Lolicon now illegal in France. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;41988217]So you believe that because someone enjoys anime they might not be making the right decisions in life? That's like saying that you might not be making the right decisions in life because you like watching Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. It's tastes like any other.[/QUOTE] My post is mainly based on my own observations and should be taken with a bit of salt. Also, here we go with the comprehension issue again. Apologies for my wording, but I listed that only [b]some[/b] of those things, from my observations, are enjoyed more often by people who are not doing as well in life. Furthermore, these things can often lead to unhealthy obsessions which aren't productive in any way.

[QUOTE=deadoon;41988223]You were expected to seek help for it in the past.[/QUOTE] that's a moot argument considering right now we have nothing to argue against pedophilia not being anything more than a toxic attraction*. we didn't know much about homosexuality then either. doesn't excuse it, but it's most of the reason. *if you can throw up some valid points saying otherwise, please do

[QUOTE=*Freezorg*;41988217]So you believe that because someone enjoys anime they might not be making the right decisions in life? That's like saying that you might not be making the right decisions in life because you like watching Gordon Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. It's tastes like any other.[/QUOTE] I think that any obsession could be construed as harmful, which isn't necessarily wrong. I would like to know where he draws the line between consumption and obsession, though.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;41988192]Homosexuality isn't something that you should seek help for. If you carry it out in reality with consent, whose it gonna hurt? No one. A sexually immature child is a different case completely.[/QUOTE] I agree that pedophilia should not be treated the same as homosexuality. One involves other people who can consent, the other does not. That being said I consider them both to be sexualities, but one cannot be reciprocated and should not be reciprocated. Lolicon doesn't involve consent as the people being represented do not exist (these are some cases where apparently a child model is used to create a picture to sketch from, these should be treated as child porn whenever you can prove it has happened), thus it becomes an outlet for exclusive and non-exclusive pedophiles the same way any other type of porn is an outlet for anyone else. You need help if you feel like you won't be able to stop yourself from abusing a child. If you feel like you are able to stop yourself, then you don't really need help, just need to keep up the non-diddling policy.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;41988192]Homosexuality isn't something that you should seek help for. If you carry it out in reality with consent, whose it gonna hurt? No one. A sexually immature child is a different case completely.[/QUOTE] Okay so when Joe Lawyer puts forward legislation to ban FPSes using this same logic (if you do it in reality someone will be harmed) you're going to be cool with it?

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;41988303]Okay so when Joe Lawyer puts forward legislation to ban FPSes using this same logic (if you do it in reality someone will be harmed) you're going to be cool with it?[/QUOTE] Why are you even comparing personal hobbies to paraphilias? Is there something I'm missing?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;41988331]Why are you even comparing personal hobbies to paraphilias? Is there something I'm missing?[/QUOTE] Is casually looking up porn any less of a hobby or something that interests you?

[QUOTE=Ownederd;41988192]A sexually immature child is a different case completely.[/QUOTE] We're talking about drawings, not actual CP.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;41988303]Okay so when Joe Lawyer puts forward legislation to ban FPSes using this same logic (if you do it in reality someone will be harmed) you're going to be cool with it?[/QUOTE] ownederd isn't saying we should illegalize drawn items, he's saying society should aim towards providing pacifistic help for those that need here. using lolicon as a diversion is not going to solve their problems, but i guess we don't really have the right to stop them if they don't hurt anyone. if they turn to real child porn, it's an actual problem. that's pushing child porn and abuse rings forward and only fueling the fire. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] i'm probably going to get flak for this, but i don't think everyone that looks at lolicon is instantly a pedophile. factoring in how stylized and non child like a lot of anime is, it's almost a completely different attraction entirely. i'm sure there are replicative art styles that aren't so stylized, though.

I think it's clear that the actual social conception of what pedophilia [i]is[/i] needs to change, which is why there are (albeit, fringe) social justice groups pushing forward terms like "minor-attracted individuals" and etc. For the most part though, the moral panic surrounding pedophilia is so strong that very few social justice groups even feel comfortable fighting to create a safe space for non-abusive pedophiles. And academia is only just starting to realize that pedophiles might not necessarily be prone to abusing others. I don't think pedophiles will have a long fight for acceptance and respect, but it's going to be a fight nonetheless.

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41988373]i'm sure there are replicative art styles that aren't so stylized, though.[/QUOTE] Western artstyles tend to generally be more realistic, though often still very stylized

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41988373]i'm probably going to get flak for this[/QUOTE] Stand by your opinions, and if enough people disagree with them, maybe change how you think. These debates are supposed to be learning experiences, not shit-flinging fests.

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41988373]ownederd isn't saying we should illegalize drawn items, he's saying society should aim towards providing pacifistic help for those that need here.[/QUOTE] I'd support putting up links to self-help or therapy sites in places where such illustrations are frequently made accessible. As long as we don't throw people in jail based solely on arbitrary third-party judgements of inappropriateness. [editline]27th August 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Reimu;41988461] For the most part though, the moral panic surrounding pedophilia is so strong that very few social justice groups even feel comfortable fighting to create a safe space for non-abusive pedophiles. And academia is only just starting to realize that pedophiles might not necessarily be prone to abusing others. [/QUOTE] This is probably one of the reasons laws like this can happen. Pedophiles are a group of people that society has collectively accepted as being OK to hate. Easy points for any politicians.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;41988303]Okay so when Joe Lawyer puts forward legislation to ban FPSes using this same logic (if you do it in reality someone will be harmed) you're going to be cool with it?[/QUOTE] I don't think paraphrasing or using metaphors is an effective use of time, simply following a chain of reasoning is much more effective and avoids the page long debate over how well a metaphor applies to the argument you are trying to make. We first need to look at who lolicon hurts: Primary victim: None unless a child actor is used to create source material to sketch from (rare as far as I am aware, possibly even a myth but I would not discount it) Secondary victim: The people who actually pay for lolicon, that money could potentially go to criminal syndicates which deal in child trafficking (but I don't think that is the case and it also applies to other things, not just lolicon. You need to first prove it contributes to it before you can use it as an argument.), as far as I am aware most lolicon artists are independent artists. Tertiary victim: Those who have been raped by people who have consumed lolicon and escalated their behaviours as a result (I do not know whether this happens but I would not say it does not, I would however say that if you can bring some good evidence to say that lolicon has a significantly greater effect on influencing people to become child abusers than violent movies/videogames has in influencing people to become murderers then this would be a very good argument against lolicon.) There are probably things I am missing here, but most of these problems are indirectly related to lolicon rather than directly, and there isn't yet enough evidence to say whether it's actually harmful or even beneficial and I will refrain from saying whether it is either or despite my opinion on the subject until we have overwhelming solid data. Until then however I think we should assume that it doesn't until we know it does. Whenever I look at the crime of child porn, I acknowledge two elements that make it a crime, that it involves abusing a child to produce it and that perpetuating it violates to the right to privacy of the person who has been victimised. So it is personal harm and violation of privacy. When I see people compare child porn to lolicon I can see why they do it, but I believe it's only a shallow comparison, they both present what is essentially children engaging in sexual/lewd acts. The key distinction between the two that in my opinion determines whether lolicon qualifies as being considered child porn and therefore a crime is whether it fulfills the two criteria I previously mentioned. Is a child being hurt? No. Is a child's/victim's right to privacy being violated? No. Considering this, I do not think it should be a crime.

i like how people assume that if people are defending the freedom to view what you want as long as it's not harmful, they are automatically pedos

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41988373] i'm probably going to get flak for this, but i don't think everyone that looks at lolicon is instantly a pedophile. factoring in how stylized and non child like a lot of anime is, it's almost a completely different attraction entirely. i'm sure there are replicative art styles that aren't so stylized, though.[/QUOTE] That's what I said a few minutes ago.

For me the bottom line is: CP is banned because children are hurt for the sole purpose of producing it. That's why gore isn't banned, since gore is almost never 'created' for the sake of the content. CP is banned because by distributing the media you're indirectly contributing to that system. Lolicon doesn't hurt anyone. Disgusting as anyone may find it, it is censorship if you ban it. [QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41988629]i like how people assume that if people are defending the freedom to view what you want as long as it's not harmful are automatically pedos[/QUOTE] Ad hominem attacks are retarded and I have little respect for the person that uses them to drag down the debate.

[QUOTE=FlubberNugget;41988373]ownederd isn't saying we should illegalize drawn items, he's saying society should aim towards providing pacifistic help for those that need here.[/QUOTE] The comparison isn't serious, just replace "ban" with "disincentivize the use of" in the vein of the following posts. [QUOTE=Ownederd;41987971][Enjoying visceral imagery and games] is something that you should seek out help for with a sense of self-advocacy in a humanistic perspective. People shouldn't be encouraged to [play first-person shooters].[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Ownederd;41988192][Liking football] isn't something that you should seek help for. If you carry it out in reality with consent, whose it gonna hurt? No one. [Shooting people] is a different case completely.[/QUOTE] It's a really weird argument to make and when your defense is fruit and "bragh me homosexual this offensive" (I too fuck people of the same sex, put on your big kid panties and deal with it) I have to question what's being huffed here. Here's a not-shitposty thing that might change the subject: [QUOTE=Personality correlates of pedophilia: Are they reliable indicators? (Journal of Sex Research, Volume 29, Issue 3, 1992)]“Sex offenders against minors” were noted fairly consistently to have experienced early disturbances in mother relationships and were found for the most part to be non‐violent and [B]not aroused by sexually aggressive stimuli involving children[/B] (although a smaller portion were violent and/or were aroused by such stimuli).[/QUOTE] So, uh, yeah. CP doesn't predict for kiddy fiddling. I didn't see this one coming.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;41987839]Why are you even comparing a sexuality to a toxic paraphilia? Do you know how infuriatingly stupid this is? I'm gay, and this pissed me right off. Please try to understand and grasp the differences between the two before making a comparison.[/QUOTE] This is going to be horrendously badly taken, but I feel like it bares saying. Please try to make it through the entire post without shitting yourself in misdirected anger. You're gay. That's cool, I don't have an issue with you being attracted to dudes. I also don't have an issue with you having sex with dudes, because they can consent. I would be fine with a straight guy having sex with a dude, because they can both consent; what you're attracted to and what you have sex with aren't always the same thing. Let's invent a paedophile, and call him Dave. I don't have an issue with Dave being attracted to children, he had no choice in the matter. I dohave an issue with Dave having sex with children, because children cannot consent. I would take issue with someone who isn't attracted to children having sex with a child, because a child cannot consent; what you're attracted to and what you have sex with aren't always the same thing. The reason people hate paedophiles so much is that they assume that because you are attracted to something, you [B]will [/B]have sex with that thing at some point. The problem is, that isn't the case. What this is coming down to is you hating a group of people because of an innate sexual attraction, which is something they have no control over. You may expect them to seek help, but the stigma associated with paedophillia (you know, the one you're furthering) will prevent those people from seeking that help, because they're constantly demonised. I don't hate anyone, and I mean that. It makes my blood boil, however, when people refuse to listen to one another because they'd much rather cling to their opinions and fling shit.

[QUOTE=AJisAwesome15;41988629]i like how people assume that if people are defending the freedom to view what you want as long as it's not harmful, they are automatically pedos[/QUOTE] Ad hominems are an easy and effective way to shut down an argument if that person has no real stuff to back up their side. That is to say, in cases such as this, that the people saying that this should be illegal have no argument

I bet Scarabix is upset

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;41988360]We're talking about drawings, not actual CP.[/QUOTE] Ok? [QUOTE=Sgt-NiallR;41990040]This is going to be horrendously badly taken, but I feel like it bares saying. Please try to make it through the entire post without shitting yourself in misdirected anger. You're gay. That's cool, I don't have an issue with you being attracted to dudes. I also don't have an issue with you having sex with dudes, because they can consent. I would be fine with a straight guy having sex with a dude, because they can both consent; what you're attracted to and what you have sex with aren't always the same thing. Let's invent a paedophile, and call him Dave. I don't have an issue with Dave being attracted to children, he had no choice in the matter. I dohave an issue with Dave having sex with children, because children cannot consent. I would take issue with someone who isn't attracted to children having sex with a child, because a child cannot consent; what you're attracted to and what you have sex with aren't always the same thing. The reason people hate paedophiles so much is that they assume that because you are attracted to something, you [B]will [/B]have sex with that thing at some point. The problem is, that isn't the case. What this is coming down to is you hating a group of people because of an innate sexual attraction, which is something they have no control over. You may expect them to seek help, but the stigma associated with paedophillia (you know, the one you're furthering) will prevent those people from seeking that help, because they're constantly demonised. I don't hate anyone, and I mean that. It makes my blood boil, however, when people refuse to listen to one another because they'd much rather cling to their opinions and fling shit.[/QUOTE] What I'm arguing is that people should not counter productively vilify pedophiles in a way that discourages them from getting help. A toxic paraphilia should not be ignored or trivialized either, because that falls into the realm of being a apologist with no real point. Self-help and active help resources should be made public for this niche of people so that awareness is more common.

why is everyone arguing like this is a case of pedophiles not getting what they want this is a case of freedom of speech being limited. art's art, no matter how fucked up it is, and deserves every right to be legal.

[QUOTE=Ownederd;41990277]A toxic paraphilia should not be ignored or trivialized either, because that falls into the realm of being a apologist with no real point.[/QUOTE] There is no such thing as a "toxic paraphilia". [URL="http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic%20Disorders%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf"]It's either a disorder or it isn't.[/URL] Pedophilia is only considered a paraphilic disorder if it a person "has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty".

A good amount of people on the Internet are middle-aged neckbeard virgins living in their mum's basement. But they haven't resorted to brutally abusing people in real life. So why would pedophiles do this?

[QUOTE=Jookia;41991441]A good amount of people on the Internet are middle-aged neckbeard virgins living in their mum's basement. But they haven't resorted to brutally abusing people in real life. So why would pedophiles do this?[/QUOTE] Some do, but the vast majority don't. Also, neckbeard virgin living in your mum's basement and pedophile aren't mutually exclusive.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;41990816]There is no such thing as a "toxic paraphilia". [URL="http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Paraphilic Disorders Fact Sheet.pdf"]It's either a disorder or it isn't.[/URL] Pedophilia is only considered a paraphilic disorder if it a person "has acted on these sexual urges, or the sexual urges or fantasies cause marked distress or interpersonal difficulty".[/QUOTE] This clears up many details for me (along with that read). Thanks for citing and sharing that resource, because I feel like I know how to approach something like this better.

Just want to point out that there's absolutely no proof that pedophilia is toxic, however, and psychological research on the subject often proves that a.) there are a lot more pedophiles and individuals with pedophilic tendencies than originally thought (some studies have argued as much as 20% of all men have pedophilic tendencies in the US, although I highly doubt that), and b.) pedophilia and child molestation have no immediate correlation, although 60% of all molesters are pedophiles. While it's inherently true that pedophilia is NOT an orientation, there's no scientific proof that pedophilia inherently leads to molestation or poor mental health. The cultural relationship with "pedophilia = molester" stems from sensationalism in media and a conveyed belief that children are asexual until puberty (which is also empirically untrue, albeit consent laws are inherently necessary for obvious reasons).

Wow holy shit, a 75,000€ fine just for having a DRAWING?! That's completely beyond bullshit. What if I save a drawing of someone getting murdered on my computer, why don't I get fined for that too? It's essentially the same thing in that it ISN'T REAL. This is just getting silly.

[QUOTE=Sobek-;41991689]Wow holy shit, a 75,000€ fine just for having a DRAWING?! That's completely beyond bullshit. What if I save a drawing of someone getting murdered on my computer, why don't I get fined for that too? It's essentially the same thing in that it ISN'T REAL. This is just getting silly.[/QUOTE] No don't you understand It's icky and things that offend me should not exist