FA+
Shop
On shota, reality and memetic hazards
11 years ago
Tell me the truth.
The truth will burn,
But it is the only thing that matters.
The truth will burn,
But it is the only thing that matters.
This is something that I have struggled with (and still do a little bit), questioning my sexuality.
But I came to a realization that may be interesting.
After taking a good hard look at the difference..."shota" artwork and actual kids actually look very different. Very, very different.
Mainly, shota usually has exaggerated neoteny (also known as the "betty-boop syndrome).
For those who don't know, neoteny is the presence of child-like body proportions. In many artworks, shota or not, the neoteny is exaggerated beyond what anything would have in real life.
What is my point?
Neotenous traits trigger attracting and nurturing instincts in the brains of those who perceive them. Even in men with normal sexuality, women who have greater neotenous traits are considered more attractive. They are also why you see so many animals adopting young of other species (there is a reason why young have these traits).
In art, since these traits can be exaggerated beyond anything that would be encountered in reality, drawn characters can exploit this instinct far more than their IRL counterparts ever could.
You could say they are a mental hack not unlike adding sexuality to a piece (which adds appeal to some art that otherwise would not be interesting), or like intentionally invoking the uncanny valley (where something is creepy because it is in between definitely human and definitely not).
Some things instinctually trigger reactions because those reactions helped our species survive, but since art can simulate things that don't or can't exist, these reactions can be exploited for effect. While I may be yammering about the obvious here, I guess the point is that things like shota are not just depictions of children; they are memetic hazards that can be more powerful than the thing they depict. What THIS might imply, is anyone’s guess (gateway drug, or healthier outlet for unacceptable desires?).
But I came to a realization that may be interesting.
After taking a good hard look at the difference..."shota" artwork and actual kids actually look very different. Very, very different.
Mainly, shota usually has exaggerated neoteny (also known as the "betty-boop syndrome).
For those who don't know, neoteny is the presence of child-like body proportions. In many artworks, shota or not, the neoteny is exaggerated beyond what anything would have in real life.
What is my point?
Neotenous traits trigger attracting and nurturing instincts in the brains of those who perceive them. Even in men with normal sexuality, women who have greater neotenous traits are considered more attractive. They are also why you see so many animals adopting young of other species (there is a reason why young have these traits).
In art, since these traits can be exaggerated beyond anything that would be encountered in reality, drawn characters can exploit this instinct far more than their IRL counterparts ever could.
You could say they are a mental hack not unlike adding sexuality to a piece (which adds appeal to some art that otherwise would not be interesting), or like intentionally invoking the uncanny valley (where something is creepy because it is in between definitely human and definitely not).
Some things instinctually trigger reactions because those reactions helped our species survive, but since art can simulate things that don't or can't exist, these reactions can be exploited for effect. While I may be yammering about the obvious here, I guess the point is that things like shota are not just depictions of children; they are memetic hazards that can be more powerful than the thing they depict. What THIS might imply, is anyone’s guess (gateway drug, or healthier outlet for unacceptable desires?).
