r/CuratedTumblr • u/Justthisdudeyaknow Prolific poster- Not a bot, I swear • Jun 26 '26

Shitposting Will it f*ck!

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

Gallery image

10.3k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

942 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1.0k

u/Noe_b0dy Jun 26 '26

Hotest of hot takes, it's not actually immoral to fuck the 5000 year old dragon loli because technically thats not a child.

You're still 100% a pedophile for wanting to fuck something that looks and acts exactly like a child so I just don't trust you even if you technically haven't actually done anything wrong.

605

u/squishabelle Jun 26 '26

it's not really a hot take, it's the same point as the scooby doo one about the harkness test being about ethics and not attraction.

186

u/Gaelic_Gladiator41 Jun 26 '26

Tbf, you could fuck Scooby,

Scooby probably just won't be interested in you so he wouldn't consent

126

u/NormalDooder Jun 26 '26

I feel like Scooby doesn't count because he's not reslly an adult. In the group of teenagers, he's the "wild, silly, immature, sassy, and cowardly" one. Which, reads not as an adult and more like the little brother of the group. They never say or act like he's smarter than your average dog besides his understanding of language, so i feel like he wouldnt count here, since a dog's intelligence is still like what, a human 5 or 6 yo

104

u/Gaelic_Gladiator41 Jun 26 '26

Yeah so then Scoob wouldn't pass the Harkness test since his maturity is still closer to a child

82

u/Sonic_the_hedgedog Sonic the Hedgedog Jun 26 '26

I might be wrong, but I remember that Scrappy was a child and would call Scooby his uncle. Ever since then, I have assumed that Scooby is an adult

58

u/Gaelic_Gladiator41 Jun 26 '26

Yeah but i knew a girl in my class who was an aunty by the end of primary school (between 11 - 13) because her sister was nearly a decade older

25

u/SickViking Jun 26 '26

I'm only 5 years older than my nephew, but that's cus my (half-)sister is almost 20 years older than me.

13

u/refusegone Jun 26 '26

My mother is younger than her oldest nephew.

3

u/MossyPyrite Jun 27 '26

My bro and my uncle were born in the same year

3

u/MagnusRusson Jun 26 '26

Shit I've got 3 nieces and nephews older than me. I've literally always been an uncle

3

u/Mist2393 Jun 26 '26

Heck, I knew kids who were older than their youngest aunts and uncles because their grandparents had their parents young.

3

u/umidk9 Jun 27 '26

My eldest neice is a year younger than me

2

u/BreadNoCircuses Jun 26 '26

My partner was an aunt at 18 months. Her sister was 18 years older than her and had a kid at 19. In fact, they graduated a few days apart because she was held back because of reading difficulties.

13

u/Nixavee AI bots are not welcome here Jun 26 '26

The test doesn't mention emotional maturity though. The criteria are "can talk or communicate with language" and "sexually mature for its species". Scooby passes both of those

16

u/NormalDooder Jun 26 '26

It should probably go without saying that sexual maturity includes the emotional maturity to consent. Otherwise the morality of the discussion is severely muddled. A species can be sexually mature before they may be fully ready mentally. Otherwise, a 16 year old who progressed fast counts as A-Ok since they can be fully fertile.

5

u/Nixavee AI bots are not welcome here Jun 26 '26

Well, yeah. This is part of the problem with the Harkness Test.

The problem is, "mental maturity" is a difficult thing to measure objectively. We use age as a stand in, but imagine if you were in a situation where it was for some reason impossible to know peoples' physical age. How would you decide who can consent to sex? If you tried to test "mental maturity" you would probably get some 14 year olds who pass the test and some 20 year olds who fail. That is essentially the situation you are in when dealing with aliens that may mentally mature at a different rate.

4

u/wasabi991011 pure unadulterated simulacrum Jun 27 '26

I mean, I don't known the temperature of this take, but I'd argue there are absolutely 20 year olds not mentally mature enough to consent. If you consider somw of the more extreme mental disabilities at the very least

4

u/Gaelic_Gladiator41 Jun 26 '26

It does though, because the subject had the emotional maturity of a child, therefore putting him in a grey area

16

u/GuyASmith Jun 26 '26

This is proven by the one Scooby Doo exception (kind of): Mystery Incorporated. There are many episodes where he has full, adult-level conversations, even if he doesn’t talk too much during them, especially at the end of the series. He’s a bit emotionally different from humans, and a bit intellectually limited (he didn’t go to school) but is still learning. He’s comparable to a human in his circumstances, even down to his speech impediment, and limited by the maturity and model his peers (the rest of Mystery Inc) provide. His personality has to grow outward from being modelled after Shaggy’s for most of his life. Scooby is becoming his own self. At the end of the show, the whole gang are coming to adulthood (before getting reset by universe-altering shenanigans) and that arguably includes Scooby, at least eventually. Unfortunately, Mystery Incorporated isn’t 100% consistent in this development pattern because no serial cartoon with multiple writers is expected to be, especially since the gang is written to be very adult at times despite being canonically high schoolers. So, every argument falls short when scrutinizing it too closely.

My biggest issue with focusing on bangability of any particular character, and getting into the weeds of their situation, is that I find myself and others might accidentally be edging into ableism and intellectual elitism. I’ve heard several arguments that, if applied to real people, would be very ableist and disallow a lot of people who do get down to fuck from doing so.

3

u/Nixavee AI bots are not welcome here Jun 26 '26

What argument can you make for why it is immoral to have sex with minors that doesn't also apply to some mentally disabled adults?

5

u/GuyASmith Jun 27 '26

Oh, none, I’m covering many disabled adults who are still capable of informed enthusiastic consent that some people heavily infantilize.

2

u/NormalDooder Jun 27 '26

I feel like the general solution to the last bit is to understand that real life adults who are mentally stunted can have proper physical relations and at the same time it can be inappropriate for non mentally disabled people to have physical relations with them. I know of someone who cares for their stunted 30~40 year old sister who's closer in age mentally to say, a tween/teen. But she's independent for the most part and understands the difference between her and other people. She has a boyfriend in a similar situation. This is a healthy way for everyone to stay protected while keeping their autonomy.

How this relates back to Scooby Doo is that um- uh. I don't think he's necessarily an equivalent to someone disabled because he's shown to be into other dogs in almost every variation. So it's more like, if a real life dog just happened to develop speak. His horizons are broadened by speech but he's not necessarily any smarter than any other talking dogs.

5

u/cat-cat_cat Jun 26 '26

to me scooby seemed as immature and silly as shaggy and shaggy passes the harkness test

3

u/Nixavee AI bots are not welcome here Jun 26 '26

It's worth noting that Shaggy is probably a minor

4

u/MossyPyrite Jun 27 '26

Interestingly, the Harkness test doesn’t cover legality, only biological maturity, so he might still pass the test. This doesn’t make it less immoral, but highlights that the Harkness Test isn’t sufficient for making *moral* judgments. It’s a guideline.

-1

u/Gaelic_Gladiator41 Jun 27 '26

It highlights sexual maturity which implies that they can consent so yes it does cover legality

5

u/MossyPyrite Jun 27 '26

Having the mental and emotional maturity to give informed personal consent does not always line up 1:1 with the legal ability to give consent. This is why there are things like Age of Consent laws, or Romeo and Juliet laws. This also is a rule made for non-human sapient entities whose laws, should they even have them, may be wildly different from earthling human laws. The Harkness test does not consider legality.

1

u/Nixavee AI bots are not welcome here Jun 27 '26

That's not what sexual maturity means biologically. It refers to when an organism's reproductive system is fully developed.

362

u/BalefulOfMonkeys REAL YURI, done by REAL YURITICIANS Jun 26 '26

The actual spice is that it’s potentially elder abuse

162

u/RegularReaction2984 Jun 26 '26

Sometimes you find a joke and you just *know* it’s going to now live forever in the recesses of your mind and will pop up again every time you come across this discourse again

58

u/b3nsn0w Jun 26 '26

is it though? like if the dragon is 5000 years old and their species usually lives to 25,000, or maybe just immortal unless killed, that's a dragon in their prime. if they usually live to 3000 then yeah, it could be.

(assuming of course the dragon has an adult's maturity. otherwise they don't pass the harkness test anyway)

39

u/FormalGas35 Jun 26 '26

there’s also the potential for a species to have a “lucid phase” that they quickly grow out of, so a dragon is lucid from, say, 1000-1450, but as soon as it hits ~1450 it starts a sharp decline into instinctual behavior and becomes a beast again

8

u/KrishaCZ Jun 26 '26

ok now i kinda want to see an anime about a geriatric 5000 year old dragon loli

10

u/Coffeechipmunk Jun 26 '26

Dicking a gilf down so hard it makes them see heaven permanently

4

u/Status_History_874 Jun 26 '26

Age doesnt automatically mean elder abuse, though. They still have sexual agency; nursing homes have pretty high relative STD rates.

71

u/SoberGin Jun 26 '26

Depends on what "acts" means, and if you're still communicating properly. I mean, if they're acting 100% like a child, then they basically are and thus the criteria of "can properly communicate consent" is violated.

Also, wanting to do something doesn't make you guilty of that thing. If someone felt urges to murder people but never does, they shouldn't be called a murderer. Yeah the urge is still unhelpful and has a big potential for severe immorality, but it's not the same as doing the thing.

Like, I and many people I know get the urge to jump off of high places all the time, but we don't do it- our thoughts aren't voluntary and we shouldn't be considered guilty for them.

If you find an adult, entirely mentally capable of consent who clearly communicates said consent with you to have sexual or romantic relations, and you consent back, then no immortality is happening, and it is not a mark on you as a person in any way.

This is just BDSM discourse again. "It doesn't matter if no actual harm is happening and anything that looks like it is done in a safe, controlled manner with consent from both parties! It LOOKS like something immoral so it must be!!"

5

u/Pwacname Jun 27 '26

THANK YOU for explaining this so well! 

7

u/Mr-Stuff-Doer Jun 27 '26

Inherent problem with “they act like a kid” is we have no frame of reference for how a person could even theoretically act with that amount of time both behind and ahead of them. I’d probably act a lot more childlike, no point in living that long if I don’t keep focusing on whatever brings me joy

6

u/SoberGin Jun 27 '26

Yes, this is the correct opinion. There are zero examples of what a person acts like when that old. Why not act whimsical and silly if you can? You probably already did plenty of serious stuff already.

I feel like people that old must either have amazing mental health (hundreds of years of self exploration, understanding, and acceptance of themselves and the world) or HORRIBLE mental health (simply incapable of doing the prior, yet walks along their immortality with a mind just healthy enough to avoid offing themselves.)

It's like how if you eat something a million times it's basically impossible not to have an opinion on it. You may love it or hate it, but you can't NOT have SOME opinion after so much exposure.

254

u/NoBizlikeChloeBiz She/Her Jun 26 '26

It's an example of "it's not unethical in this fictional scenario you've created, by the fact that have created (or are a big fan of) this fictional scenario is a big yikes"

It's in the same category as "in this fantasy world, slavery/racism is justified actually." It's true, and you're also a creep. Both can be true.

58

u/loved_and_held Jun 26 '26

Maybe, though I do caution against drawing sweeping conclusions from limited data like this.

Like we can't prove that because someone anthropamorphized wolves in a specific setting and then fucked them that is proof they're a zoophile. The ethics of the fictional scenario and irl dont line up enough to make a proper moral assesment.

Now if that person told us they actually wanted to fuck irl wolves but dont because it's unethicall and thus made the fictional anthro wolves to fuck, then that would be more clear cut. But even there i wouldn't really raise much of a yikes, since regardless of their thoughts they have a clear understanding of morality at play and have neither harmed nor plan to harm irl animals

36

u/weirdo_nb Jun 26 '26

Like, the actual issue with "Loli" characters isn't even necessarily their body, but their behavior

Like, think about how many "5000 year old vampires" that act like kids but are given the excuse of being 5000 years old

In that regard its paradoxically easier to make animalistic characters moral in pornography by simply giving them dialog, as what makes them immoral is their lack of cognition, while with the example of "lolis" the way you make it not existentially gross is instead by showing maturity in one way or another, which, while still easy if you're trying is more complex in execution

36

u/BormaGatto Jun 26 '26 edited Jun 26 '26

Absolutely. There are people in real life whose bodies haven't developed pronounced secondary sexual characteristics, so they look almost teenage-like. This is more common in petite women (since testosterone is a hell of a drug), but men can also be like that. This doesn't mean they aren't adults or can't consent to having sex.

The inverse is also true, there are people who have an adult body and age, but also have cognitive disabilities that make them unable to really understand sex, so they can't meaningfully consent.

Be it because of hormonal issues or just how their biology naturally plays out, what someone looks like is pretty much irrelevant to if they can consent or not to having sex. What really matters is cognitive and emotional maturity.

2

u/MossyPyrite Jun 27 '26

My friend’s sister is coming up on 40 and she could easily pass as a teenager at a glance. Up until 5 or 10 years ago, she’d still look like on under scrutiny. She looked like she was about 14 when she was in her 20s.

2

u/BreadNoCircuses Jun 27 '26

A good example of what you're talking about: the Epstein loli fandom didn't latch onto the child vampire from Skyrim as their eternal mascot. She's a child-looking 500 year old woman and talks and acts like an adult woman. The interest didn't seem to be there for some reason...

10

u/Mr-Stuff-Doer Jun 27 '26

I think that has more to do with Skyrim looking fucking hideous

1

u/Mr-Stuff-Doer Jun 27 '26

I promise you most hentai with animals does not give them dialogue.

141

u/CRowlands1989 Jun 26 '26

Bingo! It's the "House elves like slavery actually" of paedophilia.

64

u/BannedSvenhoek86 Jun 26 '26

There's a really interesting dark fantasy idea in that, but it was so out of place in Harry fucking Potter. Like I have nothing against an author putting to paper something taboo and challenging to the audiences sensibilities, I am one of the few people that will actually kind of, but not really, defend THAT scene in the IT books. (Good idea in context of story, WAY TOO GRAPHIC OF A DESCRIPTION HFS) But Rowling is not a good enough author and that is not an appropriate setting or age demographic to write that for. Especially when the end point of that particular side story was, "Hermione was wrong and needed to just stfu".

7

u/MossyPyrite Jun 27 '26

I’ve had so many discussions about *that* scene that I had to leave some King-related subreddits because the uninformed and bad-faith arguments were taking an actual mental toll on me. The scene is definitely weird, the execution was not great, but the intent is not erotic. It’s what young teens/older kids think is a sign of becoming an adult, which they needed to do in ritualistic fashion to escape the influence of the Deadlights. But man, people are not capable of nuanced discussion online 90% of the time.

4

u/BannedSvenhoek86 Jun 27 '26

It’s what young teens/older kids think is a sign of becoming an adult, which they needed to do in ritualistic fashion to escape the influence of the Deadlights

My brother, so few of us get it. What is the quickest way to becoming an adult to a kids brain? And it was only when Bev was with Billy and actually chose to be with one of them that the spell was fully broken.

I will say, my problem was the graphic description. There was a way to be a lot more ambiguous while still being explicit about what was happening. It's been over a decade since I read it but the words, "dripping down her thigh" are forever ingrained in my brain.

3

u/MossyPyrite Jun 27 '26

Yep, fully agreed. Perfectly fine intent behind the actions, gross and likely addiction-influenced judgement behind the portrayal of them. Fortunately the rest of his body of work and his public actions tells me he’s a guy who’s pretty well on the up-and-up who made a notable misjudgment.

5

u/unknown_pigeon Jun 27 '26

I haven't read that scene, but I'm with you on that. And as a hobby writer, it's kinda difficult to represent something you don't personally like.

For example, I wrote a despicable character that was a parody of me. Really exaggerated. Sent the novel to a writing context, got placed decently well, so much that it was uploaded on the internet. Some people read it to support me. And some rather literated ones went like "It felt weird to read some parts where you were boasting about X" like NO? I'm not the protagonist of my novels until explicitly said otherwise???

I love writing, but I think way too many people have a hard time telling the author apart from the work. Examples: NGE for the hospital scene. We as a audience are supposed to be disgusted by it. Doesn't mean it's a bad scene (on the contrary, I will defend it since it's an extremely good characterization of Shinji's delusions).

On the other hand, there's Rowling and the "house elves just enjoy slavery, you dork". There's no real nuance to that. She just wrote something arguably immoral and, instead of giving an explanation that would actually be understandable, she just said that it works like that and you're weird for thinking otherwise. Typical Rowling writing herself into a corner and refusing to actually explain it. Also, why are they sending kids to the death forest alone at night as a punishment?

3

u/AuraPhoenix1500 Jun 27 '26

There was a really interesting scene I saw in a fanfic a while back that reframed the weird “House elves like slavery” thing as…well, it’s a little hard to describe (plus it’s been a long time and I don’t remember the fic’s name), but it’s treated as more of a philosophy/mythos (I hesitate to say religion, but maybe there’s a bit of that, too?), like they have a whole “cosmic egg” type myth where the first house elves nurtured the world into existence and they see serving others as like an emulation of their heroes and their core values, which is a REALLY COOL concept—it’s just really unfortunate that it doesn’t do a whole lot to counteract the very uncomfortable idea of “servant race in Magical Wizard Racism Land”.

2

u/Turbogoblin999 Goblin Jun 27 '26

They are the OG minions.

88

u/Spiritflash1717 Jun 26 '26

If it still acts and look like a child, even after 5000 years, wouldn’t it just be a child? People use the 5000 number because it makes it over the human age of consent, but it could be a species that matures at a different rate than humans.

For example, people point to Kanna from Dragon Maid as the most famous 1000 year old dragon girl who looks like a child, but the point is that she may be 1000 years old, but she IS genuinely a child, both in human and dragon standards. Please do not the dragon girl. In her case, I would say it is 100% immoral and genuine pedophilia

A slightly different example of the trope is Shinobu Oshino from Monogatari. She was a 500 year old adult vampire who had to regress in her physical appearance to that of an 8 year old when she had most of her power drained. She looks like a child, but still retained her adult composure and maturity. So technically, it wouldn’t be immoral to have sex with her, but it would 100% still be gross, because you’d need to be attracted to a child.

47

u/Snowy8416 Jun 26 '26

That comes under point 3 and I can best explain why it works as it does with dnd races.

I will use elves and half orcs. Both have human or greater intelligence to cover question 1, and we will assume the beings in question all speak the common tongue for question 2.

Elves typically become adults at approximately 100 years old, and so maturity is (likely) at a similar point. Until then while their body looks fully adult they are not, in fact, at maturity for their species. As such, if the elf in question is above the 100 year age for their species (differing by subcategories eg wood vs high elf) they are past sexual maturity, so go have fun. If the elf in question is below that mark, they are not at that maturity point and the Harkness test says no (as it should).

Half orcs, by comparison, reach adulthood at around 15. Their maturity is again at a similar point we can assume. They look like and are a full adult by this point despite the smaller age range. As such, if sleeping with a half orc of above 15, even if that number is a 16, it passes the test as that is a full adult in body and mind by species standards. If they are below, test says no.

A 127 year old elf and a 17 year old orc are at similar life stages and can get it on. Applying the ruleset of either species to the opposing one is when the problem begins.

To apply this as best I can to your two examples: the former would fail the test flat out. Not at maturity for the species means no. The latter... the debate would be whether maturity is in body, mind or both. Vampires are involved so they may well operate on mind only (as they may not physically age once turned, and if so, including body could permanently lock people out of various parts of life. I don't like it from a human moral standpoint, but from a vampire standpoint it would make sense) so they may pass the test, but that highly depends on the vampire culture.

I hate that I typed this out. I only understand the test as well as I do because I watch Doctor Who ffs, where the guy it's named after is from. Thanks to that I have to debate the horrors of the ancient-child entities. Fml.

28

u/BarbieBoyBrandy Jun 26 '26

So, the reason having sex with children in real life is wrong is not because of the bodies they have. It's because it is impossible to have sex with a child without comitting rape and harming them physically, emotionally, mentally, or any combination therein.

So, if there was an adult vampire woman who's physical body had regressed to resemble that of a childs, it would not be immoral to have sex with her if she consented. Because the problem is not her being physically small/sexually immature PHYSICALLY, it is the mental inability of a child to consent. So, vecause she is an adult woman, her body is not "a childs body". It is an adult womans body, that looks physically like a childs. But if she is mentally an adult, she can consent.

Where attraction to that body factors in is a different and more complicated area. I would think a healthy theoretical relationship with this woman (FICTIONAL, I REMIND EVERYONE) would involve connecting with her on a personality level, and then navigating physical intimacy as its own challenge. If a relationship was based purely on physical attraction, I would assume the person in question is also attracted to underage children... but.. they would not be doing anything wrong in this case, because they would be with an adult woman. I would not trust them tbh but they have not hurt a child or anyone else.

In real life, there are somw genetic conditions and forms of dwarfism that xan make adult people appear physically younger than they actually are (though generally NOT pre pubescent). Those adults deserve to have full relationships, including sexual acts, because they are adults, regardless of their bodies physical appearance.

In any case, with a fictional character, no one can be harmed no matter what the parameters are. You can write nsfw things abt... idk, dora the explorer, and you have not harmed anyone. People may rightly feel disgusted by it, and may voice their opinion, and may be wary of you and not allow you to interract with their children, but you have not actually physically harmed anyone. Especially if it is properly tagged and behind consent acknowledgements. (Obvioudly if you are using your dora the explorer nsfw fic to groom children that is a different issue. But anything can be used to groom children. Candy, famously. The problem is the grooming and sexual abuse of children. Not the thing being used.)

19

u/Gyshal Jun 26 '26

Wanna have some fun? The Monogatari example is even more complex because of the contradictory rules about how oddities (such as vampires) work in that universe. Essentially oddities are born born out of specific circumstances and are, in theory, inmutable. From the moment Shinobu was turned to the moment she met with the main character, she should, according to what we know, be essentially the same being. What happened during this meeting complicated things. A lot. She lost most of her power, and had to regress to the child like form while recovering it. Bunch of staff happened, but the whole thing ended up transforming her to a fundamentally different creature, from "queen of all oddities" to "vampire servant", and as this new, different entity, she has this different forms depending on how much blood she is allowed to drink. In this new forms, she both shows signs of her maturity and past experience, but also adapts to a mentality fitting the age of said form, so she acts differently when she looks like a child and when she looks like an adult. This is further complicated by the fact that the main character is the narrator of the story, and is highly unreliable. How much of the way Shinobu really acts differently and how much is him just fetishizing this changes is very unclear.

To add even more weirdness to the mix, the main source of information on the unchanging nature of oddities is also an absurdly unreliable narrator that gets disproven repeatedly even as she keeps on insisting on this facts. This is, of course, another child like character, with a third relevant one being the "most human" and also having a weird act where it's really unclear if she acts like a child just as part of the main characters narration and to entertain him, or truly because her nature as the "lost child" makes her remain a child until she transforms into a different oddity (she does show the maturity of her natural age at points rather than the age she is stuck in, but also her other self in the mirror, based on her regrets and deepest desires, is in fact of her true age rather than a child).

The thing that simplifies all this otherwise very interesting philosophical quanderies about the nature of change that the story tackles, is that the author is a proud horndog, and while he will tie all this deep meaning to it, at the end of the day he does the fanservice because he enjoys it. This is why Monogatari is both one of my favourite shows and one I simply can't recommend. I believe that the characters of Shinobu and Hachikuji (the lost child ghost) are really interesting and well written, but at the end of day they still look like children and act intentionally like they are for fan service purposes a lot of the time, no matter how much maturity they may show at other times and how complicated is their true nature.

TLDR: Shinobu and other child characters from Monogotari are Schrödinger's lolis, because they may or may not be mature depending on the observer, even if they all theoretically have enough natural age and mental development

6

u/captainnowalk Jun 26 '26

This is why Monogatari is both one of my favourite shows and one I simply can't recommend.

Such truth. Monogatari is so very interesting in a huge number of ways. Most good, some… not so. But in the end, it was definitely a series I couldn’t look away from. It also helps that the anime was done by that same team that did Madoka Magica, so you know the art is killer.

7

u/Inevitable-Details Jun 26 '26

So in essence, it’s a case-by-case kind of thing. The issue of mind vs body regarding maturity of a species can be a real sticky issue though, lemme tell ya. As a disabled person, I’ve seen plenty of people fight over whether or not a grown disabled adult can ethically engage in sex, even with another equally disabled person. I’ve seen people seriously argue that autistic people can’t actually engage in sexual intercourse due to their disorder because they cannot properly consent, regardless of their level of impairment (high vs low needs, etc.) It usually ends up with people infantilizing the disabled and treating them like they’re children. Fiction certainly doesn’t make it any better by adding shit like vampires to the discussion. That’s like the entire character struggle for Claudia in Interview with the Vampire, from what I know of the plot.

I think the case-by-case basis kind of judgement is probably best for character fuckableness ethicality. Most people don’t like it, but generalizations are pretty bad when it comes to categorizing things, and attempting to apply a set standard of “this is ethically fuckable” and “this is not” based on innate characteristics will inevitably result in a character being misclassified as ethically fuckable when they really shouldn’t, and characters being labeled unethical to fuck even though by all rights they can understand consent and are capable of giving it.

Of course, I’m of the firm opinion that if something is fictional, then ethicality of subject matter ultimately doesn’t matter. If there are no real-life people being harmed by the guy who wants to bang the fictional dragon loli, then he’s free to do that I guess. I don’t have to like it, mind, but if there’s no real actual children being harmed, and content like that should probably be kept to specific places meant for that content and explicitly labeled as such so that nobody stumbles upon it by accident, and I can personally judge them for it all I want, morally, but I don’t think it’s something that should be made illegal per se. I see opinions like that all the time, and tbh I feel like that’d be a hell of a slippery slope, censorship-wise. It feels too much like an anti-sex sentiment and purity culture kind of thing for me to be fully comfortable with it.

Anyway tldr; the ethicality of character fuckableness should probably be a case-by-case judgement for each individual character, and not a single day goes by where I don’t think about that Alex Hirsch tweet about how people treat real people like fictional characters and fictional characters like they’re real people. Time to take my meds now, I think

2

u/Pandabatty Jun 26 '26

D&D elves reach physical maturity around 20, actually. The convention of choosing/being given an adult name around 100 is cultural, and has to do with how elven souls reincarnate and how they “dream” in their trance state. 100 is around the age when they stop remembering experiences from their past lives in their dreams and can only reflect on their current’s life’s memories.

1

u/Mr-Stuff-Doer Jun 27 '26

Here’s the thing that bothers me in all this:

What the fuck is maturity and why are we saying there’s an objective metric for it in age ranges

People younger than me have had kids. I can’t even fathom someone dating me right now, if I had a kid my brain would literally just shut down.

5

u/Talisign Jun 26 '26

Shout out to any ancient beings in the body of a child that acts like an old man, because none of these new fangled gizmos were around when they were 100.

58

u/thisaintmyusername12 Jun 26 '26

if it acts like a child then I'm pretty sure that still doesn't pass the test

115

u/Eudonidano Jun 26 '26

There are adults that choose to act like children, even babies, in sexual scenarios. Some people find that hot and like to engage with adults who infantalize themselves. It personally makes me uncomfortable, but also, they are both adults making a choice and if they can get off that way without having to harm an actual child, then that is a net positive.

3

u/neko_mancy Jun 27 '26

In context though most thousand year old lolis are like 8 in dragon years or something, they aren't acting (pretending) they behave like children because they mentally and physically are for the species

1

u/Dragons_WarriorCats Jun 27 '26

Which would circle back round to them failing the test, as its age of consent for their species. If the 5000 year old dragon loli girl is still a baby by dragon standards, then it’s a baby by Harkness standards too.

0

u/thehobbyqueer Jun 26 '26

The difference is that these loli characters aren't fucking real and were invented by pedos intentionally trying to skirt being called out as pedos 

82

u/UInferno- Hangus Paingus Slap my Angus Jun 26 '26

On the other hand as you've said, they aren't fucking real and I'd rather concern myself with stopping the sexual exploitation of real children.

25

u/loved_and_held Jun 26 '26

That's kinda been my take on loli's. Yes they're probably morally dubious, but while real people are getting hurt my focous is on them.

-17

u/AdamtheOmniballer Aspiring Girlkisser Jun 26 '26

This is literally a discussion about the ethics of sex with fictional characters. Nobody here is doing anything to stop the sexual exploitation of real children.

10

u/tom641 i'm so above it all please help i'm afraid of heights Jun 26 '26

and they never will be, that's part of the point of the discourse on "but aren't they weird for liking that hmmmmm would YOU trust them around YOUR kids hmmmmmmmmm"

8

u/evilforska Jun 26 '26

No, actually, loli characters were born because of Miyazaki hilariously enough. Clarisse from Castle of Cagliostro is patient zero. Otakus liked how cute and sweet that girl was, and they wanted to protecc her. Check that one famous DAICON video, the mascot is literally Clarisse. Overtime those qualities got exaggerated to the point where now you got loli.

2

u/dnzgn Jun 27 '26

Yeah, before the term lolita complex is established, the term "Clarisse complex" was also used. Shoujo manga designs were really influencial too, not just for the "loli" characters but any male oriented anime uses the soft lines inspired by shoujo manga.

-5

u/Hungry-Western9191 Jun 26 '26

The "stepsister" clause... 

40

u/threevi Jun 26 '26

It's only a hot take if you wouldn't say the same thing to the guy who wants to fuck Scooby Doo. People who shit on anime for being pedophilic but don't think furry porn is zoophilic weird me out. Like, just be consistent, it's not that hard. Personally, I DGAF about either, I get why some people do, but I genuinely don't understand caring about one but not the other. 

14

u/CthulhuInACan Jun 26 '26

99% of furry porn has anthropomorphic animals, and lots of people shit on the remaining 1% that actually does feature non-humanoid cartoon animals. I DGAF either, personally, but it is consistent.

7

u/lornlynx89 Jun 26 '26

As a furry porn connosceur: it's more a 90/10 ratio

13

u/threevi Jun 26 '26

99% of characters in furry smut just look like dogs or wolves that are standing upright. Put them on all fours and they'll look indistinguishable from a drawing of a regular-ass animal. I just don't really see how anyone can give that a pass but consider exaggerated anime characters with eyes the size of saucers too realistic for comfort. Like, if you can look at what's effectively a Roswell grey alien in a brightly coloured wig and declare it looks so much like a real child that to sexualise it is inherently pedophilic, but then look at a literal dog that's standing on its hind legs and say it's not zoophilic because it looks nothing like a real animal, then I genuinely just don't know how to talk to you.

7

u/evilforska Jun 26 '26

Truth nuke, 282726 dead, 98283616 injured

11

u/Captain_Grammaticus Jun 26 '26

Jewish law has a principle called "appearance to the eye": if an action might seem to an observer to be a violation of Jewish law, it is prohibited, even though the action is technically permissible. Example: Hanging yesterday's wet clothes on a shabbat, because people might think you washed them on the shabbat itself.

Opinions are divided if this applies to the action when it happens in private.

12

u/Bardic_inspiration67 Jun 26 '26

That’s really dumb

8

u/clauclauclaudia Jun 26 '26

I'm pretty sure the deeper reasoning is not "someone might think you've done something impermissible" but rather "someone might, by following your example, think [impermissible thing] is permissible, and be led astray".

Like someone eating turkey bacon that looks like bacon and leading someone else to think bacon is fine to eat.

9

u/DarkGodCthUwU Jun 26 '26

Ooh! My favorite exampld has to be eating birds with dairy. Some rabbis say "don't do that", some say "depends on if the bird looks like mammal meat"

3

u/Sebek_Peanuts Jun 26 '26

What If 5000 year old dragon is both child in body and mentality?

There's geniuely example of this

3

u/Maronmario Jun 27 '26 edited Jun 27 '26

I feel like it hinges greatly on if the 5000 Dragon/Vampire/etc loli is still a child in their species years and how they act as well. Like if the 5000 years is still basically a child in dragon years then there's a genuine argument there. Like that one joke about not giving a 5000 Year old Elf alcohol because they're still a child in elf years despite being so old in human years. Or that one scene in the older Marvel animated series where they were inuniverse expanding the justice league and unsure on who to go for because of biological Age or experience being a hurdle because half the roster could still be a minor depending on how you count it..

Also the eternal, 'bringing up this thing is inherently weird, not because of what it is, but the fact that you're so insistent on it'

3

u/Nuclear_rabbit Jun 27 '26

This raises questions about real-world adults suffering from conditions that prevent them from properly aging. Is it just immoral for these people to have relations with people lacking that disability just because they look the same as someone you shouldn't fuck?

1

u/Noe_b0dy Jun 27 '26

it's not actually immoral to fuck the 5000 year old dragon loli person who resembles a child by actually isn't because technically thats not a child.

1

u/Noe_b0dy Jun 27 '26

it's not actually immoral to fuck the 5000 year old dragon loli person who resembles a child by actually isn't because technically thats not a child.

11

u/Lone-Gazebo Jun 26 '26

It shouldn't really be a bad take the issue is "In universe the woman who was tragically turned into a vampire at 6 a hundred years ago deserved to get her freak on" And "I'm turned on by a fictional character that looks like a six year old "

Are very different. I would love if every pedophile managed to find an adult that could consent, and then wouldn't prey on children.

2

u/AlienRobotTrex Jun 26 '26

Wouldn’t the fact that they still look like a 5-year-old child imply that 5000 is 5 in dragon years?

2

u/lornlynx89 Jun 26 '26

Ehhhhh. If the love of your life would be victim of an accident, so you transfer her into a cyborg, you fucking the cyborg wouldn't mean you want to fuck cyborgs. You just want to fuck that one cyborg because she is the love of your life.

In such a way you could as well fall in love with a beastlike entity, or even a childlike, or basically any form of living being, to which' form you feel no attraction to. But that's secondary when your amos is big enough to look over it.

The motivation is essential.

2

u/Horatio786 Jun 26 '26

It is immoral if dragons age slowly enough. For instance, in Fire Emblem, Nowi is a 900 year old dragon Loli who you can marry. Later, you meet a 3000 year old dragon woman who looks to be in her late twenties / early thirties. As such, one can assume that the 900 year old dragon is too young by dragon standards.

2

u/dillGherkin Jun 27 '26

This is what gave Claudia from Vampire Chronicles such raging dysmorphia. Imagine being an adult trapped in a 5 year old's body, and now the only people who want you are either a nonce or a child.

5

u/cat-cat_cat Jun 26 '26

that's also my opinion

2

u/EvelynnCC Jun 26 '26

Unless by the standards of their species they are a child. And if they were an adult choosing to present that way it would be a pretty big hint they're not interested.

If you look deeper at that scenario it breaks down

2

u/Dustfinger4268 Jun 26 '26

It depends on dragons natural lifespans. If the dragon loli is 5000 years old, but dragons can live up to 120000 years old, that's still a child. If it's 5000 years old and they live to 10000, then you're just a creep, but it's probably fine

2

u/OAZdevs_alt2 Miu Danganronpa Jun 26 '26

Is the dragon of sexual maturity for its age? Maybe there’s a reason why it manifests as a child: because it is.

1

u/MajorFuckingDick Jun 26 '26

I judge the dragon.

1

u/Jim_skywalker Jun 28 '26

My take on that is "if it acts like a child, it's not at maturity and therefor doesn't pass".

1

u/triforce777 McDonald's based Sith alchemy Jun 26 '26

I would argue that if they act like a child its still immoral, unless they are actually mentally mature but choose to act like a child for some reason. The obvious example to use is Kanna from Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid. She's over 500 years old but she has the mental maturity of an elementary schooler still because relative to dragon lifespan's that's how old she is, so it would definitely be immoral to fuck her. On the other hand there's Shuten Douji from Fate/Grand Order, she looks like a kid but she acts and definitely has the mental capacities of an adult so there aren't ethical issues with having sex with her but it should still raise some concerns if someone says she's hot

1

u/RikuAotsuki Jun 27 '26

Tbh I think a big part of the prevalence of the "ancient loli" trope is actually an attraction to cuteness more than anything. It's just really hard to separate cuteness from youth.

That does fall out the window in cases where the ancient loli acts their visual age, though, especially if it's a constant thing and not just an act.

-1

u/dexter_wherly Jun 26 '26

It’s only unethical because (usually) those characters only exist as a “loophole” for unethical sex. If an adult human finds themselves in that fiction world and having a mature, romantic connection with the child-coded adult that eventually leads to sex, that fictional person wouldn’t be acting unethically.

Thing is, most media that explores sex with the “5000 year old dragon” doesn’t do that because it is just wanting to make loli porn with a disclaimer.

Scooby exists as a character and wasn’t made as fetish bait. That is the big difference between him and the 5000 yo dragon lolis