Why do we put so much stock into loli/underaged characters as a direct link to being a pedo?

[cigint]

They are exactly examples of what's being discussed. They are drawings of underage characters, scantily clad or naked

Your stick figure isn't what anybody means by "loli art", and I'm sure you're perfectly aware of it, hence bad faith. You've been driven into a corner and your reaction is to act obtuse and pretend you don't understand what's being discussed. You had pedophile insinuations thrown your way and your reaction is to hiss and spit them back around like a wounded and scared animal.

"All art should be protected under free speech" is a position that can be competently defended. Just not by you.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

I don't give a shit what happens to pedophiles, their mental illness is their responsibility to manage. If they can't stop themselves from touching kids then they get what's coming to them.

Most pedophiles I would argue are not mentally ill. They obfuscate, hide and project, because what they know they are doing is wrong. However, I would argue those who are mentally ill probably fall under psychopathic/sociopathic behavior and are doing so because they believe they are beyond the social rules of normal people/humans.

But how did they get to the point of wanting to touch a kid? You have to start somewhere. First it's drawings. Then it's CP. Then child rape. Also a European study. Disgusting.

In regards to what I said above I don't think that's the starting point or requires one. Think of anyone who is meticulously evil and I'd argue their actions are driven by something they want to do or a fantasy they envision more than something they saw. However, I will agree it can encourage them by seeing said concept I just don't think it requires an A--->Z type outcome.


I know people don't like violent to sexual comparisons but I'd think it'd be like an upstart into sex trafficking. Movies paint them badly as horrible people, no one really praises them so then what's start sex traffickers into said action? Pure motivated impulse of something they envision or at least I would assume.

 

[SenutiSolidus]

If we could take a magic census, one where everyone on earth is forced to answer honestly, do the anti-lolicons believe that there would be a significant correlation between those with just lolicon and those who are pedophiles? I understand Null's situation with 9 chan but that's a pretty small representative base. I'm curious how it is worldwide. If we consider a pedophile to be someone who consumes real life child porn or god forbid acts on such urges, I believe there would be far less pedophiles than lolicons.

 

[WelperHelper99]

In regards to what I said above I don't think that's the starting point or requires one. Think of anyone who is meticulously evil and I'd argue their actions are driven by something they want to do or a fantasy they envision more than something they saw. However, I will agree it can encourage them by seeing said concept I just don't think it requires an A--->Z type outcome.


I know people don't like violent to sexual comparisons but I'd think it'd be like an upstart into sex trafficking. Movies paint them badly as horrible people, no one really praises them so then what's start sex traffickers into said action? Pure motivated impulse of something they envision or at least I would assume

Some people might just be born with it. Others can be corrupted, like with anything. You can become a deathfat from eating too much. You literally need to eat to survive. Inherently nothing is wrong with it. But food can corrupt. Lolicon is that but 100x.

 

[Luke-Warm Tampon Tea]

It's obviously disingenuous to say that there are zero extremely graphic depictions of very clearly underaged anime girls. There's actually a lot of it. You don't even have to look for it, you can scroll past it by accident on pretty much every imageboard, plus we all know because it's been covered on this site a few times (although I can't remember names for specific examples) but the lefty tranny comic twitter account having a second account that used real life pictures of kids to model for babyfur and shota content, like that's obviously way past the gray area and definitely in the black of the black and white moral argument against that kind of material.

That being said however; I still think that lolicon/shotacon as genres should not be prohibited because what will be the next thing prohibited after that, and then after that and then after that? We've seen the slippery slope play out time and again over the last 20 years with social issues and politicalk correctness, people never stop and then what will become objectionable content after lolicon/shotacon? Guro? So what, Elfin Lied should become a prohibited piece of content? Then what?
People can be morally offended by anything, and if there's one thing I've learned over the last decade it's that it seems like people use extremes to justify the censoring the moderate or middle grounds, and I don't like that.

I'd rather art, even the most shocking and disturbing art, be free from legal scrutiny than have art censored. Let the court of public opinion decide what is in good taste and what isn't in good taste, and if people want to make extremely niche art, let them do it as long as it's all within the realm of fiction and imagination and no actual human beings are hurt involuntarily.
*edit*
I'm referring to all art, like if someone wants to volunteer to sit in a gallery and let strangers hit them with hammers or burn them with lighters for A R T's sake, if they're a legal adult then they should be allowed to do that for their art even if I think it's retarded.

 

[George Lucas]

If you date an adult who looks like a child, are you a pedophile?

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

Some people might just be born with it. Others can be corrupted, like with anything. You can become a deathfat from eating too much. You literally need to eat to survive. Inherently nothing is wrong with it. But food can corrupt. Lolicon is that but 100x.

I can buy some are born with impulse or apple from the tree concepts, and I would also point out there scientifically what we absorb (imagery wise and more) does impact our minds to some extent so I agree with the corruption claim, but I also believe people who are predisposed to corruption were at least willing somewhat to become as such or indulge such fantasies in the first place whether those fantasies were from inception or developed randomly in said person's life. Although I would argue also that there are some people resistant to that corruption in some instances (I don't know why) as well. If I were to argue it I'd say it's based on susceptibility of the person ('s mind) in question.

That being said however; I still think that lolicon/shotacon as genres should not be prohibited because what will be the next thing prohibited after that, and then after that and then after that? We've seen the slippery slope play out time and again over the last 20 years with social issues and politicalk correctness, people never stop and then what will become objectionable content after lolicon/shotacon? Guro? So what, Elfin Lied should become a prohibited piece of content? Then what?

Wasn't it a few years back shock sites and the most offensive test were taken down? I didn't visit them but weren't both mainly disturbing content not actually illegal content? Unless I am mistaken.

I'd rather art, even the most shocking and disturbing art, be free from legal scrutiny than have art censored. Let the court of public opinion decide what is in good taste and what isn't in good taste, and if people want to make extremely niche art, let them do it as long as it's all within the realm of fiction and imagination and no actual human beings are hurt unvoluntarily.

On one hand I agree but on the other like the SVU episode where the pedo gets advertised over and over about child-sex fantasies, I could see even a fantasy being pushed being a little too far. However, I will point out it's a bad comparison as the writing in the episode was very descriptive thus making the allure for the tempted pedo harder to resist. *Note: I know L&O is just a tv show, but it does provide a thunk provoking concept at the very least.

 

[Luke-Warm Tampon Tea]

If you date an adult who looks like a child, are you a pedophile?

Most people will say that it depends on why you're dating them, if you're dating a midget because the midget is small and child-like, or that one girl on youtube who looks 8 despite being 22 because she looks 8 then yeah probably most people would say that it's just a proxy for pedophilia.
I think that pedophilia is defined as being attracted to pre-pubescent children, but should it also be expanded to being attracted to things which appear to be youthful; a lot of Japanese and Korean girls look very young, despite being 20+, is being attracted to youthful looking gooks a symptom of pedophilia? I'm sure haggard western feminists who look 40 would say yes. But I don't think so.

Wasn't it a few years back shock sites and the most offensive test were taken down? I didn't visit them but weren't both mainly disturbing content not actually illegal content? Unless I am mistaken.

You mean like 2 girls 1 cup, and 3 guys 1 hammer and stuff? Rotten.com and the like? Yeah a lot of them disappeared, I don't know the specific details of it, I don't know if they just lapsed and weren't renewed, or if the hosting providers decided to stop hosting that kind of content and it just sort of evaporated.
It's a shame too, was fun linking people to meatspin with a tinyurl lol.

On one hand I agree but on the other like the SVU episode where the pedo gets advertised over and over about child-sex fantasies, I could see even a fantasy being pushed being a little too far. However, I will point out it's a bad comparison as the writing in the episode was very descriptive thus making the allure for the tempted pedo harder to resist. *Note: I know L&O is just a tv show, but it does provide a thunk provoking concept at the very least.

I think this is probably going to be true for anything though, like any niche or even mainstream interest. I think there will always be some small minority of people who become completely obsessed and who can't separate fiction from reality but that's a lot like the violent video game argument or violent movie argument. The vast majority of people can watch action movies and horror movies without becoming obsessed with the subject matter, and I think that making laws against something because a very small minority of people might not be able to handle exposure to something is the opposite of what our legal systems should be doing.

 

[SenutiSolidus]

Most people will say that it depends on why you're dating them, if you're dating a midget because the midget is small and child-like, or that one girl on youtube who looks 8 despite being 22 because she looks 8 then yeah probably most people would say that it's just a proxy for pedophilia.
I think that pedophilia is defined as being attracted to pre-pubescent children, but should it also be expanded to being attracted to things which appear to be youthful; a lot of Japanese and Korean girls look very young, despite being 20+, is being attracted to youthful looking gooks a symptom of pedophilia? I'm sure haggard western feminists who look 40 would say yes. But I don't think so.

I feel like your example misses the forest for the trees. Pedophilia is fucked up because a child's innocence is being taken away. If someone's just into a flat chest, that's not pedophilia.

 

[Lightsaber Dildo]

Don't have to. You already know. That's why you chose not to show it because how bad it made you look.

Next you're gonna tell me I'm anti Semitic for noticing jews are rich.

Under anti-loli laws, you would be sent to prison for having porn of Yoko on your PC. She's an underage character, it doesn't matter what she looks like.

Your stick figure isn't what anybody means by "loli art", and I'm sure you're perfectly aware of it, hence bad faith. You've been driven into a corner and your reaction is to act obtuse and pretend you don't understand what's being discussed. You had pedophile insinuations thrown your way and your reaction is to hiss and spit them back around like a wounded and scared animal.

"All art should be protected under free speech" is a position that can be competently defended. Just not by you.

Again, under anti-loli laws, you would be sent to prison for having porn of Yoko Litter, a drawing of a fictional 14 year old girl, on your PC. She's an underage character, it doesn't matter what she looks like, she is UNDERAGE.

I'm pointing out the flaws in the idea of banning lolicon, because the laws would be so flimsy you'd be prosecuting and imprisoning the wrong people all the fucking time. Hentai of 17 year old anime girl who looks 40 years old would still get you in jail if the laws for real CP applied to anime porn, and even if you try to be more loose with it, it's practically unenforceable. What are you going to do, bring the artist onto the stand to testify whether or not their art is lolicon? Bring pedophiles into the room and see who pops a boner to the art in question? I literally cannot comprehend what goes through the minds of people who want to ban a form of objectively harmless art, even if it's loli shit.

I'll be as concise as I can with my beliefs, one last time.
Lolicon and shotacon are fictionalized articles of pedophilia. Lolicon/shotacon is art. Therefore, it should be protected under freedom of expression. Lolicon/shotacon does not harm children, nor does consuming it directly lead to harming children. It is considered disgusting and immoral, but that is not enough for it to be banned--it harms no one simply by existing or being consumed. In order to have freedom of expression, we have to accept that art like lolicon/shotacon will exist and will be consumed. Even so, by shunning it collectively as a society, we can discourage it and keep people aware that these depictions are not normal or acceptable in real life. We do not need to solve the problem of lolicon/shotacon by letting authoritarians decide what is or isn't acceptable as an art form, as long as said art form is entirely victimless. We cannot trust any form of government to accurately and justly punish people who possess or produce lolicon/shotacon art. The moment evidence is found that lolicon/shotacon will cause child abuse is the moment it should be banned, but this has not happened, and is very unlikely to happen. Therefore, I stand by the idea that lolicon/shotacon should not be illegal. It should be "regulated" by society, as it is today.

 

[WelperHelper99]

can buy some are born with impulse or apple from the tree concepts, and I would also point out there scientifically what we absorb (imagery wise and more) does impact our minds to some extent so I agree with the corruption claim, but I also believe people who are predisposed to corruption were at least willing somewhat to become as such or indulge such fantasies in the first place whether those fantasies were from inception or developed randomly in said person's life. Although I would argue also that there are some people resistant to that corruption in some instances (I don't know why) as well. If I were to argue it I'd say it's based on susceptibility of the person ('s mind) in question.

I would say... yes. Buy and large however I'd say most people are in the middle of the alignment chart, neutral, or in other words malleable. That's the scary part. It's the same reason troons are spreading like a plague. It's a social contagion. Lolicon is no different. Some will be highly affected, some will be highly resistant, and most in the middle will probably fall with enough exposure due to weak will.

Under anti-loli laws, you would be sent to prison for having porn of Yoko on your PC. She's an underage character, it doesn't matter what she looks like.

You realize we already have such laws? It's called Obsenity. A jury of 12 would have to determine that. Doubtful.

 

[Luke-Warm Tampon Tea]

I feel like your example misses the forest for the trees. Pedophilia is fucked up because a child's innocence is being taken away. If someone's just into a flat chest, that's not pedophilia.

Yeah, that's why it's fucked up; absolutely, I agree with that. I'm just saying that I think a lot of people who are hysterical about the subject would label a person who has an exclusive preference for flat chested or petite women a pedophile because that's the kind of trend I see nowadays with pretty much everything. I'm not saying I agree that it's right to say that, but I do think a lot of people would say it to spite a person with those kinds of preferences.

You realize we already have such laws? It's called Obsenity. A jury of 12 would have to determine that. Doubtful.

You played video games with 11 year old perky tidded cat girls for memes so... pretty high and mighty words considering the source of them. You'd be just as guilty for the media you consumed if anti-loli laws were enforced the same way CP laws are.

 

[The Ugly One]

Are you dense?

Almost 1,700 priests and clergy accused of sex abuse are unsupervised.

Over 600 children abused by Catholic clergy in Baltimore.

2000 kids touched by Catholic clergy in Illinois.

No, I'm just good at math. All kid-touchers are pedophiles, while around 99% of the country's 76 million Catholics are not pedophiles, that means the chance a randomly chosen Catholic is a kid-toucher is substantially less than a randomly chosen pedophile is one. Around 1% of the population has pedophilic urges.

The existence of lolicon and shotacon does not lead to kids being molested. You can't prove this, stop reiterating it, it's not a claim based on reality and there is no evidence supporting it.

Lolicon and shotacon help us find out who is a pedophile. Anyone who jerks it to this garbage is a pedophile, and knowing who is a pedophile helps us keep kids safe.

 

[SenutiSolidus]

Lolicon and shotacon help us find out who is a pedophile. Anyone who jerks it to this garbage is a pedophile, and knowing who is a pedophile helps us keep kids safe.

Do you think CP investigations should consider lolicon relevant in the absence of realistic child porn? I think simulations are a far higher warning sign (that is to say, 3d models of child porn), and those are already considered relevant- I majored in Digital Forensics and the eDiscovery tools list that as a category to tag files with but not drawings.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Do you think CP investigations should consider lolicon relevant in the absence of realistic child porn? I think simulations are a far higher warning sign (that is to say, 3d models of child porn), and those are already considered relevant- I majored in Digital Forensics and the eDiscovery tools list that as a category to tag files with but not drawings.

Considering it's all of a child, yes.

 

[The Ugly One]

Do you think CP investigations should consider lolicon relevant in the absence of realistic child porn? I think simulations are a far higher warning sign (that is to say, 3d models of child porn), and those are already considered relevant- I majored in Digital Forensics and the eDiscovery tools list that as a category to tag files with but not drawings.

I think if you've got cartoon child porn and evidence it gets you off, you should be deported to an island in the Pacific with other pedophiles in a pedophile colony.

 

[Luke-Warm Tampon Tea]

Considering it's all of a child, yes.

Let me ask you this then and don't deflect away from having to give your opinion on it with the same bullshit you've been repeating in this thread, since you're obviously morally invested in this beyond the literal application of the law,
lets say an artist wants to draw fan art of of a character from an anime; how sexy does the drawing have to be for it to be considered obscene in your opinion. Would a fully clothed loli in a suggestive pose do it? Bikini or underwear? Do they have to be naked? Does it have to depict explicit sex acts?

Lets say a 14 year old girl really likes Shugo Chura and wants to draw fan art of Hinamori Amu (canonically 11 years old) at the beach, would she be guilty of producing explicit material because it might cause a pedophile to beat off?

That's the kind of problem you'd have trying to enforce it. And your usual answer of "a jury of 12 would have to decide" isn't good enough when 12 people might agree but another 12 people might not agree. There have to be some kind of standards and I want to hear what you think the standards should be to prevent regular people who produce art from being caught in the web of legalities around drawings of those kinds of characters.

 

[No. 7 cat]

I think if you've got cartoon child porn and evidence it gets you off, you should be deported to an island in the Pacific with other pedophiles in a pedophile colony.

Maybe on the Andaman islands or some place like uncontacted stone age cannibals, to keep them on their toes.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Lets say a 14 year old girl really likes Shugo Chura and wants to draw fan art of Hinamori Amu (canonically 11 years old) at the beach, would she be guilty of producing explicit material because it might cause a pedophile to beat off?

That's the kind of problem you'd have trying to enforce it. And your usual answer of "a jury of 12 would have to decide" isn't good enough when 12 people might agree but another 12 people might not agree. There have to be some kind of standards and I want to hear what you think the standards should be to prevent regular people who produce art from being caught in the web of legalities around drawings of those kinds of characters.

Wait a minute....

A shojo manga that started in 2005 and ended in 2010. I don't even know what the fuck this is bro. Apparently you do. And are the only one. You are quite the purveyor of obscure manga and little magical girls.

As for my answer it remains the same. If all 12 find you guilty, it's over. As for me... she's a fucking toddler. Dungeon.

 

[SenutiSolidus]

I

Wait a minute....
View attachment 5738283
A shojo manga that started in 2005 and ended in 2010. I don't even know what the fuck this is bro. Apparently you do. And are the only one. You are quite the purveyor of obscure manga and little magical girls.

As for my answer it remains the same. If all 12 find you guilty, it's over. As for me... she's a fucking toddler. Dungeon.

I used to watch the anime ten years ago and these kids are in fact in elementary school.