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!

    • SunriseParabellum [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Are you saying hot women never have their face coated in cum while doing an ahegao expression? Those people are allowed to exist, therefore I will post cartoons of it on this forum and call it liberatory, with all detractors being repressed puritan scolds!”

      If someone draws a woman with a face covered in cum I’m going to assume they making explicate erotica, which, one, is undeniably sexualized, that’s kind of the point of erotica, and two, I’m pretty sure we have a strict rule against posting such content here. Discussing the ethnics of animated porn is a bit different than debating whether or not a illustration of some fully clothed attractive women standing is sexualized or not.

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • SunriseParabellum [he/him]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          “there are people who look roughly like this in real life” does not mean “this art isn’t misogynist,”

          Yes, but I think there’s a difference between saying “there are women who look like this when going to the grocery store” and “women get their faces covered in cum sometimes”. The latter is true, but that generally only happens during sex, so if you’re depicting that it is sexual, maybe not in an objectifying way but it is sexual. I really don’t see anything sexualizing about this picture besides the women in it being good looking. Yes people got horny over it but this is the internet, people will get horny over a picture of a fucking fire-hydrant.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.