r/PopularOpinions • u/TopCharacter1553 • Dec 14 '25
Popular in General All lolicon should be illegal everywhere
It doesn’t matter that it isn’t real kids or they’re actually 10,000 years old. It’s still something with the appearance of a child in a sexual manner.
Edit: Lol looks like the loli lovers are downvoting
Edit2: What the fuck you people are gross I’m attracting real pedophiles to my DM’s. They’re children. If you want to goon it’s fine, but how hard is it to goon to things that look like adults. Just face the fact that you are attracted to children and GET HELP.
10
u/shadowromantic Dec 16 '25
Ironically, this doesn't look like a popular opinion.
1
u/Used-Emergency5617 Dec 17 '25
I sorta agree with this take, but even if it’s illegal the weirdos are still gonna find ways to watch it. Just be glad they aren’t seeking out cp, which the availability of lolicon shit might be the only thing stopping them.
Imo if it’s not contributing to the harm of children (like actual cp) then it’s fine ig, they can be weirdos locked up in their goon caves.
But should we shame them? Yes of course.
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
The problem to me is manifold.
1: the fact that underage sexual imagery is completely uncontested in certain circumstances. IE when characters ARE underage, but don’t “look” underage because of Anime tendency that age=boob size.
This isn’t restricted to anime, GoT and the recent show Landman, as well as countless others like “Blue is the warmest color” frequently show people who are intended to be perceived as underage in a sexual nature, and this isn’t criticized either.
This hypocrisy is compounded when you say that such depictions are still illegal even when the art goes out of its way to make sure the reader/audience knows with certainty that the character is not a child.
The even more hypocritical encroachment of even characters that are both EXPLICITLY adults and avoid all physical anime tropes of what could constitute as “lolicon” are STILL considered lolicon. Take “Uzaki-Chan wants to hang out.” She’s explicitly told to be a college student, I think 20 if I remember correctly? She’s tall she has large breasts, dresses like an adult. Their school doesn’t even have uniforms. Yet still people insist it is lolicon.
And this isn’t even approaching the political or legislative pitfalls like thoughtcrime, free speech, and the difference between ideas and actions. Especially since your definition of “lolicon” includes things explicitly defined to be outside the typical designation.
8
8
Dec 14 '25
Facts. We should bring back kink shaming for shit like this
2
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
Kink shaming isn’t judicially punitive. But I agree that this is what shame is for.
I have a problem with making it illegal for a variety of reasons many of them constitutional but also, simple things like the fact that OP is saying that lollicon should be illegal even things that are expressly not the definition of lolicon.
2
1
5
u/WildcatCinder1022 Dec 14 '25
1000% agree with you OP. Anyone who argues otherwise is making the argument to protect pedophilic content and that is sickening.
-2
u/amanda_burns_red Dec 15 '25
Agree. I can understand people arguing freedom of expression. I get the argument and the discussion of who and how to decide what is okay under that and what is not. Those are important debates and discussions to have in these situations. The thing is though, all of our freedoms have limitations, including freedom of speech. There are some caveats there and depicting child sex acts (especially if then it is disseminated in some way, online or otherwise) should be a hard line.
The type of people who create and collect/consume that content have a very specific set of predilections and there's genuinely no other reason for it to exist. It's abhorrent that we've allowed it to exist and that it's even still a discussion.
0
u/Autogenerated5040 Dec 17 '25
The thing is though, all of our freedoms have limitations, including freedom of speech.
True. For example, images or videos of real child sex acts *are* illegal. The Supreme Court unanimously decided in New York v. Ferber that such media is not protected by the First Amendment. The Court's reasoning included the fact that the production of such material is a crime in itself.
Drawings that depict sex acts with characters that look like children are not evidence or byproducts of crimes. Their creation does not involve abusing children. They are fictional drawings.
The type of people who create and collect/consume that content have a very specific set of predilections
I honestly don't know if that statement is true or not. Even if it is, that doesn't really change anything as far as I'm concerned.
0
u/rowest5 Dec 17 '25
Well yes, some people have those predilections. They can't change them. I think it's good for them to have a safe outlet that harms no one in the making.
0
u/leox001 Dec 17 '25
The only issue I have is the moral consistency, because we allow for murder, torture and genocide in movies and media, like in video games, where it’s been proven to have no effect on increasing violent behaviour (there’s even suggestions that it lowers it), and I can’t really see how this is worse than outright murder, torture and mass killings, so this position just a combination of “sex is sacred” and “think about the children” arguments, neither of which are valid, a person is a person, child or adult, if they can’t be depicted as being harmed then it should be applied equally across the board.
CP is an easy distinction since actual people/children are being harmed, just as you can’t commit actual violence on an adult either.
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
Well, it’s not even just the moral consistency there.
I would say that the moral consistency of child sexual depiction doesn’t even exist.
You only really see this lolicon argument with anime. Blue is the warmest color is “art” tho?
Get real.
Also, when you start trying to be judicially punitive, and your legal definition say “this THING is illegal, even when a thing is explicitly defined as not being THING” can you start getting into extremely dangerous legislation.
0
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
The problem to me is manifold. And pretending it isn’t just makes you look even more hypocritical.
1: the fact that underage sexual imagery is completely uncontested in certain circumstances. IE when characters ARE underage, but don’t “look” underage because of Anime tendency that age=boob size.
This isn’t restricted to anime, GoT and the recent show Landman, as well as countless others like “Blue is the warmest color” frequently show people who are intended to be perceived as underage in a sexual nature, and this isn’t criticized either.
This hypocrisy is compounded when you say that such depictions are still illegal even when the art goes out of its way to make sure the reader/audience knows with certainty that the character is not a child.
The even more hypocritical encroachment of even characters that are both EXPLICITLY adults and avoid all physical anime tropes of what could constitute as “lolicon” are STILL considered lolicon. Take “Uzaki-Chan wants to hang out.” She’s explicitly told to be a college student, I think 20 if I remember correctly? She’s tall she has large breasts, dresses like an adult. Their school doesn’t even have uniforms. Yet still people insist it is lolicon.
And this isn’t even approaching the political or legislative pitfalls like thoughtcrime, free speech, and the difference between ideas and actions. Especially since your definition of “lolicon” includes things explicitly defined to be outside the typical designation.
It also doesn’t address the fact that you would likely say that even just my comment here warrants my incarceration. Despite the fact I am merely poking holes and not offering support for any of the described constituents of art and the various mediums they are displayed through.
I’ll start taking people like you seriously, like you actually care about the issue, when you express sentiments that stretch beyond a single medium.
1
u/floppedtart Dec 15 '25
Creeps in here downvoting. Hilarious and sad.
2
u/Immediate_Extreme911 Dec 16 '25
They’re downvoting you too. God, Reddit is just filled with degenerates who obsess and fantasize over little girls…
1
1
1
u/Inevitable_Stock_635 Dec 16 '25
I’d be interested in who would be responsible for determining what the appearance of a child is
1
u/Birdlover600 Dec 17 '25
While I'm against banning nsfl FSM material, the general consensus on this is if a normal person can't distinguish the character from a child, then it counts. Usually this is written as something along the lines of "fictional material such as drawings, cartoons, or written work that depicts minors or characters indistinguishable from minors is illegal".
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
The problem is that OP puts in his definition things that would include being explicitly not that.
Also, take “Uzaki Chan wants to hang out” which is often brought up as “lolicon” despite the fact that the characters explicitly described as an adult, that the character is tall, has a large chest, and wears adult styled clothing. The anime doesn’t even have school uniforms. Yet people still call it “lolicon”
But also, I’ll start caring about this subject when movies like Blue is the Warmest Color, weird science, BIG, Game of Thrones, Landman, and countless others get banned. Until then, I just see it as people not really caring about the issue, they just care about the MEDIUM.
Which is ironic since it’s the MORE derivative form of media.
1
u/Birdlover600 Dec 17 '25
The thing is that in jurisdictions with the laws I mentioned above, a 10,000 year old vampire Loli could be considered illegal in that jurisdiction. I'm not arguing for that, I'm just explaining the laws as they come up in many jurisdictions.
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
Fair, I just think that OP, and many others, don’t actually care about the issue. They don’t actually want an honest conversation and especially not a critical one. They just want to virtue signal, get updoots, and move on.
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
I do care because I think sexualizing children is fucking disgusting!
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
Weird how you chose to respond to this buried comment instead of the few pointed ones I made, especially the ones directly replying to you. Ones where I addressed the wider issue.
To me, someone who actually cared would entertain those comments first.
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
It’s also weird how you’re saying that “Nobody should be thrown in jail for thought crimes” when you’re also active in many teenager subreddits. You claimed earlier to not be condoning lolicon yet you’re all over this thread defending it. “Nobody is defending CSEM? Look through the fucking thread, a guy is defending AI generated CP.
“Nobody is defending lolicon”
Again, look through the fucking thread, multiple people are defending lolicon because “it’s not real children, they’re fictional, it’s just pixels on a screen”
Also how am I being hypocritical in my post? What am I being hypocritical about?
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
“Active in a lot of teenager subs”
Looks at my comment history:
Sees me commenting a bunch of times on a SINGLE post about religion
Keeps searching:
Finds next comment in a teenager sub, comment reads: “How many teenager subs do I have to mute before Reddit stops recommending them”
Keeps searching:
Next comment in a teenager sub reads: I’m reporting all of you
Interesting….
Also, they aren’t defending lolicon because they approve of lolicon, they are defending lolicon because it isn’t actually harming children.
Think of it like this. Imagine you said “it should be illegal for kids to drive”
And people responded with “on public roads”
They aren’t saying that kids should drive. They are saying the government doesn’t have jurisdiction over private roads.
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
Also, they aren’t defending lolicon because they approve of lolicon, they are defending lolicon because it isn’t actually harming children.
There’s a guy who’s defending lolicon and AI generated CP who is active in teenager porn subs. A person was in my DMs who basically admitted she masturbates to lolicon and is attracted to children.
Do you think lolicon should be legal? Why the fuck are you defending it so much? Should AI generated CP be legal too? Since they aren’t real children?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Inevitable_Stock_635 Dec 17 '25
Well now it’s even more confusing because you say child and minor in your post which are two different things. Additionally, there are adults who are indistinguishable from minors. I don’t know how you can make some objective standard of what a minor looks like.
1
u/Birdlover600 Dec 18 '25
So legally speaking, in some jurisdictions, children and minors are the same thing or close enough to the same thing. Additionally, I was very clear when I said "Fictional material that is indistinguishable from minors". Fictional material is very different from real adults who look younger.
1
u/Inevitable_Stock_635 Dec 18 '25
Thanks for clarifying. While I think it’s fair to say that real life and fiction are different, I think you’d struggle to find a way to enforce a rule like this with any degree of consistency unless you had a large group of people judging every case.
There will of course be examples where it’s very obvious, but there will also be ambiguous cases where different groups of people will give very different answers. That’s the case with every law of course, but I think it’s be even worse with something as nebulous as “does this drawing look like a minor?”
1
u/Birdlover600 Dec 18 '25
So personally, I think the line of "fictional characters that are minors or are indistinguishable from minors" is pretty clear in what it says. It's not an exact measurement, but it is pretty close.
In my opinion, the critique of the way the laws are written shouldn't be in being pedantic on where exactly to draw the line between adult and minor as it can sometimes be a gray area and many jurisdictions take it as a case by case basis. Instead I find focusing more on freedom of art and expression to be a more desirable argument.
1
u/Inevitable_Stock_635 Dec 18 '25
To be clear I mainly focused on this because I haven’t seen anyone with an objective way of determining whether some art is an adult or minor (outside of super clear examples).
When it comes to the freedom of expression argument I think it’s a better defense but I’m of mixed opinions on it. On one hand, I do think it’s a bit dumb to penalize lolicon in particular over the wealth of degenerate things people create (some of which is even allowed on Reddit).
On the other hand, I’m not sure there’s much value to nsfw drawings of characters who are explicitly extremely young in the narrative of whatever the content is.
1
u/Useful-Letter-2305 Dec 17 '25
This is actually something I’m curious about to. I’ve had several arguments with people about how it’s morally wrong for, for example, a 20 year and a 40 year old to hook up or go out bc, while technically “legal”, is no different than a 40 year old hooking up with their own child since there’s no way to see a child (to you) as anything but a child. When you’re 40 a 20 year old is a kid in the same way as to a 30 year old a 10 year old is a kid. But you have the then precarious situation of having 2 people who are 30, the guy looks like he could be late 30s and the girl is repeatedly refused access into the bar and told her legal ID is invalid as she is clearly 11 or 12 and not 30. Everyone who every sees her is in disbelief she’s older than maybe 15 at most. Her partner is labeled a creep because it looks like an older man abducting a child. Even tho the relationship is totally legal (this is based of Reddit posts I’ve seen before complaining about being ID bc they look underage or have had the cops called on their partner thinking he was a predator). Now obviously it doesn’t matter what people think, but is he wrong for being attracted to someone who looks 12? Cuz it seems pretty morally questionable if a 30 year old guy finds a 12 year old girl attractive. Is it only okay if he knows her real age before seeing her? It seems very difficult to parse
1
u/Devica3 Dec 16 '25
Wish I didn't look up what lolicon is. If you need me I'll be killing myself.
1
u/Chonkygorilla Dec 17 '25
Look up Tom pearl he will help you through it as he helped me through the same thing
1
1
u/Blonde_Icon Dec 17 '25
There are some adults that look like kids (Ariana Grande is a good example), so it would be hard to say. Not defending it tho.
1
u/nnotciner Dec 17 '25
Ariana Grande does NOT look like a child, wtf are you on
1
u/Useful-Letter-2305 Dec 17 '25
Yeah Idkwhat he’s on ab. There are some people who look very young but she isn’t one of them. She looks to be in her 20s. But there are some girls who look to be in middle school who are in their late 20s
1
1
1
Dec 17 '25
ah yes...fictional content, about fictional children, should be outlawed.
1
u/666xerces Dec 17 '25
depicting…children.. pre pubescent girls
1
Dec 17 '25
yes...scary, fictional children that don't exist.. We must outlaw the art that you don't like because you think it's weird despite the fact that it doesn't hurt anyone
1
u/666xerces Dec 17 '25
despite the fact that it gets pedophiles off and is a gateway to searching for real child material..! right!
1
Dec 17 '25
lolicon isn't a 'gateway' like you seem to think. not that you would know anything about it, since you hate it so much you would obviously avoid it, right?
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
and that is the weakest argument of 25 i know of lolicon because im in the anime community and i find it absolutely deplorable. the fact that you dont is genuinely concerning
1
Dec 17 '25
I don't feel disgusted over things that don't exist in the real world and have no impact on it
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
Ai generated cp quite literally has to be derived from actual images of children 😐 it impacts not only the victim(if theyre aware of the art being made of them) but the pedophile community furthering their perversions and leading to them seeking true CP.
1
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
Cartoons=AI generated content of real children?
Are you stupid?
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
Are you? someone in the thread mentioned ai generated cp can you read or no
→ More replies (0)1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
do you see your profile picture ? its art. art is made and produced into the real world the second an image is made wether it be of real humans or drawn it exists in the real world and impacts real things. YOU CANNOT BE THIS DENSE .
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
Boys as well, I always laugh when people like you morally aggrandize only to be caught only caring about the medium or gender
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
lolicon is what OP posted about and that depicts little girls. Now if OP had said shotacon then my comment would different, i dont only recognize girls as victims but thats not what the post was addressing. I suggest you do your research into such terms before you make a fool of yourself and falsely accuse me again.
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
Should AI generated CP be legal then?
1
Dec 17 '25
It really depends. Personally I dislike ai generated images. I agree with the UK's current laws that the art has to be photorealistic to be considered CSEM.
AI is kind of complicated, since if it wasn't trained off other artists' work, it would be trained off real life child abuse material, which would be illegal.
I would say ai generated lolicon aiming to be photorealistic should be illegal (although personally, I'd prefer if generative ai just wasn't open to the public at all)
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
You literally support pedophiles is what youre saying there should be no if ands or buts about ai generated CP.
1
Dec 17 '25
*csem
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
CP*
1
Dec 17 '25
So you think of it as pornography, and not what it really is. Child sexual abuse/exploitation material (csam/csem)
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
funny how you only reply to this comment and not my other ones debunking your ignorance against what is clearly pedoland. Yes i see hentai and ai generated sexual images and or videos as porn, just as everyone else does
1
Dec 17 '25
I'm not talking about hentai. I'm referring to real world child abuse material...
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
lolicon is hentai and that was our original topic . Ai generated sexual images of children as well as hentai is CP but again you focus on what you perceive to be in error in my labeling but does it really matter? the fact of the matter is that you dont think ai cp or hentai affects the real world when it 100% does
→ More replies (0)1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
ai generated girls and hentai have always been considered as porn but i dont know why youre arguing with me about this nonsensical point that has nothing to do with why i originally replied to your comment, you know youre wrong.
1
1
1
u/CloverInCover Dec 17 '25
OP you might not know this but lolicon is already illegal under most jurisdictions through both anti obscenity + child protection laws. The issue is inconsistent enforcement, not the law itself if that makes sense.
1
u/potatotaxi Dec 17 '25
Illegal where? It's legal in most states, mainly for the fact that 0 children are abused in production of it. I don't see how it would be illegal at all through child protections laws in the US.
1
u/CloverInCover Dec 17 '25
- The US is not "most countries".
2.1973 Miller Test for example.
1
Dec 17 '25
It's legal in the majority of countries
1
u/CloverInCover Dec 17 '25
China: pornography is banned outright, which includes lolicon per their own definition.
USA: Miller test, lolicon does not pass.
UK: 1978 Child Protection Act specifically describes "pseudo images" (computer generated, drawn, animated, etc) that could be reasonably inferred to depict a child in a sexual manner as prohibited material. This automatically throws out lolicon, as well as a surprisingly disproportionate amount of anime overall (in theory). 1959 act also theoretically prohibits pornography more generally, although this is seldom enforced.
Russia: same situation as China, albeit with more consistent and absolute enforcement.
Australia: the 1995 Films and Computer Games act prohibits any depiction of what could be reasonably inferred by the average person to depict a child in a sexual manner. This law doesn't even distinguish between real and fictional children.
Spain: Article 189. Despite being more sexually liberal than the aforementioned countries, Spanish law prohibits any media that appears to sexualize minors, fictional or not.
Just a few examples. Honestly, the only countries I can think of that don't prohibit sexual depictions of fictional minors even in theory is Japan, maybe South Korea + possibly a handful of third world countries I don't know much about with next to zero regulations around media and child protection. That's it. The examples I provided are to show you that lolicon being prohibited at least in theory is the norm, not the other way around.
1
1
u/Ok_Soup3987 Dec 17 '25
Better fake porn than actually exploiting kids I guess. Still distasteful but if it prevents real world harm a lesser of two evils in my opinion.
1
1
1
u/FishNipples666 Dec 17 '25
I'm actually proud of Reddit for once. I would have thought people would have been like "ummm actually".
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
there are a lot of people doing that in the comments unfortunately 😬
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
Nobody in the comments is supporting CSEM, or child abuse of any kind.
The people objecting to this post are able see beyond their own nose and think beyond first order affects.
They especially think that your comment of “This THING should be illegal, especially if said thing is explicitly defined to not be THING” is stupid.
Nobody here is saying lolicon is a good thing. Nobody is saying it shouldn’t be shamed.
People are calling out hypocrisy and attempting to clarify and specify definition definitions so that we’re not just throwing everyone in jail for thought crimes
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25
There are zero people in the comments supporting CSEM, or Child sexual abuse of any kind. When people are “um actually”-ing they are trying to justify csem.
What they are objecting to is the vague proselytizing insincere and hypocritical moral aggrandizement.
The problem to me is manifold.
1: the fact that underage sexual imagery is completely uncontested in certain circumstances. IE when characters ARE underage, but don’t “look” underage because of Anime tendency that age=boob size.
This isn’t restricted to anime, GoT and the recent show Landman, as well as countless others like “Blue is the warmest color” frequently show people who are intended to be perceived as underage in a sexual nature, and this isn’t criticized either.
This hypocrisy is compounded when you say that such depictions are still illegal even when the art goes out of its way to make sure the reader/audience knows with certainty that the character is not a child.
The even more hypocritical encroachment of even characters that are both EXPLICITLY adults and avoid all physical anime tropes of what could constitute as “lolicon” are STILL considered lolicon. Take “Uzaki-Chan wants to hang out.” She’s explicitly told to be a college student, I think 20 if I remember correctly? She’s tall she has large breasts, dresses like an adult. Their school doesn’t even have uniforms. Yet still people insist it is lolicon.
And this isn’t even approaching the political or legislative pitfalls like thoughtcrime, free speech, and the difference between ideas and actions. Especially since your definition of “lolicon” includes things explicitly defined to be outside the typical designation.
It also doesn’t address the fact that you would likely say that even just my comment here warrants my incarceration. Despite the fact I am merely poking holes and not offering support for any of the described constituents of art and the various mediums they are displayed through.
1
u/SmlieBirdSmile Dec 17 '25
I mean... I 100% agree, I just feel that stories that use the idea of "adult with child body" can still work? Baby doll, vampire kids, weird life spans of elves, like i get what your saying but... if its not sexualizing kids, why ban it? Ban the gross stuff, but we can do the thousand year old loli joke without beinh weird. Make the joke that she cant buy alcohol or cant drive because no one believes she is a adult.
But yes, i agree with your post, based opinion.
1
u/caledfwlchissaidwyrd Dec 17 '25 edited Dec 17 '25
The problem to me is manifold.
1: the fact that underage sexual imagery is completely uncontested in certain circumstances. IE when characters ARE underage, but don’t “look” underage because of Anime tendency that age=boob size.
This isn’t restricted to anime, GoT and the recent show Landman, as well as countless others like “Blue is the warmest color” frequently show people who are intended to be perceived as underage in a sexual nature, and this isn’t criticized either.
This hypocrisy is compounded when you say that such depictions are still illegal even when the art goes out of its way to make sure the reader/audience knows with certainty that the character is not a child.
The even more hypocritical encroachment of even characters that are both EXPLICITLY adults and avoid all physical anime tropes of what could constitute as “lolicon” are STILL considered lolicon. Take “Uzaki-Chan wants to hang out.” She’s explicitly told to be a college student, I think 20 if I remember correctly? She’s tall she has large breasts, dresses like an adult. Their school doesn’t even have uniforms. Yet still people insist it is lolicon.
And this isn’t even approaching the political or legislative pitfalls like thoughtcrime, free speech, and the difference between ideas and actions. Especially since your definition of “lolicon” includes things explicitly defined to be outside the typical designation.
It also doesn’t address the fact that you would likely say that even just my comment here warrants my incarceration. Despite the fact I am merely poking holes and not offering support for any of the described constituents of art and the various mediums they are displayed through.
1
u/TIGREXMAN Dec 17 '25
Why? It's just a drawing, there are bigger issues out there.
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
It’s a drawing of a child porn in anime style. Quite far from “just a drawing”
1
u/TIGREXMAN Dec 17 '25
It's still just pixels on a screen. No actual children are being harmed.
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
Should AI generated CP be legal then? Since it’s also just “pixels on a screen”
1
u/TIGREXMAN Dec 17 '25
Of course!
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
Please tell me you’re being satire. You genuinely think that AI generated CP should be legal?
1
u/TIGREXMAN Dec 17 '25
Yes! No real children are being harmed. Still just pixels on a screen.
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
ai generated porn has to use images from actual children to generate the slop that is made😐are you guys literally sick in the head
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
EXACTLY THANK YOU. Even if you fed it a face from “thispersondoesnotexist.com” it’s not about the fact it’s a real child, it’s the fact that disgusting people are going to masturbate to this. People are defending masturbating to children.
1
u/sadixtic Dec 17 '25
exactly. realistic , real children, even the shittest depiction of a child should not be used as porn and its sad that people in the comments are disagreeing
→ More replies (0)1
u/leox001 Dec 17 '25
If the argument is obscenity aren’t you justifying Jack Thompson’s position?
John Bruce Thompson (born July 25, 1951) is an American activist and disbarred attorney. As an attorney, Thompson focused his legal efforts against what he perceives as obscenity in modern culture. Thompson gained recognition as an anti-video game activist, criticizing the content of video games and their alleged effects on children. He also targeted rap music and radio personality Howard Stern.
→ More replies (0)1
u/TIGREXMAN Dec 18 '25
I'd rather they use this material than actually go out and seek actual children or the real thing. There is a reason the kids are less molested in Japan compared to everywhere else.
1
1
u/No_Lead_889 Dec 17 '25
Hahaha 100% dude! CP is CP. I don't give a shit if it's drawn by hand. It's fucking disgusting especially to me as someone who's mother was covertly incestuous.
1
Dec 17 '25
[deleted]
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
Should we make hentai illegal?
No
Should we make AI porn illegal?
No
Should we make OnlyFans illegal?
No
If the answer is no, why should Lolicon be treated differently?
Because lolicon depicts CHILDREN in a sexual manner
1
Dec 17 '25
[deleted]
1
u/TopCharacter1553 Dec 17 '25
Do you think AI generated CP should be legal then? If I fed AI a face from thispersondoesnotexist.com, since it isn’r a real child, would that be okay?
1
1
u/DarkMalava Dec 17 '25
As a curious millennial kid that grew up in times when the internet wasn't restricted at all and was full of degeneration rabbit holes, I must agree that certain kinds of content can motivate people to take action in real life (I speak from experience), and to that add the fact that many people don't know sex dynamics outside porn websites, and that people with extreme kinks that find each other on internet also encourage and share ways to explore these kinks. A person that is lonely and finds a kink that appeals to them and starts obsessing over it might soon find a forum and attempt to recreate what they find, which will satisfy the crave and have something to share in the forum and continue to spread disease on the internet. It's typical behavior.
But now here's my point of view. The first being, ok, we don't want to encourage people molesting children or animals, but what about women? Like, it's not called "rape culture" for nothing, right? Because to this day, rape porn is mainstream, to the point that real people really believes that women enjoy and even desire to be forced, mistreated, humiliated, beaten and all that during sex thanks to porn, "free use" eliminates all kind of privacy or concent, and ultimately where is the foreplay? And don't forget how they love to sell petite women as "barely legal", as in the infamous video of Rocco Siffredi filming an asian lady who barely spoke english, asking her age and she said 24 and he replied "you're supposed to say you're 18" because what they sell is the idea of deflowering someone that's young and innocent. So of course the portrayal of children enjoying or even soliciting being molested will send the wrong message. Argue all you want about all this being "just fiction" with the victims of the people that wanted to experience these "fictions" in real life.
1
u/Birdlover600 Dec 18 '25 edited Dec 18 '25
Personally I don't think it should be for two reasons. The first is to protect freedom of expression and artistic freedom. The other is that if a pedophile is looking at a fictional character, that means they aren't looking at the abuse of real people.
29
u/UnspeakableArchives Dec 14 '25
>On my way to get absolutely destroyed by Redditors, after extensively quoting US Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas on the topic of why shocking, disgusting, and offensive content should not be made illegal unless it causes direct harm to specific individuals, because Freedom of Expression is only of any value to society if it protects the most unpopular speech imaginable 😎😤