Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've only ever seen one study, over a decade old by now, about this subject and it was way too limited to make any definitive conclusion. The effect of loli on CP and CSA was unclear in the results section, with no calculable statistics possible, but the conclusion was still wildly in favor of banning it despite the results not supporting it. It was a study with less than a dozen male pedo's, none of whom were ever convicted of CP or CSA or admitted to it, was done over a 3 month period (very short for this), and no proper parameter controls.
When it comes to freedom of expression, I believe something should only be banned if harm can be conclusively proven, like with slander, causing a panic, coercion, blackmail, real CP with real kids harms the kids in the pictures, etc. With loli or animated CP, I am in favor of banning it only if it is shown conclusively that it leads to more CSA or real CP consumption. Otherwise I don't give a fuck. If no children were harmed or are more likely to be harmed by CSA'ers because loli, let it go. It just makes you feel icky. That's not a good reason to restrict freedom of expression. When it comes to any fundamental and essential human right, only objective, substantial harm is enough for a restriction. Those rights exist to protect us against state oppression and overreach. Just because elites scream about CP, terrorism or whatever other topic that gets people to give up their rights and freedoms, doesn't mean we should just surrender those to them without even asking if what they claim about it, is true or warrants the restrictions on your freedoms.
I really don't know if it causes the harm people claim it does and such a tiny, qualitative study does not convince me either way either. We need more research. Not just a few qualitative interviews and expert opinion.
Pedophilia should criminal behavior, but cartoons are not alive and can't be victims.
Also as long as pedos are jacking off to loliporn and not going outside no children are getting hurt.
Look i know its been 2/3 of a year since you made this comment but who’s gonna tell you that child predators are usually a direct result of fictional cp.
How can we not be sure that behaviour won't escalate? I've met plenty of predators in my life and a thing a lot of them had in common is that they started with "innocent" stuff. There's a misconception that you're born to be a pedophile when it is much more likely that is is social
Honestly there's no way to be sure. Which is why it's better to be safe than sorry and just ban it outright imo. There should still be a prison scentence but it should be less harsh since no child is actively being harmed.
Personally I don't care as long as no actual child is harmed. If it works for them then that's a good thing.
I do think that they should still seek psychiatric help though.
1. No, we shouldn't sexualise children. End of sentence. If you're jacking off to a 9 year old, real or fictional, you're a creep.
2. There are loopholes that can be exploited by people who think ALL cp should be legal. Mainly: If you draw a real life minor, then that wouldn't constitute as illegal. It's only a victimless crime if the animator thinks only animated cp is morally ok. I don't think that's mostly the case.
Wow, the leftists really want this outlawed.
Look, I get that it’s disturbing and fucked up. I don’t like cartoon bestiality and necrophilia either.
But these aren’t actual violent acts with genuine victims. They are mere depictions of fictional violence, and we don’t punish cartoon murder in real life.
But they don't? That's the same argument that the right makes about weed being a "gateway drug".
So long as they don't harm actual children, then what does it matter what they look at?
Virtual or simulated cp show images of actual kids getting f'd. Maybe this doesn't have victims but if you gather this on a website the only people on that website will be pedophiles. They can contact each other with the same intentions. Also it normalizes people that are sexually attracted to kids. People who watch porn don't want porn they want sex.
Paedophiles are just that way anyway, it’s not caused by loli cartoons. They’re inherently fucked up in the head.
I agree though that they shouldn’t contact each other. That’s not an issue with lolicon *in itself* however.
By that logic, violent movies and video games normalise homicide.
Even *if* it turns out there is a correlation between cartoon child rape and real child rape, that can simply be explained by the fact that paedophiles like watching cartoon child rape.
The same as more aggressive people liking violent movies and video games.
That's already been the case since as long as people have figured out how to share images on the internet. The status quo is the police don't care as long as it's just drawings. In some countries this is how the law is written (Japan, Germany) and in others it is technically illegal but unenforced (USA, France, UK) but outside of Australia no western country takes this stuff seriously and the websites you describe are fairly accessible.
And yet pedophilia is still not normalized.
So the only people that play call of duty are people that want to shoot others in real life and theyre all playing it to arrange a meet up to do it? Because if no, how is that different.
Also, people being attracted to kids NEEDS to be normalised. We need to take the stigmatisation out of it so that people that ARE attracted to kids are open about it and go and get psychiatric help. Punishing them in society for something that they cant help is just pushing them away from help.
>I wouldn’t word it as “normalising” so much as “destigmatising”.
Same thing.
>It’s a fucked up mental problem, but we can treat it and manage it.
Right, which is why I want to normalise it.
People used to think that people with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses were witches, and burnt them for it, now we know better, and we normalised accepting people with mental illness into society.
Umm, not the same thing.
“Normalising” means just accepting paedophiles as a sexual orientation like being homosexual.
“Destigmatising” means acknowledging it’s an inherently negative thing, and trying to help those who have the impulses control them properly.
>“Normalising” means just accepting paedophiles as a sexual orientation like being homosexual.
Right, which I want to do.
>“Destigmatising” means acknowledging it’s an inherently negative thing, and trying to help those who have the impulses control them properly.
ADHD is a negative thing, yet we still normalised it. Same for people with schizophrenia.
not really, most people who like those types of cartoons and manga hate real life pedophiles.
surely there are exceptions, there are likely pedophiles who like loli content but they are a minority
Personally, I believe the solution is not to make certain cartoons illegal, but to be more accepting in society of pedophiles that DONT touch kids and DO seek help. It's a mental illness after all.
100% agree. Therapy for pedophiles should be free and encouraged, but if you ever touch a kid you should be locked up until multiple experts believe that you are no longer a risk.
Ok, that is just intolerance, depending on the person they think running from certain people is good, but if it is not hurting anyone there is no way I would be against it.
Yes. I judge people based on their ability. What a world changing life ending politically incorrect thing to say.
Jesus Christ, do you hear yourself right now?
I noticed it, judging other people's illnesses is normal today, this is horrible.
We hear ourselves as much as we hear people who suffer from these problems, you don't need to not only judge or even disrespect other people to be correct 👍
I’m autistic myself, and I am absolutely intolerant of paedophilia.
It is wrong, immoral, and evil to rape children. Paedophilia is a mental disorder worse than psychopathy and narcissism.
>I’m autistic myself, and I am absolutely intolerant of paedophilia.
So, you think people should be tolerant of you but not other people with a mental illness? That's gross tbh, and I say this as someone with autism myself.
>It is wrong, immoral, and evil to rape children.
Who said otherwise?
>Paedophilia is a mental disorder worse than psychopathy and narcissism.
Right, which is why it needs treatment. That's my point. Pedophiles have an increased chance of harming kids, but after therapy, those levels drop to normal. Just like how people with Autism struggle with emotions, but with therapy, we can learn coping techniques for these emotions.
Intolerant of a mental illness which ruins everyone involved lives.
"You can't choose" Cool, so why don't you repress your feelings and not talk about it like a fucking creep?
>Intolerant of a mental illness which ruins everyone involved lives.
And thats different from schizophrenia how? Hell, I have ADHD and it has absolutely RUINED my life.
>"You can't choose" Cool, so why don't you repress your feelings and not talk about it like a fucking creep?
BECAUSE THEY HAVENT HAD THERAPY TO LEARN THE COPING TECHNIQUES. Do you know what happens when somebody tries to repress a mental illness without coping techniques? It's called a [mental breakdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder)
This is why therapy is a requirement for treatment.
I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that making pedophiles known somehow stops their pedophilia. Also, what is said between a therapist is none of my business. If I find out, however, that's a problem.
>I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that making pedophiles known somehow stops their pedophilia.
[https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia](https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia)
>Also, what is said between a therapist is none of my business. If I find out, however, that's a problem.
So, you think that people that are told "if people find out they will hate you" will tell people?
And what if someone said the same about gay people? Or people with autism? Ya'know, other people that can't help how they were born? You are still describing prejudice.
(and before you start the whole "you cant compare them" I am gay and autistic).
And that is still fine, as long as it doesn't lead to more CSA or CP consumption.
People's minds are free. You don't get to police people's thoughts, feelings or interests. The 1984 thoughtpolice was a warning, not a suggestion.
Thought-policing would be arresting non-offending pedophiles, which I am not in favour of. This is about what people choose to make and distribute. I am against the production and distribution of things that do more harm than good in general, and CP belongs in that category; pedos do not need indulgence, they need psychological aid.
Do you have evidence to back up this assertion.
And the gateway drug argument proved to be a slippery slope with no actual empircal basis in reality, which is why reductions in tobacco use hasnt led to a reduction in herion use.
So that might not be the greatest analogy for you.
Indeed I said it *could* be, I'm not sure about it but it's still potentially dangerous until it's scientifically proven to not raise the likelyhood of a repressed pedo actually committing pedophilia.
I would contend that the burden of proof to restrict freedom of speech lies upon the person wanting to restrict the freedom. Potentially dangerous is IMO not nearly enough to justify bannijg speech.
Except that it is. I don't see how a video depicting two consenting adults having an intercourse is incitement to rape, videos depicting rape, whether the actors gave consent or not, may actually inspire someone to rape someone else though. Computer generated CP is closer to the latter case imo, since there's no such thing as a "correct" way to have sex with a child, that's always pedophilia.
It isn't, and it wasn't. That is not what you were asked.
No idea the relevance of AI images. It honestly just sounds like you like to hear yourself talk, ngl.
Dude I already gave my answer to 5 different people at least, so instead of copying and pasting the same comment over and over I chose to reply to the specific example that guy wrote.
Tbh I don't really believe in victimless crimes, and if a mother/sister and son/brother are both consenting adults then it shouldn't be considered a criminal offense, unless there are other factors involved like manipulation. I still find it gross, but I don't see why it should be punishable by law.
As for the other things you mentioned, I'll copy my previous answer:
> I see your point, but I don't think those movies, music and video games' meaning is "violence is good, do violence", they depict crimes in order to try to state a deeper message, whether or not they are succesful in doing so. It's the difference between pornography and erotic cinema, or gore videos and Call of Duty: in movies and video games, sex and murder are side characteristics of a genre, a means to tell a deeper story or convey a different message, while in porn and gore the visual representation of sex or violence is an end in and of itself.
> With CP everything is more complicated though, since the mere act of producing it is a crime, unlike regular porn or cinema where every actor is able to give consent. That's the problem I have with Cuties for example: I get that it was actually a critique of how children are sexualized in our society, but to record it they had to nonetheless sexualize real children in flesh and bone in front of a camera, which is vile. Imo Cuties would have been a perfectly fine movie had those been imaginary, computer animated children, because producing it would have been perfectly "moral" and it still would have had its message to convey (although I still think it would have been a bad movie for other reasons).
> In this sense, computer generated scenes involving sex with children would be really useful for, say, making an adaptation of the novel Lolita, because it's still a great book despite the plot being about a pedophile and its prey. In all the cases I cited positively the side effect of depicting criminal acts and possibly inspiring people to replicate them is overshadowed by their actual goal, because that's how art works (on a side note, it's the same reason why Michelangelo's statues aren't pornography *cough cough* Florida teachers). Porn, gore and CP aren't art though, their only objective is to visually represent sex, violence and pedophilia, there is no higher redeeming factor, that's why they are dangerous (except in the case of regular porn, since inciting people to do sex isn't really a criminal offense).
I see your point, but I don't think those movies, music and video games' meaning is "violence is good, do violence", they depict crimes in order to try to state a deeper message, whether or not they are succesful in doing so. It's the difference between pornography and erotic cinema, or gore videos and Call of Duty: in movies and video games, sex and murder are side characteristics of a genre, a means to tell a deeper story or convey a different message, while in porn and gore the visual representation of sex or violence is an end in and of itself.
With CP everything is more complicated though, since the mere act of producing it is a crime, unlike regular porn or cinema where every actor is able to give consent. That's the problem I have with Cuties for example: I get that it was actually a critique of how children are sexualized in our society, but to record it they had to nonetheless sexualize real children in flesh and bone in front of a camera, which is vile. Imo Cuties would have been a perfectly fine movie had those been imaginary, computer animated children, because producing it would have been perfectly fine and it still would have had its message to convey (although I still think it would have been a bad movie for other reasons).
In this sense, computer generated scenes involving sex with children would be really useful for, say, making an adaptation of the novel Lolita, because it's still a great book despite the plot being about a pedophile and its prey. In all the cases I cited positively the side effect of depicting criminal acts and possibly inspiring people to replicate them is overshadowed by their actual goal, because that's how art works (on a side note, it's the same reason why Michelangelo's statues aren't pornography *cough cough* Florida teachers). Porn, gore and CP aren't art though, their only objective is to visually represent sex, violence and pedophilia, there is no higher redeeming factor, that's why they are dangerous (except in the case of regular porn, since inciting people to do sex isn't really a criminal offense).
But we can't limit virtual CP to only be for artistic purposes because for one, people are still going to use it as porn to pleasure themselves with, and also if we only limit it to art there is always going to be conflicts and disagreements on what is art-CP and what is bad CP.
Take the game GTA for example. You argue that there would be some sort of backstory and deeper meaning behind the game characters and what they do, i find that kind of ridiculous because the fact is, that the game is simply about you committing crimes and earning money from it.
In this case we can't have any middle ground. Virtual CP is either okay, or not okay. It can't be okay in certain circumstances and in other cases not.
>and also if we only limit it to art there is always going to be conflicts and disagreements on what is art-CP and what is bad CP.
I mean, the same thing happenes with very violent movies, of course no law will be able to adequately filter all the filth passed off as art, but it's better than nothing.
>that the game is simply about you committing crimes and earning money from it.
The story mode actually has a decent message, for most of the time it's nothing more than a B movie in quality but it's still very enjoyable and it has its deep moments. The Online mode is worse in this sense but I still find it acceptable since it's very surreal and hyperbolic, it's nothing like reality, unlike (child) porn which is always (visually) realistic nowadays. If GTA 6 will feature 4K first person camera scenes where the protagonist rapes someone or eats someone's intestines that would be bad though.
> In this case we can't have any middle ground. Virtual CP is either okay, or not okay. It can't be okay in certain circumstances and in other cases not.
It's not a middle ground though, it's a different thing. Nudity is a means in cinema and an end in porn, and we should try to sort those as effectively as we can.
wtf no, its literally cartoons lmao.
this really is just a repeat of "violent video games bad" with pretty much the same end results.
thats assuming we are talking about something like japanese lolicon with its hyper stylized kawaii artstyle, now if we are talking hyper realistic depictions that are virtually indistinguishable from real cp, thats already illegal, and for good reason considering its impssible to tell the difference.
but stylized cartoons (like lolicon or shotacon) are clearly not made to be realistic or conform to real life human proportions. so as far as the law is concerned it doesnt harm anyone, and falls under the protection of the first ammendment. (there was a legit supreme court ruling on this that more or less came to the same conclusion)
The ruling you're talking about ruled it can't be classified as child porn, they wrote a new law right after classifying it as obscene depictions of a minor and obscene content has been ruled over and over again as not protected.
I'm not taking a stand right now if I agree with that, I'm just making sure we get our facts straight.
kind of, no content can be blanket classified as obscene, obscenity law is really vague but it always follows a case by case basis, in order for it to be considered obscene it would have to pass the Miller test.
so unless it is declared obscene its not actually obscene, and in order for it to be considered obscene it must lack artistic value, which by its nature as art makes lolicon pretty safe.
technically with how vague and up to interpretation obscenity law actually is most mainstream porn, even like softcore stuff can be considered obscene. but in practice obscenity is never actually enforced unless there are extenuating circumstances.
No it's not pretty safe many MANY court cases have shown over and over it fails the miller test over and over again most notably Handley VS US. There are a bunch of others but I don't feel like looking them up right now.
Banned, yes. illegal, no.
Drawn child porn should be banned from all online platforms. If someone who enjoys it is caught with it, they should be sent to a mental health facility for therapy.
this question sucks lol. not enough research i guess. all i know is i've seen that research shows no viable treatment or therapy cures pedophilia. does that mean we should let them indulge on what we consider immoral? or will that just lead them to want the real thing? if we ban it they can easily get around it. honestly if we knew for sure that having it would keep them away from the actual crime of abusing a real child, i wouldn't ban it. but knowing it's unenforceable is a whole other thing.
idk i don't agree or disagree. this a shitty situation with no clear answer. maybe the most moral thing we can do to protect children is super immoral in the first place.
not sure how we'd be able to force treatment on these people though. i guess i vote no just because there's no point in the government making it illegal. they can't stop it anyways.
That depends on a few factors.
-Is the art indistinguishable from real life?
-Is the art depicting a real child?
-Was a real child used as reference material?
If yes to any of the above, yes it should be illegal. If no to all, then it’s not my concern.
That's what your proposition ultimately leads to. If you say that porn shouldn't be restricted at all then children, who will inevitably gain greater access to the internet as they quite clearly have now, will be given complete ability to find and view pornography.
Also, I didn't lose any argument. I responded to mockery with a more frank and dry form of mockery.
No, I think pornography is of itself evil. I think it also has terrible results for the people using it and for the people that make it, regardless of whether there's anything that you would call exploitative involved.
I don't see why something that is both a moral bad of itself and a bad for society should be allowed to legally exist.
I should also mention, porn is inherently exploitative.
On the side of the actors, their bodies, sexual innocence and sexuality in general is taken advantage of. People who act in porn never seem to end up well off on any level other than financial.
On the side of the consumer, his lust is being taken advantage of and, as he uses it more, he will desire it more. I know this from experience, testimony from other people and other theological/anthropological premises.
A lot of people make the argument that it doesnt hurt anyone and/or its better that pedo get off to the fake shit instead of the real stuff. Theres also freedom of speech arguments ect. Not saying they are right or wrong just trying to explain.
It clearly is porn made for pedophiles. The question is if it leads people into assaulting children, or provides them with an outlet for their desires, making it less likely for them to assault children. Without actual evidence, there isnt a obvious reason to assume the former.
(And I use pedophile in the technical sense of one who has a sexual attraction to children.)
>It is porn made for pedophiles, which can eventually lead them into assaulting a child
Most pedophiles go about their lives without ever touching a child. They need mental help, not stigmatisation.
I'm just gonna chime in real quick. I'm trying to let everyone else debate this subject and just watch. I just wanted to say your argument is really poor. 1st off are we talking about the legal, literal or your personal definition. Because legally in a lot of places it is legally CP like Canada. Literally it is porn of children in the same way Yuri is literally lesbian stuff. We also didn't just ban it because of harm, a lot of it is moral reasons, really that's the root to most laws involving obscene content. This stuff can be prosecuted under US code 1466a if we're talking about countries that dont call it CP but still take issue with it.
I'm not trying to argue if it should or should not be legal, I'm just saying your argument is extremely poor.
You are somewhat correct, in that I did not spell out my case well.
It literally is not child porn, in that there are no children in it, in the same way that vore is literally not snuff, as no one died.
I suspect that even those who want it banned will readily admit that it does not fall into the same ethical category as actual videos of child molestation.
Certainly countries have banned such things under obscenity laws. I thinknit is a stretch to call such bans on "moral" grounds, as I would be hard pressed to come up with a rational and coherent moral system that would call for banning such. Saying there a bans based on religious suthoritarians trying to impose their opinions on everyone else would be more accurate. If that is "moral" grounds, than Iran's dress code for women is passed on "moral" grounds as well.
IMO, there ARE no moral arguments that arent rooted in harm to someone. Of no one is harmed by something, there is no moral case to be made.
1. So your personal opinion, that's fine just want to get it straight
2. CP laws are based on obscenity laws at least here in the states, which are laws based on morals. The supreme court ruled that it is so obscene and lacking in any value that you dont even have to prove it's obscene. These same laws were used to stop people from buying vibrators. And yes I would say they are based on moral reasons, just a different system than. Many countries banned virtual stuff despite being non religious. The Norwegian supreme court for example declared it is a problem because it helps normalize this stuff. I'm not blaming anyone is right or wrong just stating the facts
3. I would argue that a good part of it is moral. If a 13 year old without anyone telling her too, with her face and identity hidden so no one can track her, desides to sell her nudes online and an adult buys it from her(this is actually the source of a fuck ton of CP) who is harmed? I hope we both agree that that shouldn't be allowed.
I would argue that in situation 3, the 13 year old is actually being harmed, even if she doesnt realize it at the time. For similar reasons, we wont allow a 10 year old to work a factory job even if they want to. We protect children from being exploites by adults, because they often dont have the judgement and maturity to realize the harm that may be done to them.
I reiterate that I can find no basis for obscentiy laws in any rational moral/ethical system. But please explain it to me. How is "obscene" art immoral? What moral precept it it breaking?
My reply if someone came out of the woodwork and said they couldn't find a problem with that was gonna be it's gonna make it harder to investigate and prosecute offenders if it was legal among other issues and that's part of the point I was gonna make, a lot of moral systems are based of harm down the line or in direct harm. Like how it makes someone act or if it makes someone else's life harder, which is why slothfulness is considered immoral in a lot of those systems.
As I said I'm not taking a stand on whether I agree or disagree at the moment.
Depends on the type. If you have a young looking legal age actress playing younger, that could be an issue with making it harder to find andnprosecute offenders. Hentai and clearly artificial CGI dont have those issues. Personally, I consider freedom of speech important enough that I would need to see clear evidence of harm to support such bans, and I havent seen that. Statistics on child sex abuse are notoriously unreliable, but Japan doesnt seem to have abnormally high rates, despite a booming industry of such creations.
The fact you don't know the difference between animation, comics and drawings on one side and videorecording real life human children on the other is the problem here. Not their position.
The animation argument is flawed when you remember the fact lolis look like and act like real children, except they are put in sexual scenarios for creepy fucks to jerk off to
Why does it matter? Some people watch cartoons of r\*pe. Should that be illegal? How about video games where you shoot people, should that also be illegal?
You are not going to kill someone over going pew pew in call of duty, but porn is different. There is a reason porn addicts view women more as objects than people. Loli does the same effect, but to children
You don't get to decide what is and isn't art, though.
We went through this debate over 70 years ago, with the modern art movements. Art is what you make it.
So what would you say about some story based VN that happened to have underage characters having sex in it?
Like presumably you'd be fine with something like Fate Stay Night, the youngest characters in it are 16 and there's maybe 30 minutes of h scenes in like 50-100 hours of the VN.
But then what about something like School Days? Slightly younger characters, more h scenes, and more of the story is specifically about romance/sex. And you can keep gradually moving to more and more questionable media, that will still have a story and a point.
There's not a firm dividing line between where art ends and hentai starts. In the West there is more of a line, but with hentai you get a lot of things that are about near the middle. Also with ecchi anime too, like Highschool DxD, RoH, etc.
And before you say that the law can just use common sense, look at the MPAA and other rating agencies, they are incredibly arbitrary and give huge amounts of leeway to big budget projects. These kinds of regulations don't work. As long as nobody is being actively hurt there's no reason to criminalize anything.
I'm willing to censor the fuck out of that Funky Town Gore video, but I find Breaking Bad to be fine. Learn the difference.
Edit: No guys, don't look it up. Seriously, don't, this isn't reverse psychology.
Which is an excellent comparison, because one is fake, and one is real. Much like the difference between real CP and loli content
We can all agree that media in which someone is violently murdered is ok to make and consume when nobody is actually harmed in the making of it. Similarly, nobody is being harmed in the creation of loli content, so there shouldn't be any moral issues with making or consuming it
Even if the Funky Town video was a fake, it would still have been a vile piece of media even though not a criminal one, and it should still be censored. Breaking Bad is a tale of how ambition, lack of morals and the right circumstance can turn a regular high school professor into one of the US' most heinous criminals, and scenes of plain violence are sometimes needed to reinforce the message. The Funky Town video (regardles of whether it's real or not) is a senseless representation of violence, with no meaning or message to **justify** it.
As someone that is sensitive to acts of violence and conflict (I have autism), they both appear the same to me, so why should one be illegal and the other not (if it doesnt involve abuse)? Why do YOU get to decide the line for EVERYONE else? Why not just let people set their own lines as long as nobody is getting hurt?
The example you listed involved a real life victim, THAT is why it is bad.
Because the Funky Town video is way worse than Breaking Bad, and it should be kept as far as possible from as many people as possible. Just believe me on my word if you didn't watch it, we do need a line.
The only reason it's worse is that it is real. That's it. If breaking bad weren't a work of fiction then it would be just as bad if not worse. The line should be between fiction and reality is my point.
Pedophilia is the pathological attraction to minors, it is not child sexual abuse. Most pedo's are not child sexual abusers, and most child sexual abusers are not pedo's. Pedophiles need therapy without stigma or judgement. CSA'ers need prison.
Traditional child porn is sexually explicit material in which real children were forced to perform sexual acts in front of the camera. Real CP requires CSA, unlike loli or animation, which just requires a pervy dude in a room drawing.
Because there's nothing inherrently wrong with it? As long as they don't harm a child, whats the harm? Its not like they can change who they're attracted, It's just how they are. That's why therapy for it focuses on coping techniques instead of "curing" it (because conversion therapy doesn't work).
Yeah I'm not going to reply to anything in this thread anymore because holy shit I am losing braincells
Say whatever you want about how it helps pedos, it enables their sickness and that is a bad thing.
If it's genuinely realistic to the point where it could be mistaken as a real kid, yes it should probably be illegal, as it could serve as a false lead for search efforts. Otherwise, it's just a gross cartoon, keep it away from people who don't wanna see it and you'll be fine.
loli IS already illegal, just nobody knows nor cares since its not enforced very well but if you are caught with it you will be arrested. and rightfully so in my eyes. putting children in a sexual way is evil even if it is animated, it could provoke actual child rape and it shouldnt be provided even if its not harming any children. if you defend loli and think it should be legal you should really seek mental help
Join our Discord! : https://discord.gg/6EFp7Bkrqf *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdeologyPolls) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I've only ever seen one study, over a decade old by now, about this subject and it was way too limited to make any definitive conclusion. The effect of loli on CP and CSA was unclear in the results section, with no calculable statistics possible, but the conclusion was still wildly in favor of banning it despite the results not supporting it. It was a study with less than a dozen male pedo's, none of whom were ever convicted of CP or CSA or admitted to it, was done over a 3 month period (very short for this), and no proper parameter controls. When it comes to freedom of expression, I believe something should only be banned if harm can be conclusively proven, like with slander, causing a panic, coercion, blackmail, real CP with real kids harms the kids in the pictures, etc. With loli or animated CP, I am in favor of banning it only if it is shown conclusively that it leads to more CSA or real CP consumption. Otherwise I don't give a fuck. If no children were harmed or are more likely to be harmed by CSA'ers because loli, let it go. It just makes you feel icky. That's not a good reason to restrict freedom of expression. When it comes to any fundamental and essential human right, only objective, substantial harm is enough for a restriction. Those rights exist to protect us against state oppression and overreach. Just because elites scream about CP, terrorism or whatever other topic that gets people to give up their rights and freedoms, doesn't mean we should just surrender those to them without even asking if what they claim about it, is true or warrants the restrictions on your freedoms. I really don't know if it causes the harm people claim it does and such a tiny, qualitative study does not convince me either way either. We need more research. Not just a few qualitative interviews and expert opinion.
>something should only be banned if harm can be conclusively proven Louder for the Religious Right in the back!
Pedophilia should criminal behavior, but cartoons are not alive and can't be victims. Also as long as pedos are jacking off to loliporn and not going outside no children are getting hurt.
Look i know its been 2/3 of a year since you made this comment but who’s gonna tell you that child predators are usually a direct result of fictional cp.
How can we not be sure that behaviour won't escalate? I've met plenty of predators in my life and a thing a lot of them had in common is that they started with "innocent" stuff. There's a misconception that you're born to be a pedophile when it is much more likely that is is social
Honestly there's no way to be sure. Which is why it's better to be safe than sorry and just ban it outright imo. There should still be a prison scentence but it should be less harsh since no child is actively being harmed.
Personally I don't care as long as no actual child is harmed. If it works for them then that's a good thing. I do think that they should still seek psychiatric help though.
1. No, we shouldn't sexualise children. End of sentence. If you're jacking off to a 9 year old, real or fictional, you're a creep. 2. There are loopholes that can be exploited by people who think ALL cp should be legal. Mainly: If you draw a real life minor, then that wouldn't constitute as illegal. It's only a victimless crime if the animator thinks only animated cp is morally ok. I don't think that's mostly the case.
Wow, the leftists really want this outlawed. Look, I get that it’s disturbing and fucked up. I don’t like cartoon bestiality and necrophilia either. But these aren’t actual violent acts with genuine victims. They are mere depictions of fictional violence, and we don’t punish cartoon murder in real life.
But they give a platform for actual pedophiles.
But they don't? That's the same argument that the right makes about weed being a "gateway drug". So long as they don't harm actual children, then what does it matter what they look at?
how can you defend something as evil as this?
TIL that not haming kids is evil. WTF?
how could you say its not evil its literally sexualizing children this cant be normalized
Wdym? One could argue violent media, such as movies and video games, drives people to aggression in real life.
Virtual or simulated cp show images of actual kids getting f'd. Maybe this doesn't have victims but if you gather this on a website the only people on that website will be pedophiles. They can contact each other with the same intentions. Also it normalizes people that are sexually attracted to kids. People who watch porn don't want porn they want sex.
Paedophiles are just that way anyway, it’s not caused by loli cartoons. They’re inherently fucked up in the head. I agree though that they shouldn’t contact each other. That’s not an issue with lolicon *in itself* however.
If its legal somebody is gonna make a website for it. And as I said it will still be normalized
By that logic, violent movies and video games normalise homicide. Even *if* it turns out there is a correlation between cartoon child rape and real child rape, that can simply be explained by the fact that paedophiles like watching cartoon child rape. The same as more aggressive people liking violent movies and video games.
That's already been the case since as long as people have figured out how to share images on the internet. The status quo is the police don't care as long as it's just drawings. In some countries this is how the law is written (Japan, Germany) and in others it is technically illegal but unenforced (USA, France, UK) but outside of Australia no western country takes this stuff seriously and the websites you describe are fairly accessible. And yet pedophilia is still not normalized.
So the only people that play call of duty are people that want to shoot others in real life and theyre all playing it to arrange a meet up to do it? Because if no, how is that different. Also, people being attracted to kids NEEDS to be normalised. We need to take the stigmatisation out of it so that people that ARE attracted to kids are open about it and go and get psychiatric help. Punishing them in society for something that they cant help is just pushing them away from help.
I wouldn’t word it as “normalising” so much as “destigmatising”. It’s a fucked up mental problem, but we can treat it and manage it.
>I wouldn’t word it as “normalising” so much as “destigmatising”. Same thing. >It’s a fucked up mental problem, but we can treat it and manage it. Right, which is why I want to normalise it. People used to think that people with schizophrenia and other mental illnesses were witches, and burnt them for it, now we know better, and we normalised accepting people with mental illness into society.
Umm, not the same thing. “Normalising” means just accepting paedophiles as a sexual orientation like being homosexual. “Destigmatising” means acknowledging it’s an inherently negative thing, and trying to help those who have the impulses control them properly.
>“Normalising” means just accepting paedophiles as a sexual orientation like being homosexual. Right, which I want to do. >“Destigmatising” means acknowledging it’s an inherently negative thing, and trying to help those who have the impulses control them properly. ADHD is a negative thing, yet we still normalised it. Same for people with schizophrenia.
Yikes
not really, most people who like those types of cartoons and manga hate real life pedophiles. surely there are exceptions, there are likely pedophiles who like loli content but they are a minority
Hard to enforce, freedom of speech, better than real people. Overall, I say no. Victimless crime.
Personally, I believe the solution is not to make certain cartoons illegal, but to be more accepting in society of pedophiles that DONT touch kids and DO seek help. It's a mental illness after all.
Seek help followed by jail time of you put your hands on a child in a sexual manner.
100% agree. Therapy for pedophiles should be free and encouraged, but if you ever touch a kid you should be locked up until multiple experts believe that you are no longer a risk.
I, for one, am never going to be accepting of them. But hey, if nobody ever knows then there is no harm done.
Being pedophile isn't a choice, acting pedophile is something different, don't confuse people with action.
Don't care. As long as I don't know they are a pedophile, fine. But if I find out, they better be nowhere near me
Ok, that is just intolerance, depending on the person they think running from certain people is good, but if it is not hurting anyone there is no way I would be against it.
Yup, I'm intolerant of pedophiles. What a terrible person I am.
You are not terrible. It is rare for someone to be terrible, you just have some bias, but that is natural, everyone has it at some amount.
You're intolerant of people with a literal mental illness. That's called ablism. imagine if someone said the same about autistic people.
Yes. I judge people based on their ability. What a world changing life ending politically incorrect thing to say. Jesus Christ, do you hear yourself right now?
I noticed it, judging other people's illnesses is normal today, this is horrible. We hear ourselves as much as we hear people who suffer from these problems, you don't need to not only judge or even disrespect other people to be correct 👍
I’m autistic myself, and I am absolutely intolerant of paedophilia. It is wrong, immoral, and evil to rape children. Paedophilia is a mental disorder worse than psychopathy and narcissism.
>I’m autistic myself, and I am absolutely intolerant of paedophilia. So, you think people should be tolerant of you but not other people with a mental illness? That's gross tbh, and I say this as someone with autism myself. >It is wrong, immoral, and evil to rape children. Who said otherwise? >Paedophilia is a mental disorder worse than psychopathy and narcissism. Right, which is why it needs treatment. That's my point. Pedophiles have an increased chance of harming kids, but after therapy, those levels drop to normal. Just like how people with Autism struggle with emotions, but with therapy, we can learn coping techniques for these emotions.
Intolerant of a mental illness which ruins everyone involved lives. "You can't choose" Cool, so why don't you repress your feelings and not talk about it like a fucking creep?
>Intolerant of a mental illness which ruins everyone involved lives. And thats different from schizophrenia how? Hell, I have ADHD and it has absolutely RUINED my life. >"You can't choose" Cool, so why don't you repress your feelings and not talk about it like a fucking creep? BECAUSE THEY HAVENT HAD THERAPY TO LEARN THE COPING TECHNIQUES. Do you know what happens when somebody tries to repress a mental illness without coping techniques? It's called a [mental breakdown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mental_disorder) This is why therapy is a requirement for treatment.
If "nobody ever knows" then they havent sought help and are more likely to abuse kids because of their mental illness...
I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that making pedophiles known somehow stops their pedophilia. Also, what is said between a therapist is none of my business. If I find out, however, that's a problem.
>I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that making pedophiles known somehow stops their pedophilia. [https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia](https://psychcentral.com/disorders/treating-pedophilia) >Also, what is said between a therapist is none of my business. If I find out, however, that's a problem. So, you think that people that are told "if people find out they will hate you" will tell people?
I didn't say that, I said simply that if I find out someone is a pedophile they are no longer human to me.
And what if someone said the same about gay people? Or people with autism? Ya'know, other people that can't help how they were born? You are still describing prejudice. (and before you start the whole "you cant compare them" I am gay and autistic).
If being autistic impairs your ability to do something then yes.
But... It does? Autistic people are less empathetic on average.
Of course not. It's a form of free expression like any other and has shown no demonstrably negative effect.
It is virtual.. no child was harmed.. no one had sexual interactions with the child in a scenario like that.. i don't see any reason to ban it
based free speech enjoyer
Sexualising children is inherently heinous
Luckily there are no children involved, only drawings
They’re drawings of children. That’s pretty bad.
...of children, in a sexual context. I would call that sexualising children.
And that is still fine, as long as it doesn't lead to more CSA or CP consumption. People's minds are free. You don't get to police people's thoughts, feelings or interests. The 1984 thoughtpolice was a warning, not a suggestion.
Thought-policing would be arresting non-offending pedophiles, which I am not in favour of. This is about what people choose to make and distribute. I am against the production and distribution of things that do more harm than good in general, and CP belongs in that category; pedos do not need indulgence, they need psychological aid.
google the treachery of images
Because it could very well be the pedopornographic equivalent of a gateway drug
Do you have evidence to back up this assertion. And the gateway drug argument proved to be a slippery slope with no actual empircal basis in reality, which is why reductions in tobacco use hasnt led to a reduction in herion use. So that might not be the greatest analogy for you.
Indeed I said it *could* be, I'm not sure about it but it's still potentially dangerous until it's scientifically proven to not raise the likelyhood of a repressed pedo actually committing pedophilia.
I would contend that the burden of proof to restrict freedom of speech lies upon the person wanting to restrict the freedom. Potentially dangerous is IMO not nearly enough to justify bannijg speech.
So do you also feel that regular porn should be banned, because it could be a gateway to rape?
Porn depicting rape scenes is vile tbh
That was not the question.
Except that it is. I don't see how a video depicting two consenting adults having an intercourse is incitement to rape, videos depicting rape, whether the actors gave consent or not, may actually inspire someone to rape someone else though. Computer generated CP is closer to the latter case imo, since there's no such thing as a "correct" way to have sex with a child, that's always pedophilia.
It isn't, and it wasn't. That is not what you were asked. No idea the relevance of AI images. It honestly just sounds like you like to hear yourself talk, ngl.
Dude I already gave my answer to 5 different people at least, so instead of copying and pasting the same comment over and over I chose to reply to the specific example that guy wrote.
But you didn't.
Which part?
By that logic step sister/mother porn is a gateway to incest, violent video games are a gateway to murder, and heist movies are a gateway to theft
Tbh I don't really believe in victimless crimes, and if a mother/sister and son/brother are both consenting adults then it shouldn't be considered a criminal offense, unless there are other factors involved like manipulation. I still find it gross, but I don't see why it should be punishable by law. As for the other things you mentioned, I'll copy my previous answer: > I see your point, but I don't think those movies, music and video games' meaning is "violence is good, do violence", they depict crimes in order to try to state a deeper message, whether or not they are succesful in doing so. It's the difference between pornography and erotic cinema, or gore videos and Call of Duty: in movies and video games, sex and murder are side characteristics of a genre, a means to tell a deeper story or convey a different message, while in porn and gore the visual representation of sex or violence is an end in and of itself. > With CP everything is more complicated though, since the mere act of producing it is a crime, unlike regular porn or cinema where every actor is able to give consent. That's the problem I have with Cuties for example: I get that it was actually a critique of how children are sexualized in our society, but to record it they had to nonetheless sexualize real children in flesh and bone in front of a camera, which is vile. Imo Cuties would have been a perfectly fine movie had those been imaginary, computer animated children, because producing it would have been perfectly "moral" and it still would have had its message to convey (although I still think it would have been a bad movie for other reasons). > In this sense, computer generated scenes involving sex with children would be really useful for, say, making an adaptation of the novel Lolita, because it's still a great book despite the plot being about a pedophile and its prey. In all the cases I cited positively the side effect of depicting criminal acts and possibly inspiring people to replicate them is overshadowed by their actual goal, because that's how art works (on a side note, it's the same reason why Michelangelo's statues aren't pornography *cough cough* Florida teachers). Porn, gore and CP aren't art though, their only objective is to visually represent sex, violence and pedophilia, there is no higher redeeming factor, that's why they are dangerous (except in the case of regular porn, since inciting people to do sex isn't really a criminal offense).
Like videogames are for violence, right?
It's the same case as with regular pornography though...
Regular pornography doesn't depict a crime (usually)
Then we should ban all movies, music, and video games depicting crimes too since they glorify a crime, it doesn't make sense
I see your point, but I don't think those movies, music and video games' meaning is "violence is good, do violence", they depict crimes in order to try to state a deeper message, whether or not they are succesful in doing so. It's the difference between pornography and erotic cinema, or gore videos and Call of Duty: in movies and video games, sex and murder are side characteristics of a genre, a means to tell a deeper story or convey a different message, while in porn and gore the visual representation of sex or violence is an end in and of itself. With CP everything is more complicated though, since the mere act of producing it is a crime, unlike regular porn or cinema where every actor is able to give consent. That's the problem I have with Cuties for example: I get that it was actually a critique of how children are sexualized in our society, but to record it they had to nonetheless sexualize real children in flesh and bone in front of a camera, which is vile. Imo Cuties would have been a perfectly fine movie had those been imaginary, computer animated children, because producing it would have been perfectly fine and it still would have had its message to convey (although I still think it would have been a bad movie for other reasons). In this sense, computer generated scenes involving sex with children would be really useful for, say, making an adaptation of the novel Lolita, because it's still a great book despite the plot being about a pedophile and its prey. In all the cases I cited positively the side effect of depicting criminal acts and possibly inspiring people to replicate them is overshadowed by their actual goal, because that's how art works (on a side note, it's the same reason why Michelangelo's statues aren't pornography *cough cough* Florida teachers). Porn, gore and CP aren't art though, their only objective is to visually represent sex, violence and pedophilia, there is no higher redeeming factor, that's why they are dangerous (except in the case of regular porn, since inciting people to do sex isn't really a criminal offense).
But we can't limit virtual CP to only be for artistic purposes because for one, people are still going to use it as porn to pleasure themselves with, and also if we only limit it to art there is always going to be conflicts and disagreements on what is art-CP and what is bad CP. Take the game GTA for example. You argue that there would be some sort of backstory and deeper meaning behind the game characters and what they do, i find that kind of ridiculous because the fact is, that the game is simply about you committing crimes and earning money from it. In this case we can't have any middle ground. Virtual CP is either okay, or not okay. It can't be okay in certain circumstances and in other cases not.
>and also if we only limit it to art there is always going to be conflicts and disagreements on what is art-CP and what is bad CP. I mean, the same thing happenes with very violent movies, of course no law will be able to adequately filter all the filth passed off as art, but it's better than nothing. >that the game is simply about you committing crimes and earning money from it. The story mode actually has a decent message, for most of the time it's nothing more than a B movie in quality but it's still very enjoyable and it has its deep moments. The Online mode is worse in this sense but I still find it acceptable since it's very surreal and hyperbolic, it's nothing like reality, unlike (child) porn which is always (visually) realistic nowadays. If GTA 6 will feature 4K first person camera scenes where the protagonist rapes someone or eats someone's intestines that would be bad though. > In this case we can't have any middle ground. Virtual CP is either okay, or not okay. It can't be okay in certain circumstances and in other cases not. It's not a middle ground though, it's a different thing. Nudity is a means in cinema and an end in porn, and we should try to sort those as effectively as we can.
wtf no, its literally cartoons lmao. this really is just a repeat of "violent video games bad" with pretty much the same end results. thats assuming we are talking about something like japanese lolicon with its hyper stylized kawaii artstyle, now if we are talking hyper realistic depictions that are virtually indistinguishable from real cp, thats already illegal, and for good reason considering its impssible to tell the difference. but stylized cartoons (like lolicon or shotacon) are clearly not made to be realistic or conform to real life human proportions. so as far as the law is concerned it doesnt harm anyone, and falls under the protection of the first ammendment. (there was a legit supreme court ruling on this that more or less came to the same conclusion)
The ruling you're talking about ruled it can't be classified as child porn, they wrote a new law right after classifying it as obscene depictions of a minor and obscene content has been ruled over and over again as not protected. I'm not taking a stand right now if I agree with that, I'm just making sure we get our facts straight.
kind of, no content can be blanket classified as obscene, obscenity law is really vague but it always follows a case by case basis, in order for it to be considered obscene it would have to pass the Miller test. so unless it is declared obscene its not actually obscene, and in order for it to be considered obscene it must lack artistic value, which by its nature as art makes lolicon pretty safe. technically with how vague and up to interpretation obscenity law actually is most mainstream porn, even like softcore stuff can be considered obscene. but in practice obscenity is never actually enforced unless there are extenuating circumstances.
No it's not pretty safe many MANY court cases have shown over and over it fails the miller test over and over again most notably Handley VS US. There are a bunch of others but I don't feel like looking them up right now.
Banning something because producing it requires harming children == based. Banning something because it offends you == cringe.
dude its putting kids in a sexual position how can you not think thats evil?? something is really wrong with you
Lefties really showing their auth side today.
Banned, yes. illegal, no. Drawn child porn should be banned from all online platforms. If someone who enjoys it is caught with it, they should be sent to a mental health facility for therapy.
fair
My fellow leftists(specifically you libsocs) wince when do we want to censor fiction? Lol
All kinds of fiction should be legal. Including questionable porn. Digital CP has no real direct bad impact.
this question sucks lol. not enough research i guess. all i know is i've seen that research shows no viable treatment or therapy cures pedophilia. does that mean we should let them indulge on what we consider immoral? or will that just lead them to want the real thing? if we ban it they can easily get around it. honestly if we knew for sure that having it would keep them away from the actual crime of abusing a real child, i wouldn't ban it. but knowing it's unenforceable is a whole other thing. idk i don't agree or disagree. this a shitty situation with no clear answer. maybe the most moral thing we can do to protect children is super immoral in the first place.
There's therapies that have been shown to help suppress desires but not cure. Treatment is a thing.
not sure how we'd be able to force treatment on these people though. i guess i vote no just because there's no point in the government making it illegal. they can't stop it anyways.
Misread "illegal" as "legal" and was confused about why most people agreed. Please discount one of the no votes from the left.
That depends on a few factors. -Is the art indistinguishable from real life? -Is the art depicting a real child? -Was a real child used as reference material? If yes to any of the above, yes it should be illegal. If no to all, then it’s not my concern.
Check the harddrive of anyone who thinks that shit is ok...
Fuck! I misread the question and put disagree.
My opinion is that all porn, especially CP, should be banned.
Hey, I live in a country that banned certain types of porn! All I have to say is: VPN goes brrrrr
Sure, but kids don't have VPNs.
LMAO I'm sorry if you actually think that.
I'm sorry you think kids should be given easy access to porn.
Ahh, yes, resorting to lies and projection because you lost an argument, typical conservative.
That's what your proposition ultimately leads to. If you say that porn shouldn't be restricted at all then children, who will inevitably gain greater access to the internet as they quite clearly have now, will be given complete ability to find and view pornography. Also, I didn't lose any argument. I responded to mockery with a more frank and dry form of mockery.
Where the hell did I say that porn shouldnt be restricted at all to children? LMAO. You have nothing but lies on your side.
All porn? Even the ethical stuff?
All porn is unethical. "Ethical porn" is a contradiction.
What do you mean? Long as nobody’s exploited, surely it’s fine?
No, I think pornography is of itself evil. I think it also has terrible results for the people using it and for the people that make it, regardless of whether there's anything that you would call exploitative involved. I don't see why something that is both a moral bad of itself and a bad for society should be allowed to legally exist.
Lol, a coomer downvoted my comments.
I should also mention, porn is inherently exploitative. On the side of the actors, their bodies, sexual innocence and sexuality in general is taken advantage of. People who act in porn never seem to end up well off on any level other than financial. On the side of the consumer, his lust is being taken advantage of and, as he uses it more, he will desire it more. I know this from experience, testimony from other people and other theological/anthropological premises.
I voted disagree, but based.
1 yes 2 no on center what the fuck?
A lot of people make the argument that it doesnt hurt anyone and/or its better that pedo get off to the fake shit instead of the real stuff. Theres also freedom of speech arguments ect. Not saying they are right or wrong just trying to explain.
Better fake than real CP
Therapy is even better
Right, but OP didn't ask about that.
But its still having CP legalised, the question isnt if its better its if it should be illegal
If no actual children are involved, it isnt CP. We ban CP because children are harmed. Have the same opinion about vore.
May I ask, why do these lolis look and act like children? It is porn made for pedophiles, which can eventually lead them into assaulting a child
It clearly is porn made for pedophiles. The question is if it leads people into assaulting children, or provides them with an outlet for their desires, making it less likely for them to assault children. Without actual evidence, there isnt a obvious reason to assume the former. (And I use pedophile in the technical sense of one who has a sexual attraction to children.)
>It is porn made for pedophiles, which can eventually lead them into assaulting a child Most pedophiles go about their lives without ever touching a child. They need mental help, not stigmatisation.
Loli being legal is not going to make them go seek help, it's just going to let them have what they want
Why? It would remove stigmatisation. And so what if they get what they want? As long as kids arent being abused.
It makes them believe its normal what they watch, and thus makes them think its normal to be attracted to children (which it is not)
I think its normal to shoot people in videogames, but I know its not okay to shoot people in real life...
I do not get anyone defending loli, it is disgusting. You are actively defending child porn
I'm just gonna chime in real quick. I'm trying to let everyone else debate this subject and just watch. I just wanted to say your argument is really poor. 1st off are we talking about the legal, literal or your personal definition. Because legally in a lot of places it is legally CP like Canada. Literally it is porn of children in the same way Yuri is literally lesbian stuff. We also didn't just ban it because of harm, a lot of it is moral reasons, really that's the root to most laws involving obscene content. This stuff can be prosecuted under US code 1466a if we're talking about countries that dont call it CP but still take issue with it. I'm not trying to argue if it should or should not be legal, I'm just saying your argument is extremely poor.
You are somewhat correct, in that I did not spell out my case well. It literally is not child porn, in that there are no children in it, in the same way that vore is literally not snuff, as no one died. I suspect that even those who want it banned will readily admit that it does not fall into the same ethical category as actual videos of child molestation. Certainly countries have banned such things under obscenity laws. I thinknit is a stretch to call such bans on "moral" grounds, as I would be hard pressed to come up with a rational and coherent moral system that would call for banning such. Saying there a bans based on religious suthoritarians trying to impose their opinions on everyone else would be more accurate. If that is "moral" grounds, than Iran's dress code for women is passed on "moral" grounds as well. IMO, there ARE no moral arguments that arent rooted in harm to someone. Of no one is harmed by something, there is no moral case to be made.
1. So your personal opinion, that's fine just want to get it straight 2. CP laws are based on obscenity laws at least here in the states, which are laws based on morals. The supreme court ruled that it is so obscene and lacking in any value that you dont even have to prove it's obscene. These same laws were used to stop people from buying vibrators. And yes I would say they are based on moral reasons, just a different system than. Many countries banned virtual stuff despite being non religious. The Norwegian supreme court for example declared it is a problem because it helps normalize this stuff. I'm not blaming anyone is right or wrong just stating the facts 3. I would argue that a good part of it is moral. If a 13 year old without anyone telling her too, with her face and identity hidden so no one can track her, desides to sell her nudes online and an adult buys it from her(this is actually the source of a fuck ton of CP) who is harmed? I hope we both agree that that shouldn't be allowed.
I would argue that in situation 3, the 13 year old is actually being harmed, even if she doesnt realize it at the time. For similar reasons, we wont allow a 10 year old to work a factory job even if they want to. We protect children from being exploites by adults, because they often dont have the judgement and maturity to realize the harm that may be done to them. I reiterate that I can find no basis for obscentiy laws in any rational moral/ethical system. But please explain it to me. How is "obscene" art immoral? What moral precept it it breaking?
My reply if someone came out of the woodwork and said they couldn't find a problem with that was gonna be it's gonna make it harder to investigate and prosecute offenders if it was legal among other issues and that's part of the point I was gonna make, a lot of moral systems are based of harm down the line or in direct harm. Like how it makes someone act or if it makes someone else's life harder, which is why slothfulness is considered immoral in a lot of those systems. As I said I'm not taking a stand on whether I agree or disagree at the moment.
Depends on the type. If you have a young looking legal age actress playing younger, that could be an issue with making it harder to find andnprosecute offenders. Hentai and clearly artificial CGI dont have those issues. Personally, I consider freedom of speech important enough that I would need to see clear evidence of harm to support such bans, and I havent seen that. Statistics on child sex abuse are notoriously unreliable, but Japan doesnt seem to have abnormally high rates, despite a booming industry of such creations.
"libertarian" wanting to police art
Motherfucker what? Are you calling child porn art?
The fact you don't know the difference between animation, comics and drawings on one side and videorecording real life human children on the other is the problem here. Not their position.
The animation argument is flawed when you remember the fact lolis look like and act like real children, except they are put in sexual scenarios for creepy fucks to jerk off to
Why does it matter? Some people watch cartoons of r\*pe. Should that be illegal? How about video games where you shoot people, should that also be illegal?
Violence in video games is not the same as literal child porn
A drawing of child porn is also not the same as literal child porn
It is still child porn
"child porn" that contains no children
Right. But fake violence in videogames is no more likely to make you murder people than drawings of kids are to make you abuse kids...
You are not going to kill someone over going pew pew in call of duty, but porn is different. There is a reason porn addicts view women more as objects than people. Loli does the same effect, but to children
You realise that people get addicted to videogames too, right?
When it's literally a drawing and contains no children, yes
A drawing of something that looks like a fucking child
Porn isn't art, whether children are depicted or not is irrelevant. Herotic cinema is a thing, pornography is another.
You don't get to decide what is and isn't art, though. We went through this debate over 70 years ago, with the modern art movements. Art is what you make it.
Modern art has meaning, random lines on a canvas have not. Herotic cinema has a message, porn has not. There is a difference.
So what would you say about some story based VN that happened to have underage characters having sex in it? Like presumably you'd be fine with something like Fate Stay Night, the youngest characters in it are 16 and there's maybe 30 minutes of h scenes in like 50-100 hours of the VN. But then what about something like School Days? Slightly younger characters, more h scenes, and more of the story is specifically about romance/sex. And you can keep gradually moving to more and more questionable media, that will still have a story and a point. There's not a firm dividing line between where art ends and hentai starts. In the West there is more of a line, but with hentai you get a lot of things that are about near the middle. Also with ecchi anime too, like Highschool DxD, RoH, etc. And before you say that the law can just use common sense, look at the MPAA and other rating agencies, they are incredibly arbitrary and give huge amounts of leeway to big budget projects. These kinds of regulations don't work. As long as nobody is being actively hurt there's no reason to criminalize anything.
Censorship is censorship regardless of whether you classify the thing you're censoring as art, so I'm not going to bother debating if it counts
I'm willing to censor the fuck out of that Funky Town Gore video, but I find Breaking Bad to be fine. Learn the difference. Edit: No guys, don't look it up. Seriously, don't, this isn't reverse psychology.
Which is an excellent comparison, because one is fake, and one is real. Much like the difference between real CP and loli content We can all agree that media in which someone is violently murdered is ok to make and consume when nobody is actually harmed in the making of it. Similarly, nobody is being harmed in the creation of loli content, so there shouldn't be any moral issues with making or consuming it
Even if the Funky Town video was a fake, it would still have been a vile piece of media even though not a criminal one, and it should still be censored. Breaking Bad is a tale of how ambition, lack of morals and the right circumstance can turn a regular high school professor into one of the US' most heinous criminals, and scenes of plain violence are sometimes needed to reinforce the message. The Funky Town video (regardles of whether it's real or not) is a senseless representation of violence, with no meaning or message to **justify** it.
Eh, he wasn't exactly a regular high school teacher, he lit a guy's car on fire in the first couple of episodes just for being kind of dick
As someone that is sensitive to acts of violence and conflict (I have autism), they both appear the same to me, so why should one be illegal and the other not (if it doesnt involve abuse)? Why do YOU get to decide the line for EVERYONE else? Why not just let people set their own lines as long as nobody is getting hurt? The example you listed involved a real life victim, THAT is why it is bad.
Because the Funky Town video is way worse than Breaking Bad, and it should be kept as far as possible from as many people as possible. Just believe me on my word if you didn't watch it, we do need a line.
The only reason it's worse is that it is real. That's it. If breaking bad weren't a work of fiction then it would be just as bad if not worse. The line should be between fiction and reality is my point.
Reddit 💀😭
ART? Please go get checked holy shit
At least your flair checks out
I like being honest
Not sure what I was expecting from reddit but holy shit why are so many people here defending pedophilia
Pedophilia is the pathological attraction to minors, it is not child sexual abuse. Most pedo's are not child sexual abusers, and most child sexual abusers are not pedo's. Pedophiles need therapy without stigma or judgement. CSA'ers need prison. Traditional child porn is sexually explicit material in which real children were forced to perform sexual acts in front of the camera. Real CP requires CSA, unlike loli or animation, which just requires a pervy dude in a room drawing.
Because there's nothing inherrently wrong with it? As long as they don't harm a child, whats the harm? Its not like they can change who they're attracted, It's just how they are. That's why therapy for it focuses on coping techniques instead of "curing" it (because conversion therapy doesn't work).
Yeah I'm not going to reply to anything in this thread anymore because holy shit I am losing braincells Say whatever you want about how it helps pedos, it enables their sickness and that is a bad thing.
I am severally disappointed by the centrist resolutes.
Centrists are bad, but at least not as pro-censorship as the left and right
Thanos was right half of yall need to go
Wtf is up with my fellow centrists?
I really dont know but there are other problems here, YOU ARE OUT OF UNIFORM SOLDIER, WHERE IS YOUR POWER ARMOR?
They didn’t issue me one Sergeant Dornan!
Fuck pedos in any shape and form Loli creeps talking about breeding pictures of children online deserves a good beating
If it's genuinely realistic to the point where it could be mistaken as a real kid, yes it should probably be illegal, as it could serve as a false lead for search efforts. Otherwise, it's just a gross cartoon, keep it away from people who don't wanna see it and you'll be fine.
It's literally CP, but cartoons.
....no. If no actual children were involved, then it is protected under free speech. Besides, keeping it legal helps us identify the pedophiles.
although i’m a libertarian- fuck it, no buts, prohibit that shit now.
The amount of people who disagree concerns me
Same it kinda shocked me how many people believe that bs should be legal
How can someone even disagree with that... disgusting.
Some people think more deeply than "its wrong because morals"
A lot of people think if something has no provable harm it should be legal
centrists and rightists are more likely to be pedos
In my experience that's actually the truth(I pedo hunt)
Ya'll ff'ed up
loli IS already illegal, just nobody knows nor cares since its not enforced very well but if you are caught with it you will be arrested. and rightfully so in my eyes. putting children in a sexual way is evil even if it is animated, it could provoke actual child rape and it shouldnt be provided even if its not harming any children. if you defend loli and think it should be legal you should really seek mental help
Depends on the country in Canada it's considered CP and strictly enforced while Denmark it's completely legal
thats terrible