Should lolicon / shotacon be considered drawn child pornography?

[Georgio Cocklord]

"But they're not harming anybody" is the argument for consent based morality for the last half century that has intentionally devolved the populace into der coomer to begin with. You just end up in a cycle of tilting at everything degenerate that will never change for the better as long as you draw breath. Everyone in any sort of power abuses trafficked children on an industrial scale so making yourself miserable arguing about .jpgs of drawn pornography just sounds like a Sisyphean hell.

"Theyre not harming anybody" should be the official stance of the law but on an individual level ostracism and social exclusion must be enacted against such people. It is an inherently flawed argument, no argument isnt even my supposed mathematical model arguments but its a good enough argument for the law because it gives them a level of authority while also drawing solid actionable boundaries.

But they're fictional characters, everybody knows that already, it's automatic and goes without saying.

And yet people keep treating them like real people, and considering anybody who likes Loli the equivalent of a pedophile who is attracted to real children, and suggest that loli needs to be banned because pornographic works featuring the FICTIONAL CHARACTERS are just as bad and in fact the same as the pornographic works featuring real children, so this point needs to be reiterated and not taken as a given, because it isn't.

Lolicon and Shotacon related arguments cannot be tangible arguments because theres rarely tangible material evidence. On a fundamental level arguments against fictional child pornography and pedophilia in general have to be psychological arguments and take into factor possible actions/psychological states. You cannot debate such things based on materialism because it will set precedents for censorship outside set literal boundaries based on the contextualism and vagueness of the materialistic arguments, which is what happened to KF and the internet as a whole. From an objective law perspective fictional child pornography should be okay because theres no correct way to set a precedent to ban fictional child pornography without banning a lot of fiction which may contextually fit within that precedent but are outside the literal boundaries defined. With that said a lot of people subjectively know what is bad and what to look out for even if they cant articulate it objectively, many people have much better instincts than theyre given credit for and know how to spot red flag psychological patterns in others.

 

[skykiii]

Maybe not word for word, but the GTA argument is very common in loli debate, "you're not into killing because you play GTA any more than you are into kids for fapping to loli", which is a stretch to say the least.

What?! That was never my argument.

I'm quoting these back to back because I find it interesting that when you're the one talking, you get to put words in my mouth on the basis of "well I heard someone, somewhere, say that once, so that must be what you're saying too." But when its me, suddenly I have to be responding directly to you and no one else.

And in this case I actually didn't put words in your mouth. I pointed out that people in general have indeed been trying to make that case (they've couched it in more smartsy-sounding terms, but still). Plus, you can see posts to that effect just in the last two pages of this thread, which puts me on better standing than your appeal to "well, I heard it before at some point."

I was half joking about your poor reading comprehension before but now I'm serious.

Dude, my reading comprehension is in question?

My original statement was "media can't make you do something you wouldn't already."

Your response to this was.... to spend several pages trying to prove that only pedos fap to loli.

How are those related in any way, shape, or form?

It's not my comprehension that's the problem, its your tendency to mush barely-related things together in your mind.

When it's convenient for you, anyway:

And comparing loli to rock music, really? You can't see the difference?

They're both things people wanted banned because of morality and fears that they would infect people with Magical Brain Parasites that turn them evil.

See, at least I can explain a clear, concise, easy-to-pick-up-on similarity between these situations (and indeed I'm not the first person to pick up on these similarities).

Can you do just as good a job explaining why they're "different?"

So far, all I've heard (not just from you but from anyone) amounts to "I met creeps once and I think banning this will make them not exist" or else "I think its icky and icky things should be banned."

It's the 50's, not ancient history dude. C'mon.

The 80s and 90s are even more recent and yet a lot of our understanding of them is still wildly off base despite a lot of people from that period being actually alive right now. If they can't get those right, I don't trust them with anything older.

Who else is better at judging one's own happiness than one's own self?

........

... You can't seriously be this naive. The fickleness of human nature is so well-understood I'm pretty sure there's a line about it in the Bible.

And I don't have just songs, philosophers, or other sorts just mentioning this aspect of humanity, I have personal experience. I'm sure you do too--if you actually got your 1950s world, within five years you would be saying "man, the 2010s were glorious, I want it back."

Self-reports make sense in that case. Statistics may not be entirely trustworthy, but they shouldn't be dismissed out of hand unless there's a clear bias.

The problem I've always had with statistics is how they're gathered.

Like... imagine you go to a town of 1000 people, your research team only has three people and they have to go door-to-door asking people "do you believe in UFOs?"

There's no way this team can actually ask all 1000 people in a timely fashion. So if your paper comes out and it shows that 90% of people believe in UFOs, what do you assume? A) that they literally asked all 1000 people or B) that they just happened to hit a bunch of houses that had believers in them?

I choose B, since the methodology I described is exactly how most statistics are gathered... just on a larger scale, but still with small and under-staffed teams.

There doesn't have to be bias, the method itself is flawed.

 

[Mukhrani]

I hold the opinion that making it illegal under our current judicial system does open up a can of worms, but that everyone who watches should be extrajudicially executed while the rest of the population turns a blind eye. Lynching is the solution.

As an aside, this thread is one of my favorites because the autistic pretzels that people twist themselves into while trying to argue that they aren't pedos is amazing, it's like a little lolcow microhabitat. Imagine a bunch of dudes who not only furiously masturbate to bara porn, but also publically enthuse over it, form little groups of fellow bara enthusiasts, share it back and forth, and vociferously defend it from any attempts at regulation or censorship. They do all of this in public, then these same users will turn around and furiously argue for autistic paragraph after autistic paragraph that they are NOT in any way gay, that they would never fuck or even think sexually about a real man, and are exclusively attracted to drawn images of musclebound men taking it up the asshole. If you have a hint of suspicion that their habitual jerk-off sessions to drawn bodybuilders having graphic, bareback anal sex in any way influences their sexuality towards 'gay', you are literally Anita Sarkeesian and Phyllis Schlafly rolled into one, and believe in magical brain parasites.

This shit is comedy gold.

 

[gongwonkyeye]

Loli and Shota is pedo shit. People who are into that shit? Probably pedos. If not active child-rapists themselves, then they may be of that persuasion, and if they are of that persuasion, then they should be gassed.
hope that helps.

 

[skykiii]

Had your dumb ass never watched Sailor Moon? She tries to "have" him when she is turned into Black Lady

I know I already responded to this but during a phone call a friend of mine saw this and pointed out a missed opportunity on my part:

So what you're saying is she only becomes a daddy-fucker after she becomes a nigger.

 

[demicolon]

Jesus Christ in an adult daycare center, I forget about this thread for a year until someone pings me and I see it grow 8 pages in a week. @skykiii @SSj_Ness @The Demon Pimp of Razgriz where do you find time to write all this?

If looking at walls of text cracks you up as much as me, check out this post by @Secret Asshole that IMO answers the OP's question link

Here's a link to a post by Null (have mercy on the guy and don't bother him with this thread anymore please) which points out the other side of the coin link

I'd also like to mention that I used to browse random doujins on nhentai when I had a bout of insomnia, and the comment sections of the loli ones had residues of deleted comments posting, I assume, real child porn or links to questionable Discord channels. Other commenters were not amused, aside from that they mostly made jokes as often the stories were so ridiculous.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Now you are just being facetious.

I think it's a fair point though. If you were to draw Unown playing in a field, and someone perceived the monsters to be forming a sentence, who's correct? By your earlier logic, the author.

But I did in fact concede that it looked like an apple, and, barring anything else, would be a picture of an apple.

"Barring anything else"?

And yet people keep treating them like real people, and considering anybody who likes Loli the equivalent of a pedophile who is attracted to real children, and suggest that loli needs to be banned because pornographic works featuring the FICTIONAL CHARACTERS are just as bad and in fact the same as the pornographic works featuring real children, so this point needs to be reiterated and not taken as a given, because it isn't.

While loli is not "just as bad" as actual porn, how can you say its fans aren't attracted to real children? Those are two separate issues. Anyone saying it's just as bad is disingenuous at best, and honestly pretty sus at worst as it may be some kind of virtue signalling to hide skeletons on their closet.

But you need to explain how loli fans aren't attracted to real children, I'd say at the very least it's safe to assume the overlap is overwhelmingly high. To suggest otherwise you'd similarly need to explain how a man isn't a faggot for jacking off to gay hentai featuring males. Good luck with that one...

you get to put words in my mouth

Pardon me, I wasn't aware your own argument constituted such.

My original statement was "media can't make you do something you wouldn't already."

Such as what in this case then?

Can you do just as good a job explaining why they're "different?"

Yes. Rock is a genre of music, loli hentai is a genre of porn. Apples and oranges.

So far, all I've heard (not just from you but from anyone) amounts to "I met creeps once and I think banning this will make them not exist" or else "I think its icky and icky things should be banned."

What's wrong with that? Having norms & standards in society is our right. That's why public indecency is disallowed, it's why incest is disallowed. Why should we have to permit everything under the fucking sun?

The 80s and 90s are even more recent and yet a lot of our understanding of them is still wildly off base despite a lot of people from that period being actually alive right now. If they can't get those right, I don't trust them with anything older.

So you're telling me everything is unknowable and the past can't be recorded and analyzed? I disagree.

I'm sure you do too--if you actually got your 1950s world, within five years you would be saying "man, the 2010s were glorious, I want it back."

Literally the only thing that's improved that I'd miss is medical advancements, advanced forms of entertainment, and such. The culture was vastly superior and I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

There doesn't have to be bias, the method itself is flawed.

It may be imperfect but it doesn't mean it's worthless.

If looking at walls of text cracks you up as much as me, check out this post by @Secret Asshole that IMO answers the OP's question link

Here's a link to a post by Null (have mercy on the guy and don't bother him with this thread anymore please)

They both make good points, but I lean towards Null's argument, it's more simple; Occam's razor and all.

I'd also like to mention that I used to browse random doujins on nhentai when I had a bout of insomnia, and the comment sections of the loli ones had residues of deleted comments posting, I assume, real child porn or links to questionable Discord channels.

Combatting insomnia with loli hentai?

 

[demicolon]

Combatting insomnia with loli hentai?

It was either that, or chess.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It was either that, or chess.

Hey, chess is pretty fun,

 

[demicolon]

It was, but I got bored of it so loli hentai it is.

 

[Kerr Avon]

If looking at walls of text cracks you up as much as me, check out this post by @Secret Asshole that IMO answers the OP's question link

:interesting one to quote there

Lolicon itself is a separate paraphilia that falls under 'ageplay' and is an extension of adults pretending to be children with a sexual component. IMO, it does not fall under the pedophile agenda

 

[skykiii]

esus Christ in an adult daycare center, I forget about this thread for a year until someone pings me and I see it grow 8 pages in a week. @skykiii @SSj_Ness @The Demon Pimp of Razgriz where do you find time to write all this?

Early morning hours or times where I'm waiting on a PC to run a diagnostic thus can't actually DO anything else.

"Barring anything else"?

I probably shouldn't take up the baton for an argument Demon Pimp made, but let me use an example:

Is this

A) a picture of Iron Man's helmet?
B) Iron Man's disembodied head that happens to still have the helmet on?
C) a USB flash drive that happens to be modeled after Iron Man's head?

I think this is what Demon means by "barring anything else." Until I tell you where I found this image, A or B would be reasonable answers.

Such as what in this case then?

You know, I sometimes question the wisdom of this whole "responding to a post piecemeal" approach forum arguments always use. In this case the "such as what?" was explained in the post you're responding to (and in the posts before it) so why should I stop to explain it again when I explain it immediately after the quoted section?

Yes. Rock is a genre of music, loli hentai is a genre of porn. Apples and oranges.

Excuse me, apples to cherries.

Okay I feel sick having made that joke.

What's wrong with that? Having norms & standards in society is our right. That's why public indecency is disallowed, it's why incest is disallowed. Why should we have to permit everything under the fucking sun?

Ah, so making minor allowances is tantamount to "allowing everything under the fucking sun." I'm sure Jack Chick probably said something similar when people said there was nothing wrong with playing D&D.

So you're telling me everything is unknowable and the past can't be recorded and analyzed? I disagree.

Okay.

(Seriously not sure if there's even a meaningful response that can be made here, this comes down purely to personal philosophy).

Literally the only thing that's improved that I'd miss is medical advancements, advanced forms of entertainment, and such. The culture was vastly superior and I don't see how you can argue otherwise.

Honestly everything I've ever heard about the 1950s makes it sound like it would be hell to live in, or at best just boring and miserable.

Like, here's the thing I've never seen you bring up, because you talk about "the culture" a lot... but what would you do there? What would your day-to-day existence be?

Frankly though, I don't think you've ever actually explained (or I wasn't there to hear it) what's so great about the 1950s anyway, outside of vague gestures like "they wouldn't have gays or trannies!"?

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

While loli is not "just as bad" as actual porn, how can you say its fans aren't attracted to real children?

The problem is that the question you are asking "how can you say its fans aren't attracted to real children?" is one that fundamentally has no answer. I can't know that, because I can't know whether or not every single person who's ever been a fan of lolicon was not attracted to children. Its a fundamentally impossible thing to know. In the same vein, however, you can't say that every single fan of lolicon is in fact attracted to real life children. As I've brought up before, I've seen other people on the internet who are fans of lolicon or who read it who made clear that they absolutely despise real life pedophiles. When Twitter banned the Lolicon hashtag because real pedophiles were hiding under it, actual lolicons and supporters of the medium were happy that this happened because they were tired of and disgusted by the pedos who were using the tag to hide their interest in real children. Anecdotal evidence? Sure. But its enough to establish the point that interest in one does not indicate interest in the other. My argument isn't based on the idea that there has never, ever been a real life pedo into lolicon, only that an interest in lolis is not the same as interest in pedophilia, those who partake in the former are not necessarily interested in the latter. That is isn't the 1:1 situation that a lot of anti-loli people portray it as.

But you need to explain how loli fans aren't attracted to real children,

I've already explained this; sexual interest in cartoon characters is a completely separate paraphilia to sexual interest in real life children. Many people are explicitly attracted to the animated characters, as in the fact that they are animated, and the animated medium. There is a reason the whole "2D is better than 3D" meme exists. Because there are people who are absolutely attracted to animated characters over the real thing.

I'd say at the very least it's safe to assume the overlap is overwhelmingly high.

And all that is an assumption, made without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up. You are free to make that assumption, but that doesn't make it correct. And I'm free to disregard it as the assumption it is.

To suggest otherwise you'd similarly need to explain how a man isn't a faggot for jacking off to gay hentai featuring males.

Sure I'll take a crack at a it. In a lot of Yaoi porn, the male characters that are the subject to the sexual escapades of the work are especially effeminate, even crossdressing. They are, on the surface, indistinguishable from similarly cute female characters, with the exception of having a penis and balls. In most cases, these characters, who are the receiving sexual partner, act like women, talk like women, and are otherwise indistinguishable from their female hentai counterparts. The more masculine, male character, who is the penetrating partner, doesn't do anything outwardly gay, like perform fellatio on the other male, or even touch their penis. Thus, a lot of gay yaoi porn is very similar to normal straight porn. This is the basis behind the internet meme/rhetorical question "Are traps gay?" Its because these characters are "male" in story, but don't look like or act like any male you'd see in reality. And the character who is obviously male doesn't do anything obviously gay (anal sex can be had by anyone, in both heterosexual and homosexual sex). Thus someone reading such a work may not have any interest in "real men" but find themselves attracted to the fiction surrounding the character.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Is this

A) a picture of Iron Man's helmet?
B) Iron Man's disembodied head that happens to still have the helmet on?
C) a USB flash drive that happens to be modeled after Iron Man's head?

I think this is what Demon means by "barring anything else." Until I tell you where I found this image, A or B would be reasonable answers

Well, we can rule out what it's not. He had said that art is up to the author to dictate what it is, but regardless of which of the options you presented there that it is, we know it's not a cow, right? There's some things we can reasonably pin down, it's certainly Iron Man imagery regardless of what specifically it is.

In this case the "such as what?" was explained in the post you're responding to (and in the posts before it) so why should I stop to explain it again when I explain it immediately after the quoted section?

Just humor me then.

Excuse me, apples to cherries.

Ah, so making minor allowances is tantamount to "allowing everything under the fucking sun."

Everybody can claim everything is "minor", trannies act like it's genocide to not let them groom kids, so sometimes it doesn't matter what people say, society should just put its foot down.

It's a big world, trannies can go groom in another country, just like loli fappers can go to Japan for their fetish (not suggesting cartoon porn is anywhere near as bad as troons literally grooming, before anyone insinuates it).

Honestly everything I've ever heard about the 1950s makes it sound like it would be hell to live in, or at best just boring and miserable.

We're oversaturated with entertainment, contemporary people didn't think it was boring. But I know what you mean. Still, boredom aside, I can't possibly comprehend how you can suggest it'd be "hell", even as an exaggeration.

what would you do there? What would your day-to-day existence be?

You realize I said 1950, not 1850, right? They had movies and shit dude, it wasn't THAT different. It was just safer, saner, and more prosperous. Yeah, no video games or Internet but it's not a whole different world, man.

Frankly though, I don't think you've ever actually explained (or I wasn't there to hear it) what's so great about the 1950s anyway, outside of vague gestures like "they wouldn't have gays or trannies!"?

As above, it was safer and more prosperous too. You could live a good life with a normal job quite easily, and it was whiter, no surprise the crime rates were nowhere near the insanity we have today.

It was just overall more pleasant, an idealistic time. If you could magically take your entertainment you love so much back with you, why wouldn't you prefer it? Do you love the nigger worshipping culture and open border THAT much?

I can't know whether or not every single person who's ever been a fan of lolicon was not attracted to children.

Why does it need to be EVERY one? I already pointed out before that there's cases where plausible deniability exists, if someone fapping to Shin Chan or Lisa Simpson said they weren't attracted to actual kids then it's doubtful but possible. From there the closer you get to realistic depictions the more that deniability diminishes.

It's sort of like furries who say they're not attracted to animals. Somewhere down the line on the scale of animalistic features that becomes obvious bullshit.

Many people are explicitly attracted to the animated characters, as in the fact that they are animated, and the animated medium.

That may be a real thing but what's being depicted is important, it's rooted in some interest in the subject the animation is based off of. That's why nobody faps to paintings of barren landscapes, there may be one guy doing it but the incredibly overwhelming majority are fapping to living (or, disgustingly, dead) beings, not the ground or a river.

So, to suggest it's just the drawing itself is obviously not completely true, the subject being depicted matters, you cannot divorce it from the issue.

And all that is an assumption, made without a shred of scientific evidence to back it up.

Scientific evidence? It's logic and reason, you don't need some egghead in a lab coat to tell you the nature of reality when you have your own discernment. Of you can't observe reality and draw basic, common sense conclusions without deferring to a 3rd party to outsource your thinking to then you're lost. That's how liberals think, The Science™ tells them men are women and so that's that.

If you jack off to an accurate drawing of your mother, you're attracted to her. I don't need any scientific studies to deduce what's self-evident, and neither do you.

In a lot of Yaoi porn, the male characters that are the subject to the sexual escapades of the work are especially effeminate, even crossdressing. They are, on the surface, indistinguishable from similarly cute female characters, with the exception of having a penis and balls.

That's a pretty big damn exception. It's like how I'm a millionaire except in Zimbabwe's currency lol.

This is the basis behind the internet meme/rhetorical question "Are traps gay?"

Right, and as an aside they clearly are, but you're focusing on feminine males. What if a dude is fapping to two burly dudebros having all kinds of extremely faggy sex? Any semblance of ambiguity is out the window. In fact, I'd say it's even more clear-cut than loli, because at least age is somewhat ambiguous by nature even in real life, let alone art, but anatomy is strict outside of intersex or such.

When you have an obvious man, obvious child, or obvious cat being depicted, and you fap to these things, well, it speaks for itself. If you introduce ambiguity in some form then there's an argument to be made.

 

[Neurotypical Mantis]

@skykiii @SSj_Ness @The Demon Pimp of Razgriz where do you find time to write all this?

unemployment

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Why does it need to be EVERY one? I already pointed out before that there's cases where plausible deniability exists, if someone fapping to Shin Chan or Lisa Simpson said they weren't attracted to actual kids then it's doubtful but possible. From there the closer you get to realistic depictions the more that deniability diminishes.

It's sort of like furries who say they're not attracted to animals. Somewhere down the line on the scale of animalistic features that becomes obvious bullshit.

Harping on this is pointless. The fact is, continuing to dwell on unknowables gets nobody anywhere. The point is, it is certain that not every who looks at lolicon is a pedophile. Hell, lets not beat around the bush, most people who look at lolicon don't care for kids. These are simply two different paraphilias.

That may be a real thing but what's being depicted is important, it's rooted in some interest in the subject the animation is based off of. That's why nobody faps to paintings of barren landscapes, there may be one guy doing it but the incredibly overwhelming majority are fapping to living (or, disgustingly, dead) beings, not the ground or a river.

So, to suggest it's just the drawing itself is obviously not completely true, the subject being depicted matters, you cannot divorce it from the issue.

The point is that its a drawing, regardless of what's being depicted. And part of the appeal for those who get off to it is the fact that its a drawing in the first place. Yes, not everybody will get off to a drawing of everything. That's just called taste. But getting off to artwork is already a niche fetish to begin with.

As for pedophiles and what they actually get off to, the @Secret Asshole post linked to above (I'll link it again here) really should be read to understand that subject. The fact is, pedophiles, real pedophiles, are looking for something that they won't get in the animated version. Lolis and Shotas aren't children. This isn't just because they are fictional. Even in the fictional context, lolis and shotas, often times, don't even act like real world children, even if they are meant to be that age. Pedophiles desire to distort and destroy innocence, which a loli or shota will never possess on account of not being real. Lolicon and shotacon will never really appeal to them, and Secret Asshole really delves into why that's the case. What pedophiles fundamentally desire is not something that anybody else, lolicons and shotacons included, really desire.

It's logic and reason, you don't need some egghead in a lab coat to tell you the nature of reality when you have your own discernment.

People can "logic" their ways into all kinds of amazing bullshit; when the chips are down, all that matters is what can objectively be proven. You assume that anybody, hell, very well everybody, who looks at lolicon is automatically a pedophile in real life. This is a conclusion reached without evidence, therefore can be dismissed without evidence. I've mentioned anecdotal evidence, that I witnessed firsthand, that at least makes this fallacious, or even outright untrue. You've offered nothing to substantiate your view other than "logic and reason", when those are not an objective basis for anything.

Right, and as an aside they clearly are, but you're focusing on feminine males.

The point was to illustrate a situation whereby a man would potentially masturbate to yaoi porn and yet not feel any attraction at all for real men. You placed no stipulations on the type of characters or porn. You merely asked for me to argue how that would be possible. I did.

Any semblance of ambiguity is out the window.

The ambiguity is in the femininity of the character. Its not as ambiguous, nor is it meant to be, as loli/sho, unless you are dealing with a genderswap porn where the whole point is that one or both characters have swapped genders, thus you can have a story with a woman in a man's body, acting feminine, dressing feminine, and having sex as the penetrative partner, while still being in a male body.

The whole point is to illustrate that there is a detachment between the attraction one would find for an anime character and the attraction one would have towards a real life person. It doesn't even have to be such a drastic example. Maybe in real life, you don't like women with darker skin, but you find anime characters with darker skin attractive. Maybe you don't like pudgy women in real life, but you like them in hentai. Attraction in the animated realm is not a 1:1 correlation with real life. You absolutely can find that somethings turn you on in animation or illustration that wouldn't remotely turn you on in real life.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The point was to illustrate a situation whereby a man would potentially masturbate to yaoi porn and yet not feel any attraction at all for real men.

And I'd still say you didn't succeed because your exception was very large one, no pun intended. Having a penis and balls is a dealbreaker for any straight man, by definition.

The point is, it is certain that not every who looks at lolicon is a pedophile.

I basically carved out some possible exceptions, but that doesn't mean the majority aren't. Just as you might be able to try to form some argument about femboys being an exception to faggotry (which I'd heartily disagree with), that small exception doesn't detract from the rest; fapping to gay hentai makes someone a fag, broadly speaking.

Pedophiles desire to distort and destroy innocence, which a loli or shota will never possess on account of not being real.

There's not one who doesn't desire that and is only attracted to them physically? That seems like a copout.

People can "logic" their ways into all kinds of amazing bullshit

That's faulty logic and poor reasoning, I'm sure trannies did "logic" their way into transgenderism but the truth remains, regardless of what "science" says.

Maybe in real life, you don't like women with darker skin, but you find anime characters with darker skin attractive. Maybe you don't like pudgy women in real life, but you like them in hentai. Attraction in the animated realm is not a 1:1 correlation with real life.

This is true but only to an extent. I'm not particularly into cartoons but some anime girls are cute, even types I wouldn't think are in real life, like tall women. Though that broadening of appeal can only go so far, for example I could never find a male character attractive.

If I start fapping to Broly then I'm a total fag and that's all there is to it, even if he doesn't look remotely realistic, so how much faggier would someone be fapping to an even more realistic looking man? Hell, you might even be able to make the argument that Broly is even gayer to fap to as he exaggerates masculine traits. There's no way around it, that's gay.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

And I'd still say you didn't succeed because your exception was very large one, no pun intended. Having a penis and balls is a dealbreaker for any straight man, by definition.

What you seem to be unable to grasp, is that there is fundamental difference in how attraction works compared to real life and between animated figures. And even if we just stuck to real life, many self-identified "straight" men have had sexual experiences with other men. This is why the terminology "men who have sex with men" exists. Its refers to a larger class of men who have or have had sexual relations with other men who don't consider themselves homosexual or even bisexual. Human sexuality is complicated, in other words, and can be very flexible.

I basically carved out some possible exceptions, but that doesn't mean the majority aren't.

Once again, you weakly hedge bets. If the majority aren't exceptions, then PROVE IT. You are making the claim. Back it up. You can say all day that "more than like, quite possibly, based on my particular logic" most lolicons are pedophiles, but till you actually back it up with something beyond your gut feelings, it literally means nothing.

fapping to gay hentai makes someone a fag, broadly speaking.

And once again, you are free to hold that opinion, but it will always remain just your opinion.

That's faulty logic and poor reasoning, I'm sure trannies did "logic" their way into transgenderism but the truth remains, regardless of what "science" says.

All logic is, at the end of the day, is a human being's attempts to rationalize his surroundings, usually, but not always, on some objective basis. Your "logic" isn't based on any objective basis or analysis, but just your feelings regarding the subject. Its "logic" in a sense, but isn't good logic. It makes sense to you on a visceral, emotional level, but there is no real truth in it. No greater knowledge justifies you coming to that conclusion.

Though that broadening of appeal can only go so far, for example I could never find a male character attractive.

And that's just a matter of your personal taste. Even if you did find anime men attractive, that wouldn't make you gay by real world standards unless you actually preferred real world men.

If I start fapping to Broly then I'm a total fag and that's all there is to it, even if he doesn't look remotely realistic, so how much faggier would someone be fapping to an even more realistic looking man? Hell, you might even be able to make the argument that Broly is even gayer to fap to as he exaggerates masculine traits. There's no way around it, that's gay.

A completely heterosexual man probably would find it harder to masturbate to someone like Broly. That same man may actually find himself attracted to, say, Astolfo. There are degrees of how this works. But once again, its less a matter of hard defined limits of hetero or homo sexuality, and more on varying levels of preference.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

Its refers to a larger class of men who have or have had sexual relations with other men who don't consider themselves homosexual or even bisexual.

Self-identity stuff is straight out of the liberal playbook. Male on male sex is gay, regardless of what they consider themselves, they're gay. They could split hairs and say they're bi, but that's just a fag who also fucks chicks.

till you actually back it up with something beyond your gut feelings, it literally means nothing.

I suppose you want me to back up that men who have sex with other men is gay too? I'll next back up that the sky is blue.

And once again, you are free to hold that opinion, but it will always remain just your opinion.

It's just an acknowledgement of objective reality as opposed to the denial of it.

No greater knowledge justifies you coming to that conclusion.

To which conclusion? Hopefully you're not shifting to tranny defense.

Even if you did find anime men attractive, that wouldn't make you gay by real world standards unless you actually preferred real world men.

How would I not be just because the man doesn't exist? I'd be attracted to the spitting image of masculinity, merely an intangible depiction of such.

This is absurd on its face, but I suppose the lack of peer-reviewed studies on men being attracted to cartoon men being gay nullifies that self-evident fact.

Commission a photorealistic image of your mother and tell her you find it attractive, but explain to her that you don't find her attractive, just the image which accurately reflects her. I'm sure it'll go over well and she'll believe there's no component of incestuous attraction at play. If she asserts that there is just ask her to cite a study and tell her that it's just her opinion.

A completely heterosexual man probably would find it harder to masturbate to someone like Broly. That same man may actually find himself attracted to, say, Astolfo.

I Googled that character, and Astolfo is just your typical anime waifu. They quite literally just drew a female character and referred to it as male. A straight dude could be attracted to Astolfo but that would cease to be the case if the character's genitals were depicted, then it's essentially a tranny/intersex character, not a woman.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

Self-identity stuff is straight out of the liberal playbook. Male on male sex is gay, regardless of what they consider themselves, they're gay. They could split hairs and say they're bi, but that's just a fag who also fucks chicks.

Apparently you've never heard of sexual experimentation. Ironically, most gays would agree with your sentiment; they are sexual identity absolutists, to the point they generally despise men who even say their bisexuals, believing they are just gays in denial. So, you and the gays have a lot in common.

I suppose you want me to back up that men who have sex with other men is gay too? I'll next back up that the sky is blue.

If you make fantastical claims, the onus is on you to back it up, period.

It's just an acknowledgement of objective reality as opposed to the denial of it.

The only thing that's "objective" is what can be proven and demonstrated scientifically. If you can't do that, then its not really objective reality.

To which conclusion?

Go back and read everything you wrote, won't be hard to figure out.

How would I not be just because the man doesn't exist? I'd be attracted to the spitting image of masculinity, merely an intangible depiction of such.

And what of the girly men? The traps? Are they the "splitting image of masculinity"?

Commission a photorealistic image of your mother and tell her you find it attractive, but explain to her that you don't find her attractive, just the image which accurately reflects her.

Why do you keep harping on "photorealism"? You've done this for awhile now, and I don't know why. Is it because your point is only really strong when we talk about photorealism? Because this thread is about lolicon and shotacon. You know, manga and anime characters? I consider photorealism a completely different discussion from characters that are obvious cartoons. You want to talk about photorealism, start a new thread and talk about it. We are not talking about that here.

I Googled that character, and Astolfo is just your typical anime waifu. They quite literally just drew a female character and referred to it as male. A straight dude could be attracted to Astolfo but that would cease to be the case if the character's genitals were depicted, then it's essentially a tranny/intersex character, not a woman.

The fact is that Astolfo is A MAN, and is actively referred to as such, and refers to himself as such, throughout Fate: Grand Order. There is no ambiguity regarding his sex. He's a man who's so feminine he looks like a girl. AKA, he's a trap. Yes, he literally looks like a female character. That's the point. This is something that's only really achievable in animated/illustrated medium. Even the best passing crossdressing man in real life isn't that freaking good. Its why I say trying to compare real life attraction to attraction regarding cartoon characters is kind of stupid. Its not really a comparable situation to real life.