Lolita Complex: A look behind the drama inside lolicon culture
Or: why does anime/manga culture's most controversial genre invites skirmishes between 'cunny' enjoyers and 'SJW puritans' in the internet?
Note that this topic contains discussion of content considered NSFW. Please keep that in mind when reading this article. This article began development around early September, and was only finished as of October 2022 due to a lack of motivation.
“Do you consider yourself an Anime fan?” I would’ve fancied myself using a better opening, but instead, I would ask you - the reader - this. I often ask myself this question too.
Yes, ironhidev3, while you’ve barely touched a comic book or manga before, you’ve spent twenty-four days worth of watching anime - and it all started on a whim one day after spending your childhood catching glimpses of the Pokémon anime (as well as Digimon Fusion for a bit), you have drawn all your attention into a TV show from a TV channel you frequented, about a phantom thief running around the world, stealing treasures with the help of his ninja assistant.
I was never the same, ever again.
Mysterious Joker was the first anime (technically an adaptation of a manga series) I was fully committed to. However, the channel where it was available was weirdly inconsistent with new episodes (or I never got much chance for screen time, admittedly). I especially liked the English dub only available on that channel and was very disappointed that the dub only covered up to the first two seasons.
That made Mysterious Joker the first anime where I surfed my ass into a piracy anime site to continue watching it (in particular, the third and fourth seasons that only had the original Japanese audio). Nowadays, I think that the entire series, in general, is a 6.5/10 - it’s harmless fun that suffers from pacing issues - but it’s always great to remember your roots, back when they were small parts of a sapling.
It’s from this sapling of interest that my interest in anime matured and grew into a tree - a piece of culture that I enjoyed, with the fruits being whatever anime I had in mind that week.
Some of these are mainstream, popular stuff everyone’s at least heard of. Jojo’s Bizarre Adventure (initially Stardust Crusaders and onwards without even considering the first part), Demon Slayer, Spy × Family, My Hero Academia…1 At least over half of the shows I watch are mainstream Shonen stuff, at least judging by my definition of “mainstream” to both the public eye and the general anime community.2
So with that all in mind, would I consider myself an anime fan? Kind of. My definition is loose. It doesn’t matter if you spent a year’s worth of anime binge-watching, or if your favorite character from One Piece is “Goku Naruto” - if you watch and enjoy anime, *you’re* an anime fan. But the definition of an anime fan depends on who you’re asking, thus making this a subjective question. Some would raise the benchmark into consistently watching anime, while others would want you to stomach the weird shit that goes down sometimes, lest you become a “tourist”.
Yes, we’re talking about copious amounts of boobs and butts shown, how the age of anime characters means fuck all practically, and most importantly (in this article), some of the weirdest “fetishes” prevalent as standard tropes (Adult characters that look and act like children, anybody? Or, what about chicks with dicks? No, being a transgender woman doesn’t count for the latter part, that’s a Futanari3, you SJW4 morons5).
While I could brave away and sometimes even enjoy these tropes, they may also potentially scare away potential fans, sworn off from watching “weirdo shit for pedophiles” (or content only “men of culture” enjoy, depending on who you ask). Now, is it morally correct to gatekeep these fans from asking for these tropes to go away? I honestly don’t care and I’d rather save discussions about this issue for maybe another time, as that’s not the main reason I wrote this.
Instead, we’re talking about the weird stuff in anime - in particular lolicon culture, both sides about the arguments (for or against enjoying them), and why we normies and weeaboos alike will keep on hearing about them for a long time. Let’s get into this issue by first talking about a bit of context behind this ongoing culture war.
Now only if there was a proper table of contents feature in Substack…
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F91fe2cc2-4b1f-4edd-8041-5a30a2e48f43_1600x900.jpeg)
A loli refers to a small, young/young-looking girl, appearing in Japanese anime and manga. From a layman’s perspective, they resemble children (a good portion of loli characters are children anyways). If we’re going to detail, they are young-looking, having a short, small body type/frame, with a flat chest and small waist. They are strictly based on that body type, and that body type alone - no, flat-chested tall women don’t count.
Meanwhile, lolicon is a genre of fictional media where these loli characters appear in romantic or sexual contexts. The term itself is a portmanteau of “Lolita complex”, which in turn refers to Vladimir Nabokov’s infamous novel “Lolita”, where the main character gets into a close relationship with a 12-year-old girl and bribes her in exchange for sexual favors.
Not a great start when the definition of lolicon implies a complex where hebephilia (and to a layman, pedophilia) is implied, which is a stigma most lolicon fans are fighting against (specifically the pedophilia bit). Sure, it’s a work of fiction - minors were probably not involved in the production of Lolita, but the fact that the book depicts hebephilia would surely raise eyebrows and give out red flags to people against lolicon content.
We’ll get that to later but for now, I would want you to keep this in mind. The argument that “lolicon = pedophilia” and other arguments that support and dispute this will be relevant in later parts, as they are THE major debate on the topic of lolicon content.
Anyways, lolicon culture started to take off around the late 70s. In 1979, the lolicon genre’s first notable work appeared when the fan magazine Cybele published its first issue. That issue featured an erotic parody of "Little Red Riding Hood" by Hideo Azuma, who would later be established as a pioneer of the lolicon genre.
Azuma’s work contrasted with other pornographic works and their realistic, gritty artwork by using a cleaner art style that would closely resemble the styles of fantasy-like and cutesy anime and manga, inspired by shojo manga and Osamu Tezuka’s works. While its initial fanbase viewed Azuma’s comics as parodic, fans looking for an alternative for the aforementioned realistic art style of pornographic manga eventually grew, thus eventually shifting the art styles of erotic manga into this unrealistic style.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F8739062a-45e5-4e7e-91a9-f3a8df526d8c_2078x1904.jpeg)
And ever since then, a lolicon boom commenced, expanding to more less-erotic outlets. More “cute children” characters started popping up in more and more works, with Clarisse from “Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro“ being the most popular example. People talked about her appeal and even made fan manga featuring her, the latter being more “fairytale-esque” and “girly” in nature. Specialty magazines with a focus on lolicon content, such as “Lemon People” and “Manga Burikko”, started publication, and since then the lolicon boom went rolling. Lolicon content has since become normalized around the 1990s, being accepted as both a niche for pornographic works or a trope present in mainstream manga.
Now let’s talk about the actual argument itself. Lolicon culture is a very controversial business because of the aforementioned “lolicon = pedophilia” argument, which is denied by supporters and agreed upon by detractors. Let’s see that in action.
The first time lolicon culture became controversial in the public eye was also the first time the “lolicon = pedophilia” argument ever took place (also in the public eye) because this case involved an actual pedophile.
Between 1988 to 1989, a man by the name of Tsutomu Miyazaki began killing and murdering four young girls - all between the ages of 4 and 7 - around Tokyo and Saitama, Japan, and did all sorts of degenerate acts with their dead bodies, from sexually molesting their corpses to drinking the blood of one of the victims. He would later be arrested - he was trying to molest two more kids by then and was caught by the victim’s father, who reported him to Japanese authorities.
To make matters worse, Miyazaki’s secret stash got raided, and inside his stash were multiple video tapes - slasher films in which Miyazaki modeled his crimes, but most importantly multiple shoujo and lolicon manga were also discovered. The implications that Miyazaki may be influenced by these works - as in, Miyazaki got extremely horny and decided to molest actual minors - sparked debate amongst the public. Perhaps lolicon content restrained Miyazaki’s lust for children? Is the line between fiction and reality finally cracking down?
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fe58f1794-3ecd-40ae-9e82-5b8ef557463e_1000x760.jpeg)
Regardless, the press wasn’t looking good for the then-arrested Miyazaki. He was labeled an “otaku”, with implications more steering to other labels including “sexually immature men” and “pedophiles”. He would be eventually trialed by the Tokyo District Court, sentenced to death during 1997, and hanged during 2008 after years on death row.
So yes, a real-life case led to possibly the first proper “missing link” between lolicon content and pedophilia - they may encourage it. This argument is one of many made by the antis about why is lolicon a scourge to humanity.
The term “anti” refers to a person (or a group of people) opposed to a particular idea. In online debates, this “idea” could range from anywhere, from K-pop and V-tubers to shipping fictional characters together,6 and yes - lolicon content isn't exempt from this belief. Thus, "anti-lolicons" (hereinafter referred to as simply "antis") would debate that enjoying loli content - and especially (or specifically) sexual lolicon content - is morally incorrect.
They are firm supporters of the “lolicon = pedophilia” argument. They believe that since laws of child pornography also covers drawn or animated cartoon sexual depictions of children, they should be illegal (as is child porn in a lot of countries). It barely matters that they are not underage canonically - to their eyes, the fictional little girls subject to these sexual depictions still look like a child.
While some could understand different body types being depicted in anime, it still won’t hide the fact that they… kinda look like children, which will admittedly scare a lot of people away. And yes, while it is a fictional depiction of anime girls in small bodies doing some of the most sexual things one could think of - thus making it not as bad as molesting an actual kid - in their eyes, it’s still creepy as hell.
And this is especially considering how pornography is still viewed as a taboo. While today’s zoomer generation makes all sorts of gay sex jokes while simultaneously throwing in money to the OnlyFans of a popular Twitch streamer, some people still believe that this world has been WAY too horny. On the other hand, the concept of child pornography is constantly shunned by everyone - you, me, the homeless man I interviewed a while ago - and rightfully so.
Now imagine having both in the same place - artwork that kinda resembles child pornography, basically involving girls that kinda resemble little kids having sex. It doesn’t matter if the fictional cartoon can’t consent nor does the fact that it’s a fictional cartoon matter - to them, the portrayal of them being fucked is just “weirdo shit” regardless, and most would even call you a pedophile for enjoying this. This is especially considering that the definition of child pornography is “any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving anyone under 18 years of age”, and, well, most loli characters look like children, so could it be classified as child pornography?
This is perhaps the main reason why most antis argue against lolicon content - at a glance, they look like children, and portrayals of children in sexually explicit conduct (like lolicon content) does indeed qualify as child pornography. This is the common argument used by antis - it’s the only argument commonly seen, but accusations of child abuse are serious anyways, so it’s also a strong argument. Assuming, of course, lolicon content aren’t restricted from technicalities (which I’ll elaborate later). So, why do their fans insist that it’s not as bad as it seems?
I should emphasize, before moving on, that older women with flat chests do not qualify as loli material. Neither does the stereotype of high schoolers with giant boobs, as that, in particular, is another can of worms. I am strictly talking about sexual depictions of little anime kids (or at least, those who look like them).
Perhaps the first major argument argued by lolicon fans is that loli pornography isn’t actually illegal. No, we are not talking about how she is a 527-year-old dragon, we’re talking about actual laws. For a start, some countries allow it through technicalities. This includes the USA, which has the largest amount of Twitter users based on country (just in case you want to engage in Twitter flame wars).
This is where a particular case was argued - the Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition case that began in 2001 and was decided a year later. This case would strike down the previously-established Child Pornography Prevention Act (CPPA) of 1996, which prohibited:
any visual depiction - photographs, films, videos, pictures, and/or computer-generated images that depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit depictions, and
any sexually explicit image that was presented in a way that conveys the impression of depicting a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
Anyways, the court generally agreed that these aforementioned restrictions are unconstitutional (in a 6 - 3 decision no less), with judges ruling that the CPPA was very broad - it prohibited material that may not be obscene, and the content they restrict may not be done from exploiting real children. Thus, the judges established that simulated child pornography is free speech protected by the First Amendment.
Thus, if we use the “lolicon (pornography) = pedophilia (i.e. child pornography)” argument here, we can conclude that lolicon pornography is technically legal. As lolicon pornography is drawn - i.e. simulated, as in, “the depiction” - they would fall as being protected by the First Amendment.
The PROTECT Act of 2003 does not explicitly criminalize this caveat either. The law itself is a pretty standard anti-child porn law - jail sentences for possession and distribution, life imprisonment for repeat offenders, and most importantly, rules regarding virtual child pornography. Out of these rules, not one has explicitly mentioned child pornography of fictional characters. The law even explicitly allows virtual child pornography to not be covered - as long as it was produced by adults, and no minors were involved in the creation process, it’s safe.
Remember how child pornography is defined as any visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct involving anyone under 18 years of age? Yeah, that definition - at least in the USA - does have an asterisk mark close to the “anyone under 18 years of age?” bit and that asterisk contains that aforementioned technicality.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fdef88f53-380e-4bdf-bdd9-18cfedcefa52_720x251.jpeg)
This also means that reporting lolicon content is practically useless, specifically if you’re from the USA. When reporting for child sexual abuse cases, agencies and governments there are specifically looking for actual minors being molested, not drawings of minors being molested (i.e. lolicon content). In fact, there has been lots of reports of the former happening up to the point that they had to ask users to stop reporting on lolicon content.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fce597ea9-aeac-4267-8399-d6354e69be52_834x309.png)
The TL;DR of this part so far is that in the USA, loli pornography is legal - from a technicality. But elsewhere? Your mileage may vary. Besides the USA and Japan (which is the prime creator of lolicon content anyways), Germany allows lolicon content, as long as they are a) fictional and b) not based on any real events. The same can be applied to Finland, Hungary, Sweden, and Venezuela - they do not criminalize fictional, unrealistic depictions too.
Some, however, do. Some countries classify loli hentai as cartoon pornography, and although enforcement of this rule is mostly iffy, these countries, which include New Zealand and Canada, take action by arresting you if you were to carry physical doujinshi of loli hentai. A German tourist going to New Zealand, for example, learned that the hard way when he was checked by customs agencies in Christchurch Airport and was subsequently sent to prison for a 10-month-sentence out of possession of “child abuse manga” (implied to be lolicon content, if “child sexual exploitation” is an indicator).
It is because of this that it can be argued that the actual legality of lolicon pornography in the world of social media7 is irrelevant, as countries have different norms and different laws. We don’t have much of a “preferred-country-where-the-law-applies-to-every-user-online-in-social-media”, so instead whichever’s legal is up to interpretation. Perhaps we could mark it illegal or legal based on which country we are currently in, or which country the social media platform is based from? That’s at least what most people I’ve seen online do.
Another argument is that lolicon fans simply don’t want to be associated with actual pedophiles. They too have parts of human morals, the kind where they find actual child molesters as absolute scum (rightfully so tbh).
This disassociation with pedophiles is shown on full display in one particular incident that happened a while back. Around August 2022, a little tournament was hosted in the lolicon Twitter community - vote for your favorite #lolitwt user here, with the winner receiving… I guess clout? I mean, it’s that if the “true CEO of lolis” title is any indication.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F27541419-5f1e-4993-b913-660b2566e3dd_1513x2015.jpeg)
The winner wouldn’t be either of the two finalists - neither the Fischl profile picture, nor the weird Shirou Emiya edit8 (hereinafter referred to as "Yellow"). Instead, the winner would be someone else (hereinafter referred to as "M") - the reason being that he had an overwhelming amount of support from DMs, and that he "has the best taste in lolis". However, "M" was previously outed as a pedophile for allegedly molesting an 8-year-old when "M" was 15. In addition, the “overwhelming amount of support” was also falsified too.
Needless to say, lolicon fans were not happy that an actual pedophile became the winner.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F78362b68-eacb-4e45-a2cd-8e915d525b39_897x388.jpeg)
“M” would be later suspended from Twitter, although I was unable to check when was “M” suspended exactly. Perhaps a violation unrelated to using alt accounts (which is illegal based on Twitter’s Terms of Service), or mass reporting from the entire tournament fiasco?
But yeah, lolicon fans are willing to distance themselves from real child predators. They are also pretty much against hypocrisy - in fact, they use this as an argument against some antis, as you’ll see in the next part below.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0e457c65-de1c-47ea-bbef-90882c179b44_1200x800.jpeg)
A furry is an enthusiast of animal characters with human characteristics. Just as loli fans are fans of child-bodied girls, furries are fans of anthropomorphic animals.
Both have a lot in common. Their source material involves exaggerated and (sometimes) fantasy-like depictions of child-bodied girls (loli characters) or animals (furry characters), they can have sexually explicit motifs, they are generally defended by their fanbases to be a work of fiction (as in, most aren’t gonna bang the real thing), and they are scrutinized by the general public for being borderline taboo stuff. Unlike loli fans, which have to deal with pedophile allegations, furries have to deal with zoophilia9 allegations.
Let’s go back to the “scrutinized by the general public” bit. “What do you mean, @ironhidev3?” I might hear you ask. Well, as I stated before, people like making fun of weirdos, and it just so happens that, at least if you ask the average person, wanting to fuck a fictional anthropomorphic fox is just as weird as wanting to fuck a fictional child-like character.
I asked a private friend group about whenever if they are fine into enjoying multiple different genres of pornography. This friend group is generally what I would describe as a collective of people with different interests - one is a non-binary Minecraft fanatic with Japanese ancestry, while the other is a pro-gun transphobic American - who mostly engage in friendly banter. And most members of this group are (or, at least, was) horny enough to have a porn addiction for a time.
Needless to say, the majority of voters generally did not enjoy these works.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F5185fc87-b578-4e2c-a9c4-7c1b8121ee96_631x797.png)
Basically, lolicon content is just as looked down upon as furry porn and women with penises10 by a majority of people. Admittedly, it may be a consequence of them being classified as "weirdo shit" by the general public, because MILFs/DILFs (older, attractive women/men) are more vanilla in comparison, and that was generally agreed to be acceptable fapping material. Even in fetishization (which is more accepted in conservative societies by comparison to normalizing them to be less sexual), both lolis and furries are in a tough spot.
Why am I mentioning irrelevant poll results now? Well, it’s because people have different tolerance between what’s weird and what’s perfectly fine to enjoy. Some people think that both furries and lolis are ok to be sexualized. Some furries think that lolis getting banged are more morally incorrect than anthro wolfs getting banged (and possibly vice-versa, although I’ve never seen that in action). To most, it looks like they are willing to attack pedophile shit while defending their zoophilia - both immoral weirdo stuff by the general public, and also a double standard.
And some lolicon fans do not take the latter’s double standard kindly.
The idea of “attacking weirdo shit while defending or otherwise enjoying your own weirdo shit” is a common ad hominem used by some of the more staunchest lolicon fans. It does make sense, after all - “you literally enjoy seeing humanlike dogs fucking lmao how is it any weirder than what we’re doing" is the main argument most lolicon fans forego when they see a furry complain that lolicon content is pedophilia.
It doesn’t help (for the antis) that some of the more louder critics that often accuse lolicon content (or even anime in general) for being child pornography end up being accused for child sexual abuse. There exists a huge Imgur link where all sorts of people - generally anti-lolicon, but some are anti-anime in general - would be exposed for sex crimes.
Let’s take an example from this link. On September 2021, Twitter user @TheReplySeeker, a semi-popular gimmick account11 by then, criticized lolicons as being “cringe” for having sexual thoughts about Miss Kobayashi's Dragon Maid character Kanna Kamui, who is a loli character.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fa3e73ce5-5460-48dd-be07-f82df49848d2_301x680.webp)
Eight days later, @TheReplySeeker would release a TwitLonger, admitting into wanting to continue a relationship between a 13-year-old user after she lied about her age (@TheReplySeeker was 19 years old at the beginning of the relationship, while she claimed to be 17), an action that he now regrets (as detailed in the TwitLonger). He would later stop any activity in this gimmick account (the admission was posted in @TheReplySeeker’s personal alt account) after another TwitLonger posted in late August of the same year.
Admittedly, ad hominems like this one are pulled out from both sides of the argument. For the next part, we’re going to take a look at one particular argument - one that did sour my feelings about this subject matter. So, grab yourself some popcorn and pretend you’re watching some Discovery Channel-type shit, as we are going to see the average interaction between lolicon fans and antis.
Here, you have a pro-lolicon account (Red) criticizing antis for both ironically calling out lolicon as pedophilia while enjoying content with underage fanservice, and criticizing furries for having weird taste. An anti (Blue) counters by pointing out about how this take barely matters, because “lolicons = pedophiles”.
Another lolicon (Yellow) enters the fray by quote-retweeting (and essentially ratio-ing) blue by pointing out that she follows controversial Twitch streamer/trans rights activist Clara “Keffals” Sorrenti. This is meant to be an ad hominem - an attack to Blue for siding with a nutjob.12
Another anti (Green) shows up with another ad hominem - this time criticizing Yellow for having weird stuff in their profile (in context, it’s Yellow being a lolicon, thus inferring that Yellow is a weirdo).
Judging how this tweet was Yellow’s pinned tweet (during the time Green encountered Yellow), I’d reckon that Green had all the evidence they needed.
So anyways, Yellow came back with an ad-hominem attack, criticizing Green for endorsing with a unrelated user (purple) that Yellow had beef with.
Green clapped back by using the “lolicons = pedophilia” argument.
Yellow responded with ANOTHER ad-hominem attack, criticizing Green for endorsing Purple, who happens to follow Keffals. By this point, you could tell that both are dragging the argument for way too long, so a wildcard must be unleashed to hopefully destroy either combatant.
Yellow took that wildcard by… essentially “singing” a parody of Estelle’s “Stronger Than You”.13 Well, more of copy-pasting the lyrics anyways. And, as you can see, this takes a while.
It was at this point where I wondered how long are they going to keep this up. I actually don’t have any energy to cover the last few tweets, so I’ll just show them with no commentary instead.
That seemed to be the end of the argument. Yellow would later claim that he was trolling Green this entire time, laughing their asses off as they try to counter-troll their way to victory. I, however, felt like this is a more accurate description of this entire case:
It is important to recognize, however, that this is merely one argument. Not every anti out there also has a double life on child porn or any other weirdo shit - being into weirdo stuff and decrying lolicon content as child porn isn’t necessarily mutually exclusive.
A while back, I, using social messaging, asked my dad - who is unfamiliar with this drama - about his thoughts about the lolicon argument and explained to him about how people wanted pornography of child-like characters, as well as parts of the argument supporting lolicon fans. Before I could finish, he asked if I became a lolicon fan, and told me that he was going to check my laptop the next day.14
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F359cdd0c-158d-4aff-8dc9-ae968b09dad0_640x1280.jpeg)
It was because of this interaction that I realized that the main debate that should’ve been covered isn’t about whenever lolicon content is legal, nor if people who also enjoys weird things aren’t as morally correct. Rather, it’s a debate of morality.
A while back, I talked to a pro-lolicon account (here, marked as Pink) about the entire “lolicon = pedophile” argument, all taking place under this thread:
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0304f68e-8b02-493c-a317-91afa83ed0af_587x733.jpeg)
The original post argues that the main reason why people constantly compare lolicon to child porn is because of their different beauty standards - Asian beauty standards emphasize youth and femininity, with genetics making some people look even younger. Pink then argues that this childlike appearance comes off as a culture shock to unfamiliar westerners, who are grossed out by something unnatural to them.
Pink then accuses these westerners of attempting to be morally righteous by being against lolicon content, as they would accuse things of being racist, sexist, homo/transphobic - any trait deemed problematic by today’s society - causing more harm than good, including to Asians (just like themselves). In Pink’s own words, “the woke often hurt the innocent, and that they try to cancel peoples for fiction too, which is totally ridiculous.”15
I thought that Pink’s take was a weird one - sure, older anime characters can be drawn to look young and cute and may be influenced by these different standards, there’s no denying that, but what about actual anime characters that are canonically children? I felt like there was a blind spot in their argument, so I decided to point that out in the following interaction.
Translation (for my non-Indonesian folks out there):
Pink: Really, why are you worried about fiction? It’s not real, but everyone treats this [the lolicon debate] issue seriously. Is it because of legality? Morality? All of these arguments don’t match [with the reasons why people take lolicon as an issue].
Me: Maybe because it’s a morality issue. The main reason I don’t jack it to loli characters is that they look like children. I understand that it’s not real, but it’s [lolicon] still very weird for a lot of people. Jacking off to a fictional character is already weirdo shit for some people, so jacking it to a character that looks like a child, without considering their real age,16 compounds the weirdness.
Pink: Welllll, it makes sense that people have different tastes - some people will definitely think it’s weird, but fiction isn’t like real life. It’s okay to kill people in video games as long as you don’t actually kill people in real life, because that’s both immoral and a sin. If you don’t like it, it’s okay as long as you don’t harass others about it.
I personally thought that this interaction ended on a good note. Both of us have reached an understanding together - that the entire loli sexual content debate is more of a moral argument. And this is what the entire “lolicon = pedophilia” argument, at least in my opinion, missed:
Both sides have moved the goalposts too far that the main concern - about how lolicon hentai is weirdo shit, because it is morally weird to jack off to a cartoon of a 6-year-old - has steered off into something else entirely.
Instead of arguing about how weird it is to jack off to a Japanese cartoon character that looks like a little kid, we’re arguing about how fictional characters can’t consent, or how lolicon content is actually legal or not. When antis are accusing lolicons for being the scum of the earth, they’re calling them pedophiles instead of my preferred pejorative: weirdos.
And yes, this goes to all furries too. It is morally weird to jack off to a cartoon of a human-like wolf. This also goes to vore enthusiasts too - It is morally weird to jack off to a cartoon of a giant woman eating you, let alone the digestion process that follows. However, as evident by how antis have been treating lolicon content, it shows that people have different tolerance between different tastes. Some may find lolicon content jarring, while others embrace it.
The internet generally treats both as weirdo shit, although furries specifically are getting more and more accepted (due to their online presence). I’d assume it will be time before the lolicon community would be accepted later by the same reasons. However, I always viewed acceptance of furries by popularity to be impossible back then, so whenever the internet will accept lolicon fans will be hard to judge. And just like furries, loli fans (not lolicon fans, mind you17) doesn’t necessarily need to be sexually explicit - who wouldn’t want to head-pat a cute loli character? No, not to breed her into submission, you horndogs.
So, is lolicon content child pornography? No, not really. Definitions of child pornography vary, with some saying that it refers to the depiction of minors in sexually explicit activity, and since lolicon content depict characters that look like minors (some lewd artwork are even based on actual fictional minors) in, well, sexually explicit activity, it may be a safe assumption to treat lolicon content as child porn to some.
Other definitions brings out the implication that as long as lolicon content is made by adults (with minors not involved whatsoever), it doesn’t count as child porn - after all, exploiting minors is the main concern of child pornography. Needless to say, it’s hard to judge a true, definitive answer with these implications floating around.
While laws don’t apply to fictional, adult-made minors half the time, the fact that they are shown in sexually suggestive situations is already a siren for concern. But at the same time, it’s just as weird as furries, vore, and basically every fetish you can think of. Thus, moving forward, I will treat lolicon content as I treat pineapple on pizza: It’s a weird thing that is (subjectively) borderline illegal. It is, however, still (technically) legal anyways, so I’ll just ignore it. You enjoy lolicon content? Good for you. I’m not a fan, though.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F9682293c-3b64-400e-be02-f393e3c60588_512x288.png)
Thanks for reading my little rant! I know that this article VERY long, but I’m grateful that you’ve seen and considered most of the arguments about this topic online (unless you’ve already known them and still disagree/agree) as well as mine (unless y’all skimmed up to here, you sneaky bastards).
If you think that my takes are dogshit, at least I’d make you consider these arguments. This is the first time I made an article as long as this, and I want to make sure y’all are aware that this isn’t much of a black-and-white argument as a lot of people are. If you think that my takes are based as hell, however, than consider subscribing to this newsletter, or keeping an eye for my next post (I post announcements of them to Twitter).
Anyways, where was I? Oh, right, I have NEVER hated any fanbase more than whatever the lolicon community in Twitter has been cooking. Toxic Genshin Impact fans? Political commentators? Move the fuck aside, we got another contender for the most annoying group in existence. Motherfuckers in loli twitter be like “Uohhhhhhhhh!!!!! Child erotic!!!!!! Child's belly and chest!!!!!! Erotic … 😭😭😭” ALWAYS bragging about how they are enjoyers of “cunny” or whatever the fuck they call “child pussy” nowadays. Cringe shit, I swear to God.
![](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_1456,c_limit,f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fbucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F0e572398-cf48-406b-9a5c-f371b65a206f_529x845.jpeg)
AND THEN be angry when people say that simping for a fictional little kid like that is pedophile shit… and I mean, I wouldn’t want to get caught openly wanting to fuck a cartoon, no matter if that shit has big honkers. That’s just fucking window licker behavior (coming from one who does that shit ALL THE TIME).18 If I see ONE MORE "uooooh 😭” or anything involving “cunny” ONE MORE TIME, I am gOING TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND KICK THE SHIT OUT OF-
UPDATE (09 October 2022): Re-adjusted the first part of this article (the explanation of lolicon content, as well as the general argument used by antis). I found a Twitter account that provided a better explanation, and adjusted to it as such, only adding a few extra bits as their explanation are more or less the same.
References:
(Note that some Twitter sources are not listed here. I take no credit in parts of research listed here, but harassment may potentially be done if I’d link their actual Twitter usernames, due to the controversial nature of this article. As such, I will not list them down here.)
Galbraith, Patrick W. (2011), "Lolicon: The Reality of 'Virtual Child Pornography' in Japan", Image & Narrative. 12 (1): 83–119.
Galbraith, Patrick W. (2019), “Otaku and the Struggle for Imagination in Japan”, Durham: Duke University Press.
"S.151 - 108th Congress (2003-2004): Protect Act”, 30 Apr. 2003, https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/senate-bill/151.
Loveridge, Lynze, “Tourist Jailed in New Zealand for Child Abuse 'Manga' Images.” Anime News Network, 18 May 2013, https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2013-05-17/tourist-jailed-in-new-zealand-for-child-abuse-manga-images.
Bukovska, Barbora, et al, “Inhope Members Reporting Artwork as Child Sexual Abuse.” ARTICLE 19, 21 Jan. 2020, https://www.article19.org/resources/inhope-members-reporting-artwork-as-child-sexual-abuse/.
The Imgur link: sweetshopcutie, “(Ongoing) Reset the Clock - Redux”, Imgur, 18 Apr. 2022, https://imgur.com/a/VoyXLbx.
Yes, we are using English names today.
Of course, my anime portfolio isn’t always Shonen anime of the week. I honestly don’t know how to write this without giving the impression of being gatekept by elitists, but My-HiME is completely underrated as hell.
“Futanari” is the Japanese word of hermaphroditism - in essence, an organism with both male and female reproductive organs. In this context, it refers to women with penises (some content depict vaginas also present). Futanari is typically used under sexually explicit connotations in modern times and differs from transgender women in the way that a trans woman is a person in a biologically-male body that identifies themselves as a female (and may have taken appropriate measures, such as hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgeries, to appear as such), while Futanari refers to women born with these male features.
Short for “Social Justice Warrior”, which is a(n informal) term to refer to people who promote socially progressive and leftist views. Typically, this term is used with negative connotations, referring to overzealous leftists who advocate their views because of either personal validation or virtue signaling to others.
*/joke
“Shipping” in this context refers to wanting two people in fictional media to be in a romantic relationship.
And I specifically mean Twitter - the bird app - where debates like these are common.
Harassment may potentially be done if I’d link their actual Twitter usernames, due to the controversial nature of this article. As a precaution, I will not be mentioning their usernames, and later images of Tweets where they appear will be censored (i.e. have their usernames redacted). They will be instead referred to as a different color.
Zoophilia refers to the sexual attraction of animals.
Futanari and trans women are grouped together because while they are different (as elaborated in footnote 1), they still apply the same concept of “chicks with dicks” for a lot of people (in the case of trans women, they are portrayed either mid-transition (penis not yet removed) or willingly keeping the penis). They are thus referred to as the same for the sake of brevity (and only on this part).
A gimmick account refers to a type of account that are themed around a specific topic or niche, frequently posting content that matches them. Some gimmick accounts are parodic in nature, while others share information about their chosen topic. @TheReplySeeker’s gimmick was replying to viral tweets or posts made by other gimmick accounts, for example.
Around the time this tweet was published, Keffals was embroiled in controversy. She largely advocated for distributed-denial-of-service (DDoS) mitigation company Cloudflare to drop their DDoS protection for Kiwi Farms, a forum board that hosts discussion about online figures that could be scrutinized for content. It was criticized by detractors for hosting personal information and condoning harassment against individuals. Keffals being covered there lead to the #DropKiwifarms hashtag campaign, which culminated with Cloudflare blocking access to Kiwi Farms in early September 2022. Keffals was scrutinized there because of her extremely shady/weird activities, and because of that, people such as Yellow would use associating with her as an insult, for they actively supported a weird person.
(I must summarize this - the original footnote is starting to get longer than the average leftist meme, and besides, Keffals isn’t the main focus of today’s post. Maybe I’ll cover her later idk)
The parody is an Undertale-themed one, portraying Sans fighting off the main character (Sans is a final boss in that game’s “Genocide” route, where you kill off all major characters in their battles, as well as killing off a specific number of enemies prior to each boss). That could be seen here:
I often meet my family every week, although lately I have been not doing it as much due to me being busy in my university. I asked him the day before the first time I met them in a few weeks. He would later check my laptop and found nothing suspicious, although he since started making fun of me for this. Playing stupid games and winning stupid prizes? I thought it barely mattered since I was made fun of for being the resident coomer of my family anyways, and besides, I needed to ask someone unfamiliar with the debate (as most of my friends may have already knew about the lolicon debate).
And that same moral righteousness applies to the lolicon argument, or at least I inferred from him. I’d agree to an extent, as the wave of social justice warriors has certainly gone to serious extremes - American actress Drew Barrymore in a TikTok frolicking in the rain is a racist act because she was copying a trend black creators made and popularized at that time. I wonder if this example here was elaborate satire if I'm being honest. But for every overzealous “libtard SJW” moron out there, there is at least one rational person with who just happened to have leftist perspectives. I’d argue that the true enemy is the entire “my-way-or-the-high-way” perspective, an extremism mentality that has no political boundaries (both liberals and conservatives are guilty of this).
I’m not fluent in Indonesian - what I meant is something like “regardless of age” and not “without considering their real age”, but I needed to type quickly at that time, so I proceeded to half-ass my statement by writing this instead.
Loli = small, young/young-looking girl. Lolicon = genre where loli characters appear in romantic or sexual contexts (as I said earlier in the beginning parts).
Okay, the window-licking bit was a lie, but I did like lewd art back then in my old account (and probably somewhere in my current one back before I developed some form of restraint).