Further, even if it were pornography, researchers (see Patrick Galbraith) have shown, through ethnographic field work in Japan and studies of the fans that they do not interpret these images to have the real-life referents of real children. Rather, they are symbols that only refer to other symbols and tropes. In other words, it's a "2D" phenomenon, and the naive interpretation that it is a "3D" one for the people who enjoy it is insufficiently nuanced and incorrect.
It's also dubious whether such content counts as "encouraging pedophiles" in itself. As much as, say, BDSM pornography may encourage rapists, that does not mean that people enjoy it for other reasons - and there is an empirical reason to think that most people do enjoy it for other reasons. The blame lies on the consumer of the material and their thoughts, not the publisher who believes with good reason that the most common reading is not "encouraging pedophiles".
Based on what I've read, I have absolutely no reason to believe that people who are sexually excited by the concept of children are limited to drawings of them, or that sexualized content featuring children is consumed by people who do not fantasize about raping children.
As far as the blame, I'm comfortable blaming the publisher, too. There's a lot to abhor about someone who would choose to make money by sexualizing children for the entertainment of others.
The reason I intervened in this debate is that I listen to rock music and people that listen to rock were always accused of bad things by idiots without any proof that there is a causation, many people got beaten or killed because of this so I am really hopping we learned a lesson that maybe we should prove that something is bad.
That's the sticking point here: there is no mentally healthy market for child sexual abuse.
What do you mean? I should present someone an medical document that allows me to play a video game with violence, and a different medical document for watching adult content?
If that show is promoting child abuse then there should be a law that applies, if is just some art that some people don't like then we should make sure we don't cross a line, next you will have to censor Game of Thrones the TV series and for sure the books.
You imply that a big number of people that consume that media (I think the other guy said there are a lot of them in Japan) are sexual abusers. Can you prove this?
If not and you strongly believe in this assumption and the cause I think it should be provable, since there is a large number of consumers, located in certain regions, there should be some increase in crimes when this kind of content was released. Then after we have the proof we can write a paper, get it published, get it criticized and reproduced and then it should be easy to make the content illegal, we use the "think of the children" and politicians won't dare not to support it.
The only issue in the plan is if your assumption is wrong, and there is no statistical effect of the content on the large number of consumers.
If you want to try this plan, probably find someone that is an expert in the domain, someone at a university. maybe one of those scientists that studied video games violence/
That's a pretty serious accusation towards people who consume a content, to do without some SERIOUS backing of peer reviewed studies. Do you have any?
I'm not talking about the psychological point of view, I'm talking about the cultural anthropological point of view. For the psychological point of view, you're better off looking at the effects of porn on its consumers, and to what extent its consumers export the beliefs. As far as I know, it's a small proportion, and not the typical consumer. See Hald and Malamuth's work for that. Also see work on fiction-communities, such as studies on fanfiction users. These also tend to be cultural-anthropological point of views. I am not aware of any empirical psychological study on the intersection between fiction (2D or 1D, that is) porn and pedophilia. Taylor & Kohut note that porn effects research is a shaky science with a variety of methodological flaws. Studies on pedophiles are even more unreliable, since they mostly concern those who have either (i) already abused a child or (ii) already been found in possession of real child pornography. See a chapter in Gary Young's book, The Gamer's Dilemma for a depth-discussion of the empirical status of a hypothetical link between virtual CP and pedophilia.
I don't have a link on hand, but Galbraith's article in Image and Narrative entitled "Lolicon: The reality of 'virtual child pornography in Japan" is a study of the phenomenon and its fans. His doctoral thesis also includes fieldwork in Japan with fan communities.
As far as I know, there is no empirical psychological study which confirms or denies that the majority of these fans are pedophiles, or that they feel the same way about 3D children as they do about 2D children. The best resources we have are twofold: how do people understand fiction? And how do fiction-oriented communities guard interpretations of fiction? Galbraith sets out to provide answers to these questions.
>I have absolutely no reason to believe that people who are sexually excited by the concept of children are limited to drawings of them
I don't think you have reason to believe the converse, either; at least Galbraith's work provides a hint (even if a weak one) against your conclusion. You may also have reason to believe based on how BDSM practitioners and enjoyers interact with their own pornography; for instance, how it has been studied that women with rape kinks do not themselves wish to be raped in real life, or how most people navigate pornography, in particular heinous or non-consensual acts. Incest pornography and furry pornography are interesting points to consider here. We also have some orthogonal evidence from video games and lasting aggressive attitudes outside lab settings - as far as I know, consistently fail to show persistence. Additionally, the rate of sexual assault does not even correlate with the rise in consumption of pornography in general.
I think there is a stronger reason to believe that even if there are negative effects from real-life porn, that fictional porn in which reality itself is bent, with immense scapes of fantasy and wonder, grotesque bodies, unreasonable attitudes, twisted scenarios, and strong elements of parody will have less of an effect, or even no effect.
From what I can tell, the people whom the content is marketed towards (and yes, including things like Mushoku Tensei) concerns people with what is known in Japan as the "2D complex", or people with vivid imaginations, with a strong distinction between fantasy and reality.
At the same time, I will agree that pedophiles typically have trouble distinguishing fantasy from reality. But it is undeniable that there are kink, fetish, and pornography communities which work on the very principle of distinguishing fiction from reality, and infusing them with imagination that does not reflect real-world desire. It also stands to reason that the aesthetic properties mean something - in that if the primary audience were pedophiles, we'd see much more realistic depictions, or a trend toward realism, rather than an emphasis on distorted bodies, ridiculous settings, parody, and unbelievable characters common in such material.
See also readings on Otaku, fictional sexuality, and moe. Japan, and by extension those who are moulded by Japanese media, has a strong tradition of a different conception of fiction and reality to the Western view that fiction is pure wish-fulfillment, and real desire is a fixed point in erotic function. Galbraith cites this research in the paper I mentioned earlier, as does Gary Young (a psychologist, for once!) in the work mentioned earlier.
What unique quality does child sexual abuse add to fiction which would override the loss of sexual desire that the average person feels with children?
If you've heard of the idea of the 'lifeworld' from Habermas, it's a similar principle here. They are quite living in another world, a fantasy and fictional world, to the point where they develop what Japanese psychologists have identified as a "2D sexuality". Please compare this to the way in which a BDSM practitioner/fan looks at what others may see as abuse. The practitioner actually sees some nuance, or a possibility of nuance, that others don't.
You might look at the material and say "that's a child" - but these fans, at least the ones Galbraith argues are the primary consumers, do not visualize a real child in that context. This is emphasized by the fact that even the term 'lolicon' before being adopted outside Otaku discourse is an entirely fictionally-referent concept.
Again, pedophiles will enjoy it too - but that's because they see the material through your lens, not the lens of someone who has developed some component of a 2D sexuality, and never shall their 2D and 3D sexualities meet.
This statement falls apart when you correct the last word to 'fictional children' rather than just 'children', which is what it should be, unless you have reason to believe they (the majority of viewers) also seek out 'real child' pornography too.
They seek it out because they have trained themselves to see these characters as part of the world inhabited by fictional adult characters. The 'child' characters are no different to them as the 'adult' characters. It's important to note, they're not seeking out media featuring 'children', they're specifically seeking out media featuring the 2D, deformed, and aesthetically pleasing trope-based 'children' they've seen elsewhere in the fictional world. They do not view the child in an anime as a child, but as a manifestation of some child-like qualities (or perhaps not even that) combined with tropes they have learned to recognize. It's also driven by taboo taking things to extremes - such as the fascination with youth, particularly in Japanese society - much in the same way rape fetishes are taken by BDSM partners to be the subordination of women taken to the extreme in the fiction-context, not necessarily a fascination with rape itself. This is seen in other BDSM behaviours too.
This is the main point of the 2D complex. It circumvents the 3D referents and developes itself separately. Lolicon is merely a subset of the 2D complex - and in the 2D complex, "anything goes". The equivalent for people with 3D attractions would be a risque fetish.
Trying to understand the 2D complex in terms of what is appealing about people with regular (3D) attractions is almost as non-sensical as a gay person trying to understand what's so appealing about heterosexuality from the perspective of homosexual attractions.
It is more plausible that the 2D children attraction exists beside (i) other 2D attractions (ii) a fascination for youth, a fetish for the concept and all things associated with it - but no sexual attraction to children.
I say the last part because there are studies on people with youth fetishes, but not pedophilia - the ageplay community in BDSM circles simulates child sex, but is not clinically considered a subset or relation of pedophilia.
This is not sexualizing minors. Or rather, it's as sexualizing of minors as war photographer's photos of nude children on the sidelines of combat.
So, while someone with the right fetishes might find it titalating, your average citizen would not find it so.
Plus, it's a drawing. I realize this doesn't matter in some countries, but it's just a drawing. Even had it had been a sexual image (again, it's not), it's not victimizing anybody.
As far as drawn media not victimizing anyone goes: based on what I've read about the issue of mental illness, it's harmful for a mentally ill individual to engage in activities which reinforces their pathologies. In the case of a paedophile, it seems like it would be harmful to reinforce the link between sexual desire and children by enabling their fantasies. I don't believe that any temporary relief that offers would offset the elevating risk of committing a violent offence by someone whose mental illness is worsening.
You didn't confuse it; it's the very same one. Regardless, it's best not to pay attention to the drummed-up 'controversy' by both sides, with disgust and discomfort masquerading as 'critique' on Twitter. Of all recent-ish series, this is probably low on the list of 'controversial' ones.
But that won't stop folks from critiquing it. The word "Pedophilia" has, with a complete lack of irony by its users, become the new "Think of the Children" as a justification for pushing agendas.