4 ms·

But what is the actual difference between the two? Is the second more extreme? Is one drawn and the other real? Or is the second drawn but based on real models

But what is the actual difference between the two? Is the second more extreme? Is one drawn and the other real? Or is the second drawn but based on real models ( like the fine)? Is it the difference between nude and naked? Pixiv is generally drawn but there are no examples of the other. The book Lolita is ok in europe, a bit weird but not banned. There is even nude art of children - though it is controverial.

jarfil 8y ago
As far as I'm aware, lolicon is about fantasy, while child porn is about sex with children. The difference is not so much whether it's drawn or not, but whether it actually harms any real children.
lucideer 8y ago
The refusal of the author to describe the difference between the two (while expending so many words to emphasise that they are different) is a bit odd. Especially as Lolicon is a relatively well-known term in the English-speaking world, and is even derived from an English-language/Russian-American-written/French-published book. It sounds like the author would like to use stronger, more direct words but is skirting the issue to avoid apparent bias (though the bias is really quite apparent) and ends up sounding vague throughout.
- tomtimtall 8y ago
  The author does an absolutely great job of describing the actual subject which is the devision and different perspective. This is not an article about the difference and if he went into any sort of detail it would only deraile from the actual point of the article which is that there are two different perspectives on the same thing and that the people involved in general do not understand the other side.
  - lucideer 8y ago
    That's certainly the author's thesis: binary division, lumping a spectrum of opinion into two diametric extremes. It's a popular narrative and rarely, if ever, representative. It would be much easier to assess how true it is in this case if there were any insight given into the issues themselves.
Freak_NL 8y ago
> The book Lolita is ok in europe, a bit weird but not banned. I don't think people even consider it weird, as most people haven't read it. People who do read the book tend to be predisposed towards appreciating literature as an accepted vehicle for exploring ideas and thoughts that would be condemned in real life — including all kinds of murder, sex, drugs, illicit liaisons, and assorted forms of destructive behaviour. Incidentally, it is for sale in every decent bookshop that has an English literature section; Penguin publishes it in their modern classics line.
claudiawerner 8y ago
To be specific, "Lolicon" is a Japanese word that's partly a loanword from "Lolita" in English; in the way the author is using it, it means "drawn or simulated representations of fictional children engaged in sexual activity", though in common Japanese parlence the word literally means "pedophile". The author has decided to say that lolicon is "child pornography" and this itself is a matter of debate; some authors (such as Young, in "Resolving the Gamer's Dilemma") consider child pornography to be synonymous with abuse, and hence "virtual pedophila" (as he calls it) does not fall under it. The "other thing" is literally just child pornography through and through, photographs or videos of real children engaged in sexual activity. The fact that the author has neglected to specifically state the difference is strange, and I honestly can't think of a good reason for doing this, or why it was left in Japanese script. Furthermore, there's something else here; a while ago I read an article which claimed that 81% of the Japanese public based on an extrapolated study would be fine with lolicon being made illegal. So how does the author say that lolicon being acceptable is a mainstream view? The author writes too, >The idea that ロリコン is bad in the same way 児童ポルノ is bad, or even that there could be a meaningful category including both ロリコン and 児童ポルノ as if they were somehow comparable, is incomprehensible from the mainstream Japanese point of view. Does this make me an honorary holder of the Japanese point of view? I honestly can't see a way in which drawings and real life photos in this case are comparable at all, it's incomprehensible to me how one could lump them together other than by the subject matter they represent, which is extremely broad and ignores the whole point of the classification - that is, one necessitates child abuse to be created, and the other doesn't. I very much align with the Japanese point of view here. On the other things the author mentioned, I agree with another commenter in saying that it's not at at all useful to frame this as "red" and "blue"; I consider myself rather "blue" on some issues (being a socialist) but the liberal idea of free speech is one I hold very dear to myself, and I am vehemently opposed to laws that target any kind of expression, even if that does entail "lolicon"; I believe the harm principle can stand here on its own, though I'm not sure if I'd bend even if it was proven conclusively (how?) that lolicon "causes" people to molest real children.
- Freak_NL 8y ago
  > […] "Lolicon" is a Japanese word that's partly a loanword from "Lolita" in English; […] Etymologically, it is a Japanese portmanteau derived from 'lolita complex', which is waseigo (Japanese words comprised of English words) meaning someone attracted to, or an attraction to, prepubescent girls (not boys, so it is not completely analogous to paedophile). > So how does the author say that lolicon being acceptable is a mainstream view? He seems to extrapolate from the acceptance of it in (large) online Japanese communities.

jarfil 8y ago

As far as I'm aware, lolicon is about fantasy, while child porn is about sex with children. The difference is not so much whether it's drawn or not, but whether it actually harms any real children.

lucideer 8y ago

The refusal of the author to describe the difference between the two (while expending so many words to emphasise that they are different) is a bit odd. Especially as Lolicon is a relatively well-known term in the English-speaking world, and is even derived from an English-language/Russian-American-written/French-published book. It sounds like the author would like to use stronger, more direct words but is skirting the issue to avoid apparent bias (though the bias is really quite apparent) and ends up sounding vague throughout.

tomtimtall 8y ago
The author does an absolutely great job of describing the actual subject which is the devision and different perspective. This is not an article about the difference and if he went into any sort of detail it would only deraile from the actual point of the article which is that there are two different perspectives on the same thing and that the people involved in general do not understand the other side.
- lucideer 8y ago
  That's certainly the author's thesis: binary division, lumping a spectrum of opinion into two diametric extremes. It's a popular narrative and rarely, if ever, representative. It would be much easier to assess how true it is in this case if there were any insight given into the issues themselves.

Freak_NL 8y ago

> The book Lolita is ok in europe, a bit weird but not banned. I don't think people even consider it weird, as most people haven't read it. People who do read the book tend to be predisposed towards appreciating literature as an accepted vehicle for exploring ideas and thoughts that would be condemned in real life — including all kinds of murder, sex, drugs, illicit liaisons, and assorted forms of destructive behaviour. Incidentally, it is for sale in every decent bookshop that has an English literature section; Penguin publishes it in their modern classics line.

claudiawerner 8y ago

To be specific, "Lolicon" is a Japanese word that's partly a loanword from "Lolita" in English; in the way the author is using it, it means "drawn or simulated representations of fictional children engaged in sexual activity", though in common Japanese parlence the word literally means "pedophile". The author has decided to say that lolicon is "child pornography" and this itself is a matter of debate; some authors (such as Young, in "Resolving the Gamer's Dilemma") consider child pornography to be synonymous with abuse, and hence "virtual pedophila" (as he calls it) does not fall under it. The "other thing" is literally just child pornography through and through, photographs or videos of real children engaged in sexual activity. The fact that the author has neglected to specifically state the difference is strange, and I honestly can't think of a good reason for doing this, or why it was left in Japanese script. Furthermore, there's something else here; a while ago I read an article which claimed that 81% of the Japanese public based on an extrapolated study would be fine with lolicon being made illegal. So how does the author say that lolicon being acceptable is a mainstream view? The author writes too, >The idea that ロリコン is bad in the same way 児童ポルノ is bad, or even that there could be a meaningful category including both ロリコン and 児童ポルノ as if they were somehow comparable, is incomprehensible from the mainstream Japanese point of view. Does this make me an honorary holder of the Japanese point of view? I honestly can't see a way in which drawings and real life photos in this case are comparable at all, it's incomprehensible to me how one could lump them together other than by the subject matter they represent, which is extremely broad and ignores the whole point of the classification - that is, one necessitates child abuse to be created, and the other doesn't. I very much align with the Japanese point of view here. On the other things the author mentioned, I agree with another commenter in saying that it's not at at all useful to frame this as "red" and "blue"; I consider myself rather "blue" on some issues (being a socialist) but the liberal idea of free speech is one I hold very dear to myself, and I am vehemently opposed to laws that target any kind of expression, even if that does entail "lolicon"; I believe the harm principle can stand here on its own, though I'm not sure if I'd bend even if it was proven conclusively (how?) that lolicon "causes" people to molest real children.

Freak_NL 8y ago
> […] "Lolicon" is a Japanese word that's partly a loanword from "Lolita" in English; […] Etymologically, it is a Japanese portmanteau derived from 'lolita complex', which is waseigo (Japanese words comprised of English words) meaning someone attracted to, or an attraction to, prepubescent girls (not boys, so it is not completely analogous to paedophile). > So how does the author say that lolicon being acceptable is a mainstream view? He seems to extrapolate from the acceptance of it in (large) online Japanese communities.