At 1/18/12 07:14 PM, RobJohnson wrote: Lolicon is a light form of pornography for pedophiles.

Normally id hate attacking someone ad hominem in an argument, but you are either a complete retard or a troll.

At 1/18/12 07:30 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: People become pedophiles not out of choice, but out of nature. You cannot control nature. If you are sexually attracted to little girls, you are sexually attracted to little girls. You don't need lolicon to prove that.:

You.. Are.. An.. Idiot..

At 1/18/12 08:23 AM, Makakaov wrote: Getting people familiar with 'sexy children' concept is lke familiarizing people with ethics, religion, thievery, etc. It increases chance of more people actualy doing that thing. The more we will present children as sexual beings, the more people will try to fuck them, therefore pedophilia is being spread here.

I only half agree with this. I have always had an interest in bondage before I reached puberty, and even if I were the only person on the face of the earth with an interest in it, well, what can I say? I would still be into it. No outside influences 'caused' that spark of interest to be there.

By the same token, coexisting with other people who have the same interests allows ideas and fantasies to cultivate.

You could say lolicon is immoral, wrong, or unethical, but you also have to look at things from a realist standpoint as well as an idealist one. For instance, outlawing drugs does not prevent the usage of them, and in fact, outlawing it also means that if a drug operation is already illegal, it does not have to obey any laws of regulation.

What I'm saying is that lolicon, in addition to child porn or rape pornography or any of that stuff, cannot really be prevented, no matter how strict laws are about it. The decision is not whether or not lolicon artwork should just vanish, but whether or not we want to make it illegal, which really does nothing more than illegalize it (yes, I know I'm being repetitive).

True, lolicon artwork does not have direct victims, but of course it does sexualize children. I suppose in that sense you could think of it as being similar to a rape fantasy; many people fantasize about rape, but wouldn't actually rape someone or want to be sexually assaulted. In this case, the true origin of the problem is when a person lacks the ability to separate fantasy from reality. Of course, it's argued (and rightfully so) that ideas or images can provoke certain human flaws, but that could be said about a lot of things.

Honestly, I don't have a conclusion for this thread as I see lolicon as being a gray area in terms of ethics. This is because while images themselves stay the same and show only one thing at a time, it is the consumers that have different interpretations or inspirations viewing the material itself. Human beings, being such a volatile and variable race, may or may not handle these ideas responsibly.

At 1/18/12 08:38 AM, Gagsy wrote: I sure hope not.

It doesn't my friend since it is drawn childs not real ones.

To help aid in this riveting intelligent discussion on this sickeningly evil fetish, I have painstakingly constructed a carefully balanced Pros&Cons chart. I myself am actually, slightly against the entire concept, but I attempted to be as unbiased as possible :-) :-P ;-) :-O

POSITIVES: it's "victimless" i mean, psh, lolicon? whats the big whoop it's not TECHNICALLY child porn, "it's just art" brah~

NEGATIVES: uhhhhhhhh NO IT'S NOT ART YOU RETARD. YOU'RE A FUCKING FAGGOT FREAK THAT THINKS A DRAWING OF A LITTLE GIRL GETTING FUCKED IS SEXY. KILL YOURSELF. LITERALLY KILL YOURSELF. I WANT YOU TO NON-JOKINGLY COMMIT SUICIDE FOR ENJOYING CARTOON CHILD PORN. FIND A KNIFE OR SOMETHING EQUALLY CAPABLE OF DEATH AND END YOUR THOROUGHLY PATHETIC LIFE YOU WORTHLESS WEEABOO SHITHEAD FUCK. FUCK YOU AND YOUR RIDICULOUS UNJUSTIFIABLE FETISH. NO NORMAL DECENT PERSON EVEN KNOWS WHAT THAT SHIT IS AND IF THEY WERE THERE WOULD BE A HUGE MOVEMENT TO STOP IT JUST LIKE CP. NO ONE CASUALLY ENJOYS LOLI SHIT, THEY JACK OFF THEIR ROTTEN LITTLE PEDOFILE PECKERS TO IT 24/7 AND THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A PERSON THATS INTO THAT TYPE OF SHIT THAT WAS NOT A TOTAL COMPLETE AND UTTER FAGGOT DIE CUNT DIE CUNT DIE DIE DIE IN A FIRE I DON'T CARE JUST DIE FUCK

At 1/18/12 10:37 AM, RobJohnson wrote: Getting off to pictures of cartoon children.
That is disgusting.

What you find disgusting doesn't matter. This isn't about what people 'want'. This is about people getting hurt. You may have the right idea, but it's for the wrong reasons. You should not be standing up for what you want to see in people around you. You should be standing up for victims of child abuse. But whether or not you find it 'disgusting' or merely immoral is completely unimportant.

At 1/18/12 10:51 AM, MrPercie wrote: The thing is, two babys fucking each other would look fucking disgusting in real life (to most people) but things like lolicon can actually make it look attractive because they will give them all the looks of all the sexy adults, then just make them small, flat chested and say they are 12 or something and call it lolicon.

You have a good point there. Drawn images and photographed images are much different, look much different, and have a different psychological impact. For instance, the reason the furry fandom looks erotic is BECAUSE it is drawn and not realistic. Have you read about the uncanny valley?

At 1/18/12 12:12 PM, aListers wrote: I too would compare this to a game. Murder is sick and wrong but people playing games know it. So do people watching lolicon. They know that child abuse is sick and wrong. They are not promoting child abuse by watching these nor are they neccessarily going to turn into child rapists.

You have another point there. When I think lolicon, the first thing that comes to mind is an outcast, nerdy guy sitting in a dark room with a tablet and a computer. When I think of child porn, the first thing that comes to mind is human trafficking. And I don't think I'm alone in that.

At 1/18/12 12:35 PM, phsychopath wrote:

The person you're describing was interested in engaging the act prior to finding porn of it, you don't need visual examples to develop a fantasy of it, the fantasy is where the material stems from.

I half disagree. People may have certain dispositions, but can be swayed by what they grow up with. Why do you think there are so many more bisexual women than men in our society? Because women are sexualized, so females growing up view each other as sexual beings as well. Of course, I don't think any amount of outside influence could cause someone to go to such extremes as rape or pedophilia if they didn't have a severe issue in the first place.

At 1/18/12 01:14 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Look beyond it, and try to relate it with the imaginative realm's language.. What if this is the subconscious way of a man to love one's innocence?

That, at best, could only apply to some people, and even then, it doesn't make pedophilia any less wrong, and it doesn't really change the argument on lolicon.

At 1/18/12 02:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote: What would it be like if this were real?

Transitioning from a lolicon porn viewer to a pedophile is not an act of curiosity. I think that's kind of a dumb idea, since you have to have a significantly high age in order to even be a pedophile in the first place. What compels people is sexuality, or maybe a power struggle.

At 1/18/12 04:48 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: There have been people who copied video games and did something illegal. Yet we don't ban video games. There have been people who copied TV shows and did something stupid/illegal (hence the: do not try this at home message), but we do not ban TV.

Some media glorifies violence, but a lot of it doesn't. A lot of television will show people hurt by war, or what it does to people. That means a video game or TV show is portraying an agenda that shows violence in a bad light. Not always, but sometimes.

So, if someone copies something from lolicon porn, why should we ban lolicon porn? Like, you are kidding, right?

Porn is a form of entertainment with the purpose of arousing its viewers, not showing the ugly side of things. Some books or movies talk about rape and/or pedophilia show it in a bad light, but all pornographic material is supposed to show things in a pleasurable way. Not in a way that says 'this is right,' necessarily, but in a way that someone should be able to get off to it without feeling guilty.

Looking at your 8 year old niece could be a catalyst. That's legal. Looking at a painting that has naked children in it could be a catalyst. That's legal. Many many things could be catalysts to make you do something illegal, but we do not ban them.

In neither of these situations are the children directly sexualized.
I'm not just arguing against your entire point, but I am playing devil's advocate and pointing out flaws in your argument.

At 1/18/12 08:46 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 1/18/12 08:42 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/18/12 07:30 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: People become pedophiles not out of choice, but out of nature. You cannot control nature. If you are sexually attracted to little girls, you are sexually attracted to little girls. You don't need lolicon to prove that.:

You.. Are.. An.. Idiot..

Coming from you, it literally means nothing.

Actually, I'll quote something you said. Kind of funny how you are going against your own teachings here.

Hypocrite.

At 1/14/12 10:23 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Calling mine dumb without stating why only makes your post dumb.

Alright. You are right this time. I should've state as to why.

Reason: Pedophiles are not doing it because it's just naturally compulsive. Who are you to justify this?

easy.

if ura pedophile or have pedophile fantasies then its not CP.

if ur not a disguisting perv pedophile then any of that shit is considered child porn.

At 1/18/12 10:09 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 1/18/12 10:06 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Alright. You are right this time. I should've state as to why.

Reason: Pedophiles are not doing it because it's just naturally compulsive. Who are you to justify this?

I'm not justifying it, as everyone has the ability to hold back their urges. I am saying that if someone is attracted to little girls, they cannot do anything to stop themselves from being attracted. You cannot choose what you are attracted to. You can only choose how you act on your attraction.

What if there is a reason behind their attraction, and they acknowledge this reason? What if they capitalised on this reason [which is most likely their darker curiosities that the mind over exaggerates]

When you were a kid, when you thought of doing something.. not neccessarily dark, but like eating alot of dessert.. or something pleasureable.. Did you imagine it during your anticipation up until you finally was able to indulge in it, and realise that it WASN'T as awesome as your imagination lead you to believe?

That is my point. The mind over exaggerates pleasures, actions.. etc. This is why ignorant troubled kids end up shooting someone.. because in their mind.. they shot someone and it made them feel good.. in reality.. not so much the same thing.

At 1/18/12 10:21 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 1/18/12 10:17 PM, Insanctuary wrote: What if there is a reason behind their attraction, and they acknowledge this reason? What if they capitalised on this reason [which is most likely their darker curiosities that the mind over exaggerates]

I don't know. What if? We can't make arguments based completely off of hypotheticals.

When you were a kid, when you thought of doing something.. not neccessarily dark, but like eating alot of dessert.. or something pleasureable.. Did you imagine it during your anticipation up until you finally was able to indulge in it, and realise that it WASN'T as awesome as your imagination lead you to believe?

That is my point. The mind over exaggerates pleasures, actions.. etc. This is why ignorant troubled kids end up shooting someone.. because in their mind.. they shot someone and it made them feel good.. in reality.. not so much the same thing.

Don't see your point here, you are arguing your philosophy but it is completely irrelevant.

My point is that people don't choose what they are attracted to, they just are. Maybe they can fix their attraction, but after it has happened, it has happened. They were attracted to something, no way to retract your actions of your emotions.

If you like little girls, you like little girls. Lolicon porn will not change that.

Justifying that they like little girls because it's in their nature is JUST AS HYPOTHETICAL. Don't be a hypocrite.

So just because they were attracted automatically means it was in their nature, and not because of an outside force? Come on, mate.

If you like little girls there is a reason why you like little girls. Lolicon will only influence.

It seems like everyone who doesnt think its CP are like "No kids are involved therefore its not CP.", sure, that an alright argument. The other half are like "Hurr durr its bad because I dont like it and it might maybe make someone do something and we should ban it like all violent films are because they promote violence oh wait theyre not banned". For example this guy:

At 1/18/12 09:59 PM, Light wrote: I suppose that lolicon does constitute child pornography. It's just as disturbing and many people who seem like pedophiles enjoy watching it.

I mean what was the point of him even posting? He obviously didnt read any of the thread and has no idea what he is on about.

At 1/18/12 10:21 PM, Xyphon202 wrote: If you like little girls, you like little girls. Lolicon porn will not change that.

Well, it's very important to realize that most people that like cute 2D lollies are disgusted by 3D [real] people in general, which certainly means that 3D [real] little girls are disgusting as well.

As previously mentioned, 3D [real] people are fucking disgusting.

Also, "lolicon" typically refers to someone with a "lolita complex" (or someone attracted to lollies) instead of the actual content itself!

Question: If a teenager usually looks at lolli/shota, would you call him/her a pedophile?

At 1/18/12 10:35 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 1/18/12 10:30 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Justifying that they like little girls because it's in their nature is JUST AS HYPOTHETICAL. Don't be a hypocrite.

Attraction is a natural thing. Homosexuals are attracted to the same sex out of nature, just as heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex out of nature. Pedophiles are attracted to children out of nature.

So just because they were attracted automatically means it was in their nature, and not because of an outside force? Come on, mate.

What outside force? If are going to go into your pseudo-intellectual bullshit, please don't even bother replying. As far as simplicity goes(which you like), it is a natural thing to be attracted to something.

If you like little girls there is a reason why you like little girls. Lolicon will only influence.

What could the reason possibly be? I can see small things like flat chests, small bodies, etc, would influence the attraction, but Lolicon would not.

First of all, Lolicon depicts unrealistic looking girls, they sexualize them and try to make people attracted, unlike with children which don't have the same features as lolicons.

Even if a lolicon girl looked EXACTLY THE SAME as a regular little girl(basically, a drawn human), if someone is attracted to them then they would also be attracted to little girls.

Sure, it could be a catalyst, but it is doubtful.

Heh. Man, you do not want to debate with me when it comes to that. I will save you the patience.

I'm saying what if it's the qualities of the young girl that attracts us? I believe that our mind sees more than our physical eyes. What if it's not the girl itself.. What if it's the fact that the idea is defying logic and society? What if it's the innocence? What if it's actually a subconscious way to express love that wasn't meant to be made into reality..? I mean, when it comes to NORMAL things.. People love to get turned on when they do things that are bad.. experimental.. weird.. Etc. The curiosity.. the rush.. It all contributes. [Which is one of the reasons why you don't want to debate with me when it comes to bi's and homosexuals.]

Yet, there are serial killers who kill women because they resemble their mother.. There are going to be people who will put 2 and 2 together.. because of it's similarities..

You still don't justify what this attraction is.. You just jump to an assumption that it's in their nature WHEN ITS NOT.

At 1/18/12 10:35 PM, majormelthesackboy wrote: Question: If a teenager usually looks at lolli/shota, would you call him/her a pedophile?

No, because that would be a lolita/shota complex, not pedophilia.

At 1/18/12 10:51 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 1/18/12 10:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Heh. Man, you do not want to debate with me when it comes to that. I will save you the patience.

.

I thought you were saying that it was a part of their nature, as in they could never stop it.. because it was basically programmed into them.

If that isn't the case.

I agree for the most part.

Just watch what you like.

At 1/18/12 11:36 PM, FBIpolux wrote: ITT: Pedophiles doing what pedophiles do best:

Trying to justify their disease and make it acceptable.

It's funny, really.

Not everyone who watches stuff like that is a pedophile?

It's not a disease?

Your posts are generally funny, because they aren't general at all.. Mr. Strawman!

At 1/18/12 11:36 PM, FBIpolux wrote:

Trying to justify their disease and make it acceptable.

It is a paraphilia, not a disease. "Para" = "abnormal", "philia" = "love", and "phile" = "lover", so "pedophile" = "child lover".

At 1/18/12 11:48 PM, FBIpolux wrote:

You realize I made a similar post on the last page?

I now realize it.

And yes, it's considered a disease by most doctors.

Well, most doctors are wrong. They wouldn't consider podophilia (foot fetishism) to be a disease, now would they?

At 1/19/12 12:03 AM, FBIpolux wrote: But podophilia isn't illegal...

And the pedophiles which would be considered "sick" would be all those countless individuals who can't control their urges.

Well, some paraphiles (regardless of what paraphilias(s) they have) aren't able to control there urges, and they aren't considered diseased. Maybe mentally ill, but not diseased. Many pedophiles are able to control their urges, too. The legality of the paraphilia doesn't determine whether it's a disease or not. Paraphilias are simply fetishes, not diseases.

Can someone finally tell me what 'lolicon' is so i can become apart of this discussion?

At 1/19/12 12:15 AM, bongboy69 wrote: Can someone finally tell me what 'lolicon' is so i can become apart of this discussion?

Hentai with little girls.

At 1/18/12 07:14 PM, RobJohnson wrote:

I'm tired of re-iterating myself to people who don't even care to actually read/comprehend the messages I typed in this thread.

We have been reading your retarded posts, it's you who hasn't been reading replies hypocrite. I seem to recall you dropping out of the conversation simply because you couldn't win the argument with me and you decided to disregard every single reply I handed you from there on out.

Don't whine and bitch that you haven't been acknowledge when you openly ignore rebuttals and neglect valid arguments.

Videogames/Movies are a form of entertainment for all.

I just love your retarded and broad view of what constitutes entertainment, not all people enjoy those two things and in case you didn't know, pornography comes in both medium formats dumbass.

Normal person + movie/videogame = normal outcome
Fucked up person + movie/videogame = bad outcome

The same could be said for a pedophile.

Mentally stable pedophile + lolicon = outlet
Mentally unstable pedophile + lolicon = catalyst

I think it is safe to say that if you are a pedophile you are fucked up.

I think it's safe to say that if you're a heterosexual then you are fucked up.

Care to justify your sick fetish for full grown women? A pedophile and a heterosexual know no difference in their sexual preference beyond the fact that the preference is aimed at differing topics.

So what do you think is going to happen when you give a potential catalyst to someone who is already fucked up?

A serial killer doesn't need Grand Theft Auto in order to fantasize about committing the act. What about pedophiles who existed prior to lolicon? What did they have to serve as a catalyst? Nothing, they didn't need one, the fantasy itself was a catalyst in which case it's completely self applied. The child abuse victims exist because pedophiles lacked an outlet for those fantasies and used children to fill the role of that outlet.

Remember back in the 80's when people thought that if you listened to Heavy Metal that you'd become Satanic becomes many of the lyrics used in Metal talked about the devil? Remember back in the 80's when Dungeons and Dragons was thought to cause mental health problems and blur the line between reality and fiction because it somehow promoted split personality syndrome by having the player take on the role of a fictional character?

Yeah, this is like that.

Every time you draw a line between lolicon and videogames God kills a kitten.

Not a fucking argument.

For anyone confused or defending the material, claiming it is not pedophilic... the definition of lolicon:

It is pedophilia, almost nobody debates against that.

I said I wasn't coming back into this thread.... but I can't help trying to eliminate all the support this disgusting form of media has.

I can't help but rebuke your arguments on the basis that they're fueled strictly by emotions.

I'm leaving this thread for real this time.... if you expect a reply from me just read over anything I've posted already in this thread...

Bullshit, you'll be back.

and for fucks sake stop comparing this shit to movies/videogames.

Why? Lolicon comes in the form of both mediums, therefore lolicon = movies/videogames.

At 1/18/12 11:13 PM, Insanctuary wrote:

At 1/18/12 10:51 PM, Xyphon202 wrote:

At 1/18/12 10:47 PM, Insanctuary wrote: Heh. Man, you do not want to debate with me when it comes to that. I will save you the patience.

.

I thought you were saying that it was a part of their nature, as in they could never stop it.. because it was basically programmed into them.

That is what he was saying.

My god you're fucking stupid.

If you think loli should be legally treated in the same way as legitimate CP, because of your own feelings on the subject, you're just an idiot, simple as that.

I THINK IT'S DISGUSTING THEREFORE EVERYBODY ELSE SHOULD

It sexualizes children, which I don't approve of. It shouldn't be treated as harshly, but shouldn't be legal.

It seems like forums poster 'psychopath' is defending this so called lolicon....why?

Fun fact of the day:

A long long time ago before political correctness and butthurt, people were marrying 8 yo girls and having sex with them.

It's still the case in some countries in africa and asia

I think Lolicon is weird and I feel bad for pedophiles cause they never asked to have that sexual attraction but hey what can you do, people are gonna look at lolicon and shit anyway and its not as bad as
child porn and i agree with that other shit that it isn't the lolicons fault that a pedophile might do impulsve shit

thats like saying violent movies or games make you do bad things it doesn't fuck that bullshit

At 1/19/12 03:39 AM, bongboy69 wrote: It seems like forums poster 'psychopath' is defending this so called lolicon....why?

Because the fact that you regard it as disgusting and weird isn't a legitimate reason for it to be illegal, nor regarded in the same way as real child pornography you insipid cunt.