Forum - View topicView on Moe.
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Reaper gI
Posts: 299 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||
When they are evoked!! That's why it's an opinion of a character not a charater type.
Yup that's right nigh on all anime chacters can be classed as and therefore are (remember this is based on potential) moe. I see you're of the I don't like it therefore I'll call it moe persuasion. Then you give a very definatly moe character, she's a tsundere with animal ears for hecks sake, as a counter exapmle.
Rika did win Saimoe, so it's characters are definately moe. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Ggultra2764
 Subscriber Posts: 3872 Location: New York state. |
|
|||||||||
Horo's personality is too complex to tack on a simple archetype. Her mood around others vary on the situation, especially in her developing relationship with Lawrence. She isn't a Type B as she doesn't show too many occasions of beating Lawrence to a pulp and ditches her "nice girl" facade if anyone rubs her the wrong way (only beating Lawrence up in moments where he does something she considers foolish) and she is open about most of her thoughts of Lawrence to the guy, unlike Type A tsundere (quite often found in romantic comedies).
Yes, the Higurashi girls are moe in terms of character design. But personality wise, they break the archetypal mold of characters made to get the "protective feelings" moe fans get of such designs by deceptively portraying a seemingly innocent nature from the girls until the crap hits the fan. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Zin5ki
 Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||||||
Presuming certain dispositions of the viewer, I shall grant that techniques such as this are sufficient for the desired response to manifest, though I do not believe they are strictly necessary. Provided the qualifying response in the viewer obtains, no further conditions need be met*. To illustrate this, some of the sentiments I felt towards Rakka in Haibane Renmei were almost akin to those towards Misuzu in Air, in spite of certain devices present in the latter being absent in the former. The only manifest difference between some of such responses, aside the entities to which they were directed, was a matter of degree.
This would be the implication of considering moe a response-dependant property. In the current absence of a set of subject-independent conditions necessary and sufficient for characterising the concept, I warm to permitting subjectivity in this instance, as well as in several others.
Much like Reaper gI, I might address this quite simply: one knows when said feelings are evoked when one entertains such feelings whilst viewing, or otherwise contemplating, the title in question. Such simplicity is the advantage of response-dependence concepts in general. One must admit this causes difficulties for those who entertain no such sentiments when viewing. In such cases, an object-oriented definition might, I admit, be of greater utility to them. (You yourself appear to do this, but you wisely specify a degree of subjectivity for your conditions by preceding them with the term, "to me".)
That would be an object-dependant definition, for no mention of viewer response is implicit. Perhaps this condition is necessary, although not sufficient, and could be made more specific by including a response-dependant condition. Of course, this would produce a definition of a term applicable to a far broader set of titles than initially expected, as HellKorn might have been implying. Whether or not this would be considered ridiculous is, interestingly enough, itself a response-dependant issue. *I don't mean to imply that the response should constitute 'moe-ness' per se, to coin a phrase, but instead that a dispositional relation between subject and show provides such constitution. I toy with the idea of granting the title a causal power to induce the response as a means of defining moe, but I'm somewhat averse to predicating too much of subject-independent entities. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
rainbowcourage
 Posts: 1216 Location: what is commonly known as "hell week" |
|
|||||||||
I guess we've gotten to the meat of the issue here--if moe is entirely response-dependent, why bother debating? That makes the issue entirely subjective, giving anyone free license to say, "Well, Marlene may have started out as an ice-cold Darwinian socialist elite soldier, but since, you know, she grew a heart over the series, and I want to protect her, I guess she's moe." Honestly, I think it's gotten to the point that people are so afraid of stepping on toes that they hesitate to define something. To me, the idea of moe being entirely subjective is bullshit, a product of the internet (this is the case all over the place these days). Obviously there is room for interpretation as to what the characterization actually is, but I do believe there are standards. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Zin5ki
Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||||||
Indeed it would, provided the response is a genuine one. In the example you raise, I'd happily admit that, to the hypothesised subject in question, the title has moe elements. In declaring 'moeness' to be constituted by a relation between the anime and a given viewer, I wholeheartedly accept that the correspondence between sorts of objective properties and sorts of personal responses is not one-one. (Please allow for 'moeness' to be used to denote the property of being moe hereafter.) Thereby I wholeheartedly accept that, to particular subjects, moeness might be true of objectively dissimilar titles, provided these subjects' responses to each title are of the same kind.
Though I grant that internet courtesy has had a role to play in rendering subjectivity more appealing, I do not see how the former claim is true. If a given property is to be defined not as a single property instantiated by a single object, but as a relation between one object and a certain subject, then the ontology of the object per se is alleviated of any debatable elements. I shall explain: If there is a set of objective properties upon which the property of moeness entirely supervenes, the 'room for interpretation' regarding what the elements of this set might be leads me towards scepticism regarding the success of identifying moe in this manner. Let me dwell upon the notion of 'room for interpretation' for a short while. To say there is room for interpretation is to allow each individual to formulate their own definition of moeness. I do not advocate this stance, in light of the following counterexample: Person α might define moe as a set of properties A, where A includes elements such as 'no character development' and 'depiction of child-like characters' etc. Person β might define moe as a set B, which shares certain members with A, but is not identical to it. Person γ, however, might define moe as a set C, where A and C share no common elements (i.e. A and C are disjoint). This leaves two options. The first is to vindicate each person's entitlement to their personal definition, which would entail that 'moe' can mean anything to anyone, for A and C would need to be simultaneously valid, as would any other set of properties sharing no elements with A. The second conclusion would be to suggest that, whilst each people's definitions might differ slightly, there exist certain objective properties that no definition of moe can fail to include. This would entail that at least one of α, β or γ adopts a factually false definition of moe, and thus fails to understand the concept. If we reject the former option, we find ourselves with the following problem to overcome: If moe is to be defined by response-independent properties, what is the set of properties that each 'valid' definition of moeness must include as a proper subset? Or alternatively, what are the essential properties of moe? This is the daunting task that would need to be achieved for me to warm to the notion that response-independent properties are suitable for categorising moe. Such a task can be avoided by instead declaring moeness to be (or to supervene upon) a set of responses, or more specifically, a set of mental states induced by a title. If a person responds to a title in a particular manner, then the title is moe to that person. 'Moe' becomes not a description of a device in anime, but a description of the emotional habits of certain persons. I shall now address a basic problem: In light of response-dependence, how can we explain our intuitive expectation that common response-independent properties are the bearers of moeness, such as given character types and plot devices? The advocate of response-dependence might explain why these intuitions manifest in the following way. It is simply because 'moe reactions' typically accompany the experience of such response-independent properties. Under response-dependence, shows rich in such properties are shows designed to evoke moeness, shows which might indicate a directorial attempt to cause moe reactions, but not 'moe shows' per se. I grant that we might admit the existence of certain objective properties which commonly induce moeness, or are otherwise more notable contributors to moe reactions than other devices, but to claim they are in fact the bearers of moeness would be to commit a category mistake. (Avoiding this challenge would require the aforementioned task of formally identifying the 'essence' of objective moeness.) So to cut a long story short, I advocate a response-dependant and thus subjective definition because, unlike rival theories, it can be understood without having to whittle down commonly found properties into an ever-present constitutive subset of objective properties. In addition, such a definition is sufficient to include all the titles we intuitively consider to be moe, albeit at the aforementioned price of admitting a larger number of 'moe' titles than intuitions might allow. As you mention, no toes are being stepped upon. This is advantageous not just for reasons of courtesy, but also for simplicity. As you yourself seem to imply, the existence of the phenomenon of subjective response is so straightforward that it needn't be debated. For balance however, I am not in a position to deny that there could be a sufficient set of objective properties. The thrifty ontology involved in reducing moeness to a response —a response to be identified through tokens of mental occurrences— simply alleviates one of having to boldly assert that one can identify all the elements of said set of objective properties, as doing this becomes surplus to requirements. Put succinctly, response-dependence advocates simplicity over apparent indefiniteness. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
rainbowcourage
Posts: 1216 Location: what is commonly known as "hell week" |
|
|||||||||
My point here was that even if I did lay down my own list of personal properties, it wouldn't be the be-all-end-all.
Isn't that precisely the problem with moe as a response-dependent term? Also, I'd like to negate this scenario; as I said before, I don't think it's entirely subjective.
Okay, I'll be the Voltaire to your Leibniz; your definition of the word is theoretical and isn't practical for use. How do you propose moe to be used as an adjective if it means something different to each person? Is it literally going to be on par with words like "sadness" and "happiness"? This work evoked "moeness" in me... 
Okay, for argument's sake, let's look at ANN's definition:
Sounds like characteristics to me...which don't fit someone like Marlene at all. Also, this is totally unrelated and not meant to offend in any way, but I've always been curious...do you speak the way you write? Your style is flowery, and fun to read, but can convolute your posts (well, it takes me a bit longer to process them...but then again we Americans aren't very delicate). |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
HellKorn
Posts: 1669 Location: Columbus, OH |
|
|||||||||
I do agree with you that moe in practice is more of a characterization than anything else. But you also have to understand that because of the male otaku demographic, they can "feel moe" for damn near anything (that is a drawn female character that needs support). Moe entails reductionism, even if the characters are far more well-defined than that, viz. Reki in Haibane Renmei*. Otaku by and large aren't out for authentic, nuanced characterization, but a kind of objectification. Seras from Hellsing struggling with coming to terms with being a vampire? That's moe to them.
Otaku got every nook an' cranny covered. *Clarification: Haibane Renmei isn't a "moe title" by any means, but the most superficial enjoyment (i.e. girls with tragic pasts) allows otaku to latch onto it in that manner. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
dgreater1
 Posts: 307 Location: in the Phillipine's AIR space with Misuzu |
|
|||||||||
spoiler[Okazaki Ushio] from CLANNAD AS. It's really rare to see a kid being portrayed like a "real kid" in some shows that it hurts seeing their struggles. That spoiler[locked-up twin sister] from Jigoku Shoujo. Her feelings for her sister and action is a very real thing to me. Yet, despite knowing her way of thinking, I just couldn't come to hate her. It's actually a mixture of Pity & Love if you know what I mean. Despite having a mixture of fantasy, scifi, or anything else, their actions about the situations and how real it is compared to how a real person would act is how I considered them real. Well, your opinion about these characters might be different but at least to me, they act real. I could act some more, but I don't have time to search my memories for them.
Okay.
To me, Moe is a flexible word therefore, the words I mentioned are just some term that could also substitute Moe. That's how I use Moe. As I always say and trying to drill to others thoughts, Moe is an affection you feel towards a fictional character. Now, since you feel Moe (Love, Admiration, Adoration, Like, Concerned, etc.) towards a character (fictional), that character (fictional) becomes Moe (Lovely, Admiring, Adorable, Likeable, etc.) and whether your opinion is different from others, you can't argue that the others find Moe (Love, Admiration, Adoration, Concerned, etc.) to a Moe (Lovely, Admiring, Adorable, etc.) character (fictional). Although, some would argue, how would you find Moe (etc etc etc) to a 2D character that doesn't have a personality? Well, imagination. People are probably imagining how they would act and so they believe they are Moe and that's what I think is one of the negative issues about Moe, "Lack of Proof" whether you really feel Moe towards a character or just a temporary feeling. Moe is a genuine feeling you feel towards a character, at least to me. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
EternalWinds
 Posts: 8 |
|
|||||||||
|
A late response but I had no internet for couple of days
You know I never meant to state revy as a real girl.. I was joking.
I will read the rest of the essay length posts later on tonight and come with a response... |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Zin5ki
Posts: 6680 Location: London, UK |
|
|||||||||
|
Some more thoughts on moe, in response to rainbowcourage:
Upon reflection, it is perhaps worthwhile to discuss the degree to which my account is subjective. My account does bear some concreteness to it, but this may be eclipsed by the fact it is an account more relevant to mental affairs than to objective attributes. I have been suggesting that there is a set of mental states that constitute moeness. Let us call this set M. Whenever a person entertains the members of M, moeness is manifest. These mental states are intensional states, because they are directed towards objects such as anime titles. (As for how the mental states come to be associated with certain objects, I might plausibly suggest a causal relation. I needn't delve into this matter however, and nor do I need to go into detail regarding the mechanism by which instances of the members of M are instances of moeness. A relation of identity or supervienience might suffice as regards such a matter.) These postulates would not immediately lead to the conclusion that moeness is subjective, unless one considers the fact that tokens of M can only occur within subjects, and not anime per se, to be indicative of subjectivity. Nonetheless, my account becomes clearly subjective in virtue of the semantics I formulate for the word "moe". Consider the following sentence, as might be spoken in conversation. S: "Anime A is moe." Under a response-dependance account, one might say that S is strictly and literally false, for A, not being an entity with a mind, contains no members of M. (A might contain the entities causally and intentionally related to M, but this is an aside.) I shall be more forgiving than this, and shall attempt to allow that S is a true statement if uttered under appropriate circumstances. Consider the following proposition: P: There is an anime, there is a person and there exists a time t. The anime is A. At time t, the person feels moe towards A. I claim that the sentence S means the proposition P, in such a way that the truth of P entails the truth of S, but only under the conditions that the speaker of S is the person involved in the proposition, and that the speaker utters S at time t. (One has to be precise in matters such as these, it seems.) It thus follows that the word "moe", perhaps unlike the definition of the property of moeness, is subjective. This is because any sentence involving the word "moe" can only be true if there are certain facts true of the speaker of that sentence, particularly the fact that they entertain the mental states M sufficient for moeness to be instantiated. This wraps up the distinction between my account of what the property of being moe consists in, and how the word "moe" might be used in a sentence. All I wish to add is that the sentence, "I feel moe for this title", is more to my liking in everyday speech, for it seems to better imply the designation of moeness as a state of mind. I allow for the adjectival use of "moe", but only in light of the above account. I admit, to propose this strange interpretation of "moe" as an adjective means that my definition isn't a very practical one. I also admit that, as you might suggest, my definition renders the semantics of "this is a moe title" similar in form to "this is a happy song". Before I read the article linked to by 4nBlue, I was more or less an adherent of ANN's definition. The article was responsible for weaning me away from defining moe as a property borne by an anime or anime character, for it outlined a set of responses that I deem appropriate to be the members of my set M, and therefore allowed me to make my recent proposals. In closing, I thank you for your compliments. I try to be articulate during spoken conversation, but I am often hindered by unideal circumstances, not to mention my occasions of absent-mindedness. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
HellKorn
Posts: 1669 Location: Columbus, OH |
|
|||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Reaper gI
Posts: 299 Location: UK |
|
|||||||||
If you read the article moe is used for characters you would buy chara-goods of (this happens to corespond to protective feeling to that chara). If you don't buy chara-goods, figures, body pillows, etc. you shouldn't be using it. That makes it prety hard to define as everyones taste will be very different. The article also states that things like artstyle, plot etc. are all irrelevant to it. Moe only has to be due to one image in an entire series , the character could only be a single image e.g all the Vocaloid2 characters. They certainly don't need to be characterised, the companion cube (portal) is most definatley moe.(there are chara-goods of it). |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
HellKorn
Posts: 1669 Location: Columbus, OH |
|
|||||||||
But, really, I dunno, man. Do you acknowledge that there are series created specifically in mind to make a certain demographic "moe" for the characters? If so, then do you think it would be appropriate to categorize them together based on those shared elements? If not, why? You already have something like "hot-blooded" to describe certain shows, and anime fans know what kind of show it is (or at least tries to be). So is to call something a "moe show" actually different? |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
rainbowcourage
Posts: 1216 Location: what is commonly known as "hell week" |
|
|||||||||
I understand where you're coming from, but a purist definition seems antediluvian at this point. How many female characters are out there who show zero, and I mean absolutely zero, vulnerability? You're saying moe plays on traditional male-female roles to evoke feelings of protectiveness, and therefore any vulnerable female can induce feelings of moe. I'm saying that there really aren't female characters without some measure of vulnerability (just as there really aren't any male characters like that...well not any good ones anyway. Characters would be friggin' boring without chinks in the ole' armor). So if you have a word that describes everything...then it describes precisely nothing. If every female can evoke feelings of moe, why have the term at all? I really, really feel that that definition is so antiquated that, even if you took the time to explain all the nuances, it would still be misinterpreted (by people like me, who believe in the stereotype definition). |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
21stcenturydigitalboy
 Posts: 103 Location: Virginia Beach, Virginia |
|
|||||||||
|
Hey I haven't read the discussion up to this point, I just wanted to interject with the opinion on moe I've formulated after extensive research. Copied from discussion elsewhere:
"‘Moe’. Moe, Moe, Moe. One of the most debated, debased, derogatory, yet delightful and potentially deadly terms of anime fandom. There are those who can’t wrap their heads around moe, or grasp it, or understand it, who think it’s a trend or a style or a visual phenomenon. There are those who try to pigeonhole moe, who try and categorize it as a genre, and who try to bash it or warp it. Now, I’ve done a lot of study on moe in the past. Moe helped me grasp my fandom when I almost lost it, I trained myself to learn more about it, and I published a definitive guide to breaking into it as a culture. However, if there is one thing I haven’t yet done, it’s to define moe. Saki has given me the confidence to do just that. You’ve probably all heard about how ‘moe’ means ‘budding’, and how all sorts of various fetishes can be branded as different types of moe. But what does it mean? Some would say that ‘moe’ described a desire to ‘protect.’ Some consider it a non-sexual desire, whereas others consider it a purely sexual desire, often related to young girls (and considered in conjunction with ‘lolicon’.) None of these is true, and I will explain my meaning of it now. ‘Moe’ is not purely a desire to protect – rather, it is a desire to see the character succeed. Moe is born from the viewer’s emotional involvement in the success and happiness of the female protagonist. Trying to say that it is a desire to ‘protect’ is pigeonholing the emotion. If we were to take a character like the famous Yui from K-On! there is probably a desire to protect her, because she is SO weak at the beginning. You can see that the odds are stacked against her. However, the moe you feel isn’t purely from your own desire to protect, but from your desire for her to make friends, and to learn to play guitar, and to be happy and have fun and follow her dreams. THAT is moe. The reason I can say this so confidently is because of something I have seen before in the likes of Bamboo Blade, but saw even more strongly in Saki. The girls in Saki don’t need any protecting. Some may need emotional security – some may need friends – some may need passion – and that can be called protection, but some don’t need any of that. And yet, I can safely say that I felt moe for every single character in Saki. I realized this around halfway through the show. I couldn’t put the emotion into any other words. Did I ‘love’ them all? No, most of them are not the type of woman I’d be interested in dating or marrying. Was I sexually attracted to them? Not necessarily. While Saki’s designs were some of the best I’ve ever seen, Nodoka, for example, I didn’t find even remotely attractive. However, I adored her as a character, not even as one I would want to hang out with ‘in the meat’. What was this feeling? And why did I feel it on such a wide scale? Before I even decided what it meant, I knew it was moe. I sat and thought, ‘I feel moe for every girl in this show.’ And then I realized that what I wished for more than anything else from the girls in this show was for them to succeed. For them to conquer the odds, make friends, live to fight another day, grow more passionate, and kick more ass. I thought about all the moe I’ve felt. My pure desire for Aisaka Taiga to end up with Takasu Ryuuji. My pure need for all of the Higurashi girls to find a way out of their madness. My pure desire just to watch the Hidamari Sketch characters continue to have fun and enjoy their lives. I want them to be happy, successful, and have fun. That is moe." Questions and Answers presented on my views: First Questioner: Q: Isn’t this too broad a definition? I mean, I feel the same way for Simon of TTGL after all. These feelings can be felt for any sympathetic protagonist (but not exclusive to such protagonists). Or, are you saying that the object of moe is necessarily female? I don’t know man, I feel that the definition is too broad. Perhaps we can qualify it further by insisting that the moe object is significantly powerless, weak, talentless, and/or incompetent. Or, we can qualify moe to manifest in specific moments that have beginnings and ends, as opposed to being a blanket category that applies to a character indefinitely. But seriously, I don’t know… I just submit these thoughts to contribute to your thinking on this subject. A: Many, many women seem to feel moe for the likes of Simon or Shinji Ikari (I suggest reading the blog I Am In Dire Need of a Butler) and I have been known to feel moe for some pretty boys who strike my fancy. Now, what I might have neglected to mention is that moe IS an attractiveness thing. I don’t want to say sexual, because it’s more like ‘you feel attached to the character’ which is why you become moe for them. But anyway, moe SHOULD be a broad definition because it’s personally independent. The things one man feels moe about are 100% different from what I feel moe about. You can only know if you are feeling it if you truly believe you feel it. If the character had to be talentless and weak, Saki would fail because all of the girls start out the series as the best of the best. So that definition just can’t apply. Q: How about if only relative to the other characters in the show (and specific to the focus, e.g. mah jong, music, mecha piloting, etc)? A: But that’s what I mean, I felt moe for every character in Saki. And Saki herself was a constant god-mod. She could pretty much win a game just by deciding she wanted to win, mowed over everyone, never lost a match she didn’t mean to, and had no weakness of personality whatsoever. She was, like, a freking Iron Girl LOL. Questioner 2: Q: You’re being blinded by the dual status of Saki as a moe show and a sports anime, like others were about Taishou yakyuu musume. In many, if not most, moe shows, there simply isn’t anything to “succeed” at. I mean, what in the world is Sakuragi Matsuri [from Ichigo Mashimaro] supposed to succeed at? Now this protection thing is related to some sort of fragility that moe character possess. That doesn’t mean they have to be weak or talentless, at all. But they have emotional issues, as all the characters in Saki do (maybe not Yuki, granted, but it’s debatable whether she’s a moe character at all). A: I’m going to assume you completely and utterly missed this paragraph. “Before I even decided what it meant, I knew it was moe. I sat and thought, ‘I feel moe for every girl in this show.’ And then I realized that what I wished for more than anything else from the girls in this show was for them to succeed. For them to conquer the odds, make friends, live to fight another day, grow more passionate, and kick more ass. I thought about all the moe I’ve felt. My pure desire for Aisaka Taiga to end up with Takasu Ryuuji. My pure need for all of the Higurashi girls to find a way out of their madness. My pure desire just to watch the Hidamari Sketch characters continue to have fun and enjoy their lives. I want them to be happy, successful, and have fun. That is moe.” The interpretation of ’success’ here is ‘happiness’. Any good slice-of-life show or comedy or anything you can call ‘moe’ makes an effort to keep the characters happy. The ‘moe’ I would feel for a character like Matsuri comes from my desire for her to become less shy and firghtful and to enjoy her friends’ company more and more and generally be happy. Q: Then the objection of [Questioner 1] applies, only a lot worse. If you like a character, most of the time, you want them to be happy. It reduces moe to “having a fondness for”, which is an altogether uninteresting concept. I want Yotsuba to be happy (even “succeed”), and I’m “attached” to the character in some sense, but that’s not moe! A: lol, but like I said, it’s only moe when you FEEL it is moe. You can’t say that every single time you feel attached and want them to succeed it’s automatically moe. It’s a thing that is only determined by you. Questioner 3: Q: What about Hatsune Miku? Or toilet seats? Perhaps you defined for personal usage, but not really for the general public. It’s futile and not a term anyone should be fighting for at this stage. A: I think the general point of my definition is that it’s so all-encompassing that it can be anything to anyone. I think how people generally feel attracted to Miku doing her best is freaking obvious. ‘Miku Miku ni Shite Ageru’ I mean come the hell on, dude. Q: But the Miku example doing her best is all after the fact. People felt moe for her aesthetics first. And what about those toilet seats? A: I felt moe for her design beforehand too, but does that any less mean that I had a desire for her character to be happy and successful? No. It only means that I am capable of having those feelings for something that has no personality or history. It says something about the people who feel moe for it, in that they are capable of doing so. Miku Miku ni Shite Ageru is a projection of those emotions. I don’t know wth the toilet seats are. Please show me. Questioner 4: Q: Your definition isn’t bad, but then what does Kyon [from The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya] mean when he says he has a ponytail moe? Hairstyles don’t try hard, unless we’re talking about Ladies versus Butlers. A: Like I said in an above comment, there is an attractiveness involved. Having a ‘ponytail moe’ or a ‘megane moe’ means that those properties will birth the attractiveness in you that will allow you to feel moe for the character. For instance, I obviously have a ‘lolicon moe’ which has made it so I am far more likely to feel moe for lolis than anything else. Follow? Hope this helps~ |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group