Talk:Lolicon/Archive 1

message: 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:
* It is legal in most juristictions
* It is a book cover, so it's more justifiable as "fair use" than a random page from inside the book.
* This cover mentions the book is lolicon.
* It very clearly illustrates the topic of the article, it's not just a generic manga image of a young girl.
* But it is not particularly offensive (compared with other possible examples). More suggestive than vulgar, I would say, although tastes differ.
* And it doesn't contain genitalia - only girl's ass; the bear's "thing" doesn't even look like a penis. :)
Paranoid 17:13, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree about the bear's "thing."  From the enlarged pic, it looks like it's essentially a strap-on dildo that the bear's wearing.  And from what I've seen, that is actually what certain dildos in ero-manga can look like (all spiky and stuff).  It also looks like it's been used, from what appears to be bodily (I assume it is) fluids on the end of it. Dracil 09:47, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd think you could find a more harmless picture. I already knew what "lolicon" means but I was surprised to see such a picture. Especially as it's on top of the page so it's the first thing that jumps into your eye. I'd consider myself fairly insensitive to such stuff. So I'm not really offended but I'm sure less tolerant people would be. Also a bare ass or not is not really the issue. The point is that it doesn't look natural. For example, if she wore a swimsuit that would not look as odd but could still qualify as "lolicon". Furthermore, what kind of picture would you put at the "rape" or "sodomy" article? Sometimes it's better to not show a picture. You could still link to gallery for example. That way people can read the description and then still decide whether they need or want to see how such content actually looks like. --82.141.48.232 19:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Noting fact two is something that does need to be addressed.  Though lolicon is commonly portrayed(sp?) as sexually explicit, it is not just that.  Most humans that are lolicons actually look at nymphlets as objects of purity/beauty (best words I could come up with; it's a little hard to explain to people whom cannot see it), and are infatuated with everything little feature about them (though it is primarly focused on looks).  It just so happens that sex is one of the driving features of desire and passion, forcing a skewed meaning.  I'm starting to wonder if anyone here has ever met someone who has a lolita complex, not some fettish for porn, but a true passion for nymphlets.  --Mies 00:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, in fact I'd like to argue that many girls are in fact toddlercons, what with their fascination with little babies.  Us guys just prefer them a little older.  :P Dracil 00:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some thoughts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The distinction between what is categorized as lolicon vs. what actually is lolicon 

message: 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)
thread_title: Link

message: Please don't remove the image, particularly w/o discussion, thanks Sam Spade  12:56, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: I think this is a non-canonial neologism. Google agrees. Rich Farmbrough 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite being an anonymous user with no influence, I agree with this as it only produces 28 results under an international Google search - the first result being this page.
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)
thread_title:  Toddlerkon 

message: 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)
replies: text: WHERE IS LISTED YOU GODAMFUK!? Sweetfreek 21:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sheesh. It's only there for a week or so, until it gets deleted or kept.--Prosfilaes 01:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: NOTE TO ALL READERS- Come to realize that this is the internet we are accessing from, and that this encyclopedia is designed to be comprehensive.  If you find the image offensive, DON'T LOOK AT THE ARTICLE!!!  The picture is relevent (to an extent...  Lolicon can also be related to the real world (namely people and cultural dress, though manga is heavily emphasised in this article), and should stay up.  Like mentioned elsewhere in this discussion board; imagine what happens when someone in Iran looks up the Vagina article...  Colorized it to make more noticable, because, apparently people don't get the picutre (no pun intended).  The coward didn't even sign his name at the end of the statement...  --Mies Rutle 17:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg]] has been listed for deletion

message: 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)
thread_title:  loli.anisearch.org link