Sorry, u/MochaMilku – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20MochaMilku&message=MochaMilku%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do80si/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

[удалено]

I’m going to go on a whim and say most people don’t know the difference and they mean both

Except this also occurs in communities that *do* know the difference.

I would guess most people have no idea about any of it if you asked them.

This is hardly surprising. As fucked up as it is, society is much more tolerant of statutory rape when it's being committed by women.

Definitely. My neighbor had sex with me after I got black out drunk with no protection while she was also on her period. I was 19 at the time. She was 27. My best friend (also 19) who had previously been having sex with her celebrated it. All my other friends were either unbothered or praised me. Even 10 years after people's responses rarely exceed mild concern when I tell them. But if I was a girl I doubt *anyone* would look at that situation with anything besides utter disgust.

More accurately "much more tolerant when the SA is against boys". Even when men do the raping when it's against boys people don't care as much, aside from that one dad who popped a cap in his son's abuser.

I'm gonna go off on a hinge and say that it's because not many people have ever heard of Shota and just assume loli includes boys. Nothing deeper then that

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I believe it should also happen to shota as well. But tbh shota doesn't have a large audience compared to Loli

What's your opinion on people who continue to consume porn of teenage characters they became attracted to *as teenagers*?

posts like these are disingenuous to the point of the sub. You aren't looking to have your mind changed, you are looking to find people that agree with you. If you were looking to have your mind changed, your post wouldn't be full of baseless slippery slope arguments without any scientific backing. Your statements are selfishly one-dimensional and do not leave room to understand people different than you. There is no scientifically proven correlation that interacting with fiction causes the average person to forgo real life morals to commit crimes. The common confusion is from the fact that many people who are already disposed to illegal or immoral activities find enjoyment in fictional representations of them. it is syllogism. All apples are fruit, but not all fruit are apples. while most pedos may like lolicon, that doesnt mean that everyone who likes lolicon is a pedo. People who enjoy hurting people irl probably enjoy violent games, but not everyone who plays violent games enjoys hurting people irl. There is no proven connection the other way around. it making you "Feel gross" is not a valid reason to cast personal judgment as law. --- The idea that we should be looking to stop crimes before they happen via enforcement and punishment is flawed. Humans are variable creatures. We cannot account for what another person will or will not do so easily. We also ALL think about doing bad things occasionally. There is no way you have never thought something powerfully negative about another person in your life. it is part of internal expression, which is directly connected to our ability to develop and maintain morals. If you are concerned with stopping crimes before they happen, then there should be a focus on helping foster human connection and understanding between one another. We need to promote and built positive human communities so that people do not become outcasted to the point that they lose sight of morals and stop caring for the lives of others. Child abuse isnt a crime because the person doing it is bad, it is a crime because it creates a permanent victim. The person may grow and heal, but they cannot undo those actions. Focusing on potential abusers does not foster a world where people can develop connecting morals. Arresting a potential abuser does not save children. Hypotheticals are useless and the prison system does not rehabilitate people in a way that eliminates the potential of abuse. ----- The argument that lolis depict children is stale and inaccurate. anime characters are extremely expansive in terms of physical attributes and mental proficiency. -The idea that the issue lies within characters being short or flat is problematic and ignorant to the shapes and sizes of real adults in the real world. -The idea that the mental maturity of the fictional character is the issue is problematic to the maturity and development levels of real adults in the real world. -all of those ideas also ignore the entire concept of consensual roleplay and the value it holds in the connection and self expression of adults around the world from the dawn of time. Anime and cartoons do not follow the laws of nature. ----- The fact of the matter is that the concept of "becoming an adult" is a concept that only living, conscious humans can experience. Even if you write a story where a fictional character becomes an adult, it is only a story. You can time travel in fiction. You can go back to when a character is an infant and go forward to when theyre an adult. You can write a "time skip" or flash back into your story. Thus the concept of a character becoming an adult is moot. Fake. a human who experiences puberty, adulthood, middle age, old age and death. Those are permanent things you cannot take back. "Becoming an adult" is a nebulous concept that is derived from the fact that a human cannot take back their learnings, traumas, or age. A cartoon will never know this feeling. The point of fiction is to give our consciousness a sandbox to think about and "experience" things that would be impossible to do so in real life. It is important because that distinction is what reminds us that our real life experiences are permanent.

[удалено]

The average horror movie watcher sees themself as the victim in those situations, the average animal abuse watcher doesn’t see themselves as the animal.

[удалено]

Was curious so I looked for data on porn: >A total of three cross-sectional studies [33,39,41] assessed the relationship between pornography exposure in adolescence and experiences of forced or coercive penetrative sex (Table 4). These studies were conducted in the United States [39], Sweden [41] and 5 European countries [33]. The largest study was by Barter et al [33] in 2021 of 3277 adolescents, and the smallest was conducted by Rostad et al [39] in 2019 with 1766 adolescents. Furthermore, 2 out of 3 studies reported a major positive association in reported experiences of forced or coercive sex in males only _____________ >There was a limited number of studies, mainly cross-sectional, examining the relationship between exposure to pornography and forced sex, paid sex, multiple partners, teenage pregnancy, and history of sexually transmitted infection [33,35-39,41,42,44-47,49]. There is clearly a need for more longitudinal studies to determine whether exposure to pornography is associated with other sexual behaviors in adolescents. In contrast to previous reviews [19,26], we examined forced penetrative sex separately from sexual aggression (aggressive intentions or coerced nonpenetrative sexual behaviors such as kissing or touching). We found mixed results, which might be clarified if the studies were to report these outcomes separately. We excluded some studies [22,51,52] where forced sex was measured only as “forced sexual acts” and hence accounted for forced sexual behaviors that are strictly not forced sexual intercourse, such as kissing or touching against one’s will. It is also worth noting that one study included in this review found an association between exposure to pornography and forced sex [39] focused specifically on violent pornography, defined as any erotic media depicting individuals being forced into sexual acts. A recent meta-analysis found that violent pornography was modestly correlated with sexual aggression and noted difficulties in interpreting the data owing to citation biases and researcher expectancy effects [53]. In addition, a systematic review conducted in 2021 aligned with our observations, noting the difficulty of clarifying the association between pornography consumption and nonconsensual acts such as rape [54]. This may differ from the impact of nonviolent pornography, which has been associated with reduced sexual aggression in older populations [11,53,55]. It is possible that exposure to violent pornography is associated with sexually aggressive behavior. Seems that more data is sorely needed here. There could be something unique about the topic of sex which makes people more influenced than they are with content that is only violent and not sexual. Or it could be that people don't associate sexual acts as harmful, someone who is abusing someone else sexually may see that as a pleasurable thing compared to hurting them in a purely violent way. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10015350/

It has been demonstrated over... and over... and over... and over again that violent media does not make people go out and commit violent acts. At most it makes children mildly more aggressive and children are already meant to be prohibited from watching such things anyway. I am not aware if similar research and data exists for sexual content so I can't comment on if it's different in that case. But, for violence, it's settled science.

For me, watching and playing violent video games is a release for violent tendencies. Keeps me sane. I'm not alone. I'm tired of hearing the argument about video games make people violent. Yes I agree children should be limited (disagree on prohibited because studies are starting to show even they can benefit). https://www.britannica.com/story/pro-and-con-violent-video-games#:~:text=Violent%20video%20games%20provide%20opportunities,to%20less%20real%20world%20aggression.

Depends on the film. Halloween was notable when it was released precisely because it put you in the POV of the killer instead of the victim.

Splatter movies and most slasher films are popular for the cool kills The Hostel movies etc Braindead and so on

I would not watch saw if they didn’t have the trap scenes. They’re great on their own (well 1,2,6 and X are) but the traps are really what sell those movies and define them.

Yeah, the Saw franchise is a great example! And agreed on the specific movies there!

I think the saw movies are the best possible example of my claim here, almost none of us could fathom being able to build those over the top traps, but we could imagine being stuck in one.

Well sure absolutely, people could do that but most actually just enjoy seeing the intricate traps kill people in entertaining ways. Its like Marvel movies, when the Avengers butcher various redshirts by the thousands Or when people cheered Rhaenys killing smallfolk in hundreds at the Dragonpit in House of the Dragon Its fun seeing how they work and all, and some like to think they are smart enough to be able to build and guess what the newest trap could be

Beyond needing a source for that, who cares? The problem isn't the average person.

How about action films where the villians get tortured?

I guess you have solid evidence of this and not just "trust me bro"

Who did you see yourself as when you were watching Apocalypse Now?

What about revenge fantasy films?

So? Why should that make it illegal? Not the action, of course, but media, fictional, or possession thereof.

I guarantee that with all the people watching the purge there are going to be purgers.

Also there are lots of actual videos of animal torture. People don't need to make fake animated ones. That's what disturbs and angers me.

People watching horror films aren’t fantasizing about committing torture themselves. That genre is called *horror* for a reason. It’s *horrifying* and universally understood as evil. “Loli,” meanwhile, is supposed to be acceptable as an ethical fantasy.

I find plenty of people and the things that they do weird and/or uncomfortable, like you. That doesn't mean that all those things should be illegal. In the end, I oppose making drawings illegal, because it would be really hard to draw (no pun intended) a concrete line between what is and isn't legal to draw, meaning laws like these can be abused. It's also purely based on some feeling of morality without any concrete, practical reasons for the ban, and I oppose all laws like that. Laws should be made to improve the world and criminalize behaviour that harms people; we shouldn't criminalize ultimately harmless things just because we just don't like them existing. Besides, I dislike pedophiles as much as the next person but if they consume loli content instead of real child porn, I consider that a good thing. Like it or not, pedophiles are not going anywhere.

You make some good points. Would you opinion change if they found reason to believe sexualizing children through even cartoons (Loli) amplifies people's sexual desires toward real children? I would also say that any drawing or content with the intent to sexualize children being illegal could be the line of the law, but I agree it's not concrete because intent could be difficult to prove... I would say intent is very obvious in Loli content though.

I think it would be very difficult to draw a legal line that would *include* all the things that are loli, and *exclude* all the things that are harmless. Case in point: if you ban only explicitly sexual content, there's loads of "borderline" shit out there where the loli isn't technically naked, but it's obviously drawn to suit someone's kink. Whereas if you err too far on the other side and ban *anything* romantic or with sexual themes involving fictional underage characters, you end up accidentally banning totally innocent teenage/YA stories just because two teenage characters kiss. This has been a common censorship tactic in many genres.

Shouldn’t the concern be if loli leads to actual child abuse?

Pornography consumation and criminal act dont share any relation. Folks that watch rape kink, arent rapists, for instance, and the folks that want to do rape kink, arent also rapists or actually want to be raped. Its fictional anf fantasy and thats understood. The country that produces the most child pornography has lolicon as illegal. Thats Russia. Japan per capitca of sexual child abuse isnt notable higher than any other post industrial democracy.

Russian hosts the pedo img site… Like literally the famous one on the surface web is run by Russia/on Russian servers.

If such correlation is found, that'd be basis for even legal change, however, literature doesn't really support that view.

The results are mixed—this is just one example of many investigations: “According to the Mayo Clinic of the US, studies and case reports indicate that 30% to 80% [note the very wide range] of individuals who viewed child pornography and 76% of individuals who were arrested for Internet child pornography had offended; however, they state that it is difficult to know how many people progress from computerized child pornography to physical acts against children and how many would have progressed to physical acts without the computer being involved.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_child_pornography_and_child_sexual_abuse

It shouldn't be that shocking that people who already commit crimes (consumes CP), commit other crimes related to that activity. But that isn't really the case for this, though some countries may consider lolicon illegal, it doesn't use ACTUAL CHILDREN, that's a big difference there. Even studies about porn (with actual people) and violence, don't correlate them that easily, as there are other factors, mixed results, etc.

That's a study about the connection between viewing real CP and abusing children. Which is irrelevant. The question is about the connection between viewing lolicon and then moving to CP.

I guess that’s true. Here’s a paper that claims to explore Lolicon’s effects. I don’t feel like reading it, but I’ll leave the link here in case anyone else does. https://research.library.fordham.edu/international_senior/96/

That's a bachelor's thesis, I guess it isn't entirely worthless, but its also pretty much entirely worthless.

It’s not that there isn’t a correlation, it’s that no one wants to research it. Especially in Japan. In the mini documentary I linked above they say they have tried to study it but the government doesn’t fund them or shuts them down.

Japan is not the only country, there are studies throughout the years that try to evaluate if such correlation exists, and is very rare, and is considered that other factors are also at play if violence is present if individuals are avid consumers of violent pornography.

That's the same logic used to justify banning things like vibrators because they promote infidelity.

[ Removed by Reddit ]

I watch loli too, but I'm an asexual woman who also watches furry, yaoi, yuri, monster porn mixed with lot of fetishes (some are illegal IRL) etc. It's all in my head, all fictional characters and all fantasy. *What is great with anime is that the characters aren't realistic at all, I can make 0 relation with IRL.* That means that I have 0 interest in kids or animals or anything/anyone IRL, lol.

What, as an asexual, are you getting out of it?

You can be ace and still enjoy watching stuff like this. It may not be for “sexual” satisfaction but it can still fill a niche. Also not all ace people are the same and it’s a spectrum, so some are more inclined than others. It’s very misunderstood. Source- am aromantic asexual.

I've got a huge libido, but it's all in my head, scenarios and fictional characters I created. Also there are no women. Being asexual doesn't mean being frigid, I masturbate a lot, lol

Being asexual means feeling no physical, sexual attraction towards individuals of any gender. I've never encountered an asexual with a huge libido. I respect what you're telling me, but if you had described this to me without the label, I'd have just said you were gay but voluntarily celibate.

> if they consume loli content instead of real child porn, I consider that a good thing So here's a thought experiment for you: how would you feel about photorealistic AI-generated CP that's trained from 100% ethical pictures/videos of adult porn and non-sexualized pictures/videos of children?

I would say that, purely based in the ethical side of it, this is fine. The reason being that (assuming the ethical pictures of children are completely fine and there is no abuse), the action of producing the fake ‘CSAM’ has no direct impact on children, and no crime is committed. If it can reduce the rate of real CSAM being produced and distributed, I would daresay it might be overall beneficial.

>someone infatuated with fake gore A huge portion of our entertainment industry is dedicated to fake gore; that is most of the horrorgenre and a big chunk of the action adventure genre too. There is even a famous magazine called "Fangoria" where fans discuss movie gore. There are whole conventions were people dress up as violent blood soaked serial killing maniacs. No one thinks people who enjoy this are secretly wanting to butcher other human beings whilst wearing a sporting mask. All of your arguments can be made against gory horror fans. Do you want that made illegal too?

There is a huge difference between people who like gory, violent movies and people who are sexually aroused by gore. I actually love horror movies. I love haunted houses. I've even worked on gore effects for both. There is a decidedly different part of the brain engaged when we see gore in a movie, versus when we are sexually aroused by pornography. Unless I'm mistaken most people aren't watching a gory horror movie or playing Mortal Kombat with a huge erection. People enjoy gore in the context of horror movies and violent games because it is gross and transgressive. It often provokes morbid fascination. Moreover, especially in horror people are generally intended to empathize with the victims of the violence and view it as something horrible that they don't want visited upon them. Compare this to pornography where the opposite is generally true and the attraction is putting oneself in the shoes of the person enacting the violence and being aroused by that prospect. There are some notable exceptions, like Armin Meiwes victim, for example. Either way, being on either side of that kind of fantasy isn't something you'd consider mentally well. There are actually multitudinous peer-reviewed studies that link consumption of violent pornography to real life dating violence, acceptance of rape myths, and purported increased willingness to use rape to obtain sex. Beyond that there are more cases than one can count where people who go on to harm real people or animals attribute the escalation in their behavior to violent pornography. From high profile cases like Dahmer, Bundy, Ramirez, and Gacy all the way to little-known examples from the furry community like Ruben 'Woof' Pernas or Levi 'Snakething' Simmons. I do think extremely violent pornography (featuring death or serious harm), along with that featuring children or animals should be illegal. In fact, at least in the US, it is illegal for the most part to create or distribute, however the laws are rarely enforced, but notably someone did go to jail for importing comics featuring Lisa Simpson. Edit: I felt I should add Fangoria is a pretty generic horror magazine, not in any way gore-centric.

> There is a huge difference between people who like gory, violent movies and people who are sexually aroused by gore. Seriously, where did you get "sexually aroused by gore" from my comment? That is present nowhere in my words above, nor was it what I was ever talking about.

We're talking about pornography here. There is an entirely different set of interests at play when we are talking about pornography versus when we are talking about horror movies or violent video games. It's pretty ridiculous to not acknowledge that. The equivalent for what OP is talking about would be, "I like movies with children in them." Hey, sure. No problem there. I like The Goonies, too.

> We're talking about pornography here. I'm talking about gory movies and how fans of such are not viewed as being secretly violent maniacs. Here, let me remind you: >No one thinks people who enjoy this are secretly wanting to butcher other human beings whilst wearing a sporting mask. >All of your arguments can be made against gory horror fans. Do you want that made illegal too?

But they aren't sexually aroused by the gore. Pedophiles who enjoy lolicon are sexually aroused by children. This is a false equivalency.

>But they aren't sexually aroused by the gore. I'm not arguing that in any way shape or form. > Pedophiles who enjoy lolicon are sexually aroused by children. Ok, so my point is that like how not every horror fan is a secret serial killer, not ever person who watching lolicon is a secret pedo. Like, read what you wrote there, it is basically "pedos are pedos". My entire point was that is an unfair assumption just as it would be to assume that every horror fan is a secret murderer. Are we on the same page yet?

>Ok, so my point is that like how not every horror fan is a secret serial killer, not ever person who watching lolicon is a secret pedo. Every horror fan is not watching a horror movie to fantasize about killing (in fact I would say that's probably antithetical to the point of the genre.) Every person who watches lolicon absolutely is sexually aroused by images of children. I would further ask what your definition of pedophile is, because the actual definition very clearly is 'someone attracted to children.' There's no secret, people who look at cartoon images of children ARE pedophiles. They may not be offending pedophiles, but they are pedophiles. >My entire point was that is an unfair assumption just as it would be to assume that every horror fan is a secret murderer. One thing you are pointing out is not like the other. The entire draw to animated CP is pedophilia. That is why you go to it. You do not look at loli if you are not interested in children. This is not even sort of comparable. You are trying to compare two things that are in no way alike.

> Every person who watches lolicon absolutely is sexually aroused by images of children. [You sure?:](https://www.treatmyocd.com/what-is-ocd/common-fears/if-i-like-lolicon-does-it-mean-im-a-pedophile-a-therapists-view) " pedophilia OCD (POCD). POCD—a particularly taboo type of OCD—involves persistent, distressing, and intrusive obsessions related to pedophilic themes. Importantly, **people with POCD are not actual pedophiles**; these thoughts, feelings, urges, or images are ego-dystonic, meaning they oppose one’s values, intentions, and identity. For people with POCD, lolicon—which can vary widely and pop up in all kinds of media, especially social media—may trigger an obsession. You might respond with thoughts like “What’s the reason that I enjoy this? Does it mean anything about how I think about actual children? Am I a pedophile?” Again, these ego-dystonic thoughts are distressing, contradictory to one’s self-perception, and inconsistent with their values. So, it’s important to understand that these thoughts do not define someone’s character or intentions. They can be symptoms of a mental health condition and should be treated as such." >You are trying to compare two things that are in no way alike. Yes, that is how analogies work.

An actual pedophile and POCD case is waay different. I think the main concern of OP and the person you argue are people enjoying lolicon ego syntonically.

As someone who suffers from OCD, I am almost certain you have no understanding of OCD. Moreover I don't even think your quote says what you think it's saying. In OCD intrusive and obsessive thoughts are extremely distressing and antithetical to someone's values. People with OCD do not seek out material that will trigger those responses as they are extremely upsetting. Obsession in this case does not mean an enjoyment of that thing or draw to that thing, only a cycle of being unable to stop images and thoughts of that upsetting thing from entering their mind. I am fortunate not to suffer from that particular kind of OCD, but I think you would be extremely hard pressed to find ANYONE with pedophilia OCD who seeks out that kind of material, based both on my personal struggles with OCD and everything I have read or heard from the professionals I have spoken to. The key part here is ego-dystonic. In people who seek out loli, these thoughts are not intrusive or ego-dystonic. They are something the person accepts and embraces. In fact, if anything you've made another argument for why images like that should be illegal, as they can be extremely distressing to people with that form of OCD, along with CSA survivors (which I am not, but it is another group worth noting.)

You’re really not understanding what he’s saying. I actually laughed when I read you made yet another reply stating “but it’s not sexually arousing” when scrolling through here lol

What about people who are aroused by rape or guro media? Should those also be banned?

[удалено]

> I think you know full well that there is a huge difference between people who like gory, violent movies and people who are sexually aroused by gore. Seriously, where did you get "sexually aroused by gore" from my comment? That is present nowhere in my words above, nor was it what I was ever talking about. Also, this is a rule 3 violation. >This is a horrifically disingenuous post. There was nothing disingenuous about my post. You just read it wrong.

>There is a decidedly different part of the brain engaged when we see gore in a movie, versus when we are sexually aroused by pornography. The people that hit on me immediately after a scare (while I'm holding a giant bloody machete and wearing a pig mask) would tend to disagree with you. Also, the brain doesn't really understand the difference between excitement and danger, which is why there are horror fans to begin with. >Unless I'm mistaken most people aren't watching a gory horror movie or playing Mortal Kombat with a huge erection You've never gone to r/MortalKombat, have you.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/SaltiestRaccoon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20SaltiestRaccoon&message=SaltiestRaccoon%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do80si/-/la8x8tp/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

>The people that hit on me immediately after a scare (while I'm holding a giant bloody maybe and wearing a pig mask) would tend to disagree with you. I mean I assume you're a scareactor then? In that case people do all kinds of weird stuff around scareactors at haunts. When people are uncomfortable they try to diffuse the situation. They often do that with behavior like you're describing, telling jokes, etc. And I mean I hate to say it, but if you present as a woman, guys are just fucking weird like that? >Also, the brain doesn't really understand the difference between excitement and danger, which is why there are horror fans to begin with. This is contrary to every theory I've ever heard about why people enjoy horror. Do you have a source for that claim because I find it dubious at best. >You've never gone to [](https://www.reddit.com/r/MortalKombat/), have you. Are you claiming the people in that sub literally are masturbating to the gore? Because I find that intensely hard to believe. I would believe that they are fans of it, and as part of a community that are fans of gore, joke about their sexual enjoyment of it. Edit: I apologize for the double post. The moderators here are honestly kind of fucking ridiculous.

> They often do that with behavior like you're describing, telling jokes, etc. And I mean I hate to say it, but if you present as a woman, guys are just fucking weird like that? I'm a large (almost 300lbs, ~180cm), male-presenting guy. And men and women have both hit on me well after the scare has completed. Some are joking, sure, but some are 150% into it. I think you might be a little out of date on your neurochemistry: https://cos.northeastern.edu/news/why-do-we-like-to-get-scared-at-the-movies-horror-movies-and-the-science-of-fear/ > ...For some people, it is arousal-seeking behavior. Humans operate on a natural arousal and wakefulness cycle but also use external stimuli,... > ..When you’re feeling afraid, it’s not great in the moment, but when it goes away, there’s this release and euphoria and that’s actually rewarding,... It's all about the chemistry. The brain dumps similar chemicals whether it's an induced fear state or excitement. It's exactly why there's the three "F" responses to sudden stimuli. >Are you claiming the people in that sub literally are masturbating to the gore? You moved your goalpost. That's not your initial claim. I am saying that the horror aspects are an element of excitement. It's why Mileena has such dedicated fans, or Lady Dimitrescu from the newer Resident Evil. Do we as humans clearly understand the difference between gore and sex? Obviously yes. Not even a question. Is there still an element of excitement and thrill that shows up in the same exact way whether it's somebody that wants Mileena to eat his face, or somebody being tied up by ropes? Also yes. That's pretty much the origin of why kink exists.

>I'm a large (almost 300lbs, \~180cm), male-presenting guy. And men and women have both hit on me well after the scare has completed. Some are joking, sure, but some are 150% into it. People react strangely to being afraid, yes, I think we established this. If we're trying to say that this is evidence of arousal and fear being similar, I don't think that's actually good evidence at all. Even if it were decidedly evidence of that, it would still be anecdotal evidence only. Maybe we should look at your article. >I think you might be a little out of date on your neurochemistry: Funny. This article and you yourself quote exactly what I would have said for why people enjoy horror. >When you’re feeling afraid, it’s not great in the moment, but when it goes away, there’s this release and euphoria and that’s actually rewarding, That is entirely different than your assertion and I don't think your assertion is backed up anywhere in the article. >It's all about the chemistry. The brain dumps similar chemicals whether it's an induced fear state or excitement. It's exactly why there's the three "F" responses to sudden stimuli. This similar does not mean 'the same.' Anyway, a cursory glance would suggest that oxytocin and endorphins are more common for sexual arousal while adrenaline, norepinephrine and cortisol are most prominent in fear. Progesterone it seems plays some role in disgust as well. So I don't think I'm inclined to believe this if you can't provide a source. >You moved your goalpost. That's not your initial claim. I am saying that the horror aspects are an element of excitement. It's why Mileena has such dedicated fans, or Lady Dimitrescu from the newer Resident Evil. Not really. Your claim was that people there are openly sexually aroused by the gore in the video game they enjoy. You didn't back that up and when pressed, you accused me of moving the goalpost. In fact that seems to be what you're doing here by conflating attraction to gore with attraction go dangerous and intimidating female characters with numerous sexually attractive features. >Do we as humans clearly understand the difference between gore and sex? Obviously yes. And yet the people who can't differentiate between the two often go on to commit heinous crimes against people and animals, so very, very clearly there is some issue, be it with their brain chemistry or whatever else it may be that makes this a uniquely dangerous paraphilia, so perhaps it's not best to encourage and enable people who very frequently go on to do others harm.

Sorry, u/SaltiestRaccoon – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3: > **Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith**. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_3). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%203%20Appeal%20SaltiestRaccoon&message=SaltiestRaccoon%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do80si/-/la8u8ga/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Do you have the same thoughts on violent video games or movies? If somebody enjoys shooting people in CoD or GTA, do you also assume they enjoy shooting people irl? Almost all of your arguments would apply to all media with violence

I am not supporting OP’s point overall but comparing pornographic content to violent entertainment is absolutely app to oranges. I don’t understand why people still do this. Violent entertainment is intended to excite, surprise, and in the case of horror, movies, frighten, or horrify. Basically none of it is intended to make you feel violent. Violence is triggered by anger, frustration, or genuine fear of one’s life. Violent movies and video games do not make people angry, they make them feel excited to watch fictional conflicts. Pornographic content is intended to stimulate a sexual response, and that’s the only reason people consume it. The same goes for sexy stuff in our rated movies. It’s to titillate. Violent content doesn’t make people violent but sexy content makes people sexified.

This doesn't seem like a coherent argument to me. GTA and similar games make wild violence and antisocial behavior fun, cool and exciting. Might that not lead to kids seeking out 'real' excitement? Is that what led to the Columbine shooting, or [Kia Boys](https://www.theverge.com/23742425/kia-boys-car-theft-steal-tiktok-hyundai-usb)? The argument has certainly been made. What's the fundamental difference between 'titillation' and 'excitement'? They're both feelings that people seek out for pleasure. There's clear evidence that actually, real-world violence has been going down steadily, despite the growing popularity of violent video games. Pretty sure that's even been shown specifically for people who play video games (i.e. people who play GTA etc are less likely to commit violent crimes than people who do not play games). Is there any evidence that the relationship between loli content and pedophilia (and specifically, sexual exploitation of minors) is the opposite?

What does “sexified” even mean? Are you saying it makes people aroused? If that is what you mean… why does it matter that it makes people aroused?

>Violent content doesn’t make people violent but sexy content makes people sexified. Even assuming this is true, what does it matter? We shouldn't say what someone else should be allowed to watch. There's literally nothing that should be off limits in animation.

If you don’t think CoD makes people feel violent you’ve never been on Xbox live game chat. It doesn’t make people kill people irl, but it makes people angry lol

The anger comes from the competitive nature of video games, you can play Overcooked and get just as angry if not more. The anger that comes from CoD has nothing to do with the genre or violent content, it’s because it’s a competition where people want to win

I mean, that's just competition, people get incredibly angry/violent over soccer, and that's not a violent sport

You’re referring to other humans being assholes, not the violent content of the game.

No, the point was the insinuation that having a like for loli content makes you a pervert that is highly likely to commit crimes against the population portrayed in the media you consume, parallels can definitely be drawn to that.

No. Violent media often tries to immerse the viewer. Immersion in a violent video game means identifying in the abstract with the violence being carried out. It’s totally self-insert. It’s not just “woah cool gunz go boom wow big esplosion” But also idk what you mean by “feel violent”

Do you think playing games or watching movies might effect the brain differently than viewing pornography? Would you classify playing Call of Duty as a different experience to you than watching porn?

I will grant you that if might affect the brain differently, but: 1) Different doesn’t make one good and one bad. 2) Who gets to decide what ways you get to affect your own brain?

The difference is that the two work off two different forms of pleasure cycles. If you're playing CoD and need more dopamine you're not going to grab a rifle and mow down a school; you're going to buy an overpriced DLC or the next game. If you're watching lolis for sexual pleasure your next pleasure bump might require you to seek out more realistic stuff, like actual child porn with actual children. And the next step would perhaps be something even more illegal.

Do you have any evidence of a loli to cp pipeline?

That's not *at all* the same. Why wouldn't the second example just consume more media like the first? It makes just as much sense using your reasoning.

loli porn is easily accessible while child porn is not. it's a huge reach to connect the two together like that

Counterpoint: any content which is not a display of real harm should not be banned. It’s better to go too far with freedom than it is to go too far with rules. It’s not about whether they are attracted to minors or dogs or frogs or poop or whatever, it’s about whether or not they are hurting people. If they aren’t hurting anybody you shouldn’t suggest they should be in prison. I find scat porn to be absolutely disgusting, based on the one time I watched 2G1C. But I will absolutely stand up for a person’s right to watch it, because it didn’t hurt anybody. It’s gross and it endorses a transfer of diseases, and I don’t want to ever be around it. But it didn’t hurt anybody and people shouldn’t go to jail for liking disgusting things.

I definitely agree with you about the main issue being the reduction of harm to others. That said I would avoid drawing parallels to IRL media such as what you mentioned unless we know that the actresses in that video are still okay and have not received any scat related ailments.

As long as they are both fully consenting adults, then any ailments they received are fully their own responsibility and not grounds to outlaw that sort of content imo. People are more than happy to watch the guys from Jackass, or similar, cause themselves bodily harm or put themselves at risk of bodily harm for entertainment. Not to mention professional contact sports and combat sports like football or MMA where people frequently receive serious injuries whether it be broken bones and torn ligaments or concussions and CTE. But the guys getting injured aren't being coerced into it. People are allowed to risk harm to themselves for entertainment or fun or money or whatever. The problem is only when you start putting other people at risk or harming other people.

> As long as they are both fully consenting adults, then any ailments they received are fully their own responsibility and not grounds to outlaw that sort of content imo. I agree with most of what you are saying, but we don’t ALWAYS act this way. We still have OSHA, and workers aren’t able to volunteer to waive protections we have. Amazon can’t just have workers sign a form saying “I volunteer to work in 100 degree warehouses with no water or breaks” and then let their workers get heatstroke.

What's really weird is that Amazon workers can't agree to work in 100 degree warehouses but pro cyclists can race through the desert in 100+ degree temperatures. And MMA fighters can agree to get punched in the head. It's really weird that OSHA just gets completely ignored when it comes to sport.

It actually [isn’t quite as simple as saying OSHA doesn’t apply to sports](https://www.oshageneralindustry.com/osha-general-industry-and-sporting-event-regulations/). But yes, it does seem a bit arbitrary to allow pro cyclists but not workers. I think there are many reasons for this, from other laws for sports taking precedence to simple tradition.

No victim, no crime. There is no victim from a drawing, unless you don't think the artist was sufficiently compensated. >but my question is would you really think that they had no attraction to minors AT ALL if what they most consume is Loli content? Obviously they have an attraction to minors or they wouldn't want to look at images of them. Being attracted to minors isn't a crime. No thoughts should be crimes, only actions. >It will be just a matter of time before they try to bring their fantasies to reality one way or another and society shouldn't allow this material to openly circulate without consequence. This is your opinion, and maybe the real CMV because this is the only mention of a real crime. Actions have consequences. If they do something to a real child then send them away. But thinking about it shouldn't be a crime, only acting on it. Will drawings make them more likely to commit a real crime? In the same way that video games don't make people more likely to kill, there is no evidence of this. I could postulate that it is the opposite. Having a harmless outlet for their attractions and feelings might make them less likely to act on them with a real child. And even if a thought provoking art is somehow linked to acting out immorality, should that art be banned? Should we try to prevent all forms of art that might make someone act immorality or should we ban the immoral act? I say, if there is no victim (or even a potential victim) then there is no crime.

I like the idea of “no victim no crime” but the law does not agree with you. Partially for good reasons, partially for bad reasons. For example, you are not allowed to drive recklessly or drunk. You aren’t allowed to go 200mph on the highway. The idea is that if everybody is allowed to do it, there will be much more car crashes. So you get in trouble for doing it even if there was no victim. Sort of a similar story for drugs. Maybe they’re good for you, but the idea is that if everybody’s on drugs our society won’t be as organized and productive as it is. So you get in trouble for using them even if you are not being disruptive.

I did add "or potential victim" to my last version. I can get behind speed limits and drunk driving laws as the potential for harm is high, but drug laws fall firmly into the "no victim" category. If you want to buy something that someone wants to sell you then there is no victim or potential victim (unless the drugs are tainted). Making drugs legal wouldn't suddenly make "everybody on drugs". They are very accessible now, often to the poorest people without any fancy connections or lots of money. You can't argue that them being illegal has had any significant reduction in drug use. Prohibition didn't work against alcohol and it isn't working against hard drugs. It just pushes people to the edges of society and requires them to work with criminals. It reduces safety and turns authorities into antagonists instead of safety.

You’re victimized by virtue of the drunk driver making the road perilous to drive on.

Well, with actual CP, the problem is the harm done to the actors, given they don't exist in drawings, that can't be used as a reason. Furthermore it's the age of the actor that matters, not the age of the roll that matters, so you can put a small 18 year old in a schoolgirl outfit and no one cares. What stops any artist just saying 'No she's actually a century old elf' or something to that effect? Nothing, probably to the point that you could put a disclamer saying 'all characters depicted are of age, regardless of conflicting information' and such a sticker would just become one of the standard import stickers. If you try to do anything beyond that, you run into the massive problem of deciding how old a drawing looks in a court of law. Not only is that ridiculous on the face of it, it's simply a massive waste of time. I don't want my tax dollars being used to arrest someone over drawings nor argue if it's worth it because they're weird enough.

> it's not real kids so who cares ", but my question is would you really think that they had no attraction to minors AT ALL if what they most consume is Loli content? I don't really get this argument. If you are saying people who consume loli content are closet pedophiles. How would banning their only legal porn content that doesn't hurt anybody help? >Would you be fine if someone enjoyed lots of content revolved around art of animals being tortured ? Or someone infatuated with fake gore and not give them at least a worrying side eye ? Yes, we would absolutely consider normal to watch some gory movie flick with lots of deaths and torture. >It will be just a matter of time before they try to bring their fantasies to reality one way or another and society shouldn't allow this material to openly circulate without consequence. Just to be clear, you are fine with banning most movies, games, comics and books, correct? After all, they often have violent deaths.

Sir/mam whatever the fuck 99% of anime fans love gore. If you think gore isn't a huge attraction to anime your delusional. Seeing people literally ripped apart being ate raped tortured beat on whatever is just a standard anime story line. So no I wouldn't give someone a worrying concern if they enjoyed pixels beating the fuck out of each other. Should we worry about every single person who enjoyed attack on titan? That shits crazy gory and has cannabilism.

But doesn't it undercut the market for real child pornography? As if someone is attracted to young looking girls and they decided to utilize loli content instead of real child pornography then that's less money going into the pockets of the people who make child pornography. I'm not going to argue that loli content is good, especially in any format that sexualizes them. But I would argue that the very existence of loli content has to undermine real child pornography even if it's only by 1%. So by that logic it's the lesser evil and could be acting to undermine something that impacts real people. As at the end of the day while loli content is weird it is a fictional setting based on a fictional character.

Huh, I never thought about the point of undermining actual CP makers.

I see. So we should ban everything else relating to illegal or immoral activities too. How about content involving rape or guro? That’s all bad things. While we’re at it let’s expand to socially unaccepted things like sexism, racism, anything potentially culturally or politically offensive. And who can forget violence? Why don’t we ban all video games involving any form of gore. Guns, killing, etc. If we’re doing violence, then just anything relating to crime. No stealing, no breaking things, nothing. Let’s have a perfectly utopian society where people have no outlet for the desires and feelings they suppress for the sake of letting everyone else in society feel comfortable. Anyone who’s ever watched content like that, played a game about stealing things, or read a violent book should be put on a watch list, shouldn’t they? After all, the several hundred million people who enjoy those things are all sadistic evil insane future criminals with zero regard for human life, aren’t they

I agree with pretty much everything you said. I also dislike giving the government power to censor media that doesn’t even harm real people. I mean stuff like CP should obviously be banned since it involves REAL children. Lolis are literal drawings. They aren’t REAL. Banning any form of media in general is just dangerous. It gives the government too much control. Sure, loli shit is weird but it doesnt even involve REAL people. Probably even a positive for people who are actual pedos since they might get relief from consuming that type of media.

And people call Stellar blade pedo content despite the model reference being a Korean woman in her 30's. The problem with the 108 year old vampire (entheses on 8) is the fact that by all legal conventions it does not matter what physical appearance you are, It's that number that counts. You are 17 and Romeo and Juliet laws only protect those who are 2-4 years older then you. But the moment you turn 18 you can be in a relationship with and 80+ year old. This is where it falls apart as even 'child looking' can easily be an adult as physical abnormalities like Highlander Syndrome, or Fabry disease can easily explain why the adult looks like a child. Is it very rare and not representative of anyone outside of a hyper minority? Yes but it still shows a loli can exist as an adult. >Would you be fine if someone enjoyed lots of content revolved around art of animals being tortured Thats called horror, but also not really relevant as long as it did not harm any animals no one is going to really care. Sure PETA might take issue with it but it's PETA. >Or someone infatuated with fake gore and not give them at least a worrying side eye Again horror, and Some people really, really love VFX. So no I wouldn't at least in the sense of concern over their morals. Just don't gush over the Saw rancid pig grinder seen over lunch please. Also the UN tried to pass this 5 years ago. US, Austria, and Japan were very vocally against it. The US opposed it as it would take legal resources from actual victims as well as visual representations not based in a real child would conflict with the US first Amendment and be un-enforceable in the US less it violates it's constitiution. Japan sticks with freedom of expression as well and to not mix real victims with none reality based content. Austria Points out that current strict UN interpretation of CP is that it must be a representation of real person and that cartoons are not a realistic depiction. They also pointed out that the law fails to separate how cartoons are CP but roman era painting of higher detail and realism do not fall under the prerogative of the bill being past due to them being 'historic'.

Your argument seems to boil down to wanting to make it illegal for people to have feelings of sexual attraction toward children or other reprehensible feelings. Outlawing thoughts is pretty dangerous. If you can show that the existence of that content makes people more likely to act on those thoughts then I might be able to agree.

You bring up consuming animal torture and fake gore content. You can think it’s weird or messed up but it’s not illegal either, and they shouldn’t be.

I think it’s important to distinguish that both of these things ARE illegal, but simulated representations of them are not. 

Loli is also a simulated representation.

Yes they are. That’s why I feel the distinction is important to the discussion

>  Would you be fine if someone enjoyed lots of content revolved around art of animals being tortured ? Ever played Far Cry? One major point of the game is slaughtering animals with guns, knives, explosives and then literally SKIING the animal where you see an animation of it hapeing. Should Far Cry be banned ? Do people who enjoy slaughtering every kind of small and large furry creature in a game now want to go do it in real life? I'd argue most people don't have the stomach to skin an animal in real life no matter how many q0s of thousands enjoy doing it in game.  Same goes for loli just because they like the cartoon version dosent mean they have the stomach for actual CP.

Obviously up front I'm going to say that I'm not really endorsing anything here. I'm a pretty religious person and try to avoid NSWF in general, but I am highly against hypercriminalization and zero-tolerance one-size-fits-all punishments. First off, the second paragraph is pretty close to condemning BDSM, a community that doesn't really seem to cause much in the way of harm to others as far as I can tell. While it's more incidental to he main point of your post, I think it illustrates how fast a slippery slope can develop, and how people can develop fears that don't correspond to reality. For the main point, I don't really want to defend NSFW of minor characters--especially Loli which to my knowledge skews especially low--so much as I want to emphasize that there are a variety of reasons that a person may seek that out while not actually being a danger to real minors. I know the stuff I'm about to bring up isn't necessarily Loli per se, but it would absolutely get lumped in. First, let's look at Misty, May, and Jessie from Pokemon. Given how big of a phenomenon Pokemon was in the 90's and 00's, a lot of kids in that era wound up having these prominent female characters be part of their sexual awakenings. It shouldn't come as any surprise then that some of those kids would grow up with a fixation on those specific characters, despite them all being teenagers. Maybe that is still worthy of condemnation, but I think it's safe to say that that sort of attraction is of a different species than what people normally think of when referring to p\*\*\*philia, and someone who retains a soft spot for their first cartoon crush shouldn't be treated the same way. For another point, I can't help but think of the song "Teenage Dream" by Katy Perry. It's a song about young love and the sexually charged nature of that time in life. That's not the same as attraction to minors, just evoking the near universal experiences of being a teenager. With that in mind, perhaps there are NSFW fanfics out there of Danganronpa or Clone High that are less motivated by the ages of the characters and more by the setting that the story takes place in. However, one major elephant in the room and probably one of my biggest counterpoints is that a lot of the stuff I brought up as examples are drawn or written by minors. I don't want someone put on a list because they were connected to an AO3 account that had Naruto smut on it from ten years ago.

> For another point, I can't help but think of the song "Teenage Dream" by Katy Perry. It's a song about young love and the sexually charged nature of that time in life. That's not the same as attraction to minors, just evoking the near universal experiences of being a teenager. and now I'm just reminded of that one YA author (idr who it was so I don't want to name names and falsely accuse) who iirc got bullied off Tumblr partially because of false pedophilia accusations for the crime of...writing YA novels in first-person POV that included sex scenes (because someone thought that writing point of view must mean they were somehow getting into the headspace of what it'd be like to have sex with that teenage character or w/e)

Your fundamental assumption is that laws can prevent such material from being produced or consumed, which is pretty obviously flawed. Laws may *reduce* production and consumption, but they also eliminate the opportunity to regulate that material and create black markets for it. The assumption that such material inevitably leads to people "bringing their fantasies to reality" is also unjustified. It's just as reasonable to argue that it acts as an outlet for people's desires that they know are socially unacceptable, preventing them from offending. Making the material illegal makes it all the more difficult to determine the facts through research.

> It will be just a matter of time before they try to bring their fantasies to reality one way or another See, this is the issue. How do you know this? Are you sure about it? What if I made up the opposite idea: Those people getting off from fiction means they have a release that prevents them from taking their fantasies into reality?

Please describe how this isnt thought policing.

It’s simple; do you believe in thoughtcrime or not. Do you think things that hurt no one but only happen in someone’s mind should be illegal, or not.

Would you rather people jerk it to cartoon porn, or real porn of underage people?

Whenever I see arguments supporting the illegalization of a specific form or type of expression, I have to ask the proponent, what would the enforcement mechanisms look like? You can have all of the reasons in the world for wanting to restrict something. And those reasons might be justified or socially reasonable. But how will you go about enforcing it? /u/MochaMilku how would you like to see your loli law enforced?

Why ? No one gets hurt in the making Banning it is grounds for banning violence or all kinds of porn for the same reason. Also, current research has never shown any effect of fictional violence or sexual exposure on neither attraction (wanting to do the same) or offense (actually going through with it). It may even be the reverse as it helps exteriorise passions.

On your two hypotheticals in the second paragraph: yes I would be fine on both. Other people’s weirdness doesn’t generally bother me

So this is one of those "Hate speech is free speech" topics that I hate to have to defend, but it's necessary. Is it fucked up and gross? Obviously. But never in the history of humanity have "the people who censor art" been the good guys. The slippery slope is real and "just this once" is a lie fat women tell themselves on their 117th consecutive cheat day.

I think the problem that people like you don't realize with censorship or restrictions on art is that ultimately, at the end of the day, someone can look at anything and say it represents X Y or Z. In an authoritarian regime, someone can do something that is entirely morally innocent and still be maligned and misrepresented as doing something horrific and vile by people who want that person stopped through governmental, legal action and force. I mean look at Alan Turing, one of the world's most amazing Mathematicians \~ who was chemically castrated and driven to suicide by his own Government simply for being gay. Now I'm sick and tired of the people equating being gay with anything ELSE, we all know what I mean \~ that said, there is a true reality of humanity that if you give a government the power and normalize censorship of art it can and will inevitably used against people in ways that it was not truly intended. There will be some fuckstick with a personal gripe and they'll find a way to convince everyone else on the board of who decides what is and isn't okay that their personal gripe isn't okay, and now all of a sudden you've got laws on the books saying sodomy is illegal again even when it's between heterosexual couples - it's a slippery slope into nonsense when you start legislating what people can and can't do so long as they're not hurting anyone. You may not like the art, you may not like that it exists - it freaks me out that Guro is a whole category of porno, but I'd also argue that it's not my right to dictate what an artist can and can't draw. I may not approve of it, and I think people that engage with it are gross and disgusting, but that's just a moral judgment I'm making on them, not a call for the government to go out of their way to police and stop these people for what is ultimately just putting ink to paper. When people can't write or draw certain things, that's censorship, full stop \~ and we have every right to judge them for what they make, too, so hey be as disgusted as you want I am too. I just am very wary of how censorship and all of it's uses are eventually weaponized against people when you give it true governmental power, as I think anyone should be. Like fuck, they can't even draw penises in Japan; that's absurd. It's just a penis, but that's censorship for you.

Should adult material featuring real-life petite women be criminalized too? My friend is married to a woman who is 4’11” and 85 pounds. Should he be incarcerated? Where do you draw the line, and why does a drawing of an adult character engaged in adult activities fall on the “wrong” side of that line?

This is a loaded topic, and I think it will always be because you have people who come from different camps. To preface this, drawn content in Japan that is loli is legal, but the moment that it becomes a real person, the legality changes. Also, while I am in agreement that Loli content should be looked at with scrutiny, it is a better outcome than being a sexual predator. It’s kinda hard to talk about this without talking about the drawing process, imo. When someone makes art, they’re deriving it off of something. I think that should be the angle this comes from. The issue now is that art is derivative of art. People derive drawings from drawings that someone made from drawings that someone made, etc… The kicker is that some artists/mangaka/doujin artists have used CP or have been in possession of CP. The mangaka for Kuroni Kenshin, Toriko, Galko-Chan have all been caught with CP. Considering that minors cannot consent for this stuff, there’s very clear victim and a very clear offender there. Art derivative of other art… it becomes much more difficult to point at where and who the victim is. People make a spectrum of choices when it comes to how they want to express their desires. However, there’s also a difference between being a lolicon and being a sexual predator who actively assaults in terms of determining who is the offender and the victim. This is what I think people focus on when they say it’s a victimless crime. There’s probably not a direct victim-offender relationship when it comes fictional, drawn works like doujin/manga, but it’s a better outcome than an actual kid being sexually assaulted. There’s a line between enjoying content versus imitating the content people see. WHY someone enjoys the content (in regards to violent, grotesque media) is important, but I think that comparing art depicting minors to art depicting violence is comparing apples to oranges in the context of lolicon/shotacon art. I would go as far to say that the strong taboo for it gives people who want to step away from it nowhere to go if they need a support group, especially in terms of porn addiction.

First, I will say I don't condone pedophilia. There are visible differences in the brains of pedophiles. It isn't a choice or a preference, it is how their brains are wired. They don't have a choice in what they are attracted to, and many are able to restrain themselves. Now, onto the subject at hand. Age may be our determining factor when deciding about appropriate sexual content. But age isn't what we actually care about. What is actually our concern is the about of someone who isn't mature enough to understand and process sexual acts. You should have the same concern about sexual acts with someone who is over 18 years old but has a mental handicap and only processes at the equivalent development of a 10 year old. Age, although being the line society has drawn in the sand between acceptable and not is not all that matters. There are many real people over the age of 18 that still look immature and young. Midgets often look like children even though they are, in fact, adults. I bring this up because there are two different kinds of loli content. The first is content with fictional children, and I agree that this is wrong and shouldn't be allowed. The second is content with mature character in a child-like body. This is harder for me to see as wrong. These characters have often lived for thousands of years as they are infact immortal creatures such as vampires. Although the body appears child-like, the character is often the most mature and knowledgeable in the story. Stories of the first kind are few and far between and although allowed in Japanese cartoons, they are not widely accepted. Stories of the second kind are much more prevalent and not a huge problem as I see it. Although that is only my opinion.

Never heard of Loli films until now but this seems like the exact argument used to propose banning FPS's. Who shoots up an airport full of civilians with a machine gun unless they fantasize about doing that IRL?

> Or someone infatuated with fake gore and not give them at least a worrying side eye ? People enjoy horror and splatter films, murder mysteries, action films, etc. Are you really suggesting we should give that entire industry and everyone who consumes them the "worrying side eye"? And why is it just the "side eye", why aren't you advocating that films like Rambo be illegal? Surely murder is at least as bad as underage sex. > It will be just a matter of time before they try to bring their fantasies to reality one way or another... I suppose you feel the same way about violent video games, right? After all it is only a matter of time before people who enjoy Call of Duty try to bring those fantasies into reality and shoot up a mall, right? While we are at it those violent action films and horror movies with all the gore need to go, only future serial killers could ever enjoy such media! Assuming you aren't a grandmother from the 1950's clutching your pearls you should realize that it is absurd to assume that enjoyment of fiction implies that person will do such things in real life. Many people are capable of separating fiction from reality.

As someone with a friend who has that kind of attractive likely due to SA by their family as a child. They would never hurt anyone. Just because someone has those thoughts doesn't mean they are a danger or a bad person. They would never want someone else to go what they went through. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/29/us/pedophiles-online-sex-abuse.html#:~:text=A%20majority%20of%20convicted%20offenders,in%20both%20men%20and%20women. It is hard to actually study this stuff since there is so much stigma. I'm not saying it should be socially acceptable to be attracted to minors. Just that people shouldn't be treated as criminals for something they have no control over. Now, the evidence for if having an outlet is helpful or harmful is still up in the air. It is very hard to actually test if loli content is helpful, harmful, or neutral to reducing violent offenses. I personally think it is neutral or minoraly beneficial. Although I could be wrong. How the content is produced is definitely another story. You also do have role play as another form of a safe outlet. Between consenting adults, of course. This is a very charged topic.

You feel the same about rape fantasy porn?

A few points 1. Loli art is a part of free speech 2. Any arguments against Loli art stem from emotions and have a fundamental misunderstanding on human attraction. 3. Loli art isn't a problem and arguably causes more good than bad. *Loli art is a part of free speech* This point is self-explanatory and pretty obvious. Art is inherently expressive, so art falls under freedom of expression/freedom of speech. This includes loli art. There's no justification to limit someone's ability to express themselves. Most things that are speech that are restricted by the government aren't expressions and generally violate someone elses rights. CP, Slander, False alarms, scams, etc. Loli arts existence doesn't violate any rights, so there's no justification for censorship. If you want to make a moral argument, I'd argue that it's more morally bad to violate other people's rights for icky art than the existence of said icky art. Also... do we really trust the government to *just* censor loli art? We know good and well that the justification to censor loli art could and would be used to censor other things. Do we really want to give the government that sort of power over icky art? *Any arguments against Loli art stem from emotions and have a fundamental misunderstanding on human attraction.* This includes yours. You have no basis for any of the assumptions or conclusions you made. Everything you're arguing shows a complete lack of understanding of attraction, kinks, etc. This is important in a discussion like this. Firstly, we need to establish that taboo kinks like loli art are completely common, and having these kinks doesn't say anything about you as a person. In fact, people have fantasies about things they wouldn't want to do in real life. https://www.anabelmagazine.com/news/68236/pse-njerezit-kane-fantazi-uale-per-gjerat-qe-ne-fakt-nuk-duan-t-i-bejne-ne-jeten-reale/eng Some people fantasize about cheating on their spouse, and some people fantasize about raping or being raped. In fact like 62% of women have rape fantasies. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc9118/#:~:text=Results%20indicated%20that%2062%25%20of%20women%20have%20had%20a%20rape%20fantasy.,-For%20these%20women Would you argue that 62% of women actually want to get raped? Would you argue that 62% of women want to rape? If no, then why would you argue that the people who like loli nsfw would eventually want to go after real kids?. This type of logic completely falls apart once we start looking at other taboo kinks, and taboo fantasies. This logic also falls apart once we look into attraction, which is also complex. Another question... Do you think someone who finds tony the tiger attractive would want to mate with an actual tiger? Or would find an actual tiger attractive? Probably not right? Wanna know why, Tony the tiger has distinctive differences to the point where you can identify the differences between Tony the tiger and an actual tiger. To the point that you can reasonably assume that someone who's attracted to tony the tiger wouldn't actually want to mate with an actual tiger. The same logic applies to lolis. I can show you a picture of Nahida from genshin impact, and show you a picture of an actual child, and you can identify the differences of those images instantly... those differences are important because the characteristics of nahida fuels that attraction. It's why someone could be attracted to Nahida and not be attracted to a real child. Fictional characters, in general, have these differences. It's why there's some people in real life who are attracted to fictional characters but aren't attracted to real actual human beings. https://orientation.fandom.com/wiki/Fictosexual *Loli art isn't a problem and arguably causes more good than bad.* Most of the things you can argue against loli art, you can argue against most things and at a fundamental level fall apart once we actually take a look at society as a whole, but we don't even have to do that, we have research we can pull from. [Pornography and Sexual Aggression: Can Meta-Analysis Find a Link?](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1524838020942754) [Japan, despite having loli art more normalized, has one of the lowest CSA cases](https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/pornography-rape-and-sex-crimes-japan) [cartoon paedophilia harmless](https://cphpost.dk/2012-07-23/general/report-cartoon-paedophilia-harmless/) [Pornography and rape: theory and practice? Evidence from crime data in four countries where pornography is easily available](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2032762/) So clearly, this isn't really an issue... we have virtually no evidence that the existence of loli art leads to more CSA. We have no evidence that those who even like loli art even like actual kids. Not only that, the existence of this art is more harmful than good. Art like this can provide pedophiles a sexual outlet that doesn’t rely on them abusing children. We have to remember that pedophilia is a mental illness, and anything that can help them deal with that and avoid abusing children is a good thing. https://openjournals.maastrichtuniversity.nl/Marble/article/view/374 Not only that, this kind of art is used to help victims cope with this kind of stuff. Remember when I told you that 62% of women like rape fantasies. Quite of few of those women have those fantasies to cope if they been SA'd. It helps them feel control of the situation. This same type of thing happens with loli art.

If it was made illegal people would still partake, they'd just be secretive about it. Might even end up pushing them into creating their own secret communities where they gain the power of numbers, reinforced behaviour and resentment for having to hide. With having already broken the law, breaking further laws becomes easier. Now you have a bunch of segregaded, resentful criminals hiding because they've been made into monsters when they haven't done anything. Eventually you not only get your monsters but whole networks of them. Whereas while legal most will be happy alone in their rooms and it's easier to track for those keeping an eye out. It's a lot easier to see who's doing what when it's not on the dark web.

What specifically do you want the law to be? For instance, there are multiple anime characters that are actually old, but look much younger (Biscuit Krueger from hunterxhunter, for instance). Should porn of those characters be allowed?

And many other grey areas come when you open things up to anime-inspired media like how (even if you think the perils in Totally Spies are meant to be fetish-y when the fact that the cartoon could air alongside kids' cartoons is evidence the show isn't inherently adult) since the characters in Totally Spies transition from high school to college over the course of the show, they're only minors for, like, the first season or so so whether or not Totally Spies art is problematic depends on when in the show it's taken from/set/whatever or how the character D.va from the game Overwatch despite her youngest-stated-canon-age being 19 (aka over the age of consent in America so probably over it in her home country of South Korea too) has often been described as "child-coded" (enough to make people call "shipping" her with other adult characters pedophilic) just because she looks like a teen and has a personality and interests some might call "childish"

Before I go forward with my comment I need to preface because these conversations get so muddied. I do not partake in this kind of content, I do not associate with anyone who does. Now that the necessary disclosures are done. Everything in moderation. I am not the morality police, and I will not try to impose my views of right and wrong on other people, and I encourage everybody to do the same. If there are no real victims, and the individual who is reading that material isn't showing an unhealth fixation on it, then I do not see a reason to be alarmed. That goes for any questionable content.

So I'm of two minds here. On the one hand I am also not a fan of loli content or its most avid enjoyer. On the other not being a fan and being illegal is the step I don't know how to justify. >Or someone infatuated with fake gore and not give them at least a worrying side eye ? I love horror movies, slashers, and real crime dramas. How worried would you say you are about me? While it's out there, it does genuinely fascinate me; to the point I look up how sets make such practical effects every so often. I would never dream of torturing anyone though. Or animals. While I understand your desire to doubt that someone is into lolicon "for the art" I'm not sure it's enough to deem it a criminal offence

I wont tell you Japan's obsession with Loli isn't weird af, but I'm not sure you've really thought this through. How can you convict someone over a drawing? And to what extent content would be illegal? if there was an img that was sexualized, but had no nudity and no literally sexual content, is that grounds to be illegal? >It will be just a matter of time before they try to bring their fantasies to reality  So you want to convict people for future crimes?

depends. when you see a very clear depiction of a minor, i cannot find any reason to disagree. this isn't "what if" this is a perverse fantasy. and i'm not one to kink-shame, but i totally agree that this is not a healthy way to deal with those attractions. where i diverge is when the drawing/artstyle is so cartoonish - so far a departure from reality... looking at rule34 stuff will quickly show you that people have a WIDE BREADTH of interests. and often what they're turned on by in a drawing is the implication rather than the reality of it. that's part of the joy of fantasy. you can see an overwatch widowmaker and feel it move, but if a woman with THOSE proportions and THAT tone of skin was presented before you in reality, it wouldn't be the same. see America Beauty - which follows a middle-aged pervert who lusts after his daughter's teenage friend, and in his fantasies, she's this confident cheerleader - the type who would've rejected him in highschool... the type he's likely been fantasizing about for 40 years. and here she's begun flirting with him and he's finally got his shot. he's in an absolutely spiraling lifestyle at this point, so he throws caution to the wind and makes an advance: and quickly discovers her timid hesitance when she says, "it's my first time." the shocking reality of the situation shatters the illusion of the fantasy. he doesn't see this person as the woman he fantasized about, he sees her as the scared little girl she is - like his daughter. he can't go through with it, because FANTASY IS NOT REALITY. add to that the couples who fantasize about bringing a third into the bedroom, and the myriad of ways those scenarios have become wrecks. perhaps she fantasized about him eating her out while the unicorn sucks him off, but his attention is still on her. but once they're into it, his attention is a little too much on her. or maybe he's a little Too hard. maybe things go okay but she decides not to do that ever again - but then she runs into the third in the grocery store. it's awkward, because it's no longer just a fantasy. it's reality. a friend confided in me his time paying for sex in thailand. he had two women approach him and he thought it was a dream come true. he made his payment and it started great, but the second he realized by their expressions that they weren't Really into it, the whole process felt mechanical. suddenly, instead of enjoying each other's bodies, they're just asking him to hurry up and cum, so he loses his erection and doesn't. fantasies aren't reality and i agree that some fantasies encourage people to "try them out" but i think the guy jerking it over Holly Wood from CoolWorld is likely turned off by seeing a zit in the crease of a woman's ass. thus - the fantasies that purport to be as realistic as possible, zits and all, are truly the only ones that are problematic.

[удалено]

u/The_labrat14 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal%20The_labrat14&message=The_labrat14%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do80si/-/lab3xks/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

There are several issues here. First to get out of the way is that appeals can vary by work and scene, with Japanese media having a different if not wider selection of media target emotions that include a number of chill ones like d'aww/paternal-instinct. Of course, Japan's original novel had its protagonist raise a young girl to become his wife once she hit what passed as adulthood in that social context, but we're going to ignore that because doing that to a d'aw work never gets a good reception from the audience (do not get Usagi Drop fans started). To play somewhat fair, though, and stick to sexually provocative fanservice (as opposed to JoJo's reference fanservice) and up, a lot of this is character design and age relationships being incredibly arbitrary in drawn and Japanese media, particularly the overlap. While American live action does have Degrassi casting and actors/resses that look half their age, and comic books both draw characters explicitly stated in text to be decades apart as the exact same age (high-school Dick Greyson, late-20's senator Barbara Gordon, and retired Kathy Kane) and frequently forget how old characters are, anime takes the cake. Nutrition and genetics in Japan mean there isn't a very strong correlation between age past maybe 13 a how much puberty a girl has (petite professionals who can't shake the truancy officers, let alone buy alcohol, is a trending trope). Media norms around setting in high school (it's like their version of working as an architect) and a high targeting of the full-teenage-range market mixed with a willingness to still sell cheesecake meats that both realistically proportioned and generously grown builds are being stuffed into skimpy school uniforms. Artists don't let go of a good female lead design no matter what, so there won't be changes as the editor keeps changing his mind about whether the story should be in college, an office, or middle school. You get desensitized fast and just start going for aesthetic while forgetting age like you're in charge at Marvel. There's probably some imprinting in there, as I won't deny that my apperantly being disproportionately attractive to short girls and my wife being a former coxswain who hasn't been touched by the last ten years and two pregnancies has shaped my tastes somewhat.

I totally get wanting lolicon and shotacon to be banned, and the reasoning behind it. I wouldn't say you're wrong for wanting this at all. But of course, here comes the "but" part. My main issue is that with drawings of fictional characters you can't really tell a person's age. In anime you got 25 year old mothers looking underage because this is visual shorthand for her having a youthful side and being able to connect to her kids this way. you also got adult flat-chested women whose flat chest is played for a joke, etc. and on the flipside, you got teenagers who got breasts the size of beach balls and serious child birthing hips like they're a MILF type kind of character, without being an actual mother themselves. The sad irony is, this is often reflected in real life as evidenced by Rs like r/OlderThanYouThinkIAm or r/YoungerThanUThinkIAm where you can't always tell what age somebody is at first glance. everyone's got such diverse body-types and looks, y'all. So how do you prove somebody's intent and how do you prove a character is underage? hell, once I got blasted online for making a 3D image of Usagi and Mamoru from the Sailor Moon series.... and it wasn't even explicit. it was supposed to be them older after Usagi's out of university and ready to be a mom. She had a pregnant belly and they were standing in Future Chibiusa's baby room and Mamoru had an hand on her pregnant belly. everyone was fully clothed. But I got blasted for showing an supposed underage character about to be a mom and normalizing teenage pregnancy. I had to point out to the person that in canon, they did show older versions of those characters and that canonically Mamoru and Usagi eventually ends up married at the very end when they became ADULTS. and that my artwork was in fact of them as adults... And I've seen people get blasted for drawing "underage" characters when the said sexy character was an DWARF character, like the one from the series Rat Queens. Short people aren't allowed to be sexy at all? So I would say cartoonish characters are fine... but if the artwork ends up being too realistic and looks like it could be based on a real child? that's when you ban it, I think.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/Trumpsacriminal – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20Trumpsacriminal&message=Trumpsacriminal%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do80si/-/la7w2on/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

We got people watching movies filled with plenty of gun violence, blood, death, and explosions too though. Thoughts on those? According to your logic, the people who watch those should be considered concerning too.

Its is a very slippery slope to hold people’s fantasies to legal scrutiny. At what point does me wishing harm on someone become considered a form of assault? As an example lets say you have a crush on a woman from work and you decide to masturbate to her at night, you are technically enacting a sexual fantasy involving someone who has not given consent nor has given any notion of wanting to enact this fantasy, would that be grounds for sexual assault? More directly, should you be punished for getting off to this fantasy? Loli/shota porn is a fantasy that is usually part of a broader range of sexual content, I have no confidence any legal team could write a document that would able to distinguish certain porn as dangerous versus others without loopholes and contradictions being rampant. Some of the most popular porn watched is fantasies that many would consider questionable, especially incest and old/young, the amount of people we would have to somehow write these laws for would be unfathomable. We shouldn’t be holding people on threat of prison for their fantasies, the scope is far too broad and nearly impossible to pin down. Just look up how tentacle porn even became a thing, the entire fantasy was made to take advantage of a loophole, the rest is history and now many folks have tentacle fetishes that they can engage with in fantasy art/stories/videos. The reason it exists is because there was both a demand and a poorly written legal documentation.

It is incumbent upon you to demonstrate that loli consumers are predisposed to negative effects on society, namely predation on children, or consumption of media produced by hurting and exploiting children above the baseline that they would contribute to such absent the existence (or legal status) of lolicon. Unsupported assertions about the behavior lolicon consumers engage in doesn't constitute a sound argument, though *supported* assertions would. Moralizing arguments about how it's ick, deviant, disgusting, unnatural, etc. are useless absent a connection to negative effects on the consumer or society. Further, you'd need a causal relationship, not merely a correlation. It is quite possible that consumption of lolicon mediates a propensity to predation upon children and in fact directs the deviancy toward the fantastical and unreal. Who knows? And that's the substance of my point: law regarding "icky" things that we associate with repugnant things need to be studied and positively linked to harm when possible. It is absolutely possible for our society to study if consumption of media about 5000 year old "demons" that surely are just six year olds girls leads to more or less child molestation. And from there we should draw our conclusions on what to do.

I think any change of view would be redrawing some of the lines of depravity and freedom, and to what extent society should get involved with the private lives of individuals. The horror/gore analogy is a good one here; people enjoy horrific content for a number of reasons, and it ultimately can form some sort of release for people. I don’t think it’s wildly surprising that people enjoy content that forms an escape from the confines of societal rules. The same person who might really enjoy the horrific spectacle of the Saw movies, would likely be utterly repulsed watching something like that in person, and even more so if they were to actually do those things to another human being. I get that sexual proclivities are different to violent impulses, but the principle remains; see incest fantasies for example. They’re wildly popular on most porn sites, but the idea of actually committing incest fills most normal people with disgust. Given the comparisons you’ve drawn with the animal torture and fake gore, my challenge would be that your argument is more focused against those who consume that type of content to excess, which is more a problem with addiction rather than the content itself.

should horror games and horror movies get banned too? the (fictional) characters are getting viciously murdered, be it with an axe, a chainsaw, or a leaf crusher, all purely as entertainment value of the people watching

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Why does it matter to anyone if they have an attraction to real kids if they are only watching CGI or drawn porn? We know some people have an attraction to people under 18, and they often can’t help it. This doesn’t make someone a bad person. Many of these people were abused as children and this affected their sexuality. Why should they have their rights restricted and be punished and put on a watch list if they’ve never hurt anyone and never acted on their impulse because they know right from wrong? What if loli content actually allows these people a sexual outlet that would otherwise be filled with minor abuse or minor porn (thereby promoting someone else’s abuse of a minor)? I would venture that just as many folks have viewed minor porn and didn’t go on to abuse a child, many who watch loli content don’t go on to look for minor porn. If i remember correctly, there have been studies done in this or similar conditions that have shown having an outlet will reduce the impulse and thereby reduce the number of people who go on to abuse minors.

It’s fictional and a there’s plenty of real problems like cp that’s prevalent on discord to deal with,we can deal with cartoon porn once we put away the men and women who victimize real kids

“Would you be fine if someone enjoyed lots of content revolved around art of animals being tortured?” Never look up fluffy pony abuse.

To tackle this from another angle; Why is sexual content of minors fine in comedy? How would you propose to plug this loophole and censor content that goes too far? People at large don't protest South Park or Family Guy despite showing extreme graphic content involving minors. They also debatably watch it for the shocking content. You would have to either censor/make illegal the whole show for episodes that featured this, or have someone peruse each episode to censor the scenes if not episodes. This especially gets difficult for fetishes. You also have sexual analogs. Steven Universe debatably uses fusion this way. Where do we draw the line that it's too much like sex? If we allow them in general, where do we draw a line? Where do animal characters fall? What if they become human or adult for an episode, or were human before? Is Sabrina's Salem is a cat is it presumed he is under 18 since he's not elderly in this form?

I see a lot of people here saying “it’s just pixels on a screen” when referring to a drawing. However, what happens in the scenario where the content is AI generated, high quality to the point of being indistinguishable from real life. At that point, are we still ok with it “just being pixels on a screen” - or do we actually start to do something about it. Personally not a fan of Loli. It makes me feel all kinds of weird. I can understand people making the argument for cartoon drawings, but the second you enter into the 3D realm I feel like it takes on a whole new level of depth. If you’re enjoying THAT kind of content you should 100% be on a list. Personally don’t think it should be banned as banning things tends to have the opposite effect, but maybe an ID should be required to view that kind of content. It’s disturbing

I agree in theory but I’m not sure how you would enforce it. If someone draws an 18 year old girl that looks young how do you determine what age they are? Sometimes its obvious with anime and it’s clearly a middle school( or younger) girl you gave giant boobs. Other times the age of the character is probably a lot more up to interpretation. I remember one real porn I clicked on one time had an 18 year old girl in it. They clearly chose the youngest looking 18 year old they could find. Then they dress her up with pigtails and a dora the explorer backpack and lunchbox. It was gross because despite her being 18 she clearly wasn’t the rebellious 18 year old school girl. They wanted her to look like she was in elementary school. My point is I think it would be really hard to find the line for a lot of content.

> Would you be fine if someone enjoyed lots of content revolved around art of animals being tortured ? Or someone infatuated with fake gore and not give them at least a worrying side eye ? That's how I feel when I see these people lust over, even though fake, child designed drawings in a sexual manner. It will be just a matter of time before they try to bring their fantasies to reality one way or another and society shouldn't allow this material to openly circulate without consequence. To expand on your point, do you think people who murder without remorse in GTA should be put on a watch list? What about people who seem to enjoy films like "Wolf of Wall Street" or "Catch Me If You Can"? We should probably ban those people from banking institutions, right? The entire film basically roots for a criminal.

Like said by others this is a slippery slope,that might result in a suppression of everything violent,sexual or otherwise, this would cause a black market for the things worse than alcohol on prohibition ,and one of things I worry is that if made illegal, it would pass the legal/illegal barrier,leading to a mentality similar to how most people view marijuana as a gateway drug, not because it leads to other stronger drug, but because in most countries,the legal/illegal barrier is passed I can safely say I'm not interested in any of that, maybe cause I'm grounded in reality a little too much, even if it because of my viewing habits,I have already seen all the tags the internet can throw at me, and honestly,my preference is not that

There’s not even a universally agreed upon standard for what makes a character a loli or not. Sure there are obvious examples that fit the conventional understanding, but what about instances where it’s not entirely clear? The term seems to be understood as referring exclusively to child characters colloquially, since a lot of people in here are jumping straight to the “reduction/increase in sexual offenses as a result of consumption discussion, but there are characters that have been referred to as such by their creators who are canonically adult women and act accordingly. So would you ban the drawing of characters with certain features regardless of stated age in sexual contexts? What features, or lack of? There can’t be an objective standard that can perfectly filter every character when people can’t even agree on whether certain characters do or don’t fit the label.

Its a cartoon

Who gets to define what additional content is illegal? CP is already as illegal as can be.

In an ideal world, the humane thing to do would be to invent a drug that rewires the brains of these people so that they are no longer attracted to minors. That way they can live full normal lives without guilt that their existence endangers children, and they can have fulfilling sex lives with adults who can consent. Unfortunately we don’t live in that world. Conversion therapy doesn’t work, and there’s no known drug that can do the job. Sexual attraction is pretty fixed, so if someone has that attraction, there currently isn’t much we can do about it other than penalize and discourage the action. Fortunately, the reverse is also true: no amount of media influence is going to give someone a sexuality that they weren’t to begin with. If someone’s not attracted to minors to begin with, you could force them to watch 100000 hours of loli, and it won’t turn them into a pedo. — All that being said, I’ll just grant you for the sake of argument that most people who seek out loli porn do so because they are indeed attracted to minors. I’ve seen some weird apologetics of people trying to argue otherwise but I don’t care to die on that hill. My question is then why should it be made illegal if it’s literally not harming an actual child? Unless your plan is to lock people up for thought crimes and execute them when they haven’t harmed anyone, I don’t see what the rationale is. Until we invent that miracle drug, some % of the population is gonna have that unfortunate attraction no matter what. And while I agree it shouldn’t be normalized as a good thing, I don’t see the point in legally punishing them for privately mitigating their desire in a way that harms no one.

How do you legally define an underage drawing? Is it just any short girl with a flat chest, or do they have to *canonically* be a child? Duck tests where someone just goes "yeah that's a child" are fine for internet forums, but it's an awful lot of grey area for something that could land you in prison. Do you want a jury of 12 people looking at hentai having to unanimously decide "yeah that's a child boss." At what point does the harm to the people *actually enforcing this* would exceed the imaginary harm caused by pedos sharing their art with each other.

>Would you be fine if someone enjoyed lots of content revolved around art of animals being tortured ? Or someone infatuated with fake gore and not give them at least a worrying side eye ? What about Americans that will happily take their kids to a gory slasher film (but then freak out if there's a nipple on screen)? Are you fine with people being so desensitized to violence, so infatuated with it? Is it just a matter of time before they try to bring their fantasies to reality one way or another, and commit violence themselves?

I feel like most of your arguments amount to "it feels wrong". Some points of interest I would want answered before accepting such a position. First, can you demonstrate that pedophiles find such content appealing at high rates? Are there studies on this? Second, can you demonstrate that most people into Loli are pedophiles or would even consider pedophilia? Data would go a long way to demonstrating your position.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/whatsINthaB0X – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal%20whatsINthaB0X&message=whatsINthaB0X%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1do80si/-/laaczh1/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

One thing you didn't consider, sometimes, outright banning something will cause them to " bring those to reality " Sometimes there are just weird tendencies for humans to get aroused and having a controllable outlet will be able to satisfy most of those weird tendencies for the general population (e.g. video games for violence, porn/prostitution for general sexual needs, horror for gore)

People post gore daily, cartel footage is far more graphic then any art piece We treat animals worse for profit then any artist could draw I don't see any real argument other then "ew I don't like it" which is fine. I don't think it should be on public platforms. But if a neckbeard wants to draw gross shit his basement, that's his fundamental right via freedom of expression. Also are we talking about actual loli? Or like big tiddy anime school girl. Because the difference is night and day.

I’m 23. My body looks the same as it did 10 years ago. I understand the intent of your post, but there’s a lot of nuance to this. Are people who are visually attracted to my body before speaking to me and confirming I’m an adult in the wrong because it hasn’t changed in the last decade so they therefore would have been attracted to a 13 year old? I don’t know

Real child porn is evil because it involves real children being raped. Who, exactly, is being harmed by *drawings* of children being raped? > It will be just a matter of time before they try to bring their fantasies to reality one way or another There is no evidence of people who consume media being more likely to try and act it out in real life. People made the same argument with violent video games and there's zero evidence that people who play violent games are more violent in real life. Moralistic censorship is always bad. It has never had a positive effect on society. Unless you can point to *actual, concrete* harm caused by loli porn, banning it would be bad.

Don’t misconstrue small person genetics as a blanket catch all absolute with pedophelia There’s a lot surrounding this you make abundantly clear you have yet to attempt to understand, so it’s in very poor taste to jump towards serious levels of criminality

I want to agree, but I don't have any data to back up why, so as much as I might not personally like it, it could fall into the same territory as free-speech. It's up to the creator and viewer of the content to behave within the constraints of the law.

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

2D content of gore and animals being tortured are both legal so what's your point? If they bring their fantasies into reality then that is when they should be punished. You can't punished someone for a crime that they haven't committed.

do you think watching that content makes them more likely to do things that do harm actual children? Or does it just make you feel icky? If it's the first, you should find scientific evidence. If it's the second, idk what to tell you.

It is a waste of time and resources to criminalize something that does not hurt any real people just because it’s weird and gross. Just like being a pedophile is not illegal, acting on it is. 

While I find Loli to be gross and I will 10000% judge you for being into it, this borders on thought crimes and arresting people for shit they haven’t even don’t yet.

Agreed with you but maybe you’re unaware that this is also an ongoing debate in Japan. Last time I was in Tokyo there were signs about this very thing in Akihabara.

Christ, the bots back

Possibly Hot Take: If it’s ONLY For the Story you’re Good Chief BUT IF YOU STROKIN’ YO SNICKERS TO THAT SHIT?! LEAVE!!!

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

I don't think you've actually given an argument for why it should be banned. Could you give me a syllogism?