Forum - View topic

NEWS: Ken Otaku Ryu "Hating the Otaku Wave" Published in Japan

Am I the only one who is annoyed by abunai's arrogance?

What I've been wondering for a while is... How far (or how short) does one have to go before they get called a pedophile?

I'm often drawn to young characters in anime, finding them very cute and symphasizing with them in ways I don't for other shows. I love Michiru in Air, for example. I find her very funny and also find her actions adorable. I always thought that "moe" was supposed to be a sort of parental feel toward a young character, kind of what it says in the Lexicon.

Quote:

Moe is a Japanese term used in connection with manga or anime to describe the ideal of youthful and innocent femininity. Written with the kanji for "to bud or sprout" (萌), the concept covers a narrow range of ideal behaviour for youthful female characters in manga or anime. To be properly moe, a character must be eager or perky, not overly independent, and call forth a desire in the viewer to protect them and nurture them.

Doesn't mention sex.

Throwing moe in with lolicon doesn't sound right to me, is all.

On the other hand, Otaku who curl up into a ball and want to die because they witness something extremely cute and innocent everytime they see a moe show are just werido.

abunai wrote:

As for the discussion in general: there is an awful lot of nonsense being said in this thread by people who seem incapable of telling lolicon from moe, or indeed of grasping any foreign concept beyond the level of a general prejudice born in ignorance. Debate is pointless with someone who isn't interested in debating, only in airing their ignorance, so I'm not going to make that effort.

abunai wrote:

CherishedHonor, it isn't often we get a new poster to the forums who can deliver such a well-reasoned and informative first post.

I see... so, people with a different opinion than yours are just ignorants, while those who agree with you are well-informed. I thought you weren't going to participate in such a low debate of ignorants.
Am I the only one who is annoyed by abunai's arrogance?

Here are two examples of the difference between a show that was designed with primarily children in mind and one that was targetted to adults interested in lolicon.
http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/171/20041005nanoha3tc.jpg

http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/1308/ahirutransformgirl6dc.jpg

The panties especially indicate that this is meant to be erotic because of the panty fetish present in Japanese culture.

I am in no way suggesting that everyone who watches shoujo anime who is not a young girl is a pedophile. For example, some otaku watch every anime they come across.

Just don't confuse it with teenagers sleeping around. In most places that's not automatically considered an unhealthy thing. And, to be honest, I wish I'd gotten more sex when I was a teenager. (Didn't get any until I was a senior )

It is here the UK where there is a large problem with children, some as young as 11, becoming pregnant, not by adults but by other children. There is an increase in venereal deceases among the young. Even after years of sex education being taught in schools.

what is or isn't erotic is a perception.

I can understand that companies/artists might want to appeal to the fetish, but I haven't seen much of an argument as to why. Do otaku really make up that much of the purchasing public to incorporate those scenes for them? I suppose that I'm displaying my ignorance on this subject, but isn't their target audience young girls? So what do they get out of sexualizng them? That is if your argument is that they do it on purpose.

Now, this is an interesting post.

That's news to me and I'm spanish. Still, even if it's legally acceptable, that doesn't mean that people won't freak out upon hearing such news. Common ages for marriages are after reaching majority (18). In fact, nowadays most couples marry older or don't marry at all. Anyway, if you were trying to use the fact that the allowance of marriage is lower to show a more modern or open-minded society, you got it the other way around. That's something of the past (thanks god!), when families were decided by money interests and decisions of parents. That doesn't mean either that it was approved that the couple could have sexual relations.

Of course it's not accepted. Who said it was? Any sane person would get disgusted. Most would even tell you that it's sick. Just try showing somebody the opening sequence of MoonPhase and look at his/her reaction (don't try it at home! ).

While you have a point that it's better that they commit crimes in their minds instead than in real life, you have to agree that a society with a considerable number of people affected by such an obsession has a serious problem. In fact, their numbers are so considerable as to make their interests reach mainstream. I think that's what the discussion was about. Not if lolicon was acceptable or not. Because it is not accepted, the author of the book uses it against otakus (like if all otakus were lolicons ).

But isn't that perception kind of "universal"? At least in the countries were anime is aired.

What was implied was that this sort of activity had somehow become "mainstream" in Japan, where in fact is has not.

I would argue that the percentage of people with this problem is relatively constant among societies.That the sexual abuse of prepubescents is actually higher in the United States would be an indication that these individuals are just as common there. What I was trying to convey was that Japan is only perceived to be somehow more affected because of its widespread acceptance of works of fiction as an alternative to driving such individuals to real-life expressions of their disorder.

Similarly, the fact that some countries allow the distribution of works depicting coprophagia (for those with smaller dictionaries, this means the rather disturbing and disgusting practice of eating, well, poo) does not imply that the citizens of that country are more inclined to have a taste for feces.

I think we're in agreement, however, that the rest of us should not be judged collectively as lolicon just because some people are.

...and I hope to god most of us are not really into eating poo, either.

From what I've read here this seems to be more a problem of perception rather than a problem in reality. While I agree that just because a type of scene is traditional doesn't exclude the chance of it being erotic, what is or isn't erotic is a perception. I can understand that companies/artists might want to appeal to the fetish, but I haven't seen much of an argument as to why. Do otaku really make up that much of the purchasing public to incorporate those scenes for them? I suppose that I'm displaying my ignorance on this subject, but isn't their target audience young girls? So what do they get out of sexualizng them? That is if your argument is that they do it on purpose.

...and I hope to god most of us are not really into eating poo, either.

This report will enlighten you about that.

Not really. Some people find bondage or vampirism erotic. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are erotic, or even when they are used that they are being used in an erotic fashion.

The same is true here. You could assume that the shading or clothing (or lack thereof) is intentionally erotic, but on the other hand you could also assume that the viewer is seeing things that aren't really there or at least aren't intentionally there.

What was implied was that this sort of activity had somehow become "mainstream" in Japan, where in fact is has not

I would argue that the percentage of people with this problem is relatively constant among societies.