traffik: It would have been awesome, that's what it would've been. It never could've happened, though. If they'd ever tried to show Lisa's pussy, even in a non-sexual context, people would cry 'child pr0n'. Somehow, it's fine if it's Bart, though. Nice double-standard people have about shit like that.
Anonymous5: I agree with traffik. So much for the concept of 'sexual equality' - if it really meant anything Lisa's pussy would have been shown. I would have liked that.
Killamajig: Yes, this seems very much like a statement on sexual equality, and nothing to do with your lust for eight year old girls. I believe that. Absolutely. Perfectly credible.
traffik: ^Well, Killamajig-- and I ask this because having developed a healthy (if not sometimes begrudging) respect for you, I'm genuinely interested in your response-- why do you imagine that it was OK for them to show Bart's penis in the movie, but they never could've done the same thing with Lisa, even if she were say, 10 (Bart's age) and not 8?
Killamajig: Well, I'm not on the writing staff, the ratings board, or any other body that makes those decisions, but I can certainly attempt to speculate.
There is, generally speaking, a more lingering and widespread protectiveness of young girls, particularly as regards sexuality - and it would be hard to say, I feel, that between the internet and Japan it's completely unjustified. It might or might not be fair - the RCC has certainly shown us boys can be the targets of predators just as frequently - but residual social constructs of valuing virginity and the madonna*/whore dichotomy, rape statistics, and similar gender politics issues certainly stick larger in the public mind that exposing a young girl is more exploitative than doing so with a young boy. If I may resort to a mildly spurious argument but not unsupported argument, when a 10 year old boy whips it out, he's doing so for a joke.
Possibly extending from this is the sense that while just about any age of girl can be penetrated by force, there is something perceived to be non-sexual about male genitalia before they're capable of an erection - and sometimes, even afterwards if not erect at that moment, but that's not relevant here. It is, again, joke fodder - to the male youth it's where you pee from, and you can make it look like an elephant. Call it vaginaphobia if you want, but the Western world at large treats it as a more 'normal' part of the body, even for children.
I might purely be blowing smoke, but that seems to me to be the sort of justification one would get.
traffik: ^No, I don't think you're just blowing smoke. Your response was very well thought-out and stated, and I appreciate that. Furthermore, I agree with pretty much everything you said... but the double-standard still bothers me. It's like a scene such as the nude skateboarding sequence in the Simpsons movie gets OK'd because they say, "Well, no one's actually going to get off on this", yet surely no one in the animation industry is unaware of the toon porn community and the fact that a character like Bart isn't exempt from being the object of sexualization within it. So, we're back at the double-standard... and while it may be difficult to defend the fact that my frustration over that stems mainly from a desire to see Lisa naked lol, it still seems to me that as long as it's within a non-sexual context, it should be OK to show either, or neither.
Killamajig: While I don't exactly disagree, I think R34 can skew perspectives. The toon porn community - which is closer to being a lawless wasteland of squabbling tribes than a community in my opinion - is very much an outlier in terms of societal expectations and mores. While they might be aware of it, it is not by any stretch the demographic foremost in their minds - angry parents, lobby groups specializing in moral panic, and the religious right are all taken into account long before the half-dozen people who draw Simpsons incest comics. And while they might well be up in arms over any child nudity, even animated, the population at large is going to kind of snicker, roll their eyes, and point to the fact that...well...look at it up there. It's barely even rendered as genitals - it's practically a little yellow Kilroy Was Here attached to his crotch. It's almost a joke in and of itself, whereas (for the aforementioned reasons) any naked female is perceived as enticement towards males - and a naked eight year old female as enticement to perverts.
And while I don't exactly disagree, I'm afraid I also don't sympathize, as you make the "non-sexual context" argument out of one side of your mouth while admitting that for you it has a sexual context out the other. You're kind of arguing against them taking you into account.
traffik: Oh, I'm not asking (or expecting) them to take me into account. It's never going to happen. That's why most of us are come here-- to see the things we wish we could see in our favorite shows/comics/etc, but never will. I'm not saying that it should be OK to show her naked in the show/movie, as much as I'm saying that if it's not OK to, then it shouldn't be OK to show Bart either. But that's just an opinion.
ArtLiberty20: Killamajig, believe it or not, I knew a cheeky girl who use to flash her vagina to her friends from time to time just for a joke, completely unprovoked.
The view of social acceptance is just sexist.
Anonymous7: - Women have aften wondered what the big deal was with wanting pussy? There really isn't much there to look at.
- You have to have a stiff dick & aching balls to really apriciate pussy.
- Reply
- Reply
There is, generally speaking, a more lingering and widespread protectiveness of young girls, particularly as regards sexuality - and it would be hard to say, I feel, that between the internet and Japan it's completely unjustified. It might or might not be fair - the RCC has certainly shown us boys can be the targets of predators just as frequently - but residual social constructs of valuing virginity and the madonna*/whore dichotomy, rape statistics, and similar gender politics issues certainly stick larger in the public mind that exposing a young girl is more exploitative than doing so with a young boy. If I may resort to a mildly spurious argument but not unsupported argument, when a 10 year old boy whips it out, he's doing so for a joke.
Possibly extending from this is the sense that while just about any age of girl can be penetrated by force, there is something perceived to be non-sexual about male genitalia before they're capable of an erection - and sometimes, even afterwards if not erect at that moment, but that's not relevant here. It is, again, joke fodder - to the male youth it's where you pee from, and you can make it look like an elephant. Call it vaginaphobia if you want, but the Western world at large treats it as a more 'normal' part of the body, even for children.
I might purely be blowing smoke, but that seems to me to be the sort of justification one would get.
* The societal construct, not the aging pop star with the faux-British accent.
And while I don't exactly disagree, I'm afraid I also don't sympathize, as you make the "non-sexual context" argument out of one side of your mouth while admitting that for you it has a sexual context out the other. You're kind of arguing against them taking you into account.
- Reply
- Reply
The view of social acceptance is just sexist.
- You have to have a stiff dick & aching balls to really apriciate pussy.