Wensbane said: Apparently a guy got arrested for downloading rule 34 pictures of Bart and Lisa. Be careful what you keep in your hard drive, that's all I'm gonna say... Yeah, Canadians have to be careful of what they download or have physical copies of. HaXXspetten said: Honestly I can't help but feel like the people who keep asking these kinds of questions are much closer to being pedophiles than those who straight-up admit that they like lolis. I mean seriously how insecure do you have to be in order to be worried about all this shit? The fact that you're seemingly so convinced that lolis are supposed representations of real like kids only suggest that you're the one who's having some serious difficulty separating fiction from reality. In that case the only potential child predator here is yourself. On the other hand if you can actually see the attractive points of lolis and publically admit to those feelings, then you're clearly suggesting that you're not thinking of them as anything more than something that belongs purely in the realm of fiction, and therefore that you're completely harmless Thats pretty much what i said earlier. |
YayaChibi said: *sees 'sexualized lolis in japan'* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaZWGq_KvIU F*ck you cnn, get out of our websites "in a place that caters to young people ....comic books" and it's already shit. only took them 14 seconds |
 |
HaXXspetten said: That's a lolicon trump card i must say. but the thing isnt about what has shown on screen. 2D never be a 3D, but 2D represented as 3D here.Honestly I can't help but feel like the people who keep asking these kinds of questions are much closer to being pedophiles than those who straight-up admit that they like lolis. I mean seriously how insecure do you have to be in order to be worried about all this shit? The fact that you're seemingly so convinced that lolis are supposed representations of real like kids only suggest that you're the one who's having some serious difficulty separating fiction from reality. In that case the only potential child predator here is yourself. On the other hand if you can actually see the attractive points of lolis and publically admit to those feelings, then you're clearly suggesting that you're not thinking of them as anything more than something that belongs purely in the realm of fiction, and therefore that you're completely harmless |
lasterrending said: You might not want to rest your case just yet. As I mentioned in 3 or 4 of the previous threads just like this one: Fapping to images of sexualized children =/= pedophilia. In fact, fapping to images of sexualized real children =/= pedophilia. Look up the clinical definition of pedophilia. In order for it to be pedophilia, a person has to be primarily attracted to children. Key word: primarily. Do you know what they call someone who's occasionally attracted to children? They don't. There's not a word for it. The only conclusion I can think of is that it's not abnormal enough to give it a name. So what does this have to do with anime? It means that people who watch shows with sexualized lolis aren't necessarily pedophiles. You might be able to make that argument if they're obsessed, but even then, you have to take into consideration that anime girls are designed specifically to be overly-cute, overly-idealized simulations of the real thing. Someone with a fetish for cartoon lolis isn't necessarily attracted to young girls in real life. Is it possible? Sure. There probably is some overlap. But it's by no means a sure thing. So then we have to come to the conclusion that lolicon anime isn't even necessarily targeted at pedophiles. It's really just a fetish, no worse than sexy maid outfits, or "bad girls" or monster girls. Hell, there are plenty of shows that glorify incest. In Japan, they're far more liberal in their entertainment. They make shows about every fetish imaginable, no matter how ridiculous. This is the country that popularized, if not invented, tentacle rape porn. So why single out lolicon anime in particular? It has far less to do with Japanese culture than it has to do with Western culture. We've chosen, for whatever reason, to demonize anything that might in any way be related to pedophilia. You could argue whether that's good or bad. That's not my point. My point is that in order to understand lolicon, you first have to question your own objection to it in the context of your cultural background. Or to put it another way, why do you think "Lolicon should be banned!" when you think of lolicon anime, but when you think of tentacle rape hentai you think, "Ha ha! Those crazy Japanese!" Completely agree with that. Especially the last part. The fear and disgust of loli tells more about western culture than japanese. If representing immoral or illegal acts is bad, then most porn should be banned. Yet, noone bats an eye at rape hentai, heavy BDSM, daddy/little girl roleplay, exhibitionnism porn, student/teacher porn etc., although they represent things that are illegal and/or immoral in real life... Also, noone finds it wrong that american series present drug dealers or serial killers as likable protagonists. How is the sexualization of fictional underage girls worse than the glorification of fictional serial killers? Why is lolicon inherently worse than rape fetish (which is shared by about 40-60% of women)? Oh and also, since 95% of anime protagonists are underage even when they're not loli, everyone who has watched hentai or finds an anime character attarctive should be labeled a pedophile by western standards. |
Kofrine said: HaXXspetten said: That's a lolicon trump card i must say. but the thing isnt about what has shown on screen. 2D never be a 3D, but 2D represented as 3D here.Honestly I can't help but feel like the people who keep asking these kinds of questions are much closer to being pedophiles than those who straight-up admit that they like lolis. I mean seriously how insecure do you have to be in order to be worried about all this shit? The fact that you're seemingly so convinced that lolis are supposed representations of real like kids only suggest that you're the one who's having some serious difficulty separating fiction from reality. In that case the only potential child predator here is yourself. On the other hand if you can actually see the attractive points of lolis and publically admit to those feelings, then you're clearly suggesting that you're not thinking of them as anything more than something that belongs purely in the realm of fiction, and therefore that you're completely harmless You're honestly being just as bad as the guy that hates gay people because being around gay people might give you thoughts of wanting to suck their dick, because we all know gay people will stop at nothing to convert their "straight" friends into homosexuality. |
Kofrine said: Even if you were to assume that it is, what does it matter? As long as you're not thinking of them the same way then regardless of whether it's a representation or not, you're still just as harmlessHaXXspetten said: That's a lolicon trump card i must say. but the thing isnt about what has shown on screen. 2D never be a 3D, but 2D represented as 3D here.Honestly I can't help but feel like the people who keep asking these kinds of questions are much closer to being pedophiles than those who straight-up admit that they like lolis. I mean seriously how insecure do you have to be in order to be worried about all this shit? The fact that you're seemingly so convinced that lolis are supposed representations of real like kids only suggest that you're the one who's having some serious difficulty separating fiction from reality. In that case the only potential child predator here is yourself. On the other hand if you can actually see the attractive points of lolis and publically admit to those feelings, then you're clearly suggesting that you're not thinking of them as anything more than something that belongs purely in the realm of fiction, and therefore that you're completely harmless Thought policing is senseless |
  |
Nigami_Shin said: I dont have problem with it, since in sense, even fapping to a real children pic wouldnt even harm that children.Kofrine said: But that's not from author no as an author message right? i never saw that so i'm not sure about it. if this is from author then i'm sorry, and i'll include NNB in my sexualized loli list too. no; most dakimakuras aren't from the license owner but did your father touch you or why do you have such a big problem with it? But i just want to talk about this gray zone, in polite manner. |
YayaChibi said: So only lolicon allow here?*sees 'sexualized lolis in japan'* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaZWGq_KvIU F*ck you cnn, get out of our websites Please explain more. Thanks. |
HaXXspetten said: So are you implying that a baby porn is ok now?Kofrine said: Even if you were to assume that it is, what does it matter? As long as you're not thinking of them the same way then regardless of whether it's a representation or not, you're still just as harmlessThat's a lolicon trump card i must say. but the thing isnt about what has shown on screen. 2D never be a 3D, but 2D represented as 3D here. Thought policing is senseless |
Kofrine said: Nigami_Shin said: I dont have problem with it, since in sense, even fapping to a real children pic wouldnt even harm that children.no; most dakimakuras aren't from the license owner but did your father touch you or why do you have such a big problem with it? But i just want to talk about this gray zone, in polite manner. But there is a distinction between fapping to real children and fapping to lolicon. By fapping to a real child, especially one who has been exploited, you're indirectly supporting a crime, by creating a market that facilitates that crime. A crime that hurts and exploits real people. By fapping to lolicon, all you're doing is creating a market where people draw and animate fiction. Don't you see the distinction? Don't you see the difference? One Hurts people and creates victims, One simply doesn't. And it honestly makes me sick when people try to say that they're exactly the same thing, when its almost demeaning to actual children who have been through such a thing are being compared to pixels on paper. Kofrine said: HaXXspetten said: So are you implying that a baby porn is ok now?Even if you were to assume that it is, what does it matter? As long as you're not thinking of them the same way then regardless of whether it's a representation or not, you're still just as harmless Thought policing is senseless As long as its depicted in the realm of fiction, why not. Do i have any preference for such material? Hell no, but fiction isn't reality and we shouldn't persecute people for what amounts to a thought crime. |
Kofrine said: like I said before. Hentai is art and art has the rights of expression. It's totally fine to make hentai of babies if they want.HaXXspetten said: So are you implying that a baby porn is ok now?Even if you were to assume that it is, what does it matter? As long as you're not thinking of them the same way then regardless of whether it's a representation or not, you're still just as harmless Thought policing is senseless |
 |
Kofrine said: Pullman said: btw whoever said NNB is not sexualized has obviously underestimated japan. (NSFW) http://www.ebay.com/itm/Anime-DAKIMAKURA-Non-Non-Biyori-Pillow-Cover-Case-Hugging-Body-A-7K-/361516527559 https://www.amazon.com/Biyori-Pillowcase-Miyauchi-Dakimakura-150cmx50cm/dp/B00K16K0LM?ie=UTF8&ref_=pd_sxp_redirect But that's not from author. not as an author message right? i never saw that so i'm not sure about it. if this is from author then i'm sorry, and i'll include NNB in my sexualized loli list too. Sexualizing every loli is not cool, I need my innocent and cute and non-sexualized lolis in s-o-l stuff too. I'd totally be fine with the sexualizations of lolis being limited to doujins and hentai etc... But then I generally like a solid separation between what I fap to and what I watch for normal entertainment. I wouldn't know if the author has to approve of merchandise that is produced or not. Probably not tho. But it just shows that someone involved with marketing thought that lolicons were at least a solid part of the target audience for that show, even though the show itself is completely non-sexualized. And no, I can't. Why would I? Where did I say I am speaking for anyone besides myself? Why do you reply like I was doing anything aside from communicating my own personal stance on the topic? I am well aware that a lot of people do enjoy sexualization of all kinds even in stories and contexts where it doesn't need to be. Lolis or not lolis doesn't matter in that regard, it's just a general question regarding how deep you'll let your sex drive penetrate into your daily activities/hobbies and that varies from person to person. But I don't know why you choose the one post where I was just giving my own opinion and experiences without asking any questions or expecting a reply to be the only post of mine you reply to. Nevermind the others where I take apart some of the repetitive 'arguments' you've been spouting all over this thread. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Kofrine said: First of all, in that case there's a child in the video being harmed through the process of the video's creation, regardless of what you as a viewer decide to do. So that's messed up from the start. Even if you never showed that video to anyone it would still be unacceptable because you're causing harm to someone (I.E. the child) merely by creating the content. A loli on the other hand is not a real person so this issue doesn't existHaXXspetten said: So are you implying that a baby porn is ok now?Even if you were to assume that it is, what does it matter? As long as you're not thinking of them the same way then regardless of whether it's a representation or not, you're still just as harmless Thought policing is senseless Secondly, what I said obviously doesn't apply for child porn because then we're comparing 3D with 3D. In that case you are undeniably being aroused by a real child which is obviously a bad thing. However, that is not because of the fact that you're jerking off to it at home, but because it might lead to you causing some sexual assaults on children in person or something as a consequence of it. That's the real difference here, child porn factually brings harm to people. On the other hand there's still no scientific evidence which suggests that exposure to loli porn leads to increased chances of doing the same. In other words regardless of whether people consider it "weird" or "creepy", it still doesn't harm anyone, so it doesn't matter. So just keep out of other people's business |
| |
Kofrine said: Nigami_Shin said: I dont have problem with it, since in sense, even fapping to a real children pic wouldnt even harm that children.no; most dakimakuras aren't from the license owner but did your father touch you or why do you have such a big problem with it? But i just want to talk about this gray zone, in polite manner. But it's impossible to talk about a grey zone if you have your black/white view of the topic as being stated in this thread multiple times, so you'll have to decide which one it is. Grey or B/W? |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
FontSize72LOL said: Kofrine said: I dont have problem with it, since in sense, even fapping to a real children pic wouldnt even harm that children. But i just want to talk about this gray zone, in polite manner. But there is a distinction between fapping to real children and fapping to lolicon. By fapping to a real child, especially one who has been exploited, you're indirectly supporting a crime, by creating a market that facilitates that crime. A crime that hurts and exploits real people. By fapping to lolicon, all you're doing is creating a market where people draw and animate fiction. Don't you see the distinction? Don't you see the difference? One Hurts people and creates victims, One simply doesn't. And it honestly makes me sick when people try to say that they're exactly the same thing, when its almost demeaning to actual children who have been through such a thing are being compared to pixels on paper. but in sense, fapping to lolis is more bad, why? because in long term, it makes you think that fapping to children also woundn't be matter as long as majority accept it. Kofrine said: So are you implying that a baby porn is ok now? As long as its depicted in the realm of fiction, why not. Do i have any preference for such material? Hell no, but fiction isn't reality and we shouldn't persecute people for what amounts to a thought crime. |
Kofrine said: FontSize72LOL said: But there is a distinction between fapping to real children and fapping to lolicon. By fapping to a real child, especially one who has been exploited, you're indirectly supporting a crime, by creating a market that facilitates that crime. A crime that hurts and exploits real people. By fapping to lolicon, all you're doing is creating a market where people draw and animate fiction. Don't you see the distinction? Don't you see the difference? One Hurts people and creates victims, One simply doesn't. And it honestly makes me sick when people try to say that they're exactly the same thing, when its almost demeaning to actual children who have been through such a thing are being compared to pixels on paper. but in sense, fapping to lolis is more bad, why? because in long term, it makes you think that fapping to children also woundn't be matter as long as majority accept it. As long as its depicted in the realm of fiction, why not. Do i have any preference for such material? Hell no, but fiction isn't reality and we shouldn't persecute people for what amounts to a thought crime. You're assuming its a moral issue. Its as much of a moral issue as violent video games glorifying murder, theft, and other "negative issues" like drug use, etc. Treating lolicon as a "moral issue" is a slippery slope. |
Kofrine said: WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK??? HaXXspetten said: So are you implying that a baby porn is ok now?Even if you were to assume that it is, what does it matter? As long as you're not thinking of them the same way then regardless of whether it's a representation or not, you're still just as harmless Thought policing is senseless What part of separating fiction from reality don't you get?? >.> |
 |
Z-Dante said: Kofrine said: WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK??? So are you implying that a baby porn is ok now? What part of separating fiction from reality don't you get?? >.> I'm pretty sure the OP is just baiting. Just like he probably baits to lolis. |
Pullman said: it appears in surface as grey but to me it's B/W which is why i want to talk about it.Kofrine said: I dont have problem with it, since in sense, even fapping to a real children pic wouldnt even harm that children. But i just want to talk about this gray zone, in polite manner. But it's impossible to talk about a grey zone if you have your black/white view of the topic as being stated in this thread multiple times, so you'll have to decide which one it is. Grey or B/W? |
Kofrine said: Pullman said: it appears in surface as grey but to me it's B/W which is why i want to talk about it.But it's impossible to talk about a grey zone if you have your black/white view of the topic as being stated in this thread multiple times, so you'll have to decide which one it is. Grey or B/W? Its not B/W though. Morality is subjective, Justice is subjective, anything that is subjective suggests a spectrum. Thus it can be a grey area. There are people that will look at lolicon, and see the black, there are others that will see the white, but ultimately there are people that will see it as a grey issue. Without specific context, it would be irrational to jump to a conclusion. |
| Being sexually attracted to lolis definitely makes you a pedophile, but it's entirely possible to not be attracted to real kids at the same time for one reason or another, which would just make you a pedophile who's exclusively attracted to drawn/animated children. The concept of "legal lolis" is dumb, I'm pretty sure no one would argue against the idea that being sexually aroused by this  gorgeous grandma would mean you're attracted to elderly people even if the show said she was 20I don't care what people are sexually attracted to though, It doesn't matter whether it's immoral or fucked up, providing you're not intending to actually cause harm to another individual or contribute to the growth of an industry that puts others in danger then I don't see the issue. I hope she trips on her coat and dies Deknijff said: Kofrine said: how good for lolicons they have rule 34 if that is the caseBut non non byuri(that's the name rigth?) is a fine stress relieving anime, it has loli but not sexualized loli. DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE Pullman said: He's right tho. It's not pedophilia, as in not a psychological condition, if the attraction isn't exclusive or at least very primary with pretty much nothing else doing it for you. I've never really understood why the criteria for being a pedophile is that the attraction to kids is primary though |
jibberjiofsjlajJun 19, 2016 12:35 PM
Pullman said: Because i thnk i've cover what you've said already, sorry if i miss something major from you, and please link me back to that post.But I don't know why you choose the one post where I was just giving my own opinion and experiences without asking any questions or expecting a reply to be the only post of mine you reply to. Nevermind the others where I take apart some of the repetitive 'arguments' you've been spouting all over this thread. and tbh i think i have similar view point as you, just that i think sexualized lolis is bad for morality in long term while you dont think so. |
HaXXspetten said: Kofrine said: First of all, in that case there's a child in the video being harmed through the process of the video's creation, regardless of what you as a viewer decide to do. So that's messed up from the start. Even if you never showed that video to anyone it would still be unacceptable because you're causing harm to someone (I.E. the child) merely by creating the content. A loli on the other hand is not a real person so this issue doesn't existSo are you implying that a baby porn is ok now? Secondly, what I said obviously doesn't apply for child porn because then we're comparing 3D with 3D. In that case you are undeniably being aroused by a real child which is obviously a bad thing. However, that is not because of the fact that you're jerking off to it at home, but because it might lead to you causing some sexual assaults on children in person or something as a consequence of it. That's the real difference here, child porn factually brings harm to people. On the other hand there's still no scientific evidence which suggests that exposure to loli porn leads to increased chances of doing the same. In other words regardless of whether people consider it "weird" or "creepy", it still doesn't harm anyone, so it doesn't matter. So just keep out of other people's business Hold your horses. Are you implying that because you're being aroused by something in 3d it automatically is 'dangerous' because it 'might lead to sexual assault'? You certainly said so for children, but what makes that case special aside from the negative publicity that associates pedophilia with child molesters like they were inseparable. I mean I obviously agree that child porn factually causes harm and should never be made, but through the production, not exposure. Otherwise you'd have to call every exposure to acts of porn 'potentially dangerous' which I don't think is what you actually think. If being attracted to children and then seeing a porn video including that makes you likely to go and sexually assault a kid why wouldn't seeing a MILF in a porn video, for someone who is attracted to MILFS have the same effect? Even if you say the difference is the legal status, it doesn't make much sense when you think about it since sexual assault is illegal in general and even setting child porn aside there are tons of illegal and dangerous fetishes being depicted in porn legally and I doub't you'd say they'd make their viewers go out there and force those fetishes on the next best person that fits their taste. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Kofrine said: Lukiose said: That's what every lolicon say, but that's devil proof, can't be deny nor prove to be right. but based on circumstance evidence it leans toward that you're liar.My own stance on this -----\ | SIGNATURE | DOWN | BELOW | \/ Awesome. And no, i do not like children in real life but lolis make anime enjoyable, even (better ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°))if sexualised What/where circumstantial evidence are you referring to? The way you phrased it sure sounds like it comes from personal experience... Could it be that you like actually view little children(in real life) in a sexual way and is trying to rationalise and justify your own desires by imposing it on others such that you are not alone? o.O I do like lolis, sexualised or not - they are adorable and pleasant to the soul itself They can be as wholesome and cute as  or as seductive as |
┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°) ├┬┴┬┴  ┬┴┬┴┤ʕ•ᴥ├┬┴┬┴ |
FontSize72LOL said: Baiting? Are you serious? how do you feel if i call you a troll?Z-Dante said: WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK??? What part of separating fiction from reality don't you get?? >.> I'm pretty sure the OP is just baiting. Just like he probably baits to lolis. I've been polite and make sure to not cause any aggressive argument, if i were baiting i would fishing for reaction rather than saying sorry and thank you. |
FunkyNano said: I've never really understood why the criteria for being a pedophile is that the attraction to kids is primary though A pedophile is someone who is primarily attracted to a pre-pubescent individual at or under the age of 12. Alot of people incorrectly use the term, thus its no surprised you wouldn't know. A hebephile is the attraction to a pubescent adolescent of the age of 12-14, An Ephebophile is the attraction of a pubescent adolecent of the age of 15-19. Not every loli depicted in hentai fits the criteria of pedophilia. But even if it did, It wouldn't make you a pedophile, although it wouldn't change that the action would still be pedophilic in nature, i guess? This is assuming we're treating fictional material the same as real life, in which we definitely shouldn't. |
Lukiose said: If you read the whole thing you'd have known what circumstance evidence i'm talking about.Kofrine said: That's what every lolicon say, but that's devil proof, can't be deny nor prove to be right. but based on circumstance evidence it leans toward that you're liar. What/where circumstantial evidence are you referring to? The way you phrased it sure sounds like it comes from personal experience... Could it be that you like actually view little children(in real life) in a sexual way and is trying to rationalise and justify your own desires by imposing it on others such that you are not alone? o.O I do like lolis, sexualised or not - they are adorable and pleasant to the soul itself They can be as wholesome and cute as  or as seductive as |
| wow what made you so mad all of a sudden? It's not like it's my fault Rule 34 exists |
|
FontSize72LOL said: go with you post, everything is grey, which makes every thing is pointless to debate. what?Its not B/W though. Morality is subjective, Justice is subjective, anything that is subjective suggests a spectrum. Thus it can be a grey area. There are people that will look at lolicon, and see the black, there are others that will see the white, but ultimately there are people that will see it as a grey issue. Without specific context, it would be irrational to jump to a conclusion. |
Pullman said: Well no, of course you can't say what people will think and judging someone for what they might do in the future is senseless. So yes, in theory watching child porn could actually be deemed acceptable on the basis that it doesn't mean you'll go out on town and do something criminal later on, if it wasn't for the fact that the production alone was harmful. I just meant that if you're getting aroused watching child porn then you're evidentially being attracted to the real thing in a sexual sense, even if it doesn't have to lead to anything more beyond thatHaXXspetten said: First of all, in that case there's a child in the video being harmed through the process of the video's creation, regardless of what you as a viewer decide to do. So that's messed up from the start. Even if you never showed that video to anyone it would still be unacceptable because you're causing harm to someone (I.E. the child) merely by creating the content. A loli on the other hand is not a real person so this issue doesn't exist Secondly, what I said obviously doesn't apply for child porn because then we're comparing 3D with 3D. In that case you are undeniably being aroused by a real child which is obviously a bad thing. However, that is not because of the fact that you're jerking off to it at home, but because it might lead to you causing some sexual assaults on children in person or something as a consequence of it. That's the real difference here, child porn factually brings harm to people. On the other hand there's still no scientific evidence which suggests that exposure to loli porn leads to increased chances of doing the same. In other words regardless of whether people consider it "weird" or "creepy", it still doesn't harm anyone, so it doesn't matter. So just keep out of other people's business Hold your horses. Are you implying that because you're being aroused by something in 3d it automatically is 'dangerous' because it 'might lead to sexual assault'? You certainly said so for children, but what makes that case special aside from the negative publicity that associates pedophilia with child molesters like they were inseparable. I mean I obviously agree that child porn factually causes harm and should never be made, but through the production, not exposure. Otherwise you'd have to call every exposure to acts of porn 'potentially dangerous' which I don't think is what you actually think. If being attracted to children and then seeing a porn video including that makes you likely to go and sexually assault a kid why wouldn't seeing a MILF in a porn video, for someone who is attracted to MILFS have the same effect? Even if you say the difference is the legal status, it doesn't make much sense when you think about it since sexual assault is illegal in general and even setting child porn aside there are tons of illegal and dangerous fetishes being depicted in porn legally and I doub't you'd say they'd make their viewers go out there and force those fetishes on the next best person that fits their taste. That does raise an interesting question though: if it wasn't for the fact the production alone was harmful, do you think child porn would be legal? I mean it's not impossible (though with the amount SJWs nowadays I somehow doubt it lol) |
| |
| Ahh it's been a long time since I've seen a loli thread in AD. Nothing wrong with sexualizing loli's because it's fantasy not reality. I mean if humans were to be held to standards bases on fantasies/thoughts then most of us would be in trouble ranging from sex to violence to crimes. As long as one does not act it's perfectly fine. America is just too conservative in their sexual views. |
| Big Order (TV):great anime or greatest anime? |
FunkyNano said: Being sexually attracted to lolis definitely makes you a pedophile, but it's entirely possible to not be attracted to real kids at the same time for one reason or another, which would just make you a pedophile who's exclusively attracted to drawn/animated children. The concept of "legal lolis" is dumb, I'm pretty sure no one would argue that being sexually aroused by this gorgeous grandma would mean you're attracted to elderly people even if the show said she was 20I don't care what people are sexually attracted to though, It doesn't matter whether it's immoral or fucked up, providing you're not intending to actually cause harm to another individual or contribute to the growth of an industry that puts others in danger than I don't see the issue. I hope she trips on her coat and dies DON'T YOU FUCKING DARE Pullman said: He's right tho. It's not pedophilia, as in not a psychological condition, if the attraction isn't exclusive or at least very primary with pretty much nothing else doing it for you. I've never really understood why the criteria for being a pedophile is that the attraction to kids is primary though In general for something to be qualified as a psychological issue or sickness it must have a palpable effect on the person's ability to life a normal, happy everyday life. We're talking about something qualified as a mental sickness after all. And in general that's not the case if someone can freely decide which of his sexual attractions to pursue at any given point in time. So just being able to pop a boner to something weird, among other things, doesn't make somebody mentally ill. If you compare the situation of someone like that to an actual pedophile who can't be attracted to anything else and the only thing he can be attracted to to is illegal so he has to face the probability of never receiving sexual or romantic satisfaction in his life. It's not hard to see why in the one case it needs treatment and mental care to make sure he can cope with that and doesn't get any bad ideas because he's despairing over his condition, while in the other case there aren't any real issues that need to be dealt with, the dude can have a normal sex life and ignore the fact that he can also pop a boner to lolis or whatever. Of course it doesn't always have to be absolute like in my example to have a palpable effect, that's why 'primary' is in the definition. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Kofrine said: Baiting? Are you serious? how do you feel if i call you a troll? I've been polite and make sure to not cause any aggressive argument, if i were baiting i would fishing for reaction rather than saying sorry and thank you. Actually a good troll would try not to look like one, Just saying. Well, if you're not baiting, It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, on a logical basis. |
Kofrine said: Lukiose said: If you read the whole thing you'd have known what circumstance evidence i'm talking about.What/where circumstantial evidence are you referring to? The way you phrased it sure sounds like it comes from personal experience... Could it be that you like actually view little children(in real life) in a sexual way and is trying to rationalise and justify your own desires by imposing it on others such that you are not alone? o.O I do like lolis, sexualised or not - they are adorable and pleasant to the soul itself They can be as wholesome and cute as or as seductive as I have already, and there is literally nothing in your OP that contains any shred of information or fact (supporting your claim that fapping to loli = pedophile IRL). You asked some questions and we answered - as far as i'm concerned the circumstantial evidence comes from your personal experience. If you are truly that interested in my porn (non-hentai) preferences you could have just asked ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) I like semi-busty women and i have a fetish for creampies because of the risk factor. I don't think real children could quite fit the bill for what i like... I have absolutely no problem getting off to this though, |
| ┬┴┬┴┤ ͜ʖ ͡°) ├┬┴┬┴ ┬┴┬┴┤ʕ•ᴥ├┬┴┬┴ |
Wensbane said: Here you goDeknijff said: wow what made you so mad all of a sudden? It's not like it's my fault Rule 34 exists Ren-chon saved anime, bro. You don't mess with the queen... Though there really doesn't exist a whole lot of stuff for her that I'm aware of compared to many other moeblobs |
| |
Deknijff said: wow what made you so mad all of a sudden? It's not like it's my fault Rule 34 exists Whenever someone mentions the existence of Non Non Biyori r34, a little piece of me dies |
FontSize72LOL said: Kofrine said: Baiting? Are you serious? how do you feel if i call you a troll? I've been polite and make sure to not cause any aggressive argument, if i were baiting i would fishing for reaction rather than saying sorry and thank you. Actually a good troll would try not to look like one, Just saying. Well, if you're not baiting, It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, on a logical basis. > It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong this make you look like cherrylover, lmao. "my belief always right". and how do you prove him wrong? because you're always right? Well, not like i'd care for this kind of thread anyway. |
 |
Wensbane said: How does a character save anime when it does not need saving?Deknijff said: Ren-chon saved anime, bro. You don't mess with the queen...wow what made you so mad all of a sudden? It's not like it's my fault Rule 34 exists |
|
| Okay I feel like changing tacks... How about young girls killing people...such as with Gunslinger Girls. I mean they fucked shit up but they were very young girls. Is violence more 'acceptable' than sex? |
| Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines. |
Kofrine said: FontSize72LOL said: go with you post, everything is grey, which makes every thing is pointless to debate. what?Its not B/W though. Morality is subjective, Justice is subjective, anything that is subjective suggests a spectrum. Thus it can be a grey area. There are people that will look at lolicon, and see the black, there are others that will see the white, but ultimately there are people that will see it as a grey issue. Without specific context, it would be irrational to jump to a conclusion. Some things are pointless to debate though. But just by the context of this being a grey issue, is why there is so much debate. We're debating right now, aren't we? The issue is, your arguement is almost purely an emotional one. |
Queen status: MESSED Deknijff said: Wensbane said: How does a character save anime when it does not need saving?Ren-chon saved anime, bro. You don't mess with the queen...  Even the most dignified of men succumb to the almighty Airi |
Gensan said: FontSize72LOL said: Actually a good troll would try not to look like one, Just saying. Well, if you're not baiting, It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong, on a logical basis. > It doesn't change the fact that you're wrong this make you look like cherrylover, lmao. "my belief always right". and how do you prove him wrong? because you're always right? Well, not like i'd care for this kind of thread anyway. Making an emotional arguement without the support of facts pretty much makes him wrong. He also made the claim so its his responsiblity to prove his own point, not rely on me to refute it. |
FontSize72LOL said: FunkyNano said: I've never really understood why the criteria for being a pedophile is that the attraction to kids is primary though A pedophile is someone who is primarily attracted to a pre-pubescent individual at or under the age of 12. Alot of people incorrectly use the term, thus its no surprised you wouldn't know. A hebephile is the attraction to a pubescent adolescent of the age of 12-14, An Ephebophile is the attraction of a pubescent adolecent of the age of 15-19. Not every loli depicted in hentai fits the criteria of pedophilia. But even if it did, It wouldn't make you a pedophile, although it wouldn't change that the action would still be pedophilic in nature, i guess? This is assuming we're treating fictional material the same as real life, in which we definitely shouldn't. That's another thing that almost always gets ignored. The vast majority of lolicon doujins I've read (and I've read a lot) are not featuring pre-pubescent girls. They're more like hebephilia, with girls at the cusp of puberty but they tend to have distinct sexual features unlike actual kids (not to mention their apparent mental age a lot of the time being above their actual age). Most of the time actual pre-pubescent kids like that show up in doujins it grosses me out because there IS a real difference between a 6yo or 8yo and a 12-14yo that already hit puberty (and most of the times behaves like a 16yo seductress in those doujins). I'm not saying there isn't any pedophilic material among lolicon doujins, there certainly is, but it's not even close to being the majority of stuff that is tagged with loli or lolicon tags on doujin porn sites. So IF (big IF) we were to associate lolicons with any particular reallife attractions it would be more hebephilia in my experience. Which is a lot less morally ambiguous (as animals it's natural to be able to get attracted to the opposite sex as soon as it can bear children (aka hits puberty)) and not even illegal in some countries where the age of consent is 14. But of course it's much easier to associate pedophilia with it if your main goal is to argue against lolis in any shape or form. And the other side tends to focus on only the 2d/3d aspect so that part often gets forgotten. |
AlcoholicideJun 19, 2016 1:14 PM
| I probably regret this post by now. |
| Why is there so much hullabaloo about the sexualization of fictional lolis(which may or may not be fictional kids), anyways? Are the people who are attracted to fictional lolis attracted to real life kids? (Is there even a study about this?) This fuss is meaningless if the answer to this question is negative, really(which I think would be negative). |
HaXXspetten said: That does raise an interesting question though: if it wasn't for the fact the production alone was harmful, do you think child porn would be legal? I mean it's not impossible (though with the amount SJWs nowadays I somehow doubt it lol) Would production even still be harmfull if it wasn't illegal and done properly with consent and legal protection and everything? These hypothetical questions don't really lead anywhere though. I think it makes sense to limit the ability of kids and teens to give legal consent and whatnot, which by extension excludes them from such possibilities. There could be some debate about whether to unify the actual age of consent and the age for being able to star in porn (If you trust a 14yo girl to make informed consent when having sex with some 30yo dude at a party why not trust her to know whether she wants to star in porn or not? Or the other way round, if you don't trust her when it comes to starring in porn, why trust her when making sexual decisions otherwise at such a young age?). I think there's a bit of incoherency there but I also think it's a topic where people (including me) would rather err on the side of safety and political correctness than being too liberal so I don't think it's ever gonna be a topic except when it comes to making harsher laws against it. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
FunkyNano said: Pullman said: In general for something to be qualified as a psychological issue or sickness it must have a palpable effect on the person's ability to life a normal, happy everyday life. We're talking about something qualified as a mental sickness after all. And in general that's not the case if someone can freely decide which of his sexual attractions to pursue at any given point in time. So just being able to pop a boner to something weird, among other things, doesn't make somebody mentally ill. If you compare the situation of someone like that to an actual pedophile who can't be attracted to anything else and the only thing he can be attracted to to is illegal so he has to face the probability of never receiving sexual or romantic satisfaction in his life. It's not hard to see why in the one case it needs treatment and mental care to make sure he can cope with that and doesn't get any bad ideas because he's despairing over his condition, while in the other case there aren't any real issues that need to be dealt with, the dude can have a normal sex life and ignore the fact that he can also pop a boner to lolis or whatever. Of course it doesn't always have to be absolute like in my example to have a palpable effect, that's why 'primary' is in the definition. Right, I can imagine things would get a little more complicated should we bring the subjectivity of functioning adequately into question though, I wouldn't be surprised if there were some pedophiles who were fully able to live out their lives in a successful, self actualised and sexually intimate relationship with an adult even if at times they felt the mild discomfort of being primarily attracted to kids. There are also gay people that lived in heterosexual relationships and had kids but I wouldn't call them happy most of the time even if they manage to keep appearances up. Basically if something like you describe exists the primary attraction to children probably wouldn't be strong enough to be qualifies as a mental sickness called pedophilia. If knowing you can never act on your primary sexual attractions for however long you life never causes you more than mild discomfort than the attraction probably wasn't as 'primary' as you thought it was. I find it hard to believe one would be able to lead a perfect life like you described with that condition without any professional help. But I'm no expert on the matter as well, I just have my experiences and impressions with mental issues in general and how destructive and immune to common sense they tend to be. |
| I probably regret this post by now. |
Kofrine said: Deknijff said: But have you ever question yourself whether you lie to yourself or not?I don't view kids any different now from what I used to. I agree with freedom of expression man. If someone wants to make a Hentai about a baby I don't care. It's just a drawing And fiction content message, don't you think your image as something bad for represent children? It doesn't take effect immedaitely but have you ever consider, this kind of view on children will be normal to real world one day? what is your opinion regarding this matter? From what I have seen, most Loli in anime are of legal age, as @Loliholic was kind enough to point out. I know a lot of people who are balls deep in anime as their #1 hobby and just like me, they don't even consider characters under legal age as loli. To me, as to them, a loli is a teen or adult, with especially youthful traits, but still distinguishable from a prepubescent. Characters like Shiro from NGNL or the girls from kodomo no jikan are just little girls, and they only represent a small part of the wide spectrum of what people define as a loli. As to your question "have you ever questioned yourself wether you're lying to yourself or not?" Why would I? I have no doubt about my sexual preferences, so why would I even ask myself this? You couldn't possibly ask yourself such a question, unless you had doubts about it. I myself have liked petite girls/women ( AKA Loli) ever since I had a crush on a philipino girl in my class back in junior high. I still prefer that type of woman. Why should anyone feel bad about that? They are physically mature enough to reproduce, so what's wrong about being attracted So the answer to your other question, wether or not my view on real girls changed: No, it didn't. I am not atracted to little girls because of sexualised little anime girls. This whole idea of anime changing the way people think about the mot basic stuff is pretty pointless. Yes, there are thought-provoking anime out there, but I don't think it changes the biological reactions in a man's brain ( because that's what decides sexual arousal ). Those who comitted crimes based on influences from fiction were all crazy people to begin with, same goes for actual pedo's. Those people are defective productions, nothing more. |
It's okay to smirk |
More topics from this board
» Are there any anime criticism cliches that you always pay attention to?RobertBobert - 2 seconds ago |
0 |
by RobertBobert
»»
2 seconds ago |
|
» ⚓ Who is the best SHIPGIRL? ( 1 2 3 4 5 ... Last Page )Shizuna - Aug 21 |
267 |
by NS2D
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
Poll: » no female edgelord power fantasy protagonist...joou-sama - Aug 2 |
23 |
by Ohayotaku
»»
10 minutes ago |
|
» What is your opinion on Demon Slayer , JJK and the global hyped new gen anime !!Tristar_Shinobi - Yesterday |
30 |
by pileofshit
»»
15 minutes ago |
|
» top favorite characters?hime-tsubaki - Aug 30 |
45 |
by Ricchan__
»»
36 minutes ago |