>Why do people who don't have children hunt down lolicons?
Don't be daft Anon. You know why and I know why. You don't have to pose pointless questions like you're posting on 4/v/ or something.

Willful ignorance is like so passe!

me on the bottom

The same reason people who don't have pets hunt down furries: unusual people make for easy targets

Fuck off, retard.
I don't really mind typical "loli" shit, but toddlercon is disgusting.

>>6
What if I told you I like four yr old lolis pooping/peeing/doing general cute stuff but would never want to see one get raped/harmed?

>>7
That's not as strong an argument as it sounds, as people who flip out at the sight of a drawing don't usually have the welfare of actual, living children anywhere in their list of concerns.

It's a mixture of things. Psychologically, humans judge others more harshly than themselves. On top of that people are prone to justifying their behavior, even when the behavior is wrong. For example, in a study from 2008 where researchers asked participants to either relegate hard tasks to a computer who would randomly pick a person or choose someone themselves, a large portion of people chose someone else themselves. They justified their choice when given time to think. However, neutral observers thought this was wrong at a glance. The conclusion was that humans make better moral judgements when they don't engage in rational thought.

Let it be clear that those who judge lolicons themselves are not without sin on the level of loli porn. To even be aware what a "lolicon" is is a sign that one is a fringe person. What kind of porn do you think they consume? Porn that society approves of? Most certainly not. Even the most vanilla cartoon pornography is not considered "normal", despite what some delusional people would like to think. What gives them the right to judge others for sins comparable to their own? Imagine two homosexuals in a highly homophobic country. One engages in anal sex, the other doesn't. The homosexual who doesn't engage in anal sex publicly shames the one who does. "Look at this faggot, he puts things in his ass!". What does other one say? "Look at this faggot, he puts things in his mouth!". And thusly, the two homosexuals were executed in public.

Why do they judge? Simple - because they want to normalize their own perversions. Humans have this desire to fit in and have the higher moral ground. When they point the finger at another party, they are (whether they know it or not) trying to paint themselves as the better person and are trying to change the moral narrative to one that suits them personally. When multiple people do this at the same time, they reinforce each other's beliefs.

There is also the element of what I call "negative hype". A negative feedback loop of hate causes the hate to grow, until eventually people who have no personal stake in the matter join in on the hate (ie. normalfags) and communities specifically dedicated to the hate form; sometime later it spills over into the mainstream. It's still going on with furries and it is only beginning for lolicons since the recent resurgence of interest in anime.

Honestly having this here makes me uncomfortable as it's the kind of thing that gets a site shut down.
It's not like this site is self hosted, it's running on a VPS and they can cut off the service any time they want for any reason.

the 2020es are gonna be fucking unbearable

>>7
Still really gross.

Fucking pedos. How could anyone get off to the idea of removing a little girl's clothes and licking her tiny body all over, nibbling her neck and kissing her adorable little nipples? Only a heartless monster would think about her cute girlish mouth and tongue wrapped around a thick cock slick with her saliva, pumping in and out of her mouth until it erupts, the cum more than her little throat can swallow. The idea of thick viscous semen overflowing, dribbling down her chin over her flat chest, her tiny hands scooping it all up and watching her suck it off her fingertips is just horrible. You're all a bunch of sick perverts, thinking of spreading her smooth slender thighs, cock poised at the entrance to her pure, tight, virginal pussy, and thrusting in deep as a whimper escapes her lips which are slippery with cum, while her small body shudders from having her cherry taken in one quick stroke. I am disgusted at how you'd get even more excited as you lean over her, listening to her quickening breath, her girlish moans and gasps while you hasten your strokes, her sweet pants warm and moist on your face and her flat chest, shiny with a sheen of fresh sweat, rising and falling rapidly to meet yours. It is truly nasty how you'd run your hands all over her tiny body while you violate her, feeling her nipples hardening against your tongue as you lick her chest, her neck and her armpits, savoring the scent of her skin and sweat while she trembles from the stimulation and as she reaches her climax, hearing her cry out softly as she has her first orgasm while that cock is buried impossibly deep inside her, pulsing violently as an intense amount of hot cum spurts forth and floods through her freshly-deflowered pussy for the first time, filling her womb only to spill out of her with a sickening squelch. And as you lie atop her flushed body, she sighs breathlessly and her fingers dig into your back as she feels your cock hardening inside her again. You're all sick.

oh boy baby fuck

Admin here.
Anyone know if this is legal in the US or not? If it's legal then I don't care (although it's possible the host might say something). If it's not legal then I'll have to remove it.
Reading wikipedia about the issue doesn't inspire confidence. As far as I can tell it's (maybe) ok as long as it isn't "obscene" or too realistic?
I guess >>14 would probably be considered obscene? Unless I have other information within the next couple days I'll just go with that rule of thumb for now.

Why does it feel like playing russian roulette just to enforce a simple "legal or not" policy on a website? How sad.

>>18
>>14 wouldn't be considered obscene. The US is pretty lenient when it comes to drawn porn.

>>19
What worries me though is according to what I've read it sounds like "obscene" is judged by a jury of your peers. I'm guessing most juries would consider someone cumming on their face to not be purely "artistic" just based on the description.

I wouldn’t worry about it, unless someone really hates you and they’re in a powerful place, most people are more looking to stop production and prosecute actual consumers and creators of actual CP.

Regular user though an outsider to this thread here.
Usually when people post loli and such I tend to ignore it. Since while I don't care for it, I don't want to go on a faux moral crusade about the issue. After all, I am aware of my own errors in judgement and the evils that brought me to this point in life, which is something another Anon brought up earlier. That post felt pretty well thought out, so I let it be. But since the question is coming up, I felt it was at least fair to weigh in on it so the only voices isn't lolicons defending their fetish.

I did feel a sense of disgust when actively looking through this thread. Usually I skim past it in /all/, but when I do pay attention to it, it's not fun. I will admit here, I haven't done much for the wellfare of the world's children, though mainly by virtue of living alone. I haven't looked for kids being abused, I haven't donated to charities, looked for CP producers, or any of that. But even with all that, random splatterings of toddlers and babies being put in a sexual context wasn't fun, indeed it was nasty and I often scrolled past ASAP excepting when it was bumped. Anons went in to detail about how much people who dislike Loli are hypocrites and etc, but left no room for the fact that one may just dislike the idea of children having sex to begin with.

Art is communication. It's not real life, but it does convey real ideas. Someone reacting badly to an idea you convey is not them being unable to separate fact from fiction, they're reacting to the idea you're communicating to them, which in this case is "Babies are sexy, aren't they?"

I am not a fan, and I don't think disliking loli is some kind of display of personal flaws the lolicons in this thread assume it is. Rather, it's just people reacting to an idea that's clearly displayed. It doesn't matter if the kids or real or not, because that's not what's being discussed. A cartoon is not a person, it is a simplified idea of a person. There's a good reason lolicon artists joke about the age of their cartoons with each other when they're together, because they know what they're fetishizing, and the reality of the image only comes up when they have to defend themselves.

>>22
Okay first of all, lolicons and toddlercons aren't the same. Second of all, people actively witch hunt loli artists and try to fuck up their lives (which is why the genre is so damn obscure these days unless you know an anime featuring lolis that has good search results on nhentai). In fact, people hunt artists down more than actual predators/producers of CP.

Most real life pedos don't want to hurt children at all. But of course no one does actual research, since the topic of pedophilia is so taboo, they think feds will jump out of their computer screen and beat them to death. Lolicons just like cute little girls doing cute things. Most of the people posting rapey shit are just tryhard trolling because they know people will flip shit at them.

>22
I think there’s a difference between just not liking loli and actually trying to “hunt” them.
That being said, lolicon can be sensitive to the point of being annoying about it.

>>22
I hate feet. I just don't get what foot fetishists are thinking - feet are fucking gross. I find foot porn a real boner killer, and I certainly would appreciate it if I didn't have to suffer running into it while looking for more appealing material.

But can you imagine for a second that I came here and said "I don't like foot porn, but I ignore it, because I don't want to go on a faux moral crusade about the issue"? Or "I don't want the only voices to be foot fetishists defending their fetish"?

You claim that you simply personally dislike loli, but your words tell a different story. Your post seems to suggest that you believe some fetishes are objectively and morally wrong. Consider if you would have reacted similarly to any other thing that you personally dislike, sort out your ideas, and come back.

And while we're at it, I'd appreciate it if you made it clearer whether you're talking about 2D loli, real-child pedophilia, and CP/sex with children. I'm not saying this as some lame attempt to tease you - I honestly can't tell what each of your points applies to exactly. I discarded two drafts for this post because they revolved around those topics and I didn't want to misrepresent your position.

>>20
Obscenity laws were created mostly to prevent things that most people find unsavory to be kept out of the public eye. They don't exist to eliminate things like porn outright, they exist to make it so that you don't have a billboard with porn on it.

My advice would be to add in an extra rule that says you need to be 18+ to use the site, and if you want to be on the safe side, a user-agreement popup for first time users informing them of this rule a-la 4chan.

>>22
However not all lolicons fantasize about having sex with children. Some simply fantasize about having sex with petite girls. What's the difference? Well, the idea of a child and the idea of a petite girl are two separate ideas. I personally know a lolicon who isn't turned on by the idea of children at all, and prefers his loli "legal" (canonically adult loli characters) which there are many.

>>26
This isn't about obscenity laws. This is about the fact that this specific topic seems to be gray area in the US legal system, and it seems that obscenity is basically the only thing that exists to actually determine what's allowed or not when it comes to this topic in particular. There is nothing else.
Meaning, if I were to get in trouble over this stuff it wouldn't be because it's obscene, it would be because someone thinks it violates the law and "obscenity" would then be used after the fact to determine whether it's legal. That doesn't sit well with me.

I'm sorry to those anons who enjoy this stuff, it's nothing personal (because I believe a big part of my job as admin is to know how to not give a shit about my own personal preferences or morals).
But this is 100% about legality, and the fact that all of this is ill-defined in our legal system means nobody can actually tell me what is and isn't allowed. Just saying "don't worry about it, it's probably fine" isn't good enough, because these laws seem to basically be written trial-by-trial.
Something that was let go in one trial could get someone thrown in jail in another.

I think my willingness to even attempt to judge obscenity is more generous than what you get on most imageboards, and I think that's more than a fair compromise.
In the end I have to protect myself, so I'm going to be deleting images that I think an average court of law would deem illegal in the sense of this "miller obscenity test".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test

Sorry in advanced, but that means I'm going to have to delete these
>>14 >>1
1 because it shows excretory functions (the 2nd bullet point in the miller test)
and 14 because a dude with a boner cumming in a toddlers mouth is unquestionably sexual (also the 2nd bullet point)
Even though it says all 3 bullet points need to be violated I'm going to consider #2 as an iron rule because it's the only one that actually describes something concrete. If #2 is violated then I'm pretty sure anyone could say it violates the others if it suits their mood to do so.
I'll delete them tomorrow to give anyone time to respond to this if they have some other important info, but I'm not really expecting anything.

If the US law on this issue ever changes I'll be happy to allow you all to post whatever you want. Hell, I'd even give you all your own board before I'd ever make a politics board here.
But for now I have to protect myself.

>>28
4chan allows lolicon/toddlercon porn on /b/ and they haven't gotten into trouble for it. You know the kind of person Hiro is, if it was truly a problem he would have stamped it out ASAP.

>>29
Really? I haven't visited /b/ in ages. Has any admin made some statement about it?

>>30
https://www.4channel.org/rules
"You will not post any of the following outside of /b/:
e. Loli/shota pornography"

>>30
Threads get pruned so fast, it's not even worth removing

>>31
Right, I guess that does imply it's allowed. Interesting.