Content Policy Discussion

Never Mind.

edited 15th Oct '17 2:28:09 AM by Piterpicher

What is this line from The Content Policy and the 5P Circuit supposed to mean?

"Is an anime/manga/etc. that is approved for U.S. import as a non-adult work."

The US does not have press censorship. Nothing is or needs to be "approved for import." If it's supposed to be a reference to the policies of private publishers or something, it should be rephrased.

I assume it means that it doesn't get an 18+ rating from the publisher.

US government departments can and do issue approvals and denials for importing various items, including media.

Media's a bit more wiggly these days with the internet permitting downloads of, well, anything (legal or not).

But if the Whichever Dept (I'm being lazy here) says that a work can't be imported as a kids' show due to content, or that it requires severe Bleached Underpants to be imported as a kids' show, then they can do that.

The relevant portions of the law lie outside of the Constitution. You can thank Anthony Comstock and a bunch of people who thought like him for some of the nonsense we're still putting up with. (Comstock campaigned for and got the word "pregnancy" removed from dictionaries, fer pete's sake.)

End result is, though, the government can and does put content restrictions on imported material.

That said, that rule's phrasing does need to be reworded.

There's also the fact that most foreign works never get officially imported and translated anyway. The rule is less about works being banned and more about the fact that porn rarely gets an official import, so if it gets an official import and rating, it's probably not porn.

The rule's purpose was originally to stop Sailor Moon and similar series from being flagged back when the rules were still shaking themselves out, the community, the various 5P members, the mods and the administrator all had different standards, and the fighting was worse than a YT comments section.

It's essentially obsolete now, since the majority of import is done via Crunchyroll and the latter doesn't count as "above our pay grade."

When we were discussing the rule, the original idea was "something that would be put out in the general audiences section of a retail store", barring infamous What Do You Mean, It's Not for Kids? moments like Urotsukidoji — or, more specifically, because of moments like that.

edited 3rd Feb '18 9:42:59 PM by Fighteer

The rule about age ratings has always been a difficult one, considering works that we have determined in violation of the guidelines such as Eiken have received non-adult age ratings. (Eiken was released with a 16+ rating on DVD, and I have no idea what rating it got when it aired on Starz—likely TV-14, since it seemed like their default rating for anime.)

Which is part of the point of the P5 team -the ratings guidelines are an indicator, but scarcely the only one. Especially with the internet.

There's a reason that we joke about stocking up on Brain Bleach and vodka for P5, due to them often having to actually watch stuff to figure out whether it's devil or angel button time.

edited 5th Feb '18 1:33:13 PM by Candi

• adding back because I deleted it*

Like I said, the Panty Shot trope needs work. It's a fanservice trope, and some tropers have used it to list example of characters that are children. This is not only creepy, but it borders on pedophilia.

edited 11th Feb '18 9:02:23 AM by MsCC93

For that one (and similar), I draw the line when it comes to timestamped examples or excessive descriptions, and in the case of younger characters, relevance for the scene. I still remember having to clean the Scooby Doo page. Most of it was about the baby versions, which is pedophilia. I'm not sure I've ever added it when it wasn't lampshaded by one of the characters (or in one case, the author) and somehow significant for the scene (which is the interesting part; not the details of the shot).

I'm a little miffed that this isn't being taken seriously enough. Fan service tropes shouldn't apply to characters that are little children. Wouldn't it make this website a laughing stock like Troper Tales/Fetish Fuel did?

Because you're complaining in the wrong place.

Take it to TRS to be re-defined and cleaned up.

Sexualizing kids is a Content issue. That's P5's jurisdiction.

I think examples of Panty Shots that sexualize kids shouldn't be allowed, full stop. And since I can't think of a single example off the top of my head where a kid's Panty Shot was anything but 'it happened' with maybe a side of 'aww, how cute', I don't think it would hurt things to ban pre-adolescent Panty Shot examples completely.

Well actually I came here due to the requests of the mods, thank you very much. It's a legit complaint.

Thank you.

edited 13th Feb '18 5:53:21 AM by MsCC93

Panty Shot seems to have been a problem for a long time. At one point, there seems to have been an attempt to split off innocent (non-sexual) panty shots of kids as a separate trope. That worked about as well as you might expect, and got cut.

This is why we can't have nice icky, creepy things.

So, yeah, I think it's entirely within P5's remit to say "no kids on this trope!" And I sincerely hope they do.

Do we just pretend that permitted shows that have underage panty shots don't? That sounds a bit disingenuous. I think if we're going to do that, we might as well call down the axe on the trope entirely, for the same reason that Naughty Tentacles is in limbo right now.

Ultimately, discussing panty shots in anime is going to end up talking about underage underwear exposure. See the Panty Shot page image.

edited 12th Feb '18 8:10:54 PM by Ramidel

I said this in the ATT thread, and would like to repeat it here for consideration: frankly, I'm not entirely certain why we even want to have examples in this particular case in the first place. I get the impression that even as fanservice tropes go this one has been a particular magnet for skeeviness and one-handed troping.

When there is a conflict, we prefer to adopt established standards. If panty shots aren't considered too risque for prime-time broadcasting, for example, then we probably don't need to be concerned about them. The problem is with so much Japanese media that is expressly intended to pander to specific fetishes. How do we draw the line, if any, between what's acceptable and what isn't?

Generally speaking, when the Content Policy discusses exploitation of underage persons, it's talking about explicit sex involving teens or overt/fetishistic sexualization of pre-teens or younger. A panty shot with a sixteen year old (for example) wouldn't be enough, although it's not exactly something we cheer for.

As for the trope itself, I frankly wouldn't mind slashing all the examples, as I don't see how even the most objective listing could avoid coming across as a fetish index.

edited 12th Feb '18 9:53:32 PM by Fighteer

The trope itself should be more about flashing panties to other people and their reactions like a Nosebleed, Sweat Drop, blushing, Pervert Accusations, plot points, lack of reactions and so on. IE the page image and not about flashing the camera. That would be fine for examples IMO.

And then bait and switches where its Modesty Shorts or a swimsuit instead.

edited 12th Feb '18 11:50:27 PM by Memers

... That actually has some merit to it. Think about it: What exactly is so special — in a narrative sense — about a girl having her panties accidentally exposed to another person as opposed to, say, her bra? Underwear is underwear. Shouldn't we just make a general Comedic Underwear Exposure trope? Well, damn. I forgot we already have Comedic Underwear Exposure.

edited 13th Feb '18 5:11:44 AM by MarqFJA

I think that if a work is not in violation of our content policy, and uses panty shots as a trope, it could be mentioned on the work page. We shouldn't pretend that they don't happen in the work. Of course, the examples should be written carefully to avoid the appearance of what is euphemistically known as one-handed typing.

As for listing examples on the trope page, I'm with Fighteer: listing works with panty shots is of limitied utility and is dangerously close to providing an index of fetish fodder.

That trope in general sounds like its more about being embarrassed in boxers and almost always decidedly non-sexual or snark inducing.

A panty shot gets different sets of reactions which might be end up being extremely funny but in an entirely different way which can include violence, blood, fainting and other things.

Just cause someone shows their panties in the work does not make it a trope though, they gotta do something with it and that is where the tropes lie. It could be the super causal world where pants literally do not exist for girls ala Strike Witches, the whole 'you saw it didn't you' stereotypical response to a guy getting an eye full, violence, the guy overheating / fainting / high pressure Nosebleed, Perverted Wind which may or may not lead to Marilyn Maneuver, Intentional flash by the girl, sometimes a bait and switch being a swimsuit and many other reasons.

edited 13th Feb '18 7:07:00 AM by Memers

With Japanese works especially you have this weird "where do we draw the line?" thing because on hand some works just kind of have naturally happen because they consider not caring about showing them off normal childlike behavior. Nobody is going to argue the panty-shot of Cream in Sonic X is fanservice because not even 4Kids cut that.

On the other hand some works do play it for pedobait and there lies the problem along with the problem of creepy tropers writing the examples with one hand.

edited 13th Feb '18 10:00:35 PM by shoboni

The trope page is already empty for precisely this reason.

As for Fighteer's argument, it has merit on the face of it, but I think chopping PantyShot into subtropes is too problematic. The trope itself is expected to be "showing panties for fanservice," which is a trope, but innocent examples not intended for fanservice or comedy are shoved in there because We Cant Have Nice Things.

Furthermore, due to Rule 34, Fetish Fuel and Getting Crap Past the Radar, even if we could bring back Innocent Panties without it immediately getting covered with creep, it'd be much harder to split the "innocent" and the "not innocent."