NewgonWiki is moving to a new domain (yet to be decided, but very soon). We will then create a public forum within 10-12 weeks. There is a slight possibility that will expire in early December and therefore not redirect to the new NewgonWiki domain. In that case, JohnHolt will post a notice on BoyChat and BoyLinks will carry the new URL.

Lolicon-MAP Equivalence Debate

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Actual argument made by an "Ironic Lolicon"

The Lolicon-MAP Equivalence Debate is a frequent low-intelligence debate that takes place within the Lolicon, MAP and various normie social media communities.

Usually, these arguments will begin when a lolicon consumer (with large amounts of lolicon on their profile) is baited by a low-intelligence bovine leftist or conservative ("anti"), who insists, with marked derogation, that the Lolicon is a pedophile who intends to harm or abuse a child. As the Lolicon is invested in his own kind of respectability politics, he responds defensively, insisting that he is "valid", not a "MAP" or "pedophile", and would never go anywhere near real child erotica. Sometimes, but not very often, the person doing the baiting is an MAP responding to overly virtuous behaviour by the Lolicon.

This debate is often described as "tiresome" due to the low intelligence of the participants and their general inflexibility.

Common Lolicon copes and explanations

It is important to mention that many Lolicons insist they are not pedophiles and invest large amounts of time and energy seething over the mental split required to maintain this distinction. They are sometimes referred to pejoratively as "Ironic Lolicons", and provide well-worn rationalizations:

1. Appeal to ethics: "We are acting ethically, since we are not consuming real child pornography."

By implying their decision to use lolicon is ethically grounded, the Lolicon effectively confirms a substitution hypothesis, i.e. he is satisfying the same underlying impulse as a pedophile or hebephile.

2. Appeal to fiction: "Lolicon is a fictional depiction of cute looking, elfine quasi-human forms in Japanese art. It is a drawing, and therefore we are not attracted to real children and therefore not pedophilic."

Arousal is clearly dependent upon realism, as proven by the evolution of Lolicon as a medium. It itches the same scratch, and thus psychological substitution is clearly indicated. All you are left with is a mental split (good Lolicon vs bad Pedo) based upon a crude genetic fallacy (appeal to fiction).

3. Stylistic appeal: "Stylized images of humans (e.g. Loli facial features) are more arousing *because* of the stylistic features. We are not attracted to real children."

Accepting that as a premise, then why do lolicons idealize stylized children over adults? We can only conclude classical pedophilia/hebephilia or alternatively some kind of deviance fetishization in the person who finds this material arousing.

4: Muddying the waters/epistemic nitpicking: "Lolicon is by definition a broad category of art. Some Lolis (characters) are actually presented as adults. Therefore you can't just call Lolicons pedophiles - that's slanderous."

Clearly, this is an epistemic/etymological fallacy and an argument from consequence. It also betrays what we always suspected - that the pattern of argumentation is rooted in a both a fear of consequence and general sociopolitical expedience.

It can be concluded that the Lolicon is engaged in a patterned coping strategy (externalizing his own inner battlefield) in which he distances other MAPs in order to justify his habits. He classes anything outside of his own masturbatory impulse cycle as beyond the pale, delegitimizing "true pedophilia". The unfortunate consequence of this is that he justifies fetishization as an ethical limit - and subsequently attempts to gatekeep said moral boundary.

Gallery of Copes

The pipe example was originally intended to demonstrate that representations of Tobacco do not encourage consumption. Lolicons use it to pretend their psychological targeting is not towards minors.


The obvious resolution to this debate (rarely arrived at, if ever) is for the Lolicon to admit that he is minor-attracted in the most fundamental sense, but is successfully controlling those tendencies through the consumption of drawn erotica. The "anti" in this debate, should accept on his part, that there is no evidence of offending on the part of the Lolicon, and no equivalence between viewing any image and pursuing a minor. The "anti" should also consider his own insecurities and the possibility these may have arisen due to latent pedophilia.

See also

Debate Guide: Self-loathing hatred