4 ms·

Okay, I think I get it. ロリコン - artificial images representing children or child like people in a sexual context, either drawn or rendered with software 児童ポルノ

Okay, I think I get it. ロリコン - artificial images representing children or child like people in a sexual context, either drawn or rendered with software 児童ポルノ - photos of actual kids in sexual contexts These online storms in teacups are rarely worth it, but this one is actually quite interesting.

bscphil 8y ago
I believe that's right. Which makes the author's point of view rather odd - in that they are obviously mistaken to think that Westerners don't see a difference between the two, or don't think that 児童ポルノ is worse than ロリコン. (Of course we do.) It's also rather funny that the author uses the word "nerd" to describe people who consume this stuff, because it clearly doesn't fit the ordinary use of the term. No one is denying (I think) that the appeal is a sexual one. Even assuming the interest is above board, we'd never label a fetishist a nerd. So it's (I think ) extremely misleading to describe them that way. I also don't think the Red vs. Blue framing made much sense. For one thing it's not clear at all how the .jp instances are related to the "Red" servers. There's an actual question to be answered about whether ロリコン is morally wrong and if so, a harm that should be prosecuted. If reason that ロリコン is appealing is fundamentally the same as 児童ポルノ (i.e. that there are children portrayed), it seems like the moral case against it is very clear. I don't know enough to say whether that's the case. On the other hand there might be more societal harm from banning it than allowing it. At any rate it's not hard to see why one might be troubled by it, and so I'm suspicious of the author's claim that it's accepted without controversy in Japan.
- myanonaccount 8y ago
  Note: perspective from non-Japanese observer. And unfortunately has to be posted from an pseudonymous account. "it's accepted without controversy in Japan." While not completely true as an absolute, this is close enough to the truth to be a fair statement. Even some 児童ポルノ wasn't illegal in Japan fairly recently. And like the other Japanese censorship laws, was brought in as much due to a desire to align with Western pressure and laws as due to any moral sense. (I'm not trying to diminish the second aspect here; I'm saying that both were strong pressures to create the law). Remember that Japanese morals are much more Confucian than Christian. Breaking a law is immoral in Japan in and of itself because laws exist to create harmony and breaking harmony is immoral. So the fact that 児童ポルノ is illegal, and ロリコン is not forms a large part of the opinion of whether it is immoral or not. Also remember that the Western hatred of pedophilia and child porn is partially Puritanism. We've successfully thrown off the Puritan yoke, but that part of our culture was deeply rooted, so rather than disappearing, some of it has transferred over to perversions that it's still acceptable to demonize, namely pedophilia. And I think the Confucians have it right on this one. Pedophilia and child pornography is one of those things that needs to be banned and made illegal for social harmony reasons, and practicers of softer forms of it like ロリコン should be marginalized. Different from, but mostly compatible with the somewhat commonly held opinion that pedophiles are "sick, not necessarily evil".
  - CrystalLangUser 8y ago
    > perversions that it's still acceptable to demonize, namely pedophilia. The wording here implies that we shouldn't be demonizing things like pedophilia, or that somehow, we needed Puritanism to realize that we ought to be demonizing pedophilia, or that this is purely a western construct. Puritanism has just lead westerners to demonize sexuality in general. For westerners, lolicon is no different than child pornography. And lolicon is still controversial even within Japan.
    - myanonaccount 8y ago
      "shouldn't be demonizing things like pedophilia" We should demonize those who act on their pedophilia, not the majority of pedophiles who successfully hold it inside.
    - throwaway37585 8y ago
      Why should you demonize pedophilia? Presumably the GP is referring to the correct definition (a person who is sexually attracted to children), as opposed to the incorrect definition (a person who sexually abuses children).
    - repolfx 8y ago
      That's not quite true. I remember being part of some debates over whether cartoons of young-looking people (rarely can you accurately guess the age of a cartoon) were child porn or not, in a western company. The legal and moral justification for banning images of child porn is that distribution encourages production, and production of it is dangerous to real children. This is a second order effect that's already somewhat debatable (does getting rocks off to porn cause fewer paedophiles to try and sate their desires in the real world, thus lowering abuse rather than raising it?), and it's therefore not entirely clear there's a strong moral or legal justification for banning cartoons or pure text, i.e. trying to ban people imagining child porn. For all we know, if it's true that paedophilia is caused by some sort of brain condition (and why would it be false), then these things could actually be helping children rather than hurting them.
jbob2000 8y ago
The author is being disingenuous by saying that these are different. The form of the “art” is different, but the motivations behind it are the same; lust for youth. It’s the motivations that people have problems with, not the form that the art takes!
- The_Amp_Walrus 8y ago
  > It’s the motivations that people have problems with I don't agree with you there and I don't think the author is being insincere. The problem with child pornography is the harm, or potential for harm, of children. Why would you care about a person's motivations as a root issue?
  - jbob2000 8y ago
    It's not just the harm to children that people have problems with, it's the power difference between an adult and a child. Adults have power over children, they place their trust in us. We are supposed to use our power over children to make them better people, to make their generation better than the previous. Society (perhaps only Western society it seems) does not like relationships where one person uses their power over someone else to the betterment of themselves (Harvey Weinstein and the rest of the #metoo movement comes to mind). So I think that's the root cause of the "disgust" for this type of art and the motivations behind it; it facilities dishonest use of power.
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      But when you only look at drawings, no one is using their power over someone else. Photographs, however, do require someone to have used their power over someone else, namely the photographer. Which is why I would consider looking at (and hence stimulating the production of) the latter immoral, and less so the former.
      - jbob2000 8y ago
        The desire is the same, whether it’s animated or not. That’s the issue - you still desire sexual power imbalances. It’s not about using the power, it’s about the desire. Anyways, these are just my musings on the matter. I am not an expert or familiar with the subject at all. I just was curious as to why society still is disgusted by child porn even when the harm is removed

bscphil 8y ago

I believe that's right. Which makes the author's point of view rather odd - in that they are obviously mistaken to think that Westerners don't see a difference between the two, or don't think that 児童ポルノ is worse than ロリコン. (Of course we do.) It's also rather funny that the author uses the word "nerd" to describe people who consume this stuff, because it clearly doesn't fit the ordinary use of the term. No one is denying (I think) that the appeal is a sexual one. Even assuming the interest is above board, we'd never label a fetishist a nerd. So it's (I think ) extremely misleading to describe them that way. I also don't think the Red vs. Blue framing made much sense. For one thing it's not clear at all how the .jp instances are related to the "Red" servers. There's an actual question to be answered about whether ロリコン is morally wrong and if so, a harm that should be prosecuted. If reason that ロリコン is appealing is fundamentally the same as 児童ポルノ (i.e. that there are children portrayed), it seems like the moral case against it is very clear. I don't know enough to say whether that's the case. On the other hand there might be more societal harm from banning it than allowing it. At any rate it's not hard to see why one might be troubled by it, and so I'm suspicious of the author's claim that it's accepted without controversy in Japan.

myanonaccount 8y ago
Note: perspective from non-Japanese observer. And unfortunately has to be posted from an pseudonymous account. "it's accepted without controversy in Japan." While not completely true as an absolute, this is close enough to the truth to be a fair statement. Even some 児童ポルノ wasn't illegal in Japan fairly recently. And like the other Japanese censorship laws, was brought in as much due to a desire to align with Western pressure and laws as due to any moral sense. (I'm not trying to diminish the second aspect here; I'm saying that both were strong pressures to create the law). Remember that Japanese morals are much more Confucian than Christian. Breaking a law is immoral in Japan in and of itself because laws exist to create harmony and breaking harmony is immoral. So the fact that 児童ポルノ is illegal, and ロリコン is not forms a large part of the opinion of whether it is immoral or not. Also remember that the Western hatred of pedophilia and child porn is partially Puritanism. We've successfully thrown off the Puritan yoke, but that part of our culture was deeply rooted, so rather than disappearing, some of it has transferred over to perversions that it's still acceptable to demonize, namely pedophilia. And I think the Confucians have it right on this one. Pedophilia and child pornography is one of those things that needs to be banned and made illegal for social harmony reasons, and practicers of softer forms of it like ロリコン should be marginalized. Different from, but mostly compatible with the somewhat commonly held opinion that pedophiles are "sick, not necessarily evil".
- CrystalLangUser 8y ago
  > perversions that it's still acceptable to demonize, namely pedophilia. The wording here implies that we shouldn't be demonizing things like pedophilia, or that somehow, we needed Puritanism to realize that we ought to be demonizing pedophilia, or that this is purely a western construct. Puritanism has just lead westerners to demonize sexuality in general. For westerners, lolicon is no different than child pornography. And lolicon is still controversial even within Japan.
  - myanonaccount 8y ago
    "shouldn't be demonizing things like pedophilia" We should demonize those who act on their pedophilia, not the majority of pedophiles who successfully hold it inside.
  - throwaway37585 8y ago
    Why should you demonize pedophilia? Presumably the GP is referring to the correct definition (a person who is sexually attracted to children), as opposed to the incorrect definition (a person who sexually abuses children).
  - repolfx 8y ago
    That's not quite true. I remember being part of some debates over whether cartoons of young-looking people (rarely can you accurately guess the age of a cartoon) were child porn or not, in a western company. The legal and moral justification for banning images of child porn is that distribution encourages production, and production of it is dangerous to real children. This is a second order effect that's already somewhat debatable (does getting rocks off to porn cause fewer paedophiles to try and sate their desires in the real world, thus lowering abuse rather than raising it?), and it's therefore not entirely clear there's a strong moral or legal justification for banning cartoons or pure text, i.e. trying to ban people imagining child porn. For all we know, if it's true that paedophilia is caused by some sort of brain condition (and why would it be false), then these things could actually be helping children rather than hurting them.

jbob2000 8y ago

The author is being disingenuous by saying that these are different. The form of the “art” is different, but the motivations behind it are the same; lust for youth. It’s the motivations that people have problems with, not the form that the art takes!

The_Amp_Walrus 8y ago
> It’s the motivations that people have problems with I don't agree with you there and I don't think the author is being insincere. The problem with child pornography is the harm, or potential for harm, of children. Why would you care about a person's motivations as a root issue?
- jbob2000 8y ago
  It's not just the harm to children that people have problems with, it's the power difference between an adult and a child. Adults have power over children, they place their trust in us. We are supposed to use our power over children to make them better people, to make their generation better than the previous. Society (perhaps only Western society it seems) does not like relationships where one person uses their power over someone else to the betterment of themselves (Harvey Weinstein and the rest of the #metoo movement comes to mind). So I think that's the root cause of the "disgust" for this type of art and the motivations behind it; it facilities dishonest use of power.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    But when you only look at drawings, no one is using their power over someone else. Photographs, however, do require someone to have used their power over someone else, namely the photographer. Which is why I would consider looking at (and hence stimulating the production of) the latter immoral, and less so the former.
    - jbob2000 8y ago
      The desire is the same, whether it’s animated or not. That’s the issue - you still desire sexual power imbalances. It’s not about using the power, it’s about the desire. Anyways, these are just my musings on the matter. I am not an expert or familiar with the subject at all. I just was curious as to why society still is disgusted by child porn even when the harm is removed