overhaul ? New Crowner (9/13/11): Lolicon

The Sandbox it extremely bare bones. It doesn't even explain where the words/names "Lolita" and "Shota" came from. Which I think are pretty relevant.

Also, a loli/shota can actually be of any age, the important thing is that they physically appear to be in the under 12 range.

Lolicon isn't always played for laughs but it often it Played for Laughs. It's seen in the context of manga/anime/japan, to be silly and weird, but mostly harmless (in real life most of the time for Lolicon, they aren't necessarily expected to act on that feeling, it's 2D only). Often people being accused of being a Lolicon is something used as a joke, or to screw with that character in a manga, and unless it's a Hentai it won't actually be acted on.

I think the very fact that someone accused of being a Pedophile and someone accused someone of being a Lolicon would produce vastly different reactions is what makes this different. For instance, you wouldn't call someone who seriously molested a child, to horrible affect, a Lolicon.

Could you please give me a starting point for finding more about the Japanese interpretation of lolicon?

edited 30th Aug '11 4:46:46 PM by ggfd

Watch more anime?

You could always read the wiki page. Or you know, actual Lolicon manga.

Anime is not the best way to learn about Japanese culture. The [[lolicon wiki page]] provides insufficient information, as I have already pointed out and given examples of.

edited 30th Aug '11 4:53:30 PM by ggfd

What more kind of information do you freaking want? The wiki page, having just perused it, is tolerable, in my opinion. Otaku culture is not something that has many scientific journals written about it, if that's what you're asking. the only way to learn about it is experiencing it and participating in the entertainment of a culture IS a way to experience, and learn about a culture. You, having not even done that, can't be expected to have a reliable opinion on it.

edited 30th Aug '11 5:01:11 PM by NoirGrimoir

No, but watching anime is one of the best ways to learn about a trope used in anime.

I'm not after otaku culture, I'm after Japanese culture, since Madru was saying that loli is considered amusing in Japan.

Things like

www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/JB 23 Aa 02.html (remove the spaces)

Give insight into the view the general populace has, without being hundred of hours of media which gives only a narrow perspective.

edited 30th Aug '11 5:17:14 PM by ggfd

You realize it doesn't matter what the actual populace thinks of it, we are talking completely about how it's portrayed in media, right?

edited 30th Aug '11 5:07:12 PM by NoirGrimoir

I said it's considered amusing in Japanese works. You can verify whether that's true or not by looking at Japanese works —manga and anime.

Tropes are not about Real Life. They are about storytelling. Fiction. In media.

edited 30th Aug '11 5:08:57 PM by Madrugada

^^ He's trying very hard not to realize that. I've said it about ten times. Give him some credit for his determination to ignore points that are inconvenient.

Anyway, that said, I think the only productive thing to do by this point is decide whether we're going to make a Pedophile trope for when it's played seriously and for drama and whatnot. Are we? Someone said it's not tropable, which doesn't make sense to me.

edited 30th Aug '11 5:10:12 PM by Arha

Japanese media is produced for Japanese consumption, no?

If it is for Japanese consumption, Japanese culture and interpretations greatly affect how a writer would expect their work to be taken ("Tropes are devices and conventions that a writer can reasonably rely on as being present in the audience members' minds and expectations.").

To properly understand a work which uses the trope, you need to understand why its there and why its used the way it is.

TV Tropes aims to outlines and explain tropes, providing an understanding that facilitates their use in writing or analysis.

EDIT: Also, "Tropes transcend television. They reflect life. Since a lot of art, especially the popular arts, does its best to reflect life, tropes are likely to show up everywhere". To me, you seem to be tryign very hard to ignore the interaction between life and fiction. For example, Japan has a lot of escapist fiction as a reaction to having a very restrictive, somewhat disempowering society.

edited 30th Aug '11 5:20:34 PM by ggfd

The problem with making Pedophile as a trope is that we've tried it a couple of different ways already, and the page becomes a battleground almost immediately. Apologists show up, attackers show up, and the trope drowns in the real life bickering.

I don't know in what ways you've done the page before, but I think not explicitly saying the word "pedophile" in the name would help. Make the description something like "People who find children sexually attractive, something which is condemned in many cultures, almost always portrayed negatively." And the example has to explicitly be accused in-universe.

Madrugada: Can't you just keep the article locked and exampleless? Or if not completely without examples, allow about 20 to be on the page and then lock it?

edited 30th Aug '11 5:33:36 PM by Arha

Thanks for clarifying the history. This thread was making me wonder why we had a page for Ephebophile and not a parallel one for pedophile. It seemed like a funny thing to have missed. It makes much more sense now.

This page is kind of broken; there's just no trope here. What we're dealing with at this point is basically an article that says "'Lolicon' is 'Paedophilia'", and then starts exploring the Japanese industry built around producing media that exploits said paedophilia.

...Or is that really a trope?

I also find it odd that I can substitute instances of 'Lolicon' with 'Child Porn/Exploitation' while reading this article and have no problem, when this page is supposedly about a Lolita-esque deconstructive/escapist genre. To add to that, it doesn't help that these 'Lolicon Themes' are never expounded upon, and anyone could walk away from this page without having learned anything they wouldn't have if they'd read a page about child exploitation.

Like ggfd (Poetic name, by the way :)) said, there is not nearly enough cultural context given to make this page its own trope, and it could really use a rewrite.

edited 30th Aug '11 10:19:47 PM by DisasterGrind

The trope seems to be describing the lolicon industry when it should actually be describing the character type. A rewrite that addresses this as well as reflecting the differences between this and the hypothetical Pedophile trope would probably be a good idea.

Also, Madrugada, are you sure we can't just have a locked Pedophile page? If it can't be edited shitfests are a lot less likely.

edited 30th Aug '11 8:22:29 PM by Arha

We could ask Fast Eddie. I suspect that we'd have to lock down all the associated pages as well, like Headscratchers, Analysis, and any others that are generally open to editing. Possibly even Discussion...

The best bet would be to come up with a writeup that's neutral and clear, without examples and a name that is crystal clear that this is only about the presentation of pedophilia in fiction, and present that to him with a statement that we understand and accept that the page will be locked, that all the associated pages will be locked, and that there will be no examples.

Well, Pædo Hunt was brought to my attention as the trope about pedophiles. But the description is really short and it seems more like both it and its title are talking about someone utilizing the uproar and outrage regarding pedophiles to their own benefit rather than the pedophile themselves.

@Disaster: Yeah, the more I read the more that stands out. It is a really big problem, especially for something that can be as... contriversial as lolicon.

Lets forget about the name for the moment and focus on defining exactly what the trope is supposed to be and content the page should have. I'd list and describe some possibilities, but that might have to wait for tomorrow.

As I see it

1. It is a character trope. We don't need to describe the lolicon industry or whatever, though that seems to be what the article is primarily doing.
2. The character in question is basically a pedophile. However, while it may not be played for laughs, it's unlikely to be played for drama.
3. The pedophilic attitude in question will not be presented in a dark manner
4. Jokes may and probably will be made regarding it without straying towards black humor or similar things
5. A work with a lolicon or lolicon themes will present it as more of a slightly weird fetish rather than anything particularly serious. This is due to the above points
6. If, in fact, it starts being played with the lolicon being a disturbing individual in the manner with which we are all familiar, they are probably not actually a lolicon and rather are a different trope
7. The trope may be present in just about any medium, but due to some differences in values, this trope is much less likely to appear in Western works. In addition, the actual way the mainstream culture that produced the work in question views pedophilia is largely irrelevant to the functioning of the trope. For example, just about every culture views murder as wrong, but may treat it either seriously or in a joking manner despite the views of society on the matter.

Personal notes: Honestly, I don't really care what you call the trope. It's basically just the distinction between Rape as Comedy and Rape as Drama, but applied to pedophiles instead of rapists. Whatever else happens regarding the second trope, the current one should probably be rewritten to reflect this.

edited 31st Aug '11 12:19:08 AM by Arha

Just a random thought, doesn't lolicon get played a lot more like "poor loser who dreams of a sweet, cute little girlfriend who wouldn't ever deceive and hurt him", where "cute" as defined by our friend Japan, means "childlike" and "innocent", and "little" is literally small and in this case also of prepubescent development. Instead of "pathologically sick and disgusting creature who wants to use children for their sexual gratification"? And where the girlfriend part is (typical for Japan outside of the H world) more of an idealised, platonic-type romance with overtones of little sister and big brother (going with the classical ideal of protector-supporter) than an outright sexual relationship?

I've always seen it putting more weight on the romantic part, than the sexual attraction. Of course, the type who actually wants to lay specifically little girls does exist in Japanese works (if nothing else, eroge genre acknowledges the existence of an audience who wants to see things like that), but that does seem a somewhat distant concept under the same name.

edited 31st Aug '11 12:41:26 AM by peccantis

Darn, I typed up a response addressing all your points and accidentally deleted it. What I said was: No, you've got it backwards; the sexual subject matter is usually placed in the spotlight, with any romantic elements taking a back seat. Sexuality is a cornerstone of Lolicon, isn't it? That's part of the reason the name means what it does.

And what would be the point of having a platonic relationship with your girlfriend? ',:) <—(Joke Alert! No Offense Intended, No Response Needed!)

edited 31st Aug '11 1:27:05 AM by DisasterGrind

That being said, there's no reason it can't have sub-tropes detailing times where this does happen; it'd make the whole thing a bit easier to manage, if you ask me.

Like, we could have a sub-trope for Loli-as-Comedy, a subtrope for Loli-as-Serious Business, and Loli Decinstruction, etc. That would definitely help in establishing Lolicon as a legitimate subgenre/character archetype, while diffusing later problems and accusations by showing sensible coverage on the subject, and letting it be known that these are tropes, and not a morality battleground.

edited 31st Aug '11 2:19:26 AM by DisasterGrind