This topic discusses material that may not be appropriate for underaged viewers and those easily offended and such and such.
However, that said, I assure you now that I intend this to be an objective, cause-effect, pros-cons, benefits-malefices discussion.

I bring to SEN's SD forum a topic that some of you may have read me shouting about once in a while. The topic up for discussion is the legality of cartoon child pornography, and by this I mean fictitious depictions of (underaged) minors that are of sexually explicit nature, though I am specifically focused on the areas of lolicon and shotacon. Besides the legal factors, I would also like to discuss other facets such as morality, social implications, and other.

For information, check the links I have provided. Most of the links I have provided I have decided to be of intellectual value but are of pro-loli/shota in derived form, as I have yet to come across any convincing argument that is anti-loli/shota.

To make these discussions more interesting, I would like to introduce a subjective factor to it; I would like to observe your personal opinions on this issue to, though I would like to warn us now that we should definitely not be trying to impose our views on others.

To begin are the legal rammifications of this virtual, fictitious form of pornography which depicts minors or even those charcters that merely appear as one, and such.

Already, this is an issue that had diverse handling across different jurisdictions. As far as I know, the USA protects such work as freedom of speech, though I am uncertain as to certain situations that may regard such works as obscene, and commercial importing and exporting. I am fairly certain though that in USA, personal use is legal, and loli/shotacon is not regarded as actual child pornography.

This is in contrast to from where I hail from, THE GREAT WHITE NORTH (Canada). In Canada, loli/shotacon is illegal in virtually all circumstances, being interpreted as child pornography (AFAIK). However, I may be mistaken, as recently I have come across the statement that purely personal creation and consuming is legal, though any form of dissemenation is illegal (homebrew loli/shota is fun if only the creator keeps it to him/herself).

Morality on this subject is, of course, touchy and delicate. I can see reasons for why one should and one should not ban loli/shota, and even reasons to support it.
We may not support this as we may believe it to be harmful in the development of a child, though extrapolating data from video game research, those children who are harmed by this material are frequently those who are psychologically vulnerable anyway. However, AFAIK, there is no solid claim for a purely harmful nature of loli/shota, especially seeing as how those claims that have been made are not supported by empirical data and are frequently criticised for being garbage (and in cases I have read, appear to have been merely staged anyway so that a conclusion satisfactory to conservatives has been reached, baselessly).

For support, we may have that it is a right of one to be able to consume any media s/he wishes, though in this case, it may be wise to include "for private use only," as flaunting this sort of material in public would undoubtly be naïve, rude, and stupid.
Also, refer to the article describing how sexual crime rates may have actually lowered in correspondence with an influx of such material, in Japan in detail.

This issue impacts society as a whole as it affects a huge field - media consumption. It is my personal belief that so long as appropriate measures have been taken and warnings emplaced that private use and even some dissemenation should be legal (again, so long as at least some effort is put in place to restrict media to those who are specifically seeking it).
Related cases include video games, movies, music, visual art, even books, etc. in which all have experienced moral panics over some specific genre.
Apparently, sex on TV has yet to ruin society.

Now, on the borders of law, morals, and society, is the case of human rights.
Should it not be one's rights to be able to consume any media of which s/he specifically desires, especially when it is harmless to those around and the person themselves? It would seem to be a perverse invasion of huma  rights to force or punish one in thinking in their own minds, fantasizing such depictions of even minors, so long as such fantasies remain fantasy.
However, it must be considered that those psychologically vulnerable to such material may react negatively in such circumstances.

In any case, this is all I have the energy to formulate for. Already, I suspect I have made multiple communication mistakes, as I am quite exhausted. Forgive and forget those mistakes, as I hope that they have been mostly able to incite some discussion from you on the topic of loli/shota, though cartoon child pornography discussion in general is welcome too.

Be sure to be specific in what you're speaking of. As a reminder, I am trying to focus on lolicon/shotacon.

BTW:
I'm not actually a lolicon (yet????). I'm more interested in what will be derived from it, such as the discussion I hope to have with the readers of this post.

-

http://comipress.com/special/miscellaneous/down-the-slippery-slope-the-crime-of-viewing-manga
Support for loli/shota as free speech.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
General info.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors
General info.

http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=artspapers
Focus on yaoi, Australian origin. Introduces some fairly amusing contradictions within Australia. Interesting ideas for research.

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/1961to1999/1999-pornography-rape-sex-crimes-japan.html
Loli/shota lowers or does not change crime rates.

I think that lolicon and shotacon should not be interpreted as child pornography and should instead be considered in the realm of media whose content is of explicit material, in cases this would apply reasonably.

My reasons can be found in the links I have previously provided.

Main points:
-loli/shotacon provides a harmless outlet for those with pedophillic preferences
-it is purely fictional, and can even act as a reinforcement for the difference between reality and fiction
-legitimate studies have shown loli/shotacon and crime rates have no correlations, except in some studies in which a correlation of a decrease in crime rate has been made
-loli/shotacon has artistic value

I don't want people jerking off to child sex. Real or drawn.

I'm annoying that way.

1. IM > *
2. It's only really popular in Japan.
3. If you like it, you download it, you don't buy it.
4. Nobody is going to give a shit if you download it. Stopping distribution is how to stop anything illegal, and quite frankly the law cares more about other stuff than crudely drawn and obviously satiric images.
5. I think lolicon is hilarious. It's the same argument towards video game violence and real violence, with a bizzare and sick twist to most people. We've become jaded towards violence, and it's unfortunate. It would be interesting to see some data on Chris Hanson's catches to see whether or not they enjoyed lolicon. Those are the people we need to worry about...

I feel half sorry for Jack Mclellan, since he's highly prejudiced against because of the stigma associated with pedophilism (and because he seriously has a psychological problem). The other half of me doesn't care because he's a fucking idiot for breaking the normal rules of society: don't fucking talk about it. That and he was promoting possible illegal behavior (by talking about it), much like the mexican government issuing pamphlets on how to cross the border into the US safely.

Generally the law is there to help protect you and help protect other people/organisms. There's obviously a problem with child pornography, as is bestiality, since someone/something is being taken advantage of. Hurting oneself (suicide) is possibly the only basis for lolicon to be illegal, and in that case it's only psychological damage, which I don't think can be illegal, since it's likely to be a mental defect.

I do feel sorry for most pedophiles out there, since I think it's a psychological condition in which they are sexually attracted to small children. I feel the same way about this as I do homosexuality (it's a mostly harmless psychological condition). The important part is preventing them from actually doing something illegal by hurting themselves or something else.

My final opinion on the matter: Let's keep the status quo. All fictional characters in stories/images which involve sexual acts must be over the age of 18. The idea that Sagara Ruruka is 18 is laughable, but that makes it "legal". If the age is not stated, then the character is 18. If she's still in elementary school, then she obviously got held back and was developmentally challenged.

My comments in bold.




The most annoying part is that youadd anything to the discussion; it's not actually annoying, just disappointing.
Thanks for replying, though.

Pedophilia is a disease in that it is an abnormal psychological trait which hampers the proper function and/or comfort of the individual.
I'm not sure what the point of this is.
It'd basically be saying "If you want whatever work you are making to include underage sex, then you must avoid any and all of a very large range of otherwise unremarkable details, settings, etc. whose inclusion would not necessarily intrinsically change the nature of said work."
I believe he was using suicide as an example of an illegal act of self-harm (and thus a potential precedent for laws regarding such acts).

As to my opinion: The (il)legality of child pornography is due to the inherent sexual abuse involved. This does not apply to situations involving only fictional characters. As such, law should not extend to them.

Are your thoughts on homosexuality the same then? I would think that a disease is something that others would want to cure, but from a different perspective, it might be regarded as something positive, as abnormal as it may seem (though, objectively, it does appear to be the result of different biological and psychological factors combined).
I won't say much else on this matter.


Interesting. However, there are people who argue that fictional depiction of characters can instigate problems and cause moral degradation, provoking sexual offenses.

IMO, the argument is merely a product of moral panic - the same happened with literally every other form of media.
However, when you look at each case in which someone is convicted and some form of media is included in their defense or whatever, generally, the convict was already psychologically susceptible to violent/provocative/etc. media.

Considering the people who have pedophillic desires, and then considering those whose desires can be harmlessly fulfilled through loli/shotacon and those who are psychologically vulnerable to such material (so as to instigate criminal action), I theorize that, based on cases with Japan and a few European countries, that the rate of sexual offenses per interval would either continue as it does (with the possible added benefit of a new media market and more jobs, etc.), or would decrease, assuming that those who are psychologically vulnerable are extremely few.

Violence in video games isn't the same as violence in real life. Drawn CP isn't the same as CP in real life.
Just referencing a known pedophile. Also an idiot.
Suicide is physical harm to oneself. It is illegal to attempt to commit suicide, and for good reason. If you get caught, you NEED help, period.
I will. Homo/bisexuality and pedophilia are abnormal. It's kind of like how being able to metabolize lactose after the age of 10 is abnormal, though.
Life's not fair. Keep it a secret. I wish people wouldn't feel the need to come out of the proverbial closet so much. I can't imagine that canada is so bad that they'll track your download habits and bust through your door. In the united states, there's a lot of leeway, but seriously:
That shit's illegal yo. The cops don't care though, unless you're distributing it.
Bingo.

Pedophilia involves a marked or sole preference for something which cannot be ethically nor legally attained. As homosexual acts are not illegal, nor inethical, there isn't an inherent problem.
I believe that the situation there is little different from the concern over violent videogames.
Being on SEN, I think, implies well enough what I believe about the ethics of violent videogames.
The last sentence is ambiguous, and as I understand it (from having seen similar discussions elsewhere) there is a legal precedent by which, for the most part, fictional child porn isn't a legal issue.
Bingo... what?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/1466A.html - Bah, that's recent.


Society needs people to do that to change laws. This is how people are gonna legalize marijuana. References: history - emancipation of African-Americans, women's rights (in Canada at least), etc.
Legalization of purely fictional depictions of minors in text and visual media would be a sight to see.
I wouldn't support something like open advertisement of such material, but to at least be free to view it at a personal level (without having to be paranoid about obscure situations that might get you in trouble) would be interesting. The problem I have most with these laws is that the media is purely fictional, and no actual minors are at risk and such. Even full-text works are outlawed.

Unless the proverbial closet is pointing to something really specific...

Can anyone put up an argument in terms of moral degradation of references to other events (e.g. slow take-over of Nazi regime and then discrimination against Jews - could this work as an argument?).

The last sentence is indeed ambiguous, but in the lolicon I've seen, there is ZERO literary, artistic, political, or scientific qualities. Perhaps if the manga were extremely long and had a story to it, I would disagree, but they're all the exact same bogus story as the regular porn industry (pizza guy shows up at door, etc...).
"If you want whatever work you are making to include underage sex, then you must avoid any and all of a very large range of otherwise unremarkable details, settings, etc. whose inclusion would not necessarily intrinsically change the nature of said work."

Minority rights are different. They have a visible attribute to them. Black men are clearly different from white men in how they look. Homosexuals and pedophiles look exactly like any other person, and can be any race. I don't know how many people have been arrested in canada for lolicon. The two which are listed in wikipedia are obvious criminals--One guy's a sex offender, the other had real CP on his computer. They're also both idiots, one for importing lolicon which should be illegal under the current law even in the US, and the other for having not encrypted/hidden porn on his laptop.

I understand the law is wrong in this case, but frankly there's not enough people willing to stand out to legalize it. Until a large number of people get charged who don't deserve it, I don't think there's a problem.

only took 10 posts...

I'll be honest, I've looked at loli and admittedly liked it. Sure, I'll look at loli, but in no way am I a pedophile. Rather, it's a personal preference of mine towards women. I enjoy innocence. In no way would I ever think of engaging in sex with a real human underaged child. The primary reason I'd look at it is due to the fact it is far simpler to look for loli than it is to look for innocent women in hentai. Especially because most that do, involve rape. cuz I don't like rape hentai.

Yet ironically, I enjoy guro to an extent...

I have problems.

Everyone does.

10 posts... FFUUUU-

Of some of the lolicon I might have glimpsed accidentally a long time ago, I have found artistic value in visual style. The plot was merely an excuse in the cases, though.
Perhaps that was the exception.

Personally, I find such content more amusing than worrisome. I'm sure the majority of thr population would find it appalling, though. I do wonder what sort of arguments are used against loli/shotacon though.

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Sep 24 2010, 6:41 am by Artanis186. Reason: idiots don't use proper capitalization

I was referring to formal, logical arguments that have an objective base, or at least a subjective one that is not based purely on pre-established social stigma. I am not interested in what a random idiot thinks.

I mean, can you explain how that's not stupid?

No. It is stupid. The law is full of stupid stuff. There's all those stupid laws too. And sometimes you can get caught breaking those stupid laws. (it's against the law to be in possession of a lobster due to the Lacy Act).

Pedophilia isn't illegal, sexually abusing children is. Pedophilia itself doesn't hurt people, but sexually abusing children hurts people. Drawn child porn does not sexually abuse a child like CP does. It should not be illegal.