Lolicon (Lolita Complex)

[Nancy_Winks]

These ages are correct, however, you have missed some very important information. The ages of consent are closely linked to the ages of the participants. Too much detail for the post, but the info is there.

Eg Italy
The age of consent in Italy is 14 years, with a close-in-age exception that allows those aged 13 to engage in sexual activity with partners who are less than 3 years older. The age of consent rises to 16 if one of the participants has some kind of influence on the other (e.g. teacher, tutor, adoptive parent, priest).

Would seem like the age is linked only if you are 13, or if the person is in a position of authority over you.

I'm not really trying to make a point here, I was just surprised at the amount of variation within Europe and that it remains 13 or 14 at all in some countries.

 

[xenon]

So you ignore the risk because you particularly don't like perverts even though these perverts are not harming children.

Let's stop fucking about.

Do you think peple who are aroused by child abuce cartoons should be allowed to work with children. Yes / no?

 

[Kesher]

Let's stop fucking about.

Do you think peple who are aroused by child abuce cartoons should be allowed to work with children. Yes / no?

Not relevant

 

[Spymaster]

Not relevant

Why can't you just answer that "no"?

Would you knowingly leave a kid alone with someone who collects child rape images?

 

[xenon]

Not relevant

It's entirely relevant. You creepy fuck.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Societies that have lax or non existant laws on child sexual abuse will have more child sexual abuse because paedos will abuse if they can get away with it. If the deterrents are sufficient then many will not. Why should any society contain a higher % of people(mostly men)sexually orientated towards kids than any other?

People in power know they can get away with this shit, regardless of whether there are formal courts to punish them in or just other members of the tribe with big sticks. I'm not suggesting some societies have more people who want to abuse kids, I'm suggesting your idea that there would be a lower level of child abuse in 'civilised' countries is a) moronic in the extreme and b) sounds pretty racist to other people who may not realise you're just being thick.

You can try to derail the thread by twatting on about racism etc as much as you like

Of course, you don't seem to care much about racism...

Of course its harder to get away with sexually abusing kids in the UK than it was 30yrs ago. This is proved by the amount of historic cases coming to court & not just 'high profile' ones. In some cases abusers were reported at the time & police did nothing. The reason its more difficult for paedos to abuse now is because there is more awareness of suspect behaviour, people are more suspicious. If a paedo starts trying to groom a child for example people would most likely notice, 30yrs ago probably not.

This isn't evidence; it's an opinion.

 

[tonysingh]

Many, many moons ago (2005 in fact) I was a security officer, working a hostel here in Medway. Most of the residents were young, i.e under 21 and came from what I would call disadvantaged backgrounds with all sorts of social problems but, for the most part, they were nice people.

We security officers took over when the staff left and we were responsible for who came in with the residents and all that bollocks. We were lone workers though with 3 of us on the team. One of my fellow security officers was a CUNT called Pete. Over the course of his time there he grew ever closer to some residents, setting alarm bells going off for me. I tried to do something about it but to no avail.

One weekend I came to work to take over from Pete. The front door was wedged open as was the office door. I found Pete with a 17 year old resident on his lap and a 16 year old one reading confidential security documents with two others of a similar age drunk and passed out. I shouted a lot,, they left and I upbraided Pete The Cunt.

Next shift theres no answer at the front door. I got worried after Pete didn't answer the phone nor buzzer. I jumped the wall, walked round to the office and where was Pete? He was in the office fucking the brains out of a 16 year old resident. I should point out here this 16 year old was vulnerable as hell, she had been through all sorts of shit prior. Yes she was 16 and yes that is the age of consent here in the U.K but Pete was 47. I'll leave that one to fester with you.

(for my money, I kicked Pete off the site, called the security company and told them not to send him back that night or I would call the Police. Given we were in a position of trust, I sort of viewed his actions as tantamount to paedophilia. In the end I got pulled into the security teams H.Q the following Monday and they tried to give me a formal disciplinary. I told them to go fuck themselves and walked out)

 

[goldenecitrone]

Let's stop fucking about.

Do you think peple who are aroused by child abuce cartoons should be allowed to work with children. Yes / no?

How would you know if they were? Would you make it a compulsory part of the PGCE? Would you be aroused by a cartoon of a naked 15 year old girl? What would you do if you were? Chop your cock off?

 

[tonysingh]

Apologies for the above anecdote mind you. The thread did drag it up!

On the point of the Lolicon type stuff. There are some things that are just too ... I don't even know the right word here, as extreme does not fit IMHO..... well they're too far past the line that yes, they do need to e banned and possession of them criminalised. I don't see how any country can claim to be civilised when images of child rape are legal.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Many, many moons ago (2005 in fact) I was a security officer, working a hostel here in Medway. Most of the residents were young, i.e under 21 and came from what I would call disadvantaged backgrounds with all sorts of social problems but, for the most part, they were nice people.

We security officers took over when the staff left and we were responsible for who came in with the residents and all that bollocks. We were lone workers though with 3 of us on the team. One of my fellow security officers was a CUNT called Pete. Over the course of his time there he grew ever closer to some residents, setting alarm bells going off for me. I tried to do something about it but to no avail.

One weekend I came to work to take over from Pete. The front door was wedged open as was the office door. I found Pete with a 17 year old resident on his lap and a 16 year old one reading confidential security documents with two others of a similar age drunk and passed out. I shouted a lot,, they left and I upbraided Pete The Cunt.

Next shift theres no answer at the front door. I got worried after Pete didn't answer the phone nor buzzer. I jumped the wall, walked round to the office and where was Pete? He was in the office fucking the brains out of a 16 year old resident. I should point out here this 16 year old was vulnerable as hell, she had been through all sorts of shit prior. Yes she was 16 and yes that is the age of consent here in the U.K but Pete was 47. I'll leave that one to fester with you.

(for my money, I kicked Pete off the site, called the security company and told them not to send him back that night or I would call the Police. Given we were in a position of trust, I sort of viewed his actions as tantamount to paedophilia. In the end I got pulled into the security teams H.Q the following Monday and they tried to give me a formal disciplinary. I told them to go fuck themselves and walked out)

Good for you. I think this demonstrates exactly that the idea that we've become more 'civilised' in the last 30 years is total lunacy, particularly given the response of your employers.

 

[xenon]

How would you know if they were? Would you make it a compulsory part of the PGCE? Would you be aroused by a cartoon of a naked 15 year old girl? What would you do if you were? Chop your cock off?

Let's get the principle right before talking about the pragmatics. I'm interested in where the OP and anyone else for that matter, stands on the question as related to peple who for sexual gratification view cartoons depicting child abuce.


You do realise the questions in your daft post apply to photographs too. They don't show photos depicting child abuce, naked 15 year old's to trainee teachers do they. And presumably you're not against DBS checks for prospective teachers either.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

People in power know they can get away with this shit, regardless of whether there are formal courts to punish them in or just other members of the tribe with big sticks. I'm not suggesting some societies have more people who want to abuse kids, I'm suggesting your idea that there would be a lower level of child abuse in 'civilised' countries is a) moronic in the extreme and b) sounds pretty racist to other people who may not realise you're just being thick.

Oh do fuck off with your idiocy & weak thread derail attempts...I'll leave you with Saudi Arbia's take on 'age of consent'....from Wiki..& try doing a bit of googling to find out more.

Saudi Arabia
Any kind of sexual activity outside marriage is illegal in Saudi Arabia, but there is no restriction on the age of marriage.[63] A prohibition on marriage under the age of 14 was being considered by the Ministry of Justice in late 2008. According to cleric Ahmad Al-Mu’bi, the appropriate minimum age for sex "varies according to environment and traditions."[63

 

[goldenecitrone]

Let's get the principle right before talking about the pragmatics. I'm interested in where the OP and anyone else for that matter, stands on the question as related to peple who for sexual gratification view cartoons depicting child abuce.


You do realise the questions in your daft post apply to photographs too. They don't show photos depicting child abuce, naked 15 year old's to trainee teachers do they. And presumably you're not against DBS checks for prospective teachers either.

I'm not talking about photographs. I'm talking about drawings from somebody's imagination. What if a teacher goes home and draws naked pictures of their pupils and wanks off to them? How do you police that? How do you legislate against that?

 

[Nancy_Winks]

Let's get the principle right before talking about the pragmatics. I'm interested in where the OP and anyone else for that matter, stands on the question as related to peple who for sexual gratification view cartoons depicting child abuce.


You do realise the questions in your daft post apply to photographs too. They don't show photos depicting child abuce, naked 15 year old's to trainee teachers do they. And presumably you're not against DBS checks for prospective teachers either.

Just for the record, I'm utterly sickened by cartoons depicting child sexual abuse. I've not heard about or seen Lolicon (I'd guess no one here actually has). And if I found out that anyone to do with my kids had been viewing it I'd certainly not let my boys anywhere near them.

I still think there's important issues round making laws around what people are and aren't allowed to think, write about, draw, and fantasise about though.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I'm not talking about photographs. I'm talking about drawings from somebody's imagination. What if a teacher goes home and draws naked pictures of their pupils and wanks off to them? How do you police that? How do you legislate against that?

You cannot. Police raids on homes of suspected paedos have often turned up evidence that made it obvious they were nonces but they could not be nicked because they had done nothing illegal. They had collections of kids underwear bought from shops & loads of pictures of kids cut from holiday catalogues etc. You can't nick anybody for that but I think it does allow them to be barred from working with children.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

Let's stop fucking about.

Do you think peple who are aroused by child abuce cartoons should be allowed to work with children. Yes / no?

Did you listen to the documentary? I'm not sure whether people sit and wank to these (I have a hard time believing people fap to any cartoon tbh) or whether the relationship is a bit more complex, like revisiting their own youthful experiences? If you imagine in your own mind your first kiss (presumably that happened when you and the other person were under 16, unless you were a late developer) and get turned on by that, are you a paedo? What if you draw it?

 

[xenon]

I'm not talking about photographs. I'm talking about drawings from somebody's imagination. What if a teacher goes home and draws naked pictures of their pupils and wanks off to them? How do you police that? How do you legislate against that?

I'm not talking about the difficulty of policing. The difficulties apply to to those using photos too. What's the difference in the principle?

Just for the record, I'm utterly sickened by cartoons depicting child sexual abuse. I've not heard about or seen Lolicon (I'd guess no one here actually has). And if I found out that anyone to do with my kids had been viewing it I'd certainly not let my boys anywhere near them.

I still think there's important issues round making laws around what people are and aren't allowed to think, write about, draw, and fantasise about though.

Who's talking about policing what peple can think, regardless if possible or desirable.(It's neither.) Daft strawman. We're talking about the possesser of these images, even if they're self produced drawings, should be put on a list for the purpose of restricting the contact they can have with children. i.e. they can't work with them.

It's not exactly Big Brother is it.

 

[SpackleFrog]

Oh do fuck off with your idiocy & weak thread derail attempts...I'll leave you with Saudi Arbia's take on 'age of consent'....from Wiki..& try doing a bit of googling to find out more.

It's funny how you keep referring to Muslim countries. Did you read that post about the ages of consent in Europe by the way? Or do you consider Spain to be deeply uncivilised as well?

I genuinely thought your first post was clumsy rather than wrong but it's increasingly clear you have some very fucking daft ideas rattling around in that head.

 

[goldenecitrone]

I'm not talking about the difficulty of policing. The difficulties apply to to those using photos too. What's the difference in the principle?

A photo captures real life abuse of children. A drawing may be purely imaginary.

 

[Nancy_Winks]

I'm not talking about the difficulty of policing. The difficulties apply to to those using photos too. What's the difference in the principle?


Who's talking about policing what peple can think, regardless if possible or desirable.(It's neither.) Daft strawman. We're talking about the possesser of these images, even if they're self produced drawings, should be put on a list for the purpose of restricting the contact they can have with children. i.e. they can't work with them.

It's not exactly Big Brother is it.

I thought the thread was about banning Lolicon?

 

[xenon]

Did you listen to the documentary? I'm not sure whether people sit and wank to these (I have a hard time believing people fap to any cartoon tbh) or whether the relationship is a bit more complex, like revisiting their own youthful experiences?

No. I should be doing other stuff anyway. But You're not sure, have a hard time believing etc. Let's just take the risk then. Let them all have jobs as school caretakers if they like, no worries.

 

[xenon]

I thought the thread was about banning Lolicon?

Ban it so those possessing it can be legally put on a watch list IMO. Rendering it illegal is just a mechanism for doing that.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

No. I should be doing other stuff anyway. But You're not sure, have a hard time believing etc. Let's just take the risk then. Let them all have jobs as school caretakers if they like, no worries.

We might as well ban people who enjoy violent films from freely mixing in society then, seeing as they might be potential murderers.

 

[xenon]

A photo captures real life abuse of children. A drawing may be purely imaginary.

OK. Accepted. Does someone having an interest in drawwings of same, not also warrant having their interactions with children restricted? It's that bit I want to pin down. Possessing the photos would most likely get the possessor a custodial sentence as well of course.

 

[Spymaster]

You cannot. Police raids on homes of suspected paedos have often turned up evidence that made it obvious they were nonces but they could not be nicked because they had done nothing illegal. They had collections of kids underwear bought from shops & loads of pictures of kids cut from holiday catalogues etc. You can't nick anybody for that but I think it does allow them to be barred from working with children.

They can't be nicked for the catalogue pictures because the image has to be pornographic or obscene, and there's no law against possessing kids underwear. They can be nicked under UK law for possessing child rape pics (whether photos or drawings) though.

I'm struggling to think of any other product that can only be used for nefarious purposes.

 

[frogwoman]

You never know, they may be writing a book.

They can't be nicked for the catalogue pictures because the image has to be pornographic or obscene, and there's no law against possessing kids underwear. They can be nicked under UK law for possessing child rape pics (whether photos or drawings) though.

I'm struggling to think of any other product that can only be used for nefarious purposes.

 

[goldenecitrone]

OK. Accepted. Does someone having an interest in drawwings of same, not also warrant having their interactions with children restricted? It's that bit I want to pin down. Possessing the photos would most likely get the possessor a custodial sentence as well of course.

Photos are actual child pornography and absolutely correctly criminalised. Drawings (unless clearly copied from actual photos) are in the realms of fantasty, and I don't think sexual fantasies should be criminalised.

 

[xenon]

We might as well ban people who enjoy violent films from freely mixing in society then, seeing as they might be potential murderers.

Yeah because everything's the same. Age restrictions never apply to anything, context never varies.

 

[Johnny Vodka]

There's actually quite an interesting bit in the documentary about a female artist who mainly draws school boys getting it on together (she also draws non-sexual stuff). These comics are consumed mainly be females (they have a spin-off restaurant) and we're told it's as much about the emotion as the sex. It certainly challenges ideas about what this sort of material might be used for, as well as who the consumer is.

 

[Spymaster]

You never know, they may be writing a book.

Yeah, right.

There is a defence of "legitimate purpose" which usually would apply to police and lawyers handling the images to prevent or prosecute crime but yes, someone did get away with the "researching a book" gig didn't they.