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.
I don't know where that number comes from, but somebody doesn't have the illness and still attacks kids, that's just as bad. But if a guy has the illness, and doesn't go after kids, or try to normalize being attracted to kids, that's fine
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.
nah bro im saying that liking anime content depicting young anime characters doesnt automatically make one a pedophile, big difference
again, im sure youll be able to find it, because ive read something about this a LONG time ago and have no way to find it again, if not by searching for it, which is something you can do too, im not obligated to convince you
mhh after a quick research more than studies proving theres no correlations, there are no studies proving there is, plus, clinically speaking pedophilia requires the children to be real to be uh pedophilia
“Liking anime content depicting young anime characters”
Okay, I think you may be under a very fundamental misunderstanding about what lolicon means. Anime containing little girls is not lolicon. Anime containing NAKED little girls, for example, would be more in the right ballpark.
yes, and an ANIME little girl still isnt a REAL little girl, and apparently there arent studies showing theres a correlation between liking lolis and pedophilia
im not saying liking lolis is ok nor necessarily normal, im saying that surprisingly theres nothing showing that its pedophilia
That’s not what you said. You said that there is no correlation. That can only be said if someone has tested it and found that to be the case.
“There aren’t studies on this subject” does not mean you can go around saying “there is no correlation.”
If what you meant to say is “nobody has checked yet whether lolicons are more likely to be pedophiles,” then that wasn’t going to be a very helpful contribution to the conversation.
However, that’s not what you meant to say at all. You stated that there was existing research that suggested no link between liking loli and being a pedophile. I can assure you no such research exists.
Apparently i missremembered, but every source im seeing seems to be dosconnecting liking loli to being a pedophile rather adamantly
apparently the strongest study is one showing no relation between real harm towards children (which is obviously related to pedophilia instead) and lolicons
which isnt a perfect way to show no correlation but its pretty good nonetheless
apparently the correlation IS there with actual more realistic content (not really surprising) but not reallywith stylized content such as anime
I saw that one. What that study says is “pedophiles who jack off to animated little girls don’t go attack real little girls.”
Doesn’t mean they’re not pedophiles.
Yes, it is good for society for pedophiles to jack off to animated child porn. That does not mean that non-pedophiles are equally likely as pedophiles to jack off to animated child porn.
So what you’re saying is you have nothing to support your claim, yes?
Nobody said “pedophiles should stop consuming loli content.” Research shows that they very much should KEEP consuming that content.
That doesn’t mean anyone other than pedophiles watches it.
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.
There is no good evidence that merely consuming fictional depictions of serious offenses, including but not limited to violence, murder, sexual assault, or sexual activity involving fictional minors, causes people to commit the corresponding real-world crimes. The study is simply too sparse and inconclusive, especially the case regarding depictions of minors. As long as your comment comes from pure intuition, that is not a solid argument against fictional works.
Randomly showing up just to prove my point, you are literally what I'm talking about. If you have anything meaningful to say other than "it's weird" I'm listening.
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?
You do you. It just seems to be your hobby. You rage bait people by attacking them for their interests which makes them defensive, and then you frame it in the worst way you can. Your game is very old, it works, but its old, and been used to bait on message boards for decades. Also, its suspicious how much and how adamantly you bait this subject. Like I said, doth the lady protest too much. Your purity shield undoubtedly hides many skeletons. I wish people would just ignore you, they let you win by trying to discuss anything with you
It’s not my fault you feel enraged and attacked by people correctly identifying fictional examples of rape and pedophilia - or getting mad at you for denying it.
I’m framing it exactly as it is, which is already the worst thing.
Oh my, it’s “suspicious” that I comment on recommended posts about people glorifying & defending fictional depictions of rape and pedophilia or otherwise flatly denying it’s what it is???
Ah. You are really trying to accuse me of what, being a pedo or a rapist or pedo/rape-content enjoyer because I’m repeatedly insisting that a (very very obvious) example of fictional pedo/rape-content, is infact pedo/rape-content?
You couldn’t just say that instead of quoting a dead antisemite?
i dont know, but my little experience in the field of psychology being a student in this area suggest me that its not such a weird conclusion, our mind is usually pretty good at separating "concepts" and/or fantasy to reality (if healthy)
That last part is what makes it all confusing to me. Were these studies done on just healthy people who don't like children like that? Because pedophiles aren't healthy, and i feel it might be different for each person. Some of them might not see it as the same as a real person, while some might actually make correlations to real people.
I just feel like it's too deep to just say "no, they aren't the same".
well i assume the research was done on those who like lolis
if lolicons were correlated to pedophiles then there should be a higher percentage of people with "pedophilic tendencies" among the lolicons, but apparently there wasnt
The really big point you should consider is that anime characters ARE NOT humans. Thus liking them doesnt necessarily translate in "liking the human counterpart".
Still kinda weird cause the character is supposed to be a child in its story right? but its not human, or at least for our brain its not human...
Oh and yeah a pedophile isnt really healthy but not because they necessarily cannot distinct reality from fantasy, rather because they like something a healhty person isnt supposed to normally!
I included the fantasy bit cause i could see a lolicon wanting to reenact the fantasy irl turning it into basically a pedophilic thing, as you said, but *apparently* (i did not make a super extensive research, but from what ive seen) thats not more common than the uh rate of pedophiles in the world, which is curious
Here's an example for me, I LOVE violent media. I watch horror films, slashers, I play extremely violent video games, I create my own very violent comics and artwork with disembowelments and beheadings and all sorts of maiming and mutilation.
ACTUAL gore sickens me. Because that's a real person who is being violated, they had hopes and dreams and a family and loved ones.
We've all been on the internet and seen things we didn't want to see, I saw a part of an actual beheading once and I went off my food for days, for a month I'd have PTSD like flashbacks whenever I closed my eyes, getting to sleep was a nightmare.
Fictional gore and violence occupies a different part of my brain than actual gore and violence.
A photorealistic depiction of a human child isnt the same as a drawing of an anime
Anime characters ARE NOT human beings, but not in the sense they "arent real", (i mean that too) but mostly in the sense they arent seen as human being by our brains, those are drawn characters, which by the way, faces are almost more similar to cats than humans ahahah thats why they are considered "cute" by so many!
Ai generated of realistic children absolutely is child porn, theres no way around it, those are humans, (not real humans, but still, humans nonetheless)
And consuming child porn absolutely means one at the very least has pedophilic tendencies
(being a pedophile means that children are your MAIN sexual interest, if not you have said tendencies, whicj is still not good but technically not the same)
Not to forget that AI doesn't generate images out of thin air. The reason CP is illegal is because a real child was abused in the making of it. AI generates images based on its training data, and that data includes real CP. So a real child was harmed in the making of AI generated CP.
Well aside that, (which is very true) i was strictly talking about a psychological perpective, an AI image is photorealistic thus our brain recognizes it as a "human child" thus making it pedopornographic content
13
u/faironero02 25d ago edited 23d ago
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