Ranting corner
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 8 Votes - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-10-2017, 10:12 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2017 10:28 AM by adey67.)
RE: Ranting corner
(05-10-2017 10:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(05-10-2017 02:27 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Dude, cartoons don't actually have ages. Cartoons aren't alive. Depending on the particular art ascetic, there may be little (if any) discernible features to indicate age. Being 4 feet tall with A-cups can fit a large age range, and that's before you get into samey doe-eyes and anime hair. Plus, at the end of the day, it's fiction. You're a vampire away from from explaining why the seemingly little girl is in fact a centuries old woman. It's fiction, context can be whatever you write it to be.

Case in point, Yoko Littner (redhead) and Shinobu Oshino (blonde). Are either or both of them 'obvious 18' adults? Between the two, which one looks older?

[Image: vFaQ1RG.jpg][Image: Shinobu-oshino-bakemonogatari.jpg?982602]

Yoko starts out her adventure in the animated series (Gurren Lagann) at age 15, complete with daisy dukes, bikini top, and sniper rifle. Shinobu (from Bakemonogatari) on the other hand is one of those centuries old vampires; 598 years to be exact.

Between the two, which one's sexual objectification bothers you more? The much older looking teenager? Or the centuries old vampire who just looks like a middle schooler?

Cartoons no more legitimize non-consensual sex than video games legitimize non-consensual murder. If you play Call of Duty, and it fuels your desire for a killing spree, you have much bigger problems than just playing Call of Duty; and it would be both unfair and disingenuous to lay the weight that responsibility at the game's feet. I've killed battalions worth of digital Nazi's, and I've killed just as many sperm wanking off to pornography; and not only have I yet to rape or kill anyone, I have no desire to. I have a healthy respect for what is, and is not, fantasy.


As a further follow up, just in case I hadn't made my point enough already. I'd ask anyone that agrees with adey67 to follow me on a mental exercise. Let's first look at real pornography...


Bondage, domination, sadism and masochism (BDSM). From the outside looking in, that is some fucked up shit. But, so long as it's two or more consenting adults? I have no problem with it. If ball-gags, riding crops, and being verbally abused get you off? So long as you're not hurting anyone, it's not my business. That being said, they do film it and turn it into pornography. Now in context, it's okay, right? But if anyone participating did not consent to it? Then that would be rape, and possibly torture given the circumstance. Clearly both rape and torture are illegal, and indeed I'd agree in labeling them immoral. But would you support banning BDSM porn for the same reasons that loli hentai makes you uncomfortable? Why or why not?

Let's take it a step further, what about simulated rape? This is not just a (disturbing) niche of pornography, but also appears from time to time in cinema as well (such as 1988's The Accused, where Jodie Foster gets raped on top of a pinball table in a bar). But for as disturbing as those scenes can be, they often get away with an R rating in the United States; clearly legal, but just age restricted, not unlike pornography. Again, would you ban The Accused or A Clockwork Orange because they have portrayals of rape in them? If not, what meaningful difference is there between the fictional portrayal of non-consensual sex between adult actors, and the same act but with drawn/animated 'minors'? If you can distinguish the two, why and how? Does the same reasoning work with violence?

Now let me be crystal clear, I am in no way advocating in favor of sexual abuse of minors. What I'm calling into question is the censorship of a medium. I just do not see an intellectually consistent argument you could make to justify drawing a line in the sand at 'fictional minors' that doesn't also toss out all explicitly sexual or violent content. Media has a long history of depicting some really awful fictitious shit. Along with that history is the cornerstone of consent, that so long as everyone involved with the product is old enough to consent to the actions therein, then let the buyer beware.

Stephan King wrote a scene in at the end of IT where all of the children lose their virginity with one another to escape the clutches of Pennywise by becoming 'adults'. All the consent needed was the author's will to write it. No actual children were trapped by an otherworldly evil clown, nobody was harmed in the creation of King's words. So how do you justify the a line in the sand where adding pictures to that (e.g. comics and magna) is somehow a bridge too far? I don't think you can. Now animate those pictures and add sound, and you've got animated hentai; and once again, I don't think you can justify that simply adding animation and sound goes too far without inditing all of animation.


Fantasy and fiction can be as sick and depraved as it's creator's desire, which is good as it can allow us to explore concepts that might otherwise be unavailable to us in the real world. You do not need to be pro-genocide to entertain the plot of the video game Mass Effect 2, where you are placed in a situation to decide the fate of a race of AI (the Geth); to destroy them outright, or release a virus that would alter their thinking and turn them into allies? It's a situation none of us will ever encounter in our lifetime, but fiction allows us to explore it; and I think there is far more to be gained in unfettered creative control over censorious restrictions.




I totally get where you are coming from, what you say makes a certain sense but isn't it possible that some people once exposed to cartoon kiddie sex might be triggered to "explore things further in the interest of creativity" and indulge in finding real child abuse images which are hugely damaging.
Surely we must do everything possible to thwart this nastiness in all its forms and anything that potentially creates a demand, if that means people don't get to explore certain areas of "creativity" is that really a bad thing, is it really censorious or just good practice to show zero tolerance? I should also point out I'm talking about out and out lolicon not henti per se.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 10:40 AM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 10:12 AM)adey67 Wrote:  
(05-10-2017 10:51 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As a further follow up, just in case I hadn't made my point enough already. I'd ask anyone that agrees with adey67 to follow me on a mental exercise. Let's first look at real pornography...


Bondage, domination, sadism and masochism (BDSM). From the outside looking in, that is some fucked up shit. But, so long as it's two or more consenting adults? I have no problem with it. If ball-gags, riding crops, and being verbally abused get you off? So long as you're not hurting anyone, it's not my business. That being said, they do film it and turn it into pornography. Now in context, it's okay, right? But if anyone participating did not consent to it? Then that would be rape, and possibly torture given the circumstance. Clearly both rape and torture are illegal, and indeed I'd agree in labeling them immoral. But would you support banning BDSM porn for the same reasons that loli hentai makes you uncomfortable? Why or why not?

Let's take it a step further, what about simulated rape? This is not just a (disturbing) niche of pornography, but also appears from time to time in cinema as well (such as 1988's The Accused, where Jodie Foster gets raped on top of a pinball table in a bar). But for as disturbing as those scenes can be, they often get away with an R rating in the United States; clearly legal, but just age restricted, not unlike pornography. Again, would you ban The Accused or A Clockwork Orange because they have portrayals of rape in them? If not, what meaningful difference is there between the fictional portrayal of non-consensual sex between adult actors, and the same act but with drawn/animated 'minors'? If you can distinguish the two, why and how? Does the same reasoning work with violence?

Now let me be crystal clear, I am in no way advocating in favor of sexual abuse of minors. What I'm calling into question is the censorship of a medium. I just do not see an intellectually consistent argument you could make to justify drawing a line in the sand at 'fictional minors' that doesn't also toss out all explicitly sexual or violent content. Media has a long history of depicting some really awful fictitious shit. Along with that history is the cornerstone of consent, that so long as everyone involved with the product is old enough to consent to the actions therein, then let the buyer beware.

Stephan King wrote a scene in at the end of IT where all of the children lose their virginity with one another to escape the clutches of Pennywise by becoming 'adults'. All the consent needed was the author's will to write it. No actual children were trapped by an otherworldly evil clown, nobody was harmed in the creation of King's words. So how do you justify the a line in the sand where adding pictures to that (e.g. comics and magna) is somehow a bridge too far? I don't think you can. Now animate those pictures and add sound, and you've got animated hentai; and once again, I don't think you can justify that simply adding animation and sound goes too far without inditing all of animation.


Fantasy and fiction can be as sick and depraved as it's creator's desire, which is good as it can allow us to explore concepts that might otherwise be unavailable to us in the real world. You do not need to be pro-genocide to entertain the plot of the video game Mass Effect 2, where you are placed in a situation to decide the fate of a race of AI (the Geth); to destroy them outright, or release a virus that would alter their thinking and turn them into allies? It's a situation none of us will ever encounter in our lifetime, but fiction allows us to explore it; and I think there is far more to be gained in unfettered creative control over censorious restrictions.




I totally get where you are coming from, what you say makes a certain sense but isn't it possible that some people once exposed to cartoon kiddie sex might be triggered to "explore things further in the interest of creativity" and indulge in finding real child abuse images which are hugely damaging.
Surely we must do everything possible to thwart this nastiness in all its forms and anything that potentially creates a demand, if that means people don't get to explore certain areas of "creativity" is that really a bad thing, is it really censorious or just good practice to show zero tolerance? I should also point out I'm talking about out and out lolicon not henti per se.

I get where you are coming from, but we know that blanket censorship and making certain things flat out illegal just creates problems. Marijuana is still illegal federally. As with many mind altering drugs. Many in the government feel it needs to remain illegal, as it is a "gateway drug". How many of you here smoke weed? How many of you think it should be legal everywhere, at least for 18+? The government spends time prosecuting people for weed that may never touch anything harder. The same can be said for this. Meanwhile, we have a group like Antifa that actively hurts people and does major damage. The courts are so clogged with people arrested for something that hurts no one that even if arrested would see Antifa members and the like not being prosecuted for a few years while they wait in line.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 11:55 AM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2017 12:04 PM by adey67.)
RE: Ranting corner
Points taken Birdguy but we are talking (if legal and regulated) about a substance that impacts the user only usually for the better, lolicon/child porn affects many who are involved from victims and police etc etc, child porn / lolicon has no positive effects and simply reinforces a positive attitude towards child sexual exploitation. TBH I'm surprised I have not had more support for my corner, that is extremely disappointing but in view of some of the reaction to the Las Vegas shootings I probably should not have been surprised. Apologies if any find this post offensive but it is a hot button for me, please forgive xx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 12:03 PM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 11:55 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Points taken Birdguy but we are talking (if legal and regulated) about a substance that impacts the user only usually for the better, lolicon/child porn affects many who are involved from victims and police etc etc, child porn / lolicon has no positive effects and simply reinforces a positive attitude towards child sexual exploitation. TBH I'm surprised I have not had more support for my corner, that is extremely disappointing but in view of the reaction to the Las Vegas shootings I probably should not have been surprised.

I don't partake in either lolicon/child porn, nor do I do any illegal drugs including weed. I see a harm in an actual child being sexually exploited, especially in a society that teaches children that sex and masturbation is evil. That being said, I feel that if someone so chooses to smoke weed as long as they are not driving at the time, should be allowed to do so. As far as drawings go, if that is all they are and no real kids were involved, let people do that as well. What seems to be is that people want everyone prosecuted for thought crimes. I am not in favor of it, nor would I plan to purchase said material, but making stuff illegal opens up black markets for these things. And in illegal trade, you know the people selling it will not stop at the fake stuff which does indeed do harm.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 12:06 PM (This post was last modified: 06-10-2017 12:13 PM by adey67.)
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 12:03 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 11:55 AM)adey67 Wrote:  Points taken Birdguy but we are talking (if legal and regulated) about a substance that impacts the user only usually for the better, lolicon/child porn affects many who are involved from victims and police etc etc, child porn / lolicon has no positive effects and simply reinforces a positive attitude towards child sexual exploitation. TBH I'm surprised I have not had more support for my corner, that is extremely disappointing but in view of the reaction to the Las Vegas shootings I probably should not have been surprised.

I don't partake in either lolicon/child porn, nor do I do any illegal drugs including weed. I see a harm in an actual child being sexually exploited, especially in a society that teaches children that sex and masturbation is evil. That being said, I feel that if someone so chooses to smoke weed as long as they are not driving at the time, should be allowed to do so. As far as drawings go, if that is all they are and no real kids were involved, let people do that as well. What seems to be is that people want everyone prosecuted for thought crimes. I am not in favor of it, nor would I plan to purchase said material, but making stuff illegal opens up black markets for these things. And in illegal trade, you know the people selling it will not stop at the fake stuff which does indeed do harm.

I understand and respect your viewpoint even though I disagree with it. I apologise if anyone finds my posts offensive but its kinda a hot button for me for personal reasons. Peace Adey xx
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 12:08 PM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 12:06 PM)adey67 Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 12:03 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  I don't partake in either lolicon/child porn, nor do I do any illegal drugs including weed. I see a harm in an actual child being sexually exploited, especially in a society that teaches children that sex and masturbation is evil. That being said, I feel that if someone so chooses to smoke weed as long as they are not driving at the time, should be allowed to do so. As far as drawings go, if that is all they are and no real kids were involved, let people do that as well. What seems to be is that people want everyone prosecuted for thought crimes. I am not in favor of it, nor would I plan to purchase said material, but making stuff illegal opens up black markets for these things. And in illegal trade, you know the people selling it will not stop at the fake stuff which does indeed do harm.

I understand and respect your viewpoint even though I disagree with it.

Agree to disagree then.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 12:14 PM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 12:08 PM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 12:06 PM)adey67 Wrote:  I understand and respect your viewpoint even though I disagree with it.

Agree to disagree then.
That's cool, I wish you nothing but the best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 12:22 PM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 10:40 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  ... making certain things flat out illegal just creates problems. Marijuana is still illegal federally. As with many mind altering drugs. Many in the government feel it needs to remain illegal, as it is a "gateway drug".

I just want to clear up a couple misconceptions about marijuana. Disclaimer: I stopped smoking it over 14 years ago, because I felt that it was doing me more harm than good, both physically and mentally, so I'm not grinding any ax in its favor. However:

1. Marijuana is not "mind altering" any more than alcohol is. LSD is an example of a mind altering drug. Marijuana is not.

2. I'm highly skeptical of the "gateway drug" claim. I smoked marijuana regularly for almost 25 years, because I liked the taste and I liked the way it made me feel, and I never had the slightest desire to try any other illegal drug. I probably could have gotten other drugs from (or through) the same people I got my pot from, but I never did and never wanted to. I can't speak for others, but it certainly wasn't a gateway drug for me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 12:25 PM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 12:22 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 10:40 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  ... making certain things flat out illegal just creates problems. Marijuana is still illegal federally. As with many mind altering drugs. Many in the government feel it needs to remain illegal, as it is a "gateway drug".

I just want to clear up a couple misconceptions about marijuana. Disclaimer: I stopped smoking it over 14 years ago, because I felt that it was doing me more harm than good, both physically and mentally, so I'm not grinding any ax in its favor. However:

1. Marijuana is not "mind altering" any more than alcohol is. LSD is an example of a mind altering drug. Marijuana is not.

2. I'm highly skeptical of the "gateway drug" claim. I smoked marijuana regularly for almost 25 years, because I liked the taste and I liked the way it made me feel, and I never had the slightest desire to try any other illegal drug. I probably could have gotten other drugs from (or through) the same people I got my pot from, but I never did and never wanted to. I can't speak for others, but it certainly wasn't a gateway drug for me.

I agree, its only been good for me tbh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-10-2017, 12:47 PM
RE: Ranting corner
(06-10-2017 12:22 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  
(06-10-2017 10:40 AM)Birdguy1979 Wrote:  ... making certain things flat out illegal just creates problems. Marijuana is still illegal federally. As with many mind altering drugs. Many in the government feel it needs to remain illegal, as it is a "gateway drug".

I just want to clear up a couple misconceptions about marijuana. Disclaimer: I stopped smoking it over 14 years ago, because I felt that it was doing me more harm than good, both physically and mentally, so I'm not grinding any ax in its favor. However:

1. Marijuana is not "mind altering" any more than alcohol is. LSD is an example of a mind altering drug. Marijuana is not.

2. I'm highly skeptical of the "gateway drug" claim. I smoked marijuana regularly for almost 25 years, because I liked the taste and I liked the way it made me feel, and I never had the slightest desire to try any other illegal drug. I probably could have gotten other drugs from (or through) the same people I got my pot from, but I never did and never wanted to. I can't speak for others, but it certainly wasn't a gateway drug for me.

I agree with you about the whole gateway drug thing. The government and in general the powers that be that want marijuana to stay illegal have studies showing that it is a gateway drug. we have seen the drug war turn into a real mess. Things that should not be illegal, are. There are people doing large amounts of time in prison that never hurt anyone. The point about possibly getting other drugs from your dealer, is probably true. You might have been able to. Just like the pictures that are drawn/animated mentioned above. I am sure that the same places you might find the fake stuff, you can probably get the real thing from. This is because the source is illegal and unregulated. The dealer in both cases is just running a black market to make money and doesn't really care. Make it legal and you shut down the illegal sources and thus have better control over it. Look what prohibition has always caused. A mafia run black market, street gangs, etc.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: