Your headline is incorrect.
It should read, "This Sexist Cartoon Everyone Is Freaking Out About Is ***ALSO*** Fetish Porn"
There's no "actually." The label of sexist is not inaccurate.
Porn, by nature, is sexist. It isn't exclusively sexist against women, but it is *always* sexist. Someone (hopefully at least some adult consenting human, but let's not pretend that's the limit) is *always* being turned into a sex-object.
8 comments
If it's a cartoon, there is no human involved.
Your definition of "sexist" is broken, and not just because, according to it, all sex would be inherently sexist. Also this is a cartoon we're talking about. There are no people involved to objectify. No matter how frequently your friend with the dakimakura collection insists otherwise, cartoons aren't people .
I had a feeling it was that particular cartoon.
I thought it was hilarious how someone's fetish art (which is the opposite of what usually happens in that particular TF subgenre) ended up being mistaken for commentary.
Also I'm pretty sure that the "Bimbo" side of the picture is supposed to be spray-tanned, so calling it racist too is a bit silly.
Porn, where two consenting adult humans turn each other into sex-objects, is hardly sexist, it's just human sexuality.
Sexism has a huge dollop of stereotyping mixed in it, not just objectifying.
"Someone (hopefully at least some adult consenting human, but let's not pretend that's the limit) is *always* being turned into a sex-object.”
Ah. You’ve got a pretty useless definition of ‘sex object’ going, there.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
