/meta/ - Ruthless criticism of all that exists (in leftypol.org)

Not a janny but on other sites it usually comes down to whether the character is made to look like a child, so instead of requiring people to read up on the lore or contact the author for their input you ask whether a random person could reasonably mistake it for loli or shota. I dunno how bulbasaur porn would be considered pedophilia, it's more comparable to a drawing of someone fucking a dog.
Personally I don't really care whether loli, shota, or zoophilia drawings are indicators of someone's real world behavior, I just find it gross and don't want to look at it. Same as stuff like scat, prolapses, or bloodplay. Ethics or scientific studies shouldn't be the focus here, it's not worth catering to people with fringe/extreme fetishes when that's not the purpose of the site.

I just think it should get deleted/banned because it causes a thread derail every single fucking time. I don't know if it's an American thing but it's unhinged that pedophilia gets talked about pretty much daily here.

There was this person on twitter who worked to catch pedos and said there were so many false reports that ended up being about cartoon porn that it would take too much time to go through and were told by higher-ups to just ignore all reports. Also agencies that told people to flat-out stop reporting loli because those reports were getting in their way.

This is somewhat anecdotal but one pedophile who assaulted multiple children tried to blame it on lolicon only to admit later on he was a pedophile before he even encountered the material. Many people into loli actually use loli as coping mechanism from being sexually assaulted, some even recommended by their therapist.

Internet outrage isn't saving the children, hell, it does the complete opposite.

>>30289
>I just find it gross and don't want to look at it.
You can hide the thread/post or simply not visit the NSFW boards. OP images have to be spoilered if they're NSFW even on NSFW boards anyway.

>>30289
>it's not worth catering to people with fringe/extreme fetishes when that's not the purpose of the site.

underage characters isn't really fringe by internet standards though

>>30286
What an OP. It's like 5 days later. Do you think about politics as much as you think about shartasaur porn anon?

>>30306
this place talks about pedos every day

>>30307
That you OP or just another porn passionate anon? Can we get another few thousand words of your thoughts about shartosaur porn?

>>30286
>For instance, it shouldn't be called "cp"/"cartoon cp" when it has no connection to child sexual assult, unlike phyiscal cp.
>cartoon cp
loli porn is literally cartoon child porn

I'm not super informed but I'm just gonna choose to believe that's why it's called CSAM now
hysterics

>>30308
>Can we get another few thousand words of your thoughts about shartosaur porn?
youre describing the neurotics who hyperventilate after seeing pokemon porn tho

>Chinlet really made a fucking essay trying to indirectly convince the mods to let them post clearly child-coded images.
LMAO
<It just is okay!
Nobody says that you seething pedophile, people actually have presented arguments, and you use the same excuses, every time. Do a flip off the Golden Gate bridge.

>>30348
nobody (sensible) cares, cartoons aren't children, if you actually care go do something about actual abuse that goes on every day

>>30356
I care because I don't want to see drawings of naked children having sex on my leftist political discussion website.
It's pretty simple.
Why don't you join a pedophile telegram chat or seek help irl? https://www.nami.org/help

>>30357
Okay. Bye!

>>30357
Well there's topics I don't really like either, but guess what, I can just hide them or don't look at them.

>>30356
Dude, fetishes aside, you don't really need to post them here. Like, your dick won't fall off because you quit posting these pics. Is this really important?

>>30360
I don't even post anything like that here but I resent moral guardians who think they're hot shit.

>>30361
That's fair.

>>30358
>>30359
>>30361
What does child porn have to do with socialist politics?

>>30363
Well most of the stuff on siberia has nothing to do with politics. Besides it's not 'child porn'.

>>30364
What about porn depicting a child is not child porn?
If I recall correctly, back on bunkerchan, there was a big snafu about how /Siberia/ is not /b/ and therefore should not be held to the same standards as /b/. In my opinion, if you want to look at porn, there's literally millions of websites you can go to, and for your needs there's the deep web, so why chose this site to jerk off to?

>>30356
>It's just a cartoon so it's totally good!
<Go find some real pedos because those guys are totally going to openly talk about this
Fuck off with this. Just because cartoon pedoshit isn't IRL doesn't make it any more excusable. It's like saying planning a murder but not carrying out is fine because there are actual murders… one thing being worse doesn't make another good suddenly.
>nobody (sensible) cares
Funny, then here's a bet. I want you to inform people at work, in your family and so on and so forth that you fap to this shit, and make sure they see it, and see how they react, unless they're all "sensible" I'm pretty sure most won't react well.

>>30361
No-one is being a "moral guardian", faggot. Feet, furry, futa, animated cartoon-shit, aliens, muscle girls, femdom and all sorts of shit is posted on /siberia/ and people aren't complaining about that. The majority of users are drawing the line at CP, illustrated or not, and it is literally in the site's RULES. End of discussion.

>>30286
nonce

>>30375
no u

>>30366
>Just because cartoon pedoshit isn't IRL doesn't make it any more excusable.
It is.

>It's like saying planning a murder but not carrying out is fine because there are actual murders…
Drawing nude "children" is not the same as premeditating rape (which is what would be the actual crime). In your analogy it would be if someone drew someone getting murdered (many such cases), and then that somehow being evidence for premeditating murder.
The "child coded" shit is even vaguer, and flat out not enforceable as it is subjective.

You are being hysteric.

>>30393
>It is
Laws on illustrated CP says you're wrong.
>Drawing nude "children" is not the same as premeditating rape
nobody said that, retard
>In your analogy
<Nitpicking the example while ignoring the point
Let me simplify it for even a retard such as yourself; just because one thing is a greater crime, doesn't make something lesser not criminal or disgusting. Gore illustration aren't actual murder but they're still disgusting.
>The "child coded" shit is even vaguer, and flat out not enforceable as it is subjective
It isn't vague. A child's body is not the same as a petit adults in both functionality and proportional appearance.

>H-hysteric
Pedophile mental gymnastics and projection, predictable as they are vulgar. Libertarian nonsense that belongs on /pol/

>>30396
It's not a child, it's a fucking drawing

>>30397
>It's just a d-drawing!
Predictable faggotry. Blow a S&W

>>30399
It is pedophila kinda (I think it's still different from being attracted to real life children) but so what, we should stop using pedophile as a universal slur word

>>30397
This is a drawing of someone getting their dick cut off, it being a drawing doesn't make it inherently less disgusting

>>30401
giwtwm

>>30401
NTA but "It's icky" isn't a valid political argument.
With the same argument you can justify baning any depiction of anything that might make anyone uncomfortable.

>>30400
Sexualizing children in any context or medium is fucked up, fictional or not, illustrated or photographic. Pedophilia is one of the most disgusting acts humanity has come up with, and there is no excuse for it. Lolishit isn't nearly as bad as actual CP, but that doesn't make it good or something to make excuses for.

I'm also not talking about "loli" as in a child-character in an anime, people are specifically talking about hentai and ecchi depictions.

The mods haven't updated the rules on the site in a while, but loli was banned from leftypol for some time now, and I know this because I asked them specifically about it a few years back when /anime/ had only just become a board here. There is no debate to be had here.

>>30404
>political argument
It's not a political argument or subject
>With the same argument you can justify baning any depiction of anything that might make anyone uncomfortable.
False equivalency. Some content is universally disturbing and unwanted by the majority of users, such as unspoilered gore, scat and loli hentai.

>something being pedophilic is equivalent to it being child pornography
why do people keep asserting this

>>30396
>bourgeois law is exemplary
>I think it's icky so it should be banned
>btw I am a socialist
ok retard

>>30424
>bourgeois law is exemplary
Retarded take. Read Marx.
>I think it's icky so it should be banned
No, the majority of normal humans thinks its disgusting.
>btw I am a socialist
Certainly more than you.
Kys pedo.

Hey Guy, op here.
I forgot to look at my thread until a week after, (work, job fair, JoJo part 8 "Wonder of You" addictive arc, job search, new 9in vibrator, etc.)
And now I'm replying since I can't stop myself from procrastinating.

My reaction to my actions: youtuber farfa, smiling really smugly.
I can't find an image of the face exactly, (he'd do it on vids 2 years ago), so just imagine the first two images related merged into one.


>>30294
>You can hide the thread/post or simply not visit the NSFW boards
That's why we should do a flair system of threads being auto hidden if nsfw.
We should get people to post in board even if at work, get back at the boss.


>>30306
No, I can talk about politics more.
In fact one time I got shushed at a wendys since I got so over worked about car dependent cities that I yelled.


>>30309
I find that contentious.
Not even interested in unbanning it, unlike what >>30348 says.
Physical cp has a connection to child sexual assult, the drawings do not – they just aren't comparable.

It's kinda like how some argue that blacks can't be racist since they don't have systematic power – though I don't like their argument since blacks clearly support white suppremecy with their racism with cutting off recources or allys that could help them, or just literally doing racist stuff againts black people like black teachers punishing black children more despite being as disruptive as their white peers.


To focus on: >>30348 and >>30366
This is why I argue they should be ban.
They don't engage in good faith, if they did, then they'd know I don't want to unban the images.
One eye and out the other.

The latter post though makes an incoherent argument atleast.
>It's like saying planning a murder but not carrying out is fine because there are actual murders… one thing being worse doesn't make another good suddenly.
People literally do it all the time as a joke, relieve stress, or even just as a mental exercise.
Women do it literally all the time, but then flip the plan on them, and hence uphold the, "Cult of Terror". Or people in general who consume alot of csi or true crime podcasts.

Also: murders, and crime in general, don't just spontaneously occur, there's a reason – planning a murder has reason behind it, but that won't just lead people in comitting a murder.


>>30396
>>It is
>Laws on illustrated CP says you're wrong.
Untrue.
The law of having that content is uneven and all over the place.
In Canada for example: someone had simpsons porn of Lisa and got arrested since, while having the content in America (most states) and Canada is legal, to cross to Canada with it is not.
I don't remember if I learned that from 8chan or cumtown

><Nitpicking the example while ignoring the point
>just because one thing is a greater crime
What you compared wasn't even a crime.
You example is like going:
>just because flipping off a baby is less worse than kicking it doesn't mean the first is good
<as a response to someone liking a drawing to a dog eating chocolate and why ergo it should be banned since you want to ban images of animal abuse.

>Pedophile mental gymnastics and projection
You can't even grasp any material basis in your analysis, just idealism and smug.
You're either an ally of pedophilia like that of Chris Hansen, or a pedophile in training – this is the objective facts we're working with.
Perfect example of why these people should get a day ban.


Either that example, or this: >>30399
Third image related.
Just for you; took me 20s of googling.


>>30404
This person's argument is incomplete: >>30408
The site can ban loli all they want, and that's good.
Freedom of speech is to be able to make sites no matter what, not have people tolerate you on any site you go on – (GOD I FUCKING WISH 2012 4CHAN UNDERSTOOD THAT AND FUCKING BANNED STORMFRONT USERS).
The issue is country bans, which is a different topic, which you can figure I'd be against banning that stuff unless it had a connection to child sexual assult like physical cp.

>>30518
>I forgot to look at my thread until a week after, (work, job fair, JoJo part 8 "Wonder of You" addictive arc, job search, new 9in vibrator, etc.)
Hey you, I don't need to know your whole life story. Unless you are a cute gurl (or particularly cute boi) in which case go on.

>>30518
>writes like a redditor
>thinks like a redditor
>suggests changes to make the site more like reddit
someone mercy kill this woeful thread

>>30521
it's a KF larp

>>30519
>I don't need to know your whole life story
Where else do I brag about taking a 9in vibrator?

>Unless you are a cute gurl
If this was getchan, we'd all be girls here
Business idea: steal/copy getchan


>>30521
>>30522
Ogey.

>>30518
Came back to this thread while browsing /meta/ and wow, the OP is still a retard.
>A Jojo fag
>reddit spacing
>reddit style
>pedo apologia nitpicking and cherry-picking while deflecting from the point of criticism of loli-shit and then claiming they're somehow NOT contesting the ban of it
>posting le smug Wendy girl that /pol/ loves
>posts some Eceleb
>posts some rando twitter shite meme
>incomprehensible nonsense
<Ex. "One eye and out the other." (what?)
>screams about people being bad faith for short responses when clearly posting bait and demanding the site use shit like flairs and auto-hide, one of the worst ideas ever applied to social media
>"In fact one time I got shushed at a wendys since I got so over worked about car dependent cities that I yelled."
Means you're a spaghetti dropping autist that needs to go touch grass more.

I think loli is pedophilia but should be allowed

>>30566
>>reddit spacing
>>reddit style
<Formatting = Reddit spacing.
Lmao, newfag.

>>posting le smug Wendy girl that /pol/ loves
<Literally everything in the post was explained, including the wendy meme being used since I couldn't get the farfa reaction
<Literally just admitted to not reading the post

>>incomprehensible nonsense
><Ex. "One eye and out the other." (what?)
<Literally too retarded to not get the parody usage of, "In one ear and out the other", but being used for reading.

>>screams about people being bad faith for short responses when clearly posting bait and demanding the site use shit like flairs and auto-hide, one of the worst ideas ever applied to social media
<Bait = Something I can't counter
<And flairs are a bad idea, because? Lol.

>>"In fact one time I got shushed at a wendys since I got so over worked about car dependent cities that I yelled."
>Means you're a spaghetti dropping autist that needs to go touch grass more.
<Can't handle someone who has opinions and isn't hiding behind 30 layors of irony.

Speaking of irony.
Luffy poster, where's your 30 layer ironic-unironic-ironic-unironic-ironic-etc. threads of allowing you to say racial slurs, which then get banned and you go hide on leftychan?


>>30589
If it was connected to sexual assult, I'd agree, but it doesn't.
Maybe down the line people will see shota/loli porn like how fake rape porn is seen, something that isn't connected to rape and questions its existence compared to actual rape porn like revenge porn or somthn.

Why is the official leftypol twitter acount posting a drawing of a child in a romantic context?

>>30637
c'mere bud, let's talk about your pedophilia

I've been thinking a lot about the pedo dialectics since the Agent Kochinski thing. I've come to the conclusion that there are four attributes that may depict a human or anthropomorphic drawing or character as a child:
>a neotenous face
>a body without secondary sexual characteristics
>the demeanor of a child
>the social perception that they are a child

While the former points are evident enough, I'll elaborate on the latter two.
>demeanor of a child
Despite being an adult who drinks, cusses, and wields firearms, Rebecca from Cyberpunk: Edgerunners has traits that are typically attributed to loli characters in otaku media: low emotional control, thirsty for attention, often in need of assistance, chewing bubblegum, and sporting twintails. She is considered a "loli" character by many even though she engages in adult activities and has a body with developed sexual characteristics. It doesn't help that she's short either.
>the social perception that they are a child
This one is rather abstract but important nevertheless. It doesn't matter if your character is a hundred-years-old nonhuman entity, even with developed secondary sexual characteristics and lapses of behavior that show adult cognition, if they're treated as and considered to be a child by society. A pedophile may feel arousal to the idea of young vulnerability and "purity" regardless of imagery.

Of course, these traits don't appear in isolation and don't hold the same degree of importance in shaping social perceptions around their subjects. Having said that, I would like to perhaps controversially say that feeling aroused towards a picture of a "loli" with developed secondary sexual characteristics and no context of their position of vulnerability as a child is not an indicator of pedophilia. It just doesn't seem useful to predict who feels attraction towards real life children based on anatomical caricatures of "children" who resemble, really, petite adult women with anime faces.
And, of course, it's important to remember that anime art as a whole depicts people with neotenous traits, such as lack of body hair, especially in the faces of the characters. As an example, mature women in anime often look like women in their early 20s with a longer midface section. This is a problem larger in scope than my post.

> (if I wasn't struggle on the job search, I'd contribute and add that feature (if allowed)
You mean hidden threads? What kind of feature would you be talking about, exactly?

> there was then an argument on if the bulbasour images were pedophilia.
pic

>>30657
Good post.
That third point would explain why midna is seen as a little person vs. Rebeca
(ignoring the cult of fear extending to pedophilia, and making fighting against it another spectacle like celebrity gossip)

I guess technically with point 2 since you can have a ken doll situation, like in the 2016 (no clue on the year) power puff reboot, the teacher's boobs were just removed.


>>30726
>What kind of feature would you be talking about, exactly?
Add a tag/flair to threads that can allow users to auto hide or focus them.
So if you want to hide the /tits/ or similar threads during your appointment with your 89 year old doctor who says that he has a medicine that will cure your incurable disease, you can breathe easily that he wont judge you and avoid that calamity.

>> there was then an argument on if the bulbasour images were pedophilia.
>pic
No clue who you'd be shooting at.

Huh, so this is where the Agent Kochinski fans go to seethe

>>30753
>Add a tag/flair to threads that can allow users to auto hide
Hide a thread? Technically possible, but I'm afraid it would be wouldn't be very useful, as IPs change relatively often, making it impossible to keep track long term of who is hiding what. Perhaps a generic "NSFW" switch in the local user options would be more functional, as it enables one to quickly switch on and off hiding NSFW threads, but that introduces the problem of identifying which threads are NSFW.

> or focus them.
What does that mean?

>No clue who you'd be shooting at.
I mean it should be obvious no?

>>30606
>I-i'ts formatting!
You're the newfag
>I-I explained
<My cherry-picked strawman diatribe's have to be engaged in good faith, even though I don't return the favor!
Seethe, Cope, Mald etc. I don't care to read your mental-gymnastic nonsense because the very first lines and the "formatting" is indicative of it being fallacious; it's all just deflections and excuses, and I'm not wasting my time on that, especially since you completely ignored any constructive arguments I and others made prior.
>Literally too retarded to not get the parody usage
It's not a parody, its a misquotation, and I inferred what you were referencing, but it was so poorly done that I decided it was nonsense, hence the "What?"
>Bait = Something I can't counter
Oh I can, and have before. There was even a thread on Bunkerchan dedicated to the debate and it was deleted because whiny pedos like you started shitting all over the site. Regardless, there's no point arguing with clearly bad-faith rhetoric. And it if it isn't bad-faith then you're just mentally ill, skip the meds and go straight to electro-shock therapy.
>flairs are a bad idea, because
<why is a blatant destruction of what makes an Anonymous forum, ANONYMOUS bad guys!?
LOL
>Can't handle someone who has opinions and isn't hiding behind 30 layors of irony.
LOL no, your opinions are shit and irony has nothing to do with it, as with the rest of your diatribe, you use words you scarcely understand the meaning of.
>Luffy poster
<Everyone is the same person!
LMAO More than one person posts Luffy on this site, retard.

Overall you're a laughable mess, keep crying about your illustrated CP being reviled by 90% of humanity

>>30416
Because slippery-slope strawmen are a great way of constructing a defensive position that appears to be mildly logical to the like-minded and unintelligent.

>>30798
>You're the newfag
If it was reddit spacing, then you'd have a situation like below.

How they intend to type it:
>Sentence 1
>Sentence 2
>Sentence 3
How they format the message to accomplish it; where reddit spacing shines:
<Sentence 1
<
<Sentence 2
<
<Semtence 3

Idk how reddit is programmed, but after doing some testing, the reason who why reddit comment system is like this is seems to be because the comments are processes as a markdown file.
In markdown files, to make a sentence have a new line, you either:
>end your current sentence with two white spaces and a new line
<Sentence 1__
<Sentence 2
>or press enter twice, creating an extra line in between the sentences.
<Sentence 1
<
<Sentence 2

The consequences for formatting it like this:
>Sentence 1
>Sentence 2
Results in this
<Sentence 1Sentence 2

You objectively don't understand what reddit spacing is, and're objectively a newfag.

>I-I explained
<My cherry-picked strawman diatribe's have to be engaged in good faith, even though I don't return the favor!
Man, how convienent.
The arguments I made that highlight that this popular approach to "fighting" against pedophilia doesn't fight against it, and it at best is spectable or a race to bragging rights, at most common worst defends it – something that would make you look bad and challenge your opinion – is actually just deflections and execuses to have cartoon cp on the site, even though I didn't argue for that, and instead want a ban against those who falsly claim it's cp even though the mods don't agree it is seeing how the person who posted it isn't banned – with all of that being self evidence because: "uhhh, IT JUST IS OKAY?????".

>It's not a parody, its a misquotation
Lmao.

>Oh I can, and have before. There was even a thread on Bunkerchan dedicated to the debate and it was deleted because whiny pedos like you started shitting all over the site.
Says the guy using a wojack.

><why is a blatant destruction of what makes an Anonymous forum, ANONYMOUS bad guys!?
Christ, is this your first month using a computer?

>LOL no, your opinions are shit and irony has nothing to do with it, as with the rest of your diatribe, you use words you scarcely understand the meaning of.
Filler the sentence, but still just fun to summarize it.
You're literally using wojacks, the brightest redflag of a stagnant individual.
When was the last time you read a book? How much of the state's ideology still roams in that empty skull of yours? Has the brain rotted to accept that things don't change?

>LMAO More than one person posts Luffy on this site, retard.
What not understanding the concept of probability does to a MF.

>>30789
>as IPs change relatively often, making it impossible to keep track long term of who is hiding what
You could use cookies, and at worst users re-go into the board's settings and flip, "Show NSFW threads". Functioning like /GET/'s filter system.

With the benefit of tags being that you can type into a bar of thread tags to re-sort threa

>>No clue who you'd be shooting at.
>I mean it should be obvious no?
No.
<The person who posted the bulbasour porn?
<The person who called the bulbasour pedophilia?
<The various people who argued about it in that thread?
<I for bringing it up as an example for why those posters should be banned (since they refuse to engage in the argument)?

>>30801
><The person who posted the bulbasour porn?
><The person who called the bulbasour pedophilia?
><The various people who argued about it in that thread?
><I for bringing it up as an example for why those posters should be banned (since they refuse to engage in the argument)?
Yes

>>30798
Anon, how many families have you exterminated and war crimes committed in GTA, CoD and Battlefield?

>>30800
>bla bla bla - I'm totally not a reddit-spacer - bla bla bla
You're a pseud, and so objectively a faggot.
>Man, how convienent.
It is isn't it, you make defensive excuses using strawman nonsense and thinly veiled, passive-aggressive ad hom statements that boils down to a long-winded cope spiel.
>uhhh, IT JUST IS OKAY?????"
<proceeds to ignore the entire thread debunking this strawman
LMAO seethe, cope and eat a .44 Pedo

>Says the guy using a wojack
<this means something
LOL
>You're literally using wojacks, the brightest redflag of a stagnant individual.
Irrelevant to the point, and deflection, again.
Furthermore, I used 1 (one) that I cropped for it's relevancy. Your facsimile of an argument is invalid.
>When was the last time you read a book
An hour ago, and I've read more books in a week than you likely have in a year. And no, your loli hentai doesn't count as literature.
>understanding the concept of probability
It's called Occam's Razor and is largely useless on anonymous forums, because they're, y'know anonymous. I don't even post in the same style as the Luffy Poster you refer to, and more than one person posts with reaction images that have Luffy in them, your pseudo-intellectual statements do not make your implications any more true.

>>30804
>Le violent video-games deflection meme!
I don't play Cawofdoody or BF, and I played GTA a few times years ago. I don't find slaughtering families in game or reality entertaining in the least.

Violent video-games especially FPS ones that reward killing and so on create increased aggression and desensitize people to violence due to Operant Conditioning Theory. It is far more impactful with children and teens, than it is with adults, because children and teens are more susceptible to environmental behavioral influences, which is why these ages are considered "formative".

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17694539/
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2000/04/video-games

>>30800
>>30657
>>30606
>>30518
Since you clearly can't shut your fucking mouth and keep defending lolifaggotry as "not pedo" I decided to say fuck it and actually attempt one more actual response, and end it here. Any further replies are not going to be read because I neither want, nor care to dissect some pedo-NEET using the same tired excuses to defend their mental illness.

LOLICON P1/?
"Loli" is sexual. We don't call, for example, Yugi Muto a "shota". Obviously just liking a young female character doesn't in and of itself make you a pedophile. But there's a difference, for instance, between calling Akko a "young girl" and a "loli". One of these things is derived from a form of child pornography, itself etymologically traced back to a book about a pedophile. Sexual attraction of one kind or another is a non-negotiable component of pedophilia; it's the defining component. But to claim that someone who likes typical loli aesthetics in a non-sexual manner and context is a pedophile makes about as much sense as claiming that everyone who thinks babies are cute is also a pedophile. Without sexuality, there is absolutely no argument to be made for most paraphilia. It's as contradictory as cancer without abnormal cell growth; that's just not how it works.

Regardless of if it is a fictional child or not, the appeal is the physical, clearly child-coded appearance, which means it is an attraction to child-coded imagery. Not to mention many lolicon illustrators use real children as model-bases, I will not post them because I don't save such vile content, but it exists and there are interviews with loli-hentai illustrators who admit this. https://research.library.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1090&context=international_senior

But lets get the definitions down pat.
Pedophilia: "Sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pedophilia
Lolicon: "Japanese discourse or media focusing on the attraction to young or prepubescent girls." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon

The meaning of ロリコン so does 小児愛 is almost same as pedophile if you look into japanese wikis ,dictionaries or blogs, and 小児愛 is the psychological term for ロリコン.
https://old.reddit.com/r/AskSocialScience/comments/bcxndd/if_pedophilia_is_a_mental_illness_why_isnt_there/
Lolicon contributes to the continuation of pedo activities in Japanese culture. Most anime fans would argue that just because you see something on TV, video games, movies etc doesn't directly cause a person to emulate said activity. The popular analogy is GTA. Just because someone plays GTA, that wouldn't make them more likely to run out and start stealing cars and murdering hookers. But that comparison doesn't apply 100%. If a person was getting sexual gratification from killing hookers in GTA, then they are off to begin with. This is giving benefit of the doubt about the studies on violence in video-games/movies affecting people; Even normal people particularly teens and children have aggression and the likeliness of taking out their aggression into real life increased by violent video-games, for people who already have such thoughts and urges, it only invokes them more, but I digress.

The Loli genre helps to keep the pedo 'culture' alive in Japan. Is there any reason for Shiro, in NGNL, to be an 11 year old girl that gets naked constantly? Now anime fans would argue that is just harmless fan service… Something that has been ingrained in anime culture since the beginning. However, couldn't one assume that if you found something like the Loli attractive, you'd be more likely to find yourself looking for that same sort of attractiveness in real life. Lolicon is often just used as an alternative, harmless to others? Maybe, though that is a heavily arguable point. Regardless that isn't solving the problem but giving a 'legal' remedy to suppress symptoms. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, and it can cause harm, not only to the children, but to the person who suffers from it as well (This doesn't mean pedos get a free-pass either).

Paedophiles usually have low self-esteem, poor social skills, and much higher propensity to develop cognitive distortions and Antisocial Personality Disorder. One can argue that lolicon pics may be useful in the sense that it satisfies urges of paedophiles without actual children coming to harm, but this won't work for everyone and certainly isn't a long-term, healthy solution. Paedophilia can & must be treated in order to prevent the patient from harming children and further deteriorating their mental health. Not to mention that it can also push people that are not paedophiles but merely could become them, into actually becoming such, through Operant Conditioning Theory (as I mentioned in another post). Thus we can't consider lolicon a serious way to help/prevent paedophilia because it only reinforces the notion that their condition is normal, just as we wouldn't validate a paranoid schizophrenic's delusions. Pedophilia, as all mental disorders, makes a mess of your life, left untreated (in this case we're talking about ASPD-like traits such as lack of concern for others and inability to form relationships with people, not to mention difficulty/inability to have a satisfying sex life). This is of course from a devil's advocate point of view, in regards to our theoretical defendant lolicons

>inb4 'muh erection study'
Chikotilo was notable for having erectile dysfunction when aroused so it is just as likely in any other such candidate. Moreover a limit in sample size is also a problem. Very few paedophiles will admit to BEING paedophiles and not all paedophiles are the same.

>"A press release issued by the University of Chicago Press Journals states that a new study to appear in the Journal of Consumer Research shows that social change is driven when information reaches easily influenced people who then influence other easily influenced people."
>Spataro J. writes: "Similar to the general population, CSA victims who died as a result of self-harm were predominantly aged in their 30s at time of death. Most had contact with the public mental health system and half were recorded as being diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. Our data highlight that CSA victims are at increased risk of suicide and accidental fatal drug overdose. CSA is a risk factor that mediates suicide and fatal overdose."
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20170453/
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-01-people-susceptible-social-age.html

>"Lolicon is a genre/theme of Anime in which underage female anime characters are sexually depicted."
Now why would anyone want to see underage female characters depicted sexually? Because they're attracted to that, which is essentially paedophilia, fictional or not. The biggest majority of people defending drawn CP are lolberts and rightoids, primarily Western. That should say a lot on its own.

Also to return to "lolicon in Japan": Japan has seriously cracked down on lolicon recently because they have 3rd graders with STDs and parents renting out their daughters for sex. From 1999 to 2012, Child abuse in Japan has increased by 5. 7 times. That's a pretty significant jump in such a short amount of time if you ask me. The rates of sexual abuse among high-schoolers and elementary kids are increasing in around the same rates, But for other forms of abuse (while both ages are still increasing) elementary kids are rising at a faster and more extreme rate.Society in Japan is very rigid at times, so any domestic abuse is hidden from outside view because it is seen as dishonorable to have others know.
- http://www.Japantoday.com/category/crime/view/saga-woman-arrested-for-forcing-daughters-into-prostitution
- http://www.Wsj.Com/articles/SB844189550290273000
- http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2013-07-11/1st-person-arrested-for-cg-child-pornography-in-japan
- http://www.japanator.com/fffuuu-tokyo-s-anti-loli-bill-passes-in-commitee-17722.phtml&mainnav=&track
- http://www.ipsnews.net/2003/03/japan-officials-clamping-down-on-underage-sex-offered-on-line/
- https://www.japansubculture.com/underage-japanese-girls-learning-to-sell-themselves-online/
- https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/backstories/1226/
- https://happymag.tv/a-disturbing-number-of-child-sex-dolls-have-been-intercepted-by-australian-border-force/
- https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00704/
- https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/11/16/national/crime-legal/sex-crimes-japan-still-significantly-underreported-justice-ministry-survey-finds/

>inb4 pedophilia/lolicon can't/don't need to be treated so we should just leave them alone
https://web.archive.org/web/20170830022021/http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/RS_No72/No72_12VE_Marshall.pdf
There's another publication titled "Cognitive Behavioral Treatment of Sexual Offenders" that is more in-depth but I can't find it online at the moment.
Paedophilia is a paraphilia (a fetish) and is classified as a mental disorder on the grounds that it causes harm to the psyche of the affected person who, by extension becomes dangerous to others and/or themselves. Being a 'lolicon' or consuming that content to cope, reinforces the notion that their condition is normal and they continue to ignore the fact that they suffer from a mental disorder and that they must seek help. This is like telling a paranoid schizophrenic that their delusions are true, it only adds to the problem instead of helping, even if the short-term results seem fine.
>https://prospect.org/article/should-rape-porn-be-banned
>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/05/27/pornography-is-more-than-just-sexual-fantasy-its-cultural-violence/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ecea036794ee
>https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/mar/06/virtual-reality-paedophilia-not-harmless-victimless
Moreover in Japan they have places where men can hire petite girls barely of age to play in fantasies that are essentially every other loli-hentai about fucking under-age schoolgirls.
Such fantasies are mentally unhealthy, this is the same shit that made 50 Shades of Grey so popular despite it being pure sewage.
>https://elkballet.wordpress.com/2010/09/29/rape-porn-is-never-ok/
efender, kindly shut the fuck up and stop wasting everyone's time

>>30809
>>30800
>>30657
>>30606
>>30518
LOLICON P2/2

A Lolita Complex is a term used in Japanese culture for paedophilia, is applied similarly. Just like in English though, it has a very specific definition but is often used in place of other more appropriate, but less commonly known words.
Example: legally, paedophilia is an attraction to people who are considered minors. In most US states, this means under the age of 18. It's worth noting that this still applies even if the age of consent is below 18. However, psychologically/scientifically, paedophilia refers to a specific subset of people with a paraphilia for minors. The psychological community categorizes people who are attracted to children in the age range of 5-10 years to be paedophiles. For 0-4 years the term used is nepophile, for 11-14 years it's hebophile, and for 15-19 it's ephebophile.
Some more details in regards to drawn CP laws in the USA. Such laws are fairly universal in most first world countries.
>The PROTECT Act also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is "obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in … sexual intercourse … and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". By its own terms, the law does not make all simulated child pornography illegal, only that found to be obscene or lacking in serious value. The mere possession of said images is not a violation of the law unless it can be proven that they were transmitted through a common carrier, such as the mail or the internet, or transported across state lines
>Dwight Whorley was convicted in Richmond, Virginia under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive "obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males". On December 18, 2008, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, consisting of 20 years imprisonment. Whorley appealed to the Supreme Court, but this was denied.
>In October 2012, after being reported by his wife, a 36-year-old man named Christian Bee in Monett, Missouri entered a plea bargain to "possession of cartoons depicting child pornography", with the U.S. attorney's office for the Western District of Missouri recommending a 3-year prison sentence without parole. The office in conjunction with the Southwest Missouri Cyber Crimes Task Force argued that the "Incest Comics" on Bee's computer "clearly lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value". Christian Bee was originally indicted for possession of actual child pornography, but that charge was dropped as part of a plea deal, and was instead charged with possession of the "Incest Comics".
international minor porn laws
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_drawn_pornography_depicting_minors
>https://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2257&context=gjicl

The Japanese community has similarly specific terminology, but like in English law those all fall under the umbrella of pedophilia, in Japan lolicon is typically used as a catch-all term, with the rest being viewed as unnecessarily pedantic outside of a clinical or academic setting. However, lumping all pedophiles under one label is highly detrimental in a variety of ways. For example, it's estimated that around 1 in 5 people have some form of paedophilia, but most of them have ephebophilia, which is considered to not necessarily be a mental disorder in and of itself, but rather a natural consequence of humans reaching sexual maturity in their mid to late teens.

This oversimplification, coupled with how we handle pedophilia in the legal community, has negatively impacted research into the subject. Because pedophilia is a crime in and of itself, as well as a mental disorder, unoffending paedophiles are understandably reluctant to come forward. Even speaking up while in session with a therapist can be a big risk because while doctor-patient confidentiality applies, the doctor is required to disclose information to authorities if they feel the patient is an immediate threat to themselves or others. Which they may believe due to stigma, even if it isn't true in the case of their patient, this is especially true considering how therapists are quite often fraudulent pseuds. In some jurisdictions, a person diagnosed with paedophilia can actually be required to register as a sex offender, even if they haven't actually committed any crime.

Naturally, non-offending pedophiles are hard to find as a result, which means that the only ones we get to study are the ones who a) offended and b) got caught, which obviously skews our data pretty severely. As far as we know, all of our studies up to this point have been done on statistical outliers. Consequently, we know next to nothing about paedophilia and its associated disorders. We don't know what causes it, if it's genetic, environmental, or some combination. We don't know if it's entirely psychological or if there are differences in the physical structure of a paedophile's brain. We don't know what other disorders might coincide with it outside of those already covered.

This is not, however, an excuse or justification of paedophilia

Scientifically we can observe that pedophillia generates detrimental social and economic affects, frankly in excess of even murder (unless you happened to murder the guy who was curing cancer).
A comrade (economist/mathematician) and I actually went through the trouble of calculating the economic harm of pedophilia once and we determined that the cost born to society by a single instance of molestation or child rape can easily amount to the 8 figure range in $USD, although there is technically "infinite" potential for economic harm across multiple generations. That is without going into social and thus political harm from allowing this to happen.

Many pedophiles today are conditioned into Pedophilia by pornography, and usually affecting people who initially had no conscious interest in child pornography. As people adjust to pornography and no longer receiving arousal from their "current level", they shift to more and more extreme material, with the majority of porn addicts eventually finding themselves viewing hardcore pornography of some kind including "lolicon" and other forms of child pornography. Consuming this conditions the brain to sexualize children, and physically changes the way their brain is hard wired. Legalization of pornography broadly and especially lolicon thus produce people who can go on to harm children.

Scientifically, ethically and morally (from a collectivist/Marxist value system) there is no justification for offending Pedos and Pedo enablers (eg, those who defend loli and pornography) not to be put to the wall. Economic damage from physically removing/killing a person amounts to a lower dollar value in terms of economic harm even if assuming said person is young and factoring in a lifetime of labour, yes.

TL;DR:
Pedos and lolicon are linked, the very word lolicon means paedophile in Japanese, and etymologically originates from a story about a paedophile, and is exclusively used in regards to hentai and ecchi scenarios. Both are sexual depictions of children, the only difference is that one is illustrated, the other is real.

>I want to fuck these kids
>NO WAIT WAIT COME BACK
<The kids aren't real so its not creepy
t.Average lolicon

Saying "at least it's better than actual CP" is a hilariously shit argument. Do you want a medal for being a decent human being and not actually committing crime?
9 years later and DemolitionD+ still has the best take: https://www.clipzui.com/video/l3t4j5t2k3h5u363z416c4.html

Now if you're quite done being a bad-faith, baiting pedo-defender

I for one believe we should have much more pornography than we do now. Gratuitous amounts even

>>30805
If you whine about 'Reddit spacing' you're absolutely retarded, a blank line is the correct way to format paragraphs.

>>30810
>Many pedophiles today are conditioned into Pedophilia by pornography, and usually affecting people who initially had no conscious interest in child pornography.
>As people adjust to pornography and no longer receiving arousal from their "current level", they shift to more and more extreme material, with the majority of porn addicts eventually finding themselves viewing hardcore pornography of some kind including "lolicon" and other forms of child pornography. Consuming this conditions the brain to sexualize children, and physically changes the way their brain is hard wired.
This sounds like wild and baseless speculation. It also directly contradicts what you said earlier here:
> Consequently, we know next to nothing about paedophilia and its associated disorders. We don't know what causes it, if it's genetic, environmental, or some combination.
Why are you trying to speak so authoritatively about not just the danger of pedophilia (sure), but the way it works? Why can you not just say that if somebody is sexually attracted to children, that's pedophilia? Why are you making such specific claims about how people become pedophiles when you also say we don't understand that?

>>30812
A blank line for formatting is not the same as obnoxiously spaced nonsense.
And by the way, that's not how formatting works on imageboards, moron. The post in question has way more spacing than necessary, bloating the post into being far larger than necessary, creating an artificial text-wall.

>>30809
>>30810
This doesn't engage with anything that I posted. I wrote material analysis and here you are sperging about definitions and other spooks while replying to a strawman from your imagination. I don't even disagree with most of what you're saying but holy shit calm your tits, I'm not a child rapist.

>>30809
The child abuse thing isn't related to lolicon. The rate of sexual abuse has been stable, what has grown is child neglet

Moreover
Most Child Sex Abusers Are Not Pedophiles, Expert Says
https://www.vice.com/en/article/mgmzwn/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says

>>30818
>>30820
>>30819
>This uygha still deflecting and using buzzwords
LMAO

>>30820
>An increasing number of experts believe that pedophiles might not have a choice in the matter.

The fact that this was ever in debate just proves that America is a clown country

>>30820
No shit. It's like those who believe only attractive people get raped.

>>30841
>>30820
Americans think everything is a choice and the only reason anybody is the way they are is because they are exercising freedom.
>1/3 to 1/2 of child sex abusers are children themselves
Fucking hell. This is why you have to teach kids about boundaries and consent.

>>30810
>Scientifically we can observe that pedophillia generates detrimental social and economic affects, frankly in excess of even murder
>A comrade (economist/mathematician) and I actually went through the trouble of calculating the economic harm of pedophilia once and we determined that the cost born to society by a single instance of molestation or child rape can easily amount to the 8 figure range in $USD
>Scientifically, ethically and morally (from a collectivist/Marxist value system) there is no justification for offending Pedos and Pedo enablers (eg, those who defend loli and pornography) not to be put to the wall. Economic damage from physically removing/killing a person amounts to a lower dollar value in terms of economic harm even if assuming said person is young and factoring in a lifetime of labour, yes.

Show us your actual reasoning then if you want to claim that your plan for mass executions will be "scientific, ethical and moral". I'm especially curious about your "a single instance of molestation or child rape can easily amount to the 8 figure range in $USD" claim. If you assume that every victim will be disabled from working for life (not defending the crime but that's clearly not the case), the average American spends only $3.3 million over their lifetime according to ( https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/the-average-american-spends-%243.3-million-over-their-lifetime%3A-see-how-that-breaks-down ). It's not the perfect figure of course but it's enough to seriously cast doubt over your "8 figures in economic damages" claim.

>>31067
>>30810
>>A comrade (economist/mathematician) and I actually went through the trouble of calculating the economic harm of pedophilia
what in neoliberal retardarion