#sb 20

I am a victim twiceover of CSA who was GROOMED, i am ABSOLUTELY against lolicon shit!!! I just recognize that LAWS OF ALL KINDS need SOLID DEFINITIONS or the people in power WILL use them to expand the definition to include people they dont like!!

See, here's the thing: Think of your favorite underage characters in non-live-action media. Not even ones that ever get into sexual situations, just any characters who are underage. Go ahead, make a list of them, the ones that you really love. Now tell me: How many of those IN-TEXT define those characters *as underage*?

If you think about it, almost NONE of them do! And I know what you're thinking: "Yeah, but you KNOW they're kids--" SURE, but HOW DO YOU DEFINE THEM AS UNABLE TO CONSENT? Especially when, crucially, as a drawing, they are *PHYSICALLY* unable to consent? You PROBABLY think "Oh, well, we banned ACTUAL Child porn, so obviously we can DEFINITELY ban drawn child porn," but the problem is that REAL LIFE child porn has an ACTUAL HUMAN with WAYS TO PROVE THEIR AGE BOTH IN RECORDS AND BIOLOGICALLY, who has been ABUSED in the creation of it! It's VERY EASY to define and legislate THAT out of existence, because we can CONCLUSIVELY PROVE if it includes children who were harmed.

Still dont get why lolicon shit is different? Let's try looking at some of the ways we can try to define it:

"Well if they DO have an age in-text, and its underage, and they are sexualized, THAT'S illegal!" Okay, first of all, this is what Japan does, and it results in a lot of media where the characters who *do not remotely look like adults* are all OFFICIALLY 18, so you get lolicon stuff anyways. Second of all, this makes it so everything has to define ages, which makes a lot of older stuff suddenly illegal because they dont define age. THIRD of all, "sexualized" needs to be defined, because in books like Gender Queer where the author portrays their underage self exploring sexuality (in age-appropriate ways), that could be caught in the crossfires. Thats a BAD END.

"What about if they portray them in clearly definably-child ways, like wearing middle school uniforms, or lacking pubic hair?" This hasnt really been used in any bill ive seen, but I hear it brought up by well-meaning people. This is simply not workable because there's countless hentais of adults *with these exact situations*! There's no way to DEFINABLY filter those out. Thats a BAD END.

"What about if we define it based on whether they LOOK underage?" This is similar to whats happening with Texas SB 20 which is coming into effect at *checks clock* midnight tonight, and it's WORSE! Because see, that doesnt even attempt to DEFINE what "looks underage", so a shitty fascist could EASILY extend it to ALL drawn pornographic content regarding adults even! Hence why this bill is being referred to as an "Anime Ban", and literally this weekend JAST (One of the biggest Hentai localizers in America) got kicked out of a convention for things like Nitro+ games. This is a BAD END.

So hopefully thats enough of an overview that you can recognize that there's serious problems with trying to legislate censorship of lolicon shit! "But Jade," I can hear you cry, "Does this mean we just have to throw our hands up and live with this terrible stuff?" And to that I say: STOP RELYING ON LAWS TO DECIDE WHATS RIGHT AND WRONG! It should be more obvious than ever in this era of immense fascism that LAWS are NOT a moral compass! If you come across a lolicon, YOU CAN HATE EM AND OUST EM FROM YOUR COMMUNITIES ALL YOU WANT! Is it airtight? No! Is it going to be easy? No! But at least you dont have a moral compass controlled by something as fickle and DANGEROUS as our laws!