Is this the most based anime take on the lolicon genre?

Protip: It is
youtube.com/watch?v=FEF7DOX40BA

Admire, fall in love, run your imagination wild with underage girls but don't touch them that way because once you do, they are not themselves anymore.

Attached: chrome_Bv88RaEx0M.png (1600x900, 1001.46K)

Finally, someone fucking gets it.

Attached: FWHEVHkUIAE4ywL.png (500x500, 229.79K)

>run your imagination wild with underage girls
Idk man, if she was 17 or something maybe I could understand, but feeling that way for an 11-14 year old girl is weird. I'd rather play some old games with her like when I was her age.

It's more common than you think. And it happens. Some people are like that.

what a solipsistic and utterly alienated philosophy. its like something a crackhead would concieve of

Abe is spinning in his grave, of course they are no longer themselves, love is transformative, it obviously transforms the body of the woman creating new life but it also changes the minds to welcome that new life, of both the woman and the man, you are not yourself either afterwards. And if you are no longer transformed by love, it's because you are no longer able to love, either because you already love something else that you can't reach, or because something is wrong with you. IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE STERILE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FERTILE.

The fucking western NPCs in this video's comments. Why are westerners like this now? Why can't I live in Japanese loli heaven?

>run your imagination wild with underage girls
I don't need to, I have little sisters at home.

>is it the most based
it's a better take, but the series looks at this character with nostalgia and reverence, you can see it in the monolouge.

The reason why lolicons are wrong isn't that they want a pure little girl, even to a greater extent that they find little girls attractive
They're wrong because such a girl doesn't really exist, instead lolicons project their insecurities and fantisies onto a girl who isn't developed enough to be seen as a full personality.
In short. A lolicon sees a little girl as a blank state, or a statue onto which the lolicon can project his ideal perfect untouched girl ideal upon.
But its an illusion, the lolicon isn't in love with little girls he's only in love with the idea of "perfect little girls."
When's the last time a pedo or a lolicon fell in love with an ugly little girl? It doesn't happen, its because that ugliness is apart of the real world which they adamantly reject.
Its also why pedophillia is morally wrong, because ultimately a girl that young doesn't really know her sexual taste, just as boys don't really know, they just mirror whatever an adult thinks is sexy. In reality the little girl can't know she wants to have sex with a grown man, but a grown man knows exactly what he's doing, and it's his unbridled lust that he gave into and didn't care about the consequences.

Its also why anime is popular among lolicons, because they can project their fantasies onto a girl who really doesn't have a personality.

Attached: 9db7fa590e17357dcbd5960da9659eb9.jpg (1773x2861, 431.8K)

You haven't really said anything important or true to the majority of lolicons

It's not based, it's a pathetic guy and a girl who will be emotionally screwed up and act out later on because of his behavior. Not that either of them are believable in this scene anyway, typical Okada shit.

I mean, Saegusa said no, what else do you want him to do or say? lol

You said things that are slightly wrong but this
>because ultimately a girl that young doesn't really know her sexual taste
Is outrageously wrong and also pedophilic, you are not born with a sexual orientation, you instead develop habits that can become addictions, as proven by the people sexually attracted to Pokémons and My Little Pony, try pretending they were "born this way" stupid fucker, they developed the habit just like someone developed the bad habit of smoking.

If someone says that he is attracted to "children", that means it's plural, that means he doesn't like a person, he likes traits, which is the same way most modern common degenerates function, they see people as interchangeable and thus they use and abuse them to then throw them away to abuse someone else. We know this is bad, but for some reason we allow this to be done on adults but not on children BUT WAIT you actually allow it to be done on children as long as it's other children abusing each others, it's absolutely evil, you protect evil, this isn't love, it's abuse.

Thats fine if you want to deny reality. Its not like I'm going to atop any lolicon in the world. But it is the truth.

This entire post sounds like projection

>you are not born with sexual habits
Nowhere in my post did I claim you were. In fact, the line you quoted directly states that a girl cannot know her habits at that age, therefore it is wrong to lay a hand on her until she has actually fully developed these habits.

>somehow this is okay for adults but not for children.
You wanna fuck a kid. Its not okay for children at all. Quit projecting your rage at me you fucking pedo

>a girl cannot know her habits at that age, therefore it is wrong to lay a hand on her until she has actually fully developed these habits.
So you need to wait for her to get touched by someone else? Holy cuckold.
>Its not okay for children at all.
I doubt this is what you believe, you people are a-ok with children fucking with other children, so that they develop those "habits" so that they become sexually disordered for the rest of their lives.

>you need to wait for her to get touched
You wanna fuck a kid. I told you, its all about projecting your purity idealism onto kids.
>a girl having sex at 18???? N.nno how could this HAPPPENNN TO MEEEEEE

also
>ok with children fucking other children
No one said this was okay. Kys

Attached: 1660006266573636.png (860x822, 294.64K)

how young?
I would agree if it's below 10, but if we're going above that
>young doesn't really know her sexual taste
is wrong, because it's just a blanket statement and doesn't apply to everyone and when I was 10 or even less I already knew the type of girl I'd like and already knew what sex and attraction were just like my peers
>fell in love with an ugly little girl
I've rejected and I would keep rejecting straight up ugly girls because I'm not going to ever date an ugly girl, no matter the age or class
>lolicon sees a little girl as a blank slate
that's a question for the pedos, I'm not interested in the little girls, but if I were to by chance meet a 13 year old girl into me for some reason, I wouldn't treat her as if she were disposable, I'd still treat her with respect and I wouldn't care about her age if she's genuinely looking for love, and wouldn't care if she grew up
if she's ugly of course the same applies, but ugliness is something nobody wants anyway

Attached: 0459645876.jpg (5772x4100, 2.39M)

>a girl having sex at 18???? N.nno how could this HAPPPENNN TO MEEEEEE
So you want children have acted immorally before they are 18, sounds like a modern degenerate, ie. someone who rationalize sexual misbehaviors.
Bet you are also okay with trannies and homos behavior as well, it's all just a narcissistic game in your mind with no consideration toward other people, just your own whims.

>The reason why lolicons are wrong isn't that they want a pure little girl, even to a greater extent that they find little girls attractive
>They're wrong because such a girl doesn't really exist
Humans have ideals and ideals aren't reality, this is true to everyone with a preference, of course pedos won't like "ugly" little girls, much like men will normally not be interested in ugly women, but still talk about how they like women. In truth, when they say they "like women" they mean "I like PRETTY women," but this is ultimately meaningless, will you call a man a hypocrite for being supposedly attracted to women, but not a girl that doesn't fit his general preferences? You say lolicons want "perfect little girls" as if this is absolute, when it very clearly cannot be, you're not thinking rationally about attraction and preferences.
A lolicon will like young girls by default, there's no point to defining this, but generally men are fine with the "average woman." Thus, a lolicon may like the average little girl, but an individual girl can lose her charm by having traits the lolicon isn't attracted to. You call this a "rejection of reality" but it's common sense when you swap the individuals for the average man and the average woman.
You haven't said anything important here. You reinvented the wheel and pretended you're smart because you applied it to people you don't like.
>Its also why pedophillia is morally wrong, because ultimately a girl that young doesn't really know her sexual taste
How does not knowing one's sexual tastes make it "immoral?" Is it immoral for someone's partner to introduce them to a fetish? If you assume that it's wrong for a man to act on a little girl when she doesn't know about anything sexual, then you have a point, however, you instead assume
>the little girl can't know
Which is verifiably false.
1/2