Do you mean the few and far in-between women who are like that? These are overstating the frequency of those body types for the sake of sexually arousing grown-ass men. Don’t play dumb because you yourself found it sexually arousing at that age.
*Movies…
…that parents also have to watch. Back In the day watching an animated film was a family event. You wouldn’t just plant a kid in front of a TV and go do your own thing. Thats why old cartoons are fully of innuendos that only adults would get.
Not just innuendos but themes that are more mature than we would associate with children. Not only for the parents accompanying their kids but good writing makes it possible to teach a young audience about otherwise difficult topics. Kung Fu Panda 2 deals with a whole genocide, for example. The Hunchback of Notre Dame had all that about religious fanatism and the deliberate racial persecution of a certain group of people. Thinking back on it, 101 Dalmatians had a woman chasing puppies to make a coat out of puppies. Innuendos are funny if you look back at them as an adult but that’s also what makes movies timeless and rewatchable even after aging out of the main target group.
The fuck they wouldnt. Theyd even bitch at you across the house about sitting to close cause they made you turn the sound almost off cause they were talking.
No child should be burdened with the knowledge that hot women exist. It’s developmentally necessary that no one encounter a woman in swimwear until they turn 18. Failure to protect our most vulnerable from the permanent damage of this experience is the cause of all today’s societal woes.
Am I punching down? I felt like that was just a love tap, sideways. What group do you perceive me to be punching down at? Sex negative body shaming Helen Lovejoy types? I don’t think I need to aim downwards to hit them.
You’re clearly misrepresenting what I’m saying and taking the piss instead of actually addressing what I mean. I hadn’t even elaborated before you started making assumptions.
And why is your example from a family show that doesn’t depict women’s bodies as disproportionate for the sake of turning on adult men? You’re all over the place for the sake of being a mean girl and doubling down, dude.
Oh, yeah, I was absolutely taking the piss. More specifically, I was exaggerating my understanding of your position to make a tiny satire of it, because I think it’s a laughable position.
That’s different than misrepresenting it or building a strawman, because no reasonable person would think I was trying to faithfully represent your unexaggerated views. It’s also different from punching down – that generally refers to taking aim at a group that’s at a societal disadvantage relative to yourself, which I’m not attempting to do.
But sure, I was taking the piss. I’ll accept that it would have been more charitable to wait to see you elaborate on your take. I’ve had the chance to see you do that elsewhere in this thread, though, and it only made me disagree with you more, so I think my instincts were pretty on point.
The bit about Helen Lovejoy wasn’t an example of anything, it was a reference to her catchphrase: “wont somebody think of the children???!”, applied when children are in no danger whatsoever.
What messaging do you think a disproportionate body type of a woman solely meant to evoke sexual interest in grown men signals to children, specifically girls? And if we’re going to play the it’s-ok game, where are the sexy men, then? Not handsome, not pretty, but sexy. Do you not see anything wrong with this imbalance even by your own logic?
But besides all this, for all the pedophile pearl clutching done around here, you seem perfectly fine with turning on 12 year-old children. “It’s fine when it’s a woman with a boy” energy.
What do you mean “disproportionate” and "solely meant to evoke sexual interest in grown men? People with thick hips exist. And depicting women with (exaggerated) thick hips is several thousands of years old.
Would you also call the designs of Aurora, Belle and any other disney princess as being designed to “solely […] evoke sexual interest in grown men”? Those characters could also be described as out of the norm.
And if we’re going to play the it’s-ok game, where are the sexy men, then?
Do you not see anything wrong with this imbalance even by your own logic?
What are you even talking about? What do you mean with “my own logic”?
But besides all this, for all the pedophile pearl clutching done around here
And what do you mean by that? Are you seriously insinuating that people overreact over fucking Epstein? O.o
you seem perfectly fine with turning on 12 year-old children.
These are movies. No one is sexually harrassing children. And children that have no interest/concept of sex don’t notice any sexual innuendo (and these body types aren’t even sexual innuendo).
And for teenagers developing their sexual inner-workings: these teenagers will get sexually aroused from anything. I’m glad that “unhealthily skinny” isn’t the only body type these kids see. And movies are a safe way of exploring these feelings. Without anybody being harrassed.
You spread “no sex-ed books for children” energy, homie.
Edit: Now I found the right words for it: Your urge to shield teenagers from any depiction that’s remotely erotic in nature (very remotely) is downright puritan. And I think that’s weird from someone who’s close to talking pedophile apologia ("pedophile pearl clutching ").
And depicting women with (exaggerated) thick hips is several thousands of years old.
Do you mean the African fertility statues with disproportionate body parts? I hope you realize how that only solidifies my point.
That’s right. There’s absouletly no oversexualized man in animation. /s
Is that a joke? Gaston is a strong man. What part of his design is specifically sexy and revealing? His forearms? This gay man is asking. You could’ve pointed out the dad from Inside Out at the very least, and even then the only sexy thing about him is the dirty mustache.
What are you even talking about? What do you mean with “my own logic”?
What do you mean? Can you not follow? Keep up.
And what do you mean by that? Are you seriously insinuating that people overreact over fucking Epstein? O.o
No one is sexually harrassing children.
Jesse, what the hell are you on about? I’m saying this site already has a high sensitivity around sexuality involving children for me to have to explain why this is problematic as a kids show AND movies because I did grow up watching Stitch. You all seem to be defending this because you found it sexually arousing at 12 and can’t see past that.
children that have no interest/concept of sex don’t notice any sexual innuendo (and these body types aren’t even sexual innuendo).
They do, and they are. I don’t know about you, but I do remember being a child. And I also know that many children are quite aware of sexuality, especially nowadays that the web is widespread. And I can point at my own nieces and nephews for that, because I know they get it and they’re barely 9. Do you really think sexual jokes don’t escape them? They play dumb, just like I did at that age. Don’t insult their intelligence.
And for teenagers developing their sexual inner-workings: these teenagers
Who is talking about teenagers?
You spread “no sex-ed books for children” energy, homie.
Quite the contrary, I’m all for teaching children HEALTHY ways of looking at bodies and sexuality. And this ain’t it. You just don’t get my point.
Do you mean the African fertility statues with disproportionate body parts? I hope you realize how that only solidifies my point.
Tell me: what’s the canonical age that it’s ok for people find out that big butts exist and that is an acceptable beauty standard? You’re kind of coming across a bit racist-y here, if you apparently don’t have a problem with white standards of eroticisation and suddenly have a problem if the beauty standards are those of PoC.
Is that a joke? Gaston is a strong man. What part of his design is specifically sexy and revealing? His forearms?
… i literally scrobbled to the line “literally everything covered with hair” and you don’t get the innuendo? Disney announces their first (almost) openly gay character for the third time and it’s how that other guy who’s swooning for Gaston every minute.
Do you see the three women? Gaston. Fucks.
Can’t comment on anything about what you find attractive, but you do you, man!
But just cause you don’t find it attractive, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Don’t come complaining to me, if you’re underserved, homie. I ain’t the problem.
What do you mean? Can you not follow? Keep up.
Before that, I was not starting a logical argument. What “logic” have I introduced that you’re referencing. You’re inventing strawmen. If not: what “logic” are you referencing.
I’m saying this site already has a high sensitivity around sexuality involving children for me to have to explain why this is problematic as a kids show AND movies because I did grow up watching Stitch.
Let’s just pretend that this supposed “sensitivity” you’re talking about didn’t exist: Could you actually explain this supposed "problematic"ness? Because I sure don’t get it. What kinds of horrors has watching Lilo and Stitch corrupted in your precious little child’s mind?
Not one real person gets objectified here. They’re not doing anything erotic, they’re just… there. Where’s the problem? Should they be wearing Nun-outfits? Sexy Nuns, even maybe?
You all seem to be defending this because you found it sexually arousing at 12 and can’t see past that.
If that actually were the case: Why would that have been a problem for me? What should it bother you how I’ve lived through my sexual development?
Also: You do know that a twelve year old has enough people their age where they can watch the whatever teenagers find hot these days? (I would guess thick hips never go out of style)
Don’t insult their intelligence.
Umm… ok, so I should not insult it when it’s about them being oblivious to things that aren’t part of their daily live. But insulting the minor’s mind is ok if it’s about their precious little minds being corrupted by impure thoughts of “thiccc hips 🍑”? /s Grow up.
Who is talking about teenagers?
You brought up 12 year olds, now I can’t say “teenager”? O.o
Quite the contrary, I’m all for teaching children HEALTHY ways of looking at bodies and sexuality. And this ain’t it. You just don’t get my point.
That kind of sounds like good, old body-shaming to me, buddy.
So now I’m racist for pointing out that the statues are specifically about celebrating fertility? This absurd? You sound like you’re yanking out straws just to pin anything on me rather than tackling the point.
… i literally scrobbled to the line “literally everything covered with hair” and you don’t get the innuendo? Disney announces their first (almost) openly gay character for the third time and it’s how that other guy who’s swooning for Gaston every minute.
First of all, the video started at 0:00, and second of all, how does your point even relate to what I’m saying? Are you sure you’re not assuming things? You do realize that my point is primarily about body image and only secondary about serving sexual content to kids?
But just cause you don’t find it attractive, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Don’t come complaining to me, if you’re underserved, homie. I ain’t the problem.
Before that, I was not starting a logical argument. What “logic” have I introduced that you’re referencing. You’re inventing strawmen. If not: what “logic” are you referencing.
Literally pulling shit out of your ass.
Could you actually explain this supposed "problematic"ness? Because I sure don’t get it. What kinds of horrors has watching Lilo and Stitch corrupted in your precious little child’s mind?
I can, and that’s precisely why I find it problematic. I’m not sure you understand, though, by the looks of the shit you’re saying.
Not one real person gets objectified here. They’re not doing anything erotic, they’re just… there.
Yeah, let’s just close our eyes and pretend the problem isn’t there. Never mind the fact that the meme itself exemplifies the suggestive poses and one is eagle spread on a surfboard and the other is checking out her ass. And that’s not even my point about the messaging to young GIRLS. The lot of you are only defending your own interests here.
What should it bother you how I’ve lived through my sexual development?
Case in point.
You brought up 12 year olds, now I can’t say “teenager”? O.o
Teenage start at thirTEEN. 12 is the upper bound but I’ve been repeatedly referring to 9 year-olds.
That kind of sounds like good, old body-shaming to me, buddy.
You’re so disingenuous and throwing shit at the wall.
I’m actually with you on this one. However, given that two of the four original images are already from Lilo and Stitch, it’s weird that no one has brought up David as the most convenient example of a hot Disney himbo:
What is up with that? These are kids shows.
Which is why it says “what i grew up with” you dingus
Did somebody summon me?
Huh? I’m rhetorically asking why Disney does this. Why do you feel the need to insult me if you’re the one misunderstanding me.
Whats wrong with having thicc thighed women in kids shows?
Micky likes them thicc
Because they’re depicting adult women and that’s how some adult women are shaped?
Do you mean the few and far in-between women who are like that? These are overstating the frequency of those body types for the sake of sexually arousing grown-ass men. Don’t play dumb because you yourself found it sexually arousing at that age.
*Movies…
…that parents also have to watch. Back In the day watching an animated film was a family event. You wouldn’t just plant a kid in front of a TV and go do your own thing. Thats why old cartoons are fully of innuendos that only adults would get.
Not just innuendos but themes that are more mature than we would associate with children. Not only for the parents accompanying their kids but good writing makes it possible to teach a young audience about otherwise difficult topics. Kung Fu Panda 2 deals with a whole genocide, for example. The Hunchback of Notre Dame had all that about religious fanatism and the deliberate racial persecution of a certain group of people. Thinking back on it, 101 Dalmatians had a woman chasing puppies to make a coat out of puppies. Innuendos are funny if you look back at them as an adult but that’s also what makes movies timeless and rewatchable even after aging out of the main target group.
“Ohana means family, and family means nobody gets left behind.”
- Vin Diesel
“I’ll kill you with my teacup.”
- Lilo
I can hear her say it. Totally in character
The fuck they wouldnt. Theyd even bitch at you across the house about sitting to close cause they made you turn the sound almost off cause they were talking.
And I was a kid when I watched them
Kids famously hate everything involving butts. /s
I’m not saying that. I was actually thinking about the messaging by the animation companies.
And what supposed “messaging” do you mean, exactly?
No child should be burdened with the knowledge that hot women exist. It’s developmentally necessary that no one encounter a woman in swimwear until they turn 18. Failure to protect our most vulnerable from the permanent damage of this experience is the cause of all today’s societal woes.
Straw-man, why don’t you. Go for the low-hanging fruit to punch down. That’s all you assholes entertain yourselves with while stroking hard.
Am I punching down? I felt like that was just a love tap, sideways. What group do you perceive me to be punching down at? Sex negative body shaming Helen Lovejoy types? I don’t think I need to aim downwards to hit them.
You’re clearly misrepresenting what I’m saying and taking the piss instead of actually addressing what I mean. I hadn’t even elaborated before you started making assumptions.
And why is your example from a family show that doesn’t depict women’s bodies as disproportionate for the sake of turning on adult men? You’re all over the place for the sake of being a mean girl and doubling down, dude.
Oh, yeah, I was absolutely taking the piss. More specifically, I was exaggerating my understanding of your position to make a tiny satire of it, because I think it’s a laughable position.
That’s different than misrepresenting it or building a strawman, because no reasonable person would think I was trying to faithfully represent your unexaggerated views. It’s also different from punching down – that generally refers to taking aim at a group that’s at a societal disadvantage relative to yourself, which I’m not attempting to do.
But sure, I was taking the piss. I’ll accept that it would have been more charitable to wait to see you elaborate on your take. I’ve had the chance to see you do that elsewhere in this thread, though, and it only made me disagree with you more, so I think my instincts were pretty on point.
The bit about Helen Lovejoy wasn’t an example of anything, it was a reference to her catchphrase: “wont somebody think of the children???!”, applied when children are in no danger whatsoever.
What messaging do you think a disproportionate body type of a woman solely meant to evoke sexual interest in grown men signals to children, specifically girls? And if we’re going to play the it’s-ok game, where are the sexy men, then? Not handsome, not pretty, but sexy. Do you not see anything wrong with this imbalance even by your own logic?
But besides all this, for all the pedophile pearl clutching done around here, you seem perfectly fine with turning on 12 year-old children. “It’s fine when it’s a woman with a boy” energy.
What do you mean “disproportionate” and "solely meant to evoke sexual interest in grown men? People with thick hips exist. And depicting women with (exaggerated) thick hips is several thousands of years old.
Would you also call the designs of Aurora, Belle and any other disney princess as being designed to “solely […] evoke sexual interest in grown men”? Those characters could also be described as out of the norm.
That’s right. There’s absouletly no oversexualized man in animation. /s
What are you even talking about? What do you mean with “my own logic”?
And what do you mean by that? Are you seriously insinuating that people overreact over fucking Epstein? O.o
These are movies. No one is sexually harrassing children. And children that have no interest/concept of sex don’t notice any sexual innuendo (and these body types aren’t even sexual innuendo).
And for teenagers developing their sexual inner-workings: these teenagers will get sexually aroused from anything. I’m glad that “unhealthily skinny” isn’t the only body type these kids see. And movies are a safe way of exploring these feelings. Without anybody being harrassed.
You spread “no sex-ed books for children” energy, homie.
Edit: Now I found the right words for it: Your urge to shield teenagers from any depiction that’s remotely erotic in nature (very remotely) is downright puritan. And I think that’s weird from someone who’s close to talking pedophile apologia ("pedophile pearl clutching ").
Do you mean the African fertility statues with disproportionate body parts? I hope you realize how that only solidifies my point.
Is that a joke? Gaston is a strong man. What part of his design is specifically sexy and revealing? His forearms? This gay man is asking. You could’ve pointed out the dad from Inside Out at the very least, and even then the only sexy thing about him is the dirty mustache.
What do you mean? Can you not follow? Keep up.
Jesse, what the hell are you on about? I’m saying this site already has a high sensitivity around sexuality involving children for me to have to explain why this is problematic as a kids show AND movies because I did grow up watching Stitch. You all seem to be defending this because you found it sexually arousing at 12 and can’t see past that.
They do, and they are. I don’t know about you, but I do remember being a child. And I also know that many children are quite aware of sexuality, especially nowadays that the web is widespread. And I can point at my own nieces and nephews for that, because I know they get it and they’re barely 9. Do you really think sexual jokes don’t escape them? They play dumb, just like I did at that age. Don’t insult their intelligence.
Who is talking about teenagers?
Quite the contrary, I’m all for teaching children HEALTHY ways of looking at bodies and sexuality. And this ain’t it. You just don’t get my point.
Tell me: what’s the canonical age that it’s ok for people find out that big butts exist and that is an acceptable beauty standard? You’re kind of coming across a bit racist-y here, if you apparently don’t have a problem with white standards of eroticisation and suddenly have a problem if the beauty standards are those of PoC.
… i literally scrobbled to the line “literally everything covered with hair” and you don’t get the innuendo? Disney announces their first (almost) openly gay character for the third time and it’s how that other guy who’s swooning for Gaston every minute.
Do you see the three women? Gaston. Fucks.
Can’t comment on anything about what you find attractive, but you do you, man!
But just cause you don’t find it attractive, doesn’t mean it’s not there. Don’t come complaining to me, if you’re underserved, homie. I ain’t the problem.
Before that, I was not starting a logical argument. What “logic” have I introduced that you’re referencing. You’re inventing strawmen. If not: what “logic” are you referencing.
Let’s just pretend that this supposed “sensitivity” you’re talking about didn’t exist: Could you actually explain this supposed "problematic"ness? Because I sure don’t get it. What kinds of horrors has watching Lilo and Stitch corrupted in your precious little child’s mind?
Not one real person gets objectified here. They’re not doing anything erotic, they’re just… there. Where’s the problem? Should they be wearing Nun-outfits? Sexy Nuns, even maybe?
If that actually were the case: Why would that have been a problem for me? What should it bother you how I’ve lived through my sexual development?
Also: You do know that a twelve year old has enough people their age where they can watch the whatever teenagers find hot these days? (I would guess thick hips never go out of style)
Umm… ok, so I should not insult it when it’s about them being oblivious to things that aren’t part of their daily live. But insulting the minor’s mind is ok if it’s about their precious little minds being corrupted by impure thoughts of “thiccc hips 🍑”? /s Grow up.
You brought up 12 year olds, now I can’t say “teenager”? O.o
That kind of sounds like good, old body-shaming to me, buddy.
So now I’m racist for pointing out that the statues are specifically about celebrating fertility? This absurd? You sound like you’re yanking out straws just to pin anything on me rather than tackling the point.
First of all, the video started at 0:00, and second of all, how does your point even relate to what I’m saying? Are you sure you’re not assuming things? You do realize that my point is primarily about body image and only secondary about serving sexual content to kids?
Literally pulling shit out of your ass.
I can, and that’s precisely why I find it problematic. I’m not sure you understand, though, by the looks of the shit you’re saying.
Yeah, let’s just close our eyes and pretend the problem isn’t there. Never mind the fact that the meme itself exemplifies the suggestive poses and one is eagle spread on a surfboard and the other is checking out her ass. And that’s not even my point about the messaging to young GIRLS. The lot of you are only defending your own interests here.
Case in point.
Teenage start at thirTEEN. 12 is the upper bound but I’ve been repeatedly referring to 9 year-olds.
You’re so disingenuous and throwing shit at the wall.
Those are not sexy, and I would know as a gay man. Try again.
My gay friend says they are, so checkmate
Your imaginary gay friend needs some standards.
I’m actually with you on this one. However, given that two of the four original images are already from Lilo and Stitch, it’s weird that no one has brought up David as the most convenient example of a hot Disney himbo:
I see what you’re saying but he’s a 6.5/10, especially compared with the women.