TW: pedophilia, CSA, discussion of lolicon/shotacon (in broad terms, no specifics), Nazi rhetoric around ‘degenerates’
Six years after writing one of the hardest articles of my life, it’s finally happened: I’ve been asked point blank if that means I think lolicon is ‘acceptable’. Which I suppose means it’s finally time for me to write the follow-up to ‘I Think I’m Ready To Talk About This Now’ — one where I take a look back at it and see how I feel about the topic now. [If you’re curious about the article, it’s been privated for my safety; I bring it back every now and again, but especially after this latest bit of turmoil, it’s going back into the private folder for the time being.]
But here’s the thing: right off the bat, I think if you’re reading any of my articles, and coming away with concerns about whether or not I condemn the fictional subject matter in it strongly enough, I think you’ve entirely missed the point. Whether or not I approve or don’t approve of lolicon/shotacon is an entirely moot question, and one that I’m not going to entertain — partially because then I’m validating the entire concept that the porn I consume matters and is up for the approval or disapproval of the masses. What matters — and what should be the driving question of everyone, regarding this topic — is How do we protect children? How do we reduce the sexual victimization of our most vulnerable population? How can we help those who have already been hurt?
It’s a complicated set of questions, and not ones I’m going to try answer here, although I’ve taken them on at several different times. What I’m going to challenge instead is this constant, repeating notion that one’s feelings are more important or a more helpful guide concerning the topic than research or the testimony of survivors. I’ve seen it countless times; someone will already have the preconceived notion that lolicon, or ageplay, or dark romance, or (insert scapegoat of choice here), is somehow responsible for or contributes to child sexual abuse. When challenged on this or asked for sources, they’ll reference that they’ve “read studies”; when offered contradicting studies, they may or may not read them, but they’ll just say that they Disagree. And because we are supposed to respect all opinions, the idea is supposed to be that we can “agree to disagree”. We can calmly and respectfully share the marketplace of ideas between well-informed, well-researched stances and utter claptrap, because that’s worked so well for vaccine research, trans rights, and literally anything else.
Most people do not want to hear this. But your internal biases about child abuse, nine times out of ten, are not just wrong, not just worthless, but actively harmful. You are more likely to put a child in danger by listening to your uncritical preconceptions about who is and isn’t dangerous than anything else, and you become a far more dangerous person when you refuse to acknowledge these biases. This comes out in all sorts of different ways; and one of the most unfortunate tricks is that you may be able to see how it works in one sense but still be blind when it comes to your own. Many of you, for example, will condemn the mother who calls her child a liar when they say her husband’s a predator. But if you’re turning around and saying that fiction or artwork are contributing to child abuse — with absolutely no research to back you up — you are acting on the same biases and the same preconceptions, with similar results. The wrong people are punished, and those in need of help are ignored. A child pastor would never do that. A creep with a lolicon porn stash totally would. The latter goes to jail, the former’s never punished. The details of what actually happened couldn’t matter less when we are running on vibes and fumes, my friends.
This prioritization of comfort over action is something that’s been around for a very, very long time. Suffragettes were demonized for their radical attempts at attention-getting, and Capital Pride this very weekend was “taken over” by a Palestine protest (organized and advertised well ahead of time) that is being criticized in part by people…mad they didn’t get a parade. Nor is the further-left immune to this; safe spaces and trigger warnings are wonderful ideas that are unfortunately easily-hijacked by the more privileged. A white woman’s safe space includes never being challenged on racism just as much as it includes freedom from misogyny; the fact that the Black woman who wants that same safe space wants it to be free of racism is simply considered less important, because the opinions of Black women are given less value. Giving trigger warnings for discussions of pedophilia is deeply, critically important for other survivors, and I strive so hard to do it — but I’m also deeply aware that just as many, if not more, people look at the trigger warnings and walk away not because they’re survivors, but because they just “don’t want to think about that kind of thing”.
As a survivor not just of grooming and CSA, but of an attempt to convince me that I was a monster myself, I don’t have a choice on whether or not I get to think about it. That’s why I dedicate so much of my time and my energy to being outspoken on what is and isn’t harmful; to what does and doesn’t harm me and my fellow survivors. From very early on, I knew that I could not trust my own emotions; I’m mentally ill, I’m traumatized, and I have been gaslighted by so many people in my life that I have built my own perception of the world from scratch. I’ve built it from research; I’ve built it from discussions with as wide a variety of people as possible; I’ve learned how to reality-check with all sorts of folks and to balance when someone actually has any expertise or right to give me a reality-check on something. A white person cannot give me a reality check on racism. An able-bodied person cannot give me a reality check on accessibility. And someone who does not have any experience with CSA or CSA advocacy beyond the prejudice of their own gut feelings cannot and will not give me any kind of ‘reality check’ on the Inherent Morality of drawn, fictional material.
The truth is, six years after writing the article in which I first took a hardline stance on “shut the fuck up about lolicon”, I’m even more hardline about it than ever. I do not give a shit about drawn material; I do give a shit about morality crusaders who think that ignoring witness testimonies, aggregate statistics, and extremely obvious correlations (if you really think that only this kind of drawn material is bad, you’re just carving out things based on your own preferences, not making any kind of consistent argument) still somehow puts them in the right. Attaching morality to pornography, to any kind of pornography that did not involve harming someone to create, is an inherently regressive stance and one that dehumanizes large swathes of people. Either get comfortable with that, or take some time to re-evaluate the balance between your gut feelings on something being “icky and gross” and what you actually, truly believe. And if nothing else… don’t be shocked when you deride a group of people as morally reprehensible and imply them to be less than human, and I take offense. We don’t do Nazi rhetoric in this household. Keep up or go home.
Elliott Dunstan 