"junior-kun" gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176864903.160647.230420@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

[On the topic of whether Gunslinger Girl is porn or not...]

Did you know there are people who are find shoes, boots, etc. to be
arousing? If an author, who coincidentally happens to have this particular
fetish, publishes a shoe catalog for a typical department store (e.g.
Walmart, Sears, Zeller's, etc.), and someone else reads this catalog, and
also happens to have a shoe fetish... Would you call the shoe catalog
"porn"?

I think part of the problem here is that neither side of the debate
have defined what they meant by the term "porn", and it is due to a
difference of definition that the sides are stuck.

In article weber.videotron.net>,
Oliver Wong castortech.com> wrote:

Well, I haven't used the word "porn". But if the Sears shoe catalog is full
of ads for "Special Boots for Shoe Fetishists" and ad copy about how
arousing shoes can be, I'm going to be suspicious of all shoe ads in the
catalog, even if not every single one is like that.

Besides, my impression of the show as inviting moe and lolicon comes from
the show itself. The fact that the source magazine is more blatant helps
show that my impression was reasonable, but it wasn't *why* I got that
impression. I didn't even know about the magazine before now.
--
Ken Arromdee / arromdee_AT_rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee

In article blue.rahul.net>,
arromdee@green.rahul.net (Ken Arromdee) wrote:

I won't argue against the moe label. The girls *are* moe -- which is a
lot of what makes Gunslinger Girl so much creepier than the other
stories/movies that I've mentioned. It's kind of like Mermaid's Forest:
you don't expect Takahashi's wide-eyed characters to be dumped into
horror stories. The dichotomy of cute characters against serious story
adds to the atmosphere rather than detracts from it, IMO.

I still disagree on the loli claim. Lolicon is sexual and as I've said
several times I simply do not see anything sexual or erotic about
Gunslinger Girl.