Basically as title, I wanted to hear if posts such as below are acceptable, since as it stands, it doesnāt 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 ādominatedā by a 14 year old is imo not okay, especially not when itās on a post of a drawing of a child with clear undertones. Maybe Iām misunderstanding the post since Iām not an evangelion fan, but I thought it was noteworthy enough to bring up here.
https://lemmygrad.ml/post/5810839
EDIT: The post has been removed, so I guess thatās a no?
Even calling it āloliā 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 āsure kill meā but less explicit as itās the grad)
(B) the line drawn is iffy with age (not an Evangelion fan so didnāt know sheās 14) but even then at some point, considering the artstyle and that weāre literally gunning for āundertonesā at this point I think we need to touch grass.
Ā© I agree the grad is really not the place for this sorts of things though
Hm, itās not problematic calling it Loli and definitely not creepy. Lolicon isnāt just porn, but attraction towards children in general, is it not?
Thereās 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 donāt know their age
c) The OC was likely created by an adult
I donāt know if the character depicted is said to be 14, I was referencing u/commiespammerās comment
Lolicon isnāt just porn, but attraction towards children in general, is it not?
Yes and no, āloliā is theā¦ 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 āattraction towards childrenā is pedophilia
Thereās no gunning for undertones. If you replace the cartoon image with an actual photograph of a child it should be obvious.
Once again, cartoon. Not to say that makes āeverything okā but at some point you need to touch grass
The age of the commenters is irrelevant.
As for thisā¦ seriously? They were cringe but this is equally cringe. Basically at some pointā¦ you get my gist
c) The OC was likely created by an adult
I donāt 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.
Youāre not into evangelion so itās understandable you wouldnāt get this reference, basically itās 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 Anno warned against. Comments of similarly sarcastic tone are often used by evangelion fans who tell fellow fans to āstop simping for children and go outsideā.
edit: (image for explanation)
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 doesnāt 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.
Itās probably simpler to just say that if people are openly pining after someone underage, thatās 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. š Though itās sounding like itās 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 somethingā¦ 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 āno loli posting,ā based on the most extreme of what people seem to associate with the term, my mind would go to a place Iād rather it not go in terms of what Iād expect to be prohibited and viewed as the thing to stomp out, Iāll 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 Iām doing a āwell ackshullyā 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. Iām sure you can agree it would be a bit absurd to just say images of anime girls canāt ever be posted. And āloli postingā seems far too vague to create a general rule out of, if this instance is the basis of it. āDonāt post images of characters that are canonically underage with captions or comments that imply sexual interest, even if as an ironic fan in-jokeā may be more actionable, albeit wordy as hell.
amemorablename commented with an etymology of the term which agrees with how I used it. So no, the term Iām looking for is not pedophilia.
