I was actually referring to merging Shotacon into Lolicon, but yeah, you've got a point there.
edited 22nd Sep '11 4:27:14 AM by MarqFJA
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.Lolicon is short for Lolita Complex, but a person would describe themselves as a lolicon.
Anyway, are we good with that definition of lolicon then? Then all we need to do is decide if shotacon should be lumped in and then have someone swap the pages accordingly. Then fix wicks.
Not-overtly-malicious, always-unsuccessful Loveable Sex Maniac pedo who's Played for Laughs is a perfect description of the creepy old guy from Family Guy—a major recurring character in that show. It may be somewhat rare in western works, but not unheard of by any means.
Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.I am not sure if he counts or not. He seems to be portrayed as creepier than this trope generally is, but that may just be due to cultural differences. If he counts, he's the borderline between this and Black Humor involving pedophiles.
Or I may just hate him for being really annoying.
Lolicon is kind of based on the idea of portraying pedophilia as just a creepy fetish instead of something more, but we really shouldn't put that into the article. That just won't end well. Plus, as has been noted, it's not supported in mainstream Japanese society anyway.
Well, whatever. We'll do a definition transplant tomorrow then if there are no objections. It'll probably need some wick cleanup.
Then again, there's the thing about Shotacon and a possible merge. Should we settle on that before changing the articles?
edited 21st Sep '11 6:02:26 PM by Arha
![]()
![]()
I think "to be fair..." anything is (almost?) always disallowed, since it's pretty much always natter in some form.
edited 22nd Sep '11 4:56:04 AM by ThatHuman
somethingYeah "to be fair" in edits was always bad, but I was talking about the tone of the work, not the wording of examples.
I don't know much about this topic, but I see lolicon used here for pre-pubescent kids portrayed as sexually attractive as much as it is for the character who finds them so. So even if the former's misuse, and we decide to use the word only for the latter, it seems that works still portray the children as attractive. This does not happen in any mainstream Western work, whether the pedophilia's played for drama or laughs, (unless, say, a pedophile is narrating the work). So Lolicon is something distinct from any Western pedophilia portrayal.
edited 22nd Sep '11 2:46:37 PM by Routerie
You know what? I say put the merge on hold. Just do the definition swap and clean up examples. We can do a merge later. We have enough to do already. No one has expressed any dissatisfaction with the current definition, so I'll PM a mod to switch the definitions and possibly open the article for further editing since Shotacon does not have a similar lock on it.
Wait, it does. And it has a similar definition that only touches on the industry. We need to rewrite that too.
edited 22nd Sep '11 2:57:39 PM by Arha
Skimming this thread, don't see much discussion of this point, sorry if I missed it:
The term Lolicon is used for two things: characters who have Lolita Complexes, and material that presents sexualized images of young girls. Frequently in the West (such as around here) it's also used for works that have what someone upthread called Lolicon Fanservice; i.e., not actually lolicon but teasing it. Personally, I think the latter usages are considerably more common among Western fans than the character reference, regardless of what meaning is listed in Japanese dictionaries; so I'd think the main Lolicon page should be about the works. If people really want a page for the character type, it could be Lolicon Character or something, but I think we have enough pervert tropes to cover them, really. Similarly for Shotacon.
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.Well then, at least make it explicit on the page where the genre information can be found.
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.Incidentally, because the Lolicon page is locked: explicit depictions of both male and female genitals were illegal. Not just male. Most of the academic analysis I've seen specifically mentions the ban on pubic hair as a contributor, but I don't think anyone has attributed it to the ban on genitals (although personality aspects and non-threatening social status of childlike characters are much more commonly cited in explanations).
[edit]
OK, but the crowner says "the current information on the page will be moved to a Useful Notes page", which, as a separate page, is easier to find than the Analysis tab. How many casual users ever look in the tabs?
edited 22nd Sep '11 3:07:40 PM by lebrel
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.Having finally found the sandbox page (It was in the sandbox namespace! Who woulda thunk it?!), you might want to specifically mention that 1) there is a genre of material known as lolicon, which is not covered by the trope, and 2) lolicon characters are used outside of lolicon genre material so the presence of the one does not make it the other. I stil foresee much misuse, especially if the page is editable.
edited 22nd Sep '11 3:16:36 PM by lebrel
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered."They either refer to lolicons or the girls themselves."
This didn't match up with my impression, so I quickly went through the "punctuated titles" part of "related" (which may not be a representative sample):
- 8 cases where the reference is clearly to the young girl (i.e., a loli)
- 2 cases where the reference is clearly to the person with the Lolita Complex (Rosario+Vampire, WORKING!!)
- 3 references to a relationship where one of the partners is very young, but not clearly to either of the parties in specific
- 3 overt references to lolicon-genre material
- 7 pages where it's not clear exactly what the troper was aiming for
- A bunch of pages that don't exist, or don't seem to have any relevance to the topic
So in this sample the majority of clear uses are for the girl, but the use of Lolicon to invoke "a person with a lolita complex" is slightly less common than overt references to lolicon-genre material. Perhaps a more thorough check would disprove this, but I still think the majority use of the term (even discounting the uses for "a loli") is not for the lolicon character.
[edit]
To be clear, I'm not using this to argue against the reorganization, but to point out that the new definition of the trope will be more specific than the way people currently seem to want to use it.
edited 22nd Sep '11 4:12:53 PM by lebrel
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
When characters in a work use the term to refer to other characters, yes. But in real-life conversations, even among Japanese fans, lolicon is also broadly used for lolicon-genre material and/or lolicon fanservice material. It's rare to have a work directly mention lolicon-genre material, so in dialog it mainly means the character type, but the term itself has broader meanings.
We have a lot of pages that aren't tropes. Genre pages, Fanspeak pages, Useful Notes. Information should be where people will look for it, or at least where it's easy to find.
And, logically, if the Lolicon page is going to be about the character type, the associated Analysis page should be about the character type, not about the history and origins of lolicon-genre material, which doesn't have to contain any characters with Lolita Complexes at all; it just has to cater to the reader's lolicon fetish.
[edit]
In that case, all genre pages should be about how the genre is represented in fiction, and not about what the genres are in real life.
edited 22nd Sep '11 6:33:52 PM by lebrel
Calling someone a pedant is an automatic Insult Backfire. Real pedants will be flattered.
Crown Description:
This crowner is to determine whether the trope Lolicon should be an article regarding a particular character type. If it is not a character type, the current information on the page will be moved to a Useful Notes page about the lolicon industry.

Late to the party, but I do agree with Marq on the last page, re: the difference between lolicon and paedophilia. The connotations are markedly different, and it's not really as simple as "Lolicon is funny paedophilia". In the West, paedophilia can be considered an act, not just a preference. My understanding of lolicon is that while it's still considered sexually deviant, the concept of predation is absent. Paedophilia in Western media is chiefly used to invoke Adult Fear, where lolicon seems to end at "creepy".
I didn't realize "Lolicon" was a character type; I always thought it was a device... maybe I'm just unfamiliar with how the terminology is used, but it seems nonsensical to label a person "Lolita Complex".