Lolicon is child pornography, and if you masturbate to it, you are a pedophile.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=KingPurge]Just because my job only requires me to know a narrow field does not mean I limit myself to such. I try to learn as much as I can, and I don't prented to know everything, or even as much as I would like to know about the subject, but I do know a decent amount.[/QUOTE]

It is still not enough to comment accurately on the issue.

[b]Edit:[/b]

[QUOTE=Ephemeral]Actual CP is worse - real imagery with actual humans performing actual acts with a child that invokes some form of sexual arousal through fantasy or biological response. Lolicon is almost precisely that - except it's unreal imagery without actual humans being portrayed doing said acts.

Either way, they're both the same. I would wager both would invoke the fantasies that some people get from this stuff, and would likely further the perversion to a point where actual CP becomes acceptable to the person as it becomes an 'extension' to lolicon

Both are examples of deleterious behavior, but if I had to choose to limit somebody to either form of behavior, I'd choose lolicon. At least there's no real children being abused in the making of said imagery. Aside from that, both are despicable.[/QUOTE]

Would playing postal 2 likely further to perversion to a point where actual murder becomes acceptable to the person as it becomes an 'extension' to videogames?

Pedophilia is a sexual attraction, it doesn't mean people lose control of themselves and have to go fuck children, some people do, but some people do the same with videogames, so that suggests that the problem is not the lolicon, but simply that some people don't understand the idea of self control.

[KingPurge]

[QUOTE=chris0132]It is still not enough to comment accurately on the issue.[/QUOTE]

And where exactly does your knowledge come from? What gives you the right over most of this thread to post? I acknowledge my lack of expertise on the issue.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=KingPurge]And where exactly does your knowledge come from? What gives you the right over most of this thread to post? I acknowledge my lack of expertise on the issue.[/QUOTE]

I have some interesting friends.

Plus I can extrapolate from other things I have a personal understanding of, between information garnered from people I know and my own experience with things like anger management and a few odd fetishes, I have hypotheses which appear sound to me and the other people I've debated them with.

Which admittedly is not many people, I could really do with a peer review from qualified psychologists but I don't have any handy.

[KingPurge]

[QUOTE=chris0132]I have some interesting friends.[/QUOTE]

All the same, I could just as easily say you don't have the authority to post with deciveness on this topic too. You don't know where all my knowledge stems from, or how deep it goes, neither do I to yours.

Let's just say that the issue of pedophilia is a deep one, and is more about self control than anyting else(when dealing with the issue as a society would)

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=KingPurge]All the same, I could just as easily say you don't have the authority to post with deciveness on this topic too. You don't know where all my knowledge stems from, or how deep it goes, neither do I to yours.

Let's just say that the issue of pedophilia is a deep one, and is more about self control than anyting else.[/QUOTE]

You can say that if you like, we'll see whose ideas stand up best.

[KingPurge]

[QUOTE=chris0132]You can say that if you like, we'll see whose ideas stand up best.[/QUOTE]

I guess so.

[b]Edit:[/b]

[QUOTE=chris0132]I have some interesting friends.

Plus I can extrapolate from other things I have a personal understanding of, between information garnered from people I know and my own experience with things like anger management and a few odd fetishes, I have hypotheses which appear sound to me and the other people I've debated them with.

Which admittedly is not many people, I could really do with a peer review from qualified psychologists but I don't have any handy.[/QUOTE]

It would be prudent to say, each case is different, but there are generally some underlying factors.

[chris0132]

Well in your experience I suspect there would be, but I would be very surprised if your experience deviates signficiantly from people who are prosecuted for it.

My experience is more with people who aren't, and who you wouldn't know it applied to unless you knew them very well.

Come to think of it it's strange how many of my friends have interesting traits, either I've been following some social seam of weird people or everybody is just as bizzare if given half a chance.

[KingPurge]

[QUOTE=chris0132]Well in your experience I suspect there would be, but I would be very surprised if your experience deviates signficiantly from people who are prosecuted for it.

My experience is more with people who aren't, and who you wouldn't know it applied to unless you knew them very well.[/QUOTE]

It does in some cases, though the vast majority does come from case work. A friend of mine, who became a friend after a case, so happens to be one, and has explained some details of it, though, he isn't guilty of anything so I think it's more of his hypotheticals and theory on why he is what he is.

[chris0132]

Well in my experience the actual attraction seems to be more or less the same as any other, and the feelings of revulsion it can elicit in people who have it appear to be akin to those people sometimes feel about any other sexual deviation, such as homosexuality or sadomasochism. The people I've talked to seem to feel the same about it as the people I've talked to who have been closet masochists or homosexuals, although obviously this is only from a basic empathetic perspective, I'm not a psychologist so I might be wrong about this.

The main difference is that pedophilia is illegal, if you get indulging in another weird fetish you just get laughed at, but if you get caught being a pedo you get severely punished.

I think that might have an impact on how people who have it feel about it too.

I mean logically being a pedophile should not induce feelings of self loathing or cause you to turn into a nutcase, because people throughout history were fucking underage kids and as far as I know, most of them were fairly ordinary people.

I think however that because pedophilia has such a massive social stigma attached to it nowadays, it might cause some sort of problem in the people who are affected by it. It's more the social part of it that causes problems than the actual condition itself.

That would seem to fall in your area of expertise, know anything about it?

[KingPurge]

Well, I tend to agree. The society that we exist in has a tendency to exhibit extreme behaviours of ostracism towards these individuals. Because of that, from what I can gather, the effects can be anything from any number of stress disorders to some serious ailments which can impair judgement and lead to actual illegal sexual activities. More and more often, and I haven't had experience with enough repeat offenders to state this confidently, it's a judgement lapse due to natural attraction, and pressure from all different angles.

[Pekey_1]

[QUOTE=TechedRonan]Masturbating to an image of a child, real or not, is [B]wrong[/B]. Never, EVER think that you're doing something that's not [B]wrong[/B] when doing it.[/QUOTE]

There is no right, and no wrong. Everything is relative.
What is "wrong" is often defined by the propaganda og a biased society. Observed from an objective point of view, nothing is wrong. Too bad nobody have ever looked at anything from an objective point of view, because it is physically impossible.

If you think defining something as "wrong" is that easy, you probably don't think very far. The very concept is 100% based on subjective opinion.
A religious fundamentalist may claim that homosexuality is universally wrong, and that if you dissagree you are also wrong. (Which leads to great confusion for their kids who might be gay)

The fact is, that judging people that are attracted to women under the legal age/ attracted to dead people / attracted to elderly women, or have some sort of fetish, is in fact the only thing that is wrong. Because it isn't really their choice, now is it?

In your book it might be wrong, but your book isn't for everyone. It is actually just for you. And what is wrong for others is not your decision.

[KlapTrap]

The proportions of the character's bodies in anime/manga aren't even possible in real life, so if you fap to loli, you're not even fapping to anything that resembles a human being, let alone a child.

:howdy:

[Rusty100]

I do not agree with your morals which do not come under any law breaking there fore you are a pervert and should go to jail

[Spaceman]

Jesus christ, its fucking child pornography, just with cutesy versions of children getting practically raped.
Its fucking disgusting.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=Spaceman]Jesus christ, its fucking child pornography, just with cutesy versions of children getting practically raped.
Its fucking disgusting.[/QUOTE]

I think people being allowed to disagree with me is disgusting.

But that doesn't mean we should legislate about it.

[Duke-nukem]

ITT: OP is a professional troll.

[Gordon Frohm]

I don't agree with the OP, even though I don't like lolicon, I don't think it's on the same level as CP.

What worries me though, is sites that sell photos and videos of NUDIST FAMILIES (often including lots of underaged children) and it's totally legal apparantly.

I don't get why that is considered legal, only because the pics where taken at a nude beach and mum and dad approve of it??

We all know only pedos are going to want to buy pics and vids of that. What non-pedophile person would want to see pictures and videos of Naked children and their families??
And it's quite easily accessible: only takes a Google search of the word "Nudist" and the first result shows one of such sites.

[Fred]

[QUOTE=RotatingPear]This has to be the biggest example of bullshittery in the world

BOTTOM LINE

Lolicon is not pedophilia. It doesn't mean you're attracted to ACTUAL underage people if you like lolicon.

Furthermore, you can't even be sure of the age of someone in a drawing.[/QUOTE]
Go tell that to the survey team.I'm not the one coming up with the statistics.

[Shugo589]

FYI being a pedophile isn't illegal, if you go by some definitions. I'm pretty sure a pedophile is just an adult who has a sexual preference for underage/prepubescent children. A child molester, that's against the law. No one can outlaw your preference, you just can't rape people.

Many people just hear "pedophile" and think they rape children because that's what many of them are labeled.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=Gordon Frohm]I don't agree with the OP, even though I don't like lolicon, I don't think it's on the same level as CP.

What worries me though, is sites that sell photos and videos of NUDIST FAMILIES (often including lots of underaged children) and it's totally legal apparantly.

I don't get why that is considered legal, only because the pics where taken at a nude beach and mum and dad approve of it??

We all know only pedos are going to want to buy pics and vids of that. What non-pedophile person would want to see pictures and videos of Naked children and their families??
And it's quite easily accessible: only takes a Google search of the word "Nudist" and the first result shows one of such sites.[/QUOTE]

I suppose it's because it's not technically sexual, which makes it not pornography.

If you classed it as sexual you'd cause a lot of other problems.

[QUOTE=Fred]Go tell that to the survey team.I'm not the one coming up with the statistics.[/QUOTE]

I highly doubt the survey team did it properly.

What I suspect they did was check the case histories of convicted pedophiles and see how many started with lolicon.

Not check how many loli fans then proceeded to turn to real CP.

[Gordon Frohm]

[QUOTE=chris0132]I suppose it's because it's not technically sexual, which makes it not pornography.

If you classed it as sexual you'd cause a lot of other problems.[/QUOTE]
So how come Child Nudity is fine then?
The pedos still get to see what they want: Naked children.
Regardless if the child is in a sexual position or having sex or something.

Some pictures of naked grown ups are often considered pornographic, even though it just shows a naked grown up (in a non-sexual pose)...

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=Gordon Frohm]So how come Child Nudity is fine then?
The pedos still get to see what they want: Naked children.
Regardless if the child is in a sexual position or having sex or something.

Some pictures of naked grown ups are often considered pornographic, even though it just shows a naked grown up (in a non-sexual pose)...[/QUOTE]

Well you don't have to rape children to take nude pictures of them, so there's less of a reason to criminalise it.

Plus, a pedophile can get naked children by simply having a good imagination.

I think it depends greatly on the picture, some nudity is sexual, some is not, there's a difference between hustler and a medical textbook for example.

[Ybbat]

I think legily. "Child pornography may be simulated by the use of computers[13] or adults made to look like children.[14]" Anyway, if you ask me, the reason is that you can find out the age of the specimin. Making it impossible to bring into a court of law. I guess you can still be called a pedo...

[Shugo589]

[QUOTE=Ybbat]I think legily. "Child pornography may be simulated by the use of computers[13] or adults made to look like children.[14]" Anyway, if you ask me, the reason is that you can find out the age of the specimin. Making it impossible to bring into a court of law. I guess you can still be called a pedo...[/QUOTE]
Not in the U.S., it was ruled unconstitutional to make lolicon illegal, because it's freedom of expression.

[samclarke.1990]

These pictures are depicting underage girls, it may not be real but it's still trying to simulate something that's morally and legally wrong, it's a loophole in the law, nothing more so it is still considered as child porn in the eyes of every normal human, anyone who objects is clearly in denial about the fact that they are a sick paedophile.

[chris0132]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]These pictures are depicting underage girls, it may not be real but it's still trying to simulate something that's morally and legally wrong, it's a loophole in the law, nothing more so it is still considered as child porn in the eyes of every normal human, anyone who objects is clearly in denial about the fact that they are a sick paedophile.[/QUOTE]

No it's not.

Child molestation is legally wrong, and images which stem from it are legally wrong because they directly promote it and also violate the rights of the minor.

Sexual imagery of children itself is not illegal, only its consequences are illegal and lolicon does not have those consequences, it breaches no individual's rights in its existence or its creation.

Whether it's morally wrong is up to you, but the law does not exist to enforce your morality on other people, the law (in America at least) exists to protect as many liberties as possible. The only reason for making something illegal in America should be because to have it not be illegal would mean more people lose liberties than would if it were.

Nobody loses liberties because of lolicon, nobody suffers, there is no reason to illegalise it.

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]These pictures are depicting underage girls, it may not be real but it's still trying to simulate something that's morally and legally wrong, it's a loophole in the law, nothing more so it is still considered as child porn in the eyes of every normal human, anyone who objects is clearly in denial about the fact that they are a sick paedophile.[/QUOTE]

But that's not an argument on moral grounds. It [i]isn't[/i] morally objectionable because no harm has come from the production of these materials. So what if it simulates something that is morally wrong, then? So do most video games, television shows, and movies. You're only applying your criterion to one thing, you're inconsistent in your logic.

[Kombayn]

I didn't have the time to totally read the six pages of replies that popped up while I was sleeping, I'll read them soon.

There are a lot of people who are assuming that my argument is about my moral stance on pedophilia, yes, I do have my moral stance, but that is not what I am arguing. I'm not saying that lolicon leads to people raping kids, I'm saying that lolicon and child pornography are basically the same.

You people have already said that lolicon doesn't involve real children, but the genre's aim is to replicate the proportions of naked kids in sexual situations (y'know, save for anime's trademark malformed lumps for heads). Hell, I think I've already said that part. One excuse that really bothers me is that the children depicted in lolicon are really over the legal age, just shrunk down to childlike size and given smaller breasts, some of these same people make the same point that you can't verify the age in the porn. If you can't verify the age, how can someone assert that they are actually legal? Either way, the same image is acheived: child proportions, sexual situations, same thing that pedophiles want.

[samclarke.1990]

I have a feeling that the people who are trying to justify viewing this material are the kind of people who also look at it.

[Kagrenak]

[QUOTE=samclarke.1990]I have a feeling that the people who are trying to justify viewing this material are the kind of people who also look at it.[/QUOTE]

Nice argument, argue against the character of the people who are making legitimate points, instead of arguing against their claims. That's sure to elevate your moral stance, seeing as you seem to take that so seriously.