I've been thinking about this all day, I've done a full 180 degree turn and I've dropped the whole, "Well, we've gotta make it fit with the other ideas." To actually like lolicon is actually liking the depiction of having sex with a minor and to like that shows that you're unfit. Unfit? Why unfit?
Well, to want to have sex with a minor or to fantasize it is not okay. No matter what. You can go on and say, "but it's the individual's choice," but really, are you doing the person any good in allowing him to access such material? Making it difficult for the viewer to get a hold of lolicon or banning things in general doesn't really work out in total - it's all still accessible. However, making it difficult for people to access it on a large-scale is better and gives them more of a chance to come back to a more socially accepted state. Yeah, I went there. I said socially accepted.
Forcing people to be socially acceptable isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's done to an extent. Preventing people from watching a child and an adult doing it is probably for the better, since that's generally what it is when you get past the drawing aspect of it.
It doesn't really match up with violent video games and what not because they're much more mainstream and there's a lot more understanding going on. I don't think that people are getting a bloodlust from games because they pretty much get that killing isn't right and parents do their part to help kids understand. There isn't an equivalent in terms of violent media to a fetish for lolicon/children. Feel free to prove me wrong but I just can't equate the two.
Many popular violent games don't even portray terrible ideas for killing - i.e. you're in the war, or you're fighting for survival, and etc. [b]You can't justify the ideas lolicon portray.[/b]
Also, the more exposure to x, the more desensitized you are.
Absolutely legal. Unless the drawing of the image included the actual use of a child model as reference, there's no reason to limit this kind of freedom because some people think it's icky. I don't think people can help pedophilia, and I think there are a LOT more of them than we'd think. But like gays in the 50s, they can't exactly be open about it even the sense of "dude, this feels kinda' fucked up, but I think I find kids...attractive..."
Who would EVER admit something like that? They'd be ostracized, maybe even reported.
I don't think it's even true pedophiles who kidnap kids, just sickos with a need to exert power over something smaller than them.
In any case, the more lolicon and shotacon they fap to, the less I think we have to worry about them. In any case, it is and SHOULD be protected by free expression. Nobody gets hurt in a picture.
Honestly, I could give a fuck less about what people masturbate to.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwXJWXgdb4I[/media]
it's wrong and perverted
[QUOTE=Mon;32824346][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lwXJWXgdb4I[/media]
it's wrong and perverted[/QUOTE]
"Wrong and perverted" could describe a lot of things that are (and should remain) legal. We don't ban things because they make us uncomfortable; true harm must emerge from a thing before we even ATTEMPT that conversation, and you need pretty damning evidence that one thing is the cause of another.
It is my opinion that lolicon is a way to alleviate the urges, not a gateway to actual child molestation. It's no different than the video game violence debate. Exposure to something does not increase the likelihood of acting it out, and I do NOT believe the vast majority of passive pedophiles are outright insane, or we'd find quite a few more molesters taking residence in asylums, and not correctional facilities.
[QUOTE=Mon;32824346]it's wrong and perverted[/QUOTE]
Well that wasn't thought out or explained at all.
[editline]17th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=wauterboi;32824203]I've been thinking about this all day, I've done a full 180 degree turn and I've dropped the whole, "Well, we've gotta make it fit with the other ideas." To actually like lolicon is actually liking the depiction of having sex with a minor and to like that shows that you're unfit. Unfit? Why unfit?
Well, to want to have sex with a minor or to fantasize it is not okay. No matter what. You can go on and say, "but it's the individual's choice," but really, are you doing the person any good in allowing him to access such material? Making it difficult for the viewer to get a hold of lolicon or banning things in general doesn't really work out in total - it's all still accessible. However, making it difficult for people to access it on a large-scale is better and gives them more of a chance to come back to a more socially accepted state. Yeah, I went there. I said socially accepted.
Forcing people to be socially acceptable isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's done to an extent. Preventing people from watching a child and an adult doing it is probably for the better, since that's generally what it is when you get past the drawing aspect of it.
It doesn't really match up with violent video games and what not because they're much more mainstream and there's a lot more understanding going on. I don't think that people are getting a bloodlust from games because they pretty much get that killing isn't right and parents do their part to help kids understand. There isn't an equivalent in terms of violent media to a fetish for lolicon/children. Feel free to prove me wrong but I just can't equate the two.
Many popular violent games don't even portray terrible ideas for killing - i.e. you're in the war, or you're fighting for survival, and etc. [b]You can't justify the ideas lolicon portray.[/b]
Also, the more exposure to x, the more desensitized you are.[/QUOTE]
You can't "justify" the ideas fascist propaganda portrays either, but you can still go see it if you want to and buy posters of it.
[QUOTE=Tuskin;32822184]Doesn't matter you're still depicting and underage person.[/QUOTE]
The legal issue with child pornography is not whether the person who enjoys it is mentally healthy or not, but the fact that there are real children in it.
[QUOTE=BALLSANDASHWALL;32822625][B]WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.[/B]
Yes, YES, [B]YES IT ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE BANNED[/B].
What kind of sick fuck do you have to be to endorse this or even enable it to go on like you all propose we do? I didn't even know what the fuck this was before now, and I must be misreading here because it looks like what you are advocating is the legalization of [B]CHILD PORNOGRAPHY[/B]. I don't care if it's drawn it's the same damn thing. You idiots are allowing this to grow and corrupt our society when really we should continue to supress and burn it from existence altogether until there are no more pedophiles. First you give the fucking gays the right to marry, and now you want to legalize this [B]BULLSHIT[/B] and next up we're just going to take down the whole age of consent thing, right?
Guess what you get when you do that? decades of severe psychological damage to everyone, [I]complete and total societal collapse.[/I]
That's what you get when you allow shit such as homosexuality, atheism, and WORST OF ALL [B]PEDOPHILIA[/B] to exist in our world.
How about you all educate yourselves before you destroy the world we worked so hard to create, hmm?[/QUOTE]
And you just appear to think that if we cover it up the problem it will cease to exist.
[QUOTE=BALLSANDASHWALL;32822625]That's what you get when you allow shit such as homosexuality, atheism, and WORST OF ALL [B]PEDOPHILIA[/B] to exist in our world.[/QUOTE]
I'd like to address this specifically. Who are you to come in here with this "allow to exist in our world" nonsense? I'm an Atheist and the notion that it is "deviant" or wrong is completely ridiculous.
The thing is, when we "ban" something, we don't ban it because of what people decide to do with it. Knives, guns and alcohol are PROVEN to have been used to the detriment of the user, and others around the user. But we don't ban those.
Why?
Because, simply, nothing in the process of making a knife, a gun, or brewing alcohol, required the application of any illegal actions.
Child pornography is banned, because to make it, a child must suffer sexual abuse. That's it. Not because of what the people FAPPING to it might do, upon being "influenced", even if such were true. For the same reason we don't ban knives because some people kill with them, we shouldn't ban lolicon. Because, again, like the knife, nothing illegal was involved with the creation of the image.
The people who oppose this are letting their emotions and their irrationality get in the way. They don't see pedophiles as human beings, and because they have no better example, they assume a pedophile WILL do something with their child if left in the same room alone. Put yourself in their shoes, and consider that while they might have these feelings and attractions, they might also still have a conscience, and might not DREAM of actually doing harm to a child. You only have the bad examples, the ones who did extreme things and were caught. You don't know the others, because they're not stupid enough to think they'd be accepted.
Also, another thing: I believe there was a point in the history of the Czech Republic in which child pornography itself was legal. Not the making of it, I don't think, but possession of it. It was only temporary, but it was long enough to gauge that sexual crimes and abuse actually decreased, remarkably, in the given time. I don't endorse actual child pornography, by any means (though possession is known to be a grey area), but the trend does NOT suggest that access to this manner of content would cause an increase in child molestation cases. Legally, it doesn't matter, but it's something to consider at the very least.
[QUOTE=J-Dude;32825443]The thing is, when we "ban" something, we don't ban it because of what people decide to do with it. Knives, guns and alcohol are PROVEN to have been used to the detriment of the user, and others around the user. But we don't ban those.
Why?
Because, simply, nothing in the process of making a knife, a gun, or brewing alcohol, required the application of any illegal actions.[/quote]
They aren't banned because they serve practical purposes. Knives cut things which is useful, guns have a use for hunting (or self defense if your american) and alcohol isn't banned because it's been used for thousands of years and is heavily integrated into culture.
Types of knives and firearms that are deemed excessive for normal use are banned here for example. Nobody needs an automatic weapon for hunting so you can't get one unless you're a collector.
Lolicon serves no practical purpose and can't be said to be prolific historically or culturally as alcohol is so the comparison doesn't work. I'm not disagreeing with your overall point because there is little evidence that exposure to this material causes much harm but this isn't a good comparison.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32825579]
Lolicon serves no practical purpose and can't be said to be prolific historically or culturally as alcohol is so the comparison doesn't work. I'm not disagreeing with your overall point because there is little evidence that exposure to this material causes much harm but this isn't a good comparison.[/QUOTE]
Then we should ban all other porn that is not real men and women porn.
Practical purpose is that it pleases people who like it. I like guns and I am sad I can't get a fully auto one. Many things have no practical use, but that is a terrible reason to ban something.
Also most knife crimes are committed with kitchen knives because they're really easy to get. You wouldn't buy a KABAR just to stab someone even if they were legal.
And to that guy who was preaching something, I am an Atheist and proud. Being one allows me to have a free mind where I can accept people who are different from me and not judge them based on activities they do in their private time.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;32824203]Well, to want to have sex with a minor or to fantasize it is not okay. No matter what. You can go on and say, "but it's the individual's choice," but really, are you doing the person any good in allowing him to access such material?[/QUOTE]
Yes, it's allowing him an outlet. Even if it didn't "do the person any good", it shouldn't be illegalized just because of that. How can you say that a fantasy, ANY fantasy, can be "not okay"?
[QUOTE]Making it difficult for the viewer to get a hold of lolicon or banning things in general doesn't really work out in total - it's all still accessible. However, making it difficult for people to access it on a large-scale is better and gives them more of a chance to come back to a more socially accepted state. Yeah, I went there. I said socially accepted.[/QUOTE]
Do you know what happened when the states tried to get rid of alcohol all together by illegalizing it? Shit got out of control. And how is the prohibition on marijuana working out right now? And didn't it work out jolly good when people tried to convert homosexuals?
You are assuming that if people have a harder time to find lolicon, they will somehow be more likely to turn back to a normal sexuality. This is not true. Pedophiles aren't going to be cured through boycotting fantasies of children.
[QUOTE]Forcing people to be socially acceptable isn't necessarily a bad thing if it's done to an extent. Preventing people from watching a child and an adult doing it is probably for the better, since that's generally what it is when you get past the drawing aspect of it.[/QUOTE]
Oh yeah, it's perfectly justified once you ignore the fact that it is just drawings. But why on earth would you "get past" that? That is like the central point here, you can't just "when you get past" that.
It's a drawing, so as long as it stays a drawing and it stays as a fantasy, there is no "wrong", no "issue", no "not okay".
[QUOTE]It doesn't really match up with violent video games and what not because they're much more mainstream and there's a lot more understanding going on. I don't think that people are getting a bloodlust from games [b]because they pretty much get that killing isn't right[/b] and parents do their part to help kids understand. There isn't an equivalent in terms of violent media to a fetish for lolicon/children. Feel free to prove me wrong but I just can't equate the two.[/QUOTE]
You're implying right there that people who look at lolicon can't tell right from wrong.
And the rest could be debated in a debate about violent video games as well. Parents help their kids understand? What, by letting them play violent video games? There's a lot more understanding going on? What?
[QUOTE]Many popular violent games don't even portray terrible ideas for killing - i.e. you're in the war, or you're fighting for survival, and etc. [b]You can't justify the ideas lolicon portray.[/b][/QUOTE]
Because killing isn't a terrible idea in and of itself. Every game with violence in it still portrays killing as a viable solution to dealing with enemies...
There's plenty of games, movies, stories etc. with ideas that can't be justified. But it's [I]fictive[/I], so there's no need to justify it at all.
[editline]17th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=J-Dude;32825443]The thing is, when we "ban" something, we don't ban it because of what people decide to do with it. [...]
Child pornography is banned, because to make it, a child must suffer sexual abuse. [...]
The people who oppose this are letting their emotions and their irrationality get in the way.[...][/QUOTE]
That is a post I would normally rate winner~
As for the Czech thing, I can provide something related.
[url]http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-effects-of-pornography.html[/url]
[quote]The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups [Table 2]. We hypothesized that the increase in pornography, without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of victims decreased particularly among the females younger than 13. In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%; a reduction of greater than 50%.[/quote]
Basically the same as with alcohol prohibition. When you legalize something, people seem to calm down about it. Of course, the link above is about pornography in general, but I assume it works the same way with lolicon.
And as you said, which I think is a very important thing, is that it actually doesn't matter. Whether it increases temptation or not, that is still not reason enough to ban something that isn't harmful in and of itself.
[editline]17th October 2011[/editline]
Additionally:
[url]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm[/url]
[quote]The findings support the theory that potential sexual offenders use child pornography as a substitute for sex crimes against children. While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.[/quote]
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;32826095]Then we should ban all other porn that is not real men and women porn.
Practical purpose is that it pleases people who like it. I like guns and I am sad I can't get a fully auto one. Many things have no practical use, but that is a terrible reason to ban something.
Also most knife crimes are committed with kitchen knives because they're really easy to get. You wouldn't buy a KABAR just to stab someone even if they were legal.
[/QUOTE]
All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to compare lolicon to useful tools like knives and guns.
[QUOTE=BALLSANDASHWALL;32822625][B]WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.[/B][/QUOTE]
When you go into a debate and decide to start your argument like this, there's something wrong.
I don't want it banned I just don't want to see it.
Just like a fuckton of other disgusting stuff on the internet.
[QUOTE=flyschy;32826239]All I'm saying is that it's inaccurate to compare lolicon to useful tools like knives and guns.[/QUOTE]
Define useful.
A gun can be used to defend or to kill.
Lolicon can be used to prevent potential pedos from committing the act. If that's not useful, I don't know what is. Like any porn, it pleases the viewer. And it does not hurt anyone, so that in my books seems useful.
Its also become a clothing style, which is odd as fuck but whatever.
[QUOTE=Swilly;32829969]Its also become a clothing style, which is odd as fuck but whatever.[/QUOTE]
I believe that's lolita, not lolicon, one of my friends wears it.
Also, I don't see a reason to ban it, since it keeps them occupied.
Lolita has like, nothing at all, to do with lolicon
If that's illegal then lego should be illegal!
[QUOTE=BiigTony;32834671]If that's illegal then lego should be illegal![/QUOTE]It should, for being so fucking overpriced.
It's a pretty divisive and controversial subject period.
[QUOTE=proch;32727794]I don't think it should be forbidden. I'd rather have those sick people jerk of to drawings, than to actual Child pornography.[/QUOTE]
Basically this. Although I've seen some rather interesting "art" on DeviantArt on this subject so yeah...
[QUOTE=Sherow_Xx;32826101]Yes, it's allowing him an outlet. Even if it didn't "do the person any good", it shouldn't be illegalized just because of that. How can you say that a fantasy, ANY fantasy, can be "not okay"?[/QUOTE]There are other outlets that don't involve fapping to guy on little kid action and I believe the logical choice would be to choose the other outlets.
I'd rather not influence fapping to children as it doesn't serve a unique moral purpose that can't be achieved through other means.
[QUOTE=wauterboi;32836449]There are other outlets[/QUOTE]
Such as?
Hey, its a man's fetish.
Unless he does it someone inrl, I have no problem what he faps to.
(I have like 60 GB of loli porn anyways)
[QUOTE=Haruko;32837638](I have like 60 GB of loli porn anyways)[/QUOTE]
That's... nice?
[QUOTE=Haruko;32837638]Hey, its a man's fetish.
Unless he does it someone inrl, I have no problem what he faps to.
[b](I have like 60 GB of loli porn anyways)[/b][/QUOTE]
ok, didn't need to know that.
It's like disallowing rape or bsdm fetish. Really stupid
[editline]18th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Haruko;32837638]Hey, its a man's fetish.
Unless he does it someone inrl, I have no problem what he faps to.
(I have like 60 GB of loli porn anyways)[/QUOTE]
I'd be surprised if you had a problem with loli when you have60 gb of it
[QUOTE=wauterboi;32836449]There are other outlets that don't involve fapping to guy on little kid action[/QUOTE]
Uhh, what? There's imagination? Are you implying that someone who specifically likes lolicon can just go look at something else that you find less morally wrong? If someone is an exclusive pedophile, they won't be able to use normal hentai / normal porn as an outlet. Just like a heterosexual can't use gay porn as an outlet or the other way around. [I](not that they would ever have to)[/I]
[QUOTE]I'd rather not influence fapping to children as it doesn't serve a unique moral purpose that can't be achieved through other means.[/QUOTE]
Things don't need a purpose to be allowed if they aren't harming anyone. Let alone a "unique moral purpose". And again, it [I]can't[/I] be achieved through other means, [I](well, real child porn and child molestation can but... yeah.)[/I] not if the person is specifically attracted to kids.
But there is one other "means" that can be used as an outlet, simple imagination. That can serve the purpose that lolicon does. But if he's allowed to do it in his imagination, why the hell shouldn't he be allowed to look at a drawing?
Newsflash: Most pedos who are attracted to real kids don't even find lolicon hot at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
