Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[Gourmet Race]

I agree that we shouldn't punish people because they have an unfortunate fixation on some distasteful media if there hasn't been a real victim but I have a problem with the conclusion that lolicon/shotacon isn't pedophilia.

People who receive sexual gratification from the depictions of children fictional or otherwise are pedophiles. You can draw a line under this issue and say because it's a drawing it doesn't matter but that completely misses the point. Lolicon/shotacon is a fetish where the focus is on the youth of character not the media that the of content is delivered in and what do we call a person who is sexually attracted to the young?

We can discuses about what kind of pedo they are or whether they'll become offending or not all day but to simply write off the connection between these two (supposed) groups is stupid.

As much as I hate defending this unholy fetish, there's a difference between an actual kid vs a cute anime loli.

These are 2 kids

This is a loli

The definition of a pedophile is an adult who is attracted to kids, and by kids, it's referring to kids irl, and from the looks of the 2 images, it's pretty obvious there's a huge difference between the 2 images. Lolis are drawn to be attractive and innocent, that's why a lot of degenerates beat their meat to it. Think of it as those weebs who are like "2D GIRLS FOR LAYFEEE! 3D SUCKZZZ!"

To add on, here's another 2 images to further back my argument:

What trannies think they'll look like if they transition

What they'll actually look like

Now, if people were to be attracted to the first image, would that mean they are gynemimetophilia, attracted to trannies? No, the only reason people were attracted to the first drawing is because it was drawn in an attractive way, and that it actually looks like a woman lol. To summarize, there's a huge difference between the physical appearance between non-fictional and fictional.

That being said though, I still call lolicons pedophiles for the heck of it lol

 

[Fools Idol]

As much as I hate defending this unholy fetish, there's a difference between an actual kid vs a cute anime loli.

These are 2 kids
View attachment 3495992


This is a loli
View attachment 3496064
The definition of a pedophile is an adult who is attracted to kids, and by kids, it's referring to kids irl, and from the looks of the 2 images, it's pretty obvious there's a huge difference between the 2 images. Lolis are drawn to be attractive and innocent, that's why a lot of degenerates beat their meat to it. Think of it as those weebs who are like "2D GIRLS FOR LAYFEEE! 3D SUCKZZZ!"

To add on, here's another 2 images to further back my argument:

What trannies think they'll look like if they transition
View attachment 3496118

What they'll actually look like
View attachment 3496122
Now, if people were to be attracted to the first image, would that mean they are gynemimetophilia, attracted to trannies? No, the only reason people were attracted to the first drawing is because it was drawn in an attractive way, and that it actually looks like a woman lol. To summarize, there's a huge difference between the physical appearance between non-fictional and fictional.

That being said though, I still call lolicons pedophiles for the heck of it lol

To me the distinction between "2D" and "3D" in the context of the fetish is largely arbitrary. It does exist in a legal sense for obvious reasons but I don't believe it exists in relation to the topic of Human sexuality. Many psychologists and the like would disagree with that statement but I'm not a psychologist.

 

[mario if smoke weed]

Yes. Why can't people jack it to consenting adults without daddy issues is beyond (burger) me.

 

[UnsufficentBoobage]

HOWEVER, there is a large body (literally) of evidence that cannibal fetishism leads to rape and murder. That fetish has actually killed people, so if you're looking for something to ban, focus on things we have evidence for.

Most of the gore fetishes are woman-heavy, so no hope here.

Also, lolicon is bad per se even without pedophilia link, like any cartoony porn.

The definition of a pedophile is an adult who is attracted to kids, and by kids, it's referring to kids irl, and from the looks of the 2 images, it's pretty obvious there's a huge difference between the 2 images

I am convinced that "there are no similarities" crowd just has face identification issues, cause if you cannot see kiddy traits on loli, you must be legit blind.

 

[Secret Asshole]

Most of the gore fetishes are woman-heavy, so no hope here.

Rape especially is female heavy more than male heavy. I also mean people going 'lol looking to roleplay cannibalism j/k lol its not real' and then it turns out 'lol it was totez real'.

 

[Shitposting boogeyman]

Yes of course it's child porn. How could it be anything else?

 

[Turbulence]

Someone correct me if I am wrong or this has already been said, but from the wikipedia page, it says that "The obscenity law further states in section C "It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist." and "Laws governing non-child pornography are guided by the Miller standard". Basically, if you have explicit loli images, you need to somehow go in front of a jury show them ALL of the loli images, and then that jury has to be convinced that it somehow has artistic merit. You have to go in front of a jury because the miller test is a jury standard so there is no way this gets thrown out through legal method. You could probably find some really niche examples of lolicon that has some sort of artistic merit, but 99% of it would instantly get you a guilty verdict because most people would see the first image and instantly want you in jail.

What I'm confused about is that don't all the obscenity laws make hardcore porn likely illegal? You could probably find a jury to find some of the extreme rape/bdsm/scat/other crazy porn to fulfill the standards of obscenity in the Miller test, yet we have million dollar companies that exist despite this grey area. What gives?

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Someone correct me if I am wrong or this has already been said, but from the wikipedia page, it says that "The obscenity law further states in section C "It is not a required element of any offense under this section that the minor depicted actually exist." and "Laws governing non-child pornography are guided by the Miller standard". Basically, if you have explicit loli images, you need to somehow go in front of a jury show them ALL of the loli images, and then that jury has to be convinced that it somehow has artistic merit. You have to go in front of a jury because the miller test is a jury standard so there is no way this gets thrown out through legal method. You could probably find some really niche examples of lolicon that has some sort of artistic merit, but 99% of it would instantly get you a guilty verdict because most people would see the first image and instantly want you in jail.

What I'm confused about is that don't all the obscenity laws make hardcore porn likely illegal? You could probably find a jury to find some of the extreme rape/bdsm/scat/other crazy porn to fulfill the standards of obscenity in the Miller test, yet we have million dollar companies that exist despite this grey area. What gives?

Obscenity law in general is in a really weird situation right now, but to put it succinctly, you will almost never see anyone pushing obscenity laws in this day in age because they likely wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny at this point. Obscenity is a vague as fuck legal standard that is impossible to enforce objectively, so most jurisdictions don't even really try.

Second, U.S. law enforcement just doesn't give a shit about loli/shota in general. Its why even today you can find plenty of American websites hosting the stuff without issue. They just don't care. Nobody gets charged with owning the shit unless they get picked up for actual child porn, in which case they tack on charges regarding the loli just to lengthen their sentence. The one case for a guy who was picked up specifically for it (United States v. Handley) led to parts of the PROTECT Act being struck as overbroad and unconstitutional.

Third, the court case New York v. Ferber basically defined child pornography and why it can be made illegal in the United States, even if it isn't legally obscene. Loli and shota don't meet the Faber standard because they don't involve the depiction of real children.

 

[demicolon]

I'm just going to say that 99% of lolicons are the type of guys who, after leaving their basement, the Sun would burn into ash like Dracula before they find a real kid to suck blood out of.

 

[BobbyEHill-21]

Degenerate no doubt, but that doesn’t mean we should go after drawn content. It’d distract us from going after people who perpetuate real harm on real children by being chomos.

 

[skykiii]

I say no, but not because I like Lolicon (I don't). It's more that I hate potential new rules/standards that could have bad ramifications down the line.

I recall in another thread once asking if its lolicon if you just have a cute kid character or do they specifically have to be sexualized. Well, an actual law would ask the same question... and I don't trust them to stay sane and not suddenly declare that anyone who has ever seen an episode of Strawberry Shortcake or Detective Conan is a pedo now. This is before you get to how the definition of "sexualized" has gotten super-fucked where apparently a lot of things I can't even imagine being arousing are now considered sexualization.

And I could even see certain authorities intentionally bending the rules in order to hurt artists and forms of media they don't like, sort of like what happened with comic books around the Seduction of the Innocent era. Just imagine a modern-day Jack Thompson succeeding in getting most video games banned just because the female Pokemon characters tend to wear skirts and shorts and some people could consider that sexual.

Basically, I'm against handing ammunition to censor-happy idiots.

 

[Alex Hogendorp]

If they're naked and doing sexual acts and is sexually suggestive and meant to turn on the viewer. Yes it should be considered CP and be outright banned. I will also go as far as to saying all forms of pornography should be banned. Pornography when exposed to it for so long really fucks with your mind and that mentality causes harm to others around them.

When it comes to non pornographic extreme films however, it's a grey area and should be viewed in moderation. Where the Dead Go to Die for example is dark comedy although mediocre, it wasn't sexually explicit nor was it meant to turn on the viewer so I could actually defend the film. A Serbian Film for example was meant to showcase the worst aspects of the porn industry but the baby scene wasn't sexually explicit and a doll prop was used, the purpose of the scene was character development for Vukmir's demented beliefs. It's hard to defend the justification of the liberal use of extremity of Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom or Melancholie der Engel other than showcase that a family is corrupt but I don't really consider it pornography.

 

[Fougaro]

I'm hesitant to advocate for its ban since it's a drawing of a child. Consuming said material however, makes you a paedophile since it's a drawing of a child.

 

[AgendaPoster]

Stop necroing settled debates
Stop loli enjoying
There are a gorillion women out there

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I recall in another thread once asking if its lolicon if you just have a cute kid character or do they specifically have to be sexualized. Well, an actual law would ask the same question... and I don't trust them to stay sane and not suddenly declare that anyone who has ever seen an episode of Strawberry Shortcake or Detective Conan is a pedo now.

This sort of argument always comes off as disingenuous to me. You know that nobody who watches any random cartoon featuring a minor character would be deemed a pedophile just because loli is banned.

Is there a there a theoretical possibility of a law being abused? Absolutely, technically, but by that logic we shouldn't ban anything because the slimmest possibility of some sort of overreaching exists.

I will also go as far as to saying all forms of pornography should be banned.

Based.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

You know that nobody who watches any random cartoon featuring a minor character would be deemed a pedophile just because loli is banned.

And yet there are people doing that right now, declaring that all anime fans are lolicons and pedophiles, declaring that finding Uzaki-chan, who is a college student, hot or cute is pedophilia. Or calling a scene of Anna from SpyxFamily blushing at her father picking her up pedophilic because it was a young girl blushing. We don't need to imagine that world; it already exists, and its the same world where a 30 year old dating a 20 year old is called pedophilic.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

And yet there are people doing that right now, declaring that all anime fans are lolicons and pedophiles

It's mostly a meme or just retards saying that, from a legal perspective that would not occur.

We don't need to imagine that world; it already exists, and its the same world where a 30 year old dating a 20 year old is called pedophilic.

As above, retards will always exist. They can have their braindead opinions, it won't actually effect anything.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

It's mostly a meme or just retards saying that, from a legal perspective that would not occur.

You overestimate politicians and underestimate the stupidity of our legal system. They absolutely would do stupid shit like that, and have done stupider in the past.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

You overestimate politicians and underestimate the stupidity of our legal system. They absolutely would do stupid shit like that, and have done stupider in the past.

Then we better just get rid of all restrictions. There's law against murder so if I kill in self-defense I might be charged with murder, better get rid of that.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Then we better just get rid of all restrictions. There's law against murder so if I kill in self-defense I might be charged with murder, better get rid of that.

Nobody's calling for that and you know it. Stop being disingenuous.