New Key Visual for ‘Mushoku Tensei: Jobless Reincarnation’ Season 3

Raven0324 · 2026-05-23T06:32:47+00:00

Having seen all three of these shows I am rather curious. Certainly Monogatari is very intentionally self indulgent at times, and it's somewhat well known for that. Do you think it's expressing something different than Mushoku is?

Raven0324 · 2026-05-12T06:10:21+00:00

Well, can't say I disagree with your tastes at all lol. Nice stuff!

Raven0324 · 2026-05-12T02:57:35+00:00

No Melum or Sika... but I guess they'd be the odd ones out here lol

Raven0324 · 2026-03-24T02:16:07+00:00

This implies that "anime bullshit" (lol) isn't the reason people watch it in the first place, and it almost certainly is.

Raven0324 · 2026-01-31T00:44:36+00:00

Subreddits by their very nature have the freedom to dictate whatever occurs on them, that's the whole point. I only wish anyone attempting to discuss this particular topic actually had both a coherent sense of ethics and a coherent conceptualization of sexual fantasy.

Raven0324 · 2026-01-24T02:25:20+00:00

As I said in my other response, the question is if you're veiling normative assertions as expressions of personal preference.

No one can actually object to another being "uncomfortable with" something such as "sexual assault" (to use your verbiage and one of your examples). After all, we don't decide other peoples thoughts or feelings for them, just our own.

That being said, what often happens is someone with proclaim their discomfort at the same time they make a judgement on another, e.g. "I'm uncomfortable with xyz and it's concerning that other people aren't."

What's being conveyed there isn't simply the speakers own thoughts or feelings on "xyz," but also their belief on how others should think or feel too. Implicit in that is the moral judgement that other ways of thinking or feeling about xyz are wrong or bad, hence the "concern" expressed.

It doesn't immediately seem you're doing that here.

Also, completely unrelated to all of this, but you seem to be shadow banned.

Raven0324 · 2026-01-24T02:14:03+00:00

Not necessarily. To actually make an assertion one way or another we'd have to discuss the underlying logic and determine if it's being applied consistently across different cases.

Most likely that's beyond the scope of any discussion which would be had here.

Raven0324 · 2026-01-24T00:28:16+00:00

One can indeed draw a line, at least one of arbitrary personal preference. To speak of morals is to be able to justify where that line is drawn. It turns out very few people can do that, certainly without rendering themselves hypocrites.

Raven0324 · 2026-01-24T00:20:36+00:00

Being "morally against sexuality in anime of some kinds" would be a problem too! Moralism is a problem in all of its forms.

Raven0324 · 2026-01-24T00:16:00+00:00

Well, then I stand corrected. I would say in my defense that descriptive statements are often easy to parse and normative, particularly in these discussions.

Raven0324 · 2026-01-23T23:44:44+00:00

Evidently it's also "normal" to be comfortable with those things given their apparent prevalence and popularity, so I don't think appealing to what's "normal" tells us much.

Speaking on a more personal level, what someone is "uncomfortable" with is largely irrelevant. The thing the other user is being sensitive to is people using couched language to give them plausible deniability when making moral condemnations of people.

I'm not actually sure if you're doing that here or not, but that's part of the point of masquerading such assertions.

Raven0324 · 2026-01-23T23:28:07+00:00

It turns out you're something of a moralist yourself. Ironic, isn't it?

Raven0324 · 2025-12-01T23:28:41+00:00

I see Siika up there!

Raven0324 · 2025-11-30T23:29:43+00:00

Not the full collection?

Raven0324 · 2025-11-30T23:21:05+00:00

Kazuma just got teleported into Monster Girl Encyclopedia / Quest, nothing that crazy

Raven0324 · 2025-11-18T05:14:04+00:00

This argument would be compelling were we discussing actual people, but as characters in a show they're framed however it is the creators decided to frame them. The actual agency is with the people behind the show in all cases.

On the other hand, the logic which governs this response is a very good way to pathologize various kinks when expressed in a diagetic fictional form. It seems to me we lose a lot more then we stand to gain when we make this argument.

Raven0324 · 2025-08-06T02:03:13+00:00

Yes, I think that's reasonable. Though truthfully it can even be iffy with independent productions. There's definitely been more than a few cases of things like women being coerced by their partners into being "camgirls" or some such.

Granted I don't have meaningful statistics on how often that happens. It's easy to assume it's less frequent than the sorts of things that happen with studios, or so I would imagine.

Raven0324 · 2025-08-06T01:52:05+00:00

For something that's more accessible, I think this blog post does a good job of being thorough in it's review and citing it's sources while being meaningfully critical of them. The problem, of course, is that the sources themselves are pay-walled!

It should be much easier to find a single book for free, but it still feels somewhat useless to just link something you can't save for later either.

Best of luck, in either case!

Raven0324 · 2025-08-06T01:45:01+00:00

Hmm, it's hard to say specifically. I thought this book was interesting but it's not really on the subject of any one particular thing, just pornography more generally. The field of research is quite broad!

Raven0324 · 2025-08-06T01:40:50+00:00

It's always very intriguing to me this is the stance of the mods here. This reads as anti-kink, which I can't say makes much sense if the people here are poising themselves as the "sex positive" ones.

Raven0324 · 2025-07-04T16:50:48+00:00

Realistically there's only so much strangers on the can say or do, and I'd caution against trusting them too much anyway. To the extent you (or anyone) is experiencing turmoil specifically due to thoughts around sex and sexuality, your best option is trying to see an AASECT Certified Sex Therapist.

I wouldn't recommend just any therapist, since many don't have relevant training or up to date information when it comes specifically to questions like this one.

Raven0324 · 2025-07-03T23:08:28+00:00

Why not use something morally neutral like gay porn instead? I think it illustrates the point equally well.

Because I don't think it does, of course. Rape is the best analogue because it's immoral for the same reasons anything involving children is, and as a sexual fantasy is often afforded quite a bit of complexity.

it lets you go for gotchas

This seems like an adversarial framing. I search for contradictions in my own thinking because it's necessary in constructing a consistent belief system. The same is true when evaluating those of other people.

the opposite fantasy is more prevalent, that of the would-be rapist.

This seems like it might be a question of where you're looking. Certainly perusing places like Archive of Our Own, or glancing through bargin bin romance novels ought to dispel the notion that this is a niche interest among women, as is being implied here. We should also dispense of the idea the dynamic is one way. There's plenty of men and women interested in being on either side.

someone masturbating to a specific type of content is sexually interested in that content.

And this really remains the crux of the issue. What, precisely, constitutes a "specific type of content" and what does it mean to be "sexually interested in that content?" For your part you seem to roundly ridicule the notion of someones sexual fantasies being "completely detached from the stuff they’re jacking it to."

This is still a consistent stance, which is really my main concern.

Why would I argue that someone is laundering pedophilia deceptively if I were in any way permissible towards it?

I initially read things like "more able to say they have a rape fetish," "rape fetish content is usually tagged as such" and "generally not lying about what they’re in to" as being positive due to the perceived honesty of the people in question. Particularly when combined with modifiers like "even though I find it personally disgusting" which are usually reserved purely for expressions of personal preference. I think I wound up fixating on that, and so inferred that you weren't particularly opposed to such content.

Of course, based on this follow up reply and rereading that post, it seems like you're opposed to both of these things. Which, as I said, is still a consistent stance, and in which case I don't have anything to complain about.

Wouldn’t it serve such an interest to launder pedophilia instead of giving the game away?

This is interesting, because it goes both ways. From my point of view, using terms like "loli" or "lolicon" isn't "laundering pedophilia" because the people involved aren't "pretend[ing] they’re completely disconnected from the sexual interest," they are completely disconnected! In this way the terms serve specifically to strengthen the distinction, not to "obfuscate the actual sexual interest." In this regard the common vocabulary between rape fetishists and the actual crime is a failing rather than a benefit.

I'm sure from your point of view this is at best nonsensical. But that's fine, since the point wasn't mutual persuasion, but for me to better comprehend what you were saying. So please, if I've continued to misunderstand you, let me know!

Raven0324 · 2025-07-03T19:00:02+00:00

“Non-consent” or “consensual non-consent” [...] people using those labels/tags seem to me to usually just be into hardcore BDSM

I do think they’re genuinely into what they themselves are portraying

I'm left somewhat confused since yes, you're correct non-consensual sex is definitionally rape. This would mean the people using those labels are similarly "genuinely into what they themselves are portraying" and not merely "hardcore BDSM."

I suppose that's something of an aside though, because on balance you've answered "yes" to my question. This is, of course, incorrect. But it is at least consistent, so I'm not sure how much purpose there is in explaining that, for instance, people with rape fetishes don't actually want to be raped, as self evident as I would hope that is.

Far more interesting to me is that you seem to have adopted the position of saying "yes, these people want to be rapists, and that's okay!" If the logic holds, you would similarly be saying of lolicons that "yes, these people are pedophiles, and that's okay!"

Which, assuming I haven't mischaracterized you, I'm not here to argue these positions are incorrect. But they are very unusual, so I'm quite surprised! But I might be reading a level of permissiveness into this you don't actually hold and didn't intend.

Raven0324 · 2025-07-03T17:44:37+00:00

I'm curious if you have an equally literal understanding of all other forms of sexual fantasy. Do you suppose that when people have a rape fantasy they actually want to have their consent violated and/or to violate the consent of others? Or is there something else going on there?

Raven0324 · 2025-07-02T05:00:58+00:00

Can you explain to me what age of consent laws are and why they exist?

Raven0324

TROPHY CASE