How Insurance Works

In Defense of Loli Art and Lolicon

Over the years, within the Western anime community, there has been a growing number of discussions regarding the relationship between pedophilia and lolicon. But without proper definition and premises, the discourse often leads nowhere and creates confusion between parties arguing their positions. And with the increase of people using the Internet, the world becomes more interconnected and the idiosyncrasies of communities often clash with those outside of such groups, causing whiplash or shock for those that are not privy to what is typically the norm. A clear definition of loli art must be established so that people can understand why some people assume the label of lolicon and why loli art *must* be protected. In general terms, loli art is defined as an artistic illustration of a child. But while aesthetic drawings are typically that of a prepubescent child, in fiction, it is not limited by age. In a narrative, a character can be described as being over the legal age yet still look and act as a child. As such for the purposes of this video, a loli is synonymous with childlike body in an artistic setting. Therefore, a person that assumes the label lolicon implies that they enjoy artistic drawing of childlike characters, sexual or otherwise. However, the confusion begins when the accusation of being sexually aroused by such depictions implies intrinsic pedophilia. At face value, it is understandable to treat both as synonymous but… they are not the same. The word ‘lolicon’ originates from the book Lolita and is a Japanese contraction of Lolita complex. A person calling themselves a lolicon instead of a pedophile is an important distinction etymologically and epistemologically due to the connotations of pedophilia. In recent years, there has been a growing movement by certain groups to make it a pedophilia an accepted sexuality, to limited success… The failure can be attributed to how human beings rationalize everything in the world by their nature. Following the law of identity, it is assumed that a pedophile will eventually follow their nature and abuse children. While many may argue that there is an obvious difference between a pedophile, someone that has the potential to break the law in a particular way, and a child molester, someone that has already broken it by abusing a child, the general public considers a pedophile to be a potential future child molester, and thus, are a hazard, by their nature. However, so long as a pedophile has not broken the law, they should still be considered citizens with rights. Society should discriminate against child molesters that have abused children but… not pedophiles that have done nothing wrong. The problem is that it is hard not to treat a pedophile as though they are potential threat. No parent would want to have their child around the pedophile, for fear that they may do something. As such, the distinction between lolicon and pedophile *is* important because if those that consider themselves pedophiles were to live their lives without touching children and label themselves as lolicons, it would signal that they have no intention of abusing children. They recognize that their sexual desires are illegal and will only reside within their mind through art. And… lolicons that are not pedophiles can declare that they enjoy artistic drawings of children sexual or otherwise, and never had any intention of touching children in the first place. Simply put, a pedophile can be a lolicon but a lolicon may not be a pedophile and, equally, a child molester can be a lolicon or pedophile but a lolicon may not be a pedophile or child molester. The terms are not synonymous, so it is irresponsible to assume that a lolicon is a pedophile or child molester until proven otherwise. Of course, the desire to suppress pedophilia is a natural reaction within a liberal society. Under the view that children are unable to consent to sex, due to being young, it has given rise to the ideology that children must be protected. Abusing children is seen as a form of rape and… is treated as such by law. Although some pedophiles might argue that children have their own sexual desires at a young age, the use of coercion and manipulation are typically required to sexually assault children. Our currently liberal society ideologically commoditized children as pure and innocent and adults cannot infringe on that sexual innocence until children learn sex by themselves and have reached the age of consent. Because of this, by law, pedophiles must never ever be allowed to have sex with children. And nobody should think it is acceptable to altruistic sacrifice children to sate the urges of pedophiles simply because children may have sexual desires at a young age Therefore, as long as we live in a liberal society, child abuse will remain illegal… But at the same time, pedophiles are still human, regardless of how someone may see their sexuality as a perversion. They have the right to live, to find happiness and to be members of society. The problem, of course, is that indulging in their sexual desires would be impossible without breaking the law. This is a reason why loli art is important. Pornography is human imagination in theatrical action; it is the visual or textual representation of sexual acts, presented and enjoyed exclusively for their titillating characters. Since masturbation is nothing more than sexual self-sufficiency, pornography allows people to indulge themselves in the privacy of their own home. Loli art becomes a self-contained non-threatening outlet for pedophiles and those curious enough to look at such taboo content without acting on it in real life. A study done by Milton Diamond, Pet Weis and Eva Jozikova showed that in the Czech Republic, after decriminalizing all possible explicit sexual content, including child pornography, there was a rapid decline in the number of reported cases of child abuse. The study also showed similar results in Denmark and Japan. The belief that more pornography will lead to widespread moral degeneracy and social upheaval is possibly wrong. However… those results should not be taken as justification to legalize all types of pornography. Loli art should be legal while child pornography should remain illegal… A common misconception is that child pornography and loli art are similar since they may have similar audiences. However… it is important to distinguish the differences between sexualized loli art and child pornography. The central focus is the creation of art and child abuse. Art is defined as a recreation of reality to convey values and potentially evoke emotional responses. Video pornography, on the other hand, in its purest form and by its nature, is not intrinsically art because it is simply a documentation of sex. It lacks transformation or recreation, even if it evokes sexual responses. However, art can be of a pornographic nature. Loli art differs from child pornography because its creation is not simply a depiction of reality but requires to be created by an artist. Art has intrinsic value because it could not exist without the skill and mind of an artist. Child pornography is the visual depiction of a crime, without any recreation. It is correctly outlawed because it is an accessory to crime; abusing children and storing it for further viewing and the pleasure of others. No matter what, child pornography requires an abused and abuser, loli art does not… Japan has had a long history of debating the correlation between fiction and reality. As Patrick Galbraith comments in the book The End of Cool Japan: However… this sort of artistic sexual liberation comes at a cost. Since the 1970s, Japan implemented a general obscenity law against genitals being depicted. So long as private parts are covered up or not directly shown, almost any form of pornography and art is allowed to be published. This is generally known as the weird black censorship bar that can be found when looking at Japanese pornography As Mark McLelland notes: In the United States, there are similar measures of obscenity but greater emphasis and protection is given regarding free speech. The protect Act of 2003 is a US law with the stated intent of preventing child abuse as well as investigating and prosecuting violent crimes against children. Illustrations, sculptures and pictures depicting minors in actions are required to pass the Miller test of obscenity in order to become illegal. The Miller test is straightforward: speech or expression must fit one of these three criterias to not be considered obscene and protected under the First Amendment. The first Clause is based upon the reaction of an undefined collective, effectively, as to whether they feel offended. The definition of a community can refer to a house a street a city a state or the entire country. This complicates matter even more when applied to the Internet where one Internet community may accept obscene material but another may not. Even more confusing, the average person required to judge art is impossible to define. If anything, an average person is defined as having no unique qualities. The second Clause regards anything that can be deemed too sexual in nature, again, defined by an undefinable collective. The third Clause is a most important. If a work has any literary, artistic, political or scientific value, it is protected under free speech. Loli art may be deemed to have prurient interest by community standards… It may be overly sexual in nature… Butt… by being an artistic drawing, requiring a recreation of reality, it is protected under the third Clause. Because of this, in the United States, loli art is not illegal. While each individual state may regulate what is imported, the creation and consumption of loli art is legally allowed. Other countries, however, are not as lenient In Canada, between 1992 and 2001, after the R v Butler case, pornography was judged under its own laws of obscenity by the standards of undue explicit sex with violence within a narrative context and artistic intent. Child pornography was only prosecuted if it depicted actual children. During that time period, loli art was permitted. However, the laws regarding child pornography have become draconian ever since the R v Sharp 2001 case. The proceeding judge found that ‘person’ included both actual and imaginary beings on the ground that pornography was deemed to be of ”so little value”, in terms of free speech, that protecting children from sexual exploitation was more important. Slippery slope arguments were presented as a justification for banning loli art. It did not claim that women and children were directly exploited by pornography but… that audiences viewing obscene materials may be influenced and act differently in the future. Understanding the ruling of the Butler and Sharp cases gives us an insight to the central conflict at hand. Quoting the butler case: And with the Sharpe’s case: The central fear being echoed is whether we can be sure that obscene material will not potentially cause harm from its very existence. How can we know that loli art will not be used as a way to potentially coerce a child into sex? Or, what if people experiencing loli art develop an urge to abuse children? These two questions can be answered in a court case involving child pornography in the United States. In 2012 the Child pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) was successfully challenged in Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition for its overly broad definition of a minor. The Free Speech Coalition feared that Congress’ expanded definition of child pornography would endanger their legitimate activities and filed a lawsuit seeking to enjoin enforcement of the CPPA in the United States District Court for Northern District of California. There were two provisions that were contested and found to be over brought in restricting speech. The first was the proposition that virtual child pornography, such as loli art, could be used to entice children into sex. The courts found this to be an overreach because anything, such as candy, could be used as solicitation. It would be irrational to ban everything in an attempt to protect children since all items are neutrally commoditized. The second proposition is that virtual child pornography could ”whet the appetite” and eventually lead people to engage in sexual abuse with a minor. The court argued that the harm to children is very indirect and the effect on free speech would be too great. Because of this, the law was deemed to be too broad as it would ban other speech while not doing an effective job to directly prevent the abuse of children. The Child Pornography Prevention Act was later changed with the protect Act of 2003, allowing loli art to exist if it passed the Miller test… Comparing Canadian cases on child pornography with those of the United States shows the heart of the issue. Canada values free speech but not as much as the United States. For Canada, pornography is seen as having so little value that any artistic expression involving children is deemed irrelevant by conveying the message that children must not be seen as potential sex partners and… may cause harm in some undefined and indirect way. In comparison, the United States protects all art as speech unless someone is directly harmed in the making of the art. Therefore, two central premises are at odds: the value that free speech must be protected absolutely unless it infringes on the rights of others, and the ideology that children must be protected at all cost. To unravel this contradiction, it is important to understand the essence of free speech and ideology… At its core, an ideology is a system that shapes how you see the world. They are religions, philosophies, scientific systems, social norms, laws and regulations, commands of others etc. They can be conscious or unconscious, and are often both. Ideology is the spontaneous relationship we have towards society. It has a positive core that becomes mystified and made an absolute. Following an ideology to its core shows not only what it values but also the repulsive elements that it attempts to hide and tame. Building on the topic of loli art, the general ideology that children must be protected, even at the cost of low value speech, such as artistic pornography, stems from the belief that children must not be thought of in a sexual manner because… it is repulsive. A good example of this ideology from the Western anime community can be found in a video from the popular anime youtuber DouchebagChocolat. The concern presented in that video is not that people are indulging in their fantasies in real life… No… it is the idea that individuals should be allowed to have those desires, be proud of it and spread that idea. THAT… is what is seen as repulsive. And the language being used is not random. Importance is placed that the ‘idea’ and… ‘ideology’ being transmitted as… ‘viable’ is sickening… (I honestly would not have used Demo in the video, but I’ve seen a lot of people use him as a reference, so he had to be addressed) Although Demolition D has publicly retracted his statements regarding lolicon, the opinion in his video is still enlightening. The implications are self-evident: as a label, lolicon is too dangerous of an idea to be accepted as normal because desires can corrupt people. This general mentality is closely echoed by the whole of society. The ideology that children can be thought of in a sexual manner is too disgusting and cannot be allowed to exist, so it must be shamed, suppressed and even censored. It is not simply that only pedophiles are sexually attracted to children but anyone that feels that way *must* be a pedophile or a deviant. They are people that are a danger to society and their communities. This sort of mentality and ideology creates an unspoken fear that cannot be discussed. The ultimate truth being suppressed is this: anyone… can be sexually attracted to children… even though… they do not possess… any defining sexual attributes… To even say such a thing maybe audacious however… ideology is the unspoken but crucial set of assumptions that underline social behavior. It is something you would never express as your belief but… it would catastrophically undermine your ability to function, as it would disturb the official ideology through the mere exposure of its source. Recognizing the core of an ideology can be painful, it can shatter many personal illusions that were taken for granted but… it is a paradox that must be accepted and overcome to obtain freedom, both for yourself and those around you. It is only by accepting this truth that we become self-aware of our own actions within the frameworks of social structures. So it must be said again: anyone could be attracted to children, including people that may not be pedophiles, regardless of defining sexual attributes. And… there’s nothing wrong with having perverse fantasies so long as they remain a fantasy. But society is not ready for the sort of acceptance or realization. And shaming people for their desires or fetishes simply leads to widespread discrimination. This is why the label of lolicon is important and must be recognized. It openly declares sexual desires and recognizes its limitations. What needs to be recognized is not that sex or desires are bad– although some people do argue this– but that human nature can be violent irrational or perverse and is expressed as such in art. Human imagination cannot and should not be suppressed. Pornography shows us our deepest desires at our core. They are eternal forces at work beneath and beyond social convention and can be expressed openly in art. Pornography cannot be separated from art; they intertwine with each other, more than anyone can dare to admit. This is why people attempt to tame and suppress artistic pornography: it is voyeuristic of our desires. It makes many well-meaning people uncomfortable because it makes them complicit of the act itself. A person has the right to feel disgusted about another person’s sexuality and desires but… that disgust should not be considered a valid justification to debase a person of their humanity. The will and moral view of a collective are unimportant compared to the rights of all individuals. Obscenity laws exist to protect the moral integrity of a society but they are blatantly anti-free speech. Unjust laws, such as those in Canada, were loli art is considered to be the same as child pornography, were placed by the means of an ideology and can only be fought ideologically with the defense of free speech. A subjectively based undefine and unjust law can lead to human enslavement and its victims become its enforcers and enslaved themselves. Even the possibility of censorship can lead to irrational fear… In the book The End of Cool Japan, Patrick Galbraith notes: Loli art cannot be simply defended on the grounds that it does not hurt anyone but… on the principles and values of free speech. At its core, the right to free speech is an aspect of the right to liberty. Individuals must have the right to think for themselves and use their minds as they so choose. They must have the right to express their thoughts, desires and beliefs in material form, whether orally or in writing without fear of losing their lives to a mob or facing government’s suppression. Freedom of speech is important because it protects the rights of unpopular minorities that the majority may wish did not exist. In essence, the right to free speech is the right to use your body and property to express ideas to anyone who chooses to listen. However… freedom of speech means freedom from interference, suppression or punitive action by the government AND NOTHING ELSE. For example, in 2017, the website patreon made additional steps to remove bestiality, incest, sexual depiction of minors and fetish content that is hard to distinguish from non-consensual sex. This applied both to live-action media and illustrations. People were displeased by the act and called it censorship but… it is not strictly the case. Censorship is a term pertaining only to governmental action. No action on the part of private entities is capable of censorship. The right to sell or spread your speech or ideas is given permission by the owners of the property. No private individual or agency can silence a person or suppress a publication. Only the government can do that. As such, Patreon can do as it pleases on its platform. However… a freer marketplace attracts the greatest potential of both artists and consumers, creating more money. Between ideology and money, Patreon chose to follow the belief that certain sexual depictions were too taboo to be allowed on their platform. Despite widespread condemnation, people were unable to make Patron change her policies. The only way to challenge an ideology is for its opposite view to become more popular and to defend free speech as an absolute, even if it makes you feel uncomfortable. Ultimately, the right of those that seek pornography and art should not be infringed by unjust laws that protect the sensibilities of those that find desires offensive. What a community deems to be disgusting should never be an acceptable justification for censorship by the government or any form of personal discrimination. If a person does not want to see explicit content, then they are free to avoid it. Warning signs may be presented within private spaces and websites to telegraph that they contain sexual content, should they be open to the public. But all manner of artistic pornography should be allowed to exist in a society that holds value in liberty, freedom of speech, and freedom of expression. If a person is repulsed by any form of artistic expression, all they can do is look away, refuse to listen or refuse to finance or support it in any way. It is ultimately the right to do so and only such is the extent of their rights. A person’s discussed for loli art, as well as all other violent and taboo art, becomes a good test to see their loyalty of the principles of free speech. The Western anime audience, following the general trends of the Japanese artistic scene, is culturally impacted by their tastes and state of sexual liberation. It is a part of our identity, and it should be something that is celebrated, not shamed. Although this video is about loli art and lolicon, it can easily apply to all forms of artistic pornography that is deemed taboo by the public. Sexuality and desires are part of the human condition they are too important to be ignored and suppressed. This might be the most political I’ll be on this channel. Too often, I’ve seen people tackle the topic of pornography, but to be able to properly talk about it, you must be knowledgeable of all the branches of philosophy, from aesthetics, to epistemology, to politics and ethics. Loli art and pedophilia are wildly considered to be one of the most taboo topics to defend, so I felt this would be a good life or death challenge. Considering no one has been able to provide any general contradictions of the premises given in this video, I declare the matter of pornography to be eternally closed.

Reader Comments

  1. ah, i love men justfying every fucking disgusting thing they wanna jerk off to just because it's about their dicks.

  2. Holy fuck. This was it, the ultimate defense. When I first saw this video, i thought it would go the easy way of "liking Lolis has nothing to do with pedophilia" but you actually went throught and addresed all the points without using a escape goat, and even had the courage to critizice society itself. I am truly amazed, i really hope i could give more than a like.
    PD: And also thanks for remind me the awesome masterpiece that is Shimoneta.

  3. I really hope for every time there is an outbreak topic on Twitter about lolicons and pedophiles a link to this video will be used more often.

  4. After watching the video and reading through a lot of the comments here, I'm a little confused about how you're definitively distinguishing "pornography" (here defined loosely as sexual footage of real people) from the concept of "art", in a general and definitive way. I agree with some level of transformation being necessary for something to qualify as art, and think that's overall a really accurate umbrella for art to fall under. But what qualifies as a sufficient level of transformation seems pretty hazy. And seeing as a (if not the) main point of the video is trying to establish art as a completely separate entity from pornography, that haziness could use some clearing up.

    For instance, regarding how much transformation is necessary for something to be "art": the implication I got when you were talking about tracing was that tracing does not qualify as art, as it is not enough of a transformation from reality. But take any photo-realistic illustration from anywhere in time, and suppose it was traced – is your stance that that illustration would not qualify as "art", despite how closely it would stylistically resemble its non-traced peers? Or, what about a realistic illustration of a real person that's so convincing it could conceivably have been traced, but wasn't – would that also not qualify as art, despite the fact that it would have been drawn by someone's hand, simply because it was derived from a real person?

    Point is, I'm not sure if I agree with the idea that an illustration traced from something real would cease to qualify as art, because that makes something's qualification as "art" dependent upon the method of its creation, over an individual's perception of the final product itself. Which sounds not at all in line with the common acceptance of what art is.

    Similarly, movies or films are considered art. In a comment somewhere below, you kind of addressed this by saying that adding some editing onto porn can't make it art, because it still wasn't suitably transformed. But suppose some footage was just like any other "great" movie – fully scored, professionally acted and produced, has strong thematic focus that, hell, let's say isn't even about sex, professionally edited, etc. – with the exception that its main feature on-screen happened to be a scene featuring real sexual intercourse. Would you say that footage wouldn't qualify as art? Because as is, I would. Real sex or not, as described, that sounds like a film to me. And if that does, then what's keeping anything less well-produced from falling under the umbrella of being a film/"art" as well?

    Last thing, which is kind of a separate point: I see you citing attraction vs arousal in the comments a lot. Is your argument so reliant on one of those words being strictly relegated to reality (attraction)? Because I don't really buy that. A lot of times, in reference to an anime character I'm especially drawn to (for example's sake, I'll say Nina Fortner from Monster), I don't think, "I am aroused by this character" – I think, "I am attracted to this character." And using "aroused" instead of "attracted" there would just sound…disingenuous. Because arousal implies a strictly physical, instinctual effect – mainly lust, basically. When it's absolutely possible (and common, as far as I can tell) to be drawn strongly to a fictional character for more than just that. I legit can't think of any other word for it than "attraction". Nothing else fits. It's a boner of the body vs boner of the heart kind of thing, if that makes any more sense. Of course it's not the same exact kind of attraction like to a real person, but it's a sort of attraction nonetheless that can sometimes borrow from it (particularly when it comes to a character's personality). So that said, leaning so heavily on some apparent real vs fictional divide between attraction and arousal in many of your replies down here seems like a weak semantic argument that would be much better substituted by something less reliant on a weirdly limited interpretation of the word "attraction". Unless I'm missing some essential subtext here.

    Anyway. This video is genuinely a great analysis and breakdown of the topic. I'm not trying to poke holes for poking's sake. For the most part what you've laid out is logical and sensical. It's just this aspect of your argument that I feel warrants more concrete clarity, else the argument feel flimsier than it should. In short, my main hang-up is: how can you truly say that porn does not qualify as "art", when the level of transformation needed for something to be considered art is so abstract and ill-defined?

  5. sigh… Loli art is one of the few things that interest me… and you don't see em often 🙁
    Luckily I only enjoy it… and am neither a Loli-con, nor a podophile. well… honestly, depends on your beliefes… but I aint interested in that kind of thing.

  6. This is a fantastic video, and I hope it doesn't get taken down! A lot of people put their core beliefs and opinions first, and put hard morals and a sense of wrong and right second. Most (if not all) people build their core opinions off of what their parents told them, and their experiences; but this bias is what makes people so unaccepting. People don't like what they were taught to hate, and a lot of people are told that children are not for sex, and that considering them as such is (essentially) blasphemous. And while this is good for keeping people from becoming pedophiles, it has also lead to a general hate of any depiction of nude children, real or fictitious. It was nice to see someone finally defend lolicon with reason and logic, and not bias. Sadly the people who run youtube are probably very biased, so good luck, your defense is appreciated!!!

  7. “It’s free speech till you say some shit I disagree with” is the common thought weather people know it or not. I personally feel bad for pedophiles. That last clip hit me hard

  8. Anyone know the name of the anime at 2:11? Sorry if this has been asked 100 times, I simply can't seem to find it.

  9. Anime/Manga lolis are ok, especially the ones who are hundreds or thousands of years old. But does that mean people who like anime/manga lolis will go after REAL LIFE children? NO! NO! NO! Anime/Manga lolis don't exist in real life, therefore does NOT harm real children. So close minded people needs to stop taking away things that are fiction and taking away their rights to actually like anime/manga lolis. It's really stupid on how people are offended by things that are not even real, and they tell those who are into them to get away from them, or even attack/judge them.😡

  10. Idk man, I feel a bit iffy about a few of things mentioned in the video. I do respect you as a YouTube's though, and I like how you did so much research for it. I remember Shadbase was being accused of being a pedophile to, and he himself even mentioned show he's not even into a lot of the things he draws, and when it comes to loli art, he'd rather pedophiles look at his art then act on it on actual kids. A lot of people do tend to assume someone is a certain way because of what they like. I'm personally not into lolis being sexualized, but I can definitely tell when someone isn't actually attracted to real kids.

  11. All forms of art is OK! I don't care if it makes you feel uncomfortable! If it's normal to shoot people in the head countless times, why does it matter what body type is OK in an art form? Seriously, the Western moral views is so fucking skewed, its unbelievable. As for people complaining about a characters age. Who fucking cares how old they are? It's simply there to be canon to a story. It's not relative to real world standards. Ash Ketchum from Pokemon has been 10 Yrs old for decades! He was older than me when Pokemon launched, now I'm older than him. Point is? He never ages! Means nothing!

    How about a real life adult in their 20s playing the role of a minor in a TV series? Should we Bann that too? People need to understand Fantasy/Fiction exists for a reason, and no matter how disgusting, weird, gory, something is. As long as no REAL people are hurt in the process illegally, it shouldn't matter what art direction FICTION takes.

  12. In conclusion: Loli art are depictions of the human mind and is an art. If you start banning this kind of art, all forms of sexualized art should be banned aka. nearly all movies, paintings and statues. Why haven't we destroyed the various marble statues from Greece and Rome that depict human genitalia? Why do we allow people to move around streets naked for a parade and why the heck are such videos on the internet of these events? Why do we allow media of supposedly deviant sexual fetishes like BDSM? or gay sex for that matter? Why are these content not suppressed?The first and most idiotic reason is because society accepts such deviants is because their numbers have proliferated and are between "adults" and it is not a crime. The question then is who decides that loli art is related with sexual exploitation of children or if these art forms are "adults". There should be significant proof to back the argument up or else we might have to delete over half of all the videos on various porn sites. There are depictions of incest, cheating and BDSM in their videos. They make it obvious it is fake but it is depicted. Supposing that sexualized media promotes such actions, all porn should all be vanilla and everything else be banned. An idiotic concept is it not? All those porn videos cannot be described as crimes but the effects on the children are much more prevalent than lolis if we made the assumption sexualized media promotes the actions depicted.
    Just assuming that sexually drawing of children is related to child abuse gives ground to ban them. If the well being of children were the main concern, why don't we ban drugs, porn, alcohol, cigarettes and anything that is related to child abuse? Also, the effects of banning is poorly understood. It might cause an increase in sexual assault of children because there were insufficient media for a pedophile to consume.
    The problem is this: the government prevented sexual depiction of children. That means that in anime they are not allowed to be depicted as "cute." You see Japanese anime have this weird tendency to combine sexy, lewd, cute and other adjectives, etc. all in one in a weird and undefinable term known as "moe." A child represented with a school uniform that is a bit too large can be seen as sexual due to the art style, even without accentuating their sexual features. Like this, any child wearing a swimsuit is sexual. Any child wearing anything other than the most plain and skin-covering clothes is sexual. Any child that wears a skirt is sexual. Any child that kneels down to grab something is sexual. Basically, everything is sexual. In other words by banning sexual loli art you need to ban the existence of children in anime except as extras or as background with the most plain clothes acting out the simplest actions. Basically, even head pats and hugging them have sexual connotations. Should this be the case, it comes to the concern, should other forms of media ban such depictions since they are sexual in a certain media? This would make nearly all parents who posted their children's photo on facebook a criminal who advocated for sexualized children.
    To conclude, where do we place the line and with what evidence do we place this line? At the line where their genitalia is revealed or when they act or look like something that depicts something sexual or when they are related to anything sexual? Should all records that could potentially be viewed as sexual be banned?
    Personally, I have no idea. I like loli art and anime in general and feel offended that lolis were banned with no actual evidence relating them to crime.

  13. censorship of art(so long as it's not photo realistic) can fuck off

    anime character's are not realistic, it's fantasy.

    freedom of fictional artistic expression means anything goes cuck

  14. Interesting take. Fanservice for females whether its a loli or not should make sense in context of the story or being funny and not being there just to show ass or tits.

  15. I still have some questions.Can something be art if whether or not if it conveys ideas is subjective? A person could look at Rorschach's ink blots and see an animal,whilst another person could see only random spills of ink

    Another example Is Jackson Pollocks's work.A person could see Pollocks's work and say that his work conveys the value of 'chaos',whilst another person could just see just paint

  16. I don’t think Lolicon should be banned, but I completely understand if people think lolicons are disgusting (myself included)

  17. As a spanish speaking person, I learn more about the use of language from an english youtube channel about lolis and traps than from La Real Academia Española

  18. Cuse of This thing agents Lolicon it made feeel weird for have feelings for a girls who was much smaller then others.(she was 2 years Younger and I was in my Junior year) I’ve moved now and I never got to tell her how I felt. We had drama tougher and we talked a lot.

  19. Banning lolicon is as dumb as banning art that dipicts any other crime like murder or drug use.half the movies and shows would be banned XD

  20. We are a child protection nonprofit yet we do not support the banning of lolli art. We are supporting research to find out whether lolicon does lead to actual child abuse or not. See

  21. I respect that you have an opinion, but given that it's the wrong opinion I have to respectfully ask you to go die in a pit you degenerate.

  22. You are sexualizing children. That is absolutely fucking abhorent. I hope every single person who agrees with you dies in a car accident

  23. Too bad it’s easier for people to shun lolicons, rather than just accept them like they would a “normal” person


  25. I was not a fan of this video because I was hoping it would delve into why you believe loli imagery isn't inherently immoral – instead you analysed all from a viewpoint of the law, and concluded on a free speech/slippery slope argument.

    This is an okay line of reasoning, but I feel like you didn't explore it properly, and made vacuous statements, like how unjust laws can lead to human enslavement. This is potentially true, but doesn't really sit as an argument by itself.

    Ultimately, I'm just not a fan of the free speech argument by itself. You doubled down on it as your core reason towards the end – whilst also alluding to what should have been your focus – people's disgust.

    Pedophiles generally aren't shunned by the average person because it breaks the law. The average person doesn't think through the opposing legal viewpoints which they do not know when deciding if they disagree with something – It's instead a moral gut instinct.

    I recommend reading an author on moral psychology called Jonathan Haidt, but basically he goes into the fact that there are 6 moral principles inherent in all human cultures – And in this video you are talking about the clash between our inherent gut instincts of Moral Sanctity and Moral Liberty. What is important is that our idea of what is 'Morally Sacred' can be changed – The issue is, this video did not really finish arguing this. Instead you argued that censorship is a violation of the Moral Principle of Liberty – a fair argument, but it ultimately leads to both sides arguing past eachother.

    To change the common viewpoint on why loli imagery isn't immoral, you would need to argue from a viewpoint of why it doesn't violate the principal of sanctity (instead of just dismissing them as people's sensibilities). I think this is potentially possible, and you do start alluding to why a fantasy is just a fantasy – but I think that line should've been taken further as opposed to the free speech argument. Just my personal opinion on this one – I do appreciate the video, I just unfortunately think the argument is ineffective if other moral principles aren't considered properly other than Liberty.

  26. Fucking disgusting…

    You're trying your absolute hardest to normalize pedophilia because you are in fact a pedophile…get help.

  27. If the child know what they're talking about, they could arguably give consent. Good luck finding this without deliberately engineering it, though.

  28. I disagree with most of your points. It is never ok to lay with a child. A child is underdeveloped (You can seriously damage a child) and any sexual encounter with a child should be shamed. Freedom of speech should be protected of course but even drawing "children as sexual objects isn't art. It's more someones desire to spread Pedophilia and hiding behind expression. There is a cultural difference between the east and west but that does not excuse Pedophilia.

    Breaking norms as you say isn't a problem that people need to accept it's common sense, that looking at a child in any kind of sexual way should be shamed and dealt with.

    You can disagree with my statement but the FACTS are Pedophilia however big or small should be treated as an illness and should not be accepted.
    Underdeveloped Children should not be used as an expression for sexual or predator nature.

    You can't use "It's a cartoon" "It isn't real" as a defense the problem is what it promotes. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

    Older women in Hentai and or fully developed teens are acceptable due to their bodies actually being developed.

    So by fantasizing about cartoon child characters it is still Pedophilia if you're looking at them with sexual intent.

  29. You did a great job with this video 'cause it's been an year since it came out and I still come across it every now and then! Thank you very much for one of the best defenses of lolicon and free speech I've seen on youtube, hopefully it gets more reach as time passes.

    Also what anime is that girl at 1:10 from?

  30. Is this some rare and creative form of trolling? I can't tell are you serious or just wanted to troll the normies. I am huge guro/gore fan so you can tell me, i can't really judge, we all gonna burn in hell together in the end anyway.

  31. People have their own fetishes and opinions. Some people (especially SJWs) are thought policing other people who loves fiction, especially anime.

    As I remember, real child molesters are responsible for attempting to ban lolis (UN is an example for molesting 60000 children). Even on social media, people are stalking children.

    I tried to convince people, but they think I lied.

    Dude, you are great. Did you research?

  32. This is probably the most solid video about lolicon I’ve seen in a while and I’ve learned more about my country’s ( Canada) laws. I’m not into lolicon or anything like that but I feel that this video explains my thoughts and opinions on this.

  33. I classify myself as a lolicon, but I'm not even mildly interested in children. Seriously, these little monsters are so annoying that I'd rather jump off a cliff than hang around with them.
    That being said, I am indeed to an extent, attracted to early teens and pre teens. But honestly who isn't? Im still also technically a teen, so it's not really that weird if I'm not in a sexual relationship with them either.


  34. 3:20 this guy goes ahead and says if pedophiles go around calling themselves something that is literally used in its native language to mean pedophile and has lead to arrests from people ACTIVELY COMMITTING CRIMES AGAINST CHILDREN while calling themselves "lolicons" it signals they mean no harm. Genuinely going ahead and saying it's okay to go around telling everyone you're a pedophile, and people shouldn't look down on that. What the actual hell. It's like calling yourself a NOMAP, and being proud of that fact, and even that's a shit analogy because Lolicon isn't the same as a NOMAP, it's the same as a direct fucking pedophile.

    Not a single person on earth should be proud of being a pedophile, and do anything about it other than hide it and be ashamed of it.

  35. I talked a lot with people on the internet on why they think it's not ok but the only answer they give me is"it's gross", "they're children" Etc but never link paedophilia to lolicon?
    Like I get it, I don't even like lolicon but out of all the other horrible shit people jack off to like ryona, rape hentai, non con etc why do loli stick out? Shouldn't we ban those things too? it's still sexual desire and if people that jack off to those things most of the time doesn't even want to do it irl then why is lolicon the big issue here?

  36. I think that if you aren't harming anyone or encroaching on anyone else's liberties, you should be free to do whatever you want. Though I don't like it and am deeply disturbed by those that do, it is their right to be able to express themselves. No actual children are being harmed or taken advantage of. On another pro of allowing it, it may give pedophiles (as disgusting as they are) an outlet as to not harm or exploit any actual children.

  37. We shouldn't allow pedophiles to release desire through any pornography including "loli art", pornography itself is terrible for the brain and child versions would only breed this, instead pedophiles need therapy. It's entirely possible to gain desires, and hopefully also erase some… Also, the fact that loli art is so widespread and public is another issue. Again its possible to gain desires, especially in puberty, so with all this lolicon you could effectively (and probably already have) CREATED pedophiles.

  38. You've clearly not done sufficient research on canadas laws about it. Its the same here as it is in the states, some provinces dont like it, some do.

  39. I'm not in anyway attracted to real life children. I just admire the artistic factor of the Loli.

    …god I feel terrible just saying that from the outside looking in

  40. While the two are different you can't deny that it's fucking creepy and you can't deny that given Japan's history with pedophilia this sub culture is problematic

  41. The argument against the "idea" of depicting pornography of fictional children to me is the same exact logic used in the whole "do video games cause violence" argument. We have media depicting crimes such as theft, murder, and even rape, yet it is generally accepted that the mere depiction of these crimes do not promote the real act. Example: Someone could easily have fun killing people in a video game, while having no urge to do so in real life. In theory, the same applies to lolicon. There are no laws saying that similar crimes such as murder cannot be depicted in media, as well as there are little to no studies that show any link between video games and violence in real life; in the same way in that lolicon does not promote real pedophilia.

    Also, even if there WAS a link, by principle I personally despise shaming and dehumanization of any sort towards people who have done no wrong. People are still people, treating them as anything less in my eyes is morally deplorable. This point specifically is just personal opinion and has little bearing on my argument against lolicon being pedophilia.

  42. I have looked through the comments asked or answered. the anime at (7:52) and (13:09) thanks

  43. Pretty good video.
    I'd like you to expand on your claims near 30:19 time mark.

    It is said by you that only governmental structures are capable of censorship, which would mean that any entity that is not privately owned is capable of such an act.
    And I do disagree with you on that statement. There are definitely private institutions such as corporations.
    I'd agree with you if the notion that private entities are not capable of introducing censorship to the customers. But they definitely can and do comply with government's censorships, such as the case with Google's maps in varying countries.

    However, censorship in private entities does exist, just not in customer – entity relations, but workforce – employer/boss/anyone with considerable amount of power in said private ownership. Your boss could definitely silence you under a threat of losing your job, monetary loss, etc.
    Indeed, those actions are against the set laws of the nation the private ownership operates in, but in most cases the victim of such censorship is being scared into not bringing up that issue with governmental institutions. And even then, there are unfortunately cases, where the one that has the shinier pockets wins.

    So yeah, I'd love you to expand on that.

  44. Loli pornography is not protected under the third clause because it has to be serious artistic value, not just flat “artistic value”. In the US the average jury/judge would not conclude that the vast majority of loli porn has the necessary serious artistic value to be protected speech.

  45. Why is this being recommended to me and why did someone make a 30minute video complaining about drawings representing CHILDREN in a NSFW way not being pedo. Must have stumbled upon the incel side of youtube, also flicking through the video it's just you screaming about free speech and pics of kids in bikinis. Yikes dude, most people find this stuff weird, just deal with it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *