does age matter for anime characters?

@deg That's a problem with generalized topics, people are prone to jump into controversial sub-categories.

In the world of writing age is LITTERALLY just a number that the author picks.

I could write an infant and say it's 100,000 years old in a story that I write, and none of you could say I'm wrong.

@BigBoyAdvance The first part of your posts reminds me about one situation, when I saw some soy weirdos who were raging over one character from that one show about slaying demons. Basically, they were mad that people found attractive a fictional character which was over 100 years old demon, having a body of an adult, around 20 years old woman, working like a luxury prostitute, and casually murdering people to devour their bodies. Their reasoning was "b-but she used to be a kid before she turned into a demon". No shit, the oldest people alive used to be kids in the past, like all adults. Some people are just unhinged to the point it's pointless to try to understand them.

The character I'm talking about is, of course:

@LostSpectre I think he wanted to write and ask something more general than being very specific. I think he made it clear in his previous comment with other user.

@Zamus_Edits So you think everyone are predators and want to cancel shows (ONK) but somehow love a show about literally child soldiers (AOT). The contradicton.

Age is meaningless in fiction since you can make a character look like anything, or be whatever age.

@BigBoyAdvance "Because teenage girls are conventionally attractive." Conventionally attractive to OTHER teenage boys, them being attractive to you is ONLY a you thing bro, And by the way, As we get older we start finding the age group we are around attractive, This is why at 8 years old, We could like someone else who's 8, and then when we are 16, and look back at photos, We no longer find that person who was 8(and their appearance at 8 attractive), and then onto 30, we start finding other people 24+ attractive, and although this probably stops at around 40-50 it still applies before all the same, But i guess this only applies to the majority of people and not predators, so i could see how you might miss these things.

That's not true. Standards of beauty don't change when you're 15 or when you're 30.

@Nurguburu Nobody actually thinks having children brought into warfare is fine, but alot of you think sexualizing a pre-pubescent looking character is fine as long as they are of age? It's still so weird, the excuse for most of the predators is always the same (Well they are of age which makes it fine), these people don't even realize they have predator tendencies, Its just weird to me that people are attracted to intentionally drawn undeveloped bodies, I feel a disgust to even try to think of myself finding them attractive, But for some you reason you guys do ?

@Zamus_Edits Where I read this before? Oh yes, "video games cause people to have violent tendencies/be murderers", 2000s conservative moral panic. Also you have no idea if your definition of "pedophilia" includes teenaged-aged characters, pre-pubescent looking characters or just any character below 18, you change your narrative at your convenience. Let me be clear, you are not going to accomplish anything, you are not going to change anything, everything is allowed in fiction whether you like it or not. There are some things I don't like in fiction but I don't go there accusing everyone of being a potential predator or wanting to cancel shows. I don't even like furry but I don't say its zoophilia even if most of their fandom think lolicon/shotacon is "pedophilia" (by their own logic, furry should be zoophilia too). You liking AoT despite being so against sexualization of fictional children is obvious a contradiction even if you claim "nobody actually thinks having children brought into warfare is fine", if you really cared about children, you probably are going to made a big fuss about children being soldiers, another obvious example is when you made with Nezuko, u are not fine with her being sexualized but you never complained about her family which included children being slaughtered in the first episode? It's obvious you "probably" only care about them if an underage character is sexualized but if an underage character is murdered, beaten or psychologically abused, then you don't care or just you conveniently ignore it. So bascially, I really doubt you care about underage characters in the first place, you "care" if they do some bad stuff for them but you don't care the other stuff, it makes you look like a hypocrite especially when you accuse most anime fans of having predator tendencies. Anime is ENTERTAINMENT.

You don't seen to realized you have authoritarian thinking which its the reason why you people are gatekeep from the Anime community. Anyone is free to enjoy/dislike wherever they want but you can't accuse people of being criminals for what they do with fictional characters and pretend to people to be happy with it, its so silly. I wonder why you don't use that energy for real cases of pedophilia with real children involved instead of trying to made a big fuss about drawings in an Anime site. I even doubt your intentions here.

@deg I think you should have avoided that if you had been specific from the beginning. It was obvious that if it was a general question, it was going to lead to this.

@APolygons2

a 100,000 year old character does not excuse it doing sexual things when it still looks like a prepubescent child. when you say none of you can say im wrong, youre implying that we can excuse what the author makes the character do because it has that age. when u are wrong, its not 100,000 years old, its mentally like three. it doesnt matter that its fiction, its imitating a real life prepubescent kid.

@Kenzolo-folk

might as well join some so quick google and this new study says its higher https://theconversation.com/a-survey-found-1-in-6-men-admit-sexual-feelings-for-children-so-is-paedophilia-increasing-218124

@deg

this is austrailia dude, not global. what are you going on about?

and because theres an increase is that supposed to make it okay? the hell.

Actually, your own logic—that consumption of fictional material begets a desire to commit acts of infringement on others in reality—can very accurately be applied to violence in video games as well. Similarly to how you define lust for fictional "pre-pubescent like" characters as a motivator for real actions based on the psychological admiration for the character's frame, the entertainment and thrills one receives on a psychological level from running over civilians in GTA or carrying out bank heists in Payday is just as easily attributed as being a motivator for someone to carry out these actions in reality. You mention a "worse psychology" in the case of lolis, but fail to define it or otherwise elaborate on what makes this worse. Essentially, you're picking and choosing when any given person would be able to distinguish reality from fiction, based on no more evidence than that you're projecting your own media preferences on to the rest of the human population.

On another matter, the reason people would agree on violent video games being fine is because they've gotten used to it. As video game graphics became more evolved over the years, violent video games (such as Manhunt) garnered much negative attention from the press and activists, especially from those who were religious. They asserted that children who who grew up on this carnage, blood and murder would become "desensitised" to it in reality, and use them to plan out murders or shootings. While this mainly came from the conservative, right-wing side of the political spectrum in the 2000s, it's apparent that this exaggerated and irrational brand of neo-puritanism you endorse has a foundation in leftist worldviews.

And why is it "NOT FINE" in one case while it's completely fine in the other? Is it because you used all-caps for emphasis in the latter case to highlight how allegedly heinous it is? You haven't once substantiated this assertion in any way that can be consistently and rationally applied to reality, without having massive logistical, moral and sociolegal problems that come with enforcing it. His previous point about child soldiers actually does hold ground here, at least in the sense that it precisely demonstrates the inconsistency of your overboard enforcement of your own personal values and preferences. If you were entertained by seeing the combat in Attack on Titan at any point involving the "child soldiers" (who I presume are under the age of eighteen), then we can simplify this observation to the general notion of you being entertained by child soldiers. No doubt the combat scenes involving these child soldiers were also intended to be entertaining to the viewer as well, so you could possibly come to conclude that this entertainment you experienced through observing these child soldiers is subliminal stimuli that will eventually undermine your current values, and cause you to support the idea of child soldiers in reality. Perhaps you may even become a foreign mercenary in a warring, underdeveloped nation who employs your own trained child soldiers. If this seems like an absurd speculation to you, then it should be easy to see why your own loli hysteria comes across as inane to others.

Actually, your own logic—that consumption of fictional material begets a desire to commit acts of infringement on others in reality—can very accurately be applied to violence in video games as well. Similarly to how you define lust for fictional "pre-pubescent like" characters as a motivator for real actions based on the psychological admiration for the character's frame, the entertainment and thrills one receives on a psychological level from running over civilians in GTA or carrying out bank heists in Payday is just as easily attributed as being a motivator for someone to carry out these actions in reality. You mention a "worse psychology" in the case of lolis, but fail to define it or otherwise elaborate on what makes this worse. Essentially, you're picking and choosing when any given person would be able to distinguish reality from fiction, based on no more evidence than that you're projecting your own media preferences on to the rest of the human population.

On another matter, the reason people would agree on violent video games being fine is because they've gotten used to it. As video game graphics became more evolved over the years, violent video games (such as Manhunt) garnered much negative attention from the press and activists, especially from those who were religious. They asserted that children who who grew up on this carnage, blood and murder would become "desensitised" to it in reality, and use them to plan out murders or shootings. While this mainly came from the conservative, right-wing side of the political spectrum in the 2000s, it's apparent that this exaggerated and irrational brand of neo-puritanism you endorse has a foundation in leftist worldviews.

And why is it "NOT FINE" in one case while it's completely fine in the other? Is it because you used all-caps for emphasis in the latter case to highlight how allegedly heinous it is? You haven't once substantiated this assertion in any way that can be consistently and rationally applied to reality, without having massive logistical, moral and sociolegal problems that come with enforcing it. His previous point about child soldiers actually does hold ground here, at least in the sense that it precisely demonstrates the inconsistency of your overboard enforcement of your own personal values and preferences. If you were entertained by seeing the combat in Attack on Titan at any point involving the "child soldiers" (who I presume are under the age of eighteen), then we can simplify this observation to the general notion of you being entertained by child soldiers. No doubt the combat scenes involving these child soldiers were also intended to be entertaining to the viewer as well, so you could possibly come to conclude that this entertainment you experienced through observing these child soldiers is subliminal stimuli that will eventually undermine your current values, and cause you to support the idea of child soldiers in reality. Perhaps you may even become a foreign mercenary in a warring, underdeveloped nation who employs your own trained child soldiers. If this seems like an absurd speculation to you, then it should be easy to see why your own loli hysteria comes across as inane to others.

Violence and murder in media is also used for entertainment, as it (and gore in general) can be very thrilling to those who observe it, possibly because of those stakes and drama you mentioned. Considering that video games themselves are entertainment media, then it's very reasonable to assume that the entertainment factor that comes from committing illegal or harmful acts is a subliminal motivator for those who engage with such media to extend their in-game activities to reality, at least by your own logic. After all, I don't believe you have the clairvoyancy to factually discern what the author's intent was in how they present killing and violence. Battle Shonen certainly present it in a glamourous manner, and you seem attuned enough to that genre.

In addition, I should probably mention that "dramatization and acknowledgement of stakes" is also entertainment. The fundamental purpose of anime and manga is to entertain the viewer and keep their attention. By raising the stakes and creating drama, you generate thrills that maintain the interest of the viewer.

Loli can very much involve drama factors, contrary to your claims, especially if the loli involved is part of a love triangle or even threatened with rape by another party. Perhaps she would be forcibly stripped in a particular scene, until being rescued by a love interest, which would involve both lust provoking stimuli and drama at the same time. Kodomo no Jikan, for example, has more than its fair share of drama and emotions facilitating the interest of the viewer, beyond the "loli fanservice" it is known for by those who have little interest in it.

Fanservice and ecchi involving lolis may be designed to appeal to lust or involve humorous aspects, but just like "dramatization and acknowledgement of stakes", the end goal is to maintain the viewer's interest through entertainment.

Whether or not it's the focus of the media is irrelevant. Your issue is with the mere presence of loli being portrayed in a manner that provokes (or intends to provoke) lust, not with an arbitrary level of frequency. Very few anime that feature loli fanservice outside of hentai have a premise that focuses on loli fanservice. More often than not, the "loli character" with a petite frame is part of a harem dynamic, and has about as many ecchi scenes as any of the girls with more mature frames in the series, if not less.

If your main issue is how a character entertains someone, then surely a liking towards tsunderes or yanderes would also be seen as "disgusting" to you, in such a way that encourages some sort of real legal enforcement to ensure no one likes these characters? After all, hitting the main character unprovoked or killing other female characters who may be seen as a threat to their love isn't something pure and virtuous, so why would you be entertained by it?

@Archean-Return


I know dramatization and acknowledgement of stakes is part of entertainment, but i excluded it because that was self-explanatory.. the reason it is entertainment is BECAUSE of those two reasons. A lot of shounen is not the brutality and dismemberment of humans for personal interest, its the implementation of martial arts. Martial arts is entertainment yes, but not because humans are dying, its because humans are willfully fighting and a lot of it is built up by stakes and drama. Media includes death and murder into art because they know humans are turned off by it- because most people dont want to die.
You cant say the same for liking animated child porn. its not added into the story because its meant to be uneasy or interesting for the viewer thematically, its supposed to be sexually arousing.

Martial arts is the fight against death- and people connect with that thematically and overrall find the art and movement entertaining. There are many many reasons why people enjoy fighting and death in media- and 99% of the time, brutalization of a character would be meaningless if there was no storytelling themes, stakes, or drama involved in it. most people would not find it entertaining. online you see a lot of people complain about meaningless grotesque scenes that serve no purpose. because people dont like to see others die if it does not provide anything to the story whatsoever.

For instance, i do not enjoy elfen lied beause a lot of it is just the dismemberment of characters without any reasoning behind it, it almost seems like just the sheer death of humans is supposed to be the enjoyment factor - which is not attractive to me.

I didnt say loli porn had no story elements, im saying all these story elements like love traingles, rape threatening etc is supposed to lead to an overral pay off of child sex acts. the purpose of loli porn or porn in general is to be sexually aroused- that is the ultimate payoff. This is the opposite for other forms of media. There are horrific elements in conventional forms of media for the ultimate payoff of redemption or a follow through to those stakes- most of which are not meant to be sexually arousing, just entertaining.

while something like berserk will include child rape in the story for the viewer to feel disgust and disdain for a character- a lot of porn will have that actually as the selling point for sexual enjoyment. that is the big difference.

TL;DR
conventional forms of media = show violence for a redeeming pay off because most people are afraid of violence
loli hentai = show sexually arousing children because the viewers are not afraid but interested/entertained by this

No, you excluded it because it was inconvenient for your argument. Just as the fighting in battle shonen is intended to be stimulating to the viewer because of the action involved, fanservice is stimulating to the viewer because of the sexual appeal it elicits. Making the case that either of these "encourage" harmful actions in reality is drawn from the same well. In either case, a disingenuous argument would be that these things being portrayed in a glamourous or enticing manner in fiction will desensitise the viewer to them in reality, resulting in them emulating them eventually. The tangent about martial arts is irrelevant, as only a few battle shonen actually have any strict adherence to the rules and strategies employed in martial arts.

"Loli porn" is hentai, not televised anime that happens to feature ecchi fanservice or lolis. Furthermore, sex is very rare in anime outside of hentai, regardless of whether or not it involves lolis. The overall payoff, more often than not, is either never seen (because lolis rarely "win), or just a regular romantic relationship with all the same themes and narrative elements that happen in any other romantic scenario.

Funny you mention Berserk, since it has a panel that features a naked Schierke (a girl with a loli bodytype) tending to a wounded Guts while completely naked, with her ass on display. Can you inform me where the disgust and disdain was supposed to come into play here?

Violence in media is intended, at its core, to entertain the viewer. Because this violence in media does not magically induce injury in the viewer, no one is afraid of it. The only type of media anyone will possibly watch to be afraid is horror, and even then that "fear" is translated into thrill.

Loli fanservice is intended, at its core, to entertain the viewer. Because these lolis are not real and don't remotely resemble real people, the moral and legal implications of assaulting a real child is completely irrelevant to it.


How is it not comparable? Both of these archetypes frequently involve behaviours that are not respectable or virtuous in reality, thus they are an element that should be excised from fiction, correct? Where do you arbitrarily draw the line? Why is one act or mannerism that wouldn't be righteous in real life so different from another? Surely we should sterilise fiction of all these elements, so as to best ensure no one is influenced by them, right? Individual responsibility be damned.

For someone with such a zeal for moral grandstanding, you're laughably incapable of following the rules of the website you're on, what with all the insult flinging.

Violence in media has never been required to have much meaning, if any. Most of the violence you can conduct on civilians in GTA has absolutely no meaning at all, other than entertaining the player, which I have already mentioned prior. There's plenty of guro hentai and violent games out there that weren't made with some profound philosophy attached to them, so should they be banned? Is whether something is acceptable in fiction now a manner of the nebulous "meaning" that is subjectively ascribed to it?

If you're going to use Berserk as an example of an author presenting a theme or subject in a solely negative, demotivational way, then it hence loses relevance when you see that the subject is actually presented in a much more multi-faceted manner. It's far more likely that any rape in Berserk that featured lolis was intended to frame the act of rape as a concept in a negative way, rather than lolis.


And where's your evidence that someone being entertained by lolis in ecchi scenes or yanderes harming or killing other characters has a causation effect that results in the viewer/reader emulating or endorsing these acts in real life? Keep in mind the people who consume media like this are mainly teenagers or young adults, and are thus nowhere near as impressionable as children.

The brand of virtue signalling you're conducting is very much moral grandstanding. You do it for the thrill of the thrill of the controversy it generates, rather than a cohesive worldview or code of principle you can apply on a broader scale to any facet of life.


And in your own words, verbatim:

Ah right, that explains it. So rather than having comprehensive, consistent values that dictate how you perceive reality, you simply oppose anything that personally disgusts you, as if leaving your inexplicable morals up to random chance. Makes you curious as to how enjoyable the internet would be if everyone on it was so unhinged as to harass anyone who had interests that they didn't share.

So shota Guts' rape by Donovan was framed as a heinous and traumatic event for Guts, and it's highly likely that Miura intended for this to be the case. On the other hand, when we see that Miura drew a panel featuring a naked Schierke with a nicely shaped ass tending to Guts, it's likely that this scene was intended to be pleasant for the reader, without involving any ostensibly traumatic or harmful impacts on our main character. If anything, that's a demonstration of how fiction doesn't have to vilify loli or shota just to satiate the previously mentioned insatiable moral grandstanding of any potential readers, since even the author assumes the reader is intelligent enough to not conflate fiction with reality on a one-to-one basis.

You are definitely attracted to the hustle and bustle of controversy. Opposing real issues that actually cause tangible harm to others — such as animal abuse, genital mutilation, child grooming gangs, child soldiers, etc., isn't a priority for one such as yourself, because there's no thrills to be generated in opposing these things, with how uncontroversially bad they are. As a consequence, you now manufacture issues that don't exist to be mad about, because you can generate more personal thrills for yourself that way, through the people who naturally oppose your insane and tyrannical perspective. The idea of an attraction in isolation being "morally wrong" (i.e., thought crime) serves as a perfect example of the sort of inane reasoning you've adopted to justify your theatrical outrage.

I previously mentioned why you using Berserk as your own personal bible was faulty from the outset, so it's no surprise that you're now resorting to outright denial of ever using it as a guidebook. On the subject of "bringing things" up, perhaps you shouldn't namedrop manga that don't make a point of parroting your views without any divergence.

I guess it depends on the context. For Example, Non non Biyori is only as entertaining as it is because the characters are young and inexperienced with the world. They view the world with fresh eyes and imagination. If they were all in their mid 30s, it wouldn't be nearly the same.

Likewise, as much as I like DBZ, Gohan going into battle against two fully-grown battle-hardened killers when he is only FOUR AND A HALF years old, always kind of took me out of it, lol. Even Thorfin in Vinland saga, becoming a killer when he is only 6, and instantly becoming a badass, felt a bit young to me. I feel like he should have been closer to 10/11 and it would have felt a little more believable.

So yes, I guess age does matter depending on context.

You should give some anime like Shoujo Ramune a watch. It's not like the people you're referencing are breaking any rules (at least as far as their self-expression and engagement on that specific topic of their attractions). This is a database website for people who like and engage with all different entries and want different things out of the medium. If they ever did what you're suggesting, they'd have to purge their own database of anime which you/others would accuse of the same. Of any anime which didn't pass some ideological litmus test. The website would be DOA (Dead on Arrival) if that ever came to pass.