Also want to point out, as someone who doesn’t mind loli/shota stuff, I cannot for the life of me imagine liking artwork, and also liking irl young’ns because of it. Like where is the commonality aside from supposed ages? They look nothing alike. Seriously, if anybody says that the top row of characters from the first post’s chart looks like a real person, they are either trolling or blind… Even the 3D stuff doesn’t come close.
Unless somebody likes it due to the ageplay kink, I don’t get it…
Also because sometimes it’s also easier to search for that and get petite/athletic bodies instead of oversized ones or everything is good till it comes to their ass and breasts which look like they got balloons in them. There’s more than a few examples of petite tagged videos having arguably C-D cups if not more on hentai or porn sites.
This is the same argument people have used to argue for a ban on first-person shooters. It’ll only take one sicko with a gun and games get banned, right? Well, no. First-person shooters promote violence, right? Also no.
The whole argument just doesn’t work unless you can prove a casual relationship between access to fictional loli content and child abuse. Good luck with that.
A 2d loli is not actually a child or a kid, nor are they underage. They don’t exist so they actually can’t have any of those things, they are fictional(not-real) art with labels applied to them by their creator and we apply our own labels based on real life.
Imagining things that don’t actually exist and will never exist is a typical twitter user move who conflates reality with with their ideals imagination .
Coming back to this, I honestly get a lot of points here and think people misunderstood some of mine. I’m not arguing that there’s a direct causation here. The violent video games analogy was great, because in the same way, it does not directly cause violent acts, and the reason violent people play violent video games is because they’re violent in the first place.
Mostly it just makes me personally uncomfortable. Like I know there are a shitload of weird-ass fetishes out there and I don’t expect the vast majority of coprophiles to actually be out there getting hepatitis lmao, but the fact that these characters were stylistically chosen to appear as a child sets off alarm bells in my head. Again, I concede that that’s a personal thing. I’ve been through some fucked up shit, and I have VERY strong reactions to anything that looks like child abuse. That’s what it looks like to me, and many, many other people in the world.
As for the age 18 thing, I see it as a bit of a grey area. Legal adulthood but the brain isn’t fully developed and the person is usually not particularly capable of wise and informed decisions, including those to consent to sex with someone older than them. I’m only 23 and I still see the age gap as problematic, because I want to relate to my sexual partner on a psychological level and that’s just not happening with a teenager.
Mainly I’m disappointed with how angry I’m seeing people get about this. Being inflammatory is not convincing anyone, and I haven’t directly accused anyone of anything. Frankly not replying to me would be wiser because it makes you look defensive and suspect when I wasn’t even talking to you or about you. This isn’t personal.
Theres also an inherent and foundational or engrained behavior for a man to find the most fit mate. This would be a woman thats younger rather than older. It’s perfectly normal to be attracted to it. You cant really help the thought to varying degrees.
What you can help though is the actions. And that’s where I think some people have trouble with it all. There are some cases where people cannot control themselves and are essentially weak. They act upon those thoughts, this isn’t ok. There is a clear line.
So we as a society have agreed that its better to keep children safe rather than indulge the desires and fantasies of men. Because it is better safe than sorry.
I agree with this. While sure we may have varying degrees of attraction. And just because one does look does not mean at all they will act. To be very clear.
I think the vast majority of men are capable of suppressing and holding back without any issue.
I am specifically targeting those who cant. I would prefer to protect children against those weak minded, weak willed, and cognitively handicapped men. Rather than let men indulge there desires in one way or another. Even if it starts out as just harmless animated porn. The risk is too large and not worth it.
As a man you should be first and foremost a protector of women. You are the rock. If you must sacrifice for them, then so be it
Do you have any evidence that banning animated loli content would protect children against “weak-willed and cognitively handicapped men”?
Why wouldn’t it be the other way around? i.e., men and woman who feel sexually attracted to underage bodies will choose the easiest path to satisfy their urges, such as animated loli content. If animated loli content isn’t available, perhaps they will look a little bit harder for other options.
Violent games don’t result in increased gun misuse. Porn access doesn’t result in increased rape. Why would your default assumption be that banning loli content reduces child harm?
My assumption is that the phenomena behind these data stem largely from men as a demographic having a tendency to prioritize looks over basically anything else?
Yeah, we call that a biological response that biological men have.
You can intellectually and socially be attracted to different things than you’re physically attracted to, but that’s more a socialized and cognitive thing.
For example, I used to be attracted to tattoos until I learned how much of a tramp stamp and indication of promiscuous and rash behavior it was, and a red flag, so over time now I see it as a turnoff.
You know as well as I do no study has been done in such a way, so asking for that data isn’t a valid rebuttal. There isnt a way to acquire that data and Its unreasonable to ask for.
I am speaking towards common sense, logic, and rational thinking to understand how such a relationship can be made right?
There COULD be a relationship. There COULD be a problem for someone. In no way does this mean its common. In no way does this mean its you. In no way does this mean its anyone here.
Humans are inherently evil. All of us have the same potential capacity as one another. Imagine the most evil among us that has ever lived. You, I, everyone have that same potential capacity for evil, anger, pain, hurt, sadness, etc…
We should be aware of this and cautious and protect our innocent and defenseless against the ones who cannot control themselves.
So because there is a risk, because we understand the underlying, gritty, unforgiving, relentless, dark that the human mind can descend into. Because we have lived through the evil, seen men act upon that evil, hurt the innocent and infect those around them. Because we do not want to repeat our past. Because there are those of us who need to be protected. We should therefore take some degree of caution and show some restraint. Our preferences or desires are not more important than the safety of our innocent and defenseless.
edit: go look at my portfolio. Im arguing from a stance where I am fully aware of what I prefer.
That all just reads as fearmongering bait, but I’ll bite.
Are you trying to suggest that if a tiny portion of the population has an “evil” (whatever the fuck that means) reaction to something, it should be taken away from everyone else? Because damn, there goes everything fun that has ever existed.
Multiple studies have been done showing attempting to show some kind of causation between video games and violent behavior with very mixed results and staunch criticism when peer reviewed, because they show a correlation between kids who had a lot of exposure to or played a lot of horror games and those who have behavioral problems. What they have failed to do is show any evidence of actual causation between violent games and violent behavior, and any truly dedicated scientist/ researcher knows that:
Correlation =/= Causation
It’s one of the biggest misconceptions in the modern world I think. If a child was predisposed to have violent behaviors or had influences that have proven to have a causal relationship with real violence (such as being brought up in a physically abusive household), wouldn’t it make sense that they would gravitate more towards violent media? It is a completely illogical leap to assert that the opposite is true, i. e., that exposure to violent media leads to a higher likelihood of actual violent acts and attitudes.
The same goes true for any assertion about attraction to loli/shota and likelihood of being an actual child abuser. I’m sure lots of people who are child abusers will also look at animated porn of kids, but it is a logical fallacy to assert the opposite, and at least one study was done on this specifically, shared by @ATFM a few posts back:
I am speaking towards common sense, logic and rational thinking to understand how a negative relationship between the availability of loli content and child abuse can be made, right?
The remainder of your post is, if I may say so, missing the point. You don’t need to convince anyone that children need some form of protection, or that degenerate human beings exist. That’s not the disagreement here. The disagreement is on whether banning loli content is an instrument that actually protects children, because one could certainly argue a ban would make it worse. You seem to speak, with confidence, that the effects of a ban are either zero or a reduction in child abuse… that confidence is misguided. At best you can argue the ban is a good idea because maybe the hypothesis that it reduces child abuse is marginally more likely than the hypothesis that it just makes it worse.
That first one is a sample size of only 80 people. And it makes some really bold claims. I said most people are capable of controlling themselves. Its the small few who cant that are the problem. The statement they make is just insane.
So lets imagine someone who is maybe a bit messed up in the head. He likes this kind of thing and has maybe had some violent thoughts. We all know from experience that when you do things more without moderation then we seek greater and larger amounts of whatever it was we sought. This goes for any type of addiction or thing that we enjoy. Its a curse really. So its only logical to assume that there is some risk to allowing some people to become more and more used to such a topic and which builds up “tolerances” and they will seek larger and larger amounts of it.
We cant deny that there is logical and rational truth to the potential danger of enabling some people access to view such things. Regardless of whether or not its common. The simple fact that it can happen and the repercussions of it happening are dark enough that we as a society put it in a place that we do.
I am very well aware of “everything in moderation” and how quickly things can get out of control. My weakness, naivety, and stupidity lead me to a waste more than a decade and a life full of regret. It’s ok for society to attempt to keep each other from going down those pathways of regret. Sometimes they may not work, people will always get through. But a little bit of accountability, public shame, and understanding of the capacity for evil is not a bad thing.
So while I do see your point and I’m not saying im entirely for banning it. Im just saying some degree of moderation and limits aren’t necessarily a bad thing. Its very common and expected for people to be up in arms over being told what they can and cant look at. So I get the frustration.
There are most certainly some really evil people out in the world. Which may or may not find there way to a place that enables and promotes certain topics. That place of validation and community could push them into acting out thoughts. This outcome is unacceptable. If I have to go without to even slightly remove a percentage of a chance that that happens. Im ok with that.
This is a HUGE assertion and logical leap that you’re making, which seemg to be based primarily on your own feelings and no actual evidence. It’s also a perfect example of the logical fallacy of false equivalency.
We can all agree that a heroin user or an alcohol abuser who does not use in moderation will in fact need more and more of the substance to achieve their desired effect, because it is a chemically addictive substance. This has been studied extensively and is essentially scientific fact. The same can not be said for other things like pornography that are habit-forming or psychologically addictive but not explicitly chemically addictive. Even if that’s how it works or feels for you, it’s not relevant, because the assertion you’re making is about the world population and not just yourself. If it were at all true about the greater population, wouldn’t we at least see some kind of correlation in an actual study? As far as I know there aren’t any.
Also, if you’re genuinely concerned about the safety of minors, why aren’t you at all concerned about all of the real human beings who may or may not be of legal age and may or may not have actually consented to sex that your portfolio is completely full of? Pushing for regulation in live action porn is the way to go if you want to make a difference in protecting minors from abuse. Animated content is just an easy target, despite their being minimal evidence of it causing actual abuse towards humans.
There’s a correlation between child abusers watching CSAM and committing further abuse, whereas child abusers who don’t watch it are less likely to commit again.
This might imply an underlying mechanic through which CSAM encourages abuse. But it’s very easy to see how causation takes a different path than “people who watch that stuff are encouraged to abuse”. Like, “people who are addicted to the abuse are more likely to watch CSAM”. Or “people who stop abusing distance themselves from engaging with the fantasy”.
Now take that shaky foundation and move it a thousand miles further, from the land of “the existence of CSAM causes abuse” to the lands of “the existence of fictional CSA-adjacent media causes abuse” and it’s difficult to steelman in good faith.
I’m not sure you’re valid in believing there’s a percentage chance, or fraction of a percentage, that you’re reducing harm by policing this sort of fiction.
CSAM requires previous harm for its production and it causes harm by its existence.
Fiction can be leveraged by abusers to manipulate victims, but it’s unclear that leverage creates a victim that wouldn’t exist in a counterfactual.
The concept of sexualizing youth is icky. I don’t like it and it’s gross to me. A great piece of art is, to me, stained by its inclusion.
If it’s made explicit or as a focal point it sometimes makes me physically gag, as with an age-play (live action) porn studio I stumbled upon when looking at/for regular stuff. The title, description and intro all smacked me in the face with its premise and I had to take a breather and vent to some internet friends about it.
My life would be better if no one wanted to include this stuff in their art due to how it affects my emotions running into it.
The world would be a worse place if we betrayed the principles that allow artists to include it in their art.
twitter user move who conflates reality with with their ideals imagination 
.
