Manga images 'not child porn', says Sweden's Supreme Court
497 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372421]hurt or not, you're still looking at/drawing pictures of children having sex and that is just deplorable and outright wrong.[/QUOTE]
I'm a paedophile in denial who is socially withdrawn to a severe degree so naturally I have read many wikipedia articles on this subject and I assure you you're wrong so please don't disagree with me because taht would be embarrassing for you :)
[QUOTE=FoxMeister;36372473]I'm a paedophile in denial who is socially withdrawn to a severe degree so naturally I have read many wikipedia articles on this subject and I assure you you're wrong so please don't disagree with me because taht would be embarrassing for you :)[/QUOTE]
I'm sure you are socially withdrawn if you really feel the need to come in here and make dumb posts that don't contribute at all
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372421]hurt or not, you're still looking at/drawing pictures of children having sex and that is just deplorable and outright wrong.[/QUOTE]
And who defines what "wrong" is?
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36369036]I can explain why fapping to drawn cp is considered creepy. It's because for quite some time we've been taught that pedophilia is bad, pedos are bad and are not humans but monsters. Because some thousand+ years ago loving little children was normal and even encouraged in some cultures. Our current culture finds it horrible, that's why people in the current culture find it horrible.
Another thing is, we're not exposed to it so it's something unknown and scary to use, hence creepy. The same way gays are creepy and disgusting for many who have outdated morals. Same for racism, it was normal to consider blacks as lesser beings. Today it's normal to consider pedos as such. Even if these pedos are not pedos and fap to drawn cp. It's natural for people to hate something that's different, we're learning to tolerate all the varying sexualities, fetishes and so on but we're still not there. Many feel insecure and it makes them feel safer when they degrade people of different views. Hate against something is nothing new, the only thing that changes is the topic to hate.[/QUOTE]
I have to disagree. At no point in history has society wholly encouraged sexual relations with children. It is merely the definition of what constitutes as a child which has changed. Without a numerical age universally defined as the start of adulthood, the border between child and adult varies from person to person. Nowadays we have legal definitions of childhood and adulthood so so individual perception is less relevant. Along with having a clearer definition of a child, we have a clearer definition of a pedophile. Thanks to clearer laws, modern media, and better records, many pedophiles that once would've gone unnoticed or perhaps not even been considered pedophiles at all now get a great deal of attention from society. By cherry picking pedophilia-related incidents that are particularly horrifying society went from being mostly ignorant about pedophilia to outright paranoid of it (which is how Stranger danger originated). It's become hard for people to imagine pedophilia [I]not[/I] ruining the lives of children because the concept is so foreign, it's rarely spoken of and rarely believed. Culture didn't demonize pedophilia, information did.
[QUOTE=Mr. Smartass;36372600]And who defines what "wrong" is?[/QUOTE]
[quote]
wrong   [rawng, rong] Show IPA
adjective
1.
not in accordance with what is morally right or good: a wrong deed.
2.
deviating from truth or fact; erroneous: a wrong answer.
3.
not correct in action, judgment, opinion, method, etc., as a person; in error: You are wrong to blame him.
4.
not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: the wrong way to hold a golf club.
5.
out of order; awry; amiss: Something is wrong with the machine.[/quote]
the dictionary.
The thing about this topic is, those who oppose it only oppose it solely because they think the idea of people sexually fantasizing young children immoral beyond belief. (although this is a generalization from my perspective)
Some could argue about how it can lead them on to doing lewd acts to children but the thing is, (another generalization here, based on personal experience though) most people who are into loli/similar things are into it because they are socially disconnected to a degree. As some would say it, they prefer 2D over 3D. The existence and fantasizing of loli hurts no one. It does display some questionable content and as some would think, encourages forbidden relations.
Anyways, yeah it's disturbing to some people. To those it disturbs you're not going to find any reason within it. It's a habit/preference. Just like homosexuality. Though this is a little more on the taboo/dangerous side. Don't know if what I said really is coherent, just putting down what I believe.
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372652]the dictionary.[/QUOTE]
How funny.
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=KillaGunna24;36372665]The thing about this topic is, those who oppose it only oppose it solely because they think the idea of people sexually fantasizing young children immoral beyond belief. (although this is a generalization from my perspective)
Some could argue about how it can lead them on to doing lewd acts to children but the thing is, (another generalization here, based on personal experience though) most people who are into loli/similar things are into it because they are socially disconnected to a degree. As some would say it, they prefer 2D over 3D. The existence and fantasizing of loli hurts no one. It does display some questionable content and as some would think, encourages forbidden relations.
Anyways, yeah it's disturbing to some people. To those it disturbs you're not going to find any reason within it. It's a habit/preference. Just like homosexuality. Though this is a little more on the taboo/dangerous side. Don't know if what I said really is coherent, just putting down what I believe.[/QUOTE]
It can be a case of social withdrawal, but most people who like loli that aren't socially disconnected are not attracted to real children because loli isn't drawn to look like real life. Hence why people like loli but not actual children.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;36372674]
It can be a case of social withdrawal, but most people who like loli that aren't socially disconnected are not attracted to real children because loli isn't drawn to look like real life. Hence why people like loli but not actual children.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that was more of the word I was looking for. Social withdrawal.
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;36372755]you're annoying[/QUOTE]
rather be annoying than find children attractive.
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372940]rather be annoying than find children attractive.[/QUOTE]
none of us here find "children" attractive
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372940]rather be annoying than find children attractive.[/QUOTE]
a great way to invalidate an argument is to make an ass out of yourself arguing it
[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;36372961]none of us here find "children" attractive[/QUOTE]
I do.
[sp]Go ahead, throw them boxes at me[/sp]
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372940]rather be annoying than find children attractive.[/QUOTE]
Protip: They're not children; they're fictional immature characters. Children are real.
[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;36372940]rather be annoying than find children attractive.[/QUOTE]
hey guys i know u r but what am i?
Are you 12?
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
I have YET to see you contribute to the thread
[QUOTE=prooboo;36373009]Protip: They're not children; they're fictional immature characters. Children are real.[/QUOTE]
because it's not as though your attraction to fictional children is influential on your real-world sexual preferences
"i love jerkin it to children just not irl no worries"
Read the last page please, several articles have been linked that shows that people who likes lolicon, do not like real children.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36373077]because it's not as though your attraction to fictional children is influential on your real-world sexual preferences
"i love jerkin it to children just not irl no worries"[/QUOTE]
Because furries fuck real animals right?
[QUOTE=xxncxx;36373117]Because furries fuck real animals right?[/QUOTE]
considering most "furry art" is in the form of humanoids with minor animal features no
if someone was jerking it to literal drawings of dogs yeah i wouldn't be surprised
[QUOTE=xxncxx;36373117]Because furries fuck real animals right?[/QUOTE]
furdom and zoophilia are far removed
[QUOTE=Sanius;36372973]a great way to invalidate an argument is to make an ass out of yourself arguing it[/QUOTE]
look who's talking
[QUOTE=Sanius;36373190]furdom and zoophilia are far removed[/QUOTE]
As are loli and actual children.
[QUOTE=xxncxx;36373216]As are loli and actual children.[/QUOTE]
how? they're illustrations of children. just being that they are fictional children has no impact on the attraction one might have to them. if you find a drawing of a fictional child attractive, chances are you find drawings of real children / photographs of real children / real children attractive. drawings of women are attractive to me just like real women are, it's not some magical new fetish just because they're fictional characters
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36373247]how? they're illustrations of children. just being that they are fictional children has no impact on the attraction one might have to them. if you find a drawing of a fictional child attractive, chances are you find drawings of real children / photographs of real children / real children attractive. drawings of women are attractive to me just like real women are, it's not some magical new fetish just because they're fictional characters[/QUOTE]
Then how come furries aren't attracted to animals according to your logic. OH RIGHT, because they don't look the same. How come you can't get this in your thick skull?
you're desperately trying to compare the difference of an illustration of a real child (CP) and a fictional child (loli), and the difference between a drawing of a dog and a human with dog ears. the attraction is the same in both cases, whether or not the character is fictional doesn't matter
[QUOTE=xxncxx;36373216]As are loli and actual children.[/QUOTE]
loli is a substitute for photographs of real children
If you honestly think that anime drawings look like actual human beings, then you need to see an eye doctor.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36373247]how? they're illustrations of children. just being that they are fictional children has no impact on the attraction one might have to them. if you find a drawing of a fictional child attractive, chances are you find drawings of real children / photographs of real children / real children attractive. drawings of women are attractive to me just like real women are, it's not some magical new fetish just because they're fictional characters[/QUOTE]
I think you're misunderstanding something about this whole thing, they aren't talking about highly realistic drawings of children, they're talking about anime/manga style drawings, as in, no fucking way does that look like a real child unless someone did some major genetic experiments on the thing
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sanius;36373282]loli is a substitute for photographs of real children[/QUOTE]
Please read the links in the last page again, lolicons and pedophiles aren't the same thing, hell from what I understand they even hate eachother :v:
[QUOTE=xxncxx;36373275]Then how come furries aren't attracted to animals according to your logic. OH RIGHT, because they don't look the same. How come you can't get this in your thick skull?[/QUOTE]
did you honestly type this out and think: "yeah.. this discussion is OVER..."
because furries jerk it to HUMANS with an animal color scheme or a tail or some other minor feature. by and large they're jerking it to pictures of HUMANS. if someone took a picture of a DOG and found it attractive i'd say there's a chance they'd be attracted to REAL DOGS.
the same way that furry illustrations represent humans, so do loli images. your brain sees an image of a HUMAN (child) and is attracted to it. the fact that the character doesn't exist in real life doesn't matter, the anatomy of the child is still attractive to you
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=xxncxx;36373291]If you honestly think that anime drawings look like actual human beings, then you need to see an eye doctor.[/QUOTE]
um there are stylistic differences but you're pathetically desperate if you honestly don't think anime figures represent humans
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
like are you seriously saying "BUT THEY HAVE BIG EYES, REAL PEOPLE DONT HAVE BIG EYES!!" and expecting that is supposed to be solid evidence that anime attraction != human attraction?
[QUOTE=Kopimi;36373318]did you honestly type this out and think: "yeah.. this discussion is OVER..."
because furries jerk it to HUMANS with an animal color scheme or a tail or some other minor feature. by and large they're jerking it to pictures of HUMANS. if someone took a picture of a DOG and found it attractive i'd say there's a chance they'd be attracted to REAL DOGS.
the same way that furry illustrations represent humans, so do loli images. your brain sees an image of a HUMAN (child) and is attracted to it. the fact that the character doesn't exist in real life doesn't matter, the anatomy of the child is still attractive to you
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
um there are stylistic differences but you're pathetically desperate if you honestly don't think anime figures represent humans
[editline]17th June 2012[/editline]
like are you seriously saying "BUT THEY HAVE BIG EYES, REAL PEOPLE DONT HAVE BIG EYES!!" and expecting that is supposed to be solid evidence that anime attraction != human attraction?[/QUOTE]
So you're trying to say anyone that likes loli pretty much likes actual CP?
hah, good1
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.