Is drawn child pornography (loli) bad?

[SSj_Ness]

@The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

I've said it before, I'll say it again: There is no scientific link between lolicon/shotacon and actual pedophilia. Watching this stuff doesn't create pedophiles, or make one a pedophile, or increase pedophilic tendencies anymore than watching a slasher film will make one a serial killer. Its fantasy, FICTION, and doesn't reflect real life. People who engage in it are not necessarily pedophiles anymore than a woman who has rape fantasies actually wants to get raped in real life (and many women have rape fantasies; they are actually one of the most common fantasies among women). Pedos are pedos because of something messed up in their heads; maybe its childhood trauma, maybe its brain chemistry, but its much greater than simply watching Boku no Pico one too many times.

How much investigation into this subject has there actually been? Probably very little. The lack of proof doesn't mean there's no link, either. We can reason that there's probably some kind of correlation for the realistic stuff at the very least.

I've already said I think violence and sex are like apples and oranges, comparing them doesn't make for a very compelling argument. I don't think it's a fair comparison, it's a decent point but isn't enough on its own to actually settle this debate.

However, the rape fantasy thing seems more solid, but how can you prove that women with rape fantasies don't actually want to be raped? It'll take more than a survey and hoping for honest answers to convince me that they wouldn't enjoy it, especially if it was someone they'd be attracted to.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

How much investigation into this subject has there actually been? Probably very little. The lack of proof doesn't mean there's no link, either. We can reason that there's probably some kind of correlation for the realistic stuff at the very least.

Arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Without hard scientific proof of causality or even a mild linkage, its basically a dead issue and not worth dwelling on. There have been years of studies on these subjects and no hard proof one way or another.

I've already said I think violence and sex are like apples and oranges, comparing them doesn't make for a very compelling argument. I don't think it's a fair comparison, it's a decent point but isn't enough on its own to actually settle this debate.

I don't believe there's actually that much difference, really. Violence and sex both come from extreme physical and mental states of arousal, and exposure to media that contains one or the other has effects on the brain (studies have shown this; for example, we know that constant exposure to violent media or pornographic media causes desensitization, and playing violent video games can cause momentary periods of increased aggression). But they don't remove morality, or rewire the brain, or change base fundamental personalities. The people who are willing to shoot up a mall were already mentally disturbed and weren't turned disturbed by a movie. Same with porn and raping kids.

However, the rape fantasy thing seems more solid, but how can you prove that women with rape fantasies don't actually want to be raped? It'll take more than a survey and hoping for honest answers to convince me that they wouldn't enjoy it, especially if it was someone they'd be attracted to.

That's a very dangerous line of reasoning to get into. In the same vein that most people jacking it to incest porn wouldn't actually commit incest and would find the idea of doing so repulsive, most people with rape fetishes (whether its fantasizing about being raped, fantasizing about raping, or just enjoying watching others pretend to carry out the act) don't want to act those fantasies out in real life, nor do they ever try to. Those that do practice "consensual non-consent", which still isn't rape per se, but play acting, another form of fantasy. Ultimately, that's what this all is, fantasy.

 

[SSj_Ness]

Arguments without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Without hard scientific proof of causality or even a mild linkage, its basically a dead issue and not worth dwelling on. There have been years of studies on these subjects and no hard proof one way or another.

That's exactly why this is being discussed, if there was hard proof it wouldn't be much of a discussion to be had.

I don't believe there's actually that much difference, really. Violence and sex both come from extreme physical and mental states of arousal, and exposure to media that contains one or the other has effects on the brain (studies have shown this; for example, we know that constant exposure to violent media or pornographic media causes desensitization, and playing violent video games can cause momentary periods of increased aggression). But they don't remove morality, or rewire the brain, or change base fundamental personalities. The people who are willing to shoot up a mall were already mentally disturbed and weren't turned disturbed by a movie. Same with porn and raping kids.

I agree, either someone has it in them or they don't. There is no rewiring, as you said, and that's the idea, that perhaps something already in people draws them to these types of porn.

That's a very dangerous line of reasoning to get into. In the same vein that most people jacking it to incest porn wouldn't actually commit incest and would find the idea of doing so repulsive, most people with rape fetishes (whether its fantasizing about being raped, fantasizing about raping, or just enjoying watching others pretend to carry out the act) don't want to act those fantasies out in real life, nor do they ever try to. Those that do practice "consensual non-consent", which still isn't rape per se, but play acting, another form of fantasy. Ultimately, that's what this all is, fantasy.

But how can you prove these assertions? You saying that someone fapping to incest porn isn't "wouldn't actually commit incest" is no different than someone saying they would.

Incest porn is different anyway though. Fapping to someone else's incest doesn't make you incestual any more than watching lesbian porn makes you homosexual. Sure, someone else's incest or homosexuality can be a turn on for someone because they can observe the act in others without engaging in that same behavior themselves.

When it comes to depictions of underage characters, it's the age the person is attracted to. There's no degree of separation like with the aforementioned types of porn.

I think it's self-evident that someone attracted to realistic, anatomically correct depictions of minors is, well, attracted to minors. It'd be like trying to say you're not a fag if you fap to realistic depictions of dudes. It's not logically sound.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

When it comes to depictions of underage characters, it's the age the person is attracted to. There's no degree of separation like with the aforementioned types of porn.

Except we're talking about cartoon characters, where the cartoony aspect is part of the enjoyment. The aspect you're forgetting is that people watch animation because there are things you can do in animation that would be impossible to do or immoral to do in real life, like stretching orifices beyond human ability or shooting out literal barrels of semen, far more than the human body can produce. The unreality of the situation is part of the turn on.

Most people who fap to tentacle porn don't actually want to see a woman have sex with tentacles in real life, and real life tentacle porn, which is done with animatronics, just looks corny to most people. Getting off to watching someone commit rape in the hentai Please Rape Me, or getting off to the various disgusting acts in other hentai, like Bible Black or Euphoria, doesn't translate to those acts being appealing to a person in real life. It is entirely possible and even common that you find some things only sexy in animation, but unappealing in real life.

There is a certain appeal that only exists in animation that doesn't exist in other forms of porn. That's why many people can't get off to hentai at all, and why the common meme of only being attracted to "2D Girls" exists. The appeal is different there. That's why people who like lolicon aren't necessarily attracted to real life children (and in fact, many despise real life children), and I'm sure there are actual pedos who care nothing for the animated stuff. 2D lolis don't really resemble real life humans except in a superficial way, same with normal anime characters. They are cartoon characters who are designed a certain way that lacks human imperfections. And many loli characters are written in such a way that they act nothing like actual living children will act.

 

[SSj_Ness]

Except we're talking about cartoon characters, where the cartoony aspect is part of the enjoyment. The aspect you're forgetting is that people watch animation because there are things you can do in animation that would be impossible to do or immoral to do in real life, like stretching orifices beyond human ability or shooting out literal barrels of semen, far more than the human body can produce. The unreality of the situation is part of the turn on.

Most people who fap to tentacle porn don't actually want to see a woman have sex with tentacles in real life, and real life tentacle porn, which is done with animatronics, just looks corny to most people. Getting off to watching someone commit rape in the hentai Please Rape Me, or getting off to the various disgusting acts in other hentai, like Bible Black or Euphoria, doesn't translate to those acts being appealing to a person in real life. It is entirely possible and even common that you find some things only sexy in animation, but unappealing in real life.

There is a certain appeal that only exists in animation that doesn't exist in other forms of porn. That's why many people can't get off to hentai at all, and why the common meme of only being attracted to "2D Girls" exists. The appeal is different there. That's why people who like lolicon aren't necessarily attracted to real life children (and in fact, many despise real life children), and I'm sure there are actual pedos who care nothing for the animated stuff. 2D lolis don't really resemble real life humans except in a superficial way, same with normal anime characters. They are cartoon characters who are designed a certain way that lacks human imperfections. And many loli characters are written in such a way that they act nothing like actual living children will act.

That's mostly true. I've said before that some weirdo fapping to something like Meg Griffin or the characters from Panty & Stocking, while still very "sus", is not necessarily an attraction that will carry over in real life.

But realistic depictions do exist and are almost certainly exclusively enjoyed by predators or would-be predators. The average guy fapping to Sailor Moon is not a problem, sure, but if it's realistic there's a problem.

I'm sure somebody out there faps to Power Puff Girls, and through an abundance of caution, if I knew, I'd certainly keep my non-existent children away from him, but it's again different enough.

I don't see how you can disagree with realism being an issue, so assuming you'll relent to that distinction, the question then becomes "how realistic is too realistic?" Let's put Lisa Simpson as a 1 (not really problematic) on a realism scale of 1-10, and photorealistic art as a 10 (basically stuff that should get you on a list). Where's the limit before 10 to you?

 

[Fentanyl Floyd]

All porn is bad

 

[serious n00b]

Pedophiles make me sick

 

[TheBest]

Sexually fantasizing about a child is wrong, picture or real life. To want to sexualize innocence is morally corrupt, and devoid of any warmth.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

The part where the Nonce is attracted to kids is the issue. Their 'outlet' isn't relevant to that; it's the desire that's bad.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

I don't see how you can disagree with realism being an issue, so assuming you'll relent to that distinction, the question then becomes "how realistic is too realistic?" Let's put Lisa Simpson as a 1 (not really problematic) on a realism scale of 1-10, and photorealistic art as a 10 (basically stuff that should get you on a list). Where's the limit before 10 to you?

Realism is a pointless concept to focus on. Real in what way? Realistic anatomy? Realistic proportions? A realistic situation vs. a completely fantasy one (like the infamous 1000 year old loli vampire)? Realism itself isn't much of a measure of anything, nor does it mean anything. Whether the character is photorealistic or not is irrelevant; its a fictional character, and no fictional character is anymore "real" than another. They are all real in that, when they are created, they now exist and are therefore now real. But they aren't real people and drawing the character more or less realistically doesn't actually make it more or less real.

Where I draw the line is a sexualized depiction of an actual child. For example sketching a child's appearance, then using that sketch as a basis to draw them in porn. Or even making a porn of child using a cartoonish depiction of them that only superficially looks like them and isn't all that "realistic", but is still clearly identified as them, like what Shadman did to Dafne Keen. If you don't know, Shad drew porn of X-23, but it wasn't X-23 as depicted in the comics, but X-23 as played by the actual actress Dafne Keen, who was like 13 at the time. If he had drawn porn of the former, nobody would have cared, despite X-23 also being underage in comics. Shad later one-upped himself by drawing porn of a man's actual daughter, which was so far over line, nobody could defend him on it. That's what I'm opposed to. Deep fakes and even written stories involving an actual child, which don't even use images, fall into the same area for me as well.

 

[Zero Day Defense]

However, the rape fantasy thing seems more solid, but how can you prove that women with rape fantasies don't actually want to be raped?

I take it as common wisdom that women with "rape" fetishes don't necessarily want egregious and soul-shattering penis-based damage done to them by a fat bastard, but rather want to be "ravished" by Chad Thundercock in what would legally constitute rape regardless of how they process it.

 

[RadioactiveMonkeyMan]

There's a lot of faggots here comparing slasher movies not making serial killers and loli not making chomos. All I have to say is I watch a lot of horror movies and played a lot of violent games, not once has it given me a hard on.

Can you say the same when you watch loli?
Think about it.

 

[SSj_Ness]

I take it as common wisdom that women with "rape" fetishes don't necessarily want egregious and soul-shattering penis-based damage done to them by a fat bastard, but rather want to be "ravished" by Chad Thundercock in what would legally constitute rape regardless of how they process it.

Pretty much, but the legal threshold for rape is so low now that even consensual sex is essentially rape if it's regretted. Some of them probably do want a step beyond just ravishing, too.

There's a lot of faggots here comparing slasher movies not making serial killers and loli not making chomos. All I have to say is I watch a lot of horror movies and played a lot of violent games, not once has it given me a hard on.

Can you say the same when you watch loli?
Think about it.

Although I don't think it's a great argument either (especially since they try to treat it as a 1:1 comparison despite the inherent differences), nobody is really saying that enjoying fictional violence is sexually gratifying. It's gratifying in other ways, so they think it's the same when it's really not.

 

[SSj_Ness]

Realism is a pointless concept to focus on. Real in what way? Realistic anatomy? Realistic proportions? A realistic situation vs. a completely fantasy one (like the infamous 1000 year old loli vampire)? Realism itself isn't much of a measure of anything, nor does it mean anything. Whether the character is photorealistic or not is irrelevant; its a fictional character, and no fictional character is anymore "real" than another. They are all real in that, when they are created, they now exist and are therefore now real. But they aren't real people and drawing the character more or less realistically doesn't actually make it more or less real.

Where I draw the line is a sexualized depiction of an actual child. For example sketching a child's appearance, then using that sketch as a basis to draw them in porn. Or even making a porn of child using a cartoonish depiction of them that only superficially looks like them and isn't all that "realistic", but is still clearly identified as them, like what Shadman did to Dafne Keen. If you don't know, Shad drew porn of X-23, but it wasn't X-23 as depicted in the comics, but X-23 as played by the actual actress Dafne Keen, who was like 13 at the time. If he had drawn porn of the former, nobody would have cared, despite X-23 also being underage in comics. Shad later one-upped himself by drawing porn of a man's actual daughter, which was so far over line, nobody could defend him on it. That's what I'm opposed to. Deep fakes and even written stories involving an actual child, which don't even use images, fall into the same area for me as well.

You're kidding, right? I'm obviously talking about visuals. Stick figure scribbles VS photorealistic depictions are about as far apart as the east is from the west. Of course it matters, the latter obviously makes someone a pedophile and I'd like to hear your logic on how it doesn't. Don't respond by saying that realistic violence doesn't make people killers, please.

Also, even violence follows this logic; Mario's violence is completely unrealistic, so most people let their kids play it despite this fantasy violence. You won't see a decent parent getting their kid Saw: The Video Game though. No matter what angle or position anyone has on this subject, the degree of realism has to be acknowledged as a significant factor, be the subject violence or sex.

If deepfakes and real accounts of actual abuse are where you draw the line then you're being logically inconsistent. Deepfakes still aren't real, the principle of being mere pixels on a screen still applies. The only difference there would be a legal issue, but as a moral matter they're both bad despite being "fake".

And to be clear, I don't think photorealism is the limit, it's well before that. Even some anime styles are too realistic. Once the art becomes deformed enough it's something I can turn a blind eye to (giant eyes, malformed body, etc).

All porn is bad

Agreed, but some are worse than others.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Of course it matters, the latter obviously makes someone a pedophile and I'd like to hear your logic on how it doesn't.

Not really. It doesn't really matter at all. Whether stick figure or a detailed sketch, or a comic book character, or a manga character, the character is still a "character" and not real. I mean, I don't think anyone is getting off to stick figure sex anyway, but that's really besides the issue. Getting into this discussion is just an argument over which art style is more or less "bad", a highly subjective and pointless discussion, because people who oppose loli don't care how realistic the loli looks, they oppose it on principle, and vice versa.

Of course it matters, the latter obviously makes someone a pedophile and I'd like to hear your logic on how it doesn't.

No that isn't obvious. We've already been over this. There are no studies linking the enjoyment of loli art to pedophilia.

Also, even violence follows this logic; Mario's violence is completely unrealistic, so most people let their kids play it despite this fantasy violence. You won't see a decent parent getting their kid Saw: The Video Game though. No matter what angle or position anyone has on this subject, the degree of realism has to be acknowledged as a significant factor, be the subject violence or sex.

You are talking about children. That's a completely different thing. The discussion of what should and should not be appropriate for children is a completely different subject from what we're talking about. At least in the U.S., the vast majority people believe that any kind of sexual content is not suitable for children, whether its between adults or kids, whether its cartoony or more photorealistic. People oppose adults exposing children to any kind of pornography, not just child pornography, because any kind of porn could be used to groom them. But as I said, its apples to oranges.

If deepfakes and real accounts of actual abuse are where you draw the line then you're being logically inconsistent. Deepfakes still aren't real, the principle of being mere pixels on a screen still applies. The only difference there would be a legal issue, but as a moral matter they're both bad despite being "fake".

I'm not actually being logically inconsistent at all if you just follow my logic. I oppose deep fakes because they require you to use the photographic images of actual children to produce. Its the usage of actual children that's the problem, not the perceived realism of the fake itself. Same with me opposing any kind of written porn that uses a real life child as its subject, whether the incident described is based on a real life incident or entirely fictional. In other words, I oppose anything that involves real life children, which is also the reason I oppose actual child porn; it victimizes real children.

And to be clear, I don't think photorealism is the limit, it's well before that. Even some anime styles are too realistic. Once the art becomes deformed enough it's something I can turn a blind eye to (giant eyes, malformed body, etc).

Well that's personal preference. Everyone has them; even lolicons. Doesn't make what you don't like inherently more dangerous or immoral.

 

[SSj_Ness]

Not really. It doesn't really matter at all. Whether stick figure or a detailed sketch, or a comic book character, or a manga character, the character is still a "character" and not real. I mean, I don't think anyone is getting off to stick figure sex anyway, but that's really besides the issue. Getting into this discussion is just an argument over which art style is more or less "bad", a highly subjective and pointless discussion, because people who oppose loli don't care how realistic the loli looks, they oppose it on principle, and vice versa.

People fap to Minecraft characters, I have zero doubt there's stick figure porn. Nobody is even going to take "Minecraft loli" seriously, saying realism doesn't matter at all is just not true. Show someone any Minecraft porn, no matter how vile, and you'll mostly just get weird looks. I'm sure if you did a study showing Minecraft vs photorealistic or realistic anime images you'd get more extreme reactions of repulsion. Why wouldn't you expect that outcome?

No that isn't obvious. We've already been over this. There are no studies linking the enjoyment of loli art to pedophilia.

The lack of a link doesn't close the book. Prove there's been substantial research and still no link, then maybe you've got a point.

You are talking about children. That's a completely different thing. The discussion of what should and should not be appropriate for children is a completely different subject from what we're talking about. At least in the U.S., the vast majority people believe that any kind of sexual content is not suitable for children, whether its between adults or kids, whether its cartoony or more photorealistic. People oppose adults exposing children to any kind of pornography, not just child pornography, because any kind of porn could be used to groom them. But as I said, its apples to oranges.

I'm just using that as an example to prove to you that degrees exist and are perceived by people. Many people let their kids watch stuff like Titanic or other movies with sex scenes that aren't gratuitous; I saw it in theaters and there were plenty of other kids there too. No parent is going to take little Timmy to see Cum Guzzlers 8: The Drowning, though. This is because we have common sense and can distinguish between degrees.

I'm not actually being logically inconsistent at all if you just follow my logic. I oppose deep fakes because they require you to use the photographic images of actual children to produce. Its the usage of actual children that's the problem, not the perceived realism of the fake itself. Same with me opposing any kind of written porn that uses a real life child as its subject, whether the incident described is based on a real life incident or entirely fictional. In other words, I oppose anything that involves real life children, which is also the reason I oppose actual child porn; it victimizes real children.

At least you're against victimizing actual people... But it doesn't change the fact that if the art is photorealistic then it's catering to who exactly? Fill in the blank there. What kind of person...? Gerontophiles, perhaps?

Well that's personal preference. Everyone has them; even lolicons. Doesn't make what you don't like inherently more dangerous or immoral.

If someone likes anything which is recognizably human and even semi-realistic, that's definitely more immoral. Maybe not more dangerous, but definitely more fucked up. Just admit it, it repulses people because it just isn't right.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

People fap to Minecraft characters, I have zero doubt there's stick figure porn. Nobody is even going to take "Minecraft loli" seriously, saying realism doesn't matter at all is just not true. Show someone any Minecraft porn, no matter how vile, and you'll mostly just get weird looks. I'm sure if you did a study showing Minecraft vs photorealistic or realistic anime images you'd get more extreme reactions of repulsion. Why wouldn't you expect that outcome?

Yeah, I'm sure there is some small amount weirdos that fap to stick figure porn. But hey, we really aren't talking about them. As for people's reactions to Minecraft vs. "photorealistic" or "realistic anime", yeah I'm sure you'd get more extreme responses (not just repulsion; probably sexual excitement as well) from people if you showed them an SFM porn vs. a Minecraft porn. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. The Minecraft characters are literally just blocks, barely registering as humanoid, let alone human. SFM porn features actual human looking 3D characters. That's not some great revelation; if you get off to Minecraft porn, people will just think your a weirdo or make fun of you. If you get off to SFM, the other person may not be in to it, but they'll probably just leave it at that, since they can see why someone would find those more realistic character models appealing.

The lack of a link doesn't close the book. Prove there's been substantial research and still no link, then maybe you've got a point.

I'm not going to do your work for you. You believe there's a link? Find a study to prove that. The ball is in your court because you made the initial assertion, so its your claim to prove, not mine to disprove.

I'm just using that as an example to prove to you that degrees exist and are perceived by people. Many people let their kids watch stuff like Titanic or other movies with sex scenes that aren't gratuitous; I saw it in theaters and there were plenty of other kids there too. No parent is going to take little Timmy to see Cum Guzzlers 8: The Drowning, though. This is because we have common sense and can distinguish between degrees.

Once again, no shit, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. We are talking about adults enjoying certain types of porn, not what children should or should not be exposed to. Talking about this is completely off topic and gets us nowhere.

At least you're against victimizing actual people... But it doesn't change the fact that if the art is photorealistic then it's catering to who exactly? Fill in the blank there. What kind of person...? Gerontophiles, perhaps?

Why are you obsessed with this photorealism argument? The topic is "Is Loli bad?" Nobody is going to split hairs over degrees of realism one way or another. My stance is logically consistent, easy to grasp and articulate, and easy enough to defend morally: anything involving real life children is off limits, period; other than that, you do you as long as you hurt no one. Your stance is confusing, all over the place, and highly subjective, making it unworkable as a stance to start from. When is something too photorealistic? People can disagree all day about that. Most people won't bother; they'll just say that loli is inherently immoral, or they'll say its just art and people should leave it alone.

If someone likes anything which is recognizably human and even semi-realistic, that's definitely more immoral. Maybe not more dangerous, but definitely more fucked up. Just admit it, it repulses people because it just isn't right.

Once again, your personal opinion. Clearly everyone will not share that stance.

 

[SSj_Ness]

Yeah, I'm sure there is some small amount weirdos that fap to stick figure porn. But hey, we really aren't talking about them. As for people's reactions to Minecraft vs. "photorealistic" or "realistic anime", yeah I'm sure you'd get more extreme responses (not just repulsion; probably sexual excitement as well) from people if you showed them an SFM porn vs. a Minecraft porn. What does that prove? Absolutely nothing. The Minecraft characters are literally just blocks, barely registering as humanoid, let alone human. SFM porn features actual human looking 3D characters. That's not some great revelation; if you get off to Minecraft porn, people will just think your a weirdo or make fun of you. If you get off to SFM, the other person may not be in to it, but they'll probably just leave it at that, since they can see why someone would find those more realistic character models appealing.

Nothing I said is meant to be a great revelation. I deal in common sense, and it dictates that people will be repulsed by anything which clearly resembles an actual human child. Should they not be?

I'm not going to do your work for you. You believe there's a link? Find a study to prove that. The ball is in your court because you made the initial assertion, so its your claim to prove, not mine to disprove.

You claimed there's been "tons of research", so prove that. You brought that up.

Once again, no shit, but that has nothing to do with what we are talking about here. We are talking about adults enjoying certain types of porn, not what children should or should not be exposed to. Talking about this is completely off topic and gets us nowhere.

You can't make it true that it has nothing to do with what we're talking about just by asserting it. We're talking about the moral acceptability of what you're defending, and I'm merely illustrating the lowest degrees of sex and violence; PG sex scenes and fantasy violence. It's for contrast, to show just how far off the deep end what you're supporting is.

Why are you obsessed with this photorealism argument? The topic is "Is Loli bad?" Nobody is going to split hairs over degrees of realism one way or another. My stance is logically consistent, easy to grasp and articulate, and easy enough to defend morally: anything involving real life children is off limits, period; other than that, you do you as long as you hurt no one. Your stance is confusing, all over the place, and highly subjective, making it unworkable as a stance to start from. When is something too photorealistic? People can disagree all day about that. Most people won't bother; they'll just say that loli is inherently immoral, or they'll say its just art and people should leave it alone.

I made it clear I wasn't just honing in on photorealism, read my posts. I condemn more than that, it's just that is the worst porn of its type.

As for your "stance", you're trying to make it black and white like an autist, but there's nuance. Sorry that nuance hurts your brain. Nobody really gives a fuck if you fap to Sailor Moon, but it's disturbing to allow more realistic shit. Get that through your fucking skull.

Once again, your personal opinion. Clearly everyone will not share that stance.

It's technically an opinion I guess, but the vast majority of people agree that it's more immoral. Not everyone needs to share that stance for it to be true.

 

[Johan Schmidt]

The idea that there isn't a 'link' between beating off to images of what are clearly children, and wanting to fuck children is so laughable that it's nearly parody. If you whack it to lolicon then you're a pedo. You can argue all you want, you're still a pedo; just a closeted one.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Nothing I said is meant to be a great revelation. I deal in common sense, and it dictates that people will be repulsed by anything which clearly resembles an actual human child. Should they not be?

Should people be repulsed by a cartoon character? People can be repulsed by cartoon characters doing certain things. I'm repulsed by guro. Some people get off to the stuff. It ain't for me, but I don't care if people get off to it. "Should" is too strong a word. Remember, we are talking about animated characters, not real children. Your personal levels of squick at certain animation are personal. Not everybody will be repulsed by it, or repulsed strongly. Different strokes for different folks.

You claimed there's been "tons of research", so prove that. You brought that up.

Claims made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, sir. That's how it works. You claimed that there was some kind connection between enjoying lolicon and being a pedophile. I said there wasn't an ounce of scientific data to prove that. Ergo, the onus is on you to prove the positive, that there is data supporting your initial assertion, not on me to prove the negative. So put up or shut up.

You can't make it true that it has nothing to do with what we're talking about just by asserting it. We're talking about the moral acceptability of what you're defending, and I'm merely illustrating the lowest degrees of sex and violence; PG sex scenes and fantasy violence. It's for contrast, to show just how far off the deep end what you're supporting is.

No you keep going off into the weeds on a tangent that is not at all related to what we are talking about and is a whole other discussion topic. You can keep trying to go there, but I'm not going there with you.

I made it clear I wasn't just honing in on photorealism, read my posts. I condemn more than that, it's just that is the worst porn of its type.

As for your "stance", you're trying to make it black and white like an autist, but there's nuance. Sorry that nuance hurts your brain. Nobody really gives a fuck if you fap to Sailor Moon, but it's disturbing to allow more realistic shit. Get that through your fucking skull.

I don't know if you are even aware of what you're trying to argue anymore. What is your point. You've made photorealism the main buttress of your argument, not me. Your stance isn't nuanced in the slightest, its just confusing. Are you okay with certain types of lolicon if it doesn't cross some magical threshold of realism to you? What even is your point here? I didn't make anything black and white here; I explained my stance. You've failed to articulate a consistent one. In fact, your the one operating a black and white mindset, as you seem to consider anyone who enjoys that particular type of lolicon you don't like, even though you haven't specifically defined it, to be a child rapist in hiding, despite offering no evidence to illustrate that.

It's technically an opinion I guess, but the vast majority of people agree that it's more immoral. Not everyone needs to share that stance for it to be true.

First off all, citation needed on the "vast majority". For all we know, the vast majority don't care one way or another. And that final statement is confusing. For something to be true, it has to be factually and demonstrably evident. Moral stances don't real exist in the realm of absolute truth for most people. Many people find pornography in general to be immoral. Obviously, the majority of society today no longer do, or are at least indifferent to it. And even among people who find it immoral or sinful, they may accept that whether or not people should or should not enjoy pornography is a choice for each individual to make, and they don't support measures like banning it. If your Christian, like I am, you may subscribe to certain things as being moral truths; adultery is wrong, extramarital fornication is wrong, porn is wrong. But you also accept that whether or not people engage in these things is completely up to them, and legal and cultural censure should be left for things that directly hurt others, like murder, theft, fraud, rape, etc. That's generally my viewpoint. Where there is nuance is in how we approach the things we find "sinful". Should porn be more tightly regulated? Moral minds will differ in their stance. In that there is nuance. But trying to claim absolute truth in something like this will not strengthen a moral argument in this day and age.