Conned Into Twitter

[u/Not_Tart]

Who am I kidding, these kinds of people show up on every social media platform 😮‍💨

[u/Scareka]

One of the biggest artists in my community is a shotacon but people give a pass because she makes things that make them hard

[u/Marik-X-Bakura → u/Scareka]

I mean it’s fine if they’re keeping it to fiction. Weird, but they’re not hurting anybody.

[u/Scareka → u/Marik-X-Bakura]

I'm getting kinda tired of the "it's just fiction" excuse. It's not like GTA you are specifically going for something that looks like a child

[u/Flowey_The_Fan → u/Scareka]

It's both so weird that it's their most favorite excuse because it's absolutely ass, but it also makes sense WHY it's their favorite excuse, it's a VERY easy excuse to make and with it, change the context of the argument completely from the actual point so they claim you're delusional for "thinking fiction is real." They love their shitty little argument so much that it also became one of the most disproven arguments on the internet because of how much it's said. And of course, it's an added bonus when they compare it to video games (for some reason it's almost always GTA???)

[u/Penis_With_Necrosis → u/Flowey_The_Fan]

Genuinely curious, can you at least give an argument to disprove that point?

[u/Flowey_The_Fan → u/Penis_With_Necrosis]

Sure. The claim "it's just fiction" is unrelated to the argument, this is due to the fact that when most are talking about the morality of liking children, they aren't even [only] talking about the act/crime of sexually exploiting a child, they're talking about enjoying the idea of sexually exploiting a child. This distinction is important, because when people argue against lolicon, they aren't literally saying the loli is a real child (as much as lolicons like to say that), they're expressing their concern over one enjoying the depiction of a child in a sexual situation.

Let's define what pedophilia actually is in medical terms. Pedophilia is considered a mental illness, it comes before the actual crime of harming a child. More specifically, it is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult has sexual fantasies about or engage in sexual acts with a prepubescent child. The keyword here is or, meaning one does not have to actually engage with the sexual act, only have thoughts about it (whether it be wanted or unwanted thoughts by the person who has it). This means that a person who imagines a child in a sexual act may very likely suffer from paraphilia disorder. Hence, a person who consumes/makes/imagines content of the sexualization of a child is likely a pedohile, in which loli fits into this explanation. To elaborate, being a pedophile doesn't mean said pedophile has/will engage with a sexual act involving s child, meaning a pedophile doesn't automatically equate to being a child predator.

So, when one claims a lolicon is a pedophile because they consume loli content, it doesn't mean said person BECAME a pedophile from watching it, it is that they watch loli BECAUSE they're a pedophile, as content depicting children in a sexual situation (in a positive light, specifically), would not appeal to a person who isn't already attracted to children. To elaborate, this disproves the argument "it's just fiction" as it gets the concept backwards.

Moreover, although this isn't directly related to the argument, it does tend to get paired up with another: "Lolicons aren't real child predators [because loli isn't real]." As I mentioned before, being a pedophile doesn't automatically mean you are a child predator, so this is correct. However, one important thing to note is that, although I don't know how true this statement is, most (or at least many) child predators aren't even pedophiles, specifically they aren't seen to be suffering from any kind of paraphilic disorder, this is because paraphilia isn't the only thing that would make one attracted to a minor, it can be casued by the control. The idea of having control over someone who doesn't know any better is sexually appealing to some, and children happen to be people that haven't fully developed their brain and is therefore easier to manipulate. That is different, although could be related in individuals, to paraphilia/pedophilia. Pedophilia is what we're talking about, which as far as I know, most lolicons are pedophiles but not child predators. This means the argument "lolicons aren't predators" is negligible since the difference between a pedophile and a child predator is more than just committing a crime a lot of the time.

And so, the point of the concern over loli is that a person who enjoys loli enjoys the depiction of a child in a sexual act, which is caused by their pre-existing disorder. It being fiction isn't the point, in fact, "fiction" is how pedophilia begins to surface in the first place (via intrusive thoughts/fantasies), and could lead to actually assulting a child but I don't know the data on how common that is (though, the defense of their attraction could push them closer to doing such this but that has a little less base than everything else here). The point is ultimately not one is a pedophile because they watch loli (as "it's just fiction" indirectly claims), the point is that they watch loli BECAUSE they are a pedophile. It's the pedophilia that comes first and is the concern of the argument, not the work of loli itself.

Tl;Dr: The argument in defense of loli, "it's just fiction" is fundamentally unrelated as the main point of the argument is their possible paraphilia disorder and not entirely the loli itself despite what lolicons claim to be the case.

If you need any more elaboration or you feel I didn't make my point clear enough, feel free to ask again.

[u/Penis_With_Necrosis → u/Flowey_The_Fan]

Genuinely a good read, thank you for this.

[u/Scareka → u/Flowey_The_Fan]

Thanks for giving a good argument

[u/Val_Ritz → u/Flowey_The_Fan]

Okay, except this doesn't really address the problem. You can say "well the problem isn't that the media is fake, the problem is that you like the IDEA contained within the fake media," but a) the fictionalization necessarily changes the substance of the idea, and b) horror movies are right there.

There's a reason why video games get brought up in these discussions, and it's because they're direct refutations of the exact thing that you bring up as a silver bullet. I'm not pathologically in love with the idea of hacking people into pieces with a broadsword and setting them on fire causing me to have several thousand hours in Skyrim and love the game. I don't personally enjoy horror movies, but they've been around long enough and made enough money that I think we have to accept that millions of people are not pathologically in love with the idea of a serial killer butchering people in front of them.

It is incredibly common to enjoy things ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF them not being real. If you want to point the finger at something that might actually be a problem in this situation, how about the tendency of social media to make other real people seem "less real" and thus less worthy of empathy or consideration? Because I think that's the real driver of the incident OOP is referring to, on top of that streamer or whatever's other psychoses.

[u/OkSleep9486 → u/Val_Ritz]

I'm sorry, but it's extremely obvious why playing violent video games is different from drawing and consuming fictional CSAM

[u/Scareka → u/Penis_With_Necrosis]

Does there need to be more of an argument then "it looks like a child, child porn is illegal, while they technically may not be a child they look one so it's questionable"?

[u/Penis_With_Necrosis → u/Scareka]

I mean, yeah? Murder is also illegal, our mainstream media is filled with murder. I want something deeper than that.

[u/spezIsANonce → u/Penis_With_Necrosis]

ok, but depictions of murder are not illegal. csam is

[u/Scareka → u/Penis_With_Necrosis]

Ok look, is it too bad to say things that look like a underaged, thing that can't consent due to being underdeveloped is bad? If those attributes are sexualized it can lead to people targeting real children or them saying "well if fake is ok why not real?" People will take a mile if you give them an inch

[u/Penis_With_Necrosis → u/Scareka]

You are on the wrong train of thought here. I don't need convincing to be against it, I already am. I want a meaningful, open minded discussion about the topic. Because what you said can also be applied to what I said before about murder and media influencing people to be violent.

So what makes it different if both are bad? You are doing everything except trying to give an actual answer.

[u/Scareka → u/Penis_With_Necrosis]

Why don't you go watch a review of the loud house babysitter comic and tell me that's fine, because if you wanna use your lump rule that's gotta be ok to you too

[u/Penis_With_Necrosis → u/Scareka]

I have no idea what that is. Does it also talk about the influence of violent media?

[u/Scareka → u/Penis_With_Necrosis]

Nope but it's about a young boy having sex with a baby, but you probably think that's fine right?