look loli culture is weird af and you'll never catch me on some sus shit.
that said, lolicons are oppressed. I'd even go as far to say they are the new gamers of our generation 😂
@carlosruzu don't you mean *pedophiles?
Or are you denying that lolicons have pedophilic tendencies?
**Not that I'm siding with the "oppressors" here, I'm just trying to be truthful.
@Aldo2 funnily enough more often that not, its the antis you have to worry about. Usually actual pedos won't actually come clean and honest about them being, well pedos, so they will do anything to downplay their horrififc actions and whatnot.
Not only does this completely contrast the nature of most lolicons, as they tend to be unabashedly for lolis and whatnot, this also describes the loli harpers more often than not. Thus why it checks out whenever the people that harp about lolicons being pedos actually tend to be outed as pedos themselves, kinda like those mfs that harp about lgbtq laws being in the closet
@carlosruzu @Aldo2 There are lots of lolicons that admit to being pedos, we just get banned a lot
>horrififc actions
99% of us have done nothing
99% of that is just bias. Giant sample with a handful of occurrences makes you think it's a regular thing
@applejack @Aldo2 the heck do you even mean by this? Do you not think that liking kids is bad? If your point is that most lolicons aren't pedos, thats literally my exact stance
Having an attraction to those younger than oneself (this includes being attracted to teen/pre-teen children) is neither good, nor bad. In fact, you could say it's natural.
If pedo = child-rapist/abuser, then yeah (and there are definitely some who seem to have made it their goal for these two things to be made synonymous). But, obv, that is a wholly simplistic understanding.
I myself have come a long way.
I'd argue that many lolicons (#notall, maybe not absolute majority, but a sizeable chunk) are in denial or terrified of their "secret" getting out. And they're terrified because, to them, having any pedophilic tendency at all, no matter how benign, (for example, thinking, "wow, that 13 year old is attractive") means that they are a rapist-murderer.
@Aldo2 @applejack you could make the argument that its neither good or bad for their to be an attraction (although imo, its def not good). However, there's no ethical situation, regardless of who's in the wrong, where an adult can consensually have sex with a child.
In regards to lolicons, as established in the other thread with Beard, that main thing that seperates them from pedos is they themselves seperating what they are attracted to from realistic depictions of children, a lot of them just not being hard for that shit once its too realistic. Its a shame because like you said, a good amount of them are in denial/secretive due to social presssure that was in place to prevent any sexual attraction to minors to prevent pedos
> There’s no ethical situation
I don’t mean to be...That lolbert retard guy....But...What if the child consents/initiates?
That is THE ethical situation...
*And I’d just like to reiterate, obv not every child is as “developed” as each other. The point is, there are definitely, verifiably some who do understand these “adult” concepts, sometimes better than actual adults.
@Aldo2 @applejack in theory yeah this should work but the issue is that we don't have a verifiable way to know that these mfs know what they are doing as in being able to go into their mind and be like "ok they can consent". Hell, as you know I'm of the idea that kids don't even have any sexuality (specifically peeps below 13) so how tf do you allow this realistically? Its like the situation of a drunk woman approaching you, clearly sloppily and then regretting it in the morning, only this time, you can't tell when the woman is sober or drunk. At that point, its better to wait for her to be in a situation where she can't be drunk before you advance, like how society has the age of consent as a guideline of "ok this person can actually understand the nuance of consent"
I mean, I’ve been approached by drunk women/girls before, but never continued on, because I am a retard and very shy in person. Guess I dodged those rape allegations, eh?
It’s part of the reason I’m more for fostering a better understanding of how children mature (and, the assumption is that, with that understanding, a better way of dealing with those sorts of relationships is possible, rather than just jail time for the adult and psychological abuse - represented by hours and hours of “counselling” every week - for the child), instead of rambling about how the AOC should be 0.
If there was an understanding, then it wouldn’t be so alien to propose that, hey this adult and this “underage” person are actually in a benign relationship, and while such a relationship is not the norm, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.
There are cases of this happening in the relatively recent past, wherein it was determined that there was no abuse, and that both parties reciprocated each other’s affection.
@Aldo2 @applejack yeah those rape allegations would have been awful to deal with, especially with #metoo. that said, that does sound alright in theory. the main thing is determing the ability of the person to consent. I think there will always be a need for an AoC, imo for the foreseeable future one around 16 as at some point if your eight year old is approaching dudes, we got bigger issues lmao
There was a link that someone from another instance (Anime.Web?) posted a while back to this series of interviews a person did with people who were in pedophilic relationships, and, essentially the majority of the women at least (there was a section on homosexual pedophilic relationships, but that’s not me, so) said that while there was nothing wrong with their relationship, they still wouldn’t want the AOC removed (the most some were willing to go was lowering it to like 14 or 15, which some countries in Europe already have done).
They acknowledged that they were a minority, and obv not every child is the same. Still, it made for a very interesting read.
Of course, many pedos were citing that and saying it was evidence that the AOC should not exist, and/or that adult-child relationships should be legalized, but clearly they didn’t actually read the thing.
@Aldo2 @carlosruzu But they're still part of the same culture, they have the same beliefs as anyone else, it's more about their experiences
People vastly overestimate the effects, don't know it was the norm historically, and underestimate the benefits
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9670820/
>Meta-analyses revealed that students with CSA were, on average, slightly less well adjusted than controls. However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.
@Aldo2 @carlosruzu Also keep in mind "CSA" here as they're talking about is better described as "sexual experiences without rape"
They also talk about how difficult it is to even talk about this because people want to put consensual and non-consensual relationships in the same pot or you're a pedoenabler "IT'S ALWAYS RAPE!" so you need to use terms like "CSA"
This is where the “statutory rape is ok” crowd come in, and proceed to muddy the waters even more than they already are...
@Aldo2 @carlosruzu "Statutory rape" is okay. It's a legal (a statute) not a moral concept. Make it not illegal and it stops existing
Even if you want to argue that it's a good general policy, that's separate from it being categorically immoral
Even if it was a good baseline, it's never black and white, you get exceptions, so unless you want to NPC brain and go "breaking the law is immoral", there's no legitimate case to call it immoral
@applejack @carlosruzu I’m not saying it’s immoral. I’m inclined to agree with you more than disagree. I’m just saying there are better ways to argue the point.
