SJW Sexual VN's?

Posted in

#26 by sakurakoi
2019-04-03 at 17:25
Back then there was a OELVN tag you could use to find/filter out the cancer, but aspies on moderation forced its removal.
The best you can do now is find/filter all VNs made in renpy and flash.
I just go with filtering for all (not out) originally Japanese VNs... still got an obviously Korean one today because it does not take into account simultaneous releases but it works most of the time at least. I really do not think that tag is needed because it would probably not applied and cover more than that option i.e being less effective for the very same task.

Also vndb is still much better than a certain page for Asian Webnovels where one has to filter out translation groups to have at least the "recently updated" homepage free from the country one does not like but somehow must not dislike. The search system itself offers no options whatsoever. vndb can still improve though but welp...
#27 by freshift
2019-04-03 at 17:50
One can be a 'social justice warrior' and still have harming sexual fetishes without being a hypocrite, so long as they are fully aware that their fetishes should only remain in their own minds and are capable of making a distinction between their sexual fantasies and reality.

In the case of eroge, so long as they make a distinction between real-life and virtual-life, accepting that these are only fictional works and should always remain so, one should be able to endorse social justice and support empowering women in real life, while enjoying the most deplorable kinds of nukige in their private without being a hypocrite, I would imagine. What makes progressivism inherently incompatible with sexual contents?
#28 by drjones
2019-04-03 at 18:33
The problem with SJWism is that it is a contagious and deadly mental virus that is transmitted via Tumblr, Facebook, and proselitism. So you actively avoid their tainted works until they all have killed themselves in ritualistic fashion due to their madness. Then you burn all their works as a preventive measure to avoid any possibility of a new outbreak.
#29 by sanahtlig
2019-04-03 at 20:23
One can be a 'social justice warrior' and still have harming sexual fetishes without being a hypocrite
Many seem to demonize ideas though. For example, if they're railing against the objectification of women (which supposedly cultivates attitudes that are culturally unacceptable), they're going to disapprove of certain portrayals of women--fictional or not.

If that seems foreign, consider a corrolary: sexualization of Japanese children in gravure/idol culture. Is this something we want actively commercialized?Last modified on 2019-04-03 at 20:51
#30 by pabloc
2019-04-03 at 20:42
so long as they are fully aware that their fetishes should only remain in their own minds and are capable of making a distinction between their sexual fantasies and reality.
That's how sane people work. SJWs aren't very good with this "reality" thingy. You see, the main problem with them is that they tend to do exactly the opposite of what you described. :P

For example, there are plenty of SJWs who advocate for tolerance and acceptance of RL pedophilia (and a certain religion/culture where forcing little girls to marry adult men isn't considered inappropriate at all). But at the same time they vehemently oppose loli porn, and want to ban everything with young~ish looking anime girls, including all-ages VNs (Ie no Kagi), because THINK OF TEH CHILDRENZ!!!11!.
There are also male feminists who valiantly demand respectful depiction of female characters in movies or games, who tend to be notorious sex offenders IRL.

So yeah, SJWs actually do make a distinction between real-life and virtual-life. Their enjoy their deplorable fetishes in the former, while they virtue signal about the latter. XD

sexualization of Japanese children in gravure/idol culture. Is this something we want actively commercialized?
Well, apparently SJWs say "yes"... if these are transgender children, at least. linkLast modified on 2019-04-03 at 20:50
#31 by lunaterra
2019-04-03 at 20:50
The funny part of this thread is people talking about "SJW" as if the word has any meaning whatsoever beyond "person I disagree with".

I've seen people call a literal self-identified neo-Nazi an SJW for saying "it's okay to be afraid of black people". I've seen openly conservative anti-porn activists called "SJWs" because they want social change, so they must be SJWs, right? People who are against sex work get called SJWs for it. Actual sex workers get called SJWs for wanting sex work to be respected like any other job.

The ONLY connection between "SJWs" is that they hold views that other people disagree with. That's it. The acronym might as well stand for Skeleton Jelly Walkers.

tl;dr: everyone in this thread is an SJW, including myself, the OP, and all the people arguing against "SJW-ism"Last modified on 2019-04-03 at 20:51
#32 by sakurakoi
2019-04-03 at 21:02
^I see because some people are stupid, all people are stupid... yeah, that's not how it works and there is quite a consistent understanding on what makes or breaks a SJW. Merely some foolishly argue here that they may not be hypocrites when everything points to the contrary.

Welp, otherwise, might as well also say that "Neo-Nazi" is the same meaningless label, along many many others~

Why are we, why am I, writing anyway? It is not like anyone can understand even just any word another has ever said because when just some make a mistake, everyone is mistaken. My mistake.
#33 by pabloc
2019-04-03 at 21:07
tl;dr: everyone in this thread is an SJW, including myself, the OP, and all the people arguing against "SJW-ism"
No. I identify as a 57 years old black native American far-right communist space shuttle, and my preferred gender pronouns are Heil/Hitler. You have to respect that - if you call me an "SJW" you'll be a Nazi, racist, sexist bigot and literally Trump. XD

I like your Skeleton Jelly Walkers though. Except that, considering the thread topic, I'd change it to "Skeleton Jelly Wankers". Yes, much better. ^^
#34 by being
2019-04-03 at 23:32
I disagree wtih everyone about some things, but only a small percentage of everyone is SJW. you can't just categorize everyone you disagree with as the same thing, that would be fucking retarded (and unfortunately it's something sjws are prone to doing)
so no, it couldn't mean "person i disagree with", what you're describing is that different people use it in different contexts, which is normal for a somewhat vague and especially new term like SJW
#35 by goblincrutch
2019-04-04 at 04:46
I think I've seen some SJW OELVNs on steam though steam being steam, they're highly unlikely to have H-scenes. While I have nothing but disdain for SJWs and their tradcon counterparts, if they
decide they want to make their own vns, that's fine by me as long as they leave the things I like untouched. I may not agree with them, but I'll respect their right to enjoy the things that
interest them so long as they do the same for me which they seldom do, hence my disdain for them.

SJWs don't hate porn per se. They just hate any form of entertainment that benefits a male audience. LGBTQWhatever and women-oriented porn are okay but you can't psychologically manipulate
members of a gender that on average have higher sex drives if they're all clearing their minds with their male heterosexual outlets. They want to blame men for their porn, sex dolls, eroge,
etc. rather than admit how anti-male they are and give men incentives to bother with dating, marriage and family anymore because that would go against the agenda of dumping all responsibility
onto men and making them jump through increasingly unrealistic hoops for things that in the end aren't worth it to anyone who doesn't enjoy living as a sacrificial lamb.

All that aside, there are plenty of vns that cater to any fetish or kink but I hesitate to call any of them SJW because they lack the undertone of propaganda and appear to be genuinely made for
the purpose of entertainment rather than some sort of manifesto. Even when I see things like strong female characters in vns, they don't appear to have their entire character revolve around
that one trait like I've seen in woke western stories. They're far more multi-faceted. That kind of attention to nuance tends to be lacking in SJW works, in my experience. I get a more in-your-face
impression from SJW characters as if they're telling me a message rather than a story.Last modified on 2019-04-04 at 05:47
#36 by cecilyh
2019-04-04 at 14:58
this whole discussion is nonsense.

how many JVNs include SOME plotline that includes ideas like "rape is bad" and have you rescue/protect/avenge a girl from these bad things? surprise, you're supporting #metoo!

how many JVNs include SOME plotline where a girl isn't being allowed to pursue her dreams for some reason and you encourage her? surprise, you're supporting feminism!

and so on

people are just such IDIOTS about things that they assume anyone who isn't 100% like them is either an orange-haired troll with a DIE CIS SCUM mug or an orange-skinned troll with a MAGA hat.
#37 by pabloc
2019-04-04 at 17:17
have you rescue/protect/avenge a girl
you encourage her
Err, if stuff like that was considered "progressive", nobody would have issues with SJWs. But nope, that's not how it works. By the Current Yearâ„¢ standards, girls are strong and independent, and they don't need no man to rescue or encourage them. Take Rey from The Farce Awakens as an example of woke writing. The concept of female characters needing any kind of help is a huge taboo that triggers SJW twitter lynch mobs. :P

Also, #metoo is already corrupted beyond recognition. At this point it stands for completely unethical "guilty until proven innocent", and "listen and believe" concepts, while the original, righteous premise is long gone.Last modified on 2019-04-04 at 17:17
#38 by cecilyh
2019-04-04 at 18:43
that's the thing, people's definitions of "SJW" are completely subjective and varied.

some people think having a female protagonist in a game at all is an SJW thing. or lesbians. or whatever.

you may have an idea in your head of what SJWs are and it may be totally coherent, consistent, and meaningful. but it's not necessarily the same as the next person along from you thinks.

that's why people get frustrated and start saying it means nothing except "a person I don't like".

you say "nobody" would have issues with SJWs if they were just asking for more female characters, but sorry to say there are a bunch of nutjobs out there. there are people who will take issues with anything.

so it's impossible to look for "sjw games with sex scenes" because we can't first agree on what an sjw game is.

if we're talking about Innepennet Wimmin Who Dont Need No Man protagonists, well, Strong Female Protagonist + Sexual Content returns this search list: link

though i have to admit i lol a lot at the idea of Sakura MMO turning up in those results!
#39 by bobjr2000
2019-04-04 at 19:12
rem seeing this first posted and thought this is probably going to be few pages long.

I gotta say its pretty funny as #38 says one of the highest rated game for Strong Female Protagonist + Sexual Content has its biggest tag being non consensual erotic humiliation nothing screams SJW like thatLast modified on 2019-04-04 at 19:14
#40 by truetakuma
2019-04-04 at 22:43
"Social justice warrior (SJW) is a pejorative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism,[1][2] as well as identity politics.[3] The accusation that somebody is an SJW carries implications that they are pursuing personal validation rather than any deep-seated conviction,[4] and engaging in disingenuous arguments."

Its really just that. Problem is, some SJWs are not-so-progressive, but the victim mentality and the political correctness(for their group) and virtue signalling are still there.
#41 by goblincrutch
2019-04-05 at 01:27
If I defined "cow" as a flying space reptile, would that mean the definition of cow is subjective? I think I can see cecilyh's problem though. As language evolves, the general consensus on
definitions of words can change.

Take for example the original definition of gay versus the modern definition. Which is the correct definition? Is the correct definition just determined by the most common usage?
Or is the definition of "correct definition" also subjective? I think there is a reason dictionaries sometimes provide multiple definitions of a single word.

Technically, they're all subjective because words lack a material form and thus can't be defined objectively (which is in itself an oxymoron). In other words (no pun intended) your mind forms
the connection between word and definition. Objectively speaking, there is no connection unless your mind makes one. There is no good/bad, shoulds/shouldn'ts, maybe/maybe nots and so on. There
merely is. I think this quote fits here perfectly:

"Everything we hear is an opinion, not a fact. Everything we see is a perspective, not the truth."

We all have limiting beliefs that prevent us from fully comprehending reality but this is all getting too zen, even for me who often points out subjectivity. Hopefully op found a satisfying answer.
I'm pretty sure they never intended to start this discussion to practice meditation or contemplate universal oneness. Which is a limiting belief. Gah!
#42 by luther
2019-04-08 at 08:47
I learned a lot from this thread.

Reply

You must be logged in to reply to this thread.