Basically as title, I wanted to hear if posts such as below are acceptable, since as it stands, it doesn’t break any of Lemmygrads rules. Frankly, the post is very weird to me, and the comments are bizarre. People talking about how they want to “dominated” by a 14 year old is imo not okay, especially not when it’s on a post of a drawing of a child with clear undertones. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the post since I’m not an evangelion fan, but I thought it was noteworthy enough to bring up here.
Even calling it “loli” is problematic and if anything the creepier thing, but IMO
(A) in the genchat we talked about the age of those two posters (my comment on the other hand was “sure kill me” but less explicit as it’s the grad)
(B) the line drawn is iffy with age (not an Evangelion fan so didn’t know she’s 14) but even then at some point, considering the artstyle and that we’re literally gunning for “undertones” at this point I think we need to touch grass.
© I agree the grad is really not the place for this sorts of things though
Hm, it’s not problematic calling it Loli and definitely not creepy. Lolicon isn’t just porn, but attraction towards children in general, is it not?
There’s no gunning for undertones. If you replace the cartoon image with an actual photograph of a child it should be obvious.
The age of the commenters is irrelevant.
a) Their age is unverified
b) Readers don’t know their age
c) The OC was likely created by an adult
I don’t know if the character depicted is said to be 14, I was referencing u/commiespammer’s comment
You’re not into evangelion so it’s understandable you wouldn’t get this reference, basically it’s a common joke that despite EVA being created to tell you to touch grass and not drown your depression in fantasies many do exactly what he warned against. Comments of similarly sarcastic tone are often used by evangelion fans who tell fellow fans to ‘stop simping for children and go outside’.
edit: (image for explanation)
Yes and no, “loli” is the… genre if you will. The terminally online/creepy/anime way of calling it. Calling people or kids it in general is just plain wrong honestly IMO. The “attraction towards children” is pedophilia
Once again, cartoon. Not to say that makes “everything ok” but at some point you need to touch grass
As for this… seriously? They were cringe but this is equally cringe. Basically at some point… you get my gist
I don’t see how this has anything to do with the subject matter?
Loli is shorthand for Lolita, which specifically implies sexual abuse of children and usually(?) refers to cartoons. Sexualizing a cartoon 14 year old is definitely that.
Sexualizing children definitely shouldn’t be allowed, but I was under the impression this was supposed to make fun of evangelion fans. I don’t think very many people are attracted to the characters in seriousness, that would be creepy. Misato fans though are a different story, but she’s an adult so it doesn’t count.
Didn’t NGE have a feature-length porn sequel that was probably animated by the same studio? Having met a few IRL I’m not going to stick my neck out for weebs that make memes of sexually suggestive anime characters.
Are you referring to Human Salvation Project? I don’t think it was officially related to Gainax in any way and somebody said the frames were traced from the original. Besides, it can’t be considered feature-length since afaik it’s like 10 minutes long. The fanbase is pretty weird, admittedly, but in my opinion the characters themselves aren’t sexualized very much in the actual show. Assuming you haven’t watched it the actual show is very dark in a freudian way (Anno literally had depression as he was making NGE and it was his way of coping), and the goofiness of everything related to it is as much a reaction to the contents itself than anything.
Again I do agree that this kind of post probably should be discouraged, but it’s not necessarily a sign of perversion festering in lemmygrad either.
At what point do you need to touch grass and at what point does it make “everything ok”?
So, I mainly wanted to chime in on the phrasing and my comment grew into something longer. I remember reading vague things in passing that loli is a little more complicated of a term than it seems at first glance. This is one article I could find that goes into it: https://medium.com/thisvthattv/so-what-makes-or-doesnt-make-a-character-a-loli-85761716b152
This article also only vaguely brushes on the fashion/artstyle aspect of it too, called lolita, which doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with sexualizing a person. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_fashion
The origin of the term, if the etymology analysis is correct, is certainly a big oof for connotation to say the least, but the branching off uses of it in practice are more complicated.
It’s probably simpler to just say that if people are openly pining after someone underage, that’s not something that should be allowed on here and not make it any deeper than that, or we start getting into the weeds of anime and its art style. 😓 Though it’s sounding like it’s some kind of fandom in-joke in this case, from what commiespammer said. Not that that makes the look of it any better on the surface. In terms of the image itself, sans context, I could have believed it was an adult character and the caption was about the character being a vampire or something… anime style is cartoony enough with age like that. In this sense, if there is any underlying problem in the image itself, all I can see is the caption because of some interpretations of it. The image itself without caption is just an anime face in portrait. That said, if someone were to make a rule that said “no loli posting,” based on the most extreme of what people seem to associate with the term, my mind would go to a place I’d rather it not go in terms of what I’d expect to be prohibited and viewed as the thing to stomp out, I’ll put it that way; one that is many degrees more overt than the image in question and impossible to interpret as anything innocent. This is why I’m doing a “well ackshully” on the terminology. To disallow something you have to first be clear on what exactly it is that is being disallowed. Is the problem how the image was discussed? The image itself? The image with caption? At what point does it cross over from average anime girl into being a problem. I’m sure you can agree it would be a bit absurd to just say images of anime girls can’t ever be posted. And “loli posting” seems far too vague to create a general rule out of, if this instance is the basis of it. “Don’t post images of characters that are canonically underage with captions or comments that imply sexual interest, even if as an ironic fan in-joke” may be more actionable, albeit wordy as hell.
I think the term you’re looking for is pedophilia.
amemorablename commented with an etymology of the term which agrees with how I used it. So no, the term I’m looking for is not pedophilia.
Being attracted to children is pedophilia, doesn’t matter if it’s animated/drawn or not.
Lolicon is a subset of pedophilia
Yea but still pedophilia that’s the point.
Ok, well, we’re in agreement then I guess