How Far Does The Ruling Go?
Valerie D'Orazio has a bit of news concerning the drawn depiction of children having sex. It's an interesting read that can be found here at her blog, the Occasional Superheroine, and should definitely be read before going further.
Back? Good.
Now while I'm certainly not an advocate for drawing kids having sex, there are some issues I have with this ruling. First of all, they're cartoons. If you think that Bart and Lisa Simpson are real you may actually have worse problems than imagining them naked. They're simplistic, yellow-colored cartoons that only vaguely resemble humans. Separate reality and grow up.
My other question is this: What about Lost Girls? Alan Moore went to great lengths to get his trilogy of sexually themed graphic novels to press and all three center around the sexual practices of literature's most famous children. Does this mean that Lost Girls is not only not art but it's criminal? Moore went through some of these hassles (among others, including copyrights) when he tried to publish his book, but at the time it wasn't a hard and fast law as it is now in Australia.
I tend not to be a huge proponent of books that are based around sex as a theme, but I very much enjoyed Lost Girls as a graphic novel on several levels. The writing is as sharp as ever and you can not deny the beauty of the artwork. So that means just because the content involves what it does that it is not art, it is not beautiful and it should be a crime to own the book?
Is this a simple black and white issue or is there more gray around this topic than a Scott Summers daydream? Is there a difference between drawing Bart and Lisa having sex and Moore's Lost Girls? If so, how do we determine the difference and where is the line drawn?
I'm not sure I have an answer tot his, but at the very least I'm inclined to be too lenient and allow the (admittedly somewhat bizarre) Simpsons porn if it will allow art and fantastic graphic novels such as Lost Girls to be published.
Goblin
Posted to Comics on 9 December 2008
· Comments (1)
Other stuff like this: Alan Moore, Lost Girls, Occasional Superheroine, Simpsons
The ruling is fucking ridiculous. Part of why child porn is wrong is that it exploits children. Who does this exploit, Bart Simpson? He's not a real person!
Also while there might be a few weirdos with an actual cartoon fetish (which is fine, I don't give a shit as long as they don't hurt anyone), I'll bet most people who look at cartoon porn are doing it for laughs. Are we going to lock people up for having sick senses of humor?
(Oh god I'm in trouble)
I liked Pam's response from Pam's House Blend:
"I've got some of those Simpsons porno-toons, plus some Jetsons, Scooby-Doo, and Flintstones as well. Now, certainly, Bart, Lisa, and Maggie are all 'children', and, logically, Betty Rubble and Wilma Flintstone are 'adults', but what of Judy Jetson and Daphne - are they 'barely legal' teens or 'jailbait'? And if Dino or Scooby-Doo are involved, do I now possess child bestiality porn?"