![]() | 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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
How is this relevant to lolicon, if it's about shoujo manga? "In shōjo manga, characters of stories may enter into relationships with others due to circumstance or mutual attraction. The relationship may even blossom into romance. In 2006, an editor-in-chief of a major shōjo magazine said "Love affair is a big theme in today's shojo manga. It's impossible to completely take out descriptions of sexual activity—that's just the result of love and affection"." -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea behind the new history section of discussing the topic decade by decade. There is a lot of material on lolicon anime from the 1980s and 1990s in
They discuss, for example, many of the Cream Lemon anime from the 1980s, and in some detail, as well as later imitators. This section might be the place to describe briefly the content and approach of some of these anime. Timothy Perper ( talk) 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we do, but maybe it's useful. This would go somewhere early. The idea is that if the girls portrayed in lolicon are acquiescent, willing, or eager, they are called "nymphets" in English, a term first used in this sense by Nabokov in "Lolita." The reference is impeccable, nothing less than the Oxford English Dictionary, but maybe we don't need this. What do people think? Timothy Perper ( talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
What are we supposed to do with manga and anime that deals with romantic attraction between young girls (prepubescent up to ca. 14-15) who are shown involved romantically but sexually INEXPLICITLY with older men? These are not rorikon hentai but seem to fall within the limits of this article. Examples include Rizelmine, Cardcaptor Sakura, Marionette Generation, Magic Knight Rayearth, Dream Saga (by Megumi Tachikawa) and, probably most notoriously, Gunslinger Girl. There are others as well. I have reviews or commentaries about all of them that point -- usually with considerable distaste -- to the romances between these girls and older men.
(a) We can ignore them, but that means, IMO, redefining the intentions and scope of the article. Specifically, if we eliminate the non-sexual manga and anime then we have de facto defined "lolicon" as rorikon hentai. And then, logically, we should change the title of the article.
(b) We can -- and I think should -- include them. All of these, it seems to me, come from the 1990s and later. So we have a historical process, where the earlier Cream Lemon style of lolicon -- hot little nymphets running around half-naked trying to seduce men or monsters or demons or whatever -- gave way to some immensely popular shōjo titles that deal with girls who are not 18+ years old.
The basis in law is the very complicated situation involving the legal age of consent in Japan (see http://www.ageofconsent.com/japan.htm), which varies by prefecture but has hovered around 14 for simple garden-variety unforced sexual intercourse that excludes prostitution. My sense is that many manga and anime titles tacitly accept the traditional Japanese view that a girl reaches age of consent post-puberally, meaning 14+ years old or thereabouts.
Well, OK -- and that leaves us with a problem. The issue is that this article defines hebephilia and ephebophilia in Western European terms, meaning it refers to girls below the age 18 or so. Now, all societies define and control sex between adults and minors, but the age of legal and social cutoff varies considerably.
I usually opt for the simplest solutions I can visualize. That means that we can add some of these titles under the appropriate historical decade, pointing out that the sorts of romance portrayed have been acceptable in Japan and in manga and anime. We can find synonyms for "acceptable" if you don't like the word.
But it seems to me that as the article is presently structured, titled, and defined, we MUST include some of these titles. I hope that's clear. I do not want to argue if some manga "really" is lolicon or not. We need instead to reach some decisions about what to include and exclude, and why. Let me also add that a number of unresolved issues about references flutter around this problem, for example, Michael Darling's assertion that Alien Nine is lolicon.
Timothy Perper ( talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes! Very clearly labeled!!!! Um, sorry, I'm being overenthusiastic or something. But you're making the point I wanted to make. The original stories are only dubiously rorikon hentai, but they elicited strong negative reactions about the issue; the ANN piece is only one example. In the meantime, other fans and marketers promptly started manufacturing and selling "loliconized" images of Henrietta, and others as well (I'm looking for references now). In brief, the whole mess is strongly connected to the themes of this article. It moves us into complex areas, but no one said this was going to be simple. Somehow we have to explain that "lolicon" leads to controversy and to non-sexual portrayals of girls in the original manga and anime, and from there to what I'm calling (for lack of a better term) "loliconized" models and images. All of that needs reliable sourcing, obviously, but we're getting there. Timothy Perper ( talk) 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a flag on the Wikimedia Images section suggesting that this material should be merged into Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States. I think that the "Legal status" entry should discuss this issue, but I also feel that we must not remove the section from this article. The very brief material included here is fine, since it refers the reader to the main article on the issue -- and that's good. But we can't erase the subject from this article, since Sanger was attacking precisely the topics covered in the article. So we need to mention it, direct the reader elsewhere, and leave it at that. Opinions? Timothy Perper ( talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel it would be a good idea to add first-released years to Castle of Cagliostro and Minky Momo for historical context, as follows: "Early lolicon idols were Clarisse from Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro (1979) and the shōjo heroine Minky Momo (1982), as female characters in shonen series at that point were largely mothers or older-sister characters." It is my belief that WP:CALC supports this as not being original research, as long as other editors agree that this is appropriate to add. Thoughts? -- Malkinann ( talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the history section describes that Miyazaki was a lolicon fan and that he did this awful thing to kids and he was executed... but leaves out the impact of his crimes on the lolicon segment of the anime and manga industry and fandom. Why is this so? -- Malkinann ( talk) 20:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
[1] - Can this be verified by a more reliable source? If so, I'm not sure where to put it, but its still relevant.
陣
内
Jinnai
21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
We have to cite them too, from The Register, which doubtlessly is a reliable source. There may be additional reliable sources for the Wikimedia side of the argument. Timothy Perper ( talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I get someone here to write a good lede? I think most of the info is added to the article at this point. There are more sources out there, I think CNET is one, but not sure if its anything new. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I checked Patrick Galbraith's The Otaku Encyclopedia entry for Lolicon (pp. 128-129) and found a number of sentences that are nearly verbatim quoted in this article. There are too many to quote, so here's only one: "The term 'Lolita complex' may have been first introduced to Japan when Russell Trainer's book The Lolita Complex (1966) was translated" (italics original; page 128). Compare to the History Origin subsection. There are some minor changes in wording, but the sentence in the article is clearly based on Galbraith's wording. Galbraith gives no source for his assertion, and it seems only to be a guess. There are other examples. Someone else with access to Galbraith's encyclopedia should confirm what I'm saying. Timothy Perper ( talk) 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This source talks about sex crimes and pornography in Japan in general, not about lolicon. While the topic of pornography in Japan is part of the background for this article, I wonder if we need this information repeated here - it seems to be a digression from the main topic. I have copied the paragraph into the pornography in Japan article (under the title sexual assault), and would like opinions on whether to remove the Diamond and Uchiyama information from this article. -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree; let's see what comes up as reliable sources. Timothy Perper ( talk) 01:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The new Galbraith paper refers to Diamond and Uchiyama's study. -- Malkinann ( talk) 00:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Downloadable PDF at http://www.imageandnarrative.be/ It's Vol 12, No 1 (2011). By Patrick W. Galbraith, 2011 "Lolicon: The Reality of ‘Virtual Child Pornography’ in Japan." Timothy Perper ( talk) 01:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"An argument is that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection."
This is weaselly-worded (claim, scientific basis), based on a ten year old ruling, in America, about simulated child pornography created on computer (not drawings?). This is not the best source for talking about lolicon. -- Malkinann ( talk) 21:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I don't have time to do some serious searching for this concept, but if you google "pornography" and "escape valve" you'll get a good many serious sources. I got some 17,000 hits. It'd be a good article in its own right. Timothy Perper ( talk) 08:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the "description" section supposed to be for? Is it for describing lolicon as in the real-life paraphilia towards young girls? -- Malkinann ( talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Weekly Dearest My Brother may be relevant to this page. -- Malkinann ( talk) 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
None of the "sources" quoted imply, in any way, that Superflat artists are "critical" of lolicon as much as they simply explore it and let the viewer come to the own conclusions. Even if they did, this would be an inherently flawed idea, simply because the very founder Superflat has supported and defended lolicon artists in the past and a lot of the Superflat artists commonly cited as being "critical of lolicon" *have in fact drawn non-satirirical lolicon artwork themselves*.
This is a HUGE preconception among Superflat fans. The logic seems to be, "this famous artist's work parodies lolicon art... so he and his kind must be against it right? After all, Lolicon is ICKY." In the end any actual research on the subject proves that such statements have little to no logical basis. -- Iguanaray ( talk) 02:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
And what if the sources are provably wrong? An art critic seeing a piece of art and thinking "hmm... I personally think this picture is meant to convey THIS message" then writes about it is no confirmation of the actual intention behind the picture. If you actually read the articles in question, one of them simply does not mention such criticism while the other SUGGESTS that such works MIGHT have such a meaning, but also considers other interpretations. -- 109.99.32.190 ( talk) 08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
First, my english is pretty bad.
Second, ive been watching anime and reading manga for long time and been going around in wikipedias discussion to educate myself about these subjects. Been waiting for over a year in lolicon page to have certain changes wich are obvious, but i dont have sources.
First toddlecron (toddlekron) and lolicon are not synonyms. Toddlekron is very disturbing version of lolicon, ie involving children who are 2-10 years old. Lolicon is usually considered 11+ or so (depends on drawing style).
Second, lolicon is often considered just flat chested short girl, ie age has little to do here, since you can easily draw any look you want, and then just add any age you want. Its just a drawing, fantasy. Lolicon is just short girl with flat chest, but have adultish body parts(ie you can never find 12 year old real girl who looks like 12 year old lolicon when it comes to body). But also there are artist who try to imitate actual children, wich i dont consider lolicon since they are just disturbing imitations of real child porn.
And i dont think Comic LO is not much lolicon anymore (Obviously it has some lolicon in it like Comic Megastore etc), Comic RIN is allmost pure lolicon. And yes its legal in my country (Netherlands). You have to know that most anime/manga works have somekind of lolicon charater in it (even extremely popular stuff like K-On, where Azuna is portraited as loli, and even involved in faservice in second season opening), therefore saying there is one lolicon story in it, dosent make it lolicon magazine.
Most of these fact has to do with the reality, not some random article in newspaper who isnt involved. (not saying i am involved too much). Sadly there isnt much real reasearch about these subjects. Thou some japanese researchers try to claim that lolicon and child abuse have negative correlation, like recently in USA there was research claiming porn and sexual abuse have negative correlation, but they are certanly not difnitive.
This can be removed if its useless try for discussion. (And yes ive read alot of the archive considering lolicon and pedofilia, to be informed since ive met people who say its ok to have sex with 12 year old real girl like in mangas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.239.71 ( talk) 10:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Is the first picture child pornography? If so, it should be taken down on ALL Wikipedia articles on which it is present. Nascargeek21 ( talk)
I've added the {{ SexEditNotice}} edit notice, which will display any time someone edits the article. — Farix ( t | c) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
According to japanese wiki and ANN, this terminology in Japan doen't not define a genre per se but a behaviour, a random person attract or like little girls. [3]. ANN use the terminology not to define a genre but a theme, to specity better the sub-content, for example kojikan [4]. We should consider what the word mean in the motherland country not the improper use as internet meme in the west. For this reason i change the improper "genre characteristic" topic to "origin and charactersistics". If you have more source made in japanese (or japanese translated into english)that increase the meaning of the word please post here. With the same principle Hentai and Ecchi aren't genre but a behaviour, meaning pervert the first and sex,erotic the latter. Reikasama ( talk) 08:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I tagged this after some discussion at Talk:Kodomo no Jikan and reviewing the sources. It appears the Japanese page does not list it as a genre and with mostly English sources on a subject that seems to heavily involve Japan, the lack of Japanese sources does appear to be biased as a western critique, although purely unintential. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to point out a few already on the article. — Farix ( t | c) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Solely in response to a request at ANI, I am adding a few reliable sources in English that describe Lolicon as a genre.
A few examples
|
---|
|
Personally, I do not care what Lolicon means. But it's worth reinforcing, as noted above, that languages are living things; words change meaning as people use them. This is why good dictionaries not only record what a word means, but also the date range when it is believed to have gained that meaning. (Even within language families, words change meaning; see the evolution of the word koto, for instance]].)
Again, I don't care what Lolicon means personally. I am placing this here solely to demonstrate that the absence of sources provided at ANI is not indicative of absence of sources. (For all I know they're all in the article anyway; I've never even read it.) They are plentiful and require only a few minutes to locate. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
These are just personal opinion without any source, like the blog posted by Farix, what i was talking about is a source in japanese that stated clearly thats [lolicon] is a genre in Japan but everyone fail to provide me this info, continuing link western native sources and opinions where the word is invented as category for practical use. For some people is more easy calling a manga with lolis as main heroine lolicon but this don't mean is the correct meaning of the word. Link me an original source translated from japanese that stated that in Japan, because the word is japanese and belong to this language, is a genre. In the japanese wiki page references point out that is a behaviour in real life or fictions not a genre. Example: "Where you are looking Daichi? - You damn lolicon!", hope you catch the joke here. If you want use the same meaning here you should use a synonym like [loli manga] or [loli anime] about anime and manga that rapresent the correct translation of the word. Tagging a show [lolicon] mean you call this show loli complex, make zero sense. Is because i think that changing the "genre" to "foreign classification" is more ppropriate don't think? Or specify that the genre meaning is used ONLY in the west. Because is what we talking about here, a improper use of the terminology outside japan. Reikasama ( talk) 08:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
After a lengthy discussion with Reikasama on his talkpage, I think what he is saying is that the concept represented by ロリコン, and the concept represented by the letters l-o-l-i-c-o-n are different. Lolicon is a genre of output of the film and comic industry, but ロリコン isn't used that way - they would actually badge the comix with some different Japanese word. From a discussion with Qxyrian (also on Reikasama's page) it appears actually possible that this could happen, but I don't know if its true in this case.
So (I think) he is saying that some of the article is actually about the western term even though it appears to be about the Japanese term. I don't speak Japanese (other than to order noodles) and I know practically nothing of anime and manga of any kind. Could those more knowledgeable discuss this, particularly any Japanese speakers. If he's right, it may mean that when something is read in translation, it uses the word lolicon, where the underlying text didn't use ロリコン. Or something like that.
Reikasama might perhaps confirm if I've understood him - without using the term 'true', because both meanings are 'true' (ie verifiable). The only concern is whether or not there is a difference in usage which is not being picked up. If it isn't happening, then it may be down to a language difficulty on Reikasama's part, but if it is, it may be that English speaking editors have the language difficulty. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I waited a few days to weeks for someone to point out the story, but Japan's LDP is trying to get Lolicon banned again, so I submitted it. I hope I didn't make any mistakes. -- Akemi Loli Mokoto ( talk) 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The section has never been completed. Gravitoweak ( talk) 00:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking that this is not a good division. A definition and characteristics are one in the same. This just makes it more confusing. The current division just makes it unclear what's what. What makes the difference between a "definition" and a "genre".
Also, I'm not sure if we should be mentioning works with relatively little sourcing here or on their page unless its clear there's overwhelming evidence they are lolicon artists by either self admission or more than 1 person's take for BLP concern. It very well could be a contentious label if they don't consider themselves to be and would be removed. I am talking mostly about Weekly Dearest My Brother which doesn't seem to claim from the text that it is labeled as actual lolicon and she is non-notable person. The others may be MPOV BLP issues since its only 1 source claiming all of those are such.
IMO the sections should be merged and divided into "defition and genre" with a subsections for "In Japan" and "Outside Japan". The info should be resorted (as it seems somewhat redundant) and the specific series references in the second section should be removed...atleast the one not by Darling.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no citation for this: "In the 1980s, lolicon manga became widely available in a number of anthology pornographic manga magazines. In 1989, a serial killer was found to be a devoted lolicon fan, creating a moral panic and calls for regulation of manga." What serial killer? Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.156.14 ( talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Why does this article have a picture? This seems totally inappropriate and unnecessary. Tiggum ( talk) 03:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel everything, including the picture, is trying to make "lolicon" synonymous with "pedophile". I completely disagree with this. Many materials involving lolicons portray them as people who want to keep loli characters pure and protect them, rather than sexually assault them. A pedophile is the exact opposite of what a lolicon is. A lolicon finds a loli cute and seeks to preserve them in that state for as long as they can, where a pedophile finds them sexually attractive and seeks to violate, corrupt, and sexually assault them. It may be true that a lolicon finds a loli attractive, but not always in a sexual sense, more of a fatherly love. This does not mean there are no cases where a lolicon would be sexually attracted to a loli, but a lolicon would never assault a loli, that goes against what it means to be a lolicon. I would also like to point out that the majority of loli characters are MUCH older than 14 years old. ---Ruckkus 10/23/2013 207.254.244.56 ( talk) 20:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I properly signed your username (as the IP) for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)SqueakBox, with regard to this edit, I'm not sure that all manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography. And, after all, there is the pornography debate in this article. And with regard to this image request you made, see the section immediately above this one about whether or not that image is pornographic. I'll alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hentai to these matters so that they might comment on them. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
How is this relevant to lolicon, if it's about shoujo manga? "In shōjo manga, characters of stories may enter into relationships with others due to circumstance or mutual attraction. The relationship may even blossom into romance. In 2006, an editor-in-chief of a major shōjo magazine said "Love affair is a big theme in today's shojo manga. It's impossible to completely take out descriptions of sexual activity—that's just the result of love and affection"." -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I like the idea behind the new history section of discussing the topic decade by decade. There is a lot of material on lolicon anime from the 1980s and 1990s in
They discuss, for example, many of the Cream Lemon anime from the 1980s, and in some detail, as well as later imitators. This section might be the place to describe briefly the content and approach of some of these anime. Timothy Perper ( talk) 14:56, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure we do, but maybe it's useful. This would go somewhere early. The idea is that if the girls portrayed in lolicon are acquiescent, willing, or eager, they are called "nymphets" in English, a term first used in this sense by Nabokov in "Lolita." The reference is impeccable, nothing less than the Oxford English Dictionary, but maybe we don't need this. What do people think? Timothy Perper ( talk) 22:05, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
What are we supposed to do with manga and anime that deals with romantic attraction between young girls (prepubescent up to ca. 14-15) who are shown involved romantically but sexually INEXPLICITLY with older men? These are not rorikon hentai but seem to fall within the limits of this article. Examples include Rizelmine, Cardcaptor Sakura, Marionette Generation, Magic Knight Rayearth, Dream Saga (by Megumi Tachikawa) and, probably most notoriously, Gunslinger Girl. There are others as well. I have reviews or commentaries about all of them that point -- usually with considerable distaste -- to the romances between these girls and older men.
(a) We can ignore them, but that means, IMO, redefining the intentions and scope of the article. Specifically, if we eliminate the non-sexual manga and anime then we have de facto defined "lolicon" as rorikon hentai. And then, logically, we should change the title of the article.
(b) We can -- and I think should -- include them. All of these, it seems to me, come from the 1990s and later. So we have a historical process, where the earlier Cream Lemon style of lolicon -- hot little nymphets running around half-naked trying to seduce men or monsters or demons or whatever -- gave way to some immensely popular shōjo titles that deal with girls who are not 18+ years old.
The basis in law is the very complicated situation involving the legal age of consent in Japan (see http://www.ageofconsent.com/japan.htm), which varies by prefecture but has hovered around 14 for simple garden-variety unforced sexual intercourse that excludes prostitution. My sense is that many manga and anime titles tacitly accept the traditional Japanese view that a girl reaches age of consent post-puberally, meaning 14+ years old or thereabouts.
Well, OK -- and that leaves us with a problem. The issue is that this article defines hebephilia and ephebophilia in Western European terms, meaning it refers to girls below the age 18 or so. Now, all societies define and control sex between adults and minors, but the age of legal and social cutoff varies considerably.
I usually opt for the simplest solutions I can visualize. That means that we can add some of these titles under the appropriate historical decade, pointing out that the sorts of romance portrayed have been acceptable in Japan and in manga and anime. We can find synonyms for "acceptable" if you don't like the word.
But it seems to me that as the article is presently structured, titled, and defined, we MUST include some of these titles. I hope that's clear. I do not want to argue if some manga "really" is lolicon or not. We need instead to reach some decisions about what to include and exclude, and why. Let me also add that a number of unresolved issues about references flutter around this problem, for example, Michael Darling's assertion that Alien Nine is lolicon.
Timothy Perper ( talk) 15:21, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, yes, yes! Very clearly labeled!!!! Um, sorry, I'm being overenthusiastic or something. But you're making the point I wanted to make. The original stories are only dubiously rorikon hentai, but they elicited strong negative reactions about the issue; the ANN piece is only one example. In the meantime, other fans and marketers promptly started manufacturing and selling "loliconized" images of Henrietta, and others as well (I'm looking for references now). In brief, the whole mess is strongly connected to the themes of this article. It moves us into complex areas, but no one said this was going to be simple. Somehow we have to explain that "lolicon" leads to controversy and to non-sexual portrayals of girls in the original manga and anime, and from there to what I'm calling (for lack of a better term) "loliconized" models and images. All of that needs reliable sourcing, obviously, but we're getting there. Timothy Perper ( talk) 17:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
There's a flag on the Wikimedia Images section suggesting that this material should be merged into Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors#United States. I think that the "Legal status" entry should discuss this issue, but I also feel that we must not remove the section from this article. The very brief material included here is fine, since it refers the reader to the main article on the issue -- and that's good. But we can't erase the subject from this article, since Sanger was attacking precisely the topics covered in the article. So we need to mention it, direct the reader elsewhere, and leave it at that. Opinions? Timothy Perper ( talk) 22:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I feel it would be a good idea to add first-released years to Castle of Cagliostro and Minky Momo for historical context, as follows: "Early lolicon idols were Clarisse from Lupin III: Castle of Cagliostro (1979) and the shōjo heroine Minky Momo (1982), as female characters in shonen series at that point were largely mothers or older-sister characters." It is my belief that WP:CALC supports this as not being original research, as long as other editors agree that this is appropriate to add. Thoughts? -- Malkinann ( talk) 20:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Currently, the history section describes that Miyazaki was a lolicon fan and that he did this awful thing to kids and he was executed... but leaves out the impact of his crimes on the lolicon segment of the anime and manga industry and fandom. Why is this so? -- Malkinann ( talk) 20:44, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
[1] - Can this be verified by a more reliable source? If so, I'm not sure where to put it, but its still relevant.
陣
内
Jinnai
21:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
We have to cite them too, from The Register, which doubtlessly is a reliable source. There may be additional reliable sources for the Wikimedia side of the argument. Timothy Perper ( talk) 00:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Can I get someone here to write a good lede? I think most of the info is added to the article at this point. There are more sources out there, I think CNET is one, but not sure if its anything new. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I checked Patrick Galbraith's The Otaku Encyclopedia entry for Lolicon (pp. 128-129) and found a number of sentences that are nearly verbatim quoted in this article. There are too many to quote, so here's only one: "The term 'Lolita complex' may have been first introduced to Japan when Russell Trainer's book The Lolita Complex (1966) was translated" (italics original; page 128). Compare to the History Origin subsection. There are some minor changes in wording, but the sentence in the article is clearly based on Galbraith's wording. Galbraith gives no source for his assertion, and it seems only to be a guess. There are other examples. Someone else with access to Galbraith's encyclopedia should confirm what I'm saying. Timothy Perper ( talk) 12:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
This source talks about sex crimes and pornography in Japan in general, not about lolicon. While the topic of pornography in Japan is part of the background for this article, I wonder if we need this information repeated here - it seems to be a digression from the main topic. I have copied the paragraph into the pornography in Japan article (under the title sexual assault), and would like opinions on whether to remove the Diamond and Uchiyama information from this article. -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree; let's see what comes up as reliable sources. Timothy Perper ( talk) 01:43, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
The new Galbraith paper refers to Diamond and Uchiyama's study. -- Malkinann ( talk) 00:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Downloadable PDF at http://www.imageandnarrative.be/ It's Vol 12, No 1 (2011). By Patrick W. Galbraith, 2011 "Lolicon: The Reality of ‘Virtual Child Pornography’ in Japan." Timothy Perper ( talk) 01:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
"An argument is that obscene fictional images portray children as sex objects, thereby contributing to child sexual abuse. This argument has been disputed by the claim that there is no scientific basis for that connection."
This is weaselly-worded (claim, scientific basis), based on a ten year old ruling, in America, about simulated child pornography created on computer (not drawings?). This is not the best source for talking about lolicon. -- Malkinann ( talk) 21:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I don't have time to do some serious searching for this concept, but if you google "pornography" and "escape valve" you'll get a good many serious sources. I got some 17,000 hits. It'd be a good article in its own right. Timothy Perper ( talk) 08:54, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
What is the "description" section supposed to be for? Is it for describing lolicon as in the real-life paraphilia towards young girls? -- Malkinann ( talk) 00:35, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Weekly Dearest My Brother may be relevant to this page. -- Malkinann ( talk) 22:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
None of the "sources" quoted imply, in any way, that Superflat artists are "critical" of lolicon as much as they simply explore it and let the viewer come to the own conclusions. Even if they did, this would be an inherently flawed idea, simply because the very founder Superflat has supported and defended lolicon artists in the past and a lot of the Superflat artists commonly cited as being "critical of lolicon" *have in fact drawn non-satirirical lolicon artwork themselves*.
This is a HUGE preconception among Superflat fans. The logic seems to be, "this famous artist's work parodies lolicon art... so he and his kind must be against it right? After all, Lolicon is ICKY." In the end any actual research on the subject proves that such statements have little to no logical basis. -- Iguanaray ( talk) 02:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
And what if the sources are provably wrong? An art critic seeing a piece of art and thinking "hmm... I personally think this picture is meant to convey THIS message" then writes about it is no confirmation of the actual intention behind the picture. If you actually read the articles in question, one of them simply does not mention such criticism while the other SUGGESTS that such works MIGHT have such a meaning, but also considers other interpretations. -- 109.99.32.190 ( talk) 08:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
First, my english is pretty bad.
Second, ive been watching anime and reading manga for long time and been going around in wikipedias discussion to educate myself about these subjects. Been waiting for over a year in lolicon page to have certain changes wich are obvious, but i dont have sources.
First toddlecron (toddlekron) and lolicon are not synonyms. Toddlekron is very disturbing version of lolicon, ie involving children who are 2-10 years old. Lolicon is usually considered 11+ or so (depends on drawing style).
Second, lolicon is often considered just flat chested short girl, ie age has little to do here, since you can easily draw any look you want, and then just add any age you want. Its just a drawing, fantasy. Lolicon is just short girl with flat chest, but have adultish body parts(ie you can never find 12 year old real girl who looks like 12 year old lolicon when it comes to body). But also there are artist who try to imitate actual children, wich i dont consider lolicon since they are just disturbing imitations of real child porn.
And i dont think Comic LO is not much lolicon anymore (Obviously it has some lolicon in it like Comic Megastore etc), Comic RIN is allmost pure lolicon. And yes its legal in my country (Netherlands). You have to know that most anime/manga works have somekind of lolicon charater in it (even extremely popular stuff like K-On, where Azuna is portraited as loli, and even involved in faservice in second season opening), therefore saying there is one lolicon story in it, dosent make it lolicon magazine.
Most of these fact has to do with the reality, not some random article in newspaper who isnt involved. (not saying i am involved too much). Sadly there isnt much real reasearch about these subjects. Thou some japanese researchers try to claim that lolicon and child abuse have negative correlation, like recently in USA there was research claiming porn and sexual abuse have negative correlation, but they are certanly not difnitive.
This can be removed if its useless try for discussion. (And yes ive read alot of the archive considering lolicon and pedofilia, to be informed since ive met people who say its ok to have sex with 12 year old real girl like in mangas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.208.239.71 ( talk) 10:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Is the first picture child pornography? If so, it should be taken down on ALL Wikipedia articles on which it is present. Nascargeek21 ( talk)
I've added the {{ SexEditNotice}} edit notice, which will display any time someone edits the article. — Farix ( t | c) 23:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
According to japanese wiki and ANN, this terminology in Japan doen't not define a genre per se but a behaviour, a random person attract or like little girls. [3]. ANN use the terminology not to define a genre but a theme, to specity better the sub-content, for example kojikan [4]. We should consider what the word mean in the motherland country not the improper use as internet meme in the west. For this reason i change the improper "genre characteristic" topic to "origin and charactersistics". If you have more source made in japanese (or japanese translated into english)that increase the meaning of the word please post here. With the same principle Hentai and Ecchi aren't genre but a behaviour, meaning pervert the first and sex,erotic the latter. Reikasama ( talk) 08:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
I tagged this after some discussion at Talk:Kodomo no Jikan and reviewing the sources. It appears the Japanese page does not list it as a genre and with mostly English sources on a subject that seems to heavily involve Japan, the lack of Japanese sources does appear to be biased as a western critique, although purely unintential. 陣 内 Jinnai 19:33, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to point out a few already on the article. — Farix ( t | c) 20:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Solely in response to a request at ANI, I am adding a few reliable sources in English that describe Lolicon as a genre.
A few examples
|
---|
|
Personally, I do not care what Lolicon means. But it's worth reinforcing, as noted above, that languages are living things; words change meaning as people use them. This is why good dictionaries not only record what a word means, but also the date range when it is believed to have gained that meaning. (Even within language families, words change meaning; see the evolution of the word koto, for instance]].)
Again, I don't care what Lolicon means personally. I am placing this here solely to demonstrate that the absence of sources provided at ANI is not indicative of absence of sources. (For all I know they're all in the article anyway; I've never even read it.) They are plentiful and require only a few minutes to locate. -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
These are just personal opinion without any source, like the blog posted by Farix, what i was talking about is a source in japanese that stated clearly thats [lolicon] is a genre in Japan but everyone fail to provide me this info, continuing link western native sources and opinions where the word is invented as category for practical use. For some people is more easy calling a manga with lolis as main heroine lolicon but this don't mean is the correct meaning of the word. Link me an original source translated from japanese that stated that in Japan, because the word is japanese and belong to this language, is a genre. In the japanese wiki page references point out that is a behaviour in real life or fictions not a genre. Example: "Where you are looking Daichi? - You damn lolicon!", hope you catch the joke here. If you want use the same meaning here you should use a synonym like [loli manga] or [loli anime] about anime and manga that rapresent the correct translation of the word. Tagging a show [lolicon] mean you call this show loli complex, make zero sense. Is because i think that changing the "genre" to "foreign classification" is more ppropriate don't think? Or specify that the genre meaning is used ONLY in the west. Because is what we talking about here, a improper use of the terminology outside japan. Reikasama ( talk) 08:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
After a lengthy discussion with Reikasama on his talkpage, I think what he is saying is that the concept represented by ロリコン, and the concept represented by the letters l-o-l-i-c-o-n are different. Lolicon is a genre of output of the film and comic industry, but ロリコン isn't used that way - they would actually badge the comix with some different Japanese word. From a discussion with Qxyrian (also on Reikasama's page) it appears actually possible that this could happen, but I don't know if its true in this case.
So (I think) he is saying that some of the article is actually about the western term even though it appears to be about the Japanese term. I don't speak Japanese (other than to order noodles) and I know practically nothing of anime and manga of any kind. Could those more knowledgeable discuss this, particularly any Japanese speakers. If he's right, it may mean that when something is read in translation, it uses the word lolicon, where the underlying text didn't use ロリコン. Or something like that.
Reikasama might perhaps confirm if I've understood him - without using the term 'true', because both meanings are 'true' (ie verifiable). The only concern is whether or not there is a difference in usage which is not being picked up. If it isn't happening, then it may be down to a language difficulty on Reikasama's part, but if it is, it may be that English speaking editors have the language difficulty. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 13:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I waited a few days to weeks for someone to point out the story, but Japan's LDP is trying to get Lolicon banned again, so I submitted it. I hope I didn't make any mistakes. -- Akemi Loli Mokoto ( talk) 23:16, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The section has never been completed. Gravitoweak ( talk) 00:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking that this is not a good division. A definition and characteristics are one in the same. This just makes it more confusing. The current division just makes it unclear what's what. What makes the difference between a "definition" and a "genre".
Also, I'm not sure if we should be mentioning works with relatively little sourcing here or on their page unless its clear there's overwhelming evidence they are lolicon artists by either self admission or more than 1 person's take for BLP concern. It very well could be a contentious label if they don't consider themselves to be and would be removed. I am talking mostly about Weekly Dearest My Brother which doesn't seem to claim from the text that it is labeled as actual lolicon and she is non-notable person. The others may be MPOV BLP issues since its only 1 source claiming all of those are such.
IMO the sections should be merged and divided into "defition and genre" with a subsections for "In Japan" and "Outside Japan". The info should be resorted (as it seems somewhat redundant) and the specific series references in the second section should be removed...atleast the one not by Darling.∞ 陣 内 Jinnai 03:37, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
There's no citation for this: "In the 1980s, lolicon manga became widely available in a number of anthology pornographic manga magazines. In 1989, a serial killer was found to be a devoted lolicon fan, creating a moral panic and calls for regulation of manga." What serial killer? Where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.49.156.14 ( talk) 22:13, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Why does this article have a picture? This seems totally inappropriate and unnecessary. Tiggum ( talk) 03:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I feel everything, including the picture, is trying to make "lolicon" synonymous with "pedophile". I completely disagree with this. Many materials involving lolicons portray them as people who want to keep loli characters pure and protect them, rather than sexually assault them. A pedophile is the exact opposite of what a lolicon is. A lolicon finds a loli cute and seeks to preserve them in that state for as long as they can, where a pedophile finds them sexually attractive and seeks to violate, corrupt, and sexually assault them. It may be true that a lolicon finds a loli attractive, but not always in a sexual sense, more of a fatherly love. This does not mean there are no cases where a lolicon would be sexually attracted to a loli, but a lolicon would never assault a loli, that goes against what it means to be a lolicon. I would also like to point out that the majority of loli characters are MUCH older than 14 years old. ---Ruckkus 10/23/2013 207.254.244.56 ( talk) 20:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
~~~~
. I properly signed your username (as the IP) for you above.
Flyer22 (
talk)
21:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)SqueakBox, with regard to this edit, I'm not sure that all manga and anime lolicon is cartoon pornography. And, after all, there is the pornography debate in this article. And with regard to this image request you made, see the section immediately above this one about whether or not that image is pornographic. I'll alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga and Wikipedia:WikiProject Hentai to these matters so that they might comment on them. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)