this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2026
570 points (97.3% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

40814 readers
4523 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] dreamy@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

This is a false equivalency. Pedophile doesn't mean someone that rapes children. A pedophile is someone that's sexually attracted to children. Someone that rapes children is called a child rapist. You can be a pedophile that recognizes their urges being bad and thus not act upon them/get psychological help. This is why your analogy fails.

What we know is that there is no direct implication between consuming this content and engaging in criminal activity.

I know, I'm not for banning the content either. Let it stay as the nicotine patch that it is, until evidence comes out showing that it does increase child sexual assault.

[–] wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 8 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I never said that a pedophile was a child rapist and I know there is a difference. My point with the analogy is to point out that the depictions of the "shoujo" in lolicon are not representative of actual children (as pointed out in the paper).

The comparison with violent video games was to show that the representation of something like a "battlefield" in a video game is really not close to actual warfare, that even applies to these historically "accurate" video games.

Also, regarding your last point, the paper that I mention also cites a reduction is CSA during times where lolicon was more prevalent.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone -4 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

In the end, is it not strange to even consider the legal age of consent for purely fictional characters? Such characters are only as old as they are imagined to be, just as sex with them is only imagined. Because there is no actual crime committed, it ultimately ends up an issue of how one interprets images, of a person’s private thoughts, and this is not something that can or should be regulated.

This paper you've linked is entirely missing the point, and I'm gonna be real, seems a little pedophilic to me. This is the same kind of sophistry that you get from pedophiles who are trying to massage the issue.

Do you have the relevant section that indicates CSA is reduced? As far as I can tell, this paper isn't even a study.

[–] wrinkle2409@lemmy.cafe 10 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

"Missing the point" is very hard to falsify because it is too subjective, so I won't touch that. I think you expected the paper to be empirical, which is not the case, it is an analytical piece.

Referring to your concern, the paper cites research by Takatsuki Yasushi, mentioning that sexual abuse of minors in Japan was statistically much more common during the 1960s and 1970s and has been decreasing since that period, a trend that roughly coincides with the increasing prevalence of fictional lolicon. Two things to notice: One is that this is an old paper so it could be that things changed more recently. Another one is that this doesn't mean lolicon inhibts CSA, it just means that it isn't a predictor to it, which is justified by the depictions having nothing to do with real children.

[–] petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

I'll make it clearer.

is it not strange to even consider the legal age of consent for purely fictional characters?

No, it is not.

You seem reasonable enough, so if I seem terse or frustrated, I am not necessarily directing that toward you.

The purpose of politeness in society is to demonstrate, virtue signal even, a person's willingness to abide by the social contract. You are virtue signaling safety.

The normalization of lolicon material is not a problem because it "breaks laws," it makes it more difficult to catch warning signs from bad people early. It provides too much plausable deniability.

This is not dissimilar to the aversion of racists when they start talking about race science, or making "ironic" hitler jokes—these people are not "breaking laws" either. The purpose of treating them as socially deleterious is either to shame them into better behavior, or, failing that, to excommunicate them from society. False positives, whether these people were truly racist in their hearts, is immaterial to me—I do not care. They should have enough social sense to know better.

A disclaimer: Obviously, none of this means that I want pedophiles to fear getting help. Getting help is outside the purview of social excommunication; shame would not be serving a purpose in this case. But this fact really has nothing to do with whether I'm accepting of the endless flirtatiousness anime and other Japanese media seems to have with child sex.

[–] HollowNaught@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago) (1 children)

This is such a weird comment, because it seemingly tries to hold the moral high ground while belittling the other person, despite just saying "nuh uh" to papers and points brought up

You want to go to battle over papers?

When you cite papers, you cite passages. Which passage disagrees with me?