Hard to say.
I don't care if characters are under aged, but if they go below 15, then that is too much. <.<

Yo, Ares6! Yeah, I've read and loved Tokyo Akazukin -- I believe I even left a really long, gushing and rather perverse review of it over here.

I might as well take this chance to respond to some of the other comments made here.

Frankly, it surprises me that people get so worked up about even implied lolicon. There are much stranger things out there. There's hentai porn that features people being beheaded; there's porn that features prolonged torture sessions with chainsaws and nail clippers. (Okay, I haven't read about the nail clippers yet -- but I'm sure I will, one day!)

You see, the point I'm trying to make is that it's ridiculous to censor the human mind. Or to get upset about what other people are thinking. That's just silly. If anything, we should get upset about what people are doing. I'm far more concerned about real children being abused, and real people being murdered. A girl in a loli manga is just a bit of ink on paper. If people are having depraved thoughts about her, that's their prerogative. As long as no one's abusing actual children, there's no problem.

Who cares if my neighbor's fantasizing about his wife's poodle? Who cares if he locks himself up in his attic every night and reads comics about little girls in dog costumes?

As long as he doesn't actually do anything to any child, he's no enemy of mine. Everyone should have the freedom to enjoy their manga. It's -- whatchamacallit -- an inalienable right. I can't stand it when bigots start witch-hunting perfectly law-abiding citizens simply because they're reading strange comics. What the hell? They're comics, man. A manga is a kind of comic. Reading a comic isn't a crime.

To say that people who read loli or shota are pedophiles is the same thing as saying that people who enjoy MPD Psycho are psychos. It's an argument that just doesn't work.

It's also ridiculous to claim that artists who create lolicon or shotacon are pedophiles. For example, Toni Morrison won the Nobel Prize, and she depicted the rape of a child in explicit detail, in her novel The Bluest Eye. But it was fictional rape, and so no one started yelling that Morrison was a pedophile. After all, it was just a story.

It's the same thing with manga, people. A manga about shotacon is just a story. The mangaka shouldn't automatically be condemned for that.

Catharsis is not criminal. Well, not unless it translates itself into action, anyway.

That's why I agree with Charlox. We're a species capable of reflecting on our actions and controlling them. No one deserves to be condemned for dark thoughts. They only need to be condemned for destructive actions.

Last edited by pearlesque at 5:15 pm, Jun 11 2007

________________
"They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm." - Dorothy Parker.

I have to say neither ...but if it is bxb love I don't mind shota to some degree, say Loveless for example

Yeah, Loveless is alright with me cuz Ritsuka's 12, a preteen at least!
Just younger ones like toddlers and stuff bother me


________________
(\__/)
(+'.'+) <(Kufufufu~)
(")_(")
This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination!

omg. I voted for shota but NEVER for toddlers and stuff! I was thinking shota like - 12-17 years old. toddlers?? otakubaybay, really. lol Nasty. I guess what you perceive to be shota depends on your own age..?



________________

The only one I read is Kodomo no Jikan.

Ichigo Mashimaro and Kyou no Go ni are also very funny, and with cute lolis.

lol 12-17 is fine I was judging off of the only shota oneshot I read which had this toddler and it was just sick I was seriously feeling physically sick just reading it. It was the third or so oneshot in Minami Haruka's Koibito Shigan. Absolutely sick. The seme was hot, but he was also around 20 years old and dating the little boy's older sister! Nasty, nasty, nasty...


________________
(\__/)
(+'.'+) <(Kufufufu~)
(")_(")
This is Bunny. Copy and paste Bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination!

lolicon, but it has its limits, no toddlers, no tentacles, no rape. personally, I prefer highschool themed hentai. but its still considered loli if they are 1st or 2nd yrs. at least a 3rd year has a possibility of being legal tho

as for normal anime, I like the turn most are taking in making highschool characters look really loli. even tho its a fad that will be over with most likely by next year. I'm still lovin it lol.

lucky star anyone? I love the episode at the beach where konata wears an middle school swimsuit and talks about "special needs" people i.e. most of us here.

Do you think Toni Morrison also got protection.because she's Oprah's favourite author? But after Oprah screwed up with James Fry's autobiography I think she did lose credibility by people that don't worship the ground she wants on or think that everything out of her mouth is gold. But there was this guy that in the city of Toronto that he raped and murdered this little girl and he had been watching child porn before doing so (well just because it's drawings might not make it so different than taking photos or filming the actual stuff). And then to get rid of her body he went so far as to saw off her legs and I think he might have cut up some more of her and threw it in the river. ...

But there was a guy in my city that got charged because of a bunch of anime and manga that he had did have pedophilic acts performed on babies and underage girls I think. My older sister was saying that USA's lawsrequire that a real minor/human being that gets violated but where he was it was not the case, and he plead guilty probably to spare himself the embarassment of the matter being in the media more.

And after watching when Lynette had to deal with a pedophile early last season in Desperate Housewives, I can't say "yeah, yeah, you watch pedophile stuff even if it's not real but I'm [b]totally, totally]/b] okay with it". I don't know if parents with children or know about a child they care about are okay with keeping frequent company with an older person that reads lots of manga with (maybe even glorified) sexual violence against children. My thoughts on it, anyhow.

________________
My avatar was Yves Saint Laurent's The Black Evening Dress (with big bow) first shown in 1983, photographed from his 2002 retrospective and final show. [color=#CC0066]Check out some of his collections for free (pre-2008) HERE[/color] courtesy of FirstView.

Sad, but some people are sick like that. It doesn't have anything to do with fictional lolicon really. As proof, I'm pretty sure no one reads berserk and goes out to maim people.



I think I read about that. He was on parole for having real child porn. Part of his terms were he couldn't have any porn, but when they searched his computer they found real child porn as well as lolicon.

If anything, I would think him switching to lolicon would be FAR less destructive, but thats just my opinion.



Don't base your opinions on fiction.

Takiko, seriously... Toni Morrison's been writing for a lot longer than Oprah's been famous. Oprah is hardly God... Her favor wouldn't make much of a difference if people took serious offense at Morrison's work. And in any case, Oprah's influence certainly couldn't have netted Morrison a Nobel nomination!

And I agree with Conquestor.

Firstly, owning real child porn is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from owning cartoons or comics. Real child porn harms real children by filming them, and placing them in sexual situations -- whereas manga doesn't harm any real children. Like I said before, it's just ink on paper.

Secondly, it is possible that some owners of lolicon might indeed be child rapists. But then again, some owners of Silence of the Lambs might be cannibals, too. Some owners of violent video games do turn out to be murderers. (Take Columbine, for example...)

However, that doesn't make the ownership of violent video games a symptom of a murderer. There are plenty of people who play shoot-em-up games without ever thinking of harming a real person.

Similarly, owning a lolicon manga doesn't make the owner a pedophile. Owning a manga doesn't mean anything. I love MPD Psycho, for example, but I ain't no psychopath!

Committing a crime is very different from reading about it. There are plenty of television shows that depict sexual and violent crimes, but no one bans them altogether -- because internally, everyone recognizes that simple exposure to fiction does not cause criminal behavior. The choice to commit a crime is a very individual one, and no work of fiction can make anyone do anything.

In the end, whether someone chooses to follow in Hannibal's footsteps isn't because they watched Silence of the Lambs. People with a tendency towards destructive behavior may use such works of fiction as excuses, but the fact of the matter is that they were already willing to harm others. No fictional work could have aroused this inclination in them, were it not there in the first place. Like Conquestor said, there are some people out there who are disturbed or ill -- but their actions are not directly tied to any work of fiction. It's impossible for fiction to control anyone's actions.

If we make the silly mistake of taking every fictional injustice as a real one, then we'll end up banning 99% percent of the novels, movies, art and music produced by the mass media.

Let me give you an example. I think that using child soldiers is wrong. It's an abuse of childhood, and it can permanently scar a child's developing mind. But various manga titles, such as Evangelion and Gunslinger Girl, brutally depict the lives of child soldiers. Some novels, such as Ender's Game, do the same.

Does that make these stories wrong? Of course not. They are dealing with fictional children. Artistic license demands freedom of expression. It is the right of any mangaka to deal with absolutely any topic under the sun, in a manner that suits their imaginations.

As long as no real victims are involved, fiction is fiction and art is art. It does no harm. If anything, it allows us a safer outlet for our darker instincts. It's a lot better to be playing a violent video game, for example, than to be going out on the streets with a real gun.

In my opinion, that is precisely why so much art (be it music, film or literature) contains controversial themes and disturbing emotions. We, as humans, seek to explore our natures through art. Since art harms no real human beings, it is the safest and most non-violent way to express ourselves.


Last edited by pearlesque at 11:20 am, Jun 14 2007

________________
"They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm." - Dorothy Parker.

Huh... You know what -- I guess I'm just playing devil's advocate here, but -- some art does influence human behavior. After all, commercial advertisements and government propaganda are proof of the fact that fiction can be powerful.

But I still hold to my argument that it's impossible to actually induce someone to commit a violent crime just by making them read a manga. Haha... That would be impossible! I've read so much Berserk that I would surely be a mass murderer by now, if a manga could control my thoughts...

Since I'm still a pacifist and a wimp, I have to say that none of the violent manga I've read has induced me to break any laws. Lol.

And none of the hentai manga I've read has made me consider sex with cephalopods!

________________
"They sicken of the calm, who knew the storm." - Dorothy Parker.

Hats off to pearlesque, very impressive posts. I totally agree, but my oppinion might be biased.

Though, as much as I find myself defending this view (particularly with video games in the past) I can't say I can disproove that certain fiction could encourage an already unstable or disturbed mind to convince themselves it is acceptable in real life, etc. I don't want to delve deeper without thinking about it or giving evidence.

Although you're not directly saying that I want to ban books, but I feel the need to say that I'm not saying to ban books. I think there are some groups that want to ban Harry Potter because it has "witchcraft" in it. Really, I've only watched the movies but I was thinking when this person that had written to Time magazine that would be that reason "there [would] be no Harry Potter in [that] house", I was thinking there was graphic depictions of skinning frogs.

What I'm also saying is that just because it's fiction doesn't mean I have to be totally okay with a guy reading porn next to me on the train (a friend who lived in Japan for a year was still...at least a bit when she sees this).

And I don't think society could eventually be "okay" with people reading porn with underage people even if it's fiction because although pedophiles go to jail, unless they commit murder they will come out after 10 years, and do it over again (well, I don't have the stats on repeat offenders or if I did I don't remember it clearly but I semi-remember that they will do it again. And the matters of the priests show that they definitely do it again if they get away with it and are free to do so). It might be the difference between apples and oranges (which admittedly I can barely distinguish the "difference" out between these two everytime someone uses this analogy), but I don't think people can see the fiction and the non-fiction as the difference between black and white.


Don't base your opinions on fiction.[/quote]
But actually, truth is even weirder or much worse than fiction. There a few FBI-documentary-type shows that record how murders take place, just like the first one I mentioned about the young girl.

And pearleque, I know you (since you clarified it) and I don't think Oprah is almost God, but there seems to be some of her viewers or at least her studio audience do. I remember one person mentioning about Oprah is at least surprised by the biography her father is writing since she received some notice and the person wrote "all she has to do is say the word" and I/we (I guess America or her fans) won't buy the book. For me, if I wanted to read the book, I'd maybe bother to factor in Oprah's opinion and do what I really want regarding what she said.

But in terms of dicussion, I think for the tolerance of underage sexual fiction this dicussion won't move very much if we are trying to persuade each other. But I guess I sort of wonder about the novels that have underage kids in graphic sexual situations. The historical ones get overlooked a bit when the character is 16 because of, I guess, the way things were with people dying and marrying and such earlier. I think the best-sellers get people outraged enough for the screams to be heard (and enough for the media to cover it) because there are people thinking that "The Secret" is like a scam to sell books and tapes on it. Hannah Sung didn't like "The Secret" because in the film it has the viewer's goal to get material things like money and houses, instead of more self-help or inspiration messages. But I don't know if there's fiction or novels about really young underage kids (ones that wouldn't be legal for the age of consent anywhere like 10 years and under), but if some company would publish that, that would probably be for a small audience. But maybe that kind of audience just prefers the visual medium for that? :x @_@

________________
My avatar was Yves Saint Laurent's The Black Evening Dress (with big bow) first shown in 1983, photographed from his 2002 retrospective and final show. [color=#CC0066]Check out some of his collections for free (pre-2008) HERE[/color] courtesy of FirstView.

Not all of them are neither graphic nor explicit, but a great part do fall in that categorization.


Any topic that discusses the sexuality of minors is a controversial one in the western culture.


That is well known fact (read "Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan" for more information).


Actually, in the Western world shotacon is the "sexualization" of prepubertal boys in anime/manga.


It happens often. If it wasn't for a previous commentary, I too, wouldn't have posted.


I know what you mean. I once saw a 15 years old that looked like she was 30! (I'm not joking). It can be that she had led life too fast to her youth to catch up...
And tell your friend that you only use that term if the girl in question is a prepubertal one, not only underage.


That's kind of scary. I'll ask you the same question I've made a couple of times here: why do you like this horrendous genre of manga? I can understand yaoi or shotacon, but GURO?


This is actually the commentary that made me post.
I believed that I was the only here that thought that: a person gets shocked when they discuss lolicon, but they disregard guro. In fact, in the occidental world, it is completely OK to make the most horrendous guro manga or the most shocking snuff movie, as long as it doesn't depict minors. But the same ones that allow that are preaching the sanctity of life...this is what really bothers me.

And what really get me on my nerves are commentaries like some posted here, that suggest indirectly that the Japanese are "pedophiles and perverts" for thinking in the way they do. I've seen TONS of posts of this kind in others forums and websites and they are not "harmless": Thanks to people like that manga is being censured, like the recent controversy of Nymphet. The problem is that this manga don't feature an adult trying to seduce a child but the opposite: "NYMPHET is a story about a mischievous young girl who tries to sexually entrap her teacher".
If that's so...why was canceled and why so many people have said that this title would ruin the reputation of manga in general if it were to be released because it is so indecent?
The japanese would be surprised and shocked to hear that Kodomo no Jikan is charged with that serious accusations. After all, mangas like that are mainstream and that genre is one of the pillars of modern anime/manga.

I'd have to agree with Matthew here:
"As North Americans imagine it, children are not sexual beings. Sexual contact (even if only potential) between adults and children has to be framed as an adult pervert exploiting an innocent child victim. That's just the way it is and the way you're required to think about it. You are not allowed to frame it in other terms. If you do, no matter how strong the facts may be on your side, it's you that is wrong, not the social construction. Those statements are made explicit in sources like R. v. Sharpe with its talk of "cognitive distortions": there are some thoughts that are the wrong thoughts to think, and a child as sexual instigator instead of sexual victim - indeed, a child as anything but an object - is one of those wrong thoughts. Good people aren't allowed to think that."

But nothing is surprising anymore after reading what American authorities did in the "Self-Pedophile" case. All things have limits, but this has surpassed them all. But I'm sure that a lot of people are pretty satisfied with how things are in this moment. Oh well, as long as the Japanese don't begin to feel pressured by the western powers to change its customs and culture to fit the occidental ideal of morality all of this can be tolerated, I guess...

________________