Forum - View topicNEWS: 2nd Japanese TV Station Removes Nymphet from Schedule
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ryllharu
 Posts: 70 |
|
|||||
I suggest you do a lot more research into Kojika before making more remarks like this. In that exact post you quoted, I posted that no one in the series condones her behavior. The teacher repeats your reaction nearly verbatim at parts (depending on how you'd like to translate it). Not the teacher, not her friends, not the other teachers, not her guardian, no one. The overarching message is exactly the same, "children should act like children." There is something very wrong with her behavior, and that's the whole point of the series. The series points out a rather serious issue, the shift in age at which girls are becoming sexually active is decreasing. It's could very well be worse in Japan than it is in the States. Do they take an exaggeration too far? Probably, but the message and the stance of the other characters and the author is abundantly clear. As for the publishing company that wrote that, there's a blatant misinterpretation. That is largely based only on the first few chapters. |
||||||
|
||||||
CCSYueh
 Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||
So you're suggesting an 8 yr old child wants someone to have sex with her? Because that's really what you sound like you're suggesting And in California, at least, the teacher has the responsibility to turn the matter over to Child Protective Services & NOT try to straighten things out himself since he apparently doesn't have the training to do so. I think any rational adult would be doing their best to get an 8 yr old behaving in this manner to a shrink. Very likely she'd be removed from the home immediately until the source of the behavior was discovered. There's a dif between soap opera 20-something or even a teen talking out his/her angst over a cup of joe & a child who seems to be obviously the subject of some sort of abuse or inappropriate behavior. It is the responsibility of the teacher to get professional help for the child, otherwise this is pure fantasy which throws it right back into the land of fantasy/titillation |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
 Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
So let me ask you - if the intention of this series is so noble and condemns Rin's action, why are the visuals so exploitive and the innuendo so obvious and over-the-top? Why does the author so openly exploit the Rin character and purposefully fill the thing with salacious fanservice and obvious sex gags? I read the first volume of this and each chapter was basically the same - there's a bit of story leading up to that chapter's fanservice, followed by a big splash page with Rin in some state of undress or shoving her crotch in the teacher's face or something. The teacher freaks out and says "you shouldn't do that!!" while blushing and then it happens again in the next chapter. If the story's purpose is to condemn this kind of behavior, then why does it revel so much in the overt sexuality of it all, effectively making Rin a sex object to the intended audience? You can talk about the oh-so-noble and commendable story, but it's drowned in a sea of exploitative, tasteless underage nudity and sex gags involving children. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Case
Posts: 1016 |
|
|||||
"happen to think" <-> "are objectively" ??? I am not the least bit surprised. This is virtually the definition of the word "bias", and it's what I've been complaining about among ANN's reviewers for some two years now. I accept this statement as tacit confirmation in your case in particular. I don't see any use addressing any of your other points knowing this. On a related note, Ask John wrote an article on this very same topic that I find very rational and nonjudgmental. "Viewers that don't find the Moetan and Kodomo no Jikan anime funny are probably irrevocably opposed to anime starring small girls. For the sake of convenience, I'll refer to this genre as "Lolita anime" meaning "moe" anime featuring preadolescent looking bishoujo. I doubt that there's anything I could say which would change the opinion of someone adamantly opposed to Lolita anime." http://www.animenation.net/news/askjohn.php?id=1656 |
||||||
|
||||||
|
CCSYueh
Posts: 2707 Location: San Diego, CA |
|
|||||
He's voicing an an opinion And he's blatantly wrong making me question his opinion on everything. To say that shows incredible bias. So because I don't care for something like Jikan, I can't like CardCaptor Sakura? It's obviously where I got the name from, isn't it? Hare+Guu? Kodocha? He doesn't sound all that impressively intelligent as everyone pitches him to be. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Talon87
Posts: 89 |
|
|||||
 What matters is what feelings are elicited in the real-world audience, especially when the author is making a demonstrable effort to elicit those feelings.
An author who intended to smite pedophilia would not illustrate Kodomo no Jikan the way she has, nor would she tell the story the way she has. It is meant to elicit chuckles, not frowns. It is meant to entice, not repulse nor disgust. The very nature of Kodomo no Jikan suggests that the author wants readers to root for Rin -- or at the very least to find her teacher's situation humorous. It is meant to be a happy work, not a sad, depressing work. This much is clear to anyone who has even given the first volume a quick read-through. What is also clear is that this work is made expressly for older male readers who have a soft spot for loli characters. Whether that's good or bad, debate on your own terms, but the fact is that if you do believe loli is bad, then you have no grounds for defending Kodomo no Jikan, because it's blatant loli with a sexual context. Granted, it's as sexual as Love Hina, but you don't see many people trying to make water flow uphill and argue that Love Hina isn't about sexual situations; and unfortunately, that's precisely what we have going on here. Waaaaay too many fans of KnJ being over-defensive to the point that they are lying to themselves and to those they argue with by claiming that "you aren't supposed to enjoy Rin's behavior; you're supposed to see it and be disgusted!" Riiiight. Because that's exactly what's running through any KnJ fan's mind as they read the story. Aside: I really do think the work would have been more aptly titled as Kodomo no Chikan. Anyone know if that hasn't been confirmed as an intentional pun by the author? |
||||||
|
||||||
Steroid
 Posts: 329 Location: At home, where all good hikikomori should be |
|
|||||
And there are more people who are totally dedicated to ensuring that everyone has a problem with sexualized descriptions of children. For no good reason. I've said this before, but I'll keep saying it: anything one person wants, no matter how much damage it would do to others, is a good thing. Is the ONLY good thing. Human whims are the be-all, end-all of existence. We can either admit that and start tolerating one another's opinions, or we can back-and-forth forever: 10 Pedophiles are evil! 20 People who think that are evil! 30 GOTO 20. I'm fine either way, but I'm going to get my KnJ if I have to take it by force and no emotionalistic moralist is going to stop me. |
||||||
|
||||||
kyokun703
 Posts: 2505 Location: Orgrimmar |
|
|||||
As much as I like Ask John's column, I have to disagree with him here. I like anime starring small girls. Azumanga Daioh (Chiyo-chan) and Cardcaptor Sakura stand out here as examples. What I do NOT like is anime starring small girls in sexual situations. His beginning assumption is completely wrong. Also the thing with Kodomo no Jikan is that it's not a preadolescent LOOKING bishoujo, she IS a preadolescent (by several years). That's what is so disturbing (to me).
Uh... that's just a freaking scary way to think. Last edited by kyokun703 on Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
ikillchicken
 Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
|
I just gotta shake my head at both sides on this debate.
On one hand, you've got the people that are defending it. They range from people saying that pedophilia is okay (no, just no. end of discussion.) To saying that looking at lolicon does not make you a pedophile (then go look at some normal porn and stop causing a big f---ing debate.) Then theres people crying "censorship" (Its not censorship if a station decides it doesnt want to air something it finds objectionable.) And ofcourse, the people saying there is no innuendo in it. (have you even read any of it? Do you understand the definition of innuendo?) Theres also people who talk about it having this big message saying that no this isnt okay. (It doesn't present this stuff in a positive light, but it hardly paints some big picture of how its bad.) On the other side though, you've got people who blow it way out of proportion. They hear the summary "a young girl who hits on her teacher" or whatever, and immediately assume that it must be child porn. Or even people that actually take a quick look at it, notice that it does contain a ton of sexual innuendo and again automatically cry child porn. I think what would be a fair statement would be to argue that it has no inherent titilation in it and you cant hold it against it if people take it that way. It is intended for comedy. Without a doubt, it is very racy humor. However, it cannot be denied that it is at least somewhat intended as a comedy. On the other hand, if you want to say that even if it is intended as a comedy it takes it too far, that I think is a legitimate arguement against it. If you want to say that it over uses the fanservice to an extend where it ceases to be comedy and becomes just titilation, then that is arguable. (keep in mind though, that taking it to such extremes may be to make it seem just that absurd.) Also, if you think that even for the purposes of comedy this is taking things too far, that is fair. (Although then its probablt not fair to judge people who do still enjoy if for the comedy and don't mind this stuff.) Last edited by ikillchicken on Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:56 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Talon87
Posts: 89 |
|
|||||
Just to clarify, I believe that there is such a thing as "objective mental insanity" and that not all mental insanities are up for debate (i.e. that not all diagnoses of mental insanity are purely subjective). If you disagree and believe that mental insanity is a farce made up by those in positions of power, I suppose it would make more sense why you believe what you believe. I just don't follow you down that road. And just to further clarify before anybody puts words in my mouth, I'm not implying that lolikon is "mental insanity." Others may, others certainly have, but I'd prefer to just stay out of that since it's too counter-productive to any serious discussion we might hope to have. Like you yourself suggesred, the moment we begin to call each other's fetishes signs of mental insanity is the moment communications fall apart. I was only using mental insanity as a readily accessible example to examine what I perceive as a flaw/weakness in your philosophy. Last edited by Talon87 on Wed Oct 10, 2007 3:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
||||||
|
||||||
Maidenoftheredhand
 Posts: 2633 |
|
|||||
Yeah, I am not 100% sure if that is what he meant but it sure sounded like it. The problem is not that the anime has young girls but that it displays them in a sexual manner. Even if it is meant for laughs/parody and not to turn the audience on I personally find that type of humor extremely distasteful. And I like a lot of series with young protagonists. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
ikillchicken
Posts: 7272 Location: Vancouver |
|
|||||
|
I agree his statement is something of a blanket statement, (he did say probably though) However, I took it more to mean that they don't like moe or loli characters/anime. You guys have to look at the whole quote.
he's saying that they probably don't like Anime starring small girls, AKA moe. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Zac
ANN Executive Editor
Posts: 7912 Location: Anime News Network Technodrome |
|
|||||
Case, if you were even remotely paying any attention at all, you'd at least notice that I haven't written a review for this site in like a year and have no intention of doing so. My job in that regard is to manage our freelance critics, who are not hired because their views fall in lockstep with mine. That would be unprofessional. My view on moe anime has nothing to do with our reviews whatsoever. If I allowed my personal attitude toward a genre to seep into the content you read on the front page, that would be a serious problem and I would deserve disciplinary action. But that hasn't happened, and never will.
Of course you do. I write a massive amount of text refuting your points, you boil it down to one comment that you're basically taking out of context completely and then saying "gotcha!!!". You're pretty bad at this "debate" thing, aren't you? You're not even trying to respond to me, you're just clumsily trying to set these rhetorical traps to get me to say something you can twist into "YOURE BIASED AGAINST MY ANIMES AND SO IS THIS SITE!!".
John does have an agenda. He's routinely commented on his position on this issue and he's on your side, hands down, no question. It was a bit of a scandal a while back when John discussed his hentai collection and mentioned that he had over a gig of lolicon hentai on his hard drive. In fact, John's position on the issue has dominated his image in some circles - he is most definitely known for being into loli. I'm surprised you're not aware of that - at least, you must not be, since you're offering his opinion on this and then taunting me that "no way would he be biased on the subject". I don't say this to denigrate John at all (he has the good sense to say that the people loudly championing their love for all things loli are being foolish), but you presenting his opinion on this particular issue and then claiming he's some kind of objective source that's only providing the straight truth is disingenuous at best. The way you're behaving, you truly believe that your opinion is literally the only right one; you see anyone who opposes you as biased and stupid, and anyone who's with you as a level-headed objective defender of free speech. As has been proven time and again in the past, arguing with you is a waste of time. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Steroid
Posts: 329 Location: At home, where all good hikikomori should be |
|
|||||
I don't believe anyone has perfect, automatic rationality. In that sense, you could say that everyone is mentally deranged at some point. Where is the line drawn? The only question worth asking is how best to deal with one's desires in the world as it is. If a person desires to kill others to stop the voices from going away, it behooves him to go through a rational process to conclude that taking lithium will achieve the same end. If at some point it becomes possible to simulate a kill with enough verisimilitude to satisfy that person's brain, that may be a better solution. So to take our example, a person desires to sexualize children. In today's world, the best way to do so is to watch Kodomo no Jikan. In the world of fifty years ago, the best way was to draw or write about it. Maybe in another fifty, when we have perfect VR sims, that will be that best way to deal with it. But the pure desire should never be blunted simply because it can't be fulfilled. The means do not justify the ends, either. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Maidenoftheredhand
Posts: 2633 |
|
|||||
Well that makes a lot more sense. And I admit it is true for me since I don't like the Moe/Loli genre maybe with a few exceptions (if you count Haruhi Suzumiya as Moe?) However I wouldn't be surprised that there are people who do like Moe/Loli anime who might think Moetan and Kodomo no Jikan are taking things too far. In fact I have seen people with this exact opinion on certain anime blogs. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group