/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

What does /jp/ think about loli?

If you post pics try to keep it NN, I want to have a civil discussion without normals shitting it up.

[Anonymous No.]

http://archive.foolz.us/jp/search/text/%22what%20does%20jp%20think%20about%22/

We've definitely had this thread a million times already.

[Anonymous No.]

Cute images of children are fine, sexualized images of children are wrong. Yes they are not real people. No liking GTA does not make you a mass murderer. However you do have a sexual attraction to children. This makes you a pedophile. Denying this is stupid. What you should argue is that being a pedophile is not unethical in and of itself, but a serious paraphilia you should seek help for.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642266
But it doesn't.

Also, normals think that children is anyone under 17, so that buzzword is misused often.

How does liking a drawing equal a thoughtcrime again?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642266
It's not a paraphilia that you can "seek help for" anymore than being gay is.

You just don't get to have sex.

Not a big deal.

[Anonymous No.]

who pedo here?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642291
Pretend I said "prepubescent children" then, which is what most loli is.

To use another 2D example, plenty of people here like feet. You may not like 3D feet, but you have a sexual attraction to feet. You are a foot fetishist. Same goes for children.

I believe lolicon is wrong, but I think you people should be given help instead of being hunted down like witches. I am glad that lolicon distribution is starting to be stopped though, even in Japan. I think Reddit shut down its lolicon subreddits a few days ago.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642266

Nope, I'm gonna fap to children, and lurk hidden wikis all I want, and not seek "help"

If being attracted to preteens is wrong I don't want to be right.

And for your information I'm around children constantly, and yet no disasters have occurred.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642307

>I believe lolicon is wrong, but I think you people should be given help instead of being hunted down like witches. I am glad that lolicon distribution is starting to be stopped though, even in Japan. I think Reddit shut down its lolicon subreddits a few days ago.

HURR BAN PICTURES. what a faggot, go back to reddit.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642307
2D attractions don't carry over into the real world.

Again, these are just drawings, how are they "wrong"?

I can fap to them, but at the same time I can fap to normal more vanilla types of erotica.

I view it as a fetish just like any other.

Do you persecute people who are into things like bondage?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642300
Being gay is fine because we were only restricted by cultural norms before. Two grown men can intelligently decide if they want to stick their penises in each other. Perhaps children can too, but as it stands current research and the law says children cannot consent. Pedophilia is abnormal and it is a DSM mental disorder.

>>8642327
Perhaps you think you are antagonizing me. Again, I have nothing against pedophiles. Nobody is trying to help you, and that is the problem. Perhaps your attraction to children is natural or the result of some trauma. In which case I do not blame you, as long as you do not draw lolicon (in before "LOL I DRAW LOLI U MADD???") or abuse real children.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642307
>I believe lolicon is wrong, but I think you people should be given help instead of being hunted down like witches.

What a coincidence. I believe you are wrong, but I think you people should be given help instead of hunting us down like witches.

[Anonymous No.]

I'm not into it but I don't mind it.

Frankly I'd rather have some dude getting off to 2d lolis than paying a russian somewhere to rape a kidnapped 8 year old.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642350

And I'm telling you it's not something that needs helping, and it's hardly unnatural. Able to bleed, able to breed. Being gay is a lot more backwards that fucking a nice, fertile, 12 year old if you think about it.

[Anonymous No.]

Eh, as long as it's 2D, it's all good. If I was aroused by actual children I'd seek help, but I'm not, and I'm not hurting anyone, so I don't see why I should attach that social stigma to myself so that those who can't differentiate between 2D and 3D will be satisfied.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642307
Take your moralfaggotry somewhere else. I think Reddit would be a suitable place for you.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642339
Yes, ban pictures. Plenty of pictures are illegal already. Are you saying that no pictures should be illegal?

>>8642340
> 2D attractions don't carry over into the real world.
They often do. We have a thread about it right now. I get that people like Mad Thad are a minority, but it does happen.
> Do you persecute people who are into things like bondage?
No, but I would understand they are, well, into bondage. Whether it is 2D or 3D. If people are into children, I accept they are pedophiles. Court rulings have said children need not be real. Even if all CP images were pseudophotographs, I think these people need help because they are masturbating to children.

>>8642367
Mostly referring to prepubescent children, which is pretty wrong at a biological level. You should not want to fuck something that cannot produce children. As for 14-year-olds it is certainly a grey area, but societal norms make it very clear that an adult wanting to have sex with a girl in her early teens is wrong. If you want to fight against that, fine.

[Anonymous No.]

Let's have another discussion about this.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642350
So you let the law decide for you what is right and wrong?

Way to think for yourself, mate.

[Anonymous No.]

>233487239847 posts and 792873542 image replies omitted. None of them contain anything that hasn't been heard a hundred times before. Click Reply to view this shit again if you haven't gotten tired of it yet.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642378
>They often do. We have a thread about it right now. I get that people like Mad Thad are a minority, but it does happen.
>I get that people like Mad Thad are a minority
You acknowledge this and yet you still say these things?
>I think these people need help because they are masturbating to children.
No, they aren't. People can have bondage fetishes, feet fetishes, do you deny that someone can have a 2D fetish? Do you deny that someone's sexuality can be entirely limited to 2D? Go elsewhere with your slippery slope nonsense please. By your logic people who watch anime need help because it can lead to lolicon and lolicon can lead to child pornography. They don't need any help until they cross the line.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642382
No, but I respect why that law exists. For example there are laws against murder because murder is wrong. I certainly wouldn't advocate murder just to fight the powah or whatever. Though there is a slight truth in what you say. We should respect the laws of where we live, even if we disagree with them. I'm not saying a state should have complete control over its people, but you basically agree to live under those laws. Go read Crito or something.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642378
get out, your a freaking retard. picture dont fucking hurt anyone and you can you whatever you fucking want with them without hurting anybody. Im also not a pedo but i understand its not their fucking fault. Banning 2d fucking drawings and going to jail because of them is fucking retarded. you say going to jail for life because you jacked off to a picture is the same as killing someone? you could of easily been born as a pedo, you ignorant fuck.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642378

>Are you saying that no pictures should be illegal?

Yes, that's what I'm saying, and if you really don't know why at this point then I'm sorry but I'm sick of having this argument, especially if you're retarded enough to think outlawing drawings is a good idea. I'm not going to bother with another exercise in futility.

>>8642378

Plenty of girl's bleed under 10 I hate to tell ya. You know what that means!

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642269
Don't use that archive.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642392
>We should respect the laws of where we live, even if we disagree with them
You should read some Rousseau. It's like you think people are doing us a favor by letting us live in certain areas, which they only own through coercion in the first place.

Not that it came be helped.

[Anonymous No.]

Nothing will be said that hasn't been said at least a hundred times before.
This thread is pointless.
It's probably pedophiles arguing against it now out of boredom, and to see if any new argment pops up.
At least, that's what I like to imagine.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642400
there is fucking nothing wrong at all with jerking off to a fucking photo or 2d drawing, go back to crying at your church.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642388
> You acknowledge this and yet you still say these things?
Yes, because it is still significant. I have been to plenty of hidden services like OnionIB where people say things like, "I started with lolicon, then I wanted real CP." It's more common than you think, because not everyone has the whole anti-3D complex most /jp/ers claim to have. Again before someone brings it up, I am not about to say we should ban GTA because it "makes people murderers." I don't think lolicon makes people child rapists, but it certainly gets plenty of people into 3D child porn. These people need help.

> No, they aren't. People can have bondage fetishes, feet fetishes, do you deny that someone can have a 2D fetish? Do you deny that someone's sexuality can be entirely limited to 2D? Go elsewhere with your slippery slope nonsense please. By your logic people who watch anime need help because it can lead to lolicon and lolicon can lead to child pornography. They don't need any help until they cross the line.
The difference is, they are directly masturbating to children. They have sexual fantasies about children. Perhaps in the future there will be some distinction between 3D pedophilia and 2D pedophilia, but as of right now these people are pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642413

>"I started with lolicon, then I wanted real CP."

Funny, because around here it's generally the opposite.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642413
if they are a pedo there is nothing to do to help them, its the same as being gay. because of the world we live in they have to suffer for their whole life in fear because of retards like you who wont let them jerk off to at least a fucking 2d drawing. Also being into loli is not even close to being into real 3d girls. if they are, they are just real pedos and would be into it anyway without the loli.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642413
you cant go to jail in the US for 2d drawings, or at least if you don't get a retarded christian judge.

[Anonymous No.]

In my country, liking anything otaku culture instantly gets you "burn that pedo!" looks and comments. And I don't even like loli.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642413
>Perhaps in the future there will be some distinction between 3D pedophilia and 2D pedophilia, but as of right now these people are pedophiles.
Its called moving to japan,korea.

[Anonymous No.]

I am in favor of slaughtering horses. There are many good reasons for this practice in terms of animal husbandry and livestock management, but instead I’ll focus on the worst reason of all: I hate horses. They’re big, stupid, and dangerous. People are being killed by these animals every year and yet they have fan clubs and are being portrayed sympathetically in our media. Somewhere right now, a little girl is getting a pony for her birthday. Why not just hand her a lit stick of dynamite, jackass?

There are plenty of reasons I can think of to slaughter every single horse in America. Did anyone ever consider that horses are starving children in the third world? How much grain every year is wasted on what amounts to a lawn ornament for rich people? If you own a horse, you are a murderer.

Now, I haven’t told you these things simply because I hate horses and want you to know this. It’s not just because every dealing I’ve ever had with these awful beasts has been a terrifying near-death experience. It’s not just to remind you that horses a terrible investment and that you should never buy one. No, this is to set up something I like to call the Horse Slaughter Method for Getting Your Way.

The point of this article is to provide a key example of how our freedom of speech is undermined by appealing to base emotions. This is happening throughout the English-speaking world, Europe, and Japan.

Between 2006 and late 2011 it was illegal to slaughter horses in the United States due to a federal law1). The major backers of this law included several “animal rights” groups that weren’t so much concerned with treating animals humanely as people completely opposed to killing animals for any reason at all and eating meat (see also PETA). If your agenda is too hard to swallow at the moment (say universal and legally enfoced veganism), then you have to start somewhere.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642433
where the fuck do you live.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642398
Pretty much this. The thought of sending someone to jail and ruining their life for something they have not done is disgusting. Someone who would do such a thing is much more of a criminal than the people they are trying to put away.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642429

More like if you're not a retard and plead guilty, and hire an incompetent lawyer.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642438
This.

What clueless normals don't realize is that pedos are the scapegoat that is used to justify internet censorship and privacy rights violations.

[Anonymous No.]

Alright, did you sympathize with those guys?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642413
>Yes, because it is still significant. I have been to plenty of hidden services like OnionIB where people say things like, "I started with lolicon, then I wanted real CP." It's more common than you think, because not everyone has the whole anti-3D complex most /jp/ers claim to have.
And? At that point, they need help. Not before.
>The difference is, they are directly masturbating to children.
>They have sexual fantasies about children.
No, they aren't and no they don't. They are directly masturbating to drawings of stylized children, which are similar, but importantly different from real ones. No matter how you try to construe it, they are two separate things. You may as well argue that men will become gay from being heterosexual, because I would argue real men can be conceived as closer to real women than drawn women are to drawn women.
>Perhaps in the future there will be some distinction between 3D pedophilia and 2D pedophilia, but as of right now these people are pedophiles.
Because people like you fail to make the distinction, these people are defined as such, and so they need help? You're arguing whether or not they need help based on the semantics of it?

I shouldn't be surprised. Your argument relies on the fallacious logic of placing loli "children" and real children "children" and then acting like they are therefore equated. Apples are fruit, oranges are fruit, therefore apples are oranges.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642438
Step One: Pick a sympathetic target to get your foot in the door.

Out there, brain damaged or otherwise mentally retarded individuals believe that horses are likeable, graceful, and elegant creatures that we should care for. I don’t know how or why they see this in what amounts to a human stomping machine, but hey, to each their own. OH, except they didn’t believe in to each their own themselves, because they fell in line with radicals and outlawed the slaughter of horses. Right now, several nations have stringent laws on the books or in the works that outlaw comic books and art that portrays children in adult situations (naked, engaging in sex, doing taxes I guess, since I've definitely spent more time on taxes than sex in my adult life).

Step Two: Fall in line with the radicals lest you appear sympathetic to the unsympathetic.

No one much cares for the thought of animals being slaughtered in general. It’s not a pretty process particularly if you believe the animal involved is beautiful or whatever. Slaughterhouses are easy targets because they’re disgusting and so are lolicons. Don’t get me wrong, I am in no way condoning actual child pornography because that harms actual people. All I’m talking about here are comic books. Few care for the notion of a comic book portraying children involved in sex, reading the fine print on appliance warranties, and other nasty aspects of adulthood. On the other hand, why should it be illegal? Who is being harmed? Then again, the mainstream does not worry because they are not personally affected. Or are they?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642398
Which is why these people need help. I am on your side more than you think. Possession of 2D child pornography should be illegal, but these people should be rehabilitated instead of publicly shamed.

>>8642400
> Plenty of girl's bleed under 10 I hate to tell ya. You know what that means!
Very rarely. Age limits aren't arbitrary. Maybe we could adjust limits for when people hit puberty, but the logistics of that would make it almost impossible.

>>8642410
Except there is. Come back when you have outgrown your angsty teenage /b/tard mentality, please!

>>8642418
Good for those guys. Perhaps we could wean people off 3D child pornography by first switching to 2D child pornography.

>>8642429
True, though you can for distributing it:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
Which is what I think is the problem. Distributors should be stopped, especially if they are also producers. People who simply possess child pornography should be referred to some sort of help service, like drug users.

>>8642442
Masturbating to pictures of children (whether they were brutally raped, real children or lewd drawings of fictitious characters) *is* the problem. Or more formally, possessing and collecting these pictures is, particularly if you intend to distribute them.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642454
That got me so angry. I felt pathetic getting mad at it, but when it's not happy sex it's horrible.

[Anonymous No.]

>>http://stallman.org/articles/blamerms.html
> > If your daughter gets pregnant by the football captain you blame the school for poor sex education.
> A responsible teacher would have taught her effective birth control techniques as well as pleasurable sex techniques.

[Anonymous No.]

Samurai used to have sex with little boys and make them their apprentices, and nobody cared. Same with the Greeks and Roman, pedophilia has been prominent in many cultures with no drawbacks.

The act of sex with a child isn't harmful, what's harmful is society telling them they were taken advantage of. If you lived in a cabin far away from the world, and had consensual loving sex with a 10 year old girl, do you really believe she would develop mental problems like "abused" children in our culture do?

Our attitude towards pedophilia and child-adult love is the thing that is really hurting kids. Checkmate

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642469
>people from the past did it therefore it's right

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642258
What's with the heavy FBI presence?
On /jp all we want is to be a little girl who drinkis tea all day. Fucking pedophiles.

[Anonymous No.]

you have to be some church going fuck to put someone in jail for a picture, let alone putting him in jail for something that he couldn't control. Being a pedo in this world has to be the most fucked up thing in the world. Its worse than being born a retard, you exist to be hated like the devil and live a life of sorrow. And people like this fuckhead in this thread make their lives even worse. Its even funnier because if we were still aloud to have sex at 13 like in the past, pedos wouldn't exist.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642461
Step three: Await the inevitable unintended consequences.

If slaughtering horses is illegal, what are we to do with unwanted horses? In the end, for horses, it turned out to be numerous cases of neglect and being shipped abroad alive to foreign slaughter houses that were not as rigorously regulated as their former American counterparts. In the end, there was much cruelty (not that I give a fuck about horses, but no sense in being mean about it). Back in the world of people, it seems now that loli is being actively searched for as contraband in airports and border crossings. People are being sent to prison for owning comic books. In some countries, owning a comic book or producing one that portrays unsavory material is in fact subject to a greater punishment than other sex crimes, say bestiality (no joke)2)3). Isn't this kind of law enforcement expensive? Isn't all this distracting from real crimes against actual people? Why was this done? To protect children? What children? These productions are crimes against paper and pixels (and storytelling, (seriously, try reading one)), not children.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642474
>there are currently laws against it so it's wrong

[Anonymous No.]

I'm my opinion loli is just an outlet to get rid of pedophilic urges. The ones that go the extra mile had serious problems to begin, whether it be social issues, other mental issues or complete lack of self control.
Legit pedophiles have more than just sexual urges to children.
I'm not into loli or children but from what I've seen there's a pretty big margin of difference between liking a photo and liking a drawing. Everyone is aware of the socio-politcal stigma against liking children but it is unclear whether or not drawn apparitions apply to the same stigma, some think so, others don't. It's easier to think so because you've already been told to reach that conclusion.
I don't care what you fap to or what you do in your spare time but as long as it doesn't hurt others there's nothing really wrong. If the thought of others jacking to loli keeps you up at night and you must make it your personal vendetta and claim the moral high ground on this board then you're better off at Reddit, where you can boast about your opinions and have everyone pat you on the back for them.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642477
Step four: ?????

In the case of slaughtering horses, the law was eventually changed and the management of livestock went back to normal. As for the laws against loli that are taking over throughout the world, the authorities are continuing to waste resources against a completely manufactured crime. My suggestion is to find out who is behind these laws and expose them for what they are. The very same groups that claim to be fighting for the rights of children are usually completely opposed to pornography of all kinds right down to tasteful nudity in fine art. Oh, and I guess you could vote for whoever opposes them but few are willing to take a stand for the freedom of speech when it comes to this issue in particular. The thing is that the movement stands behind a paper shield, holding it like a human hostage before all that oppose them. You’re allowed to call their bluff because that’s not a person they’re holding…

By the way, we tend to find both sides of the aisle claiming that these laws somehow “protect children”, yet I fail to see how. It's a waste of resources better spent on things that might actually help children like education and health care. To a politician, this is just a cost-effective way of paying lip service to what turns out is a non-issue.

Concluding notes:

I suppose this argument can work in favor of several other issues near and dear to my heart including “hate speech”, profanity, sex/nudity on television, and any other instance where the law is brought in to control thoughts rather than actually protect anyone.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642474
Nice strawman.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642469
this. Greece fucked little boys everyday and nothing happened to them, its really all based on society norms.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642482
Just to let you all know, if it wasn't obvious, these aren't my words, I'm just quoting someone.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642465
>Needing help for a fetish.

Back to >>>/soc/ with you.

[Anonymous No.]

What's the point. It makes me happy when I read that you guys all know they're different and make really compelling arguments but nothing will change, everything you've written will just disappear, no one with any power will read this. Then it makes me sad again.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642465
>Masturbating to pictures of children (whether they were brutally raped, real children or lewd drawings of fictitious characters) *is* the problem. Or more formally, possessing and collecting these pictures is, particularly if you intend to distribute them.

I will not question that it is morally questionable. However, ruining a life is ruining a life. If a prosecutor were to put someone on the sex offenders list and potential for jail for 2d than he may as well be a criminal himself. He may be fighting for the law, but the end results are the same as a crime leaving an innocent person ruined.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642503
The boomers will die out eventually and our generation will be in positions of power.

Who am I kidding, the kind of braindead peon that browses reddit will have influence and we wont.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642458
> And? At that point, they need help. Not before.
They need help the moment they suffer from a DSM-recognized disorder, pedophilia, by masturbating to images of children. As I mentioned, whether the children are real or not is of no consequence to you, a random Anonymous, masturbating to pictures of 8-year-olds.

> No, they aren't and no they don't. They are directly masturbating to drawings of stylized children, which are similar, but importantly different from real ones.
The law has pretty much always been against pseudophotographs, which are fake images designed to look like real ones. No children may be involved in their production (except for perhaps a few Photoshop assets) but the end result is the same. Again, "They're not real children," is not a real argument. U.S. judges have specifically said that this is the case and adapted the laws as a result. We should not aid pedophiliac fantasies any more than we should distribute guides on How to Murder and Get Away With It.

[Anonymous No.]

If you think this is attractive you should be sent to a concentration camp and castrated, end of story.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642474

>People don't do it now therefore it's wrong!

And I hate to tell ya but the track record of fucking kids is a lot longer than not doing so. Sex isn't always such a big deal, society is just fears it now. They say allowing children to experiment while they're young causes trauma, but I say they have that wrong, it causes trauma because everyone tells them it's supposed to, yet you'll see no records of this being an issue any time in the past. This wasn't an issue a century ago.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642458
> Because people like you fail to make the distinction, these people are defined as such, and so they need help? You're arguing whether or not they need help based on the semantics of it?
I consider myself to be doing the opposite. It is you people who are arguing that you have found some sort of loophole through 2D. These people are pedophiles. Pedophilia is a sexual attraction to children. It does not mean you rape children. It does not mean you touch children. It does not even mean you like ONLY children. However, nor does it mean the children have to be real. Again, pseudophotographs and fantasies. Go visit /d/. People will tell you they have "foot fetishes" and "eyeball fetishes" and whatever else. So why does this suddenly not apply to children? Why do lolicons not say, "I have a children fetish, a.k.a. pedophilia"? ("fetish" and "paraphilia" are pretty much synonymous now--as I understand it fetishes used to only refer to non-living objects).

I think you guys try far too hard to distinguish yourselves from "real" pedophiles. You are a pedophile. This is not worth arguing over. As a pedophile, you suffer from a mental disorder. Perhaps you have not broken any laws, which is fine. However you do need help, just as people with any mental disorder do.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642517
She is the worst loli character. I wouldn't feel bad if she was raped and murdered next chapter.

[Anonymous No.]

Unless it becomes a harmful hobby, unless a clear link can be drawn between lolicon pictures and people who assault/rape children, i'm not sure anyone here has an argument who opposes lolicon.
Chances are, if you look into the encrypted folders of genuine assholes who go out and attack children, you'll find CP, not loli.
sage because this has been discussed a million times.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642517
>That bulge
>Those v-shaped hip bones.

HHHHhhhnnnnngggggggg

[Anonymous No.]

>that feel when everytime you see a child you imagine what her vagina looks like

I would never rape or abuse a child though, because unlike the media I realize that pedophile isn't synonymous with "child rapist".

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642537

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642521
>They need help the moment they suffer from a DSM-recognized disorder, pedophilia, by masturbating to images of children. As I mentioned, whether the children are real or not is of no consequence to you, a random Anonymous, masturbating to pictures of 8-year-olds.
Oh, wow. They need help because psychiatry's 4e currently says they do? And they might not need help if that gets revised in 5e? Just so you know, the reality didn't change. Please try to form your own opinions on what's right and what's wrong; who needs help and who doesn't, rather than parroting whatever the most respected authority's current policy is. Especially when that policy is shit out of a highly questionable field that changes its opinion every few years.

The rest of your post really is "the law says it is so, so it is so." I'm not really able to understand how you can even form coherent sentences to respond to me when that's actually what you believe. Your stance would be entirely different if you simply lived in a different country, or in a different time.

And what would you do if you had the power to change laws, when you base your morality on them, rather than the other way around? You're really pathetic, wow.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642526
this guy is such a fucking troll. there are way to many people into loli for it to be a disorder moron.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642469
>>8642524
Can someone please post that paper that compared the mental development of ordinary children with children who were abused? It basically dispelled the myth that "It's because grown-ups tell them it's bad".
Fucking children is, and always has been, harmful. Even if they consent and it's all sunshine and rainbows while you're in a `relationship'.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642465

>I am on your side more than you think.

No you're not, you're a fucking snake who wants to ban drawings and likely have us all institutionalized, I don't need your "pity", faggot.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642526
Here's something that will really get your feeble mind in a twist: shouldn't those eyeball fetishists like the eyes of children just as much?

No, because these sweeping categorical labels don't convey the entire reality of their attraction, moron.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642549
The study would only be valid if it compared an adult-child relationship of a couple away from society to one that takes place inside society/the media's sphere of influence.

I don't think that anyone's saying that sexual abuse isn't harmful to kids currently.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642549
Its because of our society, Greece was fucking little boys and it did nothing. Also to the guy who is trying to ban fucking 2d art, your a fucking retard. you cant stop me from drawing whatever i want.

[Anonymous No.]

Ah, Lolita! Light of my life, fire of my groins.
Anyone else read this?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642510
Reddit? Not yet, goons probably. Hope you paid your $10 before the inquisition comes.

[Anonymous No.]

Lo Li Statement Considered Harmful

[Anonymous No.]

loli is not even a problem, its fucking hurting no body,that is a fact. thread over. I will say i pity pedos though for having to life such a shit life.

[Anonymous No.]

What the fuck happed to /jp/.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642545
The DSM works around reality. Disorders are defined by reality. Think about what "disorder" means. A lot of thought went into every single word in DSM, and yes they do change to reflect research. Nobody claims that means "reality has changed", it just means a definition has undergone a slight shift to accommodate what we now KNOW about reality. Your "personal definition" of pedophilia does not matter. Here is the "5E" definition of pedophilic disorder:
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=186
Take your pop-science "lol psychology isnt even real its questionably not even a science :P" bullshit back to /sci/.

> The rest of your post really is "the law says it is so, so it is so."
No it isn't. I only brought up pseudophotographs as an example of how just about everyone in the world views what you're doing as wrong even if a real child is not involved. I am not basing my morality on the law, I am agreeing with the law based on my morality. If there were no laws and the entire world was in anarchy, I would still think having sex with children or collecting lewd photographs of them is wrong. Perhaps if I was born into a different society I wouldn't, but that can be said of anything (plenty of societies practice what *you* think is wrong).

(cont.)

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642606
You people are being awfully hostile towards me and I do not understand why. A summation of my points:
* Pedophilia should not be stigmatized. Pedophiles suffer from a problem that needs help. They should not be shamed and ridiculed or even arrested.
* Production and distribution of child pornography is wrong and should be illegal because you are encouraging the above. Or more appropriately, you are outright telling people to be pedophiles. Lolicon artists know people masturbate to their works, so they draw works worth masturbating to. 99% of the time it is outright pornography, perhaps with some sort of plot or what I consider "reverse-fanservice" (e.g. a bit of "d'awwh" to mix up the lewd).
* Pornography of children is child pornography. The children do not have to abused. The children do not have to be real. The children can be drawn idealizations of real children. You would agree for anything else 2D/3D, e.g. there is plenty of 2D scat pornography out there. It does not stop being scat pornography when the feces become drawn idealizations of feces.

We should take efforts to curb child pornography and help pedophiles. This is why I support efforts like SA's Redditbomb:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3466025
However their treatment of pedophiles is harsh and unacceptable.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642610
>pseudophotographs
You probably meant to say "drawings" here.

>You would agree for anything else 2D/3D, e.g. there is plenty of 2D scat pornography out there. It does not stop being scat pornography when the feces become drawn idealizations of feces.
It's obviously scat pornography. It's just that nobody fucking cares if some stranger out there is masturbating to scat.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642610
>e.g. there is plenty of 2D scat pornography out there. It does not stop being scat pornography when the feces become drawn idealizations of feces.
Though the point is that it's a drawn representation. A picture of a flower and a physical flower AREN'T the same thing.
Equally, even if you define the possession of lolicon as a 'disorder' it's a harmless and generally introverted one.

[Anonymous No.]

It's good; it's cute, sexy--it's great pornography. I also support pedophilia as a legitimate paraphilia, like homosexuality. It is hypocritical to accept homosexuality and denounce pedophilia, or any other paraphilia. Please keep in mind that we must separate the philia with the physical sexual acts themselves. At this point, there should be no problem, and I really wish that society would realize this.

Personally, I think sex with children doesn't need to be harmful, we only think so because it's so ingrained in our collective conscious--because it's been vilified over and over in sensationalist moral panic. History has shown us that adult-child love systems can work, we can look at the Greeks for evidence--we can look at even more modern history for evidence. Our current moral systems only exist because of ass-backwards Christian values that have been hammered into societal thought many decades ago, and today moral one-upping propagates our prude, hyper-repressed approach to sexuality.

>>8642610
You're implying that there's something morally wrong with simply being a pedophile. You are also assuming that all pedophiles are exclusive in their sexuality. In the case of loli, it can often be a fetish rather than a full-blown paraphilia, in which case there is absolutely no harm in indulging in it, in the end, it is fantasy. At the same time, if a person IS an exclusive pedophile, would lolicon pornography not help him satiate his desires without resorting to physical assaults on children? Until there is substantial evidence concluding that lolicon pornography leads to increased cases of child sexual abuse, I refuse to allow the censorship of it.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642606

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment

Psychiatry a shit

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642606
No, disorders are defined by what the people who define them think the reality is, or want to say the reality is because of how it benefits them.

Don't try to backpedal. What you're entirely basing your morality on what this authority says, you're incapable of your own opinion. You actually based your argument on what pedophilia is defined as today, and said that they need help based on that. You acknowledged the possibility of that changing, and implied that your own personal opinion of whether or not they need help would change then. All you can do is refer to official policy in your arguments, you can't actually make a case for why those definitions and laws should be or should not be. You've also thrown in a reference to what the majority of people think, classy. Do you also look to the majority to form your opinions?

You're really not worth talking with, because those laws and definitions won't change in the course of our discussion, you're a brick wall. Your idea of "helping" them is classing them as criminals before they've actually done any harm to anyone or anything, anyway. Thought crime logic.

[Anonymous No.]

I seriously hope this guy is just a really persistent troll. Otherwise I worry for him.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642610
>curb child pornography and help pedophiles

The problem is that pedophiles actively seek, make or distribute it. These people are abnormal. Pampering them will not solve the problem. They must be sought out and eliminated, like a tumor.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642638
Psychiatry is a farce.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642606
No, disorders are defined by what the people who define them think the reality is, or want to say the reality is because of how it benefits them.

Don't try to backpedal. You're entirely basing your morality on what this authority says, you're incapable of your own opinion. You actually based your argument on what pedophilia is defined as today, and said that they need help based on that. You acknowledged the possibility of that changing, and implied that your own personal opinion of whether or not they need help would change then. All you can do is refer to official policy in your arguments, you can't actually make a case for why those definitions and laws should be or should not be. You've also thrown in a reference to what the majority of people think, classy. Do you also look to the majority to form your opinions?

You're really not worth talking with, because those laws and definitions won't change in the course of our discussion, you're a brick wall. Your idea of "helping" them is classing them as criminals before they've actually done any harm to anyone or anything, anyway. Thought crime logic.

[Anonymous No.]

Also what's inherently wrong with OWNING, not PRODUCING CP? They already exist, why ban a video? HURR DURR IT FUELS DEMAND, well there isn't much money made in CP, people don't pay for it. If they were gonna they'd go to some shit hole and get a child prostitute, not risk making some shady deal with so many variables for getting caught.

If possession is legal or illegal, it'll still be around, unless you want big brother to have some ridiculous surveillance over the whole fucking internet, and you probably do.

And I find it funny really, pictures od naked children 3D, or 2D are perfectly fine until someone decided they're attracted to it! Then it's BAN BAN BAN. Why aren't you out arresting mothers for their videos and pictures of naked children? Where's the line for owning media of naked children? If I buy someone's home movies at a yard sale and masturbate to it should it all of a sudden become illegal?

[Tokiko No.]

>>8642690
The whole concept of files being illegal seems weird to me. What makes this series of 0's and 1's inherently evil? How many can you take away to make it legal? Isn't a binary file a form of free speech?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642690
Child pornography is a billion-dollar industry.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642654
That worked so well with the jews.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642701
The whole concept of actions being illegal seems weird to me. What makes this series of movements in time and space inherently evil? How many can atoms can you shift to make it legal?

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642454

Nope. They are on the same level of serial killers.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642697

Who's raking it in? Slavs who molest their daughters? I don't see the production values here. Regardless, going after consumers never works. It's like arresting the druggies instead of the drug dealer, you're not going to stamp out everyone who wants it, even if you issue the death penalty.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642712
But they are human serial killers. It is a realistic depiction of people who do horrible things, rather than the usual monster treatment.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642690
>well there isn't much money made in CP
This. People are deluded into believing that there's a huge industry out there that pumps out a bunch of CP to fulfill an ambiguous demand. Rather, it's parents that rape their children and film it to brag to others online. Targeting distribution doesn't stop people from raping their children because the main incentive is not monetary; however, this implies they're targeting distribution, which they are not, they are targeting individuals for possession. Even when the main incentive IS monetary, targeting possession does absolutely nothing to solve the problem. It doesn't hinder distribution or creation. We can look at America's ridiculous War on Drugs for evidence of the failure of this approach.

[Tokiko No.]

>>8642709
I'd argue that our physical, practical reality is much more important than the transient and `artificial' reality of the internet. Our laws support the philosophical concepts of life and ownership, among other things, which have less meaning in cyberspace. You can't exactly murder a website. Judges and politicians believe that computers do not have souls and computers do. Anyway, the common man has more of himself invested in the physical reality than he does in the internet. Or so my thoughts go.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642718
1) guy sees guy molest his son
2) konoyaro, I should do that too!
3) molests his son, uploads to brag
4) konyaro, I should do that too!
repeat
possession creating victims

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642722
That's just nonsense. The validity of our laws targeting "reality" make no more sense than those governing binary files when you examine them in this way. We are all just circumstantial constructions of energy and matter which appear to be thinking and acting beings.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642653
I'm going to be honest here--that's how I started in >>8642266
I just got suckered into playing devil's advocate and arguing. I meant to mention the SA/Reddit thing earlier and figured it would be a giveaway.

I don't care if you don't believe me or think I'm playing the "lol i trol u" defense, but I really believe what >>8642637 said. We should research whether sex with children is harmful in and of itself and if it turns out the masses were wrong, start a proper programme to educate children so they don't get suckered into it. Sex isn't about making babies any more. By the same reasoning I think consensual child pornography should be fine. Lolicon doesn't even enter into the equation because they're fucking drawings.

It was fun /jp/, glad to see you guys are on the side of truth and justice. I guess I will delete my posts in case I upset a bored lurker or something.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642723
1) guy sees cute loli molested in chinese comic
2) konoyaro, I should do that too!
3) there is no such a thing in real life
4) forever ronery

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642723
>konoyaro
>konyaro

Reported for being a stupid piece of shit, and using random Japanese in your sentences.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642697
Child pornography is very broadly defined, and the majority of CP that is produced and sold doesn't involve actual sex, but rather suggestive poses and outfits. Even then, the majority of these producers get the consent of both child and adult before making anything. I see no harm or foul in this.

The CP that I have a problem with, are rape videos.

>>8642723
We would have to assume that possessing the video necessarily makes these people rape their kids, which is hardly the case. These people will rape their kids regardless of whether or not they see other people do it. Of course, in this case, it COULD encourage them, but keep in mind that these people are different from third party possession, as these people would be creators and distributors first and foremost.

[Captain Chen !VNnRLZxm/M No.]

Lolicon here. Real CP is disgusting, just sayin'.

[Anonymous No.]

I love AMERICA~

[Anonymous No.]

Well I'm impressed /jp/, you managed to have a civil discussion, from both sides of the argument, on an extremely controversial topic, with little shitflinging involved.

I guess the rest of 4chan hasn't overrun this board yet.

[Anonymous No.]

Was he trolling in some other thread?

[Anonymous No.]

Cute little 2D girls are cute and make my heart melt in a completely non sexual way. I can't fap to ``loli'' or depictions of little girls having sex. I find it disgusting, if anything.

[Anonymous No.]

>>8642723

What a ridiculous argument. You could say the same thing for violence in movies, or cop chase programs, or murders on the news. The fact media exists containing something does not make everyone go out and do it.