Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.

Is OP a pedophile?

  • yes

    Votes: 967 74.3%
  • no

    Votes: 210 16.1%
  • it should be regulated, not outright banned

    Votes: 124 9.5%

  • Total voters
    1,301
Lolisho content isn't inherently bad, imo. It's like other fetishes people have that they never indulge in irl, especially where there's the unspoken 'it's fictional, so it's okay'. If someone can't distinguish a fictional character being underage for a living human being, that isn't the fault of someone who draws lolisho. Plus, it's identical to the 'playing violent videogames makes you violent' argument. If you don't like it, cool. If you do, cool. Just don't be fuckin' weird to actual kids.
 
And it's fueling a desire to eventually try and recreate a scenario IRL. Fapping to regular porn doesn't satiate your lust as far as I'm aware, it slowly makes one more desperate to get some actual puss, don't see why loli/cub porn is any different.

Is that really the case? The countries with the thirstiest men tend to be the ones that cover up women and ban porn.
 
Per se I'd jump on the whole 'it's just fiction, i don't care' train.

BUT I've seen too many self-proclaimed lolicons also be super weird towards kids and heard stuff like "I only don't fuck a kid because I don't want to ruin their life" or "whenever I see a child I get the huge urge to hug/touch it, not sexual of course!". I don't know. It just kinda seems like a red flag for some people.

But then again, usually people don't talk about their fetishes in public, especially if they know society looks down on that exact fetish. So I just assume people who out themselves as 'lolicons' and want acceptance for that don't have all of their marbles together in general.

Also where do should you draw the line? On realistic-looking 3D-models of kids? Drawings? Fanfiction? Games?
 
Technically no, since they're not actually doing anything to harm a kid.

From a personal viewpoint, I find it sick, still see them as a pedo and not someone I'd trust around real kids. It's a little disquieting to me how many people online try to make excuses for it. Like someone else said earlier, these are the people who make the foot fetishists and (some) of the furfags look downright vanilla.
 
Per se I'd jump on the whole 'it's just fiction, i don't care' train.

BUT I've seen too many self-proclaimed lolicons also be super weird towards kids and heard stuff like "I only don't fuck a kid because I don't want to ruin their life" or "whenever I see a child I get the huge urge to hug/touch it, not sexual of course!". I don't know. It just kinda seems like a red flag for some people.

That first part sounds more like the issue we've chronicled with JY - sick fucks gravitate towards groups where they believe they and get away with their sick fuckery, unopposed.

But then again, usually people don't talk about their fetishes in public, especially if they know society looks down on that exact fetish. So I just assume people who out themselves as 'lolicons' and want acceptance for that don't have all of their marbles together in general.

I think it's that problem developed out of the exceptional end of the "sex positivity movement', with everyone assuming that being sex-positive means they're allowed to detail their sexual escapades, when what it really means is I'm not going to suggest legislation that prevents consensual, non-harmful sexual acts. As far as I'm concerned, the gov't shouldn't be involved in whether consenting adults fuck each other, or choose to engage in contractual arrangements governing those relationships, but if the gov't doesn't step in to protect children and animals, I have ammunition.

Also where do should you draw the line? On realistic-looking 3D-models of kids? Drawings? Fanfiction? Games?

At that part where no children are harmed in the production of it - if some autist wants to create a 3d VR waifu loli game, and doesn't require any children to create it, then no harm has occurred.
 
Is that really the case? The countries with the thirstiest men tend to be the ones that cover up women and ban porn.

A common point. I'm not sure how much validity it has, nor how much validity what I said has, seems like men are thirsty regardless of whether they're from repressive hellholes like Saudi Arabia or from fountains of degeneracy and sexual liberation like L.A.
 
nope, lolis don't even look like real children. find me an IRL child that's 900 years old, has thick pink hair, and large eyes

also, saying that lolis cause harm to children is like an evangelical Christian saying that video games cause violence
Miss-Kobayashi-s-Dragon-Maid-Kanna-Kamui-Cosplay-Costume-for-Women-Kobayashi-san-Chi-no-Maid.jpg

186942-full_io-splash-art-update-wip-sneak-peek-paladins.jpg

latest
 
A common point. I'm not sure how much validity it has, nor how much validity what I said has, seems like men are thirsty regardless of whether they're from repressive hellholes like Saudi Arabia or from fountains of degeneracy and sexual liberation like L.A.

It has plenty of validity. You got countries where religious bullshit is on state level, not just culturally represses normal urges. Nothing good comes from repression or oppression, at some point it will come out. Catholic countries are slightly better because they don't separate people into dimis and righteous, with dimis being a fair game for perversions.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Syaoran Li
It has plenty of validity. You got countries where religious bullshit is on state level, not just culturally represses normal urges. Nothing good comes from repression or oppression, at some point it will come out. Catholic countries are slightly better because they don't separate people into dimis and righteous, with dimis being a fair game for perversions.

Would those religious sexually repressive countries be better or worse if porn were easier to get hold of, but nothing else about the country is changed?
 
Would those religious sexually repressive countries be better or worse if porn were easier to get hold of, but nothing else about the country is changed?

they get porn. In fact before internets, an Israeli friend used to tell stories about swapping prono mags for weed with local arabs in border towns. Also alcohol can also be had despite haram.

I think it's the cultural stigma and guilt tripping that fucks their brain, more than availability.
 
they get porn. In fact before internets, an Israeli friend used to tell stories about swapping prono mags for weed with local arabs in border towns. Also alcohol can also be had despite haram.

I think it's the cultural stigma and guilt tripping that fucks their brain, more than availability.

So there's a stigma and a guilt-trip culture, but they can watch porn? Sounds like this goes to my original point, if those countries eradicated porn, would that make it easier to fit into the repressed culture or harder? Is it easier to repress lust if you have no pornography to fuel it? That gets to my original point about whether loli porn fuels pedophilic desires or not.
 
If an irl person was 900 years old but looked just like a 10 year old and you were attracted to her, that would still make you a pedo

ehh this one is kinda questionable, since plenty of adults look like children. i myself look like i'm somewhere between 12-14, so arguably if someone were into me they're a pedo?? i guess it depends
 
Weebs would have it much easier if they just wanted to fuck lolis in peace instead of trying to come up with super duper arguments to justify their fetishes. Seriously, if you feel the need to justify yourself with fancy stuff you know you are doing something bad.

Also there is a difference between loli and loli. It depends on the context because you can clearly see when it was intended to be an actual kid. Considering japanese and weebs are as good at being subtle as a nuke going off, you can clearly tell when it's pedo bait.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kill all whales
ehh this one is kinda questionable, since plenty of adults look like children. i myself look like i'm somewhere between 12-14, so arguably if someone were into me they're a pedo?? i guess it depends

Yeah, this statement is just hyperbolic. There are plenty of people who look young naturally, and there are conditions that makes some appear to physically age slowly and even appear childlike (this is referred to as Ateliosis or proportional dwarfism). So are we saying that anyone who dates those people, even if they know their real age, is a pedophile? That's just absurd.
 
I personally hold that what you do has a lot more to do with intention then action.

I think if you wish harm upon someone you might as well be doing it; that's just how I see it.
If you can't bring your fantasy to life without feeling horrible; there's something wrong with the fantasy.

What we look at and consume does warp out views on the world; if you get a hard on looking at drawn child Pr0n then you will eventually, more likely then not, have certain thoughts about actual children you encounter, and that's just another obstacle in your life.

You don't need to mess with the taboo to be cool kids; sheep are not just people who do what everyone else does. Anything you do just because you think something is "forbidden" doesn't make it any more meaningful.

Loliposters are cancer, their all the same, and I don't like them.
Public castrations when?!
 
Yes, it is very, very, very bad.

Although no actual children are harmed in its production, you are feeding a sexual desire that is predatory, when acted upon.

There are cues in the illustrations that tell the viewer that he is looking at a child ... impishness, for one.

Your intention might not be to prey on the child's vulnerability, and the child's innocence might not be the actual mechanism that draws you to him or her.

But the act of engaging sexually with a child in any way, shape or form, by its very nature harms a vulnerable person.

Children are not mature enough to understand adult sexuality. And if exposed too young, the effects can be devastating, and life-long.

Please, even if your beating off to composites, delete all of it. From your mind, your computer and your crotch. Bite your tongue, or pinch yourself hard, when those thoughts enter your mind.
 
Last edited:
I personally find it morally disgusting, and I look down on anyone that consumes it. People use the argument that it prevents people that'd otherwise end up becoming full blown pedos, but evidence has proven that this isn't really the case. Personally, if it was truly feasible to do so, I'd love to ban it, but unfortunately, attempting to ban it would be a nightmare.

The issue with banning it is if you're trying to determine whether or not an image should be banned, you need a concrete set of guidelines on what is and isn't acceptable. And each bit of criteria you could use will either net false positives, leave you accused of bias/hypocrisy, or fail to get it all. Because (and I hate to use this fucking argument) unlike a human, a drawing doesn't have a 100% definable age. With regular pornography, you can tell if it's legal or not based on the age of the actors/actresses involved and ban accordingly - but you can't do that with a drawing. So you have to use other methods.
Is it based on the age given to the drawing? As someone can just claim that something that clearly isn't acceptable is 18+ and therefore acceptable. Physical characteristics like height? People would point to regular porn, where some actors/actresses are hired simply because they look like teens, but are technically 18+. Would anything involving shorter/less endowed characters automatically be considered illegal? Hell, a lot of criteria that you could use simply fall apart because regular pornography often has actors/actresses chosen for being 18+ while having said criteria, which would lead to accusations that the government is biased in favour of pornography companies, and no government (especially a conservative one) really wants such a label.
You could argue that context should be used to determine whether or not it's acceptable, but you'd then have to have people reading through this shit to determine if it's OK or not, and not only may their own biases affect what they allow and deny, but having to read a lot of frankly vile content is a job I wouldn't wish on my greatest enemy. Your best bet to deal with it would just be to put people that are frequently and deliberately trying to access said content under a slightly closer watch, to be ready in case they start becoming a full-blown danger to society.

TL;DR - It is bad, and frankly disgusting. But trying to effectively ban it would be a nightmare due to trying to determine with specificity what is and isn't considered to be such.
 
'Bad' is a difficult quandary.

If we're talking morally, most people's fetishes are probably morally fucking terrible. Such as rape fetishes and things of that nature. People are even sexually attracted to violent rapists, serial killers and murderers. Its called Hybristophilia (there's a name for everything). So yeah, its morally terrible as any paraphilia or fetish.

Now bad as in actual real world harmful? No.

I've written a lot about pedophiles and have avoided this topic, but I guess I'll throw my hat into the ring as someone whose had the unfortunate experience on researching pedophiles and sexual criminality.

Firstly, there is no evidence that this art causes pedophiles to offend. Pedophiles will always offend and will get off on children in ways that you or I could not imagine. There was a Slate article where a pedophile was babysitting (horrifying) a young girl (under 10) and she was doing her ballerina moves. It got him so turned on he had to go to the bathroom and masturbate. I had to know this, now you do too. So pedophiles will fantasize in situations where we would never even imagine it. Also, pedophiles always offend. I don't believe in the existence of so-called virtuous pedophiles. If anything, consuming this basically gives a buffer period where they aren't harming real children or consuming child pornography. But in the end, I believe it is an inevitability. Whether five years or fifty, they will offend. They will have fantasies about every day children they see. This is of no influence one way or the other.

Secondly, loli/shota don't really do it for them as they're highly stylized art forms that don't depict reality. You might think that a highly sexualized loli who understands sex and consent would be a dream for a pedo. Hate to say it, but no. Pedophiles want the mind and body of a child. They're like vampires who consume that innocence. So the 3,500 year old loli dragon vampire succubus doesn't appeal. They want actual children. Sometimes the gender doesn't even matter, as some pedophiles molest indiscriminately. As long as they're pre-pubescent and children. I mean we're talking about monsters on the same level as serial killers who basically destroy children. They trade real children like trading cards. And that is what they crave the most. Simply put, they are not satisfied with fiction. Pedos are not even satisfied with women who look like children in porn. Girls who are 20 but look extremely young do exist. The thing is, they're not children. They're not after a mind any more mature than basically 12 or 14. They may say that or think that, but don't ever believe a word these faggots utter. The only thing you should believe is their death rattle after you put a bullet in their fucking skull.

Thirdly, pedophiles are notoriously manipulative and sociopathic. Which is why they're untreatable. They want everyone who consumes this to believe themselves to be pedophiles. In reality, there's no such thing as drawn child pornography. Child porn is illegal because it: Enriches organized crime. Most child porn these days is either produced or distributed by criminals. Harms actual children. Most children in child porn are either dead or victims of incest and human trafficking. Consuming child porn perpetuates abuse, torture and death. Which is why we have laws against it. A drawing cannot be harmed or do harm. No matter how much you believe it to be true. And pedophiles want you to believe it. Because they want every single person they can get. So pedos who say this made them pedophiles can't be trusted, because you can't trust a singular word any of these motherfuckers say. Pedophiles will do anything to normalize their behavior, any excuse in the book. Which is why studies by them and on them should be read very, very carefully. They'll say its a sexual orientation or that every male is actually a closeted pedophile since we all used to fuck kids when our maximum age was like 27. Anything to justify their pathology. Most studies on pedophiles basically have this disclaimer that pedophiles are manipulative and that their results are questionable. The one thing for sure is they're manipulative sociopaths who want to destroy and hurt children. They will do anything to justify it as not harmful, excepting taking responsibility. That's one thing you can count on a pedophile to never do.
 
Yes, it is very, very, very bad.

Although no actual children are harmed in its production, you are feeding a sexual desire that is predatory, when acted upon.

"Even though this sexual thing you're doing harms nobody, it feeds a sexual desire that is predatory when acted upon, unless it's acted upon in the way you're acting upon it right now, which harms nobody"

:story:

It's also pretty funny that nobody can really agree upon what pedophiles even find attractive in children. Some are here saying it's the body proportions and size, which is disproven by pedophiles not wanting to date and fuck dwarves and midgets. Some are saying that it's the mental age and innocence and the feeling of taking advantage, which you'd think would make a great case for pedophiles fucking mentally challenged individuals. Doesn't seem to happen though.

Really makes you think.
 
Back