This was just something that came to mind when I was reading over those posts (which I do plan on making something else later, as some other things came to mind that I wanna address later), but to keep to the title of the post, I do honestly feel like we're just throwing the word loli at anyone under the age of 18 in an anime when that has never been the case.
Kanna Kamui, from Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid, is a loli.
Anya Forger, from SPY X FAMILY, is a loli.
Eri, from My Hero Academia, is a loli.
Genshin Impact specifically has a 'short female' model, which nine playable characters have, and eight of them would be lolis, using the actual definition pre-'New Right' era (Diona, Kachina, Klee, Nahida, Qiqi, Sayu, Sigewinne and Yaoyao).
Why am I going through these examples? Mostly because I want to show people what characters fit under the classical definition used before the past few years of the anti-anime movement trying to use 'language creep' to muddle the definition.
I don't care which side of the argument you're on, I just wish that people would at the very least use the actual definitions of words because saying that Satsuki Kiryuin, Ryuko Matoi, Marin Kitagawa, among many other 'under 18 but visibly not like the kids I mentioned above' characters are lolis is rather bullshit and only serves to work against the right.
Just my two cents on the topic, but overall, whether or not things become legal or illegal, I am hoping that people are at least able to actually work with the true definitions of words rather than abusing language to get whatever they want. Attempts to ban Eastern media isn't going to make people suddenly love current Western media, it's going to make people further check out of society.
Personally I think it's just bad faith argumentation.
There is a big huge flashing neon sign's worth of difference between sexual maturity and lack thereof. And frankly anyone trying to blur that huge, obvious line is suspect.
Particularly when the idiotic federal legal age argument is involved. Congratulations, you've discovered that federal preemption is stupid. Welcome to the eighties where the rest of us figured that out. It's a violation of the tenth amendment to boot. But of the mountain of problems facing America right now it's just about the least important thing on the menu.
If it's legal in your state nobody cares. It it's not, shut the fuck up already, or move somewhere else.
I'm assuming you're talking about things like the reason that every state has their drinking age at 21 is because the federal government threatened to pull interstate funding from the states that didn't go along with it. While I absolutely get it, IIRC, the entire reason that MADD and the assorted groups were formed is because high school seniors would drive across state lines to the states where drinking at 18 was legal and then get in wrecks driving drunk coming back home.
If that's propaganda, fair, but if it was real, then I'm stuck on what to do because that is a genuine problem, but federal overreach sucks.
Yes, Mothers Against Drunk Driving was in fact largely propaganda. It was their activism that lead to the fragmentation of the very concept of age of majority, not to mention a big pile of federal overreach.
Which is why the age of majority in the United States is now effectively 16, 18, 18 again, 21 and 21 again.
MADD was yet another crusade of urban liberal women against rural working class men. Because those "backwards rednecks" were the ones most likely to be in a position to drive home from the bar after working a hard shift.
The "drunk driving" statistics were entirely cooked. The key words are "alcohol related". If a drunk pedestrian jumps in front of a sober driver that is counted. If a passenger has alcohol but not the driver that is counted. If the person with alcohol in his system isn't at fault that is still counted. Solo crashes are counted even though a high percentage of the fatal ones are actually suicides. If a driver has alcohol but is under the legal limit, even significantly, that is counted. And here is the best one, if the driver wasn't tested that is usually counted because it is presumed that it is "alcohol related".
The auto makers supported it to virtue signal and to justify passing regulations of high-profit "safety" features like airbags and crumple zones that make it much more likely to total cars even in low speed collisions. Law enforcement was all over it because it gives them almost unlimited power over anyone who drives, including blatantly unconstitutional stuff like "sobriety" roadblocks. Government loves it because it is a non-tax revenue stream from unsympathetic targets (working class men) and a way to extract kickbacks from "traffic schools" and "interlock devices".
If that were the real rationale, they could have lobbied to get it reduced to 18 nationwide and "solved" the interstate travel issue just as easily.
But women see stricter authoritarianism as the only solution to any problem.
It's language creep mixed with poisoning the well as they want loli to be DIRECTLY linked with 'under 18', when loli only refers to a BODY TYPE.
Redman gave some examples but my best example to demonstrate this is Rory Mercury from GATE. She has a petite body, but does she act like she's a kid, even a young teenager? No, she's more mature than MOST of the cast, to the point she schools a politician in Japan who thought she was a kid on appearance till it turned out she's 990 years old.
There is a nuance of having a young looking body but not ACTING like a kid, probably linked to how a lot of 30 year old Asian women to Westerners can easily pass as schoolgirls. Loli JUST refers to a body type like curvy or muscular. Implying that it's also referring to age is more a incitement on how in the West you have those that look older but still act like children so the mirror opposite of what they criticise.
Rory is a great fucking character. And you're right. At no point does she ever act like a child, even for a second. She has the attitude of a calculating 40yo CEO basically the whole time. And GATE is one of my all time favorite animes.
Also, that sort of thing has happened in real life. There are some very rare conditions where someone just won't physically develop past a certain age appearance. Sort of like being a midget, but without looking so stumpy and disproportioned. I remember reading an interview with some chick who was in her 30s and looked like she was 10. She had to still live with parents, had to have them take her everywhere, had never been able to date or fall in love with anyone, and basically would never be able to live a normal life because everyone always assumed she was a child. Even with an ID, people just assumed it was fake. She couldn't even drink at a restaurant with her parents because servers would think the parents were giving a minor alcohol and call the cops.
God, that show was great. A shame it only had the one season.
That happens to a lot of anime I love, like Heavy Object or Amagi Brilliant Park...
As for the second paragraph? Former pro wrestler Marko Stunt said he once got carded at a Wendy's drive-thru because no one believed he was old enough to drive.
Dude fucking Amagi Brilliant Park was another relatively obscure banger. I tried getting into the LNs but apparently the author abandoned the series right when things were heating up with the main pair.
That's why I was so infuriated when Shinji Aoba set Kyoto Animation ablaze.
One of the 36 killed was the director of Amagi Brilliant Park.
I have a question. Say 20 years ago, and you are under 18 years old. you had a childhood crush on asuka langley from neon genesis evangelion. Asuka is like 14 back then. Fast forward to now and asuka is still 14. You fapped to an asuka r34 cause the wife was out for a week. Are you a pedo?
That reminds me of have a little thought experiment I've always wanted to try. Pick any happily married guy in his say, late 20s, and show him a picture of his wife in a bathing suit and ask if he thinks she's hot. Of course he'd say yes. Then show him a picture of his wife when she was like 5yo and ask the same question. Of course he'd say no (or at least he better). But, ask if he thinks she was a cute kid and he'd probably say yes though. But then keep alternating pictures, show one from 1 year ago and ask if she's hot, then one from when she's 6 and ask if she was cute. Then one from 2 years ago and ask if she was hot, and one when she was 7 and ask if she was cute.
At some point, the ages of the pictures are going to get close and closer together to meet somewhere in the middle, and 'cute' is going to transform into 'hot. And I fucking bet it won't be exactly right after she turned 18.
Even better if they are the same age and knew each other back then and were dating. Because I bet if you show him the pic of her at the beach when she was 15, 15yo him damn well thought she was hot. And she's is wife now....so do you still think that? You think she wasn't hot back then now, but you did then? But you do think she's hot now? So where's the dividing line?
All of this of course just underlies the fact that your mating instincts are designed to pick up on certain physical attributes in a woman, attributes that indicate availability for breeding. Instincts that were honed over tens of thousands of years. And no one told those instincts "at some point in the early 20th century, western society will decide it is no longer proper to be attracted to anyone below a specific legal age, so don't get activated by anyone below that age".
In a normally functioning culture it's uncontroversial to say a developed teenager is attractive, but that's based on adults respecting decorum and not being habitual line steppers.
Male sexuality completely unregulated by culture or law (in other words, by other men) is often predatory. See Pitcairn Island (pop. 35), where the Polynesian-white population was dominated by a few men that raped girls as soon as they turned 12. This became completely normal for the whole island. Or certain strains of Mexican culture that overlook your uncle or older cousin touching you.
It's pretty much established fact that women skyrocket in attractiveness around the time they hit puberty. Actually, I recall some graphs that suggest the peak (as identified by men submitting ratings anonymously) is actually before 18. Unfortunately don't have access to it on my phone at the moment though.
Not saying I think it would be good or healthy for society for grown men to hit on 14 year olds, but I'm not going to participate in the performative pearl clutching at the mere thought that girls under 18 can be attractive.
Well I would hope it would skyrocket around puberty. The attractiveness variable for a girl who hasn't yet reached puberty should return a null value. Any increase would be a skyrocket.
The point I was making is that puberty is around 12 to 14 for girls. It's pretty well established that, when anonymous and free from repercussion, guys will rate 14 year olds as relatively quite attractive, even compared to ages like 24 or something.
I bet there is no way in hell they'd let that survey be done now.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages, or don't produce enough and have a delayed-onset growth), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution and to institute broad general CLEAR rules, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, by birth certificate timing turns 18 at 1:30AM, and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up a half-hour later, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today, it's actually only 1:00am, still a half hour away!"... but then cheer because you're having sex in a moving truck which just crossed state lines to one with an AoC of 16, but as you're crossing the state line barrier, a shake happens and sexual contact occurs in a questionable point in crossing the state line at a questionable timeframe, to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
EDIT: And all this stated, this applies to humans. Doing human things. We don't demand that a dildo a woman is using be aged 18 years from factory production before it can be used, because it isn't a human, it's a piece of plastic. It feels weird to need to add this addendum, but yet, so many online commentators somehow can't seem to grasp that a dildo is not a thinking, growing, living, soul-having human.
It is.......now. For the last 9,900 years out of 10,000 no one gave a flying shit about that and we still managed to have thriving families and communities that grew from small tribes to advanced nations.
The societies that had high societal trust and carekept their youth did indeed do well those 9900 years. The ones that harmed them wantonly... Well, they didn't last to showcase any advancements.
You're missing the point entirely. The whole notion of 'emotional maturity' and 'you wife being old enough to have common views' and 'she's too young and impressionable' and all that stuff is entirely an invention of the modern west. Before the 20th century, if you were an established blacksmith or tanner in his mid 20s and you wanted a wife, the farmer down the road would say you could marry his 14yo daughter and that was that. She was your wife now. The whole concept of 'well it shouldn't be too much of an age gap or she she shouldn't be too young because her mental maturity hasn't fully developed yet and it could be harmful to her psychological development' is 100% entirely made up modern bullshit.
Every single succesfull civilization in the history of our species had roughly the same view. Is she old enough to have kids? Yes? Find an established man who has the ability to provide and tell her she's his wife now.
And it worked. The women weren't harmed by it. They weren't manipulated or brainwashed by it. They weren't be oppressed by it. It was their place to take on that role at that age and it was a successful since the beginning of mankind. The idea that it suddenly is wrong and evil and twisted and harmful it totally made up by modernity.
They've studied it a lot and generally most men will call women around 14-18 the most attractive when there aren't any visible signs of their age, meaning its as close to "without judgement, objective" as we can get. That's just how our brains are wired, they are at their youngest, healthiest and capable of bearing young.
That doesn't mean its okay for him to act on that, because there is a lot more to society and women than purely breeding them like livestock. They are still young, stupid and not really mentally capable of raising those young very well, as well as the litany of grooming power grown men can abuse over them. Those things used to be balanced by fathers having to give their daughters and multiple generations in home to help teach them while providing support, but neither of those are true anymore in the slightest so we need to compensate for it one way or another.
I don't mean to really defend women, but people treat the "age of consent" as a magical thing about physical development and attraction, when that's probably the least important part of the equation in why its important to maintain to some degree.
And its also why there are three fucking different categories of philia used to denote attraction to those under 18~, with pedophilia being the one with literally zero basis beyond a broken brain and an evil heart.
The age is too high to be ever considered pedophilia.
Modern women think a 32yo being into a 19yo is pedophilia.
Look at Leonardo di Caprio. They think a 49 year old male being into a 22 year old woman is pedophilia.
Love Rei-II, never fapped to her, not a pedophile.
Also when I'm talking about this with friends there's an unstated qualifier that you're assuming the character is aged up. Their personality and look is what makes them attractive obviously, and when watching a show you're forced into a peer perspective.
Careful with the phrasing there. It sounds like you're saying you're a pedophile for different, unrelated reasons. And, to be clear, I'm just having fun with the phrasing, not calling you a pedophile.
This. So much this. People get hung up on ages...of cartoon characters. Anime is often youth-oriented, but with adult themes. Highschoolers saving the world, and such. Putting aside the "loli" thing, we're often talking 15 year olds, or 16 year olds...the later of which I believe is legal in Japan, so that's already equivalent culturally to 18 year olds.
Some people take shit way too far and call you names for liking a canonically sixteen year old fictional character. That's absurd. They don't present as underage, physically, mentally, or story-wise. So that's even sillier than arguing over lolis. They're cartoon characters. If the story only works if they're very young, that's a bit weird, but almost always the story would work the same if they were twenty or thirty too because, again, all the actions and stakes are serious and adult.
I was curious, and looked it up, because I wanted a Western equivalent cartoon. Daphne from Scooby-Doo is apparently sixteen, and is well known for being hot. No one accuses you of being a pedo if you say Daphne is sexy. It's some weird anime-exclusive thing.
Lol, whoops
Yeah, exactly this. From the same society that was happy to discuss Jennifer Lawrence's 19-year old swimsuit pics on CNN.
Heck. Not so much anymore, but not that far back you had people openly lusting after actual underage characters or even actors. I think Britney Spears was underage, for example, when she was first getting big, and was very sexual in the music videos.
Talking about a real nineteen year old being hot is tame compared to some of what was acceptable not that long ago. But, yeah, like a cartoon that's stated to be the wrong age and you're in trouble!
The hilarious thing is it's only an 'issue' after you tell them the age. If you just showed them a picture of 90% of anime girls and simply told them "she's 20 and in college" it would be absolutely believable. It's literally only the "Age: XX" field on their wiki essentially that suddenly turns it into some big gross scandal.
Some people were literally counting down the days until Millie Bobby Brown turned 18, so that all tracks
As well as one of the Game of Thrones actresses, I think.
And, let's talk about the other side, or else someone will just argue 'see, men are trash. Cartoons, actresses, doesn't matter, they're scum.' Any famous boy will get lusted after hardcore, and they have no shame.
They were talking about Justin Bieber in really disgusting ways when he was still underage, and, like with Brown, counting down to his eighteenth birthday...like, no shame, out in public, on TV and everything.
They've got no ground to try to shame anime enjoyers who think their waifus are hot. When, you know, they are, because they're literally designed that way.
And then she went from 17 to 35 overnight. She looks rough these days.
God damn, I just looked and fuck.
Botched plastic surgery plus getting groomed by Drake for years’ll do that
How about you don't do that?
When someone hates something, often they hold a certain pride in being willfully ignorant of it. You see this frequently with gun-grabbers on the left. They have a sneering smug joy in not being one of those low brow inbred hicks who knows a lot about guns. They're still totally willing to ban them, but the idea of knowing a lot about guns makes them think they'd be dirtying themselves and sinking down a level if they put in any effort to learn about them. Being so 'civilized' and urbane that they no nothing about guns is a point of pride to them.
I see the same thing with the anti-anime movement on the right. 99% of the time, the posters get absolutely everything wildly wrong and clearly have no fucking idea what they're talking about. But when you point that out to them, they see that as a victory. You will often get the 'oh sorry faggot, I was too busy chopping wood and screwing my hot wife to make our 8th kid to learn about your pathetic little perv hobby you watch in your parents basement' sort of response. They are not only uninterested in learning the correct facts about the topic they're trying to control, they are actively against learning more and think not knowing anything about the thing they want to control actually makes them superior.
When you're trying to have a debate or discussion where one side is not only aware they don't have the facts, but they actively sneer at the idea of learning, you're never going to get anywhere.
One big part of why this sort of content is being pushed so hard, in my opinion, is to deliberately conflate as many things as possible with what Epstein and those like him have been doing. To get as many people as possible on the left because they feel persecuted by the right's crusade, and as many people as possible on the right shooting their mouths so as to build the perception of broad and indiscriminate persecution.
And pay attention to this exact same formula being used for other subjects as well.
While that is probably a factor, don't discount the hatred western wokists have for anime in general. Just as they want global communism so there is nowhere you can escape to in order to avoid their system, they hate the idea that men are escaping to eastern entertainment as a means to avoid western shit. 99.99% of western women are absolute vile dogshit in every possible way, and this is actively promoted in media with characters who are equally vile. Anime however still presents the fantasy of women as men would actually want them to be. Feminine, attractive, loyal, kind, caring, sweet, loving, etc. Even the more brash and abrasive tsundere characters are still presented as having hearts of gold and would never actually be mean spirited and cruel. It's all fantasy, but for 20 minutes at a time a guy can immerse himself in a world where women are what he was told they were but now knows they never will be. A world where women actually are as great as he wishes they were in real life. The fantasy has to end when the show ends of course, but for a time it's a nice distraction and relief from the misery of real life and real modern women.
While the more noticeable aspect of anime might be the masturbatory nature of the hot chick designed. For a lot of fans, I would argue most guys into anime, is that anime is more like masturbation for the mind or soul. It's not real, but you give your brain similar sensations to the real thing. And the real thing in this instance is the idea of a normal decent guy having an attractive, energetic, optimistic, pure, sweet and loving girl who will never cheat, never leave, never be emotionally abusive, never manipulate him, being head over heels for that guy.
The outsider thinks the anime fan is beating off to the images of the hot chicks. What the anime fan is really doing is letting his mind exist for a little while in a world where genuine loving long lasting stable relationships with a genuinely kind a pure woman exist.
Indeed, you're saying the truth here. I think there was another thread explaining why the "Anime Right" (as they put it) is considered by them to be superior to the "Tradcon Right" and generally more willing to take action against bullshit, and I feel they might agree with a fair number of your points. As much as people might consider them losers, I certainly don't.
Remember - the same people who called Epstein's Island a "far-right conspiracy theory" are now calling people who enjoy anime and manga ''Epstein" for crossing their puritanical "waah her organs" world-views.
"Epstein? Wasn't that the guy who ran an anime club for rich people or something? I remember something in the news about him, he did cosplay with a president or something like that?" -> How they're trying to make you remember him.
They're pushing laws like this because they're all fucking REAL children, and are projecting.
And/or they just hate beauty.
One day, you will see.
Explaining these kinds of concepts with any kind of nuance is 120-130 verbal territory minimum, you're not going to make it happen around a bunch of ESL guys and retards.
I posted this in a reply, but thought it was interesting and relevant so I'll put a snippet here too, and expand on some parts too.
I was curious, and looked it up, because I wanted a Western equivalent cartoon. Daphne from Scooby-Doo is apparently sixteen, and is well known for being hot. No one accuses you of being a pedo if you say Daphne is sexy. It's some weird anime-exclusive thing. It's absolutely an attack on anime.
u/The_Shadow_of_Intent made a very good point and said "when watching a show you're forced into a peer perspective."
People get hung up on ages...of cartoon characters. Anime is often youth-oriented, but with adult themes. Highschoolers saving the world, and such. Putting aside the "loli" thing, we're often talking 15 year olds, or 16 year olds...the later of which I believe is legal in Japan, so that's already equivalent culturally to 18 year olds.
Some people take shit way too far and call you names for liking a canonically sixteen year old fictional character. That's absurd. They don't present as underage, physically, mentally, or story-wise. So that's even sillier than arguing over lolis. They're cartoon characters. If the story only works if they're very young, that's a bit weird, but almost always the story would work the same if they were twenty or thirty too because, again, all the actions and stakes are serious and adult.
You often wouldn't even have to change the character design at all to age up some of these characters from highschoolers to adults. If they're fictional characters already indistinguishable from adults in every way, and the only issue is that they're canonically sixteen instead of mid-twenties...yeah, there's nothing wrong with finding them attractive.
Back, briefly, to the loli discussion itself. Lolis are clearly very different from what I described above, because their appearance is not indistinguishable from an adult character. So this is what OP is talking about, that conflating "underage" with "loli" is silly and doesn't make sense.
Back to the Western example, thinking Daphne is hot does not make you a lolicon or a pedophile, and it would be absurd to argue otherwise. No matter how anyone feels about lolis, the overly broad application that OP is talking about is completely ridiculous.
Daphne looks like an adult. I only take issue with the clearly child like characters and I still don't say ban it but I refuse to allow people to claim it's not pedophilia when they beat off to it
That's the distinction OP and I are talking about.
Just like it's silly to call someone who finds Daphne hot a pedo, it doesn't make sense to call people into anime girls that are not childlike but are "underage" pedos.
Yeah. There's a few guys on here that argue straight up pedo bait isn't pedophilic and they piss me off
Frankly, the entire point of the bills banning "loli" and anime in general, are done for a several reasons:
Leftards called it "sexualizing" when Anya Forger was having a good father-daughter interaction. Remember that?
Those cretins have so much porn-brain that they see even platonic friendships as "sexualizing".
Laugh at them.
What? Now them's fightin' words!
I don't know the scene in question, but that anime is so freaking wholesome.
Those people are totally retarded.
https://animenew.com.br/en/tiktok-user-accuses-anime-of-sexualizing-anyonea/
https://archive.is/WjIxA
https://archive.ph/FNMFM
Anime and manga, especially the cuter/sexier series serves as the first line of defense, providing AWACs overwatch to detect leftard/regressive invasion. Those pedowood cucks just start foaming at the mouth the moment they see a cute anime girl.
Remember how much they screeched about Uzaki-chan?
Can we check all these peoples' hard drives? Like, immediately?
You're right that it gets misused or misunderstood often, and that there's likely an intentional or malicious aspect to that...but I'm just so tired of the "loli question" discussion overall.
It's just such an unpleasant discussion usually, because you have very obsessive people both for and against lolis, who will act like you're the worst person ever if you don't believe exactly what they do.
Everyone just needs to chill.
Short people are younger, taller people are stupid. It's written in every culture.
Great post. Definitely a concern I have and something I brought up in the other thread. I appreciate the time taken to come with lots of examples. It's very noticeable how the usage of this word has shifted over the past decade and even just the past five or so years.
At the end of the day I'm just not going to defend men who masturbate to drawn children.
Yea. Let's litigate what is and isn't reminiscent of "Lolita."
There's a definite language creep of some kind happening here.
"Loli" comes from Japanese "lolita" culture, which in turn took the name from Nabokov's novel Lolita about a pedophile's rambling journey over the US with his 12-year old stepdaughter. So the term has non-pornographic associations, but also has been entwined with sexual content from the very start. "Weird" is the adjective that comes to mind.
In Internet nerd nomenclature, no. Loli is a specific archetype of character design. But these recent conversations have been in the context of law. Those will be saying "depicted as a minor," which would draw no distinction between Anya and the cast of Highschool of the Dead.
Your post is kind of funny though. "Loli" as a character archetype was already language creep from "lolita" which always had a pedophilic meaning. Makes you wonder how many people have gotten accounts flagged for searching for EGL fashion.
We are not, and you know the rhyme.
Sailor Moon you're fine, Chibi Moon doing time.
Judge! We need a ruling over here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqv22hNaauE
Are you going one of those people who pretends he can't tell the difference between pornographic content and non pornographic content? Or even worse that there isn't any difference because there is no bright border line between the two?
I intentionally avoid the argument because I do not care to discuss it, but I do very much know the difference between porn and not porn lol.
I'm just saying that everyone should at least be working with the same definitions
That tourist with the mootxico name here rapidly devolved from 'waah you like loli' to 'sexy chicks BAD'. So I presume the people writing these censorious bills want to ban all anime because they're ugly and anime offends them.