ThreadWeaver said:
Contrabardus, you're not quite getting my point. I'm not saying I'm supporting the law as is, because I don't, but rather pointing out that if it gets violent *and* pointless, it shouldn't be allowed. I realize that minors having sex between themselves can be an integral part of a plot.
I do however believe that those that spend too much time with an activity can begin to think like that activity. They can change our personality if we let them. My godson started to show signs of this and had to have his game time curtailed. You've never finished a level on a violent game and gone, "F@!#-Yeah!!"? Now say that's the only game you've played for the last two weeks or months, many many hours each day like some teens do. The younger they are the more impressionable they are. That line of reality can break down, especially given certain societal or psychological situations. I'm definitely not saying it does for everybody, or even more than a minority. Most people can and do control themselves, but it only takes one rapist or shooter to ruin the lives of many people. That is the rationale behind what they are considering. Yes, most likely had problems or tendencies to start with, but people would shit bricks if we started psy-testing every man, woman and child to make sure they're not going to flip out on us. Also consider the impulsiveness of youth and the tendency to make rash decisions based on the flimsiest of rationales as something that they must take into account as well. So, the lines have to be drawn somewhere, somehow, and someone always hates them.
To draw a parallel to Minister Fudge in Harry Potter when he threw Hagrid in Jail, the politicians want to be seen doing something, and this kind of thing is the result. Just like the age for consensual sex and statutory rape are set, even though many or most could handle the decision and the psychological effects of said activity much earlier, politicians needed to be seen doing something, and likely slapped down an arbitrary number suggested by some "expert" based on some "research". I use quotes because the older I get the more I realize that scientific objectivity in the last 25+ years has been a joke. "Science" these days often enough amounts to a big company telling a scientist, "Get these results from your study or you'll never work in the field again." See the "Adam Ruins Nutrition" episode of the show "Adam Ruins Everything" for an example of how research is manipulated. That's why science these days HAS to be multiple independent studies.
As a reference, in my state-- and it varies by state-- child porn is defined as any picture of a minor in a sexually explicit pose or situation. It doesn't cover manga, anime or even basic nudity AFAIK. So, implied or "off screen" sex of a loli is not a problem here. However, ask yourself this, if some guy was making a move on your 11 or 12 year old daughter because of what he has seen in an anime, what would you do? I fully admit that what I just said was exactly the kind of scare tactics used on those same politicians, but as an exercise consider that question from all sides: yours, the politicians and the artists.
Your post does, however, have the slightest tinge of defending your vices. It's not meant to be insulting, rather something to consider.
I am getting your point. You're just wrong. First off, you don't have a better source than a scientific study. You have a fictional example and an anecdotal story, neither of which is reliable evidence.
Your position on scientific objectivity is also pretty unconvincing. If you have a better method of coming to a conclusion about this than multiple independent scientific peer reviewed studies performed by qualified, educated, and trained professional researchers, feel free to present that evidence. Otherwise, you're just making bald assertions with no supporting evidence.
I like Adam Ruin's Everything and I've seen that episode, but the research we're talking about here has multiple studies done over decades to support it from many different sources from all over the world. This has been studied since the 80s. It is nothing like his example in that episode. I'm well aware to be wary of certain types of studies and to be aware of whose mouth it originates from.
However, I'm also aware that with shows like Adam Ruin's Everything, while they can be very enlightening and even somewhat educational, they should also be taken with a grain of salt and researched further before you just accept what they're telling you as fact. Just like Penn and Teller's Bullshit, and they'd tell you the same thing in regard to their own show. I do like that they cite their sources and provide expert testimony, but it's still a show made largely to entertain and gets edited, sometimes a bit creatively to lean towards a particular result. Shows like that are usually about as reliable as Wikipedia. Mostly trustworthy, but probably missing a few important details and requiring outside verification. Most of the time it checks out for the most part, but incorrect or incomplete enough that it's still not wise to just accept it at face value.
In order to discredit evidence of this kind, you need better evidence that counters the findings. A statement of mistrust in regard to the current scientific community isn't a counter claim and is quite frankly nothing but a conspiracy theory. It is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence to confirm it. There would need to be an absurd amount of conspiring between several different independent sources all over the world that have nothing to gain by conspiring together to falsify results. That's unlikely to the point of absurdity, especially considering that the conspiracy would have had to have held together for more than thirty years. The logistics of that make it improbable to the point that considering it is silly.
The evidence does not support your position.
Link to White paper that includes data from the source of this chart as well as links to several other independent studies that support the findings.
Your position is quite frankly not defensible according to the evidence we have from multiple independent studies on games and how they relate to violence and criminal behavior.
The only correlation shown is a mild increase in minor aggressive behavior, there is no evidence this translates to major criminal acts or serious violence, the opposite is the actual case. It shows a reduction in such behaviors. The aggressive behavior shown amounts to nothing more than play level behaviors. For example, a child who plays a violent video game is more likely to prefer playing with a toy gun or plastic sword over say a ball or board game and will likely want to play a more competitive game.
The effect is not really any different than a child who plays a physical sport such as football or hockey. Increased activity levels, more assertive behavior and language, and it generally calms down after a very short period, usually within an hour or so.
In fact, longer play periods and more frequent sessions with such games actually shows a reduction in such behaviors. This suggests that it's just an initial reaction that doesn't have a long term effect on behavior. Other influences have a much larger effect on behaviors of the sort you're talking about, games actually seem to reduce such tendencies.
If you force a kid off a video game, the child will show frustration. Just like if you took any other toy from them before they lost interest in it. The frustration of being left unsatisfied and prematurely being taken away from the activity is the source of negative behaviors, not the games themselves. It doesn't really matter if the reason the child is being separated from play is good or not. Exercising parental authority causes children to get upset and frustrated all the time, which often leads to bad behavior. Games are just an easy scapegoat to blame and show no evidence of being the direct cause violent or not.
Addiction is a separate issue, and again, not the cause of violent behaviors. It is negative and good reason to regulate play, but there's no evidence that certain types of games are worse than others as far as violent behaviors are concerned, the opposite is what the data actually shows.
The reality of it is, this stuff doesn't cause these behaviors, it just tends to attract the types of people who would behave violently, and pretty much everyone else for that matter. At risk kids aren't really made to be more or less at risk because of these games. They're just at risk to begin with because of other factors.
Aggression isn't really a bad thing and is not the same as violence. Reporting on these studies often pretends that they are the same thing, but the reality is that being assertive and engaging in more physical play is considered 'aggression' in a clinical setting, and it is largely the only behavioral change shown in these studies, and even then only temporarily and at reduced levels with continued exposure.
For example: if you allow a child to watch an Iron Man movie, the child is likely to pretend to fly around and shoot things with repulsor blasts from their hands for a bit immediately after seeing the film, probably targeting other children and adults around them with their pretend energy beams and saying things in the vein of "Boom! I blasted you!". This is 'aggressive behavior', but it is in no way a sign that the child might commit a violent act at any point in the future. This sort of behavior is less likely to occur the older the child gets, and will probably be reduced in both frequency and length the more times the child sees the film regardless of age.
The vast majority of scientists who oversee these studies are pretty adamant that there is no reason to think violent video games are any danger to children psychologically speaking and that they do not show any signs of increased risk of violent behaviors.
Put simply, no, what you're suggesting is not how it works, and the evidence backs me up on that.
There is no reason to think that anime featuring 'sexual violence' as it was put is any different. Especially in older teens and adults, who are the most likely consumers of such media.
You've got no leg to stand on here and are just making blind speculations. Research suggests the opposite of what you're suggesting is the actual reality of it.
As for your last question, it's kind of a straw man and an appeal to emotion fallacy.
First of all, there is no reason to think that a pedophile will do something like that 'because they are into loli hentai'. A pedophile will do that because they are a pedophile, which is probably why they would be into the loli hentai to begin with. Again, correlation is not causation. There's no good reason to believe that the pedophile is a pedophile because they like loli anime characters, the opposite is the more likely conclusion.
Secondly, my reaction would not factor in the pedophile's hobbies. I would care as much about the pervert's manga and anime collection as I would about what he ate for breakfast that day. I would see no reason why it would be relevant because there's no reason to think that it was. The fact that he might jerk off to rule 34 Sailor Chibi-Moon or Dora the Explorer is about as relevant to the issue as whether or not he had bacon or ham with his pancakes.
There's zero reason to think that it would have anything to do with the matter, and in fact, such things might actually help curb such urges according to research. It could be a method to help someone like that cope with their darker desires without having to act them out in real life and hurt a child doing it. There's a hell of a lot more evidence to support than than what you're suggesting.
