×
  • remind me tomorrow
  • remind me next week
  • never remind me
Subscribe to the ANN Newsletter • Wake up every Sunday to a curated list of ANN's most interesting posts of the week. read more

Forum - View topic
Hey, Answerman! [2006-07-28]


Goto page Previous    Next

Note: this is the discussion thread for this article

Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tempest
I Run this place.
ANN Publisher


Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10419
Location: Do not message me for support.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:14 am Reply with quote
Aku-chan wrote:
Sorry I'm a little late jumping into this, but just how extreme 'hentai-wise' is Kite?


The completely uncut version of Kite features hard-core, child-porn, where various girls are graphically raped by the two adults.

It's one thing to show that a 12-year-old girl is raped by an older man, it's a completely different thing to spend a couple minutes showing the viewer close-ups of the details. Kite doe the latter.

-t
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
HyugaHinata



Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 3505
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:37 am Reply with quote
Proof that lolicon can reduce adolescent sex offenders and sex crimes against children:

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

Specifically:

Quote:
Kutchinsky found (1991) that in Denmark and Sweden adult rapes increased only modestly and in West Germany not at all. In all three countries, nonviolent sex crimes decreased. The slight increase in Denmark and Sweden, was thought by some most probably due to increased reporting as a result of greater and increasing awareness among women and police of the rape problem (Kutchinsky, 1985b, pp. 323). In Japan too, over the two decades reviewed in the present study, there was also most probably an increasing likelihood of reporting which makes the decrease in sex crimes seen in Japan even more impressive.


Quote:
Other researchers have found similarly. In Denmark homosexual child molestation decreased more than 50 percent from 74 cases in 1966 to 20 cases in 1969 (Ben-Veniste, 1971; pp. 254). These decreases in sex crimes involving children are particularly noteworthy since in Japan, as in Denmark, for the time under review, there were no laws against the personal non-commercial possession or use of depictions of children involved in sexual activities; so-called "childporn" (Kutchinsky, 1985a; pp. 5). Considering the seriousness in how sex crimes against children are viewed in both cultures, this drop in cases reported represents a real reduction in the number of offenses committed rather than a reduced readiness to report such offenses.


Quote:
Correlated with an increase in pornography we found a decrease in gang rapes in Japan. Again, similar findings had been reported elsewhere. In West Germany, from 1971 to 1987 group rape rates decreased 59% from 577 to 239 cases. In contrast with these findings in Germany where rape by strangers decreased 33% from 2,453 to 1,655 cases (Kutchinsky, 1991 pp. 57), in Japan the number of rapes committed by individuals known to the victim, decreased and rape by strangers increased. Since rapes by strangers or groups are more likely to be reported than date or marital rapes, again there is little doubt these findings in Japan represent real differences. It is also noted that the Japanese police focused more heavily on the control of rape by strangers than on date rape or rape by a known assailant.


Bottom line: if you don't like it, don't look at it. Lolicon is good, people!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
pat_payne



Joined: 28 Jul 2006
Posts: 179
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 10:48 am Reply with quote
PantsGoblin wrote:
Wow, this thread has already doubled in size since I was last here...

Steroid wrote:
So here's my take, put bluntly: I think it's worth it to have children raped to have the free communication of sexual material.


Okay, ya... frankly, I find that idea to be absurd and actually pretty crazy. I don't know what to say to this...


I have found the perfect words though, PG:

The worst ruler is one who cannot rule himself.
-- Cato the Elder


And 2 from Cicero:

He only employs his passion who can make no use of his reason.

The evil implanted in man by nature spreads so imperceptibly, when the habit of wrong-doing is unchecked, that he himself can set no limit to his shamelessness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tempest
I Run this place.
ANN Publisher


Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10419
Location: Do not message me for support.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:10 am Reply with quote
Zac wrote:

I'm not sure I want to get in to moe here but if you're going to sit here and tell me that there aren't a lot of moe "fans" who are in it for the obvious sexual overtones then I have a bridge to sell you.

Isn't one of the main facets of moe fandom "I have all these inappropriate urges toward this 9-year old kid sister but I musn't act on them!"?


Iritscen wrote:
Maybe. Or maybe moe is all about a feeling of protectiveness towards a sister figure. I don't know. Maybe I'm just being naive about why people like watching shows about little girls. It just seems like an extension of the Japanese preoccupation with cuteness to me.


At their root it can be as simple as this:

Lolli-con = sexual
Moe = brotherly

There's nothing really disturbing about "pure moe." Problem with Moe, is that Moe is lolli-con fodder. A huge amount of the moe out there is created with lollicoms* in mind. It's more or less impossible to accurately point out all the moe shows that pander to lollicoms, but it's extremely naive not to recognize that it happens.

Further more, even "pure moe" shows, that don't pander to lollicoms, are watched by lollicoms. The exact same scenarios that appeal to a moe-fan will also appeal to a lollicom, but for very different reasons.

And then there is the accepted (although some Moe fans will find this very unnaccepable) lolli-con-esque facet to moe that Zac brought up, "I have all these inappropriate urges toward this 9-year old kid sister but I mustn't act on them!"

So unfortunately, as pure as Moe can be, it will be forever overshadowed by it's bastard step-brother, lollicon.

To a degree, this is exactly what Zac is talking about, guilt by association. I know Zac isn't a Moe fan, and he's just talking about the harm being done to anime as a whole, but Moe in particular is getting the worst part of the deal. Many people look down on Moe, and can't tell the difference between a moe-fan and a lollicon.

I believe, very strongly, in freedom of expression, as well as freedom to fantasize. Everyone has a right to their own fantasies, and they have the right to express them.

One aspect of North American society that I find particularly disturbing is the fact that pron (featuring and about consensual adults) is deemed to be more "mature" than violence (often about very non-consensual soon-to-be-dead people). But as long a virtual representations of violence and murder are acceptable, I see no reason why virtual representations of other disturbing acts should be censored.

So as much as I dislike lollicon, and feel that it is harmful to the image of anime, like Zac, I don't think it should be banned. I would however like to see a bit of restraint on the part of licensors and producers. And flat out, it does bother me that there is a market for the material.

-t

* note: I use lollicon to refer to the concept, and lollicom to refer to the person, this is no way an accepted protocol, just my own way of differentiating.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
Tempest
I Run this place.
ANN Publisher


Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10419
Location: Do not message me for support.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:19 am Reply with quote
Former US President George H. W. Bush wrote:
I do not like broccoli. And I haven't liked it since I was a little kid and my mother made me eat it. And I'm President of the United States and I'm not going to eat any more broccoli.


dormcat wrote:

A 6-year-old kid refusing to eat broccoli over the dining table is very different from a president of the most powerful country of the world refusing to eat broccoli in front of dozens of video cameras.


Actually, Bush is still the president (that was the current Bush, not his father).

Anyways, the uproar about Bush saying that was completely, and utterly stupid. As an individual, regardless of whether he is the president or not, Mr. Bush (a man I have no respect for), is entitled to his own preferences, and he is entitled to express them, and have the fulfilled.

A expression of dislike for broccoli, does not equate to a non endorsement of of the broccoli industry.

So the whole Bush thing is bollocks. While Bush may have many responsibilities to various North American industries, he still has every right to tell people what he personally likes and dislikes.

As for Zac, Zac has *zero* responsibility to the anime industry. He is fully entitled to make statements that might harm particular entities with the anime industry or fandom. ANN is not, and never will be a whore for the anime industry's various agendas.

Zac's responsibility, as an editorial writer, is to write thought provoking, and truthful (in his opinion) content.

-t
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
Tempest
I Run this place.
ANN Publisher


Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10419
Location: Do not message me for support.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:27 am Reply with quote
ladholyman wrote:

Nah, he's right, since everything on the Internet is free to use, I didn't copyright anything. I just wanted to goad him, that's all.


Actually, if it had been in a column or article, Zac would have been opbliged to credit you in some way or form. Because everything you say on the Internet, even in a forum, is *your* intelectual property and copyrighted. He doesn't need your permission, but he does need to give credit.

Technically, even in a forum post he should have as well, but, technically, he gave you a legally acceptable amount of credit when he said "the fansubber".

Of coruse, you were just "goading" him, so this is all a moot point.

-t


Last edited by Tempest on Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:34 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
Tempest
I Run this place.
ANN Publisher


Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10419
Location: Do not message me for support.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:31 am Reply with quote
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
mokitty



Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 106
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:33 am Reply with quote
I've now read the majority of this thread and I must say I find it fascinating. It's always interesting to see how people on either side of a tinderbox arguement like this justify their views.

Personally, I must admit that my first gut response to the fact that an arguement could go on even half this long makes me feel somewhat ill; but these are debates that are necessary, much like (as some have drawn upon) the old gore-in-videogames debates.

And in that spirit, I feel compelled to state my opinion: I believe Answerman is right. To elaborate, there have been some valid points made on both sides (though in my opinion, moreso on the anti-lolicon side), and some utterly ridiculous ones. I suppose in the grand scheme of things, I would have to say that if people are going to be attracted to children, I'd rather they deal with it watching animated depictions of children rather than participating in the real-life, heinous, and criminal kiddie porn trade. But at the same time, I'd also prefer that these people didn't spend so much time trying to justify it as something other than what it is. If you're getting sexual gratification from fantasizing about children (and I'm applying this to shota-loving women too, so you boys need not feel unjustly persecuted), then you are by definition experiencing pedophilic feelings (ancient Greek: ped-, child; -philia, the love of; a search on dictionary.com gives the definition "The act or fantasy on the part of an adult of engaging in sexual activity with a child or children.", from the American Heritage Dictionary), whether you act on them or not.

I find it interesting that after skimming a bit of the thread Mr. Answerman linked to regarding Class 5-2, it becomes apparent that many of the same people who have argued blindly in this thread that enjoying lolicon is not wrong or bad and that others have no right to judge are amongst themselves expressing feelings of guilt over that same enjoyment. I infer from this that even the majority who do enjoy this see there's something unhealthy about it. If someone knows it's wrong (or abnormal, or potentially offensive, or however you prefer to call it), then I don't see how the same person can turn around and righteously justify it as being something normal or good the moment anyone else gets edgy about it. Very interesting indeed.


Again, this is all my own opinion, but that brings me back to my original point. I'll drag in a quote from Pleroma back on page 9:

Quote:
Quote:

Honestly, can anyone find a use for lolicon that doesn't reduce to older men masturbating to pictures of prepubescent children?



Which at the end, they have the constitutional right to do. "Eww, gross" is not legal grounds for a ban on anything. I mean I get really grossed out by hardcore furries and hate their trashy art, but they have every right in the world to wank to their antropomorphic raccoons regardless of what others think of it.


True, an "Eww, gross" from one or two people is not a legal grounds for anything. However, as laws in a democracy are built to reflect the majority view of right and wrong (with the exception of protection of minorities, like children for example, agaisnt harm or persecution; but I hardly think you can cry that over people telling those who like lolicon they think it's gross), if the majority of people find that something is wrong, then the majority rule wins out and is considered "right". I am not suggesting a legal ban against lolicon, as that is a much larger and unlikelier scenario; but it is a logical fallacy to attempt to declare that those of us who frown on lolicon are wrong or outside our rights by passing judgement. Debate and majority judgement are the cornerstones of the same democratic system that gives lolicon and those who enjoy it the right to freely exist.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PantsGoblin
Subscriber
Encyclopedia Editor


Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 2969
Location: L.A.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:34 am Reply with quote
tempest wrote:
Actually, if it had been in a column or article, Zac would have been opbliged to credit you.


It was in the column also...

YUGI wrote:
Animenation seems to be a haven of lolicon.
John O. has admitted in many forums of his unusual hobby.


Hmm, I didn't know that about John. Maybe I should start lurking around there more...

tempest wrote:


I have the image saved here.


Last edited by PantsGoblin on Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:45 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message My Anime
candeh



Joined: 08 Nov 2005
Posts: 17
Location: Orange County, CA
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:36 am Reply with quote
HyugaHinata wrote:
Proof that lolicon can reduce adolescent sex offenders and sex crimes against children:

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

-stuff-

Bottom line: if you don't like it, don't look at it. Lolicon is good, people!


I don't think you're grasping what those studies are saying. Firstly, those are not true experimental studies, as researchers allowing rapes to take place would clearly violate the code of ethics. That means that there are many variables that have not and cannot be controlled. Secondly, the results of the study are presented as correlations. Correlations imply that there is possibly a relationship between variables, but absolutely does not prove or indicate causation. Third, the article you're quoting is about correlating changes in Japan's pornography laws to the number of reported sex crimes. This is not the same thing as a direct link between increased availability of lolicon and a decrease in child molestation.

But what about the overall message of the article? The idea presented here is that decriminalizing pornography in Japan may have had positive effects - decreasing their incidence of reported sexual crimes. However, as this is a correlational study, there is no way to prove that one caused the other. This is like saying I did a study on ice-cream sales and the crime rate in Los Angeles, and found that when ice-cream sales go up, so does the crime rate. Am I to infer that ice-cream causes people to become violent and commit crimes? Of course not - and that is exactly why correlational studies are open to the "third variable" - another factor that goes along with both findings (in this case, increased temperature).

That means your article doesn't prove that lolicon is good, or okay, or reduces sex crimes against children. Your article is saying that there may be a relationship between increased availabiliy of porn and a decrease in the reported sex crimes rate in Japan. What are some other things that changed over the period of 1972 to 1995? Since you're talking about the world after the Sexual Revolution, there could be many factors affecting a lower reported sex crime rate! This article is extremely problematic and should not be considered as proof that lolicon is a "good thing". In fact, this data could even be interpreted to state the exact opposite - that since the Japanese have made child porn more available, repeated exposure to child pornography has made the idea of sexualizing children acceptable, and therefore child rape is not reported as often (so child molestation is actually going up, it's just the reporting of it to the police that is going down). Interesting paper, but you should keep in mind that the scientific community never considers one correlational study to prove anything.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tempest
I Run this place.
ANN Publisher


Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10419
Location: Do not message me for support.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:43 am Reply with quote
Mint Mania IIDX wrote:
Someone please explain this to me. All I really want to know is how pedophilia automatically means older men raping little girls. Don't say because most pedophiles do. Don't say because it just does. I want a concrete answer with facts to back it up.

burzmali wrote:
Read the glossary of a medical textbook. Pedophilia isn't considered a healthly mental state. The human body is wired to be attracted to potential mates (omitting sexual orientation which is a whole 'nother can of worms). By definition, pedophiles are attracted to prepubescent children, i.e. not potential mates.

Also, sex with little girls is rape, once again by definition. All sex in lolicon is rape, by that same definition. Next, you're going to tell me they wanted it...


Mintmania's point is that Paedophilia is a sexual attraction to children. You can be sexually attracted to young children and never actually have sex with one. *Most* studies I've read (can't recall sources, sorry, *really* wish I could) suggest that most paedophiles control their urges and desires and never do anything untowards toward a child.

In otherwords, there are many people who are attracted to children, but never act on their attractions. These people are paedophiles, but they are not criminals, rapists, or whatever.

-t
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
HyugaHinata



Joined: 25 Jun 2005
Posts: 3505
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 11:53 am Reply with quote
candeh wrote:
HyugaHinata wrote:
Proof that lolicon can reduce adolescent sex offenders and sex crimes against children:

http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html

-stuff-

Bottom line: if you don't like it, don't look at it. Lolicon is good, people!


I don't think you're grasping what those studies are saying. Firstly, those are not true experimental studies, as researchers allowing rapes to take place would clearly violate the code of ethics. That means that there are many variables that have not and cannot be controlled. Secondly, the results of the study are presented as correlations. Correlations imply that there is possibly a relationship between variables, but absolutely does not prove or indicate causation. Third, the article you're quoting is about correlating changes in Japan's pornography laws to the number of reported sex crimes. This is not the same thing as a direct link between increased availability of lolicon and a decrease in child molestation.

But what about the overall message of the article? The idea presented here is that decriminalizing pornography in Japan may have had positive effects - decreasing their incidence of reported sexual crimes. However, as this is a correlational study, there is no way to prove that one caused the other. This is like saying I did a study on ice-cream sales and the crime rate in Los Angeles, and found that when ice-cream sales go up, so does the crime rate. Am I to infer that ice-cream causes people to become violent and commit crimes? Of course not - and that is exactly why correlational studies are open to the "third variable" - another factor that goes along with both findings (in this case, increased temperature).

That means your article doesn't prove that lolicon is good, or okay, or reduces sex crimes against children. Your article is saying that there may be a relationship between increased availabiliy of porn and a decrease in the reported sex crimes rate in Japan. What are some other things that changed over the period of 1972 to 1995? Since you're talking about the world after the Sexual Revolution, there could be many factors affecting a lower reported sex crime rate! This article is extremely problematic and should not be considered as proof that lolicon is a "good thing". In fact, this data could even be interpreted to state the exact opposite - that since the Japanese have made child porn more available, repeated exposure to child pornography has made the idea of sexualizing children acceptable, and therefore child rape is not reported as often (so child molestation is actually going up, it's just the reporting of it to the police that is going down). Interesting paper, but you should keep in mind that the scientific community never considers one correlational study to prove anything.


Good points. Although legalizing lolicon prevents pedophiles from using the "I had nothing to relieve my sexual urges on, WAAAH!" excuse.

Another interesting point is that children probably look at lolicon more than adults do (except possibly pedophiles).

I remember when I was about 14, and I saw Bart and Lisa having sex on a cartoon porn website. Naturally, I was attracted to that, because the characters were about my age.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor


Joined: 08 Dec 2003
Posts: 9902
Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:06 pm Reply with quote
tempest wrote:
Actually, Bush is still the president (that was the current Bush, not his father).

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush

tempest wrote:
While Bush may have many responsibilities to various North American industries, he still has every right to tell people what he personally likes and dislikes.

Of course he has every right. However, announcing them in public, either positively (can and will be seen as an advertisement / endorsement) or negatively (see above), is not only stupid but might be against the law (positively or negatively advertising a commercial product while being a public servant).

tempest wrote:
As for Zac, Zac has *zero* responsibility to the anime industry. He is fully entitled to make statements that might harm particular entities with the anime industry or fandom.

Neither do I have any responsibility to yield my seat to a 70-year-old lady on a bus or a subway train.

Nobody talked about responsibility. It's called decency.


Last edited by dormcat on Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger ICQ Number My Anime My Manga
Minoru-sama



Joined: 07 Oct 2003
Posts: 11
Location: Bay Area, CA
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:10 pm Reply with quote
As mentioned in the column (and by a few posters), the aspect of the recent upswing in lolicon popularity that bothers me the most is the fact that I can easily see this lolicon fandom becoming the unwanted face of anime fans to the general public. Even though some of these fans somehow proudly refer to themselves as pedophiles, personally I would like to distance myself from them as much as possible and cringe at the thought of being in association simply because I watch anime.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tempest
I Run this place.
ANN Publisher


Joined: 29 Dec 2001
Posts: 10419
Location: Do not message me for support.
PostPosted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 12:11 pm Reply with quote
burzmali wrote:
Lolicon (the good stuff, not this panty shot silliness) is only desired by pedophiles.
Mint Mania IIDX wrote:

Logical fallacy. You can't prove that.


Actually, I (almost) can.

Lets define a few words:

Pedophile: An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children.[1]
Lollicon: anime or manga that contains sexual or erotic portrayals of underage or childlike characters. [2]

So to rephrase burzmali's statements with the above definitions of lollicon and pedophilia:

Anime or manga that contains sexual or erotic portrayals of underage or childlike characters is only desired by adults who are sexually attracted a child or children.. [minor edits in the second definition for grammatical purposes].

In order to be clear, lets make sure we're on the same page in regards to the phrase "x is desired." When we say that "X is desired" we mean exactly that, that a person desires X (lollicon in this case). It doesn't mean a person who desires something that contains X but for reasons other than X (ie: a person that desires a specific show that has lollicon elements, but desires the show in question because they heard it was very good for non-lollicon reasons).

So were talking about a person who desires lollicon because it is lollicon.

Again, we need to be a bit more specific. We're talking about a person who desires lollicon for not other motive than to desire lollicon. We're not talking about curiosity, or pedagogical interests.

Now then this leaves one opening. A non-adult who desires lollicon isn't a pedophile.

But otherwise, a person who wants to watch material involving sexual or erotic portrayals of underage or childlike characters fits the definition of a pedophile. In otherwords, a person who desires lollicon is a pedophile.

Of course, as I noted above, you can watch a lollicon show, and say "hey, this is a great show" without being a pedophile. As long as your reason for liking it isn't a sexual attraction to the children depicted. Maybe you like it because its a great story, maybe you liked the artwork, etc... But in all those cases, you would have liked it had the lollicon element been taken out. If you can't enjoy the show without the lollicon element(reminder: sexual or erotic portrayals of underage or childlike characters.), you are at least boderline, pedophile.

-t
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail My Anime My Manga
Display posts from previous:   
This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Anime News Network Forum Index -> Site-related -> Talkback All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous    Next
Page 19 of 36

 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group