• kboos1@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    2 hours ago

    Is it not? The definition is the sexualization of a minor or prepubescent girl in anime/manga. Sounds like pedophilia to me.

    • Lumidaub@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 hours ago

      Hence it wouldn’t be “censorship” as the article seems to use the term. Though that doesn’t really apply at all because to “censor” it would be to not include the scene at all or rewrite it to say something else entirely. Saying “you like lolicon” or even just “you’re a pervert” might be considered euphemistic but it’s not censorship.

    • DeadDigger@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Well no. Pedophilia is the attraction to real children and lolicon is the attraction to illustrations of prepubertal girl like characters that doesn’t even need to be sexual. There is a big difference between these too.

      The translation is also wrong because in Japanese there exist the loanword pedophilia and it was not used in the original so translating it as another existing word is pretty bad.

    • gon [he]@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      2 hours ago

      Well, no, that’s not what it is. It’s young and young-looking characters, not “minor or prepubescent”.

      Mind you, plenty lolicon stuff is extremely pedophilic, namely by sexualising prepubescent characters! But lots of it is adult women that just look young and are explicitly not children in any way.

      It’s more complicated than “pedophilia”, though the overlap is… Let’s say… Conspicuous.

      Edit: The character likely did mean to imply pedophilia there, by the way.