Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[Sebben Crudele]

Frankly, the OP predicted the two types of answers found on this thread.
So good job to them.

 

[Medici]

I don't understand why people even fucking like loli.

1. no titty
2. no ass
3. shit aint real

The point of lolicon is the fact they look like little girls. Not flat chested women, not even teenagers, little kids. If you deny that you're probably just trying to cope with the fact you fantasize about diddling lil anime girls.

 

[Orkeosaurus]

If you're going to make loli illegal, where do you draw the line? IT has an underaged gangbang. What about Lolita? Nobody wants to open that can of worms.

 

[Jerry_ smith56]

If you're going to make loli illegal, where do you draw the line? IT has an underaged gangbang. What about Lolita? Nobody wants to open that can of worms.

IT and Lolita don't have pictures and aren't meant to be fapped to by weebs.

 

[Derinuyu Underground City]

Yes, you're fucked up OP.

 

[DadaistVizor]

Just a reminder.

My avatar is from vidya

OWNED

 

[Alex's Waifu]

I'll just leave this here:

IMO: I don't get lolicon, and don't really want to.

 

[Syaoran Li]

Loli is fucking disgusting and anyone who defends it is a sick fuck.

 

[PuToTyra]

Isn't. But you won't be able to explain this to someone who thinks it is. It's not even worth trying.

They will use every argument they have to prove you wrong. And if you disprove all these arguments, they will start screeching their feelings, like the poster above me, showing their true face-the true nature of their irrational hatred, "stop liking what I don't like, stop doing what I'm not doing".

 

[kike pal]

As far as I'm concerned, calling someone a pedophile for liking drawings (or even 3D renders) is like calling someone a murderer because they enjoy mowing down civilians in Grand Theft Auto.

No one will blame you for making some kind of inference about their character for liking it. But a pedophile and a lolicon aren't the same thing. People are just conditioned to treat sexual deviancy of any kind like a fucking Salem witch hunter, mostly out of fear that someone will go digging for skeletons in their closet next.

 

[Ass eating cunt]

I'm kinkshaming, the only people who actually like loli's are "people" who have masturbated for such a long time that they have to get their rocks off something. Now they just have to defend there fetish, thus creating an army of degenerates. If you don't believe me, just take a look at shadman.

 

[GeorgeDaMoose]

I think it's gross, but as far as morally wrong?
Probably more yes than no in my opinion. I'd imagine people who jerk off to loli will defend themselves as not pedophiles, but I really don't see how people sexually attracted to drawn little children wouldn't actually be turned on by real lttle children so that's a claim I doubt very much. I'm not sure if whacking it to loli would be enough for a pedo (which is honestly the next best thing aside from serious therapy) or whether it would entice people to actually go out and abuse children (which would actually be fucking terrible and the worst thing).
Honestly I'd prefer if it didn't exist because it unsettles me regardless of whether its actually bad or not.

 

[kike pal]

I think it's gross, but as far as morally wrong?
Probably more yes than no in my opinion. I'd imagine people who jerk off to loli will defend themselves as not pedophiles, but I really don't see how people sexually attracted to drawn little children wouldn't actually be turned on by real lttle children so that's a claim I doubt very much. I'm not sure if whacking it to loli would be enough for a pedo (which is honestly the next best thing aside from serious therapy) or whether it would entice people to actually go out and abuse children (which would actually be fucking terrible and the worst thing).
Honestly I'd prefer if it didn't exist because it unsettles me regardless of whether its actually bad or not.

Have you seen an anime loli compared to a (clothed) photo of an actual kid?

 

[GeorgeDaMoose]

Have you seen an anime loli compared to a (clothed) photo of an actual kid?

Why would I though? Aside from wasting my time and proving I'm autistic enough to go out and do something like that.
A stylized drawing of a child is still a representation of a child. You are jerking off to children. Fake or not. Stylized or not. And let's not even pretend that there aren't artists who try to draw more realistic representations of children out there for people to jerk off to.
I'll say it again. I don't care whether it's actually bad or not, it unsettles me anyways.

 

[Medicated]

I'm kinkshaming, the only people who actually like loli's are "people" who have masturbated for such a long time that they have to get their rocks off something. Now they just have to defend there fetish, thus creating an army of degenerates. If you don't believe me, just take a look at shadman.

People jerk it to Shadmans stuff? God, why. He's fine with cartoon characters, but anything sexual looks like a stoner artist trying to draw porn. It seems more for shock value and jokes than titilation.

 

[kike pal]

A stylized drawing of a child is still a representation of a child. You are jerking off to children. Fake or not. Stylized or not.

Sure, okay. We'll do this argument.

Here is a sexy furfag picture of a cat.

It's stylized and obviously fake, what with it being an illustration, but it's still technically a representation of a cat. We know this because the creator calls the character "a cat" outright in totally canon material. The artist who drew this would also undoubtedly call this character "a cat."

Now here is also a picture of a cat.

With these two pictures in mind: would it be safe to say that someone could possibly find the first picture more titillating than the second, despite both images undeniably featuring a cat? And if someone were to find the second image more arousing somehow, would it be fair to say that they too found that image enticing for reasons entirely divorced from the photo above it?

Would it be safe to say that despite both pictures featuring a cat, one fictitious and one real, they can be appreciated for reasons entirely divorced from one another?

One thing you have to understand with this "it doesn't matter if it's stylized, that drawing is a child" argument – other than it being fucking stupid because any stick figure scribbled on a napkin can be called 10 years old or 900 years old, and no one besides the illustrator can declare otherwise – is that even the definition of lolicon is incredibly varied. Unlike the definition of a pedophile, which is pretty set in stone.

Let's use more pictures so obnoxious fat women can call my reply Dumb or Autistic for using too many.

Look, it's Misty from Pokemon, "a 10-year-old Pokémon trainer who journeys with [Ash] throughout the first five seasons." I sure hope you don't find her smooth thighs, prominent birthing hips, vagina-valley thing, enormous rotund breasts or "let me catch your Pokeballs" expression sexually-enticing. That would make you a pedophile because the character is undeniably, canonically a 10 year old.

That's your argument word for word. There's really no getting around it; by your logic, anyone who pops a boner at that picture of Misty (or any) is a pedophile because the character is ten years old.

And let's not pretend I'm cherrypicking here either. While you can certainly find drawings of "lolis" that are flat and more reminiscent of a kid (much like how you can find art stylized in any way) a vast majority look something like this.

Prominent hips, smooth thighs, general lack of imperfections and a delicate, thin design. Symptoms similar to that Misty picture, I'd argue, but far more similar to...

This 24 year-old celebrity.

So stop trying to feed me this fucking pig slop about drawings of little girls and actual little girls being even remotely similar. There's so many holes in that argument you may as well be trying to tell me the Earth is flat.

 

[Ido]

Sure, okay. We'll do this argument.

Here is a sexy furfag picture of a cat.

It's stylized and obviously fake, what with it being an illustration, but it's still technically a representation of a cat. We know this because the creator calls the character "a cat" outright in totally canon material. The artist who drew this would also undoubtedly call this character "a cat."

Now here is also a picture of a cat.

With these two pictures in mind: would it be safe to say that someone could possibly find the first picture more titillating than the second, despite both images undeniably featuring a cat? And if someone were to find the second image more arousing somehow, would it be fair to say that they too found that image enticing for reasons entirely divorced from the photo above it?

Would it be safe to say that despite both pictures featuring a cat, one fictitious and one real, they can be appreciated for reasons entirely divorced from one another?

One thing you have to understand with this "it doesn't matter if it's stylized, that drawing is a child" argument – other than it being fucking stupid because any stick figure scribbled on a napkin can be called 10 years old or 900 years old, and no one besides the illustrator can declare otherwise – is that even the definition of lolicon is incredibly varied. Unlike the definition of a pedophile, which is pretty set in stone.

Let's use more pictures so obnoxious fat women can call my reply Dumb or Autistic for using too many.

Look, it's Misty from Pokemon, "a 10-year-old Pokémon trainer who journeys with [Ash] throughout the first five seasons." I sure hope you don't find her smooth thighs, prominent birthing hips, vagina-valley thing, enormous rotund breasts or "let me catch your Pokeballs" expression sexually-enticing. That would make you a pedophile because the character is undeniably, canonically a 10 year old.

That's your argument word for word. There's really no getting around it; by your logic, anyone who pops a boner at that picture of Misty (or any) is a pedophile because the character is ten years old.

And let's not pretend I'm cherrypicking here either. While you can certainly find drawings of "lolis" that are flat and more reminiscent of a kid (much like how you can find art stylized in any way) a vast majority look something like this.

Prominent hips, smooth thighs, general lack of imperfections and a delicate, thin design. Symptoms similar to that Misty picture, I'd argue, but far more similar to...

This 24 year-old celebrity.

So stop trying to feed me this fucking pig slop about drawings of little girls and actual little girls being even remotely similar. There's so many holes in that argument you may as well be trying to tell me the Earth is flat.

Bro.... I'm quoting all this, just in case. But damn, the fbi should probably have a look into your computer, just in case. You're going way to far to defend this shit.

 

[A Hot Potato]

Sure, okay. We'll do this argument.

Here is a sexy furfag picture of a cat.

It's stylized and obviously fake, what with it being an illustration, but it's still technically a representation of a cat. We know this because the creator calls the character "a cat" outright in totally canon material. The artist who drew this would also undoubtedly call this character "a cat."

Now here is also a picture of a cat.

With these two pictures in mind: would it be safe to say that someone could possibly find the first picture more titillating than the second, despite both images undeniably featuring a cat? And if someone were to find the second image more arousing somehow, would it be fair to say that they too found that image enticing for reasons entirely divorced from the photo above it?

Would it be safe to say that despite both pictures featuring a cat, one fictitious and one real, they can be appreciated for reasons entirely divorced from one another?

One thing you have to understand with this "it doesn't matter if it's stylized, that drawing is a child" argument – other than it being fucking stupid because any stick figure scribbled on a napkin can be called 10 years old or 900 years old, and no one besides the illustrator can declare otherwise – is that even the definition of lolicon is incredibly varied. Unlike the definition of a pedophile, which is pretty set in stone.

Let's use more pictures so obnoxious fat women can call my reply Dumb or Autistic for using too many.

Look, it's Misty from Pokemon, "a 10-year-old Pokémon trainer who journeys with [Ash] throughout the first five seasons." I sure hope you don't find her smooth thighs, prominent birthing hips, vagina-valley thing, enormous rotund breasts or "let me catch your Pokeballs" expression sexually-enticing. That would make you a pedophile because the character is undeniably, canonically a 10 year old.

That's your argument word for word. There's really no getting around it; by your logic, anyone who pops a boner at that picture of Misty (or any) is a pedophile because the character is ten years old.

And let's not pretend I'm cherrypicking here either. While you can certainly find drawings of "lolis" that are flat and more reminiscent of a kid (much like how you can find art stylized in any way) a vast majority look something like this.

Prominent hips, smooth thighs, general lack of imperfections and a delicate, thin design. Symptoms similar to that Misty picture, I'd argue, but far more similar to...

This 24 year-old celebrity.

So stop trying to feed me this fucking pig slop about drawings of little girls and actual little girls being even remotely similar. There's so many holes in that argument you may as well be trying to tell me the Earth is flat.

lol pedo

 

[kike pal]

Bro.... I'm quoting all this, just in case. But damn, the fbi should probably have a look into your computer, just in case. You're going way to far to defend this shit.

Quoting it in case of what? The account I made 2 days ago becomes associated with the argument that drawings are not real?

Sometimes I think you people forget why child pornography is illegal: because it harms actual, living children. And before any of you faggots say anime loli porn encourages actual pedophilia I'm going to remind you of my initial statement, where that's akin to the claim that mowing down droves of innocent "people" in a video game makes you a horrible murderer, or likely to become a horrible murderer.

 

[PuToTyra]

Yaaa, go threaten people who disagree with you. That will sure shut them up. Send the police after them.