Comment on "Censorship" ☠️
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week agoIn the end, is it not strange to even consider the legal age of consent for purely fictional characters? Such characters are only as old as they are imagined to be, just as sex with them is only imagined. Because there is no actual crime committed, it ultimately ends up an issue of how one interprets images, of a person’s private thoughts, and this is not something that can or should be regulated.
This paper you’ve linked is entirely missing the point, and I’m gonna be real, seems a little pedophilic to me. This is the same kind of sophistry that you get from pedophiles who are trying to massage the issue.
Do you have the relevant section that indicates CSA is reduced? As far as I can tell, this paper isn’t even a study.
wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 1 week ago
“Missing the point” is very hard to falsify because it is too subjective, so I won’t touch that. I think you expected the paper to be empirical, which is not the case, it is an analytical piece.
Referring to your concern, the paper cites research by Takatsuki Yasushi, mentioning that sexual abuse of minors in Japan was statistically much more common during the 1960s and 1970s and has been decreasing since that period, a trend that roughly coincides with the increasing prevalence of fictional lolicon. Two things to notice: One is that this is an old paper so it could be that things changed more recently. Another one is that this doesn’t mean lolicon inhibts CSA, it just means that it isn’t a predictor to it, which is justified by the depictions having nothing to do with real children.
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 week ago
I’ll make it clearer.
No, it is not.
You seem reasonable enough, so if I seem terse or frustrated, I am not necessarily directing that toward you.
The purpose of politeness in society is to demonstrate, virtue signal even, a person’s willingness to abide by the social contract. You are virtue signaling safety.
The normalization of lolicon material is not a problem because it “breaks laws,” it makes it more difficult to catch warning signs from bad people early. It provides too much plausable deniability.
This is not dissimilar to the aversion of racists when they start talking about race science, or making “ironic” hitler jokes—these people are not “breaking laws” either. The purpose of treating them as socially deleterious is either to shame them into better behavior, or, failing that, to excommunicate them from society. False positives, whether these people were truly racist in their hearts, is immaterial to me—I do not care. They should have enough social sense to know better.
A disclaimer: Obviously, none of this means that I want pedophiles to fear getting help. Getting help is outside the purview of social excommunication; shame would not be serving a purpose in this case. But this fact really has nothing to do with whether I’m accepting of the endless flirtatiousness anime and other Japanese media seems to have with child sex.
HollowNaught@lemmy.world 1 week ago
This is such a weird comment, because it seemingly tries to hold the moral high ground while belittling the other person, all while just saying “nuh uh” to papers and points brought up
petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 days ago
You want to go to battle over papers?
When you cite papers, you cite passages. Which passage disagrees with me?