Forum - View topic

Chicks on Anime [2008-09-09]

My tastes have changed a lot over the years.

I used to looooooooooooooove Love Hina.

Sakechan:

Quote:

My tastes have changed a lot over the years. I used to looooooooooooooove Love Hina.

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...]

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.

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...

In other words, if you're up to no good, it is sometimes easiest to seem legit if you accuse others first.
- abunai

abunai wrote:

In other words, if you're up to no good, it is sometimes easiest to seem legit if you accuse others first. - abunai

But that's like making one's own cat for to be used on one's own back when one is eventually found out.

In a sense, this isn't very different than the emotions the panel was saying that male moe fans have towards the girls in these shows. Yet when I've expressed an opinion like "I love Mytho, and I really want to give him a big hug sometimes" I don't ever run up against people saying "But isn't that objectifying?!" I do get some friends of mine saying "Ew, why would you like a guy like that? I want a MAN!", but nothing to indicate they think it's somehow morally wrong to feel that way towards a male character.

Even if you leave out the loli angle, isn't the whole moe movement pretty much a thin excuse to objectify women?

I mean, don't these shows pretty much say that in order for the cool guys to pay attention to you, girls should remain cute, quiet and subservient?

...Doesn't make sense from a realism standpoint, but the creators know that the target audience (men) won't care. All they want is to see beautiful females (they're always beautiful, or at least pretty) kicking ass, shooting big guns with extreme skill, and acting in the dominant action role, traditionally reserved for men.

Call it a sign of the times; that despite women having won big gains (or perhaps because of the gains), men are still objectifying women, just on the small screen rather than real life.

The technical definition would be something like an overwhelming sentiment of affection you feel when you see something that is unbearably cute. Of course, that really doesn't get much of a reaction from people when they hear it, so I always say it's how dog lovers feel when they see a really cute puppy, or the way that cat lovers feel when they see a really cute cat. The main issue, I think, that needs to be kept in mind is that it's distinct from lolicon because you don't normally think of the dog lover as wanting to jump into bed and have sex with the puppy.

I worry slightly about the effect this type of archetype has on expectations of real-life relationships on the part of the viewer, because I don't think this kind of innocence and docility really exists in most girls.

I know that the technical definition of moe is clearly separate from loli and other sexual fetishes, but that's hard to buy when you suddenly stumble across all this "moe" merchandise that pictures these girls with very childish features and panties flashing all over the place. Where's the line?

I suppose there's a fine line. I mean, these characters are represented as these young, fresh-faced innocent girls, who are then turned around and marketed as something more sexual. I think it's with the merchandising aspect of it that these sweet girls can sometimes cross the line between moe and possible fetish. When you have a character where you can think, "Gee, I wish I could protect her, she's my little sister," and then you buy a body pillow of her and sleep next to her, suddenly it crosses a weird line. Then when you buy a figure of her, or some doujinshi, and the original definition of moe almost loses its meaning.

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.

daxomni wrote:

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.

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.

Though I neither agree, or disagree with what Daxonmi says, one has to ask the question, for just what purpose would dressing a dog in a bikini achieve then? I myself would find dressing a dog in a sweater not only cute, but practical in severe cold weather, but a dog dressed in a bikini? Not cute and just wrong. Also it could be misconstrued as a statement that all females in bikinis are bitches. In short it's all down to individual perception of what is being seen, but it is the collective majority of that perception that gives weight to its acceptance, or not.

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.

SakechanBD wrote:

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.

How do you feel about seeing a baby in these then? There are only two points of view for a body pillow, and they are the same as those for a blow up sex doll. You either love them, or hate them.