The nonexistent abuse of the nonexistent

Their innocence and bulbous eyes excite lolicon. What they portray sickens others. But if such images of drawn children do unsettle you, surely you wouldn’t want the destruction of all alike illustrations. You agree that what you see above is just a drawing.

Similar to obscene and consensual extreme pornography, the production of illustrated minors in sexual roles does not involve abuse. Further, the pictures are not even of existing organisms. Yet because such images represent an illegal act, they are classified as inappropriate and banned in sovereign states like Canada and Australia.

In a recent court decision, a South Wales (Australia) Supreme Court justice branded depictions of Bart and Lisa Simpson copulating child pornography.

via Google Images

Make Simpsons porn illegal? Is Australia planning to filter Google Image results? What could possibly be the reason for this?

According to the judge: these drawings “may not ‘depict’ a person” but “can ‘represent’ a person” and “fuel demand” for live-action child pornography.

I thought the law was supposed to protect children not life-less representations of children.

Illustrations ‘fuels demand’ for the real thing and encourage pedophilia to the extent that a painting of a killing encourages murder and snuff films.

via Eric Appel

Now, why aren’t paintings depicting death illegal? Common sense. Because no matter how real they may appear, the depictions themselves are not actions. They stem from the imagination of the artist. The characters are not alive. Jesus’ jugular was not and is not being sliced open.
When unlawful sex is pertained the same reasoning isn’t applied. Why? It’s so perturbing to some that it clouds their judgment and logic. They can’t see past the faux child like they can the faux death.

A thinking breathing feeling girl is not having sex with an invisible man.


Comments are closed.