Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xybur The issue here is the depiction of small children that are naked. |
Once again though, you're ignoring the idea of perception over content. The perception isn't focusing on the fact that it's an underage girl. The perception is intended for it to be focusing on associating "cute" with "erotic". The subject matter is simply a vessel for that association, and one that perhaps unfortunately happens to have caught on over time.
Your last "example" is missing the point. The drawn aspect of it isn't meant to be a disassociation to reality, in fact for most artists and users the reality of what the content depicts is completely irrelevant.
Because it isn't real, it doesn't look real, it doesn't try to be real, and because for the vast majority of it it's not meant to be seen as representing anything real, I can't group it in the same vein as real pedophilia. Like I said before, and I'm sorry I have to repeat myself, there's a key difference between the denotations and connotations of the word "pedophilia". You can't just simply ignore one aspect of the picture (the motivation to create/view it) and come to a fair conclusion about it.
I guess it's an odd thing to be arguing. I agree that the written subject matter is largely despicable and abhorrable, but when you consider that that's not the point of it all for the vast majority of lolikon and loli artists, I can't bring myself to lump it together with real pedophilia, since the motivation behind that is something completely different and
far worse.