this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
1249 points (95.5% liked)
Comic Strips
12959 readers
1151 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You guys want to consider gender in vacuum but it is never a good idea.
Look at the sexualisation and brainwashing of the girls and patriarchy and men having this big power gap and sometimes using it in the most monstrous of the ways even today let alone 100 years ago. This is why the second image is big wtf while the first is small wtf.
That’s because in the first no one would immediately think that they sexualise the boy while in the second we arrive at this conclusion immediately and without hesitation thanks to all the hard work of men thorought history.
I know having this original sin of your fathers on your shoulders is not a cool feeling but this is the reality we are in.
The sooner this collective PTSD heals and that can only happen after some time of treating women as humans, the better for everyone. Problem is that point in history is far, far away considering the core issue is still prevalent.
It will take another 100 years of intense education and raising new generations to have the society that isn’t obviously fucked up and deeply hurt.
No one in the picture or the audience is sexualizing little girls (or boys). Instead, the outrage is caused by harmful expectations of purity that are imposed on girls and women, but not boys. As well as the current moral panic about pedophilia, which again is unhelpful in actuality protecting children.
Want to protect help children from predators? Help them remove the stigma around their bodies and sex, and empower them to speak and be heard when something they don’t like happens. Failing to do so reinforces the feelings of shame that all too often enable predators to get away with what they do.
And maybe also don’t share potentially embarrassing photos without consent but that’s small potatoes compared to the above issues.
This. So much this. If auntie wants to give them a kiss and they don't want to get slobbered then tough fucking luck auntie, I'll back the little shits up when they bite you. Predators are, by and large, able to do what they do because people don't teach kids that they do, in fact, have bodily autonomy.
And while I'm at it bodily autonomy of kids also implies that parents don't parade photos around like some fucking trophy or something. Have some basic fucking regard for your own kids and what they want. How would you feel when they're showing nude pictures of you to their classmates yeah I thought so.
Depends, does your mom have an onlyfans?
Secrets die in the light
"Knowledge is the light in the darkness of ignorance".
I like this take. If you get to show photos of your kids naked to your friends, they should have the same privilege.
How about nobody does it unless the subject is consenting?
Explaining consent to certain members of the comments section is like explaining music to a rock, I think this approach might get the message across.
I like this additional take with pure facts and discussion, It’s mostly uncharacteristically civil and starts to be interesting or at least has potential to be.
However I am mostly focused on why one picture is big wtf and why one is smaller wtf.
Collective ptsd is not real and anyone who uses that term should be mocked mercilessly for the rest of their life.
In fact, collective trauma can impact relationships, alter policies and governmental processes, alter the way the society functions, and even change its social norms (Chang, 2017; Hirschberger, 2018; Saul, 2014)
I never said collective trauma does not exist
collective trauma refers to the impact of a traumatic experience that affects and involves entire groups of people, communities, or societies. Collective trauma is extraordinary in that not only can it bring distress and negative consequences to individuals but in that it can also change the entire fabric of a community (Erikson, 1976).
I appreciate your efforts but it is a real, scientifically proven phenomenon.
"Collective trauma" ≠ "collective PTSD"
Sure, but PTSD is a specific disorder that individuals are diagnosed with. If a group of people are unable to work towards a single goal, saying they have "collective ADHD" is imprecise and potentially offensive to people with the diagnosis.
That said, I knew what you meant 🤷
I think there's a couple of people around with collective OCD that just can't stand metaphor.
Jokes aside, and not being a sociologist, I do think it's a good distinction because PTSD implies a maladaptive reaction to trauma, and communities, just like individuals, can process their trauma well or they can mess it up.
It seems to be the accepted term in the scholarly and clinical community.
"Collective trauma" or "collective PTSD"? The latter is what we were discussing earlier in this thread. It has zero occurrences on Google Ngrams: https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Collective+PTSD%2C+collective+trauma&year_start=1800&year_end=2019&corpus=en-2019&smoothing=3
I was talking about collective trauma which OP was citing, though their initial term is collective PTSD.
Why would you use n-gram and not journal search engine like Google Scholar. There seems to be an engagement in the concept of collective PTSD since about 2007.
Is this an area of research or practice for you? It is not mine.
Trauma and ptsd can be used interchangeably. PTSD is more precise term and clinically significant. Trauma is more colloquial. I used PTSD on purpose to accent the debilitating effect it has on the society as a whole.
trauma and ptsd cannot be used interchangeably at all. PTSD is a specific mental condition documented in the DSM-5 and recognized by doctors that have multiple variations and nuances that must be taken into account. Trauma is an overarching term to describe experiences that have had a significant and profound impact on someone's mental state and health. I'm not usually a crazy stickler for word usage but this is just horribly imprecise language. You can have trauma without having PTSD. They are not the same thing and should not be treated as such.
They are in fact used in that manner for better or worse.
Leiva-Bianchi, M., Nvo-Fernandez, M., Villacura-Herrera, C., Miño-Reyes, V., & Parra, N. (2023). What are the predictive variables that increase the risk of developing a complex trauma? A meta-analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 343, 153-165.
It’s rare in literature where there is a need for precision but common in practice
Did you mean to cite a different paper? I looked it up, but I'm not sure what I was supposed to get from it.
the sky, and blue jeans can also be used interchangeably.
You wouldnt though.
No, collective trauma is proven. Collective ptsd is not.
Aydin, C. (2017). How to Forget the Unforgettable? On Collective Trauma, Cultural Identity, and Mnemotechnologies, Identity, 17:3, 125-137, DOI: 10.1080/15283488.2017.1340160
You're right, but I feel showing people photos of your child's genitals should never be OK, outside of medical professionals etc.
I don't share in your positivity.
The hot tl;dr of this that is going to get you a lot of angry boys sending you incoherent diatribes is that we haven't decided as a species that we will stop sexualizing youth.
Yes there are biological imperatives for the sexually aggressive sex to seek out mates that are young, healthy and capable of producing offspring before they become too old to reproduce. That's all a thing that's real, but it's as far distant in our past as most other ancient instincts that we've put to rest. We just keep this one alive because we want it to continue broadly. The whole notion of older men predating and sexualizing youthful appearances or "innocence" as standards of femininity is absolutely something that if we all decided together was no longer acceptable, it would end tomorrow. (Or realistically in one generation.) This is not a more natural part of us than anything else we choose to follow or not, because we are well above using any natural response system as an excuse to allow dangerous social norms to continue.
The reason I say this is because there are a lot of men who will secretly or overtly hold the position that since we have biological urges, then it must be natural and acceptable. Meanwhile, ya'll fuckers completely ignore the thousand other biological drives and standards that we've abolished because they're unproductive, hurt people or just have gone out of style.
For example: body odor. Do you really think we were using soap and perfume when we were packed together in huts and caves for the last thousand millennia? You are genetically identical to the people who used to bury their faces in each other's armpits to identify each other in the dark, but the thought makes you gag now because you were socialized to feel repulsion at this. (Fetishes aside.) We can socialize ourselves to believe and internalize almost anything, we are far, far beyond the forces of natural selection and are now choosing our evolutionary path. Wouldn't it be nice if we chose good paths that respected others and protected children.
damn, you got me on that one.
Women can do what men can't = sexualisation and brainwashing of the girls and patriarchy. Ok. "Men having this big power gap" indeed.
Olga got r63ed
tl;dr "Misandry is perfectly fine because men are evil and nothing a woman has ever done is wrong."
The problem isn't that the bottom scenario isn't accepted, it's that the top scenario is. No one should be showing off nudes of children in public, or anywhere really, regardless of gender. It's weird, it's sick, and it has no place in this world.
There’s nothing wrong about nude children or any other human old or young. Just go to a beach in Europe…
Yes Americans are weird about this thanks to years of well… catholic brain rot
If you're taking photos on a nude beach in Europe you're getting decked. Kid, adult, doesn't matter.
There's a massive fucking difference between sitting naked in a sauna with other naked people and sitting on public transit, fully dressed, gossiping about non-consensual nudes of children. How is that even a question. How are you capable of equating those things.
Nude adult humans = Nothing wrong Nude children = "Hi, I'm Chris Hansen with dateline NBC"
Children do not belong on a nude beach
Well you have no idea then. Here no one cares. It’s normal and nothing sexual about it
And not even on the nude beach either on a normal beach too there’s hordes of nude children running about. I am waiting for your head to explode now
Such a weird thing to say .. when I was little ('70s) it was not uncommon for kids to swim nude, we didn't care... Any adults who are ogling kids aren't going to stop just because of one layer of clothing.
Only if you think a naked body = sex, which is a weird assumption to make if you think about it.
Except the comic doesn’t show them discussing or showing a naked body, it’s a weirdo pointing out the genitals to another person in a very public place. If it was toes, it’d be fine. If it was just a naked body it’d be whatever, mostly. But they’re specifically pointing out genitals, that implies sexual focus. It’s only “cute” and “funny” for the old women here because eventually it’ll be an organ used for sex…
Nah, it should never be acceptable to show photos of people naked to your friends without their express permission. Outside of medical professionals of course.
Because the only time it's appropiate for two people to be naked together is when dey fucking?
You misinterpreted OP, otherwise I also do think the top scenario is weird.
you say this like women have ever had rights to the point that being ogled at "would be bad" the one argument here would be the "daughter is her fathers property" and that's not really a gender thing, that's a social custom about gender more than anything.
Thanks for the lecture, professor.
My god damn pleasure sub
Maybe we should encourage suicides in boys starting in schools, would that work for you? Edit: if you are going to down vote me the offer an idea the left will actually do. Otherwise I guess we are bringing up more republican rapists. '50% of the world population would feel safer if you died' is the messaging the left offers so lean I to it or change the messaging
username checks out.