>>805 As is the case with Dolly's screeching lunatic fascist blog, I honestly do ask myself sometimes whether the shitpile that Ely is administering here is actually intended as some sort of dry, deadpan self-satire. Two threads below we have every narcissist and child rapist in this place all joining in the shrill denunciations of "tthe sexualization of children" etc etc and claiming that for someone to say that he finds a teenage actress charming "promoyes the sexual abuse of minors" etc. Now we have this. I haven't researched this matter, nor do I care enough about it to do so. That is to say, I have no idea how old this girl actually is. But, on the basis of this last-posted photo, I'll appeal to the honesty(ha!) of the users of this board and ask you! how old does this girl LOOK to you? 14? 13? 12? If she's older, then the photos are only all the more reprehensible for that fact, because the "look" that is being aimed at here is - I would argue very obviously and undeniably - that of a girl in the very first years of junior high school. I now call on whatever male
Anonymous
Good evening, Alex babe :)
Anonymous
>>806 female idiot was getting on his or her soapbox in the thread below about "the sexualization of pubescents" to make a statement condemning THIS blatant sexualization of the underdeveloped female body, and also the appreciation that is being shown for it here. I'm pretty sure that my call for him/her to do so will remain without response, however, since whoever is posting these pedophilia-promoting photos probably never corrected the "soapbox preacher"'s grammar or wounded their narcissism in some other way. In fact, they might even be on buddy-buddy relations with the "feminist" or "feminists" who were getting so riled up about my suggesting that the Stark girl in Game of Thrones had an element of sexual appeal - in which case, as we know, they can be pedophiles, statutory rapists, or anything else with impunity and indeed with immunity from all criticism. All's fair, as we know, and all is immediately and absolutely forgiven, between "Crackyfags".
Anonymous
>>806 First: that person is 23 years old, information you'd have found with 1-click of your mouse. Second: You still haven't grasped that the problem is not how old or young the woman you find atttractive is, but the mindset by which you defend your definitions.
Your perversion is not born from a solely sexual desire towards a youngster, but also from the power that would theoretically grant you. It's precisely the reason that makes you come here the one that exposes your true nature: Egotism. You were, apparently, raised inside of a system that denounces several behaviours and notions as obscene, unpure and evil, and since you came to the realization that hold this paramaters between your character and your personality, you've been fightning them off, warping your perception of decency, morality and general honest. The biggest lie you have told anyone has been the one you keep reciting to yourself.
You keep believing that not only we should care about your status and prominence as an human being, but that we should also ackownledge the deluded notion that you are better than any or the individuals that frequent this board. You keep making the mistake of berating, pointing fingers and trying to uncover anomalies inside of this so-called system of our "Cracky" brethren, trying to "expose" us for what you believe we really are. The truth, Alex, is that you know nothing, and you mean nothing. The few that stand for you do so only on the sense of self-importance, they don't do it to make you feel better or to actually support you, because they don't really care.
Take into consideration the vast, but warped, experience of your old years, and abandon this miserable place. If you truly seek to be the quality of person you claim to be, leave forever and never look back.
Anonymous
>>809 I hope you can excuse my typos. As you have experienced first-hand, this weird posting system is unforgiving of errors.
Anonymous
>>808 >also the appreciation that is being shown for it here.
The only appreciation was a simple "cute". lol. I posted the images because they were reminiscent of Cracky and Faux. I found them cute, not sexualized. I don't know how the rest of the world would view them.
Anonymous
>>811 Well, this is another issue that ought to be clarified in the "Cracky community" but probably never will be. What exactly does it mean to find an image "cute but not in a sexual way"? I think the extreme ease with which people here set off sexual from non-sexual attractiveness is a matter of more than just the special stupidity and shallowness of the Crackyfags. That it can be gotten away with so easily is also a symptom of the simultaneous dumbing-down and re-puritanization of Western society in the past thirty years or so. Freud's insights into the essentially 'libidinous" nature of all positive feeling toward people seen or encountered represented real intellectual and cultural progress for humanity. All that seems largely to have been "rolled back" in the last thirty years. The "child abuse" hysteria that has gripped our society seems to be making it acceptable and even compulsory once again to talk about children the way they were talked about in Victorian times - as creatures standing utterly and completely outside the sphere of existence as sexual beings, a myth that Freud surely exploded once and for all around 1900. In 1850 maybe an intelligent person could talk with the self-evidence with which the Crackyfag talks about it about finding a little girl "sweet" in a way that excluded absolutely every hint or shadow of sexual feeling. I find it kind of horrifying that it is beginning to look as though such crude, univocal, unreflective thinking might become the thinking of an intelligent person again in 2050. Another factor, possibly, that I am hardly qualified to comment on, is the factor that Americans and Europeans under 30 using the word "cute" are probably, consciously or unconsciously, allowing the Japanese term "kawaii" to co-determine what they understand by it. It is surely certain mannerisms and affectations derived from Japanese culture that are making it so much easier for Crackyfags and others to think they can get away with looking at girls
Anonymous
On an academic point, Alex is nudging towards an important point about japanese culture and adolescence that probably isn't worth expanding on but is pretty relevant to the crackyverse population's belief systems.
Anonymous
Well, I think it may be worth expanding on. As I say, I think the "Japanese" concept of "kawaii" plays a large role in making the Crackfags feel that "there is no sexual element" in the pleasure they take in looking at Cracky and in other girls, like the girl in this thread, who might almost pass for children, given their slimness and "winsome" poses etc. The word "cute" in its American usage has long since enjoyed some pretty heavy associations with sex, dating etc. I do not speak Japanese, but I get the impression that the Jap term "kawaii" has become the centre of such a huge and complex aesthetic philosophy that it has largely made itself autonomous from the sexual sphere. This is why it can bolster the Crackyfag in his certainty of his own ability to be stimulated by the non-sexual aspect alone of a "cute" girl. I would appreciate it if some competent weeaboo would comment on the troubling circumstance that Japan seems characterized BOTH by this semi-autonomous culture of the "kawaii" - a culture of seeing some quality in early-teenage girls that "charms" without sexually exciting - AND by what sems to me (perhaps in my ignorance) as massive socially approved pedophilia (no age of consent, massively disseminated images of raped and overtly sexually exploited schoolgirls etc)
Anonymous
I think "kawaii" is overused tbh, you should look at "moe" Alex.
Anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moe_(slang) pretty illuminating wiki page actually.
>>812 This is a rough image that might help you understand my (and a few others') viewpoint when talking about non-sexual types of attractions. You'll probably find it stupid and completely made-up, I guess.
Again, I speak only for myself, "cute but not in a sexual way" is the way how one finds a cat cute. Do you want to copulate with everything you find attractive in some way? Whoops, that wasn't a question directed at you specifically, but can't delete it now. Oh shit, just realised I used "one" after I said I speak for myself, damn this posting system.
>>814 I hate how the Americans corrupt words. You're right about the cute getting sexual connotations thing. I just use it how it ought to be used, and ignore those types of "cute"
Anonymous
>>817 Well, as to your first remark, as expected, yes, I have to say: "Sorry, I do find it "stupid and completely made up". I have nothing against "stupid and completely made up" stuff on principle. The problem is just that, as we have recently seen, this kind of arbitrary, senseless, whimsical, unreflective nonsense tends to be used by people who use this board as a basis on which to denounce and condemn feelings that other people (me, obviously, being the case in point) confess to having. I hope you DO see how utterly arbitrary and actually content-free your little cartoon-series is. It makes no attempt to define any of the key terms it uses and basically just casts wildly around after people who "feel this way themselves" and will spontaneously think "oh, that's about right". The term "sexual" is used as if everyone agreed immediately and unquestioningly about what "the sexual" consists in. The term "romantic" likewise - to the point where the "definitions" end up just as silly, empty tautologies that tell the reader exactly nothing: "A sexual feeling is a feeling that makes you want to do sexual stuff", " a romantic feeling is a feeling that makes you want to do romantic stuff" etc. As I say, our culture appeared, about fifty or a hundred years ago, to be definitely moving on beyond this stage of complacent, unthinking word-worship. Between 1900 and 1930, Freud published many courageous, brilliant and profound books which - to use the trendy contemporary term - "deconstructed" the concept "sexuality" and reconceived it as a "component drive" which was not initially attached to any single identifiable organ of the body, least of all the genitals, and that changed form constantly from birth through to pubescence and beyond. In the light of what Freud revealed, another term used in your drawing-series - "sexual person" - is literally meaningless, or rather it's what is called a "pleonasm", since to BE a person at all is to BE "sexual". To talk about an
Anonymous
"asexual person" makes about as much sense, on Freudian terms, as to talk about a "mind without a consciousness". Libido ALWAYS goes SOMEWHERE. The only people who talk seriously about "asexuality" are people who subscribe - mostly without knowing it - to some sort of naive, ignorant pre-Freudian idea that "sexuality = genitality". It is precisely SUCH people, however, who are likely to be most irresponsible and most damaging in their sexual relations with others, since they wilfully make themselves blind to all the complex, subtle, non-genital sexual dynamics that are going on constantly in real interaction between adults and children, people of the same or different sexes etc. I can only hope that our society has retained enough of the lessons taught it by Freud and his continuators to know that we are never just going to be able to "shove sexuality out of the way" in certain areas of our lives, like the Victorian Mama and Papa locking the kids up in the nursery. The only way to actually responsibly and effectively DEAL with the indeed important issues of morality and vulnerability and disparity of power raised by such topics as "child abuse", "the sexualization of the pre-pubescent body" etc is to recognize the ineradicable PRESENCE in our lives and in our persons of these issues and these inclinations and to consciously and rationally work out ways that they can be handled without their doing harm to anyone. Grasping at and clinging to pleasing cartoon-y little myths about feelings of "squishiness" and "purely romantic" or 'purely Platonic" love doesn't help or protect anyone. On the contrary, it provides a convenient screen behind which predatory behaviour toward immature and vulnerable people can go on all the more easily - and even with a good conscience!
Anonymous
>>819 Wow, I didn't know you loved Freud's theories that much. In any case, whether everything is sexual or not matters little when what one sees is the output of the brain. Even if purely romantic/platonic/cuteness-driven etc. feelings are produced deep in the "animal-brain" via pathways that deal with sexual production, they are only as sexual as the person who feels them consciously acknowledges them to be.
You're right about the pleonasmic nature of the comic by the way, just used it because it was the only one I had that differentiated sexual attraction from other types of attraction. You can call romantic attraction "sexual+romantic attraction " if it's more easily understandable (fucked up ordering the sentences again). Anyway, yeah the terms are indeed used as if everyone agrees on what they mean, it doesn't explain much. I wanted to point out if one can see nothing s/he deems "sexual" in his or her feelings, than that feeling does not have to be sexual. What do you mean by "sexualized" for example?
Anonymous
>>820 I poo on you! Poo! Poo! Big poo on your silly head! God, don't you love Ely's posting system? Poo! Poo! I poo on you in the very midst and middle of your pooey self-expression! >>822 >>822 Oh shit. Well, maybe I'll have the satisfaction of some collateral poo-damage. Seriously, though, some good points, but I have to work just now. I'll get back to you.
>>820 just time for a few remarks: Yes, I am a great admirer of Freud and believe - rather unpopularly these days - that the soundness and importance of his insights can hardly be overestimated. You'll understand if I say, then, that YOU seem to be seriously UNDERestimating his arguments. For anyone who accepts even the basic tenets of Freudian psychoanalysis, both of your main statements (i) that feelings about another person's "cuteness" are "only as sexual as the person having these feelings acknowledges them to be" and (ii) that if one "sees nothing" sexual in one's feelings, then they "don't have to be sexual". All that certainly ascribes, from a Freudian point of view, VASTLY too much importance to the conscious mind, and VASTLY too little to the unconscious (which does not equate with "the brain", by the way; Freud tended to shelve the whole question of how his theories related to biology and neurolgy, at least he did after 1900). I'll make my point again: I think taking our feelings and reactions at "face value" - as Crackyfags do when they just dismiss charges of a sexual-pedophilic interest in Cracky with a "nothing of the sort was in my mind; my feelings for the Sky-Queen are pure and non-sexual" - is not only intellectually backward - Freudianism was a step forward in Mankind's self-awareness and self-understanding that MUST not be reversed - but also likely to be morally disastrous. "Preying" on human being s hopelessly weaker than oneself is something that must indeed be combatted. But it can only be effectively combatted if we recognize that there is ALWAYS an "inner predator" as well as whatever "outer predators" we may believe we pot driving around in their notorious "vans". "Tumblr feminist" screeching and finger-pointing here does much more harm than good, because it is based on emotion - or maybe even not on genuine emotion; just on narcissism - without THOUGHT OR KNOWLEDGE to back it up and direct it.
Anonymous
>>823 freud has long been replaced with modern, actual science and not some hogwash
>>828 fucking posting system ate my post! >>806 from what i can see, i'd love her tenderly, whether you think she looks 12 or not. It's been long known that your brain mechanisms to gauge a female's age are majorly fucked up. Thinking Stark girl looks older than this one is just another proof of that.
Anonymous
>>829 Well, once again, so much for "discussion" in a milieu like this one.
I DIDN'T say that 'the Stark girl looked older than this one", as you will see if you just take the trouble to actually READ my original post.
What I said was that I found it laughable and despicable that, on a board which has just been host to a thread which was bursting at the seams with people calling for the blood of someone who said he found an early-teenage girl faintly sexually attractive, almost the very next thread was a thread professing "tender love" for a girl who, in some of these photos, could certainly pass for 13 or 14.
We could argue endlessly about subjective perceptions here. But the fact remains that a board so aggressively vocal about "protecting minors" has a whole range of other possible "crush objects" at its disposal whom "appreciation threads" might be started about; young women like RavRav, for example, with unmistakably obvious secondary sexual characteristics. If the consensus here is so strongly "anti-pedophilia" as it appears to be, then users should be steering well clear of images like the last one to appear in this thread, for example. Even if you're going to push things to the limit and claim
Anonymous
that Ayra Stark actually looks 11 on screen, the girl in this thread looks at best two or three years older than that in several of these photos. A /pol/ board that has just been host to a lengthy, vocal, ostensibly passionate thread going on about what an absolute loathsome evil Hitler represented should not then pass over without comment to a thread praising Mussolini. There is no doubt that Mussolini was "less bad" but a board in that situation would have had a thousand political leaders to choose from whose ideas and practices were safely far removed from both the above-mentioned, who are decidedly "too close for comfort". Similarly with this girl and Arya Strk. This girl might be "less bad" as regards the danger of mixing the innocent appeal of children with the un-innocent appeal of adult women, but she's still pretty "borderline" in that respect? As I say, I'd have much more faith in the board"s sincerity about condemning pedophilic sentiments if just about every girl who is posted here didn"t look like jailbait.
What I think "proves" something here is the absolute silence of the "Tumblr feminist" soapbox screechers in this thread, by contrast to their extreme vocality in the thread about "Alex"s pedophilia" If the concerns they expressed in the "Alex thread" were real, then they should clearly also have something to say about people ogling a photo of a girl in which no tits, no ass, nor any other secondary sexual characteristic is evident and the whole pose and persona adopted is that of a pre-pubescent girl waiting in a station or somewhere to be picked up by her Mom....or someone.
But they have nothing to say here. Because their concerns were NOT real. Troublingly infantile images of young women are EVERYWHERE in our society. The Tumblr feminists can oppose this stuff on a thousand different fronts if they choose to. But they don't. The only people they attack over it are people, like myself, who have pissed them off for OTHER reasons, such as refusing
