Controversial topics discussion.

[Worgen]

IIRC, pornography laws in Australia say (jn part) that it's illegal to have images of someone under 18 or that looks like they are. Without really explaining what "looks like they are" means, so various magazines read that as a requirement for large breasts.

I heard about that, that they had pretty much outlawed women with flat chests from porn. I wonder if sexual assault numbers against children changed after they did that.

 

[Neuromancer]

I notice you still don't answer the question so I'm guessing you don't know. The point, is that no one generally has laws that dictate a boob size for women that would make them of age and that you can't even really use that as a gauge for age. Maybe try thinking instead of just memeing.

Amusing. Instead of asking questions like "how big boob gotta be for female to be adult" like a simpleton, ask instead why the age of consent exists in the first place, and why people object to depictions of minors in sexual activities.

Age of consent isn't about looks, it's about making sure people are of an age where they understand what they are getting into, that they are mentally matured enough to do it, and also mentally mature enough not to be taken advantage of by predators.

Your absolutely amazing, deeply thought out questions about "what if woman too short to look adult" or "what if woman has no boob" are nothing more but empty sophistries. But since you are committed to using the mental capacity of a monkey when making these snide remarks, allow me to make it as clear as possible where the point of discontent is when it comes to pornographic artwork of children.

When you go to jack off to your hentai sites and look up loli and shota shit, it doesn't matter when the character is a billion year old dragoness looking like a 7 year old. Likewise, in most porn where it's got young looking actors, the actual age of the actors involved, for the context of what you are watching, doesn't matter, because the intent is to get your peepee hard at the fantasy being sold. People won't jack off to the dragoness' personality, they will jack off to her childlike body. Likewise with the porn.

 

[Thaluikhain]

"Looks like they are" will be one of those things that, whilst vague in statute, will exist in practice due to a substantial amount of legal precedent.

Yeah, easy to see problems with that, but hard to come up with a better one. Also, changing laws on child pornography could easily be made to look like you want to lose the next election.

 

[Houseman]

Your absolutely amazing, deeply thought out questions about "what if woman too short to look adult" or "what if woman has no boob" are nothing more but empty sophistries.

And yet, multiple other people have given intelligent, insightful answers to the question.

Mostly, however, when we think of paedophiles as a problem, we're not talking about people who occasionally are attracted to someone slightly underage, because that's going to be most of the world population.

In the context of real life, sure. But a lot of people here and in the last topic seem to want to burn the Anime industry to the ground for featuring high school girls (people who are slightly underage) in titillating situations.

 

[SupahEwok]

And yet, multiple other people have given intelligent, insightful answers to the question.

Here's some intelligence and insight:

The discussion only exists to normalize pedophilic arguments in the public discourse. Case in point in this thread: you've got multiple people fooled into believing in "medicinal CP".

Shut the fuck up and go home.

 

[Houseman]

Here's some intelligence and insight:

The discussion only exists to normalize pedophilic arguments in the public discourse. Case in point in this thread: you've got multiple people fooled into believing in "medicinal CP".

Shut the fuck up and go home.

If an argument is bad, then refute it. That's how these things work, right?
It's not like anybody is going to get arrested for thought-crime, or anything. It's not like discussing such a topic is going to lower our social credit score.

But if you don't feel comfortable discussing this, that's fair, and there's the door.

People won't jack off to the dragoness' personality, they will jack off to her childlike body.

That doesn't explain MLP porn, where mostly every character has exactly the same body type. People still have favorites. The only thing that exists to separate one from the other are their personalities. The shy, quiet one. The loud, manic one. The book-nerd. The fashionista. The farm girl. The sporty tomboy who works at Outback Steakhouse.

MLP porn disproves your argument that personalities can't be the subject of desire.

 

[SupahEwok]

If an argument is bad, then refute it. That's how these things work, right?

Funny, you didn't refute mine.

 

[Houseman]

Funny, you didn't refute mine.

Correct, I didn't, because I'd rather discuss the subject, than discuss whether or not discussing the subject should be banned.

 

[SupahEwok]

Correct, I didn't, because I'd rather discuss the subject, than discuss whether or not discussing the subject should be banned.

Thank you for illustrating the point.

 

[Houseman]

Thank you for illustrating the point.

What's your point, that people have things they are and aren't interested in discussing?

 

[Worgen]

Amusing. Instead of asking questions like "how big boob gotta be for female to be adult" like a simpleton, ask instead why the age of consent exists in the first place, and why people object to depictions of minors in sexual activities.

Age of consent isn't about looks, it's about making sure people are of an age where they understand what they are getting into, that they are mentally matured enough to do it, and also mentally mature enough not to be taken advantage of by predators.

Your absolutely amazing, deeply thought out questions about "what if woman too short to look adult" or "what if woman has no boob" are nothing more but empty sophistries. But since you are committed to using the mental capacity of a monkey when making these snide remarks, allow me to make it as clear as possible where the point of discontent is when it comes to pornographic artwork of children.

When you go to jack off to your hentai sites and look up loli and shota shit, it doesn't matter when the character is a billion year old dragoness looking like a 7 year old. Likewise, in most porn where it's got young looking actors, the actual age of the actors involved, for the context of what you are watching, doesn't matter, because the intent is to get your peepee hard at the fantasy being sold. People won't jack off to the dragoness' personality, they will jack off to her childlike body. Likewise with the porn.

Interesting, I know this might be hard, but you actually have to read what I type, the first period isn't the end of a post. Of course age of consent is mental, that's my whole point. Fox said it was both, legally though we are only worried about it mentally which is why we don't have any laws in place for physical attributes and we just use age broadly.

But here we have you going back into the look of the character, which just comes back to what makes someone look like a child? I mean you said yourself that age of majority is mental maturity, which means you must have a certain features in your mind for what makes a child. When you look at chibi porn, do you see them as children, what about shortstack porn, or little person porn?

I've known 2 pedophiles, both women oddly enough. One of them liked it because she liked to imaging herself in the place of the child, with someone larger taking her. The other one... is creepier, shes attracted to the innocents of them, I really hope she doesn't directly deal with kids, I don't think she does.

 

[Agema]

In the context of real life, sure. But a lot of people here and in the last topic seem to want to burn the Anime industry to the ground for featuring high school girls (people who are slightly underage) in titillating situations.

It seems to me that were similar sorts of sexualisation of minors as can be found in anime put into a Western-style cartoon made in USA, UK, etc., it would not be able to find a distributor or channel willing to show it. Shareholders would not buy into that company, and it would probably be rapidly annihilated in a firestorm of adverse public relations. Anime obviously reflects cultural habits in Japan, and Japan definitely does have attitudes to sexualisation of minors rather different from your country or mine. I think it evades some criticism for this on the grounds that it is a popular-ish product of an respectable, allied nation, that it's somehow a harmless and innocent representation or expression of their culture, rather than disturbing sexualisation of minors, so it's okay.

But it is okay? Because by my not-particularly expert knowledge, Japan really is pretty lax on child pornography (banned, albeit weakly, just a few years ago) and sexualisation of minors. So how innocent really is it? We should not just assume Japan's attitudes are necessarily best practice, nor that Westerners consume the product with the same context as the Japanese, so I'm open to the argument "Not innocent at all".

And I simply don't believe that anime hasn't got plenty going for it such that it wouldn't survive some of its seriously seedy stuff getting banned.

 

[Topaz]

Please keep the forums to a PG-13 standard, thanks.