The Place for Purging Porn and Pedo-Pandering (AKA P5 flag evaluations)

Otaku O'Clock, baby.

edited 17th Jun '12 4:22:49 PM by JHM

I'll hide your name inside a word and paint your eyes with false perception.

Yes, I don't think it's possible to defend it unconditionally.

There are sex scenes, that don't quite show anything. It just depends on whether that pushes it over the line or not. Plus the other thing I mentioned.

The manga is another story though.

edited 17th Jun '12 4:24:17 PM by UltimatelySubjective

"Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes."

That doesn't mean they show explicit sex though. what is shown might have a good amount of Fanservice, but from what I got from the description, they don't show explicit sex.

edited 17th Jun '12 4:24:18 PM by strawberryflavored

There is onscreen sex, but the naughty bits are offscreen. I don't think it crosses the line into porn territory, but it does need consideration.

edited 17th Jun '12 4:41:39 PM by Spirit

#IceBearForPresident

Well, technically, no Japanese media have visible genitals. It is against the law. Even the most hardcore Japanese porn have some token censorship in there.

Of course, there is obvious difference. Actual porn will only make a token effort to hide the genitals, while TV actually conceal it.

Anyway, yeah. If it was shown on TV, even Otaku O'Clock, then it is likely not porn.

I figured you probably knew already, but I felt it was worth commenting anyone. I am mostly conceding your point already.

edited 17th Jun '12 5:18:01 PM by Heatth

I'm aware of that, but hentai mosaics the genitals. TV anime would completely hide any.

I think we really need a flagging guide so people stop flagging bog standard OH NO, TEENS ARE DOING THE PANTY FLASH Oh no, there's a Beach Episode stuff. Half that stuff could be aired on American TV with minimal censorship.

edited 17th Jun '12 7:45:59 PM by animeg3282

Perhaps it's true that it needs to be more accessible, but I thought Bobby G's post and ccoa's post were both pretty good at outlining what we wanted flagged and what we were looking for.

edited 17th Jun '12 7:27:58 PM by UltimatelySubjective

"Nullius addictus iurare in verba magistri, quo me cumque rapit tempestas, deferor hospes."

OK, but people aren't seeing them at all. Maybe headline them or something. Or if someone flags too much bog standard not even R rated anime, they get banned from flagging.

edited 17th Jun '12 7:33:53 PM by animeg3282

and Agreed. I have sifted through plenty of ecchi series that only get as bad as panty flashes and Gainaxing, neither of which constitute porn, and only under specific circumstances constitute pedo-pandering. Hell, people have flagged (otherwise harmless) things for their their titles (i.e. Green Porn) or because they (as far as I can tell) have a relationship between a young teen and preteen (i.e. Dragon Crisis).

@Modmins: Would it be possible to get a link to Sandbox.What Is Porn by the flagging tool?

edited 17th Jun '12 8:27:49 PM by tdgoodrich1

"Polite life will fill you full of cancer." - Iggy Pop "I've seen the future, brother, it is murder." -Leonard Cohen

Aside: since p5 finally blessed Green Porn with a third angel, I moved it to Series.Green Porno, since the official title on the Sundance Channel site includes the second 'o'.

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

I was the one who flagged the two most recent VN. The reasons I flagged Daiakuji have already been covered. As for Gore Screaming Show, it's just plain sick. Gang rape, tentacles, guro, the works.

~Cute and fluffy romance for all!~

I flagged Trainspotting. I don't think it ought to be cut, but it definitely needs to be looked at.

Summary: Our page covers both the original novel and its film adaptation, plus a few references to the novel's sequel, Porno (no, it's not pornographic; Irvine Welsh just loves titles that make one embarrassed to read his books in public). I haven't watched the film or read the sequel, so I'm going to focus on the original novel. Someone else might like to comment on the film, but, from what I've heard, it's toned down from the book.

The novel is about 380 pages long and mostly written in a Scots dialect. It explores drug abuse, addiction and the grittier culture of Edinburgh and Scotland in general through stories narrated by a group of friends, most of whom are drug addicts. There are descriptions of sex but the novel is definitely not pornographic.

Problematic content:

• The main character, Mark (aged 25), attempts to flirt with his 15*
  I think - she mentions that she is taking her O levels next year. Someone familiar with the Scottish education system might want to clarify
  year old cousin Nina. Since this chapter is from his perspective, the description of her is mildly sexualised. She has a viewpoint chapter in which she touches upon sex, including mention of a friend who is one year younger and has had intercourse twice.
• There is a flashback to when Mark and his friends are teenagers at an athletics carnival (implied to be before having taken their O levels, as Mark mentions that one of those friends was expelled from school while Mark was in the O level certificate stream). Mark remembers how attractive one of the girls was, how his friends used to attempt to look up their skirts at athletic carnivals, and how he caught one of his friends masturbating to this sight.
• The most problematic part is with Dianne. Mark meets her at a club (again, sexualisation from his perspective), goes home with her and has consensual sex. The explicit description of their sex occupies about a page. In the morning, he finds out that she is 14 years old, which was obscured by her make-up, clothing, behaviour and Mark's drug-addled state. Mark reacts with horror, guilt and disgust. He's particularly disturbed by how sexually experienced Dianne is, which contrasts strongly with her typical teenage behaviour. Dianne visits him again shortly afterwards and Wikipedia states that the novel implies they sleep together at this point (I didn't pick this up). Dianne is played by a 19 year old Kelly Macdonald in the film.

Defence:

• The problematic parts occupy a tiny fraction of the novel's length. Few people would struggle through 380 pages, "ah think, ay a book thit is aw written likesay en the Scots leid, ye ken?"*
  I think, of a book that is all written like so in the Scots language, you know?
  for this amount of content.
• The scene in question, while explicit, does not titillate. I don't think it paedo-panders either: like Mark, the audience is meant to assume that Dianne is overage.
• The sexualisation of teenagers is not presented as a good thing; rather, it demonstrates how messed-up the characters are. The author aims to realistically depict the drug, sexual and cultural problems pervading Scotland.
• Both the film and book are mainstream. I borrowed my copy from the local library, and I've seen it being sold unwrapped in general bookstores (Kinokuniya, Dymocks, Angus & Robertson). The book has significant literary merit: it was longlisted for the Man Booker Prize according to Wikipedia, discussed by the Guardian and can be found in university reading lists.

I still feel awful defending the work like this, because it definitely falls afoul of the "no explicit sex between adults and teenagers" guideline. Someone else ought to chip in about the film and perhaps offer another opinion on the book.

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

It's clearly not porno, and it's clearly not pedo-pandering.

eta: since I'm only familiar with the movie, I can't say much more than that. But I can say that I see no reason to cut the movie page.

edited 17th Jun '12 9:34:40 PM by Xtifr

Speaking words of fandom: let it squee, let it squee.

@5485: I'll second this recommendation. I suspect that a fair number of spurious flags are not due to malice, but rather the guidelines being so spread out that someone may not have seen, understand, or even know where to find all of them.

The concept of "Something squicking you is not, on it's own, enough reason to remove something" could probably use a little more emphasis too.

"So... the time has come for you to meet your demise..."

Having seen the film, I don't see how it could count as flaggable for the P5, and from your description, I don't think the book would merit flagging either.

YES. Everything squicks somebody and if it's not wall to wall porn or pedo pandering it should stay.

That book doesn't sound like what we're going for.

Oops, mea culpa, then. I thought ccoa's guidelines suggested works portraying sex between adults and teenagers should be checked, but I must have remembered wrongly. I personally think the page is fine.

"Doctor Who means never having to say you're kidding." - Bocaj

I believe it's preteens and adults and it has to be condoning/encouraging the idea.

I occasionally come across un-wikiworded examples from works cut by P5 on pages*

on Wiki Walks. Is that the proper policy regarding those works - examples that aren't cause for cut can stay?

On the subject of Yosuga No Sora, I've never watched it but it is slightly infamous in anime fan circles, so I've seen a lot of online debates about it.

It's infamous both for the incest and the sex.

From the descriptions I've seen given if sounds like soft core porn combined with some kind of romance plot.

Basically there are multiple girls who each can develop some kind of romance with the male lead. Each has their own arc that ends with the girl having sex with the male lead. Every description I've seen makes it out as something that could be shown on Showtime or HBO, but not on any non-subscription channel.

Most of the debates seem to be between those that argue that it is a beautiful romance story, and that the romance is the main reason to watch it, and those that say it's so heavy on the sex that it might as well be porn.

Since the ones describing it as a romance also seem to find the incest arc as the most romantic, I have to admit I have little faith in their judgement. Most people do consider me to be rather prudish though.

Like I said, never seen it myself, but I have seen a lot of debates about it elsewhere, so I figured I'd summarize them here.

I've seen that Questionable Consent was flagged. I notice from reading the description that it's not exclusively a rape/sex trope.

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman

I Read That As Questionable Content, and was so confused as to why you were talking about rape.

In case anyone still cared, Trainspotting is also a classic of the Irish film genre, and, in the same vein as Requiem For A Dream, is about the horrors of drug abuse. The sequence with Diane is to illustrate just how quickly your life can fall into a moral gutter on drugs, not to make Diane seem sexy in any way.