Common arguments by pedos and their adjacents is that is that drawn CP does not represent a real child therefor no harm, but this line of logic fundamentally undermines the long standing traditions that keep society healthy and the promotion of proper morals.
What constitutes proper morals varies and evolves. Being gay or being trans used to be considered against proper morals, but as we learn more about who these people are, we rightfully recognized that we were wrong. There is nothing inherently wrong with being LGBT+. The same is also true for adult pornography, as long as it only involves consenting adults who are aged 18 or older at time of filming, is not shown to minors and as long as it does not cross the line into obscenity.
Dawn CP, by definition is obscene and repulses any decent mined person. The very thought of it produces resulting feelings. Furthermore, there is no evidence that drawn CP prevents users from committing a real world offense. Indeed there were some cases in which those caught assaulting women or children, or engaging in terror and even neo nazi related offenses were also caught with drawn CP.
The existence of drawn CP creates a victim, perhaps not a real child, but the moral fabric and respect for law is in jeopardy by itâs existence. A weakened moral fabric will necessarily lead to an increase in sexual offenses, assaults, sexual degeneracy, polarization. A society will thus quickly descend into degeneracy, and into irrelevancy.
Drawn CP offenders do have victims, the victims are members of society that depend on the respect for law and the moral fabric of society.
Australia is one of the safest countries in the world to live, and we should strive to keep it that way.
You donât have to be a pedo to make this argument, and itâs actually fairly agreeable. It does not represent a real child, and itâs therefore harmless.
Using moralism as an argument to justify censorship or the persecution of social minority groups is a trick as old as time. It is precisely to that end its primary, if not sole, directive, since you canât overcome the lack of an actual, tangible harm to justify such actions.
We only came to that realization because we stopped persecuting them, and recognized the LGBT status as insufficient to the claim of harm. Same goes for racial and ethnic minority groups.
We recognized the futility of it all, and as governments stopped the legal prosecutions of homosexuals, then the ideologues eventually lost interest in pursuing those goals. It doesnât mean they wouldnât pursue those goals if they could, however.
Obscenity is precisely the type of problem youâre trying to rectify. Itâs fundamentally incompatible with the type of things youâre trying to spare or excuse, with LGBT-oriented pornography being the subject of obscenity prosecutions in various jurisdictions.
It is no more or less obscene than adult pornography, since it lacks the real-child or real-harm elements for any reasonable adult to justify prohibition.
A reasonable person is able to set aside not only their personal feelings, but also those feelings of others, in order to evaluate and judge things objectively. Feelings of disgust on their own are not rational, nor objective.
Moreover, there is no such thing as a âdecent-mindedâ person, only people with varying thoughts, feelings, and ideals.
There actually is evidence of it functioning as a protective outlet, whereby it acts as a way for people with these types of unconventional desires or preferences to be able to reconcile those desires, preferences, or urges with the belief that they must not be acted on in a way that harms or otherwise implicates a real child in any way.
The mere fact that it may not act that way for some is not an argument to overlook the harm-reduction capabilities of these materials, nor is it an excuse to argue that they may increase risk, especially without an empirically sound causal link (which none exists).
Itâs the same argument that was made about pornography, rap music, and even secular lifestyles. Even with homosexuality, whereby having an active gay lifestyle was claimed to be linked to all sorts of social and health-related ills, a set of correlations weâd later find is wholly invalid.
Not even an argument.
This is the exact same type of fallacious claim that was made by conservative pundits who attacked the legality of pornography, wherein the self-admitted intabgible and incredibly vague concept of âmoral harmâ would contribute to a societal decay, including the will to not want to pay taxes (yes, this was mentioned in a few briefs).
It doesnât even affect how real children are viewed. People can, and regularly do, differentiate between a fictional âchildâ and a real one as both a practical and conceptual matter. Itâs no different than how we treat depictions of fictional violence vs. real violence. Theyâre not perceived by their audiences and creators as condonements or statements of advocacy for real-life child sexualization or acts of violence, respectively.
Well, good thing that, being amoral myself, âmoral fiberâ is one of my greatest enemies. I embrace the darkness and reject your light. Yes, the stupid peasants who burned witches in the old days were also of âdecent mindâ. Itâs they, those villagers, who should have burned, so blazes with your definitions of âdecencyâ. I HATE moralism. And I HATE moralists. I have no mercy for any society that has no place for me in it. Better that it burn in nuclear fire. Castlevaniaâs Dracula isnât enough. Iâm going for Doomed Megalopolisâs Yasunori Kato⌠Also, Kato got the loli naked, so kudos to him there, too.
Ok it seems for some reason you really care about this subject matter.
You donât have to be a pedo to make this argument, and itâs actually fairly agreeable. It does not represent a real child, and itâs therefore harmless.
Never said only pedos make that argument. But it is a fallacy that in order to cause harm, it must represent a child.
Using moralism as an argument to justify censorship or the persecution of social minority groups is a trick as old as time. It is precisely to that end its primary, if not sole, directive, since you canât overcome the lack of an actual, tangible harm to justify such actions.
Like it or not, evolution gave humans the ability to be disgusted for a good reason. Itâs the reason why people avoid eating toxic stuff. Those that have the ability to be disgusted thrive. An example is the natural disgust for cannibalism. There was a tribe that engaged in cannibalism and they developed Kuru disease, the disease of nightmares. When we try to ignore our biological drive, horrific consequences happen. Biology is a good teacher, let it teach us. Of course we must distinguish between irrational disgust and rational disgust. Rational disgust such as that directed towards cannibalism has served humanity well, and has existed for tens of thousands of years. Irrational disgust such as that directed towards transgenders and gays are fundamentally an unnatural form of disgust, and really only existed starting in the middle ages, before that, it was semi normalized.
We only came to that realization because we stopped persecuting them, and recognized the LGBT status as insufficient to the claim of harm. Same goes for racial and ethnic minority groups.
We recognized the futility of it all, and as governments stopped the legal prosecutions of homosexuals, then the ideologues eventually lost interest in pursuing those goals. It doesnât mean they wouldnât pursue those goals if they could, however.
Yet public opinion has shifted. The battle of ideas have concluded that disgust towards transgenders and gays falls in the catagory of irrational disgust.
Obscenity is precisely the type of problem youâre trying to rectify. Itâs fundamentally incompatible with the type of things youâre trying to spare or excuse, with LGBT-oriented pornography being the subject of obscenity prosecutions in various jurisdictions.
I believe there are some types of pornography that is obscene even if the actors suffered no harm. Tasteful erotica, even nude erotica can be of any gender, be it non binary, men or women. It can be art. Some of the best paintings during the middle ages and enlightenment were tasteful erotica, The birth of Venus by Botticelli | Uffizi Galleries is one such example. But wall-to-wall sex acts, with close focuses on penis or vagina has no basis for itâs existence on the world wide web or public consumption. My reaction to this type of content is visceral disgust. Such imagery promote societal acceptance that such disgusting imagery should be âsexyâ and âhotâ, there is nothing of creativity in it, just wall to wall obscenity. It matters not whether any of the participants are lgbt or not, such content should be private.
Drawn CP, is even more obscene, as it condones the sexual attraction to children rather than encouraging the viewer to seek help. These images by their very nature promote the attraction. I cannot fathom how someone can knowingly watch and knowingly download this type of content and not feel a surge of guilt, remorse, and disgust at their own behavior. Sometimes, the best way to help someone is to arrest them, hand them a suspended jail or a diversion program with the requirement they seek help.
There actually is evidence of it functioning as a protective outlet, whereby it acts as a way for people with these types of unconventional desires or preferences to be able to reconcile those desires, preferences, or urges with the belief that they must not be acted on in a way that harms or otherwise implicates a real child in any way.
Completely unproven, unfounded. The jury is still out on this one. Many experts believe drawn CP may act as an outlet sure, but many more believe they encourage the offender to escalate. About 90% of pedophiles have the ability to be attracted to adults, they should embrace the aspect of their attraction that is normal - the attraction of adults and repress their unnatural attraction to children. For the 10%, they simply have to commit to relinquishing sexual pleasure as a part of their life until a proper cure is discovered. (im not talking about the idiotic meme of killing them, im talking about curing them)
It doesnât even affect how real children are viewed. People can, and regularly do, differentiate between a fictional âchildâ and a real one as both a practical and conceptual matter. Itâs no different than how we treat depictions of fictional violence vs. real violence. Theyâre not perceived by their audiences and creators as condonements or statements of advocacy for real-life child sexualization or acts of violence, respectively.
You give far too much faith in humans. People repeatedly take âlessonsâ from fictional movies they watch. Itâs not too far fetch that drawn CP normalizes crime in the minds of those who use the content. There was a video game I believe modern warfare 2 or 3? A level involves just mass shooting people in an airport. Guess what? It was banned, including in my country because it normalizes terrorism, and whets the appetites of crazed lunatics who might want to âtry it for realâ. We must apply even higher standards to drawn CP, as drawn CP not only condones violence and exploitation, but itâs also disgusting from an objective standpoint.
This is the exact same type of fallacious claim that was made by conservative pundits who attacked the legality of pornography, wherein the self-admitted intabgible and incredibly vague concept of âmoral harmâ would contribute to a societal decay, including the will to not want to pay taxes (yes, this was mentioned in a few briefs).
Conservatives are not a good benchmark of what is objectively disgusting or not. Their disgust acts like an autoimmune system, over reactive, irrational. There are objective types of disgust, disgust towards lgbtq bodies, new technology is irrational.
Perhaps we havenât seen you in a couple of years is because you have a desire to be protective of children? Maybe the reason youâre on this platform? Yet you have no real answers and are severely misinformed on these topics imo.
The gist of this statement is of one from a religious/moral viewpoint. I agree with Chie on this point.
Morals are a personal feeling of right and wrong. Most people are indoctrinated into a religious idea of moralism throughout the world. If someone were inclined to draw pictures of themselves killing and dismembering other people wouldnât that constitute the same so-called âbreakdown of societyâs moral fabricâ? Societyâs moral fabric is one of a religious nature to begin with.
Of course you canât have a society that tolerates violence against others, murder, and thievery, yet both are as old and a part of the human race as breathing. Sexual drive is just as much a part as eating. Many times, thievery and killing is sanctioned by legalists and laws, thereby âjustifyingâ such behaviors as âpunishmentâ for a said accused law breaker. Many times excessive to the âcrimeâ, many times felt as if not punitive enough by the masses.
For anyone wishing to draw, paint, or create sculptures of any topic they desire should not be infringed upon by anyone. They can keep it to themselves. Thereâs no harm done to another and no victim. As to someoneâs opinion of their mental state is merely a POV issue. A âcrazyâ person doesnât think theyâre crazy. Society judges that for themselves. As long as they donât act out against another and cause harm, who cares? Especially what anyone does in the privacy of their own home. So long as theyâre not harming another person, victimizing their children, abusing their spouse or some such; itâs nobodyâs business.
I wonât agree Australia is the âsafestâ country. So long as humans are anywhere, itâs never âsafeâ. People are unpredictable due to their animal nature. It cannot be bred or indoctrinated out of. There will always be a breaking point within everyone where they will revert to instinct or can snap and become feral.
People need to seriously define what âhelpâ is, since it seems to be the only sticker answer anyone ever has that cannot understand certain portions of society.
This is another false assumption on your part. 90% may have the ability to be attracted to adults, but I tend to doubt that. My opinion. This is an âif-thenâ statement. Acting as if repressing something is always an option is another fallacy. Addiction and anyone in that field will attest that willpower never works and even if it does for a time, itâs unreliable and generally fails. Dieting never works.
For the supposed 10% of hopeless cases, they can draw, paint, use surrogate objects to fill those desires. Causing no one harm and creating no victims.
Here again, you need to read more threads. There have been many studies done. Some with poorer outcomes due to the people in the subject pool they had to use. Other studies, very few, where people have felt it safe to be honest have proven that outlets help to satiate their âunhealthyâ desires. That they no longer crave or want to persue harming another person.
I have to address this section by section.
âItâs not too far fetch that drawn CP normalizes crime in the minds of those who use the content.â
~This is supposition.
âIt was banned, including in my country because it normalizes terrorism, and whets the appetites of crazed lunatics who might want to âtry it for realâ.â
ââŚit normalizes terrorismâ ~ an opinion.
ââŚwhets the appetites of crazed lunaticsâŚâ ~assumption.
"⌠who might want to âtry it for realâ. ~supposition.
All three of those beliefs are whatâs been driving lawmakers to create âthought crimeâ laws throughout the world. Driving the religious spike of fear into society even further. âLaw abiding and uprightâ citizenry is prideful arrogance!
sigh I see this argument has gone from Twitter to here now.
First of all, STOP calling it âCPâ. Itâs an outdated term. Itâs NOT PORN, ITâS ABUSE. The more acceptable new term is CSAM (Child Sexual Abuse Material).
Second of all, there is no such thing as âdrawn CPâ because the whole reason why CSAM is bad is you are harming a child by making the material. But you CANNOT âharmâ a fictional character by drawing a character. Itâs not possible. Because a goddamn drawing is not alive (and therefore literally cannot be harmed)
The moral repulsion argument is bullshit, back in the day most people were morally repulsed by sodomy and gay people
Also child brides are normal in certain parts of the world, does that make it ok?
We as a society have decided on age of consent law and on CSAM law because we decided people below certain age arenât mature enough for certain things and these laws serve to protect them
In fiction, however, we should be free to portray whatever we like: war, crimes, rape, etc⌠Because there is freedom of expression and restricting it would be illiberal
Lots of works are repulsive to a majority but thrive due to cult following
As for the grooming argument, I think it has no effect either way: porn and lolicon are more accessible than ever yet in developed countries child sexual abuse is at an all time low
Maybe rapists and abusers consume porn or CSAM, but itâs not its consumption that causes them to become abusers
ThatâsâŚnot really true? Disgust and physiological revulsion are two completely different things.
And there are various things which are toxic to us which may taste/smell good, like Manchineels, otherwise called âBeach Applesâ. Theyâre EXTREMELY toxic and many people will put up signage warning you not to touch or eat them, despite appearing and smelling good.
Not really comparable, since you canât develop a type of sickness or illness from creating or consuming virtual child pornography/FSM. And itâs not a âbiological driveâ, itâs a subjective emotional reaction brought on by feelings, views, or conceptions one may have about the subject matter. Youâre conflating different concepts.
Also, many non-religious and secular pundits argued for the continued disenfranchisement of homosexuals and prohibitions on same-sex sexual activity on the basis of tackling things like HIV/AIDS and all those other things you conveniently ignored. SCOTUS Justice W. Burger argued in his concurrence to Bowers v. Hardwick, a case which found that the Constitution did not protect acts of homosexual sodomy, literally asserted that Judeo-Christian moral teachings regard homosexual sodomy as âa crime not to be namedâ and âworse than rapeâ right after discussing the aforementioned health scare.
Irrational disgust, like the type you just mentioned, is the exact same type of disgust youâre trying to reconcile here. It would be the kind of disgust that makes you want to harm another person over, on the simple fact that you find it disgusting. Iâm sure the judges who ordered that copies of safe-sex pamphlets for homosexuals, which urged the use of condoms, thought that his disgust was perfectly rational while simultaneously disparaging them as âobsceneâ.
There are still large swathes of the population who believe that sodomy should be illegal and that homosexuals enjoy no right to sexual privacy, let alone the right to marry a person of the same sex. The Republican Party and various conservative lobbies are campaigning on overturning landmark decisions such as Lawrence v. Texas and Overgefell v. Hodges. Youâll also find those exact same people campaigning to overturn Ashcroft v. FSC because it effectively legalized lolicon/shotacon and other things you seem to despise.
Thatâs a matter of subjective, if not arbitrary opinion, and it has no business being imposed on others as though it were fact.
There is no difference between hardcore pornography and âtasteful eroticaâ. They are two parts of the same overarching concept, that being the artistic expression of sexual feelings or sexuality. If itâs designed to stimulate or express sexual feelings of desire, titillate, and even function as a masturbatory aid. then itâs fulfilling a valid and genuine artistic purpose. Sexual feelings, desire, lust, etc. are all regarded as emotions, and one of the key functions of art is to stimulate or express emotional feelings, which does encompass erotic ones.
Even CSAM technically has artistic value, but we disapprove of and condemn it because of how it is made and who it harms, not what it may communicate.
It is not obscene because of that, otherwise âteenâ, âbarely legalâ or âschoolgirlâ and simulated incest content, or anything which involves a young-looking adult performer would meet that as well, since they take the concept of youth and make it the focus of a sexual interest. These types of productions are especially common in Japan.
It also does not condone the sexual attraction to childten anymore than a Renaissance-era painting depicting acts of violence condones the slaughter of peasants. You fail to distinguish between the positive expression of an interest or preference and the express condonement of real-world acts against people.
And even if it could be interpreted to condone attraction, thatâs fine. Weâre not out to punish people for expressing socially undesirable thoughts or preferences, because, again, people do not perceive them as anything beyond the context by which they are consumed or presented in.
Your claim also fails because people who do not even have a sexual interest in real children do consume this.
It should also be noted that copies of lolicon anthologies in Japan have notices to people that are designed to encourage them to seek help if theyâre uncomfortable with their feelings or feel like theyâre at risk of harming a real child.
Probably the same way you or anyone else can watch an action movie or anything with graphic depictions of violence. Itâs not real. Itâs harmless.
Nope. Itâs been shown to function as a form of stress relief and it does, in fact, allow for the emotional reconcilation of oneâs sexual preferences in a way that is acceptable and harmless, something many people struggle with, even those without peculiar interests.
Forum users discussed seeking out pornography from cultures who are typically youthful looking, with one member stating that they find Asian men more appealing and another preferring pornography depicting Japanese women dressed as schoolgirls. Lolicon manga or anime materialâa genre of Japanese cartoon depicting female children in an erotic or pornographic mannerâwas also mentioned to be useful by a number of users (the equivalent depicting male children is called shotacon) as were pornographic stories that some had written themselves.
Most experts are actually aware of things, and support the use of outlets, in addition to recognizing the lack of a proven, causal link between the hypothetical exacerbation effect and the perpetration of contact CSA.
In fact, the consensus is pretty much in-line with the observation that these materials are not catalysts which drive people to perpetrate offenses, but disagreement exists regarding high-risk populations and how it affects them. The more that is studied, the weaker the associations seem to become. How familiar.
This is wrong, itâs actually very difficult to surmise how much of the pedo population are exclusively pedohebephilic or not. And even then, forcing them to suppress their interests in children does not make them go away, nor does it help out their stress. Many MAPs would love an adult companion who loves and accepts them, but that wouldnât make them not want to scratch that itch by consuming FSM.
You assume that media literacy isnât a virtue for the majority of people, and you seem to conflate the act of agreeing with a filmâs message with ânormalizationâ of that message.
Moreover, it is actually pretty far-fetched because acts of adult-child sex are illegal and morally objected against outside the context of fiction. Theyâre out to entertain and indulge, not perpetuate a narrative.
Also, the social phenomenon of ânormalizationâ is far more nuanced and complex than youâre making it out to be. The popularization if lolicon in the US, Japan, Denmark, and Sweden has not fostered an environment or cultural shift thatâs otherwise friendly to the act of adults sexually exploiting children.
Itâs funny how not-true this is. If it were banned in your country, especially for those reasons, then theyâre doing you and everyone else a disservice by denying them their right to know and consume, compounded by intuitively lazy and factually unproven assumptions about media and effect.
Just like yours? Your posts remind me of a person trying to rebrand your intuitive presumptions and emotional reactions as something other than that.
Funny because whenever I play as an assassin, stuff, like Hitman and Assassinâs Creed, arenât fun for me because they only go after âbad peopleâ. I donât want to waste time making that distinction. I prefer the Dark Brotherhood from the Elder Scrolls series because they can kill whoever the fuck they want (and get paid for it):
Now, if I can kill whoever the fuck I want, then I should also be able to fuck whoever the fuck I want. 18 is an arbitrary number as one of your assassination targets is described as âno older than 15â. If thatâs the case, why cannot I fuck her before, during, or after the kill? Also, there is no such thing as objective disgust. https://faculty.uca.edu/rnovy/Rachels--Cultural%20Relativism.htm The Indians who eat their dead and the Greeks who burn their dead are convinced that the other group are incompatible monsters.
I didnt call actual csem child porn, idiot. Im talking about drawn cp. I dont think âdrawn cpâ should be categorized as csem and lumping them into the same category minimizes and trivializes actual csem.
Iâve gotten into plenty of argument with others because they want to lump the two into the same category when that it makes no sense. But that DOES NOT MAKE DRAWN CP MORALLY ACCEPTABLE. I would never give the same sentence for someone who grooms and extorts a minor for lewd images as someone who draws lolicon, but that does not make what lolicon âartistsâ do morally acceptable.
ThatâsâŚnot really true? Disgust and physiological revulsion are two completely different things.
And there are various things which are toxic to us which may taste/smell good, like Manchineels, otherwise called âBeach Applesâ. Theyâre EXTREMELY toxic and many people will put up signage warning you not to touch or eat them, despite appearing and smelling good.
Beach apples are an exception, but you know why you get disgusted at the concept of eating rocks, grass, or animal droppings?
we evolve to be disgusted at harmful things.
Not really comparable, since you canât develop a type of sickness or illness from creating or consuming virtual child pornography/FSM. And itâs not a âbiological driveâ, itâs a subjective emotional reaction brought on by feelings, views, or conceptions one may have about the subject matter. Youâre conflating different concepts.
You CAN develop sickness or illness by consuming virtual child pornography or drawn CP. Guilt, sadness and depression. But that is not the only reason.
I have a question for you. Why do we have these subjective emotional reactions? Why did biology give them to us? Itâs a sensory warning that something is not right, like a fire alarm. Maybe we should listen to them.
Also, many non-religious and secular pundits argued for the continued disenfranchisement of homosexuals and prohibitions on same-sex sexual activity on the basis of tackling things like HIV/AIDS and all those other things you conveniently ignored. SCOTUS Justice W. Burger argued in his concurrence to Bowers v. Hardwick , a case which found that the Constitution did not protect acts of homosexual sodomy, literally asserted that Judeo-Christian moral teachings regard homosexual sodomy as âa crime not to be namedâ and âworse than rapeâ right after discussing the aforementioned health scare.
Study the past 100,000 years of history, the persecution of gay people is a fairly recent phenomenon, ie the past 500-600 years and only in select parts of the world. Before the 1800s homosexuals were mostly ignored in the middle east. In europe homosexuals were mostly ignored before 1300s. But in the past 100,000 years, there was always a distaste and opposition to sexual relations between those under 18 and those who are older adults. Likely a person 20000 years ago would respond to lolicon the same way most normal decent upstanding people would respond to them today.
Irrational disgust, like the type you just mentioned, is the exact same type of disgust youâre trying to reconcile here. It would be the kind of disgust that makes you want to harm another person over, on the simple fact that you find it disgusting.
Irrational disgust cannot include tasteful erotica, lgbt people, or drawings of mountains. Irrational disgust most certainly includes virtual or drawn CP. There is some grey area on what qualifies as irrational vs rational disgust but certainly drawn cp qualifies. Who said anything about harming another person? I support a criminal justice system that centers rehabilitation and public safety.
Those caught producing and distributing lolicon should convicted of a felony (expungable after 5 years) and be handed a suspended prison term with the requirement they seek help. Those caught possessing lolicon should be given a similar treatment to how progressive countries deals with drug possession. They are to be fined and be pressured to seek help to deal with their problems. They will be placed in front of a Dissuasion committee like drug addicts.
Youâll also find those exact same people campaigning to overturn Ashcroft v. FSC because it effectively legalized lolicon/shotacon and other things you seem to despise.
Ashcroft v FSC did not legalize all lolicon. ONLY if itâs deemed obscene would it be illegal. Wall-to-wall lolicon most certainly would be obscene. Ashcorft v FSC only legalizes lolicon in EXTREMELY NARROW CERCOMSTANCES. Be mindful that obscenity is determined by the jury, which is not a terrible way of finding out the exact line between rational vs irrational disgust. My main issue with USC 1466 is that it treats drawings in the same category as actual imagery. So someone drawing, if deemed obscene from the jurys point of view will face the same category as an offender who grooms a minor into producing lewd imagery.
Both activities must be condemned, but it is absurd to give the same sentence when one involves a real victim and the other, a drawing.
I am in agreement with people on this thread that lumping the two together is absurd, but what you and the rest of this âcharityâ fail to understand is that it is still harmful to society and corrodes public morals.
here is no difference between hardcore pornography and âtasteful eroticaâ. They are two parts of the same overarching concept, that being the artistic expression of sexual feelings or sexuality. If itâs designed to stimulate or express sexual feelings of desire, titillate, and even function as a masturbatory aid. then itâs fulfilling a valid and genuine artistic purpose. Sexual feelings, desire, lust, etc. are all regarded as emotions, and one of the key functions of art is to stimulate or express emotional feelings, which does encompass erotic ones.
No, there isnât, the brain responds very differently from tasteful erotica and hardcore pornography. Itâs backed up by neural science. Pretty much no one will get a visceral disgust at looking at tasteful erotica, assuming it involves an adult or fictitious adults. But a zoom in of a penis-in-vagina covered in body fluid? This can only be describe as repugnant to be filmed.
It is not obscene because of that, otherwise âteenâ, âbarely legalâ or âschoolgirlâ and simulated incest content, or anything which involves a young-looking adult performer would meet that as well, since they take the concept of youth and make it the focus of a sexual interest. These types of productions are especially common in Japan.
Banning young looking adults would be a form of discrimination, not different than banning black people or asians. But banning themes like âincestâ, âteenâ, or âschoolgirlâ are perfectly valid territory for state action. They promote public and open degeneracy.
It should also be noted that copies of lolicon anthologies in Japan have notices to people that are designed to encourage them to seek help if theyâre uncomfortable with their feelings or feel like theyâre at risk of harming a real child.
You can also run ads on national TV to encourage pervs to get help. stopitnow does this. You dont need to sell lolicon to get people to get help.
Nope. Itâs been shown to function as a form of stress relief and it does, in fact, allow for the emotional reconcilation of oneâs sexual preferences in a way that is acceptable and harmless, something many people struggle with, even those without peculiar interests.
So you actually provided something worth reading. congrats. but they are still in a tiny minority of experts and as I said the jury is still out on the topic as to whether drawn cp encourages or discourages offending.
Itâs funny how not-true this is. If it were banned in your country, especially for those reasons, then theyâre doing you and everyone else a disservice by denying them their right to know and consume, compounded by intuitively lazy and factually unproven assumptions about media and effect.
Why the fuck should it be a ârightâ to simulate being a mass murderer? You have to be a sick person to enjoy this. No different than sickos pretending to engage in incest, etc.
I honestly donât even know what âmoralsâ are. Iâm pretty sure that youâre talking about something far more than just mutual, tangible benefit, and I really canât comprehend anything beyond that. This prayer of thine, I have not understood. Your words make me speechless, but not for the reason that you want me to be.
Again, an alien word to me. As for simulating a mass murderer, yes, youâre right. Being a mass murderer for free is ridiculous. Get paid, and then youâre a very efficient assassin. If you do what you love, then never have to work a day in your life.
And no, only killing âbad peopleâ is bad business because thatâs a good portion of profit lost.
They are not an exception, there are other things which carry with them the same effect, you are overgeneralizing and falsely equivocating things that simply are not true or valid.
Sugar tastes good, but is hardly advisable to consume in significant quantities, so much so that nutritionists advise against the unnecessary consumption of sugar in most instances, some even equating sweet fruits that you can buy at the supermarket with candy.
This also extends to oral health. Fossilized remains of early humans have found that communities or individuals which ate lots of sweet fruits had cavities.
No evidence exists to support this contention, and clearly do not understand what these feelings mean or the psychology of how they form.
Youâre not going to feel guilty or sick over VCP because there is notching to feel guilty about. Itâs a fictional character, this is like saying that you can feel guilty over watching a horror movie.
Because social conformism and subjective discomfort overrides rational thought, just like how it did (and still does for many people) for LGBT matters. And even then, itâs not even genuine disgust or offense.
People get used to these things and they move on, and thatâs a good thing. That isnât the ânormalizationâ of deviant actions or harmful conduct, but rather the acknowledgement that such things are inherently artificial and objectively harmless because itâs fictional.
Just because youâre grossed out, offended by, or made to feel uncomfortable with something doesnât mean itâs harmful.
Literally none of that is true.
Homosexuals were still persecuted as far back as the time of the Ancient Greeks and the Romans, where homosexual men and women were socially ostracized in various communities and jurisdictions, notwithstanding the advent of pederasty.
AndâŚno, sadly relationships between adults and minors werenât always frowned upon.
Those same religious fundamentalist groups who regarded sodomy as âworse than rapeâ would borrow heavily from the traditions of their ancestors, where lifespans were much lower, superstition was abundant, and most families sought to reproduce as much as possible, so they would take on wives as young as 12 and impregnate them by 14. This, in conjunction with the primitive standaeds of hygiene, is what lead to a lot of birth-related deaths.
It actually wasnt until the mid-20th century that the advent of adult-child sex became synonymous with abuse, because as our universal understanding of childhood and child psychology grew, so too did our acknowledgement that such things are harmful.
None of that matters for virtual/fictional materials, simply because they do not involve real children and the lines between whatâs OK in real-life and the context of fantasy are as clear as ever.
Irrational disgust does include drawn/virtual CP because whatever apprehension one can have for it is not comparable to the type of disgust one might have for actual CSAM.
And honestly, itâs all a subjective matter of opinion, itâs all arbitrary. We shouldnt use disgust as a talking point for why something should be illegal, especially when it isnât harmful, which applies to FSM/VCP.
You support the criminalization of fictional drawings of non-existent characters or entities because they offend/disgust you.
You cannot prove that they are harmful because they ultimately are not. Their creation, proliferation, and consumption do not make children less safe, nor do they impact how real-life sentiments or attitudes regarding such acts outside the context of fiction/fantasy, which is part of the valid artistic function that they espouse.
Youâre deliberately suggesting 80s era progressive drug policy and by extension conflating harmless drawings and fantasy material with hard drugs, without evidence or show for cause of harm. Only emotions.
It placed it on the same level of legality as adult pornography and, as such, the material has been able to flourish in various US states and jurisdictions. It can be found in comic book stores, purchased online, imported into the US and shared on US-based websites and imageboards.
Iâve written extensively on the fallacy of legal obscenity in the US, and Iâm not going to delve further into it.
No observable effect has been found in any circumstance, throughout the 50+ years of studying pornography, including deviant pornography, and its effects.
Your focus on morality and disgust is precisely what conservatives have argued throughout the years against homosexuals and other sexual minorities.
Legal prohibitions on loli/shota lack any legitimate factual basis to justify their existence, and those who try to segment this type of repugnant moralism and the way itâs been packaged up and imposed on people is probably the most disgusting thing Iâve ever seen.
Yes there is, and it is ultimately the same brand of content, just with varying degrees of explicitness. And no, there is no difference between how the brain responds. The only way this is moderated is by oneâs personal sentiments, taste, and exposure. A society that opposes sexual expression of any kind will view sexual expression, be it âtastefulâ or not, as taboo. Look at Muslim cultures and how infrequent eroticism is expressed in their art and literature.
That, along with these artificial and vapid destinations you seem so keen on relying on, are matters of arbitrary opinion and subjectivity. They are not factual, and vary from person to person.
If it is expressive of, and illicits sexual feelings, then itâs art.
Graphic nature does not matter, in fact, thatâs actually an aesthetic in itself.
Discrimination is not okay, but censorship of ideals or interests that are âdegenerateâ is?? Thatâs not fair at all!
You canât tell a person that he canât have lolicon and also not tell petite Japanese adult women (who look like theyâre 12-15) that they canât be discriminated against when casting for an adult film that features sex.
But it works, and actually seems to have better results at prevention because it allows people to take better control and reconcile their desires, something that they did not choose and cannot change, with the reality that they cannot be acted on with, or in a way that involves a real child.
See, this is probably what upsets me the most about you and people like you. You assume that itâs a minority, when itâs in fact a fairly large consensus among clinicians and researchers that these bans do not make children safer and they do have protective functions.
Moreover, you insist that the âjury is still outâ yet youâre out here celebrating the incarceration and prohibition of these harmless outlets, which do in fact cause harm to people.
Youâre willing to subject a whole population of people to unnecessary and heinous criminal harm despite there being some degree of inconclusivity, so what will you say when the consensus finally shifts in its totality and youâre forced to acknowledge that you repeated the same mistakes that anti-LGBT pundits and scholars argued for?
How would you correct the harm caused?
Given the evidence I have reviewed, I would conclude that:
â There is no scientific basis for the prohibition of private possession of âvirtualâ child pornography such as drawings.
â There is evidence of a correlation between the levels of availability of pornography and rates of contact offending, and the correlation is negative: i.e. an increase in availability of material has been found to lead to a decline in contact offenses, especially against children.
â There is some self-report evidence that suggested pornography may be used to facilitate contact offending, but this evidence has been questioned by other evidence that demonstrates that those most likely to do so exhibit psychopathology whereas possession only CPOs do not.
Well guess what.
It doesnât cause harm, it doesnât celebrate, condone, or encourage such things beyond the confines of fiction, and despite vehement politicization of this very subject matter, it has not been shown to increase risk of violence or âacting outâ.
Such a remarkably ignorant, presumptuous, prejudicial worldview is worthy of the same criticism of those who judge whole religious or ethnic groups. Itâs this assumed colored collectivization that is the very same kind of âmind poisonâ you call VCP or violent media of this type.
I wish that someone could have told this to the Canadian Members of Parliament (MPs) when they included written and drawn materials in the definition of âchild pornographyâ in the Criminal Code of Canada. People have been convicted of child pornography offences for writing/publishing text-only stories, and for painting/drawing from the imagination.
Understand that the OP is a miserable little cretin from a shithole nation that criminalizes porn involving adult women with small features, such as boobs under B cup, as âchild pornâ.
Australia is not exclusive in this regard. There are people in the UK, Europe and North America who harbor similar ideas, some of them in positions of real power. The recent vote in the European Parliament almost went the wrong way â EU President Ylva Johnansson almost got her way with chatcontrol. If she has her way, privacy is dead for Europeans on the Internet.
You also assume that people, like myself, donât try to take the message of a particular piece of media and spit in its face. For example, despite being aesthetically WWII Nazi, apparently, the Empire in Star Wars was supposed to be Vietnam War-era America, with the Rebels being the Vietcong. Upon finding out, that didnât get me to stop supporting America⌠It got me to start supporting the Empire. My SWTOR playthroughs can confirm this. Long Live the Empire. This also spits in the face of people who say that if you support the Empire, then you donât âgetâ Star Wars, but the fact is that I only started supporting the Empire once I âgotâ Star Wars.
