What is your opinion on loli?
I can't stand it.
27.6%
91
Meh, don't care.
13.9%
46
I love loli.
33.9%
112
Some is good, some is gross.
24.5%
81
330 votes
| I'm not disagreeing with you Kopanda, but I think it's sad how we are unable to see someone suck an ice-lolly without linking it to sex. Gotta stay away from them ice-lollies, sausage rolls and other cylindrical shaped food items. |
Crystal said: I'm not disagreeing with you Kopanda, but I think it's sad how we are unable to see someone suck an ice-lolly without linking it to sex. Gotta stay away from them ice-lollies, sausage rolls and other cylindrical shaped food items. I'm sure they've been in anime without looking sexual at all, definitely not in loli anime. It's why we see those things as sexual that's sad not the fact that we see it as sexual. |
Anti Loli Association Sick of Lolis? Come join the ALA!  |
| WoW This thread was an amazing read. It was crazy to see MAL get this vicious on eachother which is not something Im used to seeing. I am in fact a supporter of Loli, but not of pedophile style imagies. Sometimes the loli pics push the envelopes but when something really crosses the line I know were my own personal limits are and were I stop. I dont think the attacks on SOL were nessecary but whatever, lol. Frankly there are to many people on the internet and on this site I really only care what 2 maybe 3 have to say. Beyond that Im just to tired to care lol. |
 |
| Groovewolf that picture is disgusting (doesn't even look like anime) and like we've been telling you lolis and lolicon are two different things. If you keep looking at the wikipedia article for "lolicon" you will find very weird things like that. All of us have said this many times so I don't see what the problem is and why you keep bringing it up but I'll bring it up one more time, sorry to the other readers for repetitiveness. Lolis is lolis, simple as that. Not necessarily taken sexually but they, like anime, can always be skewed in that direction. When you add "complex" to the end of lolis, meaning "obsession" with said lolis, you get "lolicon", which implies sexual connotations. There's two words right there that mean two different things on the same subject. It's not difficult to understand albeit it may be confusing if you don't know where the two terms are coming from but we've repeated this several times before I don't see what the problem is. Kopanda I can't really comment on that Manabi reference because I haven't seen the show but it sounds possible that there could be comedic value in the scene you described. That's just me musing, like I said I haven't seen the show. I really don't think nearly all loli characters are sexualized at one point. In fact I think it's very far from that. I'm looking at my list right now and I see far more anime with lolis that have not been portrayed in any way fanservicey or sexually than otherwise. Perhaps I don't watch enough loli shows but wouldn't that be ironic? Let's see now some examples I see are Hidamari Sketch, Lucky Star (although the show does play around with the idea of lolicons being Konata's dad), sola, Hayate the Combat Butler, Ichigo Mashimaro, Haruhi Suzumiya, and Azumanga Daioh which I know you enjoyed. These shows depict lolis as innocent without perverting their images for lolicons to drool over (at least to the best of my knowledge). Arixx the solution to your problem is quite simple actually. Not all loli images and wallpapers show them in suggestive poses, so if you want to post a character you like who happens to be a loli on your wallpaper at work...then find a non-suggestive picture. It's not difficult, that's what I usually do anyway. My wallpaper right now contains Michiru from Air along with her sister Minagi, and they're just looking at the starry sky. Really, not a problem. If the problem is that your tastes are just the type that like older mature characters that really can't be helped but realize that some of us don't prefer that and that's why loli characters exist. (and seriously...Mao? from Code Geass? lol) |
Kopanda said: I get what you mean but loli too often crosses the line into lolicon anyway. Take Manabi Straight for example, your typical loli characters with heavy moe. At first I was like "Oh nice, high school lolis without fanservice or cheap and gross pantyshots" etc etc. Then the series progressed and there were a couple of insignificant scenes that kinda shocked me. I was watching thinking "yeah this is kinda boring" then all of a sudden there's a scene with one girl sucking on an ice lolly and it was too phallic to ignore. From serious moeness and absolute innocent girls (albeit with a size too small skirts) the series went over the line and seriously it was not very subtle at all I hope SOL members can at least admit that. I don't think I'm overreacting by judging the series on that small scene. If that small clip of Momo (I think) sucking on the icecream was even related to the cute girls then that must mean that I had just been watching really softcore lolicon. Perhaps that's the reason why we're all having difficulty agreeing on a definition for loli and why the loli-fans are having a hard time convincing us that loli is so completely different to lolicon. Nearly all loli characters are at some point in their on-screen time sexualized, be it subtle or overt. The fact is that they are and if you say that sucking on an ice lolly is just a captured moment of innocent childhood pleasure then you must either be really naive or lying. It's Mutsuki. Anyway, it's all about perception. Yes, when I first saw that animated avatar before watching the episode, it was obvious that it would be taken in a sexual way. It can't be denied. But it's also obvious (to me and perhaps several others) that in many anime, the staff of the show play with such visuals for fans or whatever. And who knows if any popsicle-sucking moments in most anime cannot be associated in the same manner. Even if there was, leave it to someone to ruin the image. Anyway, that scene was only about two seconds long (total guess), and I was busy admiring Mutuski and Mika's friendship. No seriously. I liked the show because of that. As I said, some suggestive moments bother me and some don't. If it's an anime that I'm interested in watching, then I'll watch it regardless. Heck, even if it plays with crossing the line, then I'll probably still finish watching it, as a I tend to not leave things unfinished. It all depends. My Dropped list only consists of anime I stopped watching on TV anyway. |
AsrialysJun 7, 2007 6:47 AM
| You all are saying lolicon are bad and so..., but why then, do no one care about removing lolicon-pictures from the SOL Brigade? I don't get it... "We do not want any of that inside! Wait, don't close the door for 'em..." |
Ufozile said: You all are saying lolicon are bad and so..., but why then, do no one care about removing lolicon-pictures from the SOL Brigade? I don't get it... "We do not want any of that inside! Wait, don't close the door for 'em..." Perception. Others view things differently. Yes, some of the images in the SOL Brigade probably had lolicon written all over them from creation. Heh, but I was only aware of them after joining this thread. Never looked before :P |
Asrialys said: It is of no concern of you then ;) It's not like I'm talking about everyone, and not every picture either.Ufozile said: You all are saying lolicon are bad and so..., but why then, do no one care about removing lolicon-pictures from the SOL Brigade? I don't get it... "We do not want any of that inside! Wait, don't close the door for 'em..." Perception. Others view things differently. Yes, some of the images in the SOL Brigade probably had lolicon written all over them from creation. Heh, but I was only aware of them after joining this thread. Never looked before :P |
Ufozile said: You all are saying lolicon are bad and so..., but why then, do no one care about removing lolicon-pictures from the SOL Brigade? I don't get it... "We do not want any of that inside! Wait, don't close the door for 'em..." erm, did everyone miss my post from the previous page? people need to stop skipping every page until the last page. that's how repetition happens on these kinds of threads. |
kei-clone said: Uhm?? I've read all 8 pages... don't you find Ufozile said: You all are saying lolicon are bad and so..., but why then, do no one care about removing lolicon-pictures from the SOL Brigade? I don't get it... "We do not want any of that inside! Wait, don't close the door for 'em..." erm, did everyone miss my post from the previous page? people need to stop skipping every page until the last page. that's how repetition happens on these kinds of threads. http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?action=view&t=pic&id=2&pid=1736 http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?action=view&t=pic&id=2&pid=270 these sexual in any way? |
Ufozile said: http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?action=view&t=pic&id=2&pid=1736 Haha, yeah...Considering some of the content of the show and that the image is a Megami magazine scan (I think), all I can say is "that's how it is for that." http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?action=view&t=pic&id=2&pid=270 Hm...well, it is based on that sort of PC game. And she's in high school and an accomplished author, by the way :P Also, they're both about the same age: 16-ish Of course they're sexual connotations in all sorts of images. Whether or not a person takes the idea further is up to them. |
kei-clone said: erm, did everyone miss my post from the previous page? people need to stop skipping every page until the last page. that's how repetition happens on these kinds of threads. KC I totally read every page. I definetily suggest people read the entire thing before jumping into this arguement. It is definetly worth the read to get started. |
|
kei-clone said: I have gone through the SOL images and after weighing the sexual innuendo against the innocence or comedic value of each picture, I have decided to remove one picture that to me cannot lead to any other thoughts but sexual ones. Another picture I also removed because I deemed it low quality ugliness. Every other picture is fine and do not necessarily have sexual connotations to them (except for the loli bible, that's just funny). There, we have proven that us loli-supporters are not unable to listen to reason. I see an entire slew of fallacies with many of the previous arguments brought up before this post (especially the google search on "lolita") but I feel that countering those now is not necessary, and I'm supposed to be studying for my exam anyway. Now once again I hope we can come to an understanding and everyone can accept LOLIISM for what it truly is. Thanks, anyways like I said I am done debating here. At least I ended up accomplishing something from all this. |
Check out how a pimp blings.  |
HO MY GADS LOOK IT'S LOLI AND SHOUTA Classic art is so sick XD /parody |
| Wow, any point? |
| That mass-populous scrutiny of the sexualization of pre-pubescent forms in art and literature was only made popular in the Victorian era. In other words. Before 1837, kiddie porn wasn't such a big flippin deal. |
| How old are you ScrumYummy.....? |
| 22. And I'm an art education major. Go fig. XD ...why do you ask? |
| What an interesting take on the subject... |
ScrumYummy said: In other words. Before 1837, kiddie porn wasn't such a big flippin deal. Wow... well... just... wow... kiddie porn not a big deal? You make it sound as if it shouldn't be a big deal now?!? I'm sorry, but that statement just rubbed me completely the wrong way. I pray to God you didn't mean that the way it came out, seriously. |
| Honestly, I have no opinion on the subject (personally, I'm not into it; but if we are talking about art and no real minors are actually being sexualized or violated, then I am not concerned). My point was that society (rather than the individual) decides what is proper and what is not, and that you only think hyper-sexualized pre-pubescent artwork is morally wrong because the idea was introduced almost 200 years ago. |
| What do you expect from someone who's sig says art rhymes with fart, and then finishes it with tee-hee? Not too much I hope. |
| Check out how a pimp blings. |
ScrumYummy said: HO MY GADS LOOK IT'S LOLI AND SHOUTA Classic art is so sick XD /parody Er...you've created a really nice straw man for yourself, but that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion/debate/argument at hand. :/ |
     |
Ufozile said: Uhm?? I've read all 8 pages... don't you find http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?action=view&t=pic&id=2&pid=1736 http://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?action=view&t=pic&id=2&pid=270 these sexual in any way? Like I said there's no inherent suggestive themes in either of those unless you're looking for it. Louise is on a beach so obviously she's wearing less clothing than usual. The one from Canvas 2 is fully clothed and not in any sexual position or anything. Isn't this getting a bit out of hand? This is just getting oversensitive guys come on. |
| Yah. That's the last time I ever try to make a joke. X)! jupiterjazz said: What do you expect from someone who's sig says art rhymes with fart, and then finishes it with tee-hee? Not too much I hope. So....silliness and humor is not allowed? Instead of using my signature to make errant judgments and pose suppositions about my character, why don't you try to debase my argument from a logical point of view, or were you unable? hounddog said: Er...you've created a really nice straw man for yourself, but that doesn't have anything to do with the discussion/debate/argument at hand. :/ I thought it did :\ If you want further explanation, read my next post after. |
ScrumYummy said: So....silliness and humor is not allowed? Instead of using my signature to make errant judgments and pose suppositions about my character, why don't you try to debase my argument from a logical point of view, or were you unable? Okay. No one from over 200 years ago is alive. There you go I win. |
| Check out how a pimp blings. |
jupiterjazz said: Okay. No one from over 200 years ago is alive. There you go I win. So, you are saying that the past has no bearing on the present? That it's not important? If that were true, we wouldn't have electricity, America would be a monarchy, blacks wouldn't be able to vote and woman wouldn't be able to own property, divorce would be illegal---shall I continue, or do you get my point? *edit* But that's kind of getting away from the argument of conception and perception, which was what I was talking about to begin with. Can we get back to that? Or do you want to continue to press circular logic against circular logic? |
ScrumYummyJun 7, 2007 2:49 PM
| I've understood that you are saying lolis are innocent, cute, childish charaters. And good luck telling the world what it is, you have quite a job in front of you... But again, you say one thing and yet, if one check out loli at google or in your club, you get the impression that lolis are about pantyshots and embarrased little girls showing skin... You say that there is nothing special about Louise, "Louise is on a beach so obviously she's wearing less clothing than usual." I don't care about where she is? What if she was going to take a shower? That's right, you don't take photos of girls showering, do you...? And just for fun, go down to your local beach and take pictures of 8-year olds and see how people react. You don't do that! I don't care if "she is 16 years old in the series!", she looks like she's 8, and that picture is suggestive no matter how you look at it. There may be a fine line between loli and lolita some times, but I think it should be a yawning gap. People should react when they se images like that. It's just my opinion that girls can be cute with clothes on... And that lolita is wrong and must not have so much influence in what you call "loli". |
ScrumYummy said: jupiterjazz said: Okay. No one from over 200 years ago is alive. There you go I win. So, you are saying that the past has no bearing on the present? That it's not important? If that were true, we wouldn't have electricity, America would be a monarchy, blacks wouldn't be able to vote and woman wouldn't be able to own property, divorce would be illegal---shall I continue, or do you get my point? Well according to that logic there would be no technological development at all and we wouldn't even have a language and be living in the plains with other animals. Except from that i love the part where monarchy is a big bad wolf, I mean sure it's useless but there's nothing wrong with it, it's only a facade where the power lies with the government and at least u don't end up with a president with too much power. Also this kinda defies the point where the historical meaning of the word loli doesn't matter at all today. |
| You do realize that this entire argument is about Japanese slang/subculture right? If you did not grown up in Japan, your perspective on the topic is askew. IS Loli pornographic? What IS Loli/Lolicon? Is there a distinction between the two in Japanese culture? If so, where? You are asking questions and giving answers from a Western perspective. Remember that we often misuse Japanese slang. In America, I live in a culture that hyper sexualizes young girls and where even our television advertisements are pornographic. I have been programmed from childhood to see sex everywhere. If a girl is in a skirt, sex. If you has a popsicle, sex. That's America. We use sex but it's "dirty." We draw lines all over the place about what is sexy and what isn't sexy. This is a main contributing factor to our rate of sexual assault, particularly among children. In Japan, Loli (american definition) is much more mainstream, having it's own subculture attached. Does Japan have a higher rate of sexual assault against it's children? No, it doesn't. In fact, the rate is lower. The reason for this is that neither Loli (american) or Lolicon is statistically linked to pedophilia. The reason for this is that art IS NOT REAL. Loli (american) anime and even Lolicon does not actually represent real children. Anime characters are not representations of people. Art does not in fact truly imitate life. Ask any aesthetic psychologist and they can tell you that what art really means is far more complex. There's no reason to get angry or mean about this. What we are arguing is aesthetics, not morals. |
Aokaado said: Also this kinda defies the point where the historical meaning of the word loli doesn't matter at all today. I wasn't arguing the historical meaning of the word "loli." My point is that you shouldn't weigh art against morals, and art (such as that which is considered "loli") wasn't considered "immoral" until society dictated it so 200 years ago. You can't argue morals in art. If somebody draws a picture of a young girl naked, hypersexualized, or even committing sexual acts, that does not make the picture immoral because there is no subject. There isn't really a little girl, she doesn't exist. washutaku said: The reason for this is that art IS NOT REAL. Loli (american) anime and even Lolicon does not actually represent real children. Anime characters are not representations of people. Art does not in fact truly imitate life. Ask any aesthetic psychologist and they can tell you that what art really means is far more complex. There's no reason to get angry or mean about this. What we are arguing is aesthetics, not morals. Yep. There were no minors harmed in the making of that drawing, because the contents of the drawing do not exist. It's all about the conception of the artist and the perception of their audience. |
| I don't need to be raised in japan to comment on sleazy images of 8 year olds. Personally i'd have to say that you are a bit over the top with your sexualization, porn doesn't create sex offenders just like lolicon pics doesn't create pedophiles but pedophiles go for child pornography. I thought we were done with all the talk about word definition. And your comments about psychology at the end there is what really proves you wrong, if you do indeed ask a psychologist he would tell you that drawn images represent real life. |
ScrumYummy said: .............You can't argue morals in art. If somebody draws a picture of a young girl naked, hypersexualized, or even committing sexual acts, that does not make the picture immoral because there is no subject. There isn't really a little girl, she doesn't exist................... Yep. There were no minors harmed in the making of that drawing, because the contents of the drawing do not exist. It's all about the conception of the artist and the perception of their audience. There is where you're wrong as well, according to the law (in most western countries at least) the depiction (in any way) of underage children involved in sexual acts is defined as child pornography, thus illegal. |
Aokaado said: I don't need to be raised in japan to comment on sleazy images of 8 year olds. Personally i'd have to say that you are a bit over the top with your sexualization, porn doesn't create sex offenders just like lolicon pics doesn't create pedophiles but pedophiles go for child pornography. I thought we were done with all the talk about word definition. And your comments about psychology at the end there is what really proves you wrong, if you do indeed ask a psychologist he would tell you that drawn images represent real life. See, now that's unneeded. Do you have to call a piece of art sleazy? What was the artist thinking when he made it? What do fans think about when they view it? Don't just say "He was thinking about young girls." Aesthetics are much more complex than that. And yes, psychologists could look at an image of a "loli" character and read something bad in it, but others would comment on how it might reflect the artist's view of innocence/maturity, NOT his view of sexuality. In art, when you have no model, the artist is the subject. |
| 1. washutaku said: What's the logic? In western cultures, most people WILL have a western view on things, that's just how it is. Everyone has a right to have an opinion based on whatever background they have, don't they? If something japanese is illegal in your country, you can't do it, even if it's legal in Japan.You do realize that this entire argument is about Japanese slang/subculture right? If you did not grown up in Japan, your perspective on the topic is askew. IS Loli pornographic? What IS Loli/Lolicon? Is there a distinction between the two in Japanese culture? If so, where? You are asking questions and giving answers from a Western perspective. Remember that we often misuse Japanese slang. 2. washutaku said: What's your point? Sexed up young girls are ok, cause you're used to it??In America, I live in a culture that hyper sexualizes young girls and where even our television advertisements are pornographic. I have been programmed from childhood to see sex everywhere. If a girl is in a skirt, sex. If you has a popsicle, sex. That's America. We use sex but it's "dirty." We draw lines all over the place about what is sexy and what isn't sexy. This is a main contributing factor to our rate of sexual assault, particularly among children. 3. washutaku said: You just said why in #2.In Japan, Loli (american definition) is much more mainstream, having it's own subculture attached. Does Japan have a higher rate of sexual assault against it's children? No, it doesn't. In fact, the rate is lower. 4. washutaku said: NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! :s Seriously???? Do you believe that??? Seriously, how many people out there are into loli art?? So few that it would never have any statistical value at all!! The reason for this is that neither Loli (american) or Lolicon is statistically linked to pedophilia. The reason for this is that art IS NOT REAL. Loli (american) anime and even Lolicon does not actually represent real children. Anime characters are not representations of people. Art does not in fact truly imitate life. Ask any aesthetic psychologist and they can tell you that what art really means is far more complex. Aokaado said: And your comments about psychology at the end there is what really proves you wrong, if you do indeed ask a psychologist he would tell you that drawn images represent real life. That's right |
Aokaado said: And your comments about psychology at the end there is what really proves you wrong, if you do indeed ask a psychologist he would tell you that drawn images represent real life. Well, you're definitely not a psychologist, are you? Have you even studied psychology at all? Like I said earlier, I am an art education major, and as part of that I've studied art psychology as well. And I'm going to agree with Washutaku ^^ Aokaado said: There is where you're wrong as well, according to the law (in most western countries at least) the depiction (in any way) of underage children involved in sexual acts is defined as child pornography, thus illegal. Morals, not legality. Go back and read my post again. And I'm not going to get into whether or not it should be legal, because I honestly don't give a flying rat's behind =D washutaku said: Aesthetics are much more complex than that. In art, when you have no model, the artist is the subject. Yep. Art psychology 101. Ufozile said: Aokaado said: And your comments about psychology at the end there is what really proves you wrong, if you do indeed ask a psychologist he would tell you that drawn images represent real life. That's right Not, it's not XD |
ScrumYummyJun 7, 2007 4:14 PM
| Finally something new to debate. Thank you Washutaku. washutaku said: In America, I live in a culture that hyper sexualizes young girls and where even our television advertisements are pornographic. I have been programmed from childhood to see sex everywhere. If a girl is in a skirt, sex. If you has a popsicle, sex. That's America. We use sex but it's "dirty." We draw lines all over the place about what is sexy and what isn't sexy. This is a main contributing factor to our rate of sexual assault, particularly among children. I can believe that to a certain extent. I can understand how we worship advertisement models, and that could lead some guys that can't get those type of girls to resort to sexual assault. Could you explain more on your theory for why it leads to children being sexually assaulted? Please don't say because we don't let people look at pornographic material of children... Yeah, I am sure the rape statistics of sexually assualted little girls in Japan is lower because lolicon is not considered pedophilia in nature. It has nothing to do with the fact that Japan's crime rates are all lower because of it's economic status as the second best, or the fact that I see video of women on trains in Japan getting raped. Right in the middle of twenty or thirty people, and they don't do anything because they don't want the other people see. The Japanese are too embarrassed to ever report something like getting raped, usually, and if it happened to their child they wouldn't report it either. If they did and it got out their child would become a social outcast in school, not to mention the fact that honor plays a huge part in the Japanese culture, and being raped is considered along the lines of dishonorable. That's true in a most all cultures even America. I had a friend of mine get raped by another friend's dad who had just gotten out of prison after four years, habitual traffic offender. When she told her parents they kicked her out instead of calling the cops. It's disgusting, but this is how a lot of people treat it. Even if you say ask an aesthetics expert... I myself watch anime because it is more realistic looking then American cartoons. I am sure a lot of people feel the same way. That being said the population is not aesthetic psychologists, anime fans, or Japanese. They are normal run of the mill people, and when they see a cartoon or piece of art that looks so realistic they will attribute it to real life, and I guarantee that if I walked around the entire world with a lolicon picture asking people what they thought it wouldn't be about art. |
| Check out how a pimp blings. |
| And by the way, you just can't put all different art in the world into one box! |
Ufozile said: And by the way, you just can't put all different art in the world into one box! That is something I agree with 100%. Art psychology only applies to artists anyways, and it can very drastically from one expert to the next. |
| Check out how a pimp blings. |
| I'm sure as hell not reading all the way through this thread. All I have to say is that if all in the SOL are content with liking lolis why do you need that whole "Definition of lolis:" explination on the front page? Furthermore, why do you feel the need to try and moralize it by referencing the theme of "Catcher in the Rye?" You know, I know, everybody knows that none of you joined the SOL to "appreciate the beauty of childhood innocence." You joined it because you like lolis (sexually or non-sexually). There is absolutely no moral reasoning behind it, just like there is no moral reasoning behind me liking video games or lemons. It truly disgusts and offends me that you would use the message of "Catcher in the Rye" (my favorite book) to try and justify your tastes like that. Especially something with controversy surrounding it. My point in all this. Like w/e the hell you want, just don't drag great pieces of literature into it. |
 |
jupiterjazz said: They are normal run of the mill people, and when they see a cartoon or piece of art that looks so realistic they will attribute it to real life, and I guarantee that if I walked around the entire world with a lolicon picture asking people what they thought it wouldn't be about art. Because of that cultural stigma that was set up 200 years ago, which I was trying to point out earlier. jupiterjazz said: Ufozile said: And by the way, you just can't put all different art in the world into one box! That is something I agree with 100%. Art psychology only applies to artists anyways, and it can very drastically from one expert to the next. Art psychology does not just apply to the artist; it applies to the artist, and to their audience (and NO, not the subject). Listen to me, please, I have studied this subject. In college. No, you can't put all of the art in the world "into one box," because the box doesn't exist. Yes, you can use psycho-analysis on a piece with a generic psychology mindset, because there are very few cultural variances. Yes, culture should be taken into account when psycho-analyzing a piece of art, but there are certain themes that are universal. |
ScrumYummyJun 7, 2007 4:33 PM
| seriously the two of you simply _fail_ I'm not gonna bother goin into all ur arguments cos u just disregard the answer anyway. ScrumYummy said: Art psychology does not just apply to the artist; it applies to the artist, and to their audience (and NO, not the subject). Listen to me, please, I have studied this subject. In college. seriously of course it does, the thing is the way you view it is based on ur education, if others don't have it then how the bloody hell would they know. Also if u study something doesn't necessarily mean you understand it, i might be closing in on personal attacks here but this discussion is really annoying me and facing straight forward dumb and groundless arguments makes me really not care too much about being serious myself. |
ScrumYummy said: Of course you can!!! Why do you think an artist chooses to draw a little girl, and not a green dot of yello?You can't argue morals in art. If somebody draws a picture of a young girl naked, hypersexualized, or even committing sexual acts, that does not make the picture immoral because there is no subject. There isn't really a little girl, she doesn't exist. |
jupiterjazz said: I can believe that to a certain extent. I can understand how we worship advertisement models, and that could lead some guys that can't get those type of girls to resort to sexual assault. Could you explain more on your theory for why it leads to children being sexually assaulted? Please don't say because we don't let people look at pornographic material of children... I think it has a lot to do with our acceptance of sexuality. You see, we worship youth (as do most cultures) but we have an unhealthy connection to our worship and our own sexuality. Grown ups are watched very carefully around children in American and the worst is often suspected. It's not the watching that's bad, I think it's the expectation. I couldn't say exactly where the connection is. No one's exactly sure WHY our country's sexual assault rate is so high. However, I don't think that Loli and/or Lolicon is affecting it much. jupiterjazz said: Even if you say ask an aesthetics expert... I myself watch anime because it is more realistic looking then American cartoons. I am sure a lot of people feel the same way. That being said the population is not aesthetic psychologists, anime fans, or Japanese. They are normal run of the mill people, and when they see a cartoon or piece of art that looks so realistic they will attribute it to real life, and I guarantee that if I walked around the entire world with a lolicon picture asking people what they thought it wouldn't be about art. The thought process that occurs when one views media is so fast and complex that it may be impossible to chart. There are reasons why Loli bothers people. The reasons are unique and complex. We can't say that an image is bad just because it looks bad to us. However, if there is something immoral about the process of creation, the situation is different. Real child pornography is not wrong because of what it shows us, it is wrong because of what had to be done in order to make it. |
washutaku said: No one else here thinks that either...No one's exactly sure WHY our country's sexual assault rate is so high. However, I don't think that Loli and/or Lolicon is affecting it much. washutaku said: What is wrong with you??? Sick man, sick.Real child pornography is not wrong because of what it shows us, it is wrong because of what had to be done in order to make it. |
| u are sick, i rest my case |
running_lemon said: I'm sure as hell not reading all the way through this thread. All I have to say is that if all in the SOL are content with liking lolis why do you need that whole "Definition of lolis:" explination on the front page? Furthermore, why do you feel the need to try and moralize it by referencing the theme of "Catcher in the Rye?" You know, I know, everybody knows that none of you joined the SOL to "appreciate the beauty of childhood innocence." You joined it because you like lolis (sexually or non-sexually). There is absolutely no moral reasoning behind it, just like there is no moral reasoning behind me liking video games or lemons. It truly disgusts and offends me that you would use the message of "Catcher in the Rye" (my favorite book) to try and justify your tastes like that. Especially something with controversy surrounding it. My point in all this. Like w/e the hell you want, just don't drag great pieces of literature into it. I will like w/e i want and i have never read "Catcher of the Rye" so i have nothing to say to that, however the problem is when others start calling me a pedo just because i like lolis. |
 |
Faust721 said: ...the problem is when others start calling me a pedo just because i like lolis. Hey don't feel so bad, I just argued that child pornography was wrong and got called sick for it. |
washutaku said: no u said child pornography would be perfectly fine as long as no children were harmed. Faust721 said: ...the problem is when others start calling me a pedo just because i like lolis. Hey don't feel so bad, I just argued that child pornography was wrong and got called sick for it. Drug em down and be gentle so u won't harm em and they won't remember shit and it's totally okay is basically what u said |
Aokaado said: seriously the two of you simply _fail_ I'm not gonna bother goin into all ur arguments cos u just disregard the answer anyway. Disregard the answer? You've begun every reply to either one of us with "you're wrong." Look at how you began that post, even! "seriously the two of you simply _fail_" From my point of view, you haven't been taking us into consideration and have been completely ignoring whatever we've said, immediately deciding that it is wrong. At least I explained to you my reasoning for what I've said in my posts. Aokaado said: ScrumYummy said: Art psychology does not just apply to the artist; it applies to the artist, and to their audience (and NO, not the subject). Listen to me, please, I have studied this subject. In college. seriously of course it does, the thing is the way you view it is based on ur education, if others don't have it then how the bloody hell would they know. Also if u study something doesn't necessarily mean you understand it, i might be closing in on personal attacks here but this discussion is really annoying me and facing straight forward dumb and groundless arguments makes me really not care too much about being serious myself. I understand it perfectly, and my argument is not at all groundless. I've tried several times explaining to you how it works, and I am sorry that you do not understand what I am trying to say. And I wish that you wouldn't resort to name-calling; what does that achieve, precisely? washutaku said: Faust721 said: ...the problem is when others start calling me a pedo just because i like lolis. Hey don't feel so bad, I just argued that child pornography was wrong and got called sick for it. ROFL So, is it backwards logic, or circular? XD |
More topics from this board
» How to make anime "trickle down"?thewiru - Sep 26 |
32 |
by thewiru
»»
8 minutes ago |
|
» On the subject of anime and assthewiru - 4 hours ago |
20 |
by awesomeoppy
»»
19 minutes ago |
|
» 🖊️ Hall of Sensei: Who Teaches Best! ( 1 2 3 4 )nirererin - Sep 23 |
197 |
by Psifun
»»
33 minutes ago |
|
» Any openings from anime you don't watch or dislike that you like?Fukoku - 1 hour ago |
2 |
by mrBored0m
»»
33 minutes ago |
|
» Y'all want MC with an Actual Sex Drive? ( 1 2 )Dragevard - Jan 28, 2023 |
55 |
by MichaelJackson
»»
44 minutes ago |