Child Pornography: An Absolute Evil... ?

wait, so watching porn is ok, but not child porn?

what kind of rules is that? they are all the same.

and ppl perfers to watch any other porn other than child porn (at least that's what i think)

Wow..... Seriously, you should really think about something like this, very hard, before posting a comment like that. (<-- sometimes I think people just say stuff that stupid for the attention o__o; )

I know a picture is nothing more than dots on paper, and pictures can be doctored and manipulated to convey things that are not real, but the fact someone would want to LOOK at those types of pictures is what makes it wrong, not just the pictures themselves.

Pornography involving adults is perfectly fine (IMO) because they are consenting and capable of sex. Children are NOT. They are not physically OR mentally capable of it. Hurting a child like that... it causes immense mental anguish and confusion, and hurt, and to be quite honest, I dont care if they are the ones abusing the child or merely viewing it, they are both just as guilty.

I don't think there is any justification for this kind of thing. It's disgusting that someone would DO that to a child, let alone get off to watching it. I know everyone has the right to privacy and all, but if they are going to do things like that in their private life... I mean if someone is really into that, there is no telling what they might do to live out their own fantasies... isn't it for the better that they are found out?

I'm actually glad to hear the FBI are so persitant about catching sick people like that. But I sincerely wish they could do more.

The problem with that is that if it is legal to own and distribute, it would be a lucrative business. If it were a business, there would be a demand to produce more. Keeping it illegal, even in instances, such as say, if a "child" created porn of themself, maintains the stance that it is wrong to create it in the first place.

It's not even the taking of it that's wrong (as in your example of the child taking photos of themself), it's the circumstances of their creation. If someone is molesting a child, that is a problem. Otherwise, I don't really care. Let them make loli cartoons or adult actors who look young, I'm sure there are more than enough of them to satisfy whatever demand there is. It's not some massive industry, and there are really not that many people who will pay for pornography.

And as for the age of consent stuff, I think you guys really nailed it, but I just want to add something. Kids aren't legally allowed to consent to ANYTHING, sexual activities aren't a special instance here. Normally a parent would be allowed to give permission for consent purposes, but a parent giving consent to their child appearing in child porn would identify them as unfit parents.

Another problem. I want to give more power to the parents, or more power to the child. There should be no government-bound requirements for "consent". If someone consents, or their legal guardian consents, enough. Keep the government's fingers out of my personal life please. I don't want them looking over my shoulder, seeing what I "might" do and arresting me for it.

First off it's sick plain and simple , now as long as privacy is included in this, I would say I wouldn't care about their privacy if it was my job, I would look around if I found any child porn , etc. dealing with children I wouldnt care about their privacy anymore and could care less what happens to them it's disgusting wrong and immoral, like stereo said a family at a beach photoed naked is just nature but when a child is forced which is the most case of child porn on the web that person should never have a dam right to have privacy again , I know people think it's wrong to invade privacy I 100% agree but when you're dealing with child porn my belief is shot down and believe they shouldn't have the right for a long long time. Now if you were to check a computer and no signs of children porn was located you just need to simply forget anything else you might have seen not deemed illegal (naked photos of themselves, girlfriends , teachers on campus) stuff like that you need to just forget you saw and continue your job.

Now you people saying " its just wrong" is it because you dislike the idea, or that you think people are getting hurt?
...
More Importantly if you think Lollicon should be banned shouldn't Gore Porn also be banned (I've never seen/heard of any real Gore Porn just drawn/ fake)
since it too promotes highly illegal activities?
(Gore Porn is mutilated nude bodies- often very explicit and sickening and so far I've only seen/heard of it in Hentai)

From the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children:

 regarding a study of all arrested child-pornography possessors between 2000 and 2001

Forty percent (40%) of those estimated arrestees were “dual offenders,” who sexually victimized children and possessed child pornography, with both crimes discovered in the same investigation. An additional 15% were dual offenders who attempted to sexually victimize children by soliciting undercover investigators who posed online as minors...

According to investigators who handled the cases of estimated arrestees, most had images of children who had not yet reached puberty. Specifically 83% had images of children between ages 6 and 12; 39% had images of 3 to 5 year old children; and 19% had images of toddlers or infants younger than age 3.

http://www.missingkids.com/missingkids/s...ageId=1504

Food for thought makes me want to vomit.

Here's what I think. Don't hesitate to ask for any clarifications, as I tend to be rather vague.

Child porn is uh, ew. To think someone would dream of doing that to a little girl or boy is... for lack of a better word, bad. Why does someone need pictures/video of it? It's an actual child getting abused, and they don't want it, and those pictures won't vanish easily.

 Possibly Offtopic

There was recently a case in Canada where some retard raped a 16 year old girl while she was unconscious, so badly that the judge said he used her as her plaything. He wouldn't have been caught unless he showed the video he made of it to everyone in the cafeteria at school. As of now, it's still probably splattered all over the internet, and in many hard drives in that school, and that won't be forgotten, rest assured.

Loli, on the other hand, is different. It involves drawn... people? Forgive me, I don't know all that much about it, so I'm not sure if it's always children or people that look like children as well. Think about it, if you ban loli, wouldn't you have reasonable grounds to ban horror movies then, too? They show people getting killed (I assume, I have never watched a horror movie in my life >__>). For people that enjoy watching that, not for the purpose of getting the pomegranate scared out of them, but because they get a boner or some other form of excitement off it, it's something similar to porn, right? This, however, is fine, because it isn't actual killing.

Again, I apologize for scattered thoughts and other things of that nature.

you are sh**ting me, right?

That's sick...

Can you guys post a little more than that next time? I understand the nature of this topic so I don't think it warrants any sort of violation but this is the intelligent section, after all.

I don't really want to talk about this but it's a legitimate topic... I can't really see how anyone can justify such a thing. There's a reason it's nearly universally disapproved of around the world, and it's because it's unnatural.

There's a reason it's nearly universally disapproved of around the world, and it's because it's unnatural.

Can we get any more superstitious? The camera is not evil, it won't steal your soul, it's not going to hurt you. It doesn't refine light into pure evil. It's the person carrying the camera who is doing something inappropriate, or the person looking at the picture who is doing something inappropriate (for those 40% mentioned who do molest children). The 15% who solicited people online are a little sketchier, but is talking to someone a crime? If they don't like it, they can close the window, ignore you, etc.

Absolutely not. Even if there was only one pedophile in the world, I assure you that were he to molest or rape a child, he would want a video or pictures of it for himself. The "market" exists as it is because people create these things for themselves and share them with others who want to see them. But even if no one wanted to see it, they'd still be creating it.

And actually, there is even the argument that with child porn being available to people, certain pedophiles who would otherwise molest children would instead just see pictures and videos of others doing it and live vicariously through them. This is an interesting paradigm though, and parallels can be drawn to other things, such as violent media. Does watching the movie Hostel make me more likely to want to commit these heinous acts myself or does my innate desire to commit these acts get fulfilled vicariously by just watching it? I can't say for certain myself, and I'm not entirely familiar with the experiments and results, particularly how it relates to child porn. After all, I'm sure they could do studies on violent films and video games, but they'd be hard pressed to do a sociological experiment where they show pedophiles child porn and measure whether they're more or less likely to commit similar acts for real.


Is there really VENDORS though? This pumpernickel bounces across p2p and torrents, I don't think I've ever heard of a brick-and-mortar vendor of child pornography. Maybe in other parts of the world, but they also have child prostitution in other parts of the world, so I'd say that's more worthy of concern there.


A person with a fetish for it. People have fetishes, it is an unavoidable part of being human; people will have different tastes in things, even things which are horrendous, things which hurt or kill others. But people will always have their own personal tastes no matter how terrible they may be. Simply having an affinity for something on its own isn't bad though, only if they apply their desire into actually doing something with it. For example, I might have a desire to kill my neighbor, but it's only a crime if I actually do it (or rather, if I conspire or attempt it). The point I'm trying to make here is that people have private thoughts and these private thoughts may be hideous and terrible, but as long as nothing comes of them, it's not bad.

Demands creates an increased supply. If there is little demand and there is high risk for supplying, supplies will diminish. In other words, by targeting the ones buying child porn and decreasing the demand, you can decrease the supply. Decreasing supply in this matter is vital, because you are decreasing child exploitation. I mean, do you seriously think parents consent to their child being used in this manner? If you advocate child porn you are advocating a host of crimes, including rape, kidnapping and torture. There is no excuse in a civilized society to permit such things to be done to innocent children, regardless of the "relief" it might cause for a sketchy 40 year old who will jack off to the child porn.

The reason the war on drugs is failing is because 1. drug use is (not always but mostly) a victimless crime and 2. because sizeable segments of the public approve of it. Neither can be said about this. Other than NAMBLA, to the best of my knowledge there is no public organization advocating pedophilia, and if you make such arguments in public you will almost certainly get the pumpernickel kicked out of you.

I took a constitutional law class with Bob Egan, one of the lawyers who convicted John Wayne Gacy for murdering like two dozen of people. Brilliant lawyer. He explained every crime, why it was wrong, but when he came to child porn he just said that that was "self-explanatory" and there were no ifs or buts about it. No one in class questioned that, because I think in that matter he was pretty much speaking for everyone there.

By the way, I asked him, "Mr. Egan, why do criminals make so many mistakes?" He responded simply, "because criminals are stupid," at which point I laughed my ass off right in class.

Oprah had a show not to long ago about child porn and child predators. She showed (blurred out of course) the manuals that can be found online how to abduct, molest and make child pornography. I find this disgusting and very disturbing. Porn is porn. It's disgusting. It's disgraceful. Child porn makes me want to puke and knowing that it's out there disturbs me. The show was quite informative on actions they are trying to take against this. There was a man on there that developed some sort of program to track the people that sent child porn from one computer to another. He then followed them and got the police involved to get them arrested.

Child porn is evil. End of story.

Can you guys post a little more than that next time? I understand the nature of this topic so I don't think it warrants any sort of violation but this is the intelligent section, after all.

I don't really want to talk about this but it's a legitimate topic... I can't really see how anyone can justify such a thing. There's a reason it's nearly universally disapproved of around the world, and it's because it's unnatural.

Sorry about that but posting more on this thread is just ... I can't... Mexico is a good place for that kind of people -__- ... I wish children could defend theirselves >.>

Can we get any more superstitious? The camera is not evil, it won't steal your soul, it's not going to hurt you. It doesn't refine light into pure evil. It's the person carrying the camera who is doing something inappropriate, or the person looking at the picture who is doing something inappropriate (for those 40% mentioned who do molest children). The 15% who solicited people online are a little sketchier, but is talking to someone a crime? If they don't like it, they can close the window, ignore you, etc.

Five year old children in a civilized society are not supposed to fuuck. Fuucking five year old children in a civilized society against their will is considered to be unnatural because five year old children are not supposed to fuuck.

You discuss something if it has two sides. This is not a two-side topic. Who the fuuck would have their kid being raped on camera? This topic is inappropriate for discussion even more so than is the topic of raping women. Women certainly pull their share of sketchy $hit, but aside from certain countries in the Middle East I cannot think of any place where the male rapist actually has "rights" or an "argument" in front of society. Rape involves overwhelming a woman physically, which causes her severe emotional damage, as well as a potential pregnancy, (think of carrying your rapist's baby for 9 months,) and transmitting STDs. Rapists probably won't be so considerate as to use a condom. Most rape victims are best described as annihilated; but the child is more fragile than a grown woman, and far more defenseless.

I read books with adult content, (including fuucking,) at a very young age, but I did not comprehend sexuality at the age of 4 and 6, even while reading about it. If it is inappropriate to force yourself on a woman who is weaker then you, then how the hell is it appropriate to force yourself on a child, who is not only weaker, but most likely doesn't have the developed psyche or the parental education to give consent? Is raping a woman "natural?" Then how is raping a child "natural?" How do you make child porn without raping a child, Stereo? It's not the camera that's evil, it's what's in front of it, and that's a child being abused and raped. You show me a guy who says 5 year olds should be raped, and I'll show you a society that wants to blow his head off.

This is the third time I've encountered this sort of topic on the internet. Honestly, even 4chan bans for this $hit. Fuucking 4chan. If moot allows barfcocks, goatse, tubgirl, guru, and a host of other charming topics, but not child porn, even while being monitored by the FBI, I think by golly we DO perhaps have some reason to assume that it IS inappropriate.

Demands creates an increased supply. If there is little demand and there is high risk for supplying, supplies will diminish. In other words, by targeting the ones buying child porn and decreasing the demand, you can decrease the supply. Decreasing supply in this matter is vital, because you are decreasing child exploitation. I mean, do you seriously think parents consent to their child being used in this manner? If you advocate child porn you are advocating a host of crimes, including rape, kidnapping and torture. There is no excuse in a civilized society to permit such things to be done to innocent children, regardless of the "relief" it might cause for a sketchy 40 year old who will jack off to the child porn.

I don't think you understand how or why child porn is created. People don't go "oh hey if I rape a child I could sell it and make moneys". They're pedophiles who get off on that idea. These folks will molest/rape children regardless of if they get a video or photo of it or not. They don't create child porn to create child porn, they molest/rape children then create child porn to feed their sexual desires for the future. They may also see it as a duty on themselves, in that most pedophiles likely won't even abuse a child (whether it be only because it is even more illegal or whether it be because their morals won't allow it, even if it does allow them to view child porn), so if they're going to actually do it, they should help their "brothers" who can't.

But again, this isn't a market situation. People don't go down to the local child porn outlet and buy a bunch of movies and pictures. They get them on p2p and torrents; these shared files on p2p and torrents will exist on the originating pedophile's computer whether or not anyone downloads the files from them or not. These pedophiles who abuse children will abuse children whether or not it is recorded; they do it for the abuse, to get off on it, not to fill a demand in the "market".

The reason the war on drugs is failing is because 1. drug use is (not always but mostly) a victimless crime and 2. because sizeable segments of the public approve of it. Neither can be said about this. Other than NAMBLA, to the best of my knowledge there is no public organization advocating pedophilia, and if you make such arguments in public you will almost certainly get the pumpernickel kicked out of you.

I know where you're going with this, but this goes right back into the concept of owning a picture being immoral or not. Child porn being legal to own but not create is counterproductive, because as soon as its legal to own, you DO create a market, a market wherein supply needs to meet demand and you WOULD find people making child porn just for the money and not because they themselves are pedophiles. By looking at these pictures or videos illegally, you're not directly hurting these kids, but if it was legal and you were supporting the "industry", you would be.

Wow. That's a strange conclusion I just got to. In the two choices of to look at child porn illegally or to legalize child porn, the better choice is to look at it illegally. In one case, the viewer risks their freedom, in the other, additional children are hurt.

I guess this is a case where a "victimless crime" is better than the alternative. Remove the "victimless crime" here, and you can guarantee more children would be hurt. Wow. I'm actually surprised at myself here. Up until now, I've never thought I would reason myself into a situation where I would be in favor of this sort of preventative law system, but it seems to be the only morally fair thing.

There was a man on there that developed some sort of program to track the people that sent child porn from one computer to another.

That sounds like entrapment. Slippery slope there, guys. It's one thing to want to catch these people, but law enforcement baiting may actually encourage the behavior they're trying to deter.

Five year old children in a civilized society are not supposed to fuuck. Fuucking five year old children in a civilized society against their will is considered to be unnatural because five year old children are not supposed to fuuck.

Actually, there's an interesting topic relating to this idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality

But if you're stating that it is unnatural for a child to be involved with an adult, I would say that you're right.

And I think what Stereo might be trying to get at is the idea of a CHILD compared to a "child". Notice that post pubescent persons who are still minors still fall under the title of "child" (at least as far as child porn is concerned). You may not appreciate the idea of a young adult having a sexual relationship with a post pubescent minor, but that is certainly far from unnatural. I'm sure you've heard of Romeo and Juliet, right? You know, Romeo was 19 and Juliet was 14. Does that offend you? Do you think that's unnatural?

it's what's in front of it, and that's a child being abused and raped.

And what if it's the child themself doing the "abusing"? What if they're the ones doing the recording? What is your stance on the matter then?

ps I'm sure 4chan only bans it because it is illegal and they don't want their servers confiscated and face jail time. If cp wasn't illegal (morality aside in this theoretical case), they would most certainly allow it on /b/ (mods might still ban for it thanks to the simple "there are no rules for mods either" bit), as well as potentially creating a channel especially for it (assuming the general population of the site has an interest in it and isn't stigmatized, like, for example, furry porn). These other things you mention and compare to child porn, it's a faulty analogy. Those things are allowed because they are legal, child porn isn't allowed because it is not legal. You may find both offensive, and in fact, most persons would I expect, but only one of them is actually illegal to own and/or distribute.

Can you guys post a little more than that next time?

ok. to that dude who think child porn is no different than other porn


there's a reason why there are many things that's not legal till you hit 18/22.

a child still developing and growing, and some sick f*** force the kid to take off clothes and pose for pictures or even worse force to do sexual things with grown people. that's gonna seriously screw up her mind and you know what? are you serious? do i really have to explain myself?

You discuss something if it has two sides. This is not a two-side topic. Who the fuuck would have their kid being raped on camera? This topic is inappropriate for discussion even more so than is the topic of raping women. Women certainly pull their share of sketchy $hit, but aside from certain countries in the Middle East I cannot think of any place where the male rapist actually has "rights" or an "argument" in front of society. Rape involves overwhelming a woman physically, which causes her severe emotional damage, as well as a potential pregnancy, (think of carrying your rapist's baby for 9 months,) and transmitting STDs. Rapists probably won't be so considerate as to use a condom. Most rape victims are best described as annihilated; but the child is more fragile than a grown woman, and far more defenseless.

If you're not going to read what I say, please don't pretend to be replying to it. Thanks.

If you're not going to read what I say, please don't pretend to be replying to it. Thanks.

Can we get any more superstitious? The camera is not evil, it won't steal your soul, it's not going to hurt you. It doesn't refine light into pure evil. It's the person carrying the camera who is doing something inappropriate, or the person looking at the picture who is doing something inappropriate (for those 40% mentioned who do molest children). The 15% who solicited people online are a little sketchier, but is talking to someone a crime? If they don't like it, they can close the window, ignore you, etc.

I read Isaac's post, and I read your post two times, and now a third and a fourth to see if I missed anything. That post you're claiming I did without reading your post I edited for roughly 45 minutes becuase what you said pissed me off THAT bad. My reading comprehension is not bad. If I am reading this wrong, then you phrased it so vaguely that you lead me to read it the way I did.

What do you think the "camera" is talking about in this instance, when the whole thread is about child porn and people filming child porn? What "activity" is being talked about if not filming child porn? And the "other" 15% of people soliciting people online presumably refers to those sketchy people who think they're talking to little kids online to get them to meet and then screw, which draws some conclusions about the other 85%, who also presumably are related to the first 15%. "Talking to someone" is not a crime? People who talk to little kids about having sex with them is what is "being talked about" in this thread.

I don't think you understand how or why child porn is created. People don't go "oh hey if I rape a child I could sell it and make moneys". They're pedophiles who get off on that idea. These folks will molest/rape children regardless of if they get a video or photo of it or not. They don't create child porn to create child porn, they molest/rape children then create child porn to feed their sexual desires for the future. They may also see it as a duty on themselves, in that most pedophiles likely won't even abuse a child (whether it be only because it is even more illegal or whether it be because their morals won't allow it, even if it does allow them to view child porn), so if they're going to actually do it, they should help their "brothers" who can't.

But again, this isn't a market situation. People don't go down to the local child porn outlet and buy a bunch of movies and pictures. They get them on p2p and torrents; these shared files on p2p and torrents will exist on the originating pedophile's computer whether or not anyone downloads the files from them or not. These pedophiles who abuse children will abuse children whether or not it is recorded; they do it for the abuse, to get off on it, not to fill a demand in the "market".


I know where you're going with this, but this goes right back into the concept of owning a picture being immoral or not. Child porn being legal to own but not create is counterproductive, because as soon as its legal to own, you DO create a market, a market wherein supply needs to meet demand and you WOULD find people making child porn just for the money and not because they themselves are pedophiles. By looking at these pictures or videos illegally, you're not directly hurting these kids, but if it was legal and you were supporting the "industry", you would be.

Wow. That's a strange conclusion I just got to. In the two choices of to look at child porn illegally or to legalize child porn, the better choice is to look at it illegally. In one case, the viewer risks their freedom, in the other, additional children are hurt.

I guess this is a case where a "victimless crime" is better than the alternative. Remove the "victimless crime" here, and you can guarantee more children would be hurt. Wow. I'm actually surprised at myself here. Up until now, I've never thought I would reason myself into a situation where I would be in favor of this sort of preventative law system, but it seems to be the only morally fair thing.


That sounds like entrapment. Slippery slope there, guys. It's one thing to want to catch these people, but law enforcement baiting may actually encourage the behavior they're trying to deter.


Actually, there's an interesting topic relating to this idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sexuality

But if you're stating that it is unnatural for a child to be involved with an adult, I would say that you're right.

And I think what Stereo might be trying to get at is the idea of a CHILD compared to a "child". Notice that post pubescent persons who are still minors still fall under the title of "child" (at least as far as child porn is concerned). You may not appreciate the idea of a young adult having a sexual relationship with a post pubescent minor, but that is certainly far from unnatural. I'm sure you've heard of Romeo and Juliet, right? You know, Romeo was 19 and Juliet was 14. Does that offend you? Do you think that's unnatural?

And what if it's the child themself doing the "abusing"? What if they're the ones doing the recording? What is your stance on the matter then?

ps I'm sure 4chan only bans it because it is illegal and they don't want their servers confiscated and face jail time. If cp wasn't illegal (morality aside in this theoretical case), they would most certainly allow it on /b/ (mods might still ban for it thanks to the simple "there are no rules for mods either" bit), as well as potentially creating a channel especially for it (assuming the general population of the site has an interest in it and isn't stigmatized, like, for example, furry porn). These other things you mention and compare to child porn, it's a faulty analogy. Those things are allowed because they are legal, child porn isn't allowed because it is not legal. You may find both offensive, and in fact, most persons would I expect, but only one of them is actually illegal to own and/or distribute.

The whole point I am trying to get at is you want as little child porn produced as possible. Yes, I agree with you that pedophiles will want child porn, but by lowering the hammer on them for even possession of child porn you create increased incentive for them not to create or distribute child porn. I am guessing people who share this material may profit from it. I am also guessing for those who will do it regardless or consequence, there will be those who are afraid of punishment and will limit either use of child porn, and its creation. Prohibition tried to limit a popular activity, and that just created a thriving black market for it. However, CP is hated by most of society, and the black market I am guessing is more limited.

The 4chan analogy tries to point out not the legality/illegality, but rather the vulgarity, shock factor, and deviance of what is being talked about. 4chan bans CP for illigality, but it allows things which are just ghastly. From that I think we may deduce that even deviants, /b/tards, hesitate to break theses laws, because they'll get partyvanned.

I am sorry if I did not address all of your points, you wrote a lot.

Sorry about that but posting more on this thread is just ... I can't... Mexico is a good place for that kind of people -__- ... I wish children could defend theirselves >.>

Sorry for going slightly off topic here but...

Wow... um... what the hell? You do realize how inappropriate of a comment this is right? I hope you didn't purposely attempt to incite anyone here who has any Mexican roots; and that it was just a slip up due to the nature of this topic and it's influence on you.

Anywho, back on topic:

Has anyone considered the possibility that decreasing the amount of people could possibly create MORE child abuse?

Take this hypothetical situation into account.

Let's say there are a total of 1000 people who are seriously into CP and can't help their strong urge for it.

Of all of those only 150 are brave enough to go out and do it and video tape it. The stuff then gets on to the internet for other people to view.

The other 850 aren't brave enough to actually go out and commit these crimes but are at least satiated with the amount they are able to see.

Now, what if for some reason those 150 people get caught and there's no more new CP videos coming in. Of those 850, more and more people would begin to take action for themselves if they haven't been satiated for a long period of time. And as that time increases more of them go to commit the actual crime since they can no longer just watch it.

(Off topic: lols i wrote "Twat" [jus"twat"chit thank you MS curse filter for teaching us this. I swear that damn thing did more damage than good.)

Oh yeah, I would also like to hear more opinions on people's view on loli. It was a small part of the original post and I noticed that the major issue was real CP, but I'm still interested in the rest of the opinions here.

And the "other" 15% of people soliciting people online presumably refers to those sketchy people who think they're talking to little kids online to get them to meet and then screw, which draws some conclusions about the other 85%, who also presumably are related to the first 15%. "Talking to someone" is not a crime? People who talk to little kids about having sex with them is what is "being talked about" in this thread.

I guess it's in someone else's post so you missed it...

Of the people arrested in 2000-2001 for possession of child pornography, 40% had also molested children and 15% had solicited members of law enforcement agencies (posing as children) online.

The only thing it really says to me is that it's the ones stupid enough to get caught who are also stupid enough to look for dates in online chatrooms, but whatever.



I don't think talking to "little kids" is something illegal... especially online where most services require you to be 13+.

Now you people saying " its just wrong" is it because you dislike the idea, or that you think people are getting hurt?
...
More Importantly if you think Lollicon should be banned shouldn't Gore Porn also be banned (I've never seen/heard of any real Gore Porn just drawn/ fake)
since it too promotes highly illegal activities?
(Gore Porn is mutilated nude bodies- often very explicit and sickening and so far I've only seen/heard of it in Hentai)

Lolicon, Child Pornography, and "Gore" Porn are 3 completely seperate issues though.

Okay, you could argue that in many ways lolicon promotes child pornography, but the concept of it is not so much being attracted to children, but being attracted to those with small features and "childlike" appearance (also dressing childishly). The fashion trends that took place in Japan are a good example. But I dont think those with a lolita complex will necessarily be child rapists, to me that is more of a "I prefer women with small breasts" kind of issue.

As for "Gore" Porn, isn't that ussually related to snuff? I really don't think you can compare this to lolicon, and I'm pretty confident that it is banned almost everywhere.

Hentai is a different story though. They seem to think that just because they are cartoons, and they are not real, that they can produce almost anythingt that they want (tentacle rape, underage sex etc). I think that the display of abuse to a child in hentai shouldn't be allowed either, because is that not child pornography? It's sending a horrible message, even if it is only a drawn picture.

But then again, Japanese culture is very different from ours. I remember seeing a Japanese advertisement for a study guide for ages 8+ with a half naked anime girl on the cover. -_-

Anyway, my point is that althought child pornography is affecting other industries, and possibly influenced by other things, you cant' compare it to others. It's the main place where REAL children are being hurt. I mean jesus, children are being abducted every day by the bastards and most of them are never seen again. What does that tell you?


This thread is really unecessary, there is NO way you can justify it in any respect, even where peoples privacy is concerned. It's wrong because it's hurting people in a way you cannot imagine. I mean think of it this way. You're 9 years old, you're happy, you have great parents who love you, everything is great. Then one day you get taken away from all of that. You get abused, they dont let you outside. They make you do horrible things you dont want to do. They hurt you. How do you think that makes that child feel? What kind of mental effect do you think that has on the child?

This whole topic makes me sick to my stomach. -__-