Explain.2D lolicon fanservice or even hentai is not pedophilia, even if the character is indeed pubescent.
It doesn't matter whether the material is fiction or not. That's only relevant for legal causes, not for the definition of the term itself.
Explain.2D lolicon fanservice or even hentai is not pedophilia, even if the character is indeed pubescent.
It doesn't matter whether the material is fiction or not. That's only relevant for legal causes, not for the definition of the term itself.
Pedophilia is exclusive to real people and is a primary or exclusive attraction to prepubescents. People who like little kids sometimes but prefer mature women are NOT pedophiles (strange, I know, but that's what it is).
2D lolicon fanservice is:
1) Fictional
2) Not referring to a psychiatric disorder
3) People who do like it are not necessarily primarily or exclusively into it
4) I repeat, Fictional
Liking lolis in anime is also not equal to being attracted children in real life. Just like how liking action movies doesn't mean you want to seriously or will kill people. Same goes for video games.
And to add, a lot of people seem to associate the term pedophile as someone who does sexual acts with children, but that is completely inaccurate. Pedophilia is a disorder, not an action or a crime. If you do sexual things to a child, that's rape, child abuse, statutory rape, etc.
EDIT:
Did you seriously just say it doesn't matter if it's fiction or not? That's a very important distinction.
Peace.
But Pedophiles (you know, the people who like real world naked kids) also like 2D animated pictures and fictional stories about them.
Are they not pedophiles, because 51% of their material is 2D and texts?
When I'm attracted to women, but 99% of my porn is made with Animu-women, I'm still heterophile.
How is my "preference" of adult or 3d-semi realistic photoshopped pictures any different.
I'm still looking for the same criteria as I am looking for them in Real Life.
On top of that DSM-5 tells me pedophiles don't have to be "primaly" focused on prepubescents to be categorized as such
Last edited by KrayZ33; Tue, 08-06-2019 at 09:20 AM.
You already stated that the person is a pedophile, meaning he/she already satisfies the criteria. This person liking 2D porn is irrelevant at that point.
To clarify, a lot of people like lolicon fanservice, which is exactly why it became "fanservice," but not all of them are pedophiles. A person can have lots of loli porn but have totally no interest in real children, and an actual pedophile can also have no interest in 2D porn of children. Then you also have people who are pedophiles and also like 2D lolicon. You shouldn't just lump people together like that.
To reiterate, pedophilia is exclusively an attraction to real people, not fictional ones.
Peace.
In this context it doesnt matter.Originally Posted by shinta|hikari
Disclaimer: Im against censorship and I think everything should be legal when its fictional.
When we fap to hentai, real or fictiinal doesnt matter. So dont act outraged here. Whether fictional or not, shes shown in stark pedophilic imagery. If the anime just wanted to show their relationahip, it could do so without showing us her naked body. At least use subtle camera angles. The way it us, kt is full-on peso material and lets call it what it is.
Now, thats oK. I think pedophiles should have fictional stuff, because if you deny them even fiction, its no surprise many eventually go rape real children. But: I dont have to like such material, do i. And since ita gotten worse recently, i calles that out.
"She's the only non-loli girl in the show, your honor!" will be my defense in court
shouldn't that person be categorized 2d-lophile then (I'm sure there is a term of that too).You already stated that the person is a pedophile, meaning he/she already satisfies the criteria. This person liking 2D porn is irrelevant at that point.
After all, his/her primary focus is on 2D pictures of young children.
@Mfauli - Act outraged..?
I don't understand how you can get that from what I wrote. I merely said the distinction between reality and fiction is important.
This is doubly so because the very definition of pedophilia is a disorder about being attracted to real people. It says nothing about fictional characters or anything of the like. If it did, then I would totally agree with you.
Like I said, I don't have a stake in this other than being accurate to what the definition is.
If you don't agree with the definition of the term, then complain to the ones who wrote it.
@Krayz - EDIT: I misread what you quoted from my text.
That person is a pedophile because that was your precondition in the scenario. People who like 2D young girls is usually called a lolicon in Japan, but some use the word lolicon for actual pedophiles, so the term is a bit vague.
Last edited by shinta|hikari; Tue, 08-06-2019 at 09:31 AM.
Peace.
I still don't see how pedophilia excludes 2D pictures.
If I'm looking for the features of children, whether they are fictional or not, then I'm looking for exactly that - they are the same features.
I mean, that's why surreal pictures of women work and photoshop is a thing and all that.
Nymphophilia/Hebephilia is being a Lolicon (just more specified) - that doesn't exclude 2D pictures...Why should pedophilia do that, which is the same thing for a different age-range.
I mean, we are talking about aesthetics here. I don't have to be able to touch them to appreciate them if I like them.
Just like "big eyes" and "small and round heads" trigger instincts in us.
Last edited by KrayZ33; Tue, 08-06-2019 at 09:45 AM.
That's the thing, humans are complex like that. They can be totally into 2D but not 3D and vice versa. My only point is pedophilia is exclusively an attraction to real people. It would be incorrect to automatically assume that all people who like 2D lolicon fanservice also are attracted to real prepubescents or minors.
Remember, some people are even attracted to inanimate objects and not real people. And if such a condition causes them harm, then it is a disorder, which pedophilia inherently is. My point being humans are weirder than you can imagine.
EDIT:
"Nymphophilia/Hebephilia is being a Lolicon" - False. Or depends on what you think lolicon means.
Both disorders, just like pedophilia, are all exclusive to real people.
Lolicon as a term in Japan, has been used for both actual people and fictional attraction, although it is much more common in the latter usage.
So yes, those disorders can be interpreted as being a lolicon, but that has nothing to do with my point.
EDIT2: After some research, hebephilia is apparently not included in DSM 5 and is still up for debate whether it is a disorder or not. That said, it is still exclusive to real people by definition.
Last edited by shinta|hikari; Tue, 08-06-2019 at 09:43 AM.
Peace.
Im pretty sure the official definition of pedophilia does not include the word "real"
"She's the only non-loli girl in the show, your honor!" will be my defense in court
Well, if you go that route, I'm pretty sure most government constitutions also didn't include the word real. It's... kinda assumed.
Peace.
But where does it say so?Both disorders, just like pedophilia, are all exclusive to real people.
It describes your favorite sexual preference, but preferences include phantasy.
It makes no sense to exclude pictures of naked young children just because it's fictional.
pedophiles don't go and mess around with children either, so they are living out their sexual desire in a fictional way.
Fantasizing is different from 2D fiction. You can fantasize about real people and you can also fantasize about 2D characters. You shouldn't conflate fantasizing and fictional characters because they are different.
I am not excluding anything. It is just not a criteria for pedophilia.
If you read the definitions and articles about DSM-5 pedophilia, you would know they weren't referring to fictional characters. If it did, they would write it down explicitly because that definition is used to diagnose and treat people, and can also be used in legal settings like trials.
This is an easy to read article:
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/...g-pedophilia#1
It's pretty clear fictional children are not the ones being talked about here.
To reiterate, not all people who like 2D lolicon fanservice are attracted to children in real life, much less to an extent that they act on it or are distressed by it. (acting on it or being distressed by it being actual criteria to qualify for the disorder).
Last edited by shinta|hikari; Tue, 08-06-2019 at 10:22 AM.
Peace.
Is it!??!?!?!?!It's pretty clear fictional children are not the ones being talked about here.
Either we are misunderstanding each other or I don't know anymore
I really don't know what you are trying to say here.
You are basically saying that pedophiles can't get errect from seeing 2D pictures of children.
When most of the world has no trouble seeing sexualized 2D content as such and get errections from fictional tits and sex scenes.
Whether we talk about comics, anime or computer created content.
Can anime be sexist, after all - sexes are a thing for "real people". The same connection I make when I see the glorified male MCs and oversexualizied female characters in anime can pedophiles make when they see 2D-child pornography.
I refuse to believe a pedophile's brain is the exception until I see a clear definition of it saying that mentions "fictional and 2D imagery of children doesn't trigger this phenomenon or do nothing to satisfy the sexual urges".
The reason being that 2D imagery is also on the radar and discussed about and in some cases even illegal to distribute.
In fact, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gmo-knVzuU0
That guy basically said that he uses 2D images and hentais with children to satisfy his fantasy.
Last edited by KrayZ33; Tue, 08-06-2019 at 10:30 AM.
I have a few questions as well for clarification:
Do you mean that liking 2D lolicon fanservice even if you are not attracted to real children at all should be enough to be classified as a pedophile?
Or do you mean that people who like 2D lolicon fanservice automatically means they are also attracted to real children?
I'm just trying to understand why you are adamant about including fictional characters as a way to diagnose this disorder when it wasn't explicitly stated in the definition.
I did NOT say this. I said some pedophiles can't get aroused by 2D, some do. Some who are aroused by 2D can't get aroused by real people, some do. Humans are complex creatures.
It serves no one to generalize everything about a person just because of one characteristic.
Pedophilia is a complex disorder that has many criteria required to be met. You don't even need to zero-in on the fictional vs real aspect to establish that liking 2D lolicon fanservice is NOT a criteria for pedophilia. The condition of acting on it or being distressed by it also have to be met, which I doubt is being met in most cases of fanservice lovers.
Last edited by shinta|hikari; Tue, 08-06-2019 at 10:29 AM.
Peace.
We still call it war, killing and stuff when we okay call of duty.
Its super weird how you claim that fictional content cant be abstracized by human beings. When i fap to an anime girl, i dont imagine in my head "woah, this hot anime girl". In my mind, shes a girl. Fullstop.
"She's the only non-loli girl in the show, your honor!" will be my defense in court
That's not what I said.
I said the definition did not explicitly include fictional characters as a way to diagnose pedophilia disorder, and I believe it would explicitly include that if it were actually part of the criteria because of the nature of the document.
"When i fap to an anime girl, i dont imagine in my head "woah, this hot anime girl". In my mind, shes a girl. Fullstop."
This is all well and good, but not everyone is like that. Some people have a clear distinction, some don't.
Peace.
I see.
Then I did indeed misunderstood your point.
What I was going for was not:
"People who like little girls in anime are pedophiles"
but:
"Pedophiles can use this material to get their kicks"
Either way, I see that content as problematic... or rather uncomfortable. While it doesn't turn you into a pedophile, it's clearly meant to sexualize minors. People who are "wired normally", won't get anything out of it other than a big ass "oh god.. what is this, I hope my brother/girlfriend/mom/father doesn't walk in".
Basically, these scenes and pictures are produced for the socially declared "weirdos" as they are not in the realm of "I need to protect this girl" (i.e. Usagi Drop), but in the realm "I want to protect this girl and be intimate with her".
(I'm not even talking about her being shown being naked btw)
Last edited by KrayZ33; Tue, 08-06-2019 at 10:43 AM.
I totally agree. Pedophiles can totally get their kicks from fanservice, and so do a lot of non-pedophiles. I just don't like using the word pedophile inaccurately because it is is far more complex than what people usually take it for.
Like I said, I have no judgments about said content, just the use of the word.
A more accurate word would be lolicon fanservice (even though in Japan it is sometimes used for real people too) because it definitely doesn't have the baggage the word pedophile does. It is also much more widely used in the anime community.
I also agree that lolicons are definitely "weirdos" in the sense that they have different sexual preferences than the majority. As for whether that's a good or bad thing, it depends on how they act on how they feel. If it harms no one, including themselves, then it is benign and shouldn't be judged. Otherwise, they should be prosecuted accordingly.
Peace.
In this case "pedo "would've been wrong for reasons explained earlier (age and puberty etc.)
But if it were a child that could be classified as such (again, i.e. Usagi Drop) and portrayed in such a way as it was here. It would've been pedophile fanservice.
From your earlier posts, it sounded to me like you meant to say such a thing couldn't exist, because pedophiles like "real children"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
