Reasons why fictional 100+ year old legal lolis might be saving the world

[owotrucked]

this is a bit unclear. this isn't what the 100yo argument is about, at least to my knoweldge. I haven't seen petite girls/women being referred to as lolis. It's always children. Literal children not adolescents. It was in almost every anime. The loli teacher/mentor/dragon/vampire etc. There is no argument here.

I'm a bit confused as I thought lolis referred to people of specific height and body type.

now dress her up in a school uniform, have her behave all cutesy and say 'oni-chan' every 30s, things become very different.

I understand, you think that the behavioral pattern of the problematic characters is too immature and childish. If you think that these characters don't exhibit the cognitive abilities to act responsibly as adults, then your position makes perfect sense.

I'll be a little conservative about judging the mental age from behavioral pattern. Twitter made a ruckus about Kobeni (21 yo kitchen knife wielding psychopath) from Chainsawman acting like an "underaged coded" character simply because she kept acting whiny and terrified against an encounter with a devil. Likewise, I think adult can act cutesy if they want. It's a bit subjective, but if the author don't make an effort to depict the character as an adult at all, they're indeed at fault. School uniform is indeed a pedo fetish I guess.

petite women are different, I agree. gauging morality based on smaller/bigger than 18 is very stupid. some women are 30 and look 16. here context, behavior, maturity, background, and the like matter. however, I have never seen any 25yo women who look 9.

I understand, when I wrote the initial post I was mostly thinking purely in a visual point of view and didn't adress behavior as much.

I'll repeat my visual issue: it's hard to tell if it would be a child or an adult when you consider real adult anatomy. My 10 year old mixed-race niece was as tall as my 30 year old asian sister-in-law . Because of this, I'm willing to accept if the author wants to tell me a smole person is a 100+ year old character.

That's where the 100+ year argument comes in: I'm willing to give the benefit of doubt and accept the author's words as long as there's no dead give away about the fact that the characters are truly children.

I find maturity and behavior patterns a bit subjective to judge, but I'm willing to trust your good sense.

havent watched cyberpunk but saw a few clips of rebecca. I wouldn't call her a child or a loli.

She's commonly lumped into loli category on internet. There was the famous 'Don't touch the loli' argument between the game studio and the animation studio.

hopefully this made things a bit more clear. I don't even believe these 2 arguments should be lumped together. petite body types and literal children are incomparable to me.

It's clear. I think we both agree about body type not being solid evidence to discern adults from literal children.

You seem to speak with certainty that most 100+ year old anime characters are literal children from behavior/context. I'm not too well-versed in this trope, but I'd tend to think that it's bad/inconsistent writing if the story doesn't support that fact and convince its credibility.

My initial reasoning was that lolicons could be attracted to body type rather than underage attribute of the loli, but I guess there are definitely cases of people who lust after the children . In those case, I trust you that you can discern those cases and call the BS

 

[Notadate]

View attachment 18020
this is just stupid as shit

 

[LunaSoltaer]

View attachment 18020
this is just stupid as shit

i think your attachments busted.

Or maybe it's in a world with shapeshifting magic, which would be a royal hell for people invested in this argument.

 

[Notadate]

i think your attachments busted.

Or maybe it's in a world with shapeshifting magic, which would be a royal hell for people invested in this argument.

It is
-
No clarification

 

[Sabruness]

For clarity: I'm not a lolicon and have no interest in loli so my stances are purely from someone who insists on clear and strict definitions for things rather than lazy broad definitions which only cause problems. my faction is the Ara Ara Cult.

i don't like the massive push that legal women need massive breasts and not be short. it has to be propaganda from people who profit over making people feel ugly

+1. i had an argument a few months with an idiot who kept making the claim that any girl is not super tall and/or ginormous breasted is a loli. like that's such a broad categorization that it becomes meaningless. you can have a short girl of modest build who isnt a loli. but 'loli' as a descriptor has become so inflated that it now is used for and taints things that clearly arent loli.
personally, my view on what constitutes a loli is: pre-pubescent/pre-adolescent (judging on a combo of age and physical development).

on the topic in general, i totally agree with some other posters: children in general are and always should be forbidden.

on the topic of 1XXX year old lolis... well, that i think is just a bit of a cop-out.

The entire problem is to convince people that the characters wearing the loli aesthetics don't represent underaged brain-impaired brats.

i think it's a problem but in a different direction. 'loli' has become so broad and meaningless by people trying to use arguments like that it makes it easier for the extremists to use as a weapon. what really needs to be done is to de-couple "loli aesthetics" as you termed it from loli itself and define it as something independent because any association with loli as it's generally perceived by the outside will end up bringing toxicity.

 

[Shard]

Too lazy to write a full reply, but in short, I agree. Real children should not be exposed to sexuality, IMO, and those who force the matter should have certain bits lopped off or just given death sentences to prevent a recurrence. I do not, however, see anything wrong with artificial versions of anything being used for any purpose. If no one is being harmed, what is the harm? Personally, I am a big fan of the small and petite look, with practically perfect examples in much of Personal Ami's artwork. The number of times that has been called lolicon is quite disgusting, IMO.

Along a similar line of thought, there are many adults who are too immature to be trusted to give proper consent as well, but no one seems to care about that normally. Likewise, you have some children who have matured far faster than others (those living in warzones, for example) whom I believe are capable of making their own decisions. Unfortunately, it appears that society has mostly agreed "big boobs = mature adult, small boobs = immature child" with no in-between, which is incredibly inaccurate. Many people I've met I would still consider children well into their twenties, but society sees no problem with them being sexually active, which I personally consider sickening.

As was mentioned, there are two primary factors, at least in my mind, that actually matter -- a well-developed mind capable of foresight and understanding consequences, and relative balance of power. The former should be an ironclad rule, IMO, while the latter can be bent, above a certain minimum threshold. There is nothing wrong to me with someone rich and powerful being with someone poor, despite a huge power difference.


TLDR: Maturity should matter more, body shape less. Too many 18+ are still mentally children and need to be in the same group of no touching.

 

[Cipiteca396]

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?

There are plenty of adults who listen to absolutely insane people just because they are 20 years older than them. It's... ridiculously common. Think politicians or religion.

Though it could also go the other way too. An old person starts to become vulnerable in the manner of children, and certain younger adults are happy to take advantage of that in sickening ways.

Any sort of age gap is sus, not just between kids and adults or other.

Therefore, I believe that lolicons are primarily attracted to the small, youthful, and cute aesthetic.

I've always wondered if they were actually attracted to the lack of sexual characteristics- in which case rather than ancient lolis, the solution is genderless-type NBs. Give them some cute robots or spindly non-mammals who don't have breasts or childbearing hips due to their bio*logy.

---

There are some nasty people in this world, and it's easy for them to disguise themselves as a belittled minority. Those kinds of people end up giving the rest of us a bad name, so I find it extremely frustrating. It makes my default response to threads like this... A lot more hostile.

I don't want creeps like that being compared to LGBT+ people, or to gamers, or to the neurodivergent who literally can't harm people the way pedos can.

 

[LunaSoltaer]

Another absolutely critical thing to nail down when having a discussion about this hot button a topic: the rules of engagement. Especially: what defines a pedophile.

Obviously, it's a person who does sexual stuff with prepubescents, right?

Obviously, it's a person who does sexual stuff with anyone under 18, right? (I'm not entertaining the notion that age of consent should be driven up because that mechanism is currently being used to raise a barrier to trans care... and only trans care)

Obviously, it's a person who has any sort of sexual arousal toward one of the above, right?

(and one that I hadn't considered until this thread) Obviously, it's a person who is attracted to someone acting less mature than I deem an adult should, right?

A lot, and I do mean a LOT, of miscommunication and argument about this topic is going to come from the fact that person A is using one definition and person B is using a different definition, and neither of them bothered to check that they are in agreement on what the damned word even means because they must show How Righteous They Are in the face of an enemy that might not even exist in front of them.

Know what's being talked before you talk it. Seriously. That way, if you run into a conflict, at least you know there's a legit disagreement in play and you don't end up wasting your breath fighting ghosts.

 

[NotaNuffian]

I do get the gist though, at least I think, please correct me if I am wrong:

1. Lolicon =/= CP loving &*@$! *@%
2. Censoring loli is pointless, but please no lewding loli. Yes Lolita No Touch.

Though I have to say this, as a fucked up person myself, I have to say that visual means a lot more to me than anything else. If it looks like a kid, sounds like a high pitched kid (the JAV world is fucked up, had to watch them in mute), my brain will go "it's a kid". No matter how much you say "mentally adult" the character is supposed to be.

Good luck with your uphill battle, my fellow degenerate.

 

[TotallyHuman]

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.

"bro spends an hour rationalising why pedophilia is immoral.mp4"
There is no need for that honestly. Just say pedophilia is considered taboo in most of the global world society.
But really, throughout time there have been different understandings of what is moral and what is not, and what is, for example, considered fair, concentual and what not. Under current circumstances in some places in the modern world, sexualisation of children is immoral because it has come to be like that historically.
Trying to put such a complicated system on some kind of rational basis would, at best, require you to assume that your arguments apply only in this particular timeframe and under these particular circumstances, rendering it pointless, or, at worst, make the argument both pointless and wrong.

 

[BearlyAlive]

Tl;dr.

As long as both parties are mentally mature enough to understand what they engage in, there's no problem imho.

 

[Ssthat]

As a honorable member of the loli slayer corporation for 2 years at this point, I take great offense from this post and formally warn you to check your 6 quite often.

 

[owotrucked]

"bro spends an hour rationalising why pedophilia is immoral.mp4"
There is no need for that honestly. Just say pedophilia is considered taboo in most of the global world society.
But really, throughout time there have been different understandings of what is moral and what is not, and what is, for example, considered fair, concentual and what not. Under current circumstances in some places in the modern world, sexualisation of children is immoral because it has come to be like that historically.
Trying to put such a complicated system on some kind of rational basis would, at best, require you to assume that your arguments apply only in this particular timeframe and under these particular circumstances, rendering it pointless, or, at worst, make the argument both pointless and wrong.

My rational basis for the immorality of pedophilia is only the first half of what you quoted. It's only two first points.

I dont think morality is just historical randomized stuff but directed towards long term social benefit. It's pretty ez to understand that causing problems to other will only fill society with vengeful sociopaths.

And I'd say cultures dont necessarily even have the correct answer to that. If ancient cultures were so effective at bettering society and perfect, they would stop changing.

It sounds useless endeavor for you, but I spend my resources as I like and I think it's an interesting subject of consideration, like people born with antisocial trait like psychopaths and their place in the world. People may be born wrong on a stroke of bad luck but are there way to make them not fuck up too badly?

 

[TotallyHuman]

I dont think morality is just historical randomized stuff

Nobody said that. Nobody takes morality out of their ass.

directed towards long term social benefit

"Directed" implies conscious input and "long-term" requires planning. Like there is some kind of geist that directs where what should get and be.
It's the same as assuming that evolution (assuming it is real) had some kind of preplanned direction, which if you believe it is fine by me but then this entire conversation becomes moot.

And I'd say cultures dont necessarily even have the correct answer to that. If ancient cultures were so effective at bettering society and perfect, they would stop changing

Which they did. Ancient cultures are known for being stupidly stable and unchanging, existing in cycles. But society doesn't exist in a vacuum. The easiest example would be the Industrial revolution which affexted societies around the world the most, changing the form of social relations and requiring society to cardinally change itself to fit its new reality

It sounds useless endeavor for you, but I spend my resources as I like

Fair

 

[owotrucked]

"Directed" implies conscious input and "long-term" requires planning. Like there is some kind of geist that directs where what should get and be.
It's the same as assuming that evolution (assuming it is real) had some kind of preplanned direction, which if you believe it is fine by me but then this entire conversation becomes moot.

My choice of word was not good enough. I don't mean it as a conscious input, but as a natural convergence towards beneficial traits. I think that the analogy with evolution is fitting, as I see evolutionary features as emergent properties.

For instance, bees have acquired the ability to split their population into roles and have them exchange data (scouts providing direction, distance and resource density to gatherers). We can see that it as a method that is "directed" towards the benefit of "minimizing their resources expenditure (flight time) to maximize their gains (nectar)" => that positive emergent property becomes an asset for survival => this method spread in the entire species.
Just like how a moral concept improve social stability => which is an asset for society's survival => the moral becomes more accepted by others

It's a simplistic vision: a method produces a result/ a moral rule produces an effect. There's no need for conscious input to analyze the world through this lens.

While moral doesn't emerge from people consciously picking up whatever social effects they dream up and decides on the best route to achieve that goal, it doesn't stop me from assessing how relevant and practical moral rules are, because I'm personally willing to step away from the established status quo and experiment a bit since there is always room for improvement.

Which they did. Ancient cultures are known for being stupidly stable and unchanging, existing in cycles.

If you use the past tense, you probably only consider their lifetime. On the opposite, I am considering the entire span of human history where cultures disappear or morph.

I'll tentatively give an analogy between moral and technology.
Technology had to go through humanity's past failures and misconceptions to reach its current state. Even if they worked for their time window, they were never perfect answer, but temporary stepping stones for advancement. Today, we preserve obsolete old technologies as a curiosity, but we only really apply their more efficient refined version in practice.

I see morality as the same. In the way that morality may not have physical effects like technology, but definitely has social impact.

It might sound like a disrespect to the past, but today's world is built upon the past. There's a need to acknowledge flaws in order to not stagnate.

But society doesn't exist in a vacuum. The easiest example would be the Industrial revolution which affexted societies around the world the most, changing the form of social relations and requiring society to cardinally change itself to fit its new reality

Societies may bend their implementation of morals, but it doesn't mean that the moral rules they ultimately enforce have the best social impact. I also don't deny that there were period of moral regression throughout history.

All I am trying to do is to look at the current moral system on a practical level, and see if there's a potential in a direction.

My motivation to think about it is that all individual at some point in their journey of self-discovery learns about inborn traits or flaws that they're unsatisfied about or unaccepted by others. Yet these traits are unchangeable without exogeneous intervention (drugs, surgery) and are randomly given at birth.
By looking at flawed humanity through a lens of mercy and understanding, one can find solace for oneself. Then gaining the willingness to extend that consideration to the extreme cases of humanity (mental sickness that have high chance of harming others).

The alternative is accepting arbitrary cutoff for humanity, and consider the possibility that you or your descendants could be born in the wrong side of the cutoff.

I'm not advocating in letting harmful elements to society roam free, just lock them in a cage like dangerous animals. But even dangerous animals deserve some consideration. You don't beat up wolves and berate them "why are you a wolf, you stoopid".

 

[sanitylimited]

you do realize the removal of most harmful elements to humans is the main reason we have massive overpopulation issues, right?

you are far too arogant. you think humans are more then just a clump of sentient cells floating towards a black hole on a planet that got lucky to support complex life

 

[owotrucked]

you do realize the removal of most harmful elements to humans is the main reason we have massive overpopulation issues, right?

Don't worry, anime waifu and deadly mosquitoes diseases are solving that overpopulation problem.

you are far too arogant. you think humans are more then just a clump of sentient cells floating towards a black hole on a planet that got lucky to support complex life

Man, I'm just trying to feel good about myself no need to beat me down with existentialism