>>95882 >If the characters look like adults And what if they don't? Seems really retarded to care about fictional characters like that in any capacity at all, unless you're a company looking to uphold a public image with normies.

>>9588 My stance is I think people who get off to loli are probably pedophiles. They're fictional but I feel if you have a preference or appetite for that in particular I wouldn't be surprised if you groomed children. I don't care that much though. It's not a battle worth fighting. I was originally gonna say that I think loli is the one thing I think we could do without on here and probably be better off for it. It just didn't feel relevant to my main point which is when you try to group characters who look like adults (Regardless of whatever canon age dictates) in with loli as something evil and wrong, It makes you look like a retard and it's probably gonna fuck things up for everyone here. The thing with the lolicons though is that as upsetting as it is to me that the loli threads are more active then any of the good ones, we can never get rid of them. It's a waste of time arguing with them cause the site allows it, nobodies gonna change there minds, all it does is shit up the threads. If they have there own containment thread where I don't have to see it or hear them brag about how great they think it is then I think that's the best we could do. But I don't know maybe someone should make a containment thread for people to bitch about loli good loli bad cause that seems to seep into every thread these days. TKR just sucks now.

>>95887 >people who get off to loli are probably pedophiles. They're fictional but I feel if you have a preference or appetite for that in particular I wouldn't be surprised if you groomed children This. lolifags are quick to just start screaming "think of the poor pixels!" but nobody is confused about why they're sexually attracted to it. Like sure, I'd rather you beat off to drawn children than real ones. But you're still sexually attracted to children. Exaggerating your response trying to turn it around doesn't change that.

>>95887 >>95888 >My stance is I think people who get off to loli are probably pedophiles. I don't think that's true but this is just my personal observation. As far as I can tell there's plenty of degenerate gooners who like both loli and milfs for example. This is just what excessive porn consumption does to your brain. People become desensitized and look for more extreme content which could lead them down the rabbit hole in various different directions: loli, scat, guro, ryona, futa, traps, gay, etc. Loli is just one of those avenues but seems to be more the case of jerking it to whatever is available as long as its new. If you ignore that and just look at pure lolicons, it's still not evident that they're pedos because there seems to be common sentiment of 3DPD in these circles. That's not to say that none of the people who like lolis are pedos, but to use an analogy for the difference it's more like: Most weed smokers won't do cocaine but most cocaine users started out as weed smokers, if that makes sense. More importantly, the main reason loli isn't banned is because you cannot consistently enforce a ban on loli without nuking the entire board by making literally 90% of all anime content either outright forbidden or highly contested, because when it comes to drawings, almost all interpretation of a character's age and perceived age purely subjective. Is having a discussion about whether a drawing of a catgirl anime waifu being tickled is 17 or 18 years old really a can of worms you want to open? Mind you, I'm only talking about drawings and CG art. Obviously any pictures depicting real children is already explicitly forbidden, as it should be. Furthermore, any "realistic" (mainly AI) art of children is also banned because allowing it would provide cover for the real thing. So yeah, allowing loli and banning CP is the only practical standard that can actually be applied and enforced without destroying the entire site.

>>95887 >My stance is I think people who play GTA are probably murderers. It's fictional but I feel if you have a preference or appetite for that in particular I wouldn't be surprised if you killed people. inb4 "THAT'S DIFFERENT BECAUSE... BECAUSE... IT JUST IS OKAY???"

>>95898 he did the thing; >Exaggerating your response trying to turn it around

>>95887 I like the lolicons and the fact that so many artists are into it because it sort of acts like a filter. It filters out people who try to impose morals, or safe horny on the community. Its like firing a bullet to keep the property values low. Ive interacted with puritans in the tickle sphere and the lolicons. Honestly it's hard to talk with puritans without treading edggshells, but the lolicons are some of the most chill people I've had the pleasure of interacting with. I can be open and cool with them. And I'm not even into loli.

>>95890 I agree entirely with the latter part. I see your point with the first part but Idk, you can just not jack off to anime children in the same way you don't have to do coke. >>95898 It's different cause you play video games for fun but you watch porn cause you wanna have sex with those girls. If the porn you consume is a bunch of anime girls that look like children I assume you wanna fuck little girls. >>95899 If they aren't pedophiles they definitely act like them. >>95900 I'd rather this entire board be loli then have any of the moralfags have there way.

>>95901 >if you jack off to X that means you want to fuck X >you jack off to loli, which means you want to fuck the IRL children that you don't jack off to Kek, he did redditard thing where he proves his own point wrong 1 sentence later but doesn't realize it due to the crippling lack of self-awareness

Love how the same dude who said "I hate that there's so much arguing over loli", immediately followed by going on a tangent of the most stereotypical anti-loli garbage with zero substance and false equivalences. Jack Thompson was fake and gay people, get over it.

>>95905 Well yeah no shit. If you jack off to anime fat women you wanna fuck fat women. You jack off to anime black women you wanna fuck black women. If you jack off to little anime girls you wanna fuck little girls. That's what most reasonable people assume. At what part did I get proven wrong, you just repeated what I said twice and acted like it was an easy win. You did not explain anything. At this point I'm starting to think that if nobody had to hear about loli outside the threads then nobody would have an issue. It's because lolicons act like total faggots talking about how much they love cunny (Almost always describing the child like qualities as there favorite), talking about how much of an loser you have to be to not like loli, and then trying to own anyone who thinks they're weird by pretending to not understand why people think they're pedophiles. If you like loli so be it, regardless of what I or anyone else thinks, it's not illegal. I'm fine with loli threads existing if they stay in there lane. But would you tell everyone about your shit fetish and then get mad at them for not having a shit fetish? No, but that's what loli fans do in every thread. It's annoying. >>95907 Arguing is all we got left on this board. It'll take a Christmas Miracle to save TKR.

people really want to argue about this forever huh. loli / shota art is fine unless the artist goes out of their way to make it look as realistic as possible, case closed, you can tell a retard anti that it's as simple as distinguishing fiction from reality 100 times but they won't listen so ignore them

I have to say, the quality of my enjoyment of this fetish/kink was way better before learning of this moral panic about loli and underage fictional characters in general. Personally, when I spot a loli, I am at best indifferent to it and, at worst, repulsed by it; and I'm also kinda suspicious towards people who (ONLY) enjoy lolis. Having said so, I don't think it's right to equate lolis to real CSAM or the brand new problem of AI-generated CSAM: even if you consider loli questionable or wrong, I think it's on a different scale of concerning, if anything because no real person was actually harmed by the process. I am not saying it's not "wrong", but it would be like saying that smoking weed and murdering someone are equally heinous just because they're both illegal. I am even more confused by people making such a big deal of drawing of fictional characters who are 16-17 years old: yes, IRL you obviously shouldn't do shit with someone of that age if you're older than them, but here we are talking about fictional characters, who often don't age like normal people do (look at characters from Marvel, for example). Like, it's really that difficult to just say "let's imagine that they're one or two years older and call it a day". Again, I'd understand the quandaries if the character in question was a child, albeit fictional, but I honestly find this a waste of mental energy when there are other problems in this fucked-up world. I'm even pissed off a bit, because I gave up on writing a short tickling fanfic about Runaways since the character is about 16-17 yo, and I don't want people to get mad at me in case I posted it: then I see that the same online spaces (TMF) who would straight up ban you if you posted a 17 yo fictional characters getting tickled, yet allow AI generated de facto deepfakes of real people (e.g. celebrities). So I take than making shitty AI deepfakes of real people is fine because they're of age/public figures, but God forbid you fantasizing about fictional characters who are one or two years from the age of reason. I honestly find the former to be more disturbing and problematic than the latter, but probably I am just a fucking closeted pedo who is rationalizing his need to abuse children, am I right? Sorry for the vent everyone, I just had to blow off steam. Sometimes I wish I never had this fetish in the first place: I am already too much paranoid on my own.

Guys it appeared again :(

>>95901 >I agree entirely with the latter part. If you agree with the second half then we're good because that's really the part I think is really important. It's not like I want to defend loli but that's the only reasonable standard, otherwise you end up in a situations like posting a drawing of something like an office lady with a slim figure and getting banned because "oh my god that's a literal child are you a pedo!?" Once people have to start second-guessing themselves and worrying every time they post anything that looks even remotely anime/manga-style, then it's easier to just stop posting altogether, then if the content dries up people stop bothering coming looking for content either. Also, I completely agree with this >>95900 as well. >>95908 >If you jack off to anime fat women you wanna fuck fat women. You jack off to anime black women you wanna fuck black women. If you jack off to little anime girls you wanna fuck little girls. That's what most reasonable people assume. Not that anon, but just because people assume something does not mean it true, not even if you call it a reasonable assumption. For comparison: one of the most popular sexual fantasies among women is being raped. That does not mean women literally want to get raped in real life. What they really want is to roleplay out the fantasy in a safe way. It's as ridiculous as saying people who go bungee jumping are suicidal because they jump off a bridge.Just to repeat the obvious caveat: yes there are many people who like loli that are also pedos but I think that's a smaller subset of lolicons, as I said in my earlier post. >But would you tell everyone about your shit fetish and then get mad at them for not having a shit fetish? No, but that's what loli fans do in every thread. It's annoying. I'm neutral on loli so maybe I just haven't been paying attention but where exactly do you see these annoying people telling everyone about their fetish? Browsing this board almost daily, I never see any talk of loli outside of this specific thread (and presumably the loli thread).

>>95923 >Not that anon, but just because people assume something does not mean it true, not even if you call it a reasonable assumption. For comparison: one of the most popular sexual fantasies among women is being raped. That does not mean women literally want to get raped in real life. What they really want is to roleplay out the fantasy in a safe way. It's as ridiculous as saying people who go bungee jumping are suicidal because they jump off a bridge.Just to repeat the obvious caveat: yes there are many people who like loli that are also pedos but I think that's a smaller subset of lolicons, as I said in my earlier post. even your own example sucks. In that context, they still want "the idea" of a rape, they just want it within their own terms. How does that work with illustrations of a little kid getting fucked that doesn't involve "still wanting the idea of a little kid getting fucked"? The 5000 year old dragon in a kids body idea? There IS a technical difference between an active child molester and a "harmless" pedophile. But whether or not you'd ever fuck a kid irl, enjoying drawings of naked, sexualized children makes you a pedophile.

>>95924 >"There IS a technical difference between an active child molester and a "harmless" pedophile." Yeah I don't think anybody gives a shit bro.

>>95924 >In that context, they still want "the idea" of a rape, they just want it within their own terms. You know what it's called when someone "rapes" you on your own terms with your permission? Consensual sex, AKA literally not rape. There's a huge subset of people who masturbate to anime characters but are put off by real people, 3DPD (3D pig disgusting) as it's called. Lolicon is a subset of the anime fandom so obviously this same sentiment is mirrored by it. >How does that work with illustrations of a little kid getting fucked that doesn't involve "still wanting the idea of a little kid getting fucked"? The 5000 year old dragon in a kids body idea? Because it's not a kid, it's a drawing. It does not have a kid's body, it's a drawing. Lolicons are attracted to drawings that cannot even accidentally be mistaken for the real thing, and many of them are disgusted by the real thing. In my view it's no different than someone who's attracted to furry characters, giantess vore, or big tits hyper-muscle girls, all of them being unrealistic or fictional body-types/creatures. Mind you, I'm not defending any of it. This is just the conclusion I've come to as an oldfag who's spent a lot of time on the internet. You don't have to like lolicon, you can even hate it, but it's in your best interest to at least tolerate it existing on a porn imageboard in threads that you don't go into, if you want to have a place on the internet where you can find drawings of porn, especially niche stuff like tickle porn.

>>95927 >Because it's not a kid, it's a drawing. It does not have a kid's body, it's a drawing. A drawing of what. It's just random scribbles? It's all abstract nonsense anyone can project whatever they want to on it like a Rorschach test? What is the drawing an objective image depicting?

Regardless of your opinion on the subject, this fed shit will not stop until this board gets rid of loli stuff. Right now they know they can fish a few pedos with that because of the kind of content that is posted here

>>95930 Yes it's subjective. Some are obviously intended to depict children while others are not. It varies case by case. The problem is that many people will call literally any anime character a child or underage because that difference is also subjective when it comes to anime-style drawings of characters. The vast majority of it is completely ambiguous. >>95931 Fedposting will not stop until you put the feds in jail for possession and distribution of CP. Just delete any posts with CP and/or links advertising it, along with any realistic AI art of CP, and ban the poster permanently.

>>95931 What's stopping the shotacons from taking over?

>>95930 They really do love to dance around the fact of the matter of what the drawing is specifically of. "It's a drawing" is such a vague twitter tier talking point.

>>95900 this is the correct opinion, you can't bring antis to the right side, and why would you want to? just let them stay seething in their pigsty while the sophisticated people draw and write about what they enjoy

>>95931 it literally just needs to be removed faster, but the moderator of this board never ever seems to intend on recruiting

>>95908 >That's what most reasonable people assume. Ah, so most "reasonable" people assume that enjoying killing people in GTA means you enjoy killing people and it's not just something you pulled out of Uranus at all. Got it. >>95930 >>95935 A drawing of something that doesn't exist and doesn't even remotely resemble nor act like what irl humans do except in the most exaggerated, abstract sense for comedic, sexual, emotional, or whatever else purposes. This sad gotcha attempt has never worked, it's nothing new. You're essentially saying "it's just pixels" is not an excuse to enjoying killing people in GTA because they're pixels forming a (much more realistic) human.

>>95942 just give up. you are right but there is literally no reason to try arguing with them on any sort of moral basis, they're faggot bullies who in their eyes are on a righteous crusade against "pedos," they will only mock you for defending it. just wait for their demands to censor the board to surface and shut them down as they come

>>95943 True. Mainly just wanted to get the main point out. Otherwise either mocking or ignoring them is usually the way. Or even better, respond to them by posting more loli.

Will you stupid dumb fucks take your moral dilemma's to your therapists? I care more about actual abuse than your petty circle jerk of nonexistent crisis.

>>95942 >A drawing of something that doesn't exist and doesn't even remotely resemble nor act like what irl humans do Holy fuck lmfao

>>95908 >Cannot articulate why a lolicon automatically wants to fuck irl kids even though they only jack off to anime lolis and not irl kids >Just repeats the original non-sequitur several more times Ah, a member of the "but I had breakfast" demographic

>>95950 >>Cannot articulate why a lolicon automatically wants to fuck irl kids even though they only jack off to anime lolis and not irl kids we did articulate it, though. they've been asked repeatedly what images of lolicon depict. They responded with "a thing that isn't real, ok?!" which is a shit answer. You spewing shit you saw on /pol/ doesn't make you not a pedo.

>>95950 >Just repeats the original non-sequitur several more times >Ah, a member of the "but I had breakfast" demographic When you see someone doing that, don't assume that they're stupid because they're probably just trolling you, especially if they're asking the same questions over and over while ignoring answers. Even if they're not trolling you but actually are that stupid, you will never convince a stupid person with a good arguments, so you're better off assuming they're trolling either way. If you get some satisfaction from responding to this person, more power to you but for me personally, I'll quitting while I'm ahead. I got my thoughts on the matter out as best as I could phrase it si reasonable people can look at it and draw their own conclusions. That's a win in my book.

>>95950 I never said that you automatically want to fuck irl kids. I said that if you jack off to loli you should expect most other people to think you're a pedophile. You speak about fiction and reality and that's how video games, books, and movies work, but porn is reflective of your real life sexual preferences. If you get off to drawings that at there core are supposed to resemble children then I assume you do the same to real children. Is everyone who gets off to loli a pedophile? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. But when Loli is defined to be resembling a child and when the people who love loli cite the child like qualities of it as there favorite then yes I assume you are a pedophile. My big issue is that the cunny defense force can't comprehend why people think they're pedophiles. Instead of trying to reasonably explain why they aren't or just accepting that's gonna be what the general public thinks of them, they act like reddit atheists trying to le epic own there opposition by acting obtuse. If you're gonna be a faggot then go back to bluesky with all the other child loving trannies. I'm not gonna advocate for the removal of loli cause having it here is not that big of a deal + like the other guy said "Keeps the rent low". But I wish lolicons would stay in there lane, post whatever shit they're always gonna post, and keep there mouths shut. I don't hate loli, I just really hate lolicons, they always shit up everything. >>95952 You're the only one who's actually made decent, fair points cause you're actually explaining things. If lolicons acted like you instead of using false equivalences and going checkmate without saying anything of consequences, then I don't think they'd be hated as much. I think I've said everything I have to on this. It's not like anyone's mind is gonna be changed.

>>95948 As I expected, no response because I knew exactly how to point out the BS of your gotcha attempt, so instead you just cry that it's a "bad answer" with no actual substantial response, just projection. >>95953 Speaking of... Holy Projection Batman! Y'all really love to assume most people agree with you when most people can actually distinguish fiction from reality whether or not they find said fiction weird or gross. It's always those that conflate the 2 that end up being guilty of actual disgusting acts. Hence the "Reset the clock" meme. I'll also just rephrase one of your points back to you to show the absurdity and baselessness. "Video game violence is reflective of your violent tendencies and desires." I swear, modern inductive psychology has truely ruin people's ability to think critically and reason, instead going off pure intuitional assumptions and conflating it with absolute truth.

>>95953 >My definition of pedophile includes people who very obviously aren't attracted to real children, and would instead approach their fantasies through roleplay with a consenting adult (if at all) So you believe there's nothing inherently wrong with being a pedophile? What do we call people who do present an actual danger to children then?