>In moé, sexuality is treated indirectly; rather than showing overtly pornographic images, it focusses on “slice of life” dramas that allow consumers—mainly adult men—to observe the budding sexuality of pre-teen and teen-age girls from a discreet remove.
So, anon, are you sexually attracted to little girls?
If something is moe, it cannot be sexual. That is called sexualization.
Nah, the thousand K-On doujinshi on sadpanda just got there by accident. What a retarded question
Anyways, who writes moe like that?
>an animation style called moé
>Re-packaging edgy Japanese pop culture for unwitting foreign audiences is one of Kaikai Kiki’s signature moves.
>Mr. and his cohorts aren’t finished dropping their bombs on an unsuspecting America.
This article made me giggle.
Looks kind of french like that. I like it.
>the new yoker
I don't really pay attention to things, but isn't that a famous pretentious magazine? I'm kind of worried if they're talking about weeb shit
>describe anime as "Japan dropping their bombs on an unsuspecting America"
>and then the next article will decry how America is still racist
Fucking hypocrites. They're all about racism in the NBA or American politics, but won't go down the hall to look at racism in their fucking magazine.
"Dropping bombs" is an innocent metaphor, though.
Stop being paranoid.
So whenever I watch SoL, I'm watching it not because its a drama of sorts and contains things I can relate to, but instead because I wanna whack my meatstick to it? Bullshit. Are adults who watch Family Channel shows touch pedophiles? No.
No it's a blatant pearl harbor reference.
It's prentiousness packaged in a box of intellectual, progressivist smug. You be the judge of whether people who enjo the smell of their own farts is a good read.
He literally explains it one goddamn sentence before
Do you people even read?
Holy shit, 10/10 ruse I'm mad
Yes, 2d little girls.
Anyone who finds a magazine as easy to understand as The New Yorker "pretentious" is illiterate. No need to ask
>Anyone who finds a magazine as easy to understand as The New Yorker "pretentious" is illiterate. No need to ask
two quality baits in a row, I'm impressed.
And they said we were being paranoid in that thread a week or two ago.
Thanks, Pharrell, you fucking faggot
I bet you read Dailymail and jezebel too
In an article about those sneaky Japanese attacking our culture with pedophilia? The author knows exactly what they're doing and the prior sentence serves only to give it a half-assed justification while maintaining the dog-whistle. The line's not a quote.
That is exactly what the artist is known for
>In 2005, the art collective’s travelling installation “Little Boy,” named after the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, made its subtext clear with the subtitle “The Arts of Japan’s Exploding Subculture.”
It's the artist's intention, you fucking illiterate retard
That's their M.O., but you're not allowed to talk about it on this website
fuck off /v/
>budding sexuality of pre-teen and teen-age girls
Yes, because everyone who finds young girls who are sexually maturing should be thrown into a fire, because nobody in the history of forever has ever found them sexually attractive aside from deranged, unstable degenerates.
ALRIGHT PHARREL I'LL LISTEN TO YOUR SHITTY SONG GOOD GOD
That's a decent article. Quite refreshing to read something which doesn't go morality-berserk regarding topics like this.
This. It was surprisingly unbiased.
I was surprised that virtually no major publication commented on the lolis until today, and it was actually well-researched and completely lacked moral outrage. Pharrell is untouchable it seems.
Regardless of the content of the article, it's still going to be disliked because anime culture is being talked about in a semi-popular normalfag work.
I don't want anyone talking about muh weeb shit in a public forum.
>Matt Alt is a Tokyo-based writer and translator.
That probably explains why the article wasn't shit.
Major news publications are all politically-motivated. I don't have problem with that since politics concern our very lives etc., but many editorial articles are so dumb and close-minded, thoroughly lacking on giving genuine info, insights, or discussions. Something which is important for Humanities studies. It's probably only on universities that you can still get access to elaborate studies, but even then it decreases more and more. This is definitely a decadent era.
>Still, the headlines sent lolicon underground for many years, and in the nineteen-nineties creators reared on the genre absorbed, defanged, and desexualized it for the mainstream. Today, it has morphed into an animation style called moé
I'm no expert, but isn't that wrong? Didn't the concept of moe encompass more than simply that? Bu the description it gives right after doesn't sound that off the mark. Was moe really born from lolicon, or did the article just tie things together like that?
Other than that, it's wasn't a bad read, I guess.
The whole "thing" of moe basically boils down to neoteny. Lolicon can be a form of that. The article definitely oversimplifies it, but I wouldn't say it's wrong that lolicon or its spirit continues to influence the concept of moe today
It's wrong because you can find anything moe, human 2D, animals or inanimate objects but it is predominant with females.
It was very much born from the loli manga of the '70s and '80s. His contention that the lack of overt sexuality is because of the moral panic of the '90s is wrong though; in the early '80s we already see the subscribers to lolicon magazines demanding they remove the nudity because they don't want it
Not really though. What I mean is that it started with females, and what the article is talking about is it's origins. It's origins start from young girls, and it's also predominatley women.
Just because some people have been making other things like inanimate objects "moe" in recent years, doesn't have any bearing on his point.
In my view, his point was that the so-called representation of childhood naivete, purity, etc. within lolicon underground was replaced by loose bundle of metaphors named moe. Looking from that perspective, he gets it right, although not elegantly and lacking strong correlation.
Huh. So when was loli sexualized again?
I watched the video. Couldn't hold it halfway. It's a good video, but the song is shit.
Thanks for protecting /a/ from moe.