Showing minors in sexualy explicit situations, especially when its played off as a suprise gag and shows the actual content to the viewer, is sexualizing minors, yes. And the ripperdoc is still seen as a positive, to the point where David’s crisis of faith starts when he slams him against the wall when he’s beggining to psych-out and he feels bad, so it’s not like it really villianizes the character.
You keep using the setting like its a gotcha, but it doesn’t change anything by trying to shift the goalposts from the core of the conversation, about not sexualizing minors, i.e. not showing minors in sexually explicit situations, especially those meant to titilate the viewer. Feels akin to the “but she’s a 3000 year old dragon” arguements.
You can talk about coming of age topics and address the concepts without directly showing things on screen. Many pieces of media have done so without that, and do so with making clear the creep doing the grooming is not a positive character in the slightest.
You can talk about coming of age topics and address the concepts without directly showing things on screen. Many pieces of media have done so without that, and do so with making clear the creep doing the grooming is not a positive character in the slightest.
This is indeed what gave me most conflict. The ripperdoc is a creep and didn’t seem very positive to my memory but I haven’t seen it for a quite a while. Not only was he being creepy but was basically a drug dealer (illegal BDs) preying on a kid, and was an enabler, helping David get into the fucked up life of a merc (and implanting the sande).
Showing minors in sexualy explicit situations, especially when its played off as a suprise gag and shows the actual content to the viewer, is sexualizing minors, yes. And the ripperdoc is still seen as a positive, to the point where David’s crisis of faith starts when he slams him against the wall when he’s beggining to psych-out and he feels bad, so it’s not like it really villianizes the character.
You keep using the setting like its a gotcha, but it doesn’t change anything by trying to shift the goalposts from the core of the conversation, about not sexualizing minors, i.e. not showing minors in sexually explicit situations, especially those meant to titilate the viewer. Feels akin to the “but she’s a 3000 year old dragon” arguements.
You can talk about coming of age topics and address the concepts without directly showing things on screen. Many pieces of media have done so without that, and do so with making clear the creep doing the grooming is not a positive character in the slightest.
Thanks very much for the long reply.
This is indeed what gave me most conflict. The ripperdoc is a creep and didn’t seem very positive to my memory but I haven’t seen it for a quite a while. Not only was he being creepy but was basically a drug dealer (illegal BDs) preying on a kid, and was an enabler, helping David get into the fucked up life of a merc (and implanting the sande).