Lolis?

15-12-2016, 07:19 PM

Faded Wrote: Yes and no. I look at my cat and I think it's cute too, though not attractive cute.
But since you were more detailed and said, female, then yes, there is attraction. Though I don't get sexually aroused from just looking at a girl(irl) either.

I don't find girls cute, though I find boys attractive and cute. Despite being a boy. Hence, the trigger to see it that way lies within your "sexuality" which only governs what gives you a sexual reaction to a sex.

15-12-2016, 07:16 PM

Aoki Wrote: No, you don't.

When you are looking at something, there is always something that envokes an interest no matter how small, whether it's good or bad about the subject. Yes, you can look at it and just say "meh" and move on. But there is something about that subject that made you take that moment to look, EVEN if there is no attraction.

15-12-2016, 07:16 PM

Aoki Wrote: No, you don't.

When you are looking at something, there is always something that envokes an interest no matter how small, whether it's good or bad about the subject. Yes, you can look at it and just say "meh" and move on. But there is something about that subject that made you take that moment to look, EVEN if there is no attraction.

15-12-2016, 07:19 PM

Ebony Wrote: Based of a single image that shows nothing but the looks, then yes. You have to have some form of sexual attraction towards that person. Which is why, say a gay man wouldn't find the same connection. Though if you see someone act, behave or otherwise give out more than just looks then the attraction can be romantic, general or sexual.

No, you do not. That is completely false lmao. You can simply be stating they are cute based on their appearance, I can say that someone's dress is cute so does that make me attracted to that dress? No.

15-12-2016, 07:20 PM

Faded Wrote: Too lazy to read the rest, but I saw you complaining about the source part, where I actually mentioned the part even if the screenshot was cut out, take a second look.

In a debate, it is common logic to provide a ling to all sources used. This is to fail-proof it in the incident that someone might have cut away parts of it before using it. (Like you did.) By not doing this, the source is not counted as "valid" as far as a debate it considered. Even worse is the fact that you did cut away the part that you didn't like about it, to further your point and by not linking back to it, you come off as if you tried to hide that fact.

---

15-12-2016, 07:21 PM

Silence Wrote: No, you do not. That is completely false lmao. You can simply be stating they are cute based on their appearance, I can say that someone's dress is cute so does that make me attracted to that dress? No.

Actually, it does. It at least means that you find the dress attractive in a endearing way. That is why it is more common to say that you find a dress "cute on you" than the dress itself.

15-12-2016, 07:22 PM

Ebony Wrote: In a debate, it is common logic to provide a ling to all sources used. This is to fail-proof it in the incident that someone might have cut away parts of it before using it. (Like you did.) By not doing this, the source is not counted as "valid" as far as a debate it considered. Even worse is the fact that you did cut away the part that you didn't like about it, to further your point and by not linking back to it, you come off as if you tried to hide that fact.

---

Actually, it does. It at least means that you find the dress attractive in a endearing way. That is why it is more common to say that you find a dress "cute on you" than the dress itself.

Not necessarily. Most of the things I say are 'cute on them' are to make the people feel better.

15-12-2016, 07:20 PM

Ebony Wrote: I don't find girls cute, though I find boys attractive and cute. Despite being a boy. Hence, the trigger to see it that way lies within your "sexuality" which only governs what gives you a sexual reaction to a sex.

Not really. I find some guys cute too, not attracted to them sexually though.

---

15-12-2016, 07:22 PM

Ebony Wrote: In a debate, it is common logic to provide a ling to all sources used. This is to fail-proof it in the incident that someone might have cut away parts of it before using it. (Like you did.) By not doing this, the source is not counted as "valid" as far as a debate it considered. Even worse is the fact that you did cut away the part that you didn't like about it, to further your point and by not linking back to it, you come off as if you tried to hide that fact.

---

Actually, it does. It at least means that you find the dress attractive in a endearing way. That is why it is more common to say that you find a dress "cute on you" than the dress itself.

Like I said, I wrote the part out. Take a second look.

15-12-2016, 07:24 PM

Silence Wrote: Not necessarily. Most of the things I say are 'cute on them' are to make the people feel better.

Cute by its very definition is "Attractive in a endearing way".

15-12-2016, 07:25 PM

Faded Wrote: Not really. I found some guys cute too, not attracted to them sexually though.

---

Like I said, I wrote the part out. Take a second look.

Then you find some boys attractive. Which further support the debate that all people carry some form of sexual attraction towards both sex, which is logical based off what we know sexuality is based of in our brains. (Or you are using the word "cute" wrong.)

Also, no you didn't write it out. You said the direct opposite that the point below in your source says. You stated that "Loli" was something different from "Lolicon" where as the point that you cut away from your source state that "Loli" is a contracted version of "Lolicon" with the exact same meaning.

15-12-2016, 07:30 PM

Ebony Wrote: Cute by its very definition is "Attractive in a endearing way".



Then you find some boys attractive. Which further support the debate that all people carry some form of sexual attraction towards both sex, which is logical based off what we know sexuality is based of in our brains. (Or you are using the word "cute" wrong.)

Also, no you didn't write it out. You said the direct opposite that the point below in your source says. You stated that "Loli" was something different from "Lolicon" where as the point that you cut away from your source state that "Loli" is a contracted version of "Lolicon" with the exact same meaning.

Doesn't mean I'd date them or fuck them. More like, I wish I looked like that.

Also:

15-12-2016, 07:37 PM

Faded Wrote: Doesn't mean I'd date them or fuck them. More like, I wish I looked like that.

Also:

I never said you would date or fuck them. I stated that the goal of Lolicon media is to provoke a sexual reaction with the target audience. That doesn't mean; "Oh man I wanna fuck her so bad" in all or most cases. Also for that last part;

15-12-2016, 06:35 PM

Faded Wrote: Uh no, a lolicon is someone who is into lolis. Loli is a personality/appearance trait. Lolicon comes from the word lolita complex(liking young looking girls), and lolita means sexualised young looking girl.

See? You claimed that "Lolicon" and "Loli" was two different things. Then you went back on it when you went and searched up a source. Hence, you stated something that you just proved yourself wrong about.

15-12-2016, 07:40 PM

Ebony Wrote: I never said you would date or fuck them. I stated that the goal of Lolicon media is to provoke a sexual reaction with the target audience. That doesn't mean; "Oh man I wanna fuck her so bad" in all or most cases. Also for that last part;



See? You claimed that "Lolicon" and "Loli" was two different things. Then you went back on it when you went and searched up a source. Hence, you stated something that you just proved yourself wrong about.

The first part was a reply to your first part. Not about the lolicon thing.

Yes, originally. Now the meaning has changed, so they are two different things.