Lolicon/Shotacon and how it's pedophilia
- This rentry was made by a Japanese person who is fluent in the language and well informed on what goes on in Japanese society and culture. This rentry is purely for educational reasons and was made to debunk and counter popular false claims and fallacious arguments that lolicons typically make. English is not my first language and I may make grammatical mistakes, so if you have any corrections on what I say you can direct them to my Tellonym. Hate from lolishos trying to justify their actions will be ignored, and threats will be reported. If you have any genuine critiques on what I say, you can send me some, but if you're being purposefully passive aggressive it's most likely I will delete it and go on with my day. With that being said, please brace yourself for a very long read, and sorry for the very long starting paragraph.
For some time on the internet, I've seen the development that lolicons have made in their arguments to try and justify their actions. This rentry is purely for informative and educational reasons, not intended to harass anyone or cause any hate to be directed to any particular group of people. If you see a lolicon on social media, the smart thing to do is report and block them. This rentry will be going over common lolicon arguments and misconceptions, as well as proof about them being dangerous / promoting dangerous activity towards and in regards to children.
What is lolicon?
Lolicon (ロリコン) is the Japanese portmanteau of the phrase Lolita Complex, which is in reference to the 1955 novel Lolita, in which a man documents his sexual obsession and abuse of his 12 year old step-daughter. [1] It is used to refer to the genre of pornography centred around underaged anime girls. [2]
As for the material itself, it has sparked controversy within otaku and Japanese culture, even a demand from the United Nations Children's Fund, or more commonly known as UNICEF, to beef up laws by banning child sexual abuse/exploitation material in manga, even going so far as for lawyer and children's rights campaigner Keiji Goto telling reporters, "obscene photographs were often used by paedophiles to persuade children that sexual exploitation is normal." [3]
What about shotacon? Is that bad too?
Shotacon (ショタコン) is the male counterpart of Lolicon. [4] While it's etymological origins are not as grotesque as that of lolicon, it is still equally as bad.
Are there any examples of lolicon harming children in real life?
To put it in short – yes.
This is a screenshot explaining magazines that were formerly distributed in Japan, in which exploitative content of young girls were the focal point of it. I will not post photos of the actual magazine covers themselves, as they contain photos of their faces and I wish to respect their privacy. However, on the cover of these magazines, they write out ロリコン (rorikon = lolicon) on the top. Over 100,000 of these types of magazines were sold. Saying that this doesn't harm children in real life is purposefully ignorant and a poor attempt to silence what these girls went through.
Japanese feminist @Suneko1066 on Twitter also displays proof of this in various tweets, showcasing the sad reality of lolicon in Japan on her page. https://x.com/Suneko1066
Saying that lolisho is harmful harms real victims!
How, exactly? Several CSA victims, including myself, find comfort in the fact that people are spreading awareness of this issue, and it's the reason I'm compiling this document today. Just because one issue is going on doesn't mean it's diminishing or speaking over another issue, which is what a lot of lolicons try to say. This argument makes zero sense and if someone is saying this it's most likely because they think that two issues cannot coexist. If they say it's because they think it makes victims stories less believable, that is entirely on them for not believing victims. Also, read above. There is proof of it harming people.
Common arguments
Here I will show counter points to a lot of arguments that lolicons make, which involve an abundance of fallacies that can be easily disproven.
"Fiction doesn't affect reality" argument
The most common argument by far, as well as a new phrase emerging, "Fiction only affects the reality of stupid people". However, lolicons seem to be ignorant to the fact that propaganda and charicatures (a.k.a fiction) has negatively affected and distorted how minorities are viewed by people. This is evident in history and examples of propaganda are most prominent of World Wars 1 & 2, where patriotic propaganda was used to lure people in and fool them into believing lies about opposing countries.
Immediately, anybody can notice that this argument is... a fallacious generalization and a red herring. How does it generalize? It's very simple: it boils down pieces of art to the equivalent of mere scribbles, insisting that any intended meaning behind said art should be disregarded because 'it's just a drawing'. Yet this leaves some questions: if the art is truly 'just a drawing', why does it sexually represent a young person, often a little girl? Not only that, why is the art in question intended to be arousing to the viewer, and how exactly is it 'just a drawing' at that?
Let me be clear: fiction MEANS something. Even if you say it's just a drawing, said drawings still have meaning. Denying so is ignorant.
"Well, actually, she's 1000 years old!" argument
(First off, don't be stupid or dense on purpose. Please. Saying this is just being ignorant for the love of the game.)
A counter argument to this response is often along the lines of 's/he is 1000 years old, it's okay', or 'it's just a petite [wo]man'. This is willfully ignorant, as almost all 'lolicon' art is obviously intended to represent little girls and boys sexually. Even if the artist in question intends for the character to be older and 'petite', this completely ignores the fact that using a historically minor-like design model sexually, even with a "confirmed" age, does not matter. The art is a representation of what appears to be a minor, and thus is a result of the artist's perverseness. 'Canonizing' ages does not matter when the character looks like a child. A common example of this is Kanna Kamui from Dragon Maid, a 1000 year old dragon in the body of a 9 year old girl who wears a randoseru, a typical school bag worn on Japanese children. Note that I cannot find any actual written proof of Kanna being 1000, yet I can find proof of her being 9, which further proves my point.
Ad hominem & red herring arguments
When I refer to the ad hominem argument, I refer to a personal attack targeting the individual making the argument, usually stating things like 'you're the real pedophile, see this list' or 'you are supportive of [insert political/social ideology or movement], you can't be talking', or 'nice try hypocrite, but [insert media piece] that you like was created by a lolicon. First off, these arguments are entirely fallacious, more specifically, they are genetically fallacious. You are not addressing the person's argument but rather attacking their character, avoiding the subject of the argument all together, also making it a red herring. Second, if the person does enjoy media created by a lolicon, as long as it's not involving any lolicon material, there's nothing wrong with it. It's called separating art from the artist, which you cannot do if the art itself is problematic, i.e lolicon.
Legality argument
Many lolicons will use the excuse 'it's legal so it's fine' in argument when being called out. This is deflection.
For the sake of argument, we'll be using the United States in this argument, as most lolicons are based in the States.
Even if we disregard the fallacy in the lolicon's argument, lolicon is NOT legal in the US.
The PROTECT act, a decades-old bill calling for the criminalization of fictional child porn, was indeed repealed.
HOWEVER, under 18 U.S. Code § 1466A, fictional CP is categorized under "obscene content", and is thus considered ILLEGAL to produce, distribute, receive, or possess WITH THE CONDITION that it lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value in all 50 states. Historically, this is mostly unenforced, but isolated incidents where people have been prosecuted for possession, usually tacked onto other charges related to real CP, have occurred. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1466A
Thus, every part of this fallacious argument is debunked, including the apparent "factual" parts.
The do-no-harm, outlet & misdirection arguments
These three arguments are perhaps the strongest-looking arguments on this list. However, yet again, THEY ARE ENTIRELY FALLACIOUS and rely on moral stances in order to trick their opponents into believing that they are 'virtuous' or 'moral'.
The Do-No-Harm and outlet arguments are very similar in that they do not deny the pedophilia of lolicon content specifically.
They can be distinguished by their obvious usage, however: The do-no-harm argument alleges that lolicon content is harmless, and can be consumed freely without real-life consequence, reinforcement or effects. This is false, as lolicon, an arousing form of media, reinforces the viewers pedophilic desires, which will amplify their desire for it. Pornography is different for the fact that it unhealthily activates chemical receptors, a system called tolerance. The more you tolerate the content, the more 'spicy' you want the content to be.
Lolicon, which is already on a higher level than regular pornography, is no exception to this, and actively reinforces and encourages pedophilic fantasies, with themes of rape, incest, blatant pedophilia, and abuse. To say that it is harmless is ignorant.
The outlet argument alleges that lolicon can be used as an outlet to prevent real CSA or CSAM possession, which is also ignorant. Reinforcing pedophilic desires does NOT prevent them from turning into more; it encourages it. This phenomenon is called the reinforcement effect, as described prior.
One other argument I'd like to address is a red herring argument that compares lolicon to video games. As stated before, pornography is unique; video games and violence have been discussed at length and have proven no link to real violence other than non-violent aggression regarding the game itself. The two subjects are different, and comparing the two using the same logical standpoint is fallacious.
What if I like lolis/shotas but not in a sexual context? Is there a word for that?
Yes – chibi or moe. Unfortunately, the word loli is inherently sexual and cannot be reclaimed today because of malicious people. A shame, but I hope this rentry has informed you and cleared up any misconceptions you previously believed regarding the morality of lolisho material.
Conclusion
Lolicon is a pedophilic genre of anime that must be treated like what it is: drawn CSAM meant to arouse the viewer and encourage pedophilia. Lolicon defenders use fallacies, contradictions, and personal attacks to create the image of a convincing argument, all while blatantly endorsing pedophilia in their own spaces. Certain arguments from this essay have been left out; all of them ridiclous, irrelevant, or false. If you are a legal adult and have a fantasy desire to see children sexually and/or have intercourse with them, then you should immediately get help from a trusted therapist. If you don't have the resources to do so, https://troubled-desire.com/ offers a free, private and safe alternative. Again, any criticism or correction can be directed to my Tellonym. Thank you for reading.