/jp/ - Otaku Culture

Lolicon

paeodophaeoliaeo

>>9379441
>>9379442
>565467346 posts and 243643643 image replies omitted. Click Reply to view.

>>9379451
I'm clicking "Reply" but it's not doing anything.
Is it because the thread's too big?

>>9379441
>>9379442

>>9379441
>>9379442
I guess you both win

"Taylor, Quayle and Holland (2001) also argue that regardless of whether the children portrayed in objectionable images are physically abused during the creation of the images, victimisation occurs each time an image of a child is used for a sexual purpose (including sexual fantasy generation, arousal and masturbation). In effect, this activity encourages non-consensual use of individuals as sexual objects."
- "Internet Traders of Child Pornography and other Censorship Offenders in New Zealand" by Angela Carr (Dept. of Internal Affairs, Wellington, New Zealand, April 2004), citing "Typology of Paedophile Picture Collections" by Max Taylor, Ethel Quayle, and Gemma Holland in The Police Journal, vol. 74, no. 2 (2001), pages 97-107

"Child pornography, by itself, represents an act of sexual abuse or exploitation of a child and, by itself, does harm to that child."
- Kenneth V. Lanning in "Child Molesters: A Behavioral Analysis" (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 1992)

"Child pornography is not a computer crime. Every image depicts a child being abused. They are crime-scene photographs."
- Michelle Collins, the director of the Exploited Children Unit of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, as quoted in Edison/Metuchen Sentinel, The Examiner, and The Independent (New Jersey, August 30, 2006) in an article about a man who sexually assaulted boys and girls aged 2 to 8 and videotaped these acts plus placed hidden cameras in rooms where the children undressed

"It cannot be emphasised enough that behind every horrid piece of child pornography is a tragic case of an abused defenceless child, somewhere in the world."
- Chris Ellison, Australian Senator and Minister for Justice and Customs, as quoted in The Age (Melbourne, Australia, February 23, 2005)

"It's chilling to realize that every photo on every page of every child pornography magazine... is a permanent record of the works of a child molester."
- William V. Roth, U.S. Senator from Delaware and Chairman of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in Spring 1985, as quoted in The Los Angeles Times (September 16, 1985)

"While little is known about the specific long-term effects of use in child pornography, the immediate trauma and effects of sexual abuse on children is well documented. Because child pornography is a clear record of child sex abuse, its victims would therefore experience the same emotional and physical consequences in addition to any harm resulting from the pornography. ... Child victims of pornography face the possibility of a lifetime of victimization because the pornography can be distributed indefinitely. Physical, psychological, and emotional effects of child sexual abuse are coupled with the possibility of the pornography resurfacing. Being photographed during sexual abuse intensifies the child's shame, humiliation, and powerlessness."
- "Child Pornography: The Criminal-Justice-System Response" by E. Klain, et al. (National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, 2001), http://www.missingkids.com/en_US/publications/NC81.pdf

"It is possible that victims of child pornography suffer as severely if not more severely than other victims of sexual crimes. It is psychologically very devastating, because every time that image is looked at or shared that child is being victimized again and again. The Internet allows these pictures to be shared."
- Kelly Kennedy, a spokesman for the Wisconsin Attorney General's office, as quoted in The Fond Du Lac Reporter (September 7, 2005)

"It does not threaten the First Amendment for the Federal legislature to conclude, for example, that inducing children to engage in sexual activity can physically harm them, and consequently to prohibit the photographing of children who have been induced to do so, and to legislate against the publication and sale of magazines or films in which such photography appears. The publisher and the seller are principals in the abuse."
- "Taking on the Censors" by Robert Sabbag in Oui, January 1978

"The use of children in sexually explicit films is of course criminal exploitation of people who can't defend themselves, and it is cruelty to the children and an offense against the parental feelings of anybody with the slightest amount of sympathetic imagination. I think the makers of such pictures must be tracked down and imprisoned."
- "Dr. Ruth's Guide for Married Lovers" by Dr. Ruth Westheimer (Warner Books, 1986)

>>9379454

le traced cp face

>>9379453
You need a 4chan Gold Account

>>9379469

fuck lolis, let's have an "quotation'' mark discussion

>>9379474
Are you the first post in this thread, motherfucker? Sit down and discuss CP or shut up.

>>9379474
"This is for Normals."
>This is for quoting posts.
``This is traditional and appropriate.''
>>This is for shitposting.

>>9379479
But Loli isn't CP

>>9379484
>>>This is for shitposting.
What about multi-level quotes?
>>This is for quoting posts.

>>9379479

that gif scared me

plz post more loli

>>9379460
>"Taylor, Quayle and Holland (2001) also argue that regardless of whether the children portrayed in objectionable images are physically abused during the creation of the images, victimisation occurs each time an image of a child is used for a sexual purpose (including sexual fantasy generation, arousal and masturbation). In effect, this activity encourages non-consensual use of individuals as sexual objects."
So how many children do you rape per week, /jp/?

>>9379490
Quoting quotes is rather obnoxious, but I suppose appropriate. Of course >> is also for directing to another post and >>> for directing to another board.

>>9379496
「Quoting quotes is rather obnoxious, but I suppose appropriate. Of course >> is also for directing to another post and >>> for directing to another board.」

>>9379495
none

I have sex consensually

>>9379500
Now you're just going maximum weeaboo.

This is legal in the United States of America. How does that make you feel?

>>9379495
ur mum 20 years ago

>>9379496
>Quoting quotes is rather obnoxious

Why? It's useful sometimes, and this is how it's used in newsgroups and mailing lists (because nobody wants to have to find some previous posting and refer back and forth, same here for big discussions).

>>9379502
According to the law, children cannot consent. Nor, depending on where you live, can adolescents.

>>9379505
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A

Enjoy you're v&.

>>9379511
If you can find me a single US case in which an individual was prosecuted and sentenced for loli with no actual CP, I will find you a dead judge.

>>9379510
>According to nature, children cannot consent.

Fixed that for you.

(is “FTFY” an acceptable use of intentional misquoting, guys?)

I wish I was cute like anzuchang

Does that make me a pedophile?

>>9379517
No, I had it right the first time. Nature has no rules, for good or for ill; it is the law that considers children to be people where appropriate and not where it is not.

>>9379517
What. Consent just means permission.

>>9379520
The fact that you find her cute in the first place makes you a pedophile.

post more loli plz

moralfags plz go

>>9379526
N-no way...

I guess I'm a criminal then!

Is this kiddie porn?

She's not 21.

>>9379516
That doesn't make it not illegal. It just happens that most people who get arrested also have "actual" CP, because, well, they're pedophiles. And the law doesn't make a distinction.

That said, Chris Handley:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/02/obscene-us-manga-collector-jailed-6-months/
No photographs, just comics.

>>9379535
of course not

look at all that meat

>>9379467
>Robert Sabbag
>Ruth Westheimer
Ever noticed that the first people to start this scare about paedophiles were JEWS? Coincidence? I think not.

>>9379537
Well shit. I don't feel like digging into this either so you called my bluff. That's retarded, but hey, it's not gonna happen often. He only caught shit because he had it mailed into his state and was probably in a shit state. Most people can get away with fucking anything. Or I can, fuck the rest of you.

>>9379523
But children aren't mentally capable of giving permission. This is something we can't change, unless we get into gene splicing or something.

Of course, they can say whatever they like, they just don't understand it. A newborn "could" make a chocolate soufflé; it's physically possible.

>>9379557
Because the common situation is the rule, and because sex is such a big deal.

>>9379557
>But children aren't mentally capable of giving permission.
Where does the nature say that?

>>9379562
It does not. People are taught nothing about sexuality until they are all but forced into it and then they are taught to fear it.

>>9379562
Right here, faggot.

*whips out bible*

>>9379523
That's true.
That permission it should be done by the person itself, but because children are unexperienced and naive the law assumes they don't have the necesary intelligence to know what the fuck they are doing, even if the parents doesn't mind and the children wants to try it. The only good excuse is that the children can't bear by himself the responsability of having a non-desired baby so early and ruining their student life.
I don't know for girls, but when I was 10-11 I would have fucked a cute girl if I could... and yes, with 11 years I knew how is babby formed.

>>9379564
Are you talking shit about the holy texts which inspire all great men of this nation? Because if you are, I will hunt you down and tear you off the face of the earth, scumbag.