Does "lolicon" or any hentai count as child pornography?

[Lore]

http://io9.com/5815306/american-fac...on-for-bringing-manga-to-canada-on-his-laptop

A few days ago, an American was arrested for bringing a manga on his laptop to Canada. This manga apparently contained lolicon artwork, which, for the uninformed, is essentially artwork that usually depicts minors in sexually explicit situations.

Law issues related to searching the man's laptop aside, did he really break the law? The problem here is our definition of child pornography. Right now we have a blanket "no minors doing anything" sort of law that is supposed to "protect our children" (and does, in actual pornography), yet in any erotic manga, no child is hurt in any way. Whoever gets off on little children can easily do it in a safe and controlled manner without harming an actual child via erotic manga, so why is it outlawed to the same extent that real minor-league (haha) pornos are?

So here's the question: should hentai (or drawn porn) involving minors be outlawed to the same extent that real pornography involving children is?

 

[_Keno_]

Unlike some types of "child pornography," loli/shota does not involve harming anyone in order to create it. However, neither do candid nudes or naturist material. People can whack off to children in all of these without actually harming anyone, yet carrying any of them has extreme penalties.

The only reason I could think they should be illegal would be if they encourage either creating child pornography or child ****. I suspect the sex drive is probably decreased more than increased by whacking, but I dont know where I would find a study on either.

 

[Dragoon Fighter]

Hentai depicting children or no children should be counted as pornography, however I disagree with hentai with children in it being labeled as child porn, as there are no real children in it. Just my take on it anyway.

 

[Dre89]

You could say that the sexualisation of children in fiction and media could lead to the sexualisation of them in real life, similar to what happened with women.

Just food for thought.

 

[Sucumbio]

If you've ever watched mainstream Hentai like La Blue Girl, or even lesser promoted material like Bible Black, you'll note that there's typically a disclaimer (made by the distributor, normally, but sometimes also by the director) that "all females portrayed should be considered at least 18 years of age." That said, you'd be hard pressed to guess the ages of most females in anime and even in most JRPGs .

I would hesitate to lump Lolicon (short for Lolita Complex) with Hentai. Hentai is graphic pornography. Lolicon specifically is graphic pornography of children or child-like imagery. It is meant to embrace pedophilia. I'll agree that Japan's recently passed law is strict. But then again, ALL porn is illegal for anyone under 18 here in the US, so it's not as if it's unwarranted. What I'm seeing in Japan is a reduction of support for artists who portray incest, bestiality, child pornography, torture/snuff, and other such "taboo" sexual situations. Restricting these things from minors isn't a bad thing, restricting them altogether, that's something else, I think. Given that these are art forms and not live-action real-people creations, you would think that it'd be okay.

But then again there is the problem with so-called "gateway" porn. Think of it like gateway drugs. If a true pedophile is allowed free and legal access to animated child porn, their unusual desires could suddenly turn dangerous as they attempt to act out these fantasy-driven models in real life, with real children. So too could this be said of watching nudist colony videos, or simply hanging out by a public playground or swimming pool. Is it 100% guaranteed to happen? Of course not. But would you even want to take a chance on a minute possibility? Not with my child thank you very much.

 

[Aesir]

You could say that the sexualisation of children in fiction and media could lead to the sexualisation of them in real life, similar to what happened with women.

Just food for thought.

Yes because a kink rooted in a mental disorder is totally the same thing. Right.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Unlike some types of "child pornography," loli/shota does not involve harming anyone in order to create it. However, neither do candid nudes or naturist material. People can whack off to children in all of these without actually harming anyone, yet carrying any of them has extreme penalties.

Real people != imaginary people. It's incredibly hard to draw a line between "naturist material" and actual child pornography. But manga? It's a ****ing comic book! There are no real people in there, only imaginary depictions of people.

The only reason I could think they should be illegal would be if they encourage either creating child pornography or child ****. I suspect the sex drive is probably decreased more than increased by whacking, but I dont know where I would find a study on either.

I doubt it would deal with either. There are a fairly large number of pedophiles who recognize that they have to deal with their attraction in more indirect ways... Taking away the only erotica they have that isn't actively harmful to kids is probably not gonna help the problem at all.

You could say that the sexualisation of children in fiction and media could lead to the sexualisation of them in real life, similar to what happened with women.

Just food for thought.

The issue is... most people aren't in to little girls. Seriously. Everyone wants to **** a woman (well, okay, most people). Not everyone wants to **** a kid. And guess what: if you aren't already into that kind of thing, you are increasingly unlikely to seek out titles that feature that as a main attraction.

No actual children are harmed.

Also, compounding this issue... Everyone here should look up the manga "Take on me" and read (IIRC) chapter 3. The girl in there is obviously lolicon. She's tiny, hairless, breastless... But she's 20-something and holds a steady job. Hmm... Illegal or not? At some point we get ridiculous measures like in Australia where girls with small breasts are no longer allowed to shoot porn. IMO that's not what we should aim for-it's something we should avoid. I see absolutely no harm whatsoever in giving pedophiles masturbatory material of legal women who happen to have growth defects, or non-real women.

 

[T-block]

^Wasn't a law passed in Australia about a minimum breast size requirement for women in porn because women with smaller breasts looked more like young girls? Or was that a joke? I can't remember lol

I'm also of the opinion that this should be fine because no children are being harmed. However, I do see the point that we may be sending a message that it's acceptable to lust after children. But really, if they're ****ed up enough to take it that way, they're probably ****ed up enough to obtain the stuff illegally anyways, right?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

^Wasn't a law passed in Australia about a minimum breast size requirement for women in porn because women with smaller breasts looked more like young girls? Or was that a joke? I can't remember lol

Yeah, this is real. And rather disturbing.

I'm also of the opinion that this should be fine because no children are being harmed. However, I do see the point that we may be sending a message that it's acceptable to lust after children.

Just like it's acceptable to lust after anything else. You just can't act on it in a reasonable way. I honestly think that more study should be put into "healthy" child-adult relationships... Has there been any study beyond recognizing that, reasonably enough, predatory relationships end in psychological trauma of the child?

Furthermore, even if it isn't acceptable to lust after children, they are going to do it anyways.

But really, if they're ****ed up enough to take it that way, they're probably ****ed up enough to obtain the stuff illegally anyways, right?

An interesting little point... When you illegalize their "way out", how many of them are going to say, "all right, let's just break the little law and hope we don't get caught"? No, I imagine more of them will say, "If I'm going to break the law, why not go all the way and cut to the chase?".

 

[Dre89]

BPC- You say that not many people are into little girls, well of course not, because they're not sexualised.


How many people in the west find women's ankles and wrists sexual? Not many, because they're not sexualised like they are (unintentionally) in the Middle East.

Not many people find obesity sexually appealing either, but there have been tribes that do find that attractive.

My point is that sexual preference is subject to environmental influence.

 

[_Keno_]

@ Dre. I agree, sexual preference is definitely greatly effected by the person's environment. That doesn't mean that women should be sexualised or that children shouldnt. IMO, bias against sexual preference should only exist if that pornography requires harm to produce.

It's incredibly hard to draw a line between "naturist material" and actual child pornography.

@ BPC This depends on your definition of pornography. If pictures of naked children considered CP, then is CP inherently bad? Or is it only bad if the children are harmed in order to make it?

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

@ BPC This depends on your definition of pornography. If pictures of naked children considered CP, then is CP inherently bad? Or is it only bad if the children are harmed in order to make it?

How can a victimless crime be inherently bad? Pictures of naked children are hardly inherently bad; the negative part is that children are being harmed in the process. Lolicon hentai effectively negates this problem.

 

[El Nino]

BPC- You say that not many people are into little girls, well of course not, because they're not sexualised.

Flip the cause and effect relationship on that statement and it would make more sense. I find it highly doubtful that media's sexualization of women is what causes heterosexual men and lesbian women to be attracted to the female form. I find it far more likely that heterosexual male attraction to females is what causes the sexualization of women in media. The people producing the media are responding to what they anticipate their audience will enjoy.

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

I'm with El Nino on this one. It's a notion that should certainly be entertained and looked into, but do you have any data on it that would point the causation in one way or another?

 

[blazedaces]

Flip the cause and effect relationship on that statement and it would make more sense. I find it highly doubtful that media's sexualization of women is what causes heterosexual men and lesbian women to be attracted to the female form. I find it far more likely that heterosexual male attraction to females is what causes the sexualization of women in media. The people producing the media are responding to what they anticipate their audience will enjoy.

Not sure if this is the entire movie, but here's a link to a very interesting documentary called "codes of gender" which discusses all forms of advertisements, how they are, what they mean about our culture, and how they perhaps originated: http://blip.tv/free-speech-tv/the-codes-of-gender-4681767

It seemed relevant, so enjoy.

It also covers the topic of how girls are often depicted as looking EXACTLY/dressed the same way as women... this almost never happens with boys/males.

Which in my mind brings up another question... while there is child male pornography for men... have you ever heard of women being attracted to little boys? It's at least a whole lot rarer...

-blazed

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Which in my mind brings up another question... while there is child male pornography for men... have you ever heard of women being attracted to little boys? It's at least a whole lot rarer...

-blazed

I'd pin it to the same cause that leads to men being far more likely to have some sort of kink or fetish. Don't quite know what that is, though.

 

[Crimson King]

The sole reason child porn is really illegal is because it profitizes the abuse of children. Since any nudity or pornography with children is illegal, then that doubles the crime of child porn. Animated anything doesn't harm anyone. Yes, it can lead to "worse" porn, I guess, but that is like saying marijuana or alcohol is a gateway drug. It'd vary from person to person, and you are essentially keeping something illegal or forbidden for the sake of something that didn't happen yet, in this case looking at real child porn.

Also, if you make lolicon the same as real child porn, you are making pedophiles just go straight for the real stuff, and thus, contribute to future videos.

 

[El Nino]

I'm with El Nino on this one. It's a notion that should certainly be entertained and looked into, but do you have any data on it that would point the causation in one way or another?

I know of one that is centered on the subject of homophobia, but the findings may still apply:

Men in both groups were aroused by about the same degree by the video depicting heterosexual sexual behavior and by the video showing two women engaged in sexual behavior. The only significant difference in degree of arousal between the two groups occurred when they viewed the video depicting male homosexual sex: 'The homophobic men showed a significant increase in penile circumference to the male homosexual video, but the control [nonhomophobic] men did not.'

http://www.philosophy-religion.org/handouts/homophobia.htm

The idea that images cause arousal would imply that all participants in the study would be about equally aroused by any sexualized images no matter what form. But in this case, only a portion of the subjects responded to depictions of male homosexuality, implying that the rest were not driven to arousal by sexualized images of this particular type because they were not already inclined towards it.

There's also a study in Egypt on sexual harassment of women and the burqa:

the study concluded that the majority of the victims of harassment were modestly dressed women wearing the hijab. Contrary to expectations, the male perpetrators made little distinction between women wearing a veil and those who were not.

http://camelswithhammers.com/2010/06/03/the-burqa-doesnt-stop-sexual-harassment/

Again, the implication here is that sexual interest is not necessarily caused directly by what is seen (though sexual harassment should not be confused with attraction or other forms of consensual sexual interest).

Which in my mind brings up another question... while there is child male pornography for men... have you ever heard of women being attracted to little boys?

Yes. There's this thing called "yaoi," which is basically gay male art for women, usually drawn in manga style. A subcategory within it is "shota," which is depiction of underaged males.

It may seem rare, but that's probably because it has less visibility that even lolita art.

(No, you don't want to know how I came to know this. )

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

Poju da bess. (you probably don't wanna google that)

 

[Dre89]

Flip the cause and effect relationship on that statement and it would make more sense. I find it highly doubtful that media's sexualization of women is what causes heterosexual men and lesbian women to be attracted to the female form. I find it far more likely that heterosexual male attraction to females is what causes the sexualization of women in media. The people producing the media are responding to what they anticipate their audience will enjoy.

But then every civilisation would be attracted to the exact same thing.

The media doesn't make men attracted to the female form, it influences what specific aspects of that form are sexually preferred. Like how Africans prefer legs over breasts, for example.

 

[Sucumbio]

Africans prefer legs over breasts, for example.

just when I think Dre.'s said it all, he breaks out with something else. lol!

 

[rvkevin]

The media doesn't make men attracted to the female form, it influences what specific aspects of that form are sexually preferred.

Citation needed.

 

[El Nino]

But then every civilisation would be attracted to the exact same thing.

I don't quite see how, based on the assertion I was making. Each civilization, or society, has its own culture, and its media would be expected to portray sexuality differently. For example, some people in the U.S. may comment that Japanese female pop singers often carry a childlike appearance. This is probably due to an aesthetic in the culture that favors "cuteness" in females more than a mature look. And even that is an oversimplification of the overall sexuality in the society.

The media doesn't make men attracted to the female form, it influences what specific aspects of that form are sexually preferred.

Then by that logic, media depicting the sexuality of minors would only influence those same aspects in people who are already attracted to children, as opposed to "turning" non-pedophiles into pedophiles.

Like how Africans prefer legs over breasts, for example.

Ok.

just when I think Dre.'s said it all, he breaks out with something else. lol!

And it's always related to sex. (I'm on to you, Dre..)

 

[Budget Player Cadet_]

But then every civilisation would be attracted to the exact same thing.

The media doesn't make men attracted to the female form, it influences what specific aspects of that form are sexually preferred. Like how Africans prefer legs over breasts, for example.

Funny thing... Gays were not prevalent in the media or pop culture at all for a very long time. Despite that, they still existed.. Jeez, I wonder why...

People's sexuality varies naturally, influenced by media or not.

 

[blazedaces]

Yes. There's this thing called "yaoi," which is basically gay male art for women, usually drawn in manga style. A subcategory within it is "shota," which is depiction of underaged males.

It may seem rare, but that's probably because it has less visibility that even lolita art.

(No, you don't want to know how I came to know this. )

Yes, I once took a sociology class titled "sex in society" and I recall someone mentioning this. It slipped my mind I guess. Good to know.

-blazed

 

[Dre89]

BPC- I never said all gays are gay because of the media, or that everyone of any particular sexuality comes from the environment where that sexuality is dominant, just that the environment has an influence.