/loli/ - Lolis

Duh. Loli lovers, and artists are MAPs.

>>29285

>One of the well know rumors is Rustle, no proof though

There is no proof, but yeah, a pretty widespread rumor.

>That german game also based some of the characters from real life young models where legally is very ambiguous.

Only one was based on a real life candy doll girl. The others were to a certain extent references to real life girls,but no tracing, so legally there is nothing wrong.

>Japan in general also freely has idols and might use some of that

Yeah. Some of the lazier artists might do that.

It happens with some artists, but I dont know any specifics.

>>29313

Do you have any source on that?

Also were those references real porn or idol shit?

>>29315

Its something I read on 2chan a few years ago while I was hunting for pics and its porn, but its a rumor, there is no proof. There is another, that one of the artist that is rumored to be Motoi Yoshida, use real stories when he is drawing for LO.

It's all unprove-able rumors that can never be proven. The exception is a company that made images that are cartoonized CP, but again you can't prove if they traced the image directly or just used them as references. Bring up these rumors just cause arguments. As for real life references it is still common practice in the art world to use references for anatomy but loli 95% of the time doesn't use real human anatomy.

>>29302

Zero proof, make Rustle the biggest of the rumors. Any one can put the letters on their art, the letters are just another way to say loli. Loli is literally PTHC art after all, you're just reading WAY too much into it.

>>29321

Unteralterbach is proven though

>>29330

>>29330

proven what? That Fuchur traced CP? or that he used the likeness of IRL girls? Because only the second is proven to be true in some cases.

>>29285

I was one of the guys posting about this in another thread, but understandably I'm not going to drop any names, so whether or not you want to believe me is up to you. I'm certain that most of the artists I've commissioned stopped drawing completely, and those who haven't did so with the underage stuff with the HF and paheal exodus.

Whenever that subject came up I never asked any follow up questions, but from what I could tell from those I commissioned, they have/had it mainly as technical reference, since they also admitted to possessing legal child nudity pics, or scans of books that used to be legal and are now pretty much considered cp("Show Me, etc").

>>29335

Also, Apostle is confirmed for possessing cp since he based one of his Lisa Simpson r34 pics on a famous 90s CP vid that circulated the net.

>>29335

And you don't have any proof of this? No chat logs talking to them at all? It all just looks like accusations.

>>29333

Anne Frank (Fuchur) said that not only was Laura based on a real life girl, but also Maja and Emily as well. And I'm sure the witch twins were also if my memory serves me correct. He admitted to that on a thread. He confirmed though that he only took inspiration from the looks and the names and nothing else.

>>29330

Not in the slightest. All his work is original, drawing parody characters is not even close to tracing CP.

>>29345

Parody=/=tracing CP. Parody loli art is very old.

>>29335

Are the other people you talked to were pretty much nobodies then other than Apsotle?

Why would they? They can already draw anything they can, how would a picture help them? Especially when 2d lolis barely has anything to do with real kids.

It is just normalfag conspiracy, if you can even call it conspiracy. And personally I believe it was just newfag trap to call Rustle's lolis a traced CP. If the person freaked out, he was newfag obviously.

>>29365

Didn't mean PTHC literally equals loli. Just that what is a preteen? A loli. I've seen it used in art other than Rustles before. It is art of a preteen girl having sex after all.

>>29365

Are you implying that Apostle drew that that Lisa comic? I don't think he did. I think it was from Orange Box.

>>29374

I don't know who made it, it's credited to Orange Box though. Where have i said it was Apostle?

>>29377

If you are this guy>>29336

>>29377

Yeah, sorry, that was my fault. Orangebox is what I wanted to write, not Apostle. I guess his mame slipped in there because he was one of the last great western loli artists and OB laid low years ago.

>>29358

No, they were all rather well known in the HF community at the time(around 2010). Not Sparrow tier, but far from being unknown.

>>29392

Then why are you being irresponsible and not putting out names? I don't believe you are lying so dish them out. Most of them are not doing shit as you said.

>>29397

Why would I tell you the names? Especially you, some anon on an IB that DEMANDS to know them?

Most of the artists admitted to me that they had some, and I'd be damned to make myself a target of the justice system by giving out their names. Whether you believe me or not, it's been already proven in this thread that many loli artists, western and eastern use real life references that are legally cp. You want to make a list and round em up? Do it yourself, I'm not helping.

>>29482

How will to police get you? That makes no sense since they aren't real names. Also plenty of people will just call bullshit anyways. I don't give a damn if they get put in prison. Also its a public image board.

Stop being retarded and protecting these degenerates.

>>29409

Behind what link, pixiv? That's direct trace from Tara's videos and pictures, her dad is long in jail.

You have to have a pixiv account to see the content.

I'm sure most of you know this, but I just wanted to point it out: Child porn laws are vague enough that traced CP is probably still CP. So be extremely careful if you come across anything you suspect to be such.

FTIW, this was also one of the justifications for banning loli in places like the UK.

>>29285

I'm not sure about tracing CP, but using real life referenced for anatomy is a given, It isn't hard or illegal to find nude pictures, nor is it uncommon for a person of any background to have a young girl relative who they've seen bare naked.

For the sake of art, it is all within respectable boundaries, so I wouldn't judge it as wrong.

I mean, It's not as if they had little girls locked up in cages to go and take measures of their bodies for their drawings, nobody is harmed by it.

CP is a different matter entirely, but without proof (the very image used as source) there really isn't much to go by.

>>29516

Yes as he said for the sake of drawing loli I would be fine with them using it as reference its not a big deal as long as they just keep making art

>>29516

The whole "legal nude pics" just sound shady since most likely something the source is something illegal or the people involved in it are doing something illegal. At the very least, it breaks the "Doesn't hurt anyone" barrier.

>>29557

Gotta be careful depending on where you live. An example is the US government can deem any pic, even fully clothed girls, CP at their discretion. They have some law that will make it illegal based on the intent of use of pics.

>>29565

Probably because its the intent and how it was taken.

>>29566

Nope, the way it was taken doesn't matter. It could be a normal pic of a girl standing there saying cheese, if they think you're a pedo they can call it CP because they will say the person is using the pic for sexual reasons. The most common use of this though is if they catch someone with CP they will up the charges by calling even non-sexual pics CP fo more charges.

>>29584

You are the only autist here, m8. The same projecting pedo that spergs out every now and then and the main cause for the repeating the same shit over and over.

>>29589

This board isn't that dead, theres way more than just one pedo here.

>>29593

Yes, but there's the same projecting pedo that always says the exact same things over and over.

So how accurate is the whole "Loli=/=Pedo" and "No one is getting hurt" then?

Though granted I think the people mentioned in this thread are a bunch of nobodies or people who were already suspected of anyways.

>>29614

I've come to the conclusion that it solely depends on what your definition of pedo is.

If your definition is matched by any person who likes loli, then loli = pedo according to your definition.

If your definition allows for people who like loli without being into children, then lol =/= pedo.

Among scientists, both kinds of definitions can be found. ICD-10 defines pedophilia as a preference for pre-pubescent children or children in an early state of puperty, which means it depends on the used definition of "child", i.e. whether drawings with child-like body types are supposed to be considered children. DSM-5 has a more constrained definition which contains a passage stating that in order to be a pedo, you have to be at least 16 years old. That is, according to DSM-5 loli-likers below the age of 16 are an example of loli =/= pedo.

World class sexologists from Berlin (Charité hospital) use a definition which refers to attraction by body (type?) alone, so I'd think they'd consider all loli-lovers pedo. However, they are known to have a very differentiated view on pedophilia so maybe by bodies they refer just to real bodies.

Gunter Schmidt (another somewhat famous sexologist) uses a definition which utilizes wishes for relationship and love. So unless you want to have a relationship with a drawn girl (or love it) you shouldn't be called a pedo according to his definition. There are also behavior-oriented definitions which require a pedo to actively abuse children and gain sexual pleasure from that. When using such definitions, most people who like loli aren't even close to being pedos.

As for "No one is getting hurt", it's undeniably true as far as the children are concerned. (Even if the depicted "child" has a real counterpart, that real counterpart wasn't hurt by being drawn. He or she might have been hurt by something else, but that independently of being drawn.) However, loli is just like Mohammed caricatures: These caricatures "hurt" Muslims, likewise do loli drawings "hurt" people who don't like children being sexualized this way. Bear in mind, however, that this isn't physical injury. It must be protected by freedom of speech, just like Mohammed caricatures have to be protected by freedom of speech: Otherwise, any religion, literally anyone would be able to make anything illegal because it "hurts them". (No offense to Muslims intended.)

As for my personal definitions, I think it's unfair to deem someone a homo, a pedo etc. because of the things he or she faps to. If whatever the porn industry produces is really based upon demand and supply, we'd have to consider half America as into butt sex. Might be true, but I just can't get my head around how a country where you can get accused of sexual harassment for paying a compliment can be that decadent. Plus, loli is about body type, not age. So I use a definition which allows for people liking lolicon without being pedo.

>>29620

>Even if the depicted "child" has a real counterpart, that real counterpart wasn't hurt by being drawn

Actually, it does since its made by a person perpetuating the real thing. So yes it does hurt her.

>>29649

Not him but no it doesn't. Same goes for any kids in art or posing for medical books. They are not hurt either physically or mentally in posing for art.

>>29650

I'm pretty sure using child porn mentally hurts them

>>29652

No one here was taking about child porn, and again it doesn't. Even if someone used CP as a reference any harm received (if they received any at all) was independent from the artist's work. How can they be mentally hurt by them not knowing a pic of them was used as reference? Doesn't happen.

>>29660

The fact you don't get the point when its so obvious shows how far off reality you really are.

>>29679

Nice back peddle.

>>29679

Little kids run around naked all the time with their families. Taking a picture of them and never sharing it with anyone else literally hurts the child not at all.

>>29680

Its not a back peddle. If he doesn't understand the obvious reason why using CP is bad, then theres no point in arguing with him. He'll make all kinds of wacked up logic that no one else buys into. Using CP where children are getting fucked for drawings hurts the kid, doesn't matter if they enjoy it or not.

>>29690

Huge back peddled. You broguht up using CP when I wasn't talking about id and when I refuted and harm you changed to saying the point you brought up wasn't the point. The kid is not hurt, the kids is not the drawing, the drawing is fake, zero harm is done because it is not reality. The kids were not fucked for drawing, it has already occurred, any harm is independent to the artist's work. It's sad that you have to keep moving the goal posts to look right, you are now trying to bring up hardcore CP in which still harm in not a given, there is no harm if they enjoy it, but again no one was talking about CP like this. Stop forcing you own unrelated point into this.

>>29649

>>29650

>>29652

>>29660

>>29679

>>29680

>>29682

>>29690

>>29703

>>29620 here.

>Actually, it does since its made by a person perpetuating the real thing. So yes it does hurt her.

Admittedly, you're making a valid point. However, first I'd still say the reason why that child is hurt by someone "perpetuating the real thing" lies deeper: That it's being perpetuated wouldn't be something that hurts if the thing that's being perpetuated wouldn't have been something that hurts in the first place. So if the (traced or otherwisely reproduced) real original doesn't hurt the child, neither does the reproduction; if the real original hurts the child, it does so independently of whether it's being reproduced in any way. The pains or sorrows a child feels "because of the reproduction" is rather because of the original.

Second, I addressed the point of mental harm separately: Physical harm cannot be done to a child by drawing it or, even more indirect, reproducing a recording of the child. As for mental harm, I do see the point because things like cyber-bullying are an issue. Maybe I should have made clearer that I was talking about physical harm because mental harm is a far more complex issue which cannot be dealt with in such a dogmatic way.

Third, we're mainly talking about artists taking inspirations from child porn, aren't we? Apart from the (separately interesting) question whether watching (neither producing nor trading) child porn can sensibly be considered "hurting children", the children in the images or films aren't usually reproduced precisely. Even if they're traced, in order to make them look manga-style you have to exaggerate the eyes etc., so I'm not even sure they would be recognizable. Even less if it's just their genitals which are reproduced. No, I don't think a child is being hurt more from someone tracing her pussy than from her pussy having been photographed alone.

The main point you should keep in mind when discussing my post is that I tried to abstract away the question whether the use of child porn per se causes harm to children and focus on whether tracing or artistically reproducing it hurts children apart from that. Which, I think, isn't the case, clearly not when talking about physical harm and not intrinsically when talking about mental harm.

>>29715

It still does not harm them. The "CP" used as references are like the LS models level stuff. On the very rare occasion they are used it is for anatomical reference. It still does not inflect harm in any form. It would be like saying every time you watch a video of a person getting run over they are hurt again.

>>29715

Yeah, you don't get what I'm saying at all.

Watching child porn does hurt the child because their traumatic experience is being used for fap bait. Sure the fapper isn't there physically doing it again but he is still masturbating to it. Its the same thing about fapping to a rape of a consensual adult.

You can find what logic you can use to separate but it doesn't change the fact that you are participating in that traumatic moment for using someone trauma for the sake of your own pleasure.

>inb4 SJW

>>29729

>By your logic, playing Call of Duty is offensive to WWII veterans and their familiars because that traumatic experience has been turned into a "fun" game you're supposed to enjoy. Same with any other war game covering real battles. Same with splatter/slasher movies covering real cases. Same any other form of entertainment that, even when they're not involved with the original case, "they use that experience for the sake of selfish pleasure".

That works for Lolicon, not CP

>>29728

You must not watch CP. 95% of CP is either consensual (even hardcore) or made by the child themselves, there is no harm. And like a previous post of mine, watching something does not in any way add, re-enforce or repeat harm, if any, to a person. The only way you could ever have been considered to cause the child harm is if it was actual rape and you were the one raping them or filming the rape

So is there any proof of Comic LO artists using CP for their drawings?

>>29754

No hard proof. They did images that appear to be direct references to CP images. Although the images are of very common poses so take it as you will.

>>29763

Yes we have, and again, you have zero real evidence of tracing. You can never prove it. I'm sure you wan to believe it with all your might because it gets you off more.

>>29764

Anon i just don't want to upload child porn on my loli board. Choose to believe whatever you want. I was just mainly pointing to the fact that it's not Comic LO covers, just a parody.

>>29763

I agree with this, I don't know too much about "LO" (I didn't know that the nude drawings were a parody) but all of them seem to be traces of SC, one that I really noticed that was practically line for line is the one where the girl is on the beach with her backside to the camera, the only difference was that her face was (in my opinion) ruined and a fly was removed from her but.

A lot of them seem to be taken from LS & BD Company.

this is all fiction btw

>>29768

I see >>24100 has the one I'm talking about

>>29766

Even if you did upload the pics it changes nothing. You still can never prove it was traced, only that circumstantial evidence show they were, at best, referenced for parody. Those pics are not the only pics in the world with these poses, so the poses have little effect on the claim.

>>29770

I'm assuming that you've never seen any of the photos in question, some of these if you put the two thumbnails next to each other it'd be hard to say which is which.

>>29772

I have, and not they are not identical. You are again making 100% wild assumption. They are not even remotely close enough to be indistinguishable.

>>29760

Any of them using them as references?

>>29780

?

>>29790

Like, they don't trace, but they still have it and use some of it for their drawings.

>>29790

Like, they don't trace, but they still have it and use some of it for their drawings.

>>29728

>Yeah, you don't get what I'm saying at all.

No, it seems to me you don't get what I am saying at all. Let's just address what you're saying in your post:

>Watching child porn does hurt the child because their traumatic experience is being used for fap bait.

I just can't get my head around how watching something recorded earlier can hurt anyone, if we look at it separately from how the thing that has been recorded might have hurt someone. A simple example: You watch a video clip showing a Vietnamese girl being shot by an American solider in the Vietnam War. According to your logic, by watching that clip you hurt her. How? She's already dead.

Watching that clip – depending on your intention of watching it – may be morally questionable, e.g. defiling the girl's remembrance, but hurt her? Unless we're talking about some metaphysical or religious stuff, no.

>you are participating in that traumatic moment for using someone trauma for the sake of your own pleasure.

If I watched CP (something I don't do) and using it for my own pleasure, I would most probably not care about any trauma or someone in the video getting/being traumatized. I wouldn't take pleasure in a trauma… and I don't think pedos would either (or at least most of them). A sadist might, but not all pedos are sadists. What I want to get at is that it's not the trauma you use for the sake of your own pleasure when using CP for the sake of your own pleasure.

However, it does anyway not bear any significance for the question whether reproducing actual CP as loli art harms any children because as a person who is watching loli you're not watching actual CP, i.e. you're not watching a recording of an actual, real child doing something sexual. Even if the loli you're watching is based on some actual CP, you're not watching that actual CP. Even if it were all about trauma (e.g. even if you're taking pleasure in the girl's trauma), it would be about a drawn girl's trauma. I'd even say it would be about a fictitious girl's trauma. Just because the picture could be based entirely on fantasy.

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong regarding the person who reproduces the CP – i.e. the loli artist –, this should serve as an illustration why any attempt to impose this on the person who watches the loli – the consumer – is inherently flawed.

>You can find what logic you can use to separate but it doesn't change the fact

Sounds like: "I'm right whatever you find to prove me wrong." Not a good basis for any discussion, by the way. Note that in >>29715 I'm not even trying to dismiss your point of mental harm, I'm just questioning its generality.

>>29728

>Yeah, you don't get what I'm saying at all.

No, it seems to me you don't get what I am saying at all. Let's just address what you're saying in your post:

>Watching child porn does hurt the child because their traumatic experience is being used for fap bait.

I just can't get my head around how watching something recorded earlier can hurt anyone, if we look at it separately from how the thing that has been recorded might have hurt someone. A simple example: You watch a video clip showing a Vietnamese girl being shot by an American solider in the Vietnam War. According to your logic, by watching that clip you hurt her. How? She's already dead.

Watching that clip – depending on your intention of watching it – may be morally questionable, e.g. defiling the girl's remembrance, but hurt her? Unless we're talking about some metaphysical or religious stuff, no.

>you are participating in that traumatic moment for using someone trauma for the sake of your own pleasure.

If I watched CP (something I don't do) and using it for my own pleasure, I would most probably not care about any trauma or someone in the video getting/being traumatized. I wouldn't take pleasure in a trauma… and I don't think pedos would either (or at least most of them). A sadist might, but not all pedos are sadists. What I want to get at is that it's not the trauma you use for the sake of your own pleasure when using CP for the sake of your own pleasure.

However, it does anyway not bear any significance for the question whether reproducing actual CP as loli art harms any children because as a person who is watching loli you're not watching actual CP, i.e. you're not watching a recording of an actual, real child doing something sexual. Even if the loli you're watching is based on some actual CP, you're not watching that actual CP. Even if it were all about trauma (e.g. even if you're taking pleasure in the girl's trauma), it would be about a drawn girl's trauma. I'd even say it would be about a fictitious girl's trauma. Just because the picture could be based entirely on fantasy.

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong regarding the person who reproduces the CP – i.e. the loli artist –, this should serve as an illustration why any attempt to impose this on the person who watches the loli – the consumer – is inherently flawed.

>You can find what logic you can use to separate but it doesn't change the fact

Sounds like: "I'm right whatever you find to prove me wrong." Not a good basis for any discussion, by the way. Note that in >>29715 I'm not even trying to dismiss your point of mental harm, I'm just questioning its generality.

>>29728

>Yeah, you don't get what I'm saying at all.

No, it seems to me you don't get what I am saying at all. Let's just address what you're saying in your post:

>Watching child porn does hurt the child because their traumatic experience is being used for fap bait.

I just can't get my head around how watching something recorded earlier can hurt anyone, if we look at it separately from how the thing that has been recorded might have hurt someone. A simple example: You watch a video clip showing a Vietnamese girl being shot by an American solider in the Vietnam War. According to your logic, by watching that clip you hurt her. How? She's already dead.

Watching that clip – depending on your intention of watching it – may be morally questionable, e.g. defiling the girl's remembrance, but hurt her? Unless we're talking about some metaphysical or religious stuff, no.

>you are participating in that traumatic moment for using someone trauma for the sake of your own pleasure.

If I watched CP (something I don't do) and using it for my own pleasure, I would most probably not care about any trauma or someone in the video getting/being traumatized. I wouldn't take pleasure in a trauma… and I don't think pedos would either (or at least most of them). A sadist might, but not all pedos are sadists. What I want to get at is that it's not the trauma you use for the sake of your own pleasure when using CP for the sake of your own pleasure.

However, it does anyway not bear any significance for the question whether reproducing actual CP as loli art harms any children because as a person who is watching loli you're not watching actual CP, i.e. you're not watching a recording of an actual, real child doing something sexual. Even if the loli you're watching is based on some actual CP, you're not watching that actual CP. Even if it were all about trauma (e.g. even if you're taking pleasure in the girl's trauma), it would be about a drawn girl's trauma. I'd even say it would be about a fictitious girl's trauma. Just because the picture could be based entirely on fantasy.

Regardless of whether you're right or wrong regarding the person who reproduces the CP – i.e. the loli artist –, this should serve as an illustration why any attempt to impose this on the person who watches the loli – the consumer – is inherently flawed.

>You can find what logic you can use to separate but it doesn't change the fact

Sounds like: "I'm right whatever you find to prove me wrong." Not a good basis for any discussion, by the way. Note that in >>29715 I'm not even trying to dismiss your point of mental harm, I'm just questioning its generality.

>>29797

Circumstantial evidence says yes. That they at least seen original the pics and and referenced or when off memory when making those specific pics.

>>29807

That sounds like a paranoid opinion than a fact.

>>29802

>>29804

>>29805

Supplement:

After due consideration I think we might have misunderstood each other. Maybe your untenable "Whoever watches a video showing someone get hurt hurts that person" claim confused me too much.

What you might have been trying to put forward though is that the possibility of someone watching it might hurt the child. But that's a somewhat different issue.

I mean, does it hurt a girl if some dude on the other side of the planet faps without anyone knowing to a video showing her getting raped? If my notion of causality is correct, this isn't possible.

Can, however, the possibility that someone might be fapping to that video hurt the girl? Yes, it can, especially if the girl knows that the video is around. (If she doesn't know, one can argue that she will eventually find out, so I don't want to go into detail regarding this case.)

The big difference is that the general possibility – the availability of the video – is a singular reason to cause the girl (mental) harm. She doesn't get hurt by each individual event of fapping to the video, she gets hurt by the existence and availability of the video. (She also got hurt when it was produced, but that's not what I'm talking about here.) Moreover, it also hurts here even if no single person is fapping to that video or has ever fapped to it, because the possibility someone could exists and that's what's the real reason for the girl's mental troubles.

A particular person who does fap to the video, then, doesn't hurt her, nor does the act of fapping. But that's what I already said in >>29715 – it's the video (and, as I have to add, its availablility to fappers) that hurts the child, not someone watching it. Otherwise, the more people fapped to the video, the more would the girl get hurt. But it would be cynical to say a girl appearing in CP only her father has ever watched is hurt less than a girl appearing in CP 1,000,000 pedos all over the world have watched and fapped to.

So how can we apply this insight to the question whether loli hurts anyone if it's a reproduction of some actual CP? Well, somewhere we have to draw the line. We cannot make any reproduction or reference inherit every bad property of the original, especially when it comes to reproductions of reproductions and so on. We might argue whether that CP being around offering a loli artist the possibility or opportunity to reproduce or reference it is harmful to the child in question, but making the resulting loli art collectively liable to harm inflicted on the child is already overboard. Eventually we could say watching an interview with a soldier who's survived a massacre in Afghanistan hurts him because it's a reproduction of a recording (his memory) of pain he's suffered from. That doesn't make sense.

I don't know by the way why my last post was posted thrice.

The fact you don't see why CP harms a child shows how far you are from reality. You are fapping to a child getting raped. A real one. Doesn't matter if she enjoys it, shes underaged.

Comparing it to news of people being killed is a false equivalence.

God you are so fucking retarded.

>>29820

"getting raped" (She wants it)… Contradiction… "Wants it = not rape", "Rape = doesn't want it", thus, rape.

You don't want them doing it, doesn't make it rape. That makes it a selfish issue of "I don't want it, so she/he can't do it." Take your third-party opinions and wishes to your own fantasy land.

"comparing it to news of people"…

That is exactly what it is. Recorded news. You play a recording of a guy getting mauled by a monkey, or shot in war, or being raped… That is exactly the same thing as anyone watching a video of CP. Exactly… (You are hurting them by watching… Idiots… Oh, but that, you don't care, because again… selfish, ignorance.)

Rape is rape, sex is sex, love is love, molesting is molesting… Period. Legal consent is irrelevant, except for legal enforcement. Anyone can consent, but legally, they can't, to that. But at 13, they can consent to anything-else, legally. But anyone with the ability to answer "Yes", can give consent. That is what consent is. Legal consent is just "a defense contract", which the state or government won't "support or acknowledge", because they refuse to. However, it has been turned around into "prosecutable by law", by morons. (Usually it is the breaking of consent, contract, which is only breaking the law, not the other way around.)

It has nothing to do with child safety, because it occurs "after the fact". So that is not even a valid excuse, at all.

However, it does protect the pedo… keeping him alive from angry mobs, when everyone goes ape-shit and gets "uncivil", as the preachings they stand behind… "Oh, let us kill him! He pleasured her, and we didn't want him to…" but then they cry, "Why can't we?" Oh, yea, because in order to claim to be civil, you can't, or your stupid laws about "don't touch what I don't want you to touch on that other person who I have no right saying what they do…" would not be defended or honored.

And, thus, the stupidity and conundrums continue and kids just get raped behind closed doors and now also killed and silenced, so the guys/girls don't get caught when they stupidly threaten to squeal.

Derp! Derp! Why society keep failing? Make a law against stupidity, and pretend not to be stupid and point at everyone-else, again… still…

>>29822

Adding…

If a child can't "consent legally", then they can't be legally held responsible for the laws either, which is a consensual contract, legally, that NONE OF US ever even agreed to, nor were any extents of the law ever "taught" as any part of any curriculum in "state/national schools".

So many laws that it takes many several years of "law school", just to become familiar with ONE of the 38 areas of law, to even be able to honestly and fairly defend yourself in any specific situation. How the hell is anyone even supposed to know if they are even breaking the law? (I guarantee everyone has, because of the stupid loose wording and catch-all structures that make it illegal just to live, breath, walk, and talk to anyone who isn't yourself.)

But anyways… 13 is what is actually considered an "adult", whether you believe it or not. That is the age where they allow "unsupervised use of the internet", and "allow credits cards" and "jobs"… Just not the ability to consent legally to sex. But, you can have sex, with or without consent, just not legally. Trust me, it isn't "enforced", unless some jackass brings it to court. Luckily, most never go to court.

Now, below 13… There are still rare instances when children are tried as adults… Which brings up the conundrum… You can't try a kid as an adult for "having sex", because you just LEGALLY admitted they are "an adult, tried as an adult for making an adult decision", and "as an adult, that decision to have sex was thus, not breaking the law." Which means you have to try them as a kid, which is simply a slap on the wrist to them. Instead, they go for the "brownie points" for when they "run for office" or "run for another judge-term", and punish the older individual. Instead of giving them a fair trial. They already made the judgement, before the trial, by that law itself, and its allowance of ignorance to remove the fairness by saying "any sex is rape" or "molesting", or "harmful"…

Personally, the last time I fucked a kid, was when I was a kid. Everyone knew… She had a big mouth, and so did I. You know who gave a fuck… No-one… Lucky me.

Now, had I raped her… or actually molested (unwanted molesting, not consensual molesting.) Then that would have been a whole other issue.

However, I am happy reliving the memories in my art and in others art, and in my head. CP actually disturbs me. (Actual porn/sex, not nudity.) Even when it is pleasurable for them, like when they make the video themselves, which is the majority of all new CP coming out now. (Thanks Paris Hilton and all you other praised idiots who these kids are idolizing. Oh, and apple, and youtube, and your failed society, oh, and YOU… Because your white-night brightness is blinding your dumbasses, again, from reality.)

>>29815

Paranoia has nothing to do with it. It can be called a rumor but not paranoia. Can't deny the fact the artists at least saw the original pics and made a drawn version of them.

>>29820

>The fact you don't see why CP harms a child

There you go again, moving the goalposts and trying to argue something that was never being discussed. Not to mention 90% of CP causes no harm anyway, as has already been stated. Just stop digging that hole you're in.

>>29838

>Can't deny the fact the artists at least saw the original pics and made a drawn version of them

Proof? or some elaboration? Because now you are stating baseless thing as facts. Do you actually know they did it?

If they did, can you provide examples? Not the "real ones", the drawn ones then explains why they were using real pics.

Have some legitimacy in your claims.

>>29820

Is this directed towards >>29805 / >>29818‛?

Because if it is, it just shows you haven't even read it.

Nobody here denies that rape harms children, or at least I haven't seen anyone.

>>29856

No HTML? Dafuq

>>29805 >>29818

>>29850

If you have seen both the original and the drawn pics it's all that's needed. Direct references to their poses, their looks/features and their location. the drawn pics are been quoted in this thread and right there to see. It's a fact the pics are parodies of the original. What can't be proven is that they were traced, which they weren't.

>>29864

That wasn't made by Comic LO, thats a parody of the comic. Those traced pictures were made by some nobody.

I'm talking about the people who actually work there.

>>29906

Not traced, just another parody. Pic is way too different to the original.

>>29906

I've never seen this picture but i recognize CP. It's BabyJ, the girl was raped all the way from when she was a toddler till when she was 8 or something. Her dad treated her like a fuck doll, pretty disturbing.

>>29911

She liked it so not rape

>>29906

The lines look off in that picture, is that a good hint in general?

>>29557

>At the very least, it breaks the "Doesn't hurt anyone" barrier.

How?

>>29620

Japan doesn't really differentiate between lolicon and paedo. They aren't that dishonest. They only differentiate between what is real life and what is not.

>>29715

>Admittedly, you're making a valid point.

Not really. That's like saying people who post in gore threads on /b/ are perpetuating terrorism or murder. They're not. It's both after the fact and in the case of drawings, entirely detached from the actual act.

Anyone who uses that reasoning must be fine with the claim that Call of Duty is perpetuating the celebration of war. Find a single person who is willing to make that claim with a straight face.

The amount of reach people are willing to go for attributing negativity towards acts of sex while using double standards for gratuitous violence, death and wanton murder is fucking disgusting.

>>29728

>Watching child porn does hurt the child because their traumatic experience is being used for fap bait.

See above. That's like saying people playing a WW1 or WW2 game are hurting war veterans because those games are using those traumatic experiences as a mechanic which rewards the person experiencing it in a pleasurable way in the same manner people who find arousal in watching pizza.

Be rational, normie.

>>29730

It's the same fucking thing. Stop with the special pleading already.

Or if we are to use your special pleading here, the live depictions of Vietnam should apply the same. That was shown on prime time TV.

Go fuck yourself hypocrite.

>>29951

No its not pedofag.

No one else compares movies to illegal content with real children having sex.

I heard there was CP tracing during 2009. Not sure if it was Rustle though. Probably this>>29906

I do know that some loli sites do have actual pedophiles, like LoliconsRUs

>>30072

Dude, every community that allows loli has a significant number of pedos, which mostly ends up being a 50/50 split.

>>30072

Dude, every community that allows loli has a significant number of pedos, which mostly ends up being a 50/50 split.

>>30077

Yeah but they openly have people admit to having CP

>>29962

Fuck off hypocrite.

Your lack of ability to reason has no place here.

>>29951

>Japan doesn't really differentiate between lolicon and paedo.

Yes

>They aren't that dishonest.

Debatable.

>They only differentiate between what is real life and what is not.

Which is a reasonably down-to-earth distinction. Japanese are pragmatic people, after all.

>Not really. That's like saying people who post in gore threads on /b/ are perpetuating terrorism or murder.

I think it has been made clear in >>29802, >>29818, and even >>29715 itself that "you're making a valid point" has, in that case, to be severely relativized. It's hard to deduce what opinion that person who was told "you're making a valid point" actually has from all that shit he's been writing.

>the claim that Call of Duty is perpetuating the celebration of war

In some respect, it is, though. However, from the discussion in this thread I tend to believe that's not even close to what our moralist friend is trying to get at.

>The amount of reach people are willing to go for attributing negativity towards acts of sex while using double standards for gratuitous violence, death and wanton murder is fucking disgusting.

Yes.

>>29962

>No one else compares movies to illegal content with real children having sex.

They are movies though.

While I agree with you that video clips documenting an illegal act are something notably different from movies creating the illusion of an illegal act, but child abuse is literally the only illegal act which makes the recordings of it illegal, too, in most jurisdictions. And I wonder why.

You can watch movies showing children being killed or hamstringed in war without committing a crime, but you cannot do so with child porn. Why? If you used videos of mutilation arising in war for your own (sexual?) pleasure, most people would call you a sick pervert, too, and there might even be other laws you might be breaking (e.g. respect for the dead/injured), but in principle, you're allowed to watch them. CP you're not allowed to watch even if your intentions were entirely non-sexual.

In my opinion, there isn't any substantial difference between videos capturing child rape and videos capturing any other kind of traumatic experience.

>>29940

I'm not a native speaker, so what do you mean by "the lines look off"?

>>30101

Oh get arrested faggot, no one else is buying it

>>30107

Because the videos of child death in war isn't for fapping but to spread awareness of whats going on in wartorn countries you fucking retard.

>>30112

As far as i know it was only for sfw yuri manga he was working on. I don't think "he's admitted to tracing" CP. Poor guy, that's how rumors spread.

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2012-06-01/prism-yuri-manga-put-on-hold-due-to-similiarities-to-photos

I see there are a lot retards/pedophiles in this thread who seem to think viewing CP is a victim-less crime.

You don't seem to understand the fact that once images and videos make to the internet, they will almost always continue being traded or shared, depending on how 'good' the content is. This doesn't just apply to CP.

I'd love to see what you'd have to say if naked pictures/videos of you as a minor were being distributed and traded around the internet for some micro-dick predators to pleasure themselves to every night. Just stop and actually think about it for a second instead of trying to justify it using stupid comparisons

>>30123

If you want me to be totally honest I really wouldn't care in the state that I am now, but this could change for the reasons that the photos or videos were taken. And about the micro-dick predator masturbating thing, how can I know that some person like that isn't already fapping to some memory of him seeing me when I was out in public? The only way to stop that is to just never go anywhere, and how am I supposed to know that whatever doctor my parents had didn't masturbate to me when he got off of work?

>>30128

Paranoia like that doesn't justify actively doing it.

>>30130

You asked me how I'd feel, I wouldn't care.

>>30108

Something about the anatomy or lines just look off. In fact, it looks pretty sloppy for someone using a real reference. I don't know, something about it doesn't look right but I can see it using real life references.

>>30123

>viewing CP is a victim-less crime

Watching a video should never ever be a crime at all. Rationale see >>30107.

You, however, seem to be talking rather about distribution. Which is a completely different matter.

>You don't seem to understand the fact that once images and videos make to the internet, they will almost always continue being traded or shared, depending on how 'good' the content is. This doesn't just apply to CP.

Exactly, this doesn't just apply to CP, which is exactly the reason why this fact itself doesn't make anything a crime.

>I'd love to see what you'd have to say if naked pictures/videos of you as a minor were being distributed and traded around the internet

I would be concerned (tantalized, afflicted, actually) by the fact that it is around for anyone to fap to, but not by any specific person fapping to it. That person may be doing something morally questionable, but by watching the videos they aren't making anything worse than it already is. More clearly, I wouldn't care whether it's 10, 100, 1000, 10,000 or ten million people fapping to it, even one is one too many.

Well, actually I'm not even sure whether I'd care at all if there was nobody (or hardly anybody) out there able to establish the connection between the video and the person of me.

>>30184

How can getting pleasure off of a child being fucked NOT be a crime or morally sound? No one else in the world buys it.

>inb4 children can "consent" so its "not really hurting anyone"

>>30184

There's no point in trying to use logic with a SJW. nothing can take them off their imaginary high horse. He'll laugh his ass off at a video of someone dying or see nothing wrong with other doing so yet in the case of CP watching a past event is magically recreating a "victim" even if the CP is consensual.

>>30188

(not the anon you're responding to)

I'm not sure you realize this but tons of things that are considered CP are completely victimless, whether produced by children themselves, old modelling photos that were made with parental consent, 3DCG renders, drawings (in some places). CP is a blanket term for legislation directed towards "we don't want people to think lewd about children". Why do you think lolicon is sort of legal in the US? Do you think it's because the country thinks those drawings are not as immoral as some nude child pictures, that it's healthy to masturbate to them? No, it's because it's protected as artistic expression, nothing else.

>>30194

*tips fedora

>>30207

Dude, you used Islam as your defense.

And you missed the point on why Homosexuality and Interracial marriages were accepted. Because they were "Consenting Adults" hurting no one.

No one accepts pedophiles and never will. You can call me a SJW all you want(which ironically SJWs are more well known for your shit and they still get bashed) but you are just a sickfuck trying to justify yourself when everyone else in the world sees though your bullshit.

So yes, go tip your fedora against my "precious morals on todays society"

>>30207

Now he's damage controlling the damage control. Don't bully him too much, he can't understand why he is such a moronic SJW.

>>30209

Mentioning islamic countries was not a defense, its just a rebuttal to your "LITERALLY EVERYONE IN THE WORLD THINKS LIKE ME" comment.

A lot of good it did though since you're still spouting the same shit

>No one accepts pedophiles and never will.

>everyone else in the world sees through your bullshit

My last post proves you wrong and its painfully obvious you didn't even read it or the image I posted, so why reply at all?

Pedophilia was perfectly acceptable at the same time the "consenting adults" that were homosexual or wanted an interracial marriage were vilified to the same degree pedophilia is today.

Just because people draw the line today at "consenting adults" doesn't mean it was always that way, using that argument as though it applies throughout history just shows how small you're really thinking.

And no I don't think you're an SJW, just stupid and unable to read into anything like SJWs are.

>>30215

Just because it was accepted back then doesn't justify continuing doing it.

And yes, while literally not everyone does think that way, they are usually shitty countries. But that still doesn't change the fact that everywhere else believe that watching child porn is fucking awful.

Doesn't matter what was "right" a century ago, it was hated enough to be change then and still hated now.

If you think I'm being "foolish" than go tell everyone else about it and see what they think and how "smart" they think they are by watching CP. The Police know full well on what convicts think.

>>30221

You don't even know the reason why the age of consent was put into place do you?

It certainly wasn't because "THINK OF THE CHILDREN"

The people who pushed that law into effect had ulterior motives and were not concerned about the safety of children at all.

Don't let me try and tell you though, go research for yourself.

But we both know you don't actually give a shit and just want to spout the same rhetoric you were brought up to spout.

EXACTLY like the homophobes who are now shouted down any time they try and spout the rhetoric they were raised to spout.

What exactly makes your brand of moral outrage any more valid than a homophobes brand of moral outrage?

I can barely understand what that last sentence is trying to say but if you're telling me I'm wrong because I won't admit I'm a witch during the witch hunts then you're a bigger idiot than I thought.

>>30223

>if you're telling me I'm wrong because I won't admit I'm a witch during the witch hunts

Why would it be a witchhunt? You're the one justifying CP. So no, its not a witch hunt or paranoia. I don't care about your stupid hated on American culture or whatever. The point is that Pedophila will always be looked down upon and no amount of justifying from the past will change that. Its a fact and everyone expect for shitty countries know it. You aren't doing yourself any favors trying to look intelligent by fucking children. You look like a retard to everyone except for your pedofag friends.

>>30224

Yes I'm sure everyone thinks I'm the retard and not the guy who dodges the majority of my arguments while saying

"NOBODY WILL EVER LIKE YOU NEVER EVER NEVER EEEVVVEERRR"

Surely its me that everyone thinks is a retard.

And once again I'll be the one with the actual evidence and show you that the only person whos interjected here has been on my side.

>>30212

But I'm the retard everyone hates and you're the valiant moralfag whos saved the day from the stupid pedo of course.

>>30224

Also I hope you enjoy when lolicon becomes synonymous with CP and idiots just like you will say that only shitty countries allow it and no amount of justifying the past will make lolicon legal again and that the law is infallible.

Bet you'd be taking a long hard look at your own flawed "arguments" at that point.

Assuming you actually like lolicon and aren't just here as a moralfag to make a fool out of yourself

>>30227

No, no I'm not the moralfag, I'm making fun of the moralfag and agreeing with you. Not hard to comprehend at all what I said.

>>30188

>How can getting pleasure off of a child being fucked NOT be a crime

Simple answer: If the legal code didn't say it is, for instance.

Less simple answer, because I know that's not what you wanted to talk about:

The main idea behind the legal term of "crime" is that there are actions which have to be penalized by the state in order to make humans able to live together in that state. For instance, murder has to be penalized because otherwise certain people wouldn't stop killing certain other people. Clear as daylight. It's all about Drive Sublimation. It's not about moral.

Sure today actions can become declared a crime just because some people who matter think it's morally wrong (it might actually be) and therefore it should be penalized by the state. On the other hand, there are things clearly wrong morally which aren't declared a crime. For instance, the US doesn't ban swastikas and Nazi rhetoric, although participating in Nazi stuff is one of the morally most questionable things most people can think of. After all, the Nazi ideology ultimately requires you to actively agitate for the death of certain millions of people. And I'm sure there's someone on this board who'd like to teach me that Nazi isn't that bad and Hitler was actually right.

There are even things that are somewhat morally questionable but widely agreed upon they're most probably not wrong. Having sex in another position than Missionary, for instance. Yet there are US states that ban having sex in other positions than Missionary. Sure the laws aren't imposed any more, but they exist. Having sex in a position that is not Missionary is a crime in Washington, DC.

So how can something NOT be a crime although it's highly debatable why it shouldn't? Actually, because the people in power think different.

The more interesting question is…

>How can getting pleasure off of a child being fucked NOT be […] morally sound?

Let me rephrase the question: Is getting pleasure off of a child being fucked morally wrong?

Well, I can think of at least three levels to rate this. First, you can ask whether getting pleasure as an action can actually be morally wrong. (That is, abstract away what you use to get pleasure.) The answer would clearly be: No.

However, that's not the level of abstraction we want to use. It's way too abstract. So, on level two it already depends on whether the child actually likes it. That children might take pleasure in sex may seem like an anathema to many people but we actually cannot know. Which is, however, the reason why I consider this argument unsound: Even if a child signals consent, we are unable to tell whether she actually likes what's being done. That's also true for adults, but because of their greater experience of life we expect them to be able to extricate themselves from things they don't want. There are "rape" cases though which can be utilized to question this expectation. So, can getting pleasure off of a child being fucked be morally wrong? Yes, it can. But it needn't. However, we're unable to tell whether it is in any specific instance. Unsatisfactory, too.

Therefore, level three. Not no abstraction at all, but sufficiently little to ignore any considerations concerning the reasons we could have to consider something morally wrong. That is, how could we possibly, or even probably, declare something morally wrong at all? We ignore this question and impose what we've learned to be "moral". (I don't have a problem with morals. I just have a problem with the lack of awareness that morals are something highly volatile in historical measures.) And our morals clearly say that (1) fucking children is morally wrong, and (2) taking pleasure in recordings of others who are distressed is morally wrong, too. (We could word this even more general, recursively: Taking pleasure in recordings of something morally wrong is morally wrong.) Thus, taking pleasure in children being fucked is morally wrong. Here you are.

The thing in this chain of reasoning I question is not (1). The thing I question is (2), mainly because it would require us, in order to avoid moral guilt, to check the moral wrongfulness of anything and everything we are about to take pleasure in. You're right that this is easy for CP. Which is one of the many reasons why I don't watch CP. But if I accidentally did happen to take pleasure in something morally questionable like CP, I want people to judge this by my state of knowledge and intentions the time I did, not any knowledge I could have had but didn't have. (Philosophically, this is called deontology, by the way.)

>>30278 cont.

So independently of what conclusion one derives from all of this, the original question of "does the 'nobody gets hurt' argument still apply to loli if loli artists trace/reproduce actual CP" deserves in my opinion an insistent "yes". Or rather, the question "do artists tracing/reproducing CP cause loli to be something that hurts children" deserves a clear "no". Because a genre shouldn't be judged on deviant individuals of those who produce it, and because consumers of any kind or piece of art must be able to retain their moral integrity without having to deeply investigate the pieces' history of production. Loli consumers must be able to rely on loli being purely fictional – if an artist traces, he/she breaks this unwritten contract and therefore he/she is the blameworthy one, not the person who watches loli.

>inb4 children can "consent" so its "not really hurting anyone"

Don't understand this. The person saying "they like it" didn't even participate in this part of the discussion until your post.

>>30115

>Because the videos of child death in war isn't for fapping but to spread awareness of whats going on in wartorn countries you fucking retard.

You can fap to it nonetheless.

>>30257

I wasn't talking to you at that point but I can understand how you'd get that impression, I was just trying to show him your post. Sorry about that.

>>30289

Ah, looked like you quoted me and was saying it direly to me.

>>30404

Does it matter? He's mainly doing shitty r34 and some shota. Looks obnoxious.

So is there any proof of >>30198 being CP referenced?

>>30621

Is your sole purpose on this board to ask that question about every single artist?

Why not do your own research for once instead of demanding to be spoon fed in every thread.

>>30624

There is no other way to know, no one ever talks about it or no one knows about it.

If you are telling me to go watch CP then go fuck yourself.

>>30626

So when you ask everyone else for proof its okay but when I ask you to find it yourself you tell me to go fuck myself?

Do your own fucking dirty work you faggot.

>>30628

Because I'm not a fucking pedofag

Kill yourself

>>30635

Nobody gives a shit and nobody is going to spoon feed you.

Fuck off.

>>30635

Sounds like someone is madddd