/younglove/ - Pedophilia Discussion

I think it's loads better to begin with.

>>17257
Get out, fag.

>>17257
faggot

>>17248
Lolicon is legal in enlightened countries, while CP isn't and has legitimate reasons to be not.

>>17271
> has legitimate reasons to be not.
nope

>>17271
Most of europe has it b&, but they dont enforce it. There has literary not been a single investigation because of loli/shotacon. But yeah, it does criminalise a lot of people.
So much to "enlightened"

>>17274
*except in the UK, a guy got 6 months for owning loli in the UK

>>17272
> nope
Make sure you think before posting. There are legitimate reasons, just because you don't recognize them that does not mean there aren't any.

E.g. the unsettled possibility of children getting harmed, besides the issue of kids being forced into being cp actors.

>>17274
>>17275
Did I say most of Europe is enlightened, the UK especially? Those countries which are enlightened either simply don't ban fictional imagery (regardless of its content) or make sure according laws aren't enforced.

E.g. Germany, Sweden.

>>17276
The legalization of CP for ownership decreases child sex abuse considerably, there simply isnt a reason to keep it illegal.

>>17276
>or make sure according laws aren't enforced
But they will enforce them when they need to. Thats the point of pointless laws; to have to ability to put anybody in jail when you need to have him gone.

>>17277
> there simply isnt a reason to keep it illegal

Sounds like, there is one pro, so there aren't any contras. Ever had to write discourses in school? No? Go try it.

>>17278
> Thats the point of pointless laws
If there were a point of a pointless law, it wouldn't be pointless anymore.

> put anybody in jail when you need to have him gone

In an enlightened country, this will never happen: No-one will ever be arrested just to be "gone". At least in a truly enlightened one.

And if someone is put on trial for possession of lolicon, he or she can easily give notice of appeal up to the respecive country's supreme court, which, if the judges are amenable to reason and enlightened ideals, is likely to affirm that lolicon should be legal.

Has worked in Sweden. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_cartoon_pornography_depicting_minors#Sweden

>>17276
>E.g. the unsettled possibility of children getting harmed, besides the issue of kids being forced into being cp actors.
1. Shown to be an inverse correlation.
2. Would be illegal anyway.
Great reasons.

>>17276
>E.g. Germany, Sweden.
>Both countries in which drawn lolis can be CP


>>17277
But muh disgust. Antis are fine with more lolis getting raped, so long as it means discomfort for pedos.

It's a way for them to be hateful and accepted at the same time, it's not about the kids. You'd do well to remember that.

>>17280
> 1. Shown to be an inverse correlation.
Citation needed.
As far as I know, the issue that there may be a possibility of children getting harmed has not been satisfactorily resolved yet.

> 2. Would be illegal anyway.
What exactly would be illegal anyway if what happened?

> Both countries in which drawn lolis can be CP

See >>17279
Besides that I'm positive the same would happen in Germany, drawn images aren't even able to be illegal there. To be precise, "close-to-reality" images are prohibited, which has officially been confirmed to not comprise drawings etc. because those can easily be identified as non-real.

I think it's funny that there are weeaboos who fap to the most graphic lolicon porn and claim to not be pedo when they are just like their teleiophile counterparts who can only get off to drawings.

>>17279
I am sorry, but you are naive.

>>17283
I am sorry, but you haven't understood what enlightenment means.

>>17287
N.B.
Those are studies showing that the legalisation of porn at least would not increase harm, although most of them go for saying that it would outright decrease it.

>>17287
> He missed out some quotation marks, big deal.

I did understand what he was trying to tell me. Yet I think the wording he employed isn't suitable for bringing his point across.

> Fuck me, you're being retarded with this 'enlightenment' line.

Enlightenment is the reason why most things we westerners are proud of having achieved were able to evolve in the first place. Hoping for a truly enlightened country to arise might be blind idealism, but reasoning about how such a country would look like isn't.

> Top of my head:
Will read that later, when I have time for it. However, if you're right and all these papers furnish evidence that it is (approximately) impossible for children to be harmed by being filmed having sex according to some script – and don't be a fool, that's what it all would lead to –, I wonder why nobody has bothered so far carrying them to the cabinets.

> Any forced sexual acts would be illegal

We cannot look into children's heads, so we cannot know whether a "yes" a child says actually means "yes". Of course, this is also true for adults. There are some people just incapable of saying "no", and there are some people who already were sufficiently self-reliant when being young.
What it boils down to is, you cannot decide this question in every single case, so what you need to make a law is some threshold age, known as AoC.

> Bernd und das Rätsel um Unteralterbach was judged to be illegal.
In Germany? Don't think so. Do you have a reference for that?

> Do you think they show the pictures to the jury?

In doubt, they have to. Which means, if questioning the experts doesn't dispel all doubts and the plea insists that the pictures aren't illegal (because of reasons which are more than just deliberate bullshit), they either have to be shown or the accused has to be found not guilty, "in dubio pro reo".

> My father once had to defend a man on CP charges in court by arguing that images neither he nor the jury were allowed to see were not obscene.

It's not my intention to say anything against your father's experiences, but that sounds pretty much like some non-enlightened (sorry) grasp of jurisdiction. (Just think about how it sounds: They have to judge by pictures they aren't even allowed to see. It would have made sense if they had judged to stop proceedings because of thwarted evidence gathering.)

Could we please return to talking about lolicon? Those judicial finickinesses are just congesting this thread again, and that would kill it, wouldn't it?

I don't get how there's pedos who believe that sex can be harmless to children and that children can in fact consent but think that it can't be the case with CP and everything HAS to be faked and acted just because it's illegal and therefore it has to have something wrong

Anyway, nothing that you say here proves it's wrong possessing it, maybe producing and/or selling it but that can still be illegal if you legalize simple possession

For lolicon I do think it can be enough for most of pedos(me included), but it doesn't matter, it's on the way of disappearing from Japan and becoming illegal elsewhere

>this many posts this fast

This board is so weird. It'll be like dead for hours and hours and hours and then someone posts something people want to talk about, and it just explodes.

>>17295
The kids in CP are being filmed. There's a camera set up by the adult. I'm going to guess that that means, in the vast majority of cases, that the adult have abusive intentions.

I do think possession should be legal, but that doesn't mean I think it is morally right or that the kids aren't harmed by it.

Just keep in mind that agreeing to have sex, and agreeing to be in pornography are two different things.

>>17299
What about the cp that the kids make themselves?

>>17300
Yeah and most CP this century has been produced by kids.

>>17300
I don't think that's a big deal. They may regret it later but we all regret stuff so.

>>17292
>And if someone is put on trial for possession of lolicon, he or she can easily give notice of appeal up to the respecive country's supreme court, which, if the judges are amenable to reason and enlightened ideals, is likely to affirm that lolicon should be legal
Yes, you can think about it. No, it doesn't have any bearing on real societies. Invoking it on an argument about real societies is pointless.

>I wonder why nobody has bothered so far carrying them to the cabinets.
Governments have heard, governments haven't cared. They care about PR, not about stopping kids getting raped.

>What it boils down to is, you cannot decide this question in every single case, so what you need to make a law is some threshold age, known as AoC.
How does the former lead to the latter?
>It's true for kids and true for adults
>Ergo let's ban kids and not adults

>Do you have a reference for that?
Alas, not to hand. I was informed of it in a verbal conversation, and can't be arsed to search the intertubes for it.

>It would have made sense if they had judged to stop proceedings because of thwarted evidence gathering.
It would have, but the funny thing is that the judge decides. Sure, there are some fantastic judges out there who stick to what they should do as though their lives depend on it; many others like to use their power to get the results they want.

>Could we please return to talking about lolicon? Those judicial finickinesses are just congesting this thread again, and that would kill it, wouldn't it?
Yes.

I don't find loli art (mostly animu stuff) all that arousing in general, but I have an imagination. If you have an imagination, you don't need CP. If you don't, animu won't cut it and you'll need real loli. There will be a middle ground, but I won't imagine that it'll be vast.

>>17299
>There's a camera set up by the adult.
>I'm going to guess that that means, in the vast majority of cases, that the adult have abusive intentions.
>that doesn't mean I think … that the kids aren't harmed by it
It's like bukkake but with wild assumptions instead of cum.

>>17302
There's a difference between regretting something that you did that you can bury and regretting something that you can never bury.

Once pics are up online, they're there forever.
IMO possession of cp should be legal when the subject hits the AoC and says they're ok with it.

>>17299
I don't see why it has to have abusive intentions just because they want to record themselves having sex

Some people just like that kind of things

>>17307
It should never be illegal to write a number down - even a very big one.

>>17309
>hurfdurf disingenuous bullshit
Cry about it.

>>17248
sometimes

>>17261
>>17263
/pol/ plz go

>>17305
>Alas, not to hand. I was informed of it in a verbal conversation, and can't be arsed to search the intertubes for it.
I wish you would.

The problem I have with the term Child Porn is that it is so vague.
Naked Child=CP
Sex involving child=CP
Child watching the act of sex=CP
Showing your meat to children(lulz)=CP
Everybody talks about the topic biased. Everybody has his own idea of what CP actually is. While talking, normies have the picture of children beeing brutaly gangraped and butchered in a cellar while "others" might think of nudes. Thats what makes the conversation around this topic so extremly stupid and pointless.
Pizza will never be legal, people wont get over themselfes for our fetish. But Police really needs to calm down. They should go for the uploaders, but filling already overfiled prisions (not only in the US) with the random guy from across the streets who gets caught viewing something people dont like is pointless. If you go to prison for something like that, hence if you go into prison in general, your life after it will be shit. People will treat you like shit, employers will treat you like shit and you will basicaly become a social outcast. And thats when people who go for minor crimes (i.e pizza or theft) will become dangerous; they already couldnt help themselfes before, and now they wont have anything to loose and have met very bad influence. In fact, they might even wish to go into prison again. This counts for every offender, not just pedos.
It also isnt about the children and their "pain"; we can watch the behading of people, rape of adults and their torture legaly, but when it involves children everybody needs to share a cell with buba? Even when the police cant proove the kid on the pic suffered?
It isnt about the children, it isnt about justice; its only about a ignorant, backwards society trying to enforce their moral bliefes. With "controversial" topics like this, people show their true faces; ignorant, biased cunts who want to be right. People are far away from beeing what they think they are; open minded and rational.
See, this isnt about Pizza or anything involing pedophilia, this is about hypocrims of our society in genaral. Artificaly "accepting" everything and everybody (even when they are dangerous e.g Islam*) is worth nothing, for these liars will only accept you when you do, think and act as they wish. As soon as you life your onw life, as you want it, free from the chains of rules and morality, endagering their believes and comfort of nonthinking, they will deem you crazy, they will throw you out of their society or even lock you into a cage or inject you with poison, like the animal they see in you for beeing free.
I guess we and the "insane" can be glad we have something dividing us from these maggots.

No tl;dr, its half a site.

*Before calling me a hypocrite because of this; its not about Muslims, its about Islam in general. A religion, that was given birth in war and thus has to life trough war. Everytime Islam has nothing it can unite under and swing its sword with, when there is no leader (caliphs, Ottomans etc.) it gets more extreme, for Islam HAS TO fight war. Its what is keeping it alive.

>>17338
sjw plz go

>>17287

> Knudsen, D.D. (1988)

"Child protective services: Discretion, decisions, dilemmas", "Child sexual abuse and pornography: Is there a relationship?", or "Child maltreatment over two decades: Change or continuity?"?

If it's the second one, I wasn't able to obtain it contemporarily. Abstract, however, sounds like the influence of (conventional?) porn on children is examined, not the influence of starring in (child) porn on those children.

> Howitt, Dennis (1995)
> "Explicit child pornography was uncommon."

> Diamond, Milton, and Uchiyama, Ayako (1999)
> "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan", isn't it?

Contemporarily not available. I'm interested in what it has to say, however.

> O'Carroll, Tom (2000)
> Williams, Katherine S. (2004)

Couldn't find these.

> Kirby, Stuart (2005)

Couldn't find that either, was it in a newspaper article or something? Might not be online (anymore).

> Kendall, Todd (2006)
> Pornography, rape, and the internet

Not available online anymore. The site where it should have been now advertises "Becoming A Police Detective", "Privet [sic] Detective", "Criminal investigators", stuff like that. Hmmmm…

> Sheldon, Kerry & Howitt, Dennis (2008)
> Sexual fantasy in paedophile offenders: Can any model explain satisfactorily new findings from a study of Internet and contact sexual offenders?

Did not address the subject of CP. I must admit I didn't buy the article, reading the abstract only, but I don't see any connection to CP.

> Ferguson, J. and Hartley, R. (2009)
> A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: the influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence

Skimmed over it. Neither child porn nor child sexual abuse were even mentioned.

> Endrass, Jérôme; Urbaniok, Frank; Hammermeister, Lea C.; Benz, Christian; Elbert, Thomas; Laubacher, Arja; and Rossegger, Astrid (2009)
> The consumption of Internet child pornography and violent and sex offending

Interesting article, but not related to the effects of CP upon the children starring in them.

Could be seen as related to possible risks to (other) children (posed by CP consumers) though. In that respect, it does show an inverse correlation, but also says,
> The question of whether consumers of child pornography pose a risk for hands-on sex offenses has not yet been answered.

>>17299
> Just keep in mind that agreeing to have sex, and agreeing to be in pornography are two different things.

Exactly. Denying this would show unworldliness.

>>17300
>>17301
> What about the cp that the kids make themselves?
> Yeah and most CP this century has been produced by kids.

Sexting is an increasingly relevant problem. That's youth pornography, however.

>>17305
> Invoking it on an argument about real societies is pointless.

You seem to have capitulated society-wise.

I don't like M. Gandhi, his ideas, nor his ideology, but in one respect, he was right: If you want to change the world, you have to have ideals.

> Governments have heard, governments haven't cared. They care about PR, not about stopping kids getting raped.

Yeah, letting people die in Syria seems to establish better PR than making child rape numbers decrease.

> How does the former lead to the latter?
> It's true for kids and true for adults
> Ergo let's ban kids and not adults

Babies aren't capable of consenting willfully. At least this is commonly believed to be a neurologically sensible assumption. Adults, on the other hand, are usually capable of consenting. Thus, there must be some point in time between infancy and adulthood before which consenting is (mainly) impossible and after which it is (mainly) possible. (Some don't reach such a point at all.) An existence statement like this one doesn't help so much though; for one person the point in time might be completely different from another person's. So what do governments do – as politicians are nevertheless down-to-earth – in order to design reasonably exercisable laws? They do some statistics which throw out some magical age number used as an approximate "typical age", i.e. AoC.

> and can't be arsed to search the intertubes for it

I did one heuristic Google search which didn't yield any information that would confirm that claim.

Whois however suggests its website is being hosted in Mönchstraße 25, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany, which should not be possible if it was illegal there.

http://whatmyip.co/info/whois/89.238.77.62/k/2100178011/website/unteralterbach.net

> many others like to use their power to get the results they want

I think I am unable to get around admitting that you're right, there are judges who abuse their power. Nobody's perfect – and you can always be bamboozled anyway.

>>17308
> just because they want to record themselves

They were talking about children getting recorded (by adults). Children recording themselves are another issue.

>>17348
> The problem I have with the term Child Porn is that it is so vague.

Soberly kept in perspective, Lolicon cannot be considered child pornography. The inherent meaning is "pornography in connection with children" (leaving open which kind of connection we're talking about). There are works of Lolicon which aren't even pornographic*, and those which are don't meet the second criterion, a connection with children, as there are no children in it. The depicted figures aren't real persons, and their looks don't give any clue**. Moreover, they can easily be identified as fictional.

* understanding pornographic as showing depictions of sex, in opposition to erotic, which intentionally doesn't show everything.
** example: http://pururin.com/gallery/14231/suzuka-sama-no-geboku.html

>>17280
> 1. Shown to be an inverse correlation.

See e.g. the following for favour of the opposite:

Beitchman, J. H., Zucker, K. J., Hood, J. E., DaCosta, G. A., Akman, D., & Cassavia, E. (1992). A review of the long-term effects of child sexual abuse. Child abuse & neglect, 16(1), 101-118.

Finkelhor, D., & Korbin, J. (1988). Child abuse as an international issue. Child Abuse & Neglect, 12(1), 3-23.

Adler, A. (2001). The perverse law of child pornography. Columbia Law Review, 209-273.

Furthermore, please be aware that child pornography used to still be legal in many countries two–three decades ago, and yet data presented by Prof Pfeiffer suggests that child abuse cases have halved since then.

> E.g. Germany, Sweden.
>Both countries in which drawn lolis can be CP

Please also consider that – as Prof Pfeiffer points out – the risk of getting jailed is ten times higher in the US than in Germany. (The risk of getting shot is 14 times higher by the way.)

>>17360

For the sources, I'll give you the most to-the point extracts from their summaries, to give you a flavour.

>Knudsen, D.D. (1988)
It's the second.
"If the problem is to determine whether access to pornography directly increases the probability of sexually exploitive behaviors toward children, there appears to be a general consensus among researchers that it does not (Nelson, 1982)."

> Diamond, Milton, and Uchiyama, Ayako (1999)
>"Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan", isn't it?
It is.
"However, there are no specific child pornography laws in Japan and SEM depicting minors are readily available and widely consumed. […] The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography [in general], without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."

>O'Carroll, Tom (2000)
O'Carroll, Tom (2000) "Sexual Privacy for Paedophiles and Children: A Complementary Background Paper."
"Such an effect has been proposed in relation to Denmark during the few years when child pornography was openly and legally available: in that period sex offences against children were significantly lower than either before or after. (5) A similar phenomenon occurred during a period of liberalisation in West Germany, where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%."

>Williams, Katherine S. (2004)
Williams, Katherine S. (2004) "Child Pornography Law: Does it Protect Children?" Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 26(3), 245-261
"If this were enough to feed and satisfy their sexual desire, then pseudo-images might be seen as having social utility even if most of us would be wholly disgusted by their existence and the use made of them by the paedophile. Kutchinskey's work (1973, 1985) suggests that this is more likely to be the case, so pornography (adult or pseudo-photographs) might actually protect children."

>Kirby, Stuart (2005)
It was at a conference. Got a couple of articles in newspapers and magazines, but not much. May well not be on line, or easy to find if it is, now.

>Not available online anymore. The site where it should have been now advertises "Becoming A Police Detective", "Privet [sic] Detective", "Criminal investigators", stuff like that. Hmmmm…
Queer…
"an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape"

>Did not address the subject of CP. I must admit I didn't buy the article, reading the abstract only, but I don't see any connection to CP.
It has the least direct relevance out of those I listed, but claims that a large proportion of child molesters molest due to being inadequately able to summon up masturbatory fantasies. It is my own conclusion from that that fantasy aids (CP) will reduce the size of this group.

>Skimmed over it. Neither child porn nor child sexual abuse were even mentioned.
Wrong paper. That'll teach me to cite in short-hand:
Ferguson, J. and Hartley, R. (2009) "The pleasure is momentary…the expense damnable?: The influence of pornography on rape and sexual assault"
"Victimization rates for rape in the United States demonstrate an inverse relationship between pornography consumption and rape rates"
Again, requires a little interpolation to the specifics of effect on child rape, but nothing wild…

>Interesting article, but not related to the effects of CP upon the children starring in them.
1. Only a small proportion of what is classified as CP contains acts considered harmful enough to be illegal on their own merit.
2. Were CP laws removed, such harmful acts would remain illegal.
3. If you're making an argument to limit freedom due to harm, surely you must consider the total harm done or prevented?

>>17361
> Just keep in mind that agreeing to have sex, and agreeing to be in pornography are two different things.
>Exactly. Denying this would show unworldliness.
Agreed. What about if they agree to its release after they have reached 18, though?

>Sexting is an increasingly relevant problem. That's youth pornography, however.
It's a large majority of producers, and it's still CP.

>You seem to have capitulated society-wise.
>I don't like M. Gandhi, his ideas, nor his ideology, but in one respect, he was right: If you want to change the world, you have to have ideals.
There is a large difference between having ideals and thinking that a system's fine because it'd work fine in an ideal world. I have ideals, but I really don't think that removing all checks on power would be a great idea, even though it'd work fine in an ideal world. I don't think lowering a child into the hungry tiger's cage at the zoo so she can pet it is a good idea, even though it'd work fine in an ideal world.

>Yeah, letting people die in Syria
Irrelevant

>seems to establish better PR than making child rape numbers decrease
This way they're fighting valiantly against the bad guys. The other way the bad guys just lost interest. It's dumb, but it really is better PR.

>Thus, there must be some point in time between infancy and adulthood before which consenting is (mainly) impossible and after which it is (mainly) possible.
Yes.

>They do some statistics which throw out some magical age number used as an approximate "typical age", i.e. AoC.
Fuck no.
Current Western AoC laws are based in the feminists' desire for girls not to get pregnant before getting educated and possibly starting a career. An irrelevant point in an age with good birth control, but we seem to be stuck with it. All of the statistical data disagrees with it being the "typical age" at which one can consent. In fact, APA figures put that age down in the single figures – I don't agree with them on much, but they do seem to have a lot of evidence backing them up on that one.

>Whois however suggests its website is being hosted in Mönchstraße 25, 70191 Stuttgart, Germany, which should not be possible if it was illegal there.
I will accept that I seem to have been misinformed on that point. Thanks for correcting me.

>Soberly kept in perspective, Lolicon cannot be considered child pornography. The inherent meaning is "pornography in connection with children" (leaving open which kind of connection we're talking about). There are works of Lolicon which aren't even pornographic*, and those which are don't meet the second criterion, a connection with children, as there are no children in it. The depicted figures aren't real persons, and their looks don't give any clue**. Moreover, they can easily be identified as fictional.
This is all true. The problem, however, is that the various legislatures haven't soberly kept the issue in perspective.

>>17367
I found the Finkelhor, which I will read later. The Beitchman I haven't found itself, but have found many citations of; I will keep looking. The Adler, however, I can't find hide nor hair of.

>Furthermore, please be aware that child pornography used to still be legal in many countries two–three decades ago, and yet data presented by Prof Pfeiffer suggests that child abuse cases have halved since then.
There are many alternative explanations, including the large scale segregation of men from children, the far tighter policing of the matter, the far greater vigilance of society as a whole, the greater efforts put into concealment by offenders &c &c &c. In order to control out such influences, one must look at a small time period on either side of a change in the law. That will show the law's impact whilst minimising other inputs. Not perfect, but as close as we're likely to get. Every instance I am aware of, when examined like this, shows that tighter CP laws = more children being raped.

I will look at those papers in a bit. I'm intrigued to see whether they are sound or not. If they are, then I guess I've got a lot more researching coming up…

>>17349
/pol/ plz go

>>17313
Did you not understand what he was saying?

>>17383
You can do the same thing with anything:
It should never be illegal to breathe out – ergo verbally ordering someone's murder should be fine.

>>17382
Just fuck off. I don't even agree with the guy, but I'm just sick of your retarded shitposting.

Is this guy never going to get banned for spamming?

>>17387
he's a mod

just ignore him nobody likes him

>>17387
>tighter CP laws = more children being raped
Try to tell that somebody IRL

>>17389
You dont need to tell them just use these peer reviewed studies instead:
http://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html

>>17390
>While the authors do not approve of the use of real children in the production or distribution of child pornography, they say that artificially produced materials might serve a purpose.

So it's saying that we should keep things the way they are.

>>17390
The problem is that people simply wont care. The way the topic was threaten in the 2000s has made it impossible to talk with anybody about it. They will imediately go uhm hardcore rape or uhm satanism and simply ignore you. People arent rational.

>>17391
Not in most of the western world.

>>17368
> there appears to be a general consensus among researchers that it does not (Nelson, 1982)

Means I would be more interested in that "Nelson, 1982".

> Diamond, Milton, and Uchiyama, Ayako (1999)

If they managed to rule out other possible explanations for the data obtained, this seems valid. However, it's Japan; I'm not quite sure whether sociological effects in Japan are soundly transferable to the western world, as Japanese society has some (historically grown) fundamental differences.

> where from 1972 to 1980 the total number of sex crimes known to the police in the Federal Republic of Germany decreased by 11%

Sounds appealing, but no-one knows whether it was just the dark figure increasing temporarily.

> If this were enough to feed and satisfy their sexual desire, then pseudo-images might be seen as having social utility

I agree, but pseudo-images won't (instantaneously) harm any children anyway.

> an increase in home internet access of 10 percentage points is associated with an 7.3% decline in [forcible] rape

May be just due to ordinary pornography.

In a nutshell, that seems to cover (non-)risks of children getting "indirectly" harmed by people who watch CP. The question of whether children get harmed (probably mentally) by the shooting programmes themselves remains if I haven't overlooked something.

> Only a small proportion of what is classified as CP contains acts considered harmful enough to be illegal on their own merit. Were CP laws removed, such harmful acts would remain illegal.

In that respect, CP bans are unnecessary indeed. I do think they could have abstracted from the actual kind of material (CP) with laws along the lines of,

> Whoever knowingly possesses, distributes, or acquires material which could not have been produced without violation of any other law, [shall be punished and so on]

> If you're making an argument to limit freedom due to harm, surely you must consider the total harm done or prevented?

Every law limits freedom to prevent harm, there's a general trade-off between freedom and safety/security. It's almost impossible that everyone agrees upon where to draw the line.

>>17369
> Agreed. What about if they agree to its release after they have reached 18, though?

I think there is no legitimate reason why such a decision should be mistrusted, i.e. material given the blessing of the depicted person's grown-up self shouldn't be illegal.

Of course you would have to deal with issues of sanity, (im)maturity and so on, but that's not specific to this topic.

> There is a large difference between having ideals and thinking that a system's fine because it'd work fine in an ideal world.

What I meant was that you can still uphold ideals for yourself even if they aren't worth anything in the real world. You needn't do civil disobedience if you don't want to though, and I wonder how it could always work until now.

> >Yeah, letting people die in Syria
> Irrelevant
> >seems to establish better PR than making child rape numbers decrease
> This way they're fighting valiantly against the bad guys. The other way the bad guys just lost interest. It's dumb, but it really is better PR.

It wasn't irony, I know why it's better PR: because something which everyone believes will be a cure will be good PR while something that might be a working cure but doesn't seem so at first glance is likely not to be accepted even if it works.

> Fuck no.

Admittedly, depends on country and what statistics are being used. That they do statistics doesn't mean the outcome is "correct" in some way. (Statistics may be flawed, and those current AoC laws are based on are very likely not to be up-to-date anymore.)

> The problem, however, is that the various legislatures haven't soberly kept the issue in perspective.

Yes.

>>17371

I want to, as a precaution, mention that it wasn't me who suggested the reading in >>17367 (although I could have looked for some papers myself…)

>>17396
>Means I would be more interested in that "Nelson, 1982".
Yeah, it was just a quick list of what I had to hand.

Valid concerns about the rest, I agree, but together they still show a resultant decrease in harm.

I haven't come across anything scientific about children having sex on camera, but that's a very small and specific type of CP. A law such as the one you propose would be far better to what we have now.

>Every law limits freedom to prevent harm, there's a general trade-off between freedom and safety/security. It's almost impossible that everyone agrees upon where to draw the line.
I agree, but what I am saying is that when the laws cause more harm than they prevent (many other girls get raped so a few don't feel ashamed later), then it is not at all legitimate to claim that they must be in place to mitigate harm.

>It wasn't irony, I know why it's better PR: because something which everyone believes will be a cure will be good PR while something that might be a working cure but doesn't seem so at first glance is likely not to be accepted even if it works.
Sorry. I suspected that you knew, but I posted that just in case I was wrong.

>Admittedly, depends on country and what statistics are being used. That they do statistics doesn't mean the outcome is "correct" in some way. (Statistics may be flawed, and those current AoC laws are based on are very likely not to be up-to-date anymore.)
I've not heard of any country where the AoC laws are based on such statistics. If you can show me some then I'll be glad, and a portion of my faith in humanity will be restored, but every one I know of which has an age of consent over "don't do that, it just won't fit" is based on dogma.

>I want to, as a precaution, mention that it wasn't me who suggested the reading in >>17367 (although I could have looked for some papers myself…)
I will bear that in mind.

Not really, I just like looking at it. I haven't ever seen CP before, but I have seen dance videos; I like dances from the front mostly, but erotic ones are hard to find. I'm gonna stop "punishing the priest" though.

No, but it's pretty much the only legal outlet I have.

>>17361
>The inherent meaning is "pornography in connection with children" (leaving open which kind of connection we're talking about). There are works of Lolicon which aren't even pornographic*, and those which are don't meet the second criterion, a connection with children, as there are no children in it.
Using that logic Lolita is about a set of words wanting to have a relationship with another set of words.
You're retarded.

>>17432
No, because it's not the words wanting to have relationships, it's what they denote. You could also say a picture of two people having sex is just about several pixels having sex. You see, with that kind of logic you are the retarded one here.

The point is that what the words (or the pixels, respectively) denote may exhibit characteristics of something in the real world, yet it's fictitious and therefore fictional, i.e. not real, and thus cannot be called a "child" or whatever.

This kind of logic is, however, not intended to affect the ususal manner of speaking we lazily use to describe pictures, e.g. "the girls in the picture are …", which would more strictly have to be "the depicted girl-likes are …"

>>17468
No, you haven't painted a picture 'of someone', because they aren't physically in the painting.

What you've done is painted their likeness.

When you draw loli, you aren't creating child porn, you're creating what is legally distinguished as simulated child porn (even countries where loli is illegal still makes the differentiation).


Simulated child porn is not a subset of child porn, in the exact same way that painting are not subsets of photographs.

>>17468
> So no fiction can claim to involve human characters?

Yes, if it is fiction, it strictly speaking cannot claim that. However, there is non-fiction that can be called close-to-fiction, e.g. biographies.

> We don't need to start using ugly "thing-like" constructs just to convey this idea.

> This kind of logic is, however, not intended to affect the ususal manner of speaking we lazily use to describe pictures

Please read posts more thoroughly. I'm sure you must accidentally have read over the tiny word "not".

You do not need to speak strictly, i.e. you are allowed to say "I've painted a picture of that person". You do have to bear in mind that the actual semantics is "I've painted a picture that looks like that person". As you've stated yourself, anyone with a functioning brain should be aware of that semantics. (You should be aware of potentially non-standard semantics anyway. Yes, I know, it's too easy to forget.)

> I'd rather suggest placing the word "fictional" or "real" in front of the thing you're describing

That should be sufficient for clarification, yes.

> In that case, fictional child porn is the subset of child porn which does not involve real children.

It does not involve real children, i.e. it does not involve children, i.e. it is not child porn.

Would you call a filming of the molestation of a doll call child porn? The doll might be as realistically child-like as a drawing of a child (and is, like the drawing, intended to do so), but it isn't a child and this should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

>>17391
thats because they cant say they approve of using CP you dumbfuck

>>17470
>Simulated child porn is not a subset of child porn, in the exact same way that painting are not subsets of photographs.
Incorrect. The argument was over whether a drawing of the likeness of a person can be called a drawing of a person. If it can, then pornography of the likeness of a child can be called pornography of a child, aka child pornography. What you meant to say was:
>Simulated child porn is not a subset of child porn, in the exact same way that portrait paintings are not a subset of pictures of people.
In short, you're a retard.

>>17475
Your semantic bullshit is as transparently retarded as PETA's "rename fish to sea-kittens" campaign. I might give some credit to your abuse of the English language if it had the slightest, most remote hope of changing a single person's mind on the issue, but it doesn't. Use whatever words you like to describe things, but don't expect to be successful in communicated with anyone who uses the language correctly.
Have fun being one of the few people on this planet who adamantly refuse to ever use metaphor to simplify communication.

>>17483
Im not the guy you were talking to, however:
Lolicon is not child pornography you idiot, child pornography are photos and and videos, lolicon is artwork. So just like another anon said the relation of lolicon to video/picture CP is the same relation of drawings to cinema.

So much arguing, and nobody's even pointed out that it's irrelevant to whether it's a depiction of a child or not, going by the definition of CP >>17361 himself set down, since it only needs to be "in connection with children", not depicting them.

>>17484
>Lolicon is not child pornography you idiot, child pornography are photos and and videos, lolicon is artwork.
Please explain. Lolicon artwork can be pornographic, and is very often about children. It seems to me that that very much makes it CP.

A very different kind of CP, maybe, but CP none the less.

>>17483
>Incorrect. The argument was over whether a drawing of the likeness of a person can be called a drawing of a person.

Which I directly answered by saying that the legal terminology is that you are drawing the likeness of a person, you aren't actually drawing a person.

Following your logic, we would have to give drawings the same rights as actual people.

>In short, you're a retard.
In short, retarded people are the most likely to call others retarded when faced with realities they cannot refute.

>>17488
It can be pornographic but that doesn't make it child porn

Drawings don't have ages

>>17492
Drawings do have ages, but that's not what we're talking about. The pictures are about children. It is porn about children doing pornographic things, ergo, it is CP.

>>17493
But the age can be set as you want it. In the end, hentai and drawings in general are nothing more but a collection of lines and colour, which our brain turns into an imaga by recalling experience and memories. We only see humans because our brain sets this construction of lines togheter as humans, because it remembers them. An alien who has never seen a human will only see odly set colours.
Shota and Lolicon is not CP. Its hentai. Pizza is when sickos fuck children and film it.

>>17512
Is it explicit depiction of sexual subject matter; a display of material of an erotic nature?

Eroticism is in the eye of the beholder, so while this could easily be pornographic to a pedophile, that also means that basically anything could be considered pornography.

So yes, it can be pornography, but for practicalities sake we generally do not consider it to be.

Much of life is built around ignoring logical coherence in order to keep society running.

>>17489
>Following your logic, we would have to give drawings the same rights as actual people.
This is not an argument about legal rights, you chucklefucks. It's an argument about how certain people seem unable to follow standard conventions for language usage.

This argument is more absurd than the Stallman GNU/Linux copypasta.

You can't make the general public sympathise with us by trying to undermine some of the most basic standards of language usage. You'd have much more success making real arguments about real things rather than going on rants about semantics.

>>17501
These are not pixels. These are not semiconductor diodes. These are not photons. These are not even electrical impulses in neurons. They are simply the solution to the set of mathematical equations which we would describe as "the laws of physics".
We can all go home now, because the universe is nothing but maths and all language is inherently flawed.

In fact, perhaps we should adopt Lojban as the official language of our cause. It is an artificial language based upon unambiguous predicate logic, and removes any risk of accidentally implying that the Mona Lisa has feelings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lojban
I'm confident that if we exclusively use this language then the rest of the species will see the error of their ways and accept our flawlessly logical statements as fact.

Someone sounds frustrated that he can't actually make a point.

>>17483
> Have fun being one of the few people on this planet who adamantly refuse to ever use metaphor to simplify communication.

You obviously refuse to read and/or understand what I'm actually writing, so maybe this post is unnecessary, but I want to stress that I fucking told you you're free to use metaphors, you just have to bear in mind that it's a metaphor. Just like you can say "Argh, that exam literally killed me!" but you – and anyone who is to understand you – has to bear in mind that the actual meaning is different.

> Use whatever words you like to describe things, but don't expect to be successful in communicated with anyone who uses the language correctly.

I don't fucking get you point, dude. You accuse me of abusing English language while stating "semantics is bullshit" youself, i.e. stating "meaning is shit", implying "language is pointless". Who's a retard here?

>>17518
As someone who studied Lojban: It doesn't solve the problem of ambiguous interpretation. It makes nice use of predicate logic, but applying gismu, and especially tanru, doesn't solve the main problem of natural languages.

>>17517
I'm positive no-one here wants to bend down to that very level. You are allowed to use the high-level interpretations our reputable brain provides us with, but don't be fooled by your brain! There's always context, and not every part of your brain is amenable to context.

>>17516
> This is not an argument about legal rights, you chucklefucks. It's an argument about how certain people seem unable to follow standard conventions for language usage.

It's an argument about equalization, you mental eunuch. Everyone here adheres to "standard conventions for language usage", but no-one except for you seems to have a problem with the fact that utterances can sometimes mean something different than what their verbatim interpretation would be.

And yet you intellectually famished plaice insist on pretending you're the only one here who is capable of not abusing the English language just because you're certainly the only mind-fucking wisdom allergic here who doesn't need sanity contraceptives to prevent your sick misapprehensions from creating inbred offspring.

TL;DR: You're an argumentative skunk with reason intolerance and a chronic drivel incontinence whose mental diarrhoea I don't want to confront my toilet with.

>>17534
> I fucking told you you're free to use metaphors
Great, then let's acknowledge that "child porn" is a convenient metaphor for the much more tedious "collections of binary data or pigment molecules which, when viewed by a typical human brain, are interpreted as depicting a child-like entity".
That should leave us in exactly the same place as where we started, and we can end this pointless debate.

>>17538
> Great, then let's acknowledge that "child porn" is a convenient metaphor for the much more tedious "collections of binary data or pigment molecules which, when viewed by a typical human brain, are interpreted as depicting a child-like entity".

Acknowledged. That means, from now on lolicon falls under "child porn", but most jurisdictions (including the American one) don't outlaw "child porn" anymore. Great, child porn is legal.

That's what I meant by "you just have to bear in mind that it's a metaphor" (and what said metaphor means): You have then to bear in mind that "child porn" means "collections of binary data or pigment molecules which, when viewed by a typical human brain, are interpreted as depicting a child-like entity", at least when used as a metaphor. To be sure everybody always knows whether you're using it as a metaphor or not, you have to be careful. (Always with metaphors.)

Plus, all of this does not at all change the meaning of what you've now defined to be called "child porn"; neither does it change the meaning of what you'd (or I'd) intuitively (when not using it as a metaphor) call "child porn". Thus, the debate was pointless because your excursion into the misunderstandability of semantics didn't bring any new point.

Please also note that while lolicon now falls under "child porn" in the metaphorical sense, it still doesn't fall under "child porn" in the sense given in >>17361 (which you were trying and have failed spectactularly to disprove).

>>17571
What used to be there?

Come on, poofters, post more loli!

>>17546
>(which you were trying and have failed spectactularly to disprove)
At no point did I try to claim that fictional CP was in any way ethically equivalent to real CP.

>>17607
I'm sorry, it sounded very much like that.

>>17248
So this thread went from loli to a brief moment of shota to enlightenment to the correlation between CP and CSA to a long trail of whether loli is semantically fictional CP.

Great discussion.

this