Pixiv is generally drawn but there are no examples of the other. The book Lolita is ok in europe, a bit weird but not banned. There is even nude art of children - though it is controverial.
It sounds like the author would like to use stronger, more direct words but is skirting the issue to avoid apparent bias (though the bias is really quite apparent) and ends up sounding vague throughout.
I don't think people even consider it weird, as most people haven't read it. People who do read the book tend to be predisposed towards appreciating literature as an accepted vehicle for exploring ideas and thoughts that would be condemned in real life — including all kinds of murder, sex, drugs, illicit liaisons, and assorted forms of destructive behaviour.
Incidentally, it is for sale in every decent bookshop that has an English literature section; Penguin publishes it in their modern classics line.
The "other thing" is literally just child pornography through and through, photographs or videos of real children engaged in sexual activity.
The fact that the author has neglected to specifically state the difference is strange, and I honestly can't think of a good reason for doing this, or why it was left in Japanese script.
Furthermore, there's something else here; a while ago I read an article which claimed that 81% of the Japanese public based on an extrapolated study would be fine with lolicon being made illegal. So how does the author say that lolicon being acceptable is a mainstream view? The author writes too,
>The idea that ロリコン is bad in the same way 児童ポルノ is bad, or even that there could be a meaningful category including both ロリコン and 児童ポルノ as if they were somehow comparable, is incomprehensible from the mainstream Japanese point of view.
Does this make me an honorary holder of the Japanese point of view? I honestly can't see a way in which drawings and real life photos in this case are comparable at all, it's incomprehensible to me how one could lump them together other than by the subject matter they represent, which is extremely broad and ignores the whole point of the classification - that is, one necessitates child abuse to be created, and the other doesn't. I very much align with the Japanese point of view here.
On the other things the author mentioned, I agree with another commenter in saying that it's not at at all useful to frame this as "red" and "blue"; I consider myself rather "blue" on some issues (being a socialist) but the liberal idea of free speech is one I hold very dear to myself, and I am vehemently opposed to laws that target any kind of expression, even if that does entail "lolicon"; I believe the harm principle can stand here on its own, though I'm not sure if I'd bend even if it was proven conclusively (how?) that lolicon "causes" people to molest real children.
Etymologically, it is a Japanese portmanteau derived from 'lolita complex', which is waseigo (Japanese words comprised of English words) meaning someone attracted to, or an attraction to, prepubescent girls (not boys, so it is not completely analogous to paedophile).
> So how does the author say that lolicon being acceptable is a mainstream view?
He seems to extrapolate from the acceptance of it in (large) online Japanese communities.
What does this mean? Pedophilia is not somehow specific to males lusting after males. It's still completely analogous to pedophilia.
A term used for the latter is shotacon, but it is not as common a word as the above.
Also, you can be exposed to a different culture and learn to like things, for example, most Europeans don't understand why on earth someone would like to watch baseball, but some learned to like it due to prolonged exposure.
Another example: I think most Europeans have their guards up talking to Americans about politics, as they know the other side would probably just consider them to be a 'pink commie bastard'(TM).