Well then, you have something in common with Nazis, in that you are a proponent of eugenics, by suggesting that these people be removed from the gene pool. But hey, at least you stuck it to those weebs. That's the important thing, right?
I never get this weird propensity of some people... to ascribe personhood, agency and intent on fictional characters.
Isn't that exactly what people are doing when they say that a fictional character is "a child" in either mind or body? In the case of Uzaki, they're making such a complex case that a character (a CHARACTER IN A FICTIONAL WORK, mind you) has some kind of mental illness, as if they were a real person, and therefore, they don't have agency and can't consent to anything.
If you think it's weird, then stop doing it. Just take the fictional characters at face value. If they're a 3000-year-old vampire, then that's what they are. Don't rip the characters out of their fictional settings, bring them into our world, submit them for psychological evaluation or diagnose a problem in their pituitary gland, and judge them by your cultural values. Let them be fictional characters.
But these weird fictional lolis that have children's bodies but are actually millennia old (and thus totes legit to sexualize) are not people
So therefore, there's nothing that anyone needs to complain about when it comes to sexualization, because they aren't people. Great!
At the end of the day it still is creepy as fuck, because you are obviously lusting over a depiction of a child's body
Okay, so being attracted to an adult who happens to look like a child is fine.
But draw a picture of that person and it's suddenly not fine?
I smell a double standard.
USA
