I've always ignored the discussion because it seemed really pointless, as though most cases where people argue about it, the loli=pedo side is just trying to get under the other side's skin. Never really seemed like much of a genuine discussion going on. Yet, even if there is a genuine discussion, what would I have to say about it? To me, it's a really irrelevant distinction to make. I've always had a stance along the lines of "like what you like, don't like what you don't like, who cares what the labels are?" Some people like chubby hentai but find real fat people disgusting. Some like anime traps and can't find a real world one they'd so much as let suck their dick. And, also, if you really get argumentative about the things people like, and say if they like X then they like Y, and they just don't feel that way, you may make them double down, get stubborn, and then one day when they start to question their tastes, they'll feel really polarized away from accepting Y. Tastes change over time, but if they defined themselves by their opinion on a taste, they'll repress that shift. But, people will argue, and maybe some of the insights in a discussion about the deeper psyche side of this is interesting.

Not most, all. /v/ can cry about it all they want but it's true.

I think it's silly to distinguish between loli and 3D children, and I don't see any meaningful difference between the two. Let me explain my thought process: We make sense out of the things we see by identifying patterns and attributing them to general forms. In more straight-forward language, we are able to identify objects because we have seen an object similar to it in the past and can either infer what it is by comparison or directly identify it because it is the same type of object as one we have seen prior. This is why you can tell that something is a hat, for example, even if the design of the hat is something you've never seen before. This is also how we identify what things are in art, because we can see the patterns that create a recognizable form. Take pic related, for example. You can recognize that the object on the table is a melting clock. But have you ever seen a melting clock before? Probably not, but you know what melting looks like, and you know what a clock looks like, so you can figure out what you are looking at by identifying the patterns in common with other objects. So how does this apply to loli and 3D children? Well, loli is a bit of a nebulous term but it can be generally understood to mean childlike in appearance (and possibly also behavior). So when you look at a picture of a loli what forms, what things in your mind, allow you to make sense of this collection of lines and colors? Most people would answer that they recognize it through comparing it with a child. This is further the case when you consider that young children are often the models for loli. Even in non-pornographic contexts, a famous example is yotsuba, who is modeled after various children. So really when you are looking at loli art, you are looking at an image of a child, and so it would follow that when you feel aroused at loli art, you are feeling aroused at an image of a child. Feeling arousal from children is pedophilia. If there is a flaw somewhere, I'd love for someone to point it out to me, but ultimately I think it's just a matter of forms.

>>4497 If pedophile relationships and attraction was acceptable all of the retards that claim there's a difference would just admit they're pedos immediately, it's purely about escaping stigma via a pathetically transparent smokescreen.

>>4500 I'm trying to avoid saying mean things because the point of the thread is to be civil, but I am trying to say that distinguishing between the two in this context makes no sense. You wouldn't say you aren't a homosexual for enjoying yaoi hentai, even though none of the men on the screen are actually real. You wouldn't say you aren't heterosexual for looking at straight hentai, even though all the characters are drawings. Loli is the only category here that gets a distinction, and since it isn't an exception in any way compared with other forms of hentai there must be some other reason for the distinction. I believe the assessment that it is to avoid stigma or to cope is accurate, but I am interested to hear other theories as to why the distinction is uniquely made here.

>>4500 If there was no stigma at all, you're probably right, they'd say they're pedos, but a lot of them probably wouldn't look at 3DPD or be interested in making a relationship with a child Certainly plenty would for various reasons. Some might because they see it as easier than trying to form a relationship with people their age. Plenty may just be genuinely interested. It'd be just like any other category of attraction and pornography, with a gradient of preferences and intentions. And of course, like so many other categories, you'll have people that still stand firm on asserting they only like lolicon, not the real deal, because they're too different for their tastes.

>>4502 /v/ types are slimy niggers and have like 10 different dismissals of this that are mostly nonsensical. It doesn't hurt that they actually do look at gay 2D and claim to be straight. It's cope city, and if you call them out for coping they pretend to be extremely asshurt about the word "cope" rather than your calling them out because muh 4chan even though 99% of them are post-2019 Reddit refugees.

>>4505 The only people that are convinced by underhanded tactics in discussion are people who want to be convinced because holding that position is the easiest thing for them. I genuinely want to hear a clear and explicit point from someone who disagrees with me, because I can't improve myself or my position without being challenged. It's entirely possible that I have missed something, but nobody has ever actually addressed what I have to say on the matter directly and I find this state of affairs mildly frustrating. If I'm wrong, I want someone to explain why instead of just contradicting my point and then calling me names. Please, if you are reading this and you disagree, give me something to consider that I don't already think.

>>4508 I used to argue with them but have just concluded this >>4500 and now I just bully them for being cucks.

>>4497 OP here. I agree with almost everything you said. The thing is, I don't think it is silly to distinguish real children from fictional children (at least not in this conversation). Normalfag lolicons are attracted to the latter but no the former, and we need to distinguish between those two concepts in order to recognize this phenomena. The way we categorize things is fundamentally arbitrary, and it is done in such a way that helps us make judgments about the world. We are naturally hardwired to divide things in the way that is most useful for us to undertand the universe, and the right way to do it will change depending on the circumstances. (After all, those abstract concepts and categories are all in our heads, the concept of "hats" does not actually exist in the physical world, we made that concept up in order to use it in our reasonings.) It is quite useful to make this distinction between real and fictional children when the difference between them is relevant (which is the case in this thread). There are also cases where the distinction between them is not relevant (in an ideal society where pedophile is normal, it will almost never be). But the act of making this distinction or not is not necessarily right or wrong.

>>4543 I think that making the distinction uniquely for this one particular thing is silly in the context of sexuality, and I'm not really sure what you are putting forward to support the claim that it makes sense. Lolifags say they are only attracted to loli, but they aren't obligated to and in fact are incentivized not to tell the truth about their attractions. The two core differences between an image of a 3D child and an image of a cartoon child (loli) is that the cartoon child is assumed to be fictional and the cartoon child does not look exactly like real life. However, you can still identify it as a child, and what makes loli itself is that it is an image of a child. Now of course the cartoon child and a 3D child aren't the same exact thing in reality or in anybody's head, but they are the the same class of thing; they are both children. The definition of pedophilia can be paraphrased from any dictionary as "sexual attraction towards prepubescent children". In colloquial terms pedophilia is also used as an umbrella term that includes hebephiles, whose age of attraction typically includes young people who have just recently began puberty (going up to 14). Further, depending on who you are talking to anybody interested in people below the age of 18 is a pedophile, including sexually mature 17 year olds. So just as you would not claim you are not a heterosexual if you watched straight hentai or found anime girls attractive, and you would not claim you are not homosexual if you watched gay hentai or found anime boys attractive, so too would it follow for any other category. If you find cartoon children (loli) attractive you are by definition a pedophile. Why the distinction between fictional and real matters in regards to sexuality is beyond me, and you will need to elaborate further on the point. It certainly could be a relevant distinction for personal preference, in the same way that a person may prefer blue eyes or big breasts. However this preference isn't divorced from the overarching sexuality it is a part of. Would you distinguish between heterosexuals who like big boobs and heterosexuals who like big butts? Society does not seem to, and I do not either.

>>4490 Hey, uh buddy. This thread is illegal. >Global rule 2 >Legal, fictional 2D or 3DCG artwork is not prohibited and is not to be conflated with pedophilia or any content banned under this rule.

>>4502 >You wouldn't say you aren't a homosexual for enjoying yaoi hentai I would. Otokonoko is too feminine. No real male comes close.

>>4622 There is nothing wrong with being gay as long as you aren't a fag about it. If you are attracted to something with a penis you are a homosexual. Of course that doesn't make fembois any less cute <3

>>4550 >Would you distinguish between heterosexuals who like big boobs and heterosexuals who like big butts? <What is an assman?

>>4623 >If you are attracted to something with a penis you are a homosexual Not necessarily, why do you think trap is a term?

>>4626 it's not a trap if you know about the penis, and you are gay if you continue to be interested after you know about the penis

>>4625 an assman would be a heterosexual who likes big butts (and cannot lie), I would assume.

I think there is a distinction between liking 2D lolis, and liking 3D lolis. Neither one logically implies the other.I don't know the relative proportions of lolicons, pedos, and those who are both at once. so I can't say whether it's most or some lolicons who are also pedophiles. Personally I am both and I like 2D tots too

>>4748 >2D tots based what about 3D tots

>>4753 They don't turn me on

>>4758 too bad 2D is still based

>>4748 well it's not a matter of preference. it's like liking blue eyes or brown eyes in grannies. you still like grannies. Liking 2D children still means you like children. Specifying 2D is specifying a preference, not a difference in sexuality

>>4753 >what about 3D tots Better than 2D tots

>>4912 true

>>4920 the real girl is still the sexiest since she's real

>>4924 Definitely agree. It helps to have a real girl in your life to help you along in accepting yourself as a pedophile.

>>4748 Agree for the most. I like both as well but both also have their unique appeal and some things arent possible irl vs 2d and so on. Im not sure if i would say that 2d lolicons are irl pedos in denial but the attraction and appreciation for the loli body exclusively in 2d is a bit difficult to completely remove from the idea that you would find that similar form unappealing irl, for a number of reasons. I have more experience with 2D than with irl loli ofc but i do have enough experience with irl to say that i know i like both

>>4748 I kind of agree in that I think it's possible to like 2D without liking 3D, but I don''t think they are completely distinct. Someone who faps to 2D has to have at least some acceptance of the idea of fucking a child, even if they happen not to find 3D children attractive. That's why I think the more vocal lolicon antis are full of shit; they claim they're repulsed by childfucking but they fap to the idea of childfucking all the time. I think what they're actually repulsed by is the 3D child, in the same way a straight person is repulsed when they think of gay sex. People don't like seeing sex involving something they're not attracted to. In that sense I think lolicons are pseudo-pedos. They enjoy the idea of child sex but aren't attracted to children.

>>4627 >it's not a trap if you know about the penis Fucking this. Nothing more frustrating than seeing newfag thread after newfag thread of muh animu ladyboys fully exposed but still being called "traps".

>>4943 ladyboys are based

>>4946 ladyboys are basedest when they're underage

>>5134 you're the basedest

>>5134 nah, they're the best when they're around 20-24. Not too young, not too old.

>>4946 >>5134 >>5228 >>7508 i hate homos

>>7526 Nothing gay about liking ladyboys. Even of it was faggy, it'd still be better than doing it with a kid.