Thursday, March 10, 2011

Lolicon as an "Art Form"

Cross-posted on my deviantart account. I'm not linking to the argument itself.

*Trigger warning for sexual assault apologism and defense

There are few people who get my ire up more than sexual assault apologists, and defenders of the abomination that is lolicon (and shotacon) are exactly that. I'm posting an argument I had on deviantart.com concerning the subject where this pedophile tried to defend it as an "art form". I've said most of what I want to say on the subject in this argument. 1, as I call him here, was a lolicon 'artist' himself, surprise, surprise. One of his pieces of 'art' depicted the young adolescent girls with the title, "So easy, a cave man could do them" and another with the title, "Lolicon Dating: get them now because in a few short years they'll realize you have to spend money on them first". For easier reading, since this is light text on a black background, my comments will again be in magenta.

1: If you don't like an artform then don't look at it. I don't like yaoso I avoid it, I don't like how museums have neaked dude taking a sh*t or sitting nude on a rock and I avoid it. I don't make useless complaints about it.



2: But lolicon could potentially harm someone. If a person got too much into lolicon, it could lead to lusting after little girls in real life. I don't support getting rid of it, either, but I can understand the point.



1: Actually due to lolicon majority of child lust as you speak has really fallen. If you use that your using right now then porn, should also be banned and so should hentai for the same exact reasons.



3 (me): That has not been proven. Sure there might be a decrease in reported sexual assaults, but that's no wonder if child sexual assault becomes more socially acceptable as a result of lolicon, which I'm inclined to believe it does.



1: Exactly how does lolicon make sexual assult on a child more socially acceptable? There is no logic behind that. So movies like ninja assassin and jason should make murderer socially acceptably? Books like rolling thunder hear my cry, and let the circle be unbroken would make racism and slavery socially acceptable again? No it won't in fact it will do the exact opposite and show the evil; no not evil, but the wrong in it. You are welcome to believe what you wish, but when you bring your belief to the public at least bring some kind of logic with it. Because any form of I believe does not hold water.



3: "So movies like ninja assassin and jason should make murderer socially acceptably?"
People already talk about how movies like these push borderline personalities over the edge. We live in a society where people are numbed to violence, and even support it. Or are you deaf to when people hear about real violence and say "Good for him! Show her!" or the vast number of people who are pro-war?

So actually, my logic makes perfect sense.

"Books like rolling thunder hear my cry, and let the circle be unbroken would make racism and slavery socially acceptable again?"
That is no comparison at all since it represents slavery as wrong. Likewise, writing about or depicting sexual abuse as something wrong will indeed help reduce its prevalence. Lolicon does not show it as wrong. Lolicon shows it as cute and sexy for adults to engage in sexuality with early adolescents or at least to think of them sexually. If there were books insinuating that slavery was a good thing, they would have the same danger with it. As it is, such a book wouldn't be published in most places, and likewise, lolicon should be banned.



1: "People already talk about how movies like these push borderline personalities over the edge. We live in a society where people are numbed to violence, and even support it. Or are you deaf to when people hear about real violence and say "Good for him! Show her!" or the vast number of people who are pro-war?"

Actually I must be death because last time I was out the door or had a discussion of the topic. They were tired of the current "Military conflict america has." On that note only america would even say something like that. Majority of the nations are against violence and embrace something as natural as sexuality and nudity. So no your logic does not make sense it just plays on what you believe and how you were raised which shows.

"That is no comparison at all since it represents slavery as wrong. Likewise, writing about or depicting sexual abuse as something wrong will indeed help reduce its prevalence. Lolicon does not show it as wrong. Lolicon shows it as cute and sexy for adults to engage in sexuality with early adolescents or at least to think of them sexually. If there were books insinuating that slavery was a good thing, they would have the same danger with it. As it is, such a book wouldn't be published in most places, and likewise, lolicon should be banned."

Lolicon doesn't depict it as right either. The same argument again can be placed with fantasy rape and hentai rape. Rape is something that is wrong no matter who you are, or why you are doing it. But the makers and artist behind it are going and saying they approve of rape. Lolicon is an art form much like Furry, which can also easily be considered bestiality; but that doesn't mean neither should be banned. If there is proof that those that draw lolicon base it off a real person of thus age than they should be punish, and not an art form. Truth is not governed by the masses.



3: "Only America would even say something like that."
The word "machismo" comes from Spain and referred to the practice of a man beating his wife to keep her in line. I live in Canada, by the way. So it's not just the United States. I also don't watch TV. Thus my logic is based on what I have heard in real life. Nice try, though.

"The same argument again can be placed with fantasy rape and hentai rape. Rape is something that is wrong no matter who you are, or why you are doing it."
Precisely, and rape pornography, even cartoon, should be banned as well.

"Lolicon is an art form much like Furry, which can also easily be considered bestiality"
Furries at least have human qualities and aren't so different from the idea of the werewolf or of the fox fairies, which have had sexuality associated with them for many hundreds of years. I don't like Furry, but I wouldn't say that it needs to banned. If they were animals and only animals, however, that would be a different story altogether. Likewise, if lolicon were nothing more than adults with some adolescent-like qualities, I wouldn't say it needed to be banned either. But that isn't what lolicon is about. It's about early adolescent girls, more disturbingly, most of them look younger than early adolescence but have small breasts attached to them. If they were not presented in a sexual manner, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but they are. Whether they are based off a real adolescent or child (and they could be; you never know what fantasies about real young adolescents the 'artist' may have had) or not, the sexual depiction of early adolescents and children is in itself wrong, and thus should be banned.



1: "he word "machismo" comes from Spain and referred to the practice of a man beating his wife to keep her in line."
Exactly what does this have to do with the conversation?

"I live in Canada, by the way. So it's not just the United States. I also don't watch TV. Thus my logic is based on what I have heard in real life. Nice try, though."

First off if you are in Canada than why should you care? Your country already have a ban on it from last I checked. Secondly I don't bother with tv because most the shows in america is crap, and wtf does not watching tv have to do with this? If your logic is based on what you heard than your logic is flawed in it's own. I would have a better understanding if you said your logic came from research of the topic and not just" What I hear", because what you hear isn't always the truth.

"Precisely, and rape pornography, even cartoon, should be banned as well."
Any other words anything that doesn't fit your morals should be banned? What makes you think your morals should be the same for others?


"
Furries at least have human qualities and aren't so different from the idea of the werewolf or of the fox fairies, which have had sexuality associated with them for many hundreds of years. I don't like Furry, but I wouldn't say that it needs to banned. If they were animals and only animals, however, that would be a different story altogether. Likewise, if lolicon were nothing more than adults with some adolescent-like qualities, I wouldn't say it needed to be banned either. But that isn't what lolicon is about. It's about early adolescent girls, more disturbingly, most of them look younger than early adolescence but have small breasts attached to them. If they were not presented in a sexual manner, I wouldn't have a problem with it, but they are. Whether they are based off a real adolescent or child (and they could be; you never know what fantasies about real young adolescents the 'artist' may have had) or not, the sexual depiction of early adolescents and children is in itself wrong, and thus should be banned."

Really because in some nations artist have been arrested for drawing furry and conside ring it bestiality. Secondly lolicon isn't only sex with little kids. Lolicon is basically Lolita complex; the term describes an attraction to young girls, or an individual with such an attraction. Meaning lolicon isn't always little girls but women with little girl characteristics.


In a final note as this is a pointless argument; whether or not you don't agree lolicon, porn, and hentai are all art forms. No art form should ever be banned.



3: First off, if you're going to argue, can you please look at what you typed, so I don't have to repeat myself? Thanks.

You said "Only America would even say something like that." My reply about Spain was an example, and there are others, of the fact that America is not the only country in which someone would encourage the beating of someone.

"First off if you are in Canada than why should you care? Your country already have a ban on it from last I checked."
What you don't know is that our prime minister worships the States, thus anything the United States is okay with, there's a good chance our prime minister will attempt to change laws so that it's okay here too. Like handguns, which the conservatives in this country continue to push for.

"wtf does not watching tv have to do with this?"
Apparently, I read your sentence wrong: "So no your logic does not make sense it just plays on what you believe and how you were raised which shows." Proper grammar usually puts a comma before "which." Since your sentence did not have that comma, I read it as "with shows."

"If your logic is based on what you heard than your logic is flawed in it's own. I would have a better understanding if you said your logic came from research of the topic and not just" What I hear", because what you hear isn't always the truth."
Again, this was in response to your earlier sentence and I was saying that I don't hear people making pro-violence comments from TV, but in real life. I have done plenty of research. I have done research on rape, rapists, rape victims, child molesters, the so-called psychological disorder called pedophilia, social programs meant to help victims of sexual assault, current laws, the enforcement of, or lack there of, the laws, age of consent, and, yes, lolicon. How do you think I came to find out what lolicon was? I didn't randomly come across it here and make a judgement. After I heard about it, I searched, I looked, and I was horrified. It brings to mind the popular phrase, "What has been seen cannot be unseen!"

I have talked to people who work at sexual assault crisis centres, and I have talked to victims of sexual assault. I don't understand what would make a person want to do such things, but I do know that it's about power, and I do know that abusers/assaulters/potential abusers/assaulters want two things. They want to hurt and they want to get away with it. Whole groups of pedophiles and the like often come together and push for the laws to lower the age of consent. They want their actions to be socially acceptable in society, and lolicon is just another ploy to achieve exactly that.

"Really because in some nations artist have been arrested for drawing furry and considering it bestiality."
All nations are flawed and have some shitty laws. Were I living there, I would probably defend the artists. This has nothing to do with my argument.

"Secondly lolicon isn't only sex with little kids."
I don't care that it isn't only 'sex' with little kids; it shouldn't be 'sex' with little kids at all.

I know what the Lolita complex is. I have read countless reviews on the book and would have already read it myself if I'd found it.

"Lolicon is basically Lolita complex; the term describes an attraction to young girls, or an individual with such an attraction. Meaning lolicon isn't always little girls but women with little girl characteristics."

Where in "describes an attraction to young girls, or an individual with such an attraction" do you see women with little girl characteristics? It refers to the attraction, and the adults who are attracted.

"In a final note as this is a pointless argument; whether or not you don't agree lolicon, porn, and hentai are all art forms. No art form should ever be banned."
You forgot hate art, the art of starving dogs, con art, the art of war, snuff films, bully art, voyeuristic photography, etc. Nope, none of these should ever be banned at all.



1: Wow, first off an attack on my grammar. Where to start where to start....

"You forgot hate art, the art of starving dogs, con art, the art of war, snuff films, bully art, voyeuristic photography, etc. Nope, none of these should ever be banned at all."
No it shouldn't why as a artist I will respect any and all forms of art. Why should drawing a picture of a starving dog be illegal when you can find pictures of starving humans all around the place? Con art? do you mean contemporary? You will have to be more defined than that.

Snuff films; murder is not an art form and never will be.

Bully art....are you serious?

the art of war...do you have the slightest idea what this is? It is not about art, but instead war. This has the slightest bit to do with art at all. Until you can actually find a way to get every nation in the world to ban war. Then you won't ever se a ban on this.

voyeuristic photography; are you just looking stuff up on the spot?

"What you don't know is that our prime minister worships the States, thus anything the United States is okay with, there's a good chance our prime minister will attempt to change laws so that it's okay here too. Like handguns, which the conservatives in this country continue to push for."

So he has changed the legal age to have sex to 18? He has made the entire government a puppet for corporations? He has went and brainwashed most of the people placing religion as this thing that people should always live by? He has created multiple successful fear tactics against his own nation?

"First off, if you're going to argue, can you please look at what you typed, so I don't have to repeat myself? Thanks."

I am not arguing anything. This isn't even worth arguing about; this topic has come up thousands of times and I have heard the same argument over and over again. Also if you are going to quote my post can you at least separate them from yours so I can find them when I'm quoting yours.


"What I hear", because what you hear isn't always the truth."
Again, this was in response to your earlier sentence and I was saying that I don't hear people making pro-violence comments from TV, but in real life. I have done plenty of research. I have done research on rape, rapists, rape victims, child molesters, the so-called psychological disorder called pedophilia, social programs meant to help victims of sexual assault, current laws, the enforcement of, or lack there of, the laws, age of consent, and, yes, lolicon. How do you think I came to find out what lolicon was? I didn't randomly come across it here and make a judgement. After I heard about it, I searched, I looked, and I was horrified. It brings to mind the popular phrase, "What has been seen cannot be unseen!"

I have talked to people who work at sexual assault crisis centres, and I have talked to victims of sexual assault. I don't understand what would make a person want to do such things, but I do know that it's about power, and I do know that abusers/assaulters/potential abusers/assaulters want two things. They want to hurt and they want to get away with it. Whole groups pedophiles and the like often come together and push for the laws to lower the age of consent. They want their actions to be socially acceptable in society, and lolicon is just another ploy to achieve exactly that."
So basically lolicon is basically a conspiracy theory for those who want to hurt little kids and be sociably accepted with it? Do you even read what you are typing? You sound no different than a conspiracy nut. I understand your ploy, but no matter if lolicon is legal or not. No one would look onto it as socially acceptable; fantasy rape movies are legal but they aren't socially acceptable. So how the hell would making lolicon legal change the way the people look at it? Just like murder and stealing in movies, as long as the portrayer of it does not take it to practice there is no reason for it to be banned. If you try to ban it saying it would tempt them; then you might as well say the same about porn tempting rape, or extremely violent movies tempting murders and theft; and ban those by that logic. That is the logic you are using and that is not logic that isn't fair.

"I don't care that it isn't only 'sex' with little kids; it shouldn't be 'sex' with little kids at all."

I can't even process this, because this defines illogical.

"I know what the Lolita complex is. I have read countless reviews on the book and would have already read it myself if I'd found it."

From what you typed above hand you obviously do not.

"Where in "describes an attraction to young girls, or an individual with such an attraction" do you see women with little girl characteristics? It refers to the attraction, and the adults who are attracted."

Maybe the part saying "An individual with such attractions?"
Meaning it can be small breast, undeveloped voices. Their are adults older than 18 who like younger than 18 and visa versa. You view lolicon as one thing which i isn't and that is why you are afraid to see change when it isn't Always young girls but women with such features. And yes just like their are big women; there are also small ones.

Honestly you are rambling on trying to create an argument to a cause that has already been won where you live. Pedophilia is in fact a bad fetish, but lolicon, shotacn, gurucon, furry are all forms of art and will remain that way. Whether you try to have the ban or not there will always be someone trying to put them into real practice. Child abuse is much more than just sexual. So why not ban all forms of art and media displaying it? Because it will stop nothing; it isn't the source of the problem. The source of the problem starts in the house hold.



3: lol Hardly an attack! I was simply pointing out why your sentence confused me.

"Why should drawing a picture of a starving dog be illegal when you can find pictures of starving humans all around the place?"
lol I didn't say "drawing a picture of a starving dog," I said "starving a dog" and calling it art. Are you okay with that, too? Some people call that art!

"Con art? do you mean contemporary?"
Really? Really, really? You don't know what a con artist is? A very skilled, very methodical thief and liar. They con you. And they do it so well, that it's called con art. Should we keep them from being banned, too?

"Snuff films; murder is not an art form and never will be."
But according to the makers, it is! After all, it's still film! Isn't it you who said that I couldn't say what is art and what isn't? Well, then neither can you, and if that's the case anyone can say anything is art.

"Bully art....are you serious?"
I am. Some people create 'art' for the sole purpose of attacking a specific individual, thus bullying. But that shouldn't be banned either, right?

As for the art of war? Same as with murder. Some warlords felt they were artists in what they did, including methodical killings and destruction. And, yes, I do believe that there should be a worldwide ban on war. We've evolved enough to come up with solutions to our problems than killing one another.

"voyeuristic photography; are you just looking stuff up on the spot?"
No, I'm completely serious. Taking pictures of people without their permission is still photography. Is it not therefore art?

"So he has changed the legal age to have sex to 18?"
Not yet; that would be one change I'd be happy for.

"He has made the entire government a puppet for corporations?"
Almost there.

"He has went and brainwashed most of the people placing religion as this thing that people should always live by? He has created multiple successful fear tactics against his own nation?"
Yup, though not quite as bad as in the US yet.

"I am not arguing anything. This isn't even worth arguing about; this topic has come up thousands of times and I have heard the same argument over and over again."
You continue to respond and to attempt to rebut my argument; ergo, you are arguing.

"Also if you are going to quote my post can you at least separate them from yours so I can find them when I'm quoting yours."
I have; they're call paragraph breaks. Spaces are only necessary for separating topics.

"So basically lolicon is basically a conspiracy theory for those who want to hurt little kids and be sociably accepted with it?"
Pretty much, yeah.

"Do you even read what you are typing?"
Yes, I do, at least twice over before sending.

"You sound no different than a conspiracy nut."
So I've been told when I've voiced my belief that 9/11 was an inside job, and that the H1N1 vaccine is just for population control. But you know? It's funny how a lot conspiracy theories in the past turned out to be true.

"I understand your ploy, but no matter if lolicon is legal or not. No one would look onto it as socially acceptable; fantasy rape movies are legal but they aren't socially acceptable."
I'm not the one with the ploy, dude. And you're right; rape isn't socially acceptable, but the victim still gets blamed as a result of media (writing, TV, movies, drawings, etc.) making the victim out to having been, at least in a small way, partly responsible.

"So how the hell would making lolicon legal change the way the people look at it?"
^That's how.

"Just like murder and stealing in movies, as long as the portrayer of it does not take it to practice there is no reason for it to be banned."
Most murder and stealing in movies are portrayed as wrong. Once again, I don't have a problem with it if it's portrayed as wrong. Plus, stealing may be understandable if one is starving and has no choice. Murder may be understandable if it's in self-defense, or even if it's about revenge in some cases. Pedophilia and rape have no such understandability. Unless they're portrayed as wrong, they shouldn't be allowed. And neither should gratuitous torture movies that have nothing to make up for them.

"If you try to ban it saying it would tempt them; then you might as well say the same about porn tempting rape, or extremely violent movies tempting murders and theft; and ban those by that logic. That is the logic you are using and that is not logic that isn't fair."
No, actually. I am of the belief that rapists and serial killers, etc. are few and far between, but they do a lot of damage. I do not believe that watching a violent film will turn a normal person into murderer, nor that watching porn will turn an ethical person into a cheater or a rapist. What I do believe is that it could push people with borderline personalities (people who fantasize about rape or murder) over the edge. Ted Bundy himself said that sexism in advertising was no help for keeping his urge to hurt under control, and we know how that turned out...I also believe that normal people, while they wouldn't do it themselves, can be numbed into not taking the appropriate measures when such a crime occurs. And if it happens to a person individually, that person will be even less likely to report it, believing they must have had some fault in it. It's not the violence, it's not the rape, and it's not child sex; it's the portrayal of it. These things should be portrayed as wrong because that's what they are. Fantasies like this should not be encouraged.

"I can't even process this, because this defines illogical."
Is it really so difficult for you to handle? It's really very simple; you stated that lolicon was not only sex with little kids. I stated in response that it shouldn't be sex with little kids at all. No adult sex with little kids; what a novel concept! Does that clear things up for you, or do you need me to reword it five different ways?

"From what you typed above hand you obviously do not."
But I do; I am against adults wanting to sexually harm young adolescents.

"Maybe the part saying "An individual with such attractions?"
Meaning it can be small breast, undeveloped voices."
Well, I don't know how you're reading it that way, but it reads to me as the adult with the attraction as in an adult who 'desires' a young adolescent.

"You view lolicon as one thing which i isn't"
I view lolicon exactly as I have seen it, and the majority depicts young adolescent girls in a sexual manner. If it was solely adult women with girlish features, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all; I'd even defend it.

"yes just like their are big women; there are also small ones."
lol As I am fully aware, being a small woman myself and having female friends big, small, and in between.

"but lolicon, shotacn, gurucon, furry are all forms of art and will remain that way"
The first three are unacceptable forms of art. I'd be interested to know your thoughts on toddlercon.

"Whether you try to have the ban or not there will always be someone trying to put them into real practice."
By that logic, we should abolish laws.

"Child abuse is much more than just sexual. So why not ban all forms of art and media displaying it?"
If any sort of child abuse is depicted as okay, then yes it should be banned.

"Because it will stop nothing; it isn't the source of the problem. The source of the problem starts in the house hold."
Wrong. The source is society; the manifestation is in the household where it can be kept secret.



1: "Really? Really, really? You don't know what a con artist is? A very skilled, very methodical thief and liar. They con you. And they do it so well, that it's called con art. Should we keep them from being banned, too?"

First off you said con art, you didn't say con artist. Con artist is no art form and neither is murder. Those who try to call it art are those who are just trying to justify taking the life of another.

"Most murder and stealing in movies are portrayed as wrong. Once again, I don't have a problem with it if it's portrayed as wrong. Plus, stealing may be understandable if one is starving and has no choice. Murder may be understandable if it's in self-defense, or even if it's about revenge in some cases. Pedophilia and rape have no such understandability. Unless they're portrayed as wrong, they shouldn't be allowed. And neither should gratuitous torture movies that have nothing to make up for them."

Wanted, ninja assassin are just two of multiple movies that justify killing as a good thing. Murder is never understandable even as defense case it will be tried to the full extent of the law, but for revenge there are many other ways to get t other than murder. So no all you are doing is protecting a killer to saying otherwise.

"I am. Some people create 'art' for the sole purpose of attacking a specific individual, thus bullying. But that shouldn't be banned either, right?"

Give me some kind of proof where art was this destructive; unless they are shakespeare no one art can ever be this destructive.

"Pretty much, yeah."
You just have a personal vendetta against it.


"No, actually. I am of the belief that rapists and serial killers, etc. are few and far between, but they do a lot of damage. I do not believe that watching a violent film will turn a normal person into murderer, nor that watching porn will turn an ethical person into a cheater or a rapist. What I do believe is that it could push people with borderline personalities (people who fantasize about rape or murder) over the edge. Ted Bundy himself said that sexism in advertising was no help for keeping his urge to hurt under control, and we know how that turned out...I also believe that normal people, while they wouldn't do it themselves, can be numbed into not taking the appropriate measures when such a crime occurs. And if it happens to a person individually, that person will be even less likely to report it, believing they must have had some fault in it. It's not the violence, it's not the rape, and it's not child sex; it's the portrayal of it. These things should be portrayed as wrong because that's what they are. Fantasies like this should not be encouraged."

Again it starts in the household. The people who are really to blame don't want to take it, but instead looks to outside forces to blame.

"By that logic, we should abolish laws."

Actually no, by that logic we can stop wasting time on senseless laws and start moving forward as a civilization again. Wasting time yelling about lolicon and hentai rape games when their are people actually dying, and homeless who aren't being helped. It sad how much time people can invest in such pointless arguments when their own countries have more important problems.


"Wrong. The source is society; the manifestation is in the household where it can be kept secret."

No society does not raise your child the parent does. Too many parents think society and celebrities are suppose to raise their children, and when something goes wrong they place the blame on everyone but who is actually to blame. This lolicon matter is no different.

"starving a dog" and calling it art. Are you okay with that, too? Some people call that art!"

By what twisted logic is this art? Art is a forever changing entity yes, but don't try and call every bad thing that happens art. Anybody with half a brain can tell the difference.

"I view lolicon exactly as I have seen it, and the majority depicts young adolescent girls in a sexual manner. If it was solely adult women with girlish features, I wouldn't have a problem with it at all; I'd even defend it."

So you should be defending what is legal about it and attacking what isn't. If you even defined that I could partially agree with you, but you attack it as a whole when their is more to it. And I have actually read some lolicon doujin and many actually have older women looking like little girls. Hell one manga had a 40 year old man looking like a 12 year old.

"No, I'm completely serious. Taking pictures of people without their permission is still photography. Is it not therefore art?"

This happens plenty of time; we call it the paparazzi.

"As for the art of war? Same as with murder. Some warlords felt they were artists in what they did, including methodical killings and destruction. And, yes, I do believe that there should be a worldwide ban on war. We've evolved enough to come up with solutions to our problems than killing one another."

Yea you also knew some of those warlords were mentally ill right? Just because someone says their an artist doesn't make what they do art. Honestly I beginning to wonder about your entire gullibility and thinking process after reading this. I guess the dc sniper and jack the ripper was an artist also than. You can't ban war it is one of the few universal truth we as humans can never escape.

"You continue to respond and to attempt to rebut my argument; ergo, you are arguing."

I'm just seeing how far you going to try and take this.



3: "First off you said con art, you didn't say con artist."
I wasn't referring to a specific con artist, I was referring to the action itself, which is con art. Given the context it was used in, that should have been obvious.

"Con artist is no art form and neither is murder. Those who try to call it art are those who are just trying to justify taking the life of another."
And lolicon 'artists' who try to call it art are just trying to justify the 'sexual desire' for young adolescents.

"Wanted, ninja assassin are just two of multiple movies that justify killing as a good thing."
There's a reason I don't watch such movies or approve of them or think they should be made. Action scenes, cool. Justified murder for murder's sake, no.

"Murder is never understandable even as defense case it will be tried to the full extent of the law"
Obviously. It has to be proven as self-defense.

"but for revenge there are many other ways to get t other than murder."
Once again, you're stating the obvious.

Murder, while not justified, can be understandable in certain cases; a parent killing the murderer or molester of their child. Right? No. Understandable? Yes. Or a victim of child abuse killing their abuser. Right? No. Understandable? Certainly.
Whereas with sexual assault, right? No. Understandable? No.

"Give me some kind of proof where art was this destructive; unless they are shakespeare no one art can ever be this destructive."
Let's see...attack ads, an intentionally unflattering drawing of a person at school that's copied and sent out to other classmates for the sole purpose of bullying said person...need I say more?

"You just have a personal vendetta against it."
Why, how horrible of me to have a personal distaste in an 'art form' that represents young adolescents in a sexual manner!

"Again it starts in the household. The people who are really to blame don't want to take it, but instead looks to outside forces to blame."
Starts in what household? Don't forget the parents learned it from somewhere, either from their parents or from outside sources, and if you follow the vicious circle back far enough, you're going to find that society had something to do with it. Earlier, I brought up "machismo," which is the acceptance, approval, and even encouragement of a man beating his wife, but I'm sure that societal influence had no affect whatsoever. Canada has no death penalty, and our murder rate is less than that of the United States because of it. The police in England don't carry guns, and thus there are very few gun deaths in England. Kids play violent video games, and you get some of them learning how to use a sniper rifle and then they try out a real one on their classmates. Society has an affect on people, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.

"Actually no, by that logic we can stop wasting time on senseless laws and start moving forward as a civilization again. Wasting time yelling about lolicon and hentai rape games when their are people actually dying, and homeless who aren't being helped. It sad how much time people can invest in such pointless arguments when their own countries have more important problems."
You're right; let's attempt to stop the action without getting at the cause at all. It's like anti-choice people who don't acknowledge that there just might be a reason behind wanting an abortion. By the way, you were the one who first posted on the artist's page, and you yourself said you've had arguments like this countless times. You'd think a person who thought this argument was so pointless would stop having it.

"No society does not raise your child the parent does. Too many parents think society and celebrities are suppose to raise their children, and when something goes wrong they place the blame on everyone but who is actually to blame. This lolicon matter is no different."
Society will have affects on you no matter how you're raised and that will in turn affect the way you raise your children. Some parents can transcend society, but not the vast majority since they often don't even know they've been affected. And it's a herd mentality: "Why shouldn't I let my TV raise my kids? Everyone else is!" or "That's how I was raised and I turned out fine!" Right? NO! But if the true source isn't targeted, it will, inevitably continue no matter how many individual cases you intervene into. And lolicon's affects? Adolescent Japanese girls are selling themselves as prostitutes. I don't believe this is a coincidence.

"By what twisted logic is this art?"
That of the so-called 'artist' and whoever agreed.

"Art is a forever changing entity yes, but don't try and call every bad thing that happens art."
I'm not; I don't consider these bad things art, lolicon included. It only seems that the lovers and creators of lolicon consider it art, just the same as a murderer being the only one to consider her/his work art.

"So you should be defending what is legal about it and attacking what isn't."
No. The only reason I'd defend it is if it had no sexual depictions of adolescents at all. The fact that it does ruins the entire thing.

"Hell one manga had a 40 year old man looking like a 12 year old."
That's hardly an adult having some (key word being some) childlike characteristics. All that is is drawing what is clearly a child and putting an adult age on them.

"This happens plenty of time; we call it the paparazzi."
Which should also be illegal, as it is in France. And what about stalkers taking photos of the object of their obsession while they're in the shower? Still photography.

"Yea you also knew some of those warlords were mentally ill right?"
Oh, I know, but so was Vincent van Gogh.

"Just because someone says their an artist doesn't make what they do art."
Very good! And this is precisely how I feel about lolicon/shotacon/gurucon/toddlercon/fantasy rape.

"Honestly I beginning to wonder about your entire gullibility and thinking process after reading this."
I've been wondering about yours for most of this thread.

"I guess the dc sniper and jack the ripper was an artist also than."
I'm sure they'd consider themselves so, the same way that lolicon 'artists' feel that lolicon is art.

"You can't ban war it is one of the few universal truth we as humans can never escape."
That's based on the belief that all humans are violent at heart and I do not believe that. We can escape it if we choose to. The only reason we don't is because certain bankers, corporations, and politicians profit from it.

"I'm just seeing how far you going to try and take this."
And I'm not doing the same with you? Nice try, but you're still arguing.



1: Do you understand how ludacris half the stuff you said is? "Very good! And this is precisely how I feel about lolicon/shotacon/gurucon/toddlerconfantasy rape." This is literally the defining point of you argument.

"And lolicon 'artists' who try to call it art are just trying to justify the 'sexual desire' for young adolescents."
You can't put lolicon in the same category as murderers and as they practices they're trade in life. Lolicon is put on paper and drawn out. You obviously don't know the difference between the real world and what is on paper. The fact you are even trying to compare the two is comnpletely ignorant.

"There's a reason I don't watch such movies or approve of them or think they should be made. Action scenes, cool. Justified murder for murder's sake, no."
Then you contradict your earlier if you haven't even watch them. This makes your while argument pointless.

"Obviously. It has to be proven as self-defense."
I can't be obvious you are missing my point.

"Once again, you're stating the obvious."
Read above point.

"Why, how horrible of me to have a personal distaste in an 'art form' that represents young adolescents in a sexual manner!"
You simply closed mindly attack a art form. I am not defending the content of the art, but I defend the right for the artform to exist. If you don't like it no one is shoving it down your throat. If someone around you is than get away from them.

"Murder, while not justified, can be understandable in certain cases; a parent killing the murderer or molester of their child. Right? No. Understandable? Yes. Or a victim of child abuse killing their abuser. Right? No. Understandable? Certainly.
Whereas with sexual assault, right? No. Understandable? No."
And this is where you are completely wrong. You murder the person who harmed your child in any way make you no better than them. Just like you have a child; they are the are the child of someone else and by your twisted logic their parents have the right to kill you for killing their child. It is a never ending circle of pain and bloodshed. Do I say do nothing to protect your child no, but there are more than one way to inflict pain onto others without always falling back onto murder, because I assure you any court that truly follows justice will try you to the full extent of the law to first degree murder. If they are molesting your child in front of you and you are unable to stop them than how are you going to kill them anyways? If you kill them afterward than you are no better. And you want to end all wars ha..


"Starts in what household? Don't forget the parents learned it from somewhere, either from their parents or from outside sources, and if you follow the vicious circle back far enough, you're going to find that society had something to do with it. Earlier, I brought up "machismo," which is the acceptance, approval, and even encouragement of a man beating his wife, but I'm sure that societal influence had no affect whatsoever. Canada has no death penalty, and our murder rate is less than that of the United States because of it. The police in England don't carry guns, and thus there are very few gun deaths in England. Kids play violent video games, and you get some of them learning how to use a sniper rifle and then they try out a real one on their classmates. Society has an affect on people, whether you want to acknowledge that or not."
You just don't understand how it begins in the house hold do you? A man just doesn't pick up beating his wife off the street saying "Oh that looks fub and I want to try it. It all starts with the parents. No environment and no society shape the children more than the parents do. Only cases like this are those who grow up without parents, and this rarely leads to pedophilia; murders yes, stealing yes, physical harm to a child by punching or slapping yes, but sex with children no.

"No. The only reason I'd defend it is if it had no sexual depictions of adolescents at all. The fact that it does ruins the entire thing."
Oh sweet irony.

"I've been wondering about yours for most of this thread."
Why because I viewed it through a logical and artistical perspective, and not just "OMG a little kid in suggestive pose! Baaaaaddddddd."

"Oh, I know, but so was Vincent van Gogh."
Yes so is most religious fanatics, but everyone don't want to go after them.

3: "Do you understand how ludacris half the stuff you said is?"
Ludicrous? This statement is a subjective observation at best and ad hominem at worst. With the benefit of the doubt, making it a subjective observation, it works both ways. To me, at least half the stuff you have said is ludicrous.

""Very good! And this is precisely how I feel about lolicon/shotacon/gurucon/toddlercon/fantasy rape." This is literally the defining point of you argument."
But don't you see? Your feelings about murder, etc. not being art are also just that: feelings. Luckily, most people in first world countries and some developing nations these days feel that murder is wrong and it is thus illegal no matter how much of an artist the murderer may fancy her/himself. Thusly should it be worldwide, thusly should the same be of any kind of sexual assault and any kind of torture, and thusly should it be of drawn or written fantasies of such crimes.

"You can't put lolicon in the same category as murderers and as they practices they're trade in life. Lolicon is put on paper and drawn out. You obviously don't know the difference between the real world and what is on paper. The fact you are even trying to compare the two is comnpletely ignorant."
You obviously don't understand that art is created after the artist has had an experience, a thought, or a feeling that inspired them. Thus the lolicon 'artist' either experienced such an act for which they should be jailed, had a thought about it which should not be encouraged, or felt desire for a young adolescent which again should not be encouraged. Feelings lead to thoughts, thoughts lead to actions, actions cause experience which then creates more feelings, and the circle goes on and on.

"Then you contradict your earlier if you haven't even watch them. This makes your while argument pointless."
Firstly, I'm not sure what the word "while" is doing in that sentence; I don't know if you missed a few words or if the word you meant to use was "wild." I will assume the second.
I'm actually not contradicting anything. If I'm sure a movie contains nothing but violence only for the sake of violence, I will find reviews on them and if I do not find those overviews satisfactory, I will find an entire plot synopsis. Spoilers don't bother me. Finally, if I'm still unsure, I will talk to people who saw it and ask them what it was like and what it was about and what happened in it. I barely tolerated The Texas Chainsaw Massacre since the sympathies of the audience did seem to be with the victims. I made it half way through the second one before turning it off. I have yet to see any of the Saw movies and it's doubtful I ever will since, from what I've read, heard, and from the small clips I've seen, the movies were made to satisfy an appetite for gore and contain no real content. I made the mistake of watching House of a Thousand Corpses and I simply don't need to watch people being skinned alive when there are films with much better plot lines.

"I can't be obvious you are missing my point."
No, I think you're missing mine. I know that murder, all murder (except in war, and the death penalty in some countries), is illegal. I have had an argument over it with a person who insisted to me that "if someone tries to kill you, you have a right to kill him." No, you don't. You have a right to defend your life and, if you accidentally kill the person who was attacking you in the attempt to save yourself, you will be pardoned for self -defense. But if you manage to knock out your assailant and you kill that person anyway, that is not self-defense and you'll likely be jailed unless you can successfully plead temporary insanity.

"Read above point."
Then let me clarify it for you. There are multitudes of ways to exercise revenge, as I'm sure everyone is aware of. However, depending on what was done to cause one to want revenge, depending on how long ago whatever it was that was done took place, and depending on the access of the revenger to whomever it was that wronged that person, the person seeking revenge may not be in a rational state of mind.

"You simply closed mindly attack a art form. I am not defending the content of the art, but I defend the right for the artform to exist. If you don't like it no one is shoving it down your throat. If someone around you is than get away from them."
I did not attack an art form. Anime is an art form. Cubism is an art form. Young adolescents are the content of the art form, and there is nothing wrong with depicting them. There is, however, plenty wrong with depicting them in a sexual manner, be it in photography, anime, literature, etc. Lolicon refers entirely to the content of young adolescent girls depicted in a sexual manner. Yes, they're drawn in the anime style, but it is anime that is the art, not lolicon, or shotacon, or guro, or toddlercon (on which I am still interested to read your thoughts).

"And this is where you are completely wrong. You murder the person who harmed your child in any way make you no better than them."
People enjoy using that argument and yet even murderers are repulsed by child molesters. Murder can be quick and can happen while there is distance between victim and murderer. Once again, it doesn't make it right, and the murderer of course should be jailed, but with sexual assault the intention is to be up close and personal. And the murder of a child who did nothing to the murderer beforehand is emotionally more taxing for people than for a child murderer to be killed, especially if the child was yours.

"Just like you have a child; they are the are the child of someone else and by your twisted logic their parents have the right to kill you for killing their child. It is a never ending circle of pain and bloodshed."
If my son or daughter molested or killed a child, I would flat out disown them. Once you cross that line, you're hard-pressed to find sympathy, and I guarantee you that people have more sympathy for the killer of a child killer than for the child killer.

"Do I say do nothing to protect your child no, but there are more than one way to inflict pain onto others without always falling back onto murder, because I assure you any court that truly follows justice will try you to the full extent of the law to first degree murder."
Your point applies only to people who are thinking in their right mind, which I assure you the parent of a murdered or severely harmed child is not. There is a reason for defenses like temporary insanity. In fact, England has a defense for postpartum psychosis. If woman kills her baby within a small time frame after it is born, she may be pardoned if she was suffering from postpartum psychosis at the time of the murder. Will it be tried? Yes, all murders are tried, but the outcome is most certainly not always 'either you're completely guilty and you will receive full sentence or you're completely innocent of the crimes you have been accused of.'

"If they are molesting your child in front of you and you are unable to stop them than how are you going to kill them anyways? If you kill them afterward than you are no better."
But child molesters are worse than most murderers. Murder can happen by accident, child molestation cannot. Murder can occur during self-defense, child molestation cannot. Murder can occur as a result of righteous anger, child molestation cannot. A person can commit one murder in their lifetime and never commit another again, while child molesters have been labeled "incurable." Some murders can be just as bad as child molestation, but not all. A parent who kills a child molester to protect their children is most certainly not as bad as the child molester is. Does the child molester deserve to die? Subjective and thus no law should declare that they should die, but the avenging parent who kills one should not be put away for the same amount of time as a serial killer.

"And you want to end all wars ha.."
Nowhere have I justified any murder. I have only stated that some murders can be understandable whereas sexual assault is not. Being understandable does not make it right and does not mean it should be allowed or even encouraged. But if reasons, and most murders have reasons, are not understood, you have no hope of preventing them. If there were any understandable reasons for sexual assault (lust for power, 'sexual frustration', etc, are not understandable reasons), I would say the same thing. As of yet, there aren't any, and we certainly shouldn't be encouraging it by allowing things like lolicon.

"You just don't understand how it begins in the house hold do you?"
You assume a lot, don't you? I have researched plenty into the subject, and the maintaining of household abuse is impossible if completely abhorred by society (which it is not, even now; abhorred yes, but not completely).

"A man just doesn't pick up beating his wife off the street saying "Oh that looks fub and I want to try it.""
Nor did I ever state that he does. It is far from that simple.

"It all starts with the parents."
...Who got it from their parents who got it from their parents who got it from their parents, etc. It had to start somewhere, and the only way it can be maintained is if the family in question is so far removed from other people that no one can step in, or that enough of the society the family lives among is either quietly (by simply saying nothing) or loudly (such as encouraging corporal punishment) supportive of the abuse taking place.

"No environment and no society shape the children more than the parents do."
Directly, you are entirely right. Indirectly, you couldn't be more wrong. Advertisements, common sayings, modern myths, the media, etc. register very deeply into the subconscious and, inevitably, have an affect on a person, especially as a child.

"Only cases like this are those who grow up without parents, and this rarely leads to pedophilia; murders yes, stealing yes, physical harm to a child by punching or slapping yes, but sex with children no."
^See above. And as sexual assault is about power, if some selfish person felt that growing up without parents left them powerless, they might indeed figure that as a reason to sexually assault.

"Oh sweet irony."
Irony? Really? And what was so ironic about my sentence? If you're going to use a word, you should know what it means.

"Why because I viewed it through a logical and artistical perspective"
Logical and "artistical"? All you have said is that lolicon is an art form. You have not argued what makes it an art form; you have said nothing of the techniques one might use in lolicon (which would thus make your argument that it is art more believable); you have not even spoken of the inspiration for lolicon except in small snatches; you have not given a history for it; you have not spoken of society's take on it nor its artistic affect on society. All you have done is defended it by calling it an art form and vehemently declaring that the fact it is on paper and not in real life completely justifies its content. A logical and artistic perspective? Hardly.

I, on the other hand, far from "just "OMG a little kid in suggestive pose! Baaaaaddddddd"" have responded to every point you've written down, even though you have skipped several of mine. My argument is that lolicon is not art and should not be allowed, and I stated what was wrong with it and what could be done to make it acceptable. I have used example, and analogy to clarify my points, and I have gone through many rephrases just to clarify them more for you. I have refrained from ad hominem, and I have even gone easy with the grammar corrections after your taking my first correction as an attack.

"Yes so is most religious fanatics, but everyone don't want to go after them."
Actually, plenty of people do, just not a whole lot of the ones in power it seems. My utter distaste for religious fanaticism is well-known among all of my peers, and it is fairly easy to find people of like mind when it comes to that subject.

Now then, if the idea that lolicon is an art form is enough of a defense for you, then why are you complaining about this person's piece of art? Telling her that her piece of art is a useless complaint and implying that she should not have put this piece up is no better than her dislike of lolicon, by your own logic.

Rather than reply, 1 continued on with a new thread that he had started with me, and ended it with the repeated argument, "This is pointless."

4 comments:

  1. don't like it, just don't see it, i see it pointless in banning cartoons

    ReplyDelete
  2. As someone who was molested, I felt mocked and betrayed when I found out such a thing as lolicon existed. People where getting off to what might as well have been "art" renditions of the worst thing that ever happened to girls like me, people were sexually aroused by the idea of the crime that had destroyed so much of me. A few years after I found out about it's existence, my husband admitted he was a porn addict. he wasn't just any kind of porn addict either, he had been into "lolicon" i wanted to punch him the face, i wanted him out of my house. I wanted him just gone. I wanted to kill myself for not knowing. if i didn't think his admittance could get any worse, it did. he admitted that he had been using lolicon to "fap" since he was 16, and when he was about 17 he started to find real children attractive. he has since worked through this, he has since quit watching porn altogether, we have decided to work together to spread awareness of lolicon to parents, and hope one day we can do something to make it 100% illegal, the mind is sensitive thing, this kind of porn in the hands of a teenager is a dangerous thing. one guy tried to argue online, "if we illegalize lolicon, why not knives, they kill people" because knives are useful for many things, roughly 1500 people were killed by knives last year, but 3000 people choked on their food. knives probably save more lives than they ever dared to take. last year over 90,000 children were proven to have been raped or molested, not counting the countless victims whose parents didn't report it, or the children who still haven't told. clearly, knives were nothing compared to the gravity of damage being done to our children by sexual predators. lolicon has two purposes:one, making the websites and comic sellers revenue, and 2, fapping, getting off, masturbating or whatever you call it. wait... there's a third use.... grooming victims of child molestation. this is not a cartoon, this kind of porn is a legal substitute creating the same arousal for real children, and the same sexual distortion in the minds of the teens and men who watch it. there is a ted talk that explains how pornagraghy, including lolicon effects and desensitizes the brain. besides, just like men who watch "regular porn" and hentaii desire a real womens body, lolicon watchers might eventually become desensitized enough to look for a reality to their deranged fantasies, as well. that is to say, those who use lolicon are more likely to prey on real kids.

    ReplyDelete
  3. you started in basis that Loli is child porn. You make a funny analogy with furry. If Loli is child porn then furry is zoofily. You star the same argument abou age. This social norm have not medical, psychological, anatomical, biological or sexological basis. pubescent age happen in so many different ages therefore "age" doesn't apply. also psychology shows that many "grown ups" have a childish behavior and mind, therefore "age" doesn't apply. 50 years later we could talk about that thism prejudice against age as a fact, but we are in a different world, different scenario. erotism is present in mass media and internet gives to all information about sex, regardless of age. so this social prejudice against age is irrelevant, persons are having relationship and sex, with consent, even we don't like this happen. persons that lives under age prejudice have more consciousness and are aware of sex and sexuality that we have. Loli is art, Loli is not porn, for this reason only.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Encouraging fantasies is not encouraging actual actions. This is the primary pons asinorum of the present argument.

    "Feelings lead to thoughts, thoughts lead to actions, actions cause experience which then creates more feelings, and the circle goes on and on."

    This is a profoundly misleading multi-layered fallacy.

    Feelings influence feelings. Thoughts influence thoughts. Actions influence actions. Actions influence feelings and thoughts, too. Thoughts influence feelings and actions. And feelings influence thoughts and actions. Experience subsumes feelings, thoughts, and actions. Nothing in that network simply "leads to" another element of it. Everything bleeds into everything constantly.

    The interpretation of fictional material is a very complex matter, and so are fantasies. Responsible adults can very well consent to enacting a "rape" fantasy in a framework of role-play, have a very pleasurable experience doing so, and not feel in any way like committing actual rape for having done so. Laws should not be written for the few mentally ill people who might be pushed "over the edge" by viewing fiction (or engaging in role-play!) depicting immoral behaviour in a positive light.

    ReplyDelete