I gotta say some of these asks pointing out sources that are pedo bait are really reaching…
Sexualization of a minor? Yes this is pedo bait
A kid wearing an outfit that real kids wear all the time? No. Not even slightly. People that can look at this and immediately think pedo are saying more about their own preferences than they are about the media
Im a girl and wearing a tank top or tube top as a kid during the summer months where the temperatures regularly reach 100F is completely normal. I swear some people think a child EXISTING is problematic and these people are the ones that concern me the most because they can’t even look at a child without sexualizing them…
I don’t know enough about the specific series to say whether or not its problematic but outfits like that are a pretty low bar to set
well I think the issue is that there's a difference between a real child dressing for the weather by themselves/being dressed by a trusted adult and characters who are children constantly being drawn by adults in these outfits no matter what, especially in a style/poses that exaggerates them sexually. I really can't talk about kemono jihen but as an avid idol fan it's seen constantly in idol media. the issue is that a bunch of grown adults are specifically choosing to draw children in these outfits and situations. I don't think it's reflective on people when they point this out about characters that are clearly being drawn in comprimised poses or outfits. Sometimes people can read things the wrong way, but i find that a lot of the time it tends to be justified.
it's kind of hard to defend when basically every idol media has cards like this (the link is enstars Tori Himemiya in his pool outfits which are really gross). Of course a normal boy messing around in a pool with swim trunks on is normal, but this is obviously fishing for sh0tac0n money and it's particuarly nasty. yes these characters aren't real, but that only furthers the point that there are adults out there purposefully creating these child characters and putting them in situations meant to be seen as sexual.
18 notes
·
View notes
i think part of the resistance i’ve seen in response to the view of ed as an abuse victim—not just the view of izzy as someone who abused ed, but of ed as someone who was abused by him, as opposed to interpretations that pursue an image of Nuance and Complexity (unnecessarily, because their dynamic has heaps of both, but there seems to be a popular impulse to conflate complexity with shared culpability) by characterizing their relationship as being toxic/unhealthy in equal reciprocity, or as “mutually abusive” (oxymoron)—i definitely see the influence of racism there, but i think the racism is also working to amplify an adjacent issue where we tend to receive very specific cultural messaging about What An Abuse Victim Looks Like, and ed is excluded from a lot of that criteria.
he’s outspoken. he’s boisterous. he’s Very Cool and he Wears Leather. he’s physically bigger and browner than the person mistreating him. he spends the first season with a big grey beard, he’s covered in tattoos, he projects the image of A Man’s Man, to say nothing of his being a man in the first place. we see him get aggressive and we see him get angry (and sometimes we even see both at the same time). we see moments where he’s surly, prickly, insensitive, arrogant. his survival techniques and trauma responses incur collateral damage to other people, and in the second season this extends into affecting people we actually sympathize with. he’s extremely private about expressing fear. without examination, his professional relationship to izzy seems to position him as the one with the power slanted in his favor.
most damningly, we see him react multiple times to izzy’s abuse with physical violence. this is behavior that gets referenced all the time in the construction of narratives condemning subjects of physical abuse, let alone emotional abuse. which is why writing that intends for its audience to interpret a character as being unambiguously A Victim Of Abuse will often, for simplicity’s sake, avoid showing the character regularly engaging in anything of the kind.
and again, all of these departures from the image of The Model Victim are compounded by his being a man of color.
without any of the shorthand designed to point a big flashing arrow at his mistreatment, all we have left to work with are the words and actions we see from ed and izzy onscreen. who instigates conflict, and how does the other respond? how are they able or allowed to respond? how do we see them speak about each other to outside parties? does one go out of their way to control or isolate the other? what consequences does either party stand to face in saying “no” to the other? in acting against the other’s wishes? in trying to leave the relationship? when either of them attempts these things, how do we see the other respond?
i realize and appreciate what people are driving at when they garnish their analysis with disclaimers that they’re not saying ed’s just a poor innocent abuse victim, they’re not saying he’s a perfect angel who’s never done anything wrong, and that’s true, but these are points already contained implicitly in statements like “this show’s protagonists act like human people” and “ed’s emotional struggles are portrayed in a realistic and believable way.” my assumption is that these disclaimers are anticipatory responses to worst-faith interpretations of any discussion that attributes any victim status to ed whatsoever, so i definitely sympathize with their inclusion, but a (very small) part of me still worries about them potentially reflecting or reinforcing a belief that there is any way for someone to behave towards their abuser that imparts a responsibility for them to make right whatever damage the abuser receives, or for that matter any degree of ambiguity over their status as an abuse victim in the first place.
part of what i find so gratifying about ed as a character is that i don’t feel like the show’s writing is pressuring me to consider that ambiguity at all. which was a really nice thing for me to discover!
and tbh—did using ed to deconstruct The Model Victim even factor into the writers’ agenda?? ive got no clue. im guessing no? ??maybe?? probably not?? but if you create a main character whose central premise is that he feels trapped in a performance of exaggerated masculinity that he’s desperate to escape, and then you set him up with a character premised on embodying a tangible obstacle against that escape, then i guess that’s the natural shape your story’s gonna be inclined to take
84 notes
·
View notes
People really don't seem to get that regardless of whatever feelings they have about Daniel, he's in Dubai because of Louis. Think of him however you like but he said it plainly, "hire a transcriber. I don't do puff portraiture anymore". Louis had the complete option of simply not contacting him, simply letting Daniel die in his own oblivion and irrelevance that even Daniel himself points out.
"Legacy? That's for board members and assholes in loafers". Armand doesn't seem to want Daniel in Dubai either because of what Louis may want Daniel to do (publish a book, risk other vampires to come after him). So for all the questioning and sarcasm Daniel throws at Louis, he's still an old man in his 70s with a developing disability, locked in a penthouse apartment with no way out with two old vampires who are more than capable of tearing him to shreds. That's his choice but it's also Louis' choice to even have him there. If Louis didn't want the sarcasm, the bitterness, the relentless questioning and invalidation of his (blatantly constructed) narrative, he wouldn't have taken to asking Daniel to interview him again. If this was solely about Armand, Louis' life story has absolutely zero to do with whatever went down with Armand and Daniel. Louis has followed Daniel's work, has read his autobiography. He knows Daniel's work even has a motif of unreliable memory that becomes obscured with time (or another vampire's mind-bending ability). Again, Daniel is in Dubai because of Louis. No one is demanding he continue an interview with an old mortal man whom he could just as easily kill with no one questioning anyone else about it afterwards. Daniel is of no importance to even his own family now, yet Louis still wants their interview to continue. Frankly for all of Daniel's dismissive comments, Louis has had every opportunity and chance to kill him already or shut him up, have his mind wiped and send him home. The fact that he doesn't is more glaring than anything else.
13 notes
·
View notes