>enemies have regional variations

>>936918541 (OP)
That's not regional that's just a higher level

>>715076328
stop being american...

>>715076328
based leaf

wholesomeorenji?

>>936918541 (OP)
Is that John Deltarune?

Why did muscle girls and girls with hair covering eyes have to become safe horny?

>>936918541 (OP)
Where is the right one encountered and does she have free beer and rock CDs?

>>936918546
that's the krusie kid on the right

>another thinly veiled kid sex thread

>>715076328
It must be hard holding back when you're full of amerislop

>>936918541 (OP)
this "artist" isn't funny
he should leave the loli thing to the japanese

>>936918551
>not my heckin gelatin in my cheese!!! it's just like my sneed oils!!

>>936918541 (OP)
>enemies can be recruited

>>936918541 (OP)

>>715077673
Be part of the political and media elite.

>>936918555

>>715076328
No, not yet...

>>936918554
How do I get the one in the back?

>>936918541 (OP)
Left every day of the week. Right's playfully mischievous fang clashes with the slack and laid-back appeal of her oversized bangs. Slapping a single trait like a fang on a character isn't enough to significantly change their impression, like the image might suggest. Every aspect of a character's design should synergise to convey a single, coherent impression. That's why Orenji's elf ojou-sama cleric with tan skin and messy hair doesn't work. It's literally designed by committee, as in her design traits were all chosen through a series of Xitter polls. There's just no cohesion between her traits to bring her design together. It's the character design equivalent of mixing too many paint colors together and ending up with brown.

>>936918560

>>936918561
bravo

>>936918561
oh it's this fag again

>>936918561
What are rights stats?

>>936918560
OOOUUUHHHH ELF OJOU SAMA CLERIC WITH TAN SKIN AND MESSY HAIR

>>936918561

>>936918561
kino

>>936918561
Oppai Loli is shit

>>936918554
posting the Dangerous version

>>936918564
STR: 13
DEX: 16
CON: 11
INT: 9
WIS: 11
CHA: 14

Bunch of the ones on the right lured me to a van, promising beer and Ozzy Osbourne vinyls.

post other cute simple art like OP for me to add oppai to

>>936918561
Okay, the cat ears were a step in the right direction (complements the fang), but you ruined it with the 'pai. The beautiful forms of little girls need not be tarnished with stapled-on melons. Give her messier hair next, and maybe a collar too. Lean into the catgirl motif. Try to make her look like an ungroomed, unkempt stray that's just been brought home from the pound, and who's still brimming with energy after having met her new owner.
>>936918563
We love Orenji here, tourist. Putting aside his cult following of gachaniggers and ironic lolicons that spend all day arguing with normalfaggots on Xitter and spouting dogshit overused memes (like this faggot >>936918565), his art is genuinely impressive.

>>936918572

>>936918548
>>936918571
Your image, anons.

>>936918572
But this is a videogame thread

>>936918541 (OP)
little girls will never be dangerous

>>936918577
Famous last words.

post your fav numbers...

421000
536837
444948

>>936918574
>secret.webm

>>936918577
>he doesn't know

>>936918576

>>936918581
GIWTWM

>>936918581
Damn what did he do to deserve this?

>>936918547
Because you let yourself be very easily influenced by trends you are not immune to propaganda

>>936918561
>tits
dropped

>>936918561
Really like these edits

>>936918582
That's not safe. She needs to wear a helmet

The fang is very important yes

>>936918584
Nothing. It was just a moment when ignorance overwhelmed the otherwise logical loli.

>>936918582
damn spat brats need correction

uh oh

>moved to /b/
Mods are niggers.

>>936918582
>>936918576
It took me a while to realize what was different because I don't like oppai lolis so I didn't even look her chest.
cute art tho. artist?

>>936918580
>>936918579
i don't get it

>>>/v/715083618
of course i get banned for a joke post but this gets moved. lmao

>>936918640
>enemy can see through stealth

>character has alt costumes

Yeah

Mods are fags for moving this to /b/.

>>936919423
At least the tumorfag mods didn't delete it

>>936918580
I forgot I've got it installed, scared the shit out of me

>>936919423
Where did you come from? /v/?

>>936918573
If you call them ironic pedophiles, does that make you a sincere pedophile?

>>936919970
they do, but i don't know where all the regional ones are.

>>936920235
*ironic lolicon
lolicon != pedophile
Being a lolicon doesn't necessitate being a pedophile. One is an attraction to drawings of little anime girls (lolis), and the other is an attraction to real-life little girls. You can have the former without the latter. An ironic lolicon is someone who pretends to be a lolicon online to regurgitate shitty memes, fit in with a crowd, or solely to be "countercultural" or own the libs. They're poseurs without a sincere appreciation for lolis, hence "ironic".

>>936921040
Huh, ok, thanks for the info. I heard this term once in the past, but I was informed that "ironic lolicon" means something different.

>>936921173
It doesn't mean anything, he made that up and he spams it everywhere because he's a faggot.

>>936921040
>Being a lolicon doesn't necessitate being a pedophile
you're the ironic lolicon

>>936921425
>>936921541

So does that mean I was misled, and you both are sincere pedophiles?

>>936918830
nhentai ids

>>936920190
ye

>>936921425
>IT'S ALL....... LE ONE GUY!!!1!11!
Ironic lolicon is a term whether you like it or not, retard.
>>936921541
No, I'm a genuine pedophile myself. I don't give a shit about optics and I've got no cognitive dissonance to work out nor a lie I desperately want to push. I just don't think you need to be a pedophile to like lolis. The appeal of lolis is broader than that of actual children, and it's possible to find the former attractive while feeling apathy for the latter.

>>936921040
>>936921541
what this anon doesn't get that in western internet content lolicon means liking fictional girls when in jp can means both real or not. but none of them include being a criminal. being a pedophile is not a crime. you need to take action for that.

the only ironic part here is normies trying to pose as whatever you call it to make people that like lolis look worse The issue here is that most normies or ironic ones can't differentiate between fiction or reality and they will try their best, "which means repeat the same labels over and over expecting you to be afraid of people not liking you anymore". in this case that you are a pedophile. and it doesn't matter if you just like drawings and nothing more. no amount of logic or counter examples matter.
are you a serial killer by liking killing in movies... no?

the best thing you can do is move and if possible tell them to shut the fuck up or lol I don't care.
what they actually seek is attention and being seen as moral person or some sort of heros. they don't care about protecting real kids or people that were diddled.

99% of the time the people that complain about the things you like are losers irl that have several skeletons in their closet or are literal schizos.

>>936922232
people that talk in black & white when say kids are ugly are just full of shit. most people had a crush on classmates or friends and they ofc were not hideous. the problem is again what you do after that. Nothing, grow up and like people your range of age. or be a criminal.

there's a reason why labels mean nothing these days.

>>936921840
I see

>>936922470
>"what this anon doesn't get that in western internet content lolicon means liking fictional girls when in jp can means both real or not."

I've been to Japan, and that very much is not a thing. Unless you have some reliable source you can link, I don't know why you make shit up

>>936918554
>adindu
kek

>>936922232
You and I both know how many of those posts are yours. If you had any self-awareness you'd realize that your attempt at forcing your pet meme is never going to succeed, but you can't admit that so instead you'll just keep bullshitting.

>>936923289
>how many of those posts are yours
1, from a month ago.
>your attempt at forcing your pet meme is never going to succeed
This isn't some grand conspiracy, you paranoid dolt, and I'm not an evil mastermind. Posts mentioning the term show no pattern with regard to the density at which they appear on the archive, nor the time between subsequent mentions. It's not being spammed or forced. The more likely reasoning you've ignored is that it's just a term that has gained traction because it fittingly describes a specific brand of lolicon, which is how I initially picked it up and why I used it to begin with. By all means though, keep being delusional.

>>936918581
>>936918584
He relaxed

>>936924644
Buddy, I do believe you, but I do get confused. When I first encountered this term, it was used by a pedophile who tried to mock lolicons for not being "true" lolicons because they weren't attracted to children. Now you are telling me it's about people who aren't into loli but pretend otherwise to fit into the community. So which is it?

>>936924956
>lolicons who aren't "true" lolicons because they aren't pedophiles
>lolicons who are only into loli performatively
I've never encountered it used in the first sense, especially since the majority opinion on /v/ is that being a lolicon doesn't preclude being a pedophile. I can't outright deny the first definition, but the vast majority of the time I've seen the term used, it's against performative lolicons (i.e. how I described it, as did picrel), and seemingly also against people who post lolis with big breasts or asses, lolis who are over 18, lolis from mobile games, or even just "mainstream" lolis (though I find these definitions too broad). When I gave up and just Googled "ironic lolicon", I got this result, which would be closer to your first definition:
>It is important to mention that many Lolicons insist they are not pedophiles/hebephiles and invest large amounts of time and energy seething over the mental split required to maintain this distinction. They are sometimes referred to by MAPs pejoratively as "Ironic Lolicons"
>t. https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Lolicon-MAP_Equivalence_Debate
It seems it's up to context (and a bit of guesswork) to decide which sense of the term is being used. On account of being a retarded made-up online term, its definition seems to vary or broaden depending on why it's used and against whom. I've personally only ever used it in the second sense (as does most of /v/), which is why I defined it to you as such. It might just be different here, or anywhere else it may be used.

>>936926615

I think this guy >>936921541, implied that you are an ironic lolicon, because you separate pedophilia from lolicon (and therefore being a non-ironic lolicon would mean treating both as the same). In some other thread, there was a guy, who kind of tried to make an argument, that most lolicons are pedophiles, use CP and are morally supportive of child rape, but that this is not visible only because admitting that gets you banned. This is not the first time I've seen such arguments being attempted, and they are always idiotic.

Also, do I understand that you identify yourself as a pedophile? If so, I was wondering, do you know perhaps why this is a common narrative that other pedophiles try to make? And if you don't mind, can I also ask you, why, as a pedophile, unlike them, you keep both categories separate? I'm genuinely curious

>>936926615
>pic
it was all thanks to nobeta threads on /v/

>>936926615
NTA, but I've definitely first seen the term "ironic lolicon" or just "Ironics" first used in the context of the first definition. Sometimes they use both the definitions simultaneously to express that they are not a lolicon (or more accurately in their eyes, not a pedophile) at all. Based on context, this post here used the first definition of it >>936921541

In fact, I feel as though the only reason why the term "Ironic Lolicon" got pushed is specifically because of the efforts of MAPs. Especially MAPs who post nothing but junior idols all day on twitter. No doubt, those same twitter posters post here too in hopes to shit up threads with their faggotry.

>>936927658
I will offer you one lol

>>936924956
It's probably just used to refer to non-"true" lolicons.

>>936927180
>do [...] you identify yourself as a pedophile?
Yeah. I'm non-offending, non-exclusive (i.e. I still find adult women attractive), and I don't regularly consume CP, but I've seen enough online to know.
>why [...] keep both categories separate?
I imagine "attraction to children" and "attraction to lolis" as two circles in a Venn diagram. I exist in the middle, but there are also:
>pedophiles unable to derive enjoyment from loli porn, unlike with CP
>lolicons indifferent or averse to CP, but who are aroused by idealized, stylized lolis
I don't conflate pedophiles with lolicons because I can't know whether any particular person is a lolicon, a pedophile, or both, so it's safer to label them what they claim they are instead of making assumptions. As an adolescent, I was a lolicon, but I wasn't a pedophile; only interested in girls my age and older. Not long before hitting 18, I found myself ogling little girls, getting hot, sweaty and awkward near them, and frequently imagining myself with them, doing things to them. Before these intrusive thoughts, I was a lolicon but not a pedophile. I don't doubt there are fully-formed adults with less malleable brains who, similarly, are lolicons without being pedophiles. People who can find adult women and lolis sexy, despite feeling nothing for real little girls.
>do you know perhaps why this is a common narrative
Back to the Venn diagram, the MAP position is seemingly that the circles overlap completely, likely because they want to screen for pedophiles amidst lolicons and garner support. I'm not familiar with the movement, so I can't speak definitively on it.
On the other hand, some lolicons consider the circles mutually exclusive. While lolicons aren't all demonstrably pedophiles, you'd have to be delusional to claim there's no comorbidity between liking lolis and pedophilia, or that a lolicon isn't more likely to be a pedophile than a non-lolicon. The attractions are undeniably associated, though not equivalent.

>>936930959
>non-exclusive
... therefore not even a pedophile (let alone PDNOS)???

>>936930959
>"As an adolescent, I was a lolicon, but I wasn't a pedophile; only interested in girls my age and older."
This shouldn't really be possible, since pedophilia is not attained, and you are either born with it or not. The research on that matter has been settled for quite some time.

Also, if your experience around children is that of you feeling uncomfortable and dealing with intrusive thoughts, that could be simply POCD. I would visit a sexologist in your place to get that thing sorted out.

>"you'd have to be delusional to claim there's no comorbidity between liking lolis and pedophilia"
Comorbidity doesn't necessitate a relationship. A person can, for example, both vomit due to food poisoning and have a headache due to the flu. And by what you told me, the mere fact that there is disparity like that, where there are non-lolicon pedophiles and non-pedophilic lolicons, makes me skeptical of the association between both (it's like insisting on association between homosexuality and heterosexuality, and flexibility in switching between both, because bisexuals exist).

>"the MAP position is seemingly that the circles overlap completely, likely because they want to screen for pedophiles amidst lolicons and garner support."
It's not just with lolicons that I've seen them do this. Basically, every time people get crazy about some group of people being pedophiles or groomers, there is a sudden influx of MAPs that go into these groups, and act like they are the original members of it, pushing out the actual people. In discussions, they are very manipulative, trying to persuade everyone that nobody is actually sexually attracted to anyone mature, and that morally, society is supportive of the sexual abuse of children. This doesn't seem to result in anything other than such spaces getting into legal or reputational trouble, but it continues to happen over and over again. And every time you challenge such people, they try to run away with the dumbest of excuses.

>>936931395
Yeah, I haven't been officially diagnosed, so it's just a hunch. That said, I've had years to mull it over, and I've come to the conclusion that I find little girls more sexually attractive than adult women.
>>936931699
>pedophilia is not attained, and you are either born with it or not. The research on that matter has been settled for quite some time.
I don't doubt there's a predetermined aspect to it (birth order, prenatal androgen exposure, genes affecting brain structure), but I'm sure developmental factors play a significant role in making someone a pedophile. Stuff like trauma and sexual abuse as a child (which I've thankfully never faced), but also low testosterone during puberty. Neuroplasticity being high during adolescence might also play a part, but I couldn't tell you the specifics of how. I've only read a couple of papers on pedophilia, but from what I recall, it's an underdeveloped field of study (although that might only apply to psychology and the social sciences).
>...could be simply POCD
For a while, I did think it was pOCD, given I believed I had OCD or ADHD as a teen (more confident in the former diagnosis). It's not unlikely, given my older brother is diagnosed with ADHD, which is familial and decently comorbid with OCD. I'm past that speculative stage now, though, and I've concluded that I'm almost certainly a pedophile. As curious as I am to know for sure, I don't need to see a professional. I don't have issues restraining my desire, and any semblance of guilt or self-prosecution I had as a result of my pedophilic thoughts disappeared once I began to accept that I was a pedophile. Nowadays, it feels no more unnatural than my attraction to adult women, despite how reviled it is. The most it culminates in during day-to-day life is staring a bit too hard at little girls in public, but I'm content with admiring, and I've never had any violent urges. I have the empathy, self-control, and common sense not to manipulate or abuse children.

>>936934029
>"but I'm sure developmental factors play a significant role in making someone a pedophile"
Not really, this isn't a question where there is room for speculation. The body of research about this topic is very conclusive at this point. No socio-cultural or environmental variables (except for the condition of the womb during the development of an embryo) play a role in shaping sexual attraction.

>"Stuff like trauma and sexual abuse as a child"
That was never a position supported by research, and it was studied as well. There is no link like that.

>"I don't need to see a professional."
I'm not telling you to see a professional because I expect you to do anything illegal (I can tell you are a good person, so this idea wasn't even on my mind). I proposed that because people frequently misdiagnose themselves, and it's generally a good idea to resolve any confusion for the sake of personal well-being. There is a possibility that you might find yourself more gratified by relationships with adults, provided you take the proper path. Of course, ultimately it's your decision. I just considered it worthwhile to mention it because your knowledge of this topic, while it exists, is very incomplete and disorganized, so it made me skeptical of your self-evaluation.

Pedophiles discover their primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children during puberty, and it doesn't change or fluctuate throughout their lives. Also, their experience isn't something generalized, which triggers in reaction to kids as a group. Sexual attraction is experienced in response to specific individuals (who will all belong to the same demographic group), for extended periods. It's a persistent feeling that doesn't disappear with masturbation (sexual attraction isn't the only psychological phenomenon at play; it's different from sexual arousal, sexual gratification, and sexual frustration). It's a complex field, which is why we have experts in it.

>>936935908
>No socio-cultural or environmental variables (except for the condition of the womb during the development of an embryo) play a role in shaping sexual attraction.
Not him but I refuse to believe this considering how many young boys who are sexually molested become homosexual.
Either abusers are coincidentally going for the homosexual boys in the first place or the research is biased in order to push a "homosexuality is not a choice" agenda.

>>936936081
You have an internet connection, so you can do your own reading. Start with David Buss's works. Once you finish, you will find the rest on your own without issues.

Also, do you even examine what it is exactly that you believe? Explain to me the mechanism by which somebody touching your genitalia once at a specific age would result in a precise neurosurgery of your brain, that would permanently alter your cognitive experiences for life, without at the same time causing permanent neurological impairment. The premise doesn't even make sense.

>>936936506
I can't tell you why, I can just tell you that it happens:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11501300/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9127231/
The truth is we barely know how the brain works and psychology has flip flopped on a variety of issues over time. Like how gender dysphoria is not actually a mental illness now it's "gender incongruence" and the treatment is transitioning (despite the fact that post-op suicides are still high and anti-psychotics can treat gender dysphoria).

Either way, if there's a higher incidence of homosexuality in people who have been sexually abused as children then either the sexual abusers are going after homosexual children, or environmental factors can shape sexual attraction. Which one do you think is more likely?

>>936936506
>Someone said something so it had to be true!
Psychology is a pseudoscience and study of pedophiles is extremely limited due to the lack of voluntary participants. The vast majority of all studies rely exclusively on convicted child molesters and as such are not representative of non-offenders.

In addition one of the most common traits of pedophiles is that they themselves were sexually abused as children.

The whole "nooo all sexuality is determined even before birth" is a cope by morons who thought that was the only way to justify decriminalization of homosexuality. It's not real.

>>936937182
Have you ever heard the quote "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"? Being unable to explain the mechanism behind the observations you are making should make you skeptical about your conclusions.

For example, the research you provided doesn't support the hypothesis that being touched as a child inappropriately somehow rewires your brain in very specific and organized ways, and without any side effects. There is a third option, which this (rather old) research indicates: that homosexual individuals were more at risk of being taken advantage of by child predators. This is hardly surprising, since child predators deliberately seek more vulnerable kids, and being homosexual (which people discover at the beginning of their puberty) comes with social ramifications (like ostracization, bullying) that can make such children more often an easier target than otherwise accepted, straight individuals. This is just one explanation, one idea for the mechanism behind the observations; more are possible. But what matters most is that your proposition isn't supported by the research you linked. Also, cases of sexual abuse have been dropping over the past decades, so if what you are saying had merit, we should see a decline in the homosexual population.

>>936937638
If psychology is a pseudoscience, then why do you even care about the state of research in it, acting like your mention has any relevance? Low sample means nothing when the entire field concerned with it is pseudoscience. I get the sense you don't believe your own words, that they aren't coming from a principled position, and you are just here to throw as much as you can as an argument, hoping something will stick.

Also, I like this truism you heard from pedophiles online and internalized without any second thought. We have research with willing participants; there are groups of "MAPs" that are non-offending, which are frequently asked to participate in all sorts of research. Relative to other topics, yes, it would be ideal for us to have more people like that involved. But that doesn't mean we don't have enough for many conclusions, let alone does it allow you to discredit the entire field.

And if not psychology, then what is the source of your claims? Personal experience? Why should I or anyone else trust your statements more than a decentralized global collective of academics that continuously update our understanding of important topics to figure out solutions to pressing problems?

Most LGBT people argued that homosexuality is cultural. That there is "no gay gene". You are engaging in a lot of hate-driven mental gymnastics. Do better.

>>936938377
That's a lot of words to say nothing. Psychology is a pseudoscience, it's statistics but done wrong, on purpose, for money.

>>936938575
Buddy, you are the one that is destined to spend the rest of their life seething every day over the fact that some men use their penis on other men instead of women, not me. I gave you an opportunity to learn something more, but if you prefer reality denial, then knock yourself out, it's your life, you can waste it however you want.

>>936938156
>Have you ever heard the quote "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough"? Being unable to explain the mechanism behind the observations you are making should make you skeptical about your conclusions.
Alright, I'll have a crack at it then:
Human brains are plastic, the neuronal connections change as they experience different things and grow, hence why humans can learn and memorize. It's entirely possible (and given how plastic our brains are at a young age probable) that just like anything else sexual preferences can be shaped by experience. A simple explanation could be that the trauma leads them to destructive behavior: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20724297/. Or if they truly are born with neuronal connections that make them more prone to such behavior, it's possible that suppressing it with medicine would also suppress the homosexuality.

>There is a third option, which this (rather old) research indicates: that homosexual individuals were more at risk of being taken advantage of by child predators.
Sure, I'll grant that is a possibility, correlation doesn't equal causation after all.
There's a similar paper https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24643297/ that says LGBT populations show a high prevalence of stressful childhood experiences (not necessarily sexual); but it doesn't answer whether those SCEs are *because* they were LGBT or if the SCEs just "coincide" with them being LGBT.
To determine whether sexual abuse causes homosexuality or homosexuality causes (the conditions for) sexual abuse would require a very in depth look at all the variables.

>Also, cases of sexual abuse have been dropping over the past decades, so if what you are saying had merit, we should see a decline in the homosexual population.
Sexual abuse isn't necessarily the only factor. I do believe social media (another environmental factor) is huge in shaping troubled youth into joining the LGBT.

>>936938156
>>936940047
Anyways I need to sleep, I'll just say I don't believe humans are shaped entirely by nature nor by nurture, and that it's always a combination of the both regardless of what psychologists say.
An apple isn't born a tree and all that.

I guarantee the tail end of this thread was just some samefag talking to himself about his thesis

>>936941728
So what was your thesis then?

so like?.....

>>936944549
Cute girl