owotrucked
Isekai express delivery
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2021
- Messages
- 1,085
- Points
- 153
TL;DR: Throwing a bone to lost-cause-lolicons while dodging moral issues. The japanese have perfected the art of lolis to the extreme, and all the memes about it make total sense.
Introduction
I was mulling over another thread about how OP had issue to conciliate the dispute over his mental resources between his instinctive impulses and his rational consciousness. I think this is one of the main root of all problems of Humanity (if you were wondering why people keep ruining their life with crime, cheating, betrayal, etc).
Avoiding bad decision is easy when instinctive impulses naturally balance each other (for instance, greed (to commit a crime) and fear (of punishment)). But it's problematic when rationality is the only barrier to stop you from fulfilling emotional impulses by committing evil acts (for instance, when you are in a high position of power). I can't imagine a world where looking at big anime tiddies was illegal. If that was the case, I wouldn't be able to stop myself from doing it whenever I had the chance to do it scott-free.
With the recent Dalai-lama scandal (and all the catholic priests memes), it is undeniable that people will fulfill their desires through real acts of abuse, but I'd rather live in a world where such people used fictional outlets and played Genshin Impact instead of bothering actual children.
I will further discuss why it might be a more effective to create fictional outlets than expecting people to change their taste by the force of will without an actual surgery/lobotomy.
-Firstly, I will raise the moral challenges surrounding the topic.
-Secondly, I will discuss how 100+ year lolis relieve fictional media from those moral challenges.
-Finally, I will address the distrust towards the lolicon audience, exploring why outlets are an effective tool to control behavior as least path of resistance.
Moral Issues surrounding adult & child relationship
My understanding of the immorality of an adult/child sexual relationship is that:
- Power is greatly inequal, which can result into coercion. A child can be forced to do things against their will, which is a source of needless suffering purely for the sake of someone else's satisfaction
- Child's inability to form fully informed decision, which can result in life lasting regrets and resentment
On a side note, I don't see the immorality of adult relationship with big age gap. Isn't it fine as long as both are adults and stand in equal footing without risk of coercion? What do you think?
Next, my understanding of the immorality of child pornography is that:
- Real recorded content means that real children were victim of abuse
- Allowing such content to circulate will drive the supply and demand, causing more abuse
The two previous points doesn't apply to fiction but:
- Glorifying such content is unacceptable because it convey the idea that the reader may find good outcome from reproducing fictional acts into reality.
Now, let's take a look at what the needs of a lolicons and how they can be fulfilled without raising the previous issues.
Hypothesis on lolicon's taste to build morally correct media
Animal brains are stimulated by specific cues. This means that people can like, dislike, or be indifferent to different parts of a single package. Like how you can like a dude's abs or big tiddies without the person attached to it.
In term of sexual attraction, males are primarily stimulated by visual cues. For instance, youthfulness/lack of wrinkles (attributed to health), hourglass figures (attributed to child-bearing easeness) and large chests/bottoms fire my neurons. Therefore, I believe that lolicons are primarily attracted to the small, youthful, and cute aesthetic. Their actual age and cognitive maturity are hypothetically irrelevant to this preference. Therefore, lolicons aren't attracted to children: They are actually just flat-chest enjoyers.
In reality, there are not that many adults that fit that small/cute aesthetic although they do exist. On the other hand, fictions can employ those aesthetics effortlessly.
The entire problem is to convince people that the characters wearing the loli aesthetics don't represent underaged brain-impaired brats. The usage of 100+ year old loli meme fulfill several purposes:
- A desperate author's shout that character is not a child. There is an anime meme about how a character powerlevel is inversely proportional to their visual age. My guess is that empowering such character is a way to convey that they can't be coerced.
- Emphasize the mental maturity of the loli. If they already lived for 100 years and they are still morons, it's definitely not because of their underdevelopped frontal lobe. Create distance between real world children and the fictional character, giving the opportunity to the latter to act wise.
- Implicit agreement with the lolicon audience that the 100 year loli is fantasy, therefore the lolicon can't overlap whatever happens into their reality when they see a real person with similar aesthetics.
Let's imagine a world it was illegal to lewd adults while our brain unfortunately prefered mature aesthetics. The work-around for fictional outlets would be to convince the reader that the milf looking character is actually underage.
In conclusion, fiction has always been about cutting and stitching the best parts of life while throwing the tedium and unwanted parts to fulfill the readers' hidden wants, such as their thirst for justice, violence, power, love, etc. The japanese have pinpointed the lolicon's wants: the 100 year old loli fulfill their aesthetical preference in a way that emphasize the differences with reality to remove internal moral issues within the fictional media.
However, the outside perspective will always be: aesthetics look like children -> promote child abuse. While fictional media makes an effort to separate the loli looks from the immaturity in a way that maintain moral integrity, the outside perspective will always bear a fundamental distrust of the audience to not have moral integrity.
In fact, the issue also exists in game and violence. The game writers may go through lengths to morally justify the acts of violence or feature it as a mistake in a cautionary tale, but there will always be the worry that it feeds the audience's immorality. Therefore, if your stance is to ban 100+ year lolis, then your stance is also to ban all violence in games.
The distrust leads to the question: What is the best way to manage the audience? Even if the media is in the clear, people are not, so maybe the media should be censored.
What's best? Feeding an impulse or starving it? For instance, we can hope that impulses are never manifested by never stimulating the audience. Aren't there ways to cultivate people's mind to steer it an appropriate direction? This leads to the next part.
Weight of rational authority over decision making and how to keep audience to behave morally
I will examine two options: Loli censorship vs Strategic outlets. But before, I will lay my premise about how I think the human mind works.
Premise: Nature vs Nurture
Although human rational consciousness may be hosted in the brain, I think people tend to overestimate how much authority it has over the rest of the brain, and one's behavior. This part develop why people cannot be expected to change, and why the lolicon issue cannot spontaneously disappear.
There are so many cognitive processes that our will cannot directly impact. Your will can plot a course of actions to expose your subconscious to new experiences (nurture) to affect its stance, but it is dependent on the subconscious' programming (nature). The subconscious is a black box to the consciousness. The latter can manipulate and feed inputs but the outputs aren't totally under the consciousness control. If you imagine your frontal lobe as the conscious mind, then the rest of the brain is a childish monkey. Consciousness isn't the true ruler of the mind. Instead, it is an interface between reality and the retarded monkey that do whatever it wants: your goal is to solve your monkey's problems and stop it from killing itself on accident.
Here are three examples:
1. Visual processing does a lot of stuff without your conscious accord like flipping your view upside down (nature). However, if you wear glasses that invert your vision upside down (nurture), your brain will flip it again. Your conscious mind can't directly decide to flip it, but managing the inputs will lead to the desired effect.
2. Fears and preferences. Your rationality can't force your subconscious to stop being disgusted by unknown insects or to enjoy durian smell for instance.
3. This thread was a case where the subconscious has its own preference regarding mental resource allocation and how the rational consciousness disagree and wrestle for authority. In fact, I believe that this is part of a bigger scheme of the subconscious: the personality.
Human individuals are born with in-built strategies to navigate the world and the unknown: how much resources must be spent on collecting data, connecting/rearranging data points, formulating problems, plotting solutions, etc (taking in the environment, smelling, touching, hearing, seeking human help, looking for records, ordering things up). The individual strategy of resource allocation leads an individual to fill their life with specific sets of experiences that further build the personality. In practice, the most basic way personality manifests itself is through tastes: what sorts of activities you enjoy give a hint at the type of tasks your strategy strive for.
Having a wide variety of strategies and different approaches to solve problems strengthen the survival of the species. Diversity as a pillar for robustness also happens with genetic diversity with sexual reproduction (e.g. ensure robustness against some disease and adaptability with natural selection).
Because individual personality is a necessity, it is logical that the rational consciousness doesn't have the authority to change the subconscious' tastes (nature). Instead, the role of the consciousness is more of an advisor that is only called for help when the subconscious fails to exploit their preferred strategy. Nurturing personality is a process of trial and error. By encountering a wide array of problems where your raw personality isn't enough to solve it, your subconscious will grant temporary authority to the conscious mind and build a wider toolkit of approaches to life. But other than that, it means the conscious mind doesn't have weight most of the time.
Sometimes, your conscious mind will know that you should or shouldn't do something, but your subconscious doesn't give a fuck: "why fix something that isn't broken?" It's only after a emotionally meaningful event such as a failure that the subconscious will start to decrease its influence on the decision making.
It will always be discutable how much of the mind is truly set to nature and what degree of freedom does it leave to nurture. But it is safe to assume that:
1. some lolicon are inborn lolicon
2. some lolicon can't consciously change their preference from flat chest to big anime tiddies even if they wanted. In practice, considering how much LGBT+ individuals complain about their position is difficult to bear in society, I believe that if they could swap their sexual preferences to fit in the majority, then they'd do it. But since they can't, then the least they deserve is acceptance.
As stated previously, the careful management of the inputs to the brain can produce the desired outputs. So let's see two opposite approaches regarding fictional 100+ year old loli media while preventing a lolicon to turn into a child predator.
By the way, it makes no sense to have personality and sexual orientation explicitly hardcoded in genes. (Imagine a mom likes men and pass that hardcoded gene to a son lol) It'd be more logical that everything is packaged in genes and manifested by indirectly by the expression of the code.
Loli censorship
Let's examine the censorship of fictional 100+ year old lolis.
The worry about fictional lolis is to nurture a taste for children. However, if it was so easy to nurture lolicons, it should be as easy to nurture milf enjoyers. The problem is inborn taste. A predator like the Dalai-lama don't need to consume fictional loli material to ask a kid to suck his tongue.
In conclusion, censorship doesn't seem to solve anything.
Strategic outlets
Human behavior usually follow the path of least resistance. There is a worrying unpredictability when you remove an outlet. Let's take the example of No Fap for instance. People who abstain from using outlets for their desires are suddenly prone to spend efforts to fulfill their desire into reality. They're determined to go to gym and actually talk to people. Now, what would happen for lolicons with no outlet? There's no telling what a determined lolicon may do when they can't find a legal loli.
It's widely told on internet that porn decrease the motivation of people to seek out relationship and all, like putting them to sleep in the matrix. There's the meme of android waifu and husbando being so much better than real people that humanity will go extinct. Well, why shouldn't we shove the lolicons into the matrix too?
If there is a distrust of the audience, it makes more sense to keep them busy with fictional content than throwing them in the real world with unfulfilled impulses.
Conclusion
Religious cult leaders should be given 100+ year old loli fictional materials.
Introduction
I was mulling over another thread about how OP had issue to conciliate the dispute over his mental resources between his instinctive impulses and his rational consciousness. I think this is one of the main root of all problems of Humanity (if you were wondering why people keep ruining their life with crime, cheating, betrayal, etc).
Avoiding bad decision is easy when instinctive impulses naturally balance each other (for instance, greed (to commit a crime) and fear (of punishment)). But it's problematic when rationality is the only barrier to stop you from fulfilling emotional impulses by committing evil acts (for instance, when you are in a high position of power). I can't imagine a world where looking at big anime tiddies was illegal. If that was the case, I wouldn't be able to stop myself from doing it whenever I had the chance to do it scott-free.
With the recent Dalai-lama scandal (and all the catholic priests memes), it is undeniable that people will fulfill their desires through real acts of abuse, but I'd rather live in a world where such people used fictional outlets and played Genshin Impact instead of bothering actual children.
I will further discuss why it might be a more effective to create fictional outlets than expecting people to change their taste by the force of will without an actual surgery/lobotomy.
-Firstly, I will raise the moral challenges surrounding the topic.
-Secondly, I will discuss how 100+ year lolis relieve fictional media from those moral challenges.
-Finally, I will address the distrust towards the lolicon audience, exploring why outlets are an effective tool to control behavior as least path of resistance.
Moral Issues surrounding adult & child relationship
My understanding of the immorality of an adult/child sexual relationship is that:
- Power is greatly inequal, which can result into coercion. A child can be forced to do things against their will, which is a source of needless suffering purely for the sake of someone else's satisfaction
- Child's inability to form fully informed decision, which can result in life lasting regrets and resentment
On a side note, I don't see the immorality of adult relationship with big age gap. Isn't it fine as long as both are adults and stand in equal footing without risk of coercion? What do you think?
Next, my understanding of the immorality of child pornography is that:
- Real recorded content means that real children were victim of abuse
- Allowing such content to circulate will drive the supply and demand, causing more abuse
The two previous points doesn't apply to fiction but:
- Glorifying such content is unacceptable because it convey the idea that the reader may find good outcome from reproducing fictional acts into reality.
Now, let's take a look at what the needs of a lolicons and how they can be fulfilled without raising the previous issues.
Hypothesis on lolicon's taste to build morally correct media
Animal brains are stimulated by specific cues. This means that people can like, dislike, or be indifferent to different parts of a single package. Like how you can like a dude's abs or big tiddies without the person attached to it.
In term of sexual attraction, males are primarily stimulated by visual cues. For instance, youthfulness/lack of wrinkles (attributed to health), hourglass figures (attributed to child-bearing easeness) and large chests/bottoms fire my neurons. Therefore, I believe that lolicons are primarily attracted to the small, youthful, and cute aesthetic. Their actual age and cognitive maturity are hypothetically irrelevant to this preference. Therefore, lolicons aren't attracted to children: They are actually just flat-chest enjoyers.
In reality, there are not that many adults that fit that small/cute aesthetic although they do exist. On the other hand, fictions can employ those aesthetics effortlessly.
The entire problem is to convince people that the characters wearing the loli aesthetics don't represent underaged brain-impaired brats. The usage of 100+ year old loli meme fulfill several purposes:
- A desperate author's shout that character is not a child. There is an anime meme about how a character powerlevel is inversely proportional to their visual age. My guess is that empowering such character is a way to convey that they can't be coerced.
- Emphasize the mental maturity of the loli. If they already lived for 100 years and they are still morons, it's definitely not because of their underdevelopped frontal lobe. Create distance between real world children and the fictional character, giving the opportunity to the latter to act wise.
- Implicit agreement with the lolicon audience that the 100 year loli is fantasy, therefore the lolicon can't overlap whatever happens into their reality when they see a real person with similar aesthetics.
Let's imagine a world it was illegal to lewd adults while our brain unfortunately prefered mature aesthetics. The work-around for fictional outlets would be to convince the reader that the milf looking character is actually underage.
In conclusion, fiction has always been about cutting and stitching the best parts of life while throwing the tedium and unwanted parts to fulfill the readers' hidden wants, such as their thirst for justice, violence, power, love, etc. The japanese have pinpointed the lolicon's wants: the 100 year old loli fulfill their aesthetical preference in a way that emphasize the differences with reality to remove internal moral issues within the fictional media.
However, the outside perspective will always be: aesthetics look like children -> promote child abuse. While fictional media makes an effort to separate the loli looks from the immaturity in a way that maintain moral integrity, the outside perspective will always bear a fundamental distrust of the audience to not have moral integrity.
In fact, the issue also exists in game and violence. The game writers may go through lengths to morally justify the acts of violence or feature it as a mistake in a cautionary tale, but there will always be the worry that it feeds the audience's immorality. Therefore, if your stance is to ban 100+ year lolis, then your stance is also to ban all violence in games.
The distrust leads to the question: What is the best way to manage the audience? Even if the media is in the clear, people are not, so maybe the media should be censored.
What's best? Feeding an impulse or starving it? For instance, we can hope that impulses are never manifested by never stimulating the audience. Aren't there ways to cultivate people's mind to steer it an appropriate direction? This leads to the next part.
Weight of rational authority over decision making and how to keep audience to behave morally
I will examine two options: Loli censorship vs Strategic outlets. But before, I will lay my premise about how I think the human mind works.
Premise: Nature vs Nurture
Although human rational consciousness may be hosted in the brain, I think people tend to overestimate how much authority it has over the rest of the brain, and one's behavior. This part develop why people cannot be expected to change, and why the lolicon issue cannot spontaneously disappear.
There are so many cognitive processes that our will cannot directly impact. Your will can plot a course of actions to expose your subconscious to new experiences (nurture) to affect its stance, but it is dependent on the subconscious' programming (nature). The subconscious is a black box to the consciousness. The latter can manipulate and feed inputs but the outputs aren't totally under the consciousness control. If you imagine your frontal lobe as the conscious mind, then the rest of the brain is a childish monkey. Consciousness isn't the true ruler of the mind. Instead, it is an interface between reality and the retarded monkey that do whatever it wants: your goal is to solve your monkey's problems and stop it from killing itself on accident.
Here are three examples:
1. Visual processing does a lot of stuff without your conscious accord like flipping your view upside down (nature). However, if you wear glasses that invert your vision upside down (nurture), your brain will flip it again. Your conscious mind can't directly decide to flip it, but managing the inputs will lead to the desired effect.
2. Fears and preferences. Your rationality can't force your subconscious to stop being disgusted by unknown insects or to enjoy durian smell for instance.
3. This thread was a case where the subconscious has its own preference regarding mental resource allocation and how the rational consciousness disagree and wrestle for authority. In fact, I believe that this is part of a bigger scheme of the subconscious: the personality.
Human individuals are born with in-built strategies to navigate the world and the unknown: how much resources must be spent on collecting data, connecting/rearranging data points, formulating problems, plotting solutions, etc (taking in the environment, smelling, touching, hearing, seeking human help, looking for records, ordering things up). The individual strategy of resource allocation leads an individual to fill their life with specific sets of experiences that further build the personality. In practice, the most basic way personality manifests itself is through tastes: what sorts of activities you enjoy give a hint at the type of tasks your strategy strive for.
Having a wide variety of strategies and different approaches to solve problems strengthen the survival of the species. Diversity as a pillar for robustness also happens with genetic diversity with sexual reproduction (e.g. ensure robustness against some disease and adaptability with natural selection).
Because individual personality is a necessity, it is logical that the rational consciousness doesn't have the authority to change the subconscious' tastes (nature). Instead, the role of the consciousness is more of an advisor that is only called for help when the subconscious fails to exploit their preferred strategy. Nurturing personality is a process of trial and error. By encountering a wide array of problems where your raw personality isn't enough to solve it, your subconscious will grant temporary authority to the conscious mind and build a wider toolkit of approaches to life. But other than that, it means the conscious mind doesn't have weight most of the time.
Sometimes, your conscious mind will know that you should or shouldn't do something, but your subconscious doesn't give a fuck: "why fix something that isn't broken?" It's only after a emotionally meaningful event such as a failure that the subconscious will start to decrease its influence on the decision making.
It will always be discutable how much of the mind is truly set to nature and what degree of freedom does it leave to nurture. But it is safe to assume that:
1. some lolicon are inborn lolicon
2. some lolicon can't consciously change their preference from flat chest to big anime tiddies even if they wanted. In practice, considering how much LGBT+ individuals complain about their position is difficult to bear in society, I believe that if they could swap their sexual preferences to fit in the majority, then they'd do it. But since they can't, then the least they deserve is acceptance.
As stated previously, the careful management of the inputs to the brain can produce the desired outputs. So let's see two opposite approaches regarding fictional 100+ year old loli media while preventing a lolicon to turn into a child predator.
By the way, it makes no sense to have personality and sexual orientation explicitly hardcoded in genes. (Imagine a mom likes men and pass that hardcoded gene to a son lol) It'd be more logical that everything is packaged in genes and manifested by indirectly by the expression of the code.
Loli censorship
Let's examine the censorship of fictional 100+ year old lolis.
The worry about fictional lolis is to nurture a taste for children. However, if it was so easy to nurture lolicons, it should be as easy to nurture milf enjoyers. The problem is inborn taste. A predator like the Dalai-lama don't need to consume fictional loli material to ask a kid to suck his tongue.
In conclusion, censorship doesn't seem to solve anything.
Strategic outlets
Human behavior usually follow the path of least resistance. There is a worrying unpredictability when you remove an outlet. Let's take the example of No Fap for instance. People who abstain from using outlets for their desires are suddenly prone to spend efforts to fulfill their desire into reality. They're determined to go to gym and actually talk to people. Now, what would happen for lolicons with no outlet? There's no telling what a determined lolicon may do when they can't find a legal loli.
It's widely told on internet that porn decrease the motivation of people to seek out relationship and all, like putting them to sleep in the matrix. There's the meme of android waifu and husbando being so much better than real people that humanity will go extinct. Well, why shouldn't we shove the lolicons into the matrix too?
If there is a distrust of the audience, it makes more sense to keep them busy with fictional content than throwing them in the real world with unfulfilled impulses.
Conclusion
Religious cult leaders should be given 100+ year old loli fictional materials.
