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?
RageFuel They got Pebbles Flintstone with her legs spread open on the cereal box
alright you are watching too much porn, I see nothing suggestive
I don't like it when women have their legs open it feels wrong.
Is your brain oozing out of your ears or is this a troll post 
Reported
Looks like we're eating fruity pebbles boys.
that's child porn addiction, frendo
Warner Brothers showing their true pedo colors
Damm thought the same thing till you pointed it out.
It's just snow angels bro I think you're reading too much into it.
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.
There isn't any cunny OP her groin is covered, you're overreacting.
Naw even I'm not this autistic and lewd.
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.
Her bare thighs are touching the snow, that would be extremely cold.
goyslop and coombrain
B
This is like trying to explain when pantyshots are and aren't fanservice. I can't be the only one who sees this.
Strange hill to die on
B
I 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.
Pointing 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.
What decades of no pussy does to a MF.
T
This nigga never heard of a snow angel
Prehistoric cunny.
I dont see anything
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.
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 feud
Pebbles only started to get hot by Yabba-Dabba Dinosaurs, wanking to toddlercon of her is pretty degen ngl
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.
How come we never got a The Flintstones GTA clone videogame btw. The Simpsons had one and it was fucking good
I can show you plenty of pantyshots that have nothing to do with embarrassment, but I think you'd be hard pressed to not call "fanservice." And how brief is "brief" anyway?
Hold on, what does them being 11-14 have to do with anything? Very small children can be victims of sexualization/predation. The rest of the argument is "Is this sexualization?" And I say it is.
11-14 aren't very small
and they're not prepubescent, so it's not pedophilia
yes but not pedophilic sexualization
Regardless of whether or not you differentiate between pedophiles and "pedophiles who only prey on pubescent children," 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. 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?
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
Just boys?
When 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. As 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.
Some of that stuff I say WOULD count as lewd. Not all of it, but some of it.
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 unisexually
I oppose that - korophilia and pedophilia are separate things and shouldn't be lumped together, doing that is part of the homosexual agenda of NAMBLA and mohels.
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?
You 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
Whatever 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
But it never ends. Once you amend that criteria, I'll find more that amends even that criteria. It's impossible to define perfectly.
M
they have the other kid touching snowmans dik frothy you are on to them what will you do?
B
tb-brutally-hng-even-l
Similar threads
nihilum
Users who are viewing this thread
