Difference between revisions of "Talk:Neoteny"
From LAH Wiki
Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:A general comment: there's no need to use such pretentious language; keep in mind that may LAH users aren't native speakers (Hell, I'm an english major, and ''I'' had to look up "trope"). I tried to combine your definition with the previous one. --[[User:Feather|feather]] 12:28, 24 September 2007 (PDT) | :A general comment: there's no need to use such pretentious language; keep in mind that may LAH users aren't native speakers (Hell, I'm an english major, and ''I'' had to look up "trope"). I tried to combine your definition with the previous one. --[[User:Feather|feather]] 12:28, 24 September 2007 (PDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::Fair enough about the english comment. I've grown use to the academic Wikipedia-esque setting. Though the word "pretentious" there is kind of ironic. | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::I don't agree that the sexualization of childlike appearance is an non-issue in this article. Take the legal discussion about lolicon. The US outlaws "drawings, sculptures, and pictures" of children that are "obscene." What is a drawing of a child? Sure, you can ''say'' Etna is 1470 years old, but is sexualization of her really legally or socially tolerated because of that? | ||
+ | |||
+ | ::You deleted "In culture" because it was off topic. Somewhat. But Lolita fashion and pornography, which emphasize youth, youth, youth in legal adults - are related to the topic, be Nabokov's book off topic or no. | ||
+ | ::--[[User:Louslet|Louslet]] 15:52, 24 September 2007 (PDT) | ||
+ | |||
+ | :::I know, pretnetious is a pretentious (and not quite accurate) word. But you get the point, so, moving on. | ||
+ | |||
+ | :::What you're talking it falls (in part) within the scope of the lolicon article (though I'm not sure we need a legal discussion on LAH Wiki . . .). It might warrant a mention, as it specifically relates to neotony. | ||
+ | |||
+ | :::Fashion that emphasizes youthful features isn't Neotony; Neotony is physical, not cosmetic. --[[User:Feather|feather]] | ||
+ | |||
+ | After all, the wiki was mainly created so we DON'T have to have any reference to pedophilia, and while originally, mentioning Nabokov and all that might seem like a good idea, let's not turn this into the discussion over the Lolikon article on wikipedia, ne. --[[User:Sat|Sat]] 05:04, 26 September 2007 (PDT) |