Change.Org: Légalisation Lolicon…


Date: October 02, 2018

01) Légalisation Lolicon

“Since August 5, 2013, it is forbidden to draw, share or possess, even in the strictly private context of Lolicon content.

This law of article 227-23 of the penal code repressed only “the fact, with a view to its diffusion, to fix, to record, or to transmit the image, or the representation of a minor when this image, or this representation is pornographic “But now, the law adds that” when the image, or the representation concerns a minor of [under] fifteen years, these facts are punished even if they were not committed in view of the diffusion of this image or representation “.

Out in the anime, manga or fan art, it is already difficult to give an age to the character, unless the author has given it.

This update of the law is an indisputable & irrefutable violation of privacy, this law reminds us of dictatorship, an attack on culture and criticism, because indeed, some works like “Kodomo no jikan” are real criticisms about society and phenomena that people are afraid to address. We simply can not let these people take our most fundamental freedoms.

Do not forget the words of Benjamin Franklin: “A people willing to sacrifice a little freedom for a little security deserves neither, and ends up losing both.”

Moreover, the Lolicon, in the Hentai context is a good thing for the society, in fact starting from the fact that the pedophilia is certainly totally immoral, it does not remain less than a sexual impulse or of love, this which changes is the physiological attraction. Lolicon responds to the need for this satisfaction that we can never really fight with our current laws. It is not by putting a pedophile in prison that it will change, and castrate is to use barbaric methods, countries like Japan are doing very well with Lolicon. Lolicon is virtual and not real, it’s up to you if you prefer it to be our poor children who suffer the torments or imaginary characters. An alternative to sanctions exists, a method of appeasement is at their disposal. The argument “This encourages them to become pedophile” is false, we do not become pedophile, it is as for homosexuality. Let’s fight together to allow Lolicon and protect our children!”

The language is French…so, this probably has to do with France law…possibly Canadian…

Free expression, whether of a discussion or artistic nature, is a human right of the utmost importance…It is not to be tampered with!

…..TAP-Net Website | Sub-Blog Archive

8 thoughts on “Change.Org: Légalisation Lolicon…

  1. feinmann0

    From the link:’enfant_dans_l’imaginaire_sexuel_adulte … Eric Loonis states that his article, “The place of the child in the adult sexual imagination”, is an invitation to launch programs of research designed to better understand the place of the child in the adult sexual imagination and its consequences. Monsieur Loonis includes a table containing the following pros and cons with respect to virtual child pornography:

    FOR: Freedom of expression must be respected for purely imaginary content, even cultural.
    AGAINST: Freedom of expression reaches its limits if the contents, even imaginary, put into question moral values.

    FOR: Virtual child pornography could help reduce the number of abuses committed on real children, supported by masturbation bringing relief to sexual tension.
    AGAINST: Even if no real child is involved in the manufacture of virtual child pornography, it nevertheless contributes to maintain the sexual appetites of paedophiles.

    FOR: Virtual child pornography is not the only means used by paedophiles to bring children to accept having sexual relationships with them; adult pornography is at least as much used to this end.
    AGAINST: Virtual child pornography is often used to force children to have sexual activity with an adult, and it is particularly shocking for children who could see it.

    FOR: Children’s access to general pornography is already suppressed, it is enough to suppress their access to virtual child pornography.
    AGAINST: Virtual child pornography is particularly shocking for children who could see it.

    FOR: Japan, a country where the vast majority of virtual child pornography is produced and consumed, it is not proven that there has been a consequent upsurge in assault on children.
    AGAINST: Virtual child pornography encourages users to consider children as sexual objects and its authorisation risks trivialising non-virtual child pornography.

    FOR: Virtual child pornography is a way for pedophiles, to regulate their sexual urges.
    AGAINST: For some people, child pornography increases the probability that they will act.

    FOR: By prohibiting child pornography we eliminate a victimless alternative that is much less repugnant than the abuse of real children.
    AGAINST: Peadopornograffiti, even virtual, damages the image people have of children.

    FOR: Adult pornography undermines the dignity of women, sometimes even men.
    AGAINST: Child pornography, even virtual, undermines the dignity of children.

    An interesting article but one that predictably assumes the adult to be a different species from the child, and the child to be utterly devoid of natural sexual desire and sexual curiosity. The Japan “FOR” observation, one would have thought, logically neuters all the “AGAINST” arguments.

    Question: Why on earth don’t these so-called experts focus on the ginormous elephant in the room: psychological abuse inflicted upon children within the family home?

    Answer: because puritan-feminist sexual abuse industry-inspired laws have been designed to persecute men with core focus on a male-dominated sexual minority group.

    1. eqfoundation Post author

      Very good!…Thanks for sharing!

      As to “maintain[ing] the sexual appetites of paedophiles”…

      …I’ve often found it ludicrous, how many seem to believe that the “sexual appetite of paedophiles” is somehow absent, or starved, in the absence of child porn [or child erotica].

      They rarely take into account, that it’s often the total absence of exposure to said material [or even live children], which often leads to a far more intense desire for children [as well as a lack of practical expectations]…In the total absence, the mind can create an obsession…

      …There’s a reason why they used to “treat” pedophilia, with a practice known as satiation…

      …It’s like in the movie “Capturing the Friedmans”, where the father went to a psychiatrist, and got prescribed literal child porn magazines, which he purchased legally at a porn store…

      …and the idiot cops descended upon them a decade later, to destroy the family over it…and drive the father to suicide.

      Total absence of stimulation, is the worst possible approach…

      …People who aren’t absolutely ignorant, know this.

      …Psychiatrists [psychologists?….I always get them confused] once knew this…which is why they commonly advised obtaining child porn for satiation…But now they can’t, because it’s inexplicably illegal.

      …As for what’s left…

      You cant just stop fantasizing in your mind…or looking at legal pictures as you fantasize…

      Cutting yourself off from all outlets, is utterly stupid…and a recipe for disaster.

      “Maintaining your pedophilia”, requires having something to immerse yourself into.

  2. NSO

    That text is full of fallacies and is not based on anything rational but on feelings, the same that others use to ban lolicon.

    Pedophilia cannot be immoral, pedophilia is a sexual attraction, or even the expression of sexuality with children, it cannot be moral or immoral, those who are, are the acts.

    It only condemns the fact that pedophiles are “barbarically mistreated”, it does not doubt that pedophiles are immoral and it is correct to persecute them and treat them against their will. First you must show that what you call “pedophiles” do harm and therefore their acts must be prevented or punished, and then be appropriate to justice and not barbarism.

    It doesn’t argue that using real children is immoral, only that lolicon isn’t real.

    It says that the lolicon does not turn anyone into a pedophile, but that is a fallacy of principle petition (petitio principii), it has not given arguments to show that becoming a pedophile is bad and should be avoided, only that one does not become a pedophile watching lolicon.

    A cry to legalize lolicon by “protecting children” is not an argument, but an appeal to sentiment (argumentum ad passiones), one of the worst proven.

    1. eqfoundation Post author

      I agree…It’s not a perfect petition.

      It exists…someone created it…

      …I support Lolicon being fully legal…So, I shared it.

      I think your criticisms are valid.


Tell Us What You Think...

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.