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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Sundayclose - The word lolicon is 100% a portmanteau made by combining Lolita and complex. I'm confused by your edit summary saying it's not one. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Consider, for example, that the first appearance of the words “Lolita complex” (rorīta konpurekkusu), which would be combined into the Japanese portmanteau “lolicon,” in manga was in a shōjo magazine.
particularly surrounding lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of ‘Lolita complex’)
Consider, for example, that the first appearance in manga of the words "Lolita complex," which would be combined in the Japanese portmanteau lolicon, was in the magazine Bessetsu Margaret, a monthly shôjo magazine.[1]
Much of the controversy centres around female sexuality and sexualization, particularly around lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of 'Lolita complex') or sexual attraction to prepubescent girls.[2]
I'm OK with restoring the statement about portmanteau, especially since the lead sentence also uses "lolicom" as an alternative. Thanks to all in this discussion. Sundayclose ( talk) 13:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Forgive me if my replies seem unorganized or even illegible; I rarely use Wikipedia discussion pages anyway, however, I am interested in clearing up this minor bit of discourse since it was never really cleared up. Within the last few weeks, I had gotten into a minor (and presumably good faith) edit conflict, over the legal status of lolicon within the United States, with MagiTagi, going on to cite the PROTECT Act of 2003 as to validate their claim over mine, however from the legal information I have gathered within the last few days of research on the topic, Magi's claim appears to be much more tenuous or at least inconclusive than one (including myself) initially would had thought.
From the information here, this appears to debunk Magi's original claim and if not entirely confirms such content as legal, in the very least seems to appear far more nuanced rather than being outright illegal as initially argued by Magi. GigaMigaDigaChad ( talk) 10:51, 11, April 2024 (EST)
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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 |
Sundayclose - The word lolicon is 100% a portmanteau made by combining Lolita and complex. I'm confused by your edit summary saying it's not one. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Consider, for example, that the first appearance of the words “Lolita complex” (rorīta konpurekkusu), which would be combined into the Japanese portmanteau “lolicon,” in manga was in a shōjo magazine.
particularly surrounding lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of ‘Lolita complex’)
Consider, for example, that the first appearance in manga of the words "Lolita complex," which would be combined in the Japanese portmanteau lolicon, was in the magazine Bessetsu Margaret, a monthly shôjo magazine.[1]
Much of the controversy centres around female sexuality and sexualization, particularly around lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of 'Lolita complex') or sexual attraction to prepubescent girls.[2]
I'm OK with restoring the statement about portmanteau, especially since the lead sentence also uses "lolicom" as an alternative. Thanks to all in this discussion. Sundayclose ( talk) 13:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Forgive me if my replies seem unorganized or even illegible; I rarely use Wikipedia discussion pages anyway, however, I am interested in clearing up this minor bit of discourse since it was never really cleared up. Within the last few weeks, I had gotten into a minor (and presumably good faith) edit conflict, over the legal status of lolicon within the United States, with MagiTagi, going on to cite the PROTECT Act of 2003 as to validate their claim over mine, however from the legal information I have gathered within the last few days of research on the topic, Magi's claim appears to be much more tenuous or at least inconclusive than one (including myself) initially would had thought.
From the information here, this appears to debunk Magi's original claim and if not entirely confirms such content as legal, in the very least seems to appear far more nuanced rather than being outright illegal as initially argued by Magi. GigaMigaDigaChad ( talk) 10:51, 11, April 2024 (EST)