Nocilol

[Kilgamayan]

oop-c

[archbishopjabber]

It didn't particularly spark any interest in me either way. I wasn't horrified or offended in any way shape or form, nor was a particularly intrigued or aroused. It was just like, hey, some pervert sketched a little girl... yeah the end. I don't see why it evokes such strong emotions either way in people. Out of curiosity, did that member receive a serious ban?

[Cyanite]

I'm amazed that people can react the way they do to loli. It's hypocritical, in most aspects. If things like lolicon should be banned by the government, they should be banning violent video games next. Or perhaps a TV show for depicting drug use.

It's ridiculous. In my opinon, simulations of illegal acts, if they don't in turn break any laws directly, they should be completely legal.

[junkhouse]

loli shota i don't really care there ok but where ever get your rocks off i don't care

[ToshX]

Originally Posted by devonin

And yet people are arguing that there is absolutely nothing wrong with it, that it ought to be legal, and available for anyone, and the post was deleted, and people were horrified to have that image come up on their screen, especially around other people...

Dude, I'd hate to have ANY form of porn come up on my computer in front of my parents(they've always had the "do it, but don't do it around me and make sure I never find out" attitude). If your parents aren't that way(which is hard to believe, and yes I am assuming you're over 18), then imagine how any porn showing up on your screen would look at work? And besides, I am morally fine with it, but what really matters in this situation is the other person's morals.

Assume you had a son or daughter who was around the age of like 5 or 6. Would you be fine with watching "Cops" or something around your kids where drug dealers are being chased and arrested? Well maybe if you fit it into some reason to try to teach them not to do what the criminals are doing, but generally you don't want them to see people pointing guns at each other and people bleeding all over the place. But does that mean that you are personally disturbed and offended by car chases and reality in general? Well, probably not.

Originally Posted by archbishopjabber

did that member receive a serious ban?

I'm pretty sure you get banned for like a year for posting any kind of pornography. Even questionable porn gets you banned for a bit. I mean, you have to remember, this forum is 13+, not 18+.

[chunky_cheese]

I can't really see anyone becoming obssesed with this stuff... but if you ever wanted to experiment with this type of pornography the legal way, then here you go. (just dont harm children, or drawings, drawings are our friends too)

[OnixRose]

I think it's fine due to the fact that it ISN'T REAL and is in no way harming any one other than the poor sap who's peers find it on their computer :P

[GuidoHunter]

Guys, if you're going to have a conversation, do it in PM's; don't spam up CT with that crap.

Posts deleted.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Cyanite

I'm amazed that people can react the way they do to loli. It's hypocritical, in most aspects. If things like lolicon should be banned by the government, they should be banning violent video games next. Or perhaps a TV show for depicting drug use.

This is another one of those funny national things though. Certain places consider certain kinds of things more or less acceptable for public consumption.

Go to IMDB some time and look up some movies that were R-rated in the US, and check down where it lists the ratings in other countries. You'll find places where it was rated for 16+, some for 14+ I bet you'll even find a couple countries that rated the R movie in the US, as perfectly fine for anyone over 12.

In most cases, where you'll see the biggest difference is if the movie is violent. Violence just isn't considered as effecting and influential on the minds of children in places that aren't the US. Even between Canada/US, movies that are R for violence, language or drugs in the US will be AA (14+) in Canada.

The one case in which the 18+ rating happens the most across the board is sex. Sex has just been made to be so private, so taboo to discuss, or even think about, that it has just entered the collective consciousness as something that is wrong and bad to be displayed in public.

Think about it, which would most people find the most objectionable to come across? Two guys fighting in an alley beside a bar, or a couple having sex up against the back of the building?

Child porn especially, is considered by the vast majority of people to be so offensive, so exploitative, so intrinsically wrong and harmful that even depictions thereof that -aren't- involving real live children are still enough to trigger the instinctive "That's disgusting you horrible person!" response.

Edit: Case in point: Throughout the entire discussion, there have been several people who said that they very much enjoy loli, but who immidiately took -great- pains to make it perfectly clear to everyone that they -really- hated actual child porn. Not to cast judgement on anybody, and definately not anybody specific, I bet you at least one of them has at least one picture that has an actual child in it, but under no circumstances would anybody be willing to make it publically known that that is the case, both for the illegality and because how they would become viewed by the other members of the forum.

[Kilroy_x]

It is strange that violence is more acceptable to the public palate than sex. This really just shows how bizarre the public palate is. What possible explanation is there for this? Well, perhaps it's that violence is typically an affirmation of self both directly and indirectly whereas sex is something entangling which produces children and therefore obligations. Maybe this would also explain why male notions of sexuality which focus on actively committing the sex act are more commonly accepted in public dialog than female ideas which generally focus on the cooperative and interdependent nature of sexuality.

Then again, this is just one of those wild conjecture using a poetically descriptive linguistic construction type of things. I really have no clue what's wrong with people.

Also, sexuality is frequently seen negatively in more developed or industrialized countries perhaps because the higher amount of labor required in them makes dissuasion necessary. More primitive societies typically show less aversion towards sexuality, and societies with heavy class divisions such as ancient Greece have sometimes shown, at least in the aristocracy and the generally well-off (well, it might also be remarked these are the only people who produced lasting symbols for interpretation), limited aversion towards sexuality.

Someone asked earlier for an example of where child sexuality is acceptable or even promoted. Well, the books I had on the subject I have since misplaced, but from memory there was or is an African tribe which believed the ingestion of semen by young boys was a necessary step to manhood because its vitalistic properties imbued them with the power of maleness. There was or is also I believe a Polynesian culture which requires that children from the age of about 14-18 have sex with everyone in their age range as part of the transition from adolescence to adulthood. I really am sorry I can't give sources, I should be able to find them eventually though.

[Cavernio]

I believe that was me who asked about the cultures Kilroy.
That's alright if you've not given me the sources, but even with the examples you've given me, it's still not really sex with children. Ingesting semen is only possible once they're sexually mature, and having sex with someone of your own young age is quite different from a 50 year old having sex with a 12 year old. And again, these 'children' are probably all sexually mature, or near to it. I don't think anyone says its wrong for a 12 year old boy to be attracted to a 12 year old girl.
I'm not sure at what you're getting about male versus female ideas of sexuality at all though.

Devonin: I too suspect that some of those people who say they like loli also like cp, however, even if they do, I think it's perfectly fine so long as they don't act on their attraction anymore than what's in their head and what someone else has drawn. Nothing's ever as perfect as what's in the imagination anyways, and that applies to life in general.

[Kilroy_x]

Originally Posted by Cavernio

Ingesting semen is only possible once they're sexually mature

...what?

I'm not sure at what you're getting about male versus female ideas of sexuality at all though.

And I'm not sure what Germaine Greer was getting at with it, but the notion is that male sexuality is tied to aggression, inherently selfish and auto erotic, and that female sexuality is firstly submissive to this to a fault, and secondly in its romantic variation more personalized. All of this which begs the question, what the **** does any of this have to do with anything?

[devonin]

Originally Posted by Kilroy_x

...what?

I believe he's coming from the "You're sexually mature after puberty, and don't start ejaculating until after puberty" angle.

[Cavernio]

*she
Oh, I get what you mean Kilroy, they were boys ingesting semen, like, 5 year olds. I take it it's not ingested from grandma's special recipe for semen cake either :-p

[lord_carbo]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's like saying you shouldn't let a 5 year old boy play with toy cars because he's not allowed to drive a real one.

[devonin]

So...you just randomly quoted a post from the very start of the thread, and drew an inaccurate comparison that had nothing to do with the actual objective legal statement I made?

[ashleychauntel]

As far as Lolicon goes, I can't say I have a huge problem with it personally. I think that since it is a depiction of under-age girls as the Wiki article states that it in fact should have restriction just like porn, as far as access to it... and, because it does deal with childlike depictions morality issues may come into play, but in the end it isn't really hurting anyone.

The only problem I can see with lolicon is if people begin to take something they see within the cartoonic representations and then believe they are in fact okay to apply to real life.

I don't really like the idea of someone masturbating to cartoon little girls, which seems to be the gist of lolicon, but as long as they are masturbating to pictures of real little girls, which is very very wrong and screwed up, then I really can't say I mind it so much, seeing that it could be sooo much worse.



[As for the Nabokov book reference, for those that have not read "Lolita" you really should think about it; amazing book.]

[ToshX]

God, this is going to piss a lot of people off, but I'll say it anyway.

Although I don't exactly view it myself, I hardly see a problem with CP. If anything, I believe it being more available to people would stop many people from even committing the act in the first place. I mean I realize it's already available to people through many means, but I mean legally available and easier to get. I believe that as long as the kids were not FORCED into making it, it isn't really going to be harmful.

I mean, think of it as if porn/strip clubs/etc. as a whole were to be banned and near impossible to access. Do you think that'd really stop or even lower the amount of people who are raped every year? I mean, maybe it's just me, but I think it'd make people want to rape someone MORE because they do not have easy and legal access to pornography. Since people are already committing a crime(that could get you jailed for years, as CP can) anyway, I think it would end up causing more people to be raped.

[GuidoHunter]

Originally Posted by ToshX

God, this is going to piss a lot of people off, but I'll say it anyway.

Yep.

I believe that as long as the kids were not FORCED into making it, it isn't really going to be harmful.

Children are protected by laws like these because they don't have the mature judgment to make those calls. Statutory rape laws exist because children cave to the wills of adults. Kids shouldn't have lifechanging decisions made for them.

When I was younger, I might not have objected to being filmed because, hey, I get sex and it feels good. But looking back on it as an adult, I would be disgusted not only because I was actively part of a child porn ring, but that someone would take such advantage of my naivete and immaturity to do that.

Child porn is simply unacceptable, whether it's consentual or not.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilroy_x]

Well, the real question then is when this naivety goes away. Does it just magically disappear at 18? No, there are people who mature much earlier and people who mature much later, as well as people who don't mature at all. So if there were hypothetically children mature enough to make such decisions, they should be allowed to do so. The only problem is that maturity is something which can't be calculated particularly well, if at all, making this point somewhat inapplicable to any policy changes at the present time. This itself brings up an interesting question: since the age of 18 is decided somewhat arbitrarily, how many people are harmed from being allowed to have sex after 18 when they aren't mature enough, and how many are harmed from being disallowed when they are mature enough?