LO Editor-in-Chief Retirement Address

Regarding the Survey
First, I want to express my gratitude. What I wanted to re-acknowledge is the meaning of supporting LO all these years — readers who send comments, impressions, and updates via postcard (an old-fashioned email), even though we don't have a dedicated reader submission page. Since there's rarely an opportunity to say thank you in the magazine itself, I'll do so here in bullet points, as my writing tends to fall apart otherwise.

Regarding Retailers
LO handles the kind of content that puts stores and businesses at risk. In the past, large distributors unilaterally stopped carrying us. At those times, "hey, sell it at our store" — the bookstores that reached out to us, we will never forget their kindness. We can't forget those who bought the physical book. Also, during difficult times in the digital market, the people at Japanese retail websites who believed in "protecting the conscience of the retailer" and kept carrying LO — and those around the world who did not ban or exclude LO's content — we are deeply grateful.
[Regarding Manga Artists]
...Our thanks and gratitude are immeasurable, but the feelings are too complex to put into words properly. Sorry.

Regarding History and Courage
LO's first issue was a turning point — at the time, the industry had a tendency to exclude loli manga. Whether illustrations and manga were included in child pornography law revisions was speculative. We had the sense that LO was planned as a counter to that. For the next 20-plus years, "that one-sided justice" hasn't changed, and loli manga has continued to exist without being eliminated. However, that one-sided justice — the politicians and manga expression advocates who courageously and rationally spoke out against it — and the many masterworks LO produced that went out into the world — these are things we should remember.

Regarding Anger
LO's kind of expression and preferences are not one-sided justice or criticism in our view. But if pressured by so-called justice, of course we get angry. The editorial department has received calls and harassment from newspaper companies and broadcasters. Also, "this kind of book shouldn't be sold" — distributors and retailers who were provoked with such words were numerous. Online there were many who were hurt. Every time someone used anger as justification and LO disappeared from somewhere, I felt rage, resentment, and a sense of justice. And yet — LO survived. Justice, it turns out, is something.
We had many opportunities to speak with people who used anger as a pretext for justice. Their motivation was somewhere — some had a real triggering event, others just wanted to proclaim justice. The anger disappeared into the void, and I thought: LO will outlast this.

Regarding the Concept
LO's concept, from 20 years ago until now, was "compliance" — though that was fragile from the start. Honestly, in the early days the concept of LO was to make people with attraction to minors feel "it's okay to live." That feeling was justified — there are quite a few women in real life with considerable disgust toward men who approach them, and within the LO connection there were people whose lives changed significantly. However, is "Yes lolita, no touch" LO's concept? I think so even now. The mutual respect — holding "the possibility of mutual harm" while continuously maintaining respect for the existence of real girls — this is something most people understand surprisingly well. LO's concept probably is "just normal common sense," which is why so many people understand it. Incidentally, the new editor-in-chief likely understands this area well, so no worries.

Regarding Lolicon