Should lolicon really be considered wrong and immoral? - General

[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;41049893] 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] I know because I'm a second year psychology student. Pedophilia is no less understood than other disorders and though it isn't fully understood yet, there's plenty of things about it that we do know, for example, everything I mentioned in my previous post. If you still need convincing just read any paper on the subject or even the Wikipedia article. Secondly, pedophiles don't have low self-esteem because because "everybody hates them", pedophilia arises from several different factors but one that is [I]always[/I] a constant is low self-esteem. For example, a prepubescent boy with adequate social skills and normal self-esteem is much less likely to be a pedophile than the sheltered, awkward boy with no friends. I agree however, that society usually doesn't bother separating pedophiles from child molesters, which is why there needs to be a larger awareness of this issue. [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. [/quote] Sexual orientation cannot be changed, but pedophilia is a [I]paraphilia[/I] (a fetish), not a sexual orientation, it doesn't work that way at all. It is classified as a mental disorder on the grounds that it causes harm to the psyche of the affected person who, by extension becomes dangerous to others. It's not comparable to homosexuality because the negative effects of pedophilia are intrinsic (they are caused by the disorder) while homosexuality doesn't cause distress or harm by itself. To suggest otherwise is preposterous. [quote] Lolicon can be all they have. If someone watches lolicon and slowly has their 'notion that their condition is normal' (what does this even mean?) 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 "Hmm, it seems society has a kind of negative reaction towards my feelings." And watching lolicon does not make someone forget that.[/quote] When I say that lolicon reinforces the notion that their condition is normal I mean that they continue to ignore the fact that they suffer from a mental disorder and that they must seek help. Like I said before, this is the same idea as telling a paranoid schizophrenic that his delusions are true, it only adds to the problem instead of helping. [quote]How do you know this?[/quote] Again, psychology student, I know what I'm talking about. [quote]I can assure you there are not, no.[/quote] And I can assure you that you don't know what you're talking about. There are several treatments that are being employed, such as relapse prevention (aka Cognitive Behavioral therapy) and covert conditioning (specifically covert sensitization or masturbatory replacement). Both of those have had some success in eliminating the urges of pedophilic patients. [quote]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] Anecdotes don't mean anything. I could claim to know psychotherapists who understand pedophilia extremely well and have even used the above methods on patients, and I do, but that still wouldn't matter in this argument. [quote]Well, I agree. Who cares if something is normal or not, though?[/quote] When I say "normal" I mean socially acceptable. Being sexually attracted to children isn't and shouldn't be socially acceptable for all the above reasons. I'm not pulling arguments out of my ass here, all those are well known facts accepted by psychologists everywhere. If you still don't believe feel free to check those facts for yourself. [QUOTE=Rangergxi;41050257]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] You said it yourself, the mental distress faced by homosexual people is a result of society's hostile attitude towards them, all those mental disorders in the study aren't directly caused by homosexuality, it can be a [I]factor[/I], but not the cause. They don't suffer those disorders just because they're gay. The constant harassment and sense of alienation they're subjected to is to blame, not their sexual orientation. Lolicon enthusiasts aren't always pedophiles, I agree, but the people who produce it (and the intended audience) are. The rest of your argument I pretty much agree with. Like I said before, these are people with a mental illness, they deserve help, not hate.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41051178] I'm not pulling arguments out of my ass here, all those are well known facts accepted by psychologists everywhere. [b]If you still don't believe feel free to check those facts for yourself. [/b] [/QUOTE] No. It is NOT his responsibility to search for proof for YOUR arguments.

[QUOTE=geel9;41051409]No. It is NOT his responsibility to search for proof for YOUR arguments.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I should've added some sources. Here you go. [URL="http://www.theroyal.ca/fedoroff/files/2011/07/2009_Marshall_Self-esteem-shame-cognitive-distortions-and-empathy-in-sexual-offenders-their-integration-and-treatment-implications.pdf"]Most of what I said is straight out of this paper.[/URL] [URL="http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No72/No72_12VE_Marshall.pdf"]This paper[/URL], also by Marshall explains how pathological sex offenders and paraphilias can be treated using CBT. There's another publication titled "Cognitive Behavioural Treatment of Sexual Offenders" that is more in-depth but I'm afraid I don't have it. That's pretty much it.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41051609] That's pretty much it.[/QUOTE] The paper was more about sexual offenders and how they don't recognize the harm of their actions of because of the shame associated with it. Simply having desires or an interest is harmless. Nobody is a victim and not alot of information is provided for me to believe that it could be harmful to the person enjoying it. Right and wrong morally is based on how harmful it is for most people and Lolicon hasn't been shown to be harmful to anybody.

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41051663]Simply having desires or an interest is harmless. Nobody is a victim and not alot of information is provided for me to believe that it could be harmful to the person enjoying it.[/QUOTE] This thread isn't about simply having desires. I'm pretty sure Gestapo's post isn't either.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41051178]I know because I'm a second year psychology student.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41051178]Again, psychology student, I know what I'm talking about. And I can assure you that you don't know what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41051178]I'm not pulling arguments out of my ass here, all those are well known facts accepted by psychologists everywhere.[/QUOTE] Your arguments from authority are no good here. [QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41051609]Yeah, I should've added some sources. Here you go. [URL="http://www.theroyal.ca/fedoroff/files/2011/07/2009_Marshall_Self-esteem-shame-cognitive-distortions-and-empathy-in-sexual-offenders-their-integration-and-treatment-implications.pdf"]Most of what I said is straight out of this paper.[/URL] [URL="http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No72/No72_12VE_Marshall.pdf"]This paper[/URL], also by Marshall explains how pathological sex offenders and paraphilias can be treated using CBT. There's another publication titled "Cognitive Behavioural Treatment of Sexual Offenders" that is more in-depth but I'm afraid I don't have it. That's pretty much it.[/QUOTE] These articles don't reference pedophilia.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;41051178]If you still need convincing just read any paper on the subject or even the Wikipedia article.[/QUOTE] I've read plenty on the subject and I can conclude that everyone who pretends to know are bullshitting. [QUOTE]Secondly, pedophiles don't have low self-esteem because because "everybody hates them", pedophilia arises from several different factors but one that is [I]always[/I] a constant is low self-esteem.[/QUOTE] But that's wrong. Nobody really knows what causes pedophilia. I'd say it is caused the same way as any other. It's a mixture of biological factors and nurture. It's not low self esteem that leads to pedophilia, it's pedophilia that leads to low self esteem. [QUOTE]Sexual orientation cannot be changed, but pedophilia is a [I]paraphilia[/I] (a fetish), not a sexual orientation,[/QUOTE] A paraphilia [I]is[/I] a sexual orientation: the difference is that it's a sexual orientation that is abnormal and/or shunned in some societies. And a paraphilia is not a fetish. This shit comes up every time; all of these words are just confusing the matter and they are pointless. Pedophilia is a sexuality and works the same way as heterosexuality and homosexuality whether you call it a disorder or not. [QUOTE]It is classified as a mental disorder on the grounds that it causes harm to the psyche of the affected person who, by extension becomes dangerous to others.[/QUOTE] That doesn't make it work different in the psyche of the pedophile. Yes, if acted out on, it has different [I]consequences[/I] than many other sexual orientations - but these consequences do not change what pedophilia [I]is[/I]. It does not make pedophilia treatable. Homosexuality wouldn't suddenly be treatable if, for some inexplicable reason, homosexuality became harmful. [QUOTE]When I say that lolicon reinforces the notion that their condition is normal I mean that they continue to ignore the fact that they suffer from a mental disorder and that they must seek help. Like I said before, this is the same idea as telling a paranoid schizophrenic that his delusions are true, it only adds to the problem instead of helping.[/QUOTE] Except nobody understands how to deal with pedophilia. Excuse my anecdotes, but I feel I can draw some conclusions from it... Like I said, I've spoken to 7 different therapists who all had very different and conflicting ideas about how to handle it. Most of them made it worse and I'm certain they couldn't have helped at all. The ones who did help were the ones who stepped around the pedophilia [B](most of them agreed that pedophilia itself couldn't be treated[/B] - even the clueless ones) and instead focused on understanding me and dealing with whatever else I had going on. What I can draw from that is that professionals don't agree all the time, so you can't be certain that your idea is the correct way either. Pedophilia is untreatable. It's an orientation. A personality trait. You can't treat it like a mental disorder. It's okay to think it is 'normal', as long as the person has common sense and doesn't go too far with it. Saying that indulging in it makes it worse is an assumption. People aren't going to just lose their sense of empathy for others by looking at lolicon. [QUOTE]And I can assure you that you don't know what you're talking about. There are several treatments that are being employed, such as relapse prevention (aka Cognitive Behavioral therapy) and covert conditioning (specifically covert sensitization or masturbatory replacement). Both of those have had some success in eliminating the urges of pedophilic patients.[/QUOTE] Any good sources on this? I have to admit that I simply don't believe you can change the attractions of a pedophile. [B]EDIT:[/B] Nevermind you already posted sources. [B]EDIT:[/B] [QUOTE=Rangergxi;41051663]The paper was more about sexual offenders and how they don't recognize the harm of their actions of because of the shame associated with it.[/QUOTE] How could I have predicted that this would be the case?... People who study these things are still very eager to lump pedophiles and sex offenders in the same category. I'll still try to read through it. Would be pretty cool to cure myself and become a heterosexual ._ . [QUOTE]When I say "normal" I mean socially acceptable. Being sexually attracted to children isn't and shouldn't be socially acceptable for all the above reasons.[/QUOTE] If they're not doing more than looking at lolicon, then it should be fine. You're just assuming that it will inevitably get worse, which doesn't have to be the case. [QUOTE]You said it yourself, the mental distress faced by homosexual people is a result of society's hostile attitude towards them, all those mental disorders in the study aren't directly caused by homosexuality, it can be a [I]factor[/I], but not the cause. They don't suffer those disorders just because they're gay. The constant harassment and sense of alienation they're subjected to is to blame, not their sexual orientation.[/QUOTE] And that's the case for pedophiles, too. I know there's a difference when it comes to when they are acted out: Pedophilia causes harm, homosexuality doesn't. But when it is [I]not[/I] acted out, they are both exactly as you described above.

Wrong and immoral yes, illegal no. It fills a niche that could prevent people from committing acts in real life. However in the same regard it could also corrupt someone into doing things. But then again wasn't there a time when casual sex was deemed immoral and look at how it's accepted now??

It really seems to me that a lot of the stigma surrounding paedophilia is more cultural than moral. Pretty much echoing the sentiments of everyone else in the thread but if you're banning something that doesn't even hurt anyone you're just invading liberties because you think it's icky.

People don't know why a law exists, so they make up their own reasons, then use that reason to label other actions as "bad".

[QUOTE=Ereunity;41055406]Wrong and immoral yes, illegal no.[/QUOTE] I'd like to know why people consider lolicon immoral. Beyond legality, how can something that hurts no one be considered immoral and wrong?

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;41059515]I'd like to know why people consider lolicon immoral. Beyond legality, how can something that hurts no one be considered immoral and wrong?[/QUOTE] Most people seem to to be arguing that it normalizes the sexualization of children and inspires people into becoming child molesters. Nobody has provided really any evidence of this.

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;41059515]I'd like to know why people consider lolicon immoral. Beyond legality, how can something that hurts no one be considered immoral and wrong?[/QUOTE] the sexualizing of children, little undeveloped people, real or fake, is kinda weird tbh

The only difference between an adult and a child in a drawing is the artist's word.

Who is lolicon hurting? I'd like someone to use a reason other than "it's wrong".

Characters of which have been drawn are not people. I think a lot of people are trying to say that a bunch of pixels or graphite is a living, breathing creature. Lolicon, drawn, should be legal. But not just because it's lolicon, because it's drawn. Nothing [I]drawn[/I] should be illegal, it's like making a book illegal because it depicts something wrong/immoral. [editline]17th June 2013[/editline] Asking someone to debate whether or not something is immoral or not is a really bad question. That's something you decide upon on a subjective basis because of influence from others, not because someone said so.

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;41060890]the sexualizing of children, little undeveloped people, real or fake, is kinda weird tbh[/QUOTE] could you maybe say something other then weird thats like 90% of everyones reasoning it was considered okay in early centuries to wed before the normal marriage age (20+) because of lower life expectancy rates

[QUOTE=BLUcody;41062248]could you maybe say something other then weird thats like 90% of everyones reasoning it was considered okay in early centuries to wed before the normal marriage age (20+) because of lower life expectancy rates[/QUOTE] its prolly 90% of peoples reasoning cuz it is weird? idk what you want me to say. seeing sexualized children is uncomfortable. real life cp is awful and lolicon is kinda similar (sexualized children). granted real children arent being harmed in lolicon but the connotation is still there!

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;41062325]its prolly 90% of peoples reasoning cuz it is weird? idk what you want me to say. seeing sexualized children is uncomfortable. real life cp is awful and lolicon is kinda similar (sexualized children). granted real children arent being harmed in lolicon but the connotation is still there![/QUOTE] i think the problem itself is with people that cant distinguish reality from fiction, whether it be something you wank to to a game or a show. and for that at least for where im from we need more funding on the rehabilitation side of things. you just cant ban lolicon for a very specific and narrow problem i think lolicon is okay because one, a regular person would be able to tell the difference with the art style and all (cant say that for all the lolicon art obviously, but the majority is stylized.) and b, b, i dont care who wants to what as long it doesnt harm anyone morals are subjective views formed individually by each person from influences, not a very straight answer you'll get in debate

nobody said anything about banning it the op asks if its right and moral or not. i dont think sexualizing children is right or moral, whether or not its hurting anybody. cp is taking advantage of those who cant help themselves and lolicon, real or not, should not be tolerated because of the connotations to horrible things. i dont really know whats there to debate this is pretty much a fast thread topic

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;41062640]nobody said anything about banning it the op asks if its right and moral or not. i dont think sexualizing children is right or moral, whether or not its hurting anybody. cp is taking advantage of those who cant help themselves and lolicon, real or not, should not be tolerated because of the connotations to horrible things. i dont really know whats there to debate this is pretty much a fast thread topic[/QUOTE] if people dont like it they can simply just not look at it its simple like that for your connotations, okay, what about video games on controversial topics? the vietnam war?

No. Lolicon always has fake girls, and nobody is being harmed from them.

[QUOTE=BLUcody;41063001]if people dont like it they can simply just not look at it its simple like that for your connotations, okay, what about video games on controversial topics? the vietnam war?[/QUOTE] theres a difference between depicting a historical event and spank material depicting children and not to mention that doesnt have anything to do with the topic

[QUOTE=Nautsabes;41060890]the sexualizing of children, little undeveloped people, real or fake, is kinda weird tbh[/QUOTE] Things are "immoral and wrong" because you find them weird? [QUOTE=Nautsabes;41062325]seeing sexualized children is uncomfortable.[/QUOTE] Don't need to look at it.

I think the problem here is most people are seeing lolicon as some sort of gateway fetish to CP rather than seeing it as keeping people away from doing CP because they have something to satisfy their urges and needs with.

[QUOTE=Heigou;41068268]CP rather than seeing it as keeping people away from doing CP because they have something to satisfy their urges and needs with.[/QUOTE] or like the furries where it is something completely unique. A furry isn't necessarily interested in animal sex. There are some but for the most part this doesn't apply to all of them.

no way, it's just cartoon girls

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;41067270]Things are "immoral and wrong" because you find them weird? Don't need to look at it.[/QUOTE] no, i find it wrong and immoral because its sexualizing children, which happens to be weird!! whether not not i have to choice to look at it or not doesn't change it, its uncomfortable for a lot of people (except pedophiles)

[QUOTE=DrTaxi;41059515]I'd like to know why people consider lolicon immoral. Beyond legality, how can something that hurts no one be considered immoral and wrong?[/QUOTE] I don't see either what makes it immoral. Morality to me is doing what is right and not what is wrong. It is wrong to hurt people, and since we've all agreed that lolicon does not hurt people, how is it immoral? And by my own wording, isn't 'wrong' and 'immoral' the same thing? So thus by my reasoning it is neither wrong nor immoral, nor should it be illegal. I still think it's weird as hell, but it doesn't hurt anyone so it's neither immoral, wrong nor should be illegal.

[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] This. I don't like lolicon personally but no children are getting harmed, and if some sick guy can whack off to it instead of going after a real child, then so be it.