Forum - View topic

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

Quote:

This report will enlighten you about that.

That is an interesting article, and I see the point. However, it really doesn't answer my fundamental question. Is there a market for sexualizing little girls in the entire otaku market? And is it enough for anime producers to add elements to an anime that is not directed at there core market for the show?

What I meant is that you can tell the erotism in the scene, even if it doesn't appeal to you. That is what disturbes me (and everyone else, I guess).

Well there must be a large enough element for the studios to actively invest their profits to produce such things me thinks, other wise whats the point? Surely it can't be targeted for export mainly.

Quote:

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

I never said that other societies didn't have any problem at all

Sally60 wrote:

While some people may find it perverse, it isn't fair to say that such things are so as they are simply traditional to the genre and are accepted as normal already by much of the local viewers in Japan.

It isn't even that, it's the fact that Nudity isn't as taboo in Japanese culture and society (unless of course, you start showing genetalia. Then you have to start censoring it ).
I mean, the ancient Greeks(?) had nude peeing-boy statues and little naked cupids. Does that make them a lolicon/Michael Jackson race for admiring naked little boys?

But that's not really my point. You seem to be asserting that because you see the scene as erotic it must be. Now I admit I'm a bit ignorant on this subject since I tend to avoid the magical girl genre, but assuming that something is erotic because you see it as erotic seems flawed.

Originally, it seemed to me that you were arguing that the acceptance (in Japan) of illustrations featuring underage characters in sexualised situations was somehow conducive to an increased rate of sexual child abuse in Japan -- without presenting anything to support this argument except personal opinion.

Now you say that that was not the point.... which begs the question: what is your point, exactly? I mean, you do have a point, don't you?

abunai wrote:

Originally, it seemed to me that you were arguing that the acceptance (in Japan) of illustrations featuring underage characters in sexualised situations was somehow conducive to an increased rate of sexual child abuse in Japan -- without presenting anything to support this argument except personal opinion.

When and where did I say THAT!?

Quote:

Japanese culture does NOT accept lolicon people acting out their fantasies, nor does it consider their tendencies socially acceptable. Rather, fiction that lets them sate their fantasies safely and without bothering others is grudgingly tolerated as a preferred alternative to an increase in sex crimes.

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 ).

Iniksbane wrote:

what is or isn't erotic is a perception.

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

Iniksbane wrote:

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 you're getting to the point. I want to know the answer too.

Iniksbane wrote:

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 I meant is that you can tell the erotism in the scene, even if it doesn't appeal to you. That is what disturbes me (and everyone else, I guess).

CherishedHonor wrote:

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

hmm... I guess that the word "mainstream" wasn't the best choice.
By the little knowledge I have of japanese society, I understand that the first ones to be freaked out about pedophilia becoming a common thing are the japanese themselves
What I meant (and I understood when other posters used that word) is that anime with these traits are becoming more and more common. It's not just about a doujinshi that can only be found in some hidden bookshop, but high profile anime series aired through all the country. The fact that producers think they will get more audience by resorting to this is worrying. Is it true then that a big percentage of Japan's otakus are lolicons? (and therefore the author of Ken Otaku Ryu is right!?). If not, why producers add this material to their series? Where did they got the wrong idea? (or all the people rich enough to support anime are perverts like in Speed Grapher? ). Or is just a temporary trend?

Now, there may be a bit of speculation with a part of a certain anime and if the director wanted to mean this or that. But in general you can tell, mostly because they don't try to hide it at all but do it in a pretty straight fashion.

bear in mind, however, that I am unlikely to attach much weight to your opinions, since I consider them to be mired in parochialism and prejudice.

Quote:

bear in mind, however, that I am unlikely to attach much weight to your opinions, since I consider them to be mired in parochialism and prejudice.

That seems a bit harsh. His arguments aren't that different than people who see a bottle of ketchup and a potato in an ad as obviously sexual. And then use that to show how much sexuality is in ads. As Freud said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

Unlike you, I find it to be a waste of time debating the point further with GarBhaD, insofar as it is unlikely to produce any results. But don't let me stop you.

Ichigo Mashimaro is also for lolicon, it was shown in the middle of the night

1. If you personally see something as eroticised, then by definition it is eroticised. Furthermore, what you consider sexually deviant is by definition obscene. In other words, you are the arbiter of obscenity. You are Big Brother, and you are watching us.

2. There is a growing obsession with underage girls in Japan, and this obsession is erotic in nature, with no mitigating circumstances. That this "obsession" is over a century old, by now, is of no importance to you. You have only just learned of this Japanese cultural trait, so it is new to you -- and must therefore be a "growing trend".

3. This postulated "growing obsession" must inevitably cause "problems" when it "reaches the mainstream" -- can the intended meaning of "problems" in this context be other than sexual child abuse?

Lolicon shows are another thing altogether. Yech. And yet if Nanoha is a lolicon show, how can one enjoy it if one isn't a pedophile? I'd really like to hear a male explain his love for these types of shows in this thread because it confuses me. If you aren't attracted to the girls, then why do you watch it? I'd really like an answer.