Fallout Studios Forums

I've seen alot pof people here that have some sort of anime fetish.

I think its pretty wierd and would like to learn about why?

Nothing can compare to a real woman IMO with real skin and real hair and real... boobs

Boidy, on 13 Dec 2007, 7:26, said:

*agrees*

What you think?

I think this is going to turn into a flame war cause you have a problem(Cause it seems like it) with some people on the forum who happen to be interested in Anime Woman images >_>.

I don't appreciate that quote being taken out of context.

So if people (myself included) likes (female) anime pics, we have an anime fetish...?

Soul, on 19 Dec 2007, 23:31, said:

Here we go.....

There isn't anything wrong with looking at anime women, no worse than imagining a woman in your head, just put in to digital pictures. And anyway how can you think it's wrong to admire the female form?

Because a drawing of unnatural form is not technically female form in any way? It is disproportionate and thus cannot be compared with photography.
Edited by Boidy, 20 December 2007 - 00:17.

Ahem, photographs are photoshoped so much that they cant be compared to the real thing either, so i'd hardly call that a fair argument.

And either way you look at it, photographs are as real as (computerised) drawings, because at the end of the day, its a bunch of pixels the our brains chose to recognise as as image

could we move this to the philosophy forum please?

EDITl on second thought, nevermind
Edited by ailestrike, 20 December 2007 - 00:56.

Even so, a photograph maintains the proportions of the body. A drawing is far more liberal when it comes to what can go into it as it is completely made up from scratch. So those bulgy eyes, metallic strands of hair, triangular noses and miniature mouths do not in any way match up to what is at least derived from an actual photograph.

so what are we trying to prove here?

That the argument: "It is just like looking at photographs of real women" is bollocks.

You know what, I think you're right. I'm still looking though.

Lets say I like looking at apples. Now I take a picture and badly photoshop it and upload it on the Internet. Then I crappily draw the apple.

Is the crappy drawing still an apple? Is the photoshopped image more of an apple than the other picture? Really, both of them are almost the same thing, they are a graphical representation of the real thing on a computer screen.

Personally I like real apples better though.

But in drawing cartoons, one is not attempting to recreate the trueness of a real person.

Boidy, on 19 Dec 2007, 21:10, said:

what do you mean by "trueness"?

Proportions. Cartoons are drawn as cartoons, not as portraits. Don't confuse the two.

I'll use this as an example:

That does not represent a woman in any way. I actually found it rather grotesque. You might as well beat your meat to some lines of binary.
Edited by Boidy, 20 December 2007 - 02:22.

drawings are not about truth. photos are (if they are not photoshopped )
drawings are about the *idea* of something.
what is wrong with that?

except the pic boidy postet. even the idea of that is wrong...
well... not the breast size... XD

There is nothing wrong with the drawing of anime women. I'm all for it and its art. It is that there are so many that find it something to receive sexual gratification from. I might as well be masturbating to the image of a painted rose. Is it really right and proper to get unholy pleasure from a piece of artwork? Is it not degrading to women that a concept drawn up by some random guy can replace their image?

well i doubt it´d be "unholy", but lets not discuss that here. there´s another topic about that already.
i very doubt its degrading to women, rather to the men "receiving unholy pleasure".
ask some women about that...

what about internet porn? would that be less degrading just cuz its real women in it? of course not.

Of course it would. Because at least in that sense, the man respects true female form assuming that said form has not been tampered with.

Boidy, on 19 Dec 2007, 20:10, said:

not true but thats separate argument all together truly honestly there plenty of anime out there that try there hardest to make true human form sure maybe not perfectly matches but pretty dang close.

it has nothing to do with which is better or which is not some people including my self like anime anything wrong with that ? nope no more wrong then gaining pleasure from a picture or image of a person you don't know or even could ever meet.

this is not about with you find it right or wrong since thats totally subjective and does not change the fact that its the same as someone coming in and saying football is wrong becuase people get hurt in it but its completely consensual and does not keep someone from saying look i quit becuase i could get hurt same thing with anime its not like we are forcing you to agree with us or are likes you are fully able to say i don't like that or simply ignore it.

so in conclusion this thread realy has no purpose maybe if it was in philosophy but even then its just argument of opinions with no basis on fact

Fact: Anime is not photography and does not follow true-to-life-form.
Fact: Unedited photographs do follow true-to-life form.
Fact: Some find anime girls to be sexually appealing.
Fact: Others find unadulterated photographs of real women to be sexually appealing.
Therefore: Some find inhuman forms to be sexually appealing.
Therefore: Some find human forms to be sexually appealing.
Fact: A painting of a flower is an inhuman form.
Therefore: To find sexual arousal from an anime character is on par with finding sexual arousal in a painting of a flower.
Fact: To admire an inhuman figure over a human figure is to degrade the human figure.
Therefore: To admire an anime woman over a real woman is to degrade the woman in giving her less importance even if said importance only amounts to sexual arousal.

Thus my argument.

photographs are not true to life human forms they 2 dimensional images of a 3d space so they are nto true human form so I find that argument lacking

and some of those facts are not there since there a opinion and thats never a fact


and your making far to many inferences based on opinion too
Edited by cryptkeeper, 20 December 2007 - 08:17.

So people who lack depth perception don't see realistic form? And no, none of that is opinion. It is fact and conclusions drawn from said facts.
Edited by Boidy, 20 December 2007 - 08:17.

thats arrogant statement

"To admire an inhuman figure over a human figure is to degrade the human figure." a opinion

"Therefore: Some find inhuman forms to be sexually appealing." inferring that there inhuman what is human? yes there fantasy and not true human form i will agree with that but so are photos. the only true human form is the ones that you can see through your eyes in 3 dimensional space not 2d image based on light reflection but the actual space one is at touch smell sight hearing and spatial recognition and communication all make up the true human form so simple photo is fantasy ie same as a drawing
Edited by cryptkeeper, 20 December 2007 - 08:28.