Amazon.com Widgets
  • Depicting children in sexual acts is probably somewhere between "Questionable" and "Not Okay"

    The formation of the idea of acceptance relating to a concept is far more damaging than the behavior itself in general. "No children were harmed in the filming of Lolita" is hardly something to take into consideration when realizing what the underlying message actually is.

    There's little to no room for misinterpretation here.

  • ... Of course it is!

    The difference between lolicon and video game violence is the degree of separation. Most people will not, can not, and could not get the equipment needed to participate in a GTA-style blood bath. But everyone knows at least one child - a neighbor, some frequent fixture around the park, a cousin, niece or nephew... Kids worked with at or around the job... Etc.

    And as shown by at least one comment on the other side... Actual pedophiles are enjoying this. Instead of learning to accept more reasonable targets these individuals are reinforcing their issues. And worst they are immersing themselves in the delusion that their illness is acceptable, because if it weren't then why would there be so much lolicon available?

    To put it a different way - Japan has seriously cracked down on lolicon recently because they have 3rd graders with STDs and parents renting out their daughters for sex. And sadly that isn't hyperbole...

    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/

    http://www.japansubculture.com/underage-japanese-girls-learning-to-sell-themselves-online/

  • Immoral? Yes. Unacceptable? No.

    Art isn't real, but it can still depict acts that if they were real would be wrong. Nobody in the right mind would believe pedophilia is OK, but art that depicts pedophilia is not pedophilia itself. If someone created art that depicted another wrong act, we would still recognize it as immoral, but we wouldn't prohibit it. The exception here is art that actually involves wrong acts like videos of real people actually engaging in pedophilia.

  • The name implies it so

    (They don't have a neutral option for this question but I'll keep as neutral as possible)

    Well, to be honest, that depends, considering, that "lolicon" doesn't necessarily mean the char. Is ACTUALLY underage, they just so happen to look that way (however, most of ths time, said char IS underage and not just look that way), but, considering that Nabokov's Lolita is about a pedophile and a minor, well, I would have to say that, on a note, it is, as "Lolicon" is derived from that, so, the by name and it's origin, it's pretty much implies pedophile, unless said loli char looks and stated to be legal (i.E, legal but retaining some cutesy childish/innocent traits).

    Now, while I'm all for 1st Amendment rights and expression, we're gonna have to acknowledge that art and expression can (but not always will) aid in normalizing unacceptable things (being attracted to minors is an unacceptable thing).

    Will it trigger unacceptable things occurring to real children/minors or graduate to real CP?

    Possibly but, of course, who's to blame? The artist/writer or the pedo? Well, the latter, obviously, as they had their fantasies and so chose to act on them.

    Likewise, fairly innocent ("innocent" as in 0 sexual connotations or acts) images of loli-like or anime child characters can trigger much the same feelings and arousal, thus, again artwork cannot be truly blamed.

    Do I think its acceptable?

    No, not really, because, well, the idea that one would like to do disgusting things to a child, fictional or not, is sickening, however, one cannot be prosecuted for their thoughts or fantasies unless they act on them, in which case, the line between thinking and doing has been crossed, leaving no room to turn back.

    Should it be illegal?

    Well, technically, lolicon already is, under federal law in the States, as, according to the federal law in regards to CP, the minors present and the acts don't really have to be REAL and it can go under "simulated".

    However, this varies from state to state and people have been prosecuted under one statute or another for having it (except one dude and he had more than lolicon, as, along with that, he had actual CP so he got prison).

  • It is just art.

    Absolutely no one is being hurt by the creation or consumption of loli artwork. So I see no reason for it to be bad. There are literally no bad sides. And it is way better than pedophiles raping real, actual children, right? Of course it is. Now, agree with me.

  • The name implies it so

    (They don't have a neutral option for this question but I'll keep as neutral as possible)

    Well, to be honest, that depends, considering, that "lolicon" doesn't necessarily mean the char. Is ACTUALLY underage, they just so happen to look that way (however, most of ths time, said char IS underage and not just look that way), but, considering that Nabokov's Lolita is about a pedophile and a minor, well, I would have to say that, on a note, it is, as "Lolicon" is derived from that, so, the by name and it's origin, it's pretty much implies pedophile, unless said loli char looks and stated to be legal (i.E, legal but retaining some cutesy childish/innocent traits).

    Now, while I'm all for 1st Amendment rights and expression, we're gonna have to acknowledge that art and expression can (but not always will) aid in normalizing unacceptable things (being attracted to minors is an unacceptable thing).

    Will it trigger unacceptable things occurring to real children/minors or graduate to real CP?

    Possibly but, of course, who's to blame? The artist/writer or the pedo? Well, the latter, obviously, as they had their fantasies and so chose to act on them.

    Likewise, fairly innocent ("innocent" as in 0 sexual connotations or acts) images of loli-like or anime child characters can trigger much the same feelings and arousal, thus, again artwork cannot be truly blamed.

    Do I think its acceptable?

    No, not really, because, well, the idea that one would like to do disgusting things to a child, fictional or not, is sickening, however, one cannot be prosecuted for their thoughts or fantasies unless they act on them, in which case, the line between thinking and doing has been crossed, leaving no room to turn back.

    Should it be illegal?

    Well, technically, lolicon already is, under federal law in the States, as, according to the federal law in regards to CP, the minors present and the acts don't really have to be REAL and it can go under "simulated".

    However, this varies from state to state and people have been prosecuted under one statute or another for having it (except one dude and he had more than lolicon, as, along with that, he had actual CP so he got prison).

  • Look at it this way

    Okay, If someone is looking at hentai, 9/10 times they like hentai more than real people. So I look at it, if you want to see loli, go ahead, otherwise Just don't. Why do you think they are looking at "anime" instead of real images? It's different, they are not even near the same.

  • Is a stick figure drawing illegal?

    So if someone drew a stick figure that said "35 year old man and 8 year old stick figure about to engage in sexual activity" is that considered illegal?

    Next thing you know, jokes about this will be illegal. These are animated drawings we are talking about. NOT REAL.Talk about a slippery slope.

  • No, lolicon is far from immoral.

    Having drawn kids doing sexual acts is not that bad. It has nothing to do with pedophilia. As a single man, I may indulge in the occasional lolicon pornography but that in it's on case isn't that bad. Just because I want to commit sexual acts against children doesn't mean it's immoral. Morals can differ between but everyone can agree, pedophilia without the act of touching children is perfectly fine in today's society and nothing is wrong it.

  • There is nothing wrong with it.

    I do not think so. Every one has their fetish. Some people have unhealthy fetishes. That is fine by me. Lolicon does not incorporate real children in the art, it is only artist depictions. If one finds that attractive, I am okay with that. So long as it does not move its way into real children. It is like video game violence. It is okay if you like to shoot people in a game. Doesn't mean you are going to go shoot up a school. Research shows that it is extremely unlikely that a gamer would not do that, no matter the age. Why can't this be the same for Lolicon and Shotacon? It is. Just because you fantasize about little anime children, does not mean you would go out and rape children.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.