Talk:Lolicon

This article was nominated for deletion on January 14, 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep, ZOOOOOM. 8) An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Talk Archive

• Archive 1 - regarding the image, part 1
• Archive 2 - regarding the image, part 2 (includes straw poll)
• Archive 3 - the replacement image, and over 100kb of why dildos are better than no dildos
• Archive 4 - Poll that ended April 1st
• Archive 5 - regarding the image, part 5: dramatic interpretations of WP:FU and mailing list intervention
• Archive 6 - regarding the image, part 6: IfD fails, image is deleted by fiat, a great disturbance is felt as if millions of voices cried out and were suddenly silenced.
• Archive 7 - random trolling, lots of noise about imageboard links with no resolution (even after an rfc/survey), some actual discussion about article content and structure, more questions about legality in $country

Links redux

The discussion really didn't seem to come to a conclusion and the links are multiplying like tribbles. I'm not particularly going to revert their removal. All of the links do have unobjectionable disclaimers(currently) though. Kotepho 15:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

A fairly strong argument was made for having a link to show what "real" lolicon looks like. I don't think that the same argument can be made for having three links. -Will Beback 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to change "Imageboards" to "Imageboard" so it doesn't look like it's an incomplete list. -kotra 09:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've went ahead and changed it. -kotra 09:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Oyyy

Could someone just explain why links to lolicon imageboards are not illegal in U.S. jurisdiction. I'd like a real answer as opposed to "Jimbo says so"(if he did than explain WHY) or "stop trying to censor wikipedia lolololol"

1. We're not linking directly to lolicon
2. Lolicon is not illegal in the U.S. JayW 19:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Check here to find out why it's legal in the US:

http://animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=1247 anonymous, 28 May 2006

That may be all well and good, but see Dwight Whorley, who was convicted on child porn charges under the PROTECT Act in 2005 for possessing lolicon, in spite of the affirmation in 2004 that the ban on simulated images was unconstitutional. There is, however, a complicating factor in Whorley's case that he had a prior conviction on child pornography charges (for REAL images, not lolicon). UOSSReiska 23:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. The PROTECT act criminalizes simulated child pornagraphy. It has has not been overturned by the Supreme Court. Therefore simulated child pornagrpahy is illegal. Which part of that is too complictaed?

70.21.185.237 04:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What about Ashcroft Vs. The Free Speech Coalition http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZS.html Anarchopedia 22:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion here stems from the fact that the prohibition of "computer-generated", "virtual", or "simulated" child pornography has been ruled unconstitional several times in the past. The 2002 Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition ruling Anarchopedia mentions is a good example of that, and there are others as well. Also the condition that the pornography must lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value" in order to be illegal further complicates issues.

As for the Dwight Whorley case, the lolicon images were the most publicized part of his conviction, but he also was found to be guilty (in the same trial) of receiving actual photographs of real child pornography, which he used to send explicit emails to a young girl. I suspect that if it was just the lolicon, and he hadn't been a repeat offender, he wouldn't have been convicted... but then again, who knows? I think the best we can say is that lolicon's legal situation in the US is currently disputed. -kotra 22:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

And lolicon is illegal if it depicts a real person. Anarchopedia 23:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Well I was just wondering is it legal for a certain 14 year old sitting and typing right now to watch lolicon.

-lolifreak

Depends on where you live. As a minor you probably would never get arrested for it anyway, just a scolding. Ashibaka tock 23:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Can we please try to find a better picture?

I know the image has been debated endlessly about how it should be removed, but that's not really my point. I just don't like it as an example. I don't mind having a lolicon picture in this article, but I would at least perfer it to be someone cute. The current image is just...creepy. Something more along the lines of Weekly Dearest My Brother would be better. --SeizureDog 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead and start asking around. Ashibaka tock 15:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The current one best fits the article than the one you mentioned. Skinnyweed 20:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

In both times I search for "lolicon" on Google, an image from a Weekly Dearest My Brother came up though. It is quite known (in Japan) for it's loliness.--SeizureDog 05:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a problem with the pic for another reason - based on physical development, the person looks about 18 or so, notwithstanding the childish accouterments. However, any replacement must be public domain or GDFL -- fair use applies only if the pic is used to illustrate a discussion of the particular publication from which the pic came, which probably would not appropriate for this general article -- and not obscene. Herostratus 05:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say more about 16. But in any case, she doesn't look the 10-range.

Also, why not just bring Image:Lolita.png over? The orgins of the complex ARE from the story after all, so it would be fair use, even with the free alternative as the current image doesn't have anything to do with the origins. --SeizureDog 05:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Same problem as using an doujin cover, the fairuse tag attached to that image states: "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers... to illustrate an article discussing the book in question... qualifies as fair use...". Shiroi Hane 14:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Shiroi Hane is right; in the past, book covers have been opposed for copyright reasons. An analogy that came up was that we could illustrate The Dark Side of the Moon with the cover of said album, but we wouldn't illustrate Prism (optics) with the album cover. Even if you think this legal opinion is incorrect, be aware that changing the image will almost certainly lead to arguments and problems. Mike1024 (t/c) 08:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

That is a different situation entirely. Prisms don't get their name from the album, it merely featured one. I've got a better example: Three Laws of Robotics. A featured article that includes the cover of the story that gave the orgin of the term. The same applies here, the word lolicon comes directly from the story Lolita. Without Lolita, you would have no Lolita complex (it would have a different name). --SeizureDog 08:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say I agreed, meerly that the argument has been made. My personal opinion is that Image:Lolita.png is not illustrative of this article; lolicon is a manga-styled form of artwork featuring underage girls; Image:Lolita.png is a picture of a pair of legs. I don't object to Image:Lolita.png in principle - I just don't think it's relevant to this article. Mike1024 (t/c) 23:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Mike1024, the image of the book cover doesn't add anything to the article that isn't covered by the line "a Japanese abbreviation of Lolita complex, a term derived from Nabokov's book Lolita." If the reader wishes to find out more about the book the term derived from, he would simply click the link to go to that article, where the book's cover can already be seen. --InvaderJim42 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, at this point replacing a permissions-given image with a fair use one would be contrary to Wikipedia's goals and policy. Get an artist to draw an image that meets the criteria mentioned above, if possible, but going back to fair use is probably impossible at this point (and rightfully so). -- nae'blis _(talk) 14:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest anyone wishing to seriously discuss the image go read at least a smattering of the talk archive here. On a semi-related issue, fr:lolicon has a second image, in addition to the one used here, that is GFDL licensed and might be usable as a secondary illustration of the subject material here. --tjstrf 02:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, what about this image? http://img231.imageshack.us/my.php?image=firefox12803ie.jpg it's "Lolifox", a variation of Firefox. It's cute, it's not offensive, and it's Loli. Also there is this http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/3307/innocentneko1044pi.jpg, but the quallity is not as good. Problem is that they have Nekomimies, so it might give a double message.

Sorry, but no go. Those wouldn't be permissable due to copyright status concerns. If it weren't for that, I could pull at least 5 better ones right out of my "cute" image folder, and this wouldn't even be an issue. --tjstrf 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

:S damn annoying. Can we ask the artist for permission? I'm sure at least one would agree.

Do you speak/write japanese? And actually know who the artist is? If so, then go ahead, ask. If you get permission, great! But try to find a picture a little more typical than a catgirl. --tjstrf 16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

sorry, no.. but there has got to be someone out there who can. even if there is not, surely there is at least a single image without copyrights problems.--Nefzen 21:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Links

Removed three per the guideline. If another editor would like to argue one of these is by the guideline, here's a good place to discuss it. - brenneman ^{L} 13:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, you aren't going to get anywhere just citing a style guide after all of the discussion so far. Out of the links removed this "Lolipedia" certainly seems the least objectionable at a quick glance, but it is rather small. "There are 1,737 total pages in the database. This includes "talk" pages, pages about Lolipedia, minimal "stub" pages, redirects, and others that probably don't qualify as content pages. Excluding those, there are 101 pages that are probably legitimate content pages." Most of those consist of "{{PAGENAME}} is a..." oneliners or an infobox though (at least, that was 14/15 of special:random). Kotepho 13:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye, I found the first fairly "innocous" and didn't remove it in the initial pass. However, it occured to me that it too failed to provide a compelling reason for its inclusion, as opposed to others. We're not a web directory, these don't provide "unique content" that enhances this article, and they are not shown in any way to be notable. In any other article they would vanish without fuss, like a stone dropped into a well. So I hoped, by quoting the bare guideline, to make people actually go and read it, and consider just why we so desperately argue over these few little links. - brenneman ^{L} 13:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

We need the links to lolicon sites. That much is clear. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. Skinnyweed 14:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in WP:EL that suggests that linking to an imageboard is inappropriate, and doing so provides "unique content", namely examples of the genre. However, we only need one such link. Lolipedia I could go either way on. It might someday be a good resource for someone interested in the genre, but right now it's awfully small. Powers 14:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

How about "Links to normally avoid" (3) and (12)? I wouldn't be surprised if (5) is applicable as well.Mackan 15:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

(3) doesn't apply because we're not adding the link just to promote the imageboard; we're adding it to provide examples of the genre. (12) doesn't apply because it's not just a forum, it's an imageboard, and pretty much the only place to get examples of the genre (I'd be more than happy to replace it with a link that isn't an imageboard, but we haven't found one yet). As for (5) I don't recall seeing an unreasonable amount of advertising on the Renchan imageboard. Powers 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like this talk of limiting it to 'only one site'. Why only one? Different sites have different merits. Skinnyweed 14:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

True, but one imageboard full of lolicon is about the same as another. =) Powers 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

If Lolipedia isn't useful yet, why should we link it now? JayW 16:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I could go either way. Powers 00:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Would you demand that the article "child pornography" links to pictures of child pornography? "This is not China", what does that mean, a comment reeking of cultural bias. Mackan 01:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Only if there was a way to do it without harm to the children involved (which there isn't, unfortunately). Powers 11:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, so EVERYBODY editing this article are pedophiles? How charming. Did it ever hit you that maybe a pedophile shouldn't set the order for a page on pedophilia, just as it would be unwise to have a stalinist decide the structure of an article on stalinism. This page is in dire need of external checking, because everybody active in keeping the page in the way it is are more interested in spreading their personal agenda and smutty pictures depicting under-age kids to like-minded people. When people react, strongly, you tell them to refrain from editing because they are too hot-headed about the subject, when it's YOU people who have the most POV motives ever. It's fucking hard not to be hotheaded when this whole "lolicon" thing you're promoting is illegal in most countries and no matter how many of you say watching child pornography has nothing to do with child abuse, I think you have no proof of it and you're in no position to make the claims you are making. Mackan 13:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down. Take a deep breath. I'm not clear what you're talking about. Are you accusing all of us of being pedophiles, or complaining about someone else's accusation of same? And what does my comment have to do with any of what you wrote? I apologize, but I'm not making the connection. Powers 14:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm accusing you all of being pedophiles, including you, how else would you want me to interpret your answer? I can see no reason to defend the linking to imageboards and use of images of "lolicon". I seriously don't understand what it could possibly bring to the article, except to satisfy the lusts of people who like this kind of pornography. Mackan 15:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can assure you that I have no attraction to the filth on display on those imageboards. Some of it would be tasteful if it depicted adults, or at least adolescents, but most of it is pretty wrong. I still don't see what that has to do with my answer to your question. My distaste for porn depicting kids is irrelevant to whether or not we should display examples of it on Wikipedia. Therefore, the only reason not to provide a link to real-kid porn is because doing so promotes the sexual exploitation of children. Lolicon does not, so I have no objection to providing a link to a lolicon imageboard. Powers 23:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a warning. Pay attention to it. Comment on the contributions, not the contributor. Observance of civility is policy. In any area that has proven controversial, it is also tantamount to disruption. I'd suggest that also editors remember that escalation is not the answer to incivility. brenneman ^{L} 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we need a link to a specific lolicon imageboard. Wouldn't Google/Google Image search be just fine? Heck you can find Renchan with google. Forthelulz 01:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

That same argument could be applied to almost any information. "Just google it" isn't meaningful. I use Wikipedia See Also links because they provide relative certainty that a human, somewhat knowledgeable about the matter at hand, finds the link useful. Being able to find it elsewise is insufficient justification for removing a link. --Eyrian 11:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

To be frank, "just google it" is simply another way of re-stating what the guideline requires: A unique resource. If the link does not provided a unique resource, it should be removed. - brenneman ^{L} 02:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, surely I'm misunderstanding this. I'm taking your last sentence to mean that if there's more than one available link that serves the same purpose, we can't use any of them in a Wikipedia article? Powers 12:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a fairly accurate if reductionaist statement. When there are multiple links that provide the same or similar resource, by choosing one over the other we're not only gifting them with a huge boost to their google-age, we're not being unbiased in our coverage. - brenneman ^{L} 08:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

"Same" is one thing, but "similar"? I agree we should be unbiased in our coverage, but there are certainly cases in which useful information is widely mirrored. Heck, under that policy we ought never to link to Wikipedia because Answers.com provides the same content and we don't want to show preference! Powers 15:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Copyright

A really basic problem with the Renchan link is this passage in WP:COPY: Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. This is a policy, not a guideline. Due diligence on the Rechan link reveals that, not only is the site "violating someone else's copyright", it is egregiously and blatantly violating many people's copyright, and indeed one of the main purposes of the site is copyright violation via image-swapping of copyrighted works. Furthermore, this is not a mere technicality but doubtless causes significant material damage to the copyright holders -- if no sites like Renchan existed, Lolicon producers could certainly sell many more downloads of their images than they do. And Wikipedia's Renchan link contributes materially to this -- someone above noted that an internal poll at Renchan showed that 20% of responders had found the site through this Wikipedia article.

However, the link is heavily defended, and the above is going to make as much dent in that defense as a .22 on a battleship -- I can picture editors right now with their hands over their ears going LALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU. So, whatever. Nevertheless, the link is incontrivertably in violation of Wikipedia policy. I mean, the passage from WP:COPY cited about couldn't be much plainer, could it? Herostratus 16:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Dang. Can't argue with that. Powers 03:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

You could use the same argument to remove even Animesuki article (or at least the link to its website). But will we help anime industry if we remove it? I don't know any loli manga that's licensed in USA and all anime that are shared via Animesuki are licensed by someone in Japan. I really doubt that Renchan harms overall sales of loli related products. First of all the most people are scared to death to buy loli media, even in USA and other countries where it's not illegal. They wouldn't buy it whether they can get it from Renchan or not. And if someone actually dares to buy it, he/she might post about it thus encourage others to buy it. I saw such posts in few different loli forums and image boards. Also Renchan helps the overall popularisation of loli related material and helps people to stop feeling uncomfortable about their appreciation of it. All this increases the chances that someone buys loli related titles. Additionally forums like Renchan help people to learn about the artists involved in production of loli related works, so that people who are too scared to buy actual loli manga might buy anime created by the same artists. Zorndyke 10:20, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Those arguments have been used many times in the past to justify copyright violations. To me knowledge, none of them have held up in court. As much as I personally feel it's important to have examples of lolicon available with this article, WP:EL really is quite clear. Powers 15:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well (and I hate to say this, but one fair turn deserves another) by the passage I cited it would be OK to link to a publishing house or artist that shows examples of their work. Surely some such sites must exist? And right, arguments about the effect a policy violation or copyright violation might have are not really germane, although I did mention some myself. And if I may comment on this passage... "Also Renchan helps the overall popularisation of loli related material and helps people to stop feeling uncomfortable about their appreciation of it."... Uh, first of all, it's not Wikipedia's job to help the overall popularisation of anything, and second of all, if it was, I don't think stroke pics of naked third graders would be the first subject I would pick (especially given WP:NOT EVIL), and third of all, since when are people supposed to stop feeling uncomfortable about their appreciation of it? Did I miss a memo? Doesn't discomfort show that they still retain some moral compass? This is a bad thing? Yeesh... Herostratus 02:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I did not want to discuss the ethics but merely replied to "Furthermore, this is not a mere technicality but doubtless causes significant material damage to the copyright holders -- if no sites like Renchan existed, Lolicon producers could certainly sell many more downloads of their images than they do." My point was that Renchan harms the artists not less than sites like Animesuki, in other words does not harm at all. Removing Renchan link based on WP:COPY and leaving Animesuki makes no sense.

WP:NOT EVIL is merely a proposed guideline. Also I don't see anything bad in appreciation of any art, I don't think that it makes anyone more evil. Does rape hentai promote rape? I don't think so. Loli art is not different. Can you really dispel the evil from your soul even though it's part of our world? People tried to do it forever, yet there is no less evil in our world. Accepting the evil as part of your soul but controlling it is not a bad way to deal with it, not worse than dispelling it. You can't be sure that you really eliminate it, it could be still hidden in your subconsciousness and affect you when you expect it the least. The only true evil is inflicting harm other people. There is nothing wrong with people who are proud to be loli art fans. The only thing you have to be ashamed of is if you hurt someone. There is no need for moral compass in a fantasy world as long you can distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Also I didn't say that Wikipedia has to promote loli art or Renchan, but it doesn't have to promote anime or Animesuki either. Zorndyke 05:21, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably every single site about animes(with or without illegal torrent download or alikes) infrige copyright in some way(most of them use anime characters in banners and etc). Even the anime article has a screenshot of cowboy bebop which is copyrighted and I hardly think they asked permission for using it. Under this argument, I can't see why lolipedia, renchan or not4chan shouldn't be linked.--Xymor 03:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Lolipedia

Hello! I'm sorry, but I didn't know that Lolipedia was added to the links section. I would actually feel better if it wasnt added yet, because it has not that much content yet. I was re-founded on 12th may, and so far i'm the only one adding articles (Additionally, it's a highly specialised wiki!), thats why its grwoing very slowly. The Special:Random will apparently only bring up articles that start with a roman letter. Those articles are only mostly stubs or redirects, because all the actual content articles start with or consist only of Unicode characters. I don't know if that will be fixed (so that you can get those articles by browsing a random page), but that aside. If you want a rought overview, check the allpages. ^_^; --Tsaryu 18:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Note

I removed a bunch of stuff here because all the "word usage" stuff seems pedantic and I'm not sure that it's actually true. (At least, when I read Welcome to the NHK it seems that "lolicon" is used almost exclusively referring to ero-manga, and that's what the Japan Times articles indicate as well.) If someone can find a reliable source for it, feel free to put it back. Ashibaka tock 17:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon or it's legality?

This article has more stuff on lolicon legal status on many countries and the controversy on the issue and not enough explanation on WHAT lolicon is about. I propose the creation of another page about lolicon legal status instead, link that to this article and focus on expanding lolicon itself. Feureau 18:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as expanding about lolicon, go for it if it's needed. Joey Q. McCartney 03:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Lolicon=attraction to little girls. There's really not much more to say on WHAT it is. However, I do think there needs to be more explanation about the history of lolicon and the reasons some people are attracted to it.--SeizureDog 00:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"the reasons some people are attracted to it."

Are you talking about lolikon art or real little girls? I think the cause of paederotic orientation would better fit at the pedophilia article. (We don't have a section there, yet. Interestingly, every study done on the possibility of familial transmission of paederoticism - admittedly few - has suggested genetics. Try: "Is there familial transmission of pedophilia?," [1] "Handedness in Pedophilia and Hebephilia,"[2] "Erotic Target Location Errors in Male Gender Dysphorics, Paedophiles, and Fetishists," etc. Popular crackpot theories postulating that the paedosexual likes children because s/he has suffered childhood abuse has been disproved: most paedosexuals were never the victims of any such crime. But it can't be genetics, 'cuz then it might be a sexual orientation and therefore protected under discrimination laws! We wouldn't want that..!!

And no, I don't know why I'm rambling to you.. it's late. JayW 01:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that wikipedia only deals in fact, but would it be wrong to hypothesise and offer this (disclaimed accordingly)? Some information can be given as a result of direct experience, but short of going to Japan myself and conducting surveys, I don't foresee any "proper" information arising any time soon. It might be "big" in Japan, but it's still a touchy subject. As for whether it'd be relevant here, and not under paedophilia, I think the answer is yes. Lolicon is confined to non-real material, and as such, the motivations are going to be unique. The key thing here (as I see it) is the non-reality element, meaning the consumer is playing out fantasies. --Anon. user 11:53, 30 June 2006

It's not like there are articles about lolicon being published in medical journals. We can only write what is verified, and most of that is legality. Ashibaka tock 03:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it says in the article that Lolicon (in the Japananes sense) is seriously discussed in Japan. But who can read Japanese? This article was until fairly recently tagged as part of WikiProject Japan, maybe they could provide some assistance. Herostratus 04:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

citation needed

I just put a couple "citation neededs" in there, for statements that I think are inaccurate and unsourced. They are statements that the whole article is based on. Comments welcome. Even if I'm right, I think the solution is simple. Joey Q. McCartney 04:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Simple solution? I don't think we'll find a good source since the views at loli art are strongly polarized. In fact even the source #3 is but a biased and judgmental opinion. I mean especially these "neat excuse", "moral excuse", "thorn in the side"(which obviously excludes loli art fans who also try to promote anime(what a surprise)) and the last sentence. I suggest to remove at least the last "citation needed" and "fact" (revert to the last version). Zorndyke 05:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's untrue that, in the west, "lolicon" refers to images. (Rather, I think it describes them, just like it describes anything else relating to the attraction to young girls.) But I wanted to invite people to tell me I'm wrong and to provide a reliable source. If no one does, then I'll take the next step, which would probably be to suggest that most of the article be moved to "loli-manga." Joey Q. McCartney 07:05, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be quite justified going that far. Excuse me if this is a slippery-slope argument, but to my mind that's a bit like saying that "paedophilia" should be moved to "child pronography". Lolicon does (to my understanding) refer to a "condition" or "disease" ("paraphilia" in this case?), but what you're observing is that it manifests itself (almost?) entirely through imagery. Yes, I can see there's a fine line here because the definition is something like "Sexual fascination with non-real young girls", but I don't think it's narrow enough that it should be thought of exclusively as "loli-manga". --Anon. user 08:11, 01 July 2006

"what you're observing is that it manifests itself (almost?) entirely through imagery."

• No, I'm observing that this article talks almost entirely about imagery. I think there should be a separate article about the imagery, whether titled "lolicon images" or "lol-manga" or whatever.

"it's a bit like saying "paedophilia" should be moved to "child pornography."

• My whole point is that there need to be two separate articles, one on lolicon images and one on lolicon, just like there are two separate articles on child porn and pedophilia. Joey Q. McCartney 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

This is not the common usage in the West. Outside of Japan it's mostly used to describe some kind of artwork or related to this kind of artwork (or characters that you can find in such artwork). Zorndyke 08:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone did this kind of research. What kind of source are you talking about anyway? It's a slang term that is used mostly by the fans of this genre. I can't give you a better proof than just redirecting you to the biggest loli art communities. These who are not into this genre are not interested in making a comprehensive review of how this word is mostly used. And for the fans of the genre it's just too obvious to write a review about it.

Also there aren't many people who say "loli-manga". The most popular terms (in order of popularity) are: "lolicon hentai", "loli hentai", "lolicon manga", "loli anime", "loli art", "lolicon anime", "loli anime", usually without hyphen. Just enter these terms in google and see how many hits you get to relevant sites. However the galleries, forums, sections etc. are usually named just "Loli" or "Lolicon" or "Lolikon". Zorndyke 08:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

"there aren't many people who say "loli-manga"."

• The article on loli images doesn't have to be called "loli-manga"; it can be called "lolicon images" or "lolicon manga" or something.

"the galleries, forums, sections etc. are usually named just "Loli" or "Lolicon" or "Lolikon"."

• True, but (whether they realize it or not) they are just describing the pics, not referring to them. Galleries are named "nymphets," but our article on nymphets doesn't say "'nymphets' also refers to images of young girls." Galleries are named "cheerleaders," but our article on cheerleaders doesn't say "'cheerleaders' also refers to images of cheerleaders." Joey Q. McCartney 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so the question is, what do we do about it. The best we can hope for is empirical observations that allow us to provide a description. The truth is, it's not a well studied topic, it's not a science, and there's no artistic analysis of it as a "movement" or any such thing. There's basically no sources to cite and the best we can offer is personal interpretations of experiences. I agree with Joey Q. McCartney that it's a descriptive term more than anything, at least in western usage, which is the important thing here, but as I've already stated, moving it to loli-manga would be a disservice in my eyes. --Anon. user 14:50, 01 July 2006

Thanks for all the comments. I did not suggest moving the whole article. I just think there should be two articles, not one: an article on lolicon images (which are mostly manga images of young girls) and an article on lolicon (which is a fascination with young girls). Joey Q. McCartney 21:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I may have been somewhat wrong. Therefore, I've made a change to the lead which I think more subtly fixes my concerns. Joey Q. McCartney 21:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd just add some material that could be used to fix the areas that need proper citation. This paper here isn't specific to underage rape or lolicon material, but it has data about the positive/negative effect of widely available pornography, of which we know lolicon makes a significant part. This information could then provide a firmer basis for some of the claims about whether the legality/illegality is of benefit/detriment to society. The paper in question: http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/online_artcls/pornography/prngrphy_rape_jp.html N.B. I don't know how valuable or relevant this would be to Lolicon if it were analysed and condensed into something solid (something I'd need to allocate a chunk of time to), but I'll be damned if it doesn't provide some real data on the effects of legal, widespread pornography. --Anon. user 14:18 02 July 2006

Toddlerkon?

That section sounds like it was made up on the spot. In any case, I deleted it. oTHErONE 11:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it in BBS/imageboard usage before, but I agree it's a little-used term. In context, it adds very little, although it obviously helps restrict the age range being referred to. In any case, if you're here, the meaning can be inferred, and I doubt anyone's going to miss it. --Anon. user 14:55, 01 July 2006

Childlike

Is this really what we mean? It seems that our use would be more accurately stated as "characters that resemble children" rather than "childlike". Would something involving a fully-developed woman that is childlike (i.e. innocent, naïve) be considered lolicon? Kotepho 18:51, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

In anime you express the inner qualities through visual attributes, often exaggerated. Try to draw a childlike anime character that appears to be 18+ years old and has a little or no clothes on ^_-. Your a character will be "hot", and hot =/= innocent. Yes, you can draw a shy miko, but if she appears 18+ it will not feel like genuine innocence. If she's beautiful and has barely any clothes on she will be considered "hot" in the first place.

What disturbs me the most in the proposed change is that it implies a relation to real children (loli art need not resemble real children). Very young looking [in boundaries of anime] - yes. Resembling children - no.

Anime doesn't reflect the reality, it creates a new reality, at least in the mind of anime fans.

Loli art is a way to capture the essence of purity and innocence.

Even if the character seems to do something very naughty, the body attributes in anime (differently than in RL) can still carry the message of innocence.

To sum it up: when I look at a loli character I don't feel like I'm looking at a portrayal of a child, and it doesn't really resemble a child for me either. Just concentrated purity and innocence. (The real children are neither pure nor innocent anyway.)

Just let it be, we need not change the article again... Zorndyke 14:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

What's the legal status of Lolicon in it's originating country, Japan?

Nobodymk2 19:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Japan's legal system is the most confusing thing ever. I don't think anyone really knows. Ashibaka tock 04:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Random comment and sarcasm

Well I fixed the imige problem.

How? Did you hire a PR firm?

Fictional reality? (Continued from "Childlike" above)

"creates a new reality, at least in the mind of anime fans"... heh. People are always trying to bend reality to their wish. The problem is, reality has a way of sneaking up beside you and and slapping you upside the head. Sorry Charlie, but reality is not just in your mind... Check out the article Reality-based community:

...quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush:..."That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality..."

Except they forgot to tell the Iraqis.

"Loli art is a way to capture the essence of purity and innocence"... this strikes me as, not just bullshit, but bullshit on a stick. Purity and innocence are captured by images of children, in attitudes normal to children -- running, playing, what have you. Pictures of naked children can be innnocent, lots of people take pictures of their kids in the bath or whatever. Lolicon is not any of this. Even aside from the pictures of young kids being raped or engaging in sexual intercourse etc., you have the basic half-draped bedroom-eyes fuck-me pics. Real children don't strike poses like that. Look even at the pic accompanying this article... the artist straight out said that the posicle represents a penis, the popsicle drippings sperm, the bracelets S&M gear... and so forth. You can fool yourself all want, but Wikipedia has to report the facts... Herostratus 17:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see you are remaining neutral, civil, and on-topic here. Especially the oh-so-subtle introduction of the US executive branch into this discussion, nearly as subtle as my sarcasm, in fact.

The entire pornography business is based on creating a fictional reality. Whether that's a reality in which all women are big-busted nymphomaniacs, or a reality in which the girls are sexually capable and willing by age 8. This is even more pronounced in the hentai industry. Where previously real women were replaced by actresses, now the actresses have been replaced by symbolic representations. It's a sexual hyperreality. I don't see what you're getting so riled up about here.

Also, while you tagged the dripping popsicle correctly, the bracelets are not supposed to imply bondage gear. They generally use jump-rope for bondage innuendo.--tjstrf 06:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I was uncivil. I shouldn't use terms like "bullshit"; it's inexcusable, and I apologize. I do still stand by the gist of my content, though. Except, OK on the bracelets, if you say. Herostratus 12:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that overall loli art has not as much in common with depictions of children as yuri/shoujo ai with representations of lesbian love for example.

You say that no real child would act like this. But could it be because the artist didn't intend to draw a child in the first place?

A child with some or even many treats of an adult or an adult with many treats of a child? Loli art is a mix of both.

Purity & Innocence: what would give us a less ambiguous evidence of innocence:

A. Watching a character playing with dolls?

B. Watching a confrontation of this character with nakedness and even sex?

Can you truely realize how fragile is the glass till you see how it breaks?

I did not imply that lolicon shows a "conserved", lasting state of innocence. It's like the beauty of a whole civilisation that has just one day to live left. Zorndyke 14:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Zorndyke, I think what you're describing has little to do with this article's subject, the materials themselves, but is rather more of why you personally are attracted to lolicon. And while that's nice and everything, it isn't really helpful to the editing of this article in any way I can see. Could you please explain how this is supposed to be relevant? --tjstrf 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that many other loli art fans share my view on this art and the perception of the ones who this art is created for is very important. One and the same artwork can have the different meaning depending on who views it.

Another reason why the perception of loli art fans is important for this article is that almost in every single discussion about loli art people ask "Why do people like lolicon". I think it's the most asked question and many discussions start with this question. Zorndyke 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether your views are typical or not, they would still be original research and hence useless to article-building. (On a sidenote, your usage of the term loli art, as opposed to lolicon, strikes me as needlessly euphemistic.) --tjstrf 17:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been stated before in this discussion that most likely there is no real research about the meaning of loli art for the fans outside of Japan. There are no reliable sources. If you discard the view of loli art fans like me (and I was active member of loli art communities for years) you're left with your subjective view on something that you can see merely as outsider, something you're not truely interested in.

I use "loli art" because the most fans of this art use the term "loli" and not "lolicon" and also because I want to avoid a possible misunderstanding (since some people outside of Japan do use "lolicon" as synonym for "pedophilia").

Again, perception does matter. Think of a god/deity of a civilisation that passed away long time ago. You found an image such a god/deity, what are you going to say? That it's it an image of a stange looking leo, strange looking elephant, strange looking man?

Even though we don't believe in something, when comes to art it does matter what the creator, the ones who it was created for and just these who worshipped it saw in it. --Zorndyke

If there is no verifiable research, then we can't use that as an excuse to include unverifiable research. So unless you can achieve notability enough to become a citable resource, knowing your opinion has no bearing on the article. --tjstrf 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Also take a look at this image: http://i2.tinypic.com/r94u0y.gif Is it a hat? Zorndyke 18:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that would be a snake with a big ol' lump in him. Brittany 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

To be precise, a snake that just ate an elephant. --tjstrf 21:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

lol. However, that is the proper subject matter of the image, and I think the point Zorndyke was trying to make is that perception of art can be vastly different between different viewers. The picture, in the book The Little Prince, is supposedly drawn by the author/artist as a young boy. When he shows it to adults, they think it is a hat. But as the artist, he claims it is an image of a snake that just ate an elephant.

My point is simply that whether or not we have a difference in perception (and we do) telling us your personal opinions of the artistic merit/beauty/attractiveness/carnalality of lolicon has no bearing on the article, and can't really help us. --tjstrf 01:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)