Ask John: Is There Any Justification for Lolicon?
Question:
I noticed that on a recent “Ask John” update, you discussed at length, the issue of “Lolicon” and the law. Perhaps I just don’t “get it”, but what is the actual draw of this type of anime in the first place? I don’t quite understand how someone who gets more out of lolicon than surface-level amusement is much different than someone who desires to watch outright child pornography. While I understand that I am in no way forced to buy, read, or look at this kind of content, I do nonetheless find it objectionable that it exists. Can you offer any kind of explanation or discussion in relation to the lolicon issue? Though I will never understand the appeal, at the same time I don’t think it’s necessarily appropriate for me to spout off how lolicon is “sick” or whatnot should there be more to the issue than I am aware of.
Answer:
I’ll do my best to provide a rational and forthright response because I have nothing to hide, and people who dislike me or my principles aren’t likely to be swayed by any explanations I give. I believe that it’s natural and necessary to distinguish a distinction between fictional depictions of sexuality and actual child abuse. I’m not aware of any proven scientific evidence that conclusively links the two, and biased attempts to do so are flawed by selective reasoning and exclusion. If one claims that a fascination with fictional depictions of sexuality inextricably leads to sexual abuse, one must also believe that a fascination with racing games leads to dangerous driving habits, and obsession with violent video games turns players into homicidal sociopaths. A simple A leads to B argument is irresponsibly reductive. Likewise, the generalization that anyone who appreciates fictional depictions of child sexuality must also sexually desire real children is a flawed deduction because it’s not consistently true. I do enjoy some lolicon art, but I have no interest in real children whatsoever. In fact, I don’t like children very much because they’re hyperactive, loud, and undisciplined. I’m also rational enough to recognize human dignity and abhor the abuse of children. I respect the perspective of critics who oppose lolicon art, but I oppose critics who levy unjustified accusations against others, and oppose conservative attitudes that seek to limit freedom of expression and appreciation of creative fictional art. I stress, once again, that I vehemently protest the victimization of children.
Lolicon is an art form that’s created by adults and is intended for rational, responsible adults only, in Japan and worldwide. I believe that lolicon art is a natural exhibition of the intrinsic human instinct to propagation of the species. The male human animal has an instinctive attraction to fertile, young females. That very desire is part of the human survival instinct, and the instinctual desire to continue the human species. The rules of society have managed that natural, animalistic sexual desire to the point of ultimate benefit, specifically I’m referring to monogamous marriage and age of consent laws. Lolicon is a recognition and appeasement of this natural human instinct in a socially responsible fashion. Lolicon artists realize that men have a natural attraction to young, fertile girls, and illustrate and fictionally embellish that attraction. Fantasy is a natural characteristic of humanity. Everyone occasionally dreams of killing an aggravating neighbor or boss, but most sane and rational people don’t actually do it. We have video games, movies, and novels that allow us the vicariously fulfill that dream. Likewise, occasionally everyone dreams of being powerful, assertive, and sexually dominant, but sane, responsible people don’t molest children. Japanese lolicon art recognizes that humans have these occasional impulses, and reflects them in a cathartic, non-harmful way. In my opinion, lolicon art does not harm people. Psychologically unstable people harm people.
Child pornography is repulsive. Lolicon is not child pornography because it doesn’t involve children; it involves drawings of fictional characters. Calling lolicon “child pornography” is literally no different whatsoever than labeling violent video games as “murder.” People have a natural attraction to things that are small and cute, like kittens and koala bears. Human beings have a natural predilection for sex. Lolicon simply combines these two fascinations. Regardless of what type of comic books they prefer, healthy, rational people do not victimize children. I don’t condone zealous advertisement of controversial tastes. I agree that people who aggressive proclaim their love of lolicon art to the world may generate negative perceptions of anime and anime fans. But I don’t believe that lolicon art itself is intrinsically immoral. The purpose of lolicon art is not to encourage child abuse. Lolicon is simply a genre of manga and anime that many critics find offensive or controversial. Just like all literary depictions, the fact that something is depicted in fiction does not necessarily justify, condone, equal, represent, or encourage the same action in real life.
Related Posts
About The Author
john
Add a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I am shocked that a seemingly coherent and reasonable individual would post something like this, especially on a site that can be traced back to your actual identity. You must truly believe that Loli artwork and pornography is not actually harmful to children, and is a natural desire for human males to procreate. This seems odd and irresponsible, not to mention far off base. First of all, children depicted in these cartoons and artwork are clearly not of childbearing age, counting out the procreation argument from thew start. If you are attracted to underdeveloped individuals, perhaps the main motivation is not indeed procreation, but power over another human being that is vulnerable. Lacking power and status in other areas of life is a logical impetus for being attracted to the underdeveloped, not the desire for procreation. You cannot procreate with a child that is not capable of doing so. You can, however, exploit and take advantage of an underdeveloped individual quite easily. This seems like a more logical reason for developing these feelings.
Another item in this post that I find off base and indeed silly is: Something representing a child in every facet of its form “doesn’t involve children”. This statement makes no sense at all. A picture of ones imaginations doesn’t involve their imaginations? A picture of an orange doesn’t involve an orange? By definition of the item in question, it DOES indeed involve that item. A cartoon of a child being fucked does involve a child. It is silly and incorrect to say otherwise. It may assuage your moral grounds to say such falsehoods, but that does not stop them from being false.
Thirdly, speaking as a child psychologist I feel compelled to tell you that, while I value fantasy very highly as a healthy outlet of ones fears, desires, emotions, proclivities, passions, inadequate feelings, ambitions and most anything one is not given a chance to fully explore in one’s day to day life, it does have very clear limitations for both healing and helping an individual. When someone uses this very viable form of therapy as a crutch for stagnation, denial, cyclical thinking, scapegoating or nearly anything that does not further their development as either they, or society as a whole sees it, it not only becomes useless, but harmful. Depicting children being raped in any form (having sex with a child is rape in every form. Please do not refute that. I could provide you with a mountain of psychological evidence that states exactly how and why the brain of a child is not capable of making sound and productive decisions when it come to their own physical and emotional safety beyond a rudimentary point.) is not only something that should fill you with rage biologically, (in order to protect these individuals until they are reproductively sound,) but something that should cause you to at least shrink a bit conceptually. Human society that has been well established for thousands of years, has in almost every case deplored, shamed or otherwise deterred sexual activity among children in all its forms. This should make you think. If you do not find this sort of activity abhorrent in any way it is brought to you, you are not only questioning a well established societal norm, but biology, which you used as a argument for why individuals are attracted to children.
Finally, it may not seem like it, because of the clinical way in which I am typing, but I am so angry that a seemingly intelligent human being, such as yourself, could think even for a moment that art is not a representation of what it represents. Children being depicted having sex is a depiction of children having sex. A drawing is related to what is drawn. It is part of the problem. We, as human beings, should have a biological and emotional need to protect children from everything that would harm them. Propagating the idea that fornication with a child is acceptable by continuing to depict it, could lead to this behavior being accepted and even protected. Child fucking is a crime, both federally and biologically and celebrating it in any way is accepting the notion that it is OK to fuck children. It is not. Stop thinking that you are not part of the problem. You are, and you should be ashamed of yourself as a member of the human race. I am ashamed that I have to share a race with you, and people like you that feel this behavior is not harmful or even feel that it is acceptable.
You have a position of relative power, being a figure on the internet whose opinion is read by thousands, maybe more. There are some things that need to be protected, because they cannot protect themselves. Help them, instead of making it easier for pedophiles and degenerates to take advantage. Freedom of speech is not as important as children having a safe future that they do not have to fear.