I expanded this article a bit beyond the realm of lolicon. Perhaps it should be trimmed, but I feel this article should grow past a list of lolis who happen to be hundreds of years old.
--Louslet 13:10, 23 September 2007 (PDT)
- The "sexualization of childlike appearance" isn't a discussion of neotony. The article is about the retention of an undeveloped state past the usual age of maturity. There's probably a discussion of neotony in culture to be had, but that isn't it, so I'm nixing it. Certainly the article needs to be expanded (hence the Stub tag), but it needs to be on topic.
- 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. --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.
- --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. --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. --Sat 05:04, 26 September 2007 (PDT)