FrothySolutions
Post like the FBI is watching.
★★★★★
- Joined
- May 6, 2018
- Posts
- 19,847
But I'm the weirdo for noticing how they sexualize her like this??? They got loli cunny just out on mainstream artworks and I can't call that what it is?
Damm thought the same thing till you pointed it out.I thought this was @Sheogorath's post at first glance.
It's just snow angels bro I think you're reading too much into it.They got Pebbles Flintstone with her legs spread
It's not sexualizing - it's innocent, yea it's impressive how far apart her legs can get but that's unsurprising for a baby since they're super-flexible.But I'm the weirdo for noticing how they sexualize her like this???
There isn't any cunny OP her groin is covered, you're overreacting.They got loli cunny just out on mainstream artworks and I can't call that what it is?
Naw even I'm not this autistic and lewd.I thought this was @Sheogorath's post at first glance.
snow angels are timeless wholesome classics and everyone's wearing thick snowpants so there's nothing lewd about it.
Or SHOULD be anyway ... I'd say that's the primary problem with all of this - not that Pebbles is spreading her legs but that she's not wearing snowpants.
But I'm the weirdo for noticing how they sexualize her like this??? They got loli cunny just out on mainstream artworks and I can't call that what it is?
View attachment 977371
I can tell you that most of us here weren't thinking of a child's vagina when they saw that.I can't be the only one who sees this.
Strange hill to die on
alright you are watching too much porn, I see nothing suggestive
Some pantyshots are more obvious fanservice than others.This is like trying to explain when pantyshots are and aren't fanservice. I can't be the only one who sees this.
I mean shit even I wouldn't have fixated on this if I saw a box of Fruity Pebbles I'd just be thinking of the Cena/Rock feudI can tell you that most of us here weren't thinking of a child's vagina when they saw that.
You're definitely the weirdo here, buddy boyo.
the actresses in cuties were between 11 and 14 - they were all mid-pubescent and had begun to undergo thelarche to develop sexual characteristics, and were doing obvious "twerking" movements meant to entice men's lust because the dance move is well known to emulate sexual gyrationsPointing out when things are sexual to those who don't see that they're sexual is THE hill, without it we'd be watching Cuties Too because no one would understand what was wrong with it.
Some pantyshots are more obvious fanservice than others.
Generally fanservice is when they make a point of embellishing it and getting off on the girl's embarassment and insecurity.
Heidi of the Alps for example has a pair of brief panty shots when Heidi's on the swings in the opening song. I wouldn't call that fanservice because it's innocent not prurient, doesn't embellish sexuality or embarassment. Back when this show aired people couldn't pause TVs and fixate on a single frame like they do now, it was just like "hey draw her on the swings" and the artist but that in because that's what happens on swings.
the actresses in cuties were between 11 and 14 - they were all mid-pubescent and had begun to undergo thelarche to develop sexual characteristics, and were doing obvious "twerking" movements meant to entice men's lust because the dance move is well known to emulate sexual gyrations
This is very different from a toddler doing snow angels in the snow. Snow angels are just abduction of the limbs to form a pattern, it is a simplistic two-dimensional movement on a single plane which isn't the slightest bit sexual, even women who "starfish" are more 3D in their posture than this.
11-14 aren't very smallHold on, what does them being 11-14 have to do with anything?
Very small children can be victims of sexualization/predation.
yes but not pedophilic sexualizationThe rest of the argument is "Is this sexualization?" And I say it is.
alright you are watching too much porn, I see nothing suggestive
11-14 aren't very small
and they're not prepubescent, so it's not pedophilia
yes but not pedophilic sexualization
Pedophilia is a fixation on pre-adolescent boys whether or not it results in actual predatorial behavior or not.Regardless of whether or not you differentiate between pedophiles and "pedophiles who only prey on pubescent children,"
I know that, but equating Pebbles doing snow-angels (not a sexual move at all IMO - I did them myself as a kid) to the twerking done in Cuties just seems like a strange parallel to draw.Pebbles is far removed from puberty. And what I'm saying is, her not being pubescent doesn't make her or any other kid immune to being sexualized.
I don't see it as sexualization - it's weird she's not wearing snowpants but that's just dumbass caveman fashion.And here she is being sexualized. My argument is that this is pedophilic sexualization.
Pedophilia is a fixation on pre-adolescent boys whether or not it results in actual predatorial behavior or not.
I know that, but equating Pebbles doing snow-angels (not a sexual move at all IMO - I did them myself as a kid) to the twerking done in Cuties just seems like a strange parallel to draw.
I don't see it as sexualization - it's weird she's not wearing snowpants but that's just dumbass caveman fashion.
It's not a sexual pose, she's just doing leg abduction. That's standard in snow angels.
Did the clip I posted from Snow Snaps also sexualize those children, in your view?
View attachment 979929View attachment 979930View attachment 979931View attachment 979932
what about these comics?
you can have a sexual response to literally anything but that doesn't mean sexuality is what the artist reasonably intended
correct, though you wouldn't know it after the hostile takeover of the APA in the 20s+30s by Jews resulting in the misleading DSM which tried to erase the gender distinction and use it unisexuallyJust boys?
except of course when YOU know it, but others don't, because you have different subjective interpretationsWhen I say "This is like trying to explain when pantyshots are and aren't fanservice" I mean that, while you will never be able to outline on paper when something is lewd or not, you know it when you see it.
that's always been a shitty emotional foid-logic take on it - we can always use our words to come up with objective verbal explanations of how we interpret posture and artworkAs it was in "Jacobellis v. Ohio," as it was in "Bayonetta good, Evony bad," so it shall be for as long as human society stands.
but which parts?Some of that stuff I say WOULD count as lewd. Not all of it, but some of it.
except of course when YOU know it, but others don't, because you have different subjective interpretations
that's always been a shitty emotional foid-logic take on it - we can always use our words to come up with objective verbal explanations of how we interpret posture and artwork
but which parts?
sure, but I attempted to put them into words, which is ultimately how we would reach things like consensusYou say it's based on emotion, but you've got your own subjective standards based on your own feelings.
sure, but I attempted to put them into words, which is ultimately how we would reach things like consensus
sure, that would cause me to amend my criteria thoughWhatever criteria you list, I bet I could find content that defies it. You say "A pantyshot is lewd only when X criteria is met," I bet I can find something where the pantyshot doesn't meet that criteria but you'd still be, in your heart of hearts, unable to say it's not lewd.
sure, that would cause me to amend my criteria though
tb-brutally-hng-even-lWhat decades of no pussy does to a MF.