no lies.
facts
Sankaku is funny for all the wrong reasons. I remember when Free! came out and they were absolutely seething that KyoAni was catering to women for once instead of them.
Well, they’re not wrong…
True
Sounds about right.
This thread is a firestorm but I’m going in, wish me luck.
I think is a connotations game here. Lolicon have less bad connotations than paedophile.
The world paedophile makes you think of a criminal, someone who have content that was made hurting children. Someone who probably has hurt children themselves. Despite the more profound consideration that a paedophile might or might not act on their impulses, the connotation on the word is that.
Then there is the word lolicon. That word have a different connotation. Here you think about some anime geek with terabytes of drawn naked kids. But you don’t tend to associate their behavior with real kids. Regardless on the possibility that lolicons do hurt children or also have material that hurt children. The connotation of the word is that their obsession only focus on the drawn naked children.
Most people in general consider drawn pictures of children less harmful or even not harmful at all compared to actually abusing kids. So one word really doesn’t have the same weight as another.
Then, we have the question. Using a word with more/less weight is justified here or not?
We all now some paedophiles have rebranded themselves as MAPS, precisely trying to shake of the bad connotations of paedophile.
Is this the same case? Is using lolicon trying to evade the “paedophile tag” or is it something actually different?
I get the disgusting feeling about lolicon. But personally I do think is essentially different to what we normally think about a paedophile. If someone told me “X is a paedophile” I would as “so are they in jail?”. But if someone tells me that “X is q lolicon” I won’t assume that they have done something deserving jail time, I’ll probably be wondering if they are also a paedophile, but the fact that I think of it as an “addition” means to me that those are not the same.
On another differentiate fact. I think it’s not uncommon for people to accidentally see lolicon, it has happened to me. Looking for some yaoi you might end up opening a lolicon manga, or maybe you watch an anime and it has some lolicon tones. The normal reaction is not liking it and move on, but it’s not a traumatic experience. I have luckily never watch CP but if somehow it was accidentally showed to me I think it would be a traumatic experience that probably would scar me for life.
So, on the bases that I think different things when I think about each of those words I do not think that’s an accurate translation.
Then there is the question to people who do think those two terms are the same. Do you truly think those two terms refer to the same thing or you just feel so disgusted by lolicon that you want the term lolicon to be viewed with as much disgust as people see paedophile?
Yeah, to my knowledge lolicon is very specifically about the attraction aspect without any accusations beyond that, while paedophile has different connotations (in spite of originally having that same meaning). But then the word lolicon in english has that specific meaning about drawn children which is also not what the word means in japanese. So there’s not really a 100% right way to translate it, but going by the context that anime characters tend to say lolicon in, translating it as paedophile seems more likely to be misleading about the actual situation portrayed.
Whether it should be treated as lightly as it often is in anime is a whole different discussion and I’d say it shouldn’t but it’s completely valid to question the translation imo
I like the meta layer of it. For the girl in the show they’re identical concepts because she IS a drawn child.
Otherwise all your points are valid though they leave a bad taste in my mouth. In Canada drawn CP is basically treated the same as actual CP by the courts which feels a bit extreme.
For the purposes of child pornography laws, a “person” includes both actual and imaginary human beings including drawings from the imagination, cartoons, or computer-generated composites
The definition of child pornography includes any person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years.
https://talkingforchange.ca/understanding-child-pornography-laws-in-canada-what-you-need-to-know/
It also has minimum sentences of 1 year for a “felony count” and 6 months otherwise
(4) Every person who possesses any child sexual abuse and exploitation material is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of one year; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years less a day and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of six months.
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-163.1.html
I’ve never really considered how arbitrary this law feels until you put together that message. Record live actual CSAM is the same as downloading a sketchy anime apparently.
Yeah, I find I have some confusion about drawn pictures and even photographs of naked children from back in the day.
Is that 300 year old painting of naked cherubs CP? We don’t know if the painter was a pedo or not. Or is that “cute” photo of me that my Grandmother took of me running bare-assed naked away from my Mother through the house as a toddler because I didn’t want to have a bath CP? Or maybe it’s not because the photo is now 60+ years old and that was a different time? What would the same photo taken by Grandma today be considered?
What makes the difference? And when do we apply that difference to make the determination?
This is argued about all the time and the general consensus revolves around a singular question. Is it sexually explicit, does it show lascivious nudity of the genitals in a sexual manner. This is why if you’re at a nudist beach taking pictures of your wife and a naked kid is in the background playing in the sand or something that kids do its not csam. It falls down to, would a normal person think this nudity is excessive or sexual
That makes sense for a human reviewer of a photo or drawing, but when say Google or Meta have AI review photos or drawings, they caste a wider net. So all the examples above and what you gave would fall under the CSAM definition by their AI. Even that photo of the girl running from the Vietnam War was considered CSAM by Meta. Same has happened for family photos over the years as well as cartoons. In my opinion, it sounds good to do that on paper, but the reality is that calling everything like that as abusive makes it harder to find real victims and bad actors. The NCMEC is the clearing house for that, but they have been failing their objectives for years. Just my two cents.
Huh, I just learned something new, “lolicon”, thanks to your explanation. I don’t get the attraction to it and I will need to consider what I think about the term, and it’s meaning. But at first exposure, I don’t think I like the idea.
There are a lot of arguments on the internet about it, your moral compass usually dictates where you land on it. Personally I think any sexualizing of a child (deliberately or not) is wrong, so the words carry the same meaning.
That said, in anime, it’s often used as a way for a kid to call an adult a pervert or a weirdo, the way kids call strangers names all the time. So there is a difference in tone between “go away weirdo” and “aren’t you that felon who got convicted for CSAM” but arguing the finer points of it doesn’t help your case from a moral ground.
Arguing over drawn vs real is like that joke about a pedophile vs an ephebophile, there is technically a difference, but knowing that and debating it makes you sound like a pedophile.
Debating it makes you a paedo imo. Its apologism for people who want to fuck kids. They should all be hung. Yes I mean that. I mean it 100%.
Okay so maybe a dumb question, but is lolicon a sexual thing? I know that hentai exists obviously and there’s of course overlap, but I always took loli to mean the “cute” anime kids, like that Anubis kid that blocks bot traffic.
I’m not wikipedia (but I did steal the last part from it) but Loli is an abbreviation of Lolita, both describe the same thing young, prepubescent kids, most often girls. It came about from a Russian-American book published in 1955 of the same name, Lolita, The protagonist and narrator is a French literature professor who moves to New England and writes under the pseudonym Humbert Humbert. He details his obsession with and victimization of a 12-year-old girl, Dolores Haze, whom he describes as a “nymphet”. Humbert becomes sexually obsessed with Dolores after becoming her stepfather, and romanticizes his obsession. Privately, he calls her “Lolita”, the Spanish diminutive for Dolores.
I guess it’s not.
Same as yaoi or yuri, it doesn’t need to be sexual. I’m not actually expert on the matter.
I remember watching this famous anime “made in abyss” the drawing style is clearly loli, and there are some heavy loli tones on it. But as far as I’ve seen there’s no sexual content in it, (though I’ve read that the author is indeed shady about sexual content involving minors).
That gives another differentiate factor. There are people that might like lolicon just for the cuteness like hello kitty or something like that. I didn’t actually thought about that.
I thought loli was the subject and lolicon was the pedo.
When it works. it works.
Removed by mod
Can you point to the comment that has +70 likes and it’s basically what you said? Because your deleted comment doesn’t seem at all like the high voted ones I see here
So what I go to one lollipop convention and suddenly everyone thinks I’m a registered republican? Sounds a bit fucked up to me.
In Japan it’s okay to like children but not okay to be gay.
Removed by mod
Help “everyone”??? Lol.
In what way would it help people to be more attracted to drawings than to real people? What’s wrong with being attracted to “women”. Women being by definition, adults.
Removed by mod
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
Removed by mod
Nah Loilcons are Pedophiles. Stop trying to normalize it, its no better than the MAP assholes.
Removed by mod
Make a better first sentence if you want to say something other than what it says.
I’m quite confused about the “MAP assholes” part.
Do you imply that:
- Being born as a MAP automatically means someone is an irredeemable asshole
- The term MAP is used primarily by child rapists who want to obscure who they really are
- Something else entirely?
I’m genuinely curious as to what would make someone a lolicon lover but not a pedophile.
It’s kinda clear why pedophiles would like loli characters - they are the fictional embodiments of children, but without that, what drives people to like it?
Not trying to contest your claim in the slightest, I do believe not every loli fan is a pedophile, but curious to how it works.
Removed by mod
Not really, though.
Prefering anime characters comes with understanding of who they depict. Yes, it can later detach somewhat, but the initial point of attraction goes as “nice woman, wish those would exist” - at least, that’s the way I can comprehend it.
Or is it more like furry fans who fall for something that doesn’t exist in the first place?
Why wait?
we knew it all along, all lolicons are pedophiles!!!
“oh, I only jerk off to fictional underage children, not real ones! I’d never touch an actual child!”
yeah, fuck off paedo. get help. there’s plenty of psychotherapy options to curb these urges.
Removed by mod
Slightly disagrees would be having a different preferred condiment.
This is literally about if I approve of sexualising children. Which I do not, in any shape or form.
Removed by mod
Ah, going from diddling kids to throwing around slurs. But just like how you chose paedo lite, you also went for slur lite. Boring 🥱
To be honest you both kind of seem like assholes
Literally every medical classification nowadays:
- Do you abuse actual children or watch CSAM materials involving real children?
- Do you feel bad about who you are?
If the answer to both is no, congrats, you’re healthy and it’s just a sexuality quirk, do whatever you want, fap to all the lolis you want for all we care.
Look up ICD-11, DSM-V or whatever is relevant to your area - they’re pretty much all on the same page here.
Any kind of pedophile therapy treats one of the two things listed above (or both). Not much it can do beyond that anyway.
They mean literally the same thing. Just because Lolicon is less stigmatized doesn’t change that.
I would say it’s and accurate translation and should be a wake up call to anyone who has become too comfortable with seeing that tag on porn sites.
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.
That part where they can talk? That’s where they’re anthropomorphized. They’re humans that look like animals. If they look like animals and behave in the same way the animals would realistically behave, then it’s just animated beastiality.
I get the angle you’re going for: if Beast Boy from Teen Titans turns into an actual horse and fucks Raven, is it bestiality? The answer is, we have no precedent in law or morality for intelligent animals above the age of consent engaging in inter-species intercourse, so the response will depend on who you’re asking. That’s clearly not what I was referring to, though, and it feels like this is turning into whataboutism.
that wasn’t my intention. i just think the rules are different with drawn material, that was what i was trying to illustrate. the law also distinguishes the two, at least where i live. i know that varies greatly by country, and there’s the question of whether the artist is using reference, but considering how unrealistic most hentai is wrt proportions and poses that feels like it would stick out.
It is. They’re mad because they don’t consider lolicon to be pedophilia.
Are you Australian?
I’d recommend checking out the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund when it comes to the dangers of restricting certain topics in fiction (including child abuse or child sexual abuse), and the dangers of censorship in general.
The US went over this before in the Aughts with Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition and the PROTECT act passed in 2003 (with certain parts of it later declared unconstitutional), and later with SESTA and FOSTA, which had a chilling effect, forcing closed online resources that sex workers used to protect themselves. The more recent bills like KOSA and the KIDS act are modeled similarly to close the internet as a vector of free speech under the premise of protecting kids from porn, with the intention to also silence subjects that are ideologically controversial, such as LGBT+ content, ( trans ideology ), sexual education material, women’s health information and political speech that criticizes the Trump administration.
I still submit that media should be restricted as little as possible. Yes, we should restrict CSAM that creates actual child victims (such as filmed CSA and deepfakes of real kids), in order to protect the victims. And yet, when we criminalize fictional depictions of CSA, it not only starts cutting into legitimate artistic content (such as A Game of Thrones, or The Sandman comic series, Superman 1978 is an edge case), but it then becomes very easy for conservative moral guardians to creep the mission and expand the list of restricted content.
Finally a sane comment with a reasonable argument and sources. I think people forget how slippery of a slope it is. There was another comment about where do we draw the line on works of art from over 100 years ago, should they all be destroyed to save children just because the current mindset of the day is different. It’s like destroying old statues from the American Civil War because they don’t align with today’s ideology. I could go on. That doesn’t even touch the fact that many of the people probably have old family photos that would meet the definition of CSAM. For example Google closed a persons account and reported him due to a twenty or thirty year old photo of his grandmother bathing him when he was a newborn. Meta also closed an account and reported a person for posting that famous photo of an unclothed girl running towards the camera that was shot during the Vietnam War. Just going to reiterate that it is still currently a messy situation that needs to be reevaluated. Over reporting makes it harder to find children in need and real bad actors. I blame the NCMEC for this, they have long since failed their mission to protect children.
“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?
