"But it's only a fantasy!" - Furry, Shota, Loli, [insert weird shit here]

[BoingBoingBoi]

Sexualizing children is still sexualizing children even if they are just drawings. It's much less bad than being an actual kid fucker but there is still something wrong with you if pre-pubescent girls turn you on.

i think if you sexually fantasize about anything other than consenting adults, you're a deviant of some sort, and, depending on whom or what you're sexualizing, a risk to society.

there seems to be at least two different schools of thought here.

on the one hand, there's the consequentialist approach, which holds that so long as the consequences are net positive, or at least not net negative, then some action is probably okay to do. for instance, if loli doesn't actually hurt anybody, it employs an artist, and produces pleasure for the consumer, then there's no problem with loli.

the deontological approach is more principle-based, and claims that regardless of the outcome, sexualizing children is morally wrong, whether those children are fictional, 2d, aware, or whatever.

it's kind of like the peeping tom case: suppose there's a guy peeping in the girls locker room. the girls have no idea. nobody ever finds out, and he gets to live and die having this extra pleasure in his life. so a consequentialist might say that it's fine for him to do so, since there's no negative outcomes from his behavior. however, presumably everybody knows that it's just wrong to sexualize unwilling or unknowing participants who have expectations of privacy or can't consent or whatever. and so this seems like a case where deontology offers a better account of what to do.

i prefer the deontological approach because it's less compromising. there's more wiggle room in the consequentialist approach than i would ever like to give pedophiles (or "borderline" pedophiles).

 

[Terrorist]

Porn not only reinforces sexual preferences, but can create them, and after a while is subject to diminishing returns. A lot of people start off with relatively vanilla stuff but then get into really sick shit like loli/shota/furries/gore/etc., and then some of those people get bored of even that and move onto real CP/molesting kids/fucking dogs/strangling hookers. When cops raid a serial killer or rapist's home, they often find massive porn collections over a wide variety of genres that started out softcore, but became increasingly depraved over time.

Most people who jerk off to that stuff won't act on their urges in those ways, but it's still obviously extremely unhealthy for your mind and sexuality. If I were in charge, I'd bring back obscenity laws, using policies about real CP as precendent, with the goal of banning porn entirely (or at least limiting it to softcore hetero stuff like you'd find in an old playboy). Like always, people would find a way to get around them, but at least they'd be a start.

 

[4000saladplates]

If you watch too much porn, you become desensitized to it, so you have to seek out more and more fucked up hardcore stuff just to get your rocks off. It's better not to start with weird shit in the first place.

 

[NOT Sword Fighter Super]

If you're willing to jack it to an animated Loli, you'd probably jack it to actual CP.

No normal, healthy person who isn't a pedo would spank it to loli porn.

 

[Sir Auroras]

People like a lot of niche shit. I don't think jerking it to loli hentai makes you a pedophile.

Unless it's those true loli characters that are conceptualized and designed to look like 5 year olds. That takes a special special state of mind and the only thing separating those from CP is it being fictional.

 

[John Titor]

I wouldn't say they are "acceptable", I think prosecuting people for drawings doesn't make too much sense.

 

[BananaBlue]

It's a matter related to if it is, or it isn't a victimless crime. No animal was hurt or abused in a drawing. Same with other pornographic materials like drawings of underage boys and girls in sexual acts.
It is questionable and disturbing material, but it is fictional and non real.

Now, you can make assumptions, argue that sort of material can create a pattern and influence the people consuming it into taking things beyond the realm of fiction (actually going after for real pornographic content or worst, actually assault children or animals)
But that is assumption based on nothing.

Now, consuming real pornography, bestiality, pedophilia. That can and should be considered illegal and a crime. That material does indeed show criminal acts, animals or children being abused and tortured and the consumption of such material not only is morally deplorable but encourages the creation of more content because there is interest in such.

Snuff films exist because people enjoy watching others getting tortured and killed in perverse ways. People die, people are tortured, people and animals, to please the interest of the people consuming such content.

Again, it's a matter related to if it is, or not a victimless crime. Questionable drawn porn can raise some eyebrows, and that is understandable, but I don't consider a crime since there is no victim in the drawing. Unless you believe media can influence you in any way and lead you to cause harm upon others.

 

[Slap47]

If you're willing to jack it to an animated Loli, you'd probably jack it to actual CP.

No normal, healthy person who isn't a pedo would spank it to loli porn.

I can understand that thinking, especially considering the uncovering of that clique of elite furries that have orgies with animals (both alive and dead) at furry conventions but I really doubt that most or even 5% of furries are actually interested in fucking anthropomorphic or real life animals.

Its an odd chicken and egg situation. Does alcohol make people criminal or do criminals end up drinking more to deal with guilt and deeper emotions? Perhaps this problem is genetics? Does furry artwork create bestiality or do people already interested or even people genetically predisposed to bestiality just naturally find interest in it? Frankly, I don't trust the answers of sociologists and psychologists anymore. These people have declared gaming a disorder and being a troon normal.

I'd say that loli falls into the same category. Some kind of add fantasy fetish created by civilization, like those ancient giant titty statues. The only thing I'm sure of is that I don't like it when people try to legislate morality and try to create what basically amounts to art/thought crimes. I'd probably support the existence of these things even if they did lead to degeneracy.

 

[4000saladplates]

I was poking around google to find the legal status of loli in the United States; while it is technically legal, it may be illegal in certain states due to obscenity laws. There have been several pushes to try to get simulated child pornography, aka drawings and other digital mediums, to be illegal, but so far none have passed. It would probably be hard to regulate, since it's easy to claim that a character is older than they look and what not. Also apparently most porn is covered by the first amendment as freedom of expression? This doesn't include "obscene" porn, which I take to mean like bestiality and CP?

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Every time someone jerks off to disturbing material they strengthen the neural pathway that associates the porn with sexual gratification.

The neurological phenomena you're talking about is called "chunking", and it's a learning procedure in the brain, it's how people learn how to do things like ride a bike, drive a car, ect. It has nothing to do with sexual fetishes, one does not 'learn' a sexual preference.

Porn not only reinforces sexual preferences, but can create them, and after a while is subject to diminishing returns. A lot of people start off with relatively vanilla stuff but then get into really sick shit like loli/shota/furries/gore/etc.

This is the same argument that Ted Bundy used to vindicate himself at his last interview, that reading BDSM porn in his youth planted the seed that led to his rapes and murders. Ted Bundy also surrounded his aunt's bed with kitchen knives pointed at her and waited at her bed to watch her reaction when she woke up with a big fuck-off grin on his face at the tender age of three.

Pedophilia is a lifetime condition that people are born with just as sociopaths are born with ASPD. Pedophiles who had volunteered for castration to get early releases from prison used other means of abusing children upon their release, indicating that their abusive behavior isn't rooted in sexuality at all.

When cops raid a serial killer or rapist's home, they often find massive porn collections over a wide variety of genres that started out softcore, but became increasingly depraved over time.

Most people who jerk off to that stuff won't act on their urges in those ways, but it's still obviously extremely unhealthy for your mind and sexuality.

People who escalate to those extremes were always predisposed to do exactly that. Normal people don't move on to consume extreme "pornography" such as animal crush videos after watching lesbians finger each other. The people you described are sociopaths because they're easily bored and will escalate to achieve a higher rush the same way Eric Harris got bored of shooting people and started searching through lockers instead because murder stopped doing it for him.

It's a matter related to if it is, or it isn't a victimless crime. No animal was hurt or abused in a drawing. Same with other pornographic materials like drawings of underage boys and girls in sexual acts.
It is questionable and disturbing material, but it is fictional and non real.

While that might make sense in principle, I'm of the opinion that pedophilia is unique unto itself and uniquely bottlenecks to a single conclusion. It doesn't matter if they have a harmless outlet to consume, it doesn't matter if they're deprived of any such content, they'll escalate to the real thing with or without it. Consumption of lolicon and shotacon are early indicators of a sexual offender the same way cat killing is an early indicator of a serial killer.

This doesn't include "obscene" porn, which I take to mean like bestiality and CP?

Obscenity laws are designed to be vague and don't describe anything specific because "I know it when I see it", meaning that anything could be determined as obscene if you really wanted it to, and it has, when an indie comic book artist was convicted of the crime for depicting rape in his comic.

the people over at r/nofap and r/noporn are convinced that you can make yourself an autogynephile by watching too much sissy hypno, or bisexual similarly, and if you stop watching porn/jerking off you'll return to being a regular straight dude. I'm not sure how much I believe this is true, but a lot of people report it happening to them.

Because laymen giving self reports anonymously is always medically scientific.

Even vanilla guy/girl porn is actually first person cuck porn.

You have emotional support relationships with every pornstar ever?

 

[BananaBlue]

While that might make sense in principle, I'm of the opinion that pedophilia is unique unto itself and uniquely bottlenecks to a single conclusion. It doesn't matter if they have a harmless outlet to consume, it doesn't matter if they're deprived of any such content, they'll escalate to the real thing with or without it. Consumption of lolicon and shotacon are early indicators of a sexual offender the same way cat killing is an early indicator of a serial killer.

I agree and profiles exist for a reason. There is a pattern to this type of situations. But then we also fall on the mistake of condemning before the crime is committed.
It's almost like insinuating that you enjoy killing or will become a psychopath if you love playing GTA or more recently, Hatred.
I don't like making this type of comparison because enjoying something like bestiality or lolicon, in a fictional way, is more morally questionable than playing an action video game or watching an action movie.

But either way you can also question if someone that enjoys watching drawings of dogs getting fucked, or children getting fucked will cause a reaction that will lead the person to commit the same criminal acts. I'm assuming a person that enjoys that pornographic content is aware that the real thing is illegal, the same way someone that enjoys killing people in GTA knows what he is doing is a criminal act in real life.

But again, it is a difficult comparison. Sexual crimes are more problematic. That is why sites like liveleaks exist. You aren't going to shut that website because it shows videos of mexican cartels slicing the heads of undercover cops.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

It's almost like insinuating that you enjoy killing or will become a psychopath if you love playing GTA or more recently, Hatred.

Like I said, I believe pedophilia is a unique condition and should be treated uniquely outside the realm of comparisons like this because child pornography, fictional or otherwise, is not enjoyed by regular people.

 

[4000saladplates]

You can't gain a sexual preference to porn, only encourage one. Someone who is a non-offending pedophile who watches loli will probably eventually escalate into actual CP, since they are regularly encouraging themselves to picture children sexually, real or otherwise. Pedos are the main audience for loli, I doubt anyone who isn't into children watches it, it's something you seek out because you're into it.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

You can't gain a sexual preference to porn, only encourage one. Someone who is a non-offending pedophile who watches loli will probably eventually escalate into actual CP, since they are regularly encouraging themselves to picture children sexually, real or otherwise. Pedos are the main audience for loli, I doubt anyone who isn't into children watches it, it's something you seek out because you're into it.

Exactly, they're predisposed to it. Their consumption of it is not an acquired taste because one cannot acquire pedophilia as a "sexual preference".

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

Fantasy is fine, reality is different. Just like words aren't violence, you can't rape a cartoon anthropomorphic plane.

 

[WY 434]

Fantasizing about Linda Lovelace or foreign eye candy showing up in a speedo to clean your pool are in a different league than jerking off to the Powerpuff Girls or shitting your diaper in a fursuit whilst howling at the moon and Telegramming about "appreciation" for or interest in kids and puppies etc.

If you lean towards the latter being classified as Thought Crimes and no PP Girls were harmed during the (cum)struction of The Fantasy, stay in your basement and do not expect an invite to my Christmas barbeque.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

If you lean towards the latter being classified as Thought Crimes and no PP Girls were harmed during the (cum)struction of The Fantasy, stay in your basement and do not expect an invite to my Christmas barbeque.

Wasn't going to go anyway, I'm not into vore.

 

[WY 434]

Wasn't going to go anyway, I'm not into vore.

The party consists of a stumper of midgets eating potato salad sandwiches around a bonfire. You won't fit.

 

[BeanBidan]

Not sure why people want loli when there's perfectly cute adult characters from the same source.
Ex.Azur Lane and idolm@ster

 

[Troglodyte.35]

I've seen way too many instances of people who watch CP or Lolicon end up going out and molesting children. From the Nick Bates guy to that weirdo that used to jack off to Amy Rose (I completely forgot his name) to the zoosadism people. I feel like people who watch child porn drawn or not are on an extremely slippery slope. Like there's this guy on deviantart, I think I posted his pictures on the horrors thread, who likes to make unnerving images of women getting beheaded and placed on placards. He gets off to the idea of killing people and mounting them as trophies and there are plenty of serial killers who got off to the idea of killing people i.e Jeffrey Dahmer and ended up being killers themselves.

I don't know, that's just my take. If you jack off to crazy illegal shit you're most likely heading towards a point that your fantasies will not be enough and you'll end up acting on them. There might be some exceptions, but I don't see the reason to have those risks.