Lolicon won't normalize anything

(This is from a previous post by @Chie)

There is no objective, consequential difference between playing a violent video game, watching horror movies, or laughing at offensive, racist comedic material and masturbating to loli/shota pornography.

No victim, no crime. Period.

The assumption that it may incite someone to commit sexual abuse is not an argument.
This is because it attempts to split responsibility and culpability of any crime away from the individual who committed it, whereas no such culpability could possibly exist for the fictional pornography.
The fictional pornography does not attempt to incite abuse, either indirectly or deliberately.
And, for the sake of argument, if it could by some spurious argument be indirectly be read to do so, the individual could just as easily not act on those commands in a manner that harms a child.

The assumption that allowing such material to exist and maintain an active audience will “normalize” the acts and attitudes depicted or presented is not an argument.
Such assumptions, like the previous one, rely on the exploitation of fear and emotion. While it is true that certain subject matter or topics may become popularized, the likelihood that they be “normalized” is contingent on a variety of chaotic variables that controversial or offensive subject matter simply cannot. It also assumes that niche interests are destined to dissolve into a “communal consciousness” and be enjoined into the zeitgeist, which is also not true.
And then, even if pedophilic material could become “normalized”, there is no evidence that this will lead to otherwise sensitive individuals or communities to adopt the attitudes and ideas espoused in the fictionalized materials, nor is there any evidence that actual instances of sexual exploitation or abuse of minors will be tolerated, ignored, or go unnoticed.
The apparent distinction between reality and fiction makes this so.

The logic these common points rely on is spurious because they are not justified by evidence, logic, or reason.


Lolicon only normalizes lolicon, which should be normalized, since fiction is a normal thing in human imagination.


If loli content normalizes anything, the West should have been normalized a long time ago. In America alone, the country should have been normalized to it nearly a century ago with the creation of Betty Boop, and that’s not even getting into the other media where underaged characters are in revealing costumes/interesting positions/nothing at all.

If a country with this much content being produced over such a long period of time isn’t normalized, I fail to see how loli content would do the same thing unless Japanese drawings have magical powers that American drawings don’t to convert people into being ok with CSAM.

The whole “normalization” thing is just rooted in ignorance, fear and hypocrisy, otherwise we need to explain why America isn’t “normalized” yet too.

I’m sure there’s examples in other countries that are against lolicons, but paradoxically fine with their version of the same thing…


On the topic of normalization think that people intentionally refuse to define terms. Its the number one anti pedo cliche, every video about the twitter map massacre will have the word normalize in it. If your talking about a literal normalization then. Yes were trying to normalize pedophilia. We want people that its a normal sexual attraction for some people and it alone is harmless. But they never define there terms because there argument is terrible or they just say that is a conspiracy to erase the age of consent. Its a shame no one stood up during the insanity of last years map pride.

From what I’ve seen, people seem to conflate normalization with desensitization without considering the mediums or context by which such imagery is depicted and how such information is actually viewed and processed or how it actually affects the viewer or how it’s used.
It usually ends up following some unfounded slippery slope argument or content progression accusation or claims that it will only “whet the appetites” of would-be or high-risk offenders, a spurious claim that has yet to be affirmed by the broader scientific community.

These are the same unfounded arguments regurgitated time and time again when moral panics start. Time and time again, they are proven wrong.


And they always believe they’re right because they’re “morally right”.