Especially if you dedicate your time to the actual study of Marx and Lenin and make leftism more than just a contrarian personality trait. Now go outside!
Especially if you dedicate your time to the actual study of Marx and Lenin and make leftism more than just a contrarian personality trait. Now go outside!
deleted by creator
The struggle session to define the line between "bodies are allowed to exist and be drawn and represented" and "this makes me horny and therefore is bad" is endless. Folks who want representation vs folks who get horny at bodies being represented. Any drawn body that makes someone horny could be considered bad but also good if it makes someone feel represented.
I'm not saying this image meets the criteria for representation or not or horniness or not because I'm not represented in it and it doesn't make me horny but if it's not this one it's gonna be another one
Regardless of the image itself "coomer artists" is pretty clear cut.
I'm old. what is coomer
"coom" = "cum"
Generally means someone who's overly horny or sex-obsessed
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Obviously we have rules against it, that's not my point, though I actually think this is accidentally an interesting window into the mindset because your statement taken as-is (so without the ahegao part) is not necessarily justified. It's entirely possible to have a sexually explicit situation that is not erotica, as well as sexually explicit erotica in which a woman participant is not sexualized, because that term doesn't just mean "looks sexually attractive" but in fact refers to sexual objectification, which is not a necessary component for a female character in either of the examples I just mentioned. My point in mentioning this is that whether or not something is sexual in real life is very different from how to analyze an artistic depiction of it.
But that's all a tangent. To be clear, what I was saying was not that the two situations are the same (or even particularly similar), but merely that "there are people who look roughly like this in real life" does not mean "this art isn't misogynist," giving the example of something that does exist in real life where we would in fact expect the artistic depiction to be misogynist. It's like if someone said "All amphibians have four legs" and I gave the counterexample of Caecilians (which have zero). It's not a representative example of what amphibians in general are like, but shows nonetheless that the inference is false. Sometimes a reasonable heuristic is not deductively valid.
Oh, I was also complaining about the liberal self-victimizing tact of derailing any conversation about what one "should" do into one of what someone "can" do, especially by imagining that I am somehow trying to "not allow" anything. But I'm basically just talking to myself at this point.
deleted by creator
If the curtains are just blue, I don't think there's anything more to say about it. It seems obvious from the details I put in my initial comment, but if you just shrug at that then I can't really say more, any more than I can persuade a libertarian that empathy is cool and good. Perhaps someone more patient or motivated could pick apart "What makes you say that they are all attractive? What do you suppose the significance of the only five characters all being attractive women is?" etc. but who cares? Honestly the thing that pisses me off isn't the picture itself but some people (not necessarily you) being so fucking obtuse about it. Just admit that they are little national waifus and move on! (again, not necessarily you)
I find the sensibilities of the artist gross, but she's not someone I actually know and there are thousands of grosser artists on twitter and hundreds of thousands elsewhere, so it's not like I'm particularly offended by it.
Imagine conflating "existing and being depicted" to "being covered in cum." You're the problem
Removed by mod
Dont worry there is going to be a third later this year.