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).

Inspiration.

When setting up my account I was asked to enter a narrative about what I wanted the community/channel to be. The added text advised talking about my inspiration. We all face life in drastically different ways, for some it comes easily, for some of us it is extremely difficult, for the rest of us we are somewhere in the middle.

One of my many therapists, put her finger on the pulse. I am and always have been a deeply unhappy person. What do I know about inspiration? How I can I teach anyone how to be inspired? The simple fact is, I can’t but neither can anyone else. Inspiration comes from within.

The important factor for me is this. Has my life been as hard as anyone else’s? I doubt it but I do not experience anyone else’s pain, I can only experience my own. To me this pain has been all encompassing for most of my life, and probably will continue until I am no longer here.

All I can do is tell you my story, my perspective of it and in the end hope that it is enough (choose your own criteria for what is enough).   

I remember hearing from someone, “I don’t like any of that positive affirmation BS because it is said by people who are not living the life their inspirational quotes demand.”

So what? Does the fact that people do not live up to such expectations negate the validity of what is being said. I try to NOT deride people as being “stupid” because this implies, they suffer a low IQ or generalised intelligence and as Jordan Peterson has outlined in his research, this only affects around 10% of people, so it fits in with a normal distribution of a population, but this comes close to being “stupid”.

[I do think there is an epidemic of “foolishness” which is more suggestive of most people lacking wisdom, which I would consider the application of said intelligence.

This type of thinking is akin to “Oh well that person is not a professional sports person [interchangeable with anything you like], so they have no useful insight about sports.”

Given that some of the greatest football managers, either never played the game or not to any significant level – Andre Villas-Boas, Maurizio Sarri, Julien Nagelsmann, Carlos Alberto Parreria, Leornardo Jardim, why do we seem to put those with experience in a specific area of a sport (or indeed any field) such as playing on a higher pedestal?.

This makes me rethink whether or not people are actually “stupid” because there is no doubt, they are fools. (I include myself in all these insults).]

I wrote this a couple of days ago and, at the time, I thought this was right. I recognise that, yes people are generally foolish, but I was wrong in thinking this was because of personal failure such as failing to apply logic and their intelligence. From what I can see, people lack self-awareness and appear to act foolishly not because of a general fault (although that could be an answer) but because sometimes life is so painful that to face up to it is IMPOSSIBLE.

It makes you question “why should I bother getting up after life has beaten me down.” is it worth it?

How do I find inspiration (or at least the energy to get up in the morning)?

·            At my lowest, I made a promise to my parents that I would not commit suicide. Now, people may reply “well that is not much, how is that supposed to help me?” When dealing with self-hatred the promises you make to others are, I have found, much more powerful than any promise you could ever make to yourself. Beyond that, I am at a loss. Does this mean that this will work for you? Not necessarily, you have to find something or someone that has value to you.

“He who has a ‘why’ to live for can bear almost any ‘how’.” Friedrich Nietzsche

I have found that TV show Scrubs has some really deep discussions about these situations. I have posted a link of an analysis by two Franciscan Friars (Not trying to convert you, mainly because I don’t believe in organised religion and have difficulty with faith, I just think their input is insightful and powerful).

[Note: If I were to encourage anyone to watch anything I have linked, it would be this video. On a more personal note, I have to say I envy people who have actual faith (the belief in something bigger and better than yourself, not necessarily big G.O.D), because it is one of the most protective factors anyone can have. Sadly, I do not have that. If you have this, I encourage you to embrace your faith (not organised religion which is a different argument)

Incidentally, the background song by Brett Dennen “Ain’t No Reason” – Has some very deep insights and is worth a listen.

]

Mentors (and what about God?)

My point is this, if you find someone to be a good mentor (this includes your relationship with God, whether you believe or not) for you, in my view, they can be forgiven for whomever and whatever they are or may have been. Take Malcolm X (Little), he began by robbing stores for food and later graduated to drug-dealing, gambling, and prostitution rackets. Nowadays, many people would shun him due to modern soyciety’s fear and obsession with guilt by association. To some he was a hoodlum who did not deserve a place in civil society, to others he was an inspiration. Should those people give up his the inspiration he has to give, just because of his criminality and because they fear being associated with a such a person. In the end that is a choice for us all as individuals.

If you do find yourself in that position, I would be offering these references for you to consider.

https://scrubs.fandom.com/wiki/Her_Story_transcript

Prior to this part of the scene, Dr Elliot has a bust up with Dr Cox because of her newfound belief in a new mentor.

Despite their cynical approaches, Dr Cox and Dr House want what every person wants. To understand the world. To find meaning, to find that “why”, which will allow them to bear whatever “how” life throws at and them.
The problem for us all remains how do we push forward in the case without that “why”? Do we continue to search for it, or do we give up?

You are all smart enough to know where the road of giving up takes us. I would just note that just because there are people who are no longer with us who chose that road. They should not be judged harshly for this – they are not cowards. They are not weak. They simply made a choice that not being here was more advantageous than suffering whatever pain they had. I do not advocate taking that path, but who is to say they were wrong? My thought is that people say such things because they cannot deal with their own pain and perhaps, they are jealous, they are stuck in purgatory never able to deal with their pain until such time as the decision is taken out of their hands.

“Most People do not really want freedom, because freedom involves responsibility, and most people are frightened of responsibility.” – Sigmund Freud.

Life is pain.

Amen.

My view is that ANYTHING that helps you get up in the morning. ANYTHING that makes you want to be better than yesterday. ANYTHING that helps get you through the day, should not be dismissed casually.

A favourite of mine – “A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step” – Laozi, Tao Te Ching. Take that first step and move on from there.

[Note: I did not want to end this in a pessimistic fashion so, I have added by way of an update, I have been thinking over this topic for a couple of days. I have cried at various times over these days (because I am a pu$$y); I have worked in my garden; I have played video games.
I have been feeling contented and, dare I say it, happy for those past couple of days. Not to say there has not been periods of happiness within my life but this feels different.

I hope that you can find something similar in your life.]

For those of you who have read this and taken something from it – I thank you.

For those of you who have read this and not gained anything from it – I wish you luck in finding what you are looking for.

Here is something else that might help:

https://www.samaritans.org/?nation=scotland

I am from the UK so I have no idea about Crisis centres in other countries but if you are experiencing trouble, I would implore you to seek out help. Therapy may not have worked for me, but it has got me to where I am now and that is significantly better than where I was. Take any wins, not matter how small you may think them to be.

As comedian Dave Allen said, “May your god go with you.”

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?