# Should the world censor Lolicon?



## A Thick Piece of Meat (Feb 12, 2021)

lolicon is drawings of children that are girls. 

some say it makes people into pedophiles and motivates them to harm and should be censored to protect children

some day it gives them an outlet and nothing should be censored for free speech

I will make a poll too


----------



## AMERICA (Feb 12, 2021)

it should stay legal so that i know who to avoid. fuck l*licons tbh
loli rots your brain. if loli content is already normalized to someone, they're already too far gone to be saved.


----------



## Vatred (Feb 12, 2021)

I dislike censorship and love free speech... but I fucking hate pedophiles with a burning passion. 
I've heard the argument that lolicon is an outlet to keep predators away from actual little girls, but I think that it can help get creeps into little girls too. 
I want to hear more thoughts from my fellow spergs.


----------



## Wowcoolusername (Feb 12, 2021)

Hear me out, playing devil's advocate here: lots of illegal things are animated (such as murder, kidnapping, or drug use). So long as its not acted upon, what harm does it do? The same line of thinking leads to people wanting to ban video games because it leads to school shootings or some shit.

Real talk tho: death to all pedophiles.


----------



## Rusty Crab (Feb 12, 2021)

Erotica involving kids should probably be banned on principle, however, there are problems with banning it. Specifically WHAT to ban. It's a point that I don't hear brought up much in this technical way.

Proponents say "it's just a drawing" and opponents say "It's a drawing of children". The problem is that you often can't tell. Because they are drawings, they don't follow true life anatomy and in hentai, "lolis" are often indistinguishable from petite women. There was an actual court case about this in Austria (look it up with a vpn or something). A man ordered a body pillow with a loli on it and he was arrested for "child porn". The defense broke down the anatomy of the butt flab of the cartoon character and stated that it was impossible for an actual child to present these traits, and she shared more in common with an adult woman despite the appearance of the face. 

So what do you ban, exactly? Do they just not label it loli and call it good? Do you only deal with the extreme age cases? Do you bring in a "ministry of porn" to study the anatomy of the drawings and make sure their butt flab is drawn correctly?


----------



## Zarael (Feb 12, 2021)

Of course it should. That said we're well down the rabbit hole already and the concept of maintaining some standard of public decency has gone completely out the window so if you're one of those types who thinks there's no harm in dragging your homosexual lover down the street chained up in a gimp costume then you'll probably have a hard time justifying this. Obviously there are lots of things that should be prohibited for the public good but simply aren't because "muh freedoms" so I don't expect there to be any line that eventually won't be crossed


----------



## mr.moon1488 (Feb 12, 2021)

One thing that always amazes me about the people who argue that loli should be banned is that they're never the same people who argue that homosexuality should be banned. This in spite of the fact that homosexuals account for 2% of the global population, but 33% of the pedophilia convictions, and the fact that one group of degenerates parades actual children around in lewd attire, while the other just cooms to dumb shit online.


----------



## Weed Eater (Feb 12, 2021)

If you want to censor lolicon, then hold people to that standard when it comes to 3D/IRL porn. No more "newly 18" pornstars, no more schoolgirl roleplaying in the private bedroom. It's either all or nothing, no in between.
My other hot take is the fact that I remember when people made distinctions to this sort of work. Obvious child figures can be easily distiguishable, but at the same time when I think of a general loli I'm just thinking of an ambiguously aged female. Nothing exactly flat, nothing exactly "elementary" about it. Just a small looking girl with big enough cheeks on the face. I've seen and known many who can easily take on that appearance despite being of U.S. drinking age.
Then again too, I also don't see a huge reason to be talking about personal fetish details or whatnot to others. If you enjoy loli/shota, you do you, I just don't want to hear about it. Same goes for anyone "vanilla" either, it just isn't important to me. I'll also argue that pedophiles will try to do much more than only get off from 2D childlike or "obvious child" imagery. They're going to be talking to "maturely brained" young teen girls/boys. They'll be spying on their youngest family members, and maybe speaking up about such things if they trust someone enough. I sadly know firsthand. :/


----------



## Fields Of Rye (Feb 12, 2021)

I think there's a key thing everyone often misses with this which is the degree of separation and the aspects of radicalization that occur when groups organize.

Banning lolicon is often not an all or nothing state. ULMF. F95. Various hosting sites all have caveats that ban loli, ban loli posters, but will happily host things that are clearly loli in disguise. Often with weak, but still existent caveats. But those caveats drive an important aspect.

You will be hard pressed to find a video game where murdering people is A. The purpose. B. Portrayed as a good thing. And C. Having a serious tone. People don't go to the store to buy the newest murder simulator. Or in other words, people buying GTA are not doing it to steal cars. It's the wacky fucking sandbox. So it's not really a proper comparison.

The degree of separation is the most important part. You can have childish looking artwork and write that off as style. You can claim the person is (enter minimum age of consent). Regardless, so long as people who say "I like that it's a child" aren't allowed to congregate, it's fine.

The solution therefor, is not banning an artstyle. It's banning lolicons. It's banning people who identify and organize around the personality, and if you doubt this exists keep an eye out for the next time someone on a discord shittalks loli and someone yells for their merry men to start posting graphs about fertility or some shit.

 Because when those people get together is when you get shit. Thats how you get MAPS and diddlers. And INB4 study its called in-group radicalization, and it's literally basic bitch sociology 101. And if you want something specific, you've never worked in academia, because good god if you tried to get a double blind study approved you would get fucking shot by the IRB. 

And if you doubt, go to /HGG. Go play their mod for Corruption of Champions. Go take a look at the sims 4 modding community thread. The moment you allow lolicons to congregate they go from "I just like the art style" to "I just like the touhou characters" to "text based British Loli Survivor Horror" to "The LonaRPG". 

So yeah. We shouldn't be removing anything that isn't dead eyed SFM porn. But when someone looks you head on and says "I want to have sex with this virtual child" it's time to set some fires and watch them burn.


----------



## Rusty Crab (Feb 12, 2021)

Fields Of Rye said:


> I think there's a key thing everyone often misses with this which is the degree of separation and the aspects of radicalization that occur when groups organize.
> 
> Banning lolicon is often not an all or nothing state. ULMF. F95. Various hosting sites all have caveats that ban loli, ban loli posters, but will happily host things that are clearly loli in disguise. Often with weak, but still existent caveats. But those caveats drive an important aspect.
> 
> ...



While that's probably a good policy, I think we're mostly talking about law. The law would have to criminalize the materials themselves or else make being a proponent of it illegal. At least in the US I don't think there's precedent for that.


----------



## The Last Stand (Feb 12, 2021)

Somebody investigate OP.


----------



## Wowcoolusername (Feb 12, 2021)

Fields Of Rye said:


> You will be hard pressed to find a video game where murdering people is A. The purpose. B. Portrayed as a good thing. And C. Having a serious tone. People don't go to the store to buy the newest murder simulator.


A. Call of Duty.
B. Call of Duty.
C. Call of Duty.

Lol, doodie.


----------



## Nobue (Feb 12, 2021)

Rusty Crab said:


> While that's probably a good policy, I think we're mostly talking about law. The law would have to criminalize the materials themselves or else make being a proponent of it illegal. At least in the US I don't think there's precedent for that.


There was, but the Supreme Court overturned it.


----------



## I Love Beef (Feb 12, 2021)

If you find anime girls strictly or absolutely to be analogue to real underage b&, I find there's something wrong with you.


----------



## Weed Eater (Feb 12, 2021)

I Love Beef said:


> If you find anime girls strictly or absolutely to be analogue to real underage b&, I find there's something wrong with you.


I'm mad at myself for not bringing this up in my own post, this is also a huge point I feel most like to overlook.


----------



## special need's H20 (Feb 13, 2021)

Watch out if they say their 900 years old then that means their a fed.


----------



## I Love Beef (Feb 13, 2021)

Weed Eater said:


> I'm mad at myself for not bringing this up in my own post, this is also a huge point I feel most like to overlook.


Don't be, we're only human. 

Creative content still lies in the realm of abstraction. Sure, there are established roles for characters in a story.... but at the end of the episode or book or video, they're yours to mentally deal with as long as you're not going full Chris Chan or fujoshi ship pairing buttfucking voyeur. Visually and off page detail wise, there's nothing to strictly imply anime people are 100% human beings, and even by statement in work. What real life humans do at the end of the day though, speaks a lot more than what they consume.


----------



## pleasegoaway (Feb 13, 2021)

If you think drawings of anything should be censored, you don't believe in freedom of speech.


----------



## Fields Of Rye (Feb 13, 2021)

Rusty Crab said:


> While that's probably a good policy, I think we're mostly talking about law. The law would have to criminalize the materials themselves or else make being a proponent of it illegal. At least in the US I don't think there's precedent for that.


Actually this is probably the easiest standard to enforce out of all of them because it has a clear line on acknowledgement, and the law would be on the actions of the individuals rather than the art itself, which is by far the biggest hangup.










Look at these MOE blobs. Any single one of these could be classified as a loli. Yet canonically 3 are of age in Japan. 2 are legal in the US. Which one of these can you say with confidence is canonically 9 years old? Which is in her mid 30s? Its impossible and there's no way to do it. How the fuck are you going to argue in a court of law that the Ginger wearing a coat and tie is a child but the blue haired one wearing a coat of tie isn't? It's stupid.

But if people are saying they want to bang the 9 year old. The line has clearly been crossed. And if the art in question says "Let's bang the 9 year old". The line is clearly crossed. But if the art is of this has all these characters in a big gay pillow fight and they all look identical and claim to be 25, you don't have to ban it.


----------



## Takodachi (Feb 13, 2021)

Look man, as long as you arent hurting anyone and/or breaking a law, you do you.
I mean, im still gonna judge you and kindly ask you to stay the fuck away from me, but you do you


----------



## Slap47 (Feb 13, 2021)

pleasegoaway said:


> If you think drawings of anything should be censored, you don't believe in freedom of speech.





Fields Of Rye said:


> I think there's a key thing everyone often misses with this which is the degree of separation and the aspects of radicalization that occur when groups organize.
> 
> Banning lolicon is often not an all or nothing state. ULMF. F95. Various hosting sites all have caveats that ban loli, ban loli posters, but will happily host things that are clearly loli in disguise. Often with weak, but still existent caveats. But those caveats drive an important aspect.
> 
> ...



I shouldn't be surprised that many KF users support thought crimes.


----------



## A Thick Piece of Meat (Feb 13, 2021)

does lolicon help or hurt children by existing?


----------



## Wowcoolusername (Feb 13, 2021)

A Thick Piece of Meat said:


> does lolicon help or hurt children by existing?


What's *your* take on the subject?
Who the fuck would say lolicon helps children? I think most of the discussion thus far has been on the censoring aspect of the original question; absolutely no one has argued that lolicon is a good thing. I would not like to further participate in this thought exercise if you're looking for people to offer you reasons why you're not a fucking degenerate.

Edit: I forgot to call you a nigger faggot. You're a nigger faggot.


----------



## HOMO FOR LIFE (Feb 13, 2021)

I do not judge a man by the stack of goods he collects, but by the the quality of the stack.


----------



## A Thick Piece of Meat (Feb 13, 2021)

Wowcoolusername said:


> What's *your* take on the subject?
> Who the fuck would say lolicon helps children? I think most of the discussion thus far has been on the censoring aspect of the original question; absolutely no one has argued that lolicon is a good thing. I would not like to further participate in this thought exercise if you're looking for people to offer you reasons why you're not a fucking degenerate.
> 
> Edit: I forgot to call you a nigger faggot. You're a nigger faggot.


it's good to look at both sides


----------



## Carlito (Feb 13, 2021)

Lolicon is despicable yet also causes no real life harm. The government censoring it would be a violation of free speech rights especially due to nothing about it being a call to violence or molestation. From a moral standpoint taking into account all people, lolicon should be left uncensored; governmental censorship will only lead to the slippery slope in my eyes. I can understand where those saying that, paraphrasing, "lolicon staying legal will lead to more molestation", are coming from, though it is fallacious. If exposure = desire, then violent video games and movies would have ushered in total anarchy.

Lolicon's existence also serves as a safe and consensual method for pedophiles to keep their urges in check. Most pedophiles know what they want is illegal, and I doubt they want jail time over it, so keeping lolicon uncensored may also lead to decreased rates of child molestation. And it lets normal people know not to affiliate with its consumers.

I do support sites' rights to keep lolicon (and by extension shotacon) off of their servers. That is the only form of censorship I could support. This way, it leads to lolicon consumers congregating in spots which could be easier avoided.


----------



## Nobue (Feb 13, 2021)

special need's H20 said:


> Watch out if they say their 900 years old then that means their a fed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sakaki, nooooo!


----------



## Cyclonus (Feb 13, 2021)

According to Jason Schrier, this is lolicon:






I don't see what the big deal is.


----------



## naught (Feb 13, 2021)




----------



## Pimpleking55 (Feb 13, 2021)

Isn't the latest trend that people who want loli banned are diddling kids themselves? Like that dude on twitter who got arrested for trying to seduce a little boy....cant remember his name.
If people can have the freedom to make axe wounds and pretend to be woman while being a drain on the healthcare system, i want to to have the freedom to buy drawings of fictional beings and be a degenerate on my own...in peace.

My opinion is that as long it is fictional(and easy to recognize as such) and no one is hurt in the process of creating it, go nuts.


----------



## Trombonista (Feb 13, 2021)

Isn't the porn already censored?


----------



## A Thick Piece of Meat (Feb 13, 2021)

naught said:


>


well this changed my entire view on lolicon 

i support lolicon to remain legal it seems to protect children


----------



## Calandrino (Feb 13, 2021)

Trombonista said:


> Isn't the porn already censored?


I say it's ok as long as they have those little black bars on the genitals. That's what keeps it from warping people's minds permanently.


----------



## Fields Of Rye (Feb 13, 2021)

Slap47 said:


> I shouldn't be surprised that many KF users support thought crimes.


How is it thought crime if the only thing being targeted are people organizing around the sole interest of viewing virtual child pornography, under the assumption that in-group radicalization will occur, which is a well accepted sociological concept. 

Like by definition if more than one person has to be part of it to qualify, you can't really call it a "thought" now can you?  Unless lolicons are somehow psychic or something.


----------



## Slimy Time (Feb 13, 2021)

No, but if you watch/read and are turned on by that shit, then fuck you.


----------



## Thidwick (Feb 13, 2021)

*Disclaimer: *_I don't believe media, playing games, etc., makes people do bad things. Also, long post, feel free to skip.            _ 

That said, media can have some influences. Those with proclivities towards acts of sadism can be attracted to certain themes in media. Similar to how a priest doesn't make one a child molester, it just so happens that it's an attractive position because it brings them closer to potential victims. 

 IMO there's also a difference between watching regular violence and media with a sexual basis. Media that prompts a strong physical response, like orgasms, can work like (psych 101) pavlovs dog:  Dog salvates in presence of food. Person rings bell. Eventually bell prompts response without food present. Human is aroused by imagery, masterbates until orgasm. This is repeated. Now there's an association between that type of imagery, arousal, and getting off.      

Fetishes are made all the time. Another example: Chinese foot binding. Started as a foolish fashion trend from a story, continued because it became a widespread fetish. So much so, that it became a necessity for finding a husband. There was nothing about it that could've been argued as being naturally embedded into human sexuality. Rotten, distorted flesh by natural instinct, would in fact be a turn off. Point being; The men weren't "born that way".         

There's good influences too. Theories on human empathy increasing (to where we can see brain structure changes from past humans, from growth in that part of the brain), attribute some of it to literature. When literacy became widespread, empathy for others did too. You can see direct correlations between the overnight rise in human rights activism and popular literature depicting sympathetic, relatable characters being read by the greater public. Shawshank redemption was responsible for raised awareness about treatment of prisoners by humanizing them. So media can influence by being inspiring, as an emotional outlet, and put a mirror on our values. 

So no, I don't support the idea that lolicon is good for preventing sexual abuse. If anything, it can be attractive to those that already have proclivities towards seeing children as sexual, and worse, if they're getting off to that, training themselves to find the characteristics arousing. While making it illegal is a too complex, society should find ways to shout distasteful depictions down, platforms should be mindful of content, and in no way should people become complacent about the sexualization of children, no matter the form it's presented in.


----------



## Strayserval (Feb 13, 2021)

YES.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Feb 13, 2021)

A Thick Piece of Meat said:


> lolicon is drawings of children that are girls.


I don't think this explantion fully captures everything about lolicon.

Its like saying...

Porn is videos of adults that are women.


----------



## Massa's Little Buckie (Feb 13, 2021)

This topic comes up too much on this site...


----------



## Weed Eater (Feb 13, 2021)

A Thick Piece of Meat said:


> does lolicon help or hurt children by existing?


Does pornography help or hurt children by existing?


----------



## Alcatraz (Feb 13, 2021)

I think the cardinal rule should be freedom of speech; but not from consequences, and our right to mock you for it.

And like all good criminals, it's your own dumbass fault you get caught. Out of sight, out of mind, right? 
Besides, they're drawings, who gives a hot fuck about what some weirdo gets their rocks off too? Just keep that shit out of the public eye and you'll be fine. There's no shortage of weird porn on the internet.

It's when those same weirdos start involving real people and animals does it become a problem and when you deserve to get your kneecaps inverted.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Feb 13, 2021)

pleasegoaway said:


> If you think drawings of anything should be censored, you don't believe in freedom of speech.


The people vs. Larry Flint was wrong. Porn isn't speech.



Thidwick said:


> *Disclaimer: *_I don't believe media, playing games, etc., makes people do bad things. Also, long post, feel free to skip.            _
> 
> That said, media can have some influences. Those with proclivities towards acts of sadism can be attracted to certain themes in media. Similar to how a priest doesn't make one a child molester, it just so happens that it's an attractive position because it brings them closer to potential victims.
> 
> ...


This post made me think.  Can't rate it as such, but thought you should know.


----------



## Account (Feb 13, 2021)

Sure, right after the world censors hate speech, racism, transphobia, violent video games, and doing anything but being kind.


----------



## pleasegoaway (Feb 13, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> The people vs. Larry Flint was wrong. Porn isn't speech.


No, of course it isn't _literally_ speech, however it is much the same concept. If there is no victim, and the only thing its done is offend you, that doesn't warrant a worldwide ban, it just means you need to get a thicker hide.


----------



## The best and greatest (Feb 13, 2021)

I dont think it should  be banned. I wouldn't feel the need to complain if it was though.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Feb 13, 2021)

pleasegoaway said:


> No, of course it isn't _literally_ speech, however it is much the same concept. If there is no victim, and the only thing its done is offend you, that doesn't warrant a worldwide ban, it just means you need to get a thicker hide.


I'm not being literal. I'm saying the people vs. Larry Flint was wrong in regarding pornography as speech. It reauired that court case, because up to that point, porn wasn't speech.

There is no victim when someone draws furry inflation porn either, but that doesn't mean it should have the same protections as voicing your opinion about say, corona, or what political party should lead.

If it were speech, it should be okay to hang flyers of it in public areas as with other speech. Most people would agree that it's not okay with this. Saying it shouldn't have the same protections, doesn't mean it has to be banned.

Most people in their heart would agree that pornography isn't speech. You're not engaging in an exhange of ideas. You're arousing your body. It is a different thing.


----------



## pleasegoaway (Feb 13, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> Most people in their heart would agree that pornography isn't speech. You're not engaging in an exhange of ideas. You're arousing your body. It is a different thing.


Then what if its text based? I'm sure that you would agree telling stories is an "exchange of ideas". Plenty of smutty romance novels like 50 Shades of Gray are allowed to be sold in regular, non-adult stores despite being of an inarguably pornographic nature. Does having a visual along with the story suddenly disqualify it?


----------



## potato in mah painus (Feb 13, 2021)

Slap47 said:


> I shouldn't be surprised that many KF users support thought crimes.


To play devil's advocate, some of the things you see here can easily make one reconsider their stance on freedoms as a absolute. This is by definition, a website that archives the uglier side of said freedoms.


----------



## LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV] (Feb 13, 2021)

making drawings illegal is some heavy stuff, ridiculous to enforce too,  i am not into that kind of state control and regulation, thats some commie slippery slope.

Sites can already make their own rules and ban that content, most places would not sell those products already, most people pass harsh judgement on lolicon, people who produce it or buy it are not exactly well regarded or endorsed by the mainstream,   so leave the fucking government out of it, the remedy is WAY worse than the disease and it will backfire once you make a case for censoring something some retard drew and everyone is ok with that, just imagine the implications when is not just lolicon.


----------



## Rungle (Feb 13, 2021)

I firmly believe wanting to jack off to anime characters that represent themselves as children is a gateway to pedophilia; how much exposure does a mentally ill individual need to act the same way as in their hentai's eventually.
We have all seen people online (Or some IRL) taking anime too seriously and bringing it to real life.
In my eyes, this is watered down child pornography, and the "it's just a drawing" statement is often used to keep up the disguise.
If you like loli shit, the power to you but consider getting chemically castrated before you start harassing little kids, or you know, hang yourself.




Fields Of Rye said:


> Actually this is probably the easiest standard to enforce out of all of them because it has a clear line on acknowledgement, and the law would be on the actions of the individuals rather than the art itself, which is by far the biggest hangup.
> 
> View attachment 1917032View attachment 1917035View attachment 1917041View attachment 1917054
> Look at these MOE blobs. Any single one of these could be classified as a loli. Yet canonically 3 are of age in Japan. 2 are legal in the US. Which one of these can you say with confidence is canonically 9 years old? Which is in her mid 30s? Its impossible and there's no way to do it. How the fuck are you going to argue in a court of law that the Ginger wearing a coat and tie is a child but the blue haired one wearing a coat of tie isn't? It's stupid.
> ...


There's a VERY fucking big difference between sexualizing minors and just having children as characters.
There is worse shit out there, and you know that this is not what stirred the whole controversy about children in anime.


----------



## Cabelaz (Feb 13, 2021)

If you jerk it to little kids in any form you're worse than a nigger but I believe that it's an important outlet for potential pedos so they don't act on their urges


----------



## Lemmingwise (Feb 13, 2021)

pleasegoaway said:


> Then what if its text based? I'm sure that you would agree telling stories is an "exchange of ideas". Plenty of smutty romance novels like 50 Shades of Gray are allowed to be sold in regular, non-adult stores despite being of an inarguably pornographic nature. Does having a visual along with the story suddenly disqualify it?


The characters in 50 shades of Gray are adults.

Besides, I'm arguing for the removal of protection, not a complete ban. If people think it is a harmful book for its content (I don't), considering it is obscene material (like all pornographic works) people should be able to protest it.

Yes you run into the trouble where exactly the line is and people will tey to skirt it, like skirting incest with "stepbrother". I think a little mild suppression of pornographic work is healthy for society. Both the current free for all as an all out ban are more unhealthy options, it seems to me.

Certainly when facebook or youtube first started removing bare nipples and such, most people did not think "this is infringement of freedom of speech!",which a considerable people did think with the shadowbanning and banning of a certain wing of politics from them.

People know that smut is its own category. And that is doubly so when the material involves children, fictional or otherwise.

Yes, this puts some classics like Lolita and Traumnovella in hot water. I don't want to ban them. But look what the not banning of smoking did? Just some suppresion of not showing it in commercials, not having product placement in movies and requiring pictures of what happens to your health on the packages.

There is a middleroad between banning and free for all.

Lend me your thoughts on this @Secret Asshole you probably think I'm wrong.


----------



## Maurice Caine (Feb 13, 2021)

That's basically the entire anime industry you're getting rid of. This shit's going on since the 80's


----------



## murdered meat bag (Feb 13, 2021)

Fields Of Rye said:


> Actually this is probably the easiest standard to enforce out of all of them because it has a clear line on acknowledgement, and the law would be on the actions of the individuals rather than the art itself, which is by far the biggest hangup.
> 
> View attachment 1917032View attachment 1917035View attachment 1917041View attachment 1917054
> Look at these MOE blobs. Any single one of these could be classified as a loli. Yet canonically 3 are of age in Japan. 2 are legal in the US. Which one of these can you say with confidence is canonically 9 years old? Which is in her mid 30s? Its impossible and there's no way to do it. How the fuck are you going to argue in a court of law that the Ginger wearing a coat and tie is a child but the blue haired one wearing a coat of tie isn't? It's stupid.
> ...



this is why most anime is a cancer.


----------



## Taylor Swift's Ghostwrite (Feb 14, 2021)

The whole censorship of what is defined in the US as a form of art is complicated. You do really get into slippery slope situations, as much as that is usually a bullshit excuse people pull out. 

That said, pornography doesn't work on the psyche in the same way other forms of media does. Violent video games dont cause people to seek out the sensations of violence, and while a lot of people don't act on things they see in porn there is a major uptick in niche and kink communities along with the accessibility of porn on the internet. Obviously I cant prove the causation and correlation here but I think its a pretty valid conclusion that the two are linked. There is also something to be said about normalizing the idea of children as sexual beings and giving people the rope to hang kids with that way. 

I'm not pro-censorship so calling for its banning doesn't sit right with me, but at the same time pedophiles aren't being discouraged by this media like people seem to think they are and I genuinely would guess some people who wouldn't of awakened this desire in themselves may of unleashed the beast so to speak. 

I dont really know the answer here. I do know however if someone starts defending this shit I make a note to avoid them.


----------



## Bungus Scrungus (Feb 14, 2021)

Being objective; how many people who have turned out to be virulently against Loli ended up owning Child Porn, or being convicted of Child Rape/Molestation? If it does indeed make someone a real pedophile just like how violent video games make you a real murderer, then why can people only ever cite like, 3 examples? I'm genuinely not trying to be partisan here, these are just the facts that I'm aware of. There's statistically more reason to be suspicious of the people who are extremely negative against it than those who aren't.


----------



## A Thick Piece of Meat (Feb 14, 2021)

Bungus Scrungus said:


> Being objective; how many people who have turned out to be virulently against Loli ended up owning Child Porn, or being convicted of Child Rape/Molestation? If it does indeed make someone a real pedophile just like how violent video games make you a real murderer, then why can people only ever cite like, 3 examples? I'm genuinely not trying to be partisan here, these are just the facts that I'm aware of. There's statistically more reason to be suspicious of the people who are extremely negative against it than those who aren't.


in america killing people with realistic 3d video games for entertainment is the accepted norm

people get euphoria 360 no scoping someones head and watching them die 

to be against lolicon is to be 90s Nintendo of America with Mortal Kombat


----------



## Fields Of Rye (Feb 14, 2021)

Bungus Scrungus said:


> Being objective; how many people who have turned out to be virulently against Loli ended up owning Child Porn, or being convicted of Child Rape/Molestation? If it does indeed make someone a real pedophile just like how violent video games make you a real murderer, then why can people only ever cite like, 3 examples? I'm genuinely not trying to be partisan here, these are just the facts that I'm aware of. There's statistically more reason to be suspicious of the people who are extremely negative against it than those who aren't.


Probably because of a few reasons like guilty minds or overcompensating.

But I also basically trust nothing that I hear from lolicons. Again, every interaction with these people is never with just one of them. On every discord, forum, whatever that allows them, they always come in waves and every time without fail they accuse someone else of being pedophiles. And I don't mean the people that are saying "I don't think there's a way to do this without curtailing free speech", I mean the "lemme grab my /pol infographic about middle schooler vaginal depth" crowd. I keep hearing about these statistics but apart from a few lefties bitching about anime tiddies and being diddlers I don't hear anything else.

I have spent enough time in the Skyrim and Sims thread/modding scene to see how these communities fester. Like the fact the Sims has, or had a website more than capable of file sharing, hosted in some random country, where you could download infant (not just loli) sex animations, send PMs, and had thousands of forum threads locked from viewing without being a longtime member and having a paywall, all while advertising VPNs outside of EU and NATO surveillance laws. That is a Soviet Atlas of red flags. And I find it really hard to trust the average user of the site over your average anti lolicon sperg.


----------



## FEETLOAF (Feb 14, 2021)

You will never be the little girl.


----------



## A Thick Piece of Meat (Feb 14, 2021)

FEETLOAF said:


> You will never be the little girl.


with stem cell research itll be possible


----------



## Lemmingwise (Feb 14, 2021)

Bungus Scrungus said:


> Being objective; how many people who have turned out to be virulently against Loli ended up owning Child Porn, or being convicted of Child Rape/Molestation? If it does indeed make someone a real pedophile just like how violent video games make you a real murderer, then why can people only ever cite like, 3 examples? I'm genuinely not trying to be partisan here, these are just the facts that I'm aware of. There's statistically more reason to be suspicious of the people who are extremely negative against it than those who aren't.


There is nothing objective about it.

This idea of people who are against something must secretly be that thing themselves started with the gay lobby.

If you look at empirical data in regards to gay people, particulalry STD's and incidence of statutory rape and other child molestation, the numbers are astronomical.

On top of that, particularly men have a strong often inborn revulsion against seing homosexual acts (even kissing). And on top of that there is a long cultural bias against homosexuality from insults calling weak, effeminate men gay to calling a man gay if he doesn't jump at every opportunity to have sex with a woman.

Now with the decks stacked against such, it is a miracle people ever legalised gay marriage.

Of course it wasn't good for anyone's career prospects or reputation to be openly gay and that didn't help to get people to campaign for it. Because anyone that did ran into as well as the inborn as cultural biases.

One of the important ways to turn this around was to just switch the tables. "I may be gay, but if you're against it, you must be secretly gay!" This idea was popularized by the movie American Beauty, where the neighbour murderer is exactly that. But it since then can be seen in a whole host of movies and tv series.

Though we only have maybe two or three cases of such a thing and they're typically the kind of high profile people that someone like Epstein may have had blackmail material on. Often these positions are attained exactly because there is blackmail against someone (they can be controlled).

But it also prevents people from speaking against it without incurring the same reputation damage, even if they're clean as can be. It's a fear tactic to prevent people from speaking out against it.

And of course if the rhetorical device works for homosexuality, why not apply it to pedophilia too?

You claim there are only 3 examples of people who became offending pedophiles after loli material, but I doubt you can name more examples of people that are against it who turned out to be offending pedophiles. Yet you don't have the same standard of proof for that claim. I get why, I grew up in a similar culture, with the same media. 

But when I ask certain questions and I look at the data, an entirely different picture emerges. 

I mean if someone heavily against something would mean they secretly are that thing.

I imagine rape victims are virulently against rape. Does that mean they are secretly in favor of rape?

I'd expect the parents or spouses of rape victims are virulently against rape. Are they secret rapists?

If there are so many other, perfectly legitimate reasons why someone can have a strong emotional bias for investment into a subject, isn't it the most heartless thing to then blame them of secretly being in favor of it?

I don't know if pornographic material can be a gateway drug, I suspect it can be, but I don't know. But to be sure that anyone against it must be secretly for it, is I think an unintentional evil committed by the people who repeat it.

And an intentional one by the people who dreamed it up.


----------



## Rungle (Feb 14, 2021)

A Thick Piece of Meat said:


> in america killing people with realistic 3d video games for entertainment is the accepted norm
> 
> people get euphoria 360 no scoping someones head and watching them die
> 
> to be against lolicon is to be 90s Nintendo of America with Mortal Kombat


Killing shit is a primal instinct all humans have; it doesn't matter if it's animals or their own kind. 
However, wanting to fuck children animated or not is usually associated with mental illness and low IQ.


----------



## A Thick Piece of Meat (Feb 14, 2021)

catpin said:


> Killing shit is a primal instinct all humans have; it doesn't matter if it's animals or their own kind.
> However, wanting to fuck children animated or not is usually associated with mental illness and low IQ.


on that end wouldn't that mean media that promotes it for entertainment is engaging our innate desires the same way? that's a double standard


----------



## Unyielding Stupidity (Feb 14, 2021)

Regardless of free-speech arguments and whether or not this is morally acceptable, a large issue is whether or not it's actually feasible to censor it.

Since it's a drawing, there's no definite line of what is and what isn't considered to be underage, unlike IRL pornography where you can just check whether or not the actors/actresses are actually of legal age or not. Who decides what is and what isn't legal?
Is it based on canonical age? As if so, you'll just have people that'll draw something that's clearly underage and then claim it's actually a 900 year old vampire.
Is it based on physical characteristics? In that case, is any drawing of a short or flat-chested character now considered to be underage?
If you crudely drew a stickman with a penis on a scrap of paper and claimed it was 15, would you then be deemed a criminal?

Even once you decide on some criteria, you're gonna have to set up a system to actually go through this shit and censor it. If you use AI to filter through it, you're going to end up with tons of false positives or things that are clearly underage being deemed okay, because AI are incredibly stupid as we've seen time and time again. If you use people to filter through it, you're going to end up with people's personal biases affecting what they decide is okay - plus exposing people to massive amounts of hentai of questionable legality is frankly a PR disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## Bungus Scrungus (Feb 14, 2021)

Lemmingwise said:


> You claim there are only 3 examples of people who became offending pedophiles after loli material, but I doubt you can name more examples of people that are against it who turned out to be offending pedophiles. Yet you don't have the same standard of proof for that claim. I get why, I grew up in a similar culture, with the same media.


In the link below and the two inserted images below; there are 4 examples. It took me less than _2 minutes_ to find these. I also didn't claim there was ONLY 3 examples period. I was saying how people can only seemingly cite the same 3, meanwhile; I know for a fact that there's more than just the 4 examples I've shown here. Again, I'm not trying to be partisan, I'm just stating what seem to be the facts of the matter.
https://twitter.com/BepDelta/status/1358838396152643593


----------



## Secret Asshole (Feb 15, 2021)

Pedophiles will always offend. There's little to no point banning fictional drawings. Obviously, CP should be banned completely and everyone involved shot, since it involves real children. I just differentiate because real pedophiles, pedophile rings and child pornographers are just infinitely more horrifying than fake images. I know a lot of people call me a loli apologist, but when I researched the topic for my thesis and I learned what Eastern European gangs do to kids in child porn they make, its just hard for me to reconcile in my head that the two are equivalent. Obviously if someone is drawing a child that they know being molested, than that should be illegal and they should be arrested. I actually do think that's illegal, don't quote me on it though.


Bungus Scrungus said:


> In the link below and the two inserted images below; there are 4 examples. It took me less than _2 minutes_ to find these. I also didn't claim there was ONLY 3 examples period. I was saying how people can only seemingly cite the same 3, meanwhile; I know for a fact that there's more than just the 4 examples I've shown here. Again, I'm not trying to be partisan, I'm just stating what seem to be the facts of the matter.
> https://twitter.com/BepDelta/status/1358838396152643593


Do we know if its loli or did they watch child porn too (not that they'd admit it)? If they were pedos they were going to offend anyway. Not having access to loli wouldn't make a difference IMO. Pedophiles have such a strong compulsion to brutalize children it is only a matter of time before they do something. I mean, pedos have gotten off to advertisements of children before. So loli or no loli, it would have been inevitable. There's no such thing as a non-offending pedophile.

The whole thing rests on if you believe that someone can become a pedophile or not. I don't believe you can become a pedophile. You either are one or you aren't one. Watching loli isn't going to change that. Its like sayin if you watched 'Cuties' you become at risk for being a pedophile. All it took was for me seeing the poster for Cuties and that was enough to make me physically fucking ill.


----------



## Bungus Scrungus (Feb 15, 2021)

Secret Asshole said:


> Pedophiles will always offend. There's little to no point banning fictional drawings. Obviously, CP should be banned completely and everyone involved shot, since it involves real children. I just differentiate because real pedophiles, pedophile rings and child pornographers are just infinitely more horrifying than fake images. I know a lot of people call me a loli apologist, but when I researched the topic for my thesis and I learned what Eastern European gangs do to kids in child porn they make, its just hard for me to reconcile in my head that the two are equivalent. Obviously if someone is drawing a child that they know being molested, than that should be illegal and they should be arrested. I actually do think that's illegal, don't quote me on it though.
> 
> Do we know if its loli or did they watch child porn too (not that they'd admit it)? If they were pedos they were going to offend anyway. Not having access to loli wouldn't make a difference IMO. Pedophiles have such a strong compulsion to brutalize children it is only a matter of time before they do something. I mean, pedos have gotten off to advertisements of children before. So loli or no loli, it would have been inevitable. There's no such thing as a non-offending pedophile.
> 
> The whole thing rests on if you believe that someone can become a pedophile or not. I don't believe you can become a pedophile. You either are one or you aren't one. Watching loli isn't going to change that. Its like sayin if you watched 'Cuties' you become at risk for being a pedophile. All it took was for me seeing the poster for Cuties and that was enough to make me physically fucking ill.


The people in the pictures and link I posted were explicitly people against Loli. Vehemently so. Thou doth protest too much, that sort of thing.


----------



## The Marauder (Feb 15, 2021)

The only reason people brag online about wanting to fuck children, real or otherwise, is because there’s communities for them. This also applies to people that brag about fucking their dogs.


----------



## Secret Asshole (Feb 15, 2021)

Bungus Scrungus said:


> The people in the pictures and link I posted were explicitly people against Loli. Vehemently so. Thou doth protest too much, that sort of thing.


Ah, my bad. I was confused, I thought it was people who became pedophiles after looking at loli.


----------



## Fields Of Rye (Feb 16, 2021)

Also can someone explain to me why the fuck people are using the violent video game comparison as if that isn't the worst defense in fucking history.

The argument seems to be that just because you watch the virtual, doesn't mean you'll DO the actual, but the whole thing with child pornography is that you don't have to actually fuck a kid to support it's production. Simply watching the real shit is the uncrossable line. 

How many stories exist of people who discover some weird ass fetish from Resident Evil or some shit and are now into some weird, vague, niche fetish pornography. Or may I bring up the fact that Furries emerged from like, a weird magazine in the 60s. Hell, one of the first guns I bought was an over under shotgun because I liked the one from New Vegas and I use that gun to this day. Larping, Cosplay, Mall Ninja weapons. People go above and beyond with videogames all the time.

Right now there's some faggot whose probably spent every consecutive summer since 2012 in an asbestos suit at some con dressed as the pyro. It really wouldn't surprise me if there was an equivalent for lolicons, and this is before getting into in group radicalization. 

So in some ways it kinda feels like I'm a preacher from the 80s terrified the DND might turn the youth gay and make them cast spells in real life. But every time I here "haha, no one would ever cross the line between video games and reality" it just sounds like you've never smelt the inside of a Games Workshop.


----------



## janedoe (Feb 17, 2021)

it should be legal 
the same way it's legal to publicly shame and humiliate lolicons and remind them the rope is always an option.


----------



## Niggerman (Feb 17, 2021)

Fine with Lolicon being banned as long as we ban gay porn real and drawings, otherwise nope.


----------



## Pimpleking55 (Feb 17, 2021)

Fields Of Rye said:


> Also can someone explain to me why the fuck people are using the violent video game comparison as if that isn't the worst defense in fucking history.
> 
> The argument seems to be that just because you watch the virtual, doesn't mean you'll DO the actual, but the whole thing with child pornography is that you don't have to actually fuck a kid to support it's production. Simply watching the real shit is the uncrossable line.
> 
> ...


Some people are just evil, disturbed or insane and they will always be there as long as the world turns....and there are a lot of them.

Because there are school shooters you shouldn't ban guns, or because of drunk drivers you shouldn't ban alcohol or cars, or video games,music ect ect, you get the point. There should be some faith in humanity that if you buy a sword for your collection you don't go stabbing people or look at a drawn picture of a naked little girl that you don't go flinging your dick across a child's face. If you do you are evil and disturbed and the law will/should take care of you.

I wish every pedo fapped exclusively to lolicon by that there would surely be a lot less hurt children , but they don't care for drawings they always want the real thing.

Back when Madelaine Mccann was a hot item i watched a lot related documentaries out of morbid curiosity and everytime it is the same pattern: The child molesters are direct or very close family, or a person in a role with major power (like jimmy Savile, or that dude that worked in a orphanage who was recently murdered in prison),lolicon was never mentioned in all of those cases........compared to all that, some perverted artist and a degenerate consumer don't look that important at all. 
By this i am talking about drawn stuff offcourse which is clearly fictitious, real cp should be banned and exterminated everywhere because there is a victim.  

Strangely there always seems more rage and screaming about the fictitious  (twitter and the likes), than the real stuff......stab a kid to death and you can hear a pin drop.
But if you can't separate fiction from reality don't watch silence of the lambs with friends.


----------



## TheFinalCountdown (Feb 17, 2021)

A Thick Piece of Meat said:


> lolicon is drawings of children that are girls.
> 
> some say it makes people into pedophiles and motivates them to harm and should be censored to protect children
> 
> ...


It depends on the person Mass Debating to it, not the drawing itself. For example, some crazy dude could jack off to lolis like a million times each day, but never touch a real child because "they are too ugly!!!" or something autistic like that. Yet meanwhile, some sick pedo jacks off to loli hentai like, once a week and touches children, even before discovering loli.


----------



## Ser Prize (Aug 22, 2021)

A Thick Piece of Meat said:


> does lolicon help or hurt children by existing?


Hurts. Definitely hurts. The world of coom is a slippery one and I've seen many many people go down the pipeline of increasingly extreme fetishes and desires, which is where you get deranged shit. And more derangement begets more derangement. Lets assume "LOLIS AREN'T CHILDREN GUYS" is a true premise: what's to stop someone whose super into lolicon from going further down that rabbit hole and getting real illegal?

If you say "muh slippery slope fallacy" you deserve to be shot in the nuts, btw.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (Aug 25, 2021)

Ser Prize said:


> If you say "muh slippery slope fallacy" you deserve to be shot in the nuts, btw.



I think if the past five years have taught us anything, it's that people who believe in the slippery slope fallacy are victim of a fallacy. I've yet to see an example where people who talk about slippery slopes in a calm and coherent manner are proven wrong.


----------



## Atatata (Aug 27, 2021)

Ser Prize said:


> what's to stop someone whose super into lolicon from going further down that rabbit hole and getting real illegal?


Wouldnt it be the fact that its illegal?
If you had an alternative that was safe and legal why would you go for the alternative that would hurt real people if you weren't already fine with that in the first place?
Alternatively, if something is already illegal, what would stop you from getting more illegal?


----------



## JokahBaybee (Aug 27, 2021)

Lol wouldn't it be funny to derail this thread every 6 pages to talk about digibro?

(Only chad gamers will get the reference)


----------



## Realistic Elephant (Aug 27, 2021)

This is a great opportunity to heal the racial and religious divisions in our world. 

We can all agree on one thing:  that pedos deserve the rope even if their sick fantasies involve Japanese cartoons.


----------



## Ser Prize (Aug 28, 2021)

Atatata said:


> Wouldnt it be the fact that its illegal?
> If you had an alternative that was safe and legal why would you go for the alternative that would hurt real people if you weren't already fine with that in the first place?
> Alternatively, if something is already illegal, what would stop you from getting more illegal?


You miss my point: porn is a tolerance game. Gradually it won't be enough. What do you think happens when a hardcore lolicon finds loli ain't doing it for him anymore?


----------



## Atatata (Aug 28, 2021)

Ser Prize said:


> You miss my point: porn is a tolerance game. Gradually it won't be enough. What do you think happens when a hardcore lolicon finds loli ain't doing it for him anymore?


Wouldn't it be an easier transition if both were illegal in the first place? If you're already at risk to going to jail for something, why not go further?
The issue I have is that loli is so easy to create and distribute, someone needs to draw it and someone needs to buy it, it doesn't even need to be a good artist. I feel it would be more effective to try to seperate the two entirely from each other.
Imo the seperation of fiction and reality is something that to a certain extent needs to be enforced.


----------



## Ser Prize (Aug 28, 2021)

Atatata said:


> Wouldn't it be an easier transition if both were illegal in the first place? If you're already at risk to going to jail for something, why not go further?
> The issue I have is that loli is so easy to create and distribute, someone needs to draw it and someone needs to buy it, it doesn't even need to be a good artist. I feel it would be more effective to try to seperate the two entirely from each other.
> Imo the seperation of fiction and reality is something that to a certain extent needs to be enforced.


Whether it's simulated or note it's still an attraction to the shape of a child. I used to be where you were on this but I've seen too much. I know where that coomer slippery slope leads. Once they start jacking to loli it's over.


----------



## Zero Day Defense (Aug 29, 2021)

Ser Prize said:


> Whether it's simulated or note it's still an attraction to the shape of a child.


If you look at any loli anime character and they're reminiscent of an actual child, it's more likely than not that you've forgotten what a child looks and acts like.


----------



## Lunar Eclipse Paradox (Oct 3, 2022)

It's really weird but no. Unless it's realistic and involved real humans, then they shall be charged for rape and trafficking and put in a room with big cock niggers.


----------



## PipTheAlchemist (Oct 19, 2022)

It's not any government's place to censor unwholesome drawings. As degenerate as they may be


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Nov 5, 2022)

Drawing loli should be legal, but consumption should be illegal. Use it as a honeypot to catch pedophiles to either shot or lock up.

All these bullshit excuses about "its just a drawing" and "muh free speech" fall appart when you actually ask "A drawing of what?" and "free speech to produce what?"

Anytime you see anyone go "Its just a drawing" just mentally add "Its just a drawing of a 5 year old getting raped by multiple older men." to the end before you re-assess the statement because that's exactly what you're defending.

Same thing with "free speech". i.e. "Free speech to depict 5 year olds getting gangfucked."

And don't let me hear any of that bullshit "its not child porn, its a drawing". If a drawing of 2 dudes fucking is gay porn, then what is a drawing of a child being fucked by older men?


By the way, really intresting that we have dozens of people in this thread going "Bro, its just containment bro, they do that instead of the real thing bro, slippery slope isn't a thing bro." when this forum has about 100 threads on trannies that end up cutting their dicks off due to porn addiction pushing them over the edge of the slippery slope. 

Really gets the noggin joggin huh?



Rungle said:


> Killing shit is a primal instinct all humans have; it doesn't matter if it's animals or their own kind.
> However, wanting to fuck children animated or not is usually associated with mental illness and low IQ.


To add to this, nobody would bat an eye at timmy playing call of duty 3 hours a day every day, but if timmy was watching porn 3 hours a day everyone (including many of those here defending loli) would instantly turn their heads.

Sex shit belongs in an entirely different category from everything else. Its not comperable.


----------



## 56 others (Nov 5, 2022)

Most people into lolicon werent born pedophiles, they just masturbated to porn too much. Whether their coombrains can be recovered is anyones' guess.


----------



## ffo kcuF (Nov 5, 2022)

Loli/shota etc is depictions of children for the sole purpose of arousal, it's no different than CP. I don't fucking care if it's drawings lol, it's pornographic and it involves children, it's child porn plain and simple.


----------



## Mr Bubbless (Nov 5, 2022)

ffo kcuF said:


> Loli/shota etc is depictions of children for the sole purpose of arousal, it's no different than CP. I don't fucking care if it's drawings lol, it's pornographic and it involves children, it's child porn plain and simple.


If you make Loli illegal then why would people even bother looking at it rather than real child porn? It would just make people look at real cp instead.


----------



## ffo kcuF (Nov 5, 2022)

Mr Bubbless said:


> If you make Loli illegal then why would people even bother looking at it rather than real child porn? It would just make people look at real cp instead.


That doesn't make loli ok, you're talking about catering to pedophiles dude. It's not even necessarily about the content, but more about the person that enjoys that stuff. loli/CP is the same thing considering the end goal of the consumer, they are people that should not be around children and should be removed from civilised society.

A loli/shota consumer is the same thing as a CP consumer.


----------



## eDove (Nov 5, 2022)

Mr Bubbless said:


> If you make Loli illegal then why would people even bother looking at it rather than real child porn? It would just make people look at real cp instead.


Probably? I find that a lot of people who are into hentai/artwork are exclusively into it. As others have said, lolicon rots your brain and I think hentai in general does that to you. 

I've seen guys flat-out admit that they find drawings sexier than real women and that they're turned off by live-action porn. They've trained their dicks on hentai. It's grotesque and unnatural. 

However, I think this argument still doesn't work. A lot of pedophiles and would-be child molesters opt for lolicon 'cause it's so accessible and since it's _technically_ legal, there's a little less guilt. 

If loli didn't exist, these same perverts would indulge in their fantasies in some other form. Underage erotica is just as prevalent online and the authors can be paid to tailor specific stories for the buyer. 

My point is, if a pedophile is too afraid to seek out CP or touch a kid in real life 'cause of the legal consequences, they're probably less likely to do it. Shit like lolicon only fuels this fetish. It's not a two-edged sword that has good and bad aspects to it, it's not a necessary evil — it's a poison that only exacerbates the desire to corrupt kids. 

I've also seen people claim it's purely an "aesthetic" thing, which circles back to my first point about a lot of them being into drawings more than people. If CP were considered as gray of an area as lolicon is, if children could consent in the eyes of law and rape was considered okay, I bet you these people wouldn't have gotten so into hentai in the first place. They'd be going after the real thing guilt-free 'cause their morality is determined by law — not by what's actually moral.


----------



## Mothra1988 (Nov 6, 2022)

ffo kcuF said:


> That doesn't make loli ok, you're talking about catering to pedophiles dude. It's not even necessarily about the content, but more about the person that enjoys that stuff. loli/CP is the same thing considering the end goal of the consumer, they are people that should not be around children and should be removed from civilised society.
> 
> A loli/shota consumer is the same thing as a CP consumer.


It's not the same thing as in Lisa Simpson is not the same thing as a real child.  Then on day two of this burning of the constituion, half the people here will be locked up for insulting troons like is the current case in the UK.  Best solution would just be locking up the people who try to fuck with real kids, not wasting resources on creating a government art censorship task force to judge whether or some virgin sperg's anime girl body pillow demands a decade in prison.


----------



## ffo kcuF (Nov 6, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> It's not the same thing as in Lisa Simpson is not the same thing as a real child.  Then on day two of this burning of the constituion, half the people here will be locked up for insulting troons like is the current case in the UK.  Best solution would just be locking up the people who try to fuck with real kids, not wasting resources on creating a government art censorship task force to judge whether or some virgin sperg's anime girl body pillow demands a decade in prison.


I couldn’t give two flying shits about degenerate “art” . The people who enjoy it are the problem, they are no better than pedophiles, they get off to children being fucked.

Loli isn’t art dude, and I’m sure the art world couldn’t care less about pictures of sexualised children being outlawed. The constitution has nothing to do with it, common sense is all that’s needed.

And if people want to use the constitution as an excuse to be allowed to draw and sell pictures of children being raped, then maybe we do need to make a few amendments.


----------



## Boner Pill (Nov 6, 2022)

If you get off on drawings of little kids you deserve a bullet to the brain.


----------



## Captain Chromosome (Nov 6, 2022)

No. How else would I know who to target when the purges begin?


----------



## Hathungor (Nov 6, 2022)

To me, Lolicon is THE lithmus test of whether free speech and civil rights still work or not because so many people hate it. The second it gets banned we're all fucked because then we'll have created an environment where everything is up for grabs. Emotion will have trumped reason for good.

Leaving emotion out of it as much as I can, this is my take:
The reason real CP is illegal isn't because people want to blueball pedos, its because you cannot create it without exploiting and harming children. The reason the age of consent in the US is 18 isn't because something magical happens at that age but because lawmakers agreed that it can be reasonably assumed that MOST folks at that age have the mental maturity to make an informed decision of whether they wish to have sex or not. Having seen interviews with teenagers back from the 70s I think it might've been OK to have it lower then. Looking at the internet today I wonder if some people will ever reach a degree of mental maturity at which they should be legally allowed to consent. These laws exist not to punish pedophiles but to protect those vulnerable to exploitation.

This isn't an issue with fiction. Movies like Ingloriouos Basterds celebrate being an absolute orgy of violence. They aren't critical of it in the slightest, they revel in it and go out of their way to present it to the viewer in the most gruesome and spectacular fashion. The same goes with splatter horror flicks. If the things depicted in those films were real you can bet your ass they wouldn't be allowed either. But they aren't. They may not be to some peoples tastes, but nobody even bats much of an eye.

So basically, the second we're OK with instituting laws based on absolutely nothing but subjective morals, absolutely anything can be criminalized and punished arbitrarily.


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Nov 6, 2022)

Hathungor said:


> To me, Lolicon is THE lithmus test of whether free speech and civil rights still work or not because so many people hate it. The second it gets banned we're all fucked because then we'll have created an environment where everything is up for grabs. Emotion will have trumped reason for good.


"Child porn is the litmus test of free speech" isn't the mic drop moment you think it is. Its not making you look like a badass absolutist, its making you look like a demented pedo bandwagoning free speech to protect your fetish.


----------



## Mothra1988 (Nov 6, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> "Child porn is the litmus test of free speech" isn't the mic drop moment you think it is. Its not making you look like a badass absolutist, its making you look like a demented pedo bandwagoning free speech to protect your fetish.


/pol/ has rotted some of your brains, even the SCOTUS said you were wrong.  You think you can pick and choose what free speech you want.  It doesn't work that way.  Slipperly slope is fucking real and as soon as you can send people to jail for fictional artowrk you don't like, you'll be sent to the slammer for your "problematic" beliefs.  I don't know how hard this is to understand, again you think the UK where people get locked up for insulting troons or muslims is something to follow, becuase that's what happens when you erode free speech protections.


----------



## ITK (Nov 6, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> /pol/ has rotted some of your brains, even the SCOTUS said you were wrong.  You think you can pick and choose what free speech you want.  It doesn't work that way.  Slipperly slope is fucking real and as soon as you can send people to jail for fictional artowrk you don't like, you'll be sent to the slammer for your "problematic" beliefs.  I don't know how hard this is to understand, again you think the UK where people get locked up for insulting troons or muslims is something to follow, becuase that's what happens when you erode free speech protections.


America used to censor obscenity and pornography. Free speech protections (assuming pornography can be counted as speech) actually started out more restrictive and the reach of the state has only shrunk as the years passed, the opposite of a slippery slope.


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Nov 6, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> /pol/ has rotted some of your brains, even the SCOTUS said you were wrong.


I'm not american, I don't give a fuck what the scotus said. If they defend child porn they can go fuck themselves too.



> Slipperly slope is fucking real and as soon as you can send people to jail for fictional artowrk you don't like, you'll be sent to the slammer for your "problematic" beliefs.



Child porn. What I don't like is child porn.

Why is it that CP defenders always use a roundabout way of refering to it? "Drawings" "Artwork" "Fictional images", they never actually spell out what the particular issue is.


----------



## Mothra1988 (Nov 6, 2022)

Oilspill Battery said:


> I'm not american, I don't give a fuck what the scotus said.


Opinion discarded then I guess.  I'll stick with 1st amendment and the idea that cartoons aren't people.


ITK said:


> America used to censor obscenity and pornography. Free speech protections (assuming pornography can be counted as speech) actually started out more restrictive and the reach of the state has only shrunk as the years passed, the opposite of a slippery slope.



Stuff like the Hayes Code was bullshit and was rightfully discarded.  I don't know how insane you have to be to pretned the slippely slope doesn't exist after everything that Kiwi Farms has gone through.  If you don't think these people would throw everyone here in prision if they could get away with it, you are insane.  The ONLY thing that prevents that is the 1st ammendment in the United States.  Frankly, I want to live in a world where things like Kiwi Farms and 4chan can still exist and troons and other letoids can't send their preceived enemies to prison.


----------



## ITK (Nov 6, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> Stuff like the Hayes Code was bullshit and was rightfully discarded.  I don't know how insane you have to be to pretned the slippely slope doesn't exist after everything that Kiwi Farms has gone through.  If you don't think these people would throw everyone here in prision if they could get away with it, you are insane.  The ONLY thing that prevents that is the 1st ammendment in the United States.  Frankly, I want to live in a world where things like Kiwi Farms and 4chan can still exist and troons and other letoids can't send their preceived enemies to prison.


Obscenity isn't speech. Expression, even, isn't speech. Speech is speech. Whether lolicon is legal or not has nothing to do with protection of free speech in America, because they are not the same thing. Censorship of the former would give no legal precident of censorship of the latter, they are two completely seperate domains.


----------



## Slobs (Nov 6, 2022)

Obscenity laws are fucking retarded and a guaranteed slippery slope. Just look at the UK for example:
First it's obscenity that gets banned, who wouldn't agree that there's plenty of things that simply aren't acceptable in public? 
Then it's artistic expression, it stands to reason that just because something's a drawing that doesn't mean that it's okay to expose people to it.
After that it's speech, because hey it seems reasonable that people shouldn't be saying sick shit, or shouting "bomb" in the middle of an airport, right? Give it a few years and ideas like "hate speech" start popping up. The general public is more than comfortable enough with sending nasty, nasty racists to prison, and at this point it's an uphill battle to fight against that with all the precedents that have already been set. 
Then by that point it's too late. People start gaming the system by hiding behind these laws and worse yet, by using them to silence you. Game over, you just insulted some fat faggot with bitch tits and now the local bobby is at your door ready to give you a worse jail sentence than the migrants going around raping children.



Oilspill Battery said:


> I'm not american, I don't give a fuck what the scotus said. If they defend child porn they can go fuck themselves too.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Because it's not child porn, you overzealous retard. It's literally, by legal definition, not the same thing as a real picture, of a real child, that was really abused, that will suffer for life from that image existing, that requires someone to go out of their way to do evil shit to ensure that the image exists. Do you even know how frustrating it is hosting a website like a forum and being bombarded with urgent reports at 3am of child porn being present on your server, or God forbid having law enforcement knocking at your door, only to find out that it's just some weebshit scribble some coomer faggot downloaded from twitter?

Like I get where you're coming from, man. I've been posting on sites like 4chan for over a decade where autistic coomers, that very much are adjacent to real pedos, post sick disturbing shit. Sick disturbing shit that I'd agree can and *has* led to young developing men becoming actual genuine paedophiles. It also attracts real paedophiles like flies to shit, who use communities where that shit is present to network with other paedos, or worse yet to get their hands on young people and groom them. I really can't stress more that I agree with the sentiment that the content itself is repulsive, that it existing creates problems, and that the people who consume it are either fucked up to begin with or worse than that aren't fucked up at first but will become fucked up if they keep consuming it. That still doesn't make it the same thing, it creates problems and confusion by not differentiating the two, and it also doesn't justify using this content as a scapegoat to get shitty laws passed that absolutely will be used against you.


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Nov 6, 2022)

Slobs said:


> It's literally, by legal definition


By legal definition if you identify as a woman you are one. So clearly, legal definitions don't mean shit and are completely malleable to society's whim.

If a drawing of 2 men fucking is gay porn, a drawing of kids being fucked is child porn. I don't see any value out of it being legal. There is no meaningful discussion to be had around it, and even if there was its long since been corrupted.



> Do you even know how frustrating it is hosting a website like a forum and being bombarded with urgent reports at 3am of child porn being present on your server, or God forbid having law enforcement knocking at your door, only to find out that it's just some weebshit scribble some coomer faggot downloaded from twitter?



ok then ban the faggot and report him to law enfocement if they come knocking



Mothra1988 said:


> Opinion discarded then I guess.  I'll stick with 1st amendment and the idea that cartoons aren't people.



Notice what I said earlier, the pedo will literally use any word except what it actually is.

They'll call them "Drawings" "Artwork" "Fictional images" "cartoons" but never actually call a spade and spade and explicitly say that the subject of discussion is child porn.


----------



## ffo kcuF (Nov 6, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> /pol/ has rotted some of your brains, even the SCOTUS said you were wrong.  You think you can pick and choose what free speech you want.  It doesn't work that way.  Slipperly slope is fucking real and as soon as you can send people to jail for fictional artowrk you don't like, you'll be sent to the slammer for your "problematic" beliefs.  I don't know how hard this is to understand, again you think the UK where people get locked up for insulting troons or muslims is something to follow, becuase that's what happens when you erode free speech protections.



/pol/? lol. You're the one that sounds like a 4chan pedo, buddy. 

SCOTUS, artwork, troons, muslims, slippery slope, free speech, fiction, constitution... anymore buzzwords you want to throw around?

Loli isn't free speech, loli isn't artwork, loli isn't comparable to any of those other things. 

Loli/shota serves only one purpose in this world, and that is to give pedos access to pictures of sexualised children so they can get off, if it was banned tomorrow nobody would care, well except pedos of coarse. And banning loli won't be the catalyst to banning all freedoms lol, get a grip.


----------



## Mothra1988 (Nov 6, 2022)

ffo kcuF said:


> loli isn't artwork


It litrally is, you dunce.  You don't have to like it.  I don't like loli at all.  It's gross.  But it's still a fucking drawing.  You sound like an SJW trying to change the definition of words.  "Hate speech isn't speech."  Same exact shit.  You don't have to like something for something to qualify as speech or art or a drawing, or whatever.  That's not the point.  The point is things you hate or find repulsive or morally objectionable can still be  protected under free speech. 

Frankly, I think the government has bigger problems to deal with than scribbles on paper made by reclusive weebs.  They can't even get the human trafficking problem under control, something that involves real kids not just imaginary pretend ones, and the government is over-bloated as it is.


----------



## Oilspill Battery (Nov 6, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> It litrally is, you dunce.


"They also protected us from tyranny against the seizure of tasteful, artistic photographs of beautiful bodies." 



"That same government wants to come into our home, tell us what is and what is not art? That's not right!"


Its not childporn you see, its tasteful artistic photos artwork.


----------



## jertzog (Nov 6, 2022)

Short answer: No.
Long answer: It shouldn't be published outside of Japan by people trying to monetize Japanese porn for non-Japanese. It's part of their nerd culture and there are no indications that it contributes to child abuse there.


----------



## ffo kcuF (Nov 6, 2022)

Mothra1988 said:


> .  The point is things you hate or find repulsive or morally objectionable can still be  protected under free speech.



Drawings aren’t speech, you dunce.

Imagine fighting this hard to protect scribbles of naked children being abused.

You keep harping on about how drawings aren’t real, well duh!. No one is saying drawing are real buddy, lol. The sick people who create these drawings are real, the people who consume and enjoy these drawing are real, the growing community’s surrounding it is very real. These people are fucked in the head and should not be catered to, they ain’t just reclusive weebs wtf, they’re pedophiles that fantasise about children. Hyper realistic A.I art is just around the corner and this shit needs to be taking care of before A.I CP becomes a billion dollar busines.

Real CP and drawn CP caters to the same people with the same end result, it the same thing and should be treated the same.


----------



## Mothra1988 (Nov 6, 2022)

ffo kcuF said:


> Drawings aren’t speech, you dunce.



Wrong, retard:



> The First Amendment does protect certain types of expressive conduct and nonverbal speech. This includes artistic expression, such as painting, music, poetry, and literature. As the Second Circuit has held, “paintings, prints, sculptures, etc. …always communicate some idea or concept to those who view it, and as such are entitled to First Amendment Protection.


 
For example, one of the most common forms of political speech is the political cartoon, which are drawings, and that was the case in newspapers for long before the US was even founded.  What you are suggesting here is completely absurd.


----------



## Windows Error 98 (Nov 7, 2022)

Whether it should be censored or not, I think everyone who enjoys it should be shot. If you’re getting off to anything underage looking you are a pedophile. I don’t care if it’s drawn. You are attracted to underage children. Die.

The censorship debate over it is kind of impractical. I’m not sure how I feel really. It’s certainly a gateway to real stuff.


----------



## BoomerSperg1922 (Nov 7, 2022)

I think it's disgusting and anyone who enjoys it is too.

But I also feel the same about scat and I'm not going to say it should be censored, so should I say the same about lolicon?

Tough call.  I wonder if there are any large scale studies that show whether or not it contributes or prevents actual child abuse (or neither).


----------



## TheNazgulKing (Nov 7, 2022)

Weed Eater said:


> Then again too, I also don't see a huge reason to be talking about personal fetish details or whatnot to others. If you enjoy loli/shota, you do you, I just don't want to hear about it. Same goes for anyone "vanilla" either, it just isn't important to me. I'll also argue that pedophiles will try to do much more than only get off from 2D childlike or "obvious child" imagery. They're going to be talking to "maturely brained" young teen girls/boys. They'll be spying on their youngest family members, and maybe speaking up about such things if they trust someone enough. I sadly know firsthand. :/



My personal pet peeve about the Rainbow Brigade: they want to drag everything out of the closet, including shit that should stay there.  I don't care what you do behind closed doors with other consenting adults or what sort of drawings you fap to.  But the perverts aren't satisfied with tolerance, they want to be celebrated as brave bold adult baby diaper lovers, shotacons, and a whole bunch of other fetishes that nobody else outside their echo chamber wants to hear about.


----------



## Atatata (Nov 9, 2022)

Hathungor said:


> To me, Lolicon is THE lithmus test of whether free speech and civil rights still work or not because so many people hate it. The second it gets banned we're all fucked because then we'll have created an environment where everything is up for grabs. Emotion will have trumped reason for good.
> 
> Leaving emotion out of it as much as I can, this is my take:
> The reason real CP is illegal isn't because people want to blueball pedos, its because you cannot create it without exploiting and harming children. The reason the age of consent in the US is 18 isn't because something magical happens at that age but because lawmakers agreed that it can be reasonably assumed that MOST folks at that age have the mental maturity to make an informed decision of whether they wish to have sex or not. Having seen interviews with teenagers back from the 70s I think it might've been OK to have it lower then. Looking at the internet today I wonder if some people will ever reach a degree of mental maturity at which they should be legally allowed to consent. These laws exist not to punish pedophiles but to protect those vulnerable to exploitation.
> ...


Not really related, but it has been used as a test for anime fandoms when it comes to western translation companies.

Loli censorship tend to go hand in hand with regular sexual censorship, changing things to "fit western modern audiences" and general just plain shit translations.


----------



## Sumptinsfuckey (Nov 9, 2022)

It should be freely (as in both no-cost and readily) available, but the names of anyone who buys it should be published so we know exactly who to set on fire.


----------



## ShittlerNiggler (Nov 10, 2022)

I fear with how good AI drawings become now, that a lot of pedos will start making AI generated lolicon. This could also lead to a possible loophole since there is no "criminal person" behind the drawing.
When it comes to the entire "but muh free speech" argument, living in a disgusting immoral society is not only way worse than restricted speech but also leads to more restrictions as we can see in modern society and what people try to do to this website.


----------



## Atatata (Nov 10, 2022)

ShittlerNiggler said:


> I fear with how good AI drawings become now, that a lot of pedos will start making AI generated lolicon. This could also lead to a possible loophole since there is no "criminal person" behind the drawing.
> When it comes to the entire "but muh free speech" argument, living in a disgusting immoral society is not only way worse than restricted speech but also leads to more restrictions as we can see in modern society and what people try to do to this website.


I'm not tech savvy but considering most AI companies are appealing the the west, it wouldn't be surprising if they cracked down on that sort of thing, try to make it harder to create.

That being said, that'd push artists more into drawing that sort of thing since it'd be something they have over AI, wouldn't it? Its not like its some forbidden knowledge.


----------



## ZeCommissar (Nov 10, 2022)

Unfortunately unless you can prove a complete direct link that someone being a lolicon is an inevitable pedophile that will molest children it would be extremely redundant to ban it. It would do absolutely nothing to help real world victims of rape and trafficking. If anything it will actually make the situation worse because the degenerate coomers will go to great lengths to get their material. They will do the exact same shit people that consume CP do online in order to get it. Now you're taking up police resources to find, track, and destroy loli porn when those same resources could be used to destroy CP. Hell they probably wouldn't even have to go to the same lengths and just load up a good VPN and start finding Japanese websites, because the Japs sure as shit won't make it illegal anytime soon if ever. At least CP is banned in pretty much every country in the world that matters. I am in 100% agreement with @Secret Asshole that pedophiles are born, not made. Banning loli because it might turn someone into a pedophile is on the same level of banning gay porn because it might make you turn gay. I dare you fuckers to watch 100 hours of gay porn and come back to me. Are you a faggot yet?

Nevermind the fact that the fuckers always use the "well its ackshually a petite 19 year old. Should petite women and their boyfriends be locked up?" Someone being convicted for making child-like drawings is going to be hard to crack in a court of law when they go "well it's just a petite woman" especially if the characters age is left ambiguous, and it doesn't look like a literal toddler.

@Fields Of Rye mentioned some websites earlier. What's funny is hentai places ban loli yet allow rape, zoophilia, and sex slavery/trafficking. I don't know about the rest of you guys, but in my eyes all of those things are on the same level as pedophilia. We always have some fag ass thread with "um guys is loli okay?", but I have yet to see a "is raping grown women in hentai okay?" thread. If you're going to crusade against degeneracy then be consistent and destroy it all.

Are lolicons disgusting? Yes

Should we keep an eye on those that like loli to make sure it's just loli and nothing real they're looking at? Absolutely.

Would lolicons be lined up against a wall and shot in a perfect world right next to the child molestors and rapists? You bet your ass.

However we don't live in a perfect world, so we should focus on making it a better and safer place for our kids instead of focusing on something that causes moral outrage.


----------



## Fields Of Rye (Nov 11, 2022)

ZeCommissar said:


> Unfortunately unless you can prove a complete direct link that someone being a lolicon is an inevitable pedophile that will molest children it would be extremely redundant to ban it. It would do absolutely nothing to help real world victims of rape and trafficking. If anything it will actually make the situation worse because the degenerate coomers will go to great lengths to get their material. They will do the exact same shit people that consume CP do online in order to get it. Now you're taking up police resources to find, track, and destroy loli porn when those same resources could be used to destroy CP. Hell they probably wouldn't even have to go to the same lengths and just load up a good VPN and start finding Japanese websites, because the Japs sure as shit won't make it illegal anytime soon if ever. At least CP is banned in pretty much every country in the world that matters. I am in 100% agreement with @Secret Asshole that pedophiles are born, not made. Banning loli because it might turn someone into a pedophile is on the same level of banning gay porn because it might make you turn gay. I dare you fuckers to watch 100 hours of gay porn and come back to me. Are you a faggot yet?
> 
> Nevermind the fact that the fuckers always use the "well its ackshually a petite 19 year old. Should petite women and their boyfriends be locked up?" Someone being convicted for making child-like drawings is going to be hard to crack in a court of law when they go "well it's just a petite woman" especially if the characters age is left ambiguous, and it doesn't look like a literal toddler.
> 
> ...


You summoned me back here so here we go

One thing you have missed in this analysis is that pedophiles are unique among the sexual deviants and are on par with the furries in their community structure.

There is no online rape fetish community. Or online bestiality fetish community. You’ll find packs of dogfuckers or people sharing rape videos, but everyone who has dealt with a graph poster knows these people are significantly smaller and less organized than the pedo community

This loli community is what the discussion should be focused on. IDGAF about a petite girl getting smashed by coach from left for dead. I am concerned with a highly organized forum with 90% of it hidden churning out infant sex mods for the sims.

Finally, this insistence of proof is simply unscientific. If you know how IRBs work you know you are basically asking for multiple war crimes where you show people child porn until they rape kids. This is an impossible ask and it doesn’t even address the issue of accessing a community of pedophiles via following the trail.


----------

