The government probably used art as an excuse for not tearing it down, despite the fact it likely violates loli bans as the artist secretly found the damn thing he made hot because he is an actual pedophile.
Classical artists make wierd things like this all the time, but I consider it acceptable to call it obscene simply because it was made by a pedo who sexually abused his own daughters and a dog, and how it likely reflects the sculptor's degenerate sexuality.
This is coming from somone who defends lolicon and shotacon.
This is coming from somone who defends lolicon and shotacon.
If the UK wasn't a country where cartoon children have human rights, then I would have less of an argument against this statue, but it is, and given what is known about its creator, it's pretty clear what was running through the sculptor's mind when he made it.
If a known child abuser goes around making images of naked children, do we seriously believe those images were not made for his sexual gratification?
That statue is shotacon made by a child rapist. Giant stone shotacon made by a child rapist, on full display at the front of the headquarters of the BBC for three quarters of a century.
If I wasn't looking at it, I wouldn't believe it.
This is coming from somone who defends lolicon and shotacon.
I will also defend the rights of artists, and the consumers of that art. I don't don't think shotacon and lolicon are an actual problem because I'm not a retard who can't distinguish between art and reality.
But god damn, this thing's just... out in public, on the HQ of the state broadcaster, no less.
The government probably used art as an excuse for not tearing it down, despite the fact it likely violates loli bans as the artist secretly found the damn thing he made hot because he is an actual pedophile.
Classical artists make wierd things like this all the time, but I consider it acceptable to call it obscene simply because it was made by a pedo who sexually abused his own daughters and a dog, and how it likely reflects the sculptor's degenerate sexuality.
This is coming from somone who defends lolicon and shotacon.
If the UK wasn't a country where cartoon children have human rights, then I would have less of an argument against this statue, but it is, and given what is known about its creator, it's pretty clear what was running through the sculptor's mind when he made it.
If a known child abuser goes around making images of naked children, do we seriously believe those images were not made for his sexual gratification?
That statue is shotacon made by a child rapist. Giant stone shotacon made by a child rapist, on full display at the front of the headquarters of the BBC for three quarters of a century.
If I wasn't looking at it, I wouldn't believe it.
I will also defend the rights of artists, and the consumers of that art. I don't don't think shotacon and lolicon are an actual problem because I'm not a retard who can't distinguish between art and reality.
But god damn, this thing's just... out in public, on the HQ of the state broadcaster, no less.
What the fuck?