Controversial One Piece is gross and creepy

Status
Not open for further replies.
Like even Logiko finds it problematic.. Even tho she blames it on patriarchy.

That doesn't mean much since Logiko finds everything problematic. Super Saiyan is supposedly problematic because people being empowered by anger is "le bad". Lord forbid anyone gets upset when E.T. Hitler murders your best friend right in front of you, amirite... :pepeke:

The next claim will probably be that Dragon Ball is nazi coded and Toriyama is secretly a fascist cause he has a superior warrior race with a super form that has blonde hair, blue eyes and SS initials. :shame:
 

Nikuzi

⚓𝒫𝒾𝓇𝒶𝓉𝑒 𝒬𝓊𝑒𝑒𝓃 𝒮𝑒𝓃𝒸𝒽𝑜𝓊⚓
This thread is basically the perfect example of "treating fictional characters like real people and real people like fictional characters".

:whitepress:
pure cancer, dunno when the internet became like this where people act like what happens with characters means anything in the real world

so fucking bizarre
 
That doesn't mean much since Logiko finds everything problematic. Super Saiyan is supposedly problematic because people being empowered by anger is "le bad". Lord forbid anyone gets upset when E.T. Hitler murders your best friend right in front of you, amirite... :pepeke:

The next claim will probably be that Dragon Ball is nazi coded and Toriyama is secretly a fascist cause he has a superior warrior race with a super form that has blonde hair, blue eyes and SS initials. :shame:
Actually the eyes are green
 

KonyaruIchi

👑𝓣𝓱𝓮 𝓟𝓲𝓻𝓪𝓽𝓮 𝓠𝓾𝓮𝓮𝓷👑
Everyone is aware of it and understands it.. It just not bearable to see people justify it.
Post automatically merged:

Like even Logiko finds it problematic.. Even tho she blames it on patriarchy.

Logiko/C4N should never be used as a positive example for "problematic" topics considering they get offended by the mildest things (like people calling minks animals, that was a whole thing semi-recently) :suresure:
 
pure cancer, dunno when the internet became like this where people act like what happens with characters means anything in the real world

so fucking bizarre
Fictional characters does something that isn't morally right in real life = criminals.

Real life figures commits terrorism, rape, murder, genocide, etc. = Doesn't bat an eye.

Lol.
 
The idea is to not half-put something into Morality Test
Either you judge all of it's Ideas or you don't judge any
But you gotta be relevant innit 🗿 i mean sure i disagree with alot more but if there is a consensus to be formed i rather feed to it than dilute it with my other belief's.. I mean unless theyhave their own threads

When someone been watching One Piece for years & years, and read Hundreds of Chapters
And then They say: "Guys, i dropped One Piece cuz some New Scenes are not Moral"
I have to worry about such Person, cuz that means He has been reading this Manga with Moral Glasses
And yet didn't Stop until now?!
Everyone has moral glasses they look from..
You could have just said that its true that it is perverted in whatever sense and yes it is problematic but why now? I mean even if he being provocative to the fan, you initial point was never his inconsistency and disingenuousness..

Hancock's DF isn't Lust Lust No Mi
Any Love-Related Feeling triggers it's Powers
If a Bunny or House Cat Ate it & you find it Cute, it makes you Petrified, doesn't mean you wanna Fuck the Bunny

And a Woman being in Love with 17 Year Old Pirate Captain in 16th Century isn't a reason to say, OMG i didn't know this Story can include such Plot, it's okay to Draw Cannibalism or Slavery or Genocide ... etc but it's completely Unacceptable if a Culture different than yours is drawn?

Hancock Stuff at least is nothing unusual or unexpected
No one reading this gonna think that youvre pointing out his inconsistency
That doesn't mean much since Logiko finds everything problematic. Super Saiyan is supposedly problematic because people being empowered by anger is "le bad". Lord forbid anyone gets upset when E.T. Hitler murders your best friend right in front of you, amirite... :pepeke:

The next claim will probably be that Dragon Ball is nazi coded and Toriyama is secretly a fascist cause he has a superior warrior race with a super form that has blonde hair, blue eyes and SS initials. :shame:
No way would i hsve thought this is gonna lead to her getting bashed..

I mean i appreciate that she has a valid point and opinion even if the rationale is.. U know
 
But you gotta be relevant innit 🗿 i mean sure i disagree with alot more but if there is a consensus to be formed i rather feed to it than dilute it with my other belief's.. I mean unless theyhave their own threads

Everyone has moral glasses they look from..
You could have just said that its true that it is perverted in whatever sense and yes it is problematic but why now? I mean even if he being provocative to the fan, you initial point was never his inconsistency and disingenuousness..

No one reading this gonna think that youvre pointing out his inconsistency
I literally said "You okay with Drawing Cannibalism, Slavery & other Evil Acts, but it's Unacceptable to see a Woman in love with 17 Year Old Pirate Captain?". Pointing out how He is using Culture to pick which things to judge Morally and which to ignore

What am i questioning with this if not his inconsistency? lol
And when He replied, i gave him an even more detailed Answer repeating same things i told you

Just because i made the effort to explain how Hancock's DF work doesn't mean i was defending Oda
You're confusing my desire to correct a false statement with my desire to pick a side in this argument
 
Oda is not drawing Carrot in a suggestive manner for the adults. He's drawing it for the teenagers who salivate over shit like that when reading his manga. A healthy minded adult understands this, and keeps it moving when coming across scenes like that. Just like a healthy minded adult can go to a beach, and not be bothered by dozens of teens running around in two piece bikinis.

Fiction is subjective. So if you look at Hancocks fruit and want to imagine it's some sexualized ability, that only works when people want to fuck you, and reach the conclusion that people want to fuck a child version of Hancock, that's a you problem. The fruit works through any form of attraction, and it's up to the reader to decide what kind of attraction is being used when the fruit takes effect.

Don't forget 8 year Oden fucking all the hookers in wano.
Another term for the Pleasure Halls, is the Entertainment district, which is much, much more than just Brothels. It houses theaters, restaurants, gambling dens etc... In fact, when you look at the scene, it immediately transitions into Oden getting banned from the Gambling den. There was no mentions of brothels anywhere. Stephen probably should have used better phrasing for this panel when he translated it. Got dudes thinking about 6 year old's fucking hookers, Lmao....
 
Last edited:
Super Saiyan is supposedly problematic because people being empowered by anger is "le bad".
Damn, you remember that ? I can barely remember the argument of the poster I'm replying to usually lol

Well, its not reeeeeaaaally bad per say, its just less cool than gear 5. The trope of the empowerement of boy through anger is really a problematic one when we talk about toxic masculinities. In real life, anger does not bring power, it brings less control and usually more victim, mainly women. So showing that you can be stronger through laughs is a very good thing.

I love dragon ball, but in this domain, One Piece is much better.


Logiko/C4N should never be used as a positive example for "problematic" topics considering they get offended by the mildest things (like people calling minks animals, that was a whole thing semi-recently) :suresure:
:lusnipe:
 
Its too bad, you could have made a good criticizism of the sexualization of women in One Piece and instead you are just showing that you didn't understand the story.

- Sanji's lust for chibby Nami is indeed creepy but is filler so it really has no place here.
- Momo is no a 28 yo trapped in a kid body, he is a 8 yo kid trapped into an adult body.
- There is absolutely nothing sexual in the way women interact with Momo (at least on their part, momo is indeed a perv who takes advantage of the situation but he is a kid, so instead of blaming women here, you can rather blame sexism).
- Seraphin Hancock doesn't pretrify out of lust but because she is small and therefore "cute" (notice that she also petrified York because of that), it was obvious and yet still was explained by Oda because of weirdos in an SBS.

The point about One Piece being creepy on pedophilia is therefore dull, but you COULD make a real criticizism about sexism and the sexualization of women in the Manga industry or in Japanese's culture that leads old school authors like Oda to draw weird stuff like Carrot or Bonney but also Nami or Robin in constant swim suit. The problem is therefore not a creepy lust, the problem is the sexualization of all women to begin with, not just those two.

Try to fight with good arguments if you really want to take a shot at One PIece as there are a few, because you are looking like someone who didn't read the story here.
You want to raise the point that the author deliberately makes situations where characters that are underage/minors are being put into situations where they are sexualized, but it's just so where the magic of the story allows them to do this in a morally gray area.

Momo, Bonney, and Hancock have all been put in those positions. Someone mentioned there are implications about Nami under Arlong as well. If even the vibe exists, and the author tells us to read between the lines, then we are supposed to recognize some fked up things, no?

Bonney is essentially a product of rape. That's pretty weird. Then, she became a person who embodies the concept of "age is just a number" as a kid? It carries some negative elements to it.
 
Oda is not drawing Carrot in a suggestive manner for the adults. He's drawing it for the teenagers who salivate over shit like that when reading his manga. A healthy minded adult understands this, and keeps it moving when coming across scenes like that. Just like a healthy minded adult can go to a beach, and not be bothered by dozens of teens running around in two piece bikinis.

Fiction is subjective. So if you look at Hancocks fruit and want to imagine it's some sexualized ability, that only works when people want to fuck you, and reach the conclusion that people want to fuck a child version of Hancock, that's a you problem. The fruit works through any form of attraction, and it's up to the reader to decide what kind of attraction is being used when the fruit takes effect.



Another term for the Pleasure Halls, is the Entertainment district, which is much, much more than just Brothels. It houses theaters, restaurants, gambling dens etc... In fact, when you look at the scene, it immediately transitions into Oden getting banned from the Gambling den. There was no mentions of brothels anywhere. Stephen probably should have used better phrasing for this panel when he translated it. Got dudes thinking about 6 year old's fucking hookers, Lmao....
Oda's a freak man, just look at how he depicts Bonney who is supposedly 12, or how he has young boys like Momo bathing with Nami, or how he draws Seraphim Hancock using her powers to stun a bunch of grown men who lusted for her

Or merely the fact that every female character he touches he draws nauseatingly decadent, it's sick. No, doing it for his teenage audience doesn't justify it, it makes it even worse
 
I literally said "You okay with Drawing Cannibalism, Slavery & other Evil Acts, but it's Unacceptable to see a Woman in love with 17 Year Old Pirate Captain?". Pointing out how He is using Culture to pick which things to judge Morally and which to ignore
Ars you telling me that you nit picked what he said and reduced it to just boa and luffy's relationship , which he does mention that luffy literally has to grope her body part of the way to impel down that you ignored, rather than the concept of sexualization too in the story like i heve been reiterating, just to make a general statement that he shouldn't use culture or a moral lense when it comes to age in relationships ? Which was never the point he made?

That's extremely dishonest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top