Forum - View topicNEWS: Kodomo no Jikan (Nymphet) Second Term Anime Announced
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Anymouse
 Posts: 685 |
|
|||||||||
True, that has been true throughout history, but only in the 20th cenury have birthrates fallen below replacement levels. Still, I will admit it was a somewhat weak statement. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
dormcat
Encyclopedia Editor
 Posts: 9902 Location: New Taipei City, Taiwan, ROC |
|
|||||||||
To this day I know no country have legalized marriage and/or sex between brother and sister, but there are many countries allowing children much younger than Rin getting married. You might want to call them primitive or even barbaric, but a fact is a fact. By the way, you might want to check out Mizu to Gin, and that would probably change your opinion on Koi Kaze. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Goodpenguin
Posts: 457 Location: Hunt Valley, MD |
|
|||||||||
|
Dormcat wrote:
I could be wrong about this, but are you sure about that? Much younger than 9-10? I know in parts of Asia and Africa arranged marriages can take place at very young ages, but I didn't think that was statically predominate, or overall an occurrence one could infer 'many' from. Just quickly searching, from Wikipedia (which admittedly isn't my first, second, or third choice for sources, but the info seems legitimately cataloged) Age of first marriage (average):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_at_first_marriage Legal marriageable age (bare minimum, cross-reference with above):http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
Mohawk52
 Posts: 8202 Location: England, UK |
|
|||||||||
|
Some families in India and Pakistan have had their children married at age 5 for monitary and hereditary reasons, but the couple are not allowed to consumate the marrage until at least 16, or older, if ever. This is not uncommon in most Asian cultures. Many Asian men still consider women as possessions, than equals.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
yrustupid
Posts: 2 |
|
|||||||||
Comedy (of questionable morality). |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
fighterholic
Posts: 9193 |
|
|||||||||
Even with that, that story still was able to make it over here. It puzzles me that even with its elements that Koi Kaze with its spoiler[incest between siblings story ]was allowed to come over here, yet KnJ is frowned upon because spoiler[it involves young minors]. However from what I have read of the manga there are no implications of sexual contact with the teacher, aside from spoiler[the harrassing and taunting], if you call it that. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
yapov
Posts: 1 |
|
|||||||||
|
A lot of you are missing the point.
Yes, it does cater to those who like younger girls. Yes, it does offer fanservice. Yes, it borders on controversial fringe elements and very clearly uses those fringe elements to draw an audience and thus money to their commercial product. It does many of the things railed against it and defenders of this show have to understand this basic fact, as pointed out by one of the posters above. And yes, the idea that children are objects and therefore could not possibly have any ideas and thoughts of their own (sexual or otherwise) is also reactionary and misinformed. Is overt sexualization of a young girl possible? In most circumstances, no. In a sociocultural setting such as the one in the US, the chances of that happening are rare and the stigma involved makes awareness of such an occurrence almost as rare as the possibility of one. But is it possible? It has been observed that masturbation can occur in children as early as 6 years old: http://www.sos.se/FULLTEXT/123/2001-123-20/2001-123-20.pdf (last paragraph, page 17). Rubbing of heels against the crotch while seated has been noted in similar cases. However, this behaviour is not overtly sexualized, as in, the child may be considered nonsexual if the child has not learned to associate the behaviour with sex. He or she simply does it because it feels good. Now, consider this example: A young girl who has innocently masturbated in this way is attached to a trusted figure who then proceeds to overtly sexualize that masturbation as well as introduce her to other overtly sexual behaviours. At the same time, he or she instructs her that this is "normal". As the child learns and becomes accustomed to this "normative" behaviour, she associates it with the comfort and security and feelings that coincide with the acts of reciprocated affection and love from a trusted figure and adult. She equates the behaviour as being "right" and "good". Now lets say this girl somehow loses the trusted figure (car accident, lets say), and continues on into the normal world. She's suddenly cut off from her system of support (as with any loss of a trusted adult). Would it be a stretch of the imagination to say she would go "looking" for it again to reestablish that sense of self and support and "normalcy" she was brought up on? Another scenario: A girl is sexually abused. No love or affection here. Just straightforward sexual abuse. This can happen with a family member or a teacher or any adult in a situation where they can take advantage of the child. This is the behaviour we are used to seeing. It makes sense because the adult wants to hurt the child. The girl suffers through the same experiences but this time the experiences are traumatic and not conducive to building a positive system of support. However, they are still seen as "normal". Her support comes from this abusive person and she considers what this authority figure does to be "normal" and conducive to her well-being and sense of self. Say the adult dies again. The girl is released from the abuse, but she too is cut off from her system of support and thrust out into the normal world like the first girl. Would it be a stretch of the imagination to say that she would go after another adult seeking that same sort of behaviour, seeking what she psychologically needs to fulfill herself? Would it be possible she uses those same behaviours--as those are the only behaviours she knows--to get attention and feel that all is "normal" and "right" in her world? Perhaps neither of the girls are so deeply introduced to sexualization by either of the adults. But lets say they are still made aware of it to the point where it is learned to be "normal". Would such awareness of overtly sexual knowledge surface in later behaviours the child might have? Perhaps out of mischievousness the child decides to seduce another adult (since she knows what effect this had on the former adult): she might flirt, she might show her panties, she might revel in the power that she has over the adult. She might just do it for fun. Or she might do it truly seeking attention and love. She might not understand that other adults are not in line with her "normative" behaviour and continue doing it until she is instructed otherwise and unforms her old norms. Would this be a stretch of the imagination, then? All of these are hypothetical scenarios, and none have to apply to Kodomo no Jikan. The show does emphasize the fanservice aspect because (duh) they want to make money, and since the show is about third-graders, they have to cater to those who like third-graders--be it sexually, asexually or otherwise. Some people find humor in this show, some people find drama and complexity, others find sexual gratification. To each their own (or all three of the above). The show may be overly simplistic, but most shows have to be; they have to cater to the lowest common denominator in order to gain a sizable audience and revenue. Like it or not, the author tackles some controversial issues. She may or may not do it in the best way possible, but she does, indeed, "go there". If someone does not understand these issues, or chooses not to (there is a difference), that is their prerogative and it should be respected as such. Likewise, if someone enjoys it for whatever reason, regardless of whether or not they understand the issues involved, their prerogative should also be respected as such. My only contention is with misinformation and misanthropy from either side of the table. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Lunar Archivist
Posts: 4 |
|
|||||||||
|
After reading through the entire thread, I share Yapov's disdain for misinformation being circulated by members of both side of the argument, though I'm equally annoyed when someone condemns a series based on rumors and hearsay. It's impossible to form anything resembled an informed opinion based on a short synopsis, a quick search, and some general, sweeping assumptions about a genre. Having a gut reaction based on first impressions is fine, but to develop a justiable, defendable stance on any issue requires some research. Some people consider lolicon to be a pimple on the butt of mankind; for me, personally, that dubious distinction goes to eroguro. But if someone were to ask me to give an informed opinion on, say, "Mai-chan's Daily Life", I would actually go out and read it and not automatically condemn it because of personal distaste and/or disgust.
Just to expand upon what Shadowman 20XX said: Rin's mother, Aki, spoiler[was abandoned by her boyfriend after she got pregnant and wouldn't agree to have an abortion. As a result of choosing to have a child born out of wedlock and being a single mom, she became the black sheep of the family. Eventually, the other family outcast, Aki's cousin Reiji, came to live with them. She and he eventually became lovers in spite of her initial hesitation due to their blood relationship and age difference, and the three of them became a happy family. When Aki died from lung cancer, a six-year-old Rin was left a traumatized, emotionless mute and Reiji became her guardian]. As for why Rin acts the way she does and where she acquired all the sexual knowledge she uses to spoiler[make Aoki's life a living hell], at this point, we really don't know and unraveling the mystery of her behavior is one of the series' main driving forces. We do have a fair idea of why she falls in love with him, though: spoiler[due to issues she had with her original homeroom teacher, among other things, Rin had developed an inherant suspicion toward and mistrust of adults. Even though she developed a small crush on Aoki when they first met, she initially had no qualms about using her carnal knowledge to blackmail him and make him jump through hoops because she saw him as little more than "one of them". It was only when she eventually learned that he was a sincere person who genuinely cared about what she thought and felt that she fell for him and tried to win his affections. It's likely that her outrageous behavior is an exaggeration of typical childhood behavior: a lot of the time - especially in kindergarten or grade school - children express crushes on one another by relentlessly teasing the objects of their affection. The difference in this case is that Rin is a child and Aoki is an adult, and she probably tried to compensate for the age difference by customizing her teasing to fit her intended target. Unfortunately, she chose to do this through the injection of sexual innuendo, with hilariously disturbing results. Later on, when she finds out that all she's doing is pushing him away with her antics, she adopts the more mature tactic of being nice to him in an attempt to earn his love rather than force it.]
And if all that existed of the series were the first ten chapters, I wouldn't hesitate to agree with you. The problem with "Kodomo no Jikan" - and I think what leads to a lot of the disagreements between people on its interpretation - is it's really, really, REALLY slow starting out. I'm a fan of the series and even I have to admit, everything until the end of Chapter 10 appears to be largely fanservice and lolicon pandering. The first time I read the manga, I didn't even see what was so special up until that point. However, once I hit Chapter 11 was introduced to Rin's spoiler[mother in flashbacks], I first started getting the impression that this series might be more than a one-trick-pony and kept on reading. Turns out I was right. The characters are actually evolving and changing dramatically as the series progresses, and it's hard to not understand some of the more questionable things some of them do to an extent even if you don't agree with it. For example, the general consensus was that Rin's father was a complete bastard for abandoning her mother when she got pregnant and refused to have an abortion in Chapter 11. He actually shows up 24 chapters later, and you find out that he spoiler[was asking her to get the abortion because doctors had told them that she could potentially have died from medical complications if she chose to carry the baby to term and he left because he didn't want to stay around and watch the woman he loved die before his eyes. Does this him a "Get out of jail free" card? Hell no. But any one of us who's been in love would understand his feelings to an extent, even if we'd do things differently if we were in his shoes. And Rin's sexual innuendo towards Aoki slows down dramatically after Chapter 21 or so when she switches tactics. It never completely goes away and the author finds other ways of sticking it in. To paraphrase one blogger, one thing that makes the series so amusing is that it both subverts and panders to the lolicon fanbase and it occasionally finds ways to do both simultaneously.] As for championing the title to family and friends, my ability to do so is limited because I don't know many anime fans personally and am one of maybe two people in my extended family who likes anime. My dad refers to all animation as "childish Mickey Mouse crap". If I knew more people, though, I'd probably do so (though not without inserting a little self-deprecating humor in first). 
I can think of two reasons: one, it would destroy any sense of originality the series has since the teenage student/older teacher love affair has been done to death in many mediums, and two, I believe the author is trying to make a statement about a strange dichotomy that exists in society regarding children, namely that they are both incredibly privileged and discriminated against at the same time. In today's world, children's wants, desires, and beliefs - and by thay I mean beyond toys and clothing - are not generally respected or cared about. Dismissing their feelings and emotions outright is both an insult to them and hypocritical of adults. All of us were children ourselves at one time, and I think we can all remember how much we hated being talked down to or have what we really wanted trivialized or ignored by our parents or other adults. Yes, in hindsight, a lot of those things from our childhood were unimportant. But they're unimportant to us as the adult we are now, not the child we were then, and many people seem to forget that. Rin's romantic interest for Aoki may be wrong from the viewpoint of adults, but that doesn't mean her feelings aren't heartfelt, genuine, or real. You can legimately claim they're rooted in childish naivete and lack of experience if you want, but denying, explaning away, or dismissing their existence doesn't mean they're not real feelings and that they don't exist. I think what makes a lot of people uncomfortable with the series is that Kaworu Watashiya is presenting us with age-inappropriate sexual behavior and (potential) child sexual abuse without the heavy-handed moralization and condemnation that normally goes with it and in shades of gray rather than black and white. People expect such stories to run along the lines of a "Chick tract", where characters are presented as stereotypes that reinforce the commonly accepted viewpoint, are demonized, and have every sense of humanity, morality, and decency wrung out of them. That's not giving a balanced perspective: that's blatant propaganda used to masturbate the readers' egos and reinforce their sense of normalcy and superiority over those who don't share their opinion. Watashiya provides no easy answers, and that's what unsettles a lot of people. Also, think about it: Kaworu Watashiya is a woman. Kind of eccentric and with an odd sense of humor, but, from what I've seen, otherwise normal. Do you honestly think she's going to write a manga that advocates the sexual abuse and exploitation of little girls unless she's self-loathing incarnate? o_O |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Goodpenguin
Posts: 457 Location: Hunt Valley, MD |
|
|||||||||
Lunar Archivist, I do respect your opinion, but your arguments, like yapovs' before, end up resting on specious logic. I don't doubt you offer it sincerely, but the arguments run in a style of somewhat the 'moral relativism' mentioned earlier, but there's also a heavy use of 'relative contextualism' as well. To put that in everyday language a little more, your overlooking obvious contextual intent of the title and taking some of the story line with extreme literalness. One can take an extreme literal stance on basically anything and argue a work belies it's very nature. I could take an extremely literal view on the old teen slasher 'Friday the 13th' that I watched on cable last night and state it's a gripping psychological portrait of mental anguish turned psychosis of a parent losing her child, and I could fill up a post listing real-world examples of that phenomena. But of course 'Friday the 13th' isn't anything of the sort; by obvious story context it's a campy slasher designed for light-weight thrills. This is what is being done with 'KnJ', some fans of the title are putting the 'troubled child' currents in an absolute vacum, and essentially negating the entire context of how the title offers it's content. There is a legitimate 'serious' dramatic way troubling child abuse can be handled, but as I've said before 'KnJ' obviously presents it's tale in a by-the-numbers seinen ecchi way. The fact that the story takes a 'dark and dramatic' turn doesn't affect this verdict, turning 'dark and dramatic' is a standard move in anime/manga, from serious to superfluous efforts. The popular seinen title 'Okusama wa Joshi Kousei' starts as complete light comedy about a girl trying to bed her husband, and ends an angsty, tumultuous mess. Nobodies going to argue that it's anything more then an ecchi comedy-drama though. That's the reality of 'KnJ', the focus isn't on a serious, dramatic take, it's the usual seinen ecchi comedy-drama with the main deviation being it makes it's pitch to fans of Japans niche underage-interest genre. The fact that troubling child abuse/trauma occurs in real-life, or that the characters within the story take on more dramatic back-stories, has nothing to do with the contextual exploitive nature of this title. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Lunar Archivist
Posts: 4 |
|
|||||||||
No offense, Goodpenguin, but I'm not quite sure how my categorical admission that shameless lolicon pandering and fanservice exists in the series and that it does indeed pander to the lowest common denominator in several instances constitutes "moral relativism" and "relative contextualism". o_O
Um...you're engaging in some bizarre combination of a straw man argument, ignoratio elenchi, and reductio ad absurdum and you're calling my logic specious? o_O First of all, we're discussing "Kodomo no Jikan" and not "Friday the 13th". The two are so disparate in nature and subject matter that I'm not sure any type of comparison is merited or even possible. Second of all, no sane person would interpret "Friday the 13th" in the way you're suggesting because they could not scrape together enough evidence to support such a conclusion. So you're essentially equating my claim that "Kodomo no Jikan" is more than just a garden variety lolicon manga with an unrealistic (and to many people completely absurd) assertion about the nature of the original "Friday the 13th" movie and are completely dismissing my argument and based on that unjustified comparison. I'm pretty sure there's also some ad hominem hidden in there somewhere, but I digress. Now for the rest of your claims. First, I'm not missing any "obvious context". There is no credible in-story justification for the number of cheesecake angles, panty shots, sexual innuendo, or nudity that we see. It's fanservice pure and simple and to claim otherwise would be absolutely ridiculous. It is blatant, it is, at best, morally dubious in some instances considering the age of the some of the main characters, and in many cases it is superfluous, gratuitous, shameless, and unnecessary. Do I deny of this? Not in the least. That being said, sex sells, especially if you attach controversy to it. No anime I've seen has not exploited its female characters by sticking them on merchandise in swimsuits, suggestive clothing, or striking good girl poses. Hell, even something as innocent as "Azumanga Daioh" had three summer vacation episodes and all the girls in it were jailbait. Hell, Chiyo was Rin's age. This does not justify "Kodomo no Jikan's" use of it, either, but to single it out for doing what every other anime/manga merchandising machine is else is doing makes little sense. Even the creators of "Strawberry Marshmallow" did this to a certain extent and you can't tell me that that series is pro-pedophile propaganda. Also, the series has also put its adult characters in compromising positions as well. Shirai ran around her apartment in her underwear in an extended dramatic scene. The latest DVD came with a cheesecake art postcard of the busty female teacher Houin, who has also been stuck in a swimsuit in another chapter. Barefoot teenage schoolgirl versions of Kuro and Shirai have been seen. Rin's mother Aki has had numerous nude shots, the most infamous being a full body nude of her pregnant in Chapter 35. Hell, even pretty boy Reiji has done full nude scenes with only strategically-placed items protecting his decency. It's not just Rin and co. being exploited.
Not this fan.  ; I freely acknowledge the series' lolicon aspect. However, I vehemently deny that lolicon is all the series is. It's there, all right. But it's not the only thing that's there.
No disrespect intended, but I think you meant to say that "there is a legitimate 'serious' dramatic way that you personally think troubling child abuse can be handled". "Lolita" is a classic novel that's essentially a dramatic comedy about pedophilia. That's also a pretty unorthodox and inappropriate way to address the subject of child sexual abuse at first glance. Also, aside from Reiji giving Rin hickeys on the back of her neck, there is no child abuse in the series. None of the main underage female characters have been raped or sexually molested or abused in any way as far as is known, though Aoki has been the victim of inappropriate touching and sexual harrassment to no end.
Your interpretation of "Kodomo no Jikan" is not the alpha and the omega of how the series should be viewed. Neither is mine. You can hate the contextual exploitative nature of the title all you want, that does not mean that there isn't a deeper message inside it. From the sound of things, you've looked at the series, couldn't see past the lolicon, and are summarily blocking out any arguments to the contrary. And that's fine. It's your right to view the series any way you want. Hell, maybe you're right about it and every fan of the series is self-delusional or a depraved closet pedophile. What bothers me is that not only are you vehemently arguing that yours is the only correct way of viewing the series, you are either ridiculing people who are trying to persuade others to interpret it differently or dismissing any evidence they offer up to the contrary as some kind of gradiose, delusional grasping-at-straws. By the standards you've described here, I get the feeling that "Love Hina" would be seen as nothing more a Christmas tree of voyeurism, groping, and sexual harrassment, with Naru and Keitarou's love story being a flimsy ornament tacked on it as an afterthought. And I take your accusation of interpreting the work with "extreme literalness" as a compliment. Critical evaluation requires that you closely examine your subject material to reach a proper conclusion.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Goodpenguin
Posts: 457 Location: Hunt Valley, MD |
|
|||||||||
|
Lunar Archivist, the simplest way I can respond is outside of extreme, unwarranted defensiveness I have no idea what your actual argument is. You hit me with a cornucopia of off-the-mark 10 cent terms which have little bearing on anything I wrote, and then spend an overly-lengthy post bounding from point to point with no clear roadmap of what your getting at, other then I'm apparently a prudish, philistine square.
Most telling is once again the accusation of 'pedophile name calling' is flung, and nothing I wrote touches that charge. I argued that certain fans are widely over-stating that dramatic depth/intent of the series to obscure the more controversial aspects, re. 'relative contextualism'. (By the by, the 'Friday th 13th' analogy has nothing to do with comparing content, it's a generic example of how material can be exaggerated to form an argument that belies nature, though I've learned analogies are employed at the writers peril on this forum.) I earlier argued about the way certain fans reduce anything that may possibly cause offense to be on equal footing, re 'moral relativism'. For all the volume of snipes and shots in your previous post, nothing contradicts what I wrote. What's most odd is you seem to concede this:
...and yet moments later your launching into a tirade about the 'deeper meanings' of the series. So again, your post was defensive beyond what was warranted, and your responses shift from point to point so much I can't peg what your trying to argue. At best I get: "Truth is relative to the beholder and one persons take is as manifestly correct as another, so let's all stop saying anything negative about this series. Sure it's full of cheesecake, but who are you to judge if the girls are 9/10? Sex sells! Azumanga Daioh had young girls at the beach once, and KnJ has heavy fan-service of it's adults too! Everyone has different values, and there's plenty of deeper meaning behind all those panty-shots. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" And that's exactly the moral relativism/relative contextualism that I was discussing. Also, I have no problem with disagreements but to hit me with 'pedo slander' is pretty dishonest, I've specifically argued this thread solely under the angle the show is much more exploitive than serious. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Lunar Archivist
Posts: 4 |
|
|||||||||
|
Very well, then. Concise arguments with no jumping around:
1. My choice of terms was not "off the mark". You brought 10 cent terms such as moral relativism, relative contextualism, etc. into this argument and dismissed with a wave of your hand any point I tried to make that ran contrary to your belief, stating that I was "overlooking obvious contextual intent of the title" and that I was assuming an "extreme literal stance on (the) very nature" of the series in question. Translation: I'm missing the obvious and am taking what amounts to an indefensible, unsupportable position. For the record, my position is that, while "Kodomo no Jikan" does indeed have lolicon elements, it both indulges and subverts them and has an interpretational depth beyond just that. First, it was implied that I had an extreme literal stance on it. I disagree, but that's my own opinion and is therefore refutable. Then came the "Friday the 13th" setup, which was the straw man argument: describing a position with an apparent parallel to my own but which was easier to refute because it was completely ridiculous (the reduction to the absurd). The irrelevant conclusion part comes from the fact that you haven't refuted my original argument but refuted an argument which has absolutely no relevance to this case. If you could prove to me that my interpretation of the series is blatantly false, then I would have no problem conceding your point. In other words, you have to explicitly demonstrate that I'm "widely over-stating that dramatic depth/intent of the series". 2. You've described "Kodomo no Jikan" as "the usual seinen ecchi comedy-drama with the main deviation being it makes it's pitch to fans of Japans niche underage-interest genre". A few pages back you said that "calling this of child-fetish interests isn't 'just trying to incriminate the series and its fans' any more than stating 'fire is hot' is of controversial sentiment". Someone with "underage interest" and a "child fetish" is, by most peoples' definitions, either a pedophile, an ephebophile, or, at the very least, someone with a Lolita complex. Granted, you never explicitly used any of the latter three terms, but it's hard to interpret those remarks as implying anything else. 3. I never once said that you were a "prudish, philistine square". I claimed that your position was inflexible and that you dismiss any and all arguments that you do not like with a wave of your hand without refuting it. (You're also misrepresenting me and claiming I made statements that I never did, but that's something else entirely. You also claim that I've done the same to you, though, so I purposely choose not to be the pot that calls the kettle black.) 4. Never once did I claim there was "plenty of deeper meaning behind all those panty shots". Fanservice has no deeper meaning. If it did, it would be called that. What I did say is that there's an actual story taking place around the fanservice. This isn't "Agent Aika", where fanservice is the entire series' raison d'etre. To give an example: one of the main threads of "Love Hina" is the budding relationship between Keitarou Urashima and Naru Narusegawa and that plot is heavily interspersed with voyeurism, accidental groping, and panty shots. Just because there is a ridiculously pervasive amount of fanservice in "Love Hina" that doesn't mean there isn't an underlying plot. I'm making the same argument about "Kodomo no Jikan" and I get the distinct impression that, for the latter series, you consider fanservice and deeper meaning to be mutually exclusive. Either that, or, at the very least, that the plot is incidental to the fanservice since you've "specifically argued this thread solely under the angle the show is much more exploitive than serious". I simply don't agree with that interpretation at all. To argue that fanservice does not exist in "Kodomo no Jikan", that it is merely the product of "your lying eyes", or that it has considerable interpretational depth would be pathetic and laughable. To suggest that the plot of the series is more than just an excuse for fanservice and that it has a depth beyond what is superficially apparent is not. 5. The "sex sells" argument of mine merely states the obvious: that fanservice is used as a marketing tool in all anime and manga and is tailor-made to appeal to its target audience. To condemn "Kodomo no Jikan's" use of this self-promotional tool is hypocritical since other series use it as well. You're perfectly justified in criticizing the fanservice if it's of a variety that offends your sensibilities, however, and I have no problem understanding how the sexualization and exploitation of underage characters, regardless of the degree, could be considered offensive and tasteless. The examples with the adult characters are just meant to illustrate that the children aren't being singled out when it comes to being "victims of exploitation". |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Goodpenguin
Posts: 457 Location: Hunt Valley, MD |
|
|||||||||
I'll respond to that one specifically because it's somewhat irksomely disingenuous. Even by your own account 'KnJ' dabbles heavily in underage fan-service, there's no great debate there. And if my point on the series is it's exploitive in tone, I have to at least point out the factor that makes it controversial. To take umbrage at the mere mention of what's clearly the heart of the controversy (lolicon/child-fetish fan-service) is an incredibly sophomoric tactic. In general, the overall tone of your posts is giving me flash-backs to certain parts of the fansub debates. Rather than arguing a singular, cohesive theme of your own, you take issue with as many currents of a persons posts as possible, and in the most verbose way humanely available. It's the 'puffer-fish' defense, swell up over a dozen issues where either the other poster is forced to answer an increasingly growing list of issues/accusations that have little to do with the main point, or just give up the thread in frustration. I laid out a pretty concise take on 'KnJ', that is was a standard seinen comedy-drama that differs mainly in that it dabbles in under-age fan-service. I also stated some fans leaned heavily on both moral relativism and relative contextualism to artificially downplay the series nature. Anybody's free to disagree of course, but a constructive, relevant rebuttal is made with counter-arguments/examples specifically from the material, and in fact this very point was made several pages back. For all the length of your replies, you never engage this simple point. All you've principally done is the aforementioned 'puffer-fish' routine, cherry-pick segments of my posts outside of greater context, and spin them off into a thousands tangents, with the thread turning into an endeavor of arguments about arguments, rather than addressing a point. I'm also going to note, and theres nothing wrong with this, that if I pop in 'Lunar Archivist' to Google I immediately get replies featuring presumably yourself actively talking/writing about 'Kodomo no Jikan' in many quarters of the internet, right down to you authoring material for it on Wikipedia. Again, thats perfectly fine, but it also paints you as something other than an unemotional debater in this. The most relevant thing you've written is this:
..which I'm going to assume is your actual principal argument. If you want to write about if you feel that fan-service featuring 9/10 year old characters is of no different 'weight' (socially/morally speaking) than that of older characters, and what specific material you believe elevates this title towards completely serious, non-fanservice/standard seinen comedy-drama driven grounds, then we've got something cooking that's on point and of followable interest/jump-in point for other forum goers. If it's going to be a fansub-like wizzing match that shifts topics every five seconds and is more concerned with sounding verbose then staying on a followable track, I get enough of that with my day job. |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
|
Lunar Archivist
Posts: 4 |
|
|||||||||
I regret to inform you that you're mistaken. I'm not taking umbrage at anything, nor did I intentionally make a misleading claim. My understanding of your argument is that you believe that the series caters heavily to fans of underage fanservice, that it's exploitative, and that the ecchiness and plot are mutually exclusive. I don't think it's unreasonable to conclude from that the implication is that the series is nothing more than exclusive fodder for lolicon fans. And for the record, your sarcastic, misleading, and inaccurate summaries of my past arguments is genuinely dishonest, especially the "who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes" part. I in no way made any claim even remotely resembling that anywhere.
Tell me specifically what you kind of counterarguments and how many examples you'd like and I'll be glad to write up a list for you.
So let me see if I understand this correctly: there's nothing wrong with it, it's irrelevant to the subject at hand...and yet you still considered it worth mentioning here, along with the implication that these supposedly inconsequential, innocuous activities elsewhere make me something less than impartial and capable of keeping my emotions in check. Ah, good old ad hominem. How quaint and sophomoric.
I didn't mention my Wikipedia work for one simple reason: using my work there to prove my point here would be underhanded and petty. But since you've opened that particular can of worms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kodomo_no_Jikan_characters Anyone who wants to have a look at one possible interpretation of the characters with extensive annotations is welcome to follow that link.
Indeed it is. As for specific material, the series both deals with several relevant issues for school age children as well as their consequences, among them: 1. Bullying: The character of Mimi Usa is frequently singled out for being different by her classmates due to such things as her height, level of physical development, scolastic aptitude and intelligence, lack of physical education skills, etc. She has small emotional breakdowns several times over the course of the series because of these, which just goes to show what kinds of social pressures are present to conform are present even in grade schools. She was also picked on by her class' original homeroom teacher, Nakamura, and quit school temporarily as a result. 2. Identity crisis: Much of who Sae Shirai is was heavily defined by her parents. They were teachers, so she became a teacher even though she hates kids. She was ostracized by her peers in school and become cynical and jaded because people endlessly sucked up to her because of who her parents are and rarely treated her as a person in her own right. The ultimate result of this is that she's come to resent her parents - especially her mother - but has grown up to be just like her. She eventually realizes this and begins taking small steps to alleviate this behavior. This is one of the more interesting subplots of the series, especially since the adult-hater of the three main child protagonists, Kuro, actually takes a liking to her. 3. Dysfunctional families: Reiji Kokonoe's father was a cheating, mean drunk and his mother was more concerned for her own welfare than his in some ways. Aki Kokonoe had a child born out of wedlock and had what some might consider an incestuous romantic relationship with her much younger cousin. 4. Children's lack of voice or credibility: Rin has great trouble getting Aoki to take her love for him seriously because she's a child and ends up frustrated or depressed by it on more than one occasion. Also, when Reiji and her biological father were attempting to gain custody of her, only Aoki represented her interests by encouraging her to speak up and tell them what she wanted rather than let them run her life for her. 5. Same-sex attraction between children: Kuro's got a thing for Rin but can never quite get the latter to understand that. Having read the odd lolicon manga in my day, I've always seem them as somewhat formulaic and/or transparent. Any serious issues that crop up often serve as mere plot devices or flimsy excuses designed to move the story along to its next sex scene, accidental exposure, or romantic or sexual misunderstanding. Of the examples I've listed, Points 5 is the only one that's classic fodder for the genre. While it appears in "Kodomo no Jikan", nothing sexual ever happens between Kuro and Rin and much humor is derived from the one-sided romantic tension and sexual frustation. Point 4, while sexual, is not representative of the lolicon genre since it involves relationships between two consenting adults. Bullying, identity crises, and children's rights, however, are pretty far removed from what I believe consitututes "typical" lolicon manga subject matter. I think that touching upon these fields and doing so in a way that promotes genuine character growth, progression, and development elevates the series beyond simple fanservice. There's also a conspicuous absence of inappropriate behavior or sexual relations of any kind between adults and children or even between children themselves, the one exception being an admittedly shameless "breastfeeding" scene between a delusional-with-fever Rin and Usa in one chapter. Questions, comments, rebuttals, etc. welcome.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||||||
|
Good lord is this all ever off topic. Can't we simply discuss our love of 9 year old animated girls pulling down their panties and telling their teachers they want to have sex blatantly? No trick question, no double meaning, she just wants pure sex. God this show is awesome. I just wish the DVDs would get released sooner. Same for Moetan.
|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group