Lokito

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.

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.

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

Sorry for the inconvenience.

@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.

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.

@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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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?

I was looking through the comments on the 'kys pedo' and notice that I can't find a way to read the rest of them. The other articles I can click the arrow to see other comments, but not this one.

Paul Haarman is spamming only two images in the gallary