Cultural reactions to sexual portrayals in anime

[GDiddy]

I have no desire for censorship. Just because me and CJ are uncomfortable with something doesn't mean that we're crying out for censorship!

It isn't like we're arguing over Lolita here. A book is one thing...and as someone who's read Lolita, it's Humbert Humbert who's the fool in the end.

It's an anime series that 90 percent of the mainstream has never heard about.

I'd say most Americans aren't too bothered by nudity, but that scene was faaaaaaaaaar beyond nudity, I was just shocked and a bit pissed, especially with the people on MAL having the whole attitude of "If you don't like it, its 'cause your an immature 'murican." Now some people would probably say "Well that's MAL not the anime community. . ." Thing is I've seen similar scenes in anime, and similar responses bashing people who found it squicky on even forums like this (although the scenes weren't as explicit as in that show)

I've watched series that are worse with the fanservice. But at least those girls had boobies and didn't look like a preschooler.

I mean this show did not need that scene at all to make the story good. . .I was already intrigued as it was. Usually scenes like that are aimed toward a certain demographic. . .It was like the show was TRYING to insult me... I was mad on so many levels. . .This is not Lolita or TellTale/Heart of darkness or some grand novel that has disturbing scenes for a reason that's actually a main part of the story. It was just needless pandering to a certain demographic.

Have to agree here.

Is the manga less explicit on Mina's child form?

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Sackett

I see. That comments poorly on the film makers in turning the moral of Lolita so completely upside down.

I haven't see Lolita for quite some time, but I think Kubrick's view was essentially the one you described earlier. Nabokov himself wrote the script. The problems Kubrick faced with making this film at the time (1962) are documented in this interesting piece I found doing some research just now: http://news.moviefone.com/2012/06/11...dimir-nabokov/

Shinbo's fascination with lolis is one thing that bothers me about his work. Sometimes he keeps it under control in shows like Hidamari Sketch, but even in shows like Madoka his directorial choices annoy me. There are a number of scenes in that show where the camera pans up one of the girl's legs toward her "absolute territory" then shifts away to avoid showing any pantsu. I find that exploitative even if it is not so explicit as the lotion scene in Dance.

Perhaps I'm more sensitive to these issues because I raised a daughter. Some shows I simply cannot watch, like Today in 5-2. Real ten-year-olds do not have anything like the fascination with sexuality that show portrays. I found the otherwise entertaining Hanamaru Youchien a bit "squicky" as well, not for what was shown but because of the tone of the story. I realize that small children can develop "crushes" on teachers, but right from the outset the relationship between little Anzu and teacher Tsuchida is presented by having her announce that he was "hitting" on her before the assembled parents on the school's opening day. (That's obviously the translation; I don't know what word was used in the Japanese.) That Anzu's mother encourages her daugher's feelings is even more upsetting. She even sends Anzu off visit Tsuchida's apartment on her own (she's five for goodness sake) when he calls in sick one day.

The unrealism of these types of stories tells me they are designed to appeal to some of the more disturbing aspects of male otaku culture. The dakimakura industry is another example. I found this cover of eight-year-old Kuhouin Murasaki (NSFW) from Kurenai especially disgusting. That "come-hither" look in the left panel with just a hint of flesh showing above her waist says a lot about the intent of this image. That it depicts Murasaki in a manner totally at variance with the story itself angered me even more.

[Sackett]

Don't click on the link, don't click on the link

Link: "But I'm so shiny and clickable. Links were made for clicking."

Seiji wouldn't link to anything that bad.

Clicks on the link.

... Ugh...

....

... Who buys this stuff?

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by GDiddy

Is the manga less explicit on Mina's child form?

The manga version is pretty explicit too. I'm pretty sure the mangaka mainly did H-manga before this and that's why it's way more explicit than it should be.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Sackett

Who buys this stuff?

"long sold out"

Need I say more?

One question this particular item raised in my mind was the relationship between the story-telling and merchandising parts of a production committee. I could imagine the creative staff at Brains-Base being unhappy with this item's existence, but the production committee is focused on total revenues. I've seen some unauthorized dakimakura for other shows that were worse (more explicit), but this looks like an "official" product. I wonder what then fifteen-year-old Yuuki Aoi thought of this item if she saw this when it was released.

There are a couple of episodes where Murasaki and Shinkurou bathe together at a public bath. Even though she is entirely nude in these scenes she is not sexualized at all. In fact she is realistically portrayed with a rather chunky body that eight-year-old girls often have.

[NoemiChan]

Well, she's a thousand year old vampire in a little girls body... The issue should only be..... why not in all but a little girl's? That should be the issue... Seeing a loli naked never turns me on even in H.... I could name two to three... hehehe.. but that's another thing... anyway... it's fiction...

@ CJ Walker > Try Kodomo no Jikan.... the uncut and uncensored version...

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by Sackett

Exploring darkness is fine, but darkness must recognized and identified as darkness. Pretending that darkness isn't darkness is not a valid story.

I think this is a pretty important point.

For example I can name a few games that let you play in the role of the villain, for example the popular games from Rockstar like GTA, bullies, man hunt.

There is no doubt that the selling point of these games is the fact that they allow the player to do evil acts, may that be theft, physical assault and even murder.
There is no sugarcoating about that, there's no "artistic" finality nor a clear intention to explore and portray "darkness".
But there is the fact, that these games let you play the villain by clearly showing that everything that you do is villainous, they don't let you kill, rob and punch while telling you "this is perfectly good and justifiable".

In my opinion the real discriminating factor between an acceptable work and a morally questionable one is not what is shown but how it is shown.

Even if in both cases there is a clear intention to appease to some human's darkest desire, one is telling you that it's wrong (and that is your cue that you should never bring that outside the world of fiction), the other tells you it's fine (and therefore doesn't provide the user with a good reason to not do the same in the real world).

Of course people might or might not care about that message but in that case the blame solely rests on them.

Because of that I don't think that Carmageddon is morally questionable, while "ethnic cleansing" clearly is.


I use the same logic for anything that concerns "loli". The simple fact that a fictional work shows you naked underaged girls or boys is not in itself morally questionable (and in most countries is absolutely legal), but it becomes so if the work shows clear sexual interactions (not necessarily intercourse) between kids and adults in a completely positive light.


Now I must admit that I haven't seen Vampire Bund so I can't really judge it, but as far as I can tell, the loli involved is actually more than 200 years old?

In that case I don't think it can be said that the shows justifies pedophilia in any way.


Of course it can be argued that the show still appeases to user's desire to see young naked bodies, but on the same degree that games like Man Hunt caters to people that are looking for the experience of committing murder and causing harm in a virtual contest.


Now it is pretty understandable that to some (most?) people loli fanservices are repugnant, but repugnant and immoral are two completely different things, a distinction that sadly not many understand.

As long as the argument is that "x is disgusting", there's nothing to debate, as long as it is recognized that that which is considered "disgusting" or "beautiful" is absolutely subjective.
Conversely if the argument is that "x is immoral" then a proper rational explanation is necessary.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

There are a couple of episodes where Murasaki and Shinkurou bathe together at a public bath. Even though she is entirely nude in these scenes she is not sexualized at all. In fact she is realistically portrayed with a rather chunky body that eight-year-old girls often have.

I didn't read the LN, but for what I could see the anime is almost a different work entirely, and while the anime is focused on the relationship between Murasaki and Kurenai from a completely desexualized parental perspective, the LN is essentially a harem story, where Murasaki fills the loli spot.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by Jan-Poo

The simple fact that a fictional work shows you naked underaged girls or boys is not in itself morally questionable (and in most countries is absolutely legal), but it becomes so if the work shows clear sexual interactions (not necessarily intercourse) between kids and adults in a completely positive light.

I don't have a problem with nudity in anime or in any other entertainment form. I do have a problem with sexualization of young children which is the subject of this thread. As I said before, there can be a tendency in anime to imbue children with unrealistic age-inappropriate sexual drives or interests or to portray them in unnecessary sexualized situations. Little Anzu's crush on teacher Tsuchi in Hanamaru Youchien plays on "oh, isn't it cute how she talks and acts like she is hot for teacher." I don't find that cute myself when we're talking about five-year-olds. It also detracted from my enjoyment of the show because there were many other funny and occasionally even emotionally moving moments that did not rely on that meme at all. Tsuchi-sensei did not encourage Anzu's behavior; he's hot for one of the other teachers. But Anzu's ditzy mother, who had an affair with her high school teacher then married him, is another story altogether. There's little in the story to suggest that sleeping with your teacher at sixteen is not a good idea.

[GDiddy]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I don't have a problem with nudity in anime or in any other entertainment form. I do have a problem with sexualization of young children which is the subject of this thread. As I said before, there can be a tendency in anime to imbue children with unrealistic age-inappropriate sexual drives or interests or to portray them in unnecessary sexualized situations. Little Anzu's crush on teacher Tsuchi in Hanamaru Youchien plays on "oh, isn't it cute how she talks and acts like she is hot for teacher." I don't find that cute myself when we're talking about five-year-olds. It also detracted from my enjoyment of the show because there were many other funny and occasionally even emotionally moving moments that did not rely on that meme at all. Tsuchi-sensei did not encourage Anzu's behavior; he's hot for one of the other teachers. But Anzu's ditzy mother, who had an affair with her high school teacher then married him, is another story altogether. There's little in the story to suggest that sleeping with your teacher at sixteen is not a good idea.

This.

Let me just state again: I do not have a problem with sexuality or nudity in anime. However, when it comes to children, I can't. I just can't go there.

And I got thru about three episodes of that show before I dropped it. The joke of that show stopped being cute the minute the mother was all, 'My five year old loves her teacher and wants to marry him? OKAY DOKEY THATS COOL!'

And I will NEVER NEVER NEVER NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER NEVER EVER EVER EVAH purchase one of those body pillows. I don't care who's on it.

THEY ARE CREEPY AS HELL!!!

[Jan-Poo]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I don't have a problem with nudity in anime or in any other entertainment form. I do have a problem with sexualization of young children which is the subject of this thread. As I said before, there can be a tendency in anime to imbue children with unrealistic age-inappropriate sexual drives or interests or to portray them in unnecessary sexualized situations. Little Anzu's crush on teacher Tsuchi in Hanamaru Youchien plays on "oh, isn't it cute how she talks and acts like she is hot for teacher." I don't find that cute myself when we're talking about five-year-olds. It also detracted from my enjoyment of the show because there were many other funny and occasionally even emotionally moving moments that did not rely on that meme at all. Tsuchi-sensei did not encourage Anzu's behavior; he's hot for one of the other teachers. But Anzu's ditzy mother, who had an affair with her high school teacher then married him, is another story altogether. There's little in the story to suggest that sleeping with your teacher at sixteen is not a good idea.

I must admit that I do myself find disturbing the blatant sexualization of prepubescent characters, I had that kind of problem while watching Brigadoon (and that's still on the soft area).

However like I said earlier if one were to tell me "I like that" (which is the problem that CJ is exposing) I wouldn't have anything to say, because well as long as it's fictional I can't say that there's anything morally wrong with that.
Of course we all agree that to find that sexually arousing you need to be sexually deviant, but not more than let's say necrophilia and feet fetishism.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I haven't see Lolita for quite some time, but I think Kubrick's view was essentially the one you described earlier. Nabokov himself wrote the script. The problems Kubrick faced with making this film at the time (1962) are documented in this interesting piece I found doing some research just now: http://news.moviefone.com/2012/06/11...dimir-nabokov/

Just to clarify I didn't mean to say I thought the movie portrayed Humbert as an innocent man,far from it,but I found Lolita to be far from innocent too.

The one comforting thing I have with some otakus fascination for lolis is that at least none of it is real, so if they want to watch grade schoolers get raped (NSFW) no real life girls are being armed in the process.

It's only when real life girls get involved that I get a real squick, for example take this picture (NSFW) of Ogura Yui and Ishihara Kaori , both girls were 14 and 16 and I can't help but wonder "what are their parents thinking?", same thing when I see a 15 year old got cast as the lead to OniAi.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by totoum

I can't help but wonder "what are their parents thinking?"

"When will the checks start arriving?"

I had a similar reaction to the photo (since suppressed by Kodansha) of a middle-school-aged boy with his hands over AKB idol Kasai Tomomi's nude breasts. I think the Japanese police overreacted by calling this "child pornography," but I did wonder about his parents' finding this acceptable.

[Tempester]

Originally Posted by Sackett

Also, I think there is a significant difference between depicting young children as sexual objects and a mere taboo. Any story that includes young children being sexualized ought to depict it as a great evil, because it is evil.

Some works do this, but do so using a "show don't tell" method that can be very disturbing, (eg Lolita). Does Dance in the Vampire Bud fall in that category? Somehow I doubt it.

Originally Posted by Sackett

but the major problem in art today is this fantasy that we can escape the traditional moral standards and find our own happy ending in moral depravity. Fiction that depicts such fantasies is as worthless as brownies made from horse crap.

Sexualization of 2D characters who appear underage appeals to a profitable section of the market (which includes me). It may not be necessary for the story, but it makes money.

Does everything in entertainment need to send a meaningful or good message to its viewers? Some anime show naked fictional girls, and depending on the art style and character design, I end up enjoying the result. It's that simple.

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Little Anzu's crush on teacher Tsuchi in Hanamaru Youchien plays on "oh, isn't it cute how she talks and acts like she is hot for teacher."

I remember watching one episode of Hanamaru Youchien before dropping it. The writer had absolutely no clue how to write 5-year-olds. It felt more like they were 10 with the way they had all those crushes.

I can suspend my belief for many weird things in anime, but Hanamaru Youchien was downright bizarre.

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by CJ_Walker

I mean this show did not need that scene at all to make the story good. . .I was already intrigued as it was. Usually scenes like that are aimed toward a certain demographic. . .It was like the show was TRYING to insult me... I was mad on so many levels. . .This is not Lolita or TellTale/Heart of darkness or some grand novel that has disturbing scenes for a reason that's actually a main part of the story. It was just needless pandering to a certain demographic.

Writing the scene off as pandering to a certain demographic (meaning: lolicons) ignores that it's entirely possible to enjoy the scene in a tongue in cheek fashion. Granted, it's a bit of graphic and it's not as blatantly tongue in cheek as the Araragi/Shinobu bath scene in Nisemonogatari, but I've never been able to detach myself enough from the scene's context to read it as an ordinary lolicon fanservice scene.

(It's interesting to me that of Shinbo's loli vampire shows, the only one where the vampire is actually underaged (Moon Phase) is considerably tamer, to the point where Funimation was able to target it to girls in their marketting materials and I know at least one local cosplayer who saw it when she was at most 13 since she cosplayed the main character at that age. Given that she's grown up now, I'm occassionally tempted to ask her if she was ever aware of some of the subtext in the show.)

I'd say most Americans aren't too bothered by nudity, but that scene was faaaaaaaaaar beyond nudity, I was just shocked and a bit pissed, especially with the people on MAL having the whole attitude of "If you don't like it, its 'cause your an immature 'murican."

It's just the old tactic of making the issue you're opponent the issue and not you, in this case invoking a widespread stereotype in the process.

(And yes, "Americans freak out about nudity" is a widespread stereotype. At the very least, this thread establishes for me that it's known in both Canada and Europe.)

[relentlessflame]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Writing the scene off as pandering to a certain demographic (meaning: lolicons) ignores that it's entirely possible to enjoy the scene in a tongue in cheek fashion. Granted, it's a bit of graphic and it's not as blatantly tongue in cheek as the Araragi/Shinobu bath scene in Nisemonogatari, but I've never been able to detach myself enough from the scene's context to read it as an ordinary lolicon fanservice scene.

I think this is a point that has come up in many of the past discussions about topics of this nature. When people find certain content offensive or disturbing, they tend to sort of "carve it out" of the work in question in two ways: 1) characterizing the viewers in two extremes (either people who are offended by the content, or who are expressly seeking out the content, i.e. "normals" vs. "lolicons" or whatever else), and 2) characterizing the content as an unnecessary inclusion ("pandering"?) and implying the work would not be harmed by excluding it. And that way the debate really becomes polarized, since it forces people to consider this one element in isolation of all the rest and try to justify on its own, as if this one element overshadows everything else in the work (which it really only does to the people who are offended/disturbed by it, or those who are "offended by proxy"). All this makes the conversation a bit difficult, particularly when people start tying fiction to reality and implying about various correlations that may or may not be true/proven. (This is why these threads tend to be cyclic, flammable, and often locked after not much time.)


For the sake of the argument, let me put forward a few stereotypical viewpoints for this sort of discussion (though this isn't an all-inclusive list):

1. "I am repulsed/offended by the scene(s), and do not see any redeeming value in these scene(s) or the work on the whole for including it/them."
2. "I am conflicted about the scene(s); I consider the content immoral/disturbing/wrong, but still found it somewhat arousing/appealing. Is it okay to admit that?"
3. "I found the scene(s) to be a bit disturbing/uncomfortable, but that alone did not prevent me from seeing value in the scene(s) and/or in the work overall."
4. "I probably wouldn't have noticed the scene(s) that much if not for everyone else making a big deal about it. It just didn't phase me that much."
5. "I enjoyed the scene(s) very much, and would seek out works that include this sort of content for that reason alone."

I should probably also add...

0. "I didn't watch the show or scene(s) in question, but feel strongly enough about the issue on principle that I'm going to argue a position anyway."

Although -- as I said -- this isn't an all-inclusive list (everyone could probably add their own), it's still pretty important for people who most identify with 1 to not assume everyone who doesn't feel the same way is a 5. And likewise, you can't necessarily assume that everyone's true opinions are exactly what they seem either (some people may debate like a 1, but actually be a 2 or even a 5, or vice-versa -- I've absolutely seen people who argue the 5 position while really believing 1, for some strange reason). And yeah, don't discount the "0s" who are a total wildcard in the debate.


Like I said, that's why these topics don't tend to go anywhere useful. This topic is too sensitive, and it's very hard to get a "true read" on anyone's real feelings about the topic because people just don't want to talk about it. It's way too easy to pitch the other side of the debate as an "extremist", even if their view is considerably more moderate than the real "extreme" view. I'm at least impressed the thread hasn't imploded already given the rocky start, but I'm not holding much hope.


tl;dr: This thread is probably not long for this world because people.

[SeijiSensei]

I don't really care so much about the viewers. People are going to watch what they want to watch and buy what they want to buy. I'm more interested in why material with sexualized children is as common as it is. (Let's get past the "because it sells" reason.)

Obviously this is not something unique to anime/manga or to the 21st century. Genji Monogatari is a thousand years old, after all. (There's a reason why Kuhouin Murasaki is called Murasaki.) Perhaps there's an equally long history of sexualized children in Western media that I am unaware of, but if so, it's been kept pretty suppressed. I suspect Catholicism in medieval Europe and later has something to do with this.

I'm not trying to engage in cultural stereotyping here either. Nevertheless it does seem to me that sexualization of children is more widespread in Japanese media than in Western media, and that difference does lead to raised eyebrows and sometimes outright disgust among viewers here in the West. As you say, discussions like this can quickly degenerate into flame wars among subgroups of the anime audience. I would hope we could have a more mature conversation about the origins of this phenomenon. What about Japanese literature, for instance, or modern art works? Are sexualized children largely only characteristic of manga and anime, or are they common in other types of modern Japanese culture as well? The usual tack is to blame those damned otaku, but are they really so uncharacteristic of the rest of Japanese culture, both high culture and popular culture? What about material aimed at older readers and viewers? Is this a common theme in manga for older audiences than late-night anime viewers?

What about other Asian cultures beside Japan's?

[Xion Valkyrie]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

Obviously this is not something unique to anime/manga or to the 21st century. Genji Monogatari is a thousand years old, after all. (There's a reason why Kuhouin Murasaki is called Murasaki.) Perhaps there's an equally long history of sexualized children in Western media that I am unaware of, but if so, it's been kept pretty suppressed. I suspect Catholicism in medieval Europe and later has something to do with this.

The US has Toddlers and Tiaras, which is about as mainstream as you can get with this type of content. There's a similar show called Dance Moms that had an episode pulled due to how extreme the episode went: http://www.nydailynews.com/entertain...icle-1.1050108 However, most of the moms and even audience members who actually sat at the live viewing didn't really raise too much of a fuss about it.

On the contrary most of the anime that's be discussed here are definitely not mainstream as they air in late night slots.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I don't have a problem with nudity in anime or in any other entertainment form. I do have a problem with sexualization of young children which is the subject of this thread. As I said before, there can be a tendency in anime to imbue children with unrealistic age-inappropriate sexual drives or interests or to portray them in unnecessary sexualized situations. Little Anzu's crush on teacher Tsuchi in Hanamaru Youchien plays on "oh, isn't it cute how she talks and acts like she is hot for teacher." I don't find that cute myself when we're talking about five-year-olds. It also detracted from my enjoyment of the show because there were many other funny and occasionally even emotionally moving moments that did not rely on that meme at all. Tsuchi-sensei did not encourage Anzu's behavior; he's hot for one of the other teachers. But Anzu's ditzy mother, who had an affair with her high school teacher then married him, is another story altogether. There's little in the story to suggest that sleeping with your teacher at sixteen is not a good idea.

I prefer it when they show these tropes, then deconstruct them, play them straight according to Real Life logic. It makes for some profoundly disturbing, fucked-up and thought-provoking stories.

[Cosmic Eagle]

I love how people in this thread and throughout this board crucify and hang countless others whom they have never met at all just because of cultural bias based on the entertainment they enjoy

I don't like loli-centric stuff in general purely because most tend to be quite crappy but I say this. You think the average otaku who loves this stuff is more dangerous than your respected upright member of society who has probably sacked god knows how many of his peers (as a starting point)?

We are not bloody talking about child rapists and murderers here for fucks sake. Or people who enjoy blood games


You may say you disapprove of a certain type of fiction but behind that, you dare say you aren't judging those who enjoy it as well?

Again, the rash of no-plot loli stuff gets on my nerves but not more so than such holier-than-thou attitudes.

[Flower]

Originally Posted by Solace

It's fiction. It may be morally reprehensible, but it's still fiction, and no one is forcing you to endure it. People who do shitty things in real life? They deserve punishment. That's the line I draw.

Is some of it obscene/exploitative? Absolutely. Some of it is genuine art, but of course that's always going to be subjective. But that's really no different than violence or other social taboos when used in fiction.

Agreed. There is (or should be) a very clear difference between what is portrayed in "the arts" and how one behaves IRL.

But personally I feel there should be a practical step further than that, and that is that one's "being grounded IRL" should directly, and deliberately dictate or feed into what one exposes oneself to in the first place.

That's a whole 'nother can of worms, and maybe not worth going into here, though I feel it should tie into all aspects of one's life both "outside oneself" - responsibilities at work, interactions with friends, relatives and other people, with one's political system or government, with one's immediate family, etc., etc. - and especially "inside oneself".

If you disagree with someone that is fine and is one thing. If you disagree with someone and come across as a hypocrite or convey "some other issue" actually going on inside oneself that has been triggered then you are ultimately (imo at least) not contributing to a real "solution", but rather to the polarization and artificial dichotomy this and other issues in other areas that arise.

It is better to take quiet, practical and firm steps towards becoming an "organic whole" individually and from that exercising one's responsibilities to others as well than flailing about either intellectually or emotionally. Of course everyone will have plenty of times when we fall short of this and everyone is (hopefully?) continuing to grow and mature, but imo having a little humility while at the same time sticking to one's guns as one understands them at that point in time would go a long way.

Like I said, can of worms. ^^