twitter is dead

New and surprising lore this month.

The cutest

 

I'm such a good friend

[11:17 PM]Kurinoku: no internet
[11:17 PM]Kurinoku: even data is very bad
[11:17 PM]Kurinoku: storm
[11:18 PM]erejnion: Yeah
[11:18 PM]erejnion: Beben-ben-ben
[11:18 PM]Kurinoku: fucker

Regarding lolicon

"They are literally children", or the difference between reality and fiction

Ceci n'est pas une pipe. 

Fiction is by definition a lie. Any "canon" in it is ergo also a lie. Today the canon may be one thing, but tomorrow it might be something completely different. It all is a lie that the author is telling you.

Imagine a real girl writes in her wikipedia article that she's 18, writes in her social media profiles that she's 18, and says she's 18. This is exactly the level of proof that you have for fictional characters - they have a wiki article with their age, their profiles have their age, and they say their age. 

But does any of the above matter in regards to the girl?

No, of course not: the only thing that matters is HOW MANY YEARS HAS THE GIRL EXISTED. Nothing else matters. If she has existed for 12 years, then she's 12 despite any wikipedia articles or profiles or whatever.

The same, of course, is true about fictional characters: the only actual age they have is how long ago were they created. If they were created in 2018, then they are 5 years old in 2023. If they were created in 1997, then they are 26 years old in 2023. Any other stance on this matter just shows you have deep psychological problems with differentiating fiction from reality. Or, you know, you are a small kid that still hasn't learned how to do that.

There was even one ridiculous image that proclaimed to be a "test" whether it's okay to lewd a fictional nonhuman creature. It said that if it's "sexually mature" for its species and can hold a conversation with a human, it's okay to lewd it - which are the EXACT SAME excuses pedophiles make for raping little kids (but this kid is sexually mature, and she is mature for her age!).

So yeah, if you truly think that you shouldn't fap to a character that is under 18, you should be consistent about it and fap only to the Touhou lolis. They are over 18 years old now. Forget about horses and ships, and retvrn to tradition.

 

"They wouldn't have been included if they weren't meant for pedophiles", or what is schediaphilia

I wonder who tentacle hentai is meant for then?

I have heard all kinds of statements on how gay different drawings are. For example "futanari without balls is not gay, futanari with balls is gay". Or the "debate" on how gay it is to like traps. In the end, however, people are generally not physically attracted by the stated gender of somebody, they are physically attracted by their features. But in a fictional drawing, you are, you know, no longer constrained by reality - you are free to mix and match features, to idealize features, to think up new features. In fact, manga drawings are inherently unrealistic and idealized because of their art style. 

This, in short, is how schediaphilia - the attraction to drawings - manages to leave people with a more or less independent set of fetishes between real life porn and drawn porn. 

Probably the easiest example is scat - in drawn form it's idealized so much that you do mentally separate it from real life scat, so it's hardly rare for people to like drawn scat but not real life scat. But there's also necrophilia, and so on.

And the same is true about gay stuff too. If somebody is attracted to the female body, they can easily be attracted to an idealized version of the drawn female body, but with added a dick or two, or maybe the lack of a vagina, and etc and etc. So you can find some straight man happily fapping to two traps fucking the hell out of each other.

And if a straight man can happily fap to drawings of two men fucking but at the same time go limp immediately if he sees real life gay porn, why would you be surprised about the target audience and purpose of any other drawn porn?

So yeah, all of these things in the end are left as subcategories of schediaphilia and nothing more. The attraction to drawings just doesn't have much to do with the attraction to any of their real-life counterparts.

 

"They are drawn to appeal to pedophiles", or how lolis are actually drawn 

This is an entire sliding scale, with characters like Ilulu on one end, and photorealistic drawings of children on the other.

When speaking lolis, we typically think "manga style". That style, of course, is not homogeneous. You can argue that different manga style drawings can fit practically the entire above-mentioned range.

Generally speaking though, manga style is less realistic and more idealized.

But even in manga style, there's plenty of difference between the lolis that get lewded and the brats that are there as "realistic" children. In fact, people have demonstrated that lolis can easily be drawn by tracing over a photo of a short adult woman.

This is generally the thing: when drawing lolicon, artists usually add secondary sexual characteristics to the lolis, in order to, you know, sexualize them. Because the target audience is people attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, the artists add these secondary sexual characteristics, and emphasize them - albeit in a different way than these secondary sexual characteristics are emphasized in the American standard for beauty for example.

And, you know, last time I checked "pedophile" meant "somebody attracted to people without secondary sexual characteristics". 

It is absolutely ridiculous to look at Ilulu with her enormous tits and great ass and teeny waist and say "yeah, she was drawn like that to appeal to pedophiles". This is probably why most pedophiles seem to absolutely hate lolis and lolicon.

Of course, however, not every loli ever is like Ilulu.

To remove ourselves from the context of manga style for a second, Western artists much more often seem to draw such characters without secondary sexual characteristics. In fact, some furry artists were literally caught drawing erotic stuff by tracing over photos of real life babies - about as close to "realistic kid" as you can get with furry art.

But that's not exclusive to the West: there are Japanese artists that have mentioned that they look at real kids when drawing their smut. It's all definitely suspicious.

The general case, however, continues to be that artists add secondary sexual characteristics and emphasize them for the sake of sex appeal, whenever they actually want to sexualize the characters. Especially when we talk sexualized lolis from non-hentai titles the difference is pretty obvious. And, vice versa, the actual, caught-by-the-police pedophiles in the manga industry draw the safest, least-sexualized series possible, so I've never ever seen an anti complain about their works. In fact I've only seen praise by the antis.

Addendum: if you hear all that about "secondary sexual characteristics" and decide to say "but they look like 15 year olds!", you should know that scientific studies show that most people can feel physical attraction to real 15 year olds. It's just that the Homo Sapiens animal is supposed to have some higher brain functions and should be able to consider other things besides "is that real person able to make my dick hard" before they decide whether to rape them irl or not. I can only ask you to not think that everybody is a literal animal with no conscience like the pedophiles are.

"It is immoral and/or illegal", or why you should care only about harm to real people

For this section I will assume you can differentiate between fiction and reality, and thus know that fictional characters cannot be "harmed" - because they do not exist. Anyway, this has two sides to it.

1) The first is that literally nobody is directly hurt from lolicon material.

Why did you think that child porn is illegal? It's not because it's disgusting. It's because just by existing it violates the rights of the kid that was raped and hurts them. Did you think the kid would be okay to have a video of the rape exist? Child sexual exploitation material directly violates the human rights of the child.

And, of course, lolicon hurts nobody's rights. There was no child that was raped. Even if you have started reading directly from this section and think we're talking about drawings made by pedophiles for pedophiles (which usually is just the furthest from the truth for lolicon), you should still be fine with these drawings. This simply means these pedophiles are not hurting real children.

Vice versa: if you report lolicon material to organizations whose job is to deal with pedophiles (like the police or some NPOs), you are simply wasting their time and resources. And they have very limited time and resources. So by reporting lolicon to them, you are actively hurting real children by making it more difficult for these organizations to deal with the actual pedophiles. In fact, one of these organizations directly stated everything in this paragraph and sincerely asked people to stop reporting lolicon to them.

So yeah. Reporting lolicon just makes you the bad guy - it's not the virtue signalling you imagined it to be.

2) And the second is that literally nobody is indirectly hurt from lolicon material.

This claim, in fact, is the exact same claim that has always existed: "fantasy books make people satanic", "video games make people violent", "anime makes people sexists and rapists" and so on. And science is pretty conclusive on this topic: all of these statements are absolute bullshit.

In fact, generally the opposite is closer to the truth: fiction can provide a safe outlet to people. For example, playing violent games is correlated with a long-term DECREASE in aggressiveness. Of course, there are outliers that are mentally insane, but literally every single thing that exists in our world has managed to drive at least one mentally insane person over the edge. Statistically speaking however these outliers just don't matter.

It would have been nice if lolicon too could be a safe outlet for pedophiles - however most lolicon just doesn't appeal to them so most pedophiles seem to absolutely hate lolicon. In fact, every single popular anti-loli activist has been busted as a pedophile.

But, again vice versa, turns out that for a number of their VICTIMS lolicon proves to be a safe outlet for their own trauma. That's not a medical advice, that's just me relaying what many different victims of child rape have said over the years.

If you are trying to shame people for liking lolicon, you are also shaming these survivors and making their mental state worse.

So yeah. Whining that lolicon is making the kids pedophiles just makes you the bad guy - it's not the virtue signalling you imagined it to be.

What actually is the appeal of lolis and shotas

Lolicon is all about idealized innocence.

The cliche is that children are the most innocent. Of course, the cliche is just a cliche and nothing more - real children are absolute brats, capable of the most heinous shit imaginable. In fact, you won't even be able to imagine the lows children can reach.

But they are children, in the end. They are supposed to only now be learning what is good and what is bad. Just as they are capable of doing evil shit without batting an eye, they can be the most perfect angels in the exact same breath. 

All of this has little to do with lolicon. What lolicon has to do with is with its contrast: the society of the adults. When you've lost your innocence.

Especially in Japan, your life as adult is pretty shit. That's why quite a lot of the wish fulfillment escapist fantasy is about young characters.

And that is taken to an extreme beyond the extreme in lolicon: the core fantasy is how the innocence is idealized to the max, and then stuff happens to that innocence. 

This "gap moe" is a key element of porn, after all. That's also why people will do ageplay in real life - something adults do with each other just for the gap between the "innocent" roleplay and the not-innocent-at-all sex that happens.

Shota is in a similar vein, though a little different. What men into /ss/ have told me is that the feel is that the only time men can be loved unconditionally is when they are young. Once they become adults, any love is conditional on what they can provide to the other party. This is the core fantasy of shota: the unconditional love of the (usually much older) woman towards the male character.

But neither loli nor shota hentai tries to portray realistic kids in its narrative. It's the idealization, the removal of the undesirable (for porn) features, that makes it hot to people.

Idealization in plain sight - but to the max.

Regarding elves

The red 

thread of fate 

Connects me and hope 

 

No matter what 

I love it 

The world, as it is

Re: Bocchi

 

[9:29 PM]hellraiser: this ep hits too close to home in every scene
[9:29 PM]hellraiser: kinda hurts
[9:29 PM]erejnion: finally a literally me character in this anime
[9:29 PM]hellraiser: so this ep is basically me and erej
[9:29 PM]hellraiser: in the park
[9:29 PM]erejnion: basically
[9:30 PM]erejnion: best episode up to now

There's gonna be an anime

For ages now
Mia's often faced the fear
It's hard to see
Old memories are clouding her mind
It's beyond this life
Mia knows the secrets are within her
Wonderin'
In a world of broken dreams
Depressed and haunting her

No way out
So many times it's hopeless dark and gray
No way out
And other times it's hope that saves the day

Many moments of Mia's life she prays tomorrow
Inner peace will find its way and set her free

There's a light beyond the dark (darkest day)
There's a light beyond this life
And painful memories will all wash away
Painful memories will all wash away
No longer struggle with the fear of
The end and what's beyond
Mia lives a life of loyalty
True to herself and her own

The way out
A sea of life so peaceful and serene
The way out
The path of life lies open wide for her

Come join the path of glory

I am not sorry

Re: Full Dive

[2:12 PM]hellraiser: it's too early for Shark Week
[2:12 PM]erejnion: dont worry
[2:13 PM]erejnion: she will repopulate with sharks in time for Shark Week
[2:13 PM]hellraiser: not when she clearly can't feed the offspring
[2:13 PM]hellraiser: kuu
[2:13 PM]hellraiser: kukuku
[2:14 PM]erejnion: hey
[2:14 PM]erejnion: milk is for mammals, not sharks
[2:14 PM]hellraiser: but that's a landshark
[2:14 PM]erejnion: she clearly evolved from sharks, not mammals
[2:15 PM]erejnion: otherwise she'd have organs to feed her babies with
[2:15 PM]hellraiser: fucking nature