Forum - View topicChicks on Anime [2008-09-09]
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
Author | Message | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
GATSU
Posts: 15355 |
|
|||||||
Sakechan:
I'm guessing that before Negima came along, ne? That's how I felt about Maison Ikkoku-and how I wanted to feel about the Mermaid Forest manga-before Inu Yasha. [Though I'm still doing alright with One Pound Gospel at the moment...] |
||||||||
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||||
I think my opinion changed halfway through the season, actually. I started out really liking it, then took a year-long break from the show. By the time I started it up again, I couldn't stand it. I can't really identify the catalyst, though... |
||||||||
konkonsn
Posts: 172 Location: Illinois |
|
|||||||
So, my question is, where does shouta fall into all of this? I just read vol. 2 of Ouran, and between Hunny and the random chapter that deals specifically with a young boy and his appeal to the host club customers, it really brought this to my attention.
I currently have a shouta complex, in a sense, but it's not like I'm sexually attracted to little boys. I'm a 22-year-old college grad currently living in her hometown while waiting out grad school apps. Because of this, most people my age who are still in school mode are...at school? The ones generally left in town that I've made friends with all have kids. I'm surrounded by two and three-year olds on a constant basis. Plus, out of my age group, I'm considered the "elder" (the senior of college, yes?) and I think it's making something in me go, "I need to guide all these kids to grow up right!" Something else I thought of when analyzing how huggable I find these characters was the media available to me. I realized I'm sorta stuck in this transition. I watch an anime and think, "That guy's kinda cute." But instead of being able to fawn like when I was a teen, now I get hit with, "But he's fifteen!" So it's like my previous crushes need a different outlet, but where? I guess that's where it turns into mild affection? Anyway, just trying to see how everyone else perceives this. |
||||||||
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||||
I don't really have much to say about the shouta angle, but it does make me think about the Japanese idol/music industry quite a bit. With groups like those in the ever-growing Hello Project, or boy bands like Arashi, etc-- you have very huggable singers. I wonder how that ties in, or if it does at all, with the moe sentiment. Because when you buy a Berryz Kobo photobook, the girls are totally in their early teens... |
||||||||
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||
It ties in like this: If a woman thinks a young male singer is hot, even though he's fifteen, she's just "staying youthful". If a man thinks a young female singer is hot, even though she's fifteen, he's "a creepy old paedophile". No doubt, this mental double standard is also why (according to researchers) most cases of child molestation by women do not get reported and do not appear in official crime statistics -- instead appearing only in statistics of later therapy subjects. This underreporting tends to skew the statistics even further, because it predisposes law enforcement to believe that only men abuse children, when it would seem that the gender distribution of the offenders is probably a great deal closer to even. We had this issue up in the air in the recent "older manga fan" thread, and it set off quite a few tempers. Personally, I thnk it is a great shame that people instantly think in terms of sexual attraction when someone expresses the sentiment that a young person is cute. Like the "cute puppies" simile, I think it is eminently possible to find a young person cute without necessarily feeling an urgent need to have sex with him/her. This may be an inflammatory argument, but here goes anyway: I strongly believe that some of the most ardent haters of moe on the basis of supposed paedophilia correspond in their habitus to certain "family values" members of the U.S. Congress, who were later shown to adopt a... hmm.... "wide stance". In other words, if you're up to no good, it is sometimes easiest to seem legit if you accuse others first. - abunai |
||||||||
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
abunai
Old Regular
Posts: 5463 Location: 露命 |
|
|||||||
Doesn't seem to stop anybody. When it comes to calling the kettle black, the pot believes in preëmption. - abunai |
||||||||
Servant of the Path
Posts: 90 Location: United States |
|
|||||||
I'm really glad someone here made this point. I kind of picked up on that from the column and some of the posts here but you've articulated it very well and I'm doubly glad that it was a female who brought it up. I couldn't help but smile a bit when the column began to drift into what would seem to be "feminist theory" regarding what's going on inside mens minds and why they feel what they feel. While I'm sure there are men to whom those theories apply much of it came across as quite imaginative and overly analytic. At best I think the double standard alluded to here is an indication of a lack of perspective and understanding on the part of those who apply it and at worst it's a little hypocritical. However, it's not my intention to accuse anyone from the column of being hypocritical, just to be clear. I really enjoyed the column and the subsequent discussions have been interesting. But MorwenLaicoriel's post I think helps to highlight another problem and that has to do with the very use of the word "objectify." Where is even the value of using this word? It's used almost as an implicit epithet and I think it takes on a subtly political tone in some of the posts here. For example:
Of course not, no more than a woman being attracted to a "manly" man in a show is the same as saying that in order for the hot girls to pay attention to you, guys have to be built like Arnold Schwarzenegger and suppress their feelings. If my liking Chi in Chobits is "objectifying" women then I really don't see how a fangirl melting over Sesshomaru in Inuyasha is any less "objectifying" men. But I really don't see either way why any of those reactions should be considered illegitimate or wrong so why even try to make the distinction, what's the point? In that sense everybody "objectifies" all sorts of people in any variety of situations all the time. I think it's important to recognize the difference between objectifying someone and using their behavior as a means to rationalize devaluing them. In my opinion that's the point at which we begin to tread upon morally precarious territory. That being said, even if you accept that sex is a component of moe I don't see how either a male or female viewer having a "moe" reaction to either a male or female character is in any way devaluing or denigrating to that character or to the gender archetype that you may want to argue that character represents. Then there was this post which really caught my eye:
So let me get this straight; men wanting to see beautiful females and women wanting to see beautiful males is somehow in contradiction to presumably social "gains?" And what is the point of that? That it's morally or politically wrong for people of either sex to be attracted to each other? I just don't understand the implied reasoning here or why it's necessary to place either the example used by dtm42 or moe into a sociopolitical context. |
||||||||
daxomni
Posts: 2650 Location: Somewhere else. |
|
|||||||
Hey guys, sorry I'm late, but I found this topic too interesting to blow off. Here are a couple things that jumped out at me. I have more to say but not enough time to say it. I might come back and try to add a couple other thoughts later on. Here's what I came up with so far...
This definition is hitting fairly close to the target and I certainly think the pet angle is a good one as I've used it myself in the past. However, it also seems a little over-the-top as written. I'm a cat lover but I don't find my appreciation of cats to be "overwhelming" nor do I find the look or actions of any given cat to be anywhere near "unbearable." Those two terms take what I believe is a fairly common feeling among pet lovers and make it sound unusual and immature. Moe in itself is not something I would consider especially childish or rare. It probably seems rare at first partly because we don't have a truly equivalent term in English and also because feeling moe toward non-living things isn't something that is typical among adults. But if we agree that it describes the feeling of love and compassion toward a pet then presumably moe is a very common feeling that has occurred for centuries without being specifically named. Also, while any type of man can presumably feel moe, we're also talking about media nerds and techno geeks and social hermits and other males who are kind of low on the raw masculinity scale. In other words, even though it has the connotation of being a male trait from our perspective here on an anime forum, it's still seen as somewhat of an effeminate quality overall.
I think that anyone who gets their social cues from anime or manga or virtually anything intended to be entertainment is going to come up short. Sooner or later they're going to have a very rude awakening and they'll see just how naive they are. Either they'll wise-up, get out some more and try again or they'll slink back into their hermit nest and return to what they know. I'm not saying either response is good or bad, it's a free country, just that I think ignorance of social norms has been around long before moe related products ever arrived on the scene and that anyone who takes moe themes seriously is doing so as a result of some other issue and not because moe content confused them on their way toward a healthy relationship.
&
In my view the line is not only rather fat, it also doesn't get fuzzy or move and the definition of moe doesn't ever lose it's meaning. Selling one range of merchandise as though it applied equally to the desires of multiple demographics is nothing new. I think that the definition of moe above is mostly correct and that when we say that the line became "thin" or "weird" or "blurred" it's simply no longer moe. We can call it a crossover title or a lolicon title or whatever the case may be, but I don't believe that fuzzy marketing alone is enough to justify questioning the fundamental legitimacy of moe itself. If someone sold bikinis for dogs, would that in any way challenge the "cuteness" or "wholesomeness" of folks who bought sweaters for their pets? I don't think it would, even if they were sold by the same manufacturer or store or catalog and I don't think that there would be any reason to consider the pet bikini to be an "almost cute" product either. The line didn't get fuzzy or thin or change at all; the product simply crossed the line. |
||||||||
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||||
This is very interesting, especially the last line. I actually hadn't ever really thought about it that way, and I think you're right. Frankly, anything can be made to "cross the line"-- whether it's a moe character, an idol, or a political figure, but that shouldn't diminish the original thing. So I'm glad you brought this up; it's shifted my views a bit. |
||||||||
Kimiko_0
Posts: 1796 Location: Leiden, NL, EU |
|
|||||||
*nods* Good post, Daxo.
|
||||||||
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||||
Well, I don't think the "dogs in bikinis" was meant to be taken at face value. Though at the same time, I can't stand it when people dress up their dogs in sweaters, because it's not cute, and I'm pretty sure dogs can handle the weather. It's like putting dogs in bags-- the dogs have legs. But really, to each his/her own. What might be extremely cute to someone, may be extremely repulsive to me. I'll throw out an example-- Anne Geddes. I find her photos to be repulsive and creepy-- but obviously, I am in the minority here, because her "art" is extremely popular. Maybe because I'm not a mother, or a baby-lover? I'm not sure, but seeing babies dressed up as chickens or peas is just... eh. It gives me the creeps. I guess that's why body pillows give me the creeps, because I can't see the other side's point of view. |
||||||||
Mohawk52
Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
ANN_Bamboo
ANN Contributor
Posts: 3904 Location: CO |
|
|||||||
UGH!!!!! That's awful. Dressing up your infant like that isn't "cute," it's gross. Girls playing dress-up is one thing, but that's usually of their own accord. This is just poor taste. Children aren't accessories. |
||||||||
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
||
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group