Why do we put so much stock into loli/underaged characters as a direct link to being a pedo?

[Luke-Warm Tampon Tea]

The law does rely on trusting your gut though. That's how a jury decides these obscenity cases at the end of the day.

No it isn't. There are set criteria that have to be met for something to be found obscene.

https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-is-obscenity/#:~:text=Obscenity%20is%20a%20narrow%20category,a%20patently%20offensive%20way%2C%20sexual

It has to meet all the criteria. The jury doesn't just get to "trust their gut" lmao.

 

[Ealen]

drawn sex media, however, is one step beyond - through the proper use of artistic technique, it can activate the same pattern matching components in your brain that cause visual stimulation, while also bending the rules of reality, opening possibilities for a level of mental stimulation not achievable by simple photographs or recordings.

I remember hearing the Alt Hype (a notorious animephile) talking about how hentai is more stimulating than regular porn and his theory is that since it lacks detail, the imperfections present in a real human being don't appear. So by drawing porn, artists can make a subject of the piece that is essentially perfect in that they lack the minute details that people find subconsciously off-putting. I see this as dangerous because coomers regularly talk about how they are no longer attracted to physical human beings and nothing gets them off except for drawn pornography. I would bet good money there is a significant number of people in DeviantArt or Twitter NSFW communities that have gone down this path and found themselves in a situation where the only thing that gets the job done is lolicon.

 

[WelperHelper99]

No it isn't. There are set criteria that have to be met for something to be found obscene.

https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-is-obscenity/#:~:text=Obscenity%20is%20a%20narrow%20category,a%20patently%20offensive%20way%2C%20sexual

It has to meet all the criteria. The jury doesn't just get to "trust their gut" lmao.

Now tell me this: do you suck cock?

 

[The Rats in the Walls]

What the fuck are you raving on about with all the semantics.
For the record, DSM is far from perfect but that's the framework we have.


Read niggers, read, page 697 bottom (742 of the whole pdf) DSM-5.
I'm mati, fuck you

 

[lautaro]

No it isn't. There are set criteria that have to be met for something to be found obscene.

https://uwm.edu/free-speech-rights-responsibilities/faqs/what-is-obscenity/#:~:text=Obscenity%20is%20a%20narrow%20category,a%20patently%20offensive%20way%2C%20sexual

It has to meet all the criteria. The jury doesn't just get to "trust their gut" lmao.

Sounds very vague.

"(a) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest"

How do they know this, do they take a sample of the population and ask them what do they think?

"(b) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;"

There are no laws about "sex with drawings", so it cannot describe any kind of sex legally described. Where is "drawn penis being inserted on a drawn bodyhole" defined?

"and (c) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

According to whom, who is to say what kind of drawing has artistic value or not?

 

[WelperHelper99]

Sounds very vague.

"(a) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest"

How do they know this, do they take a sample of the population and ask them what do they think?

"(b) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;"

There are no laws about "sex with drawings", so it cannot describe any kind of sex legally described. Where is "drawn penis being inserted on a drawn bodyhole" defined?

"and (c) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

According to whom, who is to say what kind of drawing has artistic value or not?

It sounds to me the criteria is literally "trust your gut". As I stated.

 

[Luke-Warm Tampon Tea]

It sounds to me the criteria is literally "trust your gut". As I stated.

No because if you put 12 fundamentalist Christians on the jury who were extremely offended by genitalia, they'd have to still evaluate the material to the best of their ability off of what what a reasonable member of their community would think. They don't get to trust their guts and if they do just trust their gut they're opening up valid avenues for appeal since any lawyer could make the argument that they didn't evaluate the material according to what a reasonable member of the community would think

That's why the Miller Test uses the word "community" instead of "nation" because what may or may not be offensive to a reasonable person can vary from place to place.

 

[WelperHelper99]

No because if you put 12 fundamentalist Christians on the jury who were extremely offended by genitalia, they'd have to still evaluate the material to the best of their ability off of what what a reasonable member of their community would think. They don't get to trust their guts and if they do just trust their gut they're opening up valid avenues for appeal since any lawyer could make the argument that they didn't evaluate the material according to what a reasonable member of the community would think

FAGGOT EDIT:That's why the Miller Test uses the word "community" instead of "nation" because what may or may not be offensive to a reasonable person can vary from place to place.

You're a fucking retard that edits his posts. Actual smooth brain. Also got my answer if you suck dick. Sure can't get the fuck off mine.

 

[Luke-Warm Tampon Tea]

View attachment 5741622
You're a fucking retard that edits his posts. Actual smooth brain. Also got my answer if you suck dick. Sure can't get the fuck off mine.

You're just mad because I googled your pedophile visual novels that you won't stop defending, pervert.

 

[WelperHelper99]

You're just mad because I googled your pedophile visual novels that you won't stop defending, pervert.

Holy shit you give good head. Did you learn the secret techniques from your mother? She was good but not as good as you.

 

[Retard of the Month]

I think there's a semantic issue here. In english 'pedophile' is used to denote those that merely wank to children (and want to fuck them) and those who straight up fuck them. Anybody who enjoys loli/cub porn/shota whatever is a pedophile in the first sense of the word and so deserves to be shunned and separated from children, however, they really shouldn't be treated like the second kind of pedophile for the same reasons crime thoughts are BS, nobody should be arrested from having a propensity to commit crimes.

Pedophilia is too great of a sin to let even those with a hint of sexual attraction towards children to live. We don't prosecute people for wanting to murder someone else because every human being on this earth has some amount of bloodlust and a desire to kill.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It's primarily intent. Imagine if you will playing GTA and littering the ground with bodies of NPC's that's not really art by any metric. Now if I drew a depiction of say CJ or any other protag littering the ground with bodies, that could be art despite being obscene and a similar concept to what I did in game

GTA is pretty cartoony, so I don't think it is particularly obscene by modern standards in either case.

I'll agree with the notion but I would be weary, some Japanese mangaka purposely make underage characters look more mature to try to leverage the idea it's ok to sexualize young girls as long as they are well developed, and I think that's a path down the slippery slope nobody should encourage at all.

I'm not sure they're necessarily trying to promote any ideas so much as just being perverts, catering to perverts. But yeah, none of that should be encouraged. In the end I'm much more focused on problematic design than canon though.

In regards to your Yugioh analogy, I don't think it's really that good tbh:

The reason is Yugioh has many spin offs that don't even play like the real card game: IE: Duelist of the Roses. Even the ones that do are based on either old formats or ignore specific rules of how Yugioh was played to actually make a similar concept. (Forbidden Memories)

I should have clarified I meant the standard play format games, not including stuff like spinoffs (which I felt was obvious), just the ones which were contemporary with the card game (they were releasing annual games like a sports series at one point).

So say if you had Yugioh 2007 (which to my knowledge did not ignore any rules or anything), and enjoyed it in 2007, you would've almost certainly enjoyed the real Yugioh card game in 2007 too, correct? There's hardly a way to dispute that the overlap in interest is enormous.

You misread what I said, I was not stating it didn't exist, I was stating that Anya hentai is not as morally corrupt as Yoko hentai.

I guess I did then, but... What the fuck? I hope you are accidentally mixing those names up.

What you're implying is that the age of the character does not matter, only their appearance.

No, I'm saying it's secondary, and by a long shot. If you have a character who is visually 80, but canonically 8, nobody is going to care nearly as much if you fap to your 80 8 year old waifu.

Now if you reverse that, that's when there's a much bigger problem, your 9000 year old succubus is 9 and it doesn't really matter to people even if you insist she's not actually 9 or even human. How can you artistically justify that in a pornographic context?

You're literally saying it's okay to nut to child porn, as long as the "child" looks adult.

That logic wouldn't fly outside of hentai, but if the cartoon character is indistinguishable in terms of design from adult characters, it's literally just an adult for all intents and purposes.

If I show somebody who likes hentai but is unfamiliar with Dragon Ball some Bulma hentai, just a still image of her masturbating, they would not consider the canon which they're ignorant of, they'd only evaluate her adult appearance.

The notion you have to ID a fictional character is absurd, in 90% of cases you know an adult character when you see one. The 10% that's ambiguous can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. When it's undebatably a child, what justification do you have beyond "it ain't real"? It's still obscene, show it to random people and see their thoughts on it; you will find by modern community standards it's obscene.

Why in the world would we only judge fictional characters this way when we hold real people to the standard age of consent of 18?

Because we can separate fiction and reality? That doesn't absolve said fiction of obscenity but it does mean we judge it differently.

So if you were ever aroused by Dragonball Bulma, Yoko Littner, or basically any highschooler anime girl, face the wall.

What if Toriyama changes her canon age right as the bullet passes through my skull, are you going to prison for murder? This is retarded

(As for the times anime sexualizes pre-teens? .... Honestly for me the possibility its just adult pedos is less creepy than the idea they're trying to make porn for kids).

It's not porn, but I do remember the Pokemon staff saying they included girls as "eye candy" for the boys who watched it, which is a pretty creepy concept in several ways for an old man to think up lol

We don't prosecute people for wanting to murder someone else because every human being on this earth has some amount of bloodlust and a desire to kill.

Calm down, Shadow the Edgehog.

 

[PermaLurker69]

Sounds very vague.

"(a) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest"

How do they know this, do they take a sample of the population and ask them what do they think?

"(b) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law;"

There are no laws about "sex with drawings", so it cannot describe any kind of sex legally described. Where is "drawn penis being inserted on a drawn bodyhole" defined?

"and (c) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."

According to whom, who is to say what kind of drawing has artistic value or not?

Okay, why you think we need a NSFW label?

Something can be art and still be nsfw, thereby the capacity by which it can be expressed. You have no legal recourse if you are looking or showing nsfw art when in a public area. Beyond that, there are things straight up banned that even if its art. I can't just share bomb making instructions even if I put a cool phonk edit even if it is peak art.

As stated before, you can get in trouble for having obscene images even if it is art either in certain settings or in totality. Just because something is art doesn't make it not obscene and asming what is obscene and what isn't obscene is retarted.

In the thread, you have to argue why drawings of children being sexually explicit isn't obscene and somehow just fine to freely express. Arguing about what is obscene or not is like arguing for the NSFW label to just not exist at all as long as its called art. What is and isn't obscene is pretty well established and closing one's eyes to that fact doesn't really change the pretty established criteria for what is obscene.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

. I see this as dangerous because coomers regularly talk about how they are no longer attracted to physical human beings and nothing gets them off except for drawn pornography. I would bet good money there is a significant number of people in DeviantArt or Twitter NSFW communities that have gone down this path and found themselves in a situation where the only thing that gets the job done is lolicon.

I mean there are examples from porn that does this or causes this same behavior, some people can't handle people with any physical imperfections due to general porn/being a coomer. IIRC Nymphos are more at risk of doing risky sexual behaivor and taboo sexual behaviors then the kind of people you mention however.

GTA is pretty cartoony, so I don't think it is particularly obscene by modern standards in either case.

Fair, but I'm meaning to a general normie audience in what pertains as art. Compared to say a drawing of a flower or Mona Lisa, it'd obviously be considered more obscene.

I'm not sure they're necessarily trying to promote any ideas so much as just being perverts, catering to perverts. But yeah, none of that should be encouraged. In the end I'm much more focused on problematic design than canon though.

Some I agree are just doing general marketing however some mangaka have come out as pedophiles and the implications go deeper than that with some of their works. Not all. Easy example is Ruruonin Kenshin's creator, he's an example of just making a standard manga and general marketing compared to pushing further degenerate ideas.

I should have clarified I meant the standard play format games, not including stuff like spinoffs (which I felt was obvious), just the ones which were contemporary with the card game (they were releasing annual games like a sports series at one point).

No it's obvious I just feel if you want to run that comparison I'd recommend saying people who watch something like Yugi-tubers as those people are definitely pushing people even non-Yugioh players (MTG players/etc.) to play and the only reason to watch well would be interest in the direct card game. Just a personal nitpick at best to why I disagree with it or something I believe is more solid and applicable to what you're getting at.

 

[WelperHelper99]

Some I agree are just doing general marketing however some mangaka have come out as pedophiles and the implications go deeper than that with some of their works. Not all. Easy example is Ruruonin Kenshin's creator, he's an example of just making a standard manga and general marketing compared to pushing further degenerate ideas.

The Ruruonin Kenshin guy was beyond disappointing. The manga/anime/movies are apparently pretty good. The guy behind it is actually Satan, got caught with child porn. Actual magazines, because that shit was legal until very recently. So he was a terrible person for a very long time. In the end he got a slap on the wrist because he's fucking rich and famous. Tough Japanese justice system my ass.

 

[r9k-speaks]

Thee Ruruonin Kenshin guy was beyond disappointing. The manga/anime/movies are apparently pretty good. The guy behind it is actually Satan,

Satan was caught with child porn? Like doesn't he have like superpowers and shit? How could he even be caught?

 

[Enig]

 

[skykiii]

One problem with this idea, anime is made by adults.

... so? A lot of clothing meant for American adults is made by Chinese sweatshop kids too. What's your point?

The reason it is sexualized regardless of age of characters is because of standard selling practice. sexualization sells. Blame it on consumerism.

Yeah, that's literally what I was saying. Teens are the horniest fucks on the planet because its literally when human hormones are at their strongest, so catering to their desires is sure to get some coom bucks.

Marketing isn't about morals merely what grants the largest amount of money. You can see this even in gaming such as Metroid. When Samus was revealed she wasn't just shown as a woman but in a skimpy pixelated outfit for obvious reasons. Comics, and more.

I always find it ridiculous when people bring up the Samus example. Sure she's sexualized now, but I'm having a hard time believing that this was the idea in 1986. Especially considering the documentation hid the fact that Samus was a woman and her being one was a shock reveal.

Here's an idea.... the NES (or FGS, whatever) had very low-res graphics and they wanted to have their shock reveal while not betraying their serious sci-fi aesthetic... and her wearing a swimsuit under that space armor makes more sense than her wearing a frilly pink dress.

..... Actually, its around here that I finally start to realize what bugs me about these discussions. It's that they remind me of the TV Tropes forums, where the nitwits there also would argue that every stupid thing was actually about sex even if that made no fucking sense whatsoever and there were alternatives that actually fit the facts and reality a lot better. And that's kinda sad. I think I'm insulated from this stuff cuz I was born in the eighties and have a good memory of when people didn't immediately think everything was about getting dicks hard, but modern people don't have a frame of reference for thinking any other way.

As mentioned a second ago the audience isn't creating the desired girls, and the adults who are are basically just novelizing them, it's not in any means intended to sell hot girls to teens. Otherwise they'd make them more realistic to actual teen girls instead of being aliens, and other such non-human concepts, are they peddaling furries/etc. to teens? The obvious answer is no, it'll just sell because sex sells.

........ Dude, re-read this paragraph. You're contradicting yourself.

It's not meant to sell hot girls to teens.... but it happens because sex sells....

And if they wanted to sell girls to teens they would make the girls realistic instead of idealized fantasy waifus.....

Just wut?

That's like saying Mario Kart isn't a racing game because you don't have to gear shift and real racing doesn't give you powerups.

 

[Mewtwo_Rain]

... so? A lot of clothing meant for American adults is made by Chinese sweatshop kids too. What's your point?

Merely it is not directed just towards teens, it's a general audience thing. Sex sells regardless of teen or older and even younger designs are built on at least "cutesy" aesthetics instead of having ugly characters. I know I'm getting ahead of the quotes, but it's not just about sex but being "appealing" which isn't necessarily about sex but at least looking good or being eye catching. Also why most everything tries to be vibrant instead of dreary colors. * Unless it fits a dreary theme: Zombie based games often use dreary settings/colors.

Yeah, that's literally what I was saying. Teens are the horniest fucks on the planet because its literally when human hormones are at their strongest, so catering to their desires is sure to get some coom bucks.

I understand but the appeal is meant to target EVERY audience to mass produce not just tolimit it to one group. Again, I'll reference the furries, Yokai, etc. In any anime. They're doing it because it appeals to general audiences even if it's aimed at younger or older (mature) audiences. That is all.

I always find it ridiculous when people bring up the Samus example. Sure she's sexualized now, but I'm having a hard time believing that this was the idea in 1986. Especially considering the documentation hid the fact that Samus was a woman and her being one was a shock reveal.

It's not that it was instantly sexualization of some major magnitude, but it was obvious to make her a appealing (sexually) lady.

Here's an idea.... the NES (or FGS, whatever) had very low-res graphics and they wanted to have their shock reveal while not betraying their serious sci-fi aesthetic... and her wearing a swimsuit under that space armor makes more sense than her wearing a frilly pink dress.

They could have easily just had her take off her helmet in low res and that be it, but that's not what they did now is it? Often actions taken by directors and producers are for additional effect. Maybe it was intentional it's not hard to fathom just because you don't wish to believe that were the case.

..... Actually, its around here that I finally start to realize what bugs me about these discussions. It's that they remind me of the TV Tropes forums, where the nitwits there also would argue that every stupid thing was actually about sex even if that made no fucking sense whatsoever and there were alternatives that actually fit the facts and reality a lot better. And that's kinda sad. I think I'm insulated from this stuff cuz I was born in the eighties and have a good memory of when people didn't immediately think everything was about getting dicks hard, but modern people don't have a frame of reference for thinking any other way.

I'm not trying to imply it's about getting a dick hard. Even non-appealing (less attractive characters) in series are about trying to appeal. Let's use Pokemon, most female trainers are not meant to sexually appeal, but their designs are meant to stand out or draw positive reaction (appeal) to those gazing on the trainer in question. Karate men kind of resemble a hardened warrior power fantasy perhaps, or even characters of the time like Ryu.

Sure, I probably should have made the distinction between sex and "appealing" types, because it isn't directly the same but the concept of why they use appealing designs works in similar fashion.

........ Dude, re-read this paragraph. You're contradicting yourself.

It's not meant to sell hot girls to teens.... but it happens because sex sells....

To general audiences. Again I'll preface by saying I was intending to mean "appealing" not just literal sexual characters. Again reference Pokemon and say Bug catchers who look like normal boys with bug catching equipment instead of lame nerds, even the scientist who look "nerdy" don't have pimples and other facial issues they look like random teen guys with glasses on instead of geek squad lameos.

And if they wanted to sell girls to teens they would make the girls realistic instead of idealized fantasy waifus.....

Just wut?

Compare Sailor Moon to say Dragon Maid. Compare say Rei from NGE to say PGS from TEnchi Muyo. One is a fantasy but realistic view of a teen girl or woman that would appeal to teen men compared to the other on average, right?

That's like saying Mario Kart isn't a racing game because you don't have to gear shift and real racing doesn't give you powerups.

That analogy doesn't make any sense to what I said. The adults making anime novelize a character to a trope or archtype to appeal to general audiences to sell and make bank. Whether it's sexual, whether it's general appealing or even vibrant designs (Kirby fits here), one thing you're forgetting is that there is competition. If two series sell or compete for sales chart toppings the one with better quality designs (based off the aforemention concepts) will generally sell better and for good reason. Thus they make the purpose of making the series appealing in plot (not always important to all games), music, visuals (appealing designs/backgrounds) and whatnot.

The adults making these appealing characters are projecting what they believe to be desirable to teens, that doesn't mean what they believe to be desirable actually is. Its why I highlighted adults are making these series, not the teens themselves. This is also why many games/etc. try to showcase their game/etc. to a feedback group to further improve or sell to the intended audience to get it "right." That was merely all I was saying.

 

[WelperHelper99]

That analogy doesn't make any sense to what I said. The adults making anime novelize a character to a trope or archtype to appeal to general audiences to sell and make bank. Whether it's sexual, whether it's general appealing or even vibrant designs (Kirby fits here), one thing you're forgetting is that there is competition. If two series sell or compete for sales chart toppings the one with better quality designs (based off the aforemention concepts) will generally sell better and for good reason. Thus they make the purpose of making the series appealing in plot (not always important to all games), music, visuals (appealing designs/backgrounds) and whatnot.

The adults making these appealing characters are projecting what they believe to be desirable to teens, that doesn't mean what they believe to be desirable actually is. Its why I highlighted adults are making these series, not the teens themselves. This is also why many games/etc. try to showcase their game/etc. to a feedback group to further improve or sell to the intended audience to get it "right." That was merely all I was saying.

I think you have a good point. In the end, anime is trying to sell you shit. Be it manga, blu rays, action figures, statutes, cards, it's trying to make you buy stuff. Big busty chicks is how you sell statues, flat out. Unfortunately that means they tackle the other end of the market with the lolis.

In the end, what drives the loli industrial complex is a lot of suits in ties crunching numbers. It's why you have shows where there's one in there that basically does nothing. It's there for appeal. And it's disgusting.