/jp/ - Otaku Culture

[Anonymous No.]

Is being a lolicon unnatural?

[Anonymous No.]

Let's go back to 100 years ago:

You had men IN AMERICA marrying girls when they were 10 years old.

[Anonymous No.]

It's natural to be attracted to anything that can bear your children.

Humans, dolphins and some monkeys are also gay.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762418
Brb, building time machine.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762418
It's got to make you wonder what the fuck happened.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762418

It was also common for marriages to be done more for political/financial reasons than for love. Your point?

[Anonymous No.]

A paedophiliac type of mindset is just the result of evolution, think about it. If a loli was alone, especially one without a father, they would make a more likely target to the pedos. In exchange for a physical relationship, that loli would receive protection. It's a classic example of mutualistic symbiosis between two partners in nature.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762430
Families could now make enough money to support their entire family to an older age, and girls no longer needed to be sold to an older man as a sex toy in order to insure their survival.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762424

Humans, Dolphins, and Monkeys can also all get mental defects (which I believe what gay/lolicon is as you can't create children).

It doesn't make it natural.

[Anonymous No.]

i Love Lolicon for me is something that I see something ecchi. not morbid. as I see the 14 and up.

[Celsius !!jfzOqzBsIDH No.]

As long as real children aren't involved its fine contrary to normalfag beliefs.

Real children are both pig disgusting and annoying.

I'll take 2D loli any day of the week though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762426
Or you could've been born in Central Asia where traditionally children are married at about 10. They also usually don't understand the implications of marriage and often end up growing as siblings. It's like non-blood related sister route made into a social custom.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762435

You think they weren't having sex?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762459
I thought they just married at 10 to keep them away from other boys and such, and didn't start having sex till like 14.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762450

>as long as you don't ABUSE real children it's fine.

Fixed

Just because a guy is a pedo doesn't mean he's going to rape kids.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762471
>ABUSE
So if it's consensual, it's OK?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762459

I never implied that. However, I doubt being a lolicon was the main reason for marriages 100+ years ago. In fact, it'd be better to wait until she's at least 14-16 so that she is both fertile and physically near her peak if they wanted to have sex so that the woman would be most likely to conceive and survive child birth.

[Celsius !!jfzOqzBsIDH No.]

>>3762471

Maybe its just me but I don't see how people can view actual children (ten and younger) in this day and age sexually.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762480

Girls and boys, once they reach around 9 or 10 (that's when they start teaching sex ED) are perfectly capable of understanding sex.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762483
You must be new here. You just need more training.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762487
>(that's when they start teaching sex ED)

I learned in sixth grade, age 12.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762481

You'd be on to something, if it weren't for the fact that these type of marriages still go on in places around the world for purely sexual purposes (and to increase their harems).

We both know that guys don't have sex purely to make babies.

[Anonymous No.]

Nothing in nature is unnatural. And nature is everything in reality.

Valuing 'nature' as such is a product of primitive religious philosophy.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762483

I don't either. Girls start being attractive around 11 or so for me (right around the start of puberty). Not that I would act on it though.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762483

I've seen it. Japan works in mysterious ways.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762500

I don't give a damn about how the rest of the world considers arranged marriages between a young girl and a significantly older man; the setting of this thought exercise is the US 100 years ago. The US during that time was known for its extreme revulsion towards polygamy (no harem unless it's private and belongs to an extremely wealthy person) and, just like any other country, had marriages that solidified relationships between two families for political and financial reasons. The sex part certainly isn't an afterthought since it's required to create an heir, but implying all of these marriages occurred because the man was an extreme lolicon has no historical backing for this exercise.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762483
I'm not arguing with you, but how is "this day and age" different from any other? Human nature hasn't really changed at all since the beginning of civilization.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762424
That made no fucking sense!

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762418
James Madison actively pursued marriage with a fifteen year old girl when he was in his thirties. After he got the cold shoulder, Jefferson wrote him a letter of condolence.

And that sort of thing wasn't at all uncommon.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762589
Being attracted to = want to have sex with
Sex stimulates the nucleus accumbens (just like chocolate or drugs) => want to have sex as much as possible.
Gay sex is sex => want to have gay sex

Doesn't have anything to do with >>3762441 mental defects.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762587
So you think society hasn't made any significant changes since the beginning? The fact that we are arguing this right now proves that is incorrect. If men were marrying 10-year-olds 100 years ago, and we do not anymore, wouldn't you have to view that as a change? Being attracted to something is one thing. Most of us have obviously moved on from wanting to make a baby with a baby.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762624
I didn't realize it was meant to be separate points. I was confused over how wanted to impregnate something related to being gay.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762615
I didn't say we haven't made any significant changes since the beginning, I said our basic natures haven't changed. In more advanced societies we have a system of laws created through a rough consensus to keep people from doing things like marrying ten year-old girls, but that doesn't mean fewer people are attracted to girls that age. You can outlaw certain actions, but you can't keep people from trying or wanting to do them.

[mormon guy !nAP.g00d1k No.]

Why do you keep falling for the troll threads /jp/?

[Anonymous No.]

>men were marrying 10-year-olds 100 years ago, and we do not anymore

>failed to read previous posts

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762697
You live in Arizona or Utah?

[Anonymous No.]

The point is it was barbaric and was only done to insure the girls survival. It was pretty much sex slavery. Now that it isn't needed it isn't practiced.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762615
What gets me is how does that change in less then a hundred years?

If your grandparents were raised believing loving a 10 year old was ok, and they raised your parents to believe that, and so on. How does a one or two generation gap change so much? Mob rule?

Morals need to be defined objectively. Not left up to the haphazard majority and "might makes right" philosophy. Could fucking a ten year old be seen as exploitive? Sure... But all sex can be exploitive. Sure an adult might be better equipped to handle the heartbreak, but then pedophilia isn't evil. Love is.

A is A. No matter what the majority may say.

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762436
This makes sense, but it isn't so simple as "a transition". WHY do people lean toward pedophilia?

If people weren't such niggers we could discuss this openly and think about it. I am an admitted pedophile. Actually most pedos get offended because I don't like ten year olds, I like young teenagers. Typically I've had this sortof attraction sense I was little myself. I've brought it down to a math formula that you take a girl's age, add it by .5, and that's the age they look in my eyes.

There's exceptions ofcourse. I've been attracted to women in their late 30s. But typically I lean toward 14 to 18. I'm 24.

At first I thought it was something social. Because young women are typically more niave, more trusting, and more sweet and innocent. (Presumably..) And aren't just damaged goods with a stretched out vagina who think they have room to make demands. But that ain't true. Lots of young girls are fucking psychos and pieces of shit.

So there's alot of factors to it. More reason to believe love is evil. Because love is struggle, and non-esensical bullcrap. Stuff people shouldn't have to putup with.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762726
It changed because nobody liked selling their precious daughter to a 40 year old man, but they had to because if they didn't she wouldn't survive. Jesus Christ, it's like slavery. We stopped doing it because it was no longer profitable.

If you had a precious daughter right now would your main thought be "Man I wish some old man would come and take my daughter away so he could use her as his personal sex toy in exchange for basic survival. Shit would be so cash." No, because you'd be able to support her without resorting to that, and if not the government would do it for you. People back then had to break their backs to try and feed their family, and they had no choice but to limit the mouths they had to feed as soon as possible. Now, the majority of people no longer have to do that, so it's looked down upon. And now that transportation is easier, the wealthy elite can fly across the country fucking hot girls all over the place, without settling for that one cute girl on the block.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762726
Only love could be so cruel.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762755
Why not? There's parents out there who think "Fuck, I don't want to have a kid right now... Let me kill this blob of cells before it becomes a burden later on..." So I can kill my kid but can't sell them for someone to love?

You say "personal sex toy". You don't know that. What measurement is a human to property? They might grow very attached to their "sex toy" and treat them like a princess. It depends on a person's character. And I'd think it'd be more merciful to sell your kid to slavery then just kill them because you didn't want them anyway!

All our modern equipment has done has dehumanized us to the point everyone is expendable. If anything we're MORE likely to rape and kill our kids then back then, because we don't need them anymore. We don't need anyone! When we needed our kids and lovers for survival, we clinged to them. Now people can't stay in a commited relationship because instinctively they don't know how.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762775
There are still many people who would love to adopt and provide for a child without resorting to raping it in elementary school and stripping away all of their personal freedom. Even if they do treat the child like a princess, it would still be at the cost of its free will. I don't have anything against abortion really, but if you want to completely abolish it adoption would clearly be a superior choice to selling children to fulfill a dying middle aged mans sexual fantasies. There are millions of healthy families dying to adopt a young American child.

There's not any reason why this stuff should be allowed anymore. It's useless. Just because you're some sick fuck who wants to lock away a little girl until you can eventually start having sex with it doesn't mean there's a good reason for it anymore.

[Anonymous No.]

[Anonymous No.]

Sure is Naruto in here.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762748
>But typically I lean toward 14 to 18.
Then you aren't a paedophile, you are an Ephebophile.
Learn the difference it could save your life.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762711
Utah

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762804
Freewill is over-rated. I'd rather be loved and enslaved then free and hated. A human being's worth is relative to the people who love him. Without that we are just stray animals. Stray animals who still have to work and follow rules. So infact we're worse then animals...

I'd go as far to say there needs to be a project to leave people broken physically and mentally so we need eachother. Say set your house on fire when your spouse is inside, so she's burnt and feels too hideous to ever think anyone else but you could love her. And you fuck the shit out of her crispy ass and make her feel loved.

Poison her and make her sick. Not to the point of death, but enough where she needs you to nurture her.

Some might see this as creepy or even vile. But it's love. Love needs no justification. Love is beyond good and evil. Nietzsche wrote a whole book about that.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762685
I do not agree. I think that some people move on and others don't, until it becomes mostly one way. Society is the mass expression of what people consider acceptable (in societies that reflect the people, rather than their leader, that is). We wouldn't have laws that outlaw marrying children if the majority of people didn't have a problem with it. Not to imply that you do not, but I consider no longer marrying and having sex with children progress.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762697
Trolls bring up good points or things worth discussing sometimes. Or maybe we've just broadened what we consider to be trolling so far that we've begun to mistake debate topics for "troll-bait".

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762861
I don't think we're disagreeing at all. What I'm saying is that the same human urges exist today, probably in equal amounts among the people of a society, as existed four thousand years ago. However, for the sake of greater justice or security, we make laws to suppress some of the urges that are more destructive. And keep in mind that we don't put people away for simply having those urges, but for acting on them.

[Anonymous No.]

tl;dr: Puritans poisoned America early on and that poison slowly created tho sociological landscape of today where any sexual activity other than that between two consenting married adults of opposite sex for the purpose of conceiving a child is the work of demons, and everyone is suffering the consequences.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762907
I think we are agreeing for the most part. I guess the only difference is I think the urge is less common or at least not as strong as it was, while you think that it's the other way around -that the laws are what caused the urge to be suppressed in the first place. Correct?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3762943
Pretty much, yeah.

[Anonymous No.]

Age restrictions are mostly pointless. We have them on for example alcohol, and yet we know even adults can't drink responsibly always, and yet there is no law prohibiting all alcohol to save a minority.

We also have it on movies, which is just pointless. I have yet to hear of a kid watching a violent movie and turning into a monster just because of that. It is usually a lot more to it, like repeatedly bullied at school and such.

When it comes to sex it makes sense for penetration, since you should probably not shove water melons in someones ass at the age of 5. But just sexual plays could be age-less since it isn't like it is THAT much different from hugging since it is all about human contact (something even science says is positive for humans).

I also bet that if you treated something normal, like toy cars, the same way as sex, you'd probably get a pretty fucked up kid as well. "No Lenny! We do not talk about the C-word. Tell your friends to not bring those cursed toys here. If we see you talk or play with them again, you are in for some spanking."

I promise you that kid will go play with cars in secret. Just how the majority of kids masturbate in secret just because someone figured it was a good idea to treat it as a taboo. Not that I'd want kids to masturbate in public... unless they were girls.

[WE SHALL RULE AGAIN No.]

This is where you realize that

WE SHALL RULE AGAIN

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763037
This post is really creepy.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763037
Adults lack control, sure, but not nearly as much as children. Next you'll be saying there shouldn't be an age restriction on when you can get a drivers license.

If kids could by alcohol they'd be getting blitzed out of their skull. Kids would die from alcohol poisoning and probably be twice as retarded as High School kids in America are already. Plus, kids already do enough stupid stuff to look cool. Just imagine if they were running around intoxicated all the time too. It would be a fucking zoo.

Sure, there aren't that many reasons for restrictions on movies, but at the very least they let adults sit down and enjoy a movie in peace without little kids/teenages crying/yelling/acting like immature jackasses throughout the whole thing.

The world would be better off without kids in general, let alone with them running around getting pregnant, wasted, and god knows what else you want to let them do. Sure the people around here that spent their entire life on the internet playing MMORPG's may have been able to handle alcohol at a young age, but you're forgetting how fucking stupid teenage kids are, let alone ones in groups.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763074
The argument is that if you make alcohol normal and not a cool, forbidden thing there there would be a lot less abuse of it.
Same thing with everything else.

Jesus, are you retarded or just self-hating?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763153
And restrictions are in place for a reason. Alochol is restricted because of it's addiction factor. The same with smoking. In the case of sex - like any pleasure inducing substance- it is motherfucking addictive and harmful to an otherwise healthy body if done in excess.

Leave it to kids to NOT KNOW what excess is (Like they give a shit about what can and cannot happen to their bodies at an age where they feel invincible). Also, there's the fact that kids aren't fully freaking developed. Motherfucking hormones come into play. Too much sex means hormone overkill, which leads to other health complications (Especially during teenage years).

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763723
Angry because he isn't getting any.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763723
By this logic, there should be an age restriction on the internet.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763723
>like any pleasure inducing substance

What, Dopamine?

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763790
There fucking should be an age restriction on the internet. It might get a little bit less retarded.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763790
I actually was thinking the same thing. It's not like the over 18 group wants to deal with snot-nosed teenagers and 12 yrs olds who can't write. Also, it'd saves parents the trouble of having to motherfucking teach their kid about the morals of the web, etc. Not to mention, politicians can stop using the excuse that loli is impressionable on the kids (they aren't the intended audience legally, anways). I mean, banning kids from the internet basically just makes it so that kids can't be motherfucking used as an excuse in shit that doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763823
There's an age restriction on being a politician and that hasn't helped any.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763836
Implying NO RESTRICTIONS are better than less than successful ones.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763037
>It is usually a lot more to it, like repeatedly bullied at school and such.
>>>/rs/Perpetrators+of+school+shootings+are+usually+not+victims+of+bullying

No, really. Stop believing everything Fox tells you.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763849
Making more things crimes just makes more people into criminals.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763850
Right. Perpetrators of school shootings usually are just people who really hate kids.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763859
No, they're usually just school-aged people who happen to also have severe bipolar disorder/antisocial disorder/some other form of mental illness.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3763821
Not really.

[Anonymous No.]

There is some evidence to suggest that men whose male ancestors were philanderers and rapists have a natural inclination towards favoring females who are optimally fertile, ages 20-25ish, while men whose male ancestors formed long term relationships for many generations are inclined to favor females with many years of fertility remaining, ages 14-16ish.

[Anonymous No.]

>>3765794
This would explain so much.

[Anonymous No.]