Perv on a Japanese Schoolgirl in Tekken Team's Project Morpheus Demo

[WindKnight]

it reminds me of 3D animated hentai. Don't ask.

What needs to be asked, it's pretty self-explanatory.

OT: Well duh. Anybody expected Japanese game developers not to make something like this the moment they got their hands on a VR system? Ogling girls sells like hotcakes in Japan, just look at current anime. Sure, so it does in the West, but we tend to be a bit more discreet.

Funny thing is, when the most infamous hentai Urotsukidoji: legend of the Overfiend was released in the UK, there were perhaps 500 anime fans... and it sold over 50,000 copies, which also a lot better than it did in Japan.

Not gonna say some weird s*** doesn't come out of Japan, but we in the west sure love to gobble it up, and the primary audience isn't anime fans.

500 anime fans in the UK? Where did you get that number from? It's specific and I am extremely curious. I would have thought there'd be way more than that.

We're talking about a specific time period in the 90's (when there was a big 'cult anime' boom) when manga video and the like were starting out with sci-fi, nasties and stuff like that, and would make safe titles 'edgier' with fifteening (artificially adding swearing to the script to get a 15 certificate, so it would be cooler to teenagers).

 

[kael013]

The vast majority of cultures may have 18 as their age of majority (and even a good portion of them have caveats for younger ages if married/emancipated/has a kid/etc.) but that doesn't give the members of those cultures - that means you and me - the right to impose our views on those who don't by setting an universal definition on something so nebulous and arbitrary.

Actually, it does. It's called language. In English, a child can refer to any human under the age of majority. So if you live somewhere that has an age of majority at, say, 16, and you happen to be English, a seventeen-year-old would not be a child using that definition.

Simply saying that other people or places don't use it, is not a compelling argument.

Well, if you want to get into language semantics... The word child can also be used to refer to an adult if used by an even older adult, like a 70-year old calling someone 30 years younger child. Of course, the reverse also applies as a 30-year old can call a 70-year old a child when they're acting like one. Therefore, we are all children since that word can be applied to anyone. Can you see where I'm going with this?

Also, English isn't the only language in the world and I can think of many, [i/]many[/i] people that will argue with you that because you use that one language that gives you carte blanche to set definitions to cultural traits.

And finally, simply saying that you do use it is not a compelling argument.

 

[thewatergamer]

Soooo how is this wrong or pervy?

I don't speak Japanese but all I saw was an A.I. reacting like a normal human, it looks pretty much how two human being would interact with each other, I don't get how this is perverted...

Again I don't speak Japanese though so maybe I'm just missing something, its more likely though people are seeing something that isn't really there... Could be wrong though I guess I'll just wait for more context and wait until we can see more

 

[Fox12]

I'd swear that judging by their entertainment industry you'd think that life just ends for the Japanese man when he gets his diploma out of high school.

Because That's technically the truth, especially if you're just a run of the mill salaryman, handing off his paycheck each month to his wife.

Please show the sources you used to come to the conclusion that the "average" Japanese salary man loses control over his money to his wife.

Japan's New Middle Class; the Salary Man and His Family in a Tokyo Suburb
By Ezra F. Vogel

Can't find a better exact source, it's because most of it that I heard came directly from my Japanese friends.

A book is not a source for that claim; I won't link you to a book detailing American History to support my argument that Ford built a car. What you do is show a specific page or portion of text relevant to your claim.

Conjecture and hearsay aren't sources either, no.

Also, his response should be double spaced, with 1" margins, times new roman. The fact that his sources weren't written in the proper MLA format, with no annotations or footnotes is also totally unacceptable. I also expected at least three primary source documents to be included among his sources.

Oh, wait, this is an Internet forum, not a graduate course. Oh...

 

[Lightknight]

So what is the "digital depiction" of a child? Because you just said this isn't a child, it's a thing, an "it." So how do you display a child digitally if no digital display is a child? Did you mean to say the display of real children? Am I missing something? I feel I'm missing something.

This isn't displaying a child digitally. This is a depiction of a child. The distinction is that this isn't a person.

I'm trying to distinguish between a picture or video of a real person that is in a digital format from a fabricated work of fiction.

So a better word is that this is a construction, fabrication, fiction.

The definition you made applies to humans. This is not a human. It has no rights and is not legally a minor or a major. It is nothing. No digitally fabricated image will ever be in the majority age. Not unless it has real sentience and our laws change.

 

[VanQ]

This ain't nearly as creepy as you make it out to be. I'd say lighten up but then again this is the guy that called Atelier Totori an "objectification sim."

Anyways, looks uninteresting. That guy has a ballin' iDOLM@STER shirt though. I'd have a drink with him and discuss idols any day.

 

[WindKnight]

Fifteening? I'm not sure how to respond to that. On one hand, I want to laugh at the people making the content for being so pathetic. But on the other, it apparently worked? Maybe I should swear more often. I want to be cool.

Considering we ended up with stuff like this:


and I often couldn't share stuff I thought my mother or family would like because of the offensive language, I was really not a fan of it.(though it did have one anime have a character told off for using a mild profanity wryly amusing)

To be fair, they were generally aiming more at the beer and curry market than actual fans.

 

[Fox12]

I'd swear that judging by their entertainment industry you'd think that life just ends for the Japanese man when he gets his diploma out of high school.

Because That's technically the truth, especially if you're just a run of the mill salaryman, handing off his paycheck each month to his wife.

Please show the sources you used to come to the conclusion that the "average" Japanese salary man loses control over his money to his wife.

Japan's New Middle Class; the Salary Man and His Family in a Tokyo Suburb
By Ezra F. Vogel

Can't find a better exact source, it's because most of it that I heard came directly from my Japanese friends.

A book is not a source for that claim; I won't link you to a book detailing American History to support my argument that Ford built a car. What you do is show a specific page or portion of text relevant to your claim.

Conjecture and hearsay aren't sources either, no.

Also, his response should be double spaced, with 1" margins, times new roman. The fact that his sources weren't written in the proper MLA format, with no annotations or footnotes is also totally unacceptable. I also expected at least three primary source documents to be included among his sources.

Oh, wait, this is an Internet forum, not a graduate course. Oh...

I asked for the exact source because they made a claim and I wanted to see the evidence, not read a book that may or may not actually have the evidence they claim it does. Formatting or environment have nothing to do with it. So your narrative isn't really relevant.

You expected someone to go find a book, pick out the specific page, and then transcribe the entire document for you? I'm sorry, but that's a little bit unreasonable. The guy was just providing a bit of insight based on experiances he's had with Japanese friends. Most people don't have the time to back every comment on the escapist with academic sources. Is that the most intellectually honest way to base a claim or win an academic debate? No, but this isn't a formal debate group. You wouldn't talk like this in a casual setting like a party (I hope) so why would you make these demands here?

OT: I'm usually the first person to get irritated by this, but... It was pretty inoffensive. You're just sitting in a room with someone. The writer seriously embellished the story, I was expecting a creep fest. If there's anything Pervy about the story (and there could be) then we didn't see it. Also, was that author trolling us? What was up with that link? Talk about inflammatory.

 

[WindKnight]

Beer and curry? I have so much to learn.

Something to be watched while drunk with mates - not necessarily something good, but with some gore, maybe some tits and lots of swearing to make an impact whilst having a sozzled good time. Not really something I was into, mainly cause I didn't (and dont) drink much, plus I was very much the quiet and awkward type.

 

[kael013]

And finally, simply saying that you do use it is not a compelling argument.

Which is why I used a source -- two reliable dictionaries.

I'm not disputing the definitions, I'm disputing your twisting of those definitions to fit your argument.

Also, English isn't the only language in the world and I can think of many, [i/]many[/i] people that will argue with you that because you use that one language that gives you carte blanche to set definitions to cultural traits.

I am using English and English allows me to define the world child to mean a human under the age of majority. If you don't want to use that English or you think it's bad, ok. But that has nothing to do with the validity of the definition.

So what if you're using English? You are trying to enforce a definition globally - on all cultures and all languages. Chinese may define child differently (I don't speak Chinese so I don't know, but maybe). Ever hear of ethnocentrism? Cause you're practicing it right now. Also the full English definition was a young human being before puberty or age of majority. Using one half and ignoring the other is bad usage, I'm sorry. EDIT: yeah, you got 2 sources. I saw 5 that never mentioned age of majority, including alternate definitions on your sources. In fact, your Merriam-Webster source doesn't include "age of majority" in [i/]any[/i] of it's definitions.

I asked for the exact source because they made a claim and I wanted to see the evidence, not read a book that may or may not actually have the evidence they claim it does. Formatting or environment have nothing to do with it. So your narrative isn't really relevant.

On the other hand that book may actually have the evidence you claim to want to see. This is really you just going: Boo hoo, they gave me a source I didn't want! Boo hoo hoo. Because what's the point of asking for a source then dismissing it when you got it because it was in a book and not an internet article?

 

[Necron_warrior]

So what is the "digital depiction" of a child? Because you just said this isn't a child, it's a thing, an "it." So how do you display a child digitally if no digital display is a child? Did you mean to say the display of real children? Am I missing something? I feel I'm missing something.

This isn't displaying a child digitally. This is a depiction of a child. The distinction is that this isn't a person.

I'm trying to distinguish between a picture or video of a real person that is in a digital format from a fabricated work of fiction.

So a better word is that this is a construction, fabrication, fiction.

The definition you made applies to humans. This is not a human. It has no rights and is not legally a minor or a major. It is nothing. No digitally fabricated image will ever be in the majority age. Not unless it has real sentience and our laws change.

Why did you say the following?

I have a serious problem with depicting young children even in digital form.

You clearly said you have a serious problem with "depicting" young children. But here you say this isn't a display, it's a depiction of a child, so it's ok. If this is a depiction of a child, which you have a serious problem with, you would have to take issue with it, yes?

His difference is that an animated 3-D depiction of a child is different from a video of child pornography, due to one existing in reality and the other not. (At least I think that's the point he's making.)