Talk:Nutcracker/@comment-24231905-20150922074546

I completely understand the subversive presentation of Nutcracker's character as a sexual, violent monster. I really do. I don't think Nutcracker would be Nutcracker if we took her character design away. (She is such a babe I love her)

But can we please acknowledge that the author, Ishida, is a man who has deliberately constructed her sexualised personality, design, actions etc. A fictional character like Nutcracker cannot actually consent to any of this. Sure, it may seem like Nutcracker would definitely wear something like that and do like something like this, given her in-universe personality, but who do you think made her personality to be like that? (Personally I'm hoping that Ishida wrote Nutcracker because of a female assistant's suggestion but...)

And also, let's remind ourselves that Tokyo Ghoul is a seinen manga, targeted towards older men. Whether or not Ishida intended Nutcracker to be fanservice doesn't matter when male fans are actually aroused by Nutcracker's design, thus being 'serviced'. Please take a look at the comments and you'll see (though arguably there are sexual comments on all female characters, and occasionally male characters, but mostly skimpy female characters tbh). SO basically outcome > intention.

I wanted to just leave my fifty cents here, because often we forget to refer to author, audience and legitimate consent when discussing women objectification vs empowerment.

Unless this has been said before and debunked, then shut up Saigon :(