[ b / c / d / f / o / q / r ] [ home ]

/b/ - Random

Off-Topic Discussion
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
:
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

Implemented lazy loading thumbnails and pre-reserved image space for faster page loading!


  [Go to bottom]   [Catalog]   [Return]

File: 1577751673454.jpg (81.19 KB, 644x620, 1499929180344.jpg) ImgOps Google iqdb

1b4bb No.3699

I have recently seen this topic be brought up by Blue Checkmarks on Twitter on how harmful drawings are and how lolicon is still sexualizing children.

That and the argument that both anime and other animated shows like Big Mouth add to the fire.

Anyone have their thoughts on this moral grey area us artists and the like have to deal with?

7eb26 No.3700

To me it's no different than the people complaining about depictions of murder in media. I don't think lolicon turns people into pedophiles. I would be interested in research on if lolicon can be used as an outlet, or if it enables pedophiles.

96d19 No.3702

File: 1577756401672.png (1.37 MB, 766x811, 1534006345939.png) ImgOps Google iqdb

Now, where's that green that I had lying around? Oh Yeah…

>if you enjoy shotacon/lolicon art you must be a pedophile

>if you enjoy guro art you must be a murderer who fucks corpses
>if you enjoy rape art you must be a rapist
>if you enjoy furfag art you must be into beastiality
>if you enjoy BLEACHED art you must want lwc
>if you enjoy BLACKED art you must want bbc

As revolting as I find explicit lolicon to be, the last thing we need is another stupid slippery slope dictated by people who can't even determine simple fact from fiction. I'll probably still silently judge you, but I won't sully your name by associating you with actual pedophiles.

1b4bb No.3703

>>3702

Pretty much me.

Like I don't want to find any hill to die on bht will not be actively defending folks if they make an ass out of themselves.

e4ad5 No.3705

File: 1577864416750.jpg (31.01 KB, 500x375, 1411763621959.jpg) ImgOps Google iqdb

>>3702
Literally everything in your greentext is absolutely true though.

How could you be sexually aroused by depictions of underage kids engaged in sexual acts and claim to not be a pedophile? Why would you be into rape art unless you were fantasizing about being the rapist and getting aroused by the power you wield over the helpless victim in question? Why would you want to shag an anthropomorphic animal person unless you had a passing interest in bestiality?

The type(s) of fantasy porn you prefer reflect your very real tastes and beliefs in sexual gratification. If you're trying to convince people that your SBBW futa cuck fur loli guro porn preferences are the exact opposite of your 'real life' turn-ons, then chances are you're either a troll or you're in denial.

7deb8 No.3707

>>3705
>Why would you be into rape art unless you were fantasizing about being the rapist and getting aroused by the power you wield over the helpless victim in question?

A lot of women have rape fantasie, tthat doesn't mean they actually want to be raped

55014 No.3708

Yeah no surprise ZX made this thread

e501a No.3710

>>3705
Ah yes. I suppose enjoying a shooter game also means I'd like to shoot people, and filmmakers creating slasher movies are well on their way to massacring some teenagers. Rape is statistically one of the most common female fantasies and I suppose all those women REALLY want to be raped. Is the kid who gets bullied and wants his bully dead also a murderer? No, that'd be ridiculous.

If you cannot differentiate fantasy from reality, that's on you.

ce155 No.3711

>>3699
if it's a blue checkmark they're automatically wrong, this is basic knowledge.

fdd43 No.3712

>>3700
Isn't beinng into Shota/Loli the definition of pedophilia. The more specific is pedo =/= child-rapist.
>>3710
Those saying saying aren't technically wrong is just that for most people playing/making fantasy is enough to satisfy those urges.

69513 No.3713

File: 1577907532470.png (555.78 KB, 788x550, notapipe.png) ImgOps Google iqdb

This is a picture of a pipe. It radiates no carcinogens and will never burn tobacco, marijuana or any other plant that possesses chemical substances that release them when burned.

It is merely symbologically representative of an item or object with a purpose with which we are familiar, and has no inherent, intrinsically harmful properties. A picture of a pipe is not a pipe, not a temptation to actually use the item in question, and poses no risk or harm in its existence as a theoretical object.

The thing about obscene topics in art is that the people caught up in them believe you can "improve the morality of society" by controlling and dictating what topics of thoughts and expression are acceptable and what are not. They use the imaginary construct of society to claim if you just make right or wrong absolute based on the subjective views of an authority they prefer and pick by hand, then crime will be reduced, for the people will not be tempted nor will they somehow "warp or pervert" themselves by "harmful influences and bad learning."

The truth is that people are people, not puppies to train, and "society" does not teach people to be moral or correct. Trying to correct peoples sexual interests is like trying to cure their sexual orientation at all. You cannot do it under normal circumstances, and it's not something you should try. The moral basis of doing so is questionable at best, and it doesn't lead to a, "greater good." Just thought control, punishment for expression and arbitrary censorship. Criminalization of designs in two or three dimensions, be they traditional or digital.

Obscenity laws exist as a holdover from times of both traditionalist theorcratical control and modern secular would-be overlords of what is an acceptable thought based on beliefs about what is, "mentally healthy." Their only purpose is to be the working force arm of moral busybodies whom believe you can slash and burn, "troublesome" subject matter out of the human condition, if one only has an authoritarian institution minding it and the people operating in those circles of legitimate art and media.

There is objectively no harm, physical or mental, in loli or shota. No children were harmed in the creation of the art. Just the same as no harm was made in the creation of regular pornography and no harm comes to people simply by being pornography. And it is the harm principle that matters most in this debate. If there is no harm, no theft, no unlawful use of property, then there is no crime nor problem, and there should be no solution imposed.

The only people that truly believe illustrated or even acted pornography is harmful are those that believe either sex is wrong when not expressed according to some ideological take (traditional conservatism) or that it's wrong because to use the "image," of, for example, women, without reimbursing ALL women for the "depiction of their demographic," is to "steal from women their intellectual property." And that just becomes a trojan horse to demand we impose some sort of authoritative body over demographics to decide what depiction is lawful and legitimate and which institution is allowed to censor or permiss it based on whatever inane criteria they've decided is best practice.

And similarly, by the logic that engaging in fantasies "warps you to commit them in reality" or "betrays a desire to actually act out on it," everyone playing shooting games is a potential mass shooter. Except, this is very, very false. As the spread of video games has gone up and society and culture has been saturated with Grand Theft Auto, Doom, Call of Duty, crimes ACROSS THE BOARD, GLOBALLY, have gone down. Yes. We are actually less likely to be shot now than we were in the 1990s. Even with the much publicized mass shooting risks, things are actually less than 50% what they used to be, and the trend goes downwards every year. So, every year, more evidence. Every year, another nail in the coffin for the theory that says acting and fantasizing about something means an increase in the likelihood of harm, or a culture of crime.

But that won't impress the moral busybodies, whom depend on the fantasies and imaginations and fears of insecure people in order to convince them to justify authoritarianism.

54be7 No.3714

>>3713
This. Definitely this!

ae3f3 No.3715

>>3713

Damn.

You made a lot of sense and pretty much nailed that shit on the head.

3a856 No.3716

>>3713

Thank you for being so much better at expressing that than I ever was.

17e9e No.3717

If I'm enjoying yaoi, yuri manga, does it mean that I am lesbian / gay ?
If I also enjoying straight means I am a bisexual ?
If I enjoy Astolfo getting fucked means that I am transexual ?

Sorry, I'm a well paid worker husband who still loyal having sex with my wife

fdd43 No.3718

>>3713
Playing violent video game don't automatically make you school shooter but to say that they have absolutely no affect on your mental development is a bit reductionist. For example, why my interest in pregnancy is natural but my preferance towards preg hentai is definately something I gain over time from exposure to anime. All media influence our perception of the world and people are sometime are right not wanting certain media that glorify "harmful ideas". Unfortunately as long as individual opinion still exist there will never be a consensus on what constitute harmful.

e501a No.3719

>>3718
>Playing violent video game don't automatically make you school shooter but to say that they have absolutely no affect on your mental development
Find me a single study that corroborates this.

1b4bb No.3720

Any ways.
A bit off-topic but what are you guy's thoughts on Netflix's Big Mouth?

ce155 No.3721

>>3720
trash

0ef7c No.3722

>>3721

Yeah.

The biggest issue I have is how apparently the show is based on actual sexual experiences of the creators.

Yeah……….I am getting HUGE yikes vibes.

69513 No.3723

>>3718
>all media influence our perception of the world

No. That's not how it works. Media can only present you with a logical train of thought. It is you, entirely, utterly you, that chooses whether or not you accept and believe and gel with that or not. That's not a subtle, unavoidable, inevitable part of media. It has to be something you agree with for it to affect you, or imposed on you as gaslighting and presented as fact and mental torture for you to internalize it. And even that can be undone with a simple logical conversation showing proof and facts that takes ambiguity away.

This attitude that just a statement will make a person start to think something is juvenile and has been used by everyone from nannies and mothers to despots to argue why only positive or good things should be said, or "good things" should be said, "at all" to combat constant negativity.

People with tenuous grasps of reality believe that bullshit. And people that WANT TO BELIEVE that other people are so easily manipulatable and that that's how individuals work, so that should be policy for "society." want to believe this. Or at least impose rules and policies that treat this as true.

You are wrong. Unequivically wrong. Media and culture can only do that when presented as absolute fact and no opportunity to think critically, like a self-determined adult, is allowed. Sadly, those aforementioned authoritarians then appropriated the terms, "think critically," and turned them into, "critical lenses." Which are literally deliberately putting on ideological lenses to interpret things.

94f3b No.3724

>>3723
Here Here.

e4ad5 No.3725

>>3710
It wouldn't be rape if the woman wants it. So rape fantasies are contradictions in themselves.

e4ad5 No.3726

>>3713
On the flip side of this argument:

Are you also saying that people that actually engage in pedophilia/rape/etc. are not turned on by it when browsing porn on the internet?

69513 No.3727

>>3726
If that pedophile/rapist then goes and eats tablesugar, is the tablesugar tainted, with the knowledge that the rapist enjoys sucrose/table sugar?

A pedophile or rapist enjoying a thing that is not rape or pedophilia, has absolutely no bearing on whether the thing is moral or immoral. How much they're turned on by it is irrelevant to the people that are neither turned on by real underaged human beings nor acting on their urge to harm younger people.

fdd43 No.3728

>>3727
There should be a distinction between paedophile and child-rapist. Being atracted to children/childlike-entities make you a pedo by definition. Not all pedophile are child-rapist.
Also your arguments about sugar doesn't work because the is a big differance between eating sugar something almost everybody enjoy while child sexualization is something that few people actually enjoy.
Anyway morality arguments have always been line in the sand so arguing about it is meaningless unless you can publish a study that say "Sexialization of fictional children is good and here's why".

69513 No.3729

>>3728
And there's a distinction between, "drawing on paper with symbological representation," and "a child." If you have have sex with toy shaped like a vagina, you haven't raped any woman just because cis female human beings bear sexual organs resembling the symbological prop the sex toy represents. No pedophilia has been committed because the person in question has not lusted after a child. You cannot be a pedophile and masturbate to a drawing. Even symbologically, they only represent those things in the abstract.

So again, "This is not a pipe."

And while yes, pedophiles can do an act, the fact a pedophile can engage in the act does not make the act itself pedophilia, especially not when engaged by other people. It would make it a pedophile engaging in the act, not making the act itself pedophilic.

You don't have to be a child rapist in order to be a pedophile, no, but you do have to desire human children. If there's no sexual attraction to living, existing human minors, then there's no pedophilia involved here. Symbols and drawings are not real. Therefore, drawings of children and drawings of murder are neither pedophilic or anti-social. No crime is being committed here. Loli/shota are not sexualization of actual children, which is the definition of pedophilia. They're sexualization of abstracts and fantasies and fiction. Pedophilia requires an an actual human child victim.

And illegal burden of proof reversal. Anything that which is not inherently harmful to another human being is legal and benign. The argument of morality ends where objectivity begins, and unless YOU can put forwards proof that violent video games, novels, fiction of any kind contributes to violence and murder and theft in the real world, unless you can PROVE that someone drawing Rule 34 of South Park, Rugrats, Teen Titans or Muppet babies characters in sexual positions or situations directly harms real life children, then you have no argument.

I do not need to prove sexualization of fictional characters is good. It's neither bad nor good. It's a non-crime and a non-harm. No more than drawing a picture of a politician in the privacy of your own home and burning it is a threat on their life. It is you that needs to prove the objective harm caused by people whom consume loli and shota.

Much like with table sugar, pedophiles that already harm underaged people already exist and operate, whether they have access to loli and shota or other illustrated pornography of depictions of underaged characters, or not. You cannot therefore say, "pedophiles like loli and shota, therefore anyone that likes loli or shota is a pedophile." Because people whom exclusively like loli and shota illustrations exist, and the burden of proof is on you to show and demonstrate, without a shadow of a doubt, that all of them are those that could or would even lust after real life children; we aren't even talking about those that experience those urges but REFUSE to act on them. You have to prove everybody that consumes and masturbates to loli and shota are also people that lust after REAL LIFE children, not just exclusively illustrations.

Unless you can do that, you have no argument. Whether it's good or nothing at all is irrelevant; it doesn't have to be /good/ to be valid. YOU have to find the HARM in something in order to ban it or raise alarm flags.

You have your work cut out for you.

1b4bb No.3730

I have to admit.

This is rather enlightening and I was looking for some shit to say to Blue Checkmarks on Twitter.



[Go to top] [Catalog] [Return][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ b / c / d / f / o / q / r ] [ home ]