×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
Hey, Answerman! [2006-07-28]


Goto page Previous    Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Mint Mania IIDX



Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Central
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:30 pm Reply with quote
loliconer wrote:
Mint Mania IIDX wrote:

Not all child molestors are pedophiles, as I have exemplified earlier in the thread.


Yeah, it gets complicated from there. I just wanted to dumb it down for Mr. Thoughtcrime.

It doesn't get complicated at all. In one sentence, I'll say it again. Some child molestors perform these actions because they have an almost definite power over the individual, most children simply being easily incapacitatable.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
loliconer



Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:42 pm Reply with quote
Mint Mania IIDX wrote:
loliconer wrote:
Mint Mania IIDX wrote:

Not all child molestors are pedophiles, as I have exemplified earlier in the thread.


Yeah, it gets complicated from there. I just wanted to dumb it down for Mr. Thoughtcrime.

It doesn't get complicated at all. In one sentence, I'll say it again. Some child molestors perform these actions because they have an almost definite power over the individual, most children simply being easily incapacitatable.


I said I wanted to dumb it down. Quit trying to start arguments Evil or Very Mad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malintex Terek
Guest




PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:09 pm Reply with quote
loliconer wrote:

I...think you're confusing "pedophile," someone who fantasizes about having sex with children, with "child molestor," someone who's followed through on his/her fantasies of having sex with children. Child molestors are pedophiles, but pedophiles aren't necessarily child molestors. Get pedophiles help, but don't lock them up if they haven't done anything.


Confused I am not. Wink

...

Think of it this way. It is normal for men to have erotic fantasies, but not about children; modern media in the "lolicon" or "shotacon" departments dresses up children with typically "mature" stimulus, such as scanty clothing or suggestive positions. This is an evolving epidemic.

However, we normal people have no way of identifying pedophiles outside of self-admission, and pedophillia is *not* something people would openly admit to. Ergo, we only know someone's a pedophile when he/she rapes children.

For a note, everyone should stop using "molestation", as molestation applies to much more than rape (such as groping) and it diminishes the impact of the word "rape" as much as "date rape" does. It's all forced sexual/oral/anal intercourse without concent of the individual (and the law, in the case of pedophillia).

Back on topic, my argument attacked tempest's assertion that "not all pedophiles should be thrown in jail". My argument is that the "modern" definition of pedophile is intrinsically a [molester] because we cannot identify pedophiles until they have already taken action in some way.


Last edited by Malintex Terek on Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
Kitsune_Cool



Joined: 30 May 2006
Posts: 27
Location: Washington
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:16 pm Reply with quote
JMays wrote:
PantsGoblin wrote:
Of course, none of this matters. After all, my opinion on this subject doesn't count.

Oh, cut out the self-pity. Threads like these will have their share of fools, and it's best to ignore them until they get banned.


I can't believe it. I can't believe how many people on here are trying to justify such sick fantasies. I've been watching anime and reading manga for a good 13 years, and it almost makes me want to quit.

How can I be like these people? YES, I said it. THESE people. Oh no, am I sterotyping? God forbid. The portrayal of little girls being raped or touched or whatever the hell else goes on this particular breed of anime is morally wrong. MORALLY wrong. I'm entitled to hold on to my morals, right? Are you going to try to tell me I'm not aloud to have them? That I'm oppressing a freedom? F you. Hitler oppressed, I'm voicing my opinion.

Do you have any idea what a child who has been sexually or physically assaulted goes through? Probably not. Oh, maybe you're book smart, but I seriously doubt you've had any, and pardon the pun, hands on experience. It stains a person. It doesn't just go away. The psychological effects are forever. And you're going to FANTASIZE about it? (yes, I KNOW it's only a cartoon, it's not REAL children, it's only PORTRAYING real children... Good grief, that's the lamest argument I have ever heard...)

It's sick. I can't believe how sick society is. I watch anime and read books and play games to forget about this twisted world... but there's no escaping it.

Pedophiles kill innocence. Even if you try to justify lolicon, even if, in your mind, it's only an animated figure, it has no bearing on reality, why in the world would you want to be associated with one of those horrors on any level? Seriously, why would you even want such a stigma touching you? Aren't there enough diversions in life? Can't you get your kicks somewhere else?

Please.

I was an abused child.
I was only 2 ½ when it started.

You want to know the damnedest thing? The nightmares never go away. Do you know what that's like? To always dream in nightmares? Probably not. My first memory is of hiding behind a freaking couch. Hiding from the man monster. I wasn't very good at hiding. He almost killed me before it stopped.

And the nightmares never go away.

Is this fuel for fantasy? Children are so innocent... they're so pure. Please explain lolicon to ME, because I don't understand.

I don't get it. I, as a former abused child, don't understand. Will one of you please explain?

This is stupid and redundant. I'm finished. It's not like you're going to convince anyone either way. I'm so depressed. I have a two year old baby girl, and this is the world I'm raising her in? So when she's, I don't know, 8, is she fair game? Is that how it works?

I was 2 1/2.

Please explain lolicon to me.


Last edited by Kitsune_Cool on Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:22 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Steventheeunuch





PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:18 pm Reply with quote
Malintex Terek wrote:
Ergo, we only know someone's a pedophile when he/she rapes children.


Because we do not know who they are does not change what they do, and therefore what they are. People are caught with child pornography often, therefore proving that they're pedophiles. Just becase we don't know it at the time, doesn't mean they're not. Also, since people post in this thread admitting to indulging in Lolicon/Shotacon and in some cases, actual child porn, and some even ADMIT to being pedophiles while others try to sugar-coat it, that's pretty much, nail on the head, a certificate for "I AM A PEDOPHILE". I don't see how much clearer that has to be.

In short: Just because they don't say they are, doesn't mean they're not. You're basing your argument on your definition of the word, even though there's a perfectly good, logical and relevant definition still being used.

Quote:
For a note, everyone should stop using "molestation", as molestation applies to much more than rape (such as groping) and it diminishes the impact of the word "rape" as much as "date rape" does. It's all forced sexual/oral/anal intercourse without concent of the individual (and the law, in the case of pedophillia).


It's a common word that accuratly covers what can and does happen to some people. Molestation might not be rape, which is often attributed to penetration, whereas molestation can be fondling, etc, which can happen (as some Pedophiles-then-Child Molesters are afraid of doing intercourse, or simply aren't at the stage where they can successfully convince the child it's 'okay', or they can build up enough 'confidence' to do so.

Quote:
Back on topic, my argument attacked tempest's assertion that "not all pedophiles should be thrown in jail". My argument is that the "modern" definition of pedophile is intrinsically a rapist because we cannot identify pedophiles until they have already taken action in some way.


Your idea of a modern pedophile is, sadly, full of shit. A pedophile is a pedophile regardless of direct, physical action. If he or she desires a child in any way shape or form sexually, be it on paper or 3-d rendering, they are already a pedophile. We've had people admitting to be pedophiles, or admitting to the activites pedophiles do for the past THIRTY FIVE PAGES. How can you say that pedophiles aren't pedophiles until they've raped someone? You're trying to split hairs until you can make someone out as being wrong, and you being right. Cut it out.
Back to top
Pleroma



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 443
Location: Eromanga island
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:23 pm Reply with quote
Then why not just call these people rapists and treat them as such? You are arguing over semantics here and as far as the english language is concerned [anything]phile refers only to a mental interest.

Quote:
Think of it this way. It is normal for men to have erotic fantasies, but not about children; modern media in the "lolicon" or "shotacon" departments dresses up children with typically "mature" stimulus, such as scanty clothing or suggestive positions. This is an evolving epidemic.


Now this I found interesting and actually a big point against your anti-lolicon stance. The anime/manga lolicon representation of children adds to them many features that would not be found in any real children not just aesthetically, but also as far as their behavior is concerned (usual porn "they are into it" stuff and maturity far beyond their supposed age.)

And this is precicely the thing that to many puts lolicon in a different category of interest from real CP. These constructs are made to appeal in a manner that no real child would but rather as a sort of innocent/cute-adult not found in reality. And lo and behold, many people find it appealing despite having no interest in real kids. Furthermore as long as people can remain grounded in reality (and those who can't are a problem regardless of stimuli) there is no reason to believe that this predilection or interest would develop into an interest in real children.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Malintex Terek
Guest




PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:37 pm Reply with quote
Steventheeunuch wrote:

Because we do not know who they are does not change what they do, and therefore what they are. People are caught with child pornography often, therefore proving that they're pedophiles. Just becase we don't know it at the time, doesn't mean they're not. Also, since people post in this thread admitting to indulging in Lolicon/Shotacon and in some cases, actual child porn, and some even ADMIT to being pedophiles while others try to sugar-coat it, that's pretty much, nail on the head, a certificate for "I AM A PEDOPHILE". I don't see how much clearer that has to be.

In short: Just because they don't say they are, doesn't mean they're not.


As I said, pedophiles are defined through "actions". The "action" in your example was looking through child pornography.

...

Additionally, I will seriously bring the veracity of self-admission into doubt; there is no "true" peer pressure on a forum such as this with semi-anonymity, and it could easily be the case that people here are playing "devil's advocate" or indulging in a curiosity as to the stances of people on issues like pedophillia.

There's no guarantee that those people are telling the truth, and, at that, their definition of "pedophile" might not be the same as yours or mine.

In short: Just because they say they are, doesn't mean they are.

Steventheeunuch wrote:

It's a common word that accuratly covers what can and does happen to some people. Molestation might not be rape, which is often attributed to penetration, whereas molestation can be fondling, etc, which can happen (as some Pedophiles-then-Child Molesters are afraid of doing intercourse, or simply aren't at the stage where they can successfully convince the child it's 'okay', or they can build up enough 'confidence' to do so.


I am only calling for precision of language, which is important in legal precedings and was once valued in common language. Note that the word "people" can be defined in a different way from "human beings"; many years ago, black individuals were defined as "property" and not as "people", though they were clearly human beings.

Typically (and from my impression upon reading here), people associate "molestation" with "rape", so I was explaining that instead of reducing the severity of "rape" by grouping it with "groping", simply say "rape".

Steventheeunuch wrote:

Your idea of a modern pedophile is, sadly, full of shit. A pedophile is a pedophile regardless of direct, physical action. If he or she desires a child in any way shape or form sexually, be it on paper or 3-d rendering, they are already a pedophile. We've had people admitting to be pedophiles, or admitting to the activites pedophiles do for the past THIRTY FIVE PAGES. How can you say that pedophiles aren't pedophiles until they've raped someone? You're trying to split hairs until you can make someone out as being wrong, and you being right. Cut it out.


Watch the ad hominem. I know I am.

...

Sigh, my argument was wasted on ye. Rationale people must assume people are not pedophiles until they have given solid evidence to support the assertion that they are. Innocent until proven guilty. While it may be true that a "pedophile is a pedophile" (who could argue with that logic haha), we cannot IDENTIFY and PROSECUTE pedophiles until they've actually done something. They can "think" about their unnatural fantasies for however long they want, and there's nothing in the world that can pry into their metaphysical state and discover that they have sexual fetishes for prepubescent children. Until they act, we cannot call them pedophiles. Self-admission is dubious at best.
Back to top
loliconer



Joined: 31 Jul 2006
Posts: 7
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:50 pm Reply with quote
Malintex Terek wrote:


As I said, pedophiles are defined through "actions".


No, they are not.


Malintex Terek wrote:


I am only calling for precision of language, which is important in legal precedings and was once valued in common language.


YOU? Calling for a precision of language? Someone who doesn't understand that a pedophile is someone who THINKS, not DOES?

Malintex Terek wrote:
we cannot IDENTIFY and PROSECUTE pedophiles until they've actually done something. They can "think" about their unnatural fantasies for however long they want, and there's nothing in the world that can pry into their metaphysical state and discover that they have sexual fetishes for prepubescent children. Until they act, we cannot call them pedophiles. Self-admission is dubious at best.


All right then, what do you suggest we call these people who THINK about having sex with children who haven't done anything? Joe Schmoe? John Q. Public?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mint Mania IIDX



Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Central
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:53 pm Reply with quote
Pleroma wrote:
Now this I found interesting and actually a big point against your anti-lolicon stance. The anime/manga lolicon representation of children adds to them many features that would not be found in any real children not just aesthetically, but also as far as their behavior is concerned (usual porn "they are into it" stuff and maturity far beyond their supposed age.)

And this is precicely the thing that to many puts lolicon in a different category of interest from real CP. These constructs are made to appeal in a manner that no real child would but rather as a sort of innocent/cute-adult not found in reality. And lo and behold, many people find it appealing despite having no interest in real kids. Furthermore as long as people can remain grounded in reality (and those who can't are a problem regardless of stimuli) there is no reason to believe that this predilection or interest would develop into an interest in real children.

A voice of clarity speaks out.

Kitsune_Cool wrote:
I have a two year old baby girl, and this is the world I'm raising her in? So when she's, I don't know, 8, is she fair game? Is that how it works?

I'll answer them in order:
1) Have you seen the corruption that takes place all around you in everything that happens? We are ALL raising/being raised in this world, and you as a parent are to protect your child through proper teaching, communication, and love, because that's what this world lacks.

2-3) If she was a drawing of a non-existent character. But your daughter is quite real, and if anyone was to even inappropriately gesture at her, you have every right to take somebody down. I would HIGHLY endorse those actions, because I for one am not going to tolerate it.


Last edited by Mint Mania IIDX on Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Steventheeunuch





PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:55 pm Reply with quote
Malintex Terek wrote:

As I said, pedophiles are defined through "actions". The "action" in your example was looking through child pornography.


Which is far and away different from actually abusing a child. The original stance, from what I can see in your argument was that we couldn't tell if someone is a pedophile, until they've molested/raped/abused a child. We might not know if they are pedophiles, but they would be pedophiles regardless of whether they admitted it or not.

Do you see what I'm getting at here?

Quote:
Additionally, I will seriously bring the veracity of self-admission into doubt; there is no "true" peer pressure on a forum such as this with semi-anonymity, and it could easily be the case that people here are playing "devil's advocate" or indulging in a curiosity as to the stances of people on issues like pedophillia.


Very true, but for the sake of argument, I'm taking the responses in this thread at face value and that these are, whether they like it or not, pedophiles speaking about their ways.

Quote:
There's no guarantee that those people are telling the truth, and, at that, their definition of "pedophile" might not be the same as yours or mine.


Regardless of whether they're your definition, they are, as per dictionary definitions, pedophiles, and that's what I am and several others are trying to argue in the first place.

Quote:
In short: Just because they say they are, doesn't mean they are.


But it answers nothing to always doubt the people you're talking to, otherwise you make no progress at all.

Fair enough on the molestation/rape thing, but it probably won't change much.

Quote:
...and, sadly, my argument was wasted on ye.


Your argument wasn't so mcuh wasted on me, as it was wasted in life in general.

Quote:
We rationale people must assume people are not pedophiles until they have given us solid evidence to support the notion that they are. Innocent until proven guilty.


[edited because it was retarded]What do you want them to do? Show you a picture of themselves batting off to not4chan, with a thumbs up and also showing a picture of their posts at the same time? You shouldn't just 'doubt' things to support your arguments.

Quote:
While it may be true that a "pedophile is a pedophile" (who could argue with that logic haha), we cannot IDENTIFY and PROSECUTE pedophiles until they've actually done something. They can "think" about their unnatural fantasies for however long they want, and there's nothing in the world that can pry into their metaphysical state and discover that they have sexual fetishes for prepubescent children. Until they act, we cannot call them pedophiles. Self-admission is dubious at best.


But I don't think anyone was actually TRYING to identify pedophiles, only saying that we should leave pedophiles alone, if they weren't actually harming someone.

tempest wrote:

But none of them have done anything wrong, and therefore, I would argue, that they shouldn't go to jail.

I doubt there are very many people alive today who can claim to have never been attracted to some wrong and/or illegal thing. But as long as they don't act (for whatever reason), they shouldn't be punished.


We're not talking about branding people with the pedophile label, as you seem to think we are. We're simply saying that pedophiles, should they be involved in something that harms children or other people, should not be punished or whatever else. Infact, the less we know about who these pedophiles are, the better!

The original point- Pedophiles are pedophiles, as you put. A pedophile's actions are through non-direct stimulation with a subject. Even if we don't know who they are, what they look like, etc, we do know that they are, if they exist, pedophiles. If, for some reason, their acts and impulses drive them to doing something that harms other people, or something illegal, then they should be prosecuted/punished. However, if they aren't, then whatever.


Last edited by Steventheeunuch on Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:03 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
rektagunn



Joined: 04 Oct 2003
Posts: 218
Location: enohana
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:57 pm Reply with quote
Kitsune_Cool wrote:

I can't believe it. I can't believe how many people on here are trying to justify such sick fantasies. I've been watching anime and reading manga for a good 13 years, and it almost makes me want to quit.

How can I be like these people? YES, I said it. THESE people. Oh no, am I sterotyping? God forbid. The portrayal of little girls being raped or touched or whatever the hell else goes on this particular breed of anime is morally wrong. MORALLY wrong. I'm entitled to hold on to my morals, right? Are you going to try to tell me I'm not aloud to have them? That I'm oppressing a freedom? F you. Hitler oppressed, I'm voicing my opinion.

Do you have any idea what a child who has been sexually or physically assaulted goes through? Probably not. Oh, maybe you're book smart, but I seriously doubt you've had any, and pardon the pun, hands on experience. It stains a person. It doesn't just go away. The psychological effects are forever. And you're going to FANTASIZE about it? (yes, I KNOW it's only a cartoon, it's not REAL children, it's only PORTRAYING real children... Good grief, that's the lamest argument I have ever heard...)

It's sick. I can't believe how sick society is. I watch anime and read books and play games to forget about this twisted world... but there's no escaping it.

Pedophiles kill innocence. Even if you try to justify lolicon, even if, in your mind, it's only an animated figure, it has no bearing on reality, why in the world would you want to be associated with one of those horrors on any level? Seriously, why would you even want such a stigma touching you? Aren't there enough diversions in life? Can't you get your kicks somewhere else?

Please.

I was an abused child.
I was only 2 ½ when it started.

You want to know the damnedest thing? The nightmares never go away. Do you know what that's like? To always dream in nightmares? Probably not. My first memory is of hiding behind a freaking couch. Hiding from the man monster. I wasn't very good at hiding. He almost killed me before it stopped.

And the nightmares never go away.

Is this fuel for fantasy? Children are so innocent... they're so pure. Please explain lolicon to ME, because I don't understand.

I don't get it. I, as a former abused child, don't understand. Will one of you please explain?

This is stupid and redundant. I'm finished. It's not like you're going to convince anyone either way. I'm so depressed. I have a two year old baby girl, and this is the world I'm raising her in? So when she's, I don't know, 8, is she fair game? Is that how it works?

I was 2 1/2.

Please explain lolicon to me.


To those of you who argued that communication / expression of lolicon does not hurt anybody, please read Kitsune's message above.

To Kitsune: I responded once on this thread and I've lurked since. This issue is a mess and it shows. Thank you for sharing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pleroma



Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 443
Location: Eromanga island
PostPosted: Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:59 pm Reply with quote
Quote:
I can't believe it. I can't believe how many people on here are trying to justify such sick fantasies. I've been watching anime and reading manga for a good 13 years, and it almost makes me want to quit.


I take it you have't been around the internet a whole lot. Anyhow, personal bias here, just because it was a real and traumatic experience for you does not mean everyone enjoying lolicon wants to actually cause harm to others or enjoy seeing it done, the whole fantasy is very often of consent.


PS: You make excellent copy pasta, /b/ proud of yourself. Twisted Evil
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
[Bond]



Joined: 07 Jan 2006
Posts: 12
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:03 am Reply with quote
Quote:
It is normal for men to have erotic fantasies, but not about children


Very, very, very wrong.
It is normal for men to have erotic fantasies.

About anything. ANYTHING.
Their sister, their cat, their wife's mom, their mom, a car, an apple pie, a flash light with a vagina on the end, etc.[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address
Mint Mania IIDX



Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 77
Location: Central
PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:08 am Reply with quote
rektagunn wrote:
To those of you who argued that communication / expression of lolicon does not hurt anybody, please read Kitsune's message above.

To Kitsune: I responded once on this thread and I've lurked since. This issue is a mess and it shows. Thank you for sharing.

Really, the best response here is the first-person shooter. You are put into the body of a virtual being, armed to the teeth with a variety of firearms and gadgets. In many cases, you are killing virtual humans. A game like Counter-Strike will put you on a team of terrorists and will reward you with headshots. Killing people in cold-blood with expert marksmanship is a perfectly fine thing to do... INSIDE OF THE GAME. When you leave the game, you are leaving the realm of a false world and entering a real one. The same rules do not apply here. Cold-blooded murder is punishable by law. Terrorism is one of the biggest threats in our society today; you will be taken down for it and prosecuted to the fullest extents. The same applies with lolicon. All of that takes place in a false world with different rules without consequence. When you return to the real world, you are to abide by a new set of rules laid out before you. If the rules ever transfer worlds, then only negativity can come of it. If you enter the battlefield of a city in Battlefield 1942 and proceed to think about your opponent's family and friends and why they're fighting the war and whether the morals behind it are just, guess what. YOU DIE. There is no family. There is no emotion. Your opponent's online avatar does not have a past, present, or future. It is not real. Likewise, if you take the killing out of the game and bring it into reality, what happens? Real people die. Real people are hurt, physically and emotionally. There is no respawn. There's no logging out. There's no "gg next map".

Fantasy and reality are two different worlds with two different sets of rules. When the rules cross over, do not blame what was in the other realm for "desensitizing". Blame the person for not knowing or flat-out ignoring that there is a line that you do not cross.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger
Steventheeunuch





PostPosted: Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:21 am Reply with quote
Quote:
These constructs are made to appeal in a manner that no real child would but rather as a sort of innocent/cute-adult not found in reality.


But what are they, still?

A pedophile is someone who finds sexual gratification in sexual depictions of children. I don't care if it's got tentacles dicks growing out of it, fur all over it's body and it goes 'NYAH NYAN BIG BROTHER I AM GODZILLA" it's still supposed to be a KID, even if the interpretation has been drastically altered for it's audience. Hence you're still a pedophile if you enjoy lolicon.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous    Next
Page 35 of 36

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group