This is the reason why people want to ban lolicon but don't seem to care about violent media involving children

As I’ve delved deeper into the societal responses to lolicon, I’ve come to realize that the strong aversion to it is rooted in a moral dissonance. This dissonance arises because lolicon characters are designed with pronounced adult sexual traits, which naturally evoke an attraction in most people (even non-lolicons and non-pedophiles). Yet, because these characters are also portrayed with youthful features, this attraction conflicts with the moral stance that finding children attractive is wrong. However, it’s not surprising, that ‘normal’ adults would find lolis appealing — it’s expected given the adult attributes they exhibit, that is not something we would find in real children (as illustrated in the infographic below). So, the moral conflict this creates is what leads to calls for its banishment.

What’s fascinating is the stark contrast in how society reacts to violence versus sexualization in media, particularly when children are involved. Fictional violence, even against children, doesn’t seem to generate the same level of moral conflict. People recognize such violence as reprehensible but also as purely fictitious, without the same impulse to ‘cleanse’ it from media. This absence of moral dissonance with violence may be due to a clearer separation in our minds between fiction and reality.

In contrast, lolicon challenges this separation. It triggers a discomfort that stems from an attraction to what’s perceived as a child’s image, despite being fictional. This discomfort seems to drive the narrative that lolicon could be a stepping stone to actual harmful behavior, despite evidence suggesting that attraction to lolis is based on their adult-like sexual characteristics — something real children do not possess. Understanding this, it becomes clear why the consumption of lolicon isn’t a reliable indicator of real-world behavior or intent.

It’s essential to recognize that our responses to media are complex and often driven by subconscious moral reasoning. Acknowledging the psychological mechanisms at play — the way we are drawn to adult sexual characteristics and our moral compass that dictates our conscious attitudes — is crucial in navigating this nuanced debate.

PS: Yeah, I used ChatGPT to summarize this whole idea for me, especially since, why not? :yum:

1 Like

The same can be said about child-like dolls. Everyone knows they’re not alive, just “things”. The dissonance sets in once people start imagining someone having sex with them. Suddenly, the doll becomes no different than as having sex with an actual child. But it’s all a trick of the mind, because to most people, that would be a terrible thing to do. Rape a child. They can’t say it’s consensual, since to them, children can’t consent. And dolls have no ability to consent. Or walk, or talk, or complain, or cry, or eat, add infinitum. They’re just things that we project part of our personality onto.
As for those of us that have them for emotional support or something pretty to play with (non-sexually), we’re labelled as creeps, weirdos, and potential child molesters. Since the connotation of pedophile has been used to mean just that! Hijacking the actual definition.


I guess dolls could be seen in a similar way, yes. :thinking:

| Pedophilia: sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object

Straight to sexual objectification of a living being, which basically undercuts the entire context with a negative undertone. No room for a more flexible definition which includes inexplicable infatuation, love or romantic interest at all there, regardless of sexual context, because that would be too fair to include.

| a psychiatric disorder

I wonder if all sexual fantasies are to some degree considered to be a psychiatric disorder. I think this classification becomes negligible, or even irrelevant.

Also, feet: suddenly a sexual characteristic at teen ages. They are approximately the same shape, just larger. Regardless, it really does depend on the individual. Even non-sexual things can be sexual to some random individuals. For example, there is a documentary about sexual attraction to balloons. Replace “balloons” with anything.

Macro assessments and conclusions made thereby cannot be sufficient enough at conveying sound reasons for why, what, and how these are the way they are. There is endless depth to what a human may find appealing, with cartoons, toys, and dolls with human-like characteristics being no surprising exception, to me personally.

I’d say there is more weight on internalized sexual interest, than externalized adult sexual characteristics, that goes into the equation of whether or not something is sexually attractive to someone or something. However, both are certainly important components, each in a certain ratio unique to the individual.

The actual stepping stone to harmful behavior is poor mental health and life instability.

What one finds of interest can have less to do with how they conduct themselves.