This question comes out of a conversation I had with a friend the other day. Yes Kumiko I am promoting Bishoujo . We started arguing about the appearances of characters in certain games like Little My Maid. I tend to view it as a matter of art style. He found it objectionable in that the characters appeared too young. I’m curious as to everyone’s view on the matter.
Yeah, I point to Saber Marionette J as an example. Lime looks young but you’d be mislead if you evaluated her just from a picture and not the story. These cute styles I don’t think are any less of a depiction of feminine beauty or maturity. As for violence I tend to get that view from women a lot. My view is that its a fun way to get out agressive tendacies without beating up your friends. As for coming of age sex. Well, I’m alittle divided on that. I do take the point that is part of our culture and a fact of society. However, as I understand it the depiction of it is against the law. My friend would say “objectionable”. So should law be more reflective of life. Life more constrained to the law however impractical, is it a non-issue all characters represented are 18, or something else?
BTW, FYI, the age of consent in Japan is 13 (source: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm )…
Well, the “legal age” is different depending on where you go, it seems, but in most parts of the world, the legal age seems to be 15-18… In my country, the legal age for having sex is 15, but it’s allowed to have sex at 13-14 too accoring to the law IF the parents of both the boy and thr girl in question has given them their blessing to do so.
My US $0.02.
This will somewhat contradicts Kumiko’s POV. To me some characters of some games appears too young. (Background: I am Chinese born) A quick comparison: in Snow Drop, Kasumi does appear to be of her, as well as Keika (both around mid 20’s), but Kyoka looks like 16. (Not to mention Honami…). In TCI, characters are sort of better portrayed, even the trio. But, as for LMM, some characters seems to be on the borderline.
I won’t make too much fuss on the matter if the character stated age is over 18, or if the age of consent is below 18, but the fact that they look underage. Why? Somebody might get the wrong impression and think about kiddie porn… You know, different culture have different perspectives.
(Other games: Slave Bazaar, all characters looks above 18, no problems here; X-Change, are we trying to fool somebody?; Critical Point, even the cute Reiko look above 18)
Exactly, this runs in my train of thought. I’m not so concerned of what apparent ages are but more in the realm of will people not buy Bishoujo games because of it. Worse yet could the genre be banned by zealous conservatives.
quote:
Originally posted by fxho:
(...)
This will somewhat contradicts Kumiko's POV. To me some characters of some games appears too young. (Background: I am Chinese born) A quick comparison: in Snow Drop, Kasumi does appear to be of her, as well as Keika (both around mid 20's), but Kyoka looks like 16. (Not to mention Honami...). In TCI, characters are sort of better portrayed, even the trio. But, as for LMM, some characters seems to be on the borderline.I won't make too much fuss on the matter if the character stated age is over 18, or if the age of consent is below 18, but the fact that they look underage. Why? Somebody might get the wrong impression and think about kiddie porn... You know, different culture have different perspectives.
(Other games: Slave Bazaar, all characters looks above 18, no problems here; X-Change, are we trying to fool somebody?; Critical Point, even the cute Reiko look above 18)
I quoted the age of consent because it shows what people of different countries would consider "underage". If a country's age of consent is 14 for instance, then by no way a 14 girl or boy would be considered "underage" for sex matters, isn't (s)he?
Also, one should consider the difference in age of consent created by time. Even in Europe, before 19th Century, the age of consent would be 14 for boys and 12 for girls (eg. the famous Romeo and Juliet ARE 14 (Romeo) and 13 (Juliet)). So, any medieval-setting which want to be a little accurate should use such an age range. But then, bigots are not clever enough to see that point... [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/frown.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by olf_le_fol (edited 02-06-2002).]
Ok, Aside from pointing these are not live
actors, what effect would any assumed age have for a drawning in a game person? I really
have to agree 100 % with Kumiko on this, the same kind of person that assume that all the
charaters in a game are being sexualy abused
are same one who would have no issue if you
blow-up or shoot same charater. there is group in usa that really dont care how you miam and kill as long as there not haveing sex! I dont think that this is even a sane point of view. Gee just dont give him/her a orgasm!
I’ve edited here and there.
quote:
Originally posted by Kumiko Kamiyama:other games with killing and violence, that’s far worse than seeing sex with a young-looking character.
I agree wholeheartedly. I’ve never understood why physical initmacy is considered more damaging than killing and maiming in the US. Talk about screwed-up values!
quote:
Girls in the adult industry are often asked when they first had sex - the answers are usually in the early teen range.
While I agree with Kumiko, I wouldn’t count on the adult industry for being a good cross sample. It has been said (and I’m really annoyed that I can’t find the supporting literature at the moment) that close to 50% of the “sex workers” in the US adult industry were either abused as children or victims of non-consensual acts.
quote:
When you go to talking about simply artwork, it becomes a moot point - art should not be constrained to any individual’s point of view as to what is “acceptable”.
Very true, but sadly, not the way it is. Think of the furor over Mapplethorpe. The furor over the “Elephant Dung” painting in the NYC Museum. We can each decide for ourselves what is “acceptable” or “unacceptable” art, but too many people in this world want to make the decision for the rest of us. (Which really burns my toast! )
quote:
Consider this - in popular shows like Buffy, you had a character who was very definitely a child being “instructed” by the vampire lord about killing, torturing, etc… and the young boy drank it all in calmly. Now, if anyone would be upset about something, wouldn’t this be a bit more upsetting than drawn sexual acts? This is a real person, after all - sure, they’re playing a part …
Great point! It all goes back to that screwed up set of values Americans seem to have breed into them:
violence = good
sex = bad
As for whether the girls look too young, I must admit, I think the “little sister” in Snow Drop is pushing it a bit much (and there are probably other games where I would think the same thing), but then, that’s my opinion. I wouldn’t demand her character be removed from the game or redrawn with bigger breasts or anything like that. I simply avoid that which is not to my taste.
[This message has been edited by tennyo (edited 02-05-2002).]
quote:
Originally posted by olf_le_fol:
I quote the age of consent because it shows what people of different countries would consider "underage". If a country's age of consent is 14 for instance, then by no way a 14 girl or boy would be considered "underage" for sex matters, isn't (s)he?
Point taken. Unfortunately, you must take in account that (in this case) age of consent in Japan (according to the page) is 13, but the age of consent in the US is at least 16 (depending on where). Obviously it varies everywhere else. That's still a factor, as say, having sex at 15 in Japan is legal, but will be frown by some other countries regulations. And here comes the main point: the games are based on Japanese culture and being imported to the US. The Japanese Laws will not protect you if you happen to have a game which US laws consider underage...
quote:
Originally posted by olf_le_fol:
Also, one should consider the difference in age of consent created by [b]time. Even in Europe, before 19th Century, the age of consent would be 14 for boys and 12 for girls (eg. the famous Romeo and Juliet ARE 14 (Romeo) and 13 (Juliet)). So, any medieval-setting which want to be a little accurate should use such an age range. But then, bigots are not clever enough to see that point... [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/frown.gif[/img][/b]
Not to mention arranged marriages where the groom and bride ages are less than two digits each...
When olf_le_fol originally brought up the age of consent issue the link he offered http://www.ageofconsent.com/ageofconsent.htm does have more detailed info going into the age of consent. The article seems to describe laws which allow for consexual sex at the age of 13 but bans exploitive use such as prostitution and pornography. It further explains that critics point out that vagueness in the wording leaves “gaping holes” in the law. However, more important to this discussion is the effect of the market here. While I believe the majority of board users here are more open to Japanese views than the norm, there remains the primary issue of any market to be profitable. Does the issue of the appearances of characters cause loss of possible market share due to American perceptions? Would loss of the themes lose interest in the market to those already avidly following it? It comes down to how this issue affects market share from the core fans to the more casual adopters.
quote:
Originally posted by tennyo:
(...)
While I agree with Kumiko, I wouldn't count on the adult industry for being a good cross sample. It has been said (and I'm really annoyed that I can't find the supporting literature at the moment) that close to 50% of the "sex workers" in the US adult industry were either abused as children or victims of non-consensual acts.
Okay. So here are figures for young girls not from the US adult industry... In fact, normal Japanese schoolgirls.
http://mdn.mainichi.co.jp/waiwai/0202/020205schoolgirls.html
[This message has been edited by olf_le_fol (edited 02-06-2002).]
just noticed Devadasy in the PeachPrinces anime dvd section
in the game, one of the girls is 11
im guessing she’s not in the anime version?
quote:
Originally posted by tennyo:
As for whether the girls look too young, I must admit, I think the "little sister" in Snow Drop is pushing it a bit much (and there are probably other games where I would think the same thing), but then, that's my opinion. I wouldn't demand her character be removed from the game or redrawn with bigger breasts or anything like that. I simply avoid that which is not to my taste.
[This message has been edited by tennyo (edited 02-05-2002).]
Holy crap, I hadn't even given that much thought until tennyo brought that up. The criteria for assessing the physical age of a fictional piece of art is arbitrary. How exactly do you define someone as 'underage' or 'of age of consent'? What is your evaluative criteria, the 3 sizes, the manner of speech, the given age?
I did always find America's double standard for violence and for sexual relationship extremely disturbing. In Taiwan where I came from, the ownership of firearms is unheard of, but here the ownership of firearm is defended as a right because of the constitution.
quote:
Originally posted by bokmeow:
I did always find America's double standard for violence and for sexual relationship extremely disturbing. In Taiwan where I came from, the ownership of firearms is unheard of, but here the ownership of firearm is defended as a right because of the constitution.
While I take no issue with the fact that in the US we have an unusually violent culture I do take issue with the fact that few people seem to ever understand why the 2nd ammendment in our Bill of Rights was included. You need to throw out your current outlook and think of the culture of that time. Unlike their counterparts in England Americans were allowed to carry firearms because it was essential tool for frontier life for hunting and defense. In England commoners were not allowed to carry firearms. Why? Control. Peasants with pitch forks don't do to well against a fireing squad. When the americans revolted the bulk of their army was filled with ranks of farmers who were experienced with guns. So at that time guns were viewed as a right because it guaranteed your right to revolt against an opressive government. Its not because they just threw that in there for all the gun weilding yahoos. Flash foward 200 years. In light of technological improvement your farmers gun isn't anything close to being a military weapon. In light of this should the current ammendment be revised to reflect modern times and the original intent of it? Probably. But, the point is there was a reason that was included.
I wanted to get more back to the subject. How do we guess the characters might be under age hmmm… ? First example that comes to mind Midnight Panther by CPM a manga series in the chapter “school daze” they changed the storyline to say they were college students instead of high school students to comply with the law. No sex scenes of minors under 18. Can we think of even 1 game like this. Bet that didn’t take anyone too long. Wether or not you or I agree with the law doesn’t matter (unless your going to change it). Pushing the edges of it could be disastrous legally. 2ndly like it or not in a culture that doesn’t find it acceptable by and large it only shrinks the total available customer base. A very bad thing in an industry trying to emerge.
[This message has been edited by tabris17 (edited 02-10-2002).]
quote:
Originally posted by tabris17:
While I take no issue with the fact that in the US we have an unusually violent culture I do take issue with the fact that few people seem to ever understand why the 2nd ammendment in our Bill of Rights was included. You need to throw out your current outlook and think of the culture of that time. Unlike their counterparts in England Americans were allowed to carry firearms because it was essential tool for frontier life for hunting and defense. In England commoners were not allowed to carry firearms. Why? Control. Peasants with pitch forks don't do to well against a fireing squad. When the americans revolted the bulk of their army was filled with ranks of farmers who were experienced with guns. So at that time guns were viewed as a right because it guaranteed your right to revolt against an opressive government. Its not because they just threw that in there for all the gun weilding yahoos. Flash foward 200 years. In light of technological improvement your farmers gun isn't anything close to being a military weapon. In light of this should the current ammendment be revised to reflect modern times and the original intent of it? Probably. But, the point is there was a reason that was included.
I know well why the 'Right to Bear Arms' clause was included in the constitution, and it is part of the reason conspiracy theory is so pervasive in American ideology because the distrust in the ruling establishment is so entrenched. I didn't want to mention it because I thought most people would then try to take up new defense for the right to bear arms, which is clearly not the purpose of this thread. Even the political climate in America is paradoxical. On one hand Americans don't want the Government, or 'The Man' to interfere too much with everyone's daily lives, but when something monumental happens, there is a huge outcry for responsibility, and the political groups bow to public pressure and tightens its stranglehold, leading to hysterical witch hunts, without fulling understanding the causes that gave rise to the events leading up to them.
Thanks Kumiko, with your answer I consider my concerns answered . Bokemow, witch hunt? But as you say, not relevant really to this thread, another time .