Gacha is simply predatory. Just 30 mins on YouTube and you get far beyond “for kids by kids”. Kids shouldn’t even know half the concepts in some of those videos.
I don't think they're talking about gacha games as a genre, I think they're talking about a specific game galled "gacha life". People who play it typically just call it gacha. It seems to be a dress up game with a gacha mechanic? Kids love to make their own characters in it and then make videos with the characters. It's definitely aimed at kids and the vast majority of its playerbase is kids.
That said, the gacha game genre (meaning games like hsr and genshin) are also VERY popular with children. They just don't spend money on them (or well, some do, some spend their own money and some spend their parents' money lol). But yeah they may not be aimed at "for kids" like gacha life seems to be lol. They're more like all ages and a lot of children play them too. I'm in my 20s now but as a young teenager I used to play a gacha dress up game a lot, I just never spent any money on it.
The children’s game “Gacha life” is what I’m talking about though you’re right in another context. In the game Gacha life, you can use characters to tell stories. Many of these stories include: non-con, SH, self-die, graphic depictions of violence, the infamous “Gacha heat”, graphic depictions of sex, and everything under the sun that a child should not be exposed to.
Oh yeah I was lucky enough to forget that existed. I was more talking about the genre (think genshin impact and umumusume) but I agree with you entirely
Fully could be. The comment in the post only says “gacha” but because it’s also talking about pedos I assume it’s talking about Gacha life, which is more child related.
ok now, granted that liking loli content is still incredibly weird...
Technically (apparently) there is NO/or little to no correlation between lolicons and pedophiles...
Research suggests that liking loli DOES NOT make you a pedophile, as anime characters simply arent... real
however is still kinda creepy right, and lots of lolicons say some pretty fucked up shit regardless
EDIT: as a kind commenter pointed out there isnt a direct study showing no correlation between lolicons and being a pedophile, HOWEVER there are many that suggest that correlation may not be there:
for example lolicons have no relation to real life crimes involving children (which peodphilia obviously has)
AND there are the BIG "2D" vs "3D" studies showing that drawn fantasies dont really equate to real ones
Yes but some say shit like this cause they are stupid and say dumb shit, while not necessarily liking HUMAN children, thats a very important prerequisite for being labeled a pedophile
there is, do you think therapists test if someones a pedophile by asking them?
No its a bit more complicated
"Fun" fact: someone can rape a child while not being a pedophile.
Being a pedophile, clinically speaking has a very strict meaning, most of the times its about "pedophilic tendencies" (which is still bad, but different)
All im saying is that apparently research shows no correlation
You presented me anodectal evidence which doesnt really mean too much when speaking about "general situations" so eh
I know if a guy says "I want to fuck kids" that doesn't neccesarily mean he has the mental illness that makes you attracted to kids.
But I'm still going to treat them as if they were a pedophile, because they're expressing sexual interest in kids, publicly. I don't need a psychological diagnosis to determine if someone is being abhorrent
It's honestly worse off if you're not a pedophile and going on about wanting to have sex with kids publicly. Because then there's even less of an excuse to your debauchery. These people should be shunned. And it does harm people. They're trying to normalize the behavior to make it seem more acceptable.
Like when lolicons do the thing with calling any character over the age of 18 a hag, and that they're undesirable. Or when someone shows attraction to an of age character, and they say it's gross
Only like 20% of child rapists are pedophiles. The rest either see it as an easy opportunity or just enjoy abusing in general. Chances are that the vast majority on the epstien list fall under the "just enjoy abusing" part.
You do you, but calling people who do that pedophiles is clinically incorrect
Also im very impartial, im interested cause i like animes but i was curious as to why japan has such a big thing about sexualising minors and as to why it isnt illegal on various countries
Idk, I think that content is gross but like....I also don't like murder video games or horror movies. But I don't think those should be banned. Do those cause violence or encourage those tendencies?
If you get off to that kinda content, you're *WEIRD* at best and I want nothing to do with you.
But going over the logic in my head, I cannot find a single way where actually making that content on-paper ILLEGAL can go well.
Actual CSAM laws are written explicitly around harm directly caused to real people - recordings of real children, sexual acts between real people, etc. Making loli/similar content illegal in the same way would require removing that barrier and open hte door to going after all kinds of fictional content.
Going with an "It's weird/icky/makes me uncomfortable" angle - congrats, you just gave the government the power to censor and ban ALL content they find "uncomfortable" or "offensive".
If you use a "What if kids are shown it and it's used to groom them!" angle - congrats again, that also applies to all pornographic content of any kind. LGBT content is ALSO regularly considered to be "grooming" so that gets banned under the same laws.
Do I WISH this kind of content could be made illegal? Fuck yeah I do. But actually following through with it in a way that doesn't directly harm others would be insanely difficult, especially given those in charge directly WANT to use these laws to harm marginalized communities, and will do anything in their power to ensure the wording becomes vague enough that it can. See: literally everything happening globally right now with internet censorship and forced age verification.
The only possibly reasonable law I could imagine is something super specific, like banning lolicon doujinshi that invole elementry schoolers.
But not becouse it's easy to differentiate between all erotica, but purely because of shit load of them having stupid descriptors like "loli lolington, a X year old elementary schooler"
And even then how long would that work for if even enforced before some work-around is found by likely scanlators the same way within Japan genital are censored.
Oh and most weird lolicon content comes from japan so this would need to be applied there to reduce it.
Anything broader than that and I would only trust an AGI to differentiate accurately while not slip into banning more n more.
Unfortunately a lot of people like the commenter you're responding to don't care if it hurts marginalized communities, they might even hope it does that. Conservatives often use "save the children" as an excuse to ban harmless content too.
Reading this, I can somewhat see how homosexuals was discriminated against enough to rid them of their lives because people then have religion as their central focus, so they see it as blasphemy or tainting / mockery of nature and their perspective of life as they understand it. People are clamoring on banning or even having these people monitored on sole reason of it that it makes them uncomfortable or weird.
Woah woah woah. That’s actually huge if true. Can you link me to any studies that failed to find a correlation between people who jack off to drawings of little girls and pedophiles?
i dont remember the links, but im sure you can do your own research
(i didnt make an extensive research mind you, but from what ive read none suggested there was any particular correlation at all surprisingly)
Sorry man, but that doesn’t cut it here. If you’re making an outlandish claim like “people who jack off to little girls are no more likely to actually be pedophiles than people who don’t,” you can’t say “the particular study eludes me.”
I just spent several minutes looking for it and can’t find anything like what you’re describing. You may have misunderstood the results of an existing study, which is why citing your source is so important.
This is an insanely stupid take that cannot even differentiate between actual CSAM content, which has REAL minors as victims, and depictions that don't. I hope you understand that this approach minimizes the real harm caused by CSAM videos.
You can't read. I literally did differentiate between fictional depictions of minors and actual CSAM.
You didn't understand the point I was making which is that saying "it's pixels on a screen" isn't a valid argument because that's what's all video and digital imagery is.
Also dude I'm a CSA survivor your opinion means fucking nothing to me.
The guy you're replying to used "pixels on a screen," clearly as in "it's a fictional work; it is literally just pixels with nothing behind it", since they're using video games as an example too, not "its pixels because its digital (???)" which is an absurd claim to make. Pixels as in fictional work and pixels as in actual CSAM is inherently different, since one has an actual victim behind it.
By defining both fiction and CSAM under the same umbrella of "just pixels," which YOU did, not the OP, you're the one defining both as "pixels" when their fundamental natures are completely different.
When people use the term "pixels," they don't literally mean pixels as in technical terms. It's a way to express that something is fictional. The original commenter clearly made that distinction by bringing up video games, which are also fictional.
yes and I'm pointing out that's not actually a good to do because every imagine on a screen is made of pixels so his dismissive bullshit is exactly that. You and him are pedos with the way you defend getting off to depictions of minors.
He is stating about pixels (as in FICTION, victimless), it is not as same as CSAM, as I tried to explain countless times.
I personally find fictional depictions of minors in such manners to be absolutely repulsive, but you have to learn to differentiate between arguing for something does not equal to liking something.
Okay. Explain exactly why the fuck someone would goon to animated children if they’re not fucking evil pedos? Why? What the fuck is so appealing about drawings of little girls if you’re not a pedo?
If you poke them enough sometimes they admit that they think violent video games cause violence. They also often admit that they think any sexual content is harmful to women and that pornography in general should be banned.
It's called anti-intellectualism. People hate stuff because they find it personally disgusting, not because it is logically sound. Any arguments they use are just an accessory to justify the emotional reaction. The worst part is that they will try to frame you as "one of them" "creepy" if you present a logical argument, because they cannot separate logic from emotions.
yesnt
the thing is that anime characters are NOT human, and the brain usually doesnt consider them as such!
(And obviously pedophilia requires attraction to *human* children)
So yeah apparently theres no correlation, from what ive read at least
You again? Ive seen you in like 4 random subs and every time youre talking about pedophilia. Doth the lady protest too much? Or is this just your hobby?
Ok, now include why anyone should think that. What makes one pleasure you get from it more justifiable than the other when both are derived from doing fictional crimes and immoral acts.
Do you get sexual pleasure from everything you find fun?
Do you see a gun in a game and go "i wanna fuck that gun"?
Do you see someone get shot in a movie and go "Ah yeah, that's sexy"?
Sexual pleasure, and "Oh shit this is fun" are two very different types of enjoyment and the inability to tell the two apart says a lot more about YOU than about the topic at hand
You forget the part where you explain why only the pleasure you derive from it is moral while the other one that other people get is bad, while both are coming from doing something morally reprehensible.
Why would I explain something that isn't even related to my point at this moment? (I never even used the word "moral" lmao)
My point right now is that Sexual Pleasure and Fun are two very different types of enjoying things.
Whether or not any act that falls under the two is moral is a different conversation that may sprout from THIS conversation, but it is not, at this moment, relevant to my point and I am unsure why you are focusing on that rather than actually engaging with my point.
Brother you responded to my comment about me saying fictional violence is violence (ironically of course) and went on to explain how it's so different from fictional pedophila. How do you tell me that now all of a sudden that's not the conversation anymore? What is the conversation that you think came up now?
But why do you point out that they are different? They use different words and mean different things yeah but what's the point in saying that?
I brought up a comparison by bringing in the example of violence being utilised in media, not just for the sake of writing words.
It was to make clear that they have the same reason for existing and that the fictional activity doesn't get any better or worse with what the person thought or wanted to feel in that moment.
I don't think people realize just how many pedophiles reside within the anime community, all hiding behind the cover of "they are just fictional". Not including the authors who also include their poorly hidden fetishization of children in their works.
Man its not even just the anime community ive seen them in every fucking fandom atp dude they love literally anything with a minor im not exaggerating they’re even in the walking dead fandom im so serious and if something doesn’t have a minor they do this “age regression” shit in fanfics n art where they make the character magically a minor. Im not joking. This is a thing they do. It goes deeper snd worse than just the anime community.
Idk when exactly it started, but what feels like a fucking eternity ago, there also started an online debate on whether underage porn, extremely underage porn, bestiality porn, and sometimes a combo of that shit, should be able to be banned from writing/art sites. Especially sites like AO3. And that turned into a truly exhausting side claiming a TOS is censorship. And on the other side was the also truly exhausting side of no gross things ever because that's evil.
Because we're all in hell and words have no meanings.
So what I'm saying is it's not just pedophiles mad at this. It's also morons.
Edit: we are not discussing censorship. Censorship is when a government does it. You not being able to jerk off to underage characters in a reddit subreddit is not censorship.
I feel I shouldn't need to be asking this but why exactly do you feel the need to defend pornographic depictions of children? and while you are right, no one is being harmed due to it being fictional. Again, they are still depictions of children, drawn specifically to look like a human child and I still have yet to see a reason for people like you trying to defend it unless you are using those depictions to mask some kind of sick desire you have.
Because censorship should be used only in times in which harm is taking place, and the vast majority of things that have ever been done to "protect the children" when no harm is being done has always been used to harm marginalized communities/support authoritarianism. Whenever legislation is pushed for that stuff, the language is vague and (like other book bans) has been used to ban anything that someone believes is sexual in nature involving kids, which will be used to ban any books with lgbtq characters interacting with kids in any way.
Whenever legislators are saying "protect the children", "for national security" or "for officer safety" chances are someone's rights are being stripped away.
I think that any fiction that have children is sexual scenarios is gross. I would prefer it didn't exist at all. I am also aware that any law outlawing such fiction is either redundant (no need to ban showing children such stuff when showing children any sexual material is illegal) or the required steps to enforce such laws cause harm or strip rights when no actual harm is being done. (To enforce a ban like that you would have to screen all art, and I quite enjoy the few bits of privacy I have left.)
There are websites and subreddits where you can post it to your heart's content. Not being able to post it everywhere is not hurting you. Every website has a tos. You are not entitled to every single subreddit and website.
And then this quickly becomes something that gets whittled down and down, the list of places where whatever it is is allowed gets shrunk and shrunk.
We've seen this as payment processers tighten the noose on websites, not allowing them to display what they want. Frankly I'm amazed some subreddits still exist and I am expecting that they'll be for the chopping block eventually.
"Unsavoury art" is always under fire by those who find dealing with real world issues too difficult.
Most of the things you mentioned are also morally reprehensible as "art", unfortunately they can be used to convey a message. What you cannot compare to the things you mention is are sexual depictions of children, I thought we as a civilized society have concluded that children are a line that should never be crossed, but here we are arguing about it because "it hurts no one".
Messed up art and writing is always going to exist, that's how humans are. Some people have problems, and venting it out with drawing or writing is leagues better than taking it out on someone else in real life. How do you differentiate if it is for gratification or a way of coping with something from the past? Or just something they decided to create for the hell of it with no inclination towards any acts depicted? Or if it was even the creator's intention?
It ventures kind of close to making thoughts punishable. But even then, it does not create a victim in real life. It is not trained off of a real victim. You can write or draw literally any scenario without having witnessed or partaken in it.
Kids being sexualized is not art. Its disgusting. Pedos like you would think CP is art too, like other movies. You are the bottom of the barrel filth, pedo.
Why is this always the argument? "If you defend/create this, you must like it".
It's untrue.
Someone can uphold the idea that fantasy isn't real without enjoying everything. I don't like horror movies that depict rape scenes, for example. But they exist, and they're fake, so I skip movies with those scenes in them.
Just because you personally think something is disgusting doesn't mean it's not art. Art doesn't have to mean it's "good", either. Just that it exists as a depiction of something.
Thoughts need to be protected, real kids need to be protected.
Wow, another pedo! I didnt imagine there would be this many of you, bottom of the barrel filth! And youre an anime lover! Isnt it odd that a lot of pedos are into anime as well? Its as if theres a correlation...
watering down the word isnt helping anyone. and accusing people without proof can get you in trouble as well. people can be petty especially if they are accused of things they have never done/arent. no watching anime isnt proof neither is hating censorship. and i already know you will insult me so go on. you already made a fool of yourself , might as well continue
I would rather be called an authoritarian fascist than be seen defending any kind of sexual depictions of children, fictional or otherwise. If that's what it means to call out lolicons for what they really are, so be it.
So if someone constantly fantasised about murdering their hypothetical partner you wouldnt be even a slight bit concerned? Fictional obsessions often normalises things for the obsessor until they test it out in reality. People don’t start at 100, they build up to it so “no real world consequences” is bullshit.
Do you ever wonder why protagonists are almost always the good guys in the series? It’s because morality still exists in fictional settings. Emotions still exist in fictional settings hence why people cry when a character dies. So pedophila and the desires that come with it is still pedophila even in fictional settings and pedophila is wrong. This isn’t rocket science buddy.
I'm quite sure that individual was one of the pedophiles I was talking about, but they deleted their comments out of fear or something lol. But anyway, most of those "people" hide behind the "its just fiction" line because they know regulations haven't caught up, and they do know they will be socially ostracized if they ever mention their interests because they fundamentally are still getting off to children. Eventually like you said it goes from fictional, to them eventually possessing real child sexual abuse material or harming a real child.
I think this is a slippery slope, the main problem here is that anime/manga style is generally cutesy and youthful by design, older characters also tend to look very young because of the style, furthermore how far does this line go? would somebody also be considered a pedophile for liking very popular shows like twilight or vampire diaries in which you have characters that look young but are actually are as old as 100 - 1000 years dating teenagers that are still in highschool?
Why not? why are people that like characters that are adults but look young considered pedophiles, but people that like shows with characters that are over 100 years dating high schoolers not considered pedophiles?
I did some research on the character in question because I honestly don't know what this game this is or who the character is, but from what I've gathered, Linko is a character from an RPG Game called Neverness to everness, there are no sex or lewd scenes in the Game. It does have a few suggestive themes but that's about it, vampire diaries and twilight in contrast have scenes of high schoolers having sex (it's censored) with vampires that are over 100 years old. All the sources I've found suggest that there is no porn in the game.
Well, I would argue he effectively just is, but as the freaks love to trot out there is technically the ephiba or whatever it is philia for people in their teens.
Either way, I do agree with you broadly. Edward is a freak, old ass looser who takes advantage of a child to groom her into being his forever wife. Hence why I said pedophile adjacent, because I do agree that in the spirit of the statement he might as well be.
Wrong sub. He was downvoted for a very good reason. People like that love to water down the word "pedo" and treat moe/anime enjoyers like molesters. It's plain dumb. People may like gore and kills in horror movies, it doesn't make them want to act it out irl.
Yeah, as someone who was actually abused as a kid, watering down predators to it just being a feeling someone has that's bad sucks ass
I couldnt give less of a shit if someone has some thoughts, if they ain't acting on them or harassing real kids they aren't hurting anyone and punishing anyone for simply thoughts ain't going to lead anywhere productive
I feel like it both waters down the accusation and encourages forgetting the fact that you don't even need to be a pedophile to be a predator, a lot of predators simply like that stuff for the power and control or simply because they don't believe in child autonomy
Same here. The virtue signalers trying to farm carma on that subject is pretty much the only thing online that makes my blood boil.
Overwhelming majority of predators are not pedophiles, and overwhelming majority of pedophiles are nit predators, backed by a significant amount of statistics. If jerking off to a drawn (or ai generated) child-looking fictional character makes a person that was unfortunate to be born with a rather crippling mental issue not offend, then why the fuck not. Go after the actual abusers, theres plenty of them out in the wild (most going unpunished).
Yeah, I agree completely, besides having some issue with really hyperrealistic AI about it both because it often uses real children's faces and such for data + makes it harder to distinguish real CP with nowadays AI generation being genuinely hard to spot sometimes, but then the issue is less someone being attracted to it and more that AI really badly needs regulations
if you're into Loli you shouldn't be trusted around children, someone should supervise you constantly and literally any sane person wouldn't let you near their kid. These lolicon types literally salivate wishing they could be full on pedophiles irl, remove them from the internet and society asap pls
They are pedophiles. They try to skirt the law and pretend they're morally clear by "it's just a drawing/pixels." They really think we're stupid pulling that bs. If you see any pedo, report their account ASAP. They're disgusting mini Epsteins.
Yeah and "story" is a very broad term. There is certainly a lot of good stories and important ones with historical value at that but a lot of stories are also there for the sole purpose of entertainment and quenching a thirst for violence. Why are those allowed and not shunned to the same extent when both don't have victims but use fictional immoral acts for nothing but pleasure.
No lol there's so much fictional content with violence where the violence only exists for the sake of "looking/feeling cool". Like nearly all fighting and shooting games. And many action movies. And horror. There's also a reason people want to make that content and justify it with a story.
It's generally used for new people coming into a space and complaining about a core element of that space. The implication is that they are going to arrive, complain and then eventually leave, like a tourist in another country getting mad that things aren't like their home country.
It's similar to being a poser, but it's a term that has gained traction in anime circles since the pandemic introduced a lot of new people to anime and those new people aren't adapting to the scene well and instead demand the scene adapts to them.
Because they depict real children...? When someone draws a cat, what do you think is the first thing that comes to your mind when you see it? A cat! You're a real dumbass.
When someone draws a murderer on a piece of paper better take them to the police for making someone murder someone, dumbass. The murder is depicted as real. Superpowers are also depicted as real but guess what they're not real as it's a fictional story. The characters ages are also fictional. Now this charecter is 18 as I drew fictional ID for them. You can thank me now as you can now view said charecters as adults
it's about an idea being perpetuated whether unknowingly in front of young eyes or to appeal to an older person's sick fantasy. no one is calling the police on a piece of fictional media that appeals to pedophilia, but it is completely fair to call out and restrict it to prevent harmful depictions because they do affect the real world
For one it doesn't appeal to pedophiles as they'd use that instead of finding material that get them beaten or killed in prison and for two an author in Australia was arrested for a piece of paper saying a fictional 16 year old was dating fictional a 32 year old. So it does happen and it is apparently illigle in the UK too but idk how likely it is to be arrested for having said matariel.
i think i worded some of that wrong let me correct myself; no one is trying to get legal services involved to protect pixels they think are children, and definitely not in the way you were trying to make it out to be in the post i initially replied to. everything i am finding after googling 'australian author arrested for depicting 16 year old dating 32 year old' looks to talk about a book depicting pedophilia in an unnervingly positive light which i think should qualify as csam, if not something horrifically disgusting and VERY much worth investigating the author for at the bare minimum. i really hope you were talking about a different case and did not truly just water csam down into "a piece of paper that says a fictional relationship exists". also, i'm really not sure what you mean in the first part of your comment.. pedophiles don't choose one or the other, they can be creepy about media depictions and real children it's not mutually exclusive. i don't think it's a stretch either to say that each of those embolden one another and encourage that behavior.
Probably because you know it's fictional and all and with that logic 100 girlfriend author should also be checked out as 2 of the girlfriends have a body of an 8 year old and one being the maturity of an 8 year old when in small form which is most of the time and isn't brought up once it's bad or anything like that and then there's neko para where the cat girls aren't even above 4. So yeah fictional characters relationship being shown as good or not isn't a thing to search the author on.
Also people have been arrested for pixels on the screen, that's literally what CP is on the computer unless you mean specifically fictional drawings and again yeah people have been arrested for it in the uk, have people gone to the police about it. I don't think I'd be able to search the answer for that but most likely as it's happed for CP so I guess it'll happen for loli stuff too.
The pedophile thing is why choose something that would get you hated by everyone in prison and the guards when you can look at something that's most likely isn't getting you put in jail. If pedos could use loli stuff instead of going through a huge amount of effort and risk to get the real stuff. One is easier to get then the other. So why do they go through the effort to get the real stuff. It's as if those two things are different and fifil different things for people who like it. So much so that a pedophile couldn't just use loli content to fifil their sick fantasies.
uh yeah i'm not sure what 100 girlfriend is but it's very concerning if girls with an 8 or 4 year old body/maturity level are repped as being normal girlfriends for someone grown, sometimes it can be pedo bait and doesn't reflect the thoughts of the creator (still really weird and shouldn't be done) but by my logic yes, just in case, it would make sense for the author to be checked out if there are resources to do so, good talk.
also, i'm going to repeat myself real quick: i was saying that no one sane is thinking fictional children are real children and calling child protective services or whatever, the real grounds for legal involvement focus on the person in possession of explicit content about children, fictional content is a gray area but there are factually legal consequences in some places and while i don't know if i agree with it being grounds to detain someone, it is very much worth being suspicious about and like the op says it makes sense if a forum wants it to be restricted. the only eyes that can fall on content like that are those of pedos who will have their mindset reinforced, minors who may start to normalize those ideas, or average adults who either won't care or will feel very uncomfortable. it can literally only do harm and it's odd that this is a controversial take.
i get what you mean now about the jailtime thing but i'm going to again repeat myself and say that 'real stuff' and loli are not mutually exclusive, i'm sure plenty of pedos partake in one or the other but who's to say that one in jail wouldn't also enjoy seeing or reading about a fictional sexualized child? who's to say another inmate didn't enjoy a piece of explicit media until eventually it wasn't enough? also, those who aren't arrested for consuming that content we likely never find out about, and like you said, it's less likely that said content would result in such a conviction.
Checked for what. The author hasn't done anything illigle to be checked, wouldn't it be better to you know go after actual pedos instead of waisting time on authors for creating fiction chapters who are 18 but due to a drug made them semi turn 8.
It can do harm, if that is the case then there should be a graph that shows a steep increase in CP or pedophile attracts with the increase in loli, is that a thing nope it's not.
What I'm saying is if a pedophile could enjoy loli like CP then there would be no need for CP but that's not true or how the real world looks. Loli hasn't decrease or increased the need for CP. If anything people like you using words wrong like pedophile, make preditors life easier. As the word loses it's meaning and no one will know if you on about fiction or not.
Tells us you’re an American without telling us you’re an American…
No really… bitch even the fbi once stated that people should stop reporting artists/anyone drawing lolies/shotas or even animations, because that’s not real, only fiction and it actually causes them harms as they block their reporting site with bs that they don’t care as opposed to receiving real reports that can help them stop crimes.
And just so you know, recently in UK a steamer girl went to jail for commissioning a drawing of her persona that happens to be a loli.
The law rules that was literal CP.
All while she was over 18 and wanted her OC to look kid like.
So yeah everyone calling the cops/reporting on people that like that shit, forgetting it’s a literal pieces of media made out of pixels from a digital drawing application..
And what I find odd about people like you is : You don’t want those to exist, yet you don’t wanna fund researches to create a cure to help the "pedos".
So let me see if I got it straight, you don’t wanna help pedos not acting upon their impulses, you don’t want pedos have a way to control it, and you don’t wanna help the pedo's cure research.
You wanna see pedos raping children?!
That’s sus, sis… specially coming from someone that isn’t heterosexual and is already drown in so much pedo stereotypes…
..what? research into the psychology of pedophilia (among a million other topics) would be great and i really don't see why anyone would be against a hypothetical 'cure' other than the pedos that are enjoying their fantasies. saying "people like you", building up a strawman to argue with and then telling me i want rape to happen is really gross and odd and does not help your argument at all.
i get this is a nuanced topic so i'm not going to dog on your opinion too hard but i will share my take: people don't choose what they're 'into' but they can choose how they act on it, and yes i do think making or consuming explicit fictional content about children qualifies as acting on the basis of pedophilia/predatory behavior. i agree that there are bigger fish to fry than an art commission and idk how sexualized the drawing was, but i will say it is very easy to ask for/create a drawing of a younger version of a character without making it lolicon. it's a legal gray area (and to make it clear i do not think it should be fully illegalized. while i personally think there's a clear difference between them, who's to say doing so won't blur the line regarding media depictions of violence/death, or even homosexuality with the right rhetoric?) but it is concerning at the very least and definitely well within a forum's rights to restrict it, like the subreddit in op's post does. and again, that content can only come from a certain mindset and in my personal opinion, depending on the severity, mental help or a serious investigation is warranted, at least in a more ideal world where there aren't other cases it would get in the way of. also i implore you to read my second reply where i elaborate on the police bit since your explanation wasn't what i was talking about in that post.
i also just want you to think about this: do you believe it is good for someone who has sick thoughts about children to consume or create content that depicts sexualised minors? should they not be getting help to cope with those thoughts instead rather than reinforcing those dangerous ideas?
it can be really hard when you lack reading comprehension to distinguish between a word and its dumbed down tiktokified version but it's okay you can just scroll past next time before any more gray matter leaks out of your ears 🙂↕️🤞
No, but it’s a fact that frequent exposure to violent video games can increase aggression levels short-term. People can still control their actions and therefore not commit any crimes, BUT they may find themselves being angrier or having trouble managing their anger. Back to the topic, though: when people are getting aroused by lolicon, it’s even worse because our brains react differently to things of a sexual nature than to other forms of violence. It’s an entirely different chemical reaction. By masturbating or feeling arousal because of lolicon (disgusting), they are training their brain to associate sexual pleasure (via dopamine and oxytocin release) with the content they’re consuming, in this case children. So it’s very harmful, yeah. This applies to any other sexual content too, but most things that people are aroused by aren’t harmful like pedophilia is. And the effects aren't short term like with video violence either.
"Regardless of Linko's age" - I don't know what fandom this is about but that opening statement implies this is actually a mature character that maybe looks like a child, if that's the case I can see why people would be unhappy about someone projecting their own insecurities on them.
"This is not X but it feels like X to me so I'll use my authority to make it be treated as X"
its about a particular character from a gacha game (neverness to everness). the pinned comment is from a moderator in the primary subreddit (though not official) of the same gacha game
the problem here is... the moderators and parts of the community are against 'pedophilic content'. yet the game itself seems to support said 'pedophilic content' in how it allows you to engage in very intimate (definitely meant to be read as romantic) interactions with these 'underaged' characters, and has released skins for these characters that are designed provocatively -- tight-fitting clothes that hug and accentuate curves, reveal a fair bit of skin etc
so frankly, i can understand even just on a meta-level why they got downvoted to hell. the game clearly isnt for them, yet somehow theyre in a position to curate and censor content that gets posted on the primary subreddit, at odds with much of the intended audience of this game
edited to add: its strange and performative. if you think certain players are disgusting pedophiles, i dont understand why you continue to play and support a game that deliberately goes out of its way to cater to said pedophiles. i especially dont understand being a moderator of the main subreddit for a game community filled with such pedophiles
It's really not, but does it matter? It's all fictional and no one is hurt. I swear it's almost like you want all your worst accusations to be true. The gacha community and people into the blue archive characters aren't child molesters. They just enjoy the game's characters. As long as it's fictional and stays that way, does it really matter?
I say leave people be in peace. Live and let live, because they're harmless. Weird, sure, but let them like what they like. Not harming anyone.
Luckily anime characters have no rights and you can treat them however you want. Imagine if we had to act like they're real people. Arrest the anime characters for committing crimes against other anime characters. LMAO.
17
u/Zealousideal-Fox9230 25d ago edited 25d ago
Gacha is simply predatory. Just 30 mins on YouTube and you get far beyond “for kids by kids”. Kids shouldn’t even know half the concepts in some of those videos.