Nabokov’s Pandora
Lolicon is a slang portmanteau of the phrase “Lolita complex”. In Japan, the term is used to describe an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person. Outside Japan, the term most often refers to a genre of manga and anime where childlike female characters are depicted in a sexualized manner or engaged in sexually explicit acts. The equivalent term for the sexualization of or attraction to young boys is shotacon.
As the genre created by and for men evolved, according to Kinsella, it moved from these cute, tough heroines towards depictions of girls as sexual victims: naked, helpless, fearful, sometimes bound or chained and was expanded into computer games and animated videos.
Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki stated in an interview with Animage in 1988 that while he prefers to make his protagonists girls, “It’s difficult. They immediately become the subjects of rorikon gokko (play toy for Lolita Complex guys). In a sense, if we want to depict someone who is affirmative to us, we have no choice but to make them as lovely as possible. But now, there are too many people who shamelessly depict (such heroines) as if they just want (such girls) as pets, and things are escalating more and more.”
Link: Lolicon–Wikipedia
The Loli Persuasion « Gilding the Lily said,
January 13, 2008 at 6:32 pm
[...] has been giving considerable amounts of time to pondering the sexuality of Lolicon and its moral/immoral–for a general and broad categorization–implications. Frankly, [...]
NOT SHOCKED AT ALL said,
March 29, 2008 at 6:22 pm
to be completely honest anyone thats offended or suprised by lolicon that involves bondage or S&M needs to get the fuck off my internets. lolicon is no different from any other fan genre, any form of entertainment is eventually parodied in some way, usually in some sexual manner. fetishists are amazing people and i applaud you and your lolicon bondage-rape-humiliation-torture pronz. FUCK YEAH!
[Gilding appreciates the applause, but perhaps some clear personal lines should be drawn here just to prevent future confusion. Gilding advocates "fetishism" as long as it is consensual by both participants. Gilding also draws the line that children are not capable of being a consensual participant. If one continues to read Gilding's blog, they will find that what Gilding defines a "child" as a child is both clear-cut and completely obscure and this is so because even for Gilding there is simply too much grey in some areas for the gradient to be so cut and dry. For this reason Gilding does see the need for oftentimes overly strict laws.
Quite literally a child under the age of 16, in Gilding's opinion, is off limits--in terms of physical and verbal sexual interaction. At the age of 16 is where things get blurry. As early as 30 years ago it was still common practice for 13 year old girls to get married off. However, Gilding feels that today's society, societal values, and access to information--correct, incorrect, or far to graphic, or otherwise--breeds adolescents that are far too knowledgeable and more immature than any societal generation before. For that reason, Gilding feels there should be a distinctly safe line that says " no touchy-touchy" if 15 or younger.
But at 16 things get a little hazy. The hormones are changing, running rampant, and furthermore, amok, in both sexes by--actually before--the age of 16. Many are too immature even still to perform in sexual acts, while others are mature enough. And that is where the parents and the relationship they have with their children along with all those values they should be teaching and instilling in them should take over. Since, however, there are more bad parents than there are good parents, the law has taken the foothold and stepped in as the parent. And while it [the law] in many cases is too strict, unbending, and in some cases harmful or used as a tool for authoritative vengence, Gilding cannot yet see another alternative that enforces the safety of children than that which is legally enacted right now.
All this speaks to the physical action of sexual involvement with what would be live-action lolicon/shotacon.
While Gilding doesn’t particularly find the lolicon/shotacon that most often appears on the internet as being something that sexually entices her, she is too much an advocate of “freedom of speech” to push to have such images removed–as long as they are drawn depictions, such as is specific to lolicon. Gilding does not advocate child pornography and, yes, Gilding does believe there is a difference in taking photographs or video of children in sexually explicit positions, actions, or deeds, and that of drawing children in those positions. In the former, a child is actually being harmed. In the later, only a pencil.
Now, many will argue that even allowing such imagery, even if it is drawn, leads to, what is legally termed, “sexually deviant behavior.” This arguement has long been in debate in regards to adult pornography and rape, and as such, studies have been inconclusive–both supporting and debunking depending on the study. So once more, Gilding advocates that our “freedom of speech” is to precious and precarious a right to censor lolicon articles regardless of an individuals personal feelings towards it.
Gilding feels towards lolicon the way she feels towards most things that come under the fire of censorship–if it offends you, you don’t have to look at it; if you enjoy it, make sure you’re not harming anyone else with it. There has to be a level of personal responsibility and concern for your fellow men/women with the things you do. So, don’t fuck children and you can look at all the drawings of children being fucked you want. For those that find lolicon/shotacon offensive, then don’t look at it, and make sure you don’t fuck children.
~<3 Gilding]