In my opinion, they’re is a different between being sexually attracted to a fictional portrayal of a minor then a actual portrayal of one. Some most likely are, but there are other reasons like loli than them being children. It shouldn’t be treated nor trivialized as such.
2 Likes
Minor refers to a numerical age. On the other hand, small frames simply excite me.
2 Likes
Where you getting this from in terms of numbers?
“Source(s): Dude, trust me.”
Personally, I’d say that half the people who like loli are pedophiles, and half the people aren’t.
Then there are pedophiles who don’t like loli…
1 Like
Personally, I’d say that half the people who like loli are pedophiles, and half the people who don’t like loli aren’t.
Without hard numbers, it’s hard to say… That said, I’ve talked to lolicons and they were fine with loli content and stressed it wasn’t like pedophilia at all. Some (closer to most at the time) began reacting very negatively to deep fake 3D CGI of fictional characters around the same “body type” (for lack of a better term) as lolis, to the point where they began to sound a lot like anti-lolicons until someone pointed out they were being hypocritical.
I’m sure there’s overlap but I don’t think it’s half and half either, but I don’t have numbers and I’d like to know why people think this.
Sorry, I made a typo in my post. I’ve corrected what I meant to say.
It’s fine, it happens. But I’m still confused of why people believe liking lolis is an indication on whether that person is a pedophile.
1 Like
They’re probably clutching at straws, if anything.
2 Likes
Because “pedophile” carries as much as weight as “witch” or “Antichrist”, back in the day, did, which is to say, it riles up the stupid peasants.
1 Like
Yeah, I like laughing at them.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Characters in lolicon don’t have ages. They’re drawings, the fictional creations of another person.
Do pedophiles like lolicon? It’s a moot point. Some pedophiles like it. Some gun owners will commit crimes with their gun. Some people who own knives will commit a crime with one. Some people who drive a car will commit a crime with it. I could go on. If people are crazy and have ulterior motives, the tool is not the cause of the crime, they are. We never blame budweiser when a person has a dui, it’s irrational to assume lolicon has any correlation with pedophilia.
7 Likes
We don’t blame Apple, Google et. al whenever someone uses one of their Smartphones to photograph kids naked, either.
2 Likes
There is a difference between fiction and real content.
There is a difference between thought and action.
There is a difference between having a crush on someone, and sexually assaulting them.
I believe that an individual is responsible for only their own actions toward other individuals.
If there is no person involved, there is no problem, and there should be no law.
If there is a living person involved, then the next logical thing to ask is whether an action causes or involves another person being harmed, exploited and taken advantage of, or having their privacy exposed.
Laws should protect the livelihood of people from the actions of other people.
But how do we preemptively protect people without banning thoughts themselves and the people with such thoughts alone? In a sense, we’ve already banned them from society. No one walks around in public with a visible tag around their neck that reads, “Pedophile”, without causing mass public concern. People would be holding their children extremely close, and even give dirty looks, or even threaten said person. Though they’ve not done anything to anyone but expose the fragility of a subject that needs to be talked about more maturely. Even as a passive self-prank social experiment it would garner a lot of negative attention with zero sympathizers.
It would be a hellish world to live where your very thoughts is enough to land you straight into prison. Some people think that it will be better, though. That, if we rounded up every pedophile and lolicon and burned them all out of existence, we will have achieved a world where children can be safe from the very idea of child abuse, therefore, safe of the acts thereof? If there was no such thing as sexual interest in children, would there still be children being abused?
4 Likes
I’ve talked to such people and even held a poll about this… The same people who are for this are also for dehumanization (but only the “good kind”), lack empathy for others, show little in the way of thinking beyond their immediate goals, encourage children to commit suicide and… Well, on that poll some people voted “Yes, I would kill lolicons, shotacons and pedophiles when they’re infants/toddlers for what they might do in the future.” But none came forward to defend why they’d kill children…
This whole mindset is rooted in hatred and fear, not a love for children.
2 Likes
Well, that’s disturbing. Perhaps the poll had attracted either some trolls, or some extremists who have rationalized child-abuse as an anti-child-abuse measure in their own minds (which is so incredibly absurd and circular, as if to put out a fire by using more fire)… Still, I’ll give even an extremist the benefit of the doubt. They can say whatever they want, but the moment they harm someone’s child for any reason whatsoever, no matter how they justified it, they themselves are part of the problem.
Anyway, I’m tired of arts and objects getting the blame for the actions of some people. I also wish people would stop blurring the lines of two very different things with very clear and separate definitions, no matter if there are people who may overlap in both, or just one, or neither.
1 Like
On the bright side, it seems most of the antis wer against killing them as children but it was 11 for killing them to 92 for not killing them… Though one anti that said to just monitor them did heavily imply that after their 18th birthday that it was fair game to end them, as “The only good lolicon and/or pedo is one that’s willing to kill themselves.” I hope most of the 11 or so votes were trolls but I don’t know.
Truth is, if fiction had this much power over someone, they had way bigger problems than the type of media they consumed. I got into a argument with someone who claims loli content made their brother progress to actual CP. I brought up the possibility their brother was alread a lolicon, pedophile and suffering from pedophilic disorder before viewing loli content but this person kept refusing to acknowledge that possibility… It wasn’t the hentai that made him do what he did, but people like that want to find an easy target to blame their misfortunes on. It’s always been like that, sadly. EDIT: Disregard this, they revealed they were trolling.
2 Likes
(post deleted by author)
As I keep mentioned, the whole “willing to kill themselves” part is reminiscent of how lowbrow viewers of vampire stories want “good” vampires in fiction to be all emo about their condition, seeking a “cure” or willing to starve themselves. Me? I have no respect for such imbeciles. Instead, I have admiration for those who choose self-preservation above all else, no matter how many stupid peasant kine get triggered. I openly advocate embracing one’s inner Beast, but only feeding it when you, yourself, choose to.
3 Likes
People can go crazy from denying themselves, it’s also a reason why people use fiction to escape into imaginary scenarios so that they might not let those feelings bleed over into other areas of their life. Better to embrace what you are instead of bottling it up and causing a whole bunch of issues for yourself and other people. Fiction is truly one of humanity’s greatest creations.
And if it helps, the people who say stuff like “killing yourself would be the moral thing” and wishing death on innocent people for what they might do tend to be exactly as empathetic and rational as you’d expect.
I disagree. Megan’s Law, sex offender registries.