The Channel of Commerce Argument on Loli: Chu-Bra
Obscene?
Commercial pornography?
Fuel, fire, and moe morality?
I am not really interested in talking about the ongoing, recent and future legal actions of people who got into trouble from possession of child pornography, real or imagined. Despite the suspect motives behind both the prosecution and the legislative bodies, I think it stands as a practical matter, that if Gaiman can be arrested for what he owns, then we are in good company where fairness is also among us.
However in all the nonsense posturing about imaginary children or harm or lawfulness, one key indicator in all these situations is the nature of the works. After all, what is wrongful in the eyes of the public is sexualizing children or whatever that is obscene. The mediator mind in me says that there is a neutral ground between these seeming opposite positions. It seems to me that for a lolicon to get his rocks off, it isn’t a necessary requirement to have obscene material or material depicting minors in a sexual situation. Perhaps it doesn’t apply to all you sickos out there, but I think there’s room to cooperate.
And I think the key to that is doing it well. Here is one possible example.
The latest episode of Chu-Bra ended with a little “kero-chan check” style segment on garter belts. Except it’s an instructional video instead of a design tip zoom-in. (Hm, I think that would be great for a show like Chu-Bra…) Nayu models how to wear a garter belt with appropriate stockings and gives us tips on the right way to do it, and some advantages of the type of stocking that goes with the system.
That is well and good except that she models it by wearing it, while in her usual attire. And by usual attire I mean in her stereotypical, cutekawaii chu-bras andto chu-pantsu desu.
I think it’s particularly noteworthy that in the same episode, the story discusses the role of underwear in male-female relationship. I think it is a fair characterization that girls’ undies are fuel (as translated) for the imagination for guys. At the same time, I’m not sure if it is an appropriate characterization. When it comes down to it, women’s underwear is just pieces of fabric and like material; on the other hand, the human imagination can take unimaginably many different forms, and can be inspired by anything under the sun and more. It’s like Doc Brown’s fusion reactor on his DeLorean, to use a fuel analogy. It’s Rule 34.
To understand the full picture, Nayu-bro asks the key question–how does a girl feel when a guy sees her in her underwear? I don’t think it gets any simpler than that inquiry, that attempt to convey a “how do I feel when I’m in your shoes?” notion across the ever-so-mysterious gender line. And we can ask that to ourselves; it is a fair thing to ask regardless if you are a budding teenage girl or not. And while I suspect we will get different answers, the exercise is one of empathy and not of comparative criticism.
I wonder how far they’ll go with Hiroki though–I think he’s a pretty good guy, taking the high road. But then again I don’t think they have much of a choice. What I want to see from the story is how it drills down to his respect (yes, respect!) versus his emotional responses. Ultimately embarrassment is an emotional response, and it’s a signifier and a controllable impulse. Being able to deal with your feelings is part of what makes a man mature, right? From an education perspective, if they want to tell girls that guys blush when seeing girls in underwear, they’re doing it with a heavy hand.
Okay, enough Chu-Bra ranting: we know this is a late night anime, which is stereotypically filled with anime featuring a lot of fanservice (let’s assume “sexualized displays of female bodies” as I use the term fanservice for this purpose). It’s a very weak assumption in my mind, but one necessary for this discourse. Well, Chu-Bra manga is a part of Comic High!, home of Hitohira, Potemayo, and Kodomo no Jikan (big surprise there); it’s a seinen magazine, so the assumption holds to some degree.
It seems to me that the catch to Chu-Bra is to play with that befuddled boundary between “fuel” and “fodder.” By fodder I mean as in general, the purpose of fanservice is for arousal, and little else. In as such, increasing competition and sophistication in fanservice breeds increasing diversity for outlets for fanservice. (I am speaking to “mai brothas” here in that if you watched Kanokan not because it has fanservice, but because how it is done, yeah?) On the other hand, “fuel” can be used for constructive purposes. One logical progression is to make the fanservice actually meaningful, like “how can you have breast milk magic without breast milk and how can you have breast milk without breasts?” Or, “how can you have an underwear club without underwear”? You can obviously go too far even with that disguise of sorts, as in the case of Kodomo no Jikan. And the example up above with Nayu demonstrating those garter belt+stockings setup is pushing things! But that is an example of getting it on without getting it out of hand. Sort of.
To revisit the baseline, isn’t that what child porn is? You take normal pictures of naked children (perfectly okay in a non-predatory situation), and give it to people who are looking for porn? Is that really that different than what Chu-Bra (or KoJikan or any other kind of porn) is doing as far as functionally for the consumer? Isn’t the only difference a matter of subject of content? I suppose because underwear is not porn nor could they be classified as children, and children wearing underwear is generally not considered pornography…
We have to thank the Almighty for the power of human imagination in which we can turn anything into a turn-on. It is just a matter of context (or as I call it, a channel of commerce).
And it’s not just about porn. It’s also no different than why I (or any of you I imagine) would watch a totally shoujo show (eg., Card Captor Sakura?) or something outside of the typical, categorical, “target audience bubble.” When it’s done well, done in a way that I can appreciate, I will watch it and probably enjoy it! And by the same token, I imagine there could be some kind of material that pacifies the bulk of you naughty lolicons out there without totally offending any random passer-by. It is only limited by the ever-expanding barrier of human imagination.
PS. A trip down Danbooru-lane with the right tags will tell you that a lot of illustrators draw panties under garter belts! Maybe Chu-Bra will bring about some positive change, yeah?
tl;dr: The human mind is what Equality Now should be pushing to ban.
boo, I propose a compromise! there can be peace!
There is no way to tell that something isn’t obscene before it has been tried in court. “Anything can be a turn on” as you say, so the lolicon getting off on anything can and will be deemed obscene if the prosecution portrays them as sexually attracted to minors. People *have* done jail time, complete with beatings and prison rape, for owning pictures of adolescents on the beach in swimsuits and vaguely alluring poses.
So no, there cannot be peace. Freedom of speech and privacy are not a matter of casuistry.
Also, don’t think it’s only about us sickos. If the onus is on you to convince a popular jury that the fanservice in Kanokon and Chu-Bra is “interesting”, you have already lost.
NANI MO CHIGAU DESHOU. LISTEN LISTEN LISTEN!
Just because it is a turn on doesn’t mean it will and can be deemed obscene. Do you not understand how obscenity works? It is not a pure subjective standard.
People *have* done jail time for those pictures because it required predatory behavior to acquire those pictures. We all can agree that none of that is required for illustrations.
The fanservice in Kanokon and Chu-Bra are interesting to people who are in the know (as I have illustrated already). Artistic merit isn’t a popularity poll. And I’m glad the onus is never on the defendant to prove things like this, as it is the case in American criminal court.
Furthermore, I think you missed the point. This has more to do with enjoying and producing content that avoids prosecution in the first place (nobody is going to prosecute Chu-Bra criminally) than fighting any legal battles. It is fruitless and foolish to play a zero sum game in ethics, especially when it comes to privacy and free speech.
Because when it comes down to it, it is not a fight where either logic or reason is on your (mt-i) side. The logical conclusion would be isolation and further alienation (see minori.ph) and it will come to no good.
* In the US, as I understand, obscenity is determined (conceptually) by the Miller test. Which is an entirely subjective and arbitrary standard.
* “Predatory behavior” is required to take pictures of teens in swimsuit on the beach? You have to be kidding.
* Tamachiyuki has obvious and unquestionable artistic merit to people in the know. It was of course included in Handley’s share of obscene material nonetheless, and the prosecution didn’t have to push very hard either.
* “(nobody is going to prosecute Chu-Bra criminally)”. Yeah, sure. We’d hear that about drawings in general only a few years ago (still remember how Robbe-Grillet was recorded on camera saying something of the sort in France a couple of years before his death—and the first High Court decision banning sexual depictions of fictional children).
* “it is not a fight where either logic or reason is on your (mt-i) side” I don’t know about reason, but a large body of scholarly research is. Also, if isolation means shielding oneself from moralfags, so be it.
1. The Miller Test is not an entirely subjective and arbitrary standard. That is more than I could say about criminal prosecution in Handley’s cases however, and some people raised this point to some effect.
2. If people outlaw predatory behavior (as however it is defined) it is beyond the scope of this discussion. I believe that was the basis for all those convictions anyways, as in, you sure can get away with taking pictures of teens in swimsuits on the beach, it happens all the time legally. What you’re saying is generalizing an exceptional case to apply to every case.
3. I think if the actual material was tried, some may not be proven obscene. However in Handley’s case we will never know because it was never tried. It’s part of the bundling effect in many of these obscenity/child porn cases. It is an effect of the criminal prosecution rather than the nature of law. Furthermore, can you really say that about the other 6 or 7 books (I forget how many) that wasn’t Tamachiyuki? But obviously it requires an actual examination of the material to say for sure if it has any literary, artistic or educational merit. It would be neat if someone can provide that.
4. Want to put money on that? Put it where your mouth is. I’m willing. And my confidence stems from the fact that it is quite easy to see the merits of the show itself. Obscene tests generally are not a popularity poll. It isn’t worth the self-prosecution complex all these people are trying to put themselves in. It is not the productive way to react to this situation, nor is it even the correct way to react.
5. Large body of scholarly research on your side? Like what? That there is no reconciliation between moralfags and lolicons? LOL.
* To the extent that no person can sensibly evaluate “community standards”, that “patently offensive” is a weasel word, and that SLAPS is a joke, the Miller test is arbitrary and subjective. All that vagueness enables prosecutors to press ludicrous charges.
* The conviction in question were not based on “taking pictures”, just on owning them. That is indeed material that would be legal to own for most people, but suddenly becomes illegal when the owners are minor-attracted adults (who presumably use them for sexual gratification). That’s exactly the reason why there cannot be peace. You’re not permitted to get off of anything as a lolicon, by simple virtue of being a lolicon. Not at least if an attorney is craving for a bit of a publicity stunt.
* I mentioned Tamachiyuki because it’s the one I recognized immediately. I’m not familiar with the other ones. And I don’t how simply looking at them would suddenly allow me to judge their literary and artistic merits in any absolute sense. If someone thinks they can make the kind of judgement call needed to write off a work off fiction as devoid of “SLAPS”, they’re ignorant.
* I put my money where my mouth is, buying LO every month among other things. In the land of the free and the home of the brave, I could be on a sexual offender registry, by now. Even though it is quite easy to see the merits of most works published there.
* You can probably tell that that’s not what I was refering too, but it’s even true if you read it that way. In the sense that is detrimental to society at large and to the safety of children in particular to let moralfags have their way with people’s liberties. A wider availability of pornographic materials, including those featuring children, has consistently been shown to be significantly correlated to smaller incidence of sexual criminality.
Enjoy reveling in your opinion and believing in the things you like to believe in, even if it’s nonconstructive and/or wrong. The point of my post isn’t to claim some kind of moral high ground; I’m just irritated by the amount of ignorance that is being perpetrated and how the reality of situation is distorted. You’re doing exactly that.
I mean, com’on–
>> I could be on a sexual offender registry, by now
Who did you molest? Handley isn’t even on that registry.
And if you want to equate genuine pedophiles with lolicons, then all the more pathetic!
I think your last point is particularly supportive of my position–if looking at child porn (presumably ones that does not involve real children) doesn’t correlate to sexual criminality (and presuming also no other form of criminality), then that means there is exactly room to compromise.
It would be if the purpose of prosecution in those cases had anything to do with protecting children or anything of the sort, and/or if there was any serious consideration of scholarly research in those matters. But Susan Napier¸ Scott McCloud and the CBLDF weren’t enough to get a sensible decision from any court all the way up to SCOTUS in Jesus Castillo’s case, for example. Ignorance is not on *our* side.
I would say ignorance is definitely on your side still. But of course, there’s plenty to go around. The outrage we observe is expected and I’m somewhat sympathetic about it, believe it or not, but at the same time some of this is working as intended. Obscenity laws are legit and historic, and it would be ignorance to not know the risks.
The problem is the selective prosecution, and not so much merely banning certain material on a location-by-location basis. And when it comes to that the only thing you could do is either become a lawyer or donate money to CBLDF and the like. Buying more LO isn’t going to help anything except your raging boner.
There are many other injustice in the world and sometimes there is only so much you could do to make it better. But it’s worth thinking about it without the emotional attachment that invariably I see in 99.99% of discussions involved.
There are little to none other things you could do to make prosecution more difficult in practice. One alternative I proposed is not merely a way to protect by fighting the law, as so any legitimate speech can be protected is protected. It is a way to avoid that sort of prosecution in the first place. In spirit, it’s an extension of Japan’s history of porn censorship and how culturally people got around that.
[...] show about underwear appreciation, there’s just SO MUCH T&A involving middle school girls. Other blogs have gone into the subject in some detail, so I won’t retread that [...]