Moé defined as “related to child sex abuse”
Original story can be found here -> http://2chan.us/wordpress/2009/07/04/moe-defined-as-related-to-child-sex-abuse/
The long-standing issue of how exactly to define moé has been resolved by ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking) International. I quote:
The analysis estimates the market for moe products (books, images and games), which are related to anime and manga, was worth 88.8 billion yen (US$800 million) in 2003. The term moe is used in a neutral sense for economic analysis. But taken literally it refers to a fetishist sexual attraction that some fans of computer games, anime and manga have for female child characters, who may be depicted in pornographic and erotic contexts within games, animations and illustrations. Moe web pages sometimes link to other pages containing images, stories and chats in which very young characters are the objects of sexual violence, abuse and fantasy. A proportion of the moe market may therefore be regarded as related to child sex abuse images. The report expected the market for moe products to expand.I am quoting page 32 of their information pamphlet “Violence against Children in Cyberspace“. Perhaps some of us are glad that this controversy has at long last been resolved. If you actually enjoy moé artwork, though, chances are you disagree with ECPAT’s characterization of your hobby. What’s even better, the only citation in this paragraph was a link to WaiWai News.
Nobuo Sakiyama identified this misleading and unexplained accusation as a crucial element in getting UNICEF Japan to accept ECPAT’s claim that moé drawings perceivable as suggestive should be outlawed by the Diet. This is the origin of the “swimsuit photo gravures” bill. Here’s another excerpt from ECPAT’s anti-manga campaign:
The group noted that child pornography includes the recorded abuse of a real child, for example, through photographs, as well as digitally altered images and illustrations such as Japanese manga.
Now, nobody’s a fan of child abuse, and people who defend lolicon are not especially welcome here. But this is troublesome for two reasons:
1. The creator of child porn is abusing a child. The creator of lolicon is drawing a picture. It is unsettling to equate the two.
2. Downloading child porn should not be equivocated with downloading pictures of Ed Edd and Eddy getting it on.
I learned an interesting word on suzacu today, 外圧 (gaiatsu). This means “foreign pressure”. The perception of foreign pressure, even though none existed, led to the ban on rape games. At the same time, ECPAT’s statements targeting a specific style of artwork and genre of manga were 外圧 targeted at UNICEF Japan. When UNICEF’s SGI shill Agnes Chan went along with it, the LDP felt pressured to pass a law that would punish the following with jail time (according to anonymous suzacu commenters):
- Representation in swimsuit of children under 18 years old, both real and depicted
- Representation of partial (upper) nudity of children under 18 years old, both real and depicted
It’s also been suggested that the LDP is bringing up this entire thing as a scare tactic, although I don’t really see who it benefits. (Are they accusing the DPJ of being pro-child abuse?)
Note that this wacky interpretation of the LDP’s bill has not actually passed the Diet. If it does, you won’t be reading about it in this blog, because the entire Internet will be filled with pedo tears of impotent rage.
