This one's from two weeks ago but I noticed that nobody had posted it up yet.
Lolicon artwork was in an unknown legal state until very recently. There is still no law on paper that says it's illegal, but unfortunately we now have a precedent.
http://www.customs.gov.au/site/page.cfm?c=9256
The fine was $9000, and the "child pornography" in question was only anime, something almost any of us might have in our collection. Oh, and animated images of sexual violence are apparently illegal too. You can't tell me you don't have a copy of Bible Black around somewhere, or something even worse.
So the bad news is, Australia isn't safe for lolicon anymore.
The good news is, $9000 seems like a pretty light penalty compared to the fine for actual child porn (up to $275,000 and/or 10 years imprisonment.)
You have to wonder who they're trying to protect though. As far as I can see, the only one who got out of this any better than they went in was whoever received the money from the fine.
>>Oh, and animated images of sexual violence are apparently illegal too.
"In international news, an Australian man was arrested yesterday for owning over 500 games, dvds, and comics containing young girls being raped by 'tenticle monsters'. Stay tuned to see the shocking interview."
^ What I thought of when I read that line.
And you know it'd be on Fox 11, the only station ever to say "truly epic lulz" on air.
That's really ridiculous. Half the time they don't even specify age with those pr0ns. And besides, it's a fucking drawing. A lot of people have serious trouble with the concept of imagination.
One less babyfucker-friendly country. So sad.
lol @ banning art.
they are drawings ffs.
This is really funny, but I think it's a load of crap. I have tons of loli's on my computer-- I've seen guys with it as their desktop. I think that as long as they aren't raping real children, they should be good with lolicon.
In Australia they banned cameras from municipal pools because they were worried pedophiles would take photos of kiddies for their later gratification. Means mums and dads can't take photos of their own kids. Australia has become an even more scared version of the US.
Funny thing is, a lolicon with any dedication could likely get off with just a clothes catalog. Or any news picture of a kid of his (or I suppose her) appropriate age bracket.
I guess logic goes out the window whenever anyone casts Power Word: CP.
this is good news
Lolicon and pedophiles are different animals though. A pedophile probably could get off on a clothes catalog. A lolicon would have better luck with a copy of Ichigo Mashimaro.
Honestly all censorship is a mystery to me. Ultimately some power higher up decides what does and doesn't count as illegal, they never seem to ask someone further down, who might have an idea about the content of what they're censoring. Like how books randomly get banned, and then when you finally read the book you wonder why they bothered.
Lolicons are pedophiles. They are just in denial. The fantasy of raping kids that a lolicon has in his head is an idea. It doesn't depend on what kind of stimulus he gets to push the fantasy forward, the idea still lies in his head independent of the stimulus. So, one less baby-fucker out there. So sad.
I don't see how it is one less, he only got a fine.
Indeed.
One less person who enjoys looking at drawings of little kids getting fucked, which may or may not be correlated with going and actually fucking little kids, out there being a productive member of the economy.
One more person wasting the time of your country's intelligence service and police force as they dig up sufficient dirt on him, then sitting in prison for a victimless crime, sucking away your tax dollars.
So sad.
>>13
I don't hear anyone crying
I agree. If the person wasn't getting off on loli, he wouldn't have any. Gays don't generally collect playboys -- it doesn't do anything for them.
Actually, for pedophilia cases, most of the time by the time the cops do arrest him, he's been an active (as in actively raping children) for more than 5 years. So, depending on who this guy is, I'd say there are better than 75% odds that a man trying to import lolicon has probably raped at least one child. That's why I'm against child porn. It's somewhat like getting Al Capone on Tax Evasion -- you get them off the streets for possession of Child Porn, and he can't act on his already present fantasies. Or you can wait until a child is raped and taken to the hospital quick enough to get a semen sample.
For those who think that Lolicon porn doesn't mean pedophilia, find me a gay man with playboys under his bed. Then we'll talk. I've never heard of people collecting porn that doesn't address their personal fantasies.
>75% odds that a man trying to import lolicon has probably raped at least one child.
So by your logic, 75% of the 1.5 million (estimated) "lolicons" in Japan are child rapists.
However, that would mean that (over a ten year span let's say), approximately 1,125,000 children could be said to be raped, when japan's rape rates (of women of all ages) over the same period are closer to 341,640.
So what you say is silly, and indicative of gross prejudice.
>For those who think that Lolicon porn doesn't mean pedophilia, find me a gay man with playboys under his bed. Then we'll talk. I've never heard of people collecting porn that doesn't address their personal fantasies.
By the same token, find me an average 12 year old boy with the same playboy under his bed who goes around raping his class mates.
You seem to imply that having sexual desire implies being a rapist.
Well, what barriers are there for reporting of rape in Japan? In many places around the world, rape is culturally considered the woman's fault, thus they don't make a police report. That's why in the US, we have an unspoken rule about not printing the name of the rape victim. They feel ashamed that it happened to them, and they don't want the rest of us to know about it. And even then, when we do know something about the victim, quite often the debates and discussion will go on to asking what she was wearing.
Long story short, I think rapes are drasticly underreported, because of the victim being made to feel ashamed of it. Yes, even in Japan.
On point two
First off, pedophilia is the mental state. Child Molestation is the sex act. The point is that if you weren't attracted to children, looking at sexual pictures of children would turn you on to the same degree that a gay man is turned on by looking at sexual pictures of women. If you don't get a "charge" out of a certain type of porn, you most certainly aren't going to collect it.
And actually, most 12 year old boys do eventually have sex with women. Sexing up a child is always molestation -- children simply are not capable of consenting to sex, so a child that you have sex with has been molested. There's no way around it.
An adult is capable of consent. When a gay couple has sex, both parties are of age, and has volentarily agreed to have gay sex. A hetrosexual coule is the same way -- both parties are of age and agree to have sex. Neither of those are molestation.
Most people are actually "pedophiles" in denial, as most people are attracted to children. But you don't see these people raping babies very often.
This is a repressed sex-phobia that isn't understood very well. So a lot of bullshit folk psychology seems to get tossed around about the subject.
Most people think kids are cute. They are not sexually attracted to children. There is a difference between the parental instinct and a sexual desire for children. One is the instinct to protect the child from danger. It's the common mammalian instinct, any mammal is genetically programmed to care for the young.
I don't see much sexophobia here, I think it's partially biochemical. The problem I have is that the children can't concent to sex. They can't protect themselves. At least gay men can seek out gay sex from willing parners.
Agreed, but that doesn't mean a "pedophile" is necessarily a sex-criminal, or that pornography encourages sex-crimes. Drawn pornography catering to a niche that might otherwise feel very sexually frustrated and inhibited seems like a good idea. Isn't it curious that a country which is relatively open about acknowledging subcultures who are "lolicon" and catering to them is also one of the safest countries for children, with very low rates of child-abuse for its population size/density?
> a "pedophile" is necessarily a sex-criminal,
this has been discussed, in >>15
> or that pornography encourages sex-crimes.
I don't think anyone is arguing that it does.
> Isn't it curious that a country which is relatively open about acknowledging subcultures who are "lolicon" and catering to them is also one of the safest countries for children, with very low rates of child-abuse for its population size/density?
No, that's inaccurate.
> Isn't it curious that a country which is relatively open about ... catering to it's sexual fetishers who are "lolicon" also ... has very low rates of reported cases of child-abuse in which a conviction was handed down for its population size/density?
Not really.
> Drawn pornography catering to a niche that might otherwise feel very sexually frustrated and inhibited seems like a good idea.
Can't say I entirely disagree myself. How about a National Lolicon Registration program? Registrants get free porn in exchange for their freedom of privacy.
I'm sorry, but what makes you think Japan's sex crimes are less reported than those in the US, which outnumber Japanese crime statistics by a factor of twenty?
Seriously, if you're going to make outrageous statements like that, you better link to some supporting evidence, then we'll listen.
As for your last statement, I shouldn't have to mention that it reeks of Nazism.
> what makes you think Japan's sex crimes are less reported than those in the US, which outnumber Japanese crime statistics.I haven't mentioned the US once.
> then we'll listen.I don't expect you to listen or learn anything. This is the internet, after all.
> As for your last statement, I shouldn't have to mention that it reeks of Nazism.Since you brought up the USA, I feel I have to let you know you that pornography is most unfortunately not protected speech under it's constitution and it has never enjoyed this protection. Either way, owning pornography is a matter of choice and not comparable to being crippled, homosexual, black, jewish or gypsy.
i like porn.
i love porn.
>> Since you brought up the USA, I feel I have to let you know you that pornography is most unfortunately not protected speech under it's constitution and it has never enjoyed this protection.
Wrong. First thing you have to realize is that the Constitution is a statement of principles. It will not go into detail on what is and isn't protected. That is left for the courts. This can be contrasted with continental European practice where conditions and exceptions are frequently spelled out in detail in the law books.
Pornography is an area of expression coming under the principle of constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech. Pornography therefore enjoys constitutional protection. It's that simple.
However, freedom of speech is not an absolute right and in the case of pornography it can be curtailed for obscenity and harm to others. The production of child pornography is considered harmful to the minors involved and as such it is banned (fictional child pornography is protected since it doesn't involve real minors). Some pornography is not protected but not banned on a federal level. Thus some states allow zoophilia whilst others can circumvent the constitutional protections on grounds of cruelty to animals.
Obscenity is a far more nebulous concept and probably what you had in mind when you made your claim. This is because obscenity is based on community standards. If enough people think in a certain way they can change the standards. Historically speaking these standards are currently very permissive in the United States. This doesn't mean sexual content has ever been outright banned in the USA, it simply means legally available pornography used to be a lot tamer. Something else that restricted the availability of porn was that institutions like the Postal Service refused to deliver pornography, a stance not grounded in law as shown when Playboy successfully sued the USPS in the 1950s.
> It will not go into detail on what is and isn't protected.
And then follows four paragraphs doing exactly that?
> fictional child pornography is protected...
That's currently up in the air, if you've been following the courts. A site featuring stories about baby-fucking had the owner sent to jail.
> Obscenity is a far more nebulous concept...
Which makes it a critical weakness in any legal concept of freedom of speech.
Really, so everything else about how people choose sex partners has been shown to have a biological component, yet pedophilia and only pedophilia is completely the person's choice? Can we at least get on the logic train once in a while?
Most sexual choices are at least partially biologically determined. We've been genetically programmed to choose mates who look heathly -- symetrical faces for example, or muscular, or in the case of women -- able to nuture and care for the future children. We evolved to have certain preferrences, because that choice determines whether or not your offspring stand a fair chance of survival. It's nature, we're sexual beings by nature.
I don't think that's "naziism" so much as "evolution".
And as I said before, my beef with pedophiles is that they rape kids. Kids are too weak to fight off a grown man, too nieve to believe that someone would use them in a way that could hurt them, and too easily talked into believing that they "want" whatever an adult tells them to want. Consentual Sex between equals of any type whatsoever doesn't bother me. But when you get down to either rape or molestation, it's not the same thing. They didn't concent, they don't want your dick, and you forced or tricked them anyway. (this includes BTW getting your girlfriend drunk or high so she'll agree to anything you want).
++++
I think there are differences in culture that might make a women more likely to report in the US than many other places in the world. One is anonymity -- we don't tell the nation the names of rape victims to protect them from media scrutiny (like people asking if she was wearing skanky clothes, how many sex partners she'd had earlier, whether she was drunk, or other things that tend to imply that it's her fault she got raped), and another is that we don't have what could be called immorality laws -- we don't stone rapists and rape victims as happens in some muslim countries. We also make it crystal clear that rape is never a woman's fault, something else that isn't a worldwide phenomena.
Laws and cultures vary widely, and I don't think it's reasonable to assume that a Japanese woman is equally as likely to report a rape as a New Yorker. In fact, I think the reporting probably varies even in the US. Add to this the obvious fact that Japan and the US are different countries, and thus likely have different definitions of "rape", "molestation", and different ages of concent, and you'd have a mess in trying to compare the two. So I don't think we can directly compare the US and Japanese rape reporting.
Just for the record, I'm pretty much addicted on loli pr0ns, but the sight of an actual child disgusts me. Fucking drooling, whining pieces of shit. The older they get, the more whinney and annoying they become. I'd rather shoot them in the face(with a gun, that is), than stick my p0n0 into their little vag0000.
i love you.
> p0n0
> vag0000
Just for the record, your mother doesn't read this channel, so she won't smack you for say penis or vagina
>>27
I don't see four paragraphs of explanations on freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights. It's short and succinct.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm
That's it. Argue until you're blue in the face, it still doesn't change the fact that it's so broad that it covers erotica too.
>>32
I really don't care to argue, but I've you've already shown obscenity to be a limit on freedom of speech (whether reasonable or not). Which could cover easily cover pornography. (Erotica? That's another story, due to the ability to easily argue for artistic merit.)
> I really don't care to argue, but you've already shown obscenity to be a limit on freedom of speech (whether reasonable or not). Which could easily cover pornography. (Erotica? That's another story, due to the ability to easily argue for artistic merit.)
Oh, come now. All you have to do is check the ID of the damn loli to see that they're 18... just ask all the middle school kids that are featured.
The Constitution protects possession and production of obscene material, provided nobody was hurt in the process. You can even show it to a willing audience in the privacy of your own home. What you are forbidden from doing is distribute obscene material. The possession argument won't fly in court for some obscene materials, such as child pornography because a minor's rights were trampled upon.
> What you are forbidden from doing is distribute obscene material.
How is it free 'speech', if your not allowed to 'say' it?
Where is the minor? I only see some lines on a screen.
Solution: Wipe your porn collection if you decide to enter or leave Australia.
Problem solved.
Why would anybody enter Australia?
>>43
So if it's on paper, that's okay?
FUCKING WIN!
>>44
what
>No, that's inaccurate.
>there are better than 75% odds that a man trying to import lolicon has probably raped at least one child.
>No, that's inaccurate.
>there are better than 75% odds that a man trying to import lolicon has probably raped at least one child.
>No, that's inaccurate.
>there are better than 75% odds that a man trying to import lolicon has probably raped at least one child.
Yep, you're the one to talk about accuracy.
No, it's not even close to what was said. That was always an estimate. No one has done a ligitamate study (actually getting accurate data for that type of study is impossible as admitting to child rape leads to very long jail terms and a lifetime on a Sex-Offender List), so we don't know.
But considering that lolicon is child porn, I think that most people looking at child porn want to have sex with children. If not, then they wouldn't be collecting images of child pornography. Given that most people will eventually try to act on their sexual drives, it's not too far of a stretch to think that a person going so far as to import lolicon from japan might have acted on his impulses.
Good job, deduction based on absolutely nothing.
Perhaps these people enjoy lolicon pornography precisely BECAUSE they do not wish to harm children with their impulses?
Or perhaps they don't. I can't tell for sure. The point is; neither can you.
>Given that most people will eventually try to act on their sexual drives
See, you keep spouting all this crap without any reasoning.
Reread >>16
>>45
1. Amass pr0ns on 3.5TB AES encrypted LVM partition on homebrew NAS.
2. Host NAS in cheap Malaysian datacenter and configure L2TP IPSEC VPN server.
3. ???
4. Fap everywhere (except N Korea, China, and Myanmar I guess)!
Fix'd.
or just get yourself a shaved monkey prostitute
either way, lolicon lovers are aroused by kids. What's to say they won't rape someone and thus ruin lives? Kids aren't as smart oftentimes as adults are and thus may get trapped by adults.
now you know why pedopr0n is illegal
What's to say someone who doesn't like lolicon won't also rape a kid?
As for anyone who has been exposed to it and was not aroused in the least... I'd say it's a safe assumption that they wouldn't.
I dunno. The aesthetic of anime-ish pictures of girls being raped and the real thing... frankly the real thing would gross me out, but drawn stuff is kind of hot.
better argument:
what's to say MILF lovers wont just find some housewife and rape her?
YOU CAN'T PUNISH SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE YET. sorry if that's scary for you people - watch minority report. why the hell do you think gov't agencies aren't supposed to be able to see library reading habits? Unfortunately, crime is unstoppable under current freedom laws, otherwise, why not just arrest//kill everyone who isn't "normal"? while we're friggin at it? That'd solve everything!
people like some pron in a fantasy setting, but not in real life. Or they might be getting something out of loli-Pr0n that you don't underdstand. maybe they collect it purely because it's risqe? Maybe they collect it to see what the hell is going on in lolicon minds? I don't know, you don't know, but ZERO TOLERANCE and GENERALIZATIONS are stupid ideas that hurt the innocent.
anyway for the record, I think people that abuse children (or anyone for that matter) deserve harsh punishment.
> what's to say MILF lovers wont just find some housewife and rape her?
Still not a very good argument.
Prepubescent children don't have the same intellectual capacity that an adult does.
This is why we have a crime called "statutory rape". Children's underdeveloped genitals are to be left well until they're emotionally and physically ready. (Otherwise known as adulthood, or adolescence for early bloomers)
> YOU CAN'T PUNISH SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE YET.
What? I thought we where talking about possession of lolicon, not childrape. Not that I think lolicon should be outlawed.
> watch minority report.
That's science fiction, and technology and/or mutants capable of reading minds might never materialize. Either way, I'd rather advise reading the book.
> why the hell do you think gov't agencies aren't supposed to be able to see library reading habits?
The only thing stopping them is librarians, and they have no objections to reporting suspected paedophiles (not implying anything here). These are the only type of criminals librarians feel obligated to turn in.
> why not just arrest//kill everyone who isn't "normal"?
Please stay grounded here, I won't appreciate being called a fascist and neither will you.
> I don't know, you don't know,
You seem awfully emotional and defensive about it for not knowing.
> ZERO TOLERANCE
Not a political catch-phrase that I advocate.
> GENERALIZATIONS
I've made none... have you?
I was more or less replying to the whole thread. i was just saying that just because somebody likes a certain kind of porn doesn't make them a rapist or child molester, as >>52 implied. Also, that many of the statements so far are just unconfirmed research and generalizations. My comment about zero-tolerance wasn't about anything in the thread per-se, just that there seems to be a move towards this approach, which could be dangerous and ruin the lives of innocent people.
>Prepubescent children don't have the same intellectual capacity that an adult does...
however, i don't get what you're trying to say here. i think everyone already agrees that having sex with a kid whether they want to or not is rape.
> YOU CAN'T PUNISH SOMEBODY FOR SOMETHING THEY HAVEN'T DONE YET.
i just meant that if somebody merely posesses this kind of stuff doesn't make them immediately guilty of possibly commiting worse crimes (like childrape) and thus shouldn't have to "sign up" for some service, which is a huge invasion of privacy.
all that being said, though, there's a thing called common sense. if a guy has a duffel bag with knives, rope, duct tape, tarps, and violent porn, you should probably "detain" the guy.
> if somebody merely posesses this kind of stuff ... shouldn't have to "sign up" for some service, which is a huge invasion of privacy.
> How about a National Lolicon Registration program? Registrants get free porn in exchange for their freedom of privacy.
I think it's clear this (satirical proposal for a) government program is entirely voluntary.
> just because somebody likes a certain kind of porn doesn't make them a rapist or child molester
I'd think it's safe to assume it bumps up the odds that they would offend or already have, especially if this 'certain kind of porn' depicts children. Compared to someone that does not like this 'certain kind of porn', of course.
> zero-tolerance... could be dangerous and ruin the lives of innocent people.
Agreed, it already has damaged lives, but mostly in the context of young people on the wrong side of their birthday.
For the record, I think the whole lolicon is about as gray an area as you can get.
Questions to ask:
"Is this sexualized animated character depicted as being of legal and ethical age?"
"How do I know this character depicted is underage?"
"If a disclaimer states that the character is 900 years old, how does that validate it being depicted with a child's body proportions and dimensions?"
"What's to say that this other character that looks exactly the same, only with 34DD breasts, is not also underage?"
"Where do we draw the line to avoid any potential misjudgement?"
I think a case-by-case basis is best for this, but that's why we have courts and appeals courts.
Ever here of "sexual tourism" it's basically fags looking for young children to fuck in countries where the law doesn't care about it.
I say lock away the lolicon lovers. If they like fapping to kids, real or fictional, they probably dream of fucking real kids.
>>61
As an Australian at least, it is illegal as an Australian citizen to go to another country and have sex with a girl under the age of consent in this country.
Weird rule, but probably a good idea.
Very funny, and relevant too!
But if they haven't really fucked real kids, you can't lock them away just because they might. When you were in school, didn't you ever fantasize about, say, burning down the place? You'd never do it, you didn't really want to do it in real life (something that post-Columbine no one understands anymore), you just occasionally wanted it all to go. You can do something constantly in your fantasy life and never do it in real life, and I'd argue that it's far more common than not for it only to happen in the fantasy world.
There's a difference between the two. A person looking at child porn isn't having just a momentary thought, he's not making plans. Having "burning down buildings pr0n" would make the whole thing different. Saying "I wanna burn down the school" by itself is no big deal. Saying "I wanna burn down the school" while collecting and drawing pictures of buildings burning, collecting matches and gasoline drums, etc. is different.
That's because he's collecting matches and gasoline drums. We're not talking about collecting the prerequisites to rape, we're talking about looking at some pictures.
> we're talking about looking at some pictures.
That's intellectually dishonest.
> we're talking about lusting at some pictures while he masturbates.
That's better.
> We're not talking about collecting the prerequisites to rape
Lust is one of those prerequisites. Nothing else is required, aside from the ability to overpower the victim.
I don't think lolicon should be equated with child pornography, but if you can't stop all the downloadin', I don't what self-control you would have to stop you from moving on to the genuine article.
There is "burning down buildings" pr0n. Every summer, there's no shortage of blockbuster movies about things blowing up. Sometimes they show the same explosion from different angles, all in a row. Boom! These movies usually do well outside the US, and they say it's because nobody's paying attention to the dialogue, so nothing gets lost in translation.
And now there's horror porn, too. Does Hostel Part 2 have any redeeming qualities apart from how you get to see a lot of teenagers tortured to death? Those movies make all sorts of money.
Therefore, comics about people doing horrible perverted sexual things should be no different, i.e. allowed.
>>70
You are an idiot.
>>71
Takes one to know one.
>>72
You are an idiot.
> Lust is one of those prerequisites. Nothing else is required, aside from the ability to overpower the victim.
Well, I guess we had better ban people going to the gym too.
wait... theres something better than Bible Black?
Can I get a link or two?
>>75
Nope, but certain 'date rape' drugs are controlled substances.
Keep working on those analogies.
A thought, graphic depiction could 'inspire' pedos. However while there are people who like to act out their fantasies ie: cosplayers. I don't hear of many people (who aren't on drugs or insane) trying to fly by jumping or to blow things up using chi.
There is a line of choice between inspiration, imagination and action. To do something it generally takes all three.
>>77
There is a difference between what goes in the head and what goes in the real world. Maybe it's just me, but I like being able to think about whatever the hell I want to. I know what I do depends on society because my actions have effect but my mind is my playing field.
> to blow things up using chi.
Apparently you haven't had the displeasure of reading a dragon ball z forum.
>>79
You can think about whatever you want.
There are no laws against private thoughts, and there is no technology to prosecute these non-existent laws.
However, for better or worse, some laws do exist concerning possession or distribution of certain kinds of pornographic images.
>>81
You don't need to go to the gym, either.
I think I would...
>>83
You can't overpower a child?
I think you might have a degenerative muscular disease.
I do. It's a problem, now the whole world knows. :-(