um..what's Loli??

[Lina Inverse]

Originally Posted by mantidor

The majority of internationally available hardcore child pornography is produced in developing countries in the former Soviet Union, South-East Asia, and Central America. Germany was one of the main sources of naturist child erotica in the past. Japan was and still remains one of the leading producers of softcore pornography, which was outlawed there only in 1999, after much international pressure; enforcement remains somewhat sporadic.

Doesn't wonder me at all that such bs is coming from you... I haven't seen anything from you in this thread that makes any sense at all
What you falsely claimed as "naturist child erotica" is perfectly legal here, and for good reason. The naturist magazines in question do contain nude pics of people through all ages (I ordered a few some years ago because I was curious), and since the pictures are in absolutely no sexual relation, they are clearly no erotica or even porn and thus deservedly completely legal!

btw, I'm really fed up with the stuff you're posting here all the time, so you have the "honor" to be the first person on my ignore list. I'm normally against using such a list, but what you're posting simply screams for it. So all I'll see of you from now on is a "This message is hidden because Mantidor is on your Ignore list." What a relief.

[Cornel]

IF you are going to ignore a person, you might as well pay attention to others than giving him a last goodbye kiss, ja' know.

I have just noticed that I have been rep'ed badly because I am a fense sitter, which means that i have to be a "child molester". Huh? 'You're either with us or against us' is a mindset belonging to the medival peroid, but not today? But, I most likely do not deserve cancer, as no one does (but we may all have a bit in us naturally).
Understanding this is only cowardly view of an individual, I can see how threatening that these extreme views to even people who agree to let people be who they are is going to upset the loli side.
I think we would have to be more sensitive on some issues for the time being. I mean, when the world trade centre attack happened, I had jokes against both sides but tried to keep them to others who did not take sides. In one instance, I was at school and two mulism girls were chatting up disturbing the class I was in while we were in the library. I would say that I was tactful in not shouting out, "can you two stop terrorizing our class!" because though it seemed funny to me and I never thought they were or ever would be terrorist, I just thought it was pointless.
On one point, I will admit that I don't like religion. I think that we could do better without, even we could be better people if we got rid of the idea of sharing our ideas on religion, even more so than if we banned lolicontent (as I will coin it). Yeah, that is extreme to religious people, but theism is definitely different than belief. One is a system that is spread not by its values but only as the leaders of society have dictated. Anyways, I would say that religion makes terrorist. Atheists aren't in foxholes because atheists don't start World Wars. But not all religious people become terrorist, and I can except that because it is true.
On this topic, we should admit that not everyone, well in my view, almost no one who views lolicontent would become a pedophile. If they are, they were one to begin with and it may be mostly a social cause than an individual choice.

What I think my role is on this topic is to provide some words from inbetween the two sides. As long as people admit that people have human rights, they should be able to look at loli. But, they should not get mad if there is a good question asked. If they want, ignore it. Not every pleasure we have we can explain. Usually, we both have many good points and a few bad points. Mostly, anti-lolis will only except the bad points as they see it already as already bad. In my case, I think it would be easily for them to explain it to me. However, some gags on the latest American Pie movie would never be able to be explained to me. A good thing to know in life is that the more that can interest you, the most opportunities you can have for enjoyment. Shit, I can enjoy stuff, as anyone here could admit, that is not so wide spread. But as humans, we wish to be around those with similar tastes. This is why you wouldn't find me in church. I think there are alternatives to church that are better. But there are not many good alternatives to loli as i see it, other than quiting. You can see it as wasting time, but as I always have in the back of my head, Bertrand Russell said that "The time enjoyed wasted is not wasted time".
Right now, anti-loli people may seem like they are doing good, but you are taking away their enjoyment and they may not welcome you with open arms (especially if you are legal age ).

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by mantidor

I also think that freedom of speech should have its limits, but well this is material for another thread.

Doesn't that strike you as odd? That freedom should have limits? How can something be truly free if it is constrained?

SCC

[mantidor]

Originally Posted by Lina Inverse

Doesn't wonder me at all that such bs is coming from you... I haven't seen anything from you in this thread that makes any sense at all
What you falsely claimed as "naturist child erotica" is perfectly legal here, and for good reason. The naturist magazines in question do contain nude pics of people through all ages (I ordered a few some years ago because I was curious), and since the pictures are in absolutely no sexual relation, they are clearly no erotica or even porn and thus deservedly completely legal!

btw, I'm really fed up with the stuff you're posting here all the time, so you have the "honor" to be the first person on my ignore list. I'm normally against using such a list, but what you're posting simply screams for it. So all I'll see of you from now on is a "This message is hidden because Mantidor is on your Ignore list." What a relief.

Oh please, read before you post will you? what an embarrasment you are making of yourself misquoting me, if you ever dare to read my post (or if someone is kind enough to tell LinaInverse for me) you'll notice I was quoting wikipedia, those arent my words, I copy-pasted some parts of the wikipedia article, and as I said, it isnt the best source of information, but I considered those interesting facts to show to Hayami since we were talking about crime against children...

Ive already explained my points of view, Ive done it to death, and your response is ignoring me because "my ideas dont make any sense at all" LOL who is the close minded? if someone says he finds loli disgusting all of you just love to beat the crap out of them just for having an opinion, and the sweet irony comes later when you claim this person is closed minded I mean go ahead, to ignore me will just prove my point.

Hayami I understand now, but I think you should be less defensive about this matter, those are questions that could easily been asked without any kind of judgment, as you said it can be a delicated topic, and so its perfectly natural for people to try to understand it in order to not hurt other people's feelings and the best way to do it is asking... not everyone is looking forward to judge you, if you think so then probably you think you should be judged yourself... (just an opinion, dont kill me for it)

SCC well Im tired of arguing, the point is that freedom should have limits, and I agree its an odd concept but thats the way the human race is. In definition freedom should stay well... free, but... let me explain with an example. Lets say I go to a jews congregation and proclaim to them that Hitler was a great leader, lets say I try to convice their children that nazism was a good thing. Lets for example also said I make jokes about the WTC attacks to you (trust me Ive heard more than one joke about it) and I have the right to do it, Im free to do it, but I know I shouldnt. The point is freedom is worthless if theres no responsability or sense of sympathy in the way things are done... I could elaborate more, but as I pointed out before this deserves a thread of its own, but I really dont feel like going into such debate right now.

[Aru]

You people are funny.

[bayoab]

Originally Posted by Hayami

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/...20040427zg.htm
"It has often been pointed out that rates of violent and sexual crime are lower in Japan than in many countries with much stricter obscenity laws."
If acts of crime against children in Japan are as common as you tell us,
there should be no acts of clime against adults to fit in overall low crime rate.
But i'm not experte for Japan, i hope someone can find better links.

There is also another factor in them being lower. This is because things such as a 15 yr old school girl spending the night with a 30 yr old business man at a love hotel while he is far away from home was considered acceptable in the society. This however, is rapidly losing acceptance. What the Japanese consider a crime is far different from what our societies consider to be a crime. That link also fails to qualify what is considered "Sexual crime". Rape? Statutory Rape? Sexual Assault? (The latter being a VERY common crime that is never reported. Both in Japan and the US. It used to be so common in Japan that it was considered "acceptable" again. )

Also, note that while the common age for girls to marry has gone up, the age that girl enter puberty has gone down. (There are some as early as 7....) There is no reason to say that just because the body tells them it is time because their food is polluted means that they are ready in anyway to be subjected to it. Just because one is able to have sex physically does not mean it is okay to start showing them in a sexual manner. The reason the 18+ law exists is to prevent exploitation. The same reason goes for age of concent laws. The whole point of being human is that we have evolved beyond just relying on our basic instincts. Also, not every girl or guy is having sexual thoughts even after they hit puberty. These two are NOT the same thing.

This thread has degenerated to personal bashing and circular logic... anyone else agree it should be locked (AGAIN)?

[HoboGod]

Originally Posted by AG3

You said "certain" loli. Any particular type you're referring to?

I used that word because people were trying to justify loli by broadening the definition using socially acceptable things. What I'm refering to is simply underdeveloped girls drawn in sexual poses or situations.

Originally Posted by AG3

I think there's a point in exactly what a person's reaction to loli entertainment is. Indeed, for ALL entertainment and recreation. I'll clarify:

You are watching ero-anime of the "stronger" type. Let's say, for topic relevance, that some of the characters are typical loli type. Now, if you are watching it simply to be aroused (and it does just that), then fine. It's not really a problem. If you watch this because you are aroused by the prospect of treating real-life minors that way, you... might have a slight problem. Maybe more than just slight.

It's the same for action entertainment. If you watch "Rambo", then feel like taking the biggest hunting knife you can get and walk around the city looking for trouble, you might want to consider getting some help.

Or let's take a documentary (those are good, right?), or a movie based on real historical events. Let's take one depicting how jews were annihilated in extermination camps by Nazis. If you watch this in order to learn about some of the most fucked up people the human race has seen, one of the most messed up ideologies to slither across the earth, then it's basically a good thing. After all, as the saying goes, those who forget/ignore history are doomed to repeat it. If you're watching it because you think that's the way jews should be treated, then I hope, for the sake of humanity, that you're currently inflicted with incurable and extremely painful cancer that will give you 2 weeks more to live, tops.

Not true. In action movies and historical documentaries, most people don't change physically or mentally in the likeness of the killer, and instead, watch only out of morbid curiosity. If the person watching loli did NOT get arroused or reflect the state of mind of a pedophile and watch only out of morbid curiosity, then I would agree that it is fine. A person doesn't need to imagine themselves raping a child or killing a man to get the same level of self-gratification from it.

Originally Posted by AG3

I think the motive and reaction to entertainment (any recreation) is more important than the media and its contents. Humans are able to enjoy fiction, even if they don't agree with the contents morality and such, should it be put in real-life situations. This goes for violent movies, an accepted form of entertainment. So why not for sex?

Because violence has been more publicly exploited. There have been but a few mainstream documentories and books about sex, whereas violence has become an everyday occurrence that most people are desensitized toward.

Originally Posted by AG3

Is it simply because the characters depicted looks underage? It might look like a duck and quack like a duck, except that the looks are simply drawings made by people, and the quacking is a paid voice actress who, by some un-godly ritual, can sport a voice of a far higher pitch than any mino... duck, I've ever met.

The people who create this know damn well what they are mimicing. It isn't a duck, but they most definately want people to think it's a duck.

Originally Posted by AG3

It's kinda weird how people can stomach enjoying people killed in entertainment, but not minor-looking characters involved in sex, no matter how consensual.

Perception is more important. If you think about it in those terms, they are only "stomaching" somebody getting killed-looking. Unless you are refering to actual killings like in snuff films (which are also illegal), then in which case I can say that society is equally taboo about that.

Originally Posted by AG3

Also, people don't seem to object much to books with such contents. It's just when pictures appear that it's wrong. Why? The motivation behind its consumption?

Books that contain such material are often advanced reading material that most impressionable youngsters wouldn't have the attention span to read. Books intented for children that contain sexual situations are just as protested against (if not more) as movies and television.

Originally Posted by Bracken33

You are not alone. I would agree with you.
But we do not need additional censorship. I do not like it, but I think it should be legally allowed.

That is ridiculous. I'm against cencorship and everything, but not to the point where corperations can market sex to children. Child Pornagraphy is illegal for two major reasons: most people here think using children for sex is immoral, and sexual deviants can use such material to brainwash children into having sex. Although no actual children are being used for sex in loli, it is still a very dangerious tool in the hands of those fucked up people out there.


------------


And on a side note, I agree with mantidor on alot of his arguements. If you actually LISTEN to what he's saying, you might understand that he isn't trying to be some cencorship nazi. Without law, there is only anarchy. Without order, law will not be followed.

[StoneColdCrazy]

Originally Posted by bayoab

This thread has degenerated to personal bashing and circular logic... anyone else agree it should be locked (AGAIN)?

I think thread locking is an unfortunate thing but I'm not sure what more can be accomplished here - it's once again degenerated from a topic discussion into one of those "I said this, not that" "You didn't read my post properly" "Listen to me!" "Read before you post" situations and, yes, if you look back over the thread you can see points that have been made that have promptly been ignored by subsequent posters, the same questions and answers appearing almost cyclicly, and numerous examples of people bickering over semantics or interpretation.

SCC

[Thany]

Originally Posted by Lina Inverse

btw, I'm really fed up with the stuff you're posting here all the time, so you have the "honor" to be the first person on my ignore list. I'm normally against using such a list, but what you're posting simply screams for it. So all I'll see of you from now on is a "This message is hidden because Mantidor is on your Ignore list." What a relief.

Don't worry, you're not alone to have put him in your ignore list ; his posts got worse and worse and show the fact that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

It's legal in the US and in most country (and obviously also in Germany like Lina Inverse pointed out), so deal with it, you can't do anything about it: it's freedom of speech and isn't doing any harm to any people.

There's a good reason why lolicon and child porn are illegal. The law states that no one under 18 should work at a strip club or pose nude for a magazine. There are plently of good reasons why this is legal, one of them being that people under 18 should not be expoiding themselves to sexually arouse others. They will be the one's caring for the planet in the future, and the last thing they should be doing during their youth is satifying the perverted needs of others.

I was talking about lolicon FYI like it has been stated earlier, maybe this could be hard to notice for some people, but there is a difference between this and CP.
If it's illegal in your country, too bad for you (or good for you), but this is still legal in most countries.
NB: if you had read all this thread you'd have found out.

And on a side note, I agree with mantidor on alot of his arguements. If you actually LISTEN to what he's saying, you might understand that he isn't trying to be some cencorship nazi. Without law, there is only anarchy. Without order, law will not be followed.

Like I said earlier lolicon isn't illegal in US and a lot of others countries, so which law are you refering to?

[MakubeX2]

Something to think about :-

If by you defination of lolita complex is something disturbing and that it should be banned, then mangas such as Love Hina and Negima should never be published as those features under age nudity. But I don't see people questioning it's contents.

Of course, there's nudity featured in classical anime such as Doreamon and Evangelion, but why have I not heard people bringing this up ?

[dreamless]

Originally Posted by bayoab

Also, note that while the common age for girls to marry has gone up, the age that girl enter puberty has gone down. (There are some as early as 7....) There is no reason to say that just because the body tells them it is time because their food is polluted means that they are ready in anyway to be subjected to it. Just because one is able to have sex physically does not mean it is okay to start showing them in a sexual manner. The reason the 18+ law exists is to prevent exploitation. The same reason goes for age of concent laws. The whole point of being human is that we have evolved beyond just relying on our basic instincts. Also, not every girl or guy is having sexual thoughts even after they hit puberty. These two are NOT the same thing.

Well, natural instincts and social values are two different things. However to say that anyone being sexually attracted to a girl of under 18 is a "pervert" is just going against nature. Let me ask people here who think that getting sexually attracted to a girl of under 18 is pervert by nature some simple questions : how old were you when you get sexually attracted to girls the first time? Have you forgotten the first time you have sexual fantasies?

I don't know about you, as far as I can remember, my sexual desires "awakened" at about age 12-13, and no I was not attracted to girls of over 18, I was interested in girls of about the same age. So yup I found girls under 18 sexually attractive. So was I a pervert by nature? As far as I know, most guys are like that, and that's normal. And I'd say if your sexual desires only "awaken" at 18 or you are only sexually attracted to girls over 18, that's something weird to it.

I'm not saying girls of around 12 should work in strip clubs or anything, I was replying to Raze_2mb's "They will be the one's caring for the planet in the future, and the last thing they should be doing during their youth is satifying the perverted needs of others", and pointing out that getting sexually attracted to girls under 18 is NOT a perverted need.

About working in strip club or taking nude photo of girls to exploit them as complete sexual objects for magazine covers... believe it or not, I'm really conservative in this issue. If you ask me, I think all strip clubs and magazines with nude cover girl pictures to exploit girls as complete sexual objects should be closed, personally I think it's downright wrong to treat real females as complete sexual objects regardless of their age, maybe you can even call me a feminist in this kind of matters. Of course that's just my opinion, and I won't call people who go to strip clubs perverts.

I also pointed out that non-nude cover girl pictures can also be used to sexually arouse people, so a law saying you can't use nude pictures of girls under 18 as magazine cover doesn't have any use in stopping people from using non-nude pictures of girls under 18 to sexually arouse people, people are not only sexually aroused by nude pictures, actually it is known that some non-nude pictures can get people sexually aroused more effectively than nude pictures. Also I don't think it's right to exploit real people sexually and treat them as complete sexual objects no matter the age, even if they are over 18. yup when it comes to real people instead of fictional works, I'm actually a very conservative guy, I think we should respect real people as real human beings, and degrading them into some sexual objects is simply wrong IMO, whether they are under 18 or not. I don't think exploiting a girl under 18 as a complete sexual object is any "more wrong" than exploiting a girl over 18 as a complete sexual object, I think exploiting a girl as a complete sexual object is as wrong as it can get, there's no "more" or "less" in it.

[Hayami]

Originally Posted by HoboGod

Not true. In action movies and historical documentaries, most people don't change physically or mentally in the likeness of the killer, and instead, watch only out of morbid curiosity. If the person watching loli did NOT get arroused or reflect the state of mind of a pedophile and watch only out of morbid curiosity, then I would agree that it is fine. A person doesn't need to imagine themselves raping a child or killing a man to get the same level of self-gratification from it.

First, you have no right to tell what "a person" needs.
And no one should be forced to explain, why he/she "needs" this or that.
By the way, do we need anime at all? People would not die without it, right?
People rather want / demand it.
And you have no right to tell anyone what he/she should want/demand.

Second, you say " to imagine themselves raping a child ", what is about raping adults?
The half or at least 1/4 of hentai content is rape.

Third, did you ever considered that some of loli fans ( and may be even just hentai fans )
epathize rather with victims, than with the predators?
Also there is much more then just "predator & victim" lolicon hentai,
where the one looking at this hentai don't even need to choose "predator or victim",
for example loli Yuri is one of the most popular themes,
and there are drawings of single characters too, which are very popolar as well.
Does everyone, who likes loli drawning of single characters,
neccessary imagines him/her self in this picture raping the poor girl?
( or the girl coming in real world, for the sole purpose of being raped by him? )
If you think so, you have a very primitive image of what loli fans might think/feel,
and it's understanable since you are not into it,
but thus you have no right to judge something that you can not understand.
And no, no one is obliged to tell you what they think/feel when they look at their favorite hentai.

Just one more example: loli manga with little boy & little girl pair.
Do you really think that all loli fans draw themselfes ( imaginary ) into these pictures to join the party?

But as i said, no one is obliged to give you, or anyone explainations about
the reasons of his/her liking of any content.
With examples above you might realize now, that some details of why one needs/wants it,
might be too personal for public exhibition.
It's even possible that some people need/want this hentai ( from loli to guro ) as medium to reflect
on something really bad that happend to them in the past,
be it the same situation, or completely different ( shown in hentai ), but to overcome the pain in their heart
they might just need to take part one or other form of violent or "perverted" situation,
and people who can fulfill it in their mind ( for example inspired with manga )
do something, they really can be proud of.

As long no real person is hurt, no one has right to judge people
based on the content of anime these people are watching.

Also there is number Four too. I mentioned it in this thread before,
but i'll just repeat it here ( adding more or different examples now ) for completion of the image.
You talk about "raping a child". If you would have been in lolicon sections of image boards
( i don't tell that it's your fault, it's understandable,
that you could not do this kind of research, if you hate/dislike loli content ),
you would have noticed, that whenever very realistic drawings ( not anime style ) are posted,
many people "sage" them.
For me this idicates, that whatever the viewer imagine while watching lolicon anime,
they don't imagine real persons after all. Sure there are fans of realistic drawnings too,
as well as these who search for CP, but many loli fans despise anything too realistic
in their loli manga/anime/games.
The point is: young looking anime characters != depictions of real children.
There is probably even more difference between an anime figur & image of real person,
than between an animal & human ( both real ).
Sure many people are vegetarian, but the most are not.
And even among non-vegetarians many people admit the possibility that animals
have feelings and even a soul. Look at India for example!
Also people even hunt animals ( what is worse them just kill imo )
What i try to say is, that anime characters ( at least for many loli fans ),
are different beings, which don't experience the same as what humans do,
they live in a different world ( like a deer "lives in it's own world" ) ,
have different needs, abide completely different set of rules
( for example there are things which are disgusting for most of us, but not for an average dog ),
and especially the aftermath does not exist or is completely different fom our aftermath in similar situation.

Look, a lioness is sad because her kids were killed by new alfa-male,
or it appears to us that she is sad.
But does she still miss them in a week? In a year?
We don't know, anyway i don't think that a lioness ever leave the pride in such case,
leave because she hates this lion, who killed her kids, so much.
For a human it would be different.
We don't even know, may be this lioness still has all the sadness and hate in her heart,
and the reason is just that she can't fight against her instincts
( this would be really sad, fortunately rather unrealistic ),
but no matter what - looking at this case objective, either she does not have free will,
or does not have the human ( human-like ) feelings.

I think, it's very important to understand, that lolicon manga is even not real extension of original manga,
but rather another incarnation.
I would not wish, that CLAMP authors rewrite the CSS story and turn it into sex orgy.
And i even honor the superiority of the original series.
In the original series the character kind of posses a soul ( though still not really human-like, just "kind of" ).
You know, i'm not the only loli fan, who wasn't aroused by the these Elfen Lied scenes, but rather felt sad.

Spoiler:

i mean Mayu.

Being another incarnation, lolicon manga is somewhat connected with original series,
but related to it "kind of" like an animal is related to human.

To everyone who think, that animals should not be killed/eaten by humans -
i apologize, my example is sure not perfect, may be you can find a better one,
i hope you still can see what i mean ( imagine for a monent that animals have no soul ).

Originally Posted by HoboGod

The people who create this know damn well what they are mimicing. It isn't a duck, but they most definately want people to think it's a duck.

The chapter above can be applied to the creators too.
For many ( imo the most ) it's not a duck, it's completely different entity.

Originally Posted by HoboGod

Child Pornagraphy is illegal for two major reasons: most people here think using children for sex is immoral, and sexual deviants can use such material to brainwash children into having sex.

The last argument was rejected by Supreme Court of USA.
http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html

(3) The Court rejects other arguments offered by the Government to justify the CPPA’s prohibitions. The contention that the CPPA is necessary because pedophiles may use virtual child pornography to seduce children runs afoul of the principle that speech within the rights of adults to hear may not be silenced completely in an attempt to shield children from it.

[Bracken33]

Originally Posted by HoboGod

That is ridiculous. I'm against cencorship and everything, but not to the point where corperations can market sex to children.

So you are against censorship. But then I have to ask you where you would draw the line?

We have a lot of hollywood movies (and of course movies from other countries) out there where people are tortured and sadistically slain in the most imaginable cruel way.
We also have very cruel vidoe games out there. (I do not talk about simple hand/eye coordination shooters like counterstrike here).

So is it better in your world HoboGod to market death and violence to children or to woman? You will censore it too, will you?
If you (and we) are consistent I think we will also have to forbit a lot of this stuf.

Originally Posted by HoboGod

Although no actual children are being used for sex in loli, it is still a very dangerious tool in the hands of those fucked up people out there.

You seem to think loli is more dangerous then other stuf.
I believe loli is in no way more dangerous or harmless then a lot of other media out there.

I do not want to live in a nanny state.
There are always people who abuse their freedoms and every community has some sickos who cannot distinguish reality from fantasy.
But I am convinced most loli fans here can distinguish reality and fantasy. (Don´t get me wrong, I still not like it and have disrespect for you.)

So no additional censorship please.
I mean what is next? An ADD (a pen and paper roleplaying game) player sacrifices his sister for a god in the ADD world and then two weeks later the government forbids my hobby?
No thanks!

(BTW: In germany we actually have such laws *sight*)

[kujoe]

Originally Posted by MakubeX2

Something to think about :-

If by you defination of lolita complex is something disturbing and that it should be banned, then mangas such as Love Hina and Negima should never be published as those features under age nudity. But I don't see people questioning it's contents.

Of course, there's nudity featured in classical anime such as Doreamon and Evangelion, but why have I not heard people bringing this up ?

I'm no expert in this, but I wouldn't consider Evangelion as a show featuring loli characters. Rei, Asuka and some characters from Love Hina look like lolitas--not "loli." From what I have seen in this thread, loli has acquired a definition of its own. It's become a category for a genre more than anything else.

In fact, in the Love Hina anime, the girls are usually portrayed as having a youthful face with a very mature body. It isn't quite the same, if you ask me--at least not in the same level that Thany's pics are in. Seriously, can you picture Naru calling Keitaro "oniichan?" I'm not familiar with Negima, so I'll just skip that. (Come to think of it, Azumanga isn't so loli either. In fact, Chiyo-chan is more of a "chibi-mascot" character.)

Actually, you point out an interesting fact. You see, loli characters are essentially an icon. In other words, it's all about the image. You can have a 1000 year old loli character from outer space--but she'll still be considered a loli. Simply put, it's about trying to look younger than what's written in the age description.

Spoiler:

For example, Ichigo from Onegai Teacher is actually older than Asuka and Rei, but she's still more loli than the two of them combined. Ichigo is 21 years old.

Well, I'm not a loli fan. So how would you guys explain this?

Originally Posted by StoneColdCrazy

Doesn't that strike you as odd? That freedom should have limits? How can something be truly free if it is constrained?

SCC

Kinda off-topic but the strange thing is, no matter where you live, the way we treat freedom has always been a contradiction. Our laws actually tell us what we are and aren't free to do.

Here's another question that deserves its own thread: Is there even such a thing as true freedom?

[dreamless]

Originally Posted by HoboGod

Not true. In action movies and historical documentaries, most people don't change physically or mentally in the likeness of the killer, and instead, watch only out of morbid curiosity. If the person watching loli did NOT get arroused or reflect the state of mind of a pedophile and watch only out of morbid curiosity, then I would agree that it is fine. A person doesn't need to imagine themselves raping a child or killing a man to get the same level of self-gratification from it.

well, if you think all those people playing CS, DOOM3, Vice City, etc. etc. are only out of morbid curiosity, then I see no problem saying that all those people playing loli ero-games are only out of morbid curiosity. And if you think watching movies like Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, etc. etc. are only out of morbid curiosity, I also see no problem saying that watching loli ero-animes are only out of morbid curiosity.

Because violence has been more publicly exploited. There have been but a few mainstream documentories and books about sex, whereas violence has become an everyday occurrence that most people are desensitized toward.

If people are indeed desensitized towards violence because of games and media, then it means that there's actually more reason to ban violence in games and media, since they have proven to have caused great harm to the society. And since there's no evidence of loli materials causing great harm to the society, there's no reason to ban them.

The people who create this know damn well what they are mimicing. It isn't a duck, but they most definately want people to think it's a duck.

same goes to those game designers and movie makers trying to mimic violence and killings in their products. Remember what id said to the public? "we need more violence, blood and realism in our games".

Originally Posted by mantidor

well Im tired of arguing, the point is that freedom should have limits, and I agree its an odd concept but thats the way the human race is. In definition freedom should stay well... free, but... let me explain with an example. Lets say I go to a jews congregation and proclaim to them that Hitler was a great leader, lets say I try to convice their children that nazism was a good thing. Lets for example also said I make jokes about the WTC attacks to you (trust me Ive heard more than one joke about it) and I have the right to do it, Im free to do it, but I know I shouldnt. The point is freedom is worthless if theres no responsability or sense of sympathy in the way things are done... I could elaborate more, but as I pointed out before this deserves a thread of its own, but I really dont feel like going into such debate right now.

Originally Posted by kujoe

Kinda off-topic but the strange thing is, no matter where you live, the way we treat freedom has always been a contradiction. Our laws actually tell us what we are and aren't free to do.
Here's another question that deserves its own thread: Is there even such a thing as true freedom?

well, freedom surely has limits, but the limits are only there when "your freedom" is affecting "others' freedom", in your examples, Nazism and Terrorism are proven to be harmful to the society and the world, and your freedom of killing others will result in others losing their freedom of living, that's why there's law to limit people's freedom of killing others (for example, you can only kill others when they attack you and try to kill you first, ie. self-defense). The reason that freedom is worthless if theres no responsability or sense of sympathy in the way things are done is because one's freedom is worthless if it greatly harms others' freedom. So freedom is limited. But I don't see why freedom of having loli materials needs to be limited when there's so far no evidence showing that it can affect others' freedom or harm the society, in the same sense that there's no evidence showing that the freedom of having violent games and movies can affect others' freedom or harm the society.

[kujoe]

Originally Posted by dreamless

well, freedom surely has limits, but the limits are only there when "your freedom" is affecting "others' freedom", in your examples, Nazism and Terrorism are proven to be harmful to the society and the world, and your freedom of killing others will result in others losing their freedom of living, that's why there's law to limit people's freedom of killing others (for example, you can only kill others when they attack you and try to kill you first, ie. self-defense). The reason that freedom is worthless if theres no responsability or sense of sympathy in the way things are done is because one's freedom is worthless if it greatly harms others' freedom. So freedom is limited. But I don't see why freedom of having loli materials needs to be limited when there's so far no evidence showing that it can affect others' freedom or harm the society, in the same sense that there's no evidence showing that the freedom of having violent games and movies can affect others' freedom or harm the society.

Well, I didn't say what I said in relation to loli-related material, Nazism or terrorism--just pointing out the fact that freedom does have its limits, as you say. It wasn't really my intention to discuss it with regard to the concerns you pointed out.

Or were you replying to mantidor's example? After reading that, perhaps this deserves its own discussion. The way I see it, this discussion regarding freedom can severely stray towards an off-topic direction. I'm not stopping anyone however.

[HoboGod]

Originally Posted by Hayami

First, you have no right to tell what "a person" needs.
And no one should be forced to explain, why he/she "needs" this or that.
By the way, do we need anime at all? People would not die without it, right?
People rather want / demand it.
And you have no right to tell anyone what he/she should want/demand.

you are taking the word "need" out of context and only reading the first half of my sentance. When i say "need" I mean "require" not "cannot live without." When I say " A person doesn't need to imagine themselves raping a child or killing a man to get the same level of self-gratification from it."I mean that a person does not REQUIRE imagining themselves doing a deviant act to enjoy the deviant act. This statement in no way reflects that anyone "cannot live without" anything.

Originally Posted by Hayami

It's even possible that some people need/want this hentai ( from loli to guro ) as medium to reflect
on something really bad that happend to them in the past,
be it the same situation, or completely different ( shown in hentai ), but to overcome the pain in their heart
they might just need to take part one or other form of violent or "perverted" situation,
and people who can fulfill it in their mind ( for example inspired with manga )
do something, they really can be proud of.

I already agreed that if there is no sexual arrousal involved, then I would not classify the actions of those who view it as pedophile. But if those who are seaching for spiritual or intelectiual reasons needed this type of thing, then such devotion should make them seek it out in more mature forms than the cartoons of popular culture.

Originally Posted by Hayami

As long no real person is hurt, no one has right to judge people
based on the content of anime these people are watching.

If i screamed "fire" in a crowded theator, the word would be harmless. I didn't start a fire, I just said it. But because of it, people would be frantic to escape and people would be trampled and crushed. If I screamed "fire" in a theator that was relitivily empty, then people could assess the situation in a mature way and nobody would be hurt.

In a small community with little potential for popularity, such things would indeed be as harmless as you say them to be. But anime is a median to which young and old would be appealed by. A large and vast community where impressionable minds would be swept away in it all.

Originally Posted by Hayami

whatever the viewer imagine while watching lolicon anime,
they don't imagine real persons after all.

True may that be, alot of anime traits are taken into real life by the devote anime fans. Though something like this will not be taken by a mature individual, a less mature mind might. Popular culture is not the place for such things.

Originally Posted by Hayami

The chapter above can be applied to the creators too.
For many ( imo the most ) it's not a duck, it's completely different entity.

Enjoying a lion cub being raped is just as bad as enjoying a human child being raped, IMO.

Originally Posted by Hayami

The last argument was rejected by Supreme Court of USA.

The supreme court is a mere puppet of society's law. They say things that make people think the law is fair and just. The law is rightous, but never fair. The law has reasons, but not all of them are justified. Society needs law to maintain order, and the supreme court is there to preach order that maintains law.

But despite that, the law must be unbais, society must make their own decisions on how to follow the law if they are given such freedom in it.

Originally Posted by Bracken33

So you are against censorship. But then I have to ask you where you would draw the line?

Maturity level of course. Violence in movies should be limited to genres that kids wouldn't follow like historical drama, horror, and artistic films. Things like lighthearted comedies, teenie bopper films, and good guy action films shouldn't contain explicit sex and gore. Likewise with video games. If the game is easy to beat and doesn't require much strategy, then it shouldn't have realistic violence and sex.

Mindless entertainment should be made wth the notion that immature viewers will be watching. The perfect example in anime terms would be Berserk. It has alot of violence and sex, but it also contains alot of mature themes without comic relief. The average impressionable youth would get bored and stop watching it. (probably the reason it didn't become as popular in anime form as it is in manga form.) Most loli has nothing that turns youngsters away.

Originally Posted by dreamless

If people are indeed desensitized towards violence because of games and media, then it means that there's actually more reason to ban violence in games and media, since they have proven to have caused great harm to the society. And since there's no evidence of loli materials causing great harm to the society, there's no reason to ban them.

I dissagree. A person becomes less afraid/anxious/concerned of something if others around them aren't afriad/anxious/concerned of it. A rashinal person is less likely to immitate an act of violence if they had no reation to it. But on the other hand, if others did react to it as if it was something that had power over them. then a rashinal person becomes more likely to immitate it.

[dreamless]

Originally Posted by HoboGod

I dissagree. A person becomes less afraid/anxious/concerned of something if others around them aren't afriad/anxious/concerned of it. A rashinal person is less likely to immitate an act of violence if they had no reation to it. But on the other hand, if others did react to it as if it was something that had power over them. then a rashinal person becomes more likely to immitate it.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so you think it's a good thing that people are densensitized to violence? then maybe it's also a good thing for people to be desensitized to sex? And I don't see any point in your argument about people being desensitized to violence if you think it's a good thing. Then what it has to do with the current discussion? And a rational person imitates an act of violence? A rational person will never imitate an act of violence. Those who imitate an act of violence means they are irrational. I'd say the idea of a rational people imitating an act of violence is contradictory in itself.

[Thany]

If i screamed "fire" in a crowded theator, the word would be harmless. I didn't start a fire, I just said it. But because of it, people would be frantic to escape and people would be trampled and crushed. If I screamed "fire" in a theator that was relitivily empty, then people could assess the situation in a mature way and nobody would be hurt.

But then this would affect real people while loli isn't affecting real people as long as the viewer isn't insane.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so you think it's a good thing that people are densensitized to violence? then maybe it's also a good thing for people to be desensitized to sex?

This is the double standard
Violence, murder, decapitation, assassination, etc in anime are ok, but sex is not

[HoboGod]

Originally Posted by dreamless

I'm not sure what you mean by this, so you think it's a good thing that people are densensitized to violence? then maybe it's also a good thing for people to be desensitized to sex?

Yes, I think it would be ideal for society to become completely desensitized to sex. If indeed people weren't affected by it, then I would whole-hearted not give a damn about loli. But as it is right now, society lets sex have a certain power over them and that sexual taboo turns impressionable youths that wouldn't otherwise be into future pedophiles.

Originally Posted by dreamless

And I don't see any point in your argument about people being desensitized to violence if you think it's a good thing. Then what it has to do with the current discussion?

Society has not been desensitized to ALL violence. Certain acts of violence are just as taboo as sex. And until those taboos are demolished in entertainment, I'll deem them equally inapropriate in material marketed to younger audiences.

Originally Posted by dreamless

And a rational person imitates an act of violence? A rational person will never imitate an act of violence. Those who imitate an act of violence means they are irrational. I'd say the idea of a rational people imitating an act of violence is contradictory in itself.

Yea, if you say it like that, my wording doesn't make sence. ^_^;;

But i guess what i'm trying to say is that it would be less likely for a rational person to become irrational if others didn't react to it. I think the best way to describe it is with the fire analogy how a normally rational person reacts in an irrational way because of the paniked crowd.

Originally Posted by Thany

But then this would affect real people while loli isn't affecting real people as long as the viewer isn't insane.

To younger minds still seeking moral guidiance, it isn't insane to be swayed easily by popular culture.