Talk:Lolita (term)

Creation=

I created this page to fit in information on the word "lolita" and how it is used currently, as well as how the archetype affects modern-day culture. As far as I could tell, there was a need (albeit small) for a page on what this term has become outside of Nabokov's novel. The disambiguation page noted the term already and linked back to a section on the novel's page (Lolita), which would probably partially fit in better here anyway. I took some of the information from there but haven't linked to this yet. Please feel free to alter it or (especially) add to it in whatever way would improve it. I've never created an article before! Jseipel 22:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite "influence" section to diminish POV?

The "influence" section has a very strong point of view at the moment. When making judgments of this kind, you really need to phrase it as "Debra Merskine has argued that..." Just giving her as a reference isn't enough--it still reads as if she is supporting your position, rather than as if you are quoting her position.

Also, I'm sure many other sources can be found. Dybryd 03:19, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I messed with it a bit in hopes of reducing the POV but I'm not sure how successful I was. I actually just took out a in-text reference to the article in favor of the citation, so I returned it. I haven't been able to find many sources in about a month of researching, actually. It's quite a pain. Though, I am restricted to academic sources. Jseipel 06:23, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I would think that for a discussion of a term in popular culture, sources by non-academic writers would be okay. Also, what about checking the indexes of more general-topic books by second and third wave feminists (Susan Faludi, Susie Bright, etc.) I know Naomi Wolf talks about her teenaged reading of the novel in her book Promiscuities, although she isn't terrifically insightful.

Oh and hey - there's this.

Dybryd 19:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I've been researching the topic for a class, I don't think I'd put so much effort into it for fun! Using what I looked up for wikipedia just seemed useful. You seem more knowledgeable on the topic than I, plus I have to research a new topic now for another paper in the same class, and I certainly wouldn't mind somebody who wasn't just gonna blank it taking over. Jseipel 10:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

About the origin of the term

I would add specifically that Lolita comes from Dolores in the Nabokov novel as between spanish speakers in (at least) Spain. I mean, its a common nickname for the women called Dolores in Spain (and -i'm not completely sure- in other spanish-speakers countries): Lola and its diminutive version, Lolita. I think, as a term, has its origin in the Nabokov's Lolita, but as a name its related to this spanish origin. I would ask somebody to add this info here if you think it's valid... (because English is not my primary language and...you know, I don't want to write mistakes :P). --87.219.194.112 16:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the article Lolita (term) about common usages of the word "Lolita" in US and Japanese cultures . Because of concerns like yours, I've added a prominent link at the top of the page to Lolita (given name) where people can find or add information about the name itself. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:43, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

list of lolita anime?

just wondering if any of you could list lolita anime —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.89.172 (talk) 12:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

a good idea; i was disapoingted to find that Lolita Anime is about only a single movie, rather then the whole genre. the one problem with this, that i see, is that much henti (or 'clean' anime for that matter) depict the women as young so it would be hard to define specifically which videos are lolita and which are not. Not the same one (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge went in wrong direction

Lolita should have been merged into nymphet. The article says the general term is nymphet. Zodon (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You can Be bold and fix it. According to the article itself, "nymphet" is only the general term in that book, and it isn't stated if it is really used elsewhere. "lolita" is the term more widely used. Also: 43 articles link to nymphet and 67 link to lolita (54 if you don't count redirects from Lolita pornography) TalkKiller17 (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a valid source for wikipedia articles. To support that lolita is the more widely used term one would have to use outside sources. And of course sexually attractive young woman, etc. may be even more common.

Figured to fix it when got around to it. Zodon (talk) 03:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

http://google.com/search?q=nubile = 13,900,000; http://google.com/search?q=lolita = 24,000,000; http://www.google.com/search?q=nymphet = 2,490,000 TalkKiller17 (talk) 22:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Merge

Nymph, as a figure of Greek mythology, needs to be an entirely separate category. A disambiguation note at the top of the article could refer the confused reader to nymphet.

06:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC) KC 06:57, 17 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boydstra (talk • contribs)

Nubile

"In 1973 it was first used in the sense of "sexually attractive."[7] The word can refer to a nymphet in the context of a young sexually attractive woman."

The link for footnote 7 has no evidence or further information, essentially making it useless as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.223.167.109 (talk) 07:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

nubile does not belong in this article because it is by definition about young women who are ready for marriage, and not girls. Eloerc (talk) 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Nymphet definition

I included the Merriam Webster definition of nymphet for clarification.Blue Eagle 21063 (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Category Pedophilia

Category:Pedophilia should be removed, cause the article belongs to the category Hebephilia (which should not be confused with Pedophilia). - 62.225.62.67 (talk) 19:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No. Age 9 would be pedophilia. Prinsgezinde (talk) 20:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde, whatever anyone's personal beliefs, we should be going by what WP:Reliable sources state. This edit by you acknowledges going by what WP:Reliable sources state. What WP:Reliable sources place "lolita" in the pedophilia or hebephilia category? Also, like I stated when reverting you here, pedophilia (as medically defined, rather than defined by common vernacular) is about the sexual attraction, specifically primary or exclusive sexual attraction, to prepubescents. There are pubescent 9-year-old girls; a girl hitting puberty at this age used to be considered precocious puberty by medical experts, but it is now considered common (except for menarche in girls before age 10). Because the age at which puberty begins varies, what age is prepubescent can also vary. This is why pedophilia and hebephilia are more so about sexual attraction to stages of physical development rather than to age. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I don't get it. You were the one who proposed the deletion of the hebephilia category, saying it had no clear purpose and was a disputed subject. I would have actually preferred adding both. I found an article here anyway. Prinsgezinde (talk) 00:05, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Prinsgezinde, you don't get what? I was not stating that this article should go in a Hebephilia category in my response to you. I stated that "we should be going by what WP:Reliable sources state," and asked you "what WP:Reliable sources place 'lolita' in the pedophilia or hebephilia category?" I then explained what pedophilia is (in the medical sense) and noted that age 9 does not automatically make one prepubescent. As for the source, what makes it a WP:Reliable source? Is it WP:Undue when comparing it to how other sources categorize "lolita" or the novel Lolita? That stated, source-wise, I have seen the novel discussed in terms of pedophilia, whether or not the sources are defining the term pedophilia broadly or medically, and the novel is currently in Category:Pedophilia in literature. So maybe it's fine to place the term in the pedophilia category as well. If you re-add it to the category, I won't revert again. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

On a side note: Since this article is on my watchlist, I'd rather that you don't ping me to its talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll abstain as well. Prinsgezinde (talk) 16:49, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lolita (term). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100831132936/http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/little_deadly_demons to http://nsrc.sfsu.edu/article/little_deadly_demons

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:13, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

"Sexual relationship"?

Thread retitled from "Humbert Humbert' did not have a "sexual relationship" with 12 year old Lolita".

Please stop edit-warring to sanitize Humbert Humbert as having a "sexual relationship" with 12 year old Lolita

In the novel, narrator Humbert Humbert describes 12 year old Lolita as inviting him to play a "game" by which, he tells us, she meant sexual intercourse. At some point soon during the act, HH tells us, she became reluctant, but he continued to consummate it anyway.

To its intended mid-century male audience, HH is absolved of guilt, and Lolita got what she deserved, because sex was her idea in the first place. But it is rape to have sex with a 12 year-old, no matter what.

Nabokov throughout the book reminds the reader how HH's "sexual relationship" with Lolita was maintained by bullying and threats. She consented to repeated sex because she was terrified of being sent to an institution if the truth came out. Lolita was a sexual victim of HH, not his willing sexual partner or his seducer. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The use of the term

I will say this again, either seperate loli and lolita, or admit the fact that no one even refers to the novel with the term no one says "loli" thinking of some creepy russian. they think of a cute short girl who may or may not be legal "loli baba" and "legal loli" are terms specifically proving that age does not matter The current page is created in such a way that it criminalizes anything to do with loli when infact loli hentai is in no way a crime in most countries it promotes ignorance and witch hunting behavior in easily susceptible SJWs which i assume most of the people are considering their usernames "lolicons die" and similar. that is entirely your personal feelings and opinion. the fact of the matter is no one even knows the novel exists within the anime community yet stating that the novel is the main inspiration for the term like everyone watching anime worships the perverted russian like some sort of god is in itself spreading ignorance — Preceding unsigned comment added by PercherTM (talk • contribs) 23:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. Is the an extension of the "she's actually a thousand years old" meme? No thanks. We are not interested in original research, and your opinions about hentai or SJWs are also not interesting to anyone here. Lolita is one of the most influential and acclaimed novels of the twentieth century. If you personally haven't heard of it before, that says much about you and little about anyone else.

Further, where else would the word even come from? The letter 'L' is not used in Japanese romanization, and ロリータ and ロリ are katakana, indicating they originated from a foreign language. In this case, per reliable sources, that language is English, which is the original language of Lolita in 1955, and the same language of the 1962 movie. Both of these have been very culturally influential for decades. Most terms come from other terms (where else would words come from?) and this one is no exception. Grayfell (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

My apologies, Would seem I was entirely wrong to revert here, I've reverted back, Apologies again. –Dave | Davey2010^Talk 01:12, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Huh? I'm confused. Sources connect the term to Lolita fashion, so this seems like a good thing to explain, right? Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know how to use this site properly, so hopefully putting this here is okay.

Loli=/=Lolita, Lolita=/=Loli.

Loli is art, since it comes from female characters in anime/manga. Loli refers to the female characters that keep the qualities of youth, looking younger than they actually are. (See a lot of the Saki characters, ones like Uta Mihirogi, Satomi Kanbara, Kurumi Kakura,Sukoya Kokaji, and more)

You know, "what's that kid doin' 'ere m8s?"

"Im 35(+-,000) years old!!! >:((" (almost all of the time, their age and appearance are mentioned)

"wot? you look 12, m8!"

">:'(!!"

And it's fairly understandable some / a lot of people would assume they look '12' when really, like with everything else, there are methods to creating characters in anime/manga. Specific features that seperate baby characters, toddlers, young teens, young adults and old ones.

These characters (Loli) are drawn with the consciousness of being (+-young)adults, while retaining some cute features of more younger characters(like bigger heads or smaller frame, short and/or small breast size to help bring out cuteness, (although breasts don't have to be small) small nose, mouth, large eyes etc. (Their bodies can vary.)) For example, if you look at a character like Tatsumaki (One-punch man), I am sure a lot of people won't think they're supposed to be anywhere near the age they are (~28), and probably assume she is a 14-year-old (or anything around that age) when really, the character is made with features exclusive to young adults and beyond; 6-head height (young adult balance), constricted waist, their legs (heel to crotch) are the same length as their crotch to head, the location of their wrist, their wide hips etc. (Another example would be Elin. Thighs and hips of those size are not those of an un-developed character / young female child - https://ibb.co/RN8kfGs)

Loli were made to be cute. What's as cute as a fully developed grown-ass woman being treated like she's still very young (based on their appearance and sometimes attitude aswell)and being embarrassed by it (or sometimes even fully embracing it!)? It's absolutely adorable!

It could also include (unless it's adult-exclusive, not 100% sure on that) that a character is young, but looks even younger (like a 14-year-old looking 10)as well as mentioned above, and they wouldn't necessarily be drawn with an (+-young)adult balance. (will add more if i've forgotten anything)

20/02/2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just4ubby (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

What belongs in "See also"

Most commonly, "lolita" relates to underage girls who become _targets of adult desire and exploitation. (There is also a Japanese fantasy fashion style called "lolita.")

The See also section wikilinks to various articles about the sexualization of young boys as well as young girls-- "shotacon" to go with "lolicon" and "bishonen" to go with "bishojo."

I don't see how Yuri (genre) belongs in the "See also" of Lolita. Yuri does not concern age-disparate sex but lesbian sex. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hatnotes

I have to discuss why this hatnote is displayed above. In case, a hatnote that disambiguating article names that are not ambiguous. 49.150.0.134 (talk) 22:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

The hatnote was added in response to page history where several editors were confused about title:

• "The previous definition is a false and incomplete description of the origins of the word Lolita which is a feminine name and should not be defined based on a fictional character from a novel."[1]
• "Added the actual definition of the word to be a feminine name and added factual origins of the referent definition."[2]
• "Lolita, therefore was not a noun indicating the generalization of the sexualization of young girls in the novel, rather a proper name of the victim..."[3]

I understand that "Lolita (term)" does not look ambiguous to you or to me, but it apparently does to some people. Adding the hatnote is intended as a service. HouseOfChange (talk) 06:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note that I've rangeblocked the OP for block evasion.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)