Lolicons

Damn Fruid you hate kids that much? o-o

I will never understand why people seem to be completely unaware of this.

A loli with real loli age is... I can't take it. I can't do or imagine anything to such a young age.
It's different with age-mature loli (18+ with loli body).

Oh, but if the picture is way too loli then off with it.

There is a difference between real life and anime, and as long as lolicons recognize that we dont have a problem, but if you are a real life one that is wrong.

This, sir, is agreed.

I don't endorse loli, or shota, one bit.

High school character manga I'm alright with: children of the same, almost adult age, and in relationships IS normal.
It's when people depict children in situations with clear adults that it becomes a problem. Yes, it may be harming no one living, but it does give a feeling of normalcy to the situations depicted. It isn't right (and no, not for religious reasons, but rather for simple human decency) to coerce a child into sex. Even when they seem willing.
Children are children because they aren't sexually mature, able to make completely informed decisions, or able to care for offspring.

Yeah, it's not harming kids, but if you like it why not just use your imagination?

However, yes, it has a right to exist under free speech. I don't see why Tokyo is cracking down on loli/shota when they SHOULD be addressing the underground child porn industry that is actually harming kids.

This is good. I like your words.

Do I have to be the one to go out on a limb and point out that all of you are spewing "CP is bad" just because you have been conditioned to think so?

I mean, think about it for a moment. When does it become bad? When the children participating are seventeen? Because that's child pornography in the United States. But really, seventeen year olds having sex is normal, and legal in many states in the United States. What about sixteen? Seems normal. Fifteen? Fourteen? Thirteen? Twelves? Eleven? Why is the line drawn at eighteen? When many states have an Age of Consent at sixteen?

Eighteen because that is when minors legally become adults? Why does legal status matter? Eighteen is somehow mature enough? Who is to say that? I've known sixteen year olds who have more maturity than twenty-four year olds my age.

Yeah, I understand we have to have a universal number, and somehow, seemingly magically, we decided that number was eighteen. But do any of you really think about what that means? Or do you just spout off "OMG CP IS WRONG!!!" without having a conscious thought on the situation yourself.

Ok, let's think about it. Even without law, at 17, who the heck is actually COMPLETELY ready to comprehend the responsibilities of being sexually active? For girls, it means possible pregnancy. And for kids who are younger, they may not even understand and create a warped perception of sex as something negative rather than something natural and meant as an act of loving consent.

The age of consent is what it is in order for children to be at an age for sex when they are considered at least basically educated, old enough to make personal life changing decisions, and able to bear the responsibility of their actions while understanding what they do.
Kids don't need sex in their lives: they have other learning to do, and starting too young will throw that out of whack, possibly for the worst.

Fine, but why does that make eighteen any better?

You proved my point, while trying to make your own. Who is COMPLETELY ready? No one, not even those over the age of eighteen.

I'm not trying to defend child pornography or minors engaging in sex here, but just that that people are being brainwashed into accepting that somehow eighteen is the magic number. When the only reason it is eighteen is because that is the legal age of adulthood, but does anyone really know what that means?

And why is it okay for sixteen and seventeen year olds to have sex with adults in many states yet those same children cannot be photographed because that would be exposing the children to mental, and possibly physical endangerment. ... yet the sex itself isn't?! That flabbergasts me.

So many people just think that BAM! They hear eighteen with an audible clunk and suddenly everything is golden. It is just stupid. Necessary? Perhaps, but at least realize how flawed of a premise it is.

I used to really get uptight about this genre of hentai, but I learned that people like what people like, and I can't fault them for that. Me personally, I think its a bit disturbing, but I also despise kids in real life, and that could be part of it. I also think that most younger people can't understand what sex is emotionally and physically, so having sex with them is wrong and will probably mess a child up for life.

i like Loli and i have no problem with Shota. But in real life. Hell no, it is just wrong and well bad. Also i hate real kids, they are annoying. I dont have friends that dont care of Loli and Shota but if they did, i wouldnt care, its their liking. When involving Loli or something similar to that, it is fine with Anime, 2D stuff. Real life is just No.

I agree that everyone has different taste. And even though I am against the production of CP, I don't see the harm in people somehow obtaining such images and fapping to them. There's no harm in it. Hopefully I haven't derailed on the current topic, but we're not talking about physically harming real people, images are images. And I doubt just images will escalate to real life engagements. May it be a real picture or a cartoon, nonetheless it depicts minors.

I'm behind this 100%

It is the average age that a child has ended puberty and become an adult. Also it is an age when most teenagers are expected to find employment. Also the life expediency of the 1880-1920 when most of the modern criminal code was made was 56.. some obscurity point maded by the law makers.

I basically agree with everything gizgal said, and mentioning the freedom of speech aspect of it just sealed the deal. However, I would like to point out that I don't have any problem with people who are lolicons in thought and not in practice, i.e., almost all of them.