/ic/ - Artwork/Critique

>>4698163
No.

>>4698179
but how can they tell if it is a minor or just a petite girl? If I made a porn comic of the statue girl in OP coming alive and getting fucked would I be in trouble?

>>4698179
Not OP but what do they mean by obscene? Is nudity allowed as long as porn isn't involved? (i.e anatomical sketches or unfinished work)

>>4698163
It’s legal but if you end up a rich, influential man that the bigwigs want to take down then it suddenly becomes illegal. The feds don’t care about your loli porn.

>>4698179
Oh and take for example this. There are tons of Chan spinoffs but the media attacks eight Chan because it isn’t on the f.b.eye servers like 4ch is,

>>4698192

>>4698204
So much of this is subjective, jesus christ.
What is cultural value? what if youre a big artist?

>>4698204
OK, how does one calculates artistic or cultural value of anything?

>>4698204
>>4698214
"Could the image be seen as having a sexual appeal and found offensive."
That's classic. I proves they find underage girls attractive but are scared of it to the point they ban artwork. Such hypocrites.

>>4698179
So how dose /b/ have loli threads?

>>4698163
Who cares, give me the source of that statue.

>>4698243
There's some loophole in other states or countries or something, I believe? Like where the server is located.
Not sure

>>4698204
>lascivious exhibition

>>4698277
I checked google images and couldn't find anything.

>>4698179
>>4698204
They should give example pictures of what is and isn't allowed

>>4698163
underage is not very specific, if they are not actual toddlers you can reasonably argue they are cosplaying underage girls but are actually legal.
you should make it clear in one image at least so you have proof that this is the intention even if they arent. i mean how are they gonna find out? i know several people who look underage but are way older you cant specify what an underage person looks like.

>Can I ... In America?
No!

>>4698163
why are you guys so obsessed with drawing loli? are you just trying to be edgy or do adult women scare you guys shitless?

>>4698314
Are you gay, anon?

>>4698314
Why does it matter?

>>4698314
le if you don't like something I like you must be scared meme.

>>4698189
That's what's most ridiculous. You can't legally define the age of a drawn character with certainty. If an illustrator draws a loli girl and says said loli girl is actually 100 year old fantasy dragon, what then?

>>4698314
Shut up, roastie. This goes beyond what your simple brain can comprehend. Freedom of speech and expression is at stake here and the implications of suppressing various types of thought just because it's "lewd" are downright frightening.

>>4698179
>>4698204
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-eychaner-1
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

>>4698352
Based

it's a fucking drawing.

people who can't distinguish reality from fantasy are dangerous people.

>>4698377
what if I draw hyper-realistic illustrations of Nabokov's Lolita
prime teen pussy, anon

>>4698277
>>4698289
McCartan, Girl Drinking from a shell

>>4698314
Because they’re cute and funny

>>4698287
I think you might be braindead.
https://www.google.com/search?q=Edward+McCartan&sxsrf=ALeKk00mYEWsiCM4JJ3glOGnzUNuhMLwYw:1593876905042&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjRk_aV9rPqAhXXA2MBHcz9AyEQ_AUoAXoECBMQAw&biw=1366&bih=695#imgrc=OKNYuaLRcJqzUM

>>4698381
I would fap to this.

>>4698326
technically im bi, i just like older women and milfs. lolis never appealed to me personally.

>Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards"
>the average person
>community standards
Oh man, in the age of identity politics this will turn in such a shitshow, that I don't event want to watch despite not being an American.

>>4698348
>adding big breasts to loli
Now it's not loli
>Drawing flat girl with big head to fit in loli's proportion, but keeping adult's hands and legs proportion
Now it's loli

Loli porn appeals to closet pedos.

>can i draw loli
Yes
>can i gain money from loli
Probably not

Anyway, i will keep drawing my shotas even if the world is full of plebs. it's the only thing keeping me alive.

>>4698163
No. There's no freedom in America

>>4698428
>will keep drawing my shotas even if the world is full of plebs. it's the only thing keeping me alive.
based. can i see your drawings?

>>4698449
Glownigger detected.

>>4698456
why are you like this? just post a cropped elbow from a drawing or something.

>>4698314
>Neither.
I mean... I'm alright with doing adult women but like... lolis are alright also? It's not very deep. I can learn to play awesome acoustic songs, but I also like masturbatory shredding too.

>>4698381
why is cp wrong? because it hurt kids or because it is disgusting?

>>4698163
I don’t even want to draw sex or porn of loli. I just want to draw them in casual nudity situations, ie laying on their bed reading in the nude, or playing volleyball at a nude beach etc. And even that is too far or “CP” for some people, even though it literally does not involve sex at all. It’s frustrating

>>4698489
Why not just put clothes on them

>>4698163
Yeah
Just don't post it online

>>4698314
Because I can do whatever the fuck I want, you fucking SLAVE. Now KNEEL.

>>4698163
You can draw pedo shit and get called out and be fine, just look at kiwihermit/inkplasm. Just don't acknowledge it and these "woke" losers will just leave since all they want is attention

>>4698529
Pretty much, Alke shit the bed when he deleted everything and ran (and possibly hung himself like a bitch, if the rumors are true)

>>4698555
A couple of anons showed that he has a pixivfanbox now. Though that won’t help him, since most of his backer won’t sites like that. He can still get his paypal banned and he needs a booth account too(which isn’t working). Probably hung himself like you said.

>>4698555
Yes just don't acknowledge it in any way. Don't deny it and don't pull a minus8 and admit you're a pedo

>>4698497
The nudity makes it feel more pure and innocent. By depicting loli free of their clothes, it shows a rejection of the cynical adult world, and emphasizes their playfulness and uncorrupted naivety, in a nostalgic, idealized depiction of youth as a time of freedom and innocence, from the pressures and standards of societal norms that weigh down on us as adults.

>>4698555
A couple of anons showed that he has a pixivfanbox now. Though that won’t help him, since most of his backers from patreon won’t sites like that. He can still get his paypal banned and he needs a booth account too(which isn’t working). Probably hung himself like you said.

>>4698353
>Hence, because "minor" is defined as a "person", and a "person" is an individual human being ...
That's mean furry loli is legal?

How come old artists got away with it but not modern artists

>>4698620
Because information flow functions different now thanks to social media. Everything is projected into the public and judged by the standards of the majority.

>>4698601
>>4698353
If I draw her with horns and make her an ancient vampire demon is it legal?

>>4698427
ok, thanks for your input.

>>4698601
I think the spirit of the law in this case is "don't masturbate to fictional children you monster", so if it makes you look like a creep in the eyes of the judge, it's illegal.
Yes, that does mean you could go to jail for drawing characters with the proportions of petite pornstars. And that's a good thing.

>>4698646
>judged by the standards of the majority.
More like judged by the most vocal outrage from or on behalf of groups that can paint themselves or are generally painted as victims.

>>4698620
women didn't have rights back then

>>4698189
I bet you can't even draw, fucking /beg/.

>>4698163
>Can I draw porn of girls
judging by the quality of the art posted on this board, probably not

>>4698675
I don't disagree, but that's what the majority is. "The voice of the people" doesn't exist. That's why you need to have conversations with individuals and come to your own conclusions as to what you should believe. If your idea of morality is "being normal" and "fitting in", then you're actually allowing a tiny minority of people who wield political power toward their own alien goals to dictate what you say and how you act.

>>4698678
satire or serious?

>>4698601
Yes. Inkbunny is a furfag website known to have shittons of underage furry porn art, and the way they got away with it was by making it against their rules to have nsfw depictions of humans.

>>4698179
>>4698353
>land of the free
lmao

>>4698885
Women could not vote in the 1500s

>>4698934
what about the 500 years inbetween voting right and today?

Were people who couldn't vote meat to be traded on markets? Or did tehy have rights even before? Hmm

>>4698949
Women were not allowed to dictate the actions of adult men for most of human history.
Any that attempted to would, at best, recieve mocking laughter and, at worst, recieve a hard slap. Its not about not being able to vote, its about the fact that they were women. Women were seen as a lesser species of human or inferior versions of men for many cultures.

>>4699032
Why is it women that don't like people drawing what they want? Any ideas? Jealousy?

>>4698352

Top post

>>4699035
I don't think jealously plays that much of a role in this kind of stuff. I think its a strong demand for conformity. Women don't like what they don't understand and what they don't like must be banished from sight. You're not allowed to say it or speak about it. It must be removed from the public and private space. Its not even allowed to exist because it perturbs them. Also, it makes them feel empowered to be able to force someone to change or get rid of something. They'd rather turn something into theatrics rather than just walking away or ignoring something they will likely never experience again. And sure, some women like young boys but I've read about the desire to depict shota art being looked down upon by fujoshi women who are actually into it simply because the depicter was a man.
TLDR: Woman good, Man bad

>>4699050
Jesus fucking christ leave your basement and interact with a real life woman from time to time.

>>4699035
It increases their value. A woman's value comes from her vagina, and since porn competes with that for male attention, it must be destroyed.

>>4699050
This explains a few things, actually.

>>4699050
>I've read about the desire to depict shota art being looked down upon by fujoshi women who are actually into it simply because the depicter was a man.
What are you talking about? Which artist?
Also,
>bitching about wahmen criticizing what people draw on a predominantly male site that historically fucking hated furries and furry art

>>4699099
Follow the thread.
We talked about women using voting rights to restrict what is allowed to draw and what isn't.

While we here on this site just complain about fringe fetishes but don't lobby politically to criminalize it.

>>4699099
I don't think that's a fair comparison. furfags have a history of sexual degeneracy and even grooming real animals, so people have come to associate them with degeneracy. that's not the same as trying to make furry porn illegal or getting furry artists cancelled for allegedly being disgusting animal abuse enablers or whatever.

>>4699106
You didn't answer my question. What shota artist are you referring to?
>using voting rights...
Do you have the citation for this?
And if this is in regards to the anime loli thing, it's something that's seen as both controversial for men and women. Normies in general don't like seeing minors in sexual depictions for obvious reasons, even if it's a cartoon.

>>4698179
>>4698353
>they banned loli because of a case trailed in a district court
Any higher court would (and should) have found this as unconstitutional. Why wasn't this case appealed?

>>4699171
trialed*

>>4699117
Cite the person you ask the questions or they might not find it. I am neither guy.

>>4698670
god bless america!

so can you commit a crime while locked in a room with just a pencil and paper? or it require that you send it to someone else?

>>4698352
>suppressing various types of thought
>drawing child pornography

woe is me, what a great loss of freedom.

>>4699326
nymphettes constitute the apex of human aesthetics
banning that from art is certainly kind of a big deal

>>4699326
>noone would even dream of extending the argument that indecent, socially harmful art should be illegal to other forms of expression. stop being paranoid, weirdo
yawn, it's always the same old tricks.

>>4699326
First they came for the lolicons, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a lolicon.

>>4699355
but i WAS a lolicon

Once again[, just like with abortion laws, America proves that it does all it can to give the outward appearance that its laws are beneficent and just. When in reality, it does nothing to stop *actual* rapists and and abusers.
>"Look we defined art as child pornography! That means we love and protect our kids!"
But Epstein et al are free and clear because they know they have the people that write the laws in their pockets.

>>4699378
epstein just managed a teenager whore club for vip's. shit should be legal

>>4699376
No you weren’t. Stop trying to pretend you “saw the light” and now think drawing lolis is some kind of sin.

>>4699326
Thank you for proving, once again, that not all men are created equal. All thoughts should be free. No exceptions. Anyone should be free to like what they like and hate what they hate without limitations because your mind is your own domain and nobody has the right to control what you think.

>>4699594
Not him but it isn't illegal itself to be a pedo either as long as you don't act on it whatsoever, since people don't get arrested for thought crimes. But it becomes a different matter when you create depictions of it because that may be considered distribution.

Which is literally what OP is asking. Off your high horse now.

>>4698163
>this whole thread

>>4699617
Punish the crime, not the thought. This is an extremely low horse that anyone with two brain cells should know (I know only because I have two and a half brain cells). Banning drawings (let’s be real here, they’re just drawings) sets the precedent that anything drawn can be banned because it runs counter to societal norms. Next thing they’ll ban is your political slogan because it’s “inflammatory” and “promotes hate” even if it’s in support of something you truly believe in.
I respectfully disagree with you, however. Drawing lolis is only a crime because of what? Who is the victim? Where is the victim? This is dangerously bordering on thought control.

>>4699630
You disagree with me for what exactly? I was just stating a fact. Legally, it becomes a different case when you produce drawings of it.

I didn't share anything about my opinion.

>>4698179
>being this coward

>>4699640
That’s the issue. Drawing lolis is a crime because why...? How do you even define a loli? What constitutes a “loli”? Legally speaking these should be defined because laws should never infringe on a person’s constitutional rights.
If an illustration depicts what you would personally consider a “loli” but the artist explicitly states that it’s a 100 year old dragon in the form of a loli, what then? What if he draws 1,000 of those, each being as lewd and as raunchy as he likes but with that caveat? It’s ridiculous to ban certain drawings because the notion of even curtailing a person’s right to expression and speech should NEVER be an option. Shame them all you like, sure, that’s within your rights of freedom of speech, but legally speaking it’s not an option.

>>4699630
/thread

>>4699647
now make it sexual so I can watch you get v&'d

>>4699651
You really enjoy talking a lot to somebody who never really asked otherwise.
I'm not against it either but nigga quit typing so much shit for an imaginary argument

>I dislike what you like therefore I must now erase you from existence

>>4699720
I’m not even that anon but I learned something. The world doesn’t revolve around you so stop being so self-centered.

>>4698163
yes and no
Obscenity laws ban it even if they are cartoons.
Technically there is a defense for artistic value but the feds and gov can decide it doesn't have that if they dislike you or your work.

law is mostly used against people who are caught with real stuff involving real children, they then tack on the cartoon loli porn charges to apply more pressure.

>>4698571
This post really inspired my dreams last night. Thanks anon!

>>4699795
I’d really love to be a fly on the wall for that determination. The image of a bunch of feds gathered round a table full of loli art, sweating it out over whether it has artistic merit or not, is just too rich. Wouldn’t be surprised if it awakened something in a few of them.

On a note unrelated to pr0n, an adult figure is 8 heads high are the proportions of a teenage figure the same?

>>4699966
Glad I could help, Anon.

>>4698314
>flip flop flip flop

>>4699050
Based post.
Women hate literally anything that doesn't fit their definition of normal. The only women I have met that are not like this were not women that were "normal" anyways so they I guess were more understanding?
I guess I will never understand the "shun or destroy all things I don't understand" mentality so many women have.

>>4698179
>Miller test
>Final critique is lacking any artistic value
So if you draw lolicon well enough it suddenly becomes legal?

>>4698204
>Could the image be seen as having a sexual appeal and found offensive?
Given that pictures of babies bathing have been flagged as CP before, I would imagine any depiction of a nude child, regardless of content, would be seen as sexual. Leaving something like that up to the court of public opinion is a dangerous game.

Why wasn't he put in jail?

>>4699684
it IS already sexual
the human body is inherently sexual, you can't isolate one thing from the other

>>4701896
because he lived before anti-pedophile hysteria took root.

>>4700504
love it :3

>>4701896
Because it's not sexual. I doubt anyone would fap to this.

>>4702733
just did

>>4699347
>>4699348
>>4699355
>>4699594
4chan sure is full of intellectuals. child pornography was and always will be frowned upon because anyone who isn't mentally ill finds it revolting and disgusting.
Anyone without a loose screw in their heads wouldn't even think of drawing that kind of shit, along with other crap like it (gay, trans, bestiality, etc.)
It doesn't matter if it's legal or not to draw it (and indeed, it's hard to even enforce such as thing) as long as it is heavily shunned and never promoted, let alone made out to be as something good and normal.

I think locking you covert-pedos up in a pillory in the public square, for people to throw rotten vegetables at you, would be more than an apt punishment. But that's just my thought.

Also, >>4699594 idiot, nobody controls what you think. maybe you should take a step outside once in a while?
You shouldn't think like you do, or better yet, nobody should think like you do. Should I be able to express these thoughts according to you, retard? Or should it be illegal to think like that?

>>4702862
So you don't think the statue in the OP is even a little bit hot?

>>4698406
>Drawing flat girl with big head to fit in loli's proportion, but keeping adult's hands and legs proportion

That's a fucking midget

>>4698406
>>4703002
lol

>>4702974

not really,

have you ever met an underage girl? worst case scenario they're brats and best case scenario they're just cute and worth protecting.
Then they hit 18 and realize everyone wants them and become insufferable. fast forward till milf years then they become something worthwhile again.

underage boys are even worse, and don't become anything worthwhile till around 25 when they get tired of chasing pussy which in turn makes them pussy magnets.

I can already tell i'm going to regret making this post.

pic unrelated

>>4702862
>anyone who isn't mentally ill finds it revolting and disgusting.

Child porn shouldn't be illegal because it is disgusting, it should be illegal because it hurt kids. And a drawing does not hurt anyone. That is my only problem with it.

>>4703038
>hit 18 and realize everyone wants them
Underaged girls get hit on and catcalled as early as 12 years old, anon. You underestimate how many men don't give a fuck about the law when it comes to their dick.

>>4703169
that's complete bullshit, unless you mean that they get hit on by boys their age +2-4. teenage boys don't give a shit, because they're retarded teens.

>>4702733
lmao

>>4703280
I'm literally referring to men, as in adults.
Quick 3-sec search from Google:

http://www.takepart.com/article/2015/06/01/girls-get-catcalled-younger-age-than-you-think/

>>4703299
>links social justice propaganda leaflet
The "evidence" cited by the article is literally a bunch of tweets the author probably got in response to asking her followers about their earliest experiences with being harassed on the street. Peak methodology right there.

Positive bias isn't your friend, even if thinking that you're right all the time feels good. If you really care about ebin social justice, you can't let yourself be taken in by random propaganda on the internet, even if all your friends believe in it. you'll just end up wasting all your energy trying to fix non-issues and making good peoples lives difficult, while real abuse continues unchecked.

>>4703038
this is the most coom infused post i've seen here in a while. embarrassing

>>4698348
Doesn't count. Appearance is what counts, or from what I've seen from lurking other forums, height. A <160cm character with gigantic tits is unquestionably a loli
>>4698314
I prefer the energy, vitality and pristine of youth (and also the venerable wizardhood of the elderly), and when you really think about it 2d loli satisfy both. Idealized adults are too dull and inoffensive, while realistic ones are bitter and jaded on top of aging like milk, so I'm not interested in any of that shit. I don't draw loli btw

>>4698163
Who cares? Making roasties seethe and making money doing it makes the slight risk of legal trouble all worth it.

>>4703470
>11 year olds are more attractive than 30 year olds
checks out

>>4703470
>10 and 9 that low

>>4698476
Yes. The thing is that cp is being correlated with drawn shit when it shouldn't. When I hear Loli I think drawn, cp makes me think real and cunny is a catch all term.

I just hope that the government isn't wasting resources trying to protect fictional kids

I feel like people forget that underdeveloped adult women and babyfaced women exist in real life, and they just wanna call people pedos because they're bored.

>Is there a victim? No.
>Has someone been harmed. No.
>Has the act actually occurred? No.
>Is it anything more than a thought expressed on paper or dots? No.
>Is it illegal and real people should suffer consequences for thoughts, despite not being to prove anything wrong has been committed? Yes.

Absolutely absurd, issues like this is how you separate those that are truly ethical, that really think through an idea and from those that are nothing more than thoughtless animals, simply reacting to stimuli.

>>4703470
>16 more attractive than 13
this invalidates the graph

There are rumors that you can not draw physically attractive people anymore. That Twitter people will report all your online platforms if you didn't draw ugly average people

>>4698189
In Australia, they count flat chested women as underage. Even if they're real women and can prove they're over 18.

>>4698395
Are you me?

>>4704647
Did these women protest against this discrimination

>>4700504
nvm found something for it

In terms of the appearance of "sexual readiness", a vulva is practically equivalent to an erect penis; You wouldn't get away with depicting your cupids with fat boners but that's like the basic state of female genitalia - even on children. You can't NOT draw porn of girls who look underage if you depict the vulva too.
It's why male sculptures are flaccid dongs out but McCartan goes full barbie doll >>4698163 to avoid sculpting the vulva. Even Colton too; no vulvas. I was genuinely surprised when I saw that hamo thornycroft had kind of half-attempted to sculpt out the the child's vulva in "the kiss"- the dirty toddlercon bastard him, of course - but it's one of only a few exceptions to the ingrained trend.
You can catch shit for drawing a lot less than porn of underage girls; do what you will.

>>4704647
Got any sauce? I just can not fathom amount of retardation it would to take to come to that decision.

>>4698163
Just make sure to make it clear she’s a 5000 year old demon

>>4703470
>https://sci-hub(DOT)tw/10.1016/S0005-7894(05)80039-5
I just read this study and it doesn't give any data on age groups to support this graph at all.

I still kinda believe it tho

>>4704719
>Did these women protest against this discrimination
They are women, so no one listened to them because they are inferior. That's why we pay them less.

>>4702862
>people who aren't mentally ill operate on emotion
Very avant-garde take, amigo.

>>4704558

>Do soccer moms and Karens find it icky? Yes

Really all it comes down to. Women voting is the cause of almost every stupid thing in our society.

>>4702733
Where do you think you are?

>>4703470
>0% before 9

>>4705575
Are you meaning to say labia? Because there's plenty of art with vulvas.

>>4698163

>>4701896
Thee fuck is going on with that hand?

>>4705575
You do know that women's genitalia go through their own changes when they're aroused, correct? Obviously not as blatant as a man's changes but they still exist.
https://www.healthline.com/health/healthy-sex/female-arousal#stages

>>4698163
Real talk: is it wrong if I find this statue ridiculously sexy?

>>4706655
the pose is slightly suggestive but rather innocent in intent, her face too. There are adult women that are this thin and small in frame, so I guess not?

>>4698163
yes but you have to be on the left and bend the knee to black lives matter, transfaggots and the various mental cripples

>>4705587
I remember reading about this as well. No petite girls are allowed to do porn in Australia.
It could be even as retarded as possessing such porn = possessing CP.
Anglos are retarded, what there is else to say.

>>4706655
Nope, it’s very attractive. America is extremely sexually repressed, and can’t open a dialogue about sexuality in any meaningful way. This website has become a direct conduit for all these sexless sad sacks to push their puritanical and completely unfounded sense of what sexuality should be.

I'm a female who draws hardcore shota. I don't care.

>>4706708
>I'm a female
Ah yes, protected class

>>4706708
Is that you? if not pyw

>>4706138
Redline it

>>4706702
Hey, pedo, leave those kids alone!

>>4706708
>Women need not apply.

>>4704647
Completely false.

>>4706697
You remember reading it because it was a headline that was reposted. Guess what? The article was clickbait.

>>4706761
I have sex with grown ass women, and that’s who I wish to have sex with. It’s quite nice, you should try it some time. Until you do, I recommend you stop talking at people about what they should feel, wet-brain.

>>4700504
Gothfried Bammes - Der Nackte Mensch
Does has images of naked kids, but it is in German and you would have to make the schematics yourself.

>>4706715
That is the woman who sucked off a 14 year old at a smash tournament.

>>4706882
focking what, thats hot as fuck, got sauce?

>>4707065
Cinnpie
https://www.ginx.tv/en/smash-ultimate/smash-ultimate-commentator-cinnpie-accused-of-having-a-relationship-with-a-14-year-old-boy

Smash in general.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/gaming/super-smash-bros-esports-community-rocked-by-rape-allegations/#:~:text=Cinnpie,14%20and%20she%20was%2024.

>>4707065
She's pretty hot. Lucky little shit

>>4698192
>>4698214
It's ultimately decided by a court. Even if you draw a lascivious exhibition of the pubic area of someone that the viewer could reasonably conclude to be a minor, and the general public finds it both sexually appealing and offensive, you'll still get a chance to defend it before a judge. If you can convince them that it's art rather than pornography, then you're fine.
Are you trying to convey a message, or make some point with your work? Do your child lewds have aesthetic value beyond the sexual?

>>4707118
This cleared it up for me. Thanks.

>>4706708
Pyw

>>4707118
thing is, even the hypothetical doujinshi equivalent of lolita probably wouldn't be seen as having "artistic merit" by your average judge, simply for its anime aesthetic. only podesta-tier paintings that hide their overt sexual themes behind a creepy, bleak aura would get a pass, because they match the normie cliche of high art.

>>4707177
Yeah, that's true. Most judges are old. If you're gonna draw child porn, go as traditional as possible.

>>4707177
Ironic, because it really is more obscene

>>4707190
exactly. it's easy to decry something basically harmless as immoral, but when people come face to face with real evil they often shy away from the obvious reading and start rationalizing, because they're afraid of acknowledging reality.
>"kill all cops"
>w-well, let's not be hasty. it's just a slogan really. what the good protesters really mean is that racism and police brutality are bad.

>>4698163
>>4698179
>>4698204
>everywherein the world there's a ban on loli
>in Japan they demand censorship

How do you even live knowing that there's no freedom of expression anywhere in the world?
I don't even care about the lolies in particular, it's the fucking fact that I live on a planet where expression might be criminalized and there's no place to run to.

>>4707235
and it'll only get worse over the years

>>4707235
crazy how the society in this insignificant world is still thinking about baseless morals when this so called intelligent species will be wiped out eventually by the great filter.

>>4707385
by the what?

>>4707409
Atheist devil.

>>4698179
That being said this happened in 2019
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6548074-Thomas-Alan-Arthur-Criminal-Complaint.html

>>4707887
????????

>>4707895
>you can be criminally charged for obscene stories

>media can lie as they please

hmm

>>4707887
The Protect ACT was never officially deemed unconstitutional.
It's still in effect to this day.

>>4706138
Are you autistic?

>>4706138
It looks fine to me.

>>4698163
If you actuvely want to do that, YOU ARE THE PROBLEM. Not the law, Not the country, YOU.

>>4708392
Are you sure you wouldn't fuck this girl; I mean teens fuck each other every day are you sure you aren't just seething because you missed out?

>>4708392
Introducing Age of Consent pretty much turned civilization into shit and decline.

>>4698555
Patreon deleted his account, not him. He made a pixiv fanbox now

>>4710209
I looked up Alke on pixiv and it is all sfw so why did patreon delete his account?

>>4710324
They consider ALL your platforms.

Why, yes, yes it IS Orwellian. What did you expect of Silicon Valley?

>>4710330
society hurts

>>4707177
the art that you posted however is at least nuanced. There isn't anything inherently sexual in that scene, it's mostly the art style and the design that plays with your mind and brings you where it shouldn't be going. It makes you ask questions about yourself and yada yada

anime art in general lacks any kind of subtlety. You see cocks getting rammed in pussies and that's about it or there's just some evident visual titillation, nothing is really left to the imagination. A lolita adaptation would just be pornographic because it would lack all the artistic intent of the book. Which is why in general I love the anime aesthetic but I despise almost everything that is made in it.

Take pic related for example (it's just a random highly rated pic I found on pixiv). The rendering is good and could technically be considered good art, but the subject matter is evidently just fetish material and its purpose is none other than high quality jack off material. Why in the hell would be a character from an existing IP be in the middle of a square in bondage attire? How could this be considered artistic?

I'm not against smut, I draw that too personally, but let's not believe there's any artistic merit in this. We could get there, and probably eventually will, but it's not with the current trend of anime porn that we're going to reach that.

>>4708392
>YOU ARE THE PROBLEM
>NOT THE NIGGERS TRYING TO TROW YOU IN PRISON BECAUSE YOU DID SOME SCRIBBLES ON PAPER
>YOU

>>4702862
Projecting so hard anon.

>>4710324
Look up his ink bunny.

>>4710658
I'm thinking your post is probably bait, but yes. shitty anime smut is art, pepe reaction images are art, greentexts are art. every single cultural artifact created in the history of humanity is a part of our legacy. much of it is retarded, but that doesn't make it illegitimate.
If you draw the line of what's protected by artistic freedom based on whether "the experts" consider it real art, then artistic freedom might as well be dead.

>>4711016
It's not illegitimate but you have to ask yourself if it is something that should pass the filter of time. I think we can agree that we want the stuff that is not retarded to survive and the one that is to die. We can only hold so much in our collective memory, and I'd rather spend my attention on quality art.

I'm not for censorship, I think you should draw whatever the fuck you want, but at the same time you can't expect normies to accept loli art as anything but degeneracy if it doesn't have at least something for them.

Lolita (the book) survived censorship because it is a fucking masterpiece of literature, not just because "everything is art so we should protect it". If it was just a smut story about an old nonce busting a nut we wouldn't be talking about it now.

>>4711087
if you follow this reply chain, the point of contention was between
>Even if you draw a lascivious exhibition of the pubic area of someone that the viewer could reasonably conclude to be a minor, and the general public finds it both sexually appealing and offensive, you'll still get a chance to defend it before a judge. If you can convince them that it's art rather than pornography, then you're fine.
and
>even the hypothetical doujinshi equivalent of lolita probably wouldn't be seen as having "artistic merit" by your average judge, simply for its anime aesthetic.
I'm not arguing that smut is good art, but even philosophy can't draw the line between what does and doesn't constitute art along the lines of "artistically valuable" subject matter and execution. It's a useless, basically arbitrary legal category that only serves as a pretext for selective censorship. And I do expect normies to understand that. If they don't, then more and more similar categories will be introduced into law until anything can be censored when it's expedient for the people in power.

>>4698163
but seriously, in a few decades when pedo-hysteria will be a thing of the past, the same kind of people that want to censor loli and 3d little girls nowadays will be the ones critizicing how backwards was current society for doing so

>>4711016
>If you draw the line of what's protected by artistic freedom based on whether "the experts" consider it real art, then artistic freedom might as well be dead.
Well, that is where the line is de facto drawn, since the experts (i.e. the Supreme Court) are the ones who decide what is protected by artistic freedom.

>>4711087
>If it was just a smut story about an old nonce busting a nut we wouldn't be talking about it now.
I don't know about that. Fanny Hill is definitely just a smut story, but it's still remembered.

>>4711128
I have a counterexample for that

A Girl on the shore by inio asano is a manga that has explicit sex of an underaged couple (it's never said explicitly they are underage, but the context implies it), but it's still published in most of the western world without censorship.

And you don't need to have a doctorate in philosophy to understand that there's an abyss in terms of content between that and your average loli doujinshi. I am not a fan of the story but it's evident that there is at least some character development and a message that is trying to be communicated.

It's arbitrary, that's sure, but not as much as you may seem to imply

That said, Asano has a different "anime style" from the average, so I don't know if that is a contributing factor.

>>4711149
you keep dodging in different directions - first it was "well, people have the right not to remember", now it's "judging whether something has artistic values is factually what the courts do". neither of those had anything to do with my argument. do you agree that "artistically valuable" an arbitrary, easily abusable category or do you not?

>>4711151
I don't know about it but judging from the wiki page:
>It is one of the most prosecuted and banned books in history.
To me seems like an extreme case of Streisand effect. Just like De Sade's books are now famous while being objectively garbage (I know, I've read a few of them)

this guy makes a argument that it is legal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkEUfib6Ju8