The Loli Debate.

This article was sparked by an interesting live stream by Manic the Manic Mechanic.

He has some interest topics of debate and is worth a watch.

In this stream, Grimsy @grimsyneverdies takes the position that because people who enjoy Lolicon they are projecting their wish to commit a contact offence against actual children. The logic is straightforward enough and I can see no reason against that type of view. He follows on by claiming that Lolicon is simply “glorified child pornography”. Again, logically, not an unreasonable position.

MisterAnime343 @revys_husband does a poor job in countering the base position by quoting a specific anime (I am not familiar with any of this so, if I get wrong anything wrong, I apologise) then making an attack on Grimsy’s character right out of the blocks which does not in any way challenge the logic.

The debate then descends because it does not appear that MisterAnime343 is in any way acting in good faith and trying to follow the logic, so there are very few points after this that help in the wider debate of Lolicon.

I put my own position in a tweet on Manic’s thread.

The options in his poll are quite interesting. They reflect the current societal zeitgeist in relation to those who have an interest, either in children directly or those that have an interest more abstracted out such as the depiction of children in cartoon form.

I understand the reaction, and in a lot of ways agree, but a lot of the vitriol is borne of the perception of the person attacking rather than the actual situation. I remember a tv sketch where a father is upset because a paedophile does not find his child attractive. The father is bewildered how even a paedophile can have specific sexual preferences, but this is very much the case. If you consider all sexual preferences, not everyone has the same. There may be groups you can lump together because they share similar proclivities but that is about it.

This being the case, I find it difficult to agree that because people who masturbate to Lolicon are by extension paedophiles.  

For some it may be an avenue to actually NOT offending. If you look at the work of Michael Seto of the University of Toronto, he found there appears to be two distinct populations of paedophiles. One that are able to satisfy their urges with alternatives such as child-like dolls or artificial child pornography (i.e. Lolicon or other depictions in art). There are obvious problems in terms of the measuring the size of each group due to data collection issues (if you are an offender are you really going to put any potential court case in jeopardy) but it does highlight there are certain groups of people that could be helped by further research and the potential of these as therapies.
The other population that will continue to offend no matter what, need to be treated like any other offender and put in prison then monitored. The major problem here is resources, we only have so many social workers for monitoring or so much prison space, that the best method is research to see how they too can be treated in the future and helped from the offending path.

Unfortunately, no politician is going to hang their hat on helping this demographic of people but in the long term, the cost of research pales in comparison to the amount spent on prison and the wider criminal justice system.

When checking https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Does+lolicon+reduce+rates+of+contact+offence

It is clear that like all criminals, those engaged in paraphilia have their own unique sets of psychological and structural issues. Leftie types will tell you that people offend because of homelessness and being failed by society, which is true. Conservative types will tell you people offend because of lack of responsibility, self-discipline, and personal choice. This is also true.

Researchers will use a combined approach in order to establish the extent these impact on specific populations. Unfortunately, those more politically inclined believe they are right and neither the twain shall meet. Conservatives want to lock all these people up or execute them, Lefites want to say there should be no societal rules and that MAP’s should be embraced as a specific sexual interest. Both have supporting positions, but neither are right. NO, in a civilised society we do not murder our fellow citizens just because it is convenient. NO, we do not let everyone have an anarchic free for all. Neither of this helps anyone live their best lives.

Another question I have is more a logistic problem. Think to yourselves, what is the legal age of consent in your home country? Now look around the world, do all countries have the same age of consent? Was it the same in the history of all human societies? No. People, nations, societies all differ in how children should be reared, what role they should play, and how adults should engage with children? In ancient societies, like Greek or Roman societies, pederasty was accepted. In my view, this is likely the case because in the ancient world the age at which people died was much, much lower than it is today. As life expectancy has grown, so have many differing concepts. People forget that childhood is a very recent development. In the works of French Historian Phillipe Aries [1]. “Childhood” did not exist until the 17^th Century, before which children were treated as “mini adults.”

My point here is that whilst we all agree that NO adult should be engaging in sexual relations with any child. The problem we have as a population is “how do we define what a child is?”.

When Robert Thompson and Jon Venables murdered Jamie Bulger in the UK, people were smashing the prison van trying to get to people society considered “children”, but now it was ok to remove that protection because they had committed such a heinous crime. It is very much a where do we draw the line question.

The reason I found this such an interesting topic was because of my own offending. Years ago I was convicted of possession of indecent images of children. During the trial, I was surprised to find the level of indifference to the accused in general. If you have read “The Stranger” by Albert Camus or “The Trial” by Franz Kafka, you will understand what I mean. The case prior to mine was a woman who had been found guilty of dealing drugs outside a school. To most in the court this was so regular as to be of little interest. When my case came up, for right or wrong, I was subject to heckling from the crowd. Criminals berating other criminals for having broken the law was laughable.

Prior to the trial, I was subject to an assessment by the social work department. Even before the trial, I was a branded a criminal and it seemed they wanted to find anyway they could, to make me out to be the devil. They had no interest in anything remotely related to “how do we stop this person from committing offences in the future?”. In fact, one black mark they raised against me was that I had not been to kindergarten, they were especially offended when I informed them that by not going and my first day at school, I was already ahead of the other children in reading, writing, and arithmetic. This was because my mother stayed in the home and my dad helped teach me every chance he could get.

It was not until my solicitor got me to attend a Forensic Psychologist who specialised in this type of offending. One session with her and everything made sense. “I am and have always been an unhappy person, who has never fitted in with his surroundings. I have many symptoms of an Avoidant Personality Disorder (it is impossible to confirm this diagnosis without further investigation) with Generalised Anxiety (thus making a contact offence extremely unlikely now or in the future). I have used legal pornography as a method of coping with these problems and when I became numb to the physical and psychological effect, I required more extreme (and illegal) material resulting in accessing Child Abuse Material (CAM, it is WRONG to call it child pornography – children cannot consent).”

Subsequently, I was convicted and went through a program to deal with my issues. I put my success to not offending down to a promise I made to my parents that I would not. I can only hope this continues in the future.

“The degree of civilization in a society can be judged by entering its prisons.” – Fyodor Dostoevsky

[1] Ariès, P. (1962) Centuries of childhood. New York: Random House. (1962).

Men who lack friends (Women most affected)

Discussion point begins around 5:30. This was an appearance by Kevin Hart, around 2015, talking about his new movie The Wedding Ringer.

Although successful at work, the main character, played by Josh Gad, has no one to be his best man or groomsmen so seeks out the services of Kevin Hart’s character.

Now watch what happens when Hart describes his role. “I provide a business for those who lack friends”. The audience laughs.

Kevin Hart is a funny guy, so he can make a lot of things funny. However, he did not seem to be making out that having a lack of friends was funny, it just seemed like a description, so what does this say about the audience.

In my opinion, it says that these people find it funny. “Men don't have any friends, ahahahaha.” Is this the compassionate society? Would people laugh the same way if a woman on Tiktok was crying her eyes out because of her loneliness? I would but that is because I am a$$hole.

There may be many reasons why a person lacks friends.

I like this explanation by Stardusk that between men “there is a brotherhood at a local level … which is the exact opposite of women. Women don’t get along with each other at the local level.” For me, this shows that when men have a circle of friends or acquaintances they become settled with that group. However, when that circle dissipates, and the man is left with little or no friends then they are at a loss with how to reach out and bond with other men because there is no brotherhood at the global level making finding and establishing friendships with other men difficult. They either never needed to learn the skills to make more friends because they already had friends from school or other hobbies, and they will be friends until they are old.

For women this is the opposite they find it easier, on average, to engage and make friends with other women because they have to do it more often. However, at the local level, they are unable to retain those friendships for a longer period. This means they are constantly practicing their skills of friend making so they are able to develop a large pool of people to be friends or acquaintances with.

The reason men tend not to admit to lacking friendships is partly because of a sense of guilt or personal failing. Men pride themselves on being able to do, so if they are unable to do by making friends then it means they do not have the skills.

What about the compassionate society, is it accepting of men having a lack of friends? When you look at the success of TV’s shows like “Jerry Springer” or “Jeremy Kyle”, it seems not. They would shame men for not being able to do and so they were looked down as “pathetic”, to be ridiculed because it is ok for men to be the butt of jokes.

I was unable to find an equivalent meme generated for women. If there were would they be socially accepted? Let’s say it out loud, “I can’t believe she did not cry when Shane [if you know you know] died!”. “Do women even have feelings?”. How does that sound to you?

If you posted this on social media, how long before someone uses the word “misogyny”?

If men have a difficult time establishing friendship, then it must be better for men in a relationship with the opposite sex, right?

I thought this tweet characterised well the situation for men who are in long-term relationships. If you look at the case with YouTuber Idubbz, what appears to have happened there.

Women will slowly isolate her partner, tell him that she is the only friend he needs, and go about rearranging his life so that he spends less time with his friends and more time with her.

What would we call this if a man did this to a woman?

He would be called “controlling” or “abusive”. These tactics are warning signs used by professional services as a way of noting potential child abuse and "grooming" or of developmental issues. Yet when women do it, it is called looking after the family or quirky.

How does this impact on a man’s ability to seek out new friendships with other men?

Well, it makes this impossible for men. As I suggested earlier, men already struggle in developing the skills of friendship and now they are being made to focus more on their partner.

The only potential friend they may have is the partner of their wives/girlfriends rather than someone they may actually bond with.

You may counter with “but not all women do this” and maybe that is the case but, in my view, it is a case of arguing the exception rather than the rule. In all the relationships I have seen, this is the pattern.
A woman’s need to be the centre of attention, particularly with her partner, whether she is conscious of it or not, leading to them isolating their partner. It has become such a common trope that I have heard many comedians outline it in their act.They do it for their routine and when the laughter has died down, it is ignored because the target is men. Would it be accepted if the target was women?

A cursory look on google show there are many articles talking about the impact of loneliness on men’s mental health. A lot of these articles were written by women such as this https://www.vox.com/the-highlight/23323556/men-friendship-loneliness-isolation-masculinity

And there in lies the problem. They are written either from a woman or a weak-willed feminist male perspective, with them trying to prop up women in the belief that he will get some or maybe he actually believes it.

They treat men as requiring the same level of societal interaction as women and will suffer the same mental health impact as women if they do not receive it. There are always exception and there are men who do require numerous friends the same way women do. However, I contend that most men do not. What they require are hobbies and a space specifically for men but, they are not allowed these. This allows them to interact with other men as necessary but also to embrace their solitude when that is necessary. The reason men are having trouble in modern soyciety and their place within it, is because they are being treated as women. They are diagnosed as having the same mental ailments as women. The proscribed treatment is the same as women. Rather than treating men differently because men are different, they are being treated as defective women.

This is another of the main reasons Men are Going Their Own Way. Soyciety is treating men like women. “Talk about your feelings.”, “be more sensitive.” When this happens, they are shamed for not being a “real man”. If you were a woman in this situation where you are damned if you do and damned if you don’t, what would you do?

They are rebelling the only way they can. If they were to lash out at society. Shamed. Lash out against themselves. Shamed. Raise questions about soyciety not being built for men. Shamed. Challenge the authority of the family courts. Shamed.

The only thing they have left to fight back is to leave.

“Lack of friends is a sign that a man has many hobbies and time” – Hermann Hesse

The Importance of why?

“One of the stats that you gave, I was like …. Whoa. You said “There are more adult diapers being sold in Japan than baby diapers already” …. That is terrifying! Isn’t it”

The guest replies “Yes” without any questioning or push back.

Why is it terrifying?

No one has ever come back from death so it does not seem likely that you will have to live life over again so why is everybody so interested and judgmental about what people are doing or not doing especially when it comes to “people” not having children.

He goes on to say, “I live in Japan and the reason I am there is because I’m passionate about this issue I’m actually passionate about trying to help save Japan”.

Save Japan from what?

Again, no push back from the hosts. I used to watch a lot of Triggernomentry but I have noticed they have been going downhill for a while. Now they seem as hyperbolic as a climate activist. The real death knell, at least when I noticed, was their interview with Youtuber @JustPearlyThings. I am always suspicious of any female content creators who pretend to be allies of Men’s issues or rights, especially when it is clear they have only entered that space because they saw the success of Jack Murphy or Andrew Tate and said "I want a piece of that". In my view their only thought was about extracting resources from vulnerable young men, that sounds like a laugh and a source of good money. It is not as though modern soyciety has any interest in supporting men, especially those “toxic white men”. If they off themselves then that is one less and if they do something extreme like shoot up a school, then we can say “see we told you they were toxic”. There were many points on which they could have been faux outraged about but they choose to go full Sam Harris talking about Trump on her and what was her “crime”, in their eyes? To platform Nick Fuentes, a man with whom they seem to take umbrage with his ideas. This seems an odd response given they talk a lot about freedom of speech and having honest conversations. That interview seems to have exposed they are either lying about what they believe or are fine with freedom, only for people they agree with or like.    

They seem to be doing the same in the above linked video with this guest, simply allowing him to make statements without challenging where it would seem to be merited.

I had to laugh when he talked about the “problem” of how, in Japan, an old person just has to reach the age of needing a care home before they are even put on the list for needing one until there is a place available. There is then a discussion about how it is safer to be out of Europe, so Brexit was a good idea.

Why is it a problem? Why was Brexit a good idea?

General statistics I have come across seem to show that the UK population is staying steady or falling just like the rest of Western Countries. What Britain seems to have over other countries is high levels of immigration. This sounds good, but all this reflects is Britain stealing the prime working age demographics of other countries. Effectively, the British Empire is coming back to Britain rather than us seeking it out. How is that sustainable? This just makes those countries poorer and despite what the MSM and establishment propaganda narrative claim, given those conditions, the current population of Britain will be replaced but we all know that is just a conspiracy theory.

Hmmm. It may not be engineered by a shadowy puppeteer but there does seem to be a large migration to Western countries from less developed nations. A lot of these cultures do seem to be antithetical to ideals still vaguely supported in the West of freedom and choice. Indeed, those in the West seem to want to be home to every waif and stray. If there is any push back, then supporters of name-calling, start with a classic methodology:

1.      Deny it is happening.

2.      Attack those talking about it for even acknowledging it

3.      Say if it were happening, why it is good or at least not as bad as being claimed.

4.      Admit that it has been happening, but we have no choice but to accept it.

This is not being done in the shadows but is being played out across all of Western media, so where is the conspiracy.

Regarding the word theory, I like how people throw this up as though it is a vague assertion not grounded in supporting evidence. “They keep using those words, I do not think they mean what they think they mean”. – Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride.

https://www.masterclass.com/articles/theory-vs-hypothesis-basics-of-the-scientific-method

The Big Bang Theory, in addition to being a terrible TV show, claims the universe started as a small singularity 13.8 billion years ago and expanded suddenly. This is a substantiated explanation for the occurrence relying on tested and verified data. 

The Great Replacement Theory is supported by tested and verified immigration data. Does this mean it is unimpeachable? No but neither does it mean it is entirely without merit.

Continuing, Konstantin makes a reasonable point regarding an aging population being more risk averse. I would generally and tentatively accept. However, from what I have seen, that happens more in a society that allows for the younger generation to channel dynamism because they have time to fail. This is not the case in the current Western nations. Modern Soyciety has created one of the most anxious and risk averse generations in all of human history, which is in itself an achievement. His mind then seems to take a long walk off a short pier and says people don’t understand the implications and consequences, this is another example of him opening his mouth and letting his belly rumble. It is my contention that people can fully understand the implications and consequences of soyciety not having enough people to replace the current generation, especially when it comes time to pay their rent or mortgage. This is the same arrogance that comes from our politicians and decision makers that people are essentially too stupid to understand the world and need to be led by the hand by those in their ivory towers, this raises another counter to Triggernometry's claim of supporting freedom.

The next hilarious comment is, because of loneliness “clearly, we can’t let people remain in their apartments without a sense of community”. This is exactly what people in the UK voted for under Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the US. They advocated “the freedom to starve” that created the excessive individualism of modern Western societies. People like Stephen J Shaw, coming up for retirement and realising they may not have enough money to keep the lights on, now believe maybe community is a good thing, and maybe implementing individualistic policies were not the best after all.

You know who do seem to have maintained their sense of community. Immigrants. What happens when people enter a new country. Do they integrate seamlessly to their new surroundings, or do they go somewhere that contains a high populace of those types of people they just left? Are they incentivised to integrate with the existing population?

Do the non-immigrant population do the same? Do they have similar incentives? I do not know the answers to any of these questions.

I know how I would respond were I to emigrate. I would seek out the nearest UK ex-pat community. I know enough English to get by (I was raised in Scotland, where we tend to communicate through drunken grunts).

At around 17:44, he [Shaw] states “What clearly occurred [after the oil shock of the 1970’s], was a deferring of parenthood. It wasn’t that people [People. What People. Who are these People of whom you speak?] ….  Well, I’m not going to do it now aged 25/27. I’m going to wait until I’m 30.”

According to Shaw, “people” decided to delay having children until they were older. Despite knowing that as “people” get older the chances of conception fall drastically, so introducing an economic shock into the mix, which is undoubtably going to have an effect, but would it be this drastic?

 What else happened in the 1970’s?

As government figures show, divorces increased until early 1983, plateaued, then have been on a downward trend since 2002. Marriages have been falling since 1971. Why would marriages be falling and divorces increasing then falling?

In my view, although they do an important job, sometimes researchers overly complicate, or read their own issues into, what they are investigating. This is similar to the interview of Nicholas Eberstadt by Chad Williamson,

The more pertinent point Shaw makes himself at 18:44 – “[after an economic shock] You’re causing further delay into women’s 30’s, into the women’s late 30’s that means frankly women aren’t able to have the children they want.”

Frances retorts with “Women are being sold a lie of you know you can have it all.” Which is not wrong. Yes, women are being sold a lie, but it is their choice, their freedom, whether or not to buy said lie.

Around WW2, Men, particularly fighting men, were sold a similar lie and bought it hook line and sinker, that if they fight for their country then they will be given a “land fit for heroes”. Men are now waking up to that lie and have decided the game is not worth playing.

Are women waking up to the lie they have bought into? Are women willing to face accountability and reason for buying into that lie?

Shaw tries to address this point by saying “[building an education and stability is a good thing] ... What we’re not aware of for whatever reason is that women’s fertility a) falls much faster than expected …. [difference within groups] …. “. He then goes on to talk about how society does not inform men or women about this [fertility] and the potential impact of delaying having children.

No. This is another example of middle-class arrogance that everything must be an equal split of blame. Men are well aware of the problems we are facing, why do you think so many are walking away. They know that women will only give them children if they chain themselves to that woman. It is no longer a union of equals because if that man acts,bn out or the woman becomes bored, she can use the full power of the government to destroy him.

As the government statistics on abortion show, women are quite willing to get pregnant but not actually go through with having the child. These are not the actions of a person that is in the “dark”.

I hate when this is done. Konstantin replies with “People, but particularly in this case, women, are going to end up in a position where they are not happy”.

As more “pathetic weasels” move towards the Men Going Their Own Way philosophy, they will become happier with the relief of not having to bow to the threats, shaming, and attempts at ridicule by modern soyciety. Ask yourself, why would a soyciety that claims “they don’t need no man” or “the future is female” pour so much scorn or vitriol for men who make choices to leave the workplace, leave the economy, leave weak men, and leave women?

Is it possible that soyciety realises they need us “pathetic weasels” because they cannot (or do not want to) do it themselves? Why do they rely on “toxic men” to clean their sewers, run their electricity, or build their houses?

Is it because, despite his intelligence, Jordan Peterson does not know how to wire a plug or maybe because the only thing Samuel (you is all incels for not liking Brie Larson) Jackson knows what to do, is stand in front of a camera or where to score drugs?

I think a good place to end is Shaw’s claim “We have to find a solution to this problem.”

I will end with my original question.

Why?