Dragon Ball Super Gets Cancelled Overseas Over Sexual Harassment Claims

[JulieYBM]

That's not at all what I was even remotely indicating. Almost everything in life is contextual: very few things are universally so black and white (some things certainly are for sure, but not most things overall).

In the context of today's current political landscape? That we've been locked into some permutation thereof for... a good few decades at least? The overall mainstream has been dragged WAY too far to the right for WAY too long now. Anyone who is busy handwringing over "yeah but what if we go too far left?" is being both incredibly counter-productive and fairly detached from the current present day reality.

I'll use another metaphor to illustrate what I mean: pretend we're all heading down a road in a speeding car that has no breaks. Someone jerked the steering wheel hard and sharply to the right and now the car, with all of us piled inside, is speeding off the road and towards a solid brick wall. How then do you correct that situation? Do you yank the wheel even FURTHER towards the right and MORE off the road toward the brick wall? Or do you maybe GENTLY nudge the wheel just a hairline to the left, which... isn't going to do too much? Or do you yank the wheel back hard toward the left to try and AVOID the wall entirely and to actually get us all back on the road?

Because THAT'S illustrative of the current, present situation that we've been in now for some time. The socio-political axis has been WAY too skewed too sharply rightward for literally decades and decades now. A slight bump toward the left just isn't going to fucking cut it or do much of jack shit for the current problems we're facing. In the context of today's socio-political issues, you NEED a hard-left swerve to avoid the kinds of disasters that are no longer just fast bearing down on us... but that are already here, right now.

Anything less than that, in the context of the current issues, is just going to continue to get more and more people needlessly killed/have their lives ruined.

I don't think that analogy works, because it's treating politics like a zero-sum game: X amount of leftism will 'cancel out' X amount of rightism, and vice-versa. To give an extreme example, say you have a super right-wing fascist government like Nazi Germany, is the proper way to fix that government to try to establish a super left-wing communist government like the USSR under Stalin? No, because both of those systems are awful. You can't fight awful with more awful. In fact, despite being ideological opposites, those two governments actually had a lot in common, in terms of the amount of power in the hands of the government and how they treated their citizens.

You have probably heard of the 'horseshoe effect', right? That's the phenomenon where people on the extreme opposite ends of an issue can end up having things in common and actually agreeing with each other to some degree, just like the opposite ends of a horseshoe bend back and come closer together.

Some examples are certain ultra right-wing conservative Christians and certain ultra left-wing liberal feminists both wanting porn to be banned, albeit for different reasons. Also, extremely racist white KKK members and black supremacist groups (Black Hebrew Israelites and such) have been known to actually bond and work together over their mutual hatred of Jews.

I'm certainly not saying that the US is in any danger of becoming communist or anything, or that communist (or even socialist, using the actual definition of the term) politics have any sway in America today. And of course I know that the right wing loves red-baiting, as they'll accuse anyone to the left of Mussolini of being a communist. (I was seriously arguing with someone a few months ago who was claiming that Joe Biden was a communist ). The Overton Window in the US is skewed extremely to the right. I was just pointing out that equally extreme leftist positions do exist, and they can be just as bad. I see from your response that you do acknowledge this, so I have no objection to what you're saying. I just wanted to make it clear that going too far in either direction is a bad idea, as some people might get the wrong idea when they read a post that can basically be summarized as 'left = good, center = bad, right = worse'.

Well, wanting to ban porn from being created and consumed by consenting adults is inherently conservative. All the porn and erotica creators I know are Communists, socialists and anarchists. Telling women, people of color and queer people what to do with their bodies goes against left-wing ideas.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Well, wanting to ban porn from being created and consumed by consenting adults is inherently conservative. All the porn and erotica creators I know are Communists, socialists and anarchists. Telling women, people of color and queer people what to do with their bodies goes against left-wing ideas.

Against mainstream left-wing ideas, but I'm talking about extremists, who think porn is inherently degrading to women and encourages rape, so it shouldn't exist. They have been known to share common cause with the right-wing religious types that want it banned for being sinful.

EDIT: Also a lot of these extreme feminists who want all porn banned are also the TERF kind who are against trans people. That's another example of the horseshoe effect, as they have worked together with right-wingers to promote transphobia.

[Kunzait_83]

So then wearing 'feminine' clothing is inherently 'queer' or non-cishet? Like, labels like 'bi', 'lesbian', 'gay', 'non-binary' or 'queer' any other term is all self-identified. Even being cishet is a self-identified label. What I'm getting at is that there's nothing inherently queer about anything. These are all things that individuals--which inevitably might make up a sort of 'societal common consensus--actually, I'm going to stop myself mid-sentence and use simple words to distill what I'm meaning into two words: no rules. Nothing about this has any rules.

I was never talking about any of these terms or classifications or whatever you want to call them (queer, cis, etc) as if they were "rules". You're right, there are no hard and fast "rules" to any of this. All of human sexuality exists on a spectrum. And not everyone exists on the same points of that spectrum: we're all of us all over the map all across every point of that spectrum.

That was never my point to begin with: the point is, nothing in DB's narrative up to that point hints that Muten Roshi, Goku, or Kuririn enjoy or are comfortable with dressing this way, or that its something they do regularly. Plus, as has been noted, its not even just practical to wear as martial arts clothing: even just with regards to the nuts and bolts of doing heavy duty martial arts exercises, lingerie is about as impractical a choice as it gets. So there's even a completely non-gendered level on which the joke works on.

Should there be more works written where the characters are presented as non-cis from the jump and where the perspective is non-cis? Absolutely there should be! I just don't think dragging works that ARE presented and written from a cis perspective (and, and this is key here, aren't being hateful or transphobic/misogynistic: its a WHOLE other ballgame if they are) is necessarily going to do much to make that happen quicker.

And the thing is, you were sort of onto something there before you cut yourself off:

These are all things that individuals--which inevitably might make up a sort of 'societal common consensus

Yeah, you seem to be onto more or less what I was originally getting at: I wasn't trying to define some rigid set of hierarchical "rules" about human sexuality, which is super, super nuanced in reality and highly individualized. But for the sake of digestible simplicity here, there are very broad points on the spectrum - straight, gay, by, cis, trans, etc. - that are easy enough reference points for people to grab onto. They aren't rigid rules that people must adhere to, nor would I ever claim or indicate they are: they're just simple reference points along a much larger and more nuanced spectrum (that human beings, once again, fall all over the place on).

And given that Dragon Ball is for small children, I don't think its wrong or that big of a deal that it doesn't go out of its way to go into all the nitty, gritty, finer nuances of the spectrum of human sexuality (though I certainly wouldn't want to discourage any children's work from having an honest go at that if the creator thinks they're up to it): I think its fine for a work aimed at small kids to just go off of relatively broad strokes for some of these things (up to a point at least).

Its within those simple to digest broad points on the spectrum that I was going off of here: Goku, Kuririn, and Muten Roshi have up to this point (nor were they ever afterward) established as being people who are non-binary, gender non-conforming, etc. Per their characterizations, both up to that point and well beyond it, they're all portrayed as fairly hetero-normative (though you could make a case for Goku being pretty easy to re-establish cleanly as being so all over the human sexual spectrum as to the point of not being on it at all, since he's so damned casual and deferential about literally almost everything that isn't related strictly to martial arts).

We can get into a whole separate discussion from this point about how unbelievably shitty it is that there aren't vastly, vastly more works of media that are about characters who are conceptualized from the getgo from a non-cis, non-gender conforming perspective. That's a totally more than valid discussion to have, and I've no doubt you and I would probably be in almost full agreement on most/all of it.

But that wasn't the discussion I was focused on here. Dragon Ball was created with characters who were clearly conceptualized from a cis-hetero perspective. That in and of itself obviously leads to some shitty, godawful gags, such as 90% of what Roshi gets up to. I just don't think that this particular gag happens to fall within that 90% though.

I think you have to work VERY extra hard to read "femininity is an inherently bad/silly/ridiculous thing" on a very broad, generalized standpoint, rather than the much more obvious and simple "These three specific characters are obviously in no way at home wearing these kinds of clothing, and its totally out of place for the martial arts training that they're supposed to be engaging in."

Its presented as silly/ridiculous within this context and with these specific characters. Because... yeah, it is. I don't care if you're a cis or trans man or woman: you aren't going to wear lingerie to a martial arts class. That would be ridiculous in that context for almost anyone, no matter what your sexual identity happens to be.

And yeah, the joke is also rooted in Roshi being a perv: but at least in this case, he isn't committing assault or being in any which way rapey toward Lunch. In this specific instance, it really IS pretty fucking harmless as a gag almost any way you slice it.

Because I should probably note that I do agree with people who say that Roshi being a horny old man, in and of itself, isn't the issue with him: its that so much of the jokes about that particular side of him have him committing acts of pretty severe sexual assault that are in no way inherently funny or "cute" and certainly not "innocent" in the slightest, and are just plain fucking gross and awful, and yet the narrative still treating it as if its all harmless good fun when it obviously couldn't be further from.

This lingerie joke here however doesn't depend on him assaulting Lunch or invading her personal space: it relies on what is indeed a very ridiculous and absurd lie - "Oh no, this isn't sexy lingerie: this is the Kame School martial arts dogi!" - and roping a totally puzzled & confused Goku and Kuririn into it along with him. No one gets hurt, and given its context, it isn't in the least bit a broad swipe against ALL femininity.

And obviously I understand and get that on some level, arguing intent isn't particularly meaningful since whether or not Toriyama intended the joke to mean something anti-feminine isn't relevant when we're just talking about how broader media overall helps societally condition people. But that being said, I certainly don't think anyone who might read it as misogynistic, including yourself, probably thinks the swipe is 100% intentional on his part, since that'd be probably giving Toriyama WAY too much credit in thinking that deeply into these things.

I only bring that up to say that I don't even think that this stupid joke communicates an "anti-feminine" message even unintentionally or subconsciously. I think this really IS a "the cigar is just a cigar" situation: the lingerie is funny in this context both because its inappropriate and impractical for martial arts training (I mean, that's obvious on its face), and because these characters are otherwise pretty consistently cis/heteronormative in most every other situation before and after otherwise.

And I get the argument that "the fact that they're cis-heteronormative is in and of itself the problem, since there aren't enough stories that center around non-cis, non-gender conforming people". And I do agree with that obvious and blatant fact and that it needs to be corrected by giving more space and room for more creators and stories by/for/about non-cis people.

But at the same time I also don't think it helps that particular cause any to try and go out of the way to read malice (conscious or otherwise) into all works/characters/sexual jokes that are written from a cis/hetero standpoint. By all means point out and shred examples where there is indeed some degree of bigotry at play (conscious or unconscious, subtle or overt): I just don't happen to agree that this is one of those examples, because the (very simple and obvious) layers on which the joke is supposed to work are pretty self-evident and fairly benign, no matter your sexual orientation or gender.

My concern with how Toriyama (a guy who I suppose we'll all assume is cishet and isn't aware of the actual existence of non-cishet folks in the real world?) uses sexuality and gender lies in that he's using tropes like "'men' in generally deigned 'feminine' clothing are funny" as if it's to be part of a joke. I don't get the 'joke' behind the case or what Toriyama as a writer is thinking because I don't see clothing as being gendered in anyway and I think it's just a weird point to do with clothing what he's trying to do in that scene.

While I'm sure Toriyama was probably thinking in terms of clothing being gendered (and honestly, that's how 95% of most people see clothing, regardless of their stance on trans/queer issues, so I'd hardly hold that in and of itself as a point against him), you don't even have to think of it like that (not even a little bit) in order for the stupid fucking joke to still work on EXACTLY the same level.

The joke works because A) its wildly out of place for martial arts training, regardless of gender, and B) its clothing that these characters otherwise would never wear in any other circumstance. Throw in the fact that its a "Roshi being a pervert" joke that for once DOESN'T involve him committing sexual assault on someone, and honestly its about as good as you could reasonably expect from such a gag.

And besides, lingerie isn't "generally designed": it is for very specific purposes (namely and most commonly to sexually turn on someone). If Roshi had himself, Goku and Kuririn in basic dresses, you'd have a stronger point here. But sexy lingerie is... I mean its sexy lingerie. Its NOT a regular, day to day thing that most women (cis or trans) would wear in any given context outside of the bedroom.

Let me put it this way: lets say that Muten Roshi, Goku, and Kuririn were the same exact characters, but just gender-flipped as women. Cis women or trans women, doesn't matter one bit. You could even have it where female Roshi is into men OR women, and in the former case has herself and her two students dressed in male stripper speedos (there's a fun thought for everyone here to ruminate on ) or in the latter case in the exact same lingerie as the actual manga/anime.

Guess what? In either case, even with the genders *completely flipped* and the sexual orientations turned completely inside-out... the joke still works. In exactly the same way that it did before. Because it isn't about the specific gender in this case: its about the fact that the lingerie is 1) wildly and spectacularly out of place for the occasion at hand and B) not at all something that these three characters, in ANY other context, would wear.

That's how you know whether or not there's any inherent malice or misogyny or whatnot in this instance: flip the scrip and think "how would this come across if the shoe were on the other foot?" And the answer in this case is... its still the same fucking joke, even with the entire gender dynamics completely reversed. Even with multiple different sexual orientations at play: it still works for the same reasons. Because lingerie used as kung fu training dogi IS inherently silly, ridiculous, and funny, for ANYONE in ANY such context.

Even if you have absolutely zero gendered view of clothing whatsoever on any level: clothes still have basic utility. There is nothing the least bit utilitarian about sexy lingerie being used as kung fu training outfits. And certainly not for characters who, up to that point, aren't portrayed as the types of characters who ever would wear sexy lingerie even if it DID "fit" their gender. Its absurd and ridiculous on its face, even in a world where any remote hint of any notion of gender is entirely out the fucking window altogether.

Being cishet doesn't get you murdered, raped and ridiculed so I don't think we need to be saying shit like this. Forgive me for being so crass as to openly roll my eyes but I really don't think you need to tell a bi trans woman (especially a non-passing one) about what is or isn't 'legit' when she's the one arguing that "cishet men should be able to wear the clothing they like without having their gender questioned or used as part of a gag."

I apologize for how that part was worded, but I hope you know by now that I am under absolutely zero illusions whatsoever about what's at stake for most trans/queer people (and that point has in fact been pretty central on numerous occasions around here where I've gone to the matt arguing against trans/homophobic idiots).

I know I'm not trans or queer myself, but many people who are and have been very, very dear and close to me throughout my entire life are and have had their lives endangered on several occasions throughout the years because of it. So I don't need to be reminded of that. I've seen it for myself firsthand, fairly close up.

Let me try my best to rephrase what I was (poorly) trying to convey:

Even if we lived in a utopian world that was COMPLETELY free of the current and ridiculous gendered stereotypes: there are going to be people who aren't ok with wearing certain kinds of clothing. Some forms of clothing just DON'T suit people: not by any "societal" standards, but even just their own.

Even in a world completely free of any and all threat to women, trans or otherwise: not all women are going to want to dress in skimpy, revealing clothing (nor in conservative, heavy clothing for that matter). Not all men are going to like wearing dresses or skirts or gowns, even in a society with ZERO stigma or repercussions towards ANY man wearing those things. Some things just AREN'T for absolutely everyone.

Even if we were to take Dragon Ball, or at least this part of it, and transplant it into just such a world that was free of these kinds of gendered stereotypes: this incredibly stupid, silly-ass joke would STILL work for all the reasons I stated earlier. Even setting completely aside how wildly bizarre and nonsensical lingerie is as martial arts training gear (and that's certainly a BIG part of the joke in and of itself): NOTHING about Goku, and Kuririn's characters paints them as "lingerie"-type characters (Roshi maybe, but that's a whole other story). Even in a world with NO gender stereotypes, lingerie is STILL clothing that is largely meant to be sexy/attract others sexually. Gender and utility are not the same thing.

When I said earlier that "cis is legit too" (which I agree, was HORRIBLE and cringe-ass wording on my part, I do apologize for that), what I was very clumsily and awkwardly trying to convey was that even in a world that was completely utopian towards gender and sexuality: the kinds of people who in today's world are "cis/heteronormative" would STILL exist and be out there. In however large or small a capacity: there would STILL be SOME segment or subset of people who ONLY wear clothing that in our current paradigm is deemed "masculine" or "feminine". And that would still be ok too.

Because the point is that its about CHOICE and agency, and letting people just be who they are without fear of shame or reprisal. And some people just ARE what current society would largely view as "cis masculine" or "cis feminine". Not EVERYONE, not even close to everyone: but SOME people are and still would be, even in a gender-free paradise. Because again, human sexuality is a very broad and messy spectrum: and as a spectrum, some people are going to fall further and further on one extreme end or the other.

Obviously in the case of Dragon Ball, most of its characters are cis/heteronormative because that's unfortunately the kind of world we live in right now. I think its more than fair (hell, I think its flat out NECESSARY) to critique the very fact that our current world IS set up like that, and obviously I also think its very much needed that we criticize works that particularly go out of their way to enforce that norm and are hateful about it to any extent.

For all the genuinely awful shit in most of Roshi's sexual jokes, in this specific single case I just don't see anything there that wouldn't also still be there (and frankly that would STILL be funny, to whatever extent) even if DB were made in a world that was completely free of gendered hangups of any sort. Even in a queer/gender-fluid utopia, someone trying to seriously pass off sexy lingerie as "serious kung fu training garb" would STILL be funny, and there would STILL exist the kinds of people out there who WOULDN'T wear that kind of clothing normally and for whom it would be tremendously out of place on them.

That's all I meant by "cis is legit as well": forget the dumbass, cringe wording I used there, what I was trying to say was even setting completely aside any and all barriers that are currently in place right now when it comes to gender and sexuality, even junking ALL of that totally aside, there will STILL be people in the world who fall under "extreme masculine" and "extreme feminine" (however you define that) on the gigantic human sexuality spectrum, and who thus are going to present themselves in whatever way they see fit under those terms.

That is not in any way meant to even remotely equate the present situation of cis people with the present situation of trans/queer people (there IS NO comparison: trans people still take their lives into their hands every day just by existing out in the world as who they are, which is something that NO white cis person has to deal with), and I feel genuinely horrible and mortified if that's how I in any small way made that come across.

I hope that makes a lot more sense though in any case, whether we ultimately agree or still disagree.

Am I insane? Am I misreading what you're saying here?

I dunno. Possibly? That or I'm just doing a shit job of conveying stuff.

Because, again, presentation doesn't mean anything about one's gender.

In an abstract sense, that's obviously true. But we don't live in an abstract world that is devoid of context. We live in a world that has countless generations-worth of visualized conditioning with regards to what certain clothing styles signify or don't signify about one's gender. Or vice versa: certain genders instantly call to mind certain particular clothing styles. Just on pure, unconscious reflex.

Now obviously I don't agree with most of that context and conditioning (and neither do plenty of other people who are more left of center), and given what a lot of the immense, grotesque horrors that a lot of people have used those socially conditioned "norms" to justify, I think its largely worth tearing most of that conditioning completely the fuck down: but that isn't really relevant to this particular joke in this particular manga.

Whether we like it or not, on some very basic level we're ALL still living and operating within the framework set down by some of that social conditioning: in this case what I'm referring to specifically by that is how certain styles of clothing "present" to people about one's gender. i.e. Skirts and gowns and whatnot present as feminine, while jeans and three piece suits present more masculine and so forth.

And to be sure, we've certainly broken down a whole bunch of that conditioning already: even going back some decades now! I mean for all of our lifetimes, its become vastly more completely normalized for women to dress in what is seen as more "masculine" clothing, and to a lesser extent for men to dress more "feminine". Women go out wearing trousers and motorcycle jackets and ties and whatnot, men wear tighter clothes and makeup and crop tops, etc. Fuck, look at a bunch of 80s fashion for just a relatively small sampling. Androgyny as a socially accepted norm has been a thing for quite awhile now, and hasn't gone anywhere.

But regardless... the names and what they convey to people are still here. You say the words "girls' clothes" and people are going to paint a very specific picture in their mind, same as if you say "boys' clothes". That's a holdover from all those countless years of social conditioning, and its entirely possible that even if we ever someday (one hopes) achieve a completely gender-free/fluid utopia, that a lot of phantom vestiges of these terms and the images that they convey might well still remain to whatever extent (albeit obviously with nowhere NEAR the vitriol and hate behind them in any capacity).

And plus honestly, I largely only use terms like "masculine" or "feminine" in describing a lot of these clothes as just a basic descriptor so that people have a picture in their heads at what I'm talking about. And obviously those words paint that picture in our heads entirely because of the generations and generations worth of social conditioning that we're all operating under and that some of us are trying to help break down and get out of the way.

Cause at the end of the day, who really fucking cares or gives a flying shit what you call any of this stuff? Call it masculine, feminine, or some brand new gibberish term entirely. The name doesn't fucking matter here: all that matters ultimately is that people stop shaming or reacting violently towards people for however the hell they present themselves to the world. That's the ultimate end goal here: that people can present *however* they want (as long as it isn't hurting someone in some way) without being socially ostracized, shamed, or violently assaulted for it.

If we lived in that world, I don't think it should matter what terms we use - gendered or otherwise - to describe ANY of this stuff (so long as it doesn't have a well worn derogatory history at least). Classify it all however you like, or don't classify any of it at all. The name for these things isn't what's important largely, its the actions and the sentiments that people put behind them that matters most.

Plenty of trans women enjoy wearing 'masculine' clothing. Plenty of trans men enjoy wearing makeup or dresses. Enbies too!

Obviously that's all totally true: again, human sexuality is an ENORMOUS and beyond varied and near infinite spectrum. We're not really in disagreement on any of that. But as with any spectrum, some people are going to be further down the extreme of it than others. To wit:

It's totally valid if you, a real life human being, get gender dysphoria from certain clothing. I do, too! Hell, the clothing I'm wearing right now as I type that make me feel uncomfortable but I'm stuck wearing it for the time being due to circumstances.

Also true! And guess what? That's STILL going to be a thing that exists even in a completely gender-free world without any arbitrary boundaries. Not everyone is going to be comfortable or at home wearing certain kinds of clothing. Even in a world where there are NO repercussions for a man dressing in clothes that today's society deems "feminine" (and vice versa) and where absolutely no one, anywhere gives two shits or raises an eyebrow at it: there are still going to exist people who insist on and only feel comfortable wearing clothes that fit one of those particular styles. Its going to be a LOT less of that obviously in such a world, without question: but its still going to exist, because that's how spectrums work: some people are more comfortable at more extremes ends of it than others.

The problem (as I'm sure I don't need to tell you) is that we live in a world that is WAY too binary about gender: you MUST be on one extreme side of the spectrum or the other, and anything that's in any way too far in between those two polar ends is seen as some kind of "aberration" that isn't "natural" or whatever the fuck nonsense. And the real heart of the problem with that is that people use that as a bullshit excuse to at best pointlessly shame and ostracize, and at worst commit violence.

My point though however, is that even getting completely rid of those obstacles and barriers and all these dumb, senseless taboos... there's still going to be a swath of society, however big or small (and odds are, it'll likely be a good deal smaller), that still rests on the polar extreme sides of the spectrum. Not because they feel pressured to be, but because they CHOOSE to be and its where they feel most at home.

The whole of humanity is likely never going to be made up of 100% queer/gender fluid people. There's ALWAYS going to be SOME segment of the populace who will be more or less as cis/hetero as they are right now today (minus any paranoid fear or prejudices they might have towards those who aren't like them) even if we lived in a society that is completely free of any and all misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, and patriarchy.

Because of that, I don't think its really fair to criticize works that are simply told from a cis/heteronormative perspective unless they are specifically saying something about gender/sexuality that's clearly harmful. In our current world, cis/straight its SO overwhelmingly "the norm" that its unreasonable on its face to cite something just being conceptualized from a cis-hetero POV as being a problem in and of itself: but even in the hypothetical context of a world whether things are completely different and open to any/all sexual or gender identity in whatever combination, it would STILL be silly because even in THAT type of world, there are still going to exist SOME segment of people that are just... what we'd consider today to be cis/straight.

In other words, the problem with things like the lingerie joke isn't that its inherently anti-feminine; like I said earlier, the joke would still work more or less the same even with all the gender roles reversed. The problem is that it exists in a work that was made in the context of a real world climate where a cis/hetero POV is so overwhelmingly and disproportionately represented. Which is SUCH a bigger, broader problem than just DB or any other singular work that I don't think its fair or warranted to pin the weight of it onto ANY singular given work (provided again that they aren't otherwise bigoted in some way).

Roushi isn't a real person, though, he's a fictional character being written by a cishet, gender-conforming man, who is improperly asserting his view as fact.

He's (Toriyama)... not doing that though? Nothing is being "asserted as fact". It really IS just a dumb, silly joke where the butt of it is "lingerie makes for silly and impractical martial arts uniforms". And yes also that "Roshi's so horny that he'll even junk rational kung fu training practicality just to see Lunch in her undies". Because yes, its a sex joke as well, and in a kids' manga. But... more on that in a sec.

But all due respect, you really ARE I think projecting WAY too heavily and too deeply onto this and reading far too much into it.

There's no message coming from the comic of the validity of gender variance.

I mean... why would there be? Its a kung fu fantasy comic from a guy who was previously known for poop and fart jokes. What about Dragon Ball necessarily makes you think it be obligated to go out of its way to make 100% sure it covered those incredibly specific bases?

The message is "look at Roushi, who is so perverted, that to get Lunch to wear skimpy clothing he'll wear it himself and pass it off as martial arts clothing!"

Yeah. That's the joke. Which, once again, isn't coming at the expense of Lunch or at women and feminine things in a generalized sense: its coming largely at the expense of Muten Roshi. Unless you want to make a case that no, actually real life martial arts schools SHOULD be using the Victoria's Secret catalogue to base their training dogis on?

Which... that certainly would be unique and original, but for damn sure isn't going to catch on or be popular: and that's again, even IF we lived in a gender-free utopian paradise for all queer/non-binary people. Most queer/trans/non-binary people probably wouldn't want to wear such clothing when training in martial arts. Not because its "anti-feminine" but because its WILDLY, insanely impractical and ludicrous on its face.

It's linking Roushi's sexual harassment and perverse with what 'society' or 'common sense' views as gender non-conforming.

No: its linking Roshi's perversion with what common sense views as "VERY impractical for martial arts training."

Like... this isn't THAT hard to grasp. You're making a COLOSALLY bigger reach here than just about ANYONE - including Toriyama and most trans people honestly - would think to reach.

The gag of getting a woman to wear only underwear for the sake of Roushi's perversion itself is inappropriate in a children's comic in the first place

Hot take: I don't think that its "inappropriate" to have sexual content (within a certain reason I suppose) in children's media. I think children probably SHOULD learn the basic fundamentals about sex at a MUCH earlier age than we tend to try and teach them. There really isn't much practical reason for adults/parents to hide it away from them for NEARLY as long as they do.

Once again: the issue with Roshi's perverted gags was NEVER that they were sexual content in a kids' comic. Its that they were grotesquely rapey and moreover that they presented such behavior as "harmless" and "innocent" and even "charmingly endearing" or "quirky".

Without that horrible, horrible subtext though? Have all the sexual jokes/dirty content in a kids' comic that you want. Kids' tend to have their own INCREDIBLY filthy, dirty sense of humor anyhow. Seriously folks, we need to put to bed the notion that children are NEARLY as innocent as we bend over backwards to delude ourselves into thinking. Kids are anything but innocent.

Honestly, I don't even have a problem with RAPE ITSELF coming up (again, within a range of reasonability) in a piece of media aimed at kids': just so long as its presented in a sane and rational context. i.e. Its horrible, traumatic, and one of the worst things you can do to someone, and isn't funny or cute or endearing.

Content itself should NEVER be the issue: its the CONTEXT that its presented in that should matter INFINITELY more.

The issue with most of Roshi's perverted antics was never that they were sexual content: its that the context behind them was completely fucked. That ISN'T the case however with the lingerie bit. The context here is far, far more benign, and reading "anti-femininity" into it is a seriously, seriously enormous fucking reach that totally ignores all the glaringly more obvious reasons for why its funny to 99% of most people reading/viewing it.

but to drag in what society might call queerness is just another part that makes me roll my eyes. That's my criticism.

And that criticism doesn't make any sense and is wildly misguided/misplaced, because "queerness" ISN'T what the point of the joke is: its that those clothes suit neither the situation nor the characters in question. See above as to why that is.

I mean, yeah, if a right-wing reactionary wants to cry 'woke SJW crybaby', like, they're going to do that no matter what. Fuck, I get worse remarks dealing with the public all day. The keyboard warriors owning the libs can keep typing all they like, I eat worse for breakfast.

Ok, let me be super, extra clear about this here: I was in NO way giving you that earlier advice as a way of saying "you should be careful about the feelings of right wing reactionaries". No, absolutely fuck right wing reactionaries and fuck if anyone hurts their precious feelings. They are NOT who I was concerned with at all, whatsoever.

I'm talking about totally 100% average people who AREN'T right wing reactionaries, but who are somewhere in the politically incoherent morass that we call "the mainstream" or "normies". People who aren't reactionary, hateful bigots, but who simply don't know shit from shinola about trans or queer people nor do they really know any of them, and only have to go by what non-trans/non-queer people keep telling them about them. And for a LOT of terminally online nerds in the climate of the last 7 years or so... those non-trans/non-queer people constantly whispering in their ear 24/7 tend to very often be right wing bigots on Youtube, 4chan, and social media.

There's a lot of people in this community here who have never, ever interacted with a trans or queer person before in their lives, and for whom online communities like this are very nearly ALL they ever do in the way of "social interaction". And no Julie, obviously you shouldn't be made to feel like you need to walk around on eggshells around those kinds of people, or anyone in general for that matter. That isn't at all what I'm suggesting whatsoever.

What I am saying is that there's decent odds that you might very well be potentially one of the very, very few (possibly only?) trans people that a bunch of people do see/read from, or that they otherwise might interact with in some capacity on a regular basis. And interactions on such nerd communities like this one where such people feel that such a person (and they can be whatever minority group, trans, gay, Muslim, black, whatever) is being needlessly combative against them only serve help to further fuel and validate the constant NONSTOP onslaught of reactionary propaganda and messaging about "SJWs" that they're getting shoved into their heads on a near constant, never ending basis from Youtube algorithms and 4chan and the like.

If you're pissed, you're pissed. If you're having a shitty day, you're plenty entitled to it. And if you're just having a general "I've had enough of dealing with cis people's constant bullshit today!" sort of moment, then that's fine and beyond understandable. I'm only mentioning this side of the coin (what it looks like to clueless cis nerds who are WAY too online and have very little going on socially outside the internet: which again, makes up a LOT of the populace for communities like this one) as something to just generally keep rattling around in the back of your head in general. Not to torment yourself with it: but just something to be conscious of and consider from time to time.

Because far right reactionaries are already doing more than beyond enough to keep fanning the flames of pointless, irrational conflict and hostility for purposes of drawing over people who don't know that much in general and feel like they're helplessly caught in the middle: those who are Left-leaning or part of marginalized communities in general probably shouldn't be going out of their collective way to further stoke that animosity by playing right into some of the more absurd, shitty stereotypes (SJWs are unreasonable and needlessly hostile toward cis white men and whatnot) pushed by such reactionary shit-stirrers.

[JulieYBM]

Well, wanting to ban porn from being created and consumed by consenting adults is inherently conservative. All the porn and erotica creators I know are Communists, socialists and anarchists. Telling women, people of color and queer people what to do with their bodies goes against left-wing ideas.

Against mainstream left-wing ideas, but I'm talking about extremists, who think porn is inherently degrading to women and encourages rape, so it shouldn't exist. They have been known to share common cause with the right-wing religious types that want it banned for being sinful.

You're using 'left-wing/liberal' as if they don't have a defined political ideology in combination with the term 'extremist' under the assumption that it does have a set definition. This seems like a bit of an incongruity.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Well, wanting to ban porn from being created and consumed by consenting adults is inherently conservative. All the porn and erotica creators I know are Communists, socialists and anarchists. Telling women, people of color and queer people what to do with their bodies goes against left-wing ideas.

Against mainstream left-wing ideas, but I'm talking about extremists, who think porn is inherently degrading to women and encourages rape, so it shouldn't exist. They have been known to share common cause with the right-wing religious types that want it banned for being sinful.

You're using 'left-wing/liberal' as if they don't have a defined political ideology in combination with the term 'extremist' under the assumption that it does have a set definition. This seems like a bit of an incongruity.

The more extreme you go in a direction, left or right, the ideology tends to change, and people will come up with more and more twisted reasoning to justify it. That's what the horseshoe effect is about - both sides bend back towards each other.

[JulieYBM]

Y'all, I spend 99.99% trying to be the 'model token tranny'. I can't be expected to hand-hold centrists and liberals who haven't met another trans person before all the fucking time.

Against mainstream left-wing ideas, but I'm talking about extremists, who think porn is inherently degrading to women and encourages rape, so it shouldn't exist. They have been known to share common cause with the right-wing religious types that want it banned for being sinful.

You're using 'left-wing/liberal' as if they don't have a defined political ideology in combination with the term 'extremist' under the assumption that it does have a set definition. This seems like a bit of an incongruity.

The more extreme you go in a direction, left or right, the ideology tends to change, and people will come up with more and more twisted reasoning to justify it. That's what the horseshoe effect is about - both sides bend back towards each other.

But that doesn't make any sense. A more simple and likely explanation is that the person doesn't believe in leftism. Trying to tie a historically progressive political ideology to both side-isms is the sort of centrist bullshit that purposefully muddies the waters in the first place.

Like, the Nazis called themselves socialists. They clearly were not and killed many of them. Just like they did queer people.

[Polyphase Avatron]

Y'all, I spend 99.99% trying to be the 'model token tranny'. I can't be expected to hand-hold centrists and liberals who haven't met another trans person before all the fucking time.

You're using 'left-wing/liberal' as if they don't have a defined political ideology in combination with the term 'extremist' under the assumption that it does have a set definition. This seems like a bit of an incongruity.

The more extreme you go in a direction, left or right, the ideology tends to change, and people will come up with more and more twisted reasoning to justify it. That's what the horseshoe effect is about - both sides bend back towards each other.

But that doesn't make any sense. A more simple and likely explanation is that the person doesn't believe in leftism. Trying to tie a historically progressive political ideology to both side-isms is the sort of centrist bullshit that purposefully muddies the waters in the first place.

Like, the Nazis called themselves socialists. They clearly were not and killed many of them. Just like they did queer people.

Extremists don't have to make sense. That's why they're extremists. They take a basic idea and push it to whatever insane conclusion they can. Some porn is offensive and degrading to women? Some porn involves rape? Then all porn is evil and causes rape, so it needs to be banned.

This phenomenon exists and is documented.

[GatoF]

I hated that episode, Roshi's perversity doesn't 'work' anymore since the last decade and mainly in a kids show.
They shouldn't have banned the whole anime because of one episode though.

[MyVisionity]

It doesn't work anymore because it's poorly written. Roshi's perversity had better writing and was handled more effectively in the original two series, whether Toriyama or Toei. The Super stuff doesn't measure up.

I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with the times, and kids haven't changed that much as far as I'm aware.

[fleahop]

Toriyama's perverse humor is what it is. Not my cup of tea and I'd argue some of it is beyond too far, but hey, it's his art not mine.

I'm amazed this community is so upset about this though. I'm far from caring for "political correctness" but not only are some of the "jokes" inappropriate in the current climate, they never were appropriate for a child audience to begin with.

Say what you will about cultural differences, but many of Toriyama's joke's takes are in poor taste, especially in regard to child abuse and the disregard to many types of abuse.

I have my own tastes and think certain jokes are harmless, but I don't think for a minute there's some brigade coming to "liberalize anime" or something. We need to wake up, think of others, and call out what's right and what's wrong.

Them deciding to not air DBS was a very bold move, and while I hate to cull a whole series, I think of it like this.

If I had a family get together and it was great with a very diverse family, but one uncle hated blondes...should we all just ignore him casually talking down the blonde group, or should we tell him how we feel and address the issue? Pacifism is compliance.

...

With all of that being said I think Goku patting Bulma's crotch and checking are funny in original Dragon Ball.

I think young Chichi being in a skimpy outfit is fucking weird.

There's a line somewhere.

[Shaddy]

Against mainstream left-wing ideas, but I'm talking about extremists, who think porn is inherently degrading to women and encourages rape, so it shouldn't exist. They have been known to share common cause with the right-wing religious types that want it banned for being sinful.

EDIT: Also a lot of these extreme feminists who want all porn banned are also the TERF kind who are against trans people. That's another example of the horseshoe effect, as they have worked together with right-wingers to promote transphobia.

But that's not left-wing extremism, that's conservative opinion smuggled into progressive rhetoric. TERFs are not "too far left", they are far-right infiltrators looking to sow division, whether they admit it to themselves or not. If you fundamentally believe in feminism, hating trans people would not make you "too feminist", it would make you a liar.

The best argument you could make against pornography is that the mainstream porn industry is a misogyninst hellscape of unregulated capitalism and regular assault, but those are systemic issues. If you destroy pornography altogether, you're not actually fixing those problems, just deregulating the industry, since it's all equally illegal now. Are leftists known to like deregulation?

[Polyphase Avatron]

Against mainstream left-wing ideas, but I'm talking about extremists, who think porn is inherently degrading to women and encourages rape, so it shouldn't exist. They have been known to share common cause with the right-wing religious types that want it banned for being sinful.

EDIT: Also a lot of these extreme feminists who want all porn banned are also the TERF kind who are against trans people. That's another example of the horseshoe effect, as they have worked together with right-wingers to promote transphobia.

But that's not left-wing extremism, that's conservative opinion smuggled into progressive rhetoric. TERFs are not "too far left", they are far-right infiltrators looking to sow division, whether they admit it to themselves or not. If you fundamentally believe in feminism, hating trans people would not make you "too feminist", it would make you a liar.

The best argument you could make against pornography is that the mainstream porn industry is a misogyninst hellscape of unregulated capitalism and regular assault, but those are systemic issues. If you destroy pornography altogether, you're not actually fixing those problems, just deregulating the industry, since it's all equally illegal now. Are leftists known to like deregulation?

Isn't that a 'no true Scotsman' argument?

TERFs don't hate trans people for the same reasons right-wing reactionaries do

Right-wing transphobic perspective: God made people male and female so if you reject your biological sex then you are sinning, traditional gender roles are good and shouldn't be changed, the Bible says that men shouldn't wear women's clothing, it's associated with homosexuality and that's a sin, etc.

TERF transphobic perspective: All people with penises are potential rapists so cis women shouldn't have to feel unsafe around them, trans women are just men who want to appropriate femininity for themselves, trans men are just women who betrayed their sex in order to try to get the power that the patriarchy has, trans are infiltrators trying to sabotage feminism, etc.

[Kunzait_83]

TERFs don't hate trans people for the same reasons right-wing reactionaries do

On the contrary, they actually overlap a LOT on why they hate trans people once you look past the purely religious arguments, which even many outwardly far right reactionary groups haven't been centralizing much of their anti-trans rhetoric around for awhile now.

Right-wing transphobic perspective: God made people male and female so if you reject your biological sex then you are sinning, traditional gender roles are good and shouldn't be changed, the Bible says that men shouldn't wear women's clothing, it's associated with homosexuality and that's a sin, etc.

TERF transphobic perspective: All people with penises are potential rapists so cis women shouldn't have to feel unsafe around them, trans women are just men who want to appropriate femininity for themselves, trans men are just women who betrayed their sex in order to try to get the power that the patriarchy has, trans are infiltrators trying to sabotage feminism, etc.

There's a ton of extra context that's missing from this over-simplified and relatively dated comparison.

Many Right wing reactionary corners have for quite some time now adopted far more "secular" language and rationale for why they hate trans and gay people.

In the case of trans people, its been a very well known fact for many years now that Right wing reactionary political leaders and organizations have been using the "trans women are just men who want to pretend to be women so they can sneak into the women's bathroom and rape cis women" argument for a good number of years now: more than a decade or longer for sure.

Thus making their rhetoric behind their anti-trans positions overlap FAR more with TERFs than if they were simply just peddling the same old religious nonsense for all this time. They still deal in the religious reasoning as well, but they've ALSO been consistently using arguments for a good long while now that are barely distinguishable at all from TERF talking points on the matter.

Reactionary right social media figures like Steven Crowder (a fairly obvious trans closet-case himself) have been all over that beat for years and years now, as have much of mainstream Republican politicians across America since even well long before the Trump years. None of these people can in any remote way be mistaken for being in any which way "Left" of anything.

Obviously religion plays into it as well on the Right still for sure, but that isn't what significant swaths of their movement have been leaning on as much for awhile now: they've moved positions more increasingly throughout the 2010s toward more pseudoscientific rationales as well as toward paranoid conspiratorial thinking regarding "rapists trying to get into women's bathrooms" and the like.

Which by the way, there is ZERO statistical evidence to support: the number of cases where men simply try to pass themselves off as women to enter women's restrooms so they can rape the occupants have largely been incredibly minimal overall in general.

But much more damning than that even is the fact that there has been absolutely NO increase in such cases within areas where trans people are legally allowed to use their preferred bathrooms. Statistically speaking, the amount of times that such sexual assaults in women's bathrooms have occurred in the years since trans bathroom laws have been on the books hasn't budged a single fucking inch. In some cases, in literally more than a solid DECADE+.

Whether it be from TERFS (who I would 1000% agree with Shaddy are NOT in any remote way "left", certainly not on LGBTQ issues at baremost minimum: they're lying to themselves as much as they are others if they genuinely believe otherwise) or official right wing political organizations or what have you, the myth that "trans people are a threat to women because they're potential rapists" has been, and continues to be, repeatedly debunked time and time again as pure paranoid fantasy and hysterics: and yes, it is almost by definition rooted in reactionary thinking.

TERFs can dress their transphobia up in whatever "feminist" language they like; its ultimately when you drill down into it the same exact form of bigotry peddled in right wing circles, with much the same hysterical panic over nonsensical "oh won't someone think of the women and children" delusional pearl-clutching rooted at the center of it.

And its not like even more openly right wing reactionaries aren't in any which way above disingenuously pretending to give a crap about feminism whenever it suits their needs in countless other contexts as well: so I don't buy the "I'm just trying to protect women because I'm a feminist" line of bullshit one bit when it comes from TERFs either. They can couch their bigotry behind feminist rhetoric all they like till they're red in the face: they're still just reactionary conservatives to their core, and anything they typically say to the contrary is more often than not transparently full of shit and doesn't pass the smell test one bit.

To that point, there's been for quite some years now some increased writing and reporting about how a lot of groups that purport to be feminist and pro-gay/lesbian but are also anti-trans have actually turned out to be reactionary conservative-aligned hate groups attempting to deliberately pit different queer groups against one another. Yeah, "Left" my ass.

So you'll forgive me if I find it hard to take most TERFs at their word when they claim that they despise trans people mainly because they're just "worried for the safety of women" because they're just such staunch Left feminists. Fucking spare me: anyone who buys that line of crap at this point is a gullible chump.

This isn't "no true Scotsman": this is people simply being conned by another conservative hustle.

[Shaddy]

Isn't that a 'no true Scotsman' argument?

Not really; progressive rhetoric is fundamentally built to defend against hating people for superficial traits. That doesn't mean it can't be appropriated to rationalize shitty behavior, but all that says about the rhetoric is that it needs to be tighter, not that the logical extent of being against hatred is not being against hatred.

It's kind of like saying a racist who believes white people are genetically superior was "motivated by evolution". If the information is the complete opposite of what they're saying, then one of them is lying, and I'm going to trust the science over the people saying my friends are degenerate filth, be they fash or terf.

Even if there were a meaningful distinction between terfs and the far-right, they're fought in all of the same ways by all of the same people, so it feels as if it's only muddying the water to point out that distinction. If a wasp nest is actually two wasp nests stuck together, I still don't want to be stung by wasps.

...Wow, we sure got off-topic, didn't we?

Uh...hey, do they ever rerun DB, Z or GT in Argentina? How do they handle the gropey shit there, or how did they in the past? Is this the first time it's come up?

[PurestEvil]

Uh...hey, do they ever rerun DB, Z or GT in Argentina? How do they handle the gropey shit there, or how did they in the past? Is this the first time it's come up?

To be fair, the Ministry of Women, Genders, and Diversity was established only three years ago. They were probably focusing on more pressing matters in that past period.

[JulieYBM]

Holy shit TERFs are not progressives. They're conservatives in sheep's clothing. There's nothing progressive about making our lives a living nightmare because they're obsessed with defining their womanhood with misogynistic bullshit like whether they have fucking wombs and can have kids or not. Or whether they fit misogynistic beauty standards.

[goku the krump dancer]

I'm amazed this community is so upset about this though. I'm far from caring for "political correctness" but not only are some of the "jokes" inappropriate in the current climate, they never were appropriate for a child audience to begin with.

The target demographic for Shonen magazine is 12-18 years old, so the jokes are in line for who the main audience is supposed to be. Dragon Ball is a simple story with a very relaxed art style but its not exactly aimed at booger picking, slobbering 5 year olds, though they will watch.

[PurestEvil]

I'm amazed this community is so upset about this though. I'm far from caring for "political correctness" but not only are some of the "jokes" inappropriate in the current climate, they never were appropriate for a child audience to begin with.

The target demographic for Shonen magazine is 12-18 years old, so the jokes are in line for who the main audience is supposed to be. Dragon Ball is a simple story with a very relaxed art style but its not exactly aimed at booger picking, slobbering 5 year olds, though they will watch.

Shounen manga in Japan is meant for primary schoolers, which includes kids younger than 12. It is likely that a few slobbering 5 year olds saw Roshi slobber in [disguised Oolong] Bulma’s boobs

[goku the krump dancer]

I dont think thats true, a simple google search says the target audience is 12 to 18 years old.

https://www.google.com/search?q=shonen+ ... nt=gws-wiz

And an even further breakdown of the numbers as of 2019 says that 85% of Shonen Jump's reader base is at minimum 13 years old while only a measly 3% are younger than 9 years old.

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2 ... es/.145991

I only bring this up because "what's age appropriate" has been brought up several times and I felt the need to remind folks that while yes most of us were kids watching DB its not a "Kids Show" in the same way we think of kids shows like Rugrats or Spongebob.

Super Sentai/Power Rangers is more geared towards that Primary/Elementary School audience but even then that target demo tops out at around 15 years old. Which explains A LOT on how the tone of a Sentai series can change so abruptly from episode to episode.

https://www.google.com/search?q=super+s ... nt=gws-wiz

[Polyphase Avatron]

I never said that the TERF arguments made sense or were correct. I was just stating what their perspective was, according to what they say.

As for conservatives making the 'predators in bathrooms' argument, I think they mostly know that's false and just use it as a mask for their bigotry, because they are not consistently against sex abuse and harassment (see how they so often defend sex offenders and institutions like the Catholic church). They don't actually care about women being harassed or raped, they just pretend to in order to hate on trans people.

TERFs, on the other hand, seem to genuinely believe that this is an issue and that cis women are in danger from it. Of course they're wrong, and they will use motivated reasoning to dismiss the evidence that shows them to be wrong, but they actually believe that the safety of women is their primary goal.

J.K. Rowling is a TERF and if you read through many of the things she has said on the subject, she certainly doesn't come off as right-wing at all (although she has aligned and agreed with the right on the transphobia bandwagon, which is an example of the horseshoe effect I talked about). Her arguments are just as bad and illogical as the right wing arguments, but they're coming from a different direction entirely.

TERFs also often hold extreme radical feminist views in other areas, like claiming that men can't be raped, which is definitely not something a right wing reactionary would say.

Basically my point is that if you drift too far in either direction you get really nasty views and behavior, and a lot of it is similar. I used the examples of Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia before. They were complete ideological enemies, but look at what they had in common:

- The government/leaders had absolute power and the citizens had no say
- Criticizing the government was illegal and could get you arrested or killed
- They would kill their own people en masse and on purpose
- State-run media filled with propaganda was the only news source