That is true, and the "lolita" which is the same as "loli" concept was derived from the girl's name in the movie. The girl in the movie was, by the way, not prepubescent (she had clear puberty signs).
You must be registered to see the links
This is because the actor, Sue Lyon, was 16 at the time and this was even before any age limitation on porn (porn was illegal everywhere until at least 1966 and child pornography was not effectively illegal until around 2000).
I have no idea where the definition of loli on f95zone comes from, but it is clearly different from the dictionary's.
If you look at the M-L dictionary, you will get the definition, which does not consider any underage requirement for a girl to be lolita (and certainly not any prepubescent requirement), only that she should be young and sexually attractive and expressive.
Enough about the term because this is not the "problem" here. The problem is that laws apply on websites, too, and websites with adult content should be extra careful because they are responsible for what they make available.
The laws in the US (and most EU countries) define child pornography as any pornographic content with underage girls.
Underage is defined as the age of majority (usually 18).
Any sexual depiction of people under the age of 18,
even in comics, generated images or other artistic expressions, is a crime. It is not a requirement that the minor depicted is a real person. In the US, it is covered by the PROTECT act. * (see the bottom paragraphs, after the dashes)
In most EU criminal laws, it is defined as "any kind of content".
So it means that even short stories etc. without visual depictions are covered by the laws. *
It even means that if the girl is said to be 18, but clearly looks younger, there could be a problem.
This wouldn't be an issue with this game because the girl could theoretically pass for 18. If she had no female traits, but is told to be 18, it would likely be illegal.
Other than that, the girl in this game also meets the classic/typical definition of a lolita. A sexually attractive and suggestive young girl.
----------
* The precedent set by that court case suggests that in California courts you will not face criminal child pornography charges for creation, ownership, or distribution of animated or computer generated images. However, under federal law, you can be charged.
FINALLY... I am just raising my concern here and letting you know what I have found out. I am an "old" porn, erotica and nudes producer and have had a lot of thoughts and challenges in the regard of photographing young girls specifically because if they even look underage, nobody wants to buy them.
I am not actually going to do anything about this, that's not my goal or point. I just wanted to tell you how this could actually potentially harm the site, and I don't want that to happen.
What does federal law say?
In 2003, Congress passed the
You must be registered to see the links
, which stands for the, “Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today” Act. Under the Protect Act, it is illegal to create, possess, or distribute, "a visual depiction of any kind, including a drawing, cartoon, sculpture or painting", that "depicts a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct and is ‘obscene' or ‘depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in...sexual intercourse...and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.” (
You must be registered to see the links
). To clarify, under federal law, drawing and animation are considered child pornography, and you can be convicted for possession or marketing of such material.
(
You must be registered to see the links
)
