New Zealand man is sent to prison for watching fantasy pixies engage in sexual behavior


Just as a precautionary warning, this report includes some pretty sensitive material.

Weird sexual fetishes exist, and there’s unquestionably no way around that fact. I’m not going to talk about a lot of them because some are pretty, well … vulgar. In Japan, watching Hentai, which is a sexually explicit cartoon, is pretty common. In other countries around the world, the practice is not quite so accepted.

A New Zealand man has apparently been convicted, and will spend three months in prison for his bizarre fetish which involves watching “elves, pixies, and other fantasy creatures” performing lewd acts.

According to a Fairfax New Zealand news site, the cartoon characters were “clearly young elves and pixies, which led to concerns the images were linked to child sexual abuse.” New Zealand anti-child pornography activists are all for the sentence because they believe that the images could encourage people “to migrate from there to the real thing.”

Whether or not the cartoon characters actually resemble children we probably won’t know, because I’m certainly not willing to go look and I’m sure I’m not alone in that sentiment. Here in the United States, even the legality of “virtual child pornography” is questionable.

Child pornography is illegal and not protected under free speech because the children involved in such vile acts are harmed. Of course, it’s also quite a sinister and disgusting practice, but that’s beside the point. The question of legality in regards to “virtual” child porn was upheld in a US Supreme Court ruling that took place in 2002. The related case was Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.

After the ruling, Congress passed a 2003 law called the PROTECT Act, that outlined in much greater detail what kind of images are, in fact, illegal. If an animated image is “indistinguishable from” actual child pornography, than those in possession can be prosecuted even if there was no child involved.

The New Zealand man’s lawyer argued that when looking at the characters in the cartoon “you knew at a glance [they] weren’t human.” He also said that the fact that his client was prosecuted for digitally created content is an example of “the law gone mad.”

It is said that sometimes activists can go overboard, and I truly wonder if that’s the case here. Sending a man to jail for watching what is essentially animations of fantasy creatures that could resemble children and might help people migrate to the real thing? I’m not pro-child abuse or pro-child porn, obviously, but I don’t know… this sounds a bit too harsh. I’m sure we’ll see all manner of colorful comments about this one.

[via Ars Technica, image via Natalia Soleil]

Related Posts

  • davidroper

    Sounds Fishy to me, Seamus.

  • Seamus McSeamus


    It isn’t that much of a leap. Today they send someone to prison for viewing images that represent no real person or event , tomorrow you get locked away because you thought about smacking your boss in the head with a mackerel.

  • davidroper


    You have ruined my day with that news in India. What kind of sick law allows that? I am disgusted.

  • k

    I didn’t New zealand’s laws are that harsh! while in India, the laws and right activists protect rapists of kids as young as 3 yrs old…

  • Charlie Mangs

    I wonder what may be coming next in New ZEALand: weapons (any kind, from a baseball bat to missiles) holders and manufacturers to prison – they also might induce somebody to strike somebody. Go figure!

  • V

    Kind of reminds me of the Alice’s Restaurant Massacre saga on the absurdities of the injustice system.

    For those needing a refresher course on Arlo’s song — or (sadly) too young to have experienced it originally — here’s a youtube link to an original 1967 version (not the 90’s ersatz version from a much older and less indignant Arlo Guthrie).

    It’s not the best version that I’ve ever heard, but it’ll do and If you’ve never heard it, it is well worth the time.

  • Kelltic

    The guy’s attorney is right: “the law gone mad.”

  • davidroper

    I am with you both, Wenda and Ladybug. I’m a grandfather of 5 as well and I do not want my G children watching this crap at all. But lawfully it is not people doing the nasty, just drawings. So how does society feel about drawings? It’s sort of like the Jesus in a vial of urine that some AH thought was art to display… or stomping on the USA flag. I hate it and won’t support it, but is it really worth jail time? I say tattoo the word PERV on his forehead, like Hester Prynne in Hawthorne’s “The Scarlet Letter”, and let him try to survive life in my Southern neighborhood.

  • RealBull

    Wow, it is almost like the movie “Minority Report”.

  • AFPhy6

    I believe there are some robots being developed to be sex partners. I think that is really weird, but I guess its not surprising.

    It occurs now to me that if they are available as “youthful” models, people will be going to jail for having sex by themselves with a machine. I think that is even more weird than sex partner robots.

    The sanity of people who facilitate such a legal situation is even more questionable than the sanity of an erstwhile child sex robot user.

  • Ladybug


    Or to take it as far as this legal case has…cartoons of naked feet.

  • Ladybug

    Absolutely ridiculous. Where is the common sense? You cannot create laws or prosecute people for something that MIGHT make SOMEONE ELSE do something illegal. And in this case–if the video is so awful HAVE they charged the person that created it? Or the person that POSTED it? Worse, this whole witch-hunt attitude about “protecting the children” from CSA strikes me as the same arguments used against marijuana as a “gateway” drug, or women in mini skirts “asking for it”. By that I mean, the whole idea that because some pervert MIGHT get “excited” by some image even suggestive of CSA then that image is evil and harms children is just carrying it too far. CSA harms children. This kind of nonsense has resulted in mothers who have taken innocent pictures of their own naked children being prosecuted as child abusers. Pornography involving real children definitely harms children and rightfully should be illegal, but fake CSA, while disgusting, isn’t on the same level. This isn’t even fake CSA. If some perv gets off on naked feet, you don’t ban all naked feet, let alone pictures of naked feet.

  • Wenda

    Ridiculous! As a parent and grand-parent I’m naturally vehemently opposed to CSA in any form, but this is taking things to extremes.

  • davidroper

    They were twittering with each other?