John2290 said:
There is a moral difference here that is inate and well set in common sense, the lollicon is so obviously designed for pedophiles to get off on without that inate sense of right and wrong getting in the way. This is like saying snuff films or terrorist beheadings or canabilism, beastiality etc are art. It is not at all what I meant in the OP, Can you imagine how many childern have been sexually abused because of this stuff? When I said age restricted content excluded I didn't mean go this far, Everything has its bounderies, a place where it meets human morality and what is right from wrong. Do I think its okay to write about childern being abused or child sex rings and explore that in dept at the expense of the feeling of people who have been abused, yes I do. But this drawn child pornography is nothing more than child porn, it isn't art, it comes from a diseased mind, in no way should it ever be called art. |
and what's wrong about that? you're aware they are drawings right? no one is getting hurt from it (they are drawings!!), and even better... it is a sexual relief for people that otherwise might go and actually act on their sexual impulses by hurting someone else.
that's exactly why I believe all forms of art expression should be protected from censorship. what else, would you advocate banning porn based on rape fantasies? how about S&M? where do you draw the line?
clearly there's a desire for all types of so called 'deviant' tastes and as long as they remain controled in a fantasy world that's the safest situation we can achieve.
