First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
Lolicon PSA - An in-depth analysis
Posted 2/8/14

chrishansen wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

This is such a presumptuous thread, I don't even know where to start.


So, if I like watching a loli anime (like Lucky Star), that must mean I'm sexually into children? What kind of failed logic?

People like you who want to censor art are the most annoying. Art is art, real life is real life. What I write in my fictional works has nothing to do with real life. If I like writing about rape, I shall do that, I don't need people like you to judge me whether I find rape in real life acceptable.


There is a huge differences between lolis in anime and lolicon. Lolicon by definition features the explicit sexualiztion of prepubescent girls. There is no problem with no lolis in anime. We only have a probably when you are saying it okay for children to be sexually assaulted because its only fantasy. Lucky Star does not even come close to crossing this threshold. Examples in mainstream anime include a 10 year girl being groped/assaulted against her will and joking that she is no longer pure as a running gag in Bakemonogatari. I think part of the problem is people don't properly define what lolicon is, sexualizing and sexually abusing fictional anime children.


i can't remember the amount of times konata or other characters refer to mizuki(or was it miyuki?)'s boobs. if that isn't sexualization, idk what is.

so basically, anybody who likes lucky star must all be into little kids' breastesses.
81337 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Inside Lorreen's...
Offline
Posted 2/8/14

aidenraine wrote:

it's a topic better left in the graveyard.


But if we do that then the Zombies will get the conversation and keep it going forever with their slow grunts and grr's. You know like the old folks home and The War?
GerryO 
19624 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Tyler, Texas
Offline
Posted 2/8/14 , edited 2/8/14
eh alrighty chrishansen I'm with you on this one, I'm really uncomfortable with Lolis in general in anime as well, but whatever the rest of yall can continue ogling your pre-pubescent anime childeren characters all ya want I don't really care
3202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M / Stamford, Connect...
Online
Posted 2/8/14 , edited 2/8/14

GayAsianBoy wrote:


chrishansen wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

This is such a presumptuous thread, I don't even know where to start.


So, if I like watching a loli anime (like Lucky Star), that must mean I'm sexually into children? What kind of failed logic?

People like you who want to censor art are the most annoying. Art is art, real life is real life. What I write in my fictional works has nothing to do with real life. If I like writing about rape, I shall do that, I don't need people like you to judge me whether I find rape in real life acceptable.


There is a huge differences between lolis in anime and lolicon. Lolicon by definition features the explicit sexualiztion of prepubescent girls. There is no problem with no lolis in anime. We only have a probably when you are saying it okay for children to be sexually assaulted because its only fantasy. Lucky Star does not even come close to crossing this threshold. Examples in mainstream anime include a 10 year girl being groped/assaulted against her will and joking that she is no longer pure as a running gag in Bakemonogatari. I think part of the problem is people don't properly define what lolicon is, sexualizing and sexually abusing fictional anime children.


i can't remember the amount of times konata or other characters refer to mizuki(or was it miyuki?)'s boobs. if that isn't sexualization, idk what is.

so basically, anybody who likes lucky star must all be into little kids' breastesses.



The key word here is explicit meaning pornographic or involving some sort of sexual assault. Is there some sexual humor poking fun at her petite sexual characteristics? Sure, but she and all of the Lucky Star girls are in highschool. Lolicon focuses primarily on elementary school aged lolis - being prepubescent is key. High schools girls are not prepubescent - petite build or not. This is just playful fanservice mostly.

I think the bigger issue is lolicon and lolis are not clearly defined. For example petite highschoolers such as Yuki from Haruhi I wouldn't consider a loli since she's high age and has some secondary sexual characteristics. I am really only concerned by the really explicit stuff such as sexual assault or nudity, although really severe sexual pandering can get tiresome.

Also that one person arguing that the loli consented in Bakemonogatari. Problem is elementary school girls can't consent to sexual acts, and I'm pretty sure the general public agrees there's a good reason why that's true.
12636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 2/8/14

Rohzek wrote:

I see where Chris Hansen is coming from. And I agree a lot with the Youtube video by Douchebagchocolate (btw, if you haven't watched his series on the original Neon Genesis Evangelion vs. the Rebuild series, I highly recommend it. He has excellent analysis).

What is and isn't moral is very much subjective in a lot of ways (I would argue not entirely though). It's a pretty simple question, but a very deeply philosophical one.

For sure, no one is being harmed in any way, shape, or fashion. The individual is merely attracted to a cartoon character who is well underage. Nevertheless, is the basis for all morality simply that which harms others is wrong? I can see that criteria as very useful for a political philosophy. However, personal morality tends to go a bit further. For example, when a lost child is crying in the middle of a city square and you happen to pass by, you have two options: help the lost child find his/her parents, or walk away. You don't harm the other individual, either choice you make. But I think most of us would agree that helping the kid find their parent(s) or getting a cop to help would be the just and moral thing to do.

I think I have established (however bleakly) some basis for moral realism (which runs counter to the idea that morality is 100% subjective). Furthermore, no one is calling for legislation against this kind of entertainment. And quite frankly, I think it would be the wrong way to approach the issue. Nevertheless, I think it is worth while for Chris and others like Douchebagchocolate to ask the rest of us (the consumer) to pause for a moment and really consider the issue, AND to think to ourselves for a moment if liking such things is really okay.

Now some have suggested that this is an issue on par with violent video games. That's an interesting point. I've played Dishonored over four times now in various ways. I've killed many people in this game very much indiscriminately. For sure, I'm not gonna go out and start killing people in real life. Should I still feel moral guilt though? Honestly, I don't think I should, and I don't actually. So maybe I'm being a hypocrite here. I'm asking others to feel some sort of shame for indulging in something that would be totally wrong in real life, while I don't hold myself to the same standard when it comes to taking a life.

I feel there is some sort of difference, although I can't point it out exactly. Hopefully, psychology would be able to shed more light some day. Maybe its because I just don't see how it is simply possible for someone to feel aroused by sexualized fictional children, and not feel the same way about real world children. That's not to say that it will result in a real world sexual assault, but still the idea of someone thinking like that is a bit disturbing. And there is something to be said for entertainment mediums influencing their audiences. It doesn't mean the audience is gonna turn into a bunch of criminals. It does leave a lasting impression however.


Finally. Mostly agree with. you there.


jarrettkk wrote:

Chris Hansen, you're arguments sound like communism. I mean correct me if I'm wrong here, but you're saying that there are things that shouldn't even be depicted in an artistic medium? That's baloney! Artistic media like anime, video games, books and movies are exactly the place to depict things that are taboo in real life exactly BECAUSE they're taboo in real life; that's what makes it interesting- I think you're missing the point of fantasy. Next you're going to be telling me that I shouldn't say or think certain things because an open dialogue about a taboo subject is bad.


sexualization of fictional anime children in a positive light is harmful as just an idea even if it translates to lack of action to victimize a real world child.


The notion that something can be harmful AS AN IDEA is utterly, completely ridiculous. And besides, if you're going to make the argument that sexualization of fantasy children is bad - I think you're priorities are in the wrong place. Shouldn't you be more concerned about the glorification of murder in artistic media? Surely in your logic - that's harmful AS AN IDEA and I think we can all agree that the glorification of murder is worse than the sexualization of children. Note that I have no problem with murder in artistic media, I'm simply arguing from you're point of view.

Saying that some things shouldn't be depicted in media? Clearly must be an idea recently invented by puritan censor mongers! What's wrong with feeling some things should be taboo, even for art? What's wrong with thinking some art is disgusting? The answer to both of those questions is "nothing".
The glorification of murder, revenge, thieves, and lolicon bothers me.
When I play video games, I try to play with some resemblance to morals in real life.
8515 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Illinois
Offline
Posted 2/8/14

aidenraine wrote:


Rohzek wrote:


aidenraine wrote:

so... why is this BLATANTLY OBVIOUS troll post still around, again?


As trollish as it might be, I think it is a topic worth discussing.


it's a dead horse that's been beaten many times before, and any discussion never goes anywhere. the one group insists that since loli goes against their moral beliefs, which are obviously the only correct ones, that anyone who likes it is a pedophile child molester that should be thrown in a mental institution. the other group thinks those people need to lighten up. it always turns into some kind of flame war. it's a topic better left in the graveyard.


Agreed. Anytime anything has to do with 'children' people flip out. People have become so protective of them because of what they see on the news. When I was 12 my mom gave me 100 dollars and told me to go spend a day in Chicago with a friend. I remember that day very fondly. We ended up getting on a wrong bus while in the city and had to flag a cab. The cabby looked at us like we were crazy and insisted he see the money before we went anywhere. Not too long ago there was a news article about parents throwing a fit after finding out a mother had sent her child into new york city alone.

Same argument is used for guns. I once posted a story online about a father who had brought his very young daughter to the range. She was firing some mini pink colored 22 lr rifle. People acted like he handed her a live grenade with a pin pulled out of it.

Nobody wants to loose their child to a pedophile or a shooter. That fear overrides logic and people begin to use emotions rather than reasoning. They hear on the news or online about this minority group of people who get off on pictures of little cartoon girls and the fear center in their brain lights up. Statistics, or lack thereof means nothing anymore.

I am a fan of loli anime but I have limits. I detest toddlercon, guro, rape, murder, and any other situations that cause harm to the loli. I find it disgusting. I however realize that this is fiction. If people like this stuff I FULLY support their right to read / view it. It is not a crime to THINK of something. I hope I never live to see the day where some agency can read brainwave patterns and starts arresting people for thought crimes. You can look it up. Companies are already developing technology that can do just that.

There are a lot of different things a lot of different people find disgusting. I don't like it is not a valid excuse to deprive someone else the right to read or watch whatever the want. You hear a lot of people in the news blaming shootings on anything from video games to movies. Correlation does not equal causation. People make loli anime seem like the 'gateway drug' into full blown child molestation and there is no evidence to support this fact.

Also here's some Akatsuki for you good sir.


12636 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
30 / M / Marshall, Michigan
Offline
Posted 2/8/14

GayAsianBoy wrote:


chrishansen wrote:


GayAsianBoy wrote:

This is such a presumptuous thread, I don't even know where to start.


So, if I like watching a loli anime (like Lucky Star), that must mean I'm sexually into children? What kind of failed logic?

People like you who want to censor art are the most annoying. Art is art, real life is real life. What I write in my fictional works has nothing to do with real life. If I like writing about rape, I shall do that, I don't need people like you to judge me whether I find rape in real life acceptable.


There is a huge differences between lolis in anime and lolicon. Lolicon by definition features the explicit sexualiztion of prepubescent girls. There is no problem with no lolis in anime. We only have a probably when you are saying it okay for children to be sexually assaulted because its only fantasy. Lucky Star does not even come close to crossing this threshold. Examples in mainstream anime include a 10 year girl being groped/assaulted against her will and joking that she is no longer pure as a running gag in Bakemonogatari. I think part of the problem is people don't properly define what lolicon is, sexualizing and sexually abusing fictional anime children.


i can't remember the amount of times konata or other characters refer to mizuki(or was it miyuki?)'s boobs. if that isn't sexualization, idk what is.

so basically, anybody who likes lucky star must all be into little kids' breastesses.


No, I liked most of lucky star, but not those parts. Also, how many times did they actually show boobs/chests on Lucky Star?
3202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M / Stamford, Connect...
Online
Posted 2/8/14 , edited 2/8/14

vangosroth wrote:


aidenraine wrote:


Rohzek wrote:


aidenraine wrote:

so... why is this BLATANTLY OBVIOUS troll post still around, again?


As trollish as it might be, I think it is a topic worth discussing.


...

Nobody wants to loose their child to a pedophile or a shooter. That fear overrides logic and people begin to use emotions rather than reasoning. They hear on the news or online about this minority group of people who get off on pictures of little cartoon girls and the fear center in their brain lights up. Statistics, or lack thereof means nothing anymore.

I am a fan of loli anime but I have limits. I detest toddlercon, guro, rape, murder, and any other situations that cause harm to the loli. I find it disgusting. I however realize that this is fiction. If people like this stuff I FULLY support their right to read / view it. It is not a crime to THINK of something. I hope I never live to see the day where some agency can read brainwave patterns and starts arresting people for thought crimes. You can look it up. Companies are already developing technology that can do just that.

There are a lot of different things a lot of different people find disgusting. I don't like it is not a valid excuse to deprive someone else the right to read or watch whatever the want. You hear a lot of people in the news blaming shootings on anything from video games to movies. Correlation does not equal causation. People make loli anime seem like the 'gateway drug' into full blown child molestation and there is no evidence to support this fact.

Also here's some Akatsuki for you good sir.





Honestly, its really only what you can the toddler con, hardcore elementary school girl sexualization and sexual assault, that really needs to go. I'm not demonizing highschool or other postpubescent fanservice of more petite bodied girls. Its really the only hardcore sexualization of elementary aged girls that is the biggest issue her. Yes, it is fantasy, and there's no victim, but it the mindset that the sort of content is morally acceptable by the anime community is more concerning than the fear caused by the unlikely event of this translating into the victimization of real world children. It is the threat of hardcore sexual fanservice of elementary school children becoming more and more popular in mainstream anime and being accepted morally by the anime community that is most troublesome.
9785 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / Ohio
Offline
Posted 2/8/14
a lolicon does not by definition only relate to anime lmao and jsut becasue someone thinks a character is cute which i think alot of loli characters are does not mean those ppl are pedophiles i for one fucking hate everything aobut kids and dont get any kind of sexual arousal from looking at annoying as non attractive kids
Posted 2/8/14

jtjumper wrote:

No, I liked most of lucky star, but not those parts. Also, how many times did they actually show boobs/chests on Lucky Star?


they don't show it explicitly, but there was a scene where they bathed together and they were fully naked.

but since the OP doesn't consider lucky star a loli anime, i suppose there's no point in me continuing this debate. i suppose it doesn't matter if a character looks 8, as long as the author says she's aged 18, then it's perfectly fine.
22406 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / CR Forums
Online
Posted 2/8/14
What are your views on cloned children? Are they fair game if their bodies never age? Even if we engineered it to happen?


Ok, I just wanted to post that picture is all. This reminds me of an argument I heard about Double Zeta before I saw the show.
3202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M / Stamford, Connect...
Online
Posted 2/8/14 , edited 2/8/14

GayAsianBoy wrote:


jtjumper wrote:

No, I liked most of lucky star, but not those parts. Also, how many times did they actually show boobs/chests on Lucky Star?


they don't show it explicitly, but there was a scene where they bathed together and they were fully naked.

but since the OP doesn't consider lucky star a loli anime, i suppose there's no point in me continuing this debate. i suppose it doesn't matter if a character looks 8, as long as the author says she's aged 18, then it's perfectly fine.


It is an obvious gray area, but Lucky Star's fanservice doesn't ever cross the line into hardcore sexualization or sexual assault of pre-puberty girls. Sure, there is some sexual fanservice, but nothing akin to groping an elementary school girl against her will and saying that he robbed her of her sexual purity or bathing with girl who like they are age 8-11 when he is in highschool like what happened in Bakemonogatari. To make it worse, this elementary school girl eventually falls in love with her sexual abuser.
35286 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / http://myanimelis...
Offline
Posted 2/8/14 , edited 2/8/14
Well.....Why should give a damn about what you or the general public thinks? If we love lolis then we love them. How exactly does liking mature woman make you guys better than us?
Same goes for 2D love. You wanna stick to your 3D then go ahead, but I only love 2D, no matter how many 3D females approach me I'll never feel love for them. This doesn't make me any lower than you, it's all you guys' opinion/preference.


Stonewolfe wrote:

Honestly... too long didn't read... but here ya go!



Great summary for my thoughts.
Also, Hina-chan~~ <3 (good comment, was just thinking of re-watching something, off to re-watch PapaKiki =w=)
8515 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Illinois
Offline
Posted 2/8/14 , edited 2/8/14

chrishansen
It is an obvious gray area, but Lucky Star's fanservice doesn't ever cross the line into hardcore sexualization or sexual assault of pre-puberty girls. Sure, there is some sexual fanservice, but nothing akin to groping an elementary school girl against her will and saying that he robbed her of her sexual purity or bathing with girl who like they are age 8-11 when he is in highschool like what happened in Bakemonogatari. To make it worse, this elementary school girl eventually falls in love with her sexual abuser.




3202 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
57 / M / Stamford, Connect...
Online
Posted 2/8/14 , edited 2/8/14

TsunLemon wrote:

Well.....Why should give a damn about what you or the general public thinks? If we love lolis then we love them. How exactly does liking mature woman make you guys better than us?
Same goes for 2D love. You wanna stick to your 3D then go ahead, but I only love 2D, no matter how many 3D females approach me I'll never feel love for them. This doesn't make me any lower than you, it's all you guys' opinion/preference.


Stonewolfe wrote:

Honestly... too long didn't read... but here ya go!



Great summary for my thoughts.


Lolis =/= lolicon. According to wikipedia, lolicon is the sexual attraction and fetishization of pre-prebuscent aged girls, typically aged 5-11. If you think it is okay to create anime for people to satisfy people this kind of sexual desire, by all means be a proponent of lolicon. Essentially this is fictional pedophilic content aimed towards people who are sexually attracted to animated children.

Good to hear from you PagalOfWhiskey; it's been a while, and I agree that part of the problem is lolicon is not clearly defined. I am really only concerned about the more severe, hardcore content that depicts sexual assault or pornographic content. It's usually only the former that can make it into mainstream non-hentai anime at the moment, but if the trend continue I wouldn't be shocked to even see frontal nudity soon.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.