Your taste in anime women/men vs. real life women/men

[0utf0xZer0]

Originally Posted by BetoJR

Just to state something that should be extremely obvious: the comments about a person preferring fictional characters, be they male or female, over their real life equivalents, has lots of merit. It does indicate some kind of disassociative disorder, however mild it may be. Lots of people have an opinion about this, and it could lead to interesting discussions.
I, for one, thought this kinda behavior was limited to extremely obsessed people, who have problems dealing with reality - and I never expected to read comments in a board like this with people professing such preferences. Again, my opinion. You may disagree.

First off, I think it's a mistake to see preference for fictional characters as a binary choice. I see it as more of a spectrum, ranging from people who would prefer a fictional character if she was real over the real girls they know to those who simply aren't interested in real girls.

In the case of the first group, I don't think this should be a surprising development. Take, for an example, Tsugumi's route in the visual novel Ever 17: by the end of her route, the player character has not only developed a relationship with her, but knows a lot of very private details about her history and has seen how she pulls herself together under extreme circumstances. And quite frankly, I got pretty emotionally involved with her story.

On the flip side, my relationship with the average girl in real life doesn't go much beyond the occassional discussion of schoolwork or a movie or something like that. There is nothing there to form a deep attachment too. So why would it surprise anyone that I'd have a deeper attachment to Tsugumi?

Now naturally, if I actually had a relatively deep relationship with a real girl, that would be an entirely different can of worms. But I wager many of us on here have never actually had a deep relationship with the opposite sex, so that's hardly applicable.

Now as to those who have no interest in 3D woman whatsoever, I'd be interested in hearing if they have anything to say about the psychology behind their position. Where you into 3D girls before getting into anime, or not? I'm kind of curious about that because in the time since I've become an anime fan, I wouldn't say my interest in real women has decreased, in fact, the opposite is probably true.

MidnightViper: Ah, sorry. I was just considering your first and second post put together... guess I needed to see the third to grasp your position.

[animeboy12]

I think anime allows us to get to really know a character without the effort of dates, or binding relationships but the relationship only goes as far as the creator want's it too, least that's how I feel.

[Mumitroll]

Honestly, that's a very bad way to counter my point, as you were advocating that it's okay for everyone to behave like this, in a manner detrimental to the whole. Or you're simply saying it's okay for you, and a select few, but not the rest of the human race? Back to my original point.

to formalize it a bit: i'm saying that a behavior that is locally not damaging (in a small epsilon-environment of an individual) could be potentially detrimental to mankind if you suddenly applied an all-quantor to it. this is really obvious if you think about it a little.

simple example: every single individual in a certain generation suddenly decides not to have children => the species will simply die out right there. if only some limited percentage of individuals decide it (as is the case with humans), the remaining mainstream is normally sufficient for the species to survive.

That's because the concept of communism is, in itself, flawed. We can't expect the masses to behave selflessly. Expecting it to actually happen is a completely unreal thing to do - as it is a very tried and true utopic concept.

i think so, too, but it is still a valid illustration of my point above. also, again, think a bit ahead - at some point (not too far off in the future) it will probably become possible to genetically influence people to act more towards the general good of the socium, and not just their own. it is the case with some animals - ants, for example. at that point, communism might as well become en vogue again.

And, like I said, I have no interest in digressing over other assorted "deviant" behavior, so your first point is forfeit.

fine with me, but by doing this you are essentially already conceding most of this argument. there is no logical reason to single out one specific "deviant" (as defined by current social norms) behavior and insist that it is somehow cardinally different from all other kinds of "deviant" behavior.

Of course I can. This is a discussion, after all.

well, that kind of arguing makes your position very limited, and a lot less interesting for me, personally. it is as if some of the (very rabid!) opponents of heavier-than-air-flight would have argued vs. the Wright brothers: "but of course I can limit myself to lighter-than-air vehicles. i'm arguing using present day terms. To me, and to the vast majority of people, there is a clear difference between fiction (heavier-than-air-flight) and reality (lighter-than-air-flight). If the lines start to blur, it's time to get in touch with professional help. But hey, maybe that's just me. "

the same thing repeated itself in history countless times.

Why should I? We live socially. If you delude yourself by thinking to be outside society, your perception truly is blurred beyond repair.

while i am not "outside" of society, i do consider myself independent enough to be able to think *entirely on my own*, and not sheepishly following the dogmas which the society dictates me. this is a very key point, by the way, and something that I consider of major importance. MANY horrible things were done because people just obeyed what the society dictated them to. "I was just following orders" was a very common line at the Nürnberg war crime tribunal.

Believe what you will. Experts disagree. And so do I.

i'd be quite interested to see a reference to an "expert" (in apostrophes because I cant quite imagine an expert on this tbh ) opinion on the issue of liking 2D characters over 3D people. you got any?

Because then the person in question would be perceived as to be transferring feelings that don't exist or are barely registered in real life (remember what a misanthrope is?) to fiction. Again, you may think that's okay, but I don't.

why? i dont see any logic in this.

dude, you lost me right here. If you simply cannot acknowledge people who are more knowledgeable than you in any given field and have to "see for yourself", be my guest.

it's a bit more complex. i do not respect any kind of statement along the lines of "most <X> think <Y> so it must be correct" if it is not exact sciences (and even there I would normally ask for a link to a proof). even apart from the fact that it is simply unprovable that most psychiatrists consider "liking 2D characters over 3D people" an abnormality - just because it is was surely never widely polled among psychiatrists - the mere fact that most humanitarian people think X at any given point of time does not necessarily mean it is correct. I could cite many examples. this is not even true for natural sciences, where standards are much more severe. e.g. most physicists did not believe reality was actually quantized and not continuous until Planck and Bohr. light speed being limited and no ether existing was nearly a heresy before the late 19th- early 20th century. and so on.

I don't have the time or the patience to know everything, so I'm quite content to acquire knowledge through tried-and-true methods, when it's not something that really concerns me - or that I don't have the time to exhaustively research (I do have a life, after all).

thats fine. I dont know everything either, obviously. but when you are unable to logically support your statements, and resort to "it must be true because uncle X thinks so", you basically lose the argument for me.

And I have no idea what you're talking about, when you refer to a thread about economy. I don't participate in one, so I don't really care about what happens in it.

its nothing related to this thread, but the same kind of "argument" ("most economists think X so it must be true") was cited there as well.

[BetoJR]

Hmmm... no, NoSanninWa. My whole point is the substitution of the real for the not-real - hence, the preference of anime (fictional) persons over live (real) ones. If you really see no problem with it, we'll simply have to agree to disagree. No matter how embattled in philosophical terms we may get, it's down to a problem of simple personal perception - and I have no interest in discussing such. My grasp of reality is shaky enough as it is without someone questioning it.
I was just substantiating my claims with the clinically perceived assessment of persons who do transfer their desires from the real world to the fictional one(s). If you don't want to take that into account, either, that's fine with me.

As for your point of "someone should accept a mate that they are not in love with in order to procreate?", no, they shouldn't, as that's simply a last resort measure.
Doesn't make the situation any better if that same someone would rather be with some fictional anime character, tho. Like that guy who tried to get a motion passed so he could get married to exactly one such character, over in Japan.

Edit ADD: Mumitroll, I only saw your post after I had already replied, and now I'm really tired, so I'll try to reply tomorrow, okay?

[Mumitroll]

The underlining theme of his reply seems to be that he doesn't really care about the whole "destroy society" thing. So, you can see where I take exception to it.

I never said that. on the contrary, I do very much care about humanity surviving, since I happen to be part of it. it's just that I consider other things - such as stuff described by me in http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=74246 to be MUCH more dangerous for that *at the moment* than people liking 2D characters too much.

Thanks for pointing out the purpose of your argument. Now we're going off into philosophy as we discuss the relative merits of individual good vs societal good.

The question here is if someone would accept a mate they deem inferior to their dreams in order to serve their role as part of society. This is honestly not very different from asking someone to accept an arranged marriage in order to fulfill their position in society.

yep. thats a good illustration of my point. to make your statement even more realistic: i have a friend in his mid-30s who is - like me - a major anime fan, doesnt like any RL women (at least not to the extent of wanting to marry them), yet is pressured towards a marriage (with some woman he's totally indifferent to) by his conservative parents.

now, what is the "right" thing for him to do in that situation?

If a majority of people do not procreate, it would obviously "destroy society" as he posits. Do you believe that someone should accept a mate that they are not in love with in order to procreate?

in fact, this is not even a necessary condition. just like gay couples who want to have children, it is potentially possible to get a surrogate mother/gestational carrier to carry out your child/children (personally i'm not much in favor of that, i'm just illustrating the possibility).

Now as to those who have no interest in 3D woman whatsoever, I'd be interested in hearing if they have anything to say about the psychology behind their position. Where you into 3D girls before getting into anime, or not? I'm kind of curious about that because in the time since I've become an anime fan, I wouldn't say my interest in real women has decreased, in fact, the opposite is probably true.

i cant say i have "no interest in 3D women whatsoever"... but i can say i have next to no interest in >99% of 3D women. and yes I was more into 3D women before anime. that was a very long time ago though. you're probably pretty young, so interest in RL women is still strong. it will probably decrease with time, once you get to know more of them better

[Mumitroll]

My whole point is the substitution of the real for the not-real - hence, the preference of anime (fictional) persons over live (real) ones.

the question is: how is that "preference of anime persons over live ones" different from somebody not being seriously interested in any RL people (for w/e reasons, there are many possible ones), while liking some anime chars very much (also, many possible reasons)?

Edit ADD: Mumitroll, I only saw your post after I had already replied, and now I'm really tired, so I'll try to reply tomorrow, okay?

no problem, take your time. the more thought-out and founded your reply is, the more interesting it is for me

[Animeruko]

BECAUSE its moe moe!

Anime Girls are moe moe.

moe moe is my only deciding factor.

Anime Girls ONLY!

[BetoJR]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

no problem, take your time. the more thought-out and founded your reply is, the more interesting it is for me

Okay, I'm here. Forgive me if I seem a little rushed, but since I'm at work and my daughter's had a nasty fever all night, I didn't wake up in quite the right mood for this. But this discussion has surprisingly kept a very nice civil tone, so I thought it my responsibility to reply at least one more time.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

the question is: how is that "preference of anime persons over live ones" different from somebody not being seriously interested in any RL people (for w/e reasons, there are many possible ones), while liking some anime chars very much (also, many possible reasons)?

Well, let's try this again. There are roughly four types of dissociative disorders, as recognized by the medical associations around the globe (through the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - DSM in the States and the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems - ICD in other parts of the world) and pioneered by one Pierre Janet: Depersonalization Disorder, Dissociative Amnesia, Dissociative Fugue and Dissociative Identity Disorder.
Finally, there are other kinds of dissociative disorders not completely specified, since they don't neatly fall into any of the four categorized earlier (ie.: the person don't suffer from amnesia, or they don't show signs of multiple personalities, whatever the case may be). Transference of desires from the real world to the fictional one is but a speck in the sea of disturbances that can be fit into this set of studies and treatment. Again, you're more than welcome to search the web or your local libraries for these researches, as I did try to gather some for your perusal but, since I'm pressed for time (and most of those are paid-to-read case studies), I couldn't find any that were really interesting.
And there is also the distinctive possibility that such a situation actually isn't confined to a single pre-established set of conditions, as a person may exhibit traces of other kinds of disturbances that defy easy classification (I can easily see someone like this developing schizophrenia tendencies, as well). That's why consultation is the best way to go, as if it were only a matter of applying concepts that you happened to read in a book or heard from a teacher, medicine would be mastered by any and everyone. But, truth be told, that's not really what's in discussion here, is it?

As for the discussion about 2D and 3D worlds, I'd rather read a book written by Neal Stephenson or Stanislaw Lem than actually live in something like the 2.0 we see in an anime like Mnemosyne. But you're welcome to your own opinion, of course.
I do maintain my own, that people who actually prefer fictional characters over real life people are, clearly, disturbed. Again, you may disagree and I'm fine with it. But be advised that your reasoning and your exemplification of historical figures who had clear tell-tale signs of psychological disturbances (note that I don't categorize homosexuality as such; but I do the act of taking one's life because of prejudicial behavior and perceived ostracization) doesn't really help your case any. Juxtaposing one disturbance with another and complimenting the actual good contributions of such people, is not really the way to go. If you're gonna ignore the problems and concentrate only on the good, there's not much room for discussion, then.

And I take (a bit of) offense at your comment stating that "interest in real life women diminishes with age". I thought generalizations like that were exactly what you disliked in these discussions. If anything, not being interested would be the more uncommon situation, from my experience. A person who has cultivated no profound relationships throughout his or her life may lose interest in sexual companionship (if there ever was such an interest), but someone who did have those kinds of relationships is less likely to stop feeling the need for more - again, from my experience and social observations. Your mileage may vary.

[Supah Em]

Originally Posted by Animeruko

BECAUSE its moe moe!

Anime Girls are moe moe.

moe moe is my only deciding factor.

Anime Girls ONLY!

Finally, someone normal speaking.

[BetoJR]

Originally Posted by Supah Em

Finally, someone normal speaking.

Is it wrong of me to have spilled a load of coffee all over my keyboard and monitor, after having read this?

[Solafighter]

Originally Posted by Supah Em

Finally, someone normal speaking.

I thought the same. Hehe

[Mumitroll]

Transference of desires from the real world to the fictional one is but a speck in the sea of disturbances that can be fit into this set of studies and treatment.

i dont see why this is supposed to be a "disturbance" in the first place. is misanthropy a "disturbance"?

Again, you're more than welcome to search the web or your local libraries for these researches

i did briefly, but found nothing worthwhile.

And there is also the distinctive possibility that such a situation actually isn't confined to a single pre-established set of conditions, as a person may exhibit traces of other kinds of disturbances that defy easy classification (I can easily see someone like this developing schizophrenia tendencies, as well).

why? i dont see a reason for that.

as if it were only a matter of applying concepts that you happened to read in a book or heard from a teacher, medicine would be mastered by any and everyone

its that and practice. thats about it.

As for the discussion about 2D and 3D worlds, I'd rather read a book written by Neal Stephenson or Stanislaw Lem than actually live in something like the 2.0 we see in an anime like Mnemosyne. But you're welcome to your own opinion, of course.

i think there can hardly be an argument that that is more or less the future. it's incomparably cheaper and easier to create and do all kinds of things virtually than in RL. such a tendency is already clearly visible now with the insane success of stuff like WoW, and it will ever increase with time.

i do like Lem a lot too though and have almost all his books

I do maintain my own, that people who actually prefer fictional characters over real life people are, clearly, disturbed.

it's a fuzzy formulation. you need to say it more precisely for that statement to have any merit. first of all, what does "prefer" mean? prefer for what? if you substitute it with "like", then the spectrum is IMO something like this when we quantify it:

"like *some* fictional characters better than *most* real life people"? that would be a large chunk of mankind - most people (especially children/teenagers) probably have some fictional ideals that they like very much and aspire to be like, be it, dont know, Sherlock Holmes, Cpt. Picard, or Harry Potter. this is not exactly considered a disturbance. even, say, hardcore actor (or seiyuu) fans can be classified here, because many of them actually like not the actor him/herself, but rather his/her characters.

"like *some* fictional characters better than *all* real life people" would be a bit more radical, but still not overly unusual. as i've said, thats basically a complete misanthrope who happens to be a fan of some books or anime - most famous misanthropes were like that, in fact.

"like *all* fictional characters better than *all* real life people" is obviously somewhat strange. but I dont think anybody would go that far - there's obviously a very large spectrum of fictional characters, and it's hard to imagine someone who'd like all of them...

But be advised that your reasoning and your exemplification of historical figures who had clear tell-tale signs of psychological disturbances (note that I don't categorize homosexuality as such; but I do the act of taking one's life because of prejudicial behavior and perceived ostracization)

homosexuality is probably more of a physiological/medical issue. although it may vary case by case, not really sure here.

Juxtaposing one disturbance with another and complimenting the actual good contributions of such people, is not really the way to go. If you're gonna ignore the problems and concentrate only on the good, there's not much room for discussion, then.

by that, i was illustrating the rather obvious fact that all this does not have anything to do with being "loserish" or generally achieving something in life or not - a view which is for some reason commonly perpetrated among net forum posters. probably because most of them are rather young and sexually inexperienced, and the very concept of someone not being interested in "omg hot RL women" (for whatever reason) is unfathomable to them, or only in a context of a similarly-aged male who is socially inept to an extent of resigning from even trying. the only exception are gays (and even that not everywhere and not since very long ago), since there has been a massive amount of lobbying done in this direction in most first-world countries.

And I take (a bit of) offense at your comment stating that "interest in real life women diminishes with age".

isnt that a medical fact, lol?

joking aside, i think it's fairly easy to see that interest in most people in general typically decreases as one learns and becomes ever more experienced. this is true pretty much for any field of human occupation. for example, it is extremely unusual for top-level professional pianists to like pop music and its perfomers. it is simply uninteresting for them - too simple, too predictable. it holds no challenge and no surprises. or, the more lectures a professor holds, the less interested he normally is in his students - this is something I know all too well. for a top-level mathematician, 99% (probably more) of people are intellectually uninteresting. it "doesnt do" to say it in public, of course. but thats life. put a 60-year old physics professor with an average highschool graduate (or even your average bachelor). how interested do you think he will be in what they have to say?

there are always exceptions. but what i've described is the overwhelmingly valid rule.

A person who has cultivated no profound relationships throughout his or her life may lose interest in sexual companionship (if there ever was such an interest),

sexual "companionship" is pretty much a purely physiological thing. i'm sceptical about the degree you can control that, e.g. when being celibate and all. the basic urge is probably still going to be there no matter how much you try. it's hormone/etc-based. i'm not (mainly) talking about sexual attraction, though. that is so obvious and primitive that there's not much to discuss about it. most men (except ones with physiological issues) just happen to be attracted to certain visual imagery - curves and stuff. the curves may be made out of resin, steel, or just printed on paper, it still turns us on.

i'm not talking about that, rather about the general non-sexual feeling of being attracted to/liking someone.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by BetoJR

Is it wrong of me to have spilled a load of coffee all over my keyboard and monitor, after having read this?

I finded this one funny to, but going to spill coffee on your keyboard and monitor for it, it going too far. It was not that funny.

[BetoJR]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i dont see why this is supposed to be a "disturbance" in the first place. is misanthropy a "disturbance"?

That's very arguable. I, for one, do not consider someone generally distrustful or hateful towards most other people as normal. But, as for misanthropy itself, being considered a clinical condition... no it is not. Per se. But there are always compound factors that can add to a clinical disturbance.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

why? i dont see a reason for that.

Like I said, it's a possibility. Nothing more, nothing less.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

its that and practice. thats about it.

Right. Tell me that the next time someone's life is dependent upon one wrong decision you may make. Then, we'll talk.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i think there can hardly be an argument that that is more or less the future. it's incomparably cheaper and easier to create and do all kinds of things virtually than in RL. such a tendency is already clearly visible now with the insane success of stuff like WoW, and it will ever increase with time.

So it may. I, for one, do not hold my breath for it.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i do like Lem a lot too though and have almost all his books

He was a funny little man, wasn't he?

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

it's a fuzzy formulation. you need to say it more precisely for that statement to have any merit. first of all, what does "prefer" mean? prefer for what?

Actually, that's a bit of nitpicking. We're talking about a preference that can be related to "liking" or not, towards fictional (or 2D characters) over real (3D people). I don't see how much clearer that can be - nor do I believe it needs to be quantified. Hero idolization is one thing. Avoidance of reality (like someone saying "OMGZ anime girlz FTW!!! Real grlz SUXORZ!!!") is another.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

homosexuality is probably more of a physiological/medical issue. although it may vary case by case, not really sure here.

If you're not sure, it's better not to dwell on it. Trust me, you might offend someone.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

by that, i was illustrating the rather obvious fact that all this does not have anything to do with being "loserish" or generally achieving something in life or not - a view which is for some reason commonly perpetrated among net forum posters.

Note that I never used that term, or implied so. My concern is about a behavior I find unhealthy, not that I care about how the people are perceived (if they are "losers" or whatever).

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

isnt that a medical fact, lol?

Hmm... no?

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

joking aside, i think it's fairly easy to see that interest in most people in general typically decreases as one learns and becomes ever more experienced.

Now, you're not taking into consideration people who age and start working in socially-aware projects, philanthropists and generally well-disposed people. For someone to lose interest in others predisposes a certain elitist view, and while I concede most of mankind would subscribe to it, if so inclined, it's not an all-encompassing tendency.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

there are always exceptions. but what i've described is the overwhelmingly valid rule.

Like I stated above, I simply do not condone that overwhelmingly validity.

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

sexual "companionship" is pretty much a purely physiological thing.

ORLY? So you're basically saying no one can be celibate, then? Hmmm...

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

i'm not talking about that, rather about the general non-sexual feeling of being attracted to/liking someone.

Right. Like that otaku that tried to to get a permit for him to marry an anime girl wasn't at all interested in some form of sexual gratification, huh?
Joking aside, I don't think purely platonic relationships have much of a future. This is coming from experience. Sex is always a big factor - even when it's one-sided. Or one-handed.

@ganbaru: I guess I was in a sort of weakened state.

Edit Add: Vexx, I totally missed the point about pre-existing relationships growing stronger as one ages. Good save. Completely agree with you.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Mumitroll

isnt that a medical fact, lol?

Short answer is no...

joking aside, i think it's fairly easy to see that interest in most people in general typically decreases as one learns and becomes ever more experienced. this is true pretty much for any field of human occupation. for example, it is extremely unusual for top-level professional pianists to like pop music and its perfomers. it is simply uninteresting for them - too simple, too predictable. it holds no challenge and no surprises. or, the more lectures a professor holds, the less interested he normally is in his students - this is something I know all too well. for a top-level mathematician, 99% (probably more) of people are intellectually uninteresting. it "doesnt do" to say it in public, of course. but thats life. put a 60-year old physics professor with an average highschool graduate (or even your average bachelor). how interested do you think he will be in what they have to say?

there are always exceptions. but what i've described is the overwhelmingly valid rule.

Um, bullshit. Total bullshit and unfounded sweeping generalizations. Please stop making stuff up out of whole cloth, especially when its fairly irrelevant to the topic.
If anything, relationships become *more* important as one ages.
What you describe for a mathematician would actually harm his work as it excludes interacting with people from other fields or interests who provide the framework for new points of view or epiphanies.

sexual "companionship" is pretty much a purely physiological thing. i'm sceptical about the degree you can control that, e.g. when being celibate and all. the basic urge is probably still going to be there no matter how much you try. it's hormone/etc-based. i'm not (mainly) talking about sexual attraction, though. that is so obvious and primitive that there's not much to discuss about it. most men (except ones with physiological issues) just happen to be attracted to certain visual imagery - curves and stuff. the curves may be made out of resin, steel, or just printed on paper, it still turns us on.

i'm not talking about that, rather about the general non-sexual feeling of being attracted to/liking someone.

You're quite right that a fictional character (especially one with the illusion of an attractive personality) can substitute for reality as a fantasy but its a route that is simpler, less hassle, not really mistakable for the two-way street of a relationship. Provide a companion (artificial or real) with a reasonable facsimile of a personality and meatspace presence and then we might be moving outside the realm of auto-eroticism and imaginary friends.

[Mumitroll]

Right. Tell me that the next time someone's life is dependent upon one wrong decision you may make. Then, we'll talk.

every time i'm driving with passengers

He was a funny little man, wasn't he?

not so much funny, more satirical. quite intelligent, too, compared to most other science fiction authors.

Actually, that's a bit of nitpicking. We're talking about a preference that can be related to "liking" or not, towards fictional (or 2D characters) over real (3D people). I don't see how much clearer that can be - nor do I believe it needs to be quantified. Hero idolization is one thing. Avoidance of reality (like someone saying "OMGZ anime girlz FTW!!! Real grlz SUXORZ!!!") is another.

its not nitpicking in the sense that the various possible shades of that statement can in fact be judged very differently - as I've illustrated above. while a soft version of it is probably true for most of mankind, obviously the fanatic position that you state is rather devoid of reason.

My concern is about a behavior I find unhealthy

i find this line funny. why exactly is that behavior unhealthy? is collecting stamps or being a misanthropic philosopher unhealthy?

If you're not sure, it's better not to dwell on it. Trust me, you might offend someone.

its funny how people are supposed to be so "easily offended" when you talk about homosexuality, but its all fine and fair game to call liking fictional characters all kinds of nasty words, be it "disturbance", "case for professional help", etc. i dont dare imagine what would happen in the US if you called a gay guy "disturbed" in public and recommended him "professional help" to make his life less "unhealthy" lawsuits ftw...

Hmm... no?

what i was meaning was stuff along the lines of

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/...rease-with-age

while it still looks like the reasons for it arent fully understood, its a rather well-known fact that the libido peak for males is under 20, and then it typically gradually goes down with age.

if that werent the case Viagra wouldnt sell as well as it does

Now, you're not taking into consideration people who age and start working in socially-aware projects, philanthropists and generally well-disposed people. For someone to lose interest in others predisposes a certain elitist view, and while I concede most of mankind would subscribe to it, if so inclined, it's not an all-encompassing tendency.

where did i say all-encompassing? its merely the typical case with people who work deeply and for a long time on anything nontrivial - which is what I think all people should aspire to do, ultimately.

ORLY? So you're basically saying no one can be celibate, then? Hmmm...

well, you can try, but in the end the nature still often enough ends up getting through. the Catholic church can sure tell you a lot about that - it cost them a pretty penny just recently:

Catholic church to pay $660 million for abuse

Right. Like that otaku that tried to to get a permit for him to marry an anime girl wasn't at all interested in some form of sexual gratification, huh?

i dont think that guy was interested in any kind of "sexual gratification" - how is a marriage certificate with Asahina Mikuru (lol ) exactly helpful with that? his primary goal was probably to get some social recognition/attention. and maybe to get a tax cut

Joking aside, I don't think purely platonic relationships have much of a future. This is coming from experience. Sex is always a big factor - even when it's one-sided. Or one-handed.

a few hundred million people will disagree with you on this. e.g.:

Over a third of Japanese couples skip sex

Short answer is no...

see above.

Um, bullshit. Total bullshit and unfounded sweeping generalizations. Please stop making stuff up out of whole cloth, especially when its fairly irrelevant to the topic.
If anything, relationships become *more* important as one ages.

you probably didnt understand my point. EXISTING relationships may become more important, as the respective people will have aged along with you. but that is a limited number of people. relationships with someone completely new, especially much younger than you - I dont think so. if you want to cite extroverted and hyperactive grandpas picking up schoolgirls in the streets as a counterexample, be my guest, but I dont think that is a statistically significant group. although, at least in anime, they do exist



also, the word "relationship" is too ambiguous. I didnt mean a partner relationship, or sexual attraction. I meant mere *interest* - intellectual, professional, personal - in other people. if you tell me that at the age written in your profile you are still interested in what most highschool boys have to say - then i'd be rather surprised unless you are in an educational profession (and even then it would be rather the exception than the rule).

What you describe for a mathematician would actually harm his work as it excludes interacting with people from other fields or interests who provide the framework for new points of view or epiphanies.

not quite. the point is the level of those other people. in real contemporary research, random people you may meet (and even researchers from other disciplines or fields far from yours) have about the same chance for helping your work as Santa Claus. times when Newton could derive gravity from an apple falling on his head are long over. even if you are naturally pretty sharp, to get even to a more or less basic understanding of a todays' theoretical physics research level even in one field, you need ~5 years of hard work (optimistically speaking). to contribute something meaningful to it, you need ~10. for example, when talking to an old highschool friend at the 10-year reunion recently - he is a high-energy particle physics postdoc in Bochum atm - although he is very enthusiastic about his research and likes it a lot, and is generally a fairly sharp and industrious guy - after a few drinks the conversation came to our graduate theses, and he said that in retrospect his own PhD thesis was basically complete rubbish, and that he would do it all differently now, since he is *starting* (!) to understand what kinds of questions he should have posed instead.

my own thesis was a bit more useful since I also wrote a large software package along with it - which subsequently got used in SIGGRAPH and Eurographics papers - but tbh its real value for CS research was still pretty much zero (granted it was just a MSc and not a PhD where i'd have 3-5 more years to do research). and I was also an honors student, best of my highschool, honors at university, etc.

this is daily routine in hard sciences.

so, put bluntly, for 90% of people its simply impossible to contribute anything here as the level of mathematical understanding required is beyond their ability. its similar in mathematics and theoretical CS. often even when you meet someone of the same level as you at a conference - or even much higher - they are rather clueless about your field and it is a potluck chance - 1 in 1000 - that you will get any helpful information from them which actually helps your work. the main impulses from a conference are actually mostly seeing what other serious people in your own field or close to it currently do, and how (well ignoring much more mundane questions of looking for postdoc positions and establishing connections for a potential career). but such people can be counted in hundreds in the whole world, for most hard science fields.

You're quite right that a fictional character (especially one with the illusion of an attractive personality) can substitute for reality as a fantasy but its a route that is simpler, less hassle, not really mistakable for the two-way street of a relationship.

of course. where did i say otherwise? it is rather obvious you wont be getting any real "relationship" with a fictional character anytime soon - at least not until some major advances in AI and robot technology/virtual interfaces.

[0utf0xZer0]

Okay, I'm going to try rephrasing some of the thoughts from my previous post since I'm not sure I got my point across.

First, I think saying that people who prefer fictional characters to real people have a dissociative disorder is jumping to conclusions. I'd say 99%+ of us here are guilty of caring more about fictional characters than real people. Unless it happens to be someone I know, I would prefer not to hear about their troubles.

The issue, then, is whether these people are substituting the 2D for the real. We really need to hear from these people to make a definitive judgment, but I'm guessing that this is less the case than some people in this thread are assuming. I'm not much into real girls right now, but I wasn't before I got into anime either. So why, then, am I attracted to fictional girls?

I would say this attraction is due to two things: first, I'm deeply familiar with my favourite fictional characters. Second, let's face it: 2D girls are generally really, really attractive looking. I did lay hands on myself before getting into anime, but I started doing it a lot more frequently afterwards.

Now admittedly, laying hand on oneself is probably considered a substitute for a real sexual relationship in itself. And I'd be the first to admit that I've never really been good with girls: I wonder how much I need to have talked to a girl before trying to ask her out, and even what I'd actually ask her out to do. But none of this changes the fact that I found anime girls instantly attractive, while my interest in real girls remained stable and maybe even increased a bit. Nothing in that data suggest to me that I'm substituting for something.

My own conclusion for all this? I remember thinking back in high school that the deciding factor on whether or not I'd ever get romantically involved with anyone would depend if I found a girl I was seriously attracted to. Clearly, some fictional characters have been damn attractive to me. In real life, I've seen some girls who are potentially attractive in both looks and personality, but nothing that sets the world on fire.

Clearly, I'm only one guy of many who finds 2D girls attractive. But I wouldn't be surprised if my story sounds familiar to a large percentage of the single male anime geek population.

[Animeruko]

Originally Posted by Supah Em

Finally, someone normal speaking.

I'm glad someone understands!


moe moe Anime girls FTW!


Real girls are FAILBOAT!! You want to be Sinking now? You are Sinking Now!!!



This isn't rocket science, shouldn't need some massive debate. I suppose people just cant accept something that isn't the same as everyone else so they have to debate it. Reality though is that what people do and like isn't really any concern to you. An Individual lives life for the Individual.


you want to be being a mindless atomaton?

[Mumitroll]

Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0

Okay, I'm going to try rephrasing some of the thoughts from my previous post since I'm not sure I got my point across.

@outfox: quite interesting post, its rare that someone is so daring to say all that openly get ready to get flamed lol, since you dont have the protective homosexuality umbrella

But I wouldn't be surprised if my story sounds familiar to a large percentage of the single male anime geek population.

i'm sure it is, they just dont want to admit it publicly.

[BetoJR]

Well, to be honest, this little debate has gone on long enough - and it's straying through dangerously flammable territory.

Mumitroll, sorry, but I don't subscribe to your elitist views about the (in)ability of the ordinary people to contribute actual progressive and innovative ideas, and it would be better if we left it at that. And nice way of comparing driving with passengers and being an actual doctor. They are exactly the same thing, and involve exactly the same responsibilities toward your wards. This is sarcasm, by the way.

Oh, and what's wrong with my finding some kinda behavior unhealthy? It's my opinion, thank you. And it happens to be based upon observation and (some) study. I'm not interested in your degrees of liking a fictional character, I have stated exactly what I have a problem with ever since my first post, so why do you keep trying to distort my point? To reinstate: my problem is with people actually forsaking real life partners to concentrate their "affections" on fictional characters, in whatever form they come.

As for your little research link... honestly, a month without having sex, in the life of a married couple is next to nothing. There are dryer spells, even outside Japan. Oh, and Viagra sells even to young people, you should look into that.

And, yes, being a misanthrope philosopher isn't exactly a healthy way to approach life, in my book. I'd rather that person be a more productive member of society than a theoretical recluse. But maybe, that's just me.

As for your comparing my quips about the unhealthiness of the behavior I specifically stated as such with the reactions homosexual people might have towards some of yours... please, let's not be childish to this extreme, shall we? Homosexuality is not a disease or a medical condition. There's no gay gene. Whatever researches toward discovering such a thing are utter rubbish.
As opposed to what most may claim to be a psychiatric condition, in the case which I have stated. So, please. Let's drop this one. 'Kay?

0utf0xZer0, I, for one, have no problem with finding fictional characters attractive - hey, I do. My point was with people who claim superiority of those over the real ones, to the point of forsaking these - like the ones who claim to have no interest in 3D or some such. If you people find that normal, fine. I don't.