AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > Anime Related Topics > General Anime

Notices

View Poll Results: Lolicon, lolicon. Ok or not?
Yes. it's ok. There's no harm, it's just a drawing. 36 42.35%
Don't care, or I'm on the fence about this. 31 36.47%
No, it's hurtful to anime and/or real life children. 18 21.18%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2004-12-12, 11:36   Link #441
TronDD
Team the box!
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Badside
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekodar
I believe some of you needs to read a dictionary definition of the japanese lolicon.

The edict one have:
ロリコン (n) Lolita complex; sexual attraction to children; paedophile
We went through this some number of pages ago. Near the beginning of the thread. The original term 'lolita complex', the Japanese adaption 'loli-con', and the American adaption of that Japanese term are different in meaning.
TronDD is offline  
Old 2004-12-12, 12:15   Link #442
Charles Martel
I kick some major @$$!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Amsterdam, EU!!!!!!
Age: 32
Loli rulez. It's not real for crying out lout. besides that it has been judged by the law. CCS is still ok but I H8 the younger stuff now that's sick Besides that i don't see anything wrong with it.

Last edited by Charles Martel; 2004-12-12 at 12:25.
Charles Martel is offline  
Old 2004-12-12, 12:22   Link #443
dreamless
/Ultimate Magic Attack!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Time Warp/Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by nekodar
I believe some of you needs to read a dictionary definition of the japanese lolicon.

The edict one have:
ロリコン (n) Lolita complex; sexual attraction to children; paedophile
I guess I'll borrow Thany's line
Quote:
If you don't know what the hell you're are talking about, just don't reply to this thread.
anyway in the Japanese dictionary it says the word "otaku" means geek and nerd. Let's just say the japanese general public does not approve of the general ACG culture, so they'll label them with derogatory terms in their dictionary. So if we go by the japanese dictionary which represents the idea of the japanese general public, then all adults should stop watching animes and all otakus should be "reformed"

Quote:
Originally Posted by bayoab
Not my problem if you misuse it and get misunderstood as a result. (Yes, I am aware of the google results on that word result in 2 conclusions: 1) Pedophile 2) Underage. Go go japanese screwing up a word that they stole from another language!)
It's not just the japanese doing things like this, english speaking people are the same. Take for example, kamikaze, it means "divine wind" in japanese, but it gets stolen by the english speaking people to mean suicide attack, which is only one isolated instance of the use of the word, and in no way represents the original meaning behind the use of the word (japanese named their suicide attack bombers after the supposed "divine wind" that has saved Japan from various enemy invasions in history, so the meaning of kamikaze has nothing to do with the act of suicide attack itself).

the japanese use of the word "loli" is a similar case, where the word "stolen" from another language gets misinterpreted and doesn't retain its original meaning, and now the meaning of "loli" among the ACG community no longer has much to do with "lolita" in western literature (heck some of those "lolicons" in this thread obviously think Dolores 'Lolita' Haze is not a loli)

If you still find this concept hard to understand, think "gothic". "Gothic" in its original meaning has nothing to do with horror stories and things, however somehow nowadays when we talk about "gothic movie", it does not mean a movie about Western Europe, it means a horror movie.

Last edited by dreamless; 2004-12-12 at 15:21.
dreamless is offline  
Old 2004-12-12, 12:36   Link #444
Charles Martel
I kick some major @$$!!
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Amsterdam, EU!!!!!!
Age: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamless
If you still find this concept hard to understand, think "gothic". "Gothic" in its original meaning has nothing to do with horror stories and things, however somehow nowadays when we talk about "gothic movie", it does not mean a movie about Western Europe, it means a horror movie.

UHmm.. That's not what i think about. I think of a someone with the typical gothic style. But i agree that there is a horror aspect at gothic

Charles Martel is offline  
Old 2004-12-12, 15:15   Link #445
Lothar Lightbringer
~Join the Crusade~
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: United States, Europe, Japan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Martel
UHmm.. That's not what i think about. I think of a someone with the typical gothic style. But i agree that there is a horror aspect at gothic


Nice pic
Lothar Lightbringer is offline  
Old 2004-12-12, 15:19   Link #446
dreamless
/Ultimate Magic Attack!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Time Warp/Future
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Martel
UHmm.. That's not what i think about. I think of a someone with the typical gothic style. But i agree that there is a horror aspect at gothic

umm... this is not gothic movie... this is gothic loli... I think... anyway it still has nothing to do with Western Europe
dreamless is offline  
Old 2004-12-12, 15:35   Link #447
Thany
Unfair
 
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreamless
umm... this is not gothic movie... this is gothic loli... I think... anyway it still has nothing to do with Western Europe
Well it's still cute to look at :P
And while at it, here's a non gothic cute loli
Spoiler for worksafe:
__________________

Last edited by Thany; 2004-12-12 at 15:49.
Thany is offline  
Old 2004-12-12, 18:41   Link #448
Shii
Afflicted by the vanities
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Fish-shape Paumanok
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Martel
It's not real for crying out lout. besides that it has been judged by the law. ... I H8 the younger stuff now that's sick
Why do you "hate the younger stuff" if "it's not real for crying out loud"? Please elaborate.
Shii is offline  
Old 2004-12-12, 20:23   Link #449
The Yellow Dwarf
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
I have no intention of defending Animated Pornography Depicting Children in Explicit Sexual Behavior. Personally I have a slight dislike for the moe-ness of some recent anime and anime-related merchandise, particularly the so-called loli-porn; although I do have an undying passion for someone who is possibly the most loli of them all - Vampire Princess Miyu. I think she is perhaps the most erotic and aesthetically pleasing, yet nonetheless terrifying character to ever come out of anime. So (at least) I think I am more or less neutral on the subject.

However, I think it is worth pointing out a few things that can easily be missed in a black-or-white, idealistic moral without concrete basis that seems to permeate a lot of western thinking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mantidor
A long time ago this [Russian writer] create the widely known novel named "lolita", it melt liberal people with its candor and scandalized conservative ones, because is about the forbidden love of this old 40 year old guy with a little girl (i think of twelve years old, max 14 )since then the term "Lolita", "loli" and all his variants refer to platonic love with little children, to put it simple... pedophilia.
Of course, as I have always half-jokingly said to others, the so-called "conservatives" won't know irony if they swallowed a box of thumbtacks. It's next to impossible to miss the anti-child-molestation message that is hidden beneath all of Humbert Humbert's flowery musing.

I find it impossible for anyone to fail and notice the cruelity of Humbert Humbert's repression of Lola's personal and school life, through his pained yet contradictory thoughts. And the final conclusion of the story, in which Humbert Humbert kills Q - another child-molester because he effectively ruined Dolores Haze's life, is far from a simplistic message of the affirmation of cross-generational love.

I suspect that a lot of people, either sensationalizing the "scanalous affair" to those who utterly condemn it to be "immoral," never have actually read the book or ever thought about it seriously.

The novel itself very effectively problematizes the viability of an adult-child romance and explores quite effectively (in the stunning revelation of the 17-year-old Lolita's miserable life) how powerless children suffering children are in the hands of adults who proclaim to "love" them.

The book cannot be reduced to one or two words such as "sick" or "perverted", the issue is much more complex than black-or-white. The same is true for the socialogical effects of "[i]roriconi/i]" (though most of the pics here are more moe-ish and kind of clashes with my taste).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Termina
The fact that you either think it DOESN'T harm children, or that you don't care is sickening.

If you saw a video of a little girl being raped almost to the point of death, would you still say that it didn't hurt children?
It is unfortunate that in societies with very strong religious backgrounds, morality tends to end up being so idealolgical and impersonal that it is severed from any concrete basis within reality that it ends up being arbitrary and unreasonable. I think it is refreshing to see finally how people can link real, physical acts, with real consequences, to their arguments.

Why are child-molesters criminals? Because they have commited a crime. It is interesting that many people seem to have missed this unshakeable fact. Why is child-molestation a crime? This is a slightly more complicated question, however, it is not unreasonable to say that it is because in a relationship with such an unbalanced power structure, the child is much much more likely to be exploited physically, psychologically, and spiritually. The consensus seems to be, if an adult has a sexual relationship with a child, the child's rights are nearly always damaged. I will not dispute this line of reasoning - everything here seems quite likely.

Yet, it is important to see that there are real people, real children being hurt in the relationship (this is true as well for child pornography - in which real children's rights are being violated during the production of the material). I think it is imperative that we understand how concrete, how real, the consequences of child-molestation and live-action child-pornography is.

No less important is that we recognize that the criminals made a decision, whether consciously or unconsciously, to violate the rights of another. If a person had thought about having sex with a minor for 23 1/2 hours everyday but never engaged in the act, then he has not violated the rights of a child, and consequently he has not commited a crime.

I hope this does not come as a surprise to anyone who lives in a free-thinking society: there is no such thing as a thought crime. We are not living in Orwell's 1984. If a person - after having watched countless animated loli-porn, decides to molest a child, the criminal act is the molestation, because that is the one act with real, concrete consequences. (Although, if the animation is created by drawing from a real, naked child, then there may be some complications to the issue.)

People make decisions; they have responsibilities. No matter what the influence, their actions decide their life. The only person we can put the blame on for a crime is the criminal, and no other. The only person we can put the blame on in the Colombine shooting are the two perpetrators, because they decided to commit the crime.

Of course, it is interesting (and very very sad) to see people labeling criminals, and often their less-than-commonplace hobbies "sick" - which means that they are pathological. It is interesting to dive back into the history of the "sick" and "disease" to see where the prejuidice originates.

It is perhaps not surprising to see that in the ancient Mesopotamian culture, perhaps among others, that diseases are considered largely religious. Most of the methods of curing diseases included dream intepretations, astrology, etc. Diseases were considered "anger from the gods." This particular way of thinking likely remained in history through the Greco-Roman culture and eventually found its way into Judeo-Christian idealogy, where it still exists (albeit on a much more marginal basis) today. It is hard to discount the "AIDS is God's punishment for Gays" idea that was quite fashionable some decades ago.

It is perhaps thus that today we still retain the idea that something that is "sick" says something about the person who is "sick." Of course, a sizeable portion of the backlash against homosexuals are derived from the modern advent of "sexology", or rather, as I would like to call it - "the pathologization of everything that is not the Missionary Style," which originates, perhaps with S. Freud.

I find it amusing that even today something "sick" is equated to something "wrong." Though there is obviously something amiss in attributing the cause of a sickness to moral corruption, there is something much more sinister in pathologization of the "morally wrong." A large proportion of diseases are contagious, and perhaps an evolutionarily derived feature of human behavior is to avoid those who are sick. It is too easy to create a "sick Other" from which we make the "healthy Us". Without the least bit of thinking, there is an untrasgressable boundary between the subject and the Other. If one passes into the Other, he'll catch the plague, the fever, the "bad humors," the "evil spirits" that makes them sick.

With an uncanny similarity, people today are creating this moral boundary through the pathologization of anything that doesn't quite fit the image of the "normal." Hitler is "sick," Himmler is "sick." What is the underlying assumption? "We" are normal; "We" are healthy. "We" can never commit the crimes that they commited because we are different.
Similarly, violent videogames creates violent crime. Violent popular culture is "sick." What is the underlying assumption? If "We" don't participate in the violent pop culture, if "We" don't pass the boundary, "We" will not commit violent crimes.

The pathologization of criminal behavior effectively erases individual responsiblity, and in its stead creates a "comfort zone" for which the masses can safely contemplate their own moral superiority through their freedom from a particular "sickness". The message of labeling violent video games as the root of violence is clear" "'I' dont play violent video games, therefore I can never commit a violent crime." In a way, it is nothing less than a method of reassuring the subject that through the freedom from a particular "disease", he/she is free from the moral responsibility of decision.
(Of course, this can be played both ways. The criminal can similarly blame
whatever media influence he had to lessen his own responsibility in the crime, but this often creates a backlash against a particular media influence but does not lessen his sentence. Instead it creates much more of the hygienic containment of a crime into a disease.)


Though there have been many news-breaking pathologization of violent crimes (e.g. the link between the Sarin gas attack and Miyazaki Hayao's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind), there are also many much more "innocent" cases. I still remember in my high school days, someone told me, "if you start walking backwards, people will think you have mental problems."

Quote:
Originally Posted by HoboGod
I didn't say that everyone imagines themselves doing it, nor did I say what a person needs for arrousal, All I was trying to say is that people who watch loli and get sexually turned on are sick people no matter if they imagine themselves as the perpetrator or not.
I think this is is a particularly interesting message that has been repeated for quite some time here. What is an arousal? What is wrong with getting a rise out of some material that is intended solely to "get a rise" out of you, so to speak? I am not an honest person either, but I think people who proclaim to be unresponsive to titillating materials (not all porns, since a lot of them can be quite boring) either have a clinical condition or lying. Sure, I don't get aroused from most of the so-called "loli" porn either, but that's because they're poorly-done.

Though even if a person does become sexually aroused from said material, so what? While I have pointed out the role of pathologization of perceived "moral corruption", I think it's also quite interesting that many purely biological functions seem to take on moral colors for no rational reasons. Why is urine "sick"? Why are human excretory functions taboo? Why is sexual arousal is "wrong"? Throw some cold water on a naked body and it'll get aroused. A biological reaction doesn't need to have a spiritual linkage. Of course, often in the case of arousal things may become much more complicated.

Quote:
This has gone far enough, I can see how my words could be missinterpreted if not read over a few times, so I'm going to break this down via color cordination. I appologize if my wording has been confusing in any way.

A person doesn't need to imagine themselves raping a child or killing a man to get the same level of self-gratification from it.

Any paticular person
can do without
A) imagining themselves raping a child / B) imaging themselves killing a man
A) and still get arroused by watching / B) and still enjoy watching
A) loli that contains rape / B) violent entertainment that contains a man getting killed
Of course your are obviously thinking from a male heterosexist point of view - which is mostly true - but it is obviously simplifying things.

Why is it that a person watching a "loli" (not necessarily loli-porn) must be imagining him/herself to be the perpetrator? It is also possible that the viewer
is identifying with the victim. In the case of voyeurism, I think it is quite interesting to consider where the voyeur stands in relation to what is being shown. Since the voyeur is willingly excluded from coitus, it is unlikely that he would take on the persona of the one who is not the object of his desire. If you are a heterosexual watching a heterosexual porn, do you watch for the one of the same sex or the one of the opposite sex? (I am just throwing this idea out there. I haven't structured my own thoughts properly yet.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by kujoe
Obviously, a lolicon views this in a different way, and not all loli-themed works are adult in nature--which is why I go back to my previous statement: that perhaps loli-sque values and norms essentially express an attractive vertical relationship between viewer (or the male protagonist) and character. (Hence, the common "oniichan" scenario.)
It is interesting that you have pointed this out. There are quite a few critical papers (particularly those from a feminist POV) - both in Japanese and English - that have formulated the theory that identifies the changing trend of male aesthetics in some parts of Japanese culture for young, non-threatening images of women (i.e. moe/loli) as a response the growing women's independence movement and the crumbling of the traditional patriarchal values in a society that has been plagued by economic recession. The shifting to "loli-con" is viewed as a male-centric attempt to escape the increasingly "feminized work force," the gradual establishment of women's rights and the growing population anti-traditional, assertive, economically and emotionally independent women in Japan. Loli-con here is seen as a traditional male fantasy - with more than a tinge of nostalgia - for the olden times when women were under control and the men "wore the pants".

[It's kind of interesting, and kind of scary at the same time, that this thread is the second most popular thread in terms of post counts, and definitely top 10 in terms of view counts. ]

Last edited by The Yellow Dwarf; 2004-12-12 at 21:09.
The Yellow Dwarf is offline  
Old 2004-12-13, 01:09   Link #450
NoSanninWa
Weapon of Mass Discussion
*Fansubber
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, USA
I've about had it with this thread. The original topic "um... what's Loli?!" was answered many, many pages ago. More frustrating is the fact that it has been re-answered nearly every page since then.

The real topic seems to be "Loli is wrong vs. Loli is okay" and it has gone round and round so many times that it is making me dizzy. While there have been some awesome arguments mixed some outright nasty comments on both sides it is becoming self-evident that there really isn't anything new to say.

If anyone wants to get the gist of this argument they can pick any page at random and start reading. It is pretty certain that no matter their viewpoint is it unlikely to be changed no matter how many pages this runs for. I think it is time to put this thread and all of its vitriolic arguments to rest.
__________________

There's not that fine a line between willing suspension of disbelief and something just being stupid.
NoSanninWa is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.