>>46196 >Which also imposes another variable on the experiment that they didn't account for. Where the guys getting hard because they went in knowing they would be visually stimulated, or was it entirely "natural"? What about the fact that the experiment was dependent on a scientists watching their cocks during the entire slideshow, and how that alters things because some people are exhibitionists? Did you actually read what's in the image? >contrast means non sexual pictures or audio So yes they actually DID account for the fact that some men got hard because of "a scientists watching their cocks during the entire slideshow"

>>46258 Here's the problem, though. How did they define "non-sexual"? Can we actually see the images and hear the audio provided? Because otherwise you might as well assume they were listening to ASMR with innuendos or looking at completely normal rocks that just happen to look like an ass. >they actually DID account for the fact that some men got hard because of "a scientists watching their cocks during the entire slideshow" No, they didn't. They just told the person "don't get hard".

>>46260 The study explains all of that. It was linked above, you can go and read it

>>46264 Okay, I just did, and it completely destroys any validity of the experiment because the subject of the experiment went in knowing they would be visually stimulated, which is exactly the complaint I made up here: >>46196 >Where the guys getting hard because they went in knowing they would be visually stimulated, or was it entirely "natural"? And it even gets even funnier when you read how they "measured" the guy's dicks by strapping onaholes to them: <Penile circumference changes were measured using a D. M. Davis mercury-in-rubber strain gauge that each subject fitted on the shaft of his penis. So, yeah, anyone trying to use this as proof of anything need to be laughed out of the room.

>>45814 >actual CP was legal in japan till 2014 Sounds like bullshit. Also CP is still legal in Western countries, especially at Israel, USA, Europe and New Zealand.

>>46260 >you might as well assume they were listening to ASMR with innuendos or looking at completely normal rocks that just happen to look like an ass >They just told the person "don't get hard". You clearly don't understand the concept of a control group or control sample, so let me try and explain it in a way that even a retard can understand. They bring in 100 men, show them non-sexual pictures telling them not to get hard. Of these 100 men, 10 get hard despite being told not to. Why did they get hard? It literally doesn't matter! Now they show sexual pictures and again tell the men "don't get hard". This time 25 of them get hard. Does that mean 25/100 men were aroused by the pictures? No. But what you can say for sure is at least 15 of them were aroused by the pictures. 25 - 10 = 15 >>46266 >the subject of the experiment went in knowing they would be visually stimulated Explain why this is relevant for the accuracy of the results. >anyone trying to use this as proof of anything need to be laughed out of the room So how would you conduct an experiment like this differently to make it more reliable?

>>46270 It's true: https://archive.today/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_Japan

>>46274 >Using Wikipedia as your source Get a load of this faggot!

>>46272 >Explain why this is relevant for the accuracy of the results. Because of the same logic that I said about looking for porn. You going in WANTING and EXPECTING to be stimulated, and you end up being stimulated as you're shown pictures. >So how would you conduct an experiment like this differently to make it more reliable? Bring in a bunch of people, hook them up to a heart rate machine, and show them a slide show of 50 images that each last a minute. One group sees images that are nothing but "sexual" or "lewd" in nature, one group doesn't, and one sees an even mix of both. Even mix things up by including sexual images that are not "intended" to be sexual but end up being so, like the advert for the Shake Weight or weird pics of things people finding things in nature. But then again, such a study is never going to happen because it would completely show that there almost zero correlation between a guy's shaft becoming diamonds and the images he sees. EVEN BETTER, we don't even need an "experiment" to look for these kinds of results because we are living it. It's called the "free market" You can pull up a site like Sadpanda right now and see how many hits you get for for every possible content tag imaginable. There's even a tags for obscure fetishes like "male herms" (otokofutanari) and "personality excretion". In fact, this should give you an idea. If you search for "female:big_breasts" on a Sadpanda scrapper like Hitomi, you get 391,902 hits. Meanwhile for "female:loli", you get 180,163 results. And to prevent any "cross pollenation", material with big busts but without lolis yeilds "367,048 Results", while material about lolis without mommy milkers yeilds "155,311 Results". Even removing material with the "oppai loli" tag doesn't really change anything. So there you have it, people are more interested in developed women as opposed to those with undeveloped bodies. What else do you want to know?

>>46278 >hook them up to a heart rate machine How does heart rate relate to arousal? >50 images that each last a minute One minute seems a bit long, that's almost an hour in total. >Even mix things up by including sexual images that are not "intended" to be sexual but end up being so I don't think the original study had the kinds of images you posted, that would defeat the purpose of the control sample. >there almost zero correlation between a guy's shaft becoming diamonds and the images he sees That's only true for coomers. See Pavlovian Conditioning. >people are more interested in developed women as opposed to those with undeveloped bodies Sure, but does that statement really conflict with the image that was posted? The graph peaks at age 14 and it only declines from there. Is a woman's body developed enough at 14? There are countries where that's old enough to have sex.

>>46292 >How does heart rate relate to arousal? By measuring the change in your heart rate compared to the visuals that you see on screen. >One minute seems a bit long, that's almost an hour in total. Gives them more than enough time to let their minds wonder >Sure, but does that statement really conflict with the image that was posted? In same ways, yes, because it's showing that the entire study of such content is bullshit. Bullshit on the first account that the graph is fake, and bullshit on the second account because we have evidence in the field that directly contradicts it. >Is a woman's body developed enough at 14? Depends on the woman. Puberty hits some girls harder or earlier than others. And some girls, much later. Same thing with guys. But overall, I personally don't see an issue with countries having AoC being that low. >There are countries where that's old enough to have sex. A century ago in the United States, 14 year olds could find a job, marry, move out of the house, and live on their own. Even then, the entire argument of "body development" goes out the window when you learn that the human body doesn't actually stop it's "initial development" until a person turns 30. The question then becomes an issue of what you're trying to argue. A lot the problems with modern society is that >we spend too much time babying people until they're well into adulthood. And by then, most don't know any other way to live than to have someone being a "parent" for them.

Only degenerate, depraved, zog bot trash would be interested in "loli". Go get a piece of plywood and put a jap school girl swim suit on it and shove a flashlight in it you fucking creeps. Funny how all the "pro loli" "super aryan" need to suck jap dick to get their pedophile fix. Sub humans mixing with other sub humans. Just like goodest goyim. >"But muh nordtard cunt-rys have AoC of 12! (or some bs close to that) They are bestest super aryan mass-tard race!!" Being buttfucked in to oblivion by subhuman sandniggers... But be like them! Only people with no self worth would go after something with no life experience to judge you as the failure you are and reject you like everyone else has before... Why you all wish to push the kike pedo agenda. >"c-chill buh, deh jus muh pictures!! Cgi n shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit" Fucking subhuman filth to even need to jackoff to cgi... Why not go bankrupt sending ya NEETbux to yet another Vtuber failed beta male hidding behind CGI and voice changer to milk desperate trash like the lot of you... But that would be too degrading wouldnet it... Better to pull ya pud off to cartoons of children though... Aryan indeed... I'm glad for the invasions of subhuman sandniggers and spics to the west destroying everything if it means this failed experiment called "life" ends faster and take these poor fucking excuses for "aryan" pedophiles with it so I can stop being ashamed of being white... As fucking worthless as "aryan brotherhood" biker trash meth heads acting exactly like the niggers they claim to want to remove... You fuckers are just anther fucking crypto kike agenda pusher.

/thread.

We should ban video games as they incite violence. If only video games were banned Charlie Kirk would be alive!

>>46469 Question: What about the shotacons? Do all the same arguments apply?

20th century: >light of my life, fire of my loins. My sin, my soul. 21st century: >UUUOOHHHH ToT wtf happened?

>>46465 This is just personal attacks. >>46469 This post misrepresents the fiction vs reality argument to imply liking loli is a thought crime and later goes into no-fap armchair neurologist territory by saying that masturbation is self-harm. He also admits that the obscene content law isn't enforced but then says "debunked" anyway.

>>46482 >Not refuting points raised >Taking format of post as personal attack Thank you for letting me know this is the fake chan for plebbitors.

>>46486 >this is the fake chan for plebbitors <Using the word "chan" <Calling others people "fake"

>>46486 <Not refuting points raised Why bother trying to refute anything when mods will just delete my posts cuz they cant handle the truth

>>46486 >refuting points raised >you are a degenerate jap loving cum slurping goodest goy zog bot subhuman sandnigger reject failure sending all your welfare money to male vtubers >i'm happy that muslims, who still do arranged marriages and early marriages, are invading the west and outbreeding white people like me who feel those things are evil taboos and get irrationally angry at the mere mention of them >because lower class whites who i look down on will also get swept away Uh...

Instead of moralfaggotry, let's try some actual fun controversial topics. I'll start: loli android prostitutes

>>46500 loli android WIFE

>>46500 abolish AoC

>>46465 Only a dead brain retard like you would get mad with people fapping to drawings

>>46500 That would be ideal, because guys could buy or rent their ideal loli and she'd never get old. There'd also be the possibility of interchangeable heads so if you bought a loli android you could change it if you ever got tired of your current loli.

>>46533 >abolish AoC why?

>>46500 I don't like that idea. Because prostitutes along with any person who had sex with multiple partners are the most prone to STDs. Plus, if the person they serve is Hispanic or Negro then the chances several fold.

>>46556 why not?

>>46580 Chesterton's fence: <In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it." Why were the laws established in the first place? Why do you want them removed? And what would be gained as a result of their removal?

>>46581 >Why were the laws established in the first place? Do you even know the answer to this yourself? I may not have the answer for when they were first established at 7-12 years, but I do know it was (((feminism))) which lobbied to increase it to 16-18. >Why do you want them removed? And what would be gained as a result of their removal? AoC stigmatizes sex. Look at how little sex gen Z is having. If you want western society to survive the birth rates have to go up, and for that people gotta start having more sex. Somewhat related, but CP should be legalized as well. The ones in power use it to eliminate dissidents. You know those movie scenes where a dirty cop pulls someone over and plants some weed on them and arrests them? It's the same thing.

>>46585 >Do you even know the answer to this yourself? No, and I don't need to. >I may not have the answer for when they were first established Then the laws stay in place unless you can explain why they first came into existence. >AoC stigmatizes sex How? >Look at how little sex gen Z is having You sure that isn't because of other factors? Like how expensive things has become, or because men don't want to be acused of rape, or because people don't have time for that shit. >If you want western society to survive the birth rates have to go up Except, this is a global collapse. Even countries that saw a population explosion over the past century are leveling off and starting to experience a population collapse. >Somewhat related, but CP should be legalized as well And you can fuck off.

>>46593 >No, and I don't need to. Yeah good goy don't question the propaganda you've been fed your entire life, I bet you also believe 6 gorillion jews were gassed. >Then the laws stay in place unless you can explain why they first came into existence. Don't kid yourself, the laws will never change as long as goycattle like you are not open to any serious discussion about the topic because it gives you the 'ick. >How? How often have you talked to your parents about sex? I bet just once when they gave you 'the talk'. Why is it that one of the basic human needs (reproduction) is such a taboo? >You sure that isn't because of other factors? I'm sure there are multiple reasons, that doesn't mean AoC isn't one of them. Honestly you sound like one of those health "experts" during covid who tried to blame the excess deaths on anything EXCEPT the vaxx. >because men don't want to be acused of rape So obviously the solution is to legalize rape. >Except, this is a global collapse. Yes and age of consent has been raised globally to 16 or 18 in most places, thank you for proving my point.

>>46594 >Yeah good goy don't question the propaganda What propaganda? You're the one who wants to remove AoC. So you need to explain to the rest of us WHY it exists in the first place before you're even allowed an argument for the purposes of removing it. >Why is it that one of the basic human needs (reproduction) is such a taboo? There's the Rosseau part of the argument. >I'm sure there are multiple reasons, that doesn't mean AoC isn't one of them. Okay, but you still haven't presented an argument for WHY it needs to be removed. Or why it even exists.

>>46594 >>46595 Also, why are you arguing about AoC in a thread that's about Ainu cave paintings?