Pictures never hurt anyone.
If you're offended by it, don't be involved in it.
I think it should be legal.
Though, my opinion can change depending on "how loli" we're talking about.
Sometimes images show slightly underage girls. But the spectrum can go to the the almost-toddlercon stuff (which makes me want to puke).
While the idea of a grown man jacking off to drawings of little girls makes me sick and they ought to just fall off the face of the earth, it's not within my right or power to tell them that what they are doing is wrong because at the present it isn't wrong although morally maybe but legally not so. What they do in the confines of their own personal space so long as it doesn't affect others or those around them I don't really care.
In Australia, drawings of fictional minors engaging in sectual acts (Rule 34 on the simpsons, lolicon, etc) is illegal.
As garry said, people should be able to draw whatever they want.
I'd like to add on that. People should be able to role play whatever they want, or fantasise about anything they want. In a small way, it seems to be thought control as it doesn't involve anybody who doesn't consent.
I still don't find why guro is legal, while lolicon isn't.
Legal, and regardless of how grotesque you find it how can you even enforce this when you're dealing with fictional characters?
"Oh no, I'm not allowed to have this comic with this 9 year old girl doing provocative things. I'll just add a "1" infront of the 9 and suddenly it's ok!"
[QUOTE=garry;32728599]We should be able to draw anything we want.[/QUOTE]
You're just saying that because of your drawing of a baby with a massive boner would make you a criminal.
I'd post it, but I can't find it. You know the one I'm talking about though.
[QUOTE=garry;32728599]We should be able to draw anything we want.[/QUOTE]
Let's draw Swastikas and naked children with enormous boners legally yeah!111
[QUOTE=Psycho_Shadow;32734863]So you're essentially saying that lolicon should be illegal because you think it's wrong?
As wrong as it may be to some, and even myself, they're simply drawings that hurt no one.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Kalibos;32735075]that doesn't make any sense please elaborate
because that's [I]exactly[/I] the same argument they used against pornography back in the day and it got shot down hard[/QUOTE]
Wouldn't that being the same as saying that racism should be illegal because we ethically think that it is wrong? That's reality. Why else would it be illegal for me to be a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semitic or whatever? There might be something that I'm missing, but to me it falls into the same category.
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
Reminds me of movies getting banned in certain countries. i.e. Human Centipede. That movie doesn't hurt anyone, yet it is still getting banned in some countries of simple ethical reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I am in strong opposition to censorship, but it is still a reality.
[QUOTE=GuruLongie;32742323]Wouldn't that being the same as saying that racism should be illegal because we ethically think that it is wrong? That's reality. Why else would it be illegal for me to be a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semitic or whatever? There might be something that I'm missing, but to me it falls into the same category.
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
Reminds me of movies getting banned in certain countries. i.e. Human Centipede. That movie doesn't hurt anyone, yet it is still getting banned in some countries of simple ethical reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I am in strong opposition to censorship, but it is still a reality.[/QUOTE]
Yep, I agree. Same principles, but I don't think any of those should be banned. Completely ridiculous, you know how in Denmark we had that whole muhammed drawing controversy? The entire argument that came from Denmark was "Freedom of Speech", but not that long after, some people who were making holocaust denying remarks were arrested for it. [I](Although not in Denmark - but I know that a lot, maybe most, people support the fact that saying rascist things is illegal, and also think that denying holocaust should be illegal)[/I]
Seems to me that "Freedom" is a huge fucking deal that gets thrown around constantly, yet people still tend to be very selective about it and not actually supporting freedom when it comes down to it.
I wish i can get a source for this but a research shows that Lolicon decreases the number of people looking for real CP because they have Lolicon instead.
Yes it should stay legal.
[QUOTE=znk666;32741751]Let's draw Swastikas and naked children with enormous boners legally yeah!111[/QUOTE]
Why not?
Victimless crimes should not be crimes.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32742380]Yep, I agree. Same principles, but I don't think any of those should be banned. Completely ridiculous, you know how in Denmark we had that whole muhammed drawing controversy? The entire argument that came from Denmark was "Freedom of Speech", but not that long after, some people who were making holocaust denying remarks were arrested for it. [I](Although not in Denmark - but I know that a lot, maybe most, people support the fact that saying rascist things is illegal, and also think that denying holocaust should be illegal)[/I]
Seems to me that "Freedom" is a huge fucking deal that gets thrown around constantly, yet people still tend to be very selective about it and not actually supporting freedom when it comes down to it.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps one should just turn that around and say- "We're all human. We can differ between right and wrong.".
[editline]12th October 2011[/editline]
I don't know myself actually, I'm not sure. I just think it would suit this thread to have some counter-arguments.
Legal as long as it doesn't go to the extremes such as 3d or rape style.
[QUOTE=Lexinator;32742807]Legal as long as it doesn't go to the extremes such as 3d or rape style.[/QUOTE]
Oh that'd be horrendous, imaginary children being raped! Surely that warrants images being taken down?
[QUOTE=Lexinator;32742807]Legal as long as it doesn't go to the extremes such as 3d or rape style.[/QUOTE]
By this logic, video games are bad because they are 3D depictions of murders.
90% of lolicon is so far removed from actual CP that you guys are closer to it while watching mainstream pornography.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;32733355]There's a difference between you thinking of fucking a grown-up man, and fantasizing about small girls that isn't old enough to have sex. Of course it's different how the society views the relationships, but the society have views on murder and rape as well.[/QUOTE]
In ancient greece it was fine, even EXPECTED for students to be fucked by their teacher.
And people need to get this in their fucking heads, there's a different between a pedophile and a child rapist, a pedophile has a fetish, a child rapist rapes people of that fetish, like any rapist does, no matter the fetish.
this thread reminds me of that guy who had som,e really long title abbout pedophile demonization
[QUOTE=AltFanatic;32755243]this thread reminds me of that guy who had som,e really long title abbout pedophile demonization[/QUOTE]
Which is funny since this isn't even the pedophilia thread :v:
[QUOTE=garry;32728599]We should be able to draw anything we want.[/QUOTE]
Didn't you actually draw a baby with a giant erect cock? :v:
But anyway, ontopic, I think it should be legal. I don't really feel like it's that harmful, doesn't really seem to affect the average society from my experiences. Really, I believe only internet users would know about lolicon in the first place, the average Joe outside of Asia probably would not. It doesn't feel like a major concern, at least to me.
They're not living organic beings.
They don't have an age because they were never actually [i]born.[/i]
The artist may aswell declare their age to 40 million years for all it matters.
I think it's unreasonable to treat [i]art[/i] as a human and apply laws to interactions with it.
It's comparable to putting a law against drawing a motive of an illegal act, such as murder.
Yeah, even if it was decided that it's illegal to draw fictional underage nude characters, the artist could just say it's actually 18 years old or something
Sorry guys, no drawing airplanes because it might cause a terrorist attack.
You can't apply law to art, doesn't make fucking sense.
[editline]13th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BrQ;32762324]Yeah, even if it was decided that it's illegal to draw fictional underage nude characters, the artist could just say it's actually 18 years old or something[/QUOTE]
This.
[QUOTE=Pnukup;32761994]They're not living organic beings.
They don't have an age because they were never actually [i]born.[/i]
The artist may aswell declare their age to 40 million years for all it matters.
I think it's unreasonable to treat [i]art[/i] as a human and apply laws to interactions with it.
It's comparable to putting a law against drawing a motive of an illegal act, such as murder.[/QUOTE]
solid argument
But I can't help but think there has to be a line drawn somewhere still. If someone makes child porn that looks like real life, would it still not be considered child porn? Knowing how people find holes in the law these days, I can assume that some at point in the future someone will make child porn where the child looks like someone in real life. They could get away with it by saying the child is fictional. Children tend to look a like too.
I get confused thinking about how people will react when they can't see the difference between fake and real child porn.
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;32764046]solid argument
But I can't help but think there has to be a line drawn somewhere still. If someone makes child porn that looks like real life, would it still not be considered child porn? Knowing how people find holes in the law these days, I can assume that some at point in the future someone will make child porn where the child looks like someone in real life. They could get away with it by saying the child is fictional. Children tend to look a like too.
I get confused thinking about how people will react when they can't see the difference between fake and real child porn.[/QUOTE]
The only reason child porn is illegal is the same reason why snuff films are illegal, they have a victim.
[QUOTE=Crimor;32765008]The only reason child porn is illegal is the same reason why snuff films are illegal, they have a victim.[/QUOTE]
So it doesn't matter how realistic it looks or how similar the fake victim looks compared to someone else?
[QUOTE=Crimor;32765008]The only reason child porn is illegal is the same reason why snuff films are illegal, they have a victim.[/QUOTE]
Snuff films are illegal? For example 3 guys 1 hammer? What about random gore images and gifs? Seriously had no idea if that is true and they are illegal.
Otherwise I agree... Yay for double standards.
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32767888]Snuff films are illegal? For example 3 guys 1 hammer? What about random gore images and gifs? Seriously had no idea if that is true and they are illegal.
Otherwise I agree... Yay for double standards.[/QUOTE]
I mean the snuff films where they pretty much mutilate someone to the point of killing them.
[editline]14th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=CapsAdmin;32765193]So it doesn't matter how realistic it looks or how similar the fake victim looks compared to someone else?[/QUOTE]
Movies have realistic scenes of something illegal too, murder, so you're against that too?
If we start making drawings illegal we are gonna have some horrible censoring laws soon.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
