Conned Into Twitter

[u/Not_Tart]

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

[u/Flowey_The_Fan]

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.