Ask John: Is It Wrong to Like Lolicon?
Question:
Is it wrong to like lolicon?
Answer:
This seems to be the question that won’t go away; the new companion to the age old debate over subtitles compared to dubs. In order to first clear the elephant out of the room, contrary to histrionics based on second-hand knowledge and ignorance, nothing has changed in American law regarding the definition and legality of depictions of sexuality involving childlike fictional characters since I last wrote about the topic in 2006. So I’m not going to retread that here.
My own perspective is that if you’re more concerned with your appearance in the eyes of acquaintances or family than enjoying whatever anime or manga you happen to find appealing, perhaps you should consider finding a different, less anxiety inducing hobby. No civilized, rational person can condone the sexual victimization of children. If you feel genuine, compelling sexual attraction toward actual living (or God help you, deceased) children, you should seriously consider seeking psychological counseling from friends, family, or a professional specialist. However, if you are a rational, well-adjusted individual that happens to appreciate Japanese animation or comics that depict unreal childlike characters engaged in sexual activity – perhaps for the art design, or the story development, or the animation quality, or the eroticism – where is the harm done? The argument may be made that the mere existence of lolicon art is a violation of basic human rights in principle, but if that argument is made, the same argument must also apply to fictional depictions of violence against human beings that occur in television programs, movies, video games, theatrical drama, and prose fiction. Common sense has to apply in order for the conventions of society to function.
Countless opponents of lolicon argue that attraction to the genre is immoral because they’re trying to impose their own attitudes, biases, and principles upon everyone. Their argument is that the existence of lolicon creates the potential to desensitize audiences to the victimization of children, and may influence latent pedophile tendencies within certain individuals. At its most simplistic level, this argument is valid when conjoined with an absence of social conditioning and rational intelligence. In effect, the argument against lolicon only works if common sense is set aside. And if the argument against fictional depictions of child sexuality are applied, the same principles must also be applied to all art, sports, politics, and religion – concepts which all have a potential to desensitize and influence behavior.
My opinion is that attraction to lolicon anime and manga is no different from attraction to any other genre of anime and manga. So long as it remains harmless entertainment, it’s a safe, enjoyable, personal hobby. When it begins to influence your perspective or behavior in potentially harmful ways – whether it’s horror, or shonen action, or sports, or lolicon, or any other genre – anime & manga has clearly become a dangerous influence. But even in that instance I would argue that the problem lies in an impressionable personal psychology rather than the anime or manga itself. If a large number of people observed lolicon material then transformed into vicious sexual abusers, I would have to concede that lolicon is dangerous material with a harmful influence. However, that has never happened, and, I believe, never will happen. So I consider lolicon material no more “wrong” to enjoy than, say, a tall glass of beer – which also has a potential to influence behavior and is also restricted to consumption by only rational, responsible adults.
Related Posts
About The Author
john
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Hold on a moment though. While many people do attack lolicon in such a manner, many also do not think lolicon will turn you into a child molester. They recognize that lolicon on it’s own is harmless and therefore do not oppose people’s right to read it if they so choose. That does not prevent them from still being opposed to it though. As the saying goes: just because you can doesn’t mean you should.
Do you maintain the position, like many lolicon fans, that being attracted to lolicon does not make you a pedophile? If so I would appreciate it if you would elaborate on your reasons. Either way though, let us for a moment assume that lolicons are pedophiles for the sake of argument. If we can all clearly agree that it is wrong to actually engage in sexual activities with children, does it not make sense to say that it is also wrong to desire to engage in sexual activities with children? Yes, of course if you don’t actually act on that desire it remains harmless. But does that really do anything to diminish the vileness of the desire? Is it not ultimately the desire to do something harmful and awful?
I think this more accurately represents most people’s complaints of lolicon. (Although, I’ll admit I don’t have anything more than my own experience to say that these people are in fact the majority.) Either way I think it is an interesting complaint worth pursuing in discussion.
Is it wrong to play Grand Theft Auto and watch violent films & anime? Does it increase your potential to become a serial killer? That pretty much sums up the absurdly paranoid argument against “lolicon” or whatever other thing people are into in fiction & fantasy. Pop art (games, films, comics etc.) allows us to experience extreme subjects in a fantasy context that we otherwise wouldn’t dare to recreate IRL, because of our basic respect for human life and our capacity for moral judgment. Most people can tell the difference between fantasy and reality, which is why we allow (say) violent videogames to exist.
“what about the people who can’t tell the difference” you ask? Well, then they need professional help you know, whether they’re thinking of raping a child or a workplace massacre. However, if you start legislating against sex & violence in art**, then you’re infringing upon the freedom of speech and otherwise getting into Orwellian thought-crime territory. I’ve always found “[X] is corrupting the values of our society!” to be an inane argument.
** the reason why laws that illegalize the depiction of “simulated” children in erotic contexts have been previously shot down by the US supreme court.
“In contrast the straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern:
1. Person A has position X.
2. Person B ignores X and instead presents position Y.
Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1. Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent’s position and then refuting it, thus giving the appearance that the opponent’s actual position has been refuted.[1]
3. Person B attacks position Y.
4. Person B draws a conclusion that X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself.”
@ikillchicken: But was it not the act of sexual child abuse itself that made people hate pedophiles? If not a single instance of such an act were to happen in history, would people feel the same way about pedophiles as they do now? If what you say is true–that desire alone is what makes lolicon a bad hobby to pursue–then a grave injustice is being done to people with pedophile tendencies. Tendencies alone are harmless, desire alone is harmless. You can’t exactly blame someone for having them; the guilty party here is human nature, or perhaps a psychological disorder. Speaking of the latter, some foreign cultures of past and present times may not agree with you.
Oh I agree. I can’t blame someone for being a pedophile. They can’t help the urges or tendencies they have. That said I think they ought to recognize that they shouldn’t be looking at children that way and therefore do their utmost to ignore those urges and tendencies. (Some sort of therapy would probably be a good idea as well.) That’s where lolicon crosses the line though. Instead of trying to ignore it or deal with it, they indulge in it. Even though it is in a harmless way they are still opting to go ahead and pursue these desires. At that point they have crossed the line and made a choice.
“But was it not the act of sexual child abuse itself that made people hate pedophiles? If not a single instance of such an act were to happen in history, would people feel the same way about pedophiles as they do now?”
I can see your point but I still think the two are inseparably linked. While child molestation may be the act, pedophilia is still the desire to perform that act. As long as the act is bad it makes the desire to perform that act bad as well. It is of course harmless if you resist it, but still bad and something you shouldn’t choose to indulge in (even in a harmless way).
You think I’m straw-manning you? Let’s go after your main point:
“That’s where lolicon crosses the line though. Instead of trying to ignore it or deal with [the fetishization of fictional anime/manga characters], they indulge in it.”
So what? If you’re making the case that “lolicon” promotes immoral acts (or unhealthy thoughts or whatever your basis for “wrong” is) through its mere, fictionalized depiction of an immoral subject matter, then you must necessarily believe that sensationalized depictions of extreme violence and other immoral acts, such as that lovingly depicted in countless anime manga & games, are similarly harmful. You’d practically have to believe that any fictional depiction of an immoral act or subject matter is “bad”. If you don’t, you are being logically inconsistent, and applying a double-standard to _specifically_ the eroticized depictions of fictional anime/manga characters (referred to as “lolicon” in the international fandom).
so you either:
1. think that all fictionalized depictions of immoral acts in pop art are “bad”, “wrong” or “harmful”… however that’s a highly conservative, fringe opinion that will find little support in the anime fandom.
2. make a special exception for lolicon using some bizarre mental gymnastics to argue how it’s “more wrong” than other fictionalized depictions of immoral acts. However, this just highlights the weakness of your argument (my whole point) that won’t hold up in any serious discussion or law context.
3. just want to point out that lolicon is bad just cuz. Okay, but that’ just your highly nebulous opinion floating in space and bearing no relevance nor shedding any light to the overall “controversy” of lolicon in the anime/manga/games fandom.
I think John has made a clear point that real child molesters throw common sense out the window. They’re not just deviating from principles of Western morality, they’re violating basic human rights, and sometimes even evolutionary intent. But lolicon’s growing popularity, which isn’t insignificant, clearly demonstrates that pedophile tendencies coupled with common sense don’t make a child molester. What we’re fighting here is commoners branding us as pedophiles when the negative connotations of the word stem from anything but fantasizing about fictional characters having sex. Like I said before, it’s the act of real-life sexual child abuse itself that made pedophiles… unpopular. ww
“You think I’m straw-manning you?”
Well lets see, you’ve now for the second time accused me of saying lolicon is harmful which I’ve repeatedly denied. You’ve also told me “what I must think”. So yeah, I’d say you’re straw-manning.
Your assertion is flawed. Lolicon is not simply “depictions of immoral acts”. I have no problem with pedophilia or even child molestation being depicted. However, lolicon goes way farther than that. It panders to that “immoral act”. (That’s your choice of words here by the way, not mine). When someone watches violent anime, it is not because they want to go around killing people but can’t in real life.
I do not have a problem with the depiction of immoral acts. (obvious)
I have a problem with people indulging in something that panders to their desire to perform a despicable act.
By the way, right now I’m arguing on the basis that it is an agreed upon fact that lolicons are pedophiles based on Crilix and to a lesser extent John’s comments. Now if you want to argue that they are not as you seem to be slightly hinting at, that is a whole other can of worms.
“However, lolicon goes way farther than that. It panders to that “immoral actâ€. (That’s your choice of words here by the way, not mine). When someone watches violent anime, it is not because they want to go around killing people but can’t in real life.”
This is exactly the brand of mental gymnastics I was referring to in possible response #2, because it’s no different from calling a first person shooter videogame a murder simulator for wannabe murderers (yes I’m opening that can of worms). I play ArmA (a military simulator) all the time, but I’m not about to sign up for an Iraq tour. Even if it played out just like the game, it would not be fun. I imagine fans of GTA must not actually want to steal cars and shoot up gangsters etc. in real life. However the depiction, “pandering” even, of these extreme and, as far as mundane life is concerned, totally unreal subject matters are still able to excite audiences. Who knows, it might inspire _some_ already unstable people, but I’m pretty sure the otherwise silent majority would not express the desire to act out the fantasies portrayed in pop art IRL, and also would gladly pay the price of a little bit of potential social degradation for the sake of artistic freedom.
I know people love to make special “it’s different!” exceptions for _anything_ involving kids, sex, or both, but why do you think so many couples engage in, say, fantasy roleplay with rape themes? Because they want the heightened emotions of an outlandish experience without the blatant immorality, guilt, harm to a fellow person and consequences of the act in question– it would not be fun IRL in other words. Same story for anyone playing GTA or a death-pandering shooting game, etc.
I’d have to admit it’d be at least exciting to be engaged in a deadly firefight and a hectic car chase, but making those fantasies a reality is out of the question. Rather than brand lolicon as _somehow_ magically different, I’m going to go out on a limb and assume that the vast majority of lolicon fans would actually be turned off by the idea of raping a real live child on the basis of their moral capacity and their ability to discern fantasy from reality.
So no, I can’t agree that lolicon is bad because the alternative, barring people from indulging in harmless fantasy, is much worse. I can’t even agree on the assumption that lolicon fans want to rape real live children any more than I want to start a workplace massacre because I enjoyed The Matrix’s (in?)famous lobby shootout or whatever.
Honestly, I think my article did address all of ikillchicken’s initial points of contention.
I did clarify that fans of lolicon do not necessarily feel any attraction toward real human children. If you appreciate, say, the cute art in a lolicon manga but don’t even like associating with real children, are you a pedophile? How can you have pedophile tendencies when you don’t even want to be near children?
What if you have pedophile tendencies but don’t act upon them? As my article stated – if you have such impulses, you may require psychological counseling. If certain people have such tendencies yet never, during their entire lives, act upon them, does that make the tendency vile and depraved? I argue that calling a personal, private impulse “vile” is a subjective moral judgement applied by observers who are trying to impose their own morality upon others. If they do no harm, I believe that individuals have a right to their own, private thoughts without being persecuted by moral crusaders who believe that everyone should have pure and innocent minds.
@ikillchicken: You’ve slightly misunderstood my comment. I do not agree people who enjoy lolicon are indisputably pedophiles, but I concur that a depicted child-like body features do indeed look like those of a child. With my initial comment I just wanted to illustrate a firm disconnect between what’s considered immoral and what’s deserving of punishment and critique.
Okay, well as I said, the issue of whether lolicons are pedophiles is a whole other debate. In fact, I’ll concede that there are certainly people who are interested in lolicon for the other aspects. (Although I think there are also people who just hide behind that. It’s the old “I just read it for the articles”.) Anyway though, back on the issue of people who are in fact pedophiles:
“If certain people have such tendencies yet never, during their entire lives, act upon them, does that make the tendency vile and depraved? I argue that calling a personal, private impulse “vile†is a subjective moral judgement applied by observers who are trying to impose their own morality upon others.”
But we can agree that child molestation is “vile” and “depraved”. That’s the key difference that I think separates it. Even if a person doesn’t act on their urges, the bottom line is that they still desire to perform a vile and depraved act. I don’t really see it as a moral judgment to say it is vile to want to do vile things. That just logical as I see it.
You don’t understand the consequences of words such as vile, depraved.
U.S. president Bush tried to justify the Iraq war at one point saying that Saddam Hussein is evil. The meaning of the word “evil” politically translated into “an entity possessing and potentially planning to use weapons of mass destruction.” Eventually, we figured out Iraq didn’t possess them. Saddam Hussein may have been executed for crimes against humanity, but the war was wagered based on false allegations.
In the past, and even in some parts of the world today, homosexual relationships are considered the work of the devil. The reason why many societies do not legally forbid these relationships is because they do not harm anyone, even though they may be against the society’s common morals. Still, their critics continue to argue how homosexuality is the main cause of spread of HIV (the argument is a fallacy).
I sometimes indulge in futanari as well, and I personally think Watarase Jun is one of the hottest fictional characters in existence, but does this mean I have a thing for real transsexuals? I certainly do not.
For what it’s worth, yes, I do agree that “child molestation is ‘vile’ and ‘depraved’.” I said that from the outset. I also do agree that it’s depraved for someone to actually want to sexually abuse a child, regardless of whether the person actually commits a physical crime. I did say that someone who has criminal impulses should seek psychological help.
But it’s necessary to apply common sense to making judgements about rational, intelligent people that distinguish between fictional characters and real human beings. As crilix addressed through example, interest in something depicted in comics doesn’t necessarily carry over to reality. I don’t have any problems with people that oppose lolicon, but I do have a philosophical and moral problem with people that want to judge and control other people’s thoughts.
“But it’s necessary to apply common sense to making judgements about rational, intelligent people that distinguish between fictional characters and real human beings.”
Okay, I can understand that. As I said, I will certainly concede that lolicons are by no means automatically inherent pedophiles. That said, I remain skeptical. While there may be other attractions to lolicon, a large one would still potentially be pedophilia. For now though, I will agree to disagree on that particular issue.
“I don’t have any problems with people that oppose lolicon, but I do have a philosophical and moral problem with people that want to judge and control other people’s thoughts.”
First off let me make it clear that as I’ve said, I’m not advocating any kind of “control” of peoples actions or especially their thoughts. Lolicon is harmless and so people should have the right to it if they choose. Again though, just because you can doesn’t mean you should. I don’t think people should indulge in their pedophilia. I feel that conclusion is supported by a logical basis as I explained in my previous post. Is this what you consider “judging” people’s thoughts and have a problem with?
For that matter though, your stance is that: “it’s depraved for someone to actually want to sexually abuse a child, regardless of whether the person actually commits a physical crime.” Is this not also “judging” people’s thoughts in the same way? In fact, this seems to almost mirror my stance on pedophiles exactly. The disagreement lies in whether lolicons are pedophiles.
If this is the case though, you seem to be applying a double standard here. You are willing to judge the thoughts of pedophiles. Yet you condemn me for judging the thoughts of lolicons. What you seem to see as the difference is that lolicons are not pedophiles. Now in that case, it is a legitimate position to counter my statements to the contrary (as you have already done somewhat). However, it is unfair to complain about my judging their thoughts. By your own position, you are not against judging people’s thoughts. You simply disagree that lolicons thoughts when judged are found to be bad. (Or perhaps not. I don’t mean to straw-man you. If you see some other distinction, please explain).
im sorry if my english is bad , i recently posted the harm that lolicon did to my life. http://www.animenation.net/forums/showthread.php?t=219299
im a study for ikillchicken , hardly no one will be honest , im not ashamed because i dont like what i become, this brain of myne have changed and emerged , i want to put the emerging degree back to node 0 ( civilized )
I don’t think that we can criminalize or even condemn thoughts.
Similarly to someone not discriminating and acting in perfect equality in all ways of life, even if they THINK women are inferior, it has no effect on their life, its completely irrelevant to others then.
The same applies to lolicon fans. Personality I like lolicon because I want to BE the character. I don’t particularly enjoy hentai though. I have no interest whatsoever in having relationships with children.
I have two personalities, one is a child of 8 years old. I know I will not be able to physically look like I’m 8 years old (I’m a bit tall for that), nor do I want to be perceived as being physically 8 years old (since I want my relationships to be seen as consensual adult-adult), but I don’t mind dressing like an 8 years old, or acting as naive as one (not as bratty though).
I am looking for a man who will like me for who I am, and that man will not be a pedophile, even if he may like lolicon. Maybe you catch my meaning? He would have a long-term relationship with me, and certainly not pursue physical children.
No it’s not wrong to like lolicon. Beautiful girls will love you even if you’re old. In reality kissing and hugging is fine. And having sex with a underage girl is bad and a no-no. On the Animation world no problems. Art is not even real. And love is strong. Japanese Women that look like little girls is what I’d like because of the sexy voices. And Real Child Pornography is Illegal except Japan and Russia today. So underage sex is bad. The law is enforced. Age of consent with different ages under 18 are too young.
Lolicon is not made for pedophiles. Lolicon is fetish.