Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

[butchersapron]

The word 'Lolita' brings a whole extra load of nasty subtext IMO

Not much subtext going on here really is there?

 

[DotCommunist]

The word 'Lolita' brings a whole extra load of nasty subtext IMO

thats cause of the text its based on, which while not endorsing noncery depicts an abusive relationship that the child accepts to some degree cos grooming

 

[twentythreedom]

It was a general point really - just that Lolita usually indicates "nonces in denial" sorta stuff.

(Eg whenever the word appears in the press, media etc, not just this case)

 

[twentythreedom]

Not much subtext going on here really is there?

I meant generally, not just this case. Should've made that clearer.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

If a drawing shows the torture and lynching of a black man in a way that celebrates that torture and death, then it could be said to incite racial hatred.

If a drawing similarly shows the rape of a child, couldn't it (and more importantly the producers and consumers) be said to incite child hatred or child harm?

The idea that producing and distributing images of primary school kids being raped does not involve 'harming real children' is monstrously dangerous complacency. It doesn't necessarily cause harm but it certainly has the potential to help construct children as legitimate subjects of violent adult desires and normalise such desires in the minds of some adults.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

Kersher what is your response to this post; in particular where I have quoted you?

Louis MacNeice

 

[Kesher]

Yep, the freedom to express child rape. You do know that the people who buy this shit use it for wank material, right?

Way to go, Japan!

Quite a few other threads on this.

So let them wank: they are not harming children

 

[frogwoman]

I thought that word had been a euphemism for noncery for years.

 

[frogwoman]

So let them wank: they are not harming children

It's relatively easy to make a real image into a 'cartoon', you can do it on my smartphone ffs. And I would say that the normalisation of such porn does harm children.

 

[Louis MacNeice]

So let them wank: they are not harming children

The idea that producing and distributing images of primary school kids being raped does not involve 'harming real children' is monstrously dangerous complacency. It doesn't necessarily cause harm but it certainly has the potential to help construct children as legitimate subjects of violent adult desires and normalise such desires in the minds of some adults.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice

 

[killer b]

So let them wank: they are not harming children

Do you think someone with a penchant for such material should be able to work with children?

 

[Lemon Eddy]

The OP has an interesting post history. *innocent face*

Oh they certainly do. On poppers:

I used to take a couple of bottles with me to Thailand then go wild with the bar girls. Poppers can get you into some perverted practices.

 

[sim667]

So let them wank: they are not harming children

take it from experience, you are truly on a hiding to nothing by going along this train of thought

 

[dessiato]

The whole idea of having children depicted in any form that intentionally sets them up as sex objects disturbs me greatly. Because of this thread I did a search on lolicon, I didn't see anything there that did anything to stop me being so disturbed. I don't think that people being turned on by this imagery are automatically going to rape kids, in the same way that I don't think anyone watching any porn is automatically a rapist. But I am more bothered by the sexualisation, for adults' gratification, of children. Isn't it our responsibility as adults to ensure that children are allowed to be children and not seen as objects for our sexual gratification?

 

[twentythreedom]

I thought that word had been a euphemism for noncery for years.

Oh yes of course, I just meant the specific connotations.

 

[Chick Webb]

Kazuna picks one off the shelf - it features real images of a girl she says is five years old, wearing a skimpy swimsuit and posing in sexually suggestive positions that mimic adult pornography. All the other DVDs in the shop also feature real children.

That article doesn't bother to tell us what these "junior idol" videos actually contain, apart from the covers. Does anyone know? I'm not googling it.

 

[Fedayn]

So let them wank: they are not harming children

Can you not see the rather obvious problems with this rather glib almost offhand remark?

 

[Poot]

Also, can we please not call it child porn or kiddie porn? It is a graphic depiction of children being abused and in some cases raped. Porn implies some element of consent. Thank you.

 

[Chick Webb]

Also, can we please not call it child porn or kiddie porn? It is a graphic depiction of children being abused and in some cases raped. Porn implies some element of consent. Thank you.

That's true of stuff involving real people. What about drawings?

 

[killer b]

'drawings of children being abused and in some cases raped'

 

[weepiper]

That's true of stuff involving real people. What about drawings?

Saying that drawings are different just implies that there might be consent when of course there never can be, because they are children. It all normalises it.

 

[Poot]

That's true of stuff involving real people. What about drawings?

Same. I don't think child and porn are 2 words that should ever go together.

 

[Spymaster]

So let them wank: they are not harming children

Why do you think it's reasonable for this stuff to be produced and consumed?

 

[Kesher]

Kersher what is your response to this post; in particular where I have quoted you?

Louis MacNeice

Kersher what is your response to this post; in particular where I have quoted you?

Louis MacNeice

Then do we ban violent video games for promoting violence and war or Tom and Jerry for animal cruelty?

 

[killer b]

Are you ok with people who wank over graphic images of child abuse working with kids Kesher?

 

[DotCommunist]

the moon is made of cheese- thats how valid those comparisons are

 

[DotCommunist]

of all the asinine comparisons you chose tom and jerry

 

[Johnny Vodka]

If a drawing shows the torture and lynching of a black man in a way that celebrates that torture and death, then it could be said to incite racial hatred.

Plenty of films 'celebrate' (or perhaps a better word is 'fetishise') torture and death.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Urban's changed in the right direction here. There was a woman called Itziko who registered with a posse of sockpuppets a few years ago to champion the rights of nonce doodle collectors, and she got a reasonable amount of support.

 

[Poot]

Then do we ban violent video games for promoting violence and war or Tom and Jerry for animal cruelty?

Depends. Do the people who play them pose any threat to children?

 

[killer b]

Urban's changed in the right direction here. There was a woman called Itziko who registered with a posse of sockpuppets a few years ago to champion the rights of nonce doodle collectors, and she got a reasonable amount of support.

I had a look through that thread not long ago - mostly, not much support at all.

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/the-dangerous-cartoon-act-and-backlash.247883/