“CARTOON characters are people too, a judge has ruled in the case of a man convicted over cartoons based on The Simpsons, in which children are shown having sex.

In the New South Wales Supreme Court today, Justice Michael Adams ruled that a fictional cartoon character was a “person” within the meaning of the relevant state and commonwealth laws.

Alan John McEwan was appealing his February conviction for possessing child pornography and using his computer to access child pornography.”

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html

Left unstated seems to be whether or not depictions of the young of other species engaged in sex amounts to child molestation, nor was a mechanism described for determining the age of consent for other organisms. I have to assume this ruling applies to all organisms in that there a method described for the actual speciation of particular organisms. Personally I would not consider any of the Simpsons characters to meet the criteria for belonging to the species Homo sapiens sapiens, but I wouldn’t believe that the judge fell within the bounds of the sapiens descriptor either.

Does this ruling apply to plants? How would a bee visiting a flower be charged — a life term would be the undoubted result for the depiction of cross kingdom bestiality by minors.

In response to Jamie pondering the difference between run-of-the-mill fascination and sexual fascination:

I think a fascination is sexual when brief or prolonged contemplation/interaction with the subject causes physical, sexual, arousal in the fascinated person. Sexual Fetishes, traditionally defined, can be about anything that is not innately sexual (Shoes! Sports Cars! Really Big Rocks!) that the person with said fetish finds sexually arousing. So, fascinations can be about anything. I don’t think a fetish is made by what the subject of fascination is, but the nature of response. (but, since sexual RP is overtly sexual, i don’t think it could be considered the object of a fetish.) So, conceivably, there are
1) non-sexual fascinations of non-overtly-sexual things (I love that song!)
2) sexual fascinations of non-overtly sexual things (Fetish, e.g. red high heels)
3) non-sexual fascinations of overtly sexual things (e.g. a straight woman admiring a provocatively sensual female nude, or a person fascinated by bondage on a ‘what can the body put up with?’ but not aroused by it)
4) sexual fascination of overtly sexual things (need i explain?)

What counts as overtly sexual (as opposed to suggestive) is sometimes a grey area (chest hair?), but it’s usually clear when one uses common sense and a basic knowledge of one’s cultural conventions

If there’s a lack of distinction for you between how you respond to a good song and a well-written sexual RP it could be that as much as you enjoy RP it doesn’t physically arouse you. I don’t know what you specifically mean when you say you’re ‘asexual.’ If it means that you don’t become physically sexually aroused over anything, that may be the source of confusion over what people mean.

There seems to be an assumption among those who would restrict art and free speech, that some sexual things cannot be depicted or written about in a non-sexual way. It’s like they don’t think category 3 exists at all. I’d assert that one CAN appreciate the beauty of a nude, even a sensual one, without being aroused (i.e. in a non-sexual way, not a repressed way). Though, i imagine some people are so strongly sexual beings that they aren’t personally capable of doing this. Maybe when you raise such a person in a sexually repressive environment they turn into the sort of troll that wants to ban and restrict all things sexual.

As I said, I of course have no authority whatsoever to apply that reasoning to anyone else with rape fantasies. But when I want to read or write graphic depictions of rape, that’s where I’m coming from–and that’s why things like that involving a child would be of no interest to me.

Personally, I consider myself asexual (which, I understand, may lead to questions about why the hell I read/sometimes post here, but they’d take too long to answer) and therefore can’t speak with any authority on what sexual fantasies entail, and what links they do or don’t have to in the flesh activity. I’ve written some pretty sexually violent role play, but I have never identified myself as the character in that role play (and a lot of players do; their characters are often just glorified versions of themselves). In fact, I always play a male role, mostly because I find men more interesting to write about, but also because chat rooms are a whole hell of a lot more peaceful and respectful when I’m under a male name.

This would have to be something that’s explained to me, I guess. What’s the difference between a sexual fetish and, say, having a song you think is the greatest song in the world? I react the same way to a great song as I do a well-written sexual RP. Does the lack of distinction mean the sexual nature of the fascination depends on the subject of said fascination, and not the way it makes someone feel, or. . .? This has always confused me. I’ve had a LOT of fixations over the years, and as I’ve grown older some have included sexual material–but not once have they been linked to a desire to have sex.

For instance there are those that are creeped out at the idea of women showing their faces uncovered in public … but you think its normal.

And study’s show that having an outlet other then really doing it in real life releases the tension so it doesn’t happen, I.E Violent video games calm angry people down.

And with all its fascination with young girls in porn Japan’s pedophilia is surprisingly low compared to more puritanical cultures who have sky hi pedophilia rates.