Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

June 03 2019

The Sword is Good, The Breast is Evil

Alright, this one will be Adults Only. That’s what happens when you have to bring up things like Mortal Kombat in polite company.

Sometimes you’re just stressed. You see a guy, you see a gal, they look good, better than you’ll ever look. And well… your hands are screaming at you. You need to relieve some tension. So you do what comes naturally: you grab some head.

Now, now. You might have read that wrong. By “some”, I mean the singular unknown form. By “head”, I mean the one on top of the torso. So yeah, you grab some head, from some guy.

And you rip it off. You rip it right off their body. And you don’t even rip it clean off; the spine is still attached.

Ladies and gentlemen… today we’re talking about Mortal Kombat.

Now, the debate going on with violent video games has lasted for quite a while. The instant an actor allowed his likeness to rip out the heart of the likeness of another actor, all while being broadcast in the public space of the arcade, that debate was lit. Those ESRB ratings we have today? Those were MADE by Mortal Kombat. Back then, Nintendo ruled everything with their strict censorship codes, and if they said no, no was all you got. It took Sega to break Nintendo’s monopoly; not just with their own console and mascot, but a port of Mortal Kombat that let you use all the gore.

Genesis Does What Nintendon’t, after all.

And to an extent, I see how this subversion can be helpful. The game being in the arcade was a way to lay the discussion bare to the whole of the public. Bypassing Nintendo’s strict censor codes opened the discussion to mature games, and not just the M For Mature.

But what has happened lately? What have recent news stories been about?

-Violence against those supporting fascist governments

-Violence against those protesting fascist governments

-Controversies over TV shows supporting violence against those who they perceive as supporting fascist governments

-People celebrating the destruction of historic property

-The Sentinels of Silicon Valley banning those who reveal the people celebrating the destruction of historic property

And with every Mortal Kombat game becoming subsequently more violent than the last, ever since the 9th game, to the point where when the tenth game came out, I wasn’t even sure I wanted to buy it… the discussion on violent video games is more important than… well, ever, really.

Of course, MK11 is even more horrific with regards to its violence, but that’s not the reason I’m not sure I want to buy it. And it’s not even because of NetherRealm’s business practices with Injustice 2 and Mortal Kombat X.

In order to get at the heart of the other debate, we need to look elsewhere.

On ESPN’s Street Fighter V tournaments, certain costumes used by the female character are banned for being too sexual in nature. Dead or Alive 6 recently released to massive controversy. And… Mortal Kombat 11 does not allow people to dress female characters with certain outfits, specifically any ones that are revealing too much.

My question is, if we can have this discussion on violence in video games, why can’t we have a discussion on sexuality in video games?

And I mean that literally; why are we not allowed to talk about this? Numerous videos complaining about the issue were taken down manually by Warner Bros. I was watching one such video, and when I needed to refresh the page, it flat-out disappeared. Later it was revealed the claim was filed manually. They went out of their way to censor discussion of the issue. It’s like we’re not allowed to talk about it like adults.

Now, in a discussion on the issue, the head character designer for Mortal Kombat 11 wrote, on the nature of this topic:

“Our design is just getting more mature and respectful. You’re not going to wear a bikini to a fight. You’re not going to be showing so much skin. I think it’s just what the game is about: You’re going in to fight for your life, and you’re not going to be wearing such scantily clad items.”

Let’s seriously examine that.

Certain fighters are naturally going to prefer some outfits over others. Outfits that suit a character can give an indication as to who that character is. As iconic as Guile’s look from the 90’s is, I prefer his modern military fatigues and combat gear over his older look. And it makes sense for the character; when fighting the forces of Shadaloo, Guile needs to be well-protected against any weapons, while bringing some of his own. And I think Chief Thunder’s new outfit in Killer Instinct, specifically the one which was supervised by an actual Native American tribe, is very well-designed, and is quite thematically appropriate, while still making him look like a powerful fighter. Those are good design elements, that’s how it should be.

At the same time, however, a low amount of clothing does not necessarily mean the character is not suitable for combat, specifically, certain kinds of combat. Zangief, for instance, is a wrestler. He only wears a speedo, some boots, and a pair of gauntlets. And that makes sense; he’s showing off, showing how powerful he is. He’s supposed to be eye candy for the audience; he makes the males aspire to his muscles, he makes the ladies admire his muscles. Those are all thematic decisions in his character design that represent his personality, and his persona in the ring.

And Urien usually prefers to fight in little more than a thong. But that’s more a demonstration of his power; his bare skin is being attacked by fire, sharp claws, and weaponry. Yet he shrugs all of it off like he was wearing armor. That’s an effective demonstration of his combat ability. And it’s not like he wears that thong all the time; he usually prefers to wear professional business suits when he’s on the job. He burns them off before a serious fight only to regenerate them when the fight is over. That shows his professionalism, that he doesn’t want his fancy suit to get scratched.

Both of these characters have low amounts of clothing in their primary outfits, and both of them say something about their characters. They say how confident they are, how powerful they are; they fit well with their personas.

But there’s two other important things about these characters.

The mentioned costumes are allowed to be played on ESPN.

And both of those characters are male.

Why is it that the female characters are the only ones given such scrutiny? Indeed, even MK11’s males bare most if not all, while the females do not.

Now, often times a counter-argument is that the characters are being forced to wear the outfits in question by their masters, whether it be their in-universe ones or their developers. I don’t want to bring up the same old Slave Leia argument I’ve made before, so I won’t.

Instead, I will say… do you think a cheerful and energetic girl like Rainbow Mika would dislike having to wear the outfit? What’s to say she didn’t make the choice on her own? Heck, she probably did; she’d be wearing that ring outfit to show off to the audience, to make the women aspire to her body, and the men admire hers. That’s not someone who’d hate a skimpy outfit!

And I’m sure people will use the argument that the character designers, even if female, (and MK11’s isn’t) were essentially forced to design the outfits in such a sexual way. But the designer of Zero Suit Samus’ alt outfits voiced no such complaints. And that’s not a polite Japanese thing, especially in this era; that is a conscious choice, that’s consent.

But let’s say the tournament rules ban female outfits. Let’s say the character is enslaved into wearing that outfit. Let’s say the female designer hates everything she does so much, but can’t say no. Let’s assume all that is the case, and it’s a case you can indeed make.

In this case…

Why are you not letting us the audience make the choice on whether we want to wear it?

Did you really need to take away certain character’s classic costumes? Did you really need to lobby the companies in charge to delete all criticism, manually no less? Did you really need to lobby Sony to internally regulate these decisions, to the point where your entire region determines what you can and can’t see?

And don’t think this is a strict left vs. right, feminist vs. MRA debate, either. Liana Kerzner, a feminist and one who holds views that could be considered left-wing, criticized the decisions made by MK11, saying that keeping the women covered up reinforces 1950’s gender roles, something the older games did not. She even called the decision “benevolent sexism”. And considering this is a female journalist criticizing a male character designer’s choices… I’m inclined to think she’s got good points.

When Mortal Kombat was released, it broke the standards of the strict censorship board Nintendo held on the world of gaming. Now, Mortal Kombat 11 is heavily advertised by Sony, creators of a console that enforces a strict censorship board. In a sense, Mortal Kombat changed from rebelling against the system… to becoming the system.

A little while ago, I mentioned I was considering my purchase of MKX, but inevitably came to the decision of “yes”. The violence eventually stopped affecting me after I saw it enough times. I began to see it as… normal.

Is this what we want people to think is normal? How far can you push the limits on what’s acceptable in games before it becomes acceptable in real life? Warner Bros. performed a Fatality on dissenters, who’s to say they don’t want to encourage violence as the answer to any question they find “icky?”

After all, this is a franchise where the best way to humiliate a defeated opponent… is a display of Friendship.

Tags: essay

February 24 2019

Victim Crime

This has probably been the shortest-lasting comeback I have ever made. I have my reasons: after I had posted the message of my return, I had posted a long post on the nature of what makes a character attractive, and why the then-current Super Bowl halftime show with Maroon 5 didn’t have the same response as the Janet Jackson issue. The post was long, and one of my best work, I’d say so myself.

That’s when Soup ate it in another of its outages. No, I didn’t have a backup.

Frustrated with many things in real life, I gave up and searched for another topic to write. And after a while, I looked up recent items in the news, and came across something very interesting. I think it’d make a good subject for this blog, given the on-and-off-again focus it has.

Another YouTube Armageddon has taken hold, one that happened over the comments of pedophiles negatively commenting on a channel of a wholesome family. Because of those comments, the channel was demonetized, as in, all income was removed, while YouTube’s only statement was that the comments of others could hold them liable.

Now, I can’t comment on the staff of YouTube, but these are presumably the same people who object to the common argument that a woman wearing a revealing outfit who goes into a bad part of town is asking for trouble.

And obviously, I object to that argument as well. When I ask that women choose their outfits to match their location, I’m not doing it to restrict upon their choice. I do it because they cannot chose the actions of the people who live in that part of town, and, unless they could handle it with some kind of defense against criminals, they should be careful because those people have already made up their minds, and nothing will dissuade them from doing it, even if it is legally and morally incorrect. That’s why it’s a crime, and why they are criminals. They know they’re not supposed to do it, they just don’t care, because their sense of desire and the ability to do whatever they want at that given moment is simply more powerful.

I am the last person to defend pedophiles. I don’t usually consider any of the kids I post or have posted “sexy” in any way. If I post a comment on a picture like the ones I posted, I find them more “cute.” And not cute in a way that suggests romantic or sexual attraction; parental attraction or platonic attraction, a desire to protect and hug, but not a perverted or romantic way. That’s because kids don’t understand what love or lust is, and so cannot reasonably act on it. It’s why one of my favorite novels, Brave New World, showed what a nightmare that world was through the way the culture devalues sex to the point where it’s seen as recreation for children.

So when I see cases where these videos are demonetized, and a channel’s only source of income is deleted not through the fault of their own, but because of someone who is already breaking the law, it puts a scowl on my face. That scowl is there for a variety of reasons, but chief among them is a very common argument I have heard for the defense of… well, the initial purpose behind the blog: to showcase young girls in situations boys go through and show how it’s unfair to do things to only boys.

“We can’t do this in television/the movies because it’ll attract pedophiles.”

Now, in the past, I’ve countered this argument through a number of common counterarguments: “Pedophiles are attracted to boys, too, so they have everything they need.” “You can show other things that accidentally trigger other fetishes just fine, why not this one?” “They’re drawings, and I would prefer a nonexistent person serve an outlet for pedophiles than a real one.” “The child is not being harmed because they do not exist.” Many arguments have been made, and all have been debated. This is natural; people will nonetheless find the drawings ‘icky’ and want to ban them. That’s been the nature of human history. Just as the mainstream right has banned such art when they held power because of moral reasons, the mainstream left now bans them with their newly-acquired power because of moral reasons.

But this situation requires more care than a catchphrase. A real person is now facing danger of stalking and harm because of a lecherous-minded individual or number of individuals. Even worse is that the one in danger is 8 years old. As such, I am going to approach the topic with a lot more nuance.

Obviously, one needs to block and report the individual in question who posts such comments, not just to the site’s authorities, but to the state’s authorities. These people represent a huge danger if they have such a lack of self-control that they gleefully proclaim their lust for these children in the public forum. Just as you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater, you cannot and should not state how you find an innocent family, one who is alive and in the state they are in currently as opposed to, say, an older film starring children who are adults in this era.

Demonetizing the video and even the channel because they were attracting the wrong crowd was the wrong choice in all aspects. This family should be protected from these perverts, because the perverts cannot be trusted. But the family is now having their actions restricted because of the actions of the criminal. If someone robs a store from a specific item, you would find it crazy if the management declared the item as contraband. If someone is abusive towards a person, you’d find it insane if the victim of abuse had a restraining order put on them to keep them away from the abuser in question. You are, in all three cases, hypothetical and real, punishing the victim for the actions of the villain. That’s not how justice works!

But if there’s one thing I’ve learned, it’s that management of these large tech firms are little more than armchair management. They would rather let automated algorithms do the work that their own staff should take a critical eye to. And, of course, we all know the dangers of leaving enforcing right and wrong in the hands of machines that don’t know the difference to begin with. From Skynet to the Sentinels, fiction is filled to the brim with cases where machines, using nothing but logic, turn against the human race through the rigidity of their programming dictating that humanity as a whole falls under the umbrella of the threat they were designed to destroy. They cannot read sarcasm, and they don’t know when the cigar is just a cigar. So the algorithms falsely flag enemy targets that are not actually the enemy they were meant to fight, assuming the codeword is being said when it was never meant in code.

The management do these things because, in their words, “you can’t individually handle such a large crowd.” To a point I understand. As websites become more and more monopolistic, users from destroyed or untenable websites have to jump ship to the monopoly just to have a platform. That increases the number of cases you have to look at, that increases the number of violations or false flags, that requires a larger staff to work on the problem. But rather than expand the staff to a number that can handle such a large amount of users without being fatigued, the staff tends to stay small and rely mostly on close friends who share their biases. An algorithm is so much easier, so manpower can be put into other departments.

But logically, when you draw focus towards one side, you sacrifice others, remove things that would be considered nonessential. And at this point, YouTube has declared the customer, i.e. the first part of their name, nonessential. You have become less valuable to YouTube than large name celebrities from Hollywood, ones who claim to fight the 1% while being a part of it.

When these large companies began, they were but small forums for people to showcase their growth of talent. Draw something cool? Put it on DeviantArt. Edit a good video? Put it on YouTube. The whole point of them was etched into their names: they were deviating from the establishment, placing you in the spotlight. Now, as websites crumble and rules become more rigid, their name is little more than a contradiction. Disobey the central computer’s rules, and your account will be terminated. Make a counterculture platform and your mutation will be detected and expunged. And now you can be arrested not for committing a crime, but for being the victim of one.

Welcome to The Current Year. Enjoy your stay.

Tags: essay

September 19 2018

Pedos Okay, Lolis Not?

The psychology of the average "Elite Leftist" as I call them is complex, yet at the same time simple to understand. It's a philosophy that serves under the motto "It's all about ME!", and will do anything to bend the world around them while at the same time making others feel bad for using real-world logic that's lasted for decades of human society. At the same time, the wave of courtesy doesn't follow to others, and they will attack others for crimes they themselves commit, absolving themselves of responsibility.

Due to the relationship between the Elite Leftist and their followers, whom I refer to with the name "Leftist Follower", it is very easy to draw parallels with Orwellian fiction, especially that of his classic 1984, with a media that will alter facts, but the public will go along with the story even as it changes. We have always been at war with Eurasia, after all. Or was that Eastasia? The answer is... probably neither, or at least not to the degree that this dystopia is at war with itself.

To properly understand Elite Leftist psychology, you will need to unwrap as many layers as possible, and the best way to do that is to ignore their words. Actions speak louder than words in this case, and their actions show a desire for complete dominance of all aspects of life. One need only look at the behaviors of tech giants to see the sheer power they hold, and how they will not extend the courtesy they give their children to the public; they are but sheep to them, perhaps less than human. In their eyes, an ant has no quarrel with a boot, and we the people are all ants.

Of course, that's not what you come to this blog for, right? You come here for lil'uns. So let me explain how this relates to the topic I usually strive for, cuz let me tell ya... I only just now realize how many layers of the onion I've peeled.

There's a common joke that what's often referred to as LGBTQ+ is slowly becoming a password no hacker could crack. Well, the latest addition to that password may, in fact, be a "P", as in "pedophile." Sounds like a rough statement to make, huh? Well, in numerous articles, pedophilia is talked about as if it should be normalized, like they're no different from us ordinary humans. They just happen to like to have sex with children. In an earlier decade, this would be called rape, because it was.

Despite all this, in all my viewings on DeviantArt, loli art barely survives, alongside loli websites being taken down outright. But I thought pedophilia was normal? 10 year olds can make good drag queens, right? Whatever goes on, I usually hear two sides of the coin; one for ethical concerns, one for legal concerns. Maybe I'm misunderstanding some nation-wide rule here, but ethical concerns seem to tie in to basic psychology, the kind we've been told to supress. After so long a time being told to be wary of pedophiles, it's only natural lolis of your favorite characters would be considered gross. The shoe ends up on the other foot, and the other shoe drops.

But even when pedophilia is normalized (and somebody PLEASE help me when that comes to pass, as I hope it never does), I don't think that'll end the loli bans either. Just recently I was talking to some of the blog's staff about Net Neutrality, and how these big tech shutdowns of dissenters seem to coincide with the dissolution of said policy. The major hurdle for those against NN was the possibility of copyright infringement for petty reasons, and... that seems to be the case here. The "pedophiles will like it" argument seems to be part of the Doublethink scapegoat that serves as an excuse to get rid of it. Note the constant survival of loli art of original characters, it's all about copyright.

So if it sounds like loli is being banned less on ethical concerns and more on copyright dominance, I should clarify: that's exactly what it is.

Once again, I must stress this because it is important: I do not fantasize about children sexually. I have no desire to use children as sexual objects. But that mercy of mine is most likely not shared with the pedophiles given a larger platform. The only problem is... they're the elite. You're just animals to them. And some animals are more equal than others.

CORRECTION: The article erroneously implied LGBTQ+ individuals were okay with pedophiles being added to their ranks. This is incorrect.
Tags: essay

August 03 2018

The Internet is a Police State

You may think that title sounds a bit clickbaity. But it's completely accurate. The internet is now a police state.

In the last few days, we've seen several large outlets for hosting content eradicated, while single large companies tighten their grip. In just this decade, internet celebrity Linkara lost several different platforms for his video hosting, including Blip.tv, Vid.me, and many others he migrated to. Chuck Sonnenburg, aka SF Debris echoed these same issues.

That alone wouldn't be a problem... but there's a larger one. The major companies are biased and cowardly at the same time, and not just in the sense I deem it, but in the sense that they overcompensate for any problem by creating a police state. If there is a problem with copyrighted content being uploaded, including full episodes, all content is destroyed involving that content... including things like reviews and fanvids such as AMVs.

Put simply, a machine cannot tell the difference between the content itself, and the derivative work, despite Fair Use. This even gets to the point of stepping on the toes of other companies; Linkara is a member of Saban's official Power Rangers fan club, the Power Force, and has been requested by them to use official sources like DVDs for the episodes. Unfortunately, this official content falls into the over-vigilant and ignorant eyes of automated machines, and the videos, despite having the consent of the Power Force, are taken down anyway.

But that's probably not why you're here. You're here because my Pixiv page exploded and lost a lot of content. That's because the internet is also a police state because it tries to deplatform "enemies of the state". Twitter, Facebook, Google, and Tumblr, all platforms millions use, all have clear biases against people with the "wrong" opinion, and will shut them down any way possible, including complete banning of their account. If it sounds like the phenomena of "unpersoning" in George Orwell's 1984, it's because it is.

Moreover, this policy has done damage to the loli art community by destroying their works. I often make many attempts to keep my art SFW and not show too much, but according to the policies, and the court of public opinion, drawing a child in a state of undress is considered sexual abuse of a child. If we go by that logic, drawing an adult being sexually abused is actual sexual abuse, drawing a death scene in a webcomic would be considered murder; even depicting a bank robber in a piece of clip art would be considered equivalent to actual theft.

The statement on monopolies applies here as well, as alternative platforms for artists wanting to depict this art are destroyed, while major platforms strictly increase their policies. DeviantArt recently enacted a policy that a character is as old as their first appearance, to which characters who start as children or even babies in a prologue would be considered children by this policy. Furthermore, these policies are often retroactive; James Gunn was removed from Twitter over jokes involving touchy subject matter; to that end, anyone who wrote a gory comic book would, by this logic, be a felon for several counts of murder.

I started doing the work I did in the art field to provide a safe, sensible alternative to lurid pornography, as well as to provide people with something that was too often denied by the actual networks. Violent video games are cited numerous times as an outlet for aggression, and the work I provide is much the same way. It actually prevents further harm towards children, especially since it means any kid who accidentally stumbles across the work in question will see nothing worse than what the show would depict.

But with the internet becoming a police state, where thoughtcrimes can and have been punished with imprisonment, I worry that I may lose a platform I can rely on to publish less-damaging works of art. I've lost DeviantArt, FurAffinity, and Pixiv as places to post my work, and I worry Inkbunny will be next. If this does not stop, the number of people who do not have a safe place to see non-damaging works like mine will increase, and with it a rise in potential child rapists.

And it will be a monster the censorship bureau creates in an attempt to stop its creation.

May 20 2018

9055 5bef 420
This time, the only thing that's changed for our look into role reversals is the time the work was produced.

I'm going to lay it down on you; I can't stand Aggrestusko. I've tried twice to give the series as chance, but both times it's left me... infuriated, to say it lightly.

My main problem is in the portrayal of its main antagonist, Ton. Ton is a chauvinist, who demeans women all the time except to use as objects. Normally that wouldn't be the problem... except the series treats ALL men like this, all caricatures. The women? Mostly perfect.

And what's funny about this is that these same "evil men" viewpoints... were the POV of a VILLAIN just one decade ago. The Powerpuff Girls had a villain that proved feminism was not the same as misandry. Clad in female logos head to toe and obsessed with claiming Susan B. Anthony coins instead of Ben Franklin bills, this woman basically takes the viewpoints espoused by these men that women are awful, and turns it on its head. And keep in mind, PPG did a message on not to underestimate women in its own way with another episode, "Members Only", and that was also home to a bunch of gay jokes. Equal opportunity is good, is all I'm saying.

What's weird is that the goal of these two characters is the same. Men = bad, women = good. The difference is that in the 2000's, these views were espoused by the villain, while not forgetting the other side of the coin exists. Today, the girls are all perfect, and the guys are all trash. In other words, the viewpoints of a series that said that extremes are bad in either direction, from an episode written by an actual feminist, who created the girls' show everyone likes... are now having its villains being echoed by its heroes.

Then again, people tend to quote the PPG villain out of context to say she was right, so maybe there's the problem...
Tags: essay

March 23 2018

Arc Essays: I Identify as "Tomboy"

So, I've been hearing a lot of stories about elementary and middle-school students being told that because they like (insert other gender activity than their birth gender), then they were transgender and needed reassignment surgery.

R-really? That's what you're going for, you're gonna double down on that?


I like My Little Pony, and not just the one the boys like. I like Powerpuff Girls, and I'm a big fan of many Pink Rangers. Does that mean... I'm a girl? Cuz I'm not.

My mother likes crime dramas, and has a favorite Battletech Mech, the most destructive out of all of them. She loves superhero movies for the action and not the hot guys. Does that mean... she's my father? Cuz she's not.

Look, I've got an abnormal brain, I (claim to) know a bit about psychology. And that's led me to the theory that, since there is a male brain and a female brain, and the brains are wired differently, if someone like me can end up with unusual brain chemistry it's not a stretch that a female brain can end up trapped in a male body and vice versa. Because that IS how the actual transgender people feel: trapped and like their body is not their own. When Jack Black's character in Jumanji is surprised that he's a middle-aged man, it's not just because she's a teenage girl; it's because her brain and her body are now completely criss-crossed, to the point where she doesn't even KNOW how she's supposed to go to the bathroom.

And I went through that phase, too, where I rejected girly things because I didn't want to become a girl. I was also, and this is kind of important... seven when I did that.

The fact is, whether one likes horses or one likes firetrucks or whatever have you is nature being interfered by nurture. Elementary school teachers tell toddlers "You don't want that doll, Billy, it's too girly, have a car!" and then later on in life they say "Well, if a girl likes a boy thing, she's not really a girl!" We logicians have a word for that: "No True Scotsman." It's the fallacy where a Scotsman is defined as "not Scottish", despite him being born, raised, and currently living in Scotland... all because he dislikes bagpipes.

I think people need to watch more Monty Python sketches... otherwise our world might BECOME a Monty Python sketch.
Tags: essay

January 07 2018

8777 84cd 420
Siiiiiiigh... Okay... 2018 is not off to a good start. I was going to talk about this in proper during a week of production, but now's a better time.

On January 1st, 2018, and let me emphasize that for you, the first day of the new year, YouTube user Logan Paul filmed an actual suicide and posted it to his account, one which is watched by numerous children. Now, if Paul had something resembling, you know, a conscience, he'd delete the video from the feed and not post it there, or if he did mention it, talk about it in a separate V-Log, not one where he does things like say Mt. Fuji isn't where Fiji Water comes from. Instead, he subjected kids to a snuff film; not "basically", not "kinda", that's what he did, and that's what it was. In the end, the video was taken down... by Paul... after facing heavy backlash... while he chose to play his patented Victim Card at how those big meanies were saying mean things to him like how bad it is he joked about suicide.

And what was YouTube's punishment to the guy? Nothin'. Nothin' at all. He's still making videos. He tore the internet apart, and he gets a slap on the wrist.

Also on January 1st 2018, an Elementary School teacher in Utah got in hot water for showing kids porn. Except... that's not what really happened. He was an art teacher, and was showing kids examples of art in his class, his sixth grade class so they were of maximum age for elementary school. And the art was said to not fit pornographic standards at all. It was just a female butt. So what happened to him? Got fired. For, you know, doing his job. Apparently the parents complained about the art, then let the kids watch more TV and movies with butts aplenty.

Do you see now why I'm still working on this problem?

This nonesense double-standard of violence being okay and sex not being okay is absurd. The Last Jedi, a movie made by Disney, features a fight scene with lots of graphic, albeit bloodless violence. But the violence is quite horrific; heads getting cut off by lightsabers, impalements, stabbings through the brain... scary stuff! Meanwhile, Slave Leia is now being considered unacceptable to sell in figure format anymore, so stuff like that no longer exists. Which company did the deed? Disney! Apparently it's okay to sell "Star Wars figure with graphic violence action!" to kids, but not "Girl in outfit!" to those same kids just because of what that outfit looks like.

I mean, really, it's illogical. Kids don't see nudity as "inherently sexual", they find it funny! It's why nudity-based humor is a staple of adult comedies! In fact, if you do it to the right person, you can even have it in kids media, especially cartoons! Violence? You'll often find that in horror films, or stuff where violence is designed to horrify. Kids get scared of graphic violence. They don't get scared of girl butts. Show a kid a naked girl intended in a sexual scene and they'll be laughing their butts off. Show a kid a scene from Saw and they'll be in tears. So why does one get a scumbag a slap on the wrist while another gets guys who're doing their jobs the axe?

I grew up in similar situations to the kids in this class, and I was mostly okay with it. Kids're fascinated by the human body, especially given the things that're different between boys and girls. That makes sense for the same reason they're attracted to swear words; they want to learn more and accumulate info. Show them actual sex acts, however, and they don't wanna see them at all, and graphic violence is much the same way. The way we are treating content that is allegedly "unacceptable for children" is completely upside-down and backwards! We should be showing butts and hiding guts, not the other way around which is what we're currently doing!

In the end, if you're looking for an example on why the taboo against nudity and acceptance of violence in America is loony, look no further than how a jackmule of a YouTuber gets away with filming murder, and how a guy gets fired for doing his job.

November 20 2017


Tomorrow marks the end of our hiatus and the beginning of another official week. I'll try and find some thanksgiving stuff, but expect that to mostly consist of football. Sadly, because of our temporary ban on Savino content, our golden girl Lynn Loud will not appear. Sorry.

Also, today is International Men's Day! Now, that may sound like "white history month" or "straight pride", but hear me out. With the recent sex abuse allegations with people like Chris Savino, Harvey Weinstein, and Al Franken, it begs the question as to why all these are coming out within the same interval. Case in point, a previous time I talked about some comments our president made that were taken out of context, disapproved by the women who they were told to.

So what does that mean? Well, putting aside partisan party politics, it's led to a lot of people believe women because apparently "women never lie". Uh, newsflash, EVERYONE LIES. And people will definitely lie if they think it'll get them power, and don't tell me you wouldn't; even the smallest lie is, by definition, a lie, or did those cartoons teach you nothing? A bluff is a lie!

What this means is that when men say "#MeToo" women write "Yeah, you should be saying #MeToo I sexually abused women", or when somebody says "#NotAllMen" some feminist says "#YesAllMen". This kind of thing essentially downplays men's issues, worse when male rape is treated like a big joke. "Love is in the air," anyone?

The lie that "men are incapable of being sexually abused" and "women never lie about sexual abuse" is just as ludicrous as saying, say "an apple is a fruit, but an orange is not an apple, therefore not a fruit." No, both are fruit, and men and women are both people. Why should one always be believed in and one never? Revenge is not a substitute for justice.

So, that's all. See you tomorrow!

November 16 2017

0646 d97f 420
Since I got a Twitter lately, I thought I'd expand on one of the thoughts I had on it. Consider this a bonus post.

I've often heard a lot of people on Tumblr complaining about sacrificing an outfit's "quality" to please the "cis heterosexual males." That statement comes laced with a bunch of unfortunate opinions, most prominently that "cis heterosexual males" being pleased is somehow bad by virtue of them being "cis heterosexual males", whereas "cis heterosexual females" being pleased by sexiness is somehow okay. That is, Conan is fine, but Slave Leia is not.

So what I'm thinking is, the issue has been corrupted. It's not about (or shouldn't be about) whether or not an outfit is "too sexy". It's about what that sexiness serves. If the sexiness is used to build character for either the person wearing it or the person who assigned it, that's different. If that purpose flies in the face of the armor's practical purpose, then it's just an excuse. Everything about a character should indicate their personality or that of those around them, not just be used for cheap thrills.

Example of something good: Rainbow Mika in Street Fighter, especially Street Fighter V, wears a rather revealing outfit. But that comes with her territory: She's a Japanese pro-wrestler who fights in silly little battles that are more for fun than the life-or-death battles of Ryu and Ken vs. Shadaloo. Mika is fighting to show off, to put on a spectacle of a performance, so her outfit reflects that by drawing attention to her. Combined that with her attacks and mannerisims involving her butt, and it's quite clear that this girl is supposed to be sexy, but that's okay because it won't actually harm her. That's good sexy.

And now the counterexample: The Amazons in the recent Justice League film have skimped out on armor to wear leather bikinis. Why would they do that? The Amazons are a warrior culture, inspired by the Greek legends. Unless the situation is like that of the Spartans in 300 (which, if I'm not mistaken, the director of Justice League, Zack Snyder, also directed) or the Amazons have diamond skin that can resist swords, arrows and bullets, then all anyone needs to is strike at the exposed patches of skin that essentially serve as bulls-eyes. That's sacrificing character and function for titillation. That's bad sexy.

I couldn't fit it in 280 characters, but there's also the case of Slave Leia in Return of the Jedi. Leia, upon being captured by Jabba, is forced into a sexual bikini and made to sit by his side and look good. But notice Leia doesn't wear anything like this elsewhere. Most of the time she wears really elegant or practical wear. This one time she doesn't was caused by, well, a real lecherous slime rat who forced her to wear it as advertisement. Note the first thing she does when freed is use her own chain to strangle Jabba. That says something both about Leia, that she's in a difficult situation, and about her captor, that he's not a good person. That's good sexy.

There are many examples throughout fiction like this, but by now I think I've made my point. It's not that titillating men is a bad thing. It's when men are titillated at the expense of logic and common sense that it becomes a problem. We only don't complain about guys like Conan or the 300 Spartans because men are used to being on top.

So yeah, nothin' wrong with bein' sexy... unless you're sexy for no good reason.
Tags: essay feminism

October 15 2017

The week is over, and our hiatus has begun. With that, I leave you these final thoughts.

On a memorable blooper of Family Feud, the question was "Something you find in any horror movie." The contestant responded with a girl running without clothes. He was teased for his answer, and got buzzed incorrect.

Sad thing is, he's not exactly wrong. A while back, I did a run of the Friday the 13th movies in honor of the day itself landing in October (and I'm surprised a new one wasn't released that day!). I started to play a drinking game with the amount of times certain scenes happen, stuff like Window Kills, Failures to Secure the Kill Against Jason, Kills After Sex, Kills After Baring Breasts...

Yeah in case you couldn't tell, there's a lot of unnecessary nudity in that franchise. Despite how cool the first movie was, the movies seemed to really go all out with female nudity and sex scenes, and I'm not really sure why.

I think I might have a clue, though, and it has a lot to do with how adolescent these movies seem. These movies already have enough "awesome" gore to titillate the violent-minded 18-year-old male audience, now add in some sex and we're all clear. The strange thing is, it never seems to happen to males, for one reason or another. They get killed, sure, but not after having sex, or not after getting nude.

This sort of thing is very damaging for how men treat women, since it tells men "yes" but tells women "no." That is, "feel free to horn in on the nekkid girl, guys, but don't you ladies dare get nekkid yourselves unless you wanna get brutally murdered/raped." This kind of thing both celebrates perversion and denigrates women, and it's a terrible thing to do.

So that's what I've been doing on Friday. Have a great October!

Marked NSFW due to mentions of R-Rated movies.

October 13 2017

Ask ArcRoyale #6

Another week of motion, another question. Let's get on it, shall we?

Today's question goes something like "Dear ArcRoyale: I think the reason that male nudity is used for humor most often is because it challenges their masculinity, that is, it emasculates him and thus is funny because of that, which is kinda hard to do with a woman. What're your thoughts on that?"

That's almost not a question, but I'll try and answer it.

Two things throw a monkey wrench into this argument. First, there's male nudity used to titillate the audience just as their female counterparts are. You know, stuff like The Martian, X-Men: Days Of Future Past, or most of the Terminator movies. That kind of thing uses a lot of attractive guys for sexual purposes, making it pretty similar to female nudity of the same kind.

The other is scenes where the humor comes from the fact that the guy is too comfortable in his own skin. Aside from boys in cartoons, there's also stuff like Stephen Fry in the Sherlock Holmes sequel. The thing about those is that the humor comes from one of two things: embarrassment over the guy being hot and people drooling over him, or disgust at the guy being ugly.

Believe it or not, there are both of these cases with regards to females as well. A scene in the [adult swim] show The Oblongs uses an ugly girl's nudity for comedic value; and while the attractive nude girl in Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates is covered, the unattractive one is out in the open. Examples of the girl being "too hot" need only look no further than Not Another Teen Movie, where Cerena Vincent plays a nude foreign exchange student.

Now here's the pickle: A lot of my examples come from R-Rated or at least PG-13 stuff, stuff for adults. Children's media still keeps female nudity mostly hidden, yet male nudity out in the open. Despite the covers being unveiled for adults, they're hidden for kids. How do you explain this discrepancy? Unless, of course, the answer is "The producers think the female body is 'inherently sexual'," which simply isn't true.

In our current society that's pushing really hard on feminism, deflowering women doesn't sound fun. It'll take a while for this to really develop. So while humor over emasculating men may be okay right now, deflowering women isn't quite just yet, since we're currently in the phase where we try and lift up women as powerful. I have faith things will level out eventually, but only with a lot of time.

So I just listed three examples that show the argument is nonsense. Yet, it's still used. Maybe things will change soon, but it won't start by just assuming things'll get better automatically. We gotta take the first step. Once there, only 999 more miles to go!

Rated NSFW due to mention of R-Rated movies.

October 04 2017

Our week has concluded after a slight delay, so I leave you with these final thoughts.

First off, we have just enough content to justify another week of this! We'll start this up again next week. Just know we'll be doing another Doraemon thing, in case that turns you off.

Now for the thought of the week. Ahem.

The sad thing about being a mad genius is that one is often misunderstood, and their misunderstanding leads them to be outcasted from society. People got arrested for saying the Earth was round. People got blacklisted for saying the Earth revolved around the Sun. And it's no surprise that a guy like me sees trouble as well with my crusade.

DeviantArt's rough standards make posting stuff like mine impossible, and every day those standards get stricter. 4chan's mods have become even more strict as of late, to the point of deleting even the censored material that my work is based on.

The only place left for me to go is some weird websites, but the numbers of those keep shrinking. Not only do they have to deal with Google's increasingly draconian policies, but they face takedowns on a regular basis until few remain.

All this means that in a sense, we're losing. That's not good.

I would urge you all to try and fight for this thing as much as possible. This problem still exists in the modern day, with people seeing pedophilia where none exists. Even boys are starting to fall under the grip of censorship. We need to start fighting back, or else we will fail in our objective.

Good luck, everyone. We'll need it.

September 29 2017

ArcRoyale's Personal Stories #2

I thought I'd share with you a moment from my life that was really eye-opening, something that can better help my audience understand me.

I already told you the story about my experiences with Sankaku Channel and DeviantArt, but those experiences led to some interesting things in my development. Like I was saying before, I found myself in a position where art that fascinated me was being restricted, and it could only be found in terrible places. For the longest time, I had naturally assumed I was worried about being a pedophile, someone attracted sexually to children.

But then I went to that secret society and started commissioning art. No longer did I have to wait for material I wanted to appear; I just had to buy it and someone would do the job. That gave me a sense of power I never thought I'd have, since I was in full control over what I received. And well, let's just say the stuff Xierra does for me is quite different from her usual stuff!

A while back, I discovered a discussion on my homebase about the nature of loli art, and whether liking it for the kids was bad. The discussion got into a bit of "well, you might not act on racism, but it's still a thoughtcrime" (which isn't a bad POV), but the thing I learned about this discussion was the idea of what the art I commissioned and saved represented.

I saved situations from movies and TV, but not true pornography. I saved embarrassing moments and cartoons. I commissioned characters I thought were cute based on episodes I really enjoyed. And there's also the sociology angle, where the pics match up with a pic from an existing episode, especially later on with Krizeii's recreations.

I came to the conclusion of one thing: The fact that it was about kids was never due to attraction to them. It was about appreciation for things that fascinated me, of cute characters, pleasing forms, and fun scenarios.

It's that kind of thing that helped me work out a lot of my issues, and I'm glad to have made that discovery. It fills me with a sense of confidence and makes me feel at peace. I'm not a monster, far from it. I'm a fan, and this is how I express my fandom.

Now if only there were an easier way to explain all that...

July 08 2017

Ask ArcRoyale #5

I've really wanted to talk about this for some time now, given recent events. I think now would be a good time to look into my inbox and answer a burning question.

The question is: "ArcRoyale, you're championing for some form of equality, yet your pics are mostly of nude girls. How do you still call yourself a feminist?"

Of course I'm a feminist. Just one closer to the original agreement.

See, there's a story I heard from a really good episode of The Powerpuff Girls. There was a female villain who insisted the Girls let her go because she was a girl, and there aren't many female villains out there. With some help from the wise women of Townsville like Ms. Bellum (who basically runs Townsville) and Ms. Keane (who educates the kindergarten to help prepare kids for the world), they taught the female villain a lesson about Susan B. Anthony. She broke the law to make a point, but the judges wanted to go easy on her because she was a woman. She refused to go along with it, saying she should be put in jail like any man would, so the Girls dealt that same hand to the female villain.

It's a lesson that taught me so much about feminism. And it's a lesson feminists these days tend to forget.

Often times, the subject of why we need feminism comes from displays of sexualization, and why it's bad to sexualize females because it's exploiting them. But a common feminist and I would give different reasons for why it's bad. They would say it's because women shouldn't be sexualized since any form of it demeans women. I would argue that it's bad because there isn't an equivalent guy in the movie/TV show that gets it just as bad.

The ultimate irony is that modern feminism isn't actually feminism; it's misandry pretending to be feminism. Feminism is supposed to be about making men and women equal, but it's being used here to make women superior. There's an often cited quote about women only being paid 75% of what men are paid, but those figures don't take into account stuff like hours worked, difficulty of the job for each person, and availability. It's like this: The men tend to become surgeons who work 10 hours a day every day of the week, while the women become nurses and assistants at that same hospital who only work 6 hours a day with a few days they don't work on, both so they can take care of the kids. If the hospital made that pay equal, women who took the same hours and jobs as men would actually be paid 25% more, or in other words, it would be men who would only receive 75% of what women are paid.

But that probably doesn't bat the lashes of a modern feminist. Like I said, it's all about making the girls the ruling class. It's straight up revenge.

Consider this: Many people talk about Donald Trump using a statement saying he wants to "grab [women] by the pussy" and use it to say Trump hates women. In context, however, it was used in the same way we often say we've "got someone by the balls" as a way to say we completely dominate over them, and Trump wasn't talking about women if you listen to the full context. So then, why is it that "grab by the balls", the male phrase, is okay, but "grab by the pussy", the female equivalent, is not? Are they not located in the same place? Does it not hurt equally if both are grabbed? Is it not humiliating for both genders to have such injury dealt to them?

That's all I'm trying to say with this blog: that the situation is unbalanced. If one gender is sexualized, the other should be, too. If one gender's nudity is used for humor, the other should be, too. And if you don't want it, than neither should be okay. Either you're allowed to say you've grabbed someone by the balls or pussy when you want to say you've got them at your beck and call, or you can't grab anything but the arm. Either men and women are used for sexual purposes, or no sexual ads can be released at all. Either men and women can be nude for the sake of humor, or neither can be nude at all except for art. Really, inviting the other side is a kindness, since life without it would be pretty much, well, a dystopia.

Now I'm sure some of you are looking to justify women being given special treatment because they've suffered more historically. While they have, and I'm not denying that, and we certainly have some relics of that older era, we've done things to raise them up, like the Equal Pay Act that makes paychecks identical for equal time and effort. My best argument against given women special treatment based on historical disadvantage is... if women have suffered for 100 years, 100 years of men suffering is not bringing equality or justice. It's just revenge, reversing the situation to make the guy you don't like the victim, hurting because you were hurt. After 100 years of men being made minorities, suddenly they'll start to go through the same kind of movement you guys made. Masculism, if you will. Who's to say they won't bar you from showings of male action heroes just because you're female, the same way you barred them from your showing of Wonder Women just because they're male?

An Eye For An Eye never justified revenge or paying evil unto evil. An Eye For An Eye was made because people kept on paying back stolen eyes by stealing both eyes, and more than likely a few teeth, too. If you truly want equality, you gotta start letting girls go through things like slapstick, combat holds, or, yes, nudity as humor. If all your want from your "feminist" movement are action stars and protagonists who aren't allowed to lose because "they're girls, what other reason do I need?", then you lose the right to call yourself a feminist. If you want equality, then you gotta get both sides of that coin. Otherwise, you're just a misandrist championing "equality" that's a little more like reverse sexism.

Aaaand this stuff got too heavy. Better mark NSFW.

April 22 2017

Ask ArcRoyale #4

With little left to do for the week, and since I can't keep taking days off forever, I'm going to take the time to answer a question I get every now and then.

Today's question is: "Hey, ArcRoyale, how do I know you're doing the right thing? That is, what makes you so certain your cause is just and not just for your own benefit?"

Good question! I'll try and answer as best I can, and my answer will draw upon the last few times I answered a question or did an editorial.

The media has been recently called out for enculturating negative ideas into us, and one of the ways we see this is in how we've questioned older media. Of course, a lot of the criticism we've seen has been of the most ridiculous of things, like criticizing Mrs. Doubtfire as "transphobic" when that was never the intent. It's not like they were making something like Birth of a Nation, after all!

And yet, while we criticize older ideas as inappropriate, our audiences tend to look the other way for newer stereotypes. Both Darkton and I have criticized Straight Outta Compton for being yet another story of how black people in the ghetto have to rise up into white society, and how frequently black people have been portrayed in media as gangstas who are prone to saying a phrase I can't repeat in this blog but I'm sure you've heard before. Fifty Shades of Black provides a perfect example of how casually we do this sort of thing thinking these cartoon caricatures are acceptable ways of reaching out to the community.

The sad fact is, these days, even boys are used less and less for humorous nudity in animation. Nick doesn't use them much and Disney never did; all that leaves is CN to do the job. And so far, some of their scenes are being censored overseas, like a scene in the Steven Universe episode "Frybo" that would've flown perfectly years ago but is verbotem now. There's also the fact that FOX is cracking down on acceptable levels of nudity in their cartoons, meaning the only people who get to use them are people trying to intentionally offend.

That's not going to have a healthy effect on children. It's going to teach different things to different genders, and the result of both of those is going to be negative. For boys, it's going to teach them that a girl is only as good as her body, and that their body is a joke nobody wants to see, lowering confidence. For girls, it's going to teach them to diminish boys' suffering and see it as funny, and that their body is to be kept covered at all costs, lowering confidence. If it sounds like it diminishes the other sex and teaches them their bodies are worthless, it's only because it does.

My evidence that this kind of deprivation is having a negative effect on children growing up comes from DeviantArt. Of the many people whose mental growth has been stunted, a lot of their crayon drawing-like nude pictures include girls, because they've been continually denied them for so long. And whenever a picture of humorous nude boys shows up in their sights, they're sure to ask for a version with girls, because they absolutely need them having seen none. Their curiosity is leading them to ask the question, and so far they're not getting it.

This has more than one negative consequence, too. At some point, not being able to find it and asking what it looks like, some confused kid is gonna type into a search engine a look for what the girl looks like naked. However, that's gonna bring up a bunch of pornographic websites, possibly doing damage to them. I may have said pedophiles are born, not made, but child abuse is the sole way to make them, and seeing pornography at a young age is most certainly child abuse.

So if we don't start loosening standards, things are going to keep being stagnant. And if they haven't worked for the past several years, why are we doing nothing to change it?

April 01 2017

0801 3cb5 420
Today's subject is an essay, an essay on how hypocritical mods have made it hard to find good material. Today we're talking about one of the biggest art repositories on the internet: DeviantArt.

Kids of all ages browse DeviantArt, and it is there where they find some of their first fanart. Websites like these are usually the first place someone would go to find art based off their favorite cartoons, aside from just checking out Google Images, but then, that site also shows art from DeviantArt on a regular basis. I think kids stumbling across fanart is a good thing; it expands the tools available to them and shows them that they're not limited by what the show offers them.

Now, DeviantArt used to be okay with naked little girls. Some of my first nude lolis I found over there, and they were just safe enough to be a good place to be. DeviantArt has this thing called a Mature Content Filter to block the worst results from kids, and in some cases they restrict art to people 18 and up. Therefore, sometimes nudity both innocent and gratuitous can be found behind one of these filters. They can hide a variety of things besides that, like graphic violence and swearing alongside "ideologically sensitive material" which includes suffering and Nazis, stuff like that.

However, some time in I think 2005 or 2006, DeviantArt changed their policy to ban depictions of the underage in the nude, and you may think that's just girls, but it also includes boys, too. The official policy is that the underage, that is, those under 18, cannot be depicted in the nude, even with implied nudity. For those who don't know, implied nudity is nudity that doesn't show the privates, so art on DeviantArt can't even get away with showing things that you can show on television every day. They even do stupid things like, for characters who've been mutliple ages, use the average of their age to determine how old they are, so someone who's been 18 and 14 at once is 16, thus underage even if the picture is of their 18-year-old version.

All this is in the name of protecting the kids, but here's the problem: DeviantArt is also home to a massive number of fetish content that is often produced with the specific purpose of arousing the person in question. It's content designed for sexual purposes, only of fat characters, or farting characters. It's just as disturbing as it sounds and gives the site a terrible reputation (well, that and you can and people have submitted low-quality art that stays for days on end).

So to examine just how stupid the loli ban is, I'm going to do a couple searches for art based on cartoons kids are likely to search for online. I'm going to turn off the Mature Content, so the only things they see are stuff the website/artist has determined to be kid friendly. Note the amount of problem content each one has:

We'll start with Teen Titans Go. For the first few pages, most content will be about the original show, which might confuse kids but is still worksafe. However, at some point there's a pic where Blackfire trespasses on Starfire with the boys recording, though the two are clothed. After some essays professing their hatred for the Go version, there's a pic of Terra which is drawn in such a way to make her look rather vavoom. Then there's some fat fetish art, a beach bikini pic, a baby fetish fanfiction that is explicitly stated to include sexual themes, a rather racy gay pic, a fanfiction containing adult language, a hypnosis fetish comic, and by the time you get to the pic where Lady Legasus is depicted with a big butt, any sane parent will have pulled the plug and banned the kid from the website. And all those horrible pics? All in plain view for a kid to see.

Let's try another search, this time Loud House. On page one, there's a fanfic whose description includes language that if you use more than once, your film gets rated R. Then a horror story that has nothing to do with the show but contains gore and vulgar language. Then a fanfic that explicitly identifies itself as a fart fetish fic, a genderswap transformation fetish fic, a second fart fetish fic that identifies itself as such, and once the pic of Lynn Loud in a string bikini with a big butt shows up, the poor kid browsing has developed a series of complexes that'll scar him into the future. All by art approved by the system as being "kid-friendly" when it clearly isn't.

Any given fetish has to start from somewhere. Enough big belly gags in cartoons can give someone a big belly fetish. Enough exposure to cartoon feet can make someone a foot guy. But pedophilia doesn't work that way. It's caused by brain abnormalities and is on a biological level as opposed to the way the child was raised. Any pedophile had to be born that way, or suffer explicit sexual abuse as a kid, so kids are not going to grow up on fanart of naked little girls and become one themselves.

That is what makes the ban on underage content so insidious. People make the art in most cases because they were curious as to what the character might look like naked, or for a funny gag, or just for artistic purposes. Any fetish art can only be created in the void of fetish art and only for arousal. It's also the reason it's stupid to censor little girls but leave the rest of the stuff: if we're so worried about naked little girl scenes catering to pedophiles or possibly creating them, why are cartoons still allowed to use inflation, transformation, or any other thing that's bound to accidentally make someone with that kind of fetish go gaga?

When your website can't do what the cartoons they do fanart of can do, then your website is broken and needs to be fixed. And DeviantArt is most certainly broken.

(Left as mature since this is heavy.)

March 11 2017

CONCLUSION - Where We Are Now

As of now, fanservice anime dominate the airwaves of Japanese television. For every One Punch Man, Attack On Titan, Space Dandy or other unique shows, there are ten shows designed to prey upon otaku to get them to give them money by soliciting anime girls for sex.

Shows made today seem to feel just fine with giving underage characters fanservice scenes, and even give them high levels of exposure. Series like Strike Witches, the Monogatari franchise, and Haganai give the same level of sexual exposure to adult women to at least one young girl character, complete with detailed nipples. At least one anime or manga per year comes out with young girls as the objects of sexual desire, such as Ro-Kyu-Bu!!, Fate/Kalaed Liner Prisma Illya, and Listen to Daddy! In some cases, not even very young children are safe from sexualization.

That was a far cry from the Japan of before. Previously they saw all children as being non-sexual, and would include young girls in cute nude scenes just as often as they'd include boys, with a joke about how curious the other gender is at what each other looks like. Nowadays the level of fanservice that involves males of any age is startlingly low, which is why it's always surprising when you get a show like Yuri on Ice!! or Free! to bring the fanservice balance, because most fanservice tends to be about females.

The end result is a Japan that sees no problem with sexualizing children, like a perversion of the society I've wanted to see. If all you're doing with nude young girls is using them for sexual purposes, you're not really solving the problem of inequality in nudity. All you're doing is showing how depraved you are for sexually exploiting children.

When Doraemon debuted in 69, children were innocent. Nowadays, little girls can be used as sex objects, which likely correlates to why Shizuka's scenes are so censored; they would be seen as introducing sex to children too early, despite that never being the intent to begin with.

All this shows society's corruption, and a reminder of that which we fight. If even young females are seen as sex objects, that reflects badly on how society sees females.

March 10 2017

CONCLUSION - The Tragedy

This tragedy directly reflects a change in the way Japanese media standards work. Media in Japan doesn't often use boys for sexual purposes; that territory is exclusive for girls. The result is that in a culture that was starting to see female nudity as "for adults only", Doraemon and numerous older series became obsolete fast. It's entirely possible that those older episodes can't even air on television anymore.

Not helped is the American market. Despite the existence of these toned-down scenes, they were still censored for the US broadcast of the show. Most notably, Shizuka (called Sue in the dub like some 4Kids production) was reduced to having to take a bath in a swimsuit. Considering the idea of a bath is to clean your body, one wonders exactly what she's supposed to be cleaning.

On its own, it's easy to blame globalization and American dominance changing these standards... except just one year after the tragedy, two vile, evil anime were produced that changed the way loli nudity was used in Japanese media. They were Kodomo No Jikan and Moetan, and both of them used extremely sexual fanservice with underage girls. Kojika's anime would even censor the episodes on TV, only to release lurid uncensored versions on DVD. Moetan was similar, but got away with a massive detail of sexual content in its broadcast version, all involving underage girls or girls meant to look underage.

That these two series were able to become such smash hits, so notable and high-profile, while a newly-censored Doraemon couldn't even scratch the surface... it meant bad tidings for the industry...

March 08 2017

CONCLUSION - The Early 2005 Anime

The 2005 Doraemon anime was trying to survive in a world that didn't seem to need it anymore. Just last year, in 2004, a push began to include content that pushed the boundaries of acceptable content in anime, such as Elfen Lied and Nin-Nin Shinobuden. The phenomena known as "Otaku O'Clock" wasn't new, but it certainly started to get a lot more mileage around that time.

An outbreak of sexual content started to flood the markets, all of which used plenty of female nudity to entice 18-year-old male otaku with plenty of their parents' money to spend, and not an inkling of common sense to spend it on something to better their life. This was the era of the rise of fanservice OVAs, of DVD bonus content, of fanservice posters, figurines, and more content for perverts to satisfy their worst desires. Gradually and gradually, sexual female nudity became the only kind of female nudity allowed, and none of it was to be placed anywhere near the kids, even innocently.

In particular, one anime in 2004 started to change the game on how content involving child characters was used; Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha. Based on an alternate story to a hentai game, Nanoha starred Nanoha Takamachi as a magical girl, with a frilly dress and a magic wand. But this was no ordinary magical girl; Nanoha was aimed at an older male demographic, with lots of epic battles, a lesbian romance, and fanservice... and all of it involved elementary school-aged girls. Nanoha quickly became known for sexual loli fanservice, to the point where a movie remake actually upped the service.

All of this meant that nudity was slowly becoming the realm where only adults played, but the real damage would be done a year after the Water Play episode of Doraemon with a pair of particularly evil anime. Before that, however, Doraemon would have to deal with its darkest moment yet, one which would ultimately serve the perfect reflection of the industry...

CONCLUSION - The 1979 Anime

The 1979 anime version of Doraemon debuted during a time of transition for anime. Although Tatsunoko production were pretty much kings of the field, the Time Bokan series and in particular Yatterman known for humorous female nudity, and Go Nagai still influenced things heavily including an adaptation of the nudity-heavy Cutey Honey, 79 was also the debut Yoshiyuki Tomino changed the game with Mobile Suit Gundam. That anime was known for having a mature, almost adult-oriented story that involved the typically "childish" concept of giant robots, wrapping things up in a war scenario. Aside from that, the trappings were just like anime from the time, and a kid who sat home to watch Gundam would still be at home with Mazinger Z, albeit with a bit of a new direction and more eye-opening.

This, in turn, would usher in a sort of golden age of manga and anime. Stories were beginning to be told more for adults, and along with it, fanservice started to be used more for sexual gratification of the audience. This was the era where Zeta Gundam began including sexual showers of female characters, where City Hunter had gags of a similar kind, and female action stars like the Dirty Pair took over. And yet, all this was still intended for children, including violent works like Fist of the North Star!

But while that did mean a lot more fanservice for the older guys, popular stuff and kids stuff had to be a lot more careful about what they included. Superbook denied the young girl a chance to swim nude in the lake of Eden, a chance her male counterpart got. Bulma, who in the Dragon Ball manga got to show her breasts numerous times, had to censor them in the anime version, while 12-year-old boy Goku showed all of himself no problem. And while Panzer World Galient and Magical Idol Pastel Yumi did include some nudity, they still had to be censored at least a little. We came a long way from 1979, where even Gundam allowed female breasts, including those of children!

These trends, along with the anime, continued into the 90's. Even when the Doraemon manga ended in 96, the anime went up to 2005 with the same techniques. The 90's were the time where Ranma 1/2 could show female breasts, but Inuyasha by the same author could not. Shows began cutting down on nudity, but only to the point where it was reserved for adult works. And then, in 1995, Hideaki Anno got depressed and tried to destroy anime forever with Neon Genesis Evangelion, traumatizing children everywhere and making networks crack down on what was considered "acceptable" content in terms of all regards. It seems fitting that the fall of Doraemon coincided with the rise of Pokemon, an anime which played things much safer in terms of content.

The basic gist was that the concept of anime as "kids stuff" was starting to fall apart at the seams. More and more, kid's entertainment had started getting more and more restrictions placed on it. It became apparent that this older Doraemon series was obsolete...
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!