Robot Izonkei Joshi no Meiwaku na Nichijou - Vol. 1 Ch. 4.1 - Kiss with a ghost (part 1)
- Thread starter MangaDex
- Start date
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
Author-san is fucking the monkey.
This series should never have had the urination/diaper jokes in the first place, and stretching this adventure over multiple installments is tedious milking.
This series should never have had the urination/diaper jokes in the first place, and stretching this adventure over multiple installments is tedious milking.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2018
- Messages
- 347
>diaper AND piss AND thighs fetish
The author is a gentleman of the highest order.
The author is a gentleman of the highest order.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2019
- Messages
- 3,451
more pee jokes...
thanks
thanks
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2018
- Messages
- 14
.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
Yeah, there had to be at least one urolagniac to claim that he's not the pervert and that it's the rest of us who are the perverts. Uh huh.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2018
- Messages
- 14
.
The diaper thing is so obtrusive yet has no payoff. If you're going to shove your fetish into every chapter at least make it worthwhile through fanservice. This is nothing but "Hey guys, she's wearing diapers, isn't that weird, h-haha?" over and over again. It feels like the author is inserting his fetish while pretending it's just a joke. There's nothing wrong with a manga based on a fetish, but you have to be honest about it. If he wanted to write a diaper fetish manga he should have just made an Omujo! clone.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@JokerDBlue—
Who actually said that you were a urolagniac? Where was it actually said?
(Yes, it is possible for more than one person to play the game of not quite saying things, and then denying having said them at all. But of course who said that anyone were actually doing that?)
Let's say that, instead of references to urine and to diapers, the author instead had references to popsicles and to their waste (sticks and wrappers). Would the results of substituting these elements be funny? Nope. There's no actual joke here; none. Anyone who likes the stuff here with the urine or the diapers has a fetish for one or for both.
And, no, it's not that those of us complaining secretly want to read about urine or diapers. If that were what we wanted, then we'd just keep quiet about reading the series. Instead, we were attracted by the idea of a socially maladjusted child with a sort of genius, or by the story of a robot of this sort, or both. And we tried to read around the goddamn'd urine and diapers, but we're finding that increasingly hard to do, and some of us are therefore ventilating our frustration that a story with elements that we like is polluted.
Who actually said that you were a urolagniac? Where was it actually said?
(Yes, it is possible for more than one person to play the game of not quite saying things, and then denying having said them at all. But of course who said that anyone were actually doing that?)
Let's say that, instead of references to urine and to diapers, the author instead had references to popsicles and to their waste (sticks and wrappers). Would the results of substituting these elements be funny? Nope. There's no actual joke here; none. Anyone who likes the stuff here with the urine or the diapers has a fetish for one or for both.
And, no, it's not that those of us complaining secretly want to read about urine or diapers. If that were what we wanted, then we'd just keep quiet about reading the series. Instead, we were attracted by the idea of a socially maladjusted child with a sort of genius, or by the story of a robot of this sort, or both. And we tried to read around the goddamn'd urine and diapers, but we're finding that increasingly hard to do, and some of us are therefore ventilating our frustration that a story with elements that we like is polluted.
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2018
- Messages
- 14
.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@JokerDBlue—
In response to you, my first rhetoric made use in of the same passive-aggressive technique that you had used and then used again. Spotlighting that technique was the real point of my first paragragh, as should be obvious from its parenthetical note. Yes, we can all see what was being said by each of us.
While replacing the elements in a supposed joke could weaken or strengthen a real joke, the reason that popsicles result in no joke is that here was no joke in the first place. There's just the insertion of references to urine and to diapers. These elements are not in the structure of a joke.
Yes, those who are annoyed or worse can quit, or keep trying to reads around the parts that annoy or disgust them. But, either way, your bullshit claim that we must be reading and complaining as an expression of having such a fetish was exploded.
(People who keep reading and keep complaining will be analogous to those who keep reading Eisner's The Spirit while complaining about the depiction of Ebony White. Such people don't secretly like that depiction, and there's nothing wrong with their interest in the other aspects of the stories.)
The only way in which I was “kind of dishonest” was in adopting your passive-aggressive rhetorical technique to throw it back in your face. And I did so in a way such that all but an idiot could be expected to see what I was doing. You have good reason to shut up, but not because someone else here has been “kind of dishonest”.
Noting that the urine hasn't been shown and that the diapers have not been shown donned (though they've been shown) isn't very insightful. Presumably you wouldn't be so foolish as to claim that a book without pictures or an audio drama could not express a fetish. And, having drawn attention to the lack of showing, you then conclude that it's unimportant anyway. You're flailing.
In response to you, my first rhetoric made use in of the same passive-aggressive technique that you had used and then used again. Spotlighting that technique was the real point of my first paragragh, as should be obvious from its parenthetical note. Yes, we can all see what was being said by each of us.
While replacing the elements in a supposed joke could weaken or strengthen a real joke, the reason that popsicles result in no joke is that here was no joke in the first place. There's just the insertion of references to urine and to diapers. These elements are not in the structure of a joke.
Yes, those who are annoyed or worse can quit, or keep trying to reads around the parts that annoy or disgust them. But, either way, your bullshit claim that we must be reading and complaining as an expression of having such a fetish was exploded.
(People who keep reading and keep complaining will be analogous to those who keep reading Eisner's The Spirit while complaining about the depiction of Ebony White. Such people don't secretly like that depiction, and there's nothing wrong with their interest in the other aspects of the stories.)
The only way in which I was “kind of dishonest” was in adopting your passive-aggressive rhetorical technique to throw it back in your face. And I did so in a way such that all but an idiot could be expected to see what I was doing. You have good reason to shut up, but not because someone else here has been “kind of dishonest”.
Noting that the urine hasn't been shown and that the diapers have not been shown donned (though they've been shown) isn't very insightful. Presumably you wouldn't be so foolish as to claim that a book without pictures or an audio drama could not express a fetish. And, having drawn attention to the lack of showing, you then conclude that it's unimportant anyway. You're flailing.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
- Messages
- 1,225
The comment section of this manga is really weird. Four (or six, I guess) chapters in and people singularly keep complaining about the same thing. Get over it or stop reading, Jeez ...
Especially since this whole "girl peeing herself" is for some reason a stable of Japanese "comedy". There's a crap ton of various manga that include that sort of "gag", either constantly or one-off or whatever. But either way nobody should be surprised by this rather tame repetition of the same old joke not going away any time soon ^^
Especially since this whole "girl peeing herself" is for some reason a stable of Japanese "comedy". There's a crap ton of various manga that include that sort of "gag", either constantly or one-off or whatever. But either way nobody should be surprised by this rather tame repetition of the same old joke not going away any time soon ^^
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2018
- Messages
- 14
.
Dex-chan lover
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2018
- Messages
- 5,156
@JokerDBlue—
When I duplicated the very rhetorical technique that you used, you call me “kind of dishonest”, because — even with a parenthetical note making it pretty clear that I was mimicking that technique (“it is possible for more than one person to play the game”) — you weren't sufficiently intelligent to see that I was subjecting you to the same eristicism that you'd used on others. Apparently, the behavior that you find “kind of dishonest” in others is something in which you engage thoughtlessly.
You keep posting screen-shots of comments that I haven't falsified in the first place, as if these are somehow proof that you're honest. They're simply a variation on your dishonest practice of not quite saying something. In this case, you're not quite saying that I would falsify my comments if you didn't preëmpt such falsification with a screenshot. (Brighter people have, by the way, noticed that there is a time-stamp for the latest edit to any comment, and they understand that one of the purposes of that time-stamp is to thwart falsifications.)
Your extended verbal gyrations (which probably aren't going to be read by anyone else) don't clarify and weren't intended to clarify. We all know that you didn't say what you didn't quite say, just as we all know that I didn't say what I didn't quite say; and yet we understand why you objected to what wasn't quite said about you, and why I wanted to provoke you to object.
The urine and diaper references — which are not jokes because they don't have the structure of jokes — didn't start with the most recent chapter, but have been in every chapter or in nearly every chapter, and they're not like the one-off situations that you pretend are analogous, which is why you resort to the mushy claim that there weren't “a lot”.
When I duplicated the very rhetorical technique that you used, you call me “kind of dishonest”, because — even with a parenthetical note making it pretty clear that I was mimicking that technique (“it is possible for more than one person to play the game”) — you weren't sufficiently intelligent to see that I was subjecting you to the same eristicism that you'd used on others. Apparently, the behavior that you find “kind of dishonest” in others is something in which you engage thoughtlessly.
You keep posting screen-shots of comments that I haven't falsified in the first place, as if these are somehow proof that you're honest. They're simply a variation on your dishonest practice of not quite saying something. In this case, you're not quite saying that I would falsify my comments if you didn't preëmpt such falsification with a screenshot. (Brighter people have, by the way, noticed that there is a time-stamp for the latest edit to any comment, and they understand that one of the purposes of that time-stamp is to thwart falsifications.)
Your extended verbal gyrations (which probably aren't going to be read by anyone else) don't clarify and weren't intended to clarify. We all know that you didn't say what you didn't quite say, just as we all know that I didn't say what I didn't quite say; and yet we understand why you objected to what wasn't quite said about you, and why I wanted to provoke you to object.
The urine and diaper references — which are not jokes because they don't have the structure of jokes — didn't start with the most recent chapter, but have been in every chapter or in nearly every chapter, and they're not like the one-off situations that you pretend are analogous, which is why you resort to the mushy claim that there weren't “a lot”.
Similar threads
