Should lolicon really be considered wrong and immoral? - General

It's cartoons so it's fine. Draw stuff is not the same as real life. Same argument can be said for stories and video games. They are made up, fiction.

Well yeah, pretty much any media like TV, Movies, Games or pictures can convince some people to do certain things in real life like murder or rape and so sexualizing children through lolicon would certainty make some people want to fuck children. Although it could be either they want to fuck children anyway and lolicon delays them acting upon it or they just happen to like lolicon but not real children. Because you would have to have the same view on rape or gore-murder comics because it wouldn't make sense why one type of drawing depicting illegal acts should illegal but another drawing about a different illegal act should be legal when both would have similar effects, just one harms children, the other harms pretty much everyone. But you can consider it wrong and immoral, but I don't see any better reason why it should be illegal any more so than any other disturbing porn. Just dont go opening lolicon comic stores next to primary schools, jesus christ.

To me it's the same as murder in cartoons, video games etc. It's obviously wrong and immoral in real life but when it comes to something like cartoons, how is it wrong? It's not harming anybody at all. In fact, as others have said, it's possible it saves some.

In my opinion, lolicon isn't 'bad'. Pedophilia is just completely sick, but lolicon could prove as an safer option to that. I mean, it's essentially just cartoons, right? I know many people do not agree with it, but in my opinion, it is probably a good choice to legalize it.

As in strictly animated? Its no more harmful than dudes jerking off to furry porn I guess. In fact its exactly the same, I'm guessing most furry fanatics dont actually find real animals attractive. Otherwise furries wouldnt be drawn with humanoid features. Likewise lolicon is a caricature, not the reality of pre pubescent girls/boys.

The world is very wrong and has a lot of immorality already. One convention isn't going to make much of a difference to the world. Even though I don't like it, other people might. As long as it makes people happy, who am I to care?

Should it be morally wrong and illegal? No. People are gonna rub one out to whatever they like, and since this is animated and not pictures of real kids being disgustingly exploited, no one is getting hurt by it. Hell, I'd even encourage it for people with the fetish, especially if they might be unstable enough go out and try for the real thing instead due to repressed sexual feelings. Mind you, I'm not saying anyone who likes loli has a pedo-van gassed up and idling, but in the rare cases where someone is about to go way too far, this kind of outlet might just prevent things from getting awful. Weird and potentially gross to people without the fetish? Yeah. Not my thing, and I personally don't get it or like it, but in the end that's just me. Everyone has their own opinion, and besides, if people can wank to feces/piss, they'll please the one-eyed snake to anything. Fetishes are just like sex itself in all its myriad forms and styles: Potentially strange, possibly disgusting, and hell of a lot of fun if the type going on is your thing. In my personal opinion, sex is like "[B]'Murica[/B]" (that is, "[B]'Murica[/B]", the ideal of complete and utter individual freedom, not "United States of America", the amusingly repressed and strange nation I reside in), where ideally every man, woman and barn animal has utter freedom to do whatever appeals to them as long as no one gets hurt (assuming they don't get off on being hurt that is). So, in closing, people should be allowed to please themselves to whatever makes them happy, as long as no real, living people are hurt by it.

A much better topic would be one on the [B]legality[/B] of illegal events, being drawn, written about or talked about. Immorality is incredibly subjective and there isn't really anything to debate in the first place. Talking about lolicon in specific is pretty much pointless because the same arguments can be applied to any other act in the same sector of drawn events; murder and rape, right down to the smaller things like money laundering and theft.

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41105031]A much better topic would be one on the [B]legality[/B] of illegal events, being drawn, written about or talked about. Immorality is incredibly subjective and there isn't really anything to debate in the first place. Talking about lolicon in specific is pretty much pointless because the same arguments can be applied to any other act in the same sector of drawn events; murder and rape, right down to the smaller things like money laundering and theft.[/QUOTE] Murder, rape, money laundering and theft are in no way illegal anywhere* to draw. *western world, exceptions may exist

I never said they are, I'm talking about the illegality of [I]anything[/I] fictional. [editline]20th June 2013[/editline] I was just trying to give an example of something that would obviously cause outrage if they were to be illegalized in fictional media.

Like many people say in this thread; If it does not hurt anyone in anyway it should not be illegal, even if It is just drawn and illustrated

The morality of it comes down to the question of "Is sexual attraction to children wrong?". So far the common answer to that question seems to be a resounding "Yes". However the reasoning behind that answer is a tad circular in nature. If you ask the question "Why is sexual attraction to a child wrong?" you'd most likely get "Because they are children and are not developed to the point where sex would be a healthy thing, and would most likely harm them". The problem with that answer is that it doesn't actually answer the question "Why is sexual attraction to a child wrong", but rather it answers the question "Why is sexual activities with children wrong?". The actual sexual attraction to children harms no one. Another common answer you'd get if you asked the question, "Why is sexual attraction to a child wrong?" would be "It's wrong because the attraction itself leads to sexual intercourse with children". Alright, but an interest in serial killers could lead to someone killing someone in an attempt to further understand/copy the people they are interested in. Despite that we don't find criminal profiling immoral. Just because an interest/attraction could lead to immoral actions doesn't mean that the actual interest/attraction is immoral. On the subject of legality, I see no reason why it should be illegal. As was stated so many times before hand in this thread, the actual creation of the artwork hurts no one (and may even prevent the harm of children). People who are going to harm children are going to harm children. A person who actually does harm a child after viewing lolicon has problems differentiating between fiction and reality along with problems controlling their urges, and would've harmed the child anyway due to these problems.

It really all boils down to WHY it would be banned. Personally, I see no reason; There were arguments that were wondering how could we tell how old a drawn character is, considering the fact that they have no birth records. That really doesn't matter, because it's animated and not real. and tbh, drawing the line on actual people as well as drawings at 18 is a pretty random number. [editline]20th June 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Nautsabes;41060890]the sexualizing of children, little undeveloped people, real or fake, is kinda weird tbh[/QUOTE] define undeveloped. And something being "weird" does not make it immoral, let alone the fact that morality should have no part in law systems, considering the fact that morality is not objective.

[QUOTE=Ereunity;41055406]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. [/QUOTE] This argument has always been pretty patchy. People are either attracted to children enough to be a molester, or they're not. There's no "gateway drug" and needless to say if a pedo could vent his urges on a fictional drawing, then his urges may not progress to be strong enough to actually act on his pedophilia. There's really not much middleground in the subject

[QUOTE=Ereunity;41055406]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.[/QUOTE] Like violent videogames?

[QUOTE=Heigou;41068268]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] thats pretty much like saying we should legalize something like heroin so itll satisfy heroin addict's needs also dont tell me that 'LOLICON AND HEROIN ARE NOTHING ALIKE' its a comparison

[QUOTE=Death_God;41124648]thats pretty much like saying we should legalize something like heroin so itll satisfy heroin addict's needs also dont tell me that 'LOLICON AND HEROIN ARE NOTHING ALIKE' its a comparison[/QUOTE] It's more like legalizing computer simulated heroin so it'll satisfy heroin addict's needs

[QUOTE=Death_God;41124648]thats pretty much like saying we should legalize something like heroin so itll satisfy heroin addict's needs also dont tell me that 'LOLICON AND HEROIN ARE NOTHING ALIKE' its a comparison[/QUOTE] Comparisons are fine but yours fall flat because the main point with these two things are different. Heroin is harmful in and of itself, lolicon is not. You're free to compare them but finding differences like what I just did is also part of what it means to compare things. I'm sick of people saying you can't compare this and that because they're "nothing alike". Everything has at least one thing in common with every other thing, the question is only whether or not it is a [I]good[/I] comparison. In this case, it isn't. Legalizing heroin to satisfy heroin addicts would be more akin to legalizing rape to satisfy rapists' feelings, which nobody is arguing. [I](that is, assuming for a second that heroin is ultra bad and should always be illegal, which I'm not sure I agree with.)[/I]