Sasaki to Pii-chan Episode 6 Discussion

Small mention of the plane. As I thought, it was a freight plane, so no passengers. That still leaves the pilot, though.

I see woke people on social media shit on this show for "middle-aged man with young girls romance", yet here I am and I'm gonna be upset if there WON'T be some romance with one of the girls towards the end :P Y'all need to stop saying "kids", all girls so far are of legal age of consent, ignoring that they're drawings anyway.

The boss excusing his surveillance cameras was bs, though. First of all, gay or not, spying on people isn't ok. Secondly, being gay means your spying on men is problematic. And saying "ah, but it's ok because you're not my type" is TOTALLY not an excuse. Should have just been blunt and said "so what? safety measures are necessary", the end.

And I still don't get why Sasaki was in fincanial worries. What kept him from bringing some gold from the isekai and sell it in Japan? Easy money.

@MyllerPhiem Yeah it's kind of funny when it's done on a guy, someone can get away with spying by saying "Oh you're not my type". But imagine if he was straight and then said the same thing to Hoshizaki "Oh you're not my type". No one would be ok with that.

I also don't know why people find it weird Hoshizaki is sixteen and has a crush on Sasaki, as if something like that can't happen. It's not like being sixteen means she's immune to developing feelings for anyone.

It's just the proactive puritanical squads at work again, treating human biology, psychology, and sexuality which manifests even every single day in the real world as if it's a foreign or alien concept or somehow off-limits or too taboo to portray in television and film.

I would say that neither it nor anything else is ever "problematic" in fiction. As for the real world, it all depends on the individual circumstances involved and variables at play I would say. Every single situation, individual, and set of individuals should be looked at differently rather than sweeping generalizations based on age or any other grouping which, even if applicable to a majority, will never ever be applicable to all (other than basic biological facts separating ages, sexes, ethnic groups, and species).



I agree with the sentiment although I would add a qualifier by saying that I wouldn't refer to it as "people" as in "all people" or "all modern people in the year 2024 of the 21st century". More like a seeming majority of people in certain specific cultures and/or who subscribe to specific ideologies/worldviews.

I strongly disagree. Illegal? That depends on the jurisdiction. Not only has it been different across different countries and cultures everywhere historically, but even today that is true. And beyond that, even down to the subnational administrative level (in different states, provinces, regions, prefectures, etc.) it is different even within the same country. So legally it's very much an ever-changing and arbitrary thing.

Immoral? That entirely depends on your own ideology and worldview. Your or another person's morality or general conception of morality is certainly not my own and vice versa, so that's not a view or sentiment I share at all. But as I mentioned, how I view it is entirely dependent upon the individual variables at play in any given situation. I never ever generalize based on age (apart from acknowledgment of basic biological facts) and never ever will.

Also, what is factually legal and what someone considers moral or not, as always, are two very different things, across all places in all eras.



Modern people in certain countries who adhere to certain ideologies, yes. It's too much of a generalization of the entire global population.

Well, I am very much both a moral relativist and postmodernist in this sense. I agree that it's a fundamental difference which goes beyond just the one example of ages involved in romance and sex. It's something which bleeds into, carries over, and applies to all areas of life. If you disagree with my stance on this then it is just very much an irreconcilable philosophical difference in opposing conceptions of life and the world. Not something which will really be resolved. These schools of thought will always be at odds and at war.

Well, the issue is that what is considered "rational" or "extreme" to begin with differs from one person to another and is wholly subjective. For example, on the romance and sex involving different age groups issue which initiated this exchange, I very much consider my stance and view on the issue entirely rational and yours extreme. And presumably vice versa. And you can just go down the list, down the line and apply that to an endless number of issues and conflicts in the world. Someone's rational will always be another's extreme. It's can't and will never be distinguished by appeals to what are, in effect, outgrowths of absolutism and universalism (like one absolutely morally true and universally-applicable stance on any given issue; it doesn't exist).