My partner sometimes asks me, What’s that anime you don’t like to tell people you like?
Mushoku Tensei Jobless Reincarnation
I like the art and merciless world they live in and a lot of the characters but that show I probably fast forward scenes more than any other. Shield Hero is probably second with the lusting for the little chocobo(giant bird thing) princess that can change to little girl.
redo of healer
Made in Abyss
I really wanted to like this one. The setting and story setup were really good. A fine example of “it really doesn’t need this”
I have mostly swapped to reading Korean manwha instead of Manga because of this. Going back and reading some of the Manga I used to like is a bit of a shock as a full grown adult now. So much is geared to young, horny teens.
haha, I know exactly what you mean about Shield Hero. What is so jolting is how seemingly random and unnecessary it is. Even if those themes aren’t present, there might still be the random lewd viewing angles. Like, nah, I’m good, I don’t need to be all upskirt peeping that literal child, wtf.
I kinda enjoy it too, but Rudeus is just such a pos, and the writer probably is as well. I was so happy that we were getting nice, non-fetishistic Eris-focused episodes for the new season, but as of episode 3 we’re back to square one with this person 🤦♀️.
Edit:
…but that show I probably fast forward scenes more than any other…
Glad I’m not alone in this :D
I felt that too, episode 3 was poor and scenes were too predictable and that last scene was absolute facepalm
Well reading the light novel Rudeus is mostly a heavy traumatized person that never got the needed therapy and due to that trauma is seeing everyone as enemies. The first like 12 books basically describe his struggles with his trauma and are pretty accurate to trauma healing in real life too. The other 16 are pretty great just for the magic world.
The anime has way to much fan service though and cut out a lot of necessary details - as always.
Honestly, sometimes it’s nice to have a main character that is just a raging pile of s*** that you can hate. To a degree, it’s part of what makes it such a unique story.
There are just terrible f****** people in the world and sometimes those people are worth following the story of. There can only be so many stories about boy scouts before it gets stale.
So I wouldn’t say watching nothing but stories about awful. Terrible people is all that enjoyable. It is a nice palate cleanse every once in awhile, especially when it’s actually done with effort and not just they’re terrible for the sake of being terrible.
But jobless at least does try at being good. I don’t know if it only succeeds but it at least tries.
In this context, the translation is absolutely correct in my opinion. I can’t really think of a context where “lolicon” being translated to pedophile would be incorrect. -con like siscons, brocons, etc are complexes or obsessions. Lolicon is a complex or obsession with, drawn or not, prepubescent minors.
Loli, not lolicon, can refer to both an individual who looks like the target of a lolicon (a prepubescent minor), or is short for Lolita fashion, which is meant to be a cute fashion style inspired by Victorian-era dress with archetypes like goth-loli.
For those wondering why Japan, a very shame based culture, feels more accepting of this, CSAM possession was legal, technically, up to 2014. CSAM production and dissemination only started being legislated in 1999, with much pressure from the west. Again, it is absolutely abhorrent and a crime, but culturally in Japan, many feel they are being forced to adapt at a rapid pace. There’s a tangential relation between western conservatives and Japan when it comes to acceptance and cultural change (I wasn’t referring to pedocon theory, but hey, it’s a theory like gravity at this point with it being proven each passing month.)
Bonsai Pop’s video on the Rurouni Kenshin mangaka goes into detail on this as he was found with a massive collection of this material. Which, again, was legal for him to own 3 years prior (he was arrested in 2017) regardless of how ethically abhorrent it was. Which it absolutely is. I believe his case was a case of hurt people hurt people in that he was abused as a minor and developed his complex. He never directly harmed children as far as we know, but he did own a large CSAM collection. It’s believed he was likely being used as an example by the state given how public the arrest was while how minor the punishment was.
He never directly harmed children as far as we know
I absolutely loathe the entire apologist view of “They never directly harmed a child, they just had 45tb of pictures of children being harmed”
Buying/trading CSAM material IS directly harming children, because your activities are actively creating and furthering a demand for children to be molested and raped, Which very much means your hand is actively causing the harm, whether its directly against the child, or every other activity that creates the market that encourages molestation and rape. everyone participating in it is actively and directly harming children.
I don’t disagree.
I was merely stating it as a fact of the case in why he, potentially, only received a light fine and no jail time. That’s on the Japanese court system.
The American system is nearly as bad so long as you are wealthy and/or have political power.
Because yes, everyone involved, both directly and indirectly, create the climate in which exploitation thrives.
Oh, you like Rebecca from Cyberpunk Edgerunners? Straight to jail, pedophile.
Holy shit
ITT: a bunch of lemmings out themselves as pedos.
I don’t even bother with anime any more unless someone else confirms there is no pedo content. With how much there is I’ve started to wonder if execs in the light novel/manga/anime industry force their writers to include it to normalize it.
What type of anime where you looking at?
Like western animation, anime has many genres, so you have a wide choice in that aspect. Its not hard to just filter out the ones that are not liked.
I used to watch at 1-3 episodes of everything that was airing regardless of genre and put anything that seemed good on the backlog in ranked tiers and watched the best ones as they aired. Obviously many were good but there were so many where the primary flaw was pedo content and many would be excellent without just that. So much trash tier crap though. Like really fucking stupid.
This watch ranking procedure led to how I came to use in another world with my smartphone as the benchmark for utter shit, and a series can receive the “at least better than isekai smartphone” award.
The biggest non-pedo slog I for some reason watched all of was phi brain. I have no idea why I toughed out the whole thing. Basically professor layton but the puzzle obsession is fully deranged. I call any series where the world revolves around something really autistic a phi brain type.
One of my favourite scenes across all anime was in a generic romance about book boy and track girl where they eat in front of a mural of an obvious beaver tails knockoff, boaver tails… I watched the whole thing and that’s all I remember about it. If anyone can ID this one I want to go back and grab a screencap of the mural.
I really hate when a good series becomes pedotarded though. I’m still pissed about that one where a guy becomes an adoptive father but right at the end there was some shit where the girl’s childhood friend slash almost boyfriend maybe hooked up with some other girl so main girl felt betrayed and starts dating her dad leading to one of the most egregious lines in anime, that I cant remember 100% accurately, but it dumbed down to essentially “I want to get mad at my daughter’s gross old man boyfriend… but he’s me”
At the very fucking least don’t make parenting anime pedo.
Anything -con in japanese is a complex and almost certainly up to no good. I just checked with my wife (native japanese) and, yeah, that’s not necessarily wrong translation.
She carves out the exception for jokes with a younger partner within reason (her specific was example was a couple/few years younger in a piss-take (like someone might say “she’s robbing the grave” but the counterpoint would be “no he’s robbing the cradle!” In English banter)), but it’s almost always not a good thing.
My personal take is that if it’s specifically referencing the ~loli fashion or the piss-take version from my wife, that’s probably ok. Anything else is getting into dangerous territory.
I’m a guy in his mid-40s originally from the US and not generally into manga or anime at all, my wife a late-30s japanese who is very into anime and manga.
Edit: wife searched in japanese. The -loli part in fashion comes from young people incorporating those old fashions (again, goth-loli in my example) not, as I expected, people incorporating school fashion into it. TIL. She went on to talk about how the -loli suffic in fashion was chosen. But it’s a bit out-of-scope here.
Well now I’m here, time for you (and your wife) to loredump about Japan’s youth culture and the fascination with obsolescent western fashions.
based
Lolicons and MAPS are both Pedophiles by any other name. Stop fuxking normalizing child abuse, drawn or not.
i don’t think this is normalising, is it? if anything the tone of the tweet almost makes it feel like they’re offended that the two things are being compared.
The two things are pretty much the same thing though.
not that i really want to continue the discussion (we agree that SA is bad and the people doing it should be put in prison) but isn’t this a bit like saying furry porn is pretty much the same as bestiality?
No, it’s like saying drawn porn between a human and animal is the same as bestiality, which it is. A cartoon sheep is still a sheep.
Furries are basically alternate humanoids like elves. With your logic every time someone fucks with cat ears on then it’s a crime, nya.
i mean… i’ve seen that kinda porn on furry sites. there’s a whole subgenre. usually the animals can talk, but they’re still animals. as in, not anthropomorphic.
It is. They’re mad because they don’t consider lolicon to be pedophilia.
“Drawn child abuse” is something new to me
Because it’s basically just thought crimes when they feel icky about it
And now I wait for people to accuse me of liking that stuff just because I’m not as dumb as they are
Are we just quoting big brother here?
In Japan it’s okay to like children but not okay to be gay.
Is it not? The definition is the sexualization of a minor or prepubescent girl in anime/manga. Sounds like pedophilia to me.
“But she’s a 500 year old [dragon/elf/vampire/etc] in human form, it’s fine bro.”
Looks like a child, acts like a child, would be considered a child by their own culture/species: That’s a child bro.
I’d like to say I’ve never had that conversation but I have.
“Miss Kobayashi’s Dragon Maid” was fine (though not everyone’s cup of tea) until they started to sexualize the minors (which was basically at the introduction of the child “dragon”). Then I stopped watching it. And from what I hear, I picked a good spot to stop watching as it only got worse from there in regards to the minor characters.
EDIT: I should probably clarify for those that think I support that kind of content, I do not.
Every month I learn about a new manga/anime artist who was caught with CP and they got a slap on the wrist.
especially in the context of an in-universe character saying it, yeah
Yeah, it is.
It has a wider variety of usage in Japanese than “pedophile” does in English, so no, it’s not always the most accurate translation. For example, “lolicon” (ロリコン) is used self-referentially, sometimes as a joke and sometimes not, in Japan while “pedophile” is basically never used like this in English. It’s also not too uncommon to use it of another person as a relatively lighthearted jab in Japanese, when in English calling someone else a pedophile (or even the more casual pedo) is a grave accusation.
it’s telling that these things are treated light-heartedly. more telling than the one-size-fits-all translation into “pedophile”, even.
But isn’t it used about people who are into sexualized (cartoon) children?
Yes, and it’s also used about actual child predator pedophiles. It’s a word with multiple senses/connotations, and one of those senses corresponds closely with the English word “pedophile” while the others do not. That’s why “pedophile” is not always the correct translation for it – though whether it’s correct in this case I can’t say, as I haven’t watched the anime in question.
That just sounds to me that pedophilia is not frowned upon in Japan, not that the translation is inaccurate.
Japan is uncomfortably comfortable with loli shit, and it’s reflected in anime… Which is why anime will never be a family living room activity for me, unless I’ve vetted it to be clean. For example, Death Note is ok, but Dragon Maid is not.
To be an anime fan you have to learn this specific skill where you disassociate during cringe “fan-service” moments and come back to Earth once it’s over.
Part of the job of a translator is to translate cultural nuance, which would be lost here. That’s what makes the translation inaccurate in some contexts.
So we need to translate it so the audience undertands there’s a level of implied cultural acceptance of pedos. How’s this?
“I didn’t know you were a redditor”
If you’re into sexualized (cartoon) children you’re a pedophile, so the translation would be factually correct. That sort of pedophilia just has much less cultural acceptance in English speaking world
That sort of pedophilia just has much less cultural acceptance in English speaking world
Which is why it’s not always the most accurate translation. Part of the job of a translator is to translate cultural nuance, which would be lost here.
It’s a bit like how in English, Epstein wouldn’t call Trump a pedophile, he’d say he “likes them young”. In Japanese he could call him a lolicon and get the same tone.
How would you translate the word to best fit the meaning?
If the term isn’t meant to be so “heavy” in the original usage, and there isn’t an equivalent “light” term here, I wonder if it would’ve been better to just translate it as “I didn’t realize you were a creep” or something else that misses the nuance, but gets the intended feeling and tone across.
I don’t know, I haven’t watched the show so I don’t know what the meaning is here.
he’d say he “likes them young”
They already basically answered that.
Though in this context, maybe the best thing to do is to not translate it. Most of the audience is likely to know the word already.
That is so weird to me that a society with much more Shame basis for stuff does not shame attraction to and relationships with minors.
On the other hand I’ve always wondered when is shame effective as a social motivator to prevent misdeeds, and when does it push people to hide their problems instead of seeking help and solutions?
Well if the powers that be shamed attraction to and relationships with minors, they would have to accept that forcing themselves on people who aren’t in a position to refuse consent is shameful, and then they would have to answer some very uncomfortable questions about what some of their heroes did in Korea and China …
That is so weird to me that a society with much more Shame basis for stuff does not shame attraction to and relationships with minors.
Because what a culture considers immoral is not the same as whether they use shame to police immorality.
You make an important distinction. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t consider it immoral when in the west it seems intrinsically immoral to most people.
I’ve read Naomi and Memoirs of a Geisha so Ive had some exposure to some of the cultural ideas, but i guess I’m looking for a scholarly article or educational text explaining the differences
It’s a relatively recent thing in the west, too. Not too long ago (well into the previous century) most girls were married off by their 15th or 16th birthday. “Fun” fact: there’s still a lot of child marriage in the US to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States
Japan isn’t actually substantially different in this regard – sure, they have their teen idols, but then so does the US (Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, what have you) – except they draw a clear line between fictional and real child pornography, both legally and in terms of general attitudes. The legal part isn’t that strange (lolicon material isn’t illegal in most of the US either), but the way general morality permits it in Japan but doesn’t in the US is interesting. My guess is that this is partially explained by the US generally being pretty puritanical when it comes to sexuality, whereas Japan is more liberal about it (in their own way), but that can’t be the only thing because European countries do not have the puritan culture of the US but also don’t share the Japanese tolerance of lolicon.
not intrinsically, at least not for long. in most of europe it was legal up until the 90s and there were even porno mags that ran specials.
…i do compulsive late night wiki walks, before you ask how i know that. i had a period where i read up on what happened to the “flower power” generation with all their “free love” stuff and that came up. i tend to do breadth-first search so i just read through articles while opening all the links in the background, then go down a level, etc etc. when a term like that comes up on a wiki page it triggers your fight-or-flight response.
I don’t have scholarly references or anything, but the standard for this varies massively across cultures. Just looking at the West, the age at which it was thought appropriate to get married used to be wayyy lower than it is now. In Ancient Greece, a particular form of pederasty was celebrated as an especially pure form of relationship.
Nowadays we have robust evidence that sexual activity between an adult and a child is severely harmful. However, even this we can’t legitimately extend too far cross-culturally, because we don’t (as far as I know) have any certainty that this isn’t conferred due to the child being the victim of a socially-defined crime. The question one could ask is: given that Ancient Greece didn’t categorise their form of paedophilia as a violation, did the children in those relationships therefore not suffer in the same way as modern victims of paedophilia? It’s an uncomfortable question, and even asking it will probably make most people nope out, but it’s very useful to be sharp about what we do and don’t know.
The issue is the power imbalance, not the criminalization.
And you know that for a fact? I mean, obviously it could be. As far as I know there is no evidence for it, and getting that evidence will be incredibly difficult.
Ah, yes, Japan - famously not a shame policing place. Maybe I should commit seppuku for this dishonor.
You have misunderstood me…
Hence it wouldn’t be “censorship” as the article seems to use the term. Though that doesn’t really apply at all because to “censor” it would be to not include the scene at all or rewrite it to say something else entirely. Saying “you like lolicon” or even just “you’re a pervert” might be considered euphemistic but it’s not censorship.
Per ICD-11, pedophilia can’t be diagnosed if attraction is not acted upon or is distressing the patient. Also it doesn’t count cases where attraction is not primary.
Colloquially accurate, though. Weird to use such a restricted definition of a word that has MUCH more common understanding…
Well no. Pedophilia is the attraction to real children and lolicon is the attraction to illustrations of prepubertal girl like characters that doesn’t even need to be sexual. There is a big difference between these too.
The translation is also wrong because in Japanese there exist the loanword pedophilia and it was not used in the original so translating it as another existing word is pretty bad.
this isn’t some baudrillard level type of simulacra shit, it’s literally people using cartoons as analogs to their real attractions, so yes, they are pedos.
I’m confused, are you pro- or anti policing? 🤔
lol. anti cop. ha. good catch. forgot my parens!
If you’re into these depictions because they’re depicted as children…
Well no. Pedophilia in a non medical context is not necessarily about features and mostly about power. Most CSA happens because it is an easy power imbalance, not because the perpetrators are attracted to childrean. For example in many countries with good Internet connections and a low socieoeconomic Standing producers of CSAM are often Mothers that need money for food they themselfs are not pedohiliac - they have a power imbalance and an economic incentive. At the same time the viewers of these live streams are often not pedohiliac too but want an easy victim for their Powerfantasie. With this popular depiction lolicons are not the same because, as they are only attracted to fictional characters, they will never harm childrean.
In a medical context a pedophile is exclusively or primarily attracted to childrean. Most ppl with pedophilia never harm a child btw. Lolicon on the other hand is not a paraphilia so while you are attracted to fictional childlike characters it has not to be exclusive. From a medical standpoint being sexually attracted to a minor alone is not pedophilia as long as you are as much attracted to non minors. Primary or exclusive attraction is a necessary symptom of pedophilia.
Further in Japanese culture being sexual attracted to post puberty women who have a very childlike demeanor is also considered lolicon. As an example the 24 year old pornstar playing a schoolgirl trope in western porn would also be considered lolicon. A pedohile would be someone that rapes children in person or by proxy. If someone does not understand this difference they are part of the problem.
Is it because they depict children or because they depict child like features?
By the first, technically adult characters in a child like body (lucky star) wouldn’t count.
By the second, catgirl cosplay counts as bestiality.
Things get seriously vague once you consider diverse aesthetic cores, like goth loli fashion. also technically is.
Is it pedophilia if you wanna have sex in a ballpit with your adult partner while dressed as clowns while sucking oversized pacifiers? Just asking.
If someone is specifically into child like features and akshually they’re a 9000 year old dragon, yeah they’re a pedo
The amazing digital circus might thank part of its popularity to the nostalgia of the kidcore aesthetic featured troughout the circus.
The adult lead character pomni appears as a clown with little features that we would objectively associate with an adult wonen besides possessing the clear psychological maturity and intelligence of an adult.
The features of pomni could be described as short stature, a bright childlike color scheme, and large eyes relative to the face, a physiological trait often associated with infancy in mammals.
Now for science, is it pedophia to wank off to amazing digital circus porn of pomni and does it make a difference wether its a visual drawing or a text based work of fiction.
My point is not to convince you of annythhing just that your argument itself easily falls apart once one has to define “childlike features” into a legal/moral setting.
I thought I had an aneurysm trying to parse the first paragraph. I am not going to google any of that
It’s a genuine very good youtube series that is rivalling industrial production quality and popularity, i am just using it as a very twisted example. Dont let my description stop you from watching it. Adc characters are not in any way portrayed in a sexual nature, unless you count this.
There is a big difference between these too.
🤣🤡
Well, no, that’s not what it is. It’s young and young-looking characters, not “minor or prepubescent”.
Mind you, plenty lolicon stuff is extremely pedophilic, namely by sexualising prepubescent characters! But lots of it is adult women that just look young and are explicitly not children in any way.
It’s more complicated than “pedophilia”, though the overlap is… Let’s say… Conspicuous.
Edit: The character likely did mean to imply pedophilia there, by the way.
But lots of it is adult women that just look young and are explicitly not children in any way.
Often mocked with the “9000 year old vampire dragon who just happens to look like a young child”
It sometimes gets even weirder, though. I am no expert in anime, but many of the “loli” characters I have encountered, have adult woman hips, but a child’s face, and sometimes also upper body. Something like Tatsumaki in One Punch man for example. So it is sexualizing the child-ish look, while also making it more adult like…? I have not understood what is the point.
It is difficult to have this discussion because not many really want to actually think about it but I’ll do it anyway.
I guess the main concern is about how this sort of content could coerce people to attempt their fantasies in real life. However, the subject for a lolicon is a symbol and the subject for a pedophile is an actual individual. To say that lolicons are pedophiles is equivalent to say that gamers who play violent games blowing up buildings or slashing people into a million pieces are terrorists. “Cest une pipe”.
What we know is that there is no direct implication between consuming this content and engaging in criminal activity. People have different minds and respond to things in different ways, lolicon is not a predictor of pedophilia. Also, the Catharsis hypothesis, the one where people say engaging on it would keep someone from committing a related crime doesn’t seem to be true either.
This one is a an oldie, but it is a nice overview about this topic if you want to get some context:
https://www.imageandnarrative.be/index.php/imagenarrative/article/view/127/98
I think the most important point of this paper is that the shoujo depicted in such content no longer corresponds to an actual real depiction of the prepubescent and are no more than fantasy.
To keep it brief most research on pedophilia, herbophilia, etc. Indicate that it is split into two categories. One is a sexual growth disorder that can be treated, with one of the most effective treatments actually being providing legal safe access to non-harmful materials. AKA drawings of fictional people.
The other category comes from personality disorders this form can’t be treated in any known way directly. You have to treat the personality disorder itself. And as such providing any source does nothing good or bad to help with the situation.
It’s a big reason why the whole concept of it’s a drawing and it should be considered the same as fundamentally flawed. You have one case where it does show that it helps in one case where it doesn’t matter.
Anything that is generated from real people does cause harm and should be illegal no matter what. Harming one person to help another is not a valid path.
But harming no one to help someone. Even if you feel icky about it is a valid path.
And study after study after study keeps proving over and over again. Just because you show someone something or exposed them to it. It doesn’t make them more likely to engage in something that they know is wrong.
This is a false equivalency. Pedophile doesn’t mean someone that rapes children. A pedophile is someone that’s sexually attracted to children. Someone that rapes children is called a child rapist. You can be a pedophile that recognizes their urges being bad and thus not act upon them/get psychological help. This is why your analogy fails.
What we know is that there is no direct implication between consuming this content and engaging in criminal activity.
I know, I’m not for banning the content either. Let it stay as the nicotine patch that it is, until evidence comes out showing that it does increase child sexual assault.
I never said that a pedophile was a child rapist and I know there is a difference. My point with the analogy is to point out that the depictions of the “shoujo” in lolicon are not representative of actual children (as pointed out in the paper).
The comparison with violent video games was to show that the representation of something like a “battlefield” in a video game is really not close to actual warfare, that even applies to these historically “accurate” video games.
Also, regarding your last point, the paper that I mention also cites a reduction is CSA during times where lolicon was more prevalent.
In the end, is it not strange to even consider the legal age of consent for purely fictional characters? Such characters are only as old as they are imagined to be, just as sex with them is only imagined. Because there is no actual crime committed, it ultimately ends up an issue of how one interprets images, of a person’s private thoughts, and this is not something that can or should be regulated.
This paper you’ve linked is entirely missing the point, and I’m gonna be real, seems a little pedophilic to me. This is the same kind of sophistry that you get from pedophiles who are trying to massage the issue.
Do you have the relevant section that indicates CSA is reduced? As far as I can tell, this paper isn’t even a study.
“Missing the point” is very hard to falsify because it is too subjective, so I won’t touch that. I think you expected the paper to be empirical, which is not the case, it is an analytical piece.
Referring to your concern, the paper cites research by Takatsuki Yasushi, mentioning that sexual abuse of minors in Japan was statistically much more common during the 1960s and 1970s and has been decreasing since that period, a trend that roughly coincides with the increasing prevalence of fictional lolicon. Two things to notice: One is that this is an old paper so it could be that things changed more recently. Another one is that this doesn’t mean lolicon inhibts CSA, it just means that it isn’t a predictor to it, which is justified by the depictions having nothing to do with real children.
I’ll make it clearer.
is it not strange to even consider the legal age of consent for purely fictional characters?
No, it is not.
You seem reasonable enough, so if I seem terse or frustrated, I am not necessarily directing that toward you.
The purpose of politeness in society is to demonstrate, virtue signal even, a person’s willingness to abide by the social contract. You are virtue signaling safety.
The normalization of lolicon material is not a problem because it “breaks laws,” it makes it more difficult to catch warning signs from bad people early. It provides too much plausable deniability.
This is not dissimilar to the aversion of racists when they start talking about race science, or making “ironic” hitler jokes—these people are not “breaking laws” either. The purpose of treating them as socially deleterious is either to shame them into better behavior, or, failing that, to excommunicate them from society. False positives, whether these people were truly racist in their hearts, is immaterial to me—I do not care. They should have enough social sense to know better.
A disclaimer: Obviously, none of this means that I want pedophiles to fear getting help. Getting help is outside the purview of social excommunication; shame would not be serving a purpose in this case. But this fact really has nothing to do with whether I’m accepting of the endless flirtatiousness anime and other Japanese media seems to have with child sex.
the subject for a lolicon is a symbol and the subject for a pedophile is an actual individual
The subject of a pedophile might as well be fictional. Pedophilia is not the same as sexual assault of minors, because pedophiles don’t necessarily act on their urges in real life. I have no idea what the percentage there is, it might be very small, but I still think this is an important distinction in this discussion.
The question I always asked is: does the legalization of such material lead to a decrease in sexual abuse of children or an increase ? There will always be pedophiles, that we can’t avoid, what is important is to stop them acting upon their desires and abusing minors, to this end, would lolicon help by giving them materials that where created without harming children ? Or would it empower them to harm children ?
Its the same situation like many have described:
To say that lolicons are pedophiles is equivalent to say that gamers who play violent games blowing up buildings or slashing people into a million pieces are terrorists.
Its really depends in the end, and like other commenter said, such question is hard to prove fully because there is barely any research.
It’d seem that there isn’t really that much research in this area. This is the only article I could find directly related to child SA, with a helpful conclusion:
In this work, we have established how people with attractions to children are seeking sexual satisfaction using a range of different forms of FSM depicting children. We found no evidence that engaging with sexual fantasy and various forms of FSM was associated with variance in self-reported willingness to engage in sexual offences involving children, despite substantial numbers in our sample expressing a willingness to engage in these behaviours. Instead, we found that those who were more sexually satisfied reported a lower level of willingness to engage in such behaviours, while those who held offence-supportive beliefs reported a higher willingness. We urge researchers and clinicians to use our work as a springboard for further studies on the pursuit of sexual satisfaction, the addressing of sexual frustration. All of this should be conducted within the context of reducing potential risk, while encouraging a more evidence-informed social conversation about the importance of sexuality considerations in this area.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/19419899.2026.2619511#d1e4039
Though I think that banning lolicon drawings would just make pedophiles go and consume actual child pornography, which is arguably worse.
Makes sense. As a clinical psychologist I am often frustrated by the lack of proper research done of pedophiles, I get it that is a very sensitive and disgusting matter for the population but we need data to identify and help this people before they commit crimes, just pretending they don’t exist and waiting for the crime to happen is not helping anyone.
You can’t exactly have a scientific test to see if the loli test group diddles more kids than the control group.
lmao 😭
The study I linked is self-reported inclination. I think more data can be collected that way.
I agree that the experimental design would be challenging, but surely we can find ethical ways of obtaining empirical data
There’s a lot of research being done about the president of the USA tho
I dont know if that will give you any usefull data though. His narcissism and dementia might make it hard to know what behaviours are due to pedophilia.
Though those symptoms might be related.
They have an island-worth of resource to study!
I really hope you understand why. That “data” you’re referring to is adults having sex with children. “Research” in this context involves adults allowing other adults to have sex with children so we can ask them questions about it.
The linked study doesn’t feature any children being harmed, and there are plenty of ways to safely study the dark sides of the human psyche indirectly. Psychology research is often done in this way, as even acceptable behavior is difficult to study directly, since people often act differently when they know they’re being examined.
I understand how studies are done, the experimental design would be tricky but surely we can come up with a methodology that is ethical and reliable
There is also a study of how availability of porn in general affected sex crime after the 1989 revolution in Czechoslovakia. Tl;dr aside from an uptick right after (which can be attributed to the country no longer being a police state) both child abuse and rape dropped, while other violent crime has not.
Obviously
The hard answer is: both
There are some people for whom such material would inspire actuating on their fantasies, and for others, act like a pressure release valve.
The real question is: in a utilitarian sense, does it reliably produce less suffering?
Wasn’t there a study done about how rates of sexual assault dropped in counties in proportion to home internet access, when the internet was becoming a thing? The hypothesis being, giving violent people access to free internet porn reduced their desire to assault others quite so much. I feel like this could generalize?
I’m sure there’s a case to be made, and my intuitions map yours, as I remember another study suggesting that countries with legal access to sex workers reduces incidences of sexual assault.
However, we know of opposing psychological frameworks like the porn desensitisation pipeline, and seeking increasingly hardcore porn over time.
Thats not to imply that exposure to porn is turning people into pedophiles, but there are a subset of people who are predisposed to reckless behaviour, and that’s not even mentioning the delusional plotlines hentai normalises about rape victims eventually loving it, and how those perspectives can influence thought patterns of those who are more suggestible.
The very same argument can be made for violence in media too though. imo it’s the exact same discussion as “do video games cause violence”
Ehhhhh… The question isn’t if such people exist, but in what proportion. They’re saying, by reference to other sexual behaviors being legalized/illegalized, that it appears that the majority is relief valve.
OFC we cannot say for certainty without multiple studies, but they’re saying it seems like the proportions skew in favor of relief valve, even across cultures.
I agree with them. The intuition seems to be relief valve, whether or not there would be a reduction in offenses.
However, I do not think normalizing the sexualization of children would help society in the long run. Sure, pedos should not be made completely taboo, or else there won’t be help available. Sure, if you thought lgbtq people were similarly ‘bad’, you would say the same things about them…
… BUT kids will never, practically by definition, NEVER be intellectually or emotionally mature enough to justify pedo, whereas informed, consenting adults doing what they want in private is perfectly fine.
I agree with you, as long as no real child is involved, nobody got hurt, so I don’t care. And I also think having a fictional pressure release is preferable to a real one.
But that is not really the topic here. This is about the term lolicon and how a lot of pedophiles hide behind that term. In my opinion the translation in the picture is correct. That has nothing to do with censorship, as the tweet tries to portray it as.
At best, I imagine it would be like being addicted to cigarettes but only having a fruity vape. Yeah, it’ll get the monkey of your back, but it isn’t truly satisfying, and the second you can have what you really want, you’re going for it.
The difference is, a smoker can quit, but a pedophile will always be a pedophile.
Sadly there doesn’t seem to be any reputable studies in this field - probably because it’s super controversial to begin with.
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm, it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a drawing”.
(mind you it’s important to distinguish a very similar argument from furries - furries are often claimed to be zoophiles, however an overwhelming majority of furries are against bestiality, and doesn’t even sexualise their characters, which are usually anthropic - human shaped with animal physical characteristics - and sapient, therefore able to consent. A child, regardless if they’re real or drawn, cannot consent).
On the other hand, some claim that it reduces harm by “disarming” paedos. Obviously those opposing then claim that no, it’s actually harmful, because just jerking off to drawings won’t be enough for most, and slippery slope fallacy ensue, they’ll be gone from jerking to drawings, to kidnapping and raping children.
Again the problem is we don’t have any data supporting either way. In my opinion, it could go either way, it heavily depends on the person, and without a thorough study, but that study wouldn’t be ethical to conduct because of the potential of endangering children one way or another…
And of course the moment one tries to debate for “on the other hand”, that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so, as they’re literally campaigning for the legalisation of children’s sexualisation in their specific way… which, at the end of the day, is paedophilia.
it also enables the core behaviour of sexualising children to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a drawing”.
By your logic, people shouldn’t play Call of Duty either because it enables the core behavior of shooting people with guns to be socially acceptable because “oh it’s just a video game”.
By your logic, any movie or book depicting any illegal act shouldn’t exist because it would “enable the core behavior to be socially acceptable”.
Sorry, that one doesn’t hold water for me.
It depends on why people are engaging with those things, and what it is they think they’re doing.
When people talk about fictional pedophilia “satiating the person’s needs so they don’t go out and commit a real crime,” they’re kind of tipping their hand, don’t you think? A gun-game player doesn’t actually want to kill anyone, but apparently fiction and non-fiction are veeery similar concepts in the mind of a lolicon.
On one hand you have people saying - rightfully so - that such media should be restricted, because even though some argue (without proof) that it reduces harm
Personally I think in a free society something should be legal by default, unless it is proven to cause harm, not the other way around like you suggest.
that person will be labelled a paedophile, rightfully so…
And I think this kind of mindset is poison to democracy
Okay, repeat after me:
👏 SEXUALISING 👏 CHILDREN 👏 CAUSES 👏 HARM 👏
It’s that simple.
and no, naming a mental illness (paedophilia) what it is isn’t “poison to democracy”.
Repeat after me now:
👏USING👏HAND👏CLAP/STAR/WHATEVER👏EMOJI👏DOESN’T👏MAKE👏WHAT👏YOU👏SAY👏MORE👏IMPACTFUL👏
There’s a very clear gap in knowledge that is being raised here, and it’s genuinely unknown whether fictional materials increase or decrease the rates of abuse. Judging by more general examples, it is most likely to decrease, but we need more data.
Also, pedophilia is not classified as mental illness. Pedophilic disorder is, but that requires specific criteria to be filled, namely being an active danger to children (getting into child abuse or consuming CSAM involving real children) and/or having distress about being a pedophile (for example, hating oneself and being suicidal).
You didn’t “name” an illness you talked about ad hominem attacks
Calling a paedophile (someone sexually attracted to children) a paedophile, is calling the disorder by its name. It’s not ad hominem in any manner.
But the fact that you can’t seem to differentiate between a paedophile (a person afflicted by a disorder they usually do NOT want, someone who deserves appropriate psychiatric help), and a child rapist (someone who has raped a child, and deserves no empathy, but appropriate steps to ensure they never harm a child) is quite telling.
Do you think that lolicon/csam/etc creates pedophiles?
It’s personally revolting, but I think it’s at least worth considering whether something like lolicon can reduce chances of a pedophile acting on their urges.
It’s true, but this Is a problem that we as a society need to address, prevention is key, we owe it to the victims to do everything in our power to minimize the risks
I think help, because they would like the drawings more and more and the real deal less and less.
You see people who are obsessed with anime, be super attracted to anime characters and little to no attraction to real women.
Interesting take, but again, we need real empirical data wich unfortunately doesn’t exist on this subject.
And how would, everyone related to that is worried about their life…
I doubt anyone can effectively make studies on people without endagering them, recording them identifying them and as such making them extremely uncomfortable and scared shitless.
And even for lolicons its hard and illegal in some places including my country, the sexualization, lewdness as in many loli animes it is, not to mention loli hentai
Yes its true, but we as a society need to learn the distinction between a pedophile and a child abuser, they are often one and the same but sometimes not. Pedophiles are people who are mentally ill, child abusers are criminals. There are pedophiles who recognize their desires are monstrous and choose never to act upon them. I believe there is even a website to provide group community anonymous mental health help to this people, I think is called pedophiles with virtue if I am not mistaken.
distinction between a pedophile and a child abuser, they are often one and the same but sometimes not
Actually its the other way around???
Most abused kids havent been abused by a pedophile at all. Please find studies about this before speaking something as important.
Can you provide some sources ? I would happily change my mind if presented with data
Preeeeetty sure they’re not talking about your dad spanking you.
Just study it the same way you study any dangerous or harmful thing… study cases. You don’t have to create situations in a controlled environment to never the less do science.
Comparing them to lolicon enjoyers would be rough, but I bet social scientists already have some methods figured out for studying that kind of stuff.
I think its the same circular argument about guns in video games, does running around GTA shooting everyone give someone their “fix” or will it encourage them to go do it for real?
If the fake stuff gives people their “fix”, then so be it. Anyone that harms a real child can have their 2nd head publicly removed to discourage others. Not sure what to do if they don’t have that part, but a punishment like that will never happen so not gonna think to hard about it.
Problem with your “solution” is that it’s reactive. “anyone that harms a real child can have their 2nd head publicly removed” - that doesn’t help the child that was raped, doesn’t prevent future cases, and so on. Reactive punishments simply don’t work, because there’s diminishing returns when it comes to the layer of society that the law is required because of…
Proactive handling is the ideal solution - destigmatise the issue, while still punishing the act itself. Being attracted to children isn’t the (criminal) problem, acting on that and raping children is. But to resolve that you need to treat the source of the problem, the attraction itself. Which means people need to be comfortable to admit it to a medical professional, and receive appropriate help for it.
You’re not wrong. There definitely needs to be proactive solutions/help, but punishment should not be a slap on the wrist. We can push for the proactive solutions, while keeping the reactive solutions available.
People need to be held accountable for their actions, raping anyone should result in something more than a “do not hire list”. Body disfigurement is probably a bit too inhumane…really should just kill them and be done with it - and I say that as someone who doesn’t support death penalty. Problem is false accusations, gonna need something more then a he said/she said argument to do anything. And gathering evidence is not easy, its not like the victims knew to call a camera crew ahead of time. (In case its not clear I’m talking about adult victims in the last few sentences. There are plenty of situations were it’s not clear what happened).
It’d be useless as a way to satiate pedophiles if they aren’t even into it.
If the often stated things about pedophilia being more of a mental illness and mainly about power, then I’m curious how much overlap there is between people who are into anime lolis and “actual” pedophiles. Is that Venn diagram basically a circle, or is there little overlap? I suspect it’s closer to the minimal overlap end and lolicons are like other people who are into more extreme fetishes in fantasy but not reality.
Not sure how you’d go about figuring this out though.
If those anime fans could read they would be very upset
Look, there’s a lot to criticize anime fans about including media literacy and the aforementioned pedophilia. However if there’s something they famously care about it’s the words that they have to read to understand their shows, they can definitely read
Well, they’re not wrong…
True
