...where it is too much work.

Well, crap, this is awkward, I sort of misquote you from somebody else, to begin with I tough you were pro banning loli/shota, so I clearly didn't follow the quote train quite right, at best I could try saying that you committed the second kind of composition fallacy by addressing out of context parts of an argument to disprove the whole of it on the post I quoted, but now I see that your particular argument is way longer than what I thought at first, so the rest might had been addressed before and I had just not read it, and aside from that your position seems perfectly reasonable.
I know just saying sorry won't change much of what I said, but take into account that It's 2 am here and that It was hard to make out who I was reading due to the lack of avatar, in either case the mistake lies with me here, clearly, so I'm cleaning my other post.
Guess I shouldn't had tried to get involved just because I was bored, now I feel quite ashamed, so I hope you are the kind of person who believe we can all make mistakes.



Last edited by BlackOrion at 9:16 pm, Nov 20 2014

I wish people could give gold here like reddit.. you definitely earned some with that comment.

Rationally, what do people gain if you ban loli and/or shota? People don't turn into pedophiles because they read that stuff. They were already into it if they have that kind of interests. Better channel that stuff into something that injures nobody, assuming we are talking about sex criminals here, which itself is rushing things, otherwise it is harmless for anything else besides your idealistic images of the world. People are already in prison their whole lives for having weed somewhere. You need to negotiate about stuff like that, not assume a moral high ground and make a catastrophe out of it. Stuff will get out of hand fairly easily, I promise, it will. That's for all of those that think the whole loli/shota thing is just for pedophiles and pederasts and whatnot.


As for the rant, as someone who has experience in all kinds of pr0n.
I personally, as a connoisseur of the H, without any kind of foreshadowing of events to unfold, of the abuse of power to go overboard on one's holy war against something, cleansing of the unbearable filth that the opposition is, the purgatory that shall combust the devils for their wicked ways in the hands of the just who have the right according to the hoi polloi (or at least the general public will back them up because they're too cowardly to take a polemic viewpoint even if they do feel it is wrong, for which retarded asshats will accuse them of being the same as the people whose rights they want to protect as humans), in other words, my own personal emotion-based opinion, that should be kept out of the rational conclusion — as should yours —, think that shota fits femdom a lot more than adult men for instance if you don't want to make it a bondage ass-gaping pegging heels-on-balls kind of BDSM femdom (aeeurroowwrgh), which I don't really like, but rather a weak, inexperienced male and a powerful female kind of a setting, which I do find enjoyable as it's a bit more erotic than your average vanilla work (which are boring, I came for the depravity FFS). The onee-san setting suffers quite a bit if the guy is already a grown hairy man you know, it's also extra spicy in wincest that way; because it's conflicting for the male character as a a living creature with testosterone that has the desire to shag stuff; a loving, protective family member who wants to be understanding and protective, as well as being a bit insecure as a person and confused; maybe, probably. There are many ways to execute the setting, but that's one of them and I could see using an underaged male for it as a way to create an atmosphere. In my pr0n I like men who aren't like me, which means they are not hairy-legged, extroverted, competitive, scurrilous, bold, shame-driven and vain.


I generally like it when women aren't sexually in the receiving end all the time mentally, like they are in my real life (it's really rare for a woman to hit on a guy here for example, they just wait there for someone to notice them and make a move. If you're a girl, you can try to count how many times you've gone up to a guy and tried to get him and how many times you've just tried to act desirable, but that's not this topic, just a side-thought) or like they are in the usual every day manga. As for toddlercon, I don't care. That's probably what you people want to point your fingers at. It is the extreme of this. That's a really small market and isn't used casually in anything and I don't really think it fits any niche or purpose other than wanting to molest toddlers, unlike loli and shota that can be used as tools for creating roles or when people just happen to be young in the story and are in a sexual situation, much like real life. — Well, I guess the toddler does have a role, but I don't want to dwell on that too much, it's a fucking toddler, shit's getting a bit too unrealistic for me — I'd like to say it's a different thing altogether than shota and loli are, because toddlers can't make decisions at all. That's just abuse in my eyes and you can't get any kind of consent from a toddler and I don't see them enjoying it because of getting seduced or something, ugh, but that just my opinion. It's easy to lump them together when you want to demonize both and by doing that you also succeed in making the whole loli/shota thing way more dire, which is strategically a good move and you probably should try politics, because getting people who don't want to look too deep into unpleasant stuff riled up is a talent of yours. For those who like toddlers, get a new fetish goddamn. I do understand that people like different stuff, some people are like that, some people like ponies and shit, but I just don't see how that makes any sense to be sexualized for anything than trolling purposes. That's just my own shortsightedness on that part. Doesn't still mean I feel it's right though, because the other participant is severely underdeveloped, just like I won't approve of people who would like to see people get it on with heavily mentally retarded people in their works (never seen any). It just makes me feel bad for the helpless one because there's absolutely no way for them to understand. Well, some people like guro too I guess. That however is all based on my image on what toddlers and mentally retarded people are like. If it was a toddler body and an adult mind, then it's naturally different. That however is exactly where it gets too unrealistic for me. It's just so backwards that I can't figure out how people could deep down think that that's how this character is and it's just a coincidence that his/her body is that of a toddler.


I've never been a little girl myself, so I don't know how horny the average girl is, but I was watching my friend's big bro's pr0n tapes when I was an 8-year-old boy. Still turned into a decent, sociable and empathetic human-being that doesn't treat people as objects and doesn't think spitting on female genitalia before insertion is a commonplace thing (although that's apparently how I should be like now according to all these wise-asses who want to pretend kids have no sexuality). A lot of dumb stuff stems from people being uncomfortable with something, but that doesn't change the way things are. You just need to make your peace with how the things are and find a solution that is the most rational and fucks shit up the least. That's at least how I see it. I am not into loli, because I like adult women and I find the developed assets erotic, but it's an easy way to bypass the whole man taking the lead kind of setting that is also most often culturally true and giving the woman the turn to be the strong one by default without all that gimp suit, spiked dildo stuff that I am not into. I still won't judge anyone who is into either stuff. I do find a lot of loli characters really cute the same way I find puppies cute for example. I still won't have it that a series I would be following would be banned and cancelled because the artist did something that got someone ass-blasted, rump-rolled, butt-devastated, even though it would be something unimportant and really minor. Then you'd also need to say what exactly counts as loli. Is a flat tsundere twintail jr. high-school girl a loli for example? I'm like 90% sure girls of that age think and see dreams about dicks in them, but it would be illegal to present that in manga for example, while it would be a natural part of the world and human psyche, if you catch my drift.

I'm not into strong male characters in my pr0ns, while I do think that all those meek girls are really cute, especially big glasses and braids with thick, natural hair :3 (even there huehuehuehuejajajaxaxaxa). I am not into abusing. Like real beating and strong-arming, manhandling stuff. Some people probably think that the femdom stuff that I do read counts as rape and abuse when you abuse the penis glitch in the male psyche and all that, but I don't mind, I don't see it that way. I understand if someone does, but I am just reading it with my own perspective, which is that I have been free of sexual innocence for longer than some people visiting this place have lived and haven't been clueless as for what it means when people of the opposite sex come on to you like that. What I don't like is violence in pr0n, as for the psyche, I don't dwell too much on, it's entertainment and I won't be thinking too deep into it afterwards I've finished reading it, but beating people just defeats the purpose for me and that's where the line between what is fiction and what is true exists. I don't take anything from there with me to my real life. Violence in it makes me feel bad on the spot, so it's hard to enjoy it. Because I don't take anything from it with me, I don't think would the characters be traumatized or would they regret banging their teacher or whatever.

Regardless of not liking loli I do still enjoy milf on shota action, as I recall being a kid myself and honestly always liking women older than myself, but because I wasn't a grown man, I couldn't possibly do any kind of initiative or even be taken seriously, not that I ever had the guts or need to do a thing. I have no regrets however. I never ever self-insert myself to anything. I just like women older than myself, their confidence, their strength and all that and it's a fairly good setting to display them with a partner that isn't like that, but would be expected to be at least be the stronger personality if they were of the same age. I don't really like it when the shotas are really young. Plus a weiner that size can't possibly feel good for the woman either. (Agata, Akaume and Jingrock have quite a bit of works with larger tools and I am fine with that, I guess I like the mismatch of the body, much like in futa, but shotas alone aren't anything to me. They need the preferably voluptuous woman teaching them.) Doesn't at least seem that way to me, well, I wouldn't know. It's pr0n. It's not me and I am not a woman. I prefer them being maybe teens but not yet grown enough to overpower a grown woman just like that or being unashamedly proactively into it. It's like reverse smut I guess. I only like solo dicks acts in futa, so a shota alone is just a boy. Not that I judge being gay or anything, that's fine, that's just the way you are and thankfully people can be gay without actually hurting anyone who actually isn't fucking indifferent in the equation. I just think that pr0n is pr0n and you should not ever think of it the same way you think of real life. I might read netorare for example, but I'd never want that to happen to anyone, unless I fucking hate that bastard and want to bang his wife for justice and for her pleasure too. I might read incest, but I still wouldn't do my own sister or mother or aunt or whatever. I might read futa, but I still wouldn't want any real girl to face that kind of an ordeal as to not fit a gender, unless they want to. (Futa on female is still great (best) in pr0n because yuri without dicks is boring for me, while I don't really enjoy pure lesbianism in a hetero man fantasy kind of a way, yaoi I don't like because it has nothing that resembles a woman, so it's kinda like me wanking on my own without thinking of anything or looking at myself or maybe wanking to math homework or something else that has no erotic value for me, traps I don't like for the most part, but that one guy in Steins;Gate was really cute, so I cheered for him in it). I stand in the middle for the most time in everything. I try to listen to the underdog the most because the louder and bigger opinion always gets the spotlight, unless the underdog opinion in my ears is obviously retarded shit, like cultists for example. That's my 2 cents.


Sorry if it's a bit jumbled, I wrote stuff between the lines here and there.

In short, I don't support making it illegal. I don't mind loli and shota. Stuff I've read has had loli and shota. I'd still never myself put my hands on a child, I love them for what they are, simple and trusting, but they're not sexual traits to me. There's nothing specific in a child that I would perceive sexually stimulating. This however doesn't mean that I want to punish everyone whoever comes across stuff that has people who can be assumed to be underage and are in a sexual situation. That's not how it works. It's ok to be a pedophile. It's not ok to be a child molester. You should know to difference of the two. I don't even personally think loli and shota have anything to do with pedophilia, unless it's really apparent, like toddlercon in my eyes. I still don't want to see people get jailed for drawing a manga where a couple of 13-year-olds with loli and shota looks (because some people do look like kids and are kids when they do get sexual) have their first time together for example. That's just fucking stupid. It happens in real life and you shouldn't be a fucking criminal for seeing it on the paper what in the actual fuck. That is the issue for me. I don't know why the artist would want to do that, but I don't think it's a crime to do that, at all. When you want to enforce something, think really hard what could possibly go wrong, because in life, every single fucking thing always goes wrong, but just by different degrees. Take the mild slope.

Peace out.
—Mamsmilk

Last edited by Mamsmilk at 1:32 am, Nov 21 2014

No/No

I say no, because banning loli and shota is a form of censorship.
Censorship prevents understanding.

One notion that hasn't been brought up is that some people use fiction to explore things without affecting RL.

In this case, some people may view loli and shota to explore things like underage sexuality, or paedophilia and predation, or even personal sexuality. Some may be totally disgusted by what they read, and that's fine. Some may be indifferent to the genre; that's fine too. Some may find it stimulating, and that's natural too. And some may even discover that they're attracted to minors.

The entire spectrum of responses is natural. It's how people come to terms with it that matters. For some, it may be unacceptable that such things exist--or maybe it's acceptable, but they won't have any part in it. For others, it may confirm their views on their own sexuality. Perhaps they're completely repulsed by underage sex, or by relationships with age gaps. Perhaps they caught a glimpse of the mind of the paedophile. Or perhaps they really are attracted and stimulated by what they just read.

The key is what the person does after that. Some will just walk away from that stuff and never touch it again. Others may actually indulge in it. Some may struggle with their inner demons, and (most shockingly) some may prey on actual children. But the evil does not lie in the drawings themselves. Some may now have an idea of what children would go through should they be harmed by real paedophilia, and such people may gain both the understanding and the resolve to protect those children. Since there are so many different ways to respond to loli and shota, the illustration and its illustrator is not responsibile for any of these actions. Only the individual making those decisions is responsible.

Anyone and everyone will be a combination of these things. Indulgent or innocent, predator or protector, curiosity, sexuality--this issue is extraordinarily complex. But if we were to shut it away, to make it taboo, to say it's a problem too hard that could be easily solved by a simple ban, then no one would understand it.

Besides, it's one's own choice to read it themself—not the choice of another.

Duskyderp YOU actually had something constructive to say.
I also appreciate your comment. A lot of media is after all a power fantasy and we should always be aware of what we are saluting in the end.
Here is a quote from the the Harmontown podcast(by the man behind Community and Rick and Morty) about the topic of molestation and how we should deal with it.

“By the way, we should all feel lucky that we hit the lottery on not being attracted to kids. That could’ve been something that happened to us.” —Kumail Nanjiani, discussing the morality of pedophilia, Harmontown

http://podbay.fm/show/542228532/e/1380531844?autostart=1

Last edited by residentgrigo at 11:45 pm, Nov 20 2014

________________
I also read EU/US comics and am a librarian.
Manga-Masters, My ANN-Lists + Imdb

Alright. Since you believe in evidence and reason, you should have no problem explaining to me in detail why pedophilia should be considered a disorder while homosexuality should not; And with "explaining" I don't mean telling me that organization X says so.



For someone who does not want to argue you write pretty much.



Then state it again, I don't feel like searching for something you might have written half a dozen posts ago.



I am sure you can tell me the dates and locations of a few of the demonstrations those people "sometimes do".



Such as? It's about time you get to the point and specify your accusations rather than just talking in vague, unverifyable terms.



Bolded for emphasis. For someone who reportedly believes in "evidence and reason", you seem to have trouble grasping the concept of causality.


________________

Are you going to outlaw and ban advertising as well?

Yes.

Ah.
Well, we all make mistakes I certainly do, now and then.
Anyone who never makes mistakes, never makes anything.

Pedophilia is an attraction to a group which, by their very nature, cannot give proper informed consent. Either for sex, or for any other sexual act.
Even for any romantic thing, things are massively unequal ...and the kids don't really understand notions of romance, anyway.

It is an attraction to a group that it is harmful to have any romantic and/or sexual relations with.
They cannot have a proper romantic and/or sexual relationship.
Any attempt they might make, to have a romantic/sexual relationship with someone they are attracted to, would unavoidably be harmful, predatory and abusive.

Homosexuality is no different from heterosexuality, aside from gender.
There are no issues of consent or any emotional or physical harm.

...not that you can't have homosexuals causing such harm, or having consent issues, but that is not a feature of the homosexuality itself and it is no different from heterosexuality. Homosexuals and heterosexuals (and bisexuals, of course) can have romantic and/or sexual relations, without any such issues, as is the case with most of them.

You don't feel like searching? Well I don't feel like repeating. How about that?
Besides, you'd try to deny it anyway, regardless of what group or person is mentioned and no matter the amount of evidence.
It's not like you've admitted that you were wrong about, for example, AfD. I showed clear evidence, you ignored it.

I could, but...
I'm getting tired of this off topic nonsense. You'd refuse to acknowledge any of it anyway.
Just google it. (not that you will, of course) It's not hard to find.

I have pointed to specifics before, and you didn't listen then. Why should I think that you will now?
Besides, it's completely off topic, so it's no good to go on for so long, about it. (which is why I've ignored/skipped some of your arguments, like on the issue of the supposed "cultural marxism")

...and you seem to have trouble grasping the difference between things that are directly caused by something, and things that are very much indirect.
Also, you seem not to be able to compare like to like.

You say pedophilia isn't a disorder, if it causes no direct discomfort to the pedophile ...all the while completely ignoring any and all indirect issues.
Yet for a murderous psychopath, where there is no direct discomfort, you insist on mentioning discomforts, that are very much indirect.
You are comparing apples to oranges.
All of this makes your argument... lets see...
Special pleading, moving the goalposts, false analogy (well, more like false anti-analogy)...

Speaking of fallacies, on the whole "the media sees anyone as racist if they wave a flag or speak against muslims" point:
"Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction." (emphasis mine)

Last edited by zarlan at 12:51 am, Nov 22 2014

I can confess to agreeing to most of this. But I can also confess to being into lolicon. Does the attraction itself mean that the disorder is there and something needs to be done, or is it when the attraction causes actions and/or distress that it actually becomes an "disorder"? I can agree on being deviant, but sick? Nah...

First of all, being into lolicon doesn't, in the least, go against agreeing with what I said.
Secondly, being into lolicon isn't necessarily the same as paedophilia. That has to do with being attracted to real children.

Yes.
That's the whole point of this part the conversation I'm having with shiratori. That's what that section of my post was for, and what shiratori was asking for, in the section of his/her post, that I was replying to.

Psychopathy is a disorder. Of this there is no debate. It is a firmly settled issue.
Psychopathy does not necessarily cause any specific actions, and it does not cause any distress to the person who is a psychopath.
And what about narcissistic personality disorder?

Also, as I see I need to clarify (I intended to make this point in that post, but...):
What about people who are paedophiles, but who do not act on it?
What about what those people don't do.
What they cannot do, without causing harm to others. What to the rest of humanity, is an obvious part of life, but which for them would be a horrible sin.
That inability is nothing, is it?

Last edited by zarlan at 12:49 am, Nov 22 2014

I'd like to open this post by saying that I have not read through the entire thread and that I am sorry if I am just repeating things that have already been discussed. Please refer to earlier posts if necessary.


It would be a difficult thing to admit with all the stigma surrounding it. Even with the relative anonymity of the internet.
No, one does not necessary mean the other, but as a simile it can do.

Thank you. I kind of understood that that was what you where saying, but something in what you had written lacked... intent. A connection between describing the state of paedophilia and stating that "this is what makes it a disorder".

Well... if I wanted to argue I think I could, but... ah... lets not, eh? It would become to meta and span out into the philosophical and that would mostly be a bother, don't you agree?

... is it? I'm actually not sure if you mean that the inability is nothing, or if you are trying to say that it is something. If you are asking me, then I say that it is something. Almost anything (and nothing in it self) is something. What you are describing is someone who has realized that a part of who they are is destructive and has made a concious decision to do what they can to avoid doing harm. Assuming that paedophilia is a sexual orientation (as well as a disorder) and as such can not be changed (no more then homosexuality) this would classify as self sacrifice for the good of others and as such does it not qualify to be considered as a noble act? The degree to how fart this act of self sacrifice should go is indeed a mater of debate. Is self control sufficient? Is avoidance of the subject matter enough? Or is it necessary to ensure that the self sacrificing person is unable to do harm? These questions are rhetorical and not necessary aimed at you, zarlan, or anyone else in particular. I'm just writing down some of my train of thought on the matter. Which kind of brings me to...

I noticed that you, zarlan, avoided the part where I wrote:

should I interpret that as what you see needs to be done? Not necessarily anything?

So you would agree that liking loli/shota doesn't necessarily mean you are attracted to real children, and being attracted to real children doesn't necessarily mean you like loli/shota.
...but that is largely beside the point.

I thought that, that was exactly what I was doing.
I was describing all the negatives.
All the ways in which paedophilia is bad for the person who has the condition and, potentially, those around that person.

I would have though that it was clear, from how I phrased that question, that it was a rhetorical question.
Basically saying that, that isn't nothing.
I don't know that such phrasing is ever used (by a native speaker, anyway), without it being a rhetorical question.

Yes.
...and if part of who they are is destructive, that is clearly a disorder.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's noble, but it is certainly good.
Nevertheless, the fact that they have to perform such a sacrifice (which is a great detriment to themselves), because of their condition, should surely mean that the condition should count as a disorder, doesn't it?

Well that was not really relevant to the issue of whether or not it is a disorder.
...and I have given a bit of an answer (in that what they must do, is to not act on their desires).

I don't really know exactly what should be done, with paedophiles who do not approach children, but to assume that nothing needs to be done, or that there is nothing one can do, is fairly foolish, IMO.
Granted, you can't really "cure" paedophilia and what one can do might be fairly limited (or not. I dunno), but there are things that can be done.
Now if a paedophile doesn't approach children, and has consulted experts and the got all the possible help he/she can get, and none of it requires going back to such experts...
Then I'd say that, that person can say that they don't need to go and get professional help.

It's perhaps possible that a paedophile might have done everything that they can do, already, without consulting with an expert ...but they wouldn't know that, unless they do.
For such a person to claim that they wouldn't get any benefit from professional help, would be just as unreasonable as if they hadn't done everything that they can do
...because the sole reason that they think they need no help, is because they assume that they know all there is to know about the subject, even though they haven't studied it, or consulted someone who has.
"It is impossible for anyone to begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows."