UNICEF’s Agnes Chan: Lolicon Otaku Must Reform

lol, don't ask if you have no interest? Surely if you express interest that means you want to know, and wanting to know means you would be willing to find out on your own. Also, those points have been covered elsewhere on this website.

Why would they need to provide conclusive evidence of the lack of any contribution to such offenses? One would think the burden would be on the people arguing against loli to provide the evidence showing that there is a connection between increases offenses and loli related material.

Which, of course, doesn't exist in any credible format. Even with wildly exaggerating the number of such offenses recorded in Japan to account for the usual claim that such crimes go unreported more often in Asian countries than the West, Japan with all its loli still has a lower per capita amount of child related sex offenses than most Western countries (as many other types of crimes).

It's fairly safe to say that loli material does not produce dangerous criminals.

Stake and interest are vastly different concepts, might I suggest you pick up a dictionary once in a while?

And once again I must reiterate my point; everyone is throwing up a shitstorm about Unicef, but no one has yet produced conclusive evidence that lolicon hentai does not contribute towards increased numbers of child related sex offenses.

When arguing a point, the burden of proof lies on the one trying to persuade others, not one who sits on the fence.

Face it, there's really no proof one way or the other, just like there isn't with violent films/computer games causing actual violence in society. Believe me, none of the bullies I had to endure at school were that way because of media - they were just scumbags to begin with. As evidence, I would say banning so called "video nasties" in the 80s over here in the UK clearly had no discernable effect on crime rates in the years that followed.

Long-term observation of countries with draconian sex laws, versus those who have much more liberal ones, would seem to indicate a pattern though. As I said before, all the Commonwealth countries have ridiculously high rates of abuse, despite their harsh laws, yet many countries in Europe, with low ages of consent; readily available porn; etc., have rates far lower. Causality or not, common sense tells me (as it indeed told Freud) that people who are comfortable with their sexuality are less likely to want to commit crimes.

Purely on the grounds of Freedom of Expression alone, these laws are wrong anyway. However, also claiming we're the ones who have to justify our position is hardly fair when UNICEF, like so many do-gooders in this area, not only have no evidence to support their claims, but see fit to totally exaggerate the entire issue of child abuse, just to garner public support and hence secure larger and larger donations.

I mean, I spent this morning reading a massive paper on the child porn industry, with the conclusion being that it is and always has been a tiny problem compared to other more serious crimes. Most government or law enforcement sanctioned investigations have all been discredited over the years, yet the moral panic goes on to this day.

To sum up, the onus is on UNICEF, as an official charity, to prove a link, not us. Making grandiose claims without evidence to back it up just isn't scientific or professional, and the fact that my own government has taken to abandoning evidence-driven legislation in favour of heavy '1984-like' moralising does not sit well with me at all.

"At any rate, I think you should do a lot more research before you criticise our position on the subject."

Am I to presume you mean my criticisms of the communities' antagonism against Unicef? If that is the case, I must say that I continue to stand by my criticism.

However, I would like you to note that at no point did I criticise the communities' desire to keep lolicon available and uncensored.

I myself have stated prior that I do not believe that lolicon porn contributes to increased cases of child molestation. But all I have is anecdotal evidence, and that is also all that I have been offered.

You said that there are studies which prove the availability of pornography reduces sex crimes. I have no contention with that. As a law student in my senior year, I've done a fair amount of research into this subject.

However, I must reiterate, rate and causation are separate entities. Just because Japan enjoys a low rate of sex related offenses, it does not necessarily prove the nonexistence of causation.

Personally, I'd like to see proof that no causal link exists. But I've yet to come across any. If you can supply credible, independent studies that prove no causal link, then I would happily get off the fence and stand on the side of this community.

@ Anon
Aside from video games, the others have no correlation to lolicon. Mercury laced fish, junk food and alchohol are matters of personal responsibility and their any derogatory effects that occur due to their consumption effects the consumer only.

In terms of lolicon, the sufferer is not the consumer, but the child; therein lies the fundamental difference.

And in regards to TV and video games, they are mediums rather then subject. But if we are to talk about specific programing or game genres, then my views on lolicon apply.

@ Quen
Japan's low crime rate is both well known, and an appropriate argument in this debate.

However, we can not draw a firm conclusion based on it because rate and causation are separate entities.

The fundamental question that we are concerned about is whether lolicon causes people who would otherwise not be child sex offenders, to be child sex offenders.

And yes, the burden on proving causation currently rests with Unicef, them having initiated this. However, we the anime community, should hold ourselves to a higher standard then we currently do.

Regardless of what stance the Japanese government takes, the aftereffects could be wide ranging.

Should lolicon be banned, in addition to irking fans of it, it would also damage the industry, and possibly threaten the livelihoods of some.

However, should lolicon continue to be legal, there exists the possibility that we are inadvertently putting children at risk.

Therefore, if we are to argue that lolicon should continue to be legal, we must ascertain that lolicon truly does not endanger children. And this can only be done by rigorous research, not anecdotal evidence. Cliche though this may sound, we owe it to the children.

@ SasaMisa
Whilst I've heard about Operation Ore, I sadly do not know enough about it to comment in a learned manner.

I will say this however, misguided though some of us may believe Unicef to be in their crusade, I would wager they do so with naught but good intentions.

It would seem that they are convinced that lolicon does contribute to child related sex offenses. Whether this is true or not is what I seek to find out. However, their desire to protect children is noble, and we shouldn't demonize them for that.

Sorry, but I totally disagree. Having been into this stuff for over 25 years, I haven't come across even a single artist or fan yet that had the urge to go out and rape real kids. There have also been plenty of studies done already that prove ready availability of porn reduces sex crime, but the moralisers don't want to hear any of it. As far as they are concerned, sex is for procreation alone, in the missionary position, and in the dark, with earplugs in so you can't hear your girlfriend's pussy making etchi noises.

Also, loli is already illegal in most English-speaking countries, so your argument about banning it is moot. With the exception of Britain, where they are still trying to force it through Parliament, and the States, where First Amendment rights resulted in the law being much more carefully worded, viewing loli can and has landed people in the dock. It isn't just those with real CP anymore either, but hapless fans of cartoon porn, like that poor bastard in Australia done for what I take for granted on a daily basis: looking at Simpsons porn.

No, I'm afraid many of the children's charities totally lost their credibility when they switched from helping real victims of abuse to fighting an unholy war against child pornography, most of which consists of nothing more than nudes or near nudes. Only a tiny percentage (around 7%) actually features real cases of abduction, coercion, or rape. Indeed, thanks to these fanatics, even images of 17-year old Samantha Fox topless are illegal now, despite the fact she posed freely for The Sun back at the start of her career.

As I said above though, there just aren't enough cases of CP to justifty their inflated budgets, so they've moved on to fictional material. Claiming it can be used to groom kids doesn't make it so, and they haven't produced a shred of evidence to back up their claims because there isn't any. Take it from me, real child molestors don't want pictures of Lisa Simpson, they want living, breathing flesh, and they want to destroy its innocence, like theirs was once destroyed. In short, they are totally messed up and need to be carefully monitored, much the same as any other kind of dangerous criminal.

Those who look at real child porn are a totally different entity, however, most being the true definition of paedophile. They are more often than not the kind who are merely fascinated with the idea of sex with children, but sensibly have no inclination to commit thoroughly heinous crimes. In fact, by taking CP away from them, like with P4P in Sweden now, it merely results in them going after the real thing instead and a noticable jump in the crime rate follows.

At any rate, I think you should do a lot more research before you criticise our position on the subject. Believe me, in a battle of wits, I could reduce Agnes Chan to a quivering wreck because I have something she doesn't: knowledge of the subject at hand. For sure, I'll see the lawmakers in Hell before I give up my 2D girls.

I'm not saying that Unicef and others following their line of argument are free of the burden of proof either. Currently, it's both sides yelling at each other without much evidence being brought to the table.

I too do not believe that lolicon hentai (repulsed though I am of it) contributes to increased cases of child sex offenses, but my personal opinion, drawn mainly from anecdotal evidence, is insufficient to prove that there is no causal link.

The divide between pornography and freedom of expression has always been a tricky one. In cases such as this, only independent and thorough research can justify any major action regarding the matter.

If no causal link can be found, then all the better for defenders of free speech and appreciators of lolicon. If there is a conclusive causal link however, even if it's effects are minor at best, I would expect no less then a complete ban.

Whatever conclusion this argument ultimately reaches, I care not. All I hope for is that proper research is held into the matter.

What I do find objectionable however, is the antagonism that the community is heaving on Unicef, which I find to be utterly unwarranted.

"even if it’s effects are minor at best, I would expect no less then a complete ban."

If you use that logic, then we should ban alcohol outright...oh and video games...TV...junk foods...food with mercury in them (fish)...because some of those things can have minor to major consequences...

The CEOP over here in Britain has taken the same route, undoubtedly because they've come to same conclusion we have: that there 'sadly' aren't enough real crimes against children to warrant their £250 million a year hand out from the Government. Meaning, let's make up some new ones again and bang up even more paedos, even though they aren't actually hurting anyone.

Of course, there's already a sniff of corruption at the highest level as the Operation Ore case continues to collapse. As one guy said on another site yesterday, sooner or later, the whole thing will be blown wide open and a lot of people will be doing serious jail time for their involvement.

Does the low number of sex-related crimes, including those involving children, in Japan as compared to the other countries of the world mean nothing?

If there's any place in the world where lolicon material would result in more crimes, it would be Japan, but on paper (and even being generous with compensating for undereporting) Japan is a much safer place for children than countries where lolicon related material is far less plentiful.

Do also remember UNICEF was not formerly a target of criticism in places such as this - that began when UNICEF began its current lolicon campaign, so one would think the burden of proof would be on them.

Fake story by same poster is fake?

Quite possibly, but as my interest lies solely with 2D girls, anyone trying to justify actual paedophilia to me is wasting their time.

Indeed, I may get off to the occasional cute Japanese high school girl in a sailor suit, but that's about my limit so far as the real world is concerned nowadays.

''disgusting lolicon otaku and why they should be stamped out with ever harsher laws''

Minakichan phail FTW!!!!111oneone

I think the "she's right" was referring to her lolicon statements, so my "she's wrong" was referring to that as well. Her definition of otaku was of course pretty much spot-on, surprisingly enough.

She doesn't say anything is wrong with it.

Article-reading skills for the win.

Err...sorry, my comment got replied to you somehow, which wasn't my intention ^_^;