Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
@Crimson (because I got ninja'd in the meantime)
I don't find it very obvious, and it's pretty clear that the obviousness isn't consensus by any means.
I understand your concern and I agree with your objection to child sexualization. But just because a stylized piece of artwork looks like a human child to you does not necessarily mean others see it the same way.
That said, noting the concerns you've raised, I'm going to replace the embedded picture with a link with warnings.
I'm talking about anatomy and physiology and secondary sex characteristics while you're talking age of consent. In other words, I'm talking biology and you're talking law. These are two separate issues, and while they are correlated because they pertain to closely related issues, that doesn't mean they're identical.
And if you really have beef with teenagers being sexualized, this would hardly be the place to start...
Too late for what?
"Too late for what?"
To try and make up for it by saying "oh I'll mark it NSFW." That doesn't fucking change anything. The reason me and DG are mad is because you didn't see anything wrong with it, and multiple people (except Crimson, good on him) didn't see anything wrong with this. You aren't even accepting anything is wrong with it now, you're just saying "okay to appease you people I'll mark it NSFW." That isn't the fucking issue here and it says a lot about you that you still don't realize that.
There's no such thing as a "place to start" when it comes to something that should be universal.
@gentlemanorcus
If you wanna argue this then I'll have to question what standards of anime you're working off of since that shit has been using this sort of art style for the past several years. Yes, all the so-called "moeshit".
FWIW I don't necessarily endorse any given statement from Alex. Nor from anyone else. Keep in mind the mods are users too with their own opinions and they like to spout them from time to time, just like the rest of the users.
@MadassAlex
In fact I do want to hear it.
It's been a topic I've been rather critical of for a while now.
@Formaldehyde
On the other hand -- tell me if I'm wrong -- you seem to imply like there's one and only one entirely inflexible way to deal with the topic of child sexualization and it is burn-it-with-fire don't-touch-with-a-100-foot-pole profuse expressions of disgust.
Same goes to @gentlemanorcus.
@gentlemanorcus
Well of course it doesn't change anything, since the picture is the catalyst for the discussion in the first place.
And any amount of outrage you're going to pour out here isn't going to change that anyway. You're convincing no one with your stridentness.
On the other hand, consider that you're basing your judgement of the situation on the assumption that your interpretation of a piece of artwork (distasteful as it may or may not be) is morally superior to a specific alternate interpretation, for what seems to be the sole purpose of pushing a particular opinion on an issue. You don't like child sexualization, you have decided that the picture in the opening post represents child sexualization, and you ignore all objections and questions in your quest to demonize those disagree with you by accusing them of being drunk on the Kool-Aid of desensitization.
Has it occurred to you that those of us don't react like you do may actually be mentally separating the sexualization part from the whole debate over the character's portrayed age, and also separating both of these from the whole debate over the character's gender appearance, and are actually able to discuss each of these issues both independently of and in conjunction with each other?
@Formaldehyde:
Ehh, I'm just surprised that you haven't been similarly strident in, say, agreeing with me in complaining about the sexualization of another teenaged character, among other things.
Like I said, the idea is that you're in no position to bust his balls, or anyone else's, by implication, threat or otherwise. And if you were being intentionally rude or confrontational, then that is a definite breach of the rules.
No-one is dismissive of child sexualisation as a wider issue. At least, I'd hope not, and I hope you're not implying we'd turn a blind eye towards this kind of thing were it within our power to change it. However, no-one here has any power over the niches that exist within the Japanese consumer market for this kind of material. The image in the OP is representative of a problem that deserves attention, but also in a way specific to a foreign culture that we don't exist within or have any influence over.
Let me clarify: Japan is a place where child porn, if drawn, is a legal consumer product. Forgive me and others for being jaded concerning the production of such materials coming from that country.
You're wrong. And it would be great if people would stop pretending as though tone invalidates whatever points are trying to be made. What I'm saying is I have no idea how someone can expect someone else to act -only- in a specific manner at all times regardless of the heaviness of an issue. It's one thing to expect civility, and another to expect it unconditionally.
What does that have to do with anything? Either way, I tend to not read threads about anime characters I've never heard of. Had I read the thread, yeah, I'd have been on your side. But that's all irrelevant.
"If you wanna argue this then I'll have to question what standards of anime you're working off of since that shit has been using this sort of art style for the past several years. Yes, all the so-called "moeshit"."
Frankly, I don't know enough about moeshit to talk about this confidently. But aren't the characters in moe stuff still kids?
"On the other hand -- tell me if I'm wrong -- you seem to imply like there's one and only one entirely inflexible way to deal with the topic of child sexualization and it is burn-it-with-fire don't-touch-with-a-100-foot-pole profuse expressions of disgust."
I'm totally fine with serious discussions about child sexualization, its a serious topic. But this isn't one. You didn't say "look at this picture of a sexualized child, its pretty disgusting." You used it as a conversation piece for a completely benign point, and didn't think anything was wrong with it. You pointed out how the term "trap" might offend people, but not a picture of a sexualized child. Yes, that picture is gross and you and everyone else who commented with stupid shit like "how do you define 'a female chin'" instead of pointing out the larger issue are gross.
"On the other hand, consider that you're basing your judgement of the situation on the assumption that your interpretation of a piece of artwork (distasteful as it may or may not be) is morally superior to a specific alternate interpretation, for what seems to be the sole purpose of pushing a particular opinion on an issue. You don't like child sexualization, you have decided that the picture in the opening post represents child sexualization, and you ignore all objections and questions in your quest to demonize those disagree with you by accusing them of being drunk on the Kool-Aid of desensitization."
'Drunk on the Kool-Aid of desensitization?' The fuck are you on? And yes, my interpretation that that picture is sick pedoshit and that you are sick people for seeing nothing wrong with it is the morally superior position. I don't get how you're arguing with this, are you claiming that that picture is not pedoshit?
"Has it occurred to you that those of us don't react like you do may actually be mentally separating the sexualization part from the whole debate over the character's portrayed age, and also separating both of these from the whole debate over the character's gender appearance, and are actually able to discuss each of these issues both independently of and in conjunction with each other?"
Do you still not get the fucking point? "Okay, let's ignore this picture of a sexualized child so we can talk about how anime characters are androgynous." The much more pressing issue is how you and multiple people see nothing wrong with a sexualized child, I don't want to talk about your fucking dumb topic.
"Ehh, I'm just surprised that you haven't been similarly strident in, say, agreeing with me in complaining about the sexualization of another teenaged character, among other things."
According to the other guy in that thread, "The nature of the source material is probably to blame at least partially. There was that suggestive scene with the eels, and the time she took off all her clothes at the beach" It seems she was already sexualized and I have to wonder what you were doing watching that and not seeing anything wrong with the show's sexualization of her, just the Internet's.
Why are we discussing Hideyoshi, a high school freshman, as paedo material again?
"Why are we discussing Hideyoshi, a high school freshman, as paedo material again?"
Oh, I'm sorry, ephebophile material. I know you Internet neckbeards like you to draw a distinction between those two terms to try and justify jerking off to underage kids. How the fuck are you supposed to tell, he looks ten fucking years old.
Do you know what "bust your balls" means?( When I started writing this, I was being facetious, but I'm honestly starting to believe that you're unfamiliar with what it actually means)
This isn't an issue where one can pick and choose contexts in which certain things are okay. If you (general you) honestly are opposed to child sexualization, then there are no contexts in which it can be ignored or even tolerated. Nobody is asking you to go and change Japanese law; it's all about sticking by your guns and not cultivating an atmosphere in which pictures like the above can be posted without anyone batting an eye, or where people can be ignorant of the fact that it's not cool to post those pictures even when making an unrelated point.
Then you know what to do.
Dude, I shave my beard once a month. Sorry if that is not enough for you, man.
I do. But I definitely don't want to, both by preference and because you're a good member.
It means to get in someone's face about something or other. And I really don't want this to get personal, concerning anyone. Gentlemanorcus is already on his way to bansville, but I haven't taken action against you because I see your position comes from a place of real sincerity rather than an opportunistic desire to jeer at IJBM.
Becuase there are ten year olds in the show and comparing their heights and body proportions might help.
Not if I'm breaking rules, I'm not. I'll be the first one to admit that I'm probably way out of line, and also the first to recommend that at least a probation is in order.
I can't say that this is incorrect, I just realized, but I can say that the definition that I use ("to tease" ) could just be something unique to my friends and I. I'll concede this point.
As you say, it would be the most responsible thing to put you on probation. So that's what I'll do.
I'm leaving this debate now, but please understand that I'm sympathetic to the abuse of children in both real life and media cultures. And I see where you're coming from with your disappointment. Your points haven't fallen on deaf ears, but we do have forum policies concerning clashing opinions that everyone is obliged to follow, no matter who they are. I got somewhat frustrated during this thread myself, but I don't harbour any bad feelings.
I've actually done a little thinking about the issue of age portrayal of children in animesque art and I think it's specifically the big eyes and a few other things (e.g. relatively featureless faces) that are used by the human mind as cues (among other cues) for age.
In which case it actually does make sense that if you've seen more of the big-eyes-small-mouth style of anime, then I guess you might have a more accelerated sense of interpretation, automatically skipping over some of the jarring "wait this doesn't compute" earlier steps.
Of course even then that's no guarantee. First time I saw the cast of K-On!, I thought they were elementary-schoolers. I still swear they look like that.
Unfortunately it's not entirely possible -- or even realistic, for that matter -- to simply substitute other cues. For example, giving female characters gigantic boobies and oversized lips and slathering male characters in body hair to compensate is not exactly sensible or relevant. (Not to mention that people of Japanese ethnicity, as far as I know, tend to have less body hair and smaller breast size compared to the worldwide average human, so their artistic reference isn't even like that.)
@Formaldehyde:
There are people dying left and right, innocent casualties of war, happening in Syria right now, all because a jackass wants to hang onto power (or alternatively, because some other jackasses want him to). Is this a serious issue? Yes. Can I fly into a rage about it? Well, I probably still can, though much of my rage was spent hating Khamenei and Ahmedinejad in 2009 and Scott Walker in 2011. On the other hand, can I sit down and have a calm discussion about the situation in Syria, despite the fact that no solutions are forthcoming at all? Yes, I can.
I don't see anything wrong with asking people not to fly off the handle on any issue.
That isn't the first, nor the last, time I've complained about sexualization in media, including (and not limited to) anime, so I'm just surprised you've picked this one instance to make a big deal about it.
Never mind anyway; I was ninja'd like crazy, as usual.
@gentlemanorcus:
And frankly, I don't know enough about it either; I've just run across pictures of it as a consequence of hanging out with people who like anime in the past several years. I think at least some of the characters are, and I think you have a good idea of my opinion of it from the word I've chosen to refer to it by. That said, the usual criticism I've heard of it is not so much sexualization as it is the portrayal of a child-like vulnerability (and correspondingly-triggered protectiveness instinct on the part of the viewer) and possible unfortunate implications regarding gender roles extrapolating from that line of thought, rather than direct sexualization.
I'm sorry, but I didn't even perceive this as a child.
Now if you think that I ought to be so vigilant against child sexualization that I should think about the fact that i might be potentially encountering a sexualized child every time I see encounter an anime character I am unfamiliar with, then I guess I have failed you. My apologies.
Well, maybe to you it is, but as I said, it didn't even register with me, because I didn't even perceive it as a child.
Pardon my snark, but perhaps my ability to distinguish between a real child and some random anime character who may or may not be drawn to look like one is a bit too strong. I'll try to tune it to be more sensitive in the future.
Again, pardon my snark, but going by this, it appears that if I give you a watermelon and a crumb of bread, you will be unable to talk about the crumb of bread because the watermelon is so much bigger.
I'm sorry; I forgot to log my distaste for it, in the course of my mentally ignoring it.
Oh, I'm serious about that. I actually forgot about that whole eel thing until it was mentioned to me again. Then I recalled that it was one of the more forgettable scenes which I didn't enjoy at all, and realized that I'd apparently automatically started pretending it never happened. Ain't the first time I've simply forgotten about fanservice, either.
We do? Then what am I doing here?
Yeah, which is why I don't think there's much of anything special about Hideyoshi's appearance, except that he resembles a specific female character rather than looking feminine in general. I'm guessing making the dudes look kinda feminine is somehow intentional, considering that Yuji looks noticeably more masculine, so it's not like the character designer is incapable of drawing dudes that aren't feminine-looking. Hm, not sure what that says about the author or character designer.
I think that kinda depends, considering the variation in age of consent laws.
I think it's only fair for me to point out that Baka & Test is kinda all over the place in regards to how body proportion relates to age. Yuji (far left) there is supposed to be about the same age as everybody else in this picture, despite how he looks. (although his height might be exaggerated here?)
As for the subject of being outraged, I'm not very good at making my opinion clear (assuming I'm even trying to do that instead of just vaguely make fun of something) when I act that way, so eh.
Holy shit, that sexual dimorphism's about as bad as in Sky Girls! And I thought that feat couldn't be repeated.
In any case this doesn't sound like a show I'm going to be watching anytime soon...
Edit: Ahh, dangit, orcus got banned. I was waiting for a reply too...
This thread is turning out so horribly.
Well, it's not like it wasn't horrible to begin with.
Not this again.
Meh, we've had our token lolicon member(s)(?) for ages now. Wasn't the established consensus "whatever gives you your jollies as long you keep it away from us and keep a firm grip on reality"? Did all the people who speak up now grind their teeth through all the Monkey Dust and Oingo Boingo because they didn't want to leave the forum? Hasn't anyone saved the bingo card?
I was under the impression that teenagers wearing revealing clothes isn't really anything all that uh, out-of-the-ordinary anyway. Doesn't exactly mean a character is presented as fap material. (Yes, I'm well aware of the text on the picture, but the kind of people who would say that stuff is a bit of a different issue, nor are they anything I know how to deal with anyway) And it's not like Baka & Test is the kind of thing people would demand a P5 evaluation on TV Tropes for.
>TVT
>accurate measuring stick of what's savory
Pick one.
Here's the simplified version of how the argument goes: sexualization of peeps under the age of consent, no matter in what form(because the slippery slope is in fact not a fallacy in rape culture), is misogynistic and creepy. Is this a plea for censorship? No, because that eschews the responsibility of the individual perv. However, it is your solemn duty to denounce it whenever it surfaces, educate your fellow bros on why that shit don't fly(this is one of the few instances where you aren't (x)splaining because obviously kids can't really effectively campaign for themselves), and reroute your fapping habits to something more acceptable(good luck finding material that isn't 'problematic' in some way or other). Since this has now become an SJW issue, all your counterarguments probably are derails if you squint hard enough and will be screencapped and posted for public shaming to your nearest Tumblr. You're part of the problem or part of the solution, end of story.
And I don't even know if this is a misrepresenting caricature or not.
Though I suppose this was "resolved" long ago, I do agree with Naas, in that "fapbait" was not the first thing that came to my mind when I saw the image of the character. Think more along the lines of "really shitty, yet typical of the medium, character design." Yes, the character's sexual identity is in question. But don't automatically assume one of us just pulled a "permission to fap" implication out of nowhere. You haven't heard us bitching? We're as sick of this shit as you are.