Content Policy Change

@Anno R: If that is so, then the trope page needs to be edited to reflect this, because this is becoming a Flanderized Trope.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:16:09 AM by TwoGunAngel

Anno R,

Can you please stop Rules Lawyering

Everyone here is referring to fanservice as something that is sexual in nature and not some continuity nod/porn reference.

Now you're just arguing semantics.

Just as long as it fits Fanservice as defined by the trope page, it undeniably sexual objectification. If it doesn't fit, then it's not a form of sexual objectification and is a different trope entirely as defined by this wiki.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:17:16 AM by encrypted12345

Then the problem with the word "fanservice" is that everyone has their own definition for it.

Fanservice, originally, is just "stuff put there for no particular reason other than to please the fans". The most widely known kind of it is, indeed, "sexual" fanservice, as it is described on the trope page. But the difference in terms is still there.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:20:40 AM by OneMore

No One More,

The majority of people have the same definition of the word "Fanservice".

Fanservice for the purpose of this discussion is stuff that evokes sexual feelings. Hence, using pre-teens/pre-pubescents for fanservice is appeal to paedophiliac instincts and needs to be hit with antimatter missiles from orbit.

I was clarifying something someone else said, and sometimes things that are harmless are referred to as fanservice despite being nonsexual, even if the definition is different on the wiki. So if something's called fanservice, it's not necessarily sexual.

"Paedophiliac instincts" — you mean, humans have such instincts?

And indeed, even "sexual" (for a lack of better word) fanservice does not equal sexual objectification.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:22:37 AM by OneMore

True, fanservice doesn't' necessarily refer to just sexual things. It could refer to several things that appeal to the fanbase of the work(s) in question. Though, we'll probably go with the site's definition of it.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:22:55 AM by Delvarian

Do we really need to get into the semantics of different types of fanservice? Or the semantics of what exactly qualifies as porn or pedophile wank material?

I can't speak for the rest of the panel, but for me I'm going to use the "I know it when I see it" criteria for both porn and pedoshit. And I'm going to actually look at this shit, at least as much as I can handle to look at. Once I "see it," I'll do my best to explain objectively why it's unacceptable. And yeah, I'll listen to the arguments against my decisions, but in case anyone didn't already figure it out, I don't have a very high tolerance for anything that looks like pedophilia. If the argument against me is anything along the lines of "But it's a DECONSTRUCTION! The sexualized image of a ten-year-old girl in lingerie is just a joke!" I'm probably not going to be listening all that hard.

For the record, I'll be voting to restore Lolita when it comes up. I'm considering 120 Days of Sodom but I need to do some more research into it.

I think we should stick to the definitions that are used in our Wiki. If there's something wrong with them, take it to TRS - unless there's already been a TRS discussion about it, in which case the current definitions stand.

That, of course, leaves us with the oft-common case of works utilizing a "dumbed-down" version of many fanservice tropes (e.g. Sexy Santa Dress) for kid characters, which they reoriente from sexualization to emphasizing the character's cuteness (thus making it a Cute Santa Dress).

Eh, you know tropers. We like to cut things into categories.

I've heard people use fanservice as a term for Pandering to the Base, but sexual titillation is the general anime definition.

This brings up why don't we use Sex Sells as the goto sexy media trope.

Not sure if trolling or being serious.

Being serious.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:29:25 AM by OneMore

The phrase "pedophiliac instincts" implies that every human being has them, if only in a dormant state, and it just needs the right "trigger". A better term would be "pedophiliac urges".

Then yes, some people have that instinct with is met by universal disgust and certain works are seen by people to be catering to these instincts.

OK. "Appeals to paedophilia" then.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:30:47 AM by SeptimusHeap

I agree that only a small amount of people have pedo urges.

I'm trying to steer a path here that avoids giving 5P more to do than necessary, avoids chilling page creation, and avoids Inappropriate material on the wiki. Clear — even clear-but-subjective — guidelines for what is allowed do this. Gut feelings do not.

@Everybody above Hershele - Off-topic. We're not here to determine the psychological and neurological origins of pedophilia.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:34:13 AM by Martello

Too lazy to add additional arrows. Self-thumped.

edited 17th Apr '12 11:35:39 AM by encrypted12345

• apologizes*

That's true. So, to reiterate my previous on-topic point:

edited 17th Apr '12 11:35:44 AM by MarqFJA