| sapphi_snake said: So my short answer would be: neither examples are child pornography (and I already gave a definition of what child pornography would be). If lolicon is material featuring children in sexual situations, and the purpose is to incite sexual responses and lead to erotic satisfaction, then it is child porn. |
So, who decides when a piece of work is designed to incite a sexual response, and when it isn't? What excites one person may be seen as insightful commentary about sexuality by a second reader. Who decides how a reader will respond to a piece of work? Who decides that Lolita is art and Lolicon is 'child porn'? They both depict the same acts, after all. Lolita was only 12. Where is the dividing line? How do you define it in law? Can it be defined? Does it need to be?
What of work such as Alan Moore's 'Lost Girls' which even the author himself has described it as porn? Indeed, he purposefully used it, forcing a dialogue about art and porn, and how the lines between the two are not just blurred, but quite indistinguishable.
As a simple example of this: what if two pieces of work were presented to you: in the first, a girl introduces herself as 12, and appears prepubescent; in the second, a girl introduces herself as 18 and appears prepubescent -- otherwise, both works are identical, and include sexual acts. Both are fictional. Both are illustrated.
Is one porn and the other not, even though they are identical in all ways barring a single number (the '2' turned to an '8')?
