If it’s clear they have broken laws (they post/talk about using child porn, admit to things they’ve done with minors, etc), go fill out a form here ( https://tips.fbi.gov ) to make the FBI aware and bring this filth to justice. Every single one. And if there’s no proof of criminal offense, then go on and flag them, at least then they aren’t here to prey on children on the internet.
“Shihoko Fujiwara runs Lighthouse, a nonprofit for exploited children. She told CNN she once worked on a case where a predator used a cartoon to convince a child that sex abuse was normal. “So the pedophiles might bring the animation and say ‘this is how you practice with adults,’” she said.
Child abuse in Japan
While no link has been made between anime, manga and child abuse, Japan is facing a “serious” child abuse problem, according to a White Paper issued by the National Police Agency in March.
The paper said the number of child abuse victims jumped 20% between 2011 and 2012, and the number of victims, arrests and cases are at their highest levels since they started compiling statistics in 1999.
At the same time, the number of cleared child pornography crime cases rose to 1,596, the highest ever recorded, the paper said. Most – 85% – were Internet-related. The figures inspired the U.S. State Department to label Japan as an “international hub” for producing and trafficking child pornography.
The U.S. report noted that no national law addresses the “unfettered availability of sexual explicit cartoons, comics and video games, some of which depicted scenes of violent sexual abuse and the rape of children.
It added: ‘While the NPA continued to maintain that no link was established between these animated images and child victimization, other experts suggested children are harmed by a culture that appears to accept child sexual abuse.”
This needs to be fucking slam-dunked in the faces of every single abhorrent and disgusting pedophile and/or pedo-apologist that wants to cry and whine about how fictitious child pornography doesn’t contribute to nor perpetuate CSA just as real footage or photographs of children does; those disgusting clods who insist that fictitious depictions of children in sexual situations doesn’t somehow normalize the idea that sexualizing
children is okay, and that it doesn’t ~actually~ harm anyone… as if this form of child pornography exists in a vacuum.
Lolicon and Shotacon are child pornography. They hurt children in Japan, and most likely children in other various places world-wide where this type of child pornography spreads. Why? Because child pornography is child pornography, plain and simple, and every last bit of it is toxic and harmful… and this particular variety only makes it easier for pedophiles to victimize children due to its “appealing” style, so don’t you dare ever say that it’s somehow more acceptable for child pornography to exist and that it’s somehow not harmful - all because it’s DRAWN.
“Shihoko Fujiwara runs Lighthouse, a nonprofit for exploited children. She told CNN she once worked on a case where a predator used a cartoon to convince a child that sex abuse was normal. “So the pedophiles might bring the animation and say ‘this is how you practice with adults,’” she said.
Child abuse in Japan
While no link has been made between anime, manga and child abuse, Japan is facing a “serious” child abuse problem, according to a White Paper issued by the National Police Agency in March.
The paper said the number of child abuse victims jumped 20% between 2011 and 2012, and the number of victims, arrests and cases are at their highest levels since they started compiling statistics in 1999.
At the same time, the number of cleared child pornography crime cases rose to 1,596, the highest ever recorded, the paper said. Most – 85% – were Internet-related. The figures inspired the U.S. State Department to label Japan as an “international hub” for producing and trafficking child pornography.
The U.S. report noted that no national law addresses the “unfettered availability of sexual explicit cartoons, comics and video games, some of which depicted scenes of violent sexual abuse and the rape of children.
It added: ‘While the NPA continued to maintain that no link was established between these animated images and child victimization, other experts suggested children are harmed by a culture that appears to accept child sexual abuse.”
This needs to be fucking slam-dunked in the faces of every single abhorrent and disgusting pedophile and/or pedo-apologist that wants to cry and whine about how fictitious child pornography doesn’t contribute to nor perpetuate CSA just as real footage or photographs of children does; those disgusting clods who insist that fictitious depictions of children in sexual situations doesn’t somehow normalize the idea that sexualizing
children is okay, and that it doesn’t ~actually~ harm anyone… as if this form of child pornography exists in a vacuum.
Lolicon and Shotacon are child pornography. They hurt children in Japan, and most likely children in other various places world-wide where this type of child pornography spreads. Why? Because child pornography is child pornography, plain and simple, and every last bit of it is toxic and harmful… and this particular variety only makes it easier for pedophiles to victimize children due to its “appealing” style, so don’t you dare ever say that it’s somehow more acceptable for child pornography to exist and that it’s somehow not harmful - all because it’s DRAWN.
they built their career off of Pete’s pedophilic relationship. you don’t just “stop” being a pedophile. i don’t care how long ago it was, i don’t care if you think he’s “changed”. you want to protect the children and victims of csa? start fucking showing it. stop protecting pedophiles.
if u work at retail stores esp targeted towards young girls (forever 21, charlotte russe etc) be super aware of middle aged men who enter the store alone!! I’ve lost count of men who just enter to stare at teenage girls, they all leave when they see me approach them, some even had the gall to fucking lie to my face to tell me they’re looking for something for their wife and daughter! don’t ever believe them, you can really tell when they are actually here for shit like that!! don’t take your eyes off these men!! protect girls!!
yeah bc i know that i’ve had my dad go into places to get me something as a present or w/e and i’m 100% sure the first thing he did every time was walk up to an employee and be like “help me find this so i can get out of here asap” like u can tell when it’s not right
here’s a question: if vladimir nabokov’s “lolita” is truly the psychological portrait of a messed up dude and not the girl — let alone a sexualized little girl, as all of the sexualization happens inside humbert humbert’s head — then why do all the covers focus on a girl, and usually a sexy aspect of a girl, usually quite young, and none of them feature a portrait of humbert humbert?
here are nabokov’s original instructions for the book cover:
I want pure colors, melting clouds, accurately drawn details, a sunburst above a receding road with the light reflected in furrows and ruts, after rain. And no girls. … Who would be capable of creating a romantic, delicately drawn, non-Freudian and non-juvenile, picture for LOLITA (a dissolving remoteness, a soft American landscape, a nostalgic highway—that sort of thing)? There is one subject which I am emphatically opposed to: any kind of representation of a little girl.
and yet, the representations of the sexy little girl abound.
i became driven by curiousity. why did this happen? why is this happening?
i am not alone — there’s a book about this, with several essays and artists’ conceptions about the politics and problems of representation surrounding the covers of “lolita.” this new yorker article gives a summary of the book and its ideas, and interviews one of the editors:
Many of the covers guilty of misrepresenting Lolita as a teen seductress feature images from Hollywood movie adaptations of the book— Kubrick’s 1962 version, starring Sue Lyon, and Adrian Lyne’s 1997 one. Are those films primarily to blame for the sexualization of Lolita?
As is argued in several of the book’s essays, the promotional image of Sue Lyon in the heart-shaped sunglasses, taken by photographer Bert Stern, is easily the most significant culprit in this regard, much more so than the Kubrick film itself (significantly, neither the sunglasses nor the lollipop ever appears in the film), or the later film by Adrian Lyne. Once this image became associated with “Lolita”—and it’s important to remember that, in the film, Lolita is sixteen years old, not twelve—it really didn’t matter that it was a terribly inaccurate portrait. It became the image of Lolita, and it was ubiquitous. There are other factors that have contributed to the incorrect reading, from the book’s initial publication in Olympia Press’s Traveller’s Series (essentially, a collection of dirty books), to Kubrick’s startlingly unfaithful adaptation. At the heart of all of this seems to be the desire to make the sexual aspect of the novel more palatable.
here’s a couple of kubrick inspired covers:
which very well could have, after tremendous sales, have influenced the following covers:
…straying so far from the intention of nabokov that the phenomenon begins to look more like the symptom of something larger, something sicker.
after a lot of researching covers, it was here, in this sampling of concept covers for the book about the lolita covers, that i found an image that best represents the story to me:
[art by linn olofsdotter]
but why aren’t all the covers like that? even the ones published by “legitimate” publishing companies, with full academic credentials, with no intended connection to the film; surely they must have read nabokov’s instructions for the cover. and yet, look at the top row of lolita covers: all legitimate publishing companies, not prone to smut. and yet.
my conclusion is that the lolita complex existed before “lolita” (and of course it did) — a patriarchal society is essentially operating with the same delusions of humbert humbert. nabokov did not produce the sexy girl covers of lolita, and kubrick had only the smallest hand in it. it was what people desired, requested and bought. the image of the sexy girl sells; intrigues; gets the hands on the books.
as elizabeth janeway said in her review in the new york review of books: “Humbert is every man who is driven by desire, wanting his Lolita so badly that it never occurs to him to consider her as a human being, or as anything but a dream-figment made flesh.”
isn’t that our media as a whole? our culture as a whole?
the whole lot of them/us — seeing the world through humbert-tinted glasses, seeing all others as Other and Object, as solipsistic dream-reality. as i scroll through the “lolita” covers i wonder: where’s the humanity in our humanity?
“Few mediums reveal the White sexual imperialistic exploitation of Asian women more so than pornography. In a 2002 study conducted by Jennifer Lynn Gossett and Sarah Bryne, out of thirty-one pornographic websites that depicted rape or torture of women, more than half showed Asian women as the rape victim and one-third showed White men as the perpetrator. The study further uncovered a strong correlation between race and pedophilia, advertising with titles such as “Japanese Schoolgirls” or “Asian Teens.” Furthermore, images of Asian women in pornographic forms consistently came up through a keyword search for “torture.”
Many scholars warn that race-specific pornography contributes to race-specific sexual violence. Since the overwhelming majority of violent pornography features Asian women in particular, it follows that Asian women are at even greater risk of sexual violence due to their role in violent pornography.
Helen Zia, a noted social activists, suggests a direct connection between racial-sexual stereotyped pornography and actual violence against Asian women. Additionally, Kandice Chuh argues that “because Asian/American women are depicted as always consenting, they cannot be raped in the eyes of the law.”
Pornography leads to other alarming sexual-racial trends involving Asian women as well. For example, depictions of Filipinas as sexual commodities on the Internet have been linked to the mail-order bride industry in Australia. Researchers further speculate that online sexual commodification of Filipinas may at least partially explain why Filipinas experience disproportionate levels of domestic violence compared to non-Filipina women.
White men’s fascination with Asian women in pornography stems from early nineteenth century Western imperialism. To colonize the Asian nations, countries such as the United States flooded Asia with military forces. As an inevitable result of military presence, prostitution centers consisting of local civilian women sprung up to cater to the White servicemen. With these sexual experiences as their main, if not only, encounters with Asian women, White servicemen returned home with generalization that Asian women are hyper-sexualized and always willing to comply with White man’s prurient demands. This germinated even more interest in Asian women as sexual objects. To sustain this increased interest, the Asian sex tour industry developed. Asian sex tourism further perpetuates the stereotype of Asian women as hyper-sexual, it understandably follows that sexually explicit materials, pornography for example, would include a preponderance of Asian women.”
— Sunny Woan, White Sexual Imperialism: A Theory of Asian Feminist Jurisprudence (via ugyoku)
and i dont like when people try to act like there’s a big distinction between legally/ilegally dating a teenager. like if the legal age of consent is 16 and you’re 20+ pursuing 16 year olds, you’re still a creepy predator and the fact that it’s “legal” doesn’t minimises the severity of your behaviour
why do people ignore the fact that pete wentz dated a 15 year old girl when he was 23 (the source has a few bits of misinformation but if you google her name with his there’s few things that come up) just a question
there’s a story in the news right now about two kentucky teenagers, one 18, one 13, who have apparently gone on a crime spree after the boy’s parents confronted him about the girl’s age, they’ve been out missing for weeks stealing cars, including one with several loaded handguns in it
media outlets out here like “young sweethearts on bonnie & clyde style crime spree”
county sheriff out here like “whatever it is, it can be worked through (…) that’s what we want to tell these young people — we want them to come home.”
i dont have to mention what race these Young Sweethearts happen to be
idk if there has been a psa about this since ive been on mobile, but i just saw into the woods and there was a scene that heavily implied pedophilia.
when red riding hood meets the wolf and he talks about her "soft supple pink skin" and offers her candy and more stuff.
im not triggered by csa but the scene even made me a little queasy, so if there isnt a post about it yet mayb spread this around?
yeah so avoid/report tumblr user boyx because theyre running some like twink network that encourages people as young as 16 to join a group with people 18 and over, and obviously like, thats completely disgusting. as well as the fact that they have “shota” in their blog sidebar and don’t share their age and its creeping me out.
Time for a general reminder now that he’s posting again, tumblr user josiahfiles/twitter user 3dpiss is a sexual abuser and harasser. He ACTIVELY PROCURED SEXUAL IMAGES OF A MINOR VIA HARASSMENT and never came clean about it publicly, minimizing it to “flirting too much”. He’s a liar and an abuser who should be avoided and ignored at all costs.
he made and deleted two responses/”apologies”, but there are reblogs that give a decent idea of the tone. (one)(two)
he constantly glosses over everything and minimizes what he did and makes passive attention seeking tweets about “things he regrets” whenever things are even barely brought up, but people deserve to know when they’re following someone who, under the law of the land he resides in, is a pedophile who has committed the crime of actively obtaining child pornography via harassment.
Also my friend (the OP) let me know today that josiah has repeatedly emotionally manipulated them into silence by claiming to self-harm whenever they try to speak out about him.
The very least I can ask on behalf of my friend is for people simply to not make a big deal or confront him or engage with him at all since he’ll just track down and guilt trip my friend and then cover his own ass. Just warn and inform people, I guess.
