That is so weird to me that a society with much more Shame basis for stuff does not shame attraction to and relationships with minors.
On the other hand I’ve always wondered when is shame effective as a social motivator to prevent misdeeds, and when does it push people to hide their problems instead of seeking help and solutions?
Well if the powers that be shamed attraction to and relationships with minors, they would have to accept that forcing themselves on people who aren’t in a position to refuse consent is shameful, and then they would have to answer some very uncomfortable questions about what some of their heroes did in Korea and China …
You make an important distinction. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t consider it immoral when in the west it seems intrinsically immoral to most people.
I’ve read Naomi and Memoirs of a Geisha so Ive had some exposure to some of the cultural ideas, but i guess I’m looking for a scholarly article or educational text explaining the differences
It’s a relatively recent thing in the west, too. Not too long ago (well into the previous century) most girls were married off by their 15th or 16th birthday. “Fun” fact: there’s still a lot of child marriage in the US to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States
Japan isn’t actually substantially different in this regard – sure, they have their teen idols, but then so does the US (Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, what have you) – except they draw a clear line between fictional and real child pornography, both legally and in terms of general attitudes. The legal part isn’t that strange (lolicon material isn’t illegal in most of the US either), but the way general morality permits it in Japan but doesn’t in the US is interesting. My guess is that this is partially explained by the US generally being pretty puritanical when it comes to sexuality, whereas Japan is more liberal about it (in their own way), but that can’t be the only thing because European countries do not have the puritan culture of the US but also don’t share the Japanese tolerance of lolicon.
European countries do not have the puritan culture of the US but also don’t share the Japanese tolerance of lolicon.
many french philosophers around 1930 asked for the legalization of relation to minors. they failed probably mostly because of american influence. america, in turn, has very repressive views about sexuality in general, not just involving minors. think of the purple scare. i think it has to do with the church of england thinking that “sexuality is bad because it represents the serpent” from the tree of life while the bird represents knowledge, so people should study and seek knowledge instead of seeking sexual interactions.
not intrinsically, at least not for long. in most of europe it was legal up until the 90s and there were even porno mags that ran specials.
…i do compulsive late night wiki walks, before you ask how i know that. i had a period where i read up on what happened to the “flower power” generation with all their “free love” stuff and that came up. i tend to do breadth-first search so i just read through articles while opening all the links in the background, then go down a level, etc etc. when a term like that comes up on a wiki page it triggers your fight-or-flight response.
I don’t have scholarly references or anything, but the standard for this varies massively across cultures. Just looking at the West, the age at which it was thought appropriate to get married used to be wayyy lower than it is now. In Ancient Greece, a particular form of pederasty was celebrated as an especially pure form of relationship.
Nowadays we have robust evidence that sexual activity between an adult and a child is severely harmful. However, even this we can’t legitimately extend too far cross-culturally, because we don’t (as far as I know) have any certainty that this isn’t conferred due to the child being the victim of a socially-defined crime. The question one could ask is: given that Ancient Greece didn’t categorise their form of paedophilia as a violation, did the children in those relationships therefore not suffer in the same way as modern victims of paedophilia? It’s an uncomfortable question, and even asking it will probably make most people nope out, but it’s very useful to be sharp about what we do and don’t know.
And you know that for a fact? I mean, obviously it could be. As far as I know there is no evidence for it, and getting that evidence will be incredibly difficult.
That is so weird to me that a society with much more Shame basis for stuff does not shame attraction to and relationships with minors.
On the other hand I’ve always wondered when is shame effective as a social motivator to prevent misdeeds, and when does it push people to hide their problems instead of seeking help and solutions?
Well if the powers that be shamed attraction to and relationships with minors, they would have to accept that forcing themselves on people who aren’t in a position to refuse consent is shameful, and then they would have to answer some very uncomfortable questions about what some of their heroes did in Korea and China …
Because what a culture considers immoral is not the same as whether they use shame to police immorality.
Ah, yes, Japan - famously not a shame policing place. Maybe I should commit seppuku for this dishonor.
You have misunderstood me…
You make an important distinction. I don’t understand why they wouldn’t consider it immoral when in the west it seems intrinsically immoral to most people.
I’ve read Naomi and Memoirs of a Geisha so Ive had some exposure to some of the cultural ideas, but i guess I’m looking for a scholarly article or educational text explaining the differences
It’s a relatively recent thing in the west, too. Not too long ago (well into the previous century) most girls were married off by their 15th or 16th birthday. “Fun” fact: there’s still a lot of child marriage in the US to this day: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage_in_the_United_States
Japan isn’t actually substantially different in this regard – sure, they have their teen idols, but then so does the US (Miley Cyrus, Justin Bieber, what have you) – except they draw a clear line between fictional and real child pornography, both legally and in terms of general attitudes. The legal part isn’t that strange (lolicon material isn’t illegal in most of the US either), but the way general morality permits it in Japan but doesn’t in the US is interesting. My guess is that this is partially explained by the US generally being pretty puritanical when it comes to sexuality, whereas Japan is more liberal about it (in their own way), but that can’t be the only thing because European countries do not have the puritan culture of the US but also don’t share the Japanese tolerance of lolicon.
many french philosophers around 1930 asked for the legalization of relation to minors. they failed probably mostly because of american influence. america, in turn, has very repressive views about sexuality in general, not just involving minors. think of the purple scare. i think it has to do with the church of england thinking that “sexuality is bad because it represents the serpent” from the tree of life while the bird represents knowledge, so people should study and seek knowledge instead of seeking sexual interactions.
not intrinsically, at least not for long. in most of europe it was legal up until the 90s and there were even porno mags that ran specials.
…i do compulsive late night wiki walks, before you ask how i know that. i had a period where i read up on what happened to the “flower power” generation with all their “free love” stuff and that came up. i tend to do breadth-first search so i just read through articles while opening all the links in the background, then go down a level, etc etc. when a term like that comes up on a wiki page it triggers your fight-or-flight response.
I don’t have scholarly references or anything, but the standard for this varies massively across cultures. Just looking at the West, the age at which it was thought appropriate to get married used to be wayyy lower than it is now. In Ancient Greece, a particular form of pederasty was celebrated as an especially pure form of relationship.
Nowadays we have robust evidence that sexual activity between an adult and a child is severely harmful. However, even this we can’t legitimately extend too far cross-culturally, because we don’t (as far as I know) have any certainty that this isn’t conferred due to the child being the victim of a socially-defined crime. The question one could ask is: given that Ancient Greece didn’t categorise their form of paedophilia as a violation, did the children in those relationships therefore not suffer in the same way as modern victims of paedophilia? It’s an uncomfortable question, and even asking it will probably make most people nope out, but it’s very useful to be sharp about what we do and don’t know.
The issue is the power imbalance, not the criminalization.
And you know that for a fact? I mean, obviously it could be. As far as I know there is no evidence for it, and getting that evidence will be incredibly difficult.
This is a hill I am willing to die on. Consent is mandatory and the weak side of a power imbalance can’t consent.
Your reply doesn’t indicate any knowledge or evidence of harm. You’ve started talking about something else.
Sure, consent is key.
Wait, you’re actually arguing kids can consent?
No.