What is lolicon?

H

h24821807

Completely Average High School Student
At the last few days, I've seen a lot of people talking about that (in other forums)......well, I've searched wikipedia and also some people (in other forums) was telling people that anime is lolicon and that makes me confuse.....So, I just wounder how you guys define it?

By the way, some people say that "Shakugan no Shana" is lolicon.....well, I think it an action anime and not lolicon....so do you think it is lolicon or not?


Also, I am not a fan of lolicon (as the discription from wikipedia)
 
My understanding of loli is that it's animated child pornography. Unlike with real child pornography, peole seem to see no issue with animated child pornography.
 
So......does it has to have sexual encounter in it?..........well some people out there say that if the charactor is "cute" and "look young" (no sexual encounter was involved) can also count as loli.
 
Lolicon is Japanese shorthand for Lolita complex with the name based upon the infamous book, Lolita about a man infatuated with a young girl. To that end lolicon is used to refer to people who are infatuated with young girls in a sexual sense as well as any media that is based around such infatuation.

Shana is most certainly not lolicon but any fan products that sexualise her (which most assuredly exist in the worlds of doujinshi) are.
 
CitizenGeek said:
Uh ... I don't think you want to know!
Click to expand...

Well better to tell him than to go looking for it him/herself?

Lolicon is basically Animated Child Porn. It's like a replacement for real child pornography in some sense (to avoid being sued by the law, but that isn't the case. Many people were sued over possesion of Lolicon)

It isn't illegal in the United Kingdom sadly, but there are rumours about that one of the MP are considering banning this. Oh yeah... what else I was going to say. Ah yes...

Gawyn explained everything about Lolicon. Basically if the girl doesn't have any breast, then it's lolicon =P But I always feel whoosy and sick everytime I come across lolicon. I just think it's sick, but thankfully at least it isn't real (unless they actually used live model, in which case... YOU ARE SICK)
 
Chrono Mizaki said:
CitizenGeek said:
Uh ... I don't think you want to know!
Click to expand...

It isn't illegal in the United Kingdom sadly, but there are rumours about that one of the MP are considering banning this. Oh yeah... what else I was going to say. Ah yes...
Click to expand...

but unfortunatly lets face facts, more chance of GTA getting banned first
 
Basically if the girl doesn't have any breast, then it's lolicon
Click to expand...


That sounds like half of the anime is lolicon? (for example, Shana, the Sakura in "Naruto" and the Rukia "Bleach" are close to the line of being lolicon)

Well, I don't think that they are lolicon, but if the definition above is true then they are really close to become lolicon...

It isn't illegal in the United Kingdom sadly, but there are rumours about that one of the MP are considering banning this. Oh yeah... what else I was going to say. Ah yes...
Click to expand...


Well, I've heard that they have put the consultation out already and ended in June last year......but so far since now, I've heard nothing after that.
 
Chrono Mizaki said:
It isn't illegal in the United Kingdom sadly, but there are rumours about that one of the MP are considering banning this. Oh yeah... what else I was going to say. Ah yes...
Click to expand...

I most certainly hope it is banned here, but that won't make much of a difference. The Japanese government needs to outlaw it, too.

I just think it's sick, but thankfully at least it isn't real (unless they actually used live model, in which case... YOU ARE SICK)
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'm afraid this is just hyperbole; of course they haven't used live models :roll:

I've haven't ever watched a lolicon series and I never intend to ^_^
 
h24821807 said:
Basically if the girl doesn't have any breast, then it's lolicon
Click to expand...


That sounds like half of the anime is lolicon? (for example, Shana, the Sakura in "Naruto" and the Rukia "Bleach" are close to the line of being lolicon)

Well, I don't think that they are lolicon, but if the definition above is true then they are really close to become lolicon...
Click to expand...
Hmm, you seem to have misunderstood, let me try to explain.
Lolicon refers to both a specific anime/manga sub-genre (sexual attraction to underaged/underdeveloped girls) and it's fans.

Stuff like Naruto, Shana, Bleach are definitely not lolicon anime. Sure, they have characters in them with body types that would qualify, but in the series they are not sexualised (to any significant extent). What Chrono meant by his comment was that if a series shows an underdeveloped girl in a sexual way, then it's lolicon. While the characters you mentioned from those series occasionally show up in lolicon doujinshi (i.e fanfic) it doesn't make the original series lolicon.

Although, honestly, there aren't very many lolicon anime at all - off the top of my head I can only think of Nymphette and Today in Class 5-2, and they're comparatively light enough in that respect that the classification is debatable. Manga there are a lot more, but unsurprisingly none have been released outside of Japan. Basically - you'll probably never see any.
 
Lolicon = definate sickness/mentally problemetic. From a legal point, it's underaged sex the 'fans' are looking to see (even if it isn't real). That's obviously wrong, but to have the metality to watch it is just immoral and unnatural.
If the thing we look for as attractive people are a nice body that's developed (you know, boobs, bums and waist) as eye-candy, then the kids have nothing. What's the point sickos!!!!?

Now, is h24821807 thinking about Moe with Shana? Moe is like, pretty young girl/woman (but not in a sexual sence), right? Or am I wrong...?
 
Chaz said:
If the thing we look for as attractive people are a nice body that's developed (you know, boobs, bums and waist) as eye-candy, then the kids have nothing. What's the point sickos!!!!?
Click to expand...
If you're going to state that people are sick just because they don't stick to the generally socially accepted mean of sexual attraction, you may be setting yourself up for more trouble than you realise.

Chaz said:
Now, is h24821807 thinking about Moe with Shana? Moe is like, pretty young girl/woman (but not in a sexual sence), right? Or am I wrong...?
Click to expand...
I don't think this has anything to do with moe.
 
Lolicon, that's some good ****. It's basically under-age cartoon sex, and as far as I'm aware it's illegal in America now? Being someone who downloads a lot of porn (too much information?) I'm very open minded about all kinds of 'categories' so yes, I suppose I'm one sick bastard Chaz. Oh and as for your question regarding what people look for in an attractive person, the details on that will vary based on the person. I would very much like to discuss this topic further, but I believe I've provided too much already, and don't want to turn this into something akin to a 4Chan topic.
 
Can't say I like the concept of Lolicon. However, I think people can go into overkill at times. Where say for example an anime has 'young' looking characters and someone starts saying it's lolicon. Theres a difference between underdeveloped characters and all out porn.
 
Nemphtis said:
Lolicon, that's some good ****. It's basically under-age cartoon sex, and as far as I'm aware it's illegal in America now? Being someone who downloads a lot of porn (too much information?) I'm very open minded about all kinds of 'categories' so yes, I suppose I'm one sick bastard Chaz. Oh and as for your question regarding what people look for in an attractive person, the details on that will vary based on the person. I would very much like to discuss this topic further, but I believe I've provided too much already, and don't want to turn this into something akin to a 4Chan topic.
Click to expand...

depends on the type of lolicon

i know animated child porn is still "allowed" in the USA, just very highly frowned apon.

But that arguement goes back along time to when people were obsessed with pokemon and digimon hentai (goodness knows why)

and as for chaz, i think he's talking about people under the age of 13 not saying that people should follow a set ruling of "looks", being his brother i know he's not that shallow, so i think it's a bit of a misunderstanding here
 
Chaz said:
Now, is h24821807 thinking about Moe with Shana? Moe is like, pretty young girl/woman (but not in a sexual sence), right? Or am I wrong...?
Click to expand...

Question is- ' What the **** is Moe?'
Thing is I've read a dozen descriptions/ explanations where no really agree or make sense with the way I've seen it used. Thought it meant '' a character designed to illicit the desire to protect/ nurture/ comfort in the audience through image (eg big eyes ), actions (eg kluz) and or history (eg disability/ hardship). "

Thing is this doesn't agree with things like Lucky Star which is a 'Moe' show. Also it's supposed to be non sexual, but everybody instantly seems to think of them in a sexual way
 
hopeful_monster said:
Chaz said:
Now, is h24821807 thinking about Moe with Shana? Moe is like, pretty young girl/woman (but not in a sexual sence), right? Or am I wrong...?
Click to expand...

Question is- ' What the **** is Moe?'
Thing is I've read a dozen descriptions/ explanations where no really agree or make sense with the way I've seen it used. Thought it meant '' a character designed to illicit the desire to protect/ nurture/ comfort in the audience through image (eg big eyes ), actions (eg kluz) and or history (eg disability/ hardship). "

Thing is this doesn't agree with things like Lucky Star which is a 'Moe' show. Also it's supposed to be non sexual, but everybody instantly seems to think of them in a sexual way
Click to expand...
As if things weren't complicated enough ^^

Anyway, the definition of moe you used is perfectly accurate as far as I know. WRT Lucky Star - image, actions and history that are often stereotypically used as moe traits are all present in the the show, so it qualifies in that sense. Part of the problem is that moe is naturally very subjective, so that people will often identify a show as moe by these visible features, even if they don't personally consider the characters moe, or even if these features were intended to be interpreted in such a way in any case (e.g. you could argue that some of these features in Lucky Star were included more as a parody than to elicit moe feelings).

Yes, in principle it's non-sexual. However, it does usually involve some sort of physical closeness (e.g. "She's so moe! I want to hug her and tell her everything will be alright!" etc). Now, while of course physical closeness doesn't have to be sexual, it's easy to interpret it in such a way.

As a final point, in case I gave you the mistaken impression that things were clear-cut, it's not exactly unheard of for moe fans to be lolicons as well, showing that feelings of wanting to protect someone and wanting to screw them can be closely linked... and I'd better leave things there before my brief forray into armchair psychology becomes too ridiculous :p
 
To be honest, I don't think Shana is moe and also she is not lolicon......Is just some people on the other forum think it is.


Also, let me make myself clear again, I don't watch lolicon.



Also it's supposed to be non sexual, but everybody instantly seems to think of them in a sexual way
Click to expand...


Is true, just like Ramadahl said.
But is just so many people mixed it up with lolicon and then make it sexual.
 
Ramadahl said:
If you're going to state that people are sick just because they don't stick to the generally socially accepted mean of sexual attraction, you may be setting yourself up for more trouble than you realise.
Click to expand...
As Ryo mentioned, it was meerly an example, and I realised that it would come out sounding worse than what I meant. Of course, people will have different tastes in shape/personality/morality etc. I dont go straight to the 'fit' girls and say "I'll have her," and such, because I don't do one-night-stands (cause I want a relationship, and to get to know them).

So I appologies to all who saw arrogance in my earlier post.

Nemphtis said:
Lolicon, that's some good ****. It's basically under-age cartoon sex, and as far as I'm aware it's illegal in America now? Being someone who downloads a lot of porn (too much information?) I'm very open minded about all kinds of 'categories' so yes, I suppose I'm one sick bastard Chaz.
Click to expand...
Personally, I can't understand why that happens, because (to me) the natural age where teenagers start to be able to populate and the main reason for sex is 12+. Anything under that is pointless in my understanding, and between 12-16 is them not ready for sex (like their in a developing stage). So they shouldn't even be thought of due to others that may take advantage of their youth and naive nature. They can support from a financial state or an emotional state (getting up at night, constant attention needed etc.)

So to have lolicon would promote the thing I'd rather not think about, in either of the above statements/situations. I think from a state of logic that considers consiquences to each action. To me, the logic you have is what 'nature' may intend to push us to, which isn't always acceptable in society (as a mass.)
This may later become a heated discussion, but I don't want to start flaming. So I'll welcome any opinion against this, but I'll probably stop here as it's my firm belief and I don't want to start offending people too much.
 
Back
Top