“So as soon as an animal starts talking, it is considered slavery?”
Jul 7
A response to your review at https://www.fanfiction.net/r/12033326/
Thank you for your opinion because this is my first story so I’ll start fixing it in the morning.
Jul 8
A response to your review at https://www.fanfiction.net/r/12020485/
You right it is hard to read when centering text
Jul 8
A response to your review at https://www.fanfiction.net/r/12035281/
Okay, thank you for the constructive critisim. I’ll just drop a few points to back me up, but you are right and thank you.
1. I know about the name. I just see that around a lot, so… yeah. it kinda grew on me. Thanks.
2 IT’S AND ITS. I TRY. WHY DO I KEEP FORGETTING!?
3. I’m working on it… The taking matters into her own hands…
4. I label chapters.
5. Gah, I know about the Arceus thing… I’m just used to typing that because my charactes are normally all Pokemon…
6. The talking to Pokemon… so… I’ll provide more on that later on, but… about slavery.
First off, just because they start to talk doesn’t make Trainers slave-owners. Let’s say a dog started talking, and it turned out it was very smart. Would that make having it as a pet slavery?
Also, it’s stated that most Pokemon like having trainers. Besides, they should know that Pokemon are pretty intelligent. They aren’t mindless animals. Besides… studies… (*cough* Alakazam *cough*)
But thank you so much for your constructive criticism and for taking your time to try to help. It’s been a lot of help, and I’ll try to use your advice.
Jul 8
[Let’s say a dog started talking, and it turned out it was very smart. Would that make having it as a pet slavery?]
Yes, it would. The reason it’s okay to keep pets is because they’re too dumb to survive on their own. Even then, there are limits on how people can treat them, and keeping animals confined is often an unhappy compromise that leaves a lot of them discontent. But if they’re as smart as you’re showing them to be in the fic, then they’re people, and owning people like objects is pretty much the definition of slavery. Again: what is even the point of treating pokemon like pets at that point? What are the pokemon getting out of it?
Jul 8
You know, I’ll just stop arguing. You are free to have that opinion, and I have a different one. Let’s make peace. Thanks again for your review.
Jul 9
A response to your review at https://www.fanfiction.net/r/12032964/
Thanks for the suggestion, I actually noticed that and changed it in the next chapter, so please continue reading ;)
Also, I broke down the first chappie into paragraphs. I didn’t actually do any editing. I wondered what was wrong with my fic cuz it seemed so small. Thanks for setting me straight :)Jul 9petrinarobinson1
A response to your review at https://www.fanfiction.net/r/12034592/
It was fully capitalized, but http://www.fanfiction.net gliched and made everything mixed gonna make a sonic fanfiction in the next few minutes.
NerdWriter19A response to your review at https://www.fanfiction.net/r/12036904/
Wow, your reviews have no mercy?, though I do appreciate the help since I’m just starting.
-As far as the summary goes, I wanted to make it vague because I didn’t want to give away too much of the plot, do you think this isn’t worth that?
-Thank you for the capitalizing tip, I was getting confused myself writing it. Same goes for the dialogue
-I thought I got all of those incorrect [yours], apparently not.
-Yes I know it’s creepy, this is rated M for a reason. I plan to tie in real life problems, slavery being one of them
-Part of story writing is change in character over the course of the story isn’t it? I plan to hammer him hard about this. Not all protagonists are light and fluffy
-It’s melodramatic for a reason, you as the reader just don’t know why yet. I will tone it down though.
-I thought I had the right spelling, my bad
-I do not mean to sexualize 15 year olds, I need to edit that for what I mean. Monster Musume’s harpy Papi is an example of what I’m somewhat going for.
Thank you for the critiques.
Jul 9[As far as the summary goes, I wanted to make it vague because I didn’t want to give away too much of the plot]
You can make it vague, just make it about the actual story. The purpose of the summary is to let people know what they’re getting into and if the story is something that interests them. There are probably some people who will read anything in a genre, but it’s more professional to say what makes your story stand out.
[I do not mean to sexualize 15 year olds]
Then maybe don’t list the exact size of her b*** and then go on and on about how vulnerable and nearly-n*** she is.
-Fair point, thanks for the tip-And alright, I’ll keep that in mind going forward, it was meant as ‘fan service’ or whatever you wanna call it. Also to prove the point that it is rated M
Jul 9[it was meant as ‘fan service’]
Fanservice is sexualization for the sake of sexualization. So, you are saying you just lied to me and you did in fact intend to sexualize 15 year olds?
You can prove your story is ~edgy~ and ~mature~ without writing child p***. Think about the fact that you chose to sexualize a vulnerable disabled child when you could have chosen literally anything else, and what that says about you.
-You need to slow down. You’re right, I did just controverse myself there and I apologize. Calm down( no sass intended ) and I’ll work harder on the story I’m trying to perfectwhy do they have the filter on
Jul 9PhotonDragon16
A response to your review at https://www.fanfiction.net/r/12036564/
if you dont like the story dont bother reading it hell i plan to take it down in a few days as for the summary i dont make one because i make everything up as i go theres barely a need for one if i dont know what im going to type
Jul 10
A response to your review at https://www.fanfiction.net/r/12037768/
hahaha omg I didn’t actually expect to get a constructive review on one of my works. you’ve surprised me, thank you. xD
and another thank you for your help, I’m not the greatest writer out there but it’s always nice to get a review that can help improve my writing so it can appeal more to a general audience.
just something I wanna add because of a personal preference, I do like labelling my chapters in the actual text itself, especially when it’s the first chapter and nothing else has been posted so people can recognise whether it’s a prologue/chapter one/contents etc. and I also capitalising pokemon because I do see pokemon (I’ll lower case it now to show I’m talking another the species, which I’ll admit does sound better) as an equal to people, especially considering I grew up on the Mystery Dungeon series where all the pokemon were capitalised and named as they were. It also would make it easier for me, considering there will be moments when the pokemon will be without their trainers and interact with one another and it would just seem odd to suddenly start capitalising their names all of a sudden.
Grammar mistakes are my fault and will be revised, thanks for the help. And for the cuss, it’s part of the Aussie–well, wog–lingo and I really wished to include it, however a fellow writer said that people may take offense to it and that I should censor it.
Overall though, thank you very much for the constructive criticism, I’ll definitely take everything you said seriously and I do hope to improve my writing in the meantime. :D
Jul 10[a fellow writer said that people may take offense to it and that I should censor it]
I’ve never heard that before. FFN contains far worse on a regular basis, so I doubt you’ll have a problem. Censoring stuff just looks really weird and awkward, especially when the kids ask about it immediately after.
[I also capitalising pokemon because I do see pokemon (I’ll lower case it now to show I’m talking another the species, which I’ll admit does sound better) as an equal to people, especially considering I grew up on the Mystery Dungeon series where all the pokemon were capitalised and named as they were. It also would make it easier for me, considering there will be moments when the pokemon will be without their trainers and interact with one another and it would just seem odd to suddenly start capitalising their names all of a sudden.]
This is exactly why it’s important not to capitalize them under normal circumstances. If you’re using the species name as their given name, then yes, capitalize it — but if you’re always capitalizing species names, then it’s really unclear whether you’re talking about the species or this specific one. It’s the difference between saying “a human” and talking about a human named “Human”.
“Besides, they should know that Pokemon are pretty intelligent. They aren’t mindless animals. Besides… studies… (*cough* Alakazam *cough*)”
So… their point is that pokemon are intelligent anyway, even when they can’t talk, so it’s OK to own them either way? That’s impressively backwards.
“Wow, your reviews have no mercy”
But plenty of LOVE. =)
“why do they have the filter on”
Beats me. Once you start writing porn, having a filter on ceases to be kinda silly and annoying and turns into active hypocrisy. Also, what is the “n***” word there? Can’t decipher. Naked? Is it something the filter actually catches?
“if you dont like the story dont bother reading it hell i plan to take it down in a few days as for the summary i dont make one because i make everything up as i go theres barely a need for one if i dont know what im going to type”
That’s just perfect.
So… their point is that pokemon are intelligent anyway, even when they can’t talk, so it’s OK to own them either way? That’s impressively backwards.
No, I think it’s more depressing than that. They’re saying that it’s obvious pokemon are intelligent in canon, so if canon trainers are okay treating pokemon like slaves now then talking pokemon wouldn’t change anyone’s behavior.
Also, what is the “n***” word there? Can’t decipher. Naked? Is it something the filter actually catches?
I believe so. The filter also censors “jerk”, I think. It’s like they know everyone on the site is 10 years old or something.
It actually does make sense why they have it on, though — it’s on by default, and not everyone knows how to turn it off, especially if this is the first time they’ve had extensive conversations. I did encounter someone else who seemed genuinely baffled by the filter and thought I was censoring everything myself.
“No, I think it’s more depressing than that. They’re saying that it’s obvious pokemon are intelligent in canon, so if canon trainers are okay treating pokemon like slaves now then talking pokemon wouldn’t change anyone’s behavior.”
Yeah, that’s what I meant. Probably didn’t explain it well enough.
Except it appears that the author doesn’t see anything wrong with it themselves, not just thinking that trainers won’t change their behavior.
Monster Musume’s harpy Papi is an example of what I’m somewhat going for.
Okay, so I know what that is and I’m going to make all of you know what that is:
Papi is a loli designed for people who find regular lolis too intimidating and need them to be mentally around toddler level. An important part of her outfit is her barely there, skin-molded shorts aren’t buttoned up.
It’s funny because lolis were originally designed to be mentally mature (ugh) but in childlike bodies specifically so that the authors could be like “She just looks like a child! She’s an adult, we swear! See, she even acts like one by being sarcastic/philosophical/practical!”
This is what happens when the medium has become so saturated by a problematic archetype that the original means of softening it have become forgotten and unnecessary.
If Nabokov came back to life at this point he would just immediately kill himself again.
edit: Every now and then I think I should read Lolita just to have read it and then I remember that the reason I haven’t bought it is all the covers are sexy little girls. It’s this horrifying metacommentary on the exact problematic thing the book was criticizing.
My edition of the book actually has Nabokov’s portrait looking at the readers with deep disapproval on the cover, though that’s probably because it was published as a part of the series of classic literature, along with Dostoevski, so the publishers wanted to be classy more than they wanted to be sexy.
I stumbled onto professional reviews in my search for this cover and I have to inflict them on someone else:
“a love story almost shocking in its beauty and tenderness”
“its abominable hero, who never deludes or excuses himself”
“it is a meditation on love”
what is wrong with people
…The fuck?
Lolita is kinda notorious for its heavy use of unreliable narrator. When you compare what Humbert tells us happens and actual actions done and words spoken, it’s obvious he tries to impose his own narrative different from the horrifying reality of the situation.
That’s fucking point of the novel.
And love story? Really? Really? A story about cheating lying pedophile pressing a girl into relationship where she’s clearly miserable if you just look at her and don’t listen to him is a beautiful love story now?
Alright, I’ve officially lost my capacity to can now. Fuck the world.
In retrospect, I think the real mistake he made was titling it Lolita. It should’ve been Humbert.
I know why he thought that was clever. It seems like it’s her name, but really it’s not her name, just as really his descriptions of her being a happy sexpot aren’t actually true. I think he was assuming that if you were smart, you’d get it, and if you weren’t smart, you’d just assume it was a perverted horrible book and then he’d be smug and go WELL ACTUALLY. It didn’t occur to him that there was a seething mass of Humberts just waiting for someone to bring up the lust that dare not speak its name and a seething mass of book publishers ready with covers for those people.
All of this reminds me of how when Freud starting doing therapy he found out a ton of young girls were being molested and started publishing papers on it, and got such a backlash publically that he recanted, said they must have been making it up, and went on to invent tons of “kids-want-to-fuck-adults” complexes to explain it.
World is fucked up.
I’ll admit to never having read Lolita, and truthfully have little desire to (but maybe I should one of these days). That said, you’d really think (or at least hope) people would question what it’s telling them – “this book seems to be romanticising a sexual relationship with a young child, surely something is wrong here, let’s look at this again” but nope. It’s depressingly common to see people gushing over how romantic it is, or people who despise Nabokov for being a paedophile because they can’t separate him from Humbert.
Truthfully this problem goes far beyond Lolita, this is just a glaring example of it. I think the real problem is that many people read with uncritical acceptance of what the narrator tells them, so unreliable narrators end up being (ha ha aren’t I so clever) an unreliable way to convey a message. Too many people will just read credulously and internalise the opposite instead. (I’m noticing this a lot in my reread of Harry Potter and the like, where the narration may not be intentionally unreliable but you end up with huge gulfs in interpretation because the author never thought much about what’s going on outside the narrator’s tunnel vision.)
It’s always bothered me somewhat that people use the term “Lolita” or “loli” as catchall term for sexualised girls, because that seems to encourage the misconceptions about what the novel is (not to mention it seems like it’s associating her first and foremost with Humbert’s view of her). But that’s a losing battle to fight at this point.
See, I think “loli” is the one time it does fit. Lolita was a fictional person he invented and pasted on top of actual kids. Lolis normally don’t behave like actual kids and the issue isn’t straight up “this is porn sexualizing children” but “this is porn justifying sexualizing children by saying that they’re very mature for their age and totally the ones doing the seducing”.
“Loli” does loop back around to being appropriate in an ironic way.
But yes, it’s definitely a problem with critical reading skills in general compounded by misogyny. We talk a lot here about how grammar isn’t taught, but the truth is that critical thinking vis a vis literature isn’t really taught, either. Teachers are discouraged from leading discussions and assigning reading — there’s a lot of “choose whatever you want and then talk about how it made you feel” that does on.
Our world is absolutely driven by media, and we’re leaving kids less and less about to cope with that.
I don’t know what the solution is. On a personal level, I’ve been exceedingly clear to Mr. Act that our future children are all going to private school, because it’s the only way to get a humanities education these days, and it gives you some control over teachers and curriculum. But that we could even afford that — and admittedly, it will be tough — is a massive privilege a lot of people don’t have.
This stuff is so entrenched now that I just don’t know how to campaign for the kind of reform necessary. Going to school for education destroyed my soul — I literally could not go through with it, like emotionally.
Sometimes I think the only responsible thing to do would be to go into teaching myself, try to help as many people as I can on the ground, but like I like my job and also the pay cut would be batshit so it’s not super tenable.
So yeah tl;dr it’s a huge problem I think about all the time and I have no idea what the solution is.
It goes both ways, actually. There are a lot of people who use unreliable narrator as an excuse for legitimate flaws in the narrative. That HPMOR readthrough had a good post about unreliable narrator as a pressure valve: every time the MC fucks up, it was intentional and shows his flaws, but he is still meant to be that amazing person ready to burst with wisdom, and the world reacts to him as such rather than treating him as a little annoying twerp that he is.
I think it comes down to emotional response thwarting logical thinking. People read books uncrticically, as you said, and form their opinions not so much based on what’s going on but on what entertains them the most. Many villains are whitewashed by the fandoms routinely, for example, because they’re charismatic and cool. Even though it was never the original intention to show them in a good light and even though they’re treated as clearly bad guys, they’re still liked by the audience because when they’re on stage, it’s way more entertaining than when they’re not.
Same goes for unreliable narrators like Humbert Humbert. He is pretty damn charismatic, he does know his way around words, and so readers automatically want to trust him, to go along with his version of events rather than examine what’s actually going on and change their first impression of the man.
So, basically, yes, reading uncritically is certainly a big factor in the problem, but it can result not only in people missing the unreliable narrator, but also in forming opinions directly opposite the intended and clearly shown reality of the narrative as well.
So, essentially, by “I didn’t mean to sexualise fifteen year olds” this person really meant “because she’s supposed to be younger, I’m aiming at the paedo demographic here”? Charming.
I think actually there’s a reveal that she’s like twenty, in the same way others are secretly five thousand year old demons.
The important part isn’t her age, after all – it’s her inability to meaningfully consent!
I always thought of her as sort of a “ditz” type character.
She is. She’s a hypersexualized version of it where the sexy is the idea of a woman who’s completely credulous and willing to believe anything you tell her, and unable to learn from experience when you abuse that trust.
If anything, she suggests that people are kinking on the other, less obviously fanbait ditz characters for the same reason.
I think you’re onto something there, Farla. I’m not sure it’s exactly the same fetish, but the ‘ditz’ thing is definitely something of that sort. (If anyone doesn’t believe me, go read anything by the loathsome Piers Anthony, in which he constantly waxes rhapsodic over “beautiful and stupid” women, constantly stressing how ‘stupid’ various women are in the context of male characters’ sexual attraction to them, and so on. Although I suppose that doesn’t help in distinguishing it from paedophilia, all things considered, this is Piers Anthony I’m talking about…)
I’ve wondered at times if the idea that feminine stupidity is sexy is tied to various ideas that sex is inherently degrading to women, and therefore a woman would have to be stupid to agree to it.
I think it was in the Atelier Escha and Logy I talked about this a little, but I think a lot of the time when people talk about the male power fantasy it’s the Kratos-ian ME MAN BEAT ENEMY SEX WOMAN hypermaculinity thing, but there’s also a type of male power fantasy that revolves around getting that high from being superior to women and protecting them that I think is what the “ditz” archetype plays into. Like, “Look how incapable this poor woman is! What a woman. Since you’re so superior, she obviously needs you, you big strong man.”
It’s important that the “protect” side of the power fantasy involves a woman you pity, because having it be a man risks the presumed-male audience identifying more with the one being protected than the protector, and that defeats the point of these stories. Weak men should be villified and othered, not pitied and assisted.
Oh god him.
I think there’s a whole pile of overlapping fetishes with him that make it impossible to isolate what’s going on. I think control is a big factor – the stupid women often don’t understand something they’re doing/being done to them is sexual but it’s very important they’re uncomfortable and aware something is wrong – stupid women who just don’t care are so incredibly disgusting they’re unfuckable despite their avaliability.
Someone like Papi fits the idea of “protection” – although she’s definitely set up so she can be abused if you’re into that, her sexual avaliability and general vulnerability also lets someone play out the fantasy of not hurting her and of guarding her from those who would. But if the cow story is anything to go by, Piers Anthony would try to fuck her, lose his erection when she was fine about that, then call her a bitch and shove her to the floor for it.
test
testt
Ah yes, Piers Anthony.
I’ve read one book by him long ago (Curse of Chameleon? Something with chameleon in the title, anyway), in which there was a woman under a curse that made her attractiveness inversely proportional to her intellect: over a course of a month (I think) she would go from ugly to super-hot, while her intellect would drop from genius to infant (but, it should be noted, very horny infant). Then the process would go in reverse.
If that’s not enough, there was also what I’m pretty sure was rape apologia. At one point, the main character was traveling the land and stayed a night with some random famility that agreed to let him in. As a payment for the stay, the host asked the MC for a favor: to go on trial instead of him.
The trial consisted of three men and three women sitting across each other with the local authority preceding over them. One of the men has raped one of the women, though the identities weren’t revealed because apparently it was more important to preserve the community.
Then the local authority gave a lecture that amounted to “well, we know what happened and that was bad, so don’t do it again.” And that was that.
At the time, the MC felt deeply uncomfortable about the whole thing. Later, he met one of the women from the trial, and she was hot and stupid and available, so he thought, “Yeah, I can see why someone would fuck her, willing or not. I’m a better man, though.”
Then she became the love interest.
Yeah, that’s a pretty accurate summary. It was “A Spell for Chameleon”. (For added misogyny points, all of her transitions were pretty blatantly a metaphor for menstruation, because what everyone needed was a male author saying “look, women go through a bitch phase every month”)
It gets worse, because, as she becomes the love interest, they actually do have sex later. Under circumstances that are pretty much explicitly rape even though the book never says so: he thinks to himself that, essentially, she’s become so “stupid” that she would not be able to understand the concept of sex. So he decides to have sex with her instead of trying to talk about it. (It’s also implied that she fell in love with him earlier in the book in large part because he didn’t rape her then, which makes this even more ironic and depressing.)
I read that book and many others of his as a teenager and completely missed all of this. It’s fucking terrifying.
A Spell for Chameleon. The resolution is she doesn’t need a spell! The only problem with being stupid and helpless half the time is that men won’t want to marry you during the other half of the time, but it’s fine because she did find a man who’d marry her.
I read maybe half of the million Xanth books when I was a kid, and a couple of his other ones.
1) The stuff in A Spell for Chameleon is but the tip of the creepy, creepy Xanth iceberg.
2) Once you read his other stuff you’ll realize how he can think of his Xanth stuff as child-approriate.
So, I’ve found the quote about the trial in A Spell for Chameleon, and it’s much, much worse than I remembered. It’s like all of the rape apologia, all of it, condensed in a tight package:
Also, here’s a link to a lovely rant about the book (with more rants about the series that can be found via a tag): http://www.anamardoll.com/2014/07/xanth-we-need-to-talk-about-piers.html#more
I’d actually been considering linking to that thread from Ana’s blog; you’ll see me in the comments thread there.
Also, the version you quoted is the bowdlerised one. The book as originally published was worse: “She was a creature constructed for no other visible purpose than ra– than love.” (I’m quoting that from memory so it might be slightly off, but seriously, holy shit.)
Cripes. I’ve seen the “built for ra- love” excerpt before without any other context and, since I’ve often seen the “Xanth” series praised for its sarcasm and wittiness, I thought it was a satire of that sort of mindset.
I’ll bet you think that if the guy in the relationship (well, for straight relationships) isn’t tied to the floor and screaming in pain, it’s not OK. Of course, you’ve got to stop taking fiction so seriously. Just showing that someone gets away with something isn’t saying, “Hey, audience, that’s acceptable!” Sure, I hate hypermasculinists (partially because they also tend to be racist ableistic scum), but that doesn’t mean I can’t also dislike hyperfeminists, especially when both sides see anime as the enemy. Anime’s not the enemy.
Horrible dubs are.
Keep calm, attend to your configuration, stay fresh, live long and prosper, and nerd on,
Axel ?
Actually, feminism regularly mentions that the attitude that violence toward men doesn’t count is also awful.
Just showing that someone gets away with something isn’t saying, “Hey, audience, that’s acceptable!”
This is absolutely true. Repeatedly showing it, in positive contexts and tied to characters treated as good, is when it’s telling the audience it’s acceptable.
Here’s an example that will no doubt dovetail into something else you don’t like, but it’s a pretty good one:
In a story, a teen is pregnant. What should they do?
They give it up for adoption. There is both a moral weight behind this (so many people hate abortion) and a narrative weight behind this (various struggles of the pregnancy leading up to the birth itself, then a satisfying ending). These books often present themselves as truthful, accurately reflecting the sort of things a pregnant teen would go through. Although of course a single book isn’t literally true, when you see the exact same things come up again and again across every story of the type, you begin to form a model of what the truth is. If every story you read mentions dolphins eating fish, you figure out that dolphins eat fish.
The books completely misrepresent how scarring adoption is – getting a baby all the way to term, getting smacked with the full hormone cocktail, and then the baby being just gone is a horrible experience for just about everyone, leaves a lot of people messed up for the rest of their life or outright killing themselves. That doesn’t fit the story – it’s a real downer ending, you know? Neither does talking about how many of them will die from the pregnancy itself. And the babies are always perfect or, very rarely, have some fatal defect that kills them cleanly without any complications, because we don’t like to think about babies gasping for breath and especially not doing so as a doctor explains that the parents pony up thousands of dollars right now or they turn the machines off. We don’t like to think about all the babies born healthy enough to survive but with enough of a disability no one wants to adopt them. In fact, we don’t even like to talk about the emotional aspects of even regular, problem-free pregnancies, just jokes about cravings and women being irrational.
No one who reads those books thinks it means they know exactly what this is like, but hear people talk about teen pregnancy, about abortion, and you’ll hear them saying the same things those books say: “Why didn’t she just give it up for adoption?” (The few books that have the girl keep it aren’t any better – you can hear those in the voices of the girls who kept their baby saying they didn’t realize how just hard it’d be.)
And there’s a lot of things like that. You read a lot of stories about how younger girls seduce older men, and when you hear about a man getting caught with a kid, you’ll think, well, kids can be precocious! You read a lot about police needing to torture suspects and you’ll think torture, while perhaps horrible, is sometimes the only answer – even though the real ending of all those “based on a true stories” was some variant on how a killer lied a bunch until the clock ran out.
Humans are really good at using stories to communicate and really, really terrible at knowing what we’re communicating.
Also Monster Musume is literally porn, so I’m not sure how bringing that up is a defense.
I think it’s more like, “This exact same thing was in published media, so why are you telling me I’m doing something wrong? It was okay there!”
That’s the part where you’d have to ask yourself some hard questions about what your target audience is, because like Act said, Monster Musume is literally porn.
It’s Moemon. Your prime target audience is people getting off on the thought of owning monster girls. It’s pretty much literary porn by design as it is. Honestly, I’m not even sure why they’re bothering to try putting up a defense. Trying to appear more mature, I guess.
Honestly, I’m not even sure why they’re bothering to try putting up a defense.
Because on some level they know it’s wrong, but if they admit it they might have to confront some of the media they consume.
I generally think written/drawn porn isn’t a tragedy like IRL porn is — no actual women are harmed and all — but this shows why it’s still a huge issue in that it portrays some really awful things as normal and transmits those messages crit-free to an audience.
It’s ESCAPIST. FICTION. DON’T SWEAT IT. NOT EVERYTHING IS AGAINST WOMEN. YOU’RE JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO CUT OFF SOMEONE’S DICK.
“YOYOU’RE JUST LOOKING FOR AN EXCUSE TO CUT OFF SOMEONE’S DICK.”
Just because we’re discussing porn, there is no need to tell us about your fetish.
Bb, I don’t need an excuse.
and transmits those messages crit-free to an audience.
There’s also the problem where even the pieces that criticize those messages still end up as fuel for the fire. This discussion did start with you name-dropping Nabokov.
It’s a really big problem with pieces that try to criticize unhealthy views on sex and/or violence.
Oh, so unless everything shows men as horrible people, it’s not okay? Is hetero stuff not cricket now?
See, pup, pretty much nobody here has said that men need to be harmed or portrayed badly. We’re talking about the already-negative portrayal of women. Nobody is out to hurt you, dude. It’s okay. Have a nap.
I really just want to know what it means to be cricket now.
That and…I don’t think the person here is all that old. I mean, kids are going to get into the porn one way or another but god are they not ready to think critically about the depiction of sexuality they’re getting off 4chan.
To relive a few days over and over again, being gruesomely killed at the end each time.
Wait, no, that’s cicadas.
I believe I know the actual meaning, since it’s common in Britain to say “it’s not cricket” when something is improper (originating from the sport, where you’d say “it’s not cricket” if someone was cheating or playing dishonorably).
Believe me, you’d have to be pretty dumb to believe that because you saw something on TV or in a movie, it was acceptable.
I know you want to feel superior to others because you’re so smart, but it’s not a matter of intelligence, it’s a matter of just going along with things you already “know” to be true. To give just one example, it’s why most people rarely if ever criticise portrayals of Jesus as a fair-haired white man – after all, that’s how he’s always been portrayed since long before they were even alive, never mind that if Jesus actually existed he was a Jew.
You make it sound like Judaism is a race, not a religion. Also, there’s a huge difference between what ethnicity someone is and saying what’s socially acceptable.
It is an ethnicity.
And arguments about what’s socially acceptable have always included if it’s socially acceptable for “certain people” to be treated differently. Always draw Jesus blond and blue eyed, always draw the people cruxifying him with black hair and darker skin…and then, mysteriously, people who look like one of those two types kept getting lynched every time anything went wrong in Europe.
The argument about whether Judaism is a race or a religion is like the argument over whether Pluto is a planet, germanium is a metal or a metalloid, or whether viruses are organisms. It changes a lot over time. Who knows? In the future, we could see Pluto coming back to the main planets’ group! I personally don’t see Judaism as a race, because I came from a family where my mom was Christian and my dad was Jewish.
Not really.
1) Jewish tradition itself has long held that a child born to a Jewish mother is Jewish.
2) The majority of Jewish people today do view it as an ethnicity.
3) Genetic testing can find shared genetic markers among many Jewish people – they are a distinct genetic group, more so than some other groups we think of as ethnicities.
4) Anti-Jewish discrimination goes by family line and not by if someone’s a practicing Jew (and has for a very long time) so saying it’s only a religion means a lot of hate crimes stop being legally hate crimes.
Forgive my ignorance of hate crimes, but are they not still legally hate crimes if targeted at one’s religion?
If the person isn’t practicing, the police could just shrug and say that well, these swastikas flanking the spray-painted KILL THE JEW on your house wasn’t targeting you for religious purposes so like, good luck with that.
You make it sound like Judaism is a race […]
I said no such thing. :-) Judaism is indeed a religion; Jews, on the other hand, are an ethnicity. You can be Jewish (ethnicity) without being Jewish (religiosity), for instance. Instead of desperately grasping at straws, do try to engage the argument, yes?
I’m neither a lawyer nor particularly knowledgeable about American jurisprudence, but depending on the specific legislation, some crimes may be judged as a special category of hate crimes and suffer harsher penalties.
I feel a bit late to the party, but the character will probably evolve at certain points. There isn’t much reason for fletchling to get smarter though, but the author may have chosen her because those characteristics seemed like a good pre-evolved form. He may be trying to “fix’ the character. It’s still a toss up on the between dumb woman/mere-ditzy woman/average woman.
It’s a Moemon story taking inspiration from a harem anime. I would be very surprised if any of the female characters would evolve beyond two-bit archetype designed to appeal to one fetish or another.
In any case, potential future developments hardly excuse currently present creepiness.
In any case, potential future developments hardly excuse currently present creepiness.
The Fate Dilemma.
test