Talk:Martin van Maële
FBI[edit]
Moreso than the lolicon subcategory, I believe the images in this collection all placed under Category:Pedophilia by someone are the primary source of controversy. While less modern, they appear more realistic and more abusive in nature. I think it is important to discuss this here. Personally, for one, I think that label is a little overgeneralizing, like isn't it possible that some of the subjects might fall above the line of pubescence and might belong in some Category:Hebephilia instead?
Or, more specifically than this, they are actually pictures depicting fictional acts that are somewhat sexual in nature, so rather than have Pedophilia as a subcategory of Child Abuse, I think it should be Category:Child sexual abuse which is the subcategory. This is more specific, probably. Although, due to the ambiguousness of the word child and keeping with the theme I assume that the person who categorized these is inferring that these are prepubescent child characters being depicted then perhaps it should be called Category:Prepubescent child abuse. It depends on whether or not the encyclopedic terminology used here is going to defer to government classification (where child is synyonymous with minor and includes anyone under the age of majority, 18) or to biological/psychological classification which more frequently used the term to indicate preadolescents.
What do people think, should the category name just be left? I don't propose to change it merely due to the controversy mind you, just that these images are not what I would classify as an example purely of paraphiles. Furthermore, having lolicon as a subcategory by extension implies that Lolicon is a subcategory of child sexual abuse and clearly that's not the case because it involves images where no abuse is occuring (such as Panchira or Wikipe-tan creator's sample both of which show girl childs playing alone and not being abused. Ty (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
