Content Violations Review: Manga.Gushing Over Magical Girls

The swing in votes happened fairly recently+ there is no rush to make call everything early.

Also, there is not a consensus. The current standings are, unless I missed someone:

• Manga only: Stalker Gamer, Completely Normal Guy, Zazie 122, Rmpdc, JHD 0919, Ramidel, animuacid,
• Full cut: Arawn 999, Libraryseraph, worldwidewoomy, Mrph 1, Star Sword, War Jay 77, opal6561, Berrenta, Willbyr, supernintendo128, Floater, Anonmius, Siegfried 1337, Aazkaal

Given that, I'm probably going to say that unless we get more advocates for the anime real quick, it's gone - but the manga is still up in the air.

@Mrph 1: Correct. Crowners aren't how we do it here - if we need to tally votes, we do it by hand. Actually, crowners in general are a bad idea that originally were made for Crowning Moment Of Awesome and kinda mushroomed out from there.

Edited. And at this point I think we can call it on the anime.

Edited by Ramidel on Apr 16th 2024 at 7:49:22 AM

I said to keep the manga only.

I bannered the page, and my vote is to cut. I've heard of this show but this is the first time I'm hearing of the premise and it sounds gross.

[x] Cut both per the content policy and Berrenta's and Willbyr's rationales.

"Firstly, we don't want pages on works that consist entirely of explicit sex or other fetishistic stuff, with no story other than as a pretext for more fetishistic stuff."

It certainly has a story beyond as a pretext for fetish stuff, but it doesn't seem like anyone is putting that part in doubt anyway.

"Secondly, we do not want pages on works that depict sexual activity between children in an explicit manner or in glorifying fashion. In particular, we don't want works with titillating references to sexual activity involving preteens."

This depends on your definition of "children". The series does depict sexual play between teenagers, a lot of it. There is one preteen character, but she is... technically not sexualized? She participates in activities that result in the sexualization of other characters, but she herself is always shown fully clothed and with nothing of sexual nature happening to her per se.

Well, they're definitely minors. The story is clear about their ages and they're below the age of consent in the USA and UK.

As for Nero Alice, the argument that she's "technically" not sexualised because she's never actually taking part in sex... well, the technically is carrying a lot of weight there.

Her character page entry mentions how "She constantly puts the Tres Magia, Magenta especially, into sexual situations (typically involving Mind Control-induced age play)" and how her powers can "create and control complex structures like a full-scale sex/torture RPG dungeon".

Which sounds dubious at best. If she's essentially a controlling dom, she's still involved in the scenes.

That's not really how I saw it. I interpreted it more as her being a child innocently Playing House with the teenagers and it "coincidentally" (coincidentally in-character, obviously not on the author's part) just so happens that when the child in question is a Reality Warper the result is something rather similar to ABDL play.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure the Doylist explanation matters when it's the Watsonian content that's at issue.

Edited by Arawn999 on Apr 16th 2024 at 6:37:44 AM

Yeah, it doesn't matter how it's presented since the creator still definitely knew what they were doing and why.

I think you have Doylist and Watsonian mixed up.

For what it's worth, they're also now below the federal age of consent in Japan, and even before the Diet changed the laws recently they were below it in most prefectures.

Edited by StarSword on Apr 16th 2024 at 8:59:28 AM

Tbh that was a mistake on my part- I hadn't noticed that the age of consent was raised in Japan.

Regional age of consent doesn't matter to our policy. We apply a universal standard, and that standard says that explicit depictions of sexual activity involving characters under the age of 16 are prohibited.

Considering that this was explained to you earlier, by me, in Ask The Tropers, and is laid out in the Content Policy, I can't help but read your protests as being made in bad faith.

As far as I am concerned, the only questions that matter to this specific CV report are:

• Does the degree/explicitness of sexual activity rise to the level defined in the policy?
• Are the characters canonically underage or drawn as such?
• Are the depictions made for the purpose of arousal rather than for "artistic or cultural merit"? This last standard is extremely strict to avoid the obvious loopholes. For example, the author's intent doesn't matter if people are gushing (see what I did there?) over the characters on the wiki article.

Edited by Fighteer on Apr 16th 2024 at 9:38:14 AM

That was mostly due to being out of the loop when I made a statement on the age of consent. When I was told that the age of consent was actually raised in Japan about 10 months ago, I was actually surprised by it. I sincerely apologize for it and will be changing my vote to cut all, since I assumed that Arawn didn't do his research, but I noticed that he has indeed changed for the better by actually going through all of the content compared to his previous content violation review where he only went through parts of it.

Considering the time of when the manga was made, indeed they are underage since most of them are below 16 years old. And yes, there are specific moments where it was indeed made for arousal.

Edited by Siegfried1337 on Apr 16th 2024 at 7:09:50 AM

Moving the vote to cut all, with all considered.

Assuming that no one else is going to vote, this makes it that there is currently a margin to cut the entirety of the work. When do we cut it?

Wait a few hours to see if any more votes crop up, and if not, holler for a cut. Then we can launch the nuke on the pages.

Edited by opal6561 on Apr 16th 2024 at 10:52:57 AM

Er, a few hours is still a tad rushed. There's no harm in waiting longer, especially since mods are in the convo already.

Currently we're at 7/13. That's not quite a 2/3 majority, so we still need more votes.

Didn't see that. Change made. We're still a little under the threshold.

Fighteer, are you voting, or just speaking as a moderator?

Edited by Ramidel on Apr 16th 2024 at 7:41:23 AM

I voted for a full cut.

This manga's entire existence feels like attempt to "subtly" smuggle CP past the censors. I'm honestly surprised how it even got published in the first place.

Cut. Then burn and bury.

And, that's 7/14. Which is a supermajority for cut, unless we get anyone else speaking for a keep?

Edited by Ramidel on Apr 16th 2024 at 7:50:35 AM

I'd rather not use that term lightly on works with fictional characters. At most, please call it lolicon or pedopandering material, which I'm still not convinced applies to this manga.

Agreed.

I agree, people have gotten wildly liberal with labeling everything and anything "CP" and it's to the benefit of absolutely no one but actual predators.

With that being said

"explicit depictions of sexual activity involving characters under the age of 16 are prohibited"

If that is indeed the rule (I cannot find this exact wording on the content policy), then even as someone who loved this work (for mostly non-sexual reasons) and was a major contributor to the page, I don't think I can really advocate for keeping it in good faith. The characters are, indeed, under the age of 16 and there are, indeed, pretty explicit depictions of sexual activity involving them, and them's unfortunately the facts.

It is my personal belief that hyperfocusing on the age of entirely fictional characters is pointless, and that any work that is worth troping should be troped, and GOMG is very much worth troping. But the question being "does it violate the rules of the wiki", if the rules clearly say "no explicit depictions of sexual activity between characters under 16", the answer seems to be a yes.

Edited by Arachnos on Apr 16th 2024 at 2:59:46 PM