[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.

[cforrester]

I'll do some more reading, but I find the concept extremely implausible. If the fictional child did not represent a child in their mind, there would be no need to seek out media featuring children. The 2D/3D attraction hypothesis you've presented would exist aside their paedophilia.

[claudiawerner]

>If the fictional child did not represent a child in their mind, there would be no need to seek out media featuring children.

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.

[cforrester]

Thank you for taking the time, I understand the concept you're explaining, it just sounds implausible. At the end of the day, they're still fantasizing about children, they've just found a way to believe that they're doing it in a way that is not mentally deleterious. I'll keep reading, but it's going to take something extraordinary to convince me that the link between sexual excitement and the qualities that make up the concept of a child is something that manifests in people who aren't paedophiles.