LOLICON

is a slang portmanteau of the phrase "Lolita complex". The phrase is a reference to Vladimir Nabokov's book, ''Lolita'', in which a much older man becomes sexually obsessed with a twelve-year-old girl. In Japan, the term is used to describe an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person. Outside Japan, the term most often refers to a genre of manga and anime where childlike female characters are depicted in a sexualized manner or engaged in sexually explicit acts. The equivalent term for the sexualization of or attraction to young boys is shotacon.
Critics claim that lolicon can contribute to actual sexual abuse of children, and several countries have attempted to criminalize lolicon's sexually explicit forms as a type of child pornography. Defenders argue that such criticism of lolicon is a correlation implies causation fallacy, lolicon is protected by freedom of expression, and restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might increase the rate of sexual crime by denying pedophiles a harmless outlet for their desires.

Contents

Lolicon in Japan

Origin

Lolicon and gender roles

Lolicon in the West

Controversy and legal issues

Legal status in Australia

Legal status in Canada

Legal status in the Netherlands

Legal status in New Zealand

Legal status in Norway

Legal status in South Africa

Legal status in Sweden

Legal status in the United Kingdom

Legal status in the United States

See also

Footnotes

External links

Lolicon in Japan

Generally, lolicon is a term used to describe a sexual attraction to a girl who is under the legal age of consent, both perceived and actual pedophilia and ephebophilia, or has underdeveloped secondary sexual characteristics. Strictly speaking, ''Lolita complex'' in Japanese refers only to the paraphilia itself, but the abbreviation ''lolicon'' can refer to an individual that has the paraphilia as well. Lolicon is a widespread phenomenon in Japan, where it is a frequent subject of scholarly articles and criticism.^[1] Many general bookstores and newsstands openly offer illustrated lolicon material, but there has also been police action against lolicon manga.
Sexual manga featuring children or childlike characters are called lolicon manga.^[2] These are generally legal in Japan, although child pornography was outlawed in 1999.^[3] Lolicon manga are usually short stories, published as dōjinshi or in magazines specializing in the genre. Common focuses of these stories include taboo relationships, such as between a teacher and student or brother and sister, while others feature sexual experimentation between children. Some lolicon manga cross over with other hentai genres, such as crossdressing and futanari. Kodomo no Jikan is an example of a series that, while not pornographic, draws on lolicon themes for its plot.

Origin

According to the Japanese Wikipedia, "Lolita complex", as a term for the psychopathology, became known in Japan in the early 1970s with the translation of Russell Trainer's ''The Lolita Complex''. Shinji Wada used the word in his , an Alice parody manga in 1974. However, the "lolicon manga" genre closely related to manga media began with Hideo Azuma's works, such as , in the early 1980s. Azuma had been publishing some sexual manga featuring young girls in his own self-published magazine ''Cybele'' prior to that time. Azuma's works became popular among schoolboy readers because most of the pornographic manga up until then had featured mature women influenced by gekiga, but Azuma's works are not pornographies in a strict sense though they contain many sexual elements. Following Azuma's success, some pornographic manga magazines, such as ''Manga Burikko'' and ''Lemon People'', began featuring prepubescence girls. Throughout the 1980s, notable lolicon mangaka who published in these magazines include Nonki Miyasu, Kamui Fujiwara, Yoshito Asari and Aki Uchida.

Lolicon and gender roles

In 1998, Kinsella offered a somewhat different version of the origins of lolicon manga, stating that it is an outgrowth of a style of amateur manga drawn by women, popular in the 80's, which featured male homosexual love stories and parodies of famous boys' manga. In the late 1980s she states that men began to follow these women's styles in writing amateur manga about girl characters: "Lolicom manga usually features a voluptuous girl heroine with large eyes and a pre-pubescent body, scantily clad in an outfit which approximates a cross between a 1970s bikini and a space-age suit of armour. She is liable to be cute, tough and clever." ^[4] As the genre created by and for men evolved, according to Kinsella, it moved from these cute, tough heroines towards depictions of girls as sexual victims: naked, helpless, fearful, sometimes bound or chained and was expanded into computer games and animated videos.
Japanese animator Hayao Miyazaki stated in an interview with Animage in 1988 that while he prefers to make his heroines girls, "It's difficult. They immediately become the subjects of rorikon gokko (play toy for Lolita Complex guys). In a sense, if we want to depict someone who is affirmative to us, we have no choice but to make them as lovely as possible. But now, there are too many people who shamelessly depict (such heroines) as if they just want (such girls) as pets, and things are escalating more and more." He expressed concern as to what this might mean for "human rights for women."^[5]
Kinsella asserted that amateur manga expresses a disjuncture in cultural expectations of gender roles in Japan. The amateur parodies of famous manga drawn by women ridiculed the macho male stereotype, and appealed to both women and men who found the stereotype unattractive. She suggested that lolicon manga, on the other hand, expresses male resentment towards and a fixation with young women, who have become increasingly powerful in contemporary Japanese society, and "a reactive desire to see these young women disarmed, infantilised, and subordinate." Male interest in girls' manga expresses simultaneously, "fear and desire" towards women. Kinsella argued that a parallel situation exists in the west, both as to the most popular forms of manga imports and the popular parodies of Star Trek, Red Dwarf and the like, and to the underlying sociological conditions being expressed.
There are some female mangaka who draw lolicon, notably Kaworu Watashiya, author of the most controversial lolicon innuendo manga known in the west, and Yukiru Sugisaki. Rizelmine anime is based on Sugisaki's manga.

Lolicon in the West

The meaning of ''lolicon'' has evolved much in the West (as have the meanings of other words such as ''anime'', ''otaku'' and ''hentai''). In the West, ''lolicon'' refers to anime or manga that contains sexual or erotic portrayals of prepubescent or childlike characters, and is thus close cognate to the Japanese term ''lolicon manga''.^[6] The use of the word ''lolicon'' is an indication that the material is overtly—even if not explicitly—erotic.Glossary Entry: Lolicon ''Anime Meta-Review'' web site URL accessed May 13, 2006as

Controversy and legal issues

Opponents of illustrated lolicon pornography claim that even fictional material encourages viewing children as sex objects and can contribute to actual sexual abuse.^[7] Others dispute this argument, saying that there is no direct evidence to support the claim that viewing pornography leads to sexual crime, and that restricting sexual expression in drawings or animated games and videos might increase the rate of sexual crime by eliminating a harmless outlet for desires that could motivate crime.^[8] Diamond and Uchiyama suggest that there is a strong correlation between the dramatic rise of pornographic material in Japan from the 1970s onwards and a dramatic decrease in reported sexual violence, including crimes by juveniles and also the number of assaults on children under 13. They cite similar findings in Denmark and West Germany, and conclude that the widespread availability of sexually explicit material can in fact reduce the rate of sexual crimes. Diamond and Uchiyama also state, however, that it is probable that the reduction of sex crimes by and upon juveniles in Japan is due to other factors as well: the demands of the increasingly competitive educational system on children's time, an increase in consensual sexual outlets such as prostitution and pre-marital sex, and "socially positive proactive forces" such as sex education in schools and stronger family supervision at home.^[9]
A Japanese non-profit organization called CASPAR has claimed that lolicon and other anime magazines and games do encourage sex crimes. The group, founded in 1989, campaigns for regulation of depiction of minors in pornographic magazines and video games.^[10] Public attention was brought to bear on this issue when Tsutomu Miyazaki kidnapped, murdered, and had sexual intercourse with the dead bodies of four girls between the ages of 4 and 7 in 1988 and 1989.^[11] The Tokyo High Court ruled him sane, stating that "the murders were premeditated and stemmed from Miyazaki's sexual fantasies," and he was sentenced to death for his crimes.^[12] Public sentiment against animated child pornography was revived in 2005 when a convicted sex offender and lolicon was arrested for the murder of a 7-year-old girl in Nara.^[10] The murderer, Kaoru Kobayashi, claimed that he had become interested in small girls after watching an animated pornographic video as a high school student.^[14] According to Michiko Magaoko, director of a non-profit organization in Kyoto called Juvenile Guide, founded in 2003, approximately half of the 2,000 pornographic animation titles distributed in Japan every year, including films and video games, feature schoolgirl characters. Mitsui Kondo, representative of an Osaka-based child protection agency, argues that these films may distort attitudes towards girls: "Such a situation makes our society more dangerous to girls....We've got to think about it before talking about freedom of expression."

Legal status in Australia

In August of 2007, an Australian was sentenced to pay an Au$9000 fine for attempting to import eight DVDs of Japanese anime found to contain child pornography and 14 found to contain sexual violence. "Customs National Manager Investigations, Richard Janeczko, said that it was important to understand that even cartoons or drawings such as those depicted in anime were prohibited if they contained offensive sexual content."^[15]

Legal status in Canada

Section 163.1 of the Canadian Criminal Code defines child pornography to include "a visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means", that "shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity", or "the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years." The definitive Supreme Court of Canada decision, R. v. Sharpe, interprets the statute to include purely fictional material even when no real children were involved in its production. From paragraph 38 of the decision:
In October 2005, Canadian courts sentenced an Edmonton, Alberta, man to one year of community service for importing manga depicting child sex, possibly the first manga-related child pornography case in Canada.^[16]
In April 2006, an American was sentenced to 30 days in jail for bringing child pornography to Canada. While he had possession of three videos and three images of real children, a criminal investigator cited the 13,000 "mostly cartoon" or "anime" images in his possession and the "prohibitive nature of these goods".^[17]
The current law has primarily been used to compound charges for pornography featuring real children, rather than to prosecute cases involving only lolicon. However, the current law does criminalize possession of purely fictional material, could be applied in cases featuring only images of fictional children in the future, and has been used to prosecute possession of fictional stories with no pictures of real or imaginary children.^[18]

Legal status in the Netherlands

On October 1, 2002, the Netherlands introduced legislation (''Bulletin of Acts and Decrees 470'') which deemed "virtual child pornography" as illegal.^[19] The laws appear to only outlaw "''realistic'' images representing a minor engaged in a sexually explicit conduct," and hence lolicon is not included.^[20]
Second Life (the US based virtual world) is currently being investigated by the public prosecutor. A number of Second Life users engage in age play where their online avatars dress, act and look like underage children while engaging in virtual sexual acts. Although there is no Dutch law that legislates against under age depictions of sexual acts for computer generated images, the public prosecutor is investigating this on the basis that these virtual actions may incite child abuse in the real world. [1]

Legal status in New Zealand

The Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 classifies a publication as "objectionable" if it "promotes or supports, or tends to promote or support, the exploitation of children, or young persons, or both, for sexual purposes." Making, distribution, import, or copying or possession of objectionable material for the purposes of distribution are offences punishable (in the case of an individual) by a fine of up to NZ$10,000 on strict liability, and ten years in prison if the offence is committed knowingly.^[21] In December 2004, the Office of Film and Literature Classification determined that Puni Puni Poemy - an anime series not usually thought of as pornographic by fans, but which could be described as just barely lolicon - was objectionable under the Act and therefore illegal to publish in New Zealand. A subsequent appeal failed, and the series remains banned.^[22]

Legal status in Norway

Any images or videos that depict pornography in a childish context (which would include, for example, an adult model with childish clothes/toys/surroundings)^[23] are to be considered child pornography. Lolicon are therefore counted as child pornography, and not legal, in Norway (although this has not been proved by Norwegian court). So far, however, this law has only been used to sentence individuals in possession of real child porn.^[24]

Legal status in South Africa

With the promulgation of the "Films and Publications Amendment Bill" in September 2003, a broad range of simulated child pornography became illegal in South Africa. For the purposes of the act, any image or description of a person "real or simulated" who is depicted or described as being under the age of 18 years and engaged in sexual conduct, broadly defined, constitutes 'child pornography'.^[25] Under the act, anyone is guilty of an offence punishable by up to ten years imprisonment if he or she possesses, creates or produces, imports, exports, broadcasts, or in any way takes steps to procure or access child pornography.

Legal status in Sweden

Any images or videos that depict children in a pornographic context are to be considered child pornography in Sweden, regardless of how realistic or abstract they are.^[26] This means that lolicon is considered to be child pornography and is therefore illegal in Sweden. It has, however, not yet been tried in court.

Legal status in the United Kingdom

Non-photographic images of children have never been illegal in the United Kingdom, and on 23 November 2006, Vernon Coaker, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, stated that "Although cartoons depicting child abuse are deeply offensive, they do not in themselves constitute abuse of a child. The 1978 Act is well understood by those who work with it and enforce it and there are substantial arguments against extending its scope to cover cartoons of child pornography."^[27]
However, on 13 December 2006, UK Home Secretary John Reid, announced that the Cabinet was discussing how to ban computer-generated images of child abuse — including cartoons and graphic illustrations of abuse — after pressure from children's charities.^[28] The Government published a consultation on 1 April 2007, announcing plans to create a new offence of possessing a computer generated picture, cartoon or drawing with a penalty of three years in prison and an unlimited fine.^[29]

Legal status in the United States

The Supreme Court of the United States decided in 2002, and affirmed in 2004, that previous prohibition of simulated child pornography under the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 was unconstitutional.^[30] The majority ruling stated that "the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Virtual child pornography is not 'intrinsically related' to the sexual abuse of children."
On 30 April 2003, President George W. Bush signed into law the PROTECT Act of 2003 (also dubbed the ''Amber Alert Law'') ^[31] which again criminalizes all forms of pornography that shows people under the age of 18 regardless of production. The Act introduced 18 U.S.C. 1466A "Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children", which criminalizes material that has "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting, that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is obscene" or "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in ... sexual intercourse ... and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" (the third test of the Miller Test obscenity determination).
In the case of the 11th Circuit in United States v. Williams, specific cartoon depictions of what appears to be a minor engaging in overt sexual intercourse (not merely sexually explicit) was not deemed to satisfy the law as the content described in subsections (i) and (ii) is not constitutionally protected, speech that advertises or promotes such content does have the protection of the First Amendment. Accordingly, § 2252A(a)(3)(B) was held to be unconstitutionally overbroad. The Eleventh Circuit further held that the law was unconstitutionally vague, in that it did not adequately and specifically describe what sort of speech was criminally actionable.^[32]
The Department of Justice has appealed the Eleventh Circuit's ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. The case review docket is listed as 06-0694 and is unscheduled on the 2006-2007 schedule suggesting that it will not be reviewed until the U.S. Supreme Court reconvenes for the 2007-2008 session.[2] or will remain unheard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted^[33] under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males."^[34] Whorley was also convicted under 18 U.S.C. 2252(a)(2) on fourteen accounts for receiving "...digital photographs of actual children engaging in sexually explicit conduct."^[7][7] Whorley was on parole for earlier sex crimes at the time of the violations, although these convictions were independent of Whorley's violation of the terms of his parole.^[37] The same FOIA-requested November 2006 United States Attorney's Bulletin describing the details of the conviction, concludes by suggesting that the precedent set by the Whorley case be used as a basis for future prosecutions of possession of such obscene cartoons. Because Whorley's charges were coupled with charges for possession of child pornography featuring real children, and he was on parole at the time, then the possibility of appealing the charges was far less feasible and far less attractive to civil rights groups like the American Civil Liberties Union.
Neither Whorley's, nor any other conviction under this law has been reviewed by the Supreme Court.
According to the definitions provided in the United States v. Williams case, the term "indistinguishable" in terms of child pornography law does not apply to drawings or cartoons. That is, drawings or cartoons can still be child pornography even if it is clear that they are drawings or cartoons and not depictions of real children.
In February 2007, Senator John McCain introduced S.519, which would add a mandatory 10-year sentence in jail to anyone who uses the Internet to violate the PROTECT Act.^[38]

See also

★ Shotacon, the male equivalent of lolicon.

★ Shōnen-ai, or 'Boys Love'. Mostly drawn by women and marketed to a female audience.

★ Moe, a similar aesthetic but less sexual in nature.

★ 'Legal aspects'

★
★ Legal status of Internet pornography

★
★ Child pornography

★
★ Pedophilia

Footnotes

1. Kinsella, Sharon. Adult Manga. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press, 2000. ISBN 0-8248-2318-4
2. Gelder, Ken. ''The Subcultures Reader'', 2nd ed. Oxon: Routledge, 2005. p. 547. ISBN 0-415-34415-8
3. Tim Richardson, "Child porn banned in Japan". ''The Register'', 18 May 1999
4. "Amateur Manga Subculture and the Otaku Panic", by Sharon Kinsella, ''Journal of Japanese Studies,'' Summer 1998. Retrieved 2007-06-08.
5. original source: ''Animage'', vol. 125, November 1988 Retrieved 2007-06-08.
6.
7.
8. Feedback to Japanese National Police Agency's New Law against "Manga, Anime, Game Expression" Akiba Angels 06/04/2006. Retrieved 2007-06-28
9. Pornography, Rape and Sex Crimes in Japan, , Milton, Diamond, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 1999
10. "Lolicon Backlash in Japan" Anime News Network 01/13/2005. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
11. "Serial killer Miyazaki must hang: Supreme Court", ''The Japan Times''. 01/18/2006. Retrieved 2007-07-07.
12. "Court rules serial killer Miyazaki sane", ''The Japan Times,'' 06/29/01. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
13. "Lolicon Backlash in Japan" Anime News Network 01/13/2005. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
14. "Child porn, if animated, eludes regulators", by Akemi Nakamura, ''The Japan Times''. 05/18/2005. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
15. Australian Customs Service: Man fined 00 for smuggling child pornography. Retrieved August 17, 2007.
16. Anime News Network (20 October 2005). Retrieved January 20, 2006.
17. CBC News (April 4 2006)
18. R. v. Beattie (8 April 2005). Retrieved March 12, 2007.
19. Justitie (1 October 2002). Retrieved January 20, 2006.
20. Draft Convention on Cyber-crime (25 April 2000). Retrieved January 20, 2006.
21. Films, Videos, and Publications Classification Act 1993 Retrieved August 23, 2007.
22. Puni Puni Poemy: Banned in New Zealand Retrieved August 23, 2007.
23. Lovdata - Straffeloven, 19. kapittel, Seksualforbrytelser, § 204a
24. Lovdata - Straffeloven, 19. kapittel, Seksualforbrytelser, § 204 - "Pornoloven" ("The porn law")
25. Films and Publications Amendment Bill of 2003 (104kb pdf file)
26. Frågor och svar om sexuella övergrepp mot barn
27. House of Commons Hansard Written Answers for 23 November 2006
28. Ban urged on child abuse images
29. Plan to tighten child abuse law
30. Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition
31. Bush signs child protection bill
32. United States v. Williams
33. Richmond man first convicted under expanded child-porn law
34. Prosecuting Obscene Representations of the Sexual Abuse of Children
35.
36.
37. Virginia Man Sentenced in Landmark Obscenity Case (March 10 2006)
38. CNET News.com, Senator to propose surveillance of illegal images

External links

★ "'Virtual child' pornography on the Internet: a 'virtual' victim?" ''Duke Law & Technology Review'', 9/23/2002,

★ "Does comic relief hurt kids?" at ecpat.net ''Japan Times'' (April 27 2004)

★ "New Law Banning Lolicon?" ''ComiPress'' (November 17 2006)