poketeased - inappropriate?

[Nezhul]

how the hell do they look underage? The drawings of those girls have big boobs, developed body. It's not like they are anything close to loli. Let's hear it - how do you judge that the drawn girl is underaged now?

[janmb]

What Nez said.... I think a lot of hentai looks underage. Ironically this is not as much the case here...

[Wyatt]

Everyone wants a rule that says this is ok and this isn't, I know I would. Unfortunatly there are always going to be gray areas. I look at each tease as a seperate work then I look at it as a whole. What is the setting, is it obviously in an elementary school? What are they doing, playing with child toys? How old do they look?

This tease is one of those in the gray area. I looked at it a few times. I tried to find something wrong with it so I wouldn't miss anything. I'm not a fan of Anime so I did some research on Wikipedia. I followed the thread so I could see what other members think. When I put it all together I didn't see anything obviously wrong with it.

Because of the nature of this type of tease I will be watching them closely. If you think they are inappropriate report them.

(Subject to review by seraphOx)

Wyatt

[seraph0x]

The worst part about administrating this site are those rare occasions where we have to take down a tease where obviously a great deal of work has gone into it. Our rule is that we do not allow underage models (in images) or underage characters of any kind. Most characters in the Pokemon series are very young, definitely underage, so they are most definitely not allowed to feature in teases on our site.

Rules are rules and the rule about no underage characters is stated clearly on the "Create Tease" page. So I have to take down this tease.

[janmb]

Not that it is relevant for this tease or this site in any way, but this kinda begs another interesting question:

If most (or some) of those characters are indeed supposedly underage in their original context, why on earth is the original series allowed in general at all?

All I see are highly sexualised characters with huge boobs, cameltoes and whatnot - something that is clearly a part of the original cartoon and not added by the tease here on milo. If those characters are indeed supposed to be underage in the original cartoon stories, the entire cartoon ought to be targeted for promoting underage sex imo - and not just the tease derivative here on milo.

(and again, speaking in general and out of general bewilderment - I fully agree it has nothing to do with milovana in any way)

[mangoman]

Come on, milovana. I thought better of you. Now we censor things? whats next, a tease where somebody is kicked in the balls? some underage kid could come across that tease. my god... I'm about 21 and I play these games, memories of my childhood, and I would bet 1000$ that there are many GROWN MEN who like this series. and im not a creeper or something AT ALL.

I hate this. I wanted to "play" that tease tonight. I was looking forward to it since its release.

censorship is not the way.

[janmb]

Cartoons are a different story entirely, as they do not involve someone too young to fend for themselves.

*The following is a comment on general anthropology and politics and not limited to milovana at all*

And since I'm definitely going to piss of a lot of people by what follows, let me also add another disclaimer: I do NOT in any way or form condone, defend or encourage underage sex, underage porn, or pedophilia in ANY way or form.

Now to the point: You have a very good point there flash

Most modern communities are very misguided when it comes to WHY the strict rules and laws regarding underage porn is there at all. It is exclusively to protect children from being abused - and NOT to prevent people from having pedophile tendencies.

To put it blunt: Lets remember that being a pedophile is not illegal and nor can it ever be. Why? Because what turns people on sexually is first of all a personal thought and therefore 100% private, and secondly because as far as I understand things, sexual preferences are basically nothing you choose voluntarily.

In much the same way as I don't control or have any way of changing the fact that I get turned on by women and turned off big-time by guys, I suspect pedophiles have just as little choice in what turns them on and not. Nor do I for a second buy the idea that fighting it prevents people from becoming pedophiles in the first place. That is every bit as misguided as the idea a lot of communities world-wide had until fairly recently, that gay people somehow suffered from a disease and ought to be cured.

Pedophilia becomes a problem the second someone acts on it - in real life and including other underage people. And that is where the law kicks in as well. Someone jerking off to porn they conceive as underage, whether is is actually the case or not, is never really a problem at all.


It's never right wanting to control other people's thoughts and values. Even if some values can be scary, sickening, or merely different than your own.

I could never understand someone that is turned on sexually by kids. I could never accept someone acting out those values where kids are included. But despite that I realize and acknowledge that it is not my place to say what people should think - as long as that is all they do.


And based on that line of thinking, flash is entirely right that cartoons should never be included in the whole concept of underage porn at all - since the cartoons (characters) hardly need protection from abuse.

That being said, there are obviously other reasons any given site and community might have for limiting such content even if the underage sex or porn laws don't apply: If something offends an extreme majority of a community, removing it might make sense. I know seraph has generally been VERY restrictive with going down that slippery slope before - then again I can easily imagine this particular topic being a very sensitive one for a LOT of the users of this site. (ironically that includes myself, although I would never let my own feelings be forced upon others by means of censorship)

[Nezhul]

Seraphox, you are seriously WRONG on this one.
There's been a lot said about it above, but I'll add one more thing that was mentioned already, but I'll twist the thought a bit.

Are cartoon characters permanently stuck in the underage state? I meen, how old is the show? They all had a chance to turn 18 by now, and I should say they definitely LOOK like adults in the tease. That's just my streched logics reply to your sretched logics of banning this tease. This are completely new drawings of a characters that were underage (undefined age mostly) 10 years ago. They are drawn to be sexual, and tehy are DIFFERENT MEDIA. Schoolgirl porn is much, MUCH more underaged-oriented, and you don't ban it. Or should I go and find you 50 teases to ban, just in case?

[breathplayslut]

I feel the need to defend myself a bit ... I never asked for the tease to be removed. I had a question as to the general policy and how it was viewed on teases wherein the *original* content that any work was created from depicted minors. There were a lot of interesting things that were said, and some were even compelling enough for me to reconsider some of what I questioned. People tout the "censorship is wrong" flag, and manipulate perceptions to make it okay to sexualize material that depicts an underage girl - and my own opinion remains the same - its wrong. There is a base moral issue that I was curious to see how people were going to respond to (and frankly, this post has been one of the most intelligently argued that I've seen in a long while!) and I wasn't disappointed. Per the norm, there are as many differing opinions as there are people, and everybody is welcome to have them. But opinions are not facts - the facts are - the Pokemon series is a cartoon that targets a child-audience. The series shows characters that are underage, and not by a slim margin. Someone out there took these images, and manipulated or recreated them to sexualize an underage persona - whether or not that particular action was wrong or not was morally reprehensible is best left for another discussion. The tease-author then took those images, and created yet another intellectual work based on the manipulation - and I don't disagree that the tease-author did nothing wrong here. There was *no* mention of underage content in the tease. It was well written. And it was generally widely received. But I don't think that the administrator of the site has the same latitude to make judgement calls about what "might" be debated as a moral decision. There are a few well spelled out facts that force him to act. The original material depicted underage characters. The material, sexualized or not, is the type of material that a child might actively seek out, so allowing it refuge on the site is dangerous, and draws a spotlight to the site as well. Based on those facts alone, there was no real choice when it comes to a command decision. There have been a lot of subjective ideas tossed around, and one or two really bothered me. One - pedophilia is *not* a victimless crime, and it *is* illegal most everywhere. As it should be. It was said that it hurts no one so long as it isn't acted upon. True enough, but one might make the argument that sexualizing children is deviant behavior, and indicates a potential mental disorder. If one mental disorder exists, perhaps there are more. If this is the case, perhaps the portion of the psyche that allows sexual enjoyment from that circumstance also affects judgement, or decision-making. Perhaps it affects reasoning in an adverse manner. In other words, if the person gets off on the idea of interacting with kids sexually, perhaps they don't see their behavior as wrong, and feel free to explore it in the "real world". So yes, I think the idea of curtailing the availability of material that caters to it is probably warranted.

One other reason to hesitate while taking down this tease is that we don't know how old the character in question is being depicted as. Would a 10 year old have a body like that? Perhaps the illustrator was depicting the character as they would have been aged now. Maybe it's that character in a time machine, maybe this is an alternate universe that the character has been living in, and is of age. Without context, we cannot know for sure, but we can get context from the tease. The only reason I could possibly see to take down a tease because the characters depicted are too young is if the characters in the tease itself are promoting underage pornography. Once again, in this case, it is not.

In direct response to this - categorically - yes, we do. The character in question is obviously meant to be a recognizable representation of a character in a popular children show. To that end alone, we can infer that the characters age is still below what is appropriate. There's a lot of "maybes" used in the above quote - anything can be explained away with "maybes", and "might-have-beens". Rules exist for a reason, sometimes good, sometimes not so much, but in the end, they exist to protect the establishment from legal reprisals, and those who would pursue such actions aren't going to be hindered by "maybe".
I'm not sure if the decision to take the tease offline was morally correct. But from a legal and responsible standpoint, it was the only decision that could have been made.

[Nezhul]

for the first time in my life I am tempted to call someone a troll, because after reading every third line of janmb post the meaning was twisted to completely opposite and again some bullshit was said about characters being underaged and legality of the matter, i.e. those things that were discussed a lot of times, but the man pretends those posts never happened.

Really, either troll or a person reading through a wall-thick wooden moral views.

[janmb]

for the first time in my life I am tempted to call someone a troll, because after reading every third line of janmb post the meaning was twisted to completely opposite and again some bullshit was said about characters being underaged and legality of the matter, i.e. those things that were discussed a lot of times, but the man pretends those posts never happened.

Really, either troll or a person reading through a wall-thick wooden moral views.

Afraid you are just reading me wrong here Nez. Contrary to what you seem to think, I have not changed views once on this issue.

I never saw anything underage about that tease in the first place, and still don't. I don't see any underage characters there either, based on my own perception. I am not at all familiar with pokemon though, so the "age" of the original characters used I have no knowledge about. Nor do I find that relevant what so ever.

Understanding why people act as they do (when seraph chose to take it down) isn't the same thing as agreeing with it. If you somehow read my last post as backing off or turning around based on seraph choosing to take it down you seriously misread me I'm afraid. Obviously there is no point challenging his actions - they are his prerogative to make - but no, I don't agree with it.

My last comment was triggered by the excellent point made by "flash".

[Nezhul]

I wasn't talking about you, but about breathplayslut. He takes your post and turns it upside-down, pours some moral on that, and after that again goes on about characters that are CLEARLY underage. I'm ok with your post. Pedophilia in itself is not a crime while it does not involve minors (and BTW even watching pedo-porn is involving minors, because you support that kind of product and it's further production). Pedophilia, however, is a dangerous state of mind. It remains such a state even if there was no actual actions in this line = no harm is done. But most of the times the harm ends up being done. So, well, a shifty topic. But I know what you are talking about.
But breathplayslut's post just pissed me off because it's too much of either stupidity, unability to read other people posts, trollizm or the mix of things above.

[janmb]

Great, I was surprised to be rated a troll lol - glad that wasn't for me.

And yeah it is a dodgy topic for sure, but all the more important to be able to debate it properly. Most places the topic is so taboo that any debate is impossible at all.


I read his post now, and while I wouldn't call it trolling, the post contains a lot of bs in my eyes. Especially the notion tjat you can ever outlaw a set of thoughts - and even more so when they are clearly not a matter of voluntary choice at all. Where laws talk about pedophilia, they refer to actions and never thoughts. In fact it would violate human rights to moderate peoples thoughts.

[breathplayslut]

for the first time in my life I am tempted to call someone a troll, because after reading every third line of janmb post the meaning was twisted to completely opposite and again some bullshit was said about characters being underaged and legality of the matter, i.e. those things that were discussed a lot of times, but the man pretends those posts never happened.

Really, either troll or a person reading through a wall-thick wooden moral views.

First of all - not a guy. Quit assuming, I find it offensive.

Second - you may interpret what I said any way you want - but voicing my opinions is no more trolling than you expressing yours - so at least have the courtesy to recognize that fact.

The fact that the characters is not bullshit - its the basis for the tease being removed in the first place. I genuinely don't understand how you can not understand that.

No, I didn't pretend I didn't read them, I actively recall making mention to several posts that actually changed my thought process on several levels. Just because I didn't spell them out in detail doesn't mean I didn't recognize them.

And yeah it is a dodgy topic for sure, but all the more important to be able to debate it properly. Most places the topic is so taboo that any debate is impossible at all.


I read his post now, and while I wouldn't call it trolling, the post contains a lot of bs in my eyes. Especially the notion tjat you can ever outlaw a set of thoughts - and even more so when they are clearly not a matter of voluntary choice at all. Where laws talk about pedophilia, they refer to actions and never thoughts. In fact it would violate human rights to moderate peoples thoughts.

I never said that they should outlaw a thought process. But perhaps recognizing potentially dangerous patterns of behavior is a good idea? This is a similar topic to the gun control issue - because one person went out and shot up a school, should they outlaw all semi-automatic weapons? Because one drunk driver got in a car wreck and hit a school bus, should they outlaw all cars? Or should they identify potentially dangerous behavior, and make an attempt to get to the root of the problem?

And Nezhul, you're not above calling people a troll whenever you can't find a suitable argument. I've read your posts in the past, you get to a certain point where you feel like your position is being undermined in some way, so you resort to calling people trolls and trying to damage their credibility. Feel free to disagree with any particular part of what I said, but at least be intelligent about it. Don't resort to petty namecalling.

[janmb]

What you need to understand though, is that a thought process is all pedophilia is... the mental state that some people have, where they are sexually aroused by young people. Nothing illegal there.

Behaviour is a different ballpark, at least when involving others. And that's where the law draws the line as well.

No need to be offended by people disagreeing with you