Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[I Love Beef]

To me, it depends.

If the idea intended is meant for diddling kids, the person who has that idea is a fucking sicko.

Going off on a little related tangent, I don't get why anyone would be attracted to kids. They look underdeveloped and despite adorable, misshapen and immature, which naturally means as hands off as unripened fruit. Even realistically, most teenagers that don't look like 30 year olds look this way too.

Another thing is the style. Most realistic styles, yeahhhhh, I can see this being abused more in this case. For a style as stigmatized and stereotyped for loli and child porn, anime you can claim its about fairies and peris due to the toon physics of human anatomy.

 

[Bob's Vagene]

It's gross, but honestly I don't give a fuck about what someone draws. If they aren't hurting anyone and it's just a drawing.. is it even my business?

 

[ICametoLurk]

child porn is just porn

stop getting ur panties in a knot

 

[Sprig of Parsley]

What I think - Loli and shota and anything in that vein make my skin crawl a bit, but there are no actual children being victimized and as long as it stays that way I try not to care. I might side-eye anyone who professes to be an avid fan of it, particularly if what they like involves these fictional children sexually interacting with adults.

What I know - surprisingly little beyond the fact that this kind of material exists and some people like it. I am aware that children will occasionally engage each other in sex play but I don't know how unhealthy or harmless that is. I do know that an adult being part of that kind of situation, even as an observer of a fictional depiction of this occuring is profoundly aberrant and likely indicative of something even worse waiting in the wings. I also know the whole subject is so charged and downright poisonous that nobody but the most impassive scientist would be able to address it in the manner needed to completely quantify the threat it does or doesn't pose.

 

[Gromitandwallace]

Is the conclusion to the thread or no?

If so, no need to revive this thread.

Nah.

 

[A Hot Potato]

Is the conclusion to the thread or no?

If so, no need to revive this thread.

Nah.

Holy fuck, kill yourself you sped.

 

[Gromitandwallace]

Let us discuss/argue the ethics of this form of fictional hentai and if its consumers should be killed for consuming this drawing. Then we should discuss on how it applies to you and me.

 

[SmileyTimeDayCare]

It's child porn that skirts the issue by being drawn.

Prove to me it provides any reduction in actual child porn and I'll think differently but until then it is still essentially child porn.

Oh, wait, it doesn't matter because pedos get the fucking rope.

 

[LofaSofa]

Everyone who enjoys anime is already a pedophile regardless, though.

 

[Recoil]

The shit is fucking vile, what's to discuss?
Now get into the cattle car with the rest of your friends.

 

[Barnard]

Sex should be illegal.

 

[Gromitandwallace]

Shouldn't it be allowed under it being fake? I can understand you not liking pedos but one should be given a chance to reform before dying. Is there a link between stylized loli/shota and pedophilia? From what I've seen, the consumers of loli/shota typically prefer moe type of drawings and often self-insert themselves in the shota's position(due to damage when young is a possibility). Is it a possibility that the people who consume these drawings are not necessarily attracted to the them being a kid but rather their small shape/vulnerability? One can not be attracted to kids but rather the power dynamics and abuse that comes with it but not the child themself. Femdom/ara can cross over this territory a bit but not sure about that majority. One group can like it due to being taboo and other can due to it being stylized or cute.

Everyone who enjoys anime is already a pedophile regardless, though.

Based

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

I don’t know.
One side says that it’s just drawings and therefor victimless. This falls down when talking about things like >shadman, who drew actual IRL people, or that one guy who traced actual cp. But, that’s usually not the case, it’s usually fictional characters.
That side also claims that it acts as an outlet for those urges. That viewing drawn cp is the lesser of the evils, and helps prevent action or viewing IRL cp.
The other side argues that it could act as a “gateway drug” of sorts. That viewing drawn cp makes you more likely to act on those urges as opposed to less likely.
I’m not smart or well read enough to say what is the correct statement on that. I don’t know if drawn stuff is the cigarette or the nicotine patch, so to speak. But, either way you’re addicted to nicotine. And that’s a problem.
I suppose if I had to choose, gun to head, on finding IRL or drawn cp on someone’s laptop, I’d have to choose drawn. Both are morally wrong, but at least a child was less likely to be raped for the drawn stuff.
As for pedos getting the rope, if you have IRL cp, I’m not sure. I may be pansy, but something about it just doesn’t sit right with me, I don’t know. But you should certainly serve hard time.
Did something to a child? Without a doubt yes. Old school style, some motherfucker in a hood with a sword beheads yo’ ass.
Drawn? I’d say no, I don’t like the idea of incarcerating a person for lines on a page. As a supplement to existing evidence, sure, but not as the sole reason for incarceration. If I draw two stick figures fucking, and say one’s 12, arresting someone for that seems a bit much. I’m not a fan of thinking stuff being a crime. I’d say therapy would be in order, but that’s as far as I’d go on that.

 

[Gromitandwallace]

Yeah but the drawing of Shadman was explicit. A drawing from real cp is problematic since it does derive from a harmful source material. If it's just of a kid model or pictures of kids then the source then it's still shit but isn't as degenerate as the actual thing. There are kids who do this sort of stuff on public websites from Russia, and it's legally allowed. I don't like it still. Look at that drag queen, it's worse than the russian kids I think. I don't know about the gateway drug. That's an argument of acquired taste vs developed taste and that leans into genetics. Yeah, the pedo didn't hurt any kids. Though, they still got it from a source and had the video itself. They didn't do anything about the video and report it to the proper authorities. Plus the video itself is destructive to the mind/soul of the user. Use it and its consumption consumes you. Watching a video of a kid getting his head blown off is a violent and savage nature that one just wants to see due to curiosity(morbid), but a child porn is inherently sexual in its nature and is meant to fufill a sexual nature inside the user. At the very least, hard time can be given to them. An allegory can be made with 2nd-hand murder/compliance if the one didn't report the site to the authorities. Cool. I say that is a idea with merits; drawn stuff can most likely not pedophilia in itself but coupled with other evidence it can be. Due to a deviant having consumed cp, realistic/well done drawings of loli can be drawn alongside to the conclusion that he is a pedopilia which is what can sow him the hard time he needs.

 

[dire]

If you're asking about the ethics of jerking off to a drawing, then you're missing the point.

What matters is the person getting off to that kind of shit. They may claim that it's just a fetish and that they're blameless and innocent...but why the fuck should you believe them?

It's good to brutally oppress pedos, therefore it's good to stigmatize and ban whatever animu degeneracy they get off to.

 

[lurk_moar]

Drawings are not classified as people therefore cannot be abused.

 

[PL 001]

It's better than looking at the real thing, but that's like saying it's better to be shot in the head than a shotgun blast to the gut. Either way, you're still fucked.

You jack it to loli or create it, you're a pedophile as far as I'm concerned, no excuse can be given.

 

[Recoil]

Drawings are not classified as people therefore cannot be abused.

Drawings that sexualize children are still bad. The space that exists in our mind's eye is a real one and must be maintained to certain standards.

 

[Jewelsmakerguy]

Drawings are not classified as people therefore cannot be abused.

Yeah, but that usually entails that you still want the real thing at some point.

Banning it is a whole other matter since well, it isn't technically real children being depicted (unless it's Shadman), but ethically it's still the same thing as real CP and should be treated as such by not only the internet at large, but law enforcement as well. I mean, if they got drawn CP on their hard drives, what's stopping them from downloading the real thing?

 

[Nova Prime]

Yeah, but that usually entails that you still want the real thing at some point.

Banning it is a whole other matter since well, it isn't technically real children being depicted (unless it's Shadman), but ethically it's still the same thing as real CP and should be treated as such by not only the internet at large, but law enforcement as well. I mean, if they got drawn CP on their hard drives, what's stopping them from downloading the real thing?

The UK banned loli/shota art, and that had no discernible effect at all on the statistics over the years from what I've heard. Art isn't the only catalyst that drives degenerates to prey upon children.

There is truth in what you say about people that jerk off to loli/shota can desensitize themselves and gravitate toward wanting real CP like a true degenerate, but you'd still need harder evidence in the end like chat logs and such. Hearsay and observation only goes so far. I'm with you on people being into loli/shota as suspect, but there's only so much that can be done without hard evidence.