AnimeSuki Forum - View Single Post

JubeiYamazaki · 2004-05-21, 03:33

Speaking from an american viewpoint, I'd say too much exccessive "fanservice" could be considered almost pornographic.

As kj1980 pointed out, we're two different cultures, what we may see as pornographic they may look as something normal, as our cartoon violence may seem over the top to them.

But everything has a limit before it becomes too much of a small thing.

"What is soft porn?" I'm sure the FCCA or whoever regulates that sort of thing has standards that regulate what goes into what, while I personally consider such things as Playboy soft porn (explicit pictures of nude women, without any sexual action) while the "fake" porn on HBO and Skinnamax as real porn. Why? Intention.

In all seriousiness, you got a guy and girl whose only intent is to basically have sex and make you exicited about it. They're doing EVERYTHING BUT actually showin' the motion of the ocean, yet people wanna call it "soft porn" same level as per say, Playboy? Oh come on.

The reason why I'm using Playboy as an example is because, in our culture the only real form of pornography that has even a chance of being acceptable form of nudity is Playboy, its always been known as the "gentelmans" magazine. And it has a clear and solid line seperating itself from porn industry (in fact if any Playmate becomes a pornstar they are automically kicked out of the Playboy company.) Playboy offers the more traditional and classic view of the woman's body. Weither you agree or not, its up to the person, but its intent is obivious, anyone who actually reads Playboy would know that, the magazine itself offers a lot more then "teh big b00biez~!!" then simple pure sexual self gradifcation, that's what Hustler is for.

What about the intentions?

Art is subjective. And art has changed over the last thousand years, in how art/expression is implemented in today's society. Like I said its all about intention. Was Michelangelo Buonarroti Sistine chapel considered art or porngraphy by the majority? He was told by Pope Julius II to paint the Sistine's chapel, his intention was to show the beauty of man that God created, and God's connection to man, those were his intentions.

What about his statue of David? "The choice of David was supposed to reflect the power and determination of Republican Florence and was under constant attack from supporters of the usurped Medicis. In the 19th century the statue was moved to the Accademia." Back then it was considered pornographic, but now its considered art, why? Because of what he was trying to express through his sculpture.

Depending on the show, there's different reasons for everything. For example Ranma 1/2 every act of.. I guess perversion? Was always followed up by an act of comedy, making it funny. Gotta love Happosai. So it would lead me to believe that anytype of perverison was to be taken lightly and as a joke, which is why I don't consider that form of "fanservice" as pornographic, since its intent was to make you laugh.

Look at Ikkitousen, every other frame was a freakin' shot a perverison, for what reason? None. Other then to throw in the panties shots and nudity and get the men watching, plain and simple. That's why I think, people using the whole "its form of self expression so therefore its okay" arguement is pretty fucking whack. Since their intent is to make you wanna whack off/make money off of the added selling power of sex + action.

You can only have so many panty shots, or boob shots, or sexual innuendo before you hit a limit.

So basically, if you watch any anime that gets you "in the mood" its probably close enough to porngraphy.

2004-05-21, 03:33	Link #47
JubeiYamazaki Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2003	Speaking from an american viewpoint, I'd say too much exccessive "fanservice" could be considered almost pornographic. As kj1980 pointed out, we're two different cultures, what we may see as pornographic they may look as something normal, as our cartoon violence may seem over the top to them. But everything has a limit before it becomes too much of a small thing. "What is soft porn?" I'm sure the FCCA or whoever regulates that sort of thing has standards that regulate what goes into what, while I personally consider such things as Playboy soft porn (explicit pictures of nude women, without any sexual action) while the "fake" porn on HBO and Skinnamax as real porn. Why? Intention. In all seriousiness, you got a guy and girl whose only intent is to basically have sex and make you exicited about it. They're doing EVERYTHING BUT actually showin' the motion of the ocean, yet people wanna call it "soft porn" same level as per say, Playboy? Oh come on. The reason why I'm using Playboy as an example is because, in our culture the only real form of pornography that has even a chance of being acceptable form of nudity is Playboy, its always been known as the "gentelmans" magazine. And it has a clear and solid line seperating itself from porn industry (in fact if any Playmate becomes a pornstar they are automically kicked out of the Playboy company.) Playboy offers the more traditional and classic view of the woman's body. Weither you agree or not, its up to the person, but its intent is obivious, anyone who actually reads Playboy would know that, the magazine itself offers a lot more then "teh big b00biez~!!" then simple pure sexual self gradifcation, that's what Hustler is for. What about the intentions? Art is subjective. And art has changed over the last thousand years, in how art/expression is implemented in today's society. Like I said its all about intention. Was Michelangelo Buonarroti Sistine chapel considered art or porngraphy by the majority? He was told by Pope Julius II to paint the Sistine's chapel, his intention was to show the beauty of man that God created, and God's connection to man, those were his intentions. What about his statue of David? "The choice of David was supposed to reflect the power and determination of Republican Florence and was under constant attack from supporters of the usurped Medicis. In the 19th century the statue was moved to the Accademia." Back then it was considered pornographic, but now its considered art, why? Because of what he was trying to express through his sculpture. Depending on the show, there's different reasons for everything. For example Ranma 1/2 every act of.. I guess perversion? Was always followed up by an act of comedy, making it funny. Gotta love Happosai. So it would lead me to believe that anytype of perverison was to be taken lightly and as a joke, which is why I don't consider that form of "fanservice" as pornographic, since its intent was to make you laugh. Look at Ikkitousen, every other frame was a freakin' shot a perverison, for what reason? None. Other then to throw in the panties shots and nudity and get the men watching, plain and simple. That's why I think, people using the whole "its form of self expression so therefore its okay" arguement is pretty fucking whack. Since their intent is to make you wanna whack off/make money off of the added selling power of sex + action. You can only have so many panty shots, or boob shots, or sexual innuendo before you hit a limit. So basically, if you watch any anime that gets you "in the mood" its probably close enough to porngraphy.