Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

While I don't want to be the one policing others on what art they are allowed to draw, or which media they are allowed to enjoy, the other side does make a convincing point. Lolicon and shotacon, by definition, is sexual content featuring fictional children. If you are turned on by that, doesn't that make you a pedophile? Is there something that doesn't make lolicon straight up CP, and morally disgusting?

Disclaimer: I'm not endorsing this point of view
The idea is that since it's not real, no children are being harmed and therefore it's not in the same moral category as actual child exploitation.

What I don't get is when people claim a character being Really 700 Years Old makes a difference. If they have the mind and body of a child, they're a child no matter how "old" they are. Once you get past that, say what you will. I find it distasteful to say the least but I can't stop anyone from having a different opinion on it.

I can see where they're coming from on that end. For those who don't want to be pedophiles and seek help for it, lolicon can be effective for satisfying their desires while being harmless. Then again, the effect of lolicon on some pedophiles can be negative. For those who do not want help for their sick fetish, lolicon might encourage them to act out on their urges on real children. While it isn't foolproof, I can accept lolicon as a form of therapy for recovering pedophiles.

Okay, I'm going to sound peeved and ranty in this comment, not because I care about lolicon, but because I'm tired of people making a mountain out of a molehill over and over again despite the answer being the same over and over again.

The reason pedophilia is morally disgusting is because of child exploitation and abuse, not because it's creepy. A lot of fetishes are creepy and would be illegal if done seriously in real life. Art of those fetishes don't get anyone upset because they were not the target of decades of obsessive witchhunting.

Stranger Danger has the entire country paranoid about old fat men in vans with candy when an overwhelming amount of actually sexual abuse towards children comes from family, friends, teachers or priests. No one cares about the facts though, it's all emotion and paranoia, so much paranoia that anything that even tangentially resembles a pedophile gets called to the police. Fathers watching their own children in the park for example. The fact that you make a thread about lolicon instead of rape fantasy despite the fact that it's the same exact concept.

Frankly, after the hundredth thread with this exact same question or premise, it starts to get tiring explaining this very simple concept to people who bought in to the excessive paranoia that has destroyed out ability to trust other adults being in the same public space as a child. Lolicon is fucking ink on a piece of paper, stop acting like it's anything else and stop annoying everyone with this thread every other week. Please.

I didn't know that there was an excessive amount of threads like these, apologies.

Pedophilia, the term, and the condition behind it all describe an attraction towards/a desire to prey on children sexually and/or "romantically". A drawing isn't a child, nor is it a living being to prey on, that's where the first disconnect comes from, and where using it interchangeably doesn't work, as it implies a drawing is functionally the same as a living child, which it isn't. The reasons someone may be attracted to a loli/fictional character and an actual child aren't 1 to 1 just because "both of em are young". Fictional characters in and of themselves are idealized fantasies, they're drawn/written however the creator/viewer wants them to be, not how they adhere to reality. (That's kinda where "traps aren't gay" comes from, a lot of people who like traps aren't gay/casually into guys, they, in fact, just like that specific idea/image of "cute, idealized anime boys that look feminine, or "chicks with dicks".) 9/10 said loli character is simply a "small, "cute" adult" (while the rest are basically just puppies in a human body. Big head/eyes, behavior and all, while providing the same "feel good/"daww" function puppies do). Hell, that's what a majority of anime characters are already, adults with softer, rounder, big eyed, "cute" features and mannerisms. Take that to it's logical extreme and you have a loli. Pedos, on the other hand, are attracted to children because they're smaller, vulnerable and naive, someone they can easily take advantage of to satisfy their desires. There's a reason they're called predators.

-

And that point leads into why loli/shota drawings aren't CP, put simply, they aren't real. CP in and of itself dictates/implies there was a child that was harmed, tortured, raped, murdered, and all around exploited to produce said content. None of that can happen with a drawing/cartoon character (and no, that's not minimalizing, that's exactly what it is.) There's a reason terms like loli/shota, furry, guro, vore, etc exists, they're exaggerations/fantasies disconnected from reality and it's similar acts, not (inherently) trying to imitate/be a proxy for them.

-

As for it being morally disgusting? I mean sure, but that in and of itself isn't a crime, nor is it inherently "wrong". Morals are just personal feelings/guidelines, more often than not made up by people around you rather than yourself. They're subjective feelings and values, not tangible, concrete laws/rules. Now, just because I know im gonna get that one "gotcha" smartass, CLEARLY if we're talking about actions committed against actual people, then yes, it's a different story. Harming, murdering, stealing, etc from another isn't an issue of "well personally I'M ok with it, so whatever". That's not a matter of opinion, those are actions being committed against others. Some random dude doodling a picture neither harms, takes away from, nor effects anyone in it's creation, as such the only "moral crime" it can commit is making someone feel "uncomfortable". That alone doesn't even compare to the crime CP is.

-

>"Both those terms apply just fine, you're just mad because they sound bad"
As it happens, strawquote, I and others reject those terms in the same sense that gamers reject the "sociopath/murder" label, furries the "dogfucker/zoophile", and so on. It doesn't reflect what they're into/why they're into it. It just paints a negative generalization to validate a person's emotional overreaction, one that always seeks to "purge and get rid of" whatever that thing is that offended their emotional/moral sensibilities. Not because it causes any significant harm, or any to begin with, but because "I don't like it, and I personally don't see any value in it, so neither can anyone else, get rid of it".

TL;DR, pedos can be into loli, but being into loli doesn't make you a pedo. Once you introduce fiction/idealized fantasies into the mix, there's too much nuance to make blanket generalizations, that goes for any "taboo" subject in fictional media, and the comparisons drawn for them.

Taking a look at your profile page and your 17 forum posts, I see you must be knew the forum side of KYM, I apologize. But yeah, a while back the whole "lolicon is pedophilia" shit blew up big time and ever since then, you'd see it brought up, with a majority agreeing with what I said while other kept pushing the issue saying that lolicon is CP. The threads always ended the same with no shift one way or the other. Watch, this thread will end up the same way, the vast majority will cite the separation between art and reality, a few will say that lolicon encourages pedophiles to touch children and a certain someone disagreeing with the majority while changing their arguments and eventually turn the thread into everyone vs them until everyone gives up. Or it could just fizzle out. I'm hoping for fizzle.

What I really hate about the whole moral panic surrounding pedophilia lately is how they're mostly driven by emotional virtue signalling than anything else. It doesn't help that the media often spreads misinformation about the issue just like the drugs and sex and rock n roll panic. As a result, SJWs and ignorant children throw around pedo accusations and try to cancel people willy-nilly when they see something that offends them, and innocent people often get implicated of child abuse by this witch hunt. I've seen this happen all the time Twitter and DA, where countless decent artists get banned because someone files a fraudulent report against them.

In the end, loli and shota are just pixels depicting a fictional sex scene between fictional people. Not exactly the most morally acceptable subject, but hey, are we going to raise torches and pitchforks to pretty much every sexual deviancy out there once they're gone too?

>If she doesnt have tits or ass whens shes under 5ft, shes a child

Except the fact that short women with flat chests do exist, Australia.

>Giving porn to pedos does what exactly?

Nothing. Trying to stop pedos from having porn also does nothing. Except allowing precedent for the destruction of free expression.

>if they are under 5ft, they arent women.

If they are over 18, they're women, even if they don't break the 5' mark. 10-20% females over the age of 18 don't make the 5' mark, Australia.

https://dqydj.com/height-percentile-calculator-for-men-and-women/

https://www.usablestats.com/lessons/normal

>this is what pedos want you to believe.

No, that's what history has repeatedly proved.

Steve I agree with the sentiment , but mate, short people exist
and some people never develop tits

Welp, sorry dwarves, women with developmental disorders, or simply just have small features/are short, you're banned from relationships and showing more skin than your ankles because it makes this dude and Australia uncomfortable. That'll protect all those kids out there for sure!

>">this is what pedos want you to believe.

>No, that's what history has repeatedly proved."

>"FIrSt tHEy CAme fOr THE pEDOpHILES!"
>point to it, point to the time in history where they started a facist regime off of banning child porn.

HURRAH FOR STRAWMAN!

>also
>1% 5’1.54″ 4’8.85″
>10% 5’5.2″ 5’0.04″
>so most adult women are over 5ft?

HURRAH FOR MISREADING GRAPHS!

>they have etheir have one of the 3. If they fail to meet all those ends they arent a women

HURRAH FOR NO TRUE SCOTSMAN!

Yeah, this is exactly what I predicted would happen, just thought of the wrong "certain someone". Might as well dip before they show up and this truly turns into a shitshow.

Edit: Yeah, final thoughts (hopefully) on this topic. Lolicon is a creepy, artistic rendering of an illegal and morally deprived act, but so are a bunch of other fetishes and I don't believe in making an artistic rendering of an illegal, morally depraved act should be made illegal because a painting of a pipe is not a pipe and curbing free artistic expression, even if it's of something deprived, is never a good idea. It's no worse than rape fetish or necrophilia and doesn't deserve to be in the spotlight anymore than those fetishes and the only reason it is, is because of the overblown moral panic of the pedohunt that did more harm than good.

all I wanted was an answer to a complex moral debate

The first several posts were answers though, and considering the track record for threads like this, that's pretty good.

I don't think it should be illegal or legally classified as CP, but I do think that it's an expression of pedophilia, immoral, and probably deleterious to society.

Something that annoys me about this debate is the people who assume that the mere fact of being a pedophile means you're going to jail. Non-offending pedophiles exist, and I would argue that lolicons are (marginally) worse than non-offending pedophiles, but clearly much less dangerous than pedophiles who use CP, who are in turn less dangerous than those who actively prey on children.

I don't think it would be a complex moral debate if we could simply give you an answer.

I think it's less "you're going to jail" and more being demonized for something they haven't/have no intention of doing. No one uses "pedophile" for it's dictionary term of "attracted to prepubescent humans" they use it as a catch all term for kiddie diddlers. As such being called that is going to have people treat you like that.

>this freaking debate yet again

(Not that I'm mocking OP for asking a genuine question, though. I'm just as tired as Borike for the fuss this topic creates and seeing the same arguments about it over and over)

Oh, I'm curious as to why you consider lolicons as marginally worse than non-offending pedophiles. Since (correct me if I'm wrong) non-offenders are attracted to the real thing and lolicons are not necessarily attracted to the real thing too, shouldn't it be the other way around?

We really need a mega-thread about this topic or something.

This image is probably actually lacking in numbers at this point.

It does not help that Ryumaru is right and the argument never even moves forward, not to mention that the exact same argument could be made of things like rape art, but nobody does so and nobody accuses those of being potential rapists somehow, which is funny, since rape art is actually far more common and widespread than any art involving children. People believe whatever they want no matter what evidence is put on the table, so it is completely pointless to even have this argument, much like trying to argue about the Sun being an angry deity demanding tribute or not several thousand of years ago.

Anyway, on a related and more constructive note, you guys remember the whole deal with the UN wanting to censor lolicon..? Again..? Well, to nobody's surprise, they failed miserably. Again. So, at the end of the day, little does it matter what us random forum dwellers say when actual laws and entire goverments have failed to push this idea forward for literal years all over the world, with just a handful of countries as exceptions. This is officially on the "videogames cause violence" territory at this point, with the same results law-wise, and I cannot personally imagine that changing anytime soon if everybody's approach to it is like that of the UN, lacking of any actual scientific evidence and just resorting to assumptions and "what if"s that get shot down in court instead.

And lastly, I find it particularly rich that some people on KYM of all places think they are in any position to call others out for fapping to underage drawings when there is at least one trending lewd underage drawing pretty much every day, just from Pokemon-esque-looking girls instead, who may still be like 10 in canon. If the argument here is that it does not matter that they are drawings if they are underage and it is still CP all the same, then explain that, because I feel like "well these particular drawings don't LOOK underage" would not fly very far for a real person either, and it is barely any different from the "It's actually a 3.000 year old dragon" defense, but about appearances instead. Both are still defending lewds out of canonically underage characters, and both would fail miserably in real life. "Officer, I know she's 16, but she LOOKS 18, doesn't she?" will not bail you out of any consequences.

So, by that own logic, anybody who finds this attractive is somebody who would also find a 14-year-old girl with similar proportions attractive and is therefore no different from a pedophile since "it doesn't matter if it's a drawing, she's still underage and it's still CP". And do not even get me started with the whole "Ara Ara" thing and the infinite loops than half of the KYM userbase would do to justify that one being totally normal and OK, but not lolicon based once again just on appearances instead of actual ages involved.

If "a body of a child but with the mind and behavior of an adult" justifies that it's not an anime child and thus fine to bone, then by extend "a big tiddy anime milf but with the mind and behavior of a child" should justify calling people who like that pedos, right???

And based on the average mental health of big tiddy milfs in anime (=retarded), we're gonna give Chris Hanson a field day if the above is true.

God, imagine if Lolicons actually tried that.

I swear, everytime this topic comes up you can never seem to respond with anything besides indirect strawmen and piss taking.

The point isn't/wasn't "look, they're actually older than they look, so it's ok!" the point was that elaborate on the differences between an attraction towards an idealized cartoon character and wanting to physically take advantage of a naive, vulnerable child. A dude getting off to imp Midna or Taiga isn't the same as a creep stalking local parks.

I'm sick of seeing this discussion on twitter so let me just say this.

At the end of the day, we're arguing about whether drawings are equal to child exploitation. Or whether jerking it to cartoon children means that you're going to attack real children.

It's absurd. A regular person can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. You have to remember that a lot of porn in general is wish fulfillment and people are well aware that it is fake.

I hate to be that guy but there are actual self-proclaimed pedophiles on the net, particularly on twitter (particularly well known subset are MAPS/NOMAPS). I'd worry more about those guys than if cartoon porn is questionable.

Because the topic is tiring and most of the arguments that defend lolicons are just so shitty.

I mean I saw the rape argument being brought up (still waiting for someone to bring up vidya gaems and school shooters as a comparison):

not to mention that the exact same argument could be made of things like rape art, but nobody does so and nobody accuses those of being potential rapists somehow, which is funny, since rape art is actually far more common and widespread than any art involving children.

The thing is, lolis have a much thinner line (as in non-existant) of how much a drawn fetish can drag itself into real life until we're going to have a problem with the authorities. You can look at professional rape porn (or even amateur I guess) without having to face trouble with the authorities. Rape can also be a roleplay thing, nothing illegal there.

Good luck with that if you're a lolicon.

Which is what tires me about this topic. I find the comparisons awful. Is it morally questionable you're into lolis? Yes, so stop pussyfooting around it. Have a healthy understanding regarding the issues surrounding the things things you consume and don't try to justify them instead.

Pedophilia, the term, […]

The idea that "lolicon" means something different from "paedophile" is a myth. Ordinary Japanese regard it as euphemism for the same thing.

>Is it morally questionable you're into lolis? Yes, so stop pussyfooting around it. Have a healthy understanding regarding the issues surrounding the things things you consume and don't try to justify them instead.

Few would object to the idea that it's morally questionable, it's basically inherent. But again, morality, more specifically in cases like this, boil down to personal sensibilities and subjective feelings, not a tangible "wrong act" being committed against or forced upon another. It's not a matter of justification when the "issues" begin and end with individual matters of "that idea makes ME uncomfortable". Even on the "legal" side, where it's functionally a thought crime, implemented for the same reasons as before, with the only difference being it's multiple people who feel the same way, with the threat of legal payment/jail for those who don't "fall in line", not to prevent a crime, protect an individual, etc, but to hold a gun up to a person's head to stop their "icky thoughts" by force because those select, certain people "don't like that."

A long winded way to say "yes, it is fucked up, I acknowledge that" is where things should begin/end (unless it's someone broadcasting their fetishes and demanding you validate them) not spiral into a mudslinging affair based on clashing personal feelings, that's how we get stuck with threads like this popping up monthly.

The fact that KYM finds itself arguing whether lolicon is acceptable or not so frequently is beyond me. I never saw such obsession over the subject anywhere else.

Let's be blunt. I don't blame people for having their own fantasies or sexual tendencies. It's theirs, and it's not upon me to take it from them. I care little what somebody gets off to, it's personal. In fact, I believe more people have excentric sexual fetishes than it shows; because it's taboo.

Which is the point. You enjoy lolicon, BDSM, rape, whatever, alright fine. I don't need to know. But having to bring the subject to the table like you need to justify yourself and feel validated with it, that's bullshit. No, you won't make me believe that it's not morally dubious that you like those things. The moment someone tries to justify themselves and looks for arguments to make it sound right, they've betrayed themselves. If it was fine, there wouldn't be these "debates" in the first place.

I don't see any end to this conversation besides everyone agreeing that people all have their own kicks and that they should have them on their own.

I don't want to condemn people for having deviant thoughts. The human mind is a dangerous place, making it practically human to imagine doing unspeakable acts.

But when you try to justify it, you try to normalize it. That is where it becomes a problem. If lolicons are flooding comment sections with "it's just a drawing", they're doing exactly that. Recognize your deviant thoughts as your own but don't advertize or apologise for them.

Ah yes, it's everyone's favourite debate. I'm not going to re-iterate arguments already made. We've seen it all, especially if you're part of the anime community in any capacity.

But I will say that the anime style, generally, is pretty removed from what people actually look like. I've also seen the term "loli" vary in what it refers to. I've seen it used for what are basically short adults to realistic looking children.

As shit here we go again.

So allow me to preface this as someone who's largely not interested in cute youthful looking characters portrayed in sexual situations. So some bias will be expected from this post.

As long as you're not being a creep about it, I don't care. I can understand why some folks may take issue with loli and shota content. It's not easy to separate fact from fiction sometimes. Especially ,when children are real while furries are not. At times, the fake deal isn't as good as the real for some,folks. Drawn cp largely tends to be in a bit of a gray area since it depicts similar subject matter in a more fictional context.

Then there's the elephant in the room….teenagers. Teens and children tend to usually be lumped together due to the virtue of them both being underaged. Despite this, teens and kids are as different as night and day. Kids are largely asexual beings who haven't sexually matured yet. Teens are undergoing a transitional period from prepubescene to adult hood. Yet folks paint them the same brush like they're infants who couldn't possibly think such lewd stuffs.

Now that doesn't mean it's morally right to overtly sexualize teenage character but At the same time unlike kids, they're no longer those asexual blobs devoid of sexuality. Have you fucking seen 13 year old boys…sweet God. But people on sites lie Twitter don't see,it like that. People legit get deleted from exsistence for so much as drawing a character with bigger boobs than normal. Folks legit dox and attack people for showing their sexuality cuz the very thought of it disgusts them.

Now this is gonna go in super personal territory that may have little to nothing to do with lolicon but I'll try my best:

Strictly speaking I do fall into the camp that is essentially "Take it easy bro, it's just a drawing" but I can totally understand why people would not like it.

The only thing that would convince me to ban it is if there was conclusive studies proving that it causes an increase in IRL attacks on kids, which even my free speech absolutist ass would consider a line that should never be crossed

Considering the ever increasing numbers of people developing parasocial relationships with fictional characters, I'm not fucking suprised art of lolis and shotas are considered as bad as real like CP.

That is a very good point
we need to have more studies on the effects of degenerate fetishes(incest, pedophillia, rape, snuff, and beastiality) on sociaty’s attitude toward such things

Violence =/= sexuality

It's a poor analogy though. Toon violence is not an accurate depiction of regular violence.

What you don't understand is that Looney Toons isn't considered a snuff film, not because Daffy Duck is a fictional character, but because violence done to him is done for comedic purpose only and leaves him with no permanent damage. Hentai while maybe not 1:1 recreation is way more better depiction of sex than Looney Toons is of violence (unless you're into some wacky shit). If you did want to make an actual snuff film out of LT you'd have to have actual harm done upon the duck not just ruffle his feathers and have his beak spin 180 around his head.

Maybe if you were to use shock value cartoons like Happy Tree Friends your argument might've been slightly more passable.

Oh yeah and if you want depictions of sex done with the same accuracy as Looney Tunes let me redirect you to this:

>Toon violence is not an accurate depiction of regular violence.
>is way more better depiction of sex than Looney Toons is of violence

…do you think hentai is even close to accurate to real sex?
oh boy

anime/loli characters don't even look like real people.

It doesn't count because no real penis when into the vagina
Or butt
Or mouth
Or hand
Or if you're feeling kinky, foot

And I’m saying it’s a bad analogy becuase you’re comparing apples to oranges

That Spongebob image is exactly why I find the topic tiring: It reduces an argument to a meme image which is an awful arguing strategy, the comparisons are laughably piss poor, and it attempts to normalize it.

4/10 – You tried.

I don't know how you can say all this while simultaneously posting a single image from 4chan of all places and pointing at that as a counterargument.

On a side note: Apparently we can access the lolicon entry? That's honestly surprising. I thought that was ground zero of the whole hiding entries thing.

That was the point: It's an awful arguing strategy emphasized by doing the same in return. If you don't provide good arguments you don't get proper replies back and discussion moves nowhere.

The "ground zero" thing was with memes that had their origins in loli hentai smut btw. At least I recall staff back then looked at that specifically.