Forum - View topic

This Week in Anime - DARLING in the FRANXX Has Only One Thing on its Mind

I consider myself pretty liberal but I have to say this incessant harping on the evils of heteronormativity on the part of some ANN reviewers is getting really effin' annoying. More reviewing, less idealoguing, please.

The way female characters are portrayed now is offensive, yeah, but that might be intentional, as Agent355 pointed.

Agent355 wrote:

The Parasites in Darling in the Franxx are in a society akin to many real life traditional and/or religious ones: sex, or rather, their obvious metaphor for sex, is perfunctory and only for society's benefit. ....

This is undoubtedly the best write-up regarding Franxx I've seen. I've kept trying to put what this series feels like it's trying to say into words, only to write something kind of half-baked and deleting it before I can embarrass myself by posting it. Kudos, I'll definitely be referencing this going forward, and it'll be interesting to see how much of it ends up hitting the mark by the end.

I also really appreciate how the review called out tons of other series with similar themes. There are definitely loads of interesting comparisons to be made between Franxx and Star Driver, Captain Earth, and Aquarion Evol (I'd add Diebuster and Eureka 7 to the list as well). It's unfortunate when Eva comparisons get the majority of the attention.

鏡 wrote:

TarsTarkas wrote: The only reason it has been bandied about lately, is it is the newest ammo in the PC arsenal. There is no other reason to use it in anime circles. I can think of one: to describe things in anime that are heteronormative.

True, but the only reason to say that is a negative. Also, using it comes with a plus, because it is an academic sounding word, it gives the term a seemingly moral high ground gravitas. Which is why it has been latched onto for this latest entry of PC'ness.

I said my piece, but I acknowledge that it is an exercise in futility. Tilting at windmills.

To me it would be a bit like criticizing it for, say, not being about the people who design the FranXX robots...

I'll try to put this eloquently but I think we can all agree that DitF is rife with overt sexual themes, right? My main issue with it isn't that it isn't "gay enough" or that the main couple isn't "gay". Mine, and what I think the writers here were trying to get across with the use of the dreaded "heteronormative" is that it exists in a vacuum where homosexuality is presumed to not exist. At all. There's (so far) no mention of what happens if a pilot candidate IS gay, even as part of the cursory world building. That's what a lot of us take issue with is that, at least thus far, it seems like full on erasure.This could change which is probably why a lot of viewers who would like some mention of this aren't willing to throw the whole thing out or we enjoy it for the other things it's doing.

The sexualization of the girls in their suits is undoubtedly for the fans' benefit rather than social commentary, but it doesn't really take away from everything else the show is trying to say, IMHO.

what I think the writers here were trying to get across with the use of the dreaded "heteronormative" is that it exists in a vacuum where homosexuality is presumed to not exist. At all.

Also, the 4% of the U.S. identifying under the LGBT+ umbrella currently is misleadingly small without population context. 4% of the U.S. population is still a HUGE number. Less than 2% of Americans are redheads, but you all probably know more than one and see redheads all the time, and have certainly seen quite a few in media.

octopodpie wrote:

what I think the writers here were trying to get across with the use of the dreaded "heteronormative" is that it exists in a vacuum where homosexuality is presumed to not exist. At all.

That is such a lazy excuse... By that logic everything that isn't shown in the show is somehow ''presumed to not exist''. So, I assume you would think that the show presumed that people with disabilities / transgender people / asexual people don't exist as well? And for you that's a-OK. But HOW DARE they not include homosexual relationships!? That's such a clear example of double standards as well as criticism of a show for not having themes of your perfect dream show.

No, actually, that's a pretty weird goalpost to move. People are talking about other sexuality in regards to this show specifically because this show's entire foundation is BUILT around sex.

If we changed the entire premise of the show to center around able-bodies and all the metaphors were in regards to that, then yes, it would pose the question of "what about people born with or who develop disabilities?"

I know you're trying to pull a "Actually, you're a hypocrite because I just created an entire other concept and it works to poke a hole in your statement" on me but, no.

Yes we have seen a few. They aren't mandatory in every show now, are they. Moreover, the population of USA is meaningless. 4% of 1 million is more than 4% of 100. Brilliant discovery! The ''population'' of the show (that's what we at least are supposed to be discussing) is 12 teenagers. 4% of 12 is *drum roll....0,48! Yes, a gay person is statistically unlikely to exist between a group of 12 people, not even considering that they are asexualized by the community.