|
>>
|
No. 11475
[Edit]
>>11468
>kids on the other hand should not be watching animation made for adults
This is a really broad generalization. As a rule of thumb yes, you might be right but I'm pretty sure that by now the PreCures are made with male audience in mind moreso than actual little girls. Even if that one is debatable you can't argue that 99% of 'cute girls doing cute things' shows are made with male audience in mind (as in exclusively for them) but you could watch them with kids any age as well (although boys wouldn't want to watch them either way and girls would probably lose interest by the time they turn 10 or so).
>a kid really shouldn't be playing with stuff made for grown ups.
The same thing holds true here.
>Toys are marked with kids in mind, figurines with adults in mind.
This is arguing semantics in all honesty. On top of that I could imagine someone collecting toys and treating them as figurines and vice versa. Just because something was meant as [x] doesn't mean you can't treat it/use it as [y].
>Most kids would have little to no interest in fixed pose figures and find them boring.
I would jump into hellfire to get a few of those. I was poor so I when my dad gave me glass beads he played with when he was a boy I was overjoyed. I didn't use them the way they were meant to be used (now that I think about it it kinda proves my earlier point, too). Instead, I was pretending those were some cool figurines and played with them as such.
>also, barbie dolls are far from being anatomically correct.
When I look at some figurines I get an even stronger 'anatomically incorrect' vibe from them but that's hardly relevant.
I still think quite a few little girls would be more than happy to get some of these figurines to play with. Also, if you were to go to /fig/ right now the thread you'd find at the very top would be one dedicated to dolls.
As for the pic. Yes, this is obviously hella explicit, no arguing about that. I wouldn't want a kid to be anywhere near a figurine like that. But Tohno, how many figs this lewd do you own?
I think this is another moral panic issue. Even 20 (well, maybe 30) or so years ago full frontal nudes of women weren't considered to be pornographic in nature in Europe. It was considered to be natural and most people agreed there was nothing wrong with it. Now - thanks to EU - Europe has draconian laws regarding pornography. I can see this easily turing into a slippery slope and imagine that in 20 years porn will be banned period, even though we might be at a point where majority of porn uploads are amateur movies made for the heck of it. I wonder if they'll rename EU to 'Northeast Korea' by then.
This is a digression already but I feel like complaining about it, too. USA was founded with secularism in mind, mostly by people who fled Europe because they didn't feel like getting lynched for their religious beliefs. Now it's a country where prominient politicians can say 'this is one nation under Kyonkundenwa and if you don't like it get the hell out of here' in public and get a standing ovation.
Americans looked down on Europeans as bloodthirst barbarians in the 30s when it was obvious that even after the events of WWI they failed to learn their leason and the world is headed straight towards WWII. Some 40 years later soldiers fighting pointless wars all over the world where treated as the biggest partiots. Kissinger, a man responsible for dropping 2 756 941 tons of bombs on a country that didn't even participate in the war, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 1973. A guy who should be court martialed, found guilty on charges of genocide and thrown into jail for lifetime got Nobel Peace Prize. I bet his funeral will be reported nationwide with headlines such as 'a great partiot passes away'.
TL;DR Zeitgeist sure is a bitch.
Since opinions change so radically over course of time you can't really tell if people will actually come to their senses or not. Maybe figs that show any skin will be burned. Maybe completely naked ones will be regarded as nothing special. Who knows.
|