i love the âaging up characters to write them sexually is just as bad as writing them as childrenâ argument because it implies so many things that are just like⌠wrong
that âofficialâ content creators who age up characters all the time and sometimes give those characters love interests are actually pedophiles â which, like, i could buy that as an extension of this (wrong) logic, but no one ever talks about anyone but fanartists/writers
that pedophilia doesnât actually have a meaning. like, if someone was actually a pedophile, they wouldnât find an aged up character appealing. thatâs just common sense.
as an extension to the above â that somehow, being uncomfortable with writing a character sexually as a minor and avoiding that through a perfectly logical and common storytelling device makes you a pedophile? like? how does that make any sense whatsoever?
that any character who has a younger version is off-limits, except usually thatâs not brought up. like, so many characters have flashbacks to their younger selvesâŚ. is it still pedophilia in that case?
that, in the cases of live-action canon with adults playing teenagers, that a character who looks like an adult and is played by an adult should not be ever actually adapted into an adult, because thatâs pedophilia. somehow.
anyway this is one of my favourite arguments precisely because itâs just so utterly ridiculous and hard to take seriously
But also â âI am feel uncomfortable when we are about me!â
Essentially it boils down to âI am feel uncomfortable because I is! DONâT KNOW WHY! JUST FACT!â, which perhaps applies to most individuals in their mid- to late adolescence, and a select group of adults.
I find the concept that drawing an aged-up character in a sexually explicit situation (or any situation, according to some) is just âgetting away with your predatory/pedophilic interestsâ to be super, super choice.
Itâs like accusing someone who isnât committing a crime, or is actively avoiding a crime, to actually want to commit said crime or having the intention to commit said crime, even though the person clearly doesnât, and clearly didnât, and â just ⌠what.
I want a pack of chewing gum. So, I buy it. I donât steal it. I donât want to steal, because I (personally) consider stealing immoral. I have not committed a crime, and I have no intention of committing a crime. Now, applying the 'aging upâ rhetoric, I should be persecuted and arrested for perhaps having the intention of stealing that pack of chewing gum, even though I didnât, and Iâm furthermore accused of just trying to hide my criminal intentions by avoiding crime.
Thatâs not just accusing someone of thoughtcrime, thatâs accusing someone of being a criminal, because crime exists as a concept. Thatâs some next-level moral policing.
If I age a character up because they are not visually attractive to me in their younger form, but they are attractive to me as a character concept and I want to explore the character against a grown-up, sexual background â then where the fuck does 'pedophiliaâ or 'predatoryâ notion come into play, exactly?
Also, what do you think happens when you age up a character? Do you think â for example â an artist will take a prepubescent looking character, scream 'YOU ARE EIGHTEEN NOWâ, and proceed to draw them as is, without any alterations? That might very well be the case in some instances, but my personal take on 'aging upâ a character when working with a visual medium is that visual alterations are part of the process. Personal style might imply some limitations, but the aged-up character usually doesnât look like a literal child. Thatâs kind of ⌠what pedophiles are into. Literal prepubescent children. So â what the fuck?
I mean, if weâre working with a visual medium; in this instance the declared age of the character doesnât matter anyway, itâs what they look like, that is ⌠that is what specifically simCP law deals with. That is the one instance where it applies (in the US). When the character looks like/is indistinguishable from an actual prepubescent child. The artist can be like 'BUT THEYâRE HUNDREDS OF YEARS OLDâ and it doesnât matter. Fictional age doesnât matter when it comes to a visual medium. (IâM TALKING TO YOU VOLTRON FANDOM.)
And with a written/textual medium, you rely on the imagination of your reader â and theyâll imagine whatever the fuck they want, anyway.
This is just abusers trying to get away with their abuse. Antis must go extinct before the human species dies out completelyâŚby the looks of it that's what they want. Being raised by someone with diagnosed NPD who does everything in her power to look for things to punish me over (and even admits to feeling entitled to do so), and as I've been studying toxic personalty types who are like this, this just seems like another attempt to justify their own toxic, narcissistic supply of being morally "superior" and entitled to shame innocent people who have zero intention of committing a crime. They want to make EVERYONE out to be dangerous evil people so they can get away with hurting people and ruining their lives. That is purely evil!!!! Some people will do ANYTHING to make someone look like a horrible person so they can be viewed as a hero or righteous for doing so, and will try to manipulate situations to their advantage even if it makes no sense. They'll turn something harmless into something harmful just to be cruel, and to me, this is just another example.
Seems more and more people are doing this. We cannot allow them to keep making excuses just to hurt people who have no interest in hurting others or who use safe outlets to avoid hurting people. Now pedo-hysteria is prime target for them to jump on because it's easy to scare people with "PEDOPHILE!!!" EVEN WHEN it has nothing to do with it. They know other people will sympathize and justify their cruelty. We need to stop this.
