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

[Candidus]

I want to highlight a particular portion of your statement:

Drop the pretense that there's a WRONG way and a RIGHT way to do tits and ass and just enjoy yourself?

The "tits and ass" you are referring to happen to be that of a child. Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?

This is a Japanese high school girl, which means she's between 16-18.

In the UK, the age of consent is 16 and although I think the only appropriate partner for a 16 year old is someone within a couple of years of their age, I scoff when people from the US call them 'children'. They are young adults, well capable of deciding whether or not it is right for them to start copulating- and whether I agree with it or not, they are also well within their rights to decide to flirt with grown men and women as well. This is true in my view whether the 16 year old in question is real or fictional.

But that aside, you're conflating my comment with the part of this matter that it suits you best to conflate it with.

My chief objection is to the OP's complaint as regards "baseness", and when I say "there's no right or wrong way", I'm thinking of things like Dragon's Crown and other often maligned examples of hyper-sexualisation far more explicit than this.

Basically, stop having a problem with baseness. Everything that is fun is base.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Drop the pretense that there's a WRONG way and a RIGHT way to do tits and ass and just enjoy yourself?

The "tits and ass" you are referring to happen to be that of a child. Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?

How old is the character depicted in the demo/game? I didn't see where that was mentioned anywhere in the article, or the demo.

With the context, I suppose she could be anywhere from...say...13-18, which, by the way, is an adolescent and not a "child." Given that we don't know what grade the character being depicted is in, or if she's even an actual schoolgirl and not just someone dressed as one, it strikes me as very poor form to go responding to people with such nakedly accusatory language.

Child is a perfectly fine descriptor for someone under the age of eighteen. Both Oxford and Merriam give many definitions, including the following:

"A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

and

"A person not yet of age."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/child
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

The demo in question is titled "Summer Lesson" and features a young looking girl in a school uniform. What is your issue exactly?

You're fully aware of the suggestion implied by the use of the term. Don't be coy about it now.

Would you say someone who was 13-18, with developed breasts, was not "of age" or "below the age of puberty?"

I'll be charitable and give you "age of majority," though that's a fluid definition that varies from country to country, and "of age" is just as murky, given that it can mean a few different things.

Again, let me remind you that the age of the character in question has not been given and that using the term "child" in order to incite shame in a fellow poster when you don't have all the information required to make that claim is, frankly, just a bit disingenuous.

 

[SadisticFire]

"A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

To be fair you said or, and legal age can be changed from country/culture to country/culture.

OT:Oh those crazy japanese people! always making stuff pervy! Oh theeem. On a different on topic note, did the audio feel super off to the video or am I just *really* bad at lip reading now.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Yes, I would and do refer to people under eighteen as children. The age of majority is a valid definition. If you dispute that, by all means. But your argument is with Webster and Oxford, not with me.

If someone feels ashamed of their enjoyment of this product or ones like it, that is their issue. Again, no one has said or done anything but state amusement, wonder or shock. Projection does not make for actual persecution.

I'm glad that you have a particular way of referring to an age group and apparently don't have any idea about the implications of using the term.

Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?

None what so ever.

I'm less glad to see that you've completely avoided the fact that you do not know the age of the character, which, again, could be anywhere from 13-18 if she's an "actual" schoolgirl, dependent on grade, or well into her 20's-30's if she's not...nevermind the fact that the character is pixels.

Note the broad age range. It's there because we don't know the age of the character.

You've gotten me a bit down here though, so please, enjoy your morning.

 

[Doom972]

While it's not explicitly explicit, it's certainly somewhat... disappointing to see Sony appealing to such a base instinct, particularly with all that female representation in video games controversy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137184-Anita-Sarkeesian-and-Gamers-Against-Games] flowing around the web recently.

I applaud Sony for ignoring that and giving people what they want. It makes me want to get a PS4 on principle alone, and I'm a PC gamer.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Right now I imagine the head of Team Ninja is jumping up, putting his tie around his head, shotgunning a schooner of Sapporo Dry and screaming out "Shots Fired, ************!"

I don't believe for one minute that the DoA guys aren't going to want in on this action.

 

[mtarzaim02]

I see this as another Dream C Club-like game, where you speak to an acted stereotype of women, just to feel a hypocrite feeling of confort and warmth.
Basically, a hostess game, which will cost a lot less than any real hostess bar.
No sure either if we can call that "sub-culture", considering this late-night activity is quite shared among japanese salarymen.

btw, if the real player was at the same age of the virtual girl depicted here, would it be more appropriate?

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Yes, I would and do refer to people under eighteen as children. The age of majority is a valid definition. If you dispute that, by all means. But your argument is with Webster and Oxford, not with me.

If someone feels ashamed of their enjoyment of this product or ones like it, that is their issue. Again, no one has said or done anything but state amusement, wonder or shock. Projection does not make for actual persecution.

I'm glad that you have a particular way of referring to an age group and apparently don't have any idea about the implications of using the term.

Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?

None what so ever.

I'm less glad to see that you've completely avoided the fact that you do not know the age of the character, which, again, could be anywhere from 13-18 if she's an "actual" schoolgirl, dependent on grade, or well into her 20's-30's if she's not.

Note the broad age range. It's there because we don't know the age of the character.

You've gotten me a bit down here though, so please, enjoy your morning.

I didn't ask what portion of that amuses you. I asked someone else - the person that made the statement.

I avoided nothing:

The demo in question is titled "Summer Lesson" and features a young looking girl in a school uniform.

Arguing a young looking girl in a school uniform, featured in a demo called "Summer Lessons" is at least eighteen and not a child is by all means your right. But to extend that further and suggest it must be likely enough to withhold judgement is not something that can be reasonably expected. If it were any other context, I doubt you would argue that a person of similar look and style was an adult.

The assumptions I am making: she is not an adult; she is wearing a school uniform; she is female. I'll have to beg your pardon if any of those assumptions are incorrect, but I see absolutely no reason to believe any are incorrect. Wanting them to be or thinking they might be is not evidence to the contrary, and her appearance and her presentation are valid enough for me.

You avoided it until this very post, but eh...

Again, I'm quite glad that you've made a decision regarding the age of a character you don't actually know the age of, which is your right as well, but I'm going to have to disagree with your (subconscious?) decision to use said term (and its implication) as a bludgeon against someone else.

Without the context of "schoolgirl" one could easily make an argument for an age beyond your "requirements" for the definition of "child." Why? Because it's a young looking woman. Do you know a lot of young women? Hell, I've known plenty women who do not look their age, on either end of the scale. Japanese women especially are noted for being difficult to gauge the age of...so.

With the context of "schoolgirl" the age range runs from 13-18, depending on the grade. With 18 being the age of a "legal adult" in most countries, (20 in Japan, curiously) that narrows the age you could rationally consider her to be a "child" to 13-17. And again, this is assuming that the "schoolgirl" is an "actual" schoolgirl and this isn't some sort of roleplay.

And, again, I'm glad that you've made assumptions without necessary details, but your assumptions on the matter are not evidence in and of themselves, for which I need to provide contrary evidence.

We can certainly agree to disagree, but perhaps tone down the obvious attempts to shame your peers.

 

[Grahav]

While it's not explicitly explicit, it's certainly somewhat... disappointing to see Sony appealing to such a base instinct, particularly with all that female representation in video games controversy [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/137184-Anita-Sarkeesian-and-Gamers-Against-Games] flowing around the web recently.

I applaud Sony for ignoring that and giving people what they want. It makes me want to get a PS4 on principle alone, and I'm a PC gamer.

Pretty much. I bought the hell out of DoA 5 and Dragon's Crown after all the media tried to bash them with the politically correct hammer.

Also games don't cause violence, they only cause rape. Apparently.

People really think we are stupid enough to not distinguish reality and Escapist fantasies.

 

[Deshin]

Child is a perfectly fine descriptor for someone under the age of eighteen. Both Oxford and Merriam give many definitions, including the following:

"A young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority."

and

"A person not yet of age."

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/child
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/child

The demo in question is titled "Summer Lesson" and features a young looking girl in a school uniform. What is your issue exactly?

Yes, I would and do refer to people under eighteen as children. The age of majority is a valid definition. If you dispute that, by all means. But your argument is with Webster and Oxford, not with me.

14-18 year olds are not childen. You hit puberty in your early teens and biologically you are an adult and able to reproduce. Age of majority is a variable defined by county, a variable which nature doesn't give two shits about because as far as nature and biology are concerned once your nuts/ovaries start working it's all good for a hormone cocktail to flood the body's systems like niagra falls.

 

[Deshin]

The age of majority here is 18-21. Both Oxford and Webster state that a child may be defined as someone younger than the age of majority. In fact, you quoted my sources.

And in some countries the age is 14, or 16, or 17. Any descriptor that can change based on an imaginary geographical line you can cross is a crappy descriptor. When someone says "child" most people think of ages 5-12.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Then how did I quote one of my earlier comments that addressed the age?

Even if you're referring to your explanation and use of the term "child"...you still didn't.

Stating that it's a "child" in no way addresses the fact that you don't know the actual age, and that is what I was asking of you. You did not address it until that last post.

You're going to have to offer a quote of me shaming someone if you are going to make that claim.

I already did, but here it is a second time.

Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?

Again, if you're just not aware of the implication then fine. Honest mistakes do happen, after all.

Without the context of "schoolgirl" one could easily make an argument for an age beyond your "requirements" for the definition of "child." Why? Because it's a young looking woman.

Care to explain why your assumption that she is a "young looking female" that "could easily be argued" to be older than seventeen is valid, and yet my assumptions are not? Is it because you agree with yourself and not with me?

Firstly, I don't assume that she is "a young looking female." You yourself quoted, from the article, that she's a "young looking girl." With that said, I don't think you get what I'm arguing here.

I am not saying that my arguments are more valid. I do not know the age of the person involved and neither do you, but I could, in response to you and your assumptions, make a reasonable argument for something else. The "validity" of either of our arguments on the matter is suspect and ultimately unprovable with current evidence. The difference, however, is that I am not making a point of (consciously or not) shaming others in the thread with my personal definitions on subject matter that I'm making assumptions on.

Once more, we can certainly agree to disagree, and we ultimately will, but please recognize what you're saying and how you're saying it.

 

[Caffiene]

[...]
Reductio ad absurdum -

1: disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
2: the carrying of something to an absurd extreme

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reductio%20ad%20absurdum
[...]

If you don't straw man their argument or carry it to some absurd extreme [...]

A little bit off topic, but I feel like I should point out that you seem to have the wrong idea about the use of reductio ad absurdum. It is not a logical fallacy like the strawman... it is a valid and recognised formal logical tactic. As mentioned in the definition you quoted, it is a method of proving a point (/disproving the opponent's point).

The idea is that you take an opposing position and carry it through to a conclusion at an extreme (but valid) point. If those conclusions seem absurd, then you have shown that the opposing position's logic leads to absurdity.

The way to answer an argument like that is to show that it is a false reductio ad absurdum - for example in this case you would say that, because it is based on a strawman of the opposing position, the absurdity is not coming from the opponent's premises and therefore is not a valid reductio ad absurdum.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

You didn't actually demonstrate shame. You simply quoted me.

You know what? I take it back.

Good day to you.

 

[DarkhoIlow]

Oh Japan how I love you.

You know what your audience loves and you just go for it. Kudos for that!

 

[Deshin]

The age of majority here is 18-21. Both Oxford and Webster state that a child may be defined as someone younger than the age of majority. In fact, you quoted my sources.

And in some countries the age is 14, or 16, or 17. Any descriptor that can change based on an imaginary geographical line you can cross is a crappy descriptor. When someone says "child" most people think of ages 5-12.

All language can change based on location. If you think it's an issue, please, get into contact with Merriam and Oxford and argue your case.

Or you could stop being pedantic and contrarian just for the sake of ruffling feathers. Anything past puberty is not a child, quote as many dictionaries as you like no one in their right mind refers to teenagers as 'children'. Puberty is the cut off point where you stop being a child, it's really that simple. No reliance on laws or cultures; "Do your privates work?" If yes, congrats, you're no longer a child. Now I'll agree it doesn't make you an adult, but to still call one a child, especially with the conoctations and implications ("Some people don't think there is a right or wrong way to "do" the "tits and ass" of a child. Could you explain what part of that "amuses" you?") that go with it would be irresponsible of the speaker.

 

[giles]

Well, if it goes into the hilariously weird territory I can see myself getting something like this and playing it with my sister and her fiance during our gaming nights.

I don't agree with the underlying problem of holing up school girls as some sexual ideal, but that seems to be a problem of Japanese culture, not this game.

 

[SuperSuperSuperGuy]

I generally turn a blind eye to any "pervy" anime or games from Japan, on account of the fact that I'm not exactly innocent of enjoying them, but like the article says, it does have a very voyeuristic feel to it. The whole thing seems really empty and enclosed simultaneously, as well. Honestly, the preview seemed lifeless and a little uncanny to me, and that actually creeps me out more than the voyeurism.

The problem that I have with voyeurism is that it's generally non-consensual and somewhat predatory. However, it's better if people with fantasies of voyeurism channel them into games like this instead of actually enacting them; no one is hurt or made uncomfortable, since the character in the game is completely fictional. As long as no one hurts anyone or makes them feel uncomfortable, I don't really care what they do in their private time. I'm not really into this sort of thing, but if other people are, then I can't really say anything about it, as long as they don't act like sexual predators in real life.

Also, I found it really fitting, and kind of hilarious, that the game director was wearing an Idolm@ster T-shirt in the video. Not really relevant to the game, just something I thought was funny, considering that Idolm@ster is pretty much about pretty young girls who sing.

 

[NeutralDrow]

So, um...anyone who speaks better Japanese than me want to point out what he's saying?

I mean, there's a little bit of male gaze involved, but otherwise it didn't seem all that pervy.

 

[PunkRex]

The unfortunate reality, and I realize many people will find this difficult to accept, is that if this tech or rather these devices want to ever have a chance of succeeding in a huge way then the porn industry - especially the animated porn industry (which yes is millions of times huger than most people posting here are probably aware as its not just japan in to this stuff in a big way), is going to have to do very well with it initially.

Porn actually helped people accept dvd as a format in a huge way. Online video streaming - again porn industry really made it become a huge thing.

Its a sad truth but a very real one; porn always helps drive innovation and acceptance of certain technologies. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the number one selling application for virtual headsets in the future is some kind of porn sim game.

Depressing perhaps but then that's humanity for you.

I honestly don't get why it's depressing.

Humanity is more willing to accept something that targets it's baser instincts, yeah, no shizz.

Violent games are a huge seller because of power fantasies, junk food makes ridiculous money because it tastes good, hell the only reason the Australian Crocodile has been saved from extinction is because they're now being farmed for hand bag material.

Basic desires are like raw vegetables, they arn't gourmet but they're still good for you.

I'm not saying VR in the place of actual social interaction and relationships is healthy (although that could be said for any medium) but a bit of porn isn't going to hurt anyone; just like anything else, when used moderately, it's healthy.

I do feel bad for the crocodiles though... over two hundred million years of evolution to wind up strung over the arm of some fashionista... with naught inside but a miniature dog, matching purse and the weeping soul of a predator.