Sexual Assault: Fiction and Reality

[Cipher]

But why? Have you ever read anything by Goethe? He was an expressed antisemite, exceptionally hateful even within the context of 18th and 19th century Germany, yet he is considered one of the greatest writers of the German language. Or perhaps a better example would be Richard Wagner and his compositions. If you were to say their works didn't contain any explicit antisemitic elements, then how about Lovecraft or Dickens, who have actually injected their own prejudiced views (even in the context of their time) into their work? If you say you don't really like any of their works (or any author who fits the mold, in case you haven't read these) because of their problematic elements, then fair enough, but I don't think that's a very fair way to look at art.

I am indeed more disparaging of the work of those artists, yes.

This is also getting well beyond the point, so I'll just say again here that Kame-sennin's gags are a crappy part of Dragon Ball that fed into genuinely harmful trends, and can be identified as such.

[Doctor.]

The people who've replied to post have all missed the point. I said "it should be more troubling" meaning I don't think it's the case. The point was: the people who are concerned over the depiction of sexuality in Dragon Ball should be more concerned with the depiction of kid Goku's penis. I, personally, don't care either way.

Also, I'm not American.

Again depictions of Goku’s cartoonish penis in a non-sexualize manner that makes sense in context (he doesn’t understand social norms being raised in seclusion) is not even slightly comparable to Roshi trying to grope Bulma and Lunch without their consent or Oolong drugging Bulma to feel her up.

You’re trying to fit a large square peg into a very very small round hole

It doesn't matter if it's sexualized or not, because the argument you and others are using is external to the authorial intent. You're saying the gags matter because they have real-world consequences on victims of sexual assault, regardless of whether the gags are meant to be taken seriously or not or of whether they're portrayed as negative or not. I'm applying the same logic of this black-and-white worldview.

[saiyanhajime]

I disagree. If other characters were looking at Goku's child penis and showing attraction to it, then it would be problematic. But without that, it's just a body part. Body parts are not inherently sexual.

[Doctor.]

I disagree. If other characters were looking at Goku's child penis and showing attraction to it, then it would be problematic. But without that, it's just a body part. Body parts are not inherently sexual.

But that's not the point. The gags aren't inherently malicious either, but the argument is that people can take them as such. Goku's penis isn't inherently sexual, but following the same logic, people can make it as such. It's to show that worrying about what people will take out of a work is pointless to a degree

[Zephyr]

I said "it should be more troubling" meaning I don't think it's the case. The point was: the people who are concerned over the depiction of sexuality in Dragon Ball should be more concerned with the depiction of kid Goku's penis. I, personally, don't care either way.

Okay. Why "should" it be more troubling? What does that even mean?

Because if we are to assume that the depiction of sexual harassment as gags will have real-world repercussions, then the depiction of child nudity (which, following the logic of the people who unilaterally refuse to accept gags that mock sexual assault, could be interpreted as the depiction of child pornography) is a far more problematic issue in a country where grown men have repeatedly been busted with child pornography, and in an industry where a 'lolicon' is a widely accepted customer. Goku's penis is depicted far more frequently, for far longer time, than any Roshi gag, and whether or not it is drawn with malice is completely irrelevant; for Roshi's antics are also not drawn with malice, but the argument still remains that they are an issue because of the impression they have on the public.

Alright, so you don't actually understand the issue people are taking with this in the first place. Kame Sennin's antics are presented within a specific context, and as a result they communicate certain ideas, unconsciously:

"sexual assault is funny and has no negative consequences; victims of sexual assault suffer no long term psychological damage; perpetrators of sexual assault don't face any real consequences besides a "slap", because they didn't really do anything wrong"

The real-world repercussions of these antics existing in this context are the subtle and unconscious growth of the idea that "sexual assault is normal and harmless" in the minds of impressionable young viewers who aren't being actively lead enough to believe otherwise.

It doesn't matter if it's sexualized or not, because the argument you and others are using is external to the authorial intent. You're saying the gags matter because they have real-world consequences on victims of sexual assault, regardless of whether the gags are meant to be taken seriously or not or of whether they're portrayed as negative or not. I'm applying the same logic of this black-and-white worldview.

Yes, it does matter if it's sexualized or not. If it was sexualized, then the context of "child penis" would be different, and different ideas would be communicated unconsciously to the impressionable young viewers.

[Doctor.]

Alright, so you don't actually understand the issue people are taking with this in the first place. Kame Sennin's antics are presented within a specific context, and as a result they communicate certain ideas, unconsciously:

"sexual assault is funny and has no negative consequences; victims of sexual assault suffer no long term psychological damage; perpetrators of sexual assault don't face any real consequences besides a "slap", because they didn't really do anything wrong"

The real-world repercussions of these antics existing in this context are the subtle and unconscious growth of the idea that "sexual assault is normal and harmless" in the minds of impressionable young viewers who aren't being actively lead enough to believe otherwise.

And Goku's penis is also presented in a specific context: "child nudity is funny and quirky and has no negative consequences; children should be allowed to be naked among grown adults; children naked among adults will not be victims to child predators and are merely showcasing their innocence." And that's ignoring the implication of something like Goku sleeping on top of Gohan's balls, too.

Obviously I'm going off the wall here for the sake of argument, but that's the entire point. Extrapolate your own conclusions of what possible, unconscious real-world implications a scene may have, ignoring the scene's intent, and I'll call bullshit because you can do that with just about anything. It's a disingenuous way to debate.

Yes, it does matter if it's sexualized or not. If it was sexualized, then the context of "child penis" would be different, and different ideas would be communicated unconsciously to the impressionable young viewers.

The only ideas that are "communicated" are that sexual harassment is bad and you shouldn't do it in the context of a light-hearted story where people are rarely punished severely for their questionable actions. Everything else you're interpreting is conjecture.

[Zephyr]

And Goku's penis is also presented in a specific context: "child nudity is funny and quirky and has no negative consequences; children should be allowed to be naked among grown adults; children naked among adults will not be victims to child predators and are merely showcasing their innocence." And that's ignoring the implication of something like Goku sleeping on top of Gohan's balls, too.

Yes, all in contexts which are utterly sexless. Children have genitals. Children will be nude sometimes. Did you know that children are actually born nude, with their genitals exposed and everything, around at least one grown adult?

Obviously I'm going off the wall here for the sake of argument, but that's the entire point. Extrapolate your own conclusions of what possible, unconscious real-world implications a scene may have, ignoring the scene's intent, and I'll call bullshit because you can do that with just about anything. It's a disingenuous way to debate.

Don't worry, I'm perfectly aware that you're making a blatantly false analogy in bad faith. I don't think you owning up to it really helps sell it or make your posting of it a remotely worthwhile or thoughtful contribution, though. Moreover, I'm not sure why you keep popping into these threads to make arguments that seem to utterly miss the point, only to insist that you "don't actually care". Are you just here to troll?

Nobody is ignoring the scene's intent, with reference to the Kame Sennin gags. They're jokes, everybody knows what the intent of a joke is. They're not malicious. Everybody definitely understands this, so it's not a terribly novel observation on your part. These jokes, however, occur, in a children's show, in a country that does a historically very bad job of acknowledging sexual assault as a bad thing in the first place (which isn't throwing shade or anything; not like the US is much better).

Abstract arguments are important to engage in, but divorcing them from the actual cultural, historical, and social context in which the content of said arguments exist makes for a really flimsy, limited, half baked, and thus worthless, argument.

The only ideas that are "communicated" are that sexual harassment is bad and you shouldn't do it in the context of a light-hearted story where people are rarely punished severely for their questionable actions. Everything else you're interpreting is conjecture.

How is that communicated? None of the actual reasons why sexual assault is bad factor into any of the scenes where Kame Sennin is performing it. It's presented as funny and harmless, because nobody shows any signs of having experienced any long term trauma. That's tone deaf. And in a kid's thing, in Japan, that's just one more small thing contributing to a large problem.

[Doctor.]

Yes, all in contexts which are utterly sexless. Children have genitals. Children will be nude sometimes. Did you know that children are actually born nude, with their genitals exposed and everything, around at least one grown adult?

I don't know if you're missing the point on purpose. Yes, I know that children are born nude and are around adults nude. What is this meant to disprove? I agree that kid Goku's penis is harmless; I also think Roshi's antics are harmless. Roshi's antics are sexual in nature but they are completely isolated from the negative repercussions that sexual harassment has; obviously you would argue this is a bad thing, because that 'normalizes' sexual harassment as this harmless gag, allowing for an environment where rapists and harassers feel they have more freedom to act on their urges. And much in the same way, showing Goku naked so frequently (which, in spite of your one example where this is the case, does not happen in the real world; children are always clothed in public) 'normalizes' naked children in public, allowing for an environment that entices child predators to act on their urges.

Does that sound ridiculous? Good, because it is. Both cases are. Dragon Ball is not responsible for the social repercussions you think it has. And that's the entire point: your argument is based on your perception alone, which is why my analogy stands, because if we're arguing perception, then everything is equally valid.

Don't worry, I'm perfectly aware that you're making a blatantly false analogy in bad faith. I don't think you owning up to it really helps sell it or make your posting of it a remotely worthwhile or thoughtful contribution, though. Moreover, I'm not sure why you keep popping into these threads to make arguments that seem to utterly miss the point, only to insist that you "don't actually care". Are you just here to troll?

I didn't say I didn't care. I said I didn't care about Roshi's antics. If it makes you feel better, I don't find them particularly funny, and the series would probably be better off without them on those grounds, not because they're offensive. I do, however, care about art, an artist's freedom and the way art is perceived. The idea that a work of art should be morally responsible for what people take away from it (outside of obvious exceptions, such as Mein Kampf and other such political works), that I care about.

Now saying I argue in bad faith and am here to troll, that seems like an attempt to lash out at your opponent because he disagrees with certain stances that seem dogmatic in this forum. I'll go out on a whim and say it's because some of you older millennials are feeling displaced now that the young generation seems to be embracing more traditional and conservative values, and I can't say I don't empathize, but being bitter and hostile won't help you.

These jokes, however, occur, in a children's show, in a country that does a historically very bad job of acknowledging sexual assault as a bad thing in the first place (which isn't throwing shade or anything; not like the US is much better).

And much in the same way, Goku's penis is flaunted in a children's show, in a country and industry that does a historically very bad job of dealing with its child pornography and child molestation problem.

How is that communicated? None of the actual reasons why sexual assault is bad factor into any of the scenes where Kame Sennin is performing it. It's presented as funny and harmless, because nobody shows any signs of having experienced any long term trauma. That's tone deaf. And in a kid's thing, in Japan, that's just one more small thing contributing to a large problem.

This just seems like a result of your obtuse way of thinking that inaction equals action. The fact is that it's communicated that sexual harassment is bad, that's it, Dragon Ball isn't endorsing sexual assault because it fails to show the trauma. The series already speaks out against it via the fact Roshi is punished at all; the fact that he's punished so lightly has more to do with Dragon Ball's own comedic and light-hearted nature than any real, social commentary, lest you think Goku normalizes child abandonment (actually this should be even worse because the series doesn't even comment on how child abandonment is a bad thing, like it does with sexual harassment) and Piccolo child abuse and Stockholm syndrome (which are treated as a stepping stone in Gohan and Piccolo's arcs and serve as the fuel that keeps their relationship going to this day). Dragon Ball is not a morally correct series, and Roshi's antics are not any more real or personal than all of the other countless dubious shit the series has.

What you're saying is "Saying sexual harassment is bad isn't good enough, you have to show these kids the traumas of sexual assault and scar them for life" which is far more tone deaf than anything Dragon Ball has ever done.

[dbgtFO]

Funny how Roshi started out merely asking for lewd acts from sexy females, but eventually started to just grab their butts, without asking first, until we arrive at Super, where he was on the cusp of doing far worse.
I've compared it before with how his power also grew throughout the series and thus increased his confidence with forcing himself on women, but it can also be seen as the continual escalation of a person's antics, who hasn't faced big enough consequences and so he keeps pushing boundaries just to see how much he can get away with.
I'm sure that is a very common occurence and is what eventually lead some people down a path, where casual sexual assault just becomes normal for them, because they aren't faced with serious consequences until it's too late.

[ZodaEX]

Yes, all in contexts which are utterly sexless. Children have genitals. Children will be nude sometimes. Did you know that children are actually born nude, with their genitals exposed and everything, around at least one grown adult?

I don't know if you're missing the point on purpose. Yes, I know that children are born nude and are around adults nude. What is this meant to disprove? I agree that kid Goku's penis is harmless; I also think Roshi's antics are harmless. Roshi's antics are sexual in nature but they are completely isolated from the negative repercussions that sexual harassment has; obviously you would argue this is a bad thing, because that 'normalizes' sexual harassment as this harmless gag, allowing for an environment where rapists and harassers feel they have more freedom to act on their urges. And much in the same way, showing Goku naked so frequently (which, in spite of your one example where this is the case, does not happen in the real world; children are always clothed in public) 'normalizes' naked children in public, allowing for an environment that entices child predators to act on their urges.

Does that sound ridiculous? Good, because it is. Both cases are. Dragon Ball is not responsible for the social repercussions you think it has. And that's the entire point: your argument is based on your perception alone, which is why my analogy stands, because if we're arguing perception, then everything is equally valid.

Don't worry, I'm perfectly aware that you're making a blatantly false analogy in bad faith. I don't think you owning up to it really helps sell it or make your posting of it a remotely worthwhile or thoughtful contribution, though. Moreover, I'm not sure why you keep popping into these threads to make arguments that seem to utterly miss the point, only to insist that you "don't actually care". Are you just here to troll?

I didn't say I didn't care. I said I didn't care about Roshi's antics. If it makes you feel better, I don't find them particularly funny, and the series would probably be better off without them on those grounds, not because they're offensive. I do, however, care about art, an artist's freedom and the way art is perceived. The idea that a work of art should be morally responsible for what people take away from it (outside of obvious exceptions, such as Mein Kampf and other such political works), that I care about.

Now saying I argue in bad faith and am here to troll, that seems like an attempt to lash out at your opponent because he disagrees with certain stances that seem dogmatic in this forum. I'll go out on a whim and say it's because some of you older millennials are feeling displaced now that the young generation seems to be embracing more traditional and conservative values, and I can't say I don't empathize, but being bitter and hostile won't help you.

These jokes, however, occur, in a children's show, in a country that does a historically very bad job of acknowledging sexual assault as a bad thing in the first place (which isn't throwing shade or anything; not like the US is much better).

And much in the same way, Goku's penis is flaunted in a children's show, in a country and industry that does a historically very bad job of dealing with its child pornography and child molestation problem.

How is that communicated? None of the actual reasons why sexual assault is bad factor into any of the scenes where Kame Sennin is performing it. It's presented as funny and harmless, because nobody shows any signs of having experienced any long term trauma. That's tone deaf. And in a kid's thing, in Japan, that's just one more small thing contributing to a large problem.

This just seems like a result of your obtuse way of thinking that inaction equals action. The fact is that it's communicated that sexual harassment is bad, that's it, Dragon Ball isn't endorsing sexual assault because it fails to show the trauma. The series already speaks out against it via the fact Roshi is punished at all; the fact that he's punished so lightly has more to do with Dragon Ball's own comedic and light-hearted nature than any real, social commentary, lest you think Goku normalizes child abandonment (actually this should be even worse because the series doesn't even comment on how child abandonment is a bad thing, like it does with sexual harassment) and Piccolo child abuse and Stockholm syndrome (which are treated as a stepping stone in Gohan and Piccolo's arcs and serve as the fuel that keeps their relationship going to this day). Dragon Ball is not a morally correct series, and Roshi's antics are not any more real or personal than all of the other countless dubious shit the series has.

What you're saying is "Saying sexual harassment is bad isn't good enough, you have to show these kids the traumas of sexual assault and scar them for life" which is far more tone deaf than anything Dragon Ball has ever done.

If you think Children are always clothes in public in the real world then you are living with your head in the sand. I hope that works out for you. Not all of us are so privileged to live in first world countries where we can all afford clothing.

[TheUltimateNinja]

Man, I'm not even arguing in this thread and I'm still getting pissed off at the way people intentionally misinterpret their opponent's arguments, don't be disingenuous, folks.

Anyway, to me Roshi's gags are unfunny and essentially a waste of screentime that could be spent on better things but I have no moral issue with them.

[Doctor.]

If you think Children are always clothes in public in the real world then you are living with your head in the sand. I hope that works out for you. Not all of us are so privileged to live in first world countries where we can all afford clothing.

I was speaking within the context of Japan, a first-world country, where children are clothed all the time in public, just like in every other first world country. 3rd world countries presumably have more pressing issues to worry about.

[ZodaEX]

If you think Children are always clothes in public in the real world then you are living with your head in the sand. I hope that works out for you. Not all of us are so privileged to live in first world countries where we can all afford clothing.

I was speaking within the context of Japan, a first-world country, where children are clothed all the time in public, just like in every other first world country. 3rd world countries presumably have more pressing issues to worry about.

So only Japan is the real world to you then? That is one of the more elitist things I have ever seen anyone say here.

[Bruma rabu]

If you think Children are always clothes in public in the real world then you are living with your head in the sand. I hope that works out for you. Not all of us are so privileged to live in first world countries where we can all afford clothing.

I was speaking within the context of Japan, a first-world country, where children are clothed all the time in public, just like in every other first world country. 3rd world countries presumably have more pressing issues to worry about.

So only Japan is the real world to you then? That is one of the more elitist things I have ever seen anyone say here.

Lol, bro you joking? Nowhere in his post did he even imply that.

[Oniman]

painfully awkward manchildren, often with creepy sexual fetishes (and nowadays, Neo-Nazi political ideology as well: way to go millennial Western Otakus! ).
:

Discrimination is not cool man. You can't based off Otakus and nerds these days because of 4chan when most millennial nerds are on the left and hate Nazis/Alt-Right/KKK/Republicans (Let's face it, they are all the same). Just go any on sites like Twitter and you will see many of them are not like that all.

[ZodaEX]

I was speaking within the context of Japan, a first-world country, where children are clothed all the time in public, just like in every other first world country. 3rd world countries presumably have more pressing issues to worry about.

So only Japan is the real world to you then? That is one of the more elitist things I have ever seen anyone say here.

Lol, bro you joking? Nowhere in his post did he even imply that.

When I asked him what he meant by "the real world" He said he was talking about Japan. That's an elitist thing to say if I ever saw one.

[Cetra]

So only Japan is the real world to you then? That is one of the more elitist things I have ever seen anyone say here.

Lol, bro you joking? Nowhere in his post did he even imply that.

When I asked him what he meant by "the real world" He said he was talking about Japan. That's an elitist thing to say if I ever saw one.

Have you actually read what he posted?

"I am speaking within the context of Japan ..." (that alone already leaves the possibility open that he acknowledges it for other countries as well but focusses at this one) ... "... just like in every other first world country" (there he shows he is aware of them being like Japan; it was just not relevant for his focus point).

[ZodaEX]

Lol, bro you joking? Nowhere in his post did he even imply that.

When I asked him what he meant by "the real world" He said he was talking about Japan. That's an elitist thing to say if I ever saw one.

Have you actually read what he posted?

"I am speaking within the context of Japan ..." (that alone already leaves the possibility open that he acknowledges it for other countries as well but focusses at this one) ... "... just like in every other first world country" (there he shows he is aware of them being like Japan; it was just not relevant for his focus point).

Ah okay gotcha, sorry. I understand now. Thanks for explaining it for me.