To all lolicons, what about real life loli?

Plate said:


And the winner is~pedophelia

khorven said:
Can I claim that spot?

Plate said:


Well, the other party consistently argued using fallacies and then gave up...

Razma: Sore loser. You just conceded. :/

Razma said:

Nah 2 fanatics argueing never solves anything, he wont change his mind, I wont change mine. There is no point to this arguement anymore. So you can chalk him up a win, although I hope he really didnt change anyones mind on the matter.

Razma said:


Nah 2 fanatics argueing never solves anything, he wont change his mind, I wont change mine. There is no point to this arguement anymore. So you can chalk him up a win, although I hope he really didnt change anyones mind on the matter.

khorven said:
Except that you don't change your mind because you don't want it to be true, kind of like young earth creationists, and I won't because I have a fancy research with the stamp 'science' on it which tells me to keep this opinion.

Razma said:


You are the one with the fancy research bro, I just have my beliefs, and no one like you will be able to change them. Even if you have all this 'proof' that molesting kids is a positive experience for the kids. Sorry if I have to say, its a bunch of bullshit.

Sore loser, I am I guess to you all. But I have loss nothing with arguing with you other than a few minutes out of my life.

edit: Ok now I really am done, have your last words and lets get on with our lives

kei-clone said:
...the hell just happened? why wasn't arguing for lolis as easy as arguing for pedos? >_> (those of you who haven't been on MAL forums for over a year won't get that)

Well anyway, the thing is that unlike black and women's rights, children aren't exactly clamoring en masse for the right to have sex with adults, so I doubt the society mores for this will change for a while despite the scientific evidence you put up.

khorven said:
Where did I talk about adults?

What the hell? My best guess is children more often have sex with each other and damn right they complain when their parents forbid that there girlfriend is sleeping over?

Seriously, where did I talk about adults?

kei-clone said:



maybe you didn't mention it directly, but you did mention ancient greece in your first post, where it was common practice for grown men to have sexual relations with young boys. but if laws change to legalize sex for minors then i'd have to assume sex with adults would be legal as well unless they specifically say "but they have to be within (age*0.5+7) years of each other!" in which case would be quite lulz.

and yes, i am quite aware that children complain about those kinds of things, but when i say "clamoring" i mean having a movement in all seriousness with a goal to change some societal norms like all the previous civil rights movements you've cited have done. but hey, that may already be happening under my nose and I don't even realize it, so if you tell me it's happening over there where boobs are commonplace on tv commercials, i'll take you for your word.

kei-clone said:


maybe you didn't mention it directly, but you did mention ancient greece in your first post, where it was common practice for grown men to have sexual relations with young boys. but if laws change to legalize sex for minors then i'd have to assume sex with adults would be legal as well unless they specifically say "but they have to be within (age*0.5+7) years of each other!" in which case would be quite lulz.

and yes, i am quite aware that children complain about those kinds of things, but when i say "clamoring" i mean having a movement in all seriousness with a goal to change some societal norms like all the previous civil rights movements you've cited have done. but hey, that may already be happening under my nose and I don't even realize it, so if you tell me it's happening over there where boobs are commonplace on tv commercials, i'll take you for your word.

"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if
children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining
moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.

khorven said:
the burden of proof is yours

"And other psychiatrists have written, again in scientific journals, that if
children can be forced to go to church, why should 'consent' be the defining
moral issue when it comes to sex?" she said.

url_elf said:


I read that, and it sounds like consent isn't necessary for a sexual experience? That almost sounds like condoning rape, the way it's phrased, but I'm not going to jump to conclusions. In fact, reading this has piqued my interest.

I'M BITING. At least for now... I have midterm essays I should be getting to, that have zero to do with this.

This isn't a subject I've researched, but I have access to my university's e-Resources... I'll cite what I'm using, and try to include quotations, but I don't know that I can find free online versions of the articles/books I'm looking at.

From what I'm reading the ideas you're presenting aren't new to this field of study


The last bit reminds me of this



To put this in a sort of context... After the first quotation, the text went on to describe difficulties in the field, namely, that CSA is viewed as harmful to the child but what is harm? And who decides that it is harmful? The child, with whatever they take away from the experience? The professionals? The abuser? Society? This segues to the second quotation, that definitions are socially constructed, and thus, you get a variety of interpretations and perceptions. And, when reading literature, you have to look athte definition of CSA being used and the sample group being used. Does the group acknowledge the abuse? Are they reluctant to talk about it? It's difficult to gather empirical data...

Anyway, this brought to mind very much the latter quotation. So far, what I've gathered from this reading is that...

- Child sexual abuse is, to an extent, socially constructed or framed
- It's effects can be seen as positive or negative (depending on the researcher you're talking to!)

But...



A glaring failure in the articles that the OP listed to me was that they neglected to include the emotional state of the child with which sexual contact has been initiated. They argued technical difficulties with the DSM and its definition of paraphilia, or how once DSM worthy activities/beliefs/orientations/whatever are now seen as normal, but neither article seems to actually articulate anything about the children (do the children want sexual relations? are they being harmed from not having them? is this worse for them?), just the people who want to have these relations with these children. The quote I started with, coming from the OP's second article,



shows disregard for the mental/emotional state of the child. The page 43 quotation above seems to imply an implicit confusion that goes along with sexual contact at such a young age in our specific society and culture. Because of these sociocultural beliefs of sex, it is inevitable that a child, at some point in life, feel confused and subsequently guilty, ashamed, or otherwise harmed by the experience. This seems to be regardless of consent.

But what if the child doesn't perceive that's s/he has been abused? What if, as an adult, they don't count themselves as a survivor of CSA?

My conclusion: even if "consenting" at the time, a child can not truly consent to a sex act (or benefit from) because they are simply biting off more than they can chew with regards to their own emotional responses (confusion, shame, guilt, whatever) - immediate or eventual - from their specific sociocultural situation. That, and the disregard of those wishing to engage in such acts with children for the long term emotional well being of the child lead me to believe that those advocating for the normalization of sexual relations with children are simply in it for themselves.

Edits made for spelling and clarity.

sucura said:
"These are the findings of a comprehensive survey by the Community Information, Empowerment and Transparency (CIET Africa) in November and December 2002."

"The study involved 269 905 pupils in Grades 6 to 11 in all language groups, across a range of schools and from all nine provinces."

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20050710123619850C495299

This is an article that reported on the findings of the survey mentioned above. This does not classify with having sex with an adult, but does give evidence that children can become traumatized and also bring about worse causes by having sex at young ages.

"Some of the other disturbing findings included that, at 18, two out of every three children had had sex. Two out of 10 pupils did not believe condoms prevented pregnancy or other sexually transmitted diseases.

One in 10 said they believed sex with a virgin could cure HIV/Aids, and one in 10 had been raped in the past year. Three out of every 100 pupils thought that girls liked sexually violent boys and one out of every 10 thought that girls who got raped, asked for it, according to the study. "

This can only go to show that children are not mature enough to make decisions on whether or not to have sex at young ages. I mean it is pretty amazing the some kids find that you can cure HIV/aids by having sex with a virgin or even believing condoms don't provide safe sex. Kids wouldn't even be using condoms, I mean they don't exactly hand condoms out at school to 10 year old children so they can have safe sex. Should they, no they shouldn't. This study only proves that children can not make decisions with o0ther children, let alone an adult. Of course, an adult is more self-conscious than another child but the effects it can still have on one child can be pretty devastating. Plus, also proving that its all possible to spread sexually transmitted diseases even adds on to the trouble.

I challenge the notion that sex is supposedly a very complicated feat for a human to accomplish, sexual urge still is a primal one, I believe not on the cerebral cortex located, it has also been shown that mentally retarded patients at least know how to masturbate and even issue mating signals and try to provoke sex, these are often rated as having a 'mental age' of around ten, though that concept is pretty flawed.

url_elf said:

So you're willfully ignoring/denying the emotional and psychological effects that sexual intercourse has on a person? Just because you refuse to acknowledge it doesn't mean it isn't there - sex is very loaded in Western culture (most any culture, really), and has been for hundreds, if not thousands of years. There ARE demonstrable emotional/psychological effects that I've sited above, for example. This isn't to say that sex isn't a primal urge, but because of the sociocultural context under which we are raised and under which this act is scrutinized, it becomes more.

url_elf said:
But all of that presupposes a sociocultural context which doesn't have all sorts of baggage with sex. The reality is, we do have a rich history of sexual-related baggage, and thus, a sociocultural context which inevitably induces confusion/shame/guilt/an effect on the child.

Because of their age, this is something they can't bargain for, or fully consent to. Thus, I can't see how it's ethic to let children walk into those sorts of situations, where they can end up traumatized over things they had no ability to forsee but adults did, and could have guarded them from at such a young age.

Even if a particular child is very, I don't know, beyond their years mentally and perhaps COULD handle sexual relations the same as an adult, society as it exists simply wouldn't have it. Ultimately, there would always be blacklash on the child, I think, that they couldn't bargain for or couldn't imagine at the time. Of course, this too is getting into fuzzier realms.

I also don't buy the idea that an eleven year old child knows what's best for them. Thinking back to when I was younger, and to my thinking/reasoning capabilities, my understanding of the world at large, of other people, of institutions, society, culture, whatever... My ability to reason, to understand things outside of myself, to grasp consequences and to gauge my feelings on a subject to know whether or not it is something I want to do... All these things have vastly improved. I definitely made bad decisions as a child, but because of the guidance of adults, or protection, or whatever you might want to call it, I never made a decision that left me traumatized.

I know I'm not representative of everyone, but I am inclined to think that many people would agree with the gist of what I've said. For whatever that's worth.

Rpgwiz99 said:
At least sameone agreas somewhat. But at the same time Some peoples opinions are that its ok to be a pedaphile but my "Opion" is that its not. Point blank I dont belive that opinion was wrong unless whoever read it consents to that (And its only wrong to them because they condone child molestation) It was just the way I presented it and my opinion on how these people should be dealt with. Just because we watch loli in anime dosent meanl its ok to have sex with underage minors who probally dont know what the word consent means but only say they consent becase you tell them to. Either way you look at it there is a name for these people and its is indeed a "Scientific" and proper name called Pedaphiles opions or not.

ukonkivi said:
I'm attracted to a whole range of ages. Age has never been any sort of real criteria for who I'm attracted to.

Rpgwiz99 said:
Khorven, your a sick fuck. You think that just because a little underage girl tells you its allright to have sex with her its allright? The only fucking reason she probally even consents is because you bribe her with candy and put chockolate syrup on your genatils.

Kuronoa said:

khorven said:
Again, a man to my heart you are.

Rpgwiz99 said:
Khorven, your a sick fuck. You think that just because a little underage girl tells you its allright to have sex with her its allright? The only fucking reason she probally even consents is because you bribe her with candy and put chockolate syrup on your genatils. I would ask you if this is true but there is no need as you will alayays have something to back up your immoral, pedaphile, child molesting sick ways just because it was approved of thousands of years ago.

Rpgwiz99 said:
I would say what ever you like than go for it but I have younger syblings and If I ever heard of something happing like this to them there wouldent be anything that would stop me. Whoever did it would be in a body bag and I would spend my life in prison with no regrets. I would say that people like you need to be locked up somewhere so someone can do experiments on you to see why you have that fucked up ped mindset along with constant torcher but that is far to nice for the likes of you. All you child molesters and Pedaphiles are just alike and need your limbs cut of and to be piled up in a ditch until you blead to death.

Rpgwiz99 said:
I really cant understand the way you think...If your answers yes stop reading this and find the nearst rope or weapon and end your life now.

Rpgwiz99 said:
innocence.

z2000 said:


Just what kind of mindset you think we have? And also, I don't think many bothered to read all of that. Thats something like "Here, eat this pig's eyeball, it has whip cream on it." Mind you, I was sure they were discussing peer relationships and not 60 year old man rapes 4 year old >.>.

Just let me say, most 10-13 year olds, are smart enough whether to have sex or not. More so, I always thought as long it was under their consent, it should always be okay, unless s/he suddenly becomes a sex slave and/or have their pictures on the internet. Though, this is saying with no scientific facts to back it up, and no beliefs to back it up. The closest thing I'm using would be if its rape or not.

Also see ladyxzeus's post. Its true, children know a lot more than you
think.

Rpgwiz99 said:
How can you expect people to not get worked up on a thered that condones Pedaphiles and Child Molestation? Either way Ill keep my opinions to myself wich defys the purpos of this bord.

cyruz said:


Don't get me wrong. I actually share your opinion. That doesn't change the fact that you may not insult the other users. That's the only thing I was getting at. No flaming.

I personally think this topic the spawn of modern mental sickness, I'm disgusted seeing that all attention from the Why You Like Lolis topic got shifted to this topic in the minute it was created. I didn't even want to comment on this, no more.

ukonkivi said:



And you go around calling other people sick fucks? The things you just said are horrifying.
I think you need to take a good hard look at yourself.

If I was your little brother, and someone had sex with me, and you did that to them, I don't think I would care for you as a brother anymore. And plus I wouldn't have any time to spend with you to make up for how scary you became to me anyway, because you'd be rotting in jail, and I'd be forced to get over you.

cyruz said:
Don't get me wrong. I actually share your opinion. That doesn't change the fact that you may not insult the other users. That's the only thing I was getting at. No flaming.

ukonkivi said:

Thanks, we do seem to have a lot in common.

Please, Rpgwiz99, learn to use some spacing. Nothing wrong with huge walls of text because it shows that people are interested in actually discussing something and not just raising their post count. It means it took longer to write and therefor inherintely has a larger quality that shorter posts don't have, however short and sweet and funny they may be. Long posts should never be bashed. However making proper spaces when doing so is more professional and more readable.


You're using ad hominem, that is a logical fallacy and just plain rude. The only ad hominem I approve of is the band. And that's "you're a sick fuck" by the way. Also, paedophile does not have an 'a' there, it's an 'o'.

Basically the words and the way you're using them would be like me saying "Oh you can bash attraction to lolis all you want you're just some idiot who can't spell. And you'll just continue to think the same things you do be your intelligence is just too low to think in any way than but what you're told to think so discussing with you is useless and your opinions are useless." Ad hominem is bad, stop it.


And you go around calling other people sick fucks? The things you just said are horrifying.
I think you need to take a good hard look at yourself.

If I was your little brother, and someone had sex with me, and you did that to them, I don't think I would care for you as a brother anymore. And plus I wouldn't have any time to spend with you to make up for how scary you became to me anyway, because you'd be rotting in jail, and I'd be forced to get over you.


Likewise, I really can't understand the way you think.

And with such random flames, I think a simple NO U is appropriate.


Is sex....dirty?

Rpgwiz99 said:
someone can do experiments on you to see why you have that fucked up ped mindset

Rpgwiz99 said:
I really cant understand the way you think but if you had a little sister lets say she was 7 and you found out she was getting fucked would you approve of it just because she said she wanted it?

Rpgwiz99 said:

Like I said, I wont debate anymore but I dont need your grammer classes, and I would appreciate if you look into things before you post too.

Rpgwiz99 said:

I refuse to debate in a one sided argument

I guess all it comes down to is if a 5 year old kid asks for death than its fine to kill them as long as they consent, right?

khorven said:
I am highly sceptical towards this argument as time and time again it was held of certain social groups with no research done into it and every time it was proven false, I thus opt for 'One is able to make decisions unless proven otherwise.' how it works for aduls, also women and blacks nowadays thank LORD..