Nov 1, 2021 2:33 PM
fiction has nothing to do with reality
Anime Relations:
Bakemonogatari, Ishuzoku Reviewers, Kaifuku Jutsushi no Yarinaoshi, Uzaki-chan wa Asobitai!
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*categorically refers to all little girl cartoon characters as lolis as if that is a perfectly naturally acquired habit and the idea of a loli is not a fetishistic fictional construct which has colonized my perception*)
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*spends thousands of real dollars yearly on spinoff content and memorabilia related to my favorite characters and the fictional worlds they inhabit*)
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*believes attraction to fictional characters is a sexuality unto itself and that my attraction to those characters is not related to their shared matrix of features that for some unaccountable reason yet resemble some familiar, perversely exaggerated but normative human concepts of feminine beauty*)
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*begs girlfriend to wear fox tail buttplug and make ahegao face when we have sex and yes btw i have touched a 3d girl before and yes i do call women 3d girls as if they are a mere construct secondary to anime characters! but it's ironic... tabun*)
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*somehow understands that i am supposed to take for granted characters in cartoons operate on a range of emotions and faculties resembling human consciousness with a logic i can already sufficiently comprehend without being explicitly told in every single show. incidentally i also assume other humans have these qualities and depend on that assumption to go about my social life*)
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*spends thousands of real dollars yearly on spinoff content and memorabilia related to my favorite characters and the fictional worlds they inhabit*)
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*believes attraction to fictional characters is a sexuality unto itself and that my attraction to those characters is not related to their shared matrix of features that for some unaccountable reason yet resemble some familiar, perversely exaggerated but normative human concepts of feminine beauty*)
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*begs girlfriend to wear fox tail buttplug and make ahegao face when we have sex and yes btw i have touched a 3d girl before and yes i do call women 3d girls as if they are a mere construct secondary to anime characters! but it's ironic... tabun*)
fiction has nothing to do with reality (*somehow understands that i am supposed to take for granted characters in cartoons operate on a range of emotions and faculties resembling human consciousness with a logic i can already sufficiently comprehend without being explicitly told in every single show. incidentally i also assume other humans have these qualities and depend on that assumption to go about my social life*)
Posted by
ohohohohohoho
| Nov 1, 2021 2:33 PM |
1 comments
 |
ohohohohohoho | Dec 4, 2021 5:33 AM
@Desolatedi find it funny that rather than address anything i said, you immediately presented these bizarrely specific questions of your own, but anyway: how am i supposed to know what makes someone a "potential child molester"? is someone only a "potential child molester" if they eventually do it? if not, then i think there is probably an unknowable and large amount of missing data on what makes someone a "potential child molester," because we don't know if a person has/had that potential, unless they do it, and it's discovered. what about a "potential child molester" who never does it? not all pedophiles molest children. meanwhile, people who are never diagnosed as pedophiles do. there's quite a difference between desire and action, and belief and action; and yet another difference between "what is" and "what we know." this is no reason, however, to pretend there is no recognizable correlation between any of these pairs of things. what i believe is lolicon do not want to be called pedophiles, but i doubt pedophiles "want" to be called pedophiles either, for that matter. do you have proof that pedophiles never masturbate to drawings of children? i would have to imagine that's a preferable course of action, to anyone with a conscience, to doing something illegal or harmful to actual children. even pedophiles presumably have consciences, after all. that's not what's at issue, here. then again, pedophiles have a "primary" attraction to children, i.e. they are attracted to children more than adults, and for a long time. so what about people who only fantasize about children occasionally? the question you are posing is simply not a useful way of framing the discussion. i don't think what you are asking is really likely to reveal much of anything. it's not about what i think is "wrong," either, incidentally. it's more a question of the nature of belief. people don't only act on their beliefs in the most obvious, direct ways, sometimes because they can't. for example, i can fantasize all i want about flying without any mechanical assistance. does that mean i'm going to jump off a tall building? no, despite my desire, i'll have to give up on my fantasy. i won't jump off a building because "i recognize the difference between fantasy and reality." or, i'll just have to settle for machine assisted flying. with pedophilia, too, there happens to be an alternative outlet for the fantasy, much like the machine assisted flying: drawn pictures of children. yes, the drawings are not literal, real children, i can tell that much. the question is what the difference is between a drawn child or a real child IN THE MIND. the drawings are a substitute outlet for a fantasy a person cannot directly satisfy because a person is not absolutely depraved or stupid. why wouldn't a pedophile masturbate to cartoons instead of doing something much worse? why can any person seemingly identify what is plainly, to anyone, a drawing of a little girl, but only lolicons seem to think their attraction to these drawn characters has nothing to do with the fact that the drawing is a representation of the thing anyone can see it's a representation of? even going so far as to say it's not supposed to be a drawing of a little girl at all? do drawings of little girls only cease to be recognizable as drawings of little girls to lolicons? that seems quite strange and unlikely. it makes sense to suspect that lolicons simply do not want to be called pedophiles, nor to accept that they're attracted to children, because... why would they? obviously, no, i cannot claim, nor prove that there is some kind of 1:1 correlation between lolicon and pedophilia, and no one ever can, under any circumstances, with any amount of selected data, whether it's actually true or not. there's probably not a 1:1 correlation anyway, though that doesn't mean there's no significant correlation. it's not necessary or sensible to say we either have to make such a specific, strong claim, or else no claim at all, because then it is just impossible to have a discussion about something that is not strictly concrete and immediately empirically provable to begin with. saying "you can't prove what lolicons are thinking, so you can only claim fiction has something to do with reality at all if lolicons do this specific, heinous, criminal thing, namely molesting a child, that even many diagnosed pedophiles don't do" is like saying "you can't prove god doesn't exist." no, of course, you can't prove it, much less prove it that specific ridiculous way. |
 |
Desolated | Dec 4, 2021 2:02 AM
Hmm, do you think someone who own a loli dakimakura are more likely of a potential child molester than those who don't? If yes then do you have any data that can back up your claims?Do you it is wrong for someone to wish to have a significant other who shares a lot of similar personality characteristics with their favorite anime character? |