Does Lolicon make you pedo?

[ColonelX]

Enough about shotacon, that's not amusing.

The very logic that is driving people to believe that one must be a pedophile to enjoy the likes of Lolicon is just pure fail. Let's look at it this way.

1: It doesn't take a genius to realize that both consist of interest in girls who are young.

2: Nor does it take a genius to realize that the means in which the style portrays itself can be "Erotic" or "Cute."

However there is a fine line between Hentai and the actual sexual abuse of a minor. One is generally drawn, the other consists of a minor being abused in a manor that arouses the sick SOB in charge. Let's Compare this to a Vegetarians attitude.

Meat (Pedophillia) will not be eaten by the vegan because it came from something with a face, something that had feelings Etc... (The Real-life pedo victims have feelings and society looks down on such acts) However Fake meat (Lolicon) is ok to eat because nothing was harmed in the process.

*Note: I'm well aware that not all vegans are like that, but it's the first thing that came to mind*

Now that we've broken it down in an easy to understand format, I'm well aware that the line is pretty thin. However it is my firm believe being a Loli-lover myself, that one does not have to be physically attracted to real girls to enjoy Lolicon.

I suppose the ultimate argument is this though. The notion that Pedophilla is wrong is only based on the rules society has generated through years of change. To one who values his morales over the word of his people is he who has obtained true freedom.

Let's make a comparison to that as well just to ensure the point is made.

Society states that Fat people are "Unnatractive" however the age old saying (Which seems to have lost value Nowadays)"Don't judge a book by it's cover" can easily be applied here.

To wrap things up, I guess what I'm trying to say is that it all depends on the viewers morales, their state of mind as well as the notion that what society thinks is right may not be right for all. Thus in the Eye's of you and I pedophillia may be wrong but in the eye's of another it may be just another "thing."

But, this is just the view of a 15 year old boy who's still got a lot to learn.

[Batou-san]

here ColonelX said what I think, but I dont think many people will understand what you said...
but well done it is exactly the thing that makes lolicon - lolicon...

[alex1_phang3]

Personally, I like anime girls so I can confirm to you that I am not a pedophile but still likes loli related stuffs once in a while

[ColonelX]

Originally Posted by alex1_phang3

Personally, I like anime girls so I can confirm to you that I am not a pedophile but still likes loli related stuffs once in a while

Lol, Don't worry were all on the same page. I wasn't calling anyone a pedo just opening some eyes and pushing some ideas around.

[Batou-san]

yes he was drawing a line between pedo and anime-loli likers...

[Goodday]

I think there should be two groups, one who like little anime girls, and one who have sexual desires for real young girls.

[dstarfire]

Well spoken, Colonelx. At least the analogy about how loli doesn't neccesarily encourage or involve pedophilia (at least as most people understand the term). I'll keep that argument handy for the next time this question pops up.

However, your statement about the moral ambiguity of is misinformed. For clarity's sake, I'll state that I mean pedophilia as sex with barely pubescent children or younger (approx. 13 and under, depending on individual development rates). At this age, intercourse involves actual harm to young girls as they are not large enough to accept adult-sized "equipment" without damage. Additionally, such acts almost always involve a trusted adult using a child for the adult's pleasure, at the child's expense. Which is exactly the opposite of what children expect of adults, and thus, a betrayal of the child's trust.

On the other hand, darn near everybody is physically attracted to post-pubescent minors (approx. 15-18). I'm not sure why, but I suspect it's one of those biological instinct things.

[ColonelX]

I know what you mean. And I put it the way I did for word count sake, not everybody is interested in a wall of text haha.

As long as people understand that there is a very fine line between the two.

[Baby Naruto]

BLANK BLANK BLANK pay no attention to this post >.<.

[RouletteDares]

Originally Posted by Goodday

I think there should be two groups, one who like little anime girls, and one who have sexual desires for real young girls.

I thought the argument would have been about when does that border break and when is something too much.

My personal view is that the pictures are representations, I'm going out on a limb to say most of you would never look at real girls like you would these pictures. Then it's not about the picture but what the picture represents, the mind of the author (in drawing/or creation context) would have had to have been pure in creation and how can you ever know that. For all you know you're looking at the creation of a pedophile no matter how you view it, the material is sensitive. I think it's too close to the border to say it has no pedophiliac' connotations, at the end of the day, why push that border? Would you say the same if it was actual girls in that position in those clothes. Looking at something with an opinion and actually committing an act of pedophile is something different but only in nature. The corruption starts at pictures and ideals and if they are raised with pictures like this why bother with pencil and art to represent something so morally grey. Would you yourself draw a minor like in the pictures presented, or is it okay to know you're not the author and just at the receiving end?

It feels like people are trying to detach simulacra's from the originals to seem innocent and in no wrong. The argument seems to be so for looking at pictures of minors just because there not flesh doesn't mean there not the ideal of flesh. Why justify something like this?
Personally i see it as wrong, the images and the ideal, no matter how you cake it in sugar it's still the connotation.

I'm sorry as well but the argument about vegan's was a bad way to represent it. There's a difference between preservation and destruction and it's a strange way to compare thought and action in such an extreme case as a pedophile. They are nothing alike and your argument was so flawed it was a mockery.

'I suppose the ultimate argument is this though. The notion that Pedophilla is wrong is only based on the rules society has generated through years of change. To one who values his morales over the word of his people is he who has obtained true freedom.'

Way to justify pedophiliac actions there. You're basically justifying yourself to look at the effigy of reality. On that mentality you're stating that it's fine to glorify and perverse how children are represented. If you fail to grasp what i mean, then look at it this way. The pictures come from somewhere imagination/actual photos, they are meant to symbolise that feeling/ideal. You're justifying yourself looking at pictures of little girls/boys in the sense that it's a drawing, but you're completely forgetting that it has a meaning and was intended for a purpose an that's the taboo part.

On your mentality we can then justify rape, murder, racism all on the count that someone may see it as okay morally.