sponsored by nivea

NICE! NICE!! NICE!!!

Is no one going to translate chapter 1 of this? The chapter listed as "chapter 1" is actually a "chapter 0" that was on pixiv.

I just bought chapter 4 of this. I believe there's raws online already, hopefully someone translates it soon.

It was definitely a joke. As someone pointed out early in the thread, lampshading. We know Onee-san is a creepy pedo but in-universe she's the main character, not a villain... She would never do anything to hurt the Otone... But she's a sick pedo full of creepy desires, which we can see from outside of the universe.

Probably one of the most central tropes of loli stuff is that the lolis are always enthusiastic. I think there was even a study on rape in hentai manga that came up with it being rarest in a few magazines (one being 0%, an editorial decision I applaud) and number 2 or 3 was Comic Lo, which you can guess from the title is a loli manga. The suspension of disbelief is that this is all a-ok and the way that disbelief is suspended is by the trope of willing, enthusiastic lolis.

This should be made part of obligatory reading for anyone that harps about the lolicon/shotacon genre as being inherently immoral.

Welllll... I don't think that's quite the slam-dunk you think it is. The argument that the "inherently immoral" crowd makes (besides "eww") is generally one about normalization — that consistently portraying something to be true has the effect, in the public consciousness, of shifting attitudes towards accepting that it's true. It's an argument I find hard to fully refute — it's part of why stereotypes and misogynistic and biased tropes can be harmful. Portraying children as not needing to be raped for adults to have sex with them is, on this view, just a leeetle sketchy.

That said, I think the harm-by-normalization argument depends on the portrayal really being mainstream or large-scale mass media. The mere fact of being published or being available on the internet doesn't rise to that level, and we're all well aware, going in, that these are fantasies without much reference to real life.

(The only other thing I worry a little about in this sort of thing is that the "comedic onee-loli" thing kind of perpetuates some misogyny; we are supposed to think that having the quasi-predatory older character being a woman is "safer", because women can't really sexually assault people. It's like jokes about female teachers who abuse boy students. Flipping the gender would make us far more uncomfortable.)

Anyway, I really do like this series, and indeed a lot of stuff that's considered sketchy, and in no way do I want to stop anybody from enjoying any fiction. But I find it useful to maintain an awareness of what is actually being said, and a sense of ambivalence about how "harmless" anything is.

i don’t really like lolicon but i read it sometimes but this one is creepy i didn’t really like what that “kind onee-san” doing

Is no one going to translate chapter 1 of this? The chapter listed as "chapter 1" is actually a "chapter 0" that was on pixiv.

Seem that it has been translated on Mangadex for those interested.

Chapter 0 (previously listed as chapter 1) has been updated with the missing page. Chapter 1 and 4 have been uploaded.

True love.

You wouldn't think creepy-cute slice of life would have continuity problems, but it's kinda hard to reconcile chapter 4 with the rest of it?

Gimme that fuckin lovey-dovey

Sometimes I wonder if the people in the bloody-disgusting.com forums wring their hands in knots discussing the morality in slasher movies or fret about how wrong it is to axe-murder fictional people.

Sometimes I wonder if the people in the bloody-disgusting.com forums wring their hands in knots discussing the morality in slasher movies or fret about how wrong it is to axe-murder fictional people.

“Normalizing dismemberment.”

Onee-san has a nice potential to turn into a yandere.

And kids talk at home.

In the Real World (tm), Otone would have talked to her mama about the nice Onee who kisses her on the lips. And then, Police descends.

But here, the mama gives her permission to go there everyday and sleepover? Right...

last edited at May 18, 2020 2:42AM

It was definitely a joke. As someone pointed out early in the thread, lampshading. We know Onee-san is a creepy pedo but in-universe she's the main character, not a villain... She would never do anything to hurt the Otone... But she's a sick pedo full of creepy desires, which we can see from outside of the universe.

Probably one of the most central tropes of loli stuff is that the lolis are always enthusiastic. I think there was even a study on rape in hentai manga that came up with it being rarest in a few magazines (one being 0%, an editorial decision I applaud) and number 2 or 3 was Comic Lo, which you can guess from the title is a loli manga. The suspension of disbelief is that this is all a-ok and the way that disbelief is suspended is by the trope of willing, enthusiastic lolis.

This should be made part of obligatory reading for anyone that harps about the lolicon/shotacon genre as being inherently immoral.

I almost feel it's more immoral now? Consent is not the issue when it comes to minors and the fact that at least some of the people reading loli/shouta are actual pedophiles who delude themselves into thinking it's fine if they get consent is disturbing.

I draw the line at grooming someone who acts like a child personally, rather than the apparent age of cartoon characters (although 3rd grade is way, waaay too young). That's why works like Itou Hachi's are far more disturbing to me than hardcore hentai porn with what amounts to a tiny adult.

So yeah, there's a difference between enjoying lolicon/shouta and being a pedophile, but some lolicon/shouta is absolutely for pedophiles and you shouldn't defend it or else you end up defending grooming which is not a good look.

Edit
Rephrasing that last point: There's a difference between enjoying lolicon/shouta and being a pedophile and the two groups do not always overlap, but there does exist some lolicon/shouta that is clearly either created by pedophiles or is created for pedophiles such as those involving these realistic grooming scenarios and if you defend such works, you will often end up defending inherently problematic elements like grooming whether you mean to or not. Which is not a good look.

Also, I shouldn't have brought the author's personal life into this have edited my post to remove it. That's my bad.

last edited at May 18, 2020 7:17AM

I just get this big, wide smile on my face while I'm reading Itou Haci's work. Mostly because it's wholesome, but also because it's hilarious to read the comment section

Ah, they're just too adorable. Both of them, really, after seeing more of Onee-san's side as well. ^_^

So yeah, there's a difference between enjoying lolicon/shouta and being a pedophile, but some lolicon/shouta is absolutely for pedophiles and you shouldn't defend it or else you end up defending grooming which is not a good look.

Now that's not fair, now is it? People in general know how to separate real life from fiction, and that includes the creators themselves. I don't particularly prefer lolicon works over the more "normal" ones, but I would never judge anyone who just draws this stuff without involving actual, living children, and those who enjoy such works of fiction, as "defenders of grooming," no matter how messed up the work seems to me, or how "dangerously close" to real life it is. That's just a messed up way of thinking. If I didn't know any better, I would say you're projecting, even.

I need chapter 5 right now, I cannot wait~~

So yeah, there's a difference between enjoying lolicon/shouta and being a pedophile, but some lolicon/shouta is absolutely for pedophiles and you shouldn't defend it or else you end up defending grooming which is not a good look.

Now that's not fair, now is it? People in general know how to separate real life from fiction, and that includes the creators themselves. I don't particularly prefer lolicon works over the more "normal" ones, but I would never judge anyone who just draws this stuff without involving actual, living children, and those who enjoy such works of fiction, as "defenders of grooming," no matter how messed up the work seems to me, or how "dangerously close" to real life it is. That's just a messed up way of thinking. If I didn't know any better, I would say you're projecting, even.

I believe the misunderstanding is my phrasing so I will rephrase:

There's a difference between enjoying lolicon/shouta and being a pedophile and the two groups do not always overlap, but there does exist some lolicon/shouta that is clearly either created by pedophiles or is created for pedophiles such as those involving these realistic grooming scenarios and if you defend such works, you will often end up defending inherently problematic elements like grooming whether you mean to or not. Which is not a good look.

I stated there is " some lolicon by/for pedophiles" and that defending that specific category can easily result in the appearance of defending grooming and that THAT is not a good look. I object to the depiction of grooming very young children specifically and not necessarily to all lolicon/shouta works. I am also not the person you quoted as saying "'dangerously close' to real life" and did not use those words. I also did not accuse anyone of being "defenders of grooming" as if it's a job title and their life's work, but rather stated they will end up defending it, unintentionally or intentionally, in their attempt to defend certain works that depict it.

I was trying to be careful with my wording so please read carefully too instead of accusing me of projecting, which is uncalled for.

Edit
I shouldn't have brought the author's personal life into this have edited my post to remove it. That's my bad.

last edited at May 18, 2020 7:17AM

Reprehensible yet adorable.

Calthesa posted:

There's a difference between enjoying lolicon/shouta and being a pedophile and the two groups do not always overlap, but there does exist some lolicon/shouta that is clearly either created by pedophiles or is created for pedophiles such as those involving these realistic grooming scenarios and if you defend such works, you will often end up defending inherently problematic elements like grooming whether you mean to or not. Which is not a good look.

Edit.. post deleted.

Actually, nevermind. These arguments run in circles anyway and nothing can come out of it.

last edited at May 18, 2020 6:35AM

There's a difference between enjoying lolicon/shouta and being a pedophile and the two groups do not always overlap, but there does exist some lolicon/shouta that is clearly either created by pedophiles or is created for pedophiles such as those involving these realistic grooming scenarios and if you defend such works, you will often end up defending inherently problematic elements like grooming whether you mean to or not. Which is not a good look.

I stated there is " some lolicon by/for pedophiles" and that defending that specific category can easily result in the appearance of defending grooming and that THAT is not a good look. I object to the depiction of grooming very young children specifically and not necessarily to all lolicon/shouta works. I am also not the person you quoted as saying "'dangerously close' to real life" and did not use those words. I also did not accuse anyone of being "defenders of grooming" as if it's a job title and their life's work, but rather stated they will end up defending it, unintentionally or intentionally, in their attempt to defend certain works that depict it.

I was trying to be careful with my wording so please read carefully too instead of accusing me of projecting, which is uncalled for.

I never attacked anyone or made any generalizations. I accused one person with a clear history of including these elements in multiple works of possibly being a pedophile. I will remind you Itou Hachi also wrote "The Inferiority Complex is Not Over" which is literally about a self-identified pedophile struggling not to molest kids.

I might be wrong, but it's not like I'm pulling my opinion on the author out of thin air or starting an online smear campaign to get her arrested. I'm entitled to think Itou Hachi shows signs of being an actual pedophile and not just a troll or whatever (just as you are entitled to think the opposite) until we get proper evidence and confirmation one way or the other. I see a red flag and thus will vote with my wallet by not supporting her here or elsewhere and you don't see a problem; that's all. No need to scream "projection!" or any other subtle insults implying I'm the pedophile for not liking a problematic comic.

And... so what if Itou's a real life pedophile? Can you prove that she's diddling kids just because she released works about characters doing so? Also, is everyone who happens to put a good word in about this manga, or try to justify its themes, now suddenly a bad person? You might claim that that's not what you're saying, but that's what you're implying. That's quite a judgmental attitude you have there, don't you think? Does the creator of Saw construct elaborate death games in real life too? And are the people who enjoy it all secretly want to murder random people off the street? And before you try to reject the connection between these two, I'm gonna stop you, because the connection is valid and a good case to dismiss your nonsense claims that just because "some," as you say, works of fiction are "problematic," that they somehow hold less value intrinsically than those that you find no problems with, and thus not worth "defending," as you say. You're free to like what you like, and yes, do feel free to take your money elsewhere, but calling stuff problematic just because you personally don't like it is a disservice to productive discussion and makes you come off as a moralistic jerk. What you're saying is NOT criticism, it's insult, and I won't stand for it, regardless of whether I like a work of fiction or not.

PS: I also prefaced the projection thing with a "If I didn't know any better," so that's on you if you somehow felt offended by the offhand remark. Besides, I'm not even talking about projection of pedophilia, but projection of general character flaws. What was the saying again in English? "If the shoe fits..." was it? Your use of words like "problematic" and "not a good look" is a hallmark of people who think too highly of themselves, so I sure do hope you're not one of them.

last edited at May 18, 2020 6:49AM

And... so what if Itou's a real life pedophile? Can you prove that she's diddling kids just because she released works about characters doing so? You might claim that that's not what you're saying, but that's what you're implying. That's quite a judgmental attitude you have there, don't you think? Does the creator of Saw construct elaborate death games in real life too? And before you try to reject the connection between these two, I'm gonna stop you, because the connection is valid and a good case to dismiss your nonsense claims that just because "some," as you say, works of fiction are "problematic," that they somehow hold less value intrinsically than those that you find no problems with, and thus not worth "defending," as you say. You're free to like what you like, and yes, do feel free to take your money elsewhere, but calling stuff problematic just because you personally don't like it is a disservice to productive discussion and makes you come off as a moralistic jerk. What you're saying is NOT criticism, it's insult, and I won't stand for it, regardless of whether I like a work of fiction or not.

PS: I also prefaced the projection thing with a "If I didn't know any better," so that's on you if you somehow felt offended by the offhand remark. Besides, I'm not even talking about projection of pedophilia, but projection of general character flaws. What was the saying again in English? "If the shoe fits..." was it? Your use of words like "problematic" and "not a good look" is a hallmark of people who think too highly of themselves, so I sure do hope you're not one of them.

You know what, you're right that without proof Itou's doing something illegal like actually touching kids or consuming real child pornography that it doesn't matter and I shouldn't have said I thought she was a pedophile based solely on her fictional work. I shouldn't have brought the author's personal life into this and I will edit my posts to remove it. That's my bad.

Also, I do think horror movies can contain problematic elements and that the issue is more complex than showing murder=real life murder and did not mean to imply showing grooming translates directly to raping children. I try not to be hypocritical in my moralistic jerk-ness.

I stand by my point that certain problematic tropes that appear in works like this are bad, potentially normalize behavior like grooming if they become mainstream, and that I personally will continue to not consume works containing them because I don't like them. I think that's fair enough for an internet opinion.

last edited at May 18, 2020 7:08AM

Edit.. post deleted.

Actually, nevermind. These arguments run in circles anyway and nothing can come out of it.

I would have liked to read your post, although I probably wouldn't have responded for the same reason you gave. I honestly only responded to Lucas Magnus because of the projection jab and because I did think I needed rephrase my point. Enjoy your cute loli.

last edited at May 18, 2020 7:00AM