This stream highlight cuts this out but the orginal Japanese dialogue is uh lets just say much more direct and proud about this then you would think. 
Writing like this is making me genuinely worried about the LeonxSherry lathing from creeps. 
this post was submitted on 20 Mar 2026
10 points (100.0% liked)
Games
21264 readers
61 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
- Anti-Edelgard von Hresvelg trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/games and submitted to the site administrators for review. :silly-liberator:
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah that's a totally different point I guess. I don't know anything about SF3 though, just that I don't really see a problem with having a heinous dude with a heinous life in there even if he is personally oblivious to how heinous he is and believes he's a good person.
The problem isn't whether or not he is oblivious to how heinous it is, but whether or not the story is oblivious.
I struggle to see that image of him looking at this person as a child and then marrying her in the exact same picture as anything other than the story being self-aware it's sus behaviour.
I literally can't interpret this in any way other than "lol this is a comic about a grooming incident". It seems totally intentional to me but I completely get that's not going to be seen by anyone but the media-literate.
This isn't a matter of other people lacking media literacy, this is a matter of you projecting your values onto a piece, because your argument is literally "the thing being depicted is bad in my view, therefore it is being depicted as being bad in the narrative's view." You have yet to present an argument for explaining how to establish the view of the narrative here. You have not presented a basis for discerning an anti-grooming narrative from one that romanticizes this paternalizing predation.
Seriously, just imagine someone who was openly into this particular brand of grooming (which should be very legible to people in our cultural contexts because this used to be considered romantic in popular writing!). What are you claiming they would do differently?
I believe it was just such a person who did write this, and therefore they would not necessarily do anything differently, but someone interested in writing an anti-grooming narrative could, I don't know, show just show even the slightest bit of the abusive "reality" behind the supposed Humbert-Humbert-Vision going on here, of Alex controlling her and a look of distress or despair that his austere gaze is oblivious to or ignores. Don't let the whole thing just be radiant light and sincere smiles from her, let her actual perspective leak in so the viewer can see it even if Alex refuses to.
I feel like this is getting unnecessarily heated so I'm gonna dip
I apologize for making you feel that way. After you started talking about how only media literate people could understand how right you are while basically just saying your evidence is a gut reaction, I thought it would be good to delineate as clearly as I could why it doesn't make sense and how someone interested in media literacy could approach things more constructively. Clearly I need to improve how I convey tone.
I didn't say only media-literate would see i'm right. I said only the media-literate would recognise what they're doing with that art strip, that it's an entirely intentional grooming collage.
I understand that it's still bad to display this without clear criticism for those in the audience who won't see that, which is probably most of the audience. I have not actually disagreed with you or anyone else here on that.
You said you knew nothing about street fighter 3 and your still willing to defend this off vibes alone? He was a bad guy. A heel. He already had flaws. This the final part of his redemption arc. How can you still think this some secret 400iq chess move from capcom writers when they went out of their way to proverial 4d chess to write this "sibling relationship" as morally/legally "okay" as they could? Tom has this to say about there relationship. "In his sick head" my ass. Is usagi drop also satire to you?
My mistake for mischaracterizing the scope of your claim.
Regardless, you're not talking about media literacy as such, because identifying the thing in the picture as grooming isn't any sort of nuanced understanding of how media works, it's just knowing what grooming is and making a connection to the literal events on the screen that they fit that definition. Media literacy would involve assessing the specific artistic choices made in the process of that depiction, which are completely consistent with someone who is pro-grooming and lack any evidence of being anti-grooming except that grooming is bad so one might have a gut response that when grooming is depicted, it's meant to be understood as bad. That is not media literacy.
For context, Alex was around 5 when Patricia was born. Him actually grooming her would be a retcon (if thats even possible?) despite the "vibes." Its the least worst part of it but the cousin thing is what actually glues this together into a shit cake. If they weren't blood related (second cousins too lmao) the fandom would be treating it like that time Batman fucked batgirl and would just akwardly ignore it.