631
Me_irl (lemmy.today)
submitted 5 months ago by to c/me_irl@lemmy.world
100 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -6 points 5 months ago (30 children)

I'm not saying that. I was actually thinking about the messaging by the animation companies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 30 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (29 children)

    And what supposed "messaging" do you mean, exactly?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
    •
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (4 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    So you're salty that I called you out, and now that you realize your mistake you're doubling down in an attempt to save face. Typical Lemmy mean girl.

    when children are in no danger whatsoever

    You sound like a boomer. "The children are fine!1!!" The children now:

    Go upvote it and be a total hypocrite.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Let’s talk hypocrisy. You don’t fight for body positivity by denouncing one body type as intrinsically sexual, inherently provocative, and dangerous to expose to children. Particularly when talking about POC characters like Nani and Chel.

    As an aside, you know what I always really appreciated about Nani’s character design? The little belly the artist gave her. It’s a small thing, and you’ll probably just pretend it was never there, but do you know how damn refreshing this shit was coming out on the heels of the heroin chic era?

    Of course not, anyone old enough to have actually watched these movies in the context they were released in is just an out of touch boomer to you. Whatever, I’ve said my piece, we’re done here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago* (20 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (9 children)

    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?

    That's right. There's absouletly no oversexualized man in animation. /s

    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 ").

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    you’re kind of coming across a bit racist-y here,

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (5 children)

    What's racist is having a problem with beauty standards from cultures of PoC, while accepting european beauty standards.

    The timestamp is 2m05s. Look it up.

    So, what's your point exactly? That people with broad hips aren't supposed to be shown? What exactly is your point about the "body image"? You still failed to give a concise answer.

    Literally pulling shit out of your ass.

    That sure is a way not to respond in an argument. I interpret that as you giving up.

    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.

    Sure. And I can do one handed pull-ups. I just don't want to. /s

    one is eagle spread on a surfboard and the other is checking out her ass.

    What? She is sitting on a surfboard. How else is she supposed to sit. Have you ever been on a surfboard? And the one shot where she's "checking out her ass" has no sexual connotations. It was cooldown of a tense action scene and shows her being self-conscious about her weight. You probably never watched the movie. So don't just state shit you know nothing about.

    Case in point.

    Was your point that you're asking creepy questions? Because then I agree. Otherwise, I restate that it's not shameful for (pre-)teens to explore their sexuality at their own pace.

    Teenage start at thirTEEN. 12 is the upper bound

    Oh, yeah. Really big difference, Herr Obersturmbandführer of the sematics nazis. /s

    but I've been repeatedly referring to 9 year-olds.

    So, are you implying that broad hips spoil the youth into being sexually more active at an earlier age? Helen Lovejoy much?

    You're so disingenuous and throwing shit at the wall.

    Nah, you're just body shaming and/or a puritan Helen Lovejoy.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    What’s racist is having a problem with beauty standards from cultures of PoC

    So, what’s your point exactly?

    The fuck are you on about, did my point really escape you that hard that you have to go all stupid about it? You don't even get it but you keep talking shit and giving shitty arguments. 🤣

    That sure is a way not to respond in an argument. I interpret that as you giving up.

    Respond to what, your bullshit? Give me a break. You're a pigeon on a chessboard. you don't even know what you're doing.

    You probably never watched the movie. So don’t just state shit you know nothing about.

    See? Pulling shit out of your ass again. You don't know me.

    Was your point that you’re asking creepy questions?

    Is yours playing stupid?

    Oh, yeah. Really big difference, Herr Obersturmbandführer of the sematics nazis. /s

    Not only is your reply shitty af, but like it or not, a year in a child's life IS a big difference. You gotta learn about the developmental cycle somewhere, I guess.

    So, are you implying that broad hips spoil the youth into being sexually more active at an earlier age?

    Nah, you’re just body shaming and/or a puritan Helen Lovejoy.

    You're literally arguing against yourself. That's note even my point, dumbass. 😂

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    That's note even my point, dumbass. 😂

    You never clearly stated your goddamn point, troll.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    If I haven't, then wtf are you even defending against? Your imagination? You're all up in arms about it because you know that what you think you're defending is sketchy af. And you're only doing it because you found it arousing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    Where are the sexy men

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Those are not sexy, and I would know as a gay man. Try again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    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:

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I see what you're saying but he's a 6.5/10, especially compared with the women.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    My gay friend says they are, so checkmate

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Your imaginary gay friend needs some standards.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •