Moe: A Fetish?

Felori said:
Most moe characters aren't meant to be sexualized, they there to be cute, and moe per se isn't limited to human characters. Animal sidekicks are too and like this kitten:

DoisacChopper said:
look at pokemon fan art

Say-My-Name said:
Moe is whatever makes an anime girl appealing. So no, it's just a term.

ThorLL said:
Moe is designed to be universally liked by men and men do like it. Men like girls like that. I am a guy and I can tell.

ThorLL said:
If you use this term as a derogatory then you are beyond stupid.

katsucats said:
Moe originally refers to an obsessive feeling towards something that there is particular emotional attachment to. For example, some people might feel "moe" towards trains of a particular model, or toward NVIDIA graphics cards, etc. You could call it a non-sexual fetish.

However, in the anime context, the otaku base had different feelings of moe and started to discuss them on internet forums when that became a thing. And as they shared all these moe feelings, the community started to track the popular moe that they agreed on. This produced doujinshi (fanfics), and the ones that targeted popular moe sold well, unsurprisingly. This caught the attention of the anime industry, which then started targeting these moe, and the deliberate act of this targeting in term became known as moe itself.

So, no...

Comments like these are just objectively wrong...

We use this term as a derogatory because it literally detracts from the narrative vision of the artwork to commercialize fetishes so they could sell more figurines later on. Anyone who doesn't see this practice as derogatory just flat out doesn't care about the integrity of anime. They would rather have plot-breaking scenes, like a dextrous female assassin "trips" and blushes because some overweight misogynistic nerds like the idea of clumsy women to fap to. I'm not sure if I would call that beyond stupid, but it is by definition accepting of commercial selling out.

katsucats said:

We use this term as a derogatory because it literally detracts from the narrative vision of the artwork to commercialize fetishes so they could sell more figurines later on. Anyone who doesn't see this practice as derogatory just flat out doesn't care about the integrity of anime. They would rather have plot-breaking scenes, like a dextrous female assassin "trips" and blushes because some overweight misogynistic nerds like the idea of clumsy women to fap to. I'm not sure if I would call that beyond stupid, but it is by definition accepting of commercial selling out.

Mirai said:
Tell that to Vaporeon! God I hate that stupid copy pasta...

katsucats said:
We use this term as a derogatory because it literally detracts from the narrative vision of the artwork to commercialize fetishes so they could sell more figurines later on. Anyone who doesn't see this practice as derogatory just flat out doesn't care about the integrity of anime. They would rather have plot-breaking scenes, like a dextrous female assassin "trips" and blushes because some overweight misogynistic nerds like the idea of clumsy women to fap to. I'm not sure if I would call that beyond stupid, but it is by definition accepting of commercial selling out.

epidemia78 said:

Yeah it's the ones that look like turtles and lizards and stuff that really makes me feel as if I was born in the wrong timeline. Like, why? Why would you even...

LostSpectre said:
How is there anything inherently sexual in that example? The act of tripping and blushing makes this character more endearing to a male audience because they're likely a tough character who is displaying a more vulnerable and or feminine side, it isn't this aspect that translates to erotic desire, it's likely the fact that said character has the body of an IG model or the simple act of wanting to pursue more lewd content of a character that you do find cute, but this step comes later in the process. Like it or not but that example isn't likely to be plot-breaking at all, because anime today rarely intends to depict human realism, characters are a product for the consumer, and you would be missing the forest for the trees if you tried to blame the commercialization of waifu culture on moe itself, we're way past that stage. 

epidemia78 said:
What do you mean "we"? I'm sure most people don't mean what you said when they praise or bash moe. It's not like they're thinking "Ugh, this demeans the art". No they're thinking, "gosh that anime girl is so cute" or "damn, guys who like this stuff are fucking weird."

Anyway I think moe is a dumb word to describe something that was already inherent in anime long before people came up with a dumb word to describe the feeling you get when you see a cute thing.

katsucats said:
I mean "we" as in the fans of anime who have a grasp on the conception of fan service in terms of moe, which was a concept inherent in otaku culture before anime was even identified with that movement. If you don't think breaking the narrative structure to give commercial dog whistles to certain fans is harmful to the art form, then this post wasn't referring to you. In a post-postmodern sense, maybe fan service could be considered an art form in itself, but anyone who doesn't acknowledge even the potential degradation that it causes to the narrative is probably impervious to any kind of literary analysis. If that describes you, good for you, but you're not who I would be talking to. But I bet there are plenty of people who sees this and does recognize the harm, even if they don't know what "moe" means or how anime got to this state -- in fact, contrary to your characterization, I bet most people could take the next step and make the leap from "damn, guys who like this stuff are fucking weird" to "damn, this show would be better without this fucking weird shit."

epidemia78 said:


you're gonna run into problems if you go around saying that anime would be better without moe when you have such an oddly specific definition of the word. Nobody but you thinks moe means "random fanservice that undermines the narrative".