Misunderstood Spider
0
Medzy wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Medzy wrote...
Sneakyone wrote...
Best girl wonSpoiler:
Okay, sooo...
How come a OVA with a creepy-ass spider girl gets greenlit [size=8](I actually kind of like spidergirls, I'm just trying to prove a point)[/h].
But as soon as a character has only one eye, or gets partially burned/amputated in a trauma inducing accident (which has plenty of opportunities for a deep character), it's lyek "Eeeeeeeeeeeewww"...
WHY?!? :[
I suppose the same reason why Monstergirls are hot and Furries are not; facial identity.
Mess with the facial structure too much, and it dehumanizes a character. Being the main point of identity amongst people, we assign great importance to it. We can accept variations and tweaks, yes- but only to a certain extent.
Eyes are an especially important point of focus (no pun intended). It's the most oft-repeated reason why I've heard people say that they don't like anime/manga: eyes are too big.
You pose a legitimate point, but at the same time, how do those same people identify Master Chief as a human? We straight up don't see ANY facial features about him, but those same people still see him has a human.
Or what about Jason Voorhees? Or Slenderman? (I'm not directing any of this "hate" towards you, I'm simply asking you)
People don't fap to them (or- rather- shouldn't).
And I only said that the face was the main aspect of identity- not the only one. It makes them more relatable. For that exact reason, Jason's mask and Slenderman's lack of an actual face dehumanizes him. Screwing around with facial features is a major part of horror design. Both familiar and yet alien.
Master Chief is an entirely different case. We assume he's human because we are told as much. The mask is to serve to rob him of any defining characteristics, so that those who wish to do so may imagine themselves as Master Chief.
0
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Medzy wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Medzy wrote...
Sneakyone wrote...
Best girl wonSpoiler:
Okay, sooo...
How come a OVA with a creepy-ass spider girl gets greenlit [size=8](I actually kind of like spidergirls, I'm just trying to prove a point)[/h].
But as soon as a character has only one eye, or gets partially burned/amputated in a trauma inducing accident (which has plenty of opportunities for a deep character), it's lyek "Eeeeeeeeeeeewww"...
WHY?!? :[
I suppose the same reason why Monstergirls are hot and Furries are not; facial identity.
Mess with the facial structure too much, and it dehumanizes a character. Being the main point of identity amongst people, we assign great importance to it. We can accept variations and tweaks, yes- but only to a certain extent.
Eyes are an especially important point of focus (no pun intended). It's the most oft-repeated reason why I've heard people say that they don't like anime/manga: eyes are too big.
You pose a legitimate point, but at the same time, how do those same people identify Master Chief as a human? We straight up don't see ANY facial features about him, but those same people still see him has a human.
Or what about Jason Voorhees? Or Slenderman? (I'm not directing any of this "hate" towards you, I'm simply asking you)
People don't fap to them (or- rather- shouldn't).
And I only said that the face was the main aspect of identity- not the only one. It makes them more relatable. For that exact reason, Jason's mask and Slenderman's lack of an actual face dehumanizes him. Screwing around with facial features is a major part of horror design. Both familiar and yet alien.
Master Chief is an entirely different case. We assume he's human because we are told as much. The mask is to serve to rob him of any defining characteristics, so that those who wish to do so may imagine themselves as Master Chief.
I've been thinking about how to reply to this for about 1 hour and I got nothing. I've slow to the draw with these types of conversations, and I like and dislike thinks without clear reasons why. You, clearly, lightning fast to the draw, and are very well learned.
I, after 1 hour of thinking, have no idea what to say.
0
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Spoiler:
You're free to call in an assist, should you wish.
If facial identity actually played much of a role in what people find sexually appealing there wouldn't be a massive culture surrounding furries in western society. Almost all of what you've written is just subjective bullshit. Monster girls are hot and furries are not? People "shouldn't" like furries? Guess what, you shouldn't like 2D porn according to the general opinion of the masses, but you do! There is no "shouldn't", there is and that's as far as it goes. No, I'm not a furry by the way, this isn't me getting upset over your opinion.
And has what Medzy stated ever actually happened? Has a series ever actually failed or people didn't like it because it had a cyclops or disfigured characters in it? Has a manga about a cyclops ever actually been created and been good enough to turn into an animated series? To me it sounds like he's bitching because there is a lack thereof, not because there is and attention hasn't been given.
0
Tsuvian wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Spoiler:
You're free to call in an assist, should you wish.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the fact that there is a massive culture surrounding furries specifically in western society refute your theory about facial identity? Almost all of what you've written is just subjective bullshit. Monster girls are hot and furries are not? People "shouldn't" like furries? No, I'm not a furry by the way, this isn't me getting upset over your opinion. If facial identity actually played much of a role in what people find sexually appealing you'd be entirely right, but as that clearly is not the case, you're not.
And has what Medzy stated ever actually happened? Has a series ever actually failed or people didn't like it because it had a cyclops or disfigured characters in it? Has a manga about a cyclops in it ever actually been created and been good enough to turn into an animated series? To me it sounds like he's bitching because there is a lack thereof, not because there is and attention hasn't been given.
Of course it's subjective- practically everything is. I was stating my opinion. I state them as fact because that is- in fact- my opinion.
Agree or disagree by whatever degree you will- it won't change my view on anything.
0
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Tsuvian wrote...
PumpJack McGee wrote...
Spoiler:
You're free to call in an assist, should you wish.
Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the fact that there is a massive culture surrounding furries specifically in western society refute your theory about facial identity? Almost all of what you've written is just subjective bullshit. Monster girls are hot and furries are not? People "shouldn't" like furries? No, I'm not a furry by the way, this isn't me getting upset over your opinion. If facial identity actually played much of a role in what people find sexually appealing you'd be entirely right, but as that clearly is not the case, you're not.
And has what Medzy stated ever actually happened? Has a series ever actually failed or people didn't like it because it had a cyclops or disfigured characters in it? Has a manga about a cyclops in it ever actually been created and been good enough to turn into an animated series? To me it sounds like he's bitching because there is a lack thereof, not because there is and attention hasn't been given.
Of course it's subjective- practically everything is. I was stating my opinion. I state them as fact because that is- in fact- my opinion.
Agree or disagree by whatever degree you will- it won't change my view on anything.
Okay then, I'll let you stick to your delusions.
