The way people equate lolicons to real child abusers and yet champion furries as a liberating kink is something that really bugs me lately.
And as a leftist, it also bothers me that leftists and alleged lefties like Vaush, smart people with good takes and comprehension of society, feel the need to lie and hide their fetish when it gets accidentally exposed.
I know CP is a poison and being called pedophile is a plague that just terminates all thought and why the person would want to avoid that, but in his position, he really should have taken a stand for his personal fetish; could have been a watershed moment.
The way people equate lolicons to real child abusers and yet champion furries as a liberating kink is something that really bugs me lately.
And as a leftist, it also bothers me that leftists and alleged lefties like Vaush, smart people with good takes and comprehension of society, feel the need to lie and hide their fetish when it gets accidentally exposed.
I know CP is a poison and being called pedophile is a plague that just terminates all thought and why the person would want to avoid that, but in his position, he really should have taken a stand for his personal fetish; could have been a watershed moment.
You mean people who think and hate anime and making comparison to IRL stuff (loli like you said) but is actually a closet pedophile.
The way people equate lolicons to real child abusers and yet champion furries as a liberating kink is something that really bugs me lately.
So, I agree with the frustration at equating enjoyers of fictional content to real life criminals, it's highly detrimental to the discussion and prevention of child abuse. But what do furries have to do with this? Furry as a kink is no less harmless than loli/shota.
And as a leftist, it also bothers me that leftists and alleged lefties like Vaush, smart people with good takes and comprehension of society, feel the need to lie and hide their fetish when it gets accidentally exposed.
I know CP is a poison and being called pedophile is a plague that just terminates all thought and why the person would want to avoid that, but in his position, he really should have taken a stand for his personal fetish; could have been a watershed moment.
The problem is that Vaush has demonized loli content for years (while defending real life CP, bizarrely enough). He was well known for having really stupid takes about some popular anime, claiming them to cater to lolicons, no matter how little sense that claim actually made, and criticizing them for this.
The accidental reveal of his loli porn folder revealed him as a hypocrite. Owning the fetish would not have helped his position at all, though he would have at least looked less like an idiot.
So, I agree with the frustration at equating enjoyers of fictional content to real life criminals, it's highly detrimental to the discussion and prevention of child abuse. But what do furries have to do with this? Furry as a kink is no less harmless than loli/shota.
I'm pretty sure that was the point, they're both harmless kinks when kept to the realm of fiction by a functional adult, it's the nonfunctional people who go further who are the problem, yet the groups in question hold this double standard between them.
I'm pretty sure that was the point, they're both harmless kinks when kept to the realm of fiction by a functional adult, it's the nonfunctional people who go further who are the problem, yet the groups in question hold this double standard between them.
Sadly, and as they say, misery sells. The information of a few degenerates doing sick things is more interesting than the hundreds (Maybe thousands) of functional people with those aforementioned kinks living a normal life and being normal human beings. And sometimes, being even better persons than whose name themselves as the guardians of moral and justice. You know what I'm talking about.
Of course, it doesn't help the people's obsession to polarize topics. Everything must be black and white, everything must be 100% negative, or 100% positive, there's no other way it seems. In the attempt of simplifying things they get ironically more complicated, because trying to be objective about a topic implies leaving your preconception and biases about the matter behind, and let's be honest: Not everyone is willing to do that.
I'm pretty sure that was the point, they're both harmless kinks when kept to the realm of fiction by a functional adult, it's the nonfunctional people who go further who are the problem, yet the groups in question hold this double standard between them.
That's really not how their comment reads to me. It reads like they're saying that furry content should be criticized, and it's hypocritical that they criticize loli/shota but glorify furry.
But that point doesn't make any sense if both kinks are harmless. If furry is harmless, then why use it as an example of hypocrisy? It's not a double standard if there's nothing wrong with the kink.
That's really not how their comment reads to me. It reads like they're saying that furry content should be criticized, and it's hypocritical that they criticize loli/shota but glorify furry.
But that point doesn't make any sense if both kinks are harmless. If furry is harmless, then why use it as an example of hypocrisy? It's not a double standard if there's nothing wrong with the kink.
Maybe it was about the fact neither kids nor animals can give consent in real life? They may be conflating furries with zoophiles.
Wtf is this hot garbage, why a person who just for expample, wants to play a simple silly game or whatever shit is in appstore, compare to literal pedofiles, I know that you will say "achtualy is a drawing of a girl, not a literal girl", it is still by definition an attraction to minors, and what is it about society to demonize video games as if they were Hitler's machination to destroy minorities or something similar, jeez
Wtf is this hot garbage, why a person who just for expample, wants to play a simple silly game or whatever shit is in appstore, compare to literal pedofiles, I know that you will say "achtualy is a drawing of a girl, not a literal girl", it is still by definition an attraction to minors, and what is it about society to demonize video games as if they were Hitler's machination to destroy minorities or something similar, jeez
Just so you know, the artist regularly draws loli stuff. This is just a joke, not a hit piece.
It's also not still "by definition" an attraction to minors. I happen to be okay with loli, but the idea of doing anything with a real child makes me physically ill. Child abusers are scum, and I don't understand how anyone could be attracted to those noisy, snot filled gremlins.
Love seeing who made this, seeing the broken twitter link tag, then seeing their suspended twitter account. A story told in a few clicks. Have to assume this image left it's target audience real fast, a true modern internet moment.
Wtf is this hot garbage, why a person who just for expample, wants to play a simple silly game or whatever shit is in appstore, compare to literal pedofiles, I know that you will say "achtualy is a drawing of a girl, not a literal girl", it is still by definition an attraction to minors, and what is it about society to demonize video games as if they were Hitler's machination to destroy minorities or something similar, jeez
you just answered your own question in what you said. some people react to video games the way you did over a drawing. they see video game violence and correlate that into being actual violence.
you just answered your own question in what you said. some people react to video games the way you did over a drawing. they see video game violence and correlate that into being actual violence.
I think you are being disingenuous if you think the argument that depiction of the act = act. The point of actual contention is that depictions legitimize it and condone it as entertainment.
I think you are being disingenuous if you think the argument that depiction of the act = act. The point of actual contention is that depictions legitimize it and condone it as entertainment.
The same points have been made about fictional violence in media, but most people don't really seem to care anymore and gamers have always defended violence's place in video games, so it's still hypocritical to argue against loli/shota art and not argue against fictional violence based only on those points. The only difference is that the former is more geared toward getting people off, which makes some people more willing to cross the line from "This is gross and I won't look at it" to "You're gross for liking it and I will judge you" or even "They're gross for promoting it and should be shut down/arrested." The above complaint of "literal pedofiles (sic)" is a good example of this.
I think you are being disingenuous if you think the argument that depiction of the act = act. The point of actual contention is that depictions legitimize it and condone it as entertainment.
The argument has always been playing violent videogames makes you violent in real life. "If you play violent videogames, then you will become more violent, or have violent fantasies, or even have plans to commit violence." When this criticism of videogames was at its peak, several convicted murderers of various ages cited videogames as being why they did it, lending credence to the claims that videogames made people violent.
However, decades of scientific studies have repeatedly failed to find any correlation between playing violent videogames and a tendency to engage in real violence. Anytime a study claims to have found a connection, it always turns out that they heavily misrepresented their findings or used extremely flawed scientific processes resulting in heavily biased results. Several studies even found evidence that playing games actually reduces the likelihood of an individual to commit violence.
Now, what about loli/shota? That's harder to research, mostly for the taboo surrounding the subject, but studies have been conducted, and they've mostly returned the same results as the studies on violent videogames. That is, there's little practical correlation between someone that consumes fictional content of subjects with the appearance of a minor, and someone who actually consumes real life CP or even predates on real children. There's some overlap, but it's the same kind of overlap as seen with videogames. Many people consume the fictional content without ever posing a danger to a real life person, some people never consume fictional content but still go on to create victims, and some consume fictional content and are actual predators. But there's never been any evidence found that consuming fiction leads to committing real life crimes.
It's a stupid argument no matter what the topic, because studies always return the same results. That being that for the average person, X does not cause Y, and someone who commits Y showed all of the signs that they were already predisposed to it with or without X's influence. Consumption of X may even reduce a desire to commit Y.
Tldr: Claiming fictional content creates criminals is scientifically unsupported thought crime BS. Maybe stop doing things like letting pro smash players hang out unsupervised with people half their age instead of screaming at random people on the internet for stroking it to an anime character if you care so much about child abuse.
Perhaps he should have read and understood the X (formerly Twitter) terms of service. Not engaging in self-sabotaging provocateur behavior would also have been smart. I like orenji's art, generally, but this whole affair was very dumb. Anglophone people in general need to understand that this kind of behavior, namely trying to participate in meme culture via phrases like cunny, child gf et al. will not work in your favor if your happen to enjoy any kind risque subculture art. What you'll accomplish is drawing unnecessary attention and getting niche spaces stomped out, exactly like what has happened to booth, fanbox, pixiv request and is currently happening to getchu and dlsite. Twitter (subsequently X) accounts of loli artist have been getting actively nuked since 2018, how about developing some sense of self-preservation? Do you never stop to think why eastern creators (ie, the ones creating the good works) do not behave this way?
As a tangent - I posit that the broader problem here is that the modern algorithm driven Internet and "meme culture" has stunted people's minds and they do not understand what a subculture even is or how it is supposed to function. Everything is meant to be a big spectacle to appeal to the broadest possible contingent of loud retards in an endlessly brutal regression to the mean. No space can exist separated from other spaces and serve a specific set of needs to a specific group of people, and even if it manages to emerge the algorithm with inevitably drag it out and try to make a spectacle out of it. Creators end up participating in it because no one wants to dwell in obscurity and the notion that overexposure is damaging only becomes apparent after the damage is done. Is there even a way for a niche to safely exist anymore? Only temporarily, until it has to contend with meme culture. When it reaches that point, talking about the damage done to spaces like pixiv and dlsite or how creators are getting censored is futile because the people brought in never cared about it on a primary, direct way, but only on the meme level (socialization, not works or creators).
Perhaps he should have read and understood the X (formerly Twitter) terms of service. Not engaging in self-sabotaging provocateur behavior would also have been smart. I like orenji's art, generally, but this whole affair was very dumb. Anglophone people in general need to understand that this kind of behavior, namely trying to participate in meme culture via phrases like cunny, child gf et al. will not work in your favor if your happen to enjoy any kind risque subculture art. What you'll accomplish is drawing unnecessary attention and getting niche spaces stomped out, exactly like what has happened to booth, fanbox, pixiv request and is currently happening to getchu and dlsite. Twitter (subsequently X) accounts of loli artist have been getting actively nuked since 2018, how about developing some sense of self-preservation? Do you never stop to think why eastern creators (ie, the ones creating the good works) do not behave this way?
They got suspended because they got mass reported, that's all. I can guarantee you a real person wasn't involved in the suspension at all, nor will one be involved if the artist appeals the suspension. Loli/shota content gets posted to twitter all the time, no one cares until crusaders start filling mass reports and the moderation bots handle the rest. I'm not even sure it violates Twitter's rules. The exact rules:
visual depictions of a child engaging in sexually explicit or sexually suggestive acts;
illustrated, computer-generated or other forms of realistic depictions of a human child in a sexually explicit context, or engaging in sexually explicit acts;
sexualized commentaries about or directed at a known or unknown minor; and
links to third-party sites that host child sexual exploitation material.
The second points specifies realistic depictions, and the full set of rules make repeated mention of "child sexual exploitation material" which loli/shota is not. No one ever gets banned for saying degenerate things about BA characters, even though just talking about sexualizing children is enough. The only reason any of this stuff gets people in trouble is because people report it, and moderation isn't handled by real people, not that I trust a real person would make the distinction between fiction and reality either.
People have been trying to semantically wrangle the rules on that site for years. The first point does cover stylized depictions, even if they do not directly spell it out. This is why Japanese artists have been getting suspended for years, this is commonly known information to them. The ones that avoid suspension generally rely on security by obscurity. The ones that don't simply evade suspension continuously, since the site makes it easy to do so. https://togetter.com/li/1322732 https://togetter.com/search?q=%E3%83%AD%E3%83%AA+%E5%87%8D%E7%B5%90&t=q#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%E3%83%AD%E3%83%AA%20%E5%87%8D%E7%B5%90&gsc.page=1 It goes back as far as 2015, went into overdrive in 2018 and in 2019 the terms were officially changed to include visual depictions. I don't understand why people insist on playing language games when the practical reality of the situation can be observed and easily understood. Ties very well into my point about lacking a sense of self-preservation.
Orenji got suspended less than 7 days after this post blew up on twitter. Truly a 'more money more problems' moment. He should have set his account to private the second his post made it to KYM, and then just lay low for a week or two.
The same points have been made about fictional violence in media, but most people don't really seem to care anymore and gamers have always defended violence's place in video games, so it's still hypocritical to argue against loli/shota art and not argue against fictional violence based only on those points. The only difference is that the former is more geared toward getting people off, which makes some people more willing to cross the line from "This is gross and I won't look at it" to "You're gross for liking it and I will judge you" or even "They're gross for promoting it and should be shut down/arrested." The above complaint of "literal pedofiles (sic)" is a good example of this.
No, it's not the same. The argument on violence in video games is that video games sculpted violent behavior. loli argument is that pedos look for loli. The cause and effect relations are completely flipped. This is why I consider the defense of it so disingenuous. It's a deliberate misreading of the basic premise to justify their desired outcome. Video game violence argument got the flak for doing the same thing, and so should the loli defense.
No, it's not the same. The argument on violence in video games is that video games sculpted violent behavior. loli argument is that pedos look for loli. The cause and effect relations are completely flipped. This is why I consider the defense of it so disingenuous. It's a deliberate misreading of the basic premise to justify their desired outcome. Video game violence argument got the flak for doing the same thing, and so should the loli defense.
I don't think the fact that actual pedophiles would enjoy it is a good argument against it either. And if you meant they could use it for grooming purposes, I'm sure real CP, or even legal adult pornography, would be sufficient, and probably more effective.
I don't think the fact that actual pedophiles would enjoy it is a good argument against it either. And if you meant they could use it for grooming purposes, I'm sure real CP, or even legal adult pornography, would be sufficient, and probably more effective.
No, I'm saying it's entertainment catering to that degeneracy not merely they happen to enjoy it. "Hitler liked dogs thus all dogs are bad" is not the argument. "Jewish snuff is made for Hitler" is the point. It's catering and normalization that's the source of the argument. The intent of the entertainment isn't tangentally appealing to awful people, it's directly marketing toward them.
No, I'm saying it's entertainment catering to that degeneracy not merely they happen to enjoy it. "Hitler liked dogs thus all dogs are bad" is not the argument. "Jewish snuff is made for Hitler" is the point. It's catering and normalization that's the source of the argument. The intent of the entertainment isn't tangentally appealing to awful people, it's directly marketing toward them.
Ah, making assumptions about other people's intentions, a classic fake argument.
No, I'm saying it's entertainment catering to that degeneracy not merely they happen to enjoy it. "Hitler liked dogs thus all dogs are bad" is not the argument. "Jewish snuff is made for Hitler" is the point. It's catering and normalization that's the source of the argument. The intent of the entertainment isn't tangentally appealing to awful people, it's directly marketing toward them.
"Violent videogames are made for murderers." It's the same argument.
No, I'm saying it's entertainment catering to that degeneracy not merely they happen to enjoy it. "Hitler liked dogs thus all dogs are bad" is not the argument. "Jewish snuff is made for Hitler" is the point. It's catering and normalization that's the source of the argument. The intent of the entertainment isn't tangentally appealing to awful people, it's directly marketing toward them.
So you're saying loli genre is tailored for paedophiles? I don't know about you, but I don't think paedophiles target fictional characters, they target real people and that's what's disgusting. The fact, it might also be enjoyed by paedophiles doesn't mean it was tailored for them, we don't make movies about horrifying gore and serial killers, because it's something actual serial killers would enjoy, it's because a lot of people enjoy the fictional aspect of such a scenario and the unfortunate side effect is that serial killers may like it too and be inspired by it, but that doesn't make that piece of entertainment an endorsement call for more serial killers.
The whole theme of equating loli genre to paedophilia is a horribly vague opinion that only takes into account those who cannot separate fiction from reality and thus blur it intentionally, but that does not mean that piece suddenly becomes 'normalisation' of that tag. There may be higher percentage of people who enjoy it in a more lewd way, but most to nearly all, do not find attraction to children, it's the fiction aspect which they're more lured to not the reality aspect; basic self-control doesn't suddenly fly out of the window for anything with risque, controversial or gore related themes. It's also why we shouldn't equate furries to suddenly being responsible for increases in zoophilia, just because that genre exists, doesn't mean people who like to pretend to be anthropomorphic creatures like to shag dogs and cats.
No, I'm saying it's entertainment catering to that degeneracy not merely they happen to enjoy it. "Hitler liked dogs thus all dogs are bad" is not the argument. "Jewish snuff is made for Hitler" is the point. It's catering and normalization that's the source of the argument. The intent of the entertainment isn't tangentally appealing to awful people, it's directly marketing toward them.
The artists get off on fictional kids, and they're catering to other people who get off on fictional kids. Sure, there may be some true pedophiles and even child rapists who enjoy it, but they're usually a periphery demographic. As long as they're not doing anything harmful to real children or benefiting from the harm of real children, I see no reason to judge them.
One thing I do agree with is that lolicon/shotacon stuff (as in the sexualized stuff, not the sanitized loli/shota-adjacent stuff) should not be normalized. It is inherently an alienating genre and therefore should not be pushed on mainstream audiences. Lolicon/shotacon-free spaces do need to be maintained so typical fans of a franchise can continue to interact with it comfortably. It's harmful to both sides when loli/shota fans spread memes to the general fandom of a mainstream franchise and when anti-loli/shota people invade loli/shota groups to call them degenerates. Good fences make for good neighbors and all that.
Kaktus_Lata said:
If a guy jacks off to a drawing of wolves, does that mean he's not a zoophile?
That's the thing; he is technically a zoophile just as a lolicon or shotacon is technically a pedophile, but the latter term is so strongly associated with criminals like child rapists that a lot of them don't want that label attached to them. They know if you call someone a pedo that others will jump to the worst possible interpretation of what that means.
Frankly, I don't care what someone's attracted to as long as they have the sense and self-control not to act on it in ways harmful to others.
EDIT: Forgot to clarify that my point was that watching two people murder each other on TV is fundamentally different from watching porn. You are, let's say, a more "active" participant in the latter. But thanks to compartmentalization, people can enjoy it without getting the urge to apply for a second job as an ice cream truck driver.
Really good pieces of art inspire conversation, incite arguments, and get people talking. When I first saw this image, I didn't think to myself it would be "good art", but it seems this has really struck a chord with people. What a time to be alive.
Unless of course Citrus has some sources of their own that we can compare them to.
That shota/loli is indeed child porn? How about that it's literally drawings of children in pornographic media? "But it's fiction" So yaoi isn't gay porn because it's not real? Hentai isn't porn because it's not real sex? Get fucking real. Loli media defenders are disgusting.
That shota/loli is indeed child porn? How about that it's literally drawings of children in pornographic media? "But it's fiction" So yaoi isn't gay porn because it's not real? Hentai isn't porn because it's not real sex? Get fucking real. Loli media defenders are disgusting.
I don't see the issue if it's not harming anyone. You're not going to convince anyone here if you provide zero studies and call anyone who disagrees with you a pedophile.
That shota/loli is indeed child porn? How about that it's literally drawings of children in pornographic media? "But it's fiction" So yaoi isn't gay porn because it's not real? Hentai isn't porn because it's not real sex? Get fucking real. Loli media defenders are disgusting.
It doesn't matter how you call it. The fact is that child porn is bad because it implies abusive actions towards children. The emphasis is on actions. You're basically arguing about preferences. Preferences are just thoughts and as a result have no value in terms of morality. Liking something doesn't make anyone a good\bad person, people can't control it. Only actions can be truly evaluated as good or bad because people do have agency over them. So unless you can provide a proof of a statistically significant cause and effect relationship between acceptance of Loli media and rates of offences against children - your normalization argument is just another appeal to emotions. If I remember correctly, the UN statistics shows pretty much the opposite. Japan has significantly lower rates of offences against both adults and children than many western countries while having comparable reporting rates. My personal position is to live and let live. I don't care what someone's attracted to as long as they don't harm other people.
That shota/loli is indeed child porn? How about that it's literally drawings of children in pornographic media? "But it's fiction" So yaoi isn't gay porn because it's not real? Hentai isn't porn because it's not real sex? Get fucking real. Loli media defenders are disgusting.
I don't see the issue if it's not harming anyone. You're not going to convince anyone here if you provide zero studies and call anyone who disagrees with you a pedophile.
Since you tried to sidestep the issue that it's not harming anyone, so you do agree that loli is just child porn then, yes? Answer the question. Is yaoi gay porn despite it only depicts fictional men? Is hentai porn despite the fact that it's an image of sex? So, is loli child porn or not?
Since you tried to sidestep the issue that it's not harming anyone, so you do agree that loli is just child porn then, yes? Answer the question. Is yaoi gay porn despite it only depicts fictional men? Is hentai porn despite the fact that it's an image of sex? So, is loli child porn or not?
It's literally not CP according to the people that care the most about whether or not something is CP. The organizations that fight against child abuse openly reject the notion that fictional content of fictional characters is CP because their mission is to protect children, not jail every person that's ever had a sexual thought about Kanna Kamui.
You know you're literally on a site that hosts loli/shota content, run by people who will not hesitate to tell you to fuck off if you make a big enough fuss about how evil sexualizing fictional characters is, right?
I eagerly await your addition to the wall of shame, mister anti-loli crusader
It's literally not CP according to the people that care the most about whether or not something is CP. The organizations that fight against child abuse openly reject the notion that fictional content of fictional characters is CP because their mission is to protect children, not jail every person that's ever had a sexual thought about Kanna Kamui.
You know you're literally on a site that hosts loli/shota content, run by people who will not hesitate to tell you to fuck off if you make a big enough fuss about how evil sexualizing fictional characters is, right?
I eagerly await your addition to the wall of shame, mister anti-loli crusader
Answer the question. So, is yaoi not gay porn then? Is hentai not porn? Also site allowing awful shit doesnt magically turn things not awful. Guro doesn't magically turn into wholesome entertainment just because it's on this site.
Answer the question. So, is yaoi not gay porn then? Is hentai not porn? Also site allowing awful shit doesnt magically turn things not awful. Guro doesn't magically turn into wholesome entertainment just because it's on this site.
I don't need to answer those questions because they're stupid. Answering those questions doesn't prove anything. They're an entirely different situation because no one's comparing them to real life crimes. A better comparison is comparing rape fantasy porn to real life rape. Is someone a rapist for getting off to rape porn? No, of course not. They aren't hurting anyone and a normal person can fantasize about something they would never actually do. Guro's a great example, too. Is someone a murderer for enjoying guro porn? No.
And I didn't say anything about this site hosting any kind of content making it okay for that content to exist. What I'm saying is that you've been here for a year, you must be aware what kind of content this site hosts, you should be fully aware what this site's stance on it is, but only now do you feel the need to make a big shit about this content.
Your dumbass questions are loaded. There's no answer that doesn't make you "right" because you're not interested in having a fair discussion. Your entire argument is rooted in biased appeals to emotion. You're just here to moralize and condemn. I could link dozens of studies and experts that contradict everything you're saying, and you would dismiss all of it. An utter waste of time.
Heck, even the answer to those loaded questions are on the studies I linked to.
For “escalation theory” used with serial killers and other sexual deviants to work they would have to already be pedophiles and using loli stuff as a substitute.
Lolicons aren’t using the content as a substitute. They are literally attracted to the visual stimulation of the art style of the cartoon.
Studies currently suggest pedophiles may be born that way or a brain injury occurs in childhood. So I don’t think it would be possible to get them to develop fictophilla because their brain is different on a functional level. They have less white brain matter than control groups.
While lolicons usually develop slowly overtime due to Hentai access and exposure during childhood.
The treatment for lolicons takes few months to a few years. As it’s mostly undoing a habit. The treatment is nearly the same as the treatment for porn induced erectile dysfunction.
Treatment for pedos is usually Cognitive behavior training, Relapse prevention and aversion conditioning
Because it needs to be reminded. Lolis don't look like actual children do to begin with.
I don't need to answer those questions because they're stupid. Answering those questions doesn't prove anything. They're an entirely different situation because no one's comparing them to real life crimes. A better comparison is comparing rape fantasy porn to real life rape. Is someone a rapist for getting off to rape porn? No, of course not. They aren't hurting anyone and a normal person can fantasize about something they would never actually do. Guro's a great example, too. Is someone a murderer for enjoying guro porn? No.
And I didn't say anything about this site hosting any kind of content making it okay for that content to exist. What I'm saying is that you've been here for a year, you must be aware what kind of content this site hosts, you should be fully aware what this site's stance on it is, but only now do you feel the need to make a big shit about this content.
Your dumbass questions are loaded. There's no answer that doesn't make you "right" because you're not interested in having a fair discussion. Your entire argument is rooted in biased appeals to emotion. You're just here to moralize and condemn. I could link dozens of studies and experts that contradict everything you're saying, and you would dismiss all of it. An utter waste of time.
Answer the question. If it's not being compared to real life then why are they considered respectively gay and pornography? Rape fantasy porn is still rape porn, so why is child fantasy porn not child porn. If gay fantasy porn is still gay porn, then why do you refuse to admit that child fantasy porn is till child porn? it's double standard. If it's gonna be that homosexuality becomes illegal globally, you are gonna act like yaoi isn't gay porn now?
carlosraruto said:
Heck, even the answer to those loaded questions are on the studies I linked to.
Because it needs to be reminded. Lolis don't look like actual children do to begin with.
That's still idiotic because yaoi handed men don't look like actual gay men, but it's still gay porn because it's a depiction of gay men. You are trying to argue artstyle in hypocritical manner.
I have no idea what is the point of arguing about semantics and baiting people to call lolicon 'child porn'. Bring an actual argument to the table. Maybe consider addressing if loli/shota content is actually harmful and if it's even worth wasting your time commenting here over it.
This entire discussion is so pointless. A couple weeks ago I showed someone I trust a couple loli pics because I feared I wasn't quite right in the head. She, a psychologist and acting as my social worker, pretty much immediately pointed out that she doesn't really see the issue because the body proportions are actually very adult-like, which matters because she had barely ever any contact with anime stuff before working with me so there was no bias one way or the other. Guess what, this was a huge relief to me because for years I feared what my real attractions are, if I'm maybe dangerous.
If the sort of art you enjoy depicts things like wide hips, congratulations, you enjoy anime art for what it is and are not in fact substituting anything. And if you still do because you genuinely fear what you might do, please seek professional help. However, condemning someone else merely over an attraction they have doesn't help ANYONE, and neither do fraudulent comparisons between reality and fiction (that's why those things are separate to begin with). If you can't discern between what is clearly fictional and what is not, I urge you too to seek professional help.
I have no idea what is the point of arguing about semantics and baiting people to call lolicon 'child porn'. Bring an actual argument to the table. Maybe consider addressing if loli/shota content is actually harmful and if it's even worth wasting your time commenting here over it.
I want no hypocrisy or cowardice. Just call it what it is. I know that none of you actually answered the question still and it's clear why
I want no hypocrisy or cowardice. Just call it what it is. I know that none of you actually answered the question still and it's clear why
The reason no one's "calling it what it is" is not hypocrisy, but tact and self-preservation.
If you told a random stranger you like watching violent movies, would they assume you're watching slasher films, or snuff films?
If you told a random stranger you like watching child porn, would they assume you're watching animated lolis/shotas, or real children?
When explaining something like this in literal terms without qualifiers as you're proposing people here should do, you're just asking to be misinterpreted. If people didn't make it really obvious their attraction is only to drawings or didn't use obfuscating terminology, they could get unwanted attention from law enforcement even if they're not doing anything illegal.
It's really not surprising that loli/shota fans would rather disassociate with a loaded term than use it to describe themselves even if they could using its literal definition. If they tried, others would just force the focus back to the most negative connotations. It lumps them in with people that actually have a good reason for being reviled, which paints a target on their backs.
Perhaps he should have read and understood the X (formerly Twitter) terms of service. Not engaging in self-sabotaging provocateur behavior would also have been smart. I like orenji's art, generally, but this whole affair was very dumb. Anglophone people in general need to understand that this kind of behavior, namely trying to participate in meme culture via phrases like cunny, child gf et al. will not work in your favor if your happen to enjoy any kind risque subculture art. What you'll accomplish is drawing unnecessary attention and getting niche spaces stomped out, exactly like what has happened to booth, fanbox, pixiv request and is currently happening to getchu and dlsite. Twitter (subsequently X) accounts of loli artist have been getting actively nuked since 2018, how about developing some sense of self-preservation? Do you never stop to think why eastern creators (ie, the ones creating the good works) do not behave this way?
As a tangent - I posit that the broader problem here is that the modern algorithm driven Internet and "meme culture" has stunted people's minds and they do not understand what a subculture even is or how it is supposed to function. Everything is meant to be a big spectacle to appeal to the broadest possible contingent of loud retards in an endlessly brutal regression to the mean. No space can exist separated from other spaces and serve a specific set of needs to a specific group of people, and even if it manages to emerge the algorithm with inevitably drag it out and try to make a spectacle out of it. Creators end up participating in it because no one wants to dwell in obscurity and the notion that overexposure is damaging only becomes apparent after the damage is done. Is there even a way for a niche to safely exist anymore? Only temporarily, until it has to contend with meme culture. When it reaches that point, talking about the damage done to spaces like pixiv and dlsite or how creators are getting censored is futile because the people brought in never cared about it on a primary, direct way, but only on the meme level (socialization, not works or creators).