I don't know if it's because I'm getting old, but is anyone else a little put off by the cartoon girl in the short skirt? To me it seems like it is fetishizing under age girls.
I don't know it just feels creepy to me.
I don't know it just feels creepy to me.
Edit: yeah, no, if you follow the image link it’s pretty clear. It is definitely sexualized and really creepy: https://xn--931a.moe/
Even so, I dispute the idea that sexuality or moe doesn't belong in the products of our labor. And moreso, I dispute the idea that school uniform fetishes sexualize children in the case of an adult wearing one.
The problem here is not the short skirt. It is the short skirt associated with what his a school uniform that doesn't normally have a short one associated with a very young looking girl.
> I dispute the idea that school uniform fetishes sexualize children in the case of an adult wearing one.
It triggers people with pedophile fantasy and only them imho.
Now that it is clear "underage" is not implied, I gotta say I see a lot the obsession with age and hostility at the sign of younger people having healthy sexual lives, might be a sign of repressed psychological issues I guess.
Now if you are trying to pretend that japanese society doesn't have a problem with fetishing womans that act like little girls under age of content you are just blind.
...because?
> japanese society doesn't have a problem with fetishing womans that act like little girls under age of content
No one condones sexualizing underage girls. Just school uniform alone and so the logo of this project have provably nothing to do with that
That's a highly cultural and location/climate bias. Do an image search for "Japan school photos" and you'll see a range of uniforms with short skirts without any fetishising. Those kids could've chosen longer ones.
Is it because I'm 48 or is this weird?
No, it is this that is weird.
- kanbanmusume: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E3%81%8B%E3%82%93%E3%81%B0%E...
One aspect of a common moral culture is that it has laws made by the centralized authority and their promoted influencers - laws like covering women's faces and hair to prevent the victims (i.e., hapless, tempted men </s> ) from succumbing to sexual urges. The more this authority controls a narrative, the more the control is reinforced with rationale arbitrarily and increasingly deviating from reality, and so on, until there exists a central authority who forces more self-censorship than would be permissible in a viable democracy. So here we end up with people seeing a culture's skirt length and project our own sexualization on stuff like moe, and thus their maligned culture becomes a subculture - one which fools in the mainstream cannot apparently differentiate from baby-rapists, although no foul deeds are actually done, not even in the ripe imagination of that subculture. Would you rather subcultures be permitted to exist, or that imams with your sensibilities excise all the clitorises from the internet? Wouldn't you be glad to know that pedophiles are profoundly less common than you imagine, or is this yet another case where, no matter the real and present danger, a voice like yours comes out singularly, loudest, to override every other thoughtful recourse with "think of the children!"? Maybe it would be better not to strawman, and to project your fears less upon others, and to learn that things are not just what you deem them to mean. One aspect of the Fediverse is it allows one to be treated with honest innocence where it's due, including where judgment like yours treats those most needing protection as guilty-by-association.
To me, the fact that corpos and their unbearable, sanctimonious servants are put off by this is the best possible feature, bar none.