ihaveathingforlegs

[ihaveathingforlegs]

[ihaveathingforlegs]

Hi chibiyumi! I just wanted to pop in and say thank u for the service u and other similar translation blogs do ❤️ I was wondering wut r ur feelings on certain fans insisting that conversations abt the sexualization of minors in fiction or the morality behind ships like Sebaciel r merely “Eurocentric purity culture” and that they r acceptable in other cultures like Japan. Pls don’t answer this question if u r uncomfortable doing so — I also don’t want to risk u getting harassment for this :(

Dear Anon,

Thank you for your kind words.

【TW: Rape, genocide, and transphobia mention】

My opinion about "sexualisation of minors is okay, because culture," is that it's ignorance at best, and cowardice at worst. It is a woefully simplistic mindset that "because culture/tradition/law says [X] is okay, [X] is indeed okay." Such reasoning ignores the fact that traditions and laws are made by humans, and can therefore be wrong.

The most concrete example I have is that in Nazi Germany "genocide" was legal practice. Perhaps Nazism is too obviously wrong, so let's look at Japan: Under Imperial Japanese Military rule, it was legally sanctioned to send teenagers into the Kamikaze suicide missions. Too long ago? In present day Japan, the law forces transgender persons to undergo sterilisation surgery, a surgery that is not even performed on Japanese soil because it is illegal under Japanese ethical law. What, you're a terf so you don't care? Well, in Japan it's legal to force women to wear high heels at work, all day.

Shippers are quick to claim that "Japan's legal age of consent is 13, so Sebaciel after Volume 3 is okaaaaay". Well, as somebody who has studied Crime and Criminal Justice in Japan, I will tell you that Japan in fact has no actual "legal age of consent". To have a "legal age of consent being 13", "consent" needs to be legally defined first. However, not a SINGLE drop of ink in any Japanese law defines what "consent" is. And this lack of definition shows itself painfully well in rape cases as recent as 2020. In a 2020 ruling, "consent" can be achieved by raping a child - the rapist's OWN child - into consent.

If anyone is interested, in this post I explained how Japanese Penal Code deals with sexual activity with minors. The post includes two short case studies I have also used for my essay for university.

So, why is the sexualisation minors harmful? Because it normalises the idea that minors can be sexualised and involved in sexual activity.

People who are uneducated or children themselves, may look at images sexualised children and learn from it. For teenagers especially, there is often no thorough realisation that they are not full adults yet. Many if not most teenagers consider themselves no much different than adults. It is also a phase wherein teenagers grow curious towards sexual activity, and without a clear distinction of what is right and wrong, seeing images of sexualised (fellow) children might lend power to the thought of: "just like adults, I can engage in sexual activity WITH actual adults, because we're not much different."

Media has always had the power of influencing minds. People who claim "it's just fiction" just want to have fun without taking/acknowledging accountability. Fiction matters, because fiction is the (re)telling of the human experience, and shapes the human conscience.

Japan's woeful lack of legal understanding of child safety is one of the fruits of this normalisation of sexualised children. Just to name one big example, the artist of Rurouni Kenshin -Watsuki Nobuhiro - was convicted in 2017 for owning child porn.

The court however, gave him a cute little 200,000yen fine (approximately 1700 USD) and NO jail time. The artist pleaded guilty and admitted to being attracted to very young girls, so it wasn't even a "grey case". The worst however, is that owning child pornography is apparently not big enough a deal, and Watsuki's contract with Jump Square was continued and even celebrated. Here's a news article in English if anyone is interested.

Conclusion

In conclusion, if you see defenses for child sexualisation, never fall for the cowardice of hiding behind "cultural sensitivity", because:

"Cultural sensitivity" has gotten buzz-word undertones which sometimes makes conversation more difficult,

this argument sideways "approves" of inherently wrong, man-made laws, and exempt the speaker from accountability in what they say,

and it lends other defenders of child sexualisation pseudo-power in their arguments. Let's not pretend once a defender feels empowered they will further investigate the quality of their arguments. Isn't it very peculiar that left and right people shout "13 is the JP age of consent", but that they've never checked whether there even IS a legal age of consent? The full Penal Code of Japan is available in English online. No excuses. They just didn't want to think about it, saw a cheap argument and ran with it. And even if there really were a legal age of consent being 13 in Japan, SO WHAT? It is deliberate unwillingness to interrogate whether this hypothetical age of consent being 13 isn't too young.

Related posts:

“Japan’s Age of Consent being 13?” - SebaCiel

Japan's Self-Contradictory Laws - "until 20 no dating, but from 13 on sex is okay."

[ihaveathingforlegs]

In regards to the claim that the fan-service performance for Matsushita’s birthday was ambiguous sexual coercion, are you aware that the age of consent in some areas of Japan is 13? Is it possible, that the indecency of the act of "Ciel seducing Sebastian" (which, I think there is room for some speculation there) only translates as such to a western audience? But this is just a theory I suppose.

【TW rape mention and rape culture】 【Response to this post】

Dear Anon,

I am aware that there is in fact no such thing as ‘legal age of consent’ in the Japanese legal system. This topic is an enormous can of worms to unpack, so forgive me for only touching upon ‘consent’ in the legal Japanese definition.

TL;DR: Don’t take anything on sexual violence in the Japanese Penal Code seriously, because it doesn’t understand a lick of ‘consent’ and legally condones **most sexual offenses. So what value does a supposed definition of “13 is the legal age of consent” even have when it’s defined by a code so inadequate? Lawful ≠ Noncriminal ≠ Good. Unlawful ≠ Criminal ≠ Bad. #WesternSJWColonialism is a problem, Right and Wrong do have cultural context sometimes, BUT some things are - or should - be universal. In this case ‘13 year olds can consent’ is not ‘cultural’, it’s just ‘uneducated’. **Only cases that fit the conventional scenario of “stranger forcibly attacks victim sexually, and the victim struggles until the end” are legally acknowledged as ‘rape’. But as we all hopefully know, MOST occurring rape cases do not fit this scenario.

13 the Legal Age of Consent?

This ‘13 as the legal age of consent’ you talk about is derived from the following paragraph in the Japanese Penal Code:

【Article 177, chapter XXII – Japanese Penal Code - Chapter XXII Crimes of Obscenity, Forcible Sexual Intercourse, and Bigamy】 “A person who, through assault or intimidation, forcibly commits sexual intercourse, anal intercourse or oral intercourse (hereinafter referred to as "sexual intercourse, etc.") with another person of not less than thirteen years of age is guilty of the crime of forcible sexual intercourse. and is punished by imprisonment for a definite term of not less than 5 years. The same applies to a person who commits sexual intercourse, etc. with another person under thirteen years of age.” Source: The Penal Code in both Japanese and English on this website from the Ministry of Justice of Japan.

If we treat this paragraph as something in a vacuum, we could say: “oh in Japan the legal age of consent is 13! It’s Japanese culture, #CulturalSensitivity.” But before a ‘legal age of consent’ can be considered valid, the definition of ‘consent’ also needs to be valid.

One could Ctrl+F the entire Japanese Penal Code, but nowhere does it define what ‘consent’ means... as such it is also legally impossible to define what ‘non-consensual sex’ is, and it shows in practice (I will demonstrate below). Without a legal definition of ‘consent’, there is also no legal definition of ‘age of consent’. The legal age of consent being 13 is no more than the interpretation derived from this vaguely defined crime.

Besides, we need also wonder why the legal age for driving, drinking and voting is set at age 20 in Japan, but a supposed age of consent would be as low as 13. Even if ‘consent’ was legally defined, 13 is still an alarmingly young age.

“Inadequate Resistance”

In order to see what ‘consent’ is understood as, we need to look at how both on paper and in practice, Japanese law enforcement deals with sexual violence.

If the vagueness of Article 177 isn’t enough evidence of how inadequately the Penal Code deals with sexual violence, then Article 178 surely betrays any and all flaws. The Japanese criminal system LITERALLY acknowledges something called ‘QUASI rape’, which is the legal endorsement of rape culture.

【Article 178 Quasi Forcible Indecency; Quasi Forcible Sexual Intercourse】 (2) A person who commits sexual intercourse, etc. with another person by taking advantage of a loss of consciousness or inability to resist, or by causing a loss of consciousness or inability to resist, is punished in the same manner as prescribed in the preceding Article.” Source: The Penal Code in both Japanese and English on this website from the Ministry of Justice of Japan.  

As we can see, ‘having sex with someone who is unable to, or MADE unable to resist, is apparently ‘just QUASI rape’, not ‘actual rape’. It  punishes perpetrators who blackmail, physically disable, or drug their victim less severely than someone who just has enough muscle to force themselves onto someone. This law is evidently written with the belief that a rape victim shares responsibility in ‘getting raped’.

In short, the Japanese Penal Law participates in the most common crime in rape  culture: victim blaming.

In legal practice, ‘rape’ is only acknowledged when the victim has displayed ‘adequate level of resistance’. What is ‘adequate’ however, is entirely determined by the judge’s intuition without any regard for context. The only questions that matter are: “did you really not ask for it, and did you resist until the end in a way that’s recognisable to your assailant?” (source)

【Case 1】 In 2019, a man was brought to court for raping a 25 year old woman and consequently causing physical injuries. As per result of the investigation, the prosecutors claimed that the victim had difficulty with resisting because her mind went blank. However, the presiding judge ruled that the defendant was guiltless because “from [his] perspective he would not have been able to tell there would have been resistance judging from [the plaintiff’s reaction]” and that “there remains rational doubt that the inflicted injuries would have hindered the woman from resisting.” (source)

The Japanese criminal system also literally endorses ‘“no” means try harder”.

【Case 2】 　 In a 2017-2020 case a father was accused of raping his daughter. The sexual abuse began in the daughter’s second year of middle school (approx. 13 years old) , at which state she had resisted her father’s sexual advances. The abuse escalated however, until the man was indicted for sexual abuse in 2017.  The initial rulings of the lower court found the father innocent of the accusation for the daughter did not show sufficient resistance. The daughter’s ‘inadequate action’ was judged from the fact that she did show opposition in the past, but no longer did in later assaults. Her past resistance was held as evidence that she had not been placed under psychological control by her father, and was therefore theoretically capable of showing proper resistance. Because she did not resist until the end despite her assumed capability, the intercourse was judged to be ‘consensual’ and the father consequently declared guiltless. (Source)

As we can see, this daughter used to say “no”, but the court ruled this as ‘consensual’ because he apparently ‘raped her into consent’. Not a single line in the entire Japanese Penal Code or National Constitution protect anybody from non-classic rape. (Indeed, sex through sexual coercion, power imbalance (Master x Servant, Superior x Subject, Teacher x Student), blackmail, and marital rape are all legally nonpunishable.)

Conclusion

The Japanese Penal Code is based on ideas many decades outdated and does not have an inkling of what rape really constitutes. A definition stated in a Penal Code that doesn’t even understand what it’s talking about does not deserve any consideration. Besides, Penal Codes are written by humans, and can therefore be wrong.

People are indeed right to consider ‘but what is the cultural context?’ and if things are only ‘problematic’ from a Euro-americentric point of view. But sometimes wrong is just wrong, screw #CulturalSensitivity. Things like ‘honour killing’, ‘Female Genital Mutilation’, ‘forced marriages’, or indeed, ‘the legal age of consent being 13 in Japan’ are not ‘cultural’, they are just faulty practices and concepts shielded behind 'cultural propriety’.

So to conclude, the Kuromyu team should never have made Tanaka Taketo seduce an adult for show, and the moment Matsushita decided to ‘reciprocate’, he became complicit in this act that infringes Tanaka’s safety and dignity. Perhaps Tanaka didn’t mind, we don’t know, but I also don’t care. That a kid doesn’t mind does not mean it’s right. The adults should have known better.

This issue does not only ‘translate as problematic to a western audience,’ it is about who can or cannot recognise that Tanaka (14) was too young to be made participant in this indecent act.

[ihaveathingforlegs]

Random oregairu rant

TW allusions of suicide, TW allusions of sexual assault

Oregairu is generally spoken of as a good anime, from what I've heard. So I tried to watch it. Twice, even. But both times I got no further than the first episode. Maybe I should have watched 3 episodes before making the decision to not watch it, but the first episode gave me all sorts of bad vibes. I'll try to discuss some of the things I found problematic in the first episode.

I don't know Japanese, so my judgement will be entirely based on the English subtitles. If you think something I have mentioned has been mistranslated and has different connotations, please let me know! I have also not read the light novel.

1. Mentioning suicide lightheartedly

It might be understandable for a high-school age boy to be saying things like 'fools that enjoy their youth should go kill themselves' but it is absolutely not acceptable for his teacher, who is in a position of influence over him, to be telling him "You're the one who should die." She is presumably much older than her students, and if she goes about casually telling impressionable young people that they should die then I doubt she is qualified to be a teacher.

2. Problematic sense of humour

Yukinoshita just??? decides that Hikigaya might attack her???

To which, of course, Hikigaya replies in his head with -

Because of course, the only reason to not ogle someone's breasts is that they are small and not worthy of being called breasts 😇🥰

Hiratsuka assures Yukinoshita of her safety by saying -

Because of course the only reason to not sexually assault someone is because doing so might get you in trouble with the law.

The entire scene is played for comedic effect.

3. '''''Helping''''' Hikigaya

So the whole point of getting Hikigaya to join the Volunteer's club was to help him overcome 'cure' his social anxiety. Hikigaya refuses to accept that he has issues and that he needs help. Luckily, Hiratsuka has an excellent way of getting around his reluctance to cooperate.

Yukinoshita initially does not want any part of this, but later agrees to help.

She does so by repeatedly undermining his issues, calling his personality twisted, calling him a creep, and being generally mean to him.

It is not surprising that Yukinoshita does not know how one goes about helping someone with social anxiety. She is dealing with issues of her own, and is literally the same age as Hikigaya. I don't blame her for doing things wrong.

But Hiratsuka is a grown adult. I want to know what she was thinking when she decided that the best way to help these two troubled teenagers would be to put them in a room together amd make one responsible for the other.

I realise that people can sometimes offer a lot of comfort even if they're young or inexperienced or have their own issues. But as an adult in a position of authority, one does not just thrust this duty onto someone who might be(and clearly is) incapable of performing it against their will.

4. Hikigaya's slurs

Hikigaya calls Yukinoshita a bitch and Yuigahama a slut within like five minutes of meeting them.

He might have been justified in doing so had they been friends and had the sort of relationship that includes such name-calling, but they had literally just met. It's inexcusable. He repeatedly calls Yuigahama a slut even after she has clearly expressed her discomfort at being called it.

5. Heteronormativity and stereotyping

What I gathered from the subtitles was that Yuigahama implied that she wanted to bake cookies for someone she was romantically interested in. Hikigaya assumes this romantic interest's gender and goes on to say something like 'men are simple creatures, they will be won over by the smallest thing you do for them.' I don't see how Hikigaya, being just one man, can presume to speak for the entirety of mankind and make a general statement.

Considering that I am interpreting this based on the subtitles, Yuigahama might have mentioned the person's gender and Hikigaya might not have been assuming it. If you know Japanese, then you could maybe clarify that.

___________________________________________________________________

Note that I am absolutely not attacking the entirety of the show. This is just how I see the first episode. It is entirely possible that these problematic elements die out early in the series and it goes on to become something beautiful. I have seen that happen before. A long running series certainly develops in character and changes over time. With that said, unless I am fairly convinced that this does happen, I will not make any further attempts to watch the show.

The end, I guess?

[ihaveathingforlegs]

Reblogging to find it later

I love how the search function on this site is absolute garbage. I can look up a post word for word and I will NEVER find it

[ihaveathingforlegs]

Why do the alternative translations for MDZS other than the EXR version start from chapter 79??? Does anyone know? Is it totally random?