[ SECRET POST #4447 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4447 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Leon S. Kennedy from Resident Evil games]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Big Family Cooking Showdown]


__________________________________________________



04.
[C. B. Cebulski]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Vikings]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Misfits (Season 2)]


__________________________________________________



07.
[The Umbrella Academy]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Splatoon 2]








Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 46 secrets from Secret Submission Post #637.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not saying there's a clear-cut answer to any of those things and there can be reasonable differences of opinion for what constitutes a representation of a child and what doesn't. And I'm not necessarily saying that anyone is hurting a real life person or necessarily should be in jail.

But like... if it actually is a representation of a child, and you're attracted to it, then it is pedophilic

[(Anonymous)]

But you just said it's not a clear-cut answer. That's the issue; they're fictional characters and drawings.

Yeah, you have things out there like lolicon and shotacon that are very clear-cut, but more of the discourse I've seen within my own fandoms are along the lines of 'drawing anything erotic involving any of the BNHA characters makes you a pedo.' These are characters who are in highschool for crying out loud and these people act like anyone who finds those characters attractive are looking to creep on actual teenagers.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, I'm sure there are a lot of people in the discourse saying super dumb stuff about where the line should be drawn. But I don't agree that being attracted to fictional characters is never pedophilic, which is the argument that was being made.

[herpymcderp]

Devil's advocate, but have you ever seen loli and shota stuff?

Have you ever looked at a 5 year old?

That is not what a 5 year old looks like. You can't even say that imagery meant to depict a child-like fantasy represents a true-to-life depiction of a child in cases like that. They're not a fucking thing alike, though one is ostensibly meant to represent the other. That art looks like small alien creatures, not human children.

In the same way that rape fantasy is almost never remotely the same as real rape, just because a fantasy version exists, doesn't mean a person likes the real thing.

I don't even like loli or shotacon but jesus this bullshit is mind-numbing.

[(Anonymous)]

just because a fantasy version exists, doesn't mean a person likes the real thing.

I did not say that.

[herpymcderp]

That's the whole crux of the "debate", though.

If it wasn't people wouldn't be wildly flinging around pedophilia accusations at every pairing they happen to dislike.

[(Anonymous)]

Other anon here, and actually I completely agree with this. I say loli and shota are clear cut only in the sense that they are literally fictional children, but yeah, a lot of it is so detached from reality I would not assume that anyone who likes loli/shotacon is attracted to real life kids. This is why throwing around accusations at people is ridiculous.

My personal major outrage comes from situations like the OP are talking about, where the character is clearly meant to look 'chibi' but in canon is 18 and people are still saying that finding her attractive makes you a pedo. Meanwhile, they will also claim if you like any character that is in canon below 18 but LOOKS fully mature, then that also makes you a pedo. Like what in the absolute hell.

[(Anonymous)]

As someone who has worked with actual children for years, THIS. This so hard. Fictional children are not at all like real children.

Real children are bratty, messy, loud, and they misbehave in ways that aren't even remotely "cute." Yes, they can be very cute at times, but they also can be very NOT cute at others and there is nothing even remotely sexually attractive about them. Fictional children do not have meltdowns in the middle of a store when you tell them they have to choose between the dinosaur and the car and that they can't have both, they don't spend the entirety of a 20-minute car ride discussing burps and farts and having a competition to see who can burp the loudest, and they don't deliberately put their math worksheets into the washing machine with the laundry and then claim they can't do their homework because it's ruined (all things I have had actual children do).

I would not think that anyone who was attracted to fictional children was a pedophile because they're two completely different things. That's like saying that someone who finds Jacob from Twilight's wolf form attractive clearly wants to fuck a real dog. There just isn't even a comparison there.

[(Anonymous)]

Yeah, and even when an author is trying to write a more realistic depiction of a child than a loli/shota character, the character usually ends up being more cute and precocious than a real child simply because it's still not a real child but a character written from an adult perspective, and society has an idealized view of children as pure and innocent.

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. I have seen very, very few fictional depictions of children that come anywhere near resembling real children. I don't even think that's intentional most of the time, I think it's like you said: people have idealized views of children, especially if they've never had any of their own/have had to take care of children.