Lolicon is child pornography, and if you masturbate to it, you are a pedophile.
986 replies, posted
[QUOTE=77boy84]Do you masturbate to it?
This is why the "Video games must make me a killer then!" logic fails. You don't masturbate to it, and you don't find it sexually arousing, so it can't be compared.[/QUOTE]
I do... :fap:
this isn't going anywhere
If that were true, then i'd be a 12 year old pedo
This is for all you future pedos that are under 18 and dating kids your own age.
[url]http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2217[/url]
Don't look at your girlfriend naked. It is child porn and you CAN be charged for it.
[url]http://www.denverpost.com/ci_4783650[/url]
[url]http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1918[/url]
The American legal system at work, protecting your kids... from themselves...
... by labeling them as sex offenders for having relations with other kids within their age...
... or going to prison...
[url]http://forums.facepunchstudios.com/showthread.php?t=655705[/url]
Figured this story is relivant.
[QUOTE=Kombayn]Let me preface this with a a little motivation behind this rant of mine. First off, this issue has not always been the problem it has been with me. No, I do not mean I once considered lolicon to separate from child pornography, nor does it mean I once considered those who masturbate to it to not be pedophiles. What I mean is that my need to say this has not been so strong before. See, I have seen people around here assume that simply because they were not at a certain age, they weren't pedophiles, even some more audaciously thought that the genre didn't even qualify as child pornography! Only recently, after stumbling into the posts of a certain part of the internet did I finally become enraged enough to complain.
First off, lolicon is child pornography. Now why do people debate this? I have no fucking clue, maybe they think that because it's drawn, it doesn't count. How does it not? It's the same body proportions in the same sexual situations, meant to illicit the same sexual attraction from whatever demographic they are aiming for. In effect and imagery, it's the exact same thing expect one uses a pencil and one uses a camera and a total disregard for moral responsibility.
Now some people still feel relatively secure in their belief they are not pedophiles, hell, they might be fifteen and they can pull out the "I'M NOT 18, I'M NOT A PEDO" argument. BULL SHIT. ALL OF IT. Let's go backwards a bit and start at square one of this issue.
What makes the conventional "attractive woman"? Well, two of the more prevalent features are a well-endowed chest area and wide hips. There are also all of those other things that some people consider, such as their own definition of an attractive face, which is beyond my realm of explanation. But referring back to the first statement, there are reasons that these are so. Large breasts (and you know I don't mean grotesquely, inhumanly large breasts), means that there is an ample supply of milk for a baby to feed on, meaning that a baby wouldn't starve. Then there are wide hips. Wide hips make it easier for a baby to develop and be delivered, there is function behind all of that. Sexual attraction to this by pubescent teenagers revolves around the same biological decisions as it does for a full-grown adult.
It would be foolish to think that simply because you haven't met some retarded legal age limit, you are not a pedophile, you experience a sexual attraction for the same reasons pedophiles above that certain age limit feel a similar attraction.
For those of you who actually believe that you aren't pedophiles despite the fact that masturbate to lolicon, quit deceiving yourselves, it's pissing me off.[/QUOTE]
You are a "PAEDOPHILE" for making this thread.
Let me preface this with a a little motivation behind this rant of mine. First off, this issue has not always been the problem it has been with me. No, I do not mean I once considered [b]FURRY PORN[/b] to separate from zoophilia, nor does it mean I once considered those who masturbate to it to not be zoophiles. What I mean is that my need to say this has not been so strong before. See, I have seen people around here assume that simply because they were not at a certain age, they weren't zoophiles, even some more audaciously thought that the genre didn't even qualify as Animal pornography! Only recently, after stumbling into the posts of a certain part of the internet did I finally become enraged enough to complain.
First off, [b]FURRY PORN[/b] is animal pornography. Now why do people debate this? I have no fucking clue, maybe they think that because it's drawn, it doesn't count. How does it not? It's the same body proportions in the same sexual situations, meant to illicit the same sexual attraction from whatever demographic they are aiming for. In effect and imagery, it's the exact same thing expect one uses a pencil and one uses a camera and a total disregard for moral responsibility.
Now some people still feel relatively secure in their belief they are not zoophiles, hell, they might be fifteen and they can pull out the "I'M NOT 18, I'M NOT A [b]FURRY[/b]" argument. BULL SHIT. ALL OF IT. Let's go backwards a bit and start at square one of this issue.
What makes the conventional "attractive woman"? Well, two of the more prevalent features are a well-endowed chest area and wide hips. There are also all of those other things that some people consider, such as their own definition of an attractive face, which is beyond my realm of explanation. But referring back to the first statement, there are reasons that these are so. Large breasts (and you know I don't mean grotesquely, inhumanly large breasts), means that there is an ample supply of milk for a baby to feed on, meaning that a baby wouldn't starve. Then there are wide hips. Wide hips make it easier for a baby to develop and be delivered, there is function behind all of that. Sexual attraction to this by pubescent teenagers revolves around the same biological decisions as it does for a full-grown adult.
It would be foolish to think that simply because you haven't met some retarded legal age limit, you are not a [b]FURRY[/b], you experience a sexual attraction for the same reasons FURRIES above that certain age limit feel a similar attraction.
For those of you who actually believe that you aren't [b]FURRIES[/b] despite the fact that masturbate to [b]FURRY PORN[/b], quit deceiving yourselves, it's pissing me off.
[QUOTE=Cheesemonkey;12626845]CP doesn't necessarily have to have a victim, it's just that 99.9999999999% of the time it does.
The thing with pedos is that they've been demonized to be horrible no matter what, and I don't think that's the case. Even if they only fap to lolicon, or not fap to them at all, any mention of those urges would instantly label that person as a horrible person.
We need to get over this immature bullshit as a society.
[b]Edit:[/b]
You just summed up this entire argument.
/thread[/QUOTE]
So basically you like child porn
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Dumb bump." - ventilated))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Wulfin;12625857]So a 15 year old boy who wants to see a 16 year old girl naked is a pedo. That's fucking retarded.[/QUOTE]
15 seeing 4 year old naked is what he is talking about
Technically, no. It can't be considered child pornography in my eyes because there are no children involved except the indentured Oriental girls forced to draw it night and day in grueling conditions with little food or water in order to pay off family debts owed to the regional managers of some shady multinational corporation that can't be brought down by conventional means, and so needs a hero who doesn't play by the rules; most likely a loose cannon cop with no regard for authority, who shuns doing things by the book because of the miles of red tape and loopholes for those cocksuckers to get slip through after a lengthy public trial, which would enable them to bring their filth back into the homes of John D. Taxpayer.
Though people who honestly find sexual pleasure in viewing the images of nude children, fictionalized or otherwise, are still sick fucks. It's got a weird place in my personal legal books. Morally, I think the fact that people are marketing young children as sex objects is fucking reprehensible, and that anybody who spills their seed to that shit deserves to fall down some stairs. But, it is also completely victimless, and it wouldn't be hard to raise a defense consisting of the right to free speech or freedom of expression.
The only real argument I could imagine to criminalize "lolicon" would be to try and prove that those who partake in it have increased tendencies to commit sex crimes against actual children, but then you start getting into censorship shit; which could easily bleed over into other forms of entertainment and free speech such as a particularly violent video game or a news article which may incite anger. This could potentially lead to a crimping of all of our natural rights, and by the time we were all handing our paychecks over to Uncle Sam and going back to our designated sleeping areas for a productive night of not procreating with our assigned wives we'd all start to wonder if maybe it wouldn't have been better if we'd just let a few kids get raped.
Child. Porn.
Is it porn? Yes.
Are there children involved? Yes.
It's child porn.
I remember this thread.
[QUOTE=Teh_Cheese;16514743]I remember this thread.[/QUOTE]
I guess it came back to finish what it started... Fucking LOUIE XVI!!
if i was to look at lolicon, of some one, supposed to be my age (teenager), i wouldn't class myself as a paedophile, seeing as it's not real child porn, and they are of similar age to myself, if i was like, 46 or something, then maybe there would be a stronger argument for it.
Well, I love Lolicon. So, I guess I'll enjoy my jail time, and/or CP. Which ever comes first.
[QUOTE=GarrysDad;16514717]15 seeing 4 year old naked is what he is talking about[/QUOTE]
No it's not.
Drawn porn = No real people involved = Not real child porn = Viewer is not a true pedophile
/thread
[b]Okay, we fucking got it over the first 18 pages.
LOLICON IS NOT CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE. End of thread. Done. Over and out.[/b]
I disagree, it all comes down to how likely you are to fap to it, if you would never consider it you'd say it's child porn. If you had the possibility to fap to it, you'd say it wasn't, so you can convince yourself you aren't a paedophile.
[editline]07:25PM[/editline]
Paedo's
OP is a good OP and should post more often
if you enjoy playing counter strike then you are a murderer.
[QUOTE=Faren;16515228]if you enjoy playing counter strike then you are a murderer.[/QUOTE]
Yes, how incredibly related. Watching Cp makes you a paedophile, playing CS, which is a game and legal, doesn't not necessarily make you a murderer.
lrn2differntiate
Leaving aside if it's child porn or not, let me leave you with a question:
Do you prefer "pedophile's" to mastrubate to Lolicon or to pronography of real kids having sex with adult men where they get scared for life?
I love loli, but I find little girls to be disgusting to look at :\
[QUOTE=Lankist;16515116]OP is a good OP and should post more often[/QUOTE]
Rated box.
[QUOTE=darkgodmaste;16515272]Leaving aside if it's child porn or not, let me leave you with a question:
Do you prefer "pedophile's" to mastrubate to Lolicon or to pronography of real kids having sex with adult men where they get scared for life?[/QUOTE]
I prefer they do neither.
[QUOTE=Louie XVI;16514459]So basically you like child porn[/QUOTE]
Nice bump you fucking douchebag.
[QUOTE=Patttttttttt;16515315]I prefer they do neither.[/QUOTE]
Why do you care?
My philosophy is:
Do what you will as long as you don't have the intent of harming another individual.
Yes it is slightly flawed in some cases, but it mostly works v._.v
[QUOTE=The B óË ÃN;12625849]This just in: drawing violent pictures is just as bad as actually murdering someone[/QUOTE]
Out of context much. Terrible comparison.
[QUOTE=Lankist;16515116]OP is a good OP and should post more often[/QUOTE]
Wish I could say the same for you
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
