Do you think loli is a good or bad thing for the map community

[Artaxerxes II]

Good insofar that it can help normalise child sexuality. And bad in that, as seen in American anime fandoms, the end result are "ironic lolicons" (i.e., pedophobic lolicon enjoyers) whose denial of their sexuality causes them to be even more zealous antis than the anti-lolicon ones as the acceptance of lolicon but not PIM means they're only paths o salvage themselves from their own contradictions is by doxxing and harming MAPs, or express the desire to do so.

To be honest, that's more of a consequence of lolicon being the only PIM being exempt from general CP laws (like in most of the USA) than lolicon consumption itself.

[White sea Snow Elf]

I don't know what the situation is in other places, but I know that in Asia, some people have begun to call for a crackdown on lolicon, including other otaku, because in their eyes, lolicon = pedophile.
I think it's only a matter of time before lolicon faces massive persecution like MAP did.

[WavesInEternity]

I think it's only a matter of time before lolicon faces massive persecution like MAP did.

The persecution is nothing new. Even in Japan, ~20 years ago, CEDAW was already calling for a ban on lolicon and other material that supposedly "promotes violence against women". (There are some of us who remember and were already fighting the good fight back then...) Fortunately, Japan has recently rejected this UN interference once again, despite ever more pressure for such so-called "virtual child pornography" to be outlawed.

[Aspire6]

The persecution is nothing new. Even in Japan, ~20 years ago, CEDAW was already calling for a ban on lolicon and other material that supposedly "promotes violence against women". (There are some of us who remember and were already fighting the good fight back then...) Fortunately, Japan has recently rejected this UN interference once again, despite ever more pressure for such so-called "virtual child pornography" to be outlawed.

I believe that people who wish to outlaw purely fictional material are motivated by a personal disgust-factor. They wish to impose laws on those for things they find disgusting, even though they are harmless. Personal freedoms should not end where a personal disgust begins. This is also why I am heavily against the idea of banning child-love dolls.

I dislike the argument that MAPs "need-it" to not offend. I am not saying it can't apply to someone, but for some it really helps mentally. If that applies to you, no judgement towards you from me, but I'd rather say that I would find it really frustrating and unfair if I am legally unable to harmlessly/safely feel sexually satisfied myself, considering how those with teleiophilia ("normal" attractions) often take for granted how accessible adult-material is.

[WavesInEternity]

I believe that people who wish to outlaw purely fictional material are motivated by a personal disgust-factor. They wish to impose laws on those for things they find disgusting, even though they are harmless. Personal freedoms should not end where a personal disgust begins. This is also why I am heavily against the idea of banning child-love dolls.

As far as I can see, and from what I've gathered researching CSA-prevention & women's groups and interacting with their members, it's a blend of disgust/revulsion and genuine fear. The "predator" or "molester" stereotype is so deeply ingrained in the collective imagination that they really do believe MAPs are a serious threat to children, and having access to lolicon/shotacon risks turning people into "molesters" (or being used in "grooming"). It "gives people ideas they wouldn't have had otherwise", to paraphrase my mother before I managed to dispel her fears (which took many, many years). Remember the hysteria surrounding pederasts making boys gay.

100% agree with respect to child-love dolls. For the record, I've seen what some Japanese companies are doing nowadays and it's so awesome that I'd actually want one myself.

I dislike the argument that MAPs "need-it" to not offend. I am not saying it can't apply to someone, but for some it really helps mentally. If that applies to you, no judgement towards you from me, but I'd rather say that I would find it really frustrating and unfair if I am legally unable to harmlessly/safely feel sexually satisfied myself, considering how those with teleiophilia ("normal" attractions) often take for granted how accessible adult-material is.

In my personal case: it's not that I need it to not offend, it's that I need it to have any semblance of mental health while not offending (and being celibate, as I'm non-exclusive, although only barely). The absence of any sexual outlet can be maddening, and yes, it can give me some "sexually predatory" thoughts, although I have no doubt I'd never act upon them.

Milton Diamond's famous research has shown that the availability of pornography, including PIM, is correlated with a decrease in sexual assault and most "contact" sexual crimes, even after accounting for confounding variables. This has been true across all cultures where it's been studied.

[Aspire6]

As far as I can see, and from what I've gathered researching CSA-prevention & women's groups and interacting with their members, it's a blend of disgust/revulsion and genuine fear. The "predator" or "molester" stereotype is so deeply ingrained in the collective imagination that they really do believe MAPs are a serious threat to children, and having access to lolicon/shotacon risks turning people into "molesters" (or being used in "grooming").

I often see the argument that fiction, like lolicon, is used to "groom" minors. I do not see how banning fiction would stop abusers from grooming with any sort of material. It is a shame that most, if not all, professional "help" basically wants you to entirely suppress your attractions/sexuality. Sure, that won't cause someone to struggle even more mentally and medicate up for the rest of their lives rather than provide them with a safe outlet that lets them feel satisfied and themselves.

Though, from an ethical standpoint, they see the attractions as something to be rid of.

100% agree with respect to child-love dolls. For the record, I've seen what some Japanese companies are doing nowadays and it's so awesome that I'd actually want one myself.

Would love to get one myself, they are legal where I am and I just need to set aside money for it. They are so expensive, but as are full-sized adult dolls.

In my personal case: it's not that I need it to not offend, it's that I need it to have any semblance of mental health while not offending (and being celibate, as I'm non-exclusive, although only barely). The absence of any sexual outlet can be maddening, and yes, it can give me some "sexually predatory" thoughts, although I have no doubt I'd never act upon them.

That's the same case for me. My moral compass would prevent me from doing anything, I cannot ever bring myself to consider doing such a thing. Fantasizing works for me too, just I don't need fiction to not offend, it's just without it I'm a mess mentally.

Milton Diamond's famous research has shown that the availability on pornography, including PIM, is correlated with a decrease in sexual assault and most "contact" sexual crimes, even after accounting for confounding variables. This has been true across all cultures where it's been studied.

I can't recall the country, but I know when some place made pornography legal they didn't ban any kind of PIM (real included) for a period of time, but noticeably the child abuse rates took a sharp drop during that period. The idea is interesting, for sure. May re-edit this later if I can find it.

[WavesInEternity]

I can't recall the country, but I know when some place made pornography legal they didn't ban any kind of PIM (real included) for a period of time, but noticeably the child abuse rates took a sharp drop during that period. The idea is interesting, for sure. May re-edit this later if I can find it.

The country in question was Denmark, where all pornography was legal between 1969 and 1980, and the Color Climax Corporation produced legal for-profit pornography involving girls between 7 and 11:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/articles/Po ... in_Denmark

Evidence of the impact on CSA (lower prevalence): https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 111326.htm

[Fragment]

One “downside” to things like loli is its upside. It provides an outlet.

Having a legal outlet stops some people from feeling as persecuted. It can sap their motivation to get involved in activism. If we didn’t have the internet and we were involved in offline communities like PIE and NAMBLA how different would MAP politics look like today? Even if the laws were just as strict as they are now we’d be seeing more of our brothers and sisters, people we know and care about, being arrested before our eyes.

Honestly, that’s why I want people to give a shit about my legal troubles. I want them to care about me and by extension, care about injustice.

Personalizing these things beyond the abstract helps a lot. Unfortunately loli and shota can dampen that (although ultimately I support them and obviously believe all fiction should be 100% unreservedly legal).

[WavesInEternity]

One “downside” to things like loli is its upside. It provides an outlet.

Having a legal outlet stops some people from feeling as persecuted. It can sap their motivation to get involved in activism. If we didn’t have the internet and we were involved in offline communities like PIE and NAMBLA how different would MAP politics look like today? Even if the laws were just as strict as they are now we’d be seeing more of our brothers and sisters, people we know and care about, being arrested before our eyes.

Honestly, that’s why I want people to give a shit about my legal troubles. I want them to care about me and by extension, care about injustice.

Personalizing these things beyond the abstract helps a lot. Unfortunately loli and shota can dampen that (although ultimately I support them and obviously believe all fiction should be 100% unreservedly legal).

Agreed. In the end, legal change can only happen when enough people feel deeply that the law is unjust. People need to be personally dissatisfied with the law as it is, either because they feel persecuted or someone they like/love does.

This touches upon one issue on which my thoughts and feelings are deeply torn: illegalism. I was involved in the successful campaign for cannabis legalization in my country (my involvement began long before I had even reached the legal age to use it... although I did already use it). I am still involved in the movement to legalize psychedelics.

On the one hand, I'd never have been nearly as passionate about drug liberalization if I hadn't had extremely positive experiences with some illegal drugs, including genuine life-changing epiphanies on psychedelics like shrooms and LSD and 5-MeO-MiPT, and I'd say MDMA permanently made me a better person. On the other hand, I also got addicted to opioids and other actually dangerous drugs along the way, so I know very well that illegalism is a path fraught with danger, and my opinion actually changed from supporting the full legalization of heroin and cocaine to only supporting legal possession of small amounts within a comprehensive harm reduction framework.

From my point of view, the situation with AMSC is similar in many ways. The risk of harm is immense, to the point where it can destroy lives in moments... but if it never happened at all, the law (and society) would surely never change. The impetus for it would be nowhere to be found. And yes, if MAPs were to think of themselves as "fully satisfied" with lolicon/shotacon, they wouldn't push for any sort of reform. In the same line of thought, although the prospect of eventually having legal ultra-realistic child love robots is an enticing one, it would also have serious downsides.

[Aspire6]

One “downside” to things like loli is its upside. It provides an outlet.

Having a legal outlet stops some people from feeling as persecuted. It can sap their motivation to get involved in activism.
Personalizing these things beyond the abstract helps a lot. Unfortunately loli and shota can dampen that (although ultimately I support them and obviously believe all fiction should be 100% unreservedly legal).

It is my belief that the long-term goal of legislators in the US is to get anything considered "obscene" in terms of depicting fictional minors classified the same, if not nearly the same, as child pornography. This would make possession fully illegal across the country and certain three-letter agencies can go after it more predominately as I imagine it would spike up the "child safety" arrest/charges statistics they like to tout. Anything to appeal to voters who gobble down whatever gets labeled as "protect the children". Obscenity charges vary state to state, some states criminalize it more than others while some don't usually care at all unless it is based on real children.

Agreed. In the end, legal change can only happen when enough people feel deeply that the law is unjust. People need to be personally dissatisfied with the law as it is, either because they feel persecuted or someone they like/love does.

[...]

From my point of view, the situation with AMSC is similar in many ways. The risk of harm is immense, to the point where it can destroy lives in moments... but if it never happened at all, the law (and society) would surely never change. The impetus for it would be nowhere to be found. And yes, if MAPs were to think of themselves as "fully satisfied" with lolicon/shotacon, they wouldn't push for any sort of reform. In the same line of thought, although the prospect of eventually having legal ultra-realistic child love robots is an enticing one, it would also have serious downsides.

I would imagine the fear of fictional erotica being fully illegal could be a good-enough push for more MAPs, especially in the USA, who utilize it to become vocal activists as they are the target of such changes. Finding good ways to safely advocate can be difficult though, so it is hard to say what change may occur.