Talk:Lolicon

Why? "Lolicon"

Original word is "Lolita complex". Why not "Lolicom"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.13.36.143 (talk) 03:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because the English phrase "Lolita complex" is rendered in Japanese as "Roriita Konpurekkusu", hence "Rorikon"/"Lolicon". A few authors actually romanize this back as "Lolicom", but that's very uncommon. Bikasuishin (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Something to do with the weird way Japanese nasal consonants work, I expect. --81.158.148.64 (talk) 01:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Because you can't end a word with an "m" in Japanese. --Akronym (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

But Famikon is conventionally spelled "Famicom". I guess it's just a matter of arbitrary convention by now. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 00:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lolicon Article and Subject

I have two questions:

• 1) I see Lolicon is apart of the Pedophile section of Wikipedia! Let me ask ya this: WHY?!
• 2) Can we have the Legal Stata of lolicon from EVERY county?--LoliMedia (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

These questions are posed in an ambiguous fashion.

1. When you write "apart of", I cannot tell if you mean apart from (meaning "separate from") or a part of (meaning "included in"), and you have not linked the section to which you refer. If you are asking why this article is included in Category:Pedophilia, I would say it is because editors interested in the subject of Pedophilia consider images of sexualized children highly relevant to that topic.
2. No, though I suspect you are using WP:SARCASM, which makes the intent of your question unclear, so I am not certain this answers you in a way that is meaningful.

Please let me know if I am misunderstanding your questions. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• 1)Lolicon is Anime Kids not Real Kids! So Unless Anime Characters walk among us Pedophila and Lolicon are two VERY different things!
  • Apparently you haven't seen people dressing up as lolis. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 01:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• I was saying More countrys needed to be added to the legal update section! I am not the one who can do it! Ya are!
  • PS: when I said "apart of" I throught it was obvoius I ment Including seeing as Lolicon is "apart of" the Pedof***, I mean Pedophile Project of wikipedia! --LoliMedia (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Then you should use "a part" instead of "apart" as the difference in meaning is significant. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is lolicon anyway?

The lead defined "lolicon" as an attraction to girls below the age of consent. Someone changed it to "pre-pubescent girls" and was reverted. I think both definitions are actually in error, and neither are supported by the link to the Sanseido online dictionary (the definition of lolita complex reads 男が性愛の対象として少女に偏執すること, that is "the fact for a man to obsess over young girls as sexual objects").

The age of consent definition is really, really wrong. Age of consent is a legal construct, whereas lolicon is an informal term used in a variety of contexts that have nothing to do with law. A middle-aged guy doting on 15-year olds is likely to be called a lolicon, even though the age of consent is 13 in a good part of Japan. This shows why "pre-pubescent" is also a mischaracterization, by the way. Actually, in his book Enkō shōjo to lolicon otoko, Maruta Kōji argues that "lolicon" should refer to ephebophilia (Lolita is not prepubescent after all), although he recognizes that it is frequently used when talking about pedophiles, and sometimes even child rapists—like "otaku", the term was made popular as journalists used it incorrectly during the Tokyo-Saitama child abduction and murder case.

Be it as it may, though, I guess this article isn't supposed to be a fork of girl love, ephebophilia or even a gloss on the Japanese cultural idiosyncrasies with respect to the sexualization of young girls, and as already noted in several comments on this talk page, the article doesn't make it clear at all what it actually is about. I'm a bit surprised that it achieved GA, as it certainly could use major overhaul. Focusing on lolicon manga is an obvious choice, but even then, it's not really coherent to call Kodomo no jikan a lolicon manga (a sensible assertion, though somewhat debatable) and then go on to discuss the legality of lolicon manga and art all over the world (KnJ doesn't seem to be much of a legal problem in any reasonable democracy).

Reliable sources are not that easy to come up with, I admit, but there are some, especially in Japanese. I'm in the process of educating myself on the subject. Can we perhaps work on revamping this article a bit? Bikasuishin (talk) 10:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, and I agree with your edit. –Pomte 14:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is any way to accurately define the word, as it has mainly arisen as a slang term with many uses. It can mean prepubescence, legal minors, or even adults with neotenic characteristics. Since it deals with fictional characters, many have attributes that skirt our common classifications, like people centuries old who do not age, or people with young minds who age rapidly with transformation sequences back and forth. Tyciol (talk) 11:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tyciol, the term lolicon seems to vague to define exactly, so i say let it be. Reformeduchiha (talk) 01:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem is not so much with deciding whether ero doujins of Ayanami Rei qualify as lolicon, but to bring a sense of direction to this article, which is in a pretty bad state at the moment. If what we want to talk about is lolicon as an artistic genre, or perhaps as a major meme in otaku culture, then we should say so, and try not to mix this up with the etymological and colloquial Japanese usage of "lolicon" as a euphemism for "pedophile". There are things that certainly should be mentioned:

• the lolicon boom of the early 80s (Azuma was a major player but he was not alone)
• the part lolicon played in the doujin culture of the 80s (Kinsella's interpretation sounds heavily biased; the notion that the female-oriented BL doujinshi ever appealed to both sexes is particularly ludicrous)
• the relationship between lolicon and moe
• major journals/magazines (especially Comic LO, which may also be mentioned for its tongue-in-cheek "militant" spin)
• authors who do not belong to the Superflat movement (Ayato Sasakura, for example, is a lot more representative of what is usually thought of as lolicon than Chiho Aoshima)

It is fine to report on the social stigma associated with lolicon and the general "controversy" regarding the subject, while not losing sight of WP:WEIGHT. On the other hand, I'd say the whole "legality in each and every country in the world" thing simply doesn't belong here, and should be summed up in a couple of sentences and moved to a page of its own. It makes the current article look very much like a coatrack. Bikasuishin (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Pedobear does not approve

He's not mentioned in the article. Where's pedobear? I ask because it's always good to know where he is at all times... -G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Who is he? Why should he be mentioned in the article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pedobear documents the demise of the article on him here. Please sign your posts, use Edit Summaries, and create an account. Thanks!   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 01:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

A silly 4chan meme has no business being on this article. --Farix (Talk) 12:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe not, but if the meme grows, maybe some day he will demand his own article. I will not be the one to create it though. Tyciol (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Canadian data

A couple of things are confusing. I read the R v Sharpe article, and from what I can discern it says his convictions were based on his life pornography and that his written fiction (I don't think there were illustrations, not sure) was acquitted. So which is correct? Were the laws changed in response to this interpretation that the former laws did not interpret?

Another case would be the Edmonton man. Is there any data on this guy's identity, or is it hidden to protect him or something? The American case is confusing, are we able to punish foreign tourists in our own jails? I have never been familiar on the policy on this, like sometimes, like with legal differences between nations, you have the diplomats sort out how it is treated. It's not difficult for something like murder, which both countries condemn, but with something like prohibited 'goods' (media) you really have to wonder why the US isn't founding an outcry, since lolicon is currently legal there since Bush's PROTECT act obviously isn't panning out due to being unconstituttional. Canada does not have a constitution allowing free speech that would protect against these violations of freedom though, as seen with other prohibitive methods of expression, like 'hate speech'.

Currently, US organizations are petitioning Japan to change their policies in regards to how child pornography laws are treated. What is confusing about that is while they are petitioning Japan to have more conservative laws, Canada which has more conservative laws than the US, is not pressuring the US to adapt to its laws, nor is the US pressuring Canada to allow free speech. It seems that pressuring other nations is only happening under the context of information suppresion, and not for promoting information freedoms, despite how these are pertinent issues in oppressed nations. Tyciol (talk) 04:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Another issue is this one quote in regards to the law's use:

"The current law has primarily been used to compound charges for pornography featuring real children, rather than to prosecute cases involving only lolicon."

I am not certain that this is accurate at all. What is this based on? If nothing, I think it needs to be removed. So far as we know, the law has only been applied in 2 cases. One of which it was used to compound real child pornography charges for a past offender, and one where it wasn't, to punish an American who as importing them. I am not sure the nature of 'import' if that means he had it printed, or if he was bringing disks or downloading them or something. But basically that is 50/50. If it has been applied more than twice, there is no data on this to say things like what it is primarily being used for, unless the police have commented on this. I request further evidence of charges be supplied, otherwise it must be removed, half of the time is not 'primarily' basically. Tyciol (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Sharpe was acquitted on the charges related to his fictional works, but not only because they were fictional. That was the point of the Supreme Court ruling - it carved out a narrow exception for works that were BOTH fictional and unpublished (among other requirements). The Supreme Court made clear that in more general cases works would remain illegal despite being fictional. That stuff is all in the reference already in the article. The Supreme Court decision is now part of the law; it's case law rather than statute law, but that's how the system works. You could say "the laws were changed", but the Criminal Code itself didn't.

The man prosecuted in Edmonton was named Gordon Chin. Details of his case were reported in the Edmonton newspapers in October 2005; you can still find some of them by Google-searching his name plus "lolicon".

Almost all countries, including Canada and the USA, will indeed enforce their local laws against foreign tourists. That's standard practice and I'm surprised anyone would be surprised by it. Break Canadian law in Canada and you can expect to be sentenced to Canadian jail. It's also not within the realm of possibility that the current US administration could protest against the Canadian child pornography law. What Republican (nor Democrat for that matter) would ever stand up and say something that could even remotely be interpreted as in favour of child pornography? US politicians do not do that.

Canada does have a Constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression. It's in Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The statement "Canada does not have a constitution allowing free speech that would protect against these violations of freedom though, as seen with other prohibitive methods of expression, like 'hate speech'." is both false and offensive. The Canadian child porn law probably is against the Canadian constitution, but US citizens would do well to pay more attention to their own government's unconstitutional actions and less to making uninformed statements about other countries.

As for the "primarily used to compound charges" statement, I think it's clear that that's talking about more than the three (not two) cases mentioned by name in the article, and that those three cases are *examples*, not *the complete list*. There have been many more cases under Section 163.1 than those. Making a complete list and surveying how many were pure-fiction versus fiction-plus-real, would definitely qualify as original research. However, the statement was certainly confusing (I think because of other edits since the time it was first written) and has now been removed, so it shouldn't be a problem anymore. 216.59.230.119 (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Just checked Tyciol's user page and realised he's actually in Canada too. Sorry about my mistake in assuming he was writing from a US point of view, but that does make his confusion over what the Canadian constitution actually says, all the more disappointing. 216.59.230.119 (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lolicon as a form of pedophilia

Isn't lolicon the same thing as child pornography? Even if the kids are anime, it still seems if the said kid is under the Age of Consent, it should be classified as child pornography... --Reformeduchiha (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

No kids are involved, and a drawing cant be under the age of consent. a drawing cant consent at all by the way, seeing as its a drawing. A drawing made by a adult for the consumption of other adults cant be wrong in my opinion, what ever said drawing contains.--SelfQ (talk) 00:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

It is probably pornography (art appreciation notwithstanding, definition of pornography pending) and definitely involves images of children, but "child pornography" is a term used for a serious crime involving the real-world sexual exploitation of children. Art about sexualized children is a grey area morally; many people find it highly obscene, but because it lacks the element of exploiting a child, this becomes something that many people will defend as a free speech issue. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I still think it should be classified as child pornography and be illegal wherever child pornography is outlawed. A cartoon depiction is basically the same thing as a computer generated life-like photograph of a kid, and wouldn't that be considered bad in anyone else's opinion? --Reformeduchiha (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

"A cartoon depiction is basically the same thing as a computer generated life-like photograph"

No, no its not. if you have ever been unlucky enough to see anime you would know there is a difference. Lolicon is not computer generated nor is life-like. I am willing to bet 95/99% of lolicon follows the Moe art style. --SelfQ (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not an editor should be considered 'lucky' to have not seen anime is not relevant to this article, that seemed an unnecessary injection of personal disapproval towards an art medium millions appreciate. Tyciol (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This whole discussion is based on personal disapproval, Reformeduchiha disapproves of lolicon on a understandable moral basis. Then I dont so much disapprove as much as just a lack of the so called "care factor" on anime, wich was used as a example, I could have just used any other culturally grounded excuse to justify porn as freedom of speech. Also, wether you like it or not, your own opionion of "well millions appreciate, therefor you sould not inject your own opionion" is just as unrelevant to this article.--SelfQ (talk) 13:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether lolicon media is child pornography or not is clearly in they eye of the beholder. Many people don't see a difference between the two. Some, however, will state that there is. The laws of several countries don't agree on the subject either. But as an example of this ambiguity, one would be hard pressed to call Kodomo no Jikan pornographic even though it is highly suggestive, yet it is still considered a lolicon work. The Hayate the Combat Butler manga has many images of Nagi, the thirteen-year old protagonist of the series, in very suggestive outfits and poses which can also be classified as lolicon as well. But either way, Wikipedia can't take a position that lolicon is child pornography as that would violate WP:NPOV. --Farix (Talk) 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My guess is that Reformeduchiha was not referring to the broad category of 'lolicon media' including nonsexual flirtacious things like Kodomo no Jikan, but rather, other works which explicitly involve sexual intercourse and sexual acts, that would be judged as pornography were they performed with real humans. Tyciol (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Whether it's "bad" in any of our opinions, and how it "should be" dealt with legally is not relevant to improving this article. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views. / edg ☺ ☭ 16:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't really go in to it, but at least in the US the difference is the 1st Amendment. During the 80s the US Supreme Court essentially excluded child pornography from 1st Amendment protection due to the harm to a real child that occurs during its creation (And the supposed reoccuring harm to the original child experianced each time it was viewed). Becuase loli images involved no real child, the rationale that excluded real child porn from protection does not extend to it. The article has information on the legislative attempts to get around the protection that are ongoing in the US. 71.164.88.131 (talk) 21:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Things which are the same are indistinguishable. This is distinguishable, therefore it is not the same. Child pornography is also not defined by the age of consent, it is defined by the age of majority. For example, in Canada, the age of consent is 16 (now) but child pornography is anything under 18, so 16 and 17 are child pornography despite being of proper age of consent. Tyciol (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The "age of majority" in Canada, for buying alcohol and tobacco, voting, and a few other things, is 19 in most provinces, 18 in a couple. Child pornography, on the other hand, is defined by a flat age of 18, Federally rather than Provincially. So it's not really accurate to describe child porn as "defined by the age of majority." It's a separate line of its own not connected to anything else. 216.59.230.119 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Illegalization in the UK?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7422595.stm - .:. Jigsy .:. (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ditto here. Soapboxing by politicans or is the law written in a way that actually bans lolicon? KiTA (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Radio1 was saying that they are banning pics that have been turned into cartoons, so real CP cartoonized, this isnt exactly lolicon --Ricky326123 (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)