Most of the time the stuff left out is relatively tame, but there’s a WORLD of difference between what was cut out of the original US release of “Kite” and the Director’s cut. It didn’t take up that much time, but it was pure XXX stuff. And I understand the original Japanese release contained scenes that were explicit kitty pron.
Kitty porn! Cats going at it? :eek:
Can I assume you mean kiddie porn…? I’ve seen the first episode series that would qualify as shota (involving kids that aren’t legal anywhere). There was no sex in that episode, but a very strong suggestion that there would be eventually.
I don’t believe in censorship, but I don’t think I’d willingly watch something like that. It gave me the creeps.
It does fascinate me that the debate over violent movies and television hasn’t made one dent in Japanese consciousness. Even more fascinating is that a comparison of violent and sexual crime in Japan, and in the US, would seem to suggest that violence and sex on TV doesn’t make one iota of difference in how people behave 
(Thinking about it, that shota series I mentioned, Loveless, could probably qualify as “kitty porn” as well, since everyone there had cat ears until they lost their virginity :dubious: )
Alright, porn does not grab my attention very much. But mention cat ears and I’m interested. I’m disturbed…I think I’ve actually found something worse than my magical girl addiction.
You brought up some interesting points though. And Japanese shows seem to be less antsy about killing off characters, especially in short-run shows (short run, by my definition being 52-eps or less, since those that go longer tend to go WAY longer). Heck, I just watched the first episode of Fafner last week, and I don’t think I’ve ever seen so much death in a premiere episode, including a girl I thought was going to be one of the main characters. And although I’m at the point now that I can read the trends of what is going to happen, this show actually surprised me at times. It was refreshing.
As an American, I can vouch for the fact that ANY standards are not universal. I grew up in the Midwest (traditionally a very sexually conservative environment), and still do not understand the objection to sexuality/porn that everyone else has (including my own family). I grew up here, and I STILL don’t see what the big deal is.
People have parts, just like everything else. Those parts want to go together. That’s how biology works. That’s how LIFE works.
Nothing pornographic or sexual has ever bothered me. The objection to it seems far worse.
I’m a girl, too. MORE BOOBIES!
What is so wrong with nudity? I would like more of it. And I’m not saying that as a nymphomaniac, either, I’m saying that as someone from Canada who’s seen plenty of boobies on regular television. Remember the Radiohead video for Paranoid Android? Our mermaids didn’t have the weird added bikini tops. They had regular old non-sexually exciting animated boobies. And when I moved here, I get a lot of Americans asking me, “Is it true that you guys have porn on regular channels?!”
No, not porn. Nudity, sure. Racy? Sometimes. But not always. Why would it be?
I love Ranma 1/2. When he’s running along with his shirt torn, I just know there’s going to be some cold water coming in contact with him any time. And when it does, I laugh and laugh and laugh… poor Ranma! 
Happy endings?
I mean EXPLICIT kiddie porn. But I can’t vouch for that personally, as I’ve not seen the original Japanese version and have only read references to it in online reviews. I have seen the directors’ cut which includes explicit XXX sexual bondage, things going in and out of things in plain sight, the characters being adult though.
My wife is a fan of Tenchi Moyu and has gotten eps from Japan that include nudity. Whole different culture over there.
Well, I don’t mean to seem really stupid here, but…
I (several years ago) purchased a Japanese animated video (Twin Angels, Vol. I), and found the disclaimer rather perplexing. They made a very big deal about the fact that all of the characters portrayed in sexual situations (which was damned near all of them) were at least 19 years old.
My reaction: “Duh-WHUH?”
They’re CARTOONS! Paint on celluloid! I am sorry, but I do NOT understand this.
So…how YOU doin’?
(I am, of course, being slightly flippant, but I admire, share, and wish to engulf myself in your mindset. Flirt with me. I promise I will like it.)
I believe that it’s illegal to portray minors as engaging in sexual acts, even drawings of minors. I don’t know that this has ever been tested in court, though. It would be an interesting test, to say the least.
Yeah…“interesting”…ROWF! 
I vote for extensive research, heh-heh-heh…
Actually, I’m not sure of the current state of the law these days (abysmal, I’m guessing), but I know that people have at least tried to pass such legislation, even going so far as to extend that prohibition to imaginary minors such as cartoons (not to mention images of children with their clothes ON).
Truly, stupidity knows no bounds.
No cite, but I seem to recall reading that this has been overturned.
Anti-virtual CP law overturned once; reworded, tweaked, re-passed… and re-smacked down by courts in 2002; re-reworded, re-tweaked and partly included within the PROTECT Act of 2003 (the one that gave us “Amber Alerts”). Common commentary is that they have indeed narrowed it to apply to really pornographic (“I know it when I see it”;)) representations rather than just any possibly sexual context, and that in practice it’s focused mainly on CG 3D renderings. Untested that I’m aware of. From what I read, I think this time they’re taking the tack of not calling unreal-character porn “portraying minors” as CP (requires actual child) but putting it in a special category of obscene (since obscene is obscene, whether real or fictional). But that’s just speculation here, I’ve never asked a lawyer to read it.
YM “bowdlerized”. HTH.