Percivius

@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs You are mixing legality with actual scientific research methodology. In this way, you are using it interchangeably. They define what they actually used in their research, you cannot ignore this. You need to be specific in the context of the research

@PerciDsang @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs lolicon is considered CSAM in a multitude of country.

>be Alex >try to out a “lolicon” as a diddler >turns out the diddler isn’t a lolicon, just a general anime watcher >get outed for using CSAM to lure diddlers The clock is fucking spinning at this point

@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs You’ve already conflated lolicon and CSAM by referring to it via legality. In Seto’s research, it specifically says they used real nude models via photographs. The depiction of children refers to real depictions, you keep mixing up the two and skipping their methodology

@PerciDsang @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs wrong.

@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs Ah so you conflated lolicon with CSAM then used the studies that were those who seek CSAM material as a higher likelihood of pedophilic interest. Even though the studies had to do with real depictions of minors, it seems you asked leading questions. Context matters

@mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs >study says that there's a higher likelihood of pedophilic interested amongs those who seek / view CSAM material >lolicon is considered CSAM in multiple first world country

@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs I am reading the studies you cited. They had no fictitious material, they used sexual stimula involve real nude models

@PerciDsang @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs brother, if you get sexual stimuli from drawn children such as lolicon you are 100% a latent pedophile.

@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs In the context of the studies themselves

@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs This is an extrapolation. The virtually draw children were made to depict real ones. You conflated lolicon and the AI hallucinated

@HehehehePiss @mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs The study you listed (Seto) used actual depictions of real children. Did you extrapolate the drawn/animated yourself from it via AI?

@mikehoney_ @Ronin_Protector @bradoazs wow the pedophile would agree about a non-scientific survey downplaying pedophilias! THATS CRAZY! also >This is not an empirical sexology or psychology study. It is a cultural studies ( ABOUT JAPAN ) / media analysis paper

@lstr_51213 @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo People tend to confuse indecency with obscenity. These are distinct. Obscenity is deemed under the court of law met by 3 prongs The statue discusses what the scope of the material it can apply to, but obscenity must be proven. It cannot be inherently obscene

@PerciDsang @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo I don’t see how it wouldn’t apply to "Lolicon", as the essence of it is depicting what appears to be children in obscene ways

No, people don't do research and you're an example justice.gov/criminal/crimi…

@lstr_51213 @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo The law can apply to it, but the material isn't inherently obscene until it is deemed obscene under the miller's test. It is just specifying what the obscenity laws can apply to, not that the material is broadly criminalized

@PerciDsang @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo Context plays a role in every court case "Lolicon" falls under 1466A clearly

@lstr_51213 @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo No, obscenity is just context dependent. It is like saying guns can be criminalized if you don't have a licenses. It is misleading. It doesn't set precedence for all material with those depictions. Normal porn can be criminalized under obscenity laws if it is deemed obscene

@PerciDsang @TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo Is this supposed to prove it isn’t criminalized?

@TheoryChum @SuperBearNeo Obscenity laws require context of what the material was used for and conducted case by case. Materials cannot be inherently obscene, that is determined by the Miller's test in court. Any pornographic material is subject to obscenity laws if it is deemed obscene

@SuperBearNeo 'Some people dont do research' posts 1 section out of thousands not knowing theres a literal law against this material, section 1466, states the child need not exist. Charges made from this are as recent as 2022 where an appellate court approved their illegality (US V ARTHUR)

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo That is too broad. The requirements are development, age, and traits. They define a number for the age. They define what stage of development. These are requirements that can be measured. These must factor in together, not solely on what you see visually

@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo Yes, the DSM defines prepubescence biologically, you’re right about that. But it defines the category of the target, not a requirement to physically measure it in every case. Recognition of that category can still occur through represented traits.

This is why nobody likes debating Antis

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo Fantasy and fiction are indeed imaginary, but this is a false equivalence. Fantasy is defined as the mental process of imagination as per its psychological definition, not the subgenre. This is an apples to oranges argument

@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo It does not refer to ontological definitions. Fantasy is factually fiction, theyre literally both imaginary scenarios by definition. Thats not conflating at all. And even ontological representations in fantasies and fiction are still fiction.

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo DSM defines attraction to prepubescent children. This targets prepubescence and child as the target of attraction. They define how prepubescence and a child can be measured via biological age and development. You cannot specifically ignore the biological status

@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo non-human*

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo Prepubescence can only be achieved from the existence of children. It cannot be applied to something non existent or human. When it has criteria for it, it refers to one that can be measured from a real child

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo They do not need to make the distinction because fiction cannot be prepubescent. It is not about representation, it is about actual measured factors for that would clinically define as a child.

@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo Yes, they would absolutely have to make that deviation, that 'the same traits do not count in fiction', because its the same traits being targeted thats being represented. Thats a deviation from the original inclusion, anything else is drawing an implied conclusion.

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo The manual specifically relies on ontological definitions because it has a clinical framework. It has measurements that can accurately be measured via biological development and tanner stages. You are trying to present "representations" as a strong indicator, but it's superficial

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo It does not need to include whether it is fiction or not because they clearly define what prepubescence is. To stretch it beyond its ontological definition is inaccurate. To define representations as included is an overreach that the manual does not support

@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo And yes, fictional constructs represent children all the time. They even do it across species. Daniel Tiger PBS has a baby tiger, children tigers, parent tigers. To say theres no possible representation is totally false

@TheoryChum @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo You are conflating fantasies with fiction. The fantasies it says it defines is prepubescent children. This is refers to ontological definitions. That is not a fictional existence, that as a targeted existence of a real child

@PerciDsang @DUPERCASPERDX @SuperBearNeo The DSM-5 doesnt specify fiction, but they do include fantasies, which means if the attraction can target one fictional existence, it can target another. As well, the fact its criteria means it would have to exclude fiction to not be included, not need to say its included