I really don't know what to say about this recent update. Part of me is not surprised in the least considering the "fragile" state of our country when it comes to the human body being shown, minus clothing. Another part of me is infuriated that we have to deal with this narrow-minded shit once again. In 2009, no less.
"Child pornography."
Really? They consider illustrations of breasts and a relatively crude illustration of a penis "child pornography?"
First off, I did a search for a definition of what is considered child pornography in the United States. I'm going to be straight up here: if you don't like reading somewhat frank discussion of a subject like this, please stop reading now.
The term child pornography (sometimes referred to as kiddie porn) generally refers to pornography featuring a child, however the precise definition of "pornography" and "child" varies by region and country
This is the overall definition for the subject as seen in
this web page. Further down, it states the specific definition of child porn in the United States.
Under federal law, child pornography is defined as visual depiction of minors (i.e. under 18) engaged in a sex act such as intercourse, oral sex, or masturbation as well as the lascivious depictions of the genitals.
Admitadly, I had to look up the definition of "lascivious" on Dictionary.com. Sue me...
–adjective
1. inclined to lustfulness; wanton; lewd: a lascivious, girl-chasing old man.
2. arousing sexual desire: lascivious photographs.
3. indicating sexual interest or expressive of lust or lewdness: a lascivious gesture.
Using these two definitions, I see a few things I'd like to point out. First of all, as we all know, there's absolutely ZERO depictions of sexual acts in all 42 volumes of Dragon Ball, so they can rule that right the fuck out. There are, however, pictures of breasts, buttocks and male genitalia here and there throughout. By this definition of what child porn is here in the US, it is essentially saying that unless it can be proven that these images of the human body of characters that are under the age of 18 were made with the
intent to cause arousal, it is most certainly NOT child pornography.
This whole thing is just another example of people not doing the one thing that should be done in situations like this: THINKING. This Mark Thompson isn't thinking before he speaks, the library was not thinking of the potential consequences of putting manga in their young adult/children section and clearly the media aren't thinking of the backlash of this embellishment because, frankly, they don't give a damn.
I'd say the parents aren't thinking, either. Mike, I know you want to praise them for doing actual parenting, but seriously, they obviously aren't doing a very good job if they are freaking out over the fact that their child saw a boob or a private part that he himself has in a comic book. At that age, my parents were concerned with me seeing the one thing that Dragon Ball isn't: pornography. The internet was just starting its "porn-boom" and they had always made an effort to try and prevent me from seeing what is (essentially) a very graphic depiction of sex and nudity. Is it too much for me to wish that other parents across the US would focus on preventing their kids from watching/reading potentially damaging material, too?
Rant done. I have to go ice my head, now...
).
