[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k] [s4s] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/a/


File: 1411975117597.png (913.32 KB, 680x388)
913.32 KB
913.32 KB PNG
>http://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/pharrell-williamss-lolicon-girl
>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?
>>
>>115351149
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
>>
File: 1409479746787.png (567.40 KB, 620x631)
567.40 KB
567.40 KB PNG
>>115351149
>>
Anyways, who writes moe like that?
>>
>>115351433
It's phonetic.
>>
>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.
>>
>>115351149
>moé
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
>>
>>115352050

>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.
>>
>>115352287
"Dropping bombs" is an innocent metaphor, though.
Stop being paranoid.
>>
>>115351149
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.
>>
>>115352460

No it's a blatant pearl harbor reference.
>>
>>115352186
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.
>>
>>115352287
>>115352460
He literally explains it one goddamn sentence before

Do you people even read?

>>115352571
Holy shit, 10/10 ruse I'm mad
>>
>>115351149

Yes, 2d little girls.
>>
>>115352607
Anyone who finds a magazine as easy to understand as The New Yorker "pretentious" is illiterate. No need to ask
>>
>>115352715
>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.
>>
>>115351149
And they said we were being paranoid in that thread a week or two ago.

Thanks, Pharrell, you fucking faggot
>>
>>115351149
>jewyorker
I bet you read Dailymail and jezebel too
>>
>>115352607

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.
>>
>>115352947
That is exactly what the artist is known for
>>
>>115352947
>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
>>
Sounds legit.
>>
File: 1411435712970.jpg (92.22 KB, 709x614)
92.22 KB
92.22 KB JPG
>>115352287

That's their M.O., but you're not allowed to talk about it on this website

>for
>free
>>
>>115353206
fuck off /v/
>>
File: 1391584542650.jpg (26.96 KB, 400x267)
26.96 KB
26.96 KB JPG
>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
>>
>>115351149
That's a decent article. Quite refreshing to read something which doesn't go morality-berserk regarding topics like this.
>>
>>115353428
This. It was surprisingly unbiased.
>>
>>115353428
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.
>>
>>115353479
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.
>>
>>115351149
>Matt Alt is a Tokyo-based writer and translator.
That probably explains why the article wasn't shit.
>>
>>115353515
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.
>>
>>115353729
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
>>
>>115353729
It's wrong because you can find anything moe, human 2D, animals or inanimate objects but it is predominant with females.
>>
>>115353729
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
>>
>>115353887
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.
>>
>>115353729
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.
>>
>>115353871
So chibi=pedophile?
>>
File: 1363218711050.jpg (86.58 KB, 1280x720)
86.58 KB
86.58 KB JPG
>>115353955
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.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.