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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.