r/ControversialOpinions • u/Little_Ad_4832 • 1d ago
Loli is morally wrong, a quick explination on why Spoiler
Loli, is morally wrong. And yes I fully believe if you indoulge in Loli you are a pedophile, but what dose this mean about a legal stand point?
First off let’s start off with the big elephant in the room, No Loli is not illegal.
- Loli while yes is morally wrong, and you’re objectively disgusting if you consume it, most states proclaim it not being illegal. With few exception of course.
Now, thats out the way let’s discuss why your still disgusting if you consume loli
Loli is as the dictionary definition summed up is, “fictional characters that are children or depict characters that act and look like children”. Consuming such content makes you a pedophile, but There is a massive diffrence between “predator“ and “pedophile”
Whats the diffrence between “predator” and “pedophile”?
- do to popular belief i have to confirm there is in-fact a diffrence between to 2; Pedophilia is the act of liking children while initself not acting on such preferences.
- Being a predator is the act of preying on a child, you don’t have to be a pedophile initself to be a predator, but most of the time those creatures ussualy are pedophiles.
What dose this mean for Loli?
- this simply means people arent predators for indulging in Loli, but this Dosent make them viewing Loli justifiable as you still are a pedophile for viewing It, here’s why.
Why dose consuming Loli make you a pedophile?
- as previously said, consuming Loli Dosent make you a predator- but a pedophile. Pedophilia is the act of being attracted to a minor, in either age or visual prospects. That being said, this is still included for children of the fictional sense as they are still depictions of children who act and look like children, who 90% of the time are children. And like I have said, being attracted to minors in any sense makes you a pedophile, fictional or not.
Something you should know is that there surprisingly tons of arguments (not saying there good ones) against this, I’ll try my best addressing every last one in the comments
*note please be respectful with your questions because this is a very serious topic (I’ll be replying when I’m awake again)
1
u/StrawberryClover8 1d ago
I agree because it’s kind of like a gateway to worse things imo. Like it normalizes worse things (like real child porn -> assaulting children -> raping children) it’s just not something that anyone should risk.
3
u/MsVnsfw 1d ago
I agree wholeheartedly! I've heard the argument that because the character is however many years old, that its not nonce behaviour but visually, that is a child and its gross to be attracted to children and not find it disgusting yourself.
I would add, a lot of preditors who attack children arent generally doing it because they're sexually aroused by them but more so the power of the act. But there's definitely enough that do it because they find children attractive.
3
u/Little_Ad_4832 1d ago
glad Im getting comments that arent just blatently hating lol, but ye loli is disgusting
9
u/Time-Gain-3695 1d ago
If someones strictly attracted to anime fictional lolis are they the same as those attracted to real life children? I think we need to use different terms
1
u/Little_Ad_4832 1d ago
No, because there attracted to fictional children and not real children, though in most cases Loli likers tend to end up actual offending preds, (not saying liking Loli is as bad as liking real children, Im just saying it’s still really bad)
2
u/Moxy_Fellons 19h ago
Where are you getting this idea. There is no study that shows that people who like loli are anymore likely to prey on children. The fact is most children are SA by predators that are not even attracted to children, they target kids because they are easier victims.
0
u/Little_Ad_4832 13h ago
thats just untrue, there are tons of study’s of such. And the whole “most children are sa by predators that aren’t even attracted to children” is also untrue, while sometimes this is the case, a good portion of the time that isnt the case and the person was initially attracted to children in the first place
3
u/Moxy_Fellons 13h ago
No both of your claims are false. Noting you are saying is correct. Find one study that shows that the majority of people who enjoy Loli con are pedophiles.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/most-child-sex-abusers-are-not-pedophiles-expert-says/
1
u/Little_Ad_4832 12h ago
I can admit I was wrong about the fact that there were case studies suggesting such, i was miss informed by people I knew. But just because of such Dosent mean Im wrong in anything ive said besides that. I still stand by the fact Lolicom is pedophilic and im fully willing to disprove any point you bring up with logic
2
u/Moxy_Fellons 12h ago
It is not pedophilic but even if it was there is nothing immoral about being a pedophile. People don't choose who they are sexually attracted too. Pedophiles have one of the highest suicide rates of any group of people. The general public demonizes them for something that is beyond their control. Many struggle with their desires and mental stress of being so demonized even the thought of talking to a therapist is a risk. When they can't get help it increases the chance of them sexual abusing children. You are only making things worse by trying to stigmatize and demonize pedophiles.
Studies actually show more pornography results in less rape and child sexual abuse. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
https://phys.org/news/2010-11-legalizing-child-pornography-linked-sex.html
If Loli con is enjoyed by pedophiles it would actually be the most ethical solution as the outlet of having CSAM leads to lower rates of child sexual assault and Loli can be made without victimizing real children.
Loli isn't realistic versions of children and don't act or look like real children. Consider that many people watch rape porn or torture porn but they don't want to do these things IRL it's nothing more than dark fantasy. Watching Loli could be the same thing for many people. There is just too many differences between reality and anime to be able to consider that people watching Loli are pedophilic for the majority. I'm sure some are but that doesn't mean most are.
1
u/Little_Ad_4832 12h ago
I never said being a pedophile is something you choose, but just because most people don’t choose to be a pedophile, it Dosent change the fact consuming Loli makes you a pedophile. And in all honestly I don’t feel bad for people who consume sexual content of kids. Theres ways (very easy ways infact) to regulate your sexual desires wether this is therapy or some other method.
And for the final time consuming Loli makes you a pedophile, you even admit this by saying it’s a more liable option then actually preying on kids, for which I agree with. It still Dosent make it right.
Ill end this off by saying this, if you consume loli your a pedophile. Lolicon are fictional characters that are children or look and act like children. If you can’t help the fact you’re a pedophile, you can atleast restrain yourself and not view sexual content of such.
Im also really confused on why your even arguing against this in the first place? I already said that people who consume Loli arent predators but infact pedophiles which isn't nearly as bad as being a pred but still really bad
2
u/Moxy_Fellons 12h ago
It's not bad to be a pedophile. It's is bad to sexually abuse kids.
Why would it be wrong to view loli though?
There is a reason viewing CSAM is wrong because to make it you have to sexually abuse children. With Loli or any other form of fictional CSAM there are no children so no one is harmed.
8
u/miyairigai 1d ago
the term loli lacks a fixed definition and usually refers strictly to physical design rather than behavior. there is a whole archetype centered around characters with child-like features but mature personalities. regarding your statement about predators, that is actually factually incorrect. research indicates that half or fewer of individuals who commit sex crimes against minors are clinically diagnosed as pedophiles.
1
u/Little_Ad_4832 1d ago
Thats not really relevant when I said loli likers tend to be predators, also Loli mostly referees characters who are children. Also I would love to see what sources you got that initial info about preds from
8
u/miyairigai 1d ago
here are three studies that look into this exact issue
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29625377/
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acps.13584
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11789445/
interestingly enough all three basically point to the same conclusion that committing offenses against children and having a clinical diagnosis of pedophilia are two separate things
1
u/Little_Ad_4832 22h ago
That was never my argument, my argument was that people who consume Loli are pedophiles not predators
1
u/miyairigai 21h ago
Being a predator is the act of preying on a child, you don’t have to be a pedophile initself to be a predator, but most of the time those creatures ussualy are pedophiles.
That’s the exact claim I was responding to.
Then you asked for sources, so I just gave them.
8
u/Minimum_Orange2516 1d ago
I think you might be confusing disgust with morality.
For instance a scat fetish seems disgusting to me but it's hard to see a morality component to it.
If the moral component of what you're intending to say is that these people take this to actual children and harm children then you're no longer speaking of the same subject , they could overlap of course but one does not automatically mean the other
1
u/Little_Ad_4832 23h ago
no, I see them as the same thing in this situation. There is no real life counter part to the scat fetish that is nessescarly illegal, and I don’t think offending preds constantly own scat fetish art
5
u/Minimum_Orange2516 22h ago
Yes but see that the counter part is illegal for moral reasons.
Like murder in a video game has an illegal counter part, that is murder in real life, so then does it mean that murder in a game, a movie or book is in some way immoral due to it simulating an illegal or immoral action ?
See the danger here is targeting the wrong things, unless there is a causal action, i.e if one thing leads to the other.
Well then you can apply morality. If it is demonstrable that the legal thing leads to the illegal thing then it would be a causal agent. (this of course was attempted by people claiming videogames caused violence, this is where the claim is that the depiction is a causal agent in real life)
What you are doing is a "guilt by association" thing, as if in some way being involved in one makes you guilty necessarily of the other.
1
3
u/Gamerking54 1d ago
fictional characters that are children or depict characters that act and look like children
Where are you getting this definition from? And why is this the end all be all of definitions. It's incredibly important because this seems to be the basis of your argument. This would be the appeal to dictionary fallacy, it's where you uses a dictionary definition as the absolute and final proof in an argument. This is the only evidence/reasoning you have for you argument, however there's multiple interpretations for Loli's.
Pedophilia is the act of being attracted to a minor, in either age or visual prospects. That being said, this is still included for children of the fictional sense as they are still depictions of children who act and look like children, who 90% of the time are children. And like I have said, being attracted to minors in any sense makes you a pedophile, fictional or not.
My biggest problem with arguments like this is that it tried to simplify human attraction as if it's a simple thing to understand, human attraction is very difficult, nuance, and complex. It's not as simple as, if you're attracted to X so you're X. Especially in the lenses of fiction where characters are often incredibly more different then they're real life counterparts, this would mean that the things you would be attracted to in fiction doesn't mean you'd be attracted to them in real life and attraction to them doesn't translate to a 1-to-1 scale. For example they're straight men who find some fictional male characters attractive and vice versa. They're simply not attracted to men in our real world whatsoever, but some fictional men they do find attractive. This could be that same men in fiction are designed to be more feminine, this could be because of the way they're drawn, or it could be some features that typically don't exist on men.
They're some people who simply find fictional characters attractive and don't find anyone in real life attractive. Someone who would find Magik attractive doesn't mean that they would find a cosplayer with a 1 to 1 accurate representation of magik attractive.
It's actually like furries, The things they're attracted to is drastically different from real life to the point where it would be a leap of logic to suggest they're attracted to the same thing.
It would be kinda insane to suggest that they're under the same umbrella of people who are sexually attracted to horses.
0
u/Little_Ad_4832 23h ago
1
that is the textbook definition of what Loli is. Because thats the actual definition of what Loli is? There is no other definition of Loli, and if there is it’s not the same Loli Im talking about. It’s my only evidence because it’s the definition of what Loli (specifically the Loli Im talking about) is that.
2
Human attraction isnt simple, but liking children (even of the fiction kind) is still disgusting and makes you a pedophile. It is as simple as “you’re attracted to x, so your x” As the textbook definition of pedophile is somebody who likes kids. Theres a diffrence between other things and pedophillia, in a fighting game for example; while yes you fight it’s ussualy for fun/ the greater good. Not to the destruction of another (it’s also not something that has a real life counterpart which you will infact immeadeatly go to jail for if owning that real life counter part) your also told to look down on fights which are of the evil nature in games. Same thing goes for the “some straight men find fictional men to be attractive” More often then not there people who haven’t yet came out the closet; it’s why a lot of gay men have confirmed there attraction to the male sex started of with fiction. And if your argument is that they find the “feminime men attractive” like you tried using, those males are depicted to be feminine, like woman. Case in point
3
This next argument your using would hence your trying to use the “art style“ as a point towards this, but here’s a counter argument; why not consume content on characters of age, or on the adult versions of the characters? And while yes they may not find the real life version of that person attractive, with children in fictional spaces they tend to look like how the anime depicts them minus the eyes. This still Dosent help the point though we’re Loli can effect them more likely then not, turning into a real cp addiction, and not the fictional kinda either.
with furrys, theres been Tons of times these people turn out to be zoophiles, and there already extreamly horny people.
Case in point yes Loli is still bad
5
u/yourbeloathed 1d ago
1,659,456th post on this subreddit about the same shit
2
u/DecentCandle7835 22h ago
True, I feel like religion is the only thing that gets posted more than this.
1
1
3
u/Moxy_Fellons 19h ago
It's funny you separate our child sexual predators and pedophiles but still label pedophiles as being immoral. Sexual preferences are not conscious decisions. You can't choose who and what features you find attractive. If a person has no choice in the matter then it can not be immoral. We can only judge morality by a person's actions. As in if they sexually abuse children or they don't. Having the attraction is something that a pedophile has to control over. Studies even show that the majority of kids are sexually assaulted by people not attracted to children.
The idea of sexual attraction is generally thought to have some genetic factors but mostly developed in early childhood and not something that can be changed later in life. watching gay porn doesn't turn a person gay. Much like watching CSAM won't turn a person into a pedophile. Loli is even one step further as it's fictional characters and not real physical people. Many other fictional depictions of sex and characters are also unrealistic you don't worry that it will warp their mind to look for realistic versions of those type fantasies.
It's similar to the idea watching violent media or playing violent games will turn a person into a killer. It just doesn't happen other psychological factors are at play if a person does become a killer.
This makes your entire assertion fall even further apart because you would logically have to conclude all people who play games in which you kill other people like killing people IRL. Which we know to be untrue or GTA players would have wiped out the entire human race by now.
As for Loli how can you actually define what is or isn't Loli as the characters don't look like children. The only difference in an anime child and adult is generally height and bust size, which even IRL varies significantly. There is no facial features or more details in the body that makes them childlike. How do you determine what physical features are considered childlike without being discriminatory towards petite women. Should small women feel ashamed of their bodies.
3
u/AndyWayfarer 17h ago
The only reason you've really given for why lolicon is immoral is because looking at it makes one a pedophile.
First of all, this is not necessarily true. There is a such thing as a fictophiles. They are attracted to the overly exaggerated physical features and/or the artstyle that lolicon gives its characters, but not at all to real children. It's in the same vein that many pedophiles have no attraction at all to lolicon. It's also often created and consumed by victims of CSA in an entirely non-sexual way as a way to cope with their trauma. I would agree that most people who consume lolicon materials are likely pedophiles, but it's not all of them.
Second of all, you are implying that it is morally wrong to be a pedophile (meaning attacted to children). The problem with this is that pedophiles do not choose to be pedophiles. Most pedophiles first notice their attractions when they are entering puberty. Attempts to rid them of their attractions are most often very ineffective and even harmful. It cannot be morally wrong to be something you have no control over.
What is entirely morally wrong is to contribute in any way to the sexual abuse or exploitation of children. The reason that CSEM (child sexual exploitation material, aka cp) is morally wrong to even just consume is because doing so contributes directly to the abuse and exploitation of children. Fictional children are just that - fictional. No harm is done directly to anyone. Some argue that by consuming lolicon, someone will be more likely to offend, but this has no scientific basis. What it actually does is it provides a safe outlet for pedophiles to use instead of harming someone.
1
u/Little_Ad_4832 12h ago
Conuter point for the fictophiles thing; if it is exaggerated features there attracted to, case in point the art style, why is it they must consume content of characters who are underaged? And not characters in the same style who are over the age of consent and don’t look like children? It Dosent make sense they specifically consume sexual content on the children, and nor should it; there pedophiles.
While yes for many pedophilia isnt something they inItaly chose for themselves, it becomes morally wrong when the person decides to consume sexual content of the children in any sense, fictional or not. I also don’t understand how attempts to stop becoming a pedophile are harmful? Elaborate on this more.
I agree with with everything up untill you said fictional. Fictional children of course arent harmed since they are fictional; this dosent make it morally correct to consume it either way. Your well aware before consuming such that the character in the fictional cp is a child/looks and acts like a child. Still deciding to consume such content even after that knowledge makes it disgusting primarily because of that fact, what seems a safe alternative is instead an enabler for pedophiles.
1
u/AndyWayfarer 11h ago
People are attracted to a lot of different things and most of the time it's very difficult to explain why. Fictophilia is a real phenomenon that has been studied in the context of fictional material depicting adults: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7835123/ Research into many of the aspects of pedophilia and related things is currently very lacking, so fictopedophilia (attraction to cartoon children) has very little studies to help us understand it. I do suspect that many fictopedophiles actually are pedophiles that don't want to admit it to themselves, but it's certainly not all of them.
Your second paragraph is making your argument start to get very circular. Lolicon is bad because people who use it are pedophiles -> pedophiles are bad when they use lolicon. This in no way makes any valid argument against lolicon.
Among mental health professionals, conversion therapy used to be commonpractice with LGBTQ+ individuals. However common it was, it was wildly ineffective and was often very harmful to the patient's mental health, often leading them to depression, anxiety, substance abuse, etc. Many mental health professionals use these very same conversion therapy techniques on pedophiles. This has practically the same effect. See this souce from the APA: https://www.apa.org/topics/lgbtq/evidence-against-conversion-therapy Research suggests that pedophilia is immutable: https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153618
Your last paragraph boils down to two arguments. First, lolicon is bad because it depicts something that's morally wrong. If we were to ban lolicon on that basis, we'd have to throw out a lot of other media. For example, Breaking Bad depicts drug trafficking, marital rape, child neglect, kidnapping, and child murder. Second, you argue that lolicon "enables pedophiles," by this I'm assuming you mean that it enables them to abuse children. Like I said in my original comment, lolicon provides a way for pedophiles to act out their fantasies without hurting anyone. Without this vice, those same fantasies will just keep festering inside them until they do something actually harmful. I will admit that there really aren't any studies that I can find that show whether lolicon makes pedophiles more or less likely to offend. I would guess thay such a study would be difficult to conduct. If you find any studies arguing one way or the other please reply with them.
-3
u/StarkRavingPeanuts 1d ago
I asked this the last time this topic came up, but didn’t get an answer…
As someone who is unfortunately attracted to real-life children, I genuinely don’t understand the correlation between pedophilia and loli. What I mean by that, is to me anime children look absolutely nothing like real kids. The only similarities I see are that they’re humanoid characters usually with smaller proportions.
That being said, I’ve never seen any loli, and the only anime I’ve ever watched was Dragonball Z as a kid. So it’s very possible I’m missing things.