Anime & Manga News

Station Cites Principal's Arrest for Pulling Nymphet

by shinigami2086
Oct 11, 2007 9:27 PM | 48 Comments
The TV Saitama station in Japan has explained in a statement on October 11 that it suspended its broadcast of the controversial Kodomo no Jikan (Nymphet) television anime series "out of consideration for the community in light of the [alleged] solicitation of children by an elementary school vice-principal in Sapporo and other incidents." The Sapporo arrest is unrelated to the recent, alleged axe assault incidents by minors that caused stations to preempt the School Days and Higurashi no Naku Koro Ni Kai anime series.

The Kodomo no Jikan anime series is based on a manga of the same name that was created by Kaworu Watashiya and serialized in Futabasha's Comic High manga magazine. It tells the story of three elementary schoolgirls, one of whom has a crush on their new teacher. This one girl in particular puts the teacher in many embarassing situations with her unsubtle advances.

The TV Saitama and Mie TV stations both announced that they will suspend or delay their broadcasts of Kodomo no Jikan. KBS Kyoto and Chiba TV are currently still planning to premiere the program on early Friday morning and early Saturday morning, respectively.

54-year-old Takayuki Hosoda, a vice-principal of an elementary school in the northern Japanese city of Sapporo, was arrested on October 1 on suspicion of soliciting obscene behavior from a 16-year-old girl for 6,000 yen (about US$50.00) on the evening of September 21, after meeting her in a "deai-kei cafe." He is also accused of shooting obscene photographs and movies of about 600 girls. A deai-kei cafe or deai cafe ("cafe for encounters") is a business designed to introduce potential partners to each other in booths. The suspect allegedly contributed his material to magazines from 2000 to 2007, and received about 18,000,000 yen (US$150,000) in compensation. Sapporo's board of education ordered the vice-principal's disciplinary dismissal on October 10.

20 of 48 Comments Recent Comments

Looks like Japan can never get enough. ^^;

Oct 16, 2007 3:42 AM by Purin

SamuraiTom said:
Would it make you feel better if I say that Kaworu Watashiya, the person behind Kodomo no Jikan, is a woman?


Holy Shit! I didn't know that, I...just didn't think women are willing to draw that...I mean, i know there are female hentai manga authors that draw stuff catered to men, but...Wow...

Oct 16, 2007 12:53 AM by rayyhum777

Torisunanohokori said:
rkrempel said:
Sure, why not? I see your point, but I'd argue that most nuclear arsenals are not in significantly wiser hands where they are right now anyway. ;-) Seriously though, as there's a rather fundamental difference in a decision being detrimental to yourself or to others, taking my argument to an extreme would more aptly be trusting a depressed 13 year old with a suicide pill.

And even to *that* question I'm slightly ambiguous. 13 is awfully young, but from what I remember, and I wasn't particularly rebellious, I was perfectly capable of making my own mistakes by then.


First of all, how well you thought you could make your own decisions at age 13 is an extremely invalid type of anecdotal evidence, which numerous studies contradict. ( I remember reading that someone wanted to see said studies, so here they are;

1.<http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=news-in-rev/teen-frontal>
2.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35524-2000Mar8>
3.<http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/11/10/parents_get_look_at_teens_brains/>

Nontechnical articles, but they cite legit studies and do a fair job of summarizing them.)

In their childhood/teenage years, people have impulsive judgement which can cause you to act dangerously, be it to yourself or others.

rkrempel said:
Accidents statistics basically scream at you that males under 25 should not be allowed to drive. This can actually save lives, but no country in the world is prepared to go that far.
So the awnser is: We don't draw lines. We make it up as we go along, and there will be "acceptable losses". Freedom = collateral damage.


Are you familiar with the the American historical period of prohibition? Some things, such as raising the driving age by 10 years, would just be difficult to enforce, especially with those 16-25 who have or will soon receive their permit/liscense. Also, there are legitimate commercial reasons, such as the lack of public transit in suburbs and the need of some students to earn money for education/college beyond what they can pay. Deaths in auto accidents are not considered "acceptable losses" by any but the most cynical. The government and to a lesser extent, private companies, do work at improving safety standards because it inspires confidence in automotive transportation.

rkrempel said:
My point is that when it comes to freedom, I'd really hate to draw a clear line anywhere.


You give up some freedoms from the moment you become a citizen of a nation. Everybody here who has not legally become a noncitizen is currently doing so. People give up certain rights in exchange for cooperation with and protection from others; that's what government is. And in order to give that protection, it is necessary that which rights one surrenders and which rights one keeps must be clearly enumerated. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Your right to swing your fist stops where the other man's fist begins."


All the above arguments are valid.
Also, I realized that to me, the most disgusting part is that the vice principal sell these photos for a profit. The saddest part, however, is that people buy them.

ZoiQ said:
:< Animu scapegoat of japan
video games scapegoat of the rest of the world 8D


That is true. For a long time, the term "Otaku" was considered derogatory in Japan because the term was coined for a serial killer in the late '80s. When he was caught and the police raided his home, they found lots and lots of anime-related items, and that he didn't go out very often or had enough social skills. He was not a NEET, because he had a job and met people.
This is the same thing that a lot of people in the States are doing - blaming TV, movies, and games for all the violence that kids do. I'm not saying if that's totally wrong or totally right, but that's the fact.


Oct 16, 2007 12:48 AM by rayyhum777

rkrempel said:
Sure, why not? I see your point, but I'd argue that most nuclear arsenals are not in significantly wiser hands where they are right now anyway. ;-) Seriously though, as there's a rather fundamental difference in a decision being detrimental to yourself or to others, taking my argument to an extreme would more aptly be trusting a depressed 13 year old with a suicide pill.

And even to *that* question I'm slightly ambiguous. 13 is awfully young, but from what I remember, and I wasn't particularly rebellious, I was perfectly capable of making my own mistakes by then.


First of all, how well you thought you could make your own decisions at age 13 is an extremely invalid type of anecdotal evidence, which numerous studies contradict. ( I remember reading that someone wanted to see said studies, so here they are;

1.<http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=news-in-rev/teen-frontal>
2.<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35524-2000Mar8>
3.<http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2005/11/10/parents_get_look_at_teens_brains/>

Nontechnical articles, but they cite legit studies and do a fair job of summarizing them.)

In their childhood/teenage years, people have impulsive judgement which can cause you to act dangerously, be it to yourself or others.

rkrempel said:
Accidents statistics basically scream at you that males under 25 should not be allowed to drive. This can actually save lives, but no country in the world is prepared to go that far.
So the awnser is: We don't draw lines. We make it up as we go along, and there will be "acceptable losses". Freedom = collateral damage.


Are you familiar with the the American historical period of prohibition? Some things, such as raising the driving age by 10 years, would just be difficult to enforce, especially with those 16-25 who have or will soon receive their permit/liscense. Also, there are legitimate commercial reasons, such as the lack of public transit in suburbs and the need of some students to earn money for education/college beyond what they can pay. Deaths in auto accidents are not considered "acceptable losses" by any but the most cynical. The government and to a lesser extent, private companies, do work at improving safety standards because it inspires confidence in automotive transportation.

rkrempel said:
My point is that when it comes to freedom, I'd really hate to draw a clear line anywhere.


You give up some freedoms from the moment you become a citizen of a nation. Everybody here who has not legally become a noncitizen is currently doing so. People give up certain rights in exchange for cooperation with and protection from others; that's what government is. And in order to give that protection, it is necessary that which rights one surrenders and which rights one keeps must be clearly enumerated. As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Your right to swing your fist stops where the other man's fist begins."

Oct 15, 2007 7:27 PM by Torisunanohokori

Torisunanohokori said:
However, making decisions requires responsibility, or (to take your argument to an extreme as you did to mine) would you leave any 13 year old in charge of a nuclear arsenal? I would assume not.


Sure, why not? I see your point, but I'd argue that most nuclear arsenals are not in significantly wiser hands where they are right now anyway. ;-) Seriously though, as there's a rather fundamental difference in a decision being detrimental to yourself or to others, taking my argument to an extreme would more aptly be trusting a depressed 13 year old with a suicide pill.

And even to *that* question I'm slightly ambiguous. 13 is awfully young, but from what I remember, and I wasn't particularly rebellious, I was perfectly capable of making my own mistakes by then.

Torisunanohokori said:
How do you judge capability at such a young age? Where would you draw the line? <snip-snip-snip> A person with an IQ of 210 can still die doing something stupid.


Accidents statistics basically scream at you that males under 25 should not be allowed to drive. This can actually save lives, but no country in the world is prepared to go that far.
So the awnser is: We don't draw lines. We make it up as we go along, and there will be "acceptable losses". Freedom = collateral damage.

Torisunanohokori said:
Whoo-ee, we are getting increasingly off on more and more obscure tangents.


Indeed we stray. I'm indirectly defending an anime I have not a clue about (allthough the pitch does sound amusing), as no doubt some are likewise attacking it. My point is that when it comes to freedom, I'd really hate to draw a clear line anywhere.

Oct 15, 2007 5:01 PM by rkrempel

:< Animu scapegoat of japan
video games scapegoat of the rest of the world 8D

Oct 15, 2007 6:12 AM by zq

People can QQ all they want but someone will air it :D

Oct 14, 2007 8:55 PM by DayToDie

YourMessageHere said:
Psychology shouldn't be confused with psychiatry, which is exacting and medical, and deals with facts that can be proven. Psychology by contrast is totally theoretical by nature, and like sociology, philosophy or political theory, cannot prove anything, it can only suggest. When dealing with human development, all you can really say with certainty is that some people develop faster than others, and that can be independently true mentally, physically or emotionally.


Psychology is a science in which research of human behaviors and thought processes are studied through the collection and analysis of empirical (factual) data in accordance with the scientific method. It's basic goals are the description, explaination, prediction, and control of behaviors. This does not mean that psychologists are evil scientists who mean to manipulate the human race, as they use their knowledge to help humanity. While "some people develop faster than others", the data and theories of Psychology have, as a whole strong scientific merit. In the same way that any given person may smoke eight packs a day and live to age 86, it doesn't change the fact that, as a whole, smokers die young. Anecdotal evidence can be dredged up for any particular case, but that doesn't prove anything other than a possiblity. To call Psychology unscientific shows a gross misunderstanding of what it actually involves.

rkrempel said:
I was going to start with "millions of years of evolution, ... :-p", but instead I'll just say that I find some part of that argument dangerous. That certain individuals are not "developed enough" or do nor have enough of a "coherent perspective on life" to [insert basic human right here] has been abused as an argument far too much.


I'm aware of and scared of another Buck vs. Bell (1905) style legal ruling, but that's not what this argument means. Arguments like it have, grented, been used to justify slavery, the Holocaust, the Inquisition, and countless other human ills. However, making decisions requires responsibility, or (to take your argument to an extreme as you did to mine) would you leave any 13 year old in charge of a nuclear arsenal? I would assume not.

The problem that lawmakers struggle with when setting and/or changing legal ages for sex, voting, drugs, alcohol, employment, and so on, is this; where does one draw the line? How do you judge capability at such a young age? Where would you draw the line? It can't be subjective (i.e. "I think this kid is definately civically conscious enough to vote"). Subjecting people to intelligence test (which incedentally have inherent cultural biases, tending to bias the results in favor of the culture by which they were designed) wouldn't work, as it fails to test the capacity to handle power/responsibility. A person with an IQ of 210 can still die doing something stupid.

In fact, any litmus test capable of drawing anything other than a solid line would necessarily exclude at least one group of people. (Why? Otherwise, why is the test there in the first place, as it might as well be drawing a solid line.) Therefore, by a logical conclusion of your argument, said group of people are not capable, and that violates the basic premise of your argument.

Whoo-ee, we are getting increasingly off on more and more obscure tangents. Not that it matters much, as forums are places of free discussion. I gave my reasons why I feel the way I do in my first post, but I'll continue posting as long as it remains necessary to show you (collectively) that this series being dropped (from one station only) has solid merit. If you're going to answer me with logic, be my guest.

Oct 14, 2007 8:31 PM by Torisunanohokori

rkrempel said:
Torisunanohokori said:
However, decades of psychological research on child development have proven conclusively that absolutely no-one under 14 (and the data then tends to conflict, generally ranging from 14-21) has developed enough of a coherent perspective on life in general and sex in particular to truly give (keyword) informed consent.


I was going to start with "millions of years of evolution, ... :-p", but instead I'll just say that I find some part of that argument dangerous. That certain individuals are not "developed enough" or do nor have enough of a "coherent perspective on life" to [insert basic human right here] has been abused as an argument far too much.


I second that. If you know anything about psychology, you realise that by its nature, it pretty much precludes use of phrases like "proven conclusively". Psychology shouldn't be confused with psychiatry, which is exacting and medical, and deals with facts that can be proven. Psychology by contrast is totally theoretical by nature, and like sociology, philosophy or political theory, cannot prove anything, it can only suggest. When dealing with human development, all you can really say with certainty is that some people develop faster than others, and that can be independently true mentally, physically or emotionally.

Oct 14, 2007 5:26 PM by YourMessageHere

Torisunanohokori said:
However, decades of psychological research on child development have proven conclusively that absolutely no-one under 14 (and the data then tends to conflict, generally ranging from 14-21) has developed enough of a coherent perspective on life in general and sex in particular to truly give (keyword) informed consent.


I was going to start with "millions of years of evolution, ... :-p", but instead I'll just say that I find some part of that argument dangerous. That certain individuals are not "developed enough" or do nor have enough of a "coherent perspective on life" to [insert basic human right here] has been abused as an argument far too much.

Oct 14, 2007 6:01 AM by rkrempel

Uh, you need to remember that the whole "18 to be legal" thing doesn't apply to everywhere... For example... Holland where it's 15 and if you have the queens permission, 12. Of course no one's ever managed to get permission. We're all so very fond of our laws that dictate who we can and cannot fall in love with.


Actually, in the Netherlands it's 16 or older, NOT 15 (WvStr(~dutch penal code) art. 247). The 12-15 cathegory is somewhat special in that while prohibited, it is only prosecuted in response to charges by the parents or child services (not the child itself, since a minor technically cannot file charges).

Anyway, in the Netherlands, your possible status as a social outcast aside, when 16, you're old enough to decide whith whom you have sex with. From a biological and historical viewpoint, people could easily be considered adults from ages as young as 13.

Also, let's not try to make the image of our societies any nicer than they really are. We *know* kids of 13-14 are "already" having sex "these days" and not always with people from their own agegroup. What good does supressing any art or literature that touches the subject do? I'm sure that a large agedifference between partners introduces a huge number of extra problems into a relationship. Better to explore and expose them rather than to close our eyes and ears and hope they go away.

However, this is general comment. From the other comments I gather that the anime in question is little more than an excuse to show teenage girls with less clothing than is socially acceptable. So, if a station doesn't want to air the show, that's completely within their rights to do so.

Oct 14, 2007 5:27 AM by rkrempel

You know what is the most strange?
That all those cases appear when the anime start/is running.
No one give a damn shit about those incidents, when there is no one to blame...

Oct 14, 2007 4:48 AM by Enerccio

Torisunanohokori said:
And regarding the laws that I'm "so very fond of"


I'll apologize if you felt that was directed at you, it was not intended to be, it was just a sarcastic jab at politics in general. Not having even so much as heard of the tests you mention all I can offer is an uninformed "bull". But after I do some digging that may change but I don't personally believe that this is the sort of thing that can be charted, graphed, and written down as absolute. I'm not even going to touch the last two sentences because all I can come up with sounds far to much like a flame. But hey, if you can link to some information on the studies you mentioned, I'd be grateful.

Oct 14, 2007 3:42 AM by UTK

True, not mine but someone others.

Oct 14, 2007 2:51 AM by Enerccio

Enerccio said:
They should read and research something before judging

Enerccio said:
Almost every pedophile thinks that LOLI IS STUPID.... >:(

Product of your own extensive research, I trust?

Oct 14, 2007 1:45 AM by BadSeafood

Whats wrong with them?
Oh come one, just what the fuck?
They should read and research something before judging and using anime a scapegoat.
Almost every pedophile thinks that LOLI IS STUPID.... >:(

Oct 14, 2007 1:35 AM by Enerccio

well, ppl will flame back and forth whenever it comes to Kojika. I think most ppl here who know me know my opinion on Kojika, but for this particular case I can't say the action taken was inappropriate. In fact, this is rather welcome news because then it increases the chances that this "pull" is actually a delay a la "NICE BOAT". If the pull was for no specific reason, then it'd be lame because then it'd be indefinite and society's intolerance would have won.

Oct 14, 2007 12:16 AM by kei-clone

SamuraiTom said:
Would it make you feel better if I say that Kaworu Watashiya, the person behind Kodomo no Jikan, is a woman?


No. Regardless of whether a man or a woman made it, it is what it is. Black rappers can use the n-word, but that doesn't make it any better.

UTK said:
Uh, you need to remember that the whole "18 to be legal" thing doesn't apply to everywhere... For example... Holland where it's 15 and if you have the queens permission, 12. Of course no one's ever managed to get permission. We're all so very fond of our laws that dictate who we can and cannot fall in love with.


The point I made was not so much that it is illegal as that there is a reason why. Granted, 18 years is an differing figure, and varies throughout cultures. However, decades of psychological research on child development have proven conclusively that absolutely no-one under 14 (and the data then tends to conflict, generally ranging from 14-21) has developed enough of a coherent perspective on life in general and sex in particular to truly give (keyword) informed consent. And nonconsentual sex is rape, pure and simple.

And regarding the laws that I'm "so very fond of": Just because something is supported by soccer moms (and I can't tell you how much I hate soccer moms) doesn't make it bad. Also granted, humans do tend to keep some weird institutions of thought around (UK House of Lords, etc.). Nonetheless, if you closely examine laws, you'll find that the vast majority of them have firm logical bases (second amendment, copyrights, no liquids on planes, etc.), even those that may seem to you to be inconvenient or prejudiced.

In conclusion, if you don't really know why it is the way it is, it would be worth your while to take the time to learn. Because if you do know the why of the way it is, you'll be free to attack it all you want.

Oct 13, 2007 11:49 PM by Torisunanohokori

Torisunanohokori said:
5. There's a reason why underage stuff is against the law, and it's a good one. It isn't just about social aversions, it's about being of legal age (18) to give consent and be responsible.


Uh, you need to remember that the whole "18 to be legal" thing doesn't apply to everywhere... For example... Holland where it's 15 and if you have the queens permission, 12. Of course no one's ever managed to get permission. We're all so very fond of our laws that dictate who we can and cannot fall in love with.

Oct 13, 2007 8:49 PM by UTK

Probably not. -.-

Oct 13, 2007 8:43 PM by WinterNightsFall