Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[Kari Kamiya]

Holy shit my mobile scroll bar should not ever be this tiny in a thread about the ethics of drawn lolis. Just fuck already, you two.

 

[Devout Muslim]

Jerking off to loli isn’t analogous to playing violent video games it’s analogous to killing a cat.

For a cat killer, the fundamental desire is to kill. The ideal object of such a desire is a human. They can’t kill a person, due to fear of repercussions, logistics, or personal qualms, so they settle on getting off to a substitute.

The average gamer is not seeking to satiate a desire for blood. Their goal is to be amused. Fundamentally, they share no common motives or desires with a murderer.

The lolicon viewer is seeking to satiate their sexual desires. They cannot rape a kid. They cannot watch porn of actual children. They settle on getting off to substitute. They share an identical desire to fucking children, ergo they are pedophiles.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The purpose of these laws is to encourage car centric development

My lack of familiarity with the subject makes it difficult to have much input on it, but I highly doubt it's an exception. Something as basic as laws against littering have a moral component.

As for the purpose of establishing order in chaos, that is self-evident. Governments operate in order, not chaos. The law allows the government to function in orderly way, and control the actions of its citizenry. The purpose of the law is to establish that order.

So order is good, not bad, correct? Any time you appeal to good or bad you're making a fundamentally moral distinguishment.

People may try to justify a law with their personal sense of morality, but that doesn't mean that the law has an inherently moral component.

That's the very purpose of a law, it comes down to the moral order. There can be bad laws which have a warped vision of the moral order, but are still inherently attempting to assert a moral view, distorted as they may be.

The only moral component of North Korean law is whether or not the Kim dynasty wants them or not.

And in accordance with the definition of "moral", it still applies, as explained above. He has a view of moral order we disagree with, that's all.

is the Preamble to the United States Declaration of Independence, which isn't considered law in the United States.

I didn't say it is law per se, it is the vision for the nation, and a nation needs laws, which are derived from that view, which is what I said.

Order was their focus when they wrote the constitution, not morality.

No. Read the writings of the Founding Fathers, or even just what you yourself posted. What did they mean by "establish Justice" if that's removed from a moral framework? You're plain incorrect. How do you "promote the general welfare" if you don't first establish that doing so is right, good, and correct?

Your understanding of fundamental moral concepts is seemingly nonexistent.

The law is shaped by morality in the sense that people look at it with a moral lens.

That's simply not true. Laws are passed for the purpose of good, even if it's not what you yourself consider good, but the moral element is there.

The subjectivity of slavery's morality is beside the point. The point is that slavery itself was an objective reality. It could be objectively defined; owning another human being against his will. Therefore, it could be regulated, and eventually prohibited. Obscenity cannot be objectively defined; it is subjective to every man's personal point of view. This is why laws based on it are inherently flawed.

But it's not beside the point, it was abolished because of morality. Things are either legal or not based on a country's moral view, and as a Christian nation it was impossible to support slavery. Things are only legal or not based on if they're good or bad, and that speaks to the type of society you're going to have. Are we a society which kills babies or not, are we a society that allows for pornography or not? These are the questions of politics, which are inherently moral questions.

If American law was truly one to one informed by Christian morality and biblical law, then adultery, extramarital sex, and potentially even masturbation would be illegal.

We're, unfortunately, not a theocracy, so no, being informed by Christian morality doesn't necessarily equate to full-on theocratic lawmaking. But the Founders and most Americans were Christian, so naturally the laws reflected that. It isn't to say every single law was developed through a Christian lense, but to deny the influence of Christianity in shaping America is foolish.

And if America is no longer a Christian nation, this point is moot.

Not really, since the moral question doesn't just end with Christianity. Some moral view will prevail, Christian or not, it's just a question of which is better. The Christian view of morality is superior to the hedonistic left's.

I can't define a non-existent drawing. It could be a drawing of anything.

The drawing is not nonexistent, it's tangible. And no, it can't be a drawing of anything, it is what it is, so what is it?

If I show you a realistic drawing of an apple you will identify it as a depiction of an apple. If I show you a realistic depiction of this shit, you identify it as a depiction of...what?

And people can be wrong. Once again, we live in a world where obviously adult characters are called "lolis" and people who find them attractive "lolicons".

If "obviously adult" characters exist then so too do obviously child characters. It's not entirely subjective, you've tacitly conceded as much by appealing to the obviousness of adult characters.

That's the problem. There will always be ambiguity and a grey area because its art, and interpretation is part an parcel of it.

No, not always, see above, sometimes it is obvious even according to you. The existence of ambiguity in some cases doesn't change this.

No, I don't think I will subject my freedoms to a popular vote, thank you.

Sure you will, that's what elections are for, determining what freedoms you have and do not have. It's why I'm going to vote for Trump, to maintain my freedom to own a gun if I so choose, but also to restrict the freedom of women to kill their unborn babies.

There was Proposition 8 to ban faggot marriage in California back in the day, and you better believe I voted to restrict the freedom of faggots to desecrate the institution of marriage.

You can't simply ignore canon; its part and parcel of the character. Its what defines who they are.

No, what is depicted is objective. If I draw an apple and tell you it's a watermelon, it doesn't make that a watermelon.

This is why a law banning lolicon would not work; you are getting into the weeds of art styles, but that shouldn't matter. The law has to be clear, concise, and objectively equally applied. That's impossible to do in the world of artwork.

What's unclear? Also, we have judges to determine things where there's need. You're making it sound impossible for a judge or jury to look at a depiction of an infant and determine that it's indeed an infant.

The only thing I conceded was that handing a child a pornographic drawing was illegal in most countries.

But for it to be pornographic it must be understood. What is the drawing of? You wouldn't say earlier, saying it's nonexistent. But for it to be sexual there must be something depicted relating to sex, so it isn't nonexistent and is sexual, whatever it is.

You'd not get in trouble handing them an image of Goku holding the Power Pole, but you'd definitely get in trouble if he was holding his other "pole".

Of course, the artist can then turn around, reveal that the drawing is part of larger comic and the "apple" isn't an apple at all, it just looks like an apple in that one picture; that is the power of art.

That one picture is what is being scrutinized, divorced of context, perceived for what it is visually, not canonically. Maybe in his story the apple is a magic item which can transform into other items, but in that instance it was objectively a depiction of an apple, regardless of intent.

In real life, probably not.

In real life, certainly not. The infant is an obvious infant, and nobody would reasonably construe it as any other age. The artist can claim it's a middle aged black woman, but it's not black, nor middle aged. We can perceive this.

If all it took to establish something as obscene would be a vote, then anything could be declared obscene.

I should reiterate that I don't really think voting is the optimal solution, I'm just saying it's clearly obscene to most people and you can't really argue to the contrary. You can argue it's not real and that's true, but things which are not real can still depict obscenity.

If your argument is nothing is obscene because it isn't meeting some nonsensical standard of objectivity, rejecting self-evident truth, then why is pornography sold only to adults? If it's obscenity it should be banned, but if it's not, then why is it age restricted? After all, it's not obscene, right?

And yet you seem to take umbrage with the 3000 year old loli vampire argument, even though it is a "monster" by definition.

It's a monster in terms of story, a thematic monster, but in terms of visuals it is indistinguishable from a normal human. Now, add wings, a tail, blue skin, exaggerated fangs, etc, basically enough to differentiate it substantially from human identifiable human anatomy and it would be a different case.

That's why I used Gothita as an example, it's clearly humanoid but nobody will ever reasonably confuse it with a human. Same with Jynx or Gardevoire, these are humanoid Pokemon but visually distinct from humans. You might be a sick son of a bitch for fapping to Smoochum, but you're not fapping to a human of any age, therefore it's not loli.

And we both know that any potential laws on the subject would lack that kind of nuance.

I will concede that much, yes, probably. The system is often imperfect, but would you agree that if it did account for such nuances that it would be a good thing?

And what norms should we uphold?

That's a great question, literally. We're a directionless, amoral-at-best nation drifting into an endless abyss of degeneracy thanks to diminishing Christian influence. There seem to be only two options; return to tradition or continue with the transition to the secular religion of leftism, embracing hedonistic culture.

I know what norms and standards I think should be upheld, and I think there's still a significant amount of people who agree, and want to Make America Great Again.

Society's morality is not controlled or motivated by the law. If society is becoming amoral, it is because society collectively has decided to shift its own morality based on a number of factors. Child pornography is already illegal, but it seems more pervasive on the internet now than it ever has been. Homosexuality used to culturally disparaged and sodomy was illegal. In less than 20 years, there has been a massive shift in people's perception of it, and it had really nothing to do with law changes.

Law and culture are inextricably entwined, you will get more of what you permit, simple as that.

 

[Harbinger of Kali Yuga]

I don't think it should be illegal. I just think that people into that stuff should be killed.

 

[SwanSwanson]

While it's not the same as actual CSAM "lolicons" clearly have alot of issues and its good that this practice is shamed.

 

[skykiii]

It's funny that you have to misrepresent my views on entirely separate topics, wording things as poorly as possible to spin perception of me badly.

Dude, people having a bad perception of you is entirely your own fault. you always take the most pro-authoritarian stance imaginable, and always justify ideas that would essentially amount to a Police State with vague notions of "morality."

General Woundwort thought he was moral too.

Imagine the kind of ruinous shit they could do if they didn't have to perform political gymnastics to destroy their ideological enemies.

As an American I have already seen some nuts views and reactions just with what we have.

I once saw this video about censorship in the Kingdom Hearts games (which I will not link to as it was legit kinda creepy) that talked about the removal of upskirt shots... but then said "but you can still see this line of white down (whoever's) leg..." The idiot literally thought an under-layer of a skirt was panties. And I've seem this mistake multiple times from various different people, in several different contexts (IE, its not just Kingdom Hearts that gets this)--its like people fundamentally don't know that robes, dresses and skirts are multi-layered.

This shows you can't even trust people to correctly interpret what they see.

And in terms of law, America has no better example than the Mike Diana case. To briefly sum up, this was a man who was arrested and convicted on "Obscenity" charges... for personal drawings he only ever distributed to friends. This happened in Florida, unsurprisingly, but the fact remains that if it happened once, it can always happen again.

Mike Diana's drawings weren't even that obscene, a lot of them are laughably puerile and reek of "I'm 13 and this is edgy."

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

My lack of familiarity with the subject makes it difficult to have much input on it, but I highly doubt it's an exception. Something as basic as laws against littering have a moral component.

Without turning this into a policy debate around urbanism, these laws have no moral component. They are meant mainly to encourage certain certain policy or discourage others. There's nothing moral about driving a car, or choosing not to drive one. But some people have a vested interest in encouraging one policy or the other. Not everything is tied to morality.

So order is good, not bad, correct? Any time you appeal to good or bad you're making a fundamentally moral distinguishment.

Most people see order as good yes. You can make moral arguments for Order being an inherent good. You can make religious arguments behind God being a God of order. But governments push for Order not for any moral reason, but because their power is based in them being the sole enforcers of order. Fascist societies are generally seen and stereotyped as being very orderly, though most see them as immoral. Same with Nazi Germany.

That's the very purpose of a law, it comes down to the moral order. There can be bad laws which have a warped vision of the moral order, but are still inherently attempting to assert a moral view, distorted as they may be.

The purpose of the law is set boundaries and rules for society and government. They may not be couched in a particular moral order. And even if laws are written with a certain moral order in mind, morality changes and shifts, and the laws remain on the books regardless. Or though the morality may remain the same, the laws are removed for other reasons. Morality is not the sole judge and arbitrator of the law. Politics, personal ambition, culture, practicality, etc. are all equally, and most of the time, more important. The law is not solely concerned with moral order and cannot be, because the law influences plenty of things outside of common morality.

And in accordance with the definition of "moral", it still applies, as explained above. He has a view of moral order we disagree with, that's all.

The ultimate point is that it is not "morals" that influence NK laws. Its the protection of the Kim Dynasty's power. Moral considerations are not even considered.

No. Read the writings of the Founding Fathers, or even just what you yourself posted.

I have read their writings. I've also studied the history of the United States. The focus of the Founding Fathers come the Constitutional Convention was to create a working, viable nation. Many of the Founding Fathers, for example, found slavery morally repugnant, but they had to put their morality aside for political considerations, because they could never get all the states to ratify the Constitution otherwise. The U.S. was falling apart due to the unworkability of the Articles of Confederation, and the nation's early leadership feared that if the U.S. collapsed, it would be an easy target for the likes of Great Britain. So political considerations overrode moral ones. Their focus was on the establishment of a secular republic, where no state could dominate another, the federal government could not weaken the powers of the states, and the rights of the individual were respected. Their focus was not to create a moral government; it was to create a government for a moral people:

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other". -John Adams

There is nothing inherently moral about the government created by the Constitution of the United States. But said government is dependent on the people remaining moral. The law does not create morality nor enforce it. It can only reflect the morality of those who already exist within it.

That's simply not true. Laws are passed for the purpose of good, even if it's not what you yourself consider good, but the moral element is there.

Now you are conflating elements. You say "laws are passed for the purpose of good". Were the Nuremburg laws passed for the purpose of good? What about the Fugitive Slave Law? Was moral good the driving force for these laws? Laws are passed to achieve an ends, which the government hopes will be a net positive towards a particular policy, but that end need not be moral at all, and morality may not even be a consideration. When a nation loosens immigration laws to allow in more immigrants to offset an aging workforce, there is no moral element there. The nation is looking for new workers, to keep its economy high, to bring in more tax money. But there is no moral consideration. Its governmental self interest.

But it's not beside the point, it was abolished because of morality.

My initial point had nothing to do with morality, so begging a moral question is beside the point. My initial point was that laws have to be clear on what they do and don't regulate. There has to be something tangible to regulate. We can't pass a law outlawing "naughty thoughts" because we can't actually tangibly regulate that. Slavery could be regulated because it was a tangible thing in the real world. Obscenity is unregulatable because its is intangible, with a shifting definition that differs from person to person. That was my point. I wasn't making a moral argument.

Things are only legal or not based on if they're good or bad, and that speaks to the type of society you're going to have.

You are too smart to believe that. Plenty of things are illegal in many nations that have no actual moral reasoning behind why they are illegal. To use North Korea, an already cited example, there is no moral reason to ban foreign films or Bibles. They are banned because they are foreign influences that NK regime believes will undermine them. That's it. The fact is, morality is simply not the only consideration for the law and never has been.

We're, unfortunately, not a theocracy, so no, being informed by Christian morality doesn't necessarily equate to full-on theocratic lawmaking. But the Founders and most Americans were Christian, so naturally the laws reflected that. It isn't to say every single law was developed through a Christian lense, but to deny the influence of Christianity in shaping America is foolish.

While Christianity may have shaped America, if for no other reason that most of the people behind its creation were Christians, America is no longer the nation of her founding fathers. And even during the founding, Christian morality alone was not the only consideration.

Not really, since the moral question doesn't just end with Christianity. Some moral view will prevail, Christian or not, it's just a question of which is better. The Christian view of morality is superior to the hedonistic left's.

Regardless of which view of morality is superior, the fact is the Christian has to live in his country with the "hedonistic left" and both have a say on policy. No one side will automatically prevail.

The drawing is not nonexistent, it's tangible. And no, it can't be a drawing of anything, it is what it is, so what is it?

The drawing hasn't been defined for the purposes of this argument, so neither one of us knows exactly what type of drawing we are discussing, nor can we make any bold statements or declarations on it either way.

I show you a realistic drawing of an apple you will identify it as a depiction of an apple. If I show you a realistic depiction of this shit, you identify it as a depiction of...what?

Depends on what you are showing me exactly. You gave me description of the apple drawing; its just a realistic drawing of an apple. Therefore, its an apple. If you show me a "lolicon" drawing, that could mean a lot things. It could be pornographic, it could not be pornographic; it could depict an underage character, it may not depict an underage character. I don't know. If you show me the picture, I would describe what I see. In either case, its just a picture.

If "obviously adult" characters exist then so too do obviously child characters. It's not entirely subjective, you've tacitly conceded as much by appealing to the obviousness of adult characters.

The point is that a picture can "objectively" show something that looks like an adult human, but people will still subjectively define it however they want to define it. That's not a problem in the art world. It is a problem when you want to write laws.

No, not always, see above, sometimes it is obvious even according to you. The existence of ambiguity in some cases doesn't change this.

Even when something seems to be objective, people will find way to subject the objective to their subjectivity. Once again, this isn't a problem in art, it is when one discusses legality.

Sure you will, that's what elections are for, determining what freedoms you have and do not have.

If I was, for example, a U.S. citizen, then no, my rights aren't subject to an election. My rights would be guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights in particular. Same in Japan; Freedom of Expression is protected under the Japanese constitution, so regardless of the government's feelings on the matter, that right is still protected.

It's why I'm going to vote for Trump, to maintain my freedom to own a gun if I so choose, but also to restrict the freedom of women to kill their unborn babies.

There was Proposition 8 to ban faggot marriage in California back in the day, and you better believe I voted to restrict the freedom of faggots to desecrate the institution of marriage.

Abortion and gay marriage are not rights protected under the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court tried to declare otherwise for abortion in Roe v. Wade, and now we've gone back to how it should be since that was repealed. Your right to bear arms is protected under the U.S. Constitution. That's not to say that voting for Trump isn't to your best interest. Clearly democrats want to use regulation to undermine this right, but then you have the Supreme Court to turn back their attempts to do so.

No, what is depicted is objective. If I draw an apple and tell you it's a watermelon, it doesn't make that a watermelon.

Sure it does. What's on that drawing is subjective. If I ascribe to the author the ultimate authority to definitely say what's on that picture, that "apple" is a watermelon. If I ascribe to Death of the Author theory, then my take that its an apple would be just as correct as you proclaiming its a watermelon. That is what art is. Its subjective. Maybe in the drawn reality you have shown me, the "apple" is a watermelon. The only one of us who could objectively be wrong is me because I'm not the author. To that point:

That one picture is what is being scrutinized, divorced of context, perceived for what it is visually, not canonically. Maybe in his story the apple is a magic item which can transform into other items, but in that instance it was objectively a depiction of an apple, regardless of intent.

But the context does in fact change the context of the image. Being divorced of that context means that it resembles an apple. With context we know that it definitely is not an apple. To use the watermelon example, if you show me in a second picture the apple cut in half with the insides of a watermelon, that would make the apple a watermelon and your original assertion that it was such correct. The point is that context does matter. And context should be considered. If we get more abstract, and lets say I show you a picture of a drawn circle, and I ask you what it is, you'd probably tell me its a circle. But I would say, "No, that's the sun." You couldn't tell me I was wrong, because the sun is a circle, and it very well could just be a picture of the sun with no coloring or features added. Neither of us is technically wrong. The sun is spherical object and on a 2D plane looks like a circle. And I was intending to draw the sun. We are both right. Conservatively, to bring this back to the point, if I show you a picture of a petite girlish female human having sex with youngish looking male human and asked you what you saw, you might say its lolicon/shotacon. And, by definition, you might be correct. But if you say "That's a little girl having sex with a little boy", I might respond, "Nope, both characters are 18 and therefore adults." At that point, who's right and who's wrong? Me, being the author, one would consider my explanation to carry more weight. Your visual is merely an interpretation of what I've shown you without context. But now I've given you the actual context. Now you cannot say that you've been given an image divorced of context. The characters cannot be over or under the age of 18 except by the context I've given you, because they don't objectively exist outside of being drawings.

What's unclear? Also, we have judges to determine things where there's need.

You really want to leave the interpretation of art up to a judge? We've seen, on this very site, time and again, judges being out of touch morons. And now you want to give unelected, unaccountable judges the power to declare whether something is "legal" are or not?

But for it to be pornographic it must be understood. What is the drawing of? You wouldn't say earlier, saying it's nonexistent. But for it to be sexual there must be something depicted relating to sex, so it isn't nonexistent and is sexual, whatever it is.

I assumed, based on your earlier statements about being arrested, that the picture was supposed to be pornographic in nature. Was that not the correct assumption? If it wasn't, forgive me. If we are to assume that picture is pornographic, then yes, showing it to a child would be illegal. If it is simply a picture of a little anime girl sitting down on a chair doing nothing particularly sexual, which would technically count as "lolicon" artwork, then no, you wouldn't be arrested. Is that clarification of the point enough?

In real life, certainly not. The infant is an obvious infant, and nobody would reasonably construe it as any other age. The artist can claim it's a middle aged black woman, but it's not black, nor middle aged. We can perceive this.

Its not possible for a woman to look like that now, but in the future, it may be possible for a grown woman to clone herself as an infant and put her adult mind into a infant body, or transfer her mind to an infantile cyborg body. Science fiction? Currently yes, but that is completely possible within the confines of fictional story, and an artist could very well write such a story with such a premise (and I wouldn't be surprised if multiple artists have already done so).

I'm just saying it's clearly obscene to most people and you can't really argue to the contrary

I can't argue in the affirmative or the negative because I haven't polled most people. But even if I could do that, would the mere fact that most people found it obscene be all that's needed to establish it as obscene? And is that enough to ban something?

If your argument is nothing is obscene because it isn't meeting some nonsensical standard of objectivity, rejecting self-evident truth, then why is pornography sold only to adults? If it's obscenity it should be banned, but if it's not, then why is it age restricted? After all, it's not obscene, right?

Pornography is limited to minors because society or the government has determined that children should not be exposed to sexual content. This isn't even limited to porn; movie theaters generally won't let children in to see R-rated movies, regardless of sexual content. Society has decided that children's innocence needs special protection. This exists outside of obscenity law. Whether or not something is obscene is subjective. Whether or not something is sexual or pornographic is far more objective.

It's a monster in terms of story, a thematic monster, but in terms of visuals it is indistinguishable from a normal human. Now, add wings, a tail, blue skin, exaggerated fangs, etc, basically enough to differentiate it substantially from human identifiable human anatomy and it would be a different case.

So, if I added batwings and fangs to the loli, its not a loli anymore? That seems mighty arbitrary.

That's why I used Gothita as an example, it's clearly humanoid but nobody will ever reasonably confuse it with a human. Same with Jynx or Gardevoire, these are humanoid Pokemon but visually distinct from humans. You might be a sick son of a bitch for fapping to Smoochum, but you're not fapping to a human of any age, therefore it's not loli.

Your right; fapping to Pokémon isn't loli. Its bestiality, which most people find equally abhorrent. Either way, its fictional, so why should anyone care who gets off to it?

Law and culture are inextricably entwined, you will get more of what you permit, simple as that.

There are a lot of things we don't permit and yet they still become (or remain) popular, like prostitution and weed. If being non-permissive was all it took to stop negative behaviors, then that would be a) an argument for a totalitarian society, and b) completely defeated by the society we already have.

That's a great question, literally. We're a directionless, amoral-at-best nation drifting into an endless abyss of degeneracy thanks to diminishing Christian influence. There seem to be only two options; return to tradition or continue with the transition to the secular religion of leftism, embracing hedonistic culture.

While you and I probably fundamentally agree on the traditions and moral that need to be upheld, where we fundamentally disagree is that I realize that I want a nation that protects personal freedom, first and foremost. I believe that the nation that governs best governs least, and I don't trust the corrupt government to legislate right wrong in anything less than a schizophrenic manner. I see the government's foremost interest in protecting the rights of individuals: the right to life liberty property and the pursuit of happiness, and this mostly accounts in protecting people from transgressing against each other's rights, while the constitution limits the government from transgressing against my rights by itself. I don't want to give the government any more power than its needs, and recognize that rights, for them to function, must be construed as broadly as possible, with them only limited insofar as they prevent me from transgressing against the rights of others, and vice versa. Lolicon/shotacon is mere artistic expression, and its existence does not transgress my rights in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Tablet County]

General Woundwort thought he was moral too.

Please refrain from making fictional references when having a serious conversation, it's kind of retarded.

I once saw this video about censorship in the Kingdom Hearts games (which I will not link to as it was legit kinda creepy) that talked about the removal of upskirt shots... but then said "but you can still see this line of white down (whoever's) leg..." The idiot literally thought an under-layer of a skirt was panties. And I've seem this mistake multiple times from various different people, in several different contexts (IE, its not just Kingdom Hearts that gets this)--its like people fundamentally don't know that robes, dresses and skirts are multi-layered.

This shows you can't even trust people to correctly interpret what they see.

This is a very strange aside.

 

[Yamamura]

Holy shit my mobile scroll bar should not ever be this tiny in a thread about the ethics of drawn lolis. Just fuck already, you two.
View attachment 5533710

I started scrolling down to see how far it goes and its like the intro to a Star Wars movie

 

[skykiii]

Please refrain from making fictional references when having a serious conversation, it's kind of retarded.

So are most of SSJ_Ness's arguments.

They legit sound like the kind of thing a cartoon villain would say, so why not put him up against his own kind?

This is a very strange aside.

While admittedly I wish I could've shortened it, it's not an "aside"--it demonstrates the failure of human perception (in a way that is sorta-relevant to this topic) and that people will argue that literally anything is sexual/titillating/whatever.

In that example, my suspicion is that the video person desperately wanted to see something sexual... which is part of the problem. Most people want to be aroused but then don't want to admit it.

 

[ITK]

I'm not reading all this shit but the law of the US is already extremely contextual and subjectiv when it comes to real CP. If your grammy takes a polaroid of you naked in the tub when you're 3, she's not a child pornographer. You are allowed to have photographs of naked children. A number of things go into the consideration of whether material is pornographic. Inent, where you aquire it, how you use it. The status of the material can also change if the owner is charged with some other crime related to the abuse of children. There is no reason to believe this process would be harder with drawn materials than with real material.

 

[WelperHelper99]

This has gotten extremely autistic. Don't jack off to children. A drawing of a child is still a kid. Even if legal, morally it's bankrupt. You shouldn't need to give me the Bible's worth of justification to tell me why drawings of kids is somehow ok to jerk off too. Just don't. Plenty of hot big tiddy waifus in the world of anime to choose from.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

I'm not reading all this shit but the law of the US is already extremely contextual and subjectiv when it comes to real CP. If your grammy takes a polaroid of you naked in the tub when you're 3, she's not a child pornographer. You are allowed to have photographs of naked children. A number of things go into the consideration of whether material is pornographic. Inent, where you aquire it, how you use it. The status of the material can also change if the owner is charged with some other crime related to the abuse of children. There is no reason to believe this process would be harder with drawn materials than with real material.

It would distinctly be harder because artwork and fiction is far more subjective than a real picture.

A drawing of a child is still a kid.

No, its not. Its a drawing. Not a child. And nobody was arguing for whether or not is okay to masturbate to drawings.

 

[WelperHelper99]

No, its not. Its a drawing. Not a child. And nobody was arguing for whether or not is okay to masturbate to drawings

But a drawing of what? A child. A sexulized child. And the end goal is jerk off material. There is a distinction between a kid in anime vs a loli and you know it.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

There is a distinction between a kid in anime vs a loli and you know it.

No, there isn't. They are both drawings at the end of the day. There is not functional difference between one and the other. "Kids in anime" are still referred to as "lolis" regardless, because "loli" is an archetype and an aesthetic. It can exist in both pornographic and non-pornographic material. Regardless, its a picture at the end of the day.

 

[WelperHelper99]

No, there isn't. They are both drawings at the end of the day. There is not functional difference between one and the other. "Kids in anime" are still referred to as "lolis" regardless, because "loli" is an archetype and an aesthetic. It can exist in both pornographic and non-pornographic material. Regardless, its a picture at the end of the day.

Uh no. This is a KID in anime:

Very retarded. Literally just a child.

Onimai over here on the other hand...

Is the story of a Otaku man turned into a little pervert girl. Big difference bub.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Uh no. This is a KID in anime:
View attachment 5535250
Very retarded. Literally just a child.

Onimai over here on the other hand...
View attachment 5535252
Is the story of a Otaku man turned into a little pervert girl. Big difference bub.

A distinction without a difference. As I said, young girls are referred to as lolis even in non-pornographic or ecchi anime. Context doesn't change that. Same with boys/shotas.

 

[WelperHelper99]

A distinction without a difference. As I said, young girls are referred to as lolis even in non-pornographic or ecchi anime. Context doesn't change that. Same with boys/shotas.

Context is everything. Thats the most faggoty up your own ass answer ive ever heard. You're mudding the waters when the difference is clear. One is a goofball kid, one is smut. Stop lying.

 

[skykiii]

And nobody was arguing for whether or not is okay to masturbate to drawings.

This, exactly. Its amazing how many people in this thread have presented exactly this strawman argument. It's basically the Kiwi version of "everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi."

Like I said before, its funny how Kiwis will call out SJWs for wanting laws passed to ban things they find obscene... but the minute its Kiwis own fee-fees, suddenly people here are advocating the exact same thing.

Context is everything. Thats the most faggoty up your own ass answer ive ever heard. You're mudding the waters when the difference is clear. One is a goofball kid, one is smut. Stop lying.

My own problem is I need way more to go on. Of course pre-teen Deku isn't a loli... he's a boy, and lolis by definition have to be girl. As for the second anime, I've never seen it, I've only got that box art and your description to go on (and I'm just taking it on faith that your description is accurate).

Sooo. I just want to be clear:

Are ANY of these lolis/sexualized? If so, please explain.

(incidentally I have absolutely no idea what anime this last image is from, it legit just came from a duckduckgo image search for "loli." The other three I could describe if you need context)

 

[Father Fornicatio]

Context is everything. Thats the most faggoty up your own ass answer ive ever heard. You're mudding the waters when the difference is clear. One is a goofball kid, one is smut. Stop lying.

And both are drawings with no base in reality, with no rights, but to act as a vessel for the creator to convey a story. One is used to tell a goofy story and one is used to make your peepee feel funny, but they both don't exist, don't feel, don't have a will, they are dots/lines/squares on a screen or a piece of paper. But wont somebody think of the children....reee!!!, look you can argue however you want but its a fact pedos exist and will probably still walk the earth when we are long gone. Rather have them fapping to a drawing on paper than anything involving a real kid. The way i see it: Pedo fapping to loli is a kid saved.

(incidentally I have absolutely no idea what anime this last image is from, it legit just came from a duckduckgo image search for "loli." The other three I could describe if you need context)

Its from a anime: Wataten! An Angel Flew Down to Me basically, this is a series about a shy shut in adult cosplay maker, Mya-nee/Miyako, that falls in love with Hana, a friend of her younger sister Hinata. Soon a third wheel, Noa, joins for trio of younger girls +1 "adult" making up the bulk of the main characters. Slice of life, comedy, and cute shit (stolen from Anidb review by Vincent_graymore). Not for me way too sweet....when i watch anime it needs to have tentacles.