Talk:Lolicon

Question about colloquial usage

I am a native Japanese speaker and this article, though well-cited, repeatedly claims that lolicon is a term used only for attraction to fictional characters, when in vernacular Japanese it is used to describe pedophiles (i.e. adults attracted to real life children) as well. How should this be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotusyeeter (talk • contribs) 01:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I want to create a genre overview

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

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

Lolibaba definition

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

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

But alas, it keeps getting reverted.

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

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

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

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

Portmanteau

Sundayclose - The word lolicon is 100% a portmanteau made by combining Lolita and complex. I'm confused by your edit summary saying it's not one. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

Reliable sources:

1: Consider, for example, that the first appearance of the words “Lolita complex” (rorīta konpurekkusu), which would be combined into the Japanese portmanteau “lolicon,” in manga was in a shōjo magazine.

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

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

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

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

Other RS:

• Consider, for example, that the first appearance in manga of the words "Lolita complex," which would be combined in the Japanese portmanteau lolicon, was in the magazine Bessetsu Margaret, a monthly shôjo magazine. [1]
• Much of the controversy centres around female sexuality and sexualization, particularly around lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of 'Lolita complex') or sexual attraction to prepubescent girls. [2]

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

I'm OK with restoring the statement about portmanteau, especially since the lead sentence also uses "lolicom" as an alternative. Thanks to all in this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Possible bias and inconsistency.

I accept the notion that I'm alone in this conclusion. I've noticed that the majority of the article seems to lean heavily to otaku views, at the very least omitting the more common views of the topic and non-proportionally over-representing the Lolicon side.

For example, the very first paragraph represents the common understanding of Loli in its one sentence, and proceeds to describe the Otaku view in detail for the rest of the paragraph.

The particular use of "Moral Panic" in the 3rd Intro paragraph suggests that the 90s criticisms were irrational and of emotion and not reason. The passage then becomes inconsistent in the 4th overall paragraph, stating that the lustful version of the definition is most prominent, before contradicting itself in the very next sentence stating that it's now more often used to denote female children (despite the first lines' definition stating that it is the lustful definition that is more accepted?).

I think the possible bias is most noticeable in the Legality and Censorship section (and the need to use the word censorship here could be argued as well). Unless I'm missing some universal formatting standard: shouldn't the UNHRC and other experts have more weight than Japan and should be mentioned first? The defense portion has more experts cited, and the offense section implies that CASPAR was formed because of the Miyazaki case which doesn't seem true, it also cites less perspectives and experts than the defense section.

I'm bad at constructing thorough run-downs, but as I read the article it seems ever so slightly off and tipped in one favor over the other. Again, I understand that I may be entirely in the wrong and the article is fairly weighted, but it does seem that there's a larger hand dealt to Otaku and Lolicons rather than the actual public and common perception. MagiTagi (talk) 08:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

• Hi there! I don't really think I am in the mood of having a serious debate here over the specifics of the article but just to give my quick two cents regarding the claim of "bias" in this article as a person who has only a vague interest in the topic, I would strongly disagree, I think it's pretty neutral considering the serious amount of controversy that surrounds the topic, there are plenty of more controversial pages on this site that could be said to have serious biases towards certain beliefs, often by people with much more extreme political views, and from how I see it, I don't really see people trying to distort the information to portray a narrative.

Rather as how I see the situation, I see yourself making good-faith edits on the article which merely slant differently than most other editors, with you leaning more in opposition towards lolicon much more than the rest of the community, and thus feel the need to call out the articles use of terms like "moral panic" and "censorship" to describe both critics and restrictions on such content fairly since you might feel it misrepresents opponents, but as I see it, I think how the opponents are represented is perfectly fair, as suppressing or restricting art for being seen as "objectionable, harmful, or sensitive" is both what censorship is typically defined as, and typically also the basis for justifying the restriction of stuff such as lolicon in the first place, and as for using the term "moral panic" to refer to reactions against lolicon, I think is also valid. I have personally witnessed the continued discussions online, especially on social media of people usually with certain agendas who attempt to conflate the depiction of fictional cartoon characters that either are underage in-universe or at least appear shorter and more "moe" or fit into a stereotypical "childlike" appearance (lolicon/shotacon) as well as animals (as in furry content) drawn in sexual acts to be akin to engaging in the production of actual CP/Animal porn as if they were either almost or equally just as bad, and using this sentiment to push the silencing of things they are uncomfortable with being depicted in art and fantasy fearing they will/already have a serious negative impact on society, which to me seems incredibly similar to the concerns already widely considered to be "moral panics" made against other forms of fictional media that depict illegal, oftentimes even more hyper realistic acts such as violence and gore in cartoons, music, video games, and movies in the past, and to some extent still today despite there being scarce proof confirming any of these things have any drastic or even moderate effect on either normalizing those actions in reality, or making people want to commit them despite continuing fears

In the very least I would think we would need some serious hard-proof to confirm that their accusations are true, that being that lolicon does indeed encourage said actions in reality since the burden of proof is on their claims, and since serious claims require serious evidence, and there really is a lack of scientific material to confirm their case, I don't think my comparison between them and previous moral panics against fictional content is invalid.GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 16:58, 9, March 2024 (EST)

The question that should be asked here is if the information is sourced? What does the following say about it?

McLelland, Mark (2016). "Introduction: Negotiating 'cool Japan' in research and teaching". In McLelland, Mark (ed.). The End of Cool Japan: Ethical, Legal, and Cultural Challenges to Japanese Popular Culture. London and New York: Routledge. pp. 1–30 [11]. ISBN 978-1-317-26937-3.

If this information is in the source given, then you are going to need a counter argument from another reliable source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, it seems indeed that the use of the word "Moral Panic" is correct when in the context of the 1990's period, as there was somewhat founded but overall unconstructive and reductive views on the issue.

I think I mistakenly interpreted the word "Moral Panic" as meaning all or most of the criticism was unfounded, rather than a sizeable group that may or may not be the majority.

To be more inline with the source quoted specifically for 4th reference, I've included 'the west' as belligerents in the debate.

Somewhat unrelated, but due to my inexperience with Wikipedia, I can't find a way to respond to users or talk with them one on one or privately, advice? Apologies if it's a dumb question. MagiTagi (talk) 05:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"I can't find a way to respond to users or talk with them one on one" Have you tried leaving messages on their talk pages? Dimadick (talk) 14:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding Legality in US

Forgive me if my replies seem unorganized or even illegible; I rarely use Wikipedia discussion pages anyway, however, I am interested in clearing up this minor bit of discourse since it was never really cleared up. Within the last few weeks, I had gotten into a minor (and presumably good faith) edit conflict, over the legal status of lolicon within the United States, with MagiTagi, going on to cite the PROTECT Act of 2003 as to validate their claim over mine, however from the legal information I have gathered within the last few days of research on the topic, Magi's claim appears to be much more tenuous or at least inconclusive than one (including myself) initially would had thought.

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

From the information here, this appears to debunk Magi's original claim and if not entirely confirms such content as legal, in the very least seems to appear far more nuanced rather than being outright illegal as initially argued by Magi. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 10:51, 11, April 2024 (EST)

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

@GigaMigaDigaChad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Censorship

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