Talk:Nijikon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2007-09-28 Automated pywikipediabot message[edit]

--CopyToWiktionaryBot 05:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert this to the old page[edit]

The person who edited this page to include Queer Studies, is built on no proof and every hyperlink, leads to the source, but the source itself has no mention of Nijikon, anime, nor otaku. I have cause to believe that the current edit is made in ill faith for a certain agenda.

This is, ultimately, one of wikipedia's biggest mess ups, and may end up being time to remove public edits entirely. OneManCast (talk) 15:48, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really tell which study you are referring to with that information alone, however, if you disagree with an edit you can revert manually by editing and saving a previous version from the article's version history. Of course, a clear edit summary detailing the reason for reverting would be needed. I'd say be WP:BOLD for now. You can also discuss with the author of those edits directly on their talk page. Masatami (let's talk!) 19:25, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article has multiple instances of wrong citations and (presumably on purpose) lies /misinformation[edit]

Since I cannot edit the article myself due to the locked status I'll write my corrections here. They are as follows:

1. In the paragraph "Otaku sexuality" it is stated that "Patrick Galbraith, drawing on Jack Halberstam's theory, reevaluated them as queer men." I have read the entire 30 page long paper (Otaku and the Struggle for Imagination in Japan) and it doesn't draw a conclusion between nijikon and "queer men." In fact the term "queer" merely appears 3 times in the entire paper and always in combination as "queer theory" and in a completely different context. The term "queer men" doesn exist in the paper nor does the paragraph about Jack Halberstam talk about nijikon being queer men. This citation is a complete fabrication. Please correct that. You can check the paper yourself as it is free and legally available as PDF by the official publisher

(https://www.dukeupress.edu/Assets/PubMaterials/978-1-4780-0629-9_601.pdf).

2. In the paragaph "Alternative sexual orientation" a correlation between nijikon and asexuality is drawn. However this is also purposefully taken out off context.

Quote from the cited paper: "Past studies of “otaku” or “fujoshi” have overlooked the existence of those who do not experience sexual or romantic attraction to real people. Drawing on qualitative interviews, this article aims to discuss the relationship between erotic manga and compulsory sexuality. It is found that while there is some variation in their narratives, this is similar to that seen in the narratives of people who identify as asexual."

The author doesn't compare nijikon with asexuality but draws a comparison between how nijikon express their sexual non-attraction to real people with how asexuals say they don't feel sexual attraction to people. However nijikon do feel sexual attraction to fictional characters thus they cannot be asexual. This would pose a contradiction as you cannot be sexually attracted to something and at the same time be asexual. In fact the entire base definition in the nijikon article here on wikipedia states that clearly:

"Nijikon (二次コン) or nijigen konpurekkusu (二次元コンプレックス), from the English "2D complex", is a sexual or affective attraction towards two-dimensional anime, manga, and light novel characters, as opposed to attraction towards real human beings."

To be sexually attracted is in the definition. How can nijikon be asexual when their entire definition is based on sexual attraction?

3. lolicon has been omitted as a nijikon sub category from the initial paragraph at the top and was delegated into the "Discrimination in legal and ethical controversy," mainly mislabeling it as child pornography.

However nijikon originated from the lolicon boom in the 1980s. Here a quote from the Japanese nijikon wikipedia article (https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%8C%E6%AC%A1%E5%85%83%E3%82%B3%E3%83%B3%E3%83%97%E3%83%AC%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9) translated into English:

"The term ``nijikon was used to refer to the partiality towards anime girls within anime and manga fandom during the lolicon boom of the early 1980s , which followed the anime boom of the late 1970s . It began to be used as a jargon . [5]"

Original Japanese quote:"「二次元コンプレックス」という術語は、1970年代後半のアニメブームの後に来た1980年代初頭のロリコンブームの際に、アニメ・マンガファンダム内部でアニメの少女に対して偏愛する行為に対して、一種のジャーゴンとして使われ始めた[5]。"

Also it was initially called「二次元ロリコン」(lit. 2-Dimensional lolicon) and 「アニメ・ロリコン」 (anime lolicon) even.

Original quote from the Japanese wikipedia article: "当初は「二次元ロリコン」「アニメ・ロリコン」とも呼ばれた[5] 。"

Please revert the part of the article back to "Additional research includes work on its most controversial sub-attraction, lolicon."

Also add to the article that it originated in the lolicon boom in the 1980s as well as the fact that nijikon was initially called "2-Dimensional lolicon" and "anime lolicon."

4. In the "Alternative sexual orientation" paragraph the article falsely equals Dr. Saito Tamaki's concept of "multiple orientations" to sexual orientations (quote: "Queer theorists elucidate alternative sexual orientations through Saitō Tamaki's concept of "multiple orientations."). However Tamaki's concept of "multiple orientations" has nothing to do with sexual orientations whatsoever. Let me quote Tamaki on this (Source: Beautiful Fighting Girl p25):

"Multiple Orientation

“Double orientation” is a psychiatric term. It refers to a phenomenon we see in patients suffering from schizophrenia and other mental illnesses who talk of delusional beliefs like being the mayor of Tokyo or being a bil- lionaire, even as they help clean their hospital ward under their nurse’s directions. No matter how severe the delusion, most patients are able to distinguish between the delusional standpoint and their own. The under- standing of one’s own position is called “orientation,” so these patients are said to have “double orientation.” As we have seen thus far, otaku are capable of jumping freely between multiple fictional contexts and easily moving back and forth between the role of receiver and creator. So we could say, metaphorically, that otaku have the capacity not for double but for multiple orientation."

Screenshot proof: https://imgur.com/6JtGbcX

In other words: multiple orientations means alternating between multiple fictional contexts. Not multiple sexual orientations.

Baten99 (talk) 03:43, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't really been keeping track of this article for a bit because of IRL busyness (and probably don't agree with all the changes that have been made)... I may return later to look at things in more detail, but...
There is one part of the comment that I wanted to respond to now. Otaku and the Struggle for Imagination in Japan is a 300-or-so page book, not a 30 page paper. The thing on the Duke University website is just the introduction to the book (which should be clear from the text itself?). I do agree saying that he calls them "queer men" is a bit of a stretch in interpretation, I think. Sandtalon (talk) 06:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then the exact quote needs to be put in here and the page it refers to. Otherwise anyone can just post their lies or interpretations however they wish. Point being: nothing in that "introduction" points to that conclusion. Aside from the fact that it is quite absurd considering that male nijikon being attracted to 2D drawings of women/female characters CANNOT be queer by the very definition. So one way or another that part about nijikon being queer men has to be removed due to the sheer logical fallacy of it. Baten99 (talk) 13:22, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem in many instances to be mixing up quotations with definitive statements.
You say lolicon has been omitted as a nijikon sub category from the initial paragraph at the top and was delegated into the "Discrimination in legal and ethical controversy," mainly mislabeling it as child pornography - but the article does not say lolicon is child pornography, it says it is "occasionally classified as 'child pornography'". The text is describing how other people have labelled it, not labelling it.
You say So one way or another that part about nijikon being queer men has to be removed due to the sheer logical fallacy of it - but the article does not say nijikon are queer men. It says "Patrick Galbraith, drawing on Jack Halberstam's theory, reevaluated them as queer men". It's describing what one academic said. AntiDionysius (talk) 17:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also not that it matters, because again this is not something this article does, can or should try to solve, but to say "male nijikon being attracted to 2D drawings of women/female characters CANNOT be queer by the very definition" is flatly untrue. The word queer, especially used in the context of academic queer studies, means vastly, vastly more than "gay or bi". AntiDionysius (talk) 17:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia itself states in the Queer article: "Queer is an umbrella term for people who are not heterosexual or are not cisgender."
If you feel attracted to a 2D drawing of a female character you are heterosexual. You CANNOT be homosexual or asexual if you feel sexually attracted to a drawing of a woman. Of course that doesn't mean you cannot be bisexual in real life. However just because you CAN be bisexual makes the definition "nijikon are queer men" suddenly valid. It's like saying: "nijikon are vegetarians" or "nijikon are gamers." Just because nijikon can be vegetarians or gamers doesn't mean either is a valid definition.
Effectively: if you feel sexually attracted to a drawing of a woman you express heterosexual attraction. You cannot be homosexual or asexual. You can be bisexual, but statistically the likelyhood is exponentially higher that you are heterosexual. Thus saying "nijikon are queer men" is a false definition, both in terms of logic as well as statistically." Baten99 (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: I meant "However just because you CAN be bisexual doesn't make the definition "nijikon are queer men" suddenly valid. " Baten99 (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If this "vastly more than gay or bi" definition is true, than MOGAI would be valid. There is no difference in attraction between 2D and 3D, heterosexual people still feel attraction to hentai.
Futher more, you don't need go into "culture war" or "gender studies" to see the article has been rewritten to be biased, just look how they removed the Taiwan part for no apparent reason, possible because the editors don't like it's sovereignty or something. Or how this is a phenomenon that only affects east asia mostly yet all the fonts are either in English or misinterpreted Japanese articles.
Just revert everything, please. 170.81.63.251 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to AVEN, asexuality is defined as "someone who does not experience sexual attraction or an intrinsic desire to have sexual relationships," and "a significant portion of asexual people experience some level of arousal and libido, which can include fantasies and masturbation." (https://www.asexuality.org/?q=general.html)
Wikipedia defines asexuality as "the lack of sexual attraction to others," with "others" often interpreted as "other people" within the asexual community. Hence, individuals who do not experience attraction to real people can be encompassed within the spectrum of asexuality. While not all nijikon self-identify as asexual, it is a misconception about asexuality to assert that nijikon cannot be asexual.
In recent years, studies have reinterpreted the concept of multiple orientation. For example, "[M]ultiple orientations can be positioned as the pluralization of sexual orientation into both a "real-world orientation" and a "two-dimensional orientation."（「性的指向を現実での「指向」と二次元での「指向」に複数化させるものとして多重見当識（multiple orientation）を位置づけることができる」）(Matsuura 2021a: 132) Gruebleener (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And therein lies why Nijikon is not asexual. The few who feels not an ounce of sexuality towards real people does not make the majority of the community. Most people who are attracted to 2D, (nijikon) are sexually attracted to real life people as well. This is being disingenuous at best. This point must be disregarded.
While there maybe an asexual in Nijikon, Nijikon itself is not asexual, and should therefore not be defined as such. 2402:4000:B281:56D4:8008:3A24:9759:1073 (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Baten99 (talk) 12:57, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
>Wikipedia defines asexuality as "the lack of sexual attraction to others," with "others" often interpreted as "other people"
It is irrelevant if "others" are people or not. You feel sexual attraction to a sexual depiction of a female or male. Herein lies the question: do actual asexuals feel attraction to a substitute for real people? No they don't. There is no substitute for attraction to them. However for nijikon fictional drawings are substitutes for their sexual attraction. Their sexual attraction is there, it is merely re-directed. Actual asexual don't have sexual attraction.
As for the multiple orientation part: Tamaki never meant it as multiple sexual orientations. You cannot criticize his work on basis of your wrong assumption of his work. Don't be ridiculous. Baten99 (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant if "others" are people or not. The sex of a sexual depiction is moot as they aren't living beings. If a real human feels a sexual attraction towards a sexual depiction of something fictional, the human being can never ever be asexual. Asexual means never ever feeling any sexual attraction to anything at all. Therefore, no sexual redirections can ever take place.
As for this multiple attraction part: Tamaki did indeed mean it as multiple sexual orientations. Nijikons are never asexual. Period. Admins and mods need to finally admit that they got it all wrong. 2003:E1:772A:B000:C547:2786:ECB3:C85C (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I 100% agree that nijikon can NEVER be asexual. That's what I said all along.
However Tamaki didn't mean the multiple orientation part as "multiple sexual orientations." He talks about jumping between multiple fictional contexts. As in looking at fiction from multiple perspectives. Here the paragraph: https://imgur.com/6JtGbcX Baten99 (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations in proving me right with that paragraph. Tamaki did indeed mean the multiple orientation part as "multiple sexual orientations." Jumping between multiple fictional contexts is synonymous with multiple sexual orientations. It looks like you're trying to baselessly split hairs. I remain vindicated that admins and mods need to finally admit that they got it all wrong. 2003:E1:772A:B000:A13D:5B2:8FDC:154A (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine complaining about split hairs when trying to edit an encyclopedia.
That being said I do agree that they got it wrong. There are reasons why they may not be interested in flesh and blood humans. I, for example, detest the flesh and blood version, because they're the opposite of white I desire. I'd say I'm Nijikon, but these characters are still assigned a gender.
If it were a Queer sexuality, it would not feature gender as a designation in the story that these characters are from.
At its most charitable of interpretations, such a read would be a misguided attempt to make a very minute minority feels heard. The all of 10 people who would personally feel represented as Queer. Misguided in approach btw, not in intention.
And asexuality just because they're not flesh and blood reeks of victim blaming. People have reasons as to why and I guarantee you that it generally has some level of cognitive dissonance between the real deal and anime characters.
What makes it more absurd, going back to a previous statement, that someone is asexual when the attraction is still related to the gender of characters they're attracted to. Our brain interprets the same things differently.
It is in the names of "waifus" and/or "husbandos". If it were Queer or more concise of an example, "Asexual" then there would be zero need for waifus and husbandos. Making the concept of Nijikon being a form of asexuality both moot and DOA.
Any forms of "Queer" in the Nijikons, is inherently relative. In other words, they were Queer before consuming the media, not during or after.
In other words, there is no actual intended appeal in Queer sexuality. Refusing to be attracted to the real deal is urelated to Queer sexuality and Asexuality.
All of this several paragraphs of statements are being built up basically to say...
I agree with you. OneManCast (talk) 16:24, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although nijikon is a different concept from asexual, this article does not assert that nijikon IS asexual, so I don't see any problem with this point.
In academic research, it is common for researchers to apply or revisit past concepts. There are studies that apply Saito's "multiple orientation" to queer theory, and I think they deserve to be described in this article as developments of Saito's theory.
I think Vincent and Matsuura express a positive view of Saito's theory. If you think the argument is redundant, it might not be a bad idea to omit the statement "Criticisms have been directed at Saito's Lacanian theory due to its gender binary assumptions and its failure to acknowledge individuals who experience no attraction to flesh-and-blood human." Gruebleener (talk) 08:49, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NicheGamer Article[edit]

Just as a heads up, it looks like this post will be getting some attention it is the subject of an article on NicheGamer

https://nichegamer.com/nijikon-and-yuri-wikipedia-entries-woke-gender/ DarkeruTomoe (talk) 01:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nijikon&oldid=1223586899"