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

Hmm...it ran in the magazine Manga Erotics F. The 5P previously was split on Litchi Hikari Club, another one with graphic underage sex from the same magazine, but voted to keep because it wasn't aiming to titillate.

Totally setting aside the content for a moment, that artwork is fucking gorgeous. Like, wow. 0___0

Yeah, Inio Asano is best known for Oyasumi Punpun and Solanin, which are both very far from pornography, very well-regarded, aaaaand really not light fare. The former has been recommended to me numerous times, usually with the preface, "Hey, you have a really dark sense of humour and love misery, right? :D" (OK, less blunt than that, but for real.)

I would totally read this for our collective edification. And 'cause it looks like something I'd like.

edited 27th Nov '16 1:10:59 PM by JHM

You know, I don't think P5 members need to personally review material. One of them could ask someone else to look at something, then vote by their recommendation. This is probably preferable to losing P5 members to exhaustion.

I'm not sure that's a good idea if you want to be able to make an informed decision, especially since second-hand information can be unreliable.

In some cases it is a workable practice - mostly on pedo charges. If somebody digs through the whole works and pinpoints that content they only need to verify it.

But really with the much lower stream of content to review now it shouldn't be a problem.

Also, the old P5 tended to farm out video games to people who'd played them because spending 30 hours to tally up the porn-to-not-porn quotient was seen as excessive, or to let single P5ers handle routine work.

Both P5 members and the hivemind were generally pretty good at pinpointing the borderline cases (anything by Alice Soft, Astarotte's Toy, Xenophilia...) that actually required all hands on deck.

edited 27th Nov '16 9:06:40 PM by Ramidel

tgoodrich earned his spot on P5 because he would review manga and anime, and pinpoint the questionable (or blatantly obvious) parts that the team needed to consider.

Others who did more work-focused or sporadic reviewing were also careful to point to exactly where things got iffy.

Second-hand works as long as the problematic parts are specifically cited, and it's not just an overall or chapter review.

Something for the new 5P: Ryona and Encyclopedia Dramatica should be zapped from the CVR for being a duplicate report (there currently are two) and already cut, respectively.

Also, ~Catbert may have some comments on Lover and Beloved.

For the benefit of the new P5 to clear the queue out, here's the list of items that need just one more vote.

• Oneiroi Series, two angels (second time being reviewed)
• Acid Town, two angels
• Awkward Silence, two angels
• Fish In The Trap, two devils
• The Baby Jesus Butt Plug, two devils
• Bambi Goes Crazy Ape Bonkers with His Drill and Sex, two angels (second time being reviewed)
• Baldr Sky, two angels (previously cut, vote is for restoration)
• Squad Broken, two devils
• Boycott the Caf, two angels (may need review in the website cleanup thread even if it passes)

Feel free to jump in on these once you're settled in.

edited 2nd Dec '16 6:31:44 AM by TotemicHero

I'd say fish in the trap should be cut just for being a stub. It has a one sentence description and three ZC Es for tropes

edited 2nd Dec '16 6:35:21 AM by tryrar

Re Lover and Beloved. I'm not sure why I was mentioned as I haven't been actively involved in this thread for quite some time, but I'll give it a shot.

The trope as written does not automatically refer to a relationship with an adult and a minor. It certainly does not automatically refer to relationship between an adult and a prepubescent child.

The name and some of the examples reference Classical and Hellenistic era Greek practices, which generally involved relationships between men (usually younger men, as older men were expected to focus on wives) and teenage boys. Boys under 13 were generally considered too young for this sort of relationship. While relations with boys in the 13-17 year age are taboo in modern America, consider that these are also the ages that girls in ancient Greece would have been getting married. Consider also that much of the world (including Europe) has ages of consent in the 14-16 year range, and that even in the United States, the majority of states have 16 or 17 as the age of consent.

However, all that being said, the heart of the trope as described in the trope description is not specifically Greek paederastic practices, but the idea of one of the partners being older and acting as a mentoring figure. So even if the younger partner is over the age of 18, you could still see this sort of relationship. Compare to the Uke, who is generally younger but need not be under 18.

However, this does appear to have attracted a number of examples that are simply "Person has adolescent lover" or even worse, Audience Reaction assumes that relationship with man and teen is sexual.

My recommendation would be to put this through a Trope Repair Shop for possible rename and example clean up. Make the focus on Mentoring Lover and not on references to paederasty. Clean out any references to preteen children. Remove examples of audience reactions (such as moral crusaders thinking Batman was sleeping with Robin, or Ho Yay in Shakespeare and the Bible).

The specific Greek relationship is something that shows up in both ancient Greco-Roman works and some (but by not means all) books based on the same or set during Greek times. If we were to decide that this trope is something we were to want to document, I would remove non Greco-Roman examples.

However, is it worth documenting? Do we document examples of cultures having marriage ages substantially lower than the modern norm, beyond Values Dissonance?

Edit PS: Apparently we do: Old Man Marrying a Child

Another thought: Is "Paederasty" by itself anymore tropeworthy than "Heterosexuality" or "Homosexuality" without any modifiers?

edited 2nd Dec '16 9:05:46 AM by Catbert

I think "pederasty" tends to fall under Ephebophile, often also under Hollywood Law. I am not up on that aspect of Greek culture to know about any other works that use the specific Greek trope.

edited 2nd Dec '16 7:55:23 AM by SeptimusHeap

Even most modern works based on ancient Greek mythology tends to whitewash the age-specific aspects of ancient Greek practices, and tend to instead show relations between peers and/or between full grown adults rather than between men and adolescents. Historical fiction set in Classical and Hellenic Greece will sometimes depict it, though not always with complete accuracy, such as Mary Renault's The Last of the Wine which shows the relationship between the teen and his older lover as Platonic (in the most literal sense of the word, as they were trying to follow the ideals that Plato attributes to Socrates, whose students they were) and mentoring/emotional until the younger partner turns 18, at which point it become sexually active. However in truth, sexual relations between fully adult men, while not unheard of, were generally looked upon with disfavor.

For our purposes, it probably would. If you want to be technical about the original Greek word, there are differences between the meaning of ephebe and pais, but I see no reason for us to make the distinction.

edited 2nd Dec '16 9:32:17 AM by Catbert

Alright, so, I'm going to open up with

• Ryona: that's just a porn genre, we don't need that up. Third devil's up.
• Squad Broken: has nothing but banal rape. Third devil.
• zap and reflag Dragon Ranger: it didn't have any votes and broken linking in the report is annoying.
• zap the duplicate flag for Ryona
• Alice In Sexland: It's a shame but wall to wall sex means devilhead.
• Encyclopedia Dramatica: zapped as it was already nuked off
• The Rock Cocks: Needs a look-over for cleaning, but is not porn enough to pass. Angel.
• Jimmy Savile: what's that guy's deal? ... Ah, pedophilia accusations, by the ton. Still, that drama isn't P5 business.
• duplicate The Rock Cocks, zap.
• Critical Role: edit war or something? Not P5 business. zaaap.

Okay, that's about it for the quickies?

edited 2nd Dec '16 9:53:32 AM by Adannor

Yeah, purging creator pages because the person was involved in Real Life crime would be a bad practice.

edited 2nd Dec '16 9:59:17 AM by Catbert

Yeah I know. That stuff was months old. And I remember it being brought up to mods attentions back when it was flagged.

Also for the future: would it be better to just redo the report it without the P5 flag if it's something that is mod-business but not p5-business?

edited 2nd Dec '16 11:26:08 AM by Adannor

My personal recommendation is that if something is moderator business, you should send a holler and once a moderator has processed it, zap the flag. Sometimes it is useful to know who sent the incorrect flag.

Understood, will do that.

You might also want to fill in dispositions for Ryona and Squad Broken.

Given my admittedly scant knowledge of Carlton Mellick's work—I've read stuff by him, but not much—I'm inclined to be lenient on The Baby Jesus Butt Plug. The point is to be nightmarish and ridiculous, not to titillate, which while potentially quite offensive is not necessarily grounds for removal. That said, I'd need to look into the offending material myself to be sure.

Indeed, the description sounds more like gross-out humor combined with Dead Baby Comedy, similar to (but distinct from) Eats Babies. It doesn't sound like pedo-pandering. So I checked Goodreads, and the reviews there don't suggest porn or pedoism either.

It mentions illustrations, though, which worried me, so I decided to be brave and do a google image search. Unfortunately, what I found was...the real thing, not images from the book. Faith in humanity...plummeting.

edited 3rd Dec '16 12:02:04 PM by Xtifr

Couldn't find it anywhere, even though the authors apparently themselves dropped it into piratebay (but that torrent is dead).

The main issue I see with it is that our description says nothing about it beyond pointing it's gross-out factor, and some reviews I've glances also complain that it doesn't have anything going for narrative beyond bizarroing it up.

Um, so the Fifty Shades of Grey page has an external link to an article with passages of the raunchier scenes in the book, with no NSFW warning. I'm pretty sure that should be removed, but I'm just gonna ask here to make sure before I do anything.