A great deal has already been said about Seven Seas and Kodomo no Jikan/Nymphet. People who want to know about that stuff already do. There is just one thing relating to that mess that I'd like to comment on here; it concerns a point in Jason DeAngelis's first public statement on the subject. He has since retracted some of the statement, but the principle illustrated is more general than just this one incident.
DeAngelis writes:
Most people have not yet read Nymphet, since we haven't even published it yet, so I would like to clarify an important point: Nymphet is a story about a mischievous young girl who tries to sexually entrap her teacher. The important context here is that the girl's advances on her teacher are never reciprocated by him; her teacher is horrified by her actions, and his romantic interest is in fact another adult teacher. The comedy arises out of this young girl saying and doing improper things (much like Crayon Shin-chan, which is currently being aired on Cartoon Network) and seeing her teacher squirm with discomfort and shock while he struggles to keep his composure, at the same time trying not to make a fool of himself in front of the woman he loves.
What's the point he is making there? He's saying that the situation is one where a little girl sexually teases an adult teacher, who isn't interested, no sex takes place, and (by implication) that's better than the reverse situation, of an adult molesting an unconsenting child. His point: the instigator makes a difference. A sexually aware child being the instigator with a responsible adult who acts responsibly (so that nothing actually happens), is better than a sexually unaware child being exploited, with an irresponsible, criminal adult as instigator.
In real life, that comparison seems obviously correct. Rape is really bad, right? But as for fiction, I think he may have overlooked something critical about North American culture which differentiates it from the context where, as DeAngelis goes on to say, Kodomo no Jikan "is not considered pornographic by any means, and Japanese would be shocked to hear this sort of accusation about what they consider to be a mainstream property." The missing insight is that the "mischievous young girl" scenario directly conflicts with the script for adult/child sexual interaction baked into almost all North American thought on the subject. We know how the world is supposed to be, we know how the world must be, Kodomo no Jikan doesn't fit into that world, and it's unimaginably offensive to many North Americans because it's literally unimaginable to many North Americans.
As North Americans imagine it, children are not sexual beings. Sexual contact (even if only potential) between adults and children has to be framed as an adult pervert exploiting an innocent child victim. That's just the way it is and the way you're required to think about it. You are not allowed to frame it in other terms. If you do, no matter how strong the facts may be on your side, it's you that is wrong, not the social construction. Those statements are made explicit in sources like R. v. Sharpe with its talk of "cognitive distortions": there are some thoughts that are the wrong thoughts to think, and a child as sexual instigator instead of sexual victim - indeed, a child as anything but an object - is one of those wrong thoughts. Good people aren't allowed to think that.
It's also evident in R. v. Beattie, where stories of adult/child sex were ruled to be especially repugnant because they were not about rape. Figure that one out. Stories about adults raping children, no matter how upsetting, at least fit into the social construction. Adults are always the instigators, and children are objects rather than active participants. But just let a child not be an object - let them be a willing participant, an aware participant, or worst of all, the instigator, and everything falls apart. The nicely constructed understandable world doesn't work anymore if it becomes necessary to think about children having sexual awareness and sexual desires of their own, and any ensuing discomfort must be the fault of the person who mentioned the idea. Children must be objects! Hang the man high who says otherwise!
So along comes a manga with a story that demands to be interpreted in terms of a child who is not an object. She's a sexual instigator, with an adult as arguable victim, and it doesn't matter if no actual sex acts ever occur and it never gets explicit or pornographic under objective definitions. The story concept itself is the real problem. Remember how offensive Lolita was back in the 1950s? Teenager as instigator was only one of several possible interpretations for most of that book, arguably presented as Humbert Humbert's distorted view of his own abusive activity, and even so, it really freaked people out. It's pretty clear from the last 50 years of history that we haven't learned much from Lolita, and now it should be predictable that Kodomo no Jikan - where the child is even more clearly sexually aware and sexually aggressive - freaks people out on the same level. This manga is based on a premise of children as real people instead of objects, and that is Not Allowed. That's the real reason it's unacceptable for the North American market. This is not about the sexual content itself, which (with some exceptions, as described in DeAngelis's second statement) seems to be tame in comparison to other things we tolerate.
A whole lot of fuses are going to be blown in a whole lot of people's brains as we're forced to confront cases like the 2004 Pittsburgh self-porn case, in which a teenage girl was charged with a bunch of sexual abuse and child pornography crimes for distributing naked pictures of herself. All by herself, that is - no adult perpetrator to blame for it. My comments on that article got a lot of linkage recently, even though it's a few years old; similar cases continue to happen and will continue to happen. It's going to be a problem as long as we try to maintain the fiction that human beings are objects until they're 18. It's also going to be a problem as we're forced to confront other cultures that don't share the North American cognitive distortions about children. When will we come to our senses?
Comments
Variable from 67.142.130.16 at Mon, 11 Jun 2007 20:26:21 +0000:
This article and its author are completely bleeping brilliant and insightful. I kept trying to figure out why the pitchforks and torches were out in force trying to shut down Kodomo no Jikan since their arguments were almost completely factually incorrect. One could sit there and *read* the original japanese material and come away wondering what weird transmogrified version of the book the screaming mob had seen.
In some forums, I was literally sitting there saying "that's black" and being responded to "no, that's white and you're a pervert for disagreeing".
Thanks for the analysis of illumination. :)
Mark Wilson from 216.85.124.142 at Tue, 12 Jun 2007 22:27:50 +0000:
Not to mention that the manga is actually done by a woman.
Matthew Skala from 216.75.189.154 at Wed, 13 Jun 2007 01:26:39 +0000:
Did someone say it wasn't? What difference does that make?
dormcat from 61.31.35.161 at Wed, 13 Jun 2007 18:51:46 +0000:
This is simply the most thoughtful and clear-minded article I've ever seen on the recent Kodomo no Jikan issue. You have my standing ovation.
An old Chinese idiom for parents to reprimand their children was "children have no mouths but ears," a statement that warning children never talk back to their parents. Many parents still recite this sentence to their children. It's the same for the North American society with a slightly different version: "children can only be victims of sexual crimes, not instigators of them."
Request permission to link your article to my blog.
Matthew Skala from 129.97.79.144 at Wed, 13 Jun 2007 19:07:55 +0000:
Thanks, glad you like the article. Go ahead and link - you don't need my permission.
Axel from 65.94.184.189 at Sat, 16 Jun 2007 02:43:11 +0000:
Since I haven't been paying attention to popular culture for the last sixty years I know nothing about the immediate issue at hand, but your general remarks sur hit the nail on the head. One could add that society is more twisted in its construction of childhood even than you imply, because while children are assumed (often, let's say) to be mere passive objects, on the other hand children's testimony is (often) considered incontrovertible and unquestionable when it supports the most bizarre accusations. The Salem witch trials are a classic example, but I have heard contemporary experts uphold the sanctity of infant testimony in terms that would endear them to the Massachusetts witch hunters of 350 years ago. So we're somewhat schizoid on this matter. But I wonder if the construction of childhood you discuss is as widespread in our culture as you seem to think; I suspect it is sincerely held mainly by the neurotic character types who achieve power in groups, and that most people are more realistic and just don't make waves that might stir up the neurotic power-achievers.
BlueNight from 71.210.200.58 at Fri, 22 Jun 2007 00:03:07 +0000:
"a little girl sexually teases an adult teacher" - On the way home from work today, I heard Sting's "Don't Stand So Close To Me" and immediately thought of this blog entry.
Luke from 24.19.11.55 at Wed, 18 Jul 2007 19:42:03 +0000:
Throughout my young life, I met numerous adults that *hated* "Ender's Game" by Orson Scott Card. While there are problems with it (two quick ones being the idea that the "best and brightest" do and should join the military, and the idea that it is the job of a responsible government and military to train these prodigies), the most common objection I found was "children that young just shouldn't/don't/can't/won't ever act/speak/think that way." In cases where adults don't actively dislike the book, it is immediately dismissed as a representation of the evil manipulations of adults over innocent children, like any speculative novel dealing with a totalitarian government (say, "1984," or "Farenheit 451," though there are probably clearer examples), only the objectification is a natural assumption because it is objectification of helpless youngsters, rather than Joe Workingman.
I apologize that this comment was so off-topic, but I could not find a better place to post it.
Brian from 67.185.8.150 at Tue, 02 Oct 2007 23:51:42 +0000:
I was highly impressed with this article and would like to get permission to bring this article to my interculteral communications class in college. You seem to touch on an aspect of cultural difference that seems to be in line with that particular class.
Luke from 128.208.87.148 at Mon, 22 Oct 2007 01:51:25 +0000:
Brian's comment brought me an interesting thought. How are we allowed to use the articles and comics on your web page without per-work permission?
burt from 71.106.10.110 at Sun, 28 Oct 2007 10:07:41 +0000:
people need to remember this anime, manga was never really written or produced with the united states in mind. if you don't like it, don't read or watch it. its that simple. if your going to have a fit over it, watch or read the trash we have here in the states.
Matthew Skala from 69.63.59.137 at Sun, 28 Oct 2007 12:34:41 +0000:
burt: That may have been true at one time, but not during the 21st Century. At the present time, the Japanese authors and publishers of manga and anime are acutely aware of the English-speaking market. Evidence of that: the general trend away from nudity in magical-girl transformation sequences (because you can't put that on the air in the USA); SD Gundam Force, which was first produced in English and then translated *back* to Japanese; that item that was on Anime News Network a few days ago about the Japanese government asking the US government to crack down on "piracy" (if they didn't have a paying market in the USA, it would not be of concern); and most relevant of all: the Nymphet naming issue.
The name "Kodomo no Jikan" literally translates to "A Child's Time." So why isn't that the official translation of the title? They changed it to "Nymphet" in the English translation at the insistence of Watashiya Kaworu, the author of the original manga. Hard to argue that she wasn't thinking about the English-speaking audience if she took an active role in specifying what the translated title should be. I think she may not have fully *understood* the impact of the word "nymphet" on the English-speaking audience - that word carries a lot of baggage among people who recognize it - but she had to have more than a clue about what it means to ask for it at all. That part was totally done with the English-speaking world (not necessarily just the USA) in mind.
Note, also, that there's a lot of work that goes into making a translated version, and all that work is done very much with the target market (in this case, primarily the USA) in mind. Seven Seas was definitely thinking about the USA, where they're based and conduct most of their business, even if Futabasha wasn't. It's disingenuous to say that English-translated anime and manga "was never really written or produced with the united states in mind."
KennyCelican from 64.56.35.251 at Fri, 02 Nov 2007 18:07:36 +0000:
Note that the following is based on a 60 second RCA, so there may be some kibble around the edges, but...
Children aren't the only group of people to be objectified. They're just the group most frequently objectified. It's a fairly standard tactic to pick a group which is purported homogenous and relatively easily distinguised by some physical characteristic, then make social distinctions based on that grouping which, once they're in place, treat individuals thus grouped as non-persons. Once a group of non-persons is in place, they can be exploited. While typical child-objects are generally exploited in ways which are arguably beneficial for the objects themselves, the abstract argument that they're exploited is fairly sound.
The reason for objectification in general is one of those uncomfortable truths. It's easier. Seductively so. It's also a quick way to gain access to exploitable resources without having to generate those resources. As Adams said, the driving forces in society are laziness, greed, and stupidity.
What I find interesting and frustrating (hey, don't laugh at the masochist too much) is that most of the responses to that state of affairs are to try to motivate, enlighten, and educate the members of society, which is a very 'moving the mountain to Mohammed' solution. Given that most of the people trying to do the motivating, enlightening, and educating these days aren't much into doing things the hard way, it tickles my irony bone.
Why not just try dissociating the object stigma? It's got a lot more historic precedent, and could have substantially more far reaching positive consequence.
Phil from 24.255.123.186 at Sun, 04 Nov 2007 04:18:33 +0000:
Many people are intolerant. They won't accept any ideas that aren't "the norm". For kids; well... people(adults, mostly) believe that they can't really think for themselves. This is partly true, mind you, but only because of the fact kids will repeat essentially everything they hear(curses, innuendo...) without any knowledge of what it will bring. Picture this: a child wakes up in the night to the sounds of his/her parents having sex. He/She then walks into the room, sees what they're doing, and tells people about it at school. Considering things like that, most will think that they just don't know any better(which is true)!
I'm rambling now, aren't I? Erm... Blah...
Alright, I just completely contradicted what I was trying to say, didn't I...?
Whatever, basically... Child + Sex = Bad. I'm sure you must have heard about the female teacher who was having an affair with her student? Well, he was going along with it willingly, right? Meh... basically, she was sent to jail when the student told his parents(or police, I've forgotten which) what was going on. Adult + Minor + Sex = Bad. Even if the child is willingly accepting it, or even instigating it... it's considered rape anyway... Which, by the way, is completely ridiculous... But, conservatives make the laws, which are totally unreasonable to every extent of the word...
I was going to say more, but I can't remember what I was going to say... Go figure...
-Phil
Lunar Archivist from 76.67.206.99 at Sat, 10 Nov 2007 20:50:40 +0000:
Hi Matthew. :)Just wanted to say that I liked your article so much that I added a link to it in a blurb I wrote for the Wikipedia entry on "Kodomo no Jikan". Wouldn't you know it, though...someone's already slapped a disputable neutrality tag on it. >_<;
ano from 84.192.79.214 at Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:44:20 +0000:
geat anime and manga serie,
stop moaning.
Francky from 77.94.32.32 at Thu, 27 Dec 2007 15:56:42 +0000:
Well... noting to be shocked here.
If people want to be shocked, go read Toriko aigen. It's the story of an adult that treat a child like a slave, including SEX of course.
What with the big commotion here?
Just for a little nipple of a little girl showing? And on top of that... it's the girl herself that make it visible...
Well, i read the article, but i don't understand the mentality "it's because the girl is constant and knowing what she is doing that it is bad". That just some idiotic thinking!
The "ecchi" part here reminds me a little of the ecchi part in REC in a more softer way. That is just no big deal.
And for the part when there are trap in the gymnas, and he got excited... well that just hum... normal. Don't see anything wrong here.
Go see a hentai lolicon anime you bastards & then we will talk about what is "bad" in this manga/anime!!! ( refering too those who don't agree with me! )
Also i don't see anything wrong in "hentai lolikon", it's not like it is a real child... it just an image... so? What with the problem?
If you ( referring too the sames bastards than before) have time too waste... go after the real pedo! Not just some manga... that just lame.
PS: sorry for my bad english
rubbrchikin from 70.58.136.158 at Sun, 30 Dec 2007 07:53:13 +0000:
The thing about Kodomo no Jikan, and many manga series that are later animated, is that the rules on what you can and can't show in TV anime see much more restrictive than manga. The series was extremely heavily censored for broadcast, and much of the censoring wasn't really that necessary, it just obscured the viewer from seeing certain bits of the plot and hearing bits of the dialog.
The conclusion I draw from what the censors picked to obscure is that this is not an US-specific thing. People everywhere consider children to be merely objects with no actual feelings (especially not sexual). Heck, go look into some history on Sigmund Freud, and note that even back in his day, when a lot of his wrong ideas were considered as truth, the main item used to discredit him was his theories on childhood sexuality!
Captain Smokeblower from 24.8.121.51 at Fri, 18 Apr 2008 04:59:54 +0000:
Child sexuality is a frightening thought to me. I believe it's possible, but the frightening part is I can't conceive of it without the adult being destroyed, no matter what the circumstances or evidence implied. I don't think I could watch Kodomo no Jikan/Nymphet because I could not suspend my belief that society would discover the advances and punish the adult. [I remember once when a distant family member visited us and their little male dog began humping my leg. Immediately my dad sent me to my room. Afterward I asked him why and he told me, "I couldn't control the dog, but I could control you." I'd say society can't deal with child sexuality, but realizes it can punish the adult.]
Since we're allocating blame, I attribute much of the ignorance about human sexuality to the Church. The Church tries to control sexual behavior while withholding human sexuality education. "This goes in here and you only put it there when you want a baby. End of discussion, oops I mean Amen." A favorite response of mine is, "If the Church gets to restrict sex to marriage it must guarantee sex in marriage."
I wouldn't agree that we make children objects, rather angels, but whether one or the other we fail to recognize a potential human characteristic in someone because we refuse to see it. (I'm aware there are many jokes about sexually aware young boys, but part of the humor is comes from the incongruity of youth having sexual knowledge.) We have a history of denying the full humanity of people based on an observed difference them and us, whether it be race, nationality, gender or age.
Back to society dealing with child sexuality on a lighter side. I don't think you could persuade any twelve average people (jurors) to believe child sexuality exists. This would be a practical instance of Douglas Adams' Somebody Else's Problem (SEP) invisibility field. I refuse to see it so it doesn't exist.
I began by saying I find child sexuality frightening, but part of the humor I find in Matt's cartoon character Algea comes from my assumption of child innocence and her expressions of sexuality. Lines like "I can suppress my gag reflex," and other sexual oriented punch lines I find funnier than those not related to sex, such as replacement fuses in parallel. Even her appearance has that incongruity of innocent child appearance and ever-present Popsicle phallus and Popsicle pearl necklace (ZZ Top style). Some of my laughter may be the nervous variety because I'm the adult (awaiting society's wrath) and she's a (fictional depiction of no real or imagined) child.
Matthew Skala from 67.158.75.7 at Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:50:10 +0000:
Captain: something to think about is that in our culture we use the word "child" to include a lot of people who are biologically adults. Physical sexual maturity happens a whole lot earlier than the age of 18 years. So if we want let's say a 16-year-old to be a child, treat them as a child, construct elaborate arguments about how they aren't emotionally or mentally adults despite being physically adults, and treat sexual activity by 16-year-olds as a frightening aberration, then we guarantee that we'll be frightened pretty often.
Captain Smokeblower from 24.8.121.51 at Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:03:17 +0000:
Matt: I agree with most of your recent posting. The correct response is create a procedure to accurately measure maturity. And while I'm going wild, we could use methods for measuring sanity, leadership skills, marriage qualification, parenting ability and honesty. Anyway I agree that biological maturity occurs well before 21, 18 or 16. There is a normal range among people, which creates the problem of needing a valid test that works for each individual. Society tries to solve this by declaring legal ages for driving, drinking, sex, voting, et cetera. It's a poor solution, but saves time and (most) complaints about the inaccuracy of any valid test. I wrote 'most' because society changes these age limits occasionally.
One problem not addressed by just considering biological maturity is the nature of sex. I believe it has three aspects and individuals engaging in sex assign different values to each aspect of their sexual activity. The three characteristics are reproduction, pleasure and intimacy (RPI). Much like the RGB color on your monitor each person brings an RPI 'value' to every sexual encounter. If two people engaging in sex have different RPIs there is a potential for problems. Your R value is zero and her R value is eight. Are you ready to be a dad? The male P value is almost always high, but women may take ten years of undoing Mom's "Good girls don't feel that way," nonsense to start getting a reasonable P value. Finally, the Intimacy value seems to be more important to women than men. The range for the Intimacy variable ranges from "It's been two hours, I need to get my rocks off again and we're in the same time zone," to "We're doing this because you're my soul mate through eternity." This means even if a couple have identical R and P values, it's possible for conflicting intimacy values to cause problems.
Everyone engaging in sexual activity should take personal responsibility for respecting their partner, birth control and disease prevention, but not everyone takes responsibility no matter what their age. If we eliminate the consequences of sex, i.e. children and spreading STDs, and normalize the expectations of sexual partners, again compatible RPIs, then I don't have a problem with sex at almost any biologically mature age. (I have some reservations because there have been instances of girls being biologically mature as young as nine.) [Maybe we need an age value (A) added to the equation. Too much difference in age would be a problem for me. That may change as I age. When George Burns was asked (at about age 99) why he dated younger women he responded, "What else is there?" I'm not there yet.]
I see a difference between being biologically mature and mature enough to parent; a significant possible consequence of sexual activity. I also see a difference between being a biological adult and mature enough to engage in intimacy in a long term relationship. Again maturity varies by individual. (One reason society 'idealizes' a two year age difference in relationships between a man and a woman is difference in average maturity levels between the sexes.) Finally, and I know this focuses on sex producing children, is the problem that the younger a person is the less ability they have to support a family. I want to avoid fourteen year old people locked into earning a living for two or three people for the next 14 to 20 years, effectively preventing them from developing a long term vocation he or she would enjoy.
With that all said, if you're advocating treating 14 year old people as responsible adults and not babying them I'm good with that. My rambling above brings up the importance of other aspects than physical capability. There's more to it than, "I can reach the gas pedal at age 12 so I should be allowed to drive." I understand there will be some 14 year old people mature enough to handle the results of their actions (sex) and others won't, same as older people. So the question becomes whether or not (or up to what age) do we protect people from themselves in particular situations.
Matthew Skala from 129.97.79.144 at Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:57:49 +0000:
Captain: this is veering far off of the original topic of this article, but are you aware of Robert Sternberg's triangular theory of love? There's a reasonable introduction in Wikipedia under "Triangular theory of love" (linked from my name on this comment). He has formed - and published, in the serious psychological literature - a theory very much like the one you describe, with the spectrum of emotions that people call "love" as the core rather than the behaviours of sex (which in Sternberg's theory get pretty much all shoved into one of the three variables, which he calls "passion").
The Sternberg theory has some personal significance for me. I'm not sure how much of this story I really want to post in this public forum, but there was a woman whose romantic advances I rejected, who immediately afterward posted in her Livejournal a lengthy essay on her theory of how love relationships work. She didn't specifically mention me but there's no doubt her recent experience with me was part of the motivation. Anyway, she had independently invented something almost identical to the Sternberg theory... except her theory only had two variables. No prizes for guessing which one was missing, which one was most important to me, nor why I'd rejected her.
As for maturity tests, I am distrustful of formalizing such things because of the potential for abuse by authoritarian societies.
DrmChsr0 from 218.186.8.11 at Thu, 15 May 2008 17:09:33 +0000:
The only way we'll wise up is when we finally decide to shoot people or minor and major misdemeanours. The 7.62x22 is an impartial judge, jury and executioner.
And even then, I don't think we will wise up.
Alone1sAgain from 71.60.167.115 at Thu, 11 Sep 2008 05:00:39 +0000:
I just wanted to say this essay was great. I watched Kodomo no Jikan (TV version and DVD) and I've read it as well. I really don't stand on either side, but right smack dab in the middle of the issues about it. The way I see it, it is partly America's fault and it is partly the creators fault (I suck with names).
America is too busy worrying about how to make a little girl seem innocent to other Americans, when in reality I travel to the nearby grocery store, or even two hours away to a large city (refusing to state where I live) and I hear the same kind of language and the same kind of talk from all kids 12-18 about how they lost their virginity, their sexual parts, different positions, etc. Not only that but in the news I always hear about a 12 year old now pregnant because of a rape. Her life is now ruined, but now she's aware of sex. The news itself is contradictory to America's "thoughts" and "beliefs" because they release information and show so much that makes porn look like a day at the beach.
Like Phil had stated, what if (and I mean this to be true of all ways) a little girl maybe age 8 watches her father and mother have sex. Is it a crime to exploit children to that? Should the parents go to jail? What if the little girl decides that she wants to try it and gets another boy to do the same to her (possibly same age and just as susceptible as her)? Too many contradictions in America happen everyday and it is always an ongoing issue and, just like the Energizer bunny, will keep going and going and going and... you get the point.
Aside from America and it's contradictions, the creator should have been aware of the views of the countries the anime/manga might be dubbed/translated in and how they will be affected. I'm speaking from experience because I'm desperately trying to find out how to get my ideas out there and where to go, so I'm constantly aware of whom might be affected by the story and where it goes. I will admit, though... the same story and the same points of Kodomo no Jikan could be told without most of the lolicon concept. Though, I don't really see what the deal is about a piece of fiction. It is just a piece of paper, or a series of pictures. Put on mature rating and call it a day because if it has a mature rating, kids shouldn't be looking at it anyway. So is it the content we are worrying about, or the people that might view it? Most anime/manga viewers are about in their last years of high school or even in college by now (and I say most, not all). Anime/manga isn't the same as it was in the past. We should learn to evolve, not hang on old ways. But that's my view. Morals change from person to person as this is a morale issue.
All the comments were great and I'm glad I was able to take time out of my day to learn a couple of things from this page.
And might I point out that recently I have watched a preview of a movie on TV about a 13 year old (don't quote me on this) and she looks at a "guy" magazine (naked women) with a young boy (supposedly just as young or younger) and she's in modeling and stuff. It also showed that the older man whom owns those mags develops a crush on her and sees her as a women he needs, and she's aware of it. I don't have any other recollection of the preview but if somebody had seen this and can recollect the preview this would be a perfect example of a contradiction AGAINST Kodomo no Jikan being brought to America (I guess I'm searching the wrong stuff on Google because I still can't find it).
-Alone1sAgain (deviantart page on name for proof)
†tryurbestshot† from 71.132.136.128 at Wed, 31 Dec 2008 23:23:36 +0000:
First of all japan never forcefully introduced anime "manga" to "north americans" and i did not want to do this in the first place but your insults on Kodomo no jikan pissed me off. Its a real good manga and yes it maybe wrong but its for entertainment to read there is no reason why you have to be so uptight about it. And as for children reading it... "children" "teenagers" knows a lot of things already because they are either introduced to it by family or friends so cut the whole innocence crap. Kodomo no jikan is just another anime/manga how about the popular once such as naruto or bleach or heck why not even some of the "north american" cartoons on television there are a lot of vulgar repulsive acts being shown on television not to mention hidden subliminal messages such as Ex.Naruto: Hinata's breasts that is why she wears that kind of jacket. and what are you a concerned parent? and old geezer trying to show off because you think you know it all. ASK THE PEOPLE WHAT THE ANIME/MANGA ARE FOR there for the children and teenagers its for entertainment and to spend some time. This manga/anime is just like any other you might as well rant about the other anime/manga out there and like i said you should ask about who the anime/manga are made for the people that actually read them.
im only 15 yea im only 15 but im reading it. you people would not understand, you take it into deeper meaning when in fact its just for fun for entertainment its repulsive how you can turn something that's amusing into an act of disorder
and ive said enough its new years eve so remember what i said ask the people whom the mangas are made for not old geezers like you as for north americans its there fault and decision for trying to take something that originated from japan into US borders too bad it was there decision oh and about the whole innocent crap seriously a lot of kids these days know a lot more than they show so just because you think you know kids i would not take that approach. *i saw this while trying to find kodomo no jikan episodes* up yours!!!
P.s. start a war and ill take it to your front door
P.s.s. if you try to delete this ill keep posting it since i just saved it so might save you the trouble not to and also
i feel so sorry for you... get a life dude other than ranting about anime/manga that why did you even read?
P.s.s.s no i did not read everything you wrote only the parts about kodomo no jikan
Matt from 216.75.188.196 at Thu, 01 Jan 2009 00:18:07 +0000:
WTF?
toxicninja from 118.160.228.119 at Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:16:51 +0000:
The most absurd assertion I’ve come across on the subject so far is that KnJ reads like ‘…a training manual for paedophiles.’ That strikes me as almost analogous to saying Nodame Cantabile reads like ‘…a training manual for musicians’.
I’ve only recently come across this series, but I find certain aspects of it described by the controversy-mongers to be greatly exaggerated. I’m not so naïve that I’ll deny that an amount of fanservice exists that on occasion treads an exceedingly fine line between innocuous titillation and tastelessness, but let’s not ignore the salad for the dressing.
Much of it having already been extensively covered, I think it unnecessary to repeat all the “KnJ is primarily a study in/exploration of child abuse/child sexuality/obsession/insert scholarly appropriation du jour” arguments appearing in assorted discussion boards. However, I think it bears repeating that the oases (and sometimes vast oceans) of quiet heartbreak punctuating the narrative would be entirely unleavened without the frequent taboo gags. Very often one’s laugh will choke and wither in one’s throat in the transition from one scene to the next.
To my (admittedly limited knowledge), there are few manga titles that cover the uncomfortable territory that KnJ routinely treads. I agree with the opinion that the majority of people will be uncomfortable with the idea of the child as a sexual being, possibly the result of somewhat restrictive definitions of what constitutes a sexual identity, in that we tend to view it in exclusively adult terms.
Incidentally, has anyone come across a film called ‘Maladolescenza’? It’s banned (or at least edited beyond recognition) everywhere but Germany, I think. I bring this up because KnJ appears to be sharing a similar fate, although much of its initial stigma seems to have abated, there being a second season due to air this year in Japan.
I wonder how many of those who criticise KnJ for its purported fetishising will extend their criticism to any number of ‘music’ videos coming out of the Disney pop factory: surely the ‘enthusiast’ will find a richer source of ‘material’ there?
As a brief aside, I also wonder if the opening song exists as a Drummania track. It sounds like it should be.
Matt from 216.75.188.196 at Mon, 12 Jan 2009 15:11:21 +0000:
Well, note that some people *do* criticise North American music videos for sexualizing children... I think the people who are into making such complaints, though, find it much easier to complain about something they see as "foreign."
toxicninja from 118.160.227.180 at Tue, 13 Jan 2009 02:43:37 +0000:
I think I've accidentally sent duplicate comments, only because the first one didn't show up immediately on the page upon completion. Sorry about that, wasn't trying to be a pain.
Add Comment
Do not enter a fake email address. If you don't want to provide one, just leave it blank. Comments with fake email addresses will be deleted.
This form is for posting public comments to be read by other people who visit this Web site. If you have a software support question, or other material directed to the page author instead of to the general public, please send email instead.
All the data you enter, and your IP address, will be saved and displayed. Don't enter secret information. HTML is not accepted; it will be displayed as plain text. Your comment will only be added if you enter valid data in all required fields; if it isn't, use the back button and try again.
I, and I alone, reserve the right to remove postings for any reason.
![[RSS syndication file]](/i/rss.png){kind=small}
BlueNight from 71.38.211.253 at Mon, 04 Jun 2007 04:19:33 +0000:
Good post. Choice, or the realm of the moral, is something that only humans are currently known to engage in.
An animal may not be tried under the law, because it cannot be expected to know right from wrong; the same cannot be said of a person who provokes an animal into an attack. In the same way, a computer (AI or robot) may not be tried, but its programmer (or other person who issues commands) may be tried.
In large part, American society treats minors as equal to a beast or a machine because that's the way it's always been done. There is, however, this seed of fear of the youth rebelling. After all, while our knees creak and our backs ache, they can still run a mile in twelve minutes and still beat us up when they're done. And don't forget, children are untouchable; they have additional protections the rest of us don't.
This manga seems to me (having known nothing about it but this post on Ansuz) to include that fear of the unassailable enemy. In a society based on one-size-fits-all, the edges of the bell curve can be scary indeed.