Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[Cheetahman]

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.

What if it's both and we just haven't done enough studies on exceptional midget fucking?

 

[TerribleIdeas™]

What if it's both and we just haven't done enough studies on exceptional midget fucking?

Sounds like your willing to fucking midget niggers and downies. Hup-to, and godspeed, my son.

 

[Secret Asshole]

"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"



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.

Pedos want both, which is why they don't have sex with the disabled. Unless they're children. Its why the find neither attractive.

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.

Pedophilia is a pathological sexual desire. It is not going to go away. You can't just pray it away. It will come up and pedophiles will find things to fuel it that are completely asexual to a normal human being. Even without this content, their fantasies will build until they inevitably offend. At worst, this material does nothing. At best, it allows for buffer years when pedophiles aren't harming children. They'll never actually seek help, its just providing a delay. Since 99% of pedophiles don't view their attraction as wrong, and when they do its usually to their benefit. Pedophiles who recognize themselves as dangers to children and voluntarily remove themselves, get chemically castrated or take measures before offending are exceedingly rare.

No, you're wrong. Engaging in loli and shota content is engaging in fictional characters. You're not harming anyone. I know its hard to believe, but non-pedophiles are more likely to consume this content than pedophiles. Don't get me wrong, it doesn't mean pedos don't consume this. They obviously do. But they're always going to want more. It also makes engaging this issue difficult because pedophiles want to make sure everyone is like them in this compulsive need to shunt the blame onto someone else, anyone else. Or everyone else.

 

[Non-Expert!]

"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"



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.

What makes me go hmmm ....

Is that there is a surfeit of research subjects out there, but anybody with this issue incriminates himself by discussing it.

You can have collections of essays and blogs on why people enjoy getting it on with plastic objects, dressing their partners up as horses and fucking them in the ass, why men want to be women, why women want to be men, why some guys find dirty 10 gallon panties titillating, why some women get off when spanked ...

The essays and memoirs can go into tremendous detail.

I know that the desire is strong in people but there are comparatively few "tell-all" confessions of pedos. If there are such a thing, doing a search for them can put the guy running the search query on the radar.

I guess what I am saying, is that the answer to the question of what drives pedophiles should be neither esoteric, complex, nor obscure.

 

[Secret Asshole]

What makes me go hmmm ....

Is that there is a surfeit of research subjects out there, but anybody with this issue incriminates himself by discussing it.

You can have collections of essays and blogs on why people enjoy getting it on with plastic objects, dressing their partners up as horses and fucking them in the ass, why men want to be women, why women want to be men, why some guys find dirty 10 gallon panties titillating, why some women get off when spanked ...

The essays and memoirs can go into tremendous detail.

I know that the desire is strong in people but there are comparatively few "tell-all" confessions of pedos. If there are such a thing, doing a search for them can put the guy running the search query on the radar.

I guess what I am saying, is that the answer to the question of what drives pedophiles should be neither esoteric, complex, nor obscure.

The problem is you cannot trust a pedophile. Whatever they say is immediately suspect. They will tell you pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a sexual choice. That everyone is a pedophile at heart. That everyone who looks at loli/shota is a pedophile. Anyone who likes petite women is a pedophile. Anyone who likes young (legal) women is a pedophile. Anyone who likes short women is a pedophile. You name it, they'll try to manipulate and convince you of it. They're extraordinarily untrustworthy to a sociopathic degree in that its almost part of the pathology.

For example, pedophiles will interpret non-sexual behavior in children as sexual. They will frequently make up 'cues' that children make only towards them, indicating that they were consenting. So you can ask them. Whether its a believable answer or not, well, that's another matter entirely.

 

[Non-Expert!]

The problem is you cannot trust a pedophile. Whatever they say is immediately suspect. They will tell you pedophilia is a sexual orientation, not a sexual choice. That everyone is a pedophile at heart. That everyone who looks at loli/shota is a pedophile. Anyone who likes petite women is a pedophile. Anyone who likes young (legal) women is a pedophile. Anyone who likes short women is a pedophile. You name it, they'll try to manipulate and convince you of it. They're extraordinarily untrustworthy to a sociopathic degree in that its almost part of the pathology.

For example, pedophiles will interpret non-sexual behavior in children as sexual. They will frequently make up 'cues' that children make only towards them, indicating that they were consenting. So you can ask them. Whether its a believable answer or not, well, that's another matter entirely.

I get your point.

They have sexual urges that are necessarily illegal.

It would be the same thing with a thief or a forger.

Would you trust a thief to house-sit for you? Would you trust a person who forges checks, with your bank account information?

They might might make elaborate arguments that governments steal, the exploitation of third world labor is theft ...

But at the end of the day they are full of shit, and they will rob you blind. And they know how to game the system and what they can get away with.

 

[Pizza Time]

'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.

What is your opinion on those who say loli/shota should be banned because it can be used to groom minors or normalize actual pedophilia?

 

[Secret Asshole]

What is your opinion on those who say loli/shota should be banned because it can be used to groom minors or normalize actual pedophilia?

Facebook is probably the number 1 grooming device towards minors. So is any basic social media application. Average, everyday pornography is used more to groom. Basically grooming is done through social media, more often than not uses words not imagery because its very simple to spot your kid looking at an obscene image rather than a text. So grooming? Nah. No way.

Pedophilia is not going to ever be normalized either. That's like saying rape is going to be normalized because of rape fetishes, which are actually more common than people think. Same thing with age-play fetishes, even if that shit is disgusting. Normalization of extreme behaviors is difficult, and normalization will never occur, only terror inspired by 'tolerance'. What I mean by that is getting fired for criticizing some predatory tranny reading LGBT stories to children without underwear or having a speaker who is all but a card carrying member of NAMBLA saying that boy on Spartan action was healthy and normal. Normalization of pornography only occurred because we're intensely sexual and we want to look. Normalization of fetishes pretty much won't happen because they're fetishes. Don't care what people say.

Pedophiles are far more likely to try and normalize their behavior through the LGBT movement rather than what basically amounts to a fetish where people won't have their shit.

 

[L50LasPak]

Short verison is, if we made this shit illegal we'd have even more traumatized FBI spooks and a huge manpower burden hunting it all down. So for now, we have to let it go to hunt the real stuff down.

 

[Non-Expert!]

What is your opinion on those who say loli/shota should be banned because it can be used to groom minors or normalize actual pedophilia?

Not that you asked me, but the UN has its own opinion on this.

But there actually IS a scale that helps distinguish medical pictures, from kiddie erotica:

COPINE scale - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So none of this is as subjective as we may think.

 

[Pizza Time]

Not that you asked me, but the UN has its own opinion on this.

Oh, I do remember reading about that when it came up earlier this year. As I recall, didn't several UN members including the US and Japan oppose it based on freedom of expression among other things? I don't remember ever seeing what came of that.

 

[Non-Expert!]

Oh, I do remember reading about that when it came up earlier this year. As I recall, didn't several UN members including the US and Japan oppose it based on freedom of expression among other things? I don't remember ever seeing what came of that.

I don't know. But our freedoms of expression are not unconstrained.

Invented example: Imagine I am entering the third annual "can mommy draw?" contest at my son's elementary school. I take colored pencils and illustrate a pictures of a boy and girl in suggestive poses, and slip it in my son's backpack to take to his teacher. How about a fantasy image of a flying dragon, with a fairy-like nymph, covered with clothes but straddling the dragon with her bare thighs, hanging on?

Sure ... I could say "but it is just two kids frolicking in a meadow, unsupervised." "It is a nymph and a dragon."

Am I breaking a law or just a taboo? Will the school accept my entry?

Where is this going to go?

 

[Secret Asshole]

I don't know. But our freedoms of expression are not unconstrained.

Invented example: Imagine I am entering the third annual "can mommy draw?" contest at my son's elementary school. I take colored pencils and illustrate a pictures of a boy and girl in suggestive poses, and slip it in my son's backpack to take to his teacher. How about a fantasy image of a flying dragon, with a fairy-like nymph, covered with clothes but straddling the dragon with her bare thighs, hanging on?

Sure ... I could say "but it is just two kids frolicking in a meadow, unsupervised." "It is a nymph and a dragon."

Am I breaking a law or just a taboo? Will the school accept my entry?

Where is this going to go?

You're either a pedo or trying to start shit. Nobody who consumes this in private would approve of this. Its like teaching kids to pole dance.

Oh, I do remember reading about that when it came up earlier this year. As I recall, didn't several UN members including the US and Japan oppose it based on freedom of expression among other things? I don't remember ever seeing what came of that.

Japan and the US told the UN to fuck off. Both have constantly told the UN to fuck off. Basically the US said, 'We're following our own laws, IE: National Sovereignty, Freedom of Speech, fuck off.' Japan: 'They're just drawings gaijin, shut up faggot'. So the UN is not going to do anything. The UN also actively has a peacekeeping force comprised of pedophiles, so nobody is going to listen to them on anything regarding children.

The UN is widely regarded as a joke and nobody to my knowledge treats them seriously excepting Eurotrash and 3rd world shitholes.

Short verison is, if we made this shit illegal we'd have even more traumatized FBI spooks and a huge manpower burden hunting it all down. So for now, we have to let it go to hunt the real stuff down.

The FBI analysts who have to catalog this shit would rather look at 100,000 loli dojins than see one image of child pornography. I'm sure they'd rather look at fictional drawings where no one was harmed than put together a database of child abuse pictures where they were forced to fuck animals at gunpoint and have visible track marks and scars from abuse. Frankly, cataloging this would be a blessing to the analysts and probably save the FBI from burn out because they're just basically cataloging obscenity.

Nobody bothers doing this because the content is federally legal, it harms no one, and it wastes resources from actual child pornography which does actual harm and enriches criminal organizations.

 

[Non-Expert!]

You're either a pedo or trying to start shit. Nobody who consumes this in private would approve of this. Its like teaching kids to pole dance.

Japan and the US told the UN to fuck off. Both have constantly told the UN to fuck off. Basically the US said, 'We're following our own laws, IE: National Sovereignty, Freedom of Speech, fuck off.' Japan: 'They're just drawings gaijin, shut up faggot'. So the UN is not going to do anything.

...

The UN is widely regarded as a joke and nobody to my knowledge treats them seriously excepting Eurotrash and 3rd world shitholes.

The FBI analysts who have to catalog this shit would rather look at 100,000 loli dojins than see one image of child pornography. I'm sure they'd rather look at fictional drawings where no one was harmed than put together a database of child abuse pictures where they were forced to fuck animals at gunpoint and have visible ...

FYI, I am no Pedo, hun. Sorry to disappoint.

My question was basically rhetorical in nature. Why are we protecting freedoms of expression in the domain of illustrating children, if that same type of image would not be acceptable at the local elementary school?

 

[Secret Asshole]

FYI, I am no Pedo, hun. Sorry to disappoint.

My question was basically rhetorical in nature. Why are we protecting freedoms of expression in the domain of illustrating children, if that same type of image would not be acceptable at the local elementary school?

I mean I wasn't saying you specifically are a pedo, just the person who would do that would be a pedo. Possibly.

I mean, rated R movies wouldn't be acceptable at an elementary school. Neither would be prominent displays of BDSM imagery. Expression that we allow is not always appropriate for children.

Loli/shota shouldn't be given to kids just like regular old hentai shouldn't be given to children. Just because they're images of children doesn't mean they're for children.

 

[Non-Expert!]

I mean I wasn't saying you specifically are a pedo, just the person who would do that would be a pedo. Possibly.

I mean, rated R movies wouldn't be acceptable at an elementary school. Neither would be prominent displays of BDSM imagery. Expression that we allow is not always appropriate for children.

Loli/shota shouldn't be given to kids just like regular old hentai shouldn't be given to children. Just because they're images of children doesn't mean they're for children.

Well if they are images of kids doing stuff that kids are not supposed to do, then the target audience is child fetishists ...

So why are we rooting for this team?

 

[Secret Asshole]

Well if they are images of kids doing stuff that kids are not supposed to do, then the target audience is child fetishists ...

So why are we rooting for this team?

You can put it whatever way you like, they're drawings and even if its hard to wrap your mind around, they're not pedophiles until they start fetishizing living children and looking up child pornography. Feel free to say they are. I don't consider anyone a pedophile until they start fantasizing about children who exist.

Also we're not. Its not about rooting for anyone. Its about giving a government more power over what is essentially nothing. You never give a government power, certainly not at the cost of free and over what is basically a big ball of nothing. Freedom of Speech is a chain, and its only as strong as its weakest link. I'm not about to break that chain over something harmless that some people find morally objectionable. Same as with porn.

 

[Non-Expert!]

You can put it whatever way you like, they're drawings and even if its hard to wrap your mind around, they're not pedophiles until they start fetishizing living children and looking up child pornography. Feel free to say they are. I don't consider anyone a pedophile until they start fantasizing about children who exist.

Also we're not. Its not about rooting for anyone. Its about giving a government more power over what is essentially nothing. You never give a government power, certainly not at the cost of free and over what is basically a big ball of nothing. Freedom of Speech is a chain, and its only as strong as its weakest link. I'm not about to break that chain over something harmless that some people find morally objectionable. Same as with porn.

Ok, got it.

 

[L50LasPak]

The FBI analysts who have to catalog this shit would rather look at 100,000 loli dojins than see one image of child pornography. I'm sure they'd rather look at fictional drawings where no one was harmed than put together a database of child abuse pictures where they were forced to fuck animals at gunpoint and have visible track marks and scars from abuse. Frankly, cataloging this would be a blessing to the analysts and probably save the FBI from burn out because they're just basically cataloging obscenity.

Nobody bothers doing this because the content is federally legal, it harms no one, and it wastes resources from actual child pornography which does actual harm and enriches criminal organizations.

I suppose you're right about the first part, though I'm confused as to why you simply restated my second point instead of just saying something more succicinct like "I agree on the second part though."

 

[Secret Asshole]

I suppose you're right about the first part, though I'm confused as to why you simply restated my second point instead of just saying something more succicinct like "I agree on the second part though."

Because I'm a long winded asshole basically