This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lolicon article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 28 days

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image.

	Lolicon has been listed as one of the Art and architecture good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 14, 2006 Articles for deletion Speedily kept December 13, 2007 Good article nominee Listed July 3, 2010 Articles for deletion Speedily kept February 15, 2011 Good article reassessment Delisted March 12, 2011 Good article reassessment Not listed October 13, 2021 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Anime and manga: Hentai High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Hentai work group. Pornography Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Pedophilia Article Watch ( defunct) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Pedophilia Article WatchWikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchTemplate:WikiProject Pedophilia Article WatchPedophilia Article Watch articles Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 28 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

As the headline says, I want to provide an overview specifically about the genre itself, citing various entertainment media as sources such as Manga and visual novels. the things I want to include are more about the fundamentals and motives behind lolicon stories as well as some unique tropes and themes to the genre such as erotisised nostalgia or stranger danger among other things. Maybe even include a brief mini section overview of unique character archetypes such as the lolibaba (aka the old/1000yo loli).

Perhaps in doing so, the article could be re-elected to join the arts and literature section.

here's what I (attempted) attempted to edit in (in bold, before being update locked from posting)

According to Kaoru Nagayama, manga readers define lolicon works as those "with a heroine younger than a middleschool student", a definition which can vary from characters under age 18 for "society at large", to characters "younger than gradeschool-aged" for "fanatics", and to "kindergarteners" for "more pedophiliac readers". Elisabeth Klar observes that girl characters in lolicon can show an "contradictory performance of age" in which their body, behavior, and role in a story conflict; an example is the Lolibaba ("little girl, old woman") archetype, a character who, despite having the un-aging youthful body of a little girl regardless of how old she actually is, speaks or acts with the mannerisms of either an aged woman, with a sense of childishness or both. Curvy hips and other secondary sex characteristics similarly appear as features in some of the genre's characters. Plot devices often explain the young appearance of characters who are non-human or actually much older.

But alas, it keeps getting reverted.

I know this to be true because it's all over Japanese fiction, and is regularly brought up in ero-manga and anime. There's even dedicated anthology magazines like Towako [永遠娘] which exclusively feature short H-stories with girls who fit the trope and the personalities of the girls (from what gets fan-translated) vary quite a lot within the range I mentioned in bold. (See series being sold below) https://www.dlsite.com/books/fsr/=/keyword_work_name/%22%E6%B0%B8%E9%81%A0%E5%A8%98%22+TITLE00002658/order/title_d/from/work.titles

I even included the following link as citation, which is the closest I can find with the definition in mind due to how much google censors lolicon sources.

https://honeysanime.com/what-is-loli-baba-definition-meaning/

Surely I'm not far from the tree, am I?

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) reply

Look up the meaning of portmanteau. It means two words are put together to make ONE word. Lolicon is does not combine Lolita and complex into lolicon. A portmanteau of that would be lolicoM. Please cite a reliable source that lolicon is a portmanteau of Lolita and complex. Nor is Lolita complex (TWO words) a portmanteau of Lolita and complex. Sundayclose ( talk) 20:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

I went ahead and made an edit about this. I concur with Sundayclose that this doesn't look like a portmanteau, it's more like an abbreviation. This is also what the JP Wikipedia says about the term. NicoSkater97 ( let's talk!) 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Its both by definition and you're splitting hairs disingenuously. Lolita is short for lolita complex. I have no idea why you think your claim is an argument. So Loli being a portmanteau for Lolita Complex is factually accurate. OneManCast ( talk) 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Reliable sources:

1: 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.

2: particularly surrounding lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of ‘Lolita complex’)

Re: the "n/m" thing: this is because Japanese doesn't have an "m" phoneme in their language. "Complex" was adapted into Japanese as "konpurekkusu," but when the shortened term was brought back into English, the version with the "n" stuck.

It may actually be an "abbreviation," (though again, there are sources calling it a portmanteau), but it is absolutely derived from "Lolita complex." Sandtalon ( talk) 21:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC) reply

@ Sandtalon Thank you. @ Sundayclose The Romanization of ん can be either n or m based on the following phoneme (see Japanese_phonology#Moraic_nasal). Lolicon (ロリコン) is a clipped compound.

Other RS:

• 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]

EvergreenFir (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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.

• District court Judge James E. Gritzner had ruled in United States v. Handley that two parts of the PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was unconstitutional.
• Since 2002, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition established that two overbroad provisions of the CPPA of 1996 was struck down by the US Supreme Court because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech."
• The Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production.

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 old discussion but yes it is legal in the US. You already showed some of the main facts but also if it wasn't every 18+ Japanese manga/anime site hosting it would have been blocked already and US based companies like Fakku that sell it and pretend not to have it by not labeling it for what it is would have been raided long ago. Only issue is, because of cultural differences between Japan and America and something called the Miller Test it is a material that one could easily see as getting classified as legally obscene in court if there were some case with a public outrage big enough so that's where the fear and legal misunderstandings come from. In the real world only like 1 or 2 normal people with no criminal record have been reported to have gotten in trouble exclusively for lolicon in the decades it has been around. It is not a coincidence though that US companies like Fakku are based in Portland, Oregon, because the state is the only one in the US to have made unconstitutional the notion of obscenity itself through State v. Henry (although that still doesn't protect them from the federal gov, just the local one). If you don't go around flaunting your most obscene ロリ manga in front of the police in a red US state or importing to your (again) red state from Japan kilograms of the most obscene loli manga you can find around your likelihood of this being an issue for you is basically zero. That's how things have been until now. Edonie ( talk) 09:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@GigaMigaDigaChad

1-Just because James ruled in his case doesn't mean that his ruling applies to all cases, in fact, no later case cites James to prove a not guilty verdict (and there has also not been a public case of this sort that has had a not guilty verdict, ever).

As much as I appreciate the CPPA's original attempt, it indeed was unconstitutional, the PROTECT act is an effective revision to allow for the law to exist without being unconstitutional, hence the Miller Test's inclusion.

The parts Gritzner argued were unconstitutional were just differently phrased versions of the Miller Test, so while he may not have found them constitutional, it doesn't mean all other judges have to abide by his one ruling.

2-FSC V. Ashcroft is effectively overwritten by PROTECT, since PROTECT abides by the constitution via the Miller Test, while still carrying out effectively the same law.

3-Again, PROTECT is worded differently from the CPPA in such a way that it is constitutional.

4-If it's so legal, then explain the six cases found here? or the 2 found here?, particularly v. Arthur? In which a website hoster was actually raided and arrested with convictions on things so relatively minor like the profile pictures of some users?

As to site blockage, I have no idea about the legal workings or how this would work, but it seems that the government can't exactly block these sites straight-forwardly.

And, I'm pretty sure there has only been 1 case with "public outrage", the rest have mostly been quiet.

Overall, I'm pretty certain Loli is still illegal, and can indeed be federally prosecuted everywhere as an individual, but with sites; it's a bit more difficult for prosecution. MagiTagi ( talk) 01:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ GigaMigaDigaChad: I have brought this to the talk-page as your edit is contested. Please discuss here first... I know its tempting to restore your edit, however given that Lolicon is a hotly debated subject we as editors have to be more careful with this particular topic. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 01:33, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, thank you for reaching out to me here, I am fairly busy right now so I will try to be quick however if I were to give my two cents on the topic, these reverts just seems pretty inconsistent, arbitrary, and biased against my edits in particular, if you look at the edit history of this article within the last few weeks, what seems to happen is whenever I change make an edit, it's automatically reverted to status-quo under the justification that "one can't change something hotly contested without forming a new consensus first", yet when the reverse happens and I want to revert to status-quo when someone makes a recent edit that's pretty controversial until a new consensus is formed first, said rule is convinently ignored and the new edit is kept regardless even if such is far from consensus. It seems to me that despite claims of some users here that the article is pretty biased towards the defense of lolicon against neutral perspectives, I actually see the reverse to some extent with wording being removed or kept based largely if it aligns with certain users who are explicitly staunchly opposed to it. GigaMigaDigaChad ( talk) 03:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The only justification you gave for your revert was the edit summary "I think it is fair to say that "It's status quo until you form a new consensus" also applies here". You still haven't explained why you contest that specific edit. That makes this indistinguishable from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point.

If you want to discuss the edit itself, here's the place to do so. Grayfell ( talk) 03:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hi, I think some portions of the article should be looked over to ensure that opinions are afforded their due weight. The disparity in information is especially noticeable in the "Critical commentary" section, in which Kimio Itō, Kinsella, Chizuko Naitō, and Christine Yano's work is contained in a single (short) paragraph. The next paragraph is solely dedicated to an alternate interpretation of filmmaker Miyazaki's rejection of lolicon, that suggests that he actually DOES like lolicon. These paragraphs are similar in length.

Since most/all of the sources not given sufficient detail in the article seem to be the ones criticizing lolicon, the neutrality of the article is a bit questionable. This can easily be fixed by expanding on those sources and balancing the content. FlookieBee ( talk) 20:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with this, there is clearly some bias here since, specially since someone change "associated with unrealistic and stylized imagery" (which is the most accurate description) to just "associated mainly with stylized imagery" which is missing the important part of unrealistic as most anime is, there are more changes that were made that are trying to subtly paint an incorrect image, they also removed the "moral panic" that very much happened in 1990s about "harmful manga" removing it is nonsensical since TO THIS DAY there's still a moral panic over these genres and this clear biased change is evidence of it. Hopefull Innformer ( talk) 22:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I have removed the paragraph on Miyazaki, which is indeed tangential to the topic. Regarding the broader point of neutrality, I believe the current "Analysis" section is a fairly good review of the scholarship as it stands. There is an argument to be made that it leans too heavily on Galbraith and sources derived from his work, and for balance I support the addition of more analysis in the vein of the last paragraph, if it can be found. Regarding the changes I made to the lead section, as discussed by the editor above, I believe they make the lead read more neutrally: "stylized" is agreed upon by all commentators, while the aspect of "unreality" is discussed from various perspectives in the article; stating the phrase's "common meaning" outside of the subsequent/specific otaku context, as explained in the body, is important; and not using the charged term "moral panic" is an improvement. — Goszei ( talk) 03:14, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply