• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

Discuss Photorealistic CGI and society

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
Computer Generated Imaging (CGI) is evolving rapidly. Whilst not yet available to most graphics enthusiasts, the means to generate photo-realistic images already exists and the technology is continuing to evolve and become more prolific. In time it will become easier for folks familiar with certain software to generate completely lifelike images of whatever they can imagine. The implications of this are staggering. Video evidence is currently admissible in court, and folks with certain illegal fetishes will soon be able to generate their own content. What I would like to talk about is the latter. Would it be a good or bad thing if pedophiles could, for example, create images and video that satisfy their and each others twisted desires rather than exploiting young children as a way to feed that addiction? What about snuff porn and rape clips?


In some states I believe cartoon child porn is illegal, but it's very difficult to prosecute since it's hard to prove how old a drawn character is and most folks are more concerned with those who are actually abusing children. Could photo-realistic CG porn be an alternative way to deal with sexual perversions, like pervert methadone? Or will the presence of artificial child porn, snuff, bestiality and rape material just inspire more violence and exploitation? Should pervs caught with CG child porn or rape/snuff content be prosecuted if there's no evidence that they've taken their fetish to the level of harming anyone? Bear in mind that acted rape scenes have their own legal niche already on the Internet. What is a socially acceptable level of sexual perversion?


... Your thoughts?




- Chameleon
 
Last edited by a moderator:

dDave

Well-Known Member
V.I.P.
I think it is still very problematic.

But Dave, nobody is actually being harmed here.

Wrong.

Pornography of any nature has a deep psychological effect on anyone. Cartoon porn, just like actual video/photo porn, can and has influenced people to do terrible things. Here's the thing, porn isn't enough for a lot of people, many people have a sick need for the real thing and they'll do anything to get it.

You ask what an acceptable level of sexual perversion is. Ideally it's none at all but I know we live in an evil society in evil times and my ideal world does not look the same as everyone elses.
 
Last edited:

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Even if its CG child porn its still child porn. Anyone having it should go to jail. They are pedophiles. Snuff/rape content the same thing. Its not an alternative way to deal with anything, its feeding a perversion.
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
Even if its CG child porn its still child porn. Anyone having it should go to jail. They are pedophiles. Snuff/rape content the same thing. Its not an alternative way to deal with anything, its feeding a perversion.
Playing the Devil's advocate here for a moment... Consider the rape porn genre. I can go to legal porn websites that feature acted portrayals of rape. I can go to a theatre and see movies with scenes of rape and sexual violence. One might argue that the actors in the movie are consenting adults so nobody is actually being harmed, but if a movie were brought out that showed, for example, a CG child being raped, rather than a live adult actor, would not the same argument be applicable? If not, then should not people who go to these sites or watch these movies depicting women being raped go to jail on the same principle? The same can be asked regarding violence. Should everyone who has watched Hostel or Saw go to prison? Is everyone who likes to watch gruesomely violent movies a psychopathic killer at heart and do we need to be afraid of such people? I don't think I am comparing apples and oranges here. If there are people who can satisfy their lust for blood with images on a screen, then is it inconceivable that the same might be true for folks who have other lusts? Not withstanding the exceptions of course. Some serial killers have claimed they were inspired to violence by movies, but these cases are so far quite rare. If violent movies were strictly banned would more people with the desire to see this type of content resort to actual violence to satisfy their desire?




- Cham
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Playing the Devil's advocate here for a moment... Consider the rape porn genre. I can go to legal porn websites that feature acted portrayals of rape. I can go to a theatre and see movies with scenes of rape and sexual violence. One might argue that the actors in the movie are consenting adults so nobody is actually being harmed, but if a movie were brought out that showed, for example, a CG child being raped, rather than a live adult actor, would not the same argument be applicable? If not, then should not people who go to these sites or watch these movies depicting women being raped go to jail on the same principle? The same can be asked regarding violence. Should everyone who has watched Hostel or Saw go to prison? Is everyone who likes to watch gruesomely violent movies a psychopathic killer at heart and do we need to be afraid of such people? I don't think I am comparing apples and oranges here. If there are people who can satisfy their lust for blood with images on a screen, then is it inconceivable that the same might be true for folks who have other lusts? Not withstanding the exceptions of course. Some serial killers have claimed they were inspired to violence by movies, but these cases are so far quite rare. If violent movies were strictly banned would more people with the desire to see this type of content resort to actual violence to satisfy their desire?




- Cham
Sure all kinds of violent acts are portrayed in movies but we know it isn't real and it doesn't involve minors. When it comes to kids we have to protect them from child predators. These CG movies look real enough that a pervert will think he/she is looking at a real kid which feeds their sickness. Snuff films the same way. These films are different from main stream films using real actors because they can make a generated image do anything they want no matter how sick. A main stream film isn't all about the perverted act and I have a feeling these CG films are. In a mainstream film there are usually consequences for their actions also.

When it comes to CG child porn that is illegal in several countries as it should be. I think the US should be even tougher on it so the French keep their virtual child porn at home. Its not free speech to portray a child in a pornographic way.

In the United States, the PROTECT Act of 2003 made significant changes to the law regarding virtual child pornography.[3][4][5] Any realistic appearing computer generated depiction that is indistinguishable from a depiction of an actual minor in sexual situations or engaging in sexual acts is illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 2252A. Drawings, cartoons, sculptures, and paintings of minors in sexual situations that do not pass the Miller test were made illegal under 18 U.S.C. § 1466A.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_child_pornography
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
The means to generate photo-realistic computer generated imagery (CGI) now exists, and while it isn't yet readily available to your average graphics enthusiast, it soon will be. Currently, video is admissible in Court. What will happen when artists will be able to generate images and video that are every bit as detailed and realistic as those taken with a camera, but of things that never actually happened? What are the implications for society when seeing is no longer believing? A video of faked atrocities could incite a war. Faked celebrity sex videos could make tabloids rich while destroying careers and reputations. Faked evidence of crimes could get innocent people convicted out of spite or for personal gain. Where are we headed with this?


... Your thoughts?



- Chameleon
 

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Hopefully any CGI could be proved to be CG so it wouldn't stand up in court to get someone sent to jail. I'm thinking if tabloids printed these pictures they could be sued. Also anyone using a real persons image without their written consent.
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
Sure all kinds of violent acts are portrayed in movies but we know it isn't real and it doesn't involve minors. When it comes to kids we have to protect them from child predators. These CG movies look real enough that a pervert will think he/she is looking at a real kid which feeds their sickness. Snuff films the same way. These films are different from main stream films using real actors because they can make a generated image do anything they want no matter how sick. A main stream film isn't all about the perverted act and I have a feeling these CG films are. In a mainstream film there are usually consequences for their actions also.

When it comes to CG child porn that is illegal in several countries as it should be. I think the US should be even tougher on it so the French keep their virtual child porn at home. Its not free speech to portray a child in a pornographic way.
Just to touch on that for a moment... You mention we know that violent acts portrayed in movies aren't real... But is that really the point? How is a B horror with unknown actors portraying women being raped or dismembered any less potentially inspirational to serial rapists or serial murderers than the illegal films involving minors might be to child predators? Also, the "we know it isn't real" argument can be applied to cartoon characters being gruesomely murdered as we see in popular TV series like Family Guy, but isn't applied to cartoons involving minors. I'm not suggesting that the standards for that type of material are bad, only that they are hypocritical. Why is one sick and one "cool"? Do violent horror films "feed a perversion"? If so, why are they not also illegal? Don't you and your adult loved ones deserve the same protection from predators as your children?


If a cartoon that shows and elf having sex with a male human has an elf character that >I< think resembles a child, is it child pornography? If the backstory is that the character is a 2000 year old elf, does that make a difference? If the cartoon looks like something out of Avatar (only X-rated) and the characters are very lifelike, who decides if that elf is childlike enough that the film counts as child porn? What if it was never intended to when it was made?



- Chameleon

P.S. If you have the stomach for it, watch Evil Feed or Guinea Pig, and remind me again how these films aren't all about the violence. Imagine how much further they can go with lifelike CG.
 
Last edited:

Hilander

Free Spirit
Staff member
V.I.P.
Just to touch on that for a moment... You mention we know that violent acts portrayed in movies aren't real... But is that really the point? How is a B horror with unknown actors portraying women being raped or dismembered any less potentially inspirational to serial rapists or serial murderers than the illegal films involving minors might be to child predators? Also, the "we know it isn't real" argument can be applied to cartoon characters being gruesomely murdered as we see in popular TV series like Family Guy, but isn't applied to cartoons involving minors. I'm not suggesting that the standards for that type of material are bad, only that they are hypocritical. Why is one sick and one "cool"? Do violent horror films "feed a perversion"? If so, why are they not also illegal? Don't you and your adult loved ones deserve the same protection from predators as your children?


If a cartoon that shows and elf having sex with a male human has an elf character that >I< think resembles a child, is it child pornography? If the backstory is that the character is a 2000 year old elf, does that make a difference? If the cartoon looks like something out of Avatar (only X-rated) and the characters are very lifelike, who decides if that elf is childlike enough that the film counts as child porn? What if it was never intended to when it was made?



- Chameleon

P.S. If you have the stomach for it, watch Evil Feed or Guinea Pig, and remind me again how these films aren't all about the violence. Imagine how much further they can go with lifelike CG.
All three scenarios you mentioned, murder, rape, children, could cause someone that is mentally unbalanced to begin with think something like that is fun. If a person is seeking out graphic murder/rape films there is probably something wrong with them the same way if you are seeking out child porn there is already a problem there.

Anyone stable isn't going to go murder someone or abuse a child just because they saw a movie. You take someone that is unstable they will most likely get around to it anyway movie or no movie. The problem I have even with CGI child porn you would have to be sick to want to watch it to begin with. If they watch this stuff long enough they will be wanting to harm a child. Maybe those teetering on the edge, trying to resist hurting a child will cross that line. Children are more vulnerable than adults and we have to do what we can to protect them. I guess that is what it boils down to the most. Our children are the future of this country and they have to be protected.

I doubt I would have the stomach for too graphic of a film. I can take blood splattering, a gunshot wound, stabbing but watching someone with their guts hanging out is too much for me. Really don't want to watch a graphic rape scene either. I think films go too far sometimes and the ones that do are usually not worth watching as far as plot is concerned.
 

The_Chameleon

Grandmaster
Consider for a moment if the same arguments were made for violence against women, rather than children. There are many that would argue that you would have to be sick to begin with to want to watch brutal rape and gruesome murder, much less over and over again. That gore-fest films and slashers are just feeding a perversion that has over time become socially acceptable. And that films of this nature desensitize audiences to suffering and harm and in effect make them less capable of empathy over time and more likely to offend in the real world. Now, with CGI coming into it's own, it will be possible to make blood and gore movies even more realistic than is even possible using live actors, because anatomically correct CG characters can be torn apart revealing true-to-life organs and effects that can't be accurately simulated using latex and red dyed corn syrup. Score one for technology... I guess.



- Chameleon
 
Top