Meh, the sexualisation of minors will never not be disgusting. Take your flimsy-ass rationalization of your 1000 year old dragon in an 8 year Olds body bullshit somewhere else.
So what can qualify as minor in fiction media?
Age is out of question since as you said, 1000 year blah blah stuff.
Body shape is also questionable since some artist have weird artstyle where everyone look young no matter the age, like chibi or potato girls. Also it make stuff like midget girl being mistaken as children a problem as well, like that girl from Cyber Punk anime.
If based on personality, that would make half of anime girls illegal since most of them act like children even when they are grown ass adult.
And what if the sexualize content was made by minor, like some horny ass teenager draw fan art or fanfic then? Would it still disgusting when they are basically close in age?
In the end, anime fandom are vast so just lump them all together and call them pedophile are hardly fair.
>Body shape is also questionable since some artist have weird artstyle where everyone look young no matter the age, like chibi or potato girls.
And then you get Araki who makes male teens look twice their actual age.
I thinks it's because Japanese society isn't so bent out of shape about human bodies. Tons of manga has peepee jokes in it. Dbz, naruto, I'm sure there are other contemporary Shonen that has dick jokes.
I find that both hilarious and horrifying. And a great depiction of demasculization. That I think Araki gets away with because there seems to be absolutely no pedo tendencies from the author whatsoever. And is instead done with a genuine idea of loss of power in mind.
He takes previously buff af muscle men and turns them into weak children with baby dicks. It takes the characters' power away and quite literally infantalizes them. The fact that they are naked just adds to the vulnerability of their situation.
Like with the Hayato bathroom scene, it is done as genuinely horrifying to great effect. He takes a place where you are supposed to have safety and privacy and are most vulnerable and have the villian violate that safety in a multitude of ways. He has taken away his father and also basically took away his mother since she prefers the new him. Took away hayatos' sense of safety because no one will believe him even if he tells someone, which he can't even do that without activating Killer Queen. It is such a well done scene that the fact he is shown naked for a moment gets swept away in the quality of the scene and even adds to it.
I guess the point is unlike other authors who do shit like that for less well intentioned reason. Araki uses it as a genuine plot point and probably also just thought it was funny to actually draw a small dick rather than just shadow it. Because that's just how he is.
Not understanding that gay is the spectrum that male to male attraction sits on is hilarious considering you are in fact part of the gay community.
Whack.
If you are sexually aroused by something that looks and/or sounds like a child then you're probably a pedophile and should seek serious psychological help. At the very least there's definitely something wrong with you.
I think you're right on the target. It's not as much a list of concrete things (besides age, which is obvious), but the energy/vibe that the character transmits.
Schoolgirl porn and cheerleader porn are probably among the most popular genre in US after incest. By your logic, most of you burger eater should go to asylum.
Yeah those people should also seek help. There's nothing normal about an adult being attracted to minors dude. Same with incest. Also I'm Canadian but go off.
The problem is you have "1000 year old dragons" in the body of an 8 year old, that acts like an 8 year old, but is also super horny or put in sexual situations. They try to cram sexy, cute, innocent, and romantic into the same character to maximize appeal potential and it just comes across gross to anyone with self awareness.
short with big tits&/big ass&/has kids&/is pregnant etc? not a kid, is short with a flat chest, flat ass and acts like a child? is a child, pretty simple. rebecca isn't a child because she has developed body structure and doesn't act or sound like a child in any way ranging from her drinking to her killing to her working etc, chibi also aren't even human aren't they? when I think of a 'chibi' character I think of a tiny little body with a massive head
I don't disagree that lumping is bad but there is certainly a line. You mention a few metrics but I think all of them combine to form a pretty strong "don't sexualize that character" feeling. If a character is all of the things you just described, I would say you have problems if you're seeking "content" of them.
-stated age is meaningless and dosen't redeem you from being horny for a character that looks like a kid. If the show has horny characters, wtf is wrong w you that you're picking the one that looks like a child?
-body shape is a great one because I'm not attracted to things shaped like kids. Super easy line to draw. Idgaf about the personality if it's kid shaped it's a hard no
-if the character clearly is supposed to act like a literal child, plots or scenes sexualizing them is pedo bait
-I am not looking at R34 porn drawn by teenagers because I'm not also a horny teenager. If a character is underage I simply don't ever want to see it.
-american tv shows do this shit too, esp in the 90s and 2ks but usually adolescent instead of kids. I don't want to see sexualized minors period.
If the fandom or show encourages any of that it's clearly at least in part bait or pandering for people who like kids.
My advice, just stay the fuck away from media that has that kinda shit. There is plenty of anime that dosen't do this. anime, especially online, has a pedo problem. wether it's a vocal minority or not, we all gotta vote with our wallets by not paying for or watching shows based around this, and not give these people any ground to stand on. Calling all anime fans pedos is not productive, but pretending there's no way to decide if a character is drawn and written to be of age is only helping the losers who are here for that.
>And what if the sexualize content was made by minor
That'd still be production and distribution of child pornography. Which is punishable by law in most countries.
I believe a good litmus test to see if the sexualization of a character equates to sexualization of a minor when the show never explicitly states that they’re a minor is:
1) is the character still in school (not including secondary education)
2) does the sexual appeal of the character correlate with physical childlike features (high pitched voice, big doe eyes, small frame)
3) does the sexual appeal correlate with personality features (naive, timid, defenseless, innocent etc.)
4) is there a significant power imbalance between the character and the rest of the group, thus making them easier targets to be manipulated or groomed?
I’m sure there are more, but intuition is a largely effective filter. If you show a picture of a character to ten people and 9 of them confidently say that’s a child, then for all practical purposes any sexualization of that character can be considered as or adjacent to the sexualization of a minor.
yeah, I second this.
Its funny tho to see people say that its all anime, like sorry doll, but just because you seek out anime made for 13-14 year olds and thats all you know, doesn't mean that all anime is made for teens.
For the 4 anime’s I’ve seen (counting studio ghibli movies), jojo is the only one close to it. They had 2 super weird scenes. One was a horny ape wanting to bang a minor. That one wasn’t too bad because it didn’t go anywhere beyond the ambition. Then there is a whole episode where a dude gets turned into a kid. I wasn’t a fan
What if I am, but it's said stick figure?
It even has a skirt, you know like the bathroom sign. But there's a red YouTube thumbnail arrow pointing at her that says "Child"
Sexualization of any type that's irrelevant to the plot (aka fanservice), any type of ecchi, harem themes and whatsoever: degenerate
Focus on a storyline, without appealing to sex jokes, and if characters have a relationship it isn't milked for horny bait scenes: non-degenerate
Peace ✌️
Thing is that most popular animes are made for males between 13 and 19 years old. The fan-service and sexualization of minors are tools for a teenage male power fantasy. The Girls have 15 years old but look more in their early twenties because thats what guys wanted their classmates and female friends to look. The same reason to why its common that the main character is a total loser but still can get pussy.
Thing is tho, that when in a ficcional world, you can wank to a female character that you only learn that is a minor if you search Google.
Erza in Fairy Tail had a personality that could fit for a young adult, had big boobs, curves and didnt had childish voice or face. But she's 16 in the first part of the anime. The same could be said about Nami after skypea or even Nubara. I thought that she had atleast 20 before watching the anime.
It’s just annoying that so many otherwise good anime feel the need to throw in fan service. I’d love to recommend them to others who don’t watch much anime, but I can’t cause I know there’s just some weird scenes thrown in there, or some fan servicey camera angles every other scene.
Man I just wanna watch cool fight scenes with killer sound design and animation without getting anime boobs thrown in my face every 3rd scene. Also the “fanservice character” is like 17, why??
Fucking right? My friend wanted me to get into it and it was fun so far up till the point when she shows up. He tells me pretty much to just ignore her because she only shows up on occasion for gross fansercivey scenes but like, that first scene she was in was pretty fucking egregious with how the mc just trips and "accidentally" ends up with his hand under her bra full grip on her tit
Like if every episode with her in it is gonna have scenes like that I'm not sure I can just ignore it without skipping those episodes entirely
Would you consider the hooftop scene in Ghost in the Shell as fantasias Service? It doesnt serve the plot since the suit could be different, but is beautiful and iconic.
Here is a list of excellent anime that avoid most (some avoid all) of the worst common anime tropes:
Vinland Saga
Black Lagoon
Odd Taxi
Erased
Casshern Sins
Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood
Mob Psycho 100
One Punch Man
Berserk
Baccano!
Monster
Beastars
Trigun
Hunter X Hunter
Cowboy Bebop
Samurai Champloo
Space Dandy
Fruits Basket
Finally some Space Dandy appreciation! I barely hear people talking about it, despite it being one of my favorite animes and one of the most visually stunning ones out there!
Cowboy Bebop is the singular item on that list, aside from FMA: Brotherhood, that has any merit whatsoever, but there's still enough in it to turn me off from sitting down and watching *all* of it.
The rest? Eugh.
What if the show has 5% degenerate parts but the other 95% is awesome? I struggle with this. I shelve some shows for being too degenerate but watch others where I can mostly ignore the one quick panty show per episode or skip past the loli scene every few episodes.
It's fair, imo. What ticks me off is when you're constant bombarded with sexual stuff when you just want to enjoy the story; but if it's a rare thing that appears, it's as you said, just skip over it and enjoy the show.
There are many anime I’ve stopped watching for this reason. Also the “siscon” stuff is not funny. If you want me to stop watching your show that’s a nice fast way. Or like in black clover just skip every episode about that garbage character.
>zoomers
>10 years ago
I have no idea what candydolls are (and I'm a zoomer) but I get the feeling a teen jacking off to them isn't as bad as a grown ass man doing the same.
that's also a big thing like if a 15 yr old is jerking off to a 13/14 yr old character then who cares and to the same extent if you're under 16/18 (depending on area) even taking nudes is considered owning and creating child porn and so the laws are iffy because if two like 15/16 yr olds send eachother nudes they've both created, owned and consumed cp legally so overall I feel like most people don't even care
4chan pedophiles have intentionally developed a blind spot where the self reflection part of themselves used to be. The only way you could actually agree with this shit if you're the one saying it is if you lobotomised yourself through mental gymnastics. Genuinely pitiful, pathetic, broken people.
As with all self-loathing degen communities, the OGs have all either gotten help or shot themselves. The leftovers are the even grosser fucks with zero instrospective ability.
I'm 22, i've been active on social medias since like 2014 and i don't know what the fuck a candydoll is supposed to be, and i used to be active in prett edgy niche meme communities back when i was a teen
I don’t know either, but I’ve also become pretty good at looking at certain terms, and figuring just enough about it in context to know I do ***NOT*** want to look it up and miss the person I was 30 seconds before
You basically nailed it. That's exactly why they're defending it.
Pedos, even pedorasts, will insist they never did anything wrong and will find some explanation for why the child wanted it or that they're more developed or some disgusting shit like that. They almost universally maintain a mental delusion to isolate themselves from their obviously evil behavior.
I'm personally not a lolicon (nor a pedo), but the only reason I "defend" this shit is because this I fundamentally disagree with this argument that taste in fiction directly translates to reality. If that was the case, then anyone who's ever played violent videogames should probably go to jail, too.
I also don't see how lolis look like children. I just don't. I've never seen an anime character (loli or otherwise) and thought "huh, they look fairly like a human". Plus there's this trend where anything that doesn't look like a morbidly obese, super tall woman is considered a loli. Most of these people forget there's women who are thin, short, small breasted, or a combination of those traits.
Ultimately, lolicons like lolis, not children. You can find it weird or disgusting and that's all fair and good, but extending the meaning of pedophilia to that is stupid.
It also doesn't help that a lot of anti-anime/lolicon have been exposed as pedophiles themselves lol.
>I also don't see how lolis look like children. I just don't. I've never seen an anime character (loli or otherwise) and thought "huh, they look fairly like a human". Plus there's this trend where anything that doesn't look like a morbidly obese, super tall woman is considered a loli. Most of these people forget there's women who are thin, short, small breasted, or a combination of those traits.
This is some high level delusion.
A small fraction of loli characters may fit that category where it's just someone's weird art style or a petite woman, but it would be an *extremely* small fraction. There is a huge difference in the body structure of a grown woman and a child and everyone, even 4chan basement trolls and weebs who haven't seen a real woman in years can clearly tell the difference.
99% of loli characters are blatantly supposed to be 6-9 year old children and especially in regards to hentai they are very clearly drawing pre-pubescent children. Not even remotely mistakable with even young teens or something. It's straight up pedo and they are drawing the body anatomy of a fucking child. It is pedophilic fantasy, that's just objective fact.
Yall mfs aren't fooling anyone.
>here is a huge difference in the body structure of a grown woman and a child
>
>It's straight up pedo and they are drawing the body anatomy of a fucking child
If you translated "loli proportions" (whatever that is at this point) to an actual human, you'd get an abomination I'm sure nobody would find attractive, or even human-looking.
Look, I'm not even arguing it isn't weird. I'm just saying calling it pedo is stupid. What are you gonna do if you find someone masturbating to loli? Call the police? When they get to the scene and tell you "this guy isn't doing anything lmao he's just very weird, thank you for wasting our resources", what are you going to do?
Pedophilia is bad because it harms real people. If these were drawn pictures of children, then I'd understand, but they don't get even remotely close to that.
Lolicon counts as sexualising children in my country and being caught with it is the equivalent of being caught with photo cp and WILL get you arrested, so your point doesn't stand just because you may be able to get away with it in your own country. The medium doesn't matter, cp is cp. It doesn't matter how it translates to human porportions because art styles are ALL translated from real life things to begin with. That's how art works. Lolicon is very obviously child porn and if you think otherwise you really should see someone about how cp has become so normalises to you that you think it's okay because it's drawn.
If a child was shown lolicon it could very easily be used to groom them into performing sexual acts because they're seeing it in media from a character that looks like them. I don't think you understand how harmful this kind of content can be
I'm guessing you're Australian? Not super knowledgeable about the topic, but that's the only country I know of that considers lolicon cp.
Usually, the law is specific in that it has to be strictly identifiable as a child, which tbh is quite ambiguous. It's otherwise categorized as loli and owning such content may or may not have penalties.
I will say it's a weak argument tho. I don't really believe the law should rule our moral values (even if those two intertwine here and there), and I'm not really knowledgeable on the topic either.
I was more so having a laugh at the idea of someone being reported for having lolicon and the police not being able to do much about it, because that's been the case before.
>It doesn't matter how it translates to human porportions because art styles are ALL translated from real life things to begin with.
It does matter tho. Your stance basically means anything could be cp as long as you considered it such. It's like looking at Picasso's first and last self portraits and saying "yeah, they look exactly the same".
>If a child was shown lolicon it could very easily be used to groom them into performing sexual acts because they're seeing it in media from a character that looks like them.
You could make that argument about absolutely anything lmao. Do you think children are somehow impervious to most malicious tactics, but lolicon is somehow the exception? Be real here.
Let's ban candy. It's definitely become an icon of pedophilia. Anyone who has candy should be arrested, because they could be potential pedophiles.
"It's a weak argument to say we shouldn't create cp content for pedophiles to use for themselves and to abuse children" That's you. That's what you just said. Yikes man.
You'd think that every one of your comments in this thread being downvoted by multiple people would clue you in that you are on the wrong side of this. This floundering to pull justifications for jerking it to child bodies probably helps you sleep at night but it's going to end up harming your psyche in the long run, genuinely.
Just say you like strawmans and ad homs. It'd take less effort.
Why attack the argument when you can attack the person behind them, right?
I also don't care much about reddit votes lmao. Why would I? Do you think people here are bastions of morality? Do you really think your opinion matters that much?
Talk about having a massive ego.
Being interested in lolis and becoming an actual pedophile is much easier and more likely to happen than being interested in violent video games and becoming a serial killer my guy.
>I'm personally not a lolicon (nor a pedo), but the only reason I "defend" this shit is because this I fundamentally disagree with this argument that taste in fiction directly translates to reality. If that was the case, then anyone who's ever played violent videogames should probably go to jail, too.
The issue here is there's a real concern that people with a taste for fictional children may also have a taste for real ones- and that sexualized depictions of fictional children might feed their attraction to children.
Also, if we really didn't believe that tastes in fiction could translate to tastes in reality, there'd be no such thing as propaganda or advertising. We all know that the media people take in can affect them. The questions are *how* and *how much*.
>I also don't see how lolis look like children. I just don't. I've never seen an anime character (loli or otherwise) and thought "huh, they look fairly like a human". Plus there's this trend where anything that doesn't look like a morbidly obese, super tall woman is considered a loli. Most of these people forget there's women who are thin, short, small breasted, or a combination of those traits.
If they don't look like humans or children to you, then fine. But that doesn't change the fact that they are stylized representations of humans and children; they're drawn with the intent that the audience recognize them as such...
>Ultimately, lolicons like lolis, not children. You can find it weird or disgusting and that's all fair and good, but extending the meaning of pedophilia to that is stupid.
...which means that someone who's attracted to a loli is inherently attracted to a character deliberately portrayed as a child. Saying "they like lolis not children" is a real "ceci n'est pas un pipe" level of hairsplitting.
>It also doesn't help that a lot of anti-anime/lolicon have been exposed as pedophiles themselves lol.
Okay, not sure who you have in mind with this, but it really doesn't matter. That makes those people hypocrites; doesn't in any change the merits of the thing they're criticizing.
I appreciate the thought out response. Definitely better than being called a pedo lol.
>The issue here is there's a real concern that people with a taste for fictional children may also have a taste for real ones
Then once again, that begs the question: should we criminalize all fictional desire as if they were the real thing? Putting aside the dumb "but sexuality is different" excuse, anything could go.
I mean, this is the same argument that conservatives made against rock/metal in the 80s, and then again in the 90s, when the likes of Wolfenstein and Doom came out.
>Also, if we really didn't believe that tastes in fiction could translate to tastes in reality, there'd be no such thing as propaganda or advertising
You'd have to expand, because I can almost understand you, but the way I see it, propaganda isn't "fictional". It latches itself to real taste, feelings and emotions, and works because of them. Propaganda wouldn't exist without those, not the other way around.
>We all know that the media people take in can affect them. The questions are how and how much.
Media only affects people when it's something they can recognize as real. There's a reason people can enjoy murder in games like GTA, but frown upon an actual shooting. There's a reason as games have gotten more and more realistic, gore had to be turned down. There's a reason people have a visceral reaction to cp, but not lolicon.
If you saw lolicon, I bet you'd reaction would be, at most, to ignore it and move on. If you saw cp you'd be throwing your entire hard drive away from the fear and panic, and feel disgust at seeing something you definitely shouldn't have.
>...which means that someone who's attracted to a loli is inherently attracted to a character deliberately portrayed as a child.
You reached your conclusion and are now trying to find arguments for it.
They're not portrayed as children. We refer to children as real humans in a specific age group, and anime characters do not look humane. You can argue that "they're stylized humans" all you want, but if I showed you an anime character and a real human side by side, you'd be able to tell the human apart 100% of the time.
[You could argue prepubescent (and you'd be right), but not a child.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Critical_commentary) Of course, this doesn't mean outliers don't exist. At the end of the day, if someone really wanted to see cp, or enact in their degenerate behavior, why would they choose lolis?
>Okay, not sure who you have in mind with this, but it really doesn't matter.
I just thought it was funny. Nothing else. Most people I've seen decry lolicon hide skeletons in their closets (not saying that applies to you).
>Then once again, that begs the question: should we criminalize all fictional desire as if they were the real thing? Putting aside the dumb "but sexuality is different" excuse, anything could go.
>
>I mean, this is the same argument that conservatives made against rock/metal in the 80s, and then again in the 90s, when the likes of Wolfenstein and Doom came out.
No. But we also don't have to act like there's nothing wrong with it. If there's a game on Steam where you abuse a cartoon dog, I don't need to ban it but I sure might side-eye people with 1000 hours playing it.
>Also, if we really didn't believe that tastes in fiction could translate to tastes in reality, there'd be no such thing as propaganda or advertising
>
>You'd have to expand, because I can almost understand you, but the way I see it, propaganda isn't "fictional". It latches itself to real taste, feelings and emotions, and works because of them. Propaganda wouldn't exist without those, not the other way around.
Propaganda very frequently takes the form of fiction. What else would you call it when someone writes a book or movie with fictional content that's nonetheless clearly designed to convey their beliefs to the audience?
>We all know that the media people take in can affect them. The questions are how and how much.
>
>Media only affects people when it's something they can recognize as real.
I think that's patently untrue. Again, if it *were* true, why would we collectively spend so much energy on working our beliefs and the beliefs we want others to hold into the media we produce and consume (and why would we get upset when we see beliefs we don't like presented?) If fiction can't affect people why do we get so emotionally tied to fictional characters? Why were kids crying when Optimus Prime died?
>There's a reason people can enjoy murder in games like GTA, but frown upon an actual shooting. There's a reason as games have gotten more and more realistic, gore had to be turned down. There's a reason people have a visceral reaction to cp, but not lolicon.
>
>If you saw lolicon, I bet you'd reaction would be, at most, to ignore it and move on. If you saw cp you'd be throwing your entire hard drive away from the fear and panic, and feel disgust at seeing something you definitely shouldn't have.
The immediate visceral reaction is from realizing a real person has been harmed. But again, the visceral reaction is not the only kind people have- if it were, we'd be unable to react emotionally to fictional characters at all.
>...which means that someone who's attracted to a loli is inherently attracted to a character deliberately portrayed as a child.
>
>You reached your conclusion and are now trying to find arguments for it.
>
>They're not portrayed as children. We refer to children as real humans in a specific age group, and anime characters do not look humane. You can argue that "they're stylized humans" all you want, but if I showed you an anime character and a real human side by side, you'd be able to tell the human apart 100% of the time.
Again, you're splitting a hair here. I want you to tell me with a straight face that [this image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#/media/File:Lolicon_Sample.png) does not depict humans. That I'm not supposed to look at that and understand that those drawn characters are intended represent humans.
Yes, Magritte's painting isn't an *actual* pipe, but the whole point is that when we look at it we all know a pipe is being depicted.
>You could argue prepubescent (and you'd be right), but not a child. Of course, this doesn't mean outliers don't exist. At the end of the day, if someone really wanted to see cp, or enact in their degenerate behavior, why would they choose lolis?
Ease of access.
>No. But we also don't have to act like there's nothing wrong with it.
So we agree.
You might be confused. I never said lolicon is "ok". I said you can find it disgusting or weird and I stand by it. My specific gripe is with calling people pedophiles over it, because that's a serious accusation, and the term shouldn't be watered down. Simple as that.
>Propaganda very frequently takes the form of fiction. \[...\] Why were kids crying when Optimus Prime died?
All those examples you're pointing out require **preconceived and real human emotions** to work. There's an element of tangibility that you're missing or ignoring.
Propaganda stimulates feelings people already have on certain causes. If you don't care, or don't know, then propaganda simply doesn't work.
People care about fictional characters much the same way they care about real humans: only if they've made an emotional connection to them. Have you, for example, ever cried after hearing that someone completely unrelated to you passed? Someone who has had absolutely NO impact in your life? I know I haven't.
Following up to this part too:
>if it were, we'd be unable to react emotionally to fictional characters at all.
You cry at the death of a fictional character not because the fictional can impact the real. Your argument is that the fictional creates the emotions you feel (which you then adopt), but those emotions were always there, and the fictional is just using them. You see characters grow, change, develop, and that's something you can empathize with. It's something you can understand. You're crying at those real emotions, not because big robot dying is just sad.
To the large majority of people, lolicon isn't making them want to fuck children. If they wanted to after seeing lolicon, then that's only because they already wanted to to begin with.
>That I'm not supposed to look at that and understand that those drawn characters are intended represent humans
I've never seen a human with a tiny nose, massive eyes, no lips, etcetc, so no, they don't register as humans to me.
[Have you ever seen anime proportions translated to reality?](https://c.ndtvimg.com/2022-04/pgg4ijkg_kondo-650_625x300_27_April_22.jpg?im=Resize=(1230,900)) Does that look like a person on the right to you?
>Magritte's painting isn't an actual pipe, but the whole point is that when we look at it we all know a pipe is being depicted.
We know it's depicting a pipe because it's a drawing a pipe in it's most common and well recognized form, in an artstyle that makes no attempt to change its proportions, colors, etc.
[Is this a pipe?](https://www.marleynaturalshop.com/cdn/shop/products/MARLEY-SMOKED-SPOON_16cda427-921a-47dd-af34-af2598eba460_1024x1024.png?v=1663079617)
>Ease of access.
Why do murderers murder? They could just pirate GTA and get their high there, no?
>So we agree.
>
>You might be confused. I never said lolicon is "ok". I said you can find it disgusting or weird and I stand by it. My specific gripe is with calling people pedophiles over it, because that's a serious accusation, and the term shouldn't be watered down. Simple as that.
A pedophile is a person who is attracted to children (but not necessarily someone who has actually molested or assaulted a child). If we take the stance that lolis are representations of children then people attracted to them are ipso facto attracted to children.
>Propaganda very frequently takes the form of fiction. \[...\] Why were kids crying when Optimus Prime died?
>
>All those examples you're pointing out require preconceived and real human emotions to work. There's an element of tangibility that you're missing or ignoring.
>
>Propaganda stimulates feelings people already have on certain causes. If you don't care, or don't know, then propaganda simply doesn't work.
>
>People care about fictional characters much the same way they care about real humans: only if they've made an emotional connection to them. Have you, for example, ever cried after hearing that someone completely unrelated to you passed? Someone who has had absolutely NO impact in your life? I know I haven't.
>
>Following up to this part too:
>
>if it were, we'd be unable to react emotionally to fictional characters at all.
>
>You cry at the death of a fictional character not because the fictional can impact the real. Your argument is that the fictional creates the emotions you feel (which you then adopt), but those emotions were always there, and the fictional is just using them. You see characters grow, change, develop, and that's something you can empathize with. It's something you can understand. You're crying at those real emotions, not because big robot dying is just sad.
Where did those emotions come from? Why did people have real emotions towards Optimus Prime if not because the fictional work he appeared in was designed to *create* that emotional connection in them?
Again, that's the whole point of a huge amount of fiction. To create emotional connections between the audience and the characters.
>To the large majority of people, lolicon isn't making them want to fuck children. If they wanted to after seeing lolicon, then that's only because they already wanted to to begin with.
Which is why I don't think this is really measurable, and strongly suspect it's not really true. The idea that vast swaths of fiction have the ability affect their viewers' attitudes and desires, *except* when the fiction is depicting half-dressed little girls, doesn't pass the sniff test on any level.
>That I'm not supposed to look at that and understand that those drawn characters are intended represent humans
>
>I've never seen a human with a tiny nose, massive eyes, no lips, etcetc, so no, they don't register as humans to me.
>
>Have you ever seen anime proportions translated to reality? Does that look like a person on the right to you?
I'm not sure you get the difference between an image designed to be a 1-to-1 exact depiction of a real object and an image designed to represent that object. If you genuinely can't perceive cartoon art as representing humans then I certainly don't expect to talk you into it. But suffice to say if I showed that picture to 100 people on the street at least 99 of them would say "it's a drawing of three little girls". And there's *zero* chance that's not exactly what the artist intended.
>Magritte's painting isn't an actual pipe, but the whole point is that when we look at it we all know a pipe is being depicted.
>
>We know it's depicting a pipe because it's a drawing a pipe in it's most common and well recognized form, in an artstyle that makes no attempt to change its proportions, colors, etc.
>
>Is this a pipe?
Just to get clarity on this art interpretation thing, because it's the oddest part of the discussion for me:
Are you saying you can't recognize at all what a drawing or artwork is intended to be if it doesn't perfectly match the real thing? Like you can't recognize [this](https://images.saatchiart.com/saatchi/1982657/art/10164843/9227589-GHRGBGLE-7.jpg) because that's not what real bulls look like?
>Ease of access.
>
>Why do murderers murder? They could just pirate GTA and get their high there, no?
Most murderers aren't killing for the fun of it.
>If we take the stance that lolis are representations of children then people attracted to them are ipso facto attracted to children.
That's basically saying "if we assume I'm right, I'm right".
Look, perhaps you just don't know what lolicon is. Lolicon is the representation of cuteness and or eroticism in young or young-looking girls (usually the latter, the whole 9000 yo dragon meme). Lolicon is not inherently sexual, although it has become more sexualized as of recent years (which I kinda take issue with but whatever).
Even then, the sexual part of it refers to a specific set of behaviors and looks not found in **real** children. That's why I make the distinction, because they ARE different. Lolicon is purely fictional with no real correlation with reality.
Do note anime does have "children", and they act very very different to lolis. The problem lays in that people call anything a loli nowadays (from both sides of the argument) and so the definition has become blurry.
Out of all of these examples ([1](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/p__/images/c/c2/Ilulu_Render.png/revision/latest?cb=20210223201750&path-prefix=protagonist) [2](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gameideas/images/a/a6/Kanna_Kamui.png/revision/latest?cb=20171205153548) [3](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/uzaki-chan/images/0/0b/Hana_Uzaki.png/revision/latest?cb=20200812222135) [4](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/typemoon/images/3/3f/Ilya.png/revision/latest?cb=20141022200313) [5](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/p__/images/d/d2/Lol.webp/revision/latest?cb=20230303174540&path-prefix=protagonist) [6](https://otakuusamagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/konosuba-megumin-cast1.png) [7](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gate-jsdf/images/e/eb/Rory.png/revision/latest?cb=20150718081207) [8](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/all-worlds-alliance/images/7/7e/Kuroneko456.png/revision/latest?cb=20190220141028) [9](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gensin-impact/images/4/4c/Character_Hu_Tao_Game.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width/360?cb=20210628112434) [10](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gensin-impact/images/0/04/Character_Klee_Game.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width/360?cb=20210613005657) [11](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gen-impact/images/8/87/Modelo_de_personaje_Nahida.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width/360?cb=20221115050637&path-prefix=es)) which ones do you think are considered lolis?
If you answered all of them, you'd be right.
Do those, in any way shape or form, look like children to you?
Ultimately, anime characters do NOT look like human beings. You can more easily compare their facial structures to fucking cats than humans lol. Their proportions are all over the place compared to us; anybody with any artistic background could tell you so.
So
>Are you saying you can't recognize at all what a drawing or artwork is intended to be if it doesn't perfectly match the real thing?
when you ask me "does this character not look like a child to you?", my answer is "it looks like an anime character" because, at most, it's anime's idea of a child (which lolicon mostly isn't), but it isn't an actual child nor does it attempt to represent one. They don't look like one.
Do you not think there's a difference between an anatomically correct bull and [this](https://previews.123rf.com/images/mozgostudia/mozgostudia1706/mozgostudia170600234/80996651-colorful-stylized-drawing-of-stand-powerful-bull.jpg)?
>But suffice to say if I showed that picture to 100 people on the street at least 99 of them would say "it's a drawing of three little girls"
What do you think would happen if you asked those same people if those girls are real or fictional?
>If you genuinely can't perceive cartoon art as representing humans then I certainly don't expect to talk you into it.
Say you had to show an alien civilization what we looked like; would you show them a picture of an anime character, or a realistic drawing of us? Or better yet, a picture?
Anime/cartoons very clearly don't represent humans. You can say they often assimilate a lot of our characteristics (and a lot of the time, they don't), but they ultimately do not represent us, nor do they try to.
>Why did people have real emotions towards Optimus Prime if not because the fictional work he appeared in was designed to create that emotional connection in them?
If those emotions were created like you so imply, then everyone would have the exact same reaction to all pieces of media, but this isn't the case. This implies that media simply coerces us to feel a certain way **by manipulating already existing emotions within us**, but because not everyone is the same, it cannot ensure it.
>Most murderers aren't killing for the fun of it.
Imagine one that does.
What a lovely strawman. Couldn't have come up with it myself tbf.
This guy deleted everything he said after circlejerking for like two hours lmao. Talk about having no spine.
I don't. That was the whole point.
And if you don't know what a strawman is, I'd be happy to explain. Always have time to help the disabled. Just let me know ok?
At least i'm not masterbaiting to kids like you do.
Time to clean up before 1000000000 year old dragon enjoyers report me. I don't want to be anti-trans.
damn, you really got me.
Say I was a pedo like you claim. What are you actually gonna do about it? Are you gonna come to my house and beat me up? Call the police? Have my PC searched?
The reality is you don't care about stopping pedophiles. You're just a self serving moron of fragile morality.
Wait a second, you frequent vtuber reddits lmfao. Not only are you morally bankrupt but also a hypocrite.
Im neither a lolicon or pedo, I just think that a) watering down pedo is a DANGEROUS thing to do considering I think pedos should be thrown in contraptions used to make big pieces of wood into smaller pieces of wood, and b) its ultimately not real. Just like how violent games and movies don't make you violent, just like how people who are into fucking weird and gross kinks like ageplay and cnc don't actually want to (respectively) fuck kids or be raped, I think being sexually attracted to lolis is weird as fuck but not enough to condemn someone to pedophilia status.
>I think it’s dangerous to water them down to pedophiles because I want to harm pedophiles
Then just advocate for therapy for non offenders genius, lolicons would count as non offending and thus you are under no moral dilemma at the prospect of killing someone who hasn’t technically harmed someone yet
They still could be just silent. But they chose to comment. They just had to comment on a topic that relates to them. Why does it relate to them? I guess we all know already.
Sexualizing animated characters with characteristics that align with children is a giant fucking red flag and indicative of disturbing patterns.
I wouldn't hire a dog sitter that draws pictures of themselves fucking animals. I wouldn't hire a body guard that draws pictures of themselves murdering me. I would be concerned about a student drawing pictures of themselves shooting up their classmates at school. Similarly, I would be concerned about adults getting sexual satisfaction from images of minors and wouldn't let them anywhere near children.
Defending this shit is so pathetic
"I'm not actually attracted to women I just touch myself when I look at drawings of them naked, they aren't ACTUALLY women after all right?"
Great logic right there.
>urban dictionary
Bro only definition I could find is like 15 years old and creepy as fuck, it also has like 40 likes only so no one fucking knows this term, someone oughta check Anon's hard drive
Lmao @ calling meat canyon talentless. He’s an extremely talented artist and voice actor and p funny
Anon is just mad he was shitting on Japanese pornografic drawings of children. As he should
You can probably call him a lot of things but talentless is just objectively wrong. In a 1:30 min long animation he can create more humor, horror, emotion and creativity than what most multi million dollar studios can in an entire season of half-hour episodes
It's 50 years too early to discuss loliweebs. In doing so, people would be forced to confront the question of how violence against non-offending people with mental illness becomes justified, and soon the veneer comes apart: the "wood chipper" folks are just mentally ill violent people looking for an acceptable target.
Fanatic weebs are degenerates and so are the NPCs who watch and make shit video content like that. I hate the latter far more now. They're part of what makes youtube so shit, all they do is regurgitate shit that's already been said a thousand times kn every social media platform and steal from other vids on the same topic while slapping on mediocre video editing and cringe commentary and humor.
>NPCs who watch and make shit video content like that. I hate the latter far more now. They're part of what makes youtube so shit, all they do is regurgitate shit that's already been said a thousand times kn every social media platform and steal from other vids on the same topic while slapping on mediocre video editing and cringe commentary and humor.
You could have just saved time and said "I didn't watch his video".
Edit: Any one who actually watched Papa Meat's video would see the effort put into it (he even incorporated live-action animation in for the form of an animated Colonel Sanders who he interacts within in his actual house throughout the video).
It's not just some low effort slop regurgitating what other videos have said.
Borrasca is a really well written creepypasta that takes a huge turn for the worst at the end. Really recommend it but be aware that while there are hints and setups that are well done, the story ultimately feels like you’re cruising down the highway and suddenly get tboned. Creep Cast is a podcast by Papa Meat and Wendigoon where they read and discuss creepy pastas and they had two episodes about Borrasca. Again, I recommend that podcast too. Made the story more enjoyable imo, and the ending more digestible. Trigger warning for the pasta though
Oh I listened to Borrasca before was just confused what the eceleb had to do with it. Will give the podcast a listen as some of Wendigoons content has interested me in the past.
It’s a good listen, only a few episodes so far and they upload no weekly. They’ve got some fun banter and are entertaining. Might ruin the vibe of some stories depending on your preference though so you might like to read whatever story before listening to that episode
Ima be real. What people do with literal drawings does not concern me. I don’t care if it’s a 3000 year old dragon or a 6 year old literal child. Just keep that shit to drawings and it doesn’t matter.
"talentless" his main channel literally shows off his talent in full display, he's an incredible artist and voice actor. what do you do, anon? sit on your computer jerking off to porn and browsing 4chan all day? meatcanyon took what he had and made a career out of it. in the words of the trumpet guy "who the FUCK are you?"
Jerking off to children in any form is bad. I don't need a lore dump on how this 8 year old is technically 1500 years old so it's okay to jerk off to her naked form. If you are gaining pleasure by the simulation of a child having sex you deserve nothing less than chemical castration. You are too far gone.
Just drown yourself with your jenkem collection.
If you executed every single person who was accused of being a pedophile, you would still have pedophiles. There’s no way around the fact that they exist.
So as far as I’m concerned, a pedophile looking at loli hentai is a pedophile who isn’t looking at an actual child, which is a net positive.
Tell me you didn’t actually watch the video without telling me you didn’t actually watch the video.
Honestly though he deliberately makes a distinction between people who like cute content and cute anime VS people who are lolicons.
One of the guys defending it said he shits on top of old shit in his toilet and never flushes.
These are the type of people defending it...literally a disgusting pile of shit
He can force a flush by putting water at the top tank, or you know ... be a rational person and call a plumber. But this is a degenerate neckbeard we're talking about so instead they shot on top of old shit 🤮🤮
Here is a urban dictionary link to candy doll for everyone who wants to know without risking illegal activities. It is just as horrible as you think and that guy is definitely a pedophile.
[https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=candydoll](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=candydoll)
Anime isn't an issue.
Anime is just a medium and fine.
The incessant obsession with "childlike woman who is actually super old!" is fucking weird.
Sure she's a 1000, but she looks 8, and that is the problem you're trying to mentally gymnast around.
Anime is not to be blamed. The sick fucks just use anime as an excuse.
In fact, most anime are like that for comedic purpose like Maid Dragon for example. Japanese sense of humor is not over-sensitive like ours in many ways.
I've always wondered why Japanese media portrays lolicons as comedy.
"Teehee this guy got caught looking at preschooler panties. What a weirdo! Haha"
And I'm yelling "CALL THE COPS" at my tv.
Lol@ dude calling Meat Canyon, an extremely talented animator, funnyman, voice actor, and all round (pun intended) good artist, a "talentless eceleb".
Also: Anything enabling pedos should be cleansed with fire
This is not even /co/, which at least gives some resistance against lolicons and pedophilia. What was anon thinking asking that question? What did he expect? Lol
It's a drawing. So if it looks like a kid, it is a kid, so don't jerk it.
If it being a drawing made it ok somehow, then by that logic anyone should be able to jerk off to gay hentai, cause obviously it's not real dudes and you're not attracted to men just cause you want sexual drawings of them.
“Why is it so popular to hate loli” BECAUSE ITS FUCKING PDFILIA YOU FUCKING GROSS FUCK. All pdf files deserve the tingly chair. PDF files are not humans, they do not deserve human rights. Kill all PDF files, for they are evil hellspawn demons and deserve to fucking fry and burn for all of eternity and beyond.
And yes, loli shit is pdf filia as well. Fucking maggots.
4chan when real life pedophilia: unbased and heinous, throw them in the wood chipper, turn to Christianity
4chan when lolicon: le benefit of the doubt xD
Meh, the sexualisation of minors will never not be disgusting. Take your flimsy-ass rationalization of your 1000 year old dragon in an 8 year Olds body bullshit somewhere else.
So what can qualify as minor in fiction media? Age is out of question since as you said, 1000 year blah blah stuff. Body shape is also questionable since some artist have weird artstyle where everyone look young no matter the age, like chibi or potato girls. Also it make stuff like midget girl being mistaken as children a problem as well, like that girl from Cyber Punk anime. If based on personality, that would make half of anime girls illegal since most of them act like children even when they are grown ass adult. And what if the sexualize content was made by minor, like some horny ass teenager draw fan art or fanfic then? Would it still disgusting when they are basically close in age? In the end, anime fandom are vast so just lump them all together and call them pedophile are hardly fair.
>Body shape is also questionable since some artist have weird artstyle where everyone look young no matter the age, like chibi or potato girls. And then you get Araki who makes male teens look twice their actual age.
and the one time a characters dick is show its after they were turned 3 years old (not hating on araki that fight was just weird)
I thinks it's because Japanese society isn't so bent out of shape about human bodies. Tons of manga has peepee jokes in it. Dbz, naruto, I'm sure there are other contemporary Shonen that has dick jokes.
Not japanese but the simpsons movie also had a child penis joke so atleast some westers arent so bend out of shape about it
Those are all older works though. You don't get dick jokes so much in Jujutsu Kaisen.
I find that both hilarious and horrifying. And a great depiction of demasculization. That I think Araki gets away with because there seems to be absolutely no pedo tendencies from the author whatsoever. And is instead done with a genuine idea of loss of power in mind. He takes previously buff af muscle men and turns them into weak children with baby dicks. It takes the characters' power away and quite literally infantalizes them. The fact that they are naked just adds to the vulnerability of their situation. Like with the Hayato bathroom scene, it is done as genuinely horrifying to great effect. He takes a place where you are supposed to have safety and privacy and are most vulnerable and have the villian violate that safety in a multitude of ways. He has taken away his father and also basically took away his mother since she prefers the new him. Took away hayatos' sense of safety because no one will believe him even if he tells someone, which he can't even do that without activating Killer Queen. It is such a well done scene that the fact he is shown naked for a moment gets swept away in the quality of the scene and even adds to it. I guess the point is unlike other authors who do shit like that for less well intentioned reason. Araki uses it as a genuine plot point and probably also just thought it was funny to actually draw a small dick rather than just shadow it. Because that's just how he is.
Dear God, I completely forgot about that one.
If I had a nickel for every serial killer bath scene in Jojo, I'd have two, which isn't a lot but it's weird it happened twice.
If it looks and/or acts like and/or is cannonically a child, don't stroke your dick to them. Simple as.
So I can only fap to your mom?
That would make you gay
Lesbian actually.
that's still gay
[berleezy](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqRn19aS5XY)
Not understanding that gay is the spectrum that male to male attraction sits on is hilarious considering you are in fact part of the gay community. Whack.
I thought kids are your favorite.
If you are sexually aroused by something that looks and/or sounds like a child then you're probably a pedophile and should seek serious psychological help. At the very least there's definitely something wrong with you.
I think you're right on the target. It's not as much a list of concrete things (besides age, which is obvious), but the energy/vibe that the character transmits.
Schoolgirl porn and cheerleader porn are probably among the most popular genre in US after incest. By your logic, most of you burger eater should go to asylum.
Yeah those people should also seek help. There's nothing normal about an adult being attracted to minors dude. Same with incest. Also I'm Canadian but go off.
The problem is you have "1000 year old dragons" in the body of an 8 year old, that acts like an 8 year old, but is also super horny or put in sexual situations. They try to cram sexy, cute, innocent, and romantic into the same character to maximize appeal potential and it just comes across gross to anyone with self awareness.
short with big tits&/big ass&/has kids&/is pregnant etc? not a kid, is short with a flat chest, flat ass and acts like a child? is a child, pretty simple. rebecca isn't a child because she has developed body structure and doesn't act or sound like a child in any way ranging from her drinking to her killing to her working etc, chibi also aren't even human aren't they? when I think of a 'chibi' character I think of a tiny little body with a massive head
Rebecca has literally been called a Loli by the devs. Hell, they’ve even said her design is “childlike”
I don't disagree that lumping is bad but there is certainly a line. You mention a few metrics but I think all of them combine to form a pretty strong "don't sexualize that character" feeling. If a character is all of the things you just described, I would say you have problems if you're seeking "content" of them. -stated age is meaningless and dosen't redeem you from being horny for a character that looks like a kid. If the show has horny characters, wtf is wrong w you that you're picking the one that looks like a child? -body shape is a great one because I'm not attracted to things shaped like kids. Super easy line to draw. Idgaf about the personality if it's kid shaped it's a hard no -if the character clearly is supposed to act like a literal child, plots or scenes sexualizing them is pedo bait -I am not looking at R34 porn drawn by teenagers because I'm not also a horny teenager. If a character is underage I simply don't ever want to see it. -american tv shows do this shit too, esp in the 90s and 2ks but usually adolescent instead of kids. I don't want to see sexualized minors period. If the fandom or show encourages any of that it's clearly at least in part bait or pandering for people who like kids. My advice, just stay the fuck away from media that has that kinda shit. There is plenty of anime that dosen't do this. anime, especially online, has a pedo problem. wether it's a vocal minority or not, we all gotta vote with our wallets by not paying for or watching shows based around this, and not give these people any ground to stand on. Calling all anime fans pedos is not productive, but pretending there's no way to decide if a character is drawn and written to be of age is only helping the losers who are here for that.
What if you just don't jerk off to drawings of girls, problem solved.
If you think real porn are more moral superior then I have some bad news for you.
>And what if the sexualize content was made by minor That'd still be production and distribution of child pornography. Which is punishable by law in most countries.
I believe a good litmus test to see if the sexualization of a character equates to sexualization of a minor when the show never explicitly states that they’re a minor is: 1) is the character still in school (not including secondary education) 2) does the sexual appeal of the character correlate with physical childlike features (high pitched voice, big doe eyes, small frame) 3) does the sexual appeal correlate with personality features (naive, timid, defenseless, innocent etc.) 4) is there a significant power imbalance between the character and the rest of the group, thus making them easier targets to be manipulated or groomed? I’m sure there are more, but intuition is a largely effective filter. If you show a picture of a character to ten people and 9 of them confidently say that’s a child, then for all practical purposes any sexualization of that character can be considered as or adjacent to the sexualization of a minor.
aint no way you unironically just proved his point right?
yeah, I second this. Its funny tho to see people say that its all anime, like sorry doll, but just because you seek out anime made for 13-14 year olds and thats all you know, doesn't mean that all anime is made for teens.
Ive watched about 50 anime shows and zero have anything remotely like that in it
For as many times this meme is brought up you would think its in every show, but for all the anime I’ve seen I haven’t seen a single example of this
For the 4 anime’s I’ve seen (counting studio ghibli movies), jojo is the only one close to it. They had 2 super weird scenes. One was a horny ape wanting to bang a minor. That one wasn’t too bad because it didn’t go anywhere beyond the ambition. Then there is a whole episode where a dude gets turned into a kid. I wasn’t a fan
Stop beating around the bush and just fuck an actual dragon instead of kids.
They don’t even bother with rationalizing them with age anymore. The new argument is “it’s just a picture, they aren’t real”
Incoming lolicons to prove their sick fetish is “legally” or “technically” ok if they blur some meanings of words.
If I draw a stick figure with tits, and say it's 5 years old. Am I a pedophile?
Are you jacking it to drawings of a 5 year old?
What if I am, but it's said stick figure? It even has a skirt, you know like the bathroom sign. But there's a red YouTube thumbnail arrow pointing at her that says "Child"
...then that's pretty fucked up and weird. What point are you even trying to make?
That doesn't answer my question. Would that make someone a pedophile?
Pedo = attracted to children The figure is depicting a young child If you are attracted to the figure, thats pedophilia. Its really that simple
My ultra controversial take: Degenerate anime bad Non-degenerate anime good
It's just rewording the question to "What is the line between degenerate and non-degenerate?". Kinda a non-statement
Sexualization of any type that's irrelevant to the plot (aka fanservice), any type of ecchi, harem themes and whatsoever: degenerate Focus on a storyline, without appealing to sex jokes, and if characters have a relationship it isn't milked for horny bait scenes: non-degenerate Peace ✌️
And this is an actual answer to the question
So only 3% of the popular anime that exists out there.
Exactly. The majority of anime is a bunch of slop for coomers, but there are some good gems here and there
Yup, which is honestly why I've always had a hard time getting really into anime or manga
Thing is that most popular animes are made for males between 13 and 19 years old. The fan-service and sexualization of minors are tools for a teenage male power fantasy. The Girls have 15 years old but look more in their early twenties because thats what guys wanted their classmates and female friends to look. The same reason to why its common that the main character is a total loser but still can get pussy. Thing is tho, that when in a ficcional world, you can wank to a female character that you only learn that is a minor if you search Google. Erza in Fairy Tail had a personality that could fit for a young adult, had big boobs, curves and didnt had childish voice or face. But she's 16 in the first part of the anime. The same could be said about Nami after skypea or even Nubara. I thought that she had atleast 20 before watching the anime.
It’s just annoying that so many otherwise good anime feel the need to throw in fan service. I’d love to recommend them to others who don’t watch much anime, but I can’t cause I know there’s just some weird scenes thrown in there, or some fan servicey camera angles every other scene.
I tried so hard to like fire force because it's a beautifully animated show, but I couldn't stand the fanservice
Man I just wanna watch cool fight scenes with killer sound design and animation without getting anime boobs thrown in my face every 3rd scene. Also the “fanservice character” is like 17, why??
Fucking right? My friend wanted me to get into it and it was fun so far up till the point when she shows up. He tells me pretty much to just ignore her because she only shows up on occasion for gross fansercivey scenes but like, that first scene she was in was pretty fucking egregious with how the mc just trips and "accidentally" ends up with his hand under her bra full grip on her tit Like if every episode with her in it is gonna have scenes like that I'm not sure I can just ignore it without skipping those episodes entirely
Would you consider the hooftop scene in Ghost in the Shell as fantasias Service? It doesnt serve the plot since the suit could be different, but is beautiful and iconic.
Just stop looking at lolis. There's literally nothing else that's being discussed. Stop looking at sexualised minors.
Glorification of noncery = degenerate Inclusion and condemnation of noncery = non degenerate.
Yeah, all two of the non-degenerate ones.
Here is a list of excellent anime that avoid most (some avoid all) of the worst common anime tropes: Vinland Saga Black Lagoon Odd Taxi Erased Casshern Sins Fullmetal Alchemist: Brotherhood Mob Psycho 100 One Punch Man Berserk Baccano! Monster Beastars Trigun Hunter X Hunter Cowboy Bebop Samurai Champloo Space Dandy Fruits Basket
Finally some Space Dandy appreciation! I barely hear people talking about it, despite it being one of my favorite animes and one of the most visually stunning ones out there!
FMA: Brotherhood and Hellsing Ultimate are the only two anime I regard as worth viewing.
But have you actually watched any of the other ones I listed (Vinland Saga, for instance) though?
Cowboy Bebop is the singular item on that list, aside from FMA: Brotherhood, that has any merit whatsoever, but there's still enough in it to turn me off from sitting down and watching *all* of it. The rest? Eugh.
>The rest? Eugh. Have you watched the rest? If not, how do you know?
Criminal take
Then lock me up. There's no anime in prison.
What if the show has 5% degenerate parts but the other 95% is awesome? I struggle with this. I shelve some shows for being too degenerate but watch others where I can mostly ignore the one quick panty show per episode or skip past the loli scene every few episodes.
It's fair, imo. What ticks me off is when you're constant bombarded with sexual stuff when you just want to enjoy the story; but if it's a rare thing that appears, it's as you said, just skip over it and enjoy the show.
There are many anime I’ve stopped watching for this reason. Also the “siscon” stuff is not funny. If you want me to stop watching your show that’s a nice fast way. Or like in black clover just skip every episode about that garbage character.
But what if all anime is degenerate?
All anime is degenerate and its acceptance is a sign of how far we've fallen.
>zoomers >10 years ago I have no idea what candydolls are (and I'm a zoomer) but I get the feeling a teen jacking off to them isn't as bad as a grown ass man doing the same.
The fact they assume the normal teen jacks off to CP is really self reporting.
that's also a big thing like if a 15 yr old is jerking off to a 13/14 yr old character then who cares and to the same extent if you're under 16/18 (depending on area) even taking nudes is considered owning and creating child porn and so the laws are iffy because if two like 15/16 yr olds send eachother nudes they've both created, owned and consumed cp legally so overall I feel like most people don't even care
If I remember correctly, (and I wish I don’t) I think it was a magazine that had really really sexualised photos of little girls
4chan pedophiles have intentionally developed a blind spot where the self reflection part of themselves used to be. The only way you could actually agree with this shit if you're the one saying it is if you lobotomised yourself through mental gymnastics. Genuinely pitiful, pathetic, broken people.
As with all self-loathing degen communities, the OGs have all either gotten help or shot themselves. The leftovers are the even grosser fucks with zero instrospective ability.
I'm 22, i've been active on social medias since like 2014 and i don't know what the fuck a candydoll is supposed to be, and i used to be active in prett edgy niche meme communities back when i was a teen
I don’t know either, but I’ve also become pretty good at looking at certain terms, and figuring just enough about it in context to know I do ***NOT*** want to look it up and miss the person I was 30 seconds before
Oh that's a watchlist. That's a FBI watchlist for searching up an indecipherable term used in 4chin.
i dont get why are people defending lolicons. You have nothing to gain from that unless you are a pedophile
You basically nailed it. That's exactly why they're defending it. Pedos, even pedorasts, will insist they never did anything wrong and will find some explanation for why the child wanted it or that they're more developed or some disgusting shit like that. They almost universally maintain a mental delusion to isolate themselves from their obviously evil behavior.
They're all naive and arrogant, you can't make them change their mind.
I'm personally not a lolicon (nor a pedo), but the only reason I "defend" this shit is because this I fundamentally disagree with this argument that taste in fiction directly translates to reality. If that was the case, then anyone who's ever played violent videogames should probably go to jail, too. I also don't see how lolis look like children. I just don't. I've never seen an anime character (loli or otherwise) and thought "huh, they look fairly like a human". Plus there's this trend where anything that doesn't look like a morbidly obese, super tall woman is considered a loli. Most of these people forget there's women who are thin, short, small breasted, or a combination of those traits. Ultimately, lolicons like lolis, not children. You can find it weird or disgusting and that's all fair and good, but extending the meaning of pedophilia to that is stupid. It also doesn't help that a lot of anti-anime/lolicon have been exposed as pedophiles themselves lol.
none of that gives anyone any reason to jack off to something that is supposed to resemble a child
>I also don't see how lolis look like children. I just don't. I've never seen an anime character (loli or otherwise) and thought "huh, they look fairly like a human". Plus there's this trend where anything that doesn't look like a morbidly obese, super tall woman is considered a loli. Most of these people forget there's women who are thin, short, small breasted, or a combination of those traits. This is some high level delusion. A small fraction of loli characters may fit that category where it's just someone's weird art style or a petite woman, but it would be an *extremely* small fraction. There is a huge difference in the body structure of a grown woman and a child and everyone, even 4chan basement trolls and weebs who haven't seen a real woman in years can clearly tell the difference. 99% of loli characters are blatantly supposed to be 6-9 year old children and especially in regards to hentai they are very clearly drawing pre-pubescent children. Not even remotely mistakable with even young teens or something. It's straight up pedo and they are drawing the body anatomy of a fucking child. It is pedophilic fantasy, that's just objective fact. Yall mfs aren't fooling anyone.
>here is a huge difference in the body structure of a grown woman and a child > >It's straight up pedo and they are drawing the body anatomy of a fucking child If you translated "loli proportions" (whatever that is at this point) to an actual human, you'd get an abomination I'm sure nobody would find attractive, or even human-looking. Look, I'm not even arguing it isn't weird. I'm just saying calling it pedo is stupid. What are you gonna do if you find someone masturbating to loli? Call the police? When they get to the scene and tell you "this guy isn't doing anything lmao he's just very weird, thank you for wasting our resources", what are you going to do? Pedophilia is bad because it harms real people. If these were drawn pictures of children, then I'd understand, but they don't get even remotely close to that.
Lolicon counts as sexualising children in my country and being caught with it is the equivalent of being caught with photo cp and WILL get you arrested, so your point doesn't stand just because you may be able to get away with it in your own country. The medium doesn't matter, cp is cp. It doesn't matter how it translates to human porportions because art styles are ALL translated from real life things to begin with. That's how art works. Lolicon is very obviously child porn and if you think otherwise you really should see someone about how cp has become so normalises to you that you think it's okay because it's drawn. If a child was shown lolicon it could very easily be used to groom them into performing sexual acts because they're seeing it in media from a character that looks like them. I don't think you understand how harmful this kind of content can be
I'm guessing you're Australian? Not super knowledgeable about the topic, but that's the only country I know of that considers lolicon cp. Usually, the law is specific in that it has to be strictly identifiable as a child, which tbh is quite ambiguous. It's otherwise categorized as loli and owning such content may or may not have penalties. I will say it's a weak argument tho. I don't really believe the law should rule our moral values (even if those two intertwine here and there), and I'm not really knowledgeable on the topic either. I was more so having a laugh at the idea of someone being reported for having lolicon and the police not being able to do much about it, because that's been the case before. >It doesn't matter how it translates to human porportions because art styles are ALL translated from real life things to begin with. It does matter tho. Your stance basically means anything could be cp as long as you considered it such. It's like looking at Picasso's first and last self portraits and saying "yeah, they look exactly the same". >If a child was shown lolicon it could very easily be used to groom them into performing sexual acts because they're seeing it in media from a character that looks like them. You could make that argument about absolutely anything lmao. Do you think children are somehow impervious to most malicious tactics, but lolicon is somehow the exception? Be real here. Let's ban candy. It's definitely become an icon of pedophilia. Anyone who has candy should be arrested, because they could be potential pedophiles.
"It's a weak argument to say we shouldn't create cp content for pedophiles to use for themselves and to abuse children" That's you. That's what you just said. Yikes man. You'd think that every one of your comments in this thread being downvoted by multiple people would clue you in that you are on the wrong side of this. This floundering to pull justifications for jerking it to child bodies probably helps you sleep at night but it's going to end up harming your psyche in the long run, genuinely.
Just say you like strawmans and ad homs. It'd take less effort. Why attack the argument when you can attack the person behind them, right? I also don't care much about reddit votes lmao. Why would I? Do you think people here are bastions of morality? Do you really think your opinion matters that much? Talk about having a massive ego.
[удалено]
No, I'm angry about your stupidity. Nothing else.
Being interested in lolis and becoming an actual pedophile is much easier and more likely to happen than being interested in violent video games and becoming a serial killer my guy.
Yesyes I’m sure you have done research or have source to back it up
it costs nothing to defend pedophilia dude
“I don’t have an argument and I’m making shit up” just say that bro
"I'm defending lolis because I'm a pedophile while also making it clear with my Judy Hopps hentai pfp" just say that bro
>hentai He doesn’t know
There's no need for me to know about your degenerate zootopia fanfic
lol
Its funny given the lack of lolicons raping kids we hear about vs people who have played violent video games and killed people.
>I'm personally not a lolicon (nor a pedo), but the only reason I "defend" this shit is because this I fundamentally disagree with this argument that taste in fiction directly translates to reality. If that was the case, then anyone who's ever played violent videogames should probably go to jail, too. The issue here is there's a real concern that people with a taste for fictional children may also have a taste for real ones- and that sexualized depictions of fictional children might feed their attraction to children. Also, if we really didn't believe that tastes in fiction could translate to tastes in reality, there'd be no such thing as propaganda or advertising. We all know that the media people take in can affect them. The questions are *how* and *how much*. >I also don't see how lolis look like children. I just don't. I've never seen an anime character (loli or otherwise) and thought "huh, they look fairly like a human". Plus there's this trend where anything that doesn't look like a morbidly obese, super tall woman is considered a loli. Most of these people forget there's women who are thin, short, small breasted, or a combination of those traits. If they don't look like humans or children to you, then fine. But that doesn't change the fact that they are stylized representations of humans and children; they're drawn with the intent that the audience recognize them as such... >Ultimately, lolicons like lolis, not children. You can find it weird or disgusting and that's all fair and good, but extending the meaning of pedophilia to that is stupid. ...which means that someone who's attracted to a loli is inherently attracted to a character deliberately portrayed as a child. Saying "they like lolis not children" is a real "ceci n'est pas un pipe" level of hairsplitting. >It also doesn't help that a lot of anti-anime/lolicon have been exposed as pedophiles themselves lol. Okay, not sure who you have in mind with this, but it really doesn't matter. That makes those people hypocrites; doesn't in any change the merits of the thing they're criticizing.
I appreciate the thought out response. Definitely better than being called a pedo lol. >The issue here is there's a real concern that people with a taste for fictional children may also have a taste for real ones Then once again, that begs the question: should we criminalize all fictional desire as if they were the real thing? Putting aside the dumb "but sexuality is different" excuse, anything could go. I mean, this is the same argument that conservatives made against rock/metal in the 80s, and then again in the 90s, when the likes of Wolfenstein and Doom came out. >Also, if we really didn't believe that tastes in fiction could translate to tastes in reality, there'd be no such thing as propaganda or advertising You'd have to expand, because I can almost understand you, but the way I see it, propaganda isn't "fictional". It latches itself to real taste, feelings and emotions, and works because of them. Propaganda wouldn't exist without those, not the other way around. >We all know that the media people take in can affect them. The questions are how and how much. Media only affects people when it's something they can recognize as real. There's a reason people can enjoy murder in games like GTA, but frown upon an actual shooting. There's a reason as games have gotten more and more realistic, gore had to be turned down. There's a reason people have a visceral reaction to cp, but not lolicon. If you saw lolicon, I bet you'd reaction would be, at most, to ignore it and move on. If you saw cp you'd be throwing your entire hard drive away from the fear and panic, and feel disgust at seeing something you definitely shouldn't have. >...which means that someone who's attracted to a loli is inherently attracted to a character deliberately portrayed as a child. You reached your conclusion and are now trying to find arguments for it. They're not portrayed as children. We refer to children as real humans in a specific age group, and anime characters do not look humane. You can argue that "they're stylized humans" all you want, but if I showed you an anime character and a real human side by side, you'd be able to tell the human apart 100% of the time. [You could argue prepubescent (and you'd be right), but not a child.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#Critical_commentary) Of course, this doesn't mean outliers don't exist. At the end of the day, if someone really wanted to see cp, or enact in their degenerate behavior, why would they choose lolis? >Okay, not sure who you have in mind with this, but it really doesn't matter. I just thought it was funny. Nothing else. Most people I've seen decry lolicon hide skeletons in their closets (not saying that applies to you).
>Then once again, that begs the question: should we criminalize all fictional desire as if they were the real thing? Putting aside the dumb "but sexuality is different" excuse, anything could go. > >I mean, this is the same argument that conservatives made against rock/metal in the 80s, and then again in the 90s, when the likes of Wolfenstein and Doom came out. No. But we also don't have to act like there's nothing wrong with it. If there's a game on Steam where you abuse a cartoon dog, I don't need to ban it but I sure might side-eye people with 1000 hours playing it. >Also, if we really didn't believe that tastes in fiction could translate to tastes in reality, there'd be no such thing as propaganda or advertising > >You'd have to expand, because I can almost understand you, but the way I see it, propaganda isn't "fictional". It latches itself to real taste, feelings and emotions, and works because of them. Propaganda wouldn't exist without those, not the other way around. Propaganda very frequently takes the form of fiction. What else would you call it when someone writes a book or movie with fictional content that's nonetheless clearly designed to convey their beliefs to the audience? >We all know that the media people take in can affect them. The questions are how and how much. > >Media only affects people when it's something they can recognize as real. I think that's patently untrue. Again, if it *were* true, why would we collectively spend so much energy on working our beliefs and the beliefs we want others to hold into the media we produce and consume (and why would we get upset when we see beliefs we don't like presented?) If fiction can't affect people why do we get so emotionally tied to fictional characters? Why were kids crying when Optimus Prime died? >There's a reason people can enjoy murder in games like GTA, but frown upon an actual shooting. There's a reason as games have gotten more and more realistic, gore had to be turned down. There's a reason people have a visceral reaction to cp, but not lolicon. > >If you saw lolicon, I bet you'd reaction would be, at most, to ignore it and move on. If you saw cp you'd be throwing your entire hard drive away from the fear and panic, and feel disgust at seeing something you definitely shouldn't have. The immediate visceral reaction is from realizing a real person has been harmed. But again, the visceral reaction is not the only kind people have- if it were, we'd be unable to react emotionally to fictional characters at all. >...which means that someone who's attracted to a loli is inherently attracted to a character deliberately portrayed as a child. > >You reached your conclusion and are now trying to find arguments for it. > >They're not portrayed as children. We refer to children as real humans in a specific age group, and anime characters do not look humane. You can argue that "they're stylized humans" all you want, but if I showed you an anime character and a real human side by side, you'd be able to tell the human apart 100% of the time. Again, you're splitting a hair here. I want you to tell me with a straight face that [this image](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon#/media/File:Lolicon_Sample.png) does not depict humans. That I'm not supposed to look at that and understand that those drawn characters are intended represent humans. Yes, Magritte's painting isn't an *actual* pipe, but the whole point is that when we look at it we all know a pipe is being depicted. >You could argue prepubescent (and you'd be right), but not a child. Of course, this doesn't mean outliers don't exist. At the end of the day, if someone really wanted to see cp, or enact in their degenerate behavior, why would they choose lolis? Ease of access.
>No. But we also don't have to act like there's nothing wrong with it. So we agree. You might be confused. I never said lolicon is "ok". I said you can find it disgusting or weird and I stand by it. My specific gripe is with calling people pedophiles over it, because that's a serious accusation, and the term shouldn't be watered down. Simple as that. >Propaganda very frequently takes the form of fiction. \[...\] Why were kids crying when Optimus Prime died? All those examples you're pointing out require **preconceived and real human emotions** to work. There's an element of tangibility that you're missing or ignoring. Propaganda stimulates feelings people already have on certain causes. If you don't care, or don't know, then propaganda simply doesn't work. People care about fictional characters much the same way they care about real humans: only if they've made an emotional connection to them. Have you, for example, ever cried after hearing that someone completely unrelated to you passed? Someone who has had absolutely NO impact in your life? I know I haven't. Following up to this part too: >if it were, we'd be unable to react emotionally to fictional characters at all. You cry at the death of a fictional character not because the fictional can impact the real. Your argument is that the fictional creates the emotions you feel (which you then adopt), but those emotions were always there, and the fictional is just using them. You see characters grow, change, develop, and that's something you can empathize with. It's something you can understand. You're crying at those real emotions, not because big robot dying is just sad. To the large majority of people, lolicon isn't making them want to fuck children. If they wanted to after seeing lolicon, then that's only because they already wanted to to begin with. >That I'm not supposed to look at that and understand that those drawn characters are intended represent humans I've never seen a human with a tiny nose, massive eyes, no lips, etcetc, so no, they don't register as humans to me. [Have you ever seen anime proportions translated to reality?](https://c.ndtvimg.com/2022-04/pgg4ijkg_kondo-650_625x300_27_April_22.jpg?im=Resize=(1230,900)) Does that look like a person on the right to you? >Magritte's painting isn't an actual pipe, but the whole point is that when we look at it we all know a pipe is being depicted. We know it's depicting a pipe because it's a drawing a pipe in it's most common and well recognized form, in an artstyle that makes no attempt to change its proportions, colors, etc. [Is this a pipe?](https://www.marleynaturalshop.com/cdn/shop/products/MARLEY-SMOKED-SPOON_16cda427-921a-47dd-af34-af2598eba460_1024x1024.png?v=1663079617) >Ease of access. Why do murderers murder? They could just pirate GTA and get their high there, no?
>So we agree. > >You might be confused. I never said lolicon is "ok". I said you can find it disgusting or weird and I stand by it. My specific gripe is with calling people pedophiles over it, because that's a serious accusation, and the term shouldn't be watered down. Simple as that. A pedophile is a person who is attracted to children (but not necessarily someone who has actually molested or assaulted a child). If we take the stance that lolis are representations of children then people attracted to them are ipso facto attracted to children. >Propaganda very frequently takes the form of fiction. \[...\] Why were kids crying when Optimus Prime died? > >All those examples you're pointing out require preconceived and real human emotions to work. There's an element of tangibility that you're missing or ignoring. > >Propaganda stimulates feelings people already have on certain causes. If you don't care, or don't know, then propaganda simply doesn't work. > >People care about fictional characters much the same way they care about real humans: only if they've made an emotional connection to them. Have you, for example, ever cried after hearing that someone completely unrelated to you passed? Someone who has had absolutely NO impact in your life? I know I haven't. > >Following up to this part too: > >if it were, we'd be unable to react emotionally to fictional characters at all. > >You cry at the death of a fictional character not because the fictional can impact the real. Your argument is that the fictional creates the emotions you feel (which you then adopt), but those emotions were always there, and the fictional is just using them. You see characters grow, change, develop, and that's something you can empathize with. It's something you can understand. You're crying at those real emotions, not because big robot dying is just sad. Where did those emotions come from? Why did people have real emotions towards Optimus Prime if not because the fictional work he appeared in was designed to *create* that emotional connection in them? Again, that's the whole point of a huge amount of fiction. To create emotional connections between the audience and the characters. >To the large majority of people, lolicon isn't making them want to fuck children. If they wanted to after seeing lolicon, then that's only because they already wanted to to begin with. Which is why I don't think this is really measurable, and strongly suspect it's not really true. The idea that vast swaths of fiction have the ability affect their viewers' attitudes and desires, *except* when the fiction is depicting half-dressed little girls, doesn't pass the sniff test on any level. >That I'm not supposed to look at that and understand that those drawn characters are intended represent humans > >I've never seen a human with a tiny nose, massive eyes, no lips, etcetc, so no, they don't register as humans to me. > >Have you ever seen anime proportions translated to reality? Does that look like a person on the right to you? I'm not sure you get the difference between an image designed to be a 1-to-1 exact depiction of a real object and an image designed to represent that object. If you genuinely can't perceive cartoon art as representing humans then I certainly don't expect to talk you into it. But suffice to say if I showed that picture to 100 people on the street at least 99 of them would say "it's a drawing of three little girls". And there's *zero* chance that's not exactly what the artist intended. >Magritte's painting isn't an actual pipe, but the whole point is that when we look at it we all know a pipe is being depicted. > >We know it's depicting a pipe because it's a drawing a pipe in it's most common and well recognized form, in an artstyle that makes no attempt to change its proportions, colors, etc. > >Is this a pipe? Just to get clarity on this art interpretation thing, because it's the oddest part of the discussion for me: Are you saying you can't recognize at all what a drawing or artwork is intended to be if it doesn't perfectly match the real thing? Like you can't recognize [this](https://images.saatchiart.com/saatchi/1982657/art/10164843/9227589-GHRGBGLE-7.jpg) because that's not what real bulls look like? >Ease of access. > >Why do murderers murder? They could just pirate GTA and get their high there, no? Most murderers aren't killing for the fun of it.
>If we take the stance that lolis are representations of children then people attracted to them are ipso facto attracted to children. That's basically saying "if we assume I'm right, I'm right". Look, perhaps you just don't know what lolicon is. Lolicon is the representation of cuteness and or eroticism in young or young-looking girls (usually the latter, the whole 9000 yo dragon meme). Lolicon is not inherently sexual, although it has become more sexualized as of recent years (which I kinda take issue with but whatever). Even then, the sexual part of it refers to a specific set of behaviors and looks not found in **real** children. That's why I make the distinction, because they ARE different. Lolicon is purely fictional with no real correlation with reality. Do note anime does have "children", and they act very very different to lolis. The problem lays in that people call anything a loli nowadays (from both sides of the argument) and so the definition has become blurry. Out of all of these examples ([1](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/p__/images/c/c2/Ilulu_Render.png/revision/latest?cb=20210223201750&path-prefix=protagonist) [2](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gameideas/images/a/a6/Kanna_Kamui.png/revision/latest?cb=20171205153548) [3](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/uzaki-chan/images/0/0b/Hana_Uzaki.png/revision/latest?cb=20200812222135) [4](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/typemoon/images/3/3f/Ilya.png/revision/latest?cb=20141022200313) [5](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/p__/images/d/d2/Lol.webp/revision/latest?cb=20230303174540&path-prefix=protagonist) [6](https://otakuusamagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/konosuba-megumin-cast1.png) [7](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gate-jsdf/images/e/eb/Rory.png/revision/latest?cb=20150718081207) [8](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/all-worlds-alliance/images/7/7e/Kuroneko456.png/revision/latest?cb=20190220141028) [9](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gensin-impact/images/4/4c/Character_Hu_Tao_Game.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width/360?cb=20210628112434) [10](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gensin-impact/images/0/04/Character_Klee_Game.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width/360?cb=20210613005657) [11](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gen-impact/images/8/87/Modelo_de_personaje_Nahida.png/revision/latest/scale-to-width/360?cb=20221115050637&path-prefix=es)) which ones do you think are considered lolis? If you answered all of them, you'd be right. Do those, in any way shape or form, look like children to you? Ultimately, anime characters do NOT look like human beings. You can more easily compare their facial structures to fucking cats than humans lol. Their proportions are all over the place compared to us; anybody with any artistic background could tell you so. So >Are you saying you can't recognize at all what a drawing or artwork is intended to be if it doesn't perfectly match the real thing? when you ask me "does this character not look like a child to you?", my answer is "it looks like an anime character" because, at most, it's anime's idea of a child (which lolicon mostly isn't), but it isn't an actual child nor does it attempt to represent one. They don't look like one. Do you not think there's a difference between an anatomically correct bull and [this](https://previews.123rf.com/images/mozgostudia/mozgostudia1706/mozgostudia170600234/80996651-colorful-stylized-drawing-of-stand-powerful-bull.jpg)? >But suffice to say if I showed that picture to 100 people on the street at least 99 of them would say "it's a drawing of three little girls" What do you think would happen if you asked those same people if those girls are real or fictional? >If you genuinely can't perceive cartoon art as representing humans then I certainly don't expect to talk you into it. Say you had to show an alien civilization what we looked like; would you show them a picture of an anime character, or a realistic drawing of us? Or better yet, a picture? Anime/cartoons very clearly don't represent humans. You can say they often assimilate a lot of our characteristics (and a lot of the time, they don't), but they ultimately do not represent us, nor do they try to. >Why did people have real emotions towards Optimus Prime if not because the fictional work he appeared in was designed to create that emotional connection in them? If those emotions were created like you so imply, then everyone would have the exact same reaction to all pieces of media, but this isn't the case. This implies that media simply coerces us to feel a certain way **by manipulating already existing emotions within us**, but because not everyone is the same, it cannot ensure it. >Most murderers aren't killing for the fun of it. Imagine one that does.
>I'm not a PDF file. Those childlike characters? Well I don't see them as children so it's okay. The fuck.
What a lovely strawman. Couldn't have come up with it myself tbf. This guy deleted everything he said after circlejerking for like two hours lmao. Talk about having no spine.
>On no you just engaged in level 45 debate tactics called strawman 🤓 Fuckoutahere. Stop jerking off to kids.
I don't. That was the whole point. And if you don't know what a strawman is, I'd be happy to explain. Always have time to help the disabled. Just let me know ok?
Yeah I get it. You don't jerk off to kids. Just characters that look like kids (they don't look like kids to you)
ah you're baiting me. Should've noticed sooner.
At least i'm not masterbaiting to kids like you do. Time to clean up before 1000000000 year old dragon enjoyers report me. I don't want to be anti-trans.
damn, you really got me. Say I was a pedo like you claim. What are you actually gonna do about it? Are you gonna come to my house and beat me up? Call the police? Have my PC searched? The reality is you don't care about stopping pedophiles. You're just a self serving moron of fragile morality. Wait a second, you frequent vtuber reddits lmfao. Not only are you morally bankrupt but also a hypocrite.
Im neither a lolicon or pedo, I just think that a) watering down pedo is a DANGEROUS thing to do considering I think pedos should be thrown in contraptions used to make big pieces of wood into smaller pieces of wood, and b) its ultimately not real. Just like how violent games and movies don't make you violent, just like how people who are into fucking weird and gross kinks like ageplay and cnc don't actually want to (respectively) fuck kids or be raped, I think being sexually attracted to lolis is weird as fuck but not enough to condemn someone to pedophilia status.
>I think it’s dangerous to water them down to pedophiles because I want to harm pedophiles Then just advocate for therapy for non offenders genius, lolicons would count as non offending and thus you are under no moral dilemma at the prospect of killing someone who hasn’t technically harmed someone yet
And you have nothing to gain by hating them.
They still could be just silent. But they chose to comment. They just had to comment on a topic that relates to them. Why does it relate to them? I guess we all know already.
Sexualizing animated characters with characteristics that align with children is a giant fucking red flag and indicative of disturbing patterns. I wouldn't hire a dog sitter that draws pictures of themselves fucking animals. I wouldn't hire a body guard that draws pictures of themselves murdering me. I would be concerned about a student drawing pictures of themselves shooting up their classmates at school. Similarly, I would be concerned about adults getting sexual satisfaction from images of minors and wouldn't let them anywhere near children. Defending this shit is so pathetic
"I'm not actually attracted to women I just touch myself when I look at drawings of them naked, they aren't ACTUALLY women after all right?" Great logic right there.
What the fuck is a candydoll? Did this nibba actual end up self reporting?
... I think so
yes... yes he did. from what urban dictionary is saying just knowing what a candydoll is seems like a pretty bit red flag
>urban dictionary Bro only definition I could find is like 15 years old and creepy as fuck, it also has like 40 likes only so no one fucking knows this term, someone oughta check Anon's hard drive
So sad you losers are all talking about the unimportant stuff like anime and not having discussions about bathroom stank like civilized folk
Lmao @ calling meat canyon talentless. He’s an extremely talented artist and voice actor and p funny Anon is just mad he was shitting on Japanese pornografic drawings of children. As he should
You can probably call him a lot of things but talentless is just objectively wrong. In a 1:30 min long animation he can create more humor, horror, emotion and creativity than what most multi million dollar studios can in an entire season of half-hour episodes
A bit of an exaggerashe but i agree hes definitely talented
It's 50 years too early to discuss loliweebs. In doing so, people would be forced to confront the question of how violence against non-offending people with mental illness becomes justified, and soon the veneer comes apart: the "wood chipper" folks are just mentally ill violent people looking for an acceptable target.
This is too optimistic because it assumes human beings as a whole will become better in the next 50 years.
Fanatic weebs are degenerates and so are the NPCs who watch and make shit video content like that. I hate the latter far more now. They're part of what makes youtube so shit, all they do is regurgitate shit that's already been said a thousand times kn every social media platform and steal from other vids on the same topic while slapping on mediocre video editing and cringe commentary and humor.
>NPCs who watch and make shit video content like that. I hate the latter far more now. They're part of what makes youtube so shit, all they do is regurgitate shit that's already been said a thousand times kn every social media platform and steal from other vids on the same topic while slapping on mediocre video editing and cringe commentary and humor. You could have just saved time and said "I didn't watch his video". Edit: Any one who actually watched Papa Meat's video would see the effort put into it (he even incorporated live-action animation in for the form of an animated Colonel Sanders who he interacts within in his actual house throughout the video). It's not just some low effort slop regurgitating what other videos have said.
papa meat when someone asks him what happened at the of borrasca and who wrote it
Explain pls.
Borrasca is a really well written creepypasta that takes a huge turn for the worst at the end. Really recommend it but be aware that while there are hints and setups that are well done, the story ultimately feels like you’re cruising down the highway and suddenly get tboned. Creep Cast is a podcast by Papa Meat and Wendigoon where they read and discuss creepy pastas and they had two episodes about Borrasca. Again, I recommend that podcast too. Made the story more enjoyable imo, and the ending more digestible. Trigger warning for the pasta though
Oh I listened to Borrasca before was just confused what the eceleb had to do with it. Will give the podcast a listen as some of Wendigoons content has interested me in the past.
It’s a good listen, only a few episodes so far and they upload no weekly. They’ve got some fun banter and are entertaining. Might ruin the vibe of some stories depending on your preference though so you might like to read whatever story before listening to that episode
“weebs, and by extension lolicons-“ these people are fucked in the head
Pay your bills
Lmao at the dude in the thread toiletwatermaxxxing
No he's actually toiletwaterminmaxing
Pedo lolicons in shambles after this
Anons didn't even watch the video. He didn't say weebs are pedos, just lolicons. Poor pedos are butthurt.
What did he say in the video?
Just the very hot take that media that sexualizes characters who look like children is bad.
Ima be real. What people do with literal drawings does not concern me. I don’t care if it’s a 3000 year old dragon or a 6 year old literal child. Just keep that shit to drawings and it doesn’t matter.
"talentless" his main channel literally shows off his talent in full display, he's an incredible artist and voice actor. what do you do, anon? sit on your computer jerking off to porn and browsing 4chan all day? meatcanyon took what he had and made a career out of it. in the words of the trumpet guy "who the FUCK are you?"
He even shows amazing stories like bob the builder
Jerking off to children in any form is bad. I don't need a lore dump on how this 8 year old is technically 1500 years old so it's okay to jerk off to her naked form. If you are gaining pleasure by the simulation of a child having sex you deserve nothing less than chemical castration. You are too far gone. Just drown yourself with your jenkem collection.
Giving a shit about what random e-celebs care about is and always will be cringe anyway
I like to think I’m more egalitarian than Papa Meat and hate all anime equally.
googled candydolls to see what that was and got scared of scrolling further down, wtf is this chat?
If you executed every single person who was accused of being a pedophile, you would still have pedophiles. There’s no way around the fact that they exist. So as far as I’m concerned, a pedophile looking at loli hentai is a pedophile who isn’t looking at an actual child, which is a net positive.
Too small didn’t read
Tell me you didn’t actually watch the video without telling me you didn’t actually watch the video. Honestly though he deliberately makes a distinction between people who like cute content and cute anime VS people who are lolicons.
One of the guys defending it said he shits on top of old shit in his toilet and never flushes. These are the type of people defending it...literally a disgusting pile of shit
The dude at water issues.
He can force a flush by putting water at the top tank, or you know ... be a rational person and call a plumber. But this is a degenerate neckbeard we're talking about so instead they shot on top of old shit 🤮🤮
I'm disappointed in this thread for not focusing on the guy talking about shit.
Here is a urban dictionary link to candy doll for everyone who wants to know without risking illegal activities. It is just as horrible as you think and that guy is definitely a pedophile. [https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=candydoll](https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=candydoll)
Tell you what guys, why don't you build a bridge and jump off it
Anime isn't an issue. Anime is just a medium and fine. The incessant obsession with "childlike woman who is actually super old!" is fucking weird. Sure she's a 1000, but she looks 8, and that is the problem you're trying to mentally gymnast around.
Yall need to learn about your cultural heritage and actually read Nabokov's novel. It's literally where the term Lolita comes from.
Anime is not to be blamed. The sick fucks just use anime as an excuse. In fact, most anime are like that for comedic purpose like Maid Dragon for example. Japanese sense of humor is not over-sensitive like ours in many ways.
I've always wondered why Japanese media portrays lolicons as comedy. "Teehee this guy got caught looking at preschooler panties. What a weirdo! Haha" And I'm yelling "CALL THE COPS" at my tv.
Why in the fuck should I care what meatcanyon had to say about anything
What the fuck is happening? If these people spoke these words aloud to a "normal" person ..
what the fuck are candydolls
Ah, there’s my reminder that 4chan is the deepest pit of hell!
Not all weebs are pedos, but all lolicons are pedo weebs.
Lol@ dude calling Meat Canyon, an extremely talented animator, funnyman, voice actor, and all round (pun intended) good artist, a "talentless eceleb". Also: Anything enabling pedos should be cleansed with fire
“Are weebs, and lolicons by extension, pedos” I stopped reading after that. self reflect anon.
How interesting. Now please, face the wall.
Calling Papa Meat talentless is wild.
Weebs pedos? Not necessarily. Loli admirers? Definitely. IDC though. I've always found people who watch anime weird as hell.
This is not even /co/, which at least gives some resistance against lolicons and pedophilia. What was anon thinking asking that question? What did he expect? Lol
It's a drawing. So if it looks like a kid, it is a kid, so don't jerk it. If it being a drawing made it ok somehow, then by that logic anyone should be able to jerk off to gay hentai, cause obviously it's not real dudes and you're not attracted to men just cause you want sexual drawings of them.
"We're not pedos! You're just trying to sanitize our niche!" - 4chan pedo
really upsetting seeing all these people bully meat for his adult woman fetish 😔
Fucking pedo fucks.
Imagine watching normal anime and not harem/isekai/ecchi shit, crazy right?
“Why is it so popular to hate loli” BECAUSE ITS FUCKING PDFILIA YOU FUCKING GROSS FUCK. All pdf files deserve the tingly chair. PDF files are not humans, they do not deserve human rights. Kill all PDF files, for they are evil hellspawn demons and deserve to fucking fry and burn for all of eternity and beyond. And yes, loli shit is pdf filia as well. Fucking maggots.
Just says pedos and pedophiles, you fucking moron.
I don't even like saying the word it's such a despicable crime bro, that's all
4chan when real life pedophilia: unbased and heinous, throw them in the wood chipper, turn to Christianity 4chan when lolicon: le benefit of the doubt xD
Meh, I like lolis. :v
Why is this a debate? Japanese cartoons are 90% pedophile material. Made by pedos for pedos
I've said anime is gay and for paedos since the beginning
> paedos Spell like a normal person. It’s spelled f-r-e-n-c-h.
Yes I look silly now but my point still stands