Loli Porn Art
🔞 ALL INFORMATION CLICK HERE 👈🏻👈🏻👈🏻
Loli Porn Art
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think there should be a list of lolicon manga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.154.174.117 ( talk ) 22:10, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I've made an addition to the United States part of the article with a new development in the past couple days. I'd appreciate help in research related to this case and choosing what would be appropriate to post here from the references and if additional references can be obtained along with ongoing developments. Tyciol ( talk ) 23:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I'm not for censoring and I can probably guess how the responses will go but is the top image actually required for the article's quality? There isn't one for other articles of a similar topic. Stabby Joe ( talk ) 21:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Recently I've been reading up on yuri and in particular, the term shōjo-ai is used to describe a particular kind of it here in North America. I have found this to be unsourced, so I'm deleting these additions. I'll post what I'm deleting here though, so that if these are in fact legitimate uses them people can go and find some sources for them. I have no clue who added them. From Yuri (genre) : "In Japan the term shōjo-ai (少女愛, shōjo-ai? lit. girl love) is not used with this meaning,[6] and instead tends to denote pedophilia (actual or perceived), with a similar meaning to the term lolicon (Lolita complex)." with source: Miyajima, Kagami (April 4, 2005). Shōjo-ai, Sakuhinsha. ISBN 4861820316 . How are we even supposed to check ISBN sources like this? Another example is the post on Homo in Japan . The odd wiktionary reference has been removed, but I'd like to more comprehensively examine these sources. Tyciol ( talk ) 00:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The introduction of this article is misleading: "Outside Japan, the term is less common and most often refers to a genre of manga and anime wherein childlike female characters are depicted in a suggestive manner." like Kojika and such, however, completely explicit hentai lolicon manga like the ones printed in Comic LO are also part of the genre (I think). -- AnY FOUR! ( talk ) 20:43, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Noticed something kinda strange about both this article and the Shotacon article pages . The Shotacon article even rambled on about how fans are ex-members of NAMBLA (and the caption under MJ's pic said something to the effect of "Michael Jackson is a well-known fan of shotacon.") . I know this sort of vandalism is easily fixed and all, but when people come in and do things this childish, I've no choice but to start a motion to make the two articles semi-protected . Any takers? Mikhajlovich ( talk ) 12:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Farix proposed a split for the huge section we have for the legal issues. It is a good point, this subsection is probably bigger than the rest of the article combined. At the same time, prior to this, it would be important to think of a name. Furthermore, it needs to be guaranteed that all information that has been collected will survive the move, and that whatever this would split off into would be survived and not be immediately deleted by critics of legal information collection. Tyciol ( talk ) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Split completed at Legal status of cartoon pornography depicting minors . I didn't leave a summary behind since the topic was broader then lolicon manga and anime. And the controversy section should keep the article balanced out as well. -- Farix ( Talk ) 05:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
User:Aron.Foster posted a new reference for us ( bentcorner ) along with additional statistics from that blog in regards to the 20year sentence also being for 50 real images, which when added to the 20 anime pictures totalled 70 images. I don't think a personal blog is a good enough reference in and of itself (Who is Rick Rottman ? What is Bent Corner ?) so I'm attempting to understand where this data came from, since it wasn't included in any of our other references about this case, I want to ascertain if it is true or not. It makes a big difference in terms of understanding the weight of the sentencing.
The sole reference for this blog is this 45-page PDF . I've been searching this transcript, and I'm unable to find the numbers 50 or 70 in it. Contrast to this, the number 20 DOES show up, relating to the obscene images of anime only. As this blog is, in and of itself, NOT a good reference, and the blog itself does not reference it's statistics, I reverted this addition until the whole '50 real images' thing can be confirmed. The 50 images thing might be related to the past conviction, which to me sounds like a previous conviction to the recent anime one. If someone could find the appropriate source in the PDF, or another source of BentCorner's statistics, or evidence that BC is a reliable blog to use as a reference (along with the sources this guy did get his info from) then please chime in and we can restore these numbers once they are demonstrated to be trustworthy.
I'm not sure if these were separate events or not. Either way, let's get a proper source for this '50/70' thing before adding it. Also, does this case have it's own article? It wouldn't make sense if our summary here was more extensive than the summary in the actual wiki article. I have found some more data ( Sankaku , who also did a review on Handley ... why do these guys all end in 'ley'?) which refers to "74 offences". So it does seem that there are more than 20 images, unless you can somehow get charged 3-4 times per image. Even so, 70 v 74, before adding either number let's figure out which is correct here. Unfortunately this source isn't referenced either (and also a blog) so I need to contact 'Artefact' to find out where he got his numbers just like someone can ask Rick about his, as I don't feel too comfortable approaching him. Tyciol ( talk ) 23:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
What sources in this article say lolicon is legal? How reliable are they? When was the last update? If I understand, several sources of mine are placing lolicon as illegal while quoting the law. -- Lolitologist ( talk ) 15:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
This is a statement in the second sentence of the second paragraph in the introduction (bold is my emphasis). Ireland not only does not have a section, it is not mentioned under the UK section. I'm not entirely familiar with the law of the Isles but Ireland is part of the UK right? So mentioning it in particular seems sort of odd to me. The word Ireland doesn't even show up elsewhere in the article and there is no source listed by the statement either. I'm not able to determine who added Ireland, I can't find it done in December so it may have happened a while ago. If anyone wants to go locate the user that added this, could they ask them why they added it and if they have some kind of source for it being outlawed in Ireland? I really don't think this is the case, but don't feel comfortable of taking the initiative of removing it myself, so if anyone agrees, please remove Ireland until we've properly determined the legal status there. Tyciol ( talk ) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Related to this, I've made an introductory summary to the 'legal' part of this article (which I think's especially good if it does split, see bottom about Farix' proposal) which has added the United States based on the recent judgement in the appeals court. I'm not sure if that's appropriate since the Supreme decision to defend free speech may overrule that, this needs further discussion. South Africa is mentioned though, yet it isn't in the statement intially quoted here, South African law deserves equal recognition here. Tyciol ( talk ) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Australia's not mentioned in that one because it is <16 and I was summarizing the <18 ones which is a censorship of more breadthly encompassment. I'm not sure how appropriate it is to mention New Zealand either, to be honest. While there is a section on New Zealand here, the laws quoted are vague and it seems rather up into interpretation of the court about whether or not loli would be legal or not. It is not as explicitly worded as the other nations. This is a very small section, and moreso than Australia, New Zealand's section requires a lot of expansion with more sources and further clarification of the statutes on these laws. Surely there's got to be some existing articles which cover this which could be linked to. Tyciol ( talk ) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Same concern as New Zealand, only moreso because it's even smaller. Someone has even tagged this with a possibility of original research. If anyone knows good sources on Swedish information that'd be valuable. Any contacts on Swedish wikidia who may've covered it? Tyciol ( talk ) 22:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Mdwh caught a mistake of mine here , I was so caught up with the 'three' coincidence that I missed the 'more than'. It's a bit confusing though, that the source of topic here only says three. Generally criminal convictions are not a set number, they are a range with a minimum and maximum sentence, like "2-4" or something like that. I figured when I added the link to today's news report about police hacking that it was a minimum sentence, meaning someone could get more than three years. For all I know, it's the maximum though, meaning nobody could, and then there'd be no link. I think it'd be good to look into this and find out where the 'three' came from, and whether it describes the min or the max.
Numbers aside, there was the second criticism " a tenuous link unless a notable reference draws a link - there's no need to repeat this info on every article about a UK crime ". I've had my share of revert wars so I'll try to settle this here. First, the latter: this is the first article I've added this reference/info to, I haven't added it to any other articles on UK crime. If somebody else has, that's their issue I guess. As for the former, I don't think we need a notable reference to draw a link between these two, because I do not think it is a tenuous link, and I'll explain why.
Computers are things that transmit data, such as pictures and stories. It involves the possession (in memory) of these, and via the internet (over which police hacking would occur) involves the uploading (distribution) and downloading (receiving) of data. Crimes based solely on information retainment and exchange are directly affected by this new law. It simply isn't relevant to most other laws, but pointedly relevant to these ones. If it were 'tenuous' it would mean that this police hacking thing affected a lot of other UK crimes. I could understand a couple it might affect, but not enough to lose this in the flow as something tenuous. Besides copywritten data (like music sharing) or the transmission of private government data (like military secrets) which are both illegal, what else would it affect? It isn't tenuous to mention this on 3 different issues. Are there more than three? If so, what are they? Tyciol ( talk ) 22:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Although it isn't visible from the thumbnail, it's clearly pornographic and I suggest it be censored or deleted. 69.196.141.240 ( talk ) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Isn't it obvious? All of those manga are 'clearly pornographic'. Also, on the new image, the first two on the right, what are they? They look kawaii, like something not pornographic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_is_not_censored#Wikipedia_is_not_censored —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.169.164.163 ( talk ) 01:17, 11 February 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
A Mayport sailor just got busted for CP, some of which was lolicon. It's very similar to the case against Dwight Whorley, although the specifics are a lot less clear. Some news releases are still ambiguous as to whether or not there was any actual child pornography.
The "Legal Issues Elsewhere - United States" section is getting large, and I'm hesitant to add this to there before hearing thoughts from other editors. Wait for more info? Subdivide the US section? Toss it in there? Aron.Foster ( talk ) 04:58, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
What is the first lolicon created on manga, magazine, anime, and OVA/ONA? It would be an interesting thing to know and put on the main article. Maybe under a "Trivia" Section. Can someone answer that? -- Lolitologist ( talk ) 16:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Seems someone found some evidence that states the judge did not think the Whorely case had anything wrong with lolicon here . While it's on a forum, the links are directly linked to the relevant documents. じん ない 08:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
There are words such as "Sister Complex", "Lolita Complex", "Inferiority Complex", "God Complex" ect... My question is, what does the "Complex" mean? Like what is a "Complex"? Does it mean "Obsession", "Multible", or what? Can some one answer that?-- Lolitologist ( talk ) 14:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I actually can't believe that I'm having to put this here, but since I'm even getting vandalism warnings then here goes: The image is illegal. Under most international law this is currently the exact same thing as having actual child pornography in that article. A more, how should I put this, "stern" court system could charge someone simply for having it in their browser cache. This is not an issue of censorship, it is an issue of legality in the same sense that you cannot place material in violations of copyright laws. If you have any response place them here, otherwise I will give a day or so before removing the image or bringing it up for official review in the case of editor dispute. But regardless, the picture is illegal. -- Human.v2.0 ( talk ) 21:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Please be sure to participate in the discussion over here , too, as the image is hosted on Commons. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I seem to recall an old one with a gym uniform and a lollipop or something, I wonder why it got replaced with this one. This image could just as easily be called moe, pretty much both. Tyciol ( talk ) 04:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Only two external links, which are actually news sources, if anything they're more appropriate as news references or something like that. I did find an article about a bunch of ads telling lolicons to keep their hands off but I was told it was a bad reference. Tyciol ( talk ) 04:32, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
But the article doesn't mention him once. What? He should get his own page, or at least a blurb under "Controversy". Roothorick ( talk ) 05:31, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
AnmaFinotera, you deleted my quote, you gave no reason for this deletion but rather asked a question instead. I am answering it for you: his response on his personal site is notable because he is a famous author who is commenting on an issue for which he was interviewed by MTV. The reason what he says specifically is relevant is because he is on the board of the directors for the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, the an organization which is supplying legal defense for Christopher Handley (the guy mentioned above, whose redirect I assume you had some hand in the death of) as you can see here . So I am restoring what you reverted. If you wish to have it removed again please discuss it first. A celebrity chiming in on a controversial issue by name is relevant information. Tyciol ( talk ) 08:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
It... I mean, have you tried looking at it? It's incredibly obscene. Two or three of those volume have side-covers that fully depict the nude bodies of those children. It's not like that's uncommon among h-manga either -.-" Whoever uploaded it should have checked more closely. Unless someone disagrees with my analysis that such blatant (despite being small relative to the image) nudity is too much to be on wikipedia, please remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.98.199.173 ( talk ) 08:20, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I read on a WIkipedia Artical that Lolicon can be short for Lolita Complex or Lolita Icon . So why isnt Lolita Icon on the artical?-- Akemi Loli Mokoto ( talk ) 18:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I don't quite understand this. I feel this gives a very bad impression of manga and anime. Also, Lolicon is a very narrow part of gender roles in manga, so it isn't correct either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.158.186 ( talk ) 08:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I added the United States to the list of countries where lolicon is criminally prosecuted, because it is. You removed it.
Please allow my edit to stand, or add your own edit. This was a fairly big story; I'm surprised you missed it. Too busy being Wiki police, I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.134.143.65 ( talk ) 10:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
You did not have sufficient reason to remove the US. He plead guilty. He has been sentenced. Six months, $250,000, confiscation of his (7) computers and all of the lolicon manga he possessed. These are facts. A conviction in court is prima facie evidence that it is illegal. Don't assume SCOTUS will toss this case. Let the edit stand, make a note, and remove the US from the list when SCOTUS actually does reverse it.
If you can't bring yourself to list US with Canada and the other countries where it is illegal, then list it in another category. "Countries where it will soon be illegal, based on these precedents:" listing the Handley case as one of the the several examples. 98.106.110.244 ( talk ) 20:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Creators Decry Tokyo's Proposed 'Virtual' Child Porn Ban (Update 7) - Posting this here for those who don't visit WT:Anime as the site may get some more traffic (and possible vandalism) because of this. 陣 内 Jinnai 20:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
i note that the article lists a few a countries which have criminalised loli. they are all cited, apart from ireland. does anyone have a source for the legal position of loli in ireland? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.73.211 ( talk ) 04:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
The Handley case in the USA should be discussed in the main article. 98.106.110.244 ( talk ) 20:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
How is it pronounced? Lólicon (lólly)? Lolìcon (Lolìta)? (At first I thought it must be LOL + Icon...) Rothorpe ( talk ) 00:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
I think it's Loli+con as it is derived from the phrase lolita complex. In Japanese, phrases are sometimes abbreviated by the first syllable of each word, e.g. Personal Computer becomes PasuCom or PasoKon (it's a transliteration personal computer, PASOneru KONpyuta). 173.1
Classic Nylon
Mormon Teen Sister Seks Jmj
Growing Boobs Porn Comics