Many claim comparing loli to video is false equivalency, I beg to differ, how are they alike and can the chemicals from playing video games be released when you jack off?
Well, it’s not a false equivalency if it’s used in the right context.
Both video game playing and masturbation to pornographic art are forms of voluntary stimulation of the mind and senses, both with the express goal of satisfying or entertaining oneself.
People play violent video games like GTA or Doom not in spite of, but rather because of their adult or violent themes, settings, imagery, etc.
If violent media consumption is not a risk factor for physical aggression or real-world violence, then it’s safe to say that the same could be true with regard to pornography.
Despite what the APA said about violence being a risk factor for aggression, the data they’ve relied on is very questionable and riddled with bias, with many longitudinal studies and meta analyses showing findings that contradict or flat-out disprove any link between media consumption and aggression.
The same is said for pornography consumption, wherein so few studies claim there to be a causal link between normal, violent, or even child pornography consumption and subsequent sexual aggression.
This is because the variables by which sexual aggression is linked are unrelated to pornography consumption, yet interestingly, studies are becoming more open to the protective factors of porn.
The catharsis theory in porn and media consumption is not to be discarded, if any of this means anything.
2 Likes
The truth is… The only difference between porn and violent fiction is that, as a society, we arbitrarily decided anything related to sex is sacred, special, magical or what have you.
It was the same way with violent fiction too.
“Comic books cause violence!”
“D&D causes Satanic worship!”
“Video games cause violence!”
“Porn causes violence!”
And now we’re at “Certain types of porn cause violence!” Which became, “Loli porn causes sexual violence!”
Really, the only difference between the two is the prudes who want to elevate sexual fiction to a sacred level, much like how their predecessors wanted to elevate fictional violence to a sacred level.
The cognitive dissonance comes in that these people don’t realize they’re being Puritans, actively refuse to believe they’re being Puritans and will rationalize away why when they do it, it’s acceptable but every other time in history, it was wrong. Picking and choosing, it shows a serious lack of objective application and empathy to be honest.
5 Likes
I think it’s painfully obvious that these types of media don’t cause anything unless that thing is somehow intrinsically related to it.
Take CSAM, for instance. The mere act of somebody consuming it may not cause that person to go out and commit CSA, but the fact that the material in question is a product of a real-life instance of CSA is enough to justify banning the use of real children in sexually explicit material or pornography.
They’ve been analyzing the relationship between CSAM, pedophilia, and CSA offenses for about a decade and yet they’ve only managed to prove that it has no effect, yet the Justice Dept. in 2009 rejected these findings and concocted their own “study” based on hand-picked samples of incarcerated inmates with histories of sex abuse and other crimes and tried to pass that off as a representative sample, much to the disappointment to the broader scientific community.
It was thanks to the work of scientific minds like MC Seto and James Cantor and others that pornography consumption would no longer be considered a risk factor for pedophilic individuals, yet the focus on high-risk recidivist offenders remains a contested middle ground.
I think it’s perfectly fine to say that loli doesn’t cause CSA on the simple premise that it isn’t made from it, as is the case with any form of fiction/fantasy. Fiction is harmless.
1 Like
Well if I was arguing against someone I would first bring up why it matters that the chemicals are different. Presumably watching tv will cause different chemicals from gaming but you are not arguing that tv causes rape. You have to establish they have a Meaningful difference.
I can’t think of a good analogy but if you told me that bricks made of chinese clay won’t hurt if I hit you with one but ones made out of iberian clay would, then you would have to explain why they are different.
Can you explain why there different?
The point is for you to explain the difference. Im saying that porn and vid games are the same, your saying there different, its your job to explain why. They brick thing was an anology.
1 Like
I’m also saying there the same.
"how are they alike "
I guess i read that and thought your were saying there different.
I don’t see sexual enjoyment as any different to other kinds of enjoyment.
Maybe it’s because I have a lot of fetishes and a lot of non-sexual things are attractive to me. But it seems to release all the same happy-chemicals, personally.
Obviously, this is just my personal feelings and I don’t have any scientific papers, but I’m curious if any others feel the same way.
I also have a small “range” of emotions (though I feel them deeply) and I have one kind of positive emotion, which is “euphoria”. I get that from doing anything that makes me feel good - from video games to sex.
1 Like
Masturbation is much more fun. I doubt any video game rush will ever match hysterical paroxysm.
Why are we implying that these 2 things are mutually exclusive?
2 Likes
I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, but I definitely prefer one over the other. And I would contend that orgasm is better than any video game high.