Friday, October 24, 2014

Defending Lolicon

If you've read the news [alternative source] from a few days ago, you'll know that a man was convicted in the UK for possessing loli. Drawings of young (looking) anime characters naked and/or in sexual situations. No indecent photos or recorded footage of children. Just drawings.

I generally think of myself as a very open-minded person; I like to base things on logic and reason, rather than personal feelings and emotion.

And thankfully there have been a lot of comments on various news sites from people, some of whom personally find these drawings disgusting, but defending freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of expression; and therefore the right to draw, view or possess them.

I would like to say my bit.

I live in the UK. I am a lolicon, I have loli; and a very large majority of it is explicit. So I am in fact openly admitting that I am breaking the law.


Because it is the obligation of every person to disobey unjust laws.

If you disagree with that, then I must stop and ask...

  • Should Alan Turing have "magically" turned straight? [source]
  • Should Rosa Parks have moved when she was told to? [source]
  • Should the wives and/or mistresses of slave owners forgone secretly educating black slaves? [source]

...because everyone that I've just mentioned broke the law.

We have a lot, but not all, of the older generation passing or supporting laws either based on their ignorance or their personal feelings.

  • "I don't understand it, so it should be illegal." (E.g. Segways)
  • "I don't like it, so it should be illegal." (E.g. Loli)
  • "It has no purpose, so it should be illegal." (E.g. LSD, according to UK law.) 

As quoted from the news article, Judge Tony Briggs said "This is material that clearly society and the public can well do without. [...]"

Why should courts, or for that matter, other people, be allowed to decide what I, or others may or may not see? People who believe that an arbiter should be allowed to decide if something such as an image is illegal or not, are irrational and misguided. Would you have a problem with them deciding what kind of positions you're allowed to use during sex, such as the missionary position or spooning? (Example: Anal sex in the UK was illegal until the 90s.)

And this is also the reason why nothing in the UK will ever change, because "If society can do without it, it's wrong!"

It's all well and good saying "If you don't like it, get the law changed!," but it's pointless if those in charge aren't even willing to listen. Because, at the end of the day, they're still going to ignore us and do what they want regardless.

Two examples of this are going to war with Iraq and increasing University fees, despite large protests.

Maybe you do find loli disgusting; after all, everyone's entitled to their own opinion. I personally find mushrooms disgusting; but that is an unacceptable reason to "correct" a persons way of thinking, jail them, persecute or prosecute them.

Or should people be hating the fact that someone exists with an attraction that they can't choose, or that you can't abolish?

And yet, the UK still wants to go even further...

"Outlaw possession of written accounts of child abuse says MP [...] For some, the written word is more powerful than the pictures. For some, the written word promotes a graphic image in their mind. [...] Therefore I believe that we crack down on any form of indecent material in the written form so that real children can be safe from abuse. [...]" [source]

This isn't a law which has any kind of impact on the protection of children, it's just people telling us what we can't express or can't think.

Am I really expected to believe that writing "'This'll be our little secret.' whispered Daddy." is so heinous, and that it needs to be hidden away from society?

Point: "But it'll cause somebody to move onto collecting photos and recorded footage of children, or abusing them themselves!"

I've never seen any evidence supporting this. I might as well say "Everyone in a relationship will have an affair." or "All men are cheaters."

Two points, though:

First, let's say someone has photos and recorded footage of children engaged in sexual situations; what evidence is there to say that it'll cause them to go off and molest children?

The second is, as I stated earlier, the fact that I live in the UK, and I openly admit that I am breaking the law. Loli has been illegal here since April 2009. This raises an important question, why do I still look at it? After all, photos and recorded of footage of children engaged in sexual situations are also illegal. I'd be breaking the law either way, so how come I haven't "migrated" onto this?

Drawings do not have a victim in order to produce them. They're drawings, created from scratch. The product of somebody's imagination. But does the fact that they're victimless even matter?

Here's an example:

A person witnesses the rape of a child, goes home and proceeds to draw the rape that was just committed. Should it be illegal to draw that? Should it be illegal to view it?

What if we change the wording slightly?

A person witnesses the murder of somebody, goes home and proceeds to draw the murder that was just committed. Should it be illegal to draw that? Should it be illegal to view it?

Both of these have a victim. Nobody can consent to being murdered, either. Yet one is illegal to draw, the other isn't.

But it's not because a lolicon would hypothetically use abused children that it should be illegal.

Equating a drawing as a child, no matter how naked they are or whatever sexual situation they're in, is asinine. It's like charging people for numerous crimes just because they've played Grand Theft Auto.

Granted, child molesters could perhaps use these drawings to groom children for sex; but grooming children for sex is illegal *regardless* of what's used.

*unzips and takes out his penis*
A: "Hey, put this in your mouth and suck on it like a popsicle, and I'll buy you that new Barbie doll."
B: "Okay!"

Should we now expect Barbie dolls to be banned because they could be used for these nefarious purposes?

Point: "But, what if my child found these images while doing homework online!"

Yes, that could happen.

But your child could also stumble on two consenting adults having sex while doing their homework online. Isn't it your job as a parent to prevent them from finding such material at a young age, until they reach one where they should be able to determine for themselves if an image is personally "disgusting?"

You wouldn't leave a bottle of alcohol out where a child could easily drink it, so why should your parenting and the Internet be any different?

Another major problem is that a lot of the British public don't seem to understand the distinction between words, or do, but synonymize everything as pedophile instead of using the appropriate terms. (The Media are also to blame for this.)

  • Lolicon - A person who has an attraction to young anime, manga or visual novel characters, and has drawings of them erotically posing naked or in sexual situations
  • Pedophile - A person who has an attraction to prepubescents (<10 y/o)
  • Hebephile - A person who has an attraction to pubescents (11-14 y/o)
  • Ephebophile - A person who has an attraction to mid-to-late adolescents (15-19 y/o)
  • Possesser of Abuse... - A person who actually collects or possesses photos and/or recorded footage of children engaged in sexual situations
  • Child molester - A person who actually inappropriately touches or forces themselves upon children

Robul Hoque is a lolicon, not a pedophile; although there are some people out there who can be both lolicons and pedophiles.

And even if he is, it's not a crime to have a sexual attraction to children. If it were, it'd be a crime to be a misanthrope or a sociopath.

I personally have no problem with people who have just an attraction to children or those in their early teens and never act on it.

The ones who actually molest children or collect photos and/or recorded footage simply for the purpose of their own sexual gratification do deserve to be punished by the law, and not some genocidal (Note: b) lynch mob.

But for arguments sake, let's say someone invented the Holodeck from Star Trek - which is a bit of a stretch, but what with the invention of Oculus Rift and other VR technology, we're getting closer towards that - and there are child molesters who use it to have sex with holographic depicitions of children. How many of you would be against that?

I'm guessing a good majority of you would be. Fair enough, but how would you want to go about dealing with that kind of situation?

  • Ban Holodecks?
  • Holographic rights? (Note: a)
  • Make it impossible for someone to have sex with a holographic child?

I find the idea of having sex with holographic children creepy; however, wouldn't it be a good thing that child molesters could have an outlet for their urges? (Note: a)

But unfortunately, anyone who the questions the laws, or the reasoning behind them gets branded as a child molester, or a supporter of child molestation; and so the mass hysteria, paranoid delusion and lynch mobs continue unabated.

It's quite sad, really.

End notes:

(a): The hologram exists in a physical sense - we can touch it, it has sentience, but it's limited to the location of the Holodeck. If we take that into consideration, would it be entitled to rights? Would shutting it down be the same as murdering it?


A while back I stumbled on the eight stages of genocide on Wikipedia. After a while, I realized that If you change one or two things here and there, and apply them to people who've been accused of being pedophiles, child molesters, etc., you see how fucking frightening it is.

Here are two examples:

3. | Dehumanization | One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects, or diseases.

How many of you would equate someone who has nothing more than an attraction to children, and never acts on it, as vermin or a disease?

7. | Extermination | It is 'extermination' to the killers because they do not believe their victims to be fully human.

And so, I end on this, this and this.