That title probably got your attention didn’t it? Don’t worry, this isn’t click-bait, mostly. I’m going to discuss these topics with seriousness, and a tad bit of lightheartedness and immaturity every now and then. Because let’s face it, considering the age-factor, some immaturity is to be had one way or another. This article is mainly a discussion on the age-of-consent, and some proxy-scenarios that spawn around that subject.
And some of you are thinking, “Ok, how are you going to bash on pedophiles? How are you going to bash on people who want to screw kids and outlaw under-aged sex in general?” To which I reply, “Oh, I’m going to do more than just that, I’m going to express why I believe lolicons and underaged sex shouldn’t be as illegal as it is now.”
“Come again?” you may say.
You read me right, I’m here to argue against various (not all) laws that outlaw underaged sex, as well as argue against the general attitudes of society that treats this as such a taboo subject. They treat it as such even to the point where it shouldn’t even be discussed. Bad move. Everything should be discussed, even if that involves the discussion leading to the same conclusion that had been reached in the past, that things should stay the same as they are now because they are as they are for good reason. Currently, I don’t believe things should stay the same, and if you’re willing to read me out on this one, you might just agree with me.
Before continuing, there is one thing to keep in mind. I have a golden rule which I believe everyone to some extent either agrees with, or should agree with. The Christian Bible interprets this as “Do unto others as you would do to yourselves,” or “Love thy neighbor as you would love yourself.” In other words, if you expect to be treated well by others, you should also treat them well. Be nice to others. Don’t do them any harm. There are some situations which could muddle that idea a bit when getting into nitty gritty details, but the long and short of it is that if an individual isn’t causing anyone any harm, they should be left alone.
A few things pushed me into discussing this subject. From a few news headlines regarding teachers having sex with students getting put behind bars, to an email I got from Minds.com (a new social media site that aims to compete with and be superior to Facebook and its asshole-ish Big Brother policies) which stated this:
A hypocritical site, I was an investor and now I’m not, I was banned on Minds. So I ask, how is it that You claim to protect Free Speech yet “Lolicon” which is in fact legal is banned even if You aren’t posting any harmful content? You’ve essentially banned Me for a thought crime.
It’s legal under the US Code of Law, where it’s stated that if the content is distinguishable from real children then it’s legal. This includes cartoons.
Bill Ottman CEO; founder
Lolicon is certainly not clearly legal.
Drew is someone who put an investment into Minds.com, as I have, but they blocked his account because he was posting up Lolicon stuff, which could be either Japanese hentai films or games for all I know. I’ll get back to the current legal state of lolicons and hentai in a while, but it’s worth pointing out that the off-limits nature of such subject matter even reaches into this site which is all about free expression and open-discussion that would otherwise not be allowed on sites like Facebook, mainly because of their far-left bias. But it doesn’t matter if you’re far-left, far-right, or down the middle, the reaction would be the same. And it shouldn’t be, for a number of reasons, the main one being the intention and context of such material, in that it was never intended to harm real-life individuals of the same age range the animations depict.
Even Leon Thomas, someone who’s film reviews I used to enjoy watching, isn’t willing to consider any other view other than that pedophilia is wrong no matter the circumstance in his review of Nymphomaniac (a film I recommend, but only if you know what you’re in for before watching it; it’s definitely not for everybody, not even the most hard-core of film-goers).
To quote some comments from the video page, including my own:
I really have a lot of respect and appreciation for what you do with this channel, and while I actually agree with your points on Nymphomaniac, I’ve noticed over time how much you show your political beliefs. I don’t plan on ever quitting your channel, but I do get a little annoyed with the moral superiority you often seem to carry with you in your reviews. My specific political placement is either centrist, or somewhere on the outer ring of all points (not in a superior way). I just can’t stand for the idea that I could possibly know what is right for the world, nor do I want to push that. I love listening to all perspectives, but the one thing that drives me insane is moral superiority. Once again, I will continue to watch your show and I never expect you to change the way you cover film, nor would I ask you to. It was just a point worth noting. I also have mixed feelings on Von Trier, but I do enjoy a few of his films. He’s sort of like Tarkovsky’s black mirror to me.
Stating a political belief with conviction, by definition, will always claim to be better than the alternative. Stating any opinion — political, moral or otherwise — has a connotation of value. I’m comfortable saying not being a child abuser is morally superior to being a child abuser. I’m comfortable saying compassion is better than cynicism. It doesn’t take a lot of bold, “moral superiority” to denounce racism and rape. As for the politics involved in the show, that literally is the show. “Philosophical, Political and Thematic Analysis of Film.” It says it right there on the banner on the channel front page. You are only noticing now that the show is political? That is the show. This isn’t a movie review channel. Thank you for your comment, but I feel entirely comfortable with the content of my show and will not be changing the format.
I disagree with some of your conclusions on this, particularly with Seligman having a wicked heart by the end of the film when in all earlier scenes he seems to have a good heart. That’s not how I interpreted it. During the last act, and in other instances here and there, it discusses whether or not a person can change. And the main protagonist, Joe, realizes the only way she can turn her life around for the better, to lift herself from the heap she has fallen into from the first frame of the film, is to change. And she does, by rejecting sex definitively for the first time in her life. But change can go both ways, an individual can change for the better, or change for the worse. In Seligman’s case, he changed for the worse. And both changed due to the long conversation they had with one another regarding Joe’s life story. Similar to the expression, “What can change the nature of a man?”, or in this case woman.
And I believe certain films work as conversation starters, in this film’s case encouraging conversation on hot-button issues (especially in Part 2). There’s abortion, Hitler, and of course the very hot-button topic of under-aged sex which has clearly hit a nerve with you. In response to your response to Jacob Nelson’s comment, about there being no such thing as consensual sex with a minor, regarding your statement, and I quote: “think about what side you are taking and whether or not this is a hill worth dying on.” You know what? It is, under some circumstances. Consider why it is that you find the idea reprehensible. Consider why it is that any age under 18 is considered to be so immoral, even though individuals under the age of 18 have sex with each other all the time, sometimes consensual, sometimes not, sometimes manipulative, and the idea that individuals under the age of 18 can manipulate those >= age 18 (and vice versa). And consider just why it is that 18 is the magic number here.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not implying that having “sex with minors” (defined as one who is 18 or older having sex with one who is under the age of 18) can be considered moral by any reasonable individual under the majority of circumstances. As you indicate, this shouldn’t be considered consensual even if both parties consent because it is implied that minors are not mature enough to think reasonably for themselves, and/or are too easily manipulated by adults (those age 18 and older). However, what if a mentally retarded adult who is incapable of thinking for themselves, or of living independently, has sex with a minor who has a higher mental capacity than them? The argument begins to falter, or at the very least states that there is an exception to the rule. Stating that this isn’t an exception would damn the retard, even though his/her mental capacity is less than that of the minor. And if that is just one case that brings into question the ethics of sex with a minor, what other “exceptions” are there? In fact, let’s raise the stakes. What if a minor raped an adult, would the adult be at fault? Would blaming the victim work in that scenario?
The main theme/lesson I took from this film is the idea of discussing a particular topic. That there is no way to fully cover all ground and take into account all aspects of a topic without discussing anything it relates to, even if that involves going into areas that are dark, disturbing, and controversial. Because if those areas of that topic are shied away from, if they are not discussed, then that creates a problem. I don’t believe the film is stating that one situation is definitively good or bad. Joe and Seligman don’t spend enough time on a single topic to come to such a conclusion. But they are not meant to. Their conversation, and what we see of Joe’s life, is meant to spark discussion, to have the viewer ponder the topics that are brought up, with the theme in mind that we shouldn’t view some things as sacrilegious, at least not at face-value without some thought put into it. One shouldn’t be afraid to cover the topic inside and out, across the dark and light areas. Learning why it is bad, why it is good, why tradition is right or why it should be challenged, etc.
I was going to post 2 other comments, but it seems as if they’ve both been deleted at some point. Not sure if that’s because of YouTube, or because of Leon Thomas, or because of Jacob Nelson, but the comments I planned to post from a brief exchange from Thomas and Nelson are both gone. Next time I find a hot-button topic on youtube intriguing, I’m not going to drag my feet on it, since some videos and comments on the videos are occasionally on borrowed time. They should be written in ink, and kept as such, especially for those of us who would like to ponder on the arguments, to see the perspectives, to decide for ourselves.
Anyway, to continue this discussion, it’s important to have a (not-so) little history lesson.
A History Lesson: Part 1
The main focus in this part is what the “age of consent” has been over the ages. Let’s just assume that before there was writing, during caveman times, there was no age of consent, that people just fucked whoever and whatever they found attractive, regardless of age, and that was that. Kinda makes you wonder why AIDS wasn’t around back then to wipe us all out if you can get it by fucking monkeys.
Humans migrated from continent to continent, establishing different societies, different cultures, different ways of life. When the “age of consent” was eventually brought up when we considered moral implications and what is right/wrong, the number they came up with differed not just in each culture, but also in each time period. It all started with the customs of tribes, up until first century A.D. when Rome was a thing and Augustus was it’s Emperor. As far as I know, he was the first documented leader of a nation to make a ruling on the age of consent.
Marriage then legally became a two-step process, a betrothal which involved an enforceable agreement between the heads of two households, and then marriage itself. Women who were not yet of age could be betrothed with the consent of their fathers, but the woman herself had to consent to marriage.
In the Islamic tradition following Muhammad, betrothal could take place earlier than PUBERTY, perhaps as early as seven, but the marriage was not supposed to be consummated until the girl menstruated and was of age. In medieval Europe, Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in the twelfth century, accepted the traditional age of puberty for marriage (between 12 and 14) but he also said consent was “meaningful” if the children were older than seven. Some authorities said consent could take place earlier.
So in other words, the age of consent back then was as early as puberty, but could even be earlier depending on the parents of both parties (the boy and girl, assuming one or the other wasn’t what we would call an adult by today’s standards).
A History Lesson: Part 2: India, and why marriage is bullshit
Fast forward to more recent times. In India, 95% of all marriages are arraigned marriages, meant to unite 2 families (Source). Plus there’s the The Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929-1978, which states that “the legal age for marriage is 18 for females, and 21 for males,with most females being married by 24 and most males being married by their late twenties (McDonald). However, many children, age 15 and 16 are married within a cultural context, with these marriages being neither void or voidable under Hindu or Muslim religious law, as long as the marriage is not consummated until the legal age of 18 for females and 21 for males.” This makes India home to the largest number of child brides in the world (Source).
Let’s stop here for a moment so I can give an opinion on this culture and this practice. I’m largely against it. I mean, I don’t care for marriage in general because I don’t view it as some sacred thing that two people are in love have to do in order to prove to themselves and to the world they are in love with each other. Both largely by practice and by philosophy, I don’t see much of a reason to view marriage as sacred. In the 40s, in America, some corporation convinced everyone that buying an expensive as fuck ring was mandatory in order to get married.
Commercialism, consumerism, corporate takeover, fucking up marriage and Christmas since as long as you can remember. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Also in America, marriage entitles the couple to tax benefits, plus having one party potentially getting away with the richer-half’s wealth through divorce if that happens. It all just boils down to money money money. Seems to me it would be less complicated if they just decided to express their love for each other by living together, and that’s it. Saves you a lot of money, paperwork, and makes the potential breakup less of a pain in the ass.
As for India’s whole marriage thing, all the more reason to view marriage as bullshit, and another way to fuck up your kid’s life assuming nothing else fucks the kid(‘s life up). Marriage there has purposes that can be monetary (marry into a rich family so the poor family can do well for themselves), has parents dictate who you should be with for the rest of your life (now there’s a form of dictatorship to rebel against, especially if the family doesn’t care that much about what’s good for you vs. what’s good for them). And the whole continuing the family tree, enhancing the family lineage. What a load of horseshit. Since when should one’s lineage/past dictate how they should be today? No one should be that fucking judgemental. Plus the whole endogamy thing; there might be some merit to that, but the cons outweigh the pros. Nevermind that the girls likely won’t get much of an education due to this practice, considering they’re taken out of schools in order to be a housewife (Source).
Child marriage is bullshit because no child should become permanently subservient at that young of an age before they are mature enough to responsibly think for themselves. Nevermind that marriage in general is bullshit. So yeah, while some Indian food is good, that aspect of India sucks loads of ass. And one more thing, “arranged marriage”? Bullshit, most of the time it’s “forced marriage”.
A History Lesson: Part 3: Africa and the Middle East
While India may be the top country with child marriages, Africa is a close second (Source). And since Africa tends to be a bit more tribal and less organized than most governmental societies (anarchists take note), men pretty much determine when a child is ready for sex. Fuck age, if they look ready to them, then they are ready for marriage, period (guess that could be a pun). And you guessed it, that tends to be around the age of puberty, almost as early as age 11.
There’s plenty wrong with this, being bound to a much older man (in the above source’s case, the guy was 70 years old when he did the whole “forced marriage” to a 13 year old) is bad enough. When the girl expresses no desire to stay with the guy, but can’t go back to her parents because they’re the ones who sold her to him… well I don’t think I need to spell it out for you fellow readers.
Not much better in the Middle East. Down there, they go for you when you’re as young as 8 years old (Source). Wait, did I say as young as 8? Let me rephrase that: Down there, they go for girls as young as 6 years old (Source).
This isn’t even at the age of puberty, when they’re body’s biological functions state that they’re ready for sex, it’s YEARS before that. Granted, in theory, they’re supposed to just be married at that age, and no consummation until puberty or something. But really, even assuming they followed through on that, what’s to say their lives won’t be fucked up either way? Little to no school, forced to live according to the husbands demands, thus inhibiting their independence, etc. I may be a bit sexist, but these are extremes I wouldn’t ever want to approach, not by a mile. This is a one-way relationship, about power and control. Not to mention that some of these under-aged girls get literally fucked to death (Source)
Granted, there are some movements against this practice in both these countries and India, but I haven’t heard much about their progress since 2014.
A History Lesson: Part 4: America
Alright, so all of that above stuff pretty much shows as bad as it gets. What about America’s history? Where does it fall amidst all this? Well we’ve at least got the common-sense thing. Didn’t matter what age you got married, if either the man/boy girl/woman didn’t consent, they couldn’t get married. Nowadays, the age of consent is 18 in most states, but sometimes it’s 19. Other times it can be lower if the female is pregnant, but even then you usually have to be at least 16 years of age (Source). In a few states, you can be as young as 16 with consent from parents and/or judges. Hell, in Mississippi you will get a hard time unless you’re 21 years old when getting married.
Wasn’t always like this though. In the 1880s, the age of consent was 10 years in many states (Source). Nowadays people are trying to get the age of consent to be 16. Quite the progress we’ve made after all these years.
And that’s about all I’m going to say with the whole history lesson. Now for comments about the present.
I’m mainly going to be speaking from how I believe American culture should be, though this could theoretically extend internationally since it seems to be common sense to me. I think we can all agree that forced marriage is a bad thing. No individual of any sex should be forced into something like that. Hell, I’m all for doing away with marriage in general with regards to anyone under the age of 18. It’s the age of consent that’s in question here, not the age of marriage.
So I think we can all agree that there comes an age when a man is too big for a girl who is below the age of 18. The amount of years below 18 varies on this, but it’s possible (and in some cases nearly guaranteed) that the girl will be hurt, and possibly even die from injuries sustained when they’re having sex. There’s plenty of reasons just from a biology point of view that young girls shouldn’t have sex with older men.
But young girls having sex with young boys on the other hand… That subject isn’t brought up very much is it? It’s usually some young boy/girl having sex with an older woman/man, and the media always cries fowl on it and encourages everyone else to do the same (sometimes rightly). But kids below the age of consent have sex with each other people. That’s a real thing. Kinda have to go to Britain to show an example here, but there’s a documented case where a 12 year old girl and a 13 year old boy had a child, thus indicating they either had sex at that age, or when they were a year younger (Source). Now, while this does happen, it’s usually not documented due to shame and embarrassment and whatnot. Here’s the point, when kids hit puberty, they want to have sex and enjoy having sex. Whether they should have sex, that would depend on the situation. But in all fairness, the whole “should they have sex” thing applies to everyone, not just kids. It applies more-so to them because they’re usually not responsible enough, and almost guaranteed not to be financially well-off enough to have children that they must care for.
So, kids can have sex and enjoy having sex when they hit puberty (ages 11-13), k? K. From that age on, people enjoy having sex. But obviously just because one enjoys it doesn’t mean they should do it. Ignoring the whole pregnancy aspect and all that, there’s the fact that both parties should consent. Obviously rape is bad. It’s wrong to have sex with someone who expresses that they do not wish to have sex, or are incapable of expressing that they don’t want sex. But even so, the definition of rape extends a bit beyond that according to the current laws.
Beginning in 2013, rape is defined for Summary UCR purposes as, “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The new definition updated the 80-year-old historical definition of rape which was “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Effectively, the revised definition expands rape to include both male and female victims and offenders, and reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape, especially nonconsenting acts of sodomy, and sexual assaults with objects. — Source
Emphasis added by me, because it’s that “consent of the victim” part that causes some of the controversy. It goes on to say in that same article that the definition of rape includes “instances where the victim is incapable of giving consent because of his/her age or because of his/her temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity”.
Emphasis added again. Right there, that is the key part on which the whole crux of the argument hinges on, that a victim is incapable of giving consent due to their age. This is in part due to their maturity level, their knowledge and wisdom, and their sense of responsibility. The argument is that anyone below the age of consent (we’ll just say 18 for now and ignore some state-exclusive laws on the matter) is incapable of giving consent. This is basically the definition of statutory rape. Thus, if you are at or over the age of consent, and have sex with someone below the age of consent, no matter the circumstances, you’ve just committed rape. That just doesn’t sit well with me. Mainly because of some news headlines I’ve been seeing that just seem to prove my point, and yet people remain divided about the whole issue. For example:
Both cases the teacher went to prison. The only reason is because the students were below the age of consent and because, well, they were students. Look, I’ll agree that it’s bad business for a teacher to have sex with their students simply because of the grade bias and all that. The teacher should probably be fired from their position for that. But prison time, when everybody was consenting? Doesn’t seem right to me.
A list of cases similar to this can be found here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/topic/teacher-sex
Here’s the main difference between these situations, and all the stuff mentioned during the history lesson segment. In the history lesson, the kids didn’t have a choice. They were forced into a binding agreement with their significant other and forced to live dependently without much hope for an independent future. That is not the case here. Not even close. Hell, in the 24 year old female teacher case listed above, the boy student came onto her. Both are still independent, aren’t forcibly bound to each other, and both seemed fairly content until the teacher got arrested. Seemed like the kids possessed enough social sense to make informed and mature decisions about sex, which throws a wrench into the justification for statutory rape law. I’m confused here. Are there not adults who don’t have enough social sense to make informed and mature decisions about sex? Are there not kids ages 12 and up who do have enough sense (I know that’s very few and far between)? Are there not exceptions to the rule here? Are there not kids who are capable of raping adults? Case in point:
That may have been in the UK, but what would’ve happened if it was in the United States? Can’t seem to find any news headlines that show that this has happened, but it’s definitely a thing. Just tends to be kept under wraps for some reason because, well; let’s face it, rape is difficult to prove.
Kinda have to get into the topic of false-rape allegations, but only briefly. Officially it’s a rare occurrence because false rape allegations are made at least 2% of the time, but that’s a minimum, as the percentage tends to swing between 2-10% depending on the statistic source. The thing is, rape allegations are difficult to prove true or false, and not all of them make it to court in either case. Only 10-15% of rape allegations are proven to be true. So assuming the maximum of both, that 10% are false allegations and 15% are true allegations, then that leaves a minimum of 75% unaccounted for, with no real way to determine if the allegations in that grey area are true or false (Source). Nevermind that many may not want to come forward with a rape allegation for personal reasons.
And up to this point, I’ve only been showing examples of boys in a relationship with women. God forbid one brings up the topic of girls in a relationship with men. Just thinking that, I bet your automatic reaction is that the men have to be real assholes and perverts and extreme pedophiles who must be locked up. Probably not the same reaction you would have towards female teachers. In that scenario, you would think the young boys are either studs or the luckiest sons of bitches ever to walk the earth. Bit of a double standard don’t you think?
I think we’ve been conditioned to immediately assume the worst in scenarios like this. There is no innocent until proven guilty. There is no consideration of intentions or if anyone was harmed, or God forbid if both parties were enjoying themselves. The accused adult would be crucified just from the claim alone, whether or not they are proven guilty.
It all comes back to the golden rule, if no one is being harmed, why should anyone give a shit? In the case of a student-teacher relationship, it does matter because, well, potential grade bias (especially in biology or sex ed. classes), similar to an employer-employee relationship. Those shouldn’t happen, but the consequences should be the same. Either re-assignment, or being fired. Jail time just shouldn’t be a thing unless an actual rape or sexual abuse happened, and there’s plenty of those accusations already in this day and age outside of the statutory rape area, both true and false accusations.
There are a few proposed solutions to this problem, one of which as I’ve stated earlier is to lower the age of consent to age 16 (which some states have done, with some caveats). But that doesn’t solve the problem entirely. What if someone who is 16 years old has sex with someone who is 15 years old? Guilty of rape and prison for him/her. I’m thinking the age of consent should be set to 13 years of age, close enough to puberty. Because the bottom line is that one isn’t biologically ready for sex until they’ve hit puberty. Granted, there are probably some rare situations where one may not hit puberty until age 14, possibly even older, but there always seems to be an exception to every rule. You know, like how people are supposed to enjoy peanut butter, chocolate, and/or caramel, but someone exists who hates the taste of all flavors (yes, I know someone who is like that; not me for the record).
Some have gone to an even further extreme, wanting to eliminate the age of consent altogether. Not so sure I’d want things to go that far. If someone wants to have sex with a kid who hasn’t hit puberty, something’s wrong with them, even if it’s just because they haven’t been educated enough to know about the whole puberty thing.
It all comes down to how much responsibility we think kids should be given at each age. Today, too many parents want to keep responsibility of their kids (unless the kids does some heinous crime like murder, in which case the parents had nothing to do with that) and keep them sheltered until they are older than they should be. Everyone tends to accuse those at or above the age of consent to have an unhealthy child fetish if they want to have sex with kids under the age of consent. I say parents who over-shelter their kids and who think they’re not responsible enough for themselves to make they’re own decisions at a certain age when they have enough knowledge and maturity to do so (it’s usually younger than you think, unless the kid is a little slow or retarded or lived too much of a sheltered life), I say they also have a child fetish, for their own kid. It may not be a sexual fetish, or maybe it is, but either way it’s not healthy. They should be encouraging their kids to become independent and capable of living their own life.
And that’s just the parents, society and state/federal governments aren’t any better. When you’re 12 or 13 years old, they say you should still be playing with toys (not sex toys) and watching kids tv shows (a lot of which have been fucked up big time ever since Toonami got cancelled until it’s more recent reincarnation; there aren’t many decent kids shows on basic tv channels like 2-13 anymore), and staying in school to learn even more safe politically correct leftist idealist driven bullshit. Fuck that and fuck those people. The kids need to live a little, like they were allowed to do in the 50s 60s and 70s, maybe even 80s depending. They need to get out there and make mistakes (not intentionally, I would hope), and learn from those mistakes so they can have that wisdom when they’re older. Even the most mature adults tend to make costly mistakes in their life. No age is safe from making mistakes. No age should be safe from learning some bits of wisdom either.
Japan and Lolicons
Oh yeah, I promised a discussion on lolicons in the title, and I aim to deliver. Currently, in the United States, there is this law passed in 2003 called THE PROTECT ACT, which sort of lets fictional animated depictions of children committing sexual acts be legal, but it had some revisions later on, and now it’s kind of in a grey area, where sentencing for possessing child pornography, even if animated and fictional, would depend on the state and on the judge. Long story short, even after the act was passed, people have been sentenced for those crimes. So it’s basically sort of (not) legal.
In Japan it’s legal, but supposedly controversial. There have been attempts to make it illegal, but so far it’s only been restricted, illegal to sell such content to youths via manga and DVDs. But online or on mobile phones on the other hand, the kiddies can still get their fix.
Anyway, so I would assume the reason for the controversy is because it’s assumed that one who watches fictional child pornography will eventually go on to rape children. That’s like saying someone who plays first person shooters will get a gun and go on a shooting spree killing a bunch of civilians. Sure it happens, but nowhere near as much as you would expect it to, considering how many people play first person shooters. Like, what, 1% of all people who play shooters or something like that? Here’s a page that has a bunch of statistics charts to show the trend of violence and its link to videogaming (tl;dr the violent trend went down as the game trend went up): http://videogames.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=003627
In my opinion, a study should be done on this, with child abuse and it’s correlation with lolicon animation/imagery. See what the trend is, if one side lowers and the other side goes up, or if both rise and fall with each other. Currently, I don’t see a reason to believe lolicons encourage others to want to have sex with minors. Besides, it’s usually not about the age depiction so much as it is the style of the animation, the cute/sex factor. In other words, kids don’t exist in the real world with the same sort of physical traits as depicted in animation, obviously.
One last thing, about me
So now you’re probably wondering about me personally. So I’ll just say it, yes I like lolicons. No I don’t watch real-life child porn. Yes I’m physically attracted to girls below the age of consent, and I’m also attracted to some girls at or above the age of consent, and to some who are also older than me. No I haven’t ever gone out and tried to have sex with a minor, or anyone for that matter.
Because I’m not going to lie, despite what shame society may try to bring upon people like me just for admitting it, despite us having no intention whatsoever of harming/hurting others, I’m attracted to those both younger than me (including below the age of consent), at my age, and older than me. There were times in the past where I hated myself and bashed my head against the wall thinking there was something wrong with me, like how someone else would think there’s something wrong with them for laughing at seeing people getting killed in comedic ways on television.
But nowadays I’ve come to accept that young girls are naturally attractive. That’s normal. Know what else is normal? Learning self-control. This applies towards a desire to want young girls, girls my age, and girls a little older than me. I find many of them equally attractive, just as I find many of them unattractive and ugly as sin (yes, this applies to some youngsters too). A decent portion of people people, including those under age 18, are rather unpleasant looking. But aside from the ugly fucks, when it comes to the pretty ones that I have some desire to have sex with, I don’t act on that desire. You know why? Self-control. Just because you want to doesn’t mean you should, especially if they don’t want you too, and also if their parents don’t agree. I can be attracted to them, and have enough control over myself to not let my hormones dictate my actions. If someone can’t control their actions due to their hormones and people get hurt as a result, that’s when they have a problem and that’s when they need to either seek help, or get locked up.
Self-control, the same trait that is utilized in order not just to prevent people from raping others, but also to prevent people from over-indulging themselves in treats/desserts, preventing them from beating the shit out of some annoying bastard/bitch, preventing them from killing someone they hate, preventing them from living on social media for too long, from playing videogames all day, from interrupting a speech or sentence before it is finished, and the ultimate weapon against allowing one’s emotions to rule over them. It’s one of the most valuable traits one can have.
And I guess that’s the other main worry people have about the youth. They have less self-control than those who are older. Well that’s a tricky thing, because it’s never set in stone. Some have more self-control than others. Some have self-control, but decide not to use it. Self-control can be learned, but only an independent person can put that aspect into practice. Otherwise, if you lose the “independent” part, you get A Clockwork Orange situation.
So that’s all I currently have to say on the matter. Anyone wants to challenge me or give their opinion, by all means, I encourage you to do so. This is something that should be talked about.
PS: Yeah, first I’m talking about why self-control is a great thing, and then I follow that up with that Bill Hicks bit.