually looked like adults. Most memorably, there was a picture that the police "expert" was asked to put an age to, in the Court of Appeals. She said the character looked to be around 11 (or was it 10?) years old. The defendant found this rather baffling, as did I (I'd say she looked like someone in her twenties. Certainly no younger than 17, but quite possibly as old as 27) as well as most others who were watching the proceedings. It seems the court found it dubious as well, as most (possibly all, but we're not allowed to know) of the clearly non-child pictures were dropped from the sentence, in the Court of Appeals, as well as some that were deemed "not pornographic".

This doesn't take away from the fact that those pictures were deemed as illegal, before the appeal, nor the fact that an intended 40 year old can easily, according to the tanner scale, count as not having completed puberty, and thus count as child porn.

As to the blog post... I don't entirely agree with what he says about the pictures. I was really surprised by his sympathy for the "expert". Not only did she use unreliable, arbitrary, and pseudo-scientific methods (but also, in the case of drawings, quite inapplicable) to determine the "maturity" of the characters (mainly, the tanner scale) with bizarre arguments, but she made claims about child pornography that were clearly, and utterly, false (the blogger said he couldn't say, but I can! The burden of proof is on the prosecuting side, and I know that there is absolutely no evidence to back up those claims. I've looked up a lot about this. It's pretty much like the case for violent video games making kids violent. Many claim they do, but you can't determine that it's true, unless you actually have evidence, and no studies support it). How he can say that she was competent, in any way, is beyond me. Oh, and her argument for why the pics where pornographic... with most pics I agreed they were, but her reasons were bizarre (especially the one about the censoring of the vagina, drew attention to it, thus making that pic pornographic). I agree with his disappointment with the attorney, though, but I would add that the prosecutor was quite incompetent, and speaking was clearly not his strong point (he almost made you fall asleep, in his closing arguments).--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 06:15, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

What's interesting is that this blogger has a long history in manga fandom and is well versed with the codes. I missed out the last trial, but I looked up the authors of some of the acquitted images, and many or most of them clearly work in the lolikon tradition. The question whether it's helpful to ban fiction still remains, however. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he is indeed and I would be rather cross with anyone who would claim otherwise. ...and as I said, most of the pictures were of characters that are genuinely lolis, and genuinely (mildly) pornographic. I totally disagree with his opinion about the "expert", and find it utterly foolish, but that aside, I don't have any great issues (though a few minor) with his blog post. It cannot be denied that, for most of the pictures, the sentence was correct, according to the child pornography law (as many manga nerds and/or defenders and/or friends of the accused have admitted). There are two reasons why the sentence isn't correct, however

1. There are exceptions for, amongst others, "serious research". The reason he had those pictures, was keeping abreast with the current situation of manga and manga fandom in Japan, in his position as manga expert. Why would that not count?
2. The law itself goes against the Constitution of Sweden.

There is no legitimate reason, argument or piece of evidence, to defend the position that any form of fictional pornography should be illegal. Whether it include under-age characters, infants, rape, dismemberment or anything else. No logic, reason, argument or evidence, showing their negative effects (be they direct or indirect). None. Only emotion and gut feeling, and it would be insane to let that guide laws. Besides: Free Speech isn't the protection of popular speech. Popular speech has never needed protection. Unpopular speech is what must be protected. We can't curtail another's free speech, just because we don't like it, or that it makes us feel uncomfortable or offended. It may do us good to hear it, and if we curtail the speech of others arbitrarily, one day we'll find that we are the ones curtailed, with no one, and no court, to defend us.

There is a good reason, for why there are strict (well not as strict or clear as I'd like) rules for what criteria one may use, to restrict Free Speech, and strict rules for what criteria you may not use, to restrict it.

...oh, and I also don't think the sentences so far, have been valid for one more reason: The burden of proof is supposed to on the prosecuting side, to show that the pictures are of under age "persons" (a drawing isn't a person, but the law disagrees, so...) and that they are pornographic, and they haven't really shown that. Most of the pictures are, as we all agree, but... I can understand how the determination of "pornographic" is a bit arbitrary, but the criteria for determining if a character is under age... Not that the courts would care about that, but the two reasons I stated above, will be taken up in the Supreme Court, and the accused has stated that he will not drop the issue, if he only gets freed, due to an exception of research or something. As long as the law criminalizes fictional porn, he will fight it.

If the law were to be removed, and replaced by a similar law, in the proper place for such a law (right not it's under... I guess it'd be "Disorderly conduct" in English [brott mot allmän ordning]), which only criminalizes real child porn, and not fictional such, you'd be hard pressed to find those who would have a problem with the law itself. Well, you'd still hear the argument about why it's legal to have sex at 15, but not to have naked pictures of themselves. For those who are "properly" children, there'd be no argument, however, as long as your average parents' inevitable, and innocent, pictures of their naked babies don't get criminalised. I'd still have major problems with the utterly flawed criteria for determining what is or isn't child porn, but not with the law itself, or at least not it's purpose.--ZarlanTheGreen (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation

We cannot include the name of an alleged cartooner working in porno without a reliable source, otherwise it is a WP:BLP violation and this we take very seriously. Make sure the ref you add is reliable before even thinking about restoring this name, and remeber I dont have to discuss this nor obey WP:3RR as a BLP violation is considered very serious♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)