You are proceeding to a page containing mature content. Is this OK?

check Yes, show me everything
close No, hide anything sensitive

Lolicon Stalks 9-Year-Old: “Before I Knew It, I Was Doing It…”


A lolicon stalker has been arrested after following a 9-year-old girl home, breaking into her house, and committing indecent acts upon her.

The man, a 26-year-old unemployed Osaka resident, began following the girl, an elementary schooler, on her way home from school one afternoon.

Once the girl arrived home, where she was alone as her father was still at work, she found she had attracted an unwelcome companion.

He proceeded to proposition the girl, asking her “Let’s play together!”, but in his own words excused himself: “Before I knew what I was doing, I had started doing it to her…”

The girl apparently escaped any more serious indignity than being groped by the stalker.

Via Sankei.

Incidents such as these, despite their extreme rarity, do not help parents develop a realistic sense of the risks strangers pose to their offspring

Leave a Comment


  • What is ‘unforgivable’ again? Yurusenai? I mean it’s one thing to follow if nobody notices but leave it at that. I mean, like get a job and be a handsome charming catch and maybe be a samaritan and protect her from kidnappers.

  • Did the guy had any manga or game at his room, because if he did then he will be automatically categoriesd as an otaku.Then everybody will join “BLAME THE OTAKU” marathon.

    • 70 years ago you’d be saying “black people are disgusting” and 40 years ago “gays are disgusting”. Hopefully Girllove will be recognized as a valid sexual preference in 20-30 yrs.

      • Anonymous says:

        There is only one natural sexual preference. I’m sick of people calling their fetishes “sexuality”. The term sexuality is strongly related to the reproductive cycle, and dig this: gays, lesbians and pedophiles can’t make children with their preferred demographic.

        I couldn’t care less about homosexuals, but the line must be drawn somewhere. The so called “girllove” is too open to exploitation from adults to be acceptable.

        Young children cannot form the relationship referred to as (romantic) love. Their brains aren’t wired to do so prior to puberty. And if they can’t form such relationships, the only one who would benefit from it is the pedophile.

        @Anon Japan isn’t obsessed with children. The country has one of the lowest crime rates in the world when it comes to child exploitation.
        Keep in mind the majority of lolicons aren’t attracted to real children.

        • Ah yes we are truly above animals.If you think they only use it for reproduction and we can use it for enjoyment without reproducing.

          Wait, doesn’t that make us less worthy then animals?

        • Our ability to separate our sexual preferences from what is “practical” for the purpose of reproduction – and to get away with it evolution-wise – is one of the things that put us above animals. If there was only one form of sexuality there wouldn’t have been a point in inventing that term to begin with.

        • Not only is sexuality NOT related to reproductivity, even if it was, are you saying that infertile men and women that are heterosexual have no sexuality? Also, doesn’t the world -sexual at the end of “homosexual” give you a little clue that THAT’S what sexuality refers to?

          “Young children cannot form the relationship referred to as (romantic) love. Their brains aren’t wired to do so prior to puberty. And if they can’t form such relationships, the only one who would benefit from it is the pedophile.”

          You’re kind of missing the point there that most sex is had out of lust rather than love. Every weekend, millions of adults have sex because they’re horny, not because they’re experiencing some amazing romance.

          “Keep in mind the majority of lolicons aren’t attracted to real children.”

          (a) Lolicon means pedophile, it only seems to mean “attracted to cartoon kids” because we use “Loli” to refer to anime kids. Also, since liking lolis is more socially acceptable than liking real little kids, of course people are going to mysteriously be attracted to drawn renditions of children without admitting being attracted to real children. Really, it’s like saying you love cars – but only cartoon ones, none of that real shit.

        • Some animals in fact do, but that just proves my point even more (see below). Everything we do that only benefits our mind (as opposed to resulting in some biological advantage) is a sign that our conscience resides “above” our body and our raw instincts and needs.

          Reproduction is an innate drive, given to all living things to ensure the survival of their respective species. But us humans divert this drive from a sole means of reproduction to a way of satisfying the desires of our mind. This becomes more and more apparent the more sentient a species is. Two examples of animals that are known having sex for pleasure: dolphins and chimpanzees. You see the connection? In fact, studies have indicated a correlation between higher IQ and more refined/exotic fetishes. This makes perfect sense if you think about it for a while.

  • LOL you guys are all insane, though now I know that this can happen to people. I just hope that I don’t end up doing the same thing by just following some attractive little girl. 😀 I will not be tempted

  • Another one bites the dust huh.

    I can understand someone with an actual disease like serious OCD, or right frontal lobe damage having no choice but to act on their impulses.

    But plain old vanilla sexual impulses you can’t just say “I did it without even realizing it”.

    Nevertheless, if the man truly did start acting before he realized it, it’s highly probable he actually did have something like right frontal lobe brain damage (benign tumors and other unexpected medical concerns could cause this, not just a blow to the head).


    Makes me have to wonder… If they did find proof he had genuine brain trauma that made it impossible for him to stop an impulse like that, would the court then order he get the medical attention he needs and place him in proper psychological care, or would the court give in to the “think of the children” mentality and just lock him up untreated for the rest of his life?

    Or would they give him treatment, but still keep him locked up, even if later they somehow fix his problem and he’s deemed psychologically fit again?

    I could definitely see an American judge pulling shit like that thinking he could get away with it, but no idea how Japanese courts would act.

    • a guy had a cancer grown throughout his brain … and started wanting to rape his daughter. they tested him, treated him.
      then he still wanted to rape his daughter.
      they tested him again, guess what? the cancer was back. they treat him again, he stops wanting to rape his daughter.
      no fuckin police involved … so …. sometimes people do use the right morals.

      • Anonymous says:

        That’s the exception rather than the rule. Most of these folks don’t have brain tumors, their wiring is just messed up.

        And most of them don’t want to get help either, because they see nothing wrong with what they want. The fact that a child is incapable of giving consent to sexual relations just flies right over their head, no matter how many times it’s explained.

        アノニモウス above talks about why kill them, that this is worse, what gives you the right yada yada yada.

        Killing such folks isn’t about fixing what was done, it’s about ensuring that it never happens again to another person. To reference the fable about the scorpion and the dog, it’s their nature. And only a naive idiot would trust someone like that.

        The dog trusted the scorpion and ended up dead because of it. Folks like him ensure that these folks just move on to the next bunch of kids.

        Case in point, the whole scandal surrounding the RC Church and their shuffling around of pedophile priests, and how they were convinced that a change of scenery would help them overcome their “problem”.

        How many were made to suffer, because of that decision? More than one, and one person would’ve been bad enough already. More than one makes it inexcusable.

        • Anonymous says:

          It seems to fly over the heads of such people as yourself that some “children” ARE capable of consent, but it depends on multiple factors, such as how you define ‘children’, and also on their mental development.

          But really, the concept of consent is much simpler than it’s made out to be. Typically, rape is considered to be acting in a state of negative-consent, rather than the absence of consent. That’s not to say that’s always the case, but statutory rape is an exception rather than the rule, and I would contend in the majority of instances it isn’t actually rape but rather an effort of the government to control the citizens through a “save the children” campaign.

          Remember the quote from Adolf Hitler as well:

          “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people as long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty.”

    • アノニモウス says:

      The “justice” system is full of assholes all over the world. The kind of people that study law are self-righteous pricks far more often than anyone would like.

      And you do know how people like to completely ignore logic when it comes to “protect the children” crap. Don’t expect him to get much sympathy from anyone, even if he really has some kind of mental illness.

      Humans want blood, not justice. For reference, google “public execution”.

      • Anonymous says:

        As a rational person, if he had some physical or mental problem which made him try to do something like this, I’d be willing for my tax dollars to go to treating this condition, if there was no other way to pay for it.

        But if I had a kid and someone tried that, I’m sure I’d have a different opinion. If I had a kid and someone tried something like that, he would have a (brief) discussion with the wrong end of my 12-guage shotgun. Problem (with that individual) permanently solved.

        Ranchers shoot and kill wolves, coyotes, and out-of-control dogs who predate their livestock.

        Why would a parent do any less to protect their presumably-more-valuable-than-sheep-or-cows children?

        Human predators are still predators. Just because for some of them, it may not be ‘their fault’ doesn’t make them any less dangerous.

        • アノニモウス says:

          All humans are natural predators. In fact, we are one of the few apex predators on the planet.
          Rapists are not predators. Their behavior is totally off from the behavior a hunting animal (human or not) would have.
          I’m sorry for getting all worked up with this, but I really hate it when people take the term and put it completely out of context.

          There is a good reason why judges are held to high neutrality standards. Your opinion clearly shows how people don’t have adequate judgment when it personally concerns them.

          First of all, solving any problem with a 12-gauge will cause serious problems for you and your hypothetical family. Second, there is always a chance (smaller or bigger) that you are wrong and you kill an innocent person. And lastly, even if the said person was guilty of the said crime, killing him would only sate your lust for blood/vengeance and would neither undo the damage, or magically fix the aftermath.

          So, what gives YOU the right to kill? The fact that you are angry? Or do you think you are above everyone else? Just imagine if the friends/family of the offender decide to follow your example.

          Rape damages a single individual. Murder destroys an asset to the whole society. Criminals can be reformed, despite what some people want you to believe. Your punishment is far more severe than the initial crime, which makes you, in my eyes, the bigger criminal. Does that give me the right to 12-gauge you?

          And just to make it clear, ranchers shouldn’t be allowed to slaughter wolves just because they can. Society doesn’t give a damn which is why they get away with it. If you were part of some minority in Germany during WW2, you would have been pretty much in the same place where that wolf is.

          Killing for food is a natural instinct. Killing for any other reason is a human phenomena.

      • I’m right there with you bro -_-

        It’s a shame, but people don’t seem to come equipped to empathize with their fellow human beings unless they’ve spent a fair amount of time in a culturally despised category like the lolicon.

        Which only makes it all the more ironic, as the few lolicons I’ve ever gotten to know were far nicer than the average person. Most likely on account of knowing what it feels like to be despised without good reason, thus gaining the ability to empathize more objectively than your average judge/juror.

        As often as people like to throw these words around at the smallest things, “discrimination/oppression/misandry” really do fit the case for all non-offenders.


        I guess you can’t entirely blame this mentality. People naturally take the easiest paths that lie ahead for them.

        And it’s hard for someone to put themselves in another’s shoes, much easier just to go with the flow and learn to parrot the thinking of their prejudiced peers.

        It takes no personal effort at all to learn one’s sense of justice by banding together inside a niche and joining the chorus “burn the witches”… so pack-animal.

  • Anonymous says:

    This guy wasn’t a lolicon. He was a pedosexual, like myself, who finally could hold in his attraction to children to fit in with society’s idiotic ‘norms’ and started to stalk a child.

    Things like this wouldn’t happen if pedosexuals and making love with children, as long as the children were WILLING participants and it was done out in the open, was made legal.