Self-professed 'real otaku' rips into 'moe' fetish fakers

[Rove]

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/news/20060512p2g00m0dm014000c.html

For the click-the-link-impaired:



Self-professed 'real otaku' rips into 'moe' fetish fakers

One of Japan's most prominent woman manga artists has lashed out at the country's burgeoning otaku culture, saying that those now proudly boasting of being geeks are little more than pedophiles, perverts and losers, according to Shukan Bunshun (5/18).

Mimei Sakamoto, a multitalented manga artist whose "Nippon no Mimei" is a must-read for all hip young Japanese, rips into the otaku, whose geek culture has moved into the mainstream courtesy of the business of "moe," a word that literally translates as "gushing" and describes the warm feeling the otaku get when they see something they like.

"Perhaps it's because 'Train Man' (the story of an otaku who wins the heart of a pretty woman) was such a hit, but recently I've seen all these dorky guys walking around in thick glasses and checkered shirts and it pains my heart to think that they may be hoping to meet some pretty girl who's going to fall in love with them. Sorry guys, the chances of that happening are zero," Sakamoto tells Shukan Bunshun.

Sakamoto goes on to lambaste the otaku tendencies to idolize young girls and women wearing spectacles.

"This fetish you call 'moe' is a pedophiliac fetish and is nothing more than perversion. It's not really something you should be gushing over," the manga artist says, addressing the otaku. "In other countries, they'd call what you're fantasizing over 'child pornography' and you'd all be arrested. I'm ashamed that these 'otaku' who are perpetual criminals have entered the mainstream and started an otaku boom."

Sakamoto continues, saying that those now regarded as otaku really aren't geeks at all.

"All the world is going around talking about maid cafes and stuff and making these so-called otaku look good. But people must realize that these guys are simply men incapable of recognizing reality and are incapable of being in a normal loving relationship. I can't stop crying over the fact that these people have been labeled as otaku and that we are now going through an otaku boom," she tells Shukan Bunshun.

The manga artist also points out that sharp marketers are also suckering the ersatz otaku.

"There's a tendency in the otaku market to avoid producing contents that are going to sell in terms of millions or tens of millions. Instead, they find a semi-hit then bring out figurines, DVD box sets, premium editions and all sorts of related materials that are drastically over-wrapped and sell to the same people who bought the original product in the first place," the manga artist says. "So-called otaku are caught up in this money making cycle and all they're doing is spending their hard-earned yen (which often comes from their parents in a lot of cases). And, what's really sad, is that loads of these gullible suckers don't even realize that they're being taken for a ride."

Sakamoto claims to have street credibility.

"I'm a fully-fledged otaku. I used to shut myself away from the world. A real otaku would never go out and about in the world because they wouldn't believe anything good could happen to them if they did so, anyway. They all believe the world is out to get them," Sakamoto tells Shukan Bunshun. "Real otaku should go back and shut yourselves off from the world again. The true value of being a real otaku lay in the belief that nobody else understands you."

Things that caught my attention:

1) An ex-otaku (in the Japanese sense of the word) takes pride in being one, and attacks a sub-group of its own origins.
2) The moe lovers description is hilariously similar to that of emos in the US/West. Even more, emo and moe have the same three letters rearranged.
3) Densha Otoko was much bigger than I originally thought.

(Moe lovers don't feel offended about this thread, I have no intention of starting a 'bash the lolilovers thread' or associate you with emos)

[Tyrdium]

<3

I have to go read Nippon no Mimei now. She hit the nail on the head.

[Daravon]

2) The moe lovers description is hilariously similar to that of emos in the US/West. Even more, emo and moe have the same three letters rearranged.

A strikingly profound observation.

[f1rst children]

It sounds like typical "Burn the bridge behind me" rhetoric. Everyone wants to feel like they're part of some exlusive in-group subculture and gets upset when/if that subculture goes mainstream, because their little group is now infested with "sellouts" and "posers." People have the tendency to forget that they were once newcomers to whatever subculture they're into also.

As far as the pedophilia goes - from the list of Japanese fetishes that I've seen, it's one of the least disturbing. It's also questionable whether such manga would actually be illegal in other countries, as it isn't real.

[Ninja Realist]

As far as the pedophilia goes - from the list of Japanese fetishes that I've seen, it's one of the least disturbing.

No.

Just No.

I'm sorry, but NO APOLOGIES CAN BE MADE FOR PEDOPHILIA. Pedophiles are by far, one of the most sick, deranged, and heartless class of people within society. And why? Because they prey on Children who are too powerless to fight back and too ignorant to know better. They should all be locked in a box and NEVER let out.

The pedophilia rampant in Anime Culture, besides being totally disgusting and wrong, simultaneously casts a bad light on anime fans, and perverts shows that were not meant to be promote pedophilia, or even be sexual, in the first place. It truly sickens, and saddens me that when some people watch a show like say "Card Captor Sakura"(this one actually strikes a particular chord with me because I love this show and I hate the fact that people portray Sakura and interpret Sakura as a submissive, moe, type, when she is really a storng and empowered female lead) and be turned on.

GO TO HELL.

I hate you for perverting my shows.

I HATE YOU FOR PREYING ON CHILDREN.

[/rant]

[f1rst children]

Maybe I should have used ephebophillia instead of pedophillia.

But should someone like Shakespeare or Nabokov or Larry Clark (writer of Kids and Ken Park) should have been locked up for portraying sexual adolescents? None of their works seem as societally harmful as a scene with say, a woman being raped and by the end of the scene she's enjoying it. I would find that scene more disturbing than Tomo and Osaka discussing Chiyo's chest size in Azumanga Daioh.

Consider also that Japan's age of consent is 13. Ages of 16-18 are historically on the older end of the spectrum. I'm not saying that's good, but it is what it is. What's more important - the age at which consent is given, or if consent is given at all?

[aeroshadow]

I never really thought "moe" was related to pedophilia. When I think a little girl is "moe", there aren't any sexual instincts involved. It just means they are so adorable that I want to cuddle up in bed with them or something. LIKE MY DOG. NO SEXUAL FEELINGS INVOLVED. Of course, it may mean something very different in Japan, but that is pretty much the way Ken Akamatsu defines the word (http://matthew.animeblogger.net/archives/2005/07/20/wednesday_notes_akamatsu-sensei_talks_moe.php), as well, as more of a "peaceful essence". I'll take his word for it, because while I'm not an otaku or anything, I know I've felt "moe" at least once in my life, and it's no "pedophiliac fetish", I can say that.

Ninja Realist, there's nothing wrong with pedophiles until they start advancing, manipulating little girls, or making people feel uncomfortable. Let the peaceful ones masturbate without having to suffer from your harsh words. I have mixed feelings on the topic; pedophilia is extremely difficult to rationalize as there is an extremely thin line between manipulation and true love.

[Scoot]

Ninja Realist, there's nothing wrong with pedophiles until they start advancing, manipulating little girls, or making people feel uncomfortable.

Unfortunately, the whole "its fine as long as no-one is getting hurt" train of thought just doesn't cut it in the real world. Its like saying drink driving is fine as long as you don't plough into a car packed with children one day. It might never happen - but is it worth the risk?

Also, according to the BBC, most "active" peadophiles begin with pornography of gradually increasing explicitness and build up - much like the path of a drug user. Its just part of the human condition, I'm afraid.

[aeroshadow]

Unfortunately, the whole "its fine as long as no-one is getting hurt" train of thought just doesn't cut it in the real world. Its like saying drink driving is fine as long as you don't plough into a car packed with children one day. It might never happen - but is it worth the risk?

Also, according to the BBC, most "active" peadophiles begin with pornography of gradually increasing explicitness and build up - much like the path of a drug user. Its just part of the human condition, I'm afraid.So, you think pedophiles should get mentally checked before they even commit a crime? I don't think so.

Your analogy extends to practically every crime around, not just child molestation. According to your logic, straight people are obviously a risk to our society, because someone could get raped! It might never happen - but is it worth the risk? Pedophilia is simply just another sexual preference, and it alone shouldn't be held against anyone.

Pedophilia isn't synonymous with child molestation, and the two terms' association is unfair to a pedophile who isn't around to hurt someone. There are plenty of pedophiles that aren't child molesters, and there are plenty of child molesters that would rather have sexual interactions with a grown adult, but molest children instead for whatever reasons.

[Scoot]

Your analogy extends to practically every crime around, not just child molestation. According to your logic, straight people are obviously a risk to our society, because someone could get raped! It might never happen - but is it worth the risk?

Surely you can see the moral difference between these circumstances? Would you feel angry if someone killed a loved one while under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Wouldn't you feel angry if a known paedophile raped a child close to you?

Also, I might be mistaken, but doesn't your argument condone child pornography?

[aeroshadow]

Surely you can see the moral difference between these circumstances? Would you feel angry if someone killed a loved one while under the influence of drugs or alcohol? Wouldn't you feel angry if a known paedophile raped a child close to you?

Also, I might be mistaken, but doesn't your argument condone child pornography?No, I can't see the moral difference between those circumstances at all. Of course I'd be angry, but I wouldn't be angry because he was a known pedophile. I would be angry because he had the nerve to rape a child close to me, just like I would be angry if a straight person had the nerve to rape an adult close to me. Whether the rapists target children or adults, they're still rapists in the end.

But, I can see a fairly significant difference between an alchoholic and a pedophile. Everyone knows alchohol can cause people to act differently and often in dangerous fashions. But why would a peaceful pedophile be much more dangerous than a peaceful straight person? The only idea I can think of is the fact that children are "easier" to sexually attack than adults... but that's like saying that pedophiles are dangerous because they have a greater chance of committing a sexual crime than a straight person. Not only is that unproven, but that's like saying that males are dangerous because they have a greater chance of committing a sexual crime than a female. It's just silly.

(My argument doesn't condone child pornography. Both child pornography and child molestation are clearly wrong.)

[Scoot]

Everyone knows alchohol can cause people to act differently and often in dangerous fashions.

I think it could definately be argued that being a paedophile can cause a person to act differently and possibly in a dangerous fashion.


But why would a peaceful pedophile be much more dangerous than a peaceful straight person? The only idea I can think of is the fact that children are "easier" to sexually attack than adults... but in the same way, female adults are "easier" to sexually attack than male adults, so I can't see why that should be taken into consideration.


I think there are two arguments here: a straight (or homosexual) person can start safe, legal relationships which hurt no-one. A paedophile cannot (at least with children). The other part is that a child has an undeveloped sense of right and wrong, and as such can be vulnerable to manipulation and abuse - much more so than an adult female.


(My argument doesn't condone child pornography. Both child pornography and child molestation are clearly wrong.)

Unfortunately here there is a discrepancy. Sooner or later a paedophile ("peaceful" or otherwise) is going to want to gain access to some kind of child pornography. This material has to come from somewhere. If there were no paedophiles, there would be no child pornography - the two come hand in hand, and as such if you condone one, you condone the other.

[Roark]

First off, let me start by saying that I don't consider looking at a 14-year-old lustfully pedophilia. Post adolesence (which some girls are fully through at 14), the visual difference between 14 and 18 is almost non-existant. Hell, some girls look 14-16 in their late 20's. Same goes with guys: I'm nigh 23 and there are days I get offered high school fare on the train, hassled about buying cigarrettes let alone liquor, and stopped for curfew.

That said, pedophiliacs are a danger. Inherantly. Moral transgressions are rarely premeditated acts, i.e., I'm going to rape that 6 year old. Most times, they're weakness of will acts. Lets say Mr. Smith is a pedophile. He can't get it up unless there's a kid involved. He goes years living a life of denial. He's a model "good pedo". But one day, he has a bad day on the job. Really bad. Worst day you could imagine. He's tired, he's worn out, he's not at his sharpest. He slips. He lures some kid on the way home and molests.

He feels terrible about it. Really, really bad. Probably contemplates suicide. Because that's how compusion works. You can be as watchful for it as you want. Slips happen though.

I'm not a big fan of psychology-based ethics. I'm a fairly strong believer in free will. Howerver, free will takes effort to exert, and part of free will is acting against our natures not to be violent, greedy, and self-satisfying. So, yes. I think that people who have inborn compulsions towards harming others are dangerous. True sadists who enjoy torture are dangerous. note: I'm not talking about sexual sadists who are careful to get consenting partners. I'm referring to people for whom non-consensual violence is pleasurable. Arsonists are dangerous.

A pedophile may be peaceful. But that does take effort on his part. A lot of effort. And day in day out effort is bound to fail.

[aeroshadow]

EDIT: I think right now, I am a little confused concerning my thoughts.

[Scoot]

I'm sorry Aeroshadow, but these paedophiles who neither molest children, nor watch any kind of child pornography simply do not - and never will - exist.

By this simple fact there is no such thing as a paedophile who hurts no-one.

[Roark]

EDIT: I think right now, I am a little confused concerning my thoughts.

Wow...

And here I was posting mostly for the sake of argument... I stand by everything up there, but... still...

[aeroshadow]

Wow...

And here I was posting mostly for the sake of argument... I stand by everything up there, but... still...Well, sorry for not arguing back for the sake of arguing. Oh, and Scoot, if your fact can be proven true, fine, you are correct on that. However, there is still one aspect of Roark's and Scoot's opinions that I am still unclear on.

A pedophile may be peaceful. But that does take effort on his part. A lot of effort. And day in day out effort is bound to fail.
I think there are two arguments here: a straight (or homosexual) person can start safe, legal relationships which hurt no-one. A paedophile cannot (at least with children).So? Why would this day in, day out effort be bound to fail? So, just because a pedophile cannot start a safe sexual relationship, they will be more inclined to rape someone? I don't think so. As everyone knows, there are many, many straight people who have immense difficulty starting safe sexual relationships as well (whether it be due to their looks, personality, disabilities), and for the most part, they get along just fine. I doubt you believe the majority of them are also inherent dangers, always fighting a "fierce inner battle" day in, day out trying to prevent themselves from raping someone. No way. Maybe a few of the weird ones, but there are always a few weird ones. Why should pedophiles be put into a different category? I can't see why both of you infer that pedophilic desires are harder to suppress than straight ones.

[Mana]

So? Why would this day in, day out effort be bound to fail? So, just because a pedophile cannot start a safe sexual relationship, they will be more inclined to rape someone? I don't think so. As everyone knows, there are many, many straight people who have immense difficulty starting safe sexual relationships as well (whether it be due to their looks, personality, disabilities), and for the most part, they get along just fine. I doubt you believe the majority of them are also inherent dangers, always fighting a "fierce inner battle" day in, day out trying to prevent themselves from raping someone. No way. Maybe a few of the weird ones, but there are always a few weird ones. Why should pedophiles be put into a different category? I can't see why both of you infer that pedophilic desires are harder to suppress than straight ones.

Pedophilia is a medically documented sexual disorderer (akin to necrophilia and the like), and being heterosexual (or even homosexual/bisexual/asexual) is not. The same "weird ones" who have have to prevent themselves from raping someone also have sexual disorders. There is a BIG difference between sexual disorders and sexual orientation.

EDIT: Note, this is not me saying my piece in this matter, this is just me presenting something that needed to be presented. Mayhaps tomorrow I'll give a post with thought in it, but this is not that post.

[CGBShadowchild]

Pedophilia is a medically documented sexual disorderer (akin to necrophilia and the like), and being heterosexual (or even homosexual/bisexual/asexual) is not. The same "weird ones" who have have to prevent themselves from raping someone also have sexual disorders. There is a BIG difference between sexual disorders and sexual orientation.



Along these lines, there is also a 100% recurrence rate with pedophiles. Once a pedophile is convicted, they are guaranteed to continue molesting children. So, yeah, it's a disorder, not an orientation, and there is nothing defensible about having sex, or even the desire, to have sex with pre-sexual humans.

[Saya-biki]

maybe I'm just naive but doesn't the term "moe" generally refer to anime girls?

I don't know about you but when I look at a real girl and then look at an anime girl they seem quite different.

Granted, I'm sure it's not unheard for someone with lolicon to look into real child pornography or even commit a horrible crime. But I don't think every person who's ever enjoyed lolicon or enjoyed...moe...stuff...is going to go out and commit a crime.

Does liking lolicon or moe make someone a pedophile? Hmmm, in my opinion as long as you can distinguish fiction from reality I wouldn't immediately say so.

Well, like in an arguement about violence in video games, for me it's all about your ability to distinguish fiction from reality and common sense.

Common sense can be overruled, especially through the usage of drugs, but most people if they have common sense tend to stick with it.

Anyway I think jumping directly to real child porn from moe was alittle much...
my opinion may repeat itself, be similiar to what others could've said, be off-topic somehow ( ¯\(º_o)/¯ ), be incorrect due to other posts, but hey...I try...kinda

[f1rst children]

I'm sorry Aeroshadow, but these paedophiles who neither molest children, nor watch any kind of child pornography simply do not - and never will - exist.

By this simple fact there is no such thing as a paedophile who hurts no-one.

Does virtual child-porn hurt anyone? I'm talking about drawings, writings, etc. - depictions which include no actual humans, such as anime/manga. The only argument I can see is that it acts as the equivalent to a gateway drug. But the slippery slope argument is fallacious - that a person who reads pedophillic manga will inevitably commit pedophillic acts.

Further - is it right to take away a person's freedom, whether in jail or institution, based purely on their thoughts? Should a person be denied equal protection, due process, or the presumption of innocence based on not having right thoughts?

[Scoot]

Well that takes us to an interesting concept - with computer generated imagery now nearing a technological level where it become almost impossible to tell the difference between what is real and what is virtual, CGI porn of any persuasion or fetish, including what is illegal in real-life becomes a reality.

Although many would consider it morally wrong to watch fake images of young children depicted in a sexual way - in practice it harms no-one. The concept of a "safe" paedophile in this situation actually becomes feasible - though as I have previously said it is possible that such material could lead to harder, darker, more illegal things - as seems to be the human condition.

[PerfectDeath]

Because pedophilia is medically diagnosed it means that you gotta hope ur dice don't roll the wrong numbers :P . Which does seem ethicaly unfair. But sadly that's how things go.

But I do lose interest in many animes because they depict young heroins in ways that may lead to sexual thoughts. There is a very bizzar network of pornography waiting at the bottom of these many "slippery slopes" and weither or not we chose to go down one is not really up to choice. This is just from my behaviouralistic way of thinking though that environments have a major impact on our behaviours... yeah.

[A-R@D]

Because pedophilia is medically diagnosed it means that you gotta hope ur dice don't roll the wrong numbers :P . Which does seem ethicaly unfair. But sadly that's how things go.

Just because pedophilia is medically diagnosed does not mean its a roll of the dice whether one is a pedophile or not. Conditioning has a very large influence, to what extent is unknown, but being raised in a situation where one was abused or molested as a child makes it much more likley for that child to grow up to become a child molester or pedophile.

[AlterGenesis-X]

In the end: it comes down to the individual. In comparison, does every young boy who purchases Dead or Alive Xtreme Volleyball 2 for its lovely and "busty" heroines, are they more likely to mistreat women?

This might not be as serious of an example, but the psychology is the same. I understand how it can be unsafe to have many underground pedophiles, but it really comes down to the person to decide whether to indulge in their fantasies or not. The same can be said for any normal person. I can see how can be more inclined to commit a crime child abuse through enjoying "loli" anime/manga, but, the choice is still the individuals.

BTW, this might an interesting video if you havent already seen it. It's the DOAX2 trailer from E3...and yes...it's all about the boobies. =/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_nK3kj2h3yo&search=dead%20or%20alive%20xtreme%202

(Apologies, if my thoughts aren't too clear.)

[Senshi]

2) The moe lovers description is hilariously similar to that of emos in the US/West. Even more, emo and moe have the same three letters rearranged.


Wait a minute what are you talking about... did you read your own article...

She compares Moe lovers to pedophiles - not emos... last time I checked Emo's cut themselves and write bad poetry, not fantasize about molesting children...

if anything she compares OTAKU's to EMOs as is written in the article when she describes herself as Otaku:

"I'm a fully-fledged otaku. I used to shut myself away from the world. A real otaku would never go out and about in the world because they wouldn't believe anything good could happen to them if they did so, anyway. They all believe the world is out to get them," Sakamoto tells Shukan Bunshun. "Real otaku should go back and shut yourselves off from the world again. The true value of being a real otaku lay in the belief that nobody else understands you."

Now THAT sounds like Emo to me...

but anyways about this debate:

I too thought that "moe" was different from "lolicon"... I always assumed "moe" was more of a general feeling (that isnt sexual) that one had towards to "cute" or "helpless" characters...

Like Asahina in "Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya" and that glasses-wearing girl from Ichigo Mashimaro both have been described in their respective shows as possessing "moe"... now I think its understandable to have maybe sexual feelings for Asahina (for two very obvious reasons) I think there is a difference between her and the little girl from Ichigo Mashimaro...

Its right to have "moe" for both (meaning a general feeling of caring and concern for their wellbeing due to their helpless nature) but not sexual feelings for both since the latter results in obviously "lolicon" or "pedo" type thinking...

[Rove]

A strikingly profound observation.
Wait a minute what are you talking about... did you read your own article...

She compares Moe lovers to pedophiles - not emos... last time I checked Emo's cut themselves and write bad poetry, not fantasize about molesting children...
:(

It was meant to be a J-O-K-E. I am to blame since I forgot to multi-color it and add a funny smilie... like this one :XD: or this one :iamabanan or this one :D

* Rove crosses out "comedian" as a possible job in times of need

[Ritalin]

There is a huge misunderstanding of the word moe on these boards... and it's shocking since it's an anime forum.

My avatar (specifically the anime...) is commonly under the category of moe. However, it is in no way lolicon or even targetted to pedo's. Young, or more specifically, being naive (youthful innocence) is what defines moe. It can be either, most commonly it's the non-physical traits (naivety, etc) than the appearance of a character.

There is also no sexual appeal in moe. It's quite the opposite of lolicon.

Or simply put, moe is overcuteness or adorableness.

[Saya-biki]

There is a huge misunderstanding of the word moe on these boards... and it's shocking since it's an anime forum.

My avatar (specifically the anime...) is commonly under the category of moe. However, it is in no way lolicon or even targetted to pedo's. Young, or more specifically, being naive (youthful innocence) is what defines moe. It can be either, most commonly it's the non-physical traits (naivety, etc) than the appearance of a character.

There is also no sexual appeal in moe. It's quite the opposite of lolicon.

Or simply put, moe is overcuteness or adorableness.
well I differentiated between them, the earlier discussions jumped so quickly in little girl porn...

but I always thought it was the looks first.
I mean before you see the anime or the manga flip through it/look online you see the character first.
There you can think "MOE!" and then judge the character off of personality
but the personality doesn't matter! Even if they're little bitches if they're cute they can be moe!
Or so I think

BTW, this might an interesting video if you havent already seen it. It's the DOAX2 trailer from E3...and yes...it's all about the boobies. =/
http://youtube.com/watch?v=_nK3kj2h3yo&search=dead%20or%20alive%20xtreme%202

what? no strawberry scene part 2?

lame

[Pedro The Hutt]

I dunno Rit, according to Wiki:
"Moe or Moé (萌え, /mo'e/, literally 'budding', as with a plant) is a Japanese slang word originally referring to fetish for or love for characters in video games or anime and manga. For example, 眼鏡っ娘萌え, meganekko-moe, "glasses-girl moe", describes a person who is attracted to fictional characters with glasses. Since then, the term has come to be used as a general term for a hobby, mania or fetish (non-sexual) – 鉄道萌え, tetsudou-moe, "train moe", is simply a passionate interest in trains. A moekko is a character who could be considered stereotypically moe."
Even though it CAN be taken as a non-sexual adoration, it's obviously a small step from there on out. That said, it doesn't mean it's guaranteed to happen though.

[Senshi]

There is a huge misunderstanding of the word moe on these boards... and it's shocking since it's an anime forum.

My avatar (specifically the anime...) is commonly under the category of moe. However, it is in no way lolicon or even targetted to pedo's. Young, or more specifically, being naive (youthful innocence) is what defines moe. It can be either, most commonly it's the non-physical traits (naivety, etc) than the appearance of a character.

There is also no sexual appeal in moe. It's quite the opposite of lolicon.

Or simply put, moe is overcuteness or adorableness.

Yeah thats what I figured... so dont tell us that, tell Sakamoto who seems to think that Moe is equivalent to Pedophiliac fetish...

[PerfectDeath]

aight, so while i was doing my usual thinking, this topic came across my thoughts. So i decided to find if there is/was similar "moe" behaviours. I remembered my philosophy class were we were learning about Plato on love.

This goes WAY back to the greek times were the greeks believed that the purest form of beautywas the bodies of young boys who havn't gone through puberty yet.

It was customary for older, wealthy men to take these boys under their wings and teach them love. Now for those who like to think with their penis, this would mean pedofile sex slaves, but there is no sexual motivations with this form of love.

Much like how a person would cuddle and carres a puppy or kitten, these men would not sexualy love the boys, but show them affection and care.

This reminded me of this "moe" that is being talked about.
Also Plato did talk about how the young, pure boy can be corrupted by the man who takes the boy under his wing and provides sexual love. This was very tabooed because it "corrupted" the purity of the boy. This is pedophilia.

Purity seems to mean a state were the person is not controlled by sexual lust, and sexual lust is what can corrupt it.

"moe" seems to be quite similar, only it is towards a female... and not only that, but a fabricated one. But the feelings seem the same.

Now with the old Greeks and their system for raising the young boys, does leave opertunities for pedophiles to arise which they did. But this shows that this "moe" behaviour has occured in a different culture in a different time period.

It's like a puppy/kitten obsession really :P

[chrismt]

OK.

I think I found the main point behind this article, and that was that it is a rail against child pornography and the culture nurturing it, not child molestors. It's safe to say that an addiction to pornography leads to an escalation of things in order for that said person to receive their high, and when dealing with child pornography, an offshoot of traditional pornography that deals with inherently illegal activity that the user often knows of, an estimate of 40% or more off those seeking it end up acting on these situations and molesting children.

While the situation may differ in Japan due to the "age of consent" simply being if one is a teenager or not, this self-proclaimed otaku is simply disgusted with the practice period and the many clones that spawn off of one another in both looks and personalities.

I have to heartedly agree with the writer that this widespread moe following and the practices thereof are morally reprehensible. Pornography distorts the mind, especially child pornography, and anything that encourages it should be struck down. This comes from one who had looked at both types.

ww.catholicidaho.org/CYAP/Information%20on%20the%20Link%20Between%20Viewing%20Child%20Pornography%20and%20Child%20Sexual%20Abuse.htm (add a w)

[f1rst children]

OK.
I think I found the main point behind this article, and that was that it is a rail against child pornography and the culture nurturing it, not child molestors. It's safe to say that an addiction to pornography leads to an escalation of things in order for that said person to receive their high, and when dealing with child pornography, an offshoot of traditional pornography that deals with inherently illegal activity that the user often knows of, an estimate of 40% or more off those seeking it end up acting on these situations and molesting children.


How is it "inherently illegal?" What does that phrase even mean? Is there some sort of natural, self-evident law of the cosmos that says "x years and not a day before."
Further, look at it from a biological point. If say, 18 was the universal rule, then why would humans evolve in a manner that encourages them to have intercourse before that age? Or from a creationist view - why would God design humans in a way that encourages such behavior? Did God or nature make a mistake?

Different nations make their own laws. What is "inherently" illegal in your country may be explicitly legal in another. Some people look at Japan at say "14? What a bunch of sexual deviants." I wonder if they say the same about Canada (14), or the US in 1875 (10). Actually, as the age Mary gave birth to Jesus is estimated to be between 12 and 16, I wonder if they say the same about God himself.

[PerfectDeath]

In an evolutionary point of view for age and sex, women have a 20 year sexual prime, better make the best out of it. If our average ancestor, back when we were evolving, lived to the age of 30 then you can see that 20 year period from 12 to 32. Age 20 is our peak physical point and this slowly decreases as we age. So if you did live to 30, wouldn't you want to have children asap?
Evolutionarly speaking, we have not evolved out of this behaviour because there has been no seriouse pressures evolving us so it will stay for quite a long time.

Though 12 is the generally accepted age wich a female can give birth, some do mature faster, but I never heard of age 10 @_@ .

Now to look at how we structure age for sex and that, It is based not on our gonads(sexual parts) developing but on our mental develpoment. At the age of 17 or 18 our brain's pre frontal cortex begins to dramaticaly change itself. This causes lots of changes in how we think. I'm 18 and i can tell you that I think VERY differently than a year ago.

Because of this brain development, we begin to be better at making long term decisions and plans. This change can be tied to sexual activity. Though do note that I have not found any direct research for it, it would be something to look into.

Either way, our mental development is why a 19 year old can't legaly have sex with a 14 year old but an 80 year old can have sex with a 40 year old.

[PleaseDrinkMilk]

Or from a creationist view - why would God design humans in a way that encourages such behavior? Did God or nature make a mistake? My biblenessment is a little rusty, but didn't a lot of things change when Adam ate the apple? I don't think we can direct the 'bad' towards God-- evil has changed this world. What we live in today is not the pure creation we began with, I don't think.

[Mana]

* Mana gently nudges the thread back on topic

[bigal60]

I'm sorry, but NO APOLOGIES CAN BE MADE FOR PEDOPHILIA. Pedophiles are by far, one of the most sick, deranged, and heartless class of people within society. And why? Because they prey on Children who are too powerless to fight back and too ignorant to know better. They should all be locked in a box and NEVER let out.

no commies are the worst class of people and youre all writing paedophile wrong its spelled p-a-e-d-o-p-h-i-l-e

[Kuzu Ryu Sen]

I didnt' think England had become Hell.

And I'd sure as hell rather have the company of Karl Marx than some pedophile.

[DarkKanti]

no commies are the worst class of people and youre all writing paedophile wrong its spelled p-a-e-d-o-p-h-i-l-e

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

It can be spelled either way. And Kuzu's right. Pedos are much worse than communists.

[Erigion]

no commies are the worst class of people and youre all writing paedophile wrong its spelled p-a-e-d-o-p-h-i-l-e
You brought this thread back for this?