![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"Rorikon blogspot" link added. Some other links that didn't work deleted.
Added new information about international child abuse and about the possibility of underreportage of sex crimes. Hundreds of years went by in America before anyone had any idea that many Catholic priests routinely abused children. I think rape and child abuse are underreported in Japan--they are underreported in every single other country in the world. Saying that they are largely underreported is little more than pure speculation at the moment, but there is some evidence in the CASPAR link I added.
I removed the sentence "Despite stereotypes, however, there are many Japanese staunchly opposed to lolicon, and there are many westerners that would have no objection to it," because to me it seemed misleading. Child porn art is far more prevalent in Japan than in the US, just do a google search for the evidence. It is also much more widely available. You can't go to Barnes and Noble here and pick up a lolicon dojin, whereas you can in some public bookstores in Japan (check the first two links for evidence). -- Zaorish 22:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)--Zaorish
Could you provide a source for the statement that violence towards children is found less frequently in Japan than elsewhere and that this is not due to differences in reporting? Get-back-world-respect 01:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's meaningless to compare crime rates with the US, because the US has much higher levels of all violent crime. It should be compared with somewhere more similar, maybe Sweden, or Korea. Kappa 22:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Think carefully if offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page. The image in this article is a bit surprising when you first see the article. Additionally, and more importantly, the image is illegal to view in some countries, most notably Australia. I'm going to try to find a suitable, non-nude fair use picture to replace it. Ashibaka ✎ 20:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I fixed the picture; the old one can go in IFD, but I'm in no hurry to do that just yet in case there is debate. It was really a laugh to see the original picture when I was pointed to this article. Was the original approved by the Wikipedia moderators, I wonder?
I also changed some phrasing in the article that I thought was POV. As the moderator of a large anime imageboard, I've had to decide whether to keep or delete a lot of lolicon pictures, and I'll have you know I've never seen a lolicon picture that appears to depict someone older than 13 or 14. If I've been dealing with something else all this time, then I've been seeing a lot of this other thing and no "lolicon". I think this is well within the bounds of pedophilia, and the article before I edited it had an explicit POV that was defending lolicon from outside "critics", as well contradicting itself in order to let Kinomoto Sakura into its false 12-16 range. Ashibaka ✎ 20:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I corrected the upper age limit - this particular Hikari Hayashibara's manga has girls between 12 and 16 (see also Lolita, both the book and the term as used today). So while I respect your experience, Ashibaka, it is clearly obvious that lolicon does include girls from 13 and up. We can debate whether a particular girl "looks" 12 or 14, but this is really pointless, since she is just a cartoon character and since girls mature at very different ages and they all look different and so on and so forth. But if the mangaka writes that a particular girl is supposed to be 14, I think we should take his word for it. I removed the bit about clinical definition, lest we argue forever whether it's partly within or mostly outside. :)
I also removed the link to "Views from the street". It is not appropriate to link to it from Wikipedia, because an encyclopedia is not about popular opinion.
In regards to the original image, I added it after long and careful deliberation. I think it was a better choice, because:
Paranoid 17:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here is a blog where you can discuss in Spanish about "rorikon" and "rorikon manga". http://rorikon.blogspot.com/
I removed the following text by User:218.47.18.246. I am not sure it adds anything to the article and am somewhat confused about its intended meaning. Paranoid 01:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lolicon thinks the childishness of not age but appearance as important.
Does the external link to the Mainichi story add anything? The story is about young girls in Japan having sexual experiences at earlier ages, not about lolicon. Indeed, lolicon is only referenced in the first and third paragraphs of the article, and has little to do with the main point of the article.
From some discussions I have read and/or participated on this subject, there seems to be two points that haven't been raised here.
1) The argument against lolicon (specifically, erotic underaged-looking girls) parallels the arguments against violence in games. e.g. that playing/reading/watching lolicon/violent games will make people want to go out and have sex with kids/kill people in cold blood. Arguments against the bans also parallel each other. That playing/reading/watching lolicon/violent games does not harm anyone directly, and could possibly provide "release" so they don't actually go out and commit these acts on real people. I just find this notable considering the statement "It is frequently accused of being similar to or a form of pedophilia, particularly by westerners" because most westerners would probably be against the banning of violent games despite their opposition against lolicon material, despite them being basically two sides of the same coin. 2) That not all "lolicon" is actually sexually explicit. But it does depend on how one defines "lolicon." Some would say it is *only* the sexual depictions of underaged-looking girls, while others would group essentially any picture of an underaged-looking girl. Although it might be argued that these are not true "lolicon" but are rather simply cute/kawaii/moe girls. But then, I have heard people say they like them for the appearance of child-like innocence (either physical looks, or just by their actions), and don't care for the sexual stuff. Dracil 10:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've had this thought ever since someone added the "usually under 13" bit. From what I've seen, the stuff that actually gets put in Lolicon categories in various places are of the under 13 variety. However, technically speaking, a great deal of hentai is actually lolicon, although it is not called such. Basically, any girl in high school, one of the most common settings, would be lolicon (underage [for the purpose of this argument, I'm ignoring the fact that age itself is actually irrelevant to most lolicons]) material. I think this distinction should be noted. Dracil 23:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll add a bit more with the change to "8 to 13" and the little thing I added after that. From what I can tell, the distinction between the two terms of lolicon occurs depending on those "in-the-know" and those who aren't. In other words, actual lolicon fans will probably be referring to the 8 to 13 group, but to outsiders, they will regard anything less than 18 (or whatever is considered as the age of "adulthood" in their culture) to be lolicon. Dracil 08:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that this
is better than no link. If you can replace it with a link to another lolicon fansite/message board, that may be better, but to remove it entirely is, IMHO not correct. Paranoid 08:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Including that link in the article is attracting unwanted attention to that imageboard, and they have requested that it not be included in the article.
Two other sources for lolicon are already listed. /l/ has requested to remain off the article. What's the problem?
Well, until the link was posted on Wikipedia there were little to no problems with people posting such things. Since it was noticed that it was there, alot of this crap has begun cropping up. I dont know if the other two boards have had the same issue, but if they have, then whats the problem? Its not an excuse, its a reason. Theres a difference. Wikipedia is supposed to help people, not run sites into the ground through legal issues. People will use links from places like this and Something Awful to go after sites they dont like.
Found this on a Message boards (Toaster Oven on Gamefaqs). If it is, then I've got some clean stuff I need to clean up on my compy...
Also, note the spelling 'Hentae'... --- T ConX
According to my head and internet searches for Canadian law:
The Criminal Code's definition of child pornography says:
163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
"Other visual representation" seems to mean anything, lolicon included. Lolicon images, manga and anime are all covered by this blanket definition of "child pornography". Establishing a clearer (or perhaps more lenient) definition would have to be something done in a court and I for one do not plan to be the person to do it... I also found (and subsequently lost track of) a seperate section about using the postal system for offensive materials being an offense which is seperate (legally, but not necessarily logically) from the lolicon related arrest mentioned above.
This currently proposed bill changes ever so slightly the defence of a conviction to:
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and
(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.
from:
(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2) [Production of child pornography], (3) [Distribution of child pornography], (4) [Possession of child pornography] or (4.1) - [Accessing child pornography], the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.
The bill above is called C-2 and was first read on October 8, 2004. I can't see for sure whether or not this bill was passed, was modified or has just sat there since last year, but it's a real mess for people who enjoy lolicon. The bolded sections are my emphasis and is my attempt to make sense of this section of the Criminal Code. The current law using the words "artistic merit" is confusing to say the least. What one might consider artistic (or have artistic qualities), another might find offensive. One lolicon manga I have read involves the younger girl being the dominant person in the sexual relationship. The writing of the story makes it comical which to me is great. It's artistic to me. Maybe not to the Criminal Code though... Also the portion of the proposed bill that says "does not pose an undue risk of harm" effectively says (to me): "If you're a good person, you're fine." Who decides if you do not pose an "undue risk"? And doesn't an action that constitutes an offense sound like an "undue risk" to you?
Lastly, there is the Supreme Court ruling from 2000 overturning British Columbia's legalisation of possession of child pornography. It's a huge summary of what happened and I haven't gone through all of it, so picking out relevant bits is difficult. Alot of the problems stem from the broad definition of child pornography. The case deals with actual child pornography and whether or not the law against possession infringed upon the right to free expression. I suppose it is as clear as this line from that "Child pornography is harmful whether it involves real children in its production or whether it is a product of the imagination."
Sorry for this sounding like a forum post. I've posted this topic once before elsewhere and got mixed responses, mostly off topic. The talk page is for discussion, right, so I should be ok..... This is what I think and have found on the matter. IANAL, but someone here might be (along with being likely more rational than someone on a forum).
-Slightly Less Than Anonymous June 2, 2005
Since lolicon is suppose to be 14 and under, does hentai girls like Asuka and Rei from NGE and Sailor Moon (she started the series at 14 anyway) count as lolicon or is it only pre-pubesent girls?
+ Often, it depends on the artist. Rei, Asuka, and the Sailor Scouts are generally depicted as young women, such that they could easily be considered 18+, appealing to normal hentai viewers. Although some times, artists will draw them with a flat chest etc, so that they look younger, appealing to the lolicon.
I think I've seen them classified under the lolicon section before. Again, the age of "lolicon" depends on who you ask. Most lolicon sections in image galleries seem to have them quite young, but if you go ask some person who's never even been exposed to similar stuff, they'll probably answer <18 would be lolicon material.
Lorikon in Japanese language refers to Lolita complex or pedophilia, period. It doesn't have such a special meaning as "hentai anime, manga, and other visual forms of art that contain sexual/erotic representations of underage girls." If the word has such a meaning, it' only among English-speaking otaku, not in Japan. Same as hentai.
I placed back the link to the image board. The justification for having it in the article is that it is relevant. The practice is the same throughout Wikipedia. Check out dog, mp3, BDSM or indeed any other article. There are countless links and not only links to additional information. If Lolicon had more mainstream popularity, may be we would be able to link to about.com or dmoz.org sections. Unfortunately, there aren't many resources in English, so we link to what is available. That site is informative and some of the readers of lolicon article may be interested in it. That is a sufficient justification for including the link. Paranoid 15:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removed the following (registration-only forum, not a direct link, etc.). Paranoid 15:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious about the link to Lolitron. While it does address Lolicon, its purpose is not for that (heck, some of the articles arn't even about anime!). Should it be removed (because of it being off subject?) --
Mies
19:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't remove the image, particularly w/o discussion, thanks Sam Spade 12:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Lolicon (...) is a frequent subject of scholarly articles on sexuality in Japan"
We all suppose this is true, but maybe it isn't. Are there any examples of this?
Shouldn't there be a list of countries where lolicon is illegal? I for one know that Australia, Canada and Norway all forbid the depiction of children as sexual objects, even in drawn format. The list would help to alert fellow Wikipedians who are unaware of the laws and so might get into trouble when clicking on certain links.-- Imperialles 09:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a non-canonial neologism. Google agrees. Rich Farmbrough 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The entire article is about a non-canonical neologism based on an inaccurate translation of Japanese. By all means we could redirect it to "Pedophile" and place it in a subsection. But this would start edit wars, of course. Ashibaka ( tock) 02:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |
09:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I've not been able to find the listing for deletion, and the image still exists. Can someone provide a link to the discussion? Exploding Boy 18:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Is the mention of furry porn really necessary to include? The explanation of "cub porn" seems to add very little to the article. It seems like a good candidate for shortening or removal, although I'm reluctant to change the article myself without first giving a chance for dissenting opinions. Rakeela 06:27, 29 September 2005
Wikipedia apparently doesn't (unfortunately) allow disclaimers, but something ought to be done about the image, either removing it, decreasing its size, placing it lower in the page, etc. -- Dpr 09:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems odd that one out of the four was targeted by 217.44.18.219 for an additional warning when there was already a notice above the group of them. I looked and couldn't find anything particularly "worse" about the images on that board compared to the other three, however I did notice a photograph against the board's stated policies posted at around the same time the new warning showed up here, depending on what time zone the image board operates in.
There are also a few other unrelated peculiarities in the site's mechanics.
The conspiracy theorist in me says " joe job," but whatever the case, I'd think a single warning for the group of links should be sufficient. If the warning needs to be more stern, by all means change the words, but I don't see why this one particular link should be labelled as "double-plus ungood." David Iwancio 20:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
"Rorikon blogspot" link added. Some other links that didn't work deleted.
Added new information about international child abuse and about the possibility of underreportage of sex crimes. Hundreds of years went by in America before anyone had any idea that many Catholic priests routinely abused children. I think rape and child abuse are underreported in Japan--they are underreported in every single other country in the world. Saying that they are largely underreported is little more than pure speculation at the moment, but there is some evidence in the CASPAR link I added.
I removed the sentence "Despite stereotypes, however, there are many Japanese staunchly opposed to lolicon, and there are many westerners that would have no objection to it," because to me it seemed misleading. Child porn art is far more prevalent in Japan than in the US, just do a google search for the evidence. It is also much more widely available. You can't go to Barnes and Noble here and pick up a lolicon dojin, whereas you can in some public bookstores in Japan (check the first two links for evidence). -- Zaorish 22:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)--Zaorish
Could you provide a source for the statement that violence towards children is found less frequently in Japan than elsewhere and that this is not due to differences in reporting? Get-back-world-respect 01:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
It's meaningless to compare crime rates with the US, because the US has much higher levels of all violent crime. It should be compared with somewhere more similar, maybe Sweden, or Korea. Kappa 22:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Think carefully if offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page. The image in this article is a bit surprising when you first see the article. Additionally, and more importantly, the image is illegal to view in some countries, most notably Australia. I'm going to try to find a suitable, non-nude fair use picture to replace it. Ashibaka ✎ 20:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I fixed the picture; the old one can go in IFD, but I'm in no hurry to do that just yet in case there is debate. It was really a laugh to see the original picture when I was pointed to this article. Was the original approved by the Wikipedia moderators, I wonder?
I also changed some phrasing in the article that I thought was POV. As the moderator of a large anime imageboard, I've had to decide whether to keep or delete a lot of lolicon pictures, and I'll have you know I've never seen a lolicon picture that appears to depict someone older than 13 or 14. If I've been dealing with something else all this time, then I've been seeing a lot of this other thing and no "lolicon". I think this is well within the bounds of pedophilia, and the article before I edited it had an explicit POV that was defending lolicon from outside "critics", as well contradicting itself in order to let Kinomoto Sakura into its false 12-16 range. Ashibaka ✎ 20:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I corrected the upper age limit - this particular Hikari Hayashibara's manga has girls between 12 and 16 (see also Lolita, both the book and the term as used today). So while I respect your experience, Ashibaka, it is clearly obvious that lolicon does include girls from 13 and up. We can debate whether a particular girl "looks" 12 or 14, but this is really pointless, since she is just a cartoon character and since girls mature at very different ages and they all look different and so on and so forth. But if the mangaka writes that a particular girl is supposed to be 14, I think we should take his word for it. I removed the bit about clinical definition, lest we argue forever whether it's partly within or mostly outside. :)
I also removed the link to "Views from the street". It is not appropriate to link to it from Wikipedia, because an encyclopedia is not about popular opinion.
In regards to the original image, I added it after long and careful deliberation. I think it was a better choice, because:
Paranoid 17:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Here is a blog where you can discuss in Spanish about "rorikon" and "rorikon manga". http://rorikon.blogspot.com/
I removed the following text by User:218.47.18.246. I am not sure it adds anything to the article and am somewhat confused about its intended meaning. Paranoid 01:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Lolicon thinks the childishness of not age but appearance as important.
Does the external link to the Mainichi story add anything? The story is about young girls in Japan having sexual experiences at earlier ages, not about lolicon. Indeed, lolicon is only referenced in the first and third paragraphs of the article, and has little to do with the main point of the article.
From some discussions I have read and/or participated on this subject, there seems to be two points that haven't been raised here.
1) The argument against lolicon (specifically, erotic underaged-looking girls) parallels the arguments against violence in games. e.g. that playing/reading/watching lolicon/violent games will make people want to go out and have sex with kids/kill people in cold blood. Arguments against the bans also parallel each other. That playing/reading/watching lolicon/violent games does not harm anyone directly, and could possibly provide "release" so they don't actually go out and commit these acts on real people. I just find this notable considering the statement "It is frequently accused of being similar to or a form of pedophilia, particularly by westerners" because most westerners would probably be against the banning of violent games despite their opposition against lolicon material, despite them being basically two sides of the same coin. 2) That not all "lolicon" is actually sexually explicit. But it does depend on how one defines "lolicon." Some would say it is *only* the sexual depictions of underaged-looking girls, while others would group essentially any picture of an underaged-looking girl. Although it might be argued that these are not true "lolicon" but are rather simply cute/kawaii/moe girls. But then, I have heard people say they like them for the appearance of child-like innocence (either physical looks, or just by their actions), and don't care for the sexual stuff. Dracil 10:03, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've had this thought ever since someone added the "usually under 13" bit. From what I've seen, the stuff that actually gets put in Lolicon categories in various places are of the under 13 variety. However, technically speaking, a great deal of hentai is actually lolicon, although it is not called such. Basically, any girl in high school, one of the most common settings, would be lolicon (underage [for the purpose of this argument, I'm ignoring the fact that age itself is actually irrelevant to most lolicons]) material. I think this distinction should be noted. Dracil 23:25, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll add a bit more with the change to "8 to 13" and the little thing I added after that. From what I can tell, the distinction between the two terms of lolicon occurs depending on those "in-the-know" and those who aren't. In other words, actual lolicon fans will probably be referring to the 8 to 13 group, but to outsiders, they will regard anything less than 18 (or whatever is considered as the age of "adulthood" in their culture) to be lolicon. Dracil 08:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that this
is better than no link. If you can replace it with a link to another lolicon fansite/message board, that may be better, but to remove it entirely is, IMHO not correct. Paranoid 08:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Including that link in the article is attracting unwanted attention to that imageboard, and they have requested that it not be included in the article.
Two other sources for lolicon are already listed. /l/ has requested to remain off the article. What's the problem?
Well, until the link was posted on Wikipedia there were little to no problems with people posting such things. Since it was noticed that it was there, alot of this crap has begun cropping up. I dont know if the other two boards have had the same issue, but if they have, then whats the problem? Its not an excuse, its a reason. Theres a difference. Wikipedia is supposed to help people, not run sites into the ground through legal issues. People will use links from places like this and Something Awful to go after sites they dont like.
Found this on a Message boards (Toaster Oven on Gamefaqs). If it is, then I've got some clean stuff I need to clean up on my compy...
Also, note the spelling 'Hentae'... --- T ConX
According to my head and internet searches for Canadian law:
The Criminal Code's definition of child pornography says:
163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means
(a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means,
(i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or
(ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;
"Other visual representation" seems to mean anything, lolicon included. Lolicon images, manga and anime are all covered by this blanket definition of "child pornography". Establishing a clearer (or perhaps more lenient) definition would have to be something done in a court and I for one do not plan to be the person to do it... I also found (and subsequently lost track of) a seperate section about using the postal system for offensive materials being an offense which is seperate (legally, but not necessarily logically) from the lolicon related arrest mentioned above.
This currently proposed bill changes ever so slightly the defence of a conviction to:
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence
(a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and
(b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.
from:
(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2) [Production of child pornography], (3) [Distribution of child pornography], (4) [Possession of child pornography] or (4.1) - [Accessing child pornography], the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.
The bill above is called C-2 and was first read on October 8, 2004. I can't see for sure whether or not this bill was passed, was modified or has just sat there since last year, but it's a real mess for people who enjoy lolicon. The bolded sections are my emphasis and is my attempt to make sense of this section of the Criminal Code. The current law using the words "artistic merit" is confusing to say the least. What one might consider artistic (or have artistic qualities), another might find offensive. One lolicon manga I have read involves the younger girl being the dominant person in the sexual relationship. The writing of the story makes it comical which to me is great. It's artistic to me. Maybe not to the Criminal Code though... Also the portion of the proposed bill that says "does not pose an undue risk of harm" effectively says (to me): "If you're a good person, you're fine." Who decides if you do not pose an "undue risk"? And doesn't an action that constitutes an offense sound like an "undue risk" to you?
Lastly, there is the Supreme Court ruling from 2000 overturning British Columbia's legalisation of possession of child pornography. It's a huge summary of what happened and I haven't gone through all of it, so picking out relevant bits is difficult. Alot of the problems stem from the broad definition of child pornography. The case deals with actual child pornography and whether or not the law against possession infringed upon the right to free expression. I suppose it is as clear as this line from that "Child pornography is harmful whether it involves real children in its production or whether it is a product of the imagination."
Sorry for this sounding like a forum post. I've posted this topic once before elsewhere and got mixed responses, mostly off topic. The talk page is for discussion, right, so I should be ok..... This is what I think and have found on the matter. IANAL, but someone here might be (along with being likely more rational than someone on a forum).
-Slightly Less Than Anonymous June 2, 2005
Since lolicon is suppose to be 14 and under, does hentai girls like Asuka and Rei from NGE and Sailor Moon (she started the series at 14 anyway) count as lolicon or is it only pre-pubesent girls?
+ Often, it depends on the artist. Rei, Asuka, and the Sailor Scouts are generally depicted as young women, such that they could easily be considered 18+, appealing to normal hentai viewers. Although some times, artists will draw them with a flat chest etc, so that they look younger, appealing to the lolicon.
I think I've seen them classified under the lolicon section before. Again, the age of "lolicon" depends on who you ask. Most lolicon sections in image galleries seem to have them quite young, but if you go ask some person who's never even been exposed to similar stuff, they'll probably answer <18 would be lolicon material.
Lorikon in Japanese language refers to Lolita complex or pedophilia, period. It doesn't have such a special meaning as "hentai anime, manga, and other visual forms of art that contain sexual/erotic representations of underage girls." If the word has such a meaning, it' only among English-speaking otaku, not in Japan. Same as hentai.
I placed back the link to the image board. The justification for having it in the article is that it is relevant. The practice is the same throughout Wikipedia. Check out dog, mp3, BDSM or indeed any other article. There are countless links and not only links to additional information. If Lolicon had more mainstream popularity, may be we would be able to link to about.com or dmoz.org sections. Unfortunately, there aren't many resources in English, so we link to what is available. That site is informative and some of the readers of lolicon article may be interested in it. That is a sufficient justification for including the link. Paranoid 15:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Removed the following (registration-only forum, not a direct link, etc.). Paranoid 15:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm curious about the link to Lolitron. While it does address Lolicon, its purpose is not for that (heck, some of the articles arn't even about anime!). Should it be removed (because of it being off subject?) --
Mies
19:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Please don't remove the image, particularly w/o discussion, thanks Sam Spade 12:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
"Lolicon (...) is a frequent subject of scholarly articles on sexuality in Japan"
We all suppose this is true, but maybe it isn't. Are there any examples of this?
Shouldn't there be a list of countries where lolicon is illegal? I for one know that Australia, Canada and Norway all forbid the depiction of children as sexual objects, even in drawn format. The list would help to alert fellow Wikipedians who are unaware of the laws and so might get into trouble when clicking on certain links.-- Imperialles 09:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I think this is a non-canonial neologism. Google agrees. Rich Farmbrough 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The entire article is about a non-canonical neologism based on an inaccurate translation of Japanese. By all means we could redirect it to "Pedophile" and place it in a subsection. But this would start edit wars, of course. Ashibaka ( tock) 02:32, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. |
09:23, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
I've not been able to find the listing for deletion, and the image still exists. Can someone provide a link to the discussion? Exploding Boy 18:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Is the mention of furry porn really necessary to include? The explanation of "cub porn" seems to add very little to the article. It seems like a good candidate for shortening or removal, although I'm reluctant to change the article myself without first giving a chance for dissenting opinions. Rakeela 06:27, 29 September 2005
Wikipedia apparently doesn't (unfortunately) allow disclaimers, but something ought to be done about the image, either removing it, decreasing its size, placing it lower in the page, etc. -- Dpr 09:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
It seems odd that one out of the four was targeted by 217.44.18.219 for an additional warning when there was already a notice above the group of them. I looked and couldn't find anything particularly "worse" about the images on that board compared to the other three, however I did notice a photograph against the board's stated policies posted at around the same time the new warning showed up here, depending on what time zone the image board operates in.
There are also a few other unrelated peculiarities in the site's mechanics.
The conspiracy theorist in me says " joe job," but whatever the case, I'd think a single warning for the group of links should be sufficient. If the warning needs to be more stern, by all means change the words, but I don't see why this one particular link should be labelled as "double-plus ungood." David Iwancio 20:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC)