But in Australia, whether you’re a scholar or not, I don’t think it’s logistically possible to argue that yaoi/slash is a “special genre/community” to be protected. Yaoi/slash doesn’t have a national imaginary; instead, it must be read under the auspices of McEWEN v SIMMONS & ANOR. My feeling is that it is perhaps wiser and less painstaking to argue for the legality The Simpsons in the Australian context.

The tentative route Mark McLelland (Australian) takes in understanding the moral good of yaoi fandoms is as young people engaged in sexual self-expression, similar to “sexting” (minors who send pics of themselves to other minors over their cell phones). Sexting obviously troubles present child pornography laws in any number of countries. The problem is, that yaoi is also consumed by adults (and produced primarily by adults), so this argument quickly falls apart.

And what about shotacon/lolicon? Are any scholars willing to vouch that these genres are not “child pornography” simply because they’re fictional/simulated? Tamaki Saitō argues that “shota texts by female yaoi authors are structurally identical to yaoi texts, while shota by male otaku clearly position these little boys as young girls with penises.” In other words, in Japan there is a complex reading practice to these texts, different movements of exploitation for different audiences, and their societal effects are still under investigation. For legislators in the West, I’m sure it all looks like “child pornography,” in which the societal effects are invariably “bad.”

Oi, it’s a tough situation.