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

[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.)

 

[DrOswald]

Didn't really come off as pervy to me. Sure, you can look at her breasts, but that is about as far as it goes. And I really don't see how her backing away when the player gets uncomfortably close contributes to the perverseness. I can certainly see the massive potential for people to be pervy, but there is nothing inherently pervy about talking to a girl.

 

[EyeReaper]

So, call me a horny toad, but I didn't really see any perversity in that trailer. Hell, I saw the girl admonishing lewd behavior, at the 0:29 mark, much like how Ashley in RE4 would insult you if you rotated the camera to look up her skirt.

Also, on the subject of "Young looking women being sexualized and whether it's wrong or not" that seems to be going onin this thread... I don't think it's a bad thing. I would rather a pedophile ogle a virtual child than a real one, and in my belief, a fetish is a fetish. People should be judged based on their fetishes just as much as they should their gender or sexuality.

 

[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.

You've not explained why you're telling me any of this. Someone made a claim and I asked if they could should me the relevant evidence they used to come to such a conclusion. That's the end of the dialog. It's not a debate. It's not an argument.

It just sounded like you were attacking him, something that may have been totally unintentional. It's fine to ask for sources if you're curious for something, it just seemed like you were trying to turn a non argument into an argument. If I came across as rude, then I apologize, it was unintentional.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

#1 Does it make money?
#2 Is it legal?
#3 Is it a completely optional purchase?
#4 Is it safe i.e. doesn't cause any direct harm to anyone?

If "yes" is the answer to all 4 of the above, then such things will continue being produced for the foreseeable future (#1 being key).

...and I see nothing wrong with that. I hope most logical people would agree.

Well yes, agree. But its hilariously shameless to unveil their new device with porn at major conference. Good for Sony not giving any fucks

 

[Mikeyfell]

Hmmm, Game of the year?
Oh wait, am I allowed to make jokes any more?
Crap I'm not.

Uh... As far as a tech demo goes being able to move around a closed room and interact with something that's also moving around that room is pretty important.
and being able to shake your head yes and not to answer questions is a pretty cool input method.

Well if they're going to make VR at least they're... Whoo! I caught my self I was about to say another thing that was funny.

 

[youji itami]

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. They tended to favour sci-fi and nasties, 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).

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.

Fifteening was often having 1 character say f*ck just once in a film or ova as that was once an automatic 15 rating, today you would need quite a bit more,

In a way it may have saved anime in the UK, if they had been given PG ratings (12 didn't exist for home video till 1994) then if parents had bought their children anime it could have been banned completely people did complain about the violence in the 1987 Transformers film enough for it to be pulled from some cinema's after all.

 

[youji itami]

#1 Does it make money?
#2 Is it legal?
#3 Is it a completely optional purchase?
#4 Is it safe i.e. doesn't cause any direct harm to anyone?

If "yes" is the answer to all 4 of the above, then such things will continue being produced for the foreseeable future (#1 being key).

...and I see nothing wrong with that. I hope most logical people would agree.

Well yes, agree. But its hilariously shameless to unveil their new device with porn at major conference. Good for Sony not giving any fucks

Porn? that would require sex to happen, nothing but sex because no sex then it's not porn.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Porn? that would require sex to happen, nothing but sex because no sex then it's not porn.

Was a school girl sexually harassed and voyeured? The video was tame, but the implications were there

 

[youji itami]

Porn? that would require sex to happen, nothing but sex because no sex then it's not porn.

Was a school girl sexually harassed and voyeured? The video was tame, but the implications were there

That's still not porn, game of thrones is not porn but it's a hundred times more explicit than what's shown.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

Was a school girl sexually harassed and voyeured? The video was tame, but the implications were there

That's still not porn, game of thrones is not porn but it's a hundred times more explicit than what's shown.

You seem to be a little confused. Think about why people watch Game of Thrones vs why someone would play a VR game where you hang out with a school girl... I'll give you a hint: it's not for well written characters and life or death plot

 

[renegade7]

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?

There are no 18 year old high school students? She can't be a college student?

Either way, I think we're reading way too far into this...there's a reason it's called "fantasy". It's not real.

 

[youji itami]

Was a school girl sexually harassed and voyeured? The video was tame, but the implications were there

That's still not porn, game of thrones is not porn but it's a hundred times more explicit than what's shown.

You seem to be a little confused. Think about why people watch Game of Thrones vs why someone would play a VR game where you hang out with a school girl... I'll give you a hint: it's not for well written characters and life or death plot

A lag magazine (topless girls) is not porn even though it may be used for masturbation. The VR game maybe used for masturbation but that does not make what has been shown porn.

 

[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.

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.)

My main point is that Rocketgirl used a legal definition of the term "child" (intended to be used for humans) to relate to a thing which is designed to look human but is not human. For example, a doll is not a child. It is a doll. Even if it is made to look like a child, it is not legally a minor or major or anything because it is not human. You can readily destroy the doll or do anything to it really, without legal repercussions because it is a thing and not a person or creature. There is a huge distinction between a person and a thing in moral and legal discussions.

However, I would be against pornographic depictions of a child even if it weren't actually a child and was just a construction. I understand that this is imposing my own moral sensibilities though, but I just view children as one of those groups that are generally universally considered worthy of a higher degree of protection than we'd normally extend to others.

So I'm trying to disagree with the individual's misappropriation of the term to apply to non-humans while simultaneously not trying to say it's morally acceptable to depict, even fictionally, children in inappropriate ways even though there's no victim in a fictional construction.

As for this game specifically. We know too little to say anything. Could be a college aged girl, could be 18, 19, or even 20 years old and still be in highschool. The game itself may not even be sexualizing her like we all assume as this is a fairly standard school uniform even if people have largely fetishized it. If that's the case then there may not be any moral problem at all regarding anything sexual.

 

[PoolCleaningRobot]

That's still not porn, game of thrones is not porn but it's a hundred times more explicit than what's shown.

You seem to be a little confused. Think about why people watch Game of Thrones vs why someone would play a VR game where you hang out with a school girl... I'll give you a hint: it's not for well written characters and life or death plot

A lag magazine (topless girls) is not porn even though it may be used for masturbation. The VR game maybe used for masturbation but that does not make what has been shown porn.

So why does this game exist then? What's it intended to be used for? Why would someone play it?

 

[Ruisu]

However, I would be against pornographic depictions of a child even if it weren't actually a child and was just a construction.

So I'm trying to disagree with the individual's misappropriation of the term to apply to non-humans while simultaneously not trying to say it's morally acceptable to depict, even fictionally, children in inappropriate ways even though there's no victim in a fictional construction.

Why would it not be morally acceptable? Isn't the whole issue with pedophily and child pornography the damage it can cause to the children involved? So what is morally wrong with the fictional depiction of the crime?