The United Nations are trying to ban (mainly Loli) hentai

[Ajax7408 175]

"The United Nations has proposed an international initiative for all involved State parties to tighten their restrictions and prohibition of child exploitation and the proliferation and spread of that content. While on the surface this may seem like a noble effort, the prohibition of said material also extends to drawn and animated images as well, which could include all things loli.

The initiative, dubbed Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (OPSC), was proposed by the United Nations’ Committee on the Rights of the Child, also known as the CRC, with a draft guideline made available over on the OHCHR.org website.

Much of the draft centers on ways to prevent human trafficking, curbing the solicitation of child prostitution, and reducing the spread of child pornography and underage exploitation. However, on page 14 section 56, the U.N., defines what they view as child pornography, widely classifying anything that contains underage persons, whether fictional or real, stating…

“Child pornography is defined in article 2 OPSC as ‘any representation of a child engaged in real or simulated explicit sexual activities, regardless of the means used, or any representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily sexual purposes’. The qualification ‘by whatever means’ reflects the broad range of material available in a variety of media, online and offline. It includes, inter alia: visual material such as photographs, movies, drawings and cartoons; audio representations; any digital media representation; live performances; written materials in print or online; and physical objects such as sculptures, toys, or ornaments.1

 

“The Committee urges States parties to prohibit, by law, child sexual abuse material in any form. The Committee notes that such material is increasingly circulating online, and strongly recommends States parties to ensure that relevant provisions of their Criminal Codes cover all forms of material, including when the acts listed in article 3.1(c) are committed online and including when such material represents realistic representations of non-existing children.”

The bold was added for emphasis.

So what do they want to do with all of this material?

Prohibit it.

So why exactly do they think that even simulated, drawn, or fictional material needs to be swept up in tighter enforcement on real-life child exploitation? Well, according to the document from the CRC, they feel that any kind of material involving underage persons, including fictional or real characters, may entice people toward actual real-life child exploitation, writing…

“The Committee is of the view that “simulated explicit sexual activities” should be interpreted as including any material, online or offline, that depicts or otherwise represents any person appearing to be a child engaged in real or simulated sexually explicit conduct and realistic and/or virtual depictions of a child engaged in sexually explicit conduct. Such depictions contribute to normalising the sexualisation of children and fuels the demand of child sexual abuse material.

 

“Moreover, for the reasons explained in paragraph 63, any representation of the sexual parts of a child, including realistic images of the sexual organs of a child, for primarily sexual purposes falls under the definition of this offence. Where it may be complicated to establish with certainty if a representation is intended or used for “primarily sexual purposes”, the Committee deems it necessary to consider the context in which it is being used.”

Bold was added for emphasis.

As mentioned in the quote, the only leeway is that they may determine that the depiction of the material is not offensive if it serves a purpose beyond simply being made for sexual arousal. Obviously this means that visual novels, mangas, games, or movies featuring lolis or shotas will have to be weighed and gauged by the committee to see if it’s determined to be “offensive” according to the protocol’s committee.

 

The committee also proposed limited international jurisdiction for divisions assigned to the OPSC’s protocol. As explained in chapter 7 section 79, where it reads…

“As a minimum, States parties must establish criminal jurisdiction over all offences mentioned in article 3, para. 1, as explained under the section on Prohibition, when they are committed in their territory, including on board of a ship or aircraft registered in their countries, regardless of the location of said ship or aircraft. This allows the State to investigate and prosecute all these offences regardless whether the alleged perpetrator or the victim is a national of that State. If necessary, the State can issue an international warrant for the arrest of the alleged perpetrator. The Committee urges States parties to adopt legislation to comply with this obligation if this is not already the case. “

This means that even if you’re from South Korea on board a Canadian boat with your stash of loli doujins, the Canadian enforcement agents can apprehend you for owning lolicon. Alternatively, South Korean enforcement agents can apprehend you even if you’re on the Canadian boat, and bring you back to South Korea for prosecution.

Obviously, this draft proposal did not go down well at all with the general public, especially across Japanese Twitter, since this would pretty much cripple the manga and doujin industry.

 

The general gist is that they’re criticizing the U.N.’s new protocol for trying to give “non-existent” youths the rights of real-life youths. This is similar to when the U.N., previously tried to come after Japan in particular to get them to stop selling mangas, animes, and hentai that contained sexual violence against female characters. Japan rightly responded by claiming that the animation and manga industry within the industry employees many people, including females, and that disrupting that business to protect fictional, non-real persons was absurd. The entire thing was covered in-depth by Ollie Barder back in 2016 over on Forbes.

Not everyone is willing to stand by idly. Some of the users are asking about writing in counter-proposals to the United Nations to prevent the draft from going through. A few asked about the language requirements for putting together a letter to the U.N., to explain how dangerous this initiative will be towards creative freedoms.

 

We recently saw how Reddit has been coming down hard on loli and shota content, banning many Reddit communities and users, even ones based on animes that don’t feature any characters under the age of 18, such as New Game!.

After a massive uproar from the community when one artist was banned for posting a non-lewd image of a character in a two-piece swimsuit, Reddit slightly walked back their overreaction by unbanning the artist and leaving one particular community alone that was also going to be banned, which was the Doki Doki Literature Club. That particular incident was covered by DualShockers in a piece published on February 16th, 2019.

 

However, we’ve also seen how interpreting “child exploitation” without a strict or well defined principle can leave it open for authoritarian abuse. Much like in Reddit’s case, we’ve seen how Valve interprets “child exploitation” to basically include any kind of anime or visual novel game that their employees don’t like, which has led to widespread bans on various products, even ones that don’t feature underage characters, like the Chinese political thriller, Victory Project.

In the case of the OPSC protocol, if you don’t think the draft is appropriate, you can submit your very own letter or comments to the CRC at: CRC@ohchr.org.

The comments must be concise and in a single document that does not exceed five pages in length, and must be in English, French or Spanish. You’ll have up until March 31st, 2019 to submit your comments. You can learn more about the project by visiting the OHCHR Website"

 

Courtesy of Billy D from 'OneAngryGamer' a site I've never heard of until now but heard about this story through the grapevine. I think this needs to go viral.

[Maki 2,253]

I wasn't even aware of the recent Reddit drama.

This is concerning, to say the least.

[TJC 1,102]

It's bad enough my country of Canada made loli illegal, but now the U.N. wants to ban it world wide. I appreciate wanting to keep children safe, but fictional material harms no one!

[Kei 524]

I also heard about this elsewhere.  Wondering if we're on the same grapevine, Ajax...

[Ajax7408 175]

I thought I might like to add that research and evidence actually proves that lolicon/shotacon etc actually prevents real pedophilia more than it creates it. In fact most rape occurs in countries where porn is illegal altogether.

[DeltaFoxtrot 150]

Nineteen Eighty-Four was supposed to be a warning, not an instruction manual.

[Ghostblade913 214]

Wow pretty soon we’ll be in the world of Shimoneta. People need to stop caring so much about what happens in animated stuff.

Although I can see where they are coming from. 

However its just a kind of fantasy fulfillment.

For example Have you ever been watching porn and then orgasm and then look at the porn you were watching and think “what’s this filth?”

Edited February 22 by Ghostblade913

[Darksyn 224]

Gotta love the fact they completely ignore the utility that comes from, I dunno...

Providing an alternative for people who do have an attraction to real children that doesn't cause real physical harm to children?

I am personally no huge fan of loli or shota, but this sort of shit is authoritarian and reactionary. It is a means to attempt a ban of all of the things they do not like - Child Pornography is horrible, and no child deserves to be exploited like that. - BUT - imaginary people aren't real people.

 

Throwing away a tool to aid in the decrease in child exploitation in order to fight child exploitation is a violation of common fuckin' sense. It's ludicrous.

Some of the difficulty in getting solid statistics lies in the borderline illegality of things like loli/shota, and thus proper scientific study of the effects of the consumption of those things is limited in scope.

 

The UN have proved itself quite useless in fighting real injustices for the entire length of its existence. This is no surprise, as they seem to view actual genocide with less importance than the protection of imaginary people. It's long past time the world started ignoring the ancient, backwards organization and started implementing real change.

 

/end rant

[OtakuSensei 4]

They tried this a few years ago and that resulted in Japan adopting policies to crack down on loli and shota characters... in manga, specifically just in retail available manga, meaning doujinshi was not effected. And that was the inspiration for Shinometa.

Japan also at that time raised the legal age for sexual consent from (get this) 12, to 15. And, changed marriage law to require persons under 16 to need their parent or legal gaurdian to sign off on approval of their marriage before they can be legally married. Now I think these bits involving actual children were positive steps forward, but all the same the regulation of the manga industry was truly pointless. 

[PPP 542]

Some guy on 4chan summed it up better than I could:

[TiniestGalaxy 19]

You're all bringing up 1984 and Brave New World when lolicon is being taken away from you? Holy shit. Get your priorities straight please.

Lolicon/Shotacon is bad don't look at it or draw it. It is child porn. Defend it all you want but the laws will catch up and NO I don't think it is a harmless crime. If you're attracted to minors, SEEK HELP. How is this even a controversial topic?

Look, I'm not a big fan of governments stepping in and trying to control the internet in absurd ways to prevent child trafficking (SESTA/FOSTA comes to mind) but in the end this is very different, this is a move to make Lolicon/Shotacon illegal and ideally would not harm groups such as other NSFW artists who adhere to the law, or like in SESTA/FOSTA's case harm the lives of sex workers. If this law were to harm anyone other than those who actively look at or draw this type of content then I say it's a good law and good riddance to the lot of you.

[Ajax7408 175]

3 hours ago, TiniestGalaxy said:

You're all bringing up 1984 and Brave New World when lolicon is being taken away from you? Holy shit. Get your priorities straight please.

Lolicon/Shotacon is bad don't look at it or draw it. It is child porn. Defend it all you want but the laws will catch up and NO I don't think it is a harmless crime. If you're attracted to minors, SEEK HELP. How is this even a controversial topic?

Look, I'm not a big fan of governments stepping in and trying to control the internet in absurd ways to prevent child trafficking (SESTA/FOSTA comes to mind) but in the end this is very different, this is a move to make Lolicon/Shotacon illegal and ideally would not harm groups such as other NSFW artists who adhere to the law, or like in SESTA/FOSTA's case harm the lives of sex workers. If this law were to harm anyone other than those who actively look at or draw this type of content then I say it's a good law and good riddance to the lot of you.

There is no evidence that lolicon "turns people into pedophiles or child molesters".

[TiniestGalaxy 19]

50 minutes ago, Ajax7408 said:

There is no evidence that lolicon "turns people into pedophiles or child molesters".

It creates an environment where people feel okay with expressing their sexual love of children without repercussion, reinforcing this behavior and normalizing it which can very well lead to someone attempting to enact this fantasy, it should not be reinforced in anyway whatsoever even if the drawing in of itself is "harmless". Anyone with pedophilic tendencies should seek help instead of using drawn depictions of children in sexually explicit situations as a means of therapy or whatever the fuck. 

Stay the hell away from real children.

[Ajax7408 175]

23 minutes ago, TiniestGalaxy said:

It creates an environment where people feel okay with expressing their sexual love of children without repercussion, reinforcing this behavior and normalizing it which can very well lead to someone attempting to enact this fantasy, it should not be reinforced in anyway whatsoever even if the drawing in of itself is "harmless". Anyone with pedophilic tendencies should seek help instead of using drawn depictions of children in sexually explicit situations as a means of therapy or whatever the fuck. 

Stay the hell away from real children.

I don't go near real children and quite frankly I find it grossly insulting that you would even imply such a thing. How would you like it if I accused you of bestiality for having a furry profile pic?

[TiniestGalaxy 19]

15 hours ago, Ajax7408 said:

I don't go near real children and quite frankly I find it grossly insulting that you would even imply such a thing. How would you like it if I accused you of bestiality for having a furry profile pic?

Sorry, but you cannot equate the two.

Human depicted with animal features (IE not an actual animal) =/= Sexually explicit drawings of children.

Granted there is furry art out there that crosses a line I do not ever want to cross, but the base idea of what a furry is cannot be equated to lolicon in anyway. Liking furry porn = liking HUMANS with animal features, not liking animals. 

Thank you for staying away from real children. Now if you would stop defending sexually explicit art of children and stop defending those that consume and draw said content, then we'd be good here. Unfortunately you seem to think that lolicon is some form of absolute preventative measure and therefore it must exist to prevent pedophiles from enacting their fantasies. You are using this excuse while completely ignoring the root problem at hand which is the attraction to minors in of itself, whether or not the person is acting upon these urges with real children or fictional children does not matter in the sense that they are in need of serious help.

Suddenly it's ok to defend pedophiles when it's only art that is involved? Is this the hill you all want to die on?

[Ajax7408 175]

2 hours ago, TiniestGalaxy said:

Sorry, but you cannot equate the two.

Human depicted with animal features (IE not an actual animal) =/= Sexually explicit drawings of children.

Granted there is furry art out there that crosses a line I do not ever want to cross, but the base idea of what a furry is cannot be equated to lolicon in anyway. Liking furry porn = liking HUMANS with animal features, not liking animals. 

Thank you for staying away from real children. Now if you would stop defending sexually explicit art of children and stop defending those that consume and draw said content, then we'd be good here. Unfortunately you seem to think that lolicon is some form of absolute preventative measure and therefore it must exist to prevent pedophiles from enacting their fantasies. You are using this excuse while completely ignoring the root problem at hand which is the attraction to minors in of itself, whether or not the person is acting upon these urges with real children or fictional children does not matter in the sense that they are in need of serious help.

Suddenly it's ok to defend pedophiles when it's only art that is involved? Is this the hill you all want to die on?

You can state how you personally feel about it all you want but it doesn't change the proven facts that lolicon does not create pedophiles and child molesters. Nobody should be forced to stop enjoying something just because you don't like it. You yourself even admitted that they were not real children so how exactly can it be a crime when there is no victim?

[Lisk 796]

"It is Highly Likely that loli ecchi pictures are still being distributed! Russia and China must pay a fair price for this transgression!" Can we stop pretending that UN is still relevant in any way, shape or form? 

[Storm 71]

The characters people usually like are so dissimilar from real children I don't think they're really comparable at all anyway. They pretty much look, act and sound nothing like real children. You're not going to find one of those 1000 year-old loli vampires or someone that looks like say, Nemesis from To Love-Ru in real life. Even the more normal ones are just so overly cute and idealized that real children can't compare. And you know what the a lot of the hentai community says about 2D being superior to 3D. I can relate to that somewhat, even most of my omorashi fetish is in fiction and I don't have much interest in it in real-life. I'm sure there are exceptions to this, but it's all just harmless fantasizing about types of girls that can't exist in real-life for the most part. You might as well ban all adult porn and hentai too by that logic because it's not like pedophiles are the only ones that have the capacity to be rapists.

[~Skunky Nikki~ 242]

Hate to be the one guy who has a different opinion as it seems a lot of you think that since it's fictional, it isn't harmful. But I'm gonna be that guy.

Whenever you see something like a loli, you tend to think it is a young child before you learn their lore age. Well, I do at least. You can say it's a 9000 year old dragon girl all you like, but she looks exactly like an 8 year old child. Whenever I see something like loli pornography being produced or used, or just even see sexualizations of loli characters, I don't see the sexualization of a legal person, but rather the sexualization of child characters with lore that suggest that they are of age despite appearances. 

I'm glad to see some places taking action against loli content. It may not harm anyone (until urges get the better of people), but just because it's a drawing doesn't mean it's okay to wank to it or find it hot. Because if you find yourself sexually attracted to a loli, that means you are sexually attracted to the child-like appearance, which would mean you would most likely be sexually attracted to actual children. Loli content would seemingly just encourage this pedophilic attraction, and my even lead to real life action if help isn't received or the person isn't good with self control. In other words, loli pornography is a lame excuse to let pedophiles get off to children with it being "legal".

If you are getting off to loli pornography, I just can't support your actions. Leave children and child-like characters out of your sexual fantasies. Children are meant for starting a new future, not being sexualized on the internet.

Now if you are someone who recognizes you have a problem, and are seeking help without encouraging or giving into the urge, I will respect you for wanting to make a change for the better. If you are one of those people, I wish you luck on your recovery!

But that's just my opinion. Hate me or love me for it. Just speaking my mind

[Male 141]

Don't know why you're still talking about this. The UN is a toothless organisation and the USA vetoed this resolution on first amendment grounds anyway.

Edited August 13 by Male

[~Skunky Nikki~ 242]

On 8/13/2019 at 6:39 PM, Male said:

Don't know why you're still talking about this. The UN is a toothless organisation and the USA vetoed this resolution on first amendment grounds anyway.

Are you calling them toothless for trying to stop pedophilia? Cuz from what I am seeing and hearing, it is a good way to curb the problem.

[FUBOT 35]

Toothless as in the UN has no power to enforce anything. Their rules, even good ones, can't help fight problems in countries that just don't want to listen to them. I mean, there are countries well known for human rights violations as lead nations on the UN committee for human rights (and other silly stuff like that). Just guessing what Male means here.

[~Skunky Nikki~ 242]

Which seems unfortunate if that's true. Do you think what they're attempting to do is a good thing for a good cause?

[FUBOT 35]

The intent of stopping pedophilia is a great one. I have family that went through terrifying experiences as children, and whatever can be done to make sure even one less person has to go through the same ordeals, great.

[~Skunky Nikki~ 242]

Yeah I feel the same way. Pedophilic things need to be put to a stop to help curb the epidemic.