Boku no Pico/Reviews

About this board

Not editable

Reviews of Boku no Pico

Good, but not excellent.

HLIAA14YOG (talkcontribs)

Despite what Internet memes may describe, this is not horror beyond the stars ready to devour your brain. And we know it's not because it involves fictional underage people that those memes are created, because I don't see memes of such intensity about lolicon.

Boku no Pico is part of a sub-genre of porn known as "trap". Let me explain: "we draw a girl, voice like it a girl if our work has voice, and then make the character a male". Who the hell does these appeals to, you ask? Good question, but it is certainly falling more on the straight male/lesbian side of the equation than standard gay porn.

Pornography is an extremely subjective topic. If it doesn't tingle your senses in a positive way, it's like speaking alien language. Or, you know, horrify or disgust the hell out of you. Many people commit the error of watching certain kinds of pornography and then saying, "that aspect ruined the work for me". Milady, please, it was never meant for you. It's like watching a slow drama of a girl afflicted with cancer and expecting car chases and explosions.

Let me talk about the aspects that aren't fetish-specific: this series is well-animated and drawn. One may say, it's even high-refined. Saigado, who is an artist most well-known for doujinshis of The King of Fighters in the West, put all his effort in drawing skinny and the same time curvy bodies here. Despite looking feminine, they still look sufficiently masculine and don't delve into the uncanny valley, if a little stylized. The animators also make good of their budget and the animation comes off as fluid and natural as can be for a hentai OVA, who aren't exactly high budget anyway.

The story is basically an excuse for porn and with such a short runtime it even couldn't not be. It makes up for it with well-animated scenes. The voice-acting is also very professional.

But look, for the love of God, stay away from this if you're not into the trap genre. It will only horrify and disturb you. And remember: a bunch of twenty-year old women voiced those drawn boys. No minors were harmed. Just like those three billion of people in the last disaster movie you saw. I'm more afraid of Trey Parker putting his daughter Betty to say swear words on South Park.

Umbire the Phantom (talkcontribs)

...this seems less like a review of the material and more like a "review" of another review, given it only engages in token acknowledgment of the work and doesn't engage with any real criticism of it except to play pretty overt defense.

Anyone who says this series doesn't cater to pedophiles is full of it.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

FYI, due to the magic of this shit being common spam on 4chan in response to a lot of stupid shit, I decided to see what the hell it was all about.

I want my innocence back.

The first episode is basically about the series protagonist getting turned into a sex toy by an older guy. Seriously, unless you an outright pedophile apologist, there is no way in hell this would not be considered child porn if it was live action.

The second episode has a very small amount of legal age heterosexual activity, namely the protagonist's older sister getting herself off with a banana, but most of it is dedicated to Boku (series protagonist) having sex with an even younger boy named Chico, and if the first episode didn't make you ill (assuming you aren't into shotacon), this will. Even more disgusting, the older sister happen to catch them in the act by the end, and proceeds to jack off to it.

The third and final episode adds a third boy to the mix, Coco, who also cross dresses as girl, like the other two guys did in episode 2, and the third episode ends with all three having sex with each other.

Again, the only reason this isn't considered actual child porn is because it's animated and thus in the legal gray area of "as long as no actual kids are getting harmed".

Still, I have no doubt shit like this has gotten many a deviant with pedophilic urges off, and dammit, I still want my innocence back.

Flyingcat (talkcontribs)

Who's saying this doesn't cater to pedophiles? People on 4chan?

Robkelk (talkcontribs)

Again, the only reason this isn't considered actual child porn is because it's animated and thus in the legal gray area of "as long as no actual kids are getting harmed".

That loophole does not exist in Canada. Depictions are just as illegal as photographs here, and thus this work is child pornography in Canada.

Which is one reason why I've never seen it. (Another is that I have no interest in the subject matter.)

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Be grateful you haven't. I just had to see why it was so horrible and yes, it was just as bad as I was told. To this day I'm still sure I can shower all I like and will never be completely clean.

Max Sinister (talkcontribs)

The one thing I don't understand:

Why did you watch the entire thing?! The description of the first scene should be sufficient to prove: No matter how the rest is, it can't possibly save the reputation of it. What do the people praising it want to tell us, that BnP contained the secret how to cure cancer?! Anyone should've understood if you stopped there.

And I don't understand why you listened to a suggestion coming from 4chan in the first place. Anyone who knows them also knows that they're very rarely nice guys.

I just mean - the 4chan guys didn't exactly point a gun to your head, forcing you to watch it, did they?

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Because when TV Tropes started banning all mention of it, I just had to see, in it's entirety, what was so horrible about it.

What I saw was morally vile, no question. That said, I did NOT see the reason to ban all discussion of it, vile or not. Under the laws of my country, it was not illegal to view nor discuss in an academic context. As I mentioned in a reply to you on your talk page, I've read the works of the Marquis de Sade, a man who wrote a lot of similar vile material involving underage sexual material long before I was born. His work turned my stomach too. Regardless, I saw no reason, legally speaking, to ban discussion over it.

As for 4chan, I just wanted to know where all memes about spamming it got their context, and now I'm more than well aware. And as for why I watched the whole thing, I believe, like the average reviewer of media, that I need to see the whole, unedited media, in order to better understand it. No matter how vile or glorious it might be. I've done the same to many other works I found morally detestable by my own standards but TV Tropes also saw fit to ban for reasons that had no reasonable legal basis, because I wanted to see if their logic for their banning discussion of any of it amounted to more than moral outrage.

Having seen it all in it's entirety, I can safely say no, their reason boiled down to mere moral outrage, not anything based on formal law banning even academic discussion of it's contents. It's why I helped found All The Tropes, because the way I and the other founders saw it, we were did not see any reason to ban discussion of something simply because of more outrage.

Gustave Flaubert got heat for Madame Bovary during his era, simply because it depicted a woman of loose morals without overtly criticizing her, and when he was sued over it, he won on the grounds that mere moral offense is not a good reason to ban a work, discussion of it, or the right of others to look at it despite their moral outrage or lack thereof.

So let's be clear. Morally, there are some things that are intensely repulsive to me and the other founders of this site (including the work this page is discussing), but we agreed from day one mere moral offense was NOT enough to reason to play censor without ironclad legal precedent, and we decided this in direct opposition to TV Tropes taking the same position you are arguing, that mere offense without legal grounds is sufficient reason.

Ergo, as vile as this is, it deserves to be discussed as a work of media, regardless of it's morality, so long as one can legally do so, and I will personally choke down my bile to defend the right of others to do so because I'd rather the light of day expose the truth about what is truly vile by simply letting the truth stand on it's own without playing censor.

Max Sinister (talkcontribs)

Sade guy wrote his... works during the French Revolution. Well, as it happens, history happens to be one of my geeky hobbies (that's how I became admin at the AltHistory Wikia). The French revolutionaries (Napoleon I too) banned the works in question. Why, if they were so much into liberty? Because they also put high value on virtue. And pedoshit is about as far from virtue as possible.

There have to be some compromises re: ideals. Just as it isn't possible to have both perfect liberty and equality in the same place at the same time.

GethN7 (talkcontribs)

Well, as horrifying as some things are, they exist. And if I and other can legally discuss it and it falls within the scope of this wiki as a work of media to discuss, we will.

The virtue we (and especially I) hold most dear is shining a light on media, regardless of its morality, so long as that is legal to do so. I was morally revolted by the work this page discusses, but if others do not share my opinion, that is something I leave to their own conscience and values. It exists regardless of my moral feelings, and is legal to discuss, so it will not be denied, censored, or silenced, except as required by applicable law.

There are no older topics