Lolikon

[Soapie]

There has been a lot of controversy recently surrounding "lolikon", as evidenced in particular by the sudden influx of comments like "is this loli?" on imageboards like 4chan.

Incase you are not aware, lolikon is a genre of Japanese "hentai" (to use the western sense of the word, not the Japanese, which literally just means "pervert") which depicts underage females in sexual situations, usually heterosexually, and generally with adult males. There is also "shotakon" (abbreviated often to "shota") which depicts young males, usually in homosexual situations, although occasionally with older women. Of course, all of the aforementioned material is exclusively drawn, and generally not in an especially realistic manner, the drawings are very very rarely intended to be photo realistic, especially the black-and-white "manga" format loli/shota books.

Now, the question is whether or not stuff like this should be acceptable. I'm sure that people here will have the more or less unanimous verdict on child pornography (that is to say, photographs of real children in sexual, or intentionally suggestive, situations) that it is not acceptable for many reasons, yada yada, but that is not the essense of this debate.

Some people put loli and shota in exactly the same leauge they do child pornography, that it is unnaceptable, it is "sick and wrong" on the basis that children should never be depicted in such situations, and that having such material in existence makes children out to be legitimate targets for sexual activity in real life. However, defenders of it claim that it allows people who experience (arguably natural) urges towards younger people and outlet for their attraction which doesn't harm any living children. Of course, the person in question still has to exercise restraint to prevent them from undertacking such acts on real people, but this is a level of control which the majority of people have.

There is also the argument, as hinted at earlier, that lolikon decreases the taboo on sexual activity involving children, although it is also a good debate point as to whether or not such a decrease is a good thing or not.

Personally, I agree with the view that lolikon is a legitimate form of pornography, regardless of whether or not I personally, nor anybody else, finds it pleasing on a personal level, that is irrelevant. Since the fact it is drawn firmly emphasizes the fantasy inherent within it (and all pornography) I do not see the problem, since most people recognise and acknowledge this fantasy.

For anyone who is interested, here are links to imageboards with lolikon and shotacon sections. I am providing these links purely so people can seek examples of such material should they wish to, so that people can make judgements and arguments etc. having actually viewed the material about which the debate is based. If I am requested by a moderator to remove the links, then I shall, but I feel it important to the essence of the debate that they are given:
not4chan (http://www.not4chan.org)
6chan (http://www.6channel.org)

[InstaCpu]

Not sure what to think, I was going to say even cartoons depicting an illegal act are something to be wary of. Yet, cartoons depict violence, including sexual violence (as do films) so why the double standard. Will be interested in other opinions.

[Roxsie]

I'm wondering if the lolikon comes from the novel Lolita which also is about a young girl and older man yet is considered a classic work of "fiction".

[Soapie]

I'm wondering if the lolikon comes from the novel Lolita which also is about a young girl and older man yet is considered a classic work of "fiction".It does, the book was written by Vladimir Nabokov and adapted twice into cinema. Not quite sure where shotacon comes from, there's much speculation (the wikipedia article proposes explainations, but with no other evidence upon which to base it, as flagged up in the article).

[renatzu]

My view on the world: people should be allowed to do anything which does not cause harm to someone else.

Is anyone being harmed or forced to do something against their will? No. So it should be allowed to exist. You may not like it, but you don't have to buy it.

[Meadow]

My view on the world: people should be allowed to do anything which does not cause harm to someone else.

Is anyone being harmed or forced to do something against their will? No. So it should be allowed to exist. You may not like it, but you don't have to buy it.

QFT. Be it drawing a bearded man in a cartoon or quietly pleasuring yourself to drawings of girls with weird eyes, the free society we live in should allow it.

[Midget]

If it keeps people from actually doing this to real girls then I have no problem with it.

However there is the arguement that it could increase their desire to perform such acts with children. They might look at the comics and drawings and decide they want to actually try it.

I guess that if they really want to do that, they'll do it regardless of a comic anyway. The comics are probably a good outlet for people with this illness (that is how I personally regard it, maybe you don't but meh, whatever) who know it's morally wrong and will NOT try to perform the acts with real children.

It's a lose/lose situation really, there are people like this in the world who DO want to harm children and who will do so whether they've read a comic or not. It's just a sad, sad fact of life. :(

[renatzu]

However there is the arguement that it could increase their desire to perform such acts with children. They might look at the comics and drawings and decide they want to actually try it.(
People who believe that are the same types of people who believe that condoms will encourage people to have sex. Which is as stupid as saying we shouldn't have medicine because it will encourage people to get sick.

[Roxsie]

Thats almost as bad as the people who say Lolita created Peadophilia

[Midget]

Lolikon isn't a contraceptive for paedophilia though.

You can't really compare it to condoms since condoms encourage you to practise safe sex, lolikon doesn't encourage "safe" sex with children (ie masturbating over pictures rather than "the real thing"). Some people may use it as an alternate outlet to having sex with children but you cannot deny that it could increase someone's desire to have sex with a child.

This is a bad analogy but, say you see an advert/video/picture of a man driving a great car, you'dbe encouraged to drive that car, you'd want to get one for yourself because it looks so great in the video/pic etc.

Isn't this kind of the same thing? Paedophile sees children in pictures, likes what he sees, wants to try it? Your opinion may be no but in that case I highly disagree. I think it's a bad thing in this sense and could easily influence people.

[edit]
Ok, better analogy:
If you watch porn, it makes you horny, this makes you want to have sex. It doesn't discourage you from having sex, it has the opposite affect.

So why, if a paedophile were to look at their porn, would it NOT make them want sex with a child?

[SPACKlick]

Lolikon will act as an outlet for paedophiles(in the tru sense of the word) who accept that heir desires are a taboo and illegal. But those who choose to actupon their desires, surely cn be no more or less likely to perform this act upon a child.

However it cna be said that these images reduce the need for actual pornographic photos of children. The drawn versions whether cartoon or photrealisitc can replace the photo.

Talking of double standards, i wonder why in most of the lolikon i ofund on the interweb penises are blurred as if they should not be seen and yeh the young girls they are pentrating or jizzing on are displayed fully.

[captain canuck]

this is little more than the child pornography debate with new clothing...

or lack thereof, as the case may be.


Talking of double standards, i wonder why in most of the lolikon i ofund on the interweb penises are blurred as if they should not be seen and yeh the young girls they are pentrating or jizzing on are displayed fully. For a while Japanese law dictated that all depictions of male or female genitalia displayed on the internet and made freely available, whether drawn or otherwise, were required by law to be blurred. There was, I believe, rather inconsistent response to the law (which may still be in effect) -- in only partial "compliance" the law tended to more frequently blur male bits, or more paradoxically female only when the subject could have been an adult.

I think with the rise of adult verification and so on this just became less and less so, but when images are harvested from earlier or generally free sources they may still bear the partial censoring.

This is only a partial answer. I don't plan on investigating it further. I probably already have CSIS and/or the CIA watching me :p