Sickening Japanese porn - Pretty much SFW

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

what about children who get lured away and forced to take part in Sexual

gAMES. nyroroin i AM SURE that if your son was lured away and made to perform for the camera of paeodphile you might change your mind.


It is SICK!!!!! I disagree with your view on this subject.

we need to protect our children-- there are some nasty people and PORN begets more sick porn. I loathe it.

That is blatant child pornography, and not what I was talking about at all. It`s criminal, and is awful. I have not and would not defend someone doing something like that.

I would most certainly have a problem with my child being lured away by anyone for any reason, even if there was nothing sexual involved. That is kidnapping, and an entirely different subject.

What I do NOT have a problem with is parents being in control of NON-pornographic modeling activities. And no, pictures of a child in a bathing suit are not pornography.

If a parent takes their child to a photo shoot, with a cameraman telling them to jump around, spin and twirl, look up at the camera, pick up a ball, pose like such and such, etc etc and takes pictures of them (some from questionable angles, but not blatant pronography) - how is that a sexual game? How has the child been lured away? How is the child being abused? What someone does with a photo has no effect on the individual in the photo. My son would not be damaged no matter what someone thought about while looking at a photo of him. No matter what someone did to that photo.

Actually doing something to him would be stepping far far over that line, and obviously is not something I would agree with in any way.

What is being discussed is modelling done with parental permission, under parental supervision - the results of which are photos that could be considered suggestive. Not pedophiles kidnapping and abusing children.

I have to say I have some VERY suggestive looking home photos of my husband taken when he was 6 or 7 that out rank most anything I have seen sold. He was not abused, was not traumatized, and they are just photos that came out that way. At the modeling agencies, they have pros who are good at finding just the right angle and most suggestive pic out of thousands of burst shots while a child is playing around. It doesn`t mean that anything happened to the child or that there is any abuse going on.

[siokan]

Originally Posted by skunkfish

That's awful. Do you have any links to reference?

It presents it to you who doesn't know "shame".

Constitution of Japan
http://law.e-gov.go.jp/htmldata/H11/H11HO052.html
Prefectural Ordinance
http://www8.cao.go.jp/youth/kenkyu/j...pdf_index.html


Child pornography site hosting
world police　61.72% Kimchi 7.95% Vodka 7.95% feijoada completa 7.11%
pizza 2.49% ..... susi0.97%

Child pornography site access user
world police　22% Beer 14.57% Vodka 8.39% fish&chips 7.02%
pizza 6.14%　croissant 3.56% maple syrup　3.16% ......susi 1.74%

&
Child Sexual Abuse
beer　115.2 per 100,000 people
fish&chips 101.5 per 100,000 people
world police 59.4 per 100,000 people
Kimchi 16.9 per 100,000 people
susi 6.8 per 100,000 people

1.jpg

[dogsbody70]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

That is blatant child pornography, and not what I was talking about at all. It`s criminal, and is awful. I have not and would not defend someone doing something like that.

I would most certainly have a problem with my child being lured away by anyone for any reason, even if there was nothing sexual involved. That is kidnapping, and an entirely different subject.

What I do NOT have a problem with is parents being in control of NON-pornographic modeling activities. And no, pictures of a child in a bathing suit are not pornography.

If a parent takes their child to a photo shoot, with a cameraman telling them to jump around, spin and twirl, look up at the camera, pick up a ball, pose like such and such, etc etc and takes pictures of them (some from questionable angles, but not blatant pronography) - how is that a sexual game? How has the child been lured away? How is the child being abused? What someone does with a photo has no effect on the individual in the photo. My son would not be damaged no matter what someone thought about while looking at a photo of him. No matter what someone did to that photo.

Actually doing something to him would be stepping far far over that line, and obviously is not something I would agree with in any way.

What is being discussed is modelling done with parental permission, under parental supervision - the results of which are photos that could be considered suggestive. Not pedophiles kidnapping and abusing children.

I have to say I have some VERY suggestive looking home photos of my husband taken when he was 6 or 7 that out rank most anything I have seen sold. He was not abused, was not traumatized, and they are just photos that came out that way. At the modeling agencies, they have pros who are good at finding just the right angle and most suggestive pic out of thousands of burst shots while a child is playing around. It doesn`t mean that anything happened to the child or that there is any abuse going on.

I have not looked at the original website posted on here. I thought it was all PORN which makes me feel sick



We are not allowed to take photos of our children in plays, Nativity plays nowadays-- nor video them.

I pass a childrens playground every day but am not allowed to talk to the children-- even though Ipass almost every day when I walk my dogs.

[MMM]

Originally Posted by Nyororin

My son would not be damaged no matter what someone thought about while looking at a photo of him. No matter what someone did to that photo.

That may have been true 20 years ago, but now, thanks to the Internet, these photos may come back to haunt a child when they get older.

[RobinMask]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

We are not allowed to take photos of our children in plays, Nativity plays nowadays-- nor video them.

I pass a childrens playground every day but am not allowed to talk to the children-- even though Ipass almost every day when I walk my dogs.

It's quite interesting really to compare the two cultures. I know here there is such a fear that anything to do with children may be misinterpretted or sexualised, any interaction with children (aside from family) seems to be something to be feared. To add to what you said I know that in schools the teachers can't even hug young pupils or apply plasters if the fall over in the playground, just in case it's misconstrued as being more than it is. In fact they did an experiment a while ago with a child actor on a busy road crying and unsupervised, hardly any adult males stopped to check whether the child was okay, and when interviewed afterwards it was said they feared what people would think of them. . .

I think whilst it's good that there isn't really that kind of stigma in Japan, it seems a little extreme the other extent. . . I agree with some of the other posters that the pictures of children are far too sexualised. No, the child isn't being hurt or put in danger, but the only people who'd appreciate such overly sexual images would be a certain type of person. . . I think it kind of normalises the urges people might have. It's not right to see children as sexual, and if they appear as such and a more dangerous/predatory person sees it then surely it sends out a message that their desires are normal? It seems risky to me, as if it's encouraging the behaviour.

[Ronin4hire]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

I have not looked at the original website posted on here. I thought it was all PORN which makes me feel sick



We are not allowed to take photos of our children in plays, Nativity plays nowadays-- nor video them.

I pass a childrens playground every day but am not allowed to talk to the children-- even though Ipass almost every day when I walk my dogs.

That's an over-reaction in the other direction in my opinion.

[Columbine]

The main thing that bothers me with the whole child-model photobooks, U15 idol genre, is that when I was in japan, I only ever saw it in two places- one was in a shop down-town that sold a variety of idol books, but also quite a lot of the posey-sexy pin-up sort and out and out still-porn. Never mind the seedy DVDs. The other was in a vending machine not so far from my friends apartment. The bottom row was U15 photobooks, the rest was...not. Not advertised as porn, maybe, but it's not unheard of for the industry to shake hands with it.

Ok, I can accept that the books themselves are relatively innocent; they aren't explicitly marketed as porn, some publications are clearly seedier than others, I do see -some- of Nyororin's points, and OK, I get that Japanese culture is geared differently and porn rubs shoulders with a lot of things with any kind of fan-base and that's socially A-OK, but... should photos of little kids really be in there too? And it does seem to be aimed predominantly at men, so the idea makes me really uncomfortable.

It could equally be argued that swimsuits and gym clothes are standard child clothing and they aren't any more revealing than they might wear in public anyway, but neither would most parents allow unrelated men they don't know to pay to view their child in those clothes.

Whatever is said (quite rightly) that the child is not exposed to any -direct- harm, you are still effectively selling their image to a fan-base which, statistically and given it's commercial selling point, is more likely to comprise of a higher percentage of pedophiles than other consumer groups. I can't really say I think that's fair on the child- they have no chance to give proper informed consent until long after the fact. I can't say I'd want to grow up and realize "Jeeze, when I was 8, I was probably some pedophile's pin-up...".

Also who's to say the parents ~are~ protective? Most abuse cases are by close relatives, or perhaps the parents come into it naively and are then pressured into agreeing beyond what they originally intended to agree to, even by a small degree. I don't know how the industry is regulated, but if some of the photo's out there are truly as awful as GoNative says, then it's clearly not enough.

And I kind of disagree that "the biggest difference between a child modeling a swimsuit in a clothing catalog and in a magazine is mostly the angle of the photo and the poses they choose to use." The biggest difference is that the clothing catalog is only trying to sell the swimsuit- the magazine will sell the child.

[GoNative]

Here is a reasonably interesting article from the Japan Times looking at the same issue we are discussing.

Child porn hard to define, stop | The Japan Times Online

[Nyororin]

Originally Posted by dogsbody70

I have not looked at the original website posted on here. I thought it was all PORN which makes me feel sick

I assure you, porn and abuse of children makes me ill.
It is the legal stuff that is not pornography that I was talking about.

We are not allowed to take photos of our children in plays, Nativity plays nowadays-- nor video them.

I pass a childrens playground every day but am not allowed to talk to the children-- even though Ipass almost every day when I walk my dogs.

I find this also pretty disgusting, to be honest.
Children cannot live in a bubble. There really aren`t that many pedophiles out there. Their numbers have been going down from what I understand... And regardless most abuse is by someone close to the child - not by a stranger. Stranger abduction and abuse is extremely rare.

By making it so incredibly hard for anyone without a direct family link to the child to get to know them or intervene, it makes it easier for abuse to happen. Being too concerned is suspicious, so people will actually ignore signs of a problem because they are concerned about what people will think of them for getting involved. Robinmask gives a good example with the crying child study.

Just last night while shopping, a small boy lost and crying for his mother was scooped up by an older man and carried over to the service desk. No one suspected him of anything, and the mother thanked him profusely as apparently the boy had snuck on to an elevator when she wasn`t looking and was on a different floor. Teachers at my son`s kindergarten hug him, pick him up, encourage the kids to give each other hugs, etc. Mothers and fathers coming to pick their children up will often stop and play with other children too, and no one leaps to assume they have ulterior motives.
I think it`s very sad to limit a child`s contact with the rest of the world based on a fear of a bogeyman that is hundreds of times more likely to be close family if there at all.

That may have been true 20 years ago, but now, thanks to the Internet, these photos may come back to haunt a child when they get older.

Let us assume that there is a culture where boys are dressed as little girls until they are 10. In 10 years, at 20 - will those photos haunt the guy? No. There isn`t a cultural stigma against them.
Japan doesn`t have the sort of stigma against those sort of pictures as somewhere else. I went to school with a girl who did modeling as a child, and she was the first to show off the photos. There was even a video of them following her around while she played in a bathing suit, etc. It clearly wasn`t haunting, as there wasn`t the stigma or reaction that would be received in a western country.

And I kind of disagree that "the biggest difference between a child modeling a swimsuit in a clothing catalog and in a magazine is mostly the angle of the photo and the poses they choose to use." The biggest difference is that the clothing catalog is only trying to sell the swimsuit- the magazine will sell the child.

That is what happens to the photo after it has been taken. This is where my opinion seems to differ greatly from the common western one. What happens to the photo after it has been taken has no direct effect on the person in the photo. Whether the photos are used in a catalog or a magazine doesn`t change the experience of the photos being taken.

Most of these photo things are one-shots. Parents take their children to a modelling photographer, where a bunch of pictures are taken. Different styles of shots are sent off to different publications and agencies. 99.99% of the time that is the end of it and 80,000yen has been wasted on high priced photos. Occasionally, a magazine will pay to publish a few of the photos to gauge interest and sales potential - popping them into the magazines that are aimed at the audience most likely to pump cash into the idol industry. If a certain one of them stands out, they may ask for more photos or refer them to another photographer for a shoot. Most of the time though, the photographer is not affiliated with the magazine at all if the photos are not pornography.

When these magazines get into deep trouble, it`s when they solicit girls who are old enough to think they`re giving permission... And take advantage of that. (Think the around 18 set) It`s still child pornography, but it`s a LOT different to lure a 17 year old into stripping for the camera than a 12 year old.

[RealJames]

People who grow up in one culture have a tendency to not be able to notice it's own flaws.
Moreover they are biased and defensive when weighing them against flaws of other countries.

Yes, rape and lolita porn is a huge issue in Japan, so is the Delivery Health industry, where sex can be sold in all ways short of vaginal penetration.

But, regardless of where you live, I bet you there are equally despicable traits of your own country which measure up to these, regardless of how desensitized to them you may be.

Morally, America has nothing on Japan in the big picture, on a few details perhaps.

To the OP; if you look anywhere, you'll find darkness that sickens you. But if you are blind to it in your own home then perhaps you should withhold judgment.