Current Events > Manchildren once again upset that people have issues with games sexualizing kids

(+) Yeah! (+)

Lolicon and Shotacon pandering is exclusively about children, with the only exceptions being "adults" who still look like children but are conveniently hundreds of years old or something. Violence as a concept in media has no such restrictions. You can beat up anything under the sun, from kids to old men. The only way someone could reasonably get on your case for that is if your violence is predominately aimed at a marginalized group, especially when done by a white man, and that type of criticism would be well justified should you make a game doing such a thing.
---

You can beat up anything under the sun, from kids to old men.

Uhm no, im pretty sure you can't beat kids or old men in most games. Unless it stated that those old men are villains

There was this one game called Danganronpa: Ultra Despair Girls where one of the villains was a child prostitute. You play as a bipolar serial killer during that segment and defeat her by attacking with scissors until her clothes come off. Rated M and released on the Vita, then later on Steam and PS4. Where does that fall on everyone's sex and violence scales?
---

vocedelmorte posted...

You can beat up anything under the sun, from kids to old men.

Uhm no, im pretty sure you can't beat kids or old men in most games. Unless it stated that those old men are villains

My point is that violence isn't limited to little kids, which is why most people are fine with it compared to pedo-pandering.
---

vocedelmorte posted...

You can beat up anything under the sun, from kids to old men.

Uhm no, im pretty sure you can't beat kids or old men in most games. Unless it stated that those old men are villains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkybJVzh78Q" data-time="

Sexualization isn't limited to little kids either.... In fact very few games with loli characters are exclusively focused on them. They're usually a token character surrounded by older women.
---

StarSpangled posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

You can beat up anything under the sun, from kids to old men.

Uhm no, im pretty sure you can't beat kids or old men in most games. Unless it stated that those old men are villains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkybJVzh78Q" data-time="

Sorry i dont know about every indie garbage game. You could find worse that that on newgrounds. I was talking about more mainstream games

vocedelmorte posted...

You can beat up anything under the sun, from kids to old men.

Uhm no, im pretty sure you can't beat kids or old men in most games. Unless it stated that those old men are villains

Old men you can brutalize I've seen plenty of in games, usually old white men and usually at least half crazy. Children I can't really think of any, though I do remember a controversy in Europe over the grey children enemies in Silent Hill and they were replaced with the evil headless teddy bear thingies.
---

vocedelmorte posted...

StarSpangled posted...

vocedelmorte posted...

You can beat up anything under the sun, from kids to old men.

Uhm no, im pretty sure you can't beat kids or old men in most games. Unless it stated that those old men are villains

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkybJVzh78Q" data-time="

Sorry i dont know about every indie garbage game. You could find worse that that on newgrounds. I was talking about more mainstream games

Its a dece game. And obscure visual novels arent mainstream either. I guarantee no one heard of this until the reviewer whos a huge weeb himself covered it.

pokedude900 posted...

Sexualization isn't limited to little kids either.... In fact very few games with loli characters are exclusively focused on them. They're usually a token character surrounded by older women.

This topic was created because of one weirdo (Not the TC) writing a counter article to the Kotaku piece criticizing the game for sexualizing prepubescent girls. My comments have been in relation to the original post. But I'll bite.

At the very least most teens in games like this are at or over the age of consent in most places of the world. I do not mean the meme about japan being okay with adults fucking 13 year olds, rather the more reasonable 16 to 18. That doesn't mean you'll be in the clear with everyone, but a lost less will be willing to call you out for it.
---

MwarriorHiei posted...

Lord_Wombat posted...

Yeah, that seems to be the typical argument from those on your side, even after it's been explained why its asinine many times.

Instead of coming up with ridiculous analogies to defend the sexualization of children, maybe you guys should use the time spent arguing to seek therapy?

"[X] in video games causes [X] in real life."

Exactly, the people defending this censorship are nothing but self-righteous, hypocritical fools.
+++

Dabrikishaw15 posted...

Lolicon and Shotacon pandering is exclusively about children, with the only exceptions being "adults" who still look like children but are conveniently hundreds of years old or something. Violence as a concept in media has no such restrictions. You can beat up anything under the sun, from kids to old men. The only way someone could reasonably get on your case for that is if your violence is predominately aimed at a marginalized group, especially when done by a white man, and that type of criticism would be well justified should you make a game doing such a thing.

On the contrary, quite a few games have had to remove children NPCs where violence against them was an option, most notably Fallout 1&2 in certain countries. As well, it's why children NPCs have become unkillable starting from Fallout 3.

As well, the Resident Evil series (specifically 4&5) have been accused of "violence predominately aimed at a marginalized group" on account of how both games have you playing as a white protagonist fighting and killing enemies of only one race. It wasn't intentionally, but Capcom still got heavily criticized for it. (Ironically, it outed some critics as being racist themselves. "Of course a Japanese company would think this was okay" and other such remarks.)

There's also been at least one game (Hatred I think it was called) that also experienced blowback for "glamorizing" shooting sprees at a time where they were on the rise in the US.

And I don't think I have to repeat the whirlwind history of things like Mortal Kombat and Grand Theft Auto in general.

That's where the people in this topic advocating for one kind of censorship don't realize what they're doing; If you give moral-hounds and inch, they *will* take a mile, these same groups have been looking for any wedge they can to start dictating content, and you're literally giving it to them by suggesting there *is* wiggle room to censor anything based on the sole criteria of "I think it's icky" with the added bonus that you give them further weight because they can truthfully say "see, even gamers don't want XY or Z". Anyone who thinks they're not playing on a slippery slope is woefully naive. If everything is not permitted and protected, than nothing is.
---

Dabrikishaw15 posted...

This topic was created because of one weirdo (Not the TC) writing a counter article to the Kotaku piece criticizing the game for sexualizing prepubescent girls. My comments have been in relation to the original post. But I'll bite.

At the very least most teens in games like this are at or over the age of consent in most places of the world. I do not mean the meme about japan being okay with adults fucking 13 year olds, rather the more reasonable 16 to 18. That doesn't mean you'll be in the clear with everyone, but a lost less will be willing to call you out for it.

You're going off on tangents and not addressing my point. Your argument was that fictional sexualization of kids is bad while fictional violence against kids is fine because the latter isn't "exclusive" to kids. But that doesn't make any sense because the same can be said of the former.

And ALL regions of Japan have an age of consent no lower than 16, just like the US. Thirteen is just their federal age of consent. Do you know that the federal age of consent is here in the US? TWELVE!
---

Dabrikishaw15 posted...

At the very least most teens in games like this are at or over the age of consent in most places of the world. I do not mean the meme about japan being okay with adults fucking 13 year olds, rather the more reasonable 16 to 18.

Just a reminder that Germany and Sweden, considered the most advanced nations by progressives, have it at 14.

I always ignore AoC arguments. Because usually they're low with the prospect of teenagers having sex with other teenagers. Not grown ass men creeping on high schoolers.
---

Dabrikishaw15 posted...

Violence as a concept in media has no such restrictions.

do people really forget about all the controversy hatred started because of its wanton, unjustifiable, indiscriminate violence?

I think Hatred only got that attention because they went out of their way to get an AO rating (even though Steam doesn't require ratings at all). But it's a valid point regardless.
---

Kickflip posted...

I always ignore AoC arguments. Because usually they're low with the prospect of teenagers having sex with other teenagers. Not grown ass men creeping on high schoolers.

Those would be covered by Romeo and Juliet laws.

StarSpangled posted...

Kickflip posted...

I always ignore AoC arguments. Because usually they're low with the prospect of teenagers having sex with other teenagers. Not grown ass men creeping on high schoolers.

Those would be covered by Romeo and Juliet laws.

That's exactly my point. It's bizarre when grown men bring up AoC numbers like it justifies predatory behaviour.
---

Pornography is legal and yet you cant go see it at your local theaters... is that censorship?

Is it really unreasonable to ask that Japanese developers keep sexualizing 12 year olds out of their mainstream release games?

Should Nintendo have this game advertised on their store among all their other games with just a blanket M-rating warning of sexual content

Like even the MPAA indicates sexual content involving minors where appropriate

If youre into playing titty games for whatever reason I dont think it should just be assumed that your titty game is going to have instances of sexualizing prepubescent characters
---

I guess what Im saying is there is ALREADY a line drawn on what is and isnt acceptable in mainstream media

I think most people are okay with that line encompassing sexy 12 year olds too
---

Kickflip posted...

StarSpangled posted...

Kickflip posted...

I always ignore AoC arguments. Because usually they're low with the prospect of teenagers having sex with other teenagers. Not grown ass men creeping on high schoolers.

Those would be covered by Romeo and Juliet laws.

That's exactly my point. It's bizarre when grown men bring up AoC numbers like it justifies predatory behaviour.

Hey now, I'm not trying to justify sexualization of children in real life, I'm not trying to justify *any* crime in real life.

My concern is only with maintaining creative freedom with fictional works, because the kind of media one ingests has no bearing on what acts they would actually commit in reality, and the moment we let some group decide otherwise, we're going to see way more than lolicon being carted off to the chopping block.

"First they came for..." and all that.
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

Pornography is legal and yet you cant go see it at your local theaters

Sex scenes have become increasingly common in Western mainstream media.
---

pokedude900 posted...

TheGoldenEel posted...

Pornography is legal and yet you cant go see it at your local theaters

Sex scenes have become increasingly common in Western mainstream media.

Simulated sex scenes without genitalia or penetration
---

I'm sorry. WHAT Japanese console games are you playing with either of those things?
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

I guess what Im saying is there is ALREADY a line drawn on what is and isnt acceptable in mainstream media

I think most people are okay with that line encompassing sexy 12 year olds too

Yeah, all this cherry picking of posts agreeing with this mindset exposes the kind of extremism anti-censorship people like to accuse others of having.
---

"Works of fiction that I find offensive shouldn't exist" is an extremist view no matter how you slice it.
---

TheGoldenEel posted...

there is ALREADY a line drawn on what is and isnt acceptable in mainstream media

you mean western media
---

Kickflip posted...

StarSpangled posted...

Kickflip posted...

I always ignore AoC arguments. Because usually they're low with the prospect of teenagers having sex with other teenagers. Not grown ass men creeping on high schoolers.

Those would be covered by Romeo and Juliet laws.

That's exactly my point. It's bizarre when grown men bring up AoC numbers like it justifies predatory behaviour.

AoC numbers and Romeo and Juliet laws are different things.

If people want to die on the hills of a lolicon game that's their choice. I'll just point and laugh at them for being dumb, for having no sense, for being paranoid, for believing they have anything resembling a valid point about the work they champion, etc. It depends on the game of course, but there's nothing to gain from either side trying to discuss matters like this anyway.
---

StarSpangled posted...

AoC numbers and Romeo and Juliet laws are different things.

Duh? They relate, however.
---

Conflict posted...

pokedude900 posted...

"Works of fiction that I find offensive shouldn't exist" is an extremist view no matter how you slice it.

There's nothing extremist about not wanting games to sexualize little fucking kids lol

Yes there is. For the hundredth time, they're not real kids, and no one is being hurt. Trying to erase something someone else enjoys that's completely harmless just because you don't like it is 100% extremist no matter what it is.
---

Kickflip posted...

StarSpangled posted...

AoC numbers and Romeo and Juliet laws are different things.

Duh? They relate, however.

So its not about teenagers just having sex with other teens.

StarSpangled posted...

So its not about teenagers just having sex with other teens.

Not just about teenagers, no. Although the way older men latch on to various AoC laws that are convenient for them is telling.
---

wonder if these types consider dragon ball loli
---

Kickflip posted...

StarSpangled posted...

So its not about teenagers just having sex with other teens.

Not just about teenagers, no. Although the way older men latch on to various AoC laws that are convenient for them is telling.

Its obviously predatory.

This topic having 200+ posts should concern me, but CE
---

And after all this the argument for denying people the right to create and consume whatever fiction they want is "That's gross". That's not a remotely intelligent argument.
---

Dragonblade01 posted...

Endorse is an odd word to use here. I don't think you would use that for non-sexual entertainment. Even though I think it would be just as applicable.

Most people watching a violent movie or game aren't being sexually aroused or being emboldened to commit violence.

Sexualizing children only has one intent. To get people aroused over children. I don't think you have a right to a safe space for masturbating to children.

I don't mind playing around on slippery slopes because everything has the potential to go extreme and is only as slippery as society allows it. Society itself is arbitrary. America has become neither an anarchist hellhole nor a fascist dystopia despiting enforcing and not enforcing various arbitrary laws or social norms.

We've never had pure freedom so why pretend it's possible?
---

You still haven't explained how being sexually aroused is relevant to the discussion as if it were some sort of inherent negative.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Sexualizing children only has one intent.

False. It is also often used for comedy.
---

pokedude900 posted...

You still haven't explained how being sexually aroused is relevant to the discussion as if it were some sort of inherent negative.

It is when it has to do with children. I also would be against games where you graphically rape people or slowly torture them to death. When you start getting into the more extreme, it becomes less pure (as in just, not wholesome) entertainment and more escape fantasy for the worst of humanity.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

It is when it has to do with children

Why? They're not actual children, so no one is being hurt. Just like no one is being hurt when you commit mass murder in a shooter.

hockeybub89 posted...

When you start getting into the more extreme, it becomes less pure (as in just, not wholesome) entertainment and more escape fantasy for the worst of humanity

So what? Even if you believe that, what benefit is there to banning that stuff? Like you said, it's a fantasy. Give them an outlet for their sick desires instead of making them suppress it.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

pokedude900 posted...

You still haven't explained how being sexually aroused is relevant to the discussion as if it were some sort of inherent negative.

It is when it has to do with children. I also would be against games where you graphically rape people or slowly torture them to death. When you start getting into the more extreme, it becomes less pure (as in just, not wholesome) entertainment and more escape fantasy for the worst of humanity.

Did you ever stop to question this opinion? Specifically, "why is this a problem"?

I'm not into any of that shit either, but I can easily see that it's not actually causing any problems when restricted to fiction.
---

pokedude900 posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

It is when it has to do with children

Why? They're not actual children, so no one is being hurt. Just like no one is being hurt when you commit mass murder in a shooter.

Yes I am sure someone who masturbates to animated little girls is mentally sound and lives a healthy sex life in the real world. It's not about the action, but how it affects a person. Again, most people who consume violent media are not sadists or budding school shooters. Are most people who molest virtual children into it purely for the spectacle?

There's something wrong with people who have too visceral of a reaction to any fiction.
---

Imagine thinking liking 2d lollies is the same as liking 3dpd filled with shit and piss

pokedude900 posted...

So what? Even if you believe that, what benefit is there to banning that stuff? Like you said, it's a fantasy. Give them an outlet for their sick desires instead of making them suppress it.

I think we should cure the sick. Neither accept nor ignore the disease.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Yes I am sure someone who masturbates to animated little girls is mentally sound and lives a healthy sex life in the real world. It's not about the action, but how it affects a person. Again, most people who consume violent media are not sadists or budding school shooters. Are most people who molest virtual children into it purely for the spectacle?

There's something wrong with people who have too visceral of a reaction to any fiction.

How is sexual arousal "visceral"? That's something that happens to every person on Earth for one reason or another. Finding any enjoyment in murder is a lot worse in my eyes.

And again, SO WHAT? Yes, pedophiles ARE mentally ill. But banning games with sexualized minors is not in any way going to cure them of that mental illness. It's just going to take away a safe method of sating their urges.
---

gadgaurd posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

pokedude900 posted...

You still haven't explained how being sexually aroused is relevant to the discussion as if it were some sort of inherent negative.

It is when it has to do with children. I also would be against games where you graphically rape people or slowly torture them to death. When you start getting into the more extreme, it becomes less pure (as in just, not wholesome) entertainment and more escape fantasy for the worst of humanity.

Did you ever stop to question this opinion? Specifically, "why is this a problem"?

I'm not into any of that shit either, but I can easily see that it's not actually causing any problems when restricted to fiction.

Hell, even I make liberal use of "black listing" on boorus and the like where its an option (and believe, there's a lot of shit I don't want to see.), but I don't advocate for the outright banning of undesired fictional fetishes on those websites.

If there's people here who are into other kinds of VNs but simply don't like having loli stuff appearing in their searches, that's definitely a criticism I can get behind.
---