• Lolicon is child pornography, and if you masturbate to it, you are a pedophile.
    986 replies, posted
[QUOTE=chris0132]No, sorry, that isn't how this works. I make an argument, then you make a counterargument, repeating an assertion is not a counterargument.[/QUOTE] No, sorry. You can't call drawn hentai child pornography. The term CP is mostly used for real CP. Big fucking deal, it's just not something you should be making a discussion about. [quote=Wikipedia]Some critics claim that the lolicon genre contributes to actual sexual abuse of children, while others claim that there is no evidence for this, or that there is evidence to the contrary. Although several countries have attempted to criminalize lolicon's sexually explicit forms as a type of child pornography, Canada, New Zealand, and Sweden are among the few to have actually done so.[/quote] It's really your opinion is it your not. There ain't no proof, there ain't no law. Sweden/Canada and New Zealand had their opinions already, that was enough for them. It's drawn, it's not real. People are focusing on much worser things than children drawn naked fucking eachothers. My opinion is, that lolicon is NOT child pornography. [quote=Wikipedia]Child pornography (or "CP") refers to material depicting children being in a state of undress, engaged in erotic poses or sexual activity. Child sexual abuse occurs in the production of child pornography when sexual acts are photographed.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=NqWanté]No, sorry. You can't call drawn hentai child pornography.[/QUOTE] Yes I can, and I explained why it makes sense to, something you have not made any effort to refute. Lolicon depicts children in a state of sexual undress, ergo it is by your own definition, child pornography.
[QUOTE=KlapTrap]Oh please. What the fuck would you know about morals. You're the one that cheated on his girlfriend cause he couldn't keep his dick in his pants. :howdy:[/QUOTE] Your point? She was 22, at least she was legal :v:
[QUOTE=chris0132]Lolicon depicts children in a state of sexual undress, ergo it is by your own definition, child pornography.[/QUOTE] Lolicon doesn't depict children because it's drawn. Drawings are not real children.
[QUOTE=Ali121]Lolicon doesn't depict children because it's drawn. Drawings are not real children.[/QUOTE] Hmm, right, so by that logic hentai is not pornographic, because it doesn't depict sex, or people. Photos of children are not real children either, no image is a real person. People are people and images are images. Lolicon is a depiction of children, perhaps not real children, but children nonetheless, and it is pornographic therefore it is [I]child pornography.[/I] This is not difficult to understand, all you have to do is stop assuming that child pornography = evil, and start saying that it's only wrong in certain circumstances, or is that too difficult?
[QUOTE=chris0132]Hmm, right, so by that logic hentai is not pornographic, because it doesn't depict sex, or people. Photos of children are not real children either, no image is a real person. People are people and images are images.[/QUOTE] I didn't mean to suggest that images are real people, only that no real children were involved in making the image. While a drawn image of children engaged in sexual activities may (to some) be morally objectionable, it is not right to call it child pornography as no children are abused in it's creation. Child pornography is "the consequence of the exploitation or sexual abuse perpetrated against a child." Since lolicon doesn't involve real children in any way, shape or form, it cannot be child pornography.
[QUOTE=Ali121]I didn't mean to suggest that images are real people, only that no real children were involved in making the image. While a drawn image of children engaged in sexual activities may (to some) be morally objectionable, it is not right to call it child pornography as no children are abused in it's creation. Child pornography is "the consequence of the exploitation or sexual abuse perpetrated against a child." Since lolicon doesn't involve real children in any way, shape or form, it cannot be child pornography.[/QUOTE] No, child pornography is pornography with children in it.
If you're attracted to the art because it's depicting a child, you are being paedophilic. It shouldn't be illegal to have any sort of fetish. However your fetish directly resulting in the abuse of children is morally, legally, and in every other way, wrong. As I see it, who gives a shit about some entirely non-harming at (pornography or not)? I'm sure people who use the material will live without it, but at the same time the concept of it being banned is a huge overreaction to totally something totally harmless. "EWW GROSS" is not a valid reason for banning something. [b]Edit:[/b] [QUOTE=chris0132]Hmm, right, so by that logic hentai is not pornographic, because it doesn't depict sex, or people. Photos of children are not real children either, no image is a real person. People are people and images are images. Lolicon is a depiction of children, perhaps not real children, but children nonetheless, and it is pornographic therefore it is [I]child pornography.[/I] This is not difficult to understand, all you have to do is stop assuming that child pornography = evil, and start saying that it's only wrong in certain circumstances, or is that too difficult?[/QUOTE] All of Chris' points make perfect sense. I believe child pornography is just wrong to be fair. But lolicon is totally harmless, so it just seems like a waste of time banning it.
[QUOTE=Robbobin]If you're attracted to the art because it's depicting a child, you are being paedophilic. It shouldn't be illegal to have any sort of fetish. However your fetish directly resulting in the abuse of children is morally, legally, and in every other way, wrong. As I see it, who gives a shit about some entirely non-harming at (pornography or not)? I'm sure people who use the material will live without it, but at the same time the concept of it being banned is a huge overreaction to totally something totally harmless. "EWW GROSS" is not a valid reason for banning something.[/QUOTE] The trouble there is that people could be attracted to CP created from reality for other reasons than 'because it's depicting a child'. If you're going to say real CP always makes people a pedophile, you also have to say that lolicon makes them a pedophile.
[QUOTE=chris0132]The trouble there is that people could be attracted to CP created from reality for other reasons than 'because it's depicting a child'. If you're going to say real CP always makes people a pedophile, you also have to say that lolicon makes them a pedophile.[/QUOTE] It makes you a paedophile, but it doesn't mean you're harming anyone. I think it was you who said it previously, but if doesn't harm anyone why should it be illegal?
Well aside from 'because I'm in charge and I feel like making it illegal' I can't really think of a reason. I'm just pointing out that it's a double standard to say 'lolicon doesn't have to make you a pedophile because you might not actually be attracted to the children part of it' and in the same breath not afford the same luxury to people who look at filmed or photographed CP, which I've seen people say before.
apparently "lolicon" is not considered child porn here in norway. [quote=Wikipedia]Norway In Norway, any images or videos that depict pornography of persons in a childish context (which would include, for example, an adult model with childish clothes/toys/surroundings)[59] are to be considered child pornography. Lolicon is not pictures of persons, and is therefore not counted as child pornography and is legal, in Norway (although this has not been proved by Norwegian court). So far, however, this law has been used to sentence individuals in possession of real child porn.[60][/quote]
[QUOTE=jani_killer]apparently "lolicon" is not considered child porn here in norway.[/QUOTE] They really need to fix that definition. I agree with it not being illegal but saying that it isn't child pornography is a really stupid inaccuracy.
Wow better arrest those artist then. Totally forget the abused children and the people in the production of real child pornography.
In my country you only have to be 15 to have sex.. Also bestiallity is allowed, if you don't hurt the animal in any way. It's not that i'm doing bestiallity, there was a debate about it on the TV some time ago.
Wow they sell a lot of children's stuff... [url]http://www.prettysinful.com/cgi-bin/category/shop-for-sexy-junior-collection[/url]
Hmm [img]http://cache.gawker.com/assets/images/kotaku/2008/12/Sunny_MGS4.jpg[/img] I guess Hideo is a Pedo to the OP.
[QUOTE=chris0132]They really need to fix that definition. I agree with it not being illegal but saying that it isn't child pornography is a really stupid inaccuracy.[/QUOTE] I am confused, as I entered this thread slightly late - Is everyone arguing for/against punishment of loli possessors similar to CP? Or are we arguing the definition of CP? I think, from what you said, you are saying: "Sexual (AKA graphic) loli can be considered a specific branch of CP since it depicts under-developed individuals in sexual situations. BUT, this separate branch of CP is not be be constituted as illegal or put on the same subjective definition as its parent ("real" CP)." In the end: If you look at pictures of humans appearing under-developed in such situations society as a whole will call you a freak no matter what ([url=http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/showpost.php?p=12676070&postcount=559]See my post involving inner-vales/morals[/url]), regardless if "she is >=18" in the picture. Despite people thinking it is "wrong" to view such material, it is never something that is widely seen as a serious threat to children (the real ones...), and simply gives others a pretty creepy vibe. Despite this vibe, I couldn't care less if you looked at the stuff provided you were an otherwise decent person. I think this is on the same level as other fetishes - something an individual does in private, away from prying eyes, without any desire for it to affect "normal" life. (I wouldn't hold such things against the people I know) As I have said before, I don't think anyone here should debate how "wrong" something is morally, since everyone is a horrible person to someone else. So, the real debate should be in the legal and literal definition of the drawn hentai genre of loli: It should be a person's right to look at pictures and whack-off to their hearts content, regardless of the content provided the content has made no physical or mental harm to another human. So, technically, I think title still stands, albeit ambiguous, in the eyes of the general public. Obviously nothing will happen to you legally, nor should it, for looking at hentai - but the general public still considers you a pedo, like it or not. If I missed the point of this argument I apologize.
Last time I checked, being attracted to children isn't illegal, actually having sex with them is. That's why CP is illegal, because creating it generally involves sexually abusing children. That being said, lolicon doesn't involve sexually abusing children, therefore there is no reason for it to be illegal.
Okay, let me say this. I have never seen lolicon, but I do know what it is. And this is the reason it differs from real child pornography. Real child pornography hurts kids. It's never a good situation for a child who is forced into making child pornography. This is why child pornography is, and should stay, illegal. However, Lolicon doesn't hurt anyone at all. There are even studies that show that there is actually an inverse relationship between these things. [quote]It is certainly clear from our data and analysis that a massive increase in available pornography in Japan has been correlated with a dramatic decrease in sexual crimes and most so among youngsters as perpetrators or victims.[/quote] [url]http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html[/url]
[QUOTE=chris0132]They really need to fix that definition. I agree with it not being illegal but saying that it isn't child pornography is a really stupid inaccuracy.[/QUOTE] It isn't child pornography though. You can't prove the age of the characters depicted in lolicon, for all you know the characters might have a genetic defect which makes them look like a child.
[QUOTE=jalit]It isn't child pornography though. You can't prove the age of the characters depicted in lolicon, for all you know the characters might have a genetic defect which makes them look like a child.[/QUOTE] But you also can't prove the age in a film unless you can find the people in it. So by that logic filmed CP should not be called CP and also be legal unless you have a signed affidavit from the people who made it.
[QUOTE=chris0132]But you also can't prove the age in a film unless you can find the people in it. So by that logic filmed CP should not be called CP and also be legal unless you have a signed affidavit from the people who made it.[/QUOTE] Good point. Although the definition of a child (from wiki) states that a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. Drawings are not human beings.
[QUOTE=jalit]Good point. Although the definition of a child (from wiki) states that a child is a human being between the stages of birth and puberty. Drawings are not human beings.[/QUOTE] Neither are images on a roll of film.
[QUOTE=chris0132]Neither are images on a roll of film.[/QUOTE] But they depict real human beings. Drawings do not.
[QUOTE=jalit]But they depict real human beings. Drawings do not.[/QUOTE] Do they? How do you know? We have very good computer graphics nowadays. How do you know the people on the film were real children? Elijah Wood is not actually four feet tall but you wouldn't know it from watching lord of the rings. How do you know someone didn't make the drawing from life? Is that illegal? Drawings do not have to be imaginary you know.
[QUOTE=chris0132]Do they? How do you know? We have very good computer graphics nowadays. How do you know the people on the film were real children? Elijah Wood is not actually four feet tall but you wouldn't know it from watching lord of the rings. How do you know someone didn't make the drawing from life? Is that illegal? Drawings do not have to be imaginary you know.[/QUOTE] Well there are drawings which are blatantly not real, 'manga' style. Besides, computer graphics have not come far enough to not be distinguishable from real life yet.
[QUOTE=Dummkopfs]Get a girlfriend.[/QUOTE] Why did I get this many funnies and not enough agree ratings? You really need to get a girlfriend, nothing funny about that.
[QUOTE=jalit]Well there are drawings which are blatantly not real 'manga' style. Besides computer graphics have not come far enough to not be distinguishable from real life yet.[/QUOTE] Not in a clear high def film they haven't, but a badly filmed pixellated bit of footage would be hard to discern. And who exactly said that 'manga' style couldn't be drawn from life. There is such a thing as artistic license, if you watch kids being molested and you draw it happening in manga style is that not just as bad as filming it? This also fails to address the other issue I put forward. My point here before this goes too far off track is that if you're going to say 'this is right and this is wrong' based solely on the image, you're going to have difficulty with doing it accurately.
[QUOTE=chris0132]Not in a clear high def film they haven't, but a badly filmed pixellated bit of footage would be hard to discern. And who exactly said that 'manga' style couldn't be drawn from life. There is such a thing as artistic license, if you watch kids being molested and you draw it happening in manga style is that not just as bad as filming it? This also fails to address the other issue I put forward.[/QUOTE] No because it is just a drawing, it's not actual footage.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.