Forum - View topicLoli discussion
|
Goto page Next |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
PantsGoblin
 SubscriberEncyclopedia Editor  Posts: 2969 Location: L.A. |
|
|||||||||
|
In an effort to take this subject out of the other threads, here you go guys, a loli thread for you. Talk about your opinions, likes and dislikes etc. about it. If anybody starts needlessly flaming others or gets hostile, this thread gets locked.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon Not that we're going to come to any conclusion on this (never have). But I feel a general thread about it is needed just so that we don't bring down other threads with the subject (has happened more than once).
Doesn't surprise me, loli is the "in" taboo subject to talk about now. Not too long ago, we got two massive threads about it in Answerman columns. The subject comes up every now and then too. The Japanese have even found interest in our recent loli discussions (why do you think that thread has over 14,000 views?).
Whoa, hold up there, that was never my arguement at all. I was just saying that, "I don't think it's completely off basis that they make some characters look much younger than they actually are, because it exists in real life". I actually know some characters whose designs were based on their own seiyuu (who look much younger than they are). I'm in no way saying that this applies to all characters who look much younger than they are (it wouldn't apply to most actually), and I'm definately not saying that loli doesn't exist in hentai. I'm just saying that this aspect of hentai does have some real life basis, unlike so many other things in them...
So in other words, you don't have one and are just making up your own definition that fits with what you think it should be. I rest my case. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
fighterholic
Posts: 9193 |
|
|||||||||
|
Holy S*** the damn thread DOES have over 14000 views. Gee, where to start. I think that some of these people are amazing in the fact that they can come up with the genre, but then again I find myself drawn into it from time to time. Guess it depends upon the content. All I know is that there seems to be a holy crusade this genre, but that's American paranoia for you. We've sex on TV yet we're trying to protect our children from sexual predators, who do you think made them that way in the first place?
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Mindless Watcher
Posts: 68 |
|
|||||||||
*sigh* So in other words, you're assuming too much or are not willing to understand me, I suppose. So if I really have to spell it out for you: "A (male, heterosexual) pedophile is somebody who is sexually aroused by physical features typical for prepubescent girls." Happy now? I doubt many people will understand what exactly we're talking about, since you took the quote out of it's context. If you want to be understood, add a link to the exact post. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
omar235
 Posts: 1572 Location: Florida, Jacksonvile |
|
|||||||||
|
This is a very touchy subject I wouldn't think this thread will last long but I hope it does. Any ways I think we can all agree that any sextual act commited towards kids is wrong. What really starts the debate is whether watching shows that some would say promote it or have it in it will effect the viewer. I will say that I find it hard to belive that if a child has parents who talk to them about sex and whats wrong to do, there is no reason for them to commit these acts. Now even though I can't see them effecting anyone, others think that even though it doesn't directly effect it contributes to it, which I can't say anything about since I don't know...it could. Remember though most forms of entertainment do influence people, violent movies, sextual themes in movies, shows where people are raped or murdered, the news, and video games...now unless you are willing to get rid of all that whats the point of getting rid of lolicon themes. I mean if your kid watches this they should already know it's wrong if they get proper talks from parents or have a sex ed class. Just watching the news can tell someone that lolicon is not part of the norm. Some people get off on this and I don't care if they do but if they do it for real they must have had this pedophilla in their head to begin with right. I don't think anyone can say that watching a anime with lolicon themes made them do anything for the same reason someone killing on a game shouldn't influence them to kill in real life. I don't think we should get rid of these materials just cause it fuels the fire for some individuals or censor them, do you.
I am still wondering why a huge lolicon debate wasn't started on that thread you mentioned PantsGoblin, guess it lucked out. 
He's sorta got you there PantsGoblin. Course even thoug by defination you are a pedo because of that I would only call someone that if they actually tried to act those feelings on a real girl, I don't care if they get aroused over a drawing of a little girl. But man that argument got really heated over on that other thread...even Tony K. threw in the towel. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
P€|\||§_|\/|ast@
 Posts: 3498 Location: IN your nightmares |
|
|||||||||
|
Theres really no way to predict whether a person who has interest in seeing illustrations of naked children or children in sexual situations will have that same interest if the images are actual photographs. In some cases people who enjoy watching a man have sex with an obviously underage girl in anime would be disgusted by the same scene in real life. But where do we draw the line between reality and animation? A person interested in watching hentai may watch it because he or she would also watch live action pornography but also enjoys the attractive artwork that real life lacks. But that same person may develop a greater desire to actally engage in (legal) intercourse after watching dirty videos (animated or not). I feel that interest leads directly to desire or potential desire can be fueled by a starting interest.
For example if a man who is convinced he is a heterosexual suddenly develops an interest in watching homosexual sex between men he may be shocked about it at first. But then if the interest recurrs he may make excuses such as "oh it's just another type of sex" or "I've been watching men and women go at it so long it's time for something different, it's not like I want to have sex with a man myself" I think the same thing can apply to loli especially if one person who convinces himself it is wrong or there's no real children involved. Fortunately though, making these reassurances to oneself is a good way to prevent oneself from committing illegal acts even if the desire to do them do eventually develop. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
daxomni
 Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||||||
Lolicon didn't just become the "in" taboo subject all on its own; self-acknowledged lolicon fans like yourself kept buying loli style content in large enough numbers to somehow initiate a mainstream shift. Now the lolicon content that was once exceedingly rare in anime has somehow become surprisingly pervasive. Some folks want to own it. Some folks want to ban it. I just want people who seek it out to be honest about their desires and intentions. I'll still back up your right to watch what you wish, but I won't protect your apparent desire to gloss over the fundamental motivations that brought about lolicon and made it into a rather shocking success.
Actually, Steve Berry was right on the money. Not only did you previously imply that even overtly childish physiques could be reasonably considered as adults, but you also conveniently left out the fact that you're already a self-avowed lolicon fan. Didn't you think that such an argument coming from someone who had previously admitted to fantasizing about characters they themselves considered as obviously loli was, at best, a bit disingenuous? Why do you choose to betray your honest feelings in a most unsolicited fashion elsewhere but still remain relatively defensive, vague, and opaque on here?
It is my honest belief that lolicon is an artistic representation of imaginary pedophilia. I know that term carries an extremely negative connotation with it here in the West and that your gut reaction is probably to dispute it out of hand, but that's really what is being represented. To deny this is to deny logic itself. Mindless Watcher spelled it out with a concise and neutral explanation and yet you still refused to acknowledge any of it and instead responded with yet another flippant retort. I honestly can't see how someone can be a serious lolicon fan without also being at least a bit pedophilic. You might be able to convince me that pedophiles can focus their desires on imaginary art alone and coexist in peace while living fully productive and rewarding lives without harming anyone, but to suggest that lolicon and pedophilia are not even the slightest bit related is just completely absurd to me. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
PantsGoblin
Subscriber Encyclopedia Editor Posts: 2969 Location: L.A. |
|
|||||||||
Is that the definition you made up or is that actually from some source? If you actually have a source for it, I'll admit I was wrong. If that was just something you made, my question still stands. The point of definitions are useless if you're just able to change them to whatever you feel fit.
Wait, what? Since when did this arguement involve me personally? I don't care if you call me a pedo or not, I'll fully admit to it. I was just arguing for the sake of arguing. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
omar235
Posts: 1572 Location: Florida, Jacksonvile |
|
|||||||||
|
Oh no no no, I didn't meant anything by it just that you made a comment about the fact he didn't give a definition on pedophilla and then he put the definition and I was just commenting saying "he got you there" since you can't argue with the actual definition. I am sorry for the misunderstanding
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
daxomni
Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||||||
Does that really say what I think it says? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
PantsGoblin
Subscriber Encyclopedia Editor Posts: 2969 Location: L.A. |
|
|||||||||
I've said it before, why do you have to point it out? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
daxomni
Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||||||
I can't remember ever seeing you post anything quite like that. Ever. On the one hand I'm relieved that you're apparently being honest about it but on the other hand I'm naturally still concerned. You probably don't want to hear it but I still hope you eventually manage to find someone IRL who can help fill the void you're currently trying to plug with lolicon. Your comments obviously drive me nuts sometimes, but I still wish you the best. Here's hoping you'll eventually become an accomplished English teacher and settle down with someone special somewhere in Japan. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
omar235
Posts: 1572 Location: Florida, Jacksonvile |
|
|||||||||
|
I thnk he mentioned it in a thread where you guys argued about loliconism. I don't think he means that he likes REAL little girls just that he watches anime with lolicon themes. Though even if it's not the case as long as he doesn't act on those feelings everything should be fine. One question though why would he live in Japan? And why a English teacher?
Last edited by omar235 on Wed Dec 13, 2006 9:59 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
selenta
Subscriber Posts: 1774 Location: Seattle, WA |
|
|||||||||
Here's the problem with that definition, the emotional/mental aspect of it. You're assuming that people are attracted solely to the physical features of younger girls and completely ignoring the mental aspects of the characters. A pedophile is socially defined as: "an adult who is sexually attracted to young children, particularly prepubescent and peripubescent children." If the girls just look younger, that simply isn't the requirements to be a pedophile. That person is thus someone attracted to the physical features of younger girls, but that alone is not what a 'pedophile' is. What if there was a 12 year old girl that looked like she was 20? Would that still be pedophilia? Of course it would. The girl doesn't have to look younger, she has to be younger. That is what is important. Although the person may have interests in both younger looking and younger aged characters, these are in fact seperate issues. There is lots of hentai devoted to each type, but interest in one does not actually mean interest in the other. You can try to claim that as a definition of a pedophile, but that is just like calling an orange a grapefruit; yes they're both fruits, but they're not the same fruit, you're just using the wrong term to describe something it is not. It may be equally 'evil' to you, but that is a different issue entirely, that simply is not what is a 'pedophile' is.
I want to applaud you for having what I feel to be the correct viewpoint, but the truth is, if you're not part of the crowd, you don't really know what their motivations and desires are. You think you know, but I would like to hear why you think you are an expert on other's true mindsets.
I fail to understand your logic here. If he is an avowed lolicon (and for the record, I too enjoy it on occasion, particularly the ephebophilia genre of high school girls), that would make his opinion something of an 'expert opinion' on the mindset of 'his people' (so to speak), wouldn't it? I don't want to get too deep on the idea of older characters looking younger than they are, but I must say that this idea in particular I am a big fan of. Whether or not you believe the ages are inflated for legal reasons and are merely an excuse to put underages characters in the hentai is irrelevant, it only matters what the people watching the hentai feel about it; and I for one think older more mature women who are physically younger to be quite attractive (best of both worlds so to speak). I don't think his opinion on this matter is disingenuous either. He is not denying the existance of lolicon in any way shape or form, just claiming that characters who look younger than they are is more believable and realistic than tentacle rape and monsters; are you disagreeing with this or something?
Indeed daxomni, you are logic itself. The very beacon to which all life should aspire to one day resemble. Seriously though, your 'logic' isn't as sound as you are claiming here. You're basing it on what you believe. As I've said before and I'll say again: explain to me how and why your outsider's opinion on a mindset is more knowledgable than the opinion of one within the group. I freely admit I cannot understand the mindset of a religious person, I am absolutely completely incapable of doing so, just as you are completely incapable of fully understanding the mindset of someone who watches lolicon hentai.
Likewise, though Azathraels do bug me a hell of a lot more. I do not think I can talk to him any more, I'm afraid I'd ethically have to beat the crap out of him if we ever met face to face. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Steve Berry
Posts: 522 Location: San Francisco Bay Area, CA |
|
|||||||||
|
Wait wait wait-- selenta, are you trying to suggest that the sexual appeal of watching lolicon isn't somehow tied to the fact that atleast one of the participants is underaged or looks underaged?? I agree that having sex with someone who is 12, but who looks 20 is statutory rape, but ... well, we're getting into that grey area called "definitions"-- to me, pedophilia is a state of mind where you knowingly are attracted to underaged children, and therefor have sex with them. Have sex with a 12 year old who, for whatever reason, you thought was 20 doesn't really qualify as "pedophilia". That person isn't attracted to that child because they look like a child, but because they look like a 20 year old-- they may be dumb, but I wouldn't call them a pedophile
I feel like we're mixing up some of the details of the arguements here. I think the basic point of daxomni's post was that lolicon achieves its sexual arousal by playing upon the taboo of pedophilia, whether or not the characters are "actually' underaged or not. The are meant to look like it. They're created that way. I thought the logic of daxonmi's post made a simple kind of sense. I also thought he did a pretty good job of not trying to judge, but just to try and say how he thought lolicon worked. Selenta, you obviously disagree with him, but you didn't actually give a retort. How is lolicon not an animated representation of having sex with an underaged person, or a person who looks underaged specifically to be arousing?? And how is that not playing upon the specific taboo of pedophilia?? As for the concept that only those who practice a belief can truly comment on the internal logic of it-- that just doesn't hold water for me. I could make just as good of an arguement about how believing something blinds you to it, and that therefore you can't really understand what it means to be involved in something unless you're from the outside-- otherwise you're biased. I'm not saying either arguement is very good-- but you were essentially trying to undercut daxonmi's rather level-headed post by saying he can't have any authority re: what lolicon is and how it works because he doesn't like lolicon. That's just not a very good retort. You didn't really give your own arguement. All you did was go on about how you define "pedophilia". |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
daxomni
Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||||||
I think he mentioned it in one of his forum posts or maybe it was one of his blog entries. Oh, and Selenta... This may sound a bit out of character for me, but I've actually had my fill of talking about lolicon today. At the moment I'm at peace with the world and I have other things to do. It looks like you have some thought provoking questions though so I'll see if I can give your post a good reply tomorrow. Until then... |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group