Is Mahou Sensei Negima Child Pornography?

So thread over then?

Well l we could always discuss if other shows are kiddie porn or not.

I'm not as confident as to try to defence Strike Witches for example :S

edited 24th Oct '11 4:10:44 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Strike Witches... I really don't know what to do with that. On other hand, it's not porn, per se. Yet, girls are clearly underage and no doubt there is limited amount of sexualisation. To use incorrect, but while accepted term,it's ecchi. Line between porn and ecchi is thin to say atleast.

edited 24th Oct '11 4:30:31 AM by Mandemo

Oddly Chuck Yeager seems to be a fan of the show by the screenshots of it on his Myspace page. So I guess it can't be all bad.

edited 24th Oct '11 4:47:25 AM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

I'm a little confused by the "If sexualized portrayal of minors is wrong, then why is it okay to feature rape in media?" arguement.

If a work of media is showing rape in a glorified way, then it should not be doing that!

Unhealthy urges shouldn't be fed, they should be discouraged.

edited 24th Oct '11 8:21:55 AM by RTaco

Defining the lolicon is the tricky part.

Take Chu-Bra!! for instance. It's a manga about a middle school girl undergoing puberty whose hobby and passion happens to be designing and fitting underwear. On one hand, the topics of growing up are handled maturely and intelligently, and not once are the character objectified or dehumanized. On the other hand, it's a manga about a middle school girl undergoing puberty whose hobby and passion happens to be designing and fitting underwear.

Growing up and puberty are topics for media. They will inevitably involve discussion of the development of sexual characteristics among minors. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's all porn.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

I've been thinking about this all night, and I've calmed down a bit. I still have two things left to say, though.

For the first argument, would you say that pedophiles are worse than white supremacists? If not, then would you advocate banning The Turner Diaries? Or would you argue that it's enough for society to make clear that any white supremacist who actually kills a black person will go to jail for it? (It's a hell of a lot easier to stop being a white supremacist than to stop being a pedophile.)

The other argument, and the real reason I flipped out last night, was that I was like you when I discovered the Fetishes thread. I looked at the stuff people posted, and I wondered why the hell they weren't in jail. It took me time to realize that many of the posters with the sickest tastes were completely harmless (e.g. I Yellalot) or even admirable (e.g. Zersk or Aondeug.) It's true that there are posters who have sick tastes and make sick arguments, but overall, the tropers with sick tastes are the ones who argue against the tropers who make sick arguments.

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

Maybe we do.

A lot of harm can stem from the Puritan reflex of "this is a dirty topic and trying to inform yourself about it is dirty!". We certainly don't need pornographic representation of minors. But hiding from the topic isn't helping anybody.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

If someone actually saw a problem with being a white supremacist, they would be far more deserving of acceptance than someone who made no effort to work through these feelings, and demanded to be treated like everyone else despite their abhorrent views. In the same way, a pedophile who wants to seek treatment and therapy for their sexual proclivities, and recognizes that there is a problem with wanting to have sex with children, deserves the acceptance and support that someone who claims that having sex with children is a good and natural impulse does not.

Irrelevant, because pedophilia is not just any fetish; it's one that is dangerous and harmful if acted on. If someone has an impulse that, by its very nature, will cause harm to someone else, they should not simply sit there and expect everyone else to accept that fact. Either they can get help, or they can deal with the social consequences of expressing a desire to harm others, especially, I might add, children.

Now, as for banning certain works because we find them offensive; I'm a strong supporter of artistic creativity, however, I think that all artistic expression is subject to criticism, but not necessarily censorship. We can certainly look at the work and point out what we find distasteful, but to ban works on that basis alone is placing ourselves at the beginning of a slippery slope.

edited 24th Oct '11 9:26:10 AM by tropetown

Why are we talking about pedophilia when the vast majority of the girls in Mahou Sensei Negima have hit puberty - quite emphatically?

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

Because some people seem to be supporters of pedophilia. I don't think this show would count as child porn, obviously.

Generally, pedos are Fan Dumb and the pedo hunters are Hate Dumb as well.

TU NE CEDE MALIS CLASS OF 1971

NOT SAYING IT IS.

But as you are acknowledging, there's a difference between portrayal of minors as seen in Chu-Bra and, say, the portrayal of Mikan in To Love Ru (what the fuck is wrong with Darkness, I mean, seriously >__<). These differences emerge as a result of how the characters act and are reacted to in-story, not as a result of exactly what is shown on a page.

Umm, not quite. I'm arguing that there are forms of media that can be very informative on child psychology re: sexuality and puberty that others would define as lolicon. The key point here is not to argue semantics, but to argue that there's a real difficulty in meaningfully defining lolicon as harmful. Yeah, kids, pick up a book in a culture where the rest of the media is split evenly between pressuring you to become more like an adult and making you feel like a deviant for even considering the topic. Then turn into an adult who can get demonized for trying to understand what you may not have learned properly as a child.

Kids learn what we teach them, whether it's what we intended to teach them or not.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

We do accept that fact when people in the Fetishes thread express their desire to harm adults rather than children. We seem to understand that they're mature enough and in control enough not to actually do these things. What makes pedos any less in control of themselves than people who fantasize about raping or sexually mutilating adults?

(Please don't respond to this by saying that those who fetishize the rape or sexual mutilation of adults also need help. There are a lot of people with such fantasies on this forum, and like I said above, some of them are more admirable than many of the more vanilla posters.)

edited 24th Oct '11 9:39:33 AM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

....y'know, why am I even in this argument again? I'm a self-professed Cake Eater.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

There's a difference between accepting that fact in a small, insulated community, and expecting society as a whole to do the same. You are not in any danger from someone like that over the computer; however, someone who expresses that desire in the outside world can't be surprised when people who are a part of his community do not wish to be harmed, and act accordingly. Plus, adults are better able to defend themselves than children are; attacking a child is attacking a helpless victim, and attacking an innocent person who can't defend themselves against you is reprehensible, whether it's a child or an adult.

Again, if someone recognizes the fact that their desires are harmful, and wishes to get treatment for them, they certainly have a right to expect the support and acceptance of the community around them. If they say "I really want to molest kids, but it's all good", they have no right to complain when people see them as potential child rapists. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Nobody is forcing anyone to get help; however, if they say it's OK to want to hurt a child, they can't expect anyone to go along with that.

edited 24th Oct '11 9:48:17 AM by tropetown

Also, one of the differences is someone with, say, rape fantasies can find a CONSENTING ADULT willing to playact it out with them. That's a lot harder for someone with an exclusive attraction to people who look like children.

...not impossible, I suppose, but...

edited 24th Oct '11 9:59:33 AM by Katrika

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

. . .

Maybe I've been operating from the wrong premise all along. I have little desire to have sex, so I keep assuming that it's irrelevant what you're attracted to—if you're into something harmful, it's not that hard to sustain yourself on fantasies. But everyone else seems to take it for granted that abstinence is impossible for most people, and from this, it's an easy logical leap to say that someone who's into something harmful is necessarily a danger to others. (If that's actually true, my respect for the entire human race just went down a notch.)

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

No, abstinance is totally possible! The only problem is that while SOME people can control themselves THROUGH fantasies, for other people fantasies will just draw them in more and more, and it's hard to tell which type someone is. For the people who abstain best when they're basically going cold turkey and occupying themselves with other pursuits, the mentality that 'it's totally okay to be attracted to children as long as you just read erotic comics about fictional children' can be very harmful, because pedophilic tendancies are absolutely something that one needs to get under control.

Just because someone is a pedophile, it doesn't mean they're an automatically bad person as long as they're not a molester or using pictures of real children. However, pedophilic tendancies ARE a bad thing, which is why they have to be kept under control. If you're afraid to get help for fear of being labled a bad person, that can inhibit your ability to keep yourself under control - not because you're a bad person but because it's HARD to do things on your own. Therapy can't 'cure' pedophiles, but safe, anonymous support groups of people with pedophilic tendancies seem like a good idea. It's a good thing to know you're not alone, and there's people out there who don't think you're a monster.

I hope I've made sense.

edited 24th Oct '11 10:21:48 AM by Katrika

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic

Also, as a note, pedophilia is not socially acceptable in japan. No, really, it's not. The people who say, 'I'm not a pedophile, I'm a lolicon' are MISSING THE POINT, because in japanese lolicon MEANS pedophile. If someone has pedophilic urges, it's not healthy for them to deny they have those urges, because then they won't try to get help or support for them. The mentality of lolicon =/= pedophile is a mentality of denial and repression.

"You fail to grasp the basic principles of mad science. Common sense would be cheating." - Narbonic