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

[Safir]

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).

Consequentialist here (although I prefer "utilitarian" ), and I'd dispute that last statement.

There's real social harm in not having the power of the law behind the basic expectations of privacy - people will avoid social activities, avoid going alone, will have to post lookouts, etc. Public schools can't function if mom has to guard the stall whenever her kid's got to pee.

Meanwhile, anything morality-based has plenty of wiggle room, because what's moral is a matter of opinion. For personal morality, consider those fucking Kantians (god I hate Kantians) and their categorical imperative:

"Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

I don't want to sperg too much, but that's retarded. It doesn't resolve conflicts between people or policies, it's possible to chain conditionals until the "universal law" applies in exactly the way you want it to apply, and even genuinely broad "laws" have built-in inequality. As an extreme on-topic example, some adult pedos (notably, librul darling Samuel Delany) say child rape should be legal because they wouldn't have minded being raped when they were young.

And there are obvious problems with defining morality by public consensus, including the inability to question outdated laws.

Consequentialism has a solution for weird porn, too. The harm weird porn causes (slippery slope, desensitization, disgust normal people feel when this shit invades public spaces) has to be weighed against the harm legislation, prevention and prosecution does (breaches of privacy, waste of public resources, false accusations, selectiveness, loss of public trust in the legal system, slippery slope again). The data suggests it should be both possible to fire a person for an ejaculating dickgirl as a wallpaper on their office laptop, and to draw ejaculating dickgirls in the privacy of one's own parents' basement.

 

[BoingBoingBoi]

I am in full agreement with your account of social harms and why consequentialists can justifiably condemn behavior or fetishes that don't cause prima facie harm. I guess i meant only to illustrate the two different schools of thought and two different approaches to morality.

This is why i don't understand this part of your post:

Meanwhile, anything morality-based has plenty of wiggle room, because what's moral is a matter of opinion. For personal morality, consider those fucking Kantians (god I hate Kantians) and their categorical imperative:

"Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

I don't want to sperg too much, but that's exceptional. It doesn't resolve conflicts between people or policies, it's possible to chain conditionals until the "universal law" applies in exactly the way you want it to apply, and even genuinely broad "laws" have built-in inequality. As an extreme on-topic example, some adult pedos (notably, librul darling Samuel Delany) say child rape should be legal because they wouldn't have minded being raped when they were young.

consequentialism, utilitarianism, or whatever outcome/harm-based approach is an approach to morality. it's not opposed to morality. It's still an account of right or wrong that focuses on outcomes rather than on principles.

A Kantian approach, or, more generally, a deontological approach is a different approach to morality---one that is principle-based. Kant's view is of course super important in the history of deontological approaches to morality, but you don't need to accept the categorical imperative to have a principle-based approach to morality. (think about the ten commandments. they're an example of a principle-based morality)

To further complicate things, you might want to think about Shelley Kagan's distinction between moral factors and moral foundations, which provides a combination of both views. Think about rule utilitarians: they take a principle-based ("rule-based") approach to what people ought to do, but the principles they abide by at the foundational level are based in an understanding of which principles generally lead to the best outcomes.

My view is more along the lines of rule utilitarianism. In principle, it's wrong to fetishize children. That principle is justified on the grounds that allowing people to fetishize children on a case-by-case basis---allowing it when it doesn't harm anyone and disallowing it when it does---is unsustainable for all the reasons you listed. (edit That is, the principle that you never ought to fetishize children is justified on the grounds that it leads to the best outcomes.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

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.

I tend to think it's sort of like drug use. Almost everyone that's done heroin or crack has done pot at some point, but lots of people that have done pot won't go on to do heroin or crack.

Well either that or half of 4chan are child rapists. I mean, i wouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

@Apoth42 find the disagree button.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I tend to think it's sort of like drug use. Almost everyone that's done heroin or crack has done pot at some point, but lots of people that have done pot won't go on to do heroin or crack.

You forget the possibility in jumping straight to the crack and cocaine. The Chinese didn't need a gateway drug to end up with their opium crises. The gateway argument is a slippery slope argument and by that very logic, I could argue that alcohol and tobacco are gateway drugs to cannabis, which is a gateway drug to cocaine, ect.

Pedophiles don't 'slip' into 'harder stuff', they're testing the waters & the poikilotherm is none too bothered by the thirty degree pond.

Consequentialist here (although I prefer "utilitarian" ), and I'd dispute that last statement.

There's real social harm in not having the power of the law behind the basic expectations of privacy - people will avoid social activities, avoid going alone, will have to post lookouts, etc. Public schools can't function if mom has to guard the stall whenever her kid's got to pee.

Meanwhile, anything morality-based has plenty of wiggle room, because what's moral is a matter of opinion. For personal morality, consider those fucking Kantians (god I hate Kantians) and their categorical imperative:

"Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law."

I don't want to sperg too much, but that's exceptional. It doesn't resolve conflicts between people or policies, it's possible to chain conditionals until the "universal law" applies in exactly the way you want it to apply, and even genuinely broad "laws" have built-in inequality. As an extreme on-topic example, some adult pedos (notably, librul darling Samuel Delany) say child rape should be legal because they wouldn't have minded being raped when they were young.

And there are obvious problems with defining morality by public consensus, including the inability to question outdated laws.

Consequentialism has a solution for weird porn, too. The harm weird porn causes (slippery slope, desensitization, disgust normal people feel when this shit invades public spaces) has to be weighed against the harm legislation, prevention and prosecution does (breaches of privacy, waste of public resources, false accusations, selectiveness, loss of public trust in the legal system, slippery slope again). The data suggests it should be both possible to fire a person for an ejaculating dickgirl as a wallpaper on their office laptop, and to draw ejaculating dickgirls in the privacy of one's own parents' basement.

I am in full agreement with your account of social harms and why consequentialists can justifiably condemn behavior or fetishes that don't cause prima facie harm. I guess i meant only to illustrate the two different schools of thought and two different approaches to morality.

This is why i don't understand this part of your post:



consequentialism, utilitarianism, or whatever outcome/harm-based approach is an approach to morality. it's not opposed to morality. It's still an account of right or wrong that focuses on outcomes rather than on principles.

A Kantian approach, or, more generally, a deontological approach is a different approach to morality---one that is principle-based. Kant's view is of course super important in the history of deontological approaches to morality, but you don't need to accept the categorical imperative to have a principle-based approach to morality. (think about the ten commandments. they're an example of a principle-based morality)

To further complicate things, you might want to think about Shelley Kagan's distinction between moral factors and moral foundations, which provides a combination of both views. Think about rule utilitarians: they take a principle-based ("rule-based") approach to what people ought to do, but the principles they abide by at the foundational level are based in an understanding of which principles generally lead to the best outcomes.

My view is more along the lines of rule utilitarianism. In principle, it's wrong to fetishize children. That principle is justified on the grounds that allowing people to fetishize children on a case-by-case basis---allowing it when it doesn't harm anyone and disallowing it when it does---is unsustainable for all the reasons you listed. (edit That is, the principle that you never ought to fetishize children is justified on the grounds that it leads to the best outcomes.

Roight then, have you lot read any Locke as of late?

 

[José Mourinho]

to that weirdo that used to jack off to Amy Rose (I completely forgot his name)

I think you mean PaulAndAmy?

 

[KiwiKritter]

I guess it kind of depends on what it is. I definitely have no tolerance for crazy shit like zoophilia or pedophilia, but I mean like if a dude draws incest for example and they both are over 18 its like... yeah its weird but they are technically consenting adults so “you do you.”

 

[BoingBoingBoi]

I don't see how its different from murder in videogames. The line between fantasy and reality is pretty clear cut for most sane people.

I really doubt the sociologists that suggest that people who play shooters are somehow master riflemen who are prone to use violence to solve everything.

the fantasy violence analogy is probably the strongest reason in favor of fantasy pedophilia. i'm still not convinced though. this could be for one of two reasons or a combination of both.

on the one hand, maybe violence fantasy is just so different in kind from sexual fantasy that the analogy breaks down (in which case, we'd need to talk to psychologists and sociologists to figure out the neurology of pedophilia vs violent tendencies).

on the other hand, violence in video games is one thing and ubiquitous, but graphic violence against children? that's far less common i think. and where it does occur in video games, it's not really meant to be part of the fantasy. think of the intro to the last of us where the guy's daughter dies. that shouldn't be fulfilling many people's violent fantasies.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

"But it's not real"

Fantasy is fantasy.

You mean none of this isn't real?

 

[Troglodyte.35]

I think you mean PaulAndAmy?

Yeah, that was him.

 

[Your Weird Fetish]

You forget the possibility in jumping straight to the crack and cocaine. The Chinese didn't need a gateway drug to end up with their opium crises. The gateway argument is a slippery slope argument and by that very logic, I could argue that alcohol and tobacco are gateway drugs to cannabis, which is a gateway drug to cocaine, ect.

I wasn't suggesting a causal relation there. I think most likely any pedophile was at the least strongly predisposed to be a pedo in the first place. But I also suspect that any given pedophile probably has multiple other paraphilias.

on the one hand, maybe violence fantasy is just so different in kind from sexual fantasy that the analogy breaks down (in which case, we'd need to talk to psychologists and sociologists to figure out the neurology of pedophilia vs violent tendencies).

Sociologists and psychologists are the absolute last people you want to talk to about neurology.

 

[Nazi vegeta]

I think we've had this same exact discussion months ago.
answer hasnt really changed.

 

[Daughter of Cernunnos]

wut if the child consents though? respect the NAP and ur fine.

 

[H2O]

wut if the child consents though? respect the NAP and ur fine.

Age of consent still applies so, probably illegal.

 

[Slap47]

yeah its weird but they are technically consenting adults so “you do you.”

Seems like an odd standard to have when no people are involved.

 

[KiwiKritter]

Seems like an odd standard to have when no people are involved.

But thats the thing isn’t it? Porn has to be as social acceptable as real life, at least to some people. Thats why this thread is a thing.

 

[queerape]

Furries aren't necessarily bestiality though (unless you are Kero), because the characters usually look like animals but have human faculties of reasoning, and so would be able to consent. If you want to have gay sex with a guy dressed as the San Diego Padres Chicken, you're still having sex with they guy.

As for loli/shota, I think it's morally reprehensible, but it shouldn't be illegal. Most people into it know it should be 2D only, and if I had to pick I'd rather pedos whack off to fake kids than perpetuate the abuse of real ones, at the least its a lesser of two evils. Really 800 years old aside, many "lolis "are just flat chested adults or young looking, and no one says you have to be into massive oppai to not be a pedo. Making it illegal may cause too many grey areas for sure, as even in the West we have "teen" and "barely legal" porn where everyone is 18+ yet young looking/ old enough to pass for high schoolers. AoC is also 15/16 in most areas, whn most girls are done puberty, considering we don't have massive signs over our heads saying "IM OVER 18 NOW". So while it's creepy to be into loli and shota and it should be socially sanctioned ,it's still not illegal, but a 70 year old dating a 30 year old is still creepy even though no one would call a 30 year old a child, and that most certainly isn't illegal either. Sanction should be social in nature, not legal.

We should shame these idiots publically, call them pedos, tards etc, but legally going after them is just too riddled with grey areas and loopholes.

 

[Manah]

What I wonder about is the (presumably minority) of people who like loli that are actually underage themselves.

I thought 15 year olds were attractive when I was 15, but as an adult I have zero interest since having grown up (arguably, I mean I'm posting on kiwifarms :autistic, even people who are 18 or 19 normally just look like children to me. Presumably this is how it works for most people, not that I've done a survey or anything.

But for a theoretical teenager who jerked it to lolis or whatever, since they're just looking at abstract depictions of people and not actual people, would that work the same way?

 

[ZeCommissar]

What I wonder about is the (presumably minority) of people who like loli that are actually underage themselves.

I thought 15 year olds were attractive when I was 15, but as an adult I have zero interest since having grown up (arguably, I mean I'm posting on kiwifarms :autism, even people who are 18 or 19 normally just look like children to me. Presumably this is how it works for most people, not that I've done a survey or anything.

But for a theoretical teenager who jerked it to lolis or whatever, since they're just looking at abstract depictions of people and not actual people, would that work the same way?

I would think they would be weird to jerk off to what looks like a 8 year old even if they're 15. However I cannot say the same to a 15 year old looking at a 15 year old.
Of course everyone normal is attracted to their age group, and no one worth mentioning sits there and worries about a 15 year old liking a 15 year old. The problem stems is when a 25 year old man does it.

To really answer your question I guess all I can say is look at what happens when a underage boy gets his hands on his GFs nudes and is charged with possession of child porn. You won't get persecuted if you are 25 and you have sex with a 16 year old if the age of consent is 16, but get caught with her nudes and see what happens. Same thing if you are a 16 year old boy.

Is 15 even considered loli? I mean sure it's underage but I thought most lolis looked like prepubescent kids? Wouldn't a 15 year old loli still be drawn like she was still underdeveloped? Or am I getting the definition wrong?

I think loli is disgusting and unhealthy. I can not logically argue for banning it however, since I cannot prove that someone that likes loli will end up diddling a real kid. The whole "its a fantasy bro" angle is really dumb. Is it healthy to fantasize about murdering someone everyday?

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

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).

It's a good thing you're not in charge then, because we have a history of case law that shows just what a terrible idea that would be in practice.

It's easy to get worked up into a moral outrage over disgusting or obscene material (I'm not averse to this myself), but if you think that state-sponsored moral paternalism is the appropriate way to deal with it, then you obviously haven't properly considered the precedent that such a thing would ultimately set.

The slippery slope with this one is real. By granting the government the power to regulate what it deems to be 'obscene or corrupting influences', you are essentially granting them the power to govern people's private lives. Don't think that this stops at deviant pornography either, because it doesn't. What about opinions that the government deems harmful? Couldn't they be interpreted as a "corrupting influence"? If the precedent has been set that the government has the right to act in a morally paternalistic way, then the answer to this question is unavoidably yes.