Roshi's antics

[Cure Dragon 255]

Yeah, this is almost fascist rethoric man.

Wow. It's tragic to see that somebody is saying that criticism of their favourite series is "fascism."

Anyway, things have spiraled way out of control since I last posted here so I'm a bit lost and will withdraw from the conversation. It's REALLY depressing that I'm having to see people defend sexual assault. Special credit to Cipher, TheGreatness25, and the endlessly reasonable VegettoEX for providing logic and reason in a conversation tarnished by the toxic sludge posted by the rape apologists. There's way more I could say here but it isn't worth my time to comment on all the infuriating things people are posting here. I'm pretty sure somebody's going to get banned soon or the thread will get locked. If so, I'm sorry for starting this thread and unintentionally exposing a member of our community.

I don't even know what to say about this post. I'm speechless. You really need to go back and read through the entire thread again because nothing about what you've said is even remotely close to true, and you've also completely misconstrued PsionicWarrior's comment about fascism which has absolutely nothing to do with criticism of Dragon Ball. WHO is defending sexual assault? Where are these rape apologists spewing "toxic sludge" in this thread? Please go back and re-read the thread because that's really insulting of you to call half the people in this thread rape apologists and sexual assault defenders when we are doing nothing of the kind. I don't see any reason for anyone to be banned or for this thread to be locked. It's a controversial topic and as a result things are bound to get heated, but everyone has kept a level head and the discussion has been civil.

Not addressing any user or post in particular, but there seem to be a few points being made in this thread that aren't being picked up on. I don't know if it's a reading comprehension problem, or a lack of sincerity, but it's there.

1. This is a children's show.
Dragon Ball is, and always has been, a show for children. Children are impressionable, they are still being socialized, they are still developing intellectually, still forming their worldview and value system. I'm never in favor of restricting a child's media diet to simple and unchallenging material, but people are still products of their environment. More so than that, they are the future. They're going to clock on, tag in, take over for us, and pick up from where we left off. How they shape the world further, by their hands, is going to be informed greatly by the value systems and worldviews and character that they cultivate, which, again, are shaped by the environment created for them by us, and those before us. Attitude informs action, which goes on to inform attitudes. Causality is a bitch. It's a feedback loop, it's cyclical. These things ripple through society across generations, whether it's convenient to confront this fact or not.

This point has already been addressed. As I've said a couple pages ago, Goku goes around slapping girls in their privates as a child. Does this cause children to grow up thinking it's okay to slap girls down there? We all grew up with Dragon Ball (or at least most of us) and I'd like to think that most of us didn't turn out to be rapists or people who commit sexual assault as a result.

2. Subject matter and take-home point are distinct sources of discomfort and concern.
There's a difference between the subject matter surrounding a joke or a scene, and the take-home point of its punchline. These are two different pieces that can individually make someone uncomfortable, and for different reasons.

Sometimes, it's the subject matter itself that makes us uncomfortable. Murder and sexual assault are real things, and going through the process of experiencing discomfort by appreciating the severity of real world problems is important for empathizing with victims, prompting legitimate positive social action toward improving society and decreasing the likelihood of victimization. In this sense, it's good for us to feel uncomfortable. This is one of the things that art is supposed to do; offend, evoke emotion.

There's a different kind of discomfort that can come from the take-home point. If murder is genuinely depicted as perfectly okay and normal and something to just shrug off, in a show aimed squarely at impressionable and intellectually developing people who are still constructing a worldview and value system, then that's a problem just as much as Roshi's antics, at least in Super. This is what has a lot of people feeling uncomfortable: not the subject matter, but the message that the subject matter (deliberately or otherwise) exists in service of, the message that sexual assault is just fun jokes man, specifically in a show for people who, more than anyone else, need to absorb the opposite message.

Why does everything have to be a social message? Why are you looking into jokes and gags and treating them as social messages? Kids treat it as a joke, they're not looking deep into this and thinking it's okay to sexually assault women, otherwise like I said people would follow Goku's example and strip naked in public or smack girls in their privates. If you agree that murder is also a problem in this show, do people grow up and become murderers from watching Dragon Ball Z? Until there's actually evidence of that, the answer is no. Just like until there's actual evidence of children growing up thinking it's okay to sexually assault people, it should be assumed that it isn't an issue. This goes back to the '90s when soccer moms were afraid that Dragon Ball Z would cause their children to become violent. No proof of it, and I assume that most of us were displeased with the censorship as a result.

3. None of this entails calls for censorship.
There's a world of difference between "it would have been more wise and socially aware of them to not telegraph this harmful message, and I hope they improve in that regard" and "they should only be allowed to express what we dictate in their art". No, the suggestion isn't that we force people to never create art with harmful take-home points. The suggestion is that so long as they are going to create art, we hope that they take the care to express positive messages.

Art is a reflection of the individual, and if the art that is created for children is reflecting an attitude that trivializes real world problems, then it's important to us that the artist grows and improves and contributes to more positive change, rather than inadvertently stoking the flames of a negative status quo forever. Because we like what they create, and we'd like to enjoy the things that they create without reservations. There's literally nothing wrong with wanting (read: not forcing) good art to also be aware of its greater social context and power and make positive use of that. Because Toriyama makes great art, and if it can be better (which it can), I can't imagine not wanting it to be.

If they don't......that sucks. But that doesn't mean we censor them, and/or keep this material out of the hands of kids. Again, I'm against restricting someone's media diet just because they're a child. I'm in favor of impressionable, intellectually developing people being exposed to harmful messages....so long as those harmful messages are properly punctuated by more socially conscious commentary. So, as part of fandom, we can at least do our part to provoke some critical thought on things that warrant it (and unaddressed elephants in the room more than warrant it).

Which is...exactly what we're supposed to foster in this thread. Making the commentary and observations, and addressing the elephants in the room, that the artist is unwilling or unable to tackle themselves in the work itself. Because, again, this is aimed at people still developing intellectually, and so harmful messages need to come with some extra notes and clarifications and supervision, if they're going to continue to come. Dragon Ball's good shit, and if that means that it's going to come with some baggage, I'm all for it, so long as we're able to sincerely address the baggage, to replace what few negative messages Toriyama inadvertently built into Dragon Ball, which comport onto impressionable minds, with positive and informed ones. Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. Apathy, inaction, and ambivalence are still responses to these problems, and they're particularly reckless and irresponsible ones, at that. Again, ripple effects.

Why does Toriyama have to put social messages in his work? Why does he have to be aware of a "greater social context" when making a harmless gag aimed at children who find it funny in context, and nothing more? I agree that there's nothing wrong with suggesting they improve on their gags, especially after the disastrous and uncomfortable jokes in 89 and 105 which takes the character and brings him to new lows. However, I don't find Roshi's antics in DB to be problematic because it's treated as a lighthearted gag by all parties involved, and nothing more. Who decides what "negative messages" are? You could argue that a lot of things in Dragon Ball are negative messages that you shouldn't do in real life, but it's a cartoon, and it's not meant to be taken seriously.

If you want to replace the supposed negative messages that Toriyama has built into Dragon Ball, how are you any different than the folks at FUNi who initially started Dragon Ball by replacing perceived negative messages with what they deemed appropriate? If you are pushing to replace (your words) an author's work with something else, that is basically the very definition of censorship. Of course, the "jokes" in 89 and 105 do not come from Toriyama, and I highly doubt that Toriyama would have ever made such uncomfortable scenarios like that. I would argue that Roshi's antics don't need to be replaced, they just need to fall back in line with how the character was made to act by Toriyama, who portrayed these jokes and gags in a lighthearted nature, which 89 and 105 completely fails to do. Toriyama's handling of Roshi's character has nothing wrong with it though, and the jokes don't convey any kind of social message, nor should anyone read it as any kind of social message because they're written as lighthearted gags and nothing more. Dragon Ball is already a very old series. If we grew up with it and didn't turn out thinking sexual assault and rape was okay, what makes you think the children of this generation will think so after watching Dragon Ball?

4. Different problems are different topics and deserve different threads.
I'm puzzled by the deflections to other potentially harmful things that Dragon Ball depicts, besides sexual assault, not as a means to sincerely talk about them, but as a means to not talk about sexual assault. Yes, of course there are other arguable problems with Dragon Ball. But that doesn't make this not a problem, and that also doesn't make this thread about those other problems, so it's an entirely moot point to bring up. Make other threads for those other problems, and we can talk about them as well. Over there. In their own threads. Because these are important topics with a lot of dense subject matter, so lumping them all together into a single thread disservices and trivializes them all by making the topic too broad, letting much of the crucial nuance fall between the cracks.

If something as good as Dragon Ball is going to inadvertently convey some harmful messages that fandom has to correct and nip in the bud, so its strengths can still be enjoyed for what they are, without reservations, then so be it. Let's do it. Let's actually do it, and not pussyfoot around the issue. If your only contribution to "look at this problem" is "well, yeah, but look at all of these problems instead!", then you don't actually have any meaningful contribution to make to the former, and are trying to actively impede on its discussion.

People bring up different potentially harmful things that Dragon Ball depicts because as I've repeatedly said before, either there are no limits or comedy, or everything should be limited in comedy. It is hypocritical to point to one taboo subject and deem it not acceptable while completely ignoring other taboo subjects. If you're really as passionate about barring depictions of sexual assault in DB as you are barring depictions of murder and violence, then that's a completely different story and I really have nothing to say to that (except for why would you watch this martial arts shonen show in the first place?) It is not a means to deflect off the topic of sexual assault, only to point out the hypocrisy in finding topics like sexual assault to be bad, when murder is as bad if not worse than sexual assault but is conveniently ignored because people want the show to conform against what they deem offensive because they read too far into sexual jokes of a lighthearted nature.

Ain't no flaw to me, I find it funny.

We've become PC enough as it is in today's age where everyone is offended over little thing, I'd rather it not ruin a significant part of Master Roshi's character just because some people on Tumblr might cry about it.

If he wants to have a good old squeeze of Vados' ass after a well earned victory then let him go right ahead.

Shut the fuck up.

That is all.

Please don't make comments like this. Comments like this are what causes a thread to be locked because the discussion stops being civil and personal insults are thrown around. The discussion has been fine and civil up to this point, so please don't ruin it for the rest of us who just want to have an open conversation and discussion on the matter.

This was censored in most dubs aimed at children. Not advocating for censorship but it had to be said.

[Asura]

This was censored in most dubs aimed at children. Not advocating for censorship but it had to be said.

While this is true, it's only true for certain regions of the world. The Japanese who grew up with the show obviously did not watch it censored, and I'm sure the same logic applies to them not turning out to be murderers/rapists. Even with the censorship in the west, Roshi's antics and violence in the series was still a factor in the censored version of the show. It is a martial arts show after all, so violence is inevitable.

[Cure Dragon 255]

I dont even have a horse in this race but that's also not quite the case. Japan has quite a history of sexual harrassment and perverts who misbehave. Its not Dragon Balls fault though, they have existed and will continue to exist.

[Asura]

I dont even have a horse in this race but that's also not quite the case. Japan has quite a history of sexual harrassment and perverts who misbehave. Its not Dragon Balls fault though, they have existed and will continue to exist.

Well yeah, there are perverts, rapists, and people who sexually harass others in all parts of the world, but yeah my point was there's no concrete evidence pointing that back to Dragon Ball.

[Kokonoe]

Yeah, this is almost fascist rethoric man.

Wow. It's tragic to see that somebody is saying that criticism of their favourite series is "fascism."

Anyway, things have spiraled way out of control since I last posted here so I'm a bit lost and will withdraw from the conversation. It's REALLY depressing that I'm having to see people defend sexual assault. Special credit to Cipher, TheGreatness25, and the endlessly reasonable VegettoEX for providing logic and reason in a conversation tarnished by the toxic sludge posted by the rape apologists. There's way more I could say here but it isn't worth my time to comment on all the infuriating things people are posting here. I'm pretty sure somebody's going to get banned soon or the thread will get locked. If so, I'm sorry for starting this thread and unintentionally exposing a member of our community.

I don't even know what to say about this post. I'm speechless. You really need to go back and read through the entire thread again because nothing about what you've said is even remotely close to true, and you've also completely misconstrued PsionicWarrior's comment about fascism which has absolutely nothing to do with criticism of Dragon Ball. WHO is defending sexual assault? Where are these rape apologists spewing "toxic sludge" in this thread? Please go back and re-read the thread because that's really insulting of you to call half the people in this thread rape apologists and sexual assault defenders when we are doing nothing of the kind. I don't see any reason for anyone to be banned or for this thread to be locked. It's a controversial topic and as a result things are bound to get heated, but everyone has kept a level head and the discussion has been civil.

Not addressing any user or post in particular, but there seem to be a few points being made in this thread that aren't being picked up on. I don't know if it's a reading comprehension problem, or a lack of sincerity, but it's there.

1. This is a children's show.
Dragon Ball is, and always has been, a show for children. Children are impressionable, they are still being socialized, they are still developing intellectually, still forming their worldview and value system. I'm never in favor of restricting a child's media diet to simple and unchallenging material, but people are still products of their environment. More so than that, they are the future. They're going to clock on, tag in, take over for us, and pick up from where we left off. How they shape the world further, by their hands, is going to be informed greatly by the value systems and worldviews and character that they cultivate, which, again, are shaped by the environment created for them by us, and those before us. Attitude informs action, which goes on to inform attitudes. Causality is a bitch. It's a feedback loop, it's cyclical. These things ripple through society across generations, whether it's convenient to confront this fact or not.

This point has already been addressed. As I've said a couple pages ago, Goku goes around slapping girls in their privates as a child. Does this cause children to grow up thinking it's okay to slap girls down there? We all grew up with Dragon Ball (or at least most of us) and I'd like to think that most of us didn't turn out to be rapists or people who commit sexual assault as a result.

2. Subject matter and take-home point are distinct sources of discomfort and concern.
There's a difference between the subject matter surrounding a joke or a scene, and the take-home point of its punchline. These are two different pieces that can individually make someone uncomfortable, and for different reasons.

Sometimes, it's the subject matter itself that makes us uncomfortable. Murder and sexual assault are real things, and going through the process of experiencing discomfort by appreciating the severity of real world problems is important for empathizing with victims, prompting legitimate positive social action toward improving society and decreasing the likelihood of victimization. In this sense, it's good for us to feel uncomfortable. This is one of the things that art is supposed to do; offend, evoke emotion.

There's a different kind of discomfort that can come from the take-home point. If murder is genuinely depicted as perfectly okay and normal and something to just shrug off, in a show aimed squarely at impressionable and intellectually developing people who are still constructing a worldview and value system, then that's a problem just as much as Roshi's antics, at least in Super. This is what has a lot of people feeling uncomfortable: not the subject matter, but the message that the subject matter (deliberately or otherwise) exists in service of, the message that sexual assault is just fun jokes man, specifically in a show for people who, more than anyone else, need to absorb the opposite message.

Why does everything have to be a social message? Why are you looking into jokes and gags and treating them as social messages? Kids treat it as a joke, they're not looking deep into this and thinking it's okay to sexually assault women, otherwise like I said people would follow Goku's example and strip naked in public or smack girls in their privates. If you agree that murder is also a problem in this show, do people grow up and become murderers from watching Dragon Ball Z? Until there's actually evidence of that, the answer is no. Just like until there's actual evidence of children growing up thinking it's okay to sexually assault people, it should be assumed that it isn't an issue. This goes back to the '90s when soccer moms were afraid that Dragon Ball Z would cause their children to become violent. No proof of it, and I assume that most of us were displeased with the censorship as a result.

3. None of this entails calls for censorship.
There's a world of difference between "it would have been more wise and socially aware of them to not telegraph this harmful message, and I hope they improve in that regard" and "they should only be allowed to express what we dictate in their art". No, the suggestion isn't that we force people to never create art with harmful take-home points. The suggestion is that so long as they are going to create art, we hope that they take the care to express positive messages.

Art is a reflection of the individual, and if the art that is created for children is reflecting an attitude that trivializes real world problems, then it's important to us that the artist grows and improves and contributes to more positive change, rather than inadvertently stoking the flames of a negative status quo forever. Because we like what they create, and we'd like to enjoy the things that they create without reservations. There's literally nothing wrong with wanting (read: not forcing) good art to also be aware of its greater social context and power and make positive use of that. Because Toriyama makes great art, and if it can be better (which it can), I can't imagine not wanting it to be.

If they don't......that sucks. But that doesn't mean we censor them, and/or keep this material out of the hands of kids. Again, I'm against restricting someone's media diet just because they're a child. I'm in favor of impressionable, intellectually developing people being exposed to harmful messages....so long as those harmful messages are properly punctuated by more socially conscious commentary. So, as part of fandom, we can at least do our part to provoke some critical thought on things that warrant it (and unaddressed elephants in the room more than warrant it).

Which is...exactly what we're supposed to foster in this thread. Making the commentary and observations, and addressing the elephants in the room, that the artist is unwilling or unable to tackle themselves in the work itself. Because, again, this is aimed at people still developing intellectually, and so harmful messages need to come with some extra notes and clarifications and supervision, if they're going to continue to come. Dragon Ball's good shit, and if that means that it's going to come with some baggage, I'm all for it, so long as we're able to sincerely address the baggage, to replace what few negative messages Toriyama inadvertently built into Dragon Ball, which comport onto impressionable minds, with positive and informed ones. Ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. Apathy, inaction, and ambivalence are still responses to these problems, and they're particularly reckless and irresponsible ones, at that. Again, ripple effects.

Why does Toriyama have to put social messages in his work? Why does he have to be aware of a "greater social context" when making a harmless gag aimed at children who find it funny in context, and nothing more? I agree that there's nothing wrong with suggesting they improve on their gags, especially after the disastrous and uncomfortable jokes in 89 and 105 which takes the character and brings him to new lows. However, I don't find Roshi's antics in DB to be problematic because it's treated as a lighthearted gag by all parties involved, and nothing more. Who decides what "negative messages" are? You could argue that a lot of things in Dragon Ball are negative messages that you shouldn't do in real life, but it's a cartoon, and it's not meant to be taken seriously.

If you want to replace the supposed negative messages that Toriyama has built into Dragon Ball, how are you any different than the folks at FUNi who initially started Dragon Ball by replacing perceived negative messages with what they deemed appropriate? If you are pushing to replace (your words) an author's work with something else, that is basically the very definition of censorship. Of course, the "jokes" in 89 and 105 do not come from Toriyama, and I highly doubt that Toriyama would have ever made such uncomfortable scenarios like that. I would argue that Roshi's antics don't need to be replaced, they just need to fall back in line with how the character was made to act by Toriyama, who portrayed these jokes and gags in a lighthearted nature, which 89 and 105 completely fails to do. Toriyama's handling of Roshi's character has nothing wrong with it though, and the jokes don't convey any kind of social message, nor should anyone read it as any kind of social message because they're written as lighthearted gags and nothing more. Dragon Ball is already a very old series. If we grew up with it and didn't turn out thinking sexual assault and rape was okay, what makes you think the children of this generation will think so after watching Dragon Ball?

4. Different problems are different topics and deserve different threads.
I'm puzzled by the deflections to other potentially harmful things that Dragon Ball depicts, besides sexual assault, not as a means to sincerely talk about them, but as a means to not talk about sexual assault. Yes, of course there are other arguable problems with Dragon Ball. But that doesn't make this not a problem, and that also doesn't make this thread about those other problems, so it's an entirely moot point to bring up. Make other threads for those other problems, and we can talk about them as well. Over there. In their own threads. Because these are important topics with a lot of dense subject matter, so lumping them all together into a single thread disservices and trivializes them all by making the topic too broad, letting much of the crucial nuance fall between the cracks.

If something as good as Dragon Ball is going to inadvertently convey some harmful messages that fandom has to correct and nip in the bud, so its strengths can still be enjoyed for what they are, without reservations, then so be it. Let's do it. Let's actually do it, and not pussyfoot around the issue. If your only contribution to "look at this problem" is "well, yeah, but look at all of these problems instead!", then you don't actually have any meaningful contribution to make to the former, and are trying to actively impede on its discussion.

People bring up different potentially harmful things that Dragon Ball depicts because as I've repeatedly said before, either there are no limits or comedy, or everything should be limited in comedy. It is hypocritical to point to one taboo subject and deem it not acceptable while completely ignoring other taboo subjects. If you're really as passionate about barring depictions of sexual assault in DB as you are barring depictions of murder and violence, then that's a completely different story and I really have nothing to say to that (except for why would you watch this martial arts shonen show in the first place?) It is not a means to deflect off the topic of sexual assault, only to point out the hypocrisy in finding topics like sexual assault to be bad, when murder is as bad if not worse than sexual assault but is conveniently ignored because people want the show to conform against what they deem offensive because they read too far into sexual jokes of a lighthearted nature.

Ain't no flaw to me, I find it funny.

We've become PC enough as it is in today's age where everyone is offended over little thing, I'd rather it not ruin a significant part of Master Roshi's character just because some people on Tumblr might cry about it.

If he wants to have a good old squeeze of Vados' ass after a well earned victory then let him go right ahead.

Shut the fuck up.

That is all.

Please don't make comments like this. Comments like this are what causes a thread to be locked because the discussion stops being civil and personal insults are thrown around. The discussion has been fine and civil up to this point, so please don't ruin it for the rest of us who just want to have an open conversation and discussion on the matter.

When it gets to the point where an old man is allowing a 15-16 year old girl flash her vagina for him, as well as him being written groping Android 18's breasts or groping other female character's butts or even the entire episode in Dragon Ball Super 89 where he kidnaps a girl and the entire scene is him trying to touch her against her will, that's where it's no longer a "joke" and becomes sexual harassment and assault, and in very poor taste.

[BrolyKale]

Well, joke or not, I don't take animuuus seriously so I don't really care. Its not like Roshi was raping a girl, he is just touching them, well yh thats very bad irl but in an anime it can be funny (personally I don't find it funny at all, but I don't have a problem with it). I do like villains in DBZ but that doesn't mean I like murderers irl or that I will become a murderer because I'm watching dragon ball... so don't take animes too seriously, especially not dragon ball.

[Asura]

When it gets to the point where an old man is allowing a 15-16 year old girl flash her vagina for him, as well as him being written groping Android 18's breasts or groping other female character's butts or even the entire episode in Dragon Ball Super 89 where he kidnaps a girl and the entire scene is him trying to touch her against her will, that's where it's no longer a "joke" and becomes sexual harassment and assault, and in very poor taste.

While I agree that the scene in episode 89 where he carries off a girl to some room somewhere against her will, dresses her up, and chases her around trying to pounce on her can barely even be considered a joke, I disagree about the rest not being able to be considered jokes. The reason being is that it's played as a lighthearted gag where 18 and Bulma are not depicted as being completely uncomfortable and in distress due to Roshi's perverted antics, which is a stark distinction from 89 in which the girl is completely uncomfortable with the act and Roshi is doing far more than just "copping a feel" or asking to see a girl's underwear. It literally looks like he's trying to rape her, and Roshi has never gone that far in any of his other jokes. The reasoning for this is simple, Toriyama did not write the joke in episode 89, nor would he ever write a "joke" of that caliber that made both the girl AND the audience feel uncomfortable. TOEI's writers completely miss the mark more often than not, and 89 and 105 are just further examples of that.

Context is important here and if the characters aren't bothered by Roshi's perverted actions and the scene is treated as if the girls don't care afterwards (because this is fantasy mind you, and it's all played out for the sake of the joke) then the joke should be viewed within the context of the scene and the reactions of the characters. That's the difference between 89, 105, and how Roshi acted in Dragon Ball. The scenes in 89 and 105 are not treated the same way. The girls are completely uncomfortable, causing the audience to feel uncomfortable as well. The context is that Roshi is trying to pounce on a girl in 89 to do god knows what with her, and is implicating rape in 105 to a girl who runs off screaming for fear of being raped. Like I just said, if the characters are uncomfortable in the context of the joke, then the audience becomes uncomfortable. If the characters treat it as no more than a gag in which they slap Roshi and that's the end of it, then the audience should not feel uncomfortable. It doesn't mean you have to find the joke funny, it's just that there's nothing wrong with the joke in the context of the show and how the characters are reacting to said joke.

Someone brought up Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks earlier in the thread. I haven't watched too much Boondocks, but I know of the character and have watched several clips of him. He's a racist, but it's treated in such a lighthearted and funny manner in which none of the other characters care all that much so that it doesn't make you go "Wow, what a horrible racist person. I am completely appalled and angry about this depiction of racism in a TV show."

Now if Uncle Ruckus literally killed someone because of their skin color and it was a completely uncomfortable and unfunny scene, that would be a different matter altogether. That's the difference between 89/105 and the rest of Roshi's antics, and the difference between where taboo comedy can be funny and where it's just downright disgusting and unpleasant even for viewers who are fine with the previous depictions of lighthearted racism in the case of The Boondocks, and lighthearted pervert jokes in the case of Roshi.

[Cipher]

I think it's extremely precarious to argue that what Kame-Sennin tells kids is that "If you feel a woman up, you're likely to get slapped," rather than "If you feel a woman up you're still going to keep all your friends and be a relatively respected person."

But really, neither is a result with much negative weight. More than that, rather than focusing on emulation, it's a bit of a poor message that any lecherous old grandpa invading your personal space is just a loveable Kame-Sennnin type. Taken on its own, the Kame-Sennin stuff isn't going to spur anyone on to harassment, but as part of a culture that already tolerates it? Yeah; it's just one more voice in that pool saying it's bad but not all that harmful. That kind of attitude does have effects we can point to.

The Kame-Sennin gags are really irresponsible. They don't ruin the series. They probably haven't ruined anyone's life. But the fact that we can't collectively say that, much like Mr. Popo's design, or that awful Blue pedophilia shtick in the anime, it's a blemish on the series reflective of the prevailing attitudes of its era is just baffling to me.

(And yes, at least in the manga, some of his gags are funny, because Toriyama is an excellent humorist regardless of his chosen subjects. But that's beside the point. Toriyama could have written a funny gag about anything within the same pages.)

[Asura]

I think it's extremely precarious to argue that what Kame-Sennin tells kids is that "If you feel a woman up, you're likely to get slapped," rather than "If you feel a woman up you're still going to keep all your friends and be a relatively respected person."

That type of logic is flawed though. In the same way you argue that Roshi teaches kids that if you feel a woman up, you're likely to get slapped OR keep all your friends and be a relatively respected person, your argument should also be applied to Vegeta where "If you kill a bunch of people, you're still likely to be redeemed and not go to hell. You can keep your friends and be a relatively respected person". The thing is, kids are not taking in either of those messages and committing acts based on that, and we have no concrete evidence to even point to something like that being the case.

And if kids are watching the show and going out and committing the same acts that Roshi has (in context of the jokes) and finding nothing wrong with it, then the blame is to lie with the parents for not teaching their child what is okay to do, and what is not okay to do. The fact that Roshi almost always receives immediate retribution for his actions is enough to show kids that if you try and copy his same antics, you'll suffer punishment for it. If kids watch a character in a show do something, and that character is constantly punished for it, kids will know it's not okay to do because hey, they're kids, and what kid likes to be punished?

I would imagine that children absorb the concept of punishment much easier and faster than they do the concept of sexual assault.

[Cipher]

The "because direct emulation can reasonably be blamed on parents, we can't voice that part of the fiction is in bad taste" argument is equally flawed though, debating connections that haven't been made, and arguing against fear of direct emulation no one has expressed, including the post you quoted. Asura, that's a straw man. Moving on.

I'd like to point out re: a comparison above that there's also a world of difference between a character like The Boondocks' Uncle Ruckus and Kame-Sennin. Not the least of which is that The Boondocks is chiefly concerned with race, to the point that a character like Ruckus slots into its commentary—the viewer recognizes the absurdity of his views (or specifically, in that case, the absurdity of spiteful white views when transplanted into a black subject). Is Dragon Ball chiefly concerned with sexual politics such that Kame-Sennin could be sanely argued to play a similar role? Or does he normalize, rather than highlight, the absurdity of how much we tolerate predatory behavior? 100 out of 100 times I would argue the latter.

Re: the role emulation plays in all of this: My concern with the material/distaste for it is not the idea that little Timmy is going to read it and grow up into the kind of person who gropes women without their consent. My concern would be that he grows up to be a member of society who, like many people, largely doesn't take it that seriously when he hears about it. (Because many, many things around him tell him not to, and via Kame-Sennin, Dragon Ball certainly does nothing to combat that.)

[Kokonoe]

When it gets to the point where an old man is allowing a 15-16 year old girl flash her vagina for him, as well as him being written groping Android 18's breasts or groping other female character's butts or even the entire episode in Dragon Ball Super 89 where he kidnaps a girl and the entire scene is him trying to touch her against her will, that's where it's no longer a "joke" and becomes sexual harassment and assault, and in very poor taste.

While I agree that the scene in episode 89 where he carries off a girl to some room somewhere against her will, dresses her up, and chases her around trying to pounce on her can barely even be considered a joke, I disagree about the rest not being able to be considered jokes. The reason being is that it's played as a lighthearted gag where 18 and Bulma are not depicted as being completely uncomfortable and in distress due to Roshi's perverted antics, which is a stark distinction from 89 in which the girl is completely uncomfortable with the act and Roshi is doing far more than just "copping a feel" or asking to see a girl's underwear. It literally looks like he's trying to rape her, and Roshi has never gone that far in any of his other jokes. The reasoning for this is simple, Toriyama did not write the joke in episode 89, nor would he ever write a "joke" of that caliber that made both the girl AND the audience feel uncomfortable. TOEI's writers completely miss the mark more often than not, and 89 and 105 are just further examples of that.

Context is important here and if the characters aren't bothered by Roshi's perverted actions and the scene is treated as if the girls don't care afterwards (because this is fantasy mind you, and it's all played out for the sake of the joke) then the joke should be viewed within the context of the scene and the reactions of the characters. That's the difference between 89, 105, and how Roshi acted in Dragon Ball. The scenes in 89 and 105 are not treated the same way. The girls are completely uncomfortable, causing the audience to feel uncomfortable as well. The context is that Roshi is trying to pounce on a girl in 89 to do god knows what with her, and is implicating rape in 105 to a girl who runs off screaming for fear of being raped. Like I just said, if the characters are uncomfortable in the context of the joke, then the audience becomes uncomfortable. If the characters treat it as no more than a gag in which they slap Roshi and that's the end of it, then the audience should not feel uncomfortable. It doesn't mean you have to find the joke funny, it's just that there's nothing wrong with the joke in the context of the show and how the characters are reacting to said joke.

Someone brought up Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks earlier in the thread. I haven't watched too much Boondocks, but I know of the character and have watched several clips of him. He's a racist, but it's treated in such a lighthearted and funny manner in which none of the other characters care all that much so that it doesn't make you go "Wow, what a horrible racist person. I am completely appalled and angry about this depiction of racism in a TV show."

Now if Uncle Ruckus literally killed someone because of their skin color and it was a completely uncomfortable and unfunny scene, that would be a different matter altogether. That's the difference between 89/105 and the rest of Roshi's antics, and the difference between where taboo comedy can be funny and where it's just downright disgusting and unpleasant even for viewers who are fine with the previous depictions of lighthearted racism in the case of The Boondocks, and lighthearted pervert jokes in the case of Roshi.

It literally does not matter what their reactions are because what's being discussed is the actions being shown on screen that are being written for a specific purpose. That said, if we're going to delve into their reactions, when you state "they are not depicted as being completely uncomfortable", why does it matter when a lot of women don't even react that well when this stuff is occurring anyway? People when they are being touched like this can have all kinds of reactions and it doesn't change the action being done, some women laugh when they are being groped, some become real silent, others will try to fight back.

The reactions here do not matter, and it's quite apparent Chi Chi, Android 18, and Bulma are bothered by his actions, but it's not like Toriyama is gonna write them crying because Roshi is suppose to be the father character of the show to Goku and Krillin.

Also, his characterizations I weigh across all the mainline official media he's in. Super's was the most problematic yet and it's some of the newest content of him. At the same time, Roshi allowing a 15-16 year old to flash him and him being payed via this encounter as well as him trying to spy on this 15-16 year old in the bathroom is still messed up and all it does is paint a very weird picture when these scenes occur.

And Uncle Ruckus is a character specifically designed to mock racism, it's not played up as a joke because people agree with him, the joke is that we're laughing at a racist cause this is how idiotic they sound. The portrayals are way different. I also don't think Boondocks is immune from criticism in some of its content either, but that's another subject. That said, this reminds me of the Family Guy comparison in which we're comparing a two raunchy shows with offensive content to something as lighthearted in comparison as Dragon Ball.

[Asura]

The "because direct emulation can reasonably be blamed on parents, we can't voice that part of the fiction is in bad taste" argument is equally flawed though, debating connections that haven't been made, and arguing against fear of direct emulation no one has expressed, including the post you quoted. Asura, that's a straw man. Moving on.

I'd like to point out re: a comparison above that there's also a world of difference between a character like The Boondocks' Uncle Ruckus and Kame-Sennin. Not the least of which is that The Boondocks is chiefly concerned with race, to the point that a character like Ruckus slots into its commentary—the viewer recognizes the absurdity of his views (or specifically, in that case, the absurdity of spiteful white views transplanted into a black subject). Is Dragon Ball chiefly concerned with sexual politics such that Kame-Sennin could be sanely argued to play a similar role? Or does he normalize, rather than highlight, the absurdity of how much we tolerate predatory behavior? 100 out of 100 times I would argue the latter.

I'm not sure what direct emulation is supposed to mean, and google reveals no results, but I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you basically mean a copycat, in which case yes, there have been tons of people implying that to potentially be the case with kids supposedly learning that Roshi's antics are okay to do, and if they think it's okay to do and there's no problem with it, that it's a possibility they'll go out and do it too. If this is what you meant by direct emulation, then no I don't see how it's a strawman at all given there are a number of people in this thread who have claimed Roshi's antics can potentially leave an impression on children. If this isn't what you meant by direct emulation then you'll have to elaborate on that for me.

And now you're falling right into my argument of "context". In the context of the show and the depiction of scenes, there is nothing wrong with Uncle Ruckus' racism. Regardless of whether the Boondocks is chiefly concerned with race, the point is that racism is used in a humorous way and both the show and the characters find very little to be wrong with it. Racism is a taboo subject along the likes of sexual assault and murder, is it not? Dragon Ball does not have to be chiefly concerned with any sort of subject to be able to portray those subjects in a humorous light. No form of media has to be chiefly concerned with anything to make jokes about it either. I don't believe Roshi normalizes predatory behavior for the reasons I've stated throughout the thread.

When it gets to the point where an old man is allowing a 15-16 year old girl flash her vagina for him, as well as him being written groping Android 18's breasts or groping other female character's butts or even the entire episode in Dragon Ball Super 89 where he kidnaps a girl and the entire scene is him trying to touch her against her will, that's where it's no longer a "joke" and becomes sexual harassment and assault, and in very poor taste.

While I agree that the scene in episode 89 where he carries off a girl to some room somewhere against her will, dresses her up, and chases her around trying to pounce on her can barely even be considered a joke, I disagree about the rest not being able to be considered jokes. The reason being is that it's played as a lighthearted gag where 18 and Bulma are not depicted as being completely uncomfortable and in distress due to Roshi's perverted antics, which is a stark distinction from 89 in which the girl is completely uncomfortable with the act and Roshi is doing far more than just "copping a feel" or asking to see a girl's underwear. It literally looks like he's trying to rape her, and Roshi has never gone that far in any of his other jokes. The reasoning for this is simple, Toriyama did not write the joke in episode 89, nor would he ever write a "joke" of that caliber that made both the girl AND the audience feel uncomfortable. TOEI's writers completely miss the mark more often than not, and 89 and 105 are just further examples of that.

Context is important here and if the characters aren't bothered by Roshi's perverted actions and the scene is treated as if the girls don't care afterwards (because this is fantasy mind you, and it's all played out for the sake of the joke) then the joke should be viewed within the context of the scene and the reactions of the characters. That's the difference between 89, 105, and how Roshi acted in Dragon Ball. The scenes in 89 and 105 are not treated the same way. The girls are completely uncomfortable, causing the audience to feel uncomfortable as well. The context is that Roshi is trying to pounce on a girl in 89 to do god knows what with her, and is implicating rape in 105 to a girl who runs off screaming for fear of being raped. Like I just said, if the characters are uncomfortable in the context of the joke, then the audience becomes uncomfortable. If the characters treat it as no more than a gag in which they slap Roshi and that's the end of it, then the audience should not feel uncomfortable. It doesn't mean you have to find the joke funny, it's just that there's nothing wrong with the joke in the context of the show and how the characters are reacting to said joke.

Someone brought up Uncle Ruckus from The Boondocks earlier in the thread. I haven't watched too much Boondocks, but I know of the character and have watched several clips of him. He's a racist, but it's treated in such a lighthearted and funny manner in which none of the other characters care all that much so that it doesn't make you go "Wow, what a horrible racist person. I am completely appalled and angry about this depiction of racism in a TV show."

Now if Uncle Ruckus literally killed someone because of their skin color and it was a completely uncomfortable and unfunny scene, that would be a different matter altogether. That's the difference between 89/105 and the rest of Roshi's antics, and the difference between where taboo comedy can be funny and where it's just downright disgusting and unpleasant even for viewers who are fine with the previous depictions of lighthearted racism in the case of The Boondocks, and lighthearted pervert jokes in the case of Roshi.

It literally does not matter what their reactions are because what's being discussed is the actions being shown on screen that are being written for a specific purpose. That said, if we're going to delve into their reactions, when you state "they are not depicted as being completely uncomfortable", why does it matter when a lot of women don't even react that well when this stuff is occurring anyway? People when they are being touched like this can have all kinds of reactions and it doesn't change the action being done, some women laugh when they are being groped, some become real silent, others will try to fight back.

The reactions here do not matter, and it's quite apparent Chi Chi, Android 18, and Bulma are bothered by his actions, but it's not like Toriyama is gonna write them crying because Roshi is suppose to be the father character of the show to Goku and Krillin.

Also, his characterizations I weigh across all the mainline official media he's in. Super's was the most problematic yet and it's some of the newest content of him. At the same time, Roshi allowing a 15-16 year old to flash him and him being payed via this encounter as well as him trying to spy on this 15-16 year old in the bathroom is still messed up and all it does is paint a very weird picture when these scenes occur.

And Uncle Ruckus is a character specifically designed to mock racism, it's not played up as a joke because people agree with him, the joke is that we're laughing at a racist cause this is how idiotic they sound. The portrayals are way different. I also don't think Boondocks is immune from criticism in some of its content either, but that's another subject. That said, this reminds me of the Family Guy comparison in which we're comparing a two raunchy shows with offensive content to something as lighthearted in comparison as Dragon Ball.

Reaction does matter. Not every woman who watches Dragon Ball is going to be disgusted by Roshi's antics. Some will be bothered by it, some will find it to be nothing more than a joke and move on. The characters in the show act similarly, although the vast, vast majority of the time the characters move on because it's all played out for the sake of a joke. Who are you to assume the level of discomfort Chi Chi, 18, and Bulma are feeling? Do you somehow know what's going on in their heads and to which extent it makes them uncomfortable? No, because it's just a joke, you're not meant to look that deeply into it and these are fictional characters that would obviously never react in a way that most, if not all women would react when confronted with a person like Muten Roshi. It's a joke. Laugh or not, like it or not, it's not meant to be taken seriously or have an effect on how people view these things in real life. It's not meant to normalize the idea of sexual assault. You might get offended by it, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to be offended by it. It doesn't mean that people are wrong, insane, or horrible human beings if they find nothing wrong with it. It just means that everyone has a different sense of humor, but that the key word here is humor, because it's a joke in a cartoon show and as previously said is not meant to reflect, commentate, emulate, or normalize sexual assault in the real world.

Re: the role emulation plays in all of this: My concern with the material/distaste for it is not the idea that little Timmy is going to read it and grow up into the kind of person who gropes women without their consent. My concern would be that he grows up to be a member of society who, like many people, largely doesn't take it that seriously when he hears about it. (Because many, many things around him tell him not to, and via Kame-Sennin, Dragon Ball certainly does nothing to combat that.)

You are concerned that little Timmy might read it or watch it and grow up into the kind of person who thinks that groping women without their consent is a trivial issue. Why do we need to watch little Timmy grow up though and see how the show/manga has impacted him when the show/manga has been around long enough for children to grow up and be able to demonstrate such behaviors? Do you have any proof at all that children from the 80s, 90s, and even earlier 2000s have grown up thinking there's not much wrong with sexual assault/they find it as a trivial issue because of watching Muten Roshi as a child? If not, what makes you think that things will now suddenly change? This is an especially important point given that topics like sexual assault are much, much, much more prevalent in current times with the conversation and exposure to the subject being much more visible now then it was back then. If there's even more stuff out there that depicts and tells people how bad sexual assault is in todays day and age, wouldn't you logically assume that there would be even less of a chance of someone growing up today to find that sort of behavior acceptable?

[Doctor.]

Ah, yes. The beauty of humor is "Har, har, har! Let's find amusement in sexual harassment and assault". Guys, I watched Family Guy and they do it there and it's soooooooooo funny! We should use Family Guy as the beacon to guide what all fiction directs to because Family Guy is the gold standard.

Not only that, let's talk about how there's murderers or people being killed, let's talk about how in horror movies people get cut up in ways. Let's completely ignore how freakin' damaging rape is compared to typical violence, how making a joke about anything relating to this subject is in absolute poor taste, and let's keep continuing defend this garbage by saying crap like "humor has no bounds, the best part is you can do ANYTHING with it". Yeah, that's a good freakin' excuse, do whatever you want no matter how damaging it may be. To heck with that nonsense.

Rape and sexual assault are not the only damaging traumas a person can experience. Acting like they're the ultimate or most damaging trauma is not only arbitrary, but conceited beyond belief, as you're belittling other people's traumatic experiences because, in your own subjective view of the world, they're not as "damaging." You don't get to judge that.

[Sailor Haumea]

Ah, yes. The beauty of humor is "Har, har, har! Let's find amusement in sexual harassment and assault". Guys, I watched Family Guy and they do it there and it's soooooooooo funny! We should use Family Guy as the beacon to guide what all fiction directs to because Family Guy is the gold standard.

Not only that, let's talk about how there's murderers or people being killed, let's talk about how in horror movies people get cut up in ways. Let's completely ignore how freakin' damaging rape is compared to typical violence, how making a joke about anything relating to this subject is in absolute poor taste, and let's keep continuing defend this garbage by saying crap like "humor has no bounds, the best part is you can do ANYTHING with it". Yeah, that's a good freakin' excuse, do whatever you want no matter how damaging it may be. To heck with that nonsense.

Rape and sexual assault are not the only damaging traumas a person can experience. Acting like they're the ultimate or most damaging trauma is not only arbitrary, but conceited beyond belief, as you're belittling other people's traumatic experiences because, in your own subjective view of the world, they're not as "damaging." You don't get to judge that.

I believe that survivors of rape beg to differ.

It's extremely humiliating and invasive, moreso than other forms of assault.

You're the conceited one.

[Kokonoe]

Reaction does matter. Not every woman who watches Dragon Ball is going to be disgusted by Roshi's antics. Some will be bothered by it, some will find it to be nothing more than a joke and move on. The characters in the show act similarly, although the vast, vast majority of the time the characters move on because it's all played out for the sake of a joke. Who are you to assume the level of discomfort Chi Chi, 18, and Bulma are feeling? Do you somehow know what's going on in their heads and to which extent it makes them uncomfortable? No, because it's just a joke, you're not meant to look that deeply into it and these are fictional characters that would obviously never react in a way that most, if not all women would react when confronted with a person like Muten Roshi. It's a joke. Laugh or not, like it or not, it's not meant to be taken seriously or have an effect on how people view these things in real life. It's not meant to normalize the idea of sexual assault. You might get offended by it, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to be offended by it. It doesn't mean that people are wrong, insane, or horrible human beings if they find nothing wrong with it. It just means that everyone has a different sense of humor, but that the key word here is humor, because it's a joke in a cartoon show and as previously said is not meant to reflect, commentate, emulate, or normalize sexual assault in the real world.

The characters in the show's reaction do not matter is what I'm stating as this is what you were referring to in your previous statement. If we're comparing this to real women, real women don't want to be groped against their will by old perverted men. And what? Didn't you JUST assume the level of discomfort a bit ago? Really, why should I care about the character reactions of characters written by the same guy who's writing them being groped as a joke? The action is right there, he's touching them against their will, how is this not blatant enough? How is this a joke? What's funny here? That they're being touched against their will by an old man? Who cares what the author's intention is at this point when what I'm seeing is Roshi squeezing some woman's breasts or rear against their will?

And dude, no one is telling you to be offended by the situation, but why should I tolerate it when it's disgusting and a stain on an otherwise brilliant series. It's creepy in a way that needs not be expressed because it's being utilized for this "humor" or a "joke".

Rape and sexual assault are not the only damaging traumas a person can experience. Acting like they're the ultimate or most damaging trauma is not only arbitrary, but conceited beyond belief, as you're belittling other people's traumatic experiences because, in your own subjective view of the world, they're not as "damaging." You don't get to judge that.

So when did I state that exactly? That's an argument a lot of people try to pull, "but what about this, what about that", this isn't about those things. Also, what about those things are in this series that are done poorly? If they are done poorly as well, feel free to criticize them. The thing here is that you and others with similar views such as yourself are trying to find reasons that equate for whatever reason, and there's nothing that equates to being sexually assaulted.

And being as all you have to bring to the table is the following:

Acting like they're the ultimate or most damaging trauma is not only arbitrary, but conceited beyond belief, as you're belittling other people's traumatic experiences because, in your own subjective view of the world,

when my statement was noting the issue of undermining the actions being portrayed in this series and comparing it to the likes of freakin' Family Guy and cartoonish violence, it really shows your motivations in this topic are questionable.

[Doctor.]

Ah, yes. The beauty of humor is "Har, har, har! Let's find amusement in sexual harassment and assault". Guys, I watched Family Guy and they do it there and it's soooooooooo funny! We should use Family Guy as the beacon to guide what all fiction directs to because Family Guy is the gold standard.

Not only that, let's talk about how there's murderers or people being killed, let's talk about how in horror movies people get cut up in ways. Let's completely ignore how freakin' damaging rape is compared to typical violence, how making a joke about anything relating to this subject is in absolute poor taste, and let's keep continuing defend this garbage by saying crap like "humor has no bounds, the best part is you can do ANYTHING with it". Yeah, that's a good freakin' excuse, do whatever you want no matter how damaging it may be. To heck with that nonsense.

Rape and sexual assault are not the only damaging traumas a person can experience. Acting like they're the ultimate or most damaging trauma is not only arbitrary, but conceited beyond belief, as you're belittling other people's traumatic experiences because, in your own subjective view of the world, they're not as "damaging." You don't get to judge that.

I believe that survivors of rape beg to differ.

It's extremely humiliating and invasive, moreso than other forms of assault.

You're the conceited one.

Nobody said it isn't humiliaring or invasive. I said placing it at the top of the totem pole is arbitrary and conceited. I know a girl who got raped and she said it to me herself that, although it traumatized her for years, she has mostly gotten over it. And I knew a guy who got bullied as a child and killed himself when he was 14. Yeah, on paper, his experience didn't seem to be as bad, but who are YOU or I to say that about HIS experience?

Saying that rape and sexual assault is absolutely off-limits is absolutely a slippery slope because people have different experiences; if you stop sexual assault from being made of, soon you're gonna stop everything else. And setting rape and sexual assault as this absolute hightest standard of aggression is arbitrary and conceited as I stated because you're belittling other people's experiences based on what you consider to be traumatic.

If you're gonna make an argument based on emotion, which is basically what all of the opposing side's arguments boil down, then take into account everyone's feelings.

[Kokonoe]

Nobody said it isn't humiliaring or invasive. I said placing it at the top of the totem pole is arbitrary and conceited. I know a girl who got raped and she said it to me herself that, although it traumatized her for years, she has mostly gotten over it. And I knew a guy who got bullied as a child and killed himself when he was 14. Yeah, on paper, his experience didn't seem to be as bad, but who are YOU or I to say that about HIS experience?

Saying that rape and sexual assault is absolutely off-limits is absolutely a slippery slope because people have different experiences; if you stop sexual assault from being made of, soon you're gonna stop everything else. And setting rape and sexual assault as this absolute hightest standard of aggression is arbitrary and conceited as I stated because you're belittling other people's experiences based on what you consider to be traumatic.

If you're gonna make an argument based on emotion, which is basically what all of the opposing side's arguments boil down, then take into account everyone's feelings.

And what part of this occurs in Dragon Ball where someone kills themselves from being bullied?

And no one is saying it's off limits entirely, but this is Dragon Ball, most of the content in this show has nothing like this and it's mostly lighthearted with a focus on fighting. It's not like Toriyama wrote Krillin's death to make someone laugh and we laugh at Goku for the rest of the series whereas this harassment is being written as a joke some old man can get away with.

It's not like they are writing the harassment in a way that's actually believable and meant to develop the characters, it's not a good look and it makes others and myself uncomfortable.

[Bullza]

I can't tell if you're trolling or really this misogynistic. Perhaps both

Neither, I'm just not part of this new age culture where everyone is offended or upset over everything.

It's humour in a fictional cartoon, it's not real. Family Guy has had Quagmire do drastically more severe things to woman in the show than Master Roshi will ever do. He's drugged woman and dragged them off into his bedroom and guess what? It's still funny and Quagmire is still a hugely popular character and people are not having nervous breakdowns about what he's doing.

Are we supposed to cry every time the show has a Terrorist joke? Rape joke? Paedophile joke? Gay joke? No because it's a cartoon show, it's not real life and it's a comedy that's meant to be funny.

[Kokonoe]

I can't tell if you're trolling or really this misogynistic. Perhaps both

Neither, I'm just not part of this new age culture where everyone is offended or upset over everything.

It's humour in a fictional cartoon, it's not real. Family Guy has had Quagmire do drastically more severe things to woman in the show than Master Roshi will ever do. He's drugged woman and dragged them off into his bedroom and guess what? It's still funny and Quagmire is still a hugely popular character and people are not having nervous breakdowns about what he's doing.

Are we supposed to cry every time the show has a Terrorist joke? Rape joke? Paedophile joke? Gay joke? No because it's a cartoon show, it's not real life and it's a comedy that's meant to be funny.

Fuck off.

[Bullza]

Fuck off.

Ah, the easily offended type. Ok now I see why this thread was made.