Probably not but they would feel a lot more uncomfortable to see some loli screen saver on my PC.

How about a KKK screensaver then?

They go pretty easy on him just so long as he remembers to do his chores.

Last week however he forgot to mow the lawn and wasn't allowed on the computer for a whole week!

It's -30 degrees here there is no lawn to mow.

The very fact that he countered that with the temperature instead of refuting the "kid having to mow the lawn" part says all you need to know. XD

If increased ascess to loli woud have an effect on increased sexual abuse on children then the statestics in Japan woud have been higher.
But instead there has been a decline in all crime related stuff in Japan including child sex abuse even if Japan has had increased acess to cartoon child matrial since the 1970,s.
I Wont argue against that loli in some cases migth have inderect impact, but to stretch that out to apply to all loli no matter the case is just too far fetched withouth serious study cases. Prisons that are several times mentioned as an example further up is a bad example. There are several hardcore crimminals that woud like nothing more than to either beat the crap out of child molestors or even just kill them. Thats why they are separated from others in most prisons.

Yes, child molesters are by default "the scum of the scum". But my point was, that the classic "prison rape" is done by people who are not gay. Just like most child molesters (according to studies) are not really paedophiles.

Another strawman. I'm not saying it cannot be compared: in fact i'm doing just that. I'm saying why Shantae and ilk are similar, yet different. And as for research, i did point to some.

But, it's like the #KickVic campaign: we have proof that the whole thing started as allegations made by people to further their careers, just like with #gamergate, yet some people choose to ignore the evidence and say "but you didn't show any evidence." Is this the new way of politics, so simply ignore parts that you disagree with and point to them later? So is slippery slope fallacy, or not?

Not going to get a child a pet i'm not willing to take care of myself. And if they neglect the pet and I had to take care of it, they aren't getting another pet. Same thing applies with the digital pet: they're not getting another digital pet or a real pet if they can't take care of the one they already have. No, the evidence is that people get more attracted to what they whack off to. This stands to reason that if they use loli as a proxy for chidlren, they get more attracted towards children. Please, do not misrepresent my arguments. The definition of ephebophilia: looks like an adult, and physically is one, but they're not "of the age of majority" or "adults capable of consent" (technically, ephebophilia extends beyond this age). Look, the same thing applies, and doesn't need similar research. But, if you'd like, I have a really good video where a guy admits he became a furry because he was neglected by his parents and he found comfort and peace in children's stories about river otters. It wasn't even pornographic, but it still provided him with enough bonding hormone by proxy that he made some species of North American River Otter his fursona.

But if you actually want research.

I would argue and just say the research suggesting that is flimsy, if there is even remotely conclusive research on the topic. But, instead, why not just delve into this topic logically, right? So, evolutionarily speaking, there must be some sort of incentive, then, for the continuation of the genes, correct? For example, those with a gene to be blind are far less likely to pass this on, right? So why propogates the gene? Now, with blindness, we know that something either happens during development (like infection) or some kind of genetic damage to the genes that make the things work. Can we say that for anything related to sexual orientation? And this goes back to the prior argument someone else made, that society really doesn't care as much as it likes to pretend to. Really, if such people have a desire to control their urges, anyone and everyone wanting to lower the amount of molestation of children would want funding to continue, right? This whole "dominance thing" doesn't make sense: there was another study i fonud long ago (and i've been looking to find it again for over a year now) that actually says that humans, especially males, actually are turned off (more specifically: end up with a disgust response) by the prospect of a sex they're not attracted to. If it was solely about domination and submission, their willy wouldn't work without a chemical assistant (or without some sort of proxy fantasy, which may very well be present, instead, i don't know). Given the stigmatisation of bisexuality by both heterosexuals and even homosexuals, closeting seems reasonable. Add to it that anything resembling an objective sexuality test, despite claims of there being no evidence to suggest acquisition, is not available to the general population, it seems reasonable that many (if not most) bisexuals are unaware of their true sexuality. By that logic, the comparison alcoholics would be afraid to seek help due to comparison of drunk drivers being the cause behind so many fatal vehicular collisions. Japan is a special case, really. And this is indeed one of the places where I myself am conflicted: those whom are already pedophiles will surely find some degree of relief in loli, for certain. But Japan is special, because Japan has a huge issue with police just not enforcing the law on the whole, which i've heard from the Japanese, themselves. It's kind of like how in some areas in the US, to control statistics in the face of politics, they'll either recategorise or not follow up on certain accusations in an attempt to keep crime statistics down.

I don't know about the correlation with legalized brothels, either. I always argued that legalizing weed would ultimately make it less of a gateway drug, since breaking the law becomes a hurdle, again.

But, like i said before, Japan is a really special case.

Ok, I have to ask: how does one objectively identify that the child molester isn't sexually attracted to children?

To be fair, I'm not sure that it's a good way to teach about responsibility for animal's life. But that's besides our topic, and I'm probably not qualified. I don't misrepresent anything. You contradicting yourself right here. First you say that people are attracted to things they watch, then to things they imagine they watch. And technically you admitted yourself that there are plenty of countries where Shantae IS of age of consent. In earlier comment you specifically said that loli is underage human girl, who looks like underage human girl. Shantae isn't both. First. We don't know if similar "viewing" will have the same effect on any other guy. Or if that particular guy was predisposed and that film simply made him realize his desires.

Second. This situation is basically proves notion that loli can make people attracted to loli, not the real children. Because that children stories about otters made hime a furry, not zoophile.

Third. I haven't found that particular otter case in the article you linked.

Right, because a real animal is far more complex to take care of than simply hitting the up arrow until you can hit "select" on the shower icon to clean up digitla fecal material. This seems to also be where there stems an argument in certain branches of femminism against porn and "objectification." We've seen hints of the arguments on GOG, but it's mostly been parroting, not people who actually understand the fundamentals of the things they talk about. It certainly explains why the weebs end up preferring their body pillows: the perfect waifu only has the flaw of being a figment of imagination, while real women come with real problems and responsibilities. Same reason why I criticize women for engaging in thigns like Twilight and Fifty Shades: those characters are not realistic people, and when you judge your significant other for falling short of your expectations, you're only hurting yourself. It's fine for people who can see it for the mere fantasy that it is, but when it starts leaving fantasy, it starts causing relationship issues.

However, you are free to speak about it: appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Your lack of qualifications mean nothing if you have a solid argument to the contrary. If i see a man dead on the ground, without his head, but the doctor says that he died of a gunshot wound, am I wrong or unable to speak simply because the doctor has more qualifications than i do? Appeal to authority is largely why we are against loli to begin with, and partly why the job market is a mess in western countries, as well as why most likely oppose censorship. Focus on truth, not who has what authority to speak about what topic. Sure, you don't want to make life decisions based on someone talking out of their buttox, but this only slowly leads to authoritarianism. How is it a contradiction? It's like the Christian who kneels before a cross to pray. They speak to a cross, but is this not a proxy for Jesus? It's just like how we use words to abstract reality. We seldom take things for what they really are, but instead let these things act as proxies. When people watch porn, do they not imagine themselves in the scenario they see, or at least in the same room? Naturally, some may not, but we also know that this is why some porn intentionally avoids showing much of one of the people, so the person can use it as a proxy. For the moment, they're the ones having sex. This is the whole reason why media acts as an outlet: for the moment, you're shooting the asshole, banging that hot woman, molesting that child, taking care of a pet, or whatever it represents. You aren't actually doing such, but as far as you're concerned, you are. Same thing applies to phone sex, which is why people describe "what they're doing to each other." It is to suspend disbelief in a controlled manner. Right, but if there is no age of consent on a boat in the middle of the ocean, or Epstein's island, is it still child porn if the person's 8? What about 12 and bleeding? What about 14 when the physical changes are finished? Or does it reflect the country that the viewer it is in, instead of the child? As far as i'm aware, we judge this by the country of the viewer, which comes with it's own natural problems, of course. The most logical conclusion is to judge it based on both: whomever has the higher age is who the standard is on, because if you are either undermining your own societal standards (if yours is higher) or you're undermining someone else's (if it's elsewhere), and we don't really need to go into the ramifications of the boat in the ocean. That's a fairly good point, but that's where other research comes into play: people have a tendancy to slowly creep into other territories, hence the memes of the "furry spectrum." Although, we really don't have much research into this. Safer to go with what we have, though. Well, a zoophiles lack the requirement that furries have for certain human attributes that actual animals do not have. enjoy your meme! Here have another! Right, i said his case was separate. His is more anecdotal, because it asn't a lab setting, but an interview, with a philosopher, not a psychologist or anything else. He tackled it from his own personal perspective, rather than a medical approach. If you actually want it.

The whole point of the article was to get something with a sample size larger than 1.

Then why do you need a "proxy cross" in the first place? If "God is everywhere" as many theologists say, why do you go to the church and kneel befor the altar? Why not to speak to Jesus in the street whenever you need to?

Again, people who watch anime (with porn content or no) with loli characters don't think of them as children. They don't see loli as the proxy for children. So the whole point of your claim was that they become affected to children because loli look like children, not because of what fantasies they have. No. The most logical conclusion is not to judge by law at all. You mentioned physical changes - they are more unanimous among all people, unlike laws. So it stands to reason that above girl above 15 can have sex. Same with pedophiles and loli.

This just in, related to the topic at hand, but only indirectly.

You're right, there's absolutely no need. However, some people insist on this proxy, anyway. Doesn't seem too different to swearing of an oath with one's hand on a bible, either. But, just like someone could come up with a sexual fantasy to play out in their head without porn, some people actually want or need the images, anyway. Some people go even further. I can understand the desire to, even if it's not necessary: makes things "more real," requiring less effort to suspend belief. Well, aren't you the psychic type? On the contrary, i've heard people say that they not only think of them as children, apparently changing the age of the depicted character is a big deal for some. But, we don't have any data. And, worse yet, this idea that they don't proxy children contradicts the idea that people see loli as an out for their pedophilic desires. Sorry, can't have it both ways. Are you applying this only to loli? In theory, a child of the age of 6 can have sex, and it has happend. Have a good read on this woman, and the effects it had on her. Clearly we need a standard that extends beyond external biology. There have been attempts to make a standard based on brain growth, but that's not very practical for the average shmuck. In lieu of anything more practical, we have age of consent laws, which are also tied to consent in purchases and other things, rather than simply sex. However, any legal standard for loli would have to define it far more precisely than simply "loli." And, also, anything that would be covered under this definition does indeed exist. Now if you want to change this to "why isn't furry porn held to the same standard," it probably has to do with the fact that while few people actually care about cutting down child molestation, even fewer really care about animals, and it's even promoted in some places (then again, child molestation seems to be promoted in similar places).

================
And why it makes things "more real"?

I'm no psychic, but I saw comments of "loli-fags". And I agree that some people can indeed percieve loli as a child, but that doesn't mean people do percieve loli is as a child automatically. Again, your initial statement was that affection with loli leads to affection to children, because people aroused by loli and loli resemble children. The whole point of "stop loli hentai" is that people are turned into pedophyles unknowingly - that is totally different from what you say now about "being proxy". If loli are proxy to a child in person's mind - this person is already a pedophile. If person who watch loli isn't pedophile, this person wouldn't percieve loli as "child proxy".

Clearly not. Article said of several complications (including need for caesarian) because of young age and underdeveloped organism. So this only supports notion that appropriate age for sexual activity should be determined by biology. Yes, with some margin for deviation in development. Which brings us to the real point. All that concern about "loli hentai leading to child porn" has nothing to do with actual facts or research results (that are flimsy at best). It's just yet another "protect the children" political populism.

Japan is not a SPECIAL case, saying they are special are boredering on racism implying other etnic groups cant have simmilar results in regards to crime statestics

The link of recearch leave much to be desired in answering questions
I already mentioned that there was pshycologist in the 70,s that blamed cartoons for crime wich later proved not to be true.

Im quoting from the link
The predominant strand of research on pornography has examined how it negatively affects people’s sexual behaviours and their attitudes towards sex (Antevska and Gavey, 2015; Brown and L’Engle, 2009) – something we call the negative effects paradigm. It is argued that pornography transmits a script for sexual intercourse that is acquired through consumption of pornography, which then has an effect when the viewer applies it to their own sexual behaviour (Wright, 2013). The contention is that ‘via social learning, those who view pornography incorporate the actions they view into their own sexual scripts’ (Braithwaite et al., 2015: 112). Thus, where pornography is readily available and education about sexual intercourse more broadly is sparse, it is argued that pornography can have a significant impact on how sexual intercourse is understood and enacted.

In the negative effects paradigm, studies have documented how exposure to pornography is associated with a range of sexual activities deemed ‘risky’, including anal sex or sex with multiple partners, with the notion that prevalence of these behaviours will increase when pornography is consumed (Braun-Courville and Rojas, 2009; Sun et al., 2014). Particularly problematic in this argument are the assumptions underpinning the conceptualization of ‘risky’ sex, where risk is associated with particular types of sexual activity with no attention paid to safe-sex practices. Similarly, it has been argued that viewing pornography depicting rape will lead to increased acceptance of rape myths, violent sexual fantasies and perpetrating rape (Donnerstein et al., 1987; McGlynn and Rackley, 2007); although there is empirical research refuting these claims (e.g. Diamond et al., 2011; Ruddock, 2015). quote end

Who knew, bad education in sex and how to behave can lead to increase in sexal bad behavior......
it also quotes several people that dont agree and are refuting the claim so my argument still stands

Quote
In a qualitative study of 23 ethnic minority youth, Rothman et al. (2015) report pornography as an ordinary component in participants’ daily lives. Yet because ‘using pornography as a model for sexual activity had negative consequences for some females in the sample’, they contend that pornography had damaging consequences for young people more broadly, despite not being in-line with the evidence provided in the study:

[T]he ubiquity of pornography on the Internet and proliferation of Web sites where users post their own amateur videos may be increasing the likelihood that minors create [sexually explicit material], exploit sexual partners, disseminate sexually explicit images of underage peers, and pressure their dating partners to engage in sexual acts that could hurt or upset them. (Rothman et al., 2015: 743)

However, despite the predominance of the negative effects paradigm in the literature, research is starting to contest it and argue for a broader examination of the impact of pornography on those who consume it (McKee, 2010; Ruddock, (2015). quote end

Ooops, seams even more people are contesting it
Ps. A serious study case wich i asked for is haveng most of the scientist/reacercers agree on the topic

Quote :
Contesting the Negative Effects Paradigm
While dominant in pornography research, the negative effects paradigm faces critique on a number of fronts (Comella and Tarrant, 2015; Mowlabocus and Wood, 2015). Most significantly, a growing body of empirical research on pornography consumption, both among adolescents and more generally, rejects findings that it has negative effects. For example, Luder et al. (2011) examined the relationship between exposure to online pornography and risky sexual practices among young people. Using multiple data sets, they found that exposure to online pornography did not result in greater sexual behaviours deemed risky. Similarly, Sinković et al. (2013) found no correlation between pornography consumption at an early age and risky sexual behaviours in Croatia. Indeed, Owens et al.’s (2012) systematic literature review of the impact of internet pornography on adolescents found that the evidence for correlations between pornography consumption and a range of social and health outcomes were inconclusive, with little replicability across studies.
quote end

Further reading
Contrary to social fears about the loss of ‘childhood innocence’, concerns about early pornography use were absent from participants’ narratives (Mulholland, 2013). Twenty-one of the 35 participants discussed watching pornography from a young age and explicitly stated it was not problematic, with several making reference to it being helpful. For example, Alan said, ‘[p]orn was a good thing. It helped me feel less confused about myself.’ Marcus saw pornography as an ordinary part of sexual development, arguing it was ‘the common way for boys to transition into being sexual.’ Challenging the notion that pornography consumption promotes early sexual activity (Brown and L’Engle, 2009), he added, ‘I had this outlet so I didn’t feel like I needed to have sex.’ Similarly, Luke described how he used pornography as a way of delaying having sex, saying, ‘[i]t wasn’t that I was denying sex to myself, I was denying it to other people.’ No participant raised concerns about their consumption of pornography. Indeed, rather than being a source of concern, pornography was an ordinary component of early sexual experience that was viewed positively by the majority of participants, and neutrally by the others.
reading end

It seams its not as black and white as you claim

I have no diffinitive answer for that. I have suspicions, but there's no research into that, as far as i know. I predict the answer is rather simple, but deep enough in the mind and subconscious that the answer isn't going to come out any time soon. I would guess that it has something to do with negative feelings resulting from suspending disbelief or something related to that ("i just got off to a cartoon, which means i'm too inadequate for the real thing"), but that's only my best guess. There are plenty of plausible explanations. What we do know is, every step of progression towards realism does indeed seem to improve things. Pictures better than fantasy, videos better than pictures, sexting with real person over videos, audio call over sexting, video chatting over just audio, etc (this is neglecting to make room for individuals whom have interaction issues). This is where the spectrum idea comes back into play. Say for a minute you're watching "normal porn." Maybe watching lesbians kissing or something if that's what you get your rocks off to. As you're watching here and there, eventually you realize that you have no idea any thing about these people you see other than they're women and you think what they're doing is hot. Eventually, you start to question whether or not it's OK, because maybe these girls are underage, or maybe they're petite, but you just honestly don't know. And you know it's not particularly illegal, because there's no nudity, even if they are underage. Effectively, you could already be looking at child porn, and have enjoyed it, and not realized it. Now, as it progresses, maybe you find the thrill of it being questionable a form of kink, so now you've generated a preference for it. Next you're intentionally looking for young people. Apparently, this is a growing problem on youtube, which is why polygon or someone wrote an article on how pokemon go channels were getting purged because they got caught in the crossfire when youtube was actively trying to shut down the channels meant for gawking at real children in odd positions.

But that's not even tackling loli itself. Not only are the ages, thanks to styles, obscure, but sometimes it's part of a gag in the material. The trope is that a (usually male) person becomes attracted or even has sex with someone, only to find out shortly after that they're a little different than what they thought before hand. Sometimes they find out during the act, then end up very, very confused. I actually seen this happen on a site called chaberi (random site where people chat with one another in rooms [as opposed to privately] for any number of reasons), where this woman was hitting on guys and i got bored and stopped paying attention, especially when guys who were getting rejected started leaving ('cause i thought the posturing was boring, especially since apparently height and age were everything and i was winning due to my height but i ended up rejecting her when i realized she was just looking for a sexting buddy). I come back to find that they had ended up "sexting" openly in the group, and she finally revealed her age (she asked everyone else theirs, but refused to state her own) after they "finished," and she admitted she was 15. He was 30, and he was not pleased at all.

As for "loli fags," i'm a bit more academic than that. I'm well aware that not everyone perceives loli as real chilren, or even children at all. Trolls don't have strong arguments, usually. How do we set the standard, then for objective viewing? Some people have to have these same complications because of just general body size. If not body size, would it have been ok, say, 2 yaers later when she aws 7-8, to give more time for puberty to finish? If we're going to use puberty as a standard, we need to keep in mind this woman basically had a very, very early puberty. Aparently, this can happen as young as 2 in certain unfortunate individuals (apparently this rare condition isn't exclusive to 1 or 2 people). That's pretty contradictory, though: if the population doesn't actually care about protecting the children, then how does that political populism have any power? Instead, it explains why there isn't much research on it, especially with all the political scandles over the years. As far as i can tell, there's more than enough actual abuse going on.

Only if you misrepresent my argument. My argument is that japan, as a country, has a huge issue not only with crime not being reported to police, but police not accurately representing crime statistics. The same thing actually happens in some areas of other countries as well. Take crime in south africa right now, i'm sure when the statistics come out, only white people are committing racially related crime, since the law favors "reparations." I naturally argue that one cannot measure "accptance of rape," and unless there's some way that I don't know about, i think that argument is pretty much moot. The same thing can be said in reverse: there's no way to measure that porn leads to acceptance of rape. Moreover, "risky activies" is not the same as "unusual kinks." The idea that loli could reduce the percentage of pedophiles and hebephiles molesting chidlren is already one of my arguments in favor of loli being legal. If loli made 100% of the world magically as a cost to making 0% of pedophiles molest children, i think that would be well worth support loli. Trying to play the game of saying "we need to eradicate pedophilia" is untenable and impractical. The question is whether or not the overall lowering of pedophiles who act out given opportunities is enough to offset the higher number of pedophiles to the degree that the overall percentage of child molestaitons per capita falls. Notice, they're admitting that they don't have the numbers to say whether or not it ends up being more damaging broadly. They claim that there is research to contest this, however this research is not conclusive, and not part of this. I do most certainly argue for more research: this is why i'm on the fence about loli, instead of just outright banning it or supporting it. My stance hinges on the fact that we don't know. They're openly admitting, however, that the likelihood of damage is increasing, which is still in agreement with my statements. The problem is, they don't know if it's more damaging overall or more helpful overall, and more research is necessary. Which is half my stance from the beginning: could lead to lower percentages of pedos taking things to real life, but overal increases the number of pedos. The other point of my argument is that we need to decide if the data going either way even really matters. This level of commentary leads me to ask: are you personally invested in this topic? Again, "risky sexual behavior" is not the same as "unusual kink." Someone dressing up in a fur suit doesn't count as "risky sexual behavior," just for an example. Moreover, the argument is a long term argument. By nature, the search for whether or not it increases risky behavior is a short term study. Whether or not this leads to unusual kinks like pedophilia would not be within the scope of the research.

As for "loss of innocence," that's what i call the "Santa Effect." "Protecting innocence," as far as I can tell, is more about wanting to relive one's happy childhood and lack of challenges to their own cognitive dissonance, than it is about the wellbeing of the child. To be consistent, I have to regard that, as well, as a form of child exploitation. If consent is about being able to make informed decisions due to mental capacity, accurate and honest information is part of that just as much as brain maturity. While i would argue that there is an appropriate time to educate certain topics a certain way, that's a topic for another discussion. I never claimed it was black and white.