I don't know if this belongs here on in /pco/.
HF is removing lolicon and shotacon from its site, people were quick to say paheal but as far as I understand paheal is removing those too.
>It is becoming more and more clear that images depicting "child sex abuse" in cartoon form are against the law and agencies are beginning to crack down on such content online.
>we will also be actively trying to remove this content from paheal in the future.
>there is no question that such content will lead to paheal being taken offline in the future and, from a personal standpoint, I simply dont want to host such images on paheal.
Its undated so I'm unsure.
The issue now is how can we save content from these sites that may be lost forever?
Paheal removed loli a year or two ago. HF is doing even more, though, by banning anything that claims or appears under 18.
Pixiv is opening up to English-language users, and most of those artists also have an account on tumblr or Blogger. But tumblr is going through a slow purge of porn accounts now that it's under control of Yahoo, and I'm sure those that focus on this kind of content will get the first axe.
Really, Tor or your hard drive are your only sure location if you like that kind of content (I don't, but I think it should be protected under the 1st Amendment in the US; that it's not is a large part of why Paheal/HF did what they did (advertisers are the other large part.))
Paheal's been saying that for years now. Virtually nothing has come of it. I don't know if the Paheal administrators are lazy, incompetent, or if it's just a smokescreen to appease advertisers, but either way you can probably breathe easily there.
Some look to be organizing into artist collectives or also starting up their own sites. I think Freako put up something on his since a bunch of his stuff got nuked ('12 April and Ellie mainly)
Best of luck to them. They have a quite large number of barriers to overcome to attain their goal.
There was a time where not even 4chan allowed loli.
I dunno, I mean, if so many people are saying its wrong, maybe it probably is. Maybe I should move on to drawing other sorts of stuff anyway.
if by not allowed you mean had a board for
/h/ and /d/ weren't exactly lolispots.
Kewl but do you got a source on that?
you know there was an /l/ dedicated solely to loli right?
>I dunno, I mean, if so many people are saying its wrong, maybe it probably is
This is what it looks like when someone decides to stop thinking.
Yeah, you need to reconsider your position. Nothing wrong with taking another look at something due to overwhelming support/opposition, but that should be a factor in deciding if something is good, bad, or benign.
should be => shouldn't be
I need to proofread my posts more often.
Whait a minute... I just upload my Images to Blogger... they have never removed anything.
funy how loli rule34 is illegal yet 7 feet tall black men raping 5 feet tall white men is not only legak but euncouraged...I am over whit porn, I dont want to draw anymore... or draw but never upload them again.
Its on his Foundry profile page, just about all his April and Ellie stuff is gone now. Because the rule is if they look UNDER 18. Dunno where they are pulling that stuff from though.
Link to that?
I'm not about to become a Loli Porn advocate.
Me neither but free speech is tantamount and what constitutes "loli porn" is a dangerously slippery slope considering places like Australia where grown ass women whose breasts are smaller than D cups counts as child pornography.
Australia is fucked to hell and back, but this is something I legit understand.
There's child porn. That's illegal.
Then there's loli and shota that replicates child porn, and just now is that getting cut off.
And I'm not passionate enough about it to get riled up about it. I was aprehensive anyway, but I can get comissioned to do other stuff too.
No skin off my nose.
And its all animation that looks to be below eighteen in the HF situation, which is most of it. Just saying that is a large amount of work that got axed that people actually commissioned.
I don't think any of it actually got axed. At least, I haven't noticed any large purge in teen content, and from late-to-the-party artist comments it doesn't seem that loli has been burned, either.
It could be that this is a policy to make whoever is complaining happy (I've seen someone say it was their host complaining) and they aren't actually going to enforce it full scale. If someone complains about an image/artist they'll dutifully take it down, but won't hunt it (though their tagging system would make it pretty easy...)
it's an error to think drawings are real people that deserve rights. Sadly reaching that point today is not the beginning, but the end of the slippery slope. With nobody ever wanting to defend artistic freedom because it now has consequences to do so, then we are doomed to live in thought-crime systems soon.
>we are doomed to live in thought-crime systems soon
Eh, I live in Germany and I can tell you it isn't that bad. We've got social security and currywurst!
It was never about rights of cartoons, it was always about protecting the children, since owning smut is a certain proof someone is going to diddle some kids in the future.
It was never about protecting the children. It's about punishing people for being what society considers a pervert. They can't do it to the gays anymore, so they had to pick a new group.
Can we please stop with the ethics and plan how to save our porn?
We'll hide it under a fake mountain.
Actually maybe this video is more relevant.
Where exactly does the line get drawn between teens and young adults anyway? Because I know plenty of teens who I've mistaken for older than 18, and many young adults including myself have been mistaken for teenagers despite being in our twenties. This is Australia-levels of batshit.
If it's something real, there is no line. It's: if it MIGHT BE a child, it COULD BE a child, therefore to protect [I dunno, the children, morality, world peace, whatever] it DEFINITELY IS a child. In this context, you, sometimes mistaken for a teenager, would not be allowed to take pornographic pictures of yourself because someone might think it's child porn, therefore IT IS.
This leads right to the next point, where, if it's something not-real (a drawing), it's: if, at any point in the history of the depicted character, it was called a child, it eternally IS a child, therefore it is child porn. If you draw a cactus and say it's a child, it's child porn and you're going to jail for producing child porn.
Why is it always Simpsons porn? That stuff is pretty terrible.
I get that for real life human beings it's possible to objectively identify an age for them and determine whether it's on the side of legal or not, regardless of how they look. But what about anime where you've got 17-year olds who look like they're actually 30 (I'm looking at you Jojos Bizarre Adventure and Fire Emblem) or series like Fate/Stay Night where you've got a technically 20-something year old girl with the body of a 12-year old, or Shuffle where the MILF character looks ambiguously teenaged?
See, the crux of all of this madness goes back to why possession of actual child pornography is illegal. Oh sure, there's the argument that it shouldn't be out in the world because it's harming the... child that no longer exists, or something. Also, it used to be argued that buying the stuff was "fueling the industry", which is exactly the same one used to make pirating movies illegal. However, now that you can download it completely for free it's hardly relevant.
No, the only argument that really sticks anymore is the "grooming" argument. The experts think that children are naturally averse to sex and are in no way naturally wont to perform sexual activities, not with themselves and certainly not with others and double-certainly not with adults. So, the only way a person can get a child to do sexual things with resorting to stuff like bribery or coercion or blackmail or physical violence or whathaveyou is through a process called "grooming". Put simply, it means introducing a child to sexual concepts to make them think that it's completely normal and even "cool" to do. (Incidentally, this is also why giving pornographic material to a child is technically illegal.)
So, the reason child porn is dangerous for a person to have, even if they had no hand in producing it and acquired it free and anonymously, is because they could theoretically use it for "grooming". They could show it to a child, thus convincing that child that having sex is normal because these OTHER kids are doing it and seem to be enjoying themselves. Then, the child, having been basically brainwashed, will submit to whatever sexual travesties the molester can devise.
Thus, the argument becomes that ANY depiction of a child, or something that could be argued to be a child in any way, shape, or form could be used in the exact same manner. Going back to the Simpsons thing because everyone keeps mentioning it, a person could theoretically demonstrate to the child that Bart Simpson is cool, and because he's having sex in this crayon Rule-34 drawing (that he may or may not have drawn himself...), that means that having sex is also cool, even if you're only 10 years old and have severe jaundice. "You want to be like Bart Simpson, right?" This becomes the same even if the character depicted looks like a child but is really an adult, or looks like an adult and really is a child. "Look how manly this guy is even though he's still a minor. You know why he got so manly? It's because he has sex, like in this picture right here."
Now, the counter-arguments are 1) Children are not REALLY that stupid. 2) Children actually ARE naturally sexual. and 3) What the fuck? This is obviously thoughtcrime!
But, the point is, the people making the laws JUST DON'T CARE! They have their reasons to believe it, and the public will blindly follow their direction because they don't look at shotacon so it doesn't affect them, and we should be punishing perverts, anyway.
Uh....dude. The reason sex with children is illegal is not because people think kids can't enjoy it, it's because it is impossible for an adult and a child to have a relationship that doesn't come down to the adult wielding power over someone with less power (meaning that whether the adult is intentionally "grooming" them or not, the children aren't going to be in a position to give uncoerced consent), plus there's no reliable way to test if a child has enough perspective on their own physical and emotional maturity to know how sex is going to affect them--ADULTS have problems with that sometimes.
But that's why it's not illegal for minors to have sex with one another, and why "Romeo and Juliet Laws" are considered acceptable by society--the difference in power between a 20 year old and a 17 year old are insignificant.
I'm categorically opposed to the idea of thoughtcrime as well, but let's not pretend that the reasons for keeping statutory rape illegal are not justified by sound sociological reason.
>the people making the laws JUST DON'T CARE
They do care, but not necessarily about protecting potential victims of pedophiles. "Think of the children" is a very powerful idea in America, and "sex is bad" is another (despite our "liberal" swing in the past two decades-ish), so "think of the bad sex with children" is a call that can pull support from both sides of the isle. For some reason, people throw out what logical facilities they might possess whenever the call is made, so the people making the laws can pass damn near anything they like (and then attach any pork they damn near like) so long as they give child porn as a reason. If it actually helps victims, cool. But if it doesn't that will just give them ammunition to pass even more controlling laws.
Not that the American people actually get up in arms about something unless a politician shows off his junk or eats pizza with a fork.
>it's because it is impossible for an adult and a child to have a relationship that doesn't come down to the adult wielding power over someone with less power
I think you need to read Lolita; only a Sith deals in absolutes; etc.
I think if you think the point of Lolita was to paint Humbert as the victim, then you failed at understanding what was going on in that book.
I think YOU need to read Lolita, or at least reread it with your hands out of your pants.
>"For reasons that may appear more obvious than they really are, I am opposed to capital punishment; this attitude will be, I trust, shared by the sentencing judge. Had I come before myself, I would have given Humbert at least thirty-five years for rape, and dismissed the rest of the charges."
"Sometimes sex with little girls is okay!" is almost exactly the opposite of the point of the book. The only reason it's not actually completely the opposite is Nabokov's fixation on poetics.
Also, here from the novel's afterword, in which Nabokov discusses how he wrote the novel!
>"The first little throb of Lolita went through me late in 1939 or early in 1940, in Paris, at a time when I was laid up with a severe attack of intercostal neuralgia. As far as I can recall, the initial shiver of inspiration was somehow prompted by a newspaper story about an ape in the Jardin des Plantes, who, after months of coaxing by a scientist, produced the first drawing ever charcoaled by an animal: this sketch showed the bars of the poor creature’s cage. The impulse I record had no textual connection with the ensuing train of thought, which resulted, however, in a prototype of my present novel, a short story some thirty pages long."
The only way you would come out of Lolita with affirmation that sex with children is okay is if you went into the novel looking for that, and studiously ignored all evidence to the contrary.
Wow, you guys sure know how to pull assumptions right out of thin fucking air; Jesus Christ, calm down! (I don't even LIKE girls.)
The only point I was contesting was that it was impossible for a child to hold power over an adult, and equally impossible for the reverse to not be true.
>it was impossible for a child to hold power over an adult
While I've not looked at any of those articles, and most of them are teens, I'm sure any one of those listed could have had concubines or mistresses (or misters, if they prefer) on demand. Of course, situations like that are so rare as to be a rounding errors rather than exceptions, but it's a bad idea to paint things in absolutes when discussing a topic that can make everyday people throw away logic as soon as it begins.
I would make the point that when a child is a monarch, there is almost always a regent who holds the true power behind the throne, or else a network of viziers and attendants manipulating the child behind the scenes. Children just don't have the life experience, perspective, or force of will to avoid that sort of manipulation even as well as adults do (and adults are definitely still very susceptible to it).
That's also a very bizarre thing to take from a book where a man essentially abducts and traps a young girl out of sexual desire for her, but sure.
Oh, they're certainly controlled, but I'm sure if they demanded something simple like having sex with an adult they'd probably still get it.
That will only encourage me to draw it more... so instead of drawing 90% CP I will now draw 100% CP.
>Children just don't have the life experience, perspective, or force of will to avoid that sort of manipulation even as well as adults do (and adults are definitely still very susceptible to it).
See, that's the thing. First of all, it assumes that sex is something really damaging and life-changing (which it can be, but only when sociologically created; biologically speaking it's no more important than eating or pooping) for a child. As if an adult "manipulating" a child into sex is as bad as manipulating them into committing murder or using drugs.
Second, it assumes that a person magically becomes resistant to this type of manipulation after a certain age.
>See, that's the thing. First of all, it assumes that sex is something really damaging and life-changing (which it can be, but only when sociologically created; biologically speaking it's no more important than eating or pooping) for a child. As if an adult "manipulating" a child into sex is as bad as manipulating them into committing murder or using drugs.
Bullshit. Sex is not more psychologically impacting than eating or pooping for wolves, maybe, but countless experiments have shown that primate sex is different from sex in most other species, save a scant handful--in primates sex is a tool for the formation of social bonds. The entire reason sex is something humans do recreationally is because of these social and emotional component of sex--social and emotional components which are physiologically enforced. Few other species have females who are interested in sex outside of fertile periods. Humans do, as apes, because in primates sex's primary purpose is not reproduction. And while bonobos might be able to deal with the issues of only barely mature individuals engaging in sex, they also lack the sorts of strong systems of memories and the social intelligence of humans that assigns meaning to things.
Even setting that aside you can't fucking divorce humans from culture. It is absolutely nonsensical to say "Yeah, well, if it weren't for CULTURE, nine year olds would be fine with letting me fuck them" because you may as well be saying "Yeah, well if it weren't for CULTURE, we would call red things 'green!'"
And it is not that a person becomes magically resistant to this type of manipulation after a certain age, it is that there has to be a cutoff--one which is always going to be somewhat arbitrary, but which must be based on at which point one can fairly expect a person to be responsible for their own actions, rather than for their caretakers or authority figures to be responsible for their actions.
Sex is not inherently damaging. Adults abusing the trust that children place in them is.
And let's address the other elephant in the room: if children are not inherently more susceptible to such manipulation than adults, then why are you so eager to fuck children? There are grown women and men who could easily pass for younger individuals who you might be willing to have sex with you. There are grown women and men whose personalities are childlike.
In most cases that I've seen among people who are wanting to fuck children rather than babyfaced adults, it's because adults are harder to convince to fuck you. Because they've developed defenses against the sorts of mind games you're wanting to use to trick them into bed. Because adults know better how to spot creeps and the emotionally abusive. Because adults are not as willing to take their cues from you on how to behave. Because you can mold children into being the sort of person you want them to be rather than having to put up with that obnoxious habit adults have of being their own human beings.
I am not in the business of telling people they can't fantasize about what they want to. You want to imagine fucking kids because that's what gets your dick hard? Go ahead. But when you start trying to justify actually doing it, you're going out of the realm of "harmless pervert" and into the realm of "future rapist."
I'm not even going to bother. It started out nice and then you just descended into ad hominem and attacking a convenient pedophile strawman like EVERYONE ELSE DOES.
Come back when you're willing to argue a point without becoming emotionally compromised.
(And, for the record, I don't want to fuck children; they're annoying and stupid and basically worthless. Asking why certain people are ATTRACTED to children instead of adults is like asking why certain people are attracted to men or women and not, say, trees. It's an inherent part of their being that cannot be forcibly changed. You might as well tell homosexual men that they can just fuck cross-dressing women and it would be the same.)
>Asking why certain people are ATTRACTED to children instead of adults is like asking why certain people are attracted to men or women and not, say, trees.
I think a more apropos comparison is that asking why certain people are attracted to children is like asking why certain people are attracted to feet. Both are probably due to a difference in how the brain is wired. The attraction itself is not inherently bad, it's the results that can be (while not nearly on the same level, you'll get people who steal shoes as part of a serious foot fetish.)
This is why society needs to be less murder-boner on pedophilia. Yeah, if they actually fuck a kid that's pretty horrific, but outside of that there are things we, as a society, can do to make it far less likely for that to happen and part of that is to not try to shut them away and cut them off. That just makes them turn to their base urges more until, eventually, they're overwhelmed and do something. Too often the abuser was once the abused, and because America tries to shut away all sex in general it becomes harder for the abused to seek help that could keep them from becoming an abuser themselves.
Anyway, this is getting severely off topic. We're not here to discuss the moral or legal standpoint of childhood sexuality; we're here to discuss the moral and legal standpoint of drawn pornography, purportedly which contains a depiction of a fictional being which is generally thought of as representative of a child. The legality of actual child porn might fall under this umbrella as part of a slippery-slope, but otherwise I have no idea why people started talking about SEX.
This isn't about sex. This is about lines on a page and thoughtcrime.
Is not even about that. I made this thread to see where can we move the lolicon of HF but you people only want to argue.
Well I dunno about you guys but a lot of ss artists took to Soup.io