Online "Toon porn" - 20 views

online cartoon anime pornography ethics

started by Ang Yao Zong on 01 Sep 09

#1 Ang Yao Zong on 01 Sep 09

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6227619

This article on the MSNBC wesbite discusses the increasing popularity of online cartoons and animations with pornographic themes. These include from "hentai" (japanese anime porn), western cartoon characters and computer generated "porn characters".

Ethical question:

Can cartoon characters (involved in a pornographic theme) be deemed as being representative of humans involved in similar sexual/pornographic acts? Cartoon characters afterall, are often a product of our imagination and we can often relate (in reality) to these characters in terms of the words they say or the things they do.

On the flip side, what if stick figures or humanoids were used in such pornographic portrayal instead? Could we then argue against the portrayal of such characters or would they be deemed as not representative of a human being?

Ethical problem:

Should viewing online pornography be deemed as a negative act if an individual only intends to view such photos/pictures/videos for the sake of curiousity? How do we know if viewing pornography actually lead to action and imitation (which is one of the factors being put forward to argue against pornography)?

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner"><a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6227619" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6227619</a> <br /> <br /> This article on the MSNBC wesbite discusses the increasing popularity of online cartoons and animations with pornographic themes. These include from "hentai" (japanese anime porn), western cartoon characters and computer generated "porn characters". <br /> <br /> Ethical question: <br /> <br /> Can cartoon characters (involved in a pornographic theme) be deemed as being representative of humans involved in similar sexual/pornographic acts? Cartoon characters afterall, are often a product of our imagination and we can often relate (in reality) to these characters in terms of the words they say or the things they do. <br /> <br /> On the flip side, what if stick figures or humanoids were used in such pornographic portrayal instead? Could we then argue against the portrayal of such characters or would they be deemed as not representative of a human being? <br /> <br /> <br /> Ethical problem: <br /> <br /> Should viewing online pornography be deemed as a negative act if an individual only intends to view such photos/pictures/videos for the sake of curiousity? How do we know if viewing pornography actually lead to action and imitation (which is one of the factors being put forward to argue against pornography)?</div>

...

Cancel
#2 Weiye Loh on 01 Sep 09

All Representamen is inherently an abstraction.

Remember "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"?

Even the representation by a porn actor is nothing but an abstraction. He is not really him per se. He represents a part of him i.e. the actor part of the human being. And that representation is further abstracted into pictures, arranged in order and flipped thru at 24 frames per seconds to simulate actions.

One could argue that the level of abstraction is different as per Saussure's argument. But how does the level affects the receivers in this case i.e. pornography? Is the intensity of sexual gratifications less or more? Perhaps then, what matters is not really the representation but what the receiver interprets. After all, the interpretations says more about the receiver than about the representation.

Ang Yao Zong wrote:
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6227619
>
> This article on the MSNBC wesbite discusses the increasing popularity of online cartoons and animations with pornographic themes. These include from "hentai" (japanese anime porn), western cartoon characters and computer generated "porn characters".
>
> Ethical question:
>
> Can cartoon characters (involved in a pornographic theme) be deemed as being representative of humans involved in similar sexual/pornographic acts? Cartoon characters afterall, are often a product of our imagination and we can often relate (in reality) to these characters in terms of the words they say or the things they do.
>
> On the flip side, what if stick figures or humanoids were used in such pornographic portrayal instead? Could we then argue against the portrayal of such characters or would they be deemed as not representative of a human being?
>
>
> Ethical problem:
>
> Should viewing online pornography be deemed as a negative act if an individual only intends to view such photos/pictures/videos for the sake of curiousity? How do we know if viewing pornography actually lead to action and imitation (which is one of the factors being put forward to argue against pornography)?

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">All Representamen is inherently an abstraction. <br /> <br /> Remember "Ceci n'est pas une pipe"? <br /> <br /> Even the representation by a porn actor is nothing but an abstraction. He is not really him per se. He represents a part of him i.e. the actor part of the human being. And that representation is further abstracted into pictures, arranged in order and flipped thru at 24 frames per seconds to simulate actions. <br /> <br /> One could argue that the level of abstraction is different as per Saussure's argument. But how does the level affects the receivers in this case i.e. pornography? Is the intensity of sexual gratifications less or more? Perhaps then, what matters is not really the representation but what the receiver interprets. After all, the interpretations says more about the receiver than about the representation. <br /> <br /> Ang Yao Zong wrote: <br /> > <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6227619" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6227619</a> <br /> > <br /> > This article on the MSNBC wesbite discusses the increasing popularity of online cartoons and animations with pornographic themes. These include from "hentai" (japanese anime porn), western cartoon characters and computer generated "porn characters". <br /> > <br /> > Ethical question: <br /> > <br /> > Can cartoon characters (involved in a pornographic theme) be deemed as being representative of humans involved in similar sexual/pornographic acts? Cartoon characters afterall, are often a product of our imagination and we can often relate (in reality) to these characters in terms of the words they say or the things they do. <br /> > <br /> > On the flip side, what if stick figures or humanoids were used in such pornographic portrayal instead? Could we then argue against the portrayal of such characters or would they be deemed as not representative of a human being? <br /> > <br /> > <br /> > Ethical problem: <br /> > <br /> > Should viewing online pornography be deemed as a negative act if an individual only intends to view such photos/pictures/videos for the sake of curiousity? How do we know if viewing pornography actually lead to action and imitation (which is one of the factors being put forward to argue against pornography)?</div>

...

Cancel
#5 Low Yunying on 02 Sep 09

I think the question was phrased with the assumption that online pornography is bad in the first place. However, is pornography really bad? Has research accurately shown that pornography will lead to a whole long list of anti-social behaviour? Also, we can see from this case with online cartoons, about the ambiguous definition of pornography. So what is pornography to me, may not be to you, and hence how will we be able to determine if pornography is good or bad?

Chen Guo Lim wrote:
> I think when curiosity is concerned, there may still be a certain level of gratification that is involved.
> Say a young boy growing and begins to take notice of his genitals and sexuality, he is now curious with what his body can do, and so he turns to pornography.
>
> Is this level of gratification accceptable? He is satisfying his lust (pun intended) for information at expense of the "privacy" others, in this case the actors in the pornography.
>
> Of course one may argue that the actors did it willingly, but how do we know if this willingness stamps out from other factors such as financial lure, which ultimately objectifies, perhaps demean the human body?
>
> Going a little further, the negativity, or positivity for that matter, of pornography, is a very contextually specific issue. Given negative and positive, we are assuming that we can attach a (numerical) value to the elements, say the human body.
>
> But these values are totally arbitrary and meaningless. Therefore, the argue that pornography is meaningless is also futile, as now the morality behind pornography has been neutralised by the removal of value attached to the Human body.

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I think the question was phrased with the assumption that online pornography is bad in the first place. However, is pornography really bad? Has research accurately shown that pornography will lead to a whole long list of anti-social behaviour? Also, we can see from this case with online cartoons, about the ambiguous definition of pornography. So what is pornography to me, may not be to you, and hence how will we be able to determine if pornography is good or bad? <br /> <br /> <br /> Chen Guo Lim wrote: <br /> > I think when curiosity is concerned, there may still be a certain level of gratification that is involved. <br /> > Say a young boy growing and begins to take notice of his genitals and sexuality, he is now curious with what his body can do, and so he turns to pornography. <br /> > <br /> > Is this level of gratification accceptable? He is satisfying his lust (pun intended) for information at expense of the "privacy" others, in this case the actors in the pornography. <br /> > <br /> > Of course one may argue that the actors did it willingly, but how do we know if this willingness stamps out from other factors such as financial lure, which ultimately objectifies, perhaps demean the human body? <br /> > <br /> > Going a little further, the negativity, or positivity for that matter, of pornography, is a very contextually specific issue. Given negative and positive, we are assuming that we can attach a (numerical) value to the elements, say the human body. <br /> > <br /> > But these values are totally arbitrary and meaningless. Therefore, the argue that pornography is meaningless is also futile, as now the morality behind pornography has been neutralised by the removal of value attached to the Human body.</div>

...

Cancel
#6 Weiye Loh on 02 Sep 09

I must correct that never in my arguments did I mentioned that the interpreter is the problem. I was merely answering YZ's question if cartoon characters can be deemed as representative of human beings. And as I've shown, all representations are abstractions. So the separation between what constitutes a representative representation and a non representative representation is false. This is regardless of the creator's intent. =)

<div class="cArrow"> </div><div class="cContentInner">I must correct that never in my arguments did I mentioned that the interpreter is the problem. I was merely answering YZ's question if cartoon characters can be deemed as representative of human beings. And as I've shown, all representations are abstractions. So the separation between what constitutes a representative representation and a non representative representation is false. This is regardless of the creator's intent. =)</div>

...

Cancel

To Top

Start a New Topic » « Back to the New Media Ethics 2009 course group

Start a New Topic