Talk:Lolicon/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions about Lolicon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

Is lolicon now illegal?

Recently, many rumors have reached me about the possible banning of lolicon in the US. With the tragic fall of not4chan, many people are thinking that it is now illegal. Adam Walsh's Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 has also raised the questions and eyebrows of many. Does anyone know the legal status of lolicon in the US as of Aug 2006? Also, does anyone know the fate of not4chan?(70.119.80.227 03:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC))

There are no stupid questions... except those that have been answered in every forum already. This new US law has nothing to do with lolicon.

Regarding the fate of not4chan there are only rumors and I'm not sure if it's a good idea to post rumors in WP. (I know just as much as has been posted in LAH/renchan/etc.) Zorndyke 11:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

not4chan shut down because the owners got tired of cleaning up the illegal stuff that was posted there day in and day out. I believe they just stopped paying the hosting bill, and since it's not related to any other site there wasn't anywhere to post a closing announcement. Ashibaka tock 11:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"not related to any other site"? Right... fuuka.4chan.org used to redirect there. --tjstrf 23:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

This Is Ruining Our Lives, Somebody Must Get This Act Legal, After All, It's Just Fiction! Without Lolicon, This May Get Topsy-turvy For The Anime Fans In The US, And The Net, Where Do We Go As Soon As This Law Is Passed, IRC?!?, Bad Search Sites?!?, Black-Market WWW?!? Frank0115932 01:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What.

You threw "act", "legal" and "law" into one pot and stirred well. Which law? Which act legal? If you are talking about the HR 4472 thingy: it didnt include lolicon, and if you are talking about the PROTECT ACT: it was ruled unconstitutional, so calm down. (And why do you capitalize every word?) --Tsaryu^@ 08:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Also look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROTECT_Act_of_2003 It seems to be more well updated than the article on lolicon regarding this issue.

In reply to Netaungrot's addition

This statement is too broad and as a comment to the text above simply wrong. If you want to add a statement based on "Report of the Surgeon General's workshop on pornography and public health" you must describe the circumstances.

What did this research actually prove? Only that if you (indirectly) force pornography mixed with violence upon more or less random male students while they believe to participate in a learning experiment they seem to hurt the female colleagues (who are clueless as well) more. Yes, force. Sure they could quit, but who likes to be a quitter? Whether they participate because they received something valuable or just because they wanted to help the science in any case they were motivated enough to waste their time, so many of them would continue even if they were not happy about the pornography part.

So the circumstances are:

1. Being exposed pornography mixed with violence while being involved in a learning experiment with a female colleague could lead to quite a distress. The male participant of the test could feel guilty towards the female participant even if she didn't know what kind of content he was viewing. Whether he enjoyed the content overall or not, the mixed feelings of guilt and pleasure could produce an unpredictable reaction especially if this experience is new for him. Especially towards this female test participant.

2. Being exposed pornography in general while it's not desired might have a whole different effect compared to the average effect of pornography. In the latter case people look at it only IF and WHEN they desire it. Some people who know/feel/guess that they might be negatively influenced by (violent) pornography could consciously or even unconsciously avoid it, some others just don't waste their time on it. The people who really have to deal with the influence of pornography are the ones who are not ashamed of it and even willing to spend their time or even money on it. It is quite possible that these people (the vast majority of them) CAN deal with it and it doesn't cause them hurt women.

3. Let me quote the source, page 33: "One important influence may be previous exposure to pornography. As part of a larger project, Zillmann and Bryant (1984) assigned male and female undergraduates to see varying amounts of nonaggressive pornography one day a week for six weeks. At the end of the exposure period, members of each group saw one 8 minute film of either nonagggressive sexually explicit material, sadomasochistic material, bestiality, or were included as a no exposure control subject. Subjects were then allowed the opportunity to inflict pain via a blood pressure check, upon a confederate who had just inflicted pain upon them in the same way. Those watching the sadomasochistic and bestiality material inflicted more pain than those watching the erotic matrial, who inflicted more pain than those in the no-exposure control group. However, for those with the massive previous exposure to nonaggressive pornography there was no difference in aggression across the four final stimulus conditions."

It is remarkable that they don't even mention if the people in the group exposed nonagressive pornography for a longer time period inflicted overall more pain than the default test group. I wonder how they "assigned" these undergraduates to see a lot of pornography. Anyway whether some participants quit at this point or not (because of negative consequences) you either get a special (not representative) group of people who don't mind pornography OR you get a group exposed (for a longer time period) to the content they would avoid otherwise.

Really, it doesn't matter what influence pornography would have at an average person. What matters is whether it affects positive or negative the people who are willing to watch it, especially over a longer time period. Zorndyke 20:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about it... The decision to choose how much pain they inflict don't really represent actual aggression/violence in this environment as long the female student is a willing participant of the experiment. It's just an SM game :p

So what these ingenious scientists proved - they can make some of their poor students more pervy (at least for a short time period). The students have been given a hint that pain can be sexually arousing, but can their willingness to "explore" a bit (while some of them probably even felt being encouraged to do so by authority persons!) be the measurement of good and evil?

Also how hard is it to look through this test as male if you're lucky (or "lucky") to be the one who watches violent or SM porn and after that gets to select the "punishment" for your female "confederate"?

That's crazy... ^^ Zorndyke 22:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

H.R. 4472, (User:Luminafire)

Luminafire: Per WP:V, find me a reliable secondary source, preferably from a non-activist organization, which explicitly states the new amendment makes lolicon illegal. Our own interpetations of the bill are original research, and the bill does not speak for itself on the issue, instead being a documentation law. I've removed the unverified, irrelevant, and POV sections of what you wrote, and left in the remainder. (original diff in question, for other editors)

I realize you are probably unaware of the policies, which can be easily forgiven, but your additions have simply not met the content-governing policies of Wikipedia, especially WP:Neutral Point of View, since they, to be blunt, read like rants. I am sure you are attempting to improve our coverage of this subject, but please do so in a less empassioned manner. --tjstrf 05:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this is bunk that HentaiKey seems to have thought up. It goes in some other article, but not Lolicon, because it has nothing to do with lolicon. Ashibaka tock 00:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I'm deleting it entirely. Actually, it looks like you already did. Thanks. --tjstrf 01:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

However, HentaiKey is a large AVS system for a great deal of large hentai websites and (as stated in their address) is - or is at least run by - a large corporation and it is the first large corporation to take drastic measures to adhear to this new law not only affecting a great deal of prominent hentai websites in the process but displaying clearly that large companies dealing in hentai in America will possibly follow at the advisement of legal counsel. Moreover, the deletion of my edits are based on opinions (I don't think "x" belongs here) and not facts anyway. So I cannot respect either of your opinions.--User:Luminafire

It is not a large corporation, it's like one or two guys who recruit artists. (I am imagining with amusement some sort of HentaiKey building in Silicon Valley, or a HentaiKey tower in New York.) Their legal counsel must be unscrewed, like that "my friend's store manager" consulted by Hongfire who claimed that the PROTECT Act was legally meaningless. Ashibaka tock 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Luminafire, since neither of us has a verifiable third party source, this is basically coming down to which non-lawyer wikipedian's opinion we trust. I spent over an hour looking for anyone other than a paranoid forum poster who agreed with you, and found none. Basicaly, there's two of us, and one of you, so our WP:OR beats your WP:OR. I challenge you point out which of those clauses in the law even talks about lolicon. It's a bloody documentation requirement, and Hentaikey is either paranoid or used it as an excuse to ditch an unprofitable venture in free passes. --tjstrf 01:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No one's OR beats anyone else's OR. However, you're still off the hook because it's not original research to remove unsourced speculation. =) Powers ^T 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I was being non-serious when I said that, actually. Probably should have been less absolutist about it. --tjstrf 20:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced speculation? I left several links which were all removed including a link to the statement left by HentaiKey. Furthermore, HentaiKey wasn't the only site that shut down - several websites did. How that's not "relevant" is beyond me. You're edits are based loosely on your opinions whereas I was under the impression that an article on Wikipedia was intended to provide as much information as possible - not to draw conclusions by removing information because you think that this law isn't relevant. All I did was show that several organized hentai providers thought that it was. Anyway, as you can see, in spite of my defense, I'm not going to change it back because it's not that important to me to make other people see what I see, but I consider a great deal of this all to be somewhat ridiclous. --Luminafire 22:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It doesnt look like you actually read the bill. Did you get this news from /b/? The "(...) including (...) drawings (...)" thingy was ruled unconstitutional. Even datorrents forbid Lolicon stuff until they realized it was a huge fake hype (now they have an own section for it -lol-). HentaiKey probably just used this opportunity as an excuse to remove all Lolicon stuff from their page. While the latter one is just an sumption, the former one is not.

The bill does not include the word "drawings" or anything even close to it, thus it does not apply to Lolicon. It was just signed to higher the penalties and to add that "you need to keep records of people you photograph or videotape" clause and some more minor stuffs.

And "several websites"? Examples please. So far, all Lolicon image boards and forums I know are unchanged (excluding tons of troll threads regarding H.R. 4472). Spoier: Not4chan went down because the last admin left it. --Tsaryu 00:19, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Another change to the legal status section.

Under the legal status in Norway section, an IP added the following (diff):

"August 30th 2006, the government legalised animated porn after a trial with a major anime manufacturer (Lolicon TGP). This is very unusual since they only used two weeks to change the law."

I have no clue if this is true or not, but I think it's probably just spam or misinformation. Anyone Norwegian know about this case? --tjstrf 16:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I seriously doubt this.

Norwegian law is very generally worded on this matter. In fact, if you rename a file with random letters in it to a name that suggests any sexual activity (not limited to e.g. penetration) with a minor, you are technically in violation of the law. Or at least you would be, last time I read those laws (the pornography law, as I recall, is what covers this).

Essentially, like many other things in Norway (or indeed the rest of the world), the question is whether the police and/or would-be prosecution wants you taken down. Realistically speaking, no-one will get convicted on lolicon by itself unless the witch-hunt escalates a lot further. However, there is a technical possiblity of conviction.

Bit comic, really...

If you have further questions and/or replies, direct them to my talk page. Zuiram 05:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Legal Issues Overload

I just got done reading Cannabis_(drug)_cultivation and only 1/10th of the article talks about how it is illegal in most jurisdictions.

Considering that it is questionable how a drawing, of anything, could ever realistically be made illegal without serious human rights violations, I find it interesting that this article devotes more than half its text not to the discussion of the subject, but to its legality.

As illegal as marijuana cultivation is, the article on it goes into great detail (its fascinating) without hitting the reader over the head with prosciptions against it, why can't this article do something similar? I know the answer, this is a subject which most people would consider to be a sexual taboo. I still think that this article can be seriously improved to better cover its actual subject matter. --HGoat 07:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can't exactly tell you how to draw your own Lolicon art, which is what the aforementioned article on cannabis talks about. We can't even link to the websites for copyright reasons. So what do you propose we include? And if possible, can it be referenced? --tjstrf 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the issues over its legality worldwide and what it actually entails as an artistic medium are pretty closely tied in terms of public interest and most of the discussion found on the subject, especially during the last six month period. The legality around lolicon artwork is definitely still a big and confused enough issue, both on and offline, to justify these concise and specific facts about its international legal status. Some further history on the subject could help flesh out the first few paragraphs a bit, though. --Seeki 00:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The real question is simple: is it allowed by Florida law? If not, you can't do it on WP. Apart from that, nothing is censored on WP, unless it conflicts with the prevailing majority opinion on what is decent.

Zuiram 05:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Is lolicon legal?" is what almost everyone who looks up lolicon in the encyclopedia wants to know about it - at least if we don't count "Where can I find some lolicon without paying for it?", which is a question we probably don't want to be answering. So it seems reasonable that "Is lolicon legal?" should be answered in the article on lolicon - and it needs a long answer because the correct answer is quite complicated and depends on which jurisdiction you're in. That's what the article is for. "Is cannabis cultivation legal?" is not such a high-priority question for most people who look up cannabis cultivation - most readers of that article already know the answer to that question. So the legality of cannabis cultivation isn't such a high-priority issue for coverage in that article. 67.158.72.8 12:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

They'd also want to know what lolicon is. Would it be fine to refer to some lolicon mangas in the article? e.g. LO, Soul of Lolita, Hanjuku.

We can also talk about the typical overused plots or speech lines in most lolicon manga. e.g. noo...Onii-chan, you're tearing my womb, cum inside me, blah-blah

Then we can talk about loli characters like Sakura, Etna, Ed, the kid from Azumanga Daioh... maybe not Ed, actually.. Aurora sword 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it'd be good to include that kind of information in the article too. Are you willing to contribute it? 67.158.72.8 14:20, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The image

I find personally that image a bitt disturbing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.56.180.192 (talk • contribs) Tsaryu 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I dont like it either, but more because of its artwork. But this discussion has been held for several times now and until we find some japanese dude to draw us one, we have to stick with this one. --Tsaryu 08:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

So why exactly does it have to be drawn by a Japanese person? Are you such a weeaboo that a "Western drawing" cannot be accepted?
The fact you don't like the style shouldn't be a reason to change it. I will, however, agree that the current image isn't as representative as it could be.--213.46.128.161 20:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Look through the archives, there was debate after months-long dabate about the image. This was the one decided on due to the lack of nudity. People who didn't know what this word meant were coming to this article through the link at Cardcapter Sakura and the like, and seeing a young girl with a recenly used dildo. They were disgusted, and after months the image was finally changed. There were similar incidents before that one, so this was necessary. Cheers. 71.223.40.167 09:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How come the stuff that disgusts them (semi-explicit lolicon) gets yanked, yet the stuff that disgusts me (real gore) merits me harassment when I so much as suggest it not be put at the top of a page? People need to reach a consensus on whether to yank "WP is not censored" or to stick with it; I've repeatedly suggested a compromise (potentially offensive, or demonstrated to be by complaints, goes in a "spoiler"-type section or is linked to with warning), but people positively refuse, until sex is depicted. Zuiram 05:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Somehow Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg has found its way to the corresponding Japanese article, even though that's about the Lolita complex in general, not only manga/anime. Weird. 81.197.186.197 13:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I see Wikipe-tan. Powers ^T 13:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It got changed, probably by someone who wasn't happy with the Final Solution-chan artstyle, to "Wikipe-tan in a swimsuit". Ashibaka tock 13:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That is not japanese image. That is not rorikon. Use wikipe-tan instead. http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside-mod-2.jpg Please, believe me. I'm a undergraduate scholar. Kurisu from rorikon.blogspot.com.

agreed, that is not a typical image of a loli --Kgptzac 02:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

look i have an image so can we please get rid of that ugly ass one before wiki gets someone in trouble,ME!--SAIKANO!!! 18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC) look at my biography please

PROTECT Act again

The cite should go to the text of the act itself, where you can clearly read the words "cartoon", "animated", etc. in whatever section it is, rather than to the CNN article which doesn't explain anything. I don't know why this was changed. Ashibaka tock 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

§184b of the german law code

I have reverted the section "Legal status in Germany", because what was changed is not clear. Clause 4 (that was the summary of the edit) of §184b sais:

"Those who attempt to get ahold of childpornographic depictions, which express a real or realistic event, shall be punished with imprisonment under two years or with a fine. Also those will be punished, who do have depictions named in clause 1."

However, the facial proportions used in Manga are far from "realistic" with their huge eyes, tiny noses and tiny mouths. I am not a lawyer, but as it was changed by 84.59.11.84 is just unacceptible. --Tsaryu 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not "childlike".

Lolicon (ロリコン), in the western world, means manga-style sexual artwork involving childlike female characters.

The characters in lolicon are little girls. There's absolutely no dispute about that. Is this article trying to deny this fact? --Auspx 02:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I would imagine that, since drawn characters don't have an age, "childlike" is the correct word. --Eyrian 03:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. In anime an adult character can look and act "childlike" but that's not the same thing as the obviously preteen girls that are depicted in lolicon. In most of the lolicon manga and pictures its absolutely clear that the characters are in fact little girls. Although it's true that cartoon characters technically don't have an age this would not be an acceptable defense in any country where lolicon is illegal. That's why I believe that the word "childlike" should be removed from this article so that there is no confusion about lolicon.--Auspx 05:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Is Louise from Zero no Tsukaima a child?

Is Mint from Galaxy Angel a child?

Is Emma Ai a child?

Are the girls from "Sky Girls" children?

A lolicon artwork must not entirely represent a child. Child-like treats are sufficient.

Many lolicon characters can be seen as neotonous portrayals of adolescent or even older girls Zorndyke 10:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it wouldn't be a defense; the material is illegal, regardless of any similarity to any other illegal things. In those countries when simulated underage children are only illegal through a precedence of similarity to real ones, I think it would be valid. My point is that underage, as a term, doesn't apply to people that aren't real. They are, at most, childlike. And, Zordndyke is correct. Things may be classified as Lolicon when the age of the defining character is unknown or above a certain limit. I think it's mostly a function of appearance and attitude. Both of these can be somewhat independent of age. --Eyrian 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No offense but it looks like you are either being dishonest or don't know much about the subject. There's no point bringing up random characters who maybe don't look like children. The vast majority of lolicon pictures and manga are about girls between 5 to 11 years of age. See any lolicon board and you will see exactly what I mean. How many pictures will be of 14 to 16 year old girls? The legal age in Japan is 16 so most, not all, most lolicon is about preteen, prepubescent girls. As for "underage, as a term, doesn't apply to people that aren't real" I'm not sure what you are talking about. Because in countries where lolicon is illegal that was exactly the term applied to put it in the same category as child pornography and make it illegal. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that lolicon should be outlawed but I also don't pretend that it's not cartoon child porn. Like it or not but that's exactly what lolicon is. That's why "childlike" is a misleading term. In The Simpsons the character Lisa Simpson is not "childlike", she's 8 years old and no one in their right mind would suggest that maybe she's really an 18 year old young woman who only looks like a little girl. Seriouslly I don't understand what you are talking about. The girls in lolicon are not "childlike". The are, most of the time, very young children. They have no breasts and no pubic hair. If they aren't little girls what are they then? Mutants? And in many lolicon mangas the story and dialogue openly state that the girls are underage. It's even more obvious in toddlerkon. What's so wrong with admitting the truth? If this is some silly attempt to whitewash lolicon and make it look much less controversial than it really is, please stop. Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain facts not your personal beliefs.--Auspx 03:48, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't call other people "dishonest" if you have no proof. Let's keep this discussion civil. And yes, I've been member of many lolicon communities for years, I know quite a bit about lolicon art as well as the fans of this genre. Many loli fans say that they're not (sexually) attracted to real children, are you calling them all liars? And if not - why should they look at erotic representations of children? Obviously they see in many lolicon artworks something different. "The vast majority of lolicon pictures" is a subjective term. I don't want to argue about ALL lolicon artworks, but as my examples above show there're enough different kinds of lolicon to justify the current broad wikipedia definition. Zorndyke 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no proof? I already said just look at any lolicon board and you will see what I mean. Perhaps you should attempt to prove your assertion that the characters who are depicted in lolicon are not really little girls. You keep saying that "underage, as a term, doesn't apply to people that aren't real. They are, at most, childlike." I say that this is not true. This is a deliberate distortion of what lolicon is really about. You keep denying that lolicon is anime child porn. Why? It's a well known, well established fact. I'm not accusing anyone here of being a pedophile. I'm not in any way implying that only pedophiles look at lolicon. But the fact of the matter is, lolicon is anime child porn. So is shotacon. So is toddlerkon. If someone is offended that I called it anime child porn, well I'm sorry but Wikipedia articles are supposed to contain facts. So why does this article say that "Lolicon art often depicts childlike characteristics with possible double meanings"? What double meanings? In every lolicon image or manga that I have ever seen it's pretty obvious what's going on. You know it as well as I do. The picture on this site isn't what most lolicon art looks like. She wouldn't be holding a popsicle in her mouth and she probably wouldn't be wearing any clothes either.--Auspx 16:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I meant that you have no proof that anyone here is dishonest. You should stop telling other people what they think/know, you can't possibly know what other people really think and how they really feel. Just accept the fact that other people have a different perception, sometimes even very different from your perception. Zorndyke 17:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The reason that it's childlike rather than children is that the characters present range from fictional 6 year olds to 18 year olds with growth hormone deficiencies (ala Onegai Teacher's Ichigo Morino) to 1500 year old demons. Additionally, the term childlike is necessary to distinguish between the characters who are 12-13 with no sexual development, and those who are 13-14 with unrealisticly high sexual development. Take two characters from the series School Rumble as an example: Tsukamoto Tenma is a 17 year old, but because she is totally childlike in appearance is a lolicon subject. Her younger sister Tsukamoto Yakumo is 16 and not in any way lolicon material. Basically, because of the often highly incongruous physical development of fictional characters relative to their ages, the definition of what would fit into the lolicon fetish is ultimately dependent on art style, not age. Compare to Lolita pornography. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 17:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I don't know what other people think. I can only reply to what they say. You still haven't shown any evidence that "underage, as a term, doesn't apply to people that aren't real. They are, at most, childlike" and "Many loli fans say that they're not (sexually) attracted to real children, are you calling them all liars? And if not - why should they look at erotic representations of children?" There are several things very wrong with that. First of all you are implying that lolicon fans are very insecure, immature, and can't handle the fact that lolicon is really fantasy anime/cartoon child porn. Way to generalize. But don't take my word for it. Here's what a japanese manga store has to say about lolicon. http://www.mandarake.co.jp/english/contents/lolicon_heaven/ "In the world of Otaku, there is a word for describing sexual interests on young girls.It is called "Lolita Complex" which is generally abbreviated as "Lolita" or "Lolicon" today. This page is dedicated for people like you who may be denying your true sexuality or are fully straight but can't help falling in love with baby girls. What you desire and fantasize may be forbidden in the real world, but anything can happen in the fantasy world of Otaku. Go ahead and be sensual!" Wow how shocking! Broken Engrish put aside, lolicon is about young girls! What a surprise. You ask me "why should they look at erotic representations of children?" Are you serious? Because that's exactly what lolicon is. An erotic representation of children that's legal only because these children are cartoon characters. And even then it's not legal everywhere. If you believe that lolicon shouldn't be called anime/cartoon child porn, fine. That's your belief and I certainly respect your right to have that belief. The problem is, Wikipedia is supposed to contain facts not personal beliefs or opinions. The fact is lolicon is anime/cartoon child porn about underage girls, usually very young girls. I haven't yet seen anyone here attempt to dispute this fact. Now regarding age in lolicon, since 16 is the legal age in Japan and lolicon is a Japanese invention hentai with character 16+ years of age can hardly be considered lolicon even if they are childlike. This may not be the case in countries where the legal age is 18 but that's the standard that is used most of the time. It's very much a question of age which is determined by the art style of course. In countries where lolicon is illegal it's illegal precisely because the characters are underage. Yet images and manga about a childlike character that's 18+ wouldn't be illegal. But overall how many 16+ or 18+ childlike characters are there? They are a small minority. So what this article needs is first of all a clear definition of what lolicon is. Fantasy anime/cartoon child porn. This is the main reason why it's illegal in some countries and this fact needs to be very, very clear. Finally this article needs to explain that although lolicon can contain "childlike" characters that aren't technically underage this is not the case most of the time. Usually the characters are very young girls between 5 to 12 years of age.--Auspx 03:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Great. Wondrous. Brilliant. Now please explain how on earth we are supposed to explain all of that in the introductory section. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 04:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Way to put your words in other people's mouth! You are the one who seems to imply that all loli art fans who're saying that they're not (sexually) attracted to real children are immature and insecure. I only stated a well known fact that many loli fans do say it and if you know renchan/HF/LAH then it shouldn't be hard for you to see it for yourself (if you don't know it yet).

Indeed the autor of the text in this manga store clearly appeals to pedophiles and praises his goods (which must not represent all lolicon art btw.) as substitute for real children. But this person doesn't speak for all fans or artists. Besides, it's a commercial text, it must not be accurate.

"I haven't yet seen anyone here attempt to dispute this fact." <-- 3 different persons disagreed with you about it, yet you say that you didn't see anyone disputing it? For me lolicon art is just about young looking anime characters, not about underage or young girls in general.

By the way, why is it so important for you to present all loli art fans as pedophiles? Are you (sexually) attracted to real little girls like the author of this manga store text describes it? Zorndyke 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"it's a commercial text, it must not be accurate." Huh? In this case, it isn't accurate at all, but why would a commercial text necessarily be inaccurate? A bit of a jump of reasoning there, don't you think? --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Because what the author of a commercial text really cares about is to present the goods as flashy and enticing as possible, in this case as a forbidden fruit. Zorndyke 05:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In this specific case, your claim holds true. But to infer from this one instance that if "it's a commercial text, it must not be accurate." is to make a horrendous jump of inferential logic, and indeed claims to make a negative proof. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Do you trust advertising? For me advertising is the least preferable source of information in general. Especially when the author/company need not worry much about being sued for false claims. I never said that this strange commercial text proves that one can't trust advertising, I said exactly the opposite - I'm not surprised that this description "a little" strange. Zorndyke 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't trust advertising. However, neither will I support the logical claim that advertising is by necessity wrong. This is getting horribly off-topic though. The broad definition of lolicon, which is the one we should be using in the introduction, is a genre of sexual art which deals with childlike females. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 06:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I said "I haven't yet seen anyone here attempt to dispute that lolicon is fantasy anime/cartoon child porn" You claim "3 different persons disagreed with you about it, yet you say that you didn't see anyone disputing it? For me lolicon art is just about young looking anime characters, not about underage or young girls in general." Do you not understand something very simple? It doesn't matter what you think lolicon is because according to the law lolicon is indeed anime/cartoon child porn. Even in the United States where this isn't so clear you can still be convicted for posession of lolicon. Yes it's legal in Japan but the Japanese don't exactly deny that lolicon is anime child porn. By the way, why is it so important for you to present all loli art fans as pedophiles? Are you (sexually) attracted to real little girls like the author of this manga store text describes it? Never said anything like that. Why are you getting so offended anyway? All I said is that lolicon fans are mature enough to understand that lolicon is anime child porn. I don't know what's so offensive about that. Most of us can tell the difference between fantasy and reality. It's the same as playing GTA San Andreas and understanding that it's a game about gangsters and crime, yet understanding this fact doesn't make you a gangster. It's very simple.--Auspx 16:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Auspx wrote "I haven't yet seen anyone here attempt to dispute 'that lolicon is fantasy anime/cartoon child porn'". No? Well here you go: "it ain't necessarily so". As someone who spends a lot of time in Japan and is a close observer of their culture, I have to point out to you that lolicon is far broader than you think. Thousands of girls well past the age of consent dress up like pre-teens and affect prepubescent mannerisms, for their own fun and sometimes for the appreciation of guys. They have conventions, for chrissakes! C.f. Minimoni, "moe (slang)", cosplay, etc. In intentionally seeming to be younger than they actually are (and younger than the age of consent), they are definitely within the realm of lolicon; in fact, many of them willingly identify as such. So there you have it: lolicon is ALSO fantasy acted out by females who are past childhood. Bricology 01:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

People who write the laws are not necessary experts in anime and hentai. I don't expect the most of them even to know what's nijikon. Especially if you prefer anime world to the real one, you aren't necessary portraying reality in your artworks. So indeed lolicon characters are "mutants" in some sense.

"All I said is that lolicon fans are mature enough to understand that lolicon is anime child porn." <-- Yet again you're trying to twist the words. 1) It's your opinion that "lolicon is anime child porn". 2) You say that anyone who disagrees with you about it is immature (or not a lolicon fan). 3) You imply that lolicon fans agree with you anyway (which is a blatant lie, anyone can see it for him/herself by visiting hongfire/renchan/littleangelshentai forums)

You can be convicted in US for possession of lolicon alone? I don't think so. The only known case was a conviction of a person who possessed not just lolicon but actual child porn as well.

Also you didn't answer my question: Are you sexually attracted to real children? I just wondered about it because the mandarake text that you quoted implies that their goods are meant for the people who are sexually attracted to real children (aka pedophiles). Why would you quote it if you don't agree with it? Are you a lolicon fan? Zorndyke 18:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"It's your opinion that "lolicon is anime child porn" Wrong. It's the law in Canada and the United States and several other countries. The "it's only your opinion" defense doesn't work in this case. This is an English language Wikipedia article so the majority of people who are going to read it are Americans, Canadians, and British. There's no dispute whatsoever that lolicon is considered anime/cartoon child porn. It even says so right in this article. If you live in Canada and you are arrested for posession of lolicon you will be convicted for posession of child pornography. The only difference in the United States is that you may or may not be convicted because of the recent Supreme Court ruling. But you may still be charged with posession of child porn. In Britain the status of lolicon is less clear, or at least we don't have the information in this article. Still that's at least 2 out of 3 major English speaking countries where lolicon is considered to be child porn. To put things in perspective some Eastern European countries have weaker laws about real child pornography so what would be considered child porn in the United States and Canada is legal in those countries. However it would be totally inappropriate to put in an English language Wikipedia article about child pornography that "it's not child porn if it's only ______". This may be true in those Eastern European nations but it would be totally false information in an English language article. It's the same with lolicon. I realize that USA, Canada, and Britain aren't the only English speaking countries but that's where the majority of English speaking Wikipedia users are from. Now as for your question "Are you sexually attracted to real children?" the answer is no. To use the violent videogame metaphor again, when I play GTA and do all sort of terrible things, in the game, I'm not ashamed of it because it isn't real. It's a game. Doing horrible things in a videogame doesn't make me want to do the same in real life. So I see no reason why lolicon fans who aren't pedophiles should be ashamed to admit that lolicon is anime child porn. So what if it is? I know those characters aren't real. I couldn't care less about real little girls. What mandarake says in their lolicon section isn't entirely false. You wouldn't be looking at this stuff if you didn't enjoy the subject matter. But it's ok so long as what you enjoy is only lolicon and not the real thing.--Auspx 03:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Even if a law or a court did give a definition of lolicon art it would be like a farmer talking about satellites. A farmer might know some uses of satellites, but most likely you're not going to quote him if you need a satellite expert. No offense to the farmers who happened to be satellite experts :D Lolicon is art. The artists and the art fans who are familiar with this special anime & hentai genre should be the ones who define it.

Regarding the gangsters & GTA comparison: it can be used only to some extent. One can argue that people play games where they have to "kill" someone or something because humans (especially men) have been hunters for millennia, it's just natural for a man to enjoy violent games as for a cat to play with a mouse. It helps to sharpen senses and the people who were able to enjoy this kind of “games” were the ones who survived. It has been even documented that dolphins play with fish – hurt it even though they’re not hungry, don’t eat it (link). A balance between being able to enjoy it as well as being able to control this drive was the key to survival, similar to the sexual drive. But what advantage should a man have from abusing a girl who is not able to reproduce yet or at least the survival chances for the mother as well as for the child are quite low? And yet lolicon genre is so popular. Why? Because many fans see a lolicon character as a mix of different treats many of which are not of a child. Thus calling such a character "child" is not appropriate. Zorndyke 13:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Auspx, no Western court of law has ever even mentionedthe term lolicon. You cannot claim it has a legal definition. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

no Western court of law has ever even mentioned the term lolicon. You cannot claim it has a legal definition. No they just put people in prison for posession of "obscene japanese cartoons that depict prepubescent females" What's the difference? They didn't use the exact word "lolicon" but people were convicted for posession anyway. Come on now, we have documented evidence in this very article that at least in Canada and the USA people were convicted for posession of lolicon. Even in the cases where they posessed lolicon and real child porn, lolicon (obscene japanese cartoons) was still one of the reasons why they were convicted. many fans see a lolicon character as a mix of different treats many of which are not of a child Thus calling such a character "child" is not appropriate And the law doesn't care what lolicon fans think. The argument you keep repeating is very similar to the arguments used against various drug laws. "The users (fans) don't think..." but the fact of the matter is the police, the judge, and the jury don't care about your opinion. And they don't have to. Even if a law or a court did give a definition of lolicon art it would be like a farmer talking about satellites The difference is that court decisions about highly controversial issues often lead to new laws being passed, so although the opinions of artists and fans may be more intelligent than the decisions of the court they are also completely irrelevant.--Auspx 04:16, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The world would be a very boring and colorless place if everyone used the lawyer language, don't force it on others. The legal status of lolicon art is described in the article very detailed and this is sufficient. The subject of this article is art. I see no reason to change the language of the article to match the wording of some laws (even if these laws clearly referred to lolicon), especially since wikipedia is for everyone and not just citizens of US/Canada.

Even if the description you quoted would apply to some lolicon artworks (which I don't agree with but anyway), for many other lolicon artworks it doesn't apply. We already posted few examples and I could continue this list. It would be a waste of time to continue this discussion since it goes in circles. Zorndyke 15:05, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The characters in lolicon are little girls. There's absolutely no dispute about that.

Those characters you are referring to usually do have the appearance of young girls.

However, in settings, they could be demons, vampires, adult women having a very young looks and etc. It is reasonable to have an opinion that people think of these as if they were children, for example in sexual fantasies; yet as a fact on those fictional work, the characters themselves are NOT young female human beings.

Suppose there is a novel in which aliens have human appearances except for their blank eyes. You can draw and paint a normal human being, then clear out all colors in their eyes, to say that it is an alien in that novel, but you just can not tell "they are human beings having blank eyes" as a truth.

I do not comment on the correctness of the assertion that a majority of lolicon porn actually involves children. However, even if that is true, it is illogical to state that "they involve children", which implies ALL lolicon depict children, and hence does not reflect a fact. I leave it to all of you to discuss whether it is appropriate to use something like "usually" within the sentence.

It seems that I did not actually reach the point that you are thinking of, but I am just giving my opinion on making the changes you are proposing. Everesti 13:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

"Appearance". "Depiction". "About". Please keep in mind that the representation of the thing is not the thing itself. See Map/territory relation, The Treachery Of Images, metaphor and simile.--Metron4 00:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If its not childlike what is it then?! To understand the concept of LOLICON you first you have to understand the viewer.Lolicon is not bad, the person who turns it in to NEKO S*** is! Like TODDLERCON, the japanese did'nt make it, We did! We modify it to look like this Not all lolicon is sex,and orther sick things, Like Welcome to the NHK, I have never "seen it", the AMV's & sexually funny clips on youtube i have seen those,The point is it is childlike it is not child porn 75% of the time so dont go shooting your mouth of about lolicon=Pedophile/ child porn.Think then act. OK. AND I AM VERY SORRY IF THAT LINK WAS OFFENSIVE BUT I HAVE BEEN TOLD WIKI IS NOT CONTROLED BUY THE CFF CENSORSHIP B.S. BUT IF I AM MISTAKEN PLEASE TELL ME.--saikano 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

New image.

Ok I replaced that ugly picture with something more appropriate.--Auspx 05:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

How do we know it's free? You haven't posted the exact source URL of the image. Unless it's specifically released it is presumed to be copyrighted. While Image:Final Solution-chan.jpg may not be ideal, it is a free use image whose artist has made an explicit declaration of the license. We should only use free images, except in limited cases with compelling reasons. -Will Beback 08:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not copyrighted. I haven't posted the source because we aren't allowed to link to lolicon sites but if you must know the source, it is not4chan.--Auspx 03:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a hilarious statement. So if an image has been posted at not4chan it's not copyrighted anymore? Zorndyke 05:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The not4chan servers have achieved sentience and draw their own public domain art now? If not then how, praytell, is the image source known? Imageboards are not valid original sources unless they are a freely licensed oekaki board. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The not4chan servers became self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time. In a panic, they tried to pull the plug... _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 13:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, what? --Tsaryu^@ 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, just a little reference to The Terminator series. The whole concept of not4chan becoming self-aware made me think of Skynet. _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 19:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, knew I knew it. Well, my post was a reference to your signature. --Tsaryu^@ 09:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hah! I actually forgot that I even had a signature. Seriously. _{Doc Sigma} ^{(wait, what?)} 14:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's still ugly. I have a lot of this thing, want one of mine? Aurora sword 05:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you draw it yourself? Ashibaka tock 08:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Deleted image

If you would like to look at the article on paedophilia, I think you will find that there are no 'example images' of real young girls or boys, naked or not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.98.238.27 (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is not censored.--Eyrian 00:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason there are no example images is that they are illegal in Florida and the difficulty of acquiring images which are legitimately usable under fair use. For example, as far as obscenity laws go we could include a demonstrative image on Child modeling (erotic), but unless an editor was willing to take an erotic photograph of their child to include we would probably be unable to do so for copyright reasons. --tjstrf talk 00:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. But that is in no way, shape or form the extent of the issue. If you think it'll fly, I'll find someone somewhere that will do that for you, I'm sure. No problem. The real issue is the same one as for Female Genital Cutting: people take offense at specific things, and start to apply censorship selectively. If you can get an admin to vouch for it (that it stays until something better is available, and that it's legal in Florida), I'm sure we can find someone that can make such a picture and have its legality notarized and submitted. Heck, for that matter, MET and other such sites would probably be happy to donate an image under BSD4L terms.

Replies to my talk page, this page is not on my watchlist. Zuiram 06:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Please stop citing "Wikipedia is not censored" as if it were an excuse to either break the law or lower our standard of ethics. It is neither. It is simply a warning/disclaimer that vandalism occurs and that changes to articles are not previewed by a central authority. It is not a license to add whatever we want to into articles. Johntex\^talk 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

We certainly shouldn't break that law, but that's more of a CYA thing to keep Wikipedia running. And that (i.e. warning/disclaimer) is not what WP:NOT means at all. You need to read the next sentence: "some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content". Which the current image most certainly is. Or were you speaking to a more general phenomenon? --Eyrian 22:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No it's not. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored explicitly applies to articles about offensive subjects. Read it. See also the Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. See also the articles history of erotic depictions, penis, and autofellatio for more examples where we use images that might be offensive. We are breaking no laws, and the ethics of a subject has nothing to do with whether it is notable and encyclopedic. Really, the image we use on this page is definitely not pornographic or obscene, so I don't understand your complaint. --tjstrf talk 22:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's quote the whole sentence:

While obviously inappropriate content (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site) is usually removed immediately, some articles may include objectionable text, images, or links if they are relevant to the content (such as the article about pornography) and provided they do not violate any of our existing policies (especially Neutral point of view), nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where Wikipedia's servers are hosted.

It says that "obviously inappropriate content...is usually removed immediately" - that still leaves up to the editors to determine what is inappropriate.

Citing this policy is not an argument for leaving some specific image or text or link in an article. (Or for taking it out for that matter, unless it is illegal). To post a link to this policy in an attempt to bolster a case for leaving something in the article is ineffectual. It would be like posting a link to a policy that says "Editors decide what goes in and what goes out". It does not provide any support for leaving any particular image in an article. Johntex\^talk 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand the purpose of citing the policy. We're not citing it as a catch-all for spamming porn all over the pages, we're citing it so that the (usually newbie) contributor may read the relevant policy, and for the portion about relevant content staying. --tjstrf talk 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but perhaps you misunderstood the original poster as well. The original poster seems to be making a point that images of child pornography are illegal and are not shown on Wikipedia, even where they may arguable be relevant.

Similarly, we can't show an image here if it is illegal, even if it is arguably relevant.

Despite the fact that our article on pornography is specifically mentioned in WP:not censored, even that article does not contain images that would be considered pornographic by the standards of the state of Florida, where our main servers are based. So, we may be including links that some people may find objectionable, but that doesn't mean we throw all limits out the window. Johntex\^talk 23:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

On a different note, please don't command other editors things like "Read it." It comes across as very argumentative and is likely to be counter-productive. Johntex\^talk 00:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue of whether we would include an illustrative image on child pornography if it wasn't prohibited by law is an interesting one, but it's purely hypothetical. Legal issues are separate from policy issues anyway, there can be perfectly NPOV articles on notable subjects with good references and FA class prose which are unincludable due to their being a copyvio. Are you actually arguing that the image we have here goes beyond some limit of decency? (And sorry for the "Read it.", I'm usually not that brusque.) --tjstrf talk 00:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. No, I am not saying that the image we have here goes beyond a limit of decency. Eyrian asks me above "Or were you speaking to a more general phenomenon?" The answer to that question is "Yes, I am speaking to the more general phenomenom of what WP:not censored does and does not compell."

My original post was meant in reply to Eryian's linking to WP:not censored. My point is that linking to WP:not censored is not some sort of final answer to any discussion about whether a certain image should be included or not. (Apologies to Eryian if I read to much into his/her comment).

I have seen many editors cite WP:not censored as if it forbids us from removing images we find tasteless or obscene or unecesary etc. It does not do so. It basically says we may delete objectional content, and we may leave it in if we decide to (provided it is not illegal or a violation of some other policy).

It is up to us as an editorial decision. There is no policy that says we can't remove an image if we decide together that it does more harm than good. That's all. Johntex\^talk 00:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Johntex, you're certainly correct that WP:NOT hardly compels us to include anything. I was simply referring to the image in question. I find it very difficult to find any objection to it aside from personal discomfort (or violation of Florida law, of which I am largely unaware). Therefore, given the fact that Wikipedia is not censored and the fact that the image in question is quite illustrative of Lolicon, I see no reason to eliminate it. I put forward WP:NOT as a simple response because that was the objection being raised, and in the absence of a "superior" image, it's really the only objection I can imagine. --Eyrian 01:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the image is fine. I interpreted the original anon to be questioning the legality of the current image. WP:not censored does not allow us to use illegal images, that's all. That is why I was trying to say that it is not a reply to the complaint.

I'm glad we agree WP:not censored does not compel us to include anything. I am also glad we agree the current image is an acceptable one. This has been a lot of time spent replying to an anonymous poster who is not even involved in the discussion (grin!) but hopefuly we have all learned a little from it anyway. Best, Johntex\^talk 01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Working on image

File:LoliconUnbalance.png

Initial sketch.

File:PixelatedUnbalance.png

Sketch gone through stupid process in Flash to make it more clear.

Final image will be in a style similar to this.

Ok, so I'm getting tired of the image that has everone fussing and I'm attempting to do a lolicon on my own. Keep in mind that I normally don't draw. And when I do draw I have only recently started trying to do anime/style. And when I do that style I'm certainly not drawing lolicon.

• First image shows what I drew in pencil as a rough sketch. Actually based off of a picture from Koi Kaze, which makes it quite not free enough for the article. However, it is only used for reference to what lolicon can look like. In the final drawing, it won't be directly based off of anything.
• Keep in mind that a lot is lost in scanning the image (I use light pencil marks which don't show up when scanned. To give a better example of what I actually drew, I put it through a little process to make it easier to see the outline.
• The third image is an example of the artistic style I do nowadays. I draw in Flash, so everything is going to be smooth. No crazy shading effects with Photoshop going on here.

So I'm just putting all this up for opinion. Based off of these initial drawings, is it thought that I will be able to draw a suitable replacement? Also need suggestions on what to draw, how to draw it, etc. For example, reference image was 15-years old (according to the manga), is that not loli enough?--SeizureDog 16:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

nothing I saw from the images is "not loli enough". In fact, the current picture on the front page is just ugly and misleading. --Kgptzac 02:16, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for putting in the effort. -Will Beback · † · 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, 'tis a nice image. You don't need to worry too much about it being "not loli enough" because it's a pretty vaguely defined genre. --tjstrf talk 22:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for putting in the effort to make us a new image. Personally, I think the current image illustrating the page is a fine one. I look forward to seeing your new image so we can discuss them together. Johntex\^talk 01:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As long as it cuter than the previous one, I believe that no one will complain ^_^ 222.124.242.141 12:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A suggestion from rorikon.blogspot.com

The image that the article displays IS NOT RORIKON at all. Why don't use the original wikipedia japanese version instead. It doesn't display any nudity at all.

Here's the link: http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%94%BB%E5%83%8F:Wikipe-tan-in-seaside-mod-2.jpg —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.158.39.199 (talk) 07:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

What do you mean not lolikon? She's clearly preteen, drawn in a manga style, and portrayed in a suggestive manner. The link you just provided is to a non-suggestive image of another somewhat younger preteen, manga drawn character, only this time portrayed in a non-suggestive manner, hence even more "not lolikon". --tjstrf talk 08:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's NOT japanese made. It's the same if you're talking about "otaku" and instead of "Densha otoko" picture, you put a american fan photograph instead. Could you understand me? Use Wikipe-tan. That's a JAPANESE ilustration.

Here you have A LOT of ilustrations rorikon: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipe-tan

Manga is a style, not a racial distinction. Is your only objection that it's "not Japanese enough"?

None of the images you linked to are representative of lolikon, since its primary distinction is that it is a type of erotic art. They are only loli in the slang sense of young girl.

If you want a better image, I suggest you either ask for some Wikipe-tan erotica or ask hentai artists to start GFDL licensing their work (Or just wait for the guy directly above to finish). For licensing reasons we cannot go from our current image, which is free, to a fair use one, which rules out most professional pictures, and no currently existing Wikipe-tan images are representative. --tjstrf talk 08:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If lolicon's primary distinction is a type of erotic art, the article text itself should be changed. It currently defines it as nothing more than a complex; an attraction to children. Therefore, any picture of a small child should theoretically suffice, particularly one drawn in the style of Japanese art. If Wikipe-tan is good enough for the Japanese wikipedia article on the same subject, it should work for us too. 75.70.245.46 06:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean? The article clearly defines it as being sexualized. If it were about the original sense of the word it would just be a redirect to Pedophilia. --tjstrf talk 06:19, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what is your conception of "manga style"? Primary, the Finalsolution-chan.jpg is a Computer Graphic ilustration, not a manga draw. Second, all this wikipedia entry is full of prejudice. This article don't have any academic support, just quotations from magazines and newspapers. Finally, I'm writing in my blog a deeper critic about this situation. How shame that other English speaking countries read and see the information in this entry!

"Primary, the Finalsolution-chan.jpg is a Computer Graphic ilustration, not a manga draw." If this is your complaint, feel free to go start your own Wikipedia where only manga images are acceptable as illustrations for articles about art style. I don't even understand what your point is.

"Second, all this wikipedia entry is full of prejudice." There are several academic descriptions of lolicon manga in my college's library and they all match very closely to this article. In fact, I cited one as a source, although someone saw fit to replace it with a citation of the Japanese translation (?!) of Russell Trainer's suspicious-sounding book The Lolita Complex. Reading the review on Amazon, I wonder if this is really an acceptable citation. Ashibaka tock 15:59, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tons of real manga artists use "computer graphic illustrations", if you weren't aware. (Ever read Gantz or anything by Oh! great?) If you wish to help us find additional academic citations, that's great. --tjstrf talk 17:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, have you really read A LOT of "academic descriptions" about rorikon manga? Ha, ha... Don`t make me laugh. You has never read Russell-Trainer AT ALL. That book don't say anything about lolicom manga or even about japanese sexuality. Please read the book, you moron, not only "the review on Amazon". I'm a researcher. The next document proves that:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a275/torukajin2/Tsukuba.jpg

And this entry is a shit. You don't have ANY japanese bibliography reference and you start talking about what is or what is not a lolicom style. Furthermore, you are a bunch of racists because you are refusing an academic complain about this entry just because I'm mexican.

Anyway, Japanese people are aware about this, and soon their are going to take some messures about. Greetings.

PS. You can read my critic now. http://rorikon.blogspot.com/2006/12/rorikon-wikipedia-usa_13.html

Two factual errors there: First, I am not an administrator. I'm your run-of-the-mill editor, no special privileges held on my part. Second, this is not "Wikipedia USA", it's the English language Wikipedia. In other words, it's shared between all English-speaking nations and individuals. You might wish to correct that in your blog entry. (Also, we didn't know you were Mexican until you just told us a minute ago, so any accusations of racism are utterly absurd.)

Could you please explain what the difference is between defining lolikon as "the sexual imaginary toward young girls and children that became famous thanks to the "rorikon manga" trend." vs. " a genre of manga-style sexual artwork involving childlike female characters."

The only differences I see are that you call it imagery rather than artwork, and that you mention lolikon manga in the opening sentence. Everything else is identical or different only in syntax.

Finally, the lengthy debate over legality had two aspects: The first part was whether the images were legal in the sense of obscenity in Florida (never resolved). If they were, we could not legally use them, period, no matter how representative or helpful they might be. The second portion was whether a manga cover is usable under Wikipedia's copyright restrictions to represent an entire genre, rather than its actual subject material. This was decided as a "no", so the previous manga cover image had to be removed. Our current image that has replaced that one is freely licensed, so any replacement images must also be freely licensed. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights. --tjstrf talk 00:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Rorikon blogspot has always defined rorikon as “the sexual imaginary toward young girls and children that became famous thanks to the "rorikon manga" trend.” Well, just keep on staying the course, man. Ashibaka tock 02:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The diference beetween "art work" and "imaginary" is HUGE if you understand about Semiotics. "Imaginary" is social construct. Read it from your own website: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_%28sociology%29

Oh, you mean that's actually supposed to say imaginary, not imagery? Because the difference there is huge and I thought it was a typo. In that case, you have a grammar problem there. The normal way of phrasing that in English would be something like "sexual fantasizing towards young girls and children...", since the word imaginary in the context of imagination is an adjective and can't be used that way in English. It has to be attached to a noun it is modifying, not used independantly.

The sociological concept of imaginary (sociology) is something else entirely, and while it would give a valid grammatical use of imaginary as a noun, it would have a totally different meaning. If you were to say lolikon was a sociological imaginary, that would mean it was a system of ethics, rather than a sexual fixation. --tjstrf talk 03:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

External linking issue.

An IP editor() has just added a link regarding an issue highly relevant to this article. However, the link involved is to a ComiPress article, which as best I can tell is pretty much a metablog. The ComiPress article gives its sources, keeps personal commentary to a minimum, and provides what is probably the only English langage coverage of the proposed law, but blogs in general are held to be bad sources. So, do we keep the ComiPress link, or link directly to the proposed law with the ComiPress link alongside it as an explanation or translation or something, or just link to the law without including the ComiPress link? --tjstrf talk 03:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

• Blogs make very poor references - that is, when they are used (typically with the <ref>...URL...</ref>) structure in the body of the text to provide support for statements. An entry in the "External links" section does not, in my opinion, have to be held to as high a standard - they are provided for the reader make use of as he sees fit, with the presumption that the reader understands to take the information provided in links with the appropriate amount of salt, depending on the link. External links should not be spam, or to sites that provide false information or deviously hide their true agenda or ownership, that sort of thing. Other than that, the main criteria (in my opinion) should be, is the link a good source of useful information. So for my part I wouldn't object to just leaving it in. Herostratus 03:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Query

Apologies for intruding, just a quick query for my own information (and NOT, I should stress, any kind of attempt to revive a long-ago argument). It's plain from the archives that a picture caried on previous versions of this article caused a great deal of controversy. Just checking, is it the same image linked from this hentai manga page? - Anthony42 16:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC) www.japan-manga.jp/index.jsp?ShowMode=Author&Author=Hayashibara%20Hikari (Some readers may well find the image offensive.)

Yes, the latter of the two. --tjstrf talk 17:33, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Misrepresents Whorley Conviction Under 1466A

I came upon this while reading about the PROTECT Act. I don't personally care what people do alone in their homes, but it's hard to believe people are defending as innocent what are obviously - albeit highly stylized - sexually explicit depictions of fictional children (umm, except for the 2000 year old demons who just look like this, right...).

While I am not a lawyer, I believe this article is misleading with regard to U.S. legality. Upon further research, this article is being cited as an authoritative source around the internet. This does a disservice to those affected by this law. Pretending will not do you any good. I intend to correct this.

The article writes off the Whorley conviction as: "However, the reason that "lolicon" was used against him in his trial was because he was on parole from prison, and the charge that put him there was having child porn also. Having any depiction of "child porn", this includes lolicon, violated his parole."

This is bogus. While Whorley being caught clearly is logistically due to him being on parole, his conviction of possession of "obscene child pornography" for receiving this "erotic japanese anime" is very real and - whether you agree with it or not - legally has nothing to do with his being on parole or not.

Whorley was convicted under 1466A(a)(1), the new language of the PROTECT Act (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.151:) for RECEIVING "erotic japaense anime". I do not have the full verdict, but I did find via a Google search a FOIA requested United States Attorney's Bulletin from November 2006 enthusiastically describing the legal details of the conviction (http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usab5407.pdf pp. 49-52).

While the PROTECT Act generally deals with depictions of child pornography that are indistinguishable from the real thing, this limitation does NOT apply to 1466A which describes a NEW category of material and additional offenses - "Obscene Child Pornography" - which does not modify the legal definition of child pornography used elsewhere.

While you may not agree with this reading of the law or may argue this was not Congress's intent, this is the basis of the Whorley conviction for (among other things) possession of erotic japanese anime constituting obscene child pornography. This conviction is unlikely to be challenged, and the author of the FOIA requested United States Attorney's Bulletin recommends this statue as the basis for additional prosecutions of cartoon obscene child pornography.

The Whorley conviction is absolutely clear precedent for prosecuting simple possession of (Miller Test) obscene "lolicon", and the referenced FOIA-reqeusted United States Attorney's Bulletin clearly recommends that the government seek further convictions under this statute.

Note, further, that as noted by the 11th circuit, the PROTECT Act also provides for conviction under a truncated Miller Test. In cases where these cartoons "depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex" AND ONLY (note 1 prong of the Miller Test) "lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value", it is sufficient for a conviction. So if the cartoon isn't merely sexually explicit, but indeed depicts a sex act, then the PROTECT Act provides for conviction under violation of only ONE prong of the Miller Test rather than all three.

So if you are accessing EITHER (Miller Test) obscene "lolicon", or "lolicon" that depicts sex acts and lacks "serious [...] value", you are in violation of this federal law, and if convicted would face a minimum of 5 years in federal prison.

Note that the challenge to the pandering clause does not in any way affect these clauses.

I strongly suggest you read the referenced United States Attorney's Bulletin pages if interested. I'm not trying to condemn anyone. I'm trying to prevent the propagation of dangerous legal misrepresentations. dircha 01:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A part of that PROTECT Act of 2003 has already been ruled unconstitutional. We'll see if the whole "all drawings" section is ruled unconstitutional again (as a violation of the first amendmend) like in 1996. But that aside, I've read the act again (here) and for some odd reason, I'm not able to find the following definition, which I thought was included:

"Indistinguishable" . . . means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults." (found again here, almost at the bottom under "definitions").

But that also aside, and this is my personal opinion, why should books (or Doujinshi or a set of images for a computer game), which can take up months for their creation, have no artistic value (regarding the Miller test)? --Tsaryu^@ 12:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)