Either you have a short attention span, or you aren't paying attention to the hate comments you're spewing. Every time you refer to child molesters or rapists, you simply call them pedophiles and act like the latter is only the former.

Bye bye, Yotsuba.

Please proof-read your generalizations.

You're making it the equivalent of real child porn, which is as bad as rape.

And I'm willing to bet most pedos aren't molesters or rapists and never will be. We only ever hear about the pedo sex offenders because the rest are hiding in a closet, away from your testicle-clippers and straitjackets.

Again, you're mixing the words "sex offender" and "pedophile" up again.

Please, cut the Mama Grizzly "for our children" stuff. You're only winning over the scared, ignorant, and yourself with that phrase.

And you know what? We should ban murder in TV, comics, and film. And rape. And drug use as well. Obviously, those drive people towards doing those things in real life.  

And again, the rest of the thread is tl;dr. Make fewer generalizing statements and I'll quit misinterpreting your posts.

And I'll say once again, I don't condone pedophilia. I just think if they aren't hurting anyone, we should leave them alone. We have our escapes, so let them have theirs. Tolerance.

 

well, im off to the island.

la de da, la de da.

 

If I didn't make my opinion clear, then I apologize as it's clearly poor articulation on my part. However, you really don't seem to understand what I have stated, or the opinion I am trying to get across. You keep harping on me apparently saying that people who look at lolicon are all child rapists. I don't think that. I don't think that thought=action. I don't believe that ALL viewers/readers of this are paedophiles. My comments regarding the cutting off their nuts, was actually made in reference to the people producing the media and distributing it for money. Otherwise, my comments on treatment were direct at those who have a fixed/pervasive/obsessive interest in the media - not the regular person who may view it sometimes for curiousity or just something different. The people I want to see treated are those who are so fixed on it that they do not look at anything else - thereby indicating (at least to me) and unhealthy fixation with very young children. This fixation MAY (I said MAY, not WILL) escalate into actual child molestation and I would like to know that people are getting treatment once these obsessions manifest, and before any real harm comes to a child. The people recieving said treatment would be the ones whose obsessing or fixation IS indicative of an unhealthy fixation for very young children, not those who are otherwise "normal" in their sexual 'preferences' or orientation. Just like I would advocate that people who need alcohol to function daily, and who can only think about alcohol to the exclusion of any other beverage should seek help. I don't think that those who have the odd drink or party occasionally are in need of treatment. Those who's alcoholism gets so bad that it affects others should be treated, hopefully they would see they have a problem BEFORE it gets so bad that it hurts someone. For those who can keep their drinking in check, and who aren't spiralling out of control with their love of beer would not be in need of said treatment.

I don't think alcohol should be made illegal because it's existance in and of itself is not harmful - it's abuse by people is what makes it harmful. Child porn is in and of itself, harmful. Children are harmed in the making of it (I am talking about actual child porn, not manga). I think that any depictions of children should not be allowed to be sexual, because I believe (my opinion) that it is harmful, because it directly plays into certain perversions that, when acted upon (and I know that not ALL people with said perversions will act on them - so don't put words into my mouth) cause harm. Alcohol doesn't DIRECTLY play into perversions that when acted on are illegal and harmful. Child porn serves NO other purpose, than to increase sexual arousal in people who desire children. If they act on that desire, then it creates harm. The harm is of such magnitude that I believe that we need to work as hard as we can to mitigate that risk as much as possible BEFORE that harm takes place. Do I think it's entirely fair to do this? No, I think for some people it is really unfair, but....I am thinking 'tough titties'. For me it's weighing the risk of harm to the innocent viewers of this form of manga vs. the risk of harm that MAY (again, I said MAY...not WILL) occur to innocent children. For me the scales are so far out of alignment in this issue that it's ludicrous to me (personally) to allow the risk to be taken.

I hope I clarified my stance for you!

Now, I'm going to bed. I am really tired.

 

Sadly, some people see only what they want to see and ignore everything else. I believe Hot Shot may be mistaking some of your comments with some of Natch's comments as well as others. Simply because you agree with some of what they say and have strong feelings on the subject does not make you a fear mongerer or whatever else Hot Shot may be seeing in your posts.

My best advice would be to get some sleep and ignore what he's going on about. However, some comments can be difficult to ignore at times when one is strongly passionate about certain things. I should know, I've had my fair share of gaffs on these boards and shouting matches, as has most everyone here.

 

621, I pity you the helleriffic hangover you must have this morning.  

All considered, though, you made your point impressively well.  

 

See, that was a lot clearer.

I still think outlawing certain drawings because some people jerk to them is ridiculous, however. No victims, no crime.

 

Thank you for that. I actually edited my post as I felt it was a little mean, and it didn't get my point across and was just a bit of a "tit for tat" post - which I try not to do, lol.

I think my comments are getting mixed up and misinterpreted - and I am probably contributing to that by not being articulate enough, but it's late here, I got 2 hours of sleep and I am really tired, lol.

 

The reason I think these drawings should be outlawed is because they play DIRECTLY into perversions that when acted upon (and yes, I acknowledge that not everyone with said perversions act on them) cause great, great harm.

They should be outlawed because they are images that cause sexual arousal in people who desire children (and I acknowledge that some people may like them for other reasons, but that doesn't change the fact that they also directly appeal to paedophiles). I don't like the idea of legalizing something that causes arousal in paedophiles. Do we really want highly aroused people with paedophilic tendencies to be wandering around - our schools, daycare centres, their neices/nephews and children?

I know they can still access child porn illegally, but I still think we need to make it as hard as possible. If we take away temptation and make it harder, then at least they have more of a chance of resisting their urges - and I do believe that most paedophiles do NOT want to harm children. I believe they want to fight their urges and not act on their fantasies, because they know they are wrong. They might be able to stave away the urge to track down illegal child porn, but with this being legal, it just might be the proverbial straw, you know?

 

A gets turned on by extremly large females, he gets extremly aroused by them and cant stop thinking and fantasising about them out on the town and picks up overweight femals to satisfie his sexual preference.

B is tuned on by kids around 9 years old, he cant stop thinking about it and fantsies about them when he is sitting or walking in the park, B does what he can to have sex with them a.k.a. satisfiying his sexual preference.


If you just look at the above statment they are exactly the same way of reasoning, they both have a sexual preference. One is allowed by the society the other is not and is made illegal. But it is not written as a disease (atleast not in Sweden dont know about the US).

Then we factor in why it is illegal,
*its a kid for christ sake
*the kid take's alot of damage both physical and psycological and the kids can get damaged for the rest of their life.
*we as a society hade med it illegal.

In your eyes you see it as a diesease a plauge on a man or womans sexual preference´. Same way some countries still have on homosexuals were it is a crime to be homosexual. Of course homosexual cant fullfill the illegal points above etc etc and is therefore a legal sexual preference in most part of the world and any other preference one might have. Another sexual preference that is illegal is necrofilia, same reasonening...someone likes to have sex ´with dead ppl. And yes you can think its sick, disgusting and so on..but what changes the necrofilia thinking the say way about your sexual prefrence? Only diffrence is that his preference is made illegal by society.

 

Actually, paedophilia is not defined as a sexual preference, but as a psychiatric disorder   Disease is not really the correct term, but it is an illness.

Here is a good place to read about it.

What is Pedophilia: FAQ on Pedophiles and Pedophilia

It's probably not the best source, but I have others that come from peer reviewed journals that say the same thing as the above link.

I also have some articles on my university database that I can find, but I can't be bother logging in right now (I got a new password and can't be bothered getting my study guide).

The psychiatric disorder definition is the main reason I advocate treatment in a psychiatric facility   Just like we would insist on someone dealing with acute psychosis or paranoid schizophrenia to be treated, against their will if they pose a substantial risk of harm to another person (or themselves). I advocate treatment for paedophiles if their fixations clearly indicate a high risk of them escalating into real harm. By that I mean those people who look at mostly child porn related material, not as a curiousity but as the main object of their sexual fulfilment. IF they buy 90-100% of their porn as child porn (or lolicon) and don't have other forms of porn, then I see that as something that warrants treatment - involuntary if necessary.

 

So hypothetically, if I had one or two images of a young teenager, eleven or twelve, mashed in with the rest of my porn stash then I'm NOT a Child Predator or a Paedophile and am just experimenting on occasion by looking at those images?

Better be careful there JH, someone may take that phrase completely out of context in a lot nastier way than I just did.

 

No, i'd say you still have paedophilic tendencies, but I wouldn't necessarily want you involuntarily committed to a treatment facility for chemical castration - until, of course, your 'interest' escalates. You're either a paedo, or you're not...yanno? It's still paedophilia, but I am not naive enough to think that it would be possible (fiscally, ethically or physically) to chemically treat every person who has fantasies about children. If it WERE possible, and not subject to the possibility of high error (ie, if you have one or two pictures of a 12 year old girl, then you could have not known it was there, if the porn was given to you by a friend. As opposed to someone who's collection is entirely made up of kiddy porn - where there is no doubt obtaining it was deliberate) then I would want treatment for everyone with those tendencies. I think we need to pick our battles and believe it or not, I do believe that there are some cases where people can be exposed to it without knowingly having it. If ANY child porn is found in someone possession then I believe they need to be charge with possession of child pornography, my comment about only a small bit amongst other types of porn is only applicable to the issue of chemical treatment, and has nothing to do with whether the person should be charged with a crime (and they should be charged, as it's illegal and wrong).

My ex a custodial corrections officer and as part of his job they routinely remove pornographic material from cells. Well, a lot of the officers actually keep the stuff *rolls eyes* and one work mate of my ex was telling him that when he got home he actually found some scanned/printed off pictures of a young girl who looked to be early teens. Well, this custodial officer was really shocked and stunned and realised how close he came to being thrown into jail himself - if he had been stopped and had his car searched on his way out of work, then they would have found them and he'd have had a hard time explaining. He did report the material and the person who's cell it came from probably had some serious explaining to do. So, yeah....I do acknowledge a difference between one or two bits of the material and a whole collection. Possession doesn't always mean guilty of paedophilia - of course one or two pieces CAN mean paedophilia, but I don't believe we can ever be sure enough to demand treatment....charge for possession....yes! Chemical castration.....no.

 

I think manga should not use very young characters for ecchi. That way, it will be like regular porn which should be legal and not child porn.

 

Why don't they just replace Manga children with cute midgets?

Problem solved.