Page 1 of 8 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 71

Thread: Fiction that becomes Illegal

  1. #1

    Default Fiction that becomes Illegal

    Alright, so this is probably going to be a bit of a controversial topic, but I do think it would make for an interesting discussion at the very least.

    In my eyes, no amount of fictional material should ever be illegal and it doesn't matter what is depicted in that material. Sexual themes, whether it be with animals, furries, dragons, trees, cars ... and where it gets the most controversial is children/cubs.

    To me it's fictional. It's not real, and so it doesn't really matter. It shouldn't be illegal if it's not harming anyone. Also, isn't it a bit strange to remove a harmless outlet from someone? Doesn't that increase the chances they will actually do something worse because now they no longer have a harmless way to satiate their desire? Isn't making fictional material illegal, just making it worse for them and not helping? Aren't we contributing to sexual assault toward children if we are not doing everything in our power to prevent it? If we are making it impossible for a person to satiate their desire in a safe and unharmful manner ... then are we also not the problem?

    How come it is I could technically draw a child getting brutally murdered. I am certain we can even find some instances in movies where this might occur. So we can fictionally kill a child, but when it's a sexual depiction we show disgust toward the people who look at it. Isn't that extremely hypocritical?

    We can also technically draw images of rape and show that in movies as well. There is an entire section of BDSM where some people like to roleplay that sort of thing. It doesn't mean they want to do the real thing.

    Why are furries acceptable, when technically speaking its animals being depicted in sexual situations of which most animals cannot consent either? Why is that ok? Heck, even an actual image of a non-furry animal character can be depicted in a sexual situation and while it may turn some eyes ... it's certainly not illegal as far as I am aware.

    Shouldn't we be separating out fiction from reality?

    Some people say that these pictures are an outlet and they lead to something worse. But isn't that the same sort of shit, that video games lead to violence? That video games, causes sexism?

    Sure, to us ... anyone who views fictional sexual content that involves the underage we can't help but feel a bit weary. I get that. However, isn't that the same for those who like vore? I am sorry, but when I first heard there was a fetish that involved fictional depictions of people eating each other ... I was pretty freaked out. Do I think it should be illegal? No ... it's fictional. As long as they are not going around and actually eating people ... why be concerned about it?

    How can we as AB/DL who get hated on so much, look down on others and think it's ok to do to them what we wouldn't want to be done to ourselves?

    Quite frankly, AB/DL imagery/art is pretty damned close in nature to what one might consider pornography. For many AB/DL, a diaper is a sexual object. So the question is, does that diaper on a fictional underage character make it illegal? Now obviously, one would say that it's the diaper and has nothing to do with the children and I agree with that statement. But it's fictional anyway. It's not harming anyone regardless.

    Our whole excuse for being the way we are is that we are not harming anyone. So why does that excuse not work for everyone?

    Also, why is it ok to hate on them, but we see it as bad when others hate on us?

  2. #2


    First thing that comes to mind is the Miller Test. I'll also note this appears to be a very Anglosphere perspective - you might consider the Japanese genre of Lolita Complex and how that figures into this.

    Bottom line, though, is that every society and culture has its taboos.

  3. #3


    Quote Originally Posted by Traemo View Post
    First thing that comes to mind is the Miller Test. I'll also note this appears to be a very Anglosphere perspective - you might consider the Japanese genre of Lolita Complex and how that figures into this.

    Bottom line, though, is that every society and culture has its taboos.
    Right, I do find the miller test to be ... well, just plain wrong XD.
    It's actually explained in the wiki, the issues I have with the test. It's just way to subjective. There is no clear definition of what is and isn't obscene. Also .. what is and isn't of artistic value.

    2 of the three criteria are based on subjectivity.

    As for Japanese, Ya ... they tend to pretty much understand the difference between fiction and reality from what it seems. XD
    I remember the whole controversial dilemma with TERA Online and the Elin race and how they were dressed XD. Although think, that is a Korean game last I remember.

  4. #4


    A lot of controversial or illegal fiction depends on its culture of origin, the era it was written in, the era it is read in, and the readers. Different things are controversial in different parts of the world. The book, Cry, the Beloved Country (written 1948), was written in South Africa and was banned because it seemed to depict the white majority of South Africa rather negatively. The poem, Howl (written 1955) by Allen Ginsberg, faced an obscenity trial and won because it was an artistic expression of the state of America and of the individual. Even Lewis Carrol's Alice in Wonderland was banned in Hunan, China for its depiction of anthropomorphized animals. The censor General Ho Chien believed that attributing human language to animals was an insult to humans. He feared that the book would teach children to regard humans and animals on the same level, which would be "disastrous". Lots of artistic works have been banned or illegalized for more reasons than sexuality.

    In the case of pornographic or subjectively pornographic material It shouldn't be illegal. Unless it is an actual picture of a child or based off a real child because that's a defamation of character. Which, although defamation more applies to written words than pictures, its still damaging to reputation and self esteem. And children cannot consent, no matter what; which any picture or depiction of a child in a sexual act is not consensual even if the child did consent.
    Pictures of adults is a different argument, because if you put a sexually exposing picture online it really is only defamation of character if someone else posted the image without permission. That also could be argued with copyright laws. In the case of drawn or painted material the argument for defamation is less applicable but copyright may apply.

    One thing I would like to restate is that Howl won the obscenity trial by being an artistic expression. If that court case set a precedent than it would be that things made for artistic intent or purposed are not obscene for they serve an artistic purpose outside of the realm of obscenity. basically, something does not have artistic value when its intended purpose is to be obscene. So a drawing of a cub itself is artistic, but if the picture is drawn just depicting a young cub being sexually abused then it starts to become a bit obscene because the intent of the picture is not artistic, it becomes sexualized. Granted, the intended purpose may not to be obscene, but an onlooker who doesn't understand the origin or purpose of the picture may read it as obscene. However, artistic value is subjective because what qualifies as artistic value? (rhetorical question)

    Another thing I would like to touch on is that it depends on where the work is displayed. People will be more tolerant to a sexualized cub drawing on a website like FA or deviant art, but people on facebook or other social media sites might not be as tolerant. The place where a work is displayed effects if it is interpreted as obscene or not.

    there is a lot of grey area, especially around subjective pornography. Because a cub in a diaper playing with toys isn't sexual, but maybe someone finds it arousing, either for the diaper or for the idea of being little or the child itself. Its subjective to the viewer. What would be obscene in this instance is if you were showing or talking about the picture with someone else and you talk about how turned on you get by so-and-so or whatever. That's a little obscene because the conversation did not naturally flow there. If you show them the picture and say you really like the way its colored, the artist has good eye for detail, everything is shaped proportionately that's not obscene because you're discussing a works artistic value. Even if you're discussing a sexually explicit piece of work, talking about its artistic value is not obscene but talking about how the image gets you all hot and bothered may be unwarranted. (again it also applies to who you're talking to and where you're talking about it.)

    I would have to agree, for the most part, that any fictional work should not be illegal unless it is damaging to the reputation or well being of another. Or it depicts heinous acts simply to portray the act as it is. There is artistic value in movies that have rape and murder scenes because it is not solely focused on rape or murder. However, that is why snuff films are illegal because the only purpose of a snuff film is to portray rape and murder, even if its fictional. So any work that has artistic value, is not a defamation of character, breaks no copyright laws, and is displayed and shared appropriately is not obscene and should not be illegal.

    This is a very hard topic to converse, but I see where you're coming from. I honestly believe we should not condemn pedophiles because their desires were beyond their choice. Alternatively, I feel we should make a society where pedophiles are encouraged to seek psychological help and to recognize the damaging effects that their desires can have on themselves and the children they interact with. I don't like the idea of child porn being circulated because the denotation of it is always the desire to participate in real life. I think pedophiles should only be punished after they commit the sexual act, but I feel up to that point society should encourage pedophiles to seek help.

    I don't think any fetish is wrong, but if its damaging to oneself or another than the frame of mind should be help those affected not condemn them.

    I started factually, yet I slowly drifted into my opinions, so take it with a grain of salt but I appreciate the thread. It is a subject that definitely deserves some thoughtful discussion. Things that are obscene are not obscene to everyone and obscenity is a very subjective characteristic. there are works out there that should remain illegal but mostly because they can cause real world damage, (and even fictional material can cause real world damage.) However the majority of banned, obscene or illegal works is that way for a number of ridiculous reasons. It all depends on the culture, context, era(s), and readers.

  5. #5


    Quote Originally Posted by Jazzorau View Post
    Oh wow, really great post! I agree with you on all counts.Truthfully though, I hold the view that even if something is obscene it shouldn't be illegal. As long as it's not harming anyone, or as you put it, causing real world damage, then I think it should be allowed regardless of what anyone may think of it.

    Now onto the topic of real world damage, I feel like it would really need to be proven without a doubt before any sort of ban is enforced.

  6. #6


    Quote Originally Posted by MarchinBunny View Post
    ... I feel like it would really need to be proven without a doubt before any sort of ban is enforced.
    I agree with this, but that is why we have a court system. Although, it is a rather difficult issue to present and sometimes the court isn't always right. Their job is to prove that a law was broken and protect the rights of both sides while the proceedings commence.

    the view that even if something is obscene it shouldn't be illegal.
    I believe that the obscene in and of itself has artistic value, and obscene art is often some of my favorite. It is when obscenity becomes damaging to the real world that a line has been crossed. That still, sometimes it doesn't warrant court action because obscenity is an ambiguous term anyways. I think, if not daily, everyone has been exposed to something obscene, whether they know it or not, at some point in their life.

    you could consider Marilyn Manson, King Missile, and Wesley Willis obscene (all are really good bands and artists) and all for different reasons. Some obscene writers: Marquise de Sade, whom we get the term 'sadist' from; Suicide mode d'emploi by Claude Guillon, which is literally a recipe book for suicide; even A.A. Milne's Whinnie the Pooh could be considered obscene for the psychological damage it caused to his actual son named Christopher Robin.(I only recommend reader the last of the three.)

    My favorite Obscene artists are actually painters. Louis Main who was famous for painting cats (not really obscene, but he became psychotic or schizophrenic (never really confirmed which of the two) towards the end of his life and the way he painted cats deteriorated from anthropomorphized to geometric patterns resembling cats, and was considered kind of obscene by some people.) Charles Steffen (also schizophrenic) whose art became obscene and disturbed after he had a mental breakdown and was institutionalized. A lot of it is drawn on brown rapping paper with colored pencils and he often depicts creatures that are a combination of flowers and human genitalia. I think as a final obscene painter would be Zdzisław Beksiński who, for no reason, just paints these ominous pictures of architecture and decay and death that leave the viewer with a feeling of dread and fear. He's actually a really happy-go-lucky type of person.

    Also shout out to the Dadaist art movement whose literal purpose was to be obscene and push the limits of what is art.

  7. #7


    Intersting topic.

    For the most part, I pretty much agree that fiction shouldn't be illegal. Pretty much all the other types of kinky porn you mentioned, have no problem with. Furry Porn, Vore Porn, and though the Rape Roleplay does squick me out and makes me uncomfortable, at the end of the day, it's just acting or writing, fiction either way, and allowed.

    The only instances I can think of where fictional stuff is illegal is in the case of Child Porn (I'd be surprised if there were any cases where fictional stories or drawings that aren't CP are illegal, but maybe I'm naive). And that's a whole complicated can of worms with the legal status varying around the world.

    On the one hand, it's just ink on a sheet of paper or pixels colored and arranged in a certain way, it's just a thought or an idea. And you don't ban thoughts or ideas. On the other hand, it's Child Porn. There should not be child porn in the world. Nobody wants to be someone who says "I think certain types of CP should be legal!".

    I know you mentioned that some people will argue that pictures are an outlet and could lead to something worse. And honestly, I agree with people who say that. Fiction isn't created in a vacuum, it comes from our thoughts and ideas, and those same thoughts and ideas can lead the creator to do far worse things, or those thoughts and ideas. I can think of many pieces of fiction that are just words on a sheet of paper that have made the world a worse place. But just because that's true doesn't mean that you ban fiction, because the alternative to allowing those terrible and problematic pieces of fiction being legal, is censorship and restricting freedom of speech, which is the greater evil. Not to mention, in some cases, like you said, removing that fiction could make things worse. Going back to the Rape Roleplay example, if there's a dude that has a desire to rape a woman, but he keeps that urge under control by watching role-play rape porn, then banning that is totally going to make things worse and would be a bad thing (Not to mention most people who like role-play rape porn aren't like that...I hope).

    So going back to the topic of fictional CP, I'm pretty much torn. I've heard experts both claim that allowing it enables pedophiles and incites abuse, and other experts make the argument that banning it will hurt kids because pedophiles won't have that outlet and would resort to getting actual child pornography, feeding the sick illegal business and hurting more kids. I personally feel the question is a damned if you do, damned if you don't. You have two easy rules (1. Don't ban fiction. 2. Ban all CP) that are completely at odds in this scenario and you can't follow both since following one of the rules in this scenario means breaking the other, so just writing this post feels uncomfortable, because I really don't want to break either rule, but you have to break one in this scenario.

    I could probably be persuaded if more research was done and they had a study that concluded A: Allowing it incites abuse and hurts kids or B: Banning it increases the amount of actual CP consumed by pedophiles, and whether I think fictional CP would depend on whether said study concluded A or B.

  8. #8


    Personally I think banning someones creative work (written drawn etc) is Nazi style criminal.

    I get very few people (myself included) want to read or see something bad happen to a child but reading this thread comes at an opportune moment after watching the last couple of Twilight movies where a vampired baby is shown being thrown onto the fire and a newborn vampire previously teen human (Bree Tanner I think) is shown about to be brutally torn apart and that is mainstream and accepted.

  9. #9


    Quote Originally Posted by Gsmax View Post
    Truthfully, I don't believe fictional work makes anyone more likely to do something they already wouldn't do. For example, tons of research has gone into whether violent video games have any sort of connection to violence. In just about every study the answer comes to a big fat no. It simply doesn't. They found it increase agression at the time of playing, but ... that's sort of a no brainer, espeically in comeptative games XD.

    Those who commit violence and talk about video games are people who were violent, to begin with. The video game didn't make them violent. When I play a game and kill a ton of people, that doesn't then make me want to do it in real life. Obviously real life means real people get hurt. There is a huge difference there, one that is easily recognizable by most.

    Now on the other hand if you look at violent crimes they have been going down for a very long time and yet the population is increasing. So an argument could be made that violent video games could actually be helping reduce violence. (Keeping in mind that is total conjecture.)

    So I think the idea that fictional CP would increase the likeliness that a pedo would prey on a real child to be non-sense. If they were going to, they would, regardless of the fictional stuff. In fact, if they were going to ... why would they even be looking at the fictional stuff to begin with? I would think they would just pass it up.

    I just think we should be focusing on the real crimes in this world and not trying to control people's thoughts. Something to me that is fictional ... should never be against the law, unless it has been show to actually be harming society.

    Now, who knows, I could be wrong about this altogether, but I currently do not think I am. I can't really see any logical reason why fictional CP would increase the liklihood they would prey on a real child. It just goes back to the argument that violent video games causes violence, and we know it doesn't. We also know many actual pedos know what they feel is wrong and they hate themselves for it. This means they most certainly do understand morally what they shouldn't be doing. Giving them a none harmful outlet to me would not only help them cope, but probably keep them from actually thinking about going after a real child.

    I do really wish more studying would go into this subject, but it's so taboo in our culture and around us that we are often blinded from reason, and we are just like ... nope ... nope nope ... it's CP .. nope can't have it. Nope >.> ... not listening lalalalala .. it's cp .. it's wrong. Don't care if it's fiction ... lalalala. <---- Accurate depiction of society. XD

  10. #10


    This kind of reminded me of the horrific mass shooting in Canada back in 1989 where a search of the killer's home found pornographic materials. In the aftermath, a number of groups and individuals called out for the ban of pornography after the event, claiming pornography leads to violent behaviour.

    Marc Lepine walked into a university with a rifle and went into a trade classroom. Lepine divided the class, separating the men from the women, and told the men to leave. He then lined up the fourteen women, calling them feminists who ruined his life, and shot them down.

    There were a lot of calls afterwards to ban pornography with the claims that it devalued women and led to the deaths of these women. When people brought up counter arguments that porn may reduce crime and violence by giving people an outlet for their sexual fantasies, they were shut out of the conversation as being misogynists.

    Lepine was a troubled individual, who suffered from an abusive father, struggled with his studies, and could not fit into society. He was antisocial and had anger management problems. His mother worried about him and wanted him to get help. There were so many factors in what occurred in this country's worst mass shooting, we may never know all the causes that led to it.

    We don't know that pornography played a part in the Montreal Massacre. We do know that he was a loner with significant mental health challenges. When violence like this occurs, it's too easy to take a pet cause, like banning or restricting pornography, and make the claim it would have prevented this from happening. Who's to say that viewing pornography didn't simply delay it from happening sooner, or that it has prevented other such horrendous crimes from occurring? We can't take the worst examples in our society and use them to prop up the cause of placing restrictions on free speech and artistic expression. It also takes the focus away from preventative measures such as the need for mental health services and identifying the behaviours and symptoms that create a Marc Lepine in the first place. People who are opposed to pornography were opposed to it before this crime occurred, and to use it to further their own cause,, without any evidence, is ,well, obscene.

    To be honest, I am uncomfortable with child pornography whether it's fiction or artistic expression. I find it disturbing. But that's just my opinion. As a gay feminist, I am also uncomfortable walking by the abortion clinic at the end of each day having to walk by the prolife protesters. I am uncomfortable with evangelists in the market area shouting at passerby that homosexuality is a sin and we will burn in hell.

    People have the right to offend, and we have the right to be offended. When we start banning ideas, expressions and thoughts that make us uncomfortable, we are all at risk of losing our right to freedom of speech.
    Last edited by Starrunner; 10-Apr-2017 at 17:22.

Similar Threads

  1. A new video about AB/DL (Fiction)
    By BabyMitchy in forum Adult Babies & Littles
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-Mar-2015, 01:24
  2. Fact vs Fiction
    By StrawberryRaven in forum Incontinence
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-Feb-2011, 12:31
  3. Is it Illegal?
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-Sep-2009, 03:41
  4. illegal music?
    By diaperedteenager in forum Off-topic
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-Jun-2009, 08:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  • - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community. is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.