"but why age them up and not use *already adult character*" they are different character that accomplish different things. you wouldn't use blue to paint the sun

"im a minor and it makes me uncomfortable," i was a minor but im an adult now and i don't want to engage with any minors in this particular space which is why it's labelled 18+. most adults don't want to engage with minors over nsfw either. if someone does try to engage with or lure you with nsfw content knowing you're a minor, you are in danger and you should seek out a trusted person in your life to talk to and block said person. my job online isn't to make you comfortable and that experience is not indicative of every person online.

"why're you justifying having a crush on *canon minor character*" im in no way shape or form explicitly attracted to this character because he's a minor so there's not a crush to justify. im a person consuming a piece of media, and this character engages my interest and is drawn to be good looking. so i take him and engage with him in a way i like - that is how media consumption works. as an adult because im an adult.

even if we took sex/nsfw/romantic context out of the equation because that's normally what this argument centers on - i almost always contextualize characters in adulthood because that's the stage of life im in.

"why're you aging up a character just to sexualize them," im not. im aging them up because it develops their character in my mind and i find them more relatable. even if i did it wouldn't matter because it still means im transforming that character into an adult.

your assumption that people use this weird roundabout to justify their attraction to kids is based on the idea that actual predators and dangerous people online don't have spaces that are easily accessible and that their specific target is fandom.

"what about characters who are drawn as explicitly as children and meant to be depicted as children? is it okay then?" i find it deeply uncomfortable to age up a character who's next stage of life isn't already adulthood since it jumps through a lot of hoops. it's a boundary im unwilling to cross as it is for many others. if somoene does something i find unsavory, i block them.

at a certain point, ever single possible moral gray for this argument becomes bad faith. to break it down any further than necessary is simply a way to foster a "gotcha sicko!" moment instead of contributing intelligence to this conversation. people aren't actually looking to understand what this is or to break it down, they're just unwilling to think critically for fear of being morally ostracized by internet communities.

i hate to inform you, but having all the "right takes," will not save you from internet crucifixion. the sooner you have strong boundaries and morals in real life, the easier your life will be instead of trying to gain moral highground on random people online.

fiction indeed effects reality - but fiction isn't an inherent one to one to who someone is. fictions relationship to reality in relation to things like propaganda, and those affects all require additional context.

im in a stable relationship with a man i've been with for 5 years. he is a year older than me. i consume content about toxic relationships all day long. because what i do, what i find interesting, what i engage with are not inherent to who i am.

just like how watching a violent movie doesn't make you a violent person. just like how reading a book from a problematic writer doesn't mean you condone their actions. does everyone person who makes freud jokes agree with the things he was? you can have perceived correlations, bias is human nature but you can't decide anything definitively over something as trivial as fandom content on the internet.

morality and real life are largely based on context and awareness of the world. a man can be a murderer, but there is a stark difference between a man killing his abuser and a serial killer. your opinion of these people is formed and shaped by what context you know about them and evidence. real people have context necessary to make fully formed opinions on them and are effected by internet witch hunts.

and it is, your right, to not engage with someone based on a perceived context. but making assumptions and accusations as serious as p*dophilia is unbelievably dangerous and not rooted in anything.

when you create moral boundaries between you and someone else, assume the worst of them, you are creating a type of person to be othered. that line of thinking has been used for hundreds of years to commit acts of violence against unassuming people and it is dangerous.

"it's not that deep," it sure isn't. which is why you shouldn't fucking harass strangers you have no real context for. which is why the concept of aging up a character cannot be indicative of a persons morals and doesn't mean someone is attracted to kids.

if you want to have a talk minor safety online, there are plenty of ways to do that. there are plenty of conversations to be had about how adults and minors should engage appropriately.

but adults cultivating a space for themselves and other adults has little to do with minors. and unless you can prove, without doubt, that the person you're engaging with is bad - it's not your place to enact your perceived justice.

i would understand if there was some provable evidence in relation to fandom communities but there just isn't. the things that happen in this spaces have no effect on real minors unless minors are in the spaces they're not supposed to be in anyways.