Another troubling article...

Visual Novel Community Off Topic
#1

… for MangaGamer, anyway. the NYtimes is running a story about Japanese men giving up on dates and turning to 2d love. They’re featuring a man carrying around a pillow of Nemu Asakura from Da Capo to call his girlfriend… and they describe her as being “ten or twelve”.

Now, I haven’t played Da Capo, but besides the fact that I know she’s Officially 18, she doesn’t look anywhere near that young to me!

Before this story gets spread any further and the potential waves of outrage pick up, fans might want to politely request the nytimes edit that text…

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/26/magaz … ted=1&_r=1

#2

I saw that too; it struck a bit close to home since I just finished Da Capo last week. Anyway, having played it, I can say that Nemu is definitely is nowhere near that young in the game. She might look 15 or 16, but she’s clearly post-pubescent. After all, she’s the same age as the main character. That irritated me considerably. (The article, not her appearance.)

#3

I sent a request to NYT to correct the mistakes in that article - likely nothing will come of it, but perhaps if a few more of us do the same …

#4

… or perhaps by drawing the double-edged sword?

=> Tell the reporters of tabloids about how well-researched that particular article was and thus give them some ammo for badmouthing the NYT?
Though I doubt it would become a headline on any tabloid…

Still, I love such cases in which the pot rightfully calls the kettle back… :lol:

#5

Yeah, see, that would be a TERRIBLE IDEA. :slight_smile: You don’t want to let a tabloid know there’s an article in the NYT talking about such a thing, the tabloid would probably much rather run with the “PERVS MOLEST BABY PILLOWS” concept than poke fun at the NYT. Poking fun at the NYT doesn’t sell nearly as many copies.

#6

nods

That’s exactly the other edge… :wink:

#7

Personally, I felt the article was rather positive. Or at least, neutral and unbiased. I’m a big NYTimes fanboy, though.

#8

Oh, I’m not saying the article itself was terrible. But I’d seen at least one other site spot the article and freak out about the “ten or twelve” line and start going “OMG A PRO CHILD RAPE STORY”. And we all know how a tiny and completely incorrect interpretation can get blown out of proportion…

#9

If the interpreter has a skewed view of the situation to begin with, and is seeking “evidence” to justify that “incorrect” interpretation, that individual is not going to accept non-conforming explanations. You’re not going to change minds. shrugs

#10

I don’t really like how the article very purposely tries to connect the idea of 2D love and pedophilia. There’s moe culture, and there’s ero culture, and they don’t necessarily align as perfectly as the article tries to portray. I’m not sure why NYTimes felt it was necessary to play the pedo card, when the 2D love aspect was enough to raise eyebrows by itself.

#11

Maybe their execs have a hidden agenda?

#12

I doubt it. More likely the reporter couldn’t be bothered getting to learn the details of otaku culture for what had to have been a pretty low-priority article.

#13

Rather than a reporter, she seems to a be a blogger on Japanese culture, so I doubt it’s due to mistakes.

Saying there’s “absolutely no overlap” between lolicon and 2d love seems a bit naive, though.

#14

Oh, I’m not saying moe culture and ero culture don’t overlap (I consider lolicon a subset of 2D love, so your point regarding that is moot by definition). It’s just that the author made pointed references to the connection in a “study” drawn from a very small, probably nonrandom, sample size. I not only find these references misleading, but it smacks of pandering to the prejudices of one’s target audience (telling them what they want to hear, rather than telling it as it is). That’s generally considered bad journalism. Better journalism would’ve been providing pictures of the characters / dolls in question and not calling attention to their “age”: let the readers do that for themselves.

#15

I agree it sounds like the bias on the reporter came through on that article.

#16