Talk:Lolicon/Archive 17

Portmanteau
- The word lolicon is 100% a portmanteau made by combining Lolita and complex. I'm confused by your edit summary saying it's not one.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Look up the meaning of portmanteau. It means two words are put together to make ONE word. Lolicon is does not combine Lolita and complex into lolicon. A portmanteau of that would be lolicoM. Please cite a reliable source that lolicon is a portmanteau of Lolita and complex. Nor is Lolita complex (TWO words) a portmanteau of Lolita and complex. Sundayclose (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made an edit about this. I concur with Sundayclose that this doesn't look like a portmanteau, it's more like an abbreviation. This is also what the JP Wikipedia says about the term. NicoSkater97  (  let's talk!  ) 20:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Its both by definition and you're splitting hairs disingenuously. Lolita is short for lolita complex. I have no idea why you think your claim is an argument. So Loli being a portmanteau for Lolita Complex is factually accurate. OneManCast (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources:
 * 1: Consider, for example, that the first appearance of the words “Lolita complex” (rorīta konpurekkusu), which would be combined into the Japanese portmanteau “lolicon,” in manga was in a shōjo magazine.
 * 2: particularly surrounding lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of ‘Lolita complex’)
 * Re: the "n/m" thing: this is because Japanese doesn't have an "m" phoneme in their language. "Complex" was adapted into Japanese as "konpurekkusu," but when the shortened term was brought back into English, the version with the "n" stuck.
 * It may actually be an "abbreviation," (though again, there are sources calling it a portmanteau), but it is absolutely derived from "Lolita complex." Sandtalon (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sandtalon Thank you. @Sundayclose The Romanization of ん can be either n or m based on the following phoneme (see Japanese_phonology). Lolicon (ロリコン) is a clipped compound.
 * Other RS:
 * Consider, for example, that the first appearance in manga of the words "Lolita complex," which would be combined in the Japanese portmanteau lolicon, was in the magazine Bessetsu Margaret, a monthly shôjo magazine.
 * Much of the controversy centres around female sexuality and sexualization, particularly around lolicon (a Japanese portmanteau of 'Lolita complex') or sexual attraction to prepubescent girls.
 *  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm OK with restoring the statement about portmanteau, especially since the lead sentence also uses "lolicom" as an alternative. Thanks to all in this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Legality in US
Forgive me if my replies seem unorganized or even illegible; I rarely use Wikipedia discussion pages anyway, however, I am interested in clearing up this minor bit of discourse since it was never really cleared up. Within the last few weeks, I had gotten into a minor (and presumably good faith) edit conflict, over the legal status of lolicon within the United States, with MagiTagi, going on to cite the PROTECT Act of 2003 as to validate their claim over mine, however from the legal information I have gathered within the last few days of research on the topic, Magi's claim appears to be much more tenuous or at least inconclusive than one (including myself) initially would had thought.

From the information here, this appears to debunk Magi's original claim and if not entirely confirms such content as legal, in the very least seems to appear far more nuanced rather than being outright illegal as initially argued by Magi. GigaMigaDigaChad (talk) 10:51, 11, April 2024 (EST)
 * District court Judge James E. Gritzner had ruled in United States v. Handley that two parts of the PROTECT Act of 2003 criminalizing "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture, or painting" was unconstitutional.
 * Since 2002, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition established that two overbroad provisions of the CPPA of 1996 was struck down by the US Supreme Court because they abridged "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech."
 * The Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production.
 * This is an old discussion but yes it is legal in the US. You already showed some of the main facts but also if it wasn't every 18+ Japanese manga/anime site hosting it would have been blocked already and US based companies like Fakku that sell it and pretend not to have it by not labeling it for what it is would have been raided long ago. Only issue is, because of cultural differences between Japan and America and something called the Miller Test it is a material that one could easily see as getting classified as legally obscene in court if there were some case with a public outrage big enough so that's where the fear and legal misunderstandings come from. In the real world only like 1 or 2 normal people with no criminal record have been reported to have gotten in trouble exclusively for lolicon in the decades it has been around. It is not a coincidence though that US companies like Fakku are based in Portland, Oregon, because the state is the only one in the US to have made unconstitutional the notion of obscenity itself through State v. Henry (although that still doesn't protect them from the federal gov, just the local one). If you don't go around flaunting your most obscene ロリ manga in front of the police in a red US state or importing to your (again) red state from Japan kilograms of the most obscene loli manga you can find around your likelihood of this being an issue for you is basically zero. That's how things have been until now. Edonie (talk) 09:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


 * @GigaMigaDigaChad
 * 1-Just because James ruled in his case doesn't mean that his ruling applies to all cases, in fact, no later case cites James to prove a not guilty verdict (and there has also not been a public case of this sort that has had a not guilty verdict, ever).
 * As much as I appreciate the CPPA's original attempt, it indeed was unconstitutional, the PROTECT act is an effective revision to allow for the law to exist without being unconstitutional, hence the Miller Test's inclusion.
 * The parts Gritzner argued were unconstitutional were just differently phrased versions of the Miller Test, so while he may not have found them constitutional, it doesn't mean all other judges have to abide by his one ruling.
 * 2-FSC V. Ashcroft is effectively overwritten by PROTECT, since PROTECT abides by the constitution via the Miller Test, while still carrying out effectively the same law.
 * 3-Again, PROTECT is worded differently from the CPPA in such a way that it is constitutional.
 * 4-If it's so legal, then explain the six cases found here? or the 2 found here?, particularly v. Arthur? In which a website hoster was actually raided and arrested with convictions on things so relatively minor like the profile pictures of some users?
 * As to site blockage, I have no idea about the legal workings or how this would work, but it seems that the government can't exactly block these sites straight-forwardly.
 * And, I'm pretty sure there has only been 1 case with "public outrage", the rest have mostly been quiet.
 * Overall, I'm pretty certain Loli is still illegal, and can indeed be federally prosecuted everywhere as an individual, but with sites; it's a bit more difficult for prosecution. MagiTagi (talk) 01:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)