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

But don't panic. Over 16s are OK.

Mazz: What I was referring to is that the main character's father says that he happens to also be a lolicon in addition to just being a pervert in general. It's played for laughs. I personally don't think that an art style like Lucky Star is really intended to be sexualizing.

The lolicon page clearly defines the trope. The problem is people not actually reading it. I believe we turned down the idea of having a separate page for use of lolicon as fanspeak or genre or whatever the hell you want to call that usage of the word.

edited 11th May '12 9:31:27 AM by Arha

Yeah, I wasn't trying to start up that again, and I'm sorry if it seemed like I was. Basically, I was just saying that we need to put something in the lolicon, shotacon, and Porn Without Plot pages that references the content policy. That would create less work in the future, perhaps.

... which hardly makes it unique on this site, judging from TRS...

edited 11th May '12 9:44:26 AM by Nohbody

@Arha: Except that Lolicon as written is about pedophile characters (lolicons) rather than the Japanese fetish and the works that cater to that fetish (unlike Shotacon, which is about the fetish).

edited 11th May '12 9:40:25 AM by TwoGunAngel

^ Didn't say Shotacon wasn't. The Lolicon article used to be similar. I don't remember why we didn't change Shotacon at the same time or outright merge the two. I think it might have been that we were discouraged from spending more time on the matter.

Should we perhaps do that? If so, that's a matter for the TRS, not here. Although I guess in the current climate that might be ill advised.

edited 11th May '12 9:53:47 AM by Arha

Well, we're currently attempting to hammer out The Pedophile on YKTTW to take care of pedophile characters (and have currently hit a stall because of the realization that it will most likely be an exampleless stub thanks to Ephebophile being Example Sectionectomied by The Fast One). I for one am in favor of a single page on the fetish and genre (with elements taken from both the current Shotacon page and a previous version of the Lolicon page), while using The Pedophile (or whatever the hell it gets named) for pedophile characters.

edited 11th May '12 9:58:13 AM by TwoGunAngel

Isn't that a little broad? A pedophile villain and a pedophile played for laughs are not the same thing. Fast Eddie already nixed one attempt at a pedophile villain YKTTW as well. He said it was already covered by Pædo Hunt.

edited 11th May '12 10:01:31 AM by Arha

Not to mention that a sympathetic pedophile protagonist, like in the Pulizer-Prize winning How I Learnedto Drive, and a villain protagonist, like in A Clockwork Orange, would be subject to the same definition. Again, gray areas, we can't whitewash these things because they exist and it would be insulting not to, we probably want to keep our page on The Lovely Bones, etc.

You can sexualize kids without having paedophiles in a work. Chu Bra shows that much. You can have paedophiles without sexualizing kids. Law And Order pulls it off all the time. The bit we object to is sexualizing kids.

What's the policy on works that sexualize children, but do so in a way to disgust or otherwise vilify the action? I can't tell if we're cutting every work that sexualizes children, or only those that portray it in a neutral/positive light?

Sexualisation of children roughly means presenting them as titillating material for audiences considerably older than themselves.

edited 11th May '12 10:44:11 AM by lu127

We're cutting works that explicitly sexualize children (i.e., show them engaging in sexual behavior in graphic detail) no matter what the intent. That's really the only set guideline that I know of. Everything else is case-by-case.

So then, if sexuality of children is played for drama or horror, and it's clear that there's absolutely no intent for anyone to find it arousing, then the work is still fit for a page here?

I guess I'm trying to get as much detail into the guidelines as I can, since it seems like there's a combination of very subjective criteria and outright misinformation / strawman campaigning, and I'd like to know exactly where the line is drawn (obviously, it's still going to have some degree of subjectivity so that there's less incentive to rules lawyer, but more information is rarely a strictly bad thing.)

That's in case by case territory. You're trying to get deep into the blurry area, so all we can tell you straight out is that it's blurry. Show us a work there and we'll tell you.

I don't want to ruin everyone's fun, but I feel like we're just rehashing well-worn territory with the "what does sexualization of children really mean?" discussion. The fact that some people find that difficult to determine is why the 5P was formed. Don't worry about it, we'll figure that out for you. It's our job.

Yeah, increasingly, it seems like we should just stop trying to second guess the P5 council.

Well I didn't expect Kodomo No Jikan to be denied restoration.... but it doesn't surprise me.

edited 11th May '12 11:42:33 AM by Webidolchiu94

Lotte is a better edge case, since Kn J did have actual nudity in it, and sexual behavior.

..I agree with ccoa. The best antidote we can provide to the mishandling of rape in media is not to stick our heads in the sand, but to address it. A good example of this (and one I thoroughly support) is on the So You Want To Write Yaoi page. The person who wrote it up is someone who understands both the societal reasons for people wanting to write Victim Falls For Rapist etcetera - and takes them apart and explains that it is a cliche and not to write it simply because everyone else is doing so, that in almost all if not all cases it's an insult to actual victims and a trigger, etcetera.

THAT is how we should best handle rape in fiction: not by censoring, say, everything that mentions it, but explaining that it's handled badly, warning those who might be triggered and encouraging the writers to try something else like consensual BDSM (if they want to be titillating) or Rape as Drama with the full respect the victims deserve (if they want to be dramatic).

(ninja'd) Also, in the effort of "lighting a candle instead of cursing the darkness, " we could make a special effort to create pages for works that don't portray rape positively and that do portray consensual relationships and consensual sex positively. And we already do this to some degree - for example, we have pages on Katawa Shoujo and Future Lovers - a hetero VN and a yaoi manga, respectively, that feature consensual, respectful relationships and don't involve rape. So that is another idea, and maybe one that deserves a Special Efforts for genres that tend to treat rape lightly or disrespectfully - find and create pages on works within those genres (Visual Novels, yaoi, romance novels, etcetera) that either don't have rape or that at least treat it with the gravity it deserves.

There's a massive problem with that, though - the site's no-negativity rule. It's been said again and again that TV Tropes is about celebrating fiction and fictional trends, not criticising them, and celebrating stuff like Rape as Redemption is... well... um.

edited 11th May '12 12:23:22 PM by Iaculus

No Examples Please and leave it at that?

I think the idea is that we don't want to turn into IJBM again.

edited 11th May '12 12:25:13 PM by TheyCallMeTomu

But we are also about analysis, as well as celebration. And the rape tropes as they're commonly used are something we should not celebrate, but can definitely analyze and deconstruct.

No negativity applies to works. Tropes are concepts. The site doesn't have any preference over certain tropes.

edited 11th May '12 12:26:53 PM by lu127

@Webidolhiu and animeg - Those works were both cut and are not coming back. This isn't the place to continue discussing them.

That rule is more to keep out excessive bashing of works. Bad Writing Index wouldn't exist if we can't acknowledge that some tropes are almost always handled badly. Similarly, Rape as Redemption already points out the Unfortunate Implications no less than three times. Someone would have to be willfully blind to think we thought this was a "good" or even "neutral" trope.

In my opinion, Victim Falls For Rapist needs the same treatment.

Ninja'd by the lu-ninja!

edited 11th May '12 12:30:05 PM by ccoa