[ SECRET POST #5187 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5187 ⌋

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


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.
[Gnosia]


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[I Care a Lot (on Netflix)]


__________________________________________________



06.
[X-Files]


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.
[Lolita Fashion Youtuber Tyler Willis]


__________________________________________________
























09. [SPOILERS for The Story of Yanxi Palace]



__________________________________________________



10. [WARNING for discussion of pedophilia/child molestation]

























Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 00 pages, 00 secrets from Secret Submission Post #742.
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

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

[(Anonymous)]

I'm frustrated with using 'child-coding' in criticism because even in the examples you can point to where that label is accurate, the problematic element can and should be addressed in much more direct terms. It's pedophilia, it's power imbalance, it's abuse... just call it what is is. Child-coding is pussyfooting language that obfuscates the real issue.

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

[(Anonymous)]

I can actually respect this point of view, but I will still defend the use of the term child-coding.

I think that child-coding can cut through the evasiveness of some content creators when they say stuff like their 7 year-old-looking succubus is actually 5,000 years-old despite wearing a pacifier as a necklace or something. It's a Doyalist response to a Watsonian defense. It cuts through the pussyfooting by bringing in all of the issues associated with sexualizing a child in an simple package.

"lol the author wants to fuck a kid." Why say more words when less is more?

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

[(Anonymous)]

See, I don't even consider the anime trope of 5000-year-old little girls a proper example of child-coding, such as it is. Those characters are children, and the technical age is a transparent excuse. There's nothing evasive about. It's like a well-established joke at this point. Attraction to such characters is still creepy, but falls under the same moral grey area of all attraction to fictional underage characters. Nobody actually thinks the *age* is what makes it okay.

Child-coding is more accurate in situations where characters have the appearance of grown adults but exhibit the behavior and mindset of children. That's maybe the only place where the term is useful, because on the surface there's nothing wrong with these relationships, but there are problematic implications. But that's where misuse comes in as well, as people lump in neuroatypical characters or just characters they don't want to see shipped a certain way.

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

[(Anonymous)]

You've got it all wrong. The attractiveness of 500 year old lolis is that they are older than they look. How do I know this? Because I'm attracted to them, but -- yeah yeah lock me up, but get this first -- I'm NOT attracted to child anime characters who are actually the age they look and act like children! Ancient beings in children's bodies, beings that don't exist for real, are attractive. Children aren't.

Re: Secrets you don't want to make...

[(Anonymous)]

Exactly. I don't know a single person who is into the idea of loli/shota who has any interest in actual children, the appeal for them is the childlike body with an adult mind. They'd be grossed out by a character who both looked AND acted like an actual child.