[claudiawerner]

It's worth noting that the image in question is not pornographic. It's entirely possible to depict nudity and for it not to be pornographic. A passing familiarity with the manga or anime series would correct your misconception.

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".

[cforrester]

I would welcome some links to what you've read on this topic if you're willing. I briefly Googled Patrick Galbraith, and he does not appear to have the relevant education in psychology necessary to conduct such research, so I would strongly prefer medically-authoritative sources of information.

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.

[falcolas]

If you're asking for citations, you may wish to also provide them yourself. Otherwise it's merely using heresay and "Think of the children" brands of moralization to push your own morals onto others (other countries, in this instance).

[simion314]

Not the parent com mentor, but your argument is similar to the one where rock music and violent video games were blamed to cause violence. I don't know the show mentioned but in general would be a good idea not to block legal material because someone thinks it is not safe. There might be a correlation between some groups that consume X and some ill people.

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.

[cforrester]

These are dissimilar due to the pathological nature of child pornography consumption. Consider instead if you had a true compulsion to commit acts of violence. I'm not so sure a psychologist would give you the all-clear to consume media which feeds into that compulsion, even if it would be fine for a mentally sound person.

That's the sticking point here: there is no mentally healthy market for child sexual abuse.

[simion314]

>Consider instead if you had a true compulsion to commit acts of violence. I'm not so sure a psychologist would give you the all-clear to consume media which feeds into that compulsion, even if it would be fine for a mentally sound person.

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.

[cforrester]

I'm saying that violent media is fine for general consumption because the typical consumer is not prone to acts of violence, and the fantasy they are engaging in is temporary. The same is not true of child sexual abuse, where the typical consumer does have a mental illness that compels them to sexualize children.

[cforrester]

I'm not trying to convince you or win imaginary victories. If they're interested in sharing information, I'm willing to read it. Otherwise, I will stick with the opinion I've formed based on what I've already read from relevant experts over the years.

[falcolas]

Then, we appear to be done having a conversation. Have a great day!

[cforrester]

Seems that way, but I'm glad I could offer a dissenting opinion; ending child sexual abuse is a topic of particular importance to me.

[claudiawerner]

>I briefly Googled Patrick Galbraith, and he does not appear to have the relevant education in psychology necessary to conduct such research, so I would strongly prefer medically-authoritative sources of information.

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.

[cforrester]

I'll look up the names and articles you've mentioned, thanks for that. I've seen some information about the effects of porn consumption, but it's difficult to relate the results of a study on typical porn consumers with the effects of media depicting child sexual abuse on those with a mental illness compelling them to sexualize children. That's an enormous sticking point that also differentiates the typical consumer of fiction with the consumer of depictions of child sexual abuse. We can't expect someone consuming specific types of media pathologically to react the same way as a typical person consuming media that does not aggravate an illness of theirs.

[claudiawerner]

I have no doubt at all that pedophiles do enjoy fictional child pornography. However, my contention is that (i) it is not clear that pedophiles make up the majority of such viewers, and there are other plausible explanations for why, concordant with what we know from other kinds of media, and (ii) it is not clear that the fans understand the work in the way pedophiles do, and Galbraith's work on the history and current trend of phenomenon hints in that direction.

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.

[cforrester]

What is it that you think interests people in seeing sexualized depictions of children when it's not the children themselves? Perhaps someone who lacks empathy may simply not care that they're fantasizing about children being abused, but I'm honestly trying think of any other scenario that is more plausible than them being sexually attracted to children.

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?

[claudiawerner]

You've missed the key point I was making, which is that these people do not fantasize about children at all, if by children we mean real (3D) children, in the same way BDSM enthusiasts do not fantasize about really non-consensually caning someone, or raping someone. It's only made OK in their mind by the addition of fiction and play. According to Galbraith's findings, concordant with other research in fictional media, they literally don't think of a real life child when they see these characters. They think of them as tropes, assemblages of aesthetic features (hair colour, height, body type) that are themselves referents only to other symbols.

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.