"Censorship" ☠️
Submitted 2 weeks ago by dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone to [deleted]
https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/pictrs/image/c727c11c-f066-48a5-aaeb-3541292981c4.webp
Comments
regdog@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
ITT: a bunch of lemmings out themselves ashore pedos.
M137@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Which isn’t surprising at all, tons of weebs here so that just comes with the territory. I have not once met a weeb that I didn’t feel was at least a bit creepy, and they always have so much social awkwardness and major lack of self awareness.
I really hope Anime stops being popular one day, the world was better before it became a thing.VeryBlandUsername@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The anime, manga and gacha community are FULL of pedos in denial.
Tattorack@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Always wondered what the origin of this meme is.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
In this context, the translation is correct. I can’t really think of a context where “lolicon” being translated to pedophile would be incorrect. -con like siscons, brocons, etc are complexes or obsessions. Lolicon is a complex or obsession with, drawn or not, prepubescent minors.
For those wondering why Japan, a very shame based culture, feels more accepting of this, CSAM production was legal, technically, up to 2014. CSAM itself only started being legislated in 1999, with much pressure from the west.
Bonsai Pop’s video on the Rurouni Kenshin mangaka goes into detail on this.
A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
He never directly harmed children as far as we know
I absolutely loathe the entire apologist view of “They never directly harmed a child, they just had 45tb of pictures of children being harmed”
Buying/trading CSAM material IS directly harming children, because your activities are actively creating and furthering a demand for children to be molested and raped, Which very much means your hand is actively causing the harm, whether its directly against the child, or every other activity that creates the market that encourages molestation and rape. everyone participating in it is actively and directly harming children.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
I don’t disagree.
I was merely stating it as a fact of the case in why he, potentially, only recieved a light fine and no jail time.
gandalf_der_12te@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Buying/trading CSAM material IS directly harming children, because your activities are actively creating and furthering a demand for children to be molested and raped,
i get your argument, but who says they paid for it?
HrabiaVulpes@europe.pub 2 weeks ago
Japanese react to imposing of our morals on them like westerners would react to criminalization of drinking alcohol. I wonder how strange and abhorrent elements of our culture must look to them.
Then again, I consider french to be weird and borderline pro-crime for prohibiting the paternity tests…
cecinestpasunecommunication@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
The Japanese think they should be the ones imposing their culture.
PlasmaSnake@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I disagree. A lolicon can also be defined as a person into lolicon, with no interest in actual children
bitjunkie@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
You can disagree all you want, that doesn’t make it accurate.
By your definition:
A lolita complex is defined as a person who is enjoys a lolita complex with no attraction to children, just…the attraction to specific children, drawn or not.
Humbert Humbert romanticizes his attraction as well, claiming it is something pure and beautiful, an attraction to purity and innocence. An attractionn to Dolores not to minors.
An attraction to drawings of minors, not minors themselves.
The definition of Lolita complex, or the portmanteau lolicon, appears to fit perfectly.
Krudler@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I will confess that I had to stop reading a few sentences down because you’re underlying argumentation is specious at best.
Creating content that sexualizes children… hurts children & it puts children at risk, and as we see here within the comment section, it creates a completely unhealthy normalization of a freak-like interest. There’s no argument around that - there simply is not.
BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I can’t really think of a context where “lolicon” being translated to pedophile would be incorrect.
You’re too dense to understand not every attraction is sexual in nature.
That aside, this translation is cancerous because term lolicon exists in both languages and Funimation fucked it up on purpose.
godsammitdam@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Humbert Humbert romanticizes his attraction as well, claiming it is something pure and beautiful, an attraction to purity and innocence.
Lolita complex. Lolicon.
If we’re talking about dense, you just fit the definition to a T while denying it.
bear@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
See a guy defending lolicon, click on his profile, can’t make it three posts before he’s defending capitalism. You can’t make this shit up, folks.
thepig@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
The question I always asked is: does the legalization of such material lead to a decrease in sexual abuse of children or an increase ? There will always be pedophiles, that we can’t avoid, what is important is to stop them acting upon their desires and abusing minors, to this end, would lolicon help by giving them materials that where created without harming children ? Or would it empower them to harm children ?
dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
It’d seem that there isn’t really that much research in this area. This is the only article I could find directly related to child SA, with a helpful conclusion:
In this work, we have established how people with attractions to children are seeking sexual satisfaction using a range of different forms of FSM depicting children. We found no evidence that engaging with sexual fantasy and various forms of FSM was associated with variance in self-reported willingness to engage in sexual offences involving children, despite substantial numbers in our sample expressing a willingness to engage in these behaviours. Instead, we found that those who were more sexually satisfied reported a lower level of willingness to engage in such behaviours, while those who held offence-supportive beliefs reported a higher willingness. We urge researchers and clinicians to use our work as a springboard for further studies on the pursuit of sexual satisfaction, the addressing of sexual frustration. All of this should be conducted within the context of reducing potential risk, while encouraging a more evidence-informed social conversation about the importance of sexuality considerations in this area.
www.tandfonline.com/doi/…/19419899.2026.2619511#d…
Though I think that banning lolicon drawings would just make pedophiles go and consume actual child pornography, which is arguably worse.
thepig@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Makes sense. As a clinical psychologist I am often frustrated by the lack of proper research done of pedophiles, I get it that is a very sensitive and disgusting matter for the population but we need data to identify and help this people before they commit crimes, just pretending they don’t exist and waiting for the crime to happen is not helping anyone.
Klear@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
There is also a study of how availability of porn in general affected sex crime after the 1989 revolution in Czechoslovakia. Tl;dr aside from an uptick right after (which can be attributed to the country no longer being a police state) both child abuse and rape dropped, while other violent crime has not.
hoohoohoot@fedinsfw.app 2 weeks ago
Obviously
Wrufieotnak@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
I agree with you, as long as no real child is involved, nobody got hurt, so I don’t care. And I also think having a fictional pressure release is preferable to a real one.
But that is not really the topic here. This is about the term lolicon and how a lot of pedophiles hide behind that term. In my opinion the translation in the picture is correct. That has nothing to do with censorship, as the tweet tries to portray it as.
fonix232@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
Sadly there doesn't seem to be any reputable studies in this field - probably because it's super controversial to begin with.
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm, it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because "oh it's just a drawing".
(mind you it's important to distinguish a very similar argument from furries - furries are often claimed to be zoophiles, however an overwhelming majority of furries are against bestiality, and doesn't even sexualise their characters, which are usually anthropic - human shaped with animal physical characteristics - and sapient, therefore able to consent. A child, regardless if they're real or drawn, cannot consent).
On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by "disarming" paedos. Obviously those opposing then claim that no, it's actually harmful, because just jerking off to drawings won't be enough for most, and slippery slope fallacy ensue, they'll be gone from jerking to drawings, to kidnapping and raping children.
Again the problem is we don't have any data supporting either way. In my opinion, it could go either way, it heavily depends on the person, and without a thorough study, but that study wouldn't be ethical to conduct because of the potential of endangering children one way or another....
And of course the moment one tries to debate for "on the other hand", that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so, as they're literally campaigning for the legalisation of children's sexualisation in their specific way... which, at the end of the day, is paedophilia.
Dookieman12@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a drawing”.
By your logic, people shouldn’t play Call of Duty either because it enables the core behavior of shooting people with guns to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a video game”.
By your logic, any movie or book depicting any illegal act shouldn’t exist because it would “enable the core behavior to be socially acceptable”.
Sorry, that one doesn’t hold water for me.
Zwiebel@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm
Personally I think in a free society something should be legal by default, unless it is proven to cause harm, not the other way around like you suggest.
that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so…
And I think this kind of mindset is poison to democracy
thepig@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
It’s true, but this Is a problem that we as a society need to address, prevention is key, we owe it to the victims to do everything in our power to minimize the risks
VeryBlandUsername@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Some things there’s just no room for a counter-argument.
It’s like trying to talk about the positive policies Hitler enacted. Yea, sure, he probably had a couple good ideas, still not gonna be the guy to argue it.
hoohoohoot@fedinsfw.app 2 weeks ago
I think help, because they would like the drawings more and more and the real deal less and less.
You see people who are obsessed with anime, be super attracted to anime characters and little to no attraction to real women.
thepig@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Interesting take, but again, we need real empirical data wich unfortunately doesn’t exist on this subject.
helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I think its the same circular argument about guns in video games, does running around GTA shooting everyone give someone their “fix” or will it encourage them to go do it for real?
If the fake stuff gives people their “fix”, then so be it. Anyone that harms a real child can have their 2nd head publicly removed to discourage others. Not sure what to do if they don’t have that part, but a punishment like that will never happen so oh well.
fonix232@fedia.io 2 weeks ago
Problem with your "solution" is that it's reactive. "anyone that harms a real child can have their 2nd head publicly removed" - that doesn't help the child that was raped, doesn't prevent future cases, and so on. Reactive punishments simply don't work, because there's diminishing returns when it comes to the layer of society that the law is required because of...
Proactive handling is the ideal solution - destigmatise the issue, while still punishing the act itself. Being attracted to children isn't the (criminal) problem, acting on that and raping children is. But to resolve that you need to treat the source of the problem, the attraction itself. Which means people need to be comfortable to admit it to a medical professional, and receive appropriate help for it.
edible_funk@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s only the same argument if running around GTA shooting everyone makes you horny. The effects of arousal on brain chemistry changes things so it’s not really apples to apples here.
cosmos8188@leminal.space 2 weeks ago
Its the same situation like many have described:
To say that lolicons are pedophiles is equivalent to say that gamers who play violent games blowing up buildings or slashing people into a million pieces are terrorists.
Its really depends in the end, and like other commenter said, such question is hard to prove fully because there is barely any research.
Dookieman12@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
At best, I imagine it would be like being addicted to cigarettes but only having a fruity vape. Yeah, it’ll get the monkey of your back, but it isn’t truly satisfying, and the second you can have what you really want, you’re going for it.
The difference is, a smoker can quit, but a pedophile will always be a pedophile.
drmoose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s truly sad that one of the most horrific conditions out there has so little sympathy and research. I understand why but it seems like this cartoon band-aid and strict defensive enforcement is as far as we’ll get with this issue for the foreseeable future.
usualsuspect191@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
It’d be useless as a way to satiate pedophiles if they aren’t even into it.
If the often stated things about pedophilia being more of a mental illness and mainly about power, then I’m curious how much overlap there is between people who are into anime lolis and “actual” pedophiles. Is that Venn diagram basically a circle, or is there little overlap? I suspect it’s closer to the minimal overlap end and lolis are like other people who are into more extreme fetishes in fantasy but not reality.
Not sure how you’d go about figuring this out though.
BrickEater@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Lolicons and MAPS are both Pedophiles by any other name. Stop fuxking normalizing child abuse, drawn or not.
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
i don’t think this is normalising, is it? if anything the tone of the tweet almost makes it feel like they’re offended that the two things are being compared.
uriel238@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Are you Australian?
I’d recommend checking out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund when it comes to the dangers of restricting certain topics in fiction (including child abuse or child sexual abuse), and the dangers of censorship in general.
The US went over this before in the Aughts with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and the PROTECT act passed in 2003 (with certain parts of it later declared unconstitutional), and later with SESTA and FOSTA, which had a chilling effect, forcing closed online resources that sex workers used to protect themselves. The more recent bills like KOSA and the KIDS act are modeled similarly to close the internet as a vector of free speech under the premise of protecting kids from porn, with the intention to also silence subjects that are ideologically controversial, such as LGBT+ content, ( trans ideology ), sexual education material, women’s health information and political speech that criticizes the Trump administration.
I still submit that media should be restricted as little as possible. Yes, we should restrict CSAM that creates actual child victims (such as filmed CSA and deepfakes of real kids), in order to protect the victims. And yet, when we criminalize fictional depictions of CSA, it not only starts cutting into legitimate artistic content (such as A Game of Thrones, or The Sandman comic series, Superman 1978 is an edge case), but it then becomes very easy for conservative moral guardians to creep the mission and expand the list of restricted content.
Allero@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
“Drawn child abuse” is something new to me
farmgineer@nord.pub 2 weeks ago
Anything -con in japanese is a complex and almost certainly up to no good. I just checked with my wife (native japanese) and, yeah, that’s not necessarily wrong translation.
She carves out the exception for jokes with a younger partner within reason (her specific was example was a couple/few years younger in a piss-take (like someone might say “she’s robbing the grave” but the counterpoint would be “no he’s robbing the cradle!” In English banter)), but it’s almost always not a good thing.
My personal take is that if it’s specifically referencing the ~loli fashion or the piss-take version from my wife, that’s probably ok. Anything else is getting into dangerous territory.
I’m a guy in his mid-40s originally from the US and not generally into manga or anime at all, my wife a late-30s japanese who is very into anime and manga
PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Well now I’m here, time for you (and your wife) to loredump about Japan’s youth culture and the fascination with obsolescent western fashions.
Batmancer@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
My partner sometimes asks me, What’s that anime you don’t like to tell people you like?
Mushoku Tensei Jobless Reincarnation
I like the art and merciless world they live in and a lot of the characters but that show I probably fast forward scenes more than any other. Shield Hero is probably second with the lusting for the little chocobo(giant bird thing) princess that can change to little girl.
outerspace@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Made in Abyss
daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
This thread is a firestorm but I’m going in, wish me luck.
I think is a connotations game here. Lolicon have less bad connotations than paedophile.
The world paedophile makes you think of a criminal, someone who have content that was made hurting children. Someone who probably has hurt children themselves. Despite the more profound consideration that a paedophile might or might not act on their impulses, the connotation on the word is that.
Then there is the word lolicon. That word have a different connotation. Here you think about some anime geek with terabytes of drawn naked kids. But you don’t tend to associate their behavior with real kids. Regardless on the possibility that lolicons do hurt children or also have material that hurt children. The connotation of the word is that their obsession only focus on the drawn naked children.
Most people in general consider drawn pictures of children less harmful or even not harmful at all compared to actually abusing kids. So one word really doesn’t have the same weight as another.
Then, we have the question. Using a word with more/less weight is justified here or not?
We all now some paedophiles have rebranded themselves as MAPS, precisely trying to shake of the bad connotations of paedophile.
Is this the same case? Is using lolicon trying to evade the “paedophile tag” or is it something actually different?
I get the disgusting feeling about lolicon. But personally I do think is essentially different to what we normally think about a paedophile. If someone told me “X is a paedophile” I would as “so are they in jail?”. But if someone tells me that “X is q lolicon” I won’t assume that they have done something deserving jail time, I’ll probably be wondering if they are also a paedophile, but the fact that I think of it as an “addition” means to me that those are not the same.
On another differentiate fact. I think it’s not uncommon for people to accidentally see lolicon, it has happened to me. Looking for some yaoi you might end up opening a lolicon manga, or maybe you watch an anime and have some lolicon tones. The normal reaction is not liking it and move on, but it’s not a traumatic experience. I have luckily never watch CP but if somehow it was accidentally showed to me I think it would be a traumatic experience that probably would scar me for life.
So, on the bases that I think different things when I think about each of those words I do not think that’s an accurate translation.
Then there is the question to people who do think those two terms are the same. Do you truly think those two terms refer to the same thing or you just feel so disgusted by lolicon that you want the term lolicon to be viewed with as much disgust as people see paedophile?
Ibaudia@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
They mean literally the same thing. Just because Lolicon is less stigmatized doesn’t change that.
I would say it’s and accurate translation and should be a wake up call to anyone who has become too comfortable with seeing that tag on porn sites.
chloroken@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
So many open pedophiles in this comment section. It shouldn’t surprise me, but it does.
ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
If those anime fans could read they would be very upset
RickyRigatoni@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
So what I go to one lollipop convention and suddenly everyone thinks I’m a registered republican? Sounds a bit fucked up to me.
Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
“I jerk it to little girls” and “I jerk it to little animated girls” is not exactly worlds apart…
Yes, it is wrong, it fucks up people and our society. the normalization of pedophilia in anime is horrific and painful to see.
Blackmist@feddit.uk 2 weeks ago
Sounds about right.
wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 2 weeks ago
It is difficult to have this discussion because not many really want to actually think about it but I’ll do it anyway.
I guess the main concern is about how this sort of content could coerce people to attempt their fantasies in real life. However, the subject for a lolicon is a symbol and the subject for a pedophile is an actual individual. To say that lolicons are pedophiles is equivalent to say that gamers who play violent games blowing up buildings or slashing people into a million pieces are terrorists. “Cest une pipe”.
What we know is that there is no direct implication between consuming this content and engaging in criminal activity. People have different minds and respond to things in different ways, lolicon is not a predictor of pedophilia. Also, the Catharsis hypothesis, the one where people say engaging on it would keep someone from committing a related crime doesn’t seem to be true either.
This one is a an oldie, but it is a nice overview about this topic if you want to get some context:
www.imageandnarrative.be/index.php/…/98
I think the most important point of this paper is that the shoujo depicted in such content no longer corresponds to an actual real depiction of the prepubescent and are no more than fantasy.
mtpender@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
I mean, they’re not wrong…
Grass@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
I don’t even bother with anime any more unless someone else confirms there is no pedo content. With how much there is I’ve started to wonder if execs in the light novel/manga/anime industry force their writers to include it to normalize it.
drmoose@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
facts
Gorilladrums@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
The fact that people are arguing over this at all is crazy lmao
dasrael@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
based
hoohoohoot@fedinsfw.app 2 weeks ago
Lolicons are not really pedophiles.
Even with anime fans, you usually see them prefer anime characters increasingly the more they consome anime (or hentai)
I think the same applies here
Of course I predict that people will agree with me until 1 idiot pedophile who is an anime and lolicon fan actually does something to a real kid, and then everyone will generalize lolicons and say like “we knew it all along, all lolicons are pedophiles!!!”
You can see such generalizing cases and behavior everywhere.
ClipperDefiance@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Sankaku is funny for all the wrong reasons. I remember when Free! came out and they were absolutely seething that KyoAni was catering to women for once instead of them.
HexesofVexes@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Ye gods, I can smell the armour polish AND the cheeto dust in this thread.
The translation holding up is hilarious, it really does and you can hear the emotional damage that causes out there; I do wonder if it struck a genuine nerve.
The amount of “protect the children” out there is also priceless - this is one of the best outrage manufactories I’ve seen in years; I look forward to that outrage fuelling more surveillance laws.
nullspace@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Oh, you like Rebecca from Cyberpunk Edgerunners? Straight to jail, pedophile.
Baguette@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Being sexually attracted to stylized animated depictions of thing, or fantasy versions of thing, is not the same as being attracted to real-life thing. The best non-pedo/loli example of this is furries. It is a verifiable fact that there are people who are sexually attracted to anthropomorphized cartoon depictions of animals, or who engage in sexual fantasy play in which they pretend to be animals, yet have no sexual interest in real animals. There are definitely also people who are into both. Not all furries are actual zoophiles, not all lolicons are actual pedophiles. Disliking the content is not a good reason to ignore this distinction.
Morph9@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
When it works. it works.
solidheron@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
no lies.
samus12345@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
kboos1@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Is it not? The definition is the sexualization of a minor or prepubescent girl in anime/manga. Sounds like pedophilia to me.
lime@feddit.nu 2 weeks ago
especially in the context of an in-universe character saying it, yeah
dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
Yeah, it is.
turdas@suppo.fi 2 weeks ago
It has a wider variety of usage in Japanese than “pedophile” does in English, so no, it’s not always the most accurate translation. For example, “lolicon” (ロリコン) is used self-referentially, sometimes as a joke and sometimes not, in Japan while “pedophile” is basically never used like this in English. It’s also not too uncommon to use it of another person as a relatively lighthearted jab in Japanese, when in English calling someone else a pedophile (or even the more casual pedo) is a grave accusation.
Saapas@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
But isn’t it used about people who are into sexualized (cartoon) children?
edible_funk@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
So what you’re saying is that culturally Japan doesn’t have as much of a problem with pedophilia as english speaking countries. That’s not really a defense or a refutation that lolicon means pedophile.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 2 weeks ago
That is so weird to me that a society with much more Shame basis for stuff does not shame attraction to and relationships with minors.
On the other hand I’ve always wondered when is shame effective as a social motivator to prevent misdeeds, and when does it push people to hide their problems instead of seeking help and solutions?
Lumidaub@feddit.org 2 weeks ago
Hence it wouldn’t be “censorship” as the article seems to use the term. Though that doesn’t really apply at all because to “censor” it would be to not include the scene at all or rewrite it to say something else entirely. Saying “you like lolicon” or even just “you’re a pervert” might be considered euphemistic but it’s not censorship.
DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Well no. Pedophilia is the attraction to real children and lolicon is the attraction to illustrations of child like characters that doesn’t even need to be sexual. The translation is also wrong because in Japanese there exist the loanword pedophilia and it was not used in the original so the translation is also wrong.
flandish@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
this isn’t some baudrillard level type of simulacra shit, it’s literally people using cartoons as analogs to their real attractions, so yes, they are pedos. much in the same way police are pretending to be heros. they all deserve prison. the former and the latter.
Saapas@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
If you’re into these depictions because they’re depicted as children…
Zamboni_Driver@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
🤣🤡
Gormadt@slrpnk.net 2 weeks ago
I’d like to say I’ve never had that conversation but I have.
“Miss Kobayashi’s Dragon Maid” was fine (though not everyone’s cup of tea) until they started to sexualize the minors (which was basically at the introduction of the child “dragon”). Then I stopped watching it. And from what I hear, I picked a good spot to stop watching as it only got worse from there in regards to the minor characters.
DrPop@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s been awhile since I watched Dragon Maid but I don’t recall that happening with her, maybe I blacked it out. Well there was the other child that was obsessed with her, I just don’t remember anything sexual. I do know that the relationship between the older big tiddy dragon and that boy feels innapropriate. I remembered while writing there is another child dragon with what I would describe as “bodankahonkaroos”. Maybe you’re right. I also think I recall the mangaka making porn of their characters to boost popularity.
Anime can have relationships between minors without oversexualization, even if that is what the characters are feeling.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
I don’t recall anything sexual happening with any minors, dragon or otherwise. In fact I don’t even recall anything sexual happening… in general, other than the obvious undertones between the two mains. Though I suppose I may have skipped over a fan service episode and not remember.
VitoRobles@lemmy.today 2 weeks ago
Every month I learn about a new manga/anime artist who was caught with CP and they got a slap on the wrist.
gon@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 weeks ago
Well, no, that’s not what it is. It’s young and young-looking characters, not “minor or prepubescent”.
Mind you, plenty lolicon stuff is extremely pedophilic, namely by sexualising prepubescent characters! But lots of it is adult women that just look young and are explicitly not children in any way.
It’s more complicated than “pedophilia”, though the overlap is… Let’s say… Conspicuous.
Saapas@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Often mocked with the “9000 year old vampire dragon who just happens to look like a young child”
nitroemdash@lemmy.wtf 2 weeks ago
Per ICD-11, pedophilia can’t be diagnosed if attraction is not acted upon or is distressing the patient. Also it doesn’t count cases where attraction is not primary.
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
Colloquially accurate, though. Weird to use such a restricted definition of a word that has MUCH more common understanding…
PlasmaSnake@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m more interested in whether the DSM includes fictional children in the diagnosis, or if the children must be real
PissingIntoTheWind@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I almost got kicked out of college. Because I said people have the freedom to draw this garbage because we protect free speech. And it really upset some people. I simply said you can’t police thought and art. But there is a limit depending on what they are doing with the characters.
QuinnyCoded@sh.itjust.works 2 weeks ago
just curious, do you think generating Ai CSAM is still protected under free speech? I would argue lolicon is approximately the same thing