CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

I always enjoy reading manga. However, there is a definte tend of demoralization of Japanese manga. In the 90's, there were many classic heart moving series that I don't mind rereading them.

However, recently, it seems like manga are more about fan services. Although that is annoying, I can always skip it. But it has gotten to the point where it seems like no one care about moral value anymore. Especially between boyfriend and girlfriend.

Even in G-rating Japanese manga, it isn't unusually to see boyfriend and girlfriend having sexual intercourse just because they are in the mood. What is worst is that everyone thinks it is normal. They were not married, it is plain adultery. Even if there is no "adult scene" drawn, how could people sell those things to kids?

Is it just me, or do people in Japan actually think it is okay to for boyfriend and girlfriend to crime adultery?

It's important to realize that Japan is a country based on Shinto and Buddist principles; what we believe as Christians to be sinful, they may see as normal. It's sad, yes, but what if they don't know any better? Now, I'm not condoning it at all that they are doing those things. What we need to do is pray for them and try to lead them through Christian example.

Now, America, on the other hand, is supposed to be a country based on Judeo-Christian principles. Technically speaking, we should know better. And yet on TV over here, unmarried people are sleeping around for the same reason you stated above. It's really a sad state of affairs.

(Oh, and just so you know, "adultery" is when someone sleeps with someone who is married to someone else; "fornication" is when two unmarried people sleep together. Just thought I should point that out.)

(And welcome to the CAA, by the way )

AsianBlossom wrote:Now, America, on the other hand, is supposed to be a country based on Judeo-Christian principles.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=McAeQiLmEYU

*edit to stay on topic*

Even in G-rating Japanese manga, it isn't unusually to see boyfriend and girlfriend having sexual intercourse just because they are in the mood. What is worst is that everyone thinks it is normal. They were not married, it is plain adultery. Even if there is no "adult scene" drawn, how could people sell those things to kids?

That's because of different standards between countries. America seems to be one of the few countries in the world that thinks if we put our children in a little box where no "bad things" can get to them they'll turn out to be wonderful model citizens. Actually, the opposite is usually true, when children are fully shielded from things like sex and violence when they actually encounter them they tend to become extremely warped. Anyway.

There is a difference in standards between countries as to what is acceptable to children. While I agree that it is bad to portray adultery in a positive light (note that I said in a positive light, not not at all), sexual content in a children's manga is just another example of different cultural standards. Example. In Europe they have things called "Kinder surprise." They're chocolate eggs with a small orange capsule inside containing a small figurine or toy. These are all the rage with kids over there, but they can't be sold in the United States. Why? Because the FDA has a law that prohibits embedding "non-nutritive items" in food. It's acceptable everywhere else in the world, but not here. It's just different standards.

At any rate I just accept it. I don't expect people who don't adhere to Christian values to portray anything in a particularly Christian way. And given that most people who DO adhere to Christian values tend to sanitize everything and make it "ultra-clean" and thus completely unrealistic, I much prefer the "demoralized stuff," as you put it. It's one reason I got into manga and anime, because it is much more intelligent and mature than most American productions, due to different standards.

AsianBlossom wrote:Now, America, on the other hand, is supposed to be a country based on Judeo-Christian principles.

The Founding Fathers believed strongly in the separation of church and state -- while some of them were men of God, they were firmly against creating a country centered on solely on religious principles. Just because the notions behind the founding of America were good does not immediately equate them with Christian principles.

Which brings me to a second point:

AsianBlossom wrote:It's important to realize that Japan is a country based on Shinto and Buddist principles.

I'm not as versed in Shintoism as I am in Buddhism, but a major tenet of Buddhism involves divorcing oneself from earthly needs, including intercourse. Sexual immorality, lust in general, they're lumped in with things that are 'of this world' -- things that tether people to need and suffering, and stand between one and enlightenment. So no, it is not the Buddhist influence that results in the differing views on sexuality in Japan.

What does account for it? I can't really say for certain. What I can say is: from my understanding, while Japan may celebrate Buddhist and Shinto holidays, while the country may be more connected with the ideals and the tenets of those religions as opposed to Christianity, Japanese society is largely secular in the moral sense.

In the end, I don't see what the shock is. We see largely the same stance on pre-marital/extra-marital sex here. It's of the world, not just of Japan. It's everywhere. And it's issues that we have to deal with, not just as Christians, but as people living today. Like Nate said (smart guy, Nate is. ), while it may not be good to portray sex outside of marriage in a positive light, we can't box kids off from the world either. Either extreme, IMO, can lead to more harm than good.

I actually look at it as a bit of a double-standard for Americans rather than an oddity for the Japanese.

We like for children to pretend the world is a safe and happy place. We shield them from sex and drugs and violence while we feed on nothing more ourselves.

I'm not saying I'm for sex and violence in children's media, but I would also point out that I think it's a tad odd that we saturate our "entertainment" with sex and violence and then become shocked when sex and violence claims a child as a victim.

I would like to pose a question. Does anyone here actually believe Cartoon Network’s “Adult Swim” line up has more adult viewers than teens and children?

I'm leaving this thread permanently, but I'd like to leave one final thing here: I said "Judeo-Christian principles" not "Judeo-Christian lifestyles." If we are not, then why the heck do we have the Ten Commandments at the US Courthouse?

Nate, if you can't politely tell someone they're wrong, don't do it at all. Good-bye. *exits*

AsianBlossom wrote:I'm leaving this thread permanently, but I'd like to leave one final thing here: I said "Judeo-Christian principles" not "Judeo-Christian lifestyles." If we are not, then why the heck do we have the Ten Commandments at the US Courthouse?

Modern-day politicians trying to impose their religion on people.

As long as we're veering into the land of political debate, I should say what I know and put this really expensive piece of paper known as a political science degree to good use.

The ethical foundation of the United States of America is traced more easily to the natural law philosophy of John Locke than any expressly Christian heritage. However, the philosophy grew from an environment respectful of Christian ideals, and many Christian belief systems have incorporated some or all of it, in that time and into the present.

What I'm really trying to say is, for both the right and the left, concern over the religious bent of the founding fathers has more to do with justifying current practices than discovering historical fact. While this kind of thing makes for good rhetorical ammunition, logically it's rather silly. No matter what the government has done before, we are still obligated to decide for ourselves what is right and wrong in government and to find ways to do things better.

Nate wrote:In Europe they have things called "Kinder surprise." They're chocolate eggs with a small orange capsule inside containing a small figurine or toy. These are all the rage with kids over there, but they can't be sold in the United States. Why? Because the FDA has a law that prohibits embedding "non-nutritive items" in food. It's acceptable everywhere else in the world, but not here. It's just different standards.

Wait wait wait... are you SERIOUS about that? We've had them in Canada for eons and I've NEVER heard about that.... Wow that's strange^^

(Just coming back for a second but will leave again)

I love Kinder Surprise!!!! (Such a special treat; I only know of one store in my area that sells them, but ooh, such childhood memories...)

Okay, I'm leaving now.

Oi, so much to respond to. So little time. Or wait, I've got like an hour. So, let's get cracking, shall we? *cracks knuckles*

If we are not, then why the heck do we have the Ten Commandments at the US Courthouse?

beau99 answered this question quite well. Modern-day politicians trying to impose their religion on people. How many of the Ten Commandments are actually laws in our country, anyway? Well, let's see. The first four are immediately gone, because of separation of church and state. The fifth commandment to honor your parents is usually upheld in this country, but I'm pretty sure there's no actual law requiring you to do it. So another gets struck down. Do not lie. Well, there's no law against lying period, but there are laws against perjury and in the business/political world lying can get you in a bit of trouble. So we'll count that one as half credit.

Six commandments, of which only half of one is currently law. Do not murder. Yeah, that's a law. One point. Do not commit adultery. No laws against having unmarried sex (except when underage ones are involved), and I'd almost be willing to be there's no laws against extramarital affairs either (they just tend to end in divorce). Do not steal. That's a law. One point.

Which leaves us with "Do not covet your neighbor's stuff." We have a capitalist economy; our entire monetary system is BUILT around coveting your neighbor's stuff. "Keeping up with the Joneses" I think the saying goes. It's encouraged in our capitalist society, so it's certainly not a law.

Well, there we go. Out of Ten Commandments, only two and a half are actually laws. Don't murder, and don't steal. And guess what? Islamic societies, Hindu societies, they have the same laws too! Because being nice to people isn't exclusive to Judaism or Christianity.

So there. Thorough debunking of the "Laws based on Ten Commandments" lie.

By the way, I shall also post this quote of Thomas Jefferson, one of our founding fathers:

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law." - From his work Whether Christianity is Part of the Common Law. The answer of course is "no."

Nate, if you can't politely tell someone they're wrong, don't do it at all. Good-bye. *exits*

I figured posting a humorous video would be a lot more polite than calling you names or uneducated, because name-calling is juvenile, and you're anything but uneducated. Misguided about the country's foundation, but still very intelligent.

Wait wait wait... are you SERIOUS about that? We've had them in Canada for eons and I've NEVER heard about that.... Wow that's strange^^

Yeah, I know. XP Actually back in '97 there were these things called "Nestle Surprises" that were a chocolate ball that had a sticker inside. They had to all be recalled because of that FDA law...now they have candy inside of them. It's a completely ridiculous law. I see other countries where there aren't warning labels on everything, and I have to wonder...are American children just stupider than children in every other country in the world or something? Because all these laws and warnings make it seem like it.

Anyway, sometimes you can find stores in America that sell them (as AsianBlossom said), but technically their importation is illegal.

Okay, sorry I got upset, but the video startled me (I was wearing earbuds). To me, that's the sort of thing you would see on the late Nintendo forums (those forums were notorious for 'flaming' people and calling just about everyone who posted something stupid. But they're gone now, so...)

Also, to my understanding, "Separation of Church and State" means something completely different now than it did back when it was first instituted, didn't it? I heard from my government book that it originally meant that the State wouldn't interfere with the matters of the Church, and the Church wouldn't become involved in politics. In today's society, however, the meaning has been skewed into having absolutely no religion at all (namely, Christianity) in anything public. It' sad, really.

Also, we shouldn't be getting into any debates. So the answer to this question is basically Japan having different standards than America in terms of "decency."

AsianBlossom wrote:In today's society, however, the meaning has been skewed into having absolutely no religion at all (namely, Christianity) in anything public. It's sad, really.

Actually, from my understanding, the state was originally meant to be entirely secular--that is, not leaning towards any particular religion whatsoever, Christian or otherwise. This was to keep the government from becoming like that in England at the time, where religion was forced on people. Granted, I do tend to think it goes overboard when people start complaining about Nativity scenes in people's front yards at Christmas (which encroaches on freedom of religion, etc., and I'm not even sure whether or not that passed), but other than that, yeah, the state was never meant to have a national religion; i.e., "having absolutely no religion at all."

Also, regarding the actual topic (ahahaha), I have heard that Japan has different moral standards. For instance, sexual content is not as taboo there, but violence is (in video games, at least--I heard this while watching G4 long ago, before it started to suck XD). So that might have something to do with it.

Lastly, I remember these candies called "Wonderball" that had little toys inside them. I also remember that they were re-released later with smaller candies inside, rather than toys. Interesting. XD

Hey guys! Ok, the politics thing didn't get crazy out of hand or anything, y'all kept it pretty decent, but I'm gonna ask that we stop now. Mainly because it's gotten to be totally irrelevant to the original topic of the thread, and also because I'm pretty sure that everything that needs to be said about it has been. Thanks people!

Gomen-nasai; I had no intention of starting anything.

Sorry to be off topic but... what the crap? Yumie? Since when did you decide to appear? XD

I see the change in the manga content as a reflection of how the society is evolving.

I would also observe that the movies in U.S are being equally demoralized if you compare them to the movies made in the 30s.

I just think that the rating system could be a little bit more strict but that's arbitrary.

If I don't like how the content is going, I just stop reading the manga. If all manga had pointless sex, fanservice and unnecessarily graphic violence which irritates me (by my definition, of course), I just stop reading manga and make my own. Hooyeah. XD

How on earth did politics get into this thread? Hehe.

Mave wrote:I would also observe that the movies in U.S are being equally demoralized if you compare them to the movies made in the 30s.

I think that's become a fairly recent thing, the belief that somehow the older decades were "more clean." The simple fact is that they weren't. Oh, sure, maybe it wasn't as overt, but the sexuality was there. Remember the old black and white Marx Brothers films? And in one of them Groucho chased a scantily-clad lady with an eggbeater. There were burlesque houses, there was pornography, because there has always been and will always be pornography, and other more offensive things crept into older movies. Ever hear of a movie called Birth of a Nation? It's hailed as the first feature length film...and it was KKK propaganda that said that whites are superior to blacks.

I just think that the rating system could be a little bit more strict but that's arbitrary.

I disagree]If I don't like how the content is going, I just stop reading the manga.[/QUOTE]
And that's what should always happen rather than censorship. I'm not saying you advocate censorship, Mave. XD I'm just saying it in general.

Corrie wrote:For instance, sexual content is not as taboo there, but violence is (in video games, at least--I heard this while watching G4 long ago, before it started to suck XD).

That's not exactly true, really. I could get into it, but it wouldn't be exactly appropriate for this forum, so I'll refrain. As far as violence goes, Japan doesn't really have a problem with violence. Look at the entertainment we enjoy, stuff which is meant for children in Japan that gets edited and watered down to fit American crap standards. Japan has a very healthy attitude towards violence, and guess what? They're not all mindless killers. But we censor violence and shield our kids and our violent crime rate is higher. Hmm. Just food for thought.

(Note: There are many cultural differences between Japan and our country, and as always, correlation does not imply causation. Religion, family life, education, all of these have a bearing on what kind of person we turn out to be, and I would never attempt to indicate showing violence = normal people and censoring violence = violent people. My statements are just to indicate that seeing violence is not going to turn people into murderers, despite what this country's beliefs seem to be, and that completely protecting our children from seeing a drop of blood is not going to make them model citizens, despite what this country's beliefs seem to be. This is why censoring/editing violence is completely foolish, especially since TIME AND TIME AGAIN research has shown that there is no direct link between violent entertainment and people becoming violent. If there was we'd all lock ourselves in our houses during soccer/football/rugby/hockey seasons because of all the people that watch that violent entertainment.)

True. But what I heard in my social problems class is while the ratings systems and such try to protect kids, there are parents who will buy anything for their kids or let them watch anything, and the parents themselves won't even know what's in it. For example:

My brother and I were once at GameStop, and he saw a mom with a 7-9 year old child. The mother already had a stack of a few games in her arms, but she pulled a random game off the shelf (a Resident Evil title, wouldn't you know it?) and asked, "Honey, do you want this game?" Obviously, the kid, not knowing any better, said, "Okay, sure," or something like that. So the mom kept the game with her and they continued to browse. How responsible is that?

Another example:

This guy in my social problems class said that he went to his cousin's (I think) house, and his cousin is only a child like the first kid I mentioned. I think it was that he had one of the Grand Theft Auto games, and, like the mother above, this child's mother was clueless as to what was in the game she bought her son. So the guy, after finding out from the mother that she didn't know what the games were about or what was in them, played the game with her watching, and she was shocked and surprised about what she had given her kid.

So while our country has the wonderful rating system that it does, you're going to have parents whose kids are going to be negatively affected by their negligence.

(Note: doesn't want this to turn into debate and doesn't want rebuttal; is just stating what she has heard)

Nate wrote:As far as violence goes, Japan doesn't really have a problem with violence.

Not entirely true. Just recently in Japan, many networks refused to air the final episode of School Days, and many networks dropped Higurashi no Naku Koro ni Kai altogether due to the graphic violence in both shows.

I heard from someone that Gundam Wing: Endless Waltz had to go through several (more than 5) cycles of editing due to (I believe) the violent content of how it was originally created. Is that true?

Nate wrote:As far as violence goes, Japan doesn't really have a problem with violence.

Try telling that to Dir en grey.

They've had several of their music videos censored because of violent themes.

Nate wrote:I think that's become a fairly recent thing, the belief that somehow the older decades were "more clean." The simple fact is that they weren't. Oh, sure, maybe it wasn't as overt, but the sexuality was there.

Being more clean doesn't necessarily mean that the films were completely/significantly less devoid of any sexual content. At least, I didn't mean it that way. It would be silly to say that there was no pornography in the 30s or ppl didn't portray sex in the entertainment industry. Sexuality is always there: it's the nature of how it's presented that has changed, IMO. I would observe that the graphic level of it has increased....pointlessly too in many instances. Of course, pls consider that a personal opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-sex or some wrinkled up prude. But sometimes, we really don't need to see the whole act played out in order to get the message "Oh btw, just so you know, they had sex. Yup, they really did. See? See? Can't you see that they went all the way? OK, maybe we need to remove more clothes to convince the audience that our characters had sex. Gotta get the message though, you know."

Sorry, couldn't resist saying that. XD

Even if the acknowledgment of this trend may be denied in the U.S., I believe this to be true in some Asian countries (excluding Japan). A good part of the entertainment scene for Hong Kong, Chinese, Taiwanese and Indian films are getting a bit more fleshy (for the lack of a better term).

I disagree; I believe the ratings system is where it needs to be. Actually if anything I already find them to be more strict than they should. I'm sorry, but showing someone smoke on a cartoon is not bad, and it's ridiculous that cigarettes have to be edited out of Y7 or heck, even PG rated TV shows!

Eh, the fact that you disagree on the criterion of certain ratings may suggest that the ratings system are arbitrary? Or maybe I didn't make myself clear, my bad. When I mean arbitratry, I mean to say that the rating system is not standardized. One group of reviewers may rate the same movie 'R' while another PG-13. I think we have some agreement in this sense.

There's also a huge level of disparity between how cartoons/comics, movies, and video games are rated...but that's a rant outside of the scope of this topic.

I agree on this. Once again, this is what I mean by arbitrary.

And that's what should always happen rather than censorship. I'm not saying you advocate censorship, Mave. XD I'm just saying it in general.

LOL oh you may say it. I do advocate censorship to a certain limit (or certain age, really). But I also do think that everyone comes to an age where they needs to start claiming responsibility for whatever you view and stop blaming the entertainment industry for every crime you commit.

Nate wrote:That's not exactly true, really. I could get into it, but it wouldn't be exactly appropriate for this forum, so I'll refrain. As far as violence goes, Japan doesn't really have a problem with violence. Look at the entertainment we enjoy, stuff which is meant for children in Japan that gets edited and watered down to fit American crap standards. Japan has a very healthy attitude towards violence, and guess what? They're not all mindless killers. But we censor violence and shield our kids and our violent crime rate is higher. Hmm. Just food for thought.

:< For Kateikyoushi Hitman Reborn, they heavily censor blood during the battles because apparently it's geared toward a younger audience. The manga has quite a bit blood, conversely.

It got so ridiculous that when one of the villians, who gets excited when he sees his own blood, was wounded and was presumably bleeding, there was no actual sign of blood at all. D: It was...bizarre.

There is questionable violence in the show, but more often than not, I find that the anime veers from the manga in terms of gearing it toward children.

Okay okay okay. Seems I was a bit misunderstood. XD What I meant when I said, "Japan really doesn't have a problem with violence." I'm aware of the editing of shows like School Days, and whatnot.

What I'm talking about is, say, for example, the 4Kids version of One Piece. No, I'm not going to bash it, but what I mean is, it was censored so that you didn't even see people hitting each other most of the time. Heck, the dub of Sailor Moon, there was a couple of times Rei slapped Usagi, which were removed. Japan obviously doesn't have a problem with showing punches landing on people, and (small) amounts of blood in children's shows, whereas for some reason this country does.

Mave wrote:Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-sex or some wrinkled up prude. But sometimes, we really don't need to see the whole act played out in order to get the message "Oh btw, just so you know, they had sex. Yup, they really did. See? See? Can't you see that they went all the way?

I agree with you there, actually. XD For me sex/nudity doesn't automatically kill a movie, but plot-necessity is preferred. There are times when sex/nudity in movies is justified, but it's a whole lot less than it occurs.

When I mean arbitratry, I mean to say that the rating system is not standardized. One group of reviewers may rate the same movie 'R' while another PG-13. I think we have some agreement in this sense.

Yeah, I agree, and there's a few reasons for that. One is there's no exact criteria for how movies are rated. It's really weird. Like saying the "f-word" does not automatically give a movie an R rating. But if you say it like three or four times, it does. Full frontal nudity automatically gains an R rating, but topless women doesn't, unless you show topless women for more than "x" minutes.

Also of course the rating of a movie depends on the personal feelings of the board as to what rating it should receive, which can vary. The ratings are also not mandated by law, they are simply guidelines. The only rating which carries the force of law behind it is NC-17 for movies because that can include pornography. NC-17 movies don't usually get a theater run though, so that usually doesn't come into play.

I do advocate censorship to a certain limit (or certain age, really).

That's the difference, I think, is I don't. XD I'm not saying I advocate giving hardcore porn to a six year old, so don't hear it that way. I just think the regulations in this country concerning children are a bit ridiculous.


Okay, now what else.

But what I heard in my social problems class is while the ratings systems and such try to protect kids, there are parents who will buy anything for their kids or let them watch anything, and the parents themselves won't even know what's in it.

Right. But there are two problems with that. One is the parents are uneducated, and don't know about the ratings system. The ESRB is trying to get a lot more advertising to increase parental awareness.

But the second problem, one that is not the fault of the ESRB or the game companies, is one I've heard many times. A mother will purchase an M-rated game for her child, who may be 8 or 9. Bioshock for example. The clerk will say, "I am required to inform you this game contains scenes of graphic violence, language, blah blah blah." And the mother will say, "I don't care, it's the game he wants."

That's poor parenting, plain as day. But if the parent doesn't care, what can you do? Corporations cannot (and should not) be surrogate parents. It's not the ratings system that's at fault, it's uninformed and lazy parents.
[quote](Note: doesn't want this to turn into debate and doesn't want rebuttal]
I hope what I said doesn't qualify as either. XD;; I'm not disagreeing with you, at least. I think the ratings system in this country needs some work as a whole, and to be honest, I'm very happy we live in this country as opposed to say, Australia or the UK, where games get banned for no good reason.

I think at the end of it ratings systems are good for what they're intended to be: guidelines. But this does not excuse the parent from responsibility of being involved in their child's life. Things can vary, for example, Halo 3 was rated M, but I don't see a problem with a 9 year old playing it because it's strictly fantasy. There's a world of difference between the M-rating of Halo 3, and the M-rating of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. That's where the rating system fails, IMO. We could probably use an intermediate rating between M and T, the anime ratings have it.

Wouldn't it be better if the sex or violence scenes in comics or movies were just left up to the reader/viewer's imagination instead of displaying it in full view for a series of shots? Not that it would make it sound like sex or violence was a good thing because it was no longer shown, but at least one would be able to either piece together the outcome or come up with a different conclusion rather than have it right smack-dab "in your face".

K. Ayato wrote:Wouldn't it be better if the sex or violence scenes in comics or movies were just left up to the reader/viewer's imagination instead of displaying it in full view for a series of shots?

In the immortal words of Dr. McNinja:

"There's no violence like implied violence."

Good point. Had to ask, though.

You do make an excellent point. Some people out there in the entertainment industry just don't understand the power of suggestion. I can have my brother tell me part of a gruesome story (like people on this "superhuman" show that inflicted injury on themselves and healed shortly thereafter *shudders*) and I'll immediately get an image in my head of what he's talking about. It's not pretty, but it proves that you don't have to see something to be freaked out.

Nate wrote:That's the difference, I think, is I don't. XD I'm not saying I advocate giving hardcore porn to a six year old, so don't hear it that way. I just think the regulations in this country concerning children are a bit ridiculous.

Oh oh, I didn't say this clearly! I think we agree that ratings can be arbitrary (previous paragraphs) but I don't expect anyone to agree on censorship. I'm perfectly fine with that. So, there's no longer a need to follow up on this part of the discussion. ^^

Wouldn't it be better if the sex or violence scenes in comics or movies were just left up to the reader/viewer's imagination instead of displaying it in full view for a series of shots?

I wish more entertainment production ppl think that way. It's up the audience to visualize the level of graphicness. I think I can imagine someone's head being torn off or an orgy of a bunch of demented cult worshippers in details without exact scenes.

I just thought it'll be funny: In the middle of movie, where suggestion was implied and an audience stands up, crying "Nooo Nooo Nooo!!! That's not how it's supposed to be! When a head is torn off, there should be more blood! I shall complain to the movie for not showing us everything in detail!"

*everyone throws rotten tomatoes at him/her*

XDDDD