Nocilol

[archbishopjabber]

Should it be legal/illegal? Is it pedophilia? Is there anything inherently wrong with it? I'm fairly neutral on the subject but am curious to hear what everyone else thinks on the matter.


If you are unfamiliar with what it is... here is a link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

[spinal_compression]

It seems more to be like a sub-category of pedophilia. It's one of those things that's so rare that it'll go right under the radar.

But from what Wiki tells me it doesn't necessarily involve any direct pornography. Just a depiction of what it's meant to allow the viewer to see.

I'm not a critical thinker so whatever I said makes no sense...

[wickedawesomeful]

I see no problem with it. It's not like it's real people, so no one is getting harmed. Plus, it's unbelievably easy to get off to.

PS. lol custom title

[devonin]

Well in Canada (as well, according to Wiki, in the USA, Germany, and several other countries, but not Great Britain) it actually qualifies as child porn regardless, even though as a drawing or animation it doesn't necessarily involve the abuse or misuse of minors for pornographic purposes.

I mean, I guess on the one hand its -less- bad than actual child pornography, but it sounds suspiciously to me like someone who -wants- to look at child porn but wants to do so in a way that can seem less morally objectionable if they get caught at it.

[jamuko]

I don't think it should be illegal. I mean, yeah, it does sort of emulate real child porn which I'm highly against, but by that logic we'd have to outlaw other such fictional emulations like violent video games, and everyone knows how we stand on that.

Also, how exactly does one draw the line on whether a hand-drawn person is underage or not? With anime characters, it's often tough to tell.

[Kilroy_x]

The more abstract a representation becomes the less it actually remains a representation. Lolicon is to paedophilia what furry porn is to bestiality; which is to say, sometimes there's a link, more often there isn't. Child pornography is harmful to the children who are used to produce it, and for that reason production of child pornography should be punishable as should the purchase of child pornography. When something is just a drawing there's no victim. It's a victimless crime. Your gut feelings may scream moral indignation, but since when do feelings get in the way of realities? Oh wait, I forgot what society I live in. My mistake.

Seriously, outside of some elaborate slippery slope argument I doubt anyone can give me a reason why anything made with pen and paper should be illegal.

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

The more abstract a representation becomes the less it actually remains a representation. Lolicon is to paedophilia what furry porn is to bestiality; which is to say, sometimes there's a link, more often there isn't. Child pornography is harmful to the children who are used to produce it, and for that reason production of child pornography should be punishable as should the purchase of child pornography. When something is just a drawing there's no victim. It's a victimless crime. Your gut feelings may scream moral indignation, but since when do feelings get in the way of realities? Oh wait, I forgot what society I live in. My mistake.

Seriously, outside of some elaborate slippery slope argument I doubt anyone can give me a reason why anything made with pen and paper should be illegal.

I'm not sure that "A drawing of a naked little girl is at least somewhat as morally problematic as a picture of a naked little girl" would really consitute an "elaborate" slippery slope.

I'm not trying to draw a connection between the two to say that lolicon = child porn, so much as I am making an implication that those who are into the lolicon culture are looking at it as a "legal" avenue to child porn.

[Wlfwnd91]

I think that child pornography is disgusting and wrong and it honestly hurts to even hear about it. But, I love Lolicon, so should I be punished for liking Loli? As far as I was concerned, a fetish wasn't punishable by law, and hentai is there for those "messed up" little fetishes that we ALL have somewhere in our minds and allows us to indulge in them. Some people who like lolicon are into real child pornography, but there are some people who like football who are into child pornography too. What I'm saying is that there's people like that, and lolicon does allow people to indulge in a fetish which is deemed "wrong", but it doesn't mean that those people are criminals or harming anyone in any way shape or form. You can argue that lolicon promotes child pornography, but if someone involved with loli is involved with CP then chances are they were into CP long before they ever found loli. It's a drawing and it's not harming anybody, so I don't think it should be illegal in any way.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

I'm not sure that "A drawing of a naked little girl is at least somewhat as morally problematic as a picture of a naked little girl" would really consitute an "elaborate" slippery slope.

I'm not sure how it's at least somewhat as morally problematic as a picture of a naked girl. I'm sorry to say it but I think your argument is less sound than the typical elaborate slippery slope argument might be.

so much as I am making an implication that those who are into the lolicon culture are looking at it as a "legal" avenue to child porn.

Two responses:

1. So?
2. Prove it.

Emphasis on the first.

[ToshX]

Originally Posted by spinal_compression

It seems more to be like a sub-category of pedophilia. It's one of those things that's so rare that it'll go right under the radar.

But from what Wiki tells me it doesn't necessarily involve any direct pornography. Just a depiction of what it's meant to allow the viewer to see.

I'm not a critical thinker so whatever I said makes no sense...

Actually, a LOT of people like loli. And I really do mean that. It actually usually appeals to people in the 14-20 range and sometimes older from what I've seen. In some cases younger people like it because they're around the same age.

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

Seriously, outside of some elaborate slippery slope argument I doubt anyone can give me a reason why anything made with pen and paper should be illegal.

With that logic, it should be legal to write "I'm going to bomb the airport on Saturday" and put it on every telephone pole in town.

[jamuko]

I really think the parallel between this and violent video games is rather high. It seems like pretty much the exact same argument to me.

Violence hurts people. Violent video games, however, are harmless, and if they assist in coercing someone into following through in reality, the person has more underlying problems that video games can't be blamed for.

Child porn hurts children. Loli, however, is harmless, and if it assists in coercing someone into following through in reality, the person has more underlying problems that loli can't be blamed for.

I think it would be hypocritical of someone to take one side on one of those arguments and the opposite on the other.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by ToshX

With that logic, it should be legal to write "I'm going to bomb the airport on Saturday" and put it on every telephone pole in town.

THANK YOU. I was beginning to doubt anyone would bring it up; this is the basis of the elaborate slippery slope argument.

Now, as I'm sure we all know, the US supreme court has ruled that freedom of speech can be restricted in circumstances where the speech itself inherently creates a level of danger or harm. Your example fits the bill. Surely this is a fair point and a fair restriction. Now, the problem is that people try to use this argument to apply to things like lolicon.

The question then is: What inherent danger is there in lolicon? The only answer people can give to this question is an elaborate slippery slope argument. Lolicon can lead to child pornography, which is harmful to children. Lolicon can lead to child abuse, which is harmful to children. Lolicon can lead to a devaluation of social rules and mores that leads to a decline in our cultural fabric that leads to people going to Mcdonalds more often and getting fat which leads to heart attacks. Or whatever you prefer.

There's no causation involved. No inherent evil even by some elaborate chain. The cry to pass restriction on things such as this is driven purely by an emotional knee-jerk reaction which overshoots logic and infers relationships and evils where there are none fundamentally.

[devonin]

Well, I suppose it depends on your view of -why- child porn is wrong. If the -only- reason you don't think child porn is a perfectly valid form of pornography is that "It is inherantly harmful to a child" then your point it perfectly valid.

There are those, though, that think there is something inherently wrong about children in a sexual context regardless of the medium.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by devonin

There are those, though, that think there is something inherently wrong about children in a sexual context regardless of the medium.

I know. You don't particularly need to justify your thoughts (or feelings, rather) for this, but you do need to provide reasoning for why you think it's ok to send people off to jail for what's in some cases the entire rest of their lives based on your sense of indignation at something which hasn't harmed anyone. The difference between lolicon and child pornography is that lolicon is a medium for the artists imagination rather than for something to which an actual child was subjected. It's not just a difference in medium, but in what that medium is actually transmitting. Or, even further out than that, the difference is that by taking a picture of a child you're using a camera as an excuse to abuse a child, and although the abuse is independent of the camera the camera is still an accessory to the crime. There's a fundamental difference between a picture which is the direct result of an immoral action and a picture which came into existence and continue's its existence independently of any moral outrage.

[devonin]

You don't particularly need to justify your thoughts (or feelings, rather) for this, but you do need to provide reasoning for why you think it's ok to send people off to jail for what's in some cases the entire rest of their lives based on your sense of indignation at something which hasn't harmed anyone.

Even if I feel it is justified for lolicon style imagery to qualify as child porn (which my country also seems to think) that doesn't mean that it should be treated in all instances as 100% identical either.

I mean, hitting someone is hitting someone, and there are a great many different types of assault charges.

[Kilgamayan]

Slippery slope is inconclusive at best. There have been studies done where people who enjoyed lolicon were more apt toward CP because of it, and there have been studies done where people who enjoyed lolicon were less apt toward CP because of it. It varies from person to person.

Assuming we're discussing the United States, lolicon should not be illegal because it falls under freedom of expression, as it were. In relation to the airport bomb note, that doesn't for the same reason that you can't yell FIRE in a crowded theater - your freedom of expression gets squished under the rights of a society to be/feel safe. It has not been proven that lolicon presents an immediate real life danger; the Supreme Court realized this back in 2003 or 2004 or whenever and ruled that making lolicon illegal would thus be unconstitutional.

[Squeek]

Not just once, Kilga. They shot down about 3-5 different laws that had anti-loli in them, among other things. The worst one was the workaround law that was to be the foundation for others since the previous ones all failed. This one (forgot the name) would force libraries to install filters in order to keep funding. It was shot down because the filters were either too difficult to upkeep or filtered legitimate websites along with the illegitimate ones.

Ultimately, the decision came from "No actual children are being harmed here." Yes, it can be used for wrongdoing in the wrong hands, but then again, everything in the world can be used for wrongdoing in the wrong hands. That's not a good enough reason to ban anything.

Which, as jamuko said, makes the violent video game movement all the more retarded.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by djshox

So you guys think it's okay to masturbate to drawn images of a child's nude body in suggestive poses/penetration? I mean really, if you're in support of it, obviously you feel this way. If anything it would fuel a person's desire to look into child pornography.

I don't agree with that whatsoever. I mean, sure, like Kilga said, it varies from person to person, but if you want child porn, you can easily get it. EASILY, with most any P2P software (there was a discussion on what an acronym used in the cp circles meant, and I got curious and wondered how many hits it would get on Limewire. Thousands).

People look at lolicon because not only is it legal, when you look at it there's no actual child to remind you that his or her life is being destroyed as a result of molestation.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilgamayan]

Originally Posted by djshox

lalalala slippery slope lalala

Did you completely miss the part of my post where I said studies have been done and produced conclusions in both directions? Your righteous indignation and "well it might" mean jack shit in the face of people that have gone out and actually produced observable data that supports the inconclusivity of this theory.

Please, if you're going to state that the slippery slope is inevitable, go out and do some research to prove conclusively that it's true.

And yes, I think it's okay to "masturbate to drawn images of a child's nude body in suggestive poses/penetration". What other people do in the privacy of their own home is not my business (note that CP leaves the "privacy of their own home" boundary by hurting kids outside of it), and it isn't yours either. I don't do it myself, but far be it from me to say that it's disgusting or wrong just because I may or may not do/like it.

[Afrobean]

Originally Posted by djshox

So you guys think it's okay to masturbate to drawn images of a child's nude body in suggestive poses/penetration? I mean really, if you're in support of it, obviously you feel this way. If anything it would fuel a person's desire to look into child pornography.

Have you ever played Grand Theft Auto? Have you ever walked down the street slaughtering innocent bystanders and police officers, all the while looking for a car to jack?

Originally Posted by Kilga

CP leaves the "privacy of their own home" boundary by hurting kids outside of it

Yeah, if you're gonna molest children, they need to already be in your home.

I don't do it myself, but far be it from me to say that it's disgusting or wrong just because I may or may not do/like it.

Dude that giant titty **** is disgusting I am seriously offended I think you should go to jail etc. Also, ****ting dick nipples.

ps have you guys seen that guro ****? I'm pretty sure all of it is loli and that **** is brutal. Imagine murder + rape + S&M + loli. If you're gonna argue for anything to be illegal it should be that ****.