So there is this thread in the pic & movie forum called incest toons.
https://forum.xnxx.com/showthread.php?t=104805&highlight=incest+toons
And in it there are drawings, and even some cgi of what appear to be prepubescent boys, and girls (Small bodies, no pubic hair, the girls are flat chested, ect.) having sex with adults, but if I wrote a story about it that would get deleted.

Does anyone else find this to be a little bit fucked up?

 

No. I find it to be a lot fucked up. The argument, of course, is that toons and cgi are not representations of REAL people, but the last time I looked, fictional stories weren't either.

 

I would go even further than that, and say that, if anything, the characters in a story bare even less resemblance to real people because they are just words on a screen.

 

If pictures of people don't represent real people, then do words on a screen represent conversations between real people? Or are we plugged into the Matrix?

 

Don't even go there!

One thing that really disturbs me about some of the more representational cgi and toon/hentai porn is this question: do the artists just have a vivid imagination, and are able to extrapolate from accidental glimpses of real, nude children, or are they drawing using live models or photos of live models?

After all, the critics of underage stories claim that at least some of them must be fact-based or autobiographical.

It seems to me that if we are to ban stories containing underage characters, then we should also ban toons/hentai/cgi depicting individuals under the legal age of consent.

Just my two cents worth.

 

Or ban none of it.
To me that's what made this place great back when I first discovered it.
You could write about anything, and find an audience for it here.
Now it might as well be Lush, or Literotica.

And as far as those who assert that some of it must be true, by that argument they should ban rape, or murder stories.
It's a straw man argument, and it doesn't fly with me.

 

In for a dime, in for a dollar.

Either ban all portrayals of underage persons or do nothing about the content the site hosts. It's like saying one murder victim deserves an investigation and another should be ruled an accidental death, let the case grow cold and bury the deceased without so much as an afterthought.

I think photos, CGI, cartoons, etc are based upon actual models. They are too close to being photos of people.

While written stories usually fuck up some of the biological details. It isn't like a cock ever fucked a woman's womb before but I see it a lot in stories. Also, the majority of people who write stories have ten inch cocks and women are mostly waifish and horny at the sight of a cock or the mere mention of sex.

How is any of that realistic?

 

Hey, hey. Lush isn't that bad. They have the over 16 rule in place and allow more genres than any of their competitors (except xnxx, asstr and a few others that don't have comparable readership)

Literotica doesn't even allow the mention of someone underage. All characters have to be 18. You can't mention that two characters had a child together. You can't mention most types of violence, rape, murder, death, rough sex, choking. I can do on if you'd like. I'm a story verifier there and trust me, Lush is a whole different world compared to Literotica.

Though still, xnxx is in a league all its own

 

You can't be serious.
Why would anybody take that kind of risk, or rather, if they are willing to get some under age kid to model for them why wouldn't they just film/photograph them since they are already taking the chance of getting caught by involving a real child.

I mean, I've seen artists depict things that don't exist, (dragons, unicorns, etc.) and make that shit look like it could be real, so to claim that an artist couldn't depict a naked child without a model is just absurd on the face of it.

 

So none of the portrayals of children are based on children? There wasn't a subject in mind when the "artist" sat down and decided to create an image?

Boy that opens a whole new can of worms. I suppose when the "artist" wanted to draw their picture, they tried to emulate a bird or a horse and instead accidentally created the likeness of a child.

 

Why would they have to have a specific subject in mind?
Most depictions of this that one can find are Japanese, (They call it Lolicon, and Shotacon.) and no real person ever looked like that.
And what about the Simpsons, Denise the menace, or other cartoon parody's?
Are those based on real people?
And if you concede that they are not, then why is it so hard to believe that a cgi artist couldn't make an original creation?
It's not like it takes a lot of imagination to picture what a naked child might look like, but I have to ask, how would you know how real it looks?
By your own convoluted argument this would tend to imply that you yourself have looked at a lot of naked children.
Or maybe just one real closely.

 

So the thread we're talking about is simply people drawing cartoon characters that laugh and joke and kid around? I thought this was focused upon likenesses of children fornicating.

So this argument is now taking a whole new turn. Are we talking about all CGI creations or those that involve children as their subject?

Well, I wasn't born grown though I have tried to have people believe it is true. So my argument is confusing? What befuddles your simplistic mind? I'm willing to explain. Want me to use smaller words?

 

Well maybe you should look at the thread so you will know what's being discussed.
The artists who do this work weren't born grown ups either, so once again, what makes you think that they need "live" models?

And by the way, being smarmy does nothing to bolster your argument, and tends to make you look like a tool.

 

Base

A conceptual structure or entity on which something draws or depends
- the town's economic base collapsed

Something used as a foundation or starting point for further work; a basis
- uses existing data as the base for the study

Do you understand what the word based means?

Trying to argue that likenesses of children belong on an adult porn site is what makes someone look like a tool.

 

You are NOT going to get the idiots that run this place to suddenly change their minds and allow underage stories. All you are going to do is get the picture thread banned as well. I think you even know this.

There is hardly anything left worth looking at on this site. That's why people are leaving here in droves. Have you noticed?

XNXX has become a bore.

Yawn.

 

It seems to me if there's going to be a moral policy then it needs to be better thought through.

The first step is deciding whether when and how describing something bad is bad itself. Either 'it depends' or it is or it isn't. If you try to be too simple about it you end up like Lush where characters aren't allowed to have masturbated before they're 16 .

Then after resolving that you surely have to rank the various bad/damaging behaviours and start with the worst. This is a list extracted from the themes:

- Bestiality
- Body modification
- Cannibalism
- Cock & ball torture
- Coercion
- Cruelty
- Death
- Murder
- Necrophilia
- Non-consensual sex
- Rape
- Sado-Masochism
- Scatology
- Snuff
- Torture

Age seems a relatively minor problem compared to being EATEN :lol:. Infants and young children are an easy target, but they're not actually a smart place to start, it seems to me. Not above 10 anyway, when some girls have menarche at 8. Not that I have any time for those stories.

Is the picture thread hypocrisy BTW, or inconsistency?

 

I don't want them to allow underage stories. That's Eric's dispute, not mine. I actually agree about the inconsistency but then the feasibility of childlike renderings existing on a porn site for adults came up.

 

Don't try to back pedal.
You stated that you believed that they were based on "actual models" , so I ask you once again, on what do you base that opinion?
The cgi in that thread is obviously cgi.
You'd have to be blind to think they look like real people.
I'm arguing for the freedom to express something that you don't like, so of course you think that makes me look like a tool, but you have yet to put forth a decent argument, and until you do I think I've said all I have to say to you about it.
In the end you're the one arguing for censorship.

That's why I moved to Lolicon R Us.

Perhaps inconsistency is a more properly descriptive term.

 

Heater is right. This debate is going to get the picture thread removed. Whatever Lolicon R Us is, I suppose that explains why you're okay with it.

But it could start another censorship witch-hunt here on the story forum, with people coming here for revenge. That would suck for the authors.

P.S. I can see why you're upset, though. Definitely a huge inconsistency.

 

Well I'm sorry for that AP, but they changed the rule mid game, not me.
There is just no way that I'm ever going to agree that censorship of any kind is okay with me.
There have been people hating on that thread almost since it started so I'm sure it's been reported.
Either the mods have drawn a line with what they willing to take down, or it's just a matter of time.
In any case it's just not as lively here anymore, and I really miss the open, say anything atmosphere that used to prevail.