Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

I'm confused by this site's feelings towards lewd depictions of underage characters. Like, if someone gets sexually aroused by seeing an underage character in skimpy clothing, isn't that a sign of them being a pedophile?

I'm aware that they aren't real, but a person who gets aroused by feet pics of characters who aren't real would still have a fetish for feet, no?

An illustrated, fictional character can look like anything and act like anything at any age. If the character unambiguously looks like a preadolescent, then yes, one would have to assume that pedophilia has entered stage.

EDIT: I'll build on what I mean. Let's say we have someone who has a clear sexual attraction to the Powerpuff Girls. These characters are preadolescent children in narrative, but so stylized as to barely have human form, with behavior that is all over the place as for maturity. While quite creepy, there is a wide gulf of difference between the above and what your local registered sex offender expresses attraction towards. So if this person says, "I'm not a pedo. I have a toon fetish. Don't judge me." I'd be inclined to believe them, as their type seems to be "femme animated blob".
Now, if this hypothetical person turned around and started expressing attraction for fan art that reimagines the PPGs as realistic children, then I'd have to assume pedophilia.

Being underage in fiction does not have anywhere near the same significance as in real life . Why? Because whether we're talking about the canon age or the physical appearance, it's literally arbitrary.

But even ignoring that, the vast majority of fiction doesn't actually look like real life. Take the anime style for example. You can call it symbolic of a person, but it's so simplified and often vivid that no reasonable person would mistake that for an actual human. You would obviously be able to look at that and go "that's a cartoon." By contrast, a hyperrealistic style could be mistaken for real life.

I'm aware that they aren't real, but a person who gets aroused by feet pics of characters who aren't real would still have a fetish for feet, no?

To a degree, this logic checks out. But it is far from universal.

People have fetishes for a variety of reasons. There's not always a direct, 1:1 correlation between porn and real life. Nor is the most obvious reason for looking at something always the correct one. And I would bet my life that most people have limits and understand some of the porn they look at wouldn't be acceptable for real life. Especially for the more extreme or controversial stuff.

So to actually answer the question, no. The two are very different. To automatically assume a person is a pedophile means you're making & working off of assumptions

Since you're mentioning PPG, wouldn't that show more signs that this person in this scenario is a potential pedophile? The show has characters like Miss Keane, Miss Bellum, Sesdusa and Femme Fatale. These ones fit in the category of "femme animated blobs", they look nothing like real humans. Despite all these ladies, it's the Powerpuff Girls they're sexually attracted to?

I'm only assuming this since you didn't mention the ladies in your scenario, but feel free to correct me otherwise.

>These ones fit in the category of "femme animated blobs", they look nothing like real humans.

This is… entirely not the case. While highly stylized, these characters still look fundamentally human with clear female sexual anatomy. They do not nearly have the abandonment of normal form the characterizes the protagonists. Attraction to these characters needn't be assumed to be tied to any particular fetish.

Because whether we're talking about the canon age or the physical appearance, it's literally arbitrary.

Arbitrary is a strange word to use in this context. In real life, the age of the people around you and how they look; is arbitrary. You have no control over deciding how old a person is or how old you are, nor can you choose what anyone looks like. Those factors are ultimately up to chance.

In a story though, where you are the creator, age and how a person looks is no longer by chance but by choice. Deciding how old someone is affects how that person will behave, how other characters will treat them, and how the setting itself will treat them. Deciding how a person looks is the same as it will also determine how people will treat them too. These are things a creator thinks about when deciding how a character looks and how old they are.

Now, as for your answer, it seems to contradict your reasoning for it.

There's not always a direct, 1:1 correlation between porn and real life. Nor is the most obvious reason for looking at something always the correct one

To say that "it's not always correct." implies most of the time, it is.

When I read that, I assumed your answer would be, "Yes, most of the time, it is a sign of pedophilia.". Instead, your actual answer is a flat-out "No, it is not a sign of pedophilia." Could you clarify this for me?

I'm guessing the last paragraph is meant to be directed at my argument. Two things.

>The argument of "they look nothing like children" is thrown out the window the moment you acknowledge it's a kid because you are expressively admitting that's WHY you're attracting to it.

Can you explain this argument more clearly? I'm having trouble working out the sentence logic.

>porn of the characters is almost exclusively done in the traditional anime style and never on-model.

Yes, I clearly acknowledged fan art that reimagines the characters as something they're not presented as in the source material. Your implication that pedophiles with off-model "lolicon" attraction greatly outnumber anyone with an on-model attraction does not invalidate my point about people with an on-model attraction.

>You can handwave this post…
>You doubling down (…) shows the desperation in your argument

…Your entire reply consists of you handwaving my post and then doubling down desperately.

Because your post is making an absurdly wrong assertion in the hopes nobody calls it out and now that I have, you're resorting to the fallacy fallacy. Doubling-down only applies if you are defending a position, not attacking.

Okay, at this point you're just selecting a verbose way of proclaiming, "I'm right. You're wrong. I win."
Let's take inventory.

You start be addressing my point with a half-coherent statement, followed by a cry of "Bullshit!" and then by pretty much rehashing a point I already brought up like it's a refutation.

I asked for clarification on your earlier point while pointing out that your other point isn't exactly out of alignment with what I originally had to say, nor does it refute it.

You then handwaved my request for clarification and doubled down while saying, "You will handwave and are doubling down." which understandably merits a bit of a "dude, wtf?" response.

Now this.

>Doubling-down only applies if you are defending a position, not attacking.
Well as long as we're calling out bullshit tonight, this is actual bullshit straight from your ass. Whether it's a zone of defense or a path of attack, if you can increase your commitment to the position, you can double down.

Please note, I didn't make this thread in an attempt to change people's mind or to argue. I made it because I wanted to understand why some people would see someone getting sexually aroused from an underage girl and think to themselves, "Yeah this is not a sign of pedophilia.".

So, let's tone down the debate side of this discussion down.

Nox, I feel that your elaboration caused more confusion than anything else. The PPG, while it is true, they're not humans, I don't see how they're stylized to the point that don't look like humans.

They basically have everything to look like humans with the only noticeable exception being there lack of fingers and noses. Even than it's negligible since in-universe, no one has ever pointed that out. They don't even struggle holding objects too.

I'm pretty sure if you ask anyone if these girls are humans, they will say 'yes'.
Can you explain to me why these girls look barely human to you?

"Okay, at this point you're just selecting a verbose way of proclaiming, "I'm right. You're wrong. I win."
Let's take inventory."
Because you appeal to the unknown as evidence these mysterious individuals who look at blob porn of the Powerpuff Girls exist. Again, this is purely ancedotal and I would provide citation to back my point it's ALWAYS off-model, but that would require me to actually look up porn of these characters and link said porn to prove a point which would be fucking ILLEGAL for me to do.

"You start be addressing my point with a half-coherent statement, followed by a cry of "Bullshit!" and then by pretty much rehashing a point I already brought up like it's a refutation."
It's only as half-coherent as the person reading it. I literally did not rehash your point, I upfront said your point was wrong. Read above.

"I asked for clarification on your earlier point while pointing out that your other point isn't exactly out of alignment with what I originally had to say, nor does it refute it."
Lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. I did in fact refute what you wrote. You left the suggestion open to leeway in which I refute by saying there is no leeway, because it doesn't happen. That is refutation, no? There was no ambigity in what I wrote as I chose carefully not to use words that suggest any small amount could exist as you were doing. It appears your major GOTCHA moment by using almost and nearly all didn't work.

"You then handwaved my request for clarification and doubled down while saying, "You will handwave and are doubling down." which understandably merits a bit of a "dude, wtf?" response."
I don't need to clarify because what I wrote was perfectly reasonable and comprehensive. If you can't understand it, why are you trying – in vain – to fight against it? An acknowledgement a character is supposed to be a child is an acknowledgement the character is meant to represent a child. Even if it does look like a blob as you use the Powerpuff Girls as an example.

">Doubling-down only applies if you are defending a position, not attacking.
Well as long as we're calling out bullshit tonight, this is actual bullshit straight from your ass. Whether it's a zone of defense or a path of attack, if you can increase your commitment to the position, you can double down."
Wowie, fallacy fallacy again. Looks like I made a minor spelling error! Even if in spirit, it was correct. I guess my entire point is wrong.

@OP
They stretch the concept of being "anthropoid" to its limits, occupying a space better shared with the likes of Mrs. Packman, the Green M&M, or other similar mascots. None of these characters have any defined sexual anatomy with feminine markers being more fashion/social in nature. In isolation there's not much to symbolize them as either adults or children. Yet, I've seen all that become the subject of fetishistic fixation. Attraction is weird.

I willfully resorted to an extreme example to drive my point, which is that pedophiles are attracted to the flesh-and-blood likeness of prepubescent children or its best substitute. They get off on observing the behaviors of children. They strongly desire sexual photos of children to the point that they will risk life and limb to aquire them. They gravitate towards art that encapsulates this idea. If someone expresses attraction towards something that deviates far from this experience, then it's not rational to assume that they must also have an attraction towards the other. This isn't just a matter of "looking like an adult". Stylized characters can look like neither child nor adult. Neither young nor old, neither human nor beast. The more abstract it gets, the more vague it gets.

It's true, "Lore says she's a 1000-year-old demigod" is no defence for being sexually attracted to a character that is clearly the spitting image of a 6-year-old. Likewise, "Lore says this character is underage" is no real evidence of pedophilic attraction towards something or someone that looks and acts like anything but a child. Potentially creepy and/or perverse, but not pedophilic. After all, an illustrated, fictional character can look like anything and act like anything at any age.

@someone else
Well, that was unhinged. This shit-covered board is probably my fault for trying to play chess with a pigeon.

@OP

I think one of the most important parts of this discussion to be defined is exactly what means "underage". I made a post in the Skullgirls controversy article about this, which unfortunately was nuked when the servers crashed, but it went something like this: 18 is not the age where people magically turn into adults, it's the age established as an arbitrary point, in legal terms, where the average individual is supposed to have the physical and mental maturity and independence to deal with adult responsibilities. Establishing a dichotomy of ≥18 = legal = good, otherwise illegal = bad is a pretty gross oversimplification. There's a reason why certain characters have their age changed when a piece of media is localized, for example. Yes, a character might be 16 in Japan and changed to 18 in the west for legal reasons. It's the same exact character, so deciding is inappropriate to express attraction when the bio says 16 but not when the bio says 18 is extremely hypocritical.

I also see parallels to furries and furry art in general. It's easy to assume they're all into zoophilia, but the art is very stylized and fantastical (at least what I've seen, I don't really go into those corners of the Internet). People often like the fictionalized, idealized, fetishized version of the thing, not the real thing itself. There's bound to be some crossover with people who are actually into it, I've seen some Youtube videos of people being exposed for some pretty nasty stuff in that community, but when I hear people saying they're furries I don't automatically assume they want to do gross stuff with their dog. Same with the loli community or other of the more taboo fetishes.

Arbitrary is a strange word to use in this context.

Not at all. Arbitrary is as it's defined:
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

I only really noticed this after writing this up, but I just want to note it seems you're taking my wording to mean the former rather than the latter. I am speaking of the latter.

At the end of the day, that's what art is. It's based on your whims and desires. You can try to order it, but at the end of the day, it's still based on your whims.

in real life, the age of the people around you and how they look; is arbitrary. You have no control over deciding how old a person is or how old you are, nor can you choose what anyone looks like. Those factors are ultimately up to chance.

Who you find yourself surrounded by? Yes, you usually don't have much control about that, barring some exceptions.

But age itself isn't arbitrary. It's dictated by a natural growth process and marked by various milestones.

In a story though, where you are the creator, age and how a person looks is no longer by chance but by choice. Deciding how old someone is affects how that person will behave, how other characters will treat them, and how the setting itself will treat them. Deciding how a person looks is the same as it will also determine how people will treat them too. These are things a creator thinks about when deciding how a character looks and how old they are.

There are indeed things a creator thinks about and they indeed do have some level of planning and thought, but again, they're ultimately dictated by what they want to do. Or I suppose the suits want, but that's going beyond pure art.

To say that "it's not always correct." implies most of the time, it is.

When I read that, I assumed your answer would be, "Yes, most of the time, it is a sign of pedophilia.". Instead, your actual answer is a flat-out "No, it is not a sign of pedophilia." Could you clarify this for me?

That first sentence isn't true. It implies it's correct a non-zero portion of the time. To clarify on that part you quoted: what a casual observer might see isn't necessarily the actual reason for watching something.

If you see 10 roguelite games in my steam library, the obvious assumption here is that I like roguelites. But that's not necessarily the case. Maybe I happen to really like those particular games. Maybe I just bought them because they were the streamer game of the month. Or maybe there's something else, like them being card games, which could be the common theme among them.

But anyways, on my answer:

I'm surprised that was your conclusion. Each of my paragraphs addresses arguments people typically make about underage characters. They are assumptions people make about why people have an interest in it. I address these assumptions and refute them. I probably could've elaborated more on my points but to sum it up:

>This character is canonically X years old
Response: Age has absolutely no meaning in fiction. It is not tied to development or maturity like in real life.

>This character looks like a child
Response: The character doesn't look like an actual, tangible human. It looks like a cartoon.

>But if you have a fetish for this, you must like it irl
Response: Not everything you look at in porn translates to a real-life interest.

I think the unifying theme here is people looking at an underage character and treating it like a real person. But the context surrounding fictional characters is often radically different from reality.

There are indeed things a creator thinks about and they indeed do have some level of planning and thought, but again, they're ultimately dictated by what they want to do. Or I suppose the suits want, but that's going beyond pure art.

I forgot to add this: How old someone is does not dictate how the show treats them. Not inherently at least.

You could have a show treat the child as an equal among adults. Or you could have them treated exactly how they would be irl. Having children treated a certain way in any story simply aligns with the author's interests and preference.

Ditto for appearance.

If the girl looks like a child then I judge cause its pretty sus to fap to a child, however if the girl looks adult I dont fucking care that much.

You might say of course to retort "but they have the personality and mind of a minor" but like…no, no they usually dont. Cartoon and anime writers SUCK at writing minors as having the mind of minors they are usually just "quirky adults who act, look and talk like adults but the story insists are really youngchildren cause the writers didnt move on from their own childhood" look at skullgirls for an example.

So like usually they look like adults, they have the mind of an adult…in a way they are adults. I mean its still rather questionable ofc but like I have bigger problems to care about at that point.

Like look at Jotaro in JoJo Stardust Crusaders he is a fucking adult yet the writers are like "no no he is an elementary student" because every fucking character in anime has to be a fucking child for dystopian reasons.

There is in idolmaster a character who is a succesful and rather mature CEO but she is somehow still in highschool because fuck you. At least she is 18 but like…when did she started working? When she was 13? Lord forbid we have a character older than 25 those are dinosaurs!!

But yeah I am absolutely judging adult cartoon and anime artists as somewhat-manchild for having to make most characters minors. Like yeah being an adult objectively sucks ofc but you cant be THAT stuck in your past.

Japan especially being an adult there is so awful and workers are so exploited that anime is usually focused on times of education as those are supposedly when Japanese people peak.

Instead of sad and tragic I see that as disgustingly pathetic, like wow…Japan sounds pathetic

One thing that people don't realize about sexuality is that is pretty malleable. This meaning that online/fictional and IRL attractions can differ. You can have a kink online/in fiction while not being attracted to it IRL. Heck, I have seen some furries describing themselves "bi for furries, straight irl"

A large part of the fantasy is that (as other posts in this thread have pointed out) these characters are very idealized. These characters, their body types, designs and mannerisms are away from the real thing for a reason. It isn't appealing to them.

There are two sides to understand on the topic of a fictional character's age, and it's hard to be ambivalent towards it since it's easier to be for or against it. The side to focus on to help separate why loli/shota characters are as popular as they are is to understand that they very aren't the real thing. It's a suggestion to the viewer that this character is as they appear to be, design and with intent but it isn't the real thing. The real thing isn't what these consumers want to see. For various reasons or another. If it is sus and easy to judge people for their tastes, that's because it is. However it isn't likely a person who consumes these characters is going to go after the real thing if they prefer to live in their fantasies and tastes.

3DPD is a helpful term used in the past, used widely in otaku culture before the 2010s that encapsulate this disconnection of fictional underage characters and real life children. It's idealized, and age can be both important and unimportant to the character in the grand scheme of things. Back then it was more urged and encouraged that the real thing really is 3D-pig-disgusting because honestly, communities like these don't want their fantasy places to get ruined by reality with people who commit abuse towards children.

As for not wanting to write characters that are older, there's always going to be that idea across human nature where youth is beautiful and desired. Not just sexually. It's idealized. You can find your characters in media that are 25+ but there's overwhelmingly more human beings that don't want to be in that transitory period where they are getting old, and don't want to remind others or have their characters deal with that kind of thing. Idealism.

This is the most autistic forum thread we've had in a while which is truly saying something.

Anyway, back to the argument at hand, do you think the people who jack off to pictures of Bugs Bunny are sexually aroused by rabbits? Of course not, Bugs Bunny represents a rabbit as much as anime characters represent a real human (unless you can find me a human with eyes that take up half of their heads of which are also the size of melons I will continue to argue this.)

The bigger question is this; why do people rally so hard against lolicon and it's derivatives but everyone is willing to look the other way for other taboo fetishes like vore, guro, and step family shit?

If you really wanna be a moral crusader for this shit then you should be advocating for ALL this shit to be banned, hyper-focusing on lolicon shit in particular just reeks of trying to hide your own skeletons in your closet and it doesn't help your argument when you conveniently ignore everything else.

Through my decade plus of time I've spent on the internet I've not seen one study proving that there is any link between someone who finds NSFW pictures of Megumin hot and being found lurking around a schoolyard. Conversely, I have seen numerous studies from sex clinics and sexologists all claiming that the link between the two is negligible at best and practically nonexistent at worst.

If I see a hot anime girl I will say she is hot, I'm not going to take time out of the day to go to the series fucking fandom wiki page to check her age just to give myself a pat on the back for making sure I'm not finding an underage fictional character attractive.

Age in fiction is about as reliable as a dollar store condom, nobody who is of a sound mind would think that Saeko Busujima from Highschool of the Dead looks like a high schooler and nobody would look at Yoko Littner from Gurren Lagann at first glance and think she is 14, anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves to make themselves look like saints who can do no wrong.

South Park and The Simpsons have had their child characters in plenty of situations that would be considered a big no-no for actual children, The Simpsons movie had Bart naked with his actual dick showing in one scene and South Park has had several scenes throughout the years of things such as the kids illustrating themselves fucking each other and even had them doing a fucking LAP DANCE in the Fractured But Whole game and nobody is calling the depictions in these franchises pedophilia.

TL;DR It was never proven to be a problem 20 years ago and it still hasn't been proven to be a problem now so why should anyone care that much?

Just a heads up, I'll try to respond to everyone who responded before this post. Any more replies after this post and there's a good chance, I won't respond to it. Mostly because I got what I wanted from making this forum, so I'm not that curious anymore.

@ Nox Lucis

None of these characters have any defined sexual anatomy with feminine markers being more fashion/social in nature.

Kids are not known for having sexual anatomy, which only starts to develop when they hit puberty. Which is strange when you think about it because the less sexual a child looks, the more aroused a pedophile is.
I will agree with you, attraction is weird.

I see the point you're trying to make, but I don't particularly agree with it. I don't have any more question for you, but feel free to ask me anything about this topic, I'll try my best to answer them.

@TheHolyEmpress

I think one of the most important parts of this discussion to be defined is exactly what means "underage"

The most troubling part about that is how subjective it is. For example, Nox explained how they see PPG less humans but more in line with M&M green lady and Mrs. Pacman. To me, however, I see the opposite way and do not see them closer to the two mentioned characters.

When it comes to this, I don't see a way where we can agree on a definition.

Although for the rest of your post, when I say underage, I mean prepubescent children and not to people who're close to being 18. Of course, I see that the majority of people here see the age of character as not relevant which muddies the discussion even further and makes it harder to agree on a definition.

To xoxin,

Not at all. Arbitrary is as it's defined:
based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

I only really noticed this after writing this up, but I just want to note it seems you're taking my wording to mean the former rather than the latter. I am speaking of the latter.

A whim is defined as a sudden desire or an impulsive thought.

There are indeed things a creator thinks about and they indeed do have some level of planning and thought, but again, they're ultimately dictated by what they want to do.

Yes, we are motivated by our desires. All whims are a desire, but not all desires are a whim.

Age has absolutely no meaning in fiction.

We have a whole genre called "coming of age". If what you said is true than this genre should not exist.

The character doesn't look like an actual, tangible human. It looks like a cartoon.

That is a painting of a pipe.

Not everything you look at in porn translates to a real-life interest.

Agreed since being sexually attractive to something doesn't necessarily mean you like it.

I think the unifying theme here is people looking at an underage character and treating it like a real person.

I disagree on your assessment.

@SHLNecromancer

This is clearly an emotional topic for you, I would advise you in the future to avoid these types of discussion for your sake of mind.

The bigger question is this; why do people rally so hard against lolicon and it's derivatives but everyone is willing to look the other way for other taboo fetishes like vore, guro, and step family shit?

I see this as irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to have a discussion about it though, you can make your own thread about it.

If you really wanna be a moral crusader for this shit then you should be advocating for ALL this shit to be banned, hyper-focusing on lolicon shit in particular just reeks of trying to hide your own skeletons in your closet and it doesn't help your argument when you conveniently ignore everything else.

I have not advocated for banning of any sorts. Can you show me where I did say that or was implicit of it?

Through my decade plus of time I've spent on the internet I've not seen one study proving that there is any link between someone who finds NSFW pictures of Megumin hot and being found lurking around a schoolyard. Conversely, I have seen numerous studies from sex clinics and sexologists all claiming that the link between the two is negligible at best and practically nonexistent at worst.

Can you share a few of those studies here? I'm curious what the professional's opinions are on this.

If I see a hot anime girl I will say she is hot, I'm not going to take time out of the day to go to the series fucking fandom wiki page to check her age just to give myself a pat on the back for making sure I'm not finding an underage fictional character attractive.

Age in fiction is about as reliable as a dollar store condom, nobody who is of a sound mind would think that Saeko Busujima from Highschool of the Dead looks like a high schooler and nobody would look at Yoko Littner from Gurren Lagann at first glance and think she is 14, anyone who says otherwise is lying to themselves to make themselves look like saints who can do no wrong.

This one I have only myself to blame. When I meant underage girls, I meant those who look prepubescent. I don't mean characters like Jotaro Kujo.

South Park and The Simpsons have had their child characters in plenty of situations that would be considered a big no-no for actual children, The Simpsons movie had Bart naked with his actual dick showing in one scene and South Park has had several scenes throughout the years of things such as the kids illustrating themselves fucking each other and even had them doing a fucking LAP DANCE in the Fractured But Whole game and nobody is calling the depictions in these franchises pedophilia.

From what I heard for the Simpson's movie, there wasn't anything sexual about it and it was done for laughs.

South Park is South Park, I don't think I need to explain any further than that.

EDIT: I change the blockquotes to blockquote, please work.

As it turns out, < blockquotes > and < blockquote > are two different things.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

I see this as irrelevant to the topic at hand. If you want to have a discussion about it though, you can make your own thread about it."
"I have not advocated for banning of any sorts. Can you show me where I did say that or was implicit of it?

I am not talking specifically about yourself but rather the views that are commonly brought up in this kind of debate. I brought this up because if being into underage characters has a connection to pedophilia then by the same token being into guro would mean you would want to kill girls to get sexual pleasure from it, the line of thinking never goes to here because we're too busy hyper-focusing on one specific taboo.

Can you share a few of those studies here? I'm curious what the professional's opinions are on this.

Here are a couple for some further reading:
Report: cartoon paedophilia harmless
Lolicon: The Reality of 'Virtual Child Pornography' in Japan

This one I have only myself to blame. When I meant underage girls, I meant those who look prepubescent. I don't mean characters like Jotaro Kujo.

But why make this distinction? In real life, if someone looks pubescent but is underage it would still be wrong to be attracted to them as they are still mentally unready. Similarly, someone who has a severe case of babyface but is over 18 is still okay to be with because they've mentally matured enough. A 16 year old in an anime still also doesn't look like any 16 year old in real life so trying to draw comparisons is just fruitless. I've seen characters who are 9 years old yet look like fully grown adults. Like I said, an age in fiction is about as trustworthy as a UN worker.

From what I heard for the Simpson's movie, there wasn't anything sexual about it and it was done for laughs.

South Park is South Park, I don't think I need to explain any further than that.

But you still wouldn't be able to show that in a live action movie is what I am saying, you wouldn't be able to get away with showing real kids genitals for obvious reasons regardless of whether the intent was to be sexual or not. South being what it is should not give it a pass for some of the illustrations based on what you've told me though, even if shoving sex toys up one of the kids asses is done in a comedic context it would still be considered obscene by most standards and would still be considered CP even in those circumstances.

The reason I feel so strongly about this topic is because 99% of the time it's done either as a gateway to enable more restrictions of what you can and can't show in animated media or to cover up one's own skeletons in their closet like grooming an actual child in secret.

I'm not saying either of these two apply to you specifically though, you're just looking for an honest debate which there is nothing wrong with, I'm just basing off the experiences I've had when seeing other people on social media talking about it.

Here are a couple for some further reading:
Report: cartoon paedophilia harmless
Lolicon: The Reality of 'Virtual Child Pornography' in Japan

Necro, these links you gave me are about if pornography of child characters lead to crimes against children.

Being a pedophile doesn't equate to being a criminal.

What I would like to know if there's any study done that looks for a connection between pornography of child characters and pedophilia.

But why make this distinction? In real life, if someone looks pubescent but is underage it would still be wrong to be attracted to them as they are still mentally unready. Similarly, someone who has a severe case of babyface but is over 18 is still okay to be with because they've mentally matured enough. A 16 year old in an anime still also doesn't look like any 16 year old in real life so trying to draw comparisons is just fruitless. I've seen characters who are 9 years old yet look like fully grown adults. Like I said, an age in fiction is about as trustworthy as a UN worker.

In real life, yes that would be an issue, but these characters aren't real, so they are incapable of having a mentality.

Fetishes are ultimately based on looks. A pedophile will get aroused by a character they perceive as prepubescent. The character's physical and mental age is irrelevant.

The reason I feel so strongly about this topic is because 99% of the time it's done either as a gateway to enable more restrictions of what you can and can't show in animated media or to cover up one's own skeletons in their closet like grooming an actual child in secret.

I'm not saying either of these two apply to you specifically though, you're just looking for an honest debate which there is nothing wrong with, I'm just basing off the experiences I've had when seeing other people on social media talking about it.

I see your point, but this is exactly why being calm and collected is important when having these discussions with strangers. Someone else could have taken that more personal, which could have led to further derailment of the topic.

@OP

The most troubling part about that is how subjective it is. For example, Nox explained how they see PPG less humans but more in line with M&M green lady and Mrs. Pacman. To me, however, I see the opposite way and do not see them closer to the two mentioned characters.

When it comes to this, I don't see a way where we can agree on a definition.

It's subjective because of the level of abstraction. That's why I've always seen these discussions as kind of pointless. You can't clearly define what constitutes "underage" when art is so malleable and separate from reality. Trying to apply rules from the real world just doesn't work. It's not surprising that most of the people who try are moral guardians or virtue signalers pointing fingers willy-nilly while trying to feel better about themselves.

One slightly point I'd bring up about what you mentioned is why people would find a piece of sentient candy or a female Pac Man attractive to begin with, they're both circles with faces and possibly legs. They do have what I've seen referred to as "tertiary sexual characteristics", i.e. long eyelashes, makeup and other traditionally "feminine" traits, which are really common things in cartoons and mascots along with feminine clothing. If that's enough to make a character attractive in the eyes of some people, it's no surprise loli or furry characters are attractive to some. It doesn't mean people are attracted to the actual physical candy, same way people who like Lola Bunny don't necessarily like real rabbits that way. As I mentioned, they're fictionalized, idealized versions of the real thing.

Although for the rest of your post, when I say underage, I mean prepubescent children and not to people who're close to being 18. Of course, I see that the majority of people here see the age of character as not relevant which muddies the discussion even further and makes it harder to agree on a definition.

If the discussion so far has showed anything is that trying to determine the age of a fictional character is pointless. The biggest determining factor is the intent, both from both the artist who draws the character and from the people who look at it, but good luck figuring that out. But the higher the level of abstraction (i.e. the more stylized as opposed to more realistic), the more I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Necro, these links you gave me are about if pornography of child characters lead to crimes against children.

Being a pedophile doesn't equate to being a criminal.

What I would like to know if there's any study done that looks for a connection between pornography of child characters and pedophilia.

But why would those studies not be sufficient? Most actual pedophiles will try and satiate their urges one day by going for the real thing and committing a horrible act, a substitute can never replace the real thing.

If there truly was a link between porn of those characters and actual pedophilia then I have not seen any study that proves so (unless someone is willing to post some), if there was then I doubt any kind of anime with softcore ecchi of them would be legally sold on store shelves by now considering it's been in quite a bit of anime since the 80s.

It would also be difficult to conduct a proper study because pedophiles lie about what caused their attraction all the time to try and blame anyone but their own mental problems, trying to decipher what exactly makes them what they are is the barrier that prevents a lot of definitive research.

In real life, yes that would be an issue, but these characters aren't real, so they are incapable of having a mentality.

Fetishes are ultimately based on looks. A pedophile will get aroused by a character they perceive as prepubescent. The character's physical and mental age is irrelevant.

And this is why I brought up my point about people getting aroused by pictures of Bugs Bunny. People who would actually be into that would not be classed as zoophiles because his appearance is so far detached from the appearance of a real rabbit that it would be ridiculous to assume they actually want to fuck rabbits.

This same logic would also apply to anime characters. Most anime characters whether they're infants, children or adults, are extremely idealized versions of what a human actually is, their facial structure in particular would be more akin to an alien than a human with the size of their eyes and lines for mouths.

I see your point, but this is exactly why being calm and collected is important when having these discussions with strangers. Someone else could have taken that more personal, which could have led to further derailment of the topic.

In this case, I apologize if I came off as overly aggressive, I had intended to make it seem like I was more confident in my opinion but I did not take some of the language used into consideration.

I want to make it abundantly clear that it is still perfectly okay to consider consumption of said pornography weird and I would not stop anyone from choosing to steer clear from it and avoid interacting with people who do, all I personally want from people is for them to stop labeling them one of the most horrid things you can possibly be on Earth because of a cartoon, it has never sat right with me and it never will.

@9InchGag

I'm surprised it took this long for someone to bring up this sites disturbing population of loli pedophiles. I've had a few encounters with them and the levels of ferocity in their defense of anime cp is quite frankly hilarious. It's a problem that's been on the site for a while now and I've noticed that nothing is really being done about it.

Until you give a definitive answer as to why you have a double standard on this topic (you think lolicon is pedophilia but don't think MLP porn is zoophilia) then nothing you say holds any water.

You have dodged the question twice when it was brought up to you which hampers your credibility quite a bit.

But why would those studies not be sufficient? Most actual pedophiles will try and satiate their urges one day by going for the real thing and committing a horrible act, a substitute can never replace the real thing.

That is a dangerous assumption and one that lacks proof too. I know if I had this belief, I would never be happy coming to this site.

If there truly was a link between porn of those characters and actual pedophilia then I have not seen any study that proves so (unless someone is willing to post some), if there was then I doubt any kind of anime with softcore ecchi of them would be legally sold on store shelves by now considering it's been in quite a bit of anime since the 80s.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion, could you tell me the thought process? I don't see how such a study would lead to the banning of soft ecchi.

In this case, I apologize if I came off as overly aggressive, I had intended to make it seem like I was more confident in my opinion but I did not take some of the language used into consideration.

Apology accepted.

That is a dangerous assumption and one that lacks proof too. I know if I had this belief, I would never be happy coming to this site.

True, but similarly we have no way of knowing for sure if a pedophile is being honest with themselves if they say they'll touch a real kid, keep in mind that when caught they're known for lying about the circumstances so I would never personally take their word for anything.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion, could you tell me the thought process? I don't see how such a study would lead to the banning of soft ecchi.

In short, if it was found that soft ecchi actually did have an effect on people's actual real life desires and that the people who consumed it actually wanted to molest real minors, it makes sense why it would be banned in that instance as it would be putting them in danger.

Alright, here’s an unpopular opinion mine, don’t act this fucking vocal about your fetishies in general for fuck sake! Of course average people would be weirded out about this, more so if you’re doing mental gymnastics. I don’t even care if people are into lolicon/shotacon, it’s when they pull out their 30 page articles and sites classifying that it’s normal while smugling act like they win some stupidass arument on the internet follow by some remark about “owning the libs” because people treat everything that related to them as culture war.

I mean, I’m also into some deprave shit, which is why I don’t go around telling others what’s right or wrong about kinks because I hate double standards and justification. But you won’t see me mentioning them so openly because if I want to talk about it, I would of do so somewhere that’s specific on that topic (such as message boards/boorus) or at least not so open in social media.

I would also want to say is why this website, (for the past several months mind you) still had both cunny, uhhaa, ugghhhaaa? Oughhha or some shit? and Die Pedo in the top galleries? what do you fuckers expect what would happen when someone who come to this site for some information about meme/media/fandom and notice why there were 3 trending galleries related to lolicons? There going to raise eyebrows.

Got nothing much to say since I agree with this sentiment but I think for the average user they would likely have already been turned off by the vast amount of NSFW topics and pictures rather than just the lolicon shit, especially since they're far more likely to come across it.

This site is heavily influenced by 2000s anon culture, which encouraged people to either be open about weird shit because hey you're anon, or to pretend to be into weird shit to weird people out because hey you're anon.

While cunny and adjacent articles are common on this site, so are articles for every other fetish, vore, inflation, anthro, wonder bread, milf, etc…

With regards to anime:

I think to some extent a lot of very online millenials are into 14-16 year old anime girls because when they were 14-16 and going through puberty they were watching anime about 14-16 year olds, and they just never moved on to more adult media because especially in the mid-2000s there wasn't really any bridge from english-translated shounen anime to anything about college-age adults because if you make the characters teenagers you can still sell to kids. So they just kept watching and fapping to anime about teenagers.

Combine that with the fact that with anime in particular, in the west we have cultural milestones associated with the ages 16 and 18, and in Japan the equivalent milestones are at 14 and 16, respectively.

As for memes like cunny and whatnot, I think it's mostly ironic edgy humor. It's definitely playing with fire though because you will have unironic pedos that think they're in good company.

With regards to Western cartoons: tbh I completely agree with the poster above that in a lot of Nickelodeon and later Cartoon Network shows the human characters barely look human and if anything the non-human cartoon characters tend to be more attractive.

I have changed my mind my argument makes no damn sense

I still do judge artists for being so unwilling to have adults in their stories, is everything else that I am realizing is a weak argument.

I am still not a fan of this moral guardianism but yeah I had a shit take.

With teens (especially those between the ages of 16 and 19), it could be argued that they possess sexually mature characteristics to elicit an arousal response. Straight up children on the other hand, I fail to see why this fetish has such a preeminent precedent as it does. Then again, there's people out there exclusively attracted to the same sex and they don't need an encyclopedia to rationalize their attraction to something. As soon as you do, small wonder most would call you a freak for doing so.

People shouldn't have to explain why some fat neckbeard jacks off cartoon middle schoolers. It's on them to determine if they get it or not {which most don't, which is good because healthy adults are like other healthy adults). I myself understand lolicon and shotacon to an extent, but the questions outnumber the answers. Well maybe these people like them due to their inherent innocence? But then you come across weirdos who are mad into bratty mesugakis or 10000 year old femdom vampire lolis milfs. Neither of them represent the inherent innocent lolibros are after.

So why do some people wanna jack it to underage characters? tell you the truth, we may never know The fact scientists are still searching after the fabled gay gene to understand queer people is testament to nature's weirdness. Of course, that doesn't excuse freaks out there harming children to quench their sick desires. These people should be ostracized just like the zoos, murderers, and rapist before them.

the gay gene does not exist. is a myth. that scientific framework departed a long time ago

Best example I thought of at the moment