Monday, April 20, 2015

Definition of Lolicon and Why it is Illegal


Lolicon: a popular slang term that is the Japanese translation of Russell Trainer's book, The Lolita complex.  Specifically, lolicon is used, most often, to describe content featuring under-aged girls in hentai or manga or anime (as drawings or computer images) who are illicitly portrayed.

The origins of the title to Russell Trainer's book, Lolita complex, was from Vladimir Nabokov's book, Lolita, about an older man having sexual affairs with a 12-year-old girl named Lolita.


The PROTECT Act of 2003 prohibits... 

"(1) making a visual depiction that is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image of, or that is indistinguishable from an image of, a minor engaging in specified sexually explicit conduct; (2) knowingly advertising, promoting, presenting, distributing, or soliciting through the mails or in commerce, including by computer, any material that is or contains an obscene visual depiction of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct or a visual depiction of an actual minor engaging in such conduct..."

Though it is not commonplace, this federal definition of illicit material outlined by the PROTECT Act has sent a handful of men to prison, some for several years, for owning, importing, exporting, selling, viewing, and/or buying lolicon on the grounds that lolicon is "a visual depiction... of... a minor engaging in specified sexually explicit conduct".  That is an irrefutable fact; lolicon is just that. 


The ultimate goal of the PROTECT Act is to protect against, and prosecute accordingly, cases of sexual child abuse.  But is it okay that this law impinges on a person's ability to sexually satisfy themself?

It has been argued that you can't choose your sexuality.  That is one of the leading arguments for the right to homosexual marriage.  If there is no choice whether you like guys or girls, doesn't that mean you have just as little choice to whether you like children or adults?  And if so, shouldn't your sexual preferences be defended?  Or is it, no matter the case, unacceptable?

(Please understand that the questions posed in this post are about whether people should have the right to view drawings or computer images of sexually portrayed children, NOT if people should have the right to view pictures of real children, and much less participate in real sexual acts with them.)

There is no justification for an adult having sexual relations with children.  

There is also no justification for rape; and despite that, many people have rape fantasies that are, by law, acceptable.  There are entire websites devoted to people's recorded rape fantasies.  So, if rape fantasies are okay, why can't pedophilic fantasies be okay?  What's the difference?

Please, if you have your own thoughts on this subject, leave a comment below.

1 comment:

  1. An uncomfortable topic, to be sure. Make sure you express your opinions, too.