|
Vincent posted:What is it with singers called Drake and grooming children? Male ducks are called drakes and are notoriously rape-y. Further evidence that names are powerful things.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
KitConstantine posted:Male ducks are called drakes and are notoriously rape-y. Further evidence that names are powerful things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominative_determinism
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:33
|
|
|
I mean that’s two more years of probation than the other drake got
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 21:57
|
|
|
Vincent posted:It was still pedophilia, though. Lewis Carrol was definitely a pedo. Like, it's not a "oh those old timers" type thing, because "pictures of nude children" is definitely NOT something that was normal at that time.  My understanding is that Carrol's photography was, if not completely normal even at the time, much less abnormal than it would be today. Also, his reputation has been inadvertently damaged by attempts to protect it (his early biographers downplayed his relationships with adult women). But I hesitate to say definitively that he wasn't a pedo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Carroll#Controversies_and_mysteries
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 22:48
|
|
|
I mean there’s the whole uh Alice in Wonderland thing
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 23:34
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:I mean there’s the whole uh Alice in Wonderland thing The book itself, to my recollection, doesn't have anything that would make someone think "This was written by a pedophile" The stories around the creation of the book however...
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2021 23:51
|
|
|
it's basically Hey There Delilah except with better world building and Delilah is a child
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
Probably more that in Britain if you're an even vaguely financially secure white dude people will just let you do whatever the gently caress you want to children apparently
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 01:13
|
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:it's basically Hey There Delilah except with better world building Not sure I get the analogy here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 01:14
|
|
|
The real Delilah was a college student in her early 20s that the lead singer started creeping on after meeting her at a strip club. Though it does really apply since he was only like 25 at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 01:26
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Probably more that in Britain if you're an even vaguely financially secure white dude people will just let you do whatever the gently caress you want to children apparently When Arthur C Clarke got caught, he just got quietly shuffled to Sri Lanka where he did it to non-white children instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 04:55
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:When Arthur C Clarke got caught, he just got quietly shuffled to Sri Lanka where he did it to non-white children instead. Wait, what?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 16:14
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Wait, what? Clarke's knighting was canceled because of reports of him being an abuser of children. quote:I grew up in Sri Lanka. My dad was doing some work for the Canadian government. There were a lot of expat kids in my area and we had free reign of the neighbourhood. Our parents mostly let us do what we wanted, but we were told to stay away—never go near—a large property that bordered my house. When we asked why the reasons were always vague. https://www.vice.com/en/article/bjxp5m/we-asked-people-what-childhood-moment-shaped-them-the-most Groovelord Neato fucked around with this message at 16:33 on Jul 13, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 16:31
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:When Arthur C Clarke got caught, he just got quietly shuffled to Sri Lanka where he did it to non-white children instead. In the movie Without Warning, Arthur C. Clarke makes a cameo on the news live from Sri Lanka and I immediately knew what was going on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 16:41
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:Wait, what? I learned it from this thread, and now it's happened to you too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 16:55
|
|
|
What if painting naked little kids was actually never normal and in fact it was always kind of weird and creepy, and ancient painters were like “uh, surely my lord would prefer a nude relief of the more seasoned flesh of the duchess of Duverny or perhaps the fair maiden of Londonshire… no, still with the little kid, huh? And you’ll probably cut off my head if I don’t paint the naked little kid for you? Sure, I guess”
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 17:03
|
|
|
Yeah "[Disgusting Thing] was normal at the time" ain't a good excuse.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 18:33
|
|
|
I think the takeaway of painting a nude being the problem here is kind of weird. The issue is that Clarke was clearly leveraging his fame and the pretense of painting to oggle and humiliate a distressed little boy. Cherubs in Renaissance art are for example not abuse because nudes are not necessarily sexual or obscene.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:13
|
|
|
Timeless Appeal posted:I think the takeaway of painting a nude being the problem here is kind of weird. The issue is that Clarke was clearly leveraging his fame and the pretense of painting to oggle and humiliate a distressed little boy. Cherubs in Renaissance art are for example not abuse because nudes are not necessarily sexual or obscene. ...but what if that's just the story art historians pass down to one another as a way of explaining away all the paintings of naked little kids, which may have served as some early form of pornographys for the excessively wealthy? I mean really, I want you to imagine the kind of person who consumes art about the purity of a child's body, or the innocence of youth, and actively seeks out that style of art. If you walked into a person's home, any person, and it was decorated with these "tasteful" and "artistic" nude children's bodies... how would that make you feel? I dunno, this argument always feels like we're giving the benefit of the doubt to some imaginary patron of the arts who doesn't have enough opportunities to look at naked children for morally pure reasons...
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Or maybe you are being really weird.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
The intent's what matters. My mom has some pictures somewhere of me taking a bath in the sink and grinning at the camera because it was cute. Little kids running around naked on the beach is cute because they're so happy and carefree. A nude body in and of itself isn't sexual until someone assigns sex to it. A kid forced to remove his clothes while sobbing and afraid has intent behind it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:38
|
|
|
I can't imagine ignoring the miserable sobbing distress of my grandchild no matter how starstruck I was. gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:48
|
|
|
Also the image of a lurking elderly pedophile just coming out of the literal bushes to suggest some nude portraiture is just loving INSANE
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 19:49
|
|
|
There's a pretty interesting argument about where the line is drawn between art and pornography, and it's really not necessarily clear all the time. It's also easily misunderstood by a lot of people, I think. But I think that art can be pornography, and pornography can be art depending on the intent of both the artist and the viewer. Actually, I studied Renaissance art and sculpture in college for a while, and frankly I found that there was a certain amount of art created in that period of time that arguably does skirt the lines between art and pornography - even child pornography, at times. For instance, one of the most famous nude Renaissance sculptures - Donatello's first David in bronze which inspired Michelangelo's more famous interpretation half a century later - well, I would describe that statue as being downright pornographic. Probably one of the earliest examples of 'child pornography' in a sense, though I don't really think it's considered as such. I remember reading a fascinating essay about it in a Camille Paglia book, once.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
Vincent posted:Yeah "[Disgusting Thing] was normal at the time" ain't a good excuse. Yeah, for real. Lynching black people for being uppity was a normal thing once upon a time. Does that poo poo get excused too?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 23:45
|
|
|
edogawa rando posted:Yeah, for real. Lynching black people for being uppity was a normal thing once upon a time. Does that poo poo get excused too? Depressingly often. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2021 23:58
|
|
|
edogawa rando posted:Yeah, for real. Lynching black people for being uppity was a normal thing once upon a time. Does that poo poo get excused too? Have you been to Texas recently?
|
|
#
?
Jul 14, 2021 07:49
|
|
|
Hey, some good news for once in this thread. https://twitter.com/enews/status/1415453312468537349?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2021 00:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/thedailybeast/status/1415764953634594822?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2021 16:01
|
|
|
What's the best resource to understand the Paul Reubens cases? This Village Voice article seems like the most authoritative one on the 2003mcase, but still leaves some unanswered questions for me: https://www.villagevoice.com/2003/01/14/persecuting-pee-wee/ It seems like there's a relatively decent case (between the initial prosecutor's decision and what one of Reubens' magazine dealers told the Voice) that he had no idea that there might be anything illegal in larger lots he bought; that it was an unfortunate reality of buying lots from the era he was interested in. But I don't quite get a few things: * Given his resources—important because it's such a factor in taking a plea—I always felt like it was something he should have pushed given the outcome (obscenity plea) required him to effectively be a registered sex offender for the next three years. ("Effectively" meaning he wasn't on the registry AFAIK but had to register his address with the police and couldn't be around minors without their parents' consent.) Or was it established that with the city attorney pursuing the case so hard, he was better off copping a plea where he'd be back to normal in 3 years instead of pushing it further and risking further issues? * Apparently, he was allowed to appeal...something under the terms of the plea deal, but I can't find any details about how that went? The appeal that was covered in the media (appealing the trial judge's decision not to throw out the CSAM possession charge on the grounds that the material was legal at the time), which was denied within days, was long before he took the plea deal. The only case on the CA appellate website is the earlier one. * Has it ever been established why a witness in the Jones investigation pointed to him? * Is there any source for the specifics of what the police ACTUALLY found (not just generalizations) beyond what Reubens and his lawyer said? And with the 1991 case: * Is there a source for the Les Moonves conspiracy theory? * Is there any specific reason we should believe Reubens' long-held (pun not intended) claim that he was not tossing off and didn't even expose himself?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2021 02:33
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/Kotaku/status/1418011201250988038?s=20
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 12:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1417977923454132224?s=20 https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1417893156419293189?s=20 https://twitter.com/DEADLINE/status/1417914397452738563?s=20 Alan Smithee fucked around with this message at 12:09 on Jul 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 12:06
|
|
|
This poo poo is crazy. Everything is this thread is awful, but this is so blatant and obvious and yet… nothing! I hope Cali and these women get a chance for justice, whatever that may be in this case.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2021 23:06
|
|
|
It's not in this article but an adjacent one, but one director was so notorious in the company(Alex Afrasiabi or Furor of Fires of Heaven if you were an EQ player) that his office was known internally as The Cosby Suite.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2021 04:30
|
|
|
What do you all think of the The Last Duel trailer that came out? I remember this movie was announced there was a lot of online pushback, that it was a terrible film idea for the moment and antithetical to the Me Too movement, but now that the trailer is out I see a lot of articles saying it's very timely and representative of the Me Too movement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:What do you all think of the The Last Duel trailer that came out? What the gently caress? The story is literally about a women who was raped who refused to recant her accusation when there was a ton of pressure to do so, and the end result being if her husband lost the duel she would be burned alive as a liar. The historical curiosity came from the fact that neither her nor her husband bent to pressure to drop it leading to an actual duel to the death sanctioned by the King himself. I don't know what liberties the film is taking, but the book was real clear that despite any ambiguity in the historical record the most likely scenario was that she was raped and the assailant expected to get away with it. There's mention of the societal culture at the time and how women being attacked by knights were usually accused of tempting them and the 'trials' basically consisted of someone saying they say her smile at him one time, and the court ruling that she was a willing participant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 06:47
|
|
|
its an ok movie but tbh it weirds me out the most when you write "the Me Too movement" like that every time, with the caps?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 08:25
|
|
|
pentyne posted:What the gently caress? The story is literally about a women who was raped who refused to recant her accusation when there was a ton of pressure to do so, and the end result being if her husband lost the duel she would be burned alive as a liar. The historical curiosity came from the fact that neither her nor her husband bent to pressure to drop it leading to an actual duel to the death sanctioned by the King himself. This was the general feeling of the time https://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/2019/07/23/ben-affleck-matt-damon-the-last-duel/ quote:Yeah, it’s safe to say that a movie that uses rape as a plot device to explore medieval manliness is probably not the best look at this moment in time, especially given Affleck and Damon’s reputations around issues related to women
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 09:28
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:This was the general feeling of the time That's some toxic twitter poo poo. The book is extremely clear about the case and it's circumstances, and "manliness" isn't even remotely in the top 5 issues. jesus the twitter comments attacking the movie in the article are far more disgusting then any of the criticisms of the movie. it's gets real weird when people get woke and complain about a "problematic" rape trial from 1368, a trial in which the servants and commoners were routinely tortured just to make sure they didn't change their testimony. The only way the movie would be problematic is that if it implied or suggested that maybe Le Gris was innocent of the rape. There's pretty clear consensus from both historical peers at the time and throughout the centuries that the circumstances of the case made Marguerite's accusation extremely plausible. His own lawyer at the time basically said "yeah he probably did it" later on. Again, this is for a rape case from 650 years ago, so going all "lol bro, bad look for this story" for a historical recreation is loving weird. pentyne fucked around with this message at 09:48 on Jul 24, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 09:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 23, 2024 16:07 |
|
|
If anything, being able to legally challenge a dude to a fight to the death because your wife says he raped her seems like the best possible use of toxic masculinity.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2021 11:02
|
|
