She's How Old?!

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Have you ever mistook the age of an anime character based on their physical appearance? This is a pretty common thing in the anime community due to artistic license. You've got muscular men (e.g. Jotaro) and hot-looking women (e.g. Yoko) who look like young adults, but then you've found out that they are minors. Even the Nostalgia Critic was shocked when he learned that the sailor scouts were 14 rather than college-age, and he has regretted putting Sailor Moon on his top 11 hottest animated chicks list. This is a major problem for adult anime fans who are searching for fictional characters who are husbando/waifu material within legal age. Here in western society (the U.S. and Europe), we shun upon underage characters, fictional or not, doing suggestive material, and we belittle those who fall for them, because pedophilia is a worldwide taboo. Although the age of consent varies in the U.S., its citizens believe that 18 is the definitive age for all states based on marriage laws. Japan would try to get past this by creating older characters trapped in a kid's body via race:

Spoiler:

But even that doesn't work in the west, as the casual audience would only focus on their physical appearances and question Japan's morals for giving little kids lewd traits. This is why I believe the west would try to convert Japan's culture into our culture, because we don't view their way of life as "normal," more like "disgusting" and "immoral." Us westerners don't care how matured your husband/waifu is for his or her age, if he or she is below our age of consent, you're going to jail no matter what. Share your thoughts on this situation.

 

[machomuu]

They're not real, and in the case of fiction, age is a label. Some people might argue this, but it's a common practice to age females up when bringing them overseas. This is supposedly supposed to make your thoughts about them okay and dodge controversy or something.

Problem is, this idea that knowledge breeds immorality is kind of ****ing stupid. Really ****ing stupid, I'd say. And this post might seem a little charged. Just a little.

If a character is 14 and wearing skimpy clothes but she's brought over as an 18 year old, how the hell does that make her any more "okay"? Because she's not 14? Well no, usually that information, original or changed, isn't something the user will be privy to. They won't be thinking that that girl is both hot and underaged, they'll be thinking that that's an attractive girl. Period. Because if the design really doesn't raise any flags, what's the ****ing point in feeling bad about your thoughts? First of all, she's not real so it doesn't matter, but even if she were it doesn't make you a pedophile because you don't like the idea of having sex with kids. You aren't attracted to kids. You're attracted to her. Or him. Whoever, really. The point is, age is not and was never a factor until it was brought up, so why does it make any goddamn sense if she's not as old as you thought she was?

And then there are lolis. Still not real, and also they don't look like real children, generally having traits of older ages and playing on the idea of "cute" rather than that of "being a ****ing kid". This is where the misconception is, and it needs to stop. Lolis are not kids. Those who like lolis (and shotas, I'm not bein' sexist) do not like kids. And generally, it doesn't have to do with age, so the idea that this is a social faux pas ironically completely contradicts the above idea. Which is hilarious.

Also, it's fiction. Age doesn't work that way.

So yeah. Needless to say I think that both of those ideas are really ****ing stupid, and thank God these censors are broken so that I don't have to censor myself. But I do have a couple things to say about the OP specifically. First, it's not a Japan thing, it's an anime thing. For very appropriate reference, Oreimo episode 3. Second, NC never said that he regretted adding her to the list, just that he didn't know. He didn't change the list or anything, he just used that as a means to answer the question and mostly divert flak- but even in this, he jokingly swoons over the Sailor Scouts and and never really says that they aren't attractive.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

They're not real, and in the case of fiction, age is a label. Some people might argue this, but it's a common practice to age females up when bringing them overseas. This is supposedly supposed to make your thoughts about them okay and dodge controversy or something.

Problem is, this idea that knowledge breeds immorality is kind of ****ing stupid. Really ****ing stupid, I'd say. And this post might seem a little charged. Just a little.

If a character is 14 and wearing skimpy clothes but she's brought over as an 18 year old, how the hell does that make her any more "okay"? Because she's not 14? Well no, usually that information, original or changed, isn't something the user will be privy to. They won't be thinking that that girl is both hot and underaged, they'll be thinking that that's an attractive girl. Period. Because if the design really doesn't raise any flags, what's the ****ing point in feeling bad about your thoughts? First of all, she's not real so it doesn't matter, but even if she were it doesn't make you a pedophile because you don't like the idea of having sex with kids. You aren't attracted to kids. You're attracted to her. Or him. Whoever, really. The point is, age is not and was never a factor until it was brought up, so why does it make any goddamn sense if she's not as old as you thought she was?

And then there are lolis. Still not real, and also they don't look like real children, generally having traits of older ages and playing on the idea of "cute" rather than that of "being a ****ing kid". This is where the misconception is, and it needs to stop. Lolis are not kids. Those who like lolis (and shotas, I'm not bein' sexist) do not like kids. And generally, it doesn't have to do with age, so the idea that this is a social faux pas ironically completely contradicts the above idea. Which is hilarious.

Also, it's fiction. Age doesn't work that way.

So yeah. Needless to say I think that both of those ideas are really ****ing stupid, and thank God these censors are broken so that I don't have to censor myself. But I do have a couple things to say about the OP specifically. First, it's not a Japan thing, it's an anime thing. For very appropriate reference, Oreimo episode 3. Second, NC never said that he regretted adding her to the list, just that he didn't know. He didn't change the list or anything, he just used that as a means to answer the question and mostly divert flak- but even in this, he jokingly swoons over the Sailor Scouts and and never really says that they aren't attractive.

Unfortunately, they still care about a fictional character's age. DeviantART, despite being an international website, has a very restrictive policy of fanart of underaged characters, including ones from anime/manga series. Artists aren't allowed to post extremely lewd fanart of them, nor are they allowed to age them up to draw said lewd fanart because of their original age. Because of this, you'll be unable to find any nude images of characters like Hinata or Kirino in dA except on rare occasions, only at Pixiv.

 

[Satoshi Ookami]

Yea, sometimes I felt she could pass, then I realized she was an old hag, like 14 or more.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Yea, sometimes I felt she could pass, then I realized she was an old hag, like 14 or more.

> 14
> Old Hag

I don't remember teenagers having gray hair and wrinkles.

Anyway, I found this post from /a/ that will surely justify the dangers of giving mature-looking characters ages below 18:

Virtual pornography generally refers to pornography that does not involve real children. Examples include drawings, cartoons, sculptures, paintings or computer generated images. Many pedophiles believe that virtual pornography is legal in the United States. They are mistaken.

In 2002, the Supreme Court struck down aspects of the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 as applied to virtual pornography. This did not make virtual pornography legal. It was simply a matter of the Court disapproving of certain aspects of the law. Congress fixed the problem in 2003, and it is now clear that virtual pornography is illegal if the material is considered obscene under the law.

There have been at least two recent cases that we are aware of involving conviction for receiving virtual pornography. In 2008, a Virginia man, David Morley, was convicted for receiving on a computer 20 obscene Japanese anime cartoons depicting minors engaging in sexually explicit conduct. Mr. Morley was also convicted for receiving 14 digital photos of nude children. The photographs did not involve sexual conduct in the traditional sense of the word or touching of genitals but were considered lascivious by the authorities. He was also convicted of sending or receiving 20 obscene e-mails. Mr. Morley was sentenced to twenty years. He had had a previous conviction for pornography related offenses and this undoubtedly weighed heavily in the sentencing.

In 2010, an Iowa man, Chris Handley, was sentenced to six months in a halfway house for possessing seven comic books that depicted violent sexual abuse of children. Mr. Handley was not a pedophile. He was a prolific collector of Japanese Anime comics. Of the thousands of books and magazines found by the police at Mr. Handley's home, only about twenty had questionable content and ultimately only seven Lolicon resulted in charges. Mr. Handley thought the comics were legal. He faced several years in federal prison if his case went to trial, so he took a plea bargain.

 

[machomuu]

Anyway, I found this post from /a/ that will surely justify the dangers of giving mature-looking characters ages below 18:

Close.

It's not illegal to have pictures of characters under 18 on your computer, that can't be proven and is easily disputable, so if someone was charged for it then it's likely that they did something wrong.

What is illegal is having pictures of lolis on your computer. The difference? Regardless of whether you believe lolis can be older than 18 or not, the word, out of anime context, is used for specifically for kids. So, it counts, and that's why relatively recently a lot of H sites have been pulling the "loli" tag. The important thing to note, though, is that the hentai is still there, they just took off the loli tag, and because of that it's legal.

And...that's it, really. As long as they aren't called children, it's perfectly legal.

 

[Pinkie-Dawn]

Close.

It's not illegal to have pictures of characters under 18 on your computer, that can't be proven and is easily disputable, so if someone was charged for it then it's likely that they did something wrong.

What is illegal is having pictures of lolis on your computer. The difference? Regardless of whether you believe lolis can be older than 18 or not, the word, out of anime context, is used for specifically for kids. So, it counts, and that's why relatively recently a lot of H sites have been pulling the "loli" tag. The important thing to note, though, is that the hentai is still there, they just took off the loli tag, and because of that it's legal.

And...that's it, really. As long as they aren't called children, it's perfectly legal.

Aren't characters age 14-17 technically children as well? It's because I have heard a couple of news articles that pictures of sexualized teens count as child porn. One of those articles, which I made a thread on about two years ago, mentions how two 17-year-olds were charged for child porn for using a sexual picture of a 16-year-old, which they used for bullying purposes. So yes, you can still be charged for it. But apparently, according to a manga page I saw yesterday, it's neither a child nor an adult and its "an age that combines both the loveliness of girls with the sex appeal of women at the same time." Both of these sources contradict each other.

 

[machomuu]

Aren't characters age 14-17 technically children as well? It's because I have heard a couple of news articles that pictures of sexualized teens count as child porn. One of those articles, which I made a thread on about two years ago, mentions how two 17-year-olds were charged for child porn for using a sexual picture of a 16-year-old, which they used for bullying purposes. So yes, you can still be charged for it.

This and that are two completely different things. As I said:

It's not illegal to have pictures of characters under 18 on your computer, that can't be proven and is easily disputable...As long as they aren't called children, it's perfectly legal.

I suppose that may have been phrased in something of a confusing manner, but if I were to put it another way, it doesn't matter how old the character is. Age in art is arbitrary and cannot be used as solid evidence in court for creative reasons. However, if that character is specifically labeled as below 18 in that piece, then it (for whatever reason) counts as child pornography. The label is the important thing, here.

But apparently, according to a manga page I saw yesterday, it's neither a child nor an adult and its "an age that combines both the loveliness of girls with the sex appeal of women at the same time." Both of these sources contradict each other.

Well that's part of the appeal of some lolis. Not all, but various. Which I mentioned before ("they don't look like real children, generally having traits of older ages and playing on the idea of "cute" rather than that of "being a ****ing kid") and which is why I think the charged language in that /a/ post you quoted (where they say "pedophiles believe that virtual pornography", which may be true but isn't wholely relevant) is pretty biased and uncalled for because lolicons =/= pedophiles. They aren't the same thing, and people who believe they are probably don't know how art works.

 

[Somewhere_]

Some of the characters in Mobile Suit Gundam are pretty vague because most of the characters are kids or teens. Most are pretty easy to gauge the age, but Mikazuki and Atra are confusing me a bit because they are short, but are more mature and talented.