HOME | DD
wwwarea β CANON IS NOT A UNIVERSAL LAW - UPDATE
by
#age #aging #fiction #law #physiology #rules #stamp #up
Published: 2018-09-26 03:46:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 2435; Favourites: 38; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
UPDATE 10/22/2018 I also changed the stamp. I hopfully this won't upset anyone who's favorite the early version, because it's changed a bit. XD UPDATE DONE*This applies to aging up a fictional child to a legal age fictional adult. < Aging an 8 year old to a 9 year old would still be a child in such event.
UPDATE 10/19/2018: Look at comment I may or may not featured. Probably more about "making a child into an adult" rather than "making a child look like an adult". Though I feel like it's a bit different in fiction but yeah that would probably have been a better saying than what I said in the stamp. UPDATE DONE
This is a reaction to a certain stamp. The reason why I'm not linking it is that I'm worried doing so in a criticism like stamp might be considered a violation of the rules. But some of you might know which stamp I'm talking about. Though I am not too sure if the OP actually agrees with that it's pedophile in aΒ physiologically way though.
Anyway, why the hell do some people claim making a character look like an adult sexually somehow still counts as pedophile? That doesn't make any sense. If that still counts then EVERYONE IS A PEDOPHILE except for pure asexual people (without fetishes or any other sexual preferences).
"But it applies in a DeviantArt FAQ , so it does! Look at: "While fan art inspired from various sources is not automatically excluded from including the themes discussed in this article, please be aware that fictional characters which are primarily depicted as being minors in their original context are considered under DeviantArt policy to be disqualified from being featured in any explicit nude, erotic, or sexually provocative manner or in any portrayal of a sexual fetish and will be held to the same restrictions as photographic content featuring real children."!"
First of all, a rule does not actually mean saying it's pedophile and it's not a universal physiological argument regardless.
Second, while I might be wrong, I don't think it's clearly saying that it includes aging up characters originally children. Though I suggest not doing that in case, especially for law.
If it is against the rules, then I find it stupid and regardless, that doesn't prove it being a "pedophile".
"But doing so means it's for the features originally from the child so you're using parts of a child!"
Adults can also share similar features (e.g. hair style), especially if we are comparing an 19 year old to a 15 year old. This can happen to real life I think.
"But what about children that look like adults?"
At this point, I think changing a fictional age is the only damn thing that matters, but being attracted to an adult shaped body, or a "fictional animal shape" that has a fictional age of "9" still doesn't actually make you a pedophile because a fictional number isn't a real phycological effect. Maybe the reason the person is attractive to it is because it looks like an adult, so of course the brain is gonna naturally "confuse" it. -_-
___
Sigh, there is this fictional adult looking wolf that I might find attracted too, but there was just a tiny bit of a problem... the character's human form is 15. Yeah... So am I suddenly a pedophile now because of a random situation like that? The wolf is a fictional shape and doesn't even look like a f**king puppy. Especially in that anime.Β This Wolf (NOTE I suggest not looking up the character! Certain pictures might show up!)
So I wonder if being inspired by that shape and making a fictional character that's 25 years old still "pedophile" because it was inspired by a canon character that was 15 fictionally? >_>
Let me argue, no it doesn't make me a pedophile, or whatever that term is for those attractive to those close to 18. Even just for this exact wolf. Why? Because canon is not a natural law. Neither is a fictional age situation.
Adults are gonna sometimes look similar to characters that are a little under 18, and maybe even under 13. To say it's pedophile because of fictional situations and/or fictional age is pure stupid. If it is, then everyone but certain asexuals are pedophiles if I agreed. I support getting around the law legally at this point. And if a law gets even more corrupt by counting it in a mind control way, then I believe that law is even more wrong than ever.
DISCLAIMER!
Despite what I said, I do not think some actual fictional p___ of children should be a crime regardless if it is or not already because I think it's wrong to throw people in prison for fiction having nothing to do with real people and not containing threats. Fear and/or any other reason for passing such law is wrong. Banning such fictional idea might even make things worse since the ban of certain fictional CP would make it more hard to release urges legally.
But even still, it's really stupid to claim ageing up characters to look nothing like children still counts as "pedophile". I do not know if it's really against the rules, but that's a separate argument.
Update: This may obviously get edited in the future. Putting in case.
Update 9/26/2018: Changed "actual fictional p___ of children" to "some actual fictional p___ of children". Just in case. XD
Related content
Comments: 42
π: 0 β©: 0
π: 1 β©: 0
but the fact that some people purposefully age up a minor character to get with an adult character is concerning as fuck
π: 3 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 0
Let's say I draw an adult version of Olivia Flaversham from The Great Mouse Detective and have her as a grown up in fanfiction?
π: 0 β©: 1
π: 0 β©: 1
Makes perfect sense.
π: 0 β©: 0
It's literally against the rules (and in some places, law) to age up a minor and draw them in sexual content.
π: 2 β©: 1
Do you have sources for the aging thing not being an excuse under law and rules of this website?
I mean, I already addressed the rules (NOTE: It could be changed as I'm typing this.), and as for law, I am not quite sure if aging them up is not considered an excuse.
Even if it were against the law, it would be just as ridiculous as outlawing women with small breasts when the character looks like an adult, and regardless it wouldn't be "pedophile" by basic definition.
Also, I actually want to tell you that I've heard that DeviantArt took down an adult character despite the adult being canon in fiction probably because the adult in the fiction wasn't originally an adult. Which makes me wonder if that many adult characters from fiction is forbidden in porn alone just because the canon has once or more than once shown that it was a child at some point?
π: 0 β©: 1
It's in the rules of the website.
π: 0 β©: 0
you should have wrote making a child an adult instead of making a child look like an adultΒ
π: 1 β©: 1
Good point I think...
Maybe I'll update. I probably wrote it because of fiction, and if a child looked like an adult as a fiction, thinking about it as an adult with that would probably be adult. XD
π: 1 β©: 1
you really should update itΒ
π: 0 β©: 1
Well I did just updated the description. I added an update near the top.
π: 0 β©: 1
you should also update the stamp itself
π: 0 β©: 1
I was thinking of that. Might later.
Edit: I changed it. Replaced one part with two added parts "TURNING A CHILD INTO AN ADULT | IN A FICTION". XD
π: 0 β©: 0
true, It's not like we can wait until fictional character ages up as a human would.Β
Ash from pokemon should have been like 20 by now, he is still 10 years old in canon, even if in-universe time has passed.Β Β
and I'm not counting years that has past in the real world for that, that's how old he would have been based on the time in the series.
here you go, curious readers, here is the long but interesting researchΒ done in two videos;
-Β www.youtube.com/watch?v=zBCUd5β¦
-www.youtube.com/watch?v=_43jzhβ¦
π: 0 β©: 0
This pretty much happened in the Tumblr RPC with me when I did an AU / Verse for a canon kid to be 18, nothing sexual intended but after posting a bodyclaim from a 22-year-old use (femboy body) I got bombarded and harrassed and ran off the RPC three times.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I still think that even if it's sexual intended, it's still an adult at the end, which is what this stamp mainly focuses on I think. XD
But wow...
π: 0 β©: 1
Yea I totally understand, I had tons of friends supporting me and saying it wasn't pedophilia.Β
Either way, nothing sexual was intended even with the bodyclaim. (Tumblr aesthetics LOL ) But, I /could've/ found one that wasn't naked so it's partially my fault.
π: 0 β©: 0
Basically a fictional character can be any age even if they are under 18 in canon they can be any age in headcanon/fanon
π: 0 β©: 1
Yeah, I think. Aging up a child to be an adult partly or just for the sexual reasoning is still no different than just finding an adult character in canon and preferring sexual things for that partly or just for it. In a how the human body works way. XD
π: 0 β©: 1
you should add the quote to the descriptionΒ Basically a fictional character can be any age even if they are under 18 in canon they can be any age in headcanon/fanon
π: 0 β©: 0
"Despite what I said, I do not think actual fictional p___ of children should be a crime because I think it's wrong to throw people in prison for fiction having nothing to do with real people and not containing threats."
Holy shit thats stupid. You do realize that someone swooning over fictional boys maybe juuuust a little more likely to go for the real thing?
The boundaries of real and fiction are easy to see for some, but for others, they are blurred due to mental issues and obsession. Allowing people to indulge in those fantasies make it easier for them to blur that line.
π: 0 β©: 1
Education should be key for some people. And some existing people can have boundary, and fiction may actually help lower the urges of many. I once heard a person who was into fictional dolls of children expressing how it helps the person not commit a crime involving a real child. Don't remember too clear though.
π: 0 β©: 1
Doesnt change the fact that for some people, it makes the crime worse. Even having that as a crutch that person needs to be forced to get some mental help if thats all thats stopping him from raping a child.
π: 0 β©: 1
If a person has an attraction to real life children, has a certain moral boundary and then use that as an alternative then the person is already being helped by that, but if there isn't a certain moral boundary then yeah the person should get help to avoid breaking any laws regardless of the fiction. Though I don't think fiction makes it worse itself.
As for some people, we can make it better by education though I don't think certain porn turns people into pedophiles. Anyway If I used fear as an answer, then we must ban guns, traffic for vehicles, violent in video games (there actually was a case involving that, and maybe more than that), and some other things already legal kinda. It's the same logic after all. Besides, you say it makes it worse for some... yet the banning it might make it worse for some.
π: 0 β©: 1
Unlike Guns, Alcohol or Violent Videogames, not a huge number of people are attracted to fictional children. The banning of it is beneficial in this case, especially if it depicts them in sexual poses or without clothes.
If you wanna say fictional pornographic images shouldnt be banned, you're also saying that real pornographic images shouldnt be banned- both still depict a minor in a sexual way. No if ands or buts about it.
π: 0 β©: 1
If it's not as popular, then wouldn't it be even less risky at this time? Many gun violence exist for example. I just think it's morally wrong to blame the fiction itself when it's the person's personality to blame. Same for putting someone in prison who wasn't actually open to going to a real child and is against doing so.
The difference between fictional children and real life children is that in fiction, they are not real. To compare that to the real thing is morally wrong. The making of real certain porn hurts children. The making of fictional certain porn does not.
Also I'm curious, what do you think of this main argument under the stamp outside of this argument?
π: 0 β©: 1
If you have to age a character up to get your fulfillment from them, that should be a sign you're doing something wrong.
If you say "damn, this kid would look hot if they were like 18" its probably not a good thing.
π: 0 β©: 2
But it's not pedophile. Just because you find that creepy doesn't make it pedophile.
π: 0 β©: 1
"Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children"- Wikipedia
If you are attracted to a child because of its sexual appearance, it is pedophilia.
What I mean by this is that the sexual attraction goes through all mediums. No pedo will only be attracted to a cartoon or real-life penis- both will give them a hard-on because of what the fiction is imitating.
π: 0 β©: 1
And turning a child into an adult in fiction and sexually enjoying that adult version (the shape, and personality if needed either or both to be an adult) is not pedophile.
Especially when I don't like the way a child looks because that's a child. As for 17 year olds, well of course for certain species that might be attractive, because the body is already very similar to an adult. Which was already mentioned in this stamp.
Though I heard pedophile to be an illness might depend.
π: 0 β©: 0
Seriously? Because you emotionally find it creepy, your opinion feels like a "fact" to you?
It's still not pedophile because it's possible adults can share personalities. Get over it.
π: 0 β©: 1
"your opinion feels like a "fact" to you?"
Right back at you, dude :/ I don't find any opinion as "factual" but it's obvious that you can't handle that the majority of people find fapping to animals and children (no matter what the context is) to be wrong and creepy. Sorry that you can't see that. It's a real shame.
Also, your comment hiding makes you look really shady, just to let you know.
π: 0 β©: 1
The majority is sometimes wrong. And you were arguing your opinion like it's a "fact" because you've used it as an argument. If you can't take criticism, then just leave this stamp.
1. Comparing a four legged emotional creature to an actual non-human animal from this planet is pure stupid and cringe.
2. Changing a child to an adult is no longer "fapping to children". Saying it anyway is basically not accepting the way psychologically works.
I can see that kinda, but I have a right to criticize how wrong they are.
I don't want to promote stupidity.
π: 0 β©: 1
Boop <<
It seems that everyone's points fly right over your head and/or you like to try changing what people are saying or meaning at a (rather weak) attempt at making them look foolish or make yourself look right? Either that or you seriously just can't correctly grasp peoples' points against yours.
Anyways, it was kind of funny at first but it's kinda dragging on now. 
π: 0 β©: 1
Not a valid argument. That's just someone finding it creepy by a special preference that is making something no longer pedophile. I don't see any criticism...
Look man, it's extremely insulting and offensive to say that someone is still a "pedophile" just because a canon is different. It's a FICTION, if the age is changed and the character looks like an adult, then it's an adult in fiction. If that doesn't count, then the porn doesn't exist because that's not canon (other than official porn if any). Though of course, you hate logic so I wouldn't be surprised that you treat your opinions as a "source" of logic in a way. You lost this debate.
π: 0 β©: 1
And my point continues to be proven. :/ Good day to you, dude.
π: 0 β©: 1
Me being offended and criticizing your points doesn't prove your point against me. Good bye popufur...
π: 0 β©: 0
I wonder what would happen in a court case?
"Hey Judge: This isn't a child because in my fiction of this character, the character is 19 and no longer 15!"
Judge: "But the canon said the character is 15, so it's still 15."
"Well, then this isn't really porn you're seeing because that's not part of the canon too."
Judge: But it's right here, you've made it!"
"Yeah but then you must agree that the character is 19 and not 15 because it's part of what I've made in which you claim to be real. It said so in the fiction that you claim is real."
Judge: "..."
π: 0 β©: 0