Random Thoughts on Preventionism and Beyond

[EOF]

A common talking point in regards to the ban on drawings, or event texts that depict romantic and sexual relationships between children and their elders in a non-negative light, is that it may convince somebody that pursuing such a relationship can have a good outcome and can be a good idea.

However tiny we assume this probability to be, at the large scale it implies that availability of such material does lead to such acts. If we assume that some of these acts have resulted in serious harm, whether perceived by the minor or otherwise, it therefore follows that production of such material necessarily leads to new cases of child abuse, hence the actions of people who make such content should be shunned, condemned and penalized.

Now, how does one argue against this logic? It is all quite solid-looking, actually, if you take the antis' dogma of harm inevitability and use some very emotionally loaded words.

The only few moves I see are "no it doesn't lead to new cases of children being raped because", "yes it does make children traumatized for life, but also helps to prevent such cases" or "yes, it does lead to people acting on their desires and some children being harmed, but it doesn't matter because".

It seems so far that protection of AMSC in fiction largely relies on the second strategy, and a claim that fiction provides a safe surrogate for the pedophiles' needs. But our opponent may laughingly dismiss such claims as the pedophile-ish cabal's lies backed by fake research.

The third strategy relies on the notion of freedom of speech, that is, freedom from state persecution, but this one is often crippled whenever it's convenient. After all, what matters the sick few's freedom to indulge in their dumb drawings and texts if it doesn't matter to them that children are being harmed because of what they do? The drawings and texts may be the only little ray of light in hell that said few were born to, but who cares? Our opponent will short circuit before they can think that. And if not, they may still regard the ban as lesser evil.

Fiction is one thing, but how far can one take this preventionism logic? They who think that force is the ultimate solution to our question may also want to destroy forums such as this one or even VirPed. And then us too, physically, as well as the people who would object to us getting T4'd. All for the same or similar reasons.

An observation could be made that it makes sense to follow through with such preventionism only for as long as there is no tangible evidence that it does the opposite of achieving its goals and there is no push back - a vendetta appropriate to the violence and slavery we're subjected to. Only, we're far from being the demons and fiends they call us. We're just as tame as everybody else, if not more so, whereas those of us who are not as tame and are more selfish and ruthless will prefer to satisfy their needs in some of the only safe non-surrogate ways that the system leaves to us, rather then trying to fight the system.

I think I once saw a screencap of a Twitter post authored by a USian senator. It was a post on the MAP question, with words "just what kind of world are we leaving to our children". Ah, but aren't the pedophiles also our children? And just what kind of world are we leaving to them? Perhaps, that's what the normal folk should keep in mind for the things to take on a positive course. Our name has been defiled with so much hatred that part of it is now irrational and the reasoning serves to conform to it. And so, perhaps, it has to be fought with powerful imagery first and foremost. But how? Antis' rhetoric has some really catchy phrases like "kids can't consent", "traumatized for life", etc. Could we use something like this, too?

Powerful positive imagery... But what imagery would be both positive and powerful? What to us is a beautiful act of love to them is a horrific defilement and rape. There actually is some common ground between both us and them in that many of us (seem to) consider children nigh-divine beings, but our understanding of divinity is apparently different. Besides, we're back to the paragraph this post was started with.

[FairBlueLove]

Great post!

I think I once saw a screencap of a Twitter post authored by a USian senator. It was a post on the MAP question, with words "just what kind of world are we leaving to our children". Ah, but aren't the pedophiles also our children? And just what kind of world are we leaving to them?

Please meditate on this, normies. It is not a disgrace that some of your kids are pedophiles, if we can together change the world (society that is) to be a better place for them and everybody else.

Powerful positive imagery... But what imagery would be both positive and powerful? What to us is a beautiful act of love to them is a horrific defilement and rape. There actually is some common ground between both us and them in that many of us (seem to) consider children nigh-divine beings, but our understanding of divinity is apparently different. Besides, we're back to the paragraph this post was started with.

This is a good question. There seems to be an intrinsic asymmetry where, for equal power, negative messages have more impact than positive ones. Is this maybe from cultural grounds? Or it is an intrinsic human bias? In any case, maybe we also can use negative imagery, on the line of what you just hinted above (what an horrible world for your pedophile children are you normies creating?).

[WavesInEternity]

It seems so far that protection of AMSC in fiction largely relies on the second strategy, and a claim that fiction provides a safe surrogate for the pedophiles' needs. But our opponent may laughingly dismiss such claims as the pedophile-ish cabal's lies backed by fake research.

The evidence for this is actually very robust, and not just for fiction, but pornography in general, including "child pornography" as traditionally defined. In response, antis are essentially forced to resort to anti-science arguments, such as relying on religious ideals or pseudo-scientific radical feminism.

The third strategy relies on the notion of freedom of speech, that is, freedom from state persecution, but this one is often crippled whenever it's convenient. After all, what matters the sick few's freedom to indulge in their dumb drawings and texts if it doesn't matter to them that children are being harmed because of what they do? The drawings and texts may be the only little ray of light in hell that said few were born to, but who cares? Our opponent will short circuit before they can think that. And if not, they may still regard the ban as lesser evil.

One important argument that you're overlooking here is the risk of a slippery slope, which is especially relevant when it comes to lolicon/shotacon. Not only is the distinction between "regular hentai" and "PIM" not remotely clear, but the boundary between erotica and "mainstream" anime & manga is also extremely fuzzy given the near-omnipresence of fanservice, leading to many popular titles being banned in countries like Australia or New Zealand. Thus, anime & manga fans are some of our natural allies, and I've been arguing since my mid-teens that we should all engage in mass civil disobedience regarding such "obscene" content.

And so, perhaps, it has to be fought with powerful imagery first and foremost. But how? Antis' rhetoric has some really catchy phrases like "kids can't consent", "traumatized for life", etc. Could we use something like this, too?

I strongly agree that we should work on coming up with powerful imagery, catchy slogans, memes, etc. The NewgonWiki has a "Memes and Graphics" section with much inspiring material. "Give MAP kids a chance to be kids", for instance.

There seems to be an intrinsic asymmetry where, for equal power, negative messages have more impact than positive ones. Is this maybe from cultural grounds? Or it is an intrinsic human bias?

It is an intrinsic bias. It's actually called negativity bias, for that matter.

[EOF]

Thus, anime & manga fans are some of our natural allies, and I've been arguing since my mid-teens that we should all engage in mass civil disobedience regarding such "obscene" content.

What I've seen on the English otaku imageboards is an abundance of posts where people would claim to love lolicon-ish content but never the actual children. On 4ch/a/n in particular, I saw some reaction to that and the use of "ironic lolicon" buzzword, but all it resulted in was loli threads where people would argue instead of posting pictures, and then bans/erasure of those who would agree that liking 2D loli and liking 3D loli are phenomena not to be disconnected; partially because trolling with "ironic lolicon" term was attributed to a single person who went by the name LRD. As far as I know, LRD (lolis are dead) argued that loli content in anime shows has become very mild and tame, a point shared not only by him and a point that I feel is, to an extent, true.

To summarize the above, it seems as if many 2D lolicons want to distance themselves from us, whether for security or for other reasons. I think you yourself wrote how you had tried to pretend that you liked the 2D girls for the 2D and not for their youth. And so, calling otaku people natural allies to our more reality-focused selves is quite an overstatement, unless specifically when it comes to media that we both like. And even then we have to keep in mind that the things they say to defend fiction may be harmful to the pro-reform/choice cause.

Could some otaku be made our allies, though? Say, if we somehow manage to get the "You saying 'I only love pixels' is not fooling anyone other than yourself" point across.

But then, as you have said, "the studies show that, for the normal heterosexual male, the ideal female skin is that of a very young child or infant, the ideal face that of a young teenager, the ideal breasts and hips those of an older teenager, and so on", and if this combination is what these so-called ironic lolicons call loli, then it's understandable if actual children are not of much interest to them. Although, one has to wonder how much of the discrepancy is internalized pedophobia of some kind. Besides, I've not encountered the "ironics" on the Russian boards, at least not to that extent, and so I wonder if there has been some well poisoning going on.

As for the slippery slope, it seems to be regarded as a logical fallacy rather than a reality by some people. Apparently, they have not seen the more prudish of antis getting triggered by characters that could very well be within a typical AoC/attraction range. Or cases like this https://old.reddit.com/r/PygmalionAI/co ... am_filter/ where a system designed to block "CSAM" ends up blocking (some) pictures of adult characters, too.

[WavesInEternity]

As far as I know, LRD (lolis are dead) argued that loli content in anime shows has become very mild and tame, a point shared not only by him and a point that I feel is, to an extent, true.

There has been a general decrease in fanservice because of the cultural climate in Japan, involving such events as the passing of "Bill 156" in 2010 (a revision to the Tokyo Metropolitan Ordinance Regarding the Healthy Development of Youths) and increasing calls for the prohibition of so-called "virtual child pornography". Only a single high-quality pornographic lolicon anime has been produced in over a decade.

Still, things haven't gotten even worse than this only because the fandom fought back hard, both domestically and internationally. There was widespread media coverage of Bill 156 at the time, which led lawmakers to drop the expression "non-existent youth" from the language of the bill. In North America, there were campaigns against "obscenity" laws led by anime & manga fans (I participated in some at the time).

I think you yourself wrote how you had tried to pretend that you liked the 2D girls for the 2D and not for their youth

I had tried to believe that this was the case, between the ages of 12 and 15. I was in denial. I stopped deceiving myself when it became effectively impossible as I fell in love with a very real 7-year-old little girl.

To summarize the above, it seems as if many 2D lolicons want to distance themselves from us, whether for security or for other reasons. [...] And so, calling otaku people natural allies to our more reality-focused selves is quite an overstatement, unless specifically when it comes to media that we both like. And even then we have to keep in mind that the things they say to defend fiction may be harmful to the pro-reform/choice cause.

I must clarify that I didn't mean that anime & manga fans will be MAP allies altogether, at least not at this point in time. What I meant is that they're much more likely to support one cause that is of key importance for MAP rights: fiction involving "sexualized" depictions of imaginary minors. If you accept it in anime & manga, you can't reasonably oppose it in literature or video games, and there's only one small additional step required to also defend photorealistic AI-generated PIM.

I can't deny the risk that it might undermine the pro-c/pro-legalization cause. However, it's a risk I believe is well worth taking because of the opportunity it presents for making the thoughts of MAPs more socially acceptable. This is the necessary starting point for any deeper societal changes: once our minds are accepted for what they are, and we are allowed to express ourselves creatively according to our preferences and desires, this will logically entail that we have the right to self-identify as MAPs and associate as MAPs. My argument is that everything else will ensue from that.

But then, as you have said, "the studies show that, for the normal heterosexual male, the ideal female skin is that of a very young child or infant, the ideal face that of a young teenager, the ideal breasts and hips those of an older teenager, and so on", and if this combination is what these so-called ironic lolicons call loli, then it's understandable if actual children are not of much interest to them. Although, one has to wonder how much of the discrepancy is internalized pedophobia of some kind. Besides, I've not encountered the "ironics" on the Russian boards, at least not to that extent, and so I wonder if there has been some well poisoning going on.

I actually do think that there are some authentic nijikons who like lolicon/shotacon but aren't interested in real-life children, just as there are some who aren't interested in real humans at all. It's a whole other paraphilia in its own right. But it's definitely not all of them, and likely not even a majority. This is very clear when we look at what the artists and fans say about themselves in Japan. One Comic LO mangaka—I can't give names nor titles because of silly forum rules—has explicitly described his art as "pedo manga", and another I really like has said his art represents "girllove". Most Japanese hardcore fans of lolicon are also into child models/idols. (Speaking of Comic LO, every issue has the warning "Look, don't touch" on the first page. Definitely not referring to the drawings there.)

As for the slippery slope, it seems to be regarded as a logical fallacy rather than a reality by some people.

It's a form of argument that can be an informal fallacy (not a strict logical fallacy) under some circumstances. The distinguishing feature of its legitimate use is that the phenomenon described is empirically demonstrable, as in 2020 when an Australian senator called for the review of all anime & manga for the presence of "child exploitation" and the tightening of relevant laws, and meanwhile various mainstream titles are already banned from sale in that country and others. The basic form of the argument here is that of the famous poem "First They Came".

[PorcelainLark]

I recently heard a theory about the origin of lolicon in Japan. Basically, since censorship was based on pubic hair, there was a time when they would take pictures of naked children to get around censorship. I wonder if it's true?

[Aspire6]

To summarize the above, it seems as if many 2D lolicons want to distance themselves from us, whether for security or for other reasons. I think you yourself wrote how you had tried to pretend that you liked the 2D girls for the 2D and not for their youth. And so, calling otaku people natural allies to our more reality-focused selves is quite an overstatement, unless specifically when it comes to media that we both like. And even then we have to keep in mind that the things they say to defend fiction may be harmful to the pro-reform/choice cause.

A lot of the people I know who indulge in fictional 2D lolisho either deny being a MAP or don't talk about it entirely. While I will give them the benefit of the doubt, as it is fiction, it makes me wonder sometimes. There are spaces that allow for lolisho but also fully reject any discussion or ban people who admit to being a "pedophile", which is a little sad to see as you would think people would be glad to give those in-need a fictional outlet over a potentially more dangerous, and criminalized, one.

On the opposite side, I see more people I 'know' (I don't "know" them, but I talk somewhat frequently) who indulge in 3D fiction, and a few who actually make it, admit more openly to having an attraction to minors and are honestly more enjoyable to talk with in general. For their safety I will not provide any usernames, sites, or other pieces of information regarding it as that would also violate forum rules. I don't know where they reside so I can't confirm or deny the legality for them.

While I've said it before, I fully believe that all forms of fiction should be fully legal everywhere. It is a waste of time and money to chase after something that doesn't harm anyone in its production or consumption. If someone was going to engage in sexual contact with a minor, no amount of criminalization will stop them from reaching that point. I am glad to be in a place where lolisho is considered legal and hope it stays this way.