Is drawn child pornography (loli) bad?

Is OP a pedophile?

  • yes

    Votes: 730 74.8%
  • no

    Votes: 151 15.5%
  • it should be regulated, not outright banned

    Votes: 95 9.7%

  • Total voters
    976

Pimpleking55

Devout Degenerate.
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 20, 2021
Look at those vile creatures, temping you, enticing you...LOOK AT THEM!!!, satans horde dragging you to hell right here.
1636191521863.jpg

I shall study this example very thorough to determine its evilness.....😭
 

SSj_Ness

Time to rape organized crime
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
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.
Moral relativism isn't a good position to hinge your argument on. By that "different strokes" mentality one could easily say that your previously mentioned limits like deepfakes or stories are just for "different folks". Who are you to say anything is wrong or that there should be any limits then?

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.
I believe you made that claim before I addressed you in particular, either as a general post or to someone else. So I'm asking you to make good on a public claim you've made on this subject, in this very thread, before we even engaged. That's not an outlandish request.

Noyou 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.
Then let's clear this up. I'm discussing this from the perspective of morality, not legality. Not everything legal is moral, and I'm asserting that certain types and styles of porn are well beyond the pale.

Your position seem to be that nothing except what's probably illegal is beyond the pale. I'd simply like you to justify its existence beyond "different strokes", and also explain how it doesn't appeal to pedophiles. I mean, gerontophiles aren't the target audience are they?

Let's discuss this logically. If a gerontophile is attracted to Genkai (Yu Yu Hakusho hentai), then who would be attracted to Pan (Dragon Ball Super hentai)? Simple questions, direct logic.

I don't know if you are even aware of what you're trying to argue anymore.
I feel I've been clear but I'll state my position again.

I'm against porn in general but acknowledge the reality that there's different degrees of degeneracy and that there needs to be a limit to what's tolerated in society. Your limit is literal deepfakes of actual people, so stuff that's basically illegal anyway. I disagree with your limit and think you need to do a better job justifying it.

It's not confusing at all. Your limit is too far. That's it.

What is your point. You've made photorealism the main buttress of your argument, not me.
I did not. I also stated that certain realistic anime styles are virtually just as bad. Like I said, most people don't care if you fap to Sailor Moon with her lanky legs, triangle head, and Martian eyes. She's 14 but looks ambiguously aged and anatomically distinct enough from actual humans with her exaggerated features and biological inaccuracies.

However, anything realistic will be disturbing to normal, decent people. You can claim realism doesn't matter until you're blue in the face, it won't be any more true.

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?
Again, nothing confusing, I explained what I can turn a blind eye to. See above. And it's not magical, it's a logical limit. You haven't once tried justifying your position beyond "everything up to and including photorealistic art is okay because it's fictional". Well no shit it's fictional, but it doesn't make it acceptable.

I didn't make anything black and white here; I explained my stance.
Yeah, it was very black and white. If it's not illegal (making porn out of pictures of actual people) then it gets a greenlight from you. That's as black and white as it gets. Everything from literal stick figure up to photorealistic art is all on the table according to you, there's a total lack of any reasonableness in that stance, zero nuance. EVERYTHING is okay to you but it's not.

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.
First of all, I don't like any kind. I don't even approve of porn in general, let alone this stuff. Not to say I've never looked at porn, I just acknowledge it's wrong, just as I've stolen before and know it's wrong.

Second, that's a lie; I've never once accused anyone of being rapists, I've assigned no actionable intent to anyone. I've merely logically concluded that anyone attracted to depictions of what closely resembles actual human children is, unsurprisingly, a pedophile. No different from how someone attracted to old people is a gerontophile, except much more sick. How you can deny this is baffling.

First off all, citation needed on the "vast majority".
I'm still waiting on that research you claimed existed.

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.
No, some truths are held as self-evident. We don't need everything scientifically demonstrated. Some things are philosophically true, things which can't be measured. Murder is wrong whether you can prove it or not, and any civilized, decent society will agree. So, too, I believe, do those same societies agree that realistic sexual depictions of minors is wrong. If you want science to lead you to moral conclusions you'll be sorely disappointed!

Moral stances don't real exist in the realm of absolute truth for most people.
Murder, rape, theft, and pedophilia are moral stances virtually universally considered to be wrong, it's interchangeable with absolute truth.

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.
Maybe most liberals don't consider it morally wrong but most conservatives do. That's about half of the country.

I don't support banning it per se, but wouldn't mourn its loss. I think it'd improve society, one less vice can only be a net gain.

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.
Yes, I am also a Christian. But I never use religious arguments as the basis of my positions. I think even without religion a lot of these moral truths are self-evident. I'd be making this same argument even as an Atheist.

I don't agree that "legal and cultural censure should be left for things that directly hurt others". If we want a moral society we need boundaries beyond what merely directly affects other people. Nobody should want a society subjected to open pedophiles, animal torturers, Satanists, and all manner of wickedness merely because it doesn't cause direct harm.

The only fear I have in banning or censoring things is the slippery slope, and knowing liberals are in power, it's definitely not something I can advocate for now. If lunatic liberals held no sway, then I'd honestly be fine banning immoral shit left and right.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
@SSj_Ness For whatever reason I can't directly quote you, so I'll talk in general terms and quote you manually.

I've never spoken or even directly alluded to the law or legality in any of my posts except to specifically answer that one guy regarding the chances of someone actually getting arrested over loli. I've not been dealing with this from a legal perspective at all.

Your position seem to be that nothing except what's probably illegal is beyond the pale.

No that's not my position, and its seems that you've somehow failed to grasp my position even though I've been very clear on it. Every thing that involves real children is beyond the pale for me, whether its illegal or not. Legality does not enter into the equation. Its the inclusion of real children that makes it wrong for me.

Moral relativism isn't a good position to hinge your argument on. By that "different strokes" mentality one could easily say that your previously mentioned limits like deepfakes or stories are just for "different folks".

I'm not hinging my argument on moral relativism. I'm acknowledging the fact that we are talking about fictional cartoon characters, and thus any standard we can place upon them will constantly find itself at odds with other issues, like freedom of speech, and with the fact that nobody really cares if someone jacks it to fictional characters. Let me make this clear; my argument does not cover people doing things involving real children. We are talking about drawings and must simply acknowledge that fact. I don't actually believe in moral relativism myself.

I believe you made that claim before I addressed you in particular, either as a general post or to someone else. So I'm asking you to make good on a public claim you've made on this subject, in this very thread, before we even engaged. That's not an outlandish request.

My response has always been a direct rebuttal to anyone making the claim of a connection between artwork and pedophilia. My response is, at its basic "You have no evidence to back up your assertions and there is none as far as I'm aware. Therefore I will immediately discount everything you say." You want to assert there is evidence? Then produce it. You can't prove a negative, in same way you can't prove that someone is not guilty of a crime. You can prove them guilty. You think there's evidence? Go find it, then get back to me. If there is, it shouldn't be hard to find. That's the last I will say on the matter; if you don't produce anything, I will assume it doesn't exist. Maybe there is some European study done in Denmark or something that proves there's a link, but I'm not looking for it because its not my point to prove, its yours.

Then let's clear this up. I'm discussing this from the perspective of morality, not legality. Not everything legal is moral, and I'm asserting that certain types and styles of porn are well beyond the pale.

Once again, I've never brought legality or the law into this discussion except in response to another poster's post. None of my discussion with you has even mentioned the legality of lolicon nor used its legality as point of argumentation. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth and bringing up things we didn't talk about?

I'd simply like you to justify its existence beyond "different strokes", and also explain how it doesn't appeal to pedophiles. I mean, gerontophiles aren't the target audience are they?

I don't need to justify anything's existence. Art exists for itself. You don't justify art. Lolicon appeals to those who like lolicon; those people maybe pedophiles, they may not be. Doesn't matter to the artist or in regards to the art itself. A lot of people get off to rape scenes in movies. They may or may not be people who actually want to rape someone in real life. Whether or not they do is not a reflection of the film or the film maker.

Let's discuss this logically. If a gerontophile is attracted to Genkai (Yu Yu Hakusho hentai), then who would be attracted to Pan (Dragon Ball Super hentai)? Simple questions, direct logic.

Your logic is flawed. A person can be attracted to Genkai and not be a gerontophile. A person can be attracted to any human in Yu Yu Hakusho, who are all Japanese, and not, say, have a race fetish for Japanese people. Just because this one person who is attracted to Genkai is a gerontophile, doesn't mean everyone who is attracted to her is. An old man can be attracted to Genkai, because he's her age group, and not be a gerontophile. Same with Pan. Or Sailor Moon, or any number of other anime girls who are underage.

I'm against porn in general but acknowledge the reality that there's different degrees of degeneracy and that there needs to be a limit to what's tolerated in society. Your limit is literal deepfakes of actual people, so stuff that's basically illegal anyway. I disagree with your limit and think you need to do a better job justifying it.

It's not confusing at all. Your limit is too far. That's it.

Once again, you misunderstand my actual stance, but I'm repeating myself. So you say there should be limit to what is tolerated in society, but have actually failed to coherently argue what that limit is, why it should be imposed, or why your perceived limit is some standard you expect everyone else should live by. My limit is anything that involves real children, because that would obviously require victimizing an actual child. Legality has nothing to do with it. I don't need to justify that limit to anyone, you included. But I think that is a limit almost everyone except actual pedophiles would agree with.

And it's not magical, it's a logical limit. You haven't once tried justifying your position beyond "everything up to and including photorealistic art is okay because it's fictional". Well no shit it's fictional, but it doesn't make it acceptable.

No its not a logical limit. You haven't actually expressed what your limit is. That's what I'm telling you. And what you personally find acceptable is irrelevant here. That is your personal opinion, and opinions are like assholes; we all have them. You may find it unacceptable. Other people won't. Your standard is no more objective than anyone else's. My standard is based on the most basic idea that is acceptable in our modern society; victimizing children is wrong. Maybe you want to argue that that standard is also subjective. Maybe your right. There was a time when things like child prostitution were considered acceptable in society, and its commonly practiced illegally in many places today, but if we must establish a moral, ethical, or legal standard, this is one standard that most of society will agree upon.

Yeah, it was very black and white. If it's not illegal (making porn out of pictures of actual people) then it gets a greenlight from you. That's as black and white as it gets. Everything from literal stick figure up to photorealistic art is all on the table according to you, there's a total lack of any reasonableness in that stance, zero nuance. EVERYTHING is okay to you but it's not.

Clearly everything IS NOT okay with me if I oppose things like deep fakes. And my stance is actually quite nuanced. It accepts that artwork is a matter of self-expression and that no one an put an objective standard on art. My stance also does not demand you accept lolicon or give it your personal stamp of approval. It merely says that it has a right to exist as art and everyone should live and let live. Nothing gets a personal "green light" from me. I merely accept that it exists and acknowledge that no one is being harmed by it. That's actually a fairly nuanced take, and there is nothing unreasonable about. Your "my way or the highway" approach is what is unreasonable.

I'm still waiting on that research you claimed existed.

Once again, I never claimed any research existed. I stated there was a dearth of research proving your claim. I'm arguing that there is no research that proves the point. Also, weak rebuttal.

Second, that's a lie; I've never once accused anyone of being rapists, I've assigned no actionable intent to anyone. I've merely logically concluded that anyone attracted to depictions of what closely resembles actual human children is, unsurprisingly, a pedophile. No different from how someone attracted to old people is a gerontophile, except much more sick. How you can deny this is baffling.

Sophistry. You've all but said that you consider anyone who looks at the type of loli you dislike to basically be a pedophile. Unless you are one those who likes to scream "NoT aLL PeDOs Are RAPists", we both know what I meant.

No, some truths are held as self-evident. We don't need everything scientifically demonstrated. Some things are philosophically true, things which can't be measured. Murder is wrong whether you can prove it or not, and any civilized, decent society will agree. So, too, I believe, do those same societies agree that realistic sexual depictions of minors is wrong. If you want science to lead you to moral conclusions you'll be sorely disappointed!

I'm amazed you can make this claim when we've had many societies where having sex with children was widespread and perfectly legal, including Ancient Greece and pre-Modern Japan. Some things aren't "self-evident" unless you are looking only through a very narrow scope of history that includes only everything from the 20th Century on. As late as the 19th Century, child marriage and child prostitution were perfectly acceptable in Europe and the British Isles, and the age of consent was either non-existent or, in later years, pitifully low.

Murder, rape, theft, and pedophilia are moral stances virtually universally considered to be wrong, it's interchangeable with absolute truth.

You may WANT to think that, but in many Muslim societies right now, marrying children is perfectly legal, there are academics arguing for pedophilia to be decriminalized and this has been going on for over a century, there is a controversial trial going on right now about whether or not a young teen committed murder or acted in self defense (with many stupid people convinced of the former), and there are people trying to stretch the definition of rape to include a woman simply regretting having sex with a man after the fact, even if she consented to it at the time.

I don't agree that "legal and cultural censure should be left for things that directly hurt others". If we want a moral society we need boundaries beyond what merely directly affects other people.

While that old fashioned idea maybe considered laudable in certain quarters, that is simply no longer the prevailing moral attitude among society now, including people on the right, such as libertarians. For my part, I think that trying to force a set morality on society outside of preventing direct harm is always either doomed to failure or subject to tyranny.

Nobody should want a society subjected to open pedophiles, animal torturers, Satanists, and all manner of wickedness merely because it doesn't cause direct harm.

For pedophiles and animal torturers, that would fall under the "direct harm" principle, since those people directly harm other beings (children and animals, respectively). But why Satanists? You sure as hell aren't going to get much support for going after them, considering freedom of religion and all. Besides, most modern Satanists are just religious trolls, like those bozos at the Church of Satan.
 
Last edited:

All Cops Are Based

the day soyjak killed burzum
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 31, 2020
@The Demon Pimp of Razgriz
I can't quote you for some reason but your slasher analogy is disingenuous. Slasher movies descended from giallo, which descended from Hitchcock, who descended from etc etc and so forth. They're not just "people getting killed," they're 80+ minute movies and they inherited a cinematic craft, even the trashy ones. They're about ambience, suspense, paranoia, the fun of getting startled.

Porn is porn.

If a movie was made that's just over an hour of a murder scene and then a fake body being slowly mutilated and dismembered, that's more analogous. That would effectively be simulated murder porn (and not the way boomers use that term for first person shooters and movies like Saw.) And that movie would creep people out and ring alarm bells about the intent of the director/intended audience.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
@The Demon Pimp of Razgriz
I can't quote you for some reason but your slasher analogy is disingenuous. Slasher movies descended from giallo, which descended from Hitchcock, who descended from etc etc and so forth. They're not just "people getting killed," they're 80+ minute movies and they inherited a cinematic craft, even the trashy ones. They're about ambience, suspense, paranoia, the fun of getting startled.

Porn is porn.

If a movie was made that's just over an hour of a murder scene and then a fake body being slowly mutilated and dismembered, that's more analogous. That would effectively be simulated murder porn (and not the way boomers use that term for first person shooters and movies like Saw.) And that movie would creep people out and ring alarm bells about the intent of the director/intended audience.
My bringing up slashers wasn't about considering them distinctly analogous to porn in terms of content. It bringing up the psychological effects of fiction on the human mind. There have been excessively gory films that were essentially extended torture scenes, like Cannibal Holocaust. But they didn't make people killers. That is why I brought up slasher films. Some people have tried to argue that violent films and/or video games make people violent and cause violence. There is no proof of that, but people claim so. The mere exposure to violent media does not make someone violent. The mere exposure to porn won't make some one a rapist. That is all I was implying.
 

Imaloser

Degenerate
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 17, 2021
I skim-read over @SSj_Ness's post and I think I agree with him. Most anime characters are ambiguous in age, I think the easiest way to categorize loli and how pedo it is, is based on the character's design.
hxIHMXT.png

(Obviously most lolis don't look like this, but this is more to illustrate a point). I would honestly estimate this character to be around 16-27. That's a wide ass range. This is why most lolicon falls into basically psuedo-petite porn.

Now, let's go onto the second "tier" of this
Ilya.png

This is where it gets more weird. Still, there's some plausible deniability.




Rockman_X_DiVE_Hunter_Program_Roll.png

This is where you can't even deny you have pedophilic tendencies if you are into this.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
I skim-read over @SSj_Ness's post and I think I agree with him. Most anime characters are ambiguous in age, I think the easiest way to categorize loli and how pedo it is, is based on the character's design.
View attachment 2797475
(Obviously most lolis don't look like this, but this is more to illustrate a point). I would honestly estimate this character to be around 16-27. That's a wide ass range. This is why most lolicon falls into basically psuedo-petite porn.

Now, let's go onto the second "tier" of this
View attachment 2797483
This is where it gets more weird. Still, there's some plausible deniability.




View attachment 2797499
This is where you can't even deny you have pedophilic tendencies if you are into this.
Trying to attach age to cartoon characters is lesson in futility. The bottom character is a robot whose apparent age is pointless, because she could literally have been created yesterday and therefore less than 24 hours old...or she could be over a hundred years old, and in any case, is a robot, so normal morality is already up in the air. Meanwhile I could tell you that the girl in the middle is a clone who was literally only created two years ago and has the mentality of a 2 year old despite her "adult" body. Which one is squickier? Who cares its a cartoon. Apparent ages don't have to match real age. You be the judge what personal line you have, if any.
 

SSj_Ness

Time to rape organized crime
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Trying to attach age to cartoon characters is lesson in futility. The bottom character is a robot whose apparent age is pointless, because she could literally have been created yesterday and therefore less than 24 hours old...or she could be over a hundred years old, and in any case, is a robot, so normal morality is already up in the air. Meanwhile I could tell you that the girl in the middle is a clone who was literally only created two years ago and has the mentality of a 2 year old despite her "adult" body. Which one is squickier? Who cares its a cartoon. Apparent ages don't have to match real age. You be the judge what personal line you have, if any.
You're thinking about it from the wrong angle. Nobody cares what the canon age or biology of Roll is, whether she was made 1000 years ago or 10 seconds ago. People are concerned about the intended age depicted, and the fact that she mostly looks like a normal human, not a robot.

Now, it could be more tolerable if Roll was designed less human looking and more robot looking, like with gears and wires hanging off of her and shit, paired with those already absolutely monstrous feet. You know, replace her tits with rocket launchers too. Then you're still weird for wanting to fuck war-ready robots with Bigfoot feet which still somewhat resembles a questionably aged female, but you probably don't deserve a cross for it. I think it also helps that the Mega Man art leans into an especially cartoonish style.

Tldr, nobody cares if she's technically a robot that's of age, feet aside and despite the unrealistic art style, it's still clearly a young girl. And that'll rightly disturb a lot of people, you should understand that.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
You're thinking about it from the wrong angle. Nobody cares what the canon age or biology of Roll is, whether she was made 1000 years ago or 10 seconds ago. People are concerned about the intended age depicted, and the fact that she mostly looks like a normal human, not a robot.
And my point is that intended age is a tricky thing and doesn't really matter when it comes to a cartoon character. Intended age is misnomer: the author may intend for Roll to be an adult, and her childlike age is only due to art style. The Artist or creator may intend for Roll's age to be ambiguous. Authorial intent rarely matters to people who get bent out of shape about these things. Sailor Moon is 15 years old but doesn't really look like it with her long legs and statuesque body. The fact that she's a young teenager doesn't stop Rule 34 from applying to her. Asuka Langley Soryu is 14. Doesn't stop even Studio Khara themselves from sexualizing her. In the last two Rebuild of Evangelion films, she was an adult trapped in a 14 year old's body, making her "legal" despite physically being the same. Nobody should care either way; they're fictional characters who can be aged up or aged down at the whims of the artist.

Now, it could be more tolerable if Roll was designed less human looking and more robot looking, like with gears and wires hanging off of her and shit, paired with those already absolutely monstrous feet. You know, replace her tits with rocket launchers too. Then you're still weird for wanting to fuck war-ready robots with Bigfoot feet which still somewhat resembles a questionably aged female, but you probably don't deserve a cross for it. I think it also helps that the Mega Man art leans into an especially cartoonish style.
All of these are just adding abstractions upon something that is already abstract. Its stuff that might make you feel better, but it might still squick out other people. It doesn't really matter either way, which is my main point.

Tldr, nobody cares if she's technically a robot that's of age, feet aside and despite the unrealistic art style, it's still clearly a young girl. And that'll rightly disturb a lot of people, you should understand that.
If a person is disturbed by a fictional character doing fictional things, that's on them, nobody else. Its not on the artist, or anyone else, for that matter, to placate those people.
 

SSj_Ness

Time to rape organized crime
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
And my point is that intended age is a tricky thing and doesn't really matter when it comes to a cartoon character. Intended age is misnomer: the author may intend for Roll to be an adult, and her childlike age is only due to art style. The Artist or creator may intend for Roll's age to be ambiguous. Authorial intent rarely matters to people who get bent out of shape about these things. Sailor Moon is 15 years old but doesn't really look like it with her long legs and statuesque body. The fact that she's a young teenager doesn't stop Rule 34 from applying to her. Asuka Langley Soryu is 14. Doesn't stop even Studio Khara themselves from sexualizing her. In the last two Rebuild of Evangelion films, she was an adult trapped in a 14 year old's body, making her "legal" despite physically being the same. Nobody should care either way; they're fictional characters who can be aged up or aged down at the whims of the artist.
Yes, age for fictional characters can be tricky, I admit. But just because grey exists doesn't mean we can't see the black and white. Who's to say if a character is young or just petite, but at some point it's obvious. You wouldn't argue that depictions of infants are up to interpretation, right?

In fact, even if the character itself has an unknown age, often context can indicate the age.

You know the saying; if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. So if it looks too young, and it's in a school setting for example, and especially if it states its age, you can't really defend it as morally decent. I know, it's not physically hurting anyone or victimizing anyone, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated in society.

If something appeals to sexual predators then it probably shouldn't exist, even if existing laws permit it.

Characters who are anatomically indistinguishable from adults like Sailor Moon are usually overlooked in these conversations, nobody really minds it. It's the Card Captor type characters who are of concern to people.

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
All of these are just adding abstractions upon something that is already abstract. Its stuff that might make you feel better, but it might still squick out other people. It doesn't really matter either way, which is my main point.
It is not abstract enough. The majority of Roll's anatomy is too accurate in spite of the art style considering her age. She either needs to be made older, less human (by adding sufficient robotic or animalistic traits, and not just ears and a tail), or the art style needs to be even less realistic (Crayon Shin Chan, Power Puff Girls, etc).

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz[/quote said:
If a person is disturbed by a fictional character doing fictional things, that's on them, nobody else. Its not on the artist, or anyone else, for that matter, to placate those people.
We have obscenity laws for a reason, they're necessary for protecting the public (though obviously they don't go far enough since LGBT do as they please with virtually no restrictions, so clearly no cartoon porn will fall under these laws either). You don't seem to agree with this notion, so I can't convince you on it.
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
You know the saying; if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a duck. So if it looks too young, and it's in a school setting for example, and especially if it states its age, you can't really defend it as morally decent.
Moral decency is subjective thing that can't really be measured here. Once again, we are talking about artwork. Not actual molestation or child pornography. Trying to attach moral standards to art in regards to what can be depicted is a lesson in futility. We've been there before. We had the Hays Code, the Comics Code, censorship of all kinds. It always falls apart in the end. You don't have to like it. You sure don't have to partake, but you will always run into issues if you try to restrict simply because you don't like it.

I know, it's not physically hurting anyone or victimizing anyone, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated in society.
You can't objectively declare what should or should not be tolerated in society. This is why freedom of speech exists in the first place.

If something appeals to sexual predators then it probably shouldn't exist, even if existing laws permit it.
A lot of things appeal to sexual predators. Predators get off to completely innocuous films that just so happen to have children in them, because they are wearing a bathing suit or shorts. If we banned things because they appealed to predators, we would have nothing left.

Characters who are anatomically indistinguishable from adults like Sailor Moon are usually overlooked in these conversations, nobody really minds it. It's the Card Captor type characters who are of concern to people.
And that is an obvious double standard that makes no sense, and my point exactly. Any rules on this stuff would be arbitrary and subject to every individual person's personal taste. Under that standard, I could make a character five years old, explicitly, give them an adult body, and draw them in a graphic sex scene and it would be okay. I could have another character who simply looks young because they age slower than others and appear to be younger than they are (a real life medical condition) and people would call it child porn even though the character is of age. Its absurd.

It is not abstract enough. The majority of Roll's anatomy is too accurate in spite of the art style considering her age. She either needs to be made older, less human (by adding sufficient robotic or animalistic traits, and not just ears and a tail), or the art style needs to be even less realistic (Crayon Shin Chan, Power Puff Girls, etc).
All these things are personal things that may help you be okay with her character or design or porn or what have you. And that's okay...for you. But it only really applies to you.

We have obscenity laws for a reason, they're necessary for protecting the public (though obviously they don't go far enough since LGBT do as they please with virtually no restrictions, so clearly no cartoon porn will fall under these laws either). You don't seem to agree with this notion, so I can't convince you on it.
Obscenity laws have been on their last legs for a while. Nobody actually gets brought up on obscenity charges anymore because they probably wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny. They're a gaping anachronism in constitutional law, and no longer make sense, and even law enforcement know this. And they fail precisely because there is no objective moral standard for "obscenity".
 

SSj_Ness

Time to rape organized crime
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 28, 2021
Moral decency is subjective thing that can't really be measured here. Once again, we are talking about artwork. Not actual molestation or child pornography. Trying to attach moral standards to art in regards to what can be depicted is a lesson in futility. We've been there before. We had the Hays Code, the Comics Code, censorship of all kinds. It always falls apart in the end. You don't have to like it. You sure don't have to partake, but you will always run into issues if you try to restrict simply because you don't like it.
Common sense boundaries go a long way. We could simply put a vote to it.

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
You can't objectively declare what should or should not be tolerated in society. This is why freedom of speech exists in the first place.
Limits already exist on speech. In fact, I don't think they go far enough but the truth is they do exist. Threats and libel/slander are the most clear-cut examples of this.

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
A lot of things appeal to sexual predators. Predators get off to completely innocuous films that just so happen to have children in them, because they are wearing a bathing suit or shorts. If we banned things because they appealed to predators, we would have nothing left.
Intent matters, wearing shorts in an otherwise innocent movie is obviously a very normal thing to do and isn't at all intended to appeal to creeps (again, common sense needs to make a comeback, so many problems would be solved instantly).

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
And that is an obvious double standard that makes no sense, and my point exactly. Any rules on this stuff would be arbitrary and subject to every individual person's personal taste. Under that standard, I could make a character five years old, explicitly, give them an adult body, and draw them in a graphic sex scene and it would be okay. I could have another character who simply looks young because they age slower than others and appear to be younger than they are (a real life medical condition) and people would call it child porn even though the character is of age. Its absurd.
And we're back at the matter of intent once again. Not only that, our good ol' friend common sense. As I stated before, people are not concerned with the fictional canon back story of hentai characters, just their perceived age. As I said, if it's divorced enough from realism or looks ambiguously aged enough, it'd be overlooked by people.

You'll find nobody outside NAMBLA willing to defend realistic depictions of an infant, and it will disturb all decent people. You can cling to moral subjectivity arguments all day, but society has the right to govern boundaries of acceptable behavior within reason, and you're just not making a good enough defense.

Sorry, but merely pointing to free speech and moral subjectivity shouldn't be enough. I admit the existence of a slippery slope, but we must approach that slope with caution, otherwise we'd have no societal boundaries at all.

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
All these things are personal things that may help you be okay with her character or design or porn or what have you. And that's okay...for you. But it only really applies to you.
You could say that about anything. "You're okay with restricting threats, slander, driving without a license, you are okay with age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco purchases, as well as voting, driving, etc, but that's just you."

What society is willing to tolerate should be up to us, at least at a local level, especially for matters such as this.

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz said:
Obscenity laws have been on their last legs for a while. Nobody actually gets brought up on obscenity charges anymore because they probably wouldn't stand up to constitutional scrutiny. They're a gaping anachronism in constitutional law, and no longer make sense, and even law enforcement know this. And they fail precisely because there is no objective moral standard for "obscenity".
Yeah, we've strayed from normalcy and decency, from God, so of course things are now vile and immoral. A degenerate country such as this needs to reinforce obscenity laws, because they're on their last leg, not be rid of them.

We could just give up on decency and embrace obscenity entirely. Allow public nudity--nay, sex, and open drug use of all kinds, and shitting on the sidewalk. It doesn't hurt you, they'll say, with their five tranny "wives" and drag queen son, fapping to photorealistic infants and burning the Bible wrapped in an American flag.

Where, exactly, do you want to live...?
 

The Demon Pimp of Razgriz

Still Pimpin
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Oct 28, 2017
Common sense boundaries go a long way. We could simply put a vote to it.
One thing you figure out living life, or heck, being on the farms, is that "common sense" isn't actually very common. A vote doesn't determine the limits of peoples rights, the constitution does. We don't put "rights" to a vote.

Limits already exist on speech. In fact, I don't think they go far enough but the truth is they do exist. Threats and libel/slander are the most clear-cut examples of this.
And do you know why those exceptions exists? Because they cause objective harm to people in the real world. You yourself admitted that lolicon artwork cause no objective harm to anyone in the real world. Let me quote you directly, in case you forgot:
I know, it's not physically hurting anyone or victimizing anyone, but that doesn't mean it should be tolerated in society.
By your own admittance, this content victimizes no one. Your main issue is that you personally don't like it, which you've made more than clear up to this point. The specific exceptions to freedom of speech we've carved out are specifically limited those that cause real world harm, and those are very narrowly defined exceptions. You can't sue someone for slander just because they called you an asshole or a liar. The supreme court has made clear that the first amendment is meant to protect speech people may find disagreeable.

Intent matters, wearing shorts in an otherwise innocent movie is obviously a very normal thing to do and isn't at all intended to appeal to creeps (again, common sense needs to make a comeback, so many problems would be solved instantly).
But you didn't bring up intent. You said we should ban it because it might appeal to pedos. Intent was nowhere in your words. My point is that intent doesn't matter. An artist drawing lolicon may not intend to appeal to actual pedophiles. An artist simply drawing a cute little girl may not intend to appeal to pedophiles. It hardly matters, because authorial intent doesn't stop such types from enjoying something. Authorial intent is irrelevant to the greater question to whether or not a particular kind of work should or should not exist.

And we're back at the matter of intent once again. Not only that, our good ol' friend common sense. As I stated before, people are not concerned with the fictional canon back story of hentai characters, just their perceived age. As I said, if it's divorced enough from realism or looks ambiguously aged enough, it'd be overlooked by people.
And you would be completely wrong. People do in fact decide that the canon back story of a character matters, all the fucking time. You need only look on other threads on this very site to see that. People shit on people all the time for shipping two characters together just because they are underage. People shit on people all the time for cosplaying characters that are underage, even though the cosplayer themselves are obviously of age. People get bent out of shape over the stupidest shit all the fucking time. YOU chose to get bent out of shape over this one particular thing. Other people do care about a character's stated age, regardless of appearance. We have an entire thread dedicated to following and making fun of anti-lolicon crusaders just for this reason, because some of those people are real nutjobs. As I said, common sense ain't common.

You'll find nobody outside NAMBLA willing to defend realistic depictions of an infant, and it will disturb all decent people.
Ever heard the phrase "Never say never"? You shouldn't make moral absolute statements. I'm sure, if you actually look, you will find many people who defend such things on the grounds of artistic integrity or freedom of speech. As I said, freedom of speech exists to protect the speech people don't like, not the speech everybody does.

You can cling to moral subjectivity arguments all day, but society has the right to govern boundaries of acceptable behavior within reason, and you're just not making a good enough defense.
And if society collectively decides that lolicon and shotacon are okay (which Japan has), will you suddenly give up your crusade and learn to accept the loli? You see, citing the whims of society as your measure of judgment is in and of itself a morally subjective argument. The rules of society change all the time. There was a time being gay wasn't acceptable to society, now being gay not only accepted, its outright championed by society. Society is a fickle bitch, and we've got leftoids right now trying to push for, of all things, pedophile acceptance. Saying society has right to govern moral boundaries assumes that society has an objective, unchanging morality, or that society is a logical, singular entity. Society's moral boundaries are set by its members, and right now, those boundaries are all over the place. Its why our founding fathers recognized inalienable rights, not subject to the whims of society's morality.

You could say that about anything. "You're okay with restricting threats, slander, driving without a license, you are okay with age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco purchases, as well as voting, driving, etc, but that's just you."
Your analogy was broken before you even typed it good. You are talking about things that objectively effect the real world, and comparing them with something you objectively admitted did not.

What society is willing to tolerate should be up to us, at least at a local level, especially for matters such as this.
No, it shouldn't. Society shouldn't be able to dictate the whims of someone's speech. You ever read 1984.

A degenerate country such as this needs to reinforce obscenity laws, because they're on their last leg, not be rid of them.
This very argument we are having shows exactly why obscenity laws can't work. Unless you can objectively define what obscenity is, you can't really regulate or legislate it. The greatest legal minds the U.S. can muster can't produce a truly universal objective definition. The law has to be built on objective absolutes and definitions, or it becomes arbitrary, and obscenity just doesn't meet that standard.

We could just give up on decency and embrace obscenity entirely. Allow public nudity--nay, sex, and open drug use of all kinds, and shitting on the sidewalk.
Things done in public can be restricted because they have an objective qualifier: they are done "in public". I have no problem with laws against public nudity. I'd have a problem with government telling me I can't get naked in my own home outside the bathroom, and they would be installing cameras in my house to enforce it. I'd have a similar problem with the government saying "anything printed that we don't like is illegal", because of how broad and undefined that is. And that's functionally what obscenity is.

It doesn't hurt you, they'll say, with their five tranny "wives" and drag queen son, fapping to photorealistic infants and burning the Bible wrapped in an American flag.
Think you are getting a little hyperbolic there bud? Its not the lolicons pushing for drag queen story time, or burning flags. Most of those guys just want to be left alone fapping. Hell, some of the biggest pushers of this leftist bullshit are also out here, screaming about how evil lolicon is. Once again, we have an entire thread dedicated to them.
 
Last edited:

Trapitalism

tgirl trust funds
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Whether lolicon counts as CP depends on your definition of the word "child". Do you consider a "child" to be one featuring a real child or one that depicts children? If the latter, it is cp, if it's the former, it isn't cp.

Of course, a better question would be to ask "should lolicon be legal"? In my personal opinion, I really am not sure. More research on the effects are needed. Does lolicon in general reduce the risk of turning to real CP or abusing children? If the answer is yes, it should be treated the same way as shitting dick nipples in that it is legal but never normalized. If it doesn't affect the risk, I'd say the same as before. If it increases the risk on the other hand, I would say no to legality. It should be treated as a lesser offense relative to real CP however.
 

Hollywood Hitler

Little pig, little pig, let...me...in!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Mar 30, 2020
I say we go as far as banning people from having sex with small/flat women. PERIOD.

It's too close to kiddie sex.
 

Sicklick

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
A lot of people blame the Japanese for this, when in reality, they simply learned it from the Danes. Exhibit A.) The Theander brothers (Jens and Peter) of Color Climax and B.) Willy Strauss of Bambina Sex. These two companies appeared after Denmark legalized porn and started distributing child pornography across the region locally, and then internationally (including the United States), starting in November 1969 (and btw, this was before we had any legislation specifically addressing child pornography, even in the US). It all changed in 1976 when MSM outlets picked up on this which caught the attention of Judianne Densen-Gerber, who campaigned for it to be banned, to which it was in early 1978. But the first law only addressed distribution as production was never legal anyways, but the reason this law was passed anyways was because these companies in Denmark were acting criminally and were providing a financial incentive for people abroad to produce their own material by having these "dial-in" lines that one could call to submit their own content to these magazines. So they were basically acting as middlemen. In some cases, the owners of some of these magazines were downright making it (like David, an American CP magazine based in Baltimore, Maryland), and were using these Danish publications as a front to hide behind so that police wouldn't be able to prove whether the children depicted were American or European.

But even then, the 1978 law only made it 16+ to appear in porn, very few arrests came from it and the public trade still continued albeit on a smaller scale until the Child Protection Act of 1984 was passed, which sealed the deal. This time, the limit was set at 18+ and more requirements were added did we start seeing more arrests follow. Pretty soon, it disappeared altogether and the only way people could obtain it is if they made it themselves or requested it via classified ads that ran a high risk for detection and arrest. And as for the first one, this became a lot easier when in the mid-80s, the camcorder was invented that made it so that child porn could be shot anywhere by any person at any time without running the risk of a photographic process that would've attracted unwanted attention (rior to this, the feds would set up fake "secure" photographic and film processing labs to sting pedophiles, so this small technological advancement made it much more difficult to nab them in the act). And not only was child porn legislation passed in the US, but pretty soon US federal agencies started cooperating with foreign government law enforcement agencies, including that of Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, and pretty soon, they passed legislation against it following US pressure. The last public issue from any mainstream production at the end of the European child porn trade was in 1980. Although, much like with the US, the public trade simply went underground and Willy Strauss (who quickly became a millionaire off of this) created a new magazine called "Blue Moon."

Possession was outlawed in 1990. But for Japan, they didn't catch on with Europe until the 1980s and it wasn't outlawed until 1999 (possession in 2014). The reason it became so popular there was Japanese porn censorship laws of the time involving the depiction of pubic hair. Throughout the Japanese trade, more material was output than during the entire European trade of the '70s.

So, long story short, it's whitey's fault.
R.b6c5498683af1ec3ba3b61bd5ab97841

lvmmyhnlsuw21.jpg
 

RMQualtrough

kiwifarms.net
Joined
Jan 2, 2021
If it's shown to reduce pedophiles acting out, there should be lots of it. If it encourages pedophiles to act out on real kids, it should be banned (fineable offense only).
 

All Cops Are Based

the day soyjak killed burzum
kiwifarms.net
Joined
May 31, 2020
A lot of people blame the Japanese for this, when in reality, they simply learned it from the Danes. Exhibit A.) The Theander brothers (Jens and Peter) of Color Climax and B.) Willy Strauss of Bambina Sex.

So, long story short, it's whitey's fault.

>whitey's fault
>Willy Strauss
>early life