Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[demicolon]

And I got 'Nam flashbacks from this, ugh.

 

[Lightsaber Dildo]

I can both oppose it for protection and since it's immoral. In fact, those are the same thing; it's immoral to allow the depiction of sexualized fictional minors because it may cultivate an unhealthy sexual appetite in its viewers, charitably assuming it's not preexisting. Thus, banning it is protecting kids.

As it has been done several times before, this logic can be applied to any media that depicts "immoral" content such as murder and drug use. If you believe that, then I must assume you also believe that fictionalized killing should be banned since it cultivates an unhealthy contentment with murder. Which I just think is plain ridiculous and I'll have to disagree without further discussion on this point.

It will be. Why do you think they work so hard to take KiwiFarms off clearnet? They'd like it gone entirely but rejoice when it's stuck on Tor, precisely because it's less accessible. Accessibility matters, bans aren't necessarily about stopping something entirely, it's a success if you kneecap its proliferation and normalization.

I think you're right about the nature of bans, but I dislike the mentality behind it. I would not want to be in the same mentality as the people who are trying to take KiwiFarms off the clearnet, because it boils down to wanting "thing they don't like" unavailable and believing KF is immoral in it itself. It's a form of censorship, I'm against censorship as much as I can.

It's just not important to do so since it is technically a victimless crime, though I suppose I have no qualms with tacking on charges if it's part of a collection with real shit.

The point, as I indicated, is preventative, you don't want sick desires cultivating or becoming normalized. It's not about punishing wrongthink so much as not letting people fester in degeneracy and potentially become predators. A ban would be good for society and good for the viewers soul.

But that's literally punishing wrongthink. Morality isn't all relative, yet you are still effectively punishing someone for a thought crime. Saying a ban on this sort of thing is good for society and the viewer's soul is assuming human beings cannot distinguish reality from fiction, saying that if you don't view immoral material, then your potential for performing immoral acts is lessened. This is not always true.

Have a judge determine things (not ideal but that's how our system works, we have judges for such purposes). If it's a character with a child's anatomy, dressed in a schoolgirl uniform, behaving like a child then it's a clear-cut case, for example, and any reasonable person would conclude that the canonical age is irrelevant to what's being depicted.

Granted, that's just the easiest example to come down on, it would take more deliberation for increasingly ambiguous cases, but you get the point.

These criteria are still extremely vague and inflexible though, is my point. "Childlike" could mean "no breasts" or "small penis", etc. Over time the regulations will just have to get stricter and stricter as content creators adapt to the vague guidelines, until real art and freedom expression is harmed while no children have been saved. It'd become a cat-and-mouse game.

"I don't trust the government so therefore nothing should be banned" doesn't fly. Bad things need to be banned, there will always be the risk of governmental overreach, that's just how it is. But lots of things are banned and it's just fine, like plagiarism or a hundred other random examples.

That was just my opinion to try and help you understand where some of my thoughts were coming from, I can see the need for bans and laws to protect society. What I can't see, however, is how banning a form of immoral art protects society. It's wrought with as much assumptions as there are in favor of keeping it legal.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

If you believe that, then I must assume you also believe that fictionalized killing should be banned since it cultivates an unhealthy contentment with murder.

Sex isn't interchangeable with violence, they're inherently different subjects, and therefore treated differently by society. Conflating the two and treating them as interchangeable presents a false equivalence.

We as a society acknowledge this fact, which is why we're so much more strict with the regulation of sexual content than violent content. Just look back at the GTA: San Andreas "Hot Coffee" fiasco for the most simple illustration of this; a game deemed appropriate for 17 year olds where you can murder innocent people and commit all manner of crimes was recalled and/or had its rating changed from M to AO ("adults only") because an inaccessible sex scene was hidden in the code of the game.

So no, your point falls flat.

I would not want to be in the same mentality as the people who are trying to take KiwiFarms off the clearnet, because it boils down to wanting "thing they don't like" unavailable and believing KF is immoral in it itself. It's a form of censorship, I'm against censorship as much as I can.

Wanting "thing they don't like" unavailable is not inherently good or bad as a concept, it depends on the subject. In the case of Kiwi Farms, their intent is merely to silence valid criticism, mockery, and legal documentation, so it's bad of them. Content which explicitly sexualizes the concept of children should be made unavailable, that'd be good of us to do.

Morality isn't all relative, yet you are still effectively punishing someone for a thought crime.

No, because they're free to think whatever they want, it's just the content which should be illegal, at the very least the distribution thereof. You may have a right to think whatever you want but there are limits on what can be expressed, when, and how, in many different ways. This would not be unprecedented or inherently bad.

Saying a ban on this sort of thing is good for society and the viewer's soul is assuming human beings cannot distinguish reality from fiction, saying that if you don't view immoral material, then your potential for performing immoral acts is lessened. This is not always true.

What's actually being assumed here is on your part, that despite an ability to distinguish between fiction and reality that such content cannot desensitize views to or cultivate/worsen unsavory desires in viewers. It's not disputed that people can differentiate the two (though I seem to recall studies suggesting that the human mind can't fully distinguish between them; which seems to be why horror media can scare you or why you cry watching something sad, or feel repulsed watching something disgusting, or feel aroused watching something titillating).

However, it seems obvious that if you watch a cooking show and like the food on display that it may influence your desires, compelling you to seek out the recipe in question; similarly, advertisers/propagandists aren't spending billions because they're NOT successfully influencing you lol

These criteria are still extremely vague and inflexible though, is my point.

Not always, such as in the example I cited, correct? I acknowledged ambiguity can exist but you can't deny there are clear-cut cases which wouldn't even require a judge, and one can be used for such cases which do.

Over time the regulations will just have to get stricter and stricter as content creators adapt to the vague guidelines, until real art and freedom expression is harmed while no children have been saved. It'd become a cat-and-mouse game.

That would result in the creators of loli making the content less obvious that they're depicting kids, right? Sounds like a win for the ban to me, if creators have to adapt by making the content seem less like a child and therefore by necessity making the character seem older then we're winning. If the characters end up being being so ambiguous in age that a viewer cannot reasonably construe the characters as kids then we've essentially eliminated loli hentai.

I can see the need for bans and laws to protect society. What I can't see, however, is how banning a form of immoral art protects society.

It comes down to whether or not you think inflaming or inciting people's sexual interest in children through art depicting the likeness of them is something which jeopardizes society or not. I know my answer.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

We as a society acknowledge this fact, which is why we're so much more strict with the regulation of sexual content than violent content.

Funny you should say that, because in Europe its the exact opposite; they are far less restrictive with sex and far more restrictive with fantasy violence. Almost like this shit is all cultural and not at all based on anything inherent about society or fiction or sex vs. violence, and and that the American perspective isn't the only one that exists.

Not trying to get back into this conversation, despite your increasingly bad argumentation eating at me, but I felt the need to chirp in there.

 

[Equal Rights for Androids]

I don't know what you're talking about dude. The purpose of my statement was to clarify what you are talking about. Clearly you can't put two braincells together to do more than call people names on the internet, as if that means anything to me.

The words I posted are easy to understand. It can't be deconstructed any more simply. It's not chidol. It's literal children being posed in sexual situations whilst wearing clothes (which is Child Sexual Abuse Material, like Child Pornography is, but is still legal in Japan). That you're not able to understand them means you're either intentionally being obtuse and trying to act confused because there is no way you can twist the words to benefit your position, or you're literally that retarded or stuck in your coomdome that you don't understand why it's wrong.

And grown ass women can dress as loli characters for the purposes of sexual roleplay. What's the point? As long as its not someone dressing up a child as a loli character (or non-loli character for that matter) for sex, who cares? Its costume play, a completely separate and recognized fetish. In any case, all this talk about cosplay is completely irrelevant to this thread.

If a woman dresses up as a child character and has sex and enjoys pretending to be a child having sex, that is a pedophilic tendency and any sane human would keep that woman away from children. If you disagree, you're a pedophile or mentally deficient.

Even assuming you're not full of shit, "pedophilic labels" can mean a lot of fucking things. A person can have "sociopathic tendencies" and not be a full on clinical sociopath.

Pedophilic labels = words such as "sexually interested in children", "child lover", "pedophile". Cope and seethe, nig.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

It's literal children being posed in sexual situations whilst wearing clothes (which is Child Sexual Abuse Material, like Child Pornography is, but is still legal in Japan).

The phrase "being posed in sexual situations" is vague as fuck dude. It could literally mean anything, or nothing. This is why CLARITY is important.

If a woman dresses up as a child character and has sex and enjoys pretending to be a child having sex, that is a pedophilic tendency and any sane human would keep that woman away from children. If you disagree, you're a pedophile or mentally deficient.

You keep throwing around these vague terms and phrases like "pedophilic tendency" with no clarity and just expect everyone to read "pedophile". No, dressing up as a fictional character doesn't make you a pedophile. If dressing up as an fictional underage character and potentially having sex in the costume was all it took to make someone pedophilic, then anyone dressing up in a Sailor Moon (whose 13 by the way) costume and having sex in it would be considered a pedophile. If you tried to make that claim, people would just look at you like you were a maniac, because you are.

Pedophilic labels = words such as "sexually interested in children", "child lover", "pedophile". Cope and seethe, nig.

Dude, first, stop trying to be confrontational, it just makes you come across unhinged and Mad At The Internet. Second, I highly doubt any reputable psychology course would use terminology such as "child lover", especially to discuss interest in fictional characters.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Funny you should say that, because in Europe its the exact opposite; they are far less restrictive with sex and far more restrictive with fantasy violence. Almost like this shit is all cultural and not at all based on anything inherent about society or fiction or sex vs. violence, and and that the American perspective isn't the only one that exists.

Not trying to get back into this conversation, despite your increasingly bad argumentation eating at me, but I felt the need to chirp in there.

My bad argumentation? You're falling back on relavatism again. I am American, aren't you? Who cares about some foreign perspective on anything to do with morality? By that logic it's fine to marry a 9 year old because Muhammad did, "it's the Afghanistan perspective".

The phrase "being posed in sexual situations" is vague as fuck dude. It could literally mean anything, or nothing

No, it can't mean nothing. If that is happening to a kid it means something bad is happening. It may be vague but it certainly does mean something.

If dressing up as an fictional underage character and potentially having sex in the costume was all it took to make someone pedophilic, then anyone dressing up in a Sailor Moon (whose 13 by the way) costume and having sex in it would be considered a pedophile. If you tried to make that claim, people would just look at you like you were a maniac, because you are.

I think he meant characters who are clearly designed to be children like Pan, not one who looks much older like Sailor Moon. It would be pretty sus to be roleplaying as kids and while having sex, at least both parties are adults but still.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

My bad argumentation? You're falling back on relavatism again. I am American, aren't you? Who cares about some foreign perspective on anything to do with morality?

It matters because your speaking like your American perspective is the end all be all, and all of Western civilization, if not the world, agrees with said perspective instead of acknowledging that its a peculiarly American perspective. You used the exact words, "We as a society acknowledge this fact,", but society is relative, and society's treatment of sex vs. violence is primarily cultural in nature. It isn't based on something inherent about those subjects themselves.

No, it can't mean nothing.

Vague posting about "kids being posed in sexual situations" means nothing to me. That statement could mean anything. Without any clarification of what he's talking about, or an example, it literally means nothing. I already gave one example of what he could be talking about in Chidols, but he outright rejected that that was what he was referring to. So, all I can do is say his statement means nothing without clarification.

I think he meant characters who are clearly designed to be children like Pan, not one who looks much older like Sailor Moon. It would be pretty sus to be roleplaying as kids and while having sex, at least both parties are adults but still.

People cosplay as adult versions of child characters all the time, just like people such as Sakimichan draw adult versions of child characters. There's nothing sus about it. Its a fictional character.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It matters because your speaking like your American perspective is the end all be all, and all of Western civilization, if not the world, agrees with said perspective instead of acknowledging that its a peculiarly American perspective.

But I did acknowledge that. I was specifically talking about America, I'm well aware other perspectives exist and just don't care.

You used the exact words, "We as a society acknowledge this fact,", but society is relative, and society's treatment of sex vs. violence is primarily cultural in nature. It isn't based on something inherent about those subjects themselves.

If you prefer other societies' perspectives then you're free to move. I don't go to India and tell them to stop worshipping cows, I don't care about their moral perspective on literally anything.

Vague posting about "kids being posed in sexual situations" means nothing to me.

So that is not a sentence you'd find objectionable in and of itself?

That statement could mean anything.

No, it can't. It LITERALLY can't, it pertains to a sexual context as you may have noticed by the hint of the word "SEXUAL".

People cosplay as adult versions of child characters all the time, just like people such as Sakimichan draw adult versions of child characters. There's nothing sus about it. Its a fictional character.

Maybe it's not sus to you, but to a lot of people it's understandably sus as fuck if adults are fucking as kid characters. The concept of "kid" should be divorced entirely from any and all sexual contexts.

 

[Leaded Gasoline]

No, it can't. It LITERALLY can't, it pertains to a sexual context as you may have noticed by the hint of the word "SEXUAL".

saw you mention shield hero a while back on a different thread, would you consider the scene where Filo is first shown in her human form to be sexual?

here is the scene for those who don't remember/haven't watched

Spoiler

 

[WelperHelper99]

then anyone dressing up in a Sailor Moon (whose 13 by the way) costume and having sex in it would be considered a pedophile.

My guy... listen to that sentence. That justification. Who but absolute unhinged freaks are fucking in Sailor Moon outfits??? Just like furries, those people should be on lists

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

My guy... listen to that sentence. That justification. Who but absolute unhinged freaks are fucking in Sailor Moon outfits??? Just like furries, those people should be on lists

You think somebody fucking in a cosplay outfit is a freak, better yet, the equivalent of a FURRY? My guy, there's being hyperbolic, and then there's being stupid. By that same token, women who like to fuck in sexy nurse outfits and sexy cop outfits are no better than furries, and that's just stupid to say. Its called costume play dude. Some of y'all are so eager to virtue signal that y'all say the stupidest shit.

So that is not a sentence you'd find objectionable in and of itself?

I mean, what am I supposed to find objectionable here? The general idea of children being posed in sexual positions? Yeah, that's objectionable, but what does that mean for us, in this thread? We aren't even talking about real life children, but cartoon and comic characters.

The other guy brought up this subject, I guess, to castigate Japan and claim that Japan is still okay with CSAM, but then goes on to describe it in the vaguest terms and doesn't give any real information. So what am I supposed to take from his statement? Its neither here nor there.

It LITERALLY can't, it pertains to a sexual context as you may have noticed by the hint of the word "SEXUAL".

But what does he mean by "sexual"? Because full on child porn is illegal in Japan, so he isn't talking about that. And he's outright stated he isn't talking about Chidol, so we can rule that out. So, what exactly is he talking about? We don't know, he hasn't explained, nor offered an example.

Maybe it's not sus to you, but to a lot of people it's understandably sus as fuck if adults are fucking as kid characters. The concept of "kid" should be divorced entirely from any and all sexual contexts.

Except they aren't fucking as the child character. They are fucking in a costume, of a character. If they are an adult, they're costume would be of an adult version of that character, not the child one, because they themselves aren't children.

 

[WelperHelper99]

You think somebody fucking in a cosplay outfit is a freak, better yet, the equivalent of a FURRY? My guy, there's being hyperbolic, and then there's being stupid. By that same token, women who like to fuck in sexy nurse outfits and sexy cop outfits are no better than furries, and that's just stupid to say. Its called costume play dude. Some of y'all are eager to virtue signal that y'all say the stupidest shit.

So... Basically you're completely fine and support the cuckold Projared

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

So... Basically you're completely fine and support the cuckold Projared
Wyświetl załącznik 5587792

I mean, I don't watch his content. But dude probably makes more money making Youtube videos in a month than I make in year. So more power to him, I guess. Couldn't give less of a shit about him crossplaying as Sailor Mercury, as long as he's doing his sexy costuming with other adults.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

saw you mention shield hero a while back on a different thread, would you consider the scene where Filo is first shown in her human form to be sexual?

here is the scene for those who don't remember/haven't watched

Spoiler

no-officer-i-swear-she-is-just-a-bird.mp4

First of all, what you're quoting was regarding kids in real life, notably more important than cartoon monster girls.

Anyway, I personally wouldn't consider it sexual. And I said before that media having creepy elements is different than straight up hentai, and used Dragon Ball's Chichi as an example, she's designed inappropriately sort of like Bulla but arguably worse. Liking Dragon Ball doesn't make you a degenerate just because it has fleeting elements that are problematic. That applies to Shield Hero as well.

Also, nudity isn't necessarily sexual in and of itself. I do think that scene was intended as fan service by pervert japs, but there's technically nothing sexual in it, and there wasn't much shown. The characters are just surprised and confused by her appearance, and she innocently greets them. If people sexualize it that's sort of on them, but it is a tad creepy because, again, I do suspect the creator's intentions were bad.

If we compare that scene to Dragon Ball, Goku is naked with his full genitals on display several times, but unlike the scene you posted there's almost certainly not even any perverted intention involved. And both shows basically require a person to perceive them as sexual on their own, because they don't feature anything a normal person should consider arousing or whatever.

what does he mean by "sexual"?

Do the specifics even matter? It's not good by merit of being sexual. It doesn't need to be full on porn or porn adjacent to be problematic.

Except they aren't fucking as the child character. They are fucking in a costume, of a character. If they are an adult, they're costume would be of an adult version of that character, not the child one, because they themselves aren't children.

They could also roleplay as minors, it's a thing.

So... Basically you're completely fine and support the cuckold Projared

THAT'S REAL? I knew I never liked that libtard faggot but holy-disgusting-fucking-shit...

So more power to him, I guess.

More dragged behind a truck to him.

 

[Leaded Gasoline]

And I said before that media having creepy elements is different than straight up hentai

must have missed it the last time you posted but this is the part i actually have issues with, that the government is confirmed to be gay and retarded but you still expect them be able to tell the difference and apply the law in a way that exclusively targets lolicons

well, there is also the irony of arguing for the ban of something you say is victimless just because it is immoral while posting on a forum that is mainly meant for laughing at retarded people from a safe distance

 

[WelperHelper99]

THAT'S REAL? I knew I never liked that libtard faggot but holy-disgusting-fucking-shit...

You should watch the Mister Metikour mega docustream floating on YouTube on him. It's so fucked man

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

must have missed it the last time you posted but this is the part i actually have issues with, that the government is confirmed to be gay and retarded but you still expect them be able to tell the difference and apply the law in a way that exclusively targets lolicons

Their retardation could only go so far. The only thing that would actually happen is we'd get more censorship here in the west, they'd photoshop Filo in a burqa and call it a day.

well, there is also the irony of arguing for the ban of something you say is victimless just because it is immoral while posting on a forum that is mainly meant for laughing at retarded people from a safe distance

What's immoral about laughing at the stupid stuff people do which is funny? The lawlcows can only even be offended by what's said here if they seek it out because there's rules against going and harassing people off the site.

But even if you want to consider that immoral, it's certainly less immoral than a lot of the hentai out there. And something being victimless doesn't mean it shouldn't be banned, technically erecting Satanic altars doesn't produce victims but they should still be banned.

What's with people wanting to deny the right to a culture of decency, upholding some basic norms and standards of conduct? We shouldn't have to live in a pig pen of a society, there's hundreds of other nations for that.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Do the specifics even matter?

If you are going to make an argument about it? Yeah, it matters. You need specifics and examples of what he's talking about. As a general statement, its just a statement, and its veracity doesn't matter. As an argument, yes the specifics absolutely do matter.

They could also roleplay as minors, it's a thing.

You mean like DDLG? I mean, its possible, but the roleplay does not necessarily follow from the costuming. Its a separate thing entirely.

THAT'S REAL? I knew I never liked that libtard faggot but holy-disgusting-fucking-shit...

You weren't following the ProJared drama?

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

If you are going to make an argument about it? Yeah, it matters. You need specifics and examples of what he's talking about. As a general statement, its just a statement, and its veracity doesn't matter. As an argument, yes the specifics absolutely do matter.

But the specifics won't change that it means something, and that "something" is a bad thing. He can specify, but the only thing that will do is make it clear precisely what bad thing in the "sexual" category he's talking about. But that's a category which should never involve kids, and in this instance you guys were discussing real kids.

You mean like DDLG? I mean, its possible, but the roleplay does not necessarily follow from the costuming. Its a separate thing entirely.

Glancing at Google, yeah, I suppose so. If someone purposefully chooses a child character to dress up as for sex, there's a good chance it's going to skew that way.

They're adults, but such behavior would be rather suspect.

You weren't following the ProJared drama?

Barely, I only knew he was targeting minors, one of which was some type of tranny. Which is bad enough, but it's just viscerally repulsive to see his degenerate expression, attire, and positioning there... I'll never see Sailor Moon the same way again.