Forum - View topicBeing an English-speaking fan of lolicon manga really sucks
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next |
Author | Message | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
True, and my draft text had "subgroup". I don't know why I changed it to "subculture". Must be early-onset senility. Paedophilia, like so may other paraphilias, has been stigmatized in society. What separates paedophilia from homosexuality, of course, is the fact that active paedophilia (actual physical acts, as opposed to passive paedophilia, suppressed or sublimated paedophiliac urges) requires the participation of an individual who cannot meaningfully consent. Like other forms of non-consensual intercourse, society frowns on it. Yet when not acted upon, it cannot possibly be criminal in nature, unless one wishes to go the down the thorny path of advocating the prosecution of "thought crime".
You missed the point. As noted in an earlier post, I maintain that equating homosexuality with paedophilia is tantamount to homophobic agitation. However, my reason for bringing up Klippert was that the crime he was convicted of was being homosexual. That is, he was criminalized because of his nature, not his actions. The court records make this clear. In other words, he stands as a perfect example of a "thought crime" (in a Canadian court, even) to illustrate the subject. Moreover, a thought crime that today is totally decriminalized even as regards the act.
So stipulated. But, in my opinion, the crux of such curtailment of civil liberties must be whether the behaviour in question harms anyone. Paedophiliac behaviour harms children, but there is no victim in 2D illustrations -- unless you want to argue that the illustrations themselves are the victims? (I'm being facetious, I know)
This is remarkable -- I do believe that is the first time anyone has suggested (even circumstantially) that I might be a libertarian... what a distressing thought, and it shows that you have not quite understood me. My fault for not making myself clear, of course. The defining rôle of citizen in a free society requires that the citizen stand behind the values of the society (those values being the civil liberties), even to the extent of personal loss. By the bonds of the social contract, the reverse also applies, and the society must move Heaven and Earth to guarantee the continuation of civic rights and freedoms. In practice, this means that the citizen must, in order to save the free society from those who would curtail its freedoms, sometimes (often) struggle against the majority. That is the "one for all" bit. The citizens of Germany who realized Hitler's agenda and failed to speak out against him (just to take an example) failed in their duties as citizens.
Hmm. Two interesting examples. Did you know that in my native Denmark (occupied for five years by Nazi Germany), there is no ban on Nazi political affiliation, symbols or speech? There is even a small Danish National Socialist Party, who are roundly ridiculed in the press and in the general public, and whose chances of ever being taken seriously are twofold: slim and fat. In Germany, by comparison, neo-Nazism remains an issue -- specifically, I would argue, because of the prohibition. In my opinion, the German decision to ban Nazi activities is foolish, because it empowers the neo-Nazis. Of course, given world opinion, it is hard to see how Germany could act otherwise. But Realpolitik does not necessarily equate to sensible policy. As for the Japanese ban on the depiction of genitalia, I realize that it may be germane to the subject of manga, but really.... it's a silly example. Even in Japan, it is ridiculed. Again, it is an example of politicians passing laws to protect "public morality" that should never have needed said protection.
I am relieved to hear that.
I quite agree with you, but that is a very weak argument, as you must know. Many of the great thinkers on ethics and morality in history came from different societies than our current one, and their views were inextricably linked to those of their age. For instance, the group of men who signed their names to a document stating that they "these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" contained a sizeable contingent of slave-owners. Should we then discount the modern relevance of that document, on the basis of traits in its authors which we now find abhorrent?
He might well have felt that way, yes. On the other hand, he might have (given a modern perspective) realized that his words were more apt than he had ever imagined them to be.
True enough, the abstract study of a topic may not carry quite the same visceral impact. How about some other examples, then? Violent video games? That's certainly visceral and personal enough.Do we (Jack Thompson's antics aside) indict gamers as potential mass murderers? Or how about the way the tabloids ooze with prurient interest in murders and other iniquities? Do we consider tabloid readers to be likely murderers and rapists? Hmm. Might be a bad example.... - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AceRyonik
Posts: 145 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This whole discussion of the "Making lolicon manga illegal is an example of persecuting a thought crime" is missing one component. It can be argued that a big reason for anti-lolicon legislation is that the success of an industry that creates simulated child pornography could lead to an increased production of actual child pornography as a growing interest in the subject becomes apparent to the ones behind it.
That's always been my biggest concern with licensing such material: that someone so inclined could look at it and go, "Well, if Lolicon Manga X is doing pretty well in sales, maybe I could stand to release more videos!" It would be a case of riding a trend, except this time it's a trend that NO ONE wants to be ridden. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
That's actually a good argument, and analogous to the discussion of smoking-as-cool-symbol on TV, now deprecated by most networks. Yes, it could conceivably be true that the "market" for actual child pornography could grow as a result of wider availability of lolicon. To accept this argument, however, one would have to accept that lolicon "breeds" active paedophiliacs -- and, as I have mentioned in an earlier post, the opposite could as easily be true. By providing a "safe" outlet for these urges, lolicon could, in fact, be acting in the opposite direction. I suspect that we will never know for sure. It's not exactly a topic that lends itself to rigorous scientific examination -- partly because of the nature of the stigma attached to it, and partly because it is hard to find a social scientist without a pre-existing bias to carry out such an examination. Given the generally conflicted reaction of the public to sexual topics examined under a scientific light, any such study would also be fraught with potentially career-killing pitfalls for anyone who undertook it... a not insignificant factor. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blind_assassin
Posts: 755 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Whatever then. Splitting hairs over how you insult me is pretty pointless.
Not at all. Just don't act like you aren't being as childish as I am because you don't need the use of asterisks.
Yes. You could have.
And again, that was never my point. This entire thread of discussion would end if the TC said whether he was middle/upper North American or not. If he isn't, my statement would stand but be irrelevant. If he is from Canada or America then the fact that it's legal in Fiji or whatever holds no bearing.
That was never really my point though. My statements have been as follows: "Lolicon is illegal in these two places. I don't really care that lolicon is illegal. Lolicon is illegal because of these reasons {insert reasons}." Violent crimes can be linked to it as a parallel to justify their banning as well or why its unfair to ban lolicon but it's not relevant to my point because I'm not arguing for the ban of it. In fact, I've even said that it's easy to justify it's banning on junk reasoning because it's a wart on a wart on society. I don't know the precise reasoning for the legislation and in a purely academic sense, I don't really even agree with it based on the reasoning I provided.
Pretty much. Politics is a game defined by pandering and rhetoric. Even with the nature of politics aside, I don't believe very strongly in democracy or how government works. I'm not a paramilitary anarchist but some of my core political opinions border on fascism. I also believe that a degree of damage to those that don't deserve it to eliminate those that do is a worth while trade off. So basically I'm just giving you fodder at this point.
Meh. I've already said that I'd defend a skin head's right to hate Jews so that I can say that my Prime Minister is a retard. The idea that denying someone a child porn substitute is in any way parallel to Nazi's exterminating political rivals goes far beyond being alarmist and well into paranoid. And just because I would allow something I don't like to be swallowed up by legal tides does not mean I wouldn't defend something that doesn't effect me. I think women have a right to vote but whether they can or not doesn't effect me. Obviously, I can see your point but you aren't illustrating it convincingly in any way that makes me think the ban has any harmful repercussions. At best, this law would bleed into regulating genres of pornography but the porn industry has enough clout to defend itself.
The fact that I don't like them is a key distinction. I'm not complacently allowing (in fact since I have no bearing on this legislation my opinion really has no weight in any circumstance) my contemporaries to be eaten by an unjust political machine. I loosely support the idea of a group of people that disgust me being criminally prosecuted for something that shouldn't be tolerated. And again, this isn't a significant political issue being debated. This isn't Apartheid it's a bullshit loophole to having child porn.
And I'd say at this point none of us are acting like grown men. Your "giving me intelligent put-downs" doesn't give you a higher position to talk down to me from. As I'm sure your parents taught you as mine did to me "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say it at all". Advice which I've followed pretty poorly in this topic. I will earnestly apologize to you for responding in an overly caustic manner to your initial post but I can say that I was legitimately offended by your response to a simple two line post by me. And at the risk of getting dormcat back in my face in this topic (something I'd rather like to avoid at this point), he was not exactly acting in a constructive manner to the conservation when I lashed out at him. Sarcastically mocking a statement I made about potential reasons for lolicon being banned (given that they were not my personal ideas) played rather poorly as I read it. By his second response I clearly didn't feel like being spoken down to on the grounds that "he's been on the internet longer than me." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Yes, you are. It's not often that one sees a frank declaration of fascist viewpoints. Lack of faith in democracy is more common, but I gather that your position is not just a lack of faith in democracy's viability, but an actual opposition to its guiding principles. Which is revealing, to say the least.
And, let's be clear about this -- we're not talking about actual child molesters or people who have live-model child porn in their possession. We're talking about illustrations. Drawings. And these are so intolerable to you that you have no qualms about their possessors being prosecuted. Is this a correct interpretation?
While I disagree with you on this point (since I know in my heart that my motives for this discussion are not coloured by a liking for lolicon, but for civil liberties), I believe you have, for once, a valid point here. Clearly, if you do equate lolicon with live-model child porn, then allowing lolicon would be a loophole. But it all hinges on whether the two are the same.
Not if you respond with intelligence, instead of profanity, no.
Hmm. My parents taught me to be polite, but also to speak the truth as I see it, and not back down from a just battle.
I accept your apology, though I remind you that, no matter how offended you are, all your credibility goes out the window when you start slinging profanity around. You had a remark in an earlier draft of your post, which you edited out before I hit the quote button, to the effect that you would rather see ten innocent men punished than one guilty man go free (or some similar paraphrase of Bismarck's notorious remark). I, as you will no doubt be unsurprised to hear, am a proponent of William Blackstone's proposition (which Bismarck referenced) -- that it is better to let ten guilty men go than to punish one innocent. - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Now hang on just one minute. If you want to agree to disagree, thats perfectly fine. However, you're coming off a bit here like I'm just refusing to see any possible validity in your argument. However, I said quite clearly that I'm sure that there are exceptions. Really though, that was what your argument was. Exceptions. I don't see how any sort of significant portion of loli-fans fall into categories that you described. Also, all your reasons seem like relatively minor attractions and hardly enough to outweigh the major negative side of loli. It seems a little like joining the KKK because you like their fancy hoods. (Yes yes, I know this isn't a reasonable comparison, but you see my point?) Speaking of comparisons, the huge hole I still see in yours is this: It would be accurate if you weren't comparing it to something that was exploitative or displayed the thing in such a positive light.
We're not talking about the study of pedophilia or child molesters here. There are plenty of American TV shows such as CSI, Law & Order, Without a Trace etc. that I enjoy that do deal with child molesters in a manner relatively comparable to what you are talking about. (I say relatively because they don't go nearly as in depth as what you're describing.) There is the difference between an interest in this kind of behavior in others and an actual desire towards this kind of behavior oneself.
Now, I completely agree that as long as it remains thought only it remains harmless and therefore cannot be illegal. However, I want to point out that this does not automatically mean it must be completely "okay" as well. If to act on your thoughts would be a terrible and reprehensible act, then in my opinion it is still wrong to think these things even if you don't act on them. People should have the right to think these things if they so wish as they are harmless and therefore should not be illegal. That doesn't mean they should think these things though even if by not acting on them they remain harmless. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Moomintroll
Posts: 1600 Location: Nottingham (UK) |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hmm. I was with you until the last sentance. I suspect it wasn't your intent to suggest that pedophilia will be joining homosexuality on the list of "things your grandparents didn't like but it's okay now" but given that loli fans here and on other threads have made just that argument it could be misconstrued.
Must be or should be? Because the curtailment of civil liberties on the basis of hurt or offence caused (or on a point of political or cultural principal) is not a new concept and is ongoing in pretty much every country, including the obstensibly socially liberal ones, to some degree or other (laws against racial / sexual / religious abuse, laws prohibiting public nudity, laws forbidding Holocaust denial, laws prohibiting religious symbols from public buildings in secular states, blasphemy laws and so on and so on ad infinitum). I'm sure there are at least a few such laws in Denmark just as there are in Britain.
I humbly apologise for my faux pas - the over abundance of pseudo libertarian sentiment here at ANN (as seen in any given download debate) has evidently resulted in me prematurely presuming the worst of everyone. Having said that...the absolutism of some of your statements did rather indicate a greater weight being given in your mind to the individual than to the collective. Most un-Nordic of you.
In practice, new liberties are granted and old liberties are curtailed and that's often for the better - there are all manner of "liberties" that were gained and sustained at somebody else's expense. The "right" of your forefathers to own slaves on St. Thomas, for example, meant others (the slaves) lost their own rights. I suspect you'd agree that stripping those colonial planters of some of their liberties was entirely appropriate. Or should society have moved Heaven and Earth to guarantee their rights to their property?
Sounds more like "one against all". I agree that it is often the case that individuals must struggle to safeguard freedoms from the fury of the mob. However, it is also encumbant on the individual to acknowledge reasonable social norms - one might wish to run down the high street drunk, naked, screaming obscenities and waving a dead chicken in the air but doing so, whilst not actually hurting anybody, would cause a great deal of offense to no good end and it is thus reasonable to curtail such behaviour (provided the curtailment is reasonable in its scope) should an individual insist on behaving in such a manner. Naturally, I would fight to the death for your right to be drunk, naked, screaming obscenities and waving a dead chicken in the privacy of your own home...
Yes, I did. This subject was debated at length on a politics forum I used to frequent that had several Danish members. Not to mention the fact that Ribe still has a German-built WWII era monument complete with swastikas (or at least it did 9 years ago when I was last there).
Nobody took Quisling very seriously prior to 1940 (I'd look up a Danish equivalent but my copy of The Bitter Years is all the way across the room and I'm lazy). Ridiculing such people is good - but failing to recognise the danger they represent can be hazardous.
That seems a bit of a stretch, frankly, given that nations such as Austria, Italy and, increasingly, Russia have comparable problems with neo-Nazism but no such prohibition.
If memory serves, the prohibition is a leftover of the post-war Allied administration rather than a German initiative but I suspect, nonetheless, that the majority of Germans would be equally opposed to its repeal. None of which answers my question: does the prohibition make the Germans and the French fundamentally unfree or is it, at worse, a meaningless anachronism?
Yes it's a silly example but none the worse for that. My point is that whilst it may be a tad annoying for Japanese bachelors, it is not indicative of a general absence of rights and freedoms or an oppressed people. It has not resulted in an inexorable progression to totalitarianism - the curtailment of a liberty in no way ensures the curtailment of all liberties which is what you seemed to be suggesting previously.
Maybe not on that basis but I can think of plenty of other reasons to do so.
No. Because the market for violent entertainment is sufficiently universal that we don't, in general, regard it as being indicative of an underlying psychological problem and because unlike mainstream media with broad appeal, pornography that doesn't satisfy a pre-existing (though possibly latent) proclivity will at best be tedious and at worst repugnant to its audience. A person would not have to be some kind of Soldier of Fortune reading, psychopathic gun nut to enjoy watching Saving Private Ryan but one would have to be sexually attracted to men engaged in homosexual acts in order to enjoy watching Shaving Ryan's Privates. Then again, I haven't seen the latter film - it may be a cinematic masterpiece...
I don't think there's been much in the way of academic studies in this area. However, if memory serves, studies of rape and sexual assault rates in Northern Europe and the USA following the legalisation of hardcore pornography (including simulated rape material) demonstrated no noticable impact whatsoever - rape rates fell in the years following legalisation in Northern Europe but only at the same rates they had already been falling previously and they rose in the USA in the years following legalisation but, again, only at the same rate they were already rising prior to that. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
blind_assassin
Posts: 755 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I said that some of my opinions are borderline but not exactly outright. It's kind of difficult to explain without loaded buzz words like fascism but in terms of pure policy some of my feelings are close. And aside from all the historical evidence people weigh against it, the core ideals weren't all bad. It's mainly the racism and mass murder that people had a problem with as opposed to the economic success and general sense of visible direction it provided.
In explicit legal terms, yes. The law is very new (2000's new) and has yet to be applied outside of the initial precedent set in the Sharpe case but taking the ramifications of that setting into consideration it hasn't been used to assault relatively innocent weirdos. Sharpe was a man-boy love advocate and I believe had at least one prior regarding some sort of pedophilia type charge. Given that he was using illustrations as a flimsy legal two-step around the justice system he deserved to be arrested. I think he managed to slip through an "artistic merit" loophole though that resulted in rewriting the law.
Which is the spirit of the law. Laws don't get made for the purpose of persecuting those that don't deserve it since democracy makes that pretty much impossible. However, going back to the root of this topic, the fact that it may in some cases result in criminal charges against a minority of a minority of people makes it not just a question of legality for publishers but a question of business sense with a very very very obvious answer.
I edited something out? I don't remember doing that. I'd stand by that comment though. I won't chip away at it with points about the legal system but I will state that even if you mean "I'd rather let ten guilty men walk free than punish one innocent" as a slight exaggeration, it's how the justice system works in most first world countries with jury systems. Literally ten guilty men walk free at the expense of keeping an innocent man out of jail. I for one find that pretty irresponsible to do. Releasing killers to protect people that, at the very least, fail to cooperate with the police (thus bringing very much suspicion on themselves) is not a risk many willingly assume. And besides, releasing every "innocent" person in jail would make prison useless. The only time truly innocent people get convicted without having done something immensely stupid or incriminating is because of crappy lawyers that can't evaluate a case. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I suspect that what you are trying to get at is that you like corporatism as a political system -- corporatism being the underlying ideology that formed the basis of most of fascism, and a system which is still going strong these days, in North America in particular.
Yes, the only case law so far is not clear-cut, since the person in question appears to have been a genuine predator, and not a case of 2D-illustrations-only. It will be highly interesting to see, if and when the courts get around to it, what happens in a clearer case of lolicon-only evidence.
I disagree with this statement, since it is all too clear that democracies have, on many occasions, enacted legislation to persecute individuals who did not meet the standards of public morality at the time (e.g. Oscar Wilde... or Alan Turing), only to turn around and repeal those laws later. Even in my native (and very broad-minded) Denmark, many things are legal at present which would have landed you in jail at the time of my father's childhood. Same with Canada, or the U.S., or any other democracy you'd care to mention. All have repealed laws that were too strict by the standards of more modern times.
And here, we're at the heart of our disagreement. You are reducing the justice system to a cost/benefit analysis: "X innocent men must suffer to capture Y guilty men, and if the ratio of X to Y is sufficiently small, then it is a valid 'investment'". I cannot in any way accept this mode of thinking. It strikes at the very heart of the ideals of justice, in my opinion.
So we should punish people for being clumsy in their dealings with the police? For being unable to work the system? For being unlucky enough to have a bad lawyer? For being poor? - abunai |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Gawd I'm really tired of this endless debate. Can we talk about Wayanaguda's Round Shell instead? BTW, he really likes creating images for Ai Haibara (Detective Conan). Maybe because she's technically legal.
Now, before some of you lolicon haters start screaming and running around, let's take a look at this mangaka's personal interests (this page is safe for work):
Anime: Key the Metal Idol Battle Athletes Victory, G Gundam, Fruits Basket Haibane Renmei, Nanaka 6/17, Kaleido Star, Air Honey and Clover, Mushi-Shi Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex works by Mamoru Oshii. Music: Susumu Hirasawa, Noise, Techno Pop. Pretty nice and impressive list, if you ask me. It's clear that his taste is much better than the average of ANN users'. It just happens that he also likes
And he's a cat owner. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PantsGoblin
Subscriber
Encyclopedia Editor Posts: 2969 Location: L.A. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Looking at that picture, I know I've read Round Shell before... I can't remember anything about it though. I may have deleted if it had futanari (I can't remember but I think it had some in it, or maybe I'm thinking of something else). Regardless, I like his artwork a lot. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Olliff
Posts: 550 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Political charge issues corrupt everyone with mass-mindedness and collectivism or divide those into factions. Mob-rule as you can see here is the result.
It infects everyone's mind with the presumption that the state should do almost everything, it is responsible for almost everything, it is necessary for almost everything, and if you want anything to be a certain way, governmental fiat is the way to go about it. It subtly instills in us the facade that we are persuading the mind of the other—by use of rhetoric. Rhetoric dictating how you should make your life, or the world, better, not by changing your life or living it privately with unbroken integrity. Rhetoric that is made useless because both groups have opinions based on moral boundnings, which are resistant to change. Mindless rhetoric, such as this, encourages people to join factions (pro/ against) not only to challenge the standards of decency but to prevent their opponents from getting what they want, engendering a bitter, competitive divisiveness between groups of otherwise good people, who are now more inclined towards aggression or as in this case belittlement. Debates such as this are derisive forces that highlight the differences of opinion. In principle, such discussion is not necessarily bad. However, when even the smallest amount of maturity is lacking from either party, the discussion degrades into personal attacks and ill logic bickering. Why can't we all just sit around in a circle, sing songs and be nice to each other? This is not a political forum, why must we work with it when even immaturity from one party can cause the debate to disintegrate into fallacies and misrepresentation of the opponents arguments? Personally, I don't even want to weigh my opinion on this issue because quite frankly I am not qualified to do so. I share the mindset in regards to potential obscenity to Justice Holmes, "I know it when I see it." However, case point it almost certainly would fall under this category. From this point, one could either defend it by saying its moral under the pretext that its virtual and deters from actual criminal behavior or you can make a case for civil liberties. Both appeals have made and counter appeal have been made in regard to an animated prurient interest would only appeal to someone who shared the same prurient interest in real life. Quite frankly, there are logical arguments on both sides that weigh greatly on personal moral values, deterrence from real crimes, or an allowance for civil liberties. Both sides inflame the other and it is doubtful either side will concede to the other. While the debate is interesting to read, I personally think that it serves no point other than to offend and highlight difference in political opinion Last edited by Olliff on Mon Apr 07, 2008 11:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
einhorn303
Posts: 1180 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ah, I remember Round Shell. It illustrates an interesting point of English-speaking fans relying entirely on Japanese material...fetishes that don't have the same cultural impact. I mean, I'm not sure there's too many Americans going "ZOMG!1! TRADITIONAL AND NOSTALGIC BULKY RED LEATHER BACKPACKS!11 *fapfapfapfap* As I recall there's also a Round Shell Second. Backpacks sell! And what does "ロリ ふたなり 女装少年" mean, dormcat? The only thing I think I know is "ロリ" being "rori." |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Olliff
Posts: 550 |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
I am no expert in Japanese, but I think I am making out some words such as equipment, boy, and woman. A quite scandalous mixture of words. =p Pardon for my English; this is my non-native language. I hope it isn't too bad. Let's move forth with this derailment. For once, I am in support of such an action. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ロリ loli = short of Lolita ふたなり futanari: Wiki explains it better than I can. 女装少年 josō shōnen = boys in girls' costume e.g. Mizuho Miyanokōji of Otome wa Boku ni Koishiteru and Jun Watarase of Happiness! While I know a number of commercial mangaka who don't mind erotic dōjinshi of their published works (e.g. Ken Akamatsu), Yu Aida, creator of Gunslinger Girl, goes even further by sending a nude picture of Triela he illustrated to the author of ERRATUM: I mistook Girls Gotta Guns for Lonely Peridot. Last edited by dormcat on Tue Apr 08, 2008 1:09 am; edited 1 time in total |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group