Why do they seem to be pushing Mai x Trunks?

[gogeta97]

I don't want to start some argument but one of the reasons I've struggled to get into more anime in general is the weirdly...pedo overtones a lot of shows have and how relaxed their attitudes towards it are. It doesn't help that loli and shota are things that exist.

[dbzfan7]

If I can put in my two cents, it was okay as a one off joke in Bog and RoF. In the Mirai Timeline, my issue is that she's physically the same age as Trunks. (because it doesn't make sense that in the Mirai Timeline, Pilaf gang screw up the wish, and just because of time travel, they wait an extra 10 plus years to screw up the wish in the main timeline. Goku's heart disease not starting when it should and extra androids are one thing, but Pilaf gang were non issues, and the dragonballs would have been as well) Otherwise, if they're both adults, who cares.

But now they're extending this relationship, from a one off joke to main timeline Trunks and Mai being puppy dog eyes with each other, just to mirror the Mirai Trunks and Mai timeline, which they did because of the one off joke from BoG and RoF. And main timeline Trunks is still a minor. And Mai is at least 40. That's creepy. Toei may think it's cute...but it's not.

I just realized something that ticks me off. The Gohan and Trunks parallel I wanted for the Cyborg arc and Boo arc, didn't happen. But the parallel we're getting is Mai and Trunks....really....priorities.

[JulieYBM]

I don't want to start some argument but one of the reasons I've struggled to get into more anime in general is the weirdly...pedo overtones a lot of shows have and how relaxed their attitudes towards it are. It doesn't help that loli and shota are things that exist.

Lolicon and shoutacon are not substitutions for actual pedophilia, just as woman into yaoi aren't actually into gay men.

I'm in a hell of a Catch-22, but I'll say this for my own sake anyway: I don't actually like lolicon or shoutacon, but that doesn't mean the grown losers who go around watching cartoons and discussing them on message boards need to go around calling the kettle black when it comes to lolicons and shoutacons. We're all pretty disgusting in the eyes of society, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is harming actual living people. One thing is separate from another.

Lady Red has its superhero protagonist outright raped and switch to prostitution as a result of liking the money it can make her! By 'normal standards' that's offensive.

Well, no. That's offensive by just about any standards. What fiction presents is important, and it's a reasonable reaction to enjoy some of what an author puts forth while taking issue with the potential impact of other content. I could talk about subversive art all day long, but that doesn't mean we all have to give artists carte blanche on moral responsibility, or turn off those receptors when we respond to their work.

This ... doesn't really have anything to do with Trunks and Mai, which I think is sufficiently presented through a lens of innocent absurdity -- bolstered by the freewheeling oddity of Dragon World in general -- but it bears noting.

I would argue the storytelling of Lady Red is hardly quantifiable as good, but the actual idea itself is pretty interesting. It's the sort of twisted one can enjoy only if they're able to tell fiction apart from reality.

[Cipher]

I would argue the storytelling of Lady Red is hardly quantifiable as good, but the actual idea itself is pretty interesting. It's the sort of twisted one can enjoy only if they're able to tell fiction apart from reality.

We can all tell fiction apart from reality. That doesn't mean fiction gets carte-blanche to do whatever it wants without moral consideration. The way fiction influences our lives and attitudes is actually quite important, and moral critique is a fair response.

As always, it's a matter of presentation, but Belle du Jour this is not.

[Bansho64]

My apologies, my previous point was wrong and miscontrued and I edited it to this message.

[Scarz]

I would argue the storytelling of Lady Red is hardly quantifiable as good, but the actual idea itself is pretty interesting. It's the sort of twisted one can enjoy only if they're able to tell fiction apart from reality.

We can all tell fiction apart from reality. That doesn't mean fiction gets carte-blanche to do whatever it wants without moral consideration. The way fiction influences our lives and attitudes is actually quite important, and moral critique is a fair response.

As always, it's a matter of presentation, but Belle du Jour this is not.

Can you elaborate? I could be wrong about what your saying about moral consideration. But fiction DOES gets to do whatever it wants even if you don't agree or like it. You are right in that it doesn't mean it's safe from criticisms.

[Scarz]

I think what Cipher is trying to say is that there needs to be boundaries. Yes, fiction can do whatever it wants but there needs to be a line. I get what JulieYBM is saying about the literature not being real life but it's still disturbing. Especially that Lady Red thing. I don't know what it is but from what I'm hearing, it's sick and disturbing. It's no different from underage pornography.

No there really shouldn't. It might make you feel uncomfortable but at the end of the day they're two fictional characters who do not exist. Saying that there should be "boundaries" to a piece of fiction is actually quite dangerous. Where do you draw the line? Who's to say what's right and what's wrong? Believe it or not there might be some things you like or enjoy that someone people might think is devious or offensive.

But hey, I'm kinda biased here.

[Cipher]

Can you elaborate? I could be wrong about what your saying about moral consideration. But fiction DOES gets to do whatever it wants even if you don't agree or like it. You are right in that it doesn't mean it's safe from criticisms.

It's just not safe from criticism. The wording of Jacob's earlier post implied we have to check our moral qualms at the door when discussing art. Or at least that was my reading.

And to an extent you do have to check them -- at least in the way that simply saying a work personally offends your understanding of decency is not valid criticism (and I'd argue it's even more reason for such a work to exist). It's absolutely valid to look at something and say, "This offers little and thoughtlessly reinforces some pretty negative viewpoints" though. It's all in execution, and recognizing that, while art that's truly aiming to be subversive can be important and wonderful, it's possible for it to be rather thoughtlessly harmful as well.

There shouldn't be boundaries. That's not what I'm saying at all. Like, holy hell, if I could drop a list of my favorite art/fiction right here, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Or, it's like, real-world-example(!): I watched Belladonna of Sadness for the first time the other week. It wound up really making good on its feminist/pro-sex assertions, but there was a period toward the beginning of the movie when I and everyone I was watching it with were like, "Okay. Was there actually a reason to show breasts in that scene? Was that just kind of pornographic at the character's expense?" And if it had continued on with a kind of exploitative execution, or not made good on that later, I would have come away feeling that was a valid critique of the film -- that it was just kind of thoughtlessly exploitative -- especially considering its mostly male staff. It would be a valid reason to disparage it. (It turns out it's pretty great, but I still feel it would be more coherent if the sexually demanding demonic figure it features were female or gender-ambiguous. I chalk that up to the era and perhaps leaning on easily available devil tropes.)

[gogeta97]

Lolicon and shoutacon are not substitutions for actual pedophilia, just as woman into yaoi aren't actually into gay men.

I'm in a hell of a Catch-22, but I'll say this for my own sake anyway: I don't actually like lolicon or shoutacon, but that doesn't mean the grown losers who go around watching cartoons and discussing them on message boards need to go around calling the kettle black when it comes to lolicons and shoutacons. We're all pretty disgusting in the eyes of society, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is harming actual living people. One thing is separate from another.

Yeah no. Fiction or not people who enjoy those things are not comparable to "grown losers"(?)who just like cartoons. I doubt the average person really gives a shit if an adult just watches cartoons anyway, let alone finds it disgusting. It is a bit odd for me to say this since I always roll my eyes at the people who say that violent video games will turn people in psychopaths, but since this is sexual, something that elicits great pleasure in people, I'd say that's where it just gets pretty fucked. I guess I could say the same for people who like guro.

Also there are lots of women who like yaoi that find it very hot, trust me I know.

[Bansho64]

There shouldn't be boundaries. That's not what I'm saying at all. Like, holy hell, if I could drop a list of my favorite art/fiction right here, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Oh my bad. I edited my previous post and took out what I said. I hope I didn't cause too much trouble

[Scarz]

Lolicon and shoutacon are not substitutions for actual pedophilia, just as woman into yaoi aren't actually into gay men.

I'm in a hell of a Catch-22, but I'll say this for my own sake anyway: I don't actually like lolicon or shoutacon, but that doesn't mean the grown losers who go around watching cartoons and discussing them on message boards need to go around calling the kettle black when it comes to lolicons and shoutacons. We're all pretty disgusting in the eyes of society, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is harming actual living people. One thing is separate from another.

Yeah no. Fiction or not people who enjoy those things are not comparable to "grown losers"(?)who just like cartoons. I doubt the average person really gives a shit if an adult just watches cartoons anyway, let alone finds it disgusting. It is a bit odd for me to say this since I always roll my eyes at the people who say that violent video games will turn people in psychopaths, but since this is sexual, something that elicits great pleasure in people, I'd say that's where it just gets pretty fucked. I guess I could say the same for people who like guro.

Also there are lots of women who like yaoi that find it very hot, trust me I know.

It's very ironic that you say that you hate it when people blame violent video games for psychopaths and yet in the same sentence condemn people for the their sexual fantasies (in way calling them "fucked up"). I'm similar to you, I hate it when folks say that our sexual fantasies are related to who we are as people in life. "If you like lolicon than you're a pedo" is extremely silly way of thinking. I know women who have rape fantasies, that doesn't mean that they're fucked up or wished to be raped.

[Gyt Kaliba]

The reasoning Scarz and JulieYBM have both brought up is the exact thing I was trying to express earlier, though I didn't express it nearly as well. Fiction can indeed have an effect on reality, but in the long run? People that can't tell the difference between the two are the real problem - be it overly treating fiction like it's equivalent to reality, or the even sadder/usually more destructive cases of people acting out something that should never be done in real life - not problematic fiction.

If something is 'wrong' or 'offensive' in fiction, it should be used as a discussion point for why it'd be wrong in the real world, if nothing else. There's nothing really achieved from trying to limit storytellers from telling their stories.

[gogeta97]

It's very ironic that you say that you hate it when people blame violent video games for psychopaths and yet in the same sentence condone people for the their sexual fantasies (in way calling them "fucked up"). I'm similar to you, I hate it when folks say that our sexual fantasies are related to who we are as people in life. "If you like lolicon than you're a pedo" is extremely silly way of thinking. I know women who have rape fantasies, that doesn't mean that they're fucked up or wished to be raped.

Maybe I didn't do a good job of explaining it, but I did mention that on purpose to make my point. The point being that I think that it's one thing to have fun playing GTA, but if it turns you on every time you kill someone(or like I mentioned you get off to guro)then that's where it gets fucked up. I don't want to be mean but I just feel very strongly against stuff like that. Obviously it's not comparable to real life harm, but it still just bothers me. Also I think you're a little confused about what it means to "condone" something because that is not what I did.

[Scarz]

Also I think you're a little confused about what it means to "condone" something because that is not what I did.

My mistake. I was replying to thread on my phone. I was swiping "condemn" but it auto corrected it to "condone".

[Zephyr]

Lolicon and shoutacon are not substitutions for actual pedophilia, just as woman into yaoi aren't actually into gay men.

I'm in a hell of a Catch-22, but I'll say this for my own sake anyway: I don't actually like lolicon or shoutacon, but that doesn't mean the grown losers who go around watching cartoons and discussing them on message boards need to go around calling the kettle black when it comes to lolicons and shoutacons. We're all pretty disgusting in the eyes of society, but that doesn't matter. What does matter is harming actual living people. One thing is separate from another.

There's also the matter of pedophiles not being the same as child molesters, in the same way that heterosexual males are not rapists. So even if there is a "pro pedophile" agenda being pushed (which there's not, since loli/shota isn't pedophilia; not that there's even a pro loli/shota agenda being pushed, just saying), a further case really needs to be made in order to justify the moral condemnation. Saying something is "sick and disturbing" is not a sufficient argument for condemnation. That's the exact same kind of reasoning that justifies homophobia, racism, sexism, etc. "I don't like it, so it's wrong."

I think it's unfortunate to even have to find yourself in such a Catch-22. There seems to be a general atmosphere in society that if you're defending something, you have to necessarily have a direct personal stake in it. I see this at school, when someone is questioning knee-jerk criticism of conservative values, I see this in places online like 4chan, when someone is questioning knee-jerk criticism of liberal values. Slaves weren't the only ones who wanted slavery to end. Homosexuals weren't the only ones who wanted same-sex marriage to be a thing. People who are into loli/shota aren't the only ones who find the demonizing of those who are to be ridiculous.

Also there are lots of women who like yaoi that find it very hot, trust me I know.

That's fine, but that doesn't mean that they all do, which I think is what Jacob was aiming for, but I'm not entirely sure.

[Bansho64]

To be honest, I always thought they might go with Videl as a love interest for Future Trunks rather than Mai That certainly would be a strange situation for the present Gohan had he ever found out............ EDIT: Hey I know I've already apologized two times for my earlier post but I just kinda feel bad. My interjection of my own beliefs into facts was inexcusable. My comment on something being "sick and disturbing" was my own view on something and the whole "boundaries" thing was very out of line. I realize I was ignorant and it will not happen again.

[Fionordequester]

My personal thoughts on this are thus: People have the people to see and watch whatever they want, and authors are free to make whatever they want, darn the consequences. But...issues like pedophilia, rape, and really...any kind of sexual immorality have to be taken seriously. As others have said, I'm hesistant to go deeper into the anime world because of how it's women often seem to be treated. I worry that if I simply "go with the flow"...I'm going to eventually be de-sensitized to something I really should find offensive. I won't hate it with the same passion that I should hate it with, because if I keep watching it, I'm going to be a victim of Cognitive Dissonance. I'd have my passionate viewpoints on the one hand...but on the other hand, I would continue to watch and support a show who's authors seem to be flagrantly ignoring those moral codes.

In that situation, I have to either stop watching it, grit my teeth and bear it (a very unpleasant feeling, I can assure you), or I'd have to eventually stop making a big deal about it. And stuff like what has been mentioned in the thread DESERVES to have huge deals made about them! Stuff like the over-sexualization of teenage girls should not BE something that you're desensitized to! That's part of the reason why Master Roshi is such a creep at times!

...

Now, that all being said...I don't actually mind the shipping of Mai X Trunks. I was at first, but...then I realized that while Mai retained her memories...she hasn't necessarily retained her hormones. Those don't start REALLY kicking in until about puberty, so for now, the love she has for Trunks is just puppy love. If they grow up together and decide that they want to keep things going, then they can figure that out for themselves; either way, Trunks and his family are smart enough to know what's good for him, and Mai seems like she's a very good woman (at least, judging by Episode 47).

[Doctor.]

But...issues like pedophilia, rape, and really...any kind of sexual immorality have to be taken seriously.

I'd like to tackle this particular point of your post. Pedophilia itself isn't any kind of sexual immorality, it is a disorder that affects people's lives. Pedophiles do not rape or molest children the same way not every heterossexual rapes a woman just because he fantasizes about her. It's actually a really interesting condition that challenges our morals as a society, that should be researched more and get more funding to help the individuals with this particular disorder. Child pornography/rape is not okay, pedophilia is a different subject. Having sexual fantasies about young children due to a condition that you cannot control poses an interesting moral dilemma. I don't see why pedophiles who don't act upon their desires are any less ethical than you and me.

And just because I feel like I need to bring it up before someone accuses me of being one, no, I am not a pedophile, nor do I have any experience with one of them. And I'm not saying that we, as a society, should under any circumstance be more open to sexual intercourse with children, not at all, that is immoral.

[Fionordequester]

I'd like to tackle this particular point of your post. Pedophilia itself isn't any kind of sexual immorality, it is a disorder that affects people's lives. Pedophiles do not rape or molest children the same way not every heterossexual rapes a woman just because he fantasizes about her. It's actually a really interesting condition that challenges our morals as a society, that should be researched more and get more funding to help the individuals with this particular disorder. Child pornography/rape is not okay, pedophilia is a different subject. Having sexual fantasies about young children due to a condition that you cannot control poses an interesting moral dilemma. I don't see why pedophiles who don't act upon their desires are any less ethical than you and me.

And just because I feel like I need to bring it up before someone accuses me of being one, no, I am not a pedophile, nor do I have any experience with one of them. And I'm not saying that we, as a society, should under any circumstance be more open to sexual intercourse with children, not at all, that is immoral.

So pedophilia isn't an actual activity, it's a mental disorder; is that what you're saying? Huh, never knew that. Thanks for pointing that out.

And yeah, that sounds like a really tough disorder...but I don't know how that would challenge our morals. To me, that would imply that there is reason to change them, when in fact, there is nothing to change. Wrong is wrong; every human on this Earth has their own inner darkness that they have to contend with, including me. But that does not mean that expressions of said darkness should be dealt with any less mercilessly. All it means is that compassion and help needs to be given to those who have trouble standing on their own two feet.

[Doctor.]

And yeah, that sounds like a really tough disorder...but I don't know how that would challenge our morals. To me, that would imply that there is reason to change them, when in fact, there is nothing to change. Wrong is wrong; every human on this Earth has their own inner darkness that they have to contend with, including me. But that does not mean that expressions of said darkness should be dealt with any less mercilessly. All it means is that compassion and help needs to be given to those who have trouble standing on their own two feet.

Oh, certainly. I'm not saying we should accept sexual intercourse with children or even more towards that goal. What I'm saying in terms of challenging our morals is acknowledging that pedophiles can and will live perfectly normal lives without ever touching a child, it's not the fact that they're pedophiles that make them bad people by default like many assume, it's whether or not they act upon their urges.

I'd say it's off-topic, but the thread has already touched upon pedophilia a few times, so I'd say it's in line with what was being discussed. Still, I'll stop now.