Talk:Lolicon/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Legal status wiki

Is this article about the legal status of lolicon or about lolicon because it appears most of the article is composed of "legal status in ..."? Shouldn't all that legal stuff be off on it own page? 204.13.78.154 02:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Well if you have that much to talk about lolicon, then add it (with sources, of course). The legal stuff can stay unless the article gets too long with other information. Pomte 02:48, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is an opinion in it's own part, the PROTECT act has and is still unconstitutional and any laws banning the art forms of fictional characters created by artists in the United States is in violation of the first amendment. The only way that there can be a law on this, is if either the first amendment was revoked *not likely* or if the art was based on a Real Life, Flesh and Blood or since passed on person. This on the front then could be considered misrepresentation of a minor, child endangering, and possession of an art form misrepresenting a person. Other than that in the United States they cannot bring a law into justice, they cannot find a ligament reasoning to do so, and are not backed by the either the constitution or currents laws and restrictions of power on our governmental branches of Government. They cannot simply ban it in a state by state government also, it is just that people have not gotten the guts to fight the current unconstitutional regulations in fear of community rejection... - knux 4.225.35.95 05:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't generally apply to Lolicon then, because it is almost exclusively fictional characters that are drawn (often of non-hentai anime/manga/cartoon characters). I can only think of one instance browsing a board where I saw a 'mangified' version of those two Nazi singer twins. Even then, it was entirely discernable as a drawing, and obviously not based on any real event. 74.112.127.139 18:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is an opinion in it's own part, the PROTECT act has and is still unconstitutional and any laws banning the art forms of fictional characters created by artists in the United States is in violation of the first amendment.

There are a lot of people here talking about the law like they know what they are talking about, and most of them don't. Contrary to popular belief, obscene material (yes this includes lolikon) is NOT protected by the 1st Amendment.--Auspx 04:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a lot of people here talking about the law like they know what they are talking about, and most of them don't. Contrary to popular belief, the decision whether something is obscene or not will be made by a judge, not by a random person on the internet.

You can feel free to find it as obscene as you want, but that won't change the legal aspect of obscenity. There could be an "unless it's ruled obscene" in the paragraph, but then again: When did something fail the third part of the Miller test the last time? --Tsaryu ^@ 07:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

In December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted[25] under 18 U.S.C. 1466A(a)(1) on twenty counts for receiving "...obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted... It already happened.--Auspx 04:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I've read quite a few news reports regarding this topic, even the FBI report and the sentence by the US department of Justice, and "miller test" is nowhere to be found. If you had read those, you would know that he was not sentenced because those lolicon images were "obscene" per Miller test but because they were "child pornography", just like the law said. Also, the Miller test wasn't necessary, because the images depicted sexual conduct. The PROTECT Act only allowed the Miller Test if there was no depictions of sexual conduct. Apparently material was always "obscene" if there was sexual conduct depicted. Albeit, that has nothing to do with the Miller test. On a totally related side note: please note that the law he was sentenced under has already been ruled unconstitutional. --Tsaryu ^@ 08:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

IT IS NOT CHILD PORN

I work for, no I own an ANTI-CHILD PORN ORG., I have run in to many images, images that i never want to see again, so to say lolicon is child piorn is NEKO CRAP! Trust me when I say, it's NOT child porn.

P.S. I LOVE LOLICON!--SAIKANO!!! 18:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Isn't high school a little young to be running an anti-child porn organization? Although, your comment attests to a mental maturity beyond your years. Ashibaka (tock) 20:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ooooh, burn!!--213.46.128.161 00:15, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Haha. XD HeckXX 17:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "neko crap" made me giggle. --Tsaryu ^@ 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Do a quick search for pthc, raygold or whatever keywords they use on emule nowadays, download the link, watch it, and tell me that you still find something funny about the original comment. That was sarcastic, not incitement to illegal activities, by the way.

I used to do some freelance work tracking down sites and having them shut down, because I can "disconnect" from the emotional impact of viewing virtually anything that doesn't have gore. I quit, though.

Ever seen a site that after seizure of hardware turns out to make good on an advertised promise of about 8G of exclusive jpegs (not counting movies)? Let's be optimists and assume 100 pics per kid, and 100KiB per image, and the math turns up circa 800 kids raped-to-order.

Lolicon does not rank. Zuiram 06:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok now what did you say? can you put that in 9 grade terms? --saikano 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

i dont know what you mean because lolicon is child porn of anime world! if thay say its child por then it child porn and you really can change that! alone!--Akemi2.0 12:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon has never been stated as being child pornography of the anime world. Get your facts straight you tightwad. Loli is not child pornography, it is simply the drawing of a character in a younger view, not targeted towards children.

Remove the Image

The image is offensive for people who are trying to do research, I would like to see it removed. --saikano 17:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

No. This has been covered many, many times before. Please read through the archives, as the argument "I find it offensive" has not been found to hold water before. Succinctly put, Wikipedia is not censored, and the image is on topic and relevant. --Eyrian 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this argument has been found applicable before, although it has never (IMO) been found to "hold water". Usually with regards to whatever offends the mainstream wikipedians' idea of propriety with regards to the nude human body and its (mis-/)uses. I'd support either a ranking system (with preferences to set for it), indirection of all potentially offensive material, or consistent inclusion of any image that adds to an article regardless of what any and/or all WPedians feel about its censorability (word?). Zuiram 06:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Look, i will get consent from the owner of nemo141.free.fr to use one of his pictures and get rid of that ugly nonlolicon looking sick twisted nastyass picture! ok.--saikano 13:26, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha! Good one! That page is full of images from Loli Hentai Games that aren't even available in english. It' s just a collection of "stolen" images, so unless the owner of that page draws a picture HIMSELF, you cant use any of those images, since they are copyrighted (copyright holders are their respective studios). --Tsaryu ^@ 14:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Not the damn image controversy yet again!! go read the 9 or so archives of this talk page!!!! It's been talked, deleted, reverted, etc to death. Leave it alone already!! 204.13.78.146 20:08, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering how the image is offensive anyway, considering the lack of nudity. Could someone please explain what exactly is offensive about the existence of a girl in a swimsuit? (Her horrible fashion taste in dying her hair blue aside.) --tjstrf talk 03:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It probably doesn't look japanese enough. I personally think it's ugly, too. But at least it's somewhat representative and not a fair use image only. --Tsaryu ^@ 10:28, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

"Not Japanese enough" != "Offensive". People show up saying it's offensive quite often, presumably meaning they dislike it for moral reasons, but no one ever explains how a swimsuit-clad girl is being indecent. --tjstrf talk 10:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. But I dont understand it either, now that the displayed character isnt even partially nude or something. The only worries I had about the image was that it was clearly drawn by a baka gaijin. Heh. --Tsaryu ^@ 15:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

the image looks more like a non japanese animation artest druw that UGLY image. lolicon is JAPANESE ANIME W/ THE UNDERAGED CHARATERS IN etcchi's & hentai's. KEYWORD:Japanese, not: american, american's CANNOT mimic anime at all. Its aginst the "RULE OF ANIME" & WE CANNOT DRAW WORTH S**** NOR MAKE THE COMPLEX STORY LINES IN ANIME. so technically it is not even lolicon.--saikano 18:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. And that has nothing to do with your original complaint that the image was "offensive" anyway. We use the image because it is available to us free of copyright concerns. --tjstrf talk 19:00, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I understand. im sorry.--saikano 13:25, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..I've seen many better examples of lolicon on 4chan (not purposefully, mind you)..however, they're obviously all of ambiguous copyright status. The image on the page now just doesn't seem right (or representative of the subject at whole). -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:40, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The image is extremely suggestive. Most obviously, the little girl sucks a red popsicle, from which a splash has dripped onto her chest. The implication that the popsicle corresponds to a phallus is unmistakable. Also, her bikini pants clearly show the outline of her vulva.

This is a questionable image, but is it pornographic? Perhaps this for others to decide, but to me it is clearly an image of a sexually exploited little girl.

PAW

While Lolicon is on the PAW watchlist, it's not even mentioned in their loooong resources list nor has it been discussed on their talk page in the last 11+ months. The fact that Lolicon is on their watchlist doesn't mean it deserves a place in the header of the Lolicon article. Try to compare the relevance Anime->Lolicon, Japan->Lolicon with PAW<-(?)Lolicon. Zorndyke 04:20, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Someone placed the WP:PAW tag on this page (I think, although I can't find if right away in the history), but that person, although trying to be helpful, was not a PAW member. Anyway the tag is gone now. Herostratus 02:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Toddlercon:the downfall of lolicon

i cant stant this type of neko s**** it sick & twisted. toddlercon is real. the sister term of lolicon. if you dont belive me than look: http://danbooru.donmai.us/post/list/tags/toddlercon toddlercon. so i went to there post page and told it like it is.--Lolicon(Down With Child Porn)Saikano 17:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a "sister term", Shotacon would be a sister term, if that word actually existed. Toddlercon is a subgenre of Lolicon, since it's just a different apparent age display of its characters, but other than that, it's the same. Oh and by the way, we fans all know that it exists, but that isn't enough for an encyclopedia. Just because a bunch of image boards and fans use this term, doesn't automatically make it trustworthy. We'll have to somehow find proof for it, just like any other article needs trustworthy sources, this one does too.

On a totally unrelated side note: why do you keep on rambling here? Find sources, and everything's ok. But stick to the Wikipedia Guidelines please. Also: Reading your overly repeated expressions about Lolicon/child porn, I get the nagging suspicion that you have issues with this topic... --Tsaryu ^@ 19:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I think "toddlerkon" is the more prominent spelling. Pomte 03:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Until we find sources for that term it doesn't matter which spelling is the more prominent one. Technically, "toddlercom" (yes, with c and m) would be correct, if we were to be nit-picky. Analog to Lolicon (Rorikon) it would be Toddlercon (Todoraakon/トドラーコン, which probably would be shortened to トドコン just like ロリコン), though.

tl;dr: That doesn't matter yet. --Tsaryu ^@ 11:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I think the Japanese call it Heidicon (ハイジコン), derived from Heidi, Girl of the Alps. --Quess 18:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, SO not true.

lending some credence to the somewhat counter-intuitive theory that, in fact, material of this nature can be beneficial to society by providing an outlet for those who may otherwise find themselves compelled to carry out their fantasies on unconsenting people.

SO not true!!! Children get molested and women get raped and harrassed all the time in Japan! It DOES happen. Some women there are afraid to report their stories because of Japan's traditional male-dominated culture. It like they don't care over there. Most rapists in Japan only get about 1 or 3 years in jail. ONE or THREE years!! O_O That's not alot. Most of the time they don't spend more than five years in jail.

I've heard so many stories of little girls and women being violated in Japan, so I hate it when I sometimes hear people say:

"well yeah maybe women wouldn't get raped so much if we had more porn dee-dee-dee"

It doesn't help. If we legalized things like child porn, society would go to hell. u_u

--Lady Rosala 19:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the part that was uncited. If you have contrary information that satisfied WP:RS, feel free to add it to the article with citation.

Please keep in mind that this page is for the discussion of the improvement of the article, not the merits of its subject.--Eyrian 19:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

No comment on Rosa's ranting, but since when do we hidden comment out things for being partially cited? {{citeneeded}} or straight removal works nicely if it's actually uncited, and if it is based in the citation but extends the reasoning too far then what's called for is a rewrite of that sentence. --tjstrf talk 19:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Wales's comment at WP:V: "I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced." I removed it because it appeared to be original research reading into the cited work. --Eyrian 19:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Having just read the article, the statement in question looks to be cited to me. Or at least its inverse is repeatedly denied by the authors. The only other cause they present as being a possible contributing factor is the prevalence of stay-at-home mothers. It does still intentionally leave the question of moral degradation not resulting in crime open, but the article strongly claims that the increase in pornography led to a decrease in sex crimes in general and especially with regards to juveniles. I'll try rewording the statement for a tighter correspondance with the article. --tjstrf talk 20:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored

Why you have this sorry looking picture and not a real images which we find on web. I think it is censorship. --- ALM 18:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Read this article, and be educated: copyright infringement Ashibaka (tock) 18:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Can not you give me one or two line answer and save my time please? --- ALM 19:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

You can't just download and redistribute someone else's images. They are (unless specifically marked otherwise) copyrighted and hosting that image on Wikipedia would be illegal. --Eyrian 19:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

>They are (unless specifically marked otherwise) copyrighted and hosting that image on Wikipedia would be illegal.

Suddenly, every site on the internet is raided by the police. They could've avoided this if they only listened to the good old boys at Wikipedia and put on their tinfoil hats.

In case you're dense and you don't understand what my point is. There is no copyright infringement in hosting images on the internet. Please go back to your telescope, we need you defending the earth in case aliens invade.

What happened to the project above of someone sketching their own picture? Pomte 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Seemingly they forgot or something. Which is really a pity, since the sketch looked like it would have turned out well. --tjstrf talk 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not actually a user but I hope I may pose a thought anyways. First off, yes it is the graphic representation of child pornography. Secondly, Though explicit in meaning the said image neither hurts anyone nor will it make anyone not already attracted to young children attracted to them now will it? And finally, it's in my opinion a much better solution to people actually going out and making child pornography; personally I see nothing wrong with children having sex, I myself first had sex in first grade and have grown up with an (in my opinion) much nicer temperament than I would've had otherwise, However, I would not again personally engage in sexual activity with a child because of the fact that I personally would want the last thing I did to be that I hurt or somehow made it felt that I had used said child. And were I to engage in sexual activity with any minor I'm not entirely sure I could with a clear concience say that it was not simply for my own benefit as a result of this I say that lolicon is neither harmful nor in and of itself particularly disturbing (Guro is somewhat different but that's another discussion) and is in my opinion a necesarry vent elsewise I might ignore my conscience and conduct in lascivious conduct with a minor. as for the miller test I am a normal citizen of the united states, It may be sexual but not offensively in my opinion It has scientific and quite a bit of artistic value as Hikari Hayashibara is a very good artist and produces art of the quality of a pre-raphaelite It is quite prurient however it is on the subject of a pornographic image so I do not see how this is avoidable. Therefore the image credits staying. -Jonezysan

TfD nomination of Template:Linkimage

Template:Linkimage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 23:16, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Huh? This article doesn't use {{linkimage}}. --tjstrf talk 18:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I wondered the same... --Tsaryu ^@ 18:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

They were linked together by this post. Sorry for not being specific enough in my first post here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Illegal!

this stuff is illegal in my city! damn city! But i keep it anyway! dont tell! i throught that this was leagle in the USA! I guess We were wrong! But i dont care! Ive got my lawer so i wont lision to them anyway! but my question is: is lolicon leagel or not?--Akemi2.0 17:36, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

The Supreme Court has twice affirmed it legal, but according to the unconstitutional laws currently on the books you can get arrested for it. Shii (tock) formerly Ashibaka 18:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

well i dont care! i have a lawer and this city can biteme! im to in to it and i am not stoping! i will tell the school policeman of my actions!--Akemi2.0 12:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

What's your problem? If you live inside the US, you can legally own it. Other than that you can always live by the civil disobedience guideline "It doesn't hurt anyone, so why shouldn't I view it?". --Tsaryu ^@ 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

"But Officer, I was framed! I swear the cartoon character told me she was 18! She even had imaginary fake ID!"

Image Caption

Someone had just put up a new image... better but not excellent, and possibly still doesn't solve the copyright problem. Anyway the caption needs to be changed. I can't think of any suitable words to caption it though... Aurora sword 15:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the image, as it has no copyright status, and the filename makes me think it was just taken from an image board. Changing the image is probably fine, just not to one that Wikipedia can't legally host. --Eyrian 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please be careful

About this, putting Di Gi Charat in here is like putting Excel Saga on hentai section, doesn't make sense at all. Just because there are cute, underage-looks like characters that doesn't mean thats lolicon. Lolicon (ロリコン rorikon?), in the Western world, is a genre of manga-style sexual artwork involving childlike female characters. The term Loli is derived from Vladimir Nabokov's book, Lolita. In Japan, Lolicon is a slang portmanteau short for Lolita complex. In Japan, it refers to an attraction to girls below the age of consent, or an individual attracted to such a person. Remember this guideline.222.124.224.176 05:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Should the section be deleted altogether? The only mention of lolicon in any of those articles is in Black Matrix, a Rei look-alike with a doll that is apparently typical of lolicon. –Pomte 07:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with removal, and done. Listing all "lolicon-themed" manga is rather pointless, since every harem series ever has at least one loli character in it. And when it comes to series like Ichigo Mashimaro, that's an entire other can of worms inviting POV judgment. --tjstrf talk 07:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I am going to remove a sentence under legal status in Canada, it says an Alberta man was convicted of possesion of a hentai image without citation. I am going to leave that even though it really ought to have a citation, because I actually remember hearing about the case. But the next line about him possesing real child pornography without citation seems like slander and has to have a citation, it seems to me.Colin 8 06:09, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm unsure why you say "without citation". The claim that the Edmonton man was convicted and sentenced is supported with a citation of the newspaper article about the case. You rightly deleted the uncited bit about his being on probation for another count at the time. 67.158.77.171 03:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The Fall Of Lolicon-R-Us

I know this is related to this subject, but i was a member of the notorious Lolicon-R-Us site, after it fell in late march, i was shocked that a site dedicated to loli was gone 4ever, unlike the fall of not4chan, the fall of LCRU (abriviation for Lolicon-R-Us) ment that in some parts of the world, lolicon might be illegal in some domains, Go-Daddy, the domain provider for the site closed it down b/c of this subject, cant this lolicon thing just be left alone, and treat it as a .xxx site or something, please see my post about it above. i mean if this thing becomes extinct, where should we turn...

Feel free to comment about LCRU's fall here.

Frank0115932 8:43 PM, 17 April 2007 (EDT)

Does this relate to the article? gren グレン 03:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please talk about the article, not the subject 68.228.140.33 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

here i have an update! According to a hentai site this site has stoped because the creater could not find a mentor to help him on his site! BUT that will change his site will soon be back on line w/ my help! He said if i can really help he will open his site!--Bakaneko07 17:25, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank goodness a saviour will help some inapt site owner to bring back a totally unimportant website. I'm moved to tears. --Tsaryu ^@ 17:41, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? When we become one of the biggest lolicon sites in the world, dont come asking us can you join! But it will be up and running Very soon from what HE said! Hell he might even make a wiki artical on the site!--Lolcon-R-US 17:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, look, it's User:Saikano. Again. Whatever, just don't act like a fool and we'll see how long you can avoid getting yourself blocked this time. --tjstrf talk 17:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Lolicon and sexuality

Well, I think this somewhat goes back to the question "what is Lolicon?" For most people, yes, it might mean something related to child porn. But the word "lolicon/loli" does have a more casual, non-erotic, light meaning. For example, a person can be a "lolicon" if he or she just like to watch anime/manga with pre-teen girls, without being sexually attracted to them. The common theme in manga/anime (non-hentai) works: "younger sister", mostly feature a young girl and no more sexually attractive than other female characters. Some viewers like them, or at least like to see them. They can be lolicon, and not pedophile.

My point is, the word "lolicon" doesn't have to suggest anything hentai/erotic at all. I think as a wikipedia, we need to present as many perspectives as possible.--Kgptzac 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just its usage as an internet joke, not its commonly accepted meaning even online. 4channers wanting to know what it means there can lurk moar. --tjstrf talk 02:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it may, but after reading the Chinese version of lolicon entry, I found the current English version of this entry is biased and narrow. I think people come here wanting to know "lolicon" instead of just "lolicon manga/anime and their legal status". --Kgptzac 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The first meaning you are listing is no different than those listed on the page already, just used as a joke rather than seriously. The second, lolis as in "the manga girls characteristic of the lolicon genre's subject matter", is just another unofficial slang usage. More importantly, article content must be verifiable from reliable sources according to Wikipedia policy. --tjstrf talk 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The word "lolicon" itself is a slang, here I am merely trying to show that the slang has another level of meaning. I do not think "joke" accurately describes the usage I am trying to say. For some reason, I think the Chinese version of this entry is much more relevant and focused than the English version. --Kgptzac 03:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't read Chinese, but I can navigate interwiki well enough to tell that the zh.wiki version of this page is tagged as both unsourced and POV, so I doubt it's the best example. How does it define lolicon anyway? --tjstrf talk 04:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems all of the few reliable sources use lolicon to refer to the genre. Your meaning appears to be a neologism, which should be avoided. People can figure out the casual meaning if they happen to come across it in a specific community. "Lolicon" is just a label here; the article could be named "Anime/manga featuring young girls" and it'd talk about the exact same things. Any possible misunderstanding is an inevitable fault of words gaining multiple meanings based on the first meaning. The connotations of pedophilia are stuck with "lolicon" either way, and I think there should be a better term for those non-attracted people you describe, in case they want to protest for their purity. With so many words for sex, there has to be a word for this like some combination of kawaii or chibi or bishōjo. –Pomte 06:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)