>>217097
>>217099
Definitely agree, but I've seen people make automatic assumptions on body type once the word comes up. Here is some UTokyo PhD candidate dude writing on moe, with some emphasis on said conflation:
http://www.japanesestudies.org.uk/articles/2009/Galbraith.html
It also mentions another essay that has these "moe principles":
"1. A moe character cannot be aware of her own appeal.
2. The greater an image's emphasis on style and fetish symbol at the expense of narrative, ambience and relationships, the less relevant propriety becomes.
3. The closer the viewer (or his narrative proxy) becomes to a moe character, the harder it is for her to maintain her sense of propriety.
4. The viewer's emotional response to a moe image is a function of the convergence of his position relative to the image with the heroine's state of maidenly virtue as depicted therein."
Dude even breaks down archetypes depending on the "access to or distance from the character" perceived by the viewer; from "pure love" to "erotic-cute".
Word-dump, but I was a tad surprised that there were Serious Essays on the topic. And then I remembered that academia will find a way to define the hell out of something.
