Talk:Lolicon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

New information

"Rorikon blogspot" link added. Some other links that didn't work deleted.

Added new information about international child abuse and about the possibility of underreportage of sex crimes. Hundreds of years went by in America before anyone had any idea that many Catholic priests routinely abused children. I think rape and child abuse are underreported in Japan--they are underreported in every single other country in the world. Saying that they are largely underreported is little more than pure speculation at the moment, but there is some evidence in the CASPAR link I added.

I removed the sentence "Despite stereotypes, however, there are many Japanese staunchly opposed to lolicon, and there are many westerners that would have no objection to it," because to me it seemed misleading. Child porn art is far more prevalent in Japan than in the US, just do a google search for the evidence. It is also much more widely available. You can't go to Barnes and Noble here and pick up a lolicon dojin, whereas you can in some public bookstores in Japan (check the first two links for evidence). --Zaorish 22:50, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)--Zaorish

I reverted the changes in paragraph about links between Lolicon and child abuse. The old version was factually correct - there is no evidence of causality. The new version contains speculation about Japanese sense of shame, which at the moment is completely baseless. The stories I read (e.g. at Tokyo Times blog [1]) are full of unrepentant sex offenders (though not traders in child slaves), who apparently feel no shame about crimes they are arrested for. So let's stick to facts. Also, the evidence of trade in child sex slaves is misleading. First, I don't see the "ampleness" of it, and second, there is no evidence that it's widespread. Several cases mean nothing (there are weird horrible crimes in any big country). Third, I don't see how it is related to lolicon. You do not seriously imply that after reading a lolicon manga people suddenly get an urge to buy a child sex slave, do you?
I also removed the link to CASPAR. I don't see how it's relevant to the article and I don't see how we can take seriously people who write this:
"Eroticism without love spreads quickly over the world. People go with the current of the times that eroticism is the only way of life. People seek only pleasure and on top of that they buy small children as sex toys." [2]
This is too over the top to be a useful reference, IMO. Paranoid 23:21, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC).

International comparisions

Could you provide a source for the statement that violence towards children is found less frequently in Japan than elsewhere and that this is not due to differences in reporting? Get-back-world-respect 01:18, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Child welfare centers nationwide handled a total of 26,573 consultations on child abuse in fiscal 2003, which topped the previous year's figure by some 2,800 and was the largest number on record, according to data released by the Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry on Tuesday.
The total marked a huge 24-fold increase from 1,101 in fiscal 1990 when the then Health and Welfare Ministry began recording the data. The ministry said that centers have become overwhelmed in dealing with consultations on child abuse. (Kyodo News) [h://]
In 1997 there were 5,352 reported cases of child abuse, in 1998 there were 6,932. The population of Japan is 127 million.
"There are approximately 1 million substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect in the United States each year and millions more reported cases." (Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, Department of Health and Human Services, Children's Bureau, [3]) The population of the United States is 293 million.
While there are many problems related to child abuse in Japan (it is apparently growing, it was un- and underreported, the society was not well aware of the problem, police didn't know how to intervene, etc.), it is clear to me that child abuse is vastly more common in the United States (and presumably other developed countries, though I haven't checked the data) than in Japan. We won't know for sure how many cases of child abuse happen in Japan every year until more research is done, but it would be extremely surprising if its prevalence was similar to the US. Paranoid 13:38, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Of course, it's always hard to do an international comparision without detailed data. But according to rape stats page at [4] (undated stats) the rape rate in Japan is 20 times less than in the US. So at most there are about 2,300 rapes in Japan annually (both kids and adults), while in the United States the number of kids raped under 12 years is about 17,000 (based on 1992 data, sorry). From the same study [5] (PDF) ~15% of rape victims are under 12 in the US and 50% are under 18. The numbers (despite being old and unprecise) speak for themselves rather well.
P.S. Feel free to incorporate some of the data into other relevant articles. Paranoid 13:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's meaningless to compare crime rates with the US, because the US has much higher levels of all violent crime. It should be compared with somewhere more similar, maybe Sweden, or Korea. Kappa 22:39, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"Offensive images"

Think carefully if offensive pictures are really necessary. Consider providing a link to the picture, and a warning of the picture's contents, rather than place it directly in the article. If you have concerns regarding the appropriateness of an image, discuss it on the relevant article talk page. The image in this article is a bit surprising when you first see the article. Additionally, and more importantly, the image is illegal to view in some countries, most notably Australia. I'm going to try to find a suitable, non-nude fair use picture to replace it. Ashibaka 20:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I fixed the picture; the old one can go in IFD, but I'm in no hurry to do that just yet in case there is debate. It was really a laugh to see the original picture when I was pointed to this article. Was the original approved by the Wikipedia moderators, I wonder?

I also changed some phrasing in the article that I thought was POV. As the moderator of a large anime imageboard, I've had to decide whether to keep or delete a lot of lolicon pictures, and I'll have you know I've never seen a lolicon picture that appears to depict someone older than 13 or 14. If I've been dealing with something else all this time, then I've been seeing a lot of this other thing and no "lolicon". I think this is well within the bounds of pedophilia, and the article before I edited it had an explicit POV that was defending lolicon from outside "critics", as well contradicting itself in order to let Kinomoto Sakura into its false 12-16 range. Ashibaka 20:40, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't agree w the change of images at all, the new images doesn't portray the topic. Lots of things are illegal in lots of countries, (imagine viewing the vagina article in Iran ;) but our job here is to provide info to the reader. the old image does that far better, the replacement was just a standard anime image looked like just a standard anime image to me. Sam [Spade] 21:34, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, my version was from a lolicon manga... I guess we can stick with the original in the meantime, I don't want to take over this article the way that guy took over Alternative Medicine a few months back. Ashibaka 21:56, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wow, do you mean User:Mr-Natural-Health? I assure you I am not like that either! I'm perfectly willing to talk about things, but I think the fair way for a reader to understand Lolicon is to see an obvious example of it. if that offends them, then they have learned about something they don't like. If they find it erotic, maybe they will buy some Lolicon books. If they simply come away w an understanding of a subject of which they were previously less informed, thats great too. Alot of people just skim a page, and look at the pictures, and I wouldn't want them thinking its just standard anime, like pokemon or whatever. I think the kids in pokemon and whatnot are pretty young too, but their not ment to be erotic. Sam [Spade] 22:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)
You know, you're right-- it's more important that the article give an accurate portrayal of "lolicon" than that it should not shock the reader. And the picture there right now is a pretty good sample of most lolicon manga. I'll just keep my picture around in case some admin decides otherwise. Ashibaka 03:01, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I too agree that an accurate portrayal is paramount. The alternate image that was briefly used back in October is just a picture of a girl, and therefore has little meaning within this context. The cover art from one of the Hikari Hiyashibara manga may be shocking to a few people, but it adequately illustrates the concept of "lolicon" without being undisplayably obscene. On the other hand, using one the "LO Comic" or "Lolita Complex" covers would have been... unnecessary. As far legality is concerned, I believe it should be remembered that most foreign countries are not states of the United States of America, and therefore even if they don't enjoy the same 1st Amendment protections that Americans do, they still can't be disparaged at the request of foreign powers. For both of these reasons I say that the Hayashibara picture should be left there. Sweetfreek 00:45, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) (relavent to my newest post Sweetfreek 07:32, 13 January 2006 (UTC))
I am seriously concerned that the image from Hayashibara may actually be illegal in the United States. If so, it would be illegal simply to view the image or to have it in your browser cache. It is therefore somewhat irresponsible to have the image directly on the page when you could be putting people in a position where they could potentially be committing a felony. You will notice that the article on child pornography does not have an "example image" (probably for this very reason). I strongly suggest that this image should not appear on this page, and if it is present at all, should be linked with a warning of what is contained in the picture and that it might be illegal to download the picture in some countries and U.S. states. Dave 15:14, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
Your concerns are appreciated, but you are clearly wrong. There is no reason to think that erotic drawings of children (much less of manga characters) are illegal in the USA. The general consensus (among paedophiles, lolicon fans, lawyers, manga artists, etc.) is that they are legal. It is irresponsible to offer your opinion on legal matters when you neither have any qualifications, nor have done any research on this subject. Paranoid 07:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)


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)

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)
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. -- 19:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Here is a blog where you can discuss in Spanish about "rorikon" and "rorikon manga".

Removed text

I removed the following text by User: I am not sure it adds anything to the article and am somewhat confused about its intended meaning. Paranoid 01:33, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

pedophilia and Lolicon are not the same meanings.

Lolicon thinks the childishness of not age but appearance as important.

Well, from discussions I've had with people, sometimes they don't really care about the erotic content at all. But they simply like the look, behavior, innocence, cuteness, etc. of underage characters. From this point of view, some recent anime/manga could be considered catering to the lolicon crowd, but would be within <18 age ratings --> Tsukuyomi Moon Phase, Pani Poni Dash, Ichigo Mashimaro

Mainichi link appropriate?

Does the external link to the Mainichi story add anything? The story is about young girls in Japan having sexual experiences at earlier ages, not about lolicon. Indeed, lolicon is only referenced in the first and third paragraphs of the article, and has little to do with the main point of the article.

Some thoughts

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)

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)
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)

The distinction between what is categorized as lolicon vs. what actually is lolicon

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)

I think I'll add a bit more with the change to "8 to 13" and the little thing I added after that. From what I can tell, the distinction between the two terms of lolicon occurs depending on those "in-the-know" and those who aren't. In other words, actual lolicon fans will probably be referring to the 8 to 13 group, but to outsiders, they will regard anything less than 18 (or whatever is considered as the age of "adulthood" in their culture) to be lolicon.Dracil 08:39, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Offensive" links

I think that this

  • Lolicon board - discussion board for lolicon fans with links and images

is better than no link. If you can replace it with a link to another lolicon fansite/message board, that may be better, but to remove it entirely is, IMHO not correct. Paranoid 08:32, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Including that link in the article is attracting unwanted attention to that imageboard, and they have requested that it not be included in the article.

You have evidence of this? Dracil 00:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The comment above is misleading. As far as I could see, someone on that board postulated that some of the clueless new posters there (whose posts had to be deleted) found the board through the Wikipedia article. He then commented in a rude way about the person who added the link to Wikipedia and then someone suggested monitoring the article and regularly deleting the link.
I see no evidence at all that having a link to in this article harms the board in any way. I think that they should be able to handle one or two noobs and rude posters. Since it was a comment of just one board member and since it's not a reasonable one, I don't think that the link should be deleted on the grounds that "they have requested" it. Paranoid 14:23, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
The board contains images which are legal in the jurisdiction in which it is hosted and from which it is primarily accessed. The link to the board attracts unwanted attention from collectors of real child pornography, which is illegal to possess, even unknowingly, in all said jursidictions. If someone finds the board and posts real images of child pornography, the site owner and administrators can be legally liable, as well as any ISPs involved due to provisions of the DMCA.
Also the admins are only liable to remove the content when notified. And please, spare us the hypothetical scenarios. What if someone doesn't find the link to the board and posts real child pornography to Wikipedia instead? Jumbo Wales will then be liable and we will have to sue you.
Now that you understand better the reasons the link should be removed, we request that it is done so before legal action against Wikipedia is necessary.
You want to sue Wikipedia over the link? By all means, please go ahead.
Just like a cop who plants a gun on perp's corpse...???
Various posts on not4chan ask for the link not to be made direct to the site. Also in keeping with the postings above, this makes good sense. It would still be possible to google to obtain the site anyway, however direct linking is probably not in either not4chan or Wikipedia's best interests.
If such is the case, then wouldn't all links to all imageboards have to be removed? Dracil 01:54, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two other sources for lolicon are already listed. /l/ has requested to remain off the article. What's the problem?

The problem is that if the excuse they gave was a valid excuse, then the other two sources would have to be removed as well. Dracil 03:21, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, until the link was posted on Wikipedia there were little to no problems with people posting such things. Since it was noticed that it was there, alot of this crap has begun cropping up. I dont know if the other two boards have had the same issue, but if they have, then whats the problem? Its not an excuse, its a reason. Theres a difference. Wikipedia is supposed to help people, not run sites into the ground through legal issues. People will use links from places like this and Something Awful to go after sites they dont like.

Don't get me wrong, but this is just like complaining about "fuck" being in the dictionary. Sweetfreek 22:00, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is Lolikon Illegal in Canada?

Found this on a Message boards (Toaster Oven on Gamefaqs). If it is, then I've got some clean stuff I need to clean up on my compy...

Also, note the spelling 'Hentae'... ---T ConX

According to my head and internet searches for Canadian law: The Criminal Code's definition of child pornography says:
163.1 (1) In this section, "child pornography" means (a) a photographic, film, video or other visual representation, whether or not it was made by electronic or mechanical means, (i) that shows a person who is or is depicted as being under the age of eighteen years and is engaged in or is depicted as engaged in explicit sexual activity, or (ii) the dominant characteristic of which is the depiction, for a sexual purpose, of a sexual organ or the anal region of a person under the age of eighteen years;

"Other visual representation" seems to mean anything, lolicon included. Lolicon images, manga and anime are all covered by this blanket definition of "child pornography". Establishing a clearer (or perhaps more lenient) definition would have to be something done in a court and I for one do not plan to be the person to do it... I also found (and subsequently lost track of) a seperate section about using the postal system for offensive materials being an offense which is seperate (legally, but not necessarily logically) from the lolicon related arrest mentioned above.

This currently proposed bill changes ever so slightly the defence of a conviction to:
(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section if the act that is alleged to constitute the offence (a) has a legitimate purpose related to the administration of justice or to science, medicine, education or art; and (b) does not pose an undue risk of harm to persons under the age of eighteen years.

(6) Where the accused is charged with an offence under subsection (2) [Production of child pornography], (3) [Distribution of child pornography], (4) [Possession of child pornography] or (4.1) - [Accessing child pornography], the court shall find the accused not guilty if the representation or written material that is alleged to constitute child pornography has artistic merit or an educational, scientific or medical purpose.

The bill above is called C-2 and was first read on October 8, 2004. I can't see for sure whether or not this bill was passed, was modified or has just sat there since last year, but it's a real mess for people who enjoy lolicon. The bolded sections are my emphasis and is my attempt to make sense of this section of the Criminal Code. The current law using the words "artistic merit" is confusing to say the least. What one might consider artistic (or have artistic qualities), another might find offensive. One lolicon manga I have read involves the younger girl being the dominant person in the sexual relationship. The writing of the story makes it comical which to me is great. It's artistic to me. Maybe not to the Criminal Code though... Also the portion of the proposed bill that says "does not pose an undue risk of harm" effectively says (to me): "If you're a good person, you're fine." Who decides if you do not pose an "undue risk"? And doesn't an action that constitutes an offense sound like an "undue risk" to you?

Lastly, there is the Supreme Court ruling from 2000 overturning British Columbia's legalisation of possession of child pornography. It's a huge summary of what happened and I haven't gone through all of it, so picking out relevant bits is difficult. Alot of the problems stem from the broad definition of child pornography. The case deals with actual child pornography and whether or not the law against possession infringed upon the right to free expression. I suppose it is as clear as this line from that "Child pornography is harmful whether it involves real children in its production or whether it is a product of the imagination."

Sorry for this sounding like a forum post. I've posted this topic once before elsewhere and got mixed responses, mostly off topic. The talk page is for discussion, right, so I should be ok..... This is what I think and have found on the matter. IANAL, but someone here might be (along with being likely more rational than someone on a forum).

-Slightly Less Than Anonymous June 2, 2005

does lolicon only count pre-pubesent girls?

Since lolicon is suppose to be 14 and under, does hentai girls like Asuka and Rei from NGE and Sailor Moon (she started the series at 14 anyway) count as lolicon or is it only pre-pubesent girls?

+ Often, it depends on the artist. Rei, Asuka, and the Sailor Scouts are generally depicted as young women, such that they could easily be considered 18+, appealing to normal hentai viewers. Although some times, artists will draw them with a flat chest etc, so that they look younger, appealing to the lolicon.

I think I've seen them classified under the lolicon section before. Again, the age of "lolicon" depends on who you ask. Most lolicon sections in image galleries seem to have them quite young, but if you go ask some person who's never even been exposed to similar stuff, they'll probably answer <18 would be lolicon material.

From what I know from dealing with various people who were at one point purveyors of lolicon, 13 and older is considered "too old for their tastes." Ghost Freeman | Talk 23:11, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Can we put it this way? I think Lolicon has nothing to do with age. It is the appearance and the look that makes it Lolicon. Most extremely big-eyes bishoujoes can be even considered Lolicon even they are more than 18 years old. I mean, if you ask people who like Lolicon, they would not probably care how old that underage girl is. They would care for the appearance and the cuteness of that girl only.

Fundamentaly incorrect information

It is used to refer to hentai anime, manga, and other visual forms of art that contain sexual/erotic representations of underage girls, and also to people who are sexually attracted to fictional and also sometimes real underage girls (and who are not themselves underage). Actual photographs or videos of underage children in sexual situations can be considered lolicon, but is usually simply called child pornography; lolicon manga are legal in Japan (so long as actual underage models are not used in the creation of the art); actual child pornography is not.

Lorikon in Japanese language refers to Lolita complex or pedophilia, period. It doesn't have such a special meaning as "hentai anime, manga, and other visual forms of art that contain sexual/erotic representations of underage girls." If the word has such a meaning, it' only among English-speaking otaku, not in Japan. Same as hentai.

But then we ARE an English encyclopedia. :) People at JA are free to define it as they want, but we should be concerned with "lolicon"'s meaning among English speakers. Paranoid 10:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Then state that the word "lolicon" that this article explains is an English word, and that the Japanese use the word differently. Hermeneus 00:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If the anon is correct we should discuss these differences of usage on the page, it sounds signifigant. Sam Spade 12:57, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Of course, this should be discussed, I simply don't agree with the complaint. We never say that "lolikon = hentai with children", we say that the term is used to refer to such art. Usually when someone talks about manga, they may say "lolikon manga". Check this board for example.
Also, for what it's worth, here is the fish translation of one passage in Japanese article: "ロリコン abbreviating generally, it is used, but as for the "ロ recon" there are also times when it points to the thing of the enthusiastic fan of the girl character which appears in cartoon and animation and the game etc.."
As for duscussing, may be we can clarify that the word came from a different language and means something slightly different than in Japan, but I don't think the difference is substantial. Paranoid 15:45, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


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 or 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)

Removed the following (registration-only forum, not a direct link, etc.). Paranoid 15:24, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • See's forum. Register and search "lolicon" in the hentai discussion board to see different views. For objective insight, see thread titled "lolicon research"

I'm curious about the link to Lolitron. While it does address Lolicon, its purpose is not for that (heck, some of the articles arn't even about anime!). Should it be removed (because of it being off subject?) --Mies 19:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)


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


"Lolicon (...) is a frequent subject of scholarly articles on sexuality in Japan"

We all suppose this is true, but maybe it isn't. Are there any examples of this?


Shouldn't there be a list of countries where lolicon is illegal? I for one know that Australia, Canada and Norway all forbid the depiction of children as sexual objects, even in drawn format. The list would help to alert fellow Wikipedians who are unaware of the laws and so might get into trouble when clicking on certain links.--Imperialles 09:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Surely such a list would require a whole design of Wikipedia's linking system, as many articles are illegal in various states? As mentioned in an above discussion, try looking at the 'vagina' article while in Iran. There's no reason to create a misdirection-based link purely to warn users that "the following article may contain offensive or illegal content based on your culture and country of origin". That's like editing a physical encyclopedia to have notes before articles that mention violence or sex, and putting warnings before certain words in a dictionary.


I think this is a non-canonial neologism. Google agrees. Rich Farmbrough 20:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

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)

Image:Hikari_Hayashibara_Manga.jpg has been listed for deletion

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)

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

'''''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)

I've not been able to find the listing for deletion, and the image still exists. Can someone provide a link to the discussion? Exploding Boy 18:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Furry Porn

Is the mention of furry porn really necessary to include? The explanation of "cub porn" seems to add very little to the article. It seems like a good candidate for shortening or removal, although I'm reluctant to change the article myself without first giving a chance for dissenting opinions. Rakeela 06:27, 29 September 2005

I think it should be kept. Sam Spade 18:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I vote for change/removal. 00:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
It should at least be clarified a bit. As written, it seems to imply that furry porn in general is more closely related to lolicon. Now, a mention of "cub porn" as a side-note probably isn't entirely out of the question. But the fact that there is a small amount of overlap is all that needs to be expressed, really.--MythicFox 09:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Furry Porn is not Lolicon, nor is Lolicon Furry Porn. Lolita is, indeed, a subset of Furry Porn (known as cub porn), but cub porn was an adaptation to suit those with a lolita complex and whom were into Furry porn. This is like linking Lolicon to sexuality. Sure, it is common for people with a Lolita Complex to assocate sexuality to lolicon, but for the actual people afflicted by it, it is more so the (look) of the person. I can see how Lolicon can be linked back from the FurryMUCK article, but not the other way around. Now if Furry Porn was better explained (note MythicFox), it would be a better, that way the reader realize that they are two entirly different subjects. And let's all remember that Lolicon is based off of Vladimir Nabokov's 1954 work of art Lolita (though orgination comes from an earlier date). To conclude, is it nessesary to be included? No, but should it not be mentioned? Well maybe not in this article. EDITED DUE TO BAD GRAMMER --Mies 18:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I vote for removal. It's totally tangental and doesn't belong in this article. -- 20:14, 17 November 2005

Image content

Wikipedia apparently doesn't (unfortunately) allow disclaimers, but something ought to be done about the image, either removing it, decreasing its size, placing it lower in the page, etc. --Dpr 09:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Why? Are you worried someone will come here and find out what this article is about? Sam Spade 11:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
The image is potentially offensive to some readers. As to your question, readers can find out what the article is about by reading it; removing the image would not affect this informative purpose in any way. According to Wikipedia's tentative policy on the subject, we may could provide a link without displaying the image. --Dpr 07:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I think that link gives a very apt summary of the situation. Sam Spade 12:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
I notices that someone else tried to remove teh Image again, claiming it's child porn. - Karrmann
Actually he said the image was "chiled porn" ;) Sam Spade 18:38, 20 October 2005 (UTC) link

It seems odd that one out of the four was targeted by 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)