Loli Madness

So I just hear now that Australian censors have been banning adult films in which actresses (I don’t know why it’s gotta be women, but so far I’ve only heard of women) look underage.  This is quite outrageous if I may say so.  If it’s happening in Australia I imagine it’s happening, or is about to happen, pretty much everywhere else.

BUSTED!!! (the homonymic irony being that we could have all avoided this mess if only she had been BUSTIER)

What is the “underage look”?  Doesn’t it depend on the beholder?  Doesn’t it also depend in the culture, and yes, on the biological differences between different ethnic groups?  If this means that 30% of 30-year old Australian would-be porn stars of Asian descent are banned from participating in the industry, whereas only 5% of the 30-year old Caucasian ones are, can they prepare a class action suit against the state for discrimination?  [I made up the statistics, but you get me]

So let’s get this straight: if a 30-year old actress appears in an adult film where she explicitly portrays a 30-year old woman, after showing legal documents proving that she is indeed 30 years old, and yet she looks under 18 to the censors, this should be somehow illegal???

The matter bears directly on anime.  We are being led to the view that depictions of underage fictional characters committing acts illegal in real life are themselves illegal.  Now, a lot of lolis in anime these days are technically magical creatures hundreds, if not a thousand, years old.  I imagine the censors will argue that they still look underage and thus liable to be banned from performing certain acts.  Let us not be misled by these crafty manga writers that would have us believe these little kids are ancient so as to circumvent common decency, right?  But hold on, fictional characters don’t have any age.  They’re fictional.  They don’t exist.  Oh, but it doesn’t matter because this filth still encourages people to go out and do things to real underage people.  That’s the theory, anyway.

Back to real life.  True story: I have a friend (and no, it’s not me) whose girlfriend was in her early twenties.  She was small and youthful.  They visited a theme park in another country where people look “older”.  The couple learned that kids under 12 years old could go inside for free.  The man paid for his own ticket and waited to see if his girlfriend would be charged.  She wasn’t.  They had a nice day at the park.

Soon, relationships like this one will be banned.  It will be argued that even if the woman is 22 years old, the simple sight of her youthful self walking hand in hand with a man clearly in his twenties will provoke unholy lusts in other men’s hearts and lead to crime.  And if something can lead to a crime then it is a crime.

If tomorrow we could build a race of sexbots modeled after 10-year old children, and people purchasing them would have to implant a microchip inside of them that would self-destruct  if they ever even approached a real 10-year old child, would governments around the world allow these machines on the market?  A few years ago I would have answered “Of course, why not?’ with confidence.  Today?  I’m not so sure.

Next will be lollipops.  At least, I definitely think they should ban them.  Whenever I see a woman licking a lollipop, no matter how hold she may be, I immediately think of her as a girl.  She could be 94 years old and my mind’s eye will slap, if only for a moment, imaginary pigtails on her gray head (with ribbons if I’m feeling zesty that day).  And lollipops are phallick, and they even have lolli in the name.  Please ban this half-imaginary sight from my potentially criminal soul.

~ by Haloed Bane on April 16, 2012.

16 Responses to “Loli Madness”

  1. I think you’re going overboard with your predictions for the future, but the censoring itself is outrageous. Someone attracted to young children is no more sick than a homosexual, as long as they restrain themselves from assaulting said children. Making porn with real children is banned because it harms them, not because it provides a release for “deviants”; the same cannot be said for mature actresses. And to arrest people for animated porn, which has already happened several times, is the most ridiculous of all. Should anime loli porn come with a “no underaged cartoons were harmed in the production of this video” disclaimer attached?

    • “Making porn with real children is banned because it harms them, not because it provides a release for “deviants””

      That used to be it, right? But it’s something else altogether now.

      “Someone attracted to young children is no more sick than a homosexual, as long as they restrain themselves from assaulting said children.”

      Let me get this straight (not trying to pick on you, just trying to understand your standpoint). 1) You believe pedophiles and homosexuals are sick. 2) You also believe they should be left alone by the law unless they act on their impulses. Am I stating your position accurately?

      • Both of types of sexualities are deviant, i.e. they are different from the norm of instinct that is beneficial for us as a species. They could arguably be seen as a disorder, and are definitely abnormal (homosexuality actually more than pedophilia, as childbirth can be safe at a much earlier age than that of consent, but that’s details), but they don’t have to be treated or discriminated against. What I meant by “no more sick than a homosexual” (perhaps I used the wrong phrase, not a native speaker) is that they should be treated equally – if you’re claiming one is a mental illness, do so with the other too. If not, then both are fine. Homosexuals should be left alone no matter if they act on their impulses or not, but for pedophiles it’s different, since their action can be harmful, no matter how we classify their attraction. This doesn’t mean that the latter have to be treated as animals that can’t control themselves (although there are certainly those among humans).

        • I see. You know, some would say that what distinguishes us from animals is precisely the fact that we can (and often choose to) act in ways not necessarily beneficial to the propagation of the species.

  2. “And if something can lead to a crime then it is a crime.”


  3. Throughout history, moral compasses have had a way of fluctuating and right now we’re in a period were (at least in the West), courts and governments are trying to clamp down at what they perceive to be ‘indecent’ material or behaviour. I’m a bit more optimistic than you in the sense that I believe this will not get much worse. Let’s hope that soon the mood turns the other way and stupid legislation like the one you mentioned is removed.

  4. Isn’t the idea already being penned by lolicon mangaka (notably, by a short eromanga by Kaworu Watashiya of Kodomo no Jikan fame) where simple notions of holding hands and being all lovey-dovey with someone who’s 20 years old but looks like a 7 year old are already considered as a child molestation offense? If Japan is already insinuating this kind of reaction for people who look physically underage, isn’t it obvious that other countries with high regard for morality follow suit?

    Shin of Atarashii Prelude is being plagued by this legislation for years now, so I think this issue isn’t new.

  5. ROFL I love this post because it’s exactly the reaction I’ve been having to every regulation of this sort for years.

  6. Lollipops are ok for me. Eating ice cream off a cone is much more erotic for me…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: