Game Whores Lolicon
🛑 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Game Whores Lolicon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Sketch gone through stupid process in Flash to make it more clear.
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)) Reply [ reply ]
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. Ashi b aka tock 11:39, 9 August 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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.
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.
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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. Ashi b aka tock 01:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
"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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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.
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 Reply [ reply ]
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. Ashi b aka tock 16:46, 18 September 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
Auspx, no Western court of law has ever even mentioned the term lolicon. You cannot claim it has a legal definition. -- tjstrf Now on editor review! 06:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
Ok I replaced that ugly picture with something more appropriate.-- Auspx 05:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
It's still ugly. I have a lot of this thing, want one of mine? Aurora sword 05:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
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 ) .
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.
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) Reply [ reply ]
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) Reply [ reply ]
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.
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) Reply [ reply ]
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.
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
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!
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:
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 ar
Nurse Training Porno
Young Sexy Sister
She Tranny