Should lolicon really be considered wrong and immoral? - General

Noticed there has been a few arguments over this recently, thought that a mass debate thread about it would be something worth making. First off if you don't know what lolicon is, it's anime which which portrays sexual attraction to young girls or boys. While I do think it is weird people like lolicon because I'm not really into it (can be said about anything really, e.g. foot fetishes), I don't think that it is wrong and shouldn't be illegal (which it is [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors"]in some countries[/URL]). Think about this, no one is harmed in the making of lolicon (since you know, it's drawn and animated) so why should it be labeled as wrong and why aren't other animated things that are immoral to do irl given this same label? For exmaple with video games you'd find that most people would say it's normal to enjoy playing games which have violence in it. I've heard some people say that the reason behind it is that it might make people that watch it think it's fine to molest children, which is stupid because you could say the same about violent video games. Sorry about the lack of content and evidence on this, I tried to find studies on it but came up with nothing.

I do not care what people get off to, as long as no living thing has been harmed in the process of producing whatever may satisfy their needs. As an added bonus, it may satisfy their sexual desires of younger children, and they will not be tempted to act upon it in real life.

Personally, I think making lolicon illegal is a kneejerk reaction, or a feel-good measure. Actual child porn is horrible and should be banned, because abusing an underage person for sexual satisfaction is morally wrong on every level. However, lolicon is a way to fulfil that desire without actually hurting anyone. I think that's the key word here. It satisfies a person who might otherwise never get to satisfy his fetish, without actually hurting a real person that would otherwise suffer. I just don't see why you'd want that to be illegal, except if you were some sort of moral crusader who hates fetishes simply because they're fetishes.

The basic principle of making laws (should) be "if it hurts other people, it's illegal". I don't see anyone getting hurt here. Plus, people who have attraction to young children will have the urges regardless of having lolicon or not, so if they won't be able to satisfy their needs with drawings they might go for CP or even worse, which obviously does hurt people.

[QUOTE=Ziirxia;41043263]I do not care what people get off to, as long as no living thing has been harmed in the process of producing whatever may satisfy their needs. As an added bonus, it may satisfy their sexual desires of younger children, and they will not be tempted to act upon it in real life.[/QUOTE] That last point is a great point. I think this in itself is a good enough reason to legalize it.

Yes [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debate" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight]

The reason Cp is illegal is it harm children to make it. In the same way snuff films and rape pornos are banned. Lolicon doesn't harm children to make it. Furthermore I'd hazard a guess that such things may provide "relief" for pedos and the like, potentially stopping them for viewing actual CP or raping a child

[QUOTE=Ziirxia;41043263]I do not care what people get off to, as long as no living thing has been harmed in the process of producing whatever may satisfy their needs. As an added bonus, it may satisfy their sexual desires of younger children, and they will not be tempted to act upon it in real life.[/QUOTE] I believe it's actually been shown that when people are given the means and/or space to [i]safely[/i] act upon their urges (for example, lolicon as a safe alternative to CP), there's actually a decrease in the amount of crimes committed pertaining to said urge. When you shut down those means of safely acting on their urges, people will start to act out on their urges - typically in unsafe and/or harmful manners.

[QUOTE=isnipeu;41043235]it's anime which which portrays sexual attraction to young girls or boys.[/QUOTE] of course it should, what's right and moral about sexual attraction to kids?

[QUOTE=Jimbomcb;41043423]of course it should, what's right and moral about sexual attraction to kids?[/QUOTE] there's nothing really wrong with it as long as you don't act on it

[QUOTE=elowin;41043469]there's nothing really wrong with it as long as you don't act on it[/QUOTE] there are a lot of things wrong with being sexually attracted to children and hiding behind the fact that these are drawings is delusional

[QUOTE=Jimbomcb;41043423]of course it should, what's right and moral about sexual attraction to kids?[/QUOTE] You've just made an argument for making sexual attraction to kids illegal, not against lolicon. People's attraction to kids won't go away if you take the things that they satisfy their urges with. [QUOTE=God of Ashes;41043495]there are a lot of things wrong with being sexually attracted to children and hiding behind the fact that these are drawings is delusional[/QUOTE] There are a lot of things wrong with killing people and hiding behind the fact that these are video games is delusional. Ban video games.

As far as nobody is hurt by some person having certain fetishes I don't see anything wrong with it.

[QUOTE=God of Ashes;41043495]there are a lot of things wrong with being sexually attracted to children and hiding behind the fact that these are drawings is delusional[/QUOTE] The fact that these are drawings makes them completely harmless. Banning it would simply have innocent people thrown in prison and enforcing it would be hell. There would need to be commissions judging the artwork, etc. [QUOTE] From a legal standpoint, no identifiable minor is involved in the production of lolicon and no physical harm is done. There is no evidence to support the claim that the existence of lolicon [I]Lolicon: The Reality of ‘Virtual Child Pornography’ in Japan Patrick W. Galbraith, The University of Tokyo Google for full [/I][/QUOTE] It's a pretty informative paper that goes into the reason behind why people are interested in Lolicon. It brings up an attraction to innocence and dreams of returning to simpler childhood times. That goes a bit over my head but it's an interesting read. The imagery is a bit disturbing. You could argue that violent videogames make people more violent but banning videogames and guns in Venezuela has lead to a gun crime increase. Since the 1970s and the rise of lolicon the amount of sexual abuse towards children has actually decreased in Japan. Obviously causation doesn't equal correlation but it's still an important fact to consider.

How would they draw the line anyway? At least with CP they can go "Ok, this persons date of birth is x, therefore they are y years old and under 18, it's illegal" But with fictional characters how can you do that? They don't exist! All you have is someone word that this is a fictional character under 18. They would end up with artists going "Oh, they [I]look[/I] 12 but really they are 18 and have a medical condition/late bloomer/etc that makes them look that!"

So long as its fictional and the consumer won't act out on any related fantasies in real life on real people, I see no real problems.

I would rather like to see an actual argument from the people that are for banning lolicon. Most of the arguments I read so far are "it's weird". The only reason I could see is that with its unrealistic depiction lolicon may delude people into thinking that having sex with children is okay and harmless and by providing a legal substitue to cp it may discourage pedophiles from seeking treatment. But then again this is an assumption and is pedophilia even curable yet?

While I would not associate with people that get off on lolicon I do not see a reason for it to be illegal. There's no inherent harm to it and as long as it can be relatively controlled, at least to the same level as other adult materials, there's also no indirect harm in it either. As smaller children would be less likely to get to it and would as such be less likely to want to do it either.

Lolicon is wrong and immoral, but it needs to be tolerated nonetheless since the alternative is CP. Choosing between whether or not you want cartoon CP in your society or actual CP, I think the choice is pretty obvious.

[QUOTE=Jimbomcb;41043423]of course it should, what's right and moral about sexual attraction to kids?[/QUOTE] The opposite of wrong is not right, in this case. The fact that they're arguing that lolicon is not wrong does not make getting off to lolicon the right and moral thing to do, it just means it's not inherently harmful and should be tolerated. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;41046678]Lolicon is wrong and immoral, but it needs to be tolerated nonetheless since the alternative is CP. Choosing between whether or not you want cartoon CP in your society or actual CP, I think the choice is pretty obvious.[/QUOTE] See above. It may depict things which are harmful, but lolicon and attraction to it are not harmful in and of themselves. You may disagree, but since they're not harmful I don't see them as "wrong." [QUOTE=Silly Sil;41043527]You've just made an argument for making sexual attraction to kids illegal, not against lolicon. People's attraction to kids won't go away if you take the things that they satisfy their urges with.[/QUOTE] I don't see why sexual attraction to kids should be illegal? It's not harmful, and it's probably not a thing you choose. Acting on the urges and harming a child should certainly be illegal, and we should promote help for people who feel attraction to children, but we can't make their urges by themselves illegal.

Is it wrong? Yes. It perpetuates the normalcy of being attracted to & sexualizing children which in and of it's self is harmful from a societal stand point. Rather than providing people with something allowing them to act upon and satisfy their urges we should take steps to make sure these people's get help to combat these urges.

We as a society can air slaughterhouse documentaries on television but ban drawn child nipples from the corners of the Internet. There's a bigger problem with how our society constitutes what's fit for consumption.

[QUOTE=Jookia;41047125]We as a society can air slaughterhouse documentaries on television but ban drawn child nipples from the corners of the Internet. There's a bigger problem with how our society constitutes what's fit for consumption.[/QUOTE] Slaughterhouse documentaries are not created with the intent of someone getting their rocks off to it and in fact in most cases are created with the opposite intentions. Not to mention these aren't just child nipples being drawn. These are children being involved in some extreme sexual shit.

[QUOTE=Jookia;41047125]We as a society can air slaughterhouse documentaries on television but ban drawn child nipples from the corners of the Internet. There's a bigger problem with how our society constitutes what's fit for consumption.[/QUOTE] Slaughterhouse documentaries are there to inform you while lolicon is there for someone to get off to it. You can't really compare the two.

[QUOTE=Winters;41047031]Is it wrong? Yes. It perpetuates the normalcy of being attracted to & sexualizing children which in and of it's self is harmful from a societal stand point. Rather than providing people with something allowing them to act upon and satisfy their urges we should take steps to make sure these people's get help to combat these urges.[/QUOTE] You don't seriously think you can replace lolicon with "help for pedophiles"? That's like saying "replace cp with pedophiles", and I think it's pretty clear that won't work. Having a safe alternative that really isn't "bad" for anyone seems like a good thing to me. Eliminating this "safe" alternative would basically make it [I]more[/I] convenient to just get the real thing, because you have to go through the same trouble anyway.

It shouldn't be illegal but it shouldn't be seen as a normal thing either. Pedophilia is a mental disorder after all, and it can cause harm, not only to the children, but to the person who suffers from it as well (which is why you shouldn't draw a comparison with sexual orientation, which is a completely different matter). Pedophiles usually have low self-esteem, poor social skills, and have a much higher propensity to develop cognitive distortions and Antisocial Personality Disorder. One could argue that lolicon might be useful in the sense that it can satisfy the urges of pedophiles without actual children coming into harm, but this [B]doesn't work for everyone.[/B] Pedophilia [I]can[/I] and must be treated in order to prevent the patient from harming children and further deteriorating their mental health. We can't consider lolicon a serious way to "help" pedophiles because it only reinforces the notion that their condition is normal, just as we wouldn't validate a paranoid schizophrenic's delusions. Pedophilia, like all mental disorders, [i]will[/i] make a mess of your life if left untreated (in this case we're talking about ASPD-like traits such as lack of concern for others and inability to form relationships with people, not to mention difficulty or outright inability to have a satisfying sex life). All in all, it's very bad way to "treat" pedophilia. There are proper treatments that actually help people deal with this problem and reduce the likelihood of children being harmed. That said, we still shouldn't forget that pedophiles are people who are sick, we need to help them, not put them away.

[QUOTE=Desuh;41047205]Slaughterhouse documentaries are there to inform you while lolicon is there for someone to get off to it. You can't really compare the two.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Winters;41047164]Slaughterhouse documentaries are not created with the intent of someone getting their rocks off to it and in fact in most cases are created with the opposite intentions. Not to mention these aren't just child nipples being drawn. These are children being involved in some extreme sexual shit.[/QUOTE] I was noting that while we document reality we censor fiction. That and intent of art doesn't matter.

Fuck me. I really wanted to not reply to this thread. [QUOTE]Pedophiles usually have low self-esteem, poor social skills, and have a much higher propensity to develop cognitive distortions and Antisocial Personality Disorder. One could argue that lolicon might be useful in the sense that it can satisfy the urges of pedophiles without actual children coming into harm, but this [B]doesn't work for everyone.[/B] Pedophilia [I]can[/I] and must be treated in order to prevent the patient from harming children and further deteriorating their mental health.[/QUOTE] How do you know this? Last time I checked, pedophilia was a pretty badly understood thing. And maybe those 'side effects' you're listening have more to do with how [I]everybody hates them[/I] than their condition. Low self-esteem usually does result from everybody telling you you're scum. [QUOTE]We can't consider lolicon a serious way to "help" pedophiles because it only reinforces the notion that their condition is normal, just as we wouldn't validate a paranoid schizophrenic's delusions.[/QUOTE] Someone's sexual feelings can't be treated. I know you don't want to call it a sexual orientation based on the idea that it causes suffering for the person who has it - but that's not right. Even homosexuality often causes distress for the one who has it. It's irrelevant whether it causes suffering or not - the actual feeling still works exactly the same way as a sexual orientation. Lolicon can be all they have. If someone watches lolicon and slowly has their 'notion that their condition is normal' [I](what does this even mean?)[/I] just from watching it, then there's something further wrong with them than just pedophilia. I'm fairly sure the vast majority of people who have sexual feelings towards children would, at some point in their life, have realized that [I]"Hmm, it seems society has a kind of negative reaction towards my feelings."[/I] And watching lolicon does not make someone forget that. [QUOTE]Pedophilia, like all mental disorders, [i]will[/i] make a mess of your life if left untreated (in this case we're talking about ASPD-like traits such as lack of concern for others and inability to form relationships with people, not to mention difficulty or outright inability to have a satisfying sex life).[/QUOTE] How do you know this? [QUOTE]All in all, it's very bad way to "treat" pedophilia. There are proper treatments that actually help people deal with this problem and reduce the likelihood of children being harmed.[/QUOTE] I can assure you there are not, no. Therapists have no clue what they're doing when it comes to pedophilia. One of the 7 I've spoken with did claim that he has helped child abusers control themselves. But nobody has ever seemed like they had any clue how to deal with pedophilia as a 'disorder'. They don't seem like it, and most of them didn't claim to, either. [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41047657]It shouldn't be illegal but it shouldn't be seen as a normal thing either.[/QUOTE] Well, I agree. Who cares if something is normal or not, though?

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41047657]Pedophilia, like all mental disorders, [i]will[/i] make a mess of your life if left untreated (in this case we're talking about ASPD-like traits such as lack of concern for others and inability to form relationships with people, not to mention difficulty or outright inability to have a satisfying sex life).[/QUOTE] Hmm Isn't it possible to be attracted to more than that?

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41047657] Pedophiles usually have low self-esteem, poor social skills, and have a much higher propensity to develop cognitive distortions and Antisocial Personality Disorder. One could argue that lolicon might be useful in the sense that it can satisfy the urges of pedophiles without actual children coming into harm, but this [B]doesn't work for everyone.[/B] Pedophilia [I]can[/I] and must be treated in order to prevent the patient from harming children and further deteriorating their mental health.[/QUOTE] Homosexuals also have a higher tendency of developing personality disorders and depression but that comes from the stigma behind their interest/preference/orientation so this information doesn't show much when it comes to harm caused by an interest in pedophilia. Those interested in Lolicon also may not even be pedophiles or show any sexual interest in children. This could be similar to the furry fandom where there is an attraction to the fictional anthropomorphic characters but no real attraction towards actual animals. Pedophiles should be distinguished from Child molesters like homosexuals should be distinguished from prison rapists. I think this is very Important when discussing the issue. [URL="http://www.apa.org/monitor/feb02/newdata.aspx"] Study on Homosexual mental health[/URL] [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41047788] A mental disorder is understood as a psychological/behavioral anomaly that causes harm or is otherwise detrimental to a person's well-being. Homosexuality doesn't do any of that. [/QUOTE]