Yes. While Pedophilia pertains to prepubescent children, Lolita Complex focuses on those within the first stages of puberty.Maze1125 said:A bit?Soviet Heavy said:It overlaps a bit with pedophilia.
Yes. While Pedophilia pertains to prepubescent children, Lolita Complex focuses on those within the first stages of puberty.Maze1125 said:A bit?Soviet Heavy said:It overlaps a bit with pedophilia.
Maybe this will help Weeaboos learn to appreciate their own culture instead of decry it in favor of Japanese. It would be a welcome change to not listen to them bash american or canadian stuff.Ih8pkmn said:
That's all I have to say on this subject.
EDIT:
Aw, crap I just realized: This is going to kill a good deal of Manga, isn't it?
Ah, well. At least there's still American graphic novels, right?
The Pacific Ocean.AC10 said:Given how small Japan is I'm wondering what's stopping people from just jumping on the bullet train to the next town over to get this stuff?
I would like you to elaborate. Why?ajemas said:a loli image is clearly designed for the viewer to get off on, and should (in my opinion) not have any right to exist.
I've heard people use the term "loli" to refer to the depiction of a young girl of any childhood age, certainly not just the first stages of puberty.Soviet Heavy said:Yes. While Pedophilia pertains to prepubescent children, Lolita Complex focuses on those within the first stages of puberty.Maze1125 said:A bit?Soviet Heavy said:It overlaps a bit with pedophilia.
The problem is that real child pornography, at least the owning of it, is actually explicitly legal in Japan. In actuality, the DPJ forced the people writing the bill to remove a clause stating that owning real CP is illegal, while leaving everything else alone. So, fake stuff, the lolicon hentai and shotacon hentai, is illegal, but owning pictures of actual children naked and/or in some kind of sexual sitatution is totally legal (note that distribution of CP is illegal, but actually owning it is a-okay).ajemas said:snippity
I am mostly referring to the archetypical representation of loli. I roll things from teenage up into Rule 34, and I flat out refuse to classify baby porn as anything other than satanic.Maze1125 said:I've heard people use the term "loli" to refer to the depiction of a young girl of any childhood age, certainly not just the first stages of puberty.Soviet Heavy said:Yes. While Pedophilia pertains to prepubescent children, Lolita Complex focuses on those within the first stages of puberty.Maze1125 said:A bit?Soviet Heavy said:It overlaps a bit with pedophilia.
May I see your source for your claim?
Damn right.lacktheknack said:Wow... I wonder if there will be riots (of otakus, if nothing else).
Real child pornography is legal there? What the shit?! Somebody might be able to throw the (very weak) justification that loli isn't real, and therefore isn't harmful, but there is NO justification for actual child pornography. It is one of the very worst things that humans are capable of: screwing up a young child for life, just to get their kicks.Mstrswrd said:Snippity snip.ajemas said:snippity
Sorry to not contribute much, but this is my exact thought process.Spleenboy said:There's nothing wrong with loli.
Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it should be banned.
People have the right to get off on whatever they please, as long as it causes no harm.
And don't give me the "it does cause harm, it facilitates paedophilia" bullshit.
Violent video games, movies, and literature don't cause violent crime, therefore loli does not cause paedophilia.
Why, you ask? Because it's depicting a CHILD getting raped! You could make all of the arguments that you want about how it isn't real, or that nobody is getting hurt, but it doesn't change the fact that it is offensive and wrong.Bloodstain said:As someone who has a fetish for lolicon...HOW DARE THEY?!ajemas said:a loli image is clearly designed for the viewer to get off on, and should (in my opinion) not have any right to exist.
I would like you to elaborate. Why?
I'm a bigot for opposing media depicting underage women get violated? How does that work, exactly. Also, I'm running out of euphemisms for "intercourse".Jarrid said:That's really low, even for a closed-minded bigot.
I'm not questioning your right to exist.
Well, I guess it's only fair that Japan censor the hell out of anime and manga seeing as they love the US and their crazy policies so much. It only took them what, 50+ years to catch up to McCarthyism and The Comics Code, maybe in a few more decades they'll try to ban video games...
Ah shit. That's what I was fearing.Sgt. Dante said:not quite, the ban is on the manufacturing or sale of any sexual content that may be deemed harmful to children. so while loliH will be on the strictly banned list, soft ero's like Negima, love hina and the rest in a kinda grey area that will require strict moderation and control.Hail Fire 998 said:While I'm all for getting rid of all that... dirty loli stuff, I wonder if it will start biting into other things.
Depending on the wording it can mean A LOT of thing can be deemed bad and gotten rid of.
Which can mean a drop in manga like Negima.
And anything else like it.
Which is.. VERY VERY BAD.
But if it just bans loli H and the like, then HELL YEAH!
and that's only in amine and manga, the game development business is going to take a hit as i can't see this allowing catherine to be released unless it's finished by April (when the bill takes effect)
Would you rather lolicon be banned and the likely possibility those individuals whom like it go to real child pornography instead? In which actually harms real individuals, and not fictional, unrealistic looking characters?ajemas said:Why, you ask? Because it's depicting a CHILD getting raped! You could make all of the arguments that you want about how it isn't real, or that nobody is getting hurt, but it doesn't change the fact that it is offensive and wrong.Bloodstain said:As someone who has a fetish for lolicon...HOW DARE THEY?!ajemas said:a loli image is clearly designed for the viewer to get off on, and should (in my opinion) not have any right to exist.
I would like you to elaborate. Why?
That's not a fact, it your opinion.ajemas said:the fact that it is offensive and wrong.